This is my own special eggnog recipe, and I will warn you before hand it is quite extravagant, and complicated, but if you want to give it a try, I promise that it is well worth the effort. It accomplishes several tasks. For one thing, provided you are not adverse to alcoholic beverages, it is a perfect Yule drink. For another, the high that you will get from it is delightfully intense, and yet joyously mellow. If you do sleep while intoxicated on this drink, you will experience lucid dreaming like you could never imagine. And the dream should be pleasant, extremely so. In fact, even a dream that ordinarily would be classified as a nightmare will be a pleasant experience. Finally, when you awake the following day, no matter how high you became the night before, you will not experience a hangover, in fact, you will feel refreshed and renewed, possibly like never before. This is probably due to the way in which the concoction coats your stomach. Once you peruse the ingredients, it will be easy to ascertain the reason for this. And so, without further ado, following is a list of the ingredients.
Before I give theingredients, however, I shoud say that you should insure that you have the proper equipment. Large mixing bowls and mixers (yes, electric mixers, as with this recipe, mixing by hand may not be good enough). Also, insure that you have a sufficiently large cooking implement to hold a large mixture. Something that would of necessity cover two burners on the stove. Finally, insure that you have an adequate number of large jars for refrigeration, in case you of necessity have to cook the Yule Nog the day before it is to be used. And now, on to the ingredients.
1. three small boxes (or two large ones) of Jello or some other name brand vanilla cook and serve pudding, along with the amount of milk called for on the boxes directions.
2. two cartons of large eggs, each containing twelve eggs, for a total of 24 large eggs.
3. three 16 oz. cartons of ready made Kool Whip, or some other name brand, of whipped cream. (or three pints of whipping cream)
4. One cup of sugar
5. One eight ounce glass of whole milk (in addition to the milk you use to make the pudding)
6. 1/2 tespoon of ground nutmeg or cinnammon.
7. one fifth of Baccardi's Light Rum.
Okay, the first thing you want to do is seperate the egg yolks from the egg whites. Once you do this, you need to use just a portion of the cup of sugar in the egg whites, which you will beat until they form a maranque. Once you do this, place the merenque in the refrigerator for the time being.
Then, place the remainder of the sugar (you should have at least three fourths of a cup left) into the egg yolks, and beat them with the sugar until it is all well blended.
Then, cook the three small boxes of Jello vanilla cook and serve pudding over the stove according to the directions on the package. Once it is finished cooking, keep the pudding on low hear, uncovered. Once you have finished doing this, add about a half cup or so of the pudding to the egg yolk/sugar mixture, and mix well. Then, you will need to transfer the egg yolk/sugar concoction to the pudding and stir until it is all well mixed.
Then, you will need to add the whipped cream. Of course, if you use the whipping cream, you will need to whip it and then place it right away into the mixture. Stir until it is all well mixed.
Then, you will need to add the merenque made from the egg whites to the remainder of the mixture. Again, stir until it is all well mixed.
Then, it is time to add the eight ounces of milk.
By this time, the mixture should be cooled sufficiently that you can begin adding the Baccardi's Light Rum. And I specify this brand in order to discourage the use of an inferior brand. Also, do not use-repeat DO NOT USE- 151 rum, that is just too much for this recipe. Yet, an entire fifth of the regular strength Baccardi's Light Rum is perfect. Add the entire amount, but slowly, stirring it as you add it, ensuring the proper mixing, as always. Be certain though that the mixture has indeed sufficiently cooled before you add the rum, as too much heat can have a detrimental effect on the alcoholic content. If it is just slightly warm, that should be fine.
Finally, you add the 1/2 teaspoon of nutmeg or cinnammon. You are now ready to serve your Yule Nog. This will make quite a large amount, which makes it perfect for parties or large gatherings, and if you are so inclined, for Yule celebrations-be they of the pagan or the secular variety. The entire amount can be refrigerated, and will be good for a few days, if any appreciable amount is left over. Don't count on this, by the way. At any rate, I discourage freezing the Yule Nog, as it loses it's consistency by freezing (as everything freezes but the alcohol, which will settle to the bottom of the jar, seperated from the remaining ingredients).
As I said, this should not be a concern, as there is likely to be very little left over the following day, if any at all. If you are a Wiccan or Pagan, and a practitioner of magic, this recipe is perfect for attunning with the deities for Yule. You may ritualy bless the ingredients, one at a time, and then the entirety of the Yule Nog when it has been completed. I like to call upon the Goddess and invoke her blessings on the Yule Nog, as a symbolic kind of mothers milk by which to nourish the new born God who dwells amongst us all on Yule. And, when drinking, it is certainly appropriate to visualize the Goddess and the God, and to attune with their energy, their divine powers, by way of the Yule Nog.
If you prepare the mixture before your Yule celebrations, it might be a good idea to prepare it the day before (but no more than that), and insure that you have the proper amount of jars with which to keep it cold in the refrigerator. When your Yule gathering begins, there would certainly be no better way in which to bind your Wiccan/Pagan comunity to the deities than by way of my Yule Nog. And I promise, a good time will indeed be had by all.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Training The Enemy
Somebody really messed up bad time when it comes to Iraq, and it seems like the mistakes have just been coming in a steady stream, with no apparrent end in sight. So what are we to do? Stay the course just doesn't cut it anymore, and there seems unfortunately to be no real plan for victory. So we just hear empty assertions that we will eventually begin drawing down our forces. In time for the '06 elections, of course.
But we shouldn't, we are told, announce any kind of timetable for withdrawal, as this would embolden the enemy, who would bide their time until the appointed date. Then, all hell would break loose, and the nation of Iraq would quickly collapse, would disintegrate into armed conflict between the various factions.
Nevertheless we are assurred that we will eventually achieve victory, and then our troops will come home. Before that, however, we have to assure that the Iraqis are able to vote for their government, whatever that turns out to be, and then, perhaps most importantly, we have to insure that the new and hopefully permanent Iraqi democratic government is able to defend it's self and it's people.
Seems reasonable enough, on the surface. Yet, we have been there now for roughly two and a half years, and as of the last count, the number of Iraqis that are able to stand on their own as a fighting force number roughly one battallion-of 800 men. This out of a total of about 160,000. Ponder that for a moment. Out of all the various members of the Iraqi army, police, and security forces, only 800 of them are of professional enough calibre of training and discipline as to enable them to stand and fight without any help from the U.S. military.
It sounds crazy. We should have by now trained far more Iraqis than this. Some assert that had we received the aid from NATO that we requested along these lines, the training would have been more successful. There are just not enough American troops to do the job of training the Iraqis while conducting the bulk of the combat.
Still others would assert that as long as we are there, the Iraqis really have no incentive to fight, they would just as soon us do their fighting for them.
Both of these are valid theories, and I am sure there is a great deal of truth to them. But I dont think it quite tells the whole story. For some time I have thought there is something that seems to be missing, some answer that is just below the surface. Suddenly, it hit me just what the problem might be.
Consider back to the start of the first Gulf War, which Saddam promised would be the "mother of all wars". Iraq had something like the fourth or fifth largest military in the world at that time, and they were considered to be one of the finest fighting machines in existence at the time. Of course, by the time the fighting started, it became quickly obvious that this was more or less hyped, greatly so. The coalition lead by the U.S. under President George H.W. Bush soundly defeated Saddams army and his so-called elite Republican Guard. It was indeed a humiliating defeat, despite Saddams laughable assertions of victory, based on nothing more than the first President Bush's wise decision to not go into Baghdad to oust the dictator.
While Saddam was contained over the course of the next ten years, he survived two uprisings that lead to mass slaughter by his Republican Guard, which along with the remnants of his army he rebuildt to as great an extent as possible.Yet, his influence was pretty much limited, at least by air, over the Sunni Triangle, thanks to the U.S. enforcement fo the No-Fly Zone established by the U.N., which also passed up to seventeen resolutions that it failed to enforce against the tyrant.
After a couple of retaliatory air strikes by the Clinton administration, whatever WMD Saddam may have been in the process of building up seems to have been destroyed, or at least was very well hidden, possibly even transported to Syria. Whatever the case, this was the main concern when George W. Bush decided (whenever he actually did so) to finally oust Saddam, a process that began in March of 2003.
This fear too did not pan out, and Saddams armed forces again were quickly decimated, or fled all together from the conflict. By the time three weeks had passed, the war was seemingly over, and Saddams statue had fallen. Saddams forces-the army, the Republican Guard, and the Fedayim Saddam-had faded into the woodwork. In some cases, they were actually told to just go home. Not the most brilliant move.
Ever since then, we have been fighting an insurgency of increasing ferocity, with greater and greater casualties as time goes on. And it doesn't seem to be a unified insurgency at that. In some cases it is made up of foreign fighters, from other Arab and Muslim countries, some of which might have a connection to Al-Queda, at leat one of which might actually be a branch of Al-Queda, and some which are more or less independant of any organizational structure or loyalties.
In other cases it appears to be a mishmash of former Saddam loyalists, the Republican Guard, the Feddayim Saddam, and others who are determined to restore and maintain the Sunni hegemony over the country that Saddam had for so long provided by way of the Ba'ath Party.
There are as well Shi'ite militia forces bound and determined to avenge the heavy handed rule of the Sunnis and to avenge the atrocities committed by the Ba'athists.
And yet, from time to time, it seems that all these disparate forces have conspired to target the American military forces as the common enemy. That is, of course, when they are not targeting the average Iraqi civilian, including women and children, subjecting them to the most vile and horrific acts of bloodshed by way of such atrocous actions as suicide car bombings and even by way of assaults on funerals, weddings, and most pernicous perhaps of all, on crowded mosques in the middle of worship services.
So it is easy to see why the Bush administration insists that we have to stand up a firm and stable democracy in Iraq, one capable of defending itself, before we can even think about leaving. That is probably the only thing they have gotten right in all this mess. They were certainly wrong about the presence of WMD's. They were certainly incorrect in their assertion that we would be greeted as liberators. They were incredibly naive in believing that the cost of the war and reconstruction could be met by the profits from the proceeds of Iraqi oil revenues.
Because of all these grandiose and incredibly shortsighted assumptions, they were even wrong about the number of troops that would be needed in order to maintain order in the country after the war was over.
Worse of all, perhaps, they have been arrogantly misleading, almost to the point of being pathological liars, to the American people, about everything. The majority of people don't believe Bush any more, and have little faith in the Administration to set things right. We can ony hope for the best. But at least you would think the military would be more than capable of training the Iraqi soldiers in order to do the job at hand. So they can actually have the skills, in addition to the raw manpower, needed to protect their own country.
So what is the problem? What is taking so long to train the Iraqi military and police and security services? Why have so few as of yet been trained at a professional enough level that they are capable of standing on their own, without any help from the U.S.? Obviousy we have to adequaely train more than one division, otherwise we will be stuck there forever. In fact, logistically, it is almost impossible to leave as of now, without some kind of rear guard protection. Otherwise, were we to leave too quickly, we run the risk of actually leaving the last to leave as, to all intents and purposes, sacrificial targets. Then what? What is taking the process so long that we have inadverdantly had to bring in the Natioinal Guard and Army Reserve Units to take up the slack, and have for a significant duration of this war at least, been forced to institute a kind of what has been termed "back door draft", keeping our militasry personnel bund to their duty beyond their ordinary terms of enlistment. In some cases, for up to three terms.
Because of this, our military is stretched thin, and recruitment of new recruits is down, though it has been asserted that re-enlistment is up. And it is even unsure as to whether this is a legitimate claim. No one knows what to believe any more. For all the money, the billions of dollars, and the American blood, that has so far been spent, with no real end in sight, shouldn't there be more Iraqi soldiers trained than this? If not, why not?
Careful consideration of the circumstances and the history lead to one possible, even probabal, conclusion. The Bush Administration, and the U.S. military, actually doesn't want to train the Iraqis to be able to fight on their own-because they are afraid of them.
Now I know that will be a particularly hard pill to swallow for those who consider themselves the typical red-blooded American patriot, and particularly those who have been instilled with a belief in the spiritual destiny of America as a beacon of democracy and the guardians of the rights of mankind everywhere. But how else to explain it? The Bush Administration has been wrong about just about everything else, including such Iraqi allies as Ahmed Chalabi, who while feeding the U.S. what appears to have been false information in order to drum up support for the ouster of Saddam, at the same time seems to have been acting accordding to some reports, as an agent of Iran.
The Bush Administration is therefore now in a bind, and doesn't really have any clue as to where to turn. Obviously the Iraqis are capable of being trained by the U.S. military, and according to U.S. military standards. That is just the problem. Particularly when it now, on top of eveyhing else, seems as though the military and police forces may have in fact been infiltrated by insurgents.
Were we to proceed with the training, as the Bush administration has assurred the country and the world that we will, we may in effect be training the worse, the most powerful enemy the U.S. has ever faced. Especially if the much touted coming Iraqi parliamentary democracy ends up falling apart, and is replaced by-what?
Inevitably, whatever that might be, it will doubtless be an entity that will hold no great gratitude, and cerainy no great and abiding love, for the United States of America. It is just impossible to say what it will be, actually, though we can hazard a guess. It is not all that difficult to envision a return to Sunni rule, by way of the reemergence of the Ba'ath party. It depends on the circumstances. Or even a coalition of Ba'athists with radical Sunni clerics financed by wealthy Saudis. The more likely possibility would seem to be an Islamic theocratic government headed by the majority Shi'ites.
There is also a possibility that the entire country would just fall into chaos, and bloody civil war, with involvement by Iran, Syria, and Turkey. This could cause conflagration throughout the Middle East, in fact, and could in turn effect the security of Europe, as well as the U.S. security and interests.
Ironically, a well trained Iraqi Army might be the only thing that could precvent this tragedy, yet at the same time such an army might be exactly what would bring about a blood-thirsty, iron fisted regime as bad, or possibly even worse, than that perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.
Such an Iraqi army might, in turn, quickly become the Frankensteins monster of our own creation. The resultant outcome could indeed lead eventually to the mother of all wars.
Or the granddaddy of all disasters.
But we shouldn't, we are told, announce any kind of timetable for withdrawal, as this would embolden the enemy, who would bide their time until the appointed date. Then, all hell would break loose, and the nation of Iraq would quickly collapse, would disintegrate into armed conflict between the various factions.
Nevertheless we are assurred that we will eventually achieve victory, and then our troops will come home. Before that, however, we have to assure that the Iraqis are able to vote for their government, whatever that turns out to be, and then, perhaps most importantly, we have to insure that the new and hopefully permanent Iraqi democratic government is able to defend it's self and it's people.
Seems reasonable enough, on the surface. Yet, we have been there now for roughly two and a half years, and as of the last count, the number of Iraqis that are able to stand on their own as a fighting force number roughly one battallion-of 800 men. This out of a total of about 160,000. Ponder that for a moment. Out of all the various members of the Iraqi army, police, and security forces, only 800 of them are of professional enough calibre of training and discipline as to enable them to stand and fight without any help from the U.S. military.
It sounds crazy. We should have by now trained far more Iraqis than this. Some assert that had we received the aid from NATO that we requested along these lines, the training would have been more successful. There are just not enough American troops to do the job of training the Iraqis while conducting the bulk of the combat.
Still others would assert that as long as we are there, the Iraqis really have no incentive to fight, they would just as soon us do their fighting for them.
Both of these are valid theories, and I am sure there is a great deal of truth to them. But I dont think it quite tells the whole story. For some time I have thought there is something that seems to be missing, some answer that is just below the surface. Suddenly, it hit me just what the problem might be.
Consider back to the start of the first Gulf War, which Saddam promised would be the "mother of all wars". Iraq had something like the fourth or fifth largest military in the world at that time, and they were considered to be one of the finest fighting machines in existence at the time. Of course, by the time the fighting started, it became quickly obvious that this was more or less hyped, greatly so. The coalition lead by the U.S. under President George H.W. Bush soundly defeated Saddams army and his so-called elite Republican Guard. It was indeed a humiliating defeat, despite Saddams laughable assertions of victory, based on nothing more than the first President Bush's wise decision to not go into Baghdad to oust the dictator.
While Saddam was contained over the course of the next ten years, he survived two uprisings that lead to mass slaughter by his Republican Guard, which along with the remnants of his army he rebuildt to as great an extent as possible.Yet, his influence was pretty much limited, at least by air, over the Sunni Triangle, thanks to the U.S. enforcement fo the No-Fly Zone established by the U.N., which also passed up to seventeen resolutions that it failed to enforce against the tyrant.
After a couple of retaliatory air strikes by the Clinton administration, whatever WMD Saddam may have been in the process of building up seems to have been destroyed, or at least was very well hidden, possibly even transported to Syria. Whatever the case, this was the main concern when George W. Bush decided (whenever he actually did so) to finally oust Saddam, a process that began in March of 2003.
This fear too did not pan out, and Saddams armed forces again were quickly decimated, or fled all together from the conflict. By the time three weeks had passed, the war was seemingly over, and Saddams statue had fallen. Saddams forces-the army, the Republican Guard, and the Fedayim Saddam-had faded into the woodwork. In some cases, they were actually told to just go home. Not the most brilliant move.
