Iran hysteria?

Perhaps I am incredibly naive, and I know I am not completely well-informed, but would someone explain to me our apparent hysteria over Iran. I constantly encounter claims that Iran is "the greatest threat to the Middle East," or Iran might start WWIII if they get a bomb, and Iran supports terrorists, and they are helping Iraqis to murder our troops, and so on, and on.

As far as I know Iran has not attacked anyone for about two hundred years. They do not have any recent history of being a predatory nation. When attacked by Iraq (with the help of the U.S.) they tried to defend themselves. When the CIA overthrew their government and installed the Shah they were not pleased (should they have been).

They support Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. It is only a terrorist organization depending upon your point of view. In fact, Hezbollah only came into existence to protect Lebanon from Israel. From the point of view of Iran and other countries they are not a terrorist organization.

They support Hamas, another terrorist organization (according to us). Hamas is the legitimately elected through the democratic process government of the Palestinians. In truth, they can hardly be said to be terrorists anymore than Israelis can be said to be terrorists.

They are said to be shipping explosives and such into Iraq to aid in the killing of American soldiers. As near as I can determine there is little evidence this is true.

They have no business interfering in Iraq. Iraq is a neighboring country. They are far more interested in what goes on there than we should be (we are 8000 miles away from there. Why are we there in the first place).

They are trying to build a nuclear bomb. At the moment there is more reason to believe this is not true than to believe it is. They have always said they are interested in nuclear power, not nuclear bombs. The United Nations inspector says there is no evidence they are building a bomb and now our own 16 separate Intelligence agencies agree. Furthermore, even if they did build a bomb they would hardly be stupid enough to use it as they know they would immediately be blown off the face of the earth.

Iran has made overtures to the U.S., wanting to establish better relations. They have been rejected repeatedly by Dick Cheney and others. Why have they been rejected? It would hardly seem reasonable to think they are terribly dangerous when they have been seeking improved relations with us.

They are constantly said to be "exporting terrorism." Aside from one instance in the distant past I have seen no specific examples of this. So where? When? What happened? Remember that the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and most of the foreign elements in Iraq attacking us are also Saudis. Where have Iranians actually attacked us?

We have been threatening Iran for years with "regime change." What business do we have trying to change their regime (again). Should they not be concerned that we have this bellicose position? The Iranians know perfectly well that we covet their enormous oil potential. Should they not be concerned to protect their resources from a predatory U.S. government?

Iran was a highly civilized culture before the U.S. existed. From their point of view we must appear like a barbarian horde trying to destroy them (there is more than a mere grain of truth in this).

So tell me, dear readers, why the hysteria? What is we fear so much? Iran has a defense budget probably less than 10% of ours. They are in no position to attack us even if they desired to do so. If they actually do want a bomb you can be sure they want it to protect themselves, not to unleash a nuclear war they would clearly lose. I can only conclude that Iran is a threat to us and the Middle East only insofar as their interests are not ours. They seem willing to engage diplomatically. We do not.

I don't think the Brafia is going to get their way on this. Bush is no Genghis Khan (although he seems to want to be), and he doesn't have enough horses to pull this particular criminal act off. Don't spend a lot of time worrying about the Iranians.

LKBIQ:
"The U.N. was set up not to get us to Heaven but only to save us from Hell."
Sir Winston Churchill

The Brafia

As there is apparently absolutely nothing he can do, no matter how illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, or egregious, that Republicans will not support, I believe they no longer constitute a genuine political party. So until such time as the Bush administration is completely finished and over (if it ever is) I will no longer refer to Republicans. From here on I will only refer to that bunch of liars and war criminals as the Brafia (the Bush/Republican mafia). This is a criminal organization just like the original from which it derives its name. They have no regard for law, the Constitution, morality, or even common decency. To be a member of this organization you apparently do not have to be a Republican as it appears that many high level Democrats have successfully become members. The members of the Brafia have apparently made vows to support Bush/Cheney and their minions no matter what they profess or do. If the Brafia wants to make war on a country that is no threat to the U.S., that's fine. If they want to bankrupt the U.S. to transfer money to their corporations, that's fine. If they want to torture, that's fine. If they want to lie to bring about wars, that's fine. If they want to illegally spy on everyone, that too, is fine. Neglecting children and veterans is fine, as is keeping millions of American citizens without health care, decent wages, and subject to usurious interest rates. I could go on but I think you get the picture. Whether the Brafia can ever be overcome and destroyed is questionable as the two candidates picked to vie for the Presidency will almost certainly themselves be members of the organization. One of their plans is to create a universal health care plan that will include the insurance companies, the American Medical Association, and the Pharmaceutical Industry. This will be paid for by taxpayers, thus relieving the Corporations of having to bear such a terrible burden. Permanent war is also on their agenda as that will insure the continued existence of the Military/Industrial/Politial complex they have worked so hard to create and sustain.
The coming election has nothing to do with two political parties vying for control of the White House and Congress. It has to do only with maintaining the controlling position of the Brafia. Be prepared to kiss the one ring for a long time or leave the shire and the country.

