The Coming Surge In Iraq-What Will It Accomplish?

I’ll give Bush credit for one thing, he never gives up. Even when he should. The Bush speech last night was certainly a reflection of that.

Here is the way life is. The following is true American history. It is called reality.

WARS AMERICA HAS WON-

1. American War of Independence-1776 to 1782. The American public might have been every bit as divided as the British. But we were fighting a defensive war, and it was being fought and lead by a bunch of people who were of such towering genius, we couldn’t have lost it. If George W. Bush had been alive at this time, and was in Washington’s camp, he would have been doing what George W. Bush does best-chopping wood and clearing brush.
2. The Barbary Pirates-The first time we put it to a bunch of Muslims they were pirates from North African Muslim states, who thought they had every right in the world to take our ships and their cargo and sell our “infidel” crew into slavery. This had been going on for quite sometime, since Washington's presidency, in fact. Thomas Jefferson finally put an end to it. Too damn bad we didn’t have nukes back then, we probably wouldn’t be putting up with the shit we are contending with now. (Hint, Hint)
3. War of 1812-1812 to 1814. Some people say this was an unnecessary war, and that it ended in a draw. BULLSHIT! Our crews were being impressed into the British navy, and it took this war to stop it, which it did. It also netted us territory which extended for the first time to the Pacific coast, in the Northwest. A war well fought by President Madison, one of our most underrated Presidents as well as one of our most brilliant founding fathers.
4. Mexican American War-1847 to 1849. A war we will hopefully revisit, the sooner the better. I have very special ideas in regards the fate that needs to be visited on the roughly one percent of the people that rule that sorry excuse for a country.
5. American Civil War-1861 to 1865. The right side won that one. They would have won it without the war, it just might have take thirty or forty years longer.
6. Spanish American War-1897 to 1899. A big misunderstanding about an explosion on the battleship Maine caused this one, which was the war that set the stage for the extension of our political, economic, and military influence around the world. We never should have fought it, other than running the Spanish out of our hemisphere, but one was probably impossible without all the other. Whatever, we won it. I’m still expecting some nutty Spanish judge to charge us with war crimes any minute now just because of it.
7. World War I-1917 to 1918. Yeah, believe it or not it really was over that quick, once we got involved, though it had actually been ongoing without us since 1914.
8. World War II-1941 to 1945. What can you say? Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan because of Pearl Harbor. We were right to provide aid to Britain, otherwise we should have just ignored the Germans until we annihilated Japan. By that time, both Germany and the Soviet Union would have been wrecked and we could have blown them over with little effort. The world would be our oyster. Sure it would have taken Europe longer to rebuild. Who’s fault would that be? Really?
9. The Korean War-1948 to 1953. Here, a lot of people might question my assertion that we won this war. Well, we did. That is because we achieved ALL of our stated objectives. These never included the overthrow of the North Korean government, it was simply to prevent an armed takeover by the North of The South, and to reach a political settlement which provided for recognition of South Korean sovereignty and legitimate security concerns, and in lieu of peace, an agreement for the cessation of hostilities. True, we would have preferred a peace treaty, but you don’t always get what you want-even in victory. Again, we achieved our objectives. As a result, South Korea is one of the few Asian countries that are not only democratic (for more than fifty years now), but have a decent standard of living to boot.
10. Grenada-1985.A strategic victory that has been unfairly minimized due to the relative insignificance of the island insofar as size, population, or any kind of meaningful economic importance. Still, in one of his few good moves, Reagan realized the potential strategic importance of the island if it fell into communist control, and so quickly secured the island.
11. Panama-1989.George Herbert Walker Bush’s war, and one of significant strategic importance. The fact that he and his cronies allowed Noriega such a degree of influence and potential risk is another matter. The point is, it’s another one in the win column.
12. The First Gulf War-1991.A masterfully conducted war by George Herbert Walker Bush, who for some time played Saddam Hussein like an old violin, for all he was worth. Then, he tuned his strings, but good. True, it was all orchestrated from beginning to end. As brilliantly conceived and executed as it all was, even the best of shows must sometime close the curtain for good. If you don’t believe me, ask any good Broadway artist.
13. Indian Wars-A whole shit load of them that ran from the French and Indian Wars, while we were still a colony of Britain, on through the War of 1812, the wars of settlement of Kentucky in the 1770’s, a whole bunch of other conflicts and skirmishes, on down through the late eighteen hundreds. By the time the 1890’s arrived, it was finally all pretty much over. It never would have happened if the Indians hadn’t sided with the French in the French and Indian War, and especially if they hadn’t sided with the British in the War of 1812, but once they did that, they pretty much sealed their fate. Consider that the next time somebody moans about the “Trail of Tears”. Whatever your legitimate feelings about broken treaties and smallpox infested blankets from President Harrison, and other heavy handed tactics and outright cruelties, they all can be traced to those historical events, which Indian apologists generally ignore. I do not. And, again, we won.

THE WARS WE LOST

1. Vietnam-1965 to 1975. Yep, we were lied and manipulated into that one, from the moment of its escalation in 1965 under President Johnson (we were actually there in limited numbers, ten thousand soldiers at most, under Kennedy, in more of an advisory and training capacity), until the moment of our departure ten years later. We never should have gone there. It was a civil war, unlike Korea, where the two sides were explicitly divided. In Vietnam, the greatest enemies we faced were NOT the NVA of Ho Chi Minh, but were actually the Viet Cong, who were for the most part South Vietnamese sympathizers of and to the North. I don’t think it is known exactly what percentage of the South Vietnamese were Northern sympathizers, but their number was significant enough that the South Vietnamese government never had a chance. It might have helped if they had not been so corrupt. But, alas,they were. The North, who were supported by the Soviet Union, wanted us out. So did a lot of the South, maybe half of them, maybe more. More importantly, so did most of our own people, even those that wanted us to fight until we could achieve “peace with honor”. Where we fucked up was, after we left, the Democratic Congress refused to fund the South Vietnamese government. But again, they were notoriously corrupt.

After we left, it is interesting to note, the newly unified nation of Vietnam accomplished what few countries have ever been able to do. They fought, and won, a two front war, against Cambodia and The People’s Republic of China. To put it more succinctly, they handed their asses to both of them and for that matter didn’t break a sweat doing it, so far as I can tell.

I repeat, in case you weren’t paying attention, Vietnam defeated China, and Cambodia, at the same time. Now, tell me you wouldn’t want them on your side. By the way, the still communist government of Vietnam has one of the best economies and standards of living in Asia, is well on it’s way to becoming a capitalist market economy, and will gradually probably phase into being a democracy well before China does (if it ever does). Life is funny like that sometimes. Anybody for a little game of Domino Theories?

2. Somalia-The first George Bush got us into that one, with the tacit approval of incoming President Clinton, ostensibly for the purpose of imposing peace in the area which was war torn by various conflicting warlords, augmented by the presence of Soviet weapons from the cold war era which was just recently ended. Note I said ostensibly. I have always believed the real reason was Bush’s desire to manipulate Clinton into a quagmire from which he would never be able to honorably extricate himself, therefore setting up a chance for him to be defeated for re-election in ‘96 on grounds of incompetence in military matters and foreign affairs. Unfortunately for his plans in this regard, Clinton quickly realized there was no way to win in Somalia, and so left. Clinton probably should have stayed longer and tried to work something out with the international community, but in all honesty, it probably would not have turned out any different in the long run, and Clinton probably was well aware of this. As he saw it, he had the choice of fighting a modern guerrilla war with his hands tied behind his back by the international diplomatic community, or leaving before it got even worse and resulted in the loss of more American lives and money. He did the right thing.

So, let’s rehash, shall we?

