Friday, March 30, 2007

Wackjobs Have Rights Too

I never thought I would ever see the day that I would defend the right of uber-bitch Rosie O'Donnell to be a stupid ass, but that's just what I'm doing here. She has now officially joined the ranks of British historian and holocaust denier David Irving and those two little Nazi muppets Lynx and Lamb Gaede, of Prussian Blue, as permanently enshrined members of The Pagan Temple's Twilight Zone. Why?

Submitted for your approval: Rosie O'Donnell, progressive gay feminist activist and child advocate, comedienne, and all around pain in the ass, has come out publicly on ABC's The View with the opinion that 9/11 might well be an inside job designed to ignite support for the "war on terror".

She has further stated that the current dilemna of the British navy and marines personnel, to wit being held hostage by their Iranian captors for supposedly entering Iranian territorial waters, might actually have been purposely set up by Britain to pave the way for an invasion of Iran by the US. We will invade Iran soon, as planned, she promises.

She has made it clear on her blog and on The View, the ABC morning show of which she is a co-hostess, that she is a stalwart Bush basher and is willing to believe the worse about the administration, even to the point that she is wiling to accuse them of potential complicity in the terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of 3000 Americans in one fell swoop.

I've all but torn my hair out in the past at the ignorance of these ridiculous conspiracy theories, but here I find myself on O'Donnell's side, not because I have suddenly and amazingly come to some mystical revelation that she and her conspiracy theory whackjob adherents are right after all, but-

Enter Bill O'Reilly, of Fox New's "The O'Reilly Factor". According to him, Rosie should be fired for perpetuating these conspiracy theories, for the crimes of supporting the government of Iran and standing against her own country, and for causing pain and suffering to the victims of the attacks and those who lost life and limb in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their families, etc.

Donald Trump of course chimed in saying he too believed O'Donnell should be fired, for pretty much all these same reasons, and presumably for being a fat ugly slob as well.

My response-Why do you hate America, Mr. Trump? Mr. O'Reilly, why do you hate freedumb?

As repugnant as I consider O'Donnell and many if not most of her views, including these reported here,she has as much a right to promote them as anyone has a right to promote any view. As some of O'Reilly's guests intimated to him on the subject, if O'Donnell is fired, it should be because Rosie's presence is demonstrated to have cost the program viewers. O'Reilly insists that it has, though I have heard other claims to the contrary. Perhaps that is why O'Reilly insists the ABC Network should take the step of firing her for her irresponsible behavior.

Sorry, but I consider that the proverbial slippery slope involving one of our most precious freedoms, the First Amendment right to free speech. Granted, it can be abused. You can't or are not supposed to incite violence, purposely engage in slander or libel, or engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for just some examples.

Taken one at a time-in Rosie's surreal world, it is the US and the Bush Administration who is inciting violence, she is trying to do her part to end it.

Slander and libel have to be proven to be purposefully engaged in, otherwise the onus is on Bush and the Administration to disprove the claims.

Actually the true onus is on the American people to recognize bullshit whackjob conspiracy theories when they hear them, but that's a different matter.

As for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, we are technically not at war with a country, but with a radical ideology. Iran may be our enemies in a sense, but not in the legally binding sense of declarations of war. Neither are we at war with Iraq or Afghanistan as those nations are legitimately defined. Until such time as O'Donnell gives verifiable aid and assistance to a specific individual or group of people that are known terrorists, therefore, she is pretty much in the clear.

True, O'Donnell's views might be legitimately viewed as traitorous-but she is not technically a traitor. Some might even hold forth the view that she is a patriot. The point is, when it gets to the point that activists and pundits can demand that a person be removed from their jobs for holding forth views they consider repugnant, where does it end?

Again, I come by this position honestly. I have watched with bemusement and amazement as it has been demanded that people be fired for, for example, stating that blacks are good at certain sports due to the way their ancestors were bred by former slave-owners. Makes sense to me, so why the fuss? Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, does it warrant a person being fired? Nope. Not in my opinion.

Neither should Michael Richards be continuosly tortured for his unfortunate use of "the N word" in a comedy performance. Neither should Mel Gibson be constantly derided for his drunken anti-Semitic tirade every time he is mentioned in public. Neither should an actor from the hit ABC drama "Grey's Anatomy" lose his job over his use of the slang word "faggot" (especially when he used it in the context of denying that he called another performer on the show that derogatory name).

And neither should Rosie O'Donnel be fired,despite the fact that she makes me want to see somebody just slap the living shit out of her sometimes. After all, she would be the first person to take the first opportunity to herself demand that somebody else be punished for saying something that she found offensive.

So yes, it's fine to get some satisfaction out of the prospect of the chickens coming home to roost. But the First Amendment is more important than Rosie O'Donnell,or any of the people I have mentioned in the context of this post.

To me, Rosie O'Donnell is a person with a lot of inner rage that seems to me to approach hatred. Just look at her long enough and you can see what I mean. She might hide it for awhile, but the woman oozes anger and rage all but seeps from her pores. Personally, I think she was molested as a child or teenager by a trusted family member or friend and never came to grips with it. That's one reason why she is so involved with children's issues, and yet, so far as I know, she stays relatively clear of child sex abuse issues. I might be wrong here, if so it would be understandable, as I don't watch Rosie O'Donnell enough to know in great detail what her positions all are. I do know she derided Michael Jackson from time to time, but shit, who hasn't?

Of course the question needs to be asked, why wouldn't she set an example and step forward? Well, remember, Rosie is perhaps most importantly known as a gay activist. For her to step forward and admit to being a victim of incest or some other form of sexual exploitation or molestation would invite questions as to the reasons for her sexuality. And the idea that some people might draw the conclusion that Rosie's lesbianism is based on such a serious psychological trauma as molestation would not be conducive to mainstreaming and acceptance of the gay lifestyle. That would be just too much for her to bear.

As a result, she keeps it hidden within, and the rage builds and builds, until it suddenly erupts, with more and more frequency as the more time passes, it seems. She seems to have a particularly hateful view of authority figures. Or maybe it's just conservative authority figures.

Of course, I could be just as wrong and off base on all this as Rosie is about 9/11, the current Iran hostage crisis, and, well, just about every issue she opens her mouth about. However, I have a right to express my views within reason, and so does she. Yes, I understand that she would probably not be as tolerant of my right to free speech as I am of hers, but what the hell? If ABC fires Rosie it should be solely for the reason that she is causing The Views ratings to go down the tube. No other reason is acceptable, and as such, and until such time, Rosie should stay put, though it would be nice were The View to give equal time to other viewpoints. Again, that's on them too.

So, I guess that's it. To paraphrase the words of the character Jim Halpert from the NBC hit comedy "The Office"-

Congratulations, Universe. You win.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

The Politics Of Silence

Barak Obama recently responded to a question about the North Carolina, Duke University, LaCrosse team rape case charges by asserting that Mike Nifong, the prosecutor of the case, should be investigated for a variety of alleged offenses, notably the purposeful withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence in the case. Obama said this in response to a question from the forums of Liestoppers, who have a blog which I have now placed on the blogroll. You can access the forums from the blog.

