Texas-Number One

The number one state in the Union for business is Texas, according to CNBC, which ranked all the states according to the following criterion-

cost of doing business, workforce, economy, education, quality of life, technology and innovation, transportation, cost of living, business friendliness, and access to capital.

Governor Rick Perry credits "low taxes, reasonable and predictable regulations, and a skilled workforce" with Texas's success.

Last year, Texas ranked number two, behind Virginia. This year, the two states have traded places. But the most surprising thing about the top ten states in the list?

Massachusetts is number five, and Minnesota is number eight. I'm guessing it must have something to do with availability of capital and tax incentives, along with a skilled workforce. I wouldn't count on any of that lasting long. Here's the complete list-

* Texas
* Virginia
* Colorado
* North Carolina
* Massachusetts
* Iowa
* South Dakota
* Minnesota
* Utah
* Georgia

UPDATE-I just got a comment from Quimbob, who provided a link to a different survey which relates a slightly different survey which, while still ranking Texas number one, ranks North Carolina, not Virginia, at number two behind Texas and, more importantly in contrast to the CNBC survey, puts Massachusetts in the bottom five. I tend to believe this survey over CNBC.

It also goes into some striking detail regarding the problems in California, which according to one respondent is so bad that, according to him, if they could grow their crops in Reno, they'd move their plants there tomorrow. He goes on to say that businesses have completely opted out of doing business with Sacramento, so bad is the anti-business environment there. And of course, when they leave, the jobs go with them.

This serves to verify my feelings that, before long, California will be the American Greece. Actually, it already is. It just hasn't gotten around to asking for a bail-out. Give it time, because as I said before, California will be considered "too big to fail".

This also goes a long way towards explaining Scott Brown's recent vote in favor of the Financial Reform bill. If California is the American Greece, Massachusetts is probably in line to be the American Portugal. Brown's vote makes sense in the context of laying the groundwork for federal aid, and even if the GOP takes over both houses of Congress in 2010 (unlikely as far as the Senate goes), the infrastructure will be in place, and the onus will be on the new Republican House and possibly Senate majorities to accede or deny to any such aid. Such a scenario is unlikely before this November, but between then and November 2012, it becomes a near probability, and will provide the Democrats a hammer with which to hit Republicans. And it might well work, as the majority of people in dire straights by that time will be, shall we say, not looking at the long term, but living in the moment.

In the meantime, I have to wonder how Massachusetts could end up in such wildly different positions in two different polls. Bear in mind that CNBC is a sister network to NBC and MSNBC, and they might have a reason to paint Massachusetts in a more flattering light than what it really deserves. I was so stunned by the first poll it was hard to let it pass without comment. Consider the "Big Dig" which lasted for years longer than anticipated at staggeringly high cost overruns. It is a state where bureaucracy and inefficiency is the normal cost of doing business, where labor unions are a malignant influence, and state regulations are on the one hand a drain and an obstacle, and at the same time a cash cow for crooked regulators and for contractors looking for kick-backs.

If you really want to know why the business community is holding onto 1.4 trillion dollars of assets, and why many others want to outsource production to more friendly business climates, look no further than the current state of affairs, and try to understand that its probably only going to get worse-much worse-because of it.

And the liberals still don't get it. They never will understand that the business community is under no obligation to invest their money-and the operative term is THEIR MONEY-in what they can't help but see as a losing proposition, one that if they play along with, will only result in even more massive business failures down the line.

Government make-work is not the answer. That is just temporary relief for a relative few, at best. At worse, it just adds to the tax burden. Nor can the private business sector be expected to invest their money in what would amount to a charitable enterprise that would leave their companies in danger of collapse.

There has to be a better way, but it will require some more pain, and more sacrifice, before people get it.

Alvin Greene's Job Creation Program

UPDATE-Alvin Greene now has his own Twitter account, GreeneForSenate. You can also access it and others from my new Twitter Sidebar, The Twitterbug Corral.

UPDATE UPDATE-Well, its probably not him after all, but its a pretty damn good satire site if its not him. Not too much over the top. Well, unless you discount the bit about giving the keynote address at the next NAACP meeting. DAMN!

Unemployment is now somewhere around ten percent, more than that if you include the people who've stopped looking for work. We've got to put people back to work in this country, but how remains elusive, or at least it has until-well, it might actually hinge on the outcome of the up-coming South Carolina Senate race.

South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Alvin Greene has a solution. It's so brilliant I have to wonder if he thought it up all by himself, or rather some, er, genius, maybe an unnamed adviser, gave him this plan over a couple of six-packs and a reefer or two.

Alvin's plan, in his own words-

“ Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke. ”

Of course, Alvin is by no means a "typical person". And you know what? I'm starting to think he's going to win. I'll go you one better. I would almost be willing to bet good money he will be the one Senate candidate who will keep the Democrats in the Senate majority.

Because, let's face it, the Universe hates all of us, and I think it might have a special degree of loathing for South Carolina-especially the no-count Upcountry.

Hat Tip-Rusty of The Jawa Report.

Black Gold-Texas Tea

Venezuela might have more oil than Saudi Arabia, huh? That settles it. What say we pull ourselves up by our boot straps. Let's kick Chavez's ass out of there and take dat shit. Muahahahahahahaaaaaaaa

Camelot's Round Table Found-Or So They Say

At first glance, the reports out of England make a lot of sense. According to some archaeologists, the Round Table of King Arthur was not a piece of furniture after all. It was, instead, an abandoned Roman amphitheater (pictured in the above drawing at bottom left corner of town square) that could seat as many as one thousand people. They say this because they think they have discovered it in a town called Chester, sometimes called West Chester. It was abandoned by the Romans after the fall of Rome to Odoacer and the subsequent large scale invasions of Britain by the Saxons. But the native Britons of the day held off the invading hordes until well into the sixth century, when the Saxons and some other Germanic tribes finally overwhelmed the former Roman province. But until that time, Chester might have been a major point of defensive operations. A headquarters, if you will.

According to the archaeologists making these claims, the amphitheater contains an execution stone, and a wooden shrine to Christian martyrs, as detailed long ago by the Christian monk and later canonized Saint Gildas.

There's only one problem. Gildas, who wrote extensively about this era and in fact was at least a near contemporary-never mentioned King Arthur. Or Camelot. Or the Round Table. The closest he came was a mention of a certain Ambrosius, who is said, by later sources, to have been an elder brother of Arthur's father Uther, and father to Merlin.

This of course does not prove Arthur didn't exist, as Gildas mentions several kings of the era, though not by name. What it does seem to imply is that, if Arthur did exist, he might not have been that big a deal. He might not have even been a king, but a kind of warlord. And of course we can't discount the possibility that he may have been mentioned under another name, possibly one of the five kings Gildas excoriated, the most important of whom was Maelgyn Gwynned, a Welsh king whose name sounds or looks just enough like Guinevere to grab your attention. In fact, that was the name of his kingdom, and Gildas seems to have hated him for some reason that is not completely known or understood, though I suspect it to be for corruption of the clergy-i.e., bribery. Or, it could have been the opposite. Gwynned might not have been sufficiently impressed by Gildas to have patronized his support. Unfortunately, that is probably something else that will forever remain a mystery.

One of Gwynned's fellow kings, who due to his association also earned Gildas's ire, was judging by his name a seeming descendant of the aforementioned Ambrosius.

A more trustworthy source for information about Arthur, however, might be the bard Taliesin, also a near contemporary of the day, who might have mentioned Arthur, or might not have. That depends on whether the alleged oral history by him in which Arthur is briefly mentioned, as written down in the eleventh century, is an accurate reflection of his work, or whether elements were added. Even if the account is accurate, it is not good for much beyond that, as the account is short both in duration and detail. Still, it would prove Arthur existed, as Taliesin's work is generally considered historical, and more than likely accurate.

My own feelings about the Arthurian legend is mixed. I want to believe it. I'm not meaning by this the more obviously fantastical tales of supernatural fantasy, but just the basic facts, if they exist, that might have provided inspiration for the medieval tales.