1. American Revolutionary War-Proves that George Washington can kick George W. Bush’s ass any day of the week.
2. The Barbary Pirates-Proves Muslims need their asses kicked at least once every two hundred years.
3. War of 1812-Proves Madison had a knock-out, hot ass First Lady for a reason.
4. Mexican American War-Proves you don’t need a wall, just a will.
5. American Civil War-Proves the Constitution isn’t perfect, but it can aways be made better with time, just like a fine wine-or cheese. The best thing about it is, this is the best thing about it, aside from the Bill of Rights.
6. Spanish American War-Proves that some idiot Spanish Judge is probably going to charge me with a hate crime some day.
7. World War I-Proves that if you wait long enough, you can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, with relatively minimal losses incurred for your effort.
8. World War II-Proves that most of Europe is made up mainly of ingrates, most of whom are in advanced stages of dementia. If we weren’t still over there propping them up, most of the inmates of that continental old folks home would have bedsores by now. It also proves number seven. Another thing it proves-if you want to have a really good friend and trustworthy ally in the world-nuke them.
9. Korean War-Proves if you set your sights too low, even if you succeed, you will eventually have to worry about a nutty guy with weird hair finger fucking Madeline Albright under the table.
10. Grenada-Proves that even if Reagan ran like a scared little girl from Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, you were well advised to not threaten Nancy’s supply of grenadine syrup. Some cocktails just aren't the same without them, and Goddammit, she was enough of a shrew as it was.
11. Panama-Proves that George H. W. Bush was not a wimp. By God, he was a man-a REAL man.
12. The First Gulf War-Proves that George H. W. Bush was not a wimp. By God, he was a man-a REAL man.
13. The Indian Wars-Proves that American Indians will never stop trying to scalp you. If you don’t believe that just go to any Indian casino. Also proves that when a Republican President who is descended from a former President offers you something he’s probably really trying to give you something, like smallpox.

More important than all of the above, however, might well be the lessons we might learn from our defeats.

1. Vietnam-Proves that John Kennedy probably had a thing for oriental pussy. Also proves that Lyndon Baines Johnson should have sold the Daisy Ad to the Goldwater campaign. And that he had a thing for Oriental pussy. Proves that Richard Nixon liked Chinese pussy, but that was about it. Proves that Gerald Ford probably thought it really did go east to west, and would have probably bit it if he tried to eat it. Proves that Jane Fonda really likes straddling big anti-aircraft guns and little Oriental dicks. Proves John Kerry was a little dick trying to get some Ho. Proves the Democratic Congress were a bunch of pricks. Oh yeah, and it probably proves I’m really hung up on Oriental pussy. Earth to heaven-it’s shaped like all the others, though, just maybe a little better
2. Somalia-Proves that George H. W. Bush was not a wimp. By God, he was a man-a REAL man. it doesn’t prove that Bill Clinton was a man. (That took a pizza delivery by a girl in a thong). It does, however, prove that he wasn’t a fool(except when he's delivered pizzas by girls in thongs).

Which brings us to the subject of Iraq. When this is finally all over with, what will it prove? What will it say about us as a nation? What will it say about the president who started it? Or the president who finally ends it? It might be unfair to speculate. Sometimes, it takes history years to make a final pronouncement, and even then, it is in many cases a tentative one.

Who knows what new facts might come to light about, for example, World War II? Maybe it will be proven Roosevelt really did know the attack was coming after all, and allowed it, in order to have an excuse to enter the war.

Maybe Wilson really was manipulated by Zionist agents to enter world War I so the British would hand them Palestine over as a reward.

Vietnam? Maybe I’ve fucked a whole lot of Vietnamese chicks and just can’t stop thinking about it.

Whatever the case, I hope that when Bush makes his announcement concerning the promised “surge” of new troops in Iraq, I hope the new Democratic Congress does something that Bush has never been used to from previous Congresses. I hope they demand accountability. I hope they demand results.

I also hope this just doesn't turn out to be nothing more than a madcap Madison Avenue based marketing scheme for Coca-Cola investors to cash in when the company reintroduces the high caffeine energy soda called-well, "Surge". I mean, really, why such an emphasis on that one term? Why not simply just say, "send more troops"? Is this possibly just an attempt to draw attention from the fact that this will amount to nothing more than thousands of more American troops with targets on their backs, by substituting a term meant to be a subliminal message that sounds potent, maybe even sexy? A "surge" of power?

By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, I have not yet placed Afghanistan firmly into either a win or lose column. That’s because it hasn’t been won yet. Some people might take issue with that. My reply is, remember President Madison running from Washington DC while the British burned down the White House during the war of 1812? Well, how exactly did that turn out again?

Please don’t misunderstand me. I do want us to win both of these wars. I just think it’s too late in the case of Iraq. And the more time that passes, the more it might get to the point where it’s too late in Afghanistan as well. If we do end up having to leave either place without accomplishing our objectives, it won’t be the fault of the person or people that finally pull us out of there. It will be because of the incompetence of the ones that took us there. And you know where that buck stops. And you know where he is probably going to be two years from now.

Somewhere on a ranch in Texas, clearing away brush.

Cornucopia

We all have to make choices in life, so suppose you had to make one like this-

You haven't eaten in four days. You know you will soon starve to death, but you only have one option to prevent this from happening. You have to eat fruit, vegetables, and grain products, and you have quite a wide variety to choose from. There is also a vast selection of meat, prepared in a variety of ways. The one caveat to all this?

The meat is from cloned animals. They were fed from genetically modified grains. By the way, all the other food that you have been offered has also been genetically modified.

Your choice? Yeah, mine too.

I look at it like this. If I were a member of some savage tribe that lived in some remote primeval area, one that practiced cannibalism on a regular basis, and one day I found myself, as usual, partaking of human flesh, I seriously doubt I would have any qualms about eating my victims twin brother/sister.

For that reason, I would have no immediate qualms about eating a cloned animal. Nor would I feel any discomfort at the thought of eating genetically modified food.

To be sure, there are good reasons for concern about both of these issues. There also bad ones. The good reasons can probably be summed up as follows:

The health of the animals. And, true enough, in the early days of cloning, some animals suffered unduly, from arthritis, from heart and lung ailments, and other abnormalities that generally caused their deaths before birth, or a few days after. This was generally thought due in part to the clones being derived from adult animals, and also seems to have been a problem with the animals mothers placenta.

This problem has evidently been brought under control. There are of course other problems. Ethical ones. But these problems are to some degree evidenced among those who in a great many cases are against eating meat under any circumstances, or have some other kind of religious sensibilities to cloning or with tampering with the natural way in which foods are produced.

Genetically modified foods especially are feared to contain potential health risks to the consumer, as well as environmental consequences.

As I said, these are all valid reasons, on at least an individual level. There are other reasons that are valid to a point, such as the concerns among farmers that the growth, production, distribution, and sale of food might one day be controlled by a cartel made up of a relative few big business entities who might corner the market and drive smaller farms and businesses into bankruptcy. They would then control the market, and prices, which they could easily do by underselling smaller farmers who are not in a position to compete.

Then, of course, they would have carte blanc to sell for as low or high a price as they wished.

However, market forces demand adjustment and adaptation. Some degree of government intervention might prove to be vital and necessary, which of course would be a libertarians nightmare. So you are presented with yet another concern.

Then, of course, there are those who would use food distribution as a means of controlling populations.

By and large, though, if this is managed correctly, there should really be no need for starvation in the world. Once this technology is perfected, as it eventually will be, there can be a limitless supply of agricultural products and livestock to feed a continually growing population on fruits, grains, and vegetables that, while their taste may for now not be the best, can at least ward off starvation and malnutrition, with it's associated diseases, in lieu of the simple fact that most genetically modified foods can be grown in any kind of climate or terrain, at least theoretically.

In vast enough amounts, to be sure, to feed the increased livestock population as well as the humans who, in great parts of the world, such as Africa, Asia, and parts of South and Central America-and, sad to say, in parts of the West as well-would not be moved by any objections to the process that would prevent the starvation and misery of themselves and their families.

Of course, starvation and poverty would be one less tool for leverage to be exercised by not only third world dictators, but by charitable organizations who depend on human misery as a vital aspect of their appeal for donations on humanitarian grounds.

This might include in many cases some organizations based out of the United Nations, as well as government agencies from the US and other countries, in addition to foundations that receive a great lot of money by way of grants from these same government and/or UN agencies. And then there are charitable organizations and foundations that are all but dependent on donations from private citizens. When you think about the very considerable amount of money all these entities are engaged in competition for, you have to wonder, in the cases where they are on record as being in opposition to these scientific advances, just how self-serving their concerns really are.

And, for that matter, this would not be limited merely to private charities, or government funded foundations, or UN chartered or other such groups, but, unfortunately, religious organizations as well. They, too, are just as much a part as all the rest, of the mad scramble for position, influence, and money that has become the mega-big business of the Aquarian Age-the Era of the Non-Profit Charitable Organizations.

