Outwitted?

Korean man marries his
huggable pillow in special
wedding ceremony.

Now there is an international “to-do” about the slap in the face Biden experienced in Israel. Headlines are proclaiming that Netanyahu outwitted President Obama again, that the announcement of 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem was an insult to the U.S. and, indeed, to the international community. It is also being said that “we” will no longer overlook the settlement issue, the Palestinians are close to unilaterally declaring an independent state, Biden has declared solid U.S. support for a Palestinian state, the U.S. is said to be outraged over this development, and so on. Would that it were all so, talk is cheap, it will be interesting to see if anything whatsoever changes with respect to Israeli intransigence. I believe it is true that international patience with Israel is running out at last, but unless the U.S. takes some action nothing will happen. So come on, Obama, let’s see some sanctions on Israel.

Still another case where most probably nothing will ever be done has to do with war crimes. It was interesting tonight when Rachel Maddow, interviewing Nancy Pelosi, asked her if she was upset about any of the actions of the previous administration. Pelosi, much to her credit, suggested that she was upset about the lies that were told to bring about the “war” in Iraq, and also about the torture. But she did not indicate that she (or anyone else) was about to take action to bring about accountability. She, like I guess most everyone else in Congress, seems to just want to shrug it off as something “regrettable.” I suppose all crimes are regrettable, but surely war crimes are far more regrettable than others, regrettable enough to warrant more than a shrug of the shoulders.

I wonder what price we may have to pay for health care if it passes now, which most seem to think it should? If it passes without a public option or some functional equivalent we may pay far more dearly that we anticipate. It seems to be true there are some very good things in the bill, coverage for millions of more Americans, an end to some of the worst abuses, like stopping your health care just when you finally really need it the most, doing away with pre-existing conditions, being able to take it with you, and so on. But with no public option what control will there be over the cost? With millions more having to have insurance, what will keep the insurance companies from just raising premiums whenever they wish? Passing a bill because it is the best we can get at the moment, and we probably won’t have another chance for(ever), and banking on being able to fix it, is quite a gamble it seems to me. It seems a gamble that we are now being forced to take because no one seems to care about anything but contributions to their campaigns and profits for the corporations. It’s America, 2010.

A nice try by Republicans and the MSM to keep Massa the gift that keeps on giving. All the attention on him has certainly kept us lately from having to think about anything else. But now that he has proven to be some kind of loony-tune I guess we’ll soon hear the end of it. Now that it has gone to the ethics committee it will probably just fade away, and rightly so, who cares whether Massa is homosexual or not? Washington, D.C. is no doubt full of them, just like the Vatican and the Church. I must say, however, I am surprised at just how many gays there seem to be, and how many pedophiles (no, I don’t believe there is a relationship between being gay and being a pedophile, I rather suspect there may well be an inverse correlation there).

I am always amazed at some of the contradictions we find in our culture. Take guns (again), for example. One of the common reasons for buying a gun (especially a handgun) is for personal or home protection. But at the same time you are told by the manufacturer and others that guns should be kept locked up, have trigger or other locks, be kept unloaded, and away from children. So what do you tell the burglar or intruder when they break in? Please wait until I unlock my gun safe, unlock my gun and load it? Does this make sense? Hey, its America, lots of things don’t make sense.

LKBIQ:
One pound of learning requires ten pounds of common sense to apply it.
Persian Proverb

TILT:
Female rabbits do not ovulate until after breeding.

Greed

A New Jersey “Midnight Knitter”
Is covering tree branches and
lampposts with miniature sweaters.

It must be just plain greed. I have no other explanation for much of human behavior, especially the kinds of behavior we are seeing at the moment here in the U.S. and in Israel. How can so many Americans not want their fellow citizens to have health care? Some say we can’t afford it, but that is not true as we can afford to pay for two completely unnecessary “wars,” military bases all around the world, a defense budget so bloated it is completely absurd. Apparently some people regard all this killing and war as far more important that allowing our fellow citizens to have adequate health care, a ridiculous argument if ever there was one. It is true we have had to borrow money to pay for our aggressive behavior, but we could just as easily borrow money to pay for health care. Those who do not want their fellows to have health care are those who already have it for themselves and do not wish to pay anything to help others. In short, they are greedy and selfish.

In fact greed seems to be the primary motivating factor in our economy in general. Why do our corporations outsource jobs to Asia and other places? Obviously because labor is cheaper there and by outsourcing they can make greater profits, and as greater profits are better than lesser ones, greed can know no bounds. Think, too, of the obscene salaries our CEO’s are making. No one needs a salary of several million dollars a year, far more than they can even spend on anything other than making even more money. This has to be a system based basically on naked greed. I can see no other explanation. Here in the U.S. the more money you can make the better. We pay our coaches far more than any of our Professors or even University Presidents. Professional athletes like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods make so much money there is no way they can possibly need it or spend it. And once they make their first few millions they just keep on making more and more and more. Is there any other explanation than greed? I can’t think of one. Prestige maybe, but prestige comes with the money.

Look also at the case of Israel. Vice-President Biden has flown to the Middle East to try to arrange peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. So what does Israel do? They announce they will build an additional 1600 illegal homes in Jerusalem, making it clear they are not in the least interested in peace. They are also building illegal homes elsewhere in the West Bank, thumbing their nose at both the U.S. and the Palestinians who will not consider peace talks until the illegal settlements stop. Why do the Israelis not want peace? Greed, that’s why. They have systematically stolen Palestinian land and water and want to continue to do so as long as possible, indeed, forever if they can, and if they can rid themselves entirely of Palestinians by whatever means possible they will do so. Obama suggested early on that Israel should stop the settlements. They have simply ignored him with a monumental slap in the face. And what is worse, he has turned the other cheek. The U.S. is the only country that could make the Israelis stop their greedy march to apartheid but does nothing, thus just fueling further Israeli greed.

I would be happy to consider some other basic motive than greed for most of human behavior, but a look at the historical record offers little in the way of a viable substitute. Every European country, without exception, that at one time had a colony or colonies, committed acts so vile and atrocious it makes you ill reading about them. England, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, even Belgium, along with the U.S. were all guilty of atrocities almost beyond imagination. Why did they behave in this way? Greed has to be the most basic motive. Of course at first the motive was claimed to be spreading the gospel to the heathens. Then a bit later it was said to be to bring “civilization” to the “savages.” Then for some it was to help them to help themselves, to better their lot, so to speak (or conversely to save them from themselves). Nowadays it is to spread democracy (or save them from themselves). Imperialism was always excused under the guise of some noble motive, but you notice they didn’t leave behind any gold, or rubber, or diamonds, or ivory, and they always captured slaves and took over foreign lands and whatever else they wished. And they killed and tortured at will, from the beginning to the end, in Asia, Africa, Australia, Tasmania, the U.S., even Siberia, wherever they went. During the Colonial Period no one was safe from marauding Western-Europeans. The historical record is clear and most unpleasant, and where some noble motive was claimed, the real motive was greed (perhaps with a bit of sadism mixed in). This is not to say that other people in Africa, Asia, the Middle and Far East were not equally as rapacious, murderous and destructive, but theirs is a history I know too little about, but I suspect that their motive involved the same greed but without so many noble excuses. If you want a single explanation for all of human history, stick with greed, it works.

LKBIQ:
It is partly to avoid consciousness of greed that we prefer to associate with those who are at least as greedy as we ourselves. Those who consume much less are a reproach.
Charles Horton Cooley

TILT:
Mae West was born Mary Jane West.

Suckered Again?

Reviewing his cell phone
history, she reaches for knife
and stabs ex-husband.

Dennis Kucinich is apparently refusing to vote “yes” on the Health Care Bill. He says it is merely a huge gift to the Insurance companies who are themselves the problem. What he did not say, perhaps wasn’t given an opportunity to say, or maybe would not even agree with me, is that we have been cleverly maneuvered into another terrible Hobson’s Choice. As it stands, starry-eyed liberals like me have a choice of voting for a bill that will provide some 30 million or so uninsured Americans with health insurance, obviously a good thing. But as this is to be mandatory it will in fact benefit the Insurance business enormously, especially if there is nothing like a public option. So the choice is clear, vote for the bill and give the Insurance industry 30 million more customers to fleece with terrible health care, or vote against the bill and maintain the status quo. In either case the Insurance industry wins. The only way the Insurance companies would not win is if they were left out of the health care business entirely, as they ought to be. As long as the Insurance companies are players there will be no meaningful health care reform, none, nada, zip, zero. Kucinich says Obama claims to want a public option but really doesn’t. Apparently this is so, as he has not fought for such an option and did not even allow a single payer system to be discussed or offered. Even a public option would not deal the insurance companies out, although it may make it a bit more difficult for them to continue ripping us off so outrageously. We need a single payer system if we are to truly have an efficient, economically sensible, and equitable plan. This could have been achieved by expanding Medicare to all, a system that works, is popular, and does everything that is required. This could have been phased in, first to 55 year-olds, the 45 year-olds, and down the line until everyone is covered. Kucinich is right to vote against this bill, but what is worse, it doesn’t matter which way you vote, you lose and the Insurance companies win, clever, no? Here we are, suckered again. This is too sophisticated a scam to have come about by accident. Insurance companies have no business in the health care industry, other than to make a profit, but why should we allow anyone to make a profit on illness and death? Oh yeah, I know, we pass the Senate Bill, the gift to the Insurance blokes, and then through reconciliation we improve it. This may or may not result in a public option, is going to delay the whole process, and delay is the name of the game for the opponents, and, as above, will still not rid us of the problem that is the Insurance companies. Assuming there does eventually emerge a public option, some seem to think this will eventually lead to a single payer system. Fine, but why not a single payer system now, why wait for thousands and thousands more to die because of lack of adequate health care just for the sake of Insurance company profits? Some complain that companies put profits above people, of course they do, that’s what a profit system is all about, it’s in the nature of the case, as inevitable as the sunrise and sunset, where do you think profits come from? Profits always come from some form of exploitation, they are not a gift from the heavens.