My objective feelings, however, are that Arthur, even if he really existed, represents as we have come to know him a symbol more of Medieval ideals transposed onto a period of time called the Dark Ages for a good reason. Nobody knows but very precious little about them. Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table provided a historical facade that served to fill in some much needed blanks, and at the same time imposed on the public imagination of the day an idealized personification of the very sort of medieval ideals of chivalry that could not have possibly existed under such conditions as existed during the Dark Ages.

And if Arthur really did exist, we must also realize that most of those who are listed as his contemporaries did not. Lancelot and his affair with Arthur's Queen, for example, are obvious fictions, as is Merlin, Gawain's battle with the Green Knight, Galahad's search for the Grail, etc.

At most and at best, what we have is a brave king, who might have led a relatively small force of desperate allies in a last ditch effort to save their formerly civilized country from invading hordes of savage barbarians, and who may have been lost to history for all his efforts, save for a few sentences strung together almost as an afterthought, and who was for whatever reason made the central focus of a magnificent legend that would have probably been a source of great mirth to the genuine article and to those who actually knew him.

Perhaps we need our King Arthur's, our Robin Hood's, and all our other heroes, and have needed them since long before there was ever a movie or television medium, or even printing press to help us fulfill our need for such inspirational tales of heroism, back in days when the written medium and a few rare traveling minstrel shows were all that served to fill such needs.

And of course, they also might conceivably help you get funding for your next archaeological project.

World Cup Follies

When I learned a friend of mine was going to attend the World Cup, I knew I might hit the mother-lode, since everybody that was anybody was going to be there. As fate would have it, my friend Mohammed Shahiri, who used to blog quite some time back at Aladdinslad, was lucky enough to get a place in proximity to two of the most recognizable faces to attend the South African event.

Although he was shocked at what transpired, he was good enough to relay the information to me. One should not be too surprised at what I will soon relate.

After all, Mick Jagger has a mouth that practically begs, "Please let me suck your dick." Whereas former President Bill Clinton has a libido that practically begs, "Please suck my dick."

So then it stands to reason that, when these two get together, you know that nothing but hi-jinks could possibly ensue.

And so, without further ado, I present to you the basic transcription of what was said at the time the various following pictures were taken.

As we shall see, Mick was initially reluctant. But, Bill was insistent. And determined.



"Oh come on Mick, you can do it. We've got enough cover down here no one will see it."

Naturally, though, Mick had concerns. After all, forewarned is forearmed.



"Okay Bill, but before I go through with this I have to ask you-is it bigger than this?"

Unfortunately, no matter how many times you go through something, there are some things that are just impossible to prepare for.



"Damn Bill that tasted like rotten death. You need vitamins mate."

But, as it turns out, all was not as it seemed, and Bill wasn't quite as clever as he thought he was. There are always those ready to exploit your weaknesses. But, we suppose Bill will make the best of what might otherwise be a, let us say, embarrassing situation. Because, no sooner had Mick taken his leave than-



"Damn, all right Wolf, Katie, I'll keep you two in the loop whenever something goes down, I promise. Damn that fucking Mick."

Even though Mick seems to have helped set Bill up after all, I'm sure he will make it up to Bill someway. Maybe he'll sing Tumbling Dice at Chelsea's wedding.

John LeCarre Couldn't Have Made This Up

While many have been fascinated by tales of Russian spies spending years in deep cover while living fairly ordinary lives and pretty much accomplishing nothing of known or revealed importance, another tale of espionage is unfolding, one that might well be considerably more serious and damaging. It is now being alleged that something like 260,000 documents have been pilfered from the State Department.

I want to stress, not a mere 260,000 PAGES of documents, but 260,000 SEPARATE DOCUMENTS!

So what do these documents contain? It is said that they include blistering assessments of foreign leaders, operational details involving covert activities, information regarding foreign policy decisions, and even classified files of meetings with Israeli officials, among many other embarrassing and damaging files of information.

The culprit, supposedly, is U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Bradley Manning, who was arrested sometime in June of this year in connection with the leaking of an explosive video of attack-helicopter gun camera footage from Iraq. Whether that arrest is what led to the discovery of the leak of these documents is not exactly clear.

The alleged recipient of the documents are, like in the Iraq video case, Wikileaks, a website that specializes in serving as a repository for whistle blowers to leak documents that prove unscrupulous and criminal actions by government agencies and officials.

Manning is currently in jail, and Wikileaks has issued a denial as to its own involvement in the case of the disappearing documents.

Julian Assange, the Australian born founder of Wikileaks, has curiously seemed to disappear over the last few days. No one seems to know where he is.

What I wouldn't give to get to read these documents, if that is they really exist. I guess that's the point. No one knows for sure where they went, or who has them, or how and when they might turn up, or where. But if and when they do, I can almost promise you they would be worth their weight in gold to certain relevant parties.

Hat Tip-Defense Tech

UPDATE-Although it is not really surprising, Bradley Manning has his supporters, and one of them, Mike Gogulski, has started a web-site called Help Bradley Manning, with the tag-line "Because True Heroism Merits No Punishment".

The site seems clearly based only on his status as a whistle-blower related to the release of the aforementioned video. There is no mention on the site, that I have seen, related to the release of the 260,000 documents. I want to be clear, however, that there is no proof Manning himself was involved in this. But if he was, he is obviously going away for a very long time, more than likely for the rest of his life. He might even conceivably face the prospect of execution.

I should also mention that Julian Assange, the co-founder of Wikileaks, is being sought in connection with the leaking of the helicopter-attack video leaked by Manning.

CORRECTION-I stated in the post that Manning was arrested earlier this month, which was incorrect. I have corrected it. He was evidently arrested sometime last month, as the first post in the aforementioned blog Help Bradley Manning is dated June 17th of 2010.

Red State-A Sorry State Of Affairs

NOTE: IMPORTANT UPDATE APPEARS AT BOTTOM OF POST

I said a long time ago, there's a war going on for control of the Republican Party, and at the rate its going, its going to tear the party apart. That is yet another reason why I say its really presumptuous to assume a sure victory for any side, this year or any year.

I was reminded of this today, when my new diary at Red State, that I started under the name Federalist Pagan, was unceremoniously dumped. Well, I assume it was, since I have been barred from the site, thanks to the machinations of a man named Art Chance.

So who is Art Chance? Well, it so happens that he is a retired labor relations thug formerly in the employee of the Administration of former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski. Yes, as you might have guessed, he has a hard-on for Sarah Palin, but not in a good way. My first, and apparently last post at Red State, was a re-post of this one here in which I mused about her potential as a possible future Chairwoman of the RNC to replace the bumbling Michael Steele.

Chance started trolling my blog, saying nothing of substance, just insulting me, and the Governor, while accusing me of having the hots for her.

Although I did engage him in this dispute, I was incredibly restrained, and avoided engaging in foul language or inordinate name-calling. Amazingly, I was still banned from Red State for stating the obvious, that this outrageous thug was a troll, and evidently for daring to debate the issue with him to begin with. Before they banned me, however, I was deluged with some friends he brought over to my site, assuring me I didn't know what I was talking about, in so many words. One asshole told me I had said quite enough, and that I should leave, and perhaps pray to Zeus for wisdom. He and the others were amazed that I dared to engage in open dispute with the mighty Chance.

Obviously, I was supposed to be impressed by this cretin's credentials. Unfortunately for him and his band of sycophants, who had the unmitigated gall to call me a Palin sycophant, I am not impressed with anyone. I support Palin, but I am not part of any personality cult that might surround her, nor do I have the "hots" for the lady. I just happen to be impressed with her resume as a reformer of Alaska politics who stood up to the good old boys, and the corrupting influence of the oil industry.

Chance, meanwhile, worked for Frank Murkowski. Whoooooo, everybody should bow down, or you might get shot down by a corrupt retired government official who worked for one of the most corrupt Republican Governors in Alaskan history.

I am not the only one who has run afoul of him on Red State, nor am I the first to be banned from the site because of it. Nor are criticisms of him and his tactics the exclusive purview of the left. His victims on Red State, such as myself, are conservatives, anyone who is a Tea-Party member or sympathizer, or most especially it would seem, anyone who is a Palin supporter. A post from the blog Conservatives4Palin goes into some detail about his pervasive influence at Red State, which they claim due to mainly his influence is becoming another Little Green Footballs.

