Reddick is out. And I couldn't be happier. I mean, the guy never wins against his worse nightmare on the cour,t Fedderer, so now maybe there will be a chance for some suspense this time around. Now, if only the same could be said for the womens title. I haven' t followed it that much the last few days, but hopefully, when I get around to checking up on it, it will turn out that Venus Williams has sufferred the similar fate as Reddick. Of course, I'm probably wrong, in which case you can set your watch by it. Venus will play sister Serena for the championship and, again, Serena will win handily.
I've come to the conclusion that Serena has for some reason a strange psychological edge over her sister, and it is almost impossible for Venus to overcome this. She has beat Serena a couple of times, actually, but this has been so long ago, and Serena has won so often since in matches between the two, you have to wonder if Serena wasnt' really under the weather those two games.
Of course, things could change. Shit, the Boston Red Sox did win the world's series, remember.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Wildcat Football
This Sunday, the UK Wildcats will play their old rivals The Louisville Cardinals, and I will be watching with baited breath to see, probably, the Wildcats get their asses kicked soundly. The reason I'm expecting this is because the Cardinals have rightly placed a lot of emphasis on their offensive line, which any competitive team will do. I have always been of the opinion that in order to have a consistently winning football team, be it in college, high school, or professional football, you have to have a good enough offensive line to protect the quarterback, otherwise, it doesn't matter how good your quarterback is, or how good your running backs and/or wide receivers are, or your tight ends. Joe Montana and Rice themselves wouldn't be worth a damn without a good offensive line to back them up.
And, of course, the Wildcats never placed that much of an emphasis on their offensive lines, like the Bengals and, of course, neither of those teams have a consistently winning record. So what can you say? The Wildcats never had a good football team in any kind of consistent way, since the great Paul "Bear" Bryant was let go after the champuionship team of 1951, in which he sufferred only one loss the entire season.
The UK alumni association just don't want a winning football team, as they seem to have the opinion that this would detract somehow from their reputation as a world class basketball school. Go figure. It seems to me that if the school is that much of a first rate institution, which it obviously is, they could easily field a winning team in both sports, and do so consistently. But this does not seem to be the case. Kentucky is a basketball state, and they just aren't going to risk that standing by diverting any resources away from the favored sport. After all, what the hell else does Kentucky have? Bourbon? Horses? Tobacco? Coal mines?
Whatever the case, Kentucky's Rich Brooks, the new beleagered head coach of the football Wildcats, migth as well count on another loosing season, but he should take heart. Maybe he will have a 50-50 season, which would almost be a winning one for Kentucky. Their biggest gripe so far is that it seems that the powers that be have decided that there should no longer be a tradition of opening game for kentucky being with the University of Louisville Cardinals. Well, that's just so sad, isn't it? Actually, maybe it is just the shot in the arm the Wildcats need. After all, it has to be hard to be beaten by your number one rivals on opening day. Of course, the Wildcats have a better record with the Cardinals than they do with most other teams in the SEC. Which all but further points out the dilemna.
To the UK Alumni Association- BUILD UP A WINNING FOOTBALL TEAM, YOU JERKS!!!!
And, of course, the Wildcats never placed that much of an emphasis on their offensive lines, like the Bengals and, of course, neither of those teams have a consistently winning record. So what can you say? The Wildcats never had a good football team in any kind of consistent way, since the great Paul "Bear" Bryant was let go after the champuionship team of 1951, in which he sufferred only one loss the entire season.
The UK alumni association just don't want a winning football team, as they seem to have the opinion that this would detract somehow from their reputation as a world class basketball school. Go figure. It seems to me that if the school is that much of a first rate institution, which it obviously is, they could easily field a winning team in both sports, and do so consistently. But this does not seem to be the case. Kentucky is a basketball state, and they just aren't going to risk that standing by diverting any resources away from the favored sport. After all, what the hell else does Kentucky have? Bourbon? Horses? Tobacco? Coal mines?
Whatever the case, Kentucky's Rich Brooks, the new beleagered head coach of the football Wildcats, migth as well count on another loosing season, but he should take heart. Maybe he will have a 50-50 season, which would almost be a winning one for Kentucky. Their biggest gripe so far is that it seems that the powers that be have decided that there should no longer be a tradition of opening game for kentucky being with the University of Louisville Cardinals. Well, that's just so sad, isn't it? Actually, maybe it is just the shot in the arm the Wildcats need. After all, it has to be hard to be beaten by your number one rivals on opening day. Of course, the Wildcats have a better record with the Cardinals than they do with most other teams in the SEC. Which all but further points out the dilemna.
To the UK Alumni Association- BUILD UP A WINNING FOOTBALL TEAM, YOU JERKS!!!!
O'Reilly's Plan Destined For The Trash Can
Bill O'Reilly of Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor" sometimes has some good ideas. Sometimes. I have to say, I disagree with this guy more often than not. It seems that on those issues where he is a liberal, which are few, I am conservative, and on those majority of issues where he seems to be conservative, I am liberal. However, there are a few issues where we are in agreement, and his idea concerning the energy companies is one good example.
The idea? That American oil companies should voluntarily take a 20% reduction in profits, for the good of the country, by keeping gas prices low, or as low as possible. Of course, this will never happen. And when the idea was broached to President Bush recently by Dianne Sawyer, he actually cut her off, saying that he had faith in the generosity of the American people to contribute and see the country through this crisis.
Yeah, the motherfucker wants the average citizen to fork over a few dollars here and there and thinks that this is going to make up for the lack of planning and accountability of his administration, and Congress. He thinks getting his dad and Bill Clinton to encourage people to donate is going to pull us throgh this? Outrageous. The oil companies make billions of dollars in profits, and this bastard can't even begin to think to consider the possibility of just asking his oil company cronies to voluntarily, mind you, take a reduction in their sacred proifits-for the good of the country, presumably as much their country as everyone elses. Actually, I guess it is their country, sold, brought, and paid for, that's just the fucking problem.
One of O'Reillys guests last night said this would be wrong, it would be price controls, which wouldn't work, at which point O'Reilly reminded him that he was talking about a voluntary reduction, but no-the guest insisted that this wouldn't work, the proper thing to do would be to let the market work. O'Reilly held his temper with difficulty. But he should have known better. Of course the oil company bosses aren't going to take a reduction in profits, for the good of the country or of anyone else. They also aren't going to agree to pay higher taxes, for the good of the country. Why should O'Reilly be surprised at this. One would hope that he would see now that those tax cuts he himself supported are good for one thing only-the ever deepening pockets of the recipients of the tax cuts, who seldom trickle anything down to the rest of us, unless they happen to be pissing out a window at the time we're passing by.
The idea? That American oil companies should voluntarily take a 20% reduction in profits, for the good of the country, by keeping gas prices low, or as low as possible. Of course, this will never happen. And when the idea was broached to President Bush recently by Dianne Sawyer, he actually cut her off, saying that he had faith in the generosity of the American people to contribute and see the country through this crisis.
Yeah, the motherfucker wants the average citizen to fork over a few dollars here and there and thinks that this is going to make up for the lack of planning and accountability of his administration, and Congress. He thinks getting his dad and Bill Clinton to encourage people to donate is going to pull us throgh this? Outrageous. The oil companies make billions of dollars in profits, and this bastard can't even begin to think to consider the possibility of just asking his oil company cronies to voluntarily, mind you, take a reduction in their sacred proifits-for the good of the country, presumably as much their country as everyone elses. Actually, I guess it is their country, sold, brought, and paid for, that's just the fucking problem.
One of O'Reillys guests last night said this would be wrong, it would be price controls, which wouldn't work, at which point O'Reilly reminded him that he was talking about a voluntary reduction, but no-the guest insisted that this wouldn't work, the proper thing to do would be to let the market work. O'Reilly held his temper with difficulty. But he should have known better. Of course the oil company bosses aren't going to take a reduction in profits, for the good of the country or of anyone else. They also aren't going to agree to pay higher taxes, for the good of the country. Why should O'Reilly be surprised at this. One would hope that he would see now that those tax cuts he himself supported are good for one thing only-the ever deepening pockets of the recipients of the tax cuts, who seldom trickle anything down to the rest of us, unless they happen to be pissing out a window at the time we're passing by.
The Truth Will Out
So now we know the real story. Funding for strengthening the levees was cut, despite the fact that a plan was made and strongly recommended, after an assessment of the potential for flooding and widespread destruction of New Orleans in the event of a major hurricane event was ascertained. In fact, a model of the potential results was illustrated, and was eerily similar to what actually occurred. Yeah, the funding was cut.
It was considered to be "pork". Can you believe this shit? All kinds of worthless pork, as they call it, was included in the recent highway bill that Bush pushed for with every bit of political capital at his sorry disposal, but something like this was considered too wasteful. Too expensive. Too extravagant. Thus, the levees were never strengthened. And now we see the results. I, for one, am outraged. Honestly outraged.
Here is the result of government on the cheap. The kind of government you typically get from the GOP. When will the voters learn their lesson? If past history is a guide, if they learn anything at all, it will be of temporary duration. In the meantime, there is the very real possibility that thousands will die in New Orleans, in fact there might well all ready be that number dead. It's just insanity.
And all because George W. Bush, and his fellow Republicans, can't stand the thought of taxing the motherfucking rich. Which brings me to my next point. Would this crap have occurred if New Orleans had been inhabited by families of the power and influence of the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, or, for that matter, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Gores, the Kerrys? Hell no, to begin with the city would have been well bulwarked against such an event, and just to be on the safe side the residents would have been quickly evacuated. And they wouldn't be holed up in a leaky Superdome with no power, water, or food.
Wait and see what happens. Oh, they'll rebuild New Orleans all right. And it will probably be repopulated, not with welfare blacks and poor white trash though, oh no. It will probably be filled with middle class types, and presto chango, the property values will probably double, and triple, what they previously were. A good quarter of the residents, the poorer ones-what ones that survive-will be spread to other areas. It's a fucking shame. In fact, it's downright criminal.
It was considered to be "pork". Can you believe this shit? All kinds of worthless pork, as they call it, was included in the recent highway bill that Bush pushed for with every bit of political capital at his sorry disposal, but something like this was considered too wasteful. Too expensive. Too extravagant. Thus, the levees were never strengthened. And now we see the results. I, for one, am outraged. Honestly outraged.
Here is the result of government on the cheap. The kind of government you typically get from the GOP. When will the voters learn their lesson? If past history is a guide, if they learn anything at all, it will be of temporary duration. In the meantime, there is the very real possibility that thousands will die in New Orleans, in fact there might well all ready be that number dead. It's just insanity.
And all because George W. Bush, and his fellow Republicans, can't stand the thought of taxing the motherfucking rich. Which brings me to my next point. Would this crap have occurred if New Orleans had been inhabited by families of the power and influence of the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, or, for that matter, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Gores, the Kerrys? Hell no, to begin with the city would have been well bulwarked against such an event, and just to be on the safe side the residents would have been quickly evacuated. And they wouldn't be holed up in a leaky Superdome with no power, water, or food.
Wait and see what happens. Oh, they'll rebuild New Orleans all right. And it will probably be repopulated, not with welfare blacks and poor white trash though, oh no. It will probably be filled with middle class types, and presto chango, the property values will probably double, and triple, what they previously were. A good quarter of the residents, the poorer ones-what ones that survive-will be spread to other areas. It's a fucking shame. In fact, it's downright criminal.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Lance Armstrong
I could care less if it were to turn out that Lance Armstrong did indeed have some illicit substance in his blood that increased his energy level by increasing the amount of red blood cells in his system during the 1999 Tour De France. Becuase, the way it stands now, it actually probably wouldn't mean a damned thing.
Here's how I see it. The 1999 race was coming just off the heels of Armstrongs recovery from testicular cancer, for which he was obviously obliged to be in treatment, and probably chemotherapy. Now the question becomes, what exactly does chemotherapy do, in part? Well, it kills cancer cells, duh, but in the meantime it has got to be accompanied by some form of regimen that would aid in replacing the red blood cells that have been decimated by the cancer.
In other word, it seems obvious to me that the illicit substance in Armstrongs urine might have been, and probably was, a remnant of whatever medications Armstrong had previously been obliged to take in order to assure and to hasten his complete recovery.
Thus, in other words, the drugs Armstrong had been taking might indeed have contained the illicit substnce as a minor component, but in too minor of an amount to show up in the original test. Another possibilty is that prior testing in 1999 might have been accomplished in such a way as to cause the present test results to show up as a false positive.
And of course, another possibility is that the French are simply lying like dogs. Not the "French" per se, just the one newspaper-of couuurrrsssse. Naturally, this wouldn't be an attempt to increase readership among the French citizens whom the cultural elite of France assumes to the person hates all Americans. Nor would it possibly be a way to distract attention from the growing unpopularity of Jacques Chirac.
In reality, does the average French citizen hate Americans really that much? I've always wondered about that. It is possible of course, that the current situation as regarding Franco-American relations are worse even than is normally the case, and I certainly believe the French are jealous and resentful of our dominance on the world stage, despite the supposed superiority of their own culture over ours. But are they really so upset over an American cancer survivor winning their national sport seven times in a row?
And not just any kind of cancer, but testicular cancer, at that? Think about it.
Hell yes, they're pissed.
Here's how I see it. The 1999 race was coming just off the heels of Armstrongs recovery from testicular cancer, for which he was obviously obliged to be in treatment, and probably chemotherapy. Now the question becomes, what exactly does chemotherapy do, in part? Well, it kills cancer cells, duh, but in the meantime it has got to be accompanied by some form of regimen that would aid in replacing the red blood cells that have been decimated by the cancer.
In other word, it seems obvious to me that the illicit substance in Armstrongs urine might have been, and probably was, a remnant of whatever medications Armstrong had previously been obliged to take in order to assure and to hasten his complete recovery.
Thus, in other words, the drugs Armstrong had been taking might indeed have contained the illicit substnce as a minor component, but in too minor of an amount to show up in the original test. Another possibilty is that prior testing in 1999 might have been accomplished in such a way as to cause the present test results to show up as a false positive.
And of course, another possibility is that the French are simply lying like dogs. Not the "French" per se, just the one newspaper-of couuurrrsssse. Naturally, this wouldn't be an attempt to increase readership among the French citizens whom the cultural elite of France assumes to the person hates all Americans. Nor would it possibly be a way to distract attention from the growing unpopularity of Jacques Chirac.
In reality, does the average French citizen hate Americans really that much? I've always wondered about that. It is possible of course, that the current situation as regarding Franco-American relations are worse even than is normally the case, and I certainly believe the French are jealous and resentful of our dominance on the world stage, despite the supposed superiority of their own culture over ours. But are they really so upset over an American cancer survivor winning their national sport seven times in a row?
And not just any kind of cancer, but testicular cancer, at that? Think about it.
Hell yes, they're pissed.
Governor Fletcher-Beggin' Your Pardon
Governor Ernie Fletcher sure does have his hands full for a Governor who got elected partly n promises to change the way the state of kentucky does business, and to change the atmosphere of corruption that prevails there and, well, still does.
A long time mainstay of Kentucky law is it's hiring practices, something called the merit system, which basically states that a state employee is to be hired according to his qusalifications, and that politics is not to play a hand in an hiring/firing decisions. Governor Fletcher assurred his constituents that he would abide by this law, that he had no intwntion of changig or of in anyway undermining Kentucky's tried and true merit system. Some months into his term, he was singing a different tune all together, saying that the merit system was outmoded and contained loopholes that made it easily abused.
True enough, there have been ways of getting arund the law, and former Governor John Y. Brown siad that, while he himself did not abuse the merit system, practically everybody else that had ever been governor did. It was actually standard procedure. But the Democratic party has pretty much monopolized Kentucky state politcs for the last half-century, up until the last decade or so, there was nevcer any serious challenges to the way the State Party, which to all intents and purposes was the state itself, did business.
The Bop-Tropt investigation by the Federal Government in the late eighties pretty mcuh changed all that, and set the stage for the resurgence of the State Republican Party, who now controls the State House, as of 2003, for the first time since the administration of Louie B. Nunn, the last Republican Governor, who was there from 1967 through 1971. In fact, one of the major criticisms of Nunn's governorship was that he himself abused the law as pertaining to the hiring and firing of state employees, and showed a good deal of political favoritism, which, again it is alleged, everyone does. But of course the Republicans seem to be the only one blamed for his. Not that I'm saying, by any means, that they should be allowed to get away with it on the basis of the democrats having done it for years (if that is true). Beleive me, if Democratic State Attorney General Stumbo has hiw way about it, Fletcher would be definitely hung out to dry on just this very issue.
In fact, he has conducted an investigation into the Fletcher Administrations hiring practices, which seem to be chiefly centered around the Transportation Cabinet. Just yesteday, this investigation culminated in Fletcher's being called before the Grand Jury, in front of whom he answered not one question, other than his name, his occupation, and his address.
Afterwards, he called a press conference at which he announced that he would issue a blanket pardon to anyone that may be indicted by Stumbo. He also said, however, that he would decline to issue a pardon for his own self, even though according to state law he could do just that. This didn't sit too well with Stumbo, who advised Fletcher that any information that might lead to an indictment should be alowed to come out int he Grand Jury before any decisions regarding pardons was rendered. But Fletcher, it seems, has all ready made up his mind that Stumbo is engaged in nothing more or less than a partisan witch hunt.
And so the stage is set for what indeed promises to be one rowdy contest fo rthe Governor's seat in the 2007 elections, obviousy to be fought out between the incumbent Fletcher and Attorney General Stumbo.
But it may turn out to be not all rancor and steam. In a rare but welcome moment of bi-partisan agreement, Fletcher and Stumbo agreed to cooperate in prosecuting to the fullest extent that the law allows, all those proven to be engaging in gasoline price gouging in the wake of the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster in the Gulf States.
A long time mainstay of Kentucky law is it's hiring practices, something called the merit system, which basically states that a state employee is to be hired according to his qusalifications, and that politics is not to play a hand in an hiring/firing decisions. Governor Fletcher assurred his constituents that he would abide by this law, that he had no intwntion of changig or of in anyway undermining Kentucky's tried and true merit system. Some months into his term, he was singing a different tune all together, saying that the merit system was outmoded and contained loopholes that made it easily abused.
