Would be robber flees when
clerk insists he must call
wife before giving money.
I never believed a revolution of any kind would be possible in America. I am beginning to think otherwise. The Fascists have now become so brazen in their takeover of our democracy I’m not sure what other recourse is open to us. Now the Department of Justice has made it clear that the lawyers, Yoo, Busby, and another one whose name escapes me for the moment, the very lawyers that made a mockery of law when they authorized torture and murder, are guilty of nothing but “bad judgment,” and hence will not be held otherwise accountable for their scurrilous behavior and outrageously awful practice of the law. This was not bad judgment that mistakenly awarded Murphy’s cow to the neighbors, but, rather, bad judgment that resulted in the deaths of many people, mostly innocents. If these criminal lawyers cannot be held accountable for their despicable practice of the law, there is no chance whatsoever that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et al will ever be held accountable for their (even admitted) war crimes. This presumably final opinion was released today, Friday, February 19, 2010, because bad news is typically released on Friday and besides, the Tiger Woods apology took over the news, thus rendering this terrible opinion even less newsworthy. And make no mistake about it, this is a terrible development that even makes a complete mockery of the Nuremberg trials and international law. The fact that the Department of Justice could announce this means they have abandoned the rule of law and this administration believes they can do whatever they wish, however unconstitutional or illegal.
When you consider this development along with the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations can make unlimited financial donations to political causes, thus awarding them control over elections and policies, you can only conclude the Fascists are now so confident in their control of our country they no longer even have to pretend otherwise. If these outrageous decisions are allowed to go unchallenged and unchanged we are surely doomed to live under a Fascist government (a marriage between politics and corporations, just as Mussolini prescribed). I never believed I would see anything like this in the U.S., but as near as I can tell, it is happening right now and not even in secret.
You can see this being played out in the great Health Care charade. A number of Senators have now signed on to promote the public option, a plan that was already left for dead. There is talk of doing this through reconciliation, a process that would avoid a filibuster and could be passed just by a majority of Democrats. But notice this is just talk, with no one willing to take responsibility for actually bringing it about. Congress says they will support it if the White House does, and the White House says it will support it if the Congress does, and the (currently) 19 Senators who have signed on to support it I’m pretty certain know that it is not going to really happen (19 is a far cry from the 51 votes necessary). As the Insurance and Pharmaceutical corporations do not want a public option it is not at all likely to materialize. As a public option is overwhelmingly favored by the public, and has been all along, and if it now fails again to happen, we will know once more just who is in charge of our lives.
Somewhere today I overheard Eric Cantor say the Republicans will say “no” to the public option. That is hardly surprising, but what I did find of interest is his claim they will do so “because the American public has said “no.” Either I am terribly misinformed of what the public has been saying all along about favoring a public option, or Eric Cantor is a bald-faced liar (which I also do not find surprising). I do not believe a public option will come to pass because Democrats are far too timid to insist upon it. There are 19 Senators who claim to support it, and there are said to be a number of others who support it but have not yet publicly said so, but it is also being said Democrats are “afraid of it” because of the possible fall-out if they unilaterally pass it. They cling to the idea that it has to be bipartisan, and as long as they believe that, it will never come to be. In any case you might notice that even if a public option would somehow come to pass it would not eliminate Insurance companies from involvement in health care, the elimination of which should be the bottom line for any decent health care plan. There is no need for insurance companies to be involved in health care at all, just as there is no need for banks to be involved in student loans, but it’s the American way (of idiocy).
LKBIQ:
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
Harry S Truman
TILT:
Wildebeest take turns sleeping at night to guard against predators.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Behavior: Personal and Professional
Australian man attacks
small plane with machete
to keep wife from leaving.
Tiger Woods is supposed to speak for the first time in months about his personal problems. This event, although it has not yet happened, is being treated by the press as roughly the equivalent of the discovery of gold in the streets of Atlanta. Not only that, some individuals are already suggesting what he will say, what he might say, why he is saying it at the wrong time and the wrong place, whether he is saying it to get revenge on a sponsor that dropped him, whether it should be said at all, whether it will be sincere or not, and on and on. If anyone has suggested he should stop playing golf because of this controversy I have not seen it, and if that is not a question why is there such a fuss being made about it.
This whole business over Tiger’s personal and professional behavior highlights what I think is an interesting question, is there any relationship between one’s personal behavior and their professional behavior? There is another question that might be raised, namely, why is it in a culture that has become progressively less and less prudish over time, there should now be such a concern over the personal behavior of others? This obviously has something to do with the Press which is always desperate for something to keep our minds off whatever is really important at the moment (war, torture, the economy, stuff like that). It is, I think, an interesting situation. Think, for example, of the many examples we have had in recent years of serious misbehaving and the consequences. There is the obvious example of President Clinton, impeached but continuing in office. The scandal over Monica, had it not become public, would have had no effect whatsoever on his professional conduct in office. But because it did become public it obviously interfered with the conduct of government. It was well known that President Kennedy was a notorious womanizer, but in the pre-Clinton days the Press was much less inclined to make it public, and so it seems it had little to do with his professionalism. Is there any reason the personal behavior of important people should become a topic for public consumption? I don’t think so, unless the personal does in fact infringe upon the professional. But this is not an easy question.
For example, how about the Roman Polanski case? Here there was an actual crime committed, a crime for which he should be held accountable. But does this mean we should boycott his movies, or they are any the less fine than they would otherwise have been? Even if he were to go to jail for a time it would not indicate there was any relationship between his personal problem and his talent as a director. What about other less dramatic or important problems. I once read somewhere that Alfred Hitchcock was a mean or sadistic practical joker. I despise practical jokes, especially mean ones. Should I therefore not attend Hitchcock movies? Frank Sinatra was described once as an “obnoxious bully.” I believe he was. Should I not enjoy his singing? It would seem obvious that in cases like this it would be simply up to the individual to decide whether to boycott or not. Wilt Chamberlin once boasted of having had sex with some 2000 women (granted a somewhat ridiculous claim), I don’t recall anyone saying he should not have played basketball. Similarly, Magic Johnston also made boasts about his sexual prowess, no one suggested he should not play basketball. There are cases where the decision to boycott or punish is quite clear. Tanya Harding, for example, had her henchmen try to break her rival, Nancy Kerrigan’s leg so she could not perform on the rink. Here again, there was an actual crime and an act so disgraceful no one would pardon it. Sometimes, especially in the past, even a hint of misbehavior was enough to ruin a person’s life and career, but not often nowadays. Take Governor Sanford, for example, caught up in a blatant scandal involving his adulterous behavior, still Governor. Eliot Spitzer was not so fortunate. John Ensign of Nevada has also eluded any serious penalty for his adulterous (and worse) affair. It seems to me there is seldom any real relationship between a person’s personal behavior and their professional competence, unless, that is, it becomes public. And even when it becomes public it doesn’t necessarily affect performance. You can be pretty sure that if it becomes public it has a much greater chance of affecting performance than otherwise.
Tiger Woods extracurricular sexual behavior seems not to have affected his performance, if you look at his record. If his scandal had not become public would anyone have been the wiser? I doubt it. Will this now significantly affect his performance? I think it might, if only because many, mostly the Press, will never let up on him about it. I do not condone his transgressions in any way. I think they were pretty despicable. But he committed no crime. As undoubtedly the greatest golfer of his generation (quite likely of all time) should he not be allowed to go on pursuing his goal of outdoing Jack Nicholas? Remember, if the Republicans had not established this precedent by attacking Clinton’s personal and private behavior for the first time, we might not have even become aware of these various scandals. Are we better off for knowing? If Tiger wins the Master’s will he be forgiven? As his absence from the tour has made a huge difference in the amount of money generated by the PGA you can rest assured he will reappear, but will he be the Tiger of old or will he have been tamed by the sensationalism of the Press? What used to be the provenience only of the tabloids, in this era of infotainment has become the common obsession of what used to be the mainstream news industry, and there is no longer any right to privacy, or, apparently even common sense or decency.
LKBIQ:
In America sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it is a fact.
Marlene Dietrich
TILT:
Lobsters exhibit negligible senescence, effectively living forever, barring accidents, capture, injury or disease.
small plane with machete
to keep wife from leaving.
Tiger Woods is supposed to speak for the first time in months about his personal problems. This event, although it has not yet happened, is being treated by the press as roughly the equivalent of the discovery of gold in the streets of Atlanta. Not only that, some individuals are already suggesting what he will say, what he might say, why he is saying it at the wrong time and the wrong place, whether he is saying it to get revenge on a sponsor that dropped him, whether it should be said at all, whether it will be sincere or not, and on and on. If anyone has suggested he should stop playing golf because of this controversy I have not seen it, and if that is not a question why is there such a fuss being made about it.
This whole business over Tiger’s personal and professional behavior highlights what I think is an interesting question, is there any relationship between one’s personal behavior and their professional behavior? There is another question that might be raised, namely, why is it in a culture that has become progressively less and less prudish over time, there should now be such a concern over the personal behavior of others? This obviously has something to do with the Press which is always desperate for something to keep our minds off whatever is really important at the moment (war, torture, the economy, stuff like that). It is, I think, an interesting situation. Think, for example, of the many examples we have had in recent years of serious misbehaving and the consequences. There is the obvious example of President Clinton, impeached but continuing in office. The scandal over Monica, had it not become public, would have had no effect whatsoever on his professional conduct in office. But because it did become public it obviously interfered with the conduct of government. It was well known that President Kennedy was a notorious womanizer, but in the pre-Clinton days the Press was much less inclined to make it public, and so it seems it had little to do with his professionalism. Is there any reason the personal behavior of important people should become a topic for public consumption? I don’t think so, unless the personal does in fact infringe upon the professional. But this is not an easy question.
For example, how about the Roman Polanski case? Here there was an actual crime committed, a crime for which he should be held accountable. But does this mean we should boycott his movies, or they are any the less fine than they would otherwise have been? Even if he were to go to jail for a time it would not indicate there was any relationship between his personal problem and his talent as a director. What about other less dramatic or important problems. I once read somewhere that Alfred Hitchcock was a mean or sadistic practical joker. I despise practical jokes, especially mean ones. Should I therefore not attend Hitchcock movies? Frank Sinatra was described once as an “obnoxious bully.” I believe he was. Should I not enjoy his singing? It would seem obvious that in cases like this it would be simply up to the individual to decide whether to boycott or not. Wilt Chamberlin once boasted of having had sex with some 2000 women (granted a somewhat ridiculous claim), I don’t recall anyone saying he should not have played basketball. Similarly, Magic Johnston also made boasts about his sexual prowess, no one suggested he should not play basketball. There are cases where the decision to boycott or punish is quite clear. Tanya Harding, for example, had her henchmen try to break her rival, Nancy Kerrigan’s leg so she could not perform on the rink. Here again, there was an actual crime and an act so disgraceful no one would pardon it. Sometimes, especially in the past, even a hint of misbehavior was enough to ruin a person’s life and career, but not often nowadays. Take Governor Sanford, for example, caught up in a blatant scandal involving his adulterous behavior, still Governor. Eliot Spitzer was not so fortunate. John Ensign of Nevada has also eluded any serious penalty for his adulterous (and worse) affair. It seems to me there is seldom any real relationship between a person’s personal behavior and their professional competence, unless, that is, it becomes public. And even when it becomes public it doesn’t necessarily affect performance. You can be pretty sure that if it becomes public it has a much greater chance of affecting performance than otherwise.
Tiger Woods extracurricular sexual behavior seems not to have affected his performance, if you look at his record. If his scandal had not become public would anyone have been the wiser? I doubt it. Will this now significantly affect his performance? I think it might, if only because many, mostly the Press, will never let up on him about it. I do not condone his transgressions in any way. I think they were pretty despicable. But he committed no crime. As undoubtedly the greatest golfer of his generation (quite likely of all time) should he not be allowed to go on pursuing his goal of outdoing Jack Nicholas? Remember, if the Republicans had not established this precedent by attacking Clinton’s personal and private behavior for the first time, we might not have even become aware of these various scandals. Are we better off for knowing? If Tiger wins the Master’s will he be forgiven? As his absence from the tour has made a huge difference in the amount of money generated by the PGA you can rest assured he will reappear, but will he be the Tiger of old or will he have been tamed by the sensationalism of the Press? What used to be the provenience only of the tabloids, in this era of infotainment has become the common obsession of what used to be the mainstream news industry, and there is no longer any right to privacy, or, apparently even common sense or decency.
LKBIQ:
In America sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it is a fact.
Marlene Dietrich
TILT:
Lobsters exhibit negligible senescence, effectively living forever, barring accidents, capture, injury or disease.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Disgusting
Man beats lover to death
when she disparages
the size of his penis.
I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but think that American culture has become in my lifetime more and more crude, vulgar, and disgusting, especially with respect to television and movies, but probably also with the printed word as well. I don’t think of myself as particularly prudish or squeamish but perhaps I am overly so. I confess I do not like what I see on television these days, when it comes to advertising, that is. For example, I do not want to hear about people’s hemorrhoids, nor do I want to hear about their gooey, sticky, oozy dental adhesives or look into their mouths at their teeth, healthy or rotten. I also don’t enjoy watching people gargle, brush their teeth, or blow their noses. If people have trouble with pimples and acne I wish they would keep it between themselves and their doctors. If there are new discoveries in the way of tampons or maxi-pads or whatever, I do not want to hear about it. Intestinal, digestive, and colon problems I believe should be private matters, and certainly do not warrant illustrations on the television screen. Bowel movements hold absolutely no fascination for me. Corns, bunions, flat feet and rising arches are minor matters that are better left unsaid, along with athlete’s foot, and the whitening of teeth. Particularly disgusting are ads for catheters, piles, and colonoscopies, to say nothing of enemas and colon cleansings in general. Above all, men with erectile dysfunctions should certainly keep it between themselves and their doctors, and if they have organs they believe are not large enough they should keep it a secret. I think it is truly wonderful there are treatments for these disorders, but I don’t see why they should be inflicted on the general public on a daily basis. Whatever happened to the old fashioned custom of consulting your doctor when you have an ailment or problem? It seems that nowadays you are supposed to ask the doctor if you have any of these problems just in case either you or he/she missed them.
The problem of advertising has also insidiously invaded the pharmaceutical industry, thus explaining the obscenely inflated cost of the drugs we are constantly urged to ask our doctor about and preferably consume. Here again, drugs are being advertised for just about everything that exists and, I suspect, for things the pharmaceuticals just invented so they could produce yet another drug. Unfortunately, if you do ask your doctor about one or more of these drugs, you will probably get information from the pharmaceutical industry rather than your doctor, because that is where the doctor gets his information. There may be some doctors who carefully review all these claims from pharmaceuticals and try to honestly prescribe something that might work, but all too often they merely prescribe what the pharmaceuticals tell them is the latest thing. And the latest thing is probably not entirely proven effective and may, in fact, have really deleterious effects. As you are no doubt aware this happens with some frequency as apparently drugs can be put on the market before they have been adequately tested, and even if they were tested they were probably tested by the same company that manufactured them. Public health is not as important as profits. It is not only prescription drugs that are a problem, even over-the-counter drugs are often little more than placebos or outright scams. Unless you have a really conscientious doctor or pharmacist you often have no idea what you are taking and if it should be taken with anything else or not. Over-the-counter drugs and the burgeoning Health Food industry will provide you with pills for most anything. Sometimes these work and sometimes they don’t. Frankly, I’m surprised that no one as yet as devised a pill they claim will prevent mothers-in-law from visiting. There is a real problem nowadays with pain pills in particular because doctors are not completely at liberty to prescribe them as they might wish. I know of cases where doctors admitted a patient needed stronger doses than they prescribed but were afraid to prescribe them because they are monitored so carefully (it just doesn’t do to think someone might actually get high on something). This is precisely why the drug policies should be left to the medical profession rather than the politicians, and our ridiculous “war on drugs” should be abandoned.
Yes, Rachel Maddow has exposed Republicans as the most obvious and obnoxious of hypocrites. And yes, Dick Cheney is a war criminal. And yes, nuclear plants are not a solution to our energy needs, Iran is not making a nuclear bomb, Israel is the single biggest problem to peace in the Middle East, and we should certainly have a public option. It is my impression that no one really cares very much about any of these things. I do hope I am wrong.
LKBIQ:
Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket.
George Orwell
TILT:
The short-tailed weasel is sometimes called ermine when its fur is white and stoat when it is brown.
when she disparages
the size of his penis.
I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but think that American culture has become in my lifetime more and more crude, vulgar, and disgusting, especially with respect to television and movies, but probably also with the printed word as well. I don’t think of myself as particularly prudish or squeamish but perhaps I am overly so. I confess I do not like what I see on television these days, when it comes to advertising, that is. For example, I do not want to hear about people’s hemorrhoids, nor do I want to hear about their gooey, sticky, oozy dental adhesives or look into their mouths at their teeth, healthy or rotten. I also don’t enjoy watching people gargle, brush their teeth, or blow their noses. If people have trouble with pimples and acne I wish they would keep it between themselves and their doctors. If there are new discoveries in the way of tampons or maxi-pads or whatever, I do not want to hear about it. Intestinal, digestive, and colon problems I believe should be private matters, and certainly do not warrant illustrations on the television screen. Bowel movements hold absolutely no fascination for me. Corns, bunions, flat feet and rising arches are minor matters that are better left unsaid, along with athlete’s foot, and the whitening of teeth. Particularly disgusting are ads for catheters, piles, and colonoscopies, to say nothing of enemas and colon cleansings in general. Above all, men with erectile dysfunctions should certainly keep it between themselves and their doctors, and if they have organs they believe are not large enough they should keep it a secret. I think it is truly wonderful there are treatments for these disorders, but I don’t see why they should be inflicted on the general public on a daily basis. Whatever happened to the old fashioned custom of consulting your doctor when you have an ailment or problem? It seems that nowadays you are supposed to ask the doctor if you have any of these problems just in case either you or he/she missed them.
