The reason I wrote all this in one word is because that is the URL name of the Yahoo Group, Robins Hood Community Center,and it is worth looking up. In fact, I am a member of this pagan group, although unfortunately I haven't devoted any time to it lately, in fact I have rarely visited the site over the last three or four months, due quite plainly to lack of time to do so. Yet, that is the only Pagan charity that I know of, certainly the only one that I know of in the Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area. And they do good work, or at least they try to.
They give free food (canned goods and dried goods, etc.) in addition to free clothing to people in need, especially to people that have experienced a sudden tragedy, such as a loss of home due to fire, death in the family of the main breadwinner, etc. Most importantly, perhaps, they have provided a place of refuge during the cold winter nights for the homeless, many of whom have no other place to go, and might otherwise freeze to death during sub-zero temperatures. Nothing fancy, just a place to come in and stay warm for the night.
The Reverend Bonnie Campaniello, who runs this organization out of donations, and with some proceeds from her New Age/Pagan oriented store, The Faerie Realm, is devoted to making a difference in the lives of the needy in Covington Kentucky, not necessarrily just pagans, but for anybody that needs help, whenever it is possible to do so.
Unfortunately, she has met some roadblocks along the way, from the more mainstream Christian oriented charities who seem to see her,and her religion, as some kind of a threat. One such place that purports to care for the poor and homeless had the temerity to turn down a donation of canned goods that Bonnie brought to their door. They didn't like the idea of receiving goods from a witch, I suppose thinking that this would look bad, for a Christian group to receive aid from one it likes to paint as "Satanic" and evil.
Another group, which runs a web-site by the name of Northern kentucky Saved, even went so far as to concuct harrassment of the premises of The Faerie Realm, acting in an insulting manner by praying at their window that the "evil" would cease.
Yet, some of these same Christian charities proved to be of no avail to Joe Young, who last year was thrown out of a Christian mission, and was forced to remain out on the streets. He was found dead, frozen to death, the following day. According to witnesses at the offending missions, there were availiable beds, but Joe had stayed his limit. Perhaps he had become somewhat rowdy, as he had a drinking problem, or possibly he was forced to leave simply because he had alcohol on his breath. At any rate, he is dead-murdered by Christians. The same types of people who like to pretend they are too good to receive aid from a pagan, the kind who feel they have a Chrisitan duty to harass practitioners of Wicca.
As for the Reverend Bonnie, she tries to help those who need help, when she can, without the expectation or the suggestion that they should be converted to Wiccan or Paganism, nor does she require identification, somehting which unfortunately might prevent her from receiving any kind of official aid, as this generally requires the collection of identification for law enforcement purposes.
She just helps because she feels she should do so. And her organizations, Robins Hood Community Center, and The Faerie realm, are two that are definitely deserving of support. As suchg, as winter months are nigh approaching, I would heartily encourage any of the unfortunately probably small handful of people htat might read this blog to donate what you can. It might give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Besides, it would just be a good thing to do.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
David Irving-An Assault On Freedom Of Speech
Hopefully, it will never happen here, but Europe has recently shown itself for it's much vaunted andhyped and for that matter relatively recent views on democracy and freedom of the press and speech. David Irving is a British (and it is important to note this) historian, who has recently been charged in an AUSTRIAN court for the unthinkable crime of denying the Holocaust.
No matter what you might think abour Mr. Irving, or for that matter no matter how you may feel about the Holocaust, Nazism, or any so-called "Jewish conspiracies"-or lack thereof-no person who respects freedom in any of it's cerebral forms, that of thought, of speech, of assembly, or any kind of freedom, could be happy with this.
Yet, such is the world we live in, and I fear the precedent this might set. Should the World Court ever become an accepted reality in everyday life, is this an example of the result that might ensue, for not only America, but for any of the signatories?
Irving has had a long and at times distinquished, at other times controversial, career as a historian who worships at the altar of research. He once offerred a rspectable sum of money to any researcher who could prove that Hitler ordered the extermination of Jewish prisoners. In fact, Irving asserted that not only di dHitler not order the Holocaust, he did not even know of any atrocities committed agaisnt jewish prisoners before 1943. He even went so far as to refute the existence of ovens (for the destruction of Jews) in Nazi death camps.
Irving is no stranger to litigation. He was successfully sued by a Captain J.S. Broome, who commanded the escort of a convoy Irving wrote critically about in "The Destruction of Convoy PQ 17". He also lost a suit filed agaisnt an American academic, Deborah Lipstadt, who criticized him in her "Denying The Holocaust: The Growing Assault On Truth And Memory". She had asserted that Irving was a "Holocaust Denier", to which Irving took exception.
Of course, Irving did, in addition to his doubts about the ovens, assert serious doubts about the veracity of the numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The official number-6,000,000-does seem questionable, and it has been stated that the Jews "fudged the numbers" out of some type of mystical need to assert their spiritual identity in a way prophesied many centuries ago. The number 6,000,000, in other words, has prohetical significance, so it has been said.
Whatever the truth of the assertions and the counter allegations, however,that is not the point, and frankly I could care less (which at the rate things are going will probably one day turn out to be a crime as well) . My concern is with freedom of all kinds, mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual. If a person has a theory, that person has very right to present that theory, and all others have a right to agree, disagree, support, or ridicule, as they see fit. No one has a right to assault or in any manner marginalize a person for their beliefs.
But it would seem as though the Austrian court has every intention of becomming the very Nazis they so pretend to despise. Which of course would be asppropriate, as Hitler was, after all, an Austrian. I don't have any idea how this will all turn out, but if this is the standard for European justice and freedom, I want no part of it, and sincerely hope the U.S. never becomes a signatory to the World Court, or anything remotely similar to it.
As for Mr. Irving, it is impossible now for him to find a publisher for his works, and spends his time on the lecture circuit, in fact he recently returned from the U.S. where he embarked on a lecture tour. As for his writings, they are availiable for free on the Internet. Monster that I am, I will in the future provide a link to them, probably on this post. I will provide a link to this post then in a future one, if a significant amount of posts have been added by then.
Mr. Irvings previous books include:
"The Destuction of Dresden"-in which Mr. Irving stated his view that the bombing of that city was the greatest atrocity ever visited upon a European city.
"The Mare's Nest"
"The Virus House"
He is currently working on a biography of SS Chief Heinrich Himmler.
No matter what you might think abour Mr. Irving, or for that matter no matter how you may feel about the Holocaust, Nazism, or any so-called "Jewish conspiracies"-or lack thereof-no person who respects freedom in any of it's cerebral forms, that of thought, of speech, of assembly, or any kind of freedom, could be happy with this.
Yet, such is the world we live in, and I fear the precedent this might set. Should the World Court ever become an accepted reality in everyday life, is this an example of the result that might ensue, for not only America, but for any of the signatories?
Irving has had a long and at times distinquished, at other times controversial, career as a historian who worships at the altar of research. He once offerred a rspectable sum of money to any researcher who could prove that Hitler ordered the extermination of Jewish prisoners. In fact, Irving asserted that not only di dHitler not order the Holocaust, he did not even know of any atrocities committed agaisnt jewish prisoners before 1943. He even went so far as to refute the existence of ovens (for the destruction of Jews) in Nazi death camps.
Irving is no stranger to litigation. He was successfully sued by a Captain J.S. Broome, who commanded the escort of a convoy Irving wrote critically about in "The Destruction of Convoy PQ 17". He also lost a suit filed agaisnt an American academic, Deborah Lipstadt, who criticized him in her "Denying The Holocaust: The Growing Assault On Truth And Memory". She had asserted that Irving was a "Holocaust Denier", to which Irving took exception.
Of course, Irving did, in addition to his doubts about the ovens, assert serious doubts about the veracity of the numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The official number-6,000,000-does seem questionable, and it has been stated that the Jews "fudged the numbers" out of some type of mystical need to assert their spiritual identity in a way prophesied many centuries ago. The number 6,000,000, in other words, has prohetical significance, so it has been said.
Whatever the truth of the assertions and the counter allegations, however,that is not the point, and frankly I could care less (which at the rate things are going will probably one day turn out to be a crime as well) . My concern is with freedom of all kinds, mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual. If a person has a theory, that person has very right to present that theory, and all others have a right to agree, disagree, support, or ridicule, as they see fit. No one has a right to assault or in any manner marginalize a person for their beliefs.
But it would seem as though the Austrian court has every intention of becomming the very Nazis they so pretend to despise. Which of course would be asppropriate, as Hitler was, after all, an Austrian. I don't have any idea how this will all turn out, but if this is the standard for European justice and freedom, I want no part of it, and sincerely hope the U.S. never becomes a signatory to the World Court, or anything remotely similar to it.
As for Mr. Irving, it is impossible now for him to find a publisher for his works, and spends his time on the lecture circuit, in fact he recently returned from the U.S. where he embarked on a lecture tour. As for his writings, they are availiable for free on the Internet. Monster that I am, I will in the future provide a link to them, probably on this post. I will provide a link to this post then in a future one, if a significant amount of posts have been added by then.
Mr. Irvings previous books include:
"The Destuction of Dresden"-in which Mr. Irving stated his view that the bombing of that city was the greatest atrocity ever visited upon a European city.
"The Mare's Nest"
"The Virus House"
He is currently working on a biography of SS Chief Heinrich Himmler.
Republican Policies And GM
The title of this post should say it all, but I doubt that Americans will learn their lessons for long. The most we can hope for is that they at least have gotten tired enough of them to throw them out of office for at least a couple of terms. But I seriously doubt they will vote them out of office for much longer than that. Not the presidency anyway.
It's not all the people's faults, actually, the Democrats have a way of adopting some of the stupidest, most asinine policies you can imagine, and then wondering why the average American gets sick of them and they therefore lose election after election.
And the Republicans come along and play on the fears that the Democrats have in many ways failed to address at best, and at worse, have unintentionally created and/or compounded. And so, the Democratic Party, the party who fought and won two World Wars, as well as a regional European war, without a single American life being lost, has the reputation as the party that is weak on national defense, as the party who seems to care more for our standing within the International Community than they do America's independance and national sovereignty insofar as it's own laws and internal affairs are concerned. The party who cares more about the rights of criminals than the rights of victims, the party that wants to enact strident, unneccesary and intrusive gun control laws, the party that wants to respect to the point of kowtowing to every minority religion even at the point of seeming to marginalize Christianity. The paryt that wants to support gay marriage or at least civil unions while keeping intact tax laws that penalize traditional marriage. The party that wants to tax initiative and productivity at the expense of supporting and funding programs for the unproductive members of society. The party that cares for the rights of the minority to the point that it becomes politically incorrect to question any policies or laws for their benefit. The party whose main concern when appointing federal judges or Supreme Court judges seems to be insuring the nominee will support or at the least agree not to oppose abortion rights.
I could go on and on. And sometimes I do, to the point that a goopd many people probably are left with the impression that I am a Republican, or at least am damned sure no democrat.
Actually, I am. I am a traditional liberal Democrat, though certainly not in any way on the Far Left of the spectrum. As a traditional liberal, I am pro minority rights, pro union and labor, pro environment, pro gay rights, pro choice and womens rights. I believe that the wealthy have an obligation and actually a patriotic duty to pay taxes, yes, at a greater rate than the middle and lower classes, maybe to the tune of one third of their income, maybe a little more. Especially since it is the wealthy who are responsible more than any other sector of American society for the majority if not all of the wars we tend to become engaged in.
When an American president asserts the need to go to war to "protect our interests", that is usually portrayed as meaning our security interests. And this is true up to a point, but by the same token those security interests seem to revolve around the security of our ability to import needed materials and goods, at least to some extent. When we are said to be "protecting our allies"-our allies in what? Well, it would seem to be our trading partners. That's where the money is. In the Middle East, of course, it was oil, in Korea it was nickel (a necessary component of the steel industry at the time), etc.
And it is the Republicans more so than the Democrats who are willing to go to war at a moments notice to protect thsoe trade and security interests-those economic interests, and to that end are responsible more than any other party for the bloated military budget which most Democrats by now have figured is their Third Rail every bit as much as Social Security is to the Republican Party.
The Pentagon needs to go on an extreme diet, the bloating is the result of kickbacks and graft, the typical corruption. Mind you, not all the fat has to be trimed, and probably shouldn't. Like a physical human body, the pentagon probably needs a degree of fat. But too much and it suddenly ceases to grease the wheels, and the arteries start to clog.
In the meantime, in order to support this insane diet, tax cuts become necessary, but it seems now they are never enough, and never will be sufficient. Thus, we now have an eight trillion dolar national debt. Our yearly deficit is around 500 billion dollars, so that debt grows by this amount, plus interest, every year.
And thanks to the trade agreements,such as NAFTA and others, we now are faced with a ballooning trade deficit as well. Suppossedly, this is the only way American companies can compete with foreign ones, by sending their work offshore to compete with the foreign companies who flood our markets with their cheap goods, a good lot of which is produced by way of cheap ass, practically slave, labor.
But the cheap goods, they keep coming here, and the cheap foreign labor as well, while the good jobs continue to be sent overseas. Where will it all end? I wish I knew. Bu if I did know, I would probably wish I didn't.
GM is just the latest of the casualties. It probably won't be the last. But it is a milestone indeed, that one of the companies most responsible for America's greatness as a manufacturing nation, and for contributing to the swelling of the ranks of the American Middle Class has now seen fit to announce, before Thanksgiving at that, that it will be cutting some 30,000 jobs and closing a number of plants across the country, plants that to a large degree were the life's blood ofthe communites in which they were located, for more than fifty years, sixty years.
America's Middle Class is rapidly dissappearring, and all the coutnry is left with is a rapidly expanding Middle Age Spread, a midriff bulge that is a sure sign of advanced age, decadence, and, unfortunately, seeing as to the undeniable ability of the majority of America voters to vote against their own best economic interests-advanced senility
It's not all the people's faults, actually, the Democrats have a way of adopting some of the stupidest, most asinine policies you can imagine, and then wondering why the average American gets sick of them and they therefore lose election after election.
And the Republicans come along and play on the fears that the Democrats have in many ways failed to address at best, and at worse, have unintentionally created and/or compounded. And so, the Democratic Party, the party who fought and won two World Wars, as well as a regional European war, without a single American life being lost, has the reputation as the party that is weak on national defense, as the party who seems to care more for our standing within the International Community than they do America's independance and national sovereignty insofar as it's own laws and internal affairs are concerned. The party who cares more about the rights of criminals than the rights of victims, the party that wants to enact strident, unneccesary and intrusive gun control laws, the party that wants to respect to the point of kowtowing to every minority religion even at the point of seeming to marginalize Christianity. The paryt that wants to support gay marriage or at least civil unions while keeping intact tax laws that penalize traditional marriage. The party that wants to tax initiative and productivity at the expense of supporting and funding programs for the unproductive members of society. The party that cares for the rights of the minority to the point that it becomes politically incorrect to question any policies or laws for their benefit. The party whose main concern when appointing federal judges or Supreme Court judges seems to be insuring the nominee will support or at the least agree not to oppose abortion rights.
I could go on and on. And sometimes I do, to the point that a goopd many people probably are left with the impression that I am a Republican, or at least am damned sure no democrat.
Actually, I am. I am a traditional liberal Democrat, though certainly not in any way on the Far Left of the spectrum. As a traditional liberal, I am pro minority rights, pro union and labor, pro environment, pro gay rights, pro choice and womens rights. I believe that the wealthy have an obligation and actually a patriotic duty to pay taxes, yes, at a greater rate than the middle and lower classes, maybe to the tune of one third of their income, maybe a little more. Especially since it is the wealthy who are responsible more than any other sector of American society for the majority if not all of the wars we tend to become engaged in.
