Shed no tears for Judith Miller

New York Times reporter Judith Miller is not going to jail because she is protecting the First Amendment. She is going to jail because she is covering up a felony, and a very serious one at that. As the Judge in the case has said, there are times when the national interest has to override the idea of protecting sources. That is, there is no blanket priviledge for journalists to protect confidential sources if the issue involved is so serious as to override such protections. And that is what is involved in this particular case. At least that is what seems to be the case as other judges and lawyers have examined the case and acknowledged that the Judge is right about this.

But what about Cooper's change of heart such that he is now going to testify. He says in a dramatic fashion his source has now told him he does not have to honor his pledge of confidentiality. So is this source Rove? And if so, what does it mean? As this came about as a result of Cooper's and Rove's lawyers reaching some kind of agreement just what is going on? I believe they are going to have to admit that Rove, who previously claimed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the outing of Plame, will have to admit that he did, indeed, discuss it with Cooper. But...and this is the big but, he didn't disclose that she was a CIA secret operative - or at least did not "knowingly" do so. Legally, of course, they will be able to drag this on until we are all dead and buried so whatever Rove did will just become forgotten, along with all the other scandals of the Bush/Cheney administration, like Gannon/Guckert (that might also involve Rove?).

Can there really be any doubt that Rove leaked? I don't think so. He has a history of such leaks, including previous leaks to his friend Novak. He had the motive, must have had the knowledge, and no doubt that he had the power to get away with it (which he still might). We, the ordinary citizens of the United States are in big trouble, and if we don't do something about it soon it is going to be too late, Possibly it already is.

He's thinking about it

"I think about Iraq every day. Every single day...and I'm going to continue to think about it." I don't know if those are the exact words but they are close if not exact. I'm really glad he said that. I was worried that it might have slipped his mind. After all, he's only killed and maimed thousands upon thousands of innocent people in a "war" that was totally unnecessary, unconstitutional, illegal and immoral. He has caused virtually the entire world to despise him and his administration, plunged our nation into unbelievable debt, refused to admit any mistakes whatsoever, and made torture acceptable in international affairs, to say nothing of violating the Geneva Convention, and on and on. If his above statement is not the most revealing, disgusting, moronic, mindless, stupid, foolish, obtuse, fatuous, doltish, simpleminded, addlebrained, asinine, inane, absurd, idiotic, laughable, and pathetic utterance ever I cannot imagine what is. But what would you expect. After all, being President is hard work. First of all you have to listen to Uncle Dick the Slimy telling you what to do all the time, then you have to listen to Rove telling you about his latest quasi-criminal scheme, and you have to go out there and tell all those lies and worry that someone might actually ask you a hard question, and they won't let you talk to anyone without a script and a screened audience, and stuff like that. It's hard work. But as a War President I can do it. But it really is hard work.

The other problem is, I keep falling off my bike. I know I was supposed to be at an important meeting of the G8 (I think that's what it's called) but of course I had to have my bike ride. I'm sorry if I ran into that policeman and scratched myself. It's just like I fell that other time off my bike and, oh, yeah, I fell over on that other thing, whatever it was. I even fell off the couch eating those pretzels. It's really hard being President what with the mainstream press having to make allowances for me all the time. I can't help it if I am utterly incompetent, not up to the job, too stupid to understand that I am not much more than a laughingstock to anyone with a brain larger than a pea. I'm a War President! I'm making my place in history. I could be a contender (if I just had a brain, a heart, and some courage). But that's allright, Daddy and Uncle Dick will look out for me as always. It's nine o'clock, my bedtime. I bet I'll be able to ride that bike tomorrow, especially if they don't distract me with all this stuff about poverty, global warming, Bolton, the Supreme Court, and all that. I hope Uncle Dick will get it all figured out soon. It's really hard being President. But I think about it every day. Every single day. And I'm going to continue thinking about it as long as I am President. So don't you worry.

Abolishing poverty

I notice that at the G8 meetings in Scotland there are two main agenda items: eliminating poverty and global warming. The U.S. has already made it pretty clear they aren't very interested in global warming (they seem doubtful even now that it actually exists, but still claim that it ought to be studied). Bush has already indicated that as far as he is concerned the planet is less important than corporate profits. He no doubt still believes we need more research on whether or not the earth is flat, or whether dinosaurs actually existed, or whether evolution truly occurred, or if the Rapture is coming sooner rather than later.

But it is the question of eliminating poverty that has captured my attention for the moment. Now, assuming that anyone actually had the will to eliminate poverty, how would one go about it. I do not mean to sound pessimistic. It is not pessimism that motivates me but, rather, what could you actually do to eliminate poverty. I don't mean how you could alleviate poverty by just giving people more money. I mean how could you actually eliminate it? This seems to me a virtually insurmountable problem. First, would you not have to eliminate large numbers of people? That is, there is a growing problem of overpopulation. I guess you might attack this by some kind of world-wide mandatory birth control measures. Seems unlikely, especially with the Bush/Cheney people involved. There is also the problem of too many people living in areas of the globe that are unable to adequately support them. So either you would have to move huge numbers of people from places like the Sudan to Southern California or where? This seems even more unlikely. Then, if you arranged for a lot of ignorant people to have more money how do you know they would use it wisely? So there would have to be a monumental educational program (probably mandatory) to make sure people didn't spend their money foolishly, like buying food instead of cigarettes and beer. You would also have to eliminate capitalism, or at least have so many controls on it it would no longer resemble capitalism. Then, too, you would have to eliminate greed, a pretty basic human failing. Finally, for the moment at least (I may have to come back to this later), your would have to eliminate class, caste, unequally distributed ability, geographical advantages, quirks of nature, and who knows what all else. Indeed, you would probably have to genetically modify humans so that no one had an advantage over anyone else (poverty, remember, is a purely relative matter). I am personally filthy rich compared to most of the earth's population but I am poor as hell compared to those with money. My wife tells me there are people who have worked on eliminating poverty for years who have answers to questions about how to do it. I believe they have questions about it. I doubt they have answers beyond universal employment, health care for all, a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage, and so on. She gave me some web sites to examine. I'll get back to you. In the meantime don't expect anything from G8.

Fasten your seat belts

Happy Fourth of July! Actually I hate holidays of any kind. There's no mail. Also, there is little news. Of course nowadays with the MSM there is never any news. Unless you have been tricked into believing that Tom Cruise and Britanny (sp?) are news. And Michael Jackson and runaway bride-to-be's and shark bites and such things.

I notice that the Iraq "war" has virtually disappeared from our local paper. Nor did it report on the absolutely delightful put-down Senator Byrd did on Rumsfeld the Pompous. But, then, we have long ago given up hope for the major media. I hope they are aware that I am only one of many that no longer tunes in to anything other than Democracy Now.

