Thursday, November 30, 2006
My response to each of his points now follows:
You might recall that I advised that Jonathon should hold a nationally publicized drawing to pick his running mate from among the mass of common everyday Americans, as oppossed to picking the typical, double dealing politician.
The following response was the first of his "CORRECTIONS".
1) At this time, my VP Candidates are; Christine Todd-Whitman (R-NJ), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). I want a woman as VP. I am not taking applications with or without a fee!
You will do what I tell you to do, or you will lose.
Christina Todd Whitman? Just another mediocre, barely functional bureaucrat who can't begin to relate to normal people, wihout advisors and a focus group to tell her what to say and do. Just because they get lucky a few times here and there is insignificant.
Hillary Clinton? A cold, calculating bitch whose first order of business will be to completely shred the constitution, starting with the Bill Of Rights. A woman without a soul.
Elizabeth Dole? Come on now. I can understand why you might like the idea of Bill Clinton hanging around the White House, but do you really want Bob Dole roaming around? Won't the White House be scary enough with you running it?
Not that it matters, as they will refuse your invitation to be your running mate. A well publicized campaign to hold a drawing from among all Americans will raise money, publicity, and prove you are a man of the people who has faith in America and Americans.
Again, do what I said, or you will lose.
Well, you will still lose, but at least if you listen to me there's a slim chance you might draw enough votes to qualify for federal matching funds. Didn't think of that, did ya?
Of course, this was just the first of his "CORRECTIONS". The rest are as follows:
2) Spree and I were wed on; 4 Nov 06. I decided to turn her, after she asked me to. We did have a very romantic Wedding night, if you must know.
You are the one who advertised your wedding night goings on in your YahooGroup, I just relayed the message, in an effort to prove that you are a man who practices family values after your own fashion and are a man with a heart, love, and passion towards his chosen bride. Americans appreciate that and can relate to a candidate such as this.
All I want to know is-did you do this at the appropriate time of the month? Surely a true vampire would not be weak in the face of a gusher of opportunity.
Jonathon then went into a rant about Bush, which I take great exception to. Not because I like Bush-I do not-but because in a letter to his group members, he initimated that he considered there was a "Bush spy" in the group. When I read this next "CORRECTION", then, I was somewhat beside myself wondering if he considers this treacherous person to be myself.
He says here:
3) Bush while Governor of Texas stated he didn't recognize Wicca nor Paganism as a protected religion. Him and his cronies would burn Pagans, Wiccans, Witches, Vampyres and other Kins at the Stake if he could.
At least I will protect the Communities, and allow everyone to worship as they see fit!
No, Jonathon, I am not a spy for Bush, if that is what you are getting at. I am the real deal, a pagan, a Wiccan based Hellenic Pagan, to be exact. When you say, though, you will allow everyone to worship as they please, does that include Muslims? Going back on your campaign promises already, perhaps?
Then, as if the foregoing were not bad enough, Jonathon added insult to injury, and rubbed in a big batch of salt in the wound to boot, when he said:
4) I have an Attorney General already in mind for the position.
Well, I will have you know, MISTER Sharkey, I would have made the greatest Attorney General in the entire history of mankind. But now you've done it, bucko. I am no longer availiable. You've done gone and hurt my feelings.
Finally, Jonathon ended his uncalled for series of "CORRECTIONS" with the following advisory.
5) UNITY we better stand. Or if we're DIVIDED, we die!
Well, you had sure better be "UNITY" then when you and your "death dealers" make your trip to the Middle East to let all the leaders there know what's what, and what you have in store for them. I think you will have to count me out of that deal. I hate rigorous training to start out with, but if I were to engage in it, it would have to hold out the prospect of amounting to more than a suicide mission.
Like you, I get rather turned on at the sight of blood, under the proper circumstances, but the sight or even the thought of my own tends to make me rather squeamish.
I might however change my mind, I suppose. I'll let you know, probably after I walk alone in the middle of night to the most crime ridden black community in America in Ku Klux Klan regalia carrying a sign that says "Send All Niggers Back To Africa".
In other words, be sure and send some postcards.
He finally ended it with
Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey
And in so casually disregarding and disrespecting my well thought out, friendly advice, has doomed his candidacy for the highest office in the land to be nothing more than just another footnote in the history books.
And here I was looking forward to Samhain (Halloween) being an official legally declared Federal Holiday, along with all the Wiccan Sabbats. I held out hope that much as the President traditionally pardons the turkey for Thanksgiving, and presides over the lighting of the White House Christmas tree, he would also give the annual Halloween blessing of the spirits of the night, as the White House for that day and night is open to the public and transformed into the "National Haunted White House Of Horrors".
But Jonathon in his effort to prove he is just another politically correct politican, albeit one with an attitude, hasn't even touched on these important topics. He is too busy reaching out to the mainstream, dag nab it, even going so far as to admit that his candidate for Vice-President must pass a sexual litmus test. So there you have it. A vampyre that places affirmative action before all else. He wil go the route of all politicians, I am afraid, into the dust bin of history.
And the things that will doom his campaign are, ironically, a combination of two things-
The cross and sunlight.
As for me, I guess I'll find another candidate to throw my support behind, one who will appreciate my efforts and my talents.
Karl Rove and James Carville ain't got nothing on me.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Although the Eleusinain Mysteries have for the most part been forgotten, most people are at leas vaquely aware of the mythology they were based on, that of the abduction by Hades, Lord of the Underworld, of Persephone-also kown as Kore (Maiden)-who was the daughter of Zeus and his sister Demeter, the ancient grain goddess.
The way the story goes, one day Persephone, still a young maiden, was out and about wandering through a field of flowers, when suddenly she was abducted, taken by Hades to his underworld realm. While there, he fed her a number of pomegranite seeds, whereby she was from that point on forever bound to him and to his deark realm.
Demeter was distraught, and had no idea where her daughter had vanished to, or who had taken her, and in her state of extreme grief, wandered the earth searching for her. As she did so, she neglected her duties of maintaining the earths abundance, whereby the days became shorter, the nights longer and darker, and the earth grew ever colder, as all plant life began to die out.
Eventually, she came to the area of Eleusis (near Athens) where a young boy described to her the events he had seen, of the beautiful maiden being abducted by what appearred to be an invisible man driving a team of horses that sprang up from he ground, down into which he took the maiden that matched Persephnes description. Demeter knew immediately this was Hades, wearing his helmet of invisibility.
Demeter demanded action from Zeus, who after some wrangling made a deal with Hades. For one half of the year, Pesephone would remain in the Underworld with him, as his bride. For the other half, she would return to earth to dwell with her mother. Her time in the Underworld is generally perceived as beginning at the time fo the Autumn Equinox, and ending at the beginning of the Vernal Equinox, whereupon she returns to earth, ushering in the worlds renewed fertility.
This is a very powerful myth. It is powerful even today. What person does not recoil in horror at the thought of a child being abducted, raped, murdered? You naturally feel a sense of near uncontrollable outrage at such a perpetrator, and while you hope for the safe return of the victim, you fear and prepare for the worse. This is just taking into account the reactions from bystanders, and the world at large, it doesn't even begin to take into account the anquish of parents and extended family members.
Still, whatever power it holds to us now, is minor compared to the hold it had on people in ancient times. During the days when this myth was cconceived, about 1600-1500 B.C.E., it was standard proceedure for a couple to produce a large family. Extremely rare indeed would be the parent or parents who did not outlive one or more of their many children.
It was not the exception. It was the rule.
At one point in time, somebody seized on this theme and transposed it into a myth which tied it to the seasonal cycles of the earth. Whoever that person, or persons, was, has long since been lost to us, but they had to have been very inspired by then current events. Possibly it had something to do with the recent fall of the Minoan Empire, which would have thrown that part of the Medditteranean world into a prolonged state of chaos. Possibly this person, or these people, had personal experience in their own lives of thes matters, experiences of a deeply profound and unsettling nature.