Profit is the name of the game here in the U.S. The same thing is going on with the Student Loan Programs. Why should government loans not be made directly to students? There is no reason why they should not, except that the banks would not make a profit by servicing these loans. Why should banks make a profit our of financing education that is vital to our nation’s health and success when there is no compelling reason they should do so? They shouldn’t, but they do, and they are not about to give up their profits if they can possibly help it. Banks and Loan companies exploit students and taxpayers, that’s how they make their profits. It’s not complicated.

Sometimes I think Dennis Kucinich is the only honest person we have. He is criticized for being too idealistic. I guess that is true, he would like to stop the “war” in Afghanistan, that is pretty idealistic as there seems to be no chance it will happen anytime soon, if ever. I find it impossible to believe that anyone with a brain larger than that of a bluebird believes Afghanistan is going to become a democratic nation, or that there will be a national Afghan army capable of, or even interested in defending the present government (or even any government at all, for that matter). There is no military solution to the “problem” of Afghanistan. So why do we continue to waste billions in the attempt? Because it has nothing to do with making Afghanistan into something it is not and will never be, it is because we have to continue to feed the military/industrial/political complex that has become the central feature of American culture. What would happen if we did not continue to manufacture tanks and planes and Humvees and cannons and bombs and stuff? Our economy would grind to a halt, not that it hasn’t already, but it would be much worse. And if we didn’t keep buying all the junk we buy what would we have to put in the millions of storage facilities that are springing up everywhere? And our landfill businesses would fail and there would be less demand for garbage collectors. We can’t keep just putting more and more of our surplus population in jail, the jails are already overcrowded. We have a true dilemma. I guess we’d better just keep fighting and creating “wars” as best we can because otherwise I guess we might be doomed. Too bad Dennis, don’t you see where idealism leads?

LKBIQ:
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
Oscar Levant

TILT:
Liechtenstein is one of only two doubly landlocked countries in the world.

The Lexicographer's Dilemma - book

The Lexicographer’s Dilemma The Evolution of “Proper” English from Shakespeare to South Park, by Jack Lynch (Walker and Company, N.Y., 2009)

Did you ever worry about not speaking “proper” English? Or became confused when trying to write it? How about your mastery of English grammar? Do you wonder about the difference between English and American English? How about spelling? Anyway, if you have any doubts about your ability to speak and write your native language, read this wonderful book and relax. I know I overwork the word fascinating, but this is truly a fascinating, marvelous, informative, and enjoyable work that everyone should probably read. Jack Lynch is a professor of English at Rutgers University and a specialist on Samuel Johnson, he has produced a wonderful and most useful book on the problems of lexicography.

The Lexicographer’s Dilemma is on the one hand a history for the search of proper English, but it is also a history of dictionaries. There were no rules for speaking or writing English even in Shakespeare’s time. The question of proper English was not even a question until the Industrial Revolution when people were moving from the country into the cities, especially London, and, being upwardly mobile for the first time, and not wanting to appear as country bumpkins, knew they should learn to speak more properly. But what was proper English? Basically, at first, proper English became what the wealthy spoke, but as that did not turn out to be a very useful standard, eventually dictionaries began to appear that attempted to prescribe proper speech. Although there were smaller attempts at dictionaries prior to Samuel Johnson’s monumental work, his became the standard for many years to come. Samuel Johnson was a most unlikely choice to attempt a Dictionary of the English Language, but he did, and when you read this account of his attempt you will appreciate the enormous difficulty of creating such a book as a dictionary, the problems you have probably never even imagined, and the difficulty in actually defining a word. Johnson was smart enough to realize that he was not in any position himself to just arbitrarily make up meanings and usages, so he used the works of the greatest writers of his time as a standard.

After the American Revolution, when the U.S. became independent of England a similar problem arose, was America simply to use the English language as it was spoken by the mother country, or should it have a language of its own? Noah Webster, a great American patriot, decided there needed to be an American Dictionary of the English Language, and set out to create one. He knew there were many words spoken in America that were not included in English English, and vice versa, and he also attempted to improve on both spellings and definitions. Later came many attempts by different authorities to dictate proper writing styles, rules of grammar, the development of the thesaurus, and other developments that have led to Roget and the Merriam-Webster that are current today, as well as the modern version of the greatest dictionary of all, The Oxford English Dictionary. Following these developments you learn the difference between prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries and linguistics, as well as the enormous problems involved in lexicography in general. You will also learn a great deal about grammar, where the rules originated and why, and also why it is that spoken and written English are so incredibly different. Along the way you will find discussions of how and why different authorities attempted at various times to define proper usage, and how they inevitably failed. There are myriad truly interesting examples given of where words originated, how they changed over time, and how it is there can be no permanent standards. There is also a fine discussion of vulgar speech and words that are to this day not allowed on television (as George Carlin, following Lenny Bruce made clear), as well as some hints as to what will become of our language in the future as a result of computers, globalization and other developments.

You may or may not be pleased to learn that no one knows how many words there are in the English language, and that, indeed, it is impossible to know that. You will also be relieved to know that the rules of grammar and our written language are nowhere near as absolute as you may think they are, no matter what your English teachers have insisted they should be for so many years (you will not really go to hell for split infinitives, for example). I found it most interesting, even comforting, to learn that it is possible to say things that are perfectly grammatically correct (supposedly) but are at the same time completely meaningless, and that meaningful statements can be said and written that are not grammatically correct. The fact is, and has been for a very long time, most speakers of English know the basic rules of proper speech, and even writing (although less so) although they do not know that they know them. Being one of that multitude I found this book to be one of the most useful I have ever read.

Genocides

Woman driver shaving her
private parts before meeting
boyfriend causes two-car crash.

Bubblehead: It is comforting to know you are still around and looking after Bush/Cheney and Minnick. As far as Minnick goes, I believe he is basically a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. As he won’t vote for Health Care reform or controlling Wall Street or Corporate abuses I doubt I will vote for him. I probably won’t vote. But don’t forget, this is Idaho, I am a Liberal, how I vote isn’t going to matter one iota. If there was a chance of my vote making a difference I would reconsider. Actually, when I made the comment about Rachel Maddow “being allowed to continue,” I was thinking of the corporation that controls the network. Yes, I was also thinking about Wellstone and flying. Perhaps Bush/Cheney didn’t have killing squads going around assassinating Liberals, they apparently had them assassinating others here and there around the world, or at least tried to. I don’t recall saying I thought they might be preparing martial law, but I could have. I wouldn’t have put it past them. As confessed war criminals they might well have done anything (I guess you probably think waterboarding isn’t torture, or they didn’t encourage it or confess to it?). Of course they wouldn’t have done anything bad, they were obviously pure, “pure as the driven snow.” I guess if we didn’t have that Black, Socialist, Anti-Christ in the White House things would be better. Just wait till after the coming elections when the Republicans take over again. I bet it will just be “happy days are here again.” And maybe, if we’re really fortunate, we can have Silly Sarah for President in 2012.

I gather the White House is trying to prevent a vote on the issue of Armenian genocide, apparently for purely political reasons (our relations with Turkey). I don’t exactly understand why Congress is so concerned about a genocide that happened so long ago when there are current genocides and near-genocides going on right now. Having read the fine book, Armenian Golgotha, I am convinced it truly was genocide, and having read it I also understand why Turkey does not want to admit it, but pursuing it now seems less than fruitful to me. I also just watched part of the CNN program on genocides. I thought it was particularly fine but it caused me to wonder how one really defines genocide. That is, how many deaths have to occur before something becomes genocide? Does an entire population have to be destroyed for genocide to be successful? Does driving people out of their homes to relocate elsewhere count as genocide or do they have to actually die? How about a slow, methodical, destruction of a people, like what is happening in Gaza, is that genocide, near-genocide, ethnic cleansing, or just business as usual? It seem to me genocide has to be defined just as importantly by the intent as well as how successful it is in actual numbers of deaths or displacements. Even the Nazis couldn’t kill all the Jews, but they certainly intended to do so, and it appears that contrary to popular belief, even all of the Tasmanians were not killed (although almost all were), even though the intent was clearly present. Does the fact that one Indian tribe may have been completely destroyed whereas others were only partly destroyed mean that the first case was genocide but the second one was not? Are we supposed to live with the fact that genocides occur and the world just looks on helplessly (unless, of course, oil, diamonds, or other important commodities are involved)? If you missed this CNN program you should try to see it. I think Christiane Amanpour is terrific (I guess I shouldn’t say that, after all she is an Iranian, and all Iranians must be bad, what with all those nuclear bombs and stuff).

