Same ol' same ol'

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

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

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

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

"Lecondel"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opportunism

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

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

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

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

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

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

On cheating

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

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

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

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

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

Another gloomy sunday

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

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

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

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

Two books

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

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

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

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

What's a girl to do?

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

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

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

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

Good grief!

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

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

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

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

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

Fabulous news of the day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Sali, "Mr. No"

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Benefits of Freedom

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

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

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

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

Voices in the wilderness

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

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

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

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

Hillary/Kucinich/nonsense

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

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

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

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

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

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

An act of treason

Mr. B became enraged when his host refused
him pickles. He returned later and assaulted
him - with two large pickles.

I have always believed that the outing of Valerie Plame was an act of treason, yet nothing was ever done about it. No one was ever held responsible for it even though it is known who was involved (Cheney, Bush, Libby, and Novak, at the very least). True, Libby was found guilty, but only of lying to a Grand Jury (and of course Bush quickly pardoned him before he might have told the truth). This is only one of the many crimes committed by Bush/Cheney who have yet to be held accountable for any of them. How is it that everyone seems to just continue to ignore this ignoble act of treason (along with all their other crimes)? Will they ever be held accountable, or will they just go into their retirements gloating over their more than merely devious record.

Kucinich has suggested that we should give some thought to Bush's mental condition. He is not the only one to have mentioned this possibility. I guess no one is taking it seriously. Why not? Unless, of course, you don't mind the possibility that a madman may lead us directly into WWIII. I read somewhere today that one of the reasons for not attacking Iran (at least so far) is the fear that some four senior Generals might resign. Did you ever think you would see the day when the only hope for avoiding war was apparently in the hands of the military? Don't worry, Bush will probably replace them and do what he wants anyway. If he can't get his way I guess he can continue to stomp the floor and slam doors.

Karen whats-her-face is resigning. You know who I mean, one of Bush's mama figures who has been with him for such a long time. The one whom Condi said gives really great sermons. The same one who has been charged with improving America's image around the world. I guess either she decided it was a lost cause or she thinks she had done such a great job she need not continue doing the Lord's work among the heathens. Will Georgie Boy continue to call her three or four times a day as he did when she quit for a while before? It must be pretty traumatic for him.

LKBIQ:
"Hey, Joe, we ain't here, we're ten miles from here."
Frenchy D.

Democratic blab fest

Arrested for sexually caressing teens feet,
foot fetishist previously stole panties.
His wife said he likes to smell socks.

They didn't touch her. Didn't even make a dent. I'm not a big fan of Hillary's but I think the much advertised attacks on her by Obama and Edwards didn't amount to much. They brought up again her vote on the Lieberman/Kyl proposal but she, again, answered with her interpretation of it and no progress was made on that score. Toward the end she kind of waffled on whether or not she supported giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants but even there she made perfect sense, saying she thought it was a good idea but didn't say she supported it (so it was unclear). But she asked what Spitzer was supposed to do, have thousands of drivers driving with no licenses. Dodd was the only one who came right out against the idea (with an argument that was really pretty feeble - a drivers license is a priviledge so why give illegals a priviledge). This would seem to indicate a certain oblivion to a real problem. Edwards probably made a bigger case against her but it seemed to just bounce off her like the proverbial water off a duck's back. I have to admit once again that in general I thought Hillary's performance was far superior to the rest. Actually, I thought the best moment of the night was when Biden came right out and said very emphatically that Giuliani was just not qualified to be President. Mike Gravel wasn't there. I guess they wouldn't let him participate. Democracy at work. Of course they had to get a laugh at Kucinich's expense at the end when they asked him about seeing a UFO and of course linked him with Shirley McClaine (well known flake).

I had to turn off the comments by the newsmen at the end because it seemed to me they had not actually seen the same program I did. Of course they tried to make a big deal of anything that even remotely seemed to be a dig at Hillary. But Hillary did fine as usual, kept her cool, made perfectly sensible answers, demonstrated once again that she is well versed on the issues, and in general was pretty much untouched. It wasn't much but compared to the last Republican babbleothon it was pretty good. I do wish these high-powered newspeople would learn to ask decent questions that one might reasonably expect the candidates to answer. Tim Russert is particularly guilty of this. For example, he asks if they will commit to saying that they will not allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb. All of them said they would do their best to prevent it - what in the world could anyone expect them to say to such an absurd question. The same with the question about Spitzer's drivers license question - do you support it (as if it were already set in stone and there could not be an question about it). Dumb questions. And of course Chris Matthews was his usual obnoxious self, constantly talking over everyone else and forcing everyone to talk at once. He is the worst interviewer I've ever seen (except, perhaps, Tucker Carlson who is little more than a blatant partisan).

