One of the most intriquing paintings I have ever seen is "ENNUI" by Walter Sickert. It is filed with imagery,some of which could be,and possibly is, projections from the mind of the viewer. But that is a function of art, and this painting is no exception. At first glance,there is nothing particularly attractive about it. Until you look at it carefully.
The woman stands near a mantle, apparently bored, daydreaming as she looks past some bric-a-brac on the mantle by which she stands, gazing at something on the wall that is out of sight of the viewer. A decanter of wine and brandy sits at the edge of a mantle at another wall, and casts a shadow which is to me reminiscent of a bat hanging upside down.
An older gentleman, apparrently older than the woman though we can't be certain, sits at a table, drinking what has been described as a beer, though it looks more to me like water, while he smokes what has been described as a cigar, though to me it looks more like a cigarrette. Interestingly, he seems to be holding it not to his mouth, but to his nose.
You see a slight bulge in the crotch of his pants as he tries to assume a posture of relaxed casualness-yet he seems to be very tense as he seems to be looking out the corner of his eyes.
But it is the shadow that he casts that seems to reveal his inner turmoil. He sems almost compelled to spring into action. The shadow is full of the life of his secret thoughts. But thoughts about what?
The shadow seems to be a prominent artifice in Sickerts work, which to great extent delves into the dark, hidden side of ordinary everyday life. Sickert was quite taken by the macabre aspects of human nature, with all it's propensity for filth, degradation, and violence. Yet, he could produce art of breathtaking scenic beauty as well.
A good many have come to know him in this day and age through the work of Patricia Cornwell, who recently asserted in a book that Sickert was none other than Jack The Ripper. Though she makes a compelling case insofar as certain items of forensic evidence, in addition to his possible motivations, she herself seems to have become as obsessed at the prospect as the true Ripper may have been at the opportunity for his next victim.
In an efort to produce evidence to support her theory, she purchased a Sickert work and, in the process of searching for evidence, destroyed it. Hopefully, this travesty will never be repeated, nor will it be permitted the chance to occur. Even if Sickert was theRipper, there is no excuse for destroying great art. For another thing, the evidence against Sickert being the Ripper is considerable, and not easily discounted.
*Sickert was in places known to be far from the sight of a number of the Ripper murders, apparrently at the time they were committed.
*So far as I know, Sickert had no connection to the Masons. In point of fact, the Ripper was either a former mason who had been kicked out of the Order, for whatever reason, or he was otherwise in a position to know a great deal of Masonic lore.
*Jack the Ripper was an American, probably attached to the American embassy for at least some time during the last year of the first Grover Cleveland administration, after which, upon the advent of the succeeding Harrison administration, he was among those recaled. No, I can't prove this. But it is what I think.
In fact, I have thought of other potential suspects, among them Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker. And there is also the possibility that Sickert himself, who was reportedly obsessed with the case, may have been the culprit after all,or somehow otherwise involved with it. But again, this doesn't justify destroying great art.
I would suggest however that careful research into Sickert's personal relationships and business ones, particularly what art students he may have taught at the time, may go a long way toward finding the true identity of the Ripper, assumming Sickert had a relationship with him, and of further discovering just what Sickert's connection to the case may have been, if anything. But I wouldn't count on it one way or another.
Friday, August 26, 2005
The Artist Kurtz
I came across this artist on a Satanist web-site recently, and though to tell you the truth his art is not exactly my cup of tea, I recognize my rantings and other such artistic endeavors may be considered by some to be as macabre as the artist Kurtz-whose talent is indisputable. He puts me in mind of the artist Walter Sickert, inso far as the subject matter of his art goes. Yet, where Sickert was a Post Impressionist, Kurtz seems to be more of a surrealist. Also, Sickert looked for the grotesque in eveyday life. Kurtz deals with the openly bizarre.
His art will be on display, as I think it is on a regular basis, at JR's Bar & Grill, at 3923 Cedar Springs in Dallas Texas. The next public viewing is I think September 23rd. I'm not sure of the exact date, but it will be easily discovered by clicking on the link I have provided here
http://templeofvangogh.com
Hopefully, I will not have to edit that, as I am sure that is the correct URL, which I have unfortunately misplaced for now. As for why I am doing this, let's just say I am full of my own importance and like to imagine that by recommending this artist to the readers of my Blog, his career will be the better for it. You readers can prove me right by forwarding this Blog post, with attached URL to all and sundry, and tellinghtem to do likewise.
We should all do our parts to encourage and further the arts, and I intend to continue to do so, when the opportunity arises.
Oh, as for my personal favorite of his paintings, I would have to say the lady with the three big titties.
His art will be on display, as I think it is on a regular basis, at JR's Bar & Grill, at 3923 Cedar Springs in Dallas Texas. The next public viewing is I think September 23rd. I'm not sure of the exact date, but it will be easily discovered by clicking on the link I have provided here
http://templeofvangogh.com
Hopefully, I will not have to edit that, as I am sure that is the correct URL, which I have unfortunately misplaced for now. As for why I am doing this, let's just say I am full of my own importance and like to imagine that by recommending this artist to the readers of my Blog, his career will be the better for it. You readers can prove me right by forwarding this Blog post, with attached URL to all and sundry, and tellinghtem to do likewise.
We should all do our parts to encourage and further the arts, and I intend to continue to do so, when the opportunity arises.
Oh, as for my personal favorite of his paintings, I would have to say the lady with the three big titties.
Ira Wells, Sr.-Satanist
My great-great grandfather, Ira Wells, Sr.-born 1824, died 1907-was a Satanist. No, he didn't actually call himself that, he called hmself a "witch". Nor was he a Satanist after the LaVeyan mold, as of course that mold had not in his day been set.
He was an actual spiritualistic Satanist-a "devil worshipper". Or so it has been claimed. Or so he evidently claimed. Some might assert he was simply a local Clay County, later Leslie County Kentucky eccentric-a character-which indeed he was. A modern view of him might be that he was a bit of a showman. But of course the same things were said about Church of Satan founder Dr. Anton Szandor LaVey.
But for the times in which he lived-especially taking into consideration the place, Southeastern Kentucky, that he lived in is time-he was most definitely ahead of said time.
His formula for becomming a witch would sound simplistic, almst childish, to the trained magickal practitioner not only of our time, but to those of his own in more civilized, advanced parts of the world.
"You go up to the top of the highest hill under the full of the mood", he explained, "and with a rifle or a shotgun you shoot at the moon, curse God, and bless the devil".
He also had a formula for what he called "prophesying". You kneeled in front of the fireplace and "bake your head", the way he put it. Evidently, this process was conducive to entering into a trance state. Unfortunately, there is left, to my knowledge, no records of any "prophecies" he may have made while in this state, which is certainly unfortunate.
However, acording to one account, there was an occassion when, after entering into one of these trance states, he fell into the fire, and had to be pulled out of it. On another occassion, while sitting on his front porch, a woman went walking by, carrying an infant. He made the following remark-"lady, I bet I can turn that baby into a hooting owl and make him fly into the top of that tree yonder".
As he pointed to a specific tree, she screamed, almost threw the baby up into the air, but caught herself, and took off running in terror as he laughed. I am certain there is more to the story than this-if there is any truth at all to it- and probably there was some sort of history between him and this woman, but this has all that has come down. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate the level of authenticity to which he was regarded as a practitioner of the "black arts", which he openly claimed to be.
Which leads me to my point. It takes a special kind of person to lay claim to being a "Satanist", or in my great-great grandfather's case, and day, a "witch". Such a statement of beleif and faith is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "politically correct".
Unfortunately, most people who today proudly wear the pagan label-whether Wiccan or Recnstructionist Pagan or eclectic, whether solitaire or coven member or traditionalist-seem to be bound by the same strictures of public behavior as anyone else in our socially restricitve society. And that is a fucking shame.
Most Pagans and Wiccans bemoan the lack of respect they receive from the more traditional religions. Yet, a good may of them go out of their way to try to placate these people, to reassure them, and even, I suspect, to orient their own belief systems in ways they perceive might make them moe palatable-more acceptable-to Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and even to some extent to Bhuddhsts and Hindus.
A lot of this might be due to the fact that a lot of pagans have gravitated to their respective paths by way of the more traditional religions. They have brought a lot of baggage into the pagan movement with them, in other words. And I fear that, eventually, due to the natural, reflective need to attract more converts and build the movement while gaining greater acceptance and respectability, this is going to have a long term deletorious effect. The Pagan paths might well eventualy evolve into something quite different from what they started out as, and to some extent that is unacceptable to me and to a good many others.
I am not a Satanist. But I certainly respect them, or at least I respect the laVeyans. They believe in living life to the fullest, in enjoying the time you have here and now on earth, and making as good a life as you can for yourself, your family, your friends, and your community. They also believe in obeying the law and in good citizenship, though they are a little harsh, for my taste, when it comes to such matters as charity. But even this is out of the practical realization that a good many not only deserve no charity, but will if given the opportunity live off it to the fullest extent possible. Doctory laVey warned repeatedly about the dangers of such psychic vampires, and other types as well.
They practice magic in the same way, and for the same purposes, that they live their lives. For the good of their selves, their families, their friends. They make no apologies for their selfish pursuits of their own needs, their lusts, their hedonistic leanings.
In all these things I am more aligned with them than I am with most in the pagan and Wiccan communties. Of course, I prefer to attune with the deities of my Pre-Christian ancestors. Yet to the Satanist, Satan is not so much as a literal devil as he is an archetype of man's basic nature. He is the ultimate rebel, and, to them, represents the potential of all that is good in mankind. Good to them in that if you live free, at your full potential, while enjoying the best life has to offer, and to the fullest extent possible, you will be happy, fulfilled, and thus contribute to the overall health and well-being of society.
But it is for this life only, they insist, as there is no other. Promises of heaven, like threats of hell, are no more than a kind of "hoodwinking" meant to enslave people to the whims of the ruling elites.
And I believe they are right about the motives generally of religous leaders, though I don't so easily discard all concepts of the spiritual or the afterlife. Be that as it may, their concepts of life and religion are liberating. Anf they deserve to be treated with respect, and as far as I'm concerned, should be welcome into the pagan community.
But there are two reasons this is unlikely to happen. On the one side, most pagans are afraid to be identified with them. They still crave acceptance from those same Christians that most of them have supossedly left. Only they never really left them.
The other reason is the Satanists themselves, for the most part, could care less, and in fact seem to look with disdain on the concept of "white magic" only, and such watered down Chrisitan "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others" attitudes which they view as hypocritical.
The scary thing is, there are a good many in the Pagan/Wiccan community that seem to be wanting to build an overarching religous community that would amount to, in the long run, just another hierarchical power structure. same old story. Same basic package with slightly different wrapping.
I prefer the idea of a secret society, an evolving of the coven concept, which they seem to want to scrap. But in my ideal, this pagan community accepts not everybody, just as they are, but only those who aspire to be the best they can possibly be, and who believe in a balanced viw of the material and the spiritual-not in a world where the two are held to be in constant conflict. Where, in effect, the spiritual and the material walk hand in hand and aim toward a wholly integrated peson. And where the goal of the leaders ofthe community will be to aid in the growth and development of the initiate-as oppossed to enslaving the initiate for the benefit of yet another ruling elite.
I think that was what my great-great grandfather was all about-freedom. He eventually left Leslie County, Ky., afer the demise of Cassie, hs wife, and evidently lived the last years of his life with his son and daughter-in-law,my great grandmother and great grandfather. He was buried beside where they would eventually be buried. Yet, his gravestone,possibly a simple wooden marker, has either long since dissappearred, or sunken into the ground.
No one in Leslie County, however, seemed to know exactly what ever happenned to him. It was said he just loaded up his wagon one morning, took off, never said a word about where he was going, and was never seen or heard from again. And that probably suited him just fine.
He was an actual spiritualistic Satanist-a "devil worshipper". Or so it has been claimed. Or so he evidently claimed. Some might assert he was simply a local Clay County, later Leslie County Kentucky eccentric-a character-which indeed he was. A modern view of him might be that he was a bit of a showman. But of course the same things were said about Church of Satan founder Dr. Anton Szandor LaVey.
But for the times in which he lived-especially taking into consideration the place, Southeastern Kentucky, that he lived in is time-he was most definitely ahead of said time.
His formula for becomming a witch would sound simplistic, almst childish, to the trained magickal practitioner not only of our time, but to those of his own in more civilized, advanced parts of the world.
"You go up to the top of the highest hill under the full of the mood", he explained, "and with a rifle or a shotgun you shoot at the moon, curse God, and bless the devil".
He also had a formula for what he called "prophesying". You kneeled in front of the fireplace and "bake your head", the way he put it. Evidently, this process was conducive to entering into a trance state. Unfortunately, there is left, to my knowledge, no records of any "prophecies" he may have made while in this state, which is certainly unfortunate.
However, acording to one account, there was an occassion when, after entering into one of these trance states, he fell into the fire, and had to be pulled out of it. On another occassion, while sitting on his front porch, a woman went walking by, carrying an infant. He made the following remark-"lady, I bet I can turn that baby into a hooting owl and make him fly into the top of that tree yonder".
As he pointed to a specific tree, she screamed, almost threw the baby up into the air, but caught herself, and took off running in terror as he laughed. I am certain there is more to the story than this-if there is any truth at all to it- and probably there was some sort of history between him and this woman, but this has all that has come down. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate the level of authenticity to which he was regarded as a practitioner of the "black arts", which he openly claimed to be.
Which leads me to my point. It takes a special kind of person to lay claim to being a "Satanist", or in my great-great grandfather's case, and day, a "witch". Such a statement of beleif and faith is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "politically correct".
Unfortunately, most people who today proudly wear the pagan label-whether Wiccan or Recnstructionist Pagan or eclectic, whether solitaire or coven member or traditionalist-seem to be bound by the same strictures of public behavior as anyone else in our socially restricitve society. And that is a fucking shame.
Most Pagans and Wiccans bemoan the lack of respect they receive from the more traditional religions. Yet, a good may of them go out of their way to try to placate these people, to reassure them, and even, I suspect, to orient their own belief systems in ways they perceive might make them moe palatable-more acceptable-to Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and even to some extent to Bhuddhsts and Hindus.
A lot of this might be due to the fact that a lot of pagans have gravitated to their respective paths by way of the more traditional religions. They have brought a lot of baggage into the pagan movement with them, in other words. And I fear that, eventually, due to the natural, reflective need to attract more converts and build the movement while gaining greater acceptance and respectability, this is going to have a long term deletorious effect. The Pagan paths might well eventualy evolve into something quite different from what they started out as, and to some extent that is unacceptable to me and to a good many others.