It looks like we may be in for some genuine fun in coming weeks (if you believe that what is going on in our country might be considered fun). First, there is the Rove situation, already shaping up to be an endless argument over what "knowingly" means. Having first claimed that Rove did indeed talk to reporters but did not leak the name of Plame, they now seem to be shifting to the position that he did not knowingly do it (cute, huh?). They can probably argue this long enough for the American electorate to forget all about it - just like the Gannon/Guckert scandal.

There is now also the monumental problem of replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. The far right has decided to go all out and call in all their chips. They want Bush to nominate someone to the right of Jack-the-Ripper (what do women know about their bodies or lives or rights?). As this does not seem very consistent with what the majority of Americans believe about abortion rights it should prove to be (I would like to say amusing) a precursor to Civil War. What do you think God might communicate to Shrub about this?

Then there is the lingering Bolton problem. Cheney obviously does not want to lose this one, trying to demonstrate that he now has dictatorial powers. It is perfectly obvious to anyone with any brain at all that the Bolton nomination should be withdrawn, or that Bolton himself should withdraw, but that would mean having to admit defeat, a situation that Bush/Cheney are unable to contemplate as they, like Rumsfeld, know that they are absolutely right all the time.

Veterans for Peace have a stateament circulating calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush. This is a serious and well-conceived attempt that deserves to be supported. I urge you all to sign it. Even if it never happens (as it probably can't given the chicken-hearted, Republican dominated, corporate controlled, anti-democratic majority there) it is worth the effort. It might even someday save you from the guillotine.

Be of good cheer.

Did he or didn't he?

The Rove situation is beginning to take shape. Rove's lawyer, predictably, says Karl didn't leak Plame's name, although he admits Rove talked to Cooper at that time. We also know that Rove at one spoint said something to the effect that "Wilson's wife was fair game." At least two people so far have claimed that Rove was the leaker, and there are apparently rumors to the effect that many people knew Rove was the guilty party. And it certainly looks like the kind of dirty trick Rove would have done. He certainly has a reputation for such things. I'm betting on Rove as the guilty party (whether he is ultimately actually found guilty or not). Schumer has challenged Rove to say, himself, that he is not guilty, but what do you think? Rove will just claim that his lawyer has told him to say nothing. Novak, a Republican operative for years, who must have known all along who the guilty party was/is, says he will clear everything up - but only after the issue is already settled. Thanks Bob.

It seems that Falwell has already been gathering together his Churches of the Absolutely Bonkers to insure that Bush nominates a right wing anti-abortionist to the Supreme Court (right-wingers assume that Bush owes them this, which he probably does). The fact that some 65 percent of Americans apparently favor abortion rights means nothing to these narrow-minded ideologues who are determined to force their views on the majority. Some people have already suggested a new Civil War might be in the making over this. The evangelists are even campaigning against the current Attorney General as his views on abortion are, according to them, suspect. Wow, if Gonzales is not regarded as conservative enough just imagine who they may have in mind - Genghis Khan suggests itself. Oh, no, he wasn't "Born Again." I fear that Bush is just stupid enough to try to force his right wing will on the rest of us.

The one good thing that might come of all this is that Bolton may simply drop out of the picture. It could be the case that with bigger battles looming Bush may not want to fight any longer for Bolton. At least we can hope.

As our two Idaho Senators never vote against the Republican program I am suggesting that we replace them with robots. It would certainly be a lot cheaper and would accomplish the same thing. There was apparently a moment in the Senate not long ago when Senator Byrd put Rumsfeld in his place in a rather awkward moment. The press never mentioned this. The MSM is our greatest enemy and will be difficult to overcome. But we must prevail.

For Whom the Bell Tolls? - essay

It is too early to get excited about the Karl Rove leak or the replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. So let me comment on something of entirely no consequence.


This essay comes under the category of things I wonder about of no consequence. In this case, what is/was the matter with the movie, For Whom the Bell Tolls? I am not really a motion picture buff. Indeed, I seldom watch motion pictures, especially those made after about 1960. As my son is vitally interested in such things I have been made aware of the fact that there are numerous claims made about the best 100 movies. Now you know, and I know, that anytime you have a list of the 100 best movies, there is going to be rather massive disagreements (except, I gather, in the case of Casablanca and probably Citizen Kane). The one thing you can be certain of is that For Whom the Bell Tolls will not be one of them. In every one of these lists I have never seen For Whom the Bell Tolls. Adding insult to injury, perhaps, it does not even appear on the list of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. I have some difficulty understanding this for the following reasons:
In 1944 this movie apparently received 9 nominations for Academy Awards. Granted, only one individual actually won, Katina Parinou, for best supporting actress. She clearly should have won. Ingrid Bergman was nominated for best actress, Gary Cooper for best actor, Akim Tamiroff (who really should have won), for best supporting actor. There was also a nomination for best color – interior, and apparently others I am not certain about. Tamiroff and Paxinou also won Golden Globe awards.
In spite of this record, in the DVD & VIDEO Guide for 2004 Martin and Porter say, “The pace is slow, and the purpose of the fight is never made clear.” This was a movie about the Spanish Civil War, how much clearer would it have to be? They go on to say “Gary Cooper is listless and Ingrid Bergman self-conscious.” They both were nominated for Oscars. What role did Gary Cooper ever play that could not be described as “listless?” Indeed, he was the personification of listlessness. But he was still nominated. And Bergman’s self-consciousness, if it existed, didn’t keep her from being nominated either.
In my opinion (granted, not worth very much) this was a marvelous Hollywood movie. Perhaps the perfect example of a Hollywood motion picture. It was perfectly cast (all of the supporting actors were marvelous), had a great setting, it was a great Hemingway story, was Bergman’s first color film, was also (I believe) the first commercial movie with an intermission, and it was nicely photographed. What more could you want? I remember we were told to bring something to eat as it was going to be long. I enjoyed the intermission.
As seems to be the case with all movie reviews, there were some who thought it was great and others who did not. Those who did not seem to have objected to the length (170 minutes) and to the pace (slow), and at least one thought it was not entirely convincing (?). It has also been suggested that it was rather pacifistic at a time when we were supposed to be aggressive and warlike (1943). Somewhere, I recall, someone thought Cooper and Bergman were miscast (this boggles my mind). Perhaps this was a result of the claim that Hemingway himself requested Cooper and Bergman (who knows?). One reviewer suggested it was a very good but not great film. The one I liked the best, however, was someone who said the pros were “its sheer magnificence” and the cons were “only for nit pickers.”
Personally, I thought the only real problem was some of the dialogue, especially in the final scene where Cooper is telling Bergman to leave as “we are both one now,” etc. However bad this may have been it was certainly a cut above the original Hemingway dialogue, “did the earth move for you too.” I also thought the tanks were a bit corny but, hey, it was a long time ago and tank warfare hadn’t yet been perfected.
I am not prepared to argue that it was/is a great film. But I do think it is much better than it has been treated in recent years. When you consider that 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die includes such masterpieces as The Nutty Professor, and Breakfast at Tiffany’s (an absolutely awful movie), it does make you wonder.
What I wonder most about is why does anyone think it is possible to list the best 100 or 1001 movies in the first place? I guess if I could find someone dumb enough to finance me for such an enterprise I could come up with a list. And, of course, I know best.