True enough, there have been ways of getting arund the law, and former Governor John Y. Brown siad that, while he himself did not abuse the merit system, practically everybody else that had ever been governor did. It was actually standard procedure. But the Democratic party has pretty much monopolized Kentucky state politcs for the last half-century, up until the last decade or so, there was nevcer any serious challenges to the way the State Party, which to all intents and purposes was the state itself, did business.
The Bop-Tropt investigation by the Federal Government in the late eighties pretty mcuh changed all that, and set the stage for the resurgence of the State Republican Party, who now controls the State House, as of 2003, for the first time since the administration of Louie B. Nunn, the last Republican Governor, who was there from 1967 through 1971. In fact, one of the major criticisms of Nunn's governorship was that he himself abused the law as pertaining to the hiring and firing of state employees, and showed a good deal of political favoritism, which, again it is alleged, everyone does. But of course the Republicans seem to be the only one blamed for his. Not that I'm saying, by any means, that they should be allowed to get away with it on the basis of the democrats having done it for years (if that is true). Beleive me, if Democratic State Attorney General Stumbo has hiw way about it, Fletcher would be definitely hung out to dry on just this very issue.
In fact, he has conducted an investigation into the Fletcher Administrations hiring practices, which seem to be chiefly centered around the Transportation Cabinet. Just yesteday, this investigation culminated in Fletcher's being called before the Grand Jury, in front of whom he answered not one question, other than his name, his occupation, and his address.
Afterwards, he called a press conference at which he announced that he would issue a blanket pardon to anyone that may be indicted by Stumbo. He also said, however, that he would decline to issue a pardon for his own self, even though according to state law he could do just that. This didn't sit too well with Stumbo, who advised Fletcher that any information that might lead to an indictment should be alowed to come out int he Grand Jury before any decisions regarding pardons was rendered. But Fletcher, it seems, has all ready made up his mind that Stumbo is engaged in nothing more or less than a partisan witch hunt.
And so the stage is set for what indeed promises to be one rowdy contest fo rthe Governor's seat in the 2007 elections, obviousy to be fought out between the incumbent Fletcher and Attorney General Stumbo.
But it may turn out to be not all rancor and steam. In a rare but welcome moment of bi-partisan agreement, Fletcher and Stumbo agreed to cooperate in prosecuting to the fullest extent that the law allows, all those proven to be engaging in gasoline price gouging in the wake of the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster in the Gulf States.
Kentucky's Slight Share Of Katrina-Hmmmmmmm
It wasn't that big a deal, what we had to contend with, and it certainly wouldn't even be a blip on the radar screen in comparison to what happenned in Biloxi and Gulfport, Missisippi, or in New Orleans. On the other hand, if you were one of the victims, few though they were, you would not feel so lucky to be that one little minor statistic or two.
One family had a large tree fall on their roof in Scott County. Yeah, there's all kinds of bad things that happenned in Kentucky worse than that that had nothing to do with Katrina. Of course, the one death, well, that kind of was a big deal, to the family involved. The death was that of a ten year old girl. Out playing with her friend, she was swept away by the flood waters in Christian County, just outside of Hopkinsville. When she was found, a day later, it was in a culbert, a mere hundred yards or so away from where she had last been seen. Her little friend had said she tried her best to hold onto her friend, but she just couldn't hold on.
Hmmmmmmm. You know, the child seemed more excited about being on tv than she seemed upset about her friends death. Ten. Hmmmm. About the age in these days when little kids start developing rivalries and jealousies. Hmmmmmm. But Nawwwwwwww. Wonder why the other little girl wasn't swept away, or why it seemed like she herself was never in any danger, despite being in evidently the same exact place? Hmmmmmmmm.
What also happenned up the river, near my old stomping grounds of Covington, Kentucky, was quite striking too, in it's characteristics. A private boat smashed into a barge, killing everyone on board, except for one person, who happenned to be the owner of the boat. The rest of the guys, they were homeless. Dead homeless people, on the boat belonging to the one survivor of the crash, who told police he "did not see it coming."
The owner of the boat was a man named Caudill. I knew some Caudill's up that way. I wonder.
Hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
One family had a large tree fall on their roof in Scott County. Yeah, there's all kinds of bad things that happenned in Kentucky worse than that that had nothing to do with Katrina. Of course, the one death, well, that kind of was a big deal, to the family involved. The death was that of a ten year old girl. Out playing with her friend, she was swept away by the flood waters in Christian County, just outside of Hopkinsville. When she was found, a day later, it was in a culbert, a mere hundred yards or so away from where she had last been seen. Her little friend had said she tried her best to hold onto her friend, but she just couldn't hold on.
Hmmmmmmm. You know, the child seemed more excited about being on tv than she seemed upset about her friends death. Ten. Hmmmm. About the age in these days when little kids start developing rivalries and jealousies. Hmmmmmm. But Nawwwwwwww. Wonder why the other little girl wasn't swept away, or why it seemed like she herself was never in any danger, despite being in evidently the same exact place? Hmmmmmmmm.
What also happenned up the river, near my old stomping grounds of Covington, Kentucky, was quite striking too, in it's characteristics. A private boat smashed into a barge, killing everyone on board, except for one person, who happenned to be the owner of the boat. The rest of the guys, they were homeless. Dead homeless people, on the boat belonging to the one survivor of the crash, who told police he "did not see it coming."
The owner of the boat was a man named Caudill. I knew some Caudill's up that way. I wonder.
Hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Who Will Help Us Now?
Just curious. I would say the Brits and the Aussies might help, possibly the Japanese. Anybody else? Maybe a few private citizens might donate to help out the flood and hurricane ravaged citizens of the Gulf Coast of the U.S.A. But I wouldn't count on any records being broken in that regard.
Saudi Arabia? HaHa. Yeah, on the condition that we all partake in a mass conversion to Islam, maybe. Ditto, all the other Arab nations that might have the funds to help. Why the hell should they? After all, we're more at their mercy now than ever as far as our energy dependance on them goes. And of course it would just be so rude to insist they help in return for all the aid we've given them in the past, and will doubtless continue to do, that just shouldn't even be whispered, at least not in polite circles.
The Germans? The French? well, probably, but just as probably only on the condition that we allow their companies to conduct the rebuilding of New Orleans and other Gulf State communities at their price. Kickbacks can be fun, you know, as well as lucrative.
All the other leaders of the EU? The U.N.? Can't you see them in your mind's eye right now, just smiling like the fox that raided the hen house?
China? Strangely silent on the issue, but then, when you stop to think about it, so is everyone else. Not so much as a sympathy card, that I'm aware of.
Oh, I almost forgot. Russia. Yeah, they'll help us, like, when hell freezes over.
Saudi Arabia? HaHa. Yeah, on the condition that we all partake in a mass conversion to Islam, maybe. Ditto, all the other Arab nations that might have the funds to help. Why the hell should they? After all, we're more at their mercy now than ever as far as our energy dependance on them goes. And of course it would just be so rude to insist they help in return for all the aid we've given them in the past, and will doubtless continue to do, that just shouldn't even be whispered, at least not in polite circles.
The Germans? The French? well, probably, but just as probably only on the condition that we allow their companies to conduct the rebuilding of New Orleans and other Gulf State communities at their price. Kickbacks can be fun, you know, as well as lucrative.
All the other leaders of the EU? The U.N.? Can't you see them in your mind's eye right now, just smiling like the fox that raided the hen house?
China? Strangely silent on the issue, but then, when you stop to think about it, so is everyone else. Not so much as a sympathy card, that I'm aware of.
Oh, I almost forgot. Russia. Yeah, they'll help us, like, when hell freezes over.
One Great Big Bowl Of Gumbo
Add an unevenly distributed mix of ocean water, lake water, river water, and rain water.
Add a healthy assortment of both treated and untreated sewage, along with assorted garbage and dashes here and there of medical waste.
Add to taste, anywhere from one thousand to several thousands of dead and dying (and in some cases decaying and decayed)humans and animals.
Add a lively variety of alligators, river rats, mosquitos and assorted other insects.
Allow to stew in a giant bowl until suitably aromatic.
And you have old New Orleans Gumbo. Just one taste, in fact just one whiff, and you will doubtless ask, "how the fucking shit can we keep this from ever happenning again?"
But I have an even better question than that. Why the fuck did it ever have to happen to begin with. The answer, of course, is it didn't. The levees should have been continually upgraded and strengthened on a regular basis. Of course, this would not in itself be enoguh to prevent the current disaster, nor would it be enough in and of itself to keep it from occurring yet again. So what to do?
It seems like a simple enough solution to me. You simply have pumps at the ready to drain lake Ponchartraine at a moments notice. After all, the lake, and the Mississippi River, is probably where the majority of the flooding has originated. So why didn't the numbnuts in New orleans and the State of Louisiana and for that mattr the Federal Government have just such a plan ready to be implemented, seeing as how this has been well known to be a very likely, not merely a possible, eventuality.
No place to divert the lake water to? Find a way. Do I have to think of everything? After all, they had plenty of warning ahead of time that this was likely to be a category Five storm, and all they did was order people to evacuate, at about 24 hours notice. They should have started draining that damned lake a week ahead of time. But no, that would be too much trouble and way too expensive. Naturally, the city might have been partly flooded anyway. But not like it is now. Again, the solution:
Have pumps at the ready to drain the Lake Ponchartraine at a moments notice.
Upgrade and strengthen the levee system.
Have a plan at the ready to evacuate those citizens who might not have a way out or a place to go-including the prisoners in the New Orleans jail. Implement this plan at the earliest possible time- not at the last minute.
In the meantime, people all over the country should ask just exactly why this was allowed to happen. And they should demand answers and, yes, accountability.
Add a healthy assortment of both treated and untreated sewage, along with assorted garbage and dashes here and there of medical waste.
Add to taste, anywhere from one thousand to several thousands of dead and dying (and in some cases decaying and decayed)humans and animals.
Add a lively variety of alligators, river rats, mosquitos and assorted other insects.
Allow to stew in a giant bowl until suitably aromatic.
And you have old New Orleans Gumbo. Just one taste, in fact just one whiff, and you will doubtless ask, "how the fucking shit can we keep this from ever happenning again?"
But I have an even better question than that. Why the fuck did it ever have to happen to begin with. The answer, of course, is it didn't. The levees should have been continually upgraded and strengthened on a regular basis. Of course, this would not in itself be enoguh to prevent the current disaster, nor would it be enough in and of itself to keep it from occurring yet again. So what to do?
It seems like a simple enough solution to me. You simply have pumps at the ready to drain lake Ponchartraine at a moments notice. After all, the lake, and the Mississippi River, is probably where the majority of the flooding has originated. So why didn't the numbnuts in New orleans and the State of Louisiana and for that mattr the Federal Government have just such a plan ready to be implemented, seeing as how this has been well known to be a very likely, not merely a possible, eventuality.
No place to divert the lake water to? Find a way. Do I have to think of everything? After all, they had plenty of warning ahead of time that this was likely to be a category Five storm, and all they did was order people to evacuate, at about 24 hours notice. They should have started draining that damned lake a week ahead of time. But no, that would be too much trouble and way too expensive. Naturally, the city might have been partly flooded anyway. But not like it is now. Again, the solution:
Have pumps at the ready to drain the Lake Ponchartraine at a moments notice.
Upgrade and strengthen the levee system.
Have a plan at the ready to evacuate those citizens who might not have a way out or a place to go-including the prisoners in the New Orleans jail. Implement this plan at the earliest possible time- not at the last minute.
In the meantime, people all over the country should ask just exactly why this was allowed to happen. And they should demand answers and, yes, accountability.
When Stupid People Do Stupid Things
Stupid shit happens. Here you have, in New Orleans, a situation that was ripe for disaster from the get-go. The "leaders" of new Orleans decided, instead of moving it's prisoners, transferring them to other counties, even to other states if necessary, just let them out, telling them more or less, in effect, to fend for themselves. So what do these solid citizens do? What you would expect, of course, nor can you really blame them when you stop to think about it. They break into pawn shops and gun stores, and casually browse through the ammunition and gun departments of Wal-Mart, etc., until they find the weapons they feel they might need to protect themselves in this every person for themselves situation.
Then, the government and media bemoan the fact that military helicopters are being shot at as they attempt to rescue people from the New Orleans Superdome. Let's see now, you have criminals let out of jail, no matter who they are and no matter what they've done, instead of being transferred to places of safety. You have military helicopters being shot at as they try to rescue other people from the Superdome. Gee, I wonder who's doing the shooting? And why?
Gumbo, anyone?
Then, the government and media bemoan the fact that military helicopters are being shot at as they attempt to rescue people from the New Orleans Superdome. Let's see now, you have criminals let out of jail, no matter who they are and no matter what they've done, instead of being transferred to places of safety. You have military helicopters being shot at as they try to rescue other people from the Superdome. Gee, I wonder who's doing the shooting? And why?
Gumbo, anyone?
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Like Nobody's Business
The day before the hurricane struck, Shephard Smith of Fox News Channel was down on The French Quarter of downtown New Orleans, and was amazed that as many as 100 or more people were there, casualy walking down the street, listening to music, drinking. It seemed to be a party atmosphere. He walked up to a man walking his dogs, and asked him what he was doing.
The minute the guy said "I'm walking my dogs" I knew from his tone of voice he wasn't taking kindly to the intrusion. Smith is a seasoned enough journalist he should have known better than to continue, but he did anyway, asking the guy what he was still doing there.
"None of your fucking business", the guy said.
I could have answered the question for him, that he wasn't about to go off and leave his home and possessions to be looted and raided over a huricane like, as was the case of so many false alarms, probably wasn't going to amount to much more than a typical tropical storm from New Orleans perspective. And sure enough, for a while it looked like this was ging to be the case here as well. But something happenned on Katrina's trip up the Tennessee and Ohio River Valeys. The category one (by then) hurricane, and then the tropical storm, and then the tropical depression, continually filed the Mississippi River and others with excessive rainwater, which eventully emptied into lake Ponchartraine-which was all ready overflowing with water dumped into it by the storm directly-which of course caused it to spill over the New Orleans levees-which had all ready been breached and broken in places-and as a result new Orleans is now flooded.
How this is worse in it's own way than even the disaster in Gulfport and Biloxi, is that this water isn't going anywhere for some time to go, maybe not for weeks or months. New Orleans is buildt on top of the Gulf, in fact, and is surrounded by levees which hold back boththe waters of lake Ponchartraine and the Gulf. New Orleans in fact sits below sea level, right at the sea. It is in effect like a big bowl, and there is nor can be no draiage system to speak of. It relies on pumps to keep it dry in ordinary circumstances, but these pumps, like the levees, have also failed for the time being.
So New Orleans is gradually filing up with more and more water. You have to wonder what the hell the french were thinking when they buildt this port, and why. It was doubtless never meant to be a permanent home for anybody. In fact, this would be in keeping with their traditional colonial poicy as regards America. They never intended to establish widespread colonies or permanent settlements, all they wanted to do was engage in fur and other trade with the Indians, maybe establish a few mines here and there. That and harass the British and make sure they didn't dominate the continent. It may be one of the great ironies in that New Orleans was actually cosidered a safer locale for a trading post than anyplace else along the Gulf Coast, if only not for the annoying inconvenience of being nothing there but water to have to build it over.
Whatever they were thinking, they obviously were more than happy to sell the place to Thomas Jefferson as part of the Louisiana Purchase, and little did the unsuspecting Americans know just how tenous their position was. Thus, it became one of the better loved spots in America over the years. And one of the premiere cities, with it's own unique culture, it's arts, cuisine, music, and an award winning newspaper in the Times Picayunne. Will there be a Mardi Gras this next year? Watch and see if that won't be the stated goal for rebuilding, which of course it couldn't possibly be rebuilt in it's entirety by then. But the inner city, and the French quarter especially, might be. The overall rebuilding of the entire place will take some time.
Hopefully, as it is done, it wil be accomplished with this event in mind, and contingencies will be put into place to ensure that a repeat episode will be far less likely to have this widespread and tragic consequence.
After all, the insurance bill for this entire event will top 25 billion dollars, probably appreciably more than this when you total in the entire area of the disaster. Like it or not, the insurance companies will figure out a way to pass this cost on to the genral public. They shouldn't be allowed to do that, but it is unlikely that anything will be done to prevent it. So everybody can count on paying a higher insurance bill, maybe not only on their hoimes and businesses, but on their automobiles, and life and health as well. It is tantamount, therefore, that when thee areas are rebuilt, they are rebuilt to withstand as much as is possible any ther encroaching disaster.
In other words, it is everybody's "fucking business".
The minute the guy said "I'm walking my dogs" I knew from his tone of voice he wasn't taking kindly to the intrusion. Smith is a seasoned enough journalist he should have known better than to continue, but he did anyway, asking the guy what he was still doing there.
"None of your fucking business", the guy said.
I could have answered the question for him, that he wasn't about to go off and leave his home and possessions to be looted and raided over a huricane like, as was the case of so many false alarms, probably wasn't going to amount to much more than a typical tropical storm from New Orleans perspective. And sure enough, for a while it looked like this was ging to be the case here as well. But something happenned on Katrina's trip up the Tennessee and Ohio River Valeys. The category one (by then) hurricane, and then the tropical storm, and then the tropical depression, continually filed the Mississippi River and others with excessive rainwater, which eventully emptied into lake Ponchartraine-which was all ready overflowing with water dumped into it by the storm directly-which of course caused it to spill over the New Orleans levees-which had all ready been breached and broken in places-and as a result new Orleans is now flooded.
How this is worse in it's own way than even the disaster in Gulfport and Biloxi, is that this water isn't going anywhere for some time to go, maybe not for weeks or months. New Orleans is buildt on top of the Gulf, in fact, and is surrounded by levees which hold back boththe waters of lake Ponchartraine and the Gulf. New Orleans in fact sits below sea level, right at the sea. It is in effect like a big bowl, and there is nor can be no draiage system to speak of. It relies on pumps to keep it dry in ordinary circumstances, but these pumps, like the levees, have also failed for the time being.