Before the eventual onset of the Mychaenaean Era, and it's resultant return to stability and propserity, there would have been periods of brigandage and piracy, and doubtless raids that resulted in death, destruction, and enslavement of whole populations. Rape, was well, would have suddenly bcome commonplace.
The people of the area of Eleusis probably, like all of the Meditterranean world, were thrown into a long period of privation, famine, poverty, disease, and general uncertainty, and this myth would have held out the promise of a return to better times.
Just as the spring follows the winter, so too would the earth eventually return to peace and prosperity. Life would go on.
During the festival to celebrate the Eleusinian Mysteries, an interesting thing happenned somewhere at the point of the beginning of the processional pilgriamge from Athens to Eleusis. At some point along the road, the worshippers would all stop, and en masse suddenly would begin to engage in shouting obscenities.
With the passage of time, and the fading from memory of many of the ancient origins of the ritual, this was interpreted as being in remembrance of a goddess who inadverdently made Demeter laugh and so temporarily forget her sadness.
More than likely, this spot was in reality the scene of some tragic occurrence that was relevant to the overall mytholoy of the Mysteries. But again, it like so much else has long since been forgotten.
But everything has not been, fortunately. The young child who gave Demeter the information as to what happenned to her beloved daughter was rewarded by the Goddess. She taught him the original Mysteries of Eleusis- the rites of agriculture. Therefore, through him, the first farmer, mankind would be assurred of a method of growing food and therefore insuring their survival. He himself would trvel the earth and teach these mysteries to all the worlds inhabitants.
And there may have been other aspects as well, involving a kind of spiritual rejuvenation, an assurrance of survival into an afterlife, of an ongoing connection to a persons descendants, and possibly even the prospect of a future return to physical life by way of reincarnation.
After all, the physical world of earth is surely a reflection of the life cycles of all it's children. It is something that is certainly worth reflecting on at this time of the year. As we reflect on the past year through this winter, in anticipation of the earths return inthe spring to fertile abundance, will it as well bring us the promise of greater abundance and fertility in our own lives, both of a material, emotional, and spiritual nature? We can always hope for that. We can try, at least, to live it.
The portrait of Persephone pictured above is from the JackalGallery.
Friday, November 24, 2006
The First Amendment was recently dealt yet another devastating blow by the family, friends and supporters of the Goldmans and the Browns-in other words, by the collective pawns of the Trail Lawyers Association.
I won’t insult people by going into the details of the Brown-Goldman murders, as this should be unnecessary, plus, the way things are going, my blog will likely end up being censored.
As such, I will just cut right to the chase. O J Simpson is Not Guilty of the crimes of the brutal murders of his ex-wife, Nichole Brown Simpson, and of her “friend”, Ron Goldman.
I repeat-O J Simpson is Not Guilty.
Of course, he still might have killed them. But technically, he was found Not Guilty in a court of law. Therefore, Mr. Simpson has a constitutional right to speak openly and publicly about the murder, and to give his perspective about it. He has a right to say anything he wants to say about it.
And he should have the right to profit from any such statements, or utterrances, appearrances, or publications.
However, a travesty of justice has been perpetrated against the American justice system. A kind of perverse gang bang, if you will, perpetrated by both prosecutors and trial attorneys, that stands to benefit the both of them, and leave all the rest of us with a collective case of judicial syphyllis.
It’s a win-win situation for the trial attorneys. If one of their numbers is successful in getting a client off on charges of a crime or complicity thereof, somebody else can come along and screw him or her in civil court.
Prosecutors get the consolation prize, in the event that they fail to win a conviction, of knowing the accussed might well get the shaft in that same civil court.
This used to be called “Double Jeopardy”. But the system has been tweaked-i.e., fucked-as mainly a political calculation meant to soothe the anquish and rage of crime victims families.
Well, personally, I am interested in hearing what OJ Simpson has to say. Had I been given the opportunity, I think I could have gauged the level of his sincerity. If he had been deceptive, I think I could have seen through him. Here is one thing about O J Simpson that no one will dispute, including more than likely him and his most ardent supporters-he is a terrible fucking actor.
This makes me wonder if perhaps this is the thing that the Brown and Goldman families worry about the most, that Simpson might actualy convince enough people to call into question the propriety of the civil judgement they won against him.
It makes sense. As OJ himself pointed out in one of the few snippets to be shown on television of the interview that was pulled from Fox, how could a person kill two people in such a fashion without being covered in blood? Seen in this perspective, where did all that blood go, aside from a relatively minor amount that seemed to lead to his car and to his home. And could this even have been planted?
What about the gloves said to be worn by the killer, or by one of them? Why didn’t they fit OJ’s hands?
What is this about blood spatters presented as evidence turning out to have been previously tested in a crime lab? The potential explanation being that it may have been planted in the hopes of implicating Simpson. Though this has been denied, it has never been explained to my satisfaction.
What is all this about Nichole Simpsons’ alleged involvement with cocaine, with the concurrent possibility that she was killed by individuals involved in the Columbian drug cartels? Is it true that their signature method of execution is precisely the way these two were murdered?
Is it possile that the prosecutions shabby and unprofessional conduct in the Simpson trial was the result of a hurried aand ramshackle attempt to cover up and protect the cartel by making Simpson the scapegoat?
How was it that Goldman just happenned to coincidentally be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Did anybody seriously believe the official version, that he actually only knew Mrs. Simpson casually, yet went out of his way to return an item that she had left at the club they both frequented?
If this was true, and if Simpson really did set out to murder his estranged wife, why did he not wait until Goldman was gone? If he thought they were engaging in an affair, and he desired to murder the both of them in a jealous rage, why then did he not wait until they were both inside the home? Why take the chance of committing such a ghastly, gruesome, bloody crime outside, where it would be much more likely to have been seen and heard?
All he had to do was cut the telephone wires at a certain time, then brake in through a window. If he waitied until a certain time, he could have found a window they would have been unlikely to have heard breaking, then went on up and caught them in the act. They would have been in bed, naked, probably asleep or half way there-and totally at his mercy.
Of course, the answer to this will probably be that this brutal, enraged madman, bent on bloody double murder, to the point that he would have had to be criminally insane, didn’t want to take the chance of his kids seeing him do it.
I don’t believe a damn thing I’ve heard from either side concerning this case. Unfortunately, it’s beginning to seem as though the only version to be allowed any currency is the one officially sanctioned by the Goldmans and the Browns.
Oh well-the old
Celebrity, infidelity, lust, anger, violence, abuse, multiple murder, revenge, and money, all played out in a
Some people think OJ Simpson is destined for a special place in hell. I don’t know about all that, but he certainly does already have a special place in the American social gulag.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Eat that turkey, guys
I hope it's nice and plump and hot and tender
Followed up with a scrumptious dessert
Pumpkin pie, banana pudding, cranberries,
and, oh yes,
Thank the ladies in your life kindly
For that ravishing repast
Send the kids out to play a little touch football
Sit the grownups by the tube
Don't forget to give thanks for all your good fortune
By all means, help out a little
Spread those legs and baste that meat
Then, stuff that fucker good
Kudos to Sonya Belle
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Richards had promised the proprieters of the club that he would apologize the following night, but during his appearrance, he failed to do so. As a result, the club on it's web-site released this statement, which is temporarily on the homepage.
He has been roundly denounced by the media, including several fellow comedians, such as Michael Rodriquez, who habitually refers to Anglos as "gringos", and by assorted other black comedians who casually address whites as rednecks and crackers. All in good fun, of course. (Snark Alert).
One comedian who leapt to Richards defense was former co-star Jerry Seinfeld, who arranged an on air apology from Richards on the David letterman Show. Some have opined that this appearrance was a desperate attempt to protect the integrity of the Seinfeld franchise, as this show was through the majority of it's ten year run on NBC in the top ten, and was number one for the night of it's series finale in 1998. It is still a hit in syndication.