What do you mean "if"

According to a Zogby poll, 42% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached if he lied about taking us to "war" against Iraq. So, what's with the "if." Of course he lied. It's perfectly obvious that he lied. There is actual physical evidence that he lied. Everyone with a brain larger than half a pea knows that he lied. So what's with the 58% of the population that doesn't seem to think about this at all? Bush/Cheney lied. They have lied repeatedly, along with Rumsfeld and all the rest of the neocons. Indeed, have they ever told the truth about anything? Not that I am aware of. Not only have they persistently and consistently lied they clearly should be impeached. So what are we waiting for? I guess we are waiting for some honorable Congresspersons and Senators. Don't hold your breath.

Bush says he could not honor the Kyoto treaty because it would harm the American economy. I guess this means that the American economy is more important than the planet. I mean, come on, you can't try to deal with this enormous problem of potentially disastrous climate change because it might damage the economy? If he doesn't think global warming is going to damage the economy does he actually think at all? Of course we all know the answer to that. He doesn't think. Doesn't read. Doesn't empathize. Doesn't doubt. Doesn't make mistakes. Doesn't seem to share any human values whatsoever. He was good at blowing up frogs, mocking a woman pleading for her life, dodging Vietnam, failing at everything he has attempted, especially the Presidency. Our Congressman, Butch Otter, actually used the word honorably and Bush on the same page once. I ask you, when has George W. Bush ever acting honorably. Give me one example. I don't believe he is purposely evil - he is too stupid for that. He just does the bidding of the most evil creature on earth, Dick the Slimy Cheney, who lurks underground and lives in a separate reality entirely. He surfaces occasionally to tell even greater lies. He must have a staff that makes them up as it seems no one individual would be capable of such absolutely ridiculous lies. Has he ever been right about anything having to do with Iraq? The answer is clearly no. Has Rumsfeld? The answer is no. Has Rice? The answer is no. Wolfowitx? No. Perle? No. And on and on. But they continue leading us further and further into the heart of total disaster. We just watch reality TV and think about sex. If we don't change very soon we're all going down with the ship of state.

Cheers.

Hello. Anybody home?

If you watched Democracy Now today you will know that there is an American law or ordinance or whatever it is that makes clear that very high level individuals in the U.S. Government can be tried for war crimes whether or not they claimed to abandon the Geneva Convention. You will recall that Gonzales was concerned about this when he recommended to Bush that if we (Bush/Cheney, et al, that is) abandoned the Geneva Convention there would be less of a chance of their being held responsible for war crimes. Apparently Ashcroft had the same concern. What this means to me is that they must have been fully aware that they were about to do something that was forbidden by law (and then did it anyway). As they did not abandon the Convention with respect to Iraq (as they did for Gitmo) they could also be held accountable there as well. This is to say there is no doubt whatsoever they are presumably guilty of war crimes and could and should be held accountable. But will they be? Highly unlikely. But after they leave office they probably shouldn't travel overseas. I can't speak for you, but I am not at all pleased to know that my country is now being run by a bunch of known war criminals.

I don't really know why but for some reason I looked up on Google, Pickled Pigs' feet recipes. I think I did it to torment a friend who is horrified of even the idea of pickled pigs' feet (she exists, as far as I know, only on beef from Scottish Highlands cattle). When it came up on google it said something like "one in ten, there are 67,600 entries for pickled pigs' feet." Not being very conversant with the internet or google I was frightened by the thought there could actually be that many recipes for pickled pigs' feet. After contemplating this for a few minutes, and reeling about the room in shock, I finally asked my wife and son if this could possibly be true. They assured me it did not mean there were 67,600 actual recipes available, merely that there could be that many mentions of either pickled, pigs, or feet, etc. Being much relieved I think I may be able to sleep.

I don't think people are paying much attention to what is happening. If they were they would want to know if we plan to ever leave Iraq. They would want to know what, if anything, would happen about health insurance. They would probably want to know what was happening with energy except giving huge gifts to the oil and gas industry. They would proably be more concerend about the environment. If they were like me, however, they would still want to know how it is that a known male homosexual prostitute with no press credentials or experience was given Press passes to the White House for a year or so, and more interesting than that, why was he given passes to the White House on more than 30 occasions when there was no Press Conference scheduled? Sorry to be so single-minded about this but I really would like to know (I already know about the lies about Iraq, Social Security, Iran, and stuff like that).

We are only allowed to write one letter to the editor of our local paper once a month. I have to wait until the 12th of July. I intend to write a letter about Gannon/Guckert. Will they publish it? Will anyone give any kind of answer? Is anyone else interested? Am I unnecessarily obsessed with this? I don't care. I really want to know!

Politics as a game

Yes, I know, Bush gave a speech. Ho-hum. The same lies, distortions, meaningless and mindless doggerel that everyone knew it would be. Nothing new. Nothing whatsoever. Of course he wouldn't dare tell the truth. If he did it would go something like this:
Oil is absolutely crucial to the American economy. Without a sufficient supply of oil our country would collapse. We have to have the oil.
But we don't have enough oil to keep our economy going. We have to get it from somewhere else.
We already get it from Saudi Arabia, but not enough, and not dependable enough at the moment. Venezuela is likewise not too dependable at the moment. So what to do?
We will just have to take it from whoever else has it. And who has the most? Why, Iraq, of course. And Iraq is basically a helpless country thanks to our years of sanctions. So let's go there and take control of their oil.
We can install a puppet regime, build some permanents bases, maintain an American presence to make sure it will work, and we'll be able to control not only Iraqi oil but probably all Middle Eastern oil.
Why doesn't Bush just come right out and say this? After all it's true. And it's simple enough for the American people to undertand. Then he wouldn't have to pretend that we are trying to get our troops home. Sure, we might get some of them home but we will never give up our presence completely. As Rumsfeld says, it might take as many as 12 years. Maybe by then the oil fields will be exhausted so we won't need to stay any longer.
If he just told the truth about it he might actually get a majority of Americans to support this totally illegal, immmoral, unconstitutional and otherwise unnecessary "war." After all, it wasn't too long ago that I saw bumper stickers to the effect: "Nuke their ass and steal their gas." And others not quite so basic but also sympathetic to international crime.

Of course he can't tell the truth because it could be the case that a majority of Americans might not join in on this totally criminal enterprise. After all, they don't all own stock in Halliburton, Exxon, GE, and etc. And therefore they might not be too sympathetic to this blatant war profiteering.