I am not a Satanist. But I certainly respect them, or at least I respect the laVeyans. They believe in living life to the fullest, in enjoying the time you have here and now on earth, and making as good a life as you can for yourself, your family, your friends, and your community. They also believe in obeying the law and in good citizenship, though they are a little harsh, for my taste, when it comes to such matters as charity. But even this is out of the practical realization that a good many not only deserve no charity, but will if given the opportunity live off it to the fullest extent possible. Doctory laVey warned repeatedly about the dangers of such psychic vampires, and other types as well.
They practice magic in the same way, and for the same purposes, that they live their lives. For the good of their selves, their families, their friends. They make no apologies for their selfish pursuits of their own needs, their lusts, their hedonistic leanings.
In all these things I am more aligned with them than I am with most in the pagan and Wiccan communties. Of course, I prefer to attune with the deities of my Pre-Christian ancestors. Yet to the Satanist, Satan is not so much as a literal devil as he is an archetype of man's basic nature. He is the ultimate rebel, and, to them, represents the potential of all that is good in mankind. Good to them in that if you live free, at your full potential, while enjoying the best life has to offer, and to the fullest extent possible, you will be happy, fulfilled, and thus contribute to the overall health and well-being of society.
But it is for this life only, they insist, as there is no other. Promises of heaven, like threats of hell, are no more than a kind of "hoodwinking" meant to enslave people to the whims of the ruling elites.
And I believe they are right about the motives generally of religous leaders, though I don't so easily discard all concepts of the spiritual or the afterlife. Be that as it may, their concepts of life and religion are liberating. Anf they deserve to be treated with respect, and as far as I'm concerned, should be welcome into the pagan community.
But there are two reasons this is unlikely to happen. On the one side, most pagans are afraid to be identified with them. They still crave acceptance from those same Christians that most of them have supossedly left. Only they never really left them.
The other reason is the Satanists themselves, for the most part, could care less, and in fact seem to look with disdain on the concept of "white magic" only, and such watered down Chrisitan "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others" attitudes which they view as hypocritical.
The scary thing is, there are a good many in the Pagan/Wiccan community that seem to be wanting to build an overarching religous community that would amount to, in the long run, just another hierarchical power structure. same old story. Same basic package with slightly different wrapping.
I prefer the idea of a secret society, an evolving of the coven concept, which they seem to want to scrap. But in my ideal, this pagan community accepts not everybody, just as they are, but only those who aspire to be the best they can possibly be, and who believe in a balanced viw of the material and the spiritual-not in a world where the two are held to be in constant conflict. Where, in effect, the spiritual and the material walk hand in hand and aim toward a wholly integrated peson. And where the goal of the leaders ofthe community will be to aid in the growth and development of the initiate-as oppossed to enslaving the initiate for the benefit of yet another ruling elite.
I think that was what my great-great grandfather was all about-freedom. He eventually left Leslie County, Ky., afer the demise of Cassie, hs wife, and evidently lived the last years of his life with his son and daughter-in-law,my great grandmother and great grandfather. He was buried beside where they would eventually be buried. Yet, his gravestone,possibly a simple wooden marker, has either long since dissappearred, or sunken into the ground.
No one in Leslie County, however, seemed to know exactly what ever happenned to him. It was said he just loaded up his wagon one morning, took off, never said a word about where he was going, and was never seen or heard from again. And that probably suited him just fine.
Pat Robertson's Divine Rationalizations
Christian Coalition and 700 Club founder Pat Robertson, a reveend and former GOP presidential candidate, has a strategic plan to head off what he perceives to be a strategic threat of growing proportions. he plan-take out duly popularly elected Venezualan president Hugo Chavez. Heck, Chavez thinks we're out to get him anyway, Robertson reasons, so why not go ahead and do jsut that? It would be cheaper andmore expeditous than being faced witht heprospect of yet another 200 billion dollar war.
Some of Robertson's past comments canperhaps be overlooked, for example his over-the-top suggestion that the State Department be "nuked". Also, one wonders at his cnsistency, seign as how he has in the past supported dictatorial regimes, such as the People's Republic of China and the West African nation of Libreria. But in this case Robertson seems to be serius. In aditoon, his coments ae not really that inconsistent, eeing as how he has previously suggested taking out Saddam Hussein. Of course, we see now what that has lead to, and one wonders how such an action as now sugested would garner any differnt kind of result.
To "take out" Chavez would not ony be morally reprehensible, it would lead to similar chaos and a power vacuum that would no doubt eventually be filled. But by what? By whom?
Onehas to wonder where Robertson comes up witht hee hairbrained schemes? Did this one come tohim in the manner of a divie revelation? He did claim at one time to have turned a hurricane from the coast of Florida, you know. Though I therefore wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Christian deity is to be credited withthis inspiration, there are yet other possibilities. Is it posible, for example,that Robertson is being goaded on, manipulated into nakin suggestions such as these, by powerful and influential contributors?It would explain quite a lot.But who would do such a thing, and why? There are three possibilities, actually.
One is of course the prospect of right wing religous zealots who honestly think this would be an appropriate action to take in the face of continually rising oil prices and the on-going spectre of Chavez's reputed backing of drug cartels and support for international terrorist organizations. If so, one can legitimately argue they have a point, but it can be asserted that such a strategy would be counterproductive, to say the least.
The other possibility is some of Robertson's shady past business partners, who never saw a busines deal they didn't like, such as the African diamond trade, for example, no matter how many inncoent people were brutally enslaved to ensure it's continued profitability. The people that would back Robertson's investments in this morally quetionable if not downright repugnant enterprise would certianly have no qualms about instigating an assassination and a civil war if they thought they could eventually gain access to the Venezuelan oil fields.
The third prospect is also interesting. Seeign as how the 2006 mid-term elections are swiftly approaching, a mole in Robertson's camp might be trying to sabtage him. Trying, in effect, to insure that he will have no influence-or better yet, be a deletorious one-in the coming elections, and beyond. After all, if a traditionally conservative Republican desired to destroythe influence of the Religous Right, lessen if not decimate ther influence onthe party as a whole, what better way to do so than by marginalizing their most vociferous spokesman?
And, of course, you can't really discount the pssibility that this was indeed a divine revelation,i.e. Robertson has gone stark raving bonkers. Just remember the classical defintion of insanity-you keep on doing the same thing, over and over again, secure in the faith that, eventually, you will achieve the hoped for result, as oppossed to things just blowing up in your face, the way they usually do.
But what is it Robertson is really trying to achieve? One can assume he certainly wasn't attempting to create the firestorm he usualy creates when he makes such off the cuff, unwarranted remarks. In this case, he has issued an apology, though in yet another venue, he has denied it even transpired. It's really difficult to know what to make of it all.
Some of Robertson's past comments canperhaps be overlooked, for example his over-the-top suggestion that the State Department be "nuked". Also, one wonders at his cnsistency, seign as how he has in the past supported dictatorial regimes, such as the People's Republic of China and the West African nation of Libreria. But in this case Robertson seems to be serius. In aditoon, his coments ae not really that inconsistent, eeing as how he has previously suggested taking out Saddam Hussein. Of course, we see now what that has lead to, and one wonders how such an action as now sugested would garner any differnt kind of result.
To "take out" Chavez would not ony be morally reprehensible, it would lead to similar chaos and a power vacuum that would no doubt eventually be filled. But by what? By whom?
Onehas to wonder where Robertson comes up witht hee hairbrained schemes? Did this one come tohim in the manner of a divie revelation? He did claim at one time to have turned a hurricane from the coast of Florida, you know. Though I therefore wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Christian deity is to be credited withthis inspiration, there are yet other possibilities. Is it posible, for example,that Robertson is being goaded on, manipulated into nakin suggestions such as these, by powerful and influential contributors?It would explain quite a lot.But who would do such a thing, and why? There are three possibilities, actually.
One is of course the prospect of right wing religous zealots who honestly think this would be an appropriate action to take in the face of continually rising oil prices and the on-going spectre of Chavez's reputed backing of drug cartels and support for international terrorist organizations. If so, one can legitimately argue they have a point, but it can be asserted that such a strategy would be counterproductive, to say the least.
The other possibility is some of Robertson's shady past business partners, who never saw a busines deal they didn't like, such as the African diamond trade, for example, no matter how many inncoent people were brutally enslaved to ensure it's continued profitability. The people that would back Robertson's investments in this morally quetionable if not downright repugnant enterprise would certianly have no qualms about instigating an assassination and a civil war if they thought they could eventually gain access to the Venezuelan oil fields.
The third prospect is also interesting. Seeign as how the 2006 mid-term elections are swiftly approaching, a mole in Robertson's camp might be trying to sabtage him. Trying, in effect, to insure that he will have no influence-or better yet, be a deletorious one-in the coming elections, and beyond. After all, if a traditionally conservative Republican desired to destroythe influence of the Religous Right, lessen if not decimate ther influence onthe party as a whole, what better way to do so than by marginalizing their most vociferous spokesman?
And, of course, you can't really discount the pssibility that this was indeed a divine revelation,i.e. Robertson has gone stark raving bonkers. Just remember the classical defintion of insanity-you keep on doing the same thing, over and over again, secure in the faith that, eventually, you will achieve the hoped for result, as oppossed to things just blowing up in your face, the way they usually do.
But what is it Robertson is really trying to achieve? One can assume he certainly wasn't attempting to create the firestorm he usualy creates when he makes such off the cuff, unwarranted remarks. In this case, he has issued an apology, though in yet another venue, he has denied it even transpired. It's really difficult to know what to make of it all.
Everybody Loves The Military, Why Can't We have One
On the face of it, you wouldn't think anybody would lve the military as much or more than President George W. Bush. But for somebody that purports to have such respect, devotion, and love for the armed services Bush has a funny way of showing it. In fact, he doesn't seem to want them anywhere in sight.
First, he sends them off to fight in an ill-advised ar without the proper strategy to speak of, in insufficient numbers to even hope to get the job done, and without the body armor and other protectons needed to prevent them from being killed to the tune of, as of this writing, 1864 dead, and countless otehrs wounded and incapacitated, some for life.
He has, or his administaton has, instituted a "stop-loss" policy in order to prevent troops from leaving the military at the end of their normal term of enlistment.
He refuses to adjust his strategy in any significant way which might bring about a reversal of our fortunes, andhasten an end to the conflict.
He has almost torpedoed the Iraqi constitutional process by insisting th eIraqis adhere to an artificial timeline for adopting their constitution which, as it stands now, has some serious flaws. Yet, he stubbornly refuses to consider any kindof timeline for withdrawing our troops, and in fact has constructed bases that at elast give the impression we are engaged in a permanent occupation.
Moreover, he has reduced veterans benefits. This, as they say, is the most unkindest cut of all. A little salt in that wound, soldier?
Finally, this week saw the culmination of a plan to begin reducing cost by closing military bases here in this country. More than 500, in fact, have either been closed, are targeted for consideration to be closed, or are faced with the prospect of substantial reductions. Just today, word was received that Walter Reed Army Hospital, ws one of those that will definitely be closed, after being opened since 1909, and tending to the care of wounded veterans since at least the days of World War I. This is all the more troubling, as Walter Reed went out of it's way to care for wounded veterans in a comprehensive fashion, taking into account their considerable mental and emotional needs, as well as the physical. Still, it has been decided it would be cheaper to shut it down, and build another extension to the Bethesda Naval Hospital, than to conduct needed repairs on the old hospital.
And there is yet more to come. Many in Bush's own party ae furious at this, as these bases contribute to the local economies of their respective areas, many of which need all they help they can get, again thanks in large part to Bush's policies.
Some areas, it should be noted, have benefited from base closings. One such community has turned the area into a model of econmic revitalization, with shopping malls and other business investment opportunities. But it should be pointed out that this was a base that was clsed in the mid 1990's, during the more economicaly vital and successful Clinton era.
True, some present ay base closing areas may fare as well. But I am very much afraid there will be few, if any, that will match this success, and in mos tcases the reverse will be the rule, not the exception.
Thus, while an ever growing number of our military personnel will now be stationed overseas, leaving our borders relatively unguarded and unprotected (to say nothing of our airspace, by the way, and our coastline), an ever growing number of our communities now are faced with the prospect of thousands of job losses, and resulting economic recessions.
Amazing. But this is one military miscalculation and potential fiasco the voters will be unable to blame on the democrats.
First, he sends them off to fight in an ill-advised ar without the proper strategy to speak of, in insufficient numbers to even hope to get the job done, and without the body armor and other protectons needed to prevent them from being killed to the tune of, as of this writing, 1864 dead, and countless otehrs wounded and incapacitated, some for life.
He has, or his administaton has, instituted a "stop-loss" policy in order to prevent troops from leaving the military at the end of their normal term of enlistment.
He refuses to adjust his strategy in any significant way which might bring about a reversal of our fortunes, andhasten an end to the conflict.
He has almost torpedoed the Iraqi constitutional process by insisting th eIraqis adhere to an artificial timeline for adopting their constitution which, as it stands now, has some serious flaws. Yet, he stubbornly refuses to consider any kindof timeline for withdrawing our troops, and in fact has constructed bases that at elast give the impression we are engaged in a permanent occupation.
Moreover, he has reduced veterans benefits. This, as they say, is the most unkindest cut of all. A little salt in that wound, soldier?
Finally, this week saw the culmination of a plan to begin reducing cost by closing military bases here in this country. More than 500, in fact, have either been closed, are targeted for consideration to be closed, or are faced with the prospect of substantial reductions. Just today, word was received that Walter Reed Army Hospital, ws one of those that will definitely be closed, after being opened since 1909, and tending to the care of wounded veterans since at least the days of World War I. This is all the more troubling, as Walter Reed went out of it's way to care for wounded veterans in a comprehensive fashion, taking into account their considerable mental and emotional needs, as well as the physical. Still, it has been decided it would be cheaper to shut it down, and build another extension to the Bethesda Naval Hospital, than to conduct needed repairs on the old hospital.
And there is yet more to come. Many in Bush's own party ae furious at this, as these bases contribute to the local economies of their respective areas, many of which need all they help they can get, again thanks in large part to Bush's policies.
Some areas, it should be noted, have benefited from base closings. One such community has turned the area into a model of econmic revitalization, with shopping malls and other business investment opportunities. But it should be pointed out that this was a base that was clsed in the mid 1990's, during the more economicaly vital and successful Clinton era.
True, some present ay base closing areas may fare as well. But I am very much afraid there will be few, if any, that will match this success, and in mos tcases the reverse will be the rule, not the exception.