My question is, where the hell is John Edwards in this? He of all presidential candidates, democrat or republican, should be especially interested in the case developments as, after all, he is from North Carolina. I linked to his web-site and to his issues page here, which is amusingly short-half a screen of blank page.

Well, John, you could easily add to the volume of this page by simply stating that you are for equal justice and rights to legal representation for all Americans, black or white, rich or poor. Wouldn’t that fit in with your usual campaign schpiel about “Two Americas”?

You wouldn’t even have to specifically mention the Duke LaCrosse case. But, really, why wouldn’t you? You made your reputation and considerable wealth as a trial attorney in North Carolina, you grew up there, and you represented the interests of North Carolina-allegedly-in one term as a US Senator. When you ran for Vice-President on the Kerry-Edwards Democratic ticket in 2004, it was as a native son of North Carolina.

How hard can it be to say that Nifong should be investigated and if the charges of prosecutorial misconduct aimed at him turn out to be true, he should be disbarred and face criminal prosecution his own self? Was it perhaps because he was a supporter of yours in the past?

Cool. I want to rob my neighborhood bank. If I promise to donate ten percent of the proceeds to your campaign can I count on your friendship and support? Naw, I didn’t think so. So why don’t you just do the obviously sensible thing and lay your cards on the table? How hard can it be to just do the right thing?

In fact, why don’t any of the Democrats besides Obama speak up? Are they so afraid of losing the monolithic black vote in North Carolina that they are willing to shut up in the face of an obvious attempted miscarriage of justice in the form of an illicit prosecution of a group of innocent men on false charges of rape? After all, isn’t it obvious that Nifong got himself into trouble, when this charge was first made during the course of an election season, by pandering to his black base in Durham? Isn’t it equally obvious that the NAACP and other black activist groups, leaders, and supporters unfairly demanded this persecution of the white students for political reasons? Why pander to the likes of people like that?

Please explain to me, how does this make the Democrats any better than certain corrupt Republicans that always look out for the interests of their crooked (in some cases) rich friends and big business interests, regardless of the potentially harmful consequences and the innate unfairness of it all? No difference that I can tell.

Again, I have to stress that Obama does deserve some credit for his publicly stated stance in this matter. On the other hand, he is a black politician, and it must be considered that, in the bizzarro parallel universe of Democratic party politics, he being a black man is allowed to criticize blacks when they demand en masse the persecution of whites despite the lack of evidence. White politicians are not allowed to do so, in fact, they should either take the oppossite position, or shut the fuck up.

There are many reasons why Democrats on the national level rarely win elections in the South. Some of those reasons are good reasons, some are bad reasons. This would be an example of one of the good reasons. It should be John Edwards as a native North Carolinian who should lead the way here. It’s one thing to exhibit personal fortitude in the face of breast cancer, or political acumen in the removal of bloggers with a decidedly anti-Catholic bias. But those are the kinds of acts of courage that can hardly be considered controversial, they could even arguably be considered self-serving. A true act of courage is one that could conceivably cost support, such as a stand in this matter. But Edwards, like most Democrats, have pandered to their base for so long, perhaps a reversal from normal procedure in a controversy such as this is just too much to hope for.

Hat tip here goes to Sonia Belle, who doesn’t wear a hat, or anything else, with which to tip back. Her original post can be accessed by clicking the link which is in this post's title.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Dogs Are People Too

Want to know what I would pay good money to see? Well, see these two guys here? If the charges against Paul D. Pennington, top, and Larentay G. Bennett, bottom, are true as reported here, I would like to see them covered in raw meat and torn to pieces by pitt bulls. That would be mean, wouldn't it?

Like this, perhaps?

64 dogs confiscated, only to be euthanized, while these and four others, including Terry Kendrick, Jerry Pounds, and Cornelius Burnett-seemingly the ringleaders of a criminal gang that was busted in what has been described as a devastating blow-have been arrested and charged with a variety of offenses.

Amazingly, it took a consolidated effort and investigation by federal, Ohio State, and Dayton Ohio officials to make the raid on the warehouse, arrest the participants (the fight was just beginning) and confiscate all the dogs, from an area that included not only Dayton, but other areas as well, including Cincinnati.

People were paying to see these fights in the warehouse, and taking their families to watch. Their kids, even.

Luckily, dog-fighting is a felony offense in Ohio, but not in some other jurisdictions, in which case I am not in the least adverse to the prospect of a federal law mandating it as such nationwide.

I always said pitt bulls are friendly dogs, though naturally dangerous in certain situations (including around young children), and that the really mean ones are trained to be mean-brutally trained.

The story in this article about the female pitt bull wagging it's tail and licking the hand of an investigator before being taken to be euthanized was heart wrenching. She was missing a part of her jaw due to an earlier fight.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

The Pope And The Witch (And The Bitch)

I think I’ve come up with a master plan to achieve literary success, and it’s almost sure-fire. Just write a movie script, tv script, novel or play that is offensive-the more offensive the better-to Bill Donahue, the head of the Catholic Leaque. He’s sure to go on all the major news networks caterwauling like a little bitch, and you’ve got more publicity than you could possibly have imagined, for not one red dime.

That’s the way it seems, anyway. Just a couple of months ago, he went after little Dakota Fanning, of all people, for portraying a character who becomes a rape victim in a movie. He must not have raked in much in the way of contributions from that controversy, as it seemed to die out relatively quick. Now, he’s found another target-a school play, of all things (you would think catholic leaders would know better than to harass child stars and school play performances, but I guess some people just don’t have a sense of irony), called “The Pope And The Witch”.

Here is a very brief synopses of the play. The Pope in question is in a state of anxiety over an impending visit of a hundred thousand children from the third world. No, you wags, not because he doesn’t know possibly how he can ever secretly pick out the most attractive from such a large number in the middle of what will be a media circus. It’s because he thinks it’s all part of a leftist plot to embarrass the Catholic Church over it’s doctrinaire stance on birth control. These children are all from impoverished regions, and families, and they are soon to arrive in Saint Peter’s Square for an audience.

Sometime during the play, the Pope engages in a dialoque with an African shaman (the “witch” of the title), with whom I imagine he engages in a narrative exchange pertaining to wisdom, righteousness, and the responsibilities and consequences of power.

Yeah, it sounds kind of cheesy to me too, and if I had to wager money, I would be willing to bet the play is indeed somewhat anti-Catholic. Does that give Donahue the right to complain about the school’s production? Yes. Does it give him the right to issue a response? Yes.

Did it give him the right to demand the school stop production of the play, which was scheduled to be performed from March 1-9 at the University of Minnesota? No, in my opinion. Luckily, in what Donahue calls a "collapse of leadership" the school decided to go ahead with this example of what Donahue called "hate speech".

What Donahue and his cartel of supporters were attempting, obviously, was the censorship of a work of art that didn't meet their approval. And, thankfully, censorship lost, this time.