What he did as a labor relations leader in Murkowski's administration was threaten workers who tried to organize. He even brags about it. Mess with him, go against the system, and your livelihood is at stake. That is the attitude he carries with him even today, it seems. He will make an example out of you. There is a special place in hell for people like that. But while he is in this world, he is going to make sure that he has a special place on the payroll of the good old boys of Alaska, and the Republican Party of Frank Murkowski. Anyone who sets out to reform the party and its corruption, or the corruption of the state in general, or Gods willing, the national party, and end the inordinate influence of the oil industry, will earn his special ire.

And that in a nutshell explains his attitude towards Sarah Palin, or anyone who supports her. Amazingly, he calls her ruthless for the way she exposed the corruption and used this as a means to achieve power in Alaska politics.

Yet, for all his talk, this is a guy who works for a system that doesn't mind one whit whether the Republican Party stays in permanent minority status, which in a sense would be the status it would deserve. People outside the party tend not to understand this. These kind of Republicans have no ideology to speak of. They are anti-communist, but that is only for self-serving reasons. They are not concerned with your freedom and liberties, or even your basic human rights. They just don't want their property expropriated.

But at the same time, they are more than willing to compromise on issues that would make it tough on the average person, most especially their smaller, weaker business rivals, so long as they get to maintain a certain status quo, which amounts to a small set of goals-

One-Tax breaks for they and their more important, well-connected contributors. It doesn't have to be enshrined in the tax code, a few well-placed loopholes will do just fine, thank you. In fact, that might even be preferable.

Two-Pork to take home to the folks in their states and districts.

Three-Government contracts for their contributors.

Four-A hefty retirement package with medical care and the ability to use their contacts to gain further enrichment in the private sector once their career in public service, if you really must dignify it with such a term, is over.

There you have it. These people are more than willing to talk shit about religion and patriotism, as long as they don't actually have to walk the walk. The knuckle-dragging base can do that for them. They just better not expect too much in return. They just better get their asses out and vote for what little they do get, if they don't want the Democrats to take away the few crumbs the Republican insiders throw their way in their vast munificence.

And what is really maddening is, they are so cocksure of themselves, they don't even try to hide it anymore. They are aware that the base hates Obama to such an extent, the Republicans are likely to make big gains in the next mid-terms.

They'll be damned if they are going to let Sarah Palin and those Tea-Party nut jobs oust them from their perches of power in the GOP. They got a good thing coming their way, and by God nobody is going to take it away from them. Not Sarah Palin, not the Tea-Party crowd, and most certainly no small-time blogger like me. At least, not as long as they can sew up the bigger conservative blogs, like Red State, to such an extent that anybody who dares speak out against them or for their inter-party rivals, are shut down, shut up, and shut out.

UPDATE:

A person affiliated with Red State has made a couple of comments here in which he alleges that I made several provocative statements, inferring that I engaged in name calling and foul language, something which in fact I did not do.

He then went out of his way to inform another commenter that my diary has not been removed from Red State, though I have been banned. I just lately learned of a bizarre tactic utilized by the site's moderators against banned commenters. In effect, they edit their diaries to make them appear to have said things to justify their being banned. If anyone calls them on it, they use the vandalized diary as "evidence" against the banned diarist.

Here's the link to the Wikipedia page.

Here's a specific quote from the text of the article-

While any person may sign up to write blog posts in RedState's diary section, moderators have banned users identifying as conservative due to specific policy disagreements, replacing their signature line and all previous diaries with taunting messages.[3][4]

And here's another paragraph that goes into a bit more detail.

The site's moderators have been criticized for banning some users who disagree or dissent permanently from the site. Responses to any viewpoints deemed unwanted by site moderators have included replacing all of a person's diaries with messages designed to be offensive.[8] Banned users may be accused of being "progressive trolls"[4] or "moby," the latter being a person with over-the-top political positions making conservatives look bad.[9] Banned users may be greeted with an error message reading "601 Database redigestation error." The site moderators' behavior is a topic of discussion among moderate conservatives and internet discussion sites.[10]

Some will point out that this is Wikipedia, but I have no doubt as to the authenticity of the article's claims.

Red State, from my experience with it, might best be compared to a large public school system run by a disorganized, dysfunctional school board made up of high school dropouts, and who are in fact teenagers themselves, either in years or in intellectual and emotional capacity.

Unfortunately, they are a privately run company, owned by Eagle Publishing, which also owns Regnery Publishing and Human Events. As such, the best thing to do is simply stay away from them, and find another source for your political news and conservative commentary. There are certainly more choices out there-bigger ones, better ones, and certainly, one should hope, more ethical ones.

NASA-Just Don't Go There

NASA Director Charles Bolden, in an interview with Al-Jazeera English, claims NASA's major goal under Obama is to reach out to the Islamic world. I agree with what Charles Krautheimer had to say on Fox news about that.

"This is a new height in fatuousness," Krauthammer said. "NASA was established to get America into space and to keep is there. This idea to feel good about their past and to make achievements is the worst combination of group therapy, psychobabble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy."


I can't put it any better than that.

The Obama White House, though, claims that Bolden misspoke. Our main mission will always be to boldly go where no man has gone before, its just that as it happens, the moon no longer qualifies. Been there done that. On to Mars and beyond. Some day. And when we do, we will have the cooperation of the Muslim world, and in fact, the whole world. That is the Obama space program, in a nutshell. That's what the outreach to Muslims via NASA is all about.

However, recognition of their contributions in science and math notwithstanding, I'm thinking there might well be a cultural sensitivity issue at work here as well, one that might well go beyond appreciation of the science and math traditions the Muslim world mostly lifted from the Chaldeans and other ancient cultures whom they conquered, many of who have strangely all but disappeared from the face of the earth. No, they did not journey off to another galaxy. Another dimension, perhaps, one somewhat of a spiritual nature, but that's another issue of ethnic and cultural genocide best reserved for a future post.

In fairness, the Islamic world did supposedly make one important contribution, in the invention of Algebra, but that's not exactly what I'm getting at either.

Some of the greatest insults in all Islam involve the lowly shoe-showing the heel, or throwing a shoe, or striking a person or image with a shoe, or walking upon a person's face or image with the soles of one's shoes.

Therefore, it stands to reason that in going to the moon lo, these many moons ago, we committed a grievous insult to Islam by-walking on the moon, which is sacred to their God Allah, for this you see is the sacred boat in which he sails across the heavens.

We Americans are such outrageous and disrespectful infidels. Our tax money sponsored Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, and more who followed on their insensitive journey to what may well the holiest place in all of Islam. And in so stepping on the surface of the moon, these satanic people thus pressed the accursed soles of their space shoes-in a very real way, mind you-onto the face of Allah himself.

Is it any wonder God-fearing Muslims the world over despise us so much?

Hat Tip-NewsBusters

Who Should Replace Michael Steele As RNC Chairman

Its beginning to look like Michael Steele has said one stupid thing too many, and now almost everybody in the Republican Party wants him to resign or be removed from his position as Chairman of the RNC. Although I'm technically not a Republican, I have to weigh in here and say that I think it would really be better all the way around if he would step down. But if worse comes to worse, he should be removed, if that's the only way to solve this problem. I just can't see him sticking around any longer.

The question then becomes, who to replace him with. I think the answer is obvious.



I can think of a few negatives, of course. The most obvious one is, she is unlikely to gain the approval of the Inside-The Beltway crowd that actually control the GOP. There is also the potential that she would be such a lightning rod she might actually increase Democratic voter turnout. Finally, if she wishes to run for President in 2012, it might hinder her prospects were she to take such a position this relatively close to that next election.

But, on the plus side, the most obvious response to problem number one is if enough people, especially Tea party folks, demand she be appointed as Steel's replacement, we could make it awful difficult for the party apparatchiks to refuse to accede.