The problem of advertising has also insidiously invaded the pharmaceutical industry, thus explaining the obscenely inflated cost of the drugs we are constantly urged to ask our doctor about and preferably consume. Here again, drugs are being advertised for just about everything that exists and, I suspect, for things the pharmaceuticals just invented so they could produce yet another drug. Unfortunately, if you do ask your doctor about one or more of these drugs, you will probably get information from the pharmaceutical industry rather than your doctor, because that is where the doctor gets his information. There may be some doctors who carefully review all these claims from pharmaceuticals and try to honestly prescribe something that might work, but all too often they merely prescribe what the pharmaceuticals tell them is the latest thing. And the latest thing is probably not entirely proven effective and may, in fact, have really deleterious effects. As you are no doubt aware this happens with some frequency as apparently drugs can be put on the market before they have been adequately tested, and even if they were tested they were probably tested by the same company that manufactured them. Public health is not as important as profits. It is not only prescription drugs that are a problem, even over-the-counter drugs are often little more than placebos or outright scams. Unless you have a really conscientious doctor or pharmacist you often have no idea what you are taking and if it should be taken with anything else or not. Over-the-counter drugs and the burgeoning Health Food industry will provide you with pills for most anything. Sometimes these work and sometimes they don’t. Frankly, I’m surprised that no one as yet as devised a pill they claim will prevent mothers-in-law from visiting. There is a real problem nowadays with pain pills in particular because doctors are not completely at liberty to prescribe them as they might wish. I know of cases where doctors admitted a patient needed stronger doses than they prescribed but were afraid to prescribe them because they are monitored so carefully (it just doesn’t do to think someone might actually get high on something). This is precisely why the drug policies should be left to the medical profession rather than the politicians, and our ridiculous “war on drugs” should be abandoned.
Yes, Rachel Maddow has exposed Republicans as the most obvious and obnoxious of hypocrites. And yes, Dick Cheney is a war criminal. And yes, nuclear plants are not a solution to our energy needs, Iran is not making a nuclear bomb, Israel is the single biggest problem to peace in the Middle East, and we should certainly have a public option. It is my impression that no one really cares very much about any of these things. I do hope I am wrong.
LKBIQ:
Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket.
George Orwell
TILT:
The short-tailed weasel is sometimes called ermine when its fur is white and stoat when it is brown.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
"The Dick Cheney Syndrome"
Czech doctors leave foot-long
medical device in woman
after gynecological surgery.
I don’t mean to keep harping on the same subject. Yes, damn it, I do! Dick Cheney on Meet the Press has defended waterboarding once again. He thinks it should be continued. He also indicated that Yoo was basically instructed to create a legal opinion that would authorize torture, including waterboarding. In other words Cheney has admitted to torture and also admitted to conspiracy to torture. Why has he not been arrested and charged with war crimes? Waterboarding does not cease to become a crime just because a White House lawyer, desiring to please his boss, says it’s not, especially in an opinion that was considered so bad it was later rescinded. But Yoo keeps on shooting his mouth off about what he did and Cheney keeps boasting about waterboarding. So, is waterboarding a war crime, as it was for the Japanese who were punished for it, and as it has been so recognized in international law for a long time, or is it not? And if it is a war crime why is Cheney allowed to continue in freedom boasting about doing it? And does our Constitution and legal system not say that war crimes must be investigated wherever found? It certainly does not say war crimes should be investigated only if they occur in other nations. So what in the hell are Obama and Holder doing by ignoring this blatant example? Does this not make them complicit in such crimes? I know I am not alone in my outrage over this. How much longer can Obama and Holder continue to ignore the obvious?
Some Congressman has said that the U.S. should break the blockade on Gaza. I absolutely agree. Unless, that is, we wish to continue to be just as guilty of slow genocide as the Israelis. This cruel and unjust blockade is an international outrage. How the U.S. and Egypt can participate in it is beyond my comprehension. Apparently the Israelis share in the “Dick Cheney Syndrome,” that places them above the law and immune from the laws that govern the rest of the world. They have blatantly violated international law and thumbed their nose at the U.N. for years, mainly because the U.S. has seen fit to protect them no matter how vile their behavior or murderous their actions. We continue to speak of peace in the Middle East but behave in ways that will make peace forever impossible in that part of the world. Never mind Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, the U.S. and Israel are the real axis of evil, and have been for years.
Evan Bayh, who has long been an empty suit in the Senate, has announced he will not run for re-election. As he was predicted to win re-election with little trouble, there may be reasons for his decision we do not (and perhaps never will) know. In any case, what I find of interest here is the reason he gave for wanting to give it up. First, he said he “doesn’t love the Senate,” and second, there is too much partisanship and nothing gets done. His surprise announcement leaves the Democrats with a bit of a problem as they do not now have a candidate. Does this not show some disrespect for his party? There will be a candidate, of course, but I should think a decision of such importance should have been made in conjunction with the party. What I find of more interest, however, is the fact that Bayh said nothing about the reasons for the lack of bipartisanship and inactivity, thus making it appear it is in general a problem inherent in the “dysfunctional” Congress. I guess it didn’t occur to him that the Republicans announced after Obama’s election they wanted him to fail and were going to vote “no” on everything, a promise they have kept religiously. Given this situation it might have at least behooved Bayh to mention it. But as Evan Bayh, unlike his more famous father, is a near Republican rather than a genuine Democrat perhaps this is understandable. Some say we will miss him in the Senate. I doubt it. Oh, I almost forgot to mention it, his wife makes money working in the health care industry, which explains many of his votes on the subject.
I continue to basically like Obama and support him, if only because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. But sometimes I think he really should be called Barack Hussein O’Bonehead. If his absolutely ridiculous and useless “war” in Afghanistan, and his failure to investigate Bush/Cheney for war crimes are not bad enough, now he has decided to guarantee a 8.5 billion dollar loan for the construction of two new nuclear plants (there is a reason private industry will not finance these Frankenstein monsters without such a guarantee) . This is really stupid. There is also a reason why no new nuclear plants have been built in the last 20 years. They are dangerous, they cost far too much money to build and maintain that the taxpayers inevitably get stuck with, and, more importantly, there is no sensible solution for the waste. Personally, I believe that people who want nuclear energy plants built around the world have nothing but contempt for life in general, certainly contempt for the future of life on planet earth. I am reminded of Senator Weldon Heyburn of Idaho many years ago, when chastised for wanting to cut all the timber and leave none for the future, replied “Let Future Generations look out for themselves.” Great idea, let future generations figure out what to do with poisonous materials that cause all kinds of disease and death and have a shelf life of almost forever.
LKBIQ:
Don't get me wrong: I love nuclear energy! It's just that I prefer fusion to fission. And it just so happens that there's an enormous fusion reactor safely banked a few million miles from us. It delivers more than we could ever use in just about 8 minutes. And it's wireless!
William McDonough
TILT:
Sardines were names after the Mediterranean Island of Sardinia.
medical device in woman
after gynecological surgery.
I don’t mean to keep harping on the same subject. Yes, damn it, I do! Dick Cheney on Meet the Press has defended waterboarding once again. He thinks it should be continued. He also indicated that Yoo was basically instructed to create a legal opinion that would authorize torture, including waterboarding. In other words Cheney has admitted to torture and also admitted to conspiracy to torture. Why has he not been arrested and charged with war crimes? Waterboarding does not cease to become a crime just because a White House lawyer, desiring to please his boss, says it’s not, especially in an opinion that was considered so bad it was later rescinded. But Yoo keeps on shooting his mouth off about what he did and Cheney keeps boasting about waterboarding. So, is waterboarding a war crime, as it was for the Japanese who were punished for it, and as it has been so recognized in international law for a long time, or is it not? And if it is a war crime why is Cheney allowed to continue in freedom boasting about doing it? And does our Constitution and legal system not say that war crimes must be investigated wherever found? It certainly does not say war crimes should be investigated only if they occur in other nations. So what in the hell are Obama and Holder doing by ignoring this blatant example? Does this not make them complicit in such crimes? I know I am not alone in my outrage over this. How much longer can Obama and Holder continue to ignore the obvious?
Some Congressman has said that the U.S. should break the blockade on Gaza. I absolutely agree. Unless, that is, we wish to continue to be just as guilty of slow genocide as the Israelis. This cruel and unjust blockade is an international outrage. How the U.S. and Egypt can participate in it is beyond my comprehension. Apparently the Israelis share in the “Dick Cheney Syndrome,” that places them above the law and immune from the laws that govern the rest of the world. They have blatantly violated international law and thumbed their nose at the U.N. for years, mainly because the U.S. has seen fit to protect them no matter how vile their behavior or murderous their actions. We continue to speak of peace in the Middle East but behave in ways that will make peace forever impossible in that part of the world. Never mind Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, the U.S. and Israel are the real axis of evil, and have been for years.
Evan Bayh, who has long been an empty suit in the Senate, has announced he will not run for re-election. As he was predicted to win re-election with little trouble, there may be reasons for his decision we do not (and perhaps never will) know. In any case, what I find of interest here is the reason he gave for wanting to give it up. First, he said he “doesn’t love the Senate,” and second, there is too much partisanship and nothing gets done. His surprise announcement leaves the Democrats with a bit of a problem as they do not now have a candidate. Does this not show some disrespect for his party? There will be a candidate, of course, but I should think a decision of such importance should have been made in conjunction with the party. What I find of more interest, however, is the fact that Bayh said nothing about the reasons for the lack of bipartisanship and inactivity, thus making it appear it is in general a problem inherent in the “dysfunctional” Congress. I guess it didn’t occur to him that the Republicans announced after Obama’s election they wanted him to fail and were going to vote “no” on everything, a promise they have kept religiously. Given this situation it might have at least behooved Bayh to mention it. But as Evan Bayh, unlike his more famous father, is a near Republican rather than a genuine Democrat perhaps this is understandable. Some say we will miss him in the Senate. I doubt it. Oh, I almost forgot to mention it, his wife makes money working in the health care industry, which explains many of his votes on the subject.
I continue to basically like Obama and support him, if only because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. But sometimes I think he really should be called Barack Hussein O’Bonehead. If his absolutely ridiculous and useless “war” in Afghanistan, and his failure to investigate Bush/Cheney for war crimes are not bad enough, now he has decided to guarantee a 8.5 billion dollar loan for the construction of two new nuclear plants (there is a reason private industry will not finance these Frankenstein monsters without such a guarantee) . This is really stupid. There is also a reason why no new nuclear plants have been built in the last 20 years. They are dangerous, they cost far too much money to build and maintain that the taxpayers inevitably get stuck with, and, more importantly, there is no sensible solution for the waste. Personally, I believe that people who want nuclear energy plants built around the world have nothing but contempt for life in general, certainly contempt for the future of life on planet earth. I am reminded of Senator Weldon Heyburn of Idaho many years ago, when chastised for wanting to cut all the timber and leave none for the future, replied “Let Future Generations look out for themselves.” Great idea, let future generations figure out what to do with poisonous materials that cause all kinds of disease and death and have a shelf life of almost forever.
LKBIQ:
Don't get me wrong: I love nuclear energy! It's just that I prefer fusion to fission. And it just so happens that there's an enormous fusion reactor safely banked a few million miles from us. It delivers more than we could ever use in just about 8 minutes. And it's wireless!
William McDonough
TILT:
Sardines were names after the Mediterranean Island of Sardinia.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Unlikely Allies - book
Unlikely Allies, by Joel Richard Paul (Riverhead Books, New York, 2009)
The subtitle of this fascinating book tells you precisely what it is about: “How a Merchant, a Playwright, and a Spy Saved the American Revolution.” The specifics are found within. And what specifics they are! The Playwright and the Spy are truly larger-than-life, stranger-than-fiction characters who, acting on motives of their own, furthered the cause of the American Revolution. The Merchant, Silas Deane, who you quite likely have never heard of (unless you are a pretty serious student of the American Revolution), was an unlikely figure to have been charged with trying to get France to help America free itself from the British. Deane, the son of a blacksmith, became a successful businessman, but spoke no French, and had never been far from his home in Connecticut, when he was sent to France, even before Benjamin Franklin, to enlist French aid in the form of rifles, cannons, and the myriad other items needed to equip an as yet formed army of 30,000. Even more incredible, he was instructed to do this on credit and promises as the newly formed American Congress had no funds. How he ultimately managed to do this is a true tale to rival any fictional account, and makes history truly come to life.
Caron de Beaumarchais was a French playwright who started out and became successful as an innovative watchmaker was also a musician, but became more famous for writing The Barber of Seville. Being outspoken about things he had fallen into disfavor with the French Court. In order to re-establish himself with the King he undertook a strange assignment to recover some compromising papers the King had written that, had they become public, would have started another war with Britain which France could not have afforded (having just experienced a devastating loss to the British already). These papers were in the hands of the Chevalier d’Eon, who had once been sent to Russia disguised as a woman to spy on the Russians and who also had fallen into disfavor with the King.
The Chevalier d’Eon, a child prodigy, was also a decorated French soldier, a diplomat, and a spy. It was believed by some that d’Eon was actually a woman and at one time large bets were placed in London by some who thought so. The truth of the matter was not established until the Chevalier’s death. He/she, too, wished to re-establish a position in the Court of Louis XVI, but was loathe to give up the secret papers unless promises were made that were difficult to work out. If Beaumarchais could get the papers and return them to the King he would gain prestige and position, and if d’Eon would give them up in the proper manner he/she, too, would gain. Beaumarchais spent months in London courting the Chevalier in his attempt.
Beaumarchais had returned to France in disgrace having been imprisoned in Austria over a fantastic story he had concocted to demonstrate to Louis XVI how he had tried to save him from some embarrassment over France’s relations with that country. His persistent appeals to the King eventually resulted in a meeting with the Comte de Vergennes, the French Foreign Minister. It was Vergennes, who knew the King was being blackmailed by d’Eon, who appointed Beaumarchais to retrieve the letters, and the two of them formed a friendly relationship. Thus it was Beaumarchais who eventually convinced Vergennes that France should help the Americans with their revolution, and as Vergennes had the power to provide arms and other supplies, he secretly agreed to aid the Americans as long as it could be kept secret from the British. It was an outrageous breech of agreements between Britain and France. It was, of course, Silas Deane, who convinced Beaumarchais, whom he met in Paris, to do this. Beaumarchais agreed, not simply because he wanted to aid the revolutionaries in America but because he would make a fortune from doing dealing in the arms trade.
In order to convince the French to side with America it was necessary to convince them the Americans would win against the British. As communications took months between the continents, Deane had no idea what was happening for long periods at a time, if the revolution was succeeding or not (and it definitely was not for a long time). The strength of the American army was greatly exaggerated to impress the French and so on. Eventually Franklin arrived in Paris and this enterprise ultimately proved to be successful. But it was far more complicated and interesting than this brief account. Deane and Franklin had enemies who tried to harm them, there were British and French spies everywhere, many of the ships transporting arms and supplies were stopped by the British, it was never clear whether the poorly armed Americans would get weapons in time, and luckily they did, just in time to defeat the British at Saratoga, the greatest American victory of the war.
Beaumarchais and Deane, who had done by far the most to bring about the success of the American Revolution, both died as paupers. Deane who had been a very wealthy businessman lost everything, largely because of politics and false charges brought against him that were not corrected until many years later when his family was finally given money that was clearly owed to him by Congress. Beaumarchais, who had lived far beyond his means, was targeted during the French Revolution, fled for his life, lost his estate, was put in debtor’s prison for a time, his business and personal property was confiscated, and he died of a heart attack at 67. The Chevalier d’Eon was most important in all this by making it possible for Beaumarchais to regain position in France and thereby influence Vergennes. Having agreed to admit he/she was a woman, thereafter dress in female clothes, and thus give up her ability to embarrass the King, he/she returned to France, was provided with an expense female wardrobe, but could not adapt to the sedentary life she was forced to live. Eventually she returned to London, the French pension she had been living on was rescinded, she existed by selling off her possessions and, at 60 years of age, giving fencing lessons. At 82 she died peacefully in bed.
If, like me, you found American History as presented in school as unbelievably boring, this book will give you a much better appreciation of it. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
The subtitle of this fascinating book tells you precisely what it is about: “How a Merchant, a Playwright, and a Spy Saved the American Revolution.” The specifics are found within. And what specifics they are! The Playwright and the Spy are truly larger-than-life, stranger-than-fiction characters who, acting on motives of their own, furthered the cause of the American Revolution. The Merchant, Silas Deane, who you quite likely have never heard of (unless you are a pretty serious student of the American Revolution), was an unlikely figure to have been charged with trying to get France to help America free itself from the British. Deane, the son of a blacksmith, became a successful businessman, but spoke no French, and had never been far from his home in Connecticut, when he was sent to France, even before Benjamin Franklin, to enlist French aid in the form of rifles, cannons, and the myriad other items needed to equip an as yet formed army of 30,000. Even more incredible, he was instructed to do this on credit and promises as the newly formed American Congress had no funds. How he ultimately managed to do this is a true tale to rival any fictional account, and makes history truly come to life.