When an American president asserts the need to go to war to "protect our interests", that is usually portrayed as meaning our security interests. And this is true up to a point, but by the same token those security interests seem to revolve around the security of our ability to import needed materials and goods, at least to some extent. When we are said to be "protecting our allies"-our allies in what? Well, it would seem to be our trading partners. That's where the money is. In the Middle East, of course, it was oil, in Korea it was nickel (a necessary component of the steel industry at the time), etc.
And it is the Republicans more so than the Democrats who are willing to go to war at a moments notice to protect thsoe trade and security interests-those economic interests, and to that end are responsible more than any other party for the bloated military budget which most Democrats by now have figured is their Third Rail every bit as much as Social Security is to the Republican Party.
The Pentagon needs to go on an extreme diet, the bloating is the result of kickbacks and graft, the typical corruption. Mind you, not all the fat has to be trimed, and probably shouldn't. Like a physical human body, the pentagon probably needs a degree of fat. But too much and it suddenly ceases to grease the wheels, and the arteries start to clog.
In the meantime, in order to support this insane diet, tax cuts become necessary, but it seems now they are never enough, and never will be sufficient. Thus, we now have an eight trillion dolar national debt. Our yearly deficit is around 500 billion dollars, so that debt grows by this amount, plus interest, every year.
And thanks to the trade agreements,such as NAFTA and others, we now are faced with a ballooning trade deficit as well. Suppossedly, this is the only way American companies can compete with foreign ones, by sending their work offshore to compete with the foreign companies who flood our markets with their cheap goods, a good lot of which is produced by way of cheap ass, practically slave, labor.
But the cheap goods, they keep coming here, and the cheap foreign labor as well, while the good jobs continue to be sent overseas. Where will it all end? I wish I knew. Bu if I did know, I would probably wish I didn't.
GM is just the latest of the casualties. It probably won't be the last. But it is a milestone indeed, that one of the companies most responsible for America's greatness as a manufacturing nation, and for contributing to the swelling of the ranks of the American Middle Class has now seen fit to announce, before Thanksgiving at that, that it will be cutting some 30,000 jobs and closing a number of plants across the country, plants that to a large degree were the life's blood ofthe communites in which they were located, for more than fifty years, sixty years.
America's Middle Class is rapidly dissappearring, and all the coutnry is left with is a rapidly expanding Middle Age Spread, a midriff bulge that is a sure sign of advanced age, decadence, and, unfortunately, seeing as to the undeniable ability of the majority of America voters to vote against their own best economic interests-advanced senility
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Robert Blake-Back To Hollywood
Well, it's official, Robert Blake has become the latest casualty in the corrupt legal court system and it's recent phenomenon of totally disregarding legal and constitutional precedent by figuring out a way to get around the law against double jeopardy. Though Blake was found not guilty, in criminal court, on all counts pertaining to the accussations as to his suppossed involvement in the murder of his late wife, Bonnie Lee Bakely, he was still convicted, in civil court. The Judgement? Blake, it has been determined, was responsible for the death of Bakely, and is ordered therefore to pay damages to the sum of thirty mllion dollars.
Blake must have smelled this coming shortly after his earlier not guilty verdict was handed down, and put it out, somewhat obviously, and obviously innefectively, that he was all but broke. But the family of Bakely was out for blood. They had pretty much intimated along with their attorney that they would be seeking this action regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings. And so they did.
My feelings about all this are pretty firm. To begin with, the only thing Blake should be prosecuted for is being stupid enough-and I do mean stupid enough-to allow himself to become involved with this piece of garbage to begin with. In a sense, for that reason alone, he deserves whatever happens to him. But that doesn't make it right.
And of course, I firmly believe that whatever the decision reached in a criminal cvourt might be, that should be it. If a person is found not guilty, regardless fo the veracity fo the verdict, well, that's the way it is, asnd that's the way it should stand. There should be no other court proceedings, civil or otherwise.
And as for the Bakely family- This is a family of obvious grifters. Everytime I see them on television, and their lawyer as well, I feel the sudden need to take a long hot bath, followed by a long hotter shower to make sure the scum is completely washed away. It may sound cruel and inhuman, but if Blake killed this bitch I say more power to him, I wouldn't have blamed him a bit. And had I been on the jury, I probably would have found him Not Guilty for precisely this reason, unless the evidence had been so compelling and overwhelming there would be no reasonable way to avoid a guilty verdict. But I damned sure would have been looking for a way. I mean, this is a woman who lived to try to ingratiate herself with wealthy, prominent, and famous men, for the purpose of living off them. In Blakes case, she purposely got herself pregnant by him, after assurring Blake she used birth control, and then insisting she couldn't bear the thought of an abortion. Blake was livid, and sounded menacing on the taped conversation that I heard replayed on television. It was obvious to him that he had been scammed.
Another of her potential targets had been Chrisitian Brando, son of late actor Marlon Brando, who himself had been in a great deal of legal trouble. But it was Blake who ended up getting her pregnant. She had tried this same stunt with Brando at approximately the same time , and in the beginning didn't know for sure which of the two men the child belonged to.
There was a great deal of acrimoney between the two after they were married, which Blake foolishly insisted upon, knowing that he would be the object of lawsuits otherwise, and probably realized he still could be. God only knows what happenned in the interim, between th emarriage and the murder, but Blakely, while living on the property, did not live with Blake in his home.
But at any rate, whether Blake had it done or not, or did himself or not, the deed was done. Blake could probably appeal tje verdict, but what woulkd be theuse. My advice to him-return to Hollywood, make another movie, maybe two or three, or more. The right flicks would certainly make him enough money to cover the cost of this lawsuit.
Unfortunatley, Blake's reputation in Hollywood is that of a man who is not easy, to say the least, to get along with, to work with-to live with.
Blake must have smelled this coming shortly after his earlier not guilty verdict was handed down, and put it out, somewhat obviously, and obviously innefectively, that he was all but broke. But the family of Bakely was out for blood. They had pretty much intimated along with their attorney that they would be seeking this action regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings. And so they did.
My feelings about all this are pretty firm. To begin with, the only thing Blake should be prosecuted for is being stupid enough-and I do mean stupid enough-to allow himself to become involved with this piece of garbage to begin with. In a sense, for that reason alone, he deserves whatever happens to him. But that doesn't make it right.
And of course, I firmly believe that whatever the decision reached in a criminal cvourt might be, that should be it. If a person is found not guilty, regardless fo the veracity fo the verdict, well, that's the way it is, asnd that's the way it should stand. There should be no other court proceedings, civil or otherwise.
And as for the Bakely family- This is a family of obvious grifters. Everytime I see them on television, and their lawyer as well, I feel the sudden need to take a long hot bath, followed by a long hotter shower to make sure the scum is completely washed away. It may sound cruel and inhuman, but if Blake killed this bitch I say more power to him, I wouldn't have blamed him a bit. And had I been on the jury, I probably would have found him Not Guilty for precisely this reason, unless the evidence had been so compelling and overwhelming there would be no reasonable way to avoid a guilty verdict. But I damned sure would have been looking for a way. I mean, this is a woman who lived to try to ingratiate herself with wealthy, prominent, and famous men, for the purpose of living off them. In Blakes case, she purposely got herself pregnant by him, after assurring Blake she used birth control, and then insisting she couldn't bear the thought of an abortion. Blake was livid, and sounded menacing on the taped conversation that I heard replayed on television. It was obvious to him that he had been scammed.
Another of her potential targets had been Chrisitian Brando, son of late actor Marlon Brando, who himself had been in a great deal of legal trouble. But it was Blake who ended up getting her pregnant. She had tried this same stunt with Brando at approximately the same time , and in the beginning didn't know for sure which of the two men the child belonged to.
There was a great deal of acrimoney between the two after they were married, which Blake foolishly insisted upon, knowing that he would be the object of lawsuits otherwise, and probably realized he still could be. God only knows what happenned in the interim, between th emarriage and the murder, but Blakely, while living on the property, did not live with Blake in his home.
But at any rate, whether Blake had it done or not, or did himself or not, the deed was done. Blake could probably appeal tje verdict, but what woulkd be theuse. My advice to him-return to Hollywood, make another movie, maybe two or three, or more. The right flicks would certainly make him enough money to cover the cost of this lawsuit.
Unfortunatley, Blake's reputation in Hollywood is that of a man who is not easy, to say the least, to get along with, to work with-to live with.
Bob Woodward-Has He Sold Out?
I honestly think he has. He has now become involved in the recent controversy involving the leaking of the name of CIA analyst and former covert operative Valerie Plame. Apparrently, Woodward was one of the first people to be informed of the identity of Ms. Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, well before it was leaked to other reporters by Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Although the "high level White House official" who divulged this information to Woodward gave him permission to release this information, he unfortunately did not give him permission to release his name. And so Woodward has now had to testify at a preliminary hearing, at which he confirmed all this.
Administration backers are saying this might well absolve Libby of any charged of wrong doing. Except for lying of course, before the Grand Jury, and in contradiction of his sworn statements to Justice Department investigators. But, it is said, perhaps Libby was simply confused after all, to have lied in obvious contradiction of his written notes.
My feelings and opinions is nothing earth shatterring. I think that Libby, and others, are acting out of a sense of urgency and need to protect the Vice President himself. If the truth were known, the President himself, as well, might be involved in this sordid affair. They have all ready used the press shamelessly in their effort to ratchet up American public opinion in favor of the Iraqi War, and when Joseph Wilson crossed them by calling into question many of their assertions, most particularly that made by the President in his 2002 State Of The Union speech, they went after Wilson by asserting his wife, not the Vice President, had commissioned his fact finding trip to the West African nation of Niger. The problem with this is this let out that Wilsons wife was a CIA agent, which immediately may have put at serious risk of imprisonment, harm, or death, those contacts she had made over the years while she pretended to be employed by a company that was in actuality a CIA front.
In short, they may have, knowingly or unknowingly, broken the law. At the very least, they acted in a manner that was highly unethical. And so you have the cover up. And things are getting hotter by the day. In my opinion, this is just one more possible charge in a potential impeachment hearing.
Enter Bob Woodward, the long reknowned Washington Post investigative reporter who uncovered the truth behind the Watergate cover up scandal. What better person to have on your side? In my opinion, he has been in the tank for George W. Bush and his regime for quite some time. I always thought it was a bit odd, the way he suppossedly decided he was going to write a book about the White Houses decisions to go to war agaisnt Iraq, and the events leading up to that ultimate decision. It's like he just decided he was going to do it, and everybody at the White House just rolled over for him, welcomed him in with open arms, because, it was implied, by both him and others, to refuse Bob Woodward might well be an invitation to become the subject of an ongoing journalistic investigation.
Like he just decided this out of the blue, "hell, I think I'm going to write a book about Bush and the war in Iraq"-and it was that damned easy. No, I don;t think so, not even for Bob Woodward.
I have concluded that he was actualy invited to write this book, which was probably as big a con job perpetrated on the American public as anything else involving this stupid war. And I believe Woodward was paid well for his service, and has no telling how much money squirreled away in some Swiss bank account.
I am not the only one that feels this way either, a good many of his fellow journalists at the Post are obviousy dismayed that he kept the information he was earlier granted about Valerie Plame a secret for so long. They have given him a pass, of course, hell, this is Bob Woodward. So he won't be fired, or officially reprimanded. But everybody obviously has questions, and you know they are asking them quietly, if not openly, if to no one but themselves.
I even wonder if the story is true, if he was really given this information, or if this might not be a part of some ploy, some strategy to save Libby's hide, and therefore prevent him from breaking when Patrick Fitzgeral starts putting the squeeze on him fo rmore information which might lead to more, and even more stunning, indictments of higher officials.
After all, if I am right, Woodward has obviously all ready sold his journalistic soul, to people that may have never had one of any kind. A case of an episode of perjury to cover for another might seem untoward for a journalist of all people, especially one that made his reputation for shedding light on such corruption, but once that road is travelled it would be hard to turn back, especially for a man of Woodwards reputation.
But this selling of the Iraqi War and of administration policies in general is nothing unusual to the Bush administration, and Woodward is not the only one compromised, and may not be the first. But the may be the most compelling case of the power of this corrupt administration. Especially the idea of Bush as a type of modern day messiah, which may have begun with Bob Woodward. It may have in fact been Woodward who revealed how Bush believed himself to be specially chosen by God in order to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, especially the Middle East, beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq.
When this was first revealed before Woodwards book was released, it was met with a great deal of criticism and in some corners derision. It was trumpeted as evidence the President was not truly living in reality. It was implied actually that he may have been sufferring from some kind of serious delusoin or other type mental disorder.
I remember seeing Woodward when he was questioned about this, however, and he seemed genuinely surprised at this, and denied that it was evidence the the President of the United States may have been somewhat crazed. He immediately defended the president, no, he wasn't literally talking to God, it was just a feeling he had. But something about Woodwards defense of this bizzarre type of behavior didn't seem right.
And then it hit me. Bush, through Woodward, was playing up to the religous sensitivities of his far right conservative evangelical fundamentalist base of supporters, and Christians and religous minded people everywhere. In other words, it was a serious, a very serious, miscalculation on Bush's part. Not only were they overestimating the degree of religous superstition and dogmatic literalism of his most ardent supporters, but he seemed to have forgotten that there are an appreciable number of people, here and in the rest of the world, that would see this type of hubris for what it is. But remember, this was near the height of Bush's popularity, and he and his administration were riding high.
Now that popularity seems to have fallen to it's lowest ebb, and Woodward may be in a bind. He has been the object of suspicion for some time now, since his writing of his book about the Bush war in Iraq. The story about Deep Throat began to once again make the rounds, and there were those who said that Deep Throat may actually not have been a real person after all, but a composite of different sources that Woodward used to weave his story about Watergate, seemingly out of whole cloth, and just got it lucky.
Not too long afterwards, the true identity of Deep Throat was finally revealed as one Mark Felt, formerly a top level FBI agent under J. Edgar Hoover. Somebody, or some set of circumstances, lead the family of the old man, now sufferring from dementia, to come forward and reveal the story. Woodward and his partner Carl Bernstein, quickly came forward with verification, after making sure all the i's were dotted and t's were crossed.
And Woodward quickly went to work on another book, this one about Mark Felt, written in conjunction with former partner Bernstein. I am unsure now as to whether this book has been released, but when it finally is it should certainly be a best seller. Mr. Woodward has certainly worked hard at maintaining a professional journalistic reputation. One wonders whether the family of Mark Felt was bribed, and if so, by who.
Although the "high level White House official" who divulged this information to Woodward gave him permission to release this information, he unfortunately did not give him permission to release his name. And so Woodward has now had to testify at a preliminary hearing, at which he confirmed all this.
Administration backers are saying this might well absolve Libby of any charged of wrong doing. Except for lying of course, before the Grand Jury, and in contradiction of his sworn statements to Justice Department investigators. But, it is said, perhaps Libby was simply confused after all, to have lied in obvious contradiction of his written notes.
My feelings and opinions is nothing earth shatterring. I think that Libby, and others, are acting out of a sense of urgency and need to protect the Vice President himself. If the truth were known, the President himself, as well, might be involved in this sordid affair. They have all ready used the press shamelessly in their effort to ratchet up American public opinion in favor of the Iraqi War, and when Joseph Wilson crossed them by calling into question many of their assertions, most particularly that made by the President in his 2002 State Of The Union speech, they went after Wilson by asserting his wife, not the Vice President, had commissioned his fact finding trip to the West African nation of Niger. The problem with this is this let out that Wilsons wife was a CIA agent, which immediately may have put at serious risk of imprisonment, harm, or death, those contacts she had made over the years while she pretended to be employed by a company that was in actuality a CIA front.
In short, they may have, knowingly or unknowingly, broken the law. At the very least, they acted in a manner that was highly unethical. And so you have the cover up. And things are getting hotter by the day. In my opinion, this is just one more possible charge in a potential impeachment hearing.