For every one Democrat that comes out in force, the Republicans should at least be able to go them half a one better, and probably more than that. But I would take a 3-2 advantage in increased turnout any time, especially since the GOP currently already enjoys an advantage. It would still be a rout in favor of the Republicans. It might even be a massacre.

As for the final point, there's always 2016, which might be better for her anyway. I am not one of these who assumes Obama is sure to go down to defeat in his re-election bid. That assumes a lot of facts that aren't in evidence, nor could they be. A lot can change in a year and a half. Those who are willing to bet the farm that Obama is sure to suffer the fate of Jimmy Carter in 1980 tend to forget the outcome of the 1994 mid-term elections that swept the Democrats out of power in both houses of Congress, and how that led, just two years later, to Bill Clinton easily winning re-election in 1996. One is well-advised to recall that, during those '94 mid-terms, Clinton was probably more unpopular than Obama is now. Obama's approval ratings are still hovering well into the forty percent range. Clinton would have killed for that high a poll rating in '94. Yet, by the time the '96 election rolled around, nobody seriously gave Bob Dole any chance of pulling out what would have been a shocking upset victory.

There are times for cheerleading, and then there are times for serious contemplation and practical considerations.

Sarah Palin brings both qualities as a potential Chairwoman of the RNC. It would be an appointment that would rock the world and I believe it would usher in the worse defeat in the history of the Democratic Party.

I should conclude by pointing out the fact that, although you never heard it trumpeted in the MSM, Sarah Palin was just last month cleared of all ethics charges filed against her. Think of how much fun it would be when Democrats brought up all those bogus complaints, for Brian Williams, for just one example, to have to explain that, "well, she was actually cleared of those charges as of around June 8th of this year-I just forgot to mention it. Must have been the oil spill."

Of course, the news media was out in force in reporting the charges, and investigating them, and probably in some cases filing them. But when it came to reporting that she was cleared, of every single one of them, they suddenly had other things to do.

There couldn't be a better example of poetic justice than Sarah Palin being named as the Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.

Independence Day

This fall on the UB Network, there will be yet another in a long line of incarnations of the character Nikita, based on the French film of the same name, which has spawned three remakes and an earlier television series on USA-and all of which managed to miss the point of the original film.

All of the films, and the first series, were targeted at a young demographic, and the newer version will doubtless be unique probably for merely being targeted at an even younger demographic, American teens.

Many of these teens will have a chance to view the series on DirecTV, which lately has been advertising its services as allowing a program or movie to be filmed in one room, to be viewed in a different room at a later date. Many of these teens will doubtless view the film in privacy of their own private bedroom or lounge.

It's a far cry from the days of yesteryear, when our great-grandparents to a large extent walked miles to go to school, often in inclement weather, in clothes stitched together from whatever fabric was available, using hand-me-down books. Over the years, however, these children of the past helped build the America of recent years, ultimately serving to enhance its already considerable reputation as the envy of the world.

Now, children in other parts of the world, in South and Central America, Asia,and Africa, are gladly walking miles to school, and are delighted to have a chance to study out of six year old math and science books and to eat a bowl of rice to see them through their day, while enduring conditions some of our hardiest pioneers might well have balked at, existing in the atmosphere of repressive and often violent murderous regimes, some of them playing soccer to relieve their frustrations, or just for a brief interval of fun and escape.

While they waste their time, our children are lucky enough to get to engage in advanced learning, in subjects such as women's studies, ebonics, sociology, comparative religions, and ethnic studies. Its not that none of them have any problems, to be sure. Why, many of them do not even have their own private bathrooms, believe it or not. And that is the least of it. Many of them will now, this year, face the horror of not being able to travel from the Northeast go to the beach in the Gulf States region this summer, due to the oil spill. Somebody should arrange for therapy to help them deal with this deprivation, but never fear-somebody probably will.

In the meantime, we have lately heard news of a Russian spy ring operating out of New York, New Jersey, and (where else) Massachusetts. They were basically trying to make contacts through social circles, and were engaged in money laundering activities, establishing covers as American citizens, all in an attempt to get next to people from whom they might eventually derive valuable information, or whom they might be able to blackmail into giving them said information, or opening other doors for them.

The most reported aspect of the story thus far is how cute and alluring is Anne Chapman, the name one of them goes by. I swear, the main interest in the story seems to be, judging by media reports-guys might want to do her. Well, hell, why not, she's kind of a real life Nikita, only Russian, not French, and not a heroin addicted assassin, we should hope. That would really make her irresistible.

As for the film and tv series franchise Nikita, a couple of points to the target demographic audience-

When the original film was released in the US, it was given the name La Femme Nikita.

For roughly twenty-seven percent of you, this was so you would not mistakenly think the film was about Nikita Khruschev. As to how these people thought for sure you would know the French term "La Femme" means "the girl" in English, you'll have to take that up with them.

For the remaining roughly seventy-three percent of you, Nikita Khruschev was a former Premiere of the Soviet Union.

I'm seeing and hearing a lot of fireworks this night, but what I'm not seeing is much of a light at the end of the tunnel.

She Shoulda Said No (1949) Pts. 7 And 8

The final two segments of the film are followed by my own thoughts and reflections on it.



* Alan Baxter - Markey
* Lyle Talbot - Captain Hayes
* Lila Leeds - Ann
* Michael Whelan - Treanor
* Mary Ellen Popel - Rita
* Doug Blackley - Lieutenant Mason
* David Holt - Bob Lester
* Don Harvey - Lieutenant Tyne
* David Gorcey - Ricky
* Jack Elam - Raymond
* Dick Cogan - Edmunds
* Knox Manning - Narrator

Previously-Captain Hayes sends Mason and Tyne out on an undercover assignment to find a lead on the marihuana racket; Anne throws herself into the party life; In no mood for games, Raymond warns Markie that his mouth might get him in trouble; Anne's new lifestyle leads to a tragedy; Markie gets his chance for advancement when Treanor entrusts him with an important job; and an uncooperative Anne spends time in jail.





She Shoulda Said No which was originally titled "Wild Weed", among many other titles, didn't really find success until it was marketed as a release in conjunction with the US Government in an effort to warn about the scourge of "marihuana". This was a blatant lie. The government was in no way connected with its production, distribution, or promotion during any of its stages.

It was actually an attempt to exploit the arrest in late 1948, for marijuana possession, of Robert Mitchum and film starlet Lila Leeds, the latter of whom is featured in the film in the role of Ann Lester. It would be her last film role of any significance. Whereas Mitchum played up on public empathy and used the arrest as a springboard to further enhance his career, Leeds was a hot potato. No one would touch her. This is perhaps a glaring example of the rampant sexism of the times, and Leeds felt she had no choice but to take the role, feeling it might be her one chance to salvage her career. In fact, perhaps the most cumbersome of the movies many titles was "The Story Of Lila Leeds And Her Expose Of The Marijuana Racket".

Ironically, during the period of time when she was in jail, and just prior to the making of the film, Leeds became a heroin user, and was in all likelihood addicted to the drug by the time this film was made.

She disappeared from public view until the mid-fifties, when she named a Chicago Democratic Party leader in a paternity suit. Sometime during this period, she was also arrested in Chicago for soliciting, a charge which she denied, but for which she was fined ten dollars.

In the seventies, she turned up as a minister in a group devoted to helping addicts recover from their addictions. She died in 1999, a virtual unknown, with no mention in any obituaries, her death being discovered almost by accident, through a perusal years later of her Social Security records.

The film featured a motley crew of performers, for the most part, the most significant of whom was Lyle Talbott in the role of Captain Hayes. Talbott had been a union activist for the Screen Artists Guild, and so of late his roles did not come easy. He had been a leading man much in demand up until then, but soon was relegated to B movies and roles in the early years of television, his most notable one perhaps being a recurring role as a neighbor on the Ozzie and Harriet Show.

Alan Baxter, who played Markie, was a well-respected actor who achieved some success on stage and in B movies, but never rose above that level.

David Gorcey, who played Ricky, had been a former Bowery Boy, but though he was in more of these films than any of the others, including his better known brother who was one of the leads in the film series, he was one of the minor characters.