Ever since then, we have been fighting an insurgency of increasing ferocity, with greater and greater casualties as time goes on. And it doesn't seem to be a unified insurgency at that. In some cases it is made up of foreign fighters, from other Arab and Muslim countries, some of which might have a connection to Al-Queda, at leat one of which might actually be a branch of Al-Queda, and some which are more or less independant of any organizational structure or loyalties.
In other cases it appears to be a mishmash of former Saddam loyalists, the Republican Guard, the Feddayim Saddam, and others who are determined to restore and maintain the Sunni hegemony over the country that Saddam had for so long provided by way of the Ba'ath Party.
There are as well Shi'ite militia forces bound and determined to avenge the heavy handed rule of the Sunnis and to avenge the atrocities committed by the Ba'athists.
And yet, from time to time, it seems that all these disparate forces have conspired to target the American military forces as the common enemy. That is, of course, when they are not targeting the average Iraqi civilian, including women and children, subjecting them to the most vile and horrific acts of bloodshed by way of such atrocous actions as suicide car bombings and even by way of assaults on funerals, weddings, and most pernicous perhaps of all, on crowded mosques in the middle of worship services.
So it is easy to see why the Bush administration insists that we have to stand up a firm and stable democracy in Iraq, one capable of defending itself, before we can even think about leaving. That is probably the only thing they have gotten right in all this mess. They were certainly wrong about the presence of WMD's. They were certainly incorrect in their assertion that we would be greeted as liberators. They were incredibly naive in believing that the cost of the war and reconstruction could be met by the profits from the proceeds of Iraqi oil revenues.
Because of all these grandiose and incredibly shortsighted assumptions, they were even wrong about the number of troops that would be needed in order to maintain order in the country after the war was over.
Worse of all, perhaps, they have been arrogantly misleading, almost to the point of being pathological liars, to the American people, about everything. The majority of people don't believe Bush any more, and have little faith in the Administration to set things right. We can ony hope for the best. But at least you would think the military would be more than capable of training the Iraqi soldiers in order to do the job at hand. So they can actually have the skills, in addition to the raw manpower, needed to protect their own country.
So what is the problem? What is taking so long to train the Iraqi military and police and security services? Why have so few as of yet been trained at a professional enough level that they are capable of standing on their own, without any help from the U.S.? Obviousy we have to adequaely train more than one division, otherwise we will be stuck there forever. In fact, logistically, it is almost impossible to leave as of now, without some kind of rear guard protection. Otherwise, were we to leave too quickly, we run the risk of actually leaving the last to leave as, to all intents and purposes, sacrificial targets. Then what? What is taking the process so long that we have inadverdantly had to bring in the Natioinal Guard and Army Reserve Units to take up the slack, and have for a significant duration of this war at least, been forced to institute a kind of what has been termed "back door draft", keeping our militasry personnel bund to their duty beyond their ordinary terms of enlistment. In some cases, for up to three terms.
Because of this, our military is stretched thin, and recruitment of new recruits is down, though it has been asserted that re-enlistment is up. And it is even unsure as to whether this is a legitimate claim. No one knows what to believe any more. For all the money, the billions of dollars, and the American blood, that has so far been spent, with no real end in sight, shouldn't there be more Iraqi soldiers trained than this? If not, why not?
Careful consideration of the circumstances and the history lead to one possible, even probabal, conclusion. The Bush Administration, and the U.S. military, actually doesn't want to train the Iraqis to be able to fight on their own-because they are afraid of them.
Now I know that will be a particularly hard pill to swallow for those who consider themselves the typical red-blooded American patriot, and particularly those who have been instilled with a belief in the spiritual destiny of America as a beacon of democracy and the guardians of the rights of mankind everywhere. But how else to explain it? The Bush Administration has been wrong about just about everything else, including such Iraqi allies as Ahmed Chalabi, who while feeding the U.S. what appears to have been false information in order to drum up support for the ouster of Saddam, at the same time seems to have been acting accordding to some reports, as an agent of Iran.
The Bush Administration is therefore now in a bind, and doesn't really have any clue as to where to turn. Obviously the Iraqis are capable of being trained by the U.S. military, and according to U.S. military standards. That is just the problem. Particularly when it now, on top of eveyhing else, seems as though the military and police forces may have in fact been infiltrated by insurgents.
Were we to proceed with the training, as the Bush administration has assurred the country and the world that we will, we may in effect be training the worse, the most powerful enemy the U.S. has ever faced. Especially if the much touted coming Iraqi parliamentary democracy ends up falling apart, and is replaced by-what?
Inevitably, whatever that might be, it will doubtless be an entity that will hold no great gratitude, and cerainy no great and abiding love, for the United States of America. It is just impossible to say what it will be, actually, though we can hazard a guess. It is not all that difficult to envision a return to Sunni rule, by way of the reemergence of the Ba'ath party. It depends on the circumstances. Or even a coalition of Ba'athists with radical Sunni clerics financed by wealthy Saudis. The more likely possibility would seem to be an Islamic theocratic government headed by the majority Shi'ites.
There is also a possibility that the entire country would just fall into chaos, and bloody civil war, with involvement by Iran, Syria, and Turkey. This could cause conflagration throughout the Middle East, in fact, and could in turn effect the security of Europe, as well as the U.S. security and interests.
Ironically, a well trained Iraqi Army might be the only thing that could precvent this tragedy, yet at the same time such an army might be exactly what would bring about a blood-thirsty, iron fisted regime as bad, or possibly even worse, than that perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.
Such an Iraqi army might, in turn, quickly become the Frankensteins monster of our own creation. The resultant outcome could indeed lead eventually to the mother of all wars.
Or the granddaddy of all disasters.
Monday, December 12, 2005
The Reason For The Season
Christmas seems to mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. Of course, there is the aspect of the day as the birth of the Christian savior. It is a day for the giving and receiving of gifts and spending time with friends and family. To many, it is nothing more than a day to get off work. It is finally a day to be dreaded by a great many people, who suffer through grave bouts of depression and anxiety, which are heightened by the season and heightens their sense of loneliness and isolation.
Christmas was actually a pagan holiday originally, and seems to have been adapted by the newly Christianized Romans from the old festival known as the Saturnalia. Saturn was an ancient agricultural deity from the ancient days of Roman pre history, and little is known concerning him, though he was falsely identified with the Greek Cronus. The Saturnalia was a joyous festival, in which gifts were exchanged and there was much merry making, banqueting, partying, and the playing of pranks. Work was called off for the entirety of the festival, which ran from the Winter Solstice until the following New Years Day. This may well have been, in fact, the original "Twelve Days Of Christmas".
Even slaves got into the act, and they were not only free of their duties for the duration of the festival, but their masters were expected to cook for them, and perform all the menial tasks to which the slaves were ordinarily consigned.
This was a popular, even a beloved tradition, throughout Roman history, so naturally it would be considered rash, to say the least, to atempt to bring it to an end, not exactly conducive to gaining acceptance of the new state religion of Christianity. And so the holiday was kept, and maintained as the birthdate of the Christian savior. And so, apparrently, everybody was happy.
As a pagan, of course I do not recognize the holiday as the birthdate of the Christian savior, I recognize the holiday-which actually occurs most years on December 21st-as a celebration of the Winter Solstice. As, in fact, the symbolic rebirth of the sun, and of the sun god himself. For it is on this date, the Solstice, that ancient people noticed the sun, which had been steadily declining in length of it's days, now suddenly started to once again re-emerge, as the days once again begin growing longer. The Solstice, Yule, of course, is the shortest day of the year, but also marks the period when each day now becomes successively longer, as the light and heat of the sun now grows progressively brighter and stronger.
On this day, the newly reborn sun god, in other words, is once again a new born infant, new born from the womb of the Mother Goddess.
It is, in effect, the true New Years Day, though most pagans consider Samhain (Halloween) to be New Years. This I consider to be the age old effects of marketing and the connection in the popular mind of Halloweeen with witches and witchcraft, and so in my opinion the adoption of Samhain as the Wiccan and/or Pagan New Year is quite simply incorrect. But that is my opinion, which I have to concede most other Wiccans and Pagans do not share.
But at any rate, Yule as a traditional holiday has been around for some time now, prior to Christianity, and I can afford to be generous in my gratitude toward the ancient Christians for wisely endeavoring to uphold the tradition, albeit in a somewhat corrupted version. As such, I for one have no problem wishing them or anyone else a "Merry Christmas and a happy New Year", nor do I have any hang-ups about being met with such a greeting at Department Stores and such. I most generally return the greeting.
Nor do I have a problem with trees in public parks being adorned for the season, and with them being called what they are traditionally called-"Christmas Trees". Of course, I know they are or were originally called Yule Trees, or maybe were an outgrowth of the long ago burning of the "Yule Log" which seems to have been an ancient European tradition of the Celts, or perhaps of one of the Germanic and Scandinavian tribes. I don't know and it doesnt really matter. The point is, I am not offended in the least by any of the traditional public displays or recognitions of Christmas, nor can I imagine any other Wiccan or pagan that would be, not any that have a modicum of good sense, at least.
I don't even mind the traditional Christmas religous displays, the manger and wise men with baby Jesus and all that. Why the hell should I care? Yet, evidently somebody seems to mind, and so a controversy has been erupted, one which may have been magnified by forces on the Far Right in order to gain political points (or in view of recent events to keep from loosing them) with an incensed general public. For, the reality is, like it or not, the majority of Americans are Christians, and I have no doubt the majority of Americans always will be Christians. Frankly, this suits me fine in some ways. It does provide a bulwark against radical Islam, or for that matter against the more suppossedly moderate form of that vile religion.
Yet,there are those who for no real good reason think they have to come down against any public display of Christianity. Well, I resent this, as a non-Christian, for a number of reasons. For one, it puts me on the spot, as Christians who know of my pagan beliefs automatically assume that I side with these radicals. Well, I do not.
For another, it gives just that much more fuel to the fire started by those Far Right radicals, gives them ammunition, as it were, to use against not only pagans, but against any Democratric politicans, or supporters of any kind of progressive or liberal cause. It gives them just one more wedge issue with which to infalme the gullible against those of us who would otherwise stand to gain their support. A sure fire way to convince a person to vote against their own best interests is to appeal to their vanity, or their fears, or their prejudices-or their religous beliefs. In the case of the latter, the more heartfelt and yet superstitous are those beliefs, the better.
Christians are bad enough when they are confronted just with the facts of other religions, of the existence of them. They are bad enough when confronted with the simple reality that those of other religions have the rights to practice their religions in peace. This is enough to make them shout and moan and bitch about a so-called "war on Christianity". That and the fact a good many people just don't share their values. I know I don't always. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. So what!
All I know is, America is suppossed to be a country that is founded on certain key principles, and one of these principles is two pronged. On one aspect, you have the freedom of religion, and the rights to free religous expression, while at the same time it is against the law for government to support any one religion over another. That seems perfectly clear cut to me. Christians have as much of a right to their traditional holidays as any other religous group, and this should be respected.
The ancient Christans long ago learned the value of respecting traditions. Hopefully, the modern Christians of today are not adverse to learning those same lessons. Nor should anyone else be.
Christmas was actually a pagan holiday originally, and seems to have been adapted by the newly Christianized Romans from the old festival known as the Saturnalia. Saturn was an ancient agricultural deity from the ancient days of Roman pre history, and little is known concerning him, though he was falsely identified with the Greek Cronus. The Saturnalia was a joyous festival, in which gifts were exchanged and there was much merry making, banqueting, partying, and the playing of pranks. Work was called off for the entirety of the festival, which ran from the Winter Solstice until the following New Years Day. This may well have been, in fact, the original "Twelve Days Of Christmas".
Even slaves got into the act, and they were not only free of their duties for the duration of the festival, but their masters were expected to cook for them, and perform all the menial tasks to which the slaves were ordinarily consigned.
This was a popular, even a beloved tradition, throughout Roman history, so naturally it would be considered rash, to say the least, to atempt to bring it to an end, not exactly conducive to gaining acceptance of the new state religion of Christianity. And so the holiday was kept, and maintained as the birthdate of the Christian savior. And so, apparrently, everybody was happy.
As a pagan, of course I do not recognize the holiday as the birthdate of the Christian savior, I recognize the holiday-which actually occurs most years on December 21st-as a celebration of the Winter Solstice. As, in fact, the symbolic rebirth of the sun, and of the sun god himself. For it is on this date, the Solstice, that ancient people noticed the sun, which had been steadily declining in length of it's days, now suddenly started to once again re-emerge, as the days once again begin growing longer. The Solstice, Yule, of course, is the shortest day of the year, but also marks the period when each day now becomes successively longer, as the light and heat of the sun now grows progressively brighter and stronger.
On this day, the newly reborn sun god, in other words, is once again a new born infant, new born from the womb of the Mother Goddess.
It is, in effect, the true New Years Day, though most pagans consider Samhain (Halloween) to be New Years. This I consider to be the age old effects of marketing and the connection in the popular mind of Halloweeen with witches and witchcraft, and so in my opinion the adoption of Samhain as the Wiccan and/or Pagan New Year is quite simply incorrect. But that is my opinion, which I have to concede most other Wiccans and Pagans do not share.
But at any rate, Yule as a traditional holiday has been around for some time now, prior to Christianity, and I can afford to be generous in my gratitude toward the ancient Christians for wisely endeavoring to uphold the tradition, albeit in a somewhat corrupted version. As such, I for one have no problem wishing them or anyone else a "Merry Christmas and a happy New Year", nor do I have any hang-ups about being met with such a greeting at Department Stores and such. I most generally return the greeting.
Nor do I have a problem with trees in public parks being adorned for the season, and with them being called what they are traditionally called-"Christmas Trees". Of course, I know they are or were originally called Yule Trees, or maybe were an outgrowth of the long ago burning of the "Yule Log" which seems to have been an ancient European tradition of the Celts, or perhaps of one of the Germanic and Scandinavian tribes. I don't know and it doesnt really matter. The point is, I am not offended in the least by any of the traditional public displays or recognitions of Christmas, nor can I imagine any other Wiccan or pagan that would be, not any that have a modicum of good sense, at least.
I don't even mind the traditional Christmas religous displays, the manger and wise men with baby Jesus and all that. Why the hell should I care? Yet, evidently somebody seems to mind, and so a controversy has been erupted, one which may have been magnified by forces on the Far Right in order to gain political points (or in view of recent events to keep from loosing them) with an incensed general public. For, the reality is, like it or not, the majority of Americans are Christians, and I have no doubt the majority of Americans always will be Christians. Frankly, this suits me fine in some ways. It does provide a bulwark against radical Islam, or for that matter against the more suppossedly moderate form of that vile religion.
Yet,there are those who for no real good reason think they have to come down against any public display of Christianity. Well, I resent this, as a non-Christian, for a number of reasons. For one, it puts me on the spot, as Christians who know of my pagan beliefs automatically assume that I side with these radicals. Well, I do not.
For another, it gives just that much more fuel to the fire started by those Far Right radicals, gives them ammunition, as it were, to use against not only pagans, but against any Democratric politicans, or supporters of any kind of progressive or liberal cause. It gives them just one more wedge issue with which to infalme the gullible against those of us who would otherwise stand to gain their support. A sure fire way to convince a person to vote against their own best interests is to appeal to their vanity, or their fears, or their prejudices-or their religous beliefs. In the case of the latter, the more heartfelt and yet superstitous are those beliefs, the better.
Christians are bad enough when they are confronted just with the facts of other religions, of the existence of them. They are bad enough when confronted with the simple reality that those of other religions have the rights to practice their religions in peace. This is enough to make them shout and moan and bitch about a so-called "war on Christianity". That and the fact a good many people just don't share their values. I know I don't always. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. So what!
All I know is, America is suppossed to be a country that is founded on certain key principles, and one of these principles is two pronged. On one aspect, you have the freedom of religion, and the rights to free religous expression, while at the same time it is against the law for government to support any one religion over another. That seems perfectly clear cut to me. Christians have as much of a right to their traditional holidays as any other religous group, and this should be respected.
The ancient Christans long ago learned the value of respecting traditions. Hopefully, the modern Christians of today are not adverse to learning those same lessons. Nor should anyone else be.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Abortion
I have come to the conclusion, once again, that Christian conservatives are all pretty much completely full of fucking shit, in at least some ways. Now I could write a book about this topic, so for the time being I'll just stick to one topic-that should keep this rant from getting too out of hand. The topic, of course, is the Christian view of abortion. Naturally, they are against it, and what is even more maddenning, a good lot of them, maybe even the majority of them, are agaisnt it no matter the circumstances, can not find any reason whatsoever where the procedure could even slightly be justified. And, if they had their way, of course it would be outlawed. Oh, they will tell you they would merely seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, which wouldn't exactly outlaw abortion, it would just make it a matter of states rights. Of course what they don't mention, or if they do it is rarely, is that once Roe v. Wade were overturned, they would send an army of lawyers to every state of the union and pour unmentionable sums of money into political action committees the sole purpose of which would be to convince (bribe) state lawmakers into outlawing abortion in their individual states. No state politician would be spared their hypocritical posturing. Every state Senator, Representative, Governor, etc. would be constantly deluged and beset with entreaties from numberless voters egged on by their ministers, rabbis, imams, and priests, and all the lay members and parishioners and activists that could possibly be mustered. The issue would be far from settled, it would in fact be more in your face than it currently is,than it ever was before, and would in fact be an impossible hindrance to any real work being done on any other issue, as so much time would be taken up on just this one.