Thus, while an ever growing number of our military personnel will now be stationed overseas, leaving our borders relatively unguarded and unprotected (to say nothing of our airspace, by the way, and our coastline), an ever growing number of our communities now are faced with the prospect of thousands of job losses, and resulting economic recessions.
Amazing. But this is one military miscalculation and potential fiasco the voters will be unable to blame on the democrats.
Walk-Don't Run(Out Of Gas)
When Bush first ran for the presidency, one of the assurrances he gave us was that oil prices would be stable, and remain low, due to his families influence with the Saudis and Kuwaitis.
When Bush first proposed the war in Iraq, one of the assurrances he gave us was that the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war.
The Iraqi War has now cost the American taxpayer in excess of 200 billion dollars. And oil prices are through the roof. This, however, has not hurt American oil companies, in fact, it has helped increase their profits. Meanwhile, they are paying less taxes, and soon will be paying even less due to incentives given them in the president's energy bill.
The American public, though, is held hostage by a preisdent, his administration, the oil companies, and by dependence on foreign oil. But they'll stil travel. They'll still buy, though possibly in substantially reduced numbers, SUV's, mini-vans, trucks, and large luxury automobiles.
And that's a lot of the problem. The American public is buying into the president's repeated ugings to spend and to travel. As long as they do so, nothing will change. Because, in reality, the only thing that is holding the economy together is the continued patronage of the American public.
Me, I'm walking anytime I can. And I'm driving only when I have to. If everyone would do the same thing, things might change, and quick. But there's just no accounting for the gullibility and innate stupidity of the general public.
Stil, I have a feeling that if things aren't reigned in by the time the 2006 mid-term elections come around, the economy might very well be out of gas, and the Republican Party might indeed be left stranded at the side of the road.
When Bush first proposed the war in Iraq, one of the assurrances he gave us was that the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war.
The Iraqi War has now cost the American taxpayer in excess of 200 billion dollars. And oil prices are through the roof. This, however, has not hurt American oil companies, in fact, it has helped increase their profits. Meanwhile, they are paying less taxes, and soon will be paying even less due to incentives given them in the president's energy bill.
The American public, though, is held hostage by a preisdent, his administration, the oil companies, and by dependence on foreign oil. But they'll stil travel. They'll still buy, though possibly in substantially reduced numbers, SUV's, mini-vans, trucks, and large luxury automobiles.
And that's a lot of the problem. The American public is buying into the president's repeated ugings to spend and to travel. As long as they do so, nothing will change. Because, in reality, the only thing that is holding the economy together is the continued patronage of the American public.
Me, I'm walking anytime I can. And I'm driving only when I have to. If everyone would do the same thing, things might change, and quick. But there's just no accounting for the gullibility and innate stupidity of the general public.
Stil, I have a feeling that if things aren't reigned in by the time the 2006 mid-term elections come around, the economy might very well be out of gas, and the Republican Party might indeed be left stranded at the side of the road.
The Winds Of Ill-Fortune
Not only is Bush's approval ratings down, but so is the percentage of those who consider him trustworthy. Bush would be well-advised to do something quick. It's going to take more this time than parading Laura out on stage to get him out of this mess.
In fact, his own party has started to distance itself from him. What a sight it is. I can remember a time, in the not too distant past, that even democrats, in appreciable numbers, were lining themselves up with the President during their respective runs for office, in 2002, and some even in 2004. Now, a great many members of his own party can't seem to get far enough away from him.
Of course, mostof them aren't as obvious about it as Senator Chuck Hagle from Nebraska, But Hagle knows he has his work cut out for him if he expects to be a serious contender for the Republican Presidential nomination for 2008, against the likes of McCain, Giulliani, and the myriad others that seem to be lining up for a possible run. The list is in fact a long one, and in itself augurs a potential split in the Republican Party as wide as a whore's cunt.
So Hagle has really launched an opening salvo for the nomination, and has aimed it squarley and obviously at the President he wishes to replace. That tells you, in a word, how bad things are for the Republicans. Ordinarily, a potential candidate would go out of his way to stay in their Commander-In-Chiefs good graces, out of the hope for at least neutrality.
But while Hagle has split with Bush on the latter's obviously seriously and perhjaps fataly flawed Iraq policy, Tennesse Senator Bill Frist has likewise broken with him on the controversial, and to me nonsensical, issue of Stem Cell Research.
If thing go really bad, there's no telling how it will all play out. Son, out of all the serious contenders for the republican nomination, Bush may not have any dependable, down the line allies with the exception of Vice President Dick Cheney, who stays hidden half the fucking time anyway. Not that I can blame him.
And to think, Bush is barely through his vacation. At his ranch house in Crawfrd Texas, a mad woman has just returned amd makes ready to follow Bush across the country, to Washington, D.C., where she will be joined by Joan Baez, and other far left radicals, some reliving their so-called "glory days" of anti-war activism, others just now learning the ropes. In additon, there is a counter demonstration group, apparently organized by a Republican spin group, that is planning on staging counter protests, and bus tours, across the country. It could end up growing, and turning downright ugly. Even malignant.
Look for Laura to start making more appearrances, getting out more. Of course, it would probably do her good.
In fact, his own party has started to distance itself from him. What a sight it is. I can remember a time, in the not too distant past, that even democrats, in appreciable numbers, were lining themselves up with the President during their respective runs for office, in 2002, and some even in 2004. Now, a great many members of his own party can't seem to get far enough away from him.
Of course, mostof them aren't as obvious about it as Senator Chuck Hagle from Nebraska, But Hagle knows he has his work cut out for him if he expects to be a serious contender for the Republican Presidential nomination for 2008, against the likes of McCain, Giulliani, and the myriad others that seem to be lining up for a possible run. The list is in fact a long one, and in itself augurs a potential split in the Republican Party as wide as a whore's cunt.
So Hagle has really launched an opening salvo for the nomination, and has aimed it squarley and obviously at the President he wishes to replace. That tells you, in a word, how bad things are for the Republicans. Ordinarily, a potential candidate would go out of his way to stay in their Commander-In-Chiefs good graces, out of the hope for at least neutrality.
But while Hagle has split with Bush on the latter's obviously seriously and perhjaps fataly flawed Iraq policy, Tennesse Senator Bill Frist has likewise broken with him on the controversial, and to me nonsensical, issue of Stem Cell Research.
If thing go really bad, there's no telling how it will all play out. Son, out of all the serious contenders for the republican nomination, Bush may not have any dependable, down the line allies with the exception of Vice President Dick Cheney, who stays hidden half the fucking time anyway. Not that I can blame him.
And to think, Bush is barely through his vacation. At his ranch house in Crawfrd Texas, a mad woman has just returned amd makes ready to follow Bush across the country, to Washington, D.C., where she will be joined by Joan Baez, and other far left radicals, some reliving their so-called "glory days" of anti-war activism, others just now learning the ropes. In additon, there is a counter demonstration group, apparently organized by a Republican spin group, that is planning on staging counter protests, and bus tours, across the country. It could end up growing, and turning downright ugly. Even malignant.
Look for Laura to start making more appearrances, getting out more. Of course, it would probably do her good.
Choices
I concluded long ago there was nothing accidental about the Democratic party's talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Given the opportunity they will accomplish the same feat during the next mid-term elections, which could indeed be a msot remarkable achievement.
They do this though by taking the most absurdly stupid positions on such matters as the death penalty, which they are against, and gun control, which they are in favor of. There is in fact a long list of positions they have taken which has cost them election after election. So why do they take them? In a word, because the base of their party, their most dependable activist supporters, demand they do so. And so do the activist groups from whom they derive their greatest amount of financial support.
These groups, in fact, don't care if they lose, in fact, they seem to prefer defear. This is not at all a contradiction, in fact, it makes perfect sense, when you consider that they depend onthe anxiety and despair oftheir contributors tokeep those dollars coming in, andthus to insure their own high salaries and bonuses.
A cynical outlook on my part? Not really. Consider a good many of their tactics. Flag burning, for example. All this accompishes is it inlames the majority ofthe American people against whatever cause is being represented by this reprehensible act. Yet, Democrats are constantly put in the untenable position by their far left supporters of viewing this as a form ofprotected speech. Thus, they oppose any efforts at a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning, and thus inflame the average voters agaisnt the Party as mucvh as the activists.
And when you point out this folly to them, they explain it away as a means of exhibiting their anger at the nations policies and their frustrations with same. It's not about winning people over to your side, they claim. I try to remind them that we do still live in a democracy, and that success is dependant on winning the majority of the voting population to your side-all to no avail.
In the meantime, them and otehr similarly minded activists end up costing the Democratic Party an uncountable number of elections when you add all the local and state races to the national ones. But they just don't get it. But, like I said, the activist group leaders get it, and are laughing as they get it and take it al the way to their non-profit banking establishments.
Of course, the Democratic party is, indeed, a liberal party, and I do not propose that it be otherwise. On workers rights, the environment, religous freedoms, gay rights, womens right and reproductive freedoms, civil rights for minorities, health care reform, prison reform, honest to goodness realistic education reform, strenthening and protecting Social Security and Medicare, etc. there is a long litiany of liberal and progressive issues the party could-if they would not allow themselves to be "Bushwhacked"-gather support by formulating common sense policies and, if necessary, yes, compromises.
I hope this time the party has enough sense to reign in the more destructive forces that have dragged them down for so long. If necessary, I would not be adverse to giving them a hearty recommendation to the Green Party, or, in many cases it might even be more appropriate to send them screaming to the Sociaist Workers Party. It's one thing to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. It's quite another thing to have to choose between two walking disasters.
They do this though by taking the most absurdly stupid positions on such matters as the death penalty, which they are against, and gun control, which they are in favor of. There is in fact a long list of positions they have taken which has cost them election after election. So why do they take them? In a word, because the base of their party, their most dependable activist supporters, demand they do so. And so do the activist groups from whom they derive their greatest amount of financial support.
These groups, in fact, don't care if they lose, in fact, they seem to prefer defear. This is not at all a contradiction, in fact, it makes perfect sense, when you consider that they depend onthe anxiety and despair oftheir contributors tokeep those dollars coming in, andthus to insure their own high salaries and bonuses.
A cynical outlook on my part? Not really. Consider a good many of their tactics. Flag burning, for example. All this accompishes is it inlames the majority ofthe American people against whatever cause is being represented by this reprehensible act. Yet, Democrats are constantly put in the untenable position by their far left supporters of viewing this as a form ofprotected speech. Thus, they oppose any efforts at a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning, and thus inflame the average voters agaisnt the Party as mucvh as the activists.
And when you point out this folly to them, they explain it away as a means of exhibiting their anger at the nations policies and their frustrations with same. It's not about winning people over to your side, they claim. I try to remind them that we do still live in a democracy, and that success is dependant on winning the majority of the voting population to your side-all to no avail.
In the meantime, them and otehr similarly minded activists end up costing the Democratic Party an uncountable number of elections when you add all the local and state races to the national ones. But they just don't get it. But, like I said, the activist group leaders get it, and are laughing as they get it and take it al the way to their non-profit banking establishments.
Of course, the Democratic party is, indeed, a liberal party, and I do not propose that it be otherwise. On workers rights, the environment, religous freedoms, gay rights, womens right and reproductive freedoms, civil rights for minorities, health care reform, prison reform, honest to goodness realistic education reform, strenthening and protecting Social Security and Medicare, etc. there is a long litiany of liberal and progressive issues the party could-if they would not allow themselves to be "Bushwhacked"-gather support by formulating common sense policies and, if necessary, yes, compromises.
I hope this time the party has enough sense to reign in the more destructive forces that have dragged them down for so long. If necessary, I would not be adverse to giving them a hearty recommendation to the Green Party, or, in many cases it might even be more appropriate to send them screaming to the Sociaist Workers Party. It's one thing to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. It's quite another thing to have to choose between two walking disasters.
The Cum In The Condom
There are many wedge issues you can count on the Republican Party exploiting yet again in the 2006 mid-term elections. One of these concerns the rights and responsibilities of gay parents, as recently laid out in a series of court cases, in particular in the state of California.
In one of these cases, involving the lesbian parents who had recently split up, the courts decided that both parents retained their parental rights and responsibilities, even though one parent had previously signed away these rights. The court reasoned that this parent had been the donor of the egg by which the child had been born to the other lesbian parent. She therefore had an inherent responsibility for the child's welfare, thus correspnding rights as well. If I understand the case correctly, I disagree with the decision, as I think it sets a horrible precedent for all parents, including heterosexual adoptive parents in regard to the rights and repsonsibilites of birth parents.
On the one hand, a birth parent could in effect make null and void any previously agreed upon contract with the adoptive agency and parents, if he or she so sees fit, on the grounds of having entered into the contract while in a state of duress, for one example, whether the claim was valid or not. On the other hand, a birth parent can also find themselves in the position of being faced with responsibilities he or she has in good faith attempted to extricate themselves from.
It is all ready to the point where if a woman retrieves semen from a discarded condon, and manages to impregnate herself with it, the unsuspecting biological "father" is legally bound, in at least some jurisdictions, with the same responsibilities as any other biological father or mother. Ther has actually been a court decision to this effect. It is unfair, of course, and a ridiculous travesty of justice. Such laws cry out, in fact, to be broken, even if extreme measures are necessary.
Unfortunately, such extreme judicial rulings may inadverdantly hand the Republican Party yet more cannon fodder, but the Democrats should not allow themselves to be sidetracked by yet another unreasonable push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Yes, it will cost some votes, but there are times you have to stand up for what is right when faced with the rising tide of extremism. Such a constitutional amendment would unfairly target a class of Americans for legal discrimination and serve to negate the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Yet, it is that same Equal ProtectionClause which is precisely a big part of the problem. If gay couples can marry, according to such an interpretation of the clause, then that same clause could easily be interpreted as giving them the same rights to legal adoption of children as any heterosexual couple. And that, more than anything, in my opinion, is what drives the far right bonkers over the prospect of gay marriage, which the recent California court rulings is seen by many as serving to advance.
A logical and rational compromise would be the institution of domestic partnerships for gay couples, one which would preclude such adoption rights. But the most progressive gay activists aren't going to accede to this, and it is a stop-gap measure anyway, as it would itself eventually come to be vieweed as being itself against the spitit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Like the cum in the condom, it is a messy, sticky situation and the far right is not going to drop it, nor will the far left. And the country as a whole will be held hostage to it, or would be, except that it isn't really that serious an issue in the grand scheme of things. It is, again, a diversionary wedge issue, but it is one that has so far worked to the Republicans advantage. I have no doubt they will utilize it yet again, and with a fury.