LKBIQ:
"It's a question of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it don't matter"
Satchel Paige

How strange

News item:
"Contrary to popular belief, not
a significant amount of research
goes into cockroach radiation."

Is it just me or is not the strangest political season ever. I am at a loss to explain what is going on. For example, Hillary Clinton is the leading Democratic candidate in the polls. She is known to be following fairly closely to Bush's agenda on Iraq, Iran, and Israel. Bush's poll ratings are absolutely dismal, his "war" is incredibly unpopular, as is he. So why, if Hillary is following so close to his policies is she leading in the polls? I can understand why she is receiving more money from lobbyists and the corporations, they seem to have anointed her a long time ago and she is following along with their Republican agenda even though she pretends to be a Democrat (remember, she started out in life as a conservative Republican). But this does not explain her leading in the polls, which presumably do not reflect only the views of corporations and the wealthy. She is Bush-lite, Bush is almost universally reviled, so what gives? She has a commanding lead in the polls. How so?

On the Republican side we have Giuliani leading. Here is a guy who is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, divorced, known to be an adulterer, has children that won't even talk to him, cross-dresses, lived with a gay couple, recommended his probably criminal chief of police for high office (had to be withdrawn as it was such a fiasco), and so on, and is the the leading Republican candidate for conservative Republicans. Incredible. His main claim to fame is how heroic he was during 9/11, but now it turns out he didn't know much of anything about what was going on and his credentials as a fighter of terrorism are not much more than a myth. On top of that he knows nothing about foreign relations and, much more than Hillary, is literally joined at the hip to Bush. If you boil it all down to its basics, he has virtually nothing to recommend him other than having been mayor of New York City where half the population despised him. He wants to continue Bush's asinine "war" in Iraq and even attack Iran, even though the American public is overwhelmingly opposed to that. So how do you explain his lead in the polls?

As in both cases their poll numbers do not exceed about 30%. Does this mean they are getting support mainly from a relatively small number of true believers and when the elections begin in earnest we will have very different results? I certainly hope so.

I confess this is an absolute mystery to me. If it plays out to the finish and the Presidency will be between Hillary and Giuliani, guess what. We will have a choice between two Republicans for one thing. And it will be another Hobson's choice, pick between two lousy possibilities. The powers that be must be loving this. We ordinary citizens will be screwed again. It's the American way!

LKBIQ:
"My parents never bought costumes for us. It doesn't have to be a scary thing to be original. You could tie an eggbeater to your head and go as a motorboat."
Alice Cooper

A Long Way Gone--book review

I haven't seen anywhere where it says England and France are going along with sanctions against Iran. Even if they are, it won't make any difference. I am not too worried about what they are "about to do," they've already done more than enough to suit me.

Yesterday I finished reading A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier by Ishmael Beah. This is an incredible story of a teen-aged boy of Sierra Leone who is separated from his family, is forced to run and hide in the jungle for weeks, is hungry and totally miserable the entire time, eventually has to join the army to fight against the rebels, witnesses and engages himself in the most violent acts of murder and arson imaginable, learns his family survived the initial raids that killed most everyone else, tries to reconnect with them only to see them destroyed by rebels just before he can actually meet with them, goes on killing until by some strange act of fate is selected to be rehabilitated. As among other things he has been taking drugs, mostly cocaine and marijuana for months, in order to keep participating in the virtually endless pattern of slaughter, his rehabilitation is extremely difficult and takes months. He recovers with the help of a sympathetic and understanding nurse and some others, he eventually goes to live with an uncle in Freetown. In a short time he is one of two veteran child soldiers selected to represent Sierra Leone at a meeting at the U.N., discussing the issue of child soldiers. While there he meets a very wealthy American woman who stays in touch with him when he returns to Freetown. When rebels attack Freetown and the slaughter begins there as he had seen it before, and continues for months, his uncle dies and he escapes to Conakry, the capital of Guinea. From there he manages to fly to New York where he lives with his newly adopted mother. He goes to college for a time and writes this book about his experiences.

It is a fine and readable book, Beah is not without a talent for writing. Like all personal accounts I suspect there are many things he understandably does not want to tell us. But he does tell us accounts of cutting throats, killing indiscriminately, the hatred that motivated him, and the huge quantities of drugs he took that helped enable him to perform these terrible acts of violence and keep going day after day. A strange feature of the book, which I doubt was intended, is while reading it you have no idea what it is all about. There is a government army, of which he is a member, and there are rebels. They are engaged in constant raids upon each other's camps. But the ultimate purpose of all this raiding and killing is not clear. It is just a matter of one group seeking out and killing members of another group and vice-versa. There is no apparent relationship to a broader revolution or what it is supposed to be about. This is not a criticism of the book as I suspect this is all that it was about for him, just killing and more killing, and survival. From his description it is clear that it was traumatic almost beyond belief and that he learned to kill his countrymen skillfully and with no more remorse than killing flies. The boys engaged in this were constantly high-fiving and congratulating each other on how well they killed and how many they killed. The fact that he could actually be rehabilitated I regard as virtually miraculous in its own right. It is truly an awesome tale of a boy's survival in a country gone mad with blood lust, murder, arson, and pillage. You have to admire him for his honesty and success and wish him good luck for the future.