I don’t mean to be so obsessive compulsive about this, but there is still a mystery about the White House that I would like to have solved. I’m beginning to think I’m the only person who thinks this was strange and that kind of bothers me. Nonetheless, I would like to know why a known male prostitute, Gannon/Guckert, was allowed to come and go at the White House apparently almost at will, not always even signing in and out? I’m not really concerned about the homosexuality (I’m sure there is plenty of it in Washington, D. C.), nor am I concerned about whether he should have had a press pass or not, but, rather, by the obvious breach of security that had to have been involved. Either no one else was in the least bit concerned about this, or some very powerful individual must have arranged it and did not allow any investigation of it. If there has been an investigation specifically about his coming and goings in the White House I have not heard about it.

LKBIQ:
What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue: Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer.
Douglas Adams

TILT:
Housecats eat ants.

Metacriminals

Philadelphia couple rob
Jewelry store, leave
four-year-old son behind.

The prefix meta means, among other things, something that comes later and transcends something that came before. Thus we have things like metalinguistics, metapsychology, metamathematics, metalanguage, and so on, developments that have transcended their originals. It seems to me we might wish to refer to metacrime, metacriminals, metacorporations, and perhaps even metainterrogations, for all of these developments seem to have surely transcended everything that came before. It is true we sometimes speak of megacorporations, but mega just means they are big, meta implies that not only are they big, they are unprecedented in scope and power and international in a scope far transcending any corporations before. Similarly, metacrime ought to describe what has now become more or less legal in the banking and insurance industries. These businesses have been systematically fleecing a gullible public for years and mostly getting away with it in ways that would make Al Capone blush. And surely we have never before experienced true metacriminals like Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and others who have carried crime far beyond the likes of Jesse James, John Dillinger, and even the great Charles Ponzi himself. Metacriminals of this scope were probably made possible for the first time by the rise of metacorporations, but also by the increase in complexity of trading made possible by the computer revolution. Metacrime and metacriminals also emerged and became possible because corporations grew so large and so wealthy they could in fact make their own rules, thus far transcending previous criminal enterprises that were still regulated by ordinary laws. I suggest that what has happened to our economy and the international economy is not merely the result of a quantitative change but has, rather, resulted in a qualitative change as well. Metacorporations do not function like the piddly little ones of the past, in that they are far more complex and virtually oblivious to outside interference. They make their own rules and for the most part get away with whatever they wish, aided by our Congress and others that are now part of the same system. Indeed, in some sense you might even consider that Dick Cheney created the first metagovernment that seems to have transcended what we ordinarily think of as our government. Because of the secrecy and power of this “shadow” or (I prefer) metagovernment we still do not know how extensive it was and how and what it accomplished (other than torture, treason, and war profiteering, that is).

Liz Cheney apparently has gone so far in her various bizarre claims and rantings she has even alienated some of those who worked for her father. Her latest claim that the seven lawyers recently hired by the Justice Department are al Quaida sympathizers because they defended some of the Guantanamo inmates truly requires a feat of logic heretofore unknown in legal circles. To believe this you would have to also believe that all lawyers who defend rapists, burglars, and murderers are themselves sympathetic to rapists, burglars and murderers. Perhaps there is a bit of wishful thinking involved here, maybe she wants to believe that lawyers who defend war criminals will be sympathetic to war crimes. Like my neighbor says, “who knows what goes on in the mind of a baboon?”

It appears that Obama is about to cave in to pressure from the Republicans to try the terrorists in Military Courts rather than in our regular Criminal Justice System. I hope he does not. Indeed, I don’t see how he can and still claim to have any real authority. All kinds of terrorists have already been tried in civilian courts, some 300 or so I believe, and there is absolutely no reason why this current batch of terrorists should not be so treated. To back down in this seems to me to be the most flagrant act of impotence and cowardice I have ever seen. Even worse, it strikes me as utterly ridiculous. Is Obama our President or just some flunky for Republican whims no matter how dishonest they are? Obama has already given Republicans far more than they deserve, and he has backed down from his demands on Israel, continued some of the worst of the Bush years, and in general gives the impression of being spineless. That’s not who I voted for and I am sorely disappointed.

I sincerely hope that Rachel Maddow has a cadre of really excellent bodyguards, and I also hope she doesn’t plan on flying anywhere soon. How refreshing it is to have a newsperson actually report the outright lies and deceptions of our politicians and others, but it is dangerous as well. I’m rather surprised that she has been allowed to continue as far as she has. Olberman and the Ed show are okay, but even they don’t compare with Maddow. Chris Matthews doesn’t count, he’s so in love with himself he rarely listens to anyone else and he’s kind of a dim bulb anyway.

LKBIQ:
The poor on the borderline of starvation live purposeful lives. To be engaged in a desperate struggle for food and shelter is to be wholly free from a sense of futility.
Eric Hoffer

TILT:
Barbary apes are actually monkeys.

Single Issue Voters

Swiss condom manufacturer
designs small condoms for
the 12 year-old crowd.

I am wrestling with the problem of single-issue voters, or voters who consider one or two, or perhaps even three issues to override all else. Granted there are many, many issues of all kinds that our politicians have to deal with nowadays, can some issues simply be considered more important than others and thus influence voting in important ways. Abortion, I suppose, would be perhaps the best example. Is abortion such a singularly important issue that it will determine who a person will vote for? Or, in the current situation, will the abortion issue possibly derail the Health Care Bill? Pelosi and others try to make it clear that the Health Care Bill is not an abortion bill, but does that convince everyone? In the case of abortion I suspect not.

I know someone who is vitally concerned about our drug laws, and our failed war on drugs. He measures candidates on whether or not they will consider making all drugs legal. There are other issues that might affect his vote, such as the death penalty and immigration reform, but drugs are clearly the most important issue in his mind. If a candidate supports the continuation of the war on drugs, and their illegality, he is doomed as far as this voter is concerned.

How about the case of Walt Minnick, a Democratic Congressperson from Idaho? Idaho is a very conservative state and the fact that a Democrat was even elected is somewhat of a miracle. But Minnick is very conservative and does not always vote Democratic. This evening I heard an argument in favor of Minnick because he voted Democratic 85% of the time. But does that 85% necessarily make up for the other 15%? It is most probably the case (I don’t have the time to research this carefully) that many of those Democratic votes were in cases where his vote was known to be irrelevant. In other cases his Democratic votes were quite likely for bills or issues that were simply not very important. He voted against the stimulus, and he is voting against health care, important votes that make a real difference. Is he to be forgiven these votes because he voted Democratic 85% of the time on votes of little or no consequence? Not for me.

What about President Obama? I think he has done many things that I agree with that are important and needed to be done. But he has not done some things that I think of great importance, such as withdrawing from the absolutely absurd and unnecessary “war” in Afghanistan, and, more importantly, not investigating and prosecuting the war criminals, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others, including the toady lawyers who simply did what they were instructed to do. If Obama succeeds in passing health care reform and doing away with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, in addition to the many other positive things he has done, will I feel obliged to vote for him again? In my case I don’t think so. I just don’t think I could in good conscience vote for someone who has gone out of his way to defend war criminals. But, of course, this is the kind of situation that we get repeatedly trapped into voting for the Hobson’s Choice. If I don’t want to vote for Obama, just who will I vote for? I don’t care who the Republican candidate may be, I certainly wouldn’t vote for him or her. The thought of voting for Sarah Palin or even Mitt Romney makes me sick to my stomach, and I cannot foresee any other Republican candidate that would be any better. So, I either vote for Obama who defends war criminals, or I just don’t vote. But just not voting is essentially a vote for someone I don’t want. As there most probably will not be a viable third party candidate, I will be confronted with this terrible problem, either leave the country, commit suicide, or withdraw to some remote community and simply ignore the continuing madness that seems to infect our political system. I find this frustrating and depressing beyond belief. I do not expect any candidate to share all of my beliefs, or to act always according to my desires, but there are some issues that seem to me to be so vital, so overridingly important, so basically moral and ethical, that they cannot simply be ignored. Here there is that difference that we so often find between quantity and quality. Are some issues qualitatively more important than others? I believe the answer is yes. For me, allowing Bush/Cheney and the others to escape accountability for their terrible crimes is simply unforgivable, and it doesn’t matter what else Obama accomplishes. In fact, I truly believe that if Obama and Holder do not investigate and prosecute these known criminals, they themselves become war criminals, “fellow travelers,” as it were. I hate this and I cannot understand it, or if I do understand the why of it, I do not approve and think it is a terrible mistake.

LKBIQ:
The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class. It is not the realization of a political ideal; it is the discharge of a moral obligation.
John Dalberg

TILT:
Reason seems to have little to do with human affairs.

More Guns

Naked Tacoma woman found
tied to a tree was part of
a “consensual rendezvous.”

