Prussian Blue-The Aryan Olsens

Wow. I guess I've seen it all now, but these two girls, Lynx and Lamb, are the living embodiment of every cliche you could imagine as applied to young teen girls. They are at first glance,cute, wholesome, pure, clean, yada, yada, yada. But look a little closer andf you find-they are Nazis. Or so it would seem. I think there's a lot more to them than meets the eye, but for the time being suffice it to say they are twin sisters, aged thirteen, and are singers and musicians. Lamb has even written some songs.

Now before you read any further, I want to make it clear, I didn't post this with the intention of piling on. Sure, they seem to epitomize white racism. They would call themselves "racialists". But hey, there are racist blacks, Hispanics, etc., etc., etc., so, being white myself, if I am going to pile on racism in general, I'll pile on the lot of them.

On the other hand, why bother? What's the point? In fact, there is nothing wrong with a moderate amount of "racialism". There is certainly nothing wrong in my opinion with celebrating white, European, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, etc., culture. There is nothing wrong with being proud of that culture. Just as there is nothing wrong with the member of another race or culture being proud of and/or celebrating that particular race or culture.

Actually, to be honest, one of the reasons I am a pagan is due to the connection it helps me to forge to my ancestral European roots. So I can certainy undersand the white "racialist movement" from this aspect.

I can also appreciate the desire of some to seek legal protections from what they consider the unfairness in many laws which may in some cases seem to go a bit too far in protecting the legal and constitutional rights of minorites, by inadverdantly minimizing the rights of those of us with European white heritage.

I can even go so far as to say that I understand the feelings, and the heartfelt beliefs-so long as they don't propose to force it on everybody else-of those who want to raise their children to not mix racially, or to intermarry, with those of other races.

Let's face it. It is a good thing that there is a white race. There should always be a pure white race. Of course, the caveat to that is that there should also as well be a pure black race, a pure Hispanic, Oriental, etc, race and races. All races and culture should be celebrated and appreciated-and yes, perpetuated. On the other hand, if someone wants to intermarry with one of another race, well, quite frankly that is nobody elses business. That is probably where me and the white racialist crowd would part company, that and the heartfelt belief on my part that all races and cultures, and religions, should have legal protections, and rights, including the right to live and work in peace wherever in this nation they want. That no doors should be barred to anyone of any race or heritage. Of course, personal and private preference as to who a person does or does not wish to associate with is, again, a private matter.

And of course, the laws should be applied equally, across the board, for better or for worse, to all races and cultures.

So where then and what is the problem? What is it about Lynx and Lamb, and the lifestyle and society in which they are being raised, that disturbs me? There are quite a few things that I disagree with them about. Big deal. Some things I understand, some things in which I even agree with them. But the main problem I have with the white racialist movement in which these beautiful young girls seem to be being groomed to become the spokespersons for, is something which quite frankly makes me crazy.

Adolf Hitler. One of the worse monsters to ever walk the face of the earth, at least that had any degree of power and influence, has become a cult hero to the majority of white "racialists". Now one might say, well duh-they are nazis you know. And I guess that is a point. But when I see a Hitler forelock and moustache superimposed on a smiley face, adorning a t-shirt worn frequently by these girls, I have to wonder exactly if they really know what they are being lead into accepting. And why.

Hitler "had a lot of good ideas" one of them recently aid in an interview. Oh really? Turns out the murder of 6,000,000 Jews was an "exaggeration". Okay, so maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Of course, the point of the Holocaust wasn't so much the numbers killed or not as it was the original intent of "der Fuerher".

But even this is not the point. What Hitler did to the Jews falls way down on the list of reasons I consider him a monster. It's on the list, to be sure, but it's a distant fourth, at best, on the list. The most important reason for my reviling of the man is, quite simply-and this is what white racialists don't seem to get-HE WAS THE ENEMY OF THIS COUNTRY!

Now, if that doesn't make it plain enough, let me make it clear, regardless of the reasons for the war, the war was a fact, and as a result of it, hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives, as well as innocent British and other Europeans. White Europeans, including, by the way, Germans. For anyone to heroize, to idolize, this man, will automatically smack the majority of Americans, including white ones, as disloyal, to say the least. Thus, they automatically tend to want to tune out whatever valid message they might otherwise have. And that's the real shame. Becuase frankly, I think, like they, that there is much in white European/American history and culture that is good, and honorable, and just, and worthy of admiration. And white cuture-like all others-should be celebrated and perpetuated.

But when I see a monster like Adolf Hitler held up as an example, as an icon-well, frankly, it pisses me off. Because, when you get right down to it, Hitler and his cronies were more than just the enemies of America. They were the enemies of freedom and democracy. Some would go so far as to say they were, inadverdantly at least, the enemies of civilization itself. Whatever the case, there can be no doubt that, had Hitler won in the end, that would have been the end of the advancement of freedom and democracy. Anybody that thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.