And I come at this position honestly as one who is totally opposed to all forms of censorship, save in the following cases- is the work in question slanderous/libelous? Does it encourage incitement to violence? Does it contain child pornography?

In the case of the play in question, the answers would seem to be no, no, and no. So there’s your answer, Bill Donahue-no dice.

So, how about my ideas?

BURN- A drama in which a group of early Christians plan out the burning of Rome in the days of Nero, and carry it out, resulting in the entire movement being persecuted.

So, would this be slanderous? A case could be made for that, I guess, but on the other hand, this is theoretically within the realm of possibility. In point of fact, this is actually what I honestly believe happened. Also, there are no living people that could be directly impacted by the accusation, of course, so no one would be unfairly maligned by such a theory( involving fictional characters), which again, is a most reasonable assumption to make. So, let Billy bitch, about this one and others, such as-

THE PROMISED LAND-A comedy in which a Catholic Priest, whose parish is in danger of shutting down, becomes involved with coyotes smuggling illegal immigrants into his parish in order to increase his flock, which becomes filled with drug smugglers and prostitutes, and gang members. His parish prospers due to the influx of illegal money but his conscience takes a hit-especially when he is investigated by the authorities-though he is encouraged by many of his superiors.

FATAL CHOICE-Yet another Catholic Priest, one involved in the Pro-Life movement, undergoes a crises of faith when he learns the Anti-Christ is soon to be born. He comes to suspect that the mother is a woman in his parish who is-yes, seeking an abortion.

And, finally-


Guess what this one is about? If you need a clue, put it this way: I have to be careful that it doesn’t cross over the line into the realm of matching my third criterion for acceptable censorship.

On the other hand, I’ll probably never write this one, or in fact any of these, I’ve got too many irons in the fire as it is. But just in case I change my mind, I will be counting on Billy Bud, Wailer, for all the publicity I need to make the debut of whichever one I might choose a resounding success.

Hat Tip To Renegade Eye, my cool communist friend who, if communism ever does take over, I hope is put in charge of all the Gulags.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Defending The Patriarchy

Alas, I am a troll, and my comments have been banned from a certain site due to their excessive trollishness. No, I won’t say who they are, however if you care to memorize the contents of this sites blogroll, you might be able to figure out who they are once they have been deleted from the list. Hurry though, it won’t be there much longer. Truthfully, this will hurt me much more than it will hurt them, judging from the relative larger number of comments per average post on their site than mine, but on the other hand, they never bothered to reciprocate my linkage, so maybe not. At least I got their attention momentarily.

So what is all this about? Well, they insist that the evil patriarchy should be demolished. I disagree. I think it should be reformed from within, assumming it needs to be reformed at all..

I also dare to hold that patriarchy has it’s beneficial components as well as it’s most obvious negative ones, and further that a “feminarchy” would (gasp) hold a comparable ratio of positive to negative aspects. As such, being male, I would remain entrenched in said patriarchy, other than working to reform it from within, though this would not be, as they wrongly assummed, from a privileged position.

And, selfish human being that I am, yes, I demand credit and appreciation for my efforts. This really gets to them for some reason, they seem to hold the position that you should do something because it is right, and expect no appreciation for that. Oh, I take that back, they modified that position. It depends on the quantity of work you do (are you willing to engage in unquestioning drone labor) or the quality (can you demagogue and lead said mindless drones to the new paradise of feminist domination, errrr, equality).

Otherwise, just being for something, donating a little time, money, and say, voting for the appropriate political candidate, such minor details as living by example, gets you not so much as a smidgen of respect. Yeah, try selling that to a skeptical to begin with public.

Anyway, I’m a troll, i.e., someone who doesn’t agree one hundred per cent with the party line and dares to question the validity of it’s observations and conclusions.

Well, ok, and also I guess because I related that “my bitch” had best not stand in the way of the tv screen when the game is on. Just bring on the cold cuts. Can I help it that I’ve got an edgy sense of humor? Actually, while I do have that, in reality I do not have a “bitch”.

I also don’t have a lot to do with the patriarchy. I have not personally benefited from it. According to them, you see, all males pretty much have benefited from it by just the obviousness of their male-ishness, though they later modified this position as well to denote that many men have not.

The patriarchy has been with us for some time, though. It was invented by the United States founding fathers, by way of their purposefully malicious bending of the words of the Bible, and then enshrined into the constitution. George Bush recently unveiled plans for a new cabinet department, the Department of Patriarchal Security.

I’m kidding. Actually patriarchy predates not only the US, it also predates Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Neo-Pagan/Wiccan mythology to the contrary, the ancient pagan cultures were patriarchal, for the most part. Their goddess cults pretty much not only defended it, they promoted it. Their goddesses were all good little girls who did what Daddy Zeus told them, unless they were shrewish bitches like wife Hera, or out and out sluts like Aphrodite. This example of course is the Graeco-Roman one, but all pagan cults pretty much toed the patriarchal line.

Women were bartered by their fathers as young girls to the proper mate (a scion of the wealthiest family the woman could be arranged to be married into). Women had no say, were considered their husband’s property, could be divorced at will, while men had the ultimate last word in all matters of both major and minor importance. Women may have ruled their children in some respects, but even here the man had the final say. Women could own no property, could not hold public office. While there have been notable examples of exceptions to these rules, by and large this was the reality of the ancient world. Women were chattel. Their lives and the quality thereof were dependant solely on first their fathers, and then their husbands, and finally, their sons if they were fortunate enough-or unfortunate enough-to survive their spouses.

And of course men have ruled since the days of recorded history, and so far as any available evidence attests, well before then.

Thing shave gotten better, though. There is a social evolution as well as any other kind, and patriarchy has fallen under the sway of mother nature as much as anything. And it will continue to do so. Thus the feminazis can continue to rail against it, will probably even make minor temporary progress from time to time, but for the most part theirs is an impotent rage with no real point.

Just, “look at me. I’m against the patriarchy, so I’m great and wise. If you are not against it you are a part of the problem so you are scum. But if you change your mind and are against it you still don’t get to be great and wise like I am.”

Oh, and of course, I almost forgot their other typical stance-

“Don’t criticize Muslims, you racist.”

Still, change will come in time, but it won’t be rushed, because it just won’t take if it is. And when it gets to the point that women are truly the equal of men in all things, women will probably still be bitching about their lot in life. And so will men. That is probably one thing that’s never gong to change on either side of the equation.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

What Would Gandhi Do?

I’m always hearing about how the left wing anti-war movement is always holding up Gandhi as an example of how the world should enact foreign policy, and how they themselves should set an example of how to protest against other policies that are not to their liking.

Evidently, to these people there is no set of problems anywhere, no matter how profound, grave, or complicated, that can’t be solved by peaceful protest. Gandhi himself seems to have felt this way. I have recently read that he even criticized the Allied nations for resisting Hitler in World War II. Worse, he even suggested that the Jews should not have tried to fight him, nor even should they have attempted to escape his atrocities. They should have just peacefully acquiesced to the savagery of the butcher’s gas chambers and ovens, and all the other horrors visited upon them by the Nazi regime.