The dark side of reading his book, which is not his fault or the fault of the book itself, is that while reading it you don't think enough about the thousands of other child soldiers who were not so fortunate. His experience was one in a million. How many others were cut down in their teens never to experience normal life at all. The misery of all these thousands of innocent people is incalculable, there is no scale for such measurement. And Sierra Leone is just one case in point. The same horrible acts are occurring elsewhere in the world as you read this - in Iraq, Darfur, Somalia, Indonesia, and other places as well. The human species is a disgrace, as someone once said, "put here to humiliate the animals."

LKBIQ:
"Is it the only lesson of history that man is unteachable?"
Sir Winston Churchill

Stupid or insane or both?

She shot her eighth husband. Her boyfriend
buried him with a backhoe. His body was
found at the end of its tracks.

Bush has now embarked on unilateral sanctions against Iran. Unilateral because no one else in the world wants to go along with such a foolish and pointless idea. It is obvious that if Russia, China, Germany, and the rest of the world don't go along, sanctions are not likely to do anything other than exacerbate the hostility between the U.S., Iran, and the rest of the world. The Iranian response to the threat of unilateral sanctions seems to be amusement at the actions of a petulant child. Bush's new request for billions more for his "war" also contains several billions for bunker buster bombs with the stipulation these are urgent needs. As they aren't needed for Iraq or Afghanistan, many believe they are for Iran. So I ask you, is Bush stupid or insane or both? What is the point of sanctions when everyone knows they are not going to work? And what is the use of bunker buster bombs for Iran unless he is crazy enough to try to use them? Everyone knows that any U.S. attack on Iran is going to result in total chaos in the Middle East, drive the price of oil out of sight, and validate the status of the U.S. as the most evil of empires.
Are Bush/Cheney prepared for the consequences, or do they believe we'll be greeted as liberators and we'll be victorious in just a few days (as we were in Iraq).

Finally something to cheer about. Rumsfeld, foolish enough to visit France, was greeted there by a lawsuit accusing him of ordering torture. Similar lawsuits apparently await him in other countries as well. I guess he will just have to stay home (if he ever gets back). Viva la France! I wonder if there are similar suits awaiting Bush and Cheney. Hope so.

Bush is acting like a spoiled child because he can't get his way on absolutely everything he wants. Rice is under attack and getting more and more uncomfortable. Cheney, I guess, has gone hunting, I hope by himself this time. The White House Spokesperson says gobal warming will be good for people who suffer from the cold. FEMA held a press conference in which no reporters participated. Other FEMA members posed the softball questions that were answered by other FEMA members. Whee! It looks like Congress is going to cave once again and give Bush another 196 billion dollars. Like Everett Dirkson said, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money." Craig's lawyers are arguing that foot tapping and waving your hands under bathroom partitions are just examples of free speech. The insane asylum that America has become is now on display for all the world to see. So world - ENJOY!

LKBIQ:
"I didn't know the gun was loaded."
Everyman

Is there no limit?

Witnesses saw him hit her three times in the face.
The judge dismissed the charges. She might have
wanted it, he said.

Once again Bush has asked for billions more for his "war" in Iraq (you can't be a real President, you know, unless you have a war). He's a "war President." Now, let's see, I saw somewhere the other day that one estimate for Bush/Cheny's little adventure in the Middle East was somewhere in the vicinity of more than two trillion dollars. Let's say it's only one trillion dollars. Does that mean anything to you? My feeble brain simply can't really understand a trillion dollars but I know it's a lot of money. A real lot of money. I know that that much money if used here at home would do a great deal of good. You know, health care, superstructure, education, stuff like that. But, now that we've presumably spent at least a trillion, and perhaps more than that, I would like to know: is there any limit to how much we are willing to spend on this ridiculous business? This is a question I have long wondered about in entirely different contexts. Like, for example, the price of beer. If you are used to paying fifty cents for a beer and then they raise the price to sixty cents you have to decide whether it's worth it or not. Then it goes to seventy-five cents, wow! That's a lot. But, what the hell, it's beer, so you pay it. But what determines when it reaches the point you are just no longer willing to pay? Is there some formula for this? Certainly you don't go on paying more and more forever. But that is what we are apparently willing to do for our ongoing "war" with Iraq. Congress just caves in to Bush/Cheney's outrageous demands for more money time after time. So when, if ever, do they intend to stop? And if they know they will someday have to stop, why not stop now? Bush/Cheney and the Congress seem to have lost any connection between money and behavior, money and reality. You recall Cheney announced early in this dismal administration that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." I guess Congress really believes this. How else can you explain their seemingly blase attitude towards money? Remember, we shipped tons of money to Iraq in bundles of one hundred dollar bills. Billions just disappeared. The Pentagon has lost billions with no idea where it went. But they still ask for more - and get it. I don't get it. I hope someone will be available to explain to our grandchildren why it is they owe so much money when they weren't even born when it was spent. Bush/Cheney don't care, they'll be dead then. Ha ha ha. Suckers.