So let's just let him go on pretending that we're trying to establish democracy in the Middle East, that when the Iraqis are able to defend themelves we will leave, and all the rest of the utter garbage that comes out of the mouths of Bush/Cheney and the neocons. The Bush speech was pathetic. He is now nothing more than a pathetic person strutting about the stage where he will experience his own overdue demise. He probably will escape impeachment, if only because Cheney would then become president, a fate not to be desired. Furthermore, given the constitution of the House and Senate it probably couldn't happen anyway - there are no honorable Congresspersons or Senators, or virtually none.

This brings me to the issue of politics as a game which, I believe, has developed in the past twenty or more years. Maybe more than just a game, maybe a profession. How else would you explain that James Carvelle can stay married to Mary Matalan? If they each truly believed in what they were doing for their respective parties, if they were genuinely committed to the stated aims and goals of their parties, how could they possibly get along? And how about Bill Clinton now going sailing and otherwise spending time with Bush Sr.? After what the Republicans did to him how could he possibly now be embracing them? He has now even defended Bush Jr. And what about Hillary cozying up to Newt Gingrich? How could this be?

It can be because none of these people have any genuine commitment to the American people. For them politic is merely a game. They all exist in the same surreal atmosphere of big money, corporate influence, and power seeking. They simply try to one-up each other over whether their corporation is going to get more than others. But they are all playing within the same universe. No real genuine change is going to take place. Just my lobbyists are going to get more than yours this year, not that the people are going to get more of anyting. Do you see any of them truly arguing that we should get out of Iraq? Are any of them seriously pushing for medical reform? Are they actively pushing to repeal the obscene tax breaks for the already obscenely wealthy? What are they doing for the environment? Global warming? Energy conservation? Sure, occasionally they mention these things, but what do they actually do? The answer is nothing. They do nothing. They vote themselves raises. They pontificate about this and that. But they do nothing. They all just work to maintain their position in the elite hierarchy that currently runs the country. The people be damned. Why should they all have health insurance? Why should they be entitled to a minimum wage they can actually live on? Why should the environment be protected when it interfers with profit? Why, why, why?

The current situation, and the current administration, is nothing short of disgusting, even worse than that. And when our totally moronic, lying, babbling non-president can make a speech with no merit whatsoever, and have it praised by John McCain and other Republicans, you know we have now hit absolute rock bottom.

Twelve years?

Rumsfeld has now said that the insurgency could go on for 5, 7, 8, maybe 12 years. Why not 10 years, 3 months, two weeks, five days and 11 hours? Or maybe 13 years, six months, two weeks, two days and 12 minutes? Why can't he be more precise? He wants us to believe that no one knows how long it will go on. Oh, yeah, until the Iraqi army is strong enough to take over. When will that be? No one knows. In fact, no one knows because the Bush/Cheney administration has no intention of ever leaving entirely. The plan was and still is to set up a Puppet government that will do the bidding of the U.S. This is why we are building permanent bases in Iraq, to make sure we will be able to control things if the Puppet Government doesn't behave properly. This is why there was not and is not any real exit strategy. Exiting was never a consideration.

I admit to not having a very clear idea of what this was all about. I initially overimplified by thinking they just wanted to steal Iraqi oil. Someone else recently suggested they could have bought all kinds of oil for the 300 billion we've invested (wasted) there. But the neocons didn't want to buy Iraqi oil. They might not have even wanted to steal it. What they do want is to CONTROL it. They want to be able to control not only Iraqi oil but all Middle East oil. They not only want it for themselves, they also want to be able to keep it from China, India, Russia, and others.

To this end they lied to get us into an unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and unnecessary "war." They have never told the truth about it and they continue to lie about it now. It is not going to be over in X number of years. It is not going to be over when Iraq has its own army as long as that army does not do what they are told. It might be over when the oilfields are exhausted or oil is replaced by some new energy source (not likely, of course, especially with Bush/Cheney and their heirs in charge).

It has been suggested by some that the Bush/Cheney administration should tell us the truth about Iraq. So why don't they? They can say oil is an absolutely necesary commodity if the U.S. is going to continue as it is. We cannot do without it. Others now compete for it. It is therefore in our national interest to control it. That is why we invaded a sovereign nation that was no threat to us or anyone else. We have to have the oil. That is why we have send our sons and daughters to die for it. Oil is very important for the U.S. economy and especially for the giant oil companies and others that are involved in this seeming disaster. So, you see, it's really not a disaster at all but, rather, a completely understandable and necessary enterprise. Of coure we could have, or still could, make a genuine attempt to find a better solution to the problem. But where's the profit in that?

So Mr. and Mrs. North America and all the ship at sea, now that you understand it, I hope you are satisfied with what we have done and what we need to continue doing. It's the American way.

More flotsam

There is an ad for Zocor (Zokor?) that appears regularly on CNN. I swear that the woman speaking at one point actually says, "If you have had a heart attack or have heart problems you should talk to your doctor." I feel better already. When are they gong to do something about these totally ridiculous pharmaceutical ads that drive up the cost of drugs and are absolutely unnecessary? Probably never? You are probably right.

There is another ad that runs frequently, an ad for Toyota. It features a picture of a new and very fine Toyota plant and part of the text says something to the effect that "Toyota has created 200,000 jobs in the U.S." Now what I want to know is, if Toyota can build and enormous new plant and create 200,000 jobs in the U.S., why do so many U.S. Corporations find it necessary to move overseas? There is something about this that makes no sense whatsoever. Is Toyota paying slave wages? Do they actually have slaves? Can you manufacture cars cheaper than shirts, pants, and shoes? Please, someone, explain this to me.

There is a really find article today on Smirking Chimp by Ken Sanders of Uruknet that deals with the war crimes of Bush/Cheney et al, as well as with the question of impeachment. Everyone should read it.

I have just watched the Woody Allen movie, The Front (actually I had watched it many years ago but more or les forgotten most of it). In my TV guide this movie is listed as a comedy. It is about the blacklist and the problems writers had when they were blacklisted, not a very funny theme. Zero Mostel, in a fine performance as a blacklisted actor, eventually jumps to his death from a hotel room because he cannot find work. Woody Allen goes to jail. Ha, ha, ha. Very funny. I guess if Woody Allen appears anywhere that means it must be a comedy. Someone should investigate the meaning of "comedy" in TV guides and movie reviews.

I have just learned from our local rag (newspaper) that a majority of people in North Idaho are too fat. And quite a few are actually obese. It turns out that men are more apt to be fat than women, but women are more apt to be obese. What does this mean? It means to me that large numbers of people here have no interest either in their appearance or their health. If you live here for a time this becomes pretty obvious. No doubt our Republican controlled legislature will find a solution just as they have for education. It's just a bunch of liberal lies. Sigh!

Reunion - short story

As there is little to say today that has not already been said many times over, how about another short story.