I have only just now managed to see Sicko (these things do not really come to Bonners Ferry) on television. Everyone should be made to see it. Even if it is true that Moore perhaps paints too bright a picture of Universal Health Care in Canada, Cuba, Britain, and France, there is no doubt that the U.S. medical system is little short of disastrous. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who insists on a univeral, single-payer, not for profit health care system. He is absolutely right about this. Of course the odds against it ever happening here are enormous what with the insurance companies, American Medical Association, the Pharmaceuticals, and the Brafia dead set against it (socialism, you know). The U.S. is the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care. It is also the only country that spends most of its money on the military/industrial/political conspiracy that promotes nothing but death and destruction forever. We have become a sick society and a culture of the absurd.

LKBIQ:
"What's the Constitution between friends?"
Timothy J. Campbell

Rampant idiocy

Angered by train whistle, man
chases train, fails to board,
threatens conducter with pistol.

To describe the following letter to the Editor of our weekly Bonners Ferry Herald as idiotic does not do it justice. I reproduce it in its entirety:

"Don't elect a Muslim as next U.S. President?

Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim wants to be our next president.
How can a good Muslim be a 'good American,' much less the President of the United States of America?
Politically he can't because he must submit to the mullah (political leader) who teach (sic) annihilation of Israel and destruction of the great satin (sic) they refer to as America. Death to all who are not Muslim.
Intellectually he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes as a Muslim that the Bible is corrupt.
Philosophically he cannot because Islam Mohammed (sic) and the Iran (sic) do not allow freedom of religion. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or antrocatic (sic).
Spiritually he cannot because when we declare 'One Nation Under God,' our Christian God is loving and kind while Allah is never referred to as a Heavenly Father nor is he ever called love in the Iran (sic). Muslims cannot be both a good Muslim and a good American. Their personal preference and allegiance is to Allah and not our Constitution, nor our God.
A state of our nation has already elected a Muslim (Obama) to the House of Representatives (sic).
He is in the current session of Congress 2007 and during his swearing in he used the Muslim Iran (sic) instead of our Bible.
How dare we not recognize this as the evil it will bring to our nation if we allow Obama to be our next president.
Also four Senators along with many others voted against English as our official American language. Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Boxer, Kerry, Kennedy, Lieferman (sic) and many more. Where is their loyalty to America?
None of these people should be leaders of our 'Great Nation.' In our country people are free to believe anything they want to as well as their religious preference. But they don't qualify to be the President of the United States of America when they don't support or believe in our Constitution. They are not loyal Americans and talk our of both sides of their mouth.
Please use your voting priviledge to keep these people out of the White House. Please do not elect them to be the President of the United States of America. This may be the most serious election our country has ever faced. Our government isn't perfect but it's the best one in the whole world. Let's help keep it that way. Our vote may be a matter of life or death and liberty (sic) for all."

I have omitted the writer's name. I'm sure that she will hear enough about it from others. What can I say about this? The apalling ignorance of the writer speaks for itself. But what of the paper and its editor? One can only wonder if the editor even read this absurd piece of racist, religious bigotry before it was published. He or she certainly did not proofread it. That something like this could appear in our only local paper (owned and operated by Republicans) is an insult to the good people of Boundary County. Along with the antics of Larry Craig and Bill Sali it denigrates us all. Vote Democratic as though your life depends on it - it may.

LKBIQ:
"If, after I depart this vale, you remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl."
H. L. Mencken

What's an Atheist to do?

