Monday, March 31, 2008

Our Bones are Scattered - book

Drinks to 3:00 a.m., wakes up
in garbage composter, yells, is
saved, doesn’t remember.

I have just finished reading Our Bones are Scattered by Andrew Ward. This is a history of the Cawnpore massacre of 1857 in India and its terrible aftermath. If you want information on man’s inhumanity to man (and women and children), look no further. For hatred, violence, arson and murder it would be hard to beat this horrible tale of senseless bloodshed. It’s right up there with King Leopold’s Ghost which I mentioned before. Let me explain before you conclude that I am the ghoul of Bonners Ferry that I have been working on a book about savages and savagery so this type of reading is necessary. Personally, I much prefer Maugham, Steinbeck, Orwell, and Conrad.

It seems to me a President has to be truly unpopular to get booed when throwing out the first pitch of the season. But George W. Bush managed it. You have to give him credit for unbelievable chutzpah. Ordinary people in his position wouldn’t deign to show their face in public. He seems oblivious to the fact that he is despised by most of his countrymen, a talent that Hillary Clinton is apparently beginning to share.

The good people of Pennsylvania could stop this unpleasant business between Clinton and Obama. All they would have to do is vote for Obama in large numbers to send a message to Clinton that the fat lady is singing. The superdelegates could also end it right now if they would all come out and give their votes to Obama. This appears to be happening, but by a slower pace than necessary. Maybe she’s waiting until she can raise enough money to pay her bills. Nobody likes a deadbeat. Lots of people seem to like liars.

Obama should avoid bowling alleys. My son could do better than 37 in 7 frames when he was three years old. Obama in a bowling alley is like George W. at NASCAR. Please Barack, stick to hoops. Speaking of hoops, I’m rooting for UCLA. Go Bruins!

Tomorrow is April Fool’s Day. Here at Sandhill it is cold and we still have snow on the ground We usually plant potatoes, peas, and broad beans in April. I dunno about this year. Maybe before the end of the month? The deer are already around the house looking to eat the tulips. They love tulips. The wild turkeys were pecking at the window until we stuck a political sign in it. I guess they don’t like politics. Maybe it’s just democrats they don’t like.


“The truth is cruel, but it can be loved and it makes free those who have loved it.”
George Santayana

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Defining moments

Pastor tells wife he’s going to
have his computer fixed, is
found days later in strip club.

Bush says that the battle in Iraq between the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr and the government of Nouri al-Maliki is a “defining moment” in the Iraq travesty. I’m not sure if this is the 50th defining moment for Bush or the 73rd, but there have certainly been many claimed in the last eight years of this ongoing farce. Frankly, I don’t believe Bush would know a defining moment if it jumped up and bit him in the butt. Bush thinks it is a defining moment because al-Maliki’s presumably loyal government troops have taken on al-Sadr’s militia on their own. That is, without U.S. support. But they haven’t, as they did call on the U.S. for help and received it. This means the U.S. is now involved in an Iraqi civil war on the side of our puppet government, which is very cozy with Iran, the same Iran we are trying to keep out of Iraq. How else could our puppets stay in power? Oh well, defining moment, defining schmoment.

I should think that defining moments are more like the American revolution, the Civil War, the Emacipation Proclaimation, World War II, and giving women the right to vote. You know, truly important landmarks in American history. What I believe will be the next truly defining moment in American history will be the swearing in of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States. This will be the crowning achievement of the American attempt to provide equality and justice for all. We have come a long way in race relations in this country. While racism undeniably still exists it certainly is not as bad as it was. We no longer have separate bathrooms and restaurants, blacks have made great contributions to business, entertainment, sports, and other fields, they are far more visible as successful, normal people (in spite of the hatemongers like Rush, Coulter, Hannity and others), we see them now everyday in places they would never have been seen before, and we have successfully passed hate crimes legislation, and so on. But I have no doubt that lurking in the subconsciousness of many white Americans is the belief that somehow blacks are in some ways inferior. This is a paradigm that has defined Western-European and American ideology since at least the 16th century. It was responsible in large measure for the unbelievable brutality of European and American colonialism, leading to the murder, arson, rape, torture, and humiliation of untold millions in the name of salvation, civilization, and progress. If Obama is elected and sworn in it will mean, hopefully, the final step in realizing equality in America. Of course there will no doubt remain some hard-core morons, who, because they are morons, will have to have someone to pretend is worse off than they are. Eventually, even these will have to give up their nonsensical ideas of superiority. Not only will Obama’s coronation be a monumentally defining moment in America, it will also send a message, loud and clear, that we here in the U.S. are serious about seeking equality and opportunity for everyone. I fear the expectations for Obama will be so great he will not possibly be able to live up to them. But the problems facing our next President are so great, and in many ways intractable we must be patient and do our part. If we can just get rid of the wicked witch we’ll at least be on our way to solving them and restoring the U.S. to its rightful position as a beacon of hope for all and a respected member of the international community once again.

With all due respects to women and their aspirations, there is no doubt their time will come and we will soon have a female President. Women have already achieved this exalted position in many countries of the world and the idea of a woman for President is not even unusual anymore. It is unfortunate that Hillary has perhaps made it more difficult for women to seek this office but it will surely come. And it will also be a defining moment for America. I do not think it represents the same incredible landmark or defining moment as having a black President but I surely will welcome it when it comes.

“Civilization degrades the many to exalt the few.”
Amos B. Alcott

Friday, March 28, 2008

Julian Guest Blog VP and General Election Predictions

Hi, this is Julian, I’m Lew’s son. And I don’t have my own blog, but as a hopeless political junkie all my thoughts sometimes start to overwhelm me and I need to get them out, so my pa has graciously allowed me to post a guest blog on Morialekafa tonight.
I am a student at University of Washington in Seattle right now. I am gonna graduate next spring hopefully. And then I plan on going to law school eventually. But I also want to run for the state legislature, or any office, in 2010, or at the latest like 12 or 14. I am absolutely obsessed with running for office. I want to run for something so badly!!! I would die to be running for congress this year. Well, as long as Obama is at the top of the ticket. If Hillary is the presidential nominee I think congressional nominees in Idaho and the rest of the west and all swing districts can kiss their chances of going to Washington goodbye.
Anyway, I was also the county captain for the Obama Campaign in Boundary County, Idaho, where we got 76% for Obama I think. And im a delegate to the state convention in June, which I am really looking forward to.
But yeah, in this post I wanted to basically rant about how selfish the Clinton’s are and how they are ruining the democratic party(!), and talk about who I think might end up being the vice presidential selections, and finally, talk about what I think will happen in terms of the general election and the electoral college and who will win which states.

One Hillary Clinton

I was never that big a fan of the Clinton’s. But throughout the course of this campaign I have really lost the respect I once had for them. Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning this nomination without either having the superdelegates overturn the pledged delegates, which I don’t think will ever happen, because the superdelegates realize that that would tear the party apart. Or, if Obama somehow pulls some Larry Craig Minneapolis-bathroom scenario. There are a lot of people who are arguing and saying “oh, well she should stay in the race in case obama does screw up really bad, so that she can then get the nomination”. But the problem is, she can do this, that is exactly what Mike Huckabee did, respectfully staying in the race against McCain, touting his own positives, until he was mathematically eliminated. If Hillary was doing this there wouldn’t be any problem. But she isn’t, she is constantly trying to hurt Obama politically. And not usually in ways that will hurt him in the primaries, but rather in long term ways that raise his overall negatives, and will hurt him in the general election.
I think Hillary fully realizes that she will not be the nominee, but is just staying in the race to try to hurt Obama’s chances against McCain as much as possible, because she is hoping that McCain wins so she can run four years from now. Not so sound to conspiracy-theoristic. Now I don’t think that will happen anyway. I think four years from now if McCain is the incumbent people will remember how shameless she was this time around, and Kathleen Sebelius or Claire McCaskill or Mark Warner or Jim Webb or Wesley Clark will beat her anyway. But I think its clear that this is her strategy- hurt obama as much as possible, and attempt to intimidate voters and superdelegates into going for her, just in case she can somehow pull it off this time, if there are another two or three Reverend Wright incidents.
Finally, I also just wanted to stress how sick I am of all these ‘dream ticket” things people are saying. Obama and Hillary together would not be a dream ticket, they would be a disaster!!! Not just in terms of governing the country, but electorally. VPs are for the most part personality. They are there to balance things out, or to grab you a new state or two, or to reinforce the theme of your campaign. Hillary would be a horrible VP choice, bringing with her all her negatives without really helping Obama, except arguably to keep her hardcore supporters from defecting. But he would be better off picking some other woman if he is worried about losing elderly white female voters.