So New Orleans is gradually filing up with more and more water. You have to wonder what the hell the french were thinking when they buildt this port, and why. It was doubtless never meant to be a permanent home for anybody. In fact, this would be in keeping with their traditional colonial poicy as regards America. They never intended to establish widespread colonies or permanent settlements, all they wanted to do was engage in fur and other trade with the Indians, maybe establish a few mines here and there. That and harass the British and make sure they didn't dominate the continent. It may be one of the great ironies in that New Orleans was actually cosidered a safer locale for a trading post than anyplace else along the Gulf Coast, if only not for the annoying inconvenience of being nothing there but water to have to build it over.
Whatever they were thinking, they obviously were more than happy to sell the place to Thomas Jefferson as part of the Louisiana Purchase, and little did the unsuspecting Americans know just how tenous their position was. Thus, it became one of the better loved spots in America over the years. And one of the premiere cities, with it's own unique culture, it's arts, cuisine, music, and an award winning newspaper in the Times Picayunne. Will there be a Mardi Gras this next year? Watch and see if that won't be the stated goal for rebuilding, which of course it couldn't possibly be rebuilt in it's entirety by then. But the inner city, and the French quarter especially, might be. The overall rebuilding of the entire place will take some time.
Hopefully, as it is done, it wil be accomplished with this event in mind, and contingencies will be put into place to ensure that a repeat episode will be far less likely to have this widespread and tragic consequence.
After all, the insurance bill for this entire event will top 25 billion dollars, probably appreciably more than this when you total in the entire area of the disaster. Like it or not, the insurance companies will figure out a way to pass this cost on to the genral public. They shouldn't be allowed to do that, but it is unlikely that anything will be done to prevent it. So everybody can count on paying a higher insurance bill, maybe not only on their hoimes and businesses, but on their automobiles, and life and health as well. It is tantamount, therefore, that when thee areas are rebuilt, they are rebuilt to withstand as much as is possible any ther encroaching disaster.
In other words, it is everybody's "fucking business".
Hurricane Chavez
So it looks like Bush is going to release some much needed oil from the Strategic Oil Reserves, which should take some of the bite out of the anticipated gasoline prices which are expected to in some places to soar to over three dollars a gallon. In fact, they have probably gone over that mark in some areas. Now there's something else he could do, but he won't. He recently received an indirect offer from Venezualan President Hugo Chavez, to the effect that he would sell the U.S. cheap oil, if only the U.S. would give him some aid in fighting drug smugglers.
So, is he trying to be a smart-ass or what? I mean, isn't this the guy that has been accussed of funding FARQ, the narco-terrorists who have been wreaking havoc in Columbia, and other places? Or is he perhaps being serious? There could be another possible answer that is somewhat a combination of the two. Everyone knows-well, let's just say it is widely assummed-that the Drug Enforcement Agency is arguably the most corrupt of all U.S. government agencies. In fact, it has been alleged that a good many DEA agents are involved with illegal drug smuggling and trafficking, and that in fact without their aid a good many of the drugs that make it over here would never make it to the border, let alone across it.
This could be a way for Chavez to actualy increase the amount of drugs that he is involved with smuggling into our country, perhaps a way he could as much as double the amount. Get in good with the DEA. Sure, good DEA agents don't come cheap, but they can provide an invaluable insurance policy, they save you money in the long run, and you are ultimately assurred of increasing your profits two or three-fold, with a much lessenned chance of ever being caught, and thus charged with a crime.
Chavez earlier mused that he might be willing to open gas stations here in this country and sell gasoline cheap to the American public. Hugo wants to be your friend. Hey, fine with me. Gasoline in Venezuala is currently 12 cents a gallon, due to the fact that gasoline is subsidized by the Venezualan government. Naturally, it could never be that cheap here, but shit, I'd be thrilled if it was back to the good old days of two dollars a gallon.
The problem is, Bush is never going to accede to this, and Chavez knows it. Bush would never allow him to compete with the American and other oil companies such as BP, who contribute I am sure handily to all his campaign goals and agendas, and who look upon Mr. Bush as their ultimate protector. Chavez's offer for cheap gas in return for aid in combating drug smugglers, I am very much afraid, was not so much a serius offer as it was a shot across the bow. One might even go so far as to call it a cheap shot.
So, is he trying to be a smart-ass or what? I mean, isn't this the guy that has been accussed of funding FARQ, the narco-terrorists who have been wreaking havoc in Columbia, and other places? Or is he perhaps being serious? There could be another possible answer that is somewhat a combination of the two. Everyone knows-well, let's just say it is widely assummed-that the Drug Enforcement Agency is arguably the most corrupt of all U.S. government agencies. In fact, it has been alleged that a good many DEA agents are involved with illegal drug smuggling and trafficking, and that in fact without their aid a good many of the drugs that make it over here would never make it to the border, let alone across it.
This could be a way for Chavez to actualy increase the amount of drugs that he is involved with smuggling into our country, perhaps a way he could as much as double the amount. Get in good with the DEA. Sure, good DEA agents don't come cheap, but they can provide an invaluable insurance policy, they save you money in the long run, and you are ultimately assurred of increasing your profits two or three-fold, with a much lessenned chance of ever being caught, and thus charged with a crime.
Chavez earlier mused that he might be willing to open gas stations here in this country and sell gasoline cheap to the American public. Hugo wants to be your friend. Hey, fine with me. Gasoline in Venezuala is currently 12 cents a gallon, due to the fact that gasoline is subsidized by the Venezualan government. Naturally, it could never be that cheap here, but shit, I'd be thrilled if it was back to the good old days of two dollars a gallon.
The problem is, Bush is never going to accede to this, and Chavez knows it. Bush would never allow him to compete with the American and other oil companies such as BP, who contribute I am sure handily to all his campaign goals and agendas, and who look upon Mr. Bush as their ultimate protector. Chavez's offer for cheap gas in return for aid in combating drug smugglers, I am very much afraid, was not so much a serius offer as it was a shot across the bow. One might even go so far as to call it a cheap shot.
Price Gouging
Pity the poor people who may have the means to escape the surrounding disaster, and are now hopefully on their way out. Hopefully, they have a full tank of gas, and a provision of food necessary to get them to where they are going. Especially gas. If they don't there are certain people who will ensure they don't get too far, and that is the people who are by and large in a position to help them get out. Imagine if you will that you have thirty dollars to your name and your gas tank is half empty. You decide you had better stop and fill it up. You do so, and discover that you will owe the gas station forty dollars. Your only alternative is to fill up your tank, probably, otherwise, what with having to crawl along in bumper to bumper traffic, your gas will be gone by the time you get halfway to where you want to go if it isn't filled up. You will just have to do without food until you get to that place, and hope somehow you will get some kind of handout from some charitable organization.
Of course, you could beat the living shit out of the gas station attendant, or store owner, you could then fill your tank up and just help yourself to however many groceries you can get away with. Frankly, if I saw you do that I wouldn't open my fucking mouth, even if it turned out you inadverdantly-or purposely- killed the motherfucker. But for now, you swallow your anger, pay for the gas, secure in the knowledge that some day, some way, the bastard is going to get what's coming to him. If the law don't get him, maybe some day, some way, somebody will. You can always hope.
Of course, you could beat the living shit out of the gas station attendant, or store owner, you could then fill your tank up and just help yourself to however many groceries you can get away with. Frankly, if I saw you do that I wouldn't open my fucking mouth, even if it turned out you inadverdantly-or purposely- killed the motherfucker. But for now, you swallow your anger, pay for the gas, secure in the knowledge that some day, some way, the bastard is going to get what's coming to him. If the law don't get him, maybe some day, some way, somebody will. You can always hope.
Looters And Survivors
You could have just about set your clock by it. Within just a few hours of the disaster, those who for whatever reason remained in the affected areas of the flooding began looting. Yet, there may be more to this than meets the eye. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that these are all a group of thugs waiting to take advantage of any tragedy. Yet, emember, there is no food, no drinkable water, and whatever possessions these folks may have at one time had, are probably for the most part history.
In fact, I heard one rumor to the effect that one Wal-mart actually opened it's doors to the desperate throngs of survivors. And I saw with my own two eyes a couple o f uniformed police officers that themselves were helping themselves to merchandise at one store in one of the areas.
Another person alleged that the police themselves actually gave them permission to loot the premises of one store. Of course, what could they say. It would be expecting too much to demand that a person obey the laws of human decency when that would result in an even more untenable situation than is currently the case. On the otehr hand, food and clothing are one hting. Televisions and stereos are something else again, and I can almost assure you that there are some people who will just not be able to hekp themselves from taking what all they can take.
The worse thing about it is the potential for violence that might exist, if two or more people engage in a brawl, that could easily turn into a gang war for turf. Hopefully, the police will keep things from deteriorating to that level. At the same time, however, in a situation where communications are severely limited, almost as much as the capacity for food, water, and sanitation, the police themselves, while being the last remaining bulwark in what may turn out to be a futile effort to restore some semblance of order, may be themselves on the edge of having to see first and foremost to their own survival.
In fact, I heard one rumor to the effect that one Wal-mart actually opened it's doors to the desperate throngs of survivors. And I saw with my own two eyes a couple o f uniformed police officers that themselves were helping themselves to merchandise at one store in one of the areas.
Another person alleged that the police themselves actually gave them permission to loot the premises of one store. Of course, what could they say. It would be expecting too much to demand that a person obey the laws of human decency when that would result in an even more untenable situation than is currently the case. On the otehr hand, food and clothing are one hting. Televisions and stereos are something else again, and I can almost assure you that there are some people who will just not be able to hekp themselves from taking what all they can take.
The worse thing about it is the potential for violence that might exist, if two or more people engage in a brawl, that could easily turn into a gang war for turf. Hopefully, the police will keep things from deteriorating to that level. At the same time, however, in a situation where communications are severely limited, almost as much as the capacity for food, water, and sanitation, the police themselves, while being the last remaining bulwark in what may turn out to be a futile effort to restore some semblance of order, may be themselves on the edge of having to see first and foremost to their own survival.
Haley Barbour
Haley Barbour is the present day governor of the state of Mississippi. Formerly, he had been the head of the republican National Committee. Prior to that, I think he might have been a Congressman, but I'm not too sure about that. What I am sure of is that he has increased his profile the last couple of days in the midst of the disaster that has engulfed Mississippi, and thus his overall political profile has jumped quite a few notches. He was obviously dismayed, distraught, and seemingly near to tears when he told a group of reporters when questioned as to what he expected, that he expected to see a bunch of "dead people".
Yet, he seemed to harden at the prospect of the looting which seems to be quite widespread along the Gulf Coast states, including the hardest hit areas of his own. This would include Gulfsport and Biloxi. In fact, the heaviest of all death tolls seems to so far center around this region, as at least 100 people are now believed dead in this area alone. As many more are as yet unnaccounted for it seems obvious that the toll will go even higher. At least 30 people are believed dead from just one apartment complex.
As to the looters, Haley assurred reporters that he intended to be "ruthless" in how he dealth with them. Tough, decisive, yet compassionate. With his standing with the Republicans, and his current increased visibility, I believe I have discovered the potential running mate of Arizona Senator John McCain, should that maverick more or less independant Senator acquire the GOP nomination fo rPresident in 2008. McCain would need someone wiht his stalwart party credentials to keep the party faithful in line-somewhat.
At any rate, I have discerned the potential Republican teams to be as follows:
Vice-President Dick Cheney---------------Condoleeza Rice
Senator John McCain ------------------Haley Barbour
Rudy Giuliani-----------------------------Senator Rick Santorum
Of course, there are other potential match-ups, but these I would have to put at my list as being the top three. Time will tell.
Yet, he seemed to harden at the prospect of the looting which seems to be quite widespread along the Gulf Coast states, including the hardest hit areas of his own. This would include Gulfsport and Biloxi. In fact, the heaviest of all death tolls seems to so far center around this region, as at least 100 people are now believed dead in this area alone. As many more are as yet unnaccounted for it seems obvious that the toll will go even higher. At least 30 people are believed dead from just one apartment complex.
As to the looters, Haley assurred reporters that he intended to be "ruthless" in how he dealth with them. Tough, decisive, yet compassionate. With his standing with the Republicans, and his current increased visibility, I believe I have discovered the potential running mate of Arizona Senator John McCain, should that maverick more or less independant Senator acquire the GOP nomination fo rPresident in 2008. McCain would need someone wiht his stalwart party credentials to keep the party faithful in line-somewhat.
At any rate, I have discerned the potential Republican teams to be as follows:
Vice-President Dick Cheney---------------Condoleeza Rice
Senator John McCain ------------------Haley Barbour
Rudy Giuliani-----------------------------Senator Rick Santorum
Of course, there are other potential match-ups, but these I would have to put at my list as being the top three. Time will tell.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Paganbitchslap
If you are a pagan, you are invited to join Paganbitchslap, a free and unmoderated e-mail forum for the open discussions of all things of interest to pagans. The Link is as follows:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paganbitchslap
Paganbitchslap is my baby, my brainchild, so to speak, and today is it's first year anniversary. So what is Paganbitchslap? It is a Yahoo Group, an e-mail group in other words.
The concept behind it is a simple one, yet inspired. I started joining various e-mail groups a little over the year ago, right after I discovered the Internet. It quickly became a playground for discovery, and I discovered quite a bit. Yahoo Groups was one of those things that ended up taking quite a bit of my time. The first one I joined was a little group called the pagan Love Nest, but it became obvious after a year or so that I wa never going to meet anybody there, so I abandoned that one.
I joined some political groups, mostly left leaning, and in most instances discovered that I may have indeed ventured into the territory of the terminally insane. That was fine, I love to pick on crazy people, I'm a little crazy myself, so I still belong to actually four of these groups, some of which in additon to being political, are pagan oriented.
Which brings me to my major addiction, pagan based Yahoo Groups. I'm in well over ten of them, I've lost count, and quite frankly, I seldom visit these groupsany more, for that matter I seldom mess with any of them anymore. They quickly got old.
One reason for this is nothing ever seems to change, nothing ever gets acomplished, everybody just uses the groups as a sounding board, more or less, to either argue their points of view or to find solace in the group think that is so typical of the majority of them. Rarely, unfortunately, is there an original thought or point of view to be noticed. Also, you will, if you are not careful, find that you have been put on "moderated status" if you offend the right one or ones. And it is not so hard to do that as you might suppose, in a great many ofthese gorups, a good many ofthe members of which simply cannot brook disagreement.
Naturally, I could care less, if I am moderated, or even removed or banned, and so I think it quite funny on those occassions when I am warned that I am in danger of being removed or banned, as though this would be a fate worse than death. At any rate, I noticed over the months that this type of attitude seemed to cause a chilling effect on the naturally inclined discoure of the groups. You didn't have to be warned yourself, just viewing a moderators ire, it seemed, was enough to slow discourse to a trickle.
With this in mind I created Paganbitchslap, a place where anybody could say what they wanted, how they wanted to say it, on any and all subjects across the board, with no danger of ever being moderated. It has gotten quite heated from time to time, members have come and gone, and there is as of now 94, I think, members.Unfortunately, most of the members ever get around to posting, so I stopped sending out invitations. It has slowed to a trickle there, but is still going. After one year.
If you click on the link I provided at the top of the page, you will be lead t the page where you can join if you wish. It is basically for pagans, and like I said, discussions on al subjects is welcome, and totally unmoderated. The only thing I don't put up with is spam. Other than that, it is a free and open forum, and, as long as you are a pagan, you are cordialy invited to join, as of now.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paganbitchslap
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paganbitchslap
Paganbitchslap is my baby, my brainchild, so to speak, and today is it's first year anniversary. So what is Paganbitchslap? It is a Yahoo Group, an e-mail group in other words.
The concept behind it is a simple one, yet inspired. I started joining various e-mail groups a little over the year ago, right after I discovered the Internet. It quickly became a playground for discovery, and I discovered quite a bit. Yahoo Groups was one of those things that ended up taking quite a bit of my time. The first one I joined was a little group called the pagan Love Nest, but it became obvious after a year or so that I wa never going to meet anybody there, so I abandoned that one.
I joined some political groups, mostly left leaning, and in most instances discovered that I may have indeed ventured into the territory of the terminally insane. That was fine, I love to pick on crazy people, I'm a little crazy myself, so I still belong to actually four of these groups, some of which in additon to being political, are pagan oriented.
Which brings me to my major addiction, pagan based Yahoo Groups. I'm in well over ten of them, I've lost count, and quite frankly, I seldom visit these groupsany more, for that matter I seldom mess with any of them anymore. They quickly got old.
One reason for this is nothing ever seems to change, nothing ever gets acomplished, everybody just uses the groups as a sounding board, more or less, to either argue their points of view or to find solace in the group think that is so typical of the majority of them. Rarely, unfortunately, is there an original thought or point of view to be noticed. Also, you will, if you are not careful, find that you have been put on "moderated status" if you offend the right one or ones. And it is not so hard to do that as you might suppose, in a great many ofthese gorups, a good many ofthe members of which simply cannot brook disagreement.
Naturally, I could care less, if I am moderated, or even removed or banned, and so I think it quite funny on those occassions when I am warned that I am in danger of being removed or banned, as though this would be a fate worse than death. At any rate, I noticed over the months that this type of attitude seemed to cause a chilling effect on the naturally inclined discoure of the groups. You didn't have to be warned yourself, just viewing a moderators ire, it seemed, was enough to slow discourse to a trickle.
With this in mind I created Paganbitchslap, a place where anybody could say what they wanted, how they wanted to say it, on any and all subjects across the board, with no danger of ever being moderated. It has gotten quite heated from time to time, members have come and gone, and there is as of now 94, I think, members.Unfortunately, most of the members ever get around to posting, so I stopped sending out invitations. It has slowed to a trickle there, but is still going. After one year.
