Roviating Obama

The roviating of Obama is starting now in ernest. Obama made the mistake of saying something honestly about his use of drugs as a youth. Bill Clinton, as you will recall, was virtually crucified because he admitted to trying marijuana but not inhaling. It was difficult to tell which was worse, his admitting to trying marijuana or his sort of woosie claim that he didn't inhale. No nonsense about Obana's use of drugs. He did them. He admits it. He knows it was a youthful mistake. He doesn't advise it for anyone. It does not seem to have resulted in any harm either to him or anyone else. But now that those like Mitt Romney who have never under any circumstances ever done anything wrong at all (except lying repeatedly) know about it they will never let it go. I don't know if Romney really is "as pure as the driven snow," but he certainly presents himself that way (I do wonder how often he changes his sacred underwear). Romny thinks it is bad that Obama revealed the truth about his (sordid) past as it might somehow affect young people. Personally, I would far rather have someone with Obama's experience than someone with no experience other than perhaps bathing religiously and wearing a different shirt every day.

Not content to just be in a tizzy about Obama's drug use, those behind this roviating job are now insinuating, suggesting, hinting, and speculating that he must be a Muslim as well. Why a Muslim? First, I guess, because Muslims are bad. Just ask any American man or woman on the street as they have learned this from our MSM. Second, his name is Obama and what is worse, his middle name is Hussein! Third, he attended a sort of Muslim school when he was a young child. Now with a background like that how could he not be a Muslim. And as Romney has made it clear he wouldn't want a Muslim in his cabinet, he obviously wouldn't want one in the White House. He did allow that perhaps a Muslim could have some kind of "lower" position in his administration (generous of him, no?). The fact that Obama is clearly not a Muslim makes no difference when it comes to a hit job like this. Even if he were a Muslim, would a Muslim President be any worse than a Mormom President? It is pretty clear that at the present time there is no chance a Muslim could be elected President, but how much more likely is it a Mormon will be? How about a Baptist who talks with God? A thrice married Catholic who cavorts with gays and maybe the mafia. Then there is an oversized actor to believes that walking through a gun show is like being in paradise, a Libertarian who wants to bring back frontier days, or a couple of immigrant bashing loonies who want to build double walls to keep the tunnels under control. Of course there is an elder spokesman who is obsessed with war and apparently no longer in touch with reality. Take your pick.

I don't know who is behind this campaign to disparage Obama. I suspect this is a Republican stunt because of the modus operandi. Perhaps they think that now that Obama is coming up in the polls he deserves the same despicable treatment they have employed on Hillary all these years. Hillary could benefit from this, of course, but this doesn't strike me as her style. Besides, I can't see that she needs to do this. This is more the Karl Rove, Tucker Carlson kind of thing - just attack anything and everything democratic no matter what it is. Whatever it is, I hope people by now will have the good sense and decency to understand it for the cheap, disgusting attempt it is.

Apparently some Iraqi lawmakers are objecting to the treatment they are receiving from American troops when entering the Green Zone. They are searched and otherwise manhandled and treated with contempt, especially if they don't speak English. Well why not? They're just Iraqis. This reminds me of an Englishman on a train going to Rome. When the other occupants were trying to communicate in Italian this florid-faced portly gentleman leaned forward and demanded loudly SPEAK ENGLISH!!

I believe the animals are beginning to revolt, sick of the behavior of humans. Here at Sandhill, for a minor example, the Robins and the wild Turkeys are becoming more and more aggressive. They peck at the windows to the point where I fear they will break them. The coyotes have successfully stolen all the chickens, the bears have all but destroyed the garbage cans, The skunk has made the yard into a miniature battleground, and the deer have devised even new ways to attack the garden. We can deal with this. But what about parts of India where apparently the elephants are entering the villages, stealing food, and destroyhing property. Also they have monkeys that are now attacking people, entering homes, raiding refrigerators, and so on. In Africa baboons are attacking cars, people, houses and whatever in search of food. I fully expect the whales and polar bears will turn on us next. This is not much like the Teddy Bears Picnic. Expect more of this as we continue to make things worse for them.

LKBIQ:
"The Eskimo, Ootah, had his own explanation. Said he: 'The devil is asleep or having trouble with his wife, or we should never have come back so easily'."
Robert Peary

Whew!

I forced myself to watch the Republican "debate." Am I glad it's over. I thought for a while I was actually watching a convention of warmongers. With the exception of Ron Paul, who drew some boos from time to time, these white guys are really bloodthirsty. They all insist that things are going well in Iraq. McCain insists repeatedly that we are "winning." Of course no one asks him what it is that we are winning. Usually when you win something you win something. What the something we are winning in Iraq is, is not at all clear. So far we aren't even winning the oil, and we certainly can't say we're winning hearts and minds. Fred Thompson says we should keep our troops there "until they complete their mission." But, again, no follow-up question like, for example, what is our mission? Except for Paul they all seem to agree that we just keep on doing what we are doing, whatever that is.

The ballyhooed claim that they would all go after Huckabee (because he is now the frontrunner in Iowa) didn't materialize. They were asked if they believed every word in the bible. This was kind of amusing as no one was willing to admit they believed every word in the bible even though they mostly claimed it was the revealed word of God. Even Huckabee, who boasted about his degree in theology, agreed that we shouldn't really "pluck out our eyeballs." Giuliani displayed what I thought was a remarkable familiarity with the bible but allowed as to how he didn't literally believe every word - he just consults it when he has troubles (I guess he must consult it often). Romney insisted it was the word of God but, like the others, mumbled something about allegory and such. The ridiculous format of these "debates" doesn't lend itself to any serious discussion of such things so we don't know just what parts of the bible they believe and what parts they question.

Romney, who proved once again not to have the courage of any conviction whatsoever refused to saw whether waterboarding was torture. He said it wasn't up to him to say what specific techniques the CIA or others should use. McCain took him to task for this, pointing out that waterboarding was torture, was against the Geneva Convention, was against U.S. law, and etc. But of course Anderson Cooper called for the next question before this got further out of hand. I always have the impression when McCain starts in on his obsession with winning in Iraq he doesn't care how many deaths occur or what price we might be paying - it's just win at any cost. This is doubly tragic, I think, because there is nothing we can win.

They don't like immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, but they don't have any very sensible plan for dealing with them. I can't remember whether it was Tankredo or Hunter who insisted they would build a double wall the whole 850 miles, and he would do it in six months! I guess the plan is to trap them between the walls long enough to figure out a final solution. I think it was Huckabee who pointed out they were all "God's children," so we shouldn't be too hard on them. Giuliani allowed as to how he let the children of illegals go to school to keep them off the streets. Someone else thought the children shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents but, again, this whole bit on immigration didn't go too far because it was time for the next question. In fact this format is perfect for making sure that no serious discussion of any single problem is possible.

With a couple of exceptions they all said they would promise that under their administration they would not raise taxes. One of them (I forget which one), who seemed to actually have some form of common sense, allowed as to how there could be an emergency and therefore he wouldn't absolutely promise. It was interesting that there were no direct questions about our trillion dollar plus national debt. Of course they worry about Social Security but aside from Thompson didn't seem to be enthusiastic about doing anything specific about it.

I think it is fair to say that we didn't learn anything about the candidates that we didn't already know. I think Giuliani mentioned 9/11 only once. But interestingly, no matter what problem was suggested Giuliani claimed to have solved it as Mayor of New York and implied he would do the same if he were President. To Anderson Cooper's credit he asked Giuliani if it was true that he used public money improperly. Rudy, being Rudy, didn't really answer it but said he always had a police escort and what the police did about travel wasn't up to him. Somehow I don't think Rudy is going to get away with this answer for long. No one asked Romney about his Mormonism. Ron Paul was the only one who wanted to bring the troops home. Of course he also wants to eliminate government and return us to the jungle of dog eat dog.

I'm sorry to say I think the whole think was a waste of time, mostly because the format is so ridiculous. If you really want one of these white adult extremist males to be your candidate I suggest you draw straws.

LKBIQ:
"Twilight, a timid fawn, went
glimmering by,
And Night, the dark-blue hunter,
followed fast."
George William Russell

Chucklehead

Man dragged to death behind pickup.
Driver thought he was chased by
ax-wielder. Pleads self-defense.

I don't know exactly what a chucklehead is, or even if there is such a thing, but if there is, George W. Bush has to be one. It would be hilarious if things weren't so serious. Imagine a guy you'd like to have a beer with becoming President of the U.S., ignoring for seven years the most important issue in the Middle East that's been festering for 60 years, and, indeed, making it worse by aiding one of the parties to attack Lebanon, suddenly announcing in the final year of his administration when he has no credibility, "it's time for peace in the Middle East." All previous efforts to solve this problem have failed after months of hard work. He sets up a one day meeting to bring a whole bunch of countries together, makes a speech, and then leaves. What a formula for success! It's as if he just gave an assignment to a bunch of fourth-graders and told them to work it out. When they inevitably fail he'll say he did his bit, he brought them together and they failed, it's not his fault (of course nothing is ever his fault as he is omnipotent if not omnipresent). Not only did he set up this absurd event, he refused to invite two of the major players, Hamas, the democratically elected government of Palestine and the Iranians. I hope he paid for everyone's travel and gave them a good meal. Another masterful stroke of foreign policy from the people that gave you the Iraq "war."
Maybe I'm thinking of knucklehead. Knucklehead, chucklehead, whatever. Bush got his photo-op holding hands with Abbas and Olmert. I guess that's something.