Which brings us to the second thing I wanted to talk about! :) Who I think will be the VP’s. First off lets look at McCain. McCain’s choice of VP is going to be fascinating. Actually both parties VP picks will be. I think they will be more important than any Vice President picks in the history of the country. And also quite likely more interesting. Because first of all we have both parties doing it, which almost never happens because theres usually an incumbent. But then also because both McCain and Obama have big problems they need to address with their vp selections.
So McCain, he has several things he needs to address. He needs to shore up support among hardcore evangelical Christians. He needs to shore up support among econonomic free-marketeers. He also needs to add some youth to the ticket. And, although I personally don’t think McCains age really should be an issue (his moms 95 and goin strong), Im sure it will end up being a big one. And then yeah, picking someone from a state he might be able to gain through the selection would be good. Leading to the first of several names that have been thrown out there- Tim Pawlenty, the gov. of Minnesota. I think that is a possibility. He’s very free market. Hes young. But I don’t think he could put Minnesota into play anyway. Similarly, McCain could pick someone from somewhere like Minnesota or New Jersey or Nevada or Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida. Or he could pick someone who is regarded as really good on the economy- a John Thune of South Dakota (I think that’s right).
The most popular choice thrown around- and the one I have been talking about since last spring, is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. He is young, good looking, gregarious, very free market libertarian-ish. But solid on abortion and also from the most southern state imagineable for the most part. He would be a great pick and is arguably the best pick if you are gambling. But yeah, the only reason some ppl say he might not is b/c Lindsay Grahan is so close with McCain and has been such a supporter and he is also from S.C. so McCain wouldn’t pick Sanford instead of him. Which I don’t put any stock into.
K, next are all the ideas that will never happen. First is Condoleeza Rice. Which I think is ridiculous. VP’s are largely just ppl who are make the ticket look better or more complete. Rice is excuse me for sounding mean, but incredibly ugly. I mean she is really really bad looking. And she is way too connected to the Bush admin. There is just no way. It would just be silly. And I don’t think it would steal any woman or black votes anyway.
There is Huckabee. I used to think that he would be VP when I thought Romney would be the nominee (and before they started hating each other). McCain could pick him but he is also hated by a lot of hardcore neo-cons cause they call him a socialist (go figure lol). And because I think his “awe shucks” routine finally started to get kind of old.
There is Romney. And I think that he is a genuine possibility. He would help out a lot in the western states. He could add mormon money to the campaign treasury (which should not be underestimated, mormons are much more powerful and rich than anyone realizes), and (maybe?) possibly get Massachusetts for McCain. Although I cant imagine Mass. Goin Republican.
But yeah, my personal pick for who I think it will be is also kind of a surprise- Kay Bailey Hutchison, the senator from Texas. She is southern- a plus. She is a good looking, handsome, likeable woman. A formidable politician. And she is very good strategically because she could help McCain steal elderly white moderate women. Problems- some Con’s view her as weak on abortion. And that she is from a state that they don’t really need to worry about. And also- she isn’t that young. But I am still gonna go with her. I think she would be a great pick for McCain.


As an obama supporter, I think it is sooo unfortunate that he cant pick like four or five VPs. Because he has so many holes he could use the VPship to fill. He has to worry about white women goin to McCain because of the sabotaging Hilary is doing. He could fill this with Claire McCaskill Sen-Missouri (the best possibility for a female president so far in American history in my opinion, apart from maybe Hutchison). I LOVE Claire McCaskill, she is amazing. She is unfortunately a senate freshmen though, which would add to the perception of lack of experience. Kathleen Sebelius- Gov. Kansas is good too. She did the dem response to Bushs last state of the union address.
I don’t think Obama will pick a woman though because I just think that might be too minority-ish unfortunately. So yeah, what else does he need? He needs to shore up the perception of being weak on Isreal- suggesting Ed Rendell, who would also shore up Pennsylvania. However Rendell is unfortunately a hardcore Hillary supporter. The other guy a lot of ppl are talking about is Bloomberg. This would be fascinating. But I think he is just too big government and anti gun and would hurt obama’s legitimate chances in western states like NM, Montana, The Dakotas, Colorado, etc.. And also the minority thing, I don’t think America is ready for Black/Jewish ticket just as they aren’t ready for a black/woman ticket.
Finally obama definitely needs to shore up his foreign policy credentials, and the whole “love for America” thing. This leads to maybe Jim Webb, who would be fantastic. But he is also a frosh senator. And some ppl think is too crucial a member of the senator already. If McCain wins this time, I would love to see Webb run in four years. But unfortunately that will be right when his first term is running out, which sets up an unfortunate dynamic. Anyway though……. This leads me to my choice
Wesley Clark- this is who I think will be the VP for Obama. I predicted the combination back in June. He is technically a Hillary Supporter. But about in as small a way as possible. I think of all the Hillary supporters he would be the easiest to cross over and be Obama’s VP. I think he helps shut down the Rev Wright thing. The inexperience thing. He helps the most of any one individual. And although I don’t think he’ll help get any one state, but I think he will help in Montana, Dakotas, Colorado, everywhere.
Similar choices would be Barry McCafrey and Tony Zinni. But neither of them are as good or have the ring to it as Obama/Clark.

Finally the one other one I think is a serious possibility is the guy who just endorsed him today- Bob Casey- hes from Pennsylvania- which would be a HUGE benefit. And he is a conservative moderate democrat – rural pro gun etc. He would be a really good pick too.

So, we have Obama/Clark against McCain Hutchison.

Three The General Election.

And here are my electoral predictions.
There is my prediction of what it would be between Obama and McCain, compared to Hillary vs. McCain.

So I found some really cool websites where you can do your own electoral map. I couldn’t save my picks on any directly. So I printed them off, scanned them, and have them for you here.

I also included some maps from this site You can find them by googling “surveys usa obama” and clicking on the first one. They have done several times, including like march 8th, polls in every single state of how each dem would be against McCain. These are the results. They are absolutely fascinating. Hilary loses to McCain in Oregon and Washington (which I don’t think will actually happen though). And they have Obama winning in North Daktoa. Which I also don’t think will end up happening, but I think shows that the upper Midwest/north/west could be open to Obama. Obama does really well in the upper Midwest, and the west. Although I think McCain will end up winning over 50% of the latino vote, hopefully showing dems that maybe giving voting rights to 20 million more of them might not be the best thing… but anyway I digress.

I think Obama McCain will shake up the map overwhelmingly. It will look drastically different than the Gore and Kerry and Dukakis maps that we are used to seeing, where dems win every state that borders water pretty much, apart from the carribean or lower atlantic.

So yeah, I think Hillary would do better in Florida, but I think it is lost to dems for at least a decade or two. Seriously. Florida is made up of old people (the majority), Jews, Cubans, and an increasing number of moderate evangelicals, and military people, particulary retired ones. That is like the exact perfect McCain electorate right there.

I think Hilary will do better in Pennsylvania than Obama. As well as New Jersey, which I think obama could very well lose. I think obama will win Virginia, and Hill wont. And maybe Missouri. I think the latinos will mean Clinton would win NewMexico but Obama wont. And I do think Hilary will have trouble in states like Wash. And Oregon, although I think she will end up winning them. And I think she will lose New Hampshire, Iowa, maybe Maine. And finally Obama could, if they get enough blacks and young ppl to turn out, could hypothetically win Mississippi and South Carolina.

So yeah, here are my predictions---- and the survey usa current poll result predictions.

Clinton vs. McCain

Obama vs. McCain

Surveys USA March 2008 Clinton vs. McCain polling state by state

Surveys USA March 2008 Obama vs. McCain polling state by state

Who's on first?


Larry Grant was here this evening, I believe his sixth time for visiting us here in the remote regions of North Idaho. It is always most refreshing to listen to someone who doesn’t just spout total nonsense like most of our contemporary politicians. I still maintain that he is an absolutely outstanding candidate for Congress and is fully deserving of our support. His grass roots campaign for the past three years has concentrated on building an organization through the counties that will last even if he should not be elected. This is like the 50 state strategy of Howard Dean and the DNC and eschews big money in favor of more individual support and grass roots volunteers. He has been criticized for not reaching out for the big bucks. These critics are wrong. Money can’t buy you love.

Anyway, let me see if I have this straight. Moqtada al-Sadr, a religious leader in the southern part of Iraq, has a very large militia that is loyal to him. He is an Iraqi nationalist and would like the U.S. out of his country. For the past few months he has observed a truce and restrained his militia. Now, weary of having his people attacked, he has called off the truce and violence has broken out once again, not only in the south, but also in parts of Bagdad. As a nationalist, and even though he is Shia, he does not answer to Iran which is also Shia. Nouri al-Maliki, our handpicked leader of Iraq, and the one we are supporting, has called for the destruction of al-Sadr’s forces, saying only the central government has legitimate power. He and his followers are also Shia, but the Shia that are all cozy with Iran. The U.S. is constantly trying to start a war with Iran and wants to prevent the Iranian from getting too influential in Iraq. So…who are we supporting in this civil war. If you answered al-Maliki you are right and you win a pink kewpie doll. But wait, there is more. There are also the Sunni who used to be in control of Iraq under the notorious leadership of Saddam Husein. We have been bribing them with arms and money to not attack us as they were wont to do previously. They do not want the Shias in power and now well armed by us, could turn on us once again, and can also fight against the Shia. But wait, there is more. There are the Kurds in the north who have traditionally been our allies. But they want independence from Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. Those countries do not want them to be independent. Turkey has therefore been attacking certain Kurdish elements who commits various acts of aggression against Turkey. We have sided with Turkey in this and sanctioned their right to invade Iraqi territory to punish Kurds. The Kurds are well organized and have their own army. They want control of Kirkuk, where most of the northern oil is. The Iraqis don’t want them to have it, but it is not very clear what they can do about it. Israel has been supportive of the Kurds because they don’t like the Iranians. Then, of course, there is Syria and Lebanon which don’t cotton to Israel, especially the Hezbollah part of Lebanon which is supposedly backed by Iran. Iran also supposedly is backing al-Maliki and his Shia followers even though al-Maliki is backed by the U.S. and doesn’t want the Iranians to ally with Iraq (or anyone else for that matter). I hope that by reading this you have a clear understanding of just who is on first. To try to put part of it more succinctly: we are now actively engaged in a civil war in Iraq on the side of al-Maliki who is allied with Iran even though we may be about to attack Iran because they someday may have the know-how to build a nuclear bomb which, stupid savages that they are, will immediately drop on Israel while reciting some of the 3000 year old poems they composed while our ancestors were still dressing in the skins of animals. All this, if you haven’t figured it out, is called American Foreign Policy. American Foreign Policy is determined by 100,000 chimpanzees playing with 100,000 computers while eating bananas.