Unfortunately for all of them, the steady advances of science may in at least this regard threaten to render them obsolete. And that might be just as true of the religious based charities as the private, government, or UN sanctioned ones. In their cases, they might have to find some other way to win savage souls to Christ, or Allah, if the organizations head honchos wanted to keep drawing those big salaries and bonus checks in return for their "non-profit" endeavors. Maybe if they concentrated their efforts to the fields of education.

Whoops! Maybe not.

You, however, should take the time to educate yourself thoroughly on this issue. Like I said, there are concerns, and everyone should watch closely, but with an open mind, to insure that science proceeds in an ethical way, in a humane manner, and with common sense-but not shackled by superstition.

The following links would be two good places to start.

The USDA Cloned Risk Assessment

Genetically Modified Foods

If that is all a little much to digest, might I suggest you do it in a fun way. Read Ira Levin's 1975 novel, The Boys From Brazil.

It contains as good a description of what cloning actually is as any you will read anywhere. It's also a great read, one of my favorite novels of all time. Of course, the more fantastical and horrific parts might give you pause, but on the other hand, that is exactly why this science should be regulated, and monitored. And the only way that can be done is to let science, and progress-and nature-take it's course.

The Crips And Darrent Williams-An Update

It turns out that the 1998 Chevey Tahoe that was being sought in conection with the shooting death of Denver Broncos defensive cornerback Darrent Williams belongs to none other than a gang member, a Crip by the name of Brian Kenneth Hicks.

 

Now the pieces are gradually starting to fall into place. Not entirely though. You see, Mr. Hicks has been in jail since November 9^th of last year, for possession of cocaine. He was also scheduled to go on trial for the attempted murder of a woman by the name of Louisa Clark James, whom Hicks was accussed of shooting at, though he missed her, outside of-get this-

 

Club Safari. Yes, the exact same club Darrent Williams was shot and murdered outside of in the early morning hours of January 1^st.

 

Unfortunately, in the long run Miss James's luck didn't turn out any better than Mr. Williams-she was killed just one week befor her scheduled trial appearrance, in December.

 

Hicks evidently has a long criminal record, and is well known to the Denver police department. In addition to his gang activites, he also owns a clothing store at 2019 E. Colfax Avenue, and is a registered agent for Boss Money Records.

 

The only questions remaining are-

 

Did he put out a hit on Darrent Williams? If so, why? Could it have been a case of mistaken identity? Whatever the case, is there a connection to Hick's legal problems? Will we never know the answers to any of these questions?

 

Such as, for example, did Hicks arrange the hit on behalf of a third party, in return for financial aid in regards his legal problems? He seems to not have the finances to arrange for his bail, and at least one of his businesses is said to be insolvent.

 

The Crips are, after all, one of those widespread, national interstate gangs I alluded to in my previous post on this subject.

 

They are the type that never forget a face, or a betrayal.

And, though it pains me to do so, I feel compelled to wonder that, if Club Safari was known to be frequented by these gang members, why was Darrent Williams there at all? It is easy to arrive at the conclusion, and it would not be much of a leap, to assume that he was known to frequent there, possibly at such times as in the aftermath of a Denver Broncos home game. If so, and if he was targeted, they would know when he would be there.

I have a feeling this story is only going to grow more ominous.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

An Esbat Vision

I had a hell of a dream last night, almost immediately upon dropping off to sleep, one that was so disturbing it woke me right up. After five or ten minutes, I knew what I had to do. I had to pull myself up out of bed and write down the word I heard utterred, because I knew otherwise I would completely forget it by the time I woke up today. So, I dragged myself up out of bed, found a notebood, and wrote down the word-

 

NOMACHUKAH

 

Yeah, I've never heard of it either. But the dream image that I heard utter the word was an African.He appearred to me, looking like a fierce warrior, or chieftain, or maybe what we all used to euphemistically call "witch doctor". And when I sayfierce, believe me I do not exaggerate. It was almost as though he wanted to make sure I heard and understood the word, as it seemed to reverberate in my head. So sure was I of what I heard, I was equally sure of the spelling.

 

As for what it is, if it is a real word, and from a real African dialect, I have no clue which it is, only that it seems to, if it is real, have it's origins somewhere in the area of Central to South Central to East Central Africa. Yes, I know, that's a pretty wide swath of territory, and home to no telling how many lanquages and dialects, absolutely none of which I am the slightest bit familiar with.

 

Today, of course, I determined to ascertain the maning fo the word, if there is one, and could not find anything more than remotely similar, until I broke the word down into it's two major parts.

 

NOMA-Is a disease that is brought on by malnutrition in the very young. There seems to be no cure for it, nor is it clear what actually causes it, though it is believed to be caused by bacteria that attack through the weakened immune system well after the onset of malnutrition. It causes the destruction of the flesh and tissues of the face, causing it to literally be eaten away, much like the ebola virus, only in the vast majorty of cases, this seems to concentrate on the face of the very young. In some rare cases, however, it attacks the genitals.

 

Yes, it is African, in the vast majority of cases, though there have also been cases reported in Asia, and in South America.

 

CHUKAH-Not African, but seems to be some kind of Jewish word (either Hebrew of Yiddish, though I'm not sure which) that means –"constitution".

 

Last night, before going to bed, I observed the Full Moon Esbat,. so this dream may or may not be related to that in some way. What it means, I have no clue. I'm not really sure I want to know.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gourmet Clown Food

The absolute best hamburger in the world - or at least, it damn well should be- is to be found in the nation of Indonesia. Who would'a thunk it? Well, just take a gander at how they raise their cows there, and you might just have discovered the reason for the exceptional quality. Their cattle, to start out with, are fed a diet of milk mixed with beer. I suppose the Islamic prohibition against alcohol doesn't apply to cattle. They are also fed vitamins. And, to insure top notch quality from the entirety of their life on to the dinner table, they are fed grass that is totally free of any pesticides.

 

Once they hit that diner table, they are served with foie gras, potabello mushrooms and Korean pears.

 

All for the low, low, price of $110.00. No, that is not a typo. If you are ever in Indonesia, enjoy. If you can afford to go there, surely you can put aside the money for this experience. I would. I might not like it so much afterward, but who could resist the experience?

 

In case you are wondering-yes, you do get fries with that.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Praying For A Home Team

A lot pf people have a hard time I guess wrapping their heads around the concept that the Vatican is actually a country, but that is what it is. I guess you could wear yourself out walking all through it in a day, but at just under one mile in total territory, you could easily do that. Only San Marino in all of Europe is smaller. Another similarity between these two countries is that they both are inside of, and therefore totally surrounded by, the nation of Italy.

Soon, if Pope Benedict has his way, they will have one more thing in common with not only San Marino, but another similarly tiny nation, Andorra-like them the Vatican will have it’s own soccer team. Yes, it seems the Pope is a rabid soccer fan, and so there has been some discussion lately of fielding a team from among the Catholic Churches many seminarians in Brazil and other South American nations.

I don’t know, it’s hard to picture the Pope or for that matter any of the country’s new team's potential fan base engaging in the brawling and rioting that typically ensues in so many soccer matches, particularly in Europe. Still, the Church still commands a sizeable international population of adherents, even in Europe, so this is not beyond the realm ofpossibility. I can’t help but be curious, though, just how the Church would deal with this potentially embarrassing phenomenon.

Now, for their names. They have a wide variety to choose from, more than you might imagine-

The Angels, The Saints, The Popes, The Cardinals, The Bishops, The Priests, The Monks, The Friars, The Crusaders. Or, they could go for a more modern appeal, with names, for example, like The Apocalypse, the Exorcism, the Prophecy, the Catechism.

They might want to stay away from such names as, The Choirboys, or The Martyrs.

They could always opt for a little humorous play on words, I guess, like “The Holy See Side”.

Yeah, I know, that’s fucking awful. I'll spare you my ideas as to possible team mascots.

Another Senseless Tragedy To Start The New Year

Darrent Wiliams-what a fucked up story to start the New Year.

The Denver Broncos cornerback was shot to death while parked in a snow bank outside a Denver area nightclub early this morning, just hours after the Broncos were defeated in overtime by the San Francisco 49'ers, resulting in their elimination from this years NFL playoffs.

