The Truth Can Be Ugly

In a day and age when Iran can grab British Royal Navy sailors out of the Persian gulf with impunity, Nancy Pelosi should be careful where she travels. Her visit to Syrian President Bashar Assad may not amount to a violation of The Logan Act, as I have read, nor might it constitute treason in any other way. On the other hand, she might well be guilty of some violation. I’m not an expert so I’ll reserve judgment one way or another.

I will say one thing though unequivocally. You don’t have to be an expert to see that this was an act of political grandstanding. I’m not really sure what she thought she was going to accomplish, but it looks like a make-believe overture to show her own personal constituents, as well as the overall Democratic voter base, that she, as the head of the Congressional Democrats, second-in-line to the Presidency in her role of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives, is demonstrating that the Democratic Party stands for diplomacy and the hopes and prospects for peace.

The symbolism is obvious. Bush will not talk to Assad. Pelosi will. The Republicans don’t know anything about peace, they are all about belligerence and warfare. The Democrats are all about negotiation and peace. The bumbling misstep when Pelosi informed Assad that the Israelis were wanting to make peace with the Syrians was easily rectified by Prime Minister Ohlmert, who immediately let it be known that any peace deal was dependent on certain conditions that Nancy, being Nancy, neglected to point out.

All of this bothers me, the missteps, the obvious political grandstanding to the Democrats leftist base, the potential violation of The Logan Act or other laws. What some people don’t seem to get by pointing out that some congressional Republicans accompanied Pelosi on this trip, and have indeed made other trips, is that those individuals are not in the position to formulate policy nor are seen as doing so.

Arguably, the office of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives is the second most powerful office in the country, more powerful technically and legally than Vice-President, whose true power is limited to casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate when necessary. Otherwise, none of his duties really constitute any kind of auhority. This may be different in Cheney’s case, true, but I am speaking in historical and legal terms. There have been times when the Speaker was more powerful than certain Presidents. John Tyler, for example. There have been times when there was a complete shutdown of government due to friction between the two offices. Bill Clinton’s Presidency, of course, as well as Andrew Johnsons, were paralyzed by a kind of political civil war waged by an ambitious Congress and/or House Speaker.

Pelosi seems to have wanted this type of power, and foresaw the same kind of political showdown that would get the Democratic base all fired up. When this ended up failing to materialize in the form of the war funding package, to which Pelosi inadvisably attached a troop deadline withdrawal which was slated for a month before the ’08 elections, Pelosi was left with no other option but to back down. Of course, the Democrats are not going to withhold funds from the troops.

Now this, a chance for Pelosi to redeem herself and stick it to the Republicans at the same time. And though Assad, it has been said, preferred to spend his time at a soccer game, he did agree to put aside some time for the strange little woman from San Francisco who appeared before him in the traditional Arab head covering as a sign of respect.

That is what I guess bothers me as much as anything. By appearing with this garment on her head, whether she sees it this way or not, Pelosi was in a very real and symbolic way projecting an image of submission to Assad. And Assad’s Syria, by and large, is arguably the major player in the constant Middle East friction regarding Israel and to the dismay of many observers is primarily responsible for a good deal of the Sunni insurgent violence in Iraq. It is by way of his borders that most of the non-Iraqi Sunni insurgents travel, after all.

Nor are they all Syrians. Many are Saudis, while a good many as well are Jordanians,in fact from all areas of the Middle East and other Muslim nations. Pelosi is not qualified to engage in diplomacy with him in any event, whether or not her trip constitutes any kind of breach or willful violation of US law. But for her to appear under these further conditions is incredible. A San Francisco woman, representing a constituency which is a bedrock of liberalism and feminism, to appear in an attitude of subjugation before the head of a country where the rights of women are held to be secondary at best, is at least surreal.