“We’ll be a great country where the fabrics are made up of groups and loving centers.”
George W. Bush

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Can't handle the truth

Can’t handle the truth. There was some movie a few years ago that featured Jack Nicholson who played some kind of Army or Marine officer. I didn’t see this movie (I haven’t seen a movie for years except for an occasional ethnographic film) but I know it had Nicholson say the line, “you can’t handle the truth,” in a very forceful way. I only know this because they featured it on the news for quite some time. I think the line comes in handy right now when considering the Reverend Jeremiah Wright situation. Critics of Wright (and Obama) just can’t seem to let this rest. They keep playing one or more of Wright’s sermons over and over, outraged that he had the temerity to criticize America (god dam America). The vehemence with which they attack Wright and Obama seems to me not commensurate with its importance. There are many critics of America nowadays and they often say things just as bad or worse. As near as I can determine the Reverend has said nothing that hasn’t been said elsewhere and, in fact, hasn’t said anything that isn’t probably true except his rash claim that the U.S. deliberately created aids to harm blacks (even here, however, don’t forget that the Government did, in fact, deliberately bring about syphilis in blacks to see how it would play out and left it untreated). It is undeniably true that the Bush/Cheney administration deliberately lied to get us involved in an illegal “war” with Iraq. It is also undeniably true that under their direction we tortured prisoners in violation of the law and international conventions. We also killed civilians, including many women and children, in violation of the law, and have been involved in other known war crimes as well. These are the main things Reverend Wright preached against when he made his incendiary remarks, all true things that have been said before by others (but not repeated ad nauseum on television). Right wing preachers like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, and others of their ilk have said things just as bad or worse, but their outrageous statements are not played over and over again. So what is it specifically about Wright’s sermons that is so troubling to these critics? There is, of course, the obvious reason, they want to destroy Obama and they are not opposed to using blatantly racist tactics to do so. But I submit this is a problem that transcends Wright and Obama, and even transcends race itself. It has mainly to do with the simple fact that they “cannot handle the truth.” They want to continue in denial as they can’t face the truth of America’s war crimes. They don’t, or even can’t, bring themselves to admit that what we have done in Iraq is inexcusable and in principle, un-American. How could America, that beacon on the hill, that bright spot in the world, that best nation on earth, that god-fearing Christian outpost in a world of evil, have possibly have done anything wrong. But we have, and they cannot bring themselves to admit it. And they don’t want to hear about it, especially from the pulpit of an angry black preacher (even though he is an ex-Marine and the pastor of a large and respectable church). Because of this Obama has no choice but to disavow it. No prospective President of the United States, at this time, and in this context, could possibly dare say he agreed with this basic truth, because the voting public “cannot handle the truth,” and would not accept it. Truth, as we all should know by now, has no place in American politics.

It strikes me that the past few days in Iraq have revealed a most unpleasant truth. The much vaunted “surge” probably had nothing to do with the level of violence in Iraq. The level of violence is probably controlled by the Iraqis themselves, particularly by Muqtada al-Sadr and his large and effective militia. Now that he has called off the truce he observed for the past few months the violence has escalated and will continue to escalate if he desires it to do so. The surge may have had some effect in Bagdad neighborhoods but that is, at best, what it may have accomplished. But remember, millions of Iraqis have fled their country and hundreds of thousands have died. The violence would have to have somewhat subsided whether there were additional troops or not. This, coupled with al-Sadr’s truce almost certainly had more to do with the level of violence than the surge. Even the so-called safe Green Zone has been under attack in recent days. The market where McCain previously walked, aided by a hundred armed troops, helicopters and gunships, is now too dangerous for him to repeat it. So much for “success” and “progress” in Iraq. I will not be surprised to hear Bush tell us next that pigs are now flying and peace has been achieved in Palestine.

“Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid.”
Heinrich Heine

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Muddying the waters

In road rage incident, man
throws hamburger at motorist, gets
tasered and arrested for assault.

Muddying the waters. Former Presidental candidate McGovern has apparently said that America is more ready for a Black President than a woman. Wow! What a question to raise. I guess if I were a woman I’d be mighty outraged. Did you ever believe you would hear someone say Americans would prefer a black man to a white, whether woman or not? But, then, what a dismal choice. Golly, why can’t we just have a white man like we always have? On the other hand, should blacks be really proud to be elevated in status over women. I mean, really, if women are that bad, what prestige is gained by being better than that bad? I guess we’d be a lot better off if no one had raised this difficult gender/race business. Of course we might all try to grow up and recognize utter nonsense when we see it. Given the choice our questionable process has forced upon us, I would be completely happy, even more happy than that, if Obama wins the nomination and becomes President. On the other hand, I’d be delighted to have a woman President, as long as it isn’t Hillary Clinton. Unhappily, Clinton has sealed her own doom. She should never have taken those lessons from Karl Rove (and Bill). Of course McGovern, having lost big time when trying to become President, doesn’t know what he’s talking about (I heard some pundit say that). I guess if he’d won he would know? Actually, no one knows what the hell they’re talking about ‘cause there no precedent for such a situation. Further, even after one or the other is elected, no one will still know any better than they do now. Obama will not be elected because he’s black, nor will Hillary be elected because she’s a woman. Nor will either one of them lose because of their race or gender (although this might be a better bet). But this is a Presidential contest. Knowing nothing about what you are talking about has no connection with how much you talk about it. In fact, if you have to talk about it 24/7, the less you know is an advantage. If anyone knew anything the issue would not be an issue and the news (?) would be over. What would we have to talk about then? If anyone actually knew anything the entire system would fail. We’d all have to go back to scratching our heads and pitching horseshoes (I wonder how many people are aware that horses wear shoes). Anyway, if the next “war” breaks out in a few days or months there probably won’t be any election to worry about.

Somewhere, I forget where, the problem of prostitution (if, indeed, it really is a problem) has been approached by a kind of common sense idea. Selling sex is not illegal, but buying it is. Voila! Problem solved. If this works for prostitution why wouldn’t it also work for drugs? Selling drugs wouldn’t be a crime but buying them would. But, then, what would you do about drugs you can get free, marijuana, for example. Or mushrooms. Damn, there’s always a catch somewhere. Of course there is a perfectly easy and sensible solution – make drugs legal. You’d still have to get a prescription, but at least you would be dealing with a medical problem rather than a political and criminal problem. But no, this would be to sensible, we can’t have anything sensible in this country. Shucks, even if we did no one would recognize it (remember shucks, people used to talk like that. It sort of went with the horseshoe pitching).

If we don’t have enough problems with child pornography, the churches molesting children apparently almost on a daily basis, homophobia, rape and sexual assaults, we now have what is an epidemic of female school teachers in Florida having sex with their underage students. Three cases in the last few days and I think quite a few more in the past year or so. Women of from 25 to 45 having sex with boys 14 to 17. People in Florida are outraged, especially parents of the children that get involved. Everyone is demanding to know why. How can they do such a horrible thing? What’s wrong with them? They have to be punished. Etc., etc., etc. I bet I can guess what one reason is: they want sex but they don’t want aids or the clap or syphilis or something. What better way to avoid it than having sex with young people, preferably virgins. Of course it could just be they don’t like their husbands anymore, or they like some variety in their lives, or whatever. Maybe they do it for love. No, I don’t think so. Make ‘em wear the scarlet double AA. Abusive Adulterer. Put AA signs in their yards and on their license plates. Make them wear orange jump suits with the scarlet AA. Show them no mercy. But don’t arrest the Johns, people might find out. Anyway, with important stuff like this going on who has time to think about Iraq, Iran, bankruptcy, recession, depression, or the fact that our Congress is broken down by sex and age. It is truly a wondrous culture of the absurd we’re living in. Just put another shrimp on the barby (if you can afford it).

“Does it really matter what these affectionate people do—so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses.”
Mrs. Patrick Campbell

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

In vain

Bush recently said that the decision to take out Saddam Hussein was the right decision when he first did it, it was the right decision later, it’s the right decision now, and it will always be the right decision. Talk about speaking in vain! This carries the ridiculous even past the sublime.

But seriously speaking of things in vain. Bush insists that our troops have not and will not have died in vain. I would like to know that if they haven’t died in vain, what have they died for? What is it we have accomplished by this terrible and unnecessary “war?” Have we spread democracy? Have we destroyed (imaginary) weapons of mass destruction? Have we improved the lives of Iraqis? Have we inspired the rest of the Middle East to crave democracy? Have we even stolen or managed to control the oil? What? I want to know. I demand to know. I want an explanation for this absolutely murderous, criminal behavior. I don’t want to be told any longer that we are “winning,” “succeeding,” or going to be “victorious.” I want to be told the electricity and water have been restored, the displaced have returned to their homes, and yes, damn it, the untold dead have been brought back to life, and this whole miserable eight years has just been a terrible bad dream.