I noticed her the moment I entered the room. She didn't belong there. She was just as beautiful as she had been twenty years before, the last time I had seen her. I took a seat at the bar and glanced around the room. The reunion was being held in the Elks Club, an attractive two-story brick building immediately across the street from what had been my home, the house now converted to an antique store. The bar was large and shaped like a horseshoe. Through an open doorway I could see the cardroom where my now long-departed father had spent most of his spare time. He rarely stayed home even when not working.
From my position at the bar I examined Rosie as if for the first time. She was as I remembered her: gorgeous, with lovely smooth light olive-brown skin, raven-black hair, a slight widow's peak, lustrous large brown eyes, slender well-formed legs, small-waisted, high-breasted, five feet two, perfectly proportioned. She was sitting with a small group of women at the far end of the dance floor, all of whom, except for Rosie, I recognized as former classmates.
The silver, lead, zinc and gold mines that surrounded our town had attracted miners from far and wide. Among them were many Irish and Italians. There were also Swedes and Norwegians, Finns and Frenchmen, English and Germans, and others as well. I do not recall any overt acts of discrimination towards anyone but there were, of course, perjoratives in everyday speech, such as "wops" and "dagos" and "shanty Irish," and others. But as these expressions were rarely hurled as insults or even used in the presence of those to whom they referred they did little to upset the prevailing ethos. Interestingly, the two categories of people most disdained were "Niggers" and “Missourians.” As no black people lived in our town this term was also not much of a problem although it was often heard. The townspeople boasted that the sun would never set again on a black person in our town and, as far as I know, it never has. Blacks and Missourians were held in contempt because both at one time or another had been brought in as strikebreakers. Once the strikes were under control the Black battalion had moved on. A few Missourians had remained to work in the mines themselves. They often found themselves in fights with the local miners whose opinions of strikebreakers were strong, unforgiving, and remarkably long lasting.
All of the twenty bar stools were occupied, all but one by men. I recognized the lone woman as an ex-cheerleader. She had been cute rather than beautiful but now sat with wrinkles and bulging eyeballs looking twice her age. The twenty years had not been kind to her. She was already drunk and desperate for attention, simultaneously pitiful and repulsive. Small groups of men stood holding their drinks, talking and laughing. The few small tables were crowded with mixed groups doing the same. I recognized most of them including two men who, like Rosie, did not belong there. They were from a nearby town, our traditional rivals. One of them, Joey Costello, had been a boxer and football player of some note. He had been short and heavy-set, now he was short and fat. Very fat. He sat at the bar like Humpty Dumpty, round as a ball. We had all called him "Mousie" although I never understood why. Decidedly not handsome, Mousie had always been popular. He was funny and very Italian, from a large family. When asked, he would tell you that he lived "three whore houses and two bars down Railroad avenue," which was, in fact, true. His father owned the buildings where these businesses flourished.
The other man was a lifetime friend of Joey's, Johnny Pechi. He, too, had been an athlete: a football, basketball and track star of sorts. He was well built, still trim, and seemed to have no interest in anything other than his previous High School athletic prowess. He was loud and obnoxious with jug ears and a noticeable gap between his front teeth. Even so, he was not really bad looking. Eavesdropping on their conversation, it became obvious they had simply invited themselves to our reunion to reminisce and drink beer.
A small local band began to play popular dance music, including songs we had danced to twenty years previously. They played badly but no one seemed to mind. Only a few people danced. Finally, emboldened by drink and still curious about Rosie, I crossed the dance floor and asked her to dance. I feared she might refuse but she smiled and rose gracefully and held out her hand.
It was a slow piece and not too loud to prevent conversation.
"Rosie," I began, "I'm surprised to see you here. I mean, you know, you weren't in our class and never had much to do with us before. So how is it you're here at the reunion?"
Rosie had attended a Catholic School rather than our Public School. The two groups of students rarely had anything to do with each other.
"I wouldn't be here if it weren't for Johnny," she said. "He wanted to come and insisted that I come too."
"Johnny? Johnny Pechi? What's he got to do with it?”
"Oh, don't you know? He's my husband."
"You're married to Johnny Pechi?" I'm sure she noticed the surprised disbelief in my voice. "No, I didn't know. I haven't been here for twenty years and I'm sorry to say I haven't kept in touch with anyone, especially since my parents died."
I was surprised, even shocked to learn that Rosie had married Johnny Pechi. But it took only a moment to realize that of course it was perfectly understandable. They were both Italian Catholics. Rosie's parents must have insisted on such a husband. Johnny Pechi was from a respectable Italian family in a nearby town. Rosie had obviously been raised for just such a marriage.
"We've been married for almost twenty years," Rosie reported, with what I interpreted as a touch of resignation.
"Do you have children?"
"No, no children." She offered no explanation.
"Are you happy?"
"Oh, yes. I guess I'm as happy as one can expect to be." She didn't sound happy.
"Isn't it strange," I continued. "I've known you all my life but didn't actually know you at all. You kids from the Academy just didn't mix with the rest of us. It was like we were from two completely separate worlds even though we all lived here together in the same small town."
"Yes, it was strange I guess. My parents raised me as a strict Catholic. They didn't encourage me to be around anyone who wasn't Catholic. But what about you? You must be married."
"Divorced."
"Divorced!" Rosie emphasized it with disbelief.
"Unfortunately, yes. I have two children but they live with their mother."
"How awful." Rosie turned to look towards her husband.
The music stopped. I returned Rosie to where she had been sitting.
"Thank you," she said gently.
"Thank you, Rosie."
I returned to the bar and took a seat as far from the cheerleader as I could. It was an end seat and I turned away from everyone to stare at the wall. I thought about the Academy, an ugly three-story brick building sitting on one corner of an otherwise empty city block. Although there had been a small playground there was no grass. The whole area around the school was just dirt. We rarely saw any of the Nuns that ran the Academy. I think they lived on the third floor. To me they were as alien as if they had come from outer space. I knew nothing of what went on at the Academy. True, I sometimes heard the students complaining about catechism, but I had no idea what that was. Although I recognized children that attended the Academy, like Rosie, I knew little or even nothing about them.
Our Public High School, although much larger and somewhat more attractive than the Academy, was on the opposite side of town. It, too, had an absolutely bare playing field with a few broken-down swings and slides. Our football team, almost all tough miner’s sons, took pride in the fact they played on bare ground rather than grass. As the Academy kids didn't play organized sports, we rarely thought of them at all.
"Rosie, I always thought you were the most beautiful girl in town." We were dancing again. What I said was true.
"Why didn't you ever tell me?"
"How could I have? We never talked apart from saying hello."
"I know. I always wanted to talk with you. I liked you. You had such a nice smile." Rosie spoke softly but seriously. I held her closer. She did not resist.
I began to feel I had been cheated of something, that my life had been incomplete, that I had been denied something that might have been very important to me. I heard Johnny Pechi's loud braying laughter and turned to watch him. God! He's such a boor, I thought. The idea of Rosie being married to him was almost more than I could bear.
People continued to drink and talk and laugh. A few more couples appeared on the dance floor. Johnny never once danced with his wife. Indeed, he showed no interest in her whatsoever. He was intent on reliving his mostly imaginary athletic triumphs. The cheerleader was passed out at the bar. Joey had a half-dozen people in stitches with his endless outrageous stories.
Mysteriously, and without speaking of it, Rosie and I now began to dance every dance except the occasional fast ones that we sat out together.
"Rosie, you truly are beautiful. I wish I had been able to know you before. I feel like I've been cheated. And for what a silly reason. I didn't realize back then just how strange the situation was. You were an Italian and a Catholic and went to the Academy. I went to the Public School. But how absurd that we allowed that to have kept us so far apart. My family never had any bad feelings towards Italians or Catholics although I'm sure some people did. I guess your family just didn't want you to have anything to do with us.”
"Yes, you're right. My parents were strict. They thought people didn't like us because we were Italians and Catholics. They had no friends who were not just like they were. Sometimes I wish it had been different. But it doesn't matter now. It's too late to change anything." Rosie's voice was soft and she spoke with such a pensive and melancholy tone I was overcome with sadness and regret.
Rosie said little after that. Over time she moved closer and closer. Johnny was drunk and still babbling loudly about his increasingly imaginary exploits. He paid no attention to us. Through her thin cotton summer dress I could feel all of her lovely body. Her lightly perfumed hair was soft against my cheek, her hand was small and moist in mine. We became unaware of anyone or anything except each other. People began to leave. When the band at last played Auld Lang Syne we clung tightly to each other. With tears in my eyes I felt her quiet sobbing.