I have to wonder just what the people who are raising these girls are thinking. They have all ready been banned from an appearrance at a fair where they had performed the previous year, in Bakersfield California, due to evidently some protests and complaints. They can expect more of this kind of treatment as time goes on. And it's all so stupid, so unnecesary. If they have real talent, which evidently they do, why not allow them to express it creatively in ways that might be more mainstream. Politics can come later, if they are so inclined. If not, so be it. Who knows, if their popularity were to grow, and be allowed to manifest in ways that would be more conducive to a general audience, they might one day in the future make some kind of an impact.

But for now, these are kids. Chldren. They should have the lives of children, while still pursuing their dreams. I understand they are destined to live insulated lives, to a point, and I don't begrudge their mother raising them in whatever philosophy or religion or cultural values she chooses. That is her right as a parent, as far as I'm concerned. But in the meantime, they should take the time out, from time to time, and hopefully they do, to enjoy the simple pleasures of childhood. Because childhood only comes around once. It's fine to spend a portion of it learning about politics and cultural issues. Spending a majority of it revolved around those aspects of life, on the other hand, may be something else all together.

The Magic And Ritual Uses Of Anise

I recently read something that may be quite timely,and I thought I'd share it with all-or both-of my readers. Seems that Anise might be a preventative to the Avian Bird Flu that seems ready to take the world by storm. Not a cure now, mind you, but possibly-note, I said possibly-a preventative, evidently the possibility being that it serves to bolster the bodies immune system in some way that it might-again, might-serve to keep one from coming down with the nasty virus.

To those who are unawares, Anise is quite simply a plant the seeds of which have a strong licorice like aroma and flavor. In fact, most of the licorice sold in stores as a candy are actually flavored with this herb. Actual true licorice would be prohibitively expensive, unfortunately.

Both anise and licorice have their uses in ritual and magic. Licorice is used to inspire lust, while Anise can be used to heighten psychic awareness. The method is quite simply, in the case of Anise, to inhale the scent of the essential oil that is derived from the seed. As no essential oil is made from licorice that I am aware of, you have to stick to the root, which I assume can be purchased in herbal stores, specially Chineese herb shops.

Some might wonder what the difference would be ritually, since the scent andf taste is so similar, and that would be a good and valid question. In my own case, I have no experience with licorice, but I do have considerable experience with Anise. Yes, it, too, inspires lust. But then that is easy enough in my case. It very definitely inspires psychic awareness. Especially when used in conjunction with a good joint of marijuana.

In fact, the ritual in which I did this utilized a crystal ball, a very small one, a blue candle, anise essential oil, a joint, and a sheet of parchment upon which I dabbed a few drops of the oil. After inhaling the scent and smoking the joint, I lit the candle, some incense, and dropped a few drops on the candle, which I also previously annointed with the oil. I then meditated by the light of the blue candle, on the old style parchment, and the crystal ball.

Before long, the anise blots on the old style parchment became like a kind of Rorshach test, and I could divine shapes in them that told me the answer to the question I had been divining. But that was only the beginning. After so long the shapes actually seemed to take on a life of their own, and they actually began to move around on the parchment. It became almost like looking at an editorial page cartoon transposed to film, with movement. It was quite bizzarre, to say the least.

Thing about it was, I was unsure as to exactly what I was looking at. Then, three days later, it hit me, out of the blue, just exactly what I was looking at. At the time the truth occurred to me, I had actually put it out of my mind somewhat, but I was waking across a bridge, in fact the bluue suspension bridge (Roebbling, I think is the name of it) that goes from Cincinnati to Covington, Ky., when it hit me. The purpose of the divination was to discover the true identity of the person or persons responsible for the murder of somebody. Incredibly, I knew one of the two people involved, and maybe the other one as well, though I could never be too certain of that second.

Now, of course, I said to myself, okay, I don't like this person, so I'm projecting my intense dislike of him onto a crime scene as a way of playing some kind of subconscous game of retribution. So I put this out of my mind. But, it turns out,(though I didn't know it at the time of the ritual) the person in question, who shall remain nameless, was exactly the type of person who would commit this specific type of crime against this specific type of victim. Voila. Unfortunately, I had and have no real evidence, so it has had to remain my secret. What am I going to tell the cops, that I saw the guilty parties on a sheet of parchment after I smoked a joint and conducted a Wiccan style ritual? And one of them just turned out to be a person I'd been having some problems with? Nothing serious, the guy was just a loudmouthed asshole and a prick. Strangely enough, however, the guy became eerily friendly almost immediately after my ritual, after I had spoken with him a couple of times. Almost like a part of him, somewhere deep down, knew that I knew. But knowledge based on divination, no matter how valid and based on comprehensive study and verification afterwards, is worthless without some kind of hard evidence to back it up. As such, I have a real problem with a lot of these phoney psychics who put themselves across as having some kind of special knowledge of some crime or mystery.