In one of these cases, involving the lesbian parents who had recently split up, the courts decided that both parents retained their parental rights and responsibilities, even though one parent had previously signed away these rights. The court reasoned that this parent had been the donor of the egg by which the child had been born to the other lesbian parent. She therefore had an inherent responsibility for the child's welfare, thus correspnding rights as well. If I understand the case correctly, I disagree with the decision, as I think it sets a horrible precedent for all parents, including heterosexual adoptive parents in regard to the rights and repsonsibilites of birth parents.
On the one hand, a birth parent could in effect make null and void any previously agreed upon contract with the adoptive agency and parents, if he or she so sees fit, on the grounds of having entered into the contract while in a state of duress, for one example, whether the claim was valid or not. On the other hand, a birth parent can also find themselves in the position of being faced with responsibilities he or she has in good faith attempted to extricate themselves from.
It is all ready to the point where if a woman retrieves semen from a discarded condon, and manages to impregnate herself with it, the unsuspecting biological "father" is legally bound, in at least some jurisdictions, with the same responsibilities as any other biological father or mother. Ther has actually been a court decision to this effect. It is unfair, of course, and a ridiculous travesty of justice. Such laws cry out, in fact, to be broken, even if extreme measures are necessary.
Unfortunately, such extreme judicial rulings may inadverdantly hand the Republican Party yet more cannon fodder, but the Democrats should not allow themselves to be sidetracked by yet another unreasonable push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Yes, it will cost some votes, but there are times you have to stand up for what is right when faced with the rising tide of extremism. Such a constitutional amendment would unfairly target a class of Americans for legal discrimination and serve to negate the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Yet, it is that same Equal ProtectionClause which is precisely a big part of the problem. If gay couples can marry, according to such an interpretation of the clause, then that same clause could easily be interpreted as giving them the same rights to legal adoption of children as any heterosexual couple. And that, more than anything, in my opinion, is what drives the far right bonkers over the prospect of gay marriage, which the recent California court rulings is seen by many as serving to advance.
A logical and rational compromise would be the institution of domestic partnerships for gay couples, one which would preclude such adoption rights. But the most progressive gay activists aren't going to accede to this, and it is a stop-gap measure anyway, as it would itself eventually come to be vieweed as being itself against the spitit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Like the cum in the condom, it is a messy, sticky situation and the far right is not going to drop it, nor will the far left. And the country as a whole will be held hostage to it, or would be, except that it isn't really that serious an issue in the grand scheme of things. It is, again, a diversionary wedge issue, but it is one that has so far worked to the Republicans advantage. I have no doubt they will utilize it yet again, and with a fury.
Science Fact And Fiction
Another issue that will undoubtedly manifest itself as a wedge issue in the 2006 mid-term eections is the spectre of "Intelligent Design Theory" as regard the creation of the universe-in other words, "Creationism".
Bush recently fired this salvo by pontificating his view that the idea should be allowed to be preented to students in science classes. Some proponents insist this is not in oppossition to Darwinism, evolution, natural selection, etc., but as a way of postulating an original cause which science has heretofore been unable to devise to any noted degree.
The problem with this, of course, is that it solves nothing, and merely in fact raises another question. If an "Intelligent Designer" is the original cause behind creation, than what is the original cause of that intelligent designer? This of course is a problem even the most noted theologians have had trouble grappling with, and long ago gave up the struggle, proclaiming there are just some things beyond mortal comprehension.
As for the most conservative, literalist minded readers of the Bible, there is no question where they stand on the issue, if they had their way "Intelligent Design" would be advanced as the only theory of creation that makes any sense-which would of course be patent nonsense.
What it all boils down to is that the public schools of America have been turned into just another theatre in the so-caled "culture wars". And the stakes in this conflict are much higher than in any of the others. Why?
Because one day, perhaps not that far into the future, there exists the potential that scientists will finally unveil the ultimate mystery. What was the cause of the universe coming into being, and from thence evolving to it's present state? Such a discovery would, in effect, end for all time speculation as to the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, ever existing yet never changing, all-wise and all-loving Creator God.
That is what the Religous Right fears moe than anything else. Truth. Knowledge. Reality. But one day, the truth will be known and, though doubtless it will be very unsettling, it will nevertheless be catharthic. And the world will, in time, be a better place because of it.
Bush recently fired this salvo by pontificating his view that the idea should be allowed to be preented to students in science classes. Some proponents insist this is not in oppossition to Darwinism, evolution, natural selection, etc., but as a way of postulating an original cause which science has heretofore been unable to devise to any noted degree.
The problem with this, of course, is that it solves nothing, and merely in fact raises another question. If an "Intelligent Designer" is the original cause behind creation, than what is the original cause of that intelligent designer? This of course is a problem even the most noted theologians have had trouble grappling with, and long ago gave up the struggle, proclaiming there are just some things beyond mortal comprehension.
As for the most conservative, literalist minded readers of the Bible, there is no question where they stand on the issue, if they had their way "Intelligent Design" would be advanced as the only theory of creation that makes any sense-which would of course be patent nonsense.
What it all boils down to is that the public schools of America have been turned into just another theatre in the so-caled "culture wars". And the stakes in this conflict are much higher than in any of the others. Why?
Because one day, perhaps not that far into the future, there exists the potential that scientists will finally unveil the ultimate mystery. What was the cause of the universe coming into being, and from thence evolving to it's present state? Such a discovery would, in effect, end for all time speculation as to the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, ever existing yet never changing, all-wise and all-loving Creator God.
That is what the Religous Right fears moe than anything else. Truth. Knowledge. Reality. But one day, the truth will be known and, though doubtless it will be very unsettling, it will nevertheless be catharthic. And the world will, in time, be a better place because of it.
Caligula Draws Down The Moon
Benito Mussolin finally suceeded in accomplishing what had been considered the impossible. By lowering the waters of lake Nemi, by way of ancient drainage tunnels originally constructed to protect the nearby Temple of Diana from flooding, he was able to retrieve the two giant Imperial aRoman pleasure barges which had rested on the lakes bottom for just a decade shy of nineteen centuries.
In their time, they were lavish and spectacular, the Titanics of their day, and were far more advanced than even the Romans had been though capable of achieving. They had the unusual feature of being constructed to easily navigate the relatively shallow waters of the lake, though they were each the size of two modern day regulation size tennis courts. But what was their orignal purpose?
They were commissioned by Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, better known to history as the mad emperor Caligula. Some eight months into his reign he was struck by a mysterious illness and was for a time feared near death. When he miraculously revived, he had undergone a marked change. The previously gracous, overly generous, youthful emperor, who had spent the first eight months or so of his reign in a hedonistic drunken binge of orgies and lavish banquets, was now reportedly quite insane, according to most accounts, and declared himself a god. He also began to display a heretofore unknown, perhaps hidden but now overt, predilection for cruelty. Fueled by paranoia, he began a reign of the most cruel excesses and vices ever noted to that time.
There were widespread executions, tortures, and confiscations of properties. No one, in fact, was safe, and very few who engendered his all too easily inflamed suspicions, were spared. Nevertheless, to Caligula, evey day was a party, a celebration, an excuse for a banquet or a circus, as he merrily went about his way running through the nations treasury.
But there is no record of his time on Lake Nemi, other than some hint that it must have occurred shortly after, or possibly during, his recovery from his near fatal illness. I am quite certain this was decided by way of the process of elimination, as his presence is more or less well documented at other times during his reign. So we might assume from this that his purpose here was one of hastening his recovery.
But there may have been more to it than that. Caligula had been, or now became, quite obsessed with his sister Drusilla. He wanted her, in every way. And now, perhaps, he would have her. Remember, Lake Nemi was the site of the Temple Of Diana The Huntress, ancient even in those days. The lake itself was known as "Diana's Mirror". There is no doubt due to the reflection the full moon cast upon the waters, which made it attractive from the beginning to the Goddess's devotees. it would have been considered conducive to meditation, to communion witht he Goddess.
One of the ships, as I said, contained a temple. The other was plainly a luxury, pleasure barge. Side by side, the two of them dominated the lake. One night, perhaps when the full moon shone down upon the lake, upon the ships, Caligula may have invoked Diana, calling her into the form of his sister Drusilla. He then, let us say, "communed" with his Goddess.
No one knows for sure how Drusilla felt about her brother's affections. It may have been just another in a long series of childhood precocous games to her, which finally culminated in the events of Lake Nemi. She may have been a more or less willing participant. Or a horrified, unwilling one, yet helpless to forestal or to prevent it.
All that is known for sure is Drusilla eventually died, while pregnant by Caligula, some say by his hand, as he ripped the child from her womb, then devouring it. Others say her death was a mysterious one and Caligula was heartsick over her sudden demise. Whatever the case, Caligula further degenerated as a result of her death.
Some say it was after his assasination, early in 41 C.E., that the ships were sunk by his vengeful enemies. Possible. But I propose that it was Caligula himself that destroyed the ships, after his sister's demise. I believe he then went on to execute the worshippers of the Goddess herself, and decimated the temple. He wanted no reminders left of his overwhelming grief.
He was a god. Drusilla, he had also declared, was a goddess. And all those who had attempted, in his tortured mind if not in reality, to harm him, and who may have suceeded in killing her, would soon pay a heavy price. Much like his former co-heir Gemellus, who Caligula may have ordered beheaded while on that lake that long ago, winsome, magical time.
As for the ships, they did not long survive their brief salvage rom the bottom of Lake Nemi. As the Nazis retreated from Italy toward the end of World War II, they set fire to the museum that was specially constructed to house them. Almost everything was destroyed, though luckily a few relics and artifacts somehow survived the conflagration.
Luckily, the ships destruction did not prevent a good deal of prior study from discovering a great deal about the techniques of ancient Roman shipbuilding, and about the time and culture of Rome itself.
In their time, they were lavish and spectacular, the Titanics of their day, and were far more advanced than even the Romans had been though capable of achieving. They had the unusual feature of being constructed to easily navigate the relatively shallow waters of the lake, though they were each the size of two modern day regulation size tennis courts. But what was their orignal purpose?
They were commissioned by Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, better known to history as the mad emperor Caligula. Some eight months into his reign he was struck by a mysterious illness and was for a time feared near death. When he miraculously revived, he had undergone a marked change. The previously gracous, overly generous, youthful emperor, who had spent the first eight months or so of his reign in a hedonistic drunken binge of orgies and lavish banquets, was now reportedly quite insane, according to most accounts, and declared himself a god. He also began to display a heretofore unknown, perhaps hidden but now overt, predilection for cruelty. Fueled by paranoia, he began a reign of the most cruel excesses and vices ever noted to that time.
There were widespread executions, tortures, and confiscations of properties. No one, in fact, was safe, and very few who engendered his all too easily inflamed suspicions, were spared. Nevertheless, to Caligula, evey day was a party, a celebration, an excuse for a banquet or a circus, as he merrily went about his way running through the nations treasury.
But there is no record of his time on Lake Nemi, other than some hint that it must have occurred shortly after, or possibly during, his recovery from his near fatal illness. I am quite certain this was decided by way of the process of elimination, as his presence is more or less well documented at other times during his reign. So we might assume from this that his purpose here was one of hastening his recovery.
But there may have been more to it than that. Caligula had been, or now became, quite obsessed with his sister Drusilla. He wanted her, in every way. And now, perhaps, he would have her. Remember, Lake Nemi was the site of the Temple Of Diana The Huntress, ancient even in those days. The lake itself was known as "Diana's Mirror". There is no doubt due to the reflection the full moon cast upon the waters, which made it attractive from the beginning to the Goddess's devotees. it would have been considered conducive to meditation, to communion witht he Goddess.
One of the ships, as I said, contained a temple. The other was plainly a luxury, pleasure barge. Side by side, the two of them dominated the lake. One night, perhaps when the full moon shone down upon the lake, upon the ships, Caligula may have invoked Diana, calling her into the form of his sister Drusilla. He then, let us say, "communed" with his Goddess.
No one knows for sure how Drusilla felt about her brother's affections. It may have been just another in a long series of childhood precocous games to her, which finally culminated in the events of Lake Nemi. She may have been a more or less willing participant. Or a horrified, unwilling one, yet helpless to forestal or to prevent it.
All that is known for sure is Drusilla eventually died, while pregnant by Caligula, some say by his hand, as he ripped the child from her womb, then devouring it. Others say her death was a mysterious one and Caligula was heartsick over her sudden demise. Whatever the case, Caligula further degenerated as a result of her death.
Some say it was after his assasination, early in 41 C.E., that the ships were sunk by his vengeful enemies. Possible. But I propose that it was Caligula himself that destroyed the ships, after his sister's demise. I believe he then went on to execute the worshippers of the Goddess herself, and decimated the temple. He wanted no reminders left of his overwhelming grief.
He was a god. Drusilla, he had also declared, was a goddess. And all those who had attempted, in his tortured mind if not in reality, to harm him, and who may have suceeded in killing her, would soon pay a heavy price. Much like his former co-heir Gemellus, who Caligula may have ordered beheaded while on that lake that long ago, winsome, magical time.
As for the ships, they did not long survive their brief salvage rom the bottom of Lake Nemi. As the Nazis retreated from Italy toward the end of World War II, they set fire to the museum that was specially constructed to house them. Almost everything was destroyed, though luckily a few relics and artifacts somehow survived the conflagration.
Luckily, the ships destruction did not prevent a good deal of prior study from discovering a great deal about the techniques of ancient Roman shipbuilding, and about the time and culture of Rome itself.
Friday, August 19, 2005
The Fly On The Wall
Scene: The Crawford Ranch
G.W.- Hey Condi, we're all alone now, why don't we-
CONDI- No, George, you're not gettin up in this black ass of mine.
G.W.-Okay, who told you I said that? Colin? Dick?
CONDI-No, Laura. She overheard you telling Karl Rove. You've got a big mouth, George. So you ain't getting no pussy. And no, you're not getting no ass either. I'm here to work.
G.W.-But shucks, I am on vacation.
CONDI-A working vacation, George, while I'm here. And while Laura's here. Now let's get down to business.
G.W.-Okay, I get it. Shucks, I made you Secretary Of State. So what do you want now?
CONDI-George!
G.W.-Okay, okay, you win. We'll talk about work. So what's on the agenda.
CONDI- You tell me. What should we discuss.
G.W.-I think I ought to issue a statement about this affair Brad has been having with Angelina, and stepping out on poor Jen the way he's been doing. That sets a bad example for the youth of our country.
CONDI- George, really, I see your point, but don't you think there's really more important things the President of The United States should focus his attention on.
G.W.-Yeah, I guess you're right. Like terrorism. Big problem. I'm thinking of having those people all rounded up and arrested.
CONDI-What people are those, George?