At least two other people, a man and a woman, who have not yet been identified, were also shot and were taken to a Denver hospital.

No one knows as yet who the shooters are or what was the motive, but evidently a vehicle pulled up to the parked automobile which carried Williams and his fellow passengers, and sprayed it with a hail of bullets.

Williams had been a second round draft choice from out of Oklahoma last year, and from the start of his career with the Broncos made an immediate impact. He sufferred a minor shoulder injury in last nights game which necessitated his leaving the game early, after which he reported he would be considering surgery.

Williams had been a troubled youth in his high school years,and was reported to have a propensity to hang out with "the wrong crowd", but upon beginning his college football career, seemed to have turned his life around.

He was reportedly interested in doing charity work aimed at convincing young people to stay away from gangs, and the gang lifestyle. It would be all too easy to speculate that this lead to his murder, but no one knows yet just what the reason was for this senseless tragedy. For that matter, no one can really say that Williams was the actual intended taret, or whether this might have been a case of mistaken identity, or just a bunch of thugs that decided to get their jollies out of killing some people.

When I heard that the Denver area was experiencing a snowstorn at the onset of Yule, I felt that this was significant, a kind of omen, if you will, of some important development that would be centered in the Denver area, yet something that would be of at least some importance extending beyond that immediate area.

I won't go so far yet as to say this news is the fulfillment of that omen. Yet, the fact that Williams had been involved in gangs, and his promising life was ended possibly as a result of something connected to gang activites, certainly gives me some pause, even if this did not directly involve him outside of this tragedy.

Gang activities in the country has been on the back burner pretty much over the last two or three years, with the nations attention focused so intently on the war in Iraq, and the "War On Terror", and other issues that have pushed it into the background.

Yet, this could be the year where it establishes a kind of prominence of national attention, especially given the ever growing influence of illegal criminal immigrant gangs from Mexico and South and Central America.

Whether this turns out to be the case or not, this is certainly a devastating blow to the city of Denver, and to the Broncos team, and to the NFL in general, and speaks volumes about the violence that exists in our society, and the world, always simmerring just below the surface, until it erupts, like it always does from time to time, resulting in pain, sufferring, and deaths that all too often we never hear of, due to the relative obcurity of the victims and the perpetrators involved.

Here's hoping that the New Year will see a resolution to deal with these problems in truly positive ways, as oppossed to the knee jerk reactions they most always inevitably elicit,and which usually-and rightfully-get nowhere, lasting just until the inital tragedies inevitably fade from the general publics immediate memory, save for those families and friends who are forever left bereaved.

Premature Ejaculations Of Justice

There have been hundreds of thousands, actually in a sense millions, of victims of Saddam Hussein, ranging from the Shi'ite majority, to the Kurds in the north of Iraq, to not an insignificant amount of the ruling Sunnis, to citizens of the Shi'ite nation of Iran which Saddam initiated a war with in the 1980's, and whom he assaulted with chemical weapons (as he did many of his own citizens) .

Out of all these hundreds of thousands, or more, victims of Saddam Hussein, now justice has been done-

For 148 of them. 148 Shi'ite men and boys of the town of Dujail, in 1982, who were summarrily executed, without benefit of a trial, for an alleged assassination attempt on Hussein not too long after he first came to power in Iraq (though technically Hussein was the actual ruler for about a decade prior to this, though not in name until about 1979).

Finally, these 148 men and boys have had their grievances aired in an Iraqi court, where Saddam and other co-defendants were tried for this assault on human decency.

At the very most, one percent of one percent of the victims of Saddam Hussein have received their days in court, their grievances heard, and now a part of the public record. For this one percent of one percent, justice has been done.

All of the others will now be quickly forgotten, their grievances never to see the light of day, save in possible future trials of some of Saddams co-conspirators, which will not begin to approach the level of public interest, scrutiny, or publicity. It will be nowhere near as compelling to the vast majority of people as, say, the Nuremburg trials without the presence of Adolf Hitler.

Now, how much more interesting would THAT have been, if Hitler had been a defendant. Transpose that to the current situation in Iraq, and you get the idea. Beides the victims themselves, no one will care, given the nature of the general unpopularity of this war on an international level, and in the US itself. No one outside of Iraq will care. No one outside of the survivors and other victims families will care more than a little.

But, oh well, the show is over. A good symbolic end to the old year, as well as start to the New Year, and to the onset of the Muslim holy festival of Eid. And a good way for the new Iraqi government to declare, however tenously, "now we are in charge."

Saddam, in his last few seconds on earth, had one last wish granted, to not wear the hood that would otherwise have covered his face. In his last symbolic act of showmanship, Saddam declared that he was a sacrifice to the Iraqi people. He also stated that Palestine was Arab.

Then he was hanged, though not with two of his co-defendants (his brother-in-law and the judge who ordered the executions of the Dujail victims) as originally planned, but all alone. This was Saddams day to atone for his crimes. His alone.

In an interesting statement prior to this, Saddam urged his friends and followers not to feel harshly toward the people of the invading nations, that they should not be considered on the same level of duplicity as their leaders.


Saddam Hussein is dead. No danger now of the spectacle of Saddams defense attorneys insisting on calling such American luminaries as former two time Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and current Vice-President Dick Cheney to testify as hostile witnesses-or to point out the embarrassment of their status as potential co-conspirators to this former ally that they backed long ago, with financial and military aid, right about the time a good lot of these atrocities occurred.

Did they know what he was doing? Did they really care? Was Saddam given a wink and a nod? Oh well-

Let's just forget all about that old stuff from long ago, and move forward. Who wants to live in the past?

The Spoils And Casualties Of War-Trump versus O'Donnell

It has been lately announced that Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, might not be deprived of her crown after all, even though Donald Trump, the owner of the Miss USA pageant, and who holds the power to make the final decision over Miss Rees head like the Sword Of Damocles, declared in a recent interview that her situation doesn't look good. Although Trump declared he preferred not to say which way he was leaning in making his ultimate decision, Katie's chances are certainly problematic. More so than in the similar situation involving Miss Kentucky/Miss USA Tara Conner.

This is because, in the case of Miss Conner, there were no pictures of her antics to grace the Internet. The pictorial evidence is abundant in the case of Miss Rees, however. It must be pointed out, on the other hand, and in all fairness, that these pictures were taken a good three years ago, long before Miss Rees was considered, or herself considered, being involved with the pageant.

Frankly, I hope Trump is as merciful and gracious to her as she was Conner, who committed her evident breach of contract while wearing the crown of Miss USA, and with a Miss Teen USA pageant winner to boot (who has in the meantime been denounced by the organization MADD due to her alleged involvement with underage drinking). Still, Trump, in a public press conference in the company of a tearful and repentent Miss Conner, declared her to be a good person, and that she would be given a second chance. She would, however, be expected to conform to the pageants requirements from here on out, and undergo rehab.

I personally thought Trumps handling of the situation with Conner was actually quite commendable. Unfortunately, I do not hold out hopes for him offerring the same clemency to Ms. Rees. And this is due to no other reason, I believe, than his feud with O'Donnell.

I don't know for sure what O'Donnell's hang-ups are, but she started this fight, which was right up Trump's alley. She has been known to be strident and obnoxous when it comes to not just criticizing, but slamming and belittling people whose views waver from her own, something that she seems to think is unacceptable. Most people that have gotten on her bad side, which seems to be notoriously easy to do, fold up like cheap mattresses in awe of her wrath. They might protest their innocence or good intentions, such as Tom Sellick when he was bushwhacked on her old show over his membership in the NRA.

Or as Kelli of Kelli and Regis, when she jokingly chided Clay Aiken when he put his hand over her mouth (I don't know where that hand has been), which O'Donnell insisted was "homophobic".

But Trump has not relented, nor do I believe he ever will back down, from asserting his rights as the pageants owner, nor do I suspect he will apologize for calling O'Donnell a "fat ass" or "ugly" or by asserting that he could send one of his friends over to steal O'Donnells live-in girlfriend. Nor did he mince words in pointing out O'Donnells many failures, foibles, and foolhardy gaffs over the years.

O'Donnell has treaded carefully since all of this output by "The Donald", responding mainly by giving him a dirty look from the safety of the cameras of "The View". Other than that, she has not said a lot, though on her blog, she did write a poem called "Miami", in which she compared Trump to a pimp, and O'Conner (and it would seem pageant contestants in general) to prostitutes who are little more than slaves to the pimp.