Enter Bob Woodward, the long reknowned Washington Post investigative reporter who uncovered the truth behind the Watergate cover up scandal. What better person to have on your side? In my opinion, he has been in the tank for George W. Bush and his regime for quite some time. I always thought it was a bit odd, the way he suppossedly decided he was going to write a book about the White Houses decisions to go to war agaisnt Iraq, and the events leading up to that ultimate decision. It's like he just decided he was going to do it, and everybody at the White House just rolled over for him, welcomed him in with open arms, because, it was implied, by both him and others, to refuse Bob Woodward might well be an invitation to become the subject of an ongoing journalistic investigation.
Like he just decided this out of the blue, "hell, I think I'm going to write a book about Bush and the war in Iraq"-and it was that damned easy. No, I don;t think so, not even for Bob Woodward.
I have concluded that he was actualy invited to write this book, which was probably as big a con job perpetrated on the American public as anything else involving this stupid war. And I believe Woodward was paid well for his service, and has no telling how much money squirreled away in some Swiss bank account.
I am not the only one that feels this way either, a good many of his fellow journalists at the Post are obviousy dismayed that he kept the information he was earlier granted about Valerie Plame a secret for so long. They have given him a pass, of course, hell, this is Bob Woodward. So he won't be fired, or officially reprimanded. But everybody obviously has questions, and you know they are asking them quietly, if not openly, if to no one but themselves.
I even wonder if the story is true, if he was really given this information, or if this might not be a part of some ploy, some strategy to save Libby's hide, and therefore prevent him from breaking when Patrick Fitzgeral starts putting the squeeze on him fo rmore information which might lead to more, and even more stunning, indictments of higher officials.
After all, if I am right, Woodward has obviously all ready sold his journalistic soul, to people that may have never had one of any kind. A case of an episode of perjury to cover for another might seem untoward for a journalist of all people, especially one that made his reputation for shedding light on such corruption, but once that road is travelled it would be hard to turn back, especially for a man of Woodwards reputation.
But this selling of the Iraqi War and of administration policies in general is nothing unusual to the Bush administration, and Woodward is not the only one compromised, and may not be the first. But the may be the most compelling case of the power of this corrupt administration. Especially the idea of Bush as a type of modern day messiah, which may have begun with Bob Woodward. It may have in fact been Woodward who revealed how Bush believed himself to be specially chosen by God in order to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, especially the Middle East, beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq.
When this was first revealed before Woodwards book was released, it was met with a great deal of criticism and in some corners derision. It was trumpeted as evidence the President was not truly living in reality. It was implied actually that he may have been sufferring from some kind of serious delusoin or other type mental disorder.
I remember seeing Woodward when he was questioned about this, however, and he seemed genuinely surprised at this, and denied that it was evidence the the President of the United States may have been somewhat crazed. He immediately defended the president, no, he wasn't literally talking to God, it was just a feeling he had. But something about Woodwards defense of this bizzarre type of behavior didn't seem right.
And then it hit me. Bush, through Woodward, was playing up to the religous sensitivities of his far right conservative evangelical fundamentalist base of supporters, and Christians and religous minded people everywhere. In other words, it was a serious, a very serious, miscalculation on Bush's part. Not only were they overestimating the degree of religous superstition and dogmatic literalism of his most ardent supporters, but he seemed to have forgotten that there are an appreciable number of people, here and in the rest of the world, that would see this type of hubris for what it is. But remember, this was near the height of Bush's popularity, and he and his administration were riding high.
Now that popularity seems to have fallen to it's lowest ebb, and Woodward may be in a bind. He has been the object of suspicion for some time now, since his writing of his book about the Bush war in Iraq. The story about Deep Throat began to once again make the rounds, and there were those who said that Deep Throat may actually not have been a real person after all, but a composite of different sources that Woodward used to weave his story about Watergate, seemingly out of whole cloth, and just got it lucky.
Not too long afterwards, the true identity of Deep Throat was finally revealed as one Mark Felt, formerly a top level FBI agent under J. Edgar Hoover. Somebody, or some set of circumstances, lead the family of the old man, now sufferring from dementia, to come forward and reveal the story. Woodward and his partner Carl Bernstein, quickly came forward with verification, after making sure all the i's were dotted and t's were crossed.
And Woodward quickly went to work on another book, this one about Mark Felt, written in conjunction with former partner Bernstein. I am unsure now as to whether this book has been released, but when it finally is it should certainly be a best seller. Mr. Woodward has certainly worked hard at maintaining a professional journalistic reputation. One wonders whether the family of Mark Felt was bribed, and if so, by who.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Sleeping With The Devil
I could never figure out what the attraction is for Christian conservatives to the Republican party, other than that the latter obviously gives lip service to the former. These conservative Christians know it too, you just know they have to. Really, now, these are not stupid people. Well, okay, let me correct myself somewhat. Their leaders aren't stupid people.
Well, okay, most of them aren't stupid people. Jerry Falwell,for example, is certainly no idiot, nor is Doctor James Dobson. Perhaps one could make a case for questioning the sanity, and even the overall intelligence, of Pat Robertson, but for the most part, these people are manipulative, media savvy, and quite well educated.
Bu do they really believe in the Bible? Are they actually true Christians, in the sense that they truly believe in the values of the Bible? Never mind whether or not they actually take its more fantastical mythological stories literally or not, the point is, do they really, truly, honestly believe in the spiritual precepts of the Bible. That is the real meat and potatoes of Christianity, the myths are what the Apostle Paul might have referred to as the "milk of the word", something that an infant must of necessity feed on in the beginning, before growing enough to transistion into a more meaty and substantive diet.
I don't see how they actually could believe in this kind of thing, and at the same time throw their lot in with people whose values are, to put it kindly, anything but spiritual. But they do. Perhaps an explanation is to be found in the attitudes of their parishoners. In a general sense, most Bible believing Christians seem to be the type who pride themselves on their patriotism and their loyalty to God and country and family and all the other buzz words by which your typical average American identifies himself.
They also have a deep mistrust of government, or at least the federal government, and also a deep fear and mistrust of foreigners, especially those from the Third World. Yet, they support missionary work to these countries, and private donations and charities to the dispossessed and distressed from the world, though balk at tax monies being spent for the same purposes.
And when there is a war, typically, they can be counted on to rally behind the flag, and display the most ardent patriotism, and at the same time disdain, and even revulsion, for those who dare exhibit the slightest skepticism of national policy in this regard. Suddenly, the very government they in ordinary times distrust and revile, they suddenly become the most ardent supporters of. Small wonder then that war is entered in too many times haphazardly-some might suggest, as in the present case, unnecessarrily.
Small wonder as well that those in government who wish to tap into this great reservoir of mass power are all too willing to placate them as to their most ardent desires and fears, and do so shamelessly. As exploitive as it is, it is a wonder that so many blindly fall into this trap, seemingly without question. It seems they simply do not know any better.
But the preachers, priests, ministers, and rabbis do, or at least should, know better, and I submit they certainly do know better. They could put a stop to this nonsense, could have done so a long time ago in fact before it ever got started. I would suggest that they have misused and abused their roles as the so-called shapherds of their flocks by leading the sheep into the lair of the wolf. But what do they get out of it?
It doesn't take much intellectal exercise to perceive that they are getting some degree of power and influence to a greater extent than they would ordinarily have. They have enough as it is, but by tapping into this vast reservoir of anger, frustration, fear, and in way too many cases, I am afraid, prejudice and hate, they are magnifying their power and influence, and thus their wealth, two or three or even more times.
This is not unusual, religous leaders have always done this, throughout world history. But it wasn't suppossed to be that way here. This was suppossed to be a country where religous power over government was kept in check, and government influence over religion, all religions, was likewise kept to a minimum. Supposedly, that is. Churches, and politicians as well, have always gave a wink and a nod, the usual lip-service, to the philosophy of seperation of church and state, from the earliest of days, until it got to the point where it really wasn't an issue, in fact, it was actually so all pervasive it was not even noticed.
The sixties, seventies,and early eighties changed all that, as churches and religous leaders felt their power andinfluence dwindling and lessenning it seemed with each passing year, until to some it seemed the survival of Christianity itself was threatened. By casting his lot in with the Reagan Revolution, it was Jerry Falwell by way of his so-caled "Moral Majority", who fired the first real volley in the religous cultural wars and brought the government right into lock-step with him.
Falwell became the first of many powerful religous kingmakers. And they have pervaded all areas of political and public life, and have sought to control the ideologies of both parties. The Left Wing Christians, when you get right down to it, have been every bit as much of an all pervasive power over the Democratic Party as the Conservative Christians have been over the Republicans. One is every bit as dangerous as the other,and in fact the Liberal Chrisitans may be as much of a danger as the Conservatives, precisely because their influence is not as recognized. They do not shout and wave their arms from the rooftops, rend their clothes in despair, rant and rave about the threats of hell-fire and damnation, and so they are just not as obvious. Until, that is, you see the results.
I would like to see religion kept totaly seperated from government policy making. Religions seem to have the effect of limiting progress, when they are at their most benign. At worse, they keep progress to a complete standstill, and maybe in some cases even serve to turn back the clock. I'm not saying, of course, that religous people shouldn't vote, or that they shouldn't vote according to their values. But leaders like Falwell should stay out of the business of trying to influence public policy. At most, they have the right to stand up for the rights of their parishioners to make sure their religous rights are protected, and that's about it.
But of course, it is ridiculous on my part to even hope that htis ideal will ever be realized. As long as religous leaders hold sway over their parishioners, they can and will use this influence to wield political power and influence, and thus gain even more wealth, inflence,and power for themselves.
In fact, I think I'm going to write a song aboutthis. I've gotten into a song writing mood lately, thanks to Green Day. I'm going to call my song by the title of this post "Sleeping With The Devil". It shouldn't take me that long to write it, in fact, I'e been working on it some sinc elast night. Here's the chorus-
"I'm Sleeping With The Devil
I'm Sleeping With The Devil
I'm Sleeping With The Devil
And I'm Nothing But The Devil's Whore"
Or something like that. I'll post the whole song in a later post, hopefully in the next dya or two. Who knows, maybe I'll find a good group to record it, and it will be a big hit, and I'llmake mucho money. Or more than likely not, but it would be fun trying.
Well, okay, most of them aren't stupid people. Jerry Falwell,for example, is certainly no idiot, nor is Doctor James Dobson. Perhaps one could make a case for questioning the sanity, and even the overall intelligence, of Pat Robertson, but for the most part, these people are manipulative, media savvy, and quite well educated.
Bu do they really believe in the Bible? Are they actually true Christians, in the sense that they truly believe in the values of the Bible? Never mind whether or not they actually take its more fantastical mythological stories literally or not, the point is, do they really, truly, honestly believe in the spiritual precepts of the Bible. That is the real meat and potatoes of Christianity, the myths are what the Apostle Paul might have referred to as the "milk of the word", something that an infant must of necessity feed on in the beginning, before growing enough to transistion into a more meaty and substantive diet.
I don't see how they actually could believe in this kind of thing, and at the same time throw their lot in with people whose values are, to put it kindly, anything but spiritual. But they do. Perhaps an explanation is to be found in the attitudes of their parishoners. In a general sense, most Bible believing Christians seem to be the type who pride themselves on their patriotism and their loyalty to God and country and family and all the other buzz words by which your typical average American identifies himself.
They also have a deep mistrust of government, or at least the federal government, and also a deep fear and mistrust of foreigners, especially those from the Third World. Yet, they support missionary work to these countries, and private donations and charities to the dispossessed and distressed from the world, though balk at tax monies being spent for the same purposes.
And when there is a war, typically, they can be counted on to rally behind the flag, and display the most ardent patriotism, and at the same time disdain, and even revulsion, for those who dare exhibit the slightest skepticism of national policy in this regard. Suddenly, the very government they in ordinary times distrust and revile, they suddenly become the most ardent supporters of. Small wonder then that war is entered in too many times haphazardly-some might suggest, as in the present case, unnecessarrily.
Small wonder as well that those in government who wish to tap into this great reservoir of mass power are all too willing to placate them as to their most ardent desires and fears, and do so shamelessly. As exploitive as it is, it is a wonder that so many blindly fall into this trap, seemingly without question. It seems they simply do not know any better.
But the preachers, priests, ministers, and rabbis do, or at least should, know better, and I submit they certainly do know better. They could put a stop to this nonsense, could have done so a long time ago in fact before it ever got started. I would suggest that they have misused and abused their roles as the so-called shapherds of their flocks by leading the sheep into the lair of the wolf. But what do they get out of it?
It doesn't take much intellectal exercise to perceive that they are getting some degree of power and influence to a greater extent than they would ordinarily have. They have enough as it is, but by tapping into this vast reservoir of anger, frustration, fear, and in way too many cases, I am afraid, prejudice and hate, they are magnifying their power and influence, and thus their wealth, two or three or even more times.
This is not unusual, religous leaders have always done this, throughout world history. But it wasn't suppossed to be that way here. This was suppossed to be a country where religous power over government was kept in check, and government influence over religion, all religions, was likewise kept to a minimum. Supposedly, that is. Churches, and politicians as well, have always gave a wink and a nod, the usual lip-service, to the philosophy of seperation of church and state, from the earliest of days, until it got to the point where it really wasn't an issue, in fact, it was actually so all pervasive it was not even noticed.
The sixties, seventies,and early eighties changed all that, as churches and religous leaders felt their power andinfluence dwindling and lessenning it seemed with each passing year, until to some it seemed the survival of Christianity itself was threatened. By casting his lot in with the Reagan Revolution, it was Jerry Falwell by way of his so-caled "Moral Majority", who fired the first real volley in the religous cultural wars and brought the government right into lock-step with him.
Falwell became the first of many powerful religous kingmakers. And they have pervaded all areas of political and public life, and have sought to control the ideologies of both parties. The Left Wing Christians, when you get right down to it, have been every bit as much of an all pervasive power over the Democratic Party as the Conservative Christians have been over the Republicans. One is every bit as dangerous as the other,and in fact the Liberal Chrisitans may be as much of a danger as the Conservatives, precisely because their influence is not as recognized. They do not shout and wave their arms from the rooftops, rend their clothes in despair, rant and rave about the threats of hell-fire and damnation, and so they are just not as obvious. Until, that is, you see the results.
I would like to see religion kept totaly seperated from government policy making. Religions seem to have the effect of limiting progress, when they are at their most benign. At worse, they keep progress to a complete standstill, and maybe in some cases even serve to turn back the clock. I'm not saying, of course, that religous people shouldn't vote, or that they shouldn't vote according to their values. But leaders like Falwell should stay out of the business of trying to influence public policy. At most, they have the right to stand up for the rights of their parishioners to make sure their religous rights are protected, and that's about it.
But of course, it is ridiculous on my part to even hope that htis ideal will ever be realized. As long as religous leaders hold sway over their parishioners, they can and will use this influence to wield political power and influence, and thus gain even more wealth, inflence,and power for themselves.
In fact, I think I'm going to write a song aboutthis. I've gotten into a song writing mood lately, thanks to Green Day. I'm going to call my song by the title of this post "Sleeping With The Devil". It shouldn't take me that long to write it, in fact, I'e been working on it some sinc elast night. Here's the chorus-
"I'm Sleeping With The Devil
I'm Sleeping With The Devil
I'm Sleeping With The Devil
And I'm Nothing But The Devil's Whore"
Or something like that. I'll post the whole song in a later post, hopefully in the next dya or two. Who knows, maybe I'll find a good group to record it, and it will be a big hit, and I'llmake mucho money. Or more than likely not, but it would be fun trying.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Pulling Teeth
I just recently started getting into this old, old cassette by the group Green Day, a group I never really gave much attention to before. I think this is because when I first heard of them, from a former co-worker, something about the name put me off. It's like something down inside said, "Oh, probably a bunch of radical environmental whackos. The kind that gives reasonable and thoughtfully progressive environmentalists a bad name. I think I associated them witht he group "Greenpeace", in a sense. Yeah, folks, you can only guess at the snakes I've got crawling around in my head.