However, the real life Kenny Kramer, the personage on whom the character of Cosmo Kramer was based, was not happy and openly and roundly denounced Richards. It has even been sugested that the real Kramer might even sue Richards for endangering the "Kramer" franchise. In fact, Mr. Kramer has made a living off the role, capitalizing off it to the point that he demanded, and received, a monetary settlement from NBC for the use of the characters last name. He has parlayed this into a bus tour of the area of New York that is represented by the series, including the now famous restaurant run by the "soup nazi". Among other such endeavors, he now operates this website.
You have to love these people. Well, I do, because it proves the point I've been making for years, and will always believe, which is, racism is an inherit aspect of the human condition. It can be hidden, or disguised, for so long, but under the right circumstances, it will emerge. Maybe not to such a profound degree as in this remarkable instance, but it is there nonetheless.
Nor does it have to be taught. Yes, I am aware that a young child does not have a racist bone in his body. But just wait until puberty sets in, at which point, upon becomming more adult, more independent, and more agressive-and with more demands for resposnibility and acountability-people naturally tend to form alliances, and they naturally in doing so become attracted to those they most identify with. And nothing serves as a more solidly identifying characteristic than race. Because it is more than just appearrances, it is an outer reflection of, to an extent, what we are, and more importantly, what we perceive ourselves to be.
In other words, it is not racism that has to be taught, but just the oppossite. To use another example, I know intellectually that a womans worth is not to be determined by physical beauty. But that doesn't prevent men, and especially teenage boys, from being sexually attracted to certain feminine physical types. That is just the way it is. To try to pretend otherwise is not only unrealistic, it is quite frankly irresponsible.
The reason that men are more attracted to certain types of women, and women to certain types of men, has something to do with some innate drive to strengthen the human species, which frankly manifests as desire and even lust for the person who adroitly portrays the qualities that triggers this mechanism.
Along the same lines, this drive to survive and excel will lead races to naturally congregate with others of their own race. This was a phenomenon that manifested most vividly in the more ancient times, true, but it has never gone away. It has just become more civilized. Although it is taught as taboo, it is still there. And it will probably take one or two more millenium, at least, before it is completely eradicated, and when this comes about, it wil be due to passing through that appropriate evolutionary stage. It will not come about through "education".
In fact, by teaching the opposite of human nature as science fact, the proponents of racial tolerance are in fact achieving the oppossite of what they intend. They are encouraging people to deny their base human natures, out of the vain hopes that it will go away. As though countless millenia of evolutionary human nature can be vanquished in a matter of decades by a few courses of sensitivity training.
What happenned to Michael Richards is not that difficult to understand, viewed in context. Here is a man who has had nothing substantial in the way of creative opportunities since the closing of Seinfeld. He was passed over for the role of "Monk" - a role that was actually created for him - for actor Tony Shalhoub, on the grounds that he would not be accepted by audiences in the role. The series went on to become a breakaway hit for the USA Network.
He was given a series called "The Michael Richards Show", which was tailored for him as well, but network executives demanded the show be made into a more conventional situation comedy. It didn't even last a complete season.
Who knows how long he has been sufferring from depression and anxiety, how long he has tried to repress his feelings of worthlessness and anger, not only over these circumstances, but in other areas of his life throughout the entirety of it? Comedians, are after all masters of sublimation, and many have lived tumultous lives of neglect and abuse. In so many cases, this provides the fuel for their comedy which provides an acceptable outlet for their pain. But sometimes, that pain comes to the surface.
What happenned at the Laugh facotry can be summed up quite succinctly. Richards was in emotional pain, and was assaulted by a patron in a manner that hurt him the most. Richards lost it, and he lashed out, against this person whom he did not really know, in such a way that was subconscously geared to hurt him back, in the only way he could do against an unknown adversary.
I am not excusing it. I am trying to understand it, and explain it in the manner which in my opinion provides the most rational view. I know that I am in the minority viewpoint on this, and that most will insist that racism and prejudice is not natural. Well, you can deny it all you want. But until the matter is dealt with and seen clearly for what it is-a natural phenomen of the human evolutionary cycle - then it can not begin to be understood, or dealt with adequately, and thus the problem will never get any better than what it is now. Shame, and denial, will not make it go away.
Oh, by the way, in conclusion-Michael Richards did not cause this controversy by calling a black patron "The N Word"-
He called him a "Fucking Nigger".
Monday, November 20, 2006
This post is from unspoken request by way of SiteMeter, especially from some unknown reader, or readers, from the Seattle area who seems very interested in the search phrase "Nuns Fucking". Never one to pass up an opportunity, I did a little search of my own, and was amazed at what I found. I now present for the edification of my readers three sterling examples of why the Apostle Paul was full of shit, as was those priests who in about the eighth century or so decided to take him literally, when he said, and I paraphrase, "let a priest be a husband to one wife"
This one wife was interpreted as being, of course, not just one ordinary ol' human bride, but in fact the Catholic Church-the "Bride Of Christ". From this time forward, priests and bishops, in addition to monks and friars, were required to engage in vows of chastity, and swear not to marry.
Over the last few months, the results have become self-evident. Does anybody think this is a relatively recent phenomenon. I don't. Nor do I think it is entirely limited to cases of pedophilia. I never did. In fact, I knew a Priest who was said to have carried on an ongoing sexual relationship with one of the nuns in his docese. Because I do not know this for a fact, or becasue I don't have any proof, I will not mention any names.
But compared to what I have uncovered through the magic of Google, this little affair would have seemed quite innocent.
Take for example the case of Father Carmello Monteros, of Roccalumera, Sicily, a little town near Mesina. Though 70 years of age, he had engaged in a four year affair with 39 year old nun Sister Silvia Gomez De Sousa, who recently caught him in bed with another woman-a married woman-and was so outraged she set fire to his house, and then threatened him with a machete.
She was finally restrained by passers by and the house was saved. At her hearing, she was granted bail by Judge Antonio Gracobello, who probably had a slight degree of pity for the poor woman. Because of the lustful Father, to whom she was also a housekeeper, she had twice had to have an abortion.
That brings us to Oregon, where the Catholic Church has recently been named in a lawsuit by a woman who is seeking child support due to being impregnated by a Priest. The reaction of the Church to this lawsuit is most interesting. According to the article in Fact-Esque:
In 1994, then-Archbishop of Portland William Levada offered a simple answer for why the archdiocese shouldn't have been ordered to pay the costs of raising a child fathered by a church worker at a Portland, Ore., parish. In her relationship with Arturo Uribe, then a seminarian and now a Whittier priest, the child's mother had engaged "in unprotected intercourse … when [she] should have known that could result in pregnancy," the church maintained in its answer to the lawsuit.
Huh? So now the Church is suddenly an advocate of birth control?
Well, considering this story out of Ireland, it might be about time. According to Bishop Beckley, who is the founder of the Bethany Organization-for women who have been involved in sexual relationships with Priests-the common term for a Priests collar on the Emerald Isle is "bird catcher".
Beckely states that at least one out of ten Priests in Ireland have at one time or another betrayed their vows of celibacy by engaging in sexual relationships. He further alleges that if you include the total number of bakcsliding Preists, including those engaged in homosexual rlationships, the toal number of Priests that engage in on-going sexual relationships is something like forty percent.
As you might well imagine, Father Beckley is not looked on to kindly by the Catholic hierarchy.
But how I wonder do they justify all this? Let's see, they are the Representatives of Christ. They are married to the Church. So, if a female parishioner is a part of that "Body of Christ"-well, I guess it would only be adultery if she was a Baptist, Methodist, etc. Now, of course, they have to xplain the young boys, but I think I've got that figured out. It's called, when you openly pursue a policy whereby you don't allow your Priests to marry, just exactly what kind of person do you think you are going to attract to the Priesthood?