Caron de Beaumarchais was a French playwright who started out and became successful as an innovative watchmaker was also a musician, but became more famous for writing The Barber of Seville. Being outspoken about things he had fallen into disfavor with the French Court. In order to re-establish himself with the King he undertook a strange assignment to recover some compromising papers the King had written that, had they become public, would have started another war with Britain which France could not have afforded (having just experienced a devastating loss to the British already). These papers were in the hands of the Chevalier d’Eon, who had once been sent to Russia disguised as a woman to spy on the Russians and who also had fallen into disfavor with the King.
The Chevalier d’Eon, a child prodigy, was also a decorated French soldier, a diplomat, and a spy. It was believed by some that d’Eon was actually a woman and at one time large bets were placed in London by some who thought so. The truth of the matter was not established until the Chevalier’s death. He/she, too, wished to re-establish a position in the Court of Louis XVI, but was loathe to give up the secret papers unless promises were made that were difficult to work out. If Beaumarchais could get the papers and return them to the King he would gain prestige and position, and if d’Eon would give them up in the proper manner he/she, too, would gain. Beaumarchais spent months in London courting the Chevalier in his attempt.
Beaumarchais had returned to France in disgrace having been imprisoned in Austria over a fantastic story he had concocted to demonstrate to Louis XVI how he had tried to save him from some embarrassment over France’s relations with that country. His persistent appeals to the King eventually resulted in a meeting with the Comte de Vergennes, the French Foreign Minister. It was Vergennes, who knew the King was being blackmailed by d’Eon, who appointed Beaumarchais to retrieve the letters, and the two of them formed a friendly relationship. Thus it was Beaumarchais who eventually convinced Vergennes that France should help the Americans with their revolution, and as Vergennes had the power to provide arms and other supplies, he secretly agreed to aid the Americans as long as it could be kept secret from the British. It was an outrageous breech of agreements between Britain and France. It was, of course, Silas Deane, who convinced Beaumarchais, whom he met in Paris, to do this. Beaumarchais agreed, not simply because he wanted to aid the revolutionaries in America but because he would make a fortune from doing dealing in the arms trade.
In order to convince the French to side with America it was necessary to convince them the Americans would win against the British. As communications took months between the continents, Deane had no idea what was happening for long periods at a time, if the revolution was succeeding or not (and it definitely was not for a long time). The strength of the American army was greatly exaggerated to impress the French and so on. Eventually Franklin arrived in Paris and this enterprise ultimately proved to be successful. But it was far more complicated and interesting than this brief account. Deane and Franklin had enemies who tried to harm them, there were British and French spies everywhere, many of the ships transporting arms and supplies were stopped by the British, it was never clear whether the poorly armed Americans would get weapons in time, and luckily they did, just in time to defeat the British at Saratoga, the greatest American victory of the war.
Beaumarchais and Deane, who had done by far the most to bring about the success of the American Revolution, both died as paupers. Deane who had been a very wealthy businessman lost everything, largely because of politics and false charges brought against him that were not corrected until many years later when his family was finally given money that was clearly owed to him by Congress. Beaumarchais, who had lived far beyond his means, was targeted during the French Revolution, fled for his life, lost his estate, was put in debtor’s prison for a time, his business and personal property was confiscated, and he died of a heart attack at 67. The Chevalier d’Eon was most important in all this by making it possible for Beaumarchais to regain position in France and thereby influence Vergennes. Having agreed to admit he/she was a woman, thereafter dress in female clothes, and thus give up her ability to embarrass the King, he/she returned to France, was provided with an expense female wardrobe, but could not adapt to the sedentary life she was forced to live. Eventually she returned to London, the French pension she had been living on was rescinded, she existed by selling off her possessions and, at 60 years of age, giving fencing lessons. At 82 she died peacefully in bed.
If, like me, you found American History as presented in school as unbelievably boring, this book will give you a much better appreciation of it. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Courage of No Convictions?
Prince, three legged Pit Bull mix,
wins SPCA talent show in NY
by catching three baseballs.
Is President Obama a man with the courage of no convictions? I mean this is getting ridiculous. He was in favor at one time of a single-payer system for health care, but he didn’t even consider that when Congress began deliberations on health care reform. Then he was for a public option, but he has given up on that also. He knows the insurance companies are the problem but his health care plan, as it now stands, is nothing but a huge windfall for them. Refusing to stand up to the pharmaceuticals he apparently made a deal with them. When the stimulus package was put together he gave in to Republicans to include tax breaks even though it was known that they would not be useful as a stimulus. He told Israel to stop building in the West Bank but has ignored their refusal to do so. He wanted to hold the trial for the 9/11 bombers in New York but has now backed down on that. He wanted to replace Guantanamo with a prison here in the U.S. but so far has not done so and has not closed Guantanamo. He wanted the terrorists to be tried in civilian courts with Miranda rights, now it appears he is giving in on that as well. He wanted to bring about “change” but has importantly just pursued many of the Bush/Cheney policies. He is apparently in violation of U.S. law and the constitution by not pursuing our local war criminals and seemingly has no intention of ever doing so. Peace in the Middle East was to be his goal, but he has continued to unconditionally back Israel at every turn, thus insuring there can be no peace there. Although he has a majority in the House and Senate he seems to have given in to the Republicans every time they threaten to filibuster. Now he is apparently going to approve a huge loan to build a Nuclear power plant (a really stupid idea), thus presumably giving in to more corporate pressure. He allows Dick the Slimy and others to roviate him at will and does nothing to stop them. The Teabaggers and Silly Sarah tell the most outrageous lies about him and he allows them to do so without much in the way of corrections or responses. He seems to me to be a classic example of an abused housewife, the more the Republicans abuse him the more he turns to them and tries to please them. I suspect he hasn’t even quit smoking.
Now China has demanded he cancel his meeting with the Dalai Lama. It appears he is not going to do so. Hurrah, for once. He may be going to end DADT. He may be going to close Guantanamo. He may be going to bring the troops home from Iraq. He may or may not have ended torture, he seems not to have stopped renditions or secrecy. He is not, it seems to me, the leader we wanted or expected him to be. He seems to endure “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” without so much as a change of expression. Is he so unfamiliar with power that he doesn’t know how to use it? Is he by nature just a milquetoast, a woosie? Perhaps he is just a slow learner. There are signs he may be waking up to the facts of Republican abuse. I hope this is true and that it will not be too late. He has done a few, mostly minor, good things, but when it comes to the really important, even vital issues, he equivocates time and time again. This is not what the times require, nay, demand. He is, as we used to say of Bush, “all hat and no cattle,” he “talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk.” He avoids hypocrisy, not by doing the opposite of what he says, but by saying something and then doing nothing. Why do I stick with him and continue to support him? Hey, “it’s the only game in town.”
LKBIQ:
Once I make up my mind, I'm full of indecision.
Oscar Levant
TILT:
There are an estimated 158 million water buffalo in the world, almost all of them in Asia.
wins SPCA talent show in NY
by catching three baseballs.
Is President Obama a man with the courage of no convictions? I mean this is getting ridiculous. He was in favor at one time of a single-payer system for health care, but he didn’t even consider that when Congress began deliberations on health care reform. Then he was for a public option, but he has given up on that also. He knows the insurance companies are the problem but his health care plan, as it now stands, is nothing but a huge windfall for them. Refusing to stand up to the pharmaceuticals he apparently made a deal with them. When the stimulus package was put together he gave in to Republicans to include tax breaks even though it was known that they would not be useful as a stimulus. He told Israel to stop building in the West Bank but has ignored their refusal to do so. He wanted to hold the trial for the 9/11 bombers in New York but has now backed down on that. He wanted to replace Guantanamo with a prison here in the U.S. but so far has not done so and has not closed Guantanamo. He wanted the terrorists to be tried in civilian courts with Miranda rights, now it appears he is giving in on that as well. He wanted to bring about “change” but has importantly just pursued many of the Bush/Cheney policies. He is apparently in violation of U.S. law and the constitution by not pursuing our local war criminals and seemingly has no intention of ever doing so. Peace in the Middle East was to be his goal, but he has continued to unconditionally back Israel at every turn, thus insuring there can be no peace there. Although he has a majority in the House and Senate he seems to have given in to the Republicans every time they threaten to filibuster. Now he is apparently going to approve a huge loan to build a Nuclear power plant (a really stupid idea), thus presumably giving in to more corporate pressure. He allows Dick the Slimy and others to roviate him at will and does nothing to stop them. The Teabaggers and Silly Sarah tell the most outrageous lies about him and he allows them to do so without much in the way of corrections or responses. He seems to me to be a classic example of an abused housewife, the more the Republicans abuse him the more he turns to them and tries to please them. I suspect he hasn’t even quit smoking.
Now China has demanded he cancel his meeting with the Dalai Lama. It appears he is not going to do so. Hurrah, for once. He may be going to end DADT. He may be going to close Guantanamo. He may be going to bring the troops home from Iraq. He may or may not have ended torture, he seems not to have stopped renditions or secrecy. He is not, it seems to me, the leader we wanted or expected him to be. He seems to endure “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” without so much as a change of expression. Is he so unfamiliar with power that he doesn’t know how to use it? Is he by nature just a milquetoast, a woosie? Perhaps he is just a slow learner. There are signs he may be waking up to the facts of Republican abuse. I hope this is true and that it will not be too late. He has done a few, mostly minor, good things, but when it comes to the really important, even vital issues, he equivocates time and time again. This is not what the times require, nay, demand. He is, as we used to say of Bush, “all hat and no cattle,” he “talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk.” He avoids hypocrisy, not by doing the opposite of what he says, but by saying something and then doing nothing. Why do I stick with him and continue to support him? Hey, “it’s the only game in town.”
LKBIQ:
Once I make up my mind, I'm full of indecision.
Oscar Levant
TILT:
There are an estimated 158 million water buffalo in the world, almost all of them in Asia.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Gun and Horn Show
As there was very little going on today, my tai chi class was canceled, it was a bit rainy and overcast, and it is far too early to think about gardening, I decided to do something I had never done before. I went to a Gun and Horn show. It was quite an experience. These shows are popular here in North Idaho (other places, too, I guess) and we always have one or two a year. They take place at the Fairgrounds where there is suitable parking and buildings. I was amazed, first of all, to see how many cars and trucks there were. It seemed to me that there were more than there usually are at the County Fair, maybe not, but a lot. It was difficult to find a parking spot near the show but I finally found one in a particularly muddy spot. The admission for this annual or semi-annual event was $4, but if you agreed to join the NRA for $10 I guess you can get in for free (or maybe a reduced fee) next time. As I have no desire to belong to the NRA I just paid the $4. This is a three day event, they mark your hand so you can leave and return at will.
The gun show itself was in the larger of two rooms, the other set aside for the horns, where they are measured and given points and win prizes. There are mostly elk and deer horns but occasionally you might see some antelope horns as well, and maybe, much more rarely, mountain goat or mountain sheep horns. I did not see any of these today. Actually, as I have no interest in the horns, I merely glanced in at the apparently serious business being conducted there.
There are rows of tables where sellers, mostly gun dealers, display their wares. There are many items besides guns, lots of scopes, knives, ammunition, clothing, gun cases, and other things related to hunting (and also violence in general). But of course it is the guns that are the major interest, and there are lots of them of just about all descriptions. I didn’t see any brand new guns but there were many almost new, rifles and shotguns carefully displayed on the tables, marked with tags and prices, virtually any kind of gun you might wish, including military types that are clearly not meant for hunting. Many of these rifles and shotguns are antiques (not truly really old antiques but older and no longer manufactured) and the prices are often revealing. I gather there are many more collectors than I would have imagined, and they apparently think nothing of paying up to a couple of thousand dollars for an odd caliber rifle that is no longer produced, or one that is engraved or otherwise unique. There was, for example, a beautiful factory engraved .300 Savage lever action rifle (I don’t think they make these anymore) for the modest price of $1600. As I no longer hunt and have no use for such a gun I happily admired it but that was all. Although I didn’t see any today, I know there is quite a market for weapons captured in the wars. German Luger pistols, for example, sell for big bucks, and if they happen to have some German officer’s name or something, they go for even more. It’s not only Lugers that are expensive, anything that belonged to a German Officer is worth a lot of money. Mauser made lots of .25 and .32 caliber semi-automatics for the military, and even some .380.s. If any of these have the original German manufacturer’s name, or the name of an Officer, they are particularly valuable. But If you are merely interested in finding a gun for the coming hunting season, you can find it here as well. If you are a collector, this is also the place for you.
There didn’t seem to be as many handguns as rifles and shotguns, but there quite a few, both semi-automatics and revolvers. There seems to be a slight tendency here for what would be regarded as “old west” types of guns, both with respect to rifles and handguns. That is, a preponderance of old lever action rifles (often of odd calibers) and a lot of older long-barreled six shooters, mostly .45’s. But there were also quite a number of relatively new pistols, Glocks, and others. Nine mm. pistols seem to the main fashion nowadays, but many seem to prefer the more powerful .375 magnums. You can, of course, find older .32’s, and .38’s, along with .40 and .45 calibers as well (to say nothing of .22’s, .25’s, and .380’s). If you stand outside and watch there is an almost never-ending procession of people arriving with guns or leaving with them. This is, in short, quite an event.
When you realize that this particular Gun and Horn Show is actually quite a small one, and that much larger ones occur annually if not more often, in Sandpoint, Coeur d’Alene, Spokane, and other places much larger than here, the amount of trade is really quite staggering. What makes this of even greater interest is that you can buy and sell guns with no questions asked, basically making a mockery of gun control. I have never been able to understand how gun control could work in the United States, given the millions of guns, mostly unregistered, that already exist. Any serious attempt would be rather like herding cats or trying to force the genie back in the bottle. Given the number of gun owners, and the passion with which they cling to their weapons, even if guns shows were regulated somehow, it would only create a huge clandestine black market that would continue. One note of interest, perhaps, is that almost all of the dealers, as well as customers, were older people. I don’t think I saw more than half a dozen younger people in attendance. I’m not sure what to make of this, if anything. Anyway, go to a gun and horn show, it’s quite educational.
The gun show itself was in the larger of two rooms, the other set aside for the horns, where they are measured and given points and win prizes. There are mostly elk and deer horns but occasionally you might see some antelope horns as well, and maybe, much more rarely, mountain goat or mountain sheep horns. I did not see any of these today. Actually, as I have no interest in the horns, I merely glanced in at the apparently serious business being conducted there.
There are rows of tables where sellers, mostly gun dealers, display their wares. There are many items besides guns, lots of scopes, knives, ammunition, clothing, gun cases, and other things related to hunting (and also violence in general). But of course it is the guns that are the major interest, and there are lots of them of just about all descriptions. I didn’t see any brand new guns but there were many almost new, rifles and shotguns carefully displayed on the tables, marked with tags and prices, virtually any kind of gun you might wish, including military types that are clearly not meant for hunting. Many of these rifles and shotguns are antiques (not truly really old antiques but older and no longer manufactured) and the prices are often revealing. I gather there are many more collectors than I would have imagined, and they apparently think nothing of paying up to a couple of thousand dollars for an odd caliber rifle that is no longer produced, or one that is engraved or otherwise unique. There was, for example, a beautiful factory engraved .300 Savage lever action rifle (I don’t think they make these anymore) for the modest price of $1600. As I no longer hunt and have no use for such a gun I happily admired it but that was all. Although I didn’t see any today, I know there is quite a market for weapons captured in the wars. German Luger pistols, for example, sell for big bucks, and if they happen to have some German officer’s name or something, they go for even more. It’s not only Lugers that are expensive, anything that belonged to a German Officer is worth a lot of money. Mauser made lots of .25 and .32 caliber semi-automatics for the military, and even some .380.s. If any of these have the original German manufacturer’s name, or the name of an Officer, they are particularly valuable. But If you are merely interested in finding a gun for the coming hunting season, you can find it here as well. If you are a collector, this is also the place for you.
There didn’t seem to be as many handguns as rifles and shotguns, but there quite a few, both semi-automatics and revolvers. There seems to be a slight tendency here for what would be regarded as “old west” types of guns, both with respect to rifles and handguns. That is, a preponderance of old lever action rifles (often of odd calibers) and a lot of older long-barreled six shooters, mostly .45’s. But there were also quite a number of relatively new pistols, Glocks, and others. Nine mm. pistols seem to the main fashion nowadays, but many seem to prefer the more powerful .375 magnums. You can, of course, find older .32’s, and .38’s, along with .40 and .45 calibers as well (to say nothing of .22’s, .25’s, and .380’s). If you stand outside and watch there is an almost never-ending procession of people arriving with guns or leaving with them. This is, in short, quite an event.
When you realize that this particular Gun and Horn Show is actually quite a small one, and that much larger ones occur annually if not more often, in Sandpoint, Coeur d’Alene, Spokane, and other places much larger than here, the amount of trade is really quite staggering. What makes this of even greater interest is that you can buy and sell guns with no questions asked, basically making a mockery of gun control. I have never been able to understand how gun control could work in the United States, given the millions of guns, mostly unregistered, that already exist. Any serious attempt would be rather like herding cats or trying to force the genie back in the bottle. Given the number of gun owners, and the passion with which they cling to their weapons, even if guns shows were regulated somehow, it would only create a huge clandestine black market that would continue. One note of interest, perhaps, is that almost all of the dealers, as well as customers, were older people. I don’t think I saw more than half a dozen younger people in attendance. I’m not sure what to make of this, if anything. Anyway, go to a gun and horn show, it’s quite educational.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Peak Employment?
Man throws his new wife
off a cliff to her death,
she wanted an annulment.