Anyway, years later, I'm at this old antique mall, and see this cassette by the aforementioned Green Day-for a dollar. I remembered my former co-workers rantings about the group, and figured, hell, they have to be worth a dollar. And so I brought the cassette, entitled "Dookie". As soon as I got home, I put it on the shelf, where it promptly began to collect roughly one sixteenth of a inch of dust over thecourse of the following year.
I almost completely forgot about it until the group happenned to be featured on I think it was the Tonight Show, and I thought, hell, they are good. In fact-hell, they are damned good. Then, it hit me. This is the group that was in that old soft drink commercial, Pepsi or Coca-Cola one, I don't remember. The kid was in the mosh pit, where to his surprise his pop is there cheering on the band, and the kid looks on in shock and mounting horror as he realizes his mom too is somewhere in the mix, cheering on Green day, as they sing some song about masturbating. I remember all this becuase I always wondered how it was that that commerical was even allowed to air, let alone that it lasted so long. It was finally removed, probably after somebody like Jerry Falwell or James Dobson was told by one of his or their younger and formerly hipper parishioners exactly what the lead singer was singing in this soft drink televsion commercial.
Laer on, I retrieved that tape, wondering if the song on the commecial was on the tape I had purchased, which luckily turned out to have been in good shape. I went through the first side, and I think what was on the commercial might have been from the song "Longview", buit I'm not sure. What was improtant was that eventually I happenned onto one of the best songs of all time, it seemed at the time, and easily the best song of all that I have yet heard from Green Day. It's a song called,. as a Green Day fan might have probably figured out by the title of the post, "Pulling Teeth".
I don't know if this song was ever a hit from the group or not, but if it wasn't it definitely should have been. Maybe if they extended it by repeating the middle eight and adding a verse, it could even be one of the biggest hits of all time, or at least the year they release it as a hit.
To understand what the song is about, which it took me some time to do, think of the book "Misery" by Stephen King, which may well be what the song is based on for all I know.
"I'm all busted up, broken bones and nasty cuts
Accidents will happen-"
Only it turns out it's not an accident, his girlfriend has put him in this shape and now has him imprisoned, seemingly totally at his mercy, so he has to pretend his love is true. In the meantime, he looks out his window hoping someone will pass by-but no one knows.
Now I guess by now you're thinking those snakes in my head are slithering ovvertimer for me to be so hung up on something like this, but you have to know Green Day. This is a song you want to dance to, in pure Pete Townshend fashion, bouncing around the dance floor like a rag doll with a life of it's own. If you were with your woman, but you wanted to be with somebody else, and you were around both of them at a karaoke bar, this is the kind of song you would sing to the girl you wanted to be with while you were wearing dark sun glasses in the smoke-filled crowded dark bar, and you were staring right at her the whole time. Yeah, the snakes have now bitten.
Anyway, "Pulling Teeth" is now up there in my group of all time favorite songs, easily in the top one hundred, at least for now, until I wear it out. Which I might well do. Since I got so hung up on this one, I can't get past it on the cassette, not even for the one that follows, which I recognize as a tune that gets frequent FM airplay.
No, I don't have the fucking time to listen to you whine. But it only takes a few seconds to hit the rewind button.
Anyway, years later, I'm at this old antique mall, and see this cassette by the aforementioned Green Day-for a dollar. I remembered my former co-workers rantings about the group, and figured, hell, they have to be worth a dollar. And so I brought the cassette, entitled "Dookie". As soon as I got home, I put it on the shelf, where it promptly began to collect roughly one sixteenth of a inch of dust over thecourse of the following year.
I almost completely forgot about it until the group happenned to be featured on I think it was the Tonight Show, and I thought, hell, they are good. In fact-hell, they are damned good. Then, it hit me. This is the group that was in that old soft drink commercial, Pepsi or Coca-Cola one, I don't remember. The kid was in the mosh pit, where to his surprise his pop is there cheering on the band, and the kid looks on in shock and mounting horror as he realizes his mom too is somewhere in the mix, cheering on Green day, as they sing some song about masturbating. I remember all this becuase I always wondered how it was that that commerical was even allowed to air, let alone that it lasted so long. It was finally removed, probably after somebody like Jerry Falwell or James Dobson was told by one of his or their younger and formerly hipper parishioners exactly what the lead singer was singing in this soft drink televsion commercial.
Laer on, I retrieved that tape, wondering if the song on the commecial was on the tape I had purchased, which luckily turned out to have been in good shape. I went through the first side, and I think what was on the commercial might have been from the song "Longview", buit I'm not sure. What was improtant was that eventually I happenned onto one of the best songs of all time, it seemed at the time, and easily the best song of all that I have yet heard from Green Day. It's a song called,. as a Green Day fan might have probably figured out by the title of the post, "Pulling Teeth".
I don't know if this song was ever a hit from the group or not, but if it wasn't it definitely should have been. Maybe if they extended it by repeating the middle eight and adding a verse, it could even be one of the biggest hits of all time, or at least the year they release it as a hit.
To understand what the song is about, which it took me some time to do, think of the book "Misery" by Stephen King, which may well be what the song is based on for all I know.
"I'm all busted up, broken bones and nasty cuts
Accidents will happen-"
Only it turns out it's not an accident, his girlfriend has put him in this shape and now has him imprisoned, seemingly totally at his mercy, so he has to pretend his love is true. In the meantime, he looks out his window hoping someone will pass by-but no one knows.
Now I guess by now you're thinking those snakes in my head are slithering ovvertimer for me to be so hung up on something like this, but you have to know Green Day. This is a song you want to dance to, in pure Pete Townshend fashion, bouncing around the dance floor like a rag doll with a life of it's own. If you were with your woman, but you wanted to be with somebody else, and you were around both of them at a karaoke bar, this is the kind of song you would sing to the girl you wanted to be with while you were wearing dark sun glasses in the smoke-filled crowded dark bar, and you were staring right at her the whole time. Yeah, the snakes have now bitten.
Anyway, "Pulling Teeth" is now up there in my group of all time favorite songs, easily in the top one hundred, at least for now, until I wear it out. Which I might well do. Since I got so hung up on this one, I can't get past it on the cassette, not even for the one that follows, which I recognize as a tune that gets frequent FM airplay.
No, I don't have the fucking time to listen to you whine. But it only takes a few seconds to hit the rewind button.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Attack Of The Clones
One day in February of 2004, a man by the name of Patrick Hutchinson, after years of dealing with the depths of insanity, finally went off the deep end. He shot and killed his wife of many years, leaving her dead body in the couples yard, in rural Fayette County. He then according to reports fired a number of shots, all of which precipitated a call to 911 by the police.
Unfortunately, there was an inexplicable disconnect between the Fayette County Kentucky Police and the Fayette County Fire Department, which also responded to the call. Yet, due to a breakdown in communications, the Fire Department was seemingly unaware of the danger that they hurtled headlong into on that fateful mid-winter evening. They found themselves in the line of fire, in a madmans sights.
As a result, a woman by the name of Brenda Cowan, the first African American woman to work on the Fayette County Fire Department, who had received commendations and had appearred on the local media in interviews, was shot to death. In addition, a police officer was also shot and injured. He recovered, but the death of Cowan was particularly hard, especially to the members of the Fire Department with whom Cowan was a well liked and respected member.
So why did this happen? Why did this young, vital, admired woman lose her life? What twisted madness afflicted the mind of Patrick Hutchinson?
He believed that the entire world, except for a chosen few which included himself, were in reality clones, intent on taking over the world, destroying all the true humans of the world and replacing them with soleless replicas. He evidently believed that these clones were only human copies in appearrance, in reality they were evidently some disguised species of either supernatural or extraterrestrial (or possibly both) origin, and of a serpentine nature and appearrance.
That is what he believed, with the utmost sincerity. What the genesis of this delusion was can only be guessed at, or even how long ago it began, though it seems to have been of a long duration. His wife and family were aware to a small extent of his mental and emotional instability, though I would imagine they didn't exactly comprehend the extent of it. Bu in fact, in his tortured mind, he firmly believed that there were only perhaps twenty thousand or so true humans left on the earth. All the rest had been killed, murdered, and replaced by these clones. The last straw, the breaking point, seems to have occurred when he obviousy came to believe that his own wife was, after all, a clone herself. One can only imagine by what process he arrived at this fateful conclusion.
Had it been a recent occurrence? Or had she been "one of them" all along, and fooling him for all these years, trying to control him and at the same time trying to find out just what all he "knew".
Did the total and final break come when she threatened to leave him for good, or possibly to do so if he would not seek help? For all the reasoning she may have tried to utilize at her disposal, someone with this level of delusion would never listen to any kind of logic or reason. Their logic and reason, after all, is as firmly esconced in their own mind as the average persons is to themselves. Such an appeal would be viewed as a trick, a manever to get him imprisoned, entrapped within some alien realm where he would be at the mercy of their far superior technology. He was, after all, one of the few who had somehow been immune to their invasion of his body, heart, mind, and sould. He had not only successfully resisted them, but had at the same time become aware of their presence. Not only was he therefore a danger to them, it was of the utmost necessity that he be kept under observation, studied. Only the most thorough and disciplned scientific research might yield clues as to what was so special about this one particular human. Once they learned the truth then they would be able to adequately deal with the "others". Those very few twenty thousand or so.
Perhaps this is what set him off. Perhaps she even admitted to the "truth" of this, as a means to humor him, or out of sheer disgust. She had had it with him, and decided she might as well tell him what he wanted to hear, he was going to believe it regardless. We may never know, for certain, as the secret is now perhaps permanently locked inside the tortured mind of Patrick Hutchinson.
It was recenty decided in court that Patrick Hutchinson was still yet unfit to stand trial. And so, for yet another year, he will be kept under psychiatric observation, yet safely locked away. It has been said that he may never be well enough to stand trial. He was obviosuly insane at the time of the trial, they said, and he is still every bit as insane now as he was then. True, he seems calm. Maybe he now believes he too is a clone. Maybe he has come to an inner acceptance of his fate. Maybe he now has come to loathe the person that was Patrick Hutchinson, and now longs to go out into the world at large, and take his place among the greater society of his fellow clones. Again, we may never know.
All we know for certain is that this procedure will be repeated once a year, he will be reevaluated on a yearly basis, to see if there has been an improvement in his mental condition. Should that day ever come that he is considered to be over his insanity, then he will finally, at long last, be put on trial for the murder of his wife and Brenda Cowen.
You see, Kentucky has this unusual policy that, if a person is considered insane, they can not be put on trial for any crime they may have committed while so afflicted. However, when it is perceived that they are cured, or in recovery, then they can be tried for the crime-depsite the fact that they were obviously insane at the time they comitted it.
In other words, it is not out of concern for the welfare for the mentally afflicted, out of a desire to see they are treated with compassion and fairness. They merely want to ensure that they know what they are being punished for when and if they finally are. Whether they had the vaquest idea of what they were doing at the time or not.
Patrick Hutchinson will probably never for the remainder of his life have a free day or night, he will doubtless be incarcerated for the rest of his life, whether he is ever tried in court or not. Crazy or not, I would imagine that the social life of a clone must look pretty good to him right now.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Goliath-Who Or What Was He?
One of the most fascinatring components of the science of archaeology has been the subset known as Biblical archaeology, that branch whereby the art and the science of archaeology tends to become particularly muddled. "Proof" of the literal truth of the Bible is one of the constant demands imposed on the field by the more literal minded of Biblical students and theologians. The more rational scientific approach tends to look upon these foks with a bemused glance, yet is wary of saying too much of a disparaging word about them. After all, any serious archaeological endeavor has to of necessity receive funding from one source or another, and those interested in uncovering archaeological evidence to support their faith one might imagine would tnd to be among the more generous of donors. And so, the more serious student and afficianado of archaeology-those of us who wnat to discover the truth, whatever that might be-tend to laugh in silence.
However, the branch of pseudo-archaeology may have gotten a much needed shot in the arm (akin to heroin, some of us might cruelly suggest) when it was announced recently that an archaeological discovery in the ancient Philistine city of Gath, in Southern Israel, may at last lend credence to the story of David and Goliath. In fact, the name Goliath has been discovered on pottery shards, in the form of it's Philistine version Golyath.
I first heard of this watching the news crawl on CNN when it was announced that a "Goliath of a find" possibly proves the existence of the giant, whose name was doscovered on shards IN HIS HOME!
"Huh?" I said to myself. What do they mean, his "Home"? You see, I 've learned to read these crawls with every bit as much skepticism as I do the tone in Sean Hannity's voice when he goes into his super patriot schpiel, or O'Reilly's assertion of being a populist, everyman type of independant.
Sure enough, it turns out the home was not the house, but the city-Gath- which was suppossedly the giants hometown. But nevertheless the crawl succeeded in heightening my interest long enough for me to give it what I hope is some rational thought. It didn't take me long to figure out the obvious.
Goliath was probably originally-a Philistine God. A heroic type of Philistine Hercules. He may not have originally even been seen as a giant so much as a great heroic strongman. The giant business may have been assigned by later Hebrew writers, who may have seen a giant stature as a sign of evil and cruelty.
It would take a lot of study and more archaeological work to learn more, but why else would a name appear on a Philistine shard. Another possible explanation is that this was actually a common Phlistine personal and/or family name, and that this might have been a signature of either creation or ownership. But I tend to want to adhere to the god idea. He may possibly have been a half human, or even a totally divine, son of Dagon, who seems to have been, from what we now know, the most important of all the Philistine deities.
Actually, the Philistines originally were not native to the area, but seem to have had some connection to the Minoan civilization that dominated the Meditterrannen prior to the coming of the Mychaenaean Greeks (who themselves preceeded the more familiar classical Greeks). In fact, they may indeed have been the remnants of the civilization of Crete, the Minoans, who had establsihed a highly advanced maritime civilization but who ultimately met a sudden demise about 1500 B.C. or so. Sometime afterwards, the group of maritime marauders known as the "Sea Peoples" laid waste to the entire Meditterrannean area, ultimately proving insatiable and unstoppable, until they finally were held in check by the power of the Egyptians. The remnants of the Sea Peoples then established their territory in what later came to be known as Philistia. That sorrowful little strip of land now known as the Gaza Strip. In fact, the ancient city of Gaza was one of their major cities, Gath being another. In fact, there were five major cities, each ruled as a semi-autonomous city state ruled by it's own individual king.
In point of fact, though the Philistines are generally viewed as being quite barbaric, they may actually have been quite advanced, and may have had a generally high cultural level. There can be little doubt, however, that they were warlike, and aggressive, and bend on dominating the area of the world to which they had become consigned.
One way of gathering clues as to the true nature and/or identity of the giant/hero/godman Goliath, might actually be in comparing the evidence from Minoan archaeological endeavors. It could well be that the Sea Peoples who were the forebears of the Philistines might actually have originated from Minoa, or Crete. Or, it could be that they originated from Sardinia, or some other such Meditterrannean island, but at any rate there should be some form of comparison in the record if this were the case.
Whatever the case, you can count on fundamentalist Christians in days and weeks to come to begin pounding the drum to the rhythym of an imagined proof as to the existence of Goliath, and thus overall proof of the Bible. Such as was the case when the discovery of the name of Abraham turned up in some ancient records, despite the fact that Abraham was doubtless as well a fairly common name of the time.
What might be interesting is if the building where these shards were uncovered, turned out to be the remains of some ancient Philistine temple. Of course, as I imagine a good many temples tended to have high ceilings, and doorways, this might to the overeager be utilized as proof of Goliath's giant stature.
