GOP Bankruptcy

German grandmother smothers
summons-serving Bailiff “hunk”
with kisses, is arrested for assault.

It is obvious that the Republican Party is increasingly becoming irrelevant. It is split into at least two and possibly more factions. They lack any clear leader, they are a minority party, they are scrabbling among themselves, they lack ideas, and after their dismal performance of the past eight years they have lost all credibility. What is worse, however, and I think more important, is that they have become both morally and intellectually bankrupt. Consider their recent behavior. One of their spokesmen the other day, for example, admitted that Republicans were going to oppose Obama at every turn, for no reason other than purely political ones. This is at a time when our nation is in a severe crisis, and requires the cooperation of all if we are to succeed in overcoming it. They think by destroying Obama they may be able to return to power. Put simply, they are putting themselves and their party ahead of the nation’s well-being. They have become known as the party of “no.” Then there is the problem of what to do with the stimulus money they all voted against. Most of the Republican Governors of course accepted the money, having opposed it rather dramatically in principle. You might conclude there is a bit of hypocrisy here. On the other hand we have the Governor of North Carolina (South?) saying that he will not spend the stimulus money but will, rather, pay down the state’s debt, apparently oblivious to the purpose of the stimulus and an utterly nonsensical thing to do. And Senators like Lindsey Graham, having been staunchly opposed to the stimulus, have now eagerly embraced it. Having spent like drunken sailors during the past eight years, with their President George W. Bush never vetoing a single request, and thus having run up the national debt beyond any previous administration, by far, and converted a large surplus into an enormous debt, they have the gall to criticize Democrats for wanting to spend too much to try to save the country. Now they are attempting to stop the Employee Free Choice Act, designed to allow workers to more easily form unions if they wish. One of the means they are employing is simply to lie, repeatedly, and insist the act is designed to take away secret ballots, which it is not. Lying, however, comes easily to Republicans. Why would anyone be opposed to workers having the right to organize and attempt to get better wages and benefits? Well, obviously, because corporations and companies would prefer to have slave labor if they could. Are we to consider this the “American way?” And if, unfortunately, it is the American way, ought it to be?

One of the largest factions, the so-called “Republican Base,” is right-wing to such an extreme they are proud to say that Rush Limbaugh speaks for them. Rush Limbaugh, a well-known hypocrite, liar, and hatemonger, a loud-mouthed buffoonish racist, who heaps scorn on feminists, mocks the handicapped, insults children, and in general is an all-around disgusting person with no redeeming virtues, is now regarded by many Republicans as their primary spokesperson. This same faction of the party also listens to and cheers such other hatemongers as Bill O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and even the seriously mentally handicapped Glenn Beck. These people speak disparagingly of things they obviously know nothing about, like genetics, scientific research of all kinds, world and American history, socialism, capitalism, and whatever. They will oppose universal health care, desperately needed in the U.S., as socialism. Socialism, in their view, is just plain awful. They are apparently unaware of medicare, Medicaid, social security, public schools, and so on. For many of these ultra-rightist no-brainers, Sarah Palin would be their pick for our next President. Sarah Palin, a know-nothing lady who managed to become Governor of the sparsely populated state of Alaska, and who, through an idiotic mistake of John McCain’s was picked as his running mate. She demonstrated her know-nothingness repeatedly and made a fool of herself and the Republican party. But they loved her. And they say she will be ready to be President in 2012. I’m sorry, but Sarah Palin will not be ready to be President of the U.S. even in a hundred years, and those that think so are beyond reason or help. Some of the other potential candidates for President on the Republican side are men who do not believe in evolution, in other words, men so out of touch with the reality of contemporary knowledge as to be other-worldly. Probably their best candidate at the moment is Mitt (I’ve been a hunter all my life) Romney, a Mormon. I have no idea what he really believes. Other than in making lots of money, but I do know he is not adverse to lying in order to get his way. These people, collectively, are so shallow, so ill-informed, so dogmatic in beliefs that have been proven wrong time and time again, so dishonest, greedy, and treacherous, they could eventually win. It’s the American way. They’d all love to have a beer with Sarah, the anti-environmentalist wolf and moose killer. Just imagine her walking around with our nuclear code. This group of people seems to believe that anyone can be President, even people as ignorant as they are. Knowledge, education, pertinent experience, character, even the ability to reason seems to have no meaning to them. If you can shoot and cook a Moose, and see Russia from your front door, why shouldn’t you be President of the most powerful nation on earth? I mean, it has just been proven that you don’t have to have intellect or even a rudimentary knowledge of geography or world politics, or previous success at anything, to become President. Just look at what a fine job George W. Bush, a “C” student, did as President. The Republican Party, which under Bush/Cheney became little more than a criminal organization (Brafia), has now become the party of Dumb and Dumber. It appears to be eager to stay that way.

LKBIQ:
The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
H. L. Mencken

TILT:
The pig-footed bandicoot is extinct.

Morality, ethics and government

When man refuses to put
out cigarette, brother sprays
him with fire extinguisher.

I was thinking of writing something on morality, ethics, and government, but then I made the mistake of looking in the dictionary (Merriam-Webster Online). For the definition of morality I found, “conformity to ideals of right human conduct.” Puzzled, I then looked up “right,” and found several definitions: (1) righteous, upright, (2) just, good, proper, (3) correct, (4) suitable, appropriate, (5) straight, and (6) genuine, real. Perhaps I am missing some brain cells, but I find none of these definitions helpful for spelling out “ideals of right human conduct.” I mean, like, who is going to say what is “right,” “good,” “proper,” “suitable,” or “genuine,” etc.? Stymied, I decided to try “ethical.” The closest thing to useful was “moral approval or disapproval conforming to accepted standards of behavior.” This means, I take it, that if something is in conformity with “ideals of right human conduct” (that is, accepted standards of behavior) it can be considered ethical. But here again, what are the standards by which we are to judge whether something is ethical or not? The basic problem with this, is simply that we need to know what is “right human conduct,” and that is precisely what is missing, and obviously not going to be revealed by looking in the dictionary. I know, I should have known better.

Now it seems to me there are at least some things that would appear not to be ideals of right human conduct or accepted standards of behavior. Torture, I believe, must be one of these things (apparently some people would not agree with this). I should think that attacking another country that is not a threat to you would also not be acceptable human behavior, killing innocent civilians, likewise. Similarly, I would think that dropping cluster bombs that you know are going to kill and maim innocent children would not be considered right human conduct or an accepted standard of behavior. I could go on, of course, but you get the point. If you agree with my ideas of acceptable standards of behavior, then we can easily conclude that Bush/Cheney acted both immorally and unethically. But ho-hum, it just seems so academic, so “last year,” as to not be worthy of further consideration (oh, how I hope I am wrong about this).

Anyway, having not really satisfied myself very well about morality and ethics, I decided to try the concept of “government.” Specifically, I set myself the task of trying to understand what the late Saint Ronnie meant when he said “government is the problem.” The idea of government is somewhat easier to comprehend than either morality or ethics. But there are, of course, different definitions: “the act or process of governing,” “the office, authority, or function of governing,” “the continuous exercise of authority over and he performance of functions of a political unit,” “the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it,” “the complex of political institutions, laws, customs through which the function of governing is carried out,” or “the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization.” Like all attempts at dictionary definitions these may leave something to be desired, but generally speaking, you get the idea. Now, when Saint Ronnie said government is the problem, he did not really mean government per se. He was not stupid enough (although I think he almost was) to disband government entirely because it was a problem. He seems to have had in mind only certain functions of government, in particular, those functions that had to do with public good (welfare, social security, decent wages, public health, etc.), the regulation of industry to prevent them from theft, including those industries that were involved in the exploitation of natural resources, and taxation. Said by his admirers to be “the Great Communicator,” he wasn’t too great when it came to explaining this. But what he was doing became clear when he began union busting, said famously “when you’ve seen one redwood, you’ve seen ‘em all,” railed constantly about “welfare queens in their cadillacs,” and worst of all, appointed James Watt as Secretary of the Interior (arguably the worst political appointment ever). He also thought government was a great institution for borrowing money. Of course we have to give him credit for single-handedly bringing down the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. Indeed, his policies, often called “Reagonomics” have also nearly brought down the United States itself (we are a long way from recovering). But, if you believe the major functions of government are to protect corporations and the obscenely wealthy, and to do away with amenities for the less fortunate, including the mentally ill and the destitute, then you no doubt believe Ronnie really was a Saint, and his face should adorn our coins, Mt. Rushmore, and most of our streets. If, on the other hand, like me, you think he was a mindless, evil moron who had little understanding of either government, morality, or ethics, you might conclude he was little more than the Patron Saint of Greed and Ignorance.

LKBIQ:
Rather, she [Death] simply is the Ultimate Hostess who tells you when your table's ready. It's up to other powers what section you're seated in (smoking or non-smoking).
John C. Straffin

TILT:
A “blue moon” occurs once every 2.72 years.

Survivals

Two young early morning “massage
therapists” remove man’s pants
and $2000 in casino winnings.

“The abundance, the solidity, and the splendor of the results already achieved by science are well fitted to inspire us with a cheerful confidence in the soundness of its methods. Here at last, after grasping about in the dark for countless ages, man has hit upon a clue to the labyrinth, a golden key that opens many locks in the treasury of nature. It is probably not too much to say that the hope of progress—moral and intellectual as well as material—in the future is bound up with the fortunes of science, and that every obstacle placed in the way of scientific discovery is a wrong to humanity.”