Peak employment, I wonder if there is such a thing and, if so, are we perhaps there? I began to wonder about this a couple of days ago when I saw a headline on the web, “Can Obama create enough jobs?” I think it might be entirely possible that the answer is “no.” Prior to the Industrial Revolution there was no such thing as unemployment, and there certainly was no such thing in the small-scale cultures that existed, and in rare cases still exist. I mean, everyone had something to do, some work, hunting, gathering, baby sitting, cutting firewood, finding water, fighting enemies, and so on and on. It took everyone to insure survival for everyone. The early factories were primitive and it took a large number of workers to weave and manufacture whatever products were being made. But as time went by more and more machines were invented, making it possible to make things with fewer and fewer workers. Even during the earlier Agrarian Revolution there was still pretty much work for everyone. It took many people to plant and harvest crops, construct the larger settlements that began, look after the domesticated animals, and so on. The first vestiges of specialization were beginning, what with metal workers, jewelry makers, even priests and leaders of various kinds. Even when I was a child it still took a lot of labor to farm, most everything was still done by hand, looking after the livestock, pitching hay into the wagons, milking, churning, picking stones out of the fields, spreading manure, baking, etc. But then, of course, technology began to take over. Tractors were invented, making it possible for fewer and fewer people necessary to work on the farms. Anyway, as you know, the result of all this “progress” was “civilization” as we now know it. One person with the proper machinery can do the work of the great many more required previously. This can be seen easily in the timber industry, for example. The invention of the chain saw made an enormous difference, as did skidders and bulldozers, and the other machines that are now commonplace. In the United States in particular, where in recent years more and more jobs have been sent overseas where labor is cheaper, the overall result has been the creation of a large surplus population. There are not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. Thus, if there is to be full employment, or anything close to that, jobs will have to be created artificially. Attempts to do this, however, run into a lot of opposition, partly because of the irrational fear of socialism, partly because such jobs are not rewarding, and partly because it costs a lot of money that we may or may not have or borrow.
Surplus populations are hardly a problem only in the U.S. Just look around the world at the gigantic slums, filled with people who have no jobs and no hope of ever having a decent job. Our technological successes have meant that enough food and shelter can be provided by a relative few. And those few live fairly well-off or even in luxury while the majority goes hungry. This is not because there is not enough food to go around, but because it is not shared by everyone. In some countries, like our own, attempts are made to overcome this problem by giving out food stamps, unemployment insurance, and charity. The basic fact is simple, there are too many people that have become unnecessary. I think it is entirely possible that Obama will not be able to create enough jobs for everyone, or most everyone. As long as the primary motive for production is profit, and human labor is part of the system to be treated as just another commodity, unemployment will continue to exist and probably become worse and worse. This is not an easy problem to solve, largely because more and more labor is not required and, in fact, threatens profits. Our entire culture is geared to generating profits, the fewer workers that are needed, the greater the profits. It seems to me the only way to solve this dilemma is to create jobs that are little more than “busy work.” It is true that jobs can be created by building roads and bridges, and shoring up infrastructure, and having more teachers and policemen and so on, but even this cannot solve the problem over time. How many more bridges can be built, how many more highways are needed, and how many more service workers are needed. One of the ways we have kept up employment has been to create more service positions, waitresses, barbers, cooks, hairdressers, and such. But without other productive jobs who will be able to support this growing service industry?
I think perhaps we have actually reached peak employment and it may be an impossible task for Obama to create enough jobs to go around. Changing the administration is not going to solve this problem. There probably is no realistic solution short of some kind of great “cultural revolution,” where the goal is to replace the profit motive with the attempt to create positions for everyone, but these would have to be real positions that contribute to the general well-being of the nation and its citizens. This might be possible in the short run, as Obama will try to do with energy and superstructure positions, but I fear a long term solution will be quite another matter. People were not evolved to live in huge cities and spend their time in automobiles driving to and from jobs that produce not much more than paperwork and create nothing tangible. We evolved to dig in the earth, hunt and gather, fish and help each other, and that world is gone forever. The greatest question facing us now is what is going to replace it? Oh well, perhaps we’ll blow ourselves up or drown in our own filth before we figure it out.
LKBIQ:
Why are we surprised when politicians play politics? It's not like they are supposed to be real adults... they are, after all, politicians and don't have real jobs and aren't playing around with their money.
Max
TILT:
The flying fish is the official fish of Barbados.
off a cliff to her death,
she wanted an annulment.
Peak employment, I wonder if there is such a thing and, if so, are we perhaps there? I began to wonder about this a couple of days ago when I saw a headline on the web, “Can Obama create enough jobs?” I think it might be entirely possible that the answer is “no.” Prior to the Industrial Revolution there was no such thing as unemployment, and there certainly was no such thing in the small-scale cultures that existed, and in rare cases still exist. I mean, everyone had something to do, some work, hunting, gathering, baby sitting, cutting firewood, finding water, fighting enemies, and so on and on. It took everyone to insure survival for everyone. The early factories were primitive and it took a large number of workers to weave and manufacture whatever products were being made. But as time went by more and more machines were invented, making it possible to make things with fewer and fewer workers. Even during the earlier Agrarian Revolution there was still pretty much work for everyone. It took many people to plant and harvest crops, construct the larger settlements that began, look after the domesticated animals, and so on. The first vestiges of specialization were beginning, what with metal workers, jewelry makers, even priests and leaders of various kinds. Even when I was a child it still took a lot of labor to farm, most everything was still done by hand, looking after the livestock, pitching hay into the wagons, milking, churning, picking stones out of the fields, spreading manure, baking, etc. But then, of course, technology began to take over. Tractors were invented, making it possible for fewer and fewer people necessary to work on the farms. Anyway, as you know, the result of all this “progress” was “civilization” as we now know it. One person with the proper machinery can do the work of the great many more required previously. This can be seen easily in the timber industry, for example. The invention of the chain saw made an enormous difference, as did skidders and bulldozers, and the other machines that are now commonplace. In the United States in particular, where in recent years more and more jobs have been sent overseas where labor is cheaper, the overall result has been the creation of a large surplus population. There are not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. Thus, if there is to be full employment, or anything close to that, jobs will have to be created artificially. Attempts to do this, however, run into a lot of opposition, partly because of the irrational fear of socialism, partly because such jobs are not rewarding, and partly because it costs a lot of money that we may or may not have or borrow.
Surplus populations are hardly a problem only in the U.S. Just look around the world at the gigantic slums, filled with people who have no jobs and no hope of ever having a decent job. Our technological successes have meant that enough food and shelter can be provided by a relative few. And those few live fairly well-off or even in luxury while the majority goes hungry. This is not because there is not enough food to go around, but because it is not shared by everyone. In some countries, like our own, attempts are made to overcome this problem by giving out food stamps, unemployment insurance, and charity. The basic fact is simple, there are too many people that have become unnecessary. I think it is entirely possible that Obama will not be able to create enough jobs for everyone, or most everyone. As long as the primary motive for production is profit, and human labor is part of the system to be treated as just another commodity, unemployment will continue to exist and probably become worse and worse. This is not an easy problem to solve, largely because more and more labor is not required and, in fact, threatens profits. Our entire culture is geared to generating profits, the fewer workers that are needed, the greater the profits. It seems to me the only way to solve this dilemma is to create jobs that are little more than “busy work.” It is true that jobs can be created by building roads and bridges, and shoring up infrastructure, and having more teachers and policemen and so on, but even this cannot solve the problem over time. How many more bridges can be built, how many more highways are needed, and how many more service workers are needed. One of the ways we have kept up employment has been to create more service positions, waitresses, barbers, cooks, hairdressers, and such. But without other productive jobs who will be able to support this growing service industry?
I think perhaps we have actually reached peak employment and it may be an impossible task for Obama to create enough jobs to go around. Changing the administration is not going to solve this problem. There probably is no realistic solution short of some kind of great “cultural revolution,” where the goal is to replace the profit motive with the attempt to create positions for everyone, but these would have to be real positions that contribute to the general well-being of the nation and its citizens. This might be possible in the short run, as Obama will try to do with energy and superstructure positions, but I fear a long term solution will be quite another matter. People were not evolved to live in huge cities and spend their time in automobiles driving to and from jobs that produce not much more than paperwork and create nothing tangible. We evolved to dig in the earth, hunt and gather, fish and help each other, and that world is gone forever. The greatest question facing us now is what is going to replace it? Oh well, perhaps we’ll blow ourselves up or drown in our own filth before we figure it out.
LKBIQ:
Why are we surprised when politicians play politics? It's not like they are supposed to be real adults... they are, after all, politicians and don't have real jobs and aren't playing around with their money.
Max
TILT:
The flying fish is the official fish of Barbados.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Health Insurance
Two Chinese women die
as one falls from 27th story
and lands on another.
What is it going to take before Obama and our Congress wake up to the basic facts of health care? Anthem Blue Cross of California is trying to raise rates for independents by 39%. Now they are going to be investigated and forced to explain just why they should get a 39% increase in premiums. I don’t know what the answer will be (assuming that anything actually comes of this in the first place) but I am positive there is no reasonable explanation for such a huge increase. But this particular case aside, I raise the question once more, why should insurance companies have anything to do with health care? What exactly is it that insurance companies contribute to health care? Why should they have anything whatsoever to do with health care? They are not doctors, nurses, medical specialists, or any other kind of health care professionals. As far as I know they do nothing but calculate the odds of people dying, how much it will cost to keep them from dying or suffering, and then decide whether or not there is any profit in it for them (they also generate a lot of paper work). This is absolutely stupid. Everyone with a brain larger than Silly Sarah’s (which I think probably encompasses the vast majority of human beings on the planet) knows that a single-payer system, like most industrialized countries have, is by far the best system. It is cheaper, more efficient, more practical, easier to manage and maintain, and is far superior to private insurance by any measure one might employ. Obama and our Congress did not even consider such a system. It was simply dismissed as too radical to pass (socialism, you know). Then there was supposed to be a kind of compromise position in a public option. But that, too, is regarded as socialism. The bills that are being considered are nothing less than gigantic gifts to the insurance companies. Why? I want to know. Why should health care bills be tailored to benefit insurance companies rather than the public? What is the rationale for this? Can anyone tell us? Even now it appears that a majority of the public favors a single-payer system, or at least a public option. This is not a secret, it has been acknowledged repeatedly. It would appear that what the public might want is totally irrelevant as far as our President and Congress are concerned. Obviously this is not a government by the people for the people, the people be damned. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies are important, we are not. There is no practical, economic, or organizational reason why Medicare should not be expanded to include everyone. It is a system that already exists, everyone likes it, it would save enormous sums of money in the long run, and it makes perfect sense. Alas, it would not benefit the insurance companies. Pity. But at least we don’t have to even pretend anymore that our Congress and Executive Branch exist to promote the public good. If there were any lingering doubts about this the Supreme Court recently made it clear who runs things here, so learn to live with it, peasants, serfs, wage slaves, and suckers in general. This is to be your life. Don’t even think of moving to another country, the powers that be are international.
Obama and Congress are in a rush to impose further Sanctions on Iran. Ostensibly, I guess, this is because Iran has said they will increase their production of nuclear fuel. There was an announcement about this, of course presented in the most damaging way. It has subsequently been shown that this has been exaggerated, what Iran is proposing is not as bad as it was made out to be, but that doesn’t seem to matter to those who are eager to impose sanctions. Iran has somehow become the bad sibling that everyone picks on, no matter what they do. Israel, of course, is at the forefront of demanding sanctions against Iran. What I would propose are some sanctions on Israel. After all, they have violated all international rules and regulations, are actively engaged in a kind of genocide, are stealing Palestinian land and water, have committed egregious war crimes, and are the single biggest cause of unrest in the Middle East, so why no sanctions? I should think any reasonable person would think they should face sanctions for their behavior. But no, it seems nothing they do, no matter how illegal, murderous, or criminal seems to make any difference, we just continue to support them year after year, thus insuring there will never be peace in that part of the world (which is, apparently, just the way they want it). I find it unsettling, to say the least, that the Obama administration has made it clear they are on the side of war criminals, both here at home, and in the Middle East. While this may go on in the short run, history will not be kind to us, nor will the long run.
LKBIQ:
Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too.
Richard M. Nixon
TILT:
Research has shown that pack rat “middens” can last as long as 40,000 years.
as one falls from 27th story
and lands on another.
What is it going to take before Obama and our Congress wake up to the basic facts of health care? Anthem Blue Cross of California is trying to raise rates for independents by 39%. Now they are going to be investigated and forced to explain just why they should get a 39% increase in premiums. I don’t know what the answer will be (assuming that anything actually comes of this in the first place) but I am positive there is no reasonable explanation for such a huge increase. But this particular case aside, I raise the question once more, why should insurance companies have anything to do with health care? What exactly is it that insurance companies contribute to health care? Why should they have anything whatsoever to do with health care? They are not doctors, nurses, medical specialists, or any other kind of health care professionals. As far as I know they do nothing but calculate the odds of people dying, how much it will cost to keep them from dying or suffering, and then decide whether or not there is any profit in it for them (they also generate a lot of paper work). This is absolutely stupid. Everyone with a brain larger than Silly Sarah’s (which I think probably encompasses the vast majority of human beings on the planet) knows that a single-payer system, like most industrialized countries have, is by far the best system. It is cheaper, more efficient, more practical, easier to manage and maintain, and is far superior to private insurance by any measure one might employ. Obama and our Congress did not even consider such a system. It was simply dismissed as too radical to pass (socialism, you know). Then there was supposed to be a kind of compromise position in a public option. But that, too, is regarded as socialism. The bills that are being considered are nothing less than gigantic gifts to the insurance companies. Why? I want to know. Why should health care bills be tailored to benefit insurance companies rather than the public? What is the rationale for this? Can anyone tell us? Even now it appears that a majority of the public favors a single-payer system, or at least a public option. This is not a secret, it has been acknowledged repeatedly. It would appear that what the public might want is totally irrelevant as far as our President and Congress are concerned. Obviously this is not a government by the people for the people, the people be damned. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies are important, we are not. There is no practical, economic, or organizational reason why Medicare should not be expanded to include everyone. It is a system that already exists, everyone likes it, it would save enormous sums of money in the long run, and it makes perfect sense. Alas, it would not benefit the insurance companies. Pity. But at least we don’t have to even pretend anymore that our Congress and Executive Branch exist to promote the public good. If there were any lingering doubts about this the Supreme Court recently made it clear who runs things here, so learn to live with it, peasants, serfs, wage slaves, and suckers in general. This is to be your life. Don’t even think of moving to another country, the powers that be are international.
Obama and Congress are in a rush to impose further Sanctions on Iran. Ostensibly, I guess, this is because Iran has said they will increase their production of nuclear fuel. There was an announcement about this, of course presented in the most damaging way. It has subsequently been shown that this has been exaggerated, what Iran is proposing is not as bad as it was made out to be, but that doesn’t seem to matter to those who are eager to impose sanctions. Iran has somehow become the bad sibling that everyone picks on, no matter what they do. Israel, of course, is at the forefront of demanding sanctions against Iran. What I would propose are some sanctions on Israel. After all, they have violated all international rules and regulations, are actively engaged in a kind of genocide, are stealing Palestinian land and water, have committed egregious war crimes, and are the single biggest cause of unrest in the Middle East, so why no sanctions? I should think any reasonable person would think they should face sanctions for their behavior. But no, it seems nothing they do, no matter how illegal, murderous, or criminal seems to make any difference, we just continue to support them year after year, thus insuring there will never be peace in that part of the world (which is, apparently, just the way they want it). I find it unsettling, to say the least, that the Obama administration has made it clear they are on the side of war criminals, both here at home, and in the Middle East. While this may go on in the short run, history will not be kind to us, nor will the long run.
LKBIQ:
Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too.
Richard M. Nixon
TILT:
Research has shown that pack rat “middens” can last as long as 40,000 years.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Big News!?
An 11-year-old boy faces assault charges
for stabbing peer with pencil when he
refused to stop helping him with math.
I guess it’s true, no good deed goes unpunished. But there is big news (maybe)! It seems that Britain, unlike the United States, is actually interested in trying to investigate the war crimes committed by Blair. He has been interrogated repeatedly for long periods of time (no waterboarding) to find out the truth behind the British/U.S. illegal attack on Iraq. Apparently they are making some progress and there is even talk of interviewing some of the U.S. participants (Rumsfeld, Cheney, perhaps even Bush, among others). It seems to have been pretty much established that Blair and Bush agreed to attack Iraq as much as a year before the attack actually occurred. And it seems that Bush was determined to attack Iraq whether there was any provocation or reason for it other than his desire to do so. Obviously this could become a truly big deal if the Brits pursue it energetically and stubbornly enough and insist on getting to the bottom of it all. But how they would get any of the guilty Americans to testify I do not know, and I suspect that they will not, and the whole thing will eventually blow over without any decisive action. Indeed, we’ll probably be lucky if we even hear anything much about it in our MSM. But one can dream can’t one? I think Obama’s decision to focus only on the future and not the past, and thereby ignore the war crimes of Bush/Cheney et al, was a terrible mistake. If he wanted to establish himself as a serious agent of change he should have immediately started an investigation of Bush/Cheney, held them accountable for their terrible crimes, and thus firmly demonstrated that the U.S. was interested in truth and justice. Instead he merely revealed to the world American hypocrisy, insisting on prosecuting war crimes everywhere but here at home. I believe Obama has done some good things, and I also believe he has good intentions towards the American middle class, but his failure to investigate blatant war crimes, along with his failure to bring Israel to heel, is going to make it very difficult for me to vote for him again. Not that I would under any circumstances vote for a Republican, I would simply not vote, or vote for a third party candidate if there should prove to be an acceptable one.