Karl Rove, now that he is no longer in the White House and presumably has more time on his hands, is busily trying to rewrite history. His latest claim is that it was Congress that was responsible for the "war" in Iraq, at least at the time it happened. These historical revisionists just don't understand that things aren't like they useda-was. We now have the internet and outrageous claims they make can be easily refuted. Rove has already been caught in outright lies about what went on in 2002. Will anyone pay any attention. I doubt it.

Bush is talking about solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem because he wants it to be a high spot of his legacy. He is apparently unaware that his legacy has already been established and is not likely to change no matter what he tries to do now. He will always be known as the worst President in U.S. History, bar none.

Mitt (what is he, a baseball glove) Romney blurted out still another incredibly stupid remark the other day, saying he would not have a Muslim in his cabinet because Muslims make up only a small minority in the U.S. This completely overlooks the fact that the Mormoms are also a small minority in the U.S. He then made it worse by suggesting that maybe Muslims could have lower positions in his administration. Giuliani and Huckabee have both said equally stupid things recently and of course McCain still breathes fire and brimstone when it comes to starting wars. I swear these four are the most hopeless candidates for President I can remember - and they are leading! I hope these jerks who are saying "I'll vote for anyone but her," will be pleased with their choice.

Apparently the Idaho Republicans mean by "lusterless" not campaigning in the way the Boise insiders want you to campaign. They keep insisting that Larry Grant ran a lusterless campaign. He certainly didn't run a lusterless campaign here in Bonners Ferry (where none of these other candidates deign to visit at all). I might also suggest that Walt Minnick's recent speech was about as lusterless as anything I've ever seen on the part of a candidate. Vote for Larry Grant, a fine candidate who is being unfairly maligned by the boys of Boise.

LKBIQ:
"Thirty -- the promise of a decade of loneliness, a thinning list of single men to know, a thinning briefcase of enthusiasm, thinning hair."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

As the world (doesn't) turn

Let's see, you would think that the revelation that Bush/Cheney, Rove and Libby caused the White House Spokesman to lie about a matter of potential treason would be an interesting news item, to say the least. What have you heard about it? Not much I bet, especially from the Washington Post and the New York Times. The same treatment of a Bush/Cheney crime as all the rest - just ignore it and it'll go away. Seems to be working again.

Musharif, Bush's Pakistan buddy, is busily establishing a dictatorship in Pakistan. Bush supports him. This is another example of Bush's passion for spreading democracy around the world. Bush has also been remarkably silent about his (democratic) friends in Saudi Arabia who are about to administer 200 lashes to a 19 year old woman, gang raped, because she was riding in a car with a man not her husband. I guess in Saudi Arabia not only can women not drive, they can't even ride in cars unless chaperoned. Bush likes walking hand in hand with these guys.

Bush is also continuing to spread democracy in Iraq. Now his puppet government there is "asking" him to enter into an agreement whereby the U.S. will maintain a permanent military presence in that unfortunate country. Can there be little doubt that this is to maintain democracy rather than just protect the government that Bush/Cheney imposed on Iraq? I wonder what the citizens of Iraq think about this, or if they even know about it as yet. I especially wonder what the southern Shiites think about it (along with their Iranian friends). And I suppose it has nothing whatsoever to do with oil. I wonder how the oil deals are coming along, haven't heard much about it for some time except for the fact that the "central government" has nullified all Kurdish oil deals with outside interests. I haven't heard what the Kurdish response has been.

Conservative revisionists are now defending the bombing of Hiroshima as absolutely necessary, completely ignoring the fact that at the time even many conservatives condemned it at the time as unnecessary and immoral. The argument is, as it has been for a long time, that it was necessary and saved thousands of American lives. Critics, however, point out that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender at the time and it was not necessary. Personally, I don't believe it was necessary and I don't believe it would have been dropped on the Germans under any circumstances. I believe the major motivation for dropping it at the time was to frighten the Russians. This is doubtless an argument that will never go away and cannot be resolved.

You have probably heard that Trent Lott, the racist with the sculpted hair, is resigning unexpectedly by the end of the year. Some say it has to do with his wanting to become a lobbyist before the new rules about lobbying come into effect. Others say he might become President of a University. I say he's just another rat leaving a sinking ship. I think the Republicans anticipate a blood bath next November and are trying to distance themselves from the Brafia (Bush Republican mafia).

LKBIQ:
"And were an epitaph to be my story
I'd have a short one ready for my own.
I would have written of me on my
stone:
I had a lover's quarrel with the world.
Robert Frost

Where are we going?

Does someone know where we are going but just won't tell us? The national debt is out of control and the dollar is rapidly losing its value. People are losing their homes. Banks are in trouble. People are going hungry and have no medical insurance. College tuition is out of sight and still rising. We may be going to attack Iran. Does that make sense? Not to me.

At least some people seem to think the dollar could lose as much as 90% of its value (its already lost a lot). Where will this lead us? Is there going to be a recession? Does anyone know? Giving Nobel prizes to economists seems to be no more sensible that rewarding witchcraft.

There is increasing talk of impeachment. But that seems to be all it is, talk. Bush/Cheney are known to have committed impeachable offenses for years now but it seems that members of Congress don't care. In terms of our Constitution (which we used to hold sacred) they should be obliged to impeach but they just ignore it. I guess Bush has convinced them that "it's just a goddamn piece of paper." This seems to be leading us nowhere (at least for the moment).

There is more and more talk of attacking Iran although there is no evidence Iran is violating international rules about nuclear energy, and apparently also no viable evidence that they are substantially providing weapons and support to the Iraqis (in spite of Bush/Cheney's claims). It seems that no one on earth wants us to attack Iran or start another war in that part of the world - except, of course, Israel. So will we, once again, simply do their bidding. Where is this going?

Then there is the coming Annapolis meetings which are being touted as important and the beginnings of a two state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem. It seems like Bush, having allowed this problem to fester for the first seven years of his administration, decided one day that he'll solve the problem in the last year of his administration. Rather surprisingly, it appears that some of the Arab states will attend. Even Syria has agreed to attend, provided the Golan Heights is on the agenda (it is not clear that it will be). Hamas, the legally and democratically elected government of the Palestianians will not be attending (I'm not sure they were even invited). Bush, who has blatantly sided with the Israelis for the last seven years, and who has nowadays no credibility whatsoever, apparently naively believes that this meeting will actually have positive results. I gather he thinks that solving this Palestinian/Israeli conflict is basically no more of a problem than umpiring a baseball game. So where do you think this is leading?

Having disturbed the Russian Bear by persisting in a scheme to locate missile bases near the Russian border, as a defense against non-existant threats from Iran, using technology that doesn't work, he has started a new cold war and forced Putin to renew military activities that had been in remission for years. By his obsession with containing Iran Bush has also pushed Putin (and China, too) into the arms of the Iranians (as both countries of course have important economic ties with Iran). So where is this leading us?

It appears that Rumsfeld who might have been arrested for war crimes in France was given some kind of immunity. I don't know the details of this but I find it disturbing. There is little doubt that Rumsfeld is guilty of war crimes, at the least, torture. So why should he be given immunity? And will this kind of immunity also be given to Bush/Cheney and the other American war criminals? Need I remind you that neither the Germans or the Japanese were given immunity for their war crimes. So where might this be leading us?

In fact, I am beginning to wonder if we as a nation are going anywhere at all. Of course it is saturday and one can't expect much but football on saturday. And tomorrow is sunday, can't expect much on sunday except football. Congress is on their holiday vacation so you can't expect them to do anything until they return, but when they return they'll just return to their fundraising and grooming each other like a bunch of baboons. And of course Christmas in only a month away, can't expect much between now and Christmas except shopping and office parties. Then there is New Year's celebrations, can't expect anything until after the first of the year. By then everyone will be so hungover they won't realize what is happening to them until it is too late and we'll just go on blundering our way into national oblivion and the cesspool of history, just another failed empire.

LKBIQ:
"The fearful question confronts us: Have our problems got beyond our control?"
Sir Winston Churchill

The reckoning?

Man so upset when his wife
didn't buy beer, shoots both
of the family's pet goats.

Is this, perhaps, finally, a moment of reckoning for the Republican party? How are they going to handle McClellan's claim that he was misled into lying about the outing of Valerie Plame by Libby, Rove, Cheney and Bush? These individuals knew what they were doing and entered into a conspiracy to "out" a CIA agent, a very serious crime if not an outright act of treason. Will they just try to ignore it like the NYT and the Washington Post, or will they try to make it look like some merely trivial act of no consequence? Will they continue to support Bush/Cheney in spite of this claim. Might I suggest that if they do just continue to support them the Republican Party has no further claim to being a political party. They will have become through their own acts a criminal conspiracy. In short, a sort of mafia. It will no longer be a contest between two political parties but will become a contest between the Democratic Party and a criminal underground (except in this case it won't really even be underground). Having consistently defended Bush/Cheney on their illegal "war," their torturing, their illegal spying, their incessant lying, their war profiteering, and so on, is there any reason to think they will change? By all that is right and proper, fair and decent, legal and moral, they should change. These charges by McClellan are just too criminal, too blatant, too public and too anti-American to just let pass.

And what of the Democrats? Will they just slink further back into their den of cowardice or will they, for once, stand up for what is right? This is, in my opinion, a very clear-cut case of right and wrong. And what Rove, Libby, Cheney, and Bush did in this instance was clearly wrong. But, as Bush/Cheney and the others, up until now, have never been held accountable for anything they've done wrong, why should I believe they will be held accountable now? I guess I probably don't believe they will, I just hope they will. Remember, "hope springs eternal," and all that. There seems to be little doubt hope will probably have to be eternal before any of our supposed "representatives" come to their senses (or admit to being part of a criminal conspiracy).