If you click on the link I provided at the top of the page, you will be lead t the page where you can join if you wish. It is basically for pagans, and like I said, discussions on al subjects is welcome, and totally unmoderated. The only thing I don't put up with is spam. Other than that, it is a free and open forum, and, as long as you are a pagan, you are cordialy invited to join, as of now.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paganbitchslap
Friday, August 26, 2005
ENNUI
One of the most intriquing paintings I have ever seen is "ENNUI" by Walter Sickert. It is filed with imagery,some of which could be,and possibly is, projections from the mind of the viewer. But that is a function of art, and this painting is no exception. At first glance,there is nothing particularly attractive about it. Until you look at it carefully.
The woman stands near a mantle, apparently bored, daydreaming as she looks past some bric-a-brac on the mantle by which she stands, gazing at something on the wall that is out of sight of the viewer. A decanter of wine and brandy sits at the edge of a mantle at another wall, and casts a shadow which is to me reminiscent of a bat hanging upside down.
An older gentleman, apparrently older than the woman though we can't be certain, sits at a table, drinking what has been described as a beer, though it looks more to me like water, while he smokes what has been described as a cigar, though to me it looks more like a cigarrette. Interestingly, he seems to be holding it not to his mouth, but to his nose.
You see a slight bulge in the crotch of his pants as he tries to assume a posture of relaxed casualness-yet he seems to be very tense as he seems to be looking out the corner of his eyes.
But it is the shadow that he casts that seems to reveal his inner turmoil. He sems almost compelled to spring into action. The shadow is full of the life of his secret thoughts. But thoughts about what?
The shadow seems to be a prominent artifice in Sickerts work, which to great extent delves into the dark, hidden side of ordinary everyday life. Sickert was quite taken by the macabre aspects of human nature, with all it's propensity for filth, degradation, and violence. Yet, he could produce art of breathtaking scenic beauty as well.
A good many have come to know him in this day and age through the work of Patricia Cornwell, who recently asserted in a book that Sickert was none other than Jack The Ripper. Though she makes a compelling case insofar as certain items of forensic evidence, in addition to his possible motivations, she herself seems to have become as obsessed at the prospect as the true Ripper may have been at the opportunity for his next victim.
In an efort to produce evidence to support her theory, she purchased a Sickert work and, in the process of searching for evidence, destroyed it. Hopefully, this travesty will never be repeated, nor will it be permitted the chance to occur. Even if Sickert was theRipper, there is no excuse for destroying great art. For another thing, the evidence against Sickert being the Ripper is considerable, and not easily discounted.
*Sickert was in places known to be far from the sight of a number of the Ripper murders, apparrently at the time they were committed.
*So far as I know, Sickert had no connection to the Masons. In point of fact, the Ripper was either a former mason who had been kicked out of the Order, for whatever reason, or he was otherwise in a position to know a great deal of Masonic lore.
*Jack the Ripper was an American, probably attached to the American embassy for at least some time during the last year of the first Grover Cleveland administration, after which, upon the advent of the succeeding Harrison administration, he was among those recaled. No, I can't prove this. But it is what I think.
In fact, I have thought of other potential suspects, among them Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker. And there is also the possibility that Sickert himself, who was reportedly obsessed with the case, may have been the culprit after all,or somehow otherwise involved with it. But again, this doesn't justify destroying great art.
I would suggest however that careful research into Sickert's personal relationships and business ones, particularly what art students he may have taught at the time, may go a long way toward finding the true identity of the Ripper, assumming Sickert had a relationship with him, and of further discovering just what Sickert's connection to the case may have been, if anything. But I wouldn't count on it one way or another.
The woman stands near a mantle, apparently bored, daydreaming as she looks past some bric-a-brac on the mantle by which she stands, gazing at something on the wall that is out of sight of the viewer. A decanter of wine and brandy sits at the edge of a mantle at another wall, and casts a shadow which is to me reminiscent of a bat hanging upside down.
An older gentleman, apparrently older than the woman though we can't be certain, sits at a table, drinking what has been described as a beer, though it looks more to me like water, while he smokes what has been described as a cigar, though to me it looks more like a cigarrette. Interestingly, he seems to be holding it not to his mouth, but to his nose.
You see a slight bulge in the crotch of his pants as he tries to assume a posture of relaxed casualness-yet he seems to be very tense as he seems to be looking out the corner of his eyes.
But it is the shadow that he casts that seems to reveal his inner turmoil. He sems almost compelled to spring into action. The shadow is full of the life of his secret thoughts. But thoughts about what?
The shadow seems to be a prominent artifice in Sickerts work, which to great extent delves into the dark, hidden side of ordinary everyday life. Sickert was quite taken by the macabre aspects of human nature, with all it's propensity for filth, degradation, and violence. Yet, he could produce art of breathtaking scenic beauty as well.
A good many have come to know him in this day and age through the work of Patricia Cornwell, who recently asserted in a book that Sickert was none other than Jack The Ripper. Though she makes a compelling case insofar as certain items of forensic evidence, in addition to his possible motivations, she herself seems to have become as obsessed at the prospect as the true Ripper may have been at the opportunity for his next victim.
In an efort to produce evidence to support her theory, she purchased a Sickert work and, in the process of searching for evidence, destroyed it. Hopefully, this travesty will never be repeated, nor will it be permitted the chance to occur. Even if Sickert was theRipper, there is no excuse for destroying great art. For another thing, the evidence against Sickert being the Ripper is considerable, and not easily discounted.
*Sickert was in places known to be far from the sight of a number of the Ripper murders, apparrently at the time they were committed.
*So far as I know, Sickert had no connection to the Masons. In point of fact, the Ripper was either a former mason who had been kicked out of the Order, for whatever reason, or he was otherwise in a position to know a great deal of Masonic lore.
*Jack the Ripper was an American, probably attached to the American embassy for at least some time during the last year of the first Grover Cleveland administration, after which, upon the advent of the succeeding Harrison administration, he was among those recaled. No, I can't prove this. But it is what I think.
In fact, I have thought of other potential suspects, among them Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker. And there is also the possibility that Sickert himself, who was reportedly obsessed with the case, may have been the culprit after all,or somehow otherwise involved with it. But again, this doesn't justify destroying great art.
I would suggest however that careful research into Sickert's personal relationships and business ones, particularly what art students he may have taught at the time, may go a long way toward finding the true identity of the Ripper, assumming Sickert had a relationship with him, and of further discovering just what Sickert's connection to the case may have been, if anything. But I wouldn't count on it one way or another.
The Artist Kurtz
I came across this artist on a Satanist web-site recently, and though to tell you the truth his art is not exactly my cup of tea, I recognize my rantings and other such artistic endeavors may be considered by some to be as macabre as the artist Kurtz-whose talent is indisputable. He puts me in mind of the artist Walter Sickert, inso far as the subject matter of his art goes. Yet, where Sickert was a Post Impressionist, Kurtz seems to be more of a surrealist. Also, Sickert looked for the grotesque in eveyday life. Kurtz deals with the openly bizarre.
His art will be on display, as I think it is on a regular basis, at JR's Bar & Grill, at 3923 Cedar Springs in Dallas Texas. The next public viewing is I think September 23rd. I'm not sure of the exact date, but it will be easily discovered by clicking on the link I have provided here
http://templeofvangogh.com
Hopefully, I will not have to edit that, as I am sure that is the correct URL, which I have unfortunately misplaced for now. As for why I am doing this, let's just say I am full of my own importance and like to imagine that by recommending this artist to the readers of my Blog, his career will be the better for it. You readers can prove me right by forwarding this Blog post, with attached URL to all and sundry, and tellinghtem to do likewise.
We should all do our parts to encourage and further the arts, and I intend to continue to do so, when the opportunity arises.
Oh, as for my personal favorite of his paintings, I would have to say the lady with the three big titties.
His art will be on display, as I think it is on a regular basis, at JR's Bar & Grill, at 3923 Cedar Springs in Dallas Texas. The next public viewing is I think September 23rd. I'm not sure of the exact date, but it will be easily discovered by clicking on the link I have provided here
http://templeofvangogh.com
Hopefully, I will not have to edit that, as I am sure that is the correct URL, which I have unfortunately misplaced for now. As for why I am doing this, let's just say I am full of my own importance and like to imagine that by recommending this artist to the readers of my Blog, his career will be the better for it. You readers can prove me right by forwarding this Blog post, with attached URL to all and sundry, and tellinghtem to do likewise.
We should all do our parts to encourage and further the arts, and I intend to continue to do so, when the opportunity arises.
Oh, as for my personal favorite of his paintings, I would have to say the lady with the three big titties.
Ira Wells, Sr.-Satanist
My great-great grandfather, Ira Wells, Sr.-born 1824, died 1907-was a Satanist. No, he didn't actually call himself that, he called hmself a "witch". Nor was he a Satanist after the LaVeyan mold, as of course that mold had not in his day been set.
He was an actual spiritualistic Satanist-a "devil worshipper". Or so it has been claimed. Or so he evidently claimed. Some might assert he was simply a local Clay County, later Leslie County Kentucky eccentric-a character-which indeed he was. A modern view of him might be that he was a bit of a showman. But of course the same things were said about Church of Satan founder Dr. Anton Szandor LaVey.
But for the times in which he lived-especially taking into consideration the place, Southeastern Kentucky, that he lived in is time-he was most definitely ahead of said time.
His formula for becomming a witch would sound simplistic, almst childish, to the trained magickal practitioner not only of our time, but to those of his own in more civilized, advanced parts of the world.
"You go up to the top of the highest hill under the full of the mood", he explained, "and with a rifle or a shotgun you shoot at the moon, curse God, and bless the devil".
He also had a formula for what he called "prophesying". You kneeled in front of the fireplace and "bake your head", the way he put it. Evidently, this process was conducive to entering into a trance state. Unfortunately, there is left, to my knowledge, no records of any "prophecies" he may have made while in this state, which is certainly unfortunate.
However, acording to one account, there was an occassion when, after entering into one of these trance states, he fell into the fire, and had to be pulled out of it. On another occassion, while sitting on his front porch, a woman went walking by, carrying an infant. He made the following remark-"lady, I bet I can turn that baby into a hooting owl and make him fly into the top of that tree yonder".
As he pointed to a specific tree, she screamed, almost threw the baby up into the air, but caught herself, and took off running in terror as he laughed. I am certain there is more to the story than this-if there is any truth at all to it- and probably there was some sort of history between him and this woman, but this has all that has come down. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate the level of authenticity to which he was regarded as a practitioner of the "black arts", which he openly claimed to be.
Which leads me to my point. It takes a special kind of person to lay claim to being a "Satanist", or in my great-great grandfather's case, and day, a "witch". Such a statement of beleif and faith is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "politically correct".
Unfortunately, most people who today proudly wear the pagan label-whether Wiccan or Recnstructionist Pagan or eclectic, whether solitaire or coven member or traditionalist-seem to be bound by the same strictures of public behavior as anyone else in our socially restricitve society. And that is a fucking shame.
Most Pagans and Wiccans bemoan the lack of respect they receive from the more traditional religions. Yet, a good may of them go out of their way to try to placate these people, to reassure them, and even, I suspect, to orient their own belief systems in ways they perceive might make them moe palatable-more acceptable-to Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and even to some extent to Bhuddhsts and Hindus.
A lot of this might be due to the fact that a lot of pagans have gravitated to their respective paths by way of the more traditional religions. They have brought a lot of baggage into the pagan movement with them, in other words. And I fear that, eventually, due to the natural, reflective need to attract more converts and build the movement while gaining greater acceptance and respectability, this is going to have a long term deletorious effect. The Pagan paths might well eventualy evolve into something quite different from what they started out as, and to some extent that is unacceptable to me and to a good many others.
I am not a Satanist. But I certainly respect them, or at least I respect the laVeyans. They believe in living life to the fullest, in enjoying the time you have here and now on earth, and making as good a life as you can for yourself, your family, your friends, and your community. They also believe in obeying the law and in good citizenship, though they are a little harsh, for my taste, when it comes to such matters as charity. But even this is out of the practical realization that a good many not only deserve no charity, but will if given the opportunity live off it to the fullest extent possible. Doctory laVey warned repeatedly about the dangers of such psychic vampires, and other types as well.
They practice magic in the same way, and for the same purposes, that they live their lives. For the good of their selves, their families, their friends. They make no apologies for their selfish pursuits of their own needs, their lusts, their hedonistic leanings.
In all these things I am more aligned with them than I am with most in the pagan and Wiccan communties. Of course, I prefer to attune with the deities of my Pre-Christian ancestors. Yet to the Satanist, Satan is not so much as a literal devil as he is an archetype of man's basic nature. He is the ultimate rebel, and, to them, represents the potential of all that is good in mankind. Good to them in that if you live free, at your full potential, while enjoying the best life has to offer, and to the fullest extent possible, you will be happy, fulfilled, and thus contribute to the overall health and well-being of society.
But it is for this life only, they insist, as there is no other. Promises of heaven, like threats of hell, are no more than a kind of "hoodwinking" meant to enslave people to the whims of the ruling elites.
And I believe they are right about the motives generally of religous leaders, though I don't so easily discard all concepts of the spiritual or the afterlife. Be that as it may, their concepts of life and religion are liberating. Anf they deserve to be treated with respect, and as far as I'm concerned, should be welcome into the pagan community.
But there are two reasons this is unlikely to happen. On the one side, most pagans are afraid to be identified with them. They still crave acceptance from those same Christians that most of them have supossedly left. Only they never really left them.
The other reason is the Satanists themselves, for the most part, could care less, and in fact seem to look with disdain on the concept of "white magic" only, and such watered down Chrisitan "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others" attitudes which they view as hypocritical.
The scary thing is, there are a good many in the Pagan/Wiccan community that seem to be wanting to build an overarching religous community that would amount to, in the long run, just another hierarchical power structure. same old story. Same basic package with slightly different wrapping.
I prefer the idea of a secret society, an evolving of the coven concept, which they seem to want to scrap. But in my ideal, this pagan community accepts not everybody, just as they are, but only those who aspire to be the best they can possibly be, and who believe in a balanced viw of the material and the spiritual-not in a world where the two are held to be in constant conflict. Where, in effect, the spiritual and the material walk hand in hand and aim toward a wholly integrated peson. And where the goal of the leaders ofthe community will be to aid in the growth and development of the initiate-as oppossed to enslaving the initiate for the benefit of yet another ruling elite.
I think that was what my great-great grandfather was all about-freedom. He eventually left Leslie County, Ky., afer the demise of Cassie, hs wife, and evidently lived the last years of his life with his son and daughter-in-law,my great grandmother and great grandfather. He was buried beside where they would eventually be buried. Yet, his gravestone,possibly a simple wooden marker, has either long since dissappearred, or sunken into the ground.
No one in Leslie County, however, seemed to know exactly what ever happenned to him. It was said he just loaded up his wagon one morning, took off, never said a word about where he was going, and was never seen or heard from again. And that probably suited him just fine.
He was an actual spiritualistic Satanist-a "devil worshipper". Or so it has been claimed. Or so he evidently claimed. Some might assert he was simply a local Clay County, later Leslie County Kentucky eccentric-a character-which indeed he was. A modern view of him might be that he was a bit of a showman. But of course the same things were said about Church of Satan founder Dr. Anton Szandor LaVey.
But for the times in which he lived-especially taking into consideration the place, Southeastern Kentucky, that he lived in is time-he was most definitely ahead of said time.
His formula for becomming a witch would sound simplistic, almst childish, to the trained magickal practitioner not only of our time, but to those of his own in more civilized, advanced parts of the world.
"You go up to the top of the highest hill under the full of the mood", he explained, "and with a rifle or a shotgun you shoot at the moon, curse God, and bless the devil".
He also had a formula for what he called "prophesying". You kneeled in front of the fireplace and "bake your head", the way he put it. Evidently, this process was conducive to entering into a trance state. Unfortunately, there is left, to my knowledge, no records of any "prophecies" he may have made while in this state, which is certainly unfortunate.
However, acording to one account, there was an occassion when, after entering into one of these trance states, he fell into the fire, and had to be pulled out of it. On another occassion, while sitting on his front porch, a woman went walking by, carrying an infant. He made the following remark-"lady, I bet I can turn that baby into a hooting owl and make him fly into the top of that tree yonder".
As he pointed to a specific tree, she screamed, almost threw the baby up into the air, but caught herself, and took off running in terror as he laughed. I am certain there is more to the story than this-if there is any truth at all to it- and probably there was some sort of history between him and this woman, but this has all that has come down. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate the level of authenticity to which he was regarded as a practitioner of the "black arts", which he openly claimed to be.
Which leads me to my point. It takes a special kind of person to lay claim to being a "Satanist", or in my great-great grandfather's case, and day, a "witch". Such a statement of beleif and faith is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "politically correct".
Unfortunately, most people who today proudly wear the pagan label-whether Wiccan or Recnstructionist Pagan or eclectic, whether solitaire or coven member or traditionalist-seem to be bound by the same strictures of public behavior as anyone else in our socially restricitve society. And that is a fucking shame.
Most Pagans and Wiccans bemoan the lack of respect they receive from the more traditional religions. Yet, a good may of them go out of their way to try to placate these people, to reassure them, and even, I suspect, to orient their own belief systems in ways they perceive might make them moe palatable-more acceptable-to Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and even to some extent to Bhuddhsts and Hindus.
A lot of this might be due to the fact that a lot of pagans have gravitated to their respective paths by way of the more traditional religions. They have brought a lot of baggage into the pagan movement with them, in other words. And I fear that, eventually, due to the natural, reflective need to attract more converts and build the movement while gaining greater acceptance and respectability, this is going to have a long term deletorious effect. The Pagan paths might well eventualy evolve into something quite different from what they started out as, and to some extent that is unacceptable to me and to a good many others.