If this was truly his position, that is most remarkable. What can you say? Try as I might, words fail me in providing a sufficient response to such profound naivety.

But I can still try. In fact, appropriately enough, I just can’t resist sharing with you a few-


How many Gandhis does it take to change a light?
A: One Gandhi can change a light, so long as it’s a dim bulb.

How many dicks does Gandhi have?
A: Gandhi only has one dick however he somehow manages to stick it in millions of asses at once.

How many peaceniks does it take to change Gandhis diaper?
A: Gandi can change his own diaper and you can kiss his ass.

How many Gandis does it take to fill a gas tank?
A: One Gandi can fill one gas tank of a medium sized car however it might take two for an SUV.

Why does Gandhi always smile so serenely?”
A: Because he’s a fucking idiot.

If Gandhi were to watch American Idol who would he vote for?
A: Who gives a shit?

How many Gandhis would it take to bring about permanent world peace?
A: Oh, as of right now, somewhere between seven and eight billion.

But wouldn’t the world be better off if a lot more people followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Yep, it would be especially great for the ones of us who don’t.

I have heard it said that Gandhi might be an avatar of some great Hindu god, like Vishnu. What do you think?
A: I think you’re fucking stupid.

I think you are just a mean, angry person. Why are you so hateful, why don’t you try to be more like Gandhi?
A: Gandhi this dick.

You are disgusting. If I make love to a man it will be a kind and considerate man like Gandhi. They are out there you know.
A: You got that right. They certainly are “out there”.

So would you consider learning more about Gandhi? Maybe you will see the light if you try.
A: Ok you win. I’m like Gandhi. Let’s fuck.

HaHa very funny. Do you think I’m a complete idiot?
A: Yes.

Well, you’re not so smart yourself mister. Gandhi won his country’s independence from the British through his policies of non-violent peaceful resistance. What do you think of that? Doesn’t that prove his way is right?
A: No, it just proves the British had turned into a bunch of wusses. Of course, they also pulled all their investments out after which India slid into abject poverty, but what the hell, who needs food and clothing and shelter?

But don’t you think there are more important things in the world than material things, things like love and compassion and tolerance?
A: Nope. Not when I’m starving to death anyway.

Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King is an example of a person that followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Nobody’s perfect.

But it worked, didn’t it?
A: Peaceful protest and striking against your own countries improper policies is one thing. That formula is unworkable in the arena of international relations, especially in cases of war. Taken to it’s logical extreme, if the country were invaded and everyone were to do nothing about it but “peacefully protest”, it would probably amount to national enslavement-or suicide.

But if people everywhere were to peacefully protest against the Iraq war, don’t you think it would work?
A: Yep, I think the Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Shi’ite death squads would be so fucking impressed they would lay down their arms tomorrow and make peace and want to help us all establish a worldwide international movement of peace and love.

Then if you know that why don’t you join the movement? Will you join us in protesting this evil war?
A: No thanks. I would prefer to agitate for a sensible long term solution. But it has to be a comprehensive, common sense solution, none of this pie in the sky wishful thinking.

But don’t you see that we are just fueling the insurgency by our presence. Don’t you think we should get out and make amends? War and fighting never accomplishes anything. Just ask yourself, WHAT WOULD GANDHI DO?
A: Oh, I don’t know. Establish, arm, and try to fund the Indian military, perhaps?

So are you saying Gandhi was a hypocrit? India is a democracy, you know. Maybe the Indian parliament did that and he couldn’t stop it, just like he couldn’t prevent the partition of India. It’s not his fault the people wouldn’t listen to him. But don’t you know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
A: Maybe in some cases, but it’s always nice to have that cure available regardless, just in case.

So, I see. You are a conservative wingnut, aren’t you?
A: Not at all. I might vote Republican the next election, however.

A: Hey, that hurt!!!

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Begging Your Pardon, Mr. President

The pardon the agents petition that is the subject of this post can be accessed by clicking on the post title, which contains the link to the site which is promoting the petition, which can be likewise accessed by a link at the upper right hand of that page. Also, a hat tip to Lemuel Calhoun of Hillbilly White Trash, who kindly posted the link on his blog at my request, as well as this one here which also goes into some detail as to the chain of events which lead to this controversy.

If you want a job where you are treated with respect, it seems the last thing you might want to consider is the life of a government employee, in at least some cases. And the lower you go down the totem pole, the worse off you are. You get about as much respect in some cases if you’re a burger flipper or 7/11 clerk. Of course, to see the idiot smiles on the faces of actors portraying clerks in tv commercials, you would think they live the life of reilly. Yeah, what do you want your daughter to bring home from Pizza Hut? A supreme with extra cheese and breadsticks, maybe, but certainly not the clerk, if she does that you’ll probably send her back.

Now, you might think you’d be proud if your daughter brought home a government employee, but you might want to rethink that a bit.

Military enlistees are, technically speaking, “government employees”, and they get little respect. Oh, sure, we all “support the troops”, some would even go so far as to say they “love” them, but where does the lip service end and the reality begin? You can leave all that love and respect right outside the door of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center, thank you very much, it might damage the decorative mold.

Or, if your daughter brings home a US Attorney, you might consider wondering just what you did wrong. Can’t your daughter find a decent tort attorney with a real job?

But it seems these days like if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, you might come out with an INS border security guard. Talk about getting no respect. Here are these two guys that went out of their way to apprehend an illegal Mexican alien who was smuggling some 74 pounds or so of marijuana across the border, whom the two guards thought was armed, and when he tried to escape they shot him in the ass.

They were then tried and convicted of numerous trumped up charges, including civil rights violations.

Now, after this trial, at which three of the jurors involved later claimed they were coerced into delivering a guilty verdict, (the prosecutor, incidentally, is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct due to his part in the trial) they have been sentenced to twelve and thirteen years in prison, where one of them was recently brutally beaten by Mexican inmates who demanded “death to the border guards.”

They were convicted in part due to the testimony of the illegal alien drug smuggler, who was granted immunity in return for his testimony. But why the hell were they even charged and tried to begin with? According to some reports, this was done at the instigation of the Mexican government itself. Now, I don’t know if that is true or not, though I certainly believe they at least encouraged it, along with the other usual suspects, the pro open borders and amnesty crowds and open immigration factions among the liberal left and the various other immigrant advocacy groups.

In the meantime, these men have gotten little in the way of support from among the conservative forces that would ordinarily be up in arms about these kinds of shenanigans. Of course, as usual, both parties for the most part care more about kowtowing to the far left (in the case of Democrats), or to the business oriented open borders, free trade neo-cons (in the case of Republicans), while both are trolling for as many Hispanic votes as they can muster. It’s fucking shameful. Out of all the members of Congress, only twelve-all Republicans-have gone on record as actively opposing this shameful sham of a trial and demanding that the border agents be granted a presidential pardon.