I am now 78 years of age. For most of these years I have listened, observed, and read widely. Why would I not be cynical?


LKBIQ:
"The safest road to Hell is the gradual one--the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts."
Clive S. Lewis

Did he know?

Our incredible Mr. No has struck once again. Sali has now vetoed a bill that would have funded the Special Olympics in Idaho. The bill also included a number of other projects, all designed to improve things for the citizens of the state of Idaho. It becomes more clear with every no vote that Bill Sali is not interested in the welfare of Idaho citizens. I believe he said he thought this would cost too much. He recently voted a rare "yes" for more funding for the "war" in Iraq.

So, did Bush know about the plan to "out" Valerie Plame or not. McClellan's publisher now says McClellan did not mean to say the President lied to him. He says the President had been fed false information just as he had. I'm not sure I believe this. But consider even if it is true. If Bush was lied to, who lied to him?
The answer has to be Rove, Libby and Cheney. Why would a President retain advisors and a Vice President who lied to him? And is lying to a President about an affair that involves treason legal? Bush said that he would fire anyone who leaked. We know now that is just a joke. Any way you want to look at it, Rove, Libby, Cheney, and Bush were all involved one way or another. Just another example of the corruption that defines the Bush/Cheney administration. Republicans seem to like it.

You know about the fuss over the phone calls that wander about but are really about planting seeds of doubt about Romney, his being a Mormon, and other such things. It turns out that at least two of the people who claim to have received such calls and raised a fuss about it are members of Romney's own staff. They want you to believe, of course, that these phony calls are the work of one of the other candidates, but as the company involved in placing them is Utah based with some connections to Romney that would seem questionable at best.

Then there is our crook for President, Rudy Giuliani. You know that many of the New York Firefighters have been very critical of him. But there is one who has been defending him and saying only good things about his performance on 9/11. It turns out this one is on the Giuliani payroll and has received something like $1500 for "advice." Interesting, no? But not half as interesting as the probable connections between Giuliani and certain criminal elements. These are unclear because Rudy refuses to say who all his clients are, nor is there any explanation for this secrecy. Curious to say the least.

Strange that Hillary is leading in the national polls by quite a bit. But this is apparently not true in Iowa. Is there something fishy about the Iowa polls? The national polls? Or are people in Iowa really that different from everyone else? Whatever. I'm so sick of this I just want it to be over. And frankly, I don't think what turns out in Iowa is going to make much difference in the long run. I don't believe that Iowa and New Hampshire are anywhere near as definitive and important as they used to be.

I can no longer bring myself to say Happy Thanksgiving. Of course we celebrate this mythical holiday, just as my family has all of my life. And I confess I like the turkey and all the trimmings. But if I were an American Indian I certainly would see no cause for celebration. The best you might say for the first thanksgiving is that it allowed the Pilgrims to survive long enough to begin their genocidal wars against the original owners (in the words of the moronic Ronald Reagan, those greedy Indians who wanted to keep all this for themselves). Once you have outgrown the fairy tale history they teach you in the public schools, and read more widely, it becomes impossible to see Thanksgiving as an event to celebrate. So enjoy your turkey and stuffing and cranberry sauce and pumpkin pie and revel in the thought that it's really just the beginning of Christmas, a completely authentic holiday brought to you by the proponents of Intelligent Design.

LKBIQ:
"Just improve yourself; that is the only thing you can do to better the world."
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Will it matter?

Will it matter that McClelland has now admitted he lied about the Plame affair and that Libby, Rove, Cheney, and even Bush himself knew about it and were thus involved? Why should it matter? Nothing else up until now has mattered, the lies that led us into an unnecessary war, the torturing, the utter incompetence, the scandals upon scandals upon scandals of this administration, none of this seems to have made any difference. Bush/Cheney are still in charge, still lying every day, still making big bucks for their cronies. Besides, can anyone say they are surprised to hear that Bush/Cheney, Rove and Libby, and especially McClellan were lying? I don't know about you but I knew McClelland was lying. Indeed, that's exactly what he was being paid to do, lie for the White House. He must have known that when he agreed to the job, so why should he be so upset about it now? Does anyone believe that Ari was telling the truth, Snow, now Perino? It's true they don't always just flat out lie, but when they don't they obfuscate and confuse and do everything they can to hide the truth. If what McClellan reports in his book is true it means that Bush?Cheney and the others are guilty of felonies. But so what, they're already known to be guilty of felonies and no one has done anything about it so far. Some today were saying something to the effect that the Democrats ought to do so something about this. Are they kidding? These guys are guilty of felonies and there is some doubt that anyone should do anything about it? I believe this is indicative of just how hopeless our political system has become. I sincerely hope that this time someone will do something about it and these criminals will be held accountable.

This question of accountability, for me, next to ending the "war" in Iraq, is the most important issue. Of course no one mentions anything about this (except Kucinich). Obviously none of the candidates want to introduce this into the current campaigns as it would be so disruptive and add problems they would much rather avoid. But for me it is of the utmost importance. There is no doubt that Bush/Cheney and many others are guilty of war crimes and have the blood and misery of millions on their hands. They must be held accountable. But who will do it, if anyone? Any candidate that voted for the "war," like Hillary or Edwards, will not be in a very strong position to prosecute others. Obama didn't vote for the "war" but wants to reach out to others in the spirit of bipartisanship, good fellowship. harmony, and all that. I don't want to reach out across the aisle and try to make nice with a bunch of war criminals. I want them held accountable for their horrible criminal acts. Kucinich is probably the only one who would actually try to do something about these war crimes. But the MSM have decreed that Kucinich is basically a non-candidate (they always decide who we can vote for). They effectively muzzle him, ignore him, belittle him, ridicule his size and vegan habits, and then have the audacity to report that he only polls one percent. Of course he only polls one percent when they have already made it clear that he has no chance of becoming President. I firmly believe that if this were not the case he would easily be in double digits.

Clearly there is an enormous amount of guilt out there among members of both parties and even among the general public to a certain extent. And equally clearly not everyone can be, or even should be, held accountable. But certainly the ringleaders, Bush/Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the leading neocons should be. If not, the U.S. will be exposed as a nation of criminal hypocrites for all time. I hope that McClellan's expose might be the turning point where these criminal acts cannot continue to be covered up or ignored. Given what has happened to date I cannot say I am sanguine about the possibilities.

I heard today that Rove may be put in charge of the George W. Bush Library. That means it will not be a library at all, merely a shrine to Bush/Rove. Have they found a location for it yet? Might I suggest Paraguay. Better yet, how about the South Pole. There ought to be some ground opening up there soon.

LKBIQ:
"What is it: is man only a blunder of God, or God only a blunder of man?"
Friedrich Nietzsche

Murder in Amsterdam - book

His third wife said to have drowned
in a dry bathtub, later found to have
been beaten. Fourth wife missing.

I have just finished Murder in Amsterdam by Ian Buruma. You will recall that Theo Van Gogh, a filmmaker and critic of Muslim culture, was brutally murdered in broad daylight by a fanatic Muslim. There were witnesses who saw Muhammed B. shoot Van Gogh off his bicycle and then several more times, slash his throat with a machete, and then leave a note pinned to him with another knife. The long, rambling note was not addressed to Van Gogh but, rather, to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali born Dutch politician who had made a short film with Van Gogh. Buruma attempts to explain how and why this dreadful murder came about and in doing so exposes the conflict that exists between the Dutch and the many immigrants they have allowed into their nation, most of whom are either Turks or Moroccans. This is a classic case of the clash of two cultures, and what a clash it is. It is almost impossible for me to imagine two cultures so unlikely to mix. On the one hand there is the super liberal Dutch of Amsterdam who accept unlimited free speech, homosexuality, drugs, and prostitution, all of which is publicly flaunted, and on the other hand new Muslim immigrants who come from a culture that is almost unbelievably intolerant of all those things. But not only did the Dutch invite Muslims to settle in their country, they invited them in large numbers. After WWII the Dutch, like the French and Germans, needed laborers and needed to increase their diminished population. And, apparently motivated by guilt over what they had done during the war, became exceptionally tolerant of all others. Thus they welcomed the newcomers with open arms, provided them with support, and overlooked the problems that slowly grew over the years. Unlike immigrants in the U.S., who for the most part try to assimilate, the immigrants did not assimilate well, and in many cases not at all, into Dutch culture. They remained apart in ghettos, built mosques, and kept in touch with their relatives in Turkey and Morocco. Apparently the Turks did better at assimilation than did the Moroccans who have proven to be the most difficult when it comes to integration. The conflict arose not merely over religious or moral differences but also, of course, had an economic element. Dutch recruiters preferred illiterate
laborers who would not challenge the system. The earliest Muslims to arrive kept to themselves, often did not even attempt to learn Dutch, and were not such a grave problem. It's their children, the younger generations, who feel shut out of Dutch society, paternalized, looked down upon, and become rebellious.