I was wrong about missing Romney's speech. We were so late getting started this morning that I did actually listen to it. It was, I concur, a great speech, well-written, well delivered, well thought out. Of course it didn't tell you anything about Mormonism or Romney's participation in it. One thing it did do, unlike John Kennedy's Catholic speech, is insist there is no separation of church and state. I found this a bit disturbing. Also disturbing was his statement that one's religion should not keep him from office. This was disturbing only because he himself had already dismissed Muslims from his cabinet on the grounds that they were a minority and should perhaps be allowed to serve only in a "lower" capacity. I also found it a bit hard to take when he insisted he believed in his religion but did not offer to tell us anything about it. You notice, as I predicted, he did not even mention the Book of Mormon.

In all this talk and folderol about whether a Mormon should be President, or a Catholic, or a Muslim, or whether religion should even be considered at all, omits for me a far more basic question that doesn't even arise (in polite company, I guess). Should a candidate's religious beliefs have anything to do with his potential Presidency. The answer we are being given is "no," it should be irrelevant. I disagree. Let me speak bluntly. I think a candidate's religious beliefs might well be critical in assessing his qualifications for the Presidency. For example, if a candidate claims he believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, I have to conclude that he/she is grossly uninformed and thereby ignorant. He or she might also be considered stupid (there is a difference between being ignorant and stupid). Similarly, if a candidate says they don't believe in evolution that, too, indicates to me a disturbing lack of knowledge and/or stupidity. I do not want such a person to be President of my country.

So what is a poor decrepit old Atheist to do? I have never found the beliefs of any organized religion something I could believe in. I do not believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, Noah built an ark for all the animals, someone parted the Red sea, and so on. Indeed, I think such beliefs on the part of those who claim to a literal interpretation of the Bible to be absurd. I can have no respect or confidence in someone who professes to believe this. Likewise, if someone claims that dinosaurs existed simultaneously with humans, I think they are not only misinformed but inexcusably ignorant and/or stupid. I do not want such a person to be my President. And, while I don't mean to be rude or inconsiderate, I must admit that if someone believes their underwear is sacred I find their judgment to be questionable at best. If someone believes Intelligent Design is on the same level of explanation as the theory of evolution I, again, suspect their brainpower. Thus I do not believe for one moment that a person's religious beliefs are necessarily irrelevant to whether or not they should hold high public office. The battle here, and it is, I believe, a battle of sorts, is not between Mormons and Catholics, or Protestants and Jews, or Muslims and Buddhists, or whatever, but between those who believe in science and scientific evidence and those who believe in what are basically fairy tales. I am not familiar with the Book of Mormon or many Mormon beliefs, but I know there are some that I could never believe in.

I am not a student of religion. I confess to being ignorant of most religions. But when their arguments involve things like whether one should wear a white cap or a black cap, or whether one should be allowed to play a musical instrument or not, or whether there is a trinity or not, or whether the Jews killed Christ or not, or is Jesus the son of God or not (assuming that Jesus even existed), or whether you should eat fish on friday, or use only horse carriages, or circumsize, or examine the entrails of chickens for omens, or fast for visions, or face mecca so many times a day, or go to church on sunday as opposed to saturday, and on and on and on, I think somehow the important questions are not being addressed. I do not believe people speak directly to God or vice-versa, no exceptions. Unlike our perfect Mr. Romney I do not believe one must be a Christian to be an American.

If people wish to believe in bizarre beliefs of all kinds and call them religious I can't see there is much harm in it (or much good, either) as long as they are private beliefs and no one attempts to force them on others. While it can be argued that Christian missionaries have done good things around the world I know from personal experience they have also done incalculable harm. The history of Christianity is not pretty. I believe with John Kennedy there is an ABSOLUTE separation of church and state and I do not believe we should allow Romney, Huckabee, or anyone else to proclaim otherwise. I think Romney's clever speech may very well inspire people to examine Mormon beliefs more carefully, and if they do, I think Romney may well be finished.

For me an Atheist is someone who does not, and cannot, believe in the tenets of any organized religion. There is a question here, however, that I cannot yet completely resolve. There is an Edward Curtis print of an American Indian with a buffalo skull offering a prayer to the Great Mystery. While I am suspicious of the efficacy of prayer, I cannot deny the presence of a Great Mystery which I find truly awesome. I can't say that I actually worship this Great Mystery but its presence is never far from my mind. Am I an Atheist?