Those words were written in 1890 by Sir James George Frazer, one of the leading intellectuals of the time. Today, March 9, 2009, our current President, Barack Obama, found it necessary to remove obstacles placed in the way of scientific discovery by George W. Bush, his predecessor, obstacles that might well be described as “wrongs to humanity.” How can it be that this was allowed to happen?

By 1890 the theory of evolution was widely accepted by scientific and scholarly men of the late 19th century, men who had been almost universally religious in their orientation to the world. Sir Edward Tylor, a Quaker, not only accepted the theory of physical evolution but attempted to apply it to the evolution of culture, and especially religion, by 1903. Frazer himself attempted to trace the evolution of science from magic. Archbishop James Usher had worked out a biblical chronology in which the six-day creation of all things had taken place in 4004 B.C., and the flood had occurred in 2501 B.C. But the geologists of the time knew the earth had to be older than that. Sir Charles Lyell, the foremost authority on geology of his time, resisted stubbornly for as long as he could, but by 1863 abandoned his early view and accepted the view that the earth was thousands of times older than previously thought. Jacques Boucher de Perthes argued for years that early men must have been contemporaneous with extinct mammals, and that stone axes found in the earth were evidence for human antiquity. His views were viewed with derision and suspicion until finally, in 1854, on the basis of his carefully collected evidence, they were accepted by one of his most prominent rivals, Dr. Rigollot. By 1859 many other scientists, like Hugh Falconer and Joseph Prestwich, also accepted Boucher de Perthes claims.

Thus by the late 1800’s the idea of evolution was widely accepted by the major scholars of the time, all of whom were also considered religious. The Reverend Charles Kingsley, as I mentioned before, accepted Darwin very quickly, and saw that “it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self development into all forms needful pro tempore and pro loco, as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself had made,” thinking that the former idea might be an even loftier thought than what had preceded it.

If this is so, and I assure you that it is so, how do we explain the persistence in some circles even today to believe in the 6000 year antiquity of the earth, and the rejection of evolution? This would seem to me to have been settled a long time ago, and, of course, for many, it is considered settled. But a large majority in the U.S. persists in rejecting it. These early evolutionary scholars had an explanation even for that. Perplexed by the seeming survival of older customs or practices in contemporary life, things that seemed out of place in their evolutionary scheme of things, they came up with the notion of “survivals.” Tylor, for example, wondered why people in Europe nailed horseshoes to their doors. He eventually learned that in European folklore iron doors kept away fairies and rendered them powerless. He related this in turn to earlier ideas about witchcraft. Tylor said of this:

“Among evidence aiding us to trace the course which the civilization of the world has actually followed is that great class of facts to denote of which I have found it convenient to introduce the term “survivals.” These are processes, customs, opinions, and so forth which have been carried on by force of habit into a new state of society different from that in which they had their original home, and they thus remain as proofs and examples of an older condition of culture out of which a newer has been evolved.”

Dare I suggest that in the 1800’s, when Americans were still settling the frontiers and perhaps not as cognizant of intellectual developments in England and the continent, they tended to maintain beliefs that were rapidly going out of style elsewhere in the world. This, coupled with the well-known anti-intellectualism of Americans has allowed these more “primitive” ideas to survive, and those who continue to believe them are themselves “survivals.” Perhaps not, but it is amusing at least to think about it.

LKBIQ:
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.
Carl Sagan

TILT:
James M. Cain wanted to be a singer like his mother but was thwarted when she told him his voice was not good enough.

The Journey to the West 12

Sigh! Another Sunday here at Sandhill. It snowed most of the day yesterday, but remarkable little stayed on the ground. This morning it was cold. Twelve degrees when I woke up. It is supposed to be colder tomorrow. Ceci, our oldest cat, threw up three times this morning. She eats too much. Our little elegant Katie who is always into mischief, fell into my son's fish tank and had to be rescued. Life goes on here as we wait impatiently for spring. This is by now the longest waystation on my journey to the west.

There was a good reason why the kids from Burke had a reputation for being tough. Burke, Idaho, was a small mining town about 7 or 8 miles from our town, built in a very narrow canyon. A train track and a small creek ran down the middle of the canyon and there was so little room that a beanery, built to room and board miners, was built to straddle them. It was a town inhabited almost exc lusively by miners and muckers, and was a rabid union town. Several mines were located there and in the early days there was constant conflict between the mine owners and the miners union. In 1899 most of the adult male population of Burke hijacked a train, loaded it with stolen dynamite, forced it to travel some 20 miles to Wardner, Idaho, where they blew up the Bunker Hill Smelter. To restore order a regiment of black soldiers was called in by the Governor (black soldiers were preferred as previous experience had shown that white soldiers were more likely to identify with the miners). All of the perpetrators were rounded up and placed in a bullpen for a number of days. A few years later the Governor (an ex Governor by then) was assassinated in Boise with a bomb. This led to a famous trial in which three of the leading union organizers were tried for murder (see The Big Trouble by J. Antony Lucas). This, of course, did not settle the miners’ grievances and conflict between them and the owners continued up into the time I was born and lived there. The miners were relatively poor, most with large families, living in small frame houses crowded together in the narrow valley, and with a reputation of fighting and violence. Thus when the kids from Burke entered our High School there was a period of adjustment that did not always go smoothly. The Burke kids were tough, and ready to fight at the drop of a hat. They certainly lived up to their reputations. But they were also athletic and made our football and basketball teams immeasurably better than they would otherwise have been. High School boxing was a big sport in those days and most of our boxers were from Burke. Some of them went on to intercollegiate boxing and even became national champions, but that is to come later. Only a few of them managed to stay in High School and graduate, many dropped out quickly and went to work in the mines or mills, their futures already determined.

As the kids from Burke traveled to our town by bus, and as the bus depot was only two doors away from Babe and Jim’s, they often waited there for the bus, and we gradually came to know them and get along. I don’t remember most of them playing pool, I suspect many of them were too poor to afford it. Perhaps it was just not athletic enough to interest them. Naturally, we didn’t spend all our time in the pool hall. We went to school, and dated, and were occupied with sports and dances and other teenage pursuits. With rare exceptions, few of us distinguished ourselves as students. High School was something we felt we had to endure and only a very few had any aspirations about attending college. I guess our teachers tried, but they, too, were not a distinguished lot, and also had to cope with disciplinary problems almost on a daily basis. One of our English teachers threw the blackboard erasers at us when his patience gave out. We had a chemistry teacher who wore thick glasses and did not see very well. She also wore loosely knit sweaters with no bra so her nipples could be seen. The girls chipped in to buy her a bra. The chemistry lab was on the third floor, her classroom was on the second floor. One winter some of the boys hung condoms filled with water from the third floor so they dangled, frozen, just outside the classroom. When she asked what they were, they told her “testicle tubes.” Sometimes, when called upon to recite poetry (which we hated above all else), someone would give an altered version: “Listen my children and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere, out of the bed and onto the floor, a sixty yard dash to the (outhouse) door.” We thought we were so clever and so funny, unaware of how stupid we were and how much more stupid we were becoming through our High School experience. Most of what we did learn we later learned wasn’t true, and we didn’t learn much to begin with.

Our town, in its heyday, boasted a population of probably no more than a couple of thousand permanent residents. But as it was the country seat it drew miners and loggers from the surrounding hills so it seemed larger and more exciting than it was. It boasted a great number of bars, some of which featured gambling, mostly in the form of blackjack and poker. There were also five whorehouses. Four of these were located right on the main drag so people passed them virtually every day (see Morialekafa, 5-29-07). The whores were not allowed to solicit from their windows or doorways, nor were they allowed to mingle with the townspeople. They were, however, recognizable to most everyone, and the madams, at least, were allowed to shop for groceries and walk the two or three blocks to the Post Office. There were no pimps, as such, but some of them had what were called “gaffers,” or “old men,” who were roughly like husbands. They were not allowed to live in our town but resided in the next town about 10 miles away. The whores were inspected by a local doctor once a week as it would not do for miners or loggers to get infected. The houses also had police protection, I know not at what cost. At this time my girlfriend worked in a soda fountain that was part of the main grocery store. One of the madams always stopped for a soda and became acquainted with her. She explained that as she had money, and no children, she would pay for my girlfriend’s college education if she wished, no strings attached, but she declined.

One of the unusual features (I guess it was unusual) of our whorehouses was the fact that there were student rates for High School students ($5 regular, $3 for students). Most of us were far too shy or frightened to take advantage of this, but some did, especially some of the kids from Burke who seemed more worldly in this way than the rest of us. On weekends, when the miners and loggers came to town, there was much drunkenness and fighting. Indeed, it seemed like that was considered the normal thing to do on your weekends. Fights often took place in the streets and were sometimes quite violent, with heads being bashed against the cement, noses broken, ribs cracked, and so on. It was, in short a booming, bustling mining town. As Missouri had been a source of scabs at times, Missourians were often singled out for beatings. There was even a story about a Missourian, rumored to be especially tough, who was brought to our town specifically to fight all comers. He was said to have been badly beaten and retreated to Missouri. Most of the time things ran smoothly, the bars and gambling halls made money, the whorehouses flourished, the mines produced silver, lead, zinc and gold, and the mine owners became rich by exploiting the labor of the miners and muckers. But, as the state was governed from the south (a very long way from us), and as those in charge were mostly farmers, Mormons, and other conservatives, they would sometimes insist on closing down our “dens of iniquity” (they were apparently shocked, shocked, to learn there was gambling, etc.). Everything would stop for a day or two, a couple of people would be arrested to spend a night in jail (my father was sometimes included in this sweep), and righteousness would prevail. But only long enough for the mine owners to get on the phone and complain they couldn’t possibly keep miners working under such restrictive circumstances, at which point all would begin again. It was the most wonderful lesson in hypocrisy. I learned it when still very young.