Violence directed at and by both sides would be ratcheted up. There would be an increase in clinic bombings, in physicians and staff attacks and murders, and in some cases I fear the riot police would have to be called. The television stations would be even more saturated with advertisements from both sides. It could get so bad, in fact, that a new Congressional law might have to be passed which would of course necessitate yet more series of legal wranglings and court procedures, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And all for what? Because a bunch of moronic hypocrits think they have the God given duty to protect the unborn. So what happens or what would happen if all the unborn were saved from the oh so evil abortion clinics? In a good many cases of course, they would be completely forgotten, and in all too many cases relegated to a life of privation, of poverty, in some cases even destitution. A good many of them would doubtless become criminals, and live entirely criminal lives. A good many of them could conceivably spend three quarters of their precous, God-given lives behind bars.
For every potential Einstein or Mozart that might be saved, there could be at least an even number of Hitlers and Mansons. But even this is incidental compared to the one aspect that makes the Christian conservative concern for the unborn so illogical from the Christian point of view.
According to Christian dogma, at least according to most Christians beliefs, any unborn human, and as far as that goes any child below what is termed the "age of accountability", who dies before reaching said age of accountability, will be guaranteed an eternity in heaven, an eternal immortal life of blissful ecstasy in the company of the saints, the angels, Jesus, etc. What more could anyone ask for? What more could anyone hope for?
Yet, by the same token, most Christians adhere to the belief that the majority of humans who reach the Age of Accountability-are destined for hell. Not necessarrily predestined on an individual level, only that it just so happens that most of these people will end up going to hell. "For narrow is the path that leads to salvation, and few there be that walk thereon" to paraphrase the scriptural saying, "but broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that walk thereon."
In other words, Christian conservatives are, according to their own beliefs, according to the tenets of their own faith, trying to "save" fetuses in the womb from an eternity in heaven, and ensuring that-in the majority of cases-they end up squarely in an eternal state of punishment, an excruciating torture and misery known as hell.
It has occurred to me at some point this would be a good topic for a dark comedy, a play in which a sanctimonious self righteousd hypocritical Christian dies and to his dismay finds himself in hell. He pleads for mercy from God, who sends Christ along with a number of beautiful, happy looking, cherubic spirits, who inform him they are the spirits of those the former minister, while living, saved from the abortion clinics. They all tell him of their lives. One was a rake, the other was a good person all his life, one was an addict, and one was even a murderer. "I murdered my best friend, James Wilmore," he explains sadly, "while in a drunken rage. But I turned from my sins and became saved by the grace of the Good Lord, Christ".
He notices that Christ merely looks at him quizzically as the others assert that they too were saved, and now are happilly assurred of an eternity in heaven.
"Then why am I doomed for hell, Lord?" the preacher asks. "have I not prophesied in thy name, have I not cast out demons, and performed good works in thine service"
"Depart from me" Jesus answers sadly but firmly, "For I never knew ye."
Suddenly the minister finds himself in a pit of hell and is surrounded by vengeful demonic creatures, more than twenty of them, who inform him that they are the spirits of the other people the minister had saved from being aborted. "If it were not for you, one hissed, I could be in heaven right now, but thanks to you this is where I must spend my eternity, tormented like all the others with excruciating heat and sickening vile odors, and demonic beings torturing us as a way to take their own spite out on us due to their own sufferring."
They then start out toward him, and he runs in horror, falling and cutting himself as sickening tastes and odors assail him along with the stiffling heat. He finds a brief respite in a cavrnous room, in which there is one other person who suffers, who cringes in fear and terror, like himself. The minister assures him he need not fear, that he is being tormented just as he was.
"What is your name?", the man asks the minister. The minister tells him, then asks him what his name is.
"James Wilmore", the man suddenly hisses.
And so it goes. Of course, I firmly believe that most people don't put enough thought into their positions to realize just how incongrous they can be. Most people only do what they are told. And of course most in the Republican Party support this position, not because they are so concerned with doing the so-called "will of God", but because, in my opinion, this is just a good way to insure there are as many chumps as possible to fight in the wars and slave for the corporate bosses.
Abortion should stay safe, legal, and hopefully rare, because hopefully one day life will be worth being born into. The way things stand now, however, if there is truth to the theory of reincarnation, and if there is any chance of me coming back into this sorry fucking mess, please-don't do me any favors.
Nor am I in any sense overly concerned about the aspect of so-called "abortion on demand". I look at it this way. I love to eat pussy, but unfortunately there ain't nothing that smells worse than a pussy on the pill, or a pussy that has been fixed. I don't like the saddle, I like to ride bareback, as they say. And no one, surgeon or otherwise, is getting near my balls with a scalpel, if I can help it. So that leaves just straight, unprotected sex.
Now you tell me-am I the kind of person who needs to be bringing a child into the world? I dont think so.
Violence directed at and by both sides would be ratcheted up. There would be an increase in clinic bombings, in physicians and staff attacks and murders, and in some cases I fear the riot police would have to be called. The television stations would be even more saturated with advertisements from both sides. It could get so bad, in fact, that a new Congressional law might have to be passed which would of course necessitate yet more series of legal wranglings and court procedures, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And all for what? Because a bunch of moronic hypocrits think they have the God given duty to protect the unborn. So what happens or what would happen if all the unborn were saved from the oh so evil abortion clinics? In a good many cases of course, they would be completely forgotten, and in all too many cases relegated to a life of privation, of poverty, in some cases even destitution. A good many of them would doubtless become criminals, and live entirely criminal lives. A good many of them could conceivably spend three quarters of their precous, God-given lives behind bars.
For every potential Einstein or Mozart that might be saved, there could be at least an even number of Hitlers and Mansons. But even this is incidental compared to the one aspect that makes the Christian conservative concern for the unborn so illogical from the Christian point of view.
According to Christian dogma, at least according to most Christians beliefs, any unborn human, and as far as that goes any child below what is termed the "age of accountability", who dies before reaching said age of accountability, will be guaranteed an eternity in heaven, an eternal immortal life of blissful ecstasy in the company of the saints, the angels, Jesus, etc. What more could anyone ask for? What more could anyone hope for?
Yet, by the same token, most Christians adhere to the belief that the majority of humans who reach the Age of Accountability-are destined for hell. Not necessarrily predestined on an individual level, only that it just so happens that most of these people will end up going to hell. "For narrow is the path that leads to salvation, and few there be that walk thereon" to paraphrase the scriptural saying, "but broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that walk thereon."
In other words, Christian conservatives are, according to their own beliefs, according to the tenets of their own faith, trying to "save" fetuses in the womb from an eternity in heaven, and ensuring that-in the majority of cases-they end up squarely in an eternal state of punishment, an excruciating torture and misery known as hell.
It has occurred to me at some point this would be a good topic for a dark comedy, a play in which a sanctimonious self righteousd hypocritical Christian dies and to his dismay finds himself in hell. He pleads for mercy from God, who sends Christ along with a number of beautiful, happy looking, cherubic spirits, who inform him they are the spirits of those the former minister, while living, saved from the abortion clinics. They all tell him of their lives. One was a rake, the other was a good person all his life, one was an addict, and one was even a murderer. "I murdered my best friend, James Wilmore," he explains sadly, "while in a drunken rage. But I turned from my sins and became saved by the grace of the Good Lord, Christ".
He notices that Christ merely looks at him quizzically as the others assert that they too were saved, and now are happilly assurred of an eternity in heaven.
"Then why am I doomed for hell, Lord?" the preacher asks. "have I not prophesied in thy name, have I not cast out demons, and performed good works in thine service"
"Depart from me" Jesus answers sadly but firmly, "For I never knew ye."
Suddenly the minister finds himself in a pit of hell and is surrounded by vengeful demonic creatures, more than twenty of them, who inform him that they are the spirits of the other people the minister had saved from being aborted. "If it were not for you, one hissed, I could be in heaven right now, but thanks to you this is where I must spend my eternity, tormented like all the others with excruciating heat and sickening vile odors, and demonic beings torturing us as a way to take their own spite out on us due to their own sufferring."
They then start out toward him, and he runs in horror, falling and cutting himself as sickening tastes and odors assail him along with the stiffling heat. He finds a brief respite in a cavrnous room, in which there is one other person who suffers, who cringes in fear and terror, like himself. The minister assures him he need not fear, that he is being tormented just as he was.
"What is your name?", the man asks the minister. The minister tells him, then asks him what his name is.
"James Wilmore", the man suddenly hisses.
And so it goes. Of course, I firmly believe that most people don't put enough thought into their positions to realize just how incongrous they can be. Most people only do what they are told. And of course most in the Republican Party support this position, not because they are so concerned with doing the so-called "will of God", but because, in my opinion, this is just a good way to insure there are as many chumps as possible to fight in the wars and slave for the corporate bosses.
Abortion should stay safe, legal, and hopefully rare, because hopefully one day life will be worth being born into. The way things stand now, however, if there is truth to the theory of reincarnation, and if there is any chance of me coming back into this sorry fucking mess, please-don't do me any favors.
Nor am I in any sense overly concerned about the aspect of so-called "abortion on demand". I look at it this way. I love to eat pussy, but unfortunately there ain't nothing that smells worse than a pussy on the pill, or a pussy that has been fixed. I don't like the saddle, I like to ride bareback, as they say. And no one, surgeon or otherwise, is getting near my balls with a scalpel, if I can help it. So that leaves just straight, unprotected sex.
Now you tell me-am I the kind of person who needs to be bringing a child into the world? I dont think so.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Hostages
I swear, even though I am liberal on most issues, most ofthe time, there are a good may liberals that damn well make me ashamed to admit it at times. Case in point: Christian Peacemakers Teams, four members of whom are now held hostage in Iraq. By the time a good mnay readers of this Blog get around to readingthis post, there is a good chance that one or some or all of these four may have been seperated from their heads.
I just don't understand how people likethis think, but I'm trying, I swear. These are the kinds ofpeopple that will tell you that our enemies, the insurgents, the terrorists, the Ba'athists, whatever you want to call them, are merely in need of understanding, maybe even sympathy. And they go outoftheir way to denigrate any American citizen who disagrees withtheir point of view. Violence only begets more violence, they will tell you, and the only way to solve the worlds problems is not through violence or bloodshed, but through passive non-violent resistant.
Well, since their capture, after stupidly putting themselves in this position by going to Iraq, they will now have a chance to practice what they preach, as they are certainly not in any way capable now of offerring any other kind of resistance. Sometime tomorrow, their captives adivse, they will be executed. Unless, of course, the Iraqi insurgents demands are met, this being the release of all Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody, be they in Iraq or elsewhere. Of course the U.S. government will not accede to this demand,nor should they-nor in fact can they.
Of course, it is all ready apparrent that the Far Left is spinning this in a way so as to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that this is actually an American and/or Israeli psy-ops operation, that the captives are in fact the victims of American special forces, cleverly disguised in black clothing and hoods so as not to be identified. Apparently, they feel that this is a way to inflame American passions further in favor of the war effort, and to make the spirit of the Peace Activist Movement, this one and others, dispirited, you see.
I don't wish this kind of pain and tragedy on anyone, but I am starting to be of a mind that the best thing that could happen here would be that, when the time arrives, only one of these people could be executed, as has been promised, his head slowly, cruelly, agonizingly painfully hacked off. After this, then, an American special forces team would rush in in time to save the remainder, with such quick and efficient overwhelming force that the captors themselves become the captive and are revealed to be, after all, Iraqi insurgents. That would make it pretty well cut and dried, wouldn't it? I doubt though that these kinds of people would learn their lessons. In fact, I would be more than a little surprised were they not to return to the exact same area of Baghdad in which they were captured. I have included a link to the groups website so that any interested can see for themselves how unreasonable, in my opinion, they are.
They have been around for awhile, insinuating their presence into places where they can only hope to get in the way, and when you get right down to it, accomplish nothing but put our troops in danger. They have also involved themselves in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, by preventing Israeli troops from firing on rock throwing youths, suppossedly. I don't believe the Israelis are now or ever have shot bullets from guns at kids throwing rocks. But this makes a good story, designed to win support-and financial contributions-as they probably do nothing but make pests of themselves and possibly endanger the lives of Israeli soldiers as well as they have our own.
No matter the outcome of this sorry spectacle, I have no doubt the group will continue, and will probalby in fact thrive even more than ever due to publicity from this affair. And those of us like myself, who oppose the war in Iraq, who are madder than hell at the Bush administration for the deceitful way they got us into this conflict, and for the incompetent way they have handled it from just about day one ever since then, are left in the ridiculous position of trying to justify our beliefs due to being lumped in with this extremsit fringe.
What can you say? For sure, they will continue, secure in their deluded beliefs that the Iraqi insurgents, the Islamo-Fascist terrorists and others of their ilk, can be reasoned with, with Christian faith, patience, love, humility, and understanding.
So if they really believe that drivel, I have one hell of an idea for them. Since human beings, no matter how fanatical, no matter how bloodthirsty-no matter how evil-can be reasoned with, given all this good love and understanding and tolerance..................
Try to reason with Bush! If it would work in time for the insurgents, shouldn't it work at least as well with him?
I just don't understand how people likethis think, but I'm trying, I swear. These are the kinds ofpeopple that will tell you that our enemies, the insurgents, the terrorists, the Ba'athists, whatever you want to call them, are merely in need of understanding, maybe even sympathy. And they go outoftheir way to denigrate any American citizen who disagrees withtheir point of view. Violence only begets more violence, they will tell you, and the only way to solve the worlds problems is not through violence or bloodshed, but through passive non-violent resistant.
Well, since their capture, after stupidly putting themselves in this position by going to Iraq, they will now have a chance to practice what they preach, as they are certainly not in any way capable now of offerring any other kind of resistance. Sometime tomorrow, their captives adivse, they will be executed. Unless, of course, the Iraqi insurgents demands are met, this being the release of all Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody, be they in Iraq or elsewhere. Of course the U.S. government will not accede to this demand,nor should they-nor in fact can they.
Of course, it is all ready apparrent that the Far Left is spinning this in a way so as to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that this is actually an American and/or Israeli psy-ops operation, that the captives are in fact the victims of American special forces, cleverly disguised in black clothing and hoods so as not to be identified. Apparently, they feel that this is a way to inflame American passions further in favor of the war effort, and to make the spirit of the Peace Activist Movement, this one and others, dispirited, you see.
I don't wish this kind of pain and tragedy on anyone, but I am starting to be of a mind that the best thing that could happen here would be that, when the time arrives, only one of these people could be executed, as has been promised, his head slowly, cruelly, agonizingly painfully hacked off. After this, then, an American special forces team would rush in in time to save the remainder, with such quick and efficient overwhelming force that the captors themselves become the captive and are revealed to be, after all, Iraqi insurgents. That would make it pretty well cut and dried, wouldn't it? I doubt though that these kinds of people would learn their lessons. In fact, I would be more than a little surprised were they not to return to the exact same area of Baghdad in which they were captured. I have included a link to the groups website so that any interested can see for themselves how unreasonable, in my opinion, they are.
They have been around for awhile, insinuating their presence into places where they can only hope to get in the way, and when you get right down to it, accomplish nothing but put our troops in danger. They have also involved themselves in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, by preventing Israeli troops from firing on rock throwing youths, suppossedly. I don't believe the Israelis are now or ever have shot bullets from guns at kids throwing rocks. But this makes a good story, designed to win support-and financial contributions-as they probably do nothing but make pests of themselves and possibly endanger the lives of Israeli soldiers as well as they have our own.
No matter the outcome of this sorry spectacle, I have no doubt the group will continue, and will probalby in fact thrive even more than ever due to publicity from this affair. And those of us like myself, who oppose the war in Iraq, who are madder than hell at the Bush administration for the deceitful way they got us into this conflict, and for the incompetent way they have handled it from just about day one ever since then, are left in the ridiculous position of trying to justify our beliefs due to being lumped in with this extremsit fringe.
What can you say? For sure, they will continue, secure in their deluded beliefs that the Iraqi insurgents, the Islamo-Fascist terrorists and others of their ilk, can be reasoned with, with Christian faith, patience, love, humility, and understanding.
So if they really believe that drivel, I have one hell of an idea for them. Since human beings, no matter how fanatical, no matter how bloodthirsty-no matter how evil-can be reasoned with, given all this good love and understanding and tolerance..................
Try to reason with Bush! If it would work in time for the insurgents, shouldn't it work at least as well with him?
The Widow Of The South
There has been quite a buzz recently over the premier of a new book, the first one by author Robert Hicks, entitled "Widow Of The South", which tells the story-the true story, incidentally-of Corrie McGorock, and her role in the little known, but extremely important, Civil War battle of Franklin, which took place in Kentucky in November 1864. It was in fact this battle that may have played as decisive a role in finally bringing the war to a final conclusion as did the earlier fought and better known Battle of Gettysburg. It was a Pyrrhic victory for the North, in fact, and all told there were more casualtiers here than in the Battleof The Bulge, in fact possibly more than in anyother single American engagement. But it finally established, beyond all doubt, the security of Kentucky in Union hands, and thus pretty much wrote the final chapter of the long and bloody book. The only remaining episode of any real improtance, in fact, was the epiloque that occurred at Appamatox Court House.