I still don't understand what she is mad about. I get the oppossition to beauty pageants, but why this one in particular?

Is she mad because Trump gave Conner another chance that she did not deserve? Is she mad because he seems to feel he has a right to decide one way or another, and seemed to be making a big production out of it? Or is she merely incensed because Conner was engaged in lesbian acts, and so she feels obligated to be her staunch public champon?

What the hell is her problem? Is it just Trump in general? Is it all nothing but a cheap grab at more publicity on her part?

Trump hasn't been much better, in all honesty. The personal insults as to O'Donnells appearrance, for example, are pretty childish. And when you get right down to it, his comments about sending someone over to "steal" her girlfriend could possibly be construed as downright menacing.

I would not want to get on the bad side of Donald Trump. This is a man who has the power to destroy a person if he wants. A billion dollars worth of power could put a lot of hurting on somebody. Obviously, Trump could ruin O'Donnell, if he really wanted to put all the power of his wealth, influence, and connections into it. And he could conceivably do it just to make a point, all the while being careful not to overstep any legal bounds in doing so.

Well, if he wants to do it, fine, O'Donnell has been asking for it, for some time now. The majority of people not only would not really care, they would probably enjoy the spectacle.

But I hope that he does not use Katie Rees as a pawn in his willful and malignant assault on O'Donnell. That could well be where this is going. Since Rosie seemed to object to Trumps dealings with Tara Conner, maybe he decided he would destroy Katie Rees, just to spite Rosie. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

If Trump and O'Donnell are going to duke it out like the two immature school kids they both seem determined to prove that they are, they should keep it between themselves, and meet somewhere after school and have at it.

And may the best man win.

Book Of Shadows-My Project For The Coming Year

Any self-respecting witch should have his or her own Book Of Shadows, what you might call a magical mystery tour of the practitioners ritual and magickal life in progress. A journal, or diary, if you will. Until now, this is something that I have just not been able to keep up with on a consistent basis.

But I had a brainstorm over the last few days, and I'm amazed that I never thought of it before. Instead of messing with parchment and a bound book, I'll just compile my "Book Of Shadows" on Microsoft Word.

It might seem strange, at first glance, but as I've worked on it, I am quite pleased with the results.

It also has the added benefit of being far less likely to fall under the scrutiny of prying eyes, who might wonder just what the hell I have going on here.

Of course even if they did they would glean little information out of it. They would know what it is, because I have it titled "Book Of Shadows". They might even get some meaning out of the section titles. But from there on, they would be left more or less befuddled.

As it happens, my Book Of Shadows has been written entirely in code, by means of Tarot. Every single invoction to a deity, every magickal ritual, every astrology reading, and even every recipe and formula, prayer, etc. (when I get around to including them) will be written in tarot symbology.

Actually, this has several advantages. Not the least of which, it will give the whole body of work a mystical feel to it. In fact, I don't even conscously think of what I am going to write down, I just meditate on the subject, and then do a tarot reading, and copy down the results.

Like I said, no one will know what I am talking about, and after all, a Book Of Shadows is suppossed to be a practitioners own private journal, so tarot symbology will work perfectly for this. Even if my journal were to be seen by somebody who understands tarot as well, or for that matter even better, than I do, such is the nature of the tarot that their interpretations of the cards might not be the correct interpretation. In fact, it would be very unlikely to be.

Of course, there is one initial drawback-I don't know what they mean either. But hey, so much the better. I just have to interpret the tarot readings for my own Book Of Shadows, which will actually make it that much more compelling, and make it that much more a part of me than if I just mechanially wrote down my throughts and feelings in journal form in the usual method.

It's like a living journal, as oppossed to something that's hard and concrete, and will grow and evolve as I hopefully do. For the first time in a long time, I am actually looking forward to this.

An American Soldiers Night Before Christmas

I found this post on Urban Grounds, so thanks to Robbie, that blog's owner and writer. It was written by an American soldier, Sergeant Schmid, who was either stationed or on leave in Washington DC in 1987. I couldn't think of anything more appropriate to share on this Christmas Eve.

MERRY CHRISTMAS, MY FRIEND

‘Twas the night before Christmas, he lived all alone,
In a one-bedroom house made of plaster and stone.
I had come down the chimney, with presents to give
and to see just who in this home did live.

As I looked all about, a strange sight I did see,
no tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.
No stocking by the fire, just boots filled with sand.
On the wall hung pictures of a far distant land.

With medals and badges, awards of all kind,
a sobering thought soon came to my mind.
For this house was different, unlike any I’d seen.
This was the home of a U.S. Marine.

I’d heard stories about them, I had to see more,
so I walked down the hall and pushed open the door.
And there he lay sleeping, silent, alone,
Curled up on the floor in his one-bedroom home.

He seemed so gentle, his face so serene,
Not how I pictured a U.S. Marine.
Was this the hero, of whom I’d just read?
Curled up in his poncho, a floor for his bed?

His head was clean-shaven, his weathered face tan.
I soon understood, this was more than a man.
For I realized the families that I saw that night,
owed their lives to these men, who were willing to fight.

Soon around the Nation, the children would play,
And grown-ups would celebrate on a bright Christmas day.
They all enjoyed freedom, each month and all year,
because of Marines like this one lying here.

I couldn’t help wonder how many lay alone,
on a cold Christmas Eve, in a land far from home.
Just the very thought brought a tear to my eye.
I dropped to my knees and I started to cry.

He must have awoken, for I heard a rough voice,
“Santa, don’t cry, this life is my choice
I fight for freedom, I don’t ask for more.
My life is my God, my country, my Corps.”

With that he rolled over, drifted off into sleep,
I couldn’t control it, I continued to weep.

I watched him for hours, so silent and still.
I noticed he shivered from the cold night’s chill.
So I took off my jacket, the one made of red,
and covered this Marine from his toes to his head.
Then I put on his T-shirt of scarlet and gold,
with an eagle, globe and anchor emblazoned so bold.
And although it barely fit me, I began to swell with pride,
and for one shining moment, I was Marine Corps deep inside.

I didn’t want to leave him so quiet in the night,
this guardian of honor so willing to fight.
But half asleep he rolled over, and in a voice clean and pure,
said “Carry on, Santa, it’s Christmas Day, all secure.”
One look at my watch and I knew he was right,
Merry Christmas my friend, Semper Fi and goodnight.

____________

.

This made me think of all the soldiers who really have sacrificed their lives, freedoms, and mental and/or physical health. That in itself doesn't make them any better than me. The fact that in a good many cases, knowing what they know now, they would yet probably do it all over again-that makes them a hell of a lot better than I have any desire to be.

See, I too love this country and what it stands for. But when I see the bullshit that it is turning into and how our rights and freedoms are being abused by people on both sides of the political aisle, people that aren't worthy of it, I realize one thing. If it came down to me to make this kind of sacrifice, I know full well who would be the main people to probably benefit from it. And I know that it is the people who I would in my heart be fighting for who would continue to be abused and manipulated by these same people.

Dying for the Constitution, and for the American people, that would be fine.

Dying for a corporation, and the people that run them-or for international "cooperation", globalization, or "free" trade, or any of the other nonsensical concepts we are being spoon fed along with the myriads of other crap we are bombarded with on a daily basis-that is all a damn hell of a different story. I don't think I could do it.

That means all of you would be fucked, if the present system depended on my saving it. I'm great for giving advice, but that is only good for so much. So if you ever see a soldier on the streets, especially one that has served in any war, I sincerely advise you to thank him from the bottom of your hearts.

Then, go out and contribute to making this country worthy of their sacrifice. The foundation for that is still there, it's in the Constitution. Let's continue transforming that dream into reality.


Chuck all the rest of the shit into the sewer that the Founding Fathers never intended for it to be dredged up from.

Because that's all that it is, really, just dressed up in prettier, modern clothes.

A Little Game Of Christmas tag

So, I was tagged earlier today by Lemuel, from Hillbilly White Trash, to participate in this little Christmas meme. It goes something like this:

1. First, you list the three things you would like to have for Christmas.

2. Then, you list three things you do not want for Christmas.

3. Finally, you list the names of five fellow bloggers and inform them on their own blogs that they have been tagged to do the same thing. They will then come to your blog for the insructions. Then after they make their list, they have to tag five bloggers, etc.