On hobbies

I have always admired people who are dedicated to their hobbies and stick with them all their lives. You know, people who build and fly model airplanes, ships, trains, slot cars, or whatever. Then there are those who devote their lives to collecting things like coins, stamps, matchbook covers, menus, or whatever. It seems there are people who collect just about everything one might imagine, from corkscrews to beer cans , glass floats, egg cups, ceramic elephants, skunks and frogs, autographs and even locks of hair and funny names from phone books. Of course there are some hobbies that I think are really pretty weird, so that the only thing you might admire about those who practice them is that they are dedicated. For example, I once knew a man whose hobby was locking the doors to toilet stalls. He would enter the stall, lock it from the inside, crawl out over the top or underneath if possible. He pursued this hobby for years and boasted about it. I have heard of someone who collects toothbrush handles and another who has created an air sickness bag museum. I know there is also someone who collects belly button lint and does research on it (I guess this also counts as something done regularly for pleasure). I am assuming that collecting things can also be considered a hobby although I know that collecting can sometimes be a source of frustration as well as pleasure.

I know the frustration involved in collecting things as this is at least partly the reason I have always failed at collecting or other hobbies. For example, as a child I was encouraged to collect postage stamps, which I did for a time, until I learned that I could never either find or afford to buy the stamps that were the most desirable. I abandoned that hobby forthwith. The same thing happened with coin and jade collecting. Later in life, when I one day decided I needed a hobby (as I didn’t have one at the time), I decided to collect first editions of John Steinbeck. There was a fine antique bookstore nearby and I started on this new hobby. In those days first editions of Steinbeck were available and you could even afford them. So all went well until I realized that I would never find a copy of his first book, Cup of Gold, and even if I did I would not be able to afford it. Frustrated again, I abandoned my Steinbeck collection and sold most of it. Not being able to complete your collection is not the only frustration involved in hobbying. I also attempted, when I was young, to make model airplanes. In those days making model airplanes was very challenging, what with working with balsa wood, pins, glue, blueprints, delicate paper, and such, it was easy to fail. I failed to make models that pleased me and gave up the attempts. Then there is the frustration of knowing in advance that you could never succeed in collecting all of some particular thing, so why bother (I realize how compulsive I am), it would only frustrate. Thus, I have decided that I am not a collector, nor am I a successful hobbyist. But even so, there is something that always nags at me and suggests I really need something in the way of a regular pursuit that gives me pleasure. As a result of eight years of Bush/Cheney economic policies I am near broke, so I had to find something that was free and, hopefully, at least in principle, not in an absolutely infinite supply. I decided I would collect “sex-advice-to-women-as-expressed-on-magazine-covers.” I was inspired to pursue this hobby by reading one such item on the cover of Cosmopolitan, while waiting in the supermarket line: “The bitchy moves that please men.” On the same cover appeared: “His biggest sex secrets - What you always wished you knew and the one thing you’ll wish you didn’t.” Apparently not completely satisfied with those two items there was also: “Is he normal down there? Shape, size, skin tone…what’s weird and what’s not.” I might have thought this was just an unusual issue, except on the same rack appeared Self, with “Have more fun in bed New ideas to bring you closer.” Inspired, I decided to look further. On the cover of Glamour I found, “8 really good sex ideas and 5 hilariously bad ones.” Not to be outdone, Women’s Health offered, “Hot sex news Kick your sex life up a notch.” Best You said simply “Better Sex Tonight,” and Complete Woman was a bit more serious, with: “New Year’s Sex Resolutions you must make and keep for an ongoing hot love life in 2009.”

On the basis of this preliminary research I have decided this is the perfect hobby for me at this time. It is free, in that I have no intention of ever buying one of these magazines (indeed, I would be too ashamed), and it’s harmless (although the checkout lady did look at me rather suspiciosly). Nor do I intend to ever read or comment on any of these tips and suggestions, so I don’t have to be worried about arguments or differences of opinion, or even confusion in my own psyche. These tips are right there, in English, for all to see. And between our (two) local supermarkets, plus our fine library, and an occasional visit to Borders Books, down the road a piece, I should be able to collect all the tips I can handle. I’m sure these tips probably reveal something about American women, as well as about American society and culture, but I don’t care. I refuse to analyze them or even think about them apart from their simple appearance on the covers of magazines. At last I have found a hobby I can stick with and enjoy (probably not for long). It is free, the data are readily available, it takes virtually no energy, and it stimulates my imagination (I wonder what’s really in those articles), while at the same time reinforcing my iron discipline (but maybe I could learn something). At my age I don’t think so. Sigh!

Modern-day "Doasyoulikes"

Canadian man asks rude U.S.
Border Inspector to say “please,”
gets pepper sprayed and handcuffed.

Modern-day “Doasyoulikes” (with thanks to Wikipedia)

You may not be familiar with the children’s novel, The Water Babies, A Fairy Tale for a Land Baby, written by the Reverend Charles Kingsley and first published as a book in 1863. This was a kind of Victorian moral fable that was extremely popular even into the 1920’s. It fell out of favor most probably because among other things Kingsley wrote that Americans were lazy and chaotic, Jews were greedy, and Catholics were undesirable, especially French Catholics. Kingsley also wrote about how badly England treated the poor and how terrible child labor was. But basically the book is about Christian redemption.

The hero of the story is a young chimney sweep, Tom, who, after being chased out of Ellie’s upper-class house, falls into a river, dies, and becomes a “water baby,” where he cavorts with other water babies and proves himself to be a moral creature. The leaders of his new life are Mrs. Doasyouwouldbedoneby, Mrs. Bedonbyasyoudid, and another woman, Mother Carey. When his original master also drowns and is at the end of the world being punished for his misdeeds, Tom travels there to help him. By thus proving his willingness to do things he does not like, if they are the right things to do, he earns a return to human form and becomes “a great man of science.” He also is re-united with Ellie who had also fallen into the river.

Kingsley, from his observations on the domestication and breeding of animals, had come to the conclusion on his own that the dogma of the “permanence of species” could not be true, and that creatures could change over time, depending upon their behavior. Thus he became one of the earliest champions of Darwin, and Darwinism, which at that time still included Lamarckism. Most readers of his book did not realize that it was partly written as a satire and critique of the many scientists of his day that refused to believe Darwin on evolution. This can be seen in his creation of a group of humans, the Doasyoulikes, who, because they are allowed to do anything they want, gradually lose the power of speech and degenerate into gorillas (the “degeneration theory,” or reverse evolution).

It strikes me that the Doasyoulikes bear an eerie similarity to the current Republican party. First, they have demonstrated their unwillingness to do anything they do not like, even if it is clearly the right thing to do. More importantly, because of the excesses of Limbaugh, Hannity, and others who speak for them, they are gradually losing their power of speech. And while they may not as yet have degenerated into gorillas, I suspect that is currently in process, although gorillas may be too high on the evolutionary scale for them… baboons, perhaps. As my neighbor once aptly observed, “who knows what goes on in the minds of baboons.” Finally, I think the fact that the Reverend Kingsley, and many other learned men in the late 1800’s came rather quickly to believe in evolution, says something about the backwardness and ignorance of our current Republicans, many of whom still do not believe in this by now almost universally accepted theory (accepted, that is, by people who actually think).

One further Kingsley argument that seems to me relevant here is Kingsley’s claim that no one can say something they have never seen (like a soul or a water baby) does not exist:

“How do you know that? Have you been there to see? And if you had been there to see, and had seen none, that would not prove there were none…And no one has a right to say that no water babies exist till they have seen no water babies existing, which is quite a different thing, mind, from not seeing water babies.”

So…it seems to me, if Republicans claim to have not seen any Democratic successes, that does not mean such successes do not exist (or could not exist). But if our modern-day Doasyoulikes are allowed to do whatever they like, they will perhaps prove that successes do not exist (if they can be prevented).

Rush Limbaugh, the apparent head of the Republican party, and enormous sack of pig pucky, said, in his usual snide, mean, and thoughtless manner: “It will become the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill.” I think that would actually be quite fitting, as Ted Kennedy has worked his entire political life to bring about universal health care, while Limbaugh and his ilk have done nothing but spread mindless hate as far and wide as they can. Along with his knighthood, it would enhance Kennedy's legacy of doing everything he could to benefit us all. Name one good thing, just one, that Rush Limbaugh has ever done. There is an old gambler’s saying that, unhappily, Limbaugh will never respect: “If you can’t beat it, don’t knock it.”

LKBIQ:
If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.
Judith Hayes

TILT:
The Mexican Grizzly Bear is extinct.

Health Care

Rape charges dropped as
94 year-old man dies
before his hearing.

If it looks rather like one, and if it walks sort of like one, and if it quacks really loud like one, and if it also has the brain of one, it must be one – a Rush/Hannity/O’Reilly/Coulter/Malkin Republican. Hip-hip-hooray for idiocy!

