Saturday, March 31, 2007

Stay the course?

There seems to be no reason to believe the "surge" is succeeding. Indeed, there is every reason to believe things are getting worse. Car bombing is up 30%, according to one of our generals. More Iraqis were killed in March than in February. The last couple of days have seen incredible killings. Why are the Democrats (and most everyone else) putting up with this travesty. The majority of Americans want the troops home. The troops want to be home. The Iraqis want the troops out. Now even the Saudi King has said we are involved in an illegal occupation. Furthermore, the Saudis are so fed up with our failure to do anything reasonable about the Palestinian question they are intervening themselves. If Bush/Cheney will not stop this absolutely now completely useless killing they should be impeached or forced to resign. What in the world is wrong with us?

I don't understand the Republican argument that specifying a deadline for withdrawing our troops is bad because it tell everyone when we will be leaving so they can just wait us out and such. I thought the whole point of setting a deadline was to force the Iraqis to pull themselves together and step up their own efforts. I suppose the reason Bush and his lockstep Republican supporters are opposed to the deadline is because they cling to their absurd claim that we can still "win," whatever that might mean. There is just no way we can possibly win either in Iraq or Afghanistan, short of reinstituting a draft, creating a monstrous army, and starting WW III. Aside apparently from Bush/Cheney is that what everyone really wants? I don't believe even they want that, but they obviously want to continue this ridiculous "war" long enough to turn it over to someone else and then blame Democrats for the abject failure it is going to be. They don't seem to care how many more lives have to be lost as long as they can try to escape responsibility (they will never truly be able to ever escape from the reality of the tragic mess they have made of things).

Is there any Presidential candidate in either party (or even an Independent) that is willing to stand up to the the Israelis and tell them they must stop their imperialistic and genocidal behavior towards the Palestinians? Why do we continue to allow Israel to dictate our foreign policy as if their interests are identical to our own (when they clearly are not)? Their hysteria over Iran is pushing us the brink of an absolutely disastrous world war. They must know that even if Iran did have a nuclear weapon they would not use it agaist Israel (knowing if they did so they would be immediately blown off the face of the earth). I believe their fears about their neighbors in the Middle East have to do with their guilt over what they have been doing to the Palestinians for so many years. If they didn't think they were guilty why would they need to be so fearful of eventual consequences? There is no doubt that the absolutely basic problem in the Middle East is the Israeli/Palestian issue. Until it is addressed and somehow solved there can never be peace in that area of the world. As we have been cleverly conned into publicly and blatantly choosing the Israeli side of this problem we no longer have any hope of convincingly arbitrating it. Heck of a job, Bush!

Friday, March 30, 2007


Inhumanity -the quality of state of being cruel or barbarous. Websters.

Is there anyone who believes this is not an adequate description of our behavior in Iraq? We invaded and started a "war" against a nation that was no threat to us. We have bombed mercilessly, killed civilians including women and children with abandon, kicked in doors and brutalized innocent people, incarcerated and tortured others, raped, murdered, and destroyed peoples' lives, committed myriad other war crimes and in general have behaved worse than (some) "savages." This is both unforgettable and unforgivable. Is it any wonder we are now despised by probably 95% of the world? How is it that we managed to get thousands of our best young people to engage in this inhumanity? And why? What was the motive that drove us to these acts of barbarism? Unfortunately, the answer is just plain GREED! War is the seed that drives inhumanity. We went to this "war" (that is not a legal, moral, constitutional or necessary one) because we coveted others wealth, in this case, OIL.
There is no excuse for this and those who connived and lied to bring it about should be held fully accountable. This is a recognizable and terrible crime and what are politicians on both sides of the aisle complaining about? Merely that we haven't successfully pulled it off. If you look carefully at the human record we should be more realistically described as inhumans rather than humans. That this remains true in the 21st century makes one wonder if we are truly incapable of change for the better. It certainly doesn't say much for intelligent design.

One of the disturbing features of growing old is the nagging, persistent, unsettling feeling that everything may be your last. When I buy a car nowadays I always have this notion that it will be the last car I'll ever need to buy. It's the same with everything. "I guess this is the last pair of pants I'll ever need." Shoes, the same. Mennen speed stick that seems to last forever. Certainly big ticket items like refrigerators, stoves and such. Some Congressman (perhaps it was a Senator), when allusions were made to his age, replied something like, "son, I no longer even buy green bananas." I'm not quite that bad yet but I feel it coming on. The only bright spot I can think of in all this is that I have to go to the dentist to get two crowns replaced. I bet this is the last time I'll have to go to the dentist. Hooray!

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Gonzales is toast

It would appear that Alberto Gonzales is about to be finished as Attorney General of the United States. His chief aide today in testimony before Congress made it quite clear that Gonzales lied when he claimed to be more or less "out of the loop" when it came to the firing of eight Federal Prosecutors. In fact he seems to have been in constant communication with Sampson about these matters from even before he became Attorney General. As most everyone assumed from the beginning that Gonzales was lying I guess this comes as no surprise. What remains to be determined now is just who else was involved in this travesty. All bets are on Karl Rove and probably even the President himself. Will Karl Rove ever be called on to testify under oath? Probably not until Bush's dying day as Rove knows too much to be allowed to testify. But the wheels continue to come off the Bush/Cheney administration day by day. It will doubtless get worse before it gets better (if, indeed, it ever gets better).
Gonzales is supposed to go before Congress on April 17th. Want to take bets on whether he does?

What I find the most interesting thing about Sampson's testimony is that he seems to believe they did nothing wrong. He points out that as these Attorneys are appointed by the President they should be expected to carry out the President's priorities. This is a curious position to take in so far as these Prosecutors, once appointed, are supposed to uphold the law and act in the best interest of justice. Are they supposed to abandon law and justice if in some cases it does not suit the President's agenda? Only a Republican who has swallowed the kool-aid could possibly believe such a thing. Sampson seems to be a case in point. He seems to think they did nothing wrong. The statistics on how many Democrats were targeted as opposed to Republicans, and the guilty sounding emails seem to indicate otherwise. It seems clear to me that this was Rove's attempt to politicize the judiciary just as he has politicized the White House away from the national interest in favor of the exclusive interest of the Republican party. This attempt by Rove to establish a permanent Republican administration will hopefully soon go down in flames.

Dorothy Parker once said that eternity was "two people and a ham." She obviously had never encountered a Mennen Speed Stick. Thinking about eternity leads me to think about growing old. But I will leave this for another day.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Morons in high places

Senator Inhofe believes that global warming is simply a hoax. He is going to prevent Al Gore from putting on a concert in Washington D.C. to call attention to the problem of global warming. Inhofe, whose view of global warming is not shared by hardly anyone (including now not even Wall Street), claims that the concert is a partisan event. He is apparently so blinded by his belief that he cannot even understand that global warming is NOT a partisan problem. Either Inhofe is an absolute moron or he is in the pockets of the energy companies. Global warming is REAL and human behavior has something to do with it. How do Republicans even find people like this (think Santorum, Allen, DeLay, Harris, and others)?