It is not looking good, however. Although he could definitely grant the men a pardon at a drop of a sombrero, Bush seems to be hiding behind the excuse that pardons are typically granted only after time has been served. Of course, there are numerous instances where this was not the case. Clinton’s pardon of billionaire tax cheat and fugitive from justice Mark Rich comes to mind. Granted, these two men don’t have wealthy wives who can contribute hefty sums of money to a presidential library. Nor are they former high ranking cabinet officials, as in the case of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, pardoned for his role in Iran-Contra by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Nor are they former Presidents, such as Richard M. Nixon, pardoned by Gerald Ford before he was ever even tried.

They are however men who were merely doing their jobs, maybe not perfectly, but still putting their lives on the line for little in the way of appreciation, renumeration, and respect. Now, they may be compelled to spend the best remaining years of their lives in a federal prison.

If you feel the way I do about this shit, you can click on this link, which will take you to a page where you can donate money to keep the cause alive or, at least as good and maybe even better, in the upper right hand corner of the page you will see a link to a page where you can sign a petition to President Bush encouraging him to grant these men the pardon I honestly feel they should receive as quickly as possible.

I also personally feel they should be granted a public apology, and back pay, in addition to a hefty amount of money for their pain and sufferring. In addition, they should receive an extra amount for whatever harassment they received while in prison, and the warden should be fired for not insuring their safety.

Yes, prison is rough, but all prisoners who are deemed to be potential targets are typically afforded some degree of protective custody, and this would obviously have been the appropriate precaution in the case of these two men.

You see, these two men are both Hispanics, and so in addition to the “crime” of being border agents, to the Hispanic street trash thugs who threatened them and attacked one on at least this one occasion, they are also doubtless viewed as “race traitors”.

Still, for the time being, let’s concentrate on getting them freed. Copy and paste the link and send it to as many people as you can think of to sign and forward to the President.

Like I told Lemuel Calhoun, of Hillbilly White Trash, who was kind enough to post these links on his blog at my request, if Bush would actually do the right thing in this regard, it might go a long way toward demonstrating evidence of this stiffened spine and backbone he allegedly has that we are always hearing so much about.

And I might add one other thing. I know that some that might peruse these links might have a knee jerk reaction to one of these sites, WorldNet Daily, but please try to think outside the box. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, or even on most things. I know I don’t. But when you're right, you’re right. If you agree with me that this is one of the times when they are right, not wrong-and there is little if any gray area here, in my opinion-then get over your initial objections to the site and support this petition drive.

And do more than that. Forward these links to your House Representatives and Senators. I think it’s a disgrace that no Democratic Congressmen or Senators have supported these two men. But that should be considered more a reflection of the Democratic leadership than on the individuals. After all, committee assignments might be in danger if they were to engage in an activity that goes beyond the accepted parameters of the House and Senate leadership as it currently stands. To say nothing of endangering funding of congressional projects and support for sponsored bills. Still, you would think at least one would have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up for what’s right. In all fairness, as I said, only twelve Republicans have done so, as of the writing of the petition.

The drug smuggler in question, by the way, has sued the US government for five million dollars. Like they say-only in America.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Partisan Hacks-Why I'll Never Be One

Ann Coulter has finally done it. She's succeeded in pissing me off. Well, ok, she done it once before, with her statements about the 9/11 Widows, who, according to her, were the first women she had ever seen "enjoy their husbands deaths so much".

Well, her latest salvo tops even that one. She has now gone way over the top by putting the blame for the recent scandal of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center-on the Democrats.

Yep, according to Annie, this whole mess would have never come about if only those evil Democrats did not insist on civil service protections for federal employees. Because of this, you see, it's impossible for all practical purposes to fire any government employee, therefore they can merrily draw their pay while doing diddly squat while Building 18 is overrun by rodents and mold gathers on the walls. She even implies that in the event that they were ordered to correct any such problems that might arise, they could just pretty well tell their supervisors to go suck eggs.

She then goes on to remind us that when former Senator Max Cleland, a decorated Vietnam War veteran-and double amputee as a result of his service in that conflict-ran for re-election in 2002, he was accused by the Republican Party of being a terrorist sympathizer for having the temerity to insist that federal employees of the newly created boondoggle-err, Department of Homeland Security-be granted the same civil service protections as all other federal employees.

Those goddamned labor loving Democrats!! Don't they know that federal employees are mere worker ants, and should be fired at the drop of a hat if they don't toe the line and do what the fuck they're told-sort of like federal prosecutors?

Actually, Anne misses the mark, like all partisan hacks do. This ain't the fuck about Democrat versus Republican. It's about the welfare of our fucking veterans. Oh, wait, I'd better not use the word welfare, that might be misconstrued. Anybody with a brain knows the only people that have a right to fucking welfare are multi-national corporations and illegal immigrants.

Ok,then, it's about the well being of our veterans. You know, the people that have been sent to a fucking stupid ass unnecessary war and are in a great many cases returning sans legs, arms, faces, scrotums, and sanity. Yeah, the ones the GOP loves so much yet just can't agree to funding embryonic stem cell research that might cure them. After all, that might prevent the births of multiple thousands of potential "souls" that can then be saved, and then sent to be yet more fucking cannon fodder.

Those are the ones this is about, not the fucking Democrats, not the fucking Republicans. It's about taking care of the ones that are supposed to be taking care of us.

It's not about casting blame, it's about demanding solutions to the red tape and bureaucracy that BOTH parties have encouraged and nurtured over the decades which in turn has resulted all too often in this kind of horseshit.

Baaaaad Anne. Baaaaad Anne.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

American Wake

I've run into a bit of a snag in my efforts at researching an aspect of the Iraq War, so rather than just post what amounts to little more than a personal opinion, with no facts to back it up (for now), I decided there is something else that needs to be said that requires no proof, only powers of observation.

I think the idea that America is still a free and democratic society is every day becoming more of a delusion than an ideal to be grasped and nurtured. Just look at the current political season, the race for the two major parties presidential nominations, and you have to wonder, is there ever a break from this shit?

After the election of '04, the pundits were already discussing in earnest prospects for the '08 election, as well as the then next '06 mid-terms. It has been non-stop.

There used to be a saying to the effect that the only two things that kept the American economy going were war and Christmas. Soon, you might well be able to add politics to the list.

So, what is the reason for this? It looks to me like we are heading back to the days when political conventions picked their candidates in the confines of the proverbial "smoke filled rooms", only we are fed the illusion that the people actually have a say in the process.

And, with the internet, it looked for a while as though the people might actually be given a voice after all, might actually make an impact. In the '04 elections, it started to look as though former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean might well have succeeded in translating a grass roots internet based campaign into the surprise nomination of the century. However, the power brokers of the Democratic Party, fearful of a general election debaucle, joined forces to derail Dean by the time the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries rolled around. By the time of the South Carolina primary, his campaign was obviously done.

To his credit, he parlayed his initial success into a movement to take over successfully the chairmanship of the DNC, after which he initiated the "50 state strategy" that was of paramount importance to the Democrats electoral mid-term victories in '06.