David Holt, who played Ann's sister Bob, lived a life almost as tragic as that of his character in the film. Plagued by health problems and on the outs with his father, he never rose higher than this role, and died soon after.

Mary Ellen Popel, who played Ann's friend Rita, appeared in frequent films, but very seldom was she credited, mainly subsisting as little more than an extra in films where she was mainly one of a group. She was one of the Hebrews, for example, in the Golden Calf scene of The Ten Commandments.

And so it goes for practically every member of the cast, to whom this exploitation flick represented one last lifeline to a very unlikely successful career, or a revival of one that had floundered for whatever reason. Yet another irony was, by the time this film finally found some degree of success-nearly a decade after it was made-it was far too late to make any difference for most of them.

The one fortunate exception to this, of course, was Jack Elam, who appeared here in his first role as the bodyguard and thug named Raymond, and who probably would have just as soon the film never again saw the light of day.

Yet, it is interesting as a reflection of the attitudes of the day.

Gibson-Off The Wall

Gibson's really done it this time. It doesn't really matter that much that his ex-girlfriend and mother of his love-child might well have purposely set him up, and baited him into going off on a rant. She admitted, in fact, recording him for what she claimed was evidence, for her own protection against him, explaining that he had threatened her and even physically assaulted her by knocking out her teeth-a charge he has denied.

But you know, even if that could be conclusively proven to be a lie, and that she did go so far as to bait him into engaging in a rant, perhaps while he was intoxicated, its almost totally irrelevant. He said what he said, and what he said is beyond the pale.

Of course, his detractors are mainly focused on the racial slurs and the misogyny, even though they occurred in what Gibson assumed was the privacy of his own home. True, Gibson is a public figure and so is held to a higher standard, but by the same token you get a distinct impression that many of his detractors, such as Jesse Jackson, and the LA Chapter of the NAACP, would like to use this as an example of the kind of covert racism that is endemic in a large percentage of American households. And then there is the misogynistic nature of Gibson's tirade, which is receiving a great deal of attention as well.

He called her a "cunt" and declared that she deserved to be "raped by a pack of niggers", telling her that "it would be your fault". Yet, as bad as all this is, it actually pales beside a couple of other factors that aren't getting one fourth the coverage as the racist and misogynistic nature of what has been described as a thirty minute "demonic" rant.

One, their child was there, apparently in the same room, while this roughly thirty minute tirade was on-going. She can be heard clearly, crying in the background.

Two, and perhaps more disturbingly, he did threaten her, telling her he would burn down the house, adding "but first you will blow me."

I doubt this tape can be used as evidence in a court of law, or even in a civil suit, but that's almost beside the point as well. Gibson has dug himself a hole now for sure, one that all of the sensitivity training and tear-jerk apologies on all the late night talk shows and cable news channels in the world isn't going to pull him out of. In fact, that might only serve to dig the hole deeper at this point. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to just shut the fuck up and try to work out some kind of arrangement for the good of the kid involved. He has backed himself into a corner now, and the overt publicity, as well as common decency, will demand that he step up and try to make things right as far as his financial obligations to the child and to its future well-being.

His career as he has known it is probably in the crapper at this point. His next best shot at a major role might well be as a WCW wrestling villain-if he's lucky.

Without a doubt, people will go to see his next movie, or would do so if he can find a distributor, and a studio or company to finance it. He certainly can't count on financing it himself and ending up with yet another success on the level of Passion of The Christ. I hate to say it, but maybe he should just think about retiring at this point. Nothing he could ever do is likely to please the vast majority of the people he has offended here. Perhaps that is wrong, but it is probably a fact.

I would go see anything he made, and so would many others, but that is by no means an endorsement. I would buy an original Charles Manson recording, and if a museum featured an exhibit of Hitler's artwork, I would go to see it, if possible. That should not be construed as any kind of agreement or affinity for such people as they. I would simply try to judge the works of both on the basis of their artistic merits, or the lack thereof, but for the most part would view it more as an historical oddity and curiosity.

In that same spirit, while I certainly don't mean to imply that Gibson is anywhere near on the same level of monstrosity as Manson or Hitler, I can't defend this. I'm not sure how it would be possible even if I wanted to, which I do not.

Elena Kagan-The Rule Of Sentiment

Ruthfully Yours has a comprehensive rundown on all the various reasons she feels that Elena Kagan would be a disastrous choice for the Supreme Court. Although I agree with her in nearly every case, I want to especially draw attention to the following-

We know she deliberately ignored the law while at Harvard, and unfairly besmirched our military in time of war. The facts are simple. A law known as the Solomon Amendment made it illegal to keep military recruiters off of college campuses. An appeals court ruled that the law should be overturned but immediately made its own ruling inapplicable until it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Then-Dean Kagan barred the recruiters from campus anyway, thus flouting the law. She called the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule on homosexual practices “a moral injustice of the first order,” even though she herself had served in the Clinton White House that developed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule in the first place. Then, when she supported a challenge to the Solomon Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled against her position 8-0 – an overwhelming rejection of her anti-military stance.

There is something about that which I find especially troubling coming from someone who is being considered for a lifetime appointment on the highest court of the land. The post in question points out how Kagan is seemingly willing to flout the law, but that's the least of it.

Its important now to think clearly about this-Kagan was attempting to ban the military from recruiting at Harvard because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". So what, you might ask?

DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS A GOVERNMENT LAW THE MILITARY HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO ADHERE TO!!!!

Moreover, although some might make a bit too much of it in this case, Kagan worked for the Clinton Administration, which of course was the one that issued this rule as a Defense Directive-

The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993[13] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[11] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

So what to make of this? Does Kagan feel the military should ignore the constitutional mandate of civilian rule of the military? What about the rest of us? Do we have the right, for that matter the responsibility, to defy the law when we feel it might be odious? Admittedly, that might be a strong temptation when it comes to laws this cretin is likely to uphold, but I seriously doubt that's what she has in mind. Maybe she doesn't have anything in particular in her mind, other than a vain, vapid attachment to her own sentiments. Is that now a viable qualification for a judicial appointment?

Much has been made of Kagan's intellect, education, and abilities. One thing is for sure, she has accomplished what has heretofore been seemingly impossible. She has created a situation in which the Supreme Court felt obliged to rule against her by a unanimous verdict, 8-0, something that is almost unheard of with this ideologically divided court. On this matter, at least, she manages to make even Ruth Bader Ginsburg seem moderate and reasoned, while one lone holdout (I don't yet know who this was, but I suspect Breyer) apparently, while he might have liked to have voted for her position, was unable to think of a legitimate reason to do so and therefore was too embarrassed to vote at all.

Yet Obama, who himself, at least at one point, supported Don't Ask Don't Tell, somehow feels this fruit loop is qualified to hold a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. And barring something really momentous, there is little if any doubt that she will be confirmed.

To say it boggles the mind would be a gross understatement.

McDonald vs Chicago

Here's the pdf from the Court. Here is a post on Scotusblog from Alan Gura, who was McDonald's attorney in the case.

The Left got a well-deserved ass-kicking in the McDonald case, and now they are in an introspective rage. They aren't going away any time soon.

The oldest gun control laws in the US actually establishes the gun control movement as an old southern tradition, and Democratic Party one, an attempt by the KKK and its followers to disarm blacks. That tradition has continues up to today. Go to any city that has the most restrictive gun laws, and on any given day count the number of black faces. It doesn't matter whether its LA, New York, Detroit, Baltimore, or of course Chicago, blacks make up a significant percentage of the population, in many if not most cases the majority. The plaintiff in this case, McDOnald, was one such victimized black, a community alternative policing activist hated by the drug gangs he opposed. His house was invaded three times in the past. Yet, he had no means of self-defense so far as guns were concerned.

It's in black and other minority and poor neighborhoods in cities and smaller communities across the nation where you will find the greatest numbers of violent crimes and deaths relating to guns. Many times, it will be gang on gang violence, but far too often it is innocent citizens, the vast majority of whom are unarmed.