I guess one might say that military personnel never die in vain. If they die honorably in the service of their country, as they are asked to do, they do not die in vain. This is true whether the mission they were given was worthwhile or not. That is not up to them. But this is not the meaning Bush has in mind when he lies to the parents who have lost their sons and daughters to this awful mistake. He wants them to believe that something has been or will be accomplished. And it hasn’t and won’t. There is nothing that can come out of this illegal business after the loss of life and misery of so many that can possibly be said to have been worth it. To even suggest such a thing shows an awesome disregard for human life and suffering. Bush is so out of touch with reality, so unconcerned with death and destruction and misery beyond belief that he actually had the nerve to suggest how romantic it was to be serving in Afghanistan, and how much he would like to be joining them in this great adventure. He is, in short, a monster, inhuman in his inability to empathize with the misery of others. He might as well be back in his childhood blowing up frogs for all he understands of pain and suffering. How this borderline retarded man got elected to the Presidency of what used to be the greatest country on earth, and how he managed to serve for eight years without being impeached or imprisoned for his blatant crimes against humanity will keep historians busy and confused for many decades to come. Unfortunately for the United States and the world, given the nature of our Congress and the public, this has been simply a case of the blind and dumb leading the blind and dumb. Beer anyone?

Hillary Clinton, increasingly caught in her web of lies, half truths, and distortions, is pulling out all stops and going nuclear in her attack on Obama. I fail to see how this will win her the Presidency except, perhaps, in 2012 when it will probably be too late to matter.

“Repetition does not convert a lie into the truth.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Monday, March 24, 2008

The White Knight?

Many of us, I am sure, have been waiting and hoping for a White Knight to come along and rescue us from the disaster of Bush/Cheney. Wouldn’t it be ironic if our White Knight turned out to be half black? Of course Barack Obama may not turn out to be such a Knight, but at the moment he is basically our only choice and hope. It is certain that neither Clinton or McCain could be such a savior, as both of them are little more than a third term for Bush. Besides, Clinton has proven herself to be just as dishonest and deceptive as Bush, with her lies about NAFTA and her trips abroad. McCain, while an authentic war hero, is basically a fraud as a candidate for the Presidency. He has proven to have the courage of no convictions other than constant war. Now it has been suggested he has “senior moments.” Just what we need in the White House with his finger on the trigger, a hot-head subject to senior moments.

The campaign rhetoric must be trying for a new low of some kind. Now Richardson is Judas and Bill Clinton is Joe McCarthy, according to respective spokespersons. On the one hand I believe it is only fair for Obama to give as well as he gets, but on the other hand I hate to see the campaign degenerate so. James Carville, who referred to Richardson as Judas, is not someone to be taken seriously. After all, he’s married to Mary Matalan who has been Cheney’s flunky for years. How Carville, supposedly a staunch democrat, can be married to a Cheney supporter, defies imagination. Except when you conclude that they are both nothing but simple mercenaries in it for the money and willing and capable to do and say anything for their masters. I guess Washington D.C. is full of such people, a sad commentary on the state of American politics.

The Clinton campaign has now come up with still another creative idea to try to find some way for Hillary to get the nomination. She is behind in delegates, behind in the popular vote, behind in number of states won, and failed to get Michigan and Florida votes. She also failed to sell the idea of only some states should count (the big ones she won). So what now? She thinks the nomination should be based upon the number of electoral votes they have (she has a slight edge)! Nothing transparent about this scam. It will fail, of course, and then we’ll see just how creative she really is because there is little room left for her to attempt something else. Her claim to having more experience than Obama is also rapidly falling apart as more and more it is being revealed that she has grossly exaggerated her experience. When she finally has to concede she’ll just have to stand by and hope McCain wins the Presidency, thus giving her another chance in 2012. She has so discredited herself I doubt she could win even then, although it’s true, Americans have very short memories. Living in the depths of a depression might constantly jog it, however.

It’s bad enough that Hillary belongs to a secret “Fellowship,” along with some of the most conservative people in the country, but now her Pastor has been indicted for child molestation. There has been so much of this in churches lately I’m beginning to believe this is the main reason they exist. There seems to be a virtual epidemic of child molestation and child pornography in this country. What on earth is the matter with us? I don’t know offhand if there is much data available on this cross-culturally, but it would be most interesting to know if it is primarily an American phenomena, or perhaps a Western-European one. I rather doubt that it exists in such an important form elsewhere in the world (I could, of course, be wrong, but I don’t know how to prove it).

“The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatic atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.”
Eric Hoffer

Sunday, March 23, 2008

It ain't over...?

Caught having sex on the altar,
woman says she wanted a
spiritual and sexual experience

There is an article by Barbara Ehrenreich in the March 31st Nation magazine entitled, “Hillary’s Nasty Pastorate.” If what this article says is true, and I do not see why I should question it, it reveals Hillary Clinton for the Republican she has been hiding inside herself all these years. “Lie down with dogs and you will get fleas.” Hillary must have fleas aplenty. A secret “Fellowship,” attended by some of the most conservative individuals in the country? This makes Obama’s relationship with the Reverend Wright look completely innocent and even wholesome by comparison.

Several more taser deaths lately, including one of a 17 year old (black) boy who apparently committed the sin of being “agitated” and “walking toward an officer,” who tasered him. He later died. There have been at least two more of these laser deaths lately, probably more. How many more little kids, teen-agers, and 90 year old ladies have to die before someone takes the latest toy away from policemen that obviously don’t use them properly? This is simply unacceptable.

Whoever said “it ain’t over ‘til its over,” (Yogi?) didn’t cover all the bases. Here we have an electoral contest which is over and yet, isn’t over. How can that be? Ask Hillary Clinton when she’s going to stop changing the rules and admit that it’s over. Or perhaps for her it ain’t over ‘til she’s destroyed Obama and the democratic party, waiting for 2012. This, too, is simply unacceptable.

Why is Joe Lieberman constantly at the side of John McCain? And Linsay Graham, too, perhaps to a lesser extent? And why, given the unprecedented turnout of democratic voters this year, plus the overwhelming advantage in fundraising, does the MSM keep trying to insist that McCain might actually win the Presidency? Especially when he is proudly running as a continuation of the Bush catastrophe? I guess for the same reason they keep insisting that the race between Hillary and Obama is still a close one, in spite of the fact that Hillary can’t win? We have a very serious problem in this country, it’s called the MSM, and it’s just doing the bidding of the giant corporations that own it.

I have quoted this before but I think it is worthwhile repeating it:
“Capitalism turns men into economic cannibals, and having done so, mistakes economic cannibalism for human nature.” Edward Hyam

I think I am having an attack of “weird.” It’s like I just popped out of the womb, looked around for a moment, and realized I was almost 80 years old. What happened? Here I am in a weird house, on a weird road, in a weird county of a weird state and weird country. I have a weird wife, a weird son, three weird cats. I am surrounded by weird neighbors, weird wild turkeys and weird deer, and doomed to watch the weirdest political contest yet. I’ll go to bed and take refuge in my dreams. I used to think they were weird, but compared with the presumed reality of the moment, I don’t think so any more. Sleep tight all.

"One of the most adventurous things left to us is to go to bed. For no one can lay a hand on our dreams."
E.V. Lucas

Friday, March 21, 2008


Pastor found dead with goat rope
wrapped around neck and feet. Wife
attacked by goat. Goat is executed.

Bill Clinton did something today that I believe was one of the sleaziest, most shameful things I have seen in a very long time. In a talk, or a speech, or whatever it was, he extolled the virtues of John McCain and Hillary. One might well understand why he would speak so highly of Hillary, but why this high praise of McCain? He emphasized that McCain was a war hero, that he had given everything but his life for his country, he was an honorable man, and, more importantly, a patriot. Then he went on speaking about what good friends McCain and Hillary are, and how they both love America, and how wonderful it would be if these two patriotic Americans could face each other in the election because, although they like each other so much, they do have differences about policies, etc. Wouldn’t it be great if they could face each other “without all these other things that get mixed up in elections” (not his precise words but close enough). This is almost as interesting as wondering who is doing his hair these days. But seriously, what is this all about?

First, one might well wonder why he is praising McCain so highly in the context of a Presidential race. Why would a democrat praise a republican opponent so highly? Even if what he says about McCain is all true, what is the point of building him up so highly if he is potentially an opponent? This would seem to be a violation of the most basic rules of campaigning. And why is he emphasizing what good friends Hillary and McCain are? What benefits accrue to Hillary because she and McCain are friends? And why the emphasis on how they are both patriots and love America?

This only makes sense in the context of his ignoring Barack Obama entirely, the implication being obviously that Obama is (perhaps) not patriotic, and (perhaps) does not love America, and even more implicitly, perhaps this is because he agrees with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who (perhaps) doesn’t love America because of his sermon in which he said “God damn America,” and etc. And what are “all these other things,” that get mixed up in elections? In this context I can only take this to mean that uppity black man, Barack Obama, who is mixed up in this election. That is, standing between Hillary and Bill’s third term. Of course it also refers to racism which has (mysteriously?) become “mixed up” as well. This is most interesting. The black vote used to belong to the Clintons. But now they have almost completely lost it to Obama. So now that it no longer matters to them they can play the race card at will, throwing the blacks under the bus, and going straight for the white votes (little old white ladies and the (presumably prejudiced) white working class vote.