Into this battle stepped the widow McGorock, who had lost three children and all told five family members to the war. Yet, the Battle of Franklin transpired pretty much in her own backyard. Her two story house sat rigth on one edge ofthe battlefield. Whatever the reason, she transformed her home into a hospital to treat the injured, the sick, and the dying, from both sides.
Hicks writes the book in the form of a novel, he explains, because the widow McGorock left no journals, no diaries, to concretize for posterity her motivations, her feelings, her day to day experiences and perspectives. As I thought abotu this, I realized that I migth in fact be able to suggest a motivation for him. She was quite frankly afraid that if she did nothing, her home would be taken over, vandalized, and possibly destroyed, while she could have conceivably been raped and murdered if thehouse fell into the wrong hands. Even ore likely, as long as her house sat in such a precarious position, there was always the possibility it could be the victim of stray bullets and cannonballs.
By transforming her house into a hospital for the wounded and dying, therefore, she was actually buying protection for both her property and her self. Perfectly understandable. Nor does it detract form the service she provided her countrymen, not inthe least, in fact, some years aftr the war was concluded, she took it a step farhter. She went out to the field which formed the periphery of the battlefield, and there managed to excavate the remains of some 1400 some soldiers. She saw to it they were provided a mass grave, with a respectable monument to mark the spot of their burial. So regardless of her motivations in the beginning, at least in the final analysis she had come to realize the gravity of the situation on a historical level, and probably on a spiritual one, and was moved thus to make this one final contribution to hisotry and posterity.
Her house still exists, incidentally, as well as the monument she was instrumental in erecting. It is an historica landmark, in fact, though it is in need of care, as it has seemingly been neglected over the years. A shame. I intend to read this book when it becomes availiable to me at my publicv libraray, and I would encourage everyobdy to read not necessarrily just this book, but eveyrhting they can on American history, both as pertains to the civil war and in other areas.
And I mean the real history, with all the warts, not the feel good bulshit that is politically motivated, and just as assurredly not the superpatriot drivel that is meant only to brainwash the gullible into believing they must support their government no matter the circumstances.
History has become a less and less important priority in public schools with the passage of time, and with the greater implementation of the global economy with all it's varied degrees of encroaching interdependance. American history, and in fact all history-true history- should be cherished and protected. This book sounds as though it will be an entertaining and engaging way to contribute to my own relatively respectable reservoir of historical knowledge, and I cant wait to read it.
Into this battle stepped the widow McGorock, who had lost three children and all told five family members to the war. Yet, the Battle of Franklin transpired pretty much in her own backyard. Her two story house sat rigth on one edge ofthe battlefield. Whatever the reason, she transformed her home into a hospital to treat the injured, the sick, and the dying, from both sides.
Hicks writes the book in the form of a novel, he explains, because the widow McGorock left no journals, no diaries, to concretize for posterity her motivations, her feelings, her day to day experiences and perspectives. As I thought abotu this, I realized that I migth in fact be able to suggest a motivation for him. She was quite frankly afraid that if she did nothing, her home would be taken over, vandalized, and possibly destroyed, while she could have conceivably been raped and murdered if thehouse fell into the wrong hands. Even ore likely, as long as her house sat in such a precarious position, there was always the possibility it could be the victim of stray bullets and cannonballs.
By transforming her house into a hospital for the wounded and dying, therefore, she was actually buying protection for both her property and her self. Perfectly understandable. Nor does it detract form the service she provided her countrymen, not inthe least, in fact, some years aftr the war was concluded, she took it a step farhter. She went out to the field which formed the periphery of the battlefield, and there managed to excavate the remains of some 1400 some soldiers. She saw to it they were provided a mass grave, with a respectable monument to mark the spot of their burial. So regardless of her motivations in the beginning, at least in the final analysis she had come to realize the gravity of the situation on a historical level, and probably on a spiritual one, and was moved thus to make this one final contribution to hisotry and posterity.
Her house still exists, incidentally, as well as the monument she was instrumental in erecting. It is an historica landmark, in fact, though it is in need of care, as it has seemingly been neglected over the years. A shame. I intend to read this book when it becomes availiable to me at my publicv libraray, and I would encourage everyobdy to read not necessarrily just this book, but eveyrhting they can on American history, both as pertains to the civil war and in other areas.
And I mean the real history, with all the warts, not the feel good bulshit that is politically motivated, and just as assurredly not the superpatriot drivel that is meant only to brainwash the gullible into believing they must support their government no matter the circumstances.
History has become a less and less important priority in public schools with the passage of time, and with the greater implementation of the global economy with all it's varied degrees of encroaching interdependance. American history, and in fact all history-true history- should be cherished and protected. This book sounds as though it will be an entertaining and engaging way to contribute to my own relatively respectable reservoir of historical knowledge, and I cant wait to read it.
Above Us Only Sky
Yesterday marked a sad milestone, the twenty fifth anniversary of the murder of John Lennon outside his Dakota apartment, which he shared with wife Yoko Ono in New York City, at the hands of crazed gunman Mark David Chapman. I would prefer actually to focus on Lennons legacy of music and activism. However, something needs to be addressed concerning the murder, which a good many have termed an assassination.
It was almost a sure thing that some would be shouting conspiracy, and sure enough, this happenned, with a variety of suspects being named. Sadly, but obviously, and sickeningly, Yoko was one of these named. Others included the Secret Service and/orFBI and/or CIA or some other branch of governemnt operating on behalf of the newly elected (though it must be pointed out, not then yet inaugurated) Reagan administration. Lennon it was suggested was jump starting his career, after a five year hiatus, and would have plenty to say about the direction his adopted country was beginning to take. Some even pointed the finger at the YMCA, a group with which Chapman had been affiliated.
Still, since Chapman is alive, and presumably still wants and hopes to be released one day on parole, one would imagine he would be more than conducive to offerring any information that might, along with a respectable show of remorse, grant him the parole he would naturally desire after twenty five years. Discounting the notion of brainwashing, I would suggest that this information would have been offerred up long ago or, dpending on the nature and identities of the conspirators, he would have been silenced long before given this opportunity.
No, Mark David Chapman is, in this case, I believe, the penultimate "lone gunman". Certainly he may have been inadverdantly influenced by certain factors that lead him on his trek to murder his one time idol, whom he now felt to have all along been a phoney, out for nothing more important, after all, than the money and fame so improtant to all artists.
The YMCA and his sudden attachment to them may have indeed been a factor, though an unwilling and unwitting one, as innocent perhaps of involvement as was Todd Rundgren, who had become Chapmans newest idol, and who in fact had been engaged in a running feud with Lennon, penning open letters which were read with bemused interest by a few, and seemingly ignored by Lennon himself.
It has been said that the reason the JFK assassination so readily and stubbornly lends itself to such a vast array of conspiracy theories is that the average person just can not bring themselves to accept that a person so important, so beloved by so many, so powerul on such a level, could find his life suddenly and senselessly ended by violence at the hands of a person who was, in the grand scheme of things, an insignificant gnat barely worthy of the name "man", if at all. There has to be another reason, a more complex explanation, they insist on some deep subconscous level. Life cannot be that random, that haphazard. Also, everybody loves a great mystery, to put it bluntly. The lone gunman theory is, in the final analysis, unsatisfactory on a variety of levels.
I disagree with this theory as it applies to the Kennedy assassination. There are too many mysterious circumstances, too many situations, which have not only never been answered, they have never when you get right down to it even been addressed.
However, as it pertains to the Lennon murder, this might well apply to those who still hold forth to the theory of some vast conspiracy to silence the former Beatle. In fact, I am sure of it. Barring some startling revelation or confession, therefore, I would hold firm to the belief in Mark David Chapman as the lone gunman. The only conspiracy he was involved in was the one he plotted with the voices in his head.
It was almost a sure thing that some would be shouting conspiracy, and sure enough, this happenned, with a variety of suspects being named. Sadly, but obviously, and sickeningly, Yoko was one of these named. Others included the Secret Service and/orFBI and/or CIA or some other branch of governemnt operating on behalf of the newly elected (though it must be pointed out, not then yet inaugurated) Reagan administration. Lennon it was suggested was jump starting his career, after a five year hiatus, and would have plenty to say about the direction his adopted country was beginning to take. Some even pointed the finger at the YMCA, a group with which Chapman had been affiliated.
Still, since Chapman is alive, and presumably still wants and hopes to be released one day on parole, one would imagine he would be more than conducive to offerring any information that might, along with a respectable show of remorse, grant him the parole he would naturally desire after twenty five years. Discounting the notion of brainwashing, I would suggest that this information would have been offerred up long ago or, dpending on the nature and identities of the conspirators, he would have been silenced long before given this opportunity.
No, Mark David Chapman is, in this case, I believe, the penultimate "lone gunman". Certainly he may have been inadverdantly influenced by certain factors that lead him on his trek to murder his one time idol, whom he now felt to have all along been a phoney, out for nothing more important, after all, than the money and fame so improtant to all artists.
The YMCA and his sudden attachment to them may have indeed been a factor, though an unwilling and unwitting one, as innocent perhaps of involvement as was Todd Rundgren, who had become Chapmans newest idol, and who in fact had been engaged in a running feud with Lennon, penning open letters which were read with bemused interest by a few, and seemingly ignored by Lennon himself.
It has been said that the reason the JFK assassination so readily and stubbornly lends itself to such a vast array of conspiracy theories is that the average person just can not bring themselves to accept that a person so important, so beloved by so many, so powerul on such a level, could find his life suddenly and senselessly ended by violence at the hands of a person who was, in the grand scheme of things, an insignificant gnat barely worthy of the name "man", if at all. There has to be another reason, a more complex explanation, they insist on some deep subconscous level. Life cannot be that random, that haphazard. Also, everybody loves a great mystery, to put it bluntly. The lone gunman theory is, in the final analysis, unsatisfactory on a variety of levels.
I disagree with this theory as it applies to the Kennedy assassination. There are too many mysterious circumstances, too many situations, which have not only never been answered, they have never when you get right down to it even been addressed.
However, as it pertains to the Lennon murder, this might well apply to those who still hold forth to the theory of some vast conspiracy to silence the former Beatle. In fact, I am sure of it. Barring some startling revelation or confession, therefore, I would hold firm to the belief in Mark David Chapman as the lone gunman. The only conspiracy he was involved in was the one he plotted with the voices in his head.
Mama Dee Is Da Bomb
Diane French, better known to residents of New Orleans Ninth Ward as the neighborhood activist "Mama Dee" was adamant in her beliefs that the Ninth Ward was purposely flooded in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane katrina, and said so in her testimony before Congress. Much to the chagrin of U.S. Representative Sheas, who, upon hearing Mama's assertion that the Federal government bombed the levees-she had heard it, she insisted-could not, in his words, let it go. But she stood firm.
"Ba-boom" she shouted as a verbal re-enactment of what she insists that not ony she heard, but heard in company of a relative at her home at the time, a military veteran who had "served his country well".
While Sheas asked her point blank several times if she had actually witnessed this, and berated her for not answering the question with a straight yes or no answer-though it was clear that she said plainly she had not actually seen this, but merely heard it-a number of Congressmen were picked up on camera whispering to each other, indicating the area of the testimony, and smiling, nearly laughing, though whether at Mama Dee or Congressman Sheas was unclear. Sheas finally told her there was no need to "speak in tonques", an obviously incendiary remark meant to belittle the elderly old woman as a conspiracy theory nut, or possibly as a voodoo practising radical and charlatan.
But Mama Dee said one thing I found most remarkable. This was common knowledge, she said, and in fact this was not the first time this had happenned. It had happenned once in the early nineteen twenties, another time in the early nineteen sixties. Evidently, it was considered that it would be more preferable to blow up that part ofthe levee which would flood the Ninth Ward, in order to spare the more expensive areas of the city. But of course, the people in charge of making these decisions couldn't very well come right out and say this, nor could they give any warning before hand. After all, what legal right would they have to destroy one area of private property in order to save others, regardless of the fact that otherwise all areas would be in danger of destruction. There would obviously be an immediate outcry, and the plan would then have to be quelched. That would only leave one other option-warn everyone to evacuate, and if they did not leave, well, that would just be too bad. Unfortunately, in this case the majority of the people who could not evacuate, for whatever reason, turns out to have been the very people who were in the most danger.
If there turns out to be any truth at all to this story, I expect widespread rioting throughout all large American metropolitan areas with any sizeable black population. In fact, so widespread is this belief, I am really amazed it hasn't all ready transpired. It leaves me to believe that someone, somewhere, is silently workinghtrough channels to keep eveybody's temper, their outrage, in some kind of check. Butfor how long?
I think there is a chance there might be some truth to this incredible story. For one thing, it makes too much sense, in a coldly logical, unemotional, soulless kind of way. But if it does turn out to be true, I find it doubtful the Federal Government would be involved in any way, though their innefective response, the lack of urgency, the bungling, the out and out incompetence, would surely play into the hands of the conspiracy believers. Nor do I think the state and local leaders would have had a hand in as sorry an affair as this. It just doesn't make sense, though on another level I can see where indioviduals involved in state and local, and maybe even federal, govenremnt and emergency management might have played a mor eor less small role in the affair.
But the real movers and shakers in a sorry episode such as this, if it really transpired, would doubtless be the real estate owners, the land developers, and the insurance companies and banking establishments that would have the most to lose were the entire city become flooded. The corruption of Louisiana and New Orleans politics is almost legendary, so it would be a simple manner to pay off a handful of people in order to make this all possible, maybe even inevitable.
Liek the old saying goes-follow the money! Whoever has the most money invested in New Orleans, especially in land and business properties and upper class real estate and homes, would be your most obvious suspects. The politicians, on all levels, are as usual, just the peaons.
"Ba-boom" she shouted as a verbal re-enactment of what she insists that not ony she heard, but heard in company of a relative at her home at the time, a military veteran who had "served his country well".
While Sheas asked her point blank several times if she had actually witnessed this, and berated her for not answering the question with a straight yes or no answer-though it was clear that she said plainly she had not actually seen this, but merely heard it-a number of Congressmen were picked up on camera whispering to each other, indicating the area of the testimony, and smiling, nearly laughing, though whether at Mama Dee or Congressman Sheas was unclear. Sheas finally told her there was no need to "speak in tonques", an obviously incendiary remark meant to belittle the elderly old woman as a conspiracy theory nut, or possibly as a voodoo practising radical and charlatan.
But Mama Dee said one thing I found most remarkable. This was common knowledge, she said, and in fact this was not the first time this had happenned. It had happenned once in the early nineteen twenties, another time in the early nineteen sixties. Evidently, it was considered that it would be more preferable to blow up that part ofthe levee which would flood the Ninth Ward, in order to spare the more expensive areas of the city. But of course, the people in charge of making these decisions couldn't very well come right out and say this, nor could they give any warning before hand. After all, what legal right would they have to destroy one area of private property in order to save others, regardless of the fact that otherwise all areas would be in danger of destruction. There would obviously be an immediate outcry, and the plan would then have to be quelched. That would only leave one other option-warn everyone to evacuate, and if they did not leave, well, that would just be too bad. Unfortunately, in this case the majority of the people who could not evacuate, for whatever reason, turns out to have been the very people who were in the most danger.
If there turns out to be any truth at all to this story, I expect widespread rioting throughout all large American metropolitan areas with any sizeable black population. In fact, so widespread is this belief, I am really amazed it hasn't all ready transpired. It leaves me to believe that someone, somewhere, is silently workinghtrough channels to keep eveybody's temper, their outrage, in some kind of check. Butfor how long?
I think there is a chance there might be some truth to this incredible story. For one thing, it makes too much sense, in a coldly logical, unemotional, soulless kind of way. But if it does turn out to be true, I find it doubtful the Federal Government would be involved in any way, though their innefective response, the lack of urgency, the bungling, the out and out incompetence, would surely play into the hands of the conspiracy believers. Nor do I think the state and local leaders would have had a hand in as sorry an affair as this. It just doesn't make sense, though on another level I can see where indioviduals involved in state and local, and maybe even federal, govenremnt and emergency management might have played a mor eor less small role in the affair.
But the real movers and shakers in a sorry episode such as this, if it really transpired, would doubtless be the real estate owners, the land developers, and the insurance companies and banking establishments that would have the most to lose were the entire city become flooded. The corruption of Louisiana and New Orleans politics is almost legendary, so it would be a simple manner to pay off a handful of people in order to make this all possible, maybe even inevitable.
Liek the old saying goes-follow the money! Whoever has the most money invested in New Orleans, especially in land and business properties and upper class real estate and homes, would be your most obvious suspects. The politicians, on all levels, are as usual, just the peaons.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Tell Them Willie Boy Was There
Jessica Simpson is one of those blondes that quite simply I find unnaturally unattractive. One of those women that try too hard at being beautiful, so hard in fact, that she falls far short of the mark, and would be better off if she would put on a few pounds. I don't know what it is, I mean, it's obvious she has a great ass, great legs, a beautiful face, and shape, and all the rest, yet for some reason she doesn't do a damn thing for me. Neither does Brittany Spear. Neither does Jennifer Lopez. So is it the Diva thing? Am I resentful of the adulation they seem to engender. Actually no, Christina Aqueilleira I find very attractive. But then, Christina, well, there is something more natural about her, more real. Jessica, and Brittany, to me, are phonies. I guess that would be the answer. Jessica is just one of those women who, no matter how much perfume they subtly immerse themselves in, just don't pass the smell test.