The answer, of course, is on the one hand, a bunch of people that don't take it seriously, and on the other hand, a bunch to whom it is irrelevant.
Kudos to TechnOrgasmic for the photo.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Jonathon Sharkey insists on his website that he is very serious indeed about his promised Presidential campaign in 2008, despite the fact that his previous run for the governorship of Minnessotta was earlier derailed. Of course, most people that are aware of this individual do not take him seriously. After all, he is a self described Satanic Vampyre and "Hecate Witch", and has vowed to, when elected President, impale all criminals, terrorists and enemies of America on the lawn of the White House, much after the fashion of Vlad "The Impaler" Tepes of Romania.
He promises to rule in the style of this Medieval Prince of Wallachia, upon whom was based the title character of Bram Stokers "Dracula", and has even taken to calling himself Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey. He also, much like Richard Nixon, has an enemies list of personal foes whom he has also vowed to impale upon becomming President. Included on this list is the Speedway Police of Indiana, and all other law enforcement agencies who abuse their positions of authority and prosecute the innocent. The streets will flow with their blood, promises Jonathon.
And to accomplish this goal, his main enforcement agency will not be the FBI or Secret Service, but instead, a group of fellow vampyres that he refers to as The Death Dealers.
Also among the promised targets are American Indians, promising to end their gravy train and make them pay taxes from their casino profits, like everybody else. After all, they did side with the British during the Revolution. No more special privileges for them, by gum.
Add to the list Islamic terrorists, as well as their allies and enablers, as Jonathon promises he will level Mecca with a series of hades bombs.
And of course, there is Mexico, which has raised Jonathon's ire not so much due to illegal immigration as for their treatment recently of Duanne "Mad Dog" Chapman. It was recently decided, by a federal judge, that Chapman should be turned over to Mexico for going into their territory and arresting Andrew Luster, the accussed rapist who had fled the country and sought refuge in Mexico. As Jonathon here makes it clear in his blog
"Additionally, I will have my special elite group of military trained soldiers, capture Mexico’s President, and bring him to The White House. I will torture him, and then Impale him for the entire world to see, what the consequents are if you wrongly imprison an American".
Nor is Jonathon a solitary practitioner of his dark arts. He has recently taken a wife, and has introduced the future First Lady to his fans and followers of his Yahoo group of which, yes, I am a member, and the link to which you can access by clicking on the title of this post. Here he describes their marriage night with all the childlike glee of a teenager describing his first sexual experience:
So there you have it, a Presidential candidate who believes in and practices family values, and doesn't just preach them. Face it, you aren't going to ever hear George and Laura go into any detail about their wedding night, are you? Or, thank God, Bill and Hillary.
Just tonight I sent Jonathonan an e-mail by way of his group in which I suggested that he announce a random drawing for his Vice-Presidential running mate. There would be a registration fee, which might well bring money into the campaign, in addition to added publicity, while making the point that Jonathon is a true man of the people, and has faith in the judgement of the average American citizen over and above that of the elitist corporatist politicians who are the usual candidates for important public office.
No word as of yet from him, though hopefully he will not consider my idea silly or innapropriate for a serious Presidential campaign.
Be that as it may, he is supposed to appear tomorrow on Troop Talk Radio
Personally, I'm calling dibs for Attorney General. There's a few people I wouldn't mind seeing impaled on the White House Lawn. Yeah, I know, I'm not really qualified, but I always say, the best way to learn is by doing.
Friday, November 17, 2006
The latest fiasco concerning the Democratic House members elections for leadership positions is bizarre beyond belief, and I think there is more to it than meets the eye. I mean, okay, I get it that Nancy Pelosi, who was elected Speaker of The House by unanimous vote of the Democratic members, felt she owed some loyalty to Jack Murtha, whom she supported for the postion of House Majority Leader, due to Murtha's earlier support of her for House Minority Leader in the 2001 elections.
I understand that there is some bad blood between Pelosi and Steney Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat, described as liberal to moderate, who won the election over Murtha by a vote of 149 to 86-by my estimate, roughly 63 per cent of the vote. This is due to the competition between the two of them for that same 2001 election.
I even somewhat understand Pelosi's position that Murtha's influence on Iraq policy was a huge contributing factor to the Democratic victory in this election, and was worthy of recognition, respect, and reward. I don't agree with that position, as I feel his influence was exaggerated in that regard-but I do understand the sentiment.
What I can't comprehend is why she would go to the extend that she did, actively lobbying for votes for Murtha, even allegedly threatening committee assignments of those members who did not accede to her wishes.
And the mystery of all mysteries-why was she herself rewarded for this over the top dictatorial attempt by being voted House Speaker by unanimous consent, especially when you consider that the voting is by secret ballot?
The only thing that isn't a mystery is the objectives of Jack Murtha. Murtha, the Vietnam veteran and war hero, long a military supporter and hawk, surprised the nation when he came out solidly against the Iraq war and demanded a complete withdrawal of American forces to different areas of the Middle East, and alleged that the war up to that point had become a disaster.
I suspected at the time he was jockeying for position, but I assummed he was looking toward the November 2008 Presidential elections, as a potential running mate of Hillary Clinton. Both had supported the war initially, and both then became vocal critics of the wars management. Of course, the problem is that Hillary has been a staunch advocate of victory before withdrawal.
Have we just now witnessed the true motivations of the Congressman from Pennslvania, a major leaderhship position in the Democratic House membership? Has it suddenly been revealed for all the world to see it, almost as soon as it revealed itself, shot down in flames?
You look at the accompanying photo of the newly elected Democratic leadership, along with Jack Murtha on the right, toward the back, and you tell me if that is a happy, gracous expression.
Looks like "total crap" to me.
But why would Nancy Pelosi have sanctioned and openly supported this run? Was it payback for having engineered or masterminded Murtha's change of position as regards the Iraq war? Had she been instrumental in convincing Murtha, and so felt it incumbent upon herself to reward this loyalty? Or was it something even more sinister?
Murtha did, after all, receive 86 votes. Half of those votes could have theoretically been enough to elect to the House Majority Leader position, Mr. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican who was elected by his party as the House Minority Leader. I know that is not likely. But not only is it not impossible, it would not be unprecedented for members of one party to vote for the candidate of the oppossition party for a leadership position.
Some might recall that this happenned fairly recently, when Jim Trafficante, the ethically challenged Democratic congressman from Ohio, supported the Republican House Leadership over his own party. It made no difference of course, but it was nevertheless a slap in the face to the Democratic Party that helped to serve notice to the potential of open rebellion. Had Murtha intimated at this potential among his supporters if he did not get the support he sought?
This is a man who came out solidly against the soldiers accussed-not convicted, mind you, but accussed-of atrocities in Iraq, declaring them guilty before there was ever a courts martial convened. This is a man who was investigated in the Abscam cases in his early career, though he seemed to have been too wiley to take the bait, though certainly expressing interest in the potential of the bribe offerred.
He has even gone on record publicly, on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, as considering any Ethics Reform legislation as being "total crap"-yet it is this Ethics Reform that has been the mainstay of Nancy Pelosis' Congressional career as of late. Still, she supported him in a move that was seen as a potentially serious political blunder insofar as her future potential effectiveness as the Leader of the Congressional Democrats and their agenda.
Is it possible that while she was publicly lobbying for Murtha, she was secretly going behind his back and urging support for Hoyer, away from the prying eyes of Murtha's obvious supporters? It does seem odd that Murtha seemed to think he had the votes locked up to become Majority Leader? Or was that, too, just Murtha's own delusions speaking, hoping that if he said it enough, people would believe it, and jump on the train? In his case, the gravy train?
Even his statement that he was going back to his little subcommittee-which handles billions of dollars in defense contracts-seemed to be a veiled threat.