Will we achieve universal health care under the Obama administration? Probably. I say this because it appears that Obama will make his case that doing something about health care is crucial to doing something about the economy. It will probably happen also because most everyone wants it or needs it now, especially the automobile companies and some other large corporations. It has become obvious that one of the main reasons American companies are losing out in competition is because they, unlike other countries, have to pay for their workers health care, a very expensive burden, especially when you have been in business for years and have a large number of retirees. The pharmaceutical companies will probably go along because if everyone has coverage they will have a much larger population to provide drugs for, and invent new ailments for. There will no doubt still be problems with the AMA, the hospitals, and above all, the insurance companies. Everyone has been invited to the table and everyone will be able to influence the design of the universal plan. The obviously most efficient and least expensive way to go about universal health care would be a single-payer plan. But with everyone invited to the table that is not what we are likely to get. The problem will be the fact that all interested parties will have to be bribed in one way or another, particularly the insurance companies. The single-payer plan would eliminate the insurance companies but this almost certainly will not materialize. The question we need to answer, I believe, is having universal health care worth the price we will have to pay, if it is not a single-payer plan? Personally, I believe that universal health care is worth the cost, even if it is not the cheapest, most sensible and efficient way to achieve it. And perhaps the plan drafted this time will eventually lead to the far more sensible single-payer plan. I hope so. In any case, I believe Obama is correct when he argues that other spiraling costs, such as medicare and even Social Security, cannot be controlled without first controlling the out of control medical system. This is an argument so compelling that I think even the more mindless among us (Republicans) will have to concede, unless, that is, they are prepared to “stand on their principles” once again even at the cost of blocking that which is so desperately needed.

Someone said recently that if a company is too big to fail it is too big to be in private hands. I agree completely. First of all, why in the world did we allow companies and corporations to become so damn big in the first place? I understand, more or less, economies of scale. I mean, if you print 10,000 books instead of just one at a time it is less expensive. But who ever said this applies to all kinds of industries? And even if it did, is it always in the best interest of the public to agree to it. Personally, for example, I am totally opposed to corporate agriculture, and I don’t care if it produces food cheaper than otherwise. If the truth were known, in terms of environmental damage and the use of energy, pesticides, and other chemicals, it is probably far less desirable, and perhaps even more expensive than farming on a smaller scale. I suspect the same is true of big timber, and many other such enterprises. I am also sure that doing things on a smaller scale would provide many more opportunities for employment, to say nothing of promoting human happiness and well-being (but, then, since the Industrial Revolution, who ever said human happiness and well-being had anything to do with it).

Senator Arlen Specter is opposed to a Truth Commission, saying we shouldn’t pursue past practices unless there was some evidence of crime and wrongdoing. Where do you think Arlen has been for the past eight years? This is like Nancy Pelosi arguing there was no reason for impeachment unless someone could demonstrate wrongdoing. Where was Nancy? Some of our Congresspersons seem to have developed denial into a fine art. Bush/Cheney have admitted to torturing people. Torturing people is a war crime. In addition to their admissions of guilt there is a wealth of evidence they committed war crimes. I understand there are reasons why Obama might not want to have to deal with this, but he is going to have to because the American people are going to demand it. Crimes are not excusable because they happened in the past. If that were true there would be no crime.

And speaking of crime, the terrible drug wars going on right now in Mexico could be eliminated relatively easily if the United States would come to its senses and decriminalize drugs and give up the absurd “war on drugs” that is causing all the trouble. If we could curb the demand for illegal drugs, just as we did away with prohibition, think of how much better off everyone would be. Drugs do not have to be made legal, merely returned to the business of doctors and medicine where the problem belongs.

Why do I feel more and more with each passing day that I have a ringside seat for the end of our species? I desperately want to believe that a black man on a wonderful white stallion is going to rescue us, but it takes at least 200 million to tango.

LKBIQ:
The rain fell alike upon the just and upon the unjust, and for nothing was there a why and a wherefore.
W. Somerset Maugham

TILT:
Frank Yerby was the first African-American author to write a best seller and have it sold to Hollywood.

Iran

Eighty-six year-old Florida woman
badly hurt when hearing aid falls,
beeps so loud her dog attacks her.

Once again I feel compelled to discuss the situation with Iran. Iran is not on Hillary’s itinerary at the moment but she has said that on this trip to the Middle East she was surprised at the fear of Iran she encountered. And, she repeated again that Iran supports terrorism. She mentions their support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and “other proxies” she does not specify. She now has also reportedly said that Iran is not only a threat to the Middle East, but also to Europe and Russia. Although I know very little about much of anything, and I am hardly an expert on Iran or the Middle East, I believe this idea that Iran is such a threat is nothing more than sheer balderdash. The idea that Iran is a threat to Europe and Russia is clearly just so much hot air. Iranians are intelligent people, why on earth would they want to attack Europe or Russia? Iran has not been an aggressor nation for more than 200 years. They don’t need more territory or oil, or much of anything else. Hillary and most everyone else keeps harping on the subject of Iran’s attempt to build a nuclear bomb, even though there is no evidence they cite for this claim. And, as I have said before, what if they did have a bomb? They are not foolish enough to just run out and start dropping nuclear bombs on Israel, Europe and Russia. If they did develop a bomb it would be for defensive purposes, just as every other nations has done. This fear of an Iranian attack, nuclear or otherwise, is just plain crap.

So what is the problem with Iran? Why is it there is fear of Iran in the Middle East? Perhaps it has to do, in part at least, with the fact that Iranians are not Arabs, but are a significant player in Middle East politics. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Iranians are Shiites whereas most of the Arabs are Sunni. More likely, it has to do with the fact that the Iranian national interests do not coincide with those of the Arabs, who say Iran is meddling in their affairs. This most importantly has to do with Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Palestinians. But is it the case that Hamas and Hezbollah have no rights with respect to Middle East affairs? Indeed, how in the world can Hillary and Obama believe they can bring about a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem without including Hamas? The very idea is ludicrous. Hamas, I remind you once again, is the legitimately and democratically elected government of the Palestinians. There are a million and a half of them crowded now into Gaza and abused on a daily basis by the Israelis. While they may engage in terrorist acts (as they have no other means of fighting back against Israel) they are not primarily a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanon, and it, too, is not primarily a terrorist organization. I guess Iran is a threat because they support Hamas and Hezbollah while we do not. It is obvious to me that Iran has much more legitimate interests in Middle Eastern politics than we do. They live there. We are meddling from 8000 miles away. And yes, Iranians once captured and held a number of Americans hostage for a long time. We deposed their legitimate government and replaced it with the Shah, a murderous tyrant if ever there was one. And just who are these mysterious “proxies” Hillary mentions. Have you heard of any terrorist act in Europe or the U.S. that was blamed on Iranian terrorists? I do not know what the real problem is here, but I’m pretty certain it is not at all what we are being told. Obama should begin diplomatic overtures to Iran immediately, and tone down all this anti-Iranian nonsense. We claim they are trying to make a nuclear bomb. They claim they are not. There is no evidence they are, nor are they violating their rights under the existing treaties. And yet, with Bush/Cheney, they were supposed to stop what they were (not) doing or we wouldn’t even talk with them. That was not diplomacy, it was arrogant paternalism, and the Iranians had every right to be offended by it. Surely Obama/Clinton should be able to do better.

I find it impossible to feel sorry in any way for the wealthy people who may have to start paying the same percentage in taxes as their secretaries. I don’t remember what the rates were under Clinton, but I know the wealthy did not suffer from them, and they certainly won’t suffer now if they have to go back to paying them. I bet some of them will see their incomes drop from 100 million to a paltry of only maybe 80 million, poor babies. And of course some of the billionaires will really suffer. Imagine only have a few billion a year left after taxes. And yes, I overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. I believe that working people deserve to make living wages and unions are the only way that has been brought about. Without them, there would be no 40 hour work week, no benefits, nothing except wage slavery.

Some legal scholar just observed that, considering the memos that have been recently released, we were technically living under a dictatorship from 2001 to 2009. It seems that Bush/Cheney had the power arranged on paper but lacked the nerve to actually try to completely implement it. They certainly did bad enough anyway.

Behold the ego
Set in glowing emptiness
On the edge of time
Noel Kaufman

TILT:
There is no practical difference between .380 caliber and .38 caliber cartridges.

Sovereignty movements

While proving how safe
the gun was, teenager
shoots hole through his foot.

Someone just called to my attention a web site called newswithviews.com. This is a site apparently dedicated to reporting on sovereignty movements, gun rights, coming food shortages, the evils of the federal government, and all that sort of thing. I guess there are people around and about who think the Civil War, to keep the union together, was misguided, or at least need not apply to states who want to secede at the moment. There seem to be about a dozen states where you might find groups making noises about declaring sovereignty. I believe these are most probably associated with various militia organizations.

It is never clear to me just what it is these people really want, other than to be left alone by the federal government. Personally, I think the whole idea of states’ rights is pretty stupid. If different states had rights, completely unregulated by the federal government, I believe it would be an unmitigated disaster, especially at this period in time. It is undeniably the case, for example, that the rivers do not begin and end at state lines so they could hardly be kept clean and healthy and whatever, if states differed in the way they treated them. The same thing is true of the forests, they, too, do not begin and end at state lines. Nor does air quality lend itself well to state control. Then, of course, there are problems of abortion rights, gay marriage, religion, local government, and so on. How about immigration? Would each state have the right to determine who was allowed to move in and live there? Would each state be responsible for having its own army, navy, and Marine Corps? Would they all be equally democratic, or could some give way to dictatorships? The age-old problem of civil rights would rear its ugly head again, with some states discriminating against so-and-sos, and another discriminating against someone else. Perhaps we could return to lynchings? Would all states elect to pay for public education? And how about television, newspapers, and broadcasting? Would all states recognize the 1st amendment? The 4th amendment? Our present Constitution? What about highways and railroads and such, even airspace? What if Colorado didn’t want anyone flying in the airspace on the way to Chicago? I suppose all lands within the state boundaries would become the exclusive property of that state? No more national parks or wilderness areas? There would be vast differences in wealth, with some states much poorer than others. Would this lead to warfare over territory and such? All in all I have to confess to thinking this is a pretty dumb (and entirely impractical) idea. Fortunately those who aspire to such conditions are in a small minority and thus we don’t really have to worry about it ever coming about.