G.W.-Those people that are making that bad movie putting down the Catholic Church, that one based on that book I just read, The DaVinci Code. That book is nothing but a pack of lies, and they're trying to pass it off as the truth. And now they're making a movie out of it. The next thing you know they'll be going around bombing convents and cathedrals, and-
CONDI-George, The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction-not a terrorist manifesto.
G.W.-Then why are the Catholics so upset about it? Hey, I know, I'll call the Pope. He should know the story.
CONDI-George, the Pope is in Cologne Germany, meeting with all those kids.
G.W.-Oh, no! They caught him?
CONDI- It's World's Youth Day, George. It's like a festival.
G.W.- Yeah, it's a festival all right-heh,heh,heh,heh
CONDI-Well, anyway, I-George, what's wrong? What are you looking out the window at?
G.W.-I'm looking to see if I can see that Sheehan bitch. You didn't see her on the way in here did you?
CONDI-No, George, in fact I heard that she left, her mother had a stroke so she's gone to be with her. She might not be back for awhile.
G.W.-Yeah, right, I bet. I bet she's hiding out there, trying to trick me into coming out, then she can jump out at me and say mean things to me in front of all those people.
CONDI-I don't think you have anything to worry about, George. Listen, we really should talk about serious issues. I am your Secretary Of State, you know. We should discuss foreign affairs.
G.W.-Yeah, you're right. I've been putting it off, to tell you the truth, but I figger I ain't got no choice. I just decided, after careful thought, I'm going to declare war on those bastards.
CONDI-What bastards are that, George? Iran? North Korea? Syria?
G.W.-No, those cotton pickin' Arubans.
CONDI-What?
G.W.-Yeah, I took an oath to protect the lives of Americans, so what do they do? They make this little girl dissappear, and won't do nothing to find her. They're terrorists, and I-
CONDI- George, you can't declare war on Aruba. They're a protectorate of the Netherlands. Our NATO allies. What are you thinking? This is a matter for law-enforcement, not international diplomacy, and certainly not for war.
G.W.-Yeah, right-heh,heh,heh-tell that to Scott Peterson, or to the BLT killer, look at what the media did to them?
CONDI-That's BTK killer, George-and you are not responsible for joining the media or helping them do their jobs, they can do it well enough. Just look at how they helped discover that one killer, you know, the one that used to be a Power Ranger.
G.W.-What did you say? You're accussing one of the Power Rangers of murder? You take that back, Condi, and I mean right now.
CONDI-I didn't say it George, it came out over the media.
G.W.-Oh yeah? Well, we'll see about that, by God. This is another blatant attempt by the liberal media to attack me, this time by attacking one of my all time favorite programs.
CONDI-Oh, George, just forget it. All I'm saying is, these kinds of issues are not your concern, it's innappropriate for you to involve yourself in matters that should strictly be left up to law-enforcement.
G.W.-Oh, yeah? Well, I guess then we shouldn't worry about Saddam no more. Maybe the left wing is right. Maybe we should have left Saddam alone. After all, ain't that a matter of law enforcement? Where would he be now if we thought like that? He wouldn't be in no prison cell, that's for sure.
CONDI-That's different, George. That was war, and Saddam is being charged with war crimes, by his own country.
G.W.-Oh, really? What country is that?
CONDI-Never mind, George. Look, I'm really concerned about this situation with the Israelis and The Palestinians, over the Gaza. It seems to be going good, but you never can tell when it might suddenly really blow up. We need to start gettin prepared to be of assistance, if need be. Those settlers really don't want to leave, but now that they've been evacuated, there could be some serious issues about-
G.W.-Ah, shucks, lets send them over some pizzas. That'll make 'em feel better. Ain't nothin' like a good pizza to cheer people up.
CONDI-You really think it would be that easy, George?
G.W.-Well, we could throw in some tacos, some good Texas chili, some hot wings. Hell, have them over for a good old fasdhioned Texas bar-b-que. Hell, it makes the Mexicans feel better.
CONDI-What Mexicans?
G.W.-Oh! I shouldn't have said nothing. I'm talking about the ones I got hidden out on the range acres. I put up some little shantys for them. Since they left their homes in Mexico, their kind of down in the dumps, so I figgerred it's the least I can do for 'em.
CONDI- Well-who are they?
G.W.- Oh, you know, different ones, they all come and go on their way here and there. A little rest and they're good as new. Since Elliott Richardson declared his state a disaster area, I figger I'll be gettin' more of 'em than usual, so I really should put up some extra shanties, and rustle up a few more head of cattle. Those fellers sure can eat and drink, let me tell ya.
CONDI-George, I'm going to pretend I didn't hear any of this shit. Really. What would Dick say?
G.W.- Well, that's what I wanted to talk to you about. I'm hoping he'll say yes, to running for Prsident in 2008, that is. And I'm hoping you'll be his running mate.
CONDI-2008 is a long way off, George. I'll think about it. But-what's wrong, George?
G.W.-Do you think I'm a bad President, Condi? Serious, I've got people saying I don't care about the environment. I've heard this one feller even says I've polluted the Ohio River, and now that there's been such a bad drought down there, and the River is so low, there's more chemicals than there is water.
CONDI- Oh, George, of course I don't think you're a bad president.
G.W.-Then why won't you give me a piece of pussy. I've never had a piece of colored pussy. My daddy used to always say, "fuck a duck, screw a guinea, nigger pussy is as good as any"-heh, heh, heh, heh.
CONDI-Just between me and you George, I prefer "once you get black, you never go back"
G.W.-Then-you'll give me a piece of that ass? I swear, Laura won't ever know.
CONDI-Yes, George. Let's get it on, baby. I love you, my little Bushman.
G.W.-I love you too, my sweet little Condi-Pie.
G.W.- Hey Condi, we're all alone now, why don't we-
CONDI- No, George, you're not gettin up in this black ass of mine.
G.W.-Okay, who told you I said that? Colin? Dick?
CONDI-No, Laura. She overheard you telling Karl Rove. You've got a big mouth, George. So you ain't getting no pussy. And no, you're not getting no ass either. I'm here to work.
G.W.-But shucks, I am on vacation.
CONDI-A working vacation, George, while I'm here. And while Laura's here. Now let's get down to business.
G.W.-Okay, I get it. Shucks, I made you Secretary Of State. So what do you want now?
CONDI-George!
G.W.-Okay, okay, you win. We'll talk about work. So what's on the agenda.
CONDI- You tell me. What should we discuss.
G.W.-I think I ought to issue a statement about this affair Brad has been having with Angelina, and stepping out on poor Jen the way he's been doing. That sets a bad example for the youth of our country.
CONDI- George, really, I see your point, but don't you think there's really more important things the President of The United States should focus his attention on.
G.W.-Yeah, I guess you're right. Like terrorism. Big problem. I'm thinking of having those people all rounded up and arrested.
CONDI-What people are those, George?
G.W.-Those people that are making that bad movie putting down the Catholic Church, that one based on that book I just read, The DaVinci Code. That book is nothing but a pack of lies, and they're trying to pass it off as the truth. And now they're making a movie out of it. The next thing you know they'll be going around bombing convents and cathedrals, and-
CONDI-George, The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction-not a terrorist manifesto.
G.W.-Then why are the Catholics so upset about it? Hey, I know, I'll call the Pope. He should know the story.
CONDI-George, the Pope is in Cologne Germany, meeting with all those kids.
G.W.-Oh, no! They caught him?
CONDI- It's World's Youth Day, George. It's like a festival.
G.W.- Yeah, it's a festival all right-heh,heh,heh,heh
CONDI-Well, anyway, I-George, what's wrong? What are you looking out the window at?
G.W.-I'm looking to see if I can see that Sheehan bitch. You didn't see her on the way in here did you?
CONDI-No, George, in fact I heard that she left, her mother had a stroke so she's gone to be with her. She might not be back for awhile.
G.W.-Yeah, right, I bet. I bet she's hiding out there, trying to trick me into coming out, then she can jump out at me and say mean things to me in front of all those people.
CONDI-I don't think you have anything to worry about, George. Listen, we really should talk about serious issues. I am your Secretary Of State, you know. We should discuss foreign affairs.
G.W.-Yeah, you're right. I've been putting it off, to tell you the truth, but I figger I ain't got no choice. I just decided, after careful thought, I'm going to declare war on those bastards.
CONDI-What bastards are that, George? Iran? North Korea? Syria?
G.W.-No, those cotton pickin' Arubans.
CONDI-What?
G.W.-Yeah, I took an oath to protect the lives of Americans, so what do they do? They make this little girl dissappear, and won't do nothing to find her. They're terrorists, and I-
CONDI- George, you can't declare war on Aruba. They're a protectorate of the Netherlands. Our NATO allies. What are you thinking? This is a matter for law-enforcement, not international diplomacy, and certainly not for war.
G.W.-Yeah, right-heh,heh,heh-tell that to Scott Peterson, or to the BLT killer, look at what the media did to them?
CONDI-That's BTK killer, George-and you are not responsible for joining the media or helping them do their jobs, they can do it well enough. Just look at how they helped discover that one killer, you know, the one that used to be a Power Ranger.
G.W.-What did you say? You're accussing one of the Power Rangers of murder? You take that back, Condi, and I mean right now.
CONDI-I didn't say it George, it came out over the media.
G.W.-Oh yeah? Well, we'll see about that, by God. This is another blatant attempt by the liberal media to attack me, this time by attacking one of my all time favorite programs.
CONDI-Oh, George, just forget it. All I'm saying is, these kinds of issues are not your concern, it's innappropriate for you to involve yourself in matters that should strictly be left up to law-enforcement.
G.W.-Oh, yeah? Well, I guess then we shouldn't worry about Saddam no more. Maybe the left wing is right. Maybe we should have left Saddam alone. After all, ain't that a matter of law enforcement? Where would he be now if we thought like that? He wouldn't be in no prison cell, that's for sure.
CONDI-That's different, George. That was war, and Saddam is being charged with war crimes, by his own country.
G.W.-Oh, really? What country is that?
CONDI-Never mind, George. Look, I'm really concerned about this situation with the Israelis and The Palestinians, over the Gaza. It seems to be going good, but you never can tell when it might suddenly really blow up. We need to start gettin prepared to be of assistance, if need be. Those settlers really don't want to leave, but now that they've been evacuated, there could be some serious issues about-
G.W.-Ah, shucks, lets send them over some pizzas. That'll make 'em feel better. Ain't nothin' like a good pizza to cheer people up.
CONDI-You really think it would be that easy, George?
G.W.-Well, we could throw in some tacos, some good Texas chili, some hot wings. Hell, have them over for a good old fasdhioned Texas bar-b-que. Hell, it makes the Mexicans feel better.
CONDI-What Mexicans?
G.W.-Oh! I shouldn't have said nothing. I'm talking about the ones I got hidden out on the range acres. I put up some little shantys for them. Since they left their homes in Mexico, their kind of down in the dumps, so I figgerred it's the least I can do for 'em.
CONDI- Well-who are they?
G.W.- Oh, you know, different ones, they all come and go on their way here and there. A little rest and they're good as new. Since Elliott Richardson declared his state a disaster area, I figger I'll be gettin' more of 'em than usual, so I really should put up some extra shanties, and rustle up a few more head of cattle. Those fellers sure can eat and drink, let me tell ya.
CONDI-George, I'm going to pretend I didn't hear any of this shit. Really. What would Dick say?
G.W.- Well, that's what I wanted to talk to you about. I'm hoping he'll say yes, to running for Prsident in 2008, that is. And I'm hoping you'll be his running mate.
CONDI-2008 is a long way off, George. I'll think about it. But-what's wrong, George?
G.W.-Do you think I'm a bad President, Condi? Serious, I've got people saying I don't care about the environment. I've heard this one feller even says I've polluted the Ohio River, and now that there's been such a bad drought down there, and the River is so low, there's more chemicals than there is water.
CONDI- Oh, George, of course I don't think you're a bad president.
G.W.-Then why won't you give me a piece of pussy. I've never had a piece of colored pussy. My daddy used to always say, "fuck a duck, screw a guinea, nigger pussy is as good as any"-heh, heh, heh, heh.
CONDI-Just between me and you George, I prefer "once you get black, you never go back"
G.W.-Then-you'll give me a piece of that ass? I swear, Laura won't ever know.
CONDI-Yes, George. Let's get it on, baby. I love you, my little Bushman.
G.W.-I love you too, my sweet little Condi-Pie.
A Fine Piece Of Ass
Confession time. Anytime I see a woman with a fine looking ass, I want to cram my fucking dick up in it. So much so that, when I say I want a piece of ass, I am not speaking euphemistically.
Case in point. I once had an in-law who seemed to go out of her way to exhibit one fine set of legs at a family gathering. As the day drew to a close, and the guests prepared to leave , I made sure I was the last one in line toward the door, directly behind her. I didn't just casually, "accidentally" grab that ass. I grabbed it, held it, massaged it, and practically juggled it, with one hand.
Some weeks later, we were at the same place, when suddenly, to my delight, she presented herself in a long, thin, light colored dress, in which she stood in front of the picture window, The sun shining through her dress revealed she was wearing nothing under it. No slip. no panties. I resisted approaching, with difficulty, as certain situations had somewhat changed, actually they had changed considerably.
No, I never go tthat piece of ass. In fact, I have never had a piece of ass. I have had pussy, mind you, plenty of times. But no ass. Now, I have no one, and frankly, were I given a choice between a great piece of pussy and a fine piece of ass, I think I would choose the ass. There's something about never having had something that makes you want it all the more.
Neverhteless, I must admit to some confusion. And it involvesd the use of vaseline. In my admittedly inexperienced opinion, I believe vaseline is not a good idea. All the more if you propose to stick your dick up a tight, fine ass which is unnacustommed to having a cock injected up inside of it.
Obviously, a hard dick could do considerable damage to the inner walls of the rectum. Membranes could easily be torn, causing great pain, long term soreness, and possibly a serious infection. As such, I would propose that some caution be advised. Why be so greedy, so selfish, that you insist on fulfilling your desires to quickly cram your dick all the way up her ass, regardless of the consequences.
This is the technique I would recommend. After considerable foreplay, begin by inserting the shaft of the penis lengthways snugly between the ass cheeks. Thrust slightly, while rotating in a circular and sideways motion. In my considerably experienced as egarding generally matters of sensuality, this tactic should get the woman considerably hot, and she will meet and match your physical entreaties. She wil in effect jack you off with her ass. You should get off nicely. And she should be ready for more.
Assumming you can achieve a second erection, you should have a resevoir of sperm eposited between the cheeks of her ass. This should make a fine natural lubricant, in addition to that of her own natural rectal juices.