The big “to-do” over Silly Sarah’s notes on her hand continues. What seems to me to be the most interesting and perhaps telling part of this is being overlooked. That is, people like Chris Matthews (granted perhaps a bit mentally slow) seem to think this was “cheating.” You know, like when you are about to take a test and are uncertain about remembering some of the answers, you write them on your hand, thus cheating. Ordinarily, it seems to me, the answers would be those too difficult or unusual or esoteric questions you might worry about not being able to remember. But how could any speaker, like Palin, not remember the three (and only three) most important topics they were going to speak about, in this case, energy, cutting taxes, and stimulating Americans? If Palin was uncertain about even remembering these important (to her) themes, what does that tell you about her? It certainly suggests to me that she is far from being ready for “prime time.” And now that she seems to be the major face of the Republican Party (no one seems to be challenging her), what does that tell you about Republicans?
Obama has the Republicans in a bind. He has now invited them to a televised conference on health care reform. If they refuse to show up he wins, if they show up and are exposed for what they really are (obvious obstructionists) he wins. Apparently aware of this trap he has prepared they are trying to weasel out of it by demanding pre-conditions that are obviously absurd, like scrapping everything done up until now and starting over, insisting that only their suggestions be debated, and so on. Personally, I think Obama’s persistence in trying to achieve some form of bipartisanship is a complete waste of time. The Democrats should just bypass these unpatriotic, irresponsible, negativistic, even treasonous jerks and pass whatever they want. As Rachel Maddow (bless her) pointed out tonight, the Republicans have voted no repeatedly even on things they previously approved, just because they do not want Obama (or by implication our country) to succeed. Not only that, they have eagerly embraced the stimulus funds they universally voted against. They have steadfastly clung to their claim to be the party of “no,” and have raised hypocrisy to entirely new heights. Being opposed to everything that might improve the lives of our citizens and our nation, they have become a disgrace to politics, to our nation, and even to humanity at large. This disgraceful party (or criminal conspiracy) should be banished and replaced with people who at least understand they are supposed to be serving the public rather than huge corporations that, like themselves, have neither compassion nor common decency, and seek only short term profits at the expense of anything, everything, and everyone else. If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the constant and obsessive quest for it seems to be worse.
LKBIQ:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams
TILT:
Edith Piaf was born Edith Giovanna Gassion.
for stabbing peer with pencil when he
refused to stop helping him with math.
I guess it’s true, no good deed goes unpunished. But there is big news (maybe)! It seems that Britain, unlike the United States, is actually interested in trying to investigate the war crimes committed by Blair. He has been interrogated repeatedly for long periods of time (no waterboarding) to find out the truth behind the British/U.S. illegal attack on Iraq. Apparently they are making some progress and there is even talk of interviewing some of the U.S. participants (Rumsfeld, Cheney, perhaps even Bush, among others). It seems to have been pretty much established that Blair and Bush agreed to attack Iraq as much as a year before the attack actually occurred. And it seems that Bush was determined to attack Iraq whether there was any provocation or reason for it other than his desire to do so. Obviously this could become a truly big deal if the Brits pursue it energetically and stubbornly enough and insist on getting to the bottom of it all. But how they would get any of the guilty Americans to testify I do not know, and I suspect that they will not, and the whole thing will eventually blow over without any decisive action. Indeed, we’ll probably be lucky if we even hear anything much about it in our MSM. But one can dream can’t one? I think Obama’s decision to focus only on the future and not the past, and thereby ignore the war crimes of Bush/Cheney et al, was a terrible mistake. If he wanted to establish himself as a serious agent of change he should have immediately started an investigation of Bush/Cheney, held them accountable for their terrible crimes, and thus firmly demonstrated that the U.S. was interested in truth and justice. Instead he merely revealed to the world American hypocrisy, insisting on prosecuting war crimes everywhere but here at home. I believe Obama has done some good things, and I also believe he has good intentions towards the American middle class, but his failure to investigate blatant war crimes, along with his failure to bring Israel to heel, is going to make it very difficult for me to vote for him again. Not that I would under any circumstances vote for a Republican, I would simply not vote, or vote for a third party candidate if there should prove to be an acceptable one.
The big “to-do” over Silly Sarah’s notes on her hand continues. What seems to me to be the most interesting and perhaps telling part of this is being overlooked. That is, people like Chris Matthews (granted perhaps a bit mentally slow) seem to think this was “cheating.” You know, like when you are about to take a test and are uncertain about remembering some of the answers, you write them on your hand, thus cheating. Ordinarily, it seems to me, the answers would be those too difficult or unusual or esoteric questions you might worry about not being able to remember. But how could any speaker, like Palin, not remember the three (and only three) most important topics they were going to speak about, in this case, energy, cutting taxes, and stimulating Americans? If Palin was uncertain about even remembering these important (to her) themes, what does that tell you about her? It certainly suggests to me that she is far from being ready for “prime time.” And now that she seems to be the major face of the Republican Party (no one seems to be challenging her), what does that tell you about Republicans?
Obama has the Republicans in a bind. He has now invited them to a televised conference on health care reform. If they refuse to show up he wins, if they show up and are exposed for what they really are (obvious obstructionists) he wins. Apparently aware of this trap he has prepared they are trying to weasel out of it by demanding pre-conditions that are obviously absurd, like scrapping everything done up until now and starting over, insisting that only their suggestions be debated, and so on. Personally, I think Obama’s persistence in trying to achieve some form of bipartisanship is a complete waste of time. The Democrats should just bypass these unpatriotic, irresponsible, negativistic, even treasonous jerks and pass whatever they want. As Rachel Maddow (bless her) pointed out tonight, the Republicans have voted no repeatedly even on things they previously approved, just because they do not want Obama (or by implication our country) to succeed. Not only that, they have eagerly embraced the stimulus funds they universally voted against. They have steadfastly clung to their claim to be the party of “no,” and have raised hypocrisy to entirely new heights. Being opposed to everything that might improve the lives of our citizens and our nation, they have become a disgrace to politics, to our nation, and even to humanity at large. This disgraceful party (or criminal conspiracy) should be banished and replaced with people who at least understand they are supposed to be serving the public rather than huge corporations that, like themselves, have neither compassion nor common decency, and seek only short term profits at the expense of anything, everything, and everyone else. If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the constant and obsessive quest for it seems to be worse.
LKBIQ:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams
TILT:
Edith Piaf was born Edith Giovanna Gassion.
Monday, February 08, 2010
On The Contrary,
Wyoming man steals bottle
of schnapps, flees into nearby
building… a police station.
On the contrary, Sarah, while you have said it would be absurd not to consider running for President, I would suggest that the very idea that you either would or could run for President of the United States is what is absurd. By what conceivable stretch of even the most vivid imagination would make you a serious candidate for President? First, you would have no chance of winning. Second, you are completely unqualified. Third, you couldn’t even manage being Governor of a relatively small (in population) state, Fourth, you quit in mid-term because it was too difficult, Fifth, your husband, with no qualifications whatsoever, was intimately involved in making important decisions in Alaska, Sixth, you were widely regarded as not even being qualified to be Vice-President, Seventh, you are an absolutely know-nothing ignoramus, eighth, You have offered absolutely nothing in the way of a platform, ninth, you couldn’t even remember your three major talking points without writing them on your hand, and tenth, you are an absolute insult to anyone with even half a brain.
What infuriates me is that although I know you are ignorant almost beyond belief, when it comes to what it might take to become President, and although I know you have no chance of ever being President, and in addition you are no more qualified than virtually any woman in the U.S. picked at random, you are still getting all this media attention. Who, besides a small cadre of no-nothing idiots even cares what you say? What credentials do you have to criticize the President? You know nothing of foreign policy, nothing about the economy, nothing about health care, nothing about anything else above and beyond what the ordinary American citizen thinks they know, so why do you pretend otherwise? You are, in short, an absolute phony, enjoying the limelight only because John McCain expressed his utter contempt for his country and its citizens by picking you to be his vice-president running mate. What you are doing by continuing to bask in the spotlight, pretending to be something you are not, is simply continuing this contempt for our country and its citizens. I confess I am not at all certain you are even being serious. Either you are so stupid you actually believe you are qualified, or you are merely using your fifteen minutes of fame to make as much money as possible, in either case the very idea that you seem to believe you could be a viable Presidential candidate, in and of itself proves you are too stupid to be one. There is such a thing as reality. You seem to be unaware of it, along with your small following of absolute nitwits that are making a mockery of our (what’s left of it) democracy. Do us a favor, take your money and run before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Why am I so upset about you? The truth is you remind me of my aunt Mamie, you even somewhat resemble her. She was an uneducated, ignorant woman who had strong opinions about everything but knew nothing about anything. I suffered her for many years. You said “they” (apparently the current administration) want you to shut up and sit down, so do I.
I saw somewhere the other day the Pentagon is now changing their overall strategy. Instead of planning for two major wars at the same time they are going to plan for many small encounters here and there. I find this fascinating. I always thought the two war strategy at least sort of made sense, after all I thought it might be at least theoretically possible that we might be attacked by both Russia and China at the same time, or maybe Canada and Mexico, or perhaps even Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, so I didn’t question too carefully this strategy. But is there any chance, even theoretically, that we might be attacked by a number of countries at the same time? This seems unlikely (in fact it seems unlikely we will be attacked at all by anyone ever these days). So why would we embrace this new strategy? The only reason this new strategy makes any sense at all is that we are going to continue to meddle in everyone’s affairs all around the globe and will be met with some resistance here and there. After all, the rest of the world did not appoint us to be the world’s policemen, and they might very well object to our trying to manage their affairs for them (while, of course, stealing whatever resources they have we might want). Apparently this is a strategy to insure that our “empire” remains secure, except that it won’t in the long run, as empires always inevitably fail, and ours is about to run out of funds. You might think a smart guy like Obama would realize this, but apparently not. Just as Churchill said he would never preside over the end of the British Empire, Obama seems to eagerly embrace the end of the American Empire. Granted we are not going to the moon again, we are apparently going to Mars, if we can borrow the money.
LKBIQ:
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy
TILT:
During World War I, Charles (Charlie) Chaplin presented himself for service but was rejected because he was too small, 5’ 5” and not in good health.
of schnapps, flees into nearby
building… a police station.
On the contrary, Sarah, while you have said it would be absurd not to consider running for President, I would suggest that the very idea that you either would or could run for President of the United States is what is absurd. By what conceivable stretch of even the most vivid imagination would make you a serious candidate for President? First, you would have no chance of winning. Second, you are completely unqualified. Third, you couldn’t even manage being Governor of a relatively small (in population) state, Fourth, you quit in mid-term because it was too difficult, Fifth, your husband, with no qualifications whatsoever, was intimately involved in making important decisions in Alaska, Sixth, you were widely regarded as not even being qualified to be Vice-President, Seventh, you are an absolutely know-nothing ignoramus, eighth, You have offered absolutely nothing in the way of a platform, ninth, you couldn’t even remember your three major talking points without writing them on your hand, and tenth, you are an absolute insult to anyone with even half a brain.
What infuriates me is that although I know you are ignorant almost beyond belief, when it comes to what it might take to become President, and although I know you have no chance of ever being President, and in addition you are no more qualified than virtually any woman in the U.S. picked at random, you are still getting all this media attention. Who, besides a small cadre of no-nothing idiots even cares what you say? What credentials do you have to criticize the President? You know nothing of foreign policy, nothing about the economy, nothing about health care, nothing about anything else above and beyond what the ordinary American citizen thinks they know, so why do you pretend otherwise? You are, in short, an absolute phony, enjoying the limelight only because John McCain expressed his utter contempt for his country and its citizens by picking you to be his vice-president running mate. What you are doing by continuing to bask in the spotlight, pretending to be something you are not, is simply continuing this contempt for our country and its citizens. I confess I am not at all certain you are even being serious. Either you are so stupid you actually believe you are qualified, or you are merely using your fifteen minutes of fame to make as much money as possible, in either case the very idea that you seem to believe you could be a viable Presidential candidate, in and of itself proves you are too stupid to be one. There is such a thing as reality. You seem to be unaware of it, along with your small following of absolute nitwits that are making a mockery of our (what’s left of it) democracy. Do us a favor, take your money and run before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Why am I so upset about you? The truth is you remind me of my aunt Mamie, you even somewhat resemble her. She was an uneducated, ignorant woman who had strong opinions about everything but knew nothing about anything. I suffered her for many years. You said “they” (apparently the current administration) want you to shut up and sit down, so do I.
I saw somewhere the other day the Pentagon is now changing their overall strategy. Instead of planning for two major wars at the same time they are going to plan for many small encounters here and there. I find this fascinating. I always thought the two war strategy at least sort of made sense, after all I thought it might be at least theoretically possible that we might be attacked by both Russia and China at the same time, or maybe Canada and Mexico, or perhaps even Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, so I didn’t question too carefully this strategy. But is there any chance, even theoretically, that we might be attacked by a number of countries at the same time? This seems unlikely (in fact it seems unlikely we will be attacked at all by anyone ever these days). So why would we embrace this new strategy? The only reason this new strategy makes any sense at all is that we are going to continue to meddle in everyone’s affairs all around the globe and will be met with some resistance here and there. After all, the rest of the world did not appoint us to be the world’s policemen, and they might very well object to our trying to manage their affairs for them (while, of course, stealing whatever resources they have we might want). Apparently this is a strategy to insure that our “empire” remains secure, except that it won’t in the long run, as empires always inevitably fail, and ours is about to run out of funds. You might think a smart guy like Obama would realize this, but apparently not. Just as Churchill said he would never preside over the end of the British Empire, Obama seems to eagerly embrace the end of the American Empire. Granted we are not going to the moon again, we are apparently going to Mars, if we can borrow the money.
LKBIQ:
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy
TILT:
During World War I, Charles (Charlie) Chaplin presented himself for service but was rejected because he was too small, 5’ 5” and not in good health.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
The Good Times are All Gone Now - book
The Good Times are All Gone Now, by Julie Whitesel Weston (University of Oklahoma Press, 2009)
This is, I think, kind of a strange book. The subtitle would lead you to believe it is about “Life, Death, and Rebirth in an Idaho Mining Town.” It is a bit about a mining town, but then it becomes more about going down into the Bunker Hill Mine (on a tour), and then, before you fully realize it, it becomes an autobiographical account of a girl going through Elementary and High School in Kellogg, Idaho, during the 50’s and 60’s. Then, at the end, there is a bit about the town reviving itself and its economy by attempting to become an all-season skiing and golfing resort. This is not to say it is a book without merit or interest, it is just not exactly what it seems.
Ms. Weston was born in Kellogg and went through High School there. She discusses this at some length, playing in the school band, giving up the flute to become a majorette, the football and basketball games, the flirtations, first kiss, first boy friend, fights with her father, and so on. This was a life probably not much different than schoolgirls that age everywhere. The fact that her father was a respected doctor, who was also a musician with a drinking problem, does make it perhaps more interesting than most. He not only had a drinking problem, when drinking he was also very abusive to his wife and children. He apparently was a fine doctor, did not drink when on duty, and was well-liked by the community, the stuff of a small town where everyone knows everyone else. People in such places tend to understand and forgive the problems of their peers.
Weston’s account of being taken down into the Bunker Hill Mine, as much as a mile underground, is both interesting and compelling as a description of what life was like for hard rock miners in North Idaho. She obviously had an ear for the language and writes her account to give the impression she knows more than she probably does (she was in reality little more than an insightful tourist). Her account of the famous brothels of Kellogg and Wallace, Idaho, also suffers from an imperfect knowledge of those institutions. For example, she offers what is purported to be a “menu” for one of the brothels, suggesting different charges for different sexual activities. I am quite certain that no such “menu” ever existed before one of the brothels was converted into a tourist attraction, and I doubt that most of the miners and muckers I knew in Wallace even would have understood what some of the items meant. What was undoubtedly true was that her father inspected the prostitutes regularly to insure they were free of diseases (just like an army, it would not do to have the miners infected and unable to work).
The account of mining, the procedures and their inherent dangers, is well described, and her description of the 1972 underground fire that killed 91 men makes the point dramatically. Her description of living in Kellogg where the polluting waste piled deeper each year, the air was foul, the trees and vegetation disappeared, the “Lead creek” (the Coeur d’ Alene river), filthy with mine waste and garbage ran through the center of town, and many children suffered from far too much lead in their bodies, reminds us of just how much people are willing to tolerate for jobs and security. Interestingly, she does not mention what we called “the con,” the lung disease that many of the miners almost inevitably contracted after long years in the mine.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is her discussion of the miners’ strike that ended in 1960 with the replacement of a national union with a local one, all because of the pathological anti-communism of the 50’s that lingered on in Kellogg even after McCarthy had been discredited. This obsession with communism was so strong it captured the entire city, where they saw communists everywhere. It seemed to be so strong that even whatever few might not have believed it kept their opinions to themselves. I suspect this fear of communism was not unique to Kellogg and probably existed more or less in most of the small North Idaho communities (and seems to linger in some even to the present day). In Kellogg and Wallace this was no doubt related to the history of violent miners’ strikes around the turn of the century, strikes that were the result of the socialist movements of that time that resulted in the assassination of one of the Idaho Governors and the blowing up of the Bunker Hill.