This became a cultural problem as well as religious and economic. For Van Gogh and other Dutchmen, for example, free speech knew no limits and they could be both insulting and very provocative. This was for them simply the way it was, somewhat like a game where you could put-down your rivals in the most unpleasant ways but still be within the rules of the game. As the Dutch began to understand their problem with too many immigrants many turned against them and described them in extremely unflattering terms. Unlike their fellow Dutch colleagues who could accept this as just part of the game, the Muslims, especially the Moroccans, were terribly insulted and outraged. You remember the outrage over the Muslim cartoons drawn by Dutch political cartoonists. Mohammed B's outrage grew and festered for quite a while before he became so outraged he deliberately sought out and murdered Van Gogh. He intended to become a martyr and expected to die himself. The Dutch disappointed him there as well.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a beautiful African woman who, after arriving in Amsterdam, was overwhelmed by the freedom allowed, especially for women. She turned against her previous Muslim faith and, as many such converts do, became fanatic in her beliefs. Having been brutally circumcised herself and forced to marry against her will, she took up the cause of Muslim women with a passion that gained her a wide following and a great deal of fame. No cultural relativism or tolerance of Muslim culture for her, she agitated to basically forcing Muslim immigants to change and give up their traditional customs. She became a politician and, of course, was quickly picked up and admired by the far rightists in Amsterdam who were anti-Muslim and would have preferred to see all immigrants returned to their points of origin. It was she who convinced Van Gogh to make their short movie, Submission, which ultimately led to his death and forced her to move to the United States. Submission was deliberately contemptous of Muslim culture and insulting in the extreme. This is an extremely well-written and informative book and gives you a picture of culture conflict that would be hard to surpass.

We don't hear much about Sibel Edmonds from the MSM. You might think this strange given the fact that she has said she will risk going to jail to tell what she knows about widespread corruption in very high places. The problem is she is only willing to do this to one of the major networks and so far none has agreed. Daniel Ellsberg
says her story is more explosive than the Pentagon Papers. You might think that if we still had a viable fourth estate, whose role was to observe and police our politicians, any newspaper worth its salt would jump at such a sensational story. But, no, not our current MSM. It appears they either are completely on the side of the administration or they are afraid of it, or both. Probably both. She has been muzzled completely by the administration and not allowed to present her case at all. But those who have interviewed her and have been at least partly informed believe she is telling the truth and needs to be heard. But as you have probably figured out by now, our MSM decides for us what it is we should hear, and they take their orders from the White House. So much for freedom of speech in America. We will soon be voting for one or the other candidates of their choice.

LKBIQ:
"Road, n. A strip of land along which one may pass from where it is too tiresome to be to where it is futile to go."
Ambrose Bierce -- The Devil's Dictionary

HBO?

Burglar flees into Florida swamp,
found dead with teeth marks on torso.
Nine foot alligator killed.

Bubblehead:
I got linked with HBO? I have no idea what you are talking about. However, I do wish you would stop trying to twist everything I say into some bizarre interpretation of your own. First, I did not say, or even imply, that felons who have served their time or people of diminished capacity should not be able to have jobs. I was obviously talking about the fact that the military has had to lower their standards in order to find enough bodies to keep Bush/Cheney's perpetual "war" going. I do not think this is a good or wise thing. Especially as the only ones to gain from this are the insatiable, greedy members of the military/industrial/political system. Second, I did not say that I thought veterans in general were unstable and I find it deplorable that 120 veterans a week are committing suicide no matter where those statistics come from. But now that you mention it, I think there is every reason to suppose that many of our returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are unstable. And why should they not be, having been forced to participate in an immoral, illegal, and unnecessary "war" where they doubtless suffered all sorts of trauma. It has been widely reported that our returning vets are suffering from mental problems (and receiving very little help). I'm not sure I believe the 120 suicides a week refer to the entire veteran population. It certainly makes sense to believe that returning veterans do not have the same rates of suicide as the population in general. While it is true that what I say is not 100% scientifically accurate I don't just make it up. The suicides, the lowering of standards for the military, and such things are widely reported by many different news outlets.

P.S. You read this and commented before it was finished. It is certainly true that I don't know much about all the other blogs and don't generally pay much attention to them. I had been told by someone that I was quoted in the Statesman. I was going to comment as follows:

A quote from Morialekafa appeared in the Idaho Statesman. That is a Boise newspaper. I feel rather like I might have finally contacted people from another galaxy. I've heard of Boise, of course, that glistening infernal city in the south that is the locus of power for the state, and the Capitol. I've been told there is an old cow path that leads all the way from Bonners Ferry there but you must have a spirit of adventure and a great deal of patience to complete the trip. I have also heard that the closer you get to Boise the cow path tends to turn more and more into an actual highway (I don't know if this is true as I have only flown there a few times). The powers that be in the state, Republicans, of course, either reside in Boise or congregate there to run the affairs of the state. That is why our educational system is so impoverished. Unable to escape all responsibility for financing education, they have begrudgingly bestowed a few pennies now and then on our schools. It was just recently revealed that Idaho is 49th of all the states in having their students go on to college, a resounding 26%. Thank goodness for Mississippi. These things are not unrelated. I hesitate to think about the drop-out rate and what happens to all these children. These wise men have also decreed that it is more important for farmers to ship their potatoes more inexpensively to the coast than it is to save the salmon that are trying desperately to survive, marvelous and enormous runs of salmon that are hundreds of thousands year old. Idaho is also right up there in front of homophobia, insisting that marriage remain only a union of a man and a woman. Perhaps Boise is still gun-shy from the publication of The Boys of Boise so many years ago. Idaho also leads in believing that legislators should have more authority over women's bodies than women do and, apparently, tend to believe strongly that a woman's place is in the home. To this end we keep electing hypocrites like Larry (wide stance) Craig and utter morons like the incredible Mr. No, Bill Sali. Having lived here now for about 18 years I have finally figured out what the state motto is: "If it was good enough for pappy, it's good enough for you."

LKBIQ:
"I am as young as the most beautiful wish in my heart--and as old as all the unfulfilled longings in my life..."
An old !Kung Bushman

Great idea!

Man jumping out of a first floor
window with a hairbrush shot
twenty times by police. Black man.

Sometimes great ideas go astray. Bonners Ferry is a small town with only one high school. It is so conservative they don't offer anything on evolution because, as one teacher told me, "he gets too much flack from the parents." Our little town has a plethora of churches, most of them evangelical. A proposal was recently submitted to our school, signed by 466 people, for a course to be taught on the bible. Someone found out that such courses are permitted in some other schools as long as they are not devotional. They claim they want a course on the bible as literature. As I am sure most if not all of the signers of this petition are local churchmembers I wonder if they know what they might be getting into. It is perfectly obvious that they are just using this as an excuse to get religion into the school but set that aside for the moment. Do you believe these churchgoing people want someone teaching their children that the bible and many of its fabulous stories was written by a bunch of unknown scribblers at different periods of time about characters that may or may not have even existed? I have trouble believing this. They say it will cost $50,000 a year for a teacher and support for the class. The superintendent of the school reportedly said the problem is finding the money. I should think the problem might be a great deal more serious than that. Who, for example, is going to police this teacher to insure it does not become "devotional?" Who is going to pick the teacher in the first place? Would they agree on a teacher who truly wants to offer a purely secular course? Would this eventually end up as a battle about the separation of church and state? Who would oversee the class design? What reading materials would be provided besides the bible, if any? Would biblical passages be regarded as literally true or as just stories? Personally, I think it's a great idea. But only if they hire a teacher who will teach such a course as it ought to be taught. And cynic that I am, I don't believe for one second this is what they want. If they can't get anti-evolution in the schools they try to get "intelligent design." If they can't get religion into the schools they will pretend its "literature." This attempt is so transparent I can't believe they will get away with it, even here in evangelical heaven.

It's that time of year. You know, when the catalogs come fast and furious. Skimming through the latest Chefs catalog looking for something for my wife I came across some items I know she desperately needs. For example, there is a special knife for cutting cakes. It has a 12" high-carbon stain-resistant blade with a double riveted composite handle. It appears to be exactly like every other 12" knife except it lacks a point. It's only $49.99. Then there's a special Dual-Spout Flour/Sugar Dispenser. One spout for measuring and one for large volume pouring. Snap-on lid preserves freshness. $9.99. You can also order special citrus press. Stainless-steel ensures maximum juice extraction, drip stop spout, soft-grip handle and safety switching system for two filters for pulp control. As it is motorized I assume it needs batteries. It's on sale for only $169.99. I couldn't overlook the Wine Chiller that keeps wine at an optimum temperature for full flavor release. It has 33 temperature options and varietal names on the blue backlit LCD screen. You get a mail-in rebate for a free corkscrew. A two bottle one of these gems will set you back a mere $149.99. For another $49.99 you can order a special asparagus steamer. It has a wire basket that inserts into a stainless-steel pot. Of course you wouldn't want to pass up the Vertical Chicken Bee Roaster set for $34.99. This consists of a stainless-steel can-like object that you set the chicken on after you fill it with your favorite beer or whatever. This obviously is the new up-to-date version of beer-can chicken. I won't mention the Pro-ice Crusher for $79.99 as everyone who is anyone these days has this built in to their refrigerator. But don't overlook the 45-Blade Deluxe Meat Tenderizer with razor-sharp stainless-steel blades that penetrate meat without tearing, $39.99. There are many more gadjets like the Tomato-Press, the Roast Cutting Tongs, the Turkey Lifters, and many, many more. I think my favorite is the Shun/Ken Onion Knife with "specially constructed handles that guide your fingers into proper position while razor-sharp VG-10 high-carbon blades do the work." It comes with a special bamboo knife-holder made in Japan. This is a bargain at only $194.99. Along with it you can get a Stainless-Steel Finger guard to protect your fingers, $14.99. I offered most of these things to my wife for Christmas. She said all she wanted was a new roasting pan. Women are so fickle.