And it is not even as though Syria is the worse offender in this regard, in fact, a Syrian woman is probably by and large better off than a woman in, say, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or most other Arab or Muslim nations, due to the fact that Syria is after all ruled by a secular regime that does not abide by shariah law. There is a good argument to be made for engaging Assad diplomatically, actually for a variety of reasons, the secular nature of his regime being one of them. Personally, I think the main reason he is lax at his borders has as much to do with wanting these religious radicals out of his country as it does with wanting to cause a problem for the US and the present Iraqi government. If they get killed by us as a result, I doubt he is shedding any tears for them.

But Bush is doggedly determined that the entire Middle East will be democratized, feeling the overall result of this will be peace and economic progress in the region, and long term stability. I think he is wrong, I think it would result in nation after nation adopting a form of shariah law which will then be considered the final word on the matter.

After all, the people will have voted for it, right? That is what they will have said they wanted, correct? End of story. Democracy has spoken, why second guess it every four years or so?

Womens’ rights? Minority rights? Religious rights? Of course they all have rights? There is no need whatsoever in spelling that out in a national constitution. Their legitimate rights have already been spelled out, in the words of the Holy Qu’ran. How could the law of man possibly improve on that?

This is the true irony, the fact that governments like Assads, and yes, Saddams, were in some ways an actual improvement over what would otherwise be the case, and what will in the majority of cases be the reality if Bush and the Neo-Cons get their way in the Middle East.

That is not to say that a constitutional democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. Just that if it does, it is still a hell of a long way off. Three or four lifetimes, at the very least, and very likely longer than that. And yes, very possibly never. People point to the success ultimately in removing communism from the Soviet Union and it’s sphere of influence particularly in Eastern Europe, as proof that it is possible, but there is only minimal comparison between the two.

Communism is unnatural, so much so it could only be maintained through fear and force, even by imprisonment of it’s peoples within it’s borders, by uprooting entire populations in some cases. The difference between communism and Islam is profound in this regard. Islam is, or seems to be, perfectly suited to the nature of it’s adherents. It has had fourteen hundred years to take root in the psyche of the Arab people of the Middle East, and many hundreds of years as well in the cases of other peoples. And it wasn’t that hard to take hold in any event, as it itself was in many cases and in many ways an improvement over what those people had experienced previously.

With Islam, they were given a sense of unity, of cultural identity, of spiritual meaning, of assurance, stability, security. They got all of this without really having to give anything up, for the most part, with the exception of a few ancient idols that were quickly forgotten, and constant intermittent tribal feuds. With Islam, they went from being dessert varmints to an actual civilization to be reckoned with, and everyone was an integral part of that.

Then there is the Qu’ran itself, written in Arabic, one of the worlds great languages, which lends itself easily to poetry, which is what the Qu’ran is, a poetic rendition of what amounts to a mixture of Arab tribal laws and adaptations from various faiths, including Judaism and Christianity, with just enough remaining of the ancient Arabic pagan religion to provide a cultural anchor.

Converts to Islam are encouraged whenever possible to learn Arabic, to travel to the Middle East and study there, especially the language, and I suspect that it is because the Arabic language makes the Qu’ran more particularly compelling to the student who meditates and prayers and recites it on an on-going, regular basis.

You can make the case that it amounts to a form of brainwashing. In this regard it is certainly on a much higher level of efficiency than, say, “Das Capital”. Try reciting that five times a day while bowing towards Moscow. Then you’ll see why Assad and Saddam had to exercise such brutality in the manner in which they kept these people in line. Life is seldom pretty, but when the caliphate fell in the aftermath of World War I, after which came such things as western colonialism on it’s last legs, culminating in the British Mandate, the UN Charter, and finally, Soviet expansionism and the ever growing and constant need for oil, you can begin to understand the pattern that emerges.

All of this used to be pretty much understood, of course. There was never any idea that democracy versus socialism was a viable or winnable ideological contest in the context of the Middle East countries, that is why there were few differences of distinction between Western allies and those nations that fell under the Soviet axis.