I don't think tomorrow is going to be a good day for Bush's wind-up toy Attorney General. I gather that Sampson, not wanting to be the fall guy, is going to testify that the firings of the eight attorneys were indeed motivated by political reasons (as if there were any real doubts about this). This is going to increase pressure for Karl Rove to be forced to testify about his role in this nefarious business. I cannot see how Gonzales can survive no matter how much Bush tries to protect him. There is just too much blood in the water at this point for this to simply be ignored along with the myriad other scandals of this criminal administration. Calls for impeachment are growing louder everyday (not that it is likely to happen as Bush/Cheney will probably be forced to resign first - or at least they should be).

All may not be lost. Here and there one sees a glimmer of intelligent thought. San Francisco is going to ban plastic bags (what a terrific idea), the absurd marijuana laws are increasingly being questioned, alternative forms of energy are being promoted, automobile manufacturers are starting to get the message, universal health care is on its way, and the gap between the rich and poor has become so dysfunctional that even that may begin to change. Most days under this administration I see the glass empty. Today I see it maybe 1/32 full. Perhaps things will pick up. Perhaps justice will prevail. Perhaps truth will triumph. Perhaps, perhaps.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

It's all too confusing

Are we ever going to get our troops out of Iraq or not? Some seem to think we can bring all our troops home. Some say we should not maintain permanent bases there. Still others talk about bring our combat troops out. I guess this means leaving other troops there. We are building (or may have already built) several permanent bases in Iraq. We are in the process of building a near billion dollar embassy (apparently a heavily armed garrison of some sort). Some seem to think we need to pass legislation that would prevent permanent bases. Others say permanent does not mean forever. It appears that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards all believe we should maintain a troop presence of some kind. Does anyone truly believe we have any intention of bringing all our troops home and not having a military presence in that unfortunately oil-heavy land? It seems perfectly clear to me that Bush/Cheney have no intention of ever leaving Iraq (unless maybe all their oil eventually runs out). We may eventually be chased out but not as long as Bush/Cheney can find more and more cannon fodder. We're like the greedy monkey with his hand in a gourd holding the banana and refusing to let go even though he could then withdraw his hand. Ah, oil! Black gold! Better, apparently, than human blood.

John McCain claimed today (maybe it was yesterday) that there are places in Bagdad where Americans can just walk down the street in peace. Progress is being made, he insists. He was immediately contradicted by CNN's man in Bagdad (who has been there for four years) who said McCain's claim is completely ludicrous. So much for the Straight Talk Express.

So many scandals, so little time. And our Attorney General seems to be right in the middle of several of them. This is just another example of Bush's selecting people whose only genuine qualifications are loyalty rather than expertise and experience. This entire administration is riddled with people who are not up to the jobs they are given. I suspect that Bush/Cheney have rendered the Republican party useless for years to come. So much for Rove's permanent Republican majority. So much for Cheney's dreams of empire. So much for American credibility. Bush/Cheney have dragged us into the gutter of international relations. It will be a long and difficult climb out if, indeed, we ever fully recover.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Depends on what words is

A fascinating interview with Alberto Gonzales on MSNBC today. It reminds you of Alice in Wonderland when someone says, "a word only means what I say it means," or something to that effect. First he says he was not involved in the firing of the attorneys. Then when we learn there was a meeting to discuss the issue a few days before they were fired he says well, that's not what he meant. What he meant was he wasn't involved in the reviewing of those to be fired and simply signed off on what his underlings told him. Previously he had said that with 110,000 employees under him he couldn't possibly be up on everything that was happening.

Then he insists that no one was fired for political reasons but only for faulty performance. Turns out that most of the eight had very high ratings for their professional performance. So I guess the criteria for performance had to do with how well they performed the duties that Karl Rove wanted them to perform. Gonzales wants us to believe that he just took the word of his underlings on the firings. So if there were political reasons he knew nothing about them. And he insists that if there were political motives involved in the firings he will certainly take action against those involved. He says he only kept the President informed of what was happening (although he apparently didn't know anything about it). You have to give him credit for being the most believable liar of all time. It all comes down to playing fast and loose with words like "involved," "performance," and so on.

If you examine the individual cases it is perfectly clear that these attorneys were fired for political reasons. In one case to install a Rove protege in Arkansas, in another to punish one for not pursuing the election of a Democratic Governor in the state of Washington, another for not prosecuting a case against Democrats before the election, and still another for pursuing cases against Republicans in California. While it is true that Presidents can appoint attorneys when they take office, once appointed such attorneys are supposed to put politics aside. This is clearly a case of the Justice Department trying to politicize individual cases to influence attorneys to do the White House's business. Just another part of Rove's mad scheme to establish a permanent Republican administration. Sorry Karl, not this time. One of those involved has said she will take the fifth amendment if forced to testify. This is not looking good for Gonzales or the Justice Department.

I am pretty much convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. It seems obvious to me that the powers that be have already decided this. They believe a Republican cannot be elected President in 2008 so they will settle for a (Republican lite) Democrat. Hillary is committed to maintaining a permanent presence in Iraq although she says she will end the "war." And now that the corporations have decided universal health care is actually in their best interest, and virtually everyone is demanding it anyway, what do they stand to lose by supporting Hillary. Remember, the DLC is just another wing of the Republican party. I think this is a done deal. The corporations that run things don't give a damn if the next President is a woman or not, they only want someone who will protect their interests. Hillary isn't raising ten million dollars in one week from us commoners. What's good for Wal Mart is good for America!

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Heil Bush

Bush has now taken to telling the Congress what they can do. That is, interview Rove and others only informally, in private, not under oath, and with no transcript of the interviews. He says this is a generous offer. Who does he think he is (unfortunately, we know who he thinks he is - The King of Everything). Congress has already refused this generous offer (thank goodness) so the question now is, will the Democrats actually serve subpoenas and will those who receive them honor them or refuse. If they refuse they can be held in contempt of Congress. There is no way Bush can win on this (short of another Supreme Court unconstitutional ruling). Executive priviledge only applies to conversations with the President, not to conversations between others in the White House. Thus if Rove spoke with Gonzales and Meiers spoke with either of them, and so on, that would not be covered by excecutive priviledge. Bush claims he had no knowledge of, or participation in this scandal. If that is true the claim of executive priviledge is just nonsense. This doesn't mean that Bush and his lawyers can't tie this up in court for the next 18 months until he leaves office which is no doubt what he intends, just as he intends to continue his illegal "war" until he is out of office. This is all so obvious and so pathetic it makes you want to just throw up your hands and say to hell with it. It's like trying to explain evolution to someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible.

What can you make of Republicans who continue to support Bush? They keep talking of "winning" and "victory" and "progress" in Iraq when anyone with a brain larger than a split pea knows full well that it is nothing but hot air. We have already lost in Iraq (and in Afghanistan, for that matter) unless we are prepared to reinstitute a draft, mobilize a million or more troops, start rationing things, and collecting paper and grease. Continuing this "war" is even more unconscionable than starting it in the first place. This whole enterprise has been the worst foreign policy disaster of all time. What would you expect when you make a near-moron Commander-in-Chief?

Now we have a situation in which Bush/Cheney have engineered the crime of the century and the outrage is not directed at the crime but only at the fact that they didn't do it well enough. They are incompetents, not just plain honest to goodness war criminals. I find this unbelievable. I find it unbelievable they have not been impeached and/or charged with war crimes or both. It's like saying, we know they're murderers and rapists, but let them continue until their time eventually runs out. As far as I am concerned this is a Republican problem. They could have stopped this attempt to establish a monarchy a long time ago. They could have insisted on checks and balances. They could have said no to Bush/Cheney's outrages. But they all seem to have bought in to Rove's attempt to establish a permanent Republican monarchy no matter what devious means were employed to bring it about. Having ravished the Constitution for the past six and a half years, having exercised their complete control over our government, having thumbed their nose at Democrats and the public, these creeps now are pathetically calling for bi-partisanship. All of their sins are catching up with them. They seem to be unaware that Bush/Cheney have destroyed the Republican party along with our military in their mad rush to empire.