I am not opposed to people owning guns, even handguns, although I have real problems with AK 47’s, .50 caliber machine guns, and “anything big enough to be towed by a truck.” I am not, in principle, even opposed to the NRA, but I really think they are carrying things to extremes that are just plain silly. Now they apparently think it is necessary for people to wear their guns when they go to Starbucks for coffee. I gather this is merely to prove that they can do so, at least in some states. Why do they need to prove this? I have no idea. Starbucks, not wanting to be caught in the middle of some controversy over gun rights and such, have simply said (reasonably enough) that if it is legal in such and such a state to carry a gun into their store it’s okay with them. This development is just a continuation of these extremist gun owners demands to be able to carry their guns everywhere (I bet a lot of them wear them to bed, or at least keep them under their pillows). They carry them now into our National Parks, into churches, bars, stores, and wherever they wish. Why they do this I do not know. I do know that it is completely irrational to claim you need to carry a gun into Starbucks, churches, theatres, or bars, these are not dangerous places, there is no reason, realistically, to suppose you are suddenly going to be attacked while drinking a martini or attending services. If you’re out in the woods, or entering a danger zone, or alone on the highway late at night, or something like that, I can see why you might wish to bear arms. But, really, this is getting silly.

And speaking of silly, Her Silliness is having a ball. On Leno last night (I don’t watch Leno but of course I heard about it) she actually performed as a stand-up comedian for the first time. While her routine was pretty corny her presence was quite relaxed and confident. She is getting huge speaking fees and her book was a financial success. I may be wrong but I believe her lighthearted behavior suggests she has no intention of running for President. I would think if she was serious about it she would conduct herself in a much more thoughtful and serious manner. Silly Sarah knows what she is about and she is milking it for all its worth. When it runs out she’ll take her money to the bank and perhaps continue to comment on the political scene, but I think that’s as far as she will go. Actually, I hope I am wrong and she will run for President where she’ll really provide some laughs.

Well, Obama has now thrown down the gaunt let, so to speak. There is no going back. Either Congress will pass the Health Care Bill or they won’t. My belief is, they will, as they can hardly do otherwise without dooming themselves to premature oblivion. I do not ordinarily pass on jokes, but this one seems to me to be so pertinent I cannot resist:

“Five surgeons from big cities are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on.
The first one, from New York, says, ‘I like to see accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.’

The second, from Chicago, responds, ‘Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded.’

The third surgeon, from Dallas, says, ‘No, I really think librarians are the best, everything inside them is in alphabetical order.’

The fourth, from Los Angeles chimes in: ‘You know, I like construction workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over.’

But the fifth surgeon, from Washington, D.C. shuts them all up when he observes: ‘You’re all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There’s no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the ass are interchangeable.’”

LKBIQ:
Congress consists of one third, more or less, scoundrels; two thirds, more or less, idiots; and three thirds, more or less, poltroons.
H. L. Mencken

TILT:
We need a history of apple pie.

Within Reason?

Bride attempts to run over
Groom’s previous lover,
newlyweds spend night in jail.

What does it mean when someone says, “that is beyond the bounds of reason,” or “that is within reason,” or “let us reason together,” or “don’t be unreasonable?” This way of speaking implies that “reason” is some kind of standard or measure that can be used to determine something, namely whether or not something is “reasonable.” But unlike other measures, reason cannot be precisely defined. It’s not like a standard measure, say a foot, or a mile, or a cup or a tablespoon or something. Those are measures that can be agreed upon as measures. The problem with using reason as a measure is that, like so many other human issues, not everyone agrees on what is reasonable. Yet we use this standard all the time, at least I do, or try to do. This is what often puts me at loggerheads with others.

For example, I think the idea that either Iran or North Korea is a danger to the U.S. because they have or might have nuclear weapons is an idea that is not within reason. It is, that is, an unreasonable supposition. In the first place no nation (except of course the U.S.) has ever used a nuclear bomb as an offensive weapon. This is obviously because nations that possess nuclear weapons know that the U.S. or Russia would respond with much more massive nuclear weapons, thus making the attempt foolhardy in the extreme. The idea that either Iran or North Korea would use nuclear weapons against the West, if anyone actually believes they would, is fundamentally a racist notion that implies Iranians or North Koreans are somehow more stupid than other people. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that if they have such weapons they, too, will use them only defensively, and it is unreasonable to believe otherwise, but obviously not everyone agrees with me.

Another idea, recently expressed by Senator Kyl of Arizona, claims that unemployment benefits keep people from looking for work, presumably because they just sit around enjoying living near the poverty level. This, again, I believe to be far beyond the bounds of reason. Besides indicating that Kyl has little grasp of the realities of life in the U.S., this, too, is, if not a racist idea, is a prejudice against what he must believe are the lower classes of our society. It seems to me if he was a reasonable man he would understand that the 10% of Americans out of work (the figure is probably closer to 20%) are out of work because there are not enough available jobs, rather than because they are by nature lazy, shiftless, and content to live on the margins of an otherwise thriving society.

Unfortunately, when I use my idea of reason as a standard, I come to the conclusion that my country acts contrary to reason perhaps more often than not. I find the idea that you can have a relatively inexpensive, efficient health care system run by the private sector beyond the bounds of reason. As long as the insurance companies siphon off some 30% of the costs for nothing more than a bit of paper shuffling, the goal of universal, inexpensive, efficient, health care will always be impossible. Similarly, I find it beyond reason to believe that democracy can be forced upon other nations at the point of a gun. This is particularly unreasonable because past experience has shown that it cannot be done. Then there is the idea that a “war on drugs” will solve the drug problem in the U.S. This, too, has been proven totally unrealistic, and yet we keep on fighting it. I find the idea that a homeowner might want to own a handgun for personal protection easily within the bounds of reason, the idea that homeowners or hunters should have .50 caliber machine guns or AK 47’s clearly beyond the bounds of reason. Having a President of the United States in the 21st century who does not believe in evolution seems to me to be far, far from the bounds of reason, but others do not seem to think so. That humans existed contemporaneously with dinosaurs is a belief so unreasonable as to be laughable, but at least some people believe this.

I believe I am a perfectly reasonable person, and yet not everyone agrees with me, at least not always. If humans are distinguished from other creatures by their capacity to reason, and if reason is a standard of measure, why does not everyone agree? I guess the reason is obvious, reason, or reasonableness is not in and of itself a goal. Something is reasonable or not depending upon some goal that is meant to be reached. If people do not share the same goals, they may be equally reasonable, but motivated by the attainment of different goals. If one does not understand the goals involved one cannot truly know what is reasonable. Thus, what if the goal of promoting the fear of Iran is to set the stage for war against that country, rather than merely their possible possession of nuclear bombs, I guess it might be reasonable. What if the goal of the war on drugs is to keep those with vested interests employed rather than doing away with drugs? If the goal of the near perpetual “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan are really meant to profit the military/industrial/political complex rather than bring democracy, perhaps they, too, are reasonable. It seems to me we are forever being kept in the dark as to what the goals of our government are, and as a result their behavior appears to be completely beyond the bounds of reason. Reason can be a measure only if everyone agrees on what goal is to be reached. In some cases, where the goals seem to be obvious, it is possible to conclude whether the means are reasonable, as in the case of the “war” in Afghanistan or the war on drugs. If the goal of interrogation is to learn the truth about something it would appear that torture is not a reasonable means. But can you think of any other motive for torture (other than sadism). But if goals are secret, as they seem sometimes to be, they may not be as unreasonable as they appear. But how would we ever know? I used to believe that thinking government is evil (a la that moron, Saint Ronnie) was beyond the pale of reason, but the nightmare years of the 21st century have put some doubt in my mind.

LKBIQ:
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
Sir William Drummond

TILT:
In the 19th century caribou were apparently still found in Southern Idaho.

Guns, Guns, Guns

Man with “divine calling”
puts clock in microwave,
shoots up hotel room.

Guns, guns, guns. This appears to be one of those issues that just doesn’t die, I suspect because there seem to be extremists on both sides of the argument. I know from past experience that if you express any opinion at all on this volatile topic you can expect to hear from someone who believes you are an absolute idiot. Nonetheless, I will approach it once again, with the warning that I am of two minds about it (perhaps even three or four).

I received a call today from someone representing the NRA. I sometimes receive mail from them also, imploring me to support one position or another having to do with guns, the 2nd amendment, and such. I think the reason they approach me is because they just automatically assume that if you live in North Idaho you must be an NRA supporter or sympathizer. Anyway, this young man (I think he must have been a young man from the sound of his voice) began by asking me when was the last time I could have fired a gun or hunted. I told him every day, if I wished. He then proceeded to tell me that our Attorney General, Eric Holder, was pushing a bill that would take away our rights to own guns. He wasn’t too clear on this point because he also said the bill would require gun owners to have an ID with a photo and a thumb print, a somewhat different thing than taking away our guns. He wanted me to pay $120 dollars for a five-year membership in the NRA. When I said I didn’t wish to join, he then offered me a two-year membership for less money. I still refused to join, but I did tell him that if Holder was, indeed, going to try to take away guns I would not be amenable.