This should allow you to gradually put your rehardened cock snugly, firmly, up the womans ass, but only so much as she can comfortably stand. When she exhibits discomfort, and if you are a true man, you should disengage imediately. Call it off for the day.
When next you resume, folow the same procedure. You should find yourself being able to go slightly further than before. After so many times, you will eventually be able to put your dick all the way up that fine, sultry, shapely ass. (unless you are overly endowed)
You may end up, of course, with shit all over your dick. naturally, you will want to clean this off without delay. Your partner may do this for you, sensually bathing your dick with warm, soapy water and a bath sponge. She may get you off yet again by this practice, and indeed this may prove a measure of her satisfaction with you. Just don't get crazy and ask her to suck your dick clean. On the other hand, she might well suck your dick afdter cleaning it. If so, you can certainly say-though I wouldn't advise it-"your ass is mine".
(By the way, if she does suck your dick clean, you are dealing with an obviously deranged woman, quite possibly one of your own creation).
Finally, I must confess here to the most sadistic and mean spirited of fantasies. I wouldlove to have an on-going affair with a married woman and carry on in this manner with her. It should, ideally,be a woman who is considered a good woman from a fine family, and married to a man of like reputation. He very naively loves her with all his heart, soul, and mind, and devotes his entire life to her.
He works hard to support her, putting in long, extra hours at the office in order to build the best possiblelife for him and for her, and their numerous children, ensuringthat she has al her needs, and wants.
I convince her that since I am not fucking her pussy, she is not truly, technically, "fucking over him". And so we continue, about once a week or so, for over a period of many months, I have known her for some time and have met him socially on a number of occassions. He's a real high and mighty, holier than thou prick, a genuine hypocrit, which in fact is what she hersaelf happens to be, as well as both their families. But I have gone out of my way to "fit in", so no one suspects anything. In fact, we arrange our meetings in areas away from our hometown, taking care to craft reasonable, believable alibis.
She does not suspect that gradually, over time, her asshole will noticeably grow to roughly the shape and size of a medium sized grapefruit. But eventually, someday, maybe by the time hubby's vacation times comes along, and they finallky get a chance to go off forthat long, extended, romantic getaway-he will know.
Yeah, I admit it-I've been all up in that ass!
Case in point. I once had an in-law who seemed to go out of her way to exhibit one fine set of legs at a family gathering. As the day drew to a close, and the guests prepared to leave , I made sure I was the last one in line toward the door, directly behind her. I didn't just casually, "accidentally" grab that ass. I grabbed it, held it, massaged it, and practically juggled it, with one hand.
Some weeks later, we were at the same place, when suddenly, to my delight, she presented herself in a long, thin, light colored dress, in which she stood in front of the picture window, The sun shining through her dress revealed she was wearing nothing under it. No slip. no panties. I resisted approaching, with difficulty, as certain situations had somewhat changed, actually they had changed considerably.
No, I never go tthat piece of ass. In fact, I have never had a piece of ass. I have had pussy, mind you, plenty of times. But no ass. Now, I have no one, and frankly, were I given a choice between a great piece of pussy and a fine piece of ass, I think I would choose the ass. There's something about never having had something that makes you want it all the more.
Neverhteless, I must admit to some confusion. And it involvesd the use of vaseline. In my admittedly inexperienced opinion, I believe vaseline is not a good idea. All the more if you propose to stick your dick up a tight, fine ass which is unnacustommed to having a cock injected up inside of it.
Obviously, a hard dick could do considerable damage to the inner walls of the rectum. Membranes could easily be torn, causing great pain, long term soreness, and possibly a serious infection. As such, I would propose that some caution be advised. Why be so greedy, so selfish, that you insist on fulfilling your desires to quickly cram your dick all the way up her ass, regardless of the consequences.
This is the technique I would recommend. After considerable foreplay, begin by inserting the shaft of the penis lengthways snugly between the ass cheeks. Thrust slightly, while rotating in a circular and sideways motion. In my considerably experienced as egarding generally matters of sensuality, this tactic should get the woman considerably hot, and she will meet and match your physical entreaties. She wil in effect jack you off with her ass. You should get off nicely. And she should be ready for more.
Assumming you can achieve a second erection, you should have a resevoir of sperm eposited between the cheeks of her ass. This should make a fine natural lubricant, in addition to that of her own natural rectal juices.
This should allow you to gradually put your rehardened cock snugly, firmly, up the womans ass, but only so much as she can comfortably stand. When she exhibits discomfort, and if you are a true man, you should disengage imediately. Call it off for the day.
When next you resume, folow the same procedure. You should find yourself being able to go slightly further than before. After so many times, you will eventually be able to put your dick all the way up that fine, sultry, shapely ass. (unless you are overly endowed)
You may end up, of course, with shit all over your dick. naturally, you will want to clean this off without delay. Your partner may do this for you, sensually bathing your dick with warm, soapy water and a bath sponge. She may get you off yet again by this practice, and indeed this may prove a measure of her satisfaction with you. Just don't get crazy and ask her to suck your dick clean. On the other hand, she might well suck your dick afdter cleaning it. If so, you can certainly say-though I wouldn't advise it-"your ass is mine".
(By the way, if she does suck your dick clean, you are dealing with an obviously deranged woman, quite possibly one of your own creation).
Finally, I must confess here to the most sadistic and mean spirited of fantasies. I wouldlove to have an on-going affair with a married woman and carry on in this manner with her. It should, ideally,be a woman who is considered a good woman from a fine family, and married to a man of like reputation. He very naively loves her with all his heart, soul, and mind, and devotes his entire life to her.
He works hard to support her, putting in long, extra hours at the office in order to build the best possiblelife for him and for her, and their numerous children, ensuringthat she has al her needs, and wants.
I convince her that since I am not fucking her pussy, she is not truly, technically, "fucking over him". And so we continue, about once a week or so, for over a period of many months, I have known her for some time and have met him socially on a number of occassions. He's a real high and mighty, holier than thou prick, a genuine hypocrit, which in fact is what she hersaelf happens to be, as well as both their families. But I have gone out of my way to "fit in", so no one suspects anything. In fact, we arrange our meetings in areas away from our hometown, taking care to craft reasonable, believable alibis.
She does not suspect that gradually, over time, her asshole will noticeably grow to roughly the shape and size of a medium sized grapefruit. But eventually, someday, maybe by the time hubby's vacation times comes along, and they finallky get a chance to go off forthat long, extended, romantic getaway-he will know.
Yeah, I admit it-I've been all up in that ass!
Brad, And Angelina, And-And-Oh Yeah, Jen
What in the hell do you think? And why do you care? Who the hell wouldn't? Why the fuck not? I'd fuck that in a heartbeat. Man, what a ride that would be! Damn, I'd swim through a mile of her shit just to make my way up to where it came from. Man, I'd just love to cum all over her. On her thighs. On her calves. On her breasts. In her hair. On her stomach. On the small of her back. On the large of her back. All over her face. In her mouth.
Man, I would sure love to get a piece of that pussy. Why, I'd fuck the living dog shit out of her. And then I'd call the dog back in. Then I'd just sit back and watch 'em. And jack off.
Why? Oh, shit, you're kidding. Wouldn't you? What? Oh, okay, you're gay. That's different. I guess. No, no, that's all right, you're-what? You're not? But you still wouldn't fuck that? And you tell me you're not gay? Bullshit!!! If you wouldn't fuck that, you're a fucking four alarm fire!!!
Come on, look at her. Just look at her. That's-that's-that's the modern day Sophia Loren, that's what she is. You have to want to fuck her. You can't not want to fuck her. Come on, look at her. Admit it, you're gettin' horny. You're getting a hard-on. Come on, admit it.
What? You're motherfucking right I'd fuck her in a heartbeat. Hell yes, it wouldn't matter if I was married to that other one. What do you mean, even if I was in love with her? Look, how do you know it ain't her fault anyway? It might be all her fault. Hell, I bet it is her fault. And even if it wasn't, fuck it, just look at her! Who needs a fucking reason anyway? Any fucking excuse would do it for me. Married or not.
Well, yeah, I'll grant you that, sure, I'd do my damndest to keep it a secret. Of course I wouldn't want her to find out about it. Hell no, I wouldn't just up and leave her for her-like he did.
Yeah, you're right. He's a stupid motherfucker.
Man, I would sure love to get a piece of that pussy. Why, I'd fuck the living dog shit out of her. And then I'd call the dog back in. Then I'd just sit back and watch 'em. And jack off.
Why? Oh, shit, you're kidding. Wouldn't you? What? Oh, okay, you're gay. That's different. I guess. No, no, that's all right, you're-what? You're not? But you still wouldn't fuck that? And you tell me you're not gay? Bullshit!!! If you wouldn't fuck that, you're a fucking four alarm fire!!!
Come on, look at her. Just look at her. That's-that's-that's the modern day Sophia Loren, that's what she is. You have to want to fuck her. You can't not want to fuck her. Come on, look at her. Admit it, you're gettin' horny. You're getting a hard-on. Come on, admit it.
What? You're motherfucking right I'd fuck her in a heartbeat. Hell yes, it wouldn't matter if I was married to that other one. What do you mean, even if I was in love with her? Look, how do you know it ain't her fault anyway? It might be all her fault. Hell, I bet it is her fault. And even if it wasn't, fuck it, just look at her! Who needs a fucking reason anyway? Any fucking excuse would do it for me. Married or not.
Well, yeah, I'll grant you that, sure, I'd do my damndest to keep it a secret. Of course I wouldn't want her to find out about it. Hell no, I wouldn't just up and leave her for her-like he did.
Yeah, you're right. He's a stupid motherfucker.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Fucking Nuns
So what do my wandering eyes behold but this nun, complete in habit, protesting the filming of the new movie starring Tom Hanks, "The DaVinci Code", based on the novel of the same name. Her reasons for protesting the flick? Because it is against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Hey, Sister, I got a news flash for you. You should see some of my stuff. For example,though I've temporarily shelved it for the time being, I have this little project, a play tentatively titled, "Where's My Mommy". The main character is the Greek God Priapus, who has gone to this convent looking for his mother, the Goddess Aphrodite, who he claims has gone there disguised as a nun just to hang out for the purpose of purification. Of course, he doesn't reveal his true nature right away, he disguises himself as this little boy, claiming that the nun he is looking for is nothing more than his human mother. In the meantime, he uses his quite impressive powers to get into the nuns heads, in an effort to determine which one os the object of his search, and inso doing inadverdantly uncovers the reasons for their most peculiar affiliation, as well as a few well hidden tendencies. A grand time is had by all, as a result of his endeavors. In one scene, this evil priest fucks this one nun in the ass, then makes another suck her shit off his dick before he will give her the whiskey he has promised to bring her. Yeah, it's really cool.
Of course, when Priapus reveals his true identity, it is something of a surprise, to say the least. He is short, fat, bald, and ugly as all get out. But he has this, like, really HUGE dick. I mean, it's a whopper, the cock of all cocks. Yeah, I don't know for sure, but if I can ever get it published, I'm thinking of maybe Danny DeVito in the role of Priapus. Shit, he's cut out for it in every way, except probably for the huge dick part, but we can use some mechanical device for that. Well, we'd just about have to. As for the evil priest, he has a big dick too, and when the goddess reveals herself, she turns it into this really cool snake that wraps itself around the priest and strangles him, and bites him, and kills him with it's venom. I won't tell you which one of the nuns Aphrodite turns out to be, hell, why ruin the surprise. I'm thinking of getting Angelina Jolie to play the part of the Goddess. That's kind of a waste, though, since she's the only one of the nuns that doesn't get fucked, and I mean really fucked good, sister. Why, in between all the ass fucking, and cock sucking, and pussy eating, and-well, I guess you get the point.
In fact, another possible name for the paly is, "The Nunnery", as I've heard, though I haven't verified this, that "Nunnery" was actually an old English word for a whore house.
So what do you say, sister? Will you protest my play? Please? It could really use the publicity. I mean, it couldn't hurt, anyway.
Hey, Sister, I got a news flash for you. You should see some of my stuff. For example,though I've temporarily shelved it for the time being, I have this little project, a play tentatively titled, "Where's My Mommy". The main character is the Greek God Priapus, who has gone to this convent looking for his mother, the Goddess Aphrodite, who he claims has gone there disguised as a nun just to hang out for the purpose of purification. Of course, he doesn't reveal his true nature right away, he disguises himself as this little boy, claiming that the nun he is looking for is nothing more than his human mother. In the meantime, he uses his quite impressive powers to get into the nuns heads, in an effort to determine which one os the object of his search, and inso doing inadverdantly uncovers the reasons for their most peculiar affiliation, as well as a few well hidden tendencies. A grand time is had by all, as a result of his endeavors. In one scene, this evil priest fucks this one nun in the ass, then makes another suck her shit off his dick before he will give her the whiskey he has promised to bring her. Yeah, it's really cool.
Of course, when Priapus reveals his true identity, it is something of a surprise, to say the least. He is short, fat, bald, and ugly as all get out. But he has this, like, really HUGE dick. I mean, it's a whopper, the cock of all cocks. Yeah, I don't know for sure, but if I can ever get it published, I'm thinking of maybe Danny DeVito in the role of Priapus. Shit, he's cut out for it in every way, except probably for the huge dick part, but we can use some mechanical device for that. Well, we'd just about have to. As for the evil priest, he has a big dick too, and when the goddess reveals herself, she turns it into this really cool snake that wraps itself around the priest and strangles him, and bites him, and kills him with it's venom. I won't tell you which one of the nuns Aphrodite turns out to be, hell, why ruin the surprise. I'm thinking of getting Angelina Jolie to play the part of the Goddess. That's kind of a waste, though, since she's the only one of the nuns that doesn't get fucked, and I mean really fucked good, sister. Why, in between all the ass fucking, and cock sucking, and pussy eating, and-well, I guess you get the point.
In fact, another possible name for the paly is, "The Nunnery", as I've heard, though I haven't verified this, that "Nunnery" was actually an old English word for a whore house.
So what do you say, sister? Will you protest my play? Please? It could really use the publicity. I mean, it couldn't hurt, anyway.
Fresh Meat-Slim Pickin's
Have you ever wondered how many little Catholic boys have grapefruit sized assholes? Probably more than the church would want you to know about. Quite a lot, I'd bet, if you consider the ones who are by now adults. Still, I would also be willing to wager there will eventually be more.
Still, mordern day Catholic boys should count their blessings-pun intended. Having a preists cock up your ass, or in your mouth, as degrading as this might seem, would hardly be as bad as having your balls cut off in order for you to sing in a choir, and thus retain your angelic, childish voice way past the onset of what would ordinarily be termed "puberty".