It seems to me it is perfectly obvious what is involved in the firing of the eight prosecutors. It is equally obvious that Gonzales and others have lied about it. Serial, pathological lying by Republicans seems to be completely acceptable. Our current Republican politicians are the worst hypocrites ever. Send 'em all to Iraq as soon as possible. They don't need any training or armor. We'll take good care of them when they come back broken in body and mind. Support the troops - BRING THEM HOME!

Wednesday, March 21, 2007


I actually wrote a blog last night. But I lost it. I have no idea what went wrong. Anyway, what we seem to be witnessing at this very moment is the slow but inevitable disintegration of the Bush/Cheney neocon administration. It will be somewhat ironic if this business about the firing of eight attorneys is what finally brings them down, what with their long and consistent record of war crimes and constitutional violations. But it looks more and more like that is what may happen. The "Bushies" will probably not give in, trusting that their colleagues on the Supreme Court will ultimately rule in their favor. In any case they will be able to stonewall and delay and obfuscate until after the 2008 election when the incredible mess they have made will be dumped on whoever the next President happens to be. There seems to be little doubt they were purging Prosecutors who were not doing what they wanted them to do (stop prosecuting Republicans and start more actively prosecuting Democrats). They could have done this legally with little or no fuss but their pathological lying exposed the whole disgusting episode.

Bush has made the Democrats an offer they cannot help but reject. He wants Rove, Meirs, and others to simply discuss what they know in private, not under oath, and with no transcripts. He regards this somehow as a generous offer. Tony Snow seems to believe they would not lie whether they were under oath or not and that this would be the best way for Congress to learn the truth about what happened. Tony Snow lacks even the ability of the worst carnival barker, and apparently even the intelligence of a turnip. If they have done nothing wrong why should they refuse to testify under oath? Why in private? Why with no transcript? Bush's generous offer is simply absurd. So now we will have a constitutional crisis that will probably end up in the Supreme Court where Bush's appointees will have the last say. Wonderful. Democracy in action. At this point in time would anyone believe anything any of these criminals might say?

Another school levy vote coming up. As a Democrat, and as a believer in democracy, I truly believe that we can only succeed if we have a well-informed and educated population. This is why we opted to have a system of Public Education in the first place. I believe in this wholeheartedly. Does this mean I have to support a system of bad Public Education? Here in Idaho we have an absurd situation in which the Republican run state refuses to adequately fund education so every year or two we have to vote on a supplemental levy to keep the schools running (not very well, just running at all). As one of our more astute Republican legislators recently observed, "if we give them an education they'll want jobs." Whee! I love it here. It's like living in the 18th century. This system is little more than Republican blackmail as they depend upon the fact that no one wants to hurt the children so they go along with this nonsense year after year. In Idaho this is a Republican problem. They should have to fix it (but they consistently refuse to do so).

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Sex, diets, and chicken breasts

If I were a visitor from outer space, or maybe even from another culture, and if I were asked what I thought Americans were most interested in, I would have to say sex, diets, and chicken breasts, in that order (these are intimately related). My data about sex, granted not at all scientific, comes mostly from TV, women's magazines, and even magazines about automobiles. I never read any of these magazines, I just see the covers at our local grocery store while I am checking out. Take auto magazines first as they are the simplest. It is very rare to see the cover of such a magazine that does not feature a nubile, semi-nude, provocatively posed young woman. Enough said about that. Women's magazines are worse as they don't just use the images of provocatively dressed women but come right out up front with their messages. You see covers that announce things like, fourteen ways to please your mate sexually, or great sex for all ages, or how to bring out your naughtiness for him, great things to do in bed, how to pep up your sex life, and so on and on.

On TV there are shows that of course trade on sexuality, like Desperate Housewives, for example (I have never seen any of these shows but I'm certain they exist and all feature sex above all else). Then there are the ubiquitous ads for male enhancement, viagra, cialis, and several others. These have now taken to featuring nubile young women clinging to the arms of their partners and extolling the virtues of these drugs or else standing around with idiotic expressions of sheer joy. One ad running all the time now features a handsome young woman who says, he doesn't need a prescription, he uses.....(the name of this magical potion escapes me at the moment). Whatever it is, she apparently thinks it works (do you think she ever actually saw the guy before they shot the commercial). Anyway, if you watch TV you must be aware of these products that exist only for the purpose of sexual gratification (you never hear them say anything about fertility, aiding pregnancy, or whatever - just sex).

Then there are all the diets. The most prominent diet ads at the moment come from something called Nutrisystem. You will notice that all of the men and women in these ads claim that they are now sexy, or sexier. They never say I feel healthier, or I believe I have helped my heart, or I just feel a lot better now. They all claim to be sexier. The male versions, featuring Dan Marino and other athletes, start off by asking if your sex life has slowed down or even stopped. None of them ever mention health or well-being other than being sexier. The female versions actually drip of sexy, my husband loves my body, I feel sexier now, I haven't had such a hot body since I was in school, and so on. I have nothing against sex. But when it appears to have become a cultural obsession I think perhaps it should be toned down a bit. After all, there are other things in life (well, maybe not these days).

This brings me to chicken breasts. My information on chicken breasts comes mostly from my perusing of my wife's cooking magazines and cook books. I believe it is true that the overwhelming majority of recipes for chicken nowadays (and there are thousands) call for skinless chicken breasts. In my opinion there is virtually nothing as tasteless as chicken breast, or turkey breast. When I see a recipe that starts out with the usual four skinless chicken breasts I immediately ignore it. Why this obsession with chicken breasts? Because they are not fattening, especially without the skin (which is the only part that might have any taste whatsoever if it was cooked crisply enough). In other words, chicken breasts are part of the diet business, which in turn is part of the look at me, I'm a forty year old grandmother and I still look sexy business.

I believe I can report that these obsessions do not seem to constitute part of our local culture. The majority of females here seem to have no interest either in their health or
looking sexy. There are exceptions, of course.

Someone (I can't remember who) once said, "the only way to true understanding is through an intellectual osmosis with a great-souled man" (or something to that effect). Would someone find me a great-souled man these days? Please.

I could comment on one or more of the dozens and dozens of Republican scandals but what would be the point? Everyone talks about them but no one does anything about them.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Incompetence beyond belief

How can you top this when it comes to incompetence? The Bush/Cheney administration couldn't even do something they legally could have done without screwing it up so badly they have turned it into still another scandal. The eight attorneys they recently fired all served at the pleasure of the President. As such they could simply be replaced by the President, no explanation needed. So they fired them "out of season," so to speak. When asked about it did they say the President simply wanted them replaced which they could easily have done? No, they had to lie about it. First they claimed they were fired for bad performance. This was immediately shown to be false by looking at their own ratings of the attorneys involved which were all positive. Then Alberto claimed he didn't know anything about it. False. Then they said it was all Myers idea. False. Then they said Rove had nothing to do with it. False. Then they claimed there was nothing political involved in the firings. Doubly false. First of all these kinds of appointments are instrinsically political to begin with. Second, there were blatantly political reasons involved (either the people involved were not investigating Democrats quickly enough or they were targeting Republicans). Now they argue that well, Clinton fired all 93 such attorneys when he became President. True. But irrelevant to the issue at hand. These were people the Republicans appointed themselves but then learned they weren't following the Bush/Cheney/Rove desires closely enough. In short, they were obviously politically motivated firings. So something that could have been done legally (however quietly) was turned into a scandal. Why? Because these guys simply cannot tell the truth even when the truth would have worked. They seem to be completely unable to tell the truth. Somehow they have to lie. Their lying is pathological and has been from the very beginning of this administration. Now, having lied to the point where they have no credibility whatsoever they just go on lying about everything.