I could not find anywhere on the web where it said Holder was pushing such a bill, although there is to be a Supreme Court decision having to do with gun rights. As I understand it, one argument is that the 2nd amendment only applies to Federal legislation, not local. I think this has to do with a case in Chicago where the question has to do with whether or not Chicago or any other city can regulate guns independently of the Federal Government. I confess I don’t really understand all this very well. However, I have given some thought to the issue of guns and gun control. I believe the NRA is much too extreme in their protection of gun rights and related issues. For example, I think the recent decision to allow loaded guns in National Parks is ridiculous, just as I believe it is ridiculous for people to have guns in churches and bars. On the other hand I think it is equally ridiculous for people to want to ban guns, even handguns, completely. I have never been a proponent of States Rights as I am fearful that if such rights were allowed too easily they would still be hanging people in the South and so on. Furthermore, it strikes me as impractical for States, or Counties, or Cities to claim certain rights. For example, a few years back the “Wise Use” movement thought that counties should be able to control everything, especially their natural resources. This struck me as absurd because of course the rivers and forests don’t begin and end at the Country lines and such. In the case of guns, however, I think a good argument can be made for local control because guns are a much greater problem in some areas than others. In the inner cities, for example, handguns do seem to be a very serious problem, linked to crime and drug dealing and gangs. It seems reasonable to me that in places where guns are a serious problem the local governments should be allowed control over them. In rural areas, like North Idaho, most everyone has guns, often of all kinds, but they do not constitute the same kind of problem, if, indeed, a problem at all. A Federal ban on guns, even handguns, does not seem necessarily reasonable to me when it applies to everywhere, especially where there may not be problems in the first place.

The argument that everyone should be entitled to own a gun for self-protection is not as simple as it appears. I believe that fundamentally it is basically correct, people do have a right to self-protection. But I run into difficulty when I consider what a definition of self-protection might be. A legitimate homeowner, for example, ought to have such a right, but what about criminals and drug dealers? If they are out on the street committing crimes or peddling drugs or gang banging, is their having a gun a legitimate case of self-protection? Do you really have a right to self-protection while you are out committing crimes? This seems to me quite absurd. But realistically, how would you control who has a legitimate right to a handgun and who does not? I suppose hypothetically you could do this, but practically it would seem a nightmare.

Still another problem with handgun ownership for self-protection has to do with the practical realities of protection. For example, there are attempts to insist that all guns should have trigger locks, or be kept locked up or at least unloaded and safe from children. But what is the point of having a locked, or locked up gun if it is to be used for self-protection? This doesn’t make sense. You might as well just have a club. Much of the problem, I think, has to do with the fact that there are, roughly speaking, two kinds of people in the U.S., those who have never had, or even seen guns, and those who are completely familiar with them. I personally have known people who, having never seen a gun, are horrified at even the thought of guns, and have no understanding whatsoever as to why anyone would have one. I suspect that many of those who are actively into gun control are people like this. I do not believe it is much of an exaggeration to say that such people are on another planet from the gun owners they seek to control. Neither side seems either willing or able to see the other’s point of view.

Although no one seems to know precisely how many guns there are in the U.S., I have seen figures that suggest 192 million guns, 65 million of which are handguns, and they are still being manufactured and sold. This suggest to me, even compels me, to believe that any attempt to “take away our guns” will be a completely lost cause. It seems to me it would be totally impractical to try to register all of these guns, many of which are illegal to begin with, and the resistance on the part of gun owners would be immense. It would be just another case of prohibition that could not conceivably work. The prohibition on alcohol was a dismal failure, the prohibition of marijuana is a dismal failure, and the attempted prohibition of guns would be the same. At best it would result in converting millions of U.S. citizens into criminals, would create an enormous black market, and would simply fail. Thus when I hear these claims of a Federal ban on guns I simply shake my head and say it will never happen. This does not mean that I think all attempts in all places to place some controls on guns are misguided.

LKBIQ:
I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.
C. S. Lewis

Without Fidel - book

Without Fidel A Death Foretold in Miami, Havana, and Washington, by Ann Louise Bardach (Scribners, N.Y., 2009).

Ann Louise Bardach is an award-winning investigative journalist who has covered Cuba and Cuban politics for almost twenty years. In this fine book she offers an analysis of the long slow dying of Fidel Castro, the presence of the new President, Fidel’s brother, Raul Castro, and what this might mean for the future of Cuba and Cuban-American relations.

The book is divided into three major sections: The Long Dying, The Fidel Obsession, and Raul’s Reign. For those interested in the ailments afflicting Fidel Castro you will find them described here in some detail. I, for one, was surprised to learn that contrary to the rumors, he has not been suffering from cancer, but, rather, from a very severe problem of diverticulitis, complicated by repeated surgeries, not all of them entirely successful. And also contrary to some rumors, he is not dead, and, although not in good health, remains very much in charge despite now being in the background. In this first part of the book Bardach also gives a detailed account of the Castro families. You would have to have a much more profound interest in this family history than I do to truly appreciate it. I am quite content to know only that Fidel’s father, Angel, emigrated to Cuba from Spain, and by a great deal of hard work and talent managed to become a large and wealthy landowner. This allowed his children to have a fine education although they were not what would be considered upper-class Cubans. I also learned that Fidel, twice-married, has some eleven children, at least five of them from affairs with other women, and that this is apparently not at all unusual in Cuba. His father also had children in this way as does his brother Raul, although not as many. There are genealogies of both families provided, if you are sufficiently motivated to trace all of the family members, where they are and what they are doing. In this same section of the book there is discussion of the history of the “empire,” and considerable detail about Fidel’s illness and treatment, as well as information about his relationship with Hugo Chavez and others.

Part two continues a historical account of the revolution, the executions and defections, but then deals mostly with Fidel’s many enemies, including the Bush family, and more particularly with Avila Bosch and Luis Posada, responsible for the bombing of a Cuban plane and the deaths of all aboard. Bardach has been much involved with this investigation, there is no question of who was guilty, but there should be an investigation of the Bush families involvement and their protection of these murderous terrorists who now roam free with their passionate hatred of the Castro brothers. Indeed, the involvement of ex-President Bush and his father before him in Cuban affairs was much more involved than I suspected and is responsible for our failure to establish other than hostile relations with that nation. Their hypocrisy when it comes to the treatment of terrorists is quite apparent.

Part three deals primarily with the ascendancy of Raul now that his big brother is incapacitated but not out of the picture by any means. It also deals with the hardships Cuba has had to endure after the Russian collapse and withdrawal of aid. It seems that Raul is quite aware that Cuba must change if it is to survive, but most of his attempts to change have been rejected by Fidel. This is not to say Raul has changed his mind about communism or how to run Cuba, only to say that he has made at least some steps in the direction of reform. Although Raul might wish to instigate certain changes he still defers to his big brother, and no doubt will continue to do so until Fidel finally dies. It is clear that some progress is being made in Cuban/American relations now that Obama and Raul are Presidents, in spite of Fidel’s overriding influence. But as Raul is only four years younger than Fidel, and as virtually all of the major players in Cuban politics are elderly, the book might have been better titled “Without Raul.”

Without Fidel is a finely detailed, complex, and, I believe, a fairly objective account of the history and potential future of this island nation situated in the shadow of the larger and potentially aggressive United States. Bardach does an interesting job of describing the problems as well as the different personalities of the players. There is the intellectually inclined, flamboyant and garrulous, proud and arrogant Fidel, somewhat humorless, well read, brilliant, and opinionated, contrasted with the more poorly educated but intelligent Raul (who dropped out of the university because of lack of interest), who does not like the spotlight, making speeches, and is quiet and much more family oriented, as well as communistic (Fidel was never trusted by the communist party because he was too independent and unpredictable). Where Fidel governed by force of personality, Raul will govern through the military (where he has spent his entire career), and the communist party apparatus that has now become strengthened, and he appears to be in control of both of these institutions. It also seems clear that the U.S. has shot itself in the foot when it comes to Cuba and they will quite likely get by with good relations with other countries such as Venezuela, China, and others while we may be shut out of their new-found oil fields, their beginning to burgeon tourist industry, and so on. It is not my impression that Bardach set out to deliberately portray the Bush administration in such an unflattering portrait, but that’s the way they appear. And there is little doubt in my mind that the Bush administration created the conditions that kept the U.S. and Cuba from making any forward progress whatsoever for all these many years. An interesting insight into Fidel Castro’s pride is the fact that in fifty years he has never once cashed one of the rent checks the U.S. sends for Guantanamo. He also glories in the fact that he lives on in spite of his enemies and their wishes for his demise. I think Bardach should be commended for producing such a well-balanced and reasonably objective account of this up-until-now intractable situation.

What is Newsworthy?

Mozambique goat owner demands
traditional dowry from two men
who had sex with his goat.