Though Dean is unfairly, in my opinion, maligned by the right as a "far leftist", his strategy has actually presented a problem for the entrenched leftist majority of the Democratic party. After all, the success of Dean's strategy depended on the enlistment of centrist candidates to run in states like Montana, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The danger here, of course, is that these candidates might actually turn out to be legitimate centrists (as opposed to moderates of convenience, like Hillary Clinton) and so actually bring the party over toward the center, where of course is where most people in America reside. True, this would make the party all but unbeatable, but the left PAC gravy train would be seriously in jeopardy. Also, the people that make up the majority of Americans-the moderate majority-would tend to actually hold them or any political party accountable for their actions-something most parties aren't used to from their established bases of support.

So, how best to derail this movement than by moving the primary season up and compressing it into a time span early enough in the year so that both parties will have chosen their candidates by early April, at least. This gives the party power brokers the opportunity to insure that their chosen candidates have the money to get their message out before a lesser known candidate, such as Dean, has time to get off the ground, financially or otherwise.

The end result of this is that in order to be competitive, candidates must begin their campaigns ridiculously early, thus we have this phenomenon of the never ending campaign. But unless you're a Hillary Clinton or a Rudy Giulliani, it's a losing proposition. A whole year of tilting at windmills during an off year leading up to the legitimate and traditional campaign season is not a recipe for success. By the time the campaign starts in earnest, the establishment candidates have all their papers in order, their war chests overflowing, and their talking points memorized. They also have the state party machines lined up, as well as most media outlets who are ready to fawn over their every utterance, as they have for the most part throughout the off year.

It is almost a sure fire bet that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party, and though the Republican outcome isn't nearly as certain, the smart money is on Giulliani, for now. Of course, the uncertainty of the Republican outcome is based on a lot of soul searching and angst over the last electoral defeat, not over the viability of the system at large.

But the people at large have less say about these matters, as the PACS, other big money contributors, and the party elites, and all those who by and large profit from the system as it is, will do anything to protect their own interests, which sometimes dovetails with the national interest, but at least just as often does not.

But who cares about all that? There's a party going on-a political party primary season, that is. Get out early when it comes to your state, make sure you dress warmly, and vote early and often. This year, your state could well put the winning nominee over the top. Wave at the nice cameraman. Remember, if you are lucky enough to be singled out by a reporter, you are the face of your state and region. Act appropriately.

And remember-though this might be like a wake, of sorts, for American politics, at least it will give the local economy a shot in the arm.

Friday, March 09, 2007

What Is The Secret? What Secret?

In the beginning, before the vast explosion of the universe, all the energy contained therein could have conceivably fit onto the head of a pin, maybe less space than that. When this all finally erupted, it was chaos unbridled.

So, what finally bridled this chaos, gave it this new and on-going semblance, this illusion, of order? Was it by by any chance something called “The Secret”?

No. It was nothing that can’t be explained quite succinctly. You have movement of physical mass which by it’s nature creates a force which serves as both an attractor of a smaller body to a larger one, while at the same time serving to keep the attracted body within general limited parameters.

Thus the the sun’s force field attracts the earth, and all other planets within it’s orbit, where they all stay positioned within a set orbit determined by their mass, make-up, gravity, speed, etc-yet the same force field keeps them from getting any closer than what they presently are-for the time being-or any further away.

The same principle can be observed in regards to the earth and our moon. There is no grand scheme here, no master plan at work. It just is.

But chaos is still at the root of the universe and it’s formation, ans so invariably there will be collisions of objects, of meteors, comets, asteroids, planets, and even galaxies. There is even a school of thought that claims the present period of global warming may be caused by a large patch of radiation emitted from the time the universe was just formed, which we are now entering into. Why, because of some divine master plan?


The Secret, in the meantime, is nothing really new. It is just another attempt to make sense out of this chaos by ascribing some divine master blueprint which is supposedly available to be tapped into. Just a newer version of “The Power Of Positive Thinking”. Or even a newer version perhaps of the laws of karma.

True, it has some validity. The tapping into the vast universal energy field which we are all a part of is a viable philosophy, and even utilizing that energy to create change. That is in fact the essence of magick, of witchcraft.

But The Secret has a built in flaw that is already threatening to rupture it into a schism. One school of thought takes into account the existence of the chaos factor, albeit to a limited extent. Yet another does not accede this much. To this last school of thought, nothing happens that there is not a reason for it. Thus, when eight year old Jessica Lunsford was abducted from her Florida home, form her bedroom, while sleeping in the middle of night, by forty two year old multiple convicted sex offender John Couey, and was held prisoner in his trailer bedroom, in a closet, tied and gagged, and over a course of several days beaten and raped, along with whatever else she was subjected to-somewhere deep down in her subconscious mind she attracted somehow this atrocity on herself that lead to her eventual death by being buried alive in garbage bags under the trailer.

Uhhhh-no, she didn’t.

This is the major flaw in most religions and spiritual philosophies and disciplines. While insisting on a master plan, on an all-powerful, loving, all-wise creator, it ends up falling apart by failing to take into account one of the fundamental building block of the universe.

Without chaos, we have nothing, we are nothing. By all means utilize the Secret, or any other such discipline that encourages positive growth and change in combination with living right, acting in positive ways, utilizing the powers of love, forgiveness, etc. But if a plane falls out of the sky in the middle of the night and crashes into your house, and destroys it, and kills you and everybody else inside it, who are you going to blame? Yourself? God? The devil. The pilot? The airline? A terrorist or other crazed passenger(s)? I bet in the last minute of your life, you might well find yourself asking, “what did I do to deserve this?”

The answer, of course, is nothing. Yet, if you are like a good many people, you might find yourself wondering this, in your last minute of life, and that would be a shame. Even if there is an understandable set of circumstances that can explain why the plane fell out of the ground, it still doesn’t account for what made it fall on your house, as opposed to a neighbors, or in an open field, or a skyscraper seven blocks away. Nothing, that is, except the thrust of the plane, the velocity of it’s descent, and gravity, in combination with the exact part of the sky it all transpired. You were not, I would wager, sending out an energy field that caused the pilot to go nuts and kill himself and his co-pilot at just the right moment for the plane to be attracted to the exact spot which would insure your destruction.

There is science and there is fantasy. The Secret contains way too little of the first, and way too much of the second.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Ancient Days-Ancient Pains

It’s hard to believe that a lot of old bones and dust could stir up such controversy, but then again it’s not often that a Hollywood filmmaker comes out with such an extravagant claim as James Cameron's recent declaration of the discovery of the remains of Jesus Christ. As if that were not enough, also included in the alleged find were the remains of a woman whose name, according to Cameron and his supporters, translates into Mary Magdalene, who it seems must have been married to Jesus, as their four children are also included in the family crypt discovered as long ago as 1980 in the suburbs of Jerusalem.

Add to all this the realization that the second Mary is allegedly none other than the mother of Christ herself and we are faced with what amounts to a triple sacrilege. The most profound disputes toward the findings are as follows-

1. Jesus was resurrected from the grave, after which he ascended into heaven.

2. Jesus Christ never was married, nor did he engage in sexual relations, therefore he could not have had children

3. Mary the mother of Jesus in fact never died, according to Catholic Church tradition, but instead was taken bodily and alive up into heaven.