None of this seems to really bother the Democrats. Oh, yeah, they love it, and they will push it as far as they can to embarrass the Republicans. BUT THEY WON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT! Gonzales may be forced to resign but if so it will be a result of Republican demands as much as Democratic ones. It is obvious that we can't depend on Bush to do anything. Bush, who threatened to fire anyone involved in leaking still protects Rove who is known to have been a leaker. He has said he will stand by Gonzales even though everyone knows he is a totally incompetent and partisan lawyer for Bush rather than a bona fide Attorney General. Bush has consistently favored loyalty over competence, one of the reasons we are in this dismal situation. Heck of a job Brownie! Heck of job Rumsfeld! Heck of a job Cheney! Heck of a job Tenet! Heck of a job Libby! Heck of a job Bremer! HECK OF A JOB BUSH!

There is apparently no incompetence, no crime, no dishonesty, no hypocrisy, no deceit, no unconstitutional outrage serious enough to motivate Democrats to actually take some meaningful action to stop it all (like impeachment, to say the least). So kiss your Democracy (Republic) goodbye, get ready for your national ID card, and prepare for your mandatory tattoo (it won't hurt a bit).

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Oh, please!

It appears that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed has not only confessed to masterminding the 9/11 attack but also either planned or was involved in the planning of some 31 other major attacks. In other words, he was more or less single-handedly responsible for most everything. Do you believe that? I guess after for or five years of incarceration (and who knows what kind of treatment) he has finally confessed to everything. I bet if we keep him longer he will even tell us where Osama is. What baloney. Why would he not confess to everything? What difference would it make to him at this point in time? It is impossible to know whether he is pulling our leg or whether the Bush/Cheney bunch are just up to their usual tricks. As usual, I don't believe any of this nonsense.

In spite of the Israeli lobby trying desperately to get us to attack Iran I don't believe that is going to happen. Not because Bush/Cheney don't want to do it, but because realistically they (1) don't have the means, and (2) probably can't deceive the American public again. The American public is pretty naive, and pretty easily led into one disaster after another, but I think Bush/Cheney have finally gone too far with their lies and deceptions. Some people apparently believe they might attack Iran in order to avoid a legacy of abject failure in Iraq. I can't see it. Why would they want to compound one abject failure with another one that would be even worse? Bush seems to be worried about his legacy. He needn't worry, his legacy is already established. He will be universally remembered as the worst American President ever and having made the worst Foreign Policy blunder in American history. Nothing he can do now or in the next year and a half is going to change this. Pelosi and her cowardly Democrats have withdrawn their claim that Bush can't attack Iran without Congressional approval, thus giving him license to do it if he wishes, but even so, I can't see it happening (however, I am often wrong about such things). Maybe he really is stupid enough to listen to Cheney and the neocons again.

Every day in every way Republicans are doing their best to drag down God and their country. Way to go Repubs!

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

What cow?

You all no doubt remember the story of the man who was caught leading an obviously stolen cow down the road. When he was caught red-handed and asked why he was doing it, he responded, "what cow?" There are many different versions of this story, including one I believe in which Jimmy Durante was caught with an elephant and responded "what elephant,", and so on.

Is this not the perfect description of Alberto Gonzales's claim that the firing of eight U.S prosecutors was not politically motivated? This is such a blatantly transparent lie it is difficult not to collapse in hysterical laughter. Bush, of course, in his abysmal ignorance, has already said he has the utmost confidence in Gonzales. Gonzales's rise to power and eminence is a direct result of his faithful service to Bush ever since he was Governor of Texas. As Attorney General of the United States he still obviously feels his primary allegiance is to Bush rather than to the citizens of the U.S. He has an unfortunately small mind that is willing to justify torture and sacrifice the Constitution if that is what George W. Bush wishes. If this were a decent Administration (which, of course, it is not) Gonzales would be fired tomorrow. He will not resign and Bush is unlikely to fire him unless the Congress put so much pressure on there will be no other option. If the pressure keeps on look for Gonzales to be toast. With both the FBI violations of the Patriot Act and the firing of these Prosecutors emerging at the same moment I cannot see Gonzales surviving for very long. But, then both Bush and Cheney have survived far more egregious violations for the past six and a half years so who knows? There is only one solution to these problems. It is called IMPEACHMENT! And it should happen NOW!

As far as I know, no outside power has ever managed to conquer Afghanistan, including the mighty Russian army not many years ago. So what makes the U.S. or the U.N. believe they will succeed when so many have so predictably failed? Perhaps if the only goal is to protect an oil pipeline across Afghan territory or some less ambitious project we might succeed for a while but probably not without some substantial human cost. Oh well, oil is important. Human lives are expendable. Let's show these towel-heads who controls what. On to Tehran!

Both Hillary and Biden gave particularly impassioned speeches to the assembled Firefighters of America. Guiliani was absent (he claimed a conflict). Kucinich was not even mentioned. Was he there? Did he give a speech? Does he actually exist? The MSM treatment of Dennis Kucinich is SHAMEFUL! But, then, who cares about PEACE?

Monday, March 12, 2007

Who's on first

I confess that trying to keep up with all the scandals (there seems to be a new one every day) is somehow beyond my abilities. I think it would be interesting is someone would actually list all the scandals of the present administration from the beginning up until now (this is totally beyond any resources available to me). What do you think? Dozens? Hundreds? This is one way the Bush/Cheney administration survives as it does - no one can keep up with the scandals. Before one is thoroughly investigated (if at all) the next one pops up. As a result of this nothing much ever comes of any of these miserable violations of law and morality. The most recent of these blatant violations have to do with FBI violations of the Patriot Act and the questionable firing of eight Federal prosecutors. Both Shumer and Biden have called for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. How long do you think it will take for this to simply blow over like all of the rest of them. My favorite, if you have followed this blog for a while you will know, is not the most important but potentially one of the most juicy, the Gannon/Guckert affair. How is it that a known male prostitute (strictly an "on-top guy") was allowed into and out of the White House on occasions where there was no ostensible reason for him to be there? Someone had to be responsible for allowing him in and out but we have never been told just who that someone was. As this was hushed up big time it had to have been someone with lots of power. Of course he could have been there just for the daily prayer meetings.

John McCain, warmonger number one (or maybe two) has now said that if we insist on withdrawing our troops on a timeline it will send a message to the Iraqis that we are not only going to leave, but when. He obviously thinks this is bad. I thought the whole point of it was to do just that - tell the Iraqis when we were going to leave so they would prepare to take over. Of course as we have no intention whatsoever of leaving the whole argument is moot.