Hillary should have been finished some time ago. The only reason she is not is because the media want us to believe the contest is still a contest, which realistically, it is not. Hillary has virtually no chance to win, but with the media pretending it’s still a race they sell papers and ads and Hillary keeps pretending. She and Bill are so desperate they are willing to do and say anything, even though this is causing more and more thoughtful voters to detest them. I guess now that they have become so rich they no longer care. Even Bill Richardson, who owes most of his career to Bill Clinton, has now endorsed Obama and suggested that Hillary should concede. If Pelosi, Gore, Edwards, and others would join in, it would probably be over. Will they, or won’t they?

“It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.”
Albert Einstein

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Can Obama win?

I know it must sound strange to ask if Obama can win when he is ahead in delegates, the popular vote, and number of states won. And I know it is mathematically and realistically virtually impossible for Hillary to win. But Hillary doesn’t have the decency to concede and seems willing to sacrifice everything, including the democratic party, for her blind ambition (or the corporate masters). It would be one thing if it were merely Hillary, but the problem is, it isn’t just Hillary. Her campaign, McCain’s campaign, and more importantly, the MSM are all embarked on a super campaign to destroy Obama. The main way they plan to do this is by focusing incessantly on the race (and to a certain extent the religious) card. This is why they are playing sermons by the Reverend Wright over and over and over, because they believe that will turn off lots of white voters. And they might be right. Racism, as Obama pointed out in his marvelous speech, is still a problem in the U.S. Hillary, when asked if she was playing the Wright card, merely shrugged and went on to the next question. The MSM won’t let the issue die. And McCain, of course, wastes no opportunity to join the fray and criticize Obama. So even though he is ahead in the race at the moment, and even though it is virtually impossible for Hillary to overtake him, with the support of the MSM and McCain she might actually do so. To my way of thinking, such as it is, this seems ultimately self-defeating. It will turn off so many voters, especially blacks, but also young people and progressive everywhere, she will not be able to govern successfully even if she should somehow win. Fifty percent or more of the American public will despise her (as I have come to do). McCain may be Bush heavy, but Hillary is clearly Bush lite (at least), and with either of them in the Presidency you can kiss any meaningful change goodbye. According to the latest Gallup poll, nationally Hillary has recaptured the lead from Obama. You see, racism and negative campaigning works (at least in the short run). It’s like all the schoolyard bullies have come together to pick on the one lone black kid on the playground. He may win, and should win, but the odds are beginning to look tougher and tougher. Thee is one relatively easy way he could prevail, if the MSM would reveal more about Hillary's membership in the "Fellowship," and if they would play Falwell, Robertson, and Magee sermons over and over. But they won't do that, will they? Let’s show the world, once and for all, that we can overcome racism in our country. VOTE FOR OBAMA AND BE PROUD!

I confess that I continue to be totally confused and bewildered by human behavior. I know that members of the human species have moved into, and successfully live in, just about every conceivable environment on the planet, from the Arctic to the deserts, to the tropical forests, at almost every altitude and climate, and so on. Marvelous adaptations, extremely clever solutions to living, brilliant discoveries, the invention of fire, the bow and arrow, harpoon, and poison arrows, to say nothing of firearms and now even nuclear bombs. BUT WE STILL CANNOT STOP KILLING AND TORTURING AND STEALING. What is our problem? It’s a small planet. We all have to live on it together. Instead of spending all our time working on new and creative ways to destroy each other, why don’t we work on ways to live together in cooperation and peace? We now have unmanned drones we send out to kill people. We may soon have robots that can patrol the streets and engage in combat (if we don’t already have something like that). We can have unmanned tanks and computer driven cannons, and everything controlled by technology. Just think, if our “enemies” can keep up technologically, we may eventually get rid of Rambo and replace him with the war of the nerds against the geeks. The 97 pounders against the couch potatoes. But what fun would be gained from torturing robots (I bet we’ll find a way)? It is all far too much for my feeble brain to even imagine. Maybe, just for starters, we can get the hell out of Iraq and reconsider what we are doing? Naw, that would be sensible, and there is seemingly no room for sensibility in the “modern” world. Cheers.

“The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.”
G. K. Chesterton

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

What is "it?"

I know I have commented on this subject before. But as I have yet to get an answer from anyone, I would like to ask again, what is the “it?”

President pea-brain said today, on the fifth anniversary of the “war” in Iraq, that although it has been expensive it has been worth it. Madeleine Albright, when asked about the half million Iraq children killed through the sanctions, replied, it has been worth it. So what is the it, that has been worth the deaths and destruction that Bush/Cheney and others have inflicted upon humanity in the last few years? It must be exceedingly important and valuable and I truly would like to know what it is. It surely doesn’t refer to peace in the Middle East. And it wouldn’t seem to mean democracy in the Middle East either. It also pretty clearly doesn’t mean the terrorists have been defeated. It can’t mean Osama bin Laden has been captured, nor does it mean that the people of Iraq are better off now than they were. It doesn’t seem to mean that Iran has been weakened or neutralized and Israel has not yet managed to completely destroy the Palestinians. As Iraq’s electricity and water have not been restored, nor has its basic industries or manufacturing benefited so that can’t be it. No one could possibly believe that it could be the surge as the surge is just a recent failure. So…unless it refers to the price of a barrel of oil now being $110, I still can’t fathom what it is. Does anyone know? I suspect if anyone but Bush had claimed it has been a success they would have immediately been carted off to the loony bin. Bush seems to be exempt from having to display common sense, intelligence, truthfulness, or, indeed, any basic human qualities at all. The worse things get, the more deaths that occur, the longer the mayhem continues, the more he smiles and dances and clowns around. Thanks to our inept and cowardly Congress the act continues. Perhaps someday someone, somehow, will be able to explain this.

“So?” If you didn’t hear it, that’s what Dick the Slimy said upon being informed that two thirds of the American public think the “war” hasn’t been worth it. He went on to explain that one (I guess he meant the administration) can’t just go with the winds of public opinion. I don’t know what winds he has in mind as the winds have been opposed to this stupid, illegal, immoral, and unnecessary “war” from the very beginning. They may have risen a bit lately but the direction has been consistent all along. This evil man has made it repeatedly clear that he doesn’t give a damn what anyone thinks besides himself. And he’s been wrong about everything from the beginning. Really, truly, wrong, not wrong just a little bit. But again, thanks to our cowardly and inept Congress he is allowed to continue his evil ways with no interference. Never, I think, in the history of our country, has an individual been more deserving of impeachment (and arrest) than this miserable excuse for a human being. He makes Spiro Agnew look like an innocent cub scout but even he eventually had to go. Will anyone ever explain this?

A couple of pieces surfaced on the web today that deal with the question of white preachers and Hillary’s religious doings. There is no doubt that if the truth comes out about the sermons being preached by these evangelical far-right so-called religious leaders, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. will look quite sane by comparison (see Cent Uygur’ piece on Smirking Chimp). Let’s hope this investigation and comparison will continue. Hillary’s case is even more interesting as it turns out she belongs to an extremely conservative and secretive “Fellowship, also known as the “Family.” It has been suggested this is far more cult-like than most other religious organizations, and certainly more cult-like than anything about Obama’s followers (see Barbara Ehrenreich’s bit on Buzzflash today). There is supposed to be a book coming out on this later this summer. I think the Clinton campaign and others who are trying to make something of the Obama/Wright connection are going to soon regret it (unless for some reason these stories mysteriously disappear).

“I will not take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth.”
Carl Sandburg

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Obama throws down the gauntlet

In Saudi Arabia, where
burkas reign, there are
beauty contests for camels.

Obama gave a fine speech, lacking some of his best oratorical flourishes, and getting to the point: are we going to try to deal honestly with the issue of race this time or are we going to just keep the crippling divisiveness going. It was a rare honest speech, pulling no punches, making no apologies, speaking to us as adults rather than na├»ve bumpkins that will believe anyting we’re told. He didn’t throw his friend and mentor, the Reverend Wright “under the bus,” but, rather, explained their respective histories and why they felt the way they did. It was dignified, thoughtful, and to the point. I doubt it will make any difference whatsoever to the racists who are out to torpedo his campaign, but they wouldn’t support him in any case. In lieu of just playing the Wright sermons over and over again I suggest the media also play the Falwell, Robertson and Magee speeches over and over again, along with some of the other evangelical nutcases that make Wright look like a thoughtful gentleman.

Of course what is playing out in democratic politics transcends race and gender and has to do with the battle between the forces of the DLC and the DNC. Or, put differently, the battle between the Brafia wing of the democratic party and the more progressive, grass-roots wing. The DLC, as you probably know, is the Clinton big money wing, while the DNC is the Dean wing with his 50 state strategy and more citizen financed wing. With over a million contributors to Obama it seems to be working pretty well. He is, after all, ahead in delegates, the popular vote, and the number of states won. Hillary can only bring him down by trying to destroy both him and the democratic party. She seems increasingly willing to do just that. If she should succeed in this she will have the Presidency but lose her soul, along with the support of more than half of the country. Unfortunately, she will have demonstrated, once again, that blacks belong in the back of the bus. I would be all for a woman as President, but Hillary has proven to be the wrong woman.