It would be nothing unusual if Goliath turned out to have been a god or godman hero. Actually, the ancient Hebrews did this quite often, and the early Christians followed suit, in turning the heroes and deities of a rival culture into villains and devils. The entire story of the plaques of ancient Egypt, for example, the seven plaques put on Pharoah and the Egyptians by God because the Egyptian ruler refused to accede to Moses demands to let his people go free from bondage-these plaques individually were God's conquest of first one, and then another, Egyptian deity.
The miracles of Christ, to a large extent, were simply a revision of this. Christ overcoming the power of the pagan Romans deities with his greater power as the only son of the one true God. Poseidon can make the seas rage with madenning fury? Well, with just a word, Christ can calm them immediately. Demeter when displeased can bring upon the earth famine, and therefore starvation? Well, with little effort at all Christ can feed the multitudes with just a few fish and loaves of bread.
So this is standard for the ancient Jewish writers. My God is better than your God, or Gods. Remember, mankind was pretty much in a juvenile phase during this historical epoch. We haven't really grown much more mature, unfortunately, over the last three thousand years.
But three thousand years ago, it would make a kind of sense, and a point of national pride, to establsh a great hero, a representative of the Israelites, as a man of God as well as a conquering hero, who with faith in the Lord conquered a giant evil which seemed at first glance to dwarf him, against whom no thinking person would have given him, or any other person, the slightest chance of standing against.
It was a great story, to be sure, and valid on a personal level as to the struggle between good and evil, as much so as on a cultural and national level. I guess that is the thing about the best myths. Their power and majesty resides to a great extent in their ability to, by striking some inner chord, and filling some dark inner void, not only make you believe them, but make you want to believe in them.
I recognize that power, but I still want to know the truth, regarless of what it confirms or denies. But I guess I shouldn't be so hard on those who want to believe their little fantasies are literal truth. It's understandable-insane, but understandable.
However, the branch of pseudo-archaeology may have gotten a much needed shot in the arm (akin to heroin, some of us might cruelly suggest) when it was announced recently that an archaeological discovery in the ancient Philistine city of Gath, in Southern Israel, may at last lend credence to the story of David and Goliath. In fact, the name Goliath has been discovered on pottery shards, in the form of it's Philistine version Golyath.
I first heard of this watching the news crawl on CNN when it was announced that a "Goliath of a find" possibly proves the existence of the giant, whose name was doscovered on shards IN HIS HOME!
"Huh?" I said to myself. What do they mean, his "Home"? You see, I 've learned to read these crawls with every bit as much skepticism as I do the tone in Sean Hannity's voice when he goes into his super patriot schpiel, or O'Reilly's assertion of being a populist, everyman type of independant.
Sure enough, it turns out the home was not the house, but the city-Gath- which was suppossedly the giants hometown. But nevertheless the crawl succeeded in heightening my interest long enough for me to give it what I hope is some rational thought. It didn't take me long to figure out the obvious.
Goliath was probably originally-a Philistine God. A heroic type of Philistine Hercules. He may not have originally even been seen as a giant so much as a great heroic strongman. The giant business may have been assigned by later Hebrew writers, who may have seen a giant stature as a sign of evil and cruelty.
It would take a lot of study and more archaeological work to learn more, but why else would a name appear on a Philistine shard. Another possible explanation is that this was actually a common Phlistine personal and/or family name, and that this might have been a signature of either creation or ownership. But I tend to want to adhere to the god idea. He may possibly have been a half human, or even a totally divine, son of Dagon, who seems to have been, from what we now know, the most important of all the Philistine deities.
Actually, the Philistines originally were not native to the area, but seem to have had some connection to the Minoan civilization that dominated the Meditterrannen prior to the coming of the Mychaenaean Greeks (who themselves preceeded the more familiar classical Greeks). In fact, they may indeed have been the remnants of the civilization of Crete, the Minoans, who had establsihed a highly advanced maritime civilization but who ultimately met a sudden demise about 1500 B.C. or so. Sometime afterwards, the group of maritime marauders known as the "Sea Peoples" laid waste to the entire Meditterrannean area, ultimately proving insatiable and unstoppable, until they finally were held in check by the power of the Egyptians. The remnants of the Sea Peoples then established their territory in what later came to be known as Philistia. That sorrowful little strip of land now known as the Gaza Strip. In fact, the ancient city of Gaza was one of their major cities, Gath being another. In fact, there were five major cities, each ruled as a semi-autonomous city state ruled by it's own individual king.
In point of fact, though the Philistines are generally viewed as being quite barbaric, they may actually have been quite advanced, and may have had a generally high cultural level. There can be little doubt, however, that they were warlike, and aggressive, and bend on dominating the area of the world to which they had become consigned.
One way of gathering clues as to the true nature and/or identity of the giant/hero/godman Goliath, might actually be in comparing the evidence from Minoan archaeological endeavors. It could well be that the Sea Peoples who were the forebears of the Philistines might actually have originated from Minoa, or Crete. Or, it could be that they originated from Sardinia, or some other such Meditterrannean island, but at any rate there should be some form of comparison in the record if this were the case.
Whatever the case, you can count on fundamentalist Christians in days and weeks to come to begin pounding the drum to the rhythym of an imagined proof as to the existence of Goliath, and thus overall proof of the Bible. Such as was the case when the discovery of the name of Abraham turned up in some ancient records, despite the fact that Abraham was doubtless as well a fairly common name of the time.
What might be interesting is if the building where these shards were uncovered, turned out to be the remains of some ancient Philistine temple. Of course, as I imagine a good many temples tended to have high ceilings, and doorways, this might to the overeager be utilized as proof of Goliath's giant stature.
It would be nothing unusual if Goliath turned out to have been a god or godman hero. Actually, the ancient Hebrews did this quite often, and the early Christians followed suit, in turning the heroes and deities of a rival culture into villains and devils. The entire story of the plaques of ancient Egypt, for example, the seven plaques put on Pharoah and the Egyptians by God because the Egyptian ruler refused to accede to Moses demands to let his people go free from bondage-these plaques individually were God's conquest of first one, and then another, Egyptian deity.
The miracles of Christ, to a large extent, were simply a revision of this. Christ overcoming the power of the pagan Romans deities with his greater power as the only son of the one true God. Poseidon can make the seas rage with madenning fury? Well, with just a word, Christ can calm them immediately. Demeter when displeased can bring upon the earth famine, and therefore starvation? Well, with little effort at all Christ can feed the multitudes with just a few fish and loaves of bread.
So this is standard for the ancient Jewish writers. My God is better than your God, or Gods. Remember, mankind was pretty much in a juvenile phase during this historical epoch. We haven't really grown much more mature, unfortunately, over the last three thousand years.
But three thousand years ago, it would make a kind of sense, and a point of national pride, to establsh a great hero, a representative of the Israelites, as a man of God as well as a conquering hero, who with faith in the Lord conquered a giant evil which seemed at first glance to dwarf him, against whom no thinking person would have given him, or any other person, the slightest chance of standing against.
It was a great story, to be sure, and valid on a personal level as to the struggle between good and evil, as much so as on a cultural and national level. I guess that is the thing about the best myths. Their power and majesty resides to a great extent in their ability to, by striking some inner chord, and filling some dark inner void, not only make you believe them, but make you want to believe in them.
I recognize that power, but I still want to know the truth, regarless of what it confirms or denies. But I guess I shouldn't be so hard on those who want to believe their little fantasies are literal truth. It's understandable-insane, but understandable.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Prison Break
Just a word about what is undoubtedly the best not only new show on television, but as far as I'm concerned the best show on television period. It's great on so many levels, the acting, directing, cinematography, plot, dialogue, and finally, though I damn well hope Inever find this out for sure, it seems to be a very realistic portrayal of prison life.
I will just give a brief summar of the plot, with a warning. This show is a serial, something that is almost a necessity in order for a television show to hold my interest. So if you miss one episode you are missing out. Also, if you havent' caught the show as of yet, you might want to seriously consider waiting until the entire years episodes are re-run.
As for what the show is about, it is about a man who purpsely commits a crime, or pretends to make the attempt (by discharging a firearm in a bank, then promptly surrendering to the guards) in order to get sent to the prison at wehich his brother ios soon to be executed fo rthe murder of none other than the Vice-President of the United States. Lincoln Burrows is innocent of course, and his half-brother Michael Scoffield is certain of that, but all appeals have been exhausted. And so, while Burrows ex-girlfriend, a lawyer, is busily working on the outside doing research through legal channels to try to win yet another appeal before the execution date, Michaels has firmly implanted himself in the prison, complete with a large scale tattoo all over his torse that just happens to be the blueprints of the prison, which he himself happened to have designed while working for the firm that built the facility.
Of course, there are all kinds of characters there. There is Abruzzi, a mob boss spending the rest of his life in prison for the murder of mob rivals, and who Scoffield has forged an uneasy alliance with. There is Sucre, a Hispanic and cell-mate of Scoffield who has joined in the plot to escape out of desperation in that his lady, the love of his life, has impatiently run into the arms of his cousin and rival. There is T-Bag, a real dirt bag, a homosexual rapist/murderer and head of a white supremacist group who has instigated himself into the plot to break out of the prison by virtue of accidentally learning about it.
There is actually an endless list of characters, including the fictitous female vice-president of the United States, who seems to be the head of the conspiracy to set Lincold Burrows up for the murder of her brother. But this is one of those shows where every thing isn't necessarrily what it seems to be. But the two secret service agents who have murdered Burrows' ex-wife and husband, and are tracking his child, LJ,are determined to keep the vp, who has recently announced her own run for the presidency, out of any hint of trouble or scandal, by any means necessary.
Well, going over what I've written here, I realize that there is no way I can describe the shwo in a way that will do it justice. All I can do is encourage you to watch it and find ut for yourself. I dopn't recommend series elevision very often. The only other series I watch on a regular basis are Cold Case, The Night Stalker, and 24, which I am patiently waitng for the return of this January.
At any rate, if you like edge of your seat, jaw dropping and heart stopping suspense, mystery, and action, you can't go wrong with Prison Break.
action
I will just give a brief summar of the plot, with a warning. This show is a serial, something that is almost a necessity in order for a television show to hold my interest. So if you miss one episode you are missing out. Also, if you havent' caught the show as of yet, you might want to seriously consider waiting until the entire years episodes are re-run.
As for what the show is about, it is about a man who purpsely commits a crime, or pretends to make the attempt (by discharging a firearm in a bank, then promptly surrendering to the guards) in order to get sent to the prison at wehich his brother ios soon to be executed fo rthe murder of none other than the Vice-President of the United States. Lincoln Burrows is innocent of course, and his half-brother Michael Scoffield is certain of that, but all appeals have been exhausted. And so, while Burrows ex-girlfriend, a lawyer, is busily working on the outside doing research through legal channels to try to win yet another appeal before the execution date, Michaels has firmly implanted himself in the prison, complete with a large scale tattoo all over his torse that just happens to be the blueprints of the prison, which he himself happened to have designed while working for the firm that built the facility.
Of course, there are all kinds of characters there. There is Abruzzi, a mob boss spending the rest of his life in prison for the murder of mob rivals, and who Scoffield has forged an uneasy alliance with. There is Sucre, a Hispanic and cell-mate of Scoffield who has joined in the plot to escape out of desperation in that his lady, the love of his life, has impatiently run into the arms of his cousin and rival. There is T-Bag, a real dirt bag, a homosexual rapist/murderer and head of a white supremacist group who has instigated himself into the plot to break out of the prison by virtue of accidentally learning about it.
There is actually an endless list of characters, including the fictitous female vice-president of the United States, who seems to be the head of the conspiracy to set Lincold Burrows up for the murder of her brother. But this is one of those shows where every thing isn't necessarrily what it seems to be. But the two secret service agents who have murdered Burrows' ex-wife and husband, and are tracking his child, LJ,are determined to keep the vp, who has recently announced her own run for the presidency, out of any hint of trouble or scandal, by any means necessary.
Well, going over what I've written here, I realize that there is no way I can describe the shwo in a way that will do it justice. All I can do is encourage you to watch it and find ut for yourself. I dopn't recommend series elevision very often. The only other series I watch on a regular basis are Cold Case, The Night Stalker, and 24, which I am patiently waitng for the return of this January.
At any rate, if you like edge of your seat, jaw dropping and heart stopping suspense, mystery, and action, you can't go wrong with Prison Break.
action
Lenin's Tomb
The Russians are probably the most brow-beaten major country on the face of the earth, certainly the most cowed Caucasdian nation thereon. They are used to dictators and other brutes, and I'm referring as much to their religous hierarchy as their political ones. In fact, in Czarist Russia, secular and religous leaders walked hand in hand for hundreds of years. The official religion was that perpetuated, and perpetrated, by the Russian Orthodox Church, an outgrowth of the Greek Orthodox Church, the offical religion of the Byzantine Empire, in fact, the successor to the Byzantine Church. This was why for years Moscow, the capitol of Czarist Russia, was designated as the "Third Rome". It was also why the Russian Bolsheviks took so readily to the philosophy of Marxism, with it's denunciation of religion as the "opiate of the masses". Indeed, that was the Russian experience with religion, to all thinking aware Russians, at least, more so than in most other nations at the time of the Bolshevik revolution.
To them, Rasputin was not so unusual, in fact he was an actual symbol, an outward projection, of the decadence, corruption, and filth, that pervaded the Czarist state/orthodox religous hierarchy by which the people had long been afflicted.
To these people of the day, Lenin was a breathe of fresh air, the promise of a new tomorrow, the hope of equality and opportunity for all. At the same time, he provided a much needed catharsis.
He proved to be a very brutal and oppressive leader in his own right, but by then this was such an indelible fixture of Russian politics, was so ingrained, it is an unfortunate fact that, with the Russians, nothing but brutality would have worked for long. In other words, brutality was expected of the Russian leaders, and anything less would have been met with suspicion, possibly even derision, by the masses. Kindness would have been seen as a mark of weakness. Lenin was anything but weak.
Unfortunately, while the Socialist ideals he propounded may have looked good on paper, they were doomed to failure, due to the necessity of locking out any form of oppossition or contrary view-which of course was an immediate invitation to an ever festering corruption every bit as all-pervasive as that experienced under the Czarist regime. Lenin only lasted for seven years, and sometime during the middle of his reign, he was faced with the need to institute free-market reforms. And so, for a brief time prior to Lenin's death in 1924, private enterprise was in direct competition with state run businesses. The private enterprises, in general, proved vastly superior, which came as no great surprise to anyone with even a meagre understanding of economics. Nevertheless, this temporary experiment was abruptly ended after it accomplished it's objective of stabilizing the previously devastated Russian economy, which the Bolsheviks had never succeeded in building up from the devastation of the First World War.
Lenin was ever bit as brutal as he needed to be. Cold. Cynical. Hard. When news reached him that the Czar and Czarina, along with their children, had been executed in Ekaterinburg, he looked up from the minutes of the meeting he was following, and coldly asked the next speaker to read the new sanitation law for the memberships approval.
He purposely, and purposefully, inaugurated a pogrom against a specific class of Russian citizens known as Kulaks. These were Russians, peasants who had become wealthy through lands they had come to own. He confiscatd their properties, and tried to destroy them, and succeeded in large measure, in at least eliminating them as a distinct class of people. In fact, his followers used to carry banners with the slogan, "Death To The Kulaks As A Class".
Of course, the Kulaks were unpopular to begin with, as they were seen as capitalist tools, and abusers of the peasants and workers. And in Lenin's utopia, there were to be no class distinctions. Everyone was to be equal. Everyone was to have the same rights and protections. Provided, that is, they became members of the communist party. Then, you could look forward to becomming a little more equal. Of course, communist party membership too had it's drawbacks, as Leon Trotsky discovered, folowing Lenin's death, when, at the behest of his main rival, Stalin, he was assassinated via ice-pick in Mexico City.