Well, the right man won the job, so as they say, it's time to move on. Or, put another way, time to flush the toilet. But, as total crap will sometimes do, the smell might linger for some time.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The true story of Jesse James is quite remarkable, and upon seeing the show of his life presented last night on the PBS show American Experience, I felt quite moved by it. Because James's life to an extent speaks to our own time, and to the peculiarities of American culture and legend.
He and his brother Frank were of course more than just outlaws, they were originally confederate guerillas during the civil war. They fought under the command of William Quantrill and took part in the massacre of Lawrence Kansas. They also fought under "bloody" Bill Anderson and saw action in the bloody Centralria massacre, in which they took part in the bloodiest imaginable atrocities involving torture and mutilation.
At this time, Jesse was about the age of fifteen or sixteen. Such was the nature of warfare in Missouri, however, that by the time he took part in this event, it was likely to have had little effect on him, as violence and bloodshed had been a regular part of his life for some two or three years, in fact throughout the war.
Of course, that war ended, upon which the confederates and their sympathizers found themselves on the outs. Their properties were taken in a great many cases by carpetbaggers, and they were denied the right to hold public office. Moreover, even though they were required to swear an oath of allegiance to the victorious Union, a great many of them were marked men. They were obliged to keep a low profile or risk beign murdered in retaliation for a great many of their former acions, or for the mere fact of association.
Missouri, you see, was not actually a confederate state, it had opted to remain in the Union. Yet, like Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, it remained a slave state. Therfore, though technically loyal to the Union, the slave holders found themselves targeted well before the war by the more radical Repulican abolitionists. The end of the war did not bring any true measure of peace, only Republican domination.
Jesse himself was shot after the war, and it was during a long period of recuperation that he became an outlaw. As such, he was, as he had been as a guerilla fighter, a cold blooded murderer in addition to being a thief.
But as fate would have it, he attracted the attention of of a Kansas City journalist by the name of John Newman Edwards, who was the man repsoonsible for the James brothers myths. He portrayed james as the protector of confederate virtues, and more importantly, as a confederate avenger, who himself had been wronged and was just acting in a need to protect his own rights as a wronged Missourrian, harrassed by the forces of the Union occupation forces.
James played up to this, and in a good many of his train roberries, refused to rob the passengers on the trains, limiting himself to the money in the safes being transported by the banks. The banks and the railoads were seen as the villainous agents of the North by the people in Missouri, and increasingly throughout the West, South and Midwest. Jesse had many safehouses in Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and other places, where he could count on being hidden and protected.
Eventually, things gradually started to change in Missouri. Democrats, who had previously been denied the right to vote or hold office, regained these rights, and so started electing people to the state legislature. Eventually, they elected Governor James Crittenden to the statehouse.
Far from viewing Jesse James as a hero, however, they got into office largely by promising to end the reign of lawlessness which they themselves had helped inspire, and create. It was the beginning of the end for James, who found himself being hunted and hounded in earnest, more and more bereft of places of refuge and support by the people. He tried to retire quietly under an alias, as did his brother frank, but he found this impossible. Some bad investments and an unfortunate gambling habit led to his return to a life of crime, one that did not enjoy the degree of success as his earlier one did. His old gang, the James Younger gang, had all been either killed, incarcerated, or retired into anonymity, and he found himself relying on confederates who did not have the requisite level of skill or devotion, nor trustworthiness.
Acting on a secret agreement forged with Crittenden, Jesse James was betrayed and assassinated by Bob Ford. Ford was immediately pardoned by Crittenden. Jesse's brother Frank, along with cousin and former partner Cole Younger, retired under aliases, eventually touring in WIld West shows. Cole Younger wrote a book of his life.
But it was Jesse who became the legendary Robin Hood character, and that legend has continued, even up to today. For example, the James Younger Homepage portrays James in a positive light.
He has also been hero, anti-hero, and villain, of several movies. In the nineten sixties, he even had his own tv series, The Legend Of Jesse James, which starred, as Jesse, Christopher Jones, a James Dean incarnation of sorts, and as Frank, Allen Case, a former singer and co-star, with Henry Fonda, of a fifties Western "The Deputy".
It lasted for one season only and was criticized as glamorizing the life of crime. The legend was finally starting to wear thin. Still, it persists to this day, to a degree. And it is easy to see why. Jesse James as a youth doubltess had to have been affected by the turbulent times in which he lived, the bloodshed he saw and participated in, and the outright brutality to which he was subjected after the war, when he felt as though his world had come to an end, and he would likely face a lifetime of persecution for his role in events. Moreover, he saw himself as acting, from beginning to end, out of a need for self-preservation.
After the war, his worse fears seemed to be coming to fruition, and all the warnings and advice he had received seemed to be prophetic in nature. How could he do anything but live the life he lead? The fact that he received adulation, respect, and admiration, not only in his own little area of Missourri, but to an extent throughout the nation, must have endowed him with something like a messianic character and outlook.
Yet, when the Democrats regained power, these very people that he had helped to regain that power in Missouri, then turned on him, in the most devious, underhanded, and cowardly fashion. Jesse James had played his part in American history. He was now expendable. And so, he was conveniently eliminated.
Seems like there might well be a lesson in there somewhere.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Be advised that the following post contains definite spoilers mixed in with what amounts to my own guesswork about the upcoming next three episodes of "Prison Break", the Fox Network series that airs on Monday nights at 8:00 p.m. est. Following these next three episodes, the series is due to go on hiatus until sometime next spring.
But man, do these next three episodes ever promise to be a doozy. For one thing, we get to see Michael Scoffield (Wentworth Miller) display an unusual quantity of emotion as he starts to feel the weight of all the guilt for all he has inadverdently done in order to spring his wrongly convicted brother Lincoln Burrows (Dominic Purcell) from Fox River Prison, where he had been due to be executed for the murder of the brother of the Vice-President, and now President Reynolds (Patricia Wettig).
Among all these misgivings is the guilt he feels for the death of David "Tweener" Apolskis (Lane Garrisson), who was gunned down in cold blood by Special Agent Alexander Mahone (William Fichtner), who it turns out all along is not only a psycopathic killer in his own right, but is actually in leaque with the company and working under the direction of Agent Kellerman (Paul Adelstein), who, in tonights episode, is going to abduct Michaels lady love, Dr Sara Tancredi (Sara Wayne Callies), and subject her to an intense amount of torture and interrogation in order to get her to reveal what she knows about the whereabouts of Scoffield.
The problems he has already caused Sara is the main reason for the guilt Scoffield feels, as he caused her to lose her job at Fox River, return to being a junkie, almost caused her to be murdered, and caused her father, former Illinois Governor Tancredi, to be murdered as well.
Then, there's Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell (Robert Knepper), the head of a vicous prison gang of white supremacists, and convicted pedophile, kidnapper, rapist, and murderer, who horned in on the prison break once he inadverdently discovered the plans. Now, Michael blames himself for this creature being out on the streets. And, as if to rub salt in the wounds, T-Bag also abscounded with the five million dollars which had been buried under a silo in Toole Utah by now dead con Charles Westmoreland (Muse Watson), in reality famed skyjacker D.B. Cooper.
Michael had counted on this money as instrumental in helping him and Lincoln, along with Lincolns son LJ (Marshall Allman), escaping to fredom in Panama. But in the course of working with fellow convict Sucre (Amaurie Nulasco) to insure T-Bag was denied a part of the cash, T-Bag turned the tables and ended up with all the money.
But not for long. He was traced by ex-Fox River Prison guards Brad Bellick (Wade WIlliams, pictured above), and Roy Geary (Matt DeCaro), to the home of Susan Hollander, T-Bags ex-girlfriend who was actually the one who had turned him in upon seeing his face on an episode of America's Most Wanted. Unfortunately for him, by the time he made it to her old home in Tribune, Kansas, where he had promised her he would not forget what her front porch steps looked like, he discovered that Susan is inarguably the most intelligent of all the characters yet portrayed on this tense, gritty drama-she had long since abscounded.