I am already tired of listening to all the BS about Gore's electric bill. Yes, he has a really big electrical bill. He also has a very large house out of which both he and his wife operate much of their business. He has paid for expensive carbon credits (or whatever they are called) to offset his heavy usage. While this may prove eventually to not be the best way to go, it is at the moment the acceptable solution to excessive energy use. At least he is trying to do the right thing. I would like to know the consumption records of other people who live in large houses and how much, if anything, they pay to compensate.

Of course I think the whole to-do about electricity consumption is utterly absurd as long as every skyscraper in the the United States is allowed to leave all their lights on all night long. Unlike Gore, virtually no one in the U.S., let alone corporations, makes any attempt to save energy. Certainly not the automobile industry where substantial savings could easily be made if we had the will to do so.

It seems to me there are two main questions about global warming: (1) does it exist, and (2) does it have anything to do with human activities? It seems to me that the first question is indisputable. The evidence for warming is right here in front of our eyes, what with the melting of the glaciers, the displacement of species, and so on. With respect to the second question I also think the answer is obvious although there are still a few who apparently disagree. As I understand it there are something like 2000 scientists, from 30 or 40 different countries, who agree that human activity has something to do with it. It seems to me highly unlikely that all of these scientists are giving in to political pressures (as some may seem to be doing in the U.S.). It is important to note that the U.K. and the E.U. are already taking steps to curb global warming even thought the U.S. is not doing much.

One of the arguments against human activity has to do with the fact that the earth has undergone climactic changes repeatedly over the the last hundreds of thousands of years. This is indisputable. But it is also known that the earth's temperature has risen fairly substantially over the last 100 years. One hundred years in geological time is no more than an instant. The question would seem to be, is the fairly dramatic rise in temperature over the last 100 years totally unrelated to human activity? What has happened in human cultures over the past 100 years? A billion (?) cars and trucks, millions of ATV's, personal watercraft, power boats, lawnmowers, hundreds of coal fired plants, the growth of waste to energy plants, thousands of airplanes, and what-have-you. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to believe this is all merely coincidental. Well, like, who really needs polar bears anyway?

Sunday, March 11, 2007


Anonymous: I read an article some time ago that I believe said that Obama was getting major funding from the Nuclear Energy people and Exxon. I don't know where I saw it. I have spent the better part of the afternoon trying to trace it down but was unable to find it. I did learn that the Nuclear people are, indeed, supporting Obama, who is thought to be sympathetic to their desire for more nuclear plants. One of the big companies involved is called Exelon. I now think it is possible that either the person who wrote the article (which I can't find), or perhaps even myself, mistook Exelon for Exxon. If this is true I am sorry for misleading everyone. Even so, I would not be surprised if he is getting money from Exxon (along with Hillary). While he is soliciting small donations he obviously didn't raise all his money so quickly from mom and pop. Although I tried I could not find a list of his major donors anywhere. There is a recent article in Harper's about this.

Did you really believe that Bush was going to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq just for a short time? Let's see, it turned out to be something like 27,000 troops, what with the support troops. Now he has asked for an additional 8,200 more troops. And the generals on the ground have said they will need the troops probably through next year (if not forever). There are suckers born every minute and a Bush/Cheney to take them. Want to bet the Democrats will deny his request? Maybe when pigs fly. I can see no solution to this monumental problem short of impeachment. I think we should start with Cheney. Democrats seem unwilling to do anything much except dither. If Bush/Cheney do not deserve impeachment, right now, we might as well drop impeachment as part of our political system and start addressing Bush as Your Royal Highness, King of Kings, Emperor, Your Eminence, and so on. This is the most absurd situation of all time in the history of our country and neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to be willing to do anything about it.

Senator Schumer has suggested that Gonzales should resign because he is more interested in defending and aiding Bush than he is in being a bona fide Attorney General. Nice to learn after all these years that someone has actually figured this out (dumb as I am I knew it from the beginning). Now, having admitted that the FBI violated the Patriot Act, and also being involved in purging Judges for political reasons, he may have gone too far (even for Republicans, if that is possible). Of course he should resign. So should Cheney. I think there is no chance they will. They will have to be forced out. No one will lead. I think they are waiting for Mickey Mouse.

Bush seems to be making a big hit in South America, hugging leaders and giving them nicknames and being the consummate gladhander that he is. I have no doubt they all believe the U.S. is truly nothing but a benevolent father figure sincere in looking out for their best interests. History proves it, starting with Colombus and coming right down to the present. Ask Hugo Chavez.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Why vote?

I have faithfully voted in every election I could for more than fifty years. And I have always disparaged those who have taken the position, why vote? It is true that we always have to vote for some Hobson's choice, the presumed best of two bad choices, but I have gone along and voted nonetheless. We ordinary citizens don't really have much to do with which candidates are selected, we just get to choose between them, whoever they are. Recent developments are causing me to think that perhaps there really is no point in voting.

In the last election, 2006, we voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, believing that if they could get elected they would do something to change things, like bring an end to this horrible, stupid, unnecessary war that is bleeding our army and our treasury. Having flirted with a non-binding resolution that was little more than busy-work, they now claim to be passing a bill that would bring our troops home (well, not all of the troops) soon (well, not too soon), if, of course Bush doesn't veto it (which he has already threatened to do). Along the way they added even more billions to Bush's request for more money for Afghanistan and Iraq. Some big accomplishment. Way to go Democrats!

What is worse, a majority of American voters appear to be in favor of impeachment for Bush/Cheney. The case for impeachment is absolutely sound and there is no reason it should not happen. After all, lying to Congress and the people to lead us into an illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and unnecessary "war" is in and of itself cause for impeachment. Then add to that torture, war profiteering, illegal spying, targeting civilians, hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, renditions, using illegal weapons, and etc., etc., it would seem impeachment would certainly be justified (and would also help to bring an end to this unconsionable "war"). Democrats have taken impeachment "off the table." So much for our voting for Democrats. Why should we believe that even if Democrats win in 2008 they will do any better? All of the Democratic candidates are little better than warmongers. Hillary, of course, is the most blatant warmonger. But Obama, who was against the war, has not indicated he is prepared to end it. Edwards believes the most important thing that must be done is to keep Iran from having a nuclear bomb. The only one with any genuine interest in getting us out quickly and establishing some kind of peace in the world is Dennis Kucinich (who, you say?). The sad fact is, as many have said for years, is that there is no substantial difference between the two parties. They both get their funding from the same sources and still dance to the tunes of the enormous corporations that run the world. Hillary gets a fund raiser from Murdoch. Obama gets money from Exxon and the nuclear industry. Edwards (I think) gets his support from lawyers. And so it goes. The more things change the more they stay the same.

It's not as if voting for Republicans is a choice. There is no viable third party and probably never will be, given the nature of things. So, I ask you, why vote? Give me a candidate who is absolutely committed to ending this madness and one who is not uncritically in support of Israeli apartheid and I will happily, gladly, enthusiastically vote. Can there be such a candidate? I doubt it.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Strange Idaho Republicans

Last evening at our monthly Democratic meeting our Superintendent of Schools appeared hat in hand as he does periodically to ask us to support the latest school levy. You see, here in Idaho the state does not really believe in education and therefore they do not provide sufficient monies to provide it. In rural areas like ours this means that if the levy fails all sorts of dire consequences ensue. Theoretically, I guess you could have a situation like ours where you would have no schools at all (or at least they would be so poor as to be even more useless than they are now).