Lenin himself, who had sacrificed so much to Marxism-to Leninism-may have sufferred the fate of conspiracy victim. It has long been suspected, though never proven, that Stalin had a hand in Lenin's death, after which Stalin proceeded to inaugurate a reign of terror that hearkened back to the days of the old crazed Czar Ivan The Terrible in it's horror. In fact, Lenin's reputation ws enhanced by Stalin, who actually succeeded in making Lenin look good-very good-by comparison.
Because of this, it is easy to forget that Lenin was himself somewhat of a monster. When he was sneaked into Russia at the behest of German Kaiser Wilhelms security services during the final days of World War One, the comparison was made to a type of germ warfare. Lenin, they said, was like a typhoid virus when they put him on that train back to Russia, from which he had been exiled for several years. From that moment, Russia's fate was sealed.
Yet, Lenin may have been a necessary evil. Surely, the evil that he replaced was by no means less evil that he had been. Besides, a catharsis after all never feels good at the time. And when the typhoid ran it's course, in 1924, and had mutated into the monster called Stalin, the original had been deemed worthy of preservation in a glass encassed tomb, an airless vacuum structure which would preserve Lenin's body for generations to come. It has been said that so perfectly preserved is Lenin, that it must not truly be him, but instead some sort of wax dummy, or some such similar thing as that.
Whatever the case, for decades Lenin's body has been encased in that tomb, for all to see. But it may not last much longer. Certain politicians and their allies in Russia have petitioned for Lenin's body to finally be buried. Naturally, this has inspired protests from members of the communist party, which is still an influence in Russian politics.
The question I would ask is-why? Is it a means of taking from the remaining Russian communists what may be viewed by them as a rallying synbol? If this is the reasoning, it is a stupid one indeed, and may actually be the first time a man dead for eighty years becomes a modern martyr. If anything, this threatens to inflame the communist sentiments even more. But I can't imagine any other reason for it. It is almost as though they think Lenin might one day rise from that tomb and start preaching his doctrine anew to millions of ruddy faced Russian schoolchildren via an aghast live satellite tv coverage. Or perhas it is simply the concerns of the Russian Orthodox Church that are being addressed here. Possibly to them he represents an image of repression of their cherished beliefs.
Whatever the case, I am against this action. Leave Lenin where he has been, in Red Square, for all to see. His presence there has been traditional for so long, it is hard to imagine him no longer there. He has become like an old friend, in a way. A dependable presence, an identifying landmark peculiar to the Russian nation.
More importantly, Lenin is unarguably one of the 20th centuries most important figures, possibly one of the top ten, right up there with FDR, Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ghandi, Martin Luther King. Ask youself, how many times does a person have the opportunity to view the body, the preserved remains, of a person of such historic importance?
Imagine that Lenin's body is preserved in it's present state for another 2000 years, and you are living in that era, and you view him at that time. Now, imagine you have the chance , in this age, to view the remains of Juslius Caesar, had they been similarly preserved? See what I mean?
Lenin was a great man. There is no denying that fact. Great here, of course, is not a commentary meant to denote goodness. Greatness and goodness are not necessarilly always to be found in the same abode. The important thing here is the historical impact of the man, for good and for ill. Because quite frankly, I believe that, as bad as Lenin was, as evil as at least some of his actions were, and as fallacous as the philosophy he propounded turned out to be, the world in the long run would have been far worse if Lenin had not come along. In fact, I propose that had Lenin not instituted communism in Russia, the United States, during the Great Depression, may itself have become a communist state, or possibly a fascist one. But due to our obsessive need to compete with communism in those days, we did so in a way that enabled us to pull ourselves out of the great depression in such a way that our democracy was preserved, though unarguably changed. Had Lenin not been here, we would not have approached the problem of the Depression, or of Fascism, or indeed of Communism, from quite the same perspective.
For all these reason, I would strongly hope that Lenin's body is left where it is, undisturbed for all time to come. For any to imagine his presence to be any kind of a danger to either the weak minded or the strong, is absurd beyond belief. I am not a communist, by any means. I am a believer in democracy, and in capitalism, albeit strongly regulated capitalism.
Yet, were I to go to Russia, one of the first places I would visit there would be Lenin's tomb in Red Square.
To them, Rasputin was not so unusual, in fact he was an actual symbol, an outward projection, of the decadence, corruption, and filth, that pervaded the Czarist state/orthodox religous hierarchy by which the people had long been afflicted.
To these people of the day, Lenin was a breathe of fresh air, the promise of a new tomorrow, the hope of equality and opportunity for all. At the same time, he provided a much needed catharsis.
He proved to be a very brutal and oppressive leader in his own right, but by then this was such an indelible fixture of Russian politics, was so ingrained, it is an unfortunate fact that, with the Russians, nothing but brutality would have worked for long. In other words, brutality was expected of the Russian leaders, and anything less would have been met with suspicion, possibly even derision, by the masses. Kindness would have been seen as a mark of weakness. Lenin was anything but weak.
Unfortunately, while the Socialist ideals he propounded may have looked good on paper, they were doomed to failure, due to the necessity of locking out any form of oppossition or contrary view-which of course was an immediate invitation to an ever festering corruption every bit as all-pervasive as that experienced under the Czarist regime. Lenin only lasted for seven years, and sometime during the middle of his reign, he was faced with the need to institute free-market reforms. And so, for a brief time prior to Lenin's death in 1924, private enterprise was in direct competition with state run businesses. The private enterprises, in general, proved vastly superior, which came as no great surprise to anyone with even a meagre understanding of economics. Nevertheless, this temporary experiment was abruptly ended after it accomplished it's objective of stabilizing the previously devastated Russian economy, which the Bolsheviks had never succeeded in building up from the devastation of the First World War.
Lenin was ever bit as brutal as he needed to be. Cold. Cynical. Hard. When news reached him that the Czar and Czarina, along with their children, had been executed in Ekaterinburg, he looked up from the minutes of the meeting he was following, and coldly asked the next speaker to read the new sanitation law for the memberships approval.
He purposely, and purposefully, inaugurated a pogrom against a specific class of Russian citizens known as Kulaks. These were Russians, peasants who had become wealthy through lands they had come to own. He confiscatd their properties, and tried to destroy them, and succeeded in large measure, in at least eliminating them as a distinct class of people. In fact, his followers used to carry banners with the slogan, "Death To The Kulaks As A Class".
Of course, the Kulaks were unpopular to begin with, as they were seen as capitalist tools, and abusers of the peasants and workers. And in Lenin's utopia, there were to be no class distinctions. Everyone was to be equal. Everyone was to have the same rights and protections. Provided, that is, they became members of the communist party. Then, you could look forward to becomming a little more equal. Of course, communist party membership too had it's drawbacks, as Leon Trotsky discovered, folowing Lenin's death, when, at the behest of his main rival, Stalin, he was assassinated via ice-pick in Mexico City.
Lenin himself, who had sacrificed so much to Marxism-to Leninism-may have sufferred the fate of conspiracy victim. It has long been suspected, though never proven, that Stalin had a hand in Lenin's death, after which Stalin proceeded to inaugurate a reign of terror that hearkened back to the days of the old crazed Czar Ivan The Terrible in it's horror. In fact, Lenin's reputation ws enhanced by Stalin, who actually succeeded in making Lenin look good-very good-by comparison.
Because of this, it is easy to forget that Lenin was himself somewhat of a monster. When he was sneaked into Russia at the behest of German Kaiser Wilhelms security services during the final days of World War One, the comparison was made to a type of germ warfare. Lenin, they said, was like a typhoid virus when they put him on that train back to Russia, from which he had been exiled for several years. From that moment, Russia's fate was sealed.
Yet, Lenin may have been a necessary evil. Surely, the evil that he replaced was by no means less evil that he had been. Besides, a catharsis after all never feels good at the time. And when the typhoid ran it's course, in 1924, and had mutated into the monster called Stalin, the original had been deemed worthy of preservation in a glass encassed tomb, an airless vacuum structure which would preserve Lenin's body for generations to come. It has been said that so perfectly preserved is Lenin, that it must not truly be him, but instead some sort of wax dummy, or some such similar thing as that.
Whatever the case, for decades Lenin's body has been encased in that tomb, for all to see. But it may not last much longer. Certain politicians and their allies in Russia have petitioned for Lenin's body to finally be buried. Naturally, this has inspired protests from members of the communist party, which is still an influence in Russian politics.
The question I would ask is-why? Is it a means of taking from the remaining Russian communists what may be viewed by them as a rallying synbol? If this is the reasoning, it is a stupid one indeed, and may actually be the first time a man dead for eighty years becomes a modern martyr. If anything, this threatens to inflame the communist sentiments even more. But I can't imagine any other reason for it. It is almost as though they think Lenin might one day rise from that tomb and start preaching his doctrine anew to millions of ruddy faced Russian schoolchildren via an aghast live satellite tv coverage. Or perhas it is simply the concerns of the Russian Orthodox Church that are being addressed here. Possibly to them he represents an image of repression of their cherished beliefs.
Whatever the case, I am against this action. Leave Lenin where he has been, in Red Square, for all to see. His presence there has been traditional for so long, it is hard to imagine him no longer there. He has become like an old friend, in a way. A dependable presence, an identifying landmark peculiar to the Russian nation.
More importantly, Lenin is unarguably one of the 20th centuries most important figures, possibly one of the top ten, right up there with FDR, Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ghandi, Martin Luther King. Ask youself, how many times does a person have the opportunity to view the body, the preserved remains, of a person of such historic importance?
Imagine that Lenin's body is preserved in it's present state for another 2000 years, and you are living in that era, and you view him at that time. Now, imagine you have the chance , in this age, to view the remains of Juslius Caesar, had they been similarly preserved? See what I mean?
Lenin was a great man. There is no denying that fact. Great here, of course, is not a commentary meant to denote goodness. Greatness and goodness are not necessarilly always to be found in the same abode. The important thing here is the historical impact of the man, for good and for ill. Because quite frankly, I believe that, as bad as Lenin was, as evil as at least some of his actions were, and as fallacous as the philosophy he propounded turned out to be, the world in the long run would have been far worse if Lenin had not come along. In fact, I propose that had Lenin not instituted communism in Russia, the United States, during the Great Depression, may itself have become a communist state, or possibly a fascist one. But due to our obsessive need to compete with communism in those days, we did so in a way that enabled us to pull ourselves out of the great depression in such a way that our democracy was preserved, though unarguably changed. Had Lenin not been here, we would not have approached the problem of the Depression, or of Fascism, or indeed of Communism, from quite the same perspective.
For all these reason, I would strongly hope that Lenin's body is left where it is, undisturbed for all time to come. For any to imagine his presence to be any kind of a danger to either the weak minded or the strong, is absurd beyond belief. I am not a communist, by any means. I am a believer in democracy, and in capitalism, albeit strongly regulated capitalism.
Yet, were I to go to Russia, one of the first places I would visit there would be Lenin's tomb in Red Square.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Pat Robertsons Latest Hit
If some of the more remarkable sayings attributed to Pat Robertson were somehow transformed into songs, he would have without a doubt one of the greatest compilation albums ever produced. "Pat Robertson's Greatest Hits." In fact, he's probably had enough of them now he might be able to release Volume Two-or Three.
Of course, his greatest of all "hits" would without a doubt have to be "Kill Chavez (Before It Gets Expensive)". This classic, like most of Robertson's standards, was performed in front of a live audience, I think. At least it was live in front of a television audience. I unfortunately missed it's debut performance on the 700 Club, but I saw highlights of the video. Yep, despite his rather unnassumming modesty, he said it all right.
Well, now he's done it again, and this may in time turn out to be the greatest gem of all Robertson's nuggets. In response to the people of Dover Pennsylvania voting out of office the school board who had recently decided to include "Intelligent Design" theory in schools as a supplement to science education, as a counter balance to the teaching of evolution, Robertson's wrath was direful, and urgent.
If the good people of Dover ever find themselves faced with a calamity, a catastrophe of some kind, he warned them, they had better not expect God to come to their aid. After all, they themselves have voted God out of their lives, out of their community. Why would God, why SHOULD God, do anything to help them now? In fact, if anything bad were to transpire, I would not be in the least surprised to hear a big resounding "I TOLD YOU SO" from the good reverend, as I am sure he implied that God might actually-gasp-be responsible for bringing about this tragedy in the form of a divine punishment.
Not exactly the kind of tune that makes you want to sing along, jump up and down and dance for joy? Well, Robertson must not exactly see it that way, you see, this is actually a reprise of an earlier hit that was based on an incident that happenned in a Florida community, one that had the audacity to allow Gay Pride Banners to be flown in recognition of, well, Gay Pride Day, of course.
"Don't be surprised" Robertson chirped, "if God doesn't strike this community with a meteor."
It's too bad that voters in Kansas voted the exact oppossite of the voters in Dober Pennsylvania, by voting for "Intelligent Design" to be included in their schools curriculum. Had they not done so, it would be interesting to speculate about what soulful tune Rbertson would have serenaded them with. A killer tornado, perhaps, or maybe even a return of the Dust Bowl?
What I wonder is, does Robertson even really believe the things he says. Naww, he couldn't, could he? Really? Of course, one can make the point that it doesn't really matter whether he believes it or not, as long as those happy viewers of the 700 Club sing and dance to his tunes.
Of course, his greatest of all "hits" would without a doubt have to be "Kill Chavez (Before It Gets Expensive)". This classic, like most of Robertson's standards, was performed in front of a live audience, I think. At least it was live in front of a television audience. I unfortunately missed it's debut performance on the 700 Club, but I saw highlights of the video. Yep, despite his rather unnassumming modesty, he said it all right.
Well, now he's done it again, and this may in time turn out to be the greatest gem of all Robertson's nuggets. In response to the people of Dover Pennsylvania voting out of office the school board who had recently decided to include "Intelligent Design" theory in schools as a supplement to science education, as a counter balance to the teaching of evolution, Robertson's wrath was direful, and urgent.
If the good people of Dover ever find themselves faced with a calamity, a catastrophe of some kind, he warned them, they had better not expect God to come to their aid. After all, they themselves have voted God out of their lives, out of their community. Why would God, why SHOULD God, do anything to help them now? In fact, if anything bad were to transpire, I would not be in the least surprised to hear a big resounding "I TOLD YOU SO" from the good reverend, as I am sure he implied that God might actually-gasp-be responsible for bringing about this tragedy in the form of a divine punishment.
Not exactly the kind of tune that makes you want to sing along, jump up and down and dance for joy? Well, Robertson must not exactly see it that way, you see, this is actually a reprise of an earlier hit that was based on an incident that happenned in a Florida community, one that had the audacity to allow Gay Pride Banners to be flown in recognition of, well, Gay Pride Day, of course.
"Don't be surprised" Robertson chirped, "if God doesn't strike this community with a meteor."
It's too bad that voters in Kansas voted the exact oppossite of the voters in Dober Pennsylvania, by voting for "Intelligent Design" to be included in their schools curriculum. Had they not done so, it would be interesting to speculate about what soulful tune Rbertson would have serenaded them with. A killer tornado, perhaps, or maybe even a return of the Dust Bowl?
What I wonder is, does Robertson even really believe the things he says. Naww, he couldn't, could he? Really? Of course, one can make the point that it doesn't really matter whether he believes it or not, as long as those happy viewers of the 700 Club sing and dance to his tunes.