LKBIQ:
"I count religion but a childish toy,
And hold there is no sin but ignorance."
Christopher Marlowe

So Bush lied

Seattle. An early morning walk. There's nothing like the smell of exhaust to wake you up and remind you of why you love Bonners Ferry. I also really like the endless drone of traffic and the preponderance of sirens that seem to go on at all hours of the day and night. There is also the never ending construction of skyscrapers. It's a real thrill when you realize there are giant cranes dangling huge object directly over your head. But it didn't rain today, and it wasn't very cold. They have great food here (if you can afford it after you have paid to park). Back to Bonners Ferry tomorrow. Hurrah! Happily I will miss Romney's speech on Faith(?). Want to bet he won't mention the Book of Mormon. I think this speech will make his campaign even more questionable.

It is now perfectly clear that Bush lied about what he was told and what he knew about Iran's nuclear program. So what? He has never done anything but lie for the past seven years. Why does everyone concern themselves about his lying if they aren't prepared to do something about it. He lied. That's nothing new. Will anything be done about it now? Almost certainly not. I guess Congress has just made up its mind (if it can be said to have one) that our President, the leader of our country, is a pathological liar but somehow that's okay because it's just Bush. Remember Bill Clinton, our ex-President who was impeached for lying. That Bush lies constantly and gets away with it will puzzle me to the end of my days.

On Buzzflash today there was a piece on John Conyer and why he thinks Bush/Cheney can't be impeached. The main reason seems to be that they can't get enough votes and to fail would actually help Bush/Cheney. Think about that, if you will. He can't get enough votes. That means he can't get Republicans to vote to impeach. That means, in turn, that Republicans apparently think constantly lying and committing war crimes are matters of unimportance to our country. THINK OF THAT! REPUBLICANS DON'T CARE ABOUT LYING AND WAR CRIMES! They continue to support Bush/Cheney in spite of all the evidence against them and all the damage they have done to our nation. Remember that when you enter the voting booth next time.

LKBIQ:
"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you cannot face reality. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or says it."
Malcolm X

Zounds!

Seattle. Yes, it is wet here. From Spokane to Snoqualmie it was sunny and bright. It started to rain on the pass and by the time we got to Seattle it was a virtual cloudburst. But now tonight it has stopped. There has obviously been some rough weather here.

Could it be that Bush/Cheney have been lying all this time about Iran? Do bears do it in the woods? Does water flow downhill? Does the sun rise in the East? Of course they've been lying. Didn't everyone know that even before this latest intelligence report? When have they ever done anything but lie? Will anything be done about it? Probably not. If Congress has not seen fit up until now to hold them accountable why suppose they will now? I am seriously beginning to believe that everyone in Congress is completely brain dead. How else could they put up with this stuff year after year for seven years? The Bush/Cheney bunch say things that are so patently ridiculous it is a wonder they have not been long since impeached or imprisoned or both. Frankly, I don't understand why lightning bolts have not struck them all dead. Take the idiotic spokesperson, Perino, who asks Helen Thomas how she can possibly think we are killing civilians. This goes beyond merely lying as it is so completely whacky one just doesn't know how to deal with it. And now Bush is telling us that this intelligence report really means that Iran is just as dangerous as ever - because - get this, they could start up a program again. And they might get the knowledge to make a bomb. How on earth could anyone keep them from getting the knowledge. This is like Bush saying he's invented fire but he's not going to tell anyone how to do it. Of course they COULD start up a program again. So could Lichtenstein. Bush's reaction to this is so unutterably stupid it is unbelievable. The failure of Congress to hold Bush/Cheney accountable for their lies and war crimes is even more unbelievable. They could be impeached a dozen times over by now for what they have already done. I do not know how to understand this except to assume that the Democrats are just as dishonest warmongers as Bush/Cheney. Biden says that if Bush attacks Iran he (Biden) will personally lead the impeachment. Why wait? Bush is already impeachable and so is Cheney. If this latest revelation doesn't result in impeachment or worse then we might as well all just surrender to Bush/Cheney and their illegal, immoral, disgusting, unconstitutional acts.

LKBIQ:
"Herein lies a riddle. How can a people so gifted by God become so seduced by naked power, so greedy for money, so addicted to violence, so slavish before mediocre and treacherous leadership, so paranoid, deluded, lunatic."
Philip Berrigan

Really, Hillary!