People who promulgate separatist ideas also seem worried about coming food riots, or race riots, or hordes of hungry people coming to take their food and such. They worry especially that someone (Obama, at the moment) is going to take away their guns (all 80 million or more of them). They are in my opinion alarmists who only foresee the direst of possibilities. While it is true that we are faced with unprecedented problems, even crises, at the moment, we would most probably overcome them better through cooperation rather than separation. This is true at all levels now on this small planet we inhabit together, going our separate ways could only make things worse. I suggest everyone heed the mantra of Morialekafa: Do not panic.

I am very pleased to learn that Obama (and Hillary) are sticking to the two state solution. To me it seems perfectly obvious that it is the only solution that could actually work. But Israel, especially under Netanyahu, will resist it mightily, as they prefer to keep the status quo (that is, permanent conflict denying the Palestinians anything of substance forever). It has been obvious for a long time that if there is ever to be a solution, the U.S. will have to drag the Israelis kicking and screaming into it. I am also pleased that Obama is making overtures to Russia, although I don’t think he will get anything in return for giving up putting missiles in Poland. Putting missiles in Poland that don’t really work, to combat missiles and nukes that Iran doesn’t even have, would not seem much of a bargaining chip. I like our overtures to Syria and, in general, I am very happy with the way Obama is operating on the international scene – except, that is, with our continued paranoia about Iran. But perhaps, that, too, will lessen with time. Don’t forget, we could still have Bush or someone like him.

LKBIQ:
From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.
Sir Winston Churchill

TILT:
The first game of golf for which records survive was played at Bruntsfield Links, in Edinburgh, Scotland, in A.D. 1456.

How the mighty have fallen

Wrong turn on mobility scooter
puts ninety-one-year-old man
on expressway at 8mph.

What fun! I swear, watching the Republican Party disintegrate right before my eyes is truly entertaining. Can you believe these clowns? After the eight year holocaust they have put us through, they seem to believe they might rise again. Let’s see, our nation is basically bankrupt, banks are failing, insurance companies are failing, our automobile industry is failing, we have record unemployment, two unfinished “wars,” a national debt that surpasses imagination, and so on, and getting worse, and these miserable excuses for politicians (and human beings) are demanding we go back to the same old, same old. They are not only out of touch, they are insane. Claiming to be the titular head of the Republicans at the moment is none other than big, fat, diarreah-mouth, draft-dodging, druggy, Rush the Moron, Limbaugh. Vying with him for head of the party is Richard Hip-Hop Steele, who just apologized on bended knee for disagreeing with his Blimpishness , Limbaugh. Then, in a straw poll, we find that Mitt the Lying Mormon has 20%, Bobby the Story-teller Jindal with 17%, Sarah the Wolf Killer with 16% and Ron Methuselah Paul with 14%. Wow, with a lineup like that they’re sure to win. If this is not bad enough, many of them are openly rooting for Obama (our President who is trying desperately to save us) to fail. Personally, I think this is treasonous, but I guess I’m alone in this belief. The one thing we can be certain of is that these subversives will do everything in their power to try to make Obama fail, and I mean everything (just remember what they did to Clinton). They have no shame, no honor, no patriotism, and no plan, other than trying to destroy Obama so they might once again regain power and steal even more from the public trough. I want them to disappear, never again to be in a position where they can trample our Constitution, ignore our laws, torture their victims, steal our money, and destroy our nation.

If we are to maintain a two party system, let the other party be one that at least has the brains of a lima bean, and the morals of a squirrel (a big improvement over the current GOP). It would help, too, if they had some even minimal understanding of law, empathy, Constitution, morality, socialism, ethics, capitalism, and even going “potty.” It is beyond my comprehension of how a supposedly major political party in the United States of America, could have possibly recruited, over time, such a complete collection of mindless, greedy, know-nothing dimwits. On the other hand, it is beyond my abilities to understand how the rest of us could have put up with them for eight years of such blatant incompetence and racketeering. I guess it’s true, you get the government you deserve.

It appears that more and more things about the Bush/Cheney administration are beginning to be unearthed. Now we learn that the CIA destroyed not one, not two, but ninety-two interrogation tapes. One can only imagine what might happen if Rove and others are actually forced to testify. It boggles the mind what might come of it, which is quite likely the reason Obama is not too keen on pursuing it. This will not be like opening a can of worms, it will be more like uncovering a veritable ocean of deceit and crime.

I am in need of some serious schooling when it comes to Iran. Some say they are close to having a nuclear bomb, others say they are far from it. Some say they seek diplomatic relations with us, and some say not. But what I don’t really understand very well is the continued insistence that Iran promotes terrorism. I know it is true they support Hamas and Hezbollah, but whether or not that is supporting terrorism depends upon your point of view. Hamas, I keep reminding everyone, is the legally and democratically elected government of the Palestinians. The fact that the U.S. and Israel refuse to recognize this does not change the facts of the matter. It is also true that Hamas has in the past called for the destruction of Israel, or at least has refused to recognize its legitimacy. But at other times they have indicated they would agree to negotiations. Hamas may have or even still does engage in terrorist acts at times, but so did the Israelis, and their treatment of Hamas has been nothing but terrorism writ large. Hamas does far more than engage in terrorism, it actively operates as a government should in Gaza, helping people try to live their lives as best they can. The same thing is true of Hezbollah. If Iran is supporting terrorism beyond this I have not heard about it (it may be very true but I never hear about it). Personally, I do not believe that Iran is a threat to the United States in any way and would most probably like to engage in diplomacy. I don’t believe they are a substantial threat to Israel, but obviously their interests in the Middle East do not coincide with those of Israel or the U.S. (this makes them terrorists?).

LKBIQ:
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
George Bernard Shaw

TILT:
No European visited the Burmese jade mines until 1837.

The Journey to the West (11)

Another Sunday. Sundays are boring. Here at Sandhill it is cold and dreary. The snow disappears at an excruciatingly slow place. There is little to be done outside. All there is to write about is the speech of that big, fat, lying idiot, Rush Limbaugh, which isn't worth the time. So, as usual on Sunday, another installment of my sort-of memoir.

Of course in the pool hall we learned to play pool. But the importance of the place in the formation of our lives went far beyond just that. We learned to play and enjoy many different games: rotation, eight ball, nine ball, straight pool, rack pool, bottle pool, snooker and billiards. Snooker, played on a much larger table with smaller balls, was more difficult than pool, and we often gambled, playing pea-pool on that huge table. Billiards, what is now referred to as “Carom Billiards,” came to be the favorite of those of us who took the games more seriously. We never knew the term “Pocket Billiards,” fashionable now. To us there was snooker, billiards, and everything else was just “pool.” I have never understood why billiards (carom billiards) has fallen out of fashion, as it is a truly marvelous game of skill that can be played all your life. Those few of us who took the games seriously came to spend most of our time playing billiards. Babe still had a set of genuine old ivory billiard balls. We thought these were much better than the composition balls that were ordinarily used. But as they were delicate and given to chipping, Babe would not let anyone use them unless they had proven to be exemplary players. It was a moment of great pride when you were finally allowed to use them. For a time some of the city fathers came to play billiards during their lunch hour. They had their own rather fancy cue sticks and we watched them with interest although they were not exceptionally good players. Except for pea-pool, we rarely gambled on the games, other than to play that the loser had to pay. I don’t recall exactly but I think it cost fifty cents an hour. We learned about winning and losing, fair-play, and the rules of the game of life, as well as pool.

Along one wall of our sort-of men's club were a number of raised chairs from which one could observe the games, sit and smoke and chat, and hear the latest on the war or local events. As it was not a place merely for teenagers, we observed how it was that adults comported themselves, what they thought about things, and what it meant to be manly and adult, something we all aspired to (see Morialekafa 1-30-05). The war, mining, work, athletics and hunting and fishing featured prominently in our conversations, as did sex, marriage, work, and, by implication, morality and ethics. Literature, books, reading, education, art, music, painting, were discussed not at all.