President Franken
I was going to add a link to this post about author/comedian Al Franken, to his radio show on Air America, "The O'Franken Factor", but when I tried to click on the link that was supplied on the Yahoo Search Engine, I was immediately directed to a porn site. I thought, what the hell? Turns out it was more than just an ad, it was a computer virus, and almost caused my computer to shut down, luckily I was able to bring the situation under control, then stupidly tried to link to the site again, and of course got hooked up on the same porn site. O' Reilly's revenge, I thought? But I guess these things are wont to happen from time to time. Maybe if I try a different search engine?
But it's really not that important. Franken has been making the rounds lately to promote his new book "The Truth-(With Jokes), and has appearred as such on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberrmann, and Imus In The Morning.
Franken's books are always worth reading, even if you don't agree with him politically, which I generally do. This one should be no different. More importantly, however, is his recent decision to relocate to Minnesota, where he is considering in '06 a run for the Senate. He probably has not made up his mind yet, out of the prospect of considering a run in '08, agaisnt current incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. This might be his best option.
On the other hand, maybe not. It has crossed my mind over the past few days that Franken, if events warrant, might eventually consider a spot on the Democratic ticket in 2012. '08 would of course be way too soon. But consider the possibilities.
Franken wins in '06. He does such a bang up job, and is so popular, that he easily wins re-election in 2012. 2016 comes along, and the Democrats are trying to hold onto the office for a second or a third straight time. Or maybe they are trying to take the office for the first time since 2000. Yes, that is actually a possibility. Franken is offerred a spot on the ticket, as VP. Or, maybe he runs inthe primaries, and wins the top spot.
No matter what end of the ticket he is on, who better to run a campaign? Franken's humor is not exactly Don Rickles style, but his targets may feel like it is. Franken's humor, at least on the surface, is much more cerebral, much more subtle, and easily as devastating. Who could possibly debate with this guy?
Of course, if he runs in '06, he will be up for re-election in 2012, so may forego that year. But what if he does decide to run in '08, agaisnt Coleman, and wins. By 2012, he wil have been a four year first term Senator, and may throw his hat into the ring in preparation for 2016. Anything's possible.
But is it possible that he could win? He would certainly be the target of all kinds of vicious personal assaults, the kind he himself has been accussed of utilizing. Bill O' Reilly will probably be beside himself. Just imagine how the Right Wing would react, especially if Franken were to win.
I don't know if he could win or not. Franken has a tendency to come across as pedantic and arrogant. If he could figure out a way to connect with the average person in a way that belies his tendency to ridicule and belittle his subject matter, he may actually get somewhere, make some headway.
I would probably vote for him. Think about it. Al Franken, giving the State Of The Union speech. Buit before his first time, appearring on Saturday Night Live as the President-elect, and giving a "preview" State of The Union speech.
That would almost be worth voting for him in it's own right.
But it's really not that important. Franken has been making the rounds lately to promote his new book "The Truth-(With Jokes), and has appearred as such on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberrmann, and Imus In The Morning.
Franken's books are always worth reading, even if you don't agree with him politically, which I generally do. This one should be no different. More importantly, however, is his recent decision to relocate to Minnesota, where he is considering in '06 a run for the Senate. He probably has not made up his mind yet, out of the prospect of considering a run in '08, agaisnt current incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. This might be his best option.
On the other hand, maybe not. It has crossed my mind over the past few days that Franken, if events warrant, might eventually consider a spot on the Democratic ticket in 2012. '08 would of course be way too soon. But consider the possibilities.
Franken wins in '06. He does such a bang up job, and is so popular, that he easily wins re-election in 2012. 2016 comes along, and the Democrats are trying to hold onto the office for a second or a third straight time. Or maybe they are trying to take the office for the first time since 2000. Yes, that is actually a possibility. Franken is offerred a spot on the ticket, as VP. Or, maybe he runs inthe primaries, and wins the top spot.
No matter what end of the ticket he is on, who better to run a campaign? Franken's humor is not exactly Don Rickles style, but his targets may feel like it is. Franken's humor, at least on the surface, is much more cerebral, much more subtle, and easily as devastating. Who could possibly debate with this guy?
Of course, if he runs in '06, he will be up for re-election in 2012, so may forego that year. But what if he does decide to run in '08, agaisnt Coleman, and wins. By 2012, he wil have been a four year first term Senator, and may throw his hat into the ring in preparation for 2016. Anything's possible.
But is it possible that he could win? He would certainly be the target of all kinds of vicious personal assaults, the kind he himself has been accussed of utilizing. Bill O' Reilly will probably be beside himself. Just imagine how the Right Wing would react, especially if Franken were to win.
I don't know if he could win or not. Franken has a tendency to come across as pedantic and arrogant. If he could figure out a way to connect with the average person in a way that belies his tendency to ridicule and belittle his subject matter, he may actually get somewhere, make some headway.
I would probably vote for him. Think about it. Al Franken, giving the State Of The Union speech. Buit before his first time, appearring on Saturday Night Live as the President-elect, and giving a "preview" State of The Union speech.
That would almost be worth voting for him in it's own right.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Vacation Aruba-No More
Finally, the patience of Beth Holloway Twitty has worn as thin as a Greta Van Sustern Fox viewer, and she finally fired a salvo across the bow, after months of impotent and all but ignored warning shots. She has given her support and encouragement of a boycott fo the island of Aruba, which was annnounced just the other day by the Governor of Alabama, who declared that he would seek support for his bycott from the Governors of all the other 49 States of thr Union.
Naturally, this is mainly a symbolic gesture, but the officials of Aruba are beside themselves, and the island has filed a complaint witht he State Department. Too fucking bad. If these Third World Thugs disguised as human beings had done what was right in the first place, Natalie Holloway's body may have been long ago recovered or, failing that, an arrest would have been made for her murder, and I have no doubt as to who the subjects fo the arrest and then trial would be.
They might have eventually been found innmocent of course. In fact, I would almost be willing to bet that they either would be found not guilty, or that they would serve precous little time in prison if they were convicted. But at least there would be some closure, some answers. By now, the name Natalie Holloway would, had they gone about this the right way, be a name that would go largely unremembered in days to come. Now, she will probably eventually be the inspiration for a movie, a mini-series, and never ending speculation.
The island of Aruba has brought this on themselves. Sure, innocent people will be hurt by the boycott. But what other recourse does the family have? If it gets that bad, the people of the island can flex their muscles and throw the animals out of office. The wrong thing to do would be to obstinately support the corrupt princelings of the island that have brought, or will bring, the coming troubles upon them.
After all, the island has lived well off of mainy Amwerican tourist dollars for some time to come. Before this, their main source of income was as an island off-shore refinery for Venezualan oil. Even if they were able to return to this, the benefits would be of temporarty duration, and the lifestyle would hardly be as beatific as it is now, nor would it be quite so prosperous, for the average citizen.
And so it begs the question, why in the motherfucking hell would any American in their right mind want to go to a place where something like this is allowed to happen, and with seeming impunity? I know I wouldn't, especially when it looks like this is mainly a matter of protecting a handful of kids who are children of privelege, the sons of a prosperous Aruban businessman on the one hand (The Kalpoe Brothers) and the son of an influential Dutch-born official (Van Der Sloot) on the other. Is this the level to which European culture has descended, or perhaps remained, that people of privelege, the wealthy, the powerful, can pretty much do whatever the hell they want and get a free pass.
I don't think so, and I wish Beth Holloway Twitty luck with her boycott, and hope that the Governors of all the States join the Governor of Alabama in encouraging the boycott. Of course, it is symbolic, no governor can legally impose a boycott on Aruba or any other place. But the average American should be so heartily pissed off at this bunch, they wouldn't need to be forced to conform to the boycott, and in fact they shouldn't even have to be strongly encouraged.
But just on the off chance that there are a few contrarians out there who question the need or the wisdom in such an action, let me add my reasoning thusly-if you want to spend your vacatrion time and money in a place where you can be drugged, raped, robbed, murdered, or victimized in many of various other ways, may I recommend the State of Kentucky? Whatever could possibly happen to you anywhere can happen here, if you really try hard enough. And at least here in Kentuckly, there's an off chance that, once you are victimized, something will actually be done about it.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Monday, November 07, 2005
The Asatru-White Racialists?
It has come to my attention of late that Asatru, a pagan based modern religion based on the ancient worship of the old deities of the Norse and the Germans, may be made up in large partof racialist elements of the white Aryan community. Is this a bad thing? Well, I guess it all depends.
It has always been my contention that hatred based on race and culture is wrong, no matter which side exhibits it. It has also been my view that racial and cultural pride of ones ancestral heritage is good and appropriate, so long as it doesn't cross the line into bigotry and racial violence.
Racialism as exhibited from the white perspective is therefore no better, nor is it any worse, than Hispanic, Jewish, or black bigotry, and from a cultural perspective can be as valuable and admirable as that exhibited in it's more positive aspects from the peoples of other races, cultures, and religions.
As for the Asatru, I would like to believe the best. However, I have far too many times seen exhibitions of intolerance for, for eample, Wicca, as much so as I have seen misogynistic meanderings concerning those of other races and cultures. This gives me great pause.
At it's best, Asatru seems to be a remarkably well thought out revision of the old religion of the ancient Germans and Norse. However, there is a darker aspect to it. At it's worse, it seems to have taken over from the old Christian ultra conservative elements best illustrated by the beliefs of the old Ku Klux Klan. They would seem to be a perfect example of a religion made up of converts from Christianity who have failed to leave behind a good deal of their old ultra-conservative Christian baggage. You are either with them, or you are against them, it would seem. This is most unfortunate. There is much about Asatru, as in most religions, that seems to be admirable.
They seem, however, to have taken quite a few pages from the playbook of evangelical Christianity, and for that matter fundamentalist Islam, in the manner inwhich they proselityze new converts. A great many of these would seem to come from the American prison system. Now, I for one think it is fine to offer convicts, and parolees, hope in the form of a religous belief system. If this system is one that teaches pride in ones race, culture,and heritage, then this is all the better. But of course, caution is advised. There is a sub-cuture of violence inherent in any prison system that would not bode wel when translated into the outside world, as a good many have noted in connection with prison conversions to fundmentalist Islam. Conversion to a white supremacist organization would bode no better, long term, for society at large. But it is a fact that if the Asatru are not cautious, they might indeed find that a large perentage of their membership derives fromthese prison conversions, to a larger degree than with other religions. This, as well, may not bode well for the religion, for obvious reasons.
But it seems reasonable to assume that a great many of the Asatru prison covnerts would derive from the Whtie Supremacist, Aryan prison population, and this may well translate into the world outside. In fact, a common term of denigration whn referring to this branch of paganism is "Nazitru".
Is this fair? Does this fit? I would not be so harsh myself. However, when I read such comments as I have read concerning the "fluff bunny" Wiccans, and other branches of paganism, I can't help but realize that a good lot of this is a natural reaction, though perhaps an overreaction as well, to what is perceived as an overzealous and possiby even bigoted form of paganism.
Not that they are the only ones, to be sure. I consider myself a Hellenic Wiccan, and a practitioner of magic, though not truly an orthodox Wiccan, and certainly not a "Reconstructionist" Hellenismos. But I have had on-line encounters with "Recons" who have left me all but tearing my hair out. They come across as obstinate, arrogant, and every bit as fundamentalist in some cases as the most superstitous of Bible believing fundamentalist Christians.
The problem seems to stem from the fact that for the most part they have arrivd from a perspective of at least some degree of influence from an earlier Christian heritage, and have brought that baggage into their new faith. As such, they haven't truly converted, and maybe never will. And this will always cause problems when it comes to associations with those of different faiths and cultures.
In any religion, there is a great deal of mythology and symbolism. A lot of these old stories are not to be taken literaly, hey are instead beautiful allegorical stories that serve to impart a deeper spiritual or magical meaning. Taken literally, as way too many tend to do, these old mythologies actually lose their magic,their majesty, and become little more than the stuff of superstitous folk tales, told only for the amusements and/or the frightening of children, and believed only by the ignorant. But somewhere along the way, the leaders of a great many religions seem to have realized that literal interpretations are more conducive to keeping your adherents in line, enslaved to their beliefs, chained by them, as oppossed to deriving true freedom and enligtenment from them. That is how it began, far more years ago than can be counted perhaps. But the Middle Eastern religoions ratcheted up the distrust and hatreds by insisting in the belief in only one God, all others being wrong or evil.
When you believe in only one God, and only one way of woshipping that God, and that everything taught about that religion must be taken literally how can anything else be anything but evil?
Paganism, in my view, should not be that way, but there is always he danger of fundamentalism creeping in when you are dealing with the prospect of converts from fundamentalist religions. A lot fothem just can't adjust to thinking differently. Only with the Asatru, now there seems to be the danger of combining this danger with racialism, which again, can be hazardous, when taken to the extreme, to the health of any spiritual path.
By the way, if there are any White Racialists and/or white supremacists readingthis, I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was intended. I too am proud of my white European ancestry and heritage, and there is much in Asaru hat I find good and admirable. Nor do I mean to imply that you all are ignorant, superstitous, and violent fundamentalists.
However, just in case there are a few of you who do fit the profile of the violent racist and fundamentalist, or the ignorant-a word of caution: if you by chance one day happen to see a crippled blonde haired doctor striking his walking stick against a pavement in anger, sorry to dissapoint you, but he is probably not going to transform ino the Mighty Thor.
It has always been my contention that hatred based on race and culture is wrong, no matter which side exhibits it. It has also been my view that racial and cultural pride of ones ancestral heritage is good and appropriate, so long as it doesn't cross the line into bigotry and racial violence.
Racialism as exhibited from the white perspective is therefore no better, nor is it any worse, than Hispanic, Jewish, or black bigotry, and from a cultural perspective can be as valuable and admirable as that exhibited in it's more positive aspects from the peoples of other races, cultures, and religions.
As for the Asatru, I would like to believe the best. However, I have far too many times seen exhibitions of intolerance for, for eample, Wicca, as much so as I have seen misogynistic meanderings concerning those of other races and cultures. This gives me great pause.
At it's best, Asatru seems to be a remarkably well thought out revision of the old religion of the ancient Germans and Norse. However, there is a darker aspect to it. At it's worse, it seems to have taken over from the old Christian ultra conservative elements best illustrated by the beliefs of the old Ku Klux Klan. They would seem to be a perfect example of a religion made up of converts from Christianity who have failed to leave behind a good deal of their old ultra-conservative Christian baggage. You are either with them, or you are against them, it would seem. This is most unfortunate. There is much about Asatru, as in most religions, that seems to be admirable.
They seem, however, to have taken quite a few pages from the playbook of evangelical Christianity, and for that matter fundamentalist Islam, in the manner inwhich they proselityze new converts. A great many of these would seem to come from the American prison system. Now, I for one think it is fine to offer convicts, and parolees, hope in the form of a religous belief system. If this system is one that teaches pride in ones race, culture,and heritage, then this is all the better. But of course, caution is advised. There is a sub-cuture of violence inherent in any prison system that would not bode wel when translated into the outside world, as a good many have noted in connection with prison conversions to fundmentalist Islam. Conversion to a white supremacist organization would bode no better, long term, for society at large. But it is a fact that if the Asatru are not cautious, they might indeed find that a large perentage of their membership derives fromthese prison conversions, to a larger degree than with other religions. This, as well, may not bode well for the religion, for obvious reasons.
But it seems reasonable to assume that a great many of the Asatru prison covnerts would derive from the Whtie Supremacist, Aryan prison population, and this may well translate into the world outside. In fact, a common term of denigration whn referring to this branch of paganism is "Nazitru".
Is this fair? Does this fit? I would not be so harsh myself. However, when I read such comments as I have read concerning the "fluff bunny" Wiccans, and other branches of paganism, I can't help but realize that a good lot of this is a natural reaction, though perhaps an overreaction as well, to what is perceived as an overzealous and possiby even bigoted form of paganism.