Instead, he was greeted by Bellick and Geary, who knocked him out, tied him up, and began to tortued him in order to discover the whereabouts of the five million dollars. They started out by playing a tape, at full blast, of the old pop song, "Walking On Sunshine". This would be bad enough, but this seems to have been a device meant to drown out the agonized screams from the con when the real physical torture began, consisting of ripping out the sutures from his recently reattached left hand, and then pounding it with a meat tenderizer.
When they discovered the key to the bus station locker where the money was stored, T-Bag grabbed it and swallowed it, whereupon he was later submitted to prune juice, sliders, and chewing tobacco, ultimately culminating in a case of the runs over a commode with a strainer inserted. Geary was then made by Bellick to retrieve the key.
After leaving T-Bag reattached to a radiator by his bad left hand with duct tape, Bellick then taunted T-Bag as he called 911, as T-Bag finally started begging for mercy. The two guards turned bounty hunters proceeded to the bus station, whereupon Geary knocked Bellick out with the meat tenderizer and took off with the loot.
Of course, T-Bag will escape from the house, and in all likelhook will accomplsih this by ripping off his hand. That much is easy to figure out. What is also easy to figure out is that Roy Geary will soon be written off the show, either killed by T-Bag, or by-and here comes one of the spoilers-by one of the strippers which it seems he is going to hire.
Whether by T-Bag or by the stripper, he most certainly will end up dead, and in another bit of spoiler information, Bellick will be blamed for the murder. After all, there was really no reason for the two of them to ever be working together. Geary was bitter over loosing his job at Fox River, and in a hearing after the prison escape, gave information about Bellick which caused the former chief CO to lose his job as well. Following a fight in the following episode, they decided to bury the hatchet and work together as bounty hunters in order to get the reward offerred for the escaped cons. It was only later, after they learned of the five million dollars, that they adjusted their plans.
So, it seems that Bellick will indeed be going back to Fox River, but not as a guard, where he had a reputation as a brutal abuser of the prisoner population-but as himself a prisoner. Naturally, he will not be fondly regarded by the cons he used to abuse, and in another bit of spoiler information, by the time the series resumes in the spring, it seems as though Bellick will be targeted by one of the black cons who wants him as his bitch. Bellick beats the hell out of this con, whereupon he is targeted for death.
As for T-Bag, in another bit of spoiler information, he takes up the search for the missing Susan Hollander, either by enlisting the aid of a postal worker, or by disguising himself as one. And here's another bit of spoiler information you won't read anywhere else, at least I haven't, it's just an inadverdent disovery I made by researching the cast listings.
And that is, the role has been cast for the father of Gracie Hollander, who is Susans daughter. I neglected to write down the name, but there it is. You read it first here. This seems to suggest that either the two have gotten back together, or that T-Bag will abduct Gracie, and perhaps kill the father, who is unnammed as of yet in the cast credits, or whatever, but the obvious implication is that the Hollander family will figure in the shows plot when it returns in the spring.
I doubt that T-Bag retrieves the money, even if he is the one who kills Geary. As Geary dies after ordering strippers, I surmise that one of these strippers is Michaels wife Nika, a Russian immigant whom he hired to marry him prior to arranging for his incarceration at Fox River, and with whom he is now on the outs, due to jealousy over Michaels love for Tancredi. I am guessing here, that she ends up with the money next, and will then use this as leverage in order to force her will on Scoffield.
Whatever the case, it seems that Bellick is not the only one due for a return to Fox River. So is Scoffield and brother Lincoln Burrows, who are due to be captured sometime in the next three episodes.
However, Kellerman and Mahone will determine that they will not make it back to Fox River alive. Mahone has been brought into the picture exclusively by The Company in order to kill them both, as well as all the other cons, on the off chance that they might have learned something about the government agencies attempts to frame Burrows for the murder of the Presidents brother.
All of which leads me to wonder if maybe Bellick will be targeted for the same reason, when it is learned that he has engaged in the torture of one of the priosners, it will be surmissed that he too might have learned something he shouldn't know.
As for the other cons, Sucre will make it to the plane arranged for Michael by the mysterious Coyote, whom he betrays (by giving him sugar water in retun for the plane instead of the promised viles of nitroglycerin) and who then tries to kill him in return. He is determined, despite the turbulence he is said to encounter on the plane, to make it to Mexico to reunite with his beloved Maricruz, who I am thinking will end up being killed by an insanely jealous and enraged Hector (Kurt Caceres) , who was left by Maricruz at the altar, and who has learned of her trip to Mexico with her sister, a trip that was meant to be the honeymoon that he had paid for.
And then there's C-Note (Rockmond Dunbar), who is due to get into a great deal of trouble in the next weeks episode when he ventures out in public due to some necessity, though it's unclear what it is.
No word as of yet as to whether Charles "Haywire" Potashik (Silas Weir Mitchell) will appear in these next three episodes, but the last we saw of him, he had made friends with a dog with whom he was explaining his plans to go to Holland and build his own windmill. Yep, he's crazy, sufferring from a neuroanatomic lesion which afflicts him with profound insomnia, in additon to being schizo-affective with bi-polar tendencies. For now, he is funny, and even goofy . The longer he goes without sleep or medication, however, the crazier and crazier you can count on him becomming.
You have to love this show, which requires such a suspension of disbelief, but you get so tied into the characters, the acting, the writing, the production values, the dialoque, the drama, and the suspense- you really don't care, for example, that one of them might well have been sent to prison for stealing Mr. Scotty's teleportation machine from Star Trek. As a character can be in one part of the country and can seemingly end up in just the right place at just the right time, in a matter of minutes, well into a different state, and once or twice halfway across the country.
Or that one characters phone calls can be monitored, while another seems to be able to call with impunity. For that matter, the fact that in the first season, prisoners could seemingly call anywhere from a public phone in the prison yard without moderation.
Or that any prisoner can be so focused, so intense, that he can draw up such a comprehensive set of plans for an escape from prison, have them coded in a full body tatoo, and carry them through to such effect that, even if something goes wrong, one of the backup plans is sure to make up for it. Of course, there is an explanation for this aspect of Scoffields drive and abilities, one that might well afford an explanation for the manifestation of certain kinds of psychic abilites. Scoffield is sufferring from an ailment known as low latent inhibition.
The nail-biting, pulse-punding, nerve wracking excitement of the show, however, more than makes up for it's many flaws, which are insignificant by comparison. Me, I can't wait to see what happens tonight. No matter what you think you have figured out, you never really know.
I'm still expecting in the back of my mind for this seasons promised "biggest surprise" to be the return of mob boss John Abruzzi (Peter Stormare) who was killed by Mahone in this seasons episode four, killed by a hail of bullets in the doorway of a motel where he had been lured in the hopes of finally killing the despised mob informant Fibbonnacci.
Yeah, I know, that kind of thing is just totally unrealistic. But like I said, this is Prison Break. Who cares about realism anyway? Surrealism is so much more fun.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
A writer can write, a reporter can report, a protestor can bitch and raise holy hell and a preacher can preach hell fire and brimstone-or love and forgiveness-but without the soldier willing to lay down his life and limb in the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary, it's all an impossible dream. It is the soldier, in fact, that makes all that, and everything else, possible.
In honoring our soldiers on Veterans Day, though, one simple fact escapes most people. It is actually honoring ourselves when we do this, for it is done with an assumption that we all might one day have something worthwhile to contribute in return in a free and democratic society.
Back in the days of the old monarchies, a patriotic soldier layed down life and limb in the service of his sovereign lord, the king or queen. It was in the kings honor that the soldier did so. In many cases, it was for the church, or some similarly powerful, elite ruling entity.
Now, in our country, it is for us, the citizens of our country, we who are the true sovereigns of our nation-not the President, not the Congress, not the judiciary-that he does so. At least, that is the way it is suppossed to be.