The lesson should have been quickly learned when the Afghan mujahadeen fighters repulsed the Soviets with our aid and support. Those same mujahadden to a large extent went on to make up the Taliban. Not exactly a stellar example of freedom on the march, is it? Well, it depends on what your definition of freedom is, I guess. And that is just the problem the West can’t wrap it’s head around. Freedom, in the context of Middle Eastern Arab and Islamic culture, does not seem to equate to democracy and civil rights.

But again, both sides have it wrong. To the Right, the speak softly and when necessary whack ‘em with a big stick approach will work over time, and when the people see the long term benefits of a free market economy, they will gradually change. Yeah, like China. Like Russia. I guess when you stop to think about it, ancient Babylon, the wealthiest nation by far at it’s apex of power, must have been a “free market economy.” But let’s not dwell on that, why disturb the fantasy?

The make nice approach of the left isn’t any better, though in the long term it may also not be any worse when it comes to encouraging democracy and civil rights. Their approach seems to hinge on the threat of imposition of economic sanction, or the promise of removal of same, under the auspices of the UN. In the meantime, a firm diplomatic stance involving aid and international low interest loans and grants will serve best to ease the restrictions on those same peoples rights to vote for or against the imposition of shariah Islam.

The people will vote in their own best interests, and will more likely do so the more they are exposed to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and civil rights. After all, they certainly want to be a part of the world community, no one wants to remain isolated for the sake of some ancient religion, right?

Okay, here’s the problem with both approaches. They are arrived at from the narrow perspective of Western concepts of justice and idealism, and history. Both of these conclusions have been reached from a Western mind-set with little if any regard for the fact that we are dealing here with a society and culture that, to all intents and purposes, has so little in common with our own way of life and philosophy, they might as well be from the far side of Andromeda galaxy.

Arrogance, is what it amounts to, and on such a remarkable level it is beyond description. And the sad thing is, it is in the long run only going to result in more tragedy, more ruined lives, more wasted resources, and ever more bitterness and hatred. To an extent it might have been unavoidable in any event. But that reality should have been faced squarely.

It’s like telling a fat, profoundly ugly woman that she is the prettiest woman you have ever seen in your life. You might think you are sparring her feelings and might make her feel better about herself. Well, if she has any kind of sense of reality, all you are really going to do is piss her off and make her hate and resent you more than she already might. So the only sensible alternative is to see her for what she is, help her improve her situation to the extent she wants to and can improve, and help her in the meantime to focus on developing her potential by way of what strengths and talents she might actually possess. But you have to do so in a kindly but firmly diplomatic way. Otherwise, you just let her go on and live her life as is. There is only so much, after all, you can do.

All the bombs and military force in the world is not going to change reality. Neither is appearing as a woman in a diplomatically miscalculated pose of subjugation. The only thing that is going to do it, is strength, the kind of strength that realizes the simple fact that all nations, all people, all cultures, are in fact different to a degree, sometimes to the point that there is nothing in a relationship between the two that is redeemable, or workable. Sometimes, unfortunately, you just have to go your separate ways, and live your own lives.

Unfortunately, that requires the setting of firm boundaries, and the promise of the assurance of firm reaction when those boundaries are breached. And that is something that neither culture can tolerate. What puts the West for now at the most severe disadvantage is that here, while neither the left nor the right can stomach it, they are both so divided as to how to deal with it , that neither side can come to grips with any semblance of the reality.

The Islamists are all too aware of this, and play it for all it is worth. And they are by no means divided, at least not when it comes to that.

And It's So Easy Even A Caveman Can Do It.

In the Geico commercial, the pundit interviewer is told by an apparent female sociologist that “we are living in a day when individual ego is predominant.”

The opposing viewpoint is delivered by the caveman, who when invited to reply, says, “yes I have a response. Uuuuu-WHAT?”

Point taken. We are living in an age of hive mentality, and this is especially true when it comes to minority culture, it seems. A perceived or real slight at any one member or segment of a particular society is seen as an assault on the dignity of the entire hive, and no one now is learning this lesson better than is Don Imus, the radio talk show host of the CBS show “Imus In The Morning”, which is simulcast on MSNBC in the mornings Monday through Friday from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.