Not that they are the only ones, to be sure. I consider myself a Hellenic Wiccan, and a practitioner of magic, though not truly an orthodox Wiccan, and certainly not a "Reconstructionist" Hellenismos. But I have had on-line encounters with "Recons" who have left me all but tearing my hair out. They come across as obstinate, arrogant, and every bit as fundamentalist in some cases as the most superstitous of Bible believing fundamentalist Christians.
The problem seems to stem from the fact that for the most part they have arrivd from a perspective of at least some degree of influence from an earlier Christian heritage, and have brought that baggage into their new faith. As such, they haven't truly converted, and maybe never will. And this will always cause problems when it comes to associations with those of different faiths and cultures.
In any religion, there is a great deal of mythology and symbolism. A lot of these old stories are not to be taken literaly, hey are instead beautiful allegorical stories that serve to impart a deeper spiritual or magical meaning. Taken literally, as way too many tend to do, these old mythologies actually lose their magic,their majesty, and become little more than the stuff of superstitous folk tales, told only for the amusements and/or the frightening of children, and believed only by the ignorant. But somewhere along the way, the leaders of a great many religions seem to have realized that literal interpretations are more conducive to keeping your adherents in line, enslaved to their beliefs, chained by them, as oppossed to deriving true freedom and enligtenment from them. That is how it began, far more years ago than can be counted perhaps. But the Middle Eastern religoions ratcheted up the distrust and hatreds by insisting in the belief in only one God, all others being wrong or evil.
When you believe in only one God, and only one way of woshipping that God, and that everything taught about that religion must be taken literally how can anything else be anything but evil?
Paganism, in my view, should not be that way, but there is always he danger of fundamentalism creeping in when you are dealing with the prospect of converts from fundamentalist religions. A lot fothem just can't adjust to thinking differently. Only with the Asatru, now there seems to be the danger of combining this danger with racialism, which again, can be hazardous, when taken to the extreme, to the health of any spiritual path.
By the way, if there are any White Racialists and/or white supremacists readingthis, I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was intended. I too am proud of my white European ancestry and heritage, and there is much in Asaru hat I find good and admirable. Nor do I mean to imply that you all are ignorant, superstitous, and violent fundamentalists.
However, just in case there are a few of you who do fit the profile of the violent racist and fundamentalist, or the ignorant-a word of caution: if you by chance one day happen to see a crippled blonde haired doctor striking his walking stick against a pavement in anger, sorry to dissapoint you, but he is probably not going to transform ino the Mighty Thor.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
The Man On The Bus
It semed fitting to me, as a Pagan, one who believes that Samhain (halloween) is sacred both to the goddess and the god, as well as to the dead, that Rosa Parks would on that day become the first woman ever to lay in state at the Capitol. It seemed fitting. Not that Parks was a pagan, so far as I know she was a Baptist, a Christian. But her simple act of defiance crossed all racial and cultural lines, as far as I'm concerned.
Her death was not so much a mourning as it was a celebration of the spirit of mankind, and of the rights of the oppressed to arise from the chains of the shackles from which they had only been physically freed. The saddest thing about the event, in fact, was the timing. Had she lived just another couple of months, she would have seen the fiftieth anniversary of her refusal to arise from her seat on that Montgomery Alabama bus, as the law then required, to give that seat to a white man.
And who exactly was this white man? To be honest, I don't have a clue, in fact I have never seen his name in print or heard it utterred.I don't even know for certain if he is still alive or not. Maybe this is all part of the public record, maybe it is not. Maybe a Google seach would reveal his identity. There is nothing, however, that could reveal how stupid he must have felt in the aftemath of all this. I mean, I would be tempted to ask him, just who in the fuck do you think, or did you think, you are and/or were? What made you think that anybody, of any race, was obliged to get up out of their seats for your sorry ass?
And, of course, what made him think that was the culture of the times and the place. Had I been him, had I been the one on that bus, I would like to think that I would have acted quite differently, that I would not have demanded the lady arise from a hard days work at the seamstress shop where she work, so that I migth sit down. In fact, I would like to think that had I gotten on the bus before her, and had I all ready taken that seat, I would have offerred it to her when I saw her getting on the bus.
But more than likely, I would not have acted any differently. I probably would have done the exact same thing. Because that was just the pervading culture of the day and time.
Or was it? Was it really that ingrained? I mean, where did that picture come from, the one you see on the news here the last few days, Rosa Parks sitting on the bus, a white man sitting behind her? Was that him, or somebody else? A police interrogator? Who took the picture, and why?
Was it all set up? Did the white man, the one who complained about this woman who brazenly refused to give up the seat to him, actually in reality go along with all this? Was he a willing particiapant in some strange semi-rehearsed skit of sorts that was played out by some design on a national stage known as the national news? Is this why we never hear his name mentioned?
Rosa Parks, after all, was a member of the NAACP, and sat on a civil rights board in Montgomery. She was no stranger, therefore, to activism, in fact she may have been very familiar with it.
However, the story just does not seem to retain it's magic when related in the manner of a pre-arranged set-up, with camera and reporters at the ready. And the story as told is a magical one, sort of like the story of Miss jane Pittman, the aged, ancient black woman who, needing a drink of water from a public fountain on a hot, humid day, brazenly walked up to the one that was clearly marked-
WHITE ONLY
and drank. A simple act of defiance that in it's own right raised awareness and helped to change the world.
In a way, it doesn't really matter, whether the event was a staged one, or whether it was a naturally occurring part of the imutable fabric of history. The intent, and the result, is the important thing. And whatever the answer might be, it would not lessen her place in hisotry, and the appropriateness of her place in state at the nations capitol.
On the other hand, if it was a naturally occurring event, as I prefer to think that it was, it makes it seem all the more magical. Yet all the more human.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Secret Prison Distractions
Quite a few months ago, maybe more than a year ago, word leaked out that the military, or possibly the CIA, was holding terror suspects in secret prisons in various parts of the world. Immediately, there were rumors that torture was to a large degree being utilized as a means of extracting information from these suspects in order to gleen information that migth not otherwise be obtained, potentially vital information that might aid in heading off, preventing, another 9/11-or worse. Of course, sides were drawn, lines int he sand, beteen the two schools of thought. Torture was wrong. Any information gleened by way of it was untrustworthy at best. A tortured detainee would say anything he thought his captors wanted him to say, it was asserted, in order to relieve his sufferring. Among the notables who took this position was Senator John McCain, himself a former Viet Nam POW.
Others took the position that, within limitations, certain guidelines became illogical when it came to the prospect of the potential of a nuclear, biological, or chemical threat in an American city. Abu Ghraib became one line int he sand in this politcal wrestling match. Gunatanamo became another. But there were others, not so well known, it was maintained, in various parts ofp the world, where interrogations were conducted in secret, where the rules of engagement were decidedly relaxed.
The problem is, this is an old story, in news cycle terms. So why is it being recycled today? Why has it suddenly resurfaced during the week following announcement of the indictment of I. "Scooter" Libby on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in regards to the leaking of the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, and before Libby is-this day, in fact-to appear in Federal Court to render his plea on these charges, which no doubt will be an innocent plea?
The White House, more than any other, has proven adept at utilizing the mainstream press in getting out it's side of the story as pertains to various issues. It even managed to co-opt Bob Woodward, of the Washington Post, who seemed bemused that his account of Bush's claim that he felt moved by Jehovah himself to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East, was met by some skepticism and even rumors that this may have shown the president may have been unhinged. He seemed to think nothing of the kind. Once the controversy ensued Bush backtracked somewhat. Just one example of how he may have misread the mood and, in fact, the gullibility, of the American public in general.
But evidently, he still assumes the American public is, if not outright gullible, at least grasping for a reason to believe the best, or the worse, whichever suits his fancy., And once again he has co-opted the Washington Post as a medium for recirculating this old, old story, as though it were brand spanking new. Even the packaging is old and moldy. But no one as of now seems to have noticed.
And so, once again, the CIA, erstwhile employers of the hapless Ms. Plame, have been portrayed as the villains, potentially, while the Bush White House in the meantime assures us all that any interrogations of detainees will be met with the strictest of adherence to the rule of law, international treaties, and the most basic of American values. Were it to turn out otherwise, I am sure the Bush White House would be the first to express outrage at the CIA's betrayal of the American trust.
I wonder if the editorial staff of the Post are familiar with the old Chinese water torture trick?
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Valerie Plame Should Go Public
I don't know for sure exactly what Valerie Plame Wilson's status is now with the CIA, only that, sinc eshe was outed as a covert agent, she is no longer covert. She still, hwoever, might be working as an aalyst, and as such may be unable to speak publicly about her recent ordeal. And it would have to be an ordeal.
But it might well be to her advantage to take a leave of absence fromthe agency, possibly even resign, and take her chances in the public arena. She, like her husband, former ambasador and charges d'affairres Joe Wilson, shold go on the talk show and the lecture circuits. Of course, she should not reveal any classified information, but she can certainly make clear her perspective as to the events surrounding her outing, and the real and potential consequences, not ony to her andher family, but to all those contacts she had established inthe corse of her former position, contacts who may in fact may be comromised and in danger, or imprisonment and even death.
I predict that, in time, you will see her on these circuits, and she will make a far more devastating case against the Bush administration than her husband culd hope to. But there may also be a reason why she can not dothis, for the time being. That being, simply, she might find herself being called to testify at the coming trial of Scooter Libby, and as such may be under a gag order not to speak publicly. In fact, I halfway expect to see Libby's attorney file a motion specifically to prevent such a public appearrance by Ms. Plame, and her husband, onthe grounds that they may endanger Libby's chances for a fair trial.
Just in case, I hope she moves fast. She can easily make up whatever money she looses by way of loosing her position at the CIA, with a book deal, or on the lecture circuit, etc.
If she does do this, however, expect theRepublicans to impugn her character, probably insinuate that she was obliged to engage in sexual relations with her contacts while she was operating as a NOC (non-offical cover). Hell, that would make me like her that much more.
But it might well be to her advantage to take a leave of absence fromthe agency, possibly even resign, and take her chances in the public arena. She, like her husband, former ambasador and charges d'affairres Joe Wilson, shold go on the talk show and the lecture circuits. Of course, she should not reveal any classified information, but she can certainly make clear her perspective as to the events surrounding her outing, and the real and potential consequences, not ony to her andher family, but to all those contacts she had established inthe corse of her former position, contacts who may in fact may be comromised and in danger, or imprisonment and even death.
I predict that, in time, you will see her on these circuits, and she will make a far more devastating case against the Bush administration than her husband culd hope to. But there may also be a reason why she can not dothis, for the time being. That being, simply, she might find herself being called to testify at the coming trial of Scooter Libby, and as such may be under a gag order not to speak publicly. In fact, I halfway expect to see Libby's attorney file a motion specifically to prevent such a public appearrance by Ms. Plame, and her husband, onthe grounds that they may endanger Libby's chances for a fair trial.
Just in case, I hope she moves fast. She can easily make up whatever money she looses by way of loosing her position at the CIA, with a book deal, or on the lecture circuit, etc.
If she does do this, however, expect theRepublicans to impugn her character, probably insinuate that she was obliged to engage in sexual relations with her contacts while she was operating as a NOC (non-offical cover). Hell, that would make me like her that much more.
Bush-His Life May Be In Danger
Now that Scooter Libby has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, there is a good chance that he has been assurred by the White House that, if he keeps his mouth shut like a good little boy, he will receive a pardon if he is convicted of any of the charges that will be brought against him by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the case of the Valerie Plame Wilson CIA leak. However, there is a good chance that, depending on the timing, such an act would be tantamount to the worse kind of political folly on Bush's part. For this reason, Fitzgeral might be able to make a deal with Libby. Come clean on what you know-everything you know-and we mgth drop some or all of the charges. Remember, Fuitzgerald knows quite a bit, more than he has let on, like, for example, who the original source was who leaked Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak.
Events in Washington yesterday have made it clear the Congressional Democrats are out for blood,and want to get to the bottom of the leak, if for no other reason than it makes a better story from their perspective than Bush's move to nominate a conservative to the Supreme Court, or his work on behalf of protecting us from the Avian Flu. They do not want the story of the leak and the investigtion of it to take a back seat to anything that will help Bush push through his own agenda or otherwise control the news cycle.
The main person that might have to worry about is Vice-Prsident Dick Cheney, but it goes deeper, and far beyond, Cheney and his minions int he Vice-Presidents office. It extends beyond these corridors of considerable power out into the private sector of government contracts, including but not limited to military contracts. There is also the reconstruction phase of the Gulf Coast as regards post-Katrina responsibilities.
The United States has been sold out, mainly by the Neo-Cons of the Republican Party, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And what is known, barely so, may well be the tip of the provewrbial iceburg. When it comes to that kind of money-potentially trillions when all is said and done-anything is possible. Whole families have been murdered for a lot less than that, for comparatively miniscule amounts, in fact, and with no regrets or remorse.
It would be relatively simple, seeing as how the atmosphere in Washington, the international community, etc., has been so poisoned over the ast few years, to see that there are certain people who might well realize they are themselves in dire danger of prosecution if the truth of their involveent in certan matters were to become public.
In other words, it would be a simple matter for Bush to be murdered, and for "evidence" to point to other parties. To Hugo Chavez, for example. I know it sounds to a good many, maybe to most, like a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
On the other hand, not only are we dealing now in the area of hndreds of bilions of dollars, and the potential for criminal prosection for such matters as lying abut national security matters to the extent that we were falsely lead into a war-we are also dealing with criminals, with traitors who just happen to coincidentally also be our own elected officials.
Or Cheney himself might be the one to get the ax. Maybe his pacemaker will"give out".
One thing is for sure. If the Democrats make substantial gains in the Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal will have a lot to worry about. And so will alot of teir shadowy supporters. And when these kind of people start to get real worried, bad things can happen.
Events in Washington yesterday have made it clear the Congressional Democrats are out for blood,and want to get to the bottom of the leak, if for no other reason than it makes a better story from their perspective than Bush's move to nominate a conservative to the Supreme Court, or his work on behalf of protecting us from the Avian Flu. They do not want the story of the leak and the investigtion of it to take a back seat to anything that will help Bush push through his own agenda or otherwise control the news cycle.
The main person that might have to worry about is Vice-Prsident Dick Cheney, but it goes deeper, and far beyond, Cheney and his minions int he Vice-Presidents office. It extends beyond these corridors of considerable power out into the private sector of government contracts, including but not limited to military contracts. There is also the reconstruction phase of the Gulf Coast as regards post-Katrina responsibilities.
The United States has been sold out, mainly by the Neo-Cons of the Republican Party, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And what is known, barely so, may well be the tip of the provewrbial iceburg. When it comes to that kind of money-potentially trillions when all is said and done-anything is possible. Whole families have been murdered for a lot less than that, for comparatively miniscule amounts, in fact, and with no regrets or remorse.
It would be relatively simple, seeing as how the atmosphere in Washington, the international community, etc., has been so poisoned over the ast few years, to see that there are certain people who might well realize they are themselves in dire danger of prosecution if the truth of their involveent in certan matters were to become public.
In other words, it would be a simple matter for Bush to be murdered, and for "evidence" to point to other parties. To Hugo Chavez, for example. I know it sounds to a good many, maybe to most, like a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
On the other hand, not only are we dealing now in the area of hndreds of bilions of dollars, and the potential for criminal prosection for such matters as lying abut national security matters to the extent that we were falsely lead into a war-we are also dealing with criminals, with traitors who just happen to coincidentally also be our own elected officials.
Or Cheney himself might be the one to get the ax. Maybe his pacemaker will"give out".
One thing is for sure. If the Democrats make substantial gains in the Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal will have a lot to worry about. And so will alot of teir shadowy supporters. And when these kind of people start to get real worried, bad things can happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)