It was Babe, the owner, who became a role model for me (and I suspect for many others as well). Someone once said, “the only way to true learning is through intellectual osmosis with a great-souled man.” While this is far too grandiose a description for what transpired between Babe and some of us, he became truly an important influence in our lives. First, he was everything: owner, bartender, soda jerk, entertainer, janitor, philosopher, banker, advisor, even, when necessary, father figure. He taught us never to ask someone to do something we would not do ourselves. He lived this himself, scrubbing floors, cleaning toilets, whatever. He treated everyone equally, except for some rather notorious bad actors that often caused trouble. He taught us not to loan money, saying, “if you have a friend who needs money, and you have it to spare, give it to him with no demand that he pay it back. If he’s truly a friend he will return it.” He never talked down to us teenagers, treating us as equals. During the war, when cigarettes were rationed, and the bar only received so many, he made sure that even those of us teenagers who smoked were not left out (but only if he knew your parents knew you smoked and you smoked in public). When someone was really hard up he would take something in pawn, though he was not a pawnbroker and preferred not to do it. But there was no 30 or 60 day period at the end of which he would sell it. He had a huge old safe that contained a few old gold coins, sometimes a handgun or two, or other valuables someone had pawned, many of which had been there for years. Only if someone died or disappeared for a long time would he consider selling their item. He never offered gratuitous advice, but if something came up he would comment on the quirks and foibles of human nature, both male and female. Being a child of his time, I think he had a somewhat jaundiced view of female character, but he did not insist he was always right. When fights threatened to break out, as they sometimes did, he would try to settle them amicably, but if that failed, he insisted they go outside to fight. He was not without his quirks. For example, he refused to sell Budweiser beer or Chesterfield cigarettes as he felt they were not good products. In the case of Budweiser, it was at the time that the giant brewing companies were beginning to take over and putting local breweries out of business. As up until then virtually any town of any size had its own brewery, as we did, there was a resistance to “factory beer,” that I believe was the reason for Babe’s decision. I don’t know what his objection to Chesterfield cigarettes was, he was one of the very few adults I knew who didn’t smoke. He also rarely drank, but at times would go on a kind of mild bender for a day or two, during which time he would make the rounds of other bars and sometimes gamble a bit. I never knew him to be hostile or unpleasant, ever. I guess one of the things that drew me to him was the revelation that he read – books. To me this was virtually unheard of, an adult male who actually read books. True, he didn’t read the classics, and was not well educated, but he did read. I know he read Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, and some of the lesser authors of the time like James M. Cain, Frank Yerby, and the like. As I loved to read I was much impressed. I wouldn’t say that I worshipped him by any means, but I thought he was great. I loved to visit the bar in the mornings when I could. Almost no one would be there and I could observe Babe brushing the tables, fixing pool cues, changing a felt on a table, and taking care of all the little things one had to do to keep the place going. Far from being a bad influence on my life, I believe the pool hall did a great deal to make me a better and more informed person. But of course it was an unusual pool hall, an unusual situation, an unusual town, and an unusual time. From our raised seats we observed, heard, and learned about most of the basic experiences of life: foolishness, vanity, cheating, pettiness, lying, jealousy, envy, rage, meanness, violence, and death; but also about kindness, heroics, trust, generosity, empathy, friendship, fair-play, and, above all, right and wrong. We did not think of the journey to the west, we were too busy experiencing it.

A Thousand Splendid Suns - Book

I have just finished A Thousand Splendid Suns (Riverhead Books, 2007), the second novel by Khaled Hosseini, author of the best-selling, The Kite Runner, which I read previously and enjoyed. I found this second attempt an extremely interesting novel in several ways.

First, I cannot decide if I can truthfully say I “enjoyed” it. I did finish reading it, fascinated in a strange way, rather like being witness to a series of horrible events that, while horrifying, also have a fascination about them that makes it impossible for you to give up watching, or, in this case, reading. While the book is a novel, it is also, in a way, a kind of horror story.

I guess you could say it escapes being a horror story because it gives the impression of being a true story, that is, one not created for the express purpose of the horror, but pretending to be real, deals with actual (if fictional) events. For fiction writers things do not have to be “real,” but, rather, “realistic.” That is, they must achieve verisimilitude. Hosseini, I think, is a master at this. You certainly read this novel as if it is a true and believable story, even if it is classed as fiction.

This book is also interesting in that it is written across gender lines. That is, it is a male author, attempting to offer accounts of the lives primarily of women. That is, he attempts to describe women’s innermost feelings, emotions, thoughts, psychology, dress, and so on. Ordinarily I am very skeptical of this kind of writing. But here, again, I find myself not questioning his descriptions of those not of his own gender. I have no way of truly knowing whether he is true to these emotions, etc., or not, but while reading about them, I find no reason to question his descriptions. He seems to me to have pretty well mastered the demands of cross-gender description.

More importantly, and even more difficult I think, is writing for a cross-cultural audience. That is, Hosseini is an Afghan, writing in English about Afghanistan, for an English speaking audience. This form of writing can be fraught with peril, not the least of which has been termed by William Gass, the problem of “nonfictitious nature:”

“Nonfictitious nature has its way about a good deal. If in a story it rains, the streets usually get wet; if a man is stabbed, he bleeds; smoke can still be a sign of fire, and screams can be sounds of damsels in distress. No novel is without its assumptions. It is important to find them out, for they are not always the same assumptions the reader is ready, unconsciously, to make…Do we any longer dare to infer goodness from piety, for example, evil from promiscuity, culture from rank?” (W.H.Gass, Fiction and the Figures of Life, N.Y., 1970).

If one were a serious critic, rather than just an ordinary reader like me, or if one were seriously interested in the psychology of Afghans, or, if one was already very conversant with Afghan personality and culture, I believe there may be some reasons to analyze this book following these strictures. That is not a task I set myself, nor, with my casual reading, can I offer any specific example for examination.

There is at least one more potentially serious problem with writing cross-culturally. It has to do with writing down to the audience and didactism. This can be seen in the following criticism of another work of this type, James Houston’s novel, The White Dawn:

“I should say at once that I enjoyed this story, or essay on Eskimo cultural anthropology, or whatever it is, but I did not enjoy it as a novel…Houston slips an extraordinary quantity of anthropological information into his story: how igloos are built and a bed made of skins, how polar bears are killed and a shaman works his magic. But, as I say, about the time of the walrus hunt I realized that the information was the point of the book. The novel’s didactism finally becomes intrusive--to the point where the story, finally, counts for little” (P.S.Prescott, Review of the White Dawn, Newsweek, 4-26-71).

Reading Hosseini’s novels, one does learn quite a lot about Afghan society and culture, and perhaps about Afghan personality and ethos, if his stories are based even loosely on realities of Afghan life. But his aim is not to offer ethnographic details, but stories. To his credit, he does not fall into the trap of didactism and you do not get the sense that the information accompanying the stories is intrusive. In rare moments he perhaps skirts this tendency, but I did not at any point find it seriously interfering with the elegance of his prose, and the stories certainly do not suffer from it. My only criticism from a literary standpoint (I am hardly a literary critic), is that I think his stories, and particularly the endings, are a bit too contrived. But they are novels, after all.

My problem with this particular book is that I wish I had never read it. I wish it had never been written. I wish it had never have had to have been written. I wish it could not have been written at all. I wish it did not represent what I believe could easily be true of the horrors of Afghan society and culture, especially during these recent years of unremitting violence. Gass would have us believe that authors can achieve verisimilitude simply because of their “godliness:” “Authors,” he says, “are gods—a little tinny sometimes but omnipotent no matter what, and plausible on top of that, if they can manage it.” (1970). But in fact, authors are not gods. They do not create something out of nothing at all. I wish Hosseini was simply telling us fairy tales that he makes up merely out of his writer’s imagination, but I cannot believe that. These stories can never truly have happy endings, no matter how contrived.

What is "American?"

Homeless man arrested for
spending night in department
store trying on lingerie.

If there is such a thing as “un-American,” one might suspect there must be something that is intrinsically “American.” But if you look up American in the dictionary, the primary meaning is an American Indian of North or South America. Our first European settlers, then, were decidedly un-American (which, of course, they were in spades, so to speak). But no one was here before American Indians moved here from Asia, so what might we make of that? Anyway, you might find a definition that says something like “relating to America,” and we are all familiar with “made in America.” You can also find things like American dream, American terrier, American English, American spaniel, and on and on. But you will not find a definition for American that helps you to understand un-American or even anti-American. So if we don’t know what American means, how can we know what un-American means? The best you can do is look up un-American, where you will find something like: “not characteristic of or consistent with American customs, principles, or traditions.” While helpful, perhaps, this merely begs the question.

If we knew precisely what American customs, principles, or traditions were, and all agreed on them, maybe we’d be closer to understanding what is un-American. Un-American usually carries a negative connotation. That is, it is something regarded as undesirable. However, American customs, principles, and traditions are not very consistent across the continent. What becomes un-American obviously depends on what you consider American. For example, many people in the U.S. do not celebrate Thanksgiving, or even Christmas. Most of us would surely regard these as American customs and traditions. But we don’t ordinarily label those who do not celebrate them as un-American. We tend to pride ourselves on the right to “keep and bear arms.” But not everyone does. Are they un-American? Some might think so, most others probably not. We are the land of “the free and the brave.” But we are certainly not completely free, and not everyone is brave. Are such individuals un-American? I guess it just depends. So, are there any customs, traditions, or principles we can all agree with? How about upholding and defending our Constitution? The Bush/Cheney administration for the past eight years clearly violated our Constitution in several ways. I haven’t heard anyone claim they were un-American, even if they acknowledge these violations. Even when it comes to something like torture, which we claim to abhor as not American practices, Bush/Cheney admittedly allowed. Again, I have heard no one describe this as un-American, even if they are outraged about it. We might think that wanting our Government to succeed would be something we could all agree on. But even here there are those who have said they hope it fails. While these people are criticized, they are apparently not considered un-American. People are supposed to be equal under the law, but in practice they are not. Poor people routinely go to jail for offenses that wealthy people do not. Are poor people more un-American than the rich? We pride ourselves on universal free public schools, but many of our leaders actively resist funding for this. Are they un-American? I would think that one thing we value is the fact that we do not believe in the violent overthrow of our government. Yet, at this very moment, on one of our TV shows a question is posed to the viewers as to what method do you prefer for revolution? I would also like to think that as Americans we would all believe that our country should be more important than our person or party, but this does not seem to be shared by all parties (certainly not by the current Republican Party). We do not even agree on universal health care, social security, national defense, foreign policy, equal rights for all, or even on a woman’s right to choose. In short, just what are basic American customs, traditions, or principles (core values, if you will)? To me, violating our Constitution and wishing our government to fail, along with suggesting violent revolution, are clearly, and beyond any reasonable doubt, un-American. Apparently not many agree with me, as these individuals go completely unpunished for what I believe is nothing short of treason. Free speech is one thing, encouraging treason is quite another. And free speech, it seems to me, like many other things, can be abused. The annual Conservative Political Action Conference seems to be conducted for just this purpose, if you look carefully at many of the things said there (think Ann Coulter, among others). Of course some of what is said there is just plain hilarious, like the woman that asserted that Obama is a “communist, fascist, street thug.” I take it this was muttered by a capitalist, socialist, pea-brained, know-nothing, lunatic. This was hardly the only act of lunacy at the CPAC. Joe the Bummer (sorry, Plumber), who now is apparently considered a spokesman of sorts for the Republicans, recalled “the good old days” when, if a Congressman criticized the troops he could be shot, a sure venture into fantasyland. Michelle Bachman (I think that’s her name), from Minnesota, was heard yelling at Richard Steele, “you da man, you da man,” a phrase she must have learned in Sunday School? Ron Paul carried on about something-or-other that had to do with the First World War (I fully expected to hear something like “23 skidoo” or “huzza huzza”). John Bolton suggested there might be an atomic bomb dropped on Chicago, and good old Newt the Coot said Obama was just a continuation of George W. Bush. Much fun, but such talk hardly advances the urgent needs of the country. In any case, as there seems to be no consensus or agreement on just what is “American,” and what is un-American, perhaps we should pay more attention to this. If what is considered un-American is simply relative to what one believes is American, and if there is no agreement on what is American, what does this imply for President Obama’s repeated insistence that above all else we are all Americans?