The “nappy headed hoes”, to borrow the offending Imus quote, of the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights Women’s Basketball team, who just lost to Tennessee in the championship NCAA women’s basketball tournament, certainly have a right to take offense and even to demand the firing of Don Imus, and truthfully, Imus has purposely disturbed enough hornets nests to know better by now. He is currently on a two week suspension from both CBS and MSNBC, and could very well end up being fired for this remark, despite the fact that he actually made them with a degree of admiration. In fact, he personally knows one of the players (who has also nevertheless expressed offense at the statement).

He certainly at least owes them an apology. But does he owe an apology to Al Sharpton, whose radio show Imus voluntarily appeared on? He did so doing as he has done non-stop the last several days, apologizing profusely while maintaining that he is a good person. Sharpton was not impressed, and called forth his own daughter. She stepped forward, whereupon Sharpton informed Imus that she, his daughter, was not a “nappy headed hoe.”

So, is the offending words the observation that the girls are “nappy headed”? Or that they are “hoes”? I could see where the first would apply to Sharpton’s daughter, and perhaps she should have a right to feel insulted at this slang. But I don’t see how the second qualifies as an offense to the daughter of Al Sharpton, unless she knows something her father evidently doesn’t. Unless they are implying that Imus meant that if you are nappy headed, then you must be a ho, especially if you are a college woman’s basketball team player with tattoos. Personally, I don’t think the man meant it that way, nor do I think he really meant it as an insult. I tend to think Don Imus just hasn’t caught on to the fact that he isn’t black.

Like I said, the girls have a right to take serious exception to this, and even they might be taking it hard to some extent for the wrong reason. One of them stated that they worked hard to get to where they got, in their underdog status, to rise to the level of playing in the NCAA championship game, and Imus took away from that sense of accomplishment. Yes, I can see that point. Then, unfortunately, one went on to inform us that they are “the future leaders of tomorrow”.

With that, she almost through what sympathy I initially had out the window. No matter how well you do in life, you’re still just like all the rest of us, just another cog in the wheel of life. You are just as deserving of respect, but no more so, than anybody else. That being said, these young women are certainly more deserving of respect than is implied by the term “ho”, nappy headed or otherwise. But that is true of any non-ho from any branch of society. If she or they think otherwise, maybe their egos needed to be brought down a notch or two. But so too does Don Imus, perhaps.

I just wonder how long the Sharpton’s and Jacksons of the world have been laying for him. Perhaps ever since show producer Bernard MacGurk delivered a scathing satirical “poetry” reading supposedly from Maya Angelou, in which the poetess delivered a tribute to her black ancestors, bemoaning the fact that the white man, “took from you your pride, your dignity-your spears.”

Yes, Imus has long been a raw, edgy, at times over the top show that always pushed the envelope, to use all the standard cliches in one line, but now he might soon be gone. After this week, of course, after he has concluded a telethon to raise money for children’s charities. Then, there are plans for Imus to meet with the Rutgers women’s team. Then, soon, the decision will be made. It don’t look good. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are sticking to their guns in demanding that Imus be fired, and in the meantime at least one advertiser has threatened to withhold sponsorship, while at least one more is seriously considering taking the same action.

It would certainly save me the trouble of deciding whether or not to return to expanded cable. If they fire him, that would take away my main reason for paying the extra money for it, and certainly for watching MSNBC. But like I said, he’s pretty much brought this on himself. I could moan here and go on about the First Amendment, but really, the First Amendment cuts both ways. Sponsors have a right to withhold support and station owners and broadcasters have a right to respond to that reality, every bit as much as Imus technically has the right to make an ass of himself. In the grand scheme of things the First Amendment is pretty much worth just about as much as the paper it is reproduced on.

Especially when you consider that he has also seriously damaged his credibility as a host who typically can get major political interviews with politicians and presidential candidates, respected journalists, performers, and newsmakers of all stripes. John Edwards has been a frequent guest in the past, as has John McCain. Both of these and others might well be rethinking the wisdom of such appearances now.