It appears that Giuliani is about to be exposed for the absolute phony he is. All his talk about 9/11 and how he understood it all, and blah, blah, blah, seems to have been just that. In private interviews that have been prematurely leaked he admits he knew virtually nothing about any of it. What a jerk.

Obama seems to be going from bad to worse and falling further and further behind. Edwards lurks in the background sort of like an invisible man. Hillary is far ahead but she may be making a terrible mistake in being so hawkish. She seems to just go along with Bush/Cheney's insanity when it comes to Iran and Israel. I don't understand this as the American public is so totally fed up with war I wouldn't think an intelligent candidate would be publicly so big on it. But what do I know? Being hawkish may be what will convince the corporations she's just right for the job, if they haven't already decided that. Hillary Rodham Clinton, closet Republican.

Anyone remember Israel? You know, that little country in the Middle East that is now about to cut off electricity to Gaza. Having not caused enough misery there the new plan is going to accelerate the misery. Remember Gaza? That's where the democratically elected Hamas government is located. Remember democracy? After seven years of almost total neglect, except for uncritical support of Israeli apartheid, Bush thinks he's going to arrange peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. Hamas is not going to be invited to participate. It probably doesn't matter because most of the other invited countries probably won't participate either. Bush is the lamest of lame ducks and has no credibility whatsoever. So why should they bother now to listen to anything he says? So they won't and don't. I think they recognize dementia when they see it. By the way, have the Blackguards left Iraq yet? No. I didn't think so. Maybe when they feel like it.

LKBIQ:
"Anyone who acts as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confesses a doctrine that is alien to America."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Anti-American?

How is it that these days if you dare to suggest the United States is less than perfect you get accused of being anti-American? I believe there are many things the U.S. has done wrong in the past and there are many things we are doing wrong at the present time. I do not believe this makes me anti-American. I believe if American citizens do not speak out when they think their country is doing something wrong they are anti-American. For example, I believe our unwarranted and illegal attack on Iraq was absolutely wrong. The killing of hundreds of thousands, if not more innocent Iraqi civilians was (is) absolutely wrong. I believe our attempt to establish "empire" at the expense of the rest of the world is wrong. Torture is absolutely wrong and changing the definition of it does not make it either legal or right.

In any case I cannot imagine anyone more American than I am. Born in the U.S., raised in a small North Idaho town, educated at the University of Idaho and the University of Washington, served in the military for two years, employed by several different American Universities, lived in the U.S. for all of my life with the exception of some time in New Guinea and Germany (doing research for the Institutes of Health), and so on. With this background, and having traveled fairly widely around the world, I believe I have every right to an opinion about what my country has done and is doing. And some of the things it has done and is doing are in my opinion just plain wrong and harming many other people. I believe I understand empathy, and I feel it when other people are wronged. I do not believe the Russians, under Putin, are intrinsically evil, nor do I believe the Iranians are intrinsically evil. Bush/Cheney have not been treating them very well of late, and rather than trying to get along with them, are constantly trying to provoke them. I would prefer that Iran not develop a nuclear bomb but I do not find it at all difficult to understand why they would want one. I do not want another cold war with Russia but I think I understand why the Russians are upset with our tactics and are reacting as they are. There can be no hope for peace anywhere on this planet as long as warmongers and greedy profiteers like Bush/Cheney have any power. Indeed, I believe it is fair to say that the entire world is waiting for them to be gone. I resent being called anti-American and pro-Soviet. I am neither of those things. I simply believe in fair play and honesty, something that has been in perilous short supply, especially in the last seven years or so.

LKBIQ:
"At the core of all these aristocratic races the beast of prey is not to be mistaken, the magnificent blond beast, avidly rampant for spoil and victory."
Friedrich Nietzsche