Hitting below the diaper pins. I don't know if Hillary herself has had anything to do with this nonsense of Obama wanting to be President since he was a child. Apparently he wrote an essay when he was (in the third grade?), in which he reportedly said he wanted to be President. I can't see why this would matter to anyone but the Clinton campaign is using it to prove that he has always wanted to be President in spite of his claim he only aspired to that office after he was in the Senate. I guess this must be in response to claims that Hillary and Bill conspired to both become Presidents way back when, or to repeated criticisms of Hillary that she has been "too ambitious." All of this is the utmost nonsense. I mention it only because I cannot believe the Clintons would stoop so low as to even try to use Obama's juvenile essay in this way (if, indeed, they actually had anything to do with it). I have never understood how anyone could be criticized in the United States for being "too ambitious." Citizens of the U.S. are supposed to be ambitious. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Hillary wanted to be President when she was two. But so what? How many American children dream of being President? And would you want a President who was not ambitious? This is the stuff American politics has been made of in recent years. Never mind the phony "war," the torture, the falling dollar, the deteriorating infrastructure, immigration, or whatever. Chris Mathews told us seriously a few days ago that what this election is all about is personality. You know, like when Bush was elected because people thought he would be a nice person to have a beer with. Alas, it is true, this is what our elections have become.

It looks to me like Giuliani's campaign is about to collapse over his multiple scandals and dishonesty. Romney's campaign is probably going to wreck on the shoals of his Mormonism. If he goes through with his threat to give a speech on his faith I think it will only add to his problems with "not really being a Christian," or "belonging to a cult." Just think of the fallout of this if it happens. Huckabee will be the leading candidate. Huckabee, a Jesus Freak who thinks God is directing his poll numbers and doesn't believe in evolution. He seriously expects to get elected on the basis of his "Christian leadership?" While some in Iowa might go for this nonsense I sincerely hope the rest of the country will not (and I don't believe they will).

Iran is now said to have given up its muclear bomb program in 2003. This is according to our best intelligence sources. Did Bush/Cheney not know about this before? And if they did why have they gone on and on about the dangers of Iran's nuclear ambitions? And if they didn't know about it, where were they? In any case this disclosure is in direct contradiction to everything Bush/Cheney and the MSM have been feeding us for all these months while they prepare to bomb Iran. I guess Bush will be making a speech about this tomorrow. I won't hear it as I will be on the way to Seattle. But I bet it will be a doozy. He'll probably blame Bill Clinton, the usual suspect.

Putin's party won the Russian election in a virtual landslide. Putin is the most popular Russian leader ever and has brought Russia back into the rank of genuine world powers. Naturally our MSM are claiming all sorts of lies about Putin and the election. Compare Putin and his record with Bush's, if you dare.

Chavez is another great success story. He gets probably more U.S. badmouthing than anyone. You either give in to the desires of Bush/Cheney or you are a terrible leader. Chavez received a bit of a setback in Venezuela's recent election. Did he whine about it and exercise dictatorial powers? The answer is no. And by the way, the election was not about making him President for life, it was about changing the rules so that IF he were elected again he could again be President. We should have such a system (of course we'd have to have honest elections first).

Here at Sandhill in recent days we've had over two feet of snow. Now it is raining. No doubt it will freeze overnight. Life is just a bowl of cherries.

LKBIQ:
"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
Thomas Paine

Our men in Congress

Our man in the 19th century, Bill Sali, has done everything he can and more to keep any changes to occur to the mining laws of 1872. I think he offered something like 19 separate amendments to the current attempt to update this archaic law, all of which were defeated. You have to give him credit for trying to slow down the overly rapid pace of change involved in our culture. Heaven forbid that miners would have to pay more than $5 an acre for land in these times of increasing inflation. Bill Sali is a nitwit. Vote for Larry Grant.

Speaking of nitwits, our Senator from Boise Cascade, Larry Craig, has now been "outed" big time. He has made the headlines all over the country as at least four men have now testified publicly they had sex with Craig or that he had made sexual overtures to them (actually, I think there are more than four). Craig must have been banking, all these years, on the fact that no one would really come out and admit to this. Apparently these four became so fed up with Craig's continuing claim to not being gay they felt they had to expose him once and for all. This is, of course, a terrible tragedy that could have been avoided. I'm sure that many people would not have cared if he was gay if he had just admitted it and had not acted so hypocritically about gay rights in the past. I guess Craig feared the citizens of Idaho would not have accepted a gay person as Senator, and he most probably was right (homophobia is rampant here in Idaho). But continuing to deny it even after he was caught soliciting sex in a men's room just added to his woes. The problem is not that Craig is gay, it's that he has proven to be both a liar and a hypocrite. Will he still insist on serving out his term? Why not? It won't make much difference as he's never been much more than a rubber stamp for the Republican party anyway.