LKBIQ:
"In the United States there is more space where nobody is than where anybody is. This is what makes America what it is."
Gertrude Stein

Same ol' same ol'

In home of former girlfriend
man attacks rival with pipe, flees
by swimming across lake but sinks.

Yes, I wasted another couple of hours watching the Democratic "debate." It was pretty much the same as all the others. The first few minutes were almost exciting as it took a while for Wolf Blitzer to get it under control (I didn't think he did a very good job of moderating although he was better as it went on). It never seems to me that I see the same thing others do. I don't think it is simple enough to say that so-and-so won, or so-and-so lost. Actually, I thought Biden did well. I thought Kucinich, when given an opportunity, did well (as usual). Richardson did well at times. Obama did well at times. Hillary did well most of the time as usual. It was interesting that both Edwards and Obama drew some boos when they seemed to get too rough with Hillary (she's predicted to win Nevada easily). The much advertised notion that Obama would go on the attack and/or Hillary would attack didn't seem to amount to much. Edwards was much more the attack dog than Obama but I think all he accomplished was maybe to help Obama. The commentators all seemed to think Hillary redeemed herself after her stumbling on the last debate. I didn't think she really stumbled badly in that debate (but of course the media has to make mountains out of molehills). In any case Obama stumbled worse tonight than she did on the subject of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. But I thought he might have earned some points on his plan to raise the cap on Social Security. As usual some of the questions were pretty impossible. How, for example, could anyone answer a simple yes or no when asked if human rights were more important than national security? That seems to me the kind of question that could be debated for a very long time, taking into account all the particular circumstances, the urgency, the nature of the threat, etc., etc. All in all, I think Hillary began the debate as the front runner and ended the debate as the front runner. But along the way each of the candidates made a few points (but not enough to unseat Hillary). I must confess to being surprised that Edwards is not getting ahead more for his insistence that the system is rigged in favor of corporations, which it clearly is. I think Hillary may have somewhat taken this issue away when she said from the beginning that much of the special money she takes comes from nurses, firemen, policemen, and so on. With the exceptions of Edwards and Kucinich I get the impression the others, while they want to attack, want to do it gently (are they all angling for Vice-President?). My son observed that Kucinich seemed to be angry or out-of-sorts tonight. If I were Kucinich I'd be angry and out-of-sorts all the time because of the way he's being treated. There is supposed to be another Republican "debate" coming up soon. Is there no end to this basically useless procedure?

I confess that the one thing that enrages me the most when I hear it is that we need more troops and more money for defense. Thompson has called for a million man military and Richardson said tonight he wanted more troops. I cannot understand this. Are they not satisfied that we already spend more than virtually all the rest of the world on defense? And are they unaware that most of that money has much more to do with enriching corporations than it does with defense? Like, we really need more tanks and howitzers and nuclear bombs? We need to bring what is left of our military home from Iraq, rebuild and repair it, and give up the insane idea that we should somehow unilaterally rule the world. And please, no more cannon fodder. When you lower the qualifications for the services to accomodate felons and those of lesser abilities, and when you spend money to outfit them and send them into combat while at the same time refusing to spend money to repair and help them when they return, it is obvious they are seen simply as cannon fodder. The shame of this administration is simply boundless when it comes to our valiant but quickly forgotten veterans. And how about the 120 suicides per week that seems to be the current figure for our returning soldiers and marines?

LKBIQ:
"This will never be a civilized country until we expend more money for books than we do for chewing gum"
Elbert Hubbard

"Lecondel"

Woman commits suicide in jail
in a four cell complex.
Hanged herself with a blanket.

The Israelis have coined a new word, "lecondel," inspired by Condi Rice's many trips that have accomplished nothing. That's the meaning, useless travel and activity. How apt.

It turns out that our Inspector General, Krongard, responsible for investigating Blackguards (I mean Blackwater) has a brother on the board of directors of that organization. He claimed no knowledge of it although there is some evidence that he must have known. He has now recused himself from the investigation. It is interesting that nothing seems to embarrass these people. Hey, they're Republicans.

A Republican woman asked McCain, "how are we going to beat the bitch?" McCain laughed and said it was a good question. No doubt she earned some points from the rest of her idiot friends. There is no mental test you have to fail to become a Republican but I've noticed it helps to be a dumb blond.

The four members of one of our U.S. Bridge League teams, playing in an International Bridge Tournament, hand lettered a sign saying "We did not vote for Bush." They said they did it because there was so much anti-Bush sentiment they wanted to make it clear they were not responsible. They are being suspended for a year, forced to sign an apology, and I don't know what all else. Waterboarding must have been ruled too severe. Whatever happened to free speech? Those Dixie Chicks were really a bad influence. High-level, high-powered competitive duplicate bridge is about as nerve racking and stressful as it gets. You would not want to play it in an atmosphere of hate and suspicion.

There is to be another democratic drivel-fest tomorrow in Las Vegas (I think this is right). Will there ever be an end to these useless sound-bite type farces? I think Wolf Blitzer is to be the mediator. At least we won't have to put up with Tim Russert, that rotund-faced part of the posterior anatomy that deliberately set Kucinich up to look foolish. I wonder why he did that? Do you suppose he got a bonus? Was he just showing off for his colleagues? What was the point? Do these TV guys get together to see who can denigrate certain candidates the most? Maybe they take bets on it? There must be some reason for it. What do you suppose it might be? They must be really disappointed they can't just drive a stake through his heart and have done with it. When it comes to truth and beauty (and practical plans for the country) Kucinich is head and shoulders above all the other candidates, Democrats and Republicans. Oh, I forgot, he's only five foot six. Damn!

LKBIQ:
"Babies haven't any hair;
Old men's heads are just as bare--
Between the cradle and the grave
Lies a haircut and a shave."
Samuel Hoffenstein

Opportunism

Frustrated by a recalcitrant lug nut,
man fires shotgun at it from close range.
Hospital is removing pellets.

The incredible Mr. No strikes again! Bill Sali voted against a domestic spending bill that would have provided, among other things, numerous veterans benefits, and also against protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. But guess what he did vote for - defense. I guess he thinks our defense budget isn't absurd enough as it is (more than all the rest of the world combined). On the rare occasions he votes yes it is always with the Republicans.

Judith Regan, publisher of failed O.J. Simpson book fame, is reportedly suing the Murdoch News Corporation for asking her to lie about her affair with Bernie Kerik in order to protect Giuliani's presidential campaign. I heard the figure of one hundred million dollars being tossed about. Wow! A hundred million for simply being asked to lie about an affair. That strikes me as a bit opportunistic. Besides, what was she doing having an affair with Kerik, a married man, anyway, especially when he seems to have all the charm of a sawed-off shotgun. There must be something to that bald man myth.

On the opportunistic front, consider the case of Walt Minnick. Minnick, a Boise insider with a personal fortune, did not run against Sali in the last election, probably because he doubted a Democrat could be elected (or perhaps he just couldn't be bothered). But now that Larry Grant demonstrated that it was eminently possible for a Democrat to be elected the opportunistic Minnick has announced he will run. As Larry Grant is an absolutely outstanding candidate who came very close to winning last time, it seems strange to me that the democratic party would want to run someone against him and possibly split the vote. But what do I know about the machinations of Boise insiders. What they want they usually get. As for me, I'm for Larry Grant all the way. Those who do the work should reap the benefits.

The ridiculously long political season creeps on. Hillary is slipping, no she's back up, Obama is making his move, he's still behind, there's a three way tie in Iowa, Hillary is ahead, Edwards may or may not be getting anywhere, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson seem to be slowly disappearing, Gravel is gone, and Kucinich seems to be himself an Unidentified Flying Object (according to the Press). I can't wait until its over. I've almost reached the point where I don't care who wins, just mercifully end it all. There's no point in even discussing the Republican candidates who, taken together, probably couldn't run an honest local swap meet, let alone conduct a "war." That doesn't mean they couldn't (and wouldn't) start one. Opportunism, you''re name is Rudy Giuliani (I wonder why he doesn't get it legally changed to 9/11 Giuliani? Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee could have as their campaign slogan, "Don't kill 'em until after they're born." McCain's might be something like, "kill 'em all, but no torture." Ron Paul, alas, is a Libertarian nut case who appeals to the KKK. What a bunch!

LKBIQ:
"A man must swallow a toad every morning if he wishes to be sure of finding nothing still more disgusting before the day is over."
Sebastien-Roch Nicolas Chamfort

On cheating

Badly beaten small town police chief
taken from home to hospital. All
guests were too drunk to testify.

Was Hillary cheating? Hillary's campaign was reportedly caught cheating because one of her aides apparently suggested a question to a young lady that she should ask Hillary. I find this an interesting situation. First, of course, they claim Hillary didn't know about it and would not have approved it. One might well suspect that is not entirely true. But what if she did? Consider the question which asked her about global warming and what she might do about it (or some approximation of that). This seems to me a perfectly legitimate question that she could have been asked by anyone at anytime. I fail to see how this gives her any particular advantage over any other candidate. Perhaps her aides felt that it was an important enough question that it needed to be asked and feared no one would ask it. I don't approve of planted questions but I'm certain Hillary's campaign is not the only one guilty of such things. She could have planted questions like: Did you know that Giuliani's great uncle was a Mafia hit man? Or, are you aware that Obama's grandmother had an affair with George Wallace's father? Or, did you know that Senator Dodd's mother wore army shoes? Or any one of a number of ridiculous questions that would hint that something was wrong with one or another of the other candidates. But no, the question was an important one: What about global warming? Granted it was probably wrong but think FEMA or planting Gannon/Guckert as a member of the White House Press Corps. As usual, in this case, I think much ado about not much. Hillary promises not to do it again, and perhaps she really didn't know about it. An interesting case. It does seem to me that planting a fake reporter on the Press Corps or arranging a totally false Press briefing are, in fact, cheating. Planting an important question that gives you no particular advantage is at least murky.