Both McCain and Cheney are in Iraq. McCain seems to have only a dim understanding of what is happening and has to have his buddy, Lieberman, whisper what’s what into his ear. Lindsey Graham is tagging along at his heels as usual. Graham for VP, heaven forbid! Cheney continues to speak about Iraq as if he might be on the moon. He claims the invasion has been a resounding success, the surge has worked, and things are just fine. Then, as an afterthought(?)he suggested they should pass an oil bill that would allow the international oil giants to come in and develop the oil fields (let the foxes into the henhouse). I don’t think Cheney is even aware of anything that is going on in the world unless it has to do with oil. I guess greed is unbounded.

I don’t know what Obama might do if he becomes President. But I’m pretty certain he will do something to change the direction of the country, unify us, and put our train back on track. I believe his coattails will help elect democrats to Congress. I do not believe anything much would change should Hillary become Pesident, except whatever changes the corporate power structure will allow her, probably mostly some form of universal health care that will reduce costs for businesses and continue to help the insurance and pharmaceutical companies maintain their ongoing scams.

“Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room.”
Sir Winston Churchill

Monday, March 17, 2008

Incendiary language

Try as I might I cannot find anything much Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. said that I regard as untrue. And whether it is incendiary or not depends, I guess, on the position of the hearer. The one thing he apparently said that I find completely unacceptable is that the U.S. Government created AIDS to kill black people. If he indeed said this I find it not only unacceptable but downright wacky. Other than that I find that I am pretty much in agreement with his assessment of how things are in America. I suppose he didn’t have to say God damn America, but he could hardly say God bless America, could he? I mean, after all, we did impose sanctions on Iraq that killed an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children (Madeleine Albright claimed it was worth it). We did then launch an illegal and immoral pre-emptive “war” against a country that was no threat to us, an act that has resulted in perhaps as many as a million Iraqi deaths, mostly innocents, the deaths of almost 4000 of our finest young people and the maiming of thousands more, the displacement of up to four million Iraqis from their homes and country, the infliction of misery so immense that it cannot even be imagined, and torture and other war crimes galore. We are supposed to just sit back glowingly when we hear some dimwitted ghoulish politician regurgitate God bless America at every opportunity? Sorry. I find this totally unacceptable to say nothing of patently absurd. We are the killingest nation on earth at the moment, hands down. We do sell more military hardware for that purpose than any other nation on earth. We meddle in the affairs of everyone else as though we have some god-given right to manage the affairs of the world as only we see fit. The words of Reverend Wright are only incendiary because we do not want to hear them and have to acknowledge what we have become. We do have more black men in jail than in college. We are a racist country and always have been, as we are proving right now at this moment. We have condoned Israeli racism and quasi-genocide for the past forty or so years. We support dictators around the world as long as they do our bidding. We loot the planet of its resources and waste them as if there is no tomorrow (and one day soon there may well be no tomorrow). The Reverend is not saying anything that has not been said by social critics in books and articles for years, books and articles that are not widely read by members of the Brafia. The only reason Reverend Wright has become an issue is because they want to use race as an issue to bring down Obama, an instance of racism so blatant as to be laughable if it were not so important. You can thank Bill and Hillary for leading the way in this totally unprincipled attack on a good man who happens to be part black and therefore partly handicapped in his ability to strike back. Why Hillary thinks that making more people despise her is the road to the Presidency is a mystery I cannot fathom. Once when I was being put into an administrative position I did not want I asked a very wise old Hungarian man with lots of administrative experience what I could do. He said, among othr things, “you can do anything you want until someone tells you to stop.” Where are those who can tell Hillary to stop? Why are they not so telling her, as there is virtually no way she can win, and no way she could govern now even if she did win. When I first heard that she might prefer a one-time Republican President over a potentially younger Democratic one, so she could run again in 2012, I didn’t believe it. I think I believe it now. Where are wise men and women when you really need them?

Hillary has become so desperate she is now grabbing at straws. Her criticism of Obama because he said he would withdraw the troops within 16 months, and one of his advisors said he would obviously have to wait to see what was happening, somehow proves that he can’t be trusted. So he is supposed to do something that Hillary herself wouldn’t do. This kind of argument is so ridiculous it shouldn’t even be permitted. But when you don’t have much else to offer I guess you just scratch the bottom of the ludicrous barrel. For god’s sake Hillary, give it up before you end up burned at the stake.

“God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.”

Sunday, March 16, 2008

We're hitting rock bottom

I didn’t blog last two nights because the first night we were on the way to Seattle. Last night I started to write but because of a technical problem I couldn’t save it.
Anyway, small loss. I also have had little chance to see much news. What I did see has been hilarious. The campaigns for the single most important job on earth have now been reduced to endless discussions of whose preacher is the wackiest. Can it get any more pathetic? The MSM seem to have decided that Obama is the one who should receive the most attention and they grilled him over and over and forced him to say he repudiated his minister’s words. I don’t know what all it is that the Reverend said, but from what they kept featuring on the news didn’t strike me as all that bad: Hillary is not a little black boy (true), raised by a single mother (true), who got ignored by cab drivers because she was black (true), and who lived in a culture controlled by rich white people (also true). Apparently he also said at one time that the U.S. has always been a racist society and likes racism better than religion (arguably true). Somewhere I heard that he also said that we (the U.S.) had unconscionably attacked another country and were killing innocent women and children (true), and so on. At some point he once said that cruse ships throw away more food in a day than people in Port-a-Prince see in a month (this, too, is probably true). Frankly, I can't honestly take exception to most of what he says. I think I heard someone claim that he said we (whites, I guess) created aids to kill black people (I didn't hear this so have no idea if he said it or not. I guess he could have). If he indeed said that, then I believe he is just as wacky as the rest of the religious nuts we have in this country. And if the problem is he is mixing politics and religion, so be it. Fallwell, Robertson, and the rest of the evangelicals have been doing it for years. None of these churches should be getting tax breaks of any kind, especially now that there is not even a pretense of being apolitical. Of course if you are a candidate for office in the U.S. you have to go to some church or other and pretend to be a believer because otherwise you couldn’t even be considered for office (there are just far too many nutcases in the U.S.). Obama claims he never heard any bad stuff in the sermons he heard. This seems to me unlikely, but obviously he can’t agree to the truth about the U.S. because “we can’t stand the truth.” What would you expect to hear in a black church? How wonderful things have been and are for blacks? It would be interesting to know what kind of crap Hillary’s minister dishes out every Sunday. It would also be interesting to see her tax returns. Does McCain even go to church? And how is it we don’t hear as much about Magee who seems to be even worse than Wright. Oh well, fussing about religious nuts will keep us occupied for a time. And thanks for the tornado in Atlanta, that will keep us from having to hear anymore about Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel and the Palestinians, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Darfur, etc., the recession, and truth and justice in general. And we are not in a recession, Bush said so. The surge has worked and the economy is strong. God is in his heavens and all is well, except that George W. Bush is a borderline retarded lunatic. But what the hell, he’s only the President doing the bidding of Rasputin and the corporations that control the world (and will soon have managed to corral all the money there is). So in a word, kwitzyerdambellyachin.

Seattle. The skies are overcast and it has been raining off and on for the past two days. We had lunch at Emmit’s Oyster Bar, an ancient restaurant across from the Pike Place Market created long ago by Emmit Watson who was a local Seattle columnist of some note, when I lived here years ago. It is very different now. Far more people, more traffic, more sirens, more confusion, and, alas, more inflation. Gasoline in particular is more expensive here than even in Bonners Ferry. The food available in the restaurants and markets is outstanding but will soon be too expensive for we mere mortals. But it remains beautiful, green and lush thanks to the rain. The camellias are just beginning to bloom, pansies and other flowers are everywhere. It used to be a great place to live. Now it’s a great place to visit.

This business with Obama and his church is about as slick a job of roviating as there is. First they emphasize that Obama is black and might have a problem through the idiotic racist comments of Ferraro. Now they drag in Obama's black church and some of his sermons. Black churches clearly are not altogether similar with white churches and obviously the messages are going to be different, and clearly perceived by whites as different. These differences are obviously fertile ground for more racism. Now that the race card is being played big time it obvioulsy is not going away. And Obama is obviously not in a position to attack the first white woman to have a chance to be President. It's a classic case of racism, "hit the black, he can't, or doesn't dare, hit back." It's like the whole history of the black experience being replayed in the 21st century. This is sad beyond belief. It is exactly what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been talking about in his sermons. Will we ever see the day when a black person successfully takes anything away from a white? I thought we might up until now, but Hillary's commitment to racism and divisiveness threatens to keep us mired in the deep south forever. Will she ever drink out of the same fountain?

“A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy.”
Benjamin Disraeli

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Hillary, it's over. You've lost.