Of course, I guess by the time a couple of days have gone by it will change to what you wish you had gotten for Christmas, and three things you are glad you did not get (or wish you had not gotten).

Anyway, the three things I wish I could get for Christmas are:

1. A new, promising career in which I could look forward to making a contribution throughout many years to come. For example, a great contract as a writer with a reputable, solid publishing house, including a reasonably hefty advance for every book I complete and submit.

2. Good health and a positive mental attitude.

3. Genuine good times with family and old and new, great friends, including, but not necessarily limited to, a wild affair for an entire year with Katie Holmes, with an option to renew the affair, by mutual consent (of course) after the year is over. Tom can watch from a distance, via computer camcorder hookup, but he can't complain or interfere. 'Cus if he does I get to tell the world about it.

Now, for the three things I don't want for Christmas:

1. Another dead end job with no potential, no future, just forty plus hours a week of busting your ass and walking on egg shells just to get along.

2. A sexually transmitted disease.

3. People that gossip about other people, including the people they pretend to be best friends with, including you, as they pump you with crap they think you want to hear, while all the time you just don't know how to tell them in a nice way you know they are full of shit.

Well, I could go on, really, but three is the limit set for this meme, so I'll stick to that.

As for the people I choose to tag, they too are numerous, but I decided to play it safe and stick with those who have been doing consistent postings on their blogs. I figure if they are posting regularly, and lately, they are most likely to see the tag on time. So, with that in mind, I hereby tag:

Rufus, from Grad Student Madness
Danielle, from Danielles Daily Life
The Widows Son, from Burning Taper
Meowkaat from BiasedBookReview
And, finally, Neosnoia

You are all IT!

Athene-Appearring In Nashville

There is a few things to be said for the Old Testament concept of no graven images for the use in idolatry, i.e., the worship or veneration of gods and goddesses in the form of statues, pictures, or for that matter actors. And that is, no one image is going to please everybody. In fact, it can even be quite limiting. The individual imagination is, by and large, far superior. For that matter, even if someone creates an image that is wholly pleasing, on an artistic as well as a sensual and physical level, this as well can be a distraction.

By the same token, itis understandable that the average person would gravitate towards statues, or "graven images", etc., of the deities. Such as the one pictured above of the goddess Athene which is to be seen in the reproduction of the Athenian Parthenon which now is to be found in Nashville, Tennessee.

I'm not wholly pleased with it, personally, though at the same time, I am not exactly unhappy with it either. It captures the essence of the goddesses personality, but at the same time, it does not seem to be as attractive as I view this goddess in my own mind. Not that it is ugly, but still.

By the way, is it just me, or does she seem to have pointed ears in this picture? Who designed this thing, a Trekkie? I think the original was long ago dismantled, and the only thing left may have been black and white drawings to go by, if that much. It may be an exact replica, or it may be a complete original in concept and construction. I'm just not sure. Nor do I know the name of the person and/or organization of the builders, or what the intent was, whether they were in part devotees, or whether this was a purely cultural endeavor.

Whatever the case, I give it a B+ for craftsmanship. Worth a visit, especially if you are a devotee of the goddess. Good for group trips or solitary meditations.

Okay,I can't resist, so I'll go ahead and say it-

And you can dance to it.

Yule Nog-Blast From The past

It might be too late by the time you read this to concoct this, my very own special "Yule Nog" recipe, for Yule, but never fear. It is just as good any other time of the year, including Christmas and, especially, for New Years celebrations.

The good thing about this recipe is that it will make you as mellow high or as wildly drunk as you want, but you should not get sick, nor should you have a hangover the next day. In fact, you should wake up the following day feeling greatly refreshed.

What makes it such a good recipe for Yule, or actually any of the Sabbats, or Esbats, is it's quality as an inducer of lucid dreams, dreams which may or may not be of a psychic nature. So profound is the effects on the dreaming mind, in fact, that a dream that might ordinarily be perceived as a nightmare, will while under the influence of this Nog, come across in a way that you can look at it squarely, even pleasantly, while you are dreaming it. It should wipe out all fear of what you are seeing, thus enabling you to face it squarely, bravely, and even out of great curiosity, and humor.

Yes, what otherwise might seem to be a horrible nightmare, on this Yule Nog might actually seem funny to you.

It's also great for partying, for romance and sex, and for general attunement with the Mother Goddess and the newborn God of Yule, either in a group or coven setting, or as a solitary practitioner.

I'll say no more, other than to click on the post title, and the link thereon will take you to this old post from last year, which contains the recipe with instructions on mixing all the ingredients in the proper order and manner.

The Episcopalian Angel

A recent story reminds me of a girl I once knew, by the name of Claire, who I met one Sunday while attending the Episcopal Chruch in downtown Cincinnati Ohio. This was a few years back, but it is something I will never forget, because it is a perfect illustration of how one slight turn of events, one seemingly minor and insignificant development, can change your life forever.

It has in the meantime got me to thinking about the nature of God. Is there really an all-powerful, all-wise Creator who is one day going to sit in judgement of all our thoughts and deeds, who offers us salvation from a destiny in hell if we only accept the sacrifice of his only begotten son, Jesus Christ? Does all of that, or any fo it, even make any kind of sense?

And if we are all sinners, whether Christians saved solely by grace, or walking in darkness and doomed to eternal damnation-who are we to judge anyone else?

A rupture has occurred within the rank of the American Episcopal Church, as seven Virginia parishes have withdrawn now from the 111 diocese, 27 million member organization. This has been brewing for some time, beginning with the ordination of women that culminated eventually in the appointment of Bishop Katherine Schori as the Presiding U.S. Bishop.

But the cross that proved too great to bear was the decision last year to appoint as Bishop of New Hampshire an openly gay man, V. Gene Robinson, a man who at that point in time still had a male live-in lover.

I did a post on this subject last year, in fact, one entitled Primate Rules , which elicited an interesting response from a reader who seems to have a vested interest in the subject. Accordding to The Country Parson:

The Country Parson said...

In the Episcopal Church it had been an unstated assumption that homosexuality (or homosexual behavior)was a sin just as nearly everyone assumed it was except maybe people who were gay. It is only in the last 30 years that other people have thought differently. If your statement,"Anglican Church doctrine explicitly states that homosexuality is a violation of scripture" refers to the Lambeth resolution from 1998 that stated was "homosexuality was incompatible with scripture" that would be a mistake. Resolutions from the Lambeth Conference or the General Convention are non-binding. They may contribute to our understanding of the doctrine of the Church, but they do not make doctrine.

Be that as it may, as it was pointed out to me by Fondfire, there can be no doubt what the offical position is of the Bible as regards to homosexuality. The words of the Apostle Paul in Romans I:24-28, and again in I Corinthians 6:9-10, homosexuality is indeed an unnatural sin, in fact one that is so degrading that it was considered that God had become so disgusted with such an individual he had given that person over to unnatural lusts.

In other words, a homosexual is, according to the Bible, cursed by God. Or, as it is put even more succinctly in the Old Testament, it is an "abomination" for two men to lie with each other as a man lies with a woman. And it would probably amount to an unnecessary splitting of hairs to point out that lesbianism is not here referred to, as I have this strange feeling the Biblical authors would consider that equally ahorrent.

Even those who point out, correctly as it happens, that the passages attributed to Paul were a reference to the vile and corrupt Roman Emperor Nero and his imperial court, miss the mark altogether. Note that Paul points out this aspect of Nero's character not as a way of saying, "oh, by the way, he happens to be a homosexual", but as a means of pointing out that Nero was so depraved, this was tantamount to proof that he had sank to as low a depth as a human being could possibly decend to, and had infected the culture of the imperial court as well.

He wasn't saying, in other words, that it is alright to be a homosexual as long as you don't steal, blaspheme, murder, and commit torture and rape, etc. What he was pointing out-and this is a remarkable thing when you stop to think about it-is that a lifetime of crimes and sin ultimately lead to this, the most degrading possible proof of loss of ones soul.