Maybe he should just call it off, and bow out gracefully. There is always Sirius, or XM Satellite. After all, a big part of the current controversy stems from the fact that the public networks are in fact federally regulated, in addition to corporate sponsored. The First Amendment still applies, however, it is a true democracy. Unfortunately, what that amounts to these days is a kind of mob rule that fuels and drives a corporate plutocracy, with the rule of law executed by advertising dollars.

White Easter

I’m jealous. Jealous as hell, of people in certain parts of Michigan,Cleveland, and some other areas. All week, I’ve been dreaming of a “White Easter”, and what do I get? Disappointment in the form of a long, hard snowfall that barely registered in the end at a quarter of an inch. Not enough to cover the ground or the road, just a slight dusting.

No easter egg in the snow hunts for me this year. Just the cold without the beauty. Yeah, I think snow is beautiful. Of course I don’t have to be out in it for very long at a time either. Still, there is nothing prettier than standing at your window at night and looking out over the ground and road covered with a thick blanket of snow, especially if snow is still falling, as you watch it through the street lights, and it clings to the trees.

Oh well, enough of that, maybe next year. Of course I realize a lot of people are going to trumpet this as proof that global warming is a fake issue. After all, how could it snow on or near Easter, in April, enough to stick to the ground, if the earth really was experiencing global warming? How the hell could it be cold in South Carolina, for Pete’s sake?

Don’t get me wrong, I am by no means a big believer in global warming, at least insofar as how it is supposedly being caused for the most part by human activity. But this does not constitute proof or evidence against it. What seems to be responsible for this phenomenon is the jet stream forcing cold air down from the north and maybe the Arctic circle, further south than is typically the case this time of year. This while dropping the temperatures also adds to the moisture of an already typically moist time of year, and so voila-the result being snow. You can actually make the case that the melting glaciers through global warming actually adds somewhat to the accumulated moisture from the north.

And actually, you can make the case that human activity might play a role in this present phenomenon, not in the sense of carbon emissions, but at least insofar as cold temperatures in South Carolina. Might the constant mountaintop removal and land flattening that has taken place over the years in the aftermath of coal mining-especially strip mining-play a role in allowing the cold air to travel more or less uninterrupted further than usual?

I think there is more to the removal of trees and mountaintops that plays into the change in weather patterns in the midwest of the US, actually, than can be blamed on carbon emissions. Or, at least, it plays as large a role. I talked about it in this post here, and I am somewhat perturbed that it has really taken a back seat to concerns about carbon emissions. After all, as I said-well, it’s speculation to a large extent on my part, but I think I’m on fairly strong ground-the more trees that are removed and not replaced, the less carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere, while the less oxygen is being returned at the same time.

At the same time, the lowering of land levels through mountain top removal, as well as trees, eliminates the buffer that therefore allows more warm gulf air to travel northward into the midwest, thereby warming temperatures in the winter. And, so now it seems, allowing the gulf stream to carry colder temperatures from Canada to, say, South Carolina.

Of course, bear in mind that there would be a huge political drawback to regulating mining in mining states, even though there are supposed to be laws that mandate land restoration to the original contours. They are not strictly enforced, in fact, they can be ignored and discarded if there is a demonstrated need for city expansion.

Still, it’s not a winning issue in Kentucky. The business owners don’t want it, of course, but neither do the workers, who might be threatened with lay-offs. Also, after all, some of the citizens in these towns own land that they potentially stand to make millions of dollars from, but in a good many cases, not if the companies have to tack on the expense of land contour restoration. In a lot of cases, they would stand nothing to gain by the purchase of such lands.

Then, of course, you add the expense that will be added, passed on actually, to the consumers in these regions. What would that amount to? Most people might be able to suck it up and deal with a one or two percent increase, but a seven or eight percent increase of more would cause a severe hardship on some families. And I’m just sticking with this to the region. Outside the immediate region, the increase would be much more, so you can multiply the economic hardship exponentially.