LKBIQ:
Speculations and loans in foreign fields are likely to bring us into war... The war-for-profit group has counterfeited patriotism.
Charles Lindberg Sr., 1915

TILT:
There are seventeen species of hummingbirds that breed in the United States.

Big Trouble - Big Book

I have just finished reading Big Trouble by J. Anthony Lukas (Simon and Schuster 1997). The sub-title of this book is “Murder in a Small Western Town Sets Off a Struggle for the Soul of America.” The murder in question was the 1905 killing of ex-governor of Idaho, Francis Steunenberg, by a hidden bomb, in the city of Caldwell, Idaho. The “struggle for the soul” had to do with the fact that this was more than merely a murder trial, but also a trial that pitted the unions against the corporations that were exploiting them, or, if you prefer, between socialism and capitalism. This was at the time when socialism was a power to be reckoned with, especially as it was so much involved in the labor union movements. The bomber, who confessed, was a man named Harry Orchard, who named “Big Bill” Haywood, George Pettibone, and Charles Moyer, who were all officers in the Western Federation of Miners, for commissioning him to assassinate Steunenberg. It was clear that not only did the corporations, most newspapers, and many others, including even the President of the U.S., want to find them all guilty, they wanted if possible to rid the world of The Western Federation of Miners (WFM) and, if possible, socialism itself.

This is a big book in the sense that it is 750 pages. It is also big because of the unbelievable cast of characters that appear in it, from the famous Pinkerton Detectives like the famous (or infamous) James McParland and Charles A. Siringo, to the defense lawyers like Clarence Darrow and Edmund F. Richardson, the prosecutors, William E. Borah (later Senator Borah), James J. Hawley, and others. One also encounters the President of the U.S., Theodore Roosevelt, the Governors of Idaho and Colorado, and even actress Ethyl Barrymore, baseball pitcher, Walter Johnson and hosts of newspaper publishers and reporters. It is also big in the sense that although it took place in a somewhat remote place, Boise and Caldwell, Idaho, it reverberated throughout the world as the issue of socialism was such a huge and serious problem at that time (indeed, the ashes of one of the union members involved were eventually buried in the Kremlin).
I find it difficult to characterize this tome, other than big in every respect. It is also remarkable, strange, detailed, and laden with digressions of all kinds. One might well argue that digressions take up a great deal of the book in that most of them are not truly necessary for the main theme of the book. Similarly, many of the details are not really necessary either. But the book is fascinating, at the same time, because all of the detail and digressions are in themselves of considerable interest. For example, the pages on the young Ethyl Barrymore’s career and state of mind are interesting but hardly necessary for the ongoing trial that she just happens to visit at that time. Even the histories of Caldwell and Boise are not particularly relevant to the main theme of the book, but they are interesting, as is the discussion of baseball and the pitching of Walter Johnson. Thus, even though the book is long and not particularly easy reading, I found it difficult to put it down once I began. The trial drags on for several months and at times the reader loses sight of it entirely. In fact, I believe it is fair to say that the trial, ostensibly the main theme of the book, is in fact only a rather minor feature, being lost in the detail and the digressions by the time it is finished. But it is also a true tale of the Wild West, from the hijacking of a train in Burke, Idaho, to the dynamiting of the Bunker Hill in Kellogg, Idaho. Most everyone was carrying a gun, fighting, shootings and bombings were commonplace with little or no remorse, gambling and prostitution flourished as, apparently did greed, adultery, bribery and theft.

What I found by far the most interesting feature or message one might take away from this work actually gets little mention. A clue can be found in this quote:

“Finally, the opposing camps in this nasty class war sputtering along the icy ridges of the Rocky Mountains had just about canceled each other out. Operative for operative, hired gun for hired gun, bought juror for bought juror, perjured witness for perjured witness, conniving lawyer for conniving lawyer, partisan reporter for partisan reporter, these cockeyed armies had fought each other to an exhausted standoff.” (p. 748)

The fact is, every major protagonist in this battle, without exception, from the President of the United States, the Governors of Colorado and Idaho, the Detectives, Lawyers, Prosecutors, Reporters, and all, acted at times dishonestly, despicably, unethically and illegally. This was true from the beginning, when the defendants were illegally kidnapped in Colorado and secretly transported to Idaho, throughout the trial, and up until the very end. Because of this there is no way one could conclude that “justice” had been served, and even to this day it is not clear that justice was served by this supposedly “lawful” process (there are some compelling arguments that it was not). Aside from the above quote the author does not comment on this. But what does it tell you about our legal system, both then and now? After all the time and effort, all the questionable and illegal maneuvers on both sides, the case was finally decided by only two factors: a man was bribed to retract his confession, and the Judge’s instructions to the jury.

If you have the time to invest this is an account well worth reading and pondering. I have been told that the author committed suicide shortly after the completion of this work. I wouldn’t wonder that he became so disillusioned with what passes for justice that he just couldn’t take any more.

Another Bill Sali?

Father stabs teenage son
In buttocks for not removing
his hat In church.

I have always known that Walt Minnick is basically a Republican (he was one of only 8 Democrats to vote against the stimulus). But what I did not know is that he is also apparently an incipient Bill Sali. How else could one explain his being the sole Democrat to vote against H.R. 911, a bill “to establish standards and enforcement provisions to prevent child abuse and neglect in residential programs…” I guess I forgot two important facts: (1) he represents Idaho, a state only on the periphery of civilization, and (2) for Republicans, civil rights begin at conception and end at birth. Whatever his reasons were they must have been pretty idiosyncratic as all other Democrats voted for the bill and a large number of Republicans also.

President Obama gave a marvelous speech to Congress last night, sufficient on issues and details, long on hope. Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, chosen to give the Republican response, apparently heard a different speech. He did not advance his quest for the Presidency. In fact, I suspect he ended his quest. It seems that virtually everyone, both Republicans and Democrats, thought he was just plain awful. He seems to have only one supporter – Rush Limbaugh. I particularly enjoyed the camera shots of most of the Republicans, sitting there like a bunch of guilty whipped puppies. I applaud Obama’s great pick of Gary Locke, former Governor of Washington, to be Secretary of Commerce. I don’t know what Obama could have been thinking when he tried appointing Republican Judd Gregg, who fortunately declined on grounds of temporary insanity. We are, it seems, apparently moving forward in spite of the mindless “no” party.

There are those who seem unable to believe that Obama was born an American citizen. I guess they either don’t read or watch TV, or else they believe there is a conspiracy by the U.S. Government, the State of Hawaii, all of the Newspapers and News Programs, and more, to deceive them. This reminds me of a story I once heard, or read: A speaker somewhere was making a speech in which he claimed something was true. A young man in the audience asked if he could produce some evidence for his claim. When the speaker said he did not have the evidence with him, the man said, “if you cannot provide the evidence, I cannot believe you.” The speaker then asked him, “do you have your birth certificate with you?” When the young man said he did not, the speaker said, “You will not mind, then, if a call you an impertinent young bastard.” Am I wrong, or does America truly have more than our rightful share of loonies?