While on the subject of cheating I will tell you about my ethical dilemna when playing solitaire. Sometimes when I want to escape other things and/or rest my weary mind, I play a game of solitaire (otherwise known as patience). The variety I play is very tough to beat and you only rarely manage to win. As a result of this, and as I am too lazy to always want to start all over again, I have developed a couple of new rules of my own to augment the original rules of the game. These augmentations make it somewhat easier to win but by no means insure that you will win. I want you to know that I follow these rules (even though I made them up) scrupulously. I never cheat on them. So if I follow these rules am I cheating? It's true I made them up, and it's true they give me a slight advantage, but if I follow them religiously is it cheating? I have pondered this for a long time and so far have failed to find what I believe to be a satisfactory answer. It is like searching for the ultimate real while raking leaves.

If Rudy Giuliani manages to get the nomination, or even worse, manages to become President, we will know that Big Juju up there is really, really mad at us. If any of the other Republican candidates win we'll know he's laughing at us. What a bunch!

LKBIQ:
"God gave to every people a cup, a cup of clay, and from this cup they drank their life...They all dipped in the water but their cups were different."
Digger Indians (quoted by Ruth Benedict).

Another gloomy sunday

Ho hum, another gloomy, slow, overcast, uneventual day at Sandhill. I know I should be grateful for a "day of rest," but, being retired, everyday is a day of rest. It gets boring, especially this time of year as there is not much doing in the garden or outside, and my tolerance for the internet and television grows dim. The only bright spot was when my neighbor stopped by to give us some delicious oyster mushrooms that he grows on logs. But then we had a long conversation, mostly political, which of course put me in such a foul state of mind I couldn't think of much else for the rest of the day. It's not that we disagree about the state of the union, quite the contrary, it's because we do agree that makes it so depressing. Will Bush/Cheney ultimately escape responsibility for their war crimes? I sincerely hope not but it doesn't look too promising. One other thing I don't like about sunday is there is no mail. Not that I get much mail, but I do look forward to it every day. You never know what might come in the mail.

Anyway, watching a bit of television stimulated me once again to reflect on tv ads. I don't know much of anything about advertising in general or tv advertising in particular, but I know what I don't like (actually, I don't like tv ads, period, but that is another story). I notice that tv advertising seems to go through phases. Like a month or so ago they were using children for most ads. Children to tell you about health care, how great the coal industry is, what Congress should do, and so on. I don't really think they ought to use children in ads at all, especially when they have them repeating things they almost certainly don't understand. This phase doesn't seem to be completely over but it is slowly diminishing as near as I can tell. Unfortunately it has been replaced by the latest fad, dressing adults up in various costumes, like vitamins (who talk to each other about how they've been improved and such), or like fruit (today I saw a talking banana but I have no idea what he has advertising, but it wasn't bananas). A few days ago it was a guy dressed like a carrot being interviewed for something-or-other. Perhaps the worst ad is one in which they have men dressed as hamburgers. Hamburgers! There are many variations on these kinds of ads. Personally, I don't know how they get anyone to agree to be in one. I can think of few things more humiliating that to be dressed up like a hamburger. But I guess aspiring actors and actresses are willing to do most anything for exposure and money. I hope this phase will pass soon. Perhaps we can have people dressed up like ping pong balls and bat them back and forth over the Grand Canyon.

I am still pondering the great Mukasy maneuver. As you know he was recommended for Attorney General and doubtless will achieve that elevated status. It reminds me of a tale they used to tell about electricity. It seems this physics professor was lecturing about electricity and he asked if anyone knew what it was. When no one offered an answer he deliberately asked a student who was asleep. Startled, the boy replied, "I knew what it was, but I forgot." The Professor, chastising him sarcastically and drawing a laugh, said, "fine, you're the only person on earth who knew what it was, and you forgot." That's the way it is with Mukasey. It seems that virtually everyone on earth knows that waterboarding is torture. It has been known as torture for hundreds of years. People have been found guilty of it in various parts of the world. Most American jurists agree that it is torture. Military people that have seen it, or actually employed it, agree that it is torture. John McCain has said it was torture. In short, virtually everyone on earth knows it is torture - except Mukasy. How can that be? Do you believe he truly doesn't know that it is torture? Or can he just not say so because that would make Bush/Cheney automatically guilty of a war crime? I suspect the latter. But if he had any decency he would have simply given up being Attorney General and told the truth (after all, it's not as if he needs a job). Schumer and Feinstein, spineless wonders that they are, supported him, reportedly saying he was the best we could expect. A man who doesn't know torture when it slaps him across the face, and who believes the President is above the law, is the best we can expect? Morality, along with common sense and decency, have disappeared in these first nightmare years of the twenty-first century. Reality itself seem to have gone out of fashion. Like I say, just another gloomy sunday.

LKBIQ:
"It is probably not to much too say that the hope of progress -- moral and intellectual as well as material -- in the future is bound up with the fortunes of science, and that every obstacle placed in the way of scientific discovery is a wrong to humanity."
Sir James George Frazer

Two books

I don't know how this book, published in 1992, escaped me for so long. Columbus and Other Cannibals by Jack D. Forbes, is the kind of book I should have turned up in my usual reading agenda. As it was published by someplace called Autonomedia that might explain it. It was actually published in some kind of pre-print edition in 1979 by an equally obscure publisher (I have been unable to locate any copy of this version). In any case I have now read it. Jack D. Forbes is an American Indian and a Professor of American Indian Studies at the University of California, Davis. This relatively brief book is one of the most devastating attacks on the nature of Western-European culture I have ever encountered. He believes that Europeans suffer from the Witeko disease (a form of cannibal psychosis). You have to understand first of all that Forbes does not mean by cannibalism the literal eating of human flesh. He means the consuming of human lives. And as Columbus certainly consumed many human lives with his cruelty and slavery he clearly fits this definition. So does any group or organization or ideology that consumes human life through exploitation, theft, imperialism, or other forms of aggression. Unfortunately, what Forbes says about the European invasion of the Americas, while exceedingly unpleasant, is mostly true. The history of contact between American Indians, Columbus, and those who followed is truly a history of brutality, theft, exploitation, and genocide. I believe this is indisputable. Forbes draws a distinction between the ways Indians interacted with the environment and each other, and the ways Europeans did. There is no doubt that Indians did live much more in harmony with nature than did the Europeans that colonized the Americas. And surely there is no culture on earth more out of sync with nature than our contemporary U.S. culture. This is an unpleasant book to read as it minces no words about conquest, slavery, exploitation, racism, and so on. Like so many such tomes dealing with American Indians it does tend to romanticize them and never even suggests there may have been problems or shortcomings in native cultures, but the contrast is so great it probably doesn't matter. Historical truths are unpleasant to confront.

I also just finished How Soccer Explains the World by Franklin Foer. While the book doesn't completely live up to its claim it does give truly enlightening descriptions of the place of soccer in different cultures of the world. Not being a fan of soccer I might not have captured all the nuances of the game and how it is integrated into various cultures, but it is very revealing even to non-soccer aficionados. I found the chapter on Muslim soccer to be particularly informative and interesting. It is quite amazing how the approaches to soccer vary from one culture to another, the Italian style being so different from the English or German, and so on. It also gives you some insight into who in the U.S. plays soccer and why. But I remain unconvinced that soccer will ever be as popular in the U.S. as it is elsewhere. American football is a formidable tradition.

I read somewhere today that China is projected to have more automobiles than the U.S. in a short while. This was in the context of a discussion of oil becoming scarce and etc. Wouldn't you think that if oil is becoming scarce, building more and more automobiles might not be a wise thing to do? You might think that China would be smart enough to learn from the mistakes of the U.S. rather than try to emulate them. The internal combustion engine has to be one of the worst inventions ever, when it comes to human welfare and intelligence. So now we are going to end up competing with China over who can have the most cars and trucks? Is this not an example of human stupidity raised to the nth power? At the very moment we should be engaged in an all out effort to get away from our dependance on oil we are engaged in a world-wide battle over control of what is left of it. The ascendance of the automobile industry over the railroads was a terrible mistake. Let us hope that the American love affair with the automobile will not persist until it becomes too late to do anything sensible about it. And let us hope that the Chinese are smart enough to learn from our mistakes. Europe has fine public transportation, both buses and trains. We could do the same if we weren't so stupid about it.

LKBIQ:
"It would be madness to let the purposes or the methods of private enterprise set the habits of the age of atomic energy."
Harold J. Laski

What's a girl to do?