I believe Weston has written an interesting book, it certainly should be of interest to anyone not familiar with the mining districts of Idaho and life in one of the most polluted areas in the United States. The clean up continues even now and is related to the attempt to convert Kellogg into a fine resort by cleaning up the disaster that was Kellogg, Idaho, previously. One thing I never understood is why a consultant they hired to suggest what they should do, suggested a Bavarian theme for the town. There were so many Italians in Kellogg: Faracas, Pechias, Damianos, Puccis, Rinaldis, Biottis, and others, I would have thought an Italian theme would have been more appropriate. Perhaps this is one reason the Bavarian theme has not been very successful. Kellogg did almost die and it is now undergoing a kind of rebirth. What is unfortunate for Weston, although certainly not her fault, is that the truly “good times” were mostly dead by the time she was born (1943). Kellogg and Wallace, at the turn of the century and into the 20’s and 30’s were genuine boom towns, far more exciting and colorful than anything that came later. She seems to have overlooked a wealth of “old timers” who still survive and could have told her much more. But of course one cannot have and do everything.
This is, I think, kind of a strange book. The subtitle would lead you to believe it is about “Life, Death, and Rebirth in an Idaho Mining Town.” It is a bit about a mining town, but then it becomes more about going down into the Bunker Hill Mine (on a tour), and then, before you fully realize it, it becomes an autobiographical account of a girl going through Elementary and High School in Kellogg, Idaho, during the 50’s and 60’s. Then, at the end, there is a bit about the town reviving itself and its economy by attempting to become an all-season skiing and golfing resort. This is not to say it is a book without merit or interest, it is just not exactly what it seems.
Ms. Weston was born in Kellogg and went through High School there. She discusses this at some length, playing in the school band, giving up the flute to become a majorette, the football and basketball games, the flirtations, first kiss, first boy friend, fights with her father, and so on. This was a life probably not much different than schoolgirls that age everywhere. The fact that her father was a respected doctor, who was also a musician with a drinking problem, does make it perhaps more interesting than most. He not only had a drinking problem, when drinking he was also very abusive to his wife and children. He apparently was a fine doctor, did not drink when on duty, and was well-liked by the community, the stuff of a small town where everyone knows everyone else. People in such places tend to understand and forgive the problems of their peers.
Weston’s account of being taken down into the Bunker Hill Mine, as much as a mile underground, is both interesting and compelling as a description of what life was like for hard rock miners in North Idaho. She obviously had an ear for the language and writes her account to give the impression she knows more than she probably does (she was in reality little more than an insightful tourist). Her account of the famous brothels of Kellogg and Wallace, Idaho, also suffers from an imperfect knowledge of those institutions. For example, she offers what is purported to be a “menu” for one of the brothels, suggesting different charges for different sexual activities. I am quite certain that no such “menu” ever existed before one of the brothels was converted into a tourist attraction, and I doubt that most of the miners and muckers I knew in Wallace even would have understood what some of the items meant. What was undoubtedly true was that her father inspected the prostitutes regularly to insure they were free of diseases (just like an army, it would not do to have the miners infected and unable to work).
The account of mining, the procedures and their inherent dangers, is well described, and her description of the 1972 underground fire that killed 91 men makes the point dramatically. Her description of living in Kellogg where the polluting waste piled deeper each year, the air was foul, the trees and vegetation disappeared, the “Lead creek” (the Coeur d’ Alene river), filthy with mine waste and garbage ran through the center of town, and many children suffered from far too much lead in their bodies, reminds us of just how much people are willing to tolerate for jobs and security. Interestingly, she does not mention what we called “the con,” the lung disease that many of the miners almost inevitably contracted after long years in the mine.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is her discussion of the miners’ strike that ended in 1960 with the replacement of a national union with a local one, all because of the pathological anti-communism of the 50’s that lingered on in Kellogg even after McCarthy had been discredited. This obsession with communism was so strong it captured the entire city, where they saw communists everywhere. It seemed to be so strong that even whatever few might not have believed it kept their opinions to themselves. I suspect this fear of communism was not unique to Kellogg and probably existed more or less in most of the small North Idaho communities (and seems to linger in some even to the present day). In Kellogg and Wallace this was no doubt related to the history of violent miners’ strikes around the turn of the century, strikes that were the result of the socialist movements of that time that resulted in the assassination of one of the Idaho Governors and the blowing up of the Bunker Hill.
I believe Weston has written an interesting book, it certainly should be of interest to anyone not familiar with the mining districts of Idaho and life in one of the most polluted areas in the United States. The clean up continues even now and is related to the attempt to convert Kellogg into a fine resort by cleaning up the disaster that was Kellogg, Idaho, previously. One thing I never understood is why a consultant they hired to suggest what they should do, suggested a Bavarian theme for the town. There were so many Italians in Kellogg: Faracas, Pechias, Damianos, Puccis, Rinaldis, Biottis, and others, I would have thought an Italian theme would have been more appropriate. Perhaps this is one reason the Bavarian theme has not been very successful. Kellogg did almost die and it is now undergoing a kind of rebirth. What is unfortunate for Weston, although certainly not her fault, is that the truly “good times” were mostly dead by the time she was born (1943). Kellogg and Wallace, at the turn of the century and into the 20’s and 30’s were genuine boom towns, far more exciting and colorful than anything that came later. She seems to have overlooked a wealth of “old timers” who still survive and could have told her much more. But of course one cannot have and do everything.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
The Journey to the West 20
Since I quit writing about my journey to the west some time ago (19) I have been trying to decide whether or not to continue. Of course your journey westward continues whether you write about it or not, and so mine does. I am hesitant to continue because my life from this time on contains many unpleasant aspects, some shameful, some outright stupid, some perhaps unforgivable, and few very positive or rewarding. I am not eager to admit to or discuss this part of my life and I am not at all certain how honest I can be about my life from this point onward. But for the moment, at least, I have decided to continue.
When I returned to the University of Idaho my living conditions changed. For reasons I do not recall very well I lived in what was known as “Ma Brogan’s Boarding House.” Ma Brogan was the mother of Johnny Brogan who had been a standout High School quarterback in Coeur d’ Alene and who had been recruited to play for the University. I assume that somehow the Boarding House must have been part of the deal although I do not know that for certain. I do know it didn’t last much longer than Johnny Brogan. I guess the only reason I was accepted there was because I still wanted to share quarters with Leonard Walker (although we had nothing in common except coming from Wallace High School), so when he decided to live there I just went along. This was a bit strange as I was the only “non jock” in the place. I don’t remember how many athletes lived there but it must have been somewhere between 20 and 30, mostly two to a room. The rooms were all upstairs in this large building, right in the center of the campus, the restaurant where we took our meals was downstairs. Ma Brogan was the cook and obviously in charge of everything. She was a very nice lady.
I don’t remember if Leonard and his brother Norman, both on the boxing team, were the only boxers living there. I believe they probably were. The other residents were a mixed bag of football and basketball players, mostly recruited from the South, but a couple from Southern Idaho. They were all far from academically inclined. The two I remember most vividly were basketball players, one, Stacy Howells, was part Indian, his roomate’s name I cannot remember. I think they were both from Oklahoma. They both chewed tobacco, so they spread the floor of their room with newspaper, set out a couple of large cans, and spit constantly. Every week or so they would change the newspaper and begin again. They rarely attended classes, preferring instead to play a pinball machine in the restaurant, sometimes for hours at a time. Most of the other residents were football players, big awkward linemen for the most part, and not in the least interested in school outside of playing football. Although I was not the greatest student, I was at least interested in books, reading, attending classes (sometimes), and learning at least some of the subject matter. I still refused to attend ROTC classes and knew I would never graduate. Why all these jocks put up with me I am not sure but I became friends with many of them and in some cases eventually helped a couple of them with their assignments.
Leonard was a truly fine amateur boxer, one of the standouts of the team. But he always had trouble making his weight. I think he fought at 135 pounds but when not in training would balloon to about 150. To make his weight he drank a raw egg in a class of orange juice for breakfast, chewed gum and spit a lot, ran up and down stairs, trained religiously, and so on. He was dedicated and went on to win a national championship. His brother, Norman, didn’t seem to have as much trouble making his weight and was also a fine amateur fighter who achieved almost as much in the ring as his brother. At this time the University of Idaho was a boxing powerhouse on the national scene, five of the eight positions on the team were held at one time by fighters from Burke and Wallace: Herb Carlson (also a national champion), Leonard and Norman Walker, Bobby Rivera, and Rex Foreman. I don’t recall if they ever won a national championship outright, but I know they tied for it one year, I think maybe with Michigan or Michigan State. As far as I know boxing is no longer a High School or College sport but in the 1940’s and 50’s it was pretty common. Frank Young was the boxing coach at that time.
I continued my erratic process of doing well in courses I liked and not so well in those I didn’t like. I took classes in psychology and sociology, subjects I had never heard of in Wallace High School. I also took Anthropology and Philosophy courses I had never heard of in High School. I did not do so well in required courses like zoology, math, and physics. I remember being very impressed by one Philosophy teacher, Dr. Moore, but as he was a superior teacher he soon left the University of Idaho for a better position. Another philosophy teacher was a Mr. Seamen who apparently had failed his Ph.D. exams somewhere but taught aesthetics and ethics. I liked him personally, but he was a strange one, about 6’ 3” tall, wearing a large black opera cape his wife had made for him, and not as effective a teacher as Moore. Getting ahead of myself, I took correspondence courses from him later when I was in the army. As far as I know he never received his Ph.D. and years later, after I had achieved that honor, and was teaching at the University of Washington, he was apparently so desperate he visited me to see if I could help him get a position there. I felt bad for him but, of course, I could not help him). I also remember a Mr. Cushman (Dr.?) who taught a course in Great Books. I loved it and did extremely well. My Anthropology Professor was Dr. Alfred Bowers. He was not very inspirational but I loved the subject matter. I took courses in Psychology from William (“Butch”) Boyer who was the head of the department, as well as from a couple of other Psychology Profs. Eventually I was to major in Psychology, so more on that later. I did not distinguish myself during this year but I did well enough to know I could return.
The atmosphere in the boarding house was, shall I say, much more “raunchy” than intellectual. I lived there only this one year.
When I returned to the University of Idaho my living conditions changed. For reasons I do not recall very well I lived in what was known as “Ma Brogan’s Boarding House.” Ma Brogan was the mother of Johnny Brogan who had been a standout High School quarterback in Coeur d’ Alene and who had been recruited to play for the University. I assume that somehow the Boarding House must have been part of the deal although I do not know that for certain. I do know it didn’t last much longer than Johnny Brogan. I guess the only reason I was accepted there was because I still wanted to share quarters with Leonard Walker (although we had nothing in common except coming from Wallace High School), so when he decided to live there I just went along. This was a bit strange as I was the only “non jock” in the place. I don’t remember how many athletes lived there but it must have been somewhere between 20 and 30, mostly two to a room. The rooms were all upstairs in this large building, right in the center of the campus, the restaurant where we took our meals was downstairs. Ma Brogan was the cook and obviously in charge of everything. She was a very nice lady.
I don’t remember if Leonard and his brother Norman, both on the boxing team, were the only boxers living there. I believe they probably were. The other residents were a mixed bag of football and basketball players, mostly recruited from the South, but a couple from Southern Idaho. They were all far from academically inclined. The two I remember most vividly were basketball players, one, Stacy Howells, was part Indian, his roomate’s name I cannot remember. I think they were both from Oklahoma. They both chewed tobacco, so they spread the floor of their room with newspaper, set out a couple of large cans, and spit constantly. Every week or so they would change the newspaper and begin again. They rarely attended classes, preferring instead to play a pinball machine in the restaurant, sometimes for hours at a time. Most of the other residents were football players, big awkward linemen for the most part, and not in the least interested in school outside of playing football. Although I was not the greatest student, I was at least interested in books, reading, attending classes (sometimes), and learning at least some of the subject matter. I still refused to attend ROTC classes and knew I would never graduate. Why all these jocks put up with me I am not sure but I became friends with many of them and in some cases eventually helped a couple of them with their assignments.
Leonard was a truly fine amateur boxer, one of the standouts of the team. But he always had trouble making his weight. I think he fought at 135 pounds but when not in training would balloon to about 150. To make his weight he drank a raw egg in a class of orange juice for breakfast, chewed gum and spit a lot, ran up and down stairs, trained religiously, and so on. He was dedicated and went on to win a national championship. His brother, Norman, didn’t seem to have as much trouble making his weight and was also a fine amateur fighter who achieved almost as much in the ring as his brother. At this time the University of Idaho was a boxing powerhouse on the national scene, five of the eight positions on the team were held at one time by fighters from Burke and Wallace: Herb Carlson (also a national champion), Leonard and Norman Walker, Bobby Rivera, and Rex Foreman. I don’t recall if they ever won a national championship outright, but I know they tied for it one year, I think maybe with Michigan or Michigan State. As far as I know boxing is no longer a High School or College sport but in the 1940’s and 50’s it was pretty common. Frank Young was the boxing coach at that time.
I continued my erratic process of doing well in courses I liked and not so well in those I didn’t like. I took classes in psychology and sociology, subjects I had never heard of in Wallace High School. I also took Anthropology and Philosophy courses I had never heard of in High School. I did not do so well in required courses like zoology, math, and physics. I remember being very impressed by one Philosophy teacher, Dr. Moore, but as he was a superior teacher he soon left the University of Idaho for a better position. Another philosophy teacher was a Mr. Seamen who apparently had failed his Ph.D. exams somewhere but taught aesthetics and ethics. I liked him personally, but he was a strange one, about 6’ 3” tall, wearing a large black opera cape his wife had made for him, and not as effective a teacher as Moore. Getting ahead of myself, I took correspondence courses from him later when I was in the army. As far as I know he never received his Ph.D. and years later, after I had achieved that honor, and was teaching at the University of Washington, he was apparently so desperate he visited me to see if I could help him get a position there. I felt bad for him but, of course, I could not help him). I also remember a Mr. Cushman (Dr.?) who taught a course in Great Books. I loved it and did extremely well. My Anthropology Professor was Dr. Alfred Bowers. He was not very inspirational but I loved the subject matter. I took courses in Psychology from William (“Butch”) Boyer who was the head of the department, as well as from a couple of other Psychology Profs. Eventually I was to major in Psychology, so more on that later. I did not distinguish myself during this year but I did well enough to know I could return.
The atmosphere in the boarding house was, shall I say, much more “raunchy” than intellectual. I lived there only this one year.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Here We Go Again
Would be credit union robber
mumbles, fumbles, stumbles,
drops gun and flees.
Here we go again. Now we want to put missile defenses in Rumania, ostensibly to protect Europe from potential missile attacks from Iran. Russia is concerned again, just as they were over our attempt to put such defenses in Poland, and rightly so as near as I can tell. One might well ask, what missile attacks? Does anyone really believe that Iran is going to start firing missiles at Europe or Russia or anywhere else for that matter? What on earth is the matter with us? We seem to keep insisting that Iran is some terrible threat to us, Europe, Israel, or presumably even Iceland or Tasmania. I repeat myself, why would Iran with a military budget one (1) percent of ours, and far less than Israel’s or most any other major country, want to start firing missiles at anyone and thus bring about their inevitable demise? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can only conclude from our recent build-up in the Persian Gulf, and now this, that we are deliberately trying to provoke Iran into doing something that will give us an excuse to start yet another “war.” I guess now that we are (presumably) going to get out of Iraq, and Russia is no longer considered a mortal threat, we don’t dare attack China, and we can’t attack Saudi Arabia or anywhere else where we have to get oil (like Venezuela, Mexico or Canada), we have to make certain we have another “enemy” threatening us and Iran fits the bill. Without such an enemy how could we possibly continue to justify bloated defense and Pentagon budgets that exist for little reason other than maintaining our absurd military/industrial/political complex and thus fattening the already obscenely fat cats that demand it? This belief that Iran is a threat to the world is obviously just manufactured and promoted for no other reason as it has no basis in reality. Let me repeat it again, Iran is not a threat to the U.S. or the rest of the world. There is no evidence they are anywhere near building a nuclear bomb, nor do they have enough missiles to make them a serious threat to the world. They have not attacked anyone for more than 200 years, the Iranian people admire the U.S., and if Israel and the U.S. would stop threatening to bomb them they would most probably be happy to negotiate whatever it is that needs to be negotiated (but obviously they are not going to negotiate a regime change with us). This whole business with Iran is stupid beyond belief.
And speaking of stupid, I see that our country continues to muddle along with a political system so absurd it ought to be the subject of a comic book. In what is supposed to be a democratic system nothing can happen in Washington because of threatened filibusters. That is, the majority does not rule in this democracy, instead there must be 60 votes out of 100 to get anything done and the Republicans have 41 votes and threaten to filibuster everything. For some unfathomable reason the Democrats refuse to use their 51 vote majority to overturn this ridiculous situation and so the stalemate continues. If that is not stupid enough, it turns out that one Senator (in this case Richard Shelby) can single-handedly hold up not one appointment, but all appointments the President wishes to make. This is democracy at work? And what makes this worse is that the hold-ups have nothing whatsoever to do with the qualifications of any of these appointments, but, rather, with the fact that Shelby wants a bunch of money for some project or other in Alabama, in other words, a kind of legal blackmail. And don’t forget that our Supreme Court has now insisted that corporations are actually persons and are allowed to contribute as much money as they wish to influence politics, which for all practical purposes means that no one but the corporations will be able to determine who the candidates will be, who will be elected, and what they will be allowed to do once elected. This is not a whole lot different from what happens now, but they are so much in charge now they feel they can be perfectly open about it, come out of the closet as it were.
LKBIQ:
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
David Brin
TILT:
Cinnamon is native to Sri Lanka and was imported into Egypt as early as 2000 B.C.
mumbles, fumbles, stumbles,
drops gun and flees.