I think we need to give more consideration to what is “news.” Here is the definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

1 a : a report of recent events b : previously unknown information c : something having a specified influence or effect 2 a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast b : matter that is newsworthy3 : newscast

I believe it is fair to say that by this definition anything, anything at all, is considered news. I guess this is why our 24/7 news channels so often offer us things like car chases, house fires, domestic disputes, celebrity misfortunes, divorces, snowstorms, marriages, and human interest stories in general. I guess these things are “news,” in the sense of “reports of recent events,” sometimes even “previously unknown information,” or “materials reported in a newspaper.” The question in my mind, however, is, are they always “matter that is newsworthy?” I confess I do not often think so. Now I would certainly agree that a terrible earthquake in Haiti, and an 8.8 earthquake in Chile are truly news, and also newsworthy, but are they sufficiently newsworthy to occupy news channels for twelve or more hours at a time? I do not wish to be considered unconcerned or uncaring, but really, after the initial announcements could they not move on to other news and periodically return to the earthquakes? Do we need to have a running account of each and every additional death, every collapsing building, the history of earthquakes in that region of the world, comparisons with other earthquakes that may have once happened? Perhaps I am wrong, but it does seem to me that the MSM uses these events to actually keep us from hearing any other real newsworthy news that must be happening somewhere else. I am certain there must be enough newsworthy events going on around the world to keep the news media gainfully employed without having to dwell on one or two stories for hours or even days on end. The fact is, or so it seems, they do not really deal in the newsworthy because that would cost them money. That is, it must be much less expensive to just tune in to one story than to employ reporters to gather news from around the world. Thus, in effect, we do not truly get news in any meaningful sense, we only get what is being reported from the latest hot spot, so to speak.

Related to this dismal situation is the fact that there seems to be no news worth reporting from around the world (except for earthquakes) on Saturdays or Sundays. It can’t be that nothing happens anywhere that is newsworthy on weekends, but, rather, because the U.S. tends not to work on weekends it is assumed that the rest of the world also does the same. So…when the U.S. shuts down for the weekend so apparently does everyone else. My idle mind does not, however, and I find myself thinking about little things of no real consequence. Why, for example, should turkey wings be more expensive than drumsticks? This makes no sense to me. Why is it there are no .380 caliber revolvers, only semi-automatic pistols? Similarly, why are there no .38 caliber semi-automatic pistols (or, if there are, they must be exceedingly rare)? Why should a letter from Bonners Ferry to Vancouver, Canada cost .75 cents, when a letter from Bonners Ferry to New York (a much farther distance) cost only .44 cents? Why is a pork roast a roast, whereas a ham is baked? What might be done with all those unused spaces that often lead into rest rooms? Apparently they are designed to maximize privacy (it wouldn’t do for anyone to actually see into the rest room itself), so there is a sort of dead space, sometimes even a little room, between the entrance to the bathroom and the bathroom itself. We here in the U.S. do not utilize these spaces for anything. The French, however, being more practical, station someone in these spaces to hand out towels and cosmetics and things, for a small contribution, of course. Think how many of these spaces must exist in the U.S., and then think of all the jobs that might be created (they would probably have to be subsidized I guess). Why are there no medium or ordinary sized eggs? All I can ever find is Jumbo, extra-large, and large. Why are both children and goats referred to as “kids?” Why is a liquid cup not the same as a cup of anything else? Why…oh, never mind. I warned you. Why does an idle mind never stop?

LKBIQ:
Sigmund Freud was a half baked Viennese quack. Our literature, culture, and the films of Woody Allen would be better today if Freud had never written a word.
Ian Shoales

TILT:
Gene Sarazen made a rare double eagle with a 225 yard 4 wood shot to win the second Masters golf tournament, the shot “heard around the world.”

Who are the "Crazies?"

Woman and boyfriend
coax five-year-old daughter
into stealing woman’s purse.

I fear it is getting impossible these days to tell who is “crazy” (insane) and who is not. It is also difficult to understand what might be done about someone who is by all outward appearances crazy. I mean how far “off” does someone have to be these days to be regarded as crazy? Take an obvious case like Michele Bachmann. To me she is certifiably crazy. I think so because of many of the things she has said lead me to that conclusion. For example, would a sane person complain that our little children were going to be forced to learn about homosexuality and then try it? Or how about, if we took away the minimum wage we could have full employment? Or we have to wean people off Social Security and Medicare? I submit that in the context of our current situation in the U.S. these are basically crazy ideas. But maybe she isn’t really crazy, but “crazy like a fox,” and has some reason for acting the way she does that I just do not understand.
How about Delaware’s Bob Marshall who, like Pat Robertson, believes the Haiti tragedy was God’s punishment and that disabled children are the result of previous abortions? Or a previous Idaho Congressman who insisted that breast cancer was caused by abortions? Are these types crazy, merely ignorant, perhaps downright stupid, or what? Then there is Representative Trent Franks who recently claimed that Blacks were better off under slavery than they are now. Is this a result of his ignorance of slavery, or a result of his strong anti-abortion beliefs, or both? This seems to me a really crazy remark for a Representative to make. There is also Representative Dean Heller who says that unemployment benefits are creating “hoboes.” Does he really believe this or does he just want to refuse extending unemployment benefits for financial reasons, or what?

What about homophobes, like the recent want-to-be beauty queen who said the bible was quite clear on the problem, very black and white, and they should be put to death. Could she possibly be that uncaring and stupid or is she simply crazy? There are also those like Family Research Council President Tony Perkins who says homosexuality is a crime. I don’t know where this legal opinion comes from but from all we know about homosexuality nowadays it is a crazy belief. Of course there are many people who believe this, are they all crazy? Indeed, are people who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible insane? I suspect so, but of course that is merely my opinion. These bible-thumpers are among the worst. Think of Pat Robertson whose pronouncements on almost everything seem to me absolutely insane, but he is influential. How about people like Mike Huckabee, ex-Governor of Arkansas who announced when running for President he did not believe in evolution. I have two questions here, is someone in this day and age who does not believe in evolution crazy, and is someone crazy for admitting it while running for President. Did he believe this admission might actually get him votes?

Then there are those like Jim Bunning, who is currently single-handedly holding out against extending unemployment benefits for no ostensible reason and refusing to budge even at the requests of his 99 colleagues. How are we to account for this kind of behavior? There is also the outstandingly obtuse James Inhofe who, against a tidal wave of scientific opinion, insists that global warming is a myth. I should think this clearly insane except for the fact that he may be simply representing the oil industry and doing what he can to stop legislation on global warming. Even so, given the current context of the problem of global warming, it would seem a pretty crazy position to take and maintain.

I should not leave out the truly hard-core believers like the “birthers” or the John Birch society people. It is surely crazy to keep insisting Obama show his birth certificate when it has been shown and is available on the internet. It is also crazy to assume that the State of Hawaii and a lot of others must have conspired when Obama was born to make him President by faking a birth certificate. But, hey, here we are dealing with real crazies, like the Birchers who claimed that even President Eisenhower was a communist. Some of Glenn Beck’s ravings are pretty clearly crazy, but he apparently has quite an audience. So is he really crazy or just busy making a lot of money, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and others of that ilk.

My point here is not that all these people are necessarily crazy, but, rather, it is unfortunately impossible to tell whether they are or not. We seem to have reached a point in our political affairs where it is no longer possible to determine whether someone is crazy or not. And if someone, like Bachmann, for example, really is crazy, what might be done about it? Of course the people of Minnesota might vote her out of office eventually, but what if they do not? When the behavior of public figures runs the gamut from stupid, to ignorant, to devious, to mercenary, dishonest, absurd, and preposterous, how and where does one draw the line? What disturbs me even more is, how do these people get elected in the first place? You have to take a test to get a driver’s license, and often to get a job, but there is no test of any kind for fitness for public office. Maybe there should at least be some kind of interview for candidates for office, perhaps the Supreme Court Justices or other courts could be charged with this duty. Oh, I forgot, half of them are bonkers themselves. Sigh!

LKBIQ:
It does no harm just once in a while to acknowledge that the whole country isn't in flames, that there are people in the country besides politicians, entertainers, and criminals.
Charles Kuralt

TILT:
Billie Holliday was born Elinor Harris and nicknamed “Lady Day.” She was arrested for drug possession even as she lay dying on a hospital bed.

A "Wash?"

Utah woman blindfolds husband,
promises him a surprise, hits
him on the head with hammer.

Happily I was not able to watch the Health Care Summit today as I was called out of town. It’s just as well because the first few minutes I saw before I left caused me to turn it off. Tonight I watched a few excerpts that only reinforced my opinion that it would go exactly nowhere. After all the discussion, all the talk, all the political maneuvering, all the hot air, the facts remain essentially the same. Republicans (1) do not want Obama to succeed at anything, (2) they do not want universal health care, and (3) I doubt very much that most of them even understand the problem of health care for ordinary Americans. They started off with a chorus of “this should be scrapped and we should start over,” that was obviously a strategy they had agreed on beforehand and they all used essentially the same phrase as if reciting a mantra. The ex-mayor of San Francisco, the brilliant Willie Brown, described this as childish. He’s right, it was. When it was obvious (it was obvious even before they started) this plea would go nowhere, they shifted to more particular remarks, as if the goal of the summit was to review all 1200 plus pages then and there, picking out individual points to object to (and generally lie about). Of course much of their objection had to do with their paranoid claim they had not been consulted, even though Obama pointed out that many of their points were actually included in the plan. Then they whined about reconciliation, as if such a thing had never occurred before. Harry Reid soon shut them up on that point. A Senator from Wyoming made a real fool of himself by obviously failing to understand the difference between himself, with a salary of $176,000 a year, plus health care, and an ordinary citizen with an income of $40,000 a year. He seemed to think they might both have an account they could draw upon in case of emergencies. John Boehner made the usual ass of himself towards the end by trying to argue that we cannot afford health insurance for everyone, we have the finest health care system in the world, and the American people (again) have rejected this plan. Republicans do not hesitate to speak for the American people even when the polls indicate the opposite of what they claim.