The latest critical flap over Hillary has to do with her incredible success as a Senator from New York. It seems that Hillary managed to bring some 500 million plus dollars for projects in New York State. This is far more than any of the other Senators in her neck of the woods managed to get. Somehow her critics think this is bad. Hold aside for a moment what you think about a political system that operates in this way and try to see what this is all about. As I understand it (although I don't necessarily approve of it) this is precisely what a Senator is supposed to do for their state - bring in money for projects. The critics will cry "pork," and no doubt some of these projects might be pork. But I am naive enough to believe that they are not all pork. There must be projects that states do, in fact, need funding for. I don't know the particulars of Hillary's success but I find it amusing that her critics assume she has done something wrong (pork). Maybe she has, and maybe she hasn't, but she has been extraordinarily successful at what it is I understand she is supposed to be doing for her state. Some of her neighboring Senators only managed to pull in a couple of hundred million for their states (and no doubt their pork was as clean as a hog's belly). Hillary just can't do anything right. McCain, of course, who constantly rails about pork, boasts now that he got absolutely nothing (zero) for his state of Arizona. I guess that means Arizona is in such great shape they don't need any federal money for anything. If that is true, good for them. I don't think Hillary actually got a hundred million or so for a bridge to nowhere as did our illustrious Senator from Alaska but, then, she's a relative beginner.

Rudy Giuliani for President, hahahahahahahsha. Tell me it's just a bad joke. It's all beginning to surface now, Rudy's either lack of good judgment or his tolerance of crime and questionable cronies. His ex chief of police, Bernie, now indicted on some 16 counts, lying, tax evasion, mail fraud, etc., etc., etc. Bernie, of course, started out as Giuliani's driver and with Rudy's help went all the way up the scale to chief of police and nominated for the head of Homeland Security (where he lied about his record). Not surprisingly, it turns out that Bernie is only one of several other of Giuliani's cronies who have proven themselves to be just as crooked as he is. Bernie seems to be merely the tip of an iceberg of corruption. What will the good people of Iowa have to say about this "disgustin' development?" You have to give Rudy some credit, of course, for a little Italian crook he's certainly got chutzpah. Voters in Iowa can still take their pick of the Mormon, the ex Baptist minister, or the lazy movie star. Hahahahaha! Good luck boys.

The earth is littered now with the amber needles falling from the larch. The deer have become so brave they scarcely run away when they see me. The wild turkeys peck at their images in the windows so diligently I fear for the future. Our resident skunk digs little holes so routinely every night the ground looks like a miniature battlefield. At first light the sound of shotguns testifies to autumn and the annual migrations of the ducks and geese. Hunters are posing for their pictures with their deer, bear, elk and moose. Life and death continue.

LKBIQ:
"Democracy is no harlot to be picked up on the street by a man with a tommy gun."
Sir Winston Churchill

Good grief!

When kissing, she bit off a man's lip.
She hit a policeman with a pillow.
The man said they were just friends.

Good grief! Enough nonsense! I don't want Hillary to be the candidate or President. I think she is a Republican. I want Dennis Kucinich to be the candidate and President. Even so, I find myself coming to the defense of Hillary more and more. Seriously, consider what she has to put up with from her critics. First, they keep insisting she is unlikeable. While I don't want her to be President I don't find her unlikeable. Neither do a whole lot of other Americans as she is leading the polls by a large margin. Then there is the matter of her cleavage. Can you imagine the nerve of a female candidate for President revealing that she has breasts? I mean, really, it was a most modest display of cleavage, hardly a matter to criticize. It's not like she appeared in a bikini. Of all the nonsensical things she has been critcized for this one is probably the most ridiculous of all. But, of course, there is more. She laughs too much. If this was not bad enough as is, they added that her laugh is not really a laugh at all, it's a "cackle." You know, a cackle, that's what witches do. They cackle. So Hillary, who I think has a pleasant laugh, actually cackles, making her witch-like. Nice try but I don't buy it. Today, I notice, they are saying she claps too much. She claps too much? I don't even know what that could mean. Yes, she claps, usually when everyone else is clapping. She is not supposed to clap? This is typical of the absurdities her opponents resort to. Now, however, having seemingly failed to slow her down with other slurs, like cashing in on her gender, forgiving Bill, and one of the greatest critcisms of all: she is too ambitious. This is the United States of America. People are supposed to be ambitious. What's wrong with being ambitious? If you boil this down to its essentials I think it means that women are not supposed to be ambitious, especially if their ambition leads them to attempt what is usually a male only office. Personally, I find all of these criticisms petty beyond belief. But now a new one has surfaced. Obama has now declared that she is too old (she has just turned 60). I guess he thinks that when you are that old you are just "too set in your ways" to change. Not only is this one petty, it's pathetic. Let me review: Hillary is unlikeable, she laughs too much, claps too much, exposes her femininity, and is too old to be President. Too bad she is leading the pack and the puppies are nipping constantly at her heels and so far unable to bring her down. I would like to say go Hillary! But I want Kucinich. He, of course, has his own important negatives: he's too short, a vegan, a peacenik, married to a woman taller tham himself, doesn't wear really expensive clothes or have a personal fortune in the hundreds of millions, and always tells the truth. He wants to impeach Dick the Slimy and George the Dumb. Go Dennis!

It appears that a large majority of people believe waterboarding is torture. It is also the case that a great many former administrative officials also believe it is torture. In fact, the law and the UN Charter apparently say it is torture. Mukasey, Bush's choice for Attorney General, supposedly a great legal scholar and judge, doesn't know whether it is torture. Does he know which side his bread is buttered on? I think so. Will he be confirmed? Almost certainly.

Things appear to be getting a bit better in Iraq. It must be time to start a new war with Iran. However, it appears that sentiment is growing for impeachment. Will Pelosi be able to hang on to her opposition? What do you suppose Dick the Slimy has on her and Reid? Why would anyone want to protect Cheney who makes Ivan the Terrible look like a pansy? I truly wish someone would explain this to me. Perhaps I'm just too old and set in my ways. I still think there are quaint ideas like right and wrong.

LKBIQ:
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know."
Mark Twain

Fabulous news of the day

The E's, celebrating their first
anniversary, were hit by a falling
600 pound cow.

The police are at it again with their toys. Now they have lasered an 82 year old mentally ill woman armed with a hammer.

Another woman was arrested and is going to court because a policeman heard her cursing her backed-up toilet. She should have shut her bathroom window before talking to her toilet.

Fabio and George Clooney almost got into a fight in a restaurant. Over a woman (she was with Fabio and apparently trying to take pictures of Clooney. Battle of the titans.

Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President. I guess there are things stranger than fiction. In fact, Robertson is one of those things. Will the endorsement of an absolute nut case help?

Seven different countries have now announced they are going to give up the dollar as their major currency. China and Russia are among them. I think Iran has already done so. Great job, Bush!

The price of oil almost reached $100 a barrel. Maybe tomorrow. The price of gas in Southern California is already $4 a gallon. Great job, Bush!

Couple in California busted for pot by the Feds even though they had state prescriptions for it. C'mon Arnie, tell 'em its only a leaf.

There is a rumor that Tucker Carlson may be fired. Not to worry, maybe he can be replaced with Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter. I understand Bill O'Reilly is still looking for a loofah.

Some of the pundits are saying Hillary has lost because of her performance in the last debate. These are the same pundits who told us previously the sky was falling.

In our little town we have a new Mayor and two new members of the City Council. These races are all non-partisan, but please note that all three are Democrats (this is a very heavy Republican stronghold). Is this a good sign?

In other good news it appears that at least for the moment the nuclear energy people are not going to get the multi-billion dollar subsidy they want. Does this mean people are coming to their senses? Probably not, it's more likely there just isn't any money. It's all been sent to Iraq.

LKBIQ:
"Sociology is the study of how the masses are being exploited by an elite Bourgeoisie."
Max Schulman (I think)

Bill Sali, "Mr. No"

Not content with his record of
ten live rattlesnakes suspended from
his teeth, J.B. goes for eleven.

Meet Bill Sali, our incredible, unbelievable, consistently negative Congressman who has to be known as "Mr. No." He votes no on everything. Even when he votes yes he is actually voting against something. Go to the Idaho County Democratic Party web site where Sali's votes are recorded. I counted 46 votes where he voted no, always in conjunction with a small minority. One (1) vote only was "yes." The yes vote was to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (thus it was actually another no vote). This has to be the strangest voting record ever seen in the House -just no on everything. I gather Sali doesn't like anything, no matter what it is. It makes me wonder if he even likes our state, nation, or even humanity. It should be obvious that anyone who votes like this is genuinely useless, if not somehow mentally challenged. Let us not make the same mistake again. Vote for Larry Grant who actually wants to do something positive for our state and nation.

I haven't figured out exactly what happened today when Kucinich brought up the issue of the impeachment of Dick the Slimy. I gather the Democrats, chicken to the core as usual, wanted to immediately table it (so as to just avoid it entirely). Republicans, who initially were voting also to table it, at the last minute reversed their votes in an attempt to embarrass Pelosi. I believe, however, it was tabled in such a way that Kucinich could bring it up again (which he should do). History is not going to look kindly on those who defended a major war criminal who had, at the time, a 9% favorable rating and a vast majority clammering for his impeachment. Kucinich also has made it clear that if he can get this going on Cheney he will also try to impeach Bush. Go Dennis!

As Schumer and Feinstein caved in to Bush (as usual) the Mukasey nomination will now go forward on an 11 to 9 vote from the committee. Thus it's not yet a done deal. But it no doubt will be as the Democrats seem unable, or at least unwilling to stand up to Bush (even though Bush's ratings are deeply in the tank, so to speak). As I have said before, I do not understand this and I wonder if history will ever be able to explain it. On the face of it, it is simply preposterous.