Throes

Dick the Slimy, having said the resistance in Iraq is in "its last throes," now has attempted to clarify his remark by quibbling over the definition of "throes." In the context of his remark, however, it doesn't really matter what the definition of throes is. When he said the resistance was in its last throes that cannot be construed to mean anything other than the resistance is about to come to an end - its LAST throes. Cheney has also said that Iraq is going to be a resounding success. This might have had some slight credibility if he hadn't added, "just like Afghanistan." Afghanistan is a success? He truly does inhabit a different planet from the rest of humanity. I am beginning to believe he may simply be mentally ill. But he still runs things and Bolton may still get another vote (can you believe it?).

It should also thrill all Americans to learn that after four and a half years of the Bush/Cheney administration the United States is now regarded less favorably than China. China is a communist country. So now, after all these years of communist bashing, it turns out that the vast majority of the world thinks China is a better country than the U.S. I tell you, these Republicans are something. Something else I guess. The way things are going I suspect it won't be much longer before the U.S. will be perceived as worse than the Sudan. But it's all because you got to fight terrists everywhere (except for those who make up the House and the Senate).

Speaking of the House, I guess you are aware that for the umpteenths time they have taken the time to pass a constitutional amendment recommendation against flag burning. This is apparently a truly important issue for the House as they have spent a great deal of time over it in recent years. Never mind health care, Social Security, unemployment, the obscene national debt, the energy problem, the degraded environment, etc., what is important to the House of Representatives is that someone, somewhere, somehow, someway, might actually try to burn the American flag (which, by the way, is the proper way to dispose of a no longer useful flag). I confess to feeling much safer already. Of course the Senate will have to waste some time getting rid of this utterly ridiculous attempt, and even if they didn't it would have to be passed by two thirds of the states which would, conservatively estimated, waste time forever and almost surely never happen. But what else should the House be doing? Surely not taking care of important business. Well, they might start by impeaching Bush/Cheney. Naw, that would be too obvious. We are currently living in a country that to put it politely has gone absolutely "bonkers."

Gannon/Guckert - Gannon/Guckert - Gannon/Guckert - Gannon/Guckert - Gannon/Guckert What was he doing in the White House and who was he doing it with? This scandal simply cannot be left to disappear. A known male prostitute fake reporter given passes to the White House even when there were no Press Conferences scheduled? Come on! To me this story whispers persistently, Karl Rove, Karl Rove, Karl Rove...

What is a quagmire?

Our astute (ha ha) Secretary of Defense claimed today that Iraq has not become a quagmire. He also claimed that things are going well. The generals sitting at the same table with him seemed to agree (like, what else could they do under the circumstances)? Quagmire, according to the definition in my dictionary, refers to a bog, or an awkward situation. I guess Rummy thinks Iraq is not an awkward situation as everything seems, according to him, to be under control. When asked by Kennedy why he should not resign Rummy said he has offered to resign twice but Bush would not accept his resignation. I guess it hasn't occurred to him that he could have just resigned rather than merely offered. He could hardly expect Bush to accept his offer as Bush only does as he is told and of course Cheney would not allow anything that might look like an admission of failure. In this case abject failure.

Durbin had nothing whatsoever to apologize for. He did not compare the Bush/Cheney administrtion to nazis. He said, quite plainly, and quite simply, if you read this report (from the FBI), and if you didn't know where it came from, you might well think it had come from nazis or Stalinists, or whatever - which I believe is absolutely true. I simply do not understand why Democrats are so damned quick to back down on everything and anything. When they say something true they should stick with their position, not just capitulate. This is one quality that I believe you have to admire in Dean. He doesn't just back down, and he speaks the truth. The Republican party is demonstrably an overwhelmingly white party. That is the truth. It is also most probably true that most of the Republican politicians never did an honest day's work in their lives. Unfortunately that is probably true of most Democrats in office also. For the most part those who attain such offices were clearly priviledged to begin with. And unless you believe that politicking is an honest day's work they probably all lack credibility.

Rove seems to have stuck his foot in his mouth so now it is his turn to either apologize or what? His comment that Republicans saw 9/11 and prepared for war whereas Democrats just wanted therapy for the terrorists was so far off-base it might not even be possible for him to adequately apologize. Trying to deal with McClelland's defense makes one wonder if there is any sanity left at all in the world. There certainly is none in McClelland's head.

Just when is enough, enough?

What more is there to say?

What more is there to say? It is perfectly obvious what has happened. Bush/Cheney went to "war" under totally false pretenses, lied to Congress and the American People, are responsible for untold numbers of deaths that could easily have been avoided, have accomplished nothing other than enriching their corporate friends, and still have no idea what the hell they are doing in Iraq (except trying to build a number of permanent bases that will be under constant attack forever, or at least until they have to be dismantled and removed). All of this for the modest cost of 300 billion dollars (oh, I forgot, it was all going to pay for itself with Iraq oil - silly me). And even though their poll ratings are approaching negative numbers they just go on telling us that everything is going well, things in Afghanistan and Iraq are just peachy-keen, we're about to "win" in a situation in which it is perfectly obvious there is no way to win.

The Gannon/Guckert scandal has apparently been successfully neutralized. I guess there is no reason anyone would want to know why a known Homosexual Prostitute with no Press credentials or experience, was allowed to attend White House Press Conferences for over a year, and was also allowed into the White House over 30 times when no Press Conference was even scheduled. What is wrong with people who might want to know about that? Is there anyone out there who can honestly argue that had this happened during the Clinton Administration we would still be hearing about it 24/7? To hush this up so completely must have required clout at the very highest levels of government. Karl Rove anyone? Who arranged these passes for Gannon/Guckert? Where was he when he was in the White House? Who was he with? What was he doing? Why was he there at all? Who was paying him? What in the hell was this all about? I'm sorry to be so persistent, BUT I WANT TO KNOW!