And so it came as no surprise to me when it was finally announced-admitted, actually-that the much hyped and really absurd "marriage" of Jessica Simpson and Nick LaChey,( a former singer in a boy band) formerly of Cincinnati, had come to an end. For a while there was denials, yet the rumors persisted, along with the related gossip to the effect that Jessica had been engaging in a torrid affair with "Dukes Of Hazard" co-star Johnny Knoxville.
But the dream marriage of the "Newlyweds" was indeed over. I knew it would have a short shelf life. Jessica was wanting her and Nick to be the next Lucile Ball and Desi Arnaz, it would appear, but neither one of them had the right stuff. Nick LaChey damned sure was no Desi Arnaz, and it takes more than acting like the protypical dumb blonde to become the next Lucille Ball. Success usually requires a minimum of talent. Okay, perhaps I am being unfair. Yes, I am. Nick LaChey, and Jessica, do, I must honestly admit, have a minimum of talent.
But it was really going way over the top to blame Johnny Knoxville for the break-up of a marriage that was never more than a soft shoe routine to begin with. I mean, really, what does Johnny Knoxville got that Nick aint got? Face it, handsome he may be, on the road to stardom he probably is, but don't expect to see a room loaded with Oscars and Emmys years from now. In fact, the stardom in his case may be more of a passing phase. His best and most memorable parts may well be bit ones, with a few appearrances in dinner theatres playing the deranged and dissapointed son of Sally Struthers. A less and less frequent guest on series television crime dramas. All following the cancellation mid-season in the first year of his first and last sitcom. You get the picture.
No, I think there is another explanation for the split up of the most sickening couple since Cher and Gregg Alllman. And that explanation is none other than-Willie Nelson. Yep, old Uncle Jessie himself. Yep, old Willie boy got him some of that pussy, I would be willing to bet the General Lee on that one. And he might as well fess up, cos I'm sure the story is c0ming out soon.
Here is how it probably happenned, in fact I'm sure of it. Old Willie boy decided he was going to get him some of that. So he started out talking to Jessica about music. He probably told her what a beautiful voice she had, and what a great natural talent that he as a seasoned singer songwriter recognized in her instinctively. Right then and there she should have known what he was up to, but she fell for his line about how maybe one day they could do a duet, maybe even do a whole album, go on tour together, maybe she could appear at a few Farm Aid concerts with him. They might have a hit that could hit the top of the charts and be the number one hit song of the year.
After hearing so much of this hokum, he confided in her as to how he could help her connect to the musical producers and writers, and for that matter,how at her age the sky was the limit for her. She could become a great musical star of the stage and screen as well as recording industry hottie. With the right training, and management, and encouragement, she could make a real mark on the industry.
These kinds of talks probably hapenned over a period of week nights. He looked out for her, this old, wise, fatherly, grizzled bear, veteran of thousands of bar and dive appearrances, who made it the hard way after decades of paying his dues before finally making his own mark on the industry and finally getting the credit, the recognition, the success, he truly deserved. So he gave her a great deal of encouragement, and friendship, and humor, and protected her from the likes of "that punk Knoxvile, you better watch out for him, some of the others too, you know what guys like that are like. They are out for themselves. So you have to look out for yourself."
Then, one fateful night, Willy boy pulled out a blunt, a doobie, yep, the biggest fattie joint you ever did see, right after he twisted off the lid from a fifth of licquor, bourbon probably, or maybe Tennessee sipping whiskey.
The Pie'ce de' Resis'tans.
And the rest is untold history. But not for long I'd wager. Yep, in conclusion, old Uncle Jesse got inside those Daisy Dukes that night, and probably a few nights afterwards. And after that first night, he triumphantly beamed the news to Johnny Knoxville-
"That supper you owe me? Yeah, you owe me."
And all Johnny Knoxville had to do was look at Jessicas eyes and her manner around old Willie boy to know the truth, he did indeed lose the bet. Who knows though, maybe after Willie boy got through singing for his supper, Johnny Knoxville got those sloppy seconds.
And so it came as no surprise to me when it was finally announced-admitted, actually-that the much hyped and really absurd "marriage" of Jessica Simpson and Nick LaChey,( a former singer in a boy band) formerly of Cincinnati, had come to an end. For a while there was denials, yet the rumors persisted, along with the related gossip to the effect that Jessica had been engaging in a torrid affair with "Dukes Of Hazard" co-star Johnny Knoxville.
But the dream marriage of the "Newlyweds" was indeed over. I knew it would have a short shelf life. Jessica was wanting her and Nick to be the next Lucile Ball and Desi Arnaz, it would appear, but neither one of them had the right stuff. Nick LaChey damned sure was no Desi Arnaz, and it takes more than acting like the protypical dumb blonde to become the next Lucille Ball. Success usually requires a minimum of talent. Okay, perhaps I am being unfair. Yes, I am. Nick LaChey, and Jessica, do, I must honestly admit, have a minimum of talent.
But it was really going way over the top to blame Johnny Knoxville for the break-up of a marriage that was never more than a soft shoe routine to begin with. I mean, really, what does Johnny Knoxville got that Nick aint got? Face it, handsome he may be, on the road to stardom he probably is, but don't expect to see a room loaded with Oscars and Emmys years from now. In fact, the stardom in his case may be more of a passing phase. His best and most memorable parts may well be bit ones, with a few appearrances in dinner theatres playing the deranged and dissapointed son of Sally Struthers. A less and less frequent guest on series television crime dramas. All following the cancellation mid-season in the first year of his first and last sitcom. You get the picture.
No, I think there is another explanation for the split up of the most sickening couple since Cher and Gregg Alllman. And that explanation is none other than-Willie Nelson. Yep, old Uncle Jessie himself. Yep, old Willie boy got him some of that pussy, I would be willing to bet the General Lee on that one. And he might as well fess up, cos I'm sure the story is c0ming out soon.
Here is how it probably happenned, in fact I'm sure of it. Old Willie boy decided he was going to get him some of that. So he started out talking to Jessica about music. He probably told her what a beautiful voice she had, and what a great natural talent that he as a seasoned singer songwriter recognized in her instinctively. Right then and there she should have known what he was up to, but she fell for his line about how maybe one day they could do a duet, maybe even do a whole album, go on tour together, maybe she could appear at a few Farm Aid concerts with him. They might have a hit that could hit the top of the charts and be the number one hit song of the year.
After hearing so much of this hokum, he confided in her as to how he could help her connect to the musical producers and writers, and for that matter,how at her age the sky was the limit for her. She could become a great musical star of the stage and screen as well as recording industry hottie. With the right training, and management, and encouragement, she could make a real mark on the industry.
These kinds of talks probably hapenned over a period of week nights. He looked out for her, this old, wise, fatherly, grizzled bear, veteran of thousands of bar and dive appearrances, who made it the hard way after decades of paying his dues before finally making his own mark on the industry and finally getting the credit, the recognition, the success, he truly deserved. So he gave her a great deal of encouragement, and friendship, and humor, and protected her from the likes of "that punk Knoxvile, you better watch out for him, some of the others too, you know what guys like that are like. They are out for themselves. So you have to look out for yourself."
Then, one fateful night, Willy boy pulled out a blunt, a doobie, yep, the biggest fattie joint you ever did see, right after he twisted off the lid from a fifth of licquor, bourbon probably, or maybe Tennessee sipping whiskey.
The Pie'ce de' Resis'tans.
And the rest is untold history. But not for long I'd wager. Yep, in conclusion, old Uncle Jesse got inside those Daisy Dukes that night, and probably a few nights afterwards. And after that first night, he triumphantly beamed the news to Johnny Knoxville-
"That supper you owe me? Yeah, you owe me."
And all Johnny Knoxville had to do was look at Jessicas eyes and her manner around old Willie boy to know the truth, he did indeed lose the bet. Who knows though, maybe after Willie boy got through singing for his supper, Johnny Knoxville got those sloppy seconds.
Privelege
Kathryn Woods of Columbus Ohio seems to have come from a privileged background. Her father has for some time been the band and musical director of Ohio State University in Columbus Ohio, so it would seem that she at least comes from a musical background as well. Her father was doubtless proud when not long after her relocation to New York City, she informed him she had taken a role in an off-Broadway musical by the name of "Privilege". By the time he found out the awful truth, that the "Privilege" Kathryn had been appearing in was not the musical, but was in fact the name of a seedy underworld strip club, he was beyond disappointment, and shame. For it happens he did not learn the truth about her daughters New York City lifestyle until she was discovered by one of her two boyfriends dead, savagely stabbed, her throat cut so deeply that she had nearly been beheaded.
She had been involved with two men, in fact, one of whom had followed her from Columbus, and was evidently the man she was currently seeing, and who was in the fact the one who had discovered her body. He had been living with her, and had taken a job at a nearby apartment building as a doorman. The other boyfriend, with whom she had recently broken up, has been described as a trainer, a yoga instructor, and himself an employee of the strip club "Privilege" where she had been working.
As Kathryn had defensive wounds, and as well seemed to have skin under her fingernails, both men had been somewhat cleared of any suspicion of complicity. Neither had wounds, it seemed. However, the former boyfriend had been caught in an obvious and disturbing lie. He had attempted to call kathryn seven times prior to the murder, but Kathryn had not answered the phone. He claims he attempted to make this call several blocks from Kathryn's apartment, where the murder had transpired, but phone records told a different story. When they seemed to suggest the calls had actually been made just down the street from the apartment, a perusal of surveillance camera tapes in the area confirmed this. Suspicious, to say the least. Still, evidence of murder?
Or could it just be evidence of complicity? If so, why? The manner of Kathryn Woods murder brings to mind the murder of Nichole Brown Simpson, and the persistent rumors of her previous involvement with a Colombian drug cartel. This was never substantiated, but one important fact was asserted=the manner of execution directed toward the Columbian cartels victims, not the clean Italian Mafia tradition of a bullet to the back of the head, but in fact a blood soaked mutilation, meant to instill a sense of horror and revulsion in any who might deem to cross the gangs.
Of course, everyone knows the Medellin drug cartel was put out of business long ago. Or were they? That's what I thought until, not quite a week after the reports of Kathryn's murder surfaced, there was a large bust of a drug ring which did in fact have it's origins with a Colombian drug gang. Only it wasn't cocaine this time-it was heroin. As for the containers in which the large quantity of drugs had been hidden-they were dancing shoes. So evidently the Colombian drug cartels are not only still alive and well in Colombia, but are still in the business of engaging in drug exports to the US, in evidently mass quantities. Since the street value of the drugs seized was well over a million dollars, one can only wonder how much has made it here undetected.
So could this have something to do with the murder of Kathryn Woods? A drug cartel. There are certainly enough of them, and before the reports of the Colombian heroin bust surfaced, my first thoughts were of the much reported and yet relatively shadowy so-called Russian Mafia. But special consideration as well must be given to the Colombians, and the Mexicans. The Italian Mafia seems to have been reduced to a shadow of it's former glory days, and unfortunately this has left a vacuum which others have managed to fill voraciously, and with a great deal of bloodshed.
To a young woman, relatively naive and unschooled in the world of criminal conspiracies, it would be easy to be lured into the seductive realm of the gang world, especially when the promise of fame and fortune is held at a tantalizing distance. I think this is what happened in the case of Kathryn Woods, and I think that something went very, very wrong. Maybe she saw something she shouldn't have saw or heard something she shouldn't have heard. Maybe she walked in the wrong room at the wrong time, or perhaps she said the wrong thing to the wrong person. Quite possibly she just had the temerity to say no, to the wrong person at the wrong time.
As for the former boyfriend that attempted to call her seven times prior to the murder, from down the street he denied having been on at the time, maybe he was involved. Maybe he was trying to set her up. Maybe he was even trying to warn her. In a shadowy strip club, some people can get loose lips, once the alcohol starts to flow, and maybe someone hinted to him that there might be a contract out on his ex-girlfriends life. Maybe he was advised that her days were numbered.
Maybe he was the wrong person she said the wrong thing to.
Whatever the case, it would be interesting to look into the background of the strip club Privilege. Who exactly are it's owners? It's "silent partners"? What are their other areas of interest? Are they involved in the drug racket? Prostitution? Human sex slavery? If so, how did the hideous, barbaric murder of Kathryn Woods fit into the overall scheme of things. If it fit at all, and was not just an unfortunate coincidence, what door did her killers hope to shut back and lock up forever. It must have been something pretty serious to risk drawing the kind of attention such a grotesque murder as this would engender. On the other hand, it's hard to believe a murder like this could be done over something as simple and trivial, really, as jealousy, or a simple lovers spat. Possible, true. It happens, yes. But likely?
Sadly, Kathryn Woods, who may not have had any truly great talent beyond what a loving, doting family obligingly thought to nurture and grow out of blind devotion and faith, may have in her trek for stardom turned to a source that was questionable at the very least, and at worse, may have been the kind of source that quickly turns dreams into dust, and hope into despair.
She had been involved with two men, in fact, one of whom had followed her from Columbus, and was evidently the man she was currently seeing, and who was in the fact the one who had discovered her body. He had been living with her, and had taken a job at a nearby apartment building as a doorman. The other boyfriend, with whom she had recently broken up, has been described as a trainer, a yoga instructor, and himself an employee of the strip club "Privilege" where she had been working.
As Kathryn had defensive wounds, and as well seemed to have skin under her fingernails, both men had been somewhat cleared of any suspicion of complicity. Neither had wounds, it seemed. However, the former boyfriend had been caught in an obvious and disturbing lie. He had attempted to call kathryn seven times prior to the murder, but Kathryn had not answered the phone. He claims he attempted to make this call several blocks from Kathryn's apartment, where the murder had transpired, but phone records told a different story. When they seemed to suggest the calls had actually been made just down the street from the apartment, a perusal of surveillance camera tapes in the area confirmed this. Suspicious, to say the least. Still, evidence of murder?
Or could it just be evidence of complicity? If so, why? The manner of Kathryn Woods murder brings to mind the murder of Nichole Brown Simpson, and the persistent rumors of her previous involvement with a Colombian drug cartel. This was never substantiated, but one important fact was asserted=the manner of execution directed toward the Columbian cartels victims, not the clean Italian Mafia tradition of a bullet to the back of the head, but in fact a blood soaked mutilation, meant to instill a sense of horror and revulsion in any who might deem to cross the gangs.
Of course, everyone knows the Medellin drug cartel was put out of business long ago. Or were they? That's what I thought until, not quite a week after the reports of Kathryn's murder surfaced, there was a large bust of a drug ring which did in fact have it's origins with a Colombian drug gang. Only it wasn't cocaine this time-it was heroin. As for the containers in which the large quantity of drugs had been hidden-they were dancing shoes. So evidently the Colombian drug cartels are not only still alive and well in Colombia, but are still in the business of engaging in drug exports to the US, in evidently mass quantities. Since the street value of the drugs seized was well over a million dollars, one can only wonder how much has made it here undetected.
So could this have something to do with the murder of Kathryn Woods? A drug cartel. There are certainly enough of them, and before the reports of the Colombian heroin bust surfaced, my first thoughts were of the much reported and yet relatively shadowy so-called Russian Mafia. But special consideration as well must be given to the Colombians, and the Mexicans. The Italian Mafia seems to have been reduced to a shadow of it's former glory days, and unfortunately this has left a vacuum which others have managed to fill voraciously, and with a great deal of bloodshed.
To a young woman, relatively naive and unschooled in the world of criminal conspiracies, it would be easy to be lured into the seductive realm of the gang world, especially when the promise of fame and fortune is held at a tantalizing distance. I think this is what happened in the case of Kathryn Woods, and I think that something went very, very wrong. Maybe she saw something she shouldn't have saw or heard something she shouldn't have heard. Maybe she walked in the wrong room at the wrong time, or perhaps she said the wrong thing to the wrong person. Quite possibly she just had the temerity to say no, to the wrong person at the wrong time.
As for the former boyfriend that attempted to call her seven times prior to the murder, from down the street he denied having been on at the time, maybe he was involved. Maybe he was trying to set her up. Maybe he was even trying to warn her. In a shadowy strip club, some people can get loose lips, once the alcohol starts to flow, and maybe someone hinted to him that there might be a contract out on his ex-girlfriends life. Maybe he was advised that her days were numbered.
Maybe he was the wrong person she said the wrong thing to.
Whatever the case, it would be interesting to look into the background of the strip club Privilege. Who exactly are it's owners? It's "silent partners"? What are their other areas of interest? Are they involved in the drug racket? Prostitution? Human sex slavery? If so, how did the hideous, barbaric murder of Kathryn Woods fit into the overall scheme of things. If it fit at all, and was not just an unfortunate coincidence, what door did her killers hope to shut back and lock up forever. It must have been something pretty serious to risk drawing the kind of attention such a grotesque murder as this would engender. On the other hand, it's hard to believe a murder like this could be done over something as simple and trivial, really, as jealousy, or a simple lovers spat. Possible, true. It happens, yes. But likely?