Let's just hope the present day Pope, Benedict, is not your typical catholic clergyman, seeing as how it is now "Youth Day", in Cologne, Germany, at which the Pope is now in attendance. Being surrounded by potentially hundreds of thousands of bright eyed, cherub faced pre-pubescent boys might be otherwise too much for him.
After all, he should keep his mind on the important spiritual matter of refurbishing and replenishing the church. He has his work cut out for him. Especially in Europe, including his native Germany. The same in America. In both places, church attendance is down, and so are donations. Yet, donations from both places, especially America, is the only thing that is really keeping the church afloat. Yet, there are signs that the decline continues. There is also a serious shortage of priests and seminarians.
People are, believe it or not, more intelligent and sophisticated now than they were two thousand years ago, when the Church by way of the Roman Imperial Hierarchy, imposed itself on the western world-and ushered it straight into the Dark Ages. Now they want to romanticize that abominable era, claiming that they were in fact responsible for the preservation of knowledge, which they insist they safeguarded and protected.
Yeah, sure, right. They "guarded" it all right, and "protected" it from being utilized by anybody in Europe except for their sorry asses. Thankfuly, this sorry state of affairs could never have lasted. A watch pot never boils, but if you leave it untended for too long it will definitely boil over, and if by chance you leave the lid on,it might just blow up in your face. And thus it was that, eight centuries, one schism, a Protestant Reformation, and a Rennaissance and an Age of Reason later, the church found itself beseiged.
They reacted by persecuting and executing "heretics" everywhere. People were persecuted for the simple act of pondering hidden msteries of the universe-for example, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun, instead of the other way around. Just one example of a kind of thought that would be considered to be "of the devil". Yet, they saw their grip on power weakening. After all, people crave knowledge, and do so quite naturally. They crave freedom. They crave prosperity. They dare to want to actually live their lives to suit their desires, to follow their dreans, for themselves and their prosperity.
Of course, they retained their share of devoted adherents, who as well wanted their children to remain faithful to the "one true church", with it's glorification of poverty, sufferring, self-denial. Thus, it became a kind of fad for some families in the more devout areas to have their young sons castrated, and sent to monasteries. They would never then be inclined to follow their sinful desires, in fact would never develop them, and thus would stay devoted to the church. The more "fortunate" ones would be classically trained as singers, and would retain their angelic voices longer than is normally the case, and would thus devote their lives and their talents singing for the greater glory of God. They would never be lead astray by their carnal lusts.
Luckily, this state of affairs as well did not last,though truthfully there is no way of knowing exactly how long practices like this went on, or for how far back, for first one reason or another. Nor is there any way of knowing exactly how long children were sexually abused, and how manyof them were done so. Recent events could indeed be yet another example of a pot just now beginning to boil over. But then again the Chruch has a history of cleaning up it's messes with quickness and efficiency. Denial has also been an all too common tool over the centuries.
I almost feel sorry for Benedict as he goes about his appointed task of rebuilding the Church. He has his work cut out for him, all right. And he might be fighting a loosing battle. He has followed in the footsteps of a universally loved and admired predecessor who was himself nevertherless not quite up to the task, for all his much vaunted accomplishments. Now, as Benedict looks out over the sea of bright and eager youth, he must know that only a small percentage will in the long run measure up to church standards, out of the ones that become and/or remain catholic. Very few of these will become priests. Very few will be monks, or theologians, or nuns. Very few will even be what the church would consider good catholics.
The most he can really hope for in any sizeable percentage is future monetary donors to the church, and some degree of political allignment. And even this is becomming more and more tenous. Because this is the church's major problem. It is a rigid,authoritarian, top down structure that has no ability, or desire, to adjust or conform to a changing world. Now will the world adjust and conform to the church. It is all a part of the evolutionary process.
Mankind is growing, evolving. And as they do so, again, they want real freedom, security, prosperity, and to lives their lives for their dreams, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity-free of pain, and fear, and sickness, and poverty, and misery, and sufferring. Free to finally live their lives the way they want to live it, with or without the church or anyone else's permission.
And hopefully, this time, there is not a goddamned thing the church can do about it. But you can damn well bet they'll try.
Still, mordern day Catholic boys should count their blessings-pun intended. Having a preists cock up your ass, or in your mouth, as degrading as this might seem, would hardly be as bad as having your balls cut off in order for you to sing in a choir, and thus retain your angelic, childish voice way past the onset of what would ordinarily be termed "puberty".
Let's just hope the present day Pope, Benedict, is not your typical catholic clergyman, seeing as how it is now "Youth Day", in Cologne, Germany, at which the Pope is now in attendance. Being surrounded by potentially hundreds of thousands of bright eyed, cherub faced pre-pubescent boys might be otherwise too much for him.
After all, he should keep his mind on the important spiritual matter of refurbishing and replenishing the church. He has his work cut out for him. Especially in Europe, including his native Germany. The same in America. In both places, church attendance is down, and so are donations. Yet, donations from both places, especially America, is the only thing that is really keeping the church afloat. Yet, there are signs that the decline continues. There is also a serious shortage of priests and seminarians.
People are, believe it or not, more intelligent and sophisticated now than they were two thousand years ago, when the Church by way of the Roman Imperial Hierarchy, imposed itself on the western world-and ushered it straight into the Dark Ages. Now they want to romanticize that abominable era, claiming that they were in fact responsible for the preservation of knowledge, which they insist they safeguarded and protected.
Yeah, sure, right. They "guarded" it all right, and "protected" it from being utilized by anybody in Europe except for their sorry asses. Thankfuly, this sorry state of affairs could never have lasted. A watch pot never boils, but if you leave it untended for too long it will definitely boil over, and if by chance you leave the lid on,it might just blow up in your face. And thus it was that, eight centuries, one schism, a Protestant Reformation, and a Rennaissance and an Age of Reason later, the church found itself beseiged.
They reacted by persecuting and executing "heretics" everywhere. People were persecuted for the simple act of pondering hidden msteries of the universe-for example, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun, instead of the other way around. Just one example of a kind of thought that would be considered to be "of the devil". Yet, they saw their grip on power weakening. After all, people crave knowledge, and do so quite naturally. They crave freedom. They crave prosperity. They dare to want to actually live their lives to suit their desires, to follow their dreans, for themselves and their prosperity.
Of course, they retained their share of devoted adherents, who as well wanted their children to remain faithful to the "one true church", with it's glorification of poverty, sufferring, self-denial. Thus, it became a kind of fad for some families in the more devout areas to have their young sons castrated, and sent to monasteries. They would never then be inclined to follow their sinful desires, in fact would never develop them, and thus would stay devoted to the church. The more "fortunate" ones would be classically trained as singers, and would retain their angelic voices longer than is normally the case, and would thus devote their lives and their talents singing for the greater glory of God. They would never be lead astray by their carnal lusts.
Luckily, this state of affairs as well did not last,though truthfully there is no way of knowing exactly how long practices like this went on, or for how far back, for first one reason or another. Nor is there any way of knowing exactly how long children were sexually abused, and how manyof them were done so. Recent events could indeed be yet another example of a pot just now beginning to boil over. But then again the Chruch has a history of cleaning up it's messes with quickness and efficiency. Denial has also been an all too common tool over the centuries.
I almost feel sorry for Benedict as he goes about his appointed task of rebuilding the Church. He has his work cut out for him, all right. And he might be fighting a loosing battle. He has followed in the footsteps of a universally loved and admired predecessor who was himself nevertherless not quite up to the task, for all his much vaunted accomplishments. Now, as Benedict looks out over the sea of bright and eager youth, he must know that only a small percentage will in the long run measure up to church standards, out of the ones that become and/or remain catholic. Very few of these will become priests. Very few will be monks, or theologians, or nuns. Very few will even be what the church would consider good catholics.
The most he can really hope for in any sizeable percentage is future monetary donors to the church, and some degree of political allignment. And even this is becomming more and more tenous. Because this is the church's major problem. It is a rigid,authoritarian, top down structure that has no ability, or desire, to adjust or conform to a changing world. Now will the world adjust and conform to the church. It is all a part of the evolutionary process.
Mankind is growing, evolving. And as they do so, again, they want real freedom, security, prosperity, and to lives their lives for their dreams, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity-free of pain, and fear, and sickness, and poverty, and misery, and sufferring. Free to finally live their lives the way they want to live it, with or without the church or anyone else's permission.
And hopefully, this time, there is not a goddamned thing the church can do about it. But you can damn well bet they'll try.
Base Shehan
Mrs. Shehan was given every opportunity to clarify her position by Chris Matthews recently, when she stated to him on Hardball that the United States had no business invading-not Iraq, mind you, but, get this-Afghanistan. Well, she made her position all too clear. We should have gone after Bin Laden, she conceded, but we should not have madfe war on "the Afghan people". So there you have it, as plain as day. Now let me make it clear, as clear as is possible. I disagree strongly with people that say we should get out of Iraq, now. I disagree, but I respect their viewpoint. After all,I do agree that we were manipulated into the war. I also concede that the war has been terribly mismnanaged, and has turned into a travesty. I even go so far as to say that Bush should be impeached beaue ofthese two factors. Incidentally, I also beleive he shoud be impeached for explodfing the defict while stubbornly refusing to fund the war by taxing the wealthiest Americans at an appropriate rate. And forthat matter, I believe he should be impeached for allowing the border situation in our own country to get so dangerously out of control, which is a situatuion he could easily remedy. This is not about George W. Bush. I think he is a danger to his own country, and is probably crazy, with messianic notions of himself. But one fact does not justify or excuse others.
While I can repsect Mrs. Sheehans position on Iraq, while strongly disagreeing with her insistence we immediately withdraw, Afghanistan is a different matter. The Taliban who ruled Afghanistan had not only given sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda, they gave them assistance and permission to conduct their heinous terrorist training camps. And after 9/11, they stubbornly refused to hand Bin Laden over. They were his friends, his sponsors, his allies. It was all too clear. We gave them a month to reconsider. They did not budge from their position. In this instance, Bush was right. In fact, he was not only right, he had an obligation to act in exactly the manner he did. Anything else would have been treasonous. Okay, he failed to capture Bin laden. True, he messed up, and now there are problems in Afghanistan that are a result mainly of our actions. But that is beside the point. We had no choice but to invade the country, and we have no choice now but to stay there until the government there, too, is secure. There are failures and set-backs in every war effort. But the consequences of not seeing it through would be considerably worse. Had we not gone into Afghanistan, and dislodged that evil, vicous regime in the manner we did, I shudder to think of the consequences. Now, the Taliban is out of power. Al-Aqueda is on the run. of course they are fighting back. This is to be expected.
But for Cindy Shehan, or anyone, to suggest America didn't have the right to invade Afghanistan, in the wake of 9/11, can mean only one of three things. They are either fools; or they are cowards; or they are, quite frankly, traitors. I'll leave it to Cindy Sheehan to decide which one of the three best apply to her.
I do find it possibly quite telling that she places no blame on the Iraqi terrorists for the death of her son, in Iraq. According to her,the people who killed her son were Shi'ite militia who simply wanted him, and all Americans, out of their country. Interesting. Especially when you consider that were we to pull out of Iraq, the entire country might quickly descend into the chaos of civil war, which would very likely result in a blood bath of massive proportions. Maybe on some subconscous level, this is what she would like to see transpire. Think about it.
While I can repsect Mrs. Sheehans position on Iraq, while strongly disagreeing with her insistence we immediately withdraw, Afghanistan is a different matter. The Taliban who ruled Afghanistan had not only given sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda, they gave them assistance and permission to conduct their heinous terrorist training camps. And after 9/11, they stubbornly refused to hand Bin Laden over. They were his friends, his sponsors, his allies. It was all too clear. We gave them a month to reconsider. They did not budge from their position. In this instance, Bush was right. In fact, he was not only right, he had an obligation to act in exactly the manner he did. Anything else would have been treasonous. Okay, he failed to capture Bin laden. True, he messed up, and now there are problems in Afghanistan that are a result mainly of our actions. But that is beside the point. We had no choice but to invade the country, and we have no choice now but to stay there until the government there, too, is secure. There are failures and set-backs in every war effort. But the consequences of not seeing it through would be considerably worse. Had we not gone into Afghanistan, and dislodged that evil, vicous regime in the manner we did, I shudder to think of the consequences. Now, the Taliban is out of power. Al-Aqueda is on the run. of course they are fighting back. This is to be expected.
But for Cindy Shehan, or anyone, to suggest America didn't have the right to invade Afghanistan, in the wake of 9/11, can mean only one of three things. They are either fools; or they are cowards; or they are, quite frankly, traitors. I'll leave it to Cindy Sheehan to decide which one of the three best apply to her.
I do find it possibly quite telling that she places no blame on the Iraqi terrorists for the death of her son, in Iraq. According to her,the people who killed her son were Shi'ite militia who simply wanted him, and all Americans, out of their country. Interesting. Especially when you consider that were we to pull out of Iraq, the entire country might quickly descend into the chaos of civil war, which would very likely result in a blood bath of massive proportions. Maybe on some subconscous level, this is what she would like to see transpire. Think about it.
Vacation Aruba-Treausure Hunt
After two weeks of trudging through a local Aruban landfill, people engaged in the search for the remains of missing Alabama student Natalie Holloway have finally received a donation from an anonymous source that will enable them to continue their search for another week, with money and much needed equipment, but with evidently no help from the Aruban government. They were at least account awaiting permission to continue. They have also had no luck in receiving permission to search the property of Paulus Van Der Sloot (father of main suspect Joran van Der Sloot), in particular a well on his property.
What does this mean? I think, quite frankly, they are holding off in aiding or encouraging these searches, not because they are afraid the body is there, but precisely because they know it is not, and so want to encourage them to waste as much time as possible at these locations.
I will reitierate, Natalie Holloway was probably dumped right out in the open, in a heavily wooded area, possibly off a hillside road into a dense patch of woods, and left to rot, left to the ravages of the hot Aruban temperatures, the rains, the sun, the wind, and animal predation. By now I doubt there is anything whatsoever left of her, maybe a few scatterred bones, if that.
As for Joran and the Kalpoe Brothers,they can interrogate them from now on, the fact is, they probalby don't have the slightest idea where the body was disposed of, or possibly even how. This was probably intentional.
They were certainly respoinsible for the girls demise, however. And they will probably get away with it.
I feel sorry for the girls mother, Beth Holloway Twitty, who has recently been joined by her own mother, to keep her company during her long and valiant vigil. But I am very much afraid that, while this will certainly bolster her temporarily, it will prove to be of limited value. I am afraid it is very much over and done with. I think that, deep down, she knows it too.