Here we go again. Now we want to put missile defenses in Rumania, ostensibly to protect Europe from potential missile attacks from Iran. Russia is concerned again, just as they were over our attempt to put such defenses in Poland, and rightly so as near as I can tell. One might well ask, what missile attacks? Does anyone really believe that Iran is going to start firing missiles at Europe or Russia or anywhere else for that matter? What on earth is the matter with us? We seem to keep insisting that Iran is some terrible threat to us, Europe, Israel, or presumably even Iceland or Tasmania. I repeat myself, why would Iran with a military budget one (1) percent of ours, and far less than Israel’s or most any other major country, want to start firing missiles at anyone and thus bring about their inevitable demise? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can only conclude from our recent build-up in the Persian Gulf, and now this, that we are deliberately trying to provoke Iran into doing something that will give us an excuse to start yet another “war.” I guess now that we are (presumably) going to get out of Iraq, and Russia is no longer considered a mortal threat, we don’t dare attack China, and we can’t attack Saudi Arabia or anywhere else where we have to get oil (like Venezuela, Mexico or Canada), we have to make certain we have another “enemy” threatening us and Iran fits the bill. Without such an enemy how could we possibly continue to justify bloated defense and Pentagon budgets that exist for little reason other than maintaining our absurd military/industrial/political complex and thus fattening the already obscenely fat cats that demand it? This belief that Iran is a threat to the world is obviously just manufactured and promoted for no other reason as it has no basis in reality. Let me repeat it again, Iran is not a threat to the U.S. or the rest of the world. There is no evidence they are anywhere near building a nuclear bomb, nor do they have enough missiles to make them a serious threat to the world. They have not attacked anyone for more than 200 years, the Iranian people admire the U.S., and if Israel and the U.S. would stop threatening to bomb them they would most probably be happy to negotiate whatever it is that needs to be negotiated (but obviously they are not going to negotiate a regime change with us). This whole business with Iran is stupid beyond belief.
And speaking of stupid, I see that our country continues to muddle along with a political system so absurd it ought to be the subject of a comic book. In what is supposed to be a democratic system nothing can happen in Washington because of threatened filibusters. That is, the majority does not rule in this democracy, instead there must be 60 votes out of 100 to get anything done and the Republicans have 41 votes and threaten to filibuster everything. For some unfathomable reason the Democrats refuse to use their 51 vote majority to overturn this ridiculous situation and so the stalemate continues. If that is not stupid enough, it turns out that one Senator (in this case Richard Shelby) can single-handedly hold up not one appointment, but all appointments the President wishes to make. This is democracy at work? And what makes this worse is that the hold-ups have nothing whatsoever to do with the qualifications of any of these appointments, but, rather, with the fact that Shelby wants a bunch of money for some project or other in Alabama, in other words, a kind of legal blackmail. And don’t forget that our Supreme Court has now insisted that corporations are actually persons and are allowed to contribute as much money as they wish to influence politics, which for all practical purposes means that no one but the corporations will be able to determine who the candidates will be, who will be elected, and what they will be allowed to do once elected. This is not a whole lot different from what happens now, but they are so much in charge now they feel they can be perfectly open about it, come out of the closet as it were.
LKBIQ:
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
David Brin
TILT:
Cinnamon is native to Sri Lanka and was imported into Egypt as early as 2000 B.C.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Too Big to Succeed?
Man with 75 bottles of
shoplifted body lotion stuffed
in pants fails to elude police.
Common sense fails again. A nine year old New York boy brought a 2 inch plastic machine gun from a Lego figure to school, was pulled from lunch and berated by his school principal. This kind of idiocy is more common than you think (see Morialekafa 10-12-09).
It seems the Republicans are lining up on the side of the banks and corporations against the people. Why this should surprise anyone I do not know as they have always been on the side of business against the people. Besides, after the recent outrageous decision by the Supreme Court, essentially turning the country over to corporate rule, they know enough to cling to the winning side.
Thinking about the banks and corporations has made me begin to think about the phrase “to big to fail.” It occurs to me that is basically meaningless unless one defines what it is to “fail.” I guess in the case of banks it means to run out of money to conduct their business as it is supposed to be conducted. And it is assumed that their business is simply to loan money at interest to help people and businesses get started and prosper. But if the goal of the banking industry is, say, to make money for their employees and the huge corporations they finance, they succeeded spectacularly, as many of them could easily retire after one year of bonuses, the corporations flourished, and in the end the taxpayers bailed them out. Obviously failure is in the eyes of the beholder. This is not a very good example. Think about it from a different perspective, “too big to succeed.”
If there are things too big to fail, are there things too big to succeed? I would say yes, there are. For example, Hitler’s attempt to conquer Russia during WWII was too big to succeed. For anyone to try to invade and conquer China would be something too big to succeed. But what about more reasonable examples, say, corporate agriculture. Corporate farming is big, very big, and it purportedly produces food much cheaper than old-fashioned farming methods. In that sense it has succeeded. However, it succeeds only by more quickly destroying the land, and by the use of chemicals and genetic techniques that in the long run have adverse effects. It also contributes to unemployment in that one farmer can do the work of what a great many had to do in the past. In this sense it is too big to succeed, if the goal is to have a healthy, sustainable agriculture over time. This is true of all huge corporations because they make their profits importantly by reducing the amount of labor required and therefore result in surplus populations that become a great social problem. While there are benefits to be gained by large scale enterprises, an idea widespread in American affairs for a long time now, there are also deleterious effects of scale that have been ignored. If unemployment, health problems, surplus populations, adequate housing, health care, equitable rewards, the environment, and other such factors were taken into account, it would probably be the case that, depending upon the task at hand, there are probably ideal sizes for various industries and corporations. It should be at least theoretically possible to determine how any given enterprise should be conducted to maximize benefits for all concerned and minimize questionable by-products and unanticipated problems. Of course no capitalistic society, where profit is the primary motive, operates this way. Any suggestion that it should is immediately shouted down as some kind of horrible socialistic or communistic plot, and so capitalistic societies continue on in a kind of cannibalistic orgy in which the strong, or the wealthy, consume their weaker, poorer cousins until such time as the situation becomes so bad it is forced by its own excesses to change. This is what happened around the beginning of the 20th century and it appears it may happen again before much longer.
Capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism, is a perfect example of something too big to succeed. There was no capitalism in our former small scale “primitive” or “folk” societies, where human relations were more personal, face-to-face, based upon ties of kin and place, and not regulated by legal contracts between strangers. There were no surplus populations, little or no crime, few, if any orphans, and when one ate, everyone ate. Idyllic no, but societies survived like that for thousands of years, it is unlikely that capitalism will do the same.
LKBIQ:
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone
John Maynard Keynes
TILT:
Only New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand do not have native shrews.
shoplifted body lotion stuffed
in pants fails to elude police.
Common sense fails again. A nine year old New York boy brought a 2 inch plastic machine gun from a Lego figure to school, was pulled from lunch and berated by his school principal. This kind of idiocy is more common than you think (see Morialekafa 10-12-09).
It seems the Republicans are lining up on the side of the banks and corporations against the people. Why this should surprise anyone I do not know as they have always been on the side of business against the people. Besides, after the recent outrageous decision by the Supreme Court, essentially turning the country over to corporate rule, they know enough to cling to the winning side.
Thinking about the banks and corporations has made me begin to think about the phrase “to big to fail.” It occurs to me that is basically meaningless unless one defines what it is to “fail.” I guess in the case of banks it means to run out of money to conduct their business as it is supposed to be conducted. And it is assumed that their business is simply to loan money at interest to help people and businesses get started and prosper. But if the goal of the banking industry is, say, to make money for their employees and the huge corporations they finance, they succeeded spectacularly, as many of them could easily retire after one year of bonuses, the corporations flourished, and in the end the taxpayers bailed them out. Obviously failure is in the eyes of the beholder. This is not a very good example. Think about it from a different perspective, “too big to succeed.”
If there are things too big to fail, are there things too big to succeed? I would say yes, there are. For example, Hitler’s attempt to conquer Russia during WWII was too big to succeed. For anyone to try to invade and conquer China would be something too big to succeed. But what about more reasonable examples, say, corporate agriculture. Corporate farming is big, very big, and it purportedly produces food much cheaper than old-fashioned farming methods. In that sense it has succeeded. However, it succeeds only by more quickly destroying the land, and by the use of chemicals and genetic techniques that in the long run have adverse effects. It also contributes to unemployment in that one farmer can do the work of what a great many had to do in the past. In this sense it is too big to succeed, if the goal is to have a healthy, sustainable agriculture over time. This is true of all huge corporations because they make their profits importantly by reducing the amount of labor required and therefore result in surplus populations that become a great social problem. While there are benefits to be gained by large scale enterprises, an idea widespread in American affairs for a long time now, there are also deleterious effects of scale that have been ignored. If unemployment, health problems, surplus populations, adequate housing, health care, equitable rewards, the environment, and other such factors were taken into account, it would probably be the case that, depending upon the task at hand, there are probably ideal sizes for various industries and corporations. It should be at least theoretically possible to determine how any given enterprise should be conducted to maximize benefits for all concerned and minimize questionable by-products and unanticipated problems. Of course no capitalistic society, where profit is the primary motive, operates this way. Any suggestion that it should is immediately shouted down as some kind of horrible socialistic or communistic plot, and so capitalistic societies continue on in a kind of cannibalistic orgy in which the strong, or the wealthy, consume their weaker, poorer cousins until such time as the situation becomes so bad it is forced by its own excesses to change. This is what happened around the beginning of the 20th century and it appears it may happen again before much longer.
Capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism, is a perfect example of something too big to succeed. There was no capitalism in our former small scale “primitive” or “folk” societies, where human relations were more personal, face-to-face, based upon ties of kin and place, and not regulated by legal contracts between strangers. There were no surplus populations, little or no crime, few, if any orphans, and when one ate, everyone ate. Idyllic no, but societies survived like that for thousands of years, it is unlikely that capitalism will do the same.
LKBIQ:
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone
John Maynard Keynes
TILT:
Only New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand do not have native shrews.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Sex, Lies, and...More Lies
Upset when gas pump is
turned off, man drives SUV
through plate glass window.
You may think I have abandoned my hobby, “Collecting Sex Advice for Women from the Covers of Women’s Magazines,” but you would be wrong. It’s the greatest hobby I’ve ever had. First, it costs absolutely nothing (I have to go to the Supermarket anyway). Second, it’s easy (all you have to do is read the covers). Third it’s titillating (would be a lot more titillating if I actually read any of these articles but I have a rule against that, it keeps me from foolishly ever buying one of them). Fourth, you don’t have to work on it every day, or even every week, as the magazines come out only once a month). There is only one minor problem in that it is difficult to restrict the domain. That is, virtually all Women’s magazines deal with things like having sexy hair, sexy bodies, sexy arms, sexy legs, sexy smiles, sexy eyes, sexy dresses, sexy sandals, and so on and on (I still haven’t seen any claims for sexy feet). Thus if you are not really disciplined you end up with a never ending supply of material. You have to stick with the real nitty gritty sex. This month, for example, there are three articles in Cosmopolitan that clearly are collectible (Cosmopolitan seems to be significantly more interested in the topic of sex than other similar magazines): “99 Sex Moves, Sweet and Slow, Quick and Dirty, and Everything in Between,” “The Hour Men Crave Sex Most,” and “Unleash Your Cheeks, Why Guys Stopped Loving the Thong” (this might be somewhat borderline). I submit these all meet the basic criteria for my hobby. Women’s Health offers “Make Good Sex Great, 15 Scorching Foreplay Moves to Try Tonight.” Redbook offers “Sex Every Night? What 2000 Women Desire in Bed – and What They’re Really Doing.” Glamour, not to be left behind, offered, “101 Things No One Tells You About Guys, Their Sex Desires, Their Body Hang-ups, and the Real Reasons They Cheat.” Self Magazine gives us “More Pleasure in Bed, Maximize Your Fun and His (But Mostly Yours).” The sum total of this seems to indicate that American women may be obsessively interested in sex. This is probably just as well, as American men appear to be obsessively interested in the same thing. Wow, what a revelation! Now with Viagra and Cialis and other aids they can pursue it virtually full time.
But enough of sex and hobbies, let’s turn to more serious matters, like saying stupid things and lying. I suppose you are aware that Leon Panetta, the current head of the CIA, has predicted we will have an attempted terrorist attack within 3 to 6 months. Wow, run for your bomb shelters (if you still have one), the terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming! What kind of prediction is this? I could just as easily have predicted it. And as we apparently have such attacks regularly (even though we don’t always hear about them) this would seem to be a sure thing. So thanks Panetta for telling us the obvious. They just can’t get along without that constant element of fear that makes us behave just as they want us to.
As far as the lying goes, when it comes to Republicans it just never stops. If you watch the Rachel Maddow show (the best show on television that should be required watching) you were treated this evening to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine telling the most outrageous lies about Obama’s terrorism policies. They were castigating Obama for doing precisely the same thing with terrorists the Bush/Cheney administration did some 300 times. Now why would they do such a thing? It seems to me there are only three possibilities: (1) they were unaware of this, (2) they were aware but just lied, or (3) they honestly forgot about it. If you believe either 1 or 3 they are either ignorant of what transpired in the Bush/Cheney administration (in which case they are seriously incompetent), or they suffer from serious memory lapses that should probably disqualify them from holding important offices in government. If you find these unacceptable you must conclude they were deliberately lying (which, I believe, they were). It seems there is no lie so outrageous or ridiculous the Republicans won’t use it to attempt to discredit our President. It is sad, really, that what used to be a pretty reasonable political party, has now become little more than a criminal conspiracy dedicated to overthrowing our elected President and once again taking control of our country in the name of greed and short term profit. Just like Capone, they have bought the judges, including the Supreme Court, Congresspersons and Senators, and are well on their way to succeeding. The only thing standing in their way is a Black and White President on a great white stallion temporarily slowing them down. The showdown at the corral is just beginning and the stakes are very high indeed. Paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln somewhat carelessly, Can our nation survive 90% slave (Proletariat) and 10% Bourgeoisie? Unless something happens quickly we will soon have no choice in the matter. All hail Corporate Masters, Excellencies, Royal Highnesses, Kings of Kings, God’s representatives on earth doing God’s work (they say).
LKBIQ:
To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.
Friedrich Nietzsche
TILT:
The first carousel in the United States was in Ohio in 1840.
turned off, man drives SUV
through plate glass window.
You may think I have abandoned my hobby, “Collecting Sex Advice for Women from the Covers of Women’s Magazines,” but you would be wrong. It’s the greatest hobby I’ve ever had. First, it costs absolutely nothing (I have to go to the Supermarket anyway). Second, it’s easy (all you have to do is read the covers). Third it’s titillating (would be a lot more titillating if I actually read any of these articles but I have a rule against that, it keeps me from foolishly ever buying one of them). Fourth, you don’t have to work on it every day, or even every week, as the magazines come out only once a month). There is only one minor problem in that it is difficult to restrict the domain. That is, virtually all Women’s magazines deal with things like having sexy hair, sexy bodies, sexy arms, sexy legs, sexy smiles, sexy eyes, sexy dresses, sexy sandals, and so on and on (I still haven’t seen any claims for sexy feet). Thus if you are not really disciplined you end up with a never ending supply of material. You have to stick with the real nitty gritty sex. This month, for example, there are three articles in Cosmopolitan that clearly are collectible (Cosmopolitan seems to be significantly more interested in the topic of sex than other similar magazines): “99 Sex Moves, Sweet and Slow, Quick and Dirty, and Everything in Between,” “The Hour Men Crave Sex Most,” and “Unleash Your Cheeks, Why Guys Stopped Loving the Thong” (this might be somewhat borderline). I submit these all meet the basic criteria for my hobby. Women’s Health offers “Make Good Sex Great, 15 Scorching Foreplay Moves to Try Tonight.” Redbook offers “Sex Every Night? What 2000 Women Desire in Bed – and What They’re Really Doing.” Glamour, not to be left behind, offered, “101 Things No One Tells You About Guys, Their Sex Desires, Their Body Hang-ups, and the Real Reasons They Cheat.” Self Magazine gives us “More Pleasure in Bed, Maximize Your Fun and His (But Mostly Yours).” The sum total of this seems to indicate that American women may be obsessively interested in sex. This is probably just as well, as American men appear to be obsessively interested in the same thing. Wow, what a revelation! Now with Viagra and Cialis and other aids they can pursue it virtually full time.
But enough of sex and hobbies, let’s turn to more serious matters, like saying stupid things and lying. I suppose you are aware that Leon Panetta, the current head of the CIA, has predicted we will have an attempted terrorist attack within 3 to 6 months. Wow, run for your bomb shelters (if you still have one), the terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming! What kind of prediction is this? I could just as easily have predicted it. And as we apparently have such attacks regularly (even though we don’t always hear about them) this would seem to be a sure thing. So thanks Panetta for telling us the obvious. They just can’t get along without that constant element of fear that makes us behave just as they want us to.