Sadly, Kathryn Woods, who may not have had any truly great talent beyond what a loving, doting family obligingly thought to nurture and grow out of blind devotion and faith, may have in her trek for stardom turned to a source that was questionable at the very least, and at worse, may have been the kind of source that quickly turns dreams into dust, and hope into despair.
Friday, December 02, 2005
New Orleans-My Reconstruction Plan
Under this plan, New Orleans can be rebuildt, better than ever, or at least close to as good, and the cost to the American taxpayers would be-not one red cent. So, how exactly is this possible? The simple answer is, you simply find someone, some company, such as Halliburton, possibly, that will agree to do it for free. And of course I understand that at first glance that would seem to be an impossible dream, even a laughable one, but I am not talking here about the prospect of finding someone to do it out of the goodness of their hearts, or even as a public relations ploy. Because in a way, in a very roundabout way, it would not be for free, and there would be an incidental cost of sorts to the Ameircan taxpayer.
Simply put, you make the followng deal with Halliburton, or any other company that might be qualified to conduct the rebuilding project. The deal? If they agree to rebuild New Orleans, totally rebuild it as good or better than it was before, and they agree to do this for free, then the federal governemnt will agree in turn to not charge said company any taxes for the next twenty years-no matter how much money they make. Or maybe for just ten years, or maybe even just for five. I'll leave the details to Congress to work out, with hopefully plenty of oversight. Of course, this deal would certainly come with obligations on the part of any company who agrees to undertake the project.
*The entire infrastructure of the city must be rebuilt-water and sewage treatment, power lines and grids, roads and bridges, cable car lines, etc.
*The leveees must be rebuildt and repaired to withstand as absolutely as strong a hurricane or flood as one can possibly be made to withstand.
*There must be as vast and comprehensive as possible a land reclamation project in order to rebuild that area of land surrounding New Orleans on the coast, in effect if necessary a series of artificial barrier reefs should be constructed to seperate as much as possible the city and surrounding lands from the ever widening and encroaching Gulf of Mexico. One possible way this could be accomplished, for example, might be by utilizing old no longer in use barges, over which could be constructed a series of bridges made of scrap metal, which could then be completely covered over with layers of dirt, and rock quarried from all over the country. The barges themselves could be anchored beforehand with a series of stilts and underlying ledges in order to shore them up, and with chains, anchors, etc. The area could in effect become a rock beach which could provide a degree of protection from flooding and high winds, and at the same time be made to provide an avenue for the port of New Orleans.
*New Orleans and the entire surrounding area, including Lake Ponchatraine, must be clean as much as possible from the chemical and other kind of pollution against which it otherwise will be struggling for some time to come.
*Some form of drainage system must be constructed so that in the future, any flooding of the Mississippi River and/or Lake Ponchatraine can be adequately diverted away from the city.
*Finally, and on a human level perhaps most importantly, every neighborhood, and every home, including those in the Ninth Ward, should be completely rebuildt or replaced, and these homes then given back to the previous owners, free of charge. Every effort must be made to give these newly rebuildt homes to their previous owners, who will be given the option of selling these homes at market value, and who will then be allowed to keep the entirety of the money made for their sale, and will have to pay no fees or taxes for the money they make from the sale, nor if they decide to keep the homes.
*Of course, there should be a firm time table establsihed to make sure the construction is made to proceed in a timely and efficent manner, and oversight must be establsihed to ensure there is no graft, kickbacks, or corruption of any kind, for example directed at the poorer residents and former such of the city. It should be made plain that the old residential neighborhoods of the city shall remain as they were before, there shall be no land grabs for commercial use and development.
*Finally, whenever possible, the residents of the city, if they so desire, should be put to work in a kind of public works project to assist in rebuilding their city. They should be paid, of course, for this work, which will enable them to support themselves and their families while contributing in a meaninglful way to the reconstruction of their city. This could be work ranging from menial labor and maintenance and clean up to more specialized types of work.
*Any insurance company that owes and kind of money to former residents of not only New Orleans but to the entire Gulf Coast, should be made to pay what they owe to those who kept up on their insurance premiums. They should not be allowed to pass this cost on to other consumers. However, in certain cases of demonstrable hardship, these insurance companies as well should be forgiven their tax liabilities over the course of as many years as it takes, (provided again the proper oversight and review is established) to enable them to remain on firm financial ground.
It may in fact take more than one compnay to effect this reconstruction, and any who do involve themselves for free should be forgiven the appropriate amount of tax liability for at least five years, again no matter how much money they legally make in profits from other ventures. It is the right thing to do. It will enable the companies involve to actually in most cases make more money than they ordinarily do through tax savings and it will enable the reconstruction to proceed apace at no cost to the federal government and taxpaying citizens. After all, what would the percent of taxes paid by these companies ordinarily amount to? I would submit that it would doubtless be far less than the amount it would take to outright pay for the reconstruction of New Orleans, to say nothing of the entire Gulf Coast area.
It is certainly a plan that is worth consideration, I should think, if for no other reason than the simple fact that something really does have to be done. Seeing as how if the Federal Government, and also the Louisiana State and New Orleans City Governments, had all done their jobs to begin with in shoring up the levees and maintaining good emergency management planning, etc., the New Orleans disaster would not have been half as bad as it ended up being, for that matter I would suggest it wouldn't have been one third or maybe even one fourth as bad. But all levels of govrnment failed, and they failed miserably. Those who sufferred for that failure? The poor, mostly black, residents of New Orleans.
What happenned is history. What happenned has happenned. Now it's time to move on. Now it's time to make it right.
Simply put, you make the followng deal with Halliburton, or any other company that might be qualified to conduct the rebuilding project. The deal? If they agree to rebuild New Orleans, totally rebuild it as good or better than it was before, and they agree to do this for free, then the federal governemnt will agree in turn to not charge said company any taxes for the next twenty years-no matter how much money they make. Or maybe for just ten years, or maybe even just for five. I'll leave the details to Congress to work out, with hopefully plenty of oversight. Of course, this deal would certainly come with obligations on the part of any company who agrees to undertake the project.
*The entire infrastructure of the city must be rebuilt-water and sewage treatment, power lines and grids, roads and bridges, cable car lines, etc.
*The leveees must be rebuildt and repaired to withstand as absolutely as strong a hurricane or flood as one can possibly be made to withstand.
*There must be as vast and comprehensive as possible a land reclamation project in order to rebuild that area of land surrounding New Orleans on the coast, in effect if necessary a series of artificial barrier reefs should be constructed to seperate as much as possible the city and surrounding lands from the ever widening and encroaching Gulf of Mexico. One possible way this could be accomplished, for example, might be by utilizing old no longer in use barges, over which could be constructed a series of bridges made of scrap metal, which could then be completely covered over with layers of dirt, and rock quarried from all over the country. The barges themselves could be anchored beforehand with a series of stilts and underlying ledges in order to shore them up, and with chains, anchors, etc. The area could in effect become a rock beach which could provide a degree of protection from flooding and high winds, and at the same time be made to provide an avenue for the port of New Orleans.
*New Orleans and the entire surrounding area, including Lake Ponchatraine, must be clean as much as possible from the chemical and other kind of pollution against which it otherwise will be struggling for some time to come.
*Some form of drainage system must be constructed so that in the future, any flooding of the Mississippi River and/or Lake Ponchatraine can be adequately diverted away from the city.
*Finally, and on a human level perhaps most importantly, every neighborhood, and every home, including those in the Ninth Ward, should be completely rebuildt or replaced, and these homes then given back to the previous owners, free of charge. Every effort must be made to give these newly rebuildt homes to their previous owners, who will be given the option of selling these homes at market value, and who will then be allowed to keep the entirety of the money made for their sale, and will have to pay no fees or taxes for the money they make from the sale, nor if they decide to keep the homes.
*Of course, there should be a firm time table establsihed to make sure the construction is made to proceed in a timely and efficent manner, and oversight must be establsihed to ensure there is no graft, kickbacks, or corruption of any kind, for example directed at the poorer residents and former such of the city. It should be made plain that the old residential neighborhoods of the city shall remain as they were before, there shall be no land grabs for commercial use and development.
*Finally, whenever possible, the residents of the city, if they so desire, should be put to work in a kind of public works project to assist in rebuilding their city. They should be paid, of course, for this work, which will enable them to support themselves and their families while contributing in a meaninglful way to the reconstruction of their city. This could be work ranging from menial labor and maintenance and clean up to more specialized types of work.
*Any insurance company that owes and kind of money to former residents of not only New Orleans but to the entire Gulf Coast, should be made to pay what they owe to those who kept up on their insurance premiums. They should not be allowed to pass this cost on to other consumers. However, in certain cases of demonstrable hardship, these insurance companies as well should be forgiven their tax liabilities over the course of as many years as it takes, (provided again the proper oversight and review is established) to enable them to remain on firm financial ground.
It may in fact take more than one compnay to effect this reconstruction, and any who do involve themselves for free should be forgiven the appropriate amount of tax liability for at least five years, again no matter how much money they legally make in profits from other ventures. It is the right thing to do. It will enable the companies involve to actually in most cases make more money than they ordinarily do through tax savings and it will enable the reconstruction to proceed apace at no cost to the federal government and taxpaying citizens. After all, what would the percent of taxes paid by these companies ordinarily amount to? I would submit that it would doubtless be far less than the amount it would take to outright pay for the reconstruction of New Orleans, to say nothing of the entire Gulf Coast area.
It is certainly a plan that is worth consideration, I should think, if for no other reason than the simple fact that something really does have to be done. Seeing as how if the Federal Government, and also the Louisiana State and New Orleans City Governments, had all done their jobs to begin with in shoring up the levees and maintaining good emergency management planning, etc., the New Orleans disaster would not have been half as bad as it ended up being, for that matter I would suggest it wouldn't have been one third or maybe even one fourth as bad. But all levels of govrnment failed, and they failed miserably. Those who sufferred for that failure? The poor, mostly black, residents of New Orleans.
What happenned is history. What happenned has happenned. Now it's time to move on. Now it's time to make it right.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
The Nicotine Troll Returns With A Vengeance
I thought I had this monster under control, but over the course of the last month, he has reasserted himself, and I have rolled over for it. I didn't really want to talk about this, but on the other hand,m I figured, well, I was certainly willing to brag about my progress when I had it, or thought I had it, under control, so I should be man enough to admit to the simple truth. I have given in to this despicable weakness. The truth hurts, but it is also cathartic. I can alwas start all over again.
What I know iscoming is the recriminations from those who will doubtless tell me, see, I told you so, you should have just thrown 'em down, quit cold turkey. Nevermind I probably would have been wiling to resort to violence, eventually, for a smoke, should that prove necessary. Nevrmind that I would still have eventually given in, one way or another, had I quit all together just as surely as I have by just deciding to gradually taper off, cut down a little bit at a time, and then a little bit more, then stil more, until I was at the point where I could quit all together.
And, of course, I had to take it to the point where I had ritualized it as a part of my Sabbat observances. Then, I went further by writing an article on the subject which was published in Witchvox, under the title, "Nicotine And The Pagan Addict", under my Yahoo ID DancingCrow3. As if that weren't bad enough I then had to go to the point of writing and sending an e-mail to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" fame, outlining my stop smoking strategy.
I posted about it here. I posted about it there. I posted about it everywhere. And now I am smoking a pack and a half a day. Again. All because I got a little sick, and a few itehr things at the same time started getting on my fucking nerves. It just was too easy to draw on that old comfort, that old pacifier.
Yeah, the Nicotine Troll wins again, and I bet it is having a good hearty laugh at my expense. That's okay, I am still in somewhat control, I can go back down anytime I want to, I know that now, and I will. And eventually I will quit.
Because I really do want to. Just not today.
What I know iscoming is the recriminations from those who will doubtless tell me, see, I told you so, you should have just thrown 'em down, quit cold turkey. Nevermind I probably would have been wiling to resort to violence, eventually, for a smoke, should that prove necessary. Nevrmind that I would still have eventually given in, one way or another, had I quit all together just as surely as I have by just deciding to gradually taper off, cut down a little bit at a time, and then a little bit more, then stil more, until I was at the point where I could quit all together.
And, of course, I had to take it to the point where I had ritualized it as a part of my Sabbat observances. Then, I went further by writing an article on the subject which was published in Witchvox, under the title, "Nicotine And The Pagan Addict", under my Yahoo ID DancingCrow3. As if that weren't bad enough I then had to go to the point of writing and sending an e-mail to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" fame, outlining my stop smoking strategy.
I posted about it here. I posted about it there. I posted about it everywhere. And now I am smoking a pack and a half a day. Again. All because I got a little sick, and a few itehr things at the same time started getting on my fucking nerves. It just was too easy to draw on that old comfort, that old pacifier.
Yeah, the Nicotine Troll wins again, and I bet it is having a good hearty laugh at my expense. That's okay, I am still in somewhat control, I can go back down anytime I want to, I know that now, and I will. And eventually I will quit.
Because I really do want to. Just not today.
Tampa Tribune And Temper Tantrums
I just posted a reply to a rant by Bill O'Reily on his "The O'Reilly Factor", but don't expect to see it read or shown anytime soon on "The No-Spin Zone". In effect, I pointed out to him that the Tampa Tribune made a very valid comparison of the Virgin Mary to a woman who had recently gotten fired from her position as teacher at a private Catholic School. The woman had become pregnant, and had stated she had no plans to marry the father. She was summarrily fired from her job for failing to live by Church standards of decency and morality. The ACLU has filed a motion for a lawsuit on her behalf. The Tampa Tribune, to O'Reilly's petulant outrage, has compared the woman to the Virgin Mary-Christ's mother who was, after all, pregnant and unmarried.
O'Reilly has completely lost his head and is in a complete outrage over this, or so it would seem. One has to wonder just exactly how much of this outrage is directed more at the Tribune over past problems he has had with editorial writers, at least one of whom has written about him in very unflatterring terms.
I mean, really, what's the problem? I see the Trib's point, very well. After all, taking for granted just for the sake of argument that the story is a literal one, that it actually happen as recorded, then the question becomes, just how would the Jewish people of the time have reacted to Mary.
Would they have as a general rule said, "Oh look, there goes Mary, have you heard, she is even though a virgin, blest to have been impregnated by way of the Holy Spirit with a child who shall save us from our sins, as he is the only begotten son of God himself."
Or would their position have been more along the lines of "Oh look, there goes Mary, did you hear, she up and got herself pregnant, the sinful little slut, and now she has married that old man Joseph, the foolish worthless cuckold, to try to hide the circumstances of her sinful actions."
It doesn't take much imagination to imagine what their reactions would have been, and I don't think it would have been anywhere remotely somewhere in between, either.
O'Reilly has completely lost his head and is in a complete outrage over this, or so it would seem. One has to wonder just exactly how much of this outrage is directed more at the Tribune over past problems he has had with editorial writers, at least one of whom has written about him in very unflatterring terms.
I mean, really, what's the problem? I see the Trib's point, very well. After all, taking for granted just for the sake of argument that the story is a literal one, that it actually happen as recorded, then the question becomes, just how would the Jewish people of the time have reacted to Mary.
Would they have as a general rule said, "Oh look, there goes Mary, have you heard, she is even though a virgin, blest to have been impregnated by way of the Holy Spirit with a child who shall save us from our sins, as he is the only begotten son of God himself."
Or would their position have been more along the lines of "Oh look, there goes Mary, did you hear, she up and got herself pregnant, the sinful little slut, and now she has married that old man Joseph, the foolish worthless cuckold, to try to hide the circumstances of her sinful actions."
It doesn't take much imagination to imagine what their reactions would have been, and I don't think it would have been anywhere remotely somewhere in between, either.
Whores Wear Red Shoes
So of course it seems only natural that Pope Benedict would follow suit. You have to admit, they looks quite fetching on him. Evidently, he is getting ready. After all, the Vatican has recently proclaimed that a homosexual can only become a priest if he has abstained from his proclivities for at least three years. Nevermind how you are suppossed to know this, just take their word, and their superiors as well. After all, a seminarians superior in the monastery would certainly know, wouldn't he? (hehe)
So why three years? Of course, this is the number of years that Christ devoted to his ministry, the last three years of his life, in fact, so the number three has special significance. They figure that if a man could control his base impulses for three years, then he has undergone a kind of crucifixion.
In this case, what they should concern themselves with is the resurrection.
And here comes the rub. Naturally, a homosexual would be more inclined to the priesthood than a heterosexual, so long as homosexual marriage remains illegal, which is probably one of the reasons the church so opposses it. But then, after so many years sublimating their base desires, they suddenly, in a good many cases, find themseves in positions of power over the rosey faced, bright eyed, hard bodied, cute, innocent, young, and impressionable. I honesty believe that at this point they can no longer help themselves.
And the first place the resurrection occurs, in a good many of these cases, is under those robes. Maybe for awhile they keep the matter-eeerrrr, well in hand-but probably in far more cases than anybody wants to imagine, this doesn't last too long. Fantasy after fantasy in time will turn to reality, especialy when you are suddenly in positions of power, and privacy, over the objects of your fantasy. And so, little by little, those objects of the priests fantasies are-wellll, broken in, shall we say?
Maybe a few too many young lads are presented with-shall we say- a "taste" of the priesthood?
Or quite possibly, the priest might well divulge his-oooohhh, let's just call it, his "hunger"to share his "grace"?