I wish I could get in contact with somebody that I could be certain would listen to this theory. And consider it. There might be appropriate places to look that might fit my descriptions, and they should be considered. Not that I couldn't be wrong, nor would I advise to stop looking at those places now designated. I'm not one of these phoney psychics who might say,"she's near a body of water" (yeah, brilliant), in fact I don't consider myself psychic in the ordinarily accepted definition ofthe word. I do, however, consider myself skillful at reading Tarot Cards, and I stick by the reading that I described in an earlier post. The death was probably accidental. But that is cold comfort to a woman who has lost one of the few things she probably loved more than life itself.
What does this mean? I think, quite frankly, they are holding off in aiding or encouraging these searches, not because they are afraid the body is there, but precisely because they know it is not, and so want to encourage them to waste as much time as possible at these locations.
I will reitierate, Natalie Holloway was probably dumped right out in the open, in a heavily wooded area, possibly off a hillside road into a dense patch of woods, and left to rot, left to the ravages of the hot Aruban temperatures, the rains, the sun, the wind, and animal predation. By now I doubt there is anything whatsoever left of her, maybe a few scatterred bones, if that.
As for Joran and the Kalpoe Brothers,they can interrogate them from now on, the fact is, they probalby don't have the slightest idea where the body was disposed of, or possibly even how. This was probably intentional.
They were certainly respoinsible for the girls demise, however. And they will probably get away with it.
I feel sorry for the girls mother, Beth Holloway Twitty, who has recently been joined by her own mother, to keep her company during her long and valiant vigil. But I am very much afraid that, while this will certainly bolster her temporarily, it will prove to be of limited value. I am afraid it is very much over and done with. I think that, deep down, she knows it too.
I wish I could get in contact with somebody that I could be certain would listen to this theory. And consider it. There might be appropriate places to look that might fit my descriptions, and they should be considered. Not that I couldn't be wrong, nor would I advise to stop looking at those places now designated. I'm not one of these phoney psychics who might say,"she's near a body of water" (yeah, brilliant), in fact I don't consider myself psychic in the ordinarily accepted definition ofthe word. I do, however, consider myself skillful at reading Tarot Cards, and I stick by the reading that I described in an earlier post. The death was probably accidental. But that is cold comfort to a woman who has lost one of the few things she probably loved more than life itself.
Mighty Morphin' Murderers
A book to be on the look out for, one that might provide some provocative reading, is Inside The Mind Of Scott Peterson by Keith Ablow, M.D., in which the author speculates as to the genrrational events which culminated in Petersons becoming the culmination of three generations of rage, a "Perfect Storm" in the form of a murderous socio-path. An intriquing theory, though one not without it's flaws, certainly, and even more certainly destined to be controversial. Yet, it could possibly provide the basis for future examination of just what events come into play, on generational levels, that makes us the people that we are. In Peterson's case, the event in question revolves aroundthe murder of his maternal grandfather, who wasfouind beat to deat with an iron pipe, for the fifty dollars he carried in his wallet. This necessitated the break-up of the family, whose mother could no longer care for the children. Scott;s motehr was furhter seperated from her siblings in the orphanage she was sent to. years later, this rage was transferred, through some subconscous, unknwn, psychological process, to son Scott, whose pivotal life periods always seemed to revolve around Christmas-the approximate time of the year the grandfather met his death.
Like I said, intriquing, but cerainly not wihtout some flaws. And though it might provide one piece of a puzzle., there must yet be more than just this. Of course, the author admitted that certain individuals will react in different ways thanthe majority.
So what, I wonder, was the reasoning behind the mindset of Skyler DeLeon, a former child star of The Power Rangers, who conspired along with his wife Jennifer, in adition to two accomplises, Alonzo MaChain and John F. Kennedy, to murder a retired couple by the name of Hawkes, after holdingthem captive on their own yacht, and forcingthem to sign over to them the title to the Yacht they had pretended to be interested in purchasing. Okay, so it was a luxury yacht, and I think they got some money besides, but this to me has all the earmarks of a thrill kill in which profit was an important, though not necessarilly the primary, motive. After all, along with the substantial risk, the money is going to theoretically be divided up four ways, if Mr. MaChanes confession is to be believed. And for what? Who would even come up with such a convoluted scheme, let alone carry it out.
But there are problems with the criminal mind that preclude it from being judged as having the same proclivities for reason as the common person. A perfect example of this is Dennis Rader, the BTK killer, who these last couple of days has taken on the aspect of a University Professor of the macabre, as he coldly and mechanically delineates the past thrity years in which he devoted considerable time and energy to the pursuit of his "Projects"-that is, to say, the victims that he stalked, imprisoned, tortured,and murdered, while in the process of engaing in his deviant sexual fantasies at their expense. He first tageted a young girl by the name Arcarro. As he tortured and sexually molested her, her family lay bound and dead, or dying. She asked him what was going to happen to her. His answer: "Well, sweetheart, you will be in heaven with your family."
This guy went about these "Projects" with the same emotional detachment,and yet with the same coldly clinical efficency, as a medical laboratory specialist. Why? To what purpose? True, there was a sexual component. True, there was in additoion that need for acclaim and recognition that proved his ultimate undoing. But a lot of people approach things with a sexual component. A lot of people go about their day to day lives withthe deisre for acclaim, for recognition, for appreciation. This might be a secondary aspect of their personaility, but not necessarrilly the defining one.
For example, I am a writer. There is to be sure a sexual component to my writings. And of course, I have the hope and even the need for my writings to be appreciated, the desire to be recognized, a need for acclaim. However, this is not the reason I am a writer. And I am assumming the same is true with Dennis Rader. Something caused him to morph into the cold blooded murderer that he is, almost to the point where it's funny to watch the guy when you hear him speak about his exploits-it's that bizzarre, that surreal. It's almost good he won't be put to death, as you hope the guy could be a repository of research. And he should be studied, as coldly, as clinically, as callously, as he went about his insane hobby.True, he is in a sense getting all the more the recognition he desires if he has this degree of importance put on him. But he may indeed be that important.
The families of his victims are this day getting their opportunity to address him directly, to give vent publicly to their feelings over the anquish his actions have caused them. I am going to hazard a guess that as they do so, he will find it interesting.
Like I said, intriquing, but cerainly not wihtout some flaws. And though it might provide one piece of a puzzle., there must yet be more than just this. Of course, the author admitted that certain individuals will react in different ways thanthe majority.
So what, I wonder, was the reasoning behind the mindset of Skyler DeLeon, a former child star of The Power Rangers, who conspired along with his wife Jennifer, in adition to two accomplises, Alonzo MaChain and John F. Kennedy, to murder a retired couple by the name of Hawkes, after holdingthem captive on their own yacht, and forcingthem to sign over to them the title to the Yacht they had pretended to be interested in purchasing. Okay, so it was a luxury yacht, and I think they got some money besides, but this to me has all the earmarks of a thrill kill in which profit was an important, though not necessarilly the primary, motive. After all, along with the substantial risk, the money is going to theoretically be divided up four ways, if Mr. MaChanes confession is to be believed. And for what? Who would even come up with such a convoluted scheme, let alone carry it out.
But there are problems with the criminal mind that preclude it from being judged as having the same proclivities for reason as the common person. A perfect example of this is Dennis Rader, the BTK killer, who these last couple of days has taken on the aspect of a University Professor of the macabre, as he coldly and mechanically delineates the past thrity years in which he devoted considerable time and energy to the pursuit of his "Projects"-that is, to say, the victims that he stalked, imprisoned, tortured,and murdered, while in the process of engaing in his deviant sexual fantasies at their expense. He first tageted a young girl by the name Arcarro. As he tortured and sexually molested her, her family lay bound and dead, or dying. She asked him what was going to happen to her. His answer: "Well, sweetheart, you will be in heaven with your family."
This guy went about these "Projects" with the same emotional detachment,and yet with the same coldly clinical efficency, as a medical laboratory specialist. Why? To what purpose? True, there was a sexual component. True, there was in additoion that need for acclaim and recognition that proved his ultimate undoing. But a lot of people approach things with a sexual component. A lot of people go about their day to day lives withthe deisre for acclaim, for recognition, for appreciation. This might be a secondary aspect of their personaility, but not necessarrilly the defining one.
For example, I am a writer. There is to be sure a sexual component to my writings. And of course, I have the hope and even the need for my writings to be appreciated, the desire to be recognized, a need for acclaim. However, this is not the reason I am a writer. And I am assumming the same is true with Dennis Rader. Something caused him to morph into the cold blooded murderer that he is, almost to the point where it's funny to watch the guy when you hear him speak about his exploits-it's that bizzarre, that surreal. It's almost good he won't be put to death, as you hope the guy could be a repository of research. And he should be studied, as coldly, as clinically, as callously, as he went about his insane hobby.True, he is in a sense getting all the more the recognition he desires if he has this degree of importance put on him. But he may indeed be that important.
The families of his victims are this day getting their opportunity to address him directly, to give vent publicly to their feelings over the anquish his actions have caused them. I am going to hazard a guess that as they do so, he will find it interesting.
Begone, You Devil, Begone
Who would have thought that Saddam Hussein was-a romance novelist? Yet, this is exactly what he was, in his spare time, which was evidently considerable. After all, what is the point of being a dictator? When you want something done, you give the word, and it is so, without delay, without debate, with no excuses. And to this end, you have a cadre of advisors and cabinet ministers, who have their own legions of underlings who run the day to day minutaea of everyday affairs, while you content yourself with making a few public appearrances, for appearrances sakes. Or maybe you stage a few photo-ops, here and there, with foreign dignitaries you hope to shake down. You attend a few public festivals, a handful of ethnic events, you dance, you laugh, you wave, you shoot a shotgun up in the air. And of course you keep up on the day to day minutes of the labrynthine clandestine services you have fully augmented to ensure that everyone knows their place, and doesn't stray from it.
Of course, you might suffer writers block from time to time, but a nice little eight year war with Iran might help shake you out of the doldrums, after which you can invade a weak and defenseless neighbor. Of course, this is liable to bring down the ire of a formerly tolerant superpower-and the world-but you'll survive this, and even be strengthened by it. Don't worry about those nasty U.N. resolutions. After all, they are just like your public appearrances-just for appearrances sake. So, with a wink and a nod, you craft a few ingenious deals to the extent that you can actually profit to the tune of hundreds of millions, hell, why not billions of dollars, in illegal kickbacks and bribes from greedy and corrupt U.N. officials and bureaucrats and shady foreign business interests.
Okay, so you're going to trial now. Don't worry about it. That little altercation the other day, where you and a couple of those goons came to blows? Hell, that shit happens from time to time. Relax, eat some Doritos, and tell your lawyers what's what? You were right to retain them, even though your daughters tried to fire all two thousand or so of them on the grounds they are just using you to make a name for themselvers. Hell, even if that's true, you should take that as a compliment, that you are that important, just like you should have felt really good when your advisors told you all the time how well things were going, how well loved you were. After all, you won that silly election with 98% of the vote. That should have shown them. That should have shown them all.
Oh, and all this business about war crimes. About you conducting torture, with rape rooms, and murder of dissidents. And the mass murder of whole villages. The gassing of the Kurds, your brilliant tactical put down of those ungrateful Shi'ite rebels. Don't worry about it. International law? Human rights violations? Hell, you didn't break any laws. You were the law. Of course, I wouldn't necessarilly advise you to use this as a cornerstone of your defense. Some things are much more effective unsaid.
We miss you Saddam. Really, we do. You kept things nice and peaceful in your country-or else. Now just look at how things have gone to hell in a handbasket. So in closing, I would advise you to make this trial your public relations opportunity of a lifetime. Mug for the cameras from time to time. People will get a big kick out of that. Wink. Blow a few kisses. And, when accussed of specific crimes, blame them on somebody else. Ouday and Qusai, fo rexample, are no longer capable of contradicting you, and the beauty of this tactic would be, it's the truth-just not the whole truth, exactly.
And by all means, hurry up with the publication of "Get Out Of Here, You Devil". I think I have the name right, don't I? Whatever, if you time it's release for the start of the trial, it can only help by showing your human, sensitive, caring side, and will make you a ton of money to boot. I'm waiting with baited breathe for my first edition copy. A signed copy would be really cool. Saddam?
Of course, you might suffer writers block from time to time, but a nice little eight year war with Iran might help shake you out of the doldrums, after which you can invade a weak and defenseless neighbor. Of course, this is liable to bring down the ire of a formerly tolerant superpower-and the world-but you'll survive this, and even be strengthened by it. Don't worry about those nasty U.N. resolutions. After all, they are just like your public appearrances-just for appearrances sake. So, with a wink and a nod, you craft a few ingenious deals to the extent that you can actually profit to the tune of hundreds of millions, hell, why not billions of dollars, in illegal kickbacks and bribes from greedy and corrupt U.N. officials and bureaucrats and shady foreign business interests.
Okay, so you're going to trial now. Don't worry about it. That little altercation the other day, where you and a couple of those goons came to blows? Hell, that shit happens from time to time. Relax, eat some Doritos, and tell your lawyers what's what? You were right to retain them, even though your daughters tried to fire all two thousand or so of them on the grounds they are just using you to make a name for themselvers. Hell, even if that's true, you should take that as a compliment, that you are that important, just like you should have felt really good when your advisors told you all the time how well things were going, how well loved you were. After all, you won that silly election with 98% of the vote. That should have shown them. That should have shown them all.
Oh, and all this business about war crimes. About you conducting torture, with rape rooms, and murder of dissidents. And the mass murder of whole villages. The gassing of the Kurds, your brilliant tactical put down of those ungrateful Shi'ite rebels. Don't worry about it. International law? Human rights violations? Hell, you didn't break any laws. You were the law. Of course, I wouldn't necessarilly advise you to use this as a cornerstone of your defense. Some things are much more effective unsaid.
We miss you Saddam. Really, we do. You kept things nice and peaceful in your country-or else. Now just look at how things have gone to hell in a handbasket. So in closing, I would advise you to make this trial your public relations opportunity of a lifetime. Mug for the cameras from time to time. People will get a big kick out of that. Wink. Blow a few kisses. And, when accussed of specific crimes, blame them on somebody else. Ouday and Qusai, fo rexample, are no longer capable of contradicting you, and the beauty of this tactic would be, it's the truth-just not the whole truth, exactly.
And by all means, hurry up with the publication of "Get Out Of Here, You Devil". I think I have the name right, don't I? Whatever, if you time it's release for the start of the trial, it can only help by showing your human, sensitive, caring side, and will make you a ton of money to boot. I'm waiting with baited breathe for my first edition copy. A signed copy would be really cool. Saddam?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)