As far as the lying goes, when it comes to Republicans it just never stops. If you watch the Rachel Maddow show (the best show on television that should be required watching) you were treated this evening to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine telling the most outrageous lies about Obama’s terrorism policies. They were castigating Obama for doing precisely the same thing with terrorists the Bush/Cheney administration did some 300 times. Now why would they do such a thing? It seems to me there are only three possibilities: (1) they were unaware of this, (2) they were aware but just lied, or (3) they honestly forgot about it. If you believe either 1 or 3 they are either ignorant of what transpired in the Bush/Cheney administration (in which case they are seriously incompetent), or they suffer from serious memory lapses that should probably disqualify them from holding important offices in government. If you find these unacceptable you must conclude they were deliberately lying (which, I believe, they were). It seems there is no lie so outrageous or ridiculous the Republicans won’t use it to attempt to discredit our President. It is sad, really, that what used to be a pretty reasonable political party, has now become little more than a criminal conspiracy dedicated to overthrowing our elected President and once again taking control of our country in the name of greed and short term profit. Just like Capone, they have bought the judges, including the Supreme Court, Congresspersons and Senators, and are well on their way to succeeding. The only thing standing in their way is a Black and White President on a great white stallion temporarily slowing them down. The showdown at the corral is just beginning and the stakes are very high indeed. Paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln somewhat carelessly, Can our nation survive 90% slave (Proletariat) and 10% Bourgeoisie? Unless something happens quickly we will soon have no choice in the matter. All hail Corporate Masters, Excellencies, Royal Highnesses, Kings of Kings, God’s representatives on earth doing God’s work (they say).
LKBIQ:
To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.
Friedrich Nietzsche
TILT:
The first carousel in the United States was in Ohio in 1840.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Republicans Exposed
Swedish man terrifies
ex-wife by pushing mice
through her mail slot.
Now that President Obama has decided to go on the attack there can be no further doubt about what the Republicans are trying to do, and it is ugly. They have clung obstinately to their plan to just say no to anything and everything Obama wishes to do. Perhaps if these were things Obama wished to do for himself there might be some justification for this treasonous, or near treasonous behavior on the part of Republicans, but these are things he is trying to do for our country, for us. Plans for universal health care, saving the economy, creating jobs, improving education, rebuilding superstructure, consumer protection, ending don’t ask, don’t tell, and so on. But still, at every attempt he is met with resistance. As Obama has made clear in the past few days, even things Republicans themselves were for, when he agrees and wants to do them, they become opposed. There can be no explanation for this other than that they wish him to fail (and our country with him). One might hope that now that they have been exposed they might decide to become more cooperative, but don’t bet on it. As Obama has also pointed out, they have demonized him to the point where they probably can’t change now without looking ridiculous. They are now trapped by their own greed, lust for power, and stupidity. While Obama recognizes this I’m not so sure the Republican base will pay any attention as they do not appear to think very clearly about anything (if they think at all).
John McCain may be a good case in point. He said previously that if the generals would come out in favor of abolishing don’t ask, don’t tell, he would listen to them. But now that they have done so, he has refused to accept their opinions and threw a petulant fit because they did not ask his permission first. Actually, in McCain’s case, I think there may be more to it than meets the eye. I think he may be going senile. I don’t know how one would explain his terrible lack of judgment in the past couple of years, and his changing positions so erratically if he was the McCain of old. If this is not a case of aging and slipping a bit one would have to conclude he is simply mean-spirited or evil, and I do not like to think that of him (in spite of his attempt to inflict Her Silliness on us because of his egomaniacal drive to become President).
It is still a long time before the 2010 elections. There are many predictions that Republicans will re-take the House of Representative, pick up seats in the Senate, and so on. They believe this will happen because Democrats have just not produced anything of substance (primarily jobs and health care reform). Perhaps they are right, perhaps Republicans will win more seats. But perhaps they won’t. I can understand how people are not happy about the state of our nation, and I can understand how they might wish to take their dissatisfaction out on Democrats, but what I cannot understand is why this would lead them to vote for Republicans. First, much of the problem has been the Republicans, the party of no, who have resisted and blocked any attempt by Obama to bring about meaningful change. In effect they have just ceased participating in governing our nation. Given their record, as well as that of the Democrats, I would understand how someone might prefer to vote for a dead dog or a purple cow, or even Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, but certainly not for a Republican (if not a Democrat). Some say it will be incumbents who are at risk, whether Democrat or Republican. This makes perfect sense to me, throw out most or all of the incumbents, but please, please, do not replace them with more of the same. We’ve been doing a lot of outsourcing in recent years, shipping jobs overseas, seeking competent people elsewhere to do our manufacturing and even our services. I suggest we outsource our Congresspersons and Senators, bring in some talent from India, China, Korea, or even Pipelinestan and let them compete in our elections. Running against incumbents they would doubtless win and then perhaps we might actually see some positive changes.
Another change I think may be long overdue is forced retirement of Congresspersons, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices. If ordinary people have to retire at 65 or 70, or whenever, why should those in charge of government be allowed to continue on into their senility when they become so feeble they can barely stand? If Supreme Court Justices are given positions of such authority for life, I think we need a more precise definition of “life.” If we can’t seem to agree on just when human life begins (at conception, some unknown time later?), perhaps we could decide when for all practical purposes it ends. Does anyone believe that a Senator or judge at 90 years of age is still as sharp and up-to-date as they were at 40 or 50? It’s like the Senator from Alaska who said the internet was a series of tubes, or Senator Byrd having to be wheeled in to cast his vote. Given that people do live longer than they used to, and given that in general they are in better health at ripe old ages, I still think 70 is probably a good time for them to gracefully retire and write their memoirs. I also think we should take our elections more seriously and perhaps even have some prerequisites for those running for public office (but this is for another time).
LKBIQ:
When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained.
Edward R. Murrow
TILT:
On the Island of New Guinea there were said to be more than 700 separate languages.
ex-wife by pushing mice
through her mail slot.
Now that President Obama has decided to go on the attack there can be no further doubt about what the Republicans are trying to do, and it is ugly. They have clung obstinately to their plan to just say no to anything and everything Obama wishes to do. Perhaps if these were things Obama wished to do for himself there might be some justification for this treasonous, or near treasonous behavior on the part of Republicans, but these are things he is trying to do for our country, for us. Plans for universal health care, saving the economy, creating jobs, improving education, rebuilding superstructure, consumer protection, ending don’t ask, don’t tell, and so on. But still, at every attempt he is met with resistance. As Obama has made clear in the past few days, even things Republicans themselves were for, when he agrees and wants to do them, they become opposed. There can be no explanation for this other than that they wish him to fail (and our country with him). One might hope that now that they have been exposed they might decide to become more cooperative, but don’t bet on it. As Obama has also pointed out, they have demonized him to the point where they probably can’t change now without looking ridiculous. They are now trapped by their own greed, lust for power, and stupidity. While Obama recognizes this I’m not so sure the Republican base will pay any attention as they do not appear to think very clearly about anything (if they think at all).
John McCain may be a good case in point. He said previously that if the generals would come out in favor of abolishing don’t ask, don’t tell, he would listen to them. But now that they have done so, he has refused to accept their opinions and threw a petulant fit because they did not ask his permission first. Actually, in McCain’s case, I think there may be more to it than meets the eye. I think he may be going senile. I don’t know how one would explain his terrible lack of judgment in the past couple of years, and his changing positions so erratically if he was the McCain of old. If this is not a case of aging and slipping a bit one would have to conclude he is simply mean-spirited or evil, and I do not like to think that of him (in spite of his attempt to inflict Her Silliness on us because of his egomaniacal drive to become President).
It is still a long time before the 2010 elections. There are many predictions that Republicans will re-take the House of Representative, pick up seats in the Senate, and so on. They believe this will happen because Democrats have just not produced anything of substance (primarily jobs and health care reform). Perhaps they are right, perhaps Republicans will win more seats. But perhaps they won’t. I can understand how people are not happy about the state of our nation, and I can understand how they might wish to take their dissatisfaction out on Democrats, but what I cannot understand is why this would lead them to vote for Republicans. First, much of the problem has been the Republicans, the party of no, who have resisted and blocked any attempt by Obama to bring about meaningful change. In effect they have just ceased participating in governing our nation. Given their record, as well as that of the Democrats, I would understand how someone might prefer to vote for a dead dog or a purple cow, or even Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, but certainly not for a Republican (if not a Democrat). Some say it will be incumbents who are at risk, whether Democrat or Republican. This makes perfect sense to me, throw out most or all of the incumbents, but please, please, do not replace them with more of the same. We’ve been doing a lot of outsourcing in recent years, shipping jobs overseas, seeking competent people elsewhere to do our manufacturing and even our services. I suggest we outsource our Congresspersons and Senators, bring in some talent from India, China, Korea, or even Pipelinestan and let them compete in our elections. Running against incumbents they would doubtless win and then perhaps we might actually see some positive changes.
Another change I think may be long overdue is forced retirement of Congresspersons, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices. If ordinary people have to retire at 65 or 70, or whenever, why should those in charge of government be allowed to continue on into their senility when they become so feeble they can barely stand? If Supreme Court Justices are given positions of such authority for life, I think we need a more precise definition of “life.” If we can’t seem to agree on just when human life begins (at conception, some unknown time later?), perhaps we could decide when for all practical purposes it ends. Does anyone believe that a Senator or judge at 90 years of age is still as sharp and up-to-date as they were at 40 or 50? It’s like the Senator from Alaska who said the internet was a series of tubes, or Senator Byrd having to be wheeled in to cast his vote. Given that people do live longer than they used to, and given that in general they are in better health at ripe old ages, I still think 70 is probably a good time for them to gracefully retire and write their memoirs. I also think we should take our elections more seriously and perhaps even have some prerequisites for those running for public office (but this is for another time).
LKBIQ:
When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained.
Edward R. Murrow
TILT:
On the Island of New Guinea there were said to be more than 700 separate languages.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Fascism!
Malaysian lovers fined
four buffalo and a pig
for illicit affair.
I remind you once again of Mussolini’s concept of fascism (in its simplest form): When corporations and government come together as a single authoritarian party to manage a country (that is not very precise but close enough). If you don’t like that definition, look up fascism in the dictionary or read Mussolini. I believe there is no longer any reasonable doubt that the U.S. is far along in substituting fascism for our democracy. Indeed, the fascists are now so confident of their control over our affairs they believe they can make any outrageous decision they want. Consider that the Supreme Court recently formalized their control by handing down a ruling so outrageous it violated a hundred years of precedent. Corporations can now donate as much money as they wish to political affairs, and as the people cannot possibly match these massive donations their voice will be muted. If that decision was not outrageous enough, a high level judge has now declared that the two lawyers responsible for “legalizing” waterboarding and other forms of torture merely made “a mistake in judgment” rather than any serious violation of the law or constitution, and hence will avoid punishment of any kind. This includes the notorious Yoo, who, apparently when asked if it would be legal for a young man’s testicles to be crushed in front of his parents, replied that it would if that is what the President thought fit (if this is true, Yoo should not be criticized for a mistake in judgment, or even disbarred, he should be confined to an institution for the psychotically deranged).This merely confirms the decision apparently already made by the Obama administration that our (confessed and other) war criminals will not be investigated, prosecuted, or brought to justice; after all, what’s about a million or so innocents dead and four million displaced). If the American people do not rise up soon and demand these outrageous decisions be reversed, and take back their democracy, it may be too late.
And speaking of “The American People,” just who are they? I hear politicians on both sides of the aisle often claim that the American People believe such and such, or want so and so, or are fed up with something or other, and so on. As far as I know Americans have never agreed upon anything, so using the phrase “the American People” is simply nonsensical. When a politician says this it is at best wishful thinking and at worst a flat-out lie. The American People didn’t even agree completely on WWII, and they certainly can’t be said to agree on anything at the moment. I bet if politicians were fined every time they used this silly phrase they would soon stop using it.
Barney Frank, bless him, has come right out and said it, the reason we are broke is because of the “wars.” This has always seemed perfectly obvious to me, but somehow no one ever mentions it, preferring instead other excuses for why we don’t have enough money to do anything useful for ourselves, like health care, education, superstructure, or whatever. And bless Pelosi also for insisting the military cannot be exempt if there is going to be a freeze on funding. Our military budget is so bloated and mostly useless for whatever threats may be coming our way, it should be cut probably at least in half. If we stopped these senseless “wars” and trimmed our military and pentagon budgets we could actually eventually get out of debt and start rebuilding our own economy and country. Obama mentioned common sense the other day, but he doesn’t seem to have any more than anyone else. Of course you rarely hear anyone blame Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy mentioned either, but at least Obama has the good sense to let them expire (I think he has little choice now that our debt is so great).
I think a good example of this apparent lack of sense might be seen at the moment in what is apparently a rather massive buildup of our missiles, missile defenses, and military presence in the Persian Gulf. This is said to be in answer to a potential missile threat from Iran. I am not privy to our intelligence operations or any inside information about national defense, but I believe the threat of an Iranian missile attack is absolute bullshit. If anything our actions are probably designed to provoke Iran into doing something that we can then use as an excuse to start still another “war.” Don’t forget how Bush/Cheney tried to provoke Iraq to do something that would give them an excuse. I hate to sound like a broken record, but, again, let me say Iranians are not stupid, nor have they attacked anyone for two hundred or more years (can the U.S. say that?). For what conceivable reason would Iran (with a military budget around one percent of ours and nowhere near that of Israel) launch a missile attack against such overwhelming odds, and what would be the purpose? If there are any warmongers in the Middle East they are clearly Israel and the U.S., and as long as Israel is allowed to conduct torture and genocide against the Palestinians, as well as continuing to steal Palestinian land and water, there will never be peace in that part of the world. U.S. Foreign policy under the Obama administration seems to be virtually unchanged from that of Bush/Cheney, and as long as it continues that way we will remain broke and beggarly as well as engaged in permanent “war.”
LKBIQ:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
TILT:
The life span of a Canadian Lynx is 15 to 21 years.
four buffalo and a pig
for illicit affair.
I remind you once again of Mussolini’s concept of fascism (in its simplest form): When corporations and government come together as a single authoritarian party to manage a country (that is not very precise but close enough). If you don’t like that definition, look up fascism in the dictionary or read Mussolini. I believe there is no longer any reasonable doubt that the U.S. is far along in substituting fascism for our democracy. Indeed, the fascists are now so confident of their control over our affairs they believe they can make any outrageous decision they want. Consider that the Supreme Court recently formalized their control by handing down a ruling so outrageous it violated a hundred years of precedent. Corporations can now donate as much money as they wish to political affairs, and as the people cannot possibly match these massive donations their voice will be muted. If that decision was not outrageous enough, a high level judge has now declared that the two lawyers responsible for “legalizing” waterboarding and other forms of torture merely made “a mistake in judgment” rather than any serious violation of the law or constitution, and hence will avoid punishment of any kind. This includes the notorious Yoo, who, apparently when asked if it would be legal for a young man’s testicles to be crushed in front of his parents, replied that it would if that is what the President thought fit (if this is true, Yoo should not be criticized for a mistake in judgment, or even disbarred, he should be confined to an institution for the psychotically deranged).This merely confirms the decision apparently already made by the Obama administration that our (confessed and other) war criminals will not be investigated, prosecuted, or brought to justice; after all, what’s about a million or so innocents dead and four million displaced). If the American people do not rise up soon and demand these outrageous decisions be reversed, and take back their democracy, it may be too late.
And speaking of “The American People,” just who are they? I hear politicians on both sides of the aisle often claim that the American People believe such and such, or want so and so, or are fed up with something or other, and so on. As far as I know Americans have never agreed upon anything, so using the phrase “the American People” is simply nonsensical. When a politician says this it is at best wishful thinking and at worst a flat-out lie. The American People didn’t even agree completely on WWII, and they certainly can’t be said to agree on anything at the moment. I bet if politicians were fined every time they used this silly phrase they would soon stop using it.
Barney Frank, bless him, has come right out and said it, the reason we are broke is because of the “wars.” This has always seemed perfectly obvious to me, but somehow no one ever mentions it, preferring instead other excuses for why we don’t have enough money to do anything useful for ourselves, like health care, education, superstructure, or whatever. And bless Pelosi also for insisting the military cannot be exempt if there is going to be a freeze on funding. Our military budget is so bloated and mostly useless for whatever threats may be coming our way, it should be cut probably at least in half. If we stopped these senseless “wars” and trimmed our military and pentagon budgets we could actually eventually get out of debt and start rebuilding our own economy and country. Obama mentioned common sense the other day, but he doesn’t seem to have any more than anyone else. Of course you rarely hear anyone blame Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy mentioned either, but at least Obama has the good sense to let them expire (I think he has little choice now that our debt is so great).
I think a good example of this apparent lack of sense might be seen at the moment in what is apparently a rather massive buildup of our missiles, missile defenses, and military presence in the Persian Gulf. This is said to be in answer to a potential missile threat from Iran. I am not privy to our intelligence operations or any inside information about national defense, but I believe the threat of an Iranian missile attack is absolute bullshit. If anything our actions are probably designed to provoke Iran into doing something that we can then use as an excuse to start still another “war.” Don’t forget how Bush/Cheney tried to provoke Iraq to do something that would give them an excuse. I hate to sound like a broken record, but, again, let me say Iranians are not stupid, nor have they attacked anyone for two hundred or more years (can the U.S. say that?). For what conceivable reason would Iran (with a military budget around one percent of ours and nowhere near that of Israel) launch a missile attack against such overwhelming odds, and what would be the purpose? If there are any warmongers in the Middle East they are clearly Israel and the U.S., and as long as Israel is allowed to conduct torture and genocide against the Palestinians, as well as continuing to steal Palestinian land and water, there will never be peace in that part of the world. U.S. Foreign policy under the Obama administration seems to be virtually unchanged from that of Bush/Cheney, and as long as it continues that way we will remain broke and beggarly as well as engaged in permanent “war.”
LKBIQ:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
TILT:
The life span of a Canadian Lynx is 15 to 21 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