It is only natural, therefore, to expect some of the more conservative, traditional Episcoplaians to be virulently oppossed to these latest developments. Lemuel, from Hillbilly White Trash, probably sums up the attitude of most of these traditional Episcopalians, and traditional conservative Christians in general, when he pointed out on his blog:

And as for the homosexuals who will be made to feel warm and loved and accepted and affirmed in the new Christless Episcopal "Church"? Those warm fuzzies will not help them in hell - which they will go to not because they are gay, but because they reject the Lord that IS in favor of a fantasy god who doesn't say anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.

This is very telling. Note that Christians do not judge homosexuals to be hell-bound for what they are, but for what they refuse to turn away from, and for deeming it necessary to assert that God is okay with it. It is the refusal to repent, while still insisting they should be welcome in the Christian Churches, that will send them to hell, according to conservative beliefs. And, if you want to be precise, according to the Bible itself.

The whole thing is bizzarre. Why should gay people care? Why don't they become some other religion, one where they are welcome. For example, there are a good many Wiccan and Pagan sects that view homosexuality as natural to the person. Admittedly, there are a good many who view it as unnatural, but still, there is no set overriding law among Wiccan or Pagan sects that specify it one way or another. It is up to the individual cult or coven.

There are many, if not most, who will accept the homosexual within their circles, so long as they don't enter the doors with a dick in their mouths or up their asses. And in a few rare cases, this might be acceptable as well.

The answer to this, of course, is that they are not Wiccans, they are Christians, just technically not very good ones. But then again, who are? Christianity is rife with people that pick and choose what parts of the Bible are valid and to be followed strictly, and what parts just don't apply to the present age-or to them. More importantly, they have a very keen eye towards those parts of the Bible that seem to justify their own sins, which are just too much for them to overcome. After all, why else would God send his only beloved son to die on the cross, if it were that easy to turn away from the sins of adultery, lust, greed, drunkenness, pride, anger, etc. All those things are moral failings that have to be struggled with. So, if you give in to them, will you not be forgiven?

As long as you try to be a good person, and perfom charitable works, and help your neighbor when he needs aid, won't God understand if you fuck his wife? After all, it's as much his fault as yours, for not satisfying her needs. If not for you, she might leave him, or fall in with somebody who might break up the family eventually. Hell, all you want to do is hit that ass every now and then. Shit, you gave them some money when they were in a tight spot, you got him a job when he was unemployed. Hell, she's just showing her gratitude, it's only natural, and you have your needs as well, you're only human-

And damn but is that ever some FINE FUCKING PUSSY!!!

Bear in mind, I'm not judging one way or another. I don't believe in hell, in the traditional meaning of the word. I don't discount it totally, though. If the conservative Christians are right after all, I will probably be there one day. If that is the case, I have no doubt I am going to see plenty of homosexuals, bothChristians and non-Christians, and they are pretty much going to be in the same boat.

I guess that is the hold after all, this fear of hell, a fear that drives people to want to remain in a religion where thy aren't really welcome, and then all but beg God to accept them as they are, knowing full well, deep down, that they don't really belong, and never will.

Well, I've got some good news for them in a sense, minor though it is. In fact, it might actually come down to-well, not cold comfort, just a slight bit of consolation.

They are going to be finding themselves in the company of a good many of their fellow Christians in the after life.

Unless, that is, they actually do repent and "sin no more". And, if they do fall from time to time, beg forgiveness and determine to never do it again. If you fall, I guess God will pick you up and dust you off. After so long,of course, he might pick you up and throw you away, like he did Nero.

After all, if there really is an all-powerful, all-wise creator God, I guess he certainly knows our hearts.

Which brings me back tothe subject of an angel I once met.

Actually, I came close to joining the Episcopal Chruch in downtown Cincinnati Ohio once a few years back, but work obligations ended that. I miss that place still, I liked the ritual, I enjoyed the fellowship, and the people were by and large open, gracous, and welcoming. I really enjoyed it, and came within a hair of becomming a regular attendee, and possibly a member. Had that occurred,the chances are I might be a devout Episcopalian to this day.

Of course, this was all due to the fact that, my first day there, I became greatly attracted to this chick by the name of Claire, one of those lust-disquised-as-love-at-first-site kind of deals, augmented by the fact that she had the voice of an angel, and made damn sure I heard it as she belted out a hymn at the back of my head from behind me.

I was introduced to her on another occassion, during the course of a festival that the church was conducting, and when I shook hands with her,the electricity was intense. I could actually feel it surging through me. But in no time flat, I soon began having to work weekends. I stopped attendance, and never saw her again.

The moral of the story-there is no God. There can't be.

Epic Poetry By The Bearded Lady

Homer was always seen as male by the ancient Greeks, you would think they would know, right? Nevertheless, that is not to hinder author Andrew Dalby, who has written "Rediscovering Homer:Inside The Origins Of The Epic" , in which he muses that Homer may have been a woman.

Please don't misunderstand, it is not that I find this theory distasteful, or innappropriate, or even silly. It's just that I consider it in all likelihood to be wrong. Bards and poets throughout the ages have traditionally been male, and I find it unlikely that Homer was an exception.

In fact, the more likely truth is, Homer was not a man, in fact, he was a whole bunch of men that continued the oral tradition of "The Illiad"-or originally, it has been claimed "The Wrath of Achilles", for a number of centuries before it was finally written down in it's current form. During this time it undoubtedly went through some revisions, and most certainly expansions.

Yet, the author claims that the epic seems to have been written from a female point of view, and further points out the importance of the numerous goddesses, most especially Athene, and their influence.

This theory points out the problem in viewing ancient literature from a twentieth century perspective. In the current age, and going back to now some seventeen hundred years, more or less, not many are used to looking through the lens of that long ago world where the veneration of multiple deities included a good many of the female gender. In the ancient world, it was the norm, so of course the goddesses would play an important role. They were worshipped by men as well as women.

In fact, during the time of the Classical Greek civilization, the cult of Athene was presided over by a male priesthood. And so, though he was not a priest (the Homer who wrote the Illiad, at least, seems to have viewed preists with some degree of disdain), it is certainly no stretch to imagine that Homer would have venerated her as well, in fact, he seems to have been a devotee of this particular goddess.

Another point made by the author is the time spent on matters and hearth and home, most especially in "The Odyssey".

But again, it bears mentioning that epic poets, many of whom were mentors and tutors to young aristocratic heirs, would have spent far more time in these types of environments than they would have on foreign battlefields, though their presence here can certainly not be discounted either. But they would have certainly exhibited an unusual degree of knowledge of and respect for the household lives of upper class women.

By the same token, it is easy to view the inclusion in these epics of female deities as indicative of a degree of high esteem, until you look a bit closer, at the cast of characters. It is a veritable who's who of cranky, meddlesome, conniving, backstabbing, female stereotypes.

Eris-What can you say? She started this whole mess, all because of a snub. She wasn't invited to a wedding, for the reason that, yes, she was an insatiable troublemaker. And she proved this, taking vengeance by playing off the petty jealousies of three other goddesses.

Aphrodite-The crying, whining, capricous, spoiled rotten goddess of love.

Dionne-Aphrodites mother, evidently invented just for this epic, as one of Zeus's illicit lovers, probably a construct to explain why Zeus couldn't have Aphrodite all to himself and thus avert this mess that she initiated following Eris's little tantrum with the apple of discord.

In a departure from traditional mythology, Aphrodite here is portrayed as his daughter. Nevermind that he had engaged in sexual relations with one sister, Demeter, and married yet another. And here I am referring to-

Hera-Zeus's jealous, vengeful wife, who actually comes across somewhat reasonably in the epic. Yet, so determined is she to disobey her husband's wishes to remain neutral in the Trojan War, she uses the wiles of yet another goddess to put him to sleep so she can work feverishly on the side of the Achaeans. She is portrayed as being too weak to stand up to him directly, but thanks to this subterfuge, the all-powerful Father of Gods and Men sleeps probably half-way through the epic.

Artemis-yes, indeed, dear, sweet, wild and free Artmeis, as pure as the virgin forrest. Better not piss her off, though, or she might force you, as she did the Achaean King Agammemnon,to sacrifice your first born daughter to her. Yes, I know that some several centuries later some Greek dramatist decided she had secretly whisked her away in the middle of the sacrifice.

The implication here can be made that, in order for this trick to work, unbeknownst to the mortal participants, the only manner of sacrifice this could have been would have been by way of immolation. Poor Iphigenia was burned alive.