The protests from the hard anti-gun left fall more and more on deaf ears, and rightly so, despite the relatively rare though certainly tragic occurrences of domestic violence with guns, the accidental shootings, and of course the cases where a home invasion results in the theft of guns by the criminal culprit-which amounts to nothing more nor less than the criminal adding to his already considerable stockpile of weapons in some cases. But at least in those cases when homeowners have guns, the home invasion is far more likely to occur at those times when the homeowner in question is away.

The Second Amendment originally was intended to allow the states to maintain a militia of armed citizens. These armed citizens were never intended to be an actual standing army, however. "Well-regulated militia" meant in eighteenth century terms, a well-armed citizenry, and those citizens kept their arms where they could have them at the ready-in their own homes. However, many states and local communities did "regulate" guns, and established their own laws. The aforementioned southern states passed such laws so as to enable black citizens, along with white Republicans, to become fair prey. The Cruikshank decision which was mentioned in the case was regarding an incident in which the person in question, Cruikshank, had led and participated in the massacre of numerous unarmed blacks, many of whom were marched through the streets to their execution.

Gun control laws found extension in the West in some locales, and other areas of the country notable for gun violence, but for the most part such laws were purposely discriminatory.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, however, made it clear that not only could the Federal Government not interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens, or the states, it established that the states themselves could not interfere with the rights of its own citizens. That was the basis of the McDonald ruling, and it has been far too long coming. Previously, this aspect has been ignored, and when it has been brought up, it has been denied. Such determinations have been tolerated due to the precedent set in regulations limiting other rights under the Bill of Rights. Free speech, after all, is not an unlimited right. There are laws against slander and libel, there are community standards that deal with pornography, etc. Freedom of Religion is not unlimited. You can become a Mormon or a Muslim, but you can only marry one woman, or man. A man cannot marry multiple wives, nor a wife multiple husbands. Nor can a man marry young prepubescent girls, nor kill their wife or daughter when they displease him. You can extend it further to Freedom of Association. You can join the Hibernian Society, but if you associate with the Irish Mob or the IRA, you will likely at some point find yourself subject to investigation and possibly prosecution, and rightly so. These are just a few of the things where society draws a line in the sand and declares "Thou Shalt Not Cross".

Because of this inherent reality, gun restrictions have been tolerated, but with this ruling, it has been clearly established that the right of states and local communities to restrict and regulate the right to bear arms is not absolute nor is it unlimited, as is the case in the other aforementioned rights. Were this not so, it might be possible for some states and local communities to totally outlaw free speech or association, or freedom of religion, etc., on completely spurious grounds based on a supposed common good.

Similarly, the right to keep and bear arms is warranted the same degree of interpretation and respect. There will doubtless be a number of future cases which will challenge the laws in certain jurisdictions. Some will meet with different results than in others, and in some cases, some should probably fail. If I own a bar or nightclub, and I don't want armed drunks patronizing the place, I would have serious problems with a law declaring I had to allow and and all of them to carry firearms in my place of business every bit as much as I would if I had to allow anyone that come into my my own home to bring their firearm.

In my opinion, universities similarly have the right to restrict gun ownership on their campuses only to those students who have demonstrated the proper training and self-discipline. I don't think any reasonable person wants to see a house full of drunken frat boys carrying Glocks and Uzis all over campus, or students who have demonstrated disciplinary problems of one stripe or another walking around with guns on their hips and chips on their shoulders.

By the same token, I think some reasonable recognition of the right to bear arms, albeit limited, is certainly warranted, and may even have contributed to the prevention of certain tragedies, such as the Virginia Tech shootings, or at the very least such laws might have enabled an armed and trained, responsible student or faculty member to have ended the problem more quickly and lessened the ultimate body count.

But when exactly does a reasonable regulation and requirement become overreaching and repressive? If a person has a number of unpaid parking tickets or has spent a number of nights in the drunk tank, or even if he has a record of assault, domestic or otherwise, does it render him or her incompetent or a danger to society in all cases? How far back does the record have to go? Does a drug arrest twenty years in the past disqualify a person from gun ownership? Will there be shoot to wound laws, or a requirement to fire a warning shot at home invaders before actually taking aim in some jurisdictions? Is it really necessary in some cases to wait until a burglar actually threatens one physically, or wait until he actually breaks down your door and steps inside, even though you see clearly he's about to do just that, carrying a gun or a crowbar as he kneels by your door or window, or is skulking behind the bushes? If you see him outside, should you be required to first call the police before you take matters into your own hands? What if he's already cut your land line and your cellphone isn't working?

What about training? Should a private citizen be required by local law to become proficient in firearms before owning one, as is currently being discussed in Chicago? If so, what should be the level of proficiency? Could this be a way to continue the restrictions, by setting the bar so high most people might not ever pass it without taking an inordinate amount of time at great expense? These are questions that are probably going to be raised in some cases multiple times in different jurisdictions.

No, this isn't the end of the war, this is just one very fortunately won battle, and at a vote of 5-4, barely won at that.

But its a good and historic first step.

Son Of Hamas

Mosab Hassan Yosef is a son of a leader of Hamas, who at some point became a spy for the Israeli Mossad. Sometime later he converted from Islam to Christianity, and later wrote a book called Son Of Hamas.

Now he's in the US, seeking asylum.

Oh yeah, and his deportation hearing is tomorrow.

Rep. Doug Lamborn, Colorado Republican, on Monday evening sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano protesting her department’s attempt to deport Mosab Hassan Yosef, a former spy for Israel, Christian convert, outspoken critic of Islam and disowned son of jailed Hamas leader Sheik Hassan Yousef.

Obviously, if he is deported back to Gaza his life won't be worth the cost of his ticket back, or for that matter the cost of printing it. Due to the direness of the situation, Lamborn has twenty-two co-signers from among his colleagues in the House, all of them Republicans-not one single Democrat.

Tick

Tock

Senator Robert Byrd-End Of An Era (Well, We Can Always Hope)

Somewhere in hell-



Now relax, for all we know, the old former Kleagle might have fooled his old friends by not showing up. After all, he did claim to have disavowed the Klan, and regretted (letting it become public knowledge) that he ever joined them. We should honor his years of public service by taking him at his word.

Wait a minute, what am I saying-he's a politician. Excuse me, slight relapse there.

As you might imagine, folks have different takes on Byrd's death. Sister Toldjah is gracious, even for her, while Pat at Belschspeak seems more sure of his ultimate destination than I.

My take on Byrd, his life, career, and death, takes into consideration the totality of his contributions to public life and society.

He was born in 1917, the same year that progressive Democratic President Woodrow Wilson broke his earlier vow to enter World War One-after winning re-election in part with the slogan "He Kept Us Out Of War"-by entering the war, and then arresting and harassing any who protested his actions. Like Wilson, Byrd was a Southerner, and a racist, who later became progressive in his policies. Wilson promoted the same Klan which later Byrd joined, and in his public career, Byrd was every bit as segregationist and bigoted as Wilson, only more openly so, as witness this bit of charming prose from the Gentleman of the Senate-

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

- Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944


Byrd of course opposed segregation in more matters than merely Truman's integration of the Armed Forces, and did so rigorously, until it became obvious to him, not so much that it was the wrong thing to do and that he was on the wrong side of history, nor because he knew he might lose his Senate seat if he failed to change his stance, but in all likelihood because he knew current realities in the Senate demanded he change if he had any intention of keeping his seniority in regards his committee assignments. Robert Byrd was too much of a pragmatist to be content to remain as a mere back-bencher. He had votes to buy and loyalties to maintain, and that required Congressional largess for his state and constituents. He was richly rewarded for his years of past service and the promise of future service to come to the Democratic Party, which for most of his career was the majority party. West Virginia, while consistently one of the poorest states in the country, nevertheless benefited from Byrd's legendary ability to bring home the pork, and such was the level of gratitude from state officials that, had he lived much longer, there is every indication the state of West Virgina might well have been re-named Byrdvania.

Doubtless it was explained to Byrd how the black vote was becoming more vital than ever in certain constituencies of the nation due to years of progressively increasing black migration from the South to the North and the Midwest and other areas over the course of the preceding fifty years, and that in addition to its stated objectives, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs would help keep blacks docile, restrained to a type of welfare plantation. It might even encourage more blacks to migrate out of the South and border states.