That is a hell of a responsibility to live up to, and we should all strive to be worthy of it.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Rick Santorum took one of those ass "thumpins" the President referred to in his most recent Press Conference, and if someone had predicted that to me two years ago, I would have said, "no way".
It's still hard to believe. Santorum was the man I would have been willing to put money on would have been a sure fire bet to be the next Vice-President of the United States, under a Giulliani-Santorum ticket. They would have been unbeatable, I reasoned. They would probably have taken New York from Hillary, and definitely from any other Democratic nominee, and would have taken Pennsylvania as well.
I don't know why, but Santorum had that kind of working class conservative appeal and Christian conservative sincerity that would have provided the perfect balance for Rudi, who is viewed with suspicion by most conservative Christians. Together, they would have swept the independents, the Reagan Democrats, and in the end, the vast majority of Republicans.
So much for that. But why did it happen? Why did the man who once had such bright prospects end up losing to Bob Cassey in his run for re-election to the US Senate by a margin of 59% to 41%?
Well, his standing as the third ranking GOP Senator didn't help, his association with the President didn't help, and in the long run, his faith didn't help. In fact, he started to appear less and less devout and faithful, and more and more sanctimonious and hypocritical. By the time the voting began, it became obvious that he didn't have a parayer.
Terri Schiavo was the beginning of the end. He was one of the most openly vociferous advocates of intervention in a specially conferred legislative session, to which even the President took the time out from one of his many long vacations to attend, the purpose of which was to craft a law that would "permit" the courts to revisit her case.
Santorum himself went the extra mile of attending Schiavos bedside. Me, personally, I have no problem with that. At least he went to see for himself, though of course the case could be made that this was mainly a publicity stunt. At any rate, he was of course unqualified to make a reasonable diagnosis, but he did anyway. He should have just been content with the photo-op and kept his mouth shut, but sometimes the spirit leads you to talk in tonques. Sometimes it just leads you to talk like a fucking imbecile. Sometimes, it's hard to tell the difference. Not the case here.
But the overal effect of this episode was that it showed the Senate and Congress-and President-for the pandering chumps that they are. Out of all the members of the House of Representatives, only fifty-five of them voted against this nonsense, which passed the Senate by a unanimous voice vote. Shameful. And Rick Santorum, unfortunately for him, became the poster boy for the Senate Republicans as regards this affair.
The House Republican equivalent here would probably have been Tom DeLay, with his veiled threats against the judiciary. Well, if you are judged by the company you keep-
And speaking of the Democrats, they played this shamefully as well, but any honest person would have to admit, they played it smart. They knew if they obected, they would have been painted as godless lovers of death going into this election. They are anyway, but it would have been the face above that would have been thrown at them. By keeping thier distance they avoided this.
It is to their credit they didn't overplay the Schiavo affair, but they didn't really have to. The voters remembered. They remembered in Pensylvania. No, that wasn't the only thing. There were the things I mentioned, along with the support for the Iraq War,which Santorum seemed to have been trying to distance himself from in the closing weeks by suggesting it might be appropriate to change course by adjusting strategies without withdrawing. But it wasn't good enough.
Santorum was also remembered and widely criticized in addition for his stance on Intelligent Design, going so far as to propose that the Presidents "Faith Based Initiatives" program include funding and support for the teaching in public schools of the controversy between proponents of evolution and those of intelligent design as a scientific explanation for the formation, or creation, of the universe.
By and large, Santorum through all these controversies came to be seen as a fundamentalist religous whacko who wanted to impose his beliefs on the public by way of government, and on the other hand as just another congressional shill for the Bush Administration. That was fine when Bush was popular. Not so good now that he is not.
H should have seen all that coming somewhere down the road, or at least he should have understood the potential, but not only did he not, he continually ignored the warning signs until it was way too late.
So much for intelligent design. So much for blind faith.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
You tell me, out of the following list, which state does not belong:
Missouri, Minnessota, Maryland, Massachusetts, California.
Ah, I know you're guessing California, right? It's the only one that doesn't start with an "M", right?
BRRAAAWWWWKKKK! Wrong answer.
The correct response is, of course, Missouri. Why? Because of course, in the realm of politics, Missouri is the only one of the states listed above that is not a blue state, but is generally considered dependably and solidly red. It is the only state listed above that did not vote for Al Gore in 2000 nor did it vote for John Kerry in 2004, again unlike the others listed.
It is even one of the states that came out in the 2004 election solidly against gay marriage and in favor of a constitutional amendment to describe marriage as being between a man and a woman. In doing so, it increased the margin of Republican victory in that years Presidential election by bringing to the polls voters who might to some extent have stayed home otherwise.
Missouri is about as red as it gets. Certainly not the most red. It might well be in the top ten, though.
Still, Democrat Claire McCaskill managed to not only beat incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent for the Senate seat, therefore helping to guarantee what looks to be now a Democratic Senate majority, but she actually did it quite handily, by getting something like 53% of the vote.
Here is another statistic that should really chill the Republicans soul-McCaskill isn't really a conservative, she's a-gasp-left of center moderate. A left of center moderate Democrat is, of course, according to most Republicans, a wild eyed liberal. And I'm really giving her the benefit of the doubt here, as I really don't know that much about her, except that she pretty much tows the Democratic Party line on immigration issues.
She certainly isn't as conservative as Virginia's Jim Webb, or Mr. Buzz Cutt from Montana, maybe not even as conservtive as Harold Ford Jr. I would put her more along the lines of Sherwood Brown of Ohio.
So how did she win? Well, she won because people are tired of Republicans in general and Bush in partiular. Still, she shouldn't have won by this big a majority. Not in Missouri. For that, you can thank Mr. Blowhard pictured above courtesy of Brad Trent.
America has spoken loud and clearly about one issue in particular. Americans want EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and they want government funding of said research. I put that in all caps for the simple reason that many Republicans tried to adopt the disingenous stance that they were actually in favor of stem cell research, that any Democratic claims to the contrary was a lie.
They should have known better than to try that line of shit in Missouri, but they did, and it resulted in their asses being handed to them. Rush Limbaugh, meanwhile, increased the margin of victory by at least one or two percentage points by suddenly becomming the face of the national Republican Party. The face of a fat, drug addled, self-righteous blowhard, and worse-a bully, something that most Americans do not like, and especially despise when the bullying is directed at someone who is perceived as being gravely ill, as in the case of Michael J. Fox, who campaigned for McCaskill.
For one thing, Fox has the right to campaign for anybody he damned well pleases, and should be able to do so without being belittled, mocked, or otherwise denigrated. It's one thing to speak in opposition to someone. But Rush Limbagh could not be content with delivering a thoughtful response in opposition. He had to engage in childish, sophomoric behavior meant to make Fox look both foolish, and like a liar.
And because he thought it would work, and because he thought it would get some laughs, get this-HE FILMED HIS FUCKING RADIO SHOW WHERE HE DID THIS VILE SHIT! Now, you tell me, why do you film a radio show? A radio show should be heard, and not seen. But Limbaugh just had to make sure he got as many laughs as possible at the expense of a man who is suffering from one of the most debilitating diseases known to man by imitating his spastic uncontrollable movements which is a result of the Parkinsons Disease Fox was diagnosed with in the early 1990's.
You can hear him calling Fox a liar, by suggesting that he either exaggerated his movements in campaign ads, or purposely meglected to take his medication. But you can't hear him mocking him. That takes a visual aid.
What it all boils down to is, and I never thought I would ever say this, but the Democratic Party owes Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude. Because of his bullying and arrogance, the Democratic Party now holds the najority in the Senate for the first time in twelve years.
What is even more remarkable, according to Rufus over at Grad Student Madness, Limbaugh may have actually done this intentionally, albeit on some deep sub-conscous level. It seems that Limbaugh is supposedly relieved the Republicans lost, he is tired of carrying their water for them despite the betrayal of conservative ideals.