Whatever the case, I dont' think anything is really going to change, so long as the church insists on maintaining strict and total control over the uncontrollable. They will just contnue to do what they have done for going on two milenia, which is to say, sublimating the flesh, and in way too many cases causing it to turn into something truly unhealthy, and even abominable.
So maybe the Pontiff has hit on something. Maybe those red whores shoes are a kind of code. Keep it to yourselves for three years, and when you become a priest, take care of each others needs, in privacy. Let the church be your own private whore house. But keep it quiet, and please, leave the kids alone. Or make damned sure nobody finds out about it otherwise.
In other words, don't ask, don't tell? How the hell is the Church, after all, going to speak out agaisnt abortion, birth control, etc., with any moral authority as long as Priests are using kids for their own sexual satisfaction.
Well, at least they have decided that an unsaved child will no longer be considered to be in limbo, neither heaven nor hell, but a kind of waiting room in between. On the other hand that might well be a blind. A deceptive ruse of sorts. After all, even nurseries in the after life need attendants, and word has it that quite a few priests have their name on the list for that job as their ultimate reward.
So why three years? Of course, this is the number of years that Christ devoted to his ministry, the last three years of his life, in fact, so the number three has special significance. They figure that if a man could control his base impulses for three years, then he has undergone a kind of crucifixion.
In this case, what they should concern themselves with is the resurrection.
And here comes the rub. Naturally, a homosexual would be more inclined to the priesthood than a heterosexual, so long as homosexual marriage remains illegal, which is probably one of the reasons the church so opposses it. But then, after so many years sublimating their base desires, they suddenly, in a good many cases, find themseves in positions of power over the rosey faced, bright eyed, hard bodied, cute, innocent, young, and impressionable. I honesty believe that at this point they can no longer help themselves.
And the first place the resurrection occurs, in a good many of these cases, is under those robes. Maybe for awhile they keep the matter-eeerrrr, well in hand-but probably in far more cases than anybody wants to imagine, this doesn't last too long. Fantasy after fantasy in time will turn to reality, especialy when you are suddenly in positions of power, and privacy, over the objects of your fantasy. And so, little by little, those objects of the priests fantasies are-wellll, broken in, shall we say?
Maybe a few too many young lads are presented with-shall we say- a "taste" of the priesthood?
Or quite possibly, the priest might well divulge his-oooohhh, let's just call it, his "hunger"to share his "grace"?
Whatever the case, I dont' think anything is really going to change, so long as the church insists on maintaining strict and total control over the uncontrollable. They will just contnue to do what they have done for going on two milenia, which is to say, sublimating the flesh, and in way too many cases causing it to turn into something truly unhealthy, and even abominable.
So maybe the Pontiff has hit on something. Maybe those red whores shoes are a kind of code. Keep it to yourselves for three years, and when you become a priest, take care of each others needs, in privacy. Let the church be your own private whore house. But keep it quiet, and please, leave the kids alone. Or make damned sure nobody finds out about it otherwise.
In other words, don't ask, don't tell? How the hell is the Church, after all, going to speak out agaisnt abortion, birth control, etc., with any moral authority as long as Priests are using kids for their own sexual satisfaction.
Well, at least they have decided that an unsaved child will no longer be considered to be in limbo, neither heaven nor hell, but a kind of waiting room in between. On the other hand that might well be a blind. A deceptive ruse of sorts. After all, even nurseries in the after life need attendants, and word has it that quite a few priests have their name on the list for that job as their ultimate reward.
The House Of Saud
Edward M. "Teddy" Kennedy may have just been given a once in a lifetime opportunity to prove he's tough in the war on terror, and get him a new drinking buddy at the same time. For, in a little twenty five man jail on none other than Martha's Vineyard, a jail that has been described as more of a bed and breakfast, currently resides, for the course of a one year sentence for manslaughter, one Badr Al Saud, A Saudi national currently residing in the U.S., and a member of the House of Saud-the ruling family dynasty of Saudi Arabia.
There is some controversy as to his confinement in this particular jail, as the crime for which he was sentenced happens to have taken place in Boston. The crime? While driving drunk, and withot a license, he ran down and killed on Orlando Ramos. Evidently, the leniency of his sentence was encouraged by his plea, in addition to his legal teams assertions that the unfortunate Mr. Ramos was himself drunk, and depressed, and may have intentionally walked in front of Al Saud's vehicle. Hell of a way to kill yourself, if you ask me, right up there with dousing yourself with gasoline and setting yourself on fire.
But far be it from me to even hint at the unmentionable possibility that the House of Saud's connection with yet another dynasty-the Bush one from this country-may have played no small role in granting him this cozy sentence at this comfortable retreat.
This is after all a chance for Teddy boy to play hero yet again. He is well on his way to establishing his heroic credentials, after all. He recently rescued five fishermen from drowning when their fishing boat overturned. Teddy just happened along and saved all five of them.
He is, therefore, four to the good. But why stop there? A drunken relapse, one cleverly orchestrated, could well land him within the confines of the Martha Vineyards Bed And Breakfast. He could well find, through yet more careful planning, that he has been designated Mr. Saud's, if not roommante, then at least his next door neighbor. Since Al Saud seems to have no problems with forgetting the Islamic prohibitions agaisnt alcohol, he would surely be delighted to note Teddy removing from his inner vest pocket a flask of Scotch. Teddy with a wink could offer him a drink, with the suggestion that he doesn't mind, he has a whole fifth on the way.
A good conversation could ensue, and in the course of teaching this young scion of the house of Saud such rousing drinking songs as "row row row your boat", the light hearted camaraderie that would surely follow would or should lead to a quick friendship, a fast bonding betwen these two powerful and influential men. Teddy, I hear, is a person that is easily confided in, so it shouldn't take an experienced pro like himself long to have Al Saud singing like a canary.
The House of Saud. The House Of Bush. What stories I bet he could tell.
There is some controversy as to his confinement in this particular jail, as the crime for which he was sentenced happens to have taken place in Boston. The crime? While driving drunk, and withot a license, he ran down and killed on Orlando Ramos. Evidently, the leniency of his sentence was encouraged by his plea, in addition to his legal teams assertions that the unfortunate Mr. Ramos was himself drunk, and depressed, and may have intentionally walked in front of Al Saud's vehicle. Hell of a way to kill yourself, if you ask me, right up there with dousing yourself with gasoline and setting yourself on fire.
But far be it from me to even hint at the unmentionable possibility that the House of Saud's connection with yet another dynasty-the Bush one from this country-may have played no small role in granting him this cozy sentence at this comfortable retreat.
This is after all a chance for Teddy boy to play hero yet again. He is well on his way to establishing his heroic credentials, after all. He recently rescued five fishermen from drowning when their fishing boat overturned. Teddy just happened along and saved all five of them.
He is, therefore, four to the good. But why stop there? A drunken relapse, one cleverly orchestrated, could well land him within the confines of the Martha Vineyards Bed And Breakfast. He could well find, through yet more careful planning, that he has been designated Mr. Saud's, if not roommante, then at least his next door neighbor. Since Al Saud seems to have no problems with forgetting the Islamic prohibitions agaisnt alcohol, he would surely be delighted to note Teddy removing from his inner vest pocket a flask of Scotch. Teddy with a wink could offer him a drink, with the suggestion that he doesn't mind, he has a whole fifth on the way.
A good conversation could ensue, and in the course of teaching this young scion of the house of Saud such rousing drinking songs as "row row row your boat", the light hearted camaraderie that would surely follow would or should lead to a quick friendship, a fast bonding betwen these two powerful and influential men. Teddy, I hear, is a person that is easily confided in, so it shouldn't take an experienced pro like himself long to have Al Saud singing like a canary.
The House of Saud. The House Of Bush. What stories I bet he could tell.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Returns of Neptune-Too Little Too Late
In an effort to shore up his popularity beyond the 38% or so approval rating at which he is currently stuck, George W. Bush has finaly out of desperation decided to pursue an initiative of enhanced border security, unveiling a series of high tech innovations, such as unmanned aircraft drones and infrared surveillance cameras, in addition to promising an increase in border agents. As there has been an increase in atacks on border agents by illegal Mexican immigrants over the last few months, this would of course be met with approval.
Bush also promises he does not approve of any kind of amnesty. This is meant to allay the fears of traditional conservatives. But it doesn't ring true. It rings to me of politics, as a ploy, meant to do the same thing Bush always does. Say what people want to hear, andthen do the exact damned oppossite. He has pursued this tactic to great effect especially on environmental concerns, while turning back the clock on a vast aray of environmental measures and laws that were first initiated by the Clinton Administration. Yet, to hear Bush tell it, he is the best political friend of the environment since Teddy Roosevelt.
Bush knows the chickens are starting to come home to roost on him. But what else can he do? I hope I am wrong, I hope that he is sincere, and that these new initiatives for border security will be adequately staffed and funded, and followed through. Even if they are, of coure, it is not enough, not by a long shot, but at least it's a start. But I doubt that start will ever really leave the starting line, will just be stuck in place as a kind of show horse, so Bush can say, lookey what I got. But it will be nothing, just another image without substance.
And eventually on this as well the chickens will come home to roost, only in this case Bush will probably be gone by then. Not long gone, unfortunately, but gone by two or three years at least, I would say.
Why two or three years? Here's where things take a mystical turn. The year 2010 will mark the anniversary, the first return, of Neptune to the exact spot in Aquarius, more or less, from which it was during-the Mexican American War. And that is really what the potential leading up to 2010 is, an actual Mexican American War, only one fought out not between two nationalistic, jingoistic armies, one a purported Republic, the other a military dictatorship-but one fought more along cultural, socio-economic lines, one that could involve the intrusions of armed gangs, some well armed and well funded, drug gangs, violent Mexican illegals with nationalistic leanings, ones agitating to a return to the old state of Aztlan, in which California, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, was under Mexican suzerainty. In short, another terrorist type of conflict.
Only this time, the major theatre of war could be within our own borders.
Bush also promises he does not approve of any kind of amnesty. This is meant to allay the fears of traditional conservatives. But it doesn't ring true. It rings to me of politics, as a ploy, meant to do the same thing Bush always does. Say what people want to hear, andthen do the exact damned oppossite. He has pursued this tactic to great effect especially on environmental concerns, while turning back the clock on a vast aray of environmental measures and laws that were first initiated by the Clinton Administration. Yet, to hear Bush tell it, he is the best political friend of the environment since Teddy Roosevelt.
Bush knows the chickens are starting to come home to roost on him. But what else can he do? I hope I am wrong, I hope that he is sincere, and that these new initiatives for border security will be adequately staffed and funded, and followed through. Even if they are, of coure, it is not enough, not by a long shot, but at least it's a start. But I doubt that start will ever really leave the starting line, will just be stuck in place as a kind of show horse, so Bush can say, lookey what I got. But it will be nothing, just another image without substance.
And eventually on this as well the chickens will come home to roost, only in this case Bush will probably be gone by then. Not long gone, unfortunately, but gone by two or three years at least, I would say.
Why two or three years? Here's where things take a mystical turn. The year 2010 will mark the anniversary, the first return, of Neptune to the exact spot in Aquarius, more or less, from which it was during-the Mexican American War. And that is really what the potential leading up to 2010 is, an actual Mexican American War, only one fought out not between two nationalistic, jingoistic armies, one a purported Republic, the other a military dictatorship-but one fought more along cultural, socio-economic lines, one that could involve the intrusions of armed gangs, some well armed and well funded, drug gangs, violent Mexican illegals with nationalistic leanings, ones agitating to a return to the old state of Aztlan, in which California, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, was under Mexican suzerainty. In short, another terrorist type of conflict.
Only this time, the major theatre of war could be within our own borders.
Conservatives True Colors
I have been beside myself the last few months, ever since the New Orleans Katrina disaster, over the attitude of some avowed and committed conservatives. They should really be ashamed of themselves, but unfortunately I have yet to hear a single one offer any kind of rational explanation, nevermind an apology, for the vile and despicable things they said concerning the black victims of the disaster. Accordding to these, many of whom unbelievably consdier themselves to be good, religous, faithful Christians, the black residents of New Orleans pretty much brought their troubles on themselves. They failed to get out of the area, despte the many times they were warned to do so. never mind that many of these people had no way out fo the city, did not have the money to purchase transportation away, nor did they have anywhere to go or money to rent a place if they did get away. Yet, it is somehow their own faults.
It was certainy not the fault of George W. Bush, or FEMA or any similar Federal Government bureaucracy. On the other hand, the minute there was any kind of indication that the Democratic Party might have been in part responsible, either on the state or the local level, they were stunningly quick to pounce on that.
Then came the riots. What turned out to be a relative handful, a miority, of rioters engaging in looting, violence, and suppossedly even mureder and rape (all of which it turns out was greatly exaggerated) they insisted was indicative of the attitudes and predispositions of the majority, of not all, of the black residents of New Orleans.
Now that some time has passed, all this has seemingly been quickly forgotten. But I have not forgotten, nor will I ever forget it. I have been paying close attention, in fact, to see if Bush and the Republican Congress holds true to their word for much needed aid to the city and residents. They must have thought we would all be napping when FEMA announced the residents stil in hotel rooms would have to leave by a certain date. This was announced before Thanksgiving, and the final date was sometime well before Christmas when the unfortunate residents would have to evacuate from their temporary emergency lodgings. Happy Holidays!
Nwo they have been floating a trial balloon. Maybe New Orleans should not be rebuilt at all. A far cry from the money that was promised to strengthen the levees to the point where they should have been strengthened before the disaster. Whatever is decided, it is a long way off before the majority of New orleans residents wil be enabled to get their lives back on track, before he Crescent City is resotred to any semblance of it's former glory. Perhaps it never can be.
A lot of Republican conservatives doubtless could not prevent their mouths from watering at the prospect of the city being rebuildt to their specifications, with upper income condos stretching as far as the eye can see, new offices and homes overseeing a charade of a French Quarter, devoid of any true life, bereft of it's soul, a mere mecca for the ultra rich which would once a year, on Mardi Gras, pander to the appetites of a nation hungry for diversion and for absolution. Of course, there would be some area set aside for poor dock workers, well out of sight of the tourists and the upper crust districts that stride triumphantly where once rested the Ninth Ward.
A once a year Disneyland, for one week, in the midst of a renovated commercial/luxury area more akin to Key Biscayne than to New Orleans.
Well, that dream is over. And now come the recriminations. It could take a handful of people, such as Mayor Ray Nagin, and Senator Mary Landrieu, to get things back on track, and to ensure the federal government and Washington politicians, in addition to state and local civil and business entities, stand firm on their previous committments. Hopefully, they will do so, and in time New Orleans will be restored, better than ever. Hopefully, the original residents will return, with increased opportunities to advance themselves.
But I can not help but wonder how disspointed some Conservative Republicans were that the original death toll of 10,000 postulated by Mayor Nagin turned out to be greatly inflated from the actual 1000 or so actually dead. Maybe they would be lucky, and it would turn out to be more like 100,000, maybe more, uninsured people whose properties could easily be condemened, and sold for a song. Give em some jazz, some blues.
Maybe if they hold out for as long as possible, on aid and reconstruction, maybe even cause them more grief than they can bear in the long run, the majority of them will decide it's not worth it, will decide to remain where they are now, or go somewhere else, anywhere but New Orleans.
I know it sounds harsh, surely no one can be so callous, so uncaring, so unfeeling, about their fellow Americans. My only answer to that is, all you have to do is navigate some of the past forums and e-mail message groups, such as Yahoo Groups, etc., and go back over their archives to the time in question. The bigotry, the intolerance, the racism, and out and out despicable level of ignorance displayed toward the poor black residents of New Orleans, the black victimes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reeks of a kind of vile filth one could scarcely imagine. And still they are in denial as to their own level of bigotry, which they put on public display for all to see.
They should really be ashamed of themselves. But evidently they have no shame, and this says a lot not only about them, it makes you wonder about the values of the poiticans they claim to support, and the religous values they purport to have.
It was certainy not the fault of George W. Bush, or FEMA or any similar Federal Government bureaucracy. On the other hand, the minute there was any kind of indication that the Democratic Party might have been in part responsible, either on the state or the local level, they were stunningly quick to pounce on that.
Then came the riots. What turned out to be a relative handful, a miority, of rioters engaging in looting, violence, and suppossedly even mureder and rape (all of which it turns out was greatly exaggerated) they insisted was indicative of the attitudes and predispositions of the majority, of not all, of the black residents of New Orleans.
Now that some time has passed, all this has seemingly been quickly forgotten. But I have not forgotten, nor will I ever forget it. I have been paying close attention, in fact, to see if Bush and the Republican Congress holds true to their word for much needed aid to the city and residents. They must have thought we would all be napping when FEMA announced the residents stil in hotel rooms would have to leave by a certain date. This was announced before Thanksgiving, and the final date was sometime well before Christmas when the unfortunate residents would have to evacuate from their temporary emergency lodgings. Happy Holidays!
Nwo they have been floating a trial balloon. Maybe New Orleans should not be rebuilt at all. A far cry from the money that was promised to strengthen the levees to the point where they should have been strengthened before the disaster. Whatever is decided, it is a long way off before the majority of New orleans residents wil be enabled to get their lives back on track, before he Crescent City is resotred to any semblance of it's former glory. Perhaps it never can be.