The reason education in Idaho is in such poor shape is because Republicans have controlled our State legislature for years and they do not want to support education. Indeed, not too many years ago one of them even suggested we change our State Constitution so the state would not even be responsible for education. They have fought against spending for education year after year. It finally got so bad that the Judge who was in charge of hearing the charges actually had to order them to do something about it. They have procrastinated and argued and dilly dallied endlessly and still have done very little to improve things.

I think they not only hate education, they also hate children. They recently voted against a bill that would have provided some basic oversight over child care centers. You know, basic things like background checks against sexual perverts, minimum standards for child care providers, and so on (Idaho ranks dead last of all 50 states with respect to child care protections and standards). During the discussions of this bill one of our Republican representatives actually said, "if you provide them with education they will want jobs." Frankly, I didn't believe this but I am told it is true. He also said that public education is nothing more than "institutionalised child abuse." He didn't add, "in Idaho," although that must have been what he had in mind. He and some others argued that mothers should just stay home and take care of their children, there is no need for child care, pre-school, kindergarten, or such foolishness, as those things ought to be learned at home. In other words, he believes it is better for mothers (especially single mothers) to stay home and starve together with their children than for them to starve separately. Republicans also killed a measure that would have increased the sales tax by one cent with the money to be earmarked specifically for education. Had this passed the Superintendent would not have had to be asking once again for the levy.

The Superintendent and our local teachers complain often about their salaries, money for supplies and equipment, large classes, the usual complaints you hear from educators. What makes this so strange is that THE MAJORITY OF THEM VOTE REPUBLICAN TIME AFTER TIME! They vote against their own interests and then complain. This is true of teachers as well as administrators. When this was politely suggested to our Superintendent he was remarkably silent on the matter.

I have worked most of my adult life in education. I have NEVER voted against a school levy. You see, there is a problem here for people like me. Knowing what I know about the voting habits of our local educators I would like to vote against the levy. But then I think of the children. They are the ones who will suffer if the levy doesn't pass. Republicans know this, I guess, and so they continue to force us to "bail them out" time after time, refusing to rectify this obvious financial problem.

One of our long time Democrats, who has voted for the levy repeatedly over the years, announced: "I am not supporting the levy. I am sick and tired of bailing them out. This is a Republican problem. Let them solve it." Like Jack Benny when confronted with the demand, "your money or your life," I'm thinking it over.

Apparently there is no amount of corruption, lying, treason, incompetence, hypocrisy, greed and profiteering, to say nothing of war crimes, that will cause anyone in the House or Senate to take meaningful action against those responsible for such things. Bush/Cheney and everyone else seem to be willing to just bunker down and wait a week for the latest scandals to just blow over and be forgotten. By the way, I'm still waiting for the Gannon/Guckert story.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

On warming

Bubblehead - I confess I must not read widely enough on the blogs. I have yet to see one that predicts Cheney will resign. But I agree with you. If there are such blogs I think they are wrong. Unless, perhaps, so many Republicans enter Cheney's office and "make him an offer he can't refuse" he will have no choice.

There are still a few perverse individuals who argue that global warming is (l) either not occurring at all, or (2) is a result simply of natural cycles of nature. To subscribe to the first of these seems to me to be so far-fetched in view of the evidence that we need not take it seriously. To argue the second possibility is not so easily dismissed although I believe it to be no more reasonable than the first. That is, it is undeniably true that the earth seems to have gone through periods of warming and cooling (unless, I guess, if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old which would make such cycles about as reasonable as the existence of dinosaurs contemporaneously with humans). So, let us agree that the earth has and does go through natural periods of climate change. Was there any previous period of time when there were somewhere in the vicinity of a billion cars and trucks (I don't know how many cars and trucks there are but I am guessing a billion more or less)? And how about millions of ATV's, power boats, personal watercraft, snowmobiles, combines, tractors, lawnmowers, etc., and hundreds if not thousands of coal fired power plants, billions of people burning their trash, and other human related activities. Did such things exist back during the previous warming trends? The answer is obviously no. Is it therefore safe to conclude that all these human activities may in fact be influencing climate on this tiny planet we call home? If you don't think so I suggest you submit you resume to the White House. I'm sure they will make a place for you.

There is now talk that our Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, may not be around much longer. His recent purge of Federal Prosecutors may be too scandalous even for Republicans to defend. Hey, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I am still trying to grasp Republican logic on the differences between Clinton's impeachment for perjury and Libby's case. Kate O'Beirne seems to think that because Clinton admitted to perjury and Libby was only convicted of it by a jury of his peers, that somehow Libby should be pardoned (of course O'Beirne, being a nitwit of the first order, might be simply ignored). But Lindsey Graham is also arguing for a pardon for Libby. Remember him, the guy who was all gung-ho to get Clinton for perjury, but who now wants a different treatment for a Republican colleague convicted of the same offense. He says the two cases are different. He's right. The Clinton case was trivial, this one is serious. You just have to make excuses for Republicans. They have small, smooth brains. They are also the most blatant, disgusting, vile and despicable HYPOCRITES ever to despoil the body politic (to say nothing of the universe).

Wednesday, March 07, 2007


Some have said that the Libby conviction is going to undermine the Administration's credibility. Balderdash! This administration had no credibility to begin with so how could it be undermined? Unless, perhaps, zero credibility plus zero credibility somehow adds up to positive credibility (I was never much on algebra or whatever it takes to calculate such things). Perhaps the conviction of Libby will drive down Bush/Cheney's poll numbers? Nonsense! Their poll numbers can't go down much further than they already are (unless the approximately 30% of the mentally retarded that still claim to support them are somehow eliminated entirely). I suspect the Libby conviction is going to make little difference unless Congress demands further investigations of Cheney, et al (don't bet on this happening - Congress is still hesitating to debate on whether or not they should debate because debating might be interpreted as not supporting the troops because if the troops hear they are debating or not debating they might come to the obvious conclusion THAT CONGRESS IS A HOPELESS MESS THAT IS NO HELP TO THEM WHATSOEVER).

Then there is the question of impeachment. Was anything revealed during the Libby trial that might indicate the possibility of impeachment? Well, PIG PUCKY! There are so many reasons to impeach Bush/Cheney already that any more become just super redundant (indeed, this is a problem already because there is no genuine agreement as to which charges should take precedence). I have suggested for months that if Bush/Cheney had any decency whatsoever, or any interest in the well-being of our nation, they should resign. Now George McGovern has said the same thing. Bush/Cheney cannot resign because they would then be subject to prosecution for war crimes. So here we are, stuck with known incompetent war criminals pretending to run our country, and no one willing to do anything about it. Impeachment seems to be out of the question and the Republicans, who could demand resignations, are still drinking of the kool-aid.

Meanwhile, more of our troops are being killed, along with many hundreds of innocent Iraqi citizens, while the bulk of the insurgents are vacationing in Iran waiting for us to exhaust ourselves in alienating more and more innocents. The "surge" is surging (an additional 2000 troops were just requested), and we are being asked to provide even more billions for this "success." Does it not occur to anyone that what has been, and is going on in Iraq is UTTER MADNESS!

The Republicans could stop this tomorrow if they wanted to do so. Democrats could stop it tomorrow if they wanted to do so. So what's the problem? Americans can't bring themselves to take their ball and go home. It's just not the American way.