Soon, Byrd became a staunch supporter of leftist progressive Democratic policies, while possible acting as a brake on some of the nuttier liberal excesses in the name of electoral viability, while at the same time never appearing as a divisive influence in his own party. However, he was consistent in his Democratic loyalties to the end, supporting for example the recently passed Health Care Bill in one of his last votes.

To the end, he opposed the war in Iraq as an unconstitutional abrogation of the power of Congress to declare war. Well, he had a point there. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say.

He was known to carry around a pocket version of the Constitution. We can imagine, though we can not know for sure, that he wept in private whenever he read the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

He openly disliked Bill Clinton, though never expressed this until the end of Clinton's presidency. He was fond of Hillary.

Robert Carlysle Byrd was the penultimate Democrat for his time, a man born into the era that saw the beginning stages of the evolution of the progressive faction of the Democratic Party take root in the midst of its divisive and racist heritage, during a time when most progressives were in fact themselves openly racist, and in some regards irritatingly sanctimonious about it. Like that movement, his own progressive leanings evolved and grew.

And now he's dead, at the time when many of the progressives of the US are coming to grips with their disappointment in the man whom they thought would bring about the hope and change Byrd himself advocated at first reluctantly, and then wholeheartedly.

The progressive movement of course is not dead. It's just, maybe like Byrd, in a state of purgatory.

All Roads Lead To Rome (Well, Most Of The Better Ones)

If we ever do "win" in Afghanistan, what would or should the place look like? Most in the US seem to think a western style democracy with advanced rights and constitutional guarantees would be a naive expectation, and they are probably right. But that doesn't mean the situation is totally untenable. I would recommend a model of democracy that our own republic is, in fact, largely based on-that of the ancient Roman Republic.

It's a general model, to be sure, not an exact duplicate, of what might work for Afghanistan. The Roman Republic was based on checks and balances between legislative bodies made up of Senators, composed of patricians, a Plebeian assembly based on geographically divided "tribes", and an assembly of Centuries. This system prevailed for close to five hundred years, with an unwritten constitution based on tradition and precedent. In the last century BC, a series of events led to the ultimate dissolution of the Republic, but while it lasted, it worked very well indeed, forming the framework by which Rome came to dominate most of Europe and North Africa, and large areas of the Middle East.

But it wasn't truly "democratic" in the sense of one person, one vote. Even if you were a plebeian you were required to own property or so much wealth, in order to have a seat in the Assembly. On the other hand, this was true of the patricians, not all of whom were wealthy, that made up the Senate. They had to own property valued at a certain level, plus belong to certain families, and then they had to be accepted in the Senate by their peers. On its own, it was its own ancient version of a good old boy's club. The Assembly of the Centuries, composed of Army Centurions, made up a third co-equal branch of the government. Each of these three branches passed laws and had their own judicial branches. To the outside observer, it probably seemed like a hodgepodge of potentially and ultimately divisive factionalism, but it maintained its functional integrity with little comparative change for nearly half a millennium. That's not too shabby of a record.

I think the same basic structure would work in Afghanistan, although of course the tribes are not just geographical designations, but actual ethnic ones. The tribes are ruled by certain chieftains, in some cases warlords, who basically hold veto power already over the country. Giving them the power to handpick representatives of their tribes in a legislative body would not really be an innovation. It would actually be a recognition of reality.

Hamid Karzai's so-called corruption was actually a necessity. Had he not made deals and concessions with certain tribal leaders, chieftains, and warlords, he would not have gained the votes necessary to win the last election. In other words, a significant enough number of people would have voted the other way just on a word from the tribal leaders in question, had he not bargained with them. This culture is not a culture of corruption, its a culture of Afghan tradition.

Since some tribes and their warlords are more equal than others, all that remains is to work out the prospect of guaranteed rights for the minority tribes, who will not look too kindly on the prospect of the Pashtun majority exercising dominant rule through a legislative assembly. On the other hand, there are probably sub-tribes within the Pashtun and others who might manifest in such a situation. But at any rate, a constitution guaranteeing rights for all tribes and all members of those tribes might be relatively simple in comparison to the prospect of guaranteed individual liberties outside the scope of tribal customs.

And of course there is the prospect of Islam. The idea that we could influence an insertion of separation of state and religion is an automatic deal breaker. That is perhaps the most unfortunate aspect to all this, for the minute such a proposal was made, you're going to have tens of thousands of people on the street accusing the US of waging war against Islam using a different tactic. They are not now nor would they ever be impressed by the proposition and promise that we have no intention of denying anyone's right to practice Islam. In fact, they already know that. That is not the problem. The problem is based on the proposition that they have no intention of not being in control of the government to the exclusion of any other party, secular or religious.

But it doesn't have to be that bad, so long as everyone has guaranteed basic human rights. If a woman has the right to work outside the home and is not forced to wear the burqha, what difference does it make if she is not allowed to hold public office and is forced to wear a hajib? If a girl is allowed to attend school, what business is it of ours if that school is required to include basic Islamic teachings as part of its curriculum? If every man woman and child is guaranteed basic human rights, to live and work where and as they choose, what difference does it make if they don't actually get to cast a vote in an election? No, its not ideal. But its a start. Again, baby steps.

The key is the Taliban, and this is where Obama's policy is flawed. They should be wiped out wherever and whenever they turn up. There should be an official no tolerance policy towards them. Remember, they brought this war on themselves. We talk of winning hearts and minds, but we must remember, they've already won that battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghans. They rule hearts and minds with fear, and the people know that the way things stand, when we leave, they will still be there, down the road, just around the corner, in the market place and the house next door.

But the key here is again the tribal chiefs and warlords. By not recognizing their traditional role in Afghan society, we have enabled the Taliban's resurgence through them. They are our only real chance of bringing the Taliban to heal, and keeping them marginalized. An Islamic Republic of Afghanistan doesn't have to look like the Taliban, or Iran, or even present day Turkey. It might in fact look far more secular than we might suspect. That will be up to the chiefs, and I can't stress enough, their power and influence is not to be minimized or denigrated.

And again, as I've said elsewhere, I will repeat again, and in fact I can't stress it enough-if you really want to win hearts and minds, there's no better place to start than with the opium farmers. Sure, we should encourage a diversity of crops. Pomegranates are a booming business, and tobacco might well play a role, but the opium trade is not going away. By tapping into that market, we deprive the Taliban of a significant source of revenue. I don't care if we burn the stuff the minute we buy it, that would still be money well spent even on a perpetual yearly basis. But really, why should we do that? There are uses for opium that go beyond heroin. In the real world you play with the hand you are dealt and try to be grateful when you just might draw a full house.

Finally, I have to point out that its lately been determined that Afghanistan is sitting on one to three trillion dollars worth of some of the wealthiest mineral deposits in the world. There is iron, copper, cobalt, gold, and perhaps even more importantly, Lithium, which will be a vital component of electric car batteries, and possibly wind turbines, solar panels, and who knows what else.

There is no shame in the US, after dismantling the Taliban and setting up a secure country based on the rule of law and basic human rights, profiting from Afghan resources, provided of course we understand-it is THEIR resources and they should profit first and foremost. Of course, some people don't see it that way, and just the other day I got this bizarre response in the comments section to this post when I brought up the subject-

So now you advocate war to seize the natural resources of Afghanistan.. Lithium is the power source of the future. hmm so you think that it should be controlled by us.. Now i know why you disgust me. You have no shame..

Of course, me being me, I responded with this somewhat testy reply-

Yup, I think we should take it all away from them before the Taliban or the Chinese or Indians do. At least we can make sure the Afghans are treated fairly and adequately compensated, and have a decent life, as opposed to being enslaved by some of the other fuckheads there, like for example the fucking raghead Taliban, who by the way we should go all out to bomb back to the Stone Age. Which in their fucking case would only be about a fifty year sprint

Which sent the commenter in question, a Druid practitioner who goes by the name Shadowhawk, completely over the edge into batshit insanity with the following deranged rant-

Its people like you that keep the wars rolling on.. well the rest of us are tired of you ignorant mother fuckers.. You bitch about communism, socialism, illegal immigration. gay marriage, yet 6 thousand miles away youre killing for oil. and things that arent yours. I hope that 1 day our country gets invaded. then you warmongering fucks will get to see REALITY slam you in your ignorant fucking faces

Read that carefully and let it sink in. A man who claims to speak for the average American, a man who insists conservatives are traitors to America, is openly expressing the hope that the US is invaded. Sure, he might have just said it because he was pissed off at me, but that's beside the point. The point is, he said it, and I think that's not really all that uncommon an attitude among the Left. He's just one of the few that slipped up enough to let it out. This is the kind of thinking we're up against.