Karl Rove continues to insist it was Congress who pushed for "war" with Iraq when the administration was resistant. He sticks with this in spite of the fact that both Democrats and members of his own party, as well as the public record, show that it is simply not the case. Rove apparently truly believes that if you tell a big lie often enough people will come to believe it. I don't think it's working this time.

It seems to be pretty much agreed that Bush's much ballyhooed Annapolis conference has no chance to result in anything positive without his active participation which apparently will not be forthcoming. Will Bush try to convince us that he tried but Israel and the Palestinians failed? Probably. Is there any chance that Israel will agree to a viable Palestinian state? Not likely. Does this whole plan for peace simply allow Israel to stall longer while they systematically steal more Palestinain land. Bet on it. Israel and the U.S. want to pretend they are playing a high stakes game with the Palestinians, but the Palestinians have no high cards. The whole idea of this conference was just another Bush/Cheney/Israeli fraud.

I guess the latest poll shows Obama leading in Iowa, with Hillary in second place. We'll see soon enough. Personally, I believe that thinking Iowa is going to determine anything much is just so much wishful thinking. Iowa hardly represents the rest of the U.S. I'm beginning to believe that if we can't have Kucinich it probably doesn't matter who wins. And what's this about an Obama/Bloomberg meeting? A Black man and a Jew plotting together for some political end? It doesn't bother me but I don't think it will fly too well with the rest of the country (I cannot overcome my natural cynicism when it comes to politics). Give me Kucinich or give me the same ol' same ol' corporate state.

LKBIQ:
"The privilege of absurdity; to which no living creature is subject but man only."
Thomas Hobbes

East of the Sun -- book

Talk about deja vue all over again! I'm reading East of the Sun by Benson Bobrick, an account of the Russian conquest of Siberia. It's like reading a mirror image of the European conquest of America. The same attitude prevailed:
"Like other European powers then expanding overseas, the Russians were 'convinced of their right to dispossess inferior and barbaric foes, to establish the true faith, and to reap the economic benefits of dominion.' For the Russians--as for the Spanish, English, or Portuguese--progress was conveniently understood as a rise from 'savagery' to 'civilization,' and it demanded the conquest of the wilderness, in keeping with the divine injunction to 'Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish and subdue the earth.'"
They accomplished this with the same means Europeans used in the Americas:
"...in June 1651 they began to fight their way down the Amur. Khabarov ravaged numerous settlments without mercy, and in this barbarous manner conquered both banks of the river as far as the Sungari. Below this tributary, the region was 'completely devastated within a week's time' as the Russians looted and burned and cut down the natives 'like trees.' In one instance they seized hundreds of women and children, 'with God's help,' recalled Khubarov, 'we burned them, we knocked them on the head...and counting big and little, we killed six hundred sixty one.' His rampage continued into the land of the Goldi, where he again left a trail of blood."
This, of course, is only one example of the carnage the Russians inflicted on the aboriginal population of Siberia:
"So the culture of the Siberian peoples was not negligible, and of more than strictly anthropological note. But the Russian conquest threatened to sweep it all away, and pulverize it almost to nothing with musket and cannon shot."
Sound familiar? It should. The same thing happened as Europeans spread into the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific. The record is clear. There is no doubt what happened. It was so common and so widespread that at least one writer has suggested that Europeans must have suffered from a collective Wiitiko cannibalistic psychosis. He meant cannibalistic in the sense that it destroyed lives through various means, not that they literally consumed the flesh of their victims. Unhappily there are still examples of it going on in various parts of the globe at this very moment. The human species is a strange one, virtually unique in its capacity for self-destruction. You might think that after all these years of experience we might try to do something about it. Fat chance. If you even suggest Peace instead of War you are looked upon as peculiar, to say the least (think Dennis Kucinich). First Iraq, then Iran, and then the world! We are mighty! Mighty like a bunch of mental midgets.

LKBIQ:
"Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings."
Heinrich Heine

Roviating Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whew!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chucklehead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the world (doesn't) turn

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are we going?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reckoning?

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

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

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

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


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

Did he know?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will it matter?

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

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

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

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

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

Murder in Amsterdam - book

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

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

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

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

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

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

HBO?

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

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

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

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

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

Great idea!

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

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

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

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