I tend to think, however,that he knew exaclty what he was doing, and meant to do it, and thought it would work. Unfortunately for him, most Americans are just not as shallow and mean spirited as Rush Limbaugh is, and assummed they were. Not in Missouri. Not this year.
I wonder what a person looks like when they willingly neglect to take their Oxycontin?
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Ted Haggard was an evangelical Christian of some reknown. The Senior Pastor of New Life Church, the President of The National Association of Evangelicals, and Founder of the Association of Life Giving Churches, this Oral Roberts University Graduate has been a major influence in Republican party politics, responsible for a great lot of the evangelical vote which went to Bush in the 2004 election. He is said to be a staunch supporter and advisor to the President. In fact, you might say that no Christian leader has had more influence with an American President since the days of Calvin Coolidge and John Stevenson-a former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
Now of course, the good Reverend Haggard has felt it incumbent upon himself to resign his position according to the by-laws of his church, as his credibility has now been called into question. It seems that a certain Mike Jones, an admitted gay male prostitute, has alleged a homosexual relationship with Haggard, over the course of a three year period, which continued on a regular basis about once a month or so. Drugs were also involved- methamphetamines, to be exact.
Haggard has admitted to this, though he insists that he threw the drugs away after acquiring them. He also insists that he did not have sex with that gay male prostitute-Mr. Jones-though he did in fact enjoy the services of a massage from the nimble and practiced fingers of the man who knew the good Reverend as "Art".
The trouble between the two seems to have been over the Reverends stated political oppossition to gay marriage, which is a state initiative on the ballot in Colorado this year. Mr. Jones considers the Reverends position to be the utmost in hypocrisy, doubtless considering the various other "positions" the Reverend has engaged in with Mr. Jones.
It would seem that Mr. Haggard does not take the Bible so literally as he once insisted to Richard Dawkins it should be taken in the latters documentary "The Root Of All Evil", in which Haggard excoriated Dawkins for referring to his children as "animals" (presumably due to Hawkins stated belief in evolution). If he did take it that literally, after all, would he-wellll, lie?
But to be fair, Mr. Haggard has done the right thing, in resigning his position. And in the spirit of understanding, I want to offer the good Reverend a chance at true happiness, in a religion I might go so far as to suggest would be actually more to his inclination, in the worship of a god that would be far more suited to fit his needs.
I am speaking here, of course, about the great god Priapus. Born of a torrid affair between Dionysius and Aphrodite, Priapus was cursed in the womb by Hera, who was disgusted at the adulterous relationship of his parents. And so, when he was born, he was short, fat, bald, and ugly as sin. And, to top it off, he was given a remarkably huge penis which was perpetually erect.
He had a small cult following in ancient Greece, consisting of temples which offerred healing in the form of sleep therapy. And so, men from all over Greece, when returning home would meet their wives anxous querries as to their time away with the response, "oh, I just rested, dear"
To which we might well now owe the origin of the oft repeated refrain, "well, let me sleep on it".
He was more widely popular in Rome, where he was considered the god of home gardens and domesticated animals. He was widely venerated in Pompeii and Herculaneum as a fertility god, where artwork has been discovered of the god, known for his pecuiar physical atributes.
Of course, he is worshipped still among pagans in the same ways he was worshipped in ancient Greece and Rome, but there is now a new modern twist to his worship among some specific cults, and it is these cults in partiucular where I feel the good Reverend Haggard might feel at home.
He might want to start his new initial studies here. But I have an idea that he might quickly find himself spending an even greater amount of time here at the Temple Of Cock, where he will doubtless find a great deal of spiritual inspiration.
In fact, he might find that his particular talents as a counselor and minister might be greatly appreciated here, where he can now practice them in concert with his other recently discovered gifts. He can now become whole. So you see, that old saying is true. There is a silver lining in every gray cloud.
Of course, it could just be a cum stain.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
ATTENTION GOOD PEOPLE OF CALIFORIA:
IF YOU VOTE FOR ME AS A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA I PROMISE TO PERSONALLY FUCK YOU IN THE ASS REAL HARD!
If I keep this post to the top of this blog for the next five days, mail a few thousand such announcements to random households in California, and make a few thousand similar calls to citizens of California-men and women-there's a pretty good chance the next election for the governorship of Califoria will end the following way-
First Place-Governor Arnold Swarzeneggar (Republican)
Second Place-Patrick Kelley (Write In Candidate)
Third Place-Phil Angelides (Democrat)
So what exactly did the unbelievably stupid John Kerry think he was going to accomplish to begin with by campaigning for Angelides, a man with as much hope of winning the governorship as Osama Bin Laden has of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?
More to the point, why did he make the unbelievably idiotic statement at a campaign appearrance for Angelides at a California school to the effect that if you worked hard in school and did well you would not have to worry about being stuck in Iraq?
I think he did the shit on purpose, to tell you the truth. Why? Well, take a look at the people that stand a good chance of being elected to the Senate this year. Most of the Democrats who have a chance to win these races are moderates. Take for example Bob Casey, the Democratic candidate from Pensylvania, some ten points ahead in a race to unseat incumbent Republican Rick Santorum.
Look at Harold Ford Jr. , another moderate who early in his campaign publicly and harshly criticized DNC Chairman Howard Dean for remarks which Ford claimed would drive a wedge between Democrats and the great mass of moderate voters whose support is essential in the winning of most elections, and certainly in national elections.
And there are other moderates, in such places as Montana and Virginia, moderates who are still liberal, or at least left of center, who have a good chance of unseating conservative Republican incumbents. Or they did, until maybe the last couple of days.
Unfortunately, the more liberal Democratic candidates will be less likely to be hurt by Kerrys remarks than such candidates as Casey and Ford and other such more moderate Democrats, who are running in areas where the voters are far more likely to tar them with the association with the likes of Kerry.
That's why I consider Kerry's remarks very suspicous. After all, the potential of a number of moderate Democratic Senators is a threat to more leftist leaning Democrats such as Kerry. They have the potential of moving the party more to the center. If that were to happen, the Democratic Party would become much more competitive nationally, but this would not be a good thing for the likes of Kerry. He would either have to be content to remain a backbencher with little power and influence when it comes to committee assingments, for example, or backing for another potential run for national office , or greater influence on party positions-or, he would have to himself moderate his position, and so look like just another opportunistic two faced politician, which of course we all pretty much know that already.
A large Democratic victory in this years Senate races based on the strength of more moderate candidates would be the death knell for the Kerrys of the party, and I think he just did his part to derail that potentiality. Of course, one good thing is, he has pretty much destroyed whatever slim chance he might have had to be the party's standard bearer in '08, which leaves me to believe that somebody has called in some markers and Kerry has sacrificed his chances in return for something.
Possibly the promise of some future lobbyist position with some liberal PAC, a position which would not be worth much if the party were moved toward the center.
I think a Casey victory in Pennsylvania scares Pro-Choice activists. It's one thing for Santorum to be Pro-Life. It's something all together different for Casey, who is also Pro-Life, to have an influence in the Democratic party, as a Senator. And the same goes for the other moderate Democratic candidates. This is more than just another off-year election. This is a war for control of the soul of the Democratic Party. And those old dinosaurs aren't going to go out without a fight.
Thanks to Liveshot for the picture.
Unfortunately, Tillman lost his life in Afghanistan as the result of a friendly fire incident which was for a short time inexcusably concealed by the top military brass. His brother Kevin, who joined with him and served also until later discharged early last year, has written this letter.
I don't agree with all the particulars of the letter. However, I do agree with a good part of it, and with the general spirit that it seeks to convey. Most importantly, regardless of whether I agree with any of it or not, he has won the right to be heard, and so I present the link to this letter. It is a scathing indictment of the current administrations policies. If anybody has earned the respect and the right to criticize this admiistration, it is cetainly Mr. Tillman.
Thanks to Living It Up In Lincoln County for providing the link.