I am not a Satanist. But I certainly respect them, or at least I respect the laVeyans. They believe in living life to the fullest, in enjoying the time you have here and now on earth, and making as good a life as you can for yourself, your family, your friends, and your community. They also believe in obeying the law and in good citizenship, though they are a little harsh, for my taste, when it comes to such matters as charity. But even this is out of the practical realization that a good many not only deserve no charity, but will if given the opportunity live off it to the fullest extent possible. Doctory laVey warned repeatedly about the dangers of such psychic vampires, and other types as well.
They practice magic in the same way, and for the same purposes, that they live their lives. For the good of their selves, their families, their friends. They make no apologies for their selfish pursuits of their own needs, their lusts, their hedonistic leanings.
In all these things I am more aligned with them than I am with most in the pagan and Wiccan communties. Of course, I prefer to attune with the deities of my Pre-Christian ancestors. Yet to the Satanist, Satan is not so much as a literal devil as he is an archetype of man's basic nature. He is the ultimate rebel, and, to them, represents the potential of all that is good in mankind. Good to them in that if you live free, at your full potential, while enjoying the best life has to offer, and to the fullest extent possible, you will be happy, fulfilled, and thus contribute to the overall health and well-being of society.
But it is for this life only, they insist, as there is no other. Promises of heaven, like threats of hell, are no more than a kind of "hoodwinking" meant to enslave people to the whims of the ruling elites.
And I believe they are right about the motives generally of religous leaders, though I don't so easily discard all concepts of the spiritual or the afterlife. Be that as it may, their concepts of life and religion are liberating. Anf they deserve to be treated with respect, and as far as I'm concerned, should be welcome into the pagan community.
But there are two reasons this is unlikely to happen. On the one side, most pagans are afraid to be identified with them. They still crave acceptance from those same Christians that most of them have supossedly left. Only they never really left them.
The other reason is the Satanists themselves, for the most part, could care less, and in fact seem to look with disdain on the concept of "white magic" only, and such watered down Chrisitan "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others" attitudes which they view as hypocritical.
The scary thing is, there are a good many in the Pagan/Wiccan community that seem to be wanting to build an overarching religous community that would amount to, in the long run, just another hierarchical power structure. same old story. Same basic package with slightly different wrapping.
I prefer the idea of a secret society, an evolving of the coven concept, which they seem to want to scrap. But in my ideal, this pagan community accepts not everybody, just as they are, but only those who aspire to be the best they can possibly be, and who believe in a balanced viw of the material and the spiritual-not in a world where the two are held to be in constant conflict. Where, in effect, the spiritual and the material walk hand in hand and aim toward a wholly integrated peson. And where the goal of the leaders ofthe community will be to aid in the growth and development of the initiate-as oppossed to enslaving the initiate for the benefit of yet another ruling elite.
I think that was what my great-great grandfather was all about-freedom. He eventually left Leslie County, Ky., afer the demise of Cassie, hs wife, and evidently lived the last years of his life with his son and daughter-in-law,my great grandmother and great grandfather. He was buried beside where they would eventually be buried. Yet, his gravestone,possibly a simple wooden marker, has either long since dissappearred, or sunken into the ground.
No one in Leslie County, however, seemed to know exactly what ever happenned to him. It was said he just loaded up his wagon one morning, took off, never said a word about where he was going, and was never seen or heard from again. And that probably suited him just fine.
Pat Robertson's Divine Rationalizations
Christian Coalition and 700 Club founder Pat Robertson, a reveend and former GOP presidential candidate, has a strategic plan to head off what he perceives to be a strategic threat of growing proportions. he plan-take out duly popularly elected Venezualan president Hugo Chavez. Heck, Chavez thinks we're out to get him anyway, Robertson reasons, so why not go ahead and do jsut that? It would be cheaper andmore expeditous than being faced witht heprospect of yet another 200 billion dollar war.
Some of Robertson's past comments canperhaps be overlooked, for example his over-the-top suggestion that the State Department be "nuked". Also, one wonders at his cnsistency, seign as how he has in the past supported dictatorial regimes, such as the People's Republic of China and the West African nation of Libreria. But in this case Robertson seems to be serius. In aditoon, his coments ae not really that inconsistent, eeing as how he has previously suggested taking out Saddam Hussein. Of course, we see now what that has lead to, and one wonders how such an action as now sugested would garner any differnt kind of result.
To "take out" Chavez would not ony be morally reprehensible, it would lead to similar chaos and a power vacuum that would no doubt eventually be filled. But by what? By whom?
Onehas to wonder where Robertson comes up witht hee hairbrained schemes? Did this one come tohim in the manner of a divie revelation? He did claim at one time to have turned a hurricane from the coast of Florida, you know. Though I therefore wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Christian deity is to be credited withthis inspiration, there are yet other possibilities. Is it posible, for example,that Robertson is being goaded on, manipulated into nakin suggestions such as these, by powerful and influential contributors?It would explain quite a lot.But who would do such a thing, and why? There are three possibilities, actually.
One is of course the prospect of right wing religous zealots who honestly think this would be an appropriate action to take in the face of continually rising oil prices and the on-going spectre of Chavez's reputed backing of drug cartels and support for international terrorist organizations. If so, one can legitimately argue they have a point, but it can be asserted that such a strategy would be counterproductive, to say the least.
The other possibility is some of Robertson's shady past business partners, who never saw a busines deal they didn't like, such as the African diamond trade, for example, no matter how many inncoent people were brutally enslaved to ensure it's continued profitability. The people that would back Robertson's investments in this morally quetionable if not downright repugnant enterprise would certianly have no qualms about instigating an assassination and a civil war if they thought they could eventually gain access to the Venezuelan oil fields.
The third prospect is also interesting. Seeign as how the 2006 mid-term elections are swiftly approaching, a mole in Robertson's camp might be trying to sabtage him. Trying, in effect, to insure that he will have no influence-or better yet, be a deletorious one-in the coming elections, and beyond. After all, if a traditionally conservative Republican desired to destroythe influence of the Religous Right, lessen if not decimate ther influence onthe party as a whole, what better way to do so than by marginalizing their most vociferous spokesman?
And, of course, you can't really discount the pssibility that this was indeed a divine revelation,i.e. Robertson has gone stark raving bonkers. Just remember the classical defintion of insanity-you keep on doing the same thing, over and over again, secure in the faith that, eventually, you will achieve the hoped for result, as oppossed to things just blowing up in your face, the way they usually do.
But what is it Robertson is really trying to achieve? One can assume he certainly wasn't attempting to create the firestorm he usualy creates when he makes such off the cuff, unwarranted remarks. In this case, he has issued an apology, though in yet another venue, he has denied it even transpired. It's really difficult to know what to make of it all.
Some of Robertson's past comments canperhaps be overlooked, for example his over-the-top suggestion that the State Department be "nuked". Also, one wonders at his cnsistency, seign as how he has in the past supported dictatorial regimes, such as the People's Republic of China and the West African nation of Libreria. But in this case Robertson seems to be serius. In aditoon, his coments ae not really that inconsistent, eeing as how he has previously suggested taking out Saddam Hussein. Of course, we see now what that has lead to, and one wonders how such an action as now sugested would garner any differnt kind of result.
To "take out" Chavez would not ony be morally reprehensible, it would lead to similar chaos and a power vacuum that would no doubt eventually be filled. But by what? By whom?
Onehas to wonder where Robertson comes up witht hee hairbrained schemes? Did this one come tohim in the manner of a divie revelation? He did claim at one time to have turned a hurricane from the coast of Florida, you know. Though I therefore wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Christian deity is to be credited withthis inspiration, there are yet other possibilities. Is it posible, for example,that Robertson is being goaded on, manipulated into nakin suggestions such as these, by powerful and influential contributors?It would explain quite a lot.But who would do such a thing, and why? There are three possibilities, actually.
One is of course the prospect of right wing religous zealots who honestly think this would be an appropriate action to take in the face of continually rising oil prices and the on-going spectre of Chavez's reputed backing of drug cartels and support for international terrorist organizations. If so, one can legitimately argue they have a point, but it can be asserted that such a strategy would be counterproductive, to say the least.
The other possibility is some of Robertson's shady past business partners, who never saw a busines deal they didn't like, such as the African diamond trade, for example, no matter how many inncoent people were brutally enslaved to ensure it's continued profitability. The people that would back Robertson's investments in this morally quetionable if not downright repugnant enterprise would certianly have no qualms about instigating an assassination and a civil war if they thought they could eventually gain access to the Venezuelan oil fields.
The third prospect is also interesting. Seeign as how the 2006 mid-term elections are swiftly approaching, a mole in Robertson's camp might be trying to sabtage him. Trying, in effect, to insure that he will have no influence-or better yet, be a deletorious one-in the coming elections, and beyond. After all, if a traditionally conservative Republican desired to destroythe influence of the Religous Right, lessen if not decimate ther influence onthe party as a whole, what better way to do so than by marginalizing their most vociferous spokesman?
And, of course, you can't really discount the pssibility that this was indeed a divine revelation,i.e. Robertson has gone stark raving bonkers. Just remember the classical defintion of insanity-you keep on doing the same thing, over and over again, secure in the faith that, eventually, you will achieve the hoped for result, as oppossed to things just blowing up in your face, the way they usually do.
But what is it Robertson is really trying to achieve? One can assume he certainly wasn't attempting to create the firestorm he usualy creates when he makes such off the cuff, unwarranted remarks. In this case, he has issued an apology, though in yet another venue, he has denied it even transpired. It's really difficult to know what to make of it all.
Everybody Loves The Military, Why Can't We have One
On the face of it, you wouldn't think anybody would lve the military as much or more than President George W. Bush. But for somebody that purports to have such respect, devotion, and love for the armed services Bush has a funny way of showing it. In fact, he doesn't seem to want them anywhere in sight.
First, he sends them off to fight in an ill-advised ar without the proper strategy to speak of, in insufficient numbers to even hope to get the job done, and without the body armor and other protectons needed to prevent them from being killed to the tune of, as of this writing, 1864 dead, and countless otehrs wounded and incapacitated, some for life.
He has, or his administaton has, instituted a "stop-loss" policy in order to prevent troops from leaving the military at the end of their normal term of enlistment.
He refuses to adjust his strategy in any significant way which might bring about a reversal of our fortunes, andhasten an end to the conflict.
He has almost torpedoed the Iraqi constitutional process by insisting th eIraqis adhere to an artificial timeline for adopting their constitution which, as it stands now, has some serious flaws. Yet, he stubbornly refuses to consider any kindof timeline for withdrawing our troops, and in fact has constructed bases that at elast give the impression we are engaged in a permanent occupation.
Moreover, he has reduced veterans benefits. This, as they say, is the most unkindest cut of all. A little salt in that wound, soldier?
Finally, this week saw the culmination of a plan to begin reducing cost by closing military bases here in this country. More than 500, in fact, have either been closed, are targeted for consideration to be closed, or are faced with the prospect of substantial reductions. Just today, word was received that Walter Reed Army Hospital, ws one of those that will definitely be closed, after being opened since 1909, and tending to the care of wounded veterans since at least the days of World War I. This is all the more troubling, as Walter Reed went out of it's way to care for wounded veterans in a comprehensive fashion, taking into account their considerable mental and emotional needs, as well as the physical. Still, it has been decided it would be cheaper to shut it down, and build another extension to the Bethesda Naval Hospital, than to conduct needed repairs on the old hospital.
And there is yet more to come. Many in Bush's own party ae furious at this, as these bases contribute to the local economies of their respective areas, many of which need all they help they can get, again thanks in large part to Bush's policies.
Some areas, it should be noted, have benefited from base closings. One such community has turned the area into a model of econmic revitalization, with shopping malls and other business investment opportunities. But it should be pointed out that this was a base that was clsed in the mid 1990's, during the more economicaly vital and successful Clinton era.
True, some present ay base closing areas may fare as well. But I am very much afraid there will be few, if any, that will match this success, and in mos tcases the reverse will be the rule, not the exception.
Thus, while an ever growing number of our military personnel will now be stationed overseas, leaving our borders relatively unguarded and unprotected (to say nothing of our airspace, by the way, and our coastline), an ever growing number of our communities now are faced with the prospect of thousands of job losses, and resulting economic recessions.
Amazing. But this is one military miscalculation and potential fiasco the voters will be unable to blame on the democrats.
First, he sends them off to fight in an ill-advised ar without the proper strategy to speak of, in insufficient numbers to even hope to get the job done, and without the body armor and other protectons needed to prevent them from being killed to the tune of, as of this writing, 1864 dead, and countless otehrs wounded and incapacitated, some for life.
He has, or his administaton has, instituted a "stop-loss" policy in order to prevent troops from leaving the military at the end of their normal term of enlistment.
He refuses to adjust his strategy in any significant way which might bring about a reversal of our fortunes, andhasten an end to the conflict.
He has almost torpedoed the Iraqi constitutional process by insisting th eIraqis adhere to an artificial timeline for adopting their constitution which, as it stands now, has some serious flaws. Yet, he stubbornly refuses to consider any kindof timeline for withdrawing our troops, and in fact has constructed bases that at elast give the impression we are engaged in a permanent occupation.
Moreover, he has reduced veterans benefits. This, as they say, is the most unkindest cut of all. A little salt in that wound, soldier?
Finally, this week saw the culmination of a plan to begin reducing cost by closing military bases here in this country. More than 500, in fact, have either been closed, are targeted for consideration to be closed, or are faced with the prospect of substantial reductions. Just today, word was received that Walter Reed Army Hospital, ws one of those that will definitely be closed, after being opened since 1909, and tending to the care of wounded veterans since at least the days of World War I. This is all the more troubling, as Walter Reed went out of it's way to care for wounded veterans in a comprehensive fashion, taking into account their considerable mental and emotional needs, as well as the physical. Still, it has been decided it would be cheaper to shut it down, and build another extension to the Bethesda Naval Hospital, than to conduct needed repairs on the old hospital.
And there is yet more to come. Many in Bush's own party ae furious at this, as these bases contribute to the local economies of their respective areas, many of which need all they help they can get, again thanks in large part to Bush's policies.
Some areas, it should be noted, have benefited from base closings. One such community has turned the area into a model of econmic revitalization, with shopping malls and other business investment opportunities. But it should be pointed out that this was a base that was clsed in the mid 1990's, during the more economicaly vital and successful Clinton era.
True, some present ay base closing areas may fare as well. But I am very much afraid there will be few, if any, that will match this success, and in mos tcases the reverse will be the rule, not the exception.
Thus, while an ever growing number of our military personnel will now be stationed overseas, leaving our borders relatively unguarded and unprotected (to say nothing of our airspace, by the way, and our coastline), an ever growing number of our communities now are faced with the prospect of thousands of job losses, and resulting economic recessions.
Amazing. But this is one military miscalculation and potential fiasco the voters will be unable to blame on the democrats.
Walk-Don't Run(Out Of Gas)
When Bush first ran for the presidency, one of the assurrances he gave us was that oil prices would be stable, and remain low, due to his families influence with the Saudis and Kuwaitis.
When Bush first proposed the war in Iraq, one of the assurrances he gave us was that the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war.
The Iraqi War has now cost the American taxpayer in excess of 200 billion dollars. And oil prices are through the roof. This, however, has not hurt American oil companies, in fact, it has helped increase their profits. Meanwhile, they are paying less taxes, and soon will be paying even less due to incentives given them in the president's energy bill.
The American public, though, is held hostage by a preisdent, his administration, the oil companies, and by dependence on foreign oil. But they'll stil travel. They'll still buy, though possibly in substantially reduced numbers, SUV's, mini-vans, trucks, and large luxury automobiles.
And that's a lot of the problem. The American public is buying into the president's repeated ugings to spend and to travel. As long as they do so, nothing will change. Because, in reality, the only thing that is holding the economy together is the continued patronage of the American public.
Me, I'm walking anytime I can. And I'm driving only when I have to. If everyone would do the same thing, things might change, and quick. But there's just no accounting for the gullibility and innate stupidity of the general public.
Stil, I have a feeling that if things aren't reigned in by the time the 2006 mid-term elections come around, the economy might very well be out of gas, and the Republican Party might indeed be left stranded at the side of the road.
When Bush first proposed the war in Iraq, one of the assurrances he gave us was that the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war.
The Iraqi War has now cost the American taxpayer in excess of 200 billion dollars. And oil prices are through the roof. This, however, has not hurt American oil companies, in fact, it has helped increase their profits. Meanwhile, they are paying less taxes, and soon will be paying even less due to incentives given them in the president's energy bill.
The American public, though, is held hostage by a preisdent, his administration, the oil companies, and by dependence on foreign oil. But they'll stil travel. They'll still buy, though possibly in substantially reduced numbers, SUV's, mini-vans, trucks, and large luxury automobiles.
And that's a lot of the problem. The American public is buying into the president's repeated ugings to spend and to travel. As long as they do so, nothing will change. Because, in reality, the only thing that is holding the economy together is the continued patronage of the American public.
Me, I'm walking anytime I can. And I'm driving only when I have to. If everyone would do the same thing, things might change, and quick. But there's just no accounting for the gullibility and innate stupidity of the general public.
Stil, I have a feeling that if things aren't reigned in by the time the 2006 mid-term elections come around, the economy might very well be out of gas, and the Republican Party might indeed be left stranded at the side of the road.
The Winds Of Ill-Fortune
Not only is Bush's approval ratings down, but so is the percentage of those who consider him trustworthy. Bush would be well-advised to do something quick. It's going to take more this time than parading Laura out on stage to get him out of this mess.
In fact, his own party has started to distance itself from him. What a sight it is. I can remember a time, in the not too distant past, that even democrats, in appreciable numbers, were lining themselves up with the President during their respective runs for office, in 2002, and some even in 2004. Now, a great many members of his own party can't seem to get far enough away from him.
Of course, mostof them aren't as obvious about it as Senator Chuck Hagle from Nebraska, But Hagle knows he has his work cut out for him if he expects to be a serious contender for the Republican Presidential nomination for 2008, against the likes of McCain, Giulliani, and the myriad others that seem to be lining up for a possible run. The list is in fact a long one, and in itself augurs a potential split in the Republican Party as wide as a whore's cunt.