But anyway, I have strayed somewhat, from my original point, but at least perhaps it served to illustrate the validity of the magical andf ritual uses of the herb, depending on whether one would care to take my word for it. Naturally, in the case of the smoking of marijuana, I would never (ahem) under any circumstances (Ahem) encourage anybody to break the law (ahem). But there you have it, take it for what it's worth.

Fortunately, you can enjoy the benefits of the magical powers of anise with ot without the use of marijuana, or any other drug. The psychic enhancing powers of the scent is still quite powerful, and may possibly be even easier to access without marijuana, which in my case causes my mind to stray very quickly from first one thing to another.(Of course, in the case of psychic workings, that might not be all together bad)

But there are other ways to enjoy the benefits of the herb, bsides merely inhaling the scent. I enjoy making a tea out of the seeds. It is quite simple, really. Just fill a coffee filter about one third to one half way full ofthe seeds, then run about ten cups of water through your coffee maker. Of course, the more seeds you can put in your filter, the stronger and thus better the tea. Enjoy the tea by the light of the moon, especially the full moon, as you sit outside under it at night. Or simply enjoy it in the comfort and privacy of your home, as you meditate by candlelight. Either way, or both, is fine. As Samhain is fast approaching, what better way to attune with the spirits of the dead, or with the Goddess and the God, than by this brew. I used to add other ingredients. A dash of cinnammon, a couple tablespoons of ginger, a pinch of spearmint. This year, however, I think I am going to stick to pure anise tea. I might add a teaspoon of sugar per cup, but I might not even do that. Whatever the case, I strongly recommend it for a person's Samhain celebrations-or anytime for that matter.

A word of caution is advised, however. As with any herb, check with your physician before you ingest too much of it. Anise in particular can be dangerous for persons sufferring from high blood pressure. Otherwise, anise tea while meditating is an enjoyable addition to my Samhain observances.

And with what I learned about it's potential as a preventative for the contracting of the Avian Flu, Samhain couldn't come at a better time.

Bo Dietl Runs His Mouth-And MSNBC Runs Away

Bo Dietl is a frequent contributor to the MSNBC Imus In The Morning show, which is actually a simulcast from the radio program. I watch it on a fairly regular basis. Imus gets away with a good lot on the show that a good many people wouldn't even dream of doing, even if they wanted to, which you suspect a good lot of them would. Dietl, a regular, is as much a character as is Imus himself. A former New York Police detective, he has gone on to amass a considerable fortune as a private securtiy expert and businessman. He appears on quite a few programs, in fact, as an analyst, and has written a book, "Business Luncheatations", in which he gives advice on how to get ahead simply by selling yourself to the rich and powerful. Of course, in order to get the kind of access he describes you all ready have to be fairly successful (to say the least) to start out with.

He is very irascible, and can be quite abrasive. He may be an easy person to admire, but not so much to like. He comes across as a person who pulled himself up out of the dirt and clawed his way to the top the hard way. As such, he is his own most ardent admirer. Though he was a cop, he drops names of people with whom he is intimately connected, and intimates that his closest friends and allies may have ties to the mob. Sweet.

But just yesterday, he may have started to go just a little too far. He has gone through this kind of thing before, where he starts out talking about the war on terror and Iraq (which he has now come to oppose although in the beginning he was an ardent proponent of it). Like Imus is wont to do, he gruffilly and angrily dismisses the Arab/Muslim fanatics and terrorists as "towel heads" or "ragheads", and makes no apologies for doing it. Sensitivity is not Bo's strong asset.

Funny thing is, I agree with him on this. Why pussyfoot around the issue and worry abut political correctness when it comes to people that would as soon cut your throat as look at you. He, like I, am resentful of the people who stress that we ought to approach the issue of terrorism with the attitude of trying to understand our enemies to the point that we should go so far as to sympathize with them to some extent, perhaps even open a dialogue with them. Try to reason with them. Try to appease them, in some fashion, and certainly come down hard on any abuses, real or imagined (or made up) at places such as Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.

When Dietl starts opining on this issue, he takes on a frenzied, near maniacal personna, and you can tell that he, like myself, is as angry at the American leftist apologists for the terrorists and "insurgents" as he is with the Islamic Fascists themselves.

Yesterday, he took it to the point of advising a strategy to deal with the insurgents. We should get on Al-Jazeera, he stressed, and show a bunch of soldiers dipping bullets in pigs blood. We should then let it be known far and wide that, when we shoot an insurgent, these pigs blood soaked bullets will be what will penetrate their bodies. Therefore, they will go straight to hell. No paradise. No seventy-two virgins.