A lot of Republican conservatives doubtless could not prevent their mouths from watering at the prospect of the city being rebuildt to their specifications, with upper income condos stretching as far as the eye can see, new offices and homes overseeing a charade of a French Quarter, devoid of any true life, bereft of it's soul, a mere mecca for the ultra rich which would once a year, on Mardi Gras, pander to the appetites of a nation hungry for diversion and for absolution. Of course, there would be some area set aside for poor dock workers, well out of sight of the tourists and the upper crust districts that stride triumphantly where once rested the Ninth Ward.
A once a year Disneyland, for one week, in the midst of a renovated commercial/luxury area more akin to Key Biscayne than to New Orleans.
Well, that dream is over. And now come the recriminations. It could take a handful of people, such as Mayor Ray Nagin, and Senator Mary Landrieu, to get things back on track, and to ensure the federal government and Washington politicians, in addition to state and local civil and business entities, stand firm on their previous committments. Hopefully, they will do so, and in time New Orleans will be restored, better than ever. Hopefully, the original residents will return, with increased opportunities to advance themselves.
But I can not help but wonder how disspointed some Conservative Republicans were that the original death toll of 10,000 postulated by Mayor Nagin turned out to be greatly inflated from the actual 1000 or so actually dead. Maybe they would be lucky, and it would turn out to be more like 100,000, maybe more, uninsured people whose properties could easily be condemened, and sold for a song. Give em some jazz, some blues.
Maybe if they hold out for as long as possible, on aid and reconstruction, maybe even cause them more grief than they can bear in the long run, the majority of them will decide it's not worth it, will decide to remain where they are now, or go somewhere else, anywhere but New Orleans.
I know it sounds harsh, surely no one can be so callous, so uncaring, so unfeeling, about their fellow Americans. My only answer to that is, all you have to do is navigate some of the past forums and e-mail message groups, such as Yahoo Groups, etc., and go back over their archives to the time in question. The bigotry, the intolerance, the racism, and out and out despicable level of ignorance displayed toward the poor black residents of New Orleans, the black victimes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reeks of a kind of vile filth one could scarcely imagine. And still they are in denial as to their own level of bigotry, which they put on public display for all to see.
They should really be ashamed of themselves. But evidently they have no shame, and this says a lot not only about them, it makes you wonder about the values of the poiticans they claim to support, and the religous values they purport to have.
"Tookie" Williams
If anybody deserves the death penalty-and there are penty who do-then this former Crips leader and founder would cetainly qualify as among the list of most deserving. Yet, there is a good chance that California Governor Arnold Swarzennegger will, bowing to pressure from the left, grant clemency. After all, he has a staunch array of advocates and defenders, including rapper Snoop Dogg, who refers to Williams as an "inspiration".
I would be the first to assert that anyone can change, and promote a generally positive contribution to society. But how do you make up for seven lives? Granted, four of the lives Williams was convicted of being responsible for taking were rival gang members, but there were those other three. Simple Chinese storeowners, a man and his wife and daughter. Doubtless witnesses or complainants to Williams criminal enterprises, perhaps victims who would no longer sit back and take it, who would no longer remain silent. The reason is really irrelevant. The point is, they did not deserve their fate.
True, Williams has sought to make amends, to an extent, by becomming an author of childrens books, and a seemingly tireless anti-gang activist. In this way, he has contributed to undoing the harm he has wrought on society.
Well,that would take some doing, to be sure. For one thing, it would be almost impossible for him to balance out the scales. I am not here speaking about the three innocent lives that he destroyed forever, or the grief that he caused this families friends and extended relatives, but instead I refer to the overall harm he wrought on society. In the long run, Williams is responsible for more loss of life than the seven for which he was convicted. And if it were possible to total up all the lives that were ended by violence due to the influence of this gang that he founded and ran for so long, that would still not be the end of it.
You would still have to figure in all the lives that he has irrevocably ruined, all the children who were lead into a life of crimes and drug addiction, eventual prostitution, and criminal records, some of which may have eventually resulted in their own executions.
Though I am an advocate of the death penalty, I am not one of those kill crazy types who would kill any criminal at the slightest pretext. In fact, I am a staunch advocate of prison reform. I think an emphasis on rehabilitation and education, with proper medical care, job training, and viable pay and benefits while in prison for those most deserving, is the real way to go. I also think prison safety for all prisoners regardles of the crimes for which they are convicted, is appropriate.
But at the same time, there are some prisoners that can probably never be rehabilitated, and in addition, there are some who, due to the nature of their crimes, should never be set free again. I would think the death penalty would be merciful. Why would anyone want to live their entire life in prison?
At any rate, there are some cases in which the death penalty is just simply the only option that is justified. Tookie Williams fits the bill. He is obviously guilty of all seven of the murders for which he was convicted. He is just as obviously guilty of all the ruined lives and destroyed families I have spoken of. A few speeches and books, no matter how thoughtful, positive, and sincere, is not going to atone for that.
Now if there were some viable, legitimate questions as to his guilt, I would concede that clemency is appropriate, and in fact I would be the first to demand it. But this is not the case here. This man is obviously guilty. There can be no legitimate claims made here to the effect that his execution is racially motivated. His crimes are that obvious and glaring.
Whatever good he might do toward advocating against gangs were he allowed to live, there is one inescapable conclusion. His death for these crimes would be just as dramatic, and an even more final, statement and warning against the lifestyle of criminal gangs.
I would concede there may even be riots, in addition to peaceful protests, agaisnt his execution, some of which might erupt in violence once the execution is finally conducted. The California State Police, and local police of various municipalities, should be aware of this, and prepare accordingly.
But this should simply not be an excuse for allowing this man to escape the death penalty which he is certainly deserving of. After all, there are many gang leaders and members who have a lot at stake, in a sordid kind of public relations way, in seeing that this man is not executed. If his death were to hinder or lessen in any way their future membership drives, that in itself would be a reason not to spare him.
I would be the first to assert that anyone can change, and promote a generally positive contribution to society. But how do you make up for seven lives? Granted, four of the lives Williams was convicted of being responsible for taking were rival gang members, but there were those other three. Simple Chinese storeowners, a man and his wife and daughter. Doubtless witnesses or complainants to Williams criminal enterprises, perhaps victims who would no longer sit back and take it, who would no longer remain silent. The reason is really irrelevant. The point is, they did not deserve their fate.
True, Williams has sought to make amends, to an extent, by becomming an author of childrens books, and a seemingly tireless anti-gang activist. In this way, he has contributed to undoing the harm he has wrought on society.
Well,that would take some doing, to be sure. For one thing, it would be almost impossible for him to balance out the scales. I am not here speaking about the three innocent lives that he destroyed forever, or the grief that he caused this families friends and extended relatives, but instead I refer to the overall harm he wrought on society. In the long run, Williams is responsible for more loss of life than the seven for which he was convicted. And if it were possible to total up all the lives that were ended by violence due to the influence of this gang that he founded and ran for so long, that would still not be the end of it.
You would still have to figure in all the lives that he has irrevocably ruined, all the children who were lead into a life of crimes and drug addiction, eventual prostitution, and criminal records, some of which may have eventually resulted in their own executions.
Though I am an advocate of the death penalty, I am not one of those kill crazy types who would kill any criminal at the slightest pretext. In fact, I am a staunch advocate of prison reform. I think an emphasis on rehabilitation and education, with proper medical care, job training, and viable pay and benefits while in prison for those most deserving, is the real way to go. I also think prison safety for all prisoners regardles of the crimes for which they are convicted, is appropriate.
But at the same time, there are some prisoners that can probably never be rehabilitated, and in addition, there are some who, due to the nature of their crimes, should never be set free again. I would think the death penalty would be merciful. Why would anyone want to live their entire life in prison?
At any rate, there are some cases in which the death penalty is just simply the only option that is justified. Tookie Williams fits the bill. He is obviously guilty of all seven of the murders for which he was convicted. He is just as obviously guilty of all the ruined lives and destroyed families I have spoken of. A few speeches and books, no matter how thoughtful, positive, and sincere, is not going to atone for that.
Now if there were some viable, legitimate questions as to his guilt, I would concede that clemency is appropriate, and in fact I would be the first to demand it. But this is not the case here. This man is obviously guilty. There can be no legitimate claims made here to the effect that his execution is racially motivated. His crimes are that obvious and glaring.
Whatever good he might do toward advocating against gangs were he allowed to live, there is one inescapable conclusion. His death for these crimes would be just as dramatic, and an even more final, statement and warning against the lifestyle of criminal gangs.
I would concede there may even be riots, in addition to peaceful protests, agaisnt his execution, some of which might erupt in violence once the execution is finally conducted. The California State Police, and local police of various municipalities, should be aware of this, and prepare accordingly.
But this should simply not be an excuse for allowing this man to escape the death penalty which he is certainly deserving of. After all, there are many gang leaders and members who have a lot at stake, in a sordid kind of public relations way, in seeing that this man is not executed. If his death were to hinder or lessen in any way their future membership drives, that in itself would be a reason not to spare him.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Ramsey Clark Should Watch His Ass
Former U.S. Attorney General (Under Lyndon Johnson) Ramsey Clark probably wishes he had thought long and hard before even considering becomming Saddam Husseins Defense Attorney. After all, a number of Saddam's co-defendant's counsels have been abducted and/or assassinated. Their families have been targeted. Although it is unclear who the perpetrators are, it would seem that it is people who have had grievances with the former regime. It is also possible that it is actualy Ba'ath loyalists who consider the trial a sham, a public spectacle, and htat the verdict is a foregone conclusion. They would consider this not so much due to the obviyus weight of the evidence, which is weighted heavily toward the prosecution, but because the American occuppiers have all ready pre-ordained the outcome.
General Clark would probably echoe those sentiments, and has moved that the trial be held elsewhere, both for reasons of assurrances of a fair trial, and for the very legitimate security concerns.
He now has some extra time to make this case. Following his last appearrance, Saddam was told that the trial would be put off until the 6th of December. Not a lot of time, and I have grave doubts as to the trial being held anywhere but in Iraq.
Saddam was as obstreperos as ever. He complained bitterly about having to walk up six flights of stairs in shackles due to the elevator being out of order. The judge seemed sympathetic enough and told him he would tell the Americans to fix the problems. Saddam was adamant as he complained to the effect that the judge was an Iraqi, the Americans were occuppiers. You do not tell them anything, he insisted, you order them. These Amricans, he compkained, had manhandled him.
This from a man who, if the accussations are correct, had dissenters to his regime gassed bythe hundreds, if not thousands, had prisoners thrown from the tops of two or three story walls, had other prisoners arms and legs put through a wood chipper, and had wives and daughters of rivals ,both real and suppossed, raped.
No wonder Ramsey Clark feels as though he has his work more than cut out for him if the trial is held in Iraq, bu thwile he is concerned about fairness for Saddam, he had better be at least as concerned for his own safety. With Saddams fellow defendants lawyers being killed, it stands to reason that Ramsey Clark himself is not safe. And the danger may come from other quarters than opponnents of Saddams out for revenge.
Ramsey Clark, as a former U.S. Attorney General, knows full well what the relationship of the U.S. gvernment with Saddam was prior to the year of the First Gulf War. And he is well aware of the very cordial relationship that seems to have existed between Saddam and Vice President Dick Cheney, back in the days when Saddam was considered a necessary evil to balance the very real dangers of the fundamentalist Ayatollahs of Iran. It was during htis period, of the Reaan admiistration, and the earlier years of the Bush administration, that Saddam acquired, largely through the initiatives of then Secretary of Defense Cheney-well, ironically, weapons of mass destruction.
It is even conceivable that Dick Cheney could even be called as a witness to Saddamns trial. Such a tactic would be considered grandstsnding, of course, and this would probably be the case, but it would grandstanding with a point. Of course, Cheney would refuse to testify, and it is unlikely that he could be forced to do so, nor is it likely that former President George H. W. Bush could be forced to appear at the former Iraqi dictator's trial.
The question becomes, what is the precedent in Iraqi law that would enable the Iraqi judge to compel the testimony of men such as this? The answer is, of course, there is no such precedent. Iraqi law is, as it were, being made up out of whole cloth. And so, unless there is a provision in the newly drafted Iraqi legal code that specifies one way or another, the Judge could make precedent any way he chooses.
Ramsey Clark of course is well aware of this, and is probably aware that such a legal maneuvering would throw the entire proceedings into turmoil, into a tailspin as it were. He would certainly be aware of the points of American law that would make it possible or not to call such defendants, and he obviously will take advantage of any pretext on behalf of this client. Like any good lawyer, he is determined, no doubt, to get Saddam off the hook, and will use any legal trick or maneuvering at his disposal.
That is why he had better be damned careful. After all, a random sniper shot, or a suicide car bomber, or even a sudden kidnapping, could very easily be seen as the mark of the same anti-Saddam (or Pro-Saddam) insurgents who have all ready taken the lives of the Iraqi defense attorneys mentioned previously.
Ramsey Clarks knowledge of the ins and outs of American governent, intenational laws and precedent-and his probably ready familiarity with Iraqi/American relations and history, is comparable to knowing where the bodies have all been buried, and are rotting and reeking. Saddam could care less at this point about those bodies being uncovered. But others may not share his lack of concern.
A great part of the Iraqis present dislike for Americans, after all, may be found in the simple fact of the realization that, love him or hate him, Saddam started out as America's spoiled and tantrum throwing child, until he stepped over the line we drew too late across the sand.
General Clark would probably echoe those sentiments, and has moved that the trial be held elsewhere, both for reasons of assurrances of a fair trial, and for the very legitimate security concerns.
He now has some extra time to make this case. Following his last appearrance, Saddam was told that the trial would be put off until the 6th of December. Not a lot of time, and I have grave doubts as to the trial being held anywhere but in Iraq.
Saddam was as obstreperos as ever. He complained bitterly about having to walk up six flights of stairs in shackles due to the elevator being out of order. The judge seemed sympathetic enough and told him he would tell the Americans to fix the problems. Saddam was adamant as he complained to the effect that the judge was an Iraqi, the Americans were occuppiers. You do not tell them anything, he insisted, you order them. These Amricans, he compkained, had manhandled him.
This from a man who, if the accussations are correct, had dissenters to his regime gassed bythe hundreds, if not thousands, had prisoners thrown from the tops of two or three story walls, had other prisoners arms and legs put through a wood chipper, and had wives and daughters of rivals ,both real and suppossed, raped.
No wonder Ramsey Clark feels as though he has his work more than cut out for him if the trial is held in Iraq, bu thwile he is concerned about fairness for Saddam, he had better be at least as concerned for his own safety. With Saddams fellow defendants lawyers being killed, it stands to reason that Ramsey Clark himself is not safe. And the danger may come from other quarters than opponnents of Saddams out for revenge.
Ramsey Clark, as a former U.S. Attorney General, knows full well what the relationship of the U.S. gvernment with Saddam was prior to the year of the First Gulf War. And he is well aware of the very cordial relationship that seems to have existed between Saddam and Vice President Dick Cheney, back in the days when Saddam was considered a necessary evil to balance the very real dangers of the fundamentalist Ayatollahs of Iran. It was during htis period, of the Reaan admiistration, and the earlier years of the Bush administration, that Saddam acquired, largely through the initiatives of then Secretary of Defense Cheney-well, ironically, weapons of mass destruction.
It is even conceivable that Dick Cheney could even be called as a witness to Saddamns trial. Such a tactic would be considered grandstsnding, of course, and this would probably be the case, but it would grandstanding with a point. Of course, Cheney would refuse to testify, and it is unlikely that he could be forced to do so, nor is it likely that former President George H. W. Bush could be forced to appear at the former Iraqi dictator's trial.
The question becomes, what is the precedent in Iraqi law that would enable the Iraqi judge to compel the testimony of men such as this? The answer is, of course, there is no such precedent. Iraqi law is, as it were, being made up out of whole cloth. And so, unless there is a provision in the newly drafted Iraqi legal code that specifies one way or another, the Judge could make precedent any way he chooses.
Ramsey Clark of course is well aware of this, and is probably aware that such a legal maneuvering would throw the entire proceedings into turmoil, into a tailspin as it were. He would certainly be aware of the points of American law that would make it possible or not to call such defendants, and he obviously will take advantage of any pretext on behalf of this client. Like any good lawyer, he is determined, no doubt, to get Saddam off the hook, and will use any legal trick or maneuvering at his disposal.
That is why he had better be damned careful. After all, a random sniper shot, or a suicide car bomber, or even a sudden kidnapping, could very easily be seen as the mark of the same anti-Saddam (or Pro-Saddam) insurgents who have all ready taken the lives of the Iraqi defense attorneys mentioned previously.
Ramsey Clarks knowledge of the ins and outs of American governent, intenational laws and precedent-and his probably ready familiarity with Iraqi/American relations and history, is comparable to knowing where the bodies have all been buried, and are rotting and reeking. Saddam could care less at this point about those bodies being uncovered. But others may not share his lack of concern.
A great part of the Iraqis present dislike for Americans, after all, may be found in the simple fact of the realization that, love him or hate him, Saddam started out as America's spoiled and tantrum throwing child, until he stepped over the line we drew too late across the sand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)