So Hagle has really launched an opening salvo for the nomination, and has aimed it squarley and obviously at the President he wishes to replace. That tells you, in a word, how bad things are for the Republicans. Ordinarily, a potential candidate would go out of his way to stay in their Commander-In-Chiefs good graces, out of the hope for at least neutrality.
But while Hagle has split with Bush on the latter's obviously seriously and perhjaps fataly flawed Iraq policy, Tennesse Senator Bill Frist has likewise broken with him on the controversial, and to me nonsensical, issue of Stem Cell Research.
If thing go really bad, there's no telling how it will all play out. Son, out of all the serious contenders for the republican nomination, Bush may not have any dependable, down the line allies with the exception of Vice President Dick Cheney, who stays hidden half the fucking time anyway. Not that I can blame him.
And to think, Bush is barely through his vacation. At his ranch house in Crawfrd Texas, a mad woman has just returned amd makes ready to follow Bush across the country, to Washington, D.C., where she will be joined by Joan Baez, and other far left radicals, some reliving their so-called "glory days" of anti-war activism, others just now learning the ropes. In additon, there is a counter demonstration group, apparently organized by a Republican spin group, that is planning on staging counter protests, and bus tours, across the country. It could end up growing, and turning downright ugly. Even malignant.
Look for Laura to start making more appearrances, getting out more. Of course, it would probably do her good.
In fact, his own party has started to distance itself from him. What a sight it is. I can remember a time, in the not too distant past, that even democrats, in appreciable numbers, were lining themselves up with the President during their respective runs for office, in 2002, and some even in 2004. Now, a great many members of his own party can't seem to get far enough away from him.
Of course, mostof them aren't as obvious about it as Senator Chuck Hagle from Nebraska, But Hagle knows he has his work cut out for him if he expects to be a serious contender for the Republican Presidential nomination for 2008, against the likes of McCain, Giulliani, and the myriad others that seem to be lining up for a possible run. The list is in fact a long one, and in itself augurs a potential split in the Republican Party as wide as a whore's cunt.
So Hagle has really launched an opening salvo for the nomination, and has aimed it squarley and obviously at the President he wishes to replace. That tells you, in a word, how bad things are for the Republicans. Ordinarily, a potential candidate would go out of his way to stay in their Commander-In-Chiefs good graces, out of the hope for at least neutrality.
But while Hagle has split with Bush on the latter's obviously seriously and perhjaps fataly flawed Iraq policy, Tennesse Senator Bill Frist has likewise broken with him on the controversial, and to me nonsensical, issue of Stem Cell Research.
If thing go really bad, there's no telling how it will all play out. Son, out of all the serious contenders for the republican nomination, Bush may not have any dependable, down the line allies with the exception of Vice President Dick Cheney, who stays hidden half the fucking time anyway. Not that I can blame him.
And to think, Bush is barely through his vacation. At his ranch house in Crawfrd Texas, a mad woman has just returned amd makes ready to follow Bush across the country, to Washington, D.C., where she will be joined by Joan Baez, and other far left radicals, some reliving their so-called "glory days" of anti-war activism, others just now learning the ropes. In additon, there is a counter demonstration group, apparently organized by a Republican spin group, that is planning on staging counter protests, and bus tours, across the country. It could end up growing, and turning downright ugly. Even malignant.
Look for Laura to start making more appearrances, getting out more. Of course, it would probably do her good.
Choices
I concluded long ago there was nothing accidental about the Democratic party's talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Given the opportunity they will accomplish the same feat during the next mid-term elections, which could indeed be a msot remarkable achievement.
They do this though by taking the most absurdly stupid positions on such matters as the death penalty, which they are against, and gun control, which they are in favor of. There is in fact a long list of positions they have taken which has cost them election after election. So why do they take them? In a word, because the base of their party, their most dependable activist supporters, demand they do so. And so do the activist groups from whom they derive their greatest amount of financial support.
These groups, in fact, don't care if they lose, in fact, they seem to prefer defear. This is not at all a contradiction, in fact, it makes perfect sense, when you consider that they depend onthe anxiety and despair oftheir contributors tokeep those dollars coming in, andthus to insure their own high salaries and bonuses.
A cynical outlook on my part? Not really. Consider a good many of their tactics. Flag burning, for example. All this accompishes is it inlames the majority ofthe American people against whatever cause is being represented by this reprehensible act. Yet, Democrats are constantly put in the untenable position by their far left supporters of viewing this as a form ofprotected speech. Thus, they oppose any efforts at a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning, and thus inflame the average voters agaisnt the Party as mucvh as the activists.
And when you point out this folly to them, they explain it away as a means of exhibiting their anger at the nations policies and their frustrations with same. It's not about winning people over to your side, they claim. I try to remind them that we do still live in a democracy, and that success is dependant on winning the majority of the voting population to your side-all to no avail.
In the meantime, them and otehr similarly minded activists end up costing the Democratic Party an uncountable number of elections when you add all the local and state races to the national ones. But they just don't get it. But, like I said, the activist group leaders get it, and are laughing as they get it and take it al the way to their non-profit banking establishments.
Of course, the Democratic party is, indeed, a liberal party, and I do not propose that it be otherwise. On workers rights, the environment, religous freedoms, gay rights, womens right and reproductive freedoms, civil rights for minorities, health care reform, prison reform, honest to goodness realistic education reform, strenthening and protecting Social Security and Medicare, etc. there is a long litiany of liberal and progressive issues the party could-if they would not allow themselves to be "Bushwhacked"-gather support by formulating common sense policies and, if necessary, yes, compromises.
I hope this time the party has enough sense to reign in the more destructive forces that have dragged them down for so long. If necessary, I would not be adverse to giving them a hearty recommendation to the Green Party, or, in many cases it might even be more appropriate to send them screaming to the Sociaist Workers Party. It's one thing to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. It's quite another thing to have to choose between two walking disasters.
They do this though by taking the most absurdly stupid positions on such matters as the death penalty, which they are against, and gun control, which they are in favor of. There is in fact a long list of positions they have taken which has cost them election after election. So why do they take them? In a word, because the base of their party, their most dependable activist supporters, demand they do so. And so do the activist groups from whom they derive their greatest amount of financial support.
These groups, in fact, don't care if they lose, in fact, they seem to prefer defear. This is not at all a contradiction, in fact, it makes perfect sense, when you consider that they depend onthe anxiety and despair oftheir contributors tokeep those dollars coming in, andthus to insure their own high salaries and bonuses.
A cynical outlook on my part? Not really. Consider a good many of their tactics. Flag burning, for example. All this accompishes is it inlames the majority ofthe American people against whatever cause is being represented by this reprehensible act. Yet, Democrats are constantly put in the untenable position by their far left supporters of viewing this as a form ofprotected speech. Thus, they oppose any efforts at a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning, and thus inflame the average voters agaisnt the Party as mucvh as the activists.
And when you point out this folly to them, they explain it away as a means of exhibiting their anger at the nations policies and their frustrations with same. It's not about winning people over to your side, they claim. I try to remind them that we do still live in a democracy, and that success is dependant on winning the majority of the voting population to your side-all to no avail.
In the meantime, them and otehr similarly minded activists end up costing the Democratic Party an uncountable number of elections when you add all the local and state races to the national ones. But they just don't get it. But, like I said, the activist group leaders get it, and are laughing as they get it and take it al the way to their non-profit banking establishments.
Of course, the Democratic party is, indeed, a liberal party, and I do not propose that it be otherwise. On workers rights, the environment, religous freedoms, gay rights, womens right and reproductive freedoms, civil rights for minorities, health care reform, prison reform, honest to goodness realistic education reform, strenthening and protecting Social Security and Medicare, etc. there is a long litiany of liberal and progressive issues the party could-if they would not allow themselves to be "Bushwhacked"-gather support by formulating common sense policies and, if necessary, yes, compromises.
I hope this time the party has enough sense to reign in the more destructive forces that have dragged them down for so long. If necessary, I would not be adverse to giving them a hearty recommendation to the Green Party, or, in many cases it might even be more appropriate to send them screaming to the Sociaist Workers Party. It's one thing to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. It's quite another thing to have to choose between two walking disasters.
The Cum In The Condom
There are many wedge issues you can count on the Republican Party exploiting yet again in the 2006 mid-term elections. One of these concerns the rights and responsibilities of gay parents, as recently laid out in a series of court cases, in particular in the state of California.
In one of these cases, involving the lesbian parents who had recently split up, the courts decided that both parents retained their parental rights and responsibilities, even though one parent had previously signed away these rights. The court reasoned that this parent had been the donor of the egg by which the child had been born to the other lesbian parent. She therefore had an inherent responsibility for the child's welfare, thus correspnding rights as well. If I understand the case correctly, I disagree with the decision, as I think it sets a horrible precedent for all parents, including heterosexual adoptive parents in regard to the rights and repsonsibilites of birth parents.
On the one hand, a birth parent could in effect make null and void any previously agreed upon contract with the adoptive agency and parents, if he or she so sees fit, on the grounds of having entered into the contract while in a state of duress, for one example, whether the claim was valid or not. On the other hand, a birth parent can also find themselves in the position of being faced with responsibilities he or she has in good faith attempted to extricate themselves from.
It is all ready to the point where if a woman retrieves semen from a discarded condon, and manages to impregnate herself with it, the unsuspecting biological "father" is legally bound, in at least some jurisdictions, with the same responsibilities as any other biological father or mother. Ther has actually been a court decision to this effect. It is unfair, of course, and a ridiculous travesty of justice. Such laws cry out, in fact, to be broken, even if extreme measures are necessary.
Unfortunately, such extreme judicial rulings may inadverdantly hand the Republican Party yet more cannon fodder, but the Democrats should not allow themselves to be sidetracked by yet another unreasonable push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Yes, it will cost some votes, but there are times you have to stand up for what is right when faced with the rising tide of extremism. Such a constitutional amendment would unfairly target a class of Americans for legal discrimination and serve to negate the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Yet, it is that same Equal ProtectionClause which is precisely a big part of the problem. If gay couples can marry, according to such an interpretation of the clause, then that same clause could easily be interpreted as giving them the same rights to legal adoption of children as any heterosexual couple. And that, more than anything, in my opinion, is what drives the far right bonkers over the prospect of gay marriage, which the recent California court rulings is seen by many as serving to advance.
A logical and rational compromise would be the institution of domestic partnerships for gay couples, one which would preclude such adoption rights. But the most progressive gay activists aren't going to accede to this, and it is a stop-gap measure anyway, as it would itself eventually come to be vieweed as being itself against the spitit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Like the cum in the condom, it is a messy, sticky situation and the far right is not going to drop it, nor will the far left. And the country as a whole will be held hostage to it, or would be, except that it isn't really that serious an issue in the grand scheme of things. It is, again, a diversionary wedge issue, but it is one that has so far worked to the Republicans advantage. I have no doubt they will utilize it yet again, and with a fury.
In one of these cases, involving the lesbian parents who had recently split up, the courts decided that both parents retained their parental rights and responsibilities, even though one parent had previously signed away these rights. The court reasoned that this parent had been the donor of the egg by which the child had been born to the other lesbian parent. She therefore had an inherent responsibility for the child's welfare, thus correspnding rights as well. If I understand the case correctly, I disagree with the decision, as I think it sets a horrible precedent for all parents, including heterosexual adoptive parents in regard to the rights and repsonsibilites of birth parents.
On the one hand, a birth parent could in effect make null and void any previously agreed upon contract with the adoptive agency and parents, if he or she so sees fit, on the grounds of having entered into the contract while in a state of duress, for one example, whether the claim was valid or not. On the other hand, a birth parent can also find themselves in the position of being faced with responsibilities he or she has in good faith attempted to extricate themselves from.
It is all ready to the point where if a woman retrieves semen from a discarded condon, and manages to impregnate herself with it, the unsuspecting biological "father" is legally bound, in at least some jurisdictions, with the same responsibilities as any other biological father or mother. Ther has actually been a court decision to this effect. It is unfair, of course, and a ridiculous travesty of justice. Such laws cry out, in fact, to be broken, even if extreme measures are necessary.
Unfortunately, such extreme judicial rulings may inadverdantly hand the Republican Party yet more cannon fodder, but the Democrats should not allow themselves to be sidetracked by yet another unreasonable push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Yes, it will cost some votes, but there are times you have to stand up for what is right when faced with the rising tide of extremism. Such a constitutional amendment would unfairly target a class of Americans for legal discrimination and serve to negate the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Yet, it is that same Equal ProtectionClause which is precisely a big part of the problem. If gay couples can marry, according to such an interpretation of the clause, then that same clause could easily be interpreted as giving them the same rights to legal adoption of children as any heterosexual couple. And that, more than anything, in my opinion, is what drives the far right bonkers over the prospect of gay marriage, which the recent California court rulings is seen by many as serving to advance.
A logical and rational compromise would be the institution of domestic partnerships for gay couples, one which would preclude such adoption rights. But the most progressive gay activists aren't going to accede to this, and it is a stop-gap measure anyway, as it would itself eventually come to be vieweed as being itself against the spitit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Like the cum in the condom, it is a messy, sticky situation and the far right is not going to drop it, nor will the far left. And the country as a whole will be held hostage to it, or would be, except that it isn't really that serious an issue in the grand scheme of things. It is, again, a diversionary wedge issue, but it is one that has so far worked to the Republicans advantage. I have no doubt they will utilize it yet again, and with a fury.
Science Fact And Fiction
Another issue that will undoubtedly manifest itself as a wedge issue in the 2006 mid-term eections is the spectre of "Intelligent Design Theory" as regard the creation of the universe-in other words, "Creationism".
Bush recently fired this salvo by pontificating his view that the idea should be allowed to be preented to students in science classes. Some proponents insist this is not in oppossition to Darwinism, evolution, natural selection, etc., but as a way of postulating an original cause which science has heretofore been unable to devise to any noted degree.
The problem with this, of course, is that it solves nothing, and merely in fact raises another question. If an "Intelligent Designer" is the original cause behind creation, than what is the original cause of that intelligent designer? This of course is a problem even the most noted theologians have had trouble grappling with, and long ago gave up the struggle, proclaiming there are just some things beyond mortal comprehension.
As for the most conservative, literalist minded readers of the Bible, there is no question where they stand on the issue, if they had their way "Intelligent Design" would be advanced as the only theory of creation that makes any sense-which would of course be patent nonsense.
What it all boils down to is that the public schools of America have been turned into just another theatre in the so-caled "culture wars". And the stakes in this conflict are much higher than in any of the others. Why?
Because one day, perhaps not that far into the future, there exists the potential that scientists will finally unveil the ultimate mystery. What was the cause of the universe coming into being, and from thence evolving to it's present state? Such a discovery would, in effect, end for all time speculation as to the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, ever existing yet never changing, all-wise and all-loving Creator God.
That is what the Religous Right fears moe than anything else. Truth. Knowledge. Reality. But one day, the truth will be known and, though doubtless it will be very unsettling, it will nevertheless be catharthic. And the world will, in time, be a better place because of it.
Bush recently fired this salvo by pontificating his view that the idea should be allowed to be preented to students in science classes. Some proponents insist this is not in oppossition to Darwinism, evolution, natural selection, etc., but as a way of postulating an original cause which science has heretofore been unable to devise to any noted degree.
The problem with this, of course, is that it solves nothing, and merely in fact raises another question. If an "Intelligent Designer" is the original cause behind creation, than what is the original cause of that intelligent designer? This of course is a problem even the most noted theologians have had trouble grappling with, and long ago gave up the struggle, proclaiming there are just some things beyond mortal comprehension.
As for the most conservative, literalist minded readers of the Bible, there is no question where they stand on the issue, if they had their way "Intelligent Design" would be advanced as the only theory of creation that makes any sense-which would of course be patent nonsense.
What it all boils down to is that the public schools of America have been turned into just another theatre in the so-caled "culture wars". And the stakes in this conflict are much higher than in any of the others. Why?
Because one day, perhaps not that far into the future, there exists the potential that scientists will finally unveil the ultimate mystery. What was the cause of the universe coming into being, and from thence evolving to it's present state? Such a discovery would, in effect, end for all time speculation as to the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, ever existing yet never changing, all-wise and all-loving Creator God.
That is what the Religous Right fears moe than anything else. Truth. Knowledge. Reality. But one day, the truth will be known and, though doubtless it will be very unsettling, it will nevertheless be catharthic. And the world will, in time, be a better place because of it.
Caligula Draws Down The Moon
Benito Mussolin finally suceeded in accomplishing what had been considered the impossible. By lowering the waters of lake Nemi, by way of ancient drainage tunnels originally constructed to protect the nearby Temple of Diana from flooding, he was able to retrieve the two giant Imperial aRoman pleasure barges which had rested on the lakes bottom for just a decade shy of nineteen centuries.
In their time, they were lavish and spectacular, the Titanics of their day, and were far more advanced than even the Romans had been though capable of achieving. They had the unusual feature of being constructed to easily navigate the relatively shallow waters of the lake, though they were each the size of two modern day regulation size tennis courts. But what was their orignal purpose?
They were commissioned by Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, better known to history as the mad emperor Caligula. Some eight months into his reign he was struck by a mysterious illness and was for a time feared near death. When he miraculously revived, he had undergone a marked change. The previously gracous, overly generous, youthful emperor, who had spent the first eight months or so of his reign in a hedonistic drunken binge of orgies and lavish banquets, was now reportedly quite insane, according to most accounts, and declared himself a god. He also began to display a heretofore unknown, perhaps hidden but now overt, predilection for cruelty. Fueled by paranoia, he began a reign of the most cruel excesses and vices ever noted to that time.
There were widespread executions, tortures, and confiscations of properties. No one, in fact, was safe, and very few who engendered his all too easily inflamed suspicions, were spared. Nevertheless, to Caligula, evey day was a party, a celebration, an excuse for a banquet or a circus, as he merrily went about his way running through the nations treasury.
But there is no record of his time on Lake Nemi, other than some hint that it must have occurred shortly after, or possibly during, his recovery from his near fatal illness. I am quite certain this was decided by way of the process of elimination, as his presence is more or less well documented at other times during his reign. So we might assume from this that his purpose here was one of hastening his recovery.