If you ever had any doubt that Kate O'Beirne was a drooling Republican idiot that doubt was surely dispelled today by her performance on Hardball. She obviously had little idea what she was talking about (particularly with reference to pardons), she just kept mouthing Republican talking points that were either untrue or irrelevant, and she insisted that somehow perjury by Clinton was different from perjury by Libby. She seems to believe that because Clinton admitted to perjury and Libby was merely convicted of it he should be pardoned. Republican logic, I guess.

Anyway, while those who support the surge, and those who do not support the surge, continue to do nothing but bullshit each other, our troops and more and more Iraqis continue to die each day. It will get worse and will never get better until we get out.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007


I am so pleased that my fears about a hung jury were unfounded and that Libby was rightfully found guilty on 4 of the 5 charges against him. It appears to have been a very thorough, cautious, and responsible jury (that wondered why Rove and others were not on trial along with Libby). More than merely finding Libby guilty the trial also exposed the evil machinations of none other than his boss, Dick the Slimy. Now the real fun will begin.

The right wing is already demanding that Bush pardon Libby immediately. They, and Libby's defense lawyers say he did nothing wrong, nothing at all. The jury obviously didn't see it that way so now we have a very high level player guilty of a felony (I guess this is the most high level person ever convicted of a felony). This will presumably be the end of his career. The verdict will, of course, be contested by his high-powered defense team. They will try to get a mistrial declared (highly unlikely). Failing that they will appeal (also highly unlikely to succeed). Libby is to be sentenced in June. He could actually go to jail at that time if the judge so desired.

Libby could theoretically be given 25 years in prison. Some believe that if he is threatened with that much time he might be willing to testify about others in order to avoid that. I believe it is highly unrealistic to assume he would get more than a year or two in which case it is also unrealistic to assume he will "rat" on anyone else, especially on Cheney. It is almost surely the case that whether he spends any time in jail or not, he has been asssured that the Bush mafia will take care of him and his. I assume this is already a done deal.

Then there is the question of a pardon. If Bush were to pardon him before the end of his Presidency it will certainly look like he is covering up his own behavior in this treasonous business. That is, he has an obvious conflict of interest. An immediate pardon will not happen, nor need it because the aftermath of the trial will take probably months to play out. While it is possible that Libby could spend some time in jail before the end of Bush's Presidency (and perhaps he has been promised he will never go to jail) that would be time enough for a pardon. The best bet is Bush will pardon him when he leaves office.

Many are rejoicing that justice has been served, that no one is above the law, that now we may learn what really went on in the Pentagon and the White House, and etc. I say, not so fast. Without knowing what will happen next it is too early to crow about justice. What if the case ia successfully appealed? What if Bush does pardon him? Will justice then be served? And what about Cheney? Is he to get off without even a reprimand? Will that be justice? And how about Rove? Rove is known to have leaked Valerie Wilson's name but he has not been tried. Is that justice? I think it is great that a jury of his peers found Libby guilty and I guess that is at least a temporary justice. Let us wait and see if justice is truly served when Cheney, Rove, and others are also found guilty.

In the meantime let us thank big Juju for our independent prosecutor, Fitzgerald. He did a marvelous job, nonpartisan, never leaked a thing, did what was asked of him, and did it so professionally and conscientiously it was a thing of beauty. Luckily, he was appointed before Bush/Cheney and the Attorney General began their purge of prosecutors.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Nine days?

The jury in the Scooter Libby case has been out now for nine days. This, I think, does not bode well for a conviction. It seemed to me, from what I could follow on tv and elsewhere, that the case against Libby was pretty clear cut. With nine (I think it was nine) people testifying against Libby's account of the affair it would seem pretty obvious that he lied. So what are they deliberating about for so long? Having served on juries in the past I realize they can be totally irrational, but really, this case seems so obvious to me I cannot understand the problem. At this point I would not be surprised to see a hung jury (which would not make me at all happy). Of course the most interesting part of this trial has little to do with Libby's innocent or guilt, but rather, with the behavior of Cheney and even Bush. Unfortunately, they are not on trial (even though they certainly should be). Is it not perfectly obvious there was a conspiracy on the part of Cheney, Libby, and others to "out" Valerie Plame in order to punish her husband for daring to challenge their blatant lies about going to "war" (and perhaps other reasons as well)? Or have I just missed something?

There is one issue that gets very little attention in this ridiculously long Presidential campaign. Israel. It is perfectly obvious that Hillary is a strong supporter of Israel. Obama recently made a speech that indicates he, too, is a pretty much uncritical supporter of Israel. As far as I know all of the candidates for the Presidency, both Democrats and Republicans, are ardent supporters of Israel. As the Israeli/Palestinian problem is the most important problem of the Middle East, and absolutely critical to any eventual solution, the blatantly partisan (I would say even racist) postition of the U.S. on this issue will insure that no solution will ever be possible. Both Carter and Clinton at least tried to be honest brokers between the two parties, but Bush/Cheney and the neocons have so obviously promoted only Israeli interests, the situation is now pretty much hopeless. I want a President who will honestly try to reach some kind of decent agreement, recognizing that the Palestinians are equal human beings with rights every bit as basic and important as those of the Israelis, who will in fact curb the repeated and consistent abuses of the Israelis with respect to the Palestinians. No more two or three billion dollar handouts to Israel year after year to pursue their basically genocidal policies. As Israel has been wantonly stealing more and more Palestinian land and water for all these years (in blatant violation of UN strictures - far more violations than any other country) it will not be easy to now settle on any agreement about boundaries, borders, or whatever. This may mean that the problems are in fact insolvable. If they are then it is clear there will never be peace in the Middle East - not ever. Will we ever have a President willing to stand up to the powerful Israeli lobby, a President with the moral authority to demand an end to the repeated Israeli violations of UN resolutions and the basic human rights of Palestinians? As it appears no one can be elected President of the United States without the permission of the Israelis I guess the answer is obvious. Our permanent bases in Iraq will help insure the hopeless status quo, as well as insuring the safety of Exxon, Shell, and the other rapacious oil companies that will now take over the management of the Iraqi oilfields with terms guaranteeing them outrageous profits. "To the victors go the spoils." Except remember, "it ain't over 'til its over," and it certainly won't be over until "the fat lady sings."

Sunday, March 04, 2007

They laughed and applauded!

I have not seen any confirmation of the claim that Al Gore has put together an exploratory committee for a possible run for the Presidency. However, I have been assured by my source that this was announced publicly by someone who should know at the just completed Democratic Party meeting in Boise. Many people heard it. I assume it is true.

As you must know by now (as it has been replayed monotonously on tv), the horse-faced major Fluff Girl of the Republican Party, made a remark so outrageously stupid and uncalled for that her audience of Republicans burst into laughter and applause. Any decent person who heard this absurd anti-gay, anti-Edwards slur should have hissed and booed at the top of their voice. But did this group of conservative Republicans do that? Of course not. They thought it was wonderful. This group, by the way, included Romney, who actually introduced this vicious, unprincipled, unbalanced creature, Gingrich, Brownback, and other high level mucky-mucks of the conservative branch (is there really any other branch) of the Republican Party. Coulter's remark was not only ridiculous, based on nothing but malicious intent, but was also just plain stupid. Her Republican audience ate it up. What does that tell you about these people? Those who lie down with dogs get fleas. Coulter is a true dog who should have been mercifully led to the psychiatric dog pound long ago. Republicans think she is wonderful. Do Republicans think? Apparently not.