There is no “battle for the nomination” that the MSM keep touting. The battle is over. Clinton lost. According to the math of the situation Obama is ahead and, barring some divine intervention, is going to stay ahead. Therefore, Clinton has lost. She cannot possible win enough delegates and winning the popular vote is such a long-shot as to hardly be worth bothering about. The only way Clinton can win now is through some form of trickery or illegality. But were she to win this way she would still lose. She started out with half the country disliking her (I don’t want to say “hating” her), and the way she has decided to run her campaign means that many more people are going to dislike her. Blacks, especially, will be outraged, but so will many of the current Obama supporters, whether black or not. It is almost certainly the case that if she became President under such cloudy circumstances, she would not be able to control the Congress and would, in effect, be pretty useless as President. The Clinton campaign has managed to raise the race card, big time, and it now will not go away, no matter what happens with ditzy Geraldine. It appears that even in Ohio much of her success was due to her bald-faced lying about her support or non-support of NAFTA. She didn’t really win Texas as Obama ended up with more delegates. Even if she somehow gets Michigan and Florida to re-vote she can’t possibly gain enough delegates. She wants the Michigan and Florida delegates seated as is, which is so blatantly unfair that it is not going to happen. If they re-vote, Obama is not going to lose out on all the delegates. Even if she wins three or four of the remaining states, she still cannot win. In short, it’s over. All she can do now is try to ruin Obama and may do so at the expense of the democratic party. Face up to it, Hillary, you have fouled your own nest, and you’re going down. You will not be President, and even if you were, you would have little or no support from an overwhelming portion of the American public. Give it up. You’re being beaten fair and square (if you have any conception of fair and square). Why wait until you have to produce your tax records, that will just make things worse. Tell Geraldine you love her, but thanks and no thanks. Tell Penn to get lost. Tell Bill you’re sorry he won’t have a third term. And now that you and Bill have become rich maybe you should come out of the closet and admit to being members of the Brafia. Take a long vacation with the Bush’s.

The Pentagon has decided not to release the latest report, based upon an analysis of 600,000 documents, that demonstrates basically what we already knew – there was no connection between Sadam Hussein and the terrorists. Of course we already know now about the report. So what else is in there so embarrassing you don’t want us to know? I guess American citizens, who are paying for your unbelievable excesses, have no right to know. And go ahead, ask Congress for another few hundred billion for your buddies in the defense industries. They’ll give it to you. Birds of a feather…

No impeachment, no impeachment, no impeachment. That’s fine. Let’s just wait until they’re out of office and arrest them for war crimes. What? No arrests? Why not? Have you not even any vestiges of sanity and decency left? Well, at least the nightmare years may be coming to an end. If we can just keep them from attacking Iran for completely made-up reasons perhaps we can survive until 2009.

“No society ever seems to have succumbed to boredom. Man has developed an obvious capacity for surviving the pompous reiteration of the commonplace.”
John Kenneth Galbraith

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Okay Geraldine

Eighth grader buys Skittles,
draws detention, and loses
his class presidency.

Okay, Geraldine, I’ve seen your letter of resignation to Clinton, and I’ve also seen at least part of your interview in which you continue to suggest that what you said about Obama was true, and claim to not be a racist. If what you said was true, that Obama is only where he is because he’s black, that assumes (or certainly implies) that he has no other credentials, that he has no past accomplishments that are worthy of consideration, that he is there simply as a result of affirmative action, a token Presidential candidate. Even a cursory view of his record at Harvard and Law School, to say nothing of his public service, should make it eminently clear that he is not just some run-of-the-mill black guy who lucked out because of affirmative action. Thus, if I wish to accept your claim to not being a racist, I have to conclude that you are simply stupid. So take your pick, racist or stupid? As you have at least a 20 year history of racist remarks (remember Jesse Jackson), I am forced to conclude that you indeed harbor racist sentiments and express them in public which makes you in any ordinary definition of the term, a racist. That you persist in this behavior, seemingly unaware of how divisive and derogatory it is, makes me conclude that you must also be stupid. As Hillary refused to fire you, or even seriously rebuke you, I conclude that she, too, is either (a) a racist, (b) stupid, or (c) ambitious to the point of blindness. Perhaps it is all three. To claim, as some are doing, that it is just too difficult to decide between a woman and a black man, is a cop-out. Vote for the best candidate, never mind their gender or color.

I must concede, however, that this race and gender business is complicated and sensitive. As it is built in to our language and culture it makes it difficult to sort it out. For example, this morning in our local newspaper one of the headlines read: “Blacks Propel Obama to Victory in Mississippi.” While I suppose it is possible I find it highly unlikely that we would see a headline that says: “Whites Propel Hillary to Victory in Kalamazoo.” Am I being overly sensitive? How about when someone says, “he only won in Mississippi because of the black vote.” He “only” won somehow implies that the black vote is inferior in some way. Would we see a headline that said, “she only won because of the votes of women over 65”? I suppose we might possibly see a headline that reads: “she only won because of Hispanics.” But it seems to me that would put down the Hispanic vote in the same way as the Black vote. What about describing a black candidate as “clean and articulate?” Would you expect to see a white candidate described in those terms? I don’t think so. Now obviously this is not as bad as “nappy headed ho’s,” or “see macaca over there,” and such, but it is discriminatory all the same. This race business is tricky.

Gender is just as tricky, maybe worse. “She was wearing a tasteful beige pants suit with a lovely and colorful silk scarf.” Would you ever see, “Bush appeared in another fine $2000 dollar suit with handmade $1000 shoes? How about “she has the look of a castrating female?” Or related, “When I see her I just unconsciously cross my legs.” How about, “she’s as tough as a man.” You would certainly never see, “he’s as tough as a woman,” now would you? How about her cackle? You ever hear about a man’s cackle? Then there is cleavage to worry about, not really a problem for men. Then there’s, “she’s really bitchy today, must be her period.” We already know, of course, that women are too emotional, they tend to lack the ability to reason, and etc., etc., etc. Consider what men were writing about women in the not too distant past:

“…All psychologists who have studied the intelligence of women, as well as poets and novelists, recognize today that they represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and that they are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without doubt there exist some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently we may neglect them entirely: (Gustav LeBon, quoted in Langness, 2005:54).

Darwin, himself:
“It is generally admitted that with women the power of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.” (quoted in Langness, 2005:55).

You see, we’ve come a long way, baby, or have we?

“We are here and it is now. Further than that all human knowledge is moonshine.”
H.L. Mencken

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Geraldine is right

Fourteen year old drunken driver,
sans license, crashes van with
mother passed out in front seat.

Geraldine Ferraro is absolutely right about Obama. He would not be where he is if he were not black. HE WOULD BE THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT ALREADY!!! Does anyone believe that a white candidate who had won 14 elections out of 17, who was ahead in delegates, ahead in states won, and ahead in the overall popular vote, would not by now be picked as the candidate? If so, you must be living in the same fantasyland as George W. Bush, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, and Hillary Clinton. Clinton looks to me like she is becoming a combination of Captains Queeg and Ahab. She is slowly deteriorating before our eyes, slipping farther and farther into delusions of impossible grandeur. In her desperation she has stopped even pretending she will not stoop to the race card. Unless she repudiates Ferraro she is admitting it. I fear my admiration for her in the past has now been destroyed forever. It’s true, she’ll do and say anything to get elected, even when her chances now are less than zilch. Oh, and by the way Geraldine, “they’re” not after you because you’re white (whoever “they” are). They’re after you because you’re a stupid, white, female racist with a big mouth, apparently still living in the past. Obama won Mississippi handily largely on the strength of the black vote. I fully expect Hillary to now claim that black votes aren’t as important as white votes, just like small states aren’t as important as big states, and caucus votes aren’t as important as primary votes, and no one or party is as important as Queen Hillary.

One thing that I find upsetting, although I suppose it was predictable, is the limited number of white votes Obama received in Mississippi. He has done pretty well up to now with getting a good share of the white vote, so why not in Mississippi? Why not indeed? I fear it tells us something about racial attitudes in Mississippi that, shall we say, are not exactly the same as they are in, say, Wyoming and Idaho and other states as well. Jim Crow seems to be alive and well in Mississippi. I doubt this will keep Obama from eventually being elected President, but it certainly doesn’t help.

Admiral William Fallon, the head of the Middle East Command, has suddenly resigned. He says it was not because he opposed a war with Iran, contrary to Bush’s wishes. I guess he just wants to spend more time with his family?

Baying at the moon: The U.N. and the U.S. have told Israel to stop further illegal construction in the West Bank. They will continue. Did you expect anything different? I don’t like Ralph Nader very well. And I don’t want him to run for President again. But he is completely right about the terrible tragedy being played out in Gaza. What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians in Gaza is absolutely unconscionable. No one seems to care, at least not enough to do anything about it. Israel is exempt from human decency?

Two astronomers have calculated that the earth will destruct in 7.59 billion years. Fair enough. But did they have to add that this should be an incentive for people to do something about leaving our planet? Nothing like planning ahead, I always say.

There has apparently been a rumor going around that Larry Grant did not knock on doors during his last campaign. People who know nothing should keep their mouths shut. Read the facts on Red State Rebels. And vote for Grant!

“Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them.” (In some cases this was literally true!)
Samuel Butler

Monday, March 10, 2008

Advice for Obama

Celebrates his 43rd birthday with two
armed robberies in 45 minutes. Leaves
Checks and money on the street.