Frist was apparently willing to give up on the Bolton nomination, having concluded that his negotiating with Democrats would go nowhere. But I guess after a meeting with benign old Uncle Dick the Slimy he changed his mind and now wants to try a vote once again. Maybe this is better than a recess appointment, maybe not. But if the Decmocrats stand pat they will win this one big time. "Right" (remember that concept) is clearly on their side. So unless some Democrats fold, Dick the Slimy will lose. So what is the White House sitting on that is so dangerous they dare not share it with the Senate? When will Dick the Slimy be forced to realize that all power, always, does not reside in the Executive Branch?

With all branches of government now firmly in the hands of Republicans, and with no existing honorable Republicans who will place country before party, the future does not look promising. But there may still be time. The citizenry has clearly turned against these Fascist, warmongering, war-profiteering, murderous, right-wing neocon, Corporate loving, phony Christian thugs, and perhaps once again the people will win out against this outrageous attempt to emasculate us.

The Bolton fiasco

What I and many others predicted happened; Bolton lost again. It was pretty clear that once the battle was joined between the Senate and the White House (really Dick the Slimy) the Senate would win. However inept and inefficient they may have been up until now they are not ready to be told by the White House what they can see and what they cannot see, when they are obviously legally entitled to see what they want. Aside from the obvious truth that Bolton is the wrong person for the job, this means there is at least a ray of light emanating from U.S. politics - namely, that Dick the Slimy has not attained full dictatorial power...yet. But do not doubt even for an instant that he will stop working at it. It is obviously the goal of the present administration to attain complete control of the U.S. government, such that they can do whatever they wish. And what they wish is, of course, to take us back to the 18th century when all wealth was in the hands of a very few and all others were merely peasants or serfs with few, if any, rights. Is that not exactly what you see happening at the moment?

By now it is perfectly obvious that Bush wanted to go to "war" with Iraq from even before he was anointed as President. Nothing could be more obvious. And nothig could be more obvious than what he has done is clearly impeachable. Indeed, I should say, impeachable many times over. It is still doubtful, however, that that happy day will come. Our democracy, what there is left of it, along with our place in the world of nations, is hanging precariously by brittle threads. The only conceivable way this can be overcome is through impeachment and a subsequent investigation of war crimes. Closing down Gitmo by itself will not do it. That is too much like the proverbial closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Perle/Wolfowitz, etc., etc., have to be held accountable. Nothing else will do. What these neocon lunatics have brought about, while not up to the scale of Nazi Germany, Stalin, or Pol Pot, is every bit as evil. There is no legal or moral justification whatsoever for invading a sovereign nation that was not a threat, torturing, incarcerating people for years with no charges brought against them and no right to trial, war profiteering, hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and violating treaty after treaty, as well as making a mockery of international law and the constitution. It is inconceivable to me that anyone could think otherwise, but I guess there are still a few true believers who continue to believe that might is right, black is white, up is down, failure is success, the earth is flat, and lying is apparently good for the soul. If I had a buffalo skull I would pray to the Great Mystery for some much needed help.

Mysteries - comments and an essay

George W. Bush reportedly said on his radio program that we are in Iraq because of 9/11. Has no one told even by now that there is no connection whatsoever between Iraq and 9/11? And how is it that no one at all, including reporters, has ever challenged this absurd claim? I find this mysterious.

Similarly, Dick the Slimy has claimed that the insurgency in Iraq is "in its last throes." No one seems to have seriously challenged this utter absurdity either, at least not in any way that would be considered important. Another mystery.

Then there is our great leader, Secretary of Defense, Grandpa Rumsfeld, who has maintained consistently over the years that we do not need more troops in Iraq. This is not what many of our senior military officers have concluded or, indeed, what some of them agreed to in the first place. But Rumsfeld, having proven to be an absolute disaster as Secretary of Defense, continues in that position and is said by Bush to be doing a "superb" job. Is this not also a great mystery?

But let us go on to more serious mysteries:


Having passed the mid-century mark quite some time ago I have finally come to realize that there must be indeed a great mystery to life that I simply do not understand. How else would you explain, for example, that in more than sixty plus years of travel -- by bus, train, plane, and boat, I have never, not even once, been seated next to an attractive woman of approximately my own age or younger? In those cases where I could have chosen to sit anywhere I wanted there was never such a creature available to sit near (I assure you I would have seized the opportunity). In the remainder of cases (the vast majority) I see no reason to suppose that all transportation clerks in all of the various transportation fields were somehow in a secret conspiracy to not so seat me (I am not yet that paranoid).
Similarly, I have never understood what other people do in banks and post offices and such places. I go to the bank or post office, wait in line, get to the clerk, conduct my business. The whole thing (aside from waiting in line) takes probably at most 30 seconds. Granted traveler's checks and money orders take a bit longer but even here it doesn't take long. So what are all those people doing that I'm waiting for endlessly? Five, ten, fifteen minutes, sometimes even longer. What in the world do they do? Are they trying to make out with the tellers? Having a family meeting? Attempting to extort money? Involved in the International Banking business? Perhaps they are mistakenly waiting for something else? Like a bus? Or are their accounts so hopelessly confused that even the computer is defeated? Why can't everyone be like me? I just round off all of my checkbook entries to the next highest number so I always have more than it appears.
Furthermore, why is it I have never won anything? One would think that after six decades of entering sweepstakes contests, buying raffle tickets, lotteries, football and baseball pools, and etc., one might win something even if it was the booby prize or 500th place, anything. But no. Nothing. Don't get me wrong. I'm not merely complaining. I have a genuine scientific (if you will) interest in this matter. Not only have I not personally won anything, I don't know anyone who has won anything. Indeed, I don't know anyone who knows anyone who has won anything. But you see the problem! The odds against knowing no one who knows someone who once won something are astronomical -- or at least I think they must be. Not being a statistician I have no choice but to ponder these mysterious circumstances and consider it fate. One of the great advantages in believing in fate is simply that fate is fate. It isn't supposed to be either fair or random. It's fate. Good, clean, and straightforward. But even having accepted my fate I still can't stop wondering why I've never been seated next to an attractive woman in all these years. Fate may be just fate but it can be cruel.

Cognitive dissonance

I haven't really thought of cognitive dissonance in a long time. But reflecting on recent events I have concluded that cognitive dissonance is what I am suffering. That is, when there is a mismatch between what you are told and what you actually experience you have this strange mental situation. Perhaps the most simply example of this is Dick the Slimy's statement that the Iraqi resistance is "in its last throes." Try to reconcile that in your brain with what seems to be actually happening in Iraq.