Look folks, if we don't help the Afghans develop their potential and build their country up, maybe somebody else will. Or maybe they won't. Maybe Afghanistan will become the next Tibet to China. Does anybody really believe the average Afghan would fare any better with the Chinese, or the Russians, or India, or even with Pakistan, than they would with us. I mean, its not like I'm advocating raping and ravaging them of their resources and leaving them bone dry. The Afghans will, and should be, the chief beneficiaries of anything we do along the lines of developing their country, establishing a workable political system, and developing their resources and economy. The chief benefit to us, economic considerations aside, are in the long-term benefits that accrue from building a stable, secure and prosperous state where once there stood a failed one run by a brutal theocracy that allowed a terrorist group free reign.

There is no reason the Afghans can't develop a prosperous nation and society, one based on peace and the rule of law, centered around their own history and cultural traditions, one that will last through successive generations, with a tradition as vital and lasting as Rome itself. There is also no legitimate reason that, should we be the ones to help them develop their resources and economy, we should not also benefit from them. It would actually be a crime against nature and the spirits of our fallen soldiers if we did not do so.

Considering what many of the alternatives might be, it might even be a crime against humanity.

She Shoulda Said No (1949)-Pt 6 of 8

Previously-Following a tragedy, the LAPD Marihuana Task Force is desperate to prevent more lives from being ruined; Markey tells Anne to think of him as kind of a Santa Clause and promises he can turn her life into one big sleigh ride; Markie's worried supplier wants to keep a low profile; Anne finds the body of her brother Bob hanging in the garage, a victim of suicide; and the Chief of the Task Force warns an uncooperative Anne that her life could end up ruined like so many others.

Those Bygone Days Of Gore

After all this time we learn Al is a a pervert. Is this why Tipper left him? Will the allegations of his sexual assault of a Portland Oregon masseuse eventually become a part of the official record? Will Al soon be obliged to register as a sex offender, or will he skate, like his former boss BJ Billy?

Do any of you have a little girl in the Girl Scouts who might be eager to experience natures wonders? Be advised that, somewhere in the woods of Tennessee, a strange man with a deep boring drawl and glassy, dull gaze may soon be waiting to show her his woody, possibly on a slide projector, but then again-

Yet, whatever the future holds, we should always remember the days of Gore, when Al (so far as we know) limited his sexual escapades to the floor of Democratic conventions, and to fucking crowds of Global Warming true believers, sometimes without so much as a kiss, and when Tipper tried to censor those dirty song lyrics and violent video games, and together, they came close to ruling the world.

Yes indeed, those were the days.

General McChrystal-Insubordination Or Open Revolt?

Their intentions might be suspect, but I have to say the General McCrystal article in Rolling Stone is the best I've read in quite some time. It would actually be a disservice to quote any one part as an example of a standout, because the whole damn thing is that good, and no matter where you stand on any relevant issue its an example of what real journalism is or should be about.

By no means does McChrystal look good here. For all his admirable qualities and undeniable abilities, he comes across as every bit as much a rogue, insubordinate general as Patton, MacArthur, and McCllellan at their worse, all rolled into one.

And though Obama has every right, and perhaps even a responsibility to fire him, and probably will, he is in a real bind. Red State defends the president's prerogative in this regard, yet points out that it might not be that easy or all that cut-and-dried.

McChrystal has already built up a checkered, controversial history. On the one hand, he is more than any other single person responsible for the success of the Iraq Surge strategy, as he was in charge of the counter-insurgency strategy that was such an integral part of it. His special forces unit was responsible for the capture of Saddam, and eventually the killing of the leader of Al-Queda in Iraq. On the other hand, he has been accused of and criticized for abuse of prisoners and suspects.

He also was the man who tried to hide the truth about of the death of Army Ranger and former Arizona Cardinals football player Pat Tillman. He recommended Tillman for a Bronze Star for death in combat against the enemy, even though he knew he actually died as a result of friendly fire. He even had the temerity to encourage his superiors in the Defense Department to go along with this charade, as a means of promoting the war effort, which he insisted would be harmed publicly were the truth known, which of course it eventually came out.

Yet, after a private briefing with a Congressional sub-panel, he was not publicly chastised. It makes you wonder if he did not in fact fall on his sword for the sake of someone else in the Defense Department. It would certainly explain the charmed life he's led since.

But he also has a reputation as a man with little patience or respect for the niceties of political civilian control, and is brutally frank and honest in his assessments. This in fact is supposedly one of the reason Obama, although stridently opposed to the Surge from the beginning as a matter of principle, placed him in charge of the Afghanistan effort in place of the fired General McKierney.

But it's been a tense relationship. McChrystal forced Obama kicking and screaming all the way around to his way of thinking-after a three month "study", of course-on the matter of increasing American troop strength in Afghanistan, something he and Biden, and most others in the Administration, was pointedly opposed to. He did this by speaking out publicly in the press. In other words, this is nothing new for General Stanley McChrystal.

It's hard to believe McChrystal and his staff were so stupid as to not understand and appreciate the implications of the things they said to Michael Hastings, the free-lance reporter who wrote the article for Rolling Stone over a period of a month, once he was stuck with the General and his staff in Europe during the days of the Icelandic volcano eruptions which grounded most air traffic in and out of the continent. They had to have known what they were getting into, and what the likely consequences would be. The general for his part has since apologized, but it comes across to me as the apology of a teenage boy who knowingly disobeyed the household rules and is now hoping to ameliorate the coming punishment he knows will come his way.

But the person who really looks bad in all this is Obama, along with those in his Administration involved in the war effort. Not just Obama, but Joe Biden, Special Envoy Richard Holbrook, US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eickenberry, National Security Advisor James Jones, all get raked over the coals, and openly derided in the most flagrantly obvious indications of disrespect imaginable. The only person in Obama's Administration any of the general's staff has a good word for, interestingly, is Hillary Clinton, a long time supporter of the general.

For a long-time professional soldier of such high rank and responsibility to take it upon himself to criticize the Commander-In-Chief, and much of his highest officials, in the pages of a magazine noted for its hostility to the war effort, is remarkable, and speaks volumes more than what it appears in print about the state of Obama's Administration, not just in this area alone, but in possibly all other areas of importance as well.

It's no wonder Obama is furious, because no matter how he handles this, its a big loss for him. If he fires McChrystal, he loses, but if he keeps him he still loses and looks weak in the bargain. But its a real worry for all of us, which is why I encourage everyone, know matter how you might feel one way of another, to read the article. If there is one money quote, the following excerpted from the pages of the Atlantic might suffice to illustrate the overall problem in a nutshell-

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have
caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire,
soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special
Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love
to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even
greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."


I have an idea that what you read above is a result of an Obama official policy causing morale problems, to say nothing of operational and safety concerns, with the general and some of his troops. But then again, we should know better than to expect too much from Team Obama.

Perhaps this whole thing is an example of two victims of the Peter Principle involved in a head-on collision. In McChrystal's case, he seems to be over his head when it comes to navigating the political waters and the public relations aspects that comes with his position. Of course, there is every possibility in the world that McChrystal knew exactly what he was doing, and did so purposely as a means of yet again forcing Obama to change his policy.

In Obama's case, on the other hand, the lack of competence is beyond dispute. Here we have one of those rare individuals who has been "promoted" three times above his level of competence to successively higher positions. It's a shame. He must have been one hell of a community organizer.

But alas, it's beginning to look like skill as a community organizer better prepares one for wrecking a nation than for building one.