Anyway, the day was a wash. Obviously I am biased, but I truly believe that even objectively viewed, the Republicans came across as the obstructionists they have consistently become. It was said once or twice there are philosophical differences between the two parties. There certainly are. Democrats tend t o think health care is a right, Republicans think it is a privilege, and as they are the privileged, why should they care about anyone else. This is consistent with what they believe in general, we’ve got ours, so screw you, you lower-class, stupid, wage-earning scum, drink your six-pack a week and shut up and do your work, if you can find any (they don’t believe in minimum wages, unions, welfare, social security, Medicaid and Medicare, education, public transportation, and probably even public rest rooms, but they do apparently believe in permanent war, torture, war profiteering, assassinations, my country right or wrong, white male superiority, profits, fur coats, apple pie, and the bible). They are, in short, jingoistic, anti-humanitarian, capitalistic, imperialistic, racist war mongers, who feel entitled to rule the world by force of arms.

I am fighting against a slight tinge of optimism. It appears that Democrats are finally beginning to stand up for something, Obama is apparently finally realizing the hopelessness of trying to convince Republicans, at least some form of health care reform might be passed, there is beginning to be real pressure to do something about the terrible situation in Gaza, I think something at least semi-positive may be going on in Afghanistan, "Don’t ask, Don’t tell" may finally go, women are about to be allowed to serve on submarines, Sarah Palin is revealing herself more incompetent and uninformed every day, along with the tea-baggers, and Spring may be early this year. Things are not all bad, they just tend to seem that way, probably a hangover from the nightmare years just passed. When I tell everyone to “Be of Good Cheer,” I almost believe it. Perhaps hope is coming back to Mudville.

LKBIQ:
“The Rich always win.”
Linda Langness

TILT:
Papa Byrd’s Bistro has been redecorated.

Empire?

Wisconsin man tours
Real Estate open houses
to steal women’s panties.

I confess to not being a fan of Pat Buchanan. After all, he is a Republican and that in itself is enough to put me off. But I must also confess that on some of the most important issues facing us I agree with him. Today, for example, on Anti-War.com, he has an article suggesting that we should abandon our empire. I agree with him entirely on this issue. It is absurd that we should have somewhere between 760 and 1000 bases spread out over some 148 countries and a defense/military/pentagon budget that is at least one trillion dollars a year. Think how quickly we could eliminate our debt, rebuild our infrastructure, provide health care and education for all, if we did not continue to bear this unnecessary burden. As Buchanan says, why should we be borrowing money from other countries to protect other countries? An excellent question, which raises another one in my mind, what on earth are we protecting them from? Presumably, when all this began, we were supposedly protecting them from communism (Russia). That was in the days when Russia was rivaling us as a superpower and we were so paranoid about communism taking over the world we started trying to build and secure what is now nothing less than a kind of semi-secret empire. It is well past time for this nonsensical empire to be disbanded and for us to admit we can no longer afford it and do not, in fact, need it. But what American President would be strong enough to try to change this unfortunate situation. Remember Churchill gave up power rather than “preside over the break-up of the British Empire,” and I feel somehow that is the way all of our Presidents will feel about abandoning our “empire.” Perhaps fiscal reality will eventually overcome this resistance and the empire will crumble anyway.

Of course one of the reasons I imagine will keep us trying to maintain our empire, and more importantly, our related military/industrial/political complex, has to do with the serious matter of unemployment. What, for example, would we do with the hundreds of thousands of military and support personnel? If we were to just throw them on the market, what with our 10% (actually greater) unemployment situation it would certainly make matters much worse. This raises again the question of “peak employment” I raised previously. That is, there just are not enough jobs to provide a job for everyone, and thus we have this problem of surplus populations. But why do we have surplus populations? I suppose one could argue there are just too many people, we are overpopulated, and therefore there cannot be enough jobs. I don’t believe this is the root cause of the problem. The real problem, I think, has to do with a combination of technological growth and ideology, at least in the United States. Our economy, along with our political system and most other of our institutions, is based upon the idea of a capitalistic society operating a (supposedly) free-market economy. Basically this means that our economy operates to generate profits. Profit is the goal. But what if we had a society in which the goal was full employment rather than simply profit? What if businesses and corporations were awarded for providing (decent) jobs rather than making a profit? Could there then be enough decent jobs for everyone? Probably not, because with our modern technology, human labor (energy) is not so vitally required to manufacture our products and grow our food as it used to be. In order for human energy to be put back into the equation we would have to give up our worship of efficiency and the economics of scale. Technology would have to be geared towards taking advantage of human energy once again. This would, of course, be difficult, and I have no doubt there would great resistance against the idea of having to sacrifice technological sophistication for jobs. But if the goal of society was to provide jobs rather than simply generate profits, would that not be a good thing? This reminds me of quite a few years back when a couple of people argued that the amount of energy expanded by a society was a measure of “civilization” (or “progress,” I guess). That is, the more energy consumed, the greater the sophistication and progress of a culture. I thought at the time this was rather a foolish belief and I suggested that perhaps cultures should more properly be ranked according to how much they could produce with the least amount of energy. Needless to say, this was not regarded as a serious approach to being “civilized.” I guess we might say the problem has to do with what to do with human energy, of which there seems to be a genuine surplus. The energy expended by humans used to be used for productive purposes: hunting and gathering, plowing and harvesting, processing plants and animals, gathering firewood and making clothes, and so on and on. Now all that energy is disbursed by using treadmills, jogging, weightlifting, sports, and such. I wonder sometimes how many treadmills are going at this moment, and how might all that energy be put to more useful and productive tasks? But those days are gone forever, along with the jobs.

LKBIQ:
The modern age has been characterized by a Promethean spirit, a restless energy that preys on speed records and shortcuts, unmindful of the past, uncaring of the future, existing only for the moment and the quick fix. The earthly rhythms that characterize a more pastoral way of life have been shunted aside to make room for the fast track of an urbanized existence. Lost in a sea of perpetual technological transition, modern man and woman find themselves increasingly alienated from the ecological choreography of the planet.
Jeremy Rifkin

TILT:
The controlled use of fire probably began somewhere around 400,000 years ago (I think).

Peer Pressure?

Teen arrested for damage
when his diamond belt buckle
gouges floor while break dancing.

The more I think about John Yoo’s flawed and pathetic legal advice to Bush/Cheney, the madder and more outraged I become. This was not merely a case of “bad judgment,” it was so unbelievably awful it actually makes bad judgment look virtuous. In effect, Yoo’s decision about torture, unlimited and absolute Presidential power, implies that when it comes to human affairs there is no law, no morality, and no justice of any kind. So much for the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution, habeas corpus, the Nuremberg trials, and International law, all irrelevant, swept away by a sycophantic ass-kissing puppy of a lawyer trying to please his master. The greatest achievements of human law and jurisprudence become meaningless if a single individual has the power to override them at will. This is a decision so monstrous in its implications for human societies it goes beyond even the absurd. And who is the most pleased person who actually boasts it was this decision that gave him the legal justification he needed for torture and war crimes, why none other than the most evil and sadistic monster in American history, Dick (the Slimy) Cheney. The fact that there are still those who apparently revere Cheney and still listen to him demonstrates just how sick some members of our society have become, even ignoring the fact that he has been wrong about everything. Similarly, I find it almost impossible to believe that John Yoo continues to be a Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley (of all places). These legal charlatans and Bush/Cheney cannot be allowed to get away with their abominable behavior. To do so will be an admission for all the world to see that the United States of America is not a nation of laws but, rather, a nation of evil greedy men willing to go to any lengths to preserve their power.

No public option? President Obama has released a document stating what he would like in a Health Care Bill. There is no public option. He has said previously, more than once, that he would like a public option. A majority of Americans in virtually every state in the union are in favor of and want a public option. The Democrats are poised to pass health care by reconciliation (51 votes) whether Republicans want it or not. So why is no public option included? As far as I can tell it’s because Democrats are a collection of the worst and most pathetic cowards on earth. Apparently the House says they would support a public option if the White House would, and the White House says they would support a public option if the House did, but neither one wants to lead the way. Now that’s what you call determination, the courage of your convictions, full speed ahead, our way or the highway, do or die, 54-40 or fight, Remember the Alamo, I regret I have only one life to give to my country, and blah, blah, blah. I suppose I would support a public option, if only because that would be better than nothing at all, but as far as I am concerned as long as the Insurance industry remains in on any deal it’s not going to be serious health care reform.