Therefore, these must be the skeletal remains of a different family, albeit with similar names, right? Well, according to Cameron, that would be a near statistical impossibility, as the discovery is all the more enhanced by the markings on one of the ossuaries that identifies the one set of remains as those of “Jesus son of Joseph”.

Aside from the theological disputes, there is one curious response give by opponents of the claim as to why this could not possibly be the holy family. This being that Jesus was a poor Galillean, and as such would have been buried with any family members in an ordinary grave-not in Judea or outside of Jerusalem, but in Galillee, probably in either Nazareth, or maybe in Cana, where he apparently had relatives.

Of course there might well be one incidental bit of admittedly circumstantial evidence that would support Cameron’s claim. What would this be, you might wonder? Well, how about a certain little old ancient book called –


It doesn’t take much digging through the chapters of the Gospels to ascertain that, indeed, Jesus was buried in the outskirts of Jerusalem, such as might well make a fine location for a modern day Jerusalem suburb, I would suspect, in a rock cut tomb that happened to have been donated for the purpose by a certain Joseph of Arimathaea. This Joseph was a wealthy member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and one of the few members of that august Jewish body who was a sympathizer of the Roman era teacher, rabbi, and some would claim, messiah.

Here’s how it worked in those days. Wealthy Jews had their bodies entombed in caves cut out from the natural rock of cliffs or other sheer natural rock walls and ledges, the entrances to which were covered after the bodies were deposited inside specially cut niches within the inner walls. After an appropriate amount of time, the skeletal remains were removed from the niches and deposited within special ossuarie boxes which were inscribed with the persons name. His or her spouse and children would later join him in the cave in their own special ossuarie box, or at times more than one set of bones would be placed inside one box.

At any rate, this much is in keeping with the gospel records, but there is a small problem. According to the Gospels, the Jews accused the early Christians of deliberately removing the body of Jesus from it’s tomb and hiding it, or perhaps even ignominously disposing of it, after which they developed what they insisted was the fiction of his resurrection and ascension into heaven.

We have to make a lot of assumptions here, the most important of which would be the assumption that Jesus Christ (or Yeshua) actually existed as a historical personage. I am willing to make that assumption, at least for the sake of argument, though insofar as the myth of his resurrection and ascension-well, sorry, I just ain’t ready to go that route. However, if he did exist, then it is easy to conclude that something happened to his remains. Could the Jewish opponents of the early Christians have been correct?

If so, it seems they would have been taking a big chance to either re-inter him and his family within the confines of the old tomb, or to bury him in yet another similar edifice on the outskirts of Jerusalem. This, however, is not taking into account the great Jewish rebellion of 67 AD. It was probably during and after this time that the Gospels were composed, and this would have been during a time when most Jews were expelled from the environs of the city. It might have been a perfect time for the Christians of that day to decide to re-inter the remains, along with the other members of the family that might have been dead at that time.

Let’s make another giant leap of faith that Jesus actually died the way it was described, including his brutal beating by a cat-o-nine tails. This was an implement that contained not just a leather whip, but shards of sharpened stone, metal, and glass. Wielded by a strong and brutal soldier, this device caused excruciating pain and torture. It could rip through flesh and muscle and conceivably chip and scar down to the bone. It was considered so harsh and torturous, a Roman citizen could not be legally flogged with the cat-o-nine tails more than a set number of times, although there was no limit to the lashes a non-Roman citizen-such as Jesus- could receive.

If this really happened, no wonder he died fairly quickly upon his being hung on the cross. But was he really dead in such a way that would be recognized clinically in this day? Or was he just in the beginning stages of death-a coma, as it were-and thus technically dead, just not all the way so?

After a relatively few hours of this agonizing ordeal, a centurion speared him in the side to insure that he was dead, whereupon it was noted that a mass of plasma which had congealed flowed out from the wound. He was then taken down and doubtless unceremoniously dumped on the ground, after which he was handed over for burial to his mother, let’s assume.

Now comes the intriguing part. Is it possible that the spear thrust, along with possibly the thudding drop upon the ground, inadverdently and unnoticeably made his heart once more resume beating? Were the soldiers stationed at his tomb (assuming there really were such soldiers so stationed) drugged? Or were they bribed? Was someone in this or in any other such fashion given entrance to the tomb only to discover that the messiah yet clung barely to life, thus enabling this person to nurse Jesus back to health enough to remove him from the tomb?

The other more fanciful accounts of his words and deeds we can put down to embellishment, but this would definitely explain his resurrection. After all, his period of hanging on the cross has been said to have been no more than about six hours, by far a less amount of time than afforded the average crucifixion, some of which could last for days. In addition, there were no broken bones, no damaged organs outside the flesh and skin, and possibly some bone nicks and at most some slight fractures.

He would have been in a great amount of pain, would have been exhausted physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually, but outside of this, and the very real possibility of infection from his wounds, and loss of blood, no true damage was done. Even the larger side wound from the thrusting spear might have afforded some healing by encouraging and enhancing blood flow.

As such, he could have in a very real sense “risen from the grave”. His ascension into heaven would have come later, through the hearts and minds of his followers, throughout the years to come. As for his actual physical body, who is to say that at some point in the years to come, he did not finally meet his death, and was returned to that old donated crypt, now long forgotten by those few remaining Jews that lived, most of whom had by then moved on to other lands.

Or maybe he was buried instead in Japan. Or Kashmir. No matter where he was buried, his bones might well conceivably bear the nicks and cuts from the cat-o-nine tails, though admittedly they might not after all this time show to the naked eye. Still, with infrared lighting, with x-rays, etc., they might show up. Or maybe they wouldn't. Maybe it has just been too long, and the circumstances of his internment just were not conducive to their preservation. And, it has to be noted, even if these were to show up, as compelling as this might be, it still would not necessarily constitute proof.

It doesn’t really matter in a sense. No matter where he was buried,or whether or not his remains are ever found, or whether even his physical body has long ago entirely faded into the dust of the ages-he is still very much alive.

Political Ramblin's And Wranglin's

While Hillary and Barak have been busily presenting their credentials to the black community and sucking all the oxygen away from the other potential presidential candidates (at least all the Democratic ones), Ann Coulter has been busily trying to breathe much needed oxygen back into the campaign of that little “faggot” John Edwards.

Okay, maybe it was unintentional, but I have to wonder. Ann probably had to have known how her remark about Edwards would have been taken, and how it would doubtless inspire much sympathy towards him from the left. And really, Edwards is trailing the other two candidates distantly in the polls, in fact, according to some, he is actually a distant fourth, behind Hillary, Barak, and-former Vice-President Al Gore.

That’s bad.