But there may have been more to it than that. Caligula had been, or now became, quite obsessed with his sister Drusilla. He wanted her, in every way. And now, perhaps, he would have her. Remember, Lake Nemi was the site of the Temple Of Diana The Huntress, ancient even in those days. The lake itself was known as "Diana's Mirror". There is no doubt due to the reflection the full moon cast upon the waters, which made it attractive from the beginning to the Goddess's devotees. it would have been considered conducive to meditation, to communion witht he Goddess.
One of the ships, as I said, contained a temple. The other was plainly a luxury, pleasure barge. Side by side, the two of them dominated the lake. One night, perhaps when the full moon shone down upon the lake, upon the ships, Caligula may have invoked Diana, calling her into the form of his sister Drusilla. He then, let us say, "communed" with his Goddess.
No one knows for sure how Drusilla felt about her brother's affections. It may have been just another in a long series of childhood precocous games to her, which finally culminated in the events of Lake Nemi. She may have been a more or less willing participant. Or a horrified, unwilling one, yet helpless to forestal or to prevent it.
All that is known for sure is Drusilla eventually died, while pregnant by Caligula, some say by his hand, as he ripped the child from her womb, then devouring it. Others say her death was a mysterious one and Caligula was heartsick over her sudden demise. Whatever the case, Caligula further degenerated as a result of her death.
Some say it was after his assasination, early in 41 C.E., that the ships were sunk by his vengeful enemies. Possible. But I propose that it was Caligula himself that destroyed the ships, after his sister's demise. I believe he then went on to execute the worshippers of the Goddess herself, and decimated the temple. He wanted no reminders left of his overwhelming grief.
He was a god. Drusilla, he had also declared, was a goddess. And all those who had attempted, in his tortured mind if not in reality, to harm him, and who may have suceeded in killing her, would soon pay a heavy price. Much like his former co-heir Gemellus, who Caligula may have ordered beheaded while on that lake that long ago, winsome, magical time.
As for the ships, they did not long survive their brief salvage rom the bottom of Lake Nemi. As the Nazis retreated from Italy toward the end of World War II, they set fire to the museum that was specially constructed to house them. Almost everything was destroyed, though luckily a few relics and artifacts somehow survived the conflagration.
Luckily, the ships destruction did not prevent a good deal of prior study from discovering a great deal about the techniques of ancient Roman shipbuilding, and about the time and culture of Rome itself.
In their time, they were lavish and spectacular, the Titanics of their day, and were far more advanced than even the Romans had been though capable of achieving. They had the unusual feature of being constructed to easily navigate the relatively shallow waters of the lake, though they were each the size of two modern day regulation size tennis courts. But what was their orignal purpose?
They were commissioned by Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, better known to history as the mad emperor Caligula. Some eight months into his reign he was struck by a mysterious illness and was for a time feared near death. When he miraculously revived, he had undergone a marked change. The previously gracous, overly generous, youthful emperor, who had spent the first eight months or so of his reign in a hedonistic drunken binge of orgies and lavish banquets, was now reportedly quite insane, according to most accounts, and declared himself a god. He also began to display a heretofore unknown, perhaps hidden but now overt, predilection for cruelty. Fueled by paranoia, he began a reign of the most cruel excesses and vices ever noted to that time.
There were widespread executions, tortures, and confiscations of properties. No one, in fact, was safe, and very few who engendered his all too easily inflamed suspicions, were spared. Nevertheless, to Caligula, evey day was a party, a celebration, an excuse for a banquet or a circus, as he merrily went about his way running through the nations treasury.
But there is no record of his time on Lake Nemi, other than some hint that it must have occurred shortly after, or possibly during, his recovery from his near fatal illness. I am quite certain this was decided by way of the process of elimination, as his presence is more or less well documented at other times during his reign. So we might assume from this that his purpose here was one of hastening his recovery.
But there may have been more to it than that. Caligula had been, or now became, quite obsessed with his sister Drusilla. He wanted her, in every way. And now, perhaps, he would have her. Remember, Lake Nemi was the site of the Temple Of Diana The Huntress, ancient even in those days. The lake itself was known as "Diana's Mirror". There is no doubt due to the reflection the full moon cast upon the waters, which made it attractive from the beginning to the Goddess's devotees. it would have been considered conducive to meditation, to communion witht he Goddess.
One of the ships, as I said, contained a temple. The other was plainly a luxury, pleasure barge. Side by side, the two of them dominated the lake. One night, perhaps when the full moon shone down upon the lake, upon the ships, Caligula may have invoked Diana, calling her into the form of his sister Drusilla. He then, let us say, "communed" with his Goddess.
No one knows for sure how Drusilla felt about her brother's affections. It may have been just another in a long series of childhood precocous games to her, which finally culminated in the events of Lake Nemi. She may have been a more or less willing participant. Or a horrified, unwilling one, yet helpless to forestal or to prevent it.
All that is known for sure is Drusilla eventually died, while pregnant by Caligula, some say by his hand, as he ripped the child from her womb, then devouring it. Others say her death was a mysterious one and Caligula was heartsick over her sudden demise. Whatever the case, Caligula further degenerated as a result of her death.
Some say it was after his assasination, early in 41 C.E., that the ships were sunk by his vengeful enemies. Possible. But I propose that it was Caligula himself that destroyed the ships, after his sister's demise. I believe he then went on to execute the worshippers of the Goddess herself, and decimated the temple. He wanted no reminders left of his overwhelming grief.
He was a god. Drusilla, he had also declared, was a goddess. And all those who had attempted, in his tortured mind if not in reality, to harm him, and who may have suceeded in killing her, would soon pay a heavy price. Much like his former co-heir Gemellus, who Caligula may have ordered beheaded while on that lake that long ago, winsome, magical time.
As for the ships, they did not long survive their brief salvage rom the bottom of Lake Nemi. As the Nazis retreated from Italy toward the end of World War II, they set fire to the museum that was specially constructed to house them. Almost everything was destroyed, though luckily a few relics and artifacts somehow survived the conflagration.
Luckily, the ships destruction did not prevent a good deal of prior study from discovering a great deal about the techniques of ancient Roman shipbuilding, and about the time and culture of Rome itself.
Friday, August 19, 2005
The Fly On The Wall
Scene: The Crawford Ranch
G.W.- Hey Condi, we're all alone now, why don't we-
CONDI- No, George, you're not gettin up in this black ass of mine.
G.W.-Okay, who told you I said that? Colin? Dick?
CONDI-No, Laura. She overheard you telling Karl Rove. You've got a big mouth, George. So you ain't getting no pussy. And no, you're not getting no ass either. I'm here to work.
G.W.-But shucks, I am on vacation.
CONDI-A working vacation, George, while I'm here. And while Laura's here. Now let's get down to business.
G.W.-Okay, I get it. Shucks, I made you Secretary Of State. So what do you want now?
CONDI-George!
G.W.-Okay, okay, you win. We'll talk about work. So what's on the agenda.
CONDI- You tell me. What should we discuss.
G.W.-I think I ought to issue a statement about this affair Brad has been having with Angelina, and stepping out on poor Jen the way he's been doing. That sets a bad example for the youth of our country.
CONDI- George, really, I see your point, but don't you think there's really more important things the President of The United States should focus his attention on.
G.W.-Yeah, I guess you're right. Like terrorism. Big problem. I'm thinking of having those people all rounded up and arrested.
CONDI-What people are those, George?
G.W.-Those people that are making that bad movie putting down the Catholic Church, that one based on that book I just read, The DaVinci Code. That book is nothing but a pack of lies, and they're trying to pass it off as the truth. And now they're making a movie out of it. The next thing you know they'll be going around bombing convents and cathedrals, and-
CONDI-George, The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction-not a terrorist manifesto.
G.W.-Then why are the Catholics so upset about it? Hey, I know, I'll call the Pope. He should know the story.
CONDI-George, the Pope is in Cologne Germany, meeting with all those kids.
G.W.-Oh, no! They caught him?
CONDI- It's World's Youth Day, George. It's like a festival.
G.W.- Yeah, it's a festival all right-heh,heh,heh,heh
CONDI-Well, anyway, I-George, what's wrong? What are you looking out the window at?
G.W.-I'm looking to see if I can see that Sheehan bitch. You didn't see her on the way in here did you?
CONDI-No, George, in fact I heard that she left, her mother had a stroke so she's gone to be with her. She might not be back for awhile.
G.W.-Yeah, right, I bet. I bet she's hiding out there, trying to trick me into coming out, then she can jump out at me and say mean things to me in front of all those people.
CONDI-I don't think you have anything to worry about, George. Listen, we really should talk about serious issues. I am your Secretary Of State, you know. We should discuss foreign affairs.
G.W.-Yeah, you're right. I've been putting it off, to tell you the truth, but I figger I ain't got no choice. I just decided, after careful thought, I'm going to declare war on those bastards.
CONDI-What bastards are that, George? Iran? North Korea? Syria?
G.W.-No, those cotton pickin' Arubans.
CONDI-What?
G.W.-Yeah, I took an oath to protect the lives of Americans, so what do they do? They make this little girl dissappear, and won't do nothing to find her. They're terrorists, and I-
CONDI- George, you can't declare war on Aruba. They're a protectorate of the Netherlands. Our NATO allies. What are you thinking? This is a matter for law-enforcement, not international diplomacy, and certainly not for war.
G.W.-Yeah, right-heh,heh,heh-tell that to Scott Peterson, or to the BLT killer, look at what the media did to them?
CONDI-That's BTK killer, George-and you are not responsible for joining the media or helping them do their jobs, they can do it well enough. Just look at how they helped discover that one killer, you know, the one that used to be a Power Ranger.
G.W.-What did you say? You're accussing one of the Power Rangers of murder? You take that back, Condi, and I mean right now.
CONDI-I didn't say it George, it came out over the media.
G.W.-Oh yeah? Well, we'll see about that, by God. This is another blatant attempt by the liberal media to attack me, this time by attacking one of my all time favorite programs.
CONDI-Oh, George, just forget it. All I'm saying is, these kinds of issues are not your concern, it's innappropriate for you to involve yourself in matters that should strictly be left up to law-enforcement.
G.W.-Oh, yeah? Well, I guess then we shouldn't worry about Saddam no more. Maybe the left wing is right. Maybe we should have left Saddam alone. After all, ain't that a matter of law enforcement? Where would he be now if we thought like that? He wouldn't be in no prison cell, that's for sure.
CONDI-That's different, George. That was war, and Saddam is being charged with war crimes, by his own country.
G.W.-Oh, really? What country is that?
CONDI-Never mind, George. Look, I'm really concerned about this situation with the Israelis and The Palestinians, over the Gaza. It seems to be going good, but you never can tell when it might suddenly really blow up. We need to start gettin prepared to be of assistance, if need be. Those settlers really don't want to leave, but now that they've been evacuated, there could be some serious issues about-
G.W.-Ah, shucks, lets send them over some pizzas. That'll make 'em feel better. Ain't nothin' like a good pizza to cheer people up.
CONDI-You really think it would be that easy, George?
G.W.-Well, we could throw in some tacos, some good Texas chili, some hot wings. Hell, have them over for a good old fasdhioned Texas bar-b-que. Hell, it makes the Mexicans feel better.
CONDI-What Mexicans?
G.W.-Oh! I shouldn't have said nothing. I'm talking about the ones I got hidden out on the range acres. I put up some little shantys for them. Since they left their homes in Mexico, their kind of down in the dumps, so I figgerred it's the least I can do for 'em.
CONDI- Well-who are they?
G.W.- Oh, you know, different ones, they all come and go on their way here and there. A little rest and they're good as new. Since Elliott Richardson declared his state a disaster area, I figger I'll be gettin' more of 'em than usual, so I really should put up some extra shanties, and rustle up a few more head of cattle. Those fellers sure can eat and drink, let me tell ya.
CONDI-George, I'm going to pretend I didn't hear any of this shit. Really. What would Dick say?
G.W.- Well, that's what I wanted to talk to you about. I'm hoping he'll say yes, to running for Prsident in 2008, that is. And I'm hoping you'll be his running mate.
CONDI-2008 is a long way off, George. I'll think about it. But-what's wrong, George?
G.W.-Do you think I'm a bad President, Condi? Serious, I've got people saying I don't care about the environment. I've heard this one feller even says I've polluted the Ohio River, and now that there's been such a bad drought down there, and the River is so low, there's more chemicals than there is water.
CONDI- Oh, George, of course I don't think you're a bad president.
G.W.-Then why won't you give me a piece of pussy. I've never had a piece of colored pussy. My daddy used to always say, "fuck a duck, screw a guinea, nigger pussy is as good as any"-heh, heh, heh, heh.
CONDI-Just between me and you George, I prefer "once you get black, you never go back"
G.W.-Then-you'll give me a piece of that ass? I swear, Laura won't ever know.
CONDI-Yes, George. Let's get it on, baby. I love you, my little Bushman.
G.W.-I love you too, my sweet little Condi-Pie.
G.W.- Hey Condi, we're all alone now, why don't we-
CONDI- No, George, you're not gettin up in this black ass of mine.
G.W.-Okay, who told you I said that? Colin? Dick?
CONDI-No, Laura. She overheard you telling Karl Rove. You've got a big mouth, George. So you ain't getting no pussy. And no, you're not getting no ass either. I'm here to work.
G.W.-But shucks, I am on vacation.
CONDI-A working vacation, George, while I'm here. And while Laura's here. Now let's get down to business.
G.W.-Okay, I get it. Shucks, I made you Secretary Of State. So what do you want now?
CONDI-George!
G.W.-Okay, okay, you win. We'll talk about work. So what's on the agenda.
CONDI- You tell me. What should we discuss.
G.W.-I think I ought to issue a statement about this affair Brad has been having with Angelina, and stepping out on poor Jen the way he's been doing. That sets a bad example for the youth of our country.
CONDI- George, really, I see your point, but don't you think there's really more important things the President of The United States should focus his attention on.
G.W.-Yeah, I guess you're right. Like terrorism. Big problem. I'm thinking of having those people all rounded up and arrested.
CONDI-What people are those, George?
G.W.-Those people that are making that bad movie putting down the Catholic Church, that one based on that book I just read, The DaVinci Code. That book is nothing but a pack of lies, and they're trying to pass it off as the truth. And now they're making a movie out of it. The next thing you know they'll be going around bombing convents and cathedrals, and-
CONDI-George, The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction-not a terrorist manifesto.
G.W.-Then why are the Catholics so upset about it? Hey, I know, I'll call the Pope. He should know the story.
CONDI-George, the Pope is in Cologne Germany, meeting with all those kids.
G.W.-Oh, no! They caught him?
CONDI- It's World's Youth Day, George. It's like a festival.
G.W.- Yeah, it's a festival all right-heh,heh,heh,heh
CONDI-Well, anyway, I-George, what's wrong? What are you looking out the window at?
G.W.-I'm looking to see if I can see that Sheehan bitch. You didn't see her on the way in here did you?
CONDI-No, George, in fact I heard that she left, her mother had a stroke so she's gone to be with her. She might not be back for awhile.
G.W.-Yeah, right, I bet. I bet she's hiding out there, trying to trick me into coming out, then she can jump out at me and say mean things to me in front of all those people.
CONDI-I don't think you have anything to worry about, George. Listen, we really should talk about serious issues. I am your Secretary Of State, you know. We should discuss foreign affairs.
G.W.-Yeah, you're right. I've been putting it off, to tell you the truth, but I figger I ain't got no choice. I just decided, after careful thought, I'm going to declare war on those bastards.
CONDI-What bastards are that, George? Iran? North Korea? Syria?
G.W.-No, those cotton pickin' Arubans.
CONDI-What?
G.W.-Yeah, I took an oath to protect the lives of Americans, so what do they do? They make this little girl dissappear, and won't do nothing to find her. They're terrorists, and I-
CONDI- George, you can't declare war on Aruba. They're a protectorate of the Netherlands. Our NATO allies. What are you thinking? This is a matter for law-enforcement, not international diplomacy, and certainly not for war.
G.W.-Yeah, right-heh,heh,heh-tell that to Scott Peterson, or to the BLT killer, look at what the media did to them?
CONDI-That's BTK killer, George-and you are not responsible for joining the media or helping them do their jobs, they can do it well enough. Just look at how they helped discover that one killer, you know, the one that used to be a Power Ranger.
G.W.-What did you say? You're accussing one of the Power Rangers of murder? You take that back, Condi, and I mean right now.
CONDI-I didn't say it George, it came out over the media.
G.W.-Oh yeah? Well, we'll see about that, by God. This is another blatant attempt by the liberal media to attack me, this time by attacking one of my all time favorite programs.
CONDI-Oh, George, just forget it. All I'm saying is, these kinds of issues are not your concern, it's innappropriate for you to involve yourself in matters that should strictly be left up to law-enforcement.
G.W.-Oh, yeah? Well, I guess then we shouldn't worry about Saddam no more. Maybe the left wing is right. Maybe we should have left Saddam alone. After all, ain't that a matter of law enforcement? Where would he be now if we thought like that? He wouldn't be in no prison cell, that's for sure.
CONDI-That's different, George. That was war, and Saddam is being charged with war crimes, by his own country.
G.W.-Oh, really? What country is that?
CONDI-Never mind, George. Look, I'm really concerned about this situation with the Israelis and The Palestinians, over the Gaza. It seems to be going good, but you never can tell when it might suddenly really blow up. We need to start gettin prepared to be of assistance, if need be. Those settlers really don't want to leave, but now that they've been evacuated, there could be some serious issues about-
G.W.-Ah, shucks, lets send them over some pizzas. That'll make 'em feel better. Ain't nothin' like a good pizza to cheer people up.
CONDI-You really think it would be that easy, George?
G.W.-Well, we could throw in some tacos, some good Texas chili, some hot wings. Hell, have them over for a good old fasdhioned Texas bar-b-que. Hell, it makes the Mexicans feel better.
CONDI-What Mexicans?