This of course is precisely why mining safety regulations are rarely enforced, and why therefore you have the resultant mining tragedies that have occurred (though to be fair mining is still much safer than it ever was in the past). At any rate all these reasons are why not much headway is being made. It’s that old road to hell paved with good intentions scenario.

It’s just an unfortunate fact that, if all of these laws and regulations ever were enforced, you might well end up looking forward to that lump of coal in your Christmas stocking. Or in your easter basket.

Wet Dreams And Democrats

The current war funding bill, what little I know of it, is generally a good bill. Sure, there is some pork in it, as with all bills. But when you scrutinize it, even the pork isn’t all that bad, for the most part. A good deal of it is involving relief for farmers that have suffered through recent droughts, flooding, temperature extremes, etc. It’s easy to criticize such measures as that. Pay ten dollars for a grapefruit and you will see them in an entirely different perspective, however.

No, the problem with the bill isn’t the porks-it’s the dorks. The kind of dorks that just had to insist on a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq that oh my, what the fuck do you know, just happened to have been slated for the October before the next elections in 2008. My, what an amazing coincidence.

Of course, the bill will be vetoed, then we’ll see what happens. We’ll see what happens for example to the money allotted by the Democrats for veterans health care, and for making sure the troops receive the appropriate training before they are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah, like I said, it’s a good bill, were it not for that one provision. Take that one provision out, and it could well be one of the best bills ever considered, and certainly one of the best ones ever passed by Congress. But what good is it? You can go out on a date with the most beautiful woman the world has ever seen, she can fall madly in love with you and be willing to do anything you want. She can be charming, witty, and intelligent. She can make every man's head turn and every woman green with envy with just a glance. Despite all this you can rest assured she is all yours. But if you take her to your bedroom and lustfully undress her only to see maggots crawling out of her pussy, what good is it?

Well, in the case of this bill it's not quite that bad, but only because it is not too late. When Bush vetoes it as we all know he will, this provision can be excised, which it should be. Then, the Democrats can pass this bill otherwise intact. Bush wouldn’t dare then veto it on the grounds of pork, if he does, I will agree he’s as fucking stupid as a lot of people say he is. But he’s not that stupid, so he wouldn’t.

By excising this provision,the Democrats will have salvaged their chances of winning the ’08 elections, which if they win, then they can devote their agenda to ending the war on their terms, with control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress, it would be an almost sure bet the war would be ended by the next mid-terms.

Otherwise, if this provision is kept, the Democrats might be sabotaging their chances of winning, at the very least it will be a huge negative against them, and the Republicans will probably win for this as well as other reasons. Then, the war will more than likely go on longer, which may or may not be as big a catastrophe as a premature withdrawal. Still, it will go on longer than it will if the Democrats win. But with this provision in an otherwise excellent bill, they have pretty much screwed themselves.

I have never fucked a woman with maggots crawling out of her pussy, and it’s just as unlikely that Bush will ever pass this bill with this provision intact. As for the Democrats, I hope they are experiencing one hell of an orgasm right now, because they sure are fucking themselves.

Wackjobs Have Rights Too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations, Universe. You win.

The Politics Of Silence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dogs Are People Too

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

Like this, perhaps?










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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pope And The Witch (And The Bitch)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, how about my ideas?

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

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

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

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

And, finally-

CUTE-

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

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

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

Defending The Patriarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Don’t criticize Muslims, you racist.”

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

What Would Gandhi Do?

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

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

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

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

GANDHI RIDDLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KER-SLAP!!!
A: Hey, that hurt!!!

Begging Your Pardon, Mr. President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partisan Hacks-Why I'll Never Be One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baaaaad Anne. Baaaaad Anne.

American Wake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is The Secret? What Secret?

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

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

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

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

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

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

No-Chaos.

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

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

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

Uhhhh-no, she didn’t.

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

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

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

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

Ancient Days-Ancient Pains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BIBLE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Ramblin's And Wranglin's

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

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

That’s bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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