Dear Barack, let an older man offer you some advice because I fear you do not fully understand what you are up against. Do not try to argue or respond to any of the illogical, unreasonable, half-truths that are being put out about you by Hillary Clinton. Her arrogant and absurd offer of the Vice-Presidency when you are actually ahead in delegates and votes, for example. Or her equally absurd claim that only she can answer the phone at 3:00 a.m. Or her pretense that the contest is basically equal, or that caucus delegates are different, or that she isn’t sure you’re not a Muslim, and so on. The specifics of what she is saying are not the problem. The very essence of her strategy lies in the unreason and illogic itself. Put in its simplest form, she is trying to drive you crazy. She is going to repeat her illogical sayings over and over, and the more you try to argue with her, or employ any form of logic or reason, the more she will continue to do the same. She will use her illogic as a cudgel to beat you into submission. You will ultimately become so frustrated by trying to argue with her or explain anything logically you will eventually give up. The strategy is not to convince anyone you are unworthy of being President (she knows better than that), or that you might become her Vice-President (she knows better than that), or that you might be a Muslim (she knows better than that), the strategy lies in the persistent use of the illogic and unreason itself, thus provoking you into useless attempts to show that you are not any of those things until, out of sheer desperation and frustration, you will eventually succumb This is what people mean when they say you cannot argue with him/her because they do not respond to any form of reason or logic. Your best bet, by far, is to simply ignore her absurd statements and go on the attack. Why is she claiming experience she doesn’t have? Where are the tax returns? What did she really have to do with peace in North Ireland? Why can’t she play by the rules? What has she said to European governments? Don’t allow her to drive you slowly insane because you cannot argue with her. It is completely pointless. There is method in her madness and she knows perfectly well what it is. I fear you do not. I sincerely hope you will consider this advice from someone who has had a lifetime of dealing with just this kind of controlling strategy. Good luck and best wishes. You’re the man!

Hillary claims to be a fighter. She’s not. She’s a sneak. She’s like the rat that gnaws and gnaws at the door until eventually it creates a hole. She goes at it a little bit at a time but is relentlessly persistent. If one thing doesn’t work she tries another. Her latest ploy is to claim that caucus delegates are different from pledged delegates. There is a grain of truth in this but it’s not going to fly. Then there is her claim that some states are more equal than others. Then there are her expressed doubts about Obama’s experience (that is actually greater than hers), her fantasy that she alone can be Commander-in-Chief. Then her apparent dream that the superdelegates are going to eventually pick her even though Obama has the most votes. And on and on. It’s true, she never gives up. Too bad for the democratic party. She should.

Having driven the Palestinians into a dungeon-like existence where they can be picked off at leisure, and having recently murdered another hundred or so, including the usual women and children, and having Rice browbeat Abbas into agreeing to continue negotiating anyway, Olmert has responded by announcing the construction of more illegal housing in the West Bank. Now there is a commitment to peace! Olmert, you better watch out, you may give Israelis a bad name. Not that anyone in the West seems to be paying attention.

I was going to consider whether Jonah Goldberg had a brain or not. But I decided that was too easy and the answer too obvious. It’s a waste of time reporting on the obvious. Then I thought about Dick the Slimy. We haven’t heard much from him lately. But then I decided it was better to let sleeping dogs lie. He might come out from under his rock snarling and bite someone. So let me comment briefly on the Governor of New York. I am not upset over the fact that men solicit prostitutes as I know it happens all the time. But what I can’t stand is idiocy joined with hypocrisy. Spitzer was supposed to be this holier-than-thou Prosecutor with morals superior to those of the Pope. So not only has he proven to be a hypocrite, he has also proven to be unutterably stupid. He made these “dates” using his cell phone and left a trail of evidence so obvious that a child would seemingly have known better. And he also violated the Mann Act, a federal crime of some seriousness. He may or may not have had anything to do with money laundering or organized crime. This strikes me as somewhat similar to masturbating in the closet while standing on a chair with a noose around your neck (someone actually did this). Alas, poor Elliot, we didn’t know you well enough. Goodbye you idiotic hypocrite that could have accomplished so much. Maybe you and Giuliani together can start a school for fools and hypocrites, you could train people going on to Washington D.C.

“Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Hillary the slick

Woman’s body found in dry ice, along
with porch swings, toy night goggles,
and large sake bottles w/ lamp sockets.

Well, the war and torture party just keeps on going and going. Bush has now vetoed the bill that would have done away with waterboarding and such. He says the needs of he CIA are different from those of the army, marines, etc. I bet they are, and in ways that decent people should probably not want to know. It’s not very comforting to know that our country is being controlled by ghouls who obviously have no respect for human life or dignity whatsoever. As this veto is said to be safe from Congressional action that means that as usual the Brafia is behind Bush all the way. Bush and the Brafia cling to their mad desire to torture even though the experts say it doesn’t work. I find this depressing beyond belief.

It appears that Slick Willie has schooled his spouse very well when it comes to slickness. Hillary manages to convert everything into suspicion of Obama. Witness her “not as far as I know” comment on whether or not he is a Muslim. Then when she was commenting on being called a monster she responded with “I’d like to know what they are telling other countries…” Having said that she doesn’t think Obama is Presidential material she now suggests he might be Vice-President (on her ticket). This is not only the height of arrogance but also blatantly disingenious, implying that voters can vote for her but still have Obama. So desperate has she become she is also trying to tell us that even McCain would be better than Obama. And when her own campaign became shameful she demanded Obama should be ashamed. Being behind in the race she pretends she’s ahead. Not only that, she has now told us which states are important and which are not. And of course she and Bill are masters of lowering expectations. Is she taking roviating lessons from Karl Rove in addition to those from Bill? In any case, she doesn’t miss a trick. Queen Hillary the slick. She’s rapidly approaching the almost mythological stature of Dick the Slimy himself.

Hillary is supposed to win Pennsylvania easily. I’m not so sure. If she keeps on the way she’s going with her negative campaigning she may be digging herself into a hole too deep to escape from. Of course when she isn’t obfuscating and confusing event herself her supporters do it for her. Pat Buchanan, for example, keeps insisting she won Texas. Obama received more delegates, so how does Buchanan get off repeating incessantly that she won Texas? Reality and truth are concepts totally foreign to the Brafia, a vicious criminal conspiracy. I truly fear for Obama. Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Kristol, and the rest of the ultra-conservative nuts will goad one of their dim-witted listeners into doing something desperate. What they do, and get away with day after day, is far worse than merely yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. Hatemongers, pure and simple. What is worse, they have an audience. The average I.Q. is 100. That means that half of the population have I.Q.’s of less than that. They are the supporters of this band of talk-show lunatic fanatics. Why can nothing be done about stopping the senseless slaughter in Iraq? The Brafia won’t allow it. Why are no no impeachment hearings? The Brafia won’t allow it. Why does Hillary keep running even though she cannot legally win? The Brafia has their ways. Al Capone was just tiny, tiny potatoes, compared to these guys.

“Military justice is to justice what military music is to music”
Groucho Marx

Saturday, March 08, 2008

What is the problem?

French kissing a child under 13
In Virginia not a felony, merely
makes you a sex offender.

First, to anonymous: Of course anyone who wishes to run for office in Idaho should be allowed to do so. And no, no one is “entitled” to any office. But being a simple soul, I wonder why Walt Minnick didn’t run for Congress in the last election? He is independently wealthy and could have done so. Now I wonder why he picked district one in which to run, as in Idaho we don’t have many good democratic candidates, and he could just as easily run in district two where there would be no competition. I think his explanation that he’s building a house in district one is rather feeble. So it seems to me, he is either just a rich guy who recently decided he needed a new toy (a seat in Congress), or there is some other reason he decided to run against Grant at this particular time. I cannot help but wonder just what that reason is. And I do not believe it was a decision made by Minnick independently of the boys of Boise. The idea that Minnick can beat Sali and Grant cannot strikes me as equally feeble. So welcome to Idaho, and stop pretending.

As above, I realize that I am a rather simple person, from a simple background, living in a simple small town, in a pretty simple state, in a simply remote part of the mainland U.S. I admit to not being as sophisticated as my urban cousins. So kindly explain to me what the problem is. We have two people running for the democratic nomination for the highest office in the land (probably the highest office on earth). One of them is ahead in the number of delegates, is also ahead in the popular vote (I believe), has won the most states, and, if things play out pretty much as predicted, is going to stay in the lead with the most delegates no matter what else happens. He has just won in Wyoming and is predicted to win in Mississippi as well. So, even if he loses most or all of the remaining states, including Pennsylvania, and gets no further delegates (highly unlikely if not impossible), and even if Florida and Michigan somehow get to change the rules and get back into the picture, he is still going to be ahead in delegates, if not also in the popular vote. So what is the problem? He wins, his opponent loses. But, ah, I guess what is happening is the same thing that I encountered on my kindergarten playground, and has plagued us forever. There are, unfortunately, those individuals who simply refuse to play by the rules. There appears to be no way Clinton can possibly end up with more delegates. At best she can keep Obama from having a sufficient number to win outright. The solution to this problem would presumably be found in the special delegates who could decide who wins. Many believe they should simply go along with who has the most regular delegates in which case Obama would clearly win. If they decided against the one with the most delegates, who won fair and square, there would be a majority of very outraged voters. This strikes me as most interesting. If the win is given to Obama, on the basis of having won the most delegates (and perhaps the popular vote as well), the Clinton supporters would have a right to be disappointed, but at least they would have lost fair and square. If, on the other hand, the win is awarded to Clinton, she will have won only through foul play and trickery, in which case the Obama supporters will not only be disappointed, but outraged (and rightly so). So I ask again, what is the problem? To the winner goes the spoils. Since when would they go to the loser? Color me simple minded if you will. I still believe in truth and beauty and justice. In the meanwhile Clinton seems determined to destroy the democratic party if she doesn’t get her way. I want to know (1) where did she raise the 35 million dollars so quickly, (2) why won’t she release her tax returns, (3) why won’t Bill tell us who financed his Presidential library, and (4) why won’t he release the paperwork related to his final Presidential pardons?

“When I was a boy I was told anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it.”
Clarence Darrow