G.W.-Oh! I shouldn't have said nothing. I'm talking about the ones I got hidden out on the range acres. I put up some little shantys for them. Since they left their homes in Mexico, their kind of down in the dumps, so I figgerred it's the least I can do for 'em.
CONDI- Well-who are they?
G.W.- Oh, you know, different ones, they all come and go on their way here and there. A little rest and they're good as new. Since Elliott Richardson declared his state a disaster area, I figger I'll be gettin' more of 'em than usual, so I really should put up some extra shanties, and rustle up a few more head of cattle. Those fellers sure can eat and drink, let me tell ya.
CONDI-George, I'm going to pretend I didn't hear any of this shit. Really. What would Dick say?
G.W.- Well, that's what I wanted to talk to you about. I'm hoping he'll say yes, to running for Prsident in 2008, that is. And I'm hoping you'll be his running mate.
CONDI-2008 is a long way off, George. I'll think about it. But-what's wrong, George?
G.W.-Do you think I'm a bad President, Condi? Serious, I've got people saying I don't care about the environment. I've heard this one feller even says I've polluted the Ohio River, and now that there's been such a bad drought down there, and the River is so low, there's more chemicals than there is water.
CONDI- Oh, George, of course I don't think you're a bad president.
G.W.-Then why won't you give me a piece of pussy. I've never had a piece of colored pussy. My daddy used to always say, "fuck a duck, screw a guinea, nigger pussy is as good as any"-heh, heh, heh, heh.
CONDI-Just between me and you George, I prefer "once you get black, you never go back"
G.W.-Then-you'll give me a piece of that ass? I swear, Laura won't ever know.
CONDI-Yes, George. Let's get it on, baby. I love you, my little Bushman.
G.W.-I love you too, my sweet little Condi-Pie.
A Fine Piece Of Ass
Confession time. Anytime I see a woman with a fine looking ass, I want to cram my fucking dick up in it. So much so that, when I say I want a piece of ass, I am not speaking euphemistically.
Case in point. I once had an in-law who seemed to go out of her way to exhibit one fine set of legs at a family gathering. As the day drew to a close, and the guests prepared to leave , I made sure I was the last one in line toward the door, directly behind her. I didn't just casually, "accidentally" grab that ass. I grabbed it, held it, massaged it, and practically juggled it, with one hand.
Some weeks later, we were at the same place, when suddenly, to my delight, she presented herself in a long, thin, light colored dress, in which she stood in front of the picture window, The sun shining through her dress revealed she was wearing nothing under it. No slip. no panties. I resisted approaching, with difficulty, as certain situations had somewhat changed, actually they had changed considerably.
No, I never go tthat piece of ass. In fact, I have never had a piece of ass. I have had pussy, mind you, plenty of times. But no ass. Now, I have no one, and frankly, were I given a choice between a great piece of pussy and a fine piece of ass, I think I would choose the ass. There's something about never having had something that makes you want it all the more.
Neverhteless, I must admit to some confusion. And it involvesd the use of vaseline. In my admittedly inexperienced opinion, I believe vaseline is not a good idea. All the more if you propose to stick your dick up a tight, fine ass which is unnacustommed to having a cock injected up inside of it.
Obviously, a hard dick could do considerable damage to the inner walls of the rectum. Membranes could easily be torn, causing great pain, long term soreness, and possibly a serious infection. As such, I would propose that some caution be advised. Why be so greedy, so selfish, that you insist on fulfilling your desires to quickly cram your dick all the way up her ass, regardless of the consequences.
This is the technique I would recommend. After considerable foreplay, begin by inserting the shaft of the penis lengthways snugly between the ass cheeks. Thrust slightly, while rotating in a circular and sideways motion. In my considerably experienced as egarding generally matters of sensuality, this tactic should get the woman considerably hot, and she will meet and match your physical entreaties. She wil in effect jack you off with her ass. You should get off nicely. And she should be ready for more.
Assumming you can achieve a second erection, you should have a resevoir of sperm eposited between the cheeks of her ass. This should make a fine natural lubricant, in addition to that of her own natural rectal juices.
This should allow you to gradually put your rehardened cock snugly, firmly, up the womans ass, but only so much as she can comfortably stand. When she exhibits discomfort, and if you are a true man, you should disengage imediately. Call it off for the day.
When next you resume, folow the same procedure. You should find yourself being able to go slightly further than before. After so many times, you will eventually be able to put your dick all the way up that fine, sultry, shapely ass. (unless you are overly endowed)
You may end up, of course, with shit all over your dick. naturally, you will want to clean this off without delay. Your partner may do this for you, sensually bathing your dick with warm, soapy water and a bath sponge. She may get you off yet again by this practice, and indeed this may prove a measure of her satisfaction with you. Just don't get crazy and ask her to suck your dick clean. On the other hand, she might well suck your dick afdter cleaning it. If so, you can certainly say-though I wouldn't advise it-"your ass is mine".
(By the way, if she does suck your dick clean, you are dealing with an obviously deranged woman, quite possibly one of your own creation).
Finally, I must confess here to the most sadistic and mean spirited of fantasies. I wouldlove to have an on-going affair with a married woman and carry on in this manner with her. It should, ideally,be a woman who is considered a good woman from a fine family, and married to a man of like reputation. He very naively loves her with all his heart, soul, and mind, and devotes his entire life to her.
He works hard to support her, putting in long, extra hours at the office in order to build the best possiblelife for him and for her, and their numerous children, ensuringthat she has al her needs, and wants.
I convince her that since I am not fucking her pussy, she is not truly, technically, "fucking over him". And so we continue, about once a week or so, for over a period of many months, I have known her for some time and have met him socially on a number of occassions. He's a real high and mighty, holier than thou prick, a genuine hypocrit, which in fact is what she hersaelf happens to be, as well as both their families. But I have gone out of my way to "fit in", so no one suspects anything. In fact, we arrange our meetings in areas away from our hometown, taking care to craft reasonable, believable alibis.
She does not suspect that gradually, over time, her asshole will noticeably grow to roughly the shape and size of a medium sized grapefruit. But eventually, someday, maybe by the time hubby's vacation times comes along, and they finallky get a chance to go off forthat long, extended, romantic getaway-he will know.
Yeah, I admit it-I've been all up in that ass!
Case in point. I once had an in-law who seemed to go out of her way to exhibit one fine set of legs at a family gathering. As the day drew to a close, and the guests prepared to leave , I made sure I was the last one in line toward the door, directly behind her. I didn't just casually, "accidentally" grab that ass. I grabbed it, held it, massaged it, and practically juggled it, with one hand.
Some weeks later, we were at the same place, when suddenly, to my delight, she presented herself in a long, thin, light colored dress, in which she stood in front of the picture window, The sun shining through her dress revealed she was wearing nothing under it. No slip. no panties. I resisted approaching, with difficulty, as certain situations had somewhat changed, actually they had changed considerably.
No, I never go tthat piece of ass. In fact, I have never had a piece of ass. I have had pussy, mind you, plenty of times. But no ass. Now, I have no one, and frankly, were I given a choice between a great piece of pussy and a fine piece of ass, I think I would choose the ass. There's something about never having had something that makes you want it all the more.
Neverhteless, I must admit to some confusion. And it involvesd the use of vaseline. In my admittedly inexperienced opinion, I believe vaseline is not a good idea. All the more if you propose to stick your dick up a tight, fine ass which is unnacustommed to having a cock injected up inside of it.
Obviously, a hard dick could do considerable damage to the inner walls of the rectum. Membranes could easily be torn, causing great pain, long term soreness, and possibly a serious infection. As such, I would propose that some caution be advised. Why be so greedy, so selfish, that you insist on fulfilling your desires to quickly cram your dick all the way up her ass, regardless of the consequences.
This is the technique I would recommend. After considerable foreplay, begin by inserting the shaft of the penis lengthways snugly between the ass cheeks. Thrust slightly, while rotating in a circular and sideways motion. In my considerably experienced as egarding generally matters of sensuality, this tactic should get the woman considerably hot, and she will meet and match your physical entreaties. She wil in effect jack you off with her ass. You should get off nicely. And she should be ready for more.
Assumming you can achieve a second erection, you should have a resevoir of sperm eposited between the cheeks of her ass. This should make a fine natural lubricant, in addition to that of her own natural rectal juices.
This should allow you to gradually put your rehardened cock snugly, firmly, up the womans ass, but only so much as she can comfortably stand. When she exhibits discomfort, and if you are a true man, you should disengage imediately. Call it off for the day.
When next you resume, folow the same procedure. You should find yourself being able to go slightly further than before. After so many times, you will eventually be able to put your dick all the way up that fine, sultry, shapely ass. (unless you are overly endowed)
You may end up, of course, with shit all over your dick. naturally, you will want to clean this off without delay. Your partner may do this for you, sensually bathing your dick with warm, soapy water and a bath sponge. She may get you off yet again by this practice, and indeed this may prove a measure of her satisfaction with you. Just don't get crazy and ask her to suck your dick clean. On the other hand, she might well suck your dick afdter cleaning it. If so, you can certainly say-though I wouldn't advise it-"your ass is mine".
(By the way, if she does suck your dick clean, you are dealing with an obviously deranged woman, quite possibly one of your own creation).
Finally, I must confess here to the most sadistic and mean spirited of fantasies. I wouldlove to have an on-going affair with a married woman and carry on in this manner with her. It should, ideally,be a woman who is considered a good woman from a fine family, and married to a man of like reputation. He very naively loves her with all his heart, soul, and mind, and devotes his entire life to her.
He works hard to support her, putting in long, extra hours at the office in order to build the best possiblelife for him and for her, and their numerous children, ensuringthat she has al her needs, and wants.
I convince her that since I am not fucking her pussy, she is not truly, technically, "fucking over him". And so we continue, about once a week or so, for over a period of many months, I have known her for some time and have met him socially on a number of occassions. He's a real high and mighty, holier than thou prick, a genuine hypocrit, which in fact is what she hersaelf happens to be, as well as both their families. But I have gone out of my way to "fit in", so no one suspects anything. In fact, we arrange our meetings in areas away from our hometown, taking care to craft reasonable, believable alibis.
She does not suspect that gradually, over time, her asshole will noticeably grow to roughly the shape and size of a medium sized grapefruit. But eventually, someday, maybe by the time hubby's vacation times comes along, and they finallky get a chance to go off forthat long, extended, romantic getaway-he will know.
Yeah, I admit it-I've been all up in that ass!
Brad, And Angelina, And-And-Oh Yeah, Jen
What in the hell do you think? And why do you care? Who the hell wouldn't? Why the fuck not? I'd fuck that in a heartbeat. Man, what a ride that would be! Damn, I'd swim through a mile of her shit just to make my way up to where it came from. Man, I'd just love to cum all over her. On her thighs. On her calves. On her breasts. In her hair. On her stomach. On the small of her back. On the large of her back. All over her face. In her mouth.
Man, I would sure love to get a piece of that pussy. Why, I'd fuck the living dog shit out of her. And then I'd call the dog back in. Then I'd just sit back and watch 'em. And jack off.
Why? Oh, shit, you're kidding. Wouldn't you? What? Oh, okay, you're gay. That's different. I guess. No, no, that's all right, you're-what? You're not? But you still wouldn't fuck that? And you tell me you're not gay? Bullshit!!! If you wouldn't fuck that, you're a fucking four alarm fire!!!
Come on, look at her. Just look at her. That's-that's-that's the modern day Sophia Loren, that's what she is. You have to want to fuck her. You can't not want to fuck her. Come on, look at her. Admit it, you're gettin' horny. You're getting a hard-on. Come on, admit it.
What? You're motherfucking right I'd fuck her in a heartbeat. Hell yes, it wouldn't matter if I was married to that other one. What do you mean, even if I was in love with her? Look, how do you know it ain't her fault anyway? It might be all her fault. Hell, I bet it is her fault. And even if it wasn't, fuck it, just look at her! Who needs a fucking reason anyway? Any fucking excuse would do it for me. Married or not.
Well, yeah, I'll grant you that, sure, I'd do my damndest to keep it a secret. Of course I wouldn't want her to find out about it. Hell no, I wouldn't just up and leave her for her-like he did.
Yeah, you're right. He's a stupid motherfucker.
Man, I would sure love to get a piece of that pussy. Why, I'd fuck the living dog shit out of her. And then I'd call the dog back in. Then I'd just sit back and watch 'em. And jack off.
Why? Oh, shit, you're kidding. Wouldn't you? What? Oh, okay, you're gay. That's different. I guess. No, no, that's all right, you're-what? You're not? But you still wouldn't fuck that? And you tell me you're not gay? Bullshit!!! If you wouldn't fuck that, you're a fucking four alarm fire!!!
Come on, look at her. Just look at her. That's-that's-that's the modern day Sophia Loren, that's what she is. You have to want to fuck her. You can't not want to fuck her. Come on, look at her. Admit it, you're gettin' horny. You're getting a hard-on. Come on, admit it.
What? You're motherfucking right I'd fuck her in a heartbeat. Hell yes, it wouldn't matter if I was married to that other one. What do you mean, even if I was in love with her? Look, how do you know it ain't her fault anyway? It might be all her fault. Hell, I bet it is her fault. And even if it wasn't, fuck it, just look at her! Who needs a fucking reason anyway? Any fucking excuse would do it for me. Married or not.
Well, yeah, I'll grant you that, sure, I'd do my damndest to keep it a secret. Of course I wouldn't want her to find out about it. Hell no, I wouldn't just up and leave her for her-like he did.
Yeah, you're right. He's a stupid motherfucker.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Fucking Nuns
So what do my wandering eyes behold but this nun, complete in habit, protesting the filming of the new movie starring Tom Hanks, "The DaVinci Code", based on the novel of the same name. Her reasons for protesting the flick? Because it is against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Hey, Sister, I got a news flash for you. You should see some of my stuff. For example,though I've temporarily shelved it for the time being, I have this little project, a play tentatively titled, "Where's My Mommy". The main character is the Greek God Priapus, who has gone to this convent looking for his mother, the Goddess Aphrodite, who he claims has gone there disguised as a nun just to hang out for the purpose of purification. Of course, he doesn't reveal his true nature right away, he disguises himself as this little boy, claiming that the nun he is looking for is nothing more than his human mother. In the meantime, he uses his quite impressive powers to get into the nuns heads, in an effort to determine which one os the object of his search, and inso doing inadverdantly uncovers the reasons for their most peculiar affiliation, as well as a few well hidden tendencies. A grand time is had by all, as a result of his endeavors. In one scene, this evil priest fucks this one nun in the ass, then makes another suck her shit off his dick before he will give her the whiskey he has promised to bring her. Yeah, it's really cool.
Of course, when Priapus reveals his true identity, it is something of a surprise, to say the least. He is short, fat, bald, and ugly as all get out. But he has this, like, really HUGE dick. I mean, it's a whopper, the cock of all cocks. Yeah, I don't know for sure, but if I can ever get it published, I'm thinking of maybe Danny DeVito in the role of Priapus. Shit, he's cut out for it in every way, except probably for the huge dick part, but we can use some mechanical device for that. Well, we'd just about have to. As for the evil priest, he has a big dick too, and when the goddess reveals herself, she turns it into this really cool snake that wraps itself around the priest and strangles him, and bites him, and kills him with it's venom. I won't tell you which one of the nuns Aphrodite turns out to be, hell, why ruin the surprise. I'm thinking of getting Angelina Jolie to play the part of the Goddess. That's kind of a waste, though, since she's the only one of the nuns that doesn't get fucked, and I mean really fucked good, sister. Why, in between all the ass fucking, and cock sucking, and pussy eating, and-well, I guess you get the point.
In fact, another possible name for the paly is, "The Nunnery", as I've heard, though I haven't verified this, that "Nunnery" was actually an old English word for a whore house.
So what do you say, sister? Will you protest my play? Please? It could really use the publicity. I mean, it couldn't hurt, anyway.
Hey, Sister, I got a news flash for you. You should see some of my stuff. For example,though I've temporarily shelved it for the time being, I have this little project, a play tentatively titled, "Where's My Mommy". The main character is the Greek God Priapus, who has gone to this convent looking for his mother, the Goddess Aphrodite, who he claims has gone there disguised as a nun just to hang out for the purpose of purification. Of course, he doesn't reveal his true nature right away, he disguises himself as this little boy, claiming that the nun he is looking for is nothing more than his human mother. In the meantime, he uses his quite impressive powers to get into the nuns heads, in an effort to determine which one os the object of his search, and inso doing inadverdantly uncovers the reasons for their most peculiar affiliation, as well as a few well hidden tendencies. A grand time is had by all, as a result of his endeavors. In one scene, this evil priest fucks this one nun in the ass, then makes another suck her shit off his dick before he will give her the whiskey he has promised to bring her. Yeah, it's really cool.
Of course, when Priapus reveals his true identity, it is something of a surprise, to say the least. He is short, fat, bald, and ugly as all get out. But he has this, like, really HUGE dick. I mean, it's a whopper, the cock of all cocks. Yeah, I don't know for sure, but if I can ever get it published, I'm thinking of maybe Danny DeVito in the role of Priapus. Shit, he's cut out for it in every way, except probably for the huge dick part, but we can use some mechanical device for that. Well, we'd just about have to. As for the evil priest, he has a big dick too, and when the goddess reveals herself, she turns it into this really cool snake that wraps itself around the priest and strangles him, and bites him, and kills him with it's venom. I won't tell you which one of the nuns Aphrodite turns out to be, hell, why ruin the surprise. I'm thinking of getting Angelina Jolie to play the part of the Goddess. That's kind of a waste, though, since she's the only one of the nuns that doesn't get fucked, and I mean really fucked good, sister. Why, in between all the ass fucking, and cock sucking, and pussy eating, and-well, I guess you get the point.
In fact, another possible name for the paly is, "The Nunnery", as I've heard, though I haven't verified this, that "Nunnery" was actually an old English word for a whore house.
So what do you say, sister? Will you protest my play? Please? It could really use the publicity. I mean, it couldn't hurt, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)