Apropros of nothing at all, I have been thinking about the phenomenon of “peer pressure.” I hear this quite often now, usually when someone is explaining why a child has gone wrong or at least done something wrong. This is usually defined as, and thought of as, your peers somehow coaching you, or encouraging you, or forcing you, or pressuring you somehow to do something you might not otherwise do. This is, I guess, a pretty good excuse for a young person doing something he/she should not have done, or would not have done, had it not been for this pressure from his/her peers. Based strictly on my own experiences I don’t think this is the way peer pressure actually works, at least not the way it worked in my case. While it is true that I did things my peers did, that we should not have been doing, I do not recall a single instance of being pressured by my companions into doing something. The pressure came from within myself. I wanted to do the things my friends were doing. No one gave me a cigarette and instructed me to smoke it (or I would be teased or beaten or anything). When I saw them smoking I wanted to smoke too. Similarly, no one ever forced me to drink beer, no one even offered me my first beer. I voluntarily chose a beer and drank it (and hated it at the time). But I was not going to let my friends think I was more well-behaved than they were. No one bullied or taunted me to go out and lose my virginity, I lost it because all my friends were losing theirs and I did not want to be outdone. I suspect no one really gives in to peer pressure unless they want to, although their wanting to is certainly related to what their peers are doing. I’m sure there are cases where kids are shamed into doing something by peer pressure, but I am equally sure the motivation in many cases is far more subtle than that. Peer pressure is similar to concepts like “stress,” and “depression,” and sometimes even “autism” or “schizophrenia,” that are used as explanations for behavior, but often explain nothing at all. Perhaps John Yoo could claim peer pressure, or better yet, that old favorite “the devil made me do it.” He certainly can’t claim any legal precedent.

LKBIQ:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams

TILT:
Sarah Palin is never going to be a candidate for President.

Another Gloomy Sunday

Colorado family and cryonics
company fight over possession
of deceased woman’s head.

It is Sunday again. I have no book review this week as I have been unable to find a recent book either in our Library or Book Store, and I have not been to Coeur d’Alene for a while. Such is life in the hinterlands. I decided to use this opportunity to showcase the recent collections to my hobby: “Collecting Sex Tips for Women as They Appear on Womens’ Magazine Covers.” I love this hobby and I like to believe I am the only one who pursues it so avidly. I was inspired by my visit to the supermarket today where I noticed the latest appropriate magazines had recently appeared.

Cosmopolitan is as usual probably the best source. Today I found “How to Touch Naked Men 16 Naughty Strokes That Will Send Him Over the Edge.” On the same cover was “The Love Lie that 52% of men Tell.” On the magazine, Self: “New Sex Trend: Bad Idea or Bedroom Bliss” (I confess to be actually tempted to read this but I did not falter from my policy of never reading any of these tips). Shape had “The Hot Sex Tip Women are Talking About,” Redbook produced, “Feel Sexier Tonight 21 Ways to Unleash Your Inner Vixen.” Finally, I thought Complete Woman might be this month’s winner: “Put the Oh in Orgasms, Deliciously Luscious Ways to Longer, More Explosive Bed-Rocking Orgasms.” It also offered “Sexy Scents That Seduce Any Man.” I realize I might learn a lot more if I actually ever read any of these tips, but at my age what would be the point?

On a serious note I am wondering if John Yoo is basically a psychopath. It is hard for me to think otherwise when I consider what he has actually done and said. First (presumably at the request of Bush/Cheney) he wrote memos authorizing torture, even though torture had long been prohibited under both American and International Law. If his memos were to be followed (which they apparently were) it meant the torture (and apparently in some cases even death) of a number of people (quite likely innocent people). That would seem bad enough. But when asked hypothetically if a President could order a child’s genitals to be crushed in front of his parents, he said he could. Given that he must have known torture was illegal in the first place this would seem completely outrageous. He has also claimed that a President could if necessary order an entire village of innocent people to be destroyed. Where could he have possibly come to this idea unless out of his tortured brain? His interpretations here apparently follow from his insistence that during wartime a President’s powers are absolute. This, however, requires a level of delusion above the ordinary, because it implies that laws simply do not exist, or at best exist only to be broken at the whim of a President. I say “a” President because if this were true of one President (or ruler of any kind) it would have to be also true of any President or ruler, which again would mean the absence of any recognized law. While it might be true that Presidents and rulers have indeed broken these laws in the past that does not mean such laws do not exist and have not been agreed to under the rules of warfare and such. Thus according to Yoo there is no point in outlawing the use of poison gas, rape, murder, theft, or any other crimes against humanity. We would still all be living according to the laws of the jungle. Perhaps this is what Yoo actually believes, but I doubt it. If he does believe it he is a psychopath and if he doesn’t believe it but authorized it anyway he is mentally deranged in some important way. Happily, the loony decision that he just made an error in judgment is not going to be the end of it, as the ACLU, Congress, and the Center for Constitutional Rights are not likely to accept that clearly flawed judgment.

On an even more serious (and depressing) note, let me quote for you the original lyrics for the song Gloomy Sunday:

It is autumn and the leaves are falling
All love has died on earth
The wind is weeping with sorrowful tears
My heart will never hope for a new spring again
My tears and my sorrows are all in vain
People are heartless, greedy and wicked…

Love has died!

The world has come to its end, hope has ceased to have a meaning
Cities are being wiped out, shrapnel is making music
Meadows area coloured red with human blood
There are dead people in the streets everywhere
I will say another quiet prayer.
People are sinners, Lord they make mistakes…

The World has ended!

This was written in 1933 by a Hungarian musician, Rezso Seress. It became known as the Hungarian Suicide Song. It was subsequently changed somewhat by others. The most famous version is that of Billie Holliday, in which the message is a much more personal reflection on the loss of a loved one. The song was banned by the BBC during WWII as being too depressing for the situation at the time. Seress himself committed suicide in 1978. I believe this original version is just as apt today as it was in 1933. Things change but often say the same.

LKBIQ:
Nobody ever committed suicide while reading a good book, but many have while trying to write one.
Robert Byrne

TILT:
The Olympics are no substitute for a good book.

Apologies to Fiedler

Saudi man gets 120 lashes
for having six wives,
two over the legal limit.

Come Back to the Tour Ag’in, Tiger Money (abject apologies to Leslie Fiedler). Tiger Woods finally spoke publicly about his transgressions. He admitted to being treated for “sex addiction,” said he was entirely to blame, apologized profusely to all concerned, and like a dutiful husband, praised his wife for her courage and bravery in the face of their difficulties and the paparazzi. He spoke for quite a long time and seemed to be sincere. What is one to make of this?
I certainly don’t go along with the sex addiction claim. Since when is a young, nice-looking, virile young man with a huge fortune and international celebrity status a “sex addict” for having had sex out of marriage with several young women? The cynic in me says this is bull pucky in the first degree. Having been caught, it was necessary for Tiger to perform some act of atonement. As he apparently doesn’t drink to excess or take dope to blame it on what is more appropriate than a sex addiction clinic. I wouldn’t be too surprised to learn if the clinic didn’t pay him for the publicity it will receive. And I strongly suspect the “therapy” consists of hitting practice balls and playing golf most of every day. Given Tiger’s status, probably most of the young women he comes in contact with are eager to jump in bed with him. And they can’t all have been bona fide “mistresses,” rather than one or two-nighters. I also suspect that many of his fellow professionals have had similar experiences, perhaps not as numerous or successful. To be as cynical as possible, I think Tiger may have wanted to say he enjoyed every minute of it and is sorry he got caught. But business is business and Tiger clearly knows how to make a buck.

It is said that Tiger’s apology even affected the stock market (probably the smart money rushing in to buy golf stocks). While Tiger’s endorsements may be curtailed (he still has some worth a lot of money, like Nike, for example), the PGA tour itself will no doubt benefit immensely when Tiger returns. And with his apology the stage is now set for his dramatic comeback. And unlike Mike Tyson and others who had to make themselves into villains to draw a crowd, Tiger is going to get the benefit of both those who want him to fail and those who want him to keep on winning, doubling the size of his audience and no doubt his paychecks as well. As far as the claim goes that he doesn’t fraternize with the others on the tour, that probably goes with being the best in the world. You don’t want to be too friendly to your rivals and lose any edge of intimidation or whatever. I haven’t seen any indication that Tiger is inherently anti-social, I think he just knows his business, and his business is winning golf tournaments. Perhaps he’s a bit arrogant, but that, too, probably comes with the turf. After all, if you’re the best golfer in the world (and quite likely the best ever), you are probably entitled to a bit of arrogance. It’s only when you fail to perform that you become humble. And coming from one who once threw his driver so far into a corn field he never found it, I forgive him for his moments of frustration and anger. Besides, he is hardly the only Pro golfer to have such moments (remember Terrible Tommy Bolt). And being perhaps the best known celebrity in the world, of course he wants and needs privacy.

Actually, I prefer to put my cynicism aside, and believe Tiger is entirely sincere in his apology and truly regrets his gross misbehavior. He’s a smart guy, and I believe probably basically a nice guy, I think he may well have been shocked by his discovery that he’s been acting like such a schmuck and wants to change and make amends. I’m sure he genuinely loves his wife and children. What saddens me is that this may well affect his career. His personal behavior seems not to have importantly affected his career up until now, but now he will no doubt be a greater target than before for every cheap shot and unanswered question that can only distract and potentially affect his performance. Our ridiculous infotainment industry, insatiable when it comes to scandal, may consume him. Another career ruined by a man who can’t keep his pants on and women who can’t keep their legs crossed? Or ruined by scandal mongering tabloids that can’t keep their noses out of private lives, perhaps both? How sad. By the way, did you know your nation is teetering on the brink of disaster?

LKBIQ:

It is impossible to imagine Goethe or Beethoven being good at billiards or golf.
H. L. Mencken

TILT:
Curling is not a sport that commands my attention.