Of course, this is ridiculous as a strategy, and I can barely believe he was truly serious, angry though he was. It would be too easy for Bin Laden or another Al-Queda leader to issue a "Fatwa" to the effect that such an artifice by an "infidel" would not preclude a good Muslim from going to heaven, and that would probably be that, if it were even ever necessary to begin with. Moreover, such a tactic would serve merely to inflame even more Muslims against us. There are enough of them, and they are bad enough, as it is.

But that's not even really the point. What really struck me more than anything else about this childish and idiotic outburst, was that MSNBC cut it off, practically in mid-sentence, and jumped five minutes ahead of schedule to the last segment of Imus's simulcast on the network, showing what had occurred "earlier on Imus in the Morning." Typically the last segment of the show before the next hour goes into the MSNBC morning news segment.

In an effort then to prevent Muslims and Arabs that might be watching from becomming offended, and possibly to prevent their leftist apologists and maybe a politician or two from trying to make an issue out of it, MSNBC proved Dietl's point. Political correctness has become so rife, so rampant in our culture, that this country, the country that prides itself on freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by the Constitution and the First Amendment, is collectively afraid to open it's fucking mouth about anything, about any person or subject, out of the fear that it might offend somebody.

Arabs and Muslims, of course, as is the case with most other minorities and special interest groups, are free to express their offense, and are free to demand-and more often than not get-an apology, whether or not one is deseved or called for.

I don't know for sure how valid the war on terror is anymore. In fact, I think we all ready lost it, a long time ago.

Vikings-Living Up To The Name

Since the Minnessotta Vikings have come into hard times lately, it seems like a good lot ofthe people involved within the sports and other media are salivating like vultures over the corpse of a slaughtered coastal villager in Pre-Christian days. Well, what would you expect? You have an NFL team that is on, or needs to be on, terminal life support. They have a loosing record so far this season, and just can't get it together on the field. Team discipline has totally dissipated. One wonders what in the hell the occassion for a cruise was to begin with. What exactly were they celebrating?

Or was it meant more to be a kind of old style funeral barge. Well, somebody set the boat on fire, all right. So far, no team owner or manager has stepped forward to claim repsondibility for what happened on the cruise ship that ploughed the waters of Lake Minetonken, yet someone in addition to chartering Al And Almas cruise ship had prostitutes (what the hell else could you call them) shipped in from Alabama. So in addition to possibly facing team and leaque sanctions, there could potentially be a question of federal criminality involved here, as it involves interstate transportation to perform a criminal act-prostitution.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Some of the crew members evidently felt harrassed, and were reportedly threatened, by several of the team members. I smell a lawsuit, or several of them, coming down the pike, and what's worse, one or more of the players (some of whom made statements of apology for the conduct of their teammates) may be called to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs, if it does come to that. This could indeed turn out to be the biggest mess to hit the NFL, or any professional sport, in a long, long time.

Still, again, no owner, no team coach or manager, has come forward to claim even a semblance of responsibility for allowing, or encouraging, or facilitating this event. Not as yet, to my knowledge. Obviously, there was a good deal of alcohol intoxication,and probably drug use involved as well. So perhaps it is understandable from both a legal and a public relations standpoint.

Hopefully,this issue will be resolved, and all relevant parties will be held accountable, including the team ownership, if applicable. As for the team as a whole, one can only hope they will concentrate their efforts on living up to the Viking name on the football field. In other areas, they should perhaps try to be a bit more civilized than that.

Public Menace

If the city of Toledo had it's collective way, it probably would like a chance to go back and rethink it's decision to allow members of the American Nazi Party to stage a protest march in what was evidently a mixed neighborhood of the city, as this was a decision that has resulted in a lot of turmoil and destruction. A neighborhood tavern was torched, and an ambulance was attacked with rocks as it entered the area.

The decision to allow the march was one only the ACLU could love. After all, they sucessfully fought for the right of Neo-Nazis to march in the streets of a Jewish neighborhood. The group and it's supporters like to tout this as suppossed proof that they are out to protect the Constitutional rights of all groups,not just progressive and liberal groups. Of course, that decision did not result in the kind of turmoil that occurred in Toledo. Nor was either case proof of the concern of any party involved as to the constitutional free speech rights of any group.

Amazingly, the riots transpired aftr the Nazis had all ready packed up and left, accorrding to most acounts. And, though the mayor of Toledo bemoaned the actions as something that would be touted by the right wing extremists as proving their point-their ostensible purpose for the march was in protest of black gangs attacking whites-one has to wonder what the city expected, and what the hell, actually, they were thinking when allowing this protest.

After all, in any such decision, there are always public health and safety considerations which are tantamount. Not to say that the demonstration should not have been allowed, only that it should have been thought out and coordinated more carefully. Perhaps limited to a certain area, where proponents, or for that matter opponents, could have been informed as to the time and place, and allowed to attend, under security scrutiny, along with the media. The group could have staged their event, and