I do not understand American men’s obsession with breasts, or with nudity either, for that matter. I saw today somewhere that a topless coffee shop has opened somewhere in Maine, with three topless waitresses and one topless waiter. Wow! Now that’s exciting! And of course we have our well-known Hooters restaurants. Is it the case that American men are unfamiliar with breasts or the rest of the female anatomy? I have worked in places where all the women routinely go topless. No one pays any attention, even I became totally accustomed to it after the first hour or two. Perhaps it has to do with too much bottle feeding, so it represents some kind of subconscious desire for mama? I can’t believe that it makes coffee or food taste better. Similarly, have most American men never seen a naked female body? If not, where have they been? Nowadays one can see all the naked bodies you could ever desire just by turning on your TV (and apparently a great many men do this routinely now in hotel rooms). And of course nudity is even pretty common now in regular motion pictures, even when there is no ostensible reason to show nudity. Obviously breasts and nudity are in demand. There must be something wrong with me because I just don’t get it. Perhaps I’m just too old. I’m sure I giggled and ogled when I was a teenager. Maybe I’m repressing this. Maybe I just grew up to be a prude. I don’t know, but I don’t get it. When I’m hungry or thirsty I just want food and drink, I don’t really care much what my server looks like. A graduate student just returned from his fieldwork once asked his advisor, a well known physical anthropologist, if he would like copies of any of his pictures. He said, “yeah, gimme one each of the titty pictures and one of the kid pissin’.” Oh, the romance of anthropology! Once when I was a boy, one of our two local theaters was running some kind of adventure/travel picture. They advertised that no one under 18 would be allowed. Naturally we were curious and wanted to attend. Apparently business was bad because after the first day they removed the restriction. The shocking scenes we were to have been denied were native women topless. We were very disappointed. But while I’m on the subject, how many topless or naked white women did you ever seen in the National Geographic? Man,we live in a strange world indeed.

LKBIQ:
I think on-stage nudity is disgusting, shameful and damaging to all things American. But if I were 22 with a great body, it would be artistic, tasteful, patriotic and a progressive religious experience.
Shelley Winters

TILT:
Fish do not have occipital condyles.

Addiction

For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, my mind of late has been thinking about addictions, more specifically, the “problem” of addiction. This is a question made more complicated by the idea that addictions can be psychological as well as physical/chemical. When I think of addictions I first think of substances like heroin, opium, and even alcohol, substances that if withheld from those addicted to them cause obvious and severe withdrawal symptoms. Nicotine might be considered here also, as those who quit smoking do experience withdrawal symptoms, but not quite as severe or life threatening as those associated with more powerful drugs. I suggest we consider these kinds of addictions “real” addictions. Individuals who claim to be (psychologically) addicted to things like diet pepsi, mountain dew, chewing gum, chocolate, or even something as esoteric as deep-fried chicken gizzards, for the sake of discussion, I term “false” addictions. They are not entirely false because people who believe they are addicted to them do experience discomfort when they are denied them, but this is nowhere near of the same intensity or actual physical discomfort of the real addictions. Here I am basically concerned only with real addictions and their problems.

It appears to me that the problems of real addictions are twofold: first and foremost they constitute a medical problem, and secondly a social problem. Why and how people become addicted to narcotics and such is a study for people in the medical and related professions. What are the physiological, genetic, or other biological factors that cause addictions to occur in some people and not others, to some substances and not others, in some circumstances but not others, and so on. What are the mechanisms involved in withdrawal and its attendant pain and trauma? These reasons are by no means entirely understood and a great deal of on-going research is devoted to them all the time. As purely medical problems these do not generally demand much attention from those outside the professions of medicine and basic research.

Addictions as social problems are quite another matter, and do demand attention from the general public. As addicts will go to virtually any lengths to acquire the substances to which they are addicted, this results in deception, theft, even murder, illegal sales, smuggling, gang wars, bankruptcies, broken families, divorce, and human misery of all kinds. Interestingly enough, the problem here is not the addiction per se, but, rather, the restrictions, laws and regulations, that stand in the way of addicts acquiring the substances upon which they are so completely dependent. In other words, societies create these problems for themselves. Most of them could be eliminated relatively easily by simply changing the laws. Just as the prohibition of alcohol failed, so, too, are the prohibitions relating to drugs failing. That this is true can be seen in the case of Switzerland where drugs were decriminalized and made available to addicts. This resulted in an almost immediate substantial reduction in drug-related crimes. Heroin addicts and others can visit clinics set up to give them the drugs they need and many come in, get their fix, and then go about their daily lives as productive, gainfully employed citizens. It is well known there have been many people, including some very famous and successful people, who lived as heroin, cocaine, or other drug addicts most of their lives. There are probably many people, especially in professions with access to drugs, who live such lives.

Does it really matter very much if someone is addicted to a drug or drugs they need to allow them to live productive lives? There are millions of people who are dependent upon drugs but who are not classified as addicts, for example, those who have to take drugs to control cholesterol, blood pressure, and such. It is true they can do without these drugs, and probably do not suffer serious withdrawal symptoms, but only if they are willing to take the chances of heart attacks or strokes or whatever. Basically, these people are just as dependent upon drugs as are addicts, but we don’t condemn them or classify them as lawbreakers or drug addicts. What does it matter if someone has to have a daily fix of heroin or cocaine or any other drug, provided they are under medical care and do not constitute a menace to themselves or society? Many of our prohibited drugs are sold over the counter in other countries. Until just after the turn of the 20th century laudanum, a mixture of opium and alcohol, was widely prescribed for virtually every ailment (nowadays it is only prescribed for diarrhea). As far as I know, laudanum was discontinued when the addictive properties of opium were better understood and better drugs became available, not because it was regarded as unnecessarily dangerous or undesirable. It was even spoon-fed to babies at times and I believe that its use was still widespread even when I was a child. Similarly, cocaine was one of the original ingredients in coca-cola, which was originally considered a patent medicine. Cocaine was also used in a wide variety of other patent medicines until probably well into the early 1900’s when, what has been described as a kind of “moral panic,” occurred. Cocaine and other drugs suddenly became considered dangerous and started to be controlled.

It seems to me that it was this moral panic that gave us Reefer Madness and other such nonsensical fears. I suspect this moral panic still survives in our culture when it comes laws and regulations relating to drugs, drug use, and addictions. What was, and should have remained a medical problem, became considered a social and political one, and one that now costs us billions of dollars to no avail, encourages crime, including murders, makes otherwise ordinary citizens into criminals, and fills our prisons with otherwise quite innocent people. Why should we not decriminalize drugs, leave the problem to the medical profession where it rightfully belongs, and abandon our ridiculous and failed “war on drugs?” Here is a serious and expensive problem that could be solved virtually with the stroke of a pen. There are no doubt reasons why this will not happen, but I doubt there are any truly good reasons.

Please trod on us

Five teens arrested for beating
18 year-old to death, claimed
they were “ just having fun.”

“Please trod on us.” I take it this must be the Democratic motto these days. For the third time Karl Rove has refused even to appear before Congress, let alone testify. I am not very expert on these matters, but as I understand it, failure to even show up represents a clear contempt of Congress and could land one in jail. Rove has claimed “Executive Immunity” but that claim has already been discredited. But even if that issue is still to be completely settled it has nothing to do with whether or not Rove is in contempt of Congress, which he clearly is. So the question now is, will Congress do anything about it? Like have him arrested and forced to appear? They could, and they should. But apparently they enjoy having their legitimate authority flouted time and time again. “Wimps” is too generous a term for these spineless insects pretending to be Congresspersons. I want Rove arrested and thrown into the slammer, and the same for Meirs and Bolten and anyone else who is in contempt of Congress. Enough of this pussyfooting about. It is said they are “negotiating” with Rove, et al. There is nothing I can see to negotiate about. It is quite simple. Democrats in Congress simply have to do their Constitutional duty and stop letting these Republican swine walk all over them.

This unhappily reminds me of Waxman, all show and no action. How many investigations has Waxman begun? How many have ever ended? All we ever hear or heard (he’s been kind of quiet lately) is/was that he was launching another investigation into something or other, but as far as I know nothing has ever come of any of these investigations. These Congressional Democrats are really big on threatening things but seem to never actually follow through on anything. You might think they would get tired of being walked on, but apparently not. Perhaps masochism is a prerequisite for Democrats to hold office.

Bobby Jindal, Hailey Barbour, and one other Republican Governor whose name I forget, are making big noises about refusing all or part of the stimulus money. I think the case of Jindal is the funniest. He seems to think that by “standing on principle” it will enhance his Presidential possibilities. He says he will not accept a lot of money earmarked for unemployment insurance (but he has certainly accepted most of the 3.6 billion earmarked for Louisiana). I would love to see him explain to some of his unemployed constituents why they should go hungry for his principles. Actually, it would seem to me if he has Presidential aspirations he is doing precisely the wrong thing (I don’t believe Jindal can ever be President in any case). These Republicans are betting it all that Obama is going to fail. Perhaps he will, but at least he’s trying. Even if he does fail in this impossible task he’ll still look like a giant compared to these absurd mental midgets.

Don’t you begin to wonder where the Republicans find these people they put into office. Think Richard Shelby of Alabama, who just suggested that perhaps Obama really isn’t a natural born citizen (a rumor that was squelched long ago) and therefore might not be a legitimate President. Apparently Shelby neither reads nor watches television. Why should he, Republicans know everything they need to know which is easily summed up in the phrase “tax breaks for rich people.” Republicans day-by-day seem to be digging themselves into an increasingly deep hole from which they will quite likely never emerge. I doubt the hip-hoppers are going to come to their rescue.

Obama is getting a lot of criticism for some of the things he is doing, like apparently continuing some of Bush’s positions (on emails, renditions, Afghanistan, etc.). We “Progressives” don’t like or approve of everything he is doing. Frankly, I don’t understand what he’s doing all the time. But, then, I don’t understand electricity, the internet, certainly not google, or even a billion or trillion dollars. But I don’t let it bother me. Until Obama does something clearly disastrous I’m sticking by him, as, it seems, is most of the American public. Go Obama! I like most of what you’ve done so far.

LKBIQ:
Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
George Carlin

TILT:
Playing cards were found in China as early as the 9th century.