It certainly doesn't pay to be a Democrat, a female, and a front-runner in this race for the nomination. Now the Press is emphasizing that Hillary made a mistake during the last debate and is losing ground in the polls. I don't think she even made a mistake but even if she did it was more in the nature of a molehill than a mountain. Compare her performance on the campaign with Bush's, where his very being was a mistake and there was a laugh every minute: "is our children learning," and etc. Hillary seems to be maintaining her large lead in spite of the attempts to exaggerate her presumed misstep. It appears to me she has a great deal of support from women. I can't help but wonder, from what I know of our still racist society, if these same women will vote for a black woman as first lady. If Obama should somehow win I sincerely hope they would but I cannot completely erase the doubt in the back of my mind and what goes on in the privacy of the voting booth does not give one's true feelings away.

LKBIQ:
"The whites carry the greed disease...They need to be cured, but they don't usually mind their disease, or even recognize it, because it's all they know and their leaders encourage them in it, and many of them are beyond help."
Buffy Sainte-Marie

The Benefits of Freedom

As someone was channel surfing earlier today I momentarily caught a glimpse of our loony President. I guess during an interview of some kind. All I really heard from him was something about the benefits of freedom. I don't know exactly what he was talking about but of course it made me think of the benefits of freedom as brought to Iraq. Let's see, two million Iraqis have left their country. Another two million have had to leave their homes but have not been able to leave the country. One point one million Iraqis estimated to have died, mostly innocents, including women and children. Almost four thousand American troops dead, perhaps thirty or more thousand wounded seriously. The Iraqis are going without electricity much of the time, and water is also a serious problem. Their infrastructure has been mostly destroyed and not yet replaced. They are without adequate health care, their national treasures have been looted, and their surviving children traumatized probably for life. Many have been abused and even tortured. Some benefits! I bet the rest of the world can't wait to receive our benefits of freedom.

I just heard Keith Olberman's tirade about Bush and waterboarding. Aside from Bush, Cheney, and others in their administration there seems to be a wide consensus that waterboarding is, in fact, torture. Apparently it has been since the Spanish Inquisition and right on up until the present time, being employed both by the Nazis, the Japanese, and now in Burma, and no doubt elsewhere as well. As it is torture it is also illegal. Thus, if Bush authorized it, he committed a criminal act, and could end up in jail. No wonder Mukasey, who wants to be Bush's new Attorney General, can't come right out and say it is torture, because by doing that he would also be saying Bush was a criminal (and therefore subject to prosecution). If Mukasey really doesn't believe it is torture that is one thing, but if he knows that it is, and refuses to say so because he wants to be appointed, he is not fit for the job. Olberman believes the Bush/Cheney administration is now nothing much more than a great conspiracy to keep Bush and some of his cronies out of jail. Is Mukasey part of this conspiracy? As he also seems to believe the President can break our laws if he wishes, does that make him any better than Gonzales? It is now clear that our people have used waterboarding, and it is also clear that Bush ordered it. Is he going to get away with continuing to insist that we do not torture (because his flunky Gonzales redefined torture to exclude waterboarding)? It appears that a large majority of citizens and lawyers agree that it is torture. So will anything come of this? Don't bet on it. Schumer and Feinstein don't seem to care as they have already caved and will support Mukasey. People with the courage of no convictions.

Frankly, however terrible waterboarding and torture may be, it pales into insignificance alongside the rest of the Bush/Cheney war crimes. If Bush were to go to jail because of torturing it would be something like Capone going to jail for tax evasion. But I sincerely hope it happens. As we say, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

LKBIQ:
"This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
T. S. Eliot

Voices in the wilderness

The National Lawyers Guild recently voted overwhelmingly for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Kucinich has drafted a resolution for the impeachment of Cheney. John Conyer quite some time ago wrote up reasons for impeachment. Dozens, if not hundreds of towns and cities across the U.S. have issued proclamations in favor of impeachment. It is perfectly obvious except perhaps to the deaf, dumb, and blind (and probably not even all of them) that Bush/Cheney have committed acts that clearly constitute serious violations of law and the constitution, as well as violations of the Geneva Convention and the Charter of the U.N. So how is it that nothing has happened? Pelosi has declared impeachment "off the table," and so far, at least, it has been off the table. Kucinich is reportedly going to try to force the issue shortly but it is not at all clear what will happen. Probably nothing, as usual. There is supposed to be a Constitutional obligation to impeach a President who is out of control and violating the Constitution. But I guess that as Bush has declared the Constitution is "just a goddam piece of paper," it no longer has any relevance in the lives of U.S. citizens, Congress, or the Courts.

I confess I do not understand this. Why is it that Pelosi and so many others are protecting this criminal President and his chief henchman, Dick Cheney? What is it that seems to make them above the law and the Constitution? I don't know anything about the National Lawyers Guild, but presumably they are all lawyers. And as lawyers they presumably know something about the law, and the Constitution as well. They unanimously (I think) recommended to Congress the impeachment of Bush/Cheney. Will their recommendation fall once again on deaf ears. Will members of Congress continue to ignore the will of the public and the advice of the legal profession? And if they do so, what is the reason? I know, I know, there are those who argue it is too close to the election to bother about impeachment (this is about the most feeble argument there can be), and those who argue that it might fail (who cares if it did, it would still serve an extremely useful purpose). Interestingly enough, I don't hear anyone arguing that Bush/Cheney are not guilty (although I suppose there must be some fools out there still). We might hope that if seriously threatened with impeachment Bush/Cheney might, following Nixon, resign (but in their case probably not as neither one of them has any shred of decency or interest in the well being of our nation, and besides, they are probably worried about being tried for war crimes if they are out of office). As most of the Senators and members of the House were in some way complicit with our illegal attack on Iraq, and thus in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, perhaps they are all too afraid of the consequences that might result from taking action.

I doubt the Founding Fathers ever conceived of a situation quite as dismal as this one. I think I can hear them calling from their graves - impeach, impeach, impeach. No one seems to be listening to them either.

LKBIQ:
"In a democratic society like ours, relief must come through an aroused popular conscience that sears the conscience of the people's representatives."
Felix Frankfurter

Hillary/Kucinich/nonsense

This is Morialekafa's blog number 1000! I had no idea when I started this it would run on for so long. I think the best of Morialekafa was in the beginning when no one knew about it or read it, and before it became so political. I confess that now I have no idea who reads it, how many read it, where, why, or whatever (except for two or three individuals who seem to be pretty regular). Whoever reads it should be aware by now that it is not meant to be a scientific tome with footnotes and such. It is merely an opinion piece which by its very nature is sometimes exaggerated, openly partisan, and always open to reasonable criticism.

Bubblehead: Let's say there is an "enemy" country. And let's say there is a covert CIA agent responsible for trying to understand whatever evil intentions that enemy may be up to. And let's also say that for whatever reason that covert agent is publicly exposed in such a way as to make their work useless. Does that not benefit the enemy? And does it not constitute treason by any ordinary understanding of that term? I am by no means the first person to call the outing of Valerie Plame an act of treason and I have no reason to believe that is not an accurate accusation. And it is certainly no secret by now that Cheney, Libby, Rove, and others were responsible for it. At least you are willing to admit it was "wrong." How are we to decide just how wrong it really was? And if it was wrong should anything be done about it?

Dennis Kucinich is a very bright fellow who has well thought out positions on bringing the troops home, universal health care, the impeachment of Cheney, peace, and other things the MSM seem to think are inconsequential. Why else would they have asked him a ridiculous question about UFO's? To his credit, as usual, he tried to answer honestly: yes, he saw an unidentified object. He was not permitted time to go beyond that admission. Perhaps it did have some effect on him, whatever it might have been. As he tried to point out, Jimmy Carter and thousands of other people have seen unidentified flying objects. That fact was simply ignored in their rush to paint him as some kind of "flake." Yes, he's a vegan. And yes, he's married to a gorgeous woman much younger than he is. And yes, he's only five feet, six inches tall. And of course he knows he not going to be elected President as the MSM is going to see to it that it could never happen. But I bet they would be surprised at how many American citizens would vote for him were he to be the candidate. In fact, he's an island of sanity in a surreal world of dishonesty, greed, opportunism, and utter nonsense.

Hillary Clinton is not my favorite candidate by a long shot. However, I feel it necessary to defend her in the same way I would defend Kucinich. In spite of the attempts to claim she stumbled in the last Democratic "debate," there is no more substance to that than to Kucinich's attempt to explain his experience with UFO's. In this completely stupid format of so-called debates no one is ever given an opportunity to completely explain themselves. Thus any remark can be pounced upon by the nitwits among us to denigrate anyone. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that what Hillary would have said, given the opportunity, was that she supported Spitzer's attempt to do something about a serious problem, not necessarily that she supported the precise legislation involved. She clearly did not intend to say she supported the precise legislation involved, but, rather, the attempt to do something. These debates are a terrible way to find out anything about the candidates as they are never allowed anything more than the briefest of "sound bites" which can then be used against them as if they were actually meaningful in and of themselves. We would be far better off if each candidate was interviewed by the same person for an hour or more, period. No more 30 second answers to absurd questions, often posed for no other reason that to make the candidate look ridiculous. What is someone supposed to do with a question like, "do you guarantee that Iran will not make a nuclear bomb while you are President?" Or "will you promise to bring all the troops home within the next five minutes," or some such absurdity.

The MSM comes across as a bunch of jackals surrounding the candidates and looking for a quick kill, whereas in fact they are a bunch of castrated domestic beasts who will ultimately do the bidding of the corporate masters who own them. Hillary is their anointed candidate. The big bucks from the big players are now going to Hillary. They don't invest a lot in losers. You think it matters what you think? Fogetaboutit.

LKBIQ:
"The essence of American journalism is vulgarity divested of truth."
Sir Winston Churchill