Note, at any rate, Homer made no mention of this change of heart on the part of Artemis. Nor, in fact, do any of the deities in the epic look very good. They are to one degree or another, willful, arrogant, bloodthirsty, deceptive, and self-serving.

Only Athene by and large stands out as being of pure motivation, almost beyond reproach, even though she as well fell into Eris's trap by becomming embroiled in the dispute over the apple of discord. Nevertheless, it was Athene who patriotically encouraged the wayward Achilles to "support the troops" when he decided due to a slight by Agamemnon not to engage in the Trojan war. The slight? Agamemnon had taken for his own a war trophy previously claimed by Achilles-a Trojan woman he had claimed as his personal concubine.

Those damned women, nothing but trouble, huh?

Homers implicit advice to women seems well founded. Like the patient, long-sufferring Penelope, the faithful wife of Odyesseus in "The Oddyssey", they should be loyal, supportive of any necessary war effort, skillful and wise in the ways of diplomacy. Otherwise, they should stay home, until they are married they should remain virgins. Once married, they should remain faithful beyond all reasonable human expectations.

As Tammy Wynnette would croon some tweny centuries later, "Stand by your man". Even if, in this case, he hasn't been around for twenty years and you have no rational reason to believe he is still alive.

Oh, and don't forget to learn how to cook and sew. What kind of woman would neglect such sacred duties as that? Hell, to Homers favorite goddess, that was her favorite pastime, when she wasn't busy kicking Ares' ass down first one side of the street and another. Those two, by the way, remind me of Elly May Clampett and Jethro Bodine of Beverly Hillbillies fame.

True, Elly May was a bit more like Artemis, and Ares was nowhere near as goofy and lovable as Jethro, but it was pretty much the same schtick. In either case, the big, strapping, strong rough as a cob hick says or does something stupid, and you just know a good ass kicking is a'comin' his way.

But it would be unwise to judge Ares too harshly, or Jethro for that matter. All men, no matter how seemingly wise, will fall for that Helen of Troy type of trash anyday. Sure, it might be a bit extreme to think that a major, for it's day, world war might be started over a case of divinely inspired infidelity.

Ah, but after all, remember, Helen was herself part divine.

Thanks to Jason at The Wild Hunt Blog.

Foreign Entanglements, Factions, And The Bullshit They Inspire

Ever since we started ignoring the advice of our first and arguably greatest president, Washington, who warned us against both foreign entanglements and against factions-political parties- the United States on all fronts has turned into some kind of cruelly vicous parody of itself. It’s not a comedy of errors, but a farce of excesses.

The right-and I don’t just mean the “Far Right”, but the Right in general-has taken to upholding and excusing the reign of the totalitarian thug Augusto Pinochet. He is not the first example, of course, prior to that, they lauded such luminaries of dictatorship as the Shah of Iran, and, yes, even Saddam Hussein. And this is just the beginning.

In Saddams case, this lead to the first Gulf War, and the subsequent massacres of Kurds and Shi’ites, with the aid of an arsenal that in all probability to at least a degree contained the marking “Made In America”.

The Left, for it’s part, isn’t much better, if at all. Though they are careful these days to avoid any appearrance of supporting such communist dictators as Castro, or Kim Jung Il, they do betray the remarkable appearrance of being far more open to negotiation with people of this stripe than they do for example-well, Pinochet, whom they almost universally deplore. In the meantime, they strive to maintain the illussion that in supporting the rights of Muslim radicals to fly on planes without being in the least bit distressed-as oppossed to, for example, all the rest of us-they are actually looking out for all of our “rights”.

As for our allies, for example Europe, it is equaly bizzarre. The Left seems to see no problem with the current situation in Europe. The fact that their economy is shit, and that they have a Muslim problem that they have brought on themselves, is seen as a minor problem that can be easily remedied with jobs and education and greater access to opportunity, which of course for the most part the majority of the immigrant population has avoided, opting instead to draw cash benefits-i.e., welfare, which their immams advise them to look at as a kind of a jizra, and dhimmitude- and otherwise discouraging integration into the overall European population.

Still, the Left wishes that we would adopt a more European model, in at least some respects.

As for the Right,they would like to see the entire European social safety net discarded, and would obviously like to see the same thing happen to our own, eliminate all regulation, at least on the federal level, and institute a kind of free trade zone worldwide that would amount to what they call “laissez faire” economics.

Feudalism, in other words.

The Right sees Christmas as constantly under assault, and suddenly you get the impression they would have no problem at all if the government were to suddenly regulate the maner in which shoppers are greeted at Wal-Mart. Hey, why would that be such a stretch? They don’t seem to have a problem with the Ten Commandments being posted in schools, or in courthouses, or in public parks, at public expense, which is to say, at taxpayers expense.

They have no problem with the concept of school prayer, of “allowing” prayers to a Judeo-Christian deity, or with reading from the Bible, or for the teaching of Creationism under the guise of science. How the hell is it such a stretch to imagine a Wal-Mart greeter might one day be fined for saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”?

By the same token, the Left wants to totally deny there is a problem, when there obviously is one. Come on, when it gets to the point in time that the ACLU is going around the country suing to force the removal of Christmas trees from public parks, or for the removal of the words “Christmas” from school calendars, and the banning of even non religion specific prayers at general school assemblies, there is a fucking problem

So, you want to prove to me there’s no problem? Fine. This season, and also at least once once during the next election, I want to hear every fucking Democratic politican say “Merry Christmas”. I don’t want them to add another fucking thing to it, or explain it or apologize for it afterward, and I don’t want to hear a fucking compaint about it from any motherfucker. Then, maybe I’ll believe there’s not a problem.

I also want to see manger scenes in public squares, provided they are temporary and erected and maintained at private expense. I want to go to my local school and see a fucking Christmas play and I want to hear Christmas carols sung during the motherfucker. I want to hear about this happenning all over the country, again, without one word of complaint from any motherfucker.

Well, unless it’s a shitty performance, but that’s a different matter.

AND LEAVE THE GODDAMNED MOTHERUFCKING CHRISTMAS TREES ALONE!!!!!FUCKING SCUM!!!!!!

You want to see the Left defend Christmas or any kind of Christmas symbol? Fine, here’s what you do. Hire a fucking male homosexual pedophile to play Santa Clause at a department store, and the minute he inevitably diddles some little boys pecker, I promise you the ACLU will be all aboard defending the bastard.

Otherwise, forget it. They will be too busy insuring the rights of Muslims to cram the Qu’ran down our throats to worry about a little thing like some kids rights to put on Christmas pageants in school.

All of these problems, and more, are the direct result of Washingtons advice going unheeded. And what was this advice? It came in two parts.

One, avoid foreign entanglements.

Two, avoid political factions.

The first problem is easily remedied. You simpy declare null and void any treaty with any nation that has deviated from it’s signatory obligations in any way, shape, or form, in the slightest way. From there, you return to a policy of bi-lateral trade and diplomacy.

Sure, it would be hard, sure it would be an adjustment, but the long term consequences are going to, I promise you, be a hell of a lot worse.

The second is not so easily remedied. The first amendment probably precludes outlawing all political parties, which is very, very, very unfortunate. The only other option would be to criminally charge and imprison any politican or organization that tells even the slightest provable lie during the course of a campaign.

The next step is even more unikely, and that is, outlaw all political contributions and political campaigns. You do this simply by having all candidates for office put out a comprehensive set of positon papers which would be availiable to all who want to read them. Maybe a publicly funded series of speeches and a nationally televised debate, or two, or three, and you know all you need to know about these bastards. Anything else they say or do would be, and is, superfluous.

Finaly, enforce the Bill of Rights to a dictatorial degree. Why not? We enforce the thirteenth amendment in that way, don’t we? When is the last time you ever heard of somebody owning a black slave? If somebody tried that, they are going to prison, I promise you, because they are breaking the law as set forth in the thriteenth amendmant to our constitution.

So, if that is the case, if you want to start some crap about denying my right to bear arms, or force your fucking religion down my throat while not allowing me the right to practice mine, or interfere in my rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, why the hell should your skanky ass be walking around free and breathing my fucking air?

I know of course my advice is not going to be heeded. Nobody listened to Washington, why the hell should they listen to me or anybody else that feels the way I do? The answer, is, of course, they will not.

And so, we are doomed. Enjoy the corrupt, pretentous nonsense while it lasts.