Why do Idaho Republicans hate children? For years and years they have refused to adequately fund our schools. Indeed, one of them once proposed to change the Idaho Constitution so the state wouldn't even be responsible for education. Our schools have degenerated, deteriorated, and gone downhill for years because of their refusal to come up with adequate funds. It's like they not only hate the children, they apparently also hate education itself. But their hatred for our children has now reached heights to atrociously awful to be virtually unbelievable. A bill designed to improve child care, to supervise those who provide child care, including the screening out of sex offenders, to establish minimum safety standards, has failed. Idaho is ranked dead last in child care in the United States. Some Republicans suggested that mothers should just stay home and take care of their children. Others suggested there was simply no way they would ever allow their children to be cared for by providers. Republican Steve Thayn (Emmet) thinks all early childhood education should be by parents in the home environment (no early childhood, no pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, etc.). He also thinks school should not be more than four hours per day, Social Security, welfare, and public education are charities that we don't need, and, indeed, families should be in complete control of education. Furthermore, there should be no mandatory education. Great ideas! Why shouldn't we allow our uneducated parents to supervise the education of their children? No doubt they could teach them how to shoe horses and make cannon balls, to say nothing of how to skin a buffalo and eat peas off the blade of their knife. We don't need no microwaves and computers, no classes in science, no stinking watches (there is nothing wrong with sun dials). Doesn't it make you wonder what century these guys are living in? I wonder if they even know what country they live in.

How is it that Idaho has the apparently unique capacity to elect and support utter nitwits like Thayn and Sali? We apparently enjoy being the laughingstock of the country, to say nothing of having no credible voice in the management of our country. No mandatory education, abortions that cause breast cancer, black helicopters poised at the border to take away our lawn chairs, gays and women having rights? Keep 'em in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant I say. At least they'd have time to teach their children something - like maybe the alphabet and the multiplication tables. I loved my father very much. He had a fourth grade education. I'm glad he was not entirely responsible for my education (and so was he). Here in Idaho we say: give us our stupid, our uneducated, our narrow-minded, bigoted, racist, uninformed (except for Rush Limbaugh), and 18th century philosophers, we need them for our Idaho legislature.

Friday, March 02, 2007

Great news!

I was told today by one of my far flung spies and informers that Al Gore has put together an Exploratory Committee to consider a possible run for the Presidency (that he once won but was denied by a totally out of control partisan Supreme Court). If you have not already seen this elsewhere, consider this a scoop. This is great news as I believe Gore is the only person with the credibility, experience, knowledge, and international connections to at least try to salvage us from the pit of shame that Bush/Cheney have plunged us into. This is at least a ray of hope in an otherwise dismal situation. Hillary is nothing but a John McCain in skirts. Obama and Edwards are probably okay but not experienced enough. Kusinich would be great but the MSM continue to belittle and butcher him to the point where he has no real chance for the nomination. As the MSM have already excoriated Gore to the point of absurdity he might well be able to survive their dishonest and unprincipled attacks from now on. Gore may not be perfect, he might not wear the clothes the MSM thinks he should wear, perhaps he weighs more than they think he should, maybe he's not the ideal person you would want to "have a beer with," but he is absolutely the most qualified candidate for President (granted that the American electorate doesn't seem to care if their Presidents are qualified or not - witness the witless marvel they have sort of elected twice in recent years). But if qualifications matter, Gore wins hands down. No contest. Given the depths of depravity Bush/Cheney have led us into it is going to require someone with unusual experience and knowledge to try to turn this sinking ship of state around. Please, can't we have someone with an IQ higher than his age?

There was some annual meeting of ultra-rightists for the past three days (I can't remember what it is called). Most of the Republican candidates for President were there (except for McCain who seems to avoid such meetings. I guess he has "other priorities.") If you want some insight into the quality of this group consider that Ann Coulter was one of the featured speakers. Among other things she referred to Edwards as a "faggot." Does this mean she knows something no one else does about Edwards? Of course not. Coulter is a vicious, hateful, revolting, disgusting, unprincipled woman who has learned that if she says such absurd and hateful things, whether they have any foundation in fact whatsoever or not, she will (l) get a lot of attention, and (2) make a lot of money. The fact that Republicans listen to her and apparently buy her books, is a measure of just how disgustingly awful they have become. Coulter is for Republicans what I think is known in porn movie circles as a "fluff girl." You can't sink much lower than that.

Any songwriters out there? We need someone to compose the "Waiting for Impeachment Blues." Perhaps a nice stirring march - "The March of the War Criminals." Better yet, "Incompetents on Parade." What a great musical could be made of the Bush/Cheney Administration. It would put "Springtime for Hitler" to shame. Not to worry. Nothing will happen. Nothing. Republicans are too corrupt. Democrats too timid. Let us merely continue this macabre dance to oblivion.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

We're not ready?

Somewhere today I saw a report that said 90% of our national guard units are not ready for what it is they are supposed to be ready for. This is because, it was said, they lack billions of dollars worth of equipment and such. You got that? Billions of dollars short of presumably what they ought to have to be ready (for something or other). The U.S. has a military budget larger than almost all of the rest of the world combined, and has had for quite some time. So what has happened to all that money? How could it be that our national guard (and even our regular troops) do not have enough equipment? The army says it needs billions upon billions more in order to be fully prepared. So what do they expect us to do? Our defense budget is already immense, far more than can reasonably be justified. Where does the money go? What is the problem? Do they think we should just earmark all of our tax money for the military? Give up social security, medicare, education, infrastructure, and everything else so we can build up our military even more?

The real problem is, and I don't hate to say it, is that there is no connection between what we spend on national defense and national defense. Most of those billions upon billions upon billions do not produce what we actually need for defense, they simply line the pockets of GE, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and the rest of our corporate masters. This is the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, except that now it has become the military/industrial/political/fascist complex that exists primarily to take tax dollars from our citizens and transfer them to the powers that be. I cannot claim to be an expert on such matters, but I'll bet we could reduce our military budget by half and not even notice the difference in how well we are protected, provided, of course, the money was actually earmarked for defense rather than immoral profits for the few. Let's have a thorough and comprehensive report on just where all that defense money goes. It will never happen because those in charge of such things know perfectly well that the defense budget is indefensible. So keep your focus on Anna Nicole Smith's burial and Britney's crotchless panties and do not ask what your government is doing to you. I guess it may be good advice, when you are being raped you might as well lay back and enjoy it.

I don't understand why simple things are so hard for people to understand. Everyone (more or less) keeps talking about bringing the troops home. Somehow they don't seem to understand that BUSH/CHENEY ARE NEVER GOING TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME! If you want to bring the troops home you have to get rid of Bush/Cheney. It's simple, especially now that they are almost on the verge of literally stealing Iraqi oil which was their goal from the very beginning. If their Iraqi puppet government signs the deal they are being offered (coerced into) there will always have to be American troops stationed there to protect the oil company interests. Is this really hard to understand? The Iraqi's only real hope to keep from getting totally screwed is to absolutely refuse this deal. Will they be able to withstand the pressure? I sincerely hope so. But we might have to eventually pay them a fair price for their oil. What a tragedy.