Another example might well be the reaction of the MSM and Republicans to the Downing Street Memos. Now they are saying something like, "well, what's new about that? We all knew he was lying in the first place." Try to make sense of that. The implication is that because we were all aware he was lying in the first place we shouldn't be concerned about it. NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT! Our President deliberately lied to bring about an illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and unnecessary "war" in which many of our children and thousands of others perished and we are not concerned about it? What kind of warped illogic is in the minds of these people? They seem to believe that if they just ignore it, it will go away like all the rest of their scandals. After all, if we all knew he was lying before the release of the memos, why should we trouble ourselves about it now? Are you required to undergo a lobotomy when you register as a Republican?

Now it has also been revealed that not only did we lie to the British about our use of napalm, we have also done everything possible to downplay their concern over global warming. This after also learning that Cooney (I think that's his name) edited all the paperwork on global warming for the White House to make global warming seem as innocuous or unlikely as possible. Once he was found out he suddenly took a job with Exxon. Sigh.

Newt the Hypocrite has written a letter to the Senate urging them to censor Senator Durbin over remarks made by Durbin about the torture scandals. He complains, rightly so perhaps, that Guantanamo (and presumably our other torture centers) are not at all like the Nazi death camps, Stalin's gulags, Pol Pot's strocities, and so on. And of course they are not. But that is not what Durbin said. What he said was: if you were to read these reports from the FBI and others, and if you didn't know where they came from, you might well think they were written by the Nazis, etc. I think this is quite likely perfectly true. But trust the Republicans to twist everything to their advantage and by concentrating on one or more statements thereby reduce any attention to what was in fact the problem. Their criticism of Amnesty Internation is a perfect case in point. They seized on "gulag" as the only important statement and thus managed to shift attention away from the fact that the Amnesty report was most probably otherwise true. They used the same strategy with the unfortunate Dan Rather situation. The fact that what he said was true became lost in the confusion over where it came from. Given the Republicans cleverness is doing this kind of thing, and given the gullibility of their followers in believing it, it behooves Democrats to be more careful in what they say and how they say it. But this doesn't mean they shouldn't go ahead and attack, they should, but they should stand firm and defend themselves from Republican attempts to make black into white.

How much more outrage can we take?

It turns out that at the very moment Cheney insists that Guantanamo is absolutely necessary for the war on terror his company, Halliburton, has been awarded a huge multimillion dollar contract to expand the facilities there. One hundred and thirty million I believe the figure is. No conflict of interest here because we all know Cheney has assured us he no longer has any interest in the company - even though they continue to pay him in the hundreds of thousands annually. Is this not outrageous?

Tomlinson, the head of the organization to separate Public Broadcasting from any political influence, is now blatantly violating that charge and insisting that PBS become merely another arm of the Bush/Cheney administration. There is just too much liberal bias, according to Tomlinson, that needs to be countered by having more conservative programs. The Republicans have long wanted to get rid of Public Broadcasting and, while having tried and failed in the past, now think they can at least cut its funding by half - that, of course, would go a long way toward getting rid of it entirely. To do this Tomlinson has engaged in no end of illegal maneuvers to bring it about. Nothing outrageous about this I guess.

It seems that the Bush/Cheney bunch actually lied to their almost only ally (Britain) in the "war" against Iraq. They claimed they did not illegally use napalm (or a new version of that obscene weapon) in Iraq. But it turns out they did. They may have used it in Falluja as well as elsewhere. Nothing outrageous about lying to your only real ally.

When Congressman Conyers wanted to hold a session devoted to the Downing Street memo scandal the Republicans would only allow them a very small space in the basement somewhere. A room that was terribly overcrowded and designed to minimize whatever impact such a meeting might have. Not only that, they also scheduled eleven votes on important pieces of legislation for precisely the time the Conyers meeting was to take place. Again, nothing outrageous here, just good clean Republican fun. It had never occurred to me until now that Republicans would control even the assignment of rooms. I would have thought there must be an office in charge of such things. You know, like a bipartisan arrangement so that both Democrats and Repubicans could ask for space, etc. Republican paranoia and fear seems to know no bounds.

Oh, yes, the Schiavo travesty. We now know that the poor woman's brain had shrunk to half the size it should have been and in addition to that she was blind. You would think that Frist, DeLay, and others might actually apologize for their outrageous claims that she was sentient and trying to communicate, etc. But no, even her parents refuse to accept reality. Outrageous? Not for Republicans. After all, medical science is no more useful than prayer when it comes to such things.

At least we now have the beginnings of a Resolution of Inquiry, the first step toward possible impeachment. Whatever comes of this, John Conyers should go down in history as the first hero of the 21st century. And what should come of this is clearly impeachment, long overdue, perfectly obvious, and merely the first step in the very long and difficult road ahead to restore American credibility and honor in the world (if, indeed, by now that will even be possible). The enormity of the crimes is such that Americans seem unable to comprehend the situation. It is so bad that outright denial seems to be the only defense. No one wants to, or even can accept, what Bush/Cheney and their gang of international thugs has wrought. I am reminded of a great book title which is certainly appropriate here - PAST ALL DISHONOR.

Not this time!

I don't think the White House and Bush/Cheney are going to get away with more stonewalling this time. I believe (certainly hope) that things have now gone too far for Democrats and others to back down and surrender as they have been doing repeatedly up until now. The Conyers hearing has had enough publicity that even the MSM can't continue to entirely ignore it. The Bolton fiasco has still to run its course and it doesn't look too promising for Bolton. Especially as the White House is absolutely wrong on this issue - they will have to provide the information requested or Bolton will stay in limbo. And if they do provide the information Bolton will almost surely go down.

And now there is the little problem of the polls. Bush/Cheney and the Congress both are rated somewhere below Genghis Khan at the moment. I don't believe this is going to change now, no matter what stunts Karl Rove tries to pull off. I do believe the die has been cast and ultimately Bush/Cheney and their gang of criminals are on their way out. The Schiavo travesty has now been exposed, Frist has shown himself to be little more than a loonytunes doctor, DeLay is sweating blood, Bush becomes more inarticulate day by day (if that is possible), and Cheney is now exposed as truly living in a different world from the rest of us. Scott McClennan has reached the point of minus zero credibility and the senior military has now admitted what anyone with even half a brain knew a long time ago - no military victory in Iraq is possible. Our troops are suffering casualties on a daily basis and there are few willing to replace them. No one has seriously sugggested a draft as yet because if they do the whole country will probably explode in such a rage Bush/Cheney might actually be impeached. In short, things are in an incredible mess. Even worse than I could possibly describe. Aren't you glad that the adults have been in charge for the last four and a half years? Impeachment, should it actually occur (and it certainly should) would be no more than a slap on the wrist given the enormity of the crimes. Sensennbrenner (sp?) is a perfect role model for our current aspiring fascists. Will the obscenely rich ever get enough to satisfy them?