Now, I can see the potential for much mischief here. All the major Republican contenders have chimed in with their own various disavowals of the remarks. Yet, Edwards himself has put them on his own web-site. This could actually be a real shot in the arm for him. If it was intentional on her part, the implication is that, of all the Democratic contenders, Coulter considers Edwards the easiest to beat in a general election match-up, while dreading to the point of obsession the thought of a Hillary candidacy, who would draw a campaign war-chest that would be hard for any Republican to match, at least in theory.

For what it’s worth, I think Hillary would be the easiest Democrat to beat in a general election, though I can’t help but feel she is virtually unstoppable in her quest to gain the Democratic nomination. She is too hated by way too many people, at worse, and simply mistrusted by way too many others at least.

Edwards would probably be the hardest of the Democrats to beat. All he would have to do is win all of Gore’s old 2000 states, and add a relative handful of southern states, along with Ohio, and he is is in like Flynn. Still, even this is dependent on who he has to face in the general election.

The overall winner-Giulliani, the man whom I can see no one beating in a general election, but more on that later.

For now, the main area to watch is the fascinating rivalry between Obama and Clinton. The anniversary of the march across the bridge of Selma is just the beginning. Barak, though a relatively inexperienced campaigner and public servant, continues to impress and inspire as he siphons off votes from the Clinton tank, along with money from the Hollywood left, as he plays up his strengths as a Washington “outsider”, a breath of fresh air from the old stale politics as usual, and inspirational minority success story.

Hillary will stop just short of shining Al Sharptons shoes on a street in Harlem to maximize her share of the black vote, and for a while the two will be neck and neck, but about half way though the primary season, look for her to pull ahead considerably. Look for a Democratic convention where all the current contenders stand side by side with Hillary, the I’m sure eventual nominee, as they put on a united front.

John Edwards of course will give his two America’s speech, as he hopes against hope for a seat at the table of a Clinton presidency, maybe as Attorney General, yet another position that would be way out of his league. (To be fair, I think he would make an excellent Solicitor General, however).

Barak Obama will speak of a need to heal the divisions of our country, code for “okay, bothers and sisters, it’s cool, vote for the honky bitch”.

Al Gore will of course have a spot at the speakers podium, and will be hailed as the sort of heroic Christ like prophet that is not without honor save in his own country, while he pontificates on the need for drastic changes in America’s environmental policy. He will doubtless speak at length about the dangers of global warming in the middle of the giant air-conditioned convention center.

John Kerry too will make a speech, but will probably find himself relegated to about twenty minutes somewhere between 1 a.m. and ZZZZzzzzzz.

Bill Clinton will of course be the real star of the show, and I’m sure he will make it worthwhile. He probably knows he had better make it good while he can, because it’s all downhill from there.

The entire Democratic convention will be so staged and artificial it will be as antiseptically perfect as a Stepford Wives toilet seat cover. But there’s a rat making it’s way through the plumbing, and if the Democrats ain't careful, ‘08 will be the year they really get bit in the ass.

Think back to the Coretta Scott King funeral, to the speeches of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who for a time stood side by side on the podium as they addressed the mourners (and the remaining majority of the crowd).

If you are a true Democrat, or at least independent and fair minded, Clinton’s speech would have brought you to tears. He was in turn up-lifting, inspirational, humorous, and heart stopping as he reflected on the very real woman that they were there that day to honor.

Then up came Hillary, who shrilly advised the crowd to “send me”.

That is just the difference in the two. Bill Clinton inspires and uplifts while he tugs at your heart, brings you to tears, puts a smile on your face, and makes you feel that everything can actually be right again, all in the space of one speech. You end up feeling a vital part of something worthwhile.

Hillary just pisses you off and scares you to death. That just won’t cut it in a general election against the likes of “America’s Mayor”, or about any other serious Republican contender, with the possible exception of McCain (whom a large portion if not most of Republican conservatives actually hate more than they do Hillary, if that were possible).

The end result will be the election of Giulliani. The next four years might well bode good for the country. It might seem pretty dreary in most of New York though. If Giulliani wins that state, as I think he might well do (along with, incidentally, Pennsylvania and New Jersey), that might write finis to the political career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might pick up Ohio as a consolation prize, and otherwise be relegated to the remainder of the Kerry states, along with possibly one or two southwestern states.

But it will be a wash, I’m sure. Why? Because most Republicans seem to have learned their lessons from the ’06 debaucle. Democrats, most of them, still haven’t really learned the lessons from ’72. Or ’80. Or ’84. Or ’88. Or ’94. Or 2002. Or 2004.

As for the 2006 victory, they are to some extent busily trying to silently bury the architect of that victory, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, now the head of the DNC, who instituted the 50 state strategy that won them the last election. That, and the more time goes by, the more obvious it becomes that it is rapidly going back to Democratic Party politics as usual. The list of examples is way too many to list here in this already way overly long post. Besides, they deserve a post of their own.

For now, I’ll just leave you with the mental image of Hillary shining Al Sharpton’s shoes on a Harlem street as I bemoan my lack of ability as an editorial cartoonist.

Military Discipline Not Too Much To Ask FOR our Soldiers and Veterans

I used to feel bad that I had never joined the military (though there were valid health reasons for this), but after what I have been seeing and hearing the last few weeks, my guilt has evaporated like the morning dew on a warm spring day. No country, people, or ideology is worth putting up with the treatment our soldiers and veterans have been putting up with as recently reported by the Washington Post pertaining to the outpatient treatment center of Walter Reed Hospital, known as Building 18.

It is the duty of the American soldier to accept his assignments with no complaints, and as well trained as they are, it is hard to break that cycle of obedience once they are returned to what passes for a semblance of normal life. Therefore, it is no surprise that they offered not a lot of complaints due to their treatment.

What is surprising and disgusting is that when these complaints were made, they were most of the time not looked into, and what times they were they were generally swept under the rug.

Actually, this is a systemic problem that goes well beyond our recent era of the Iraq War and the “war on terror”, this is a problem of long duration, one that I am actually somewhat familiar with through family members.

One relative with advanced dementia and prostrate cancer was refused admittance to a VA Hospital, though after some wrangling and threats he was finally taken in-for one night. He died two weeks later. They tried then to stiff his widow for the hospital bill he had incurred from the necessity of his stay at an area hospital after all the other times he was refused admittance, even though he had been an out-patient there for years. By the time he was correctly diagnosed, he was too far gone.

Another relative was lucky enough to receive 30 per cent disability due to work related back problems, while a general whom he had some familiarity with received full 100 per cent disability after his back went out, due to assuming a rigid posture throughout the entirety of a transcontinental flight.

It’s who you know, and who you are. No wonder they call them grunts. Severe discomfort will do that to you.

Add to this the fact that most of the people sent to Iraq these days are not adequately trained or equipped for the job they are expected to perform, and are kept way past their normal terms of enlistment without adequate leave, or psychological counseling and other therapy, and you have a situation that is only going to get worse in the long run, no matter how shiny the veneer they throw temporarily over the surface to pretty it up, till the next big story breaks.

For now, in the meantime, let's hear it for the Washington Post, who in at least this one instance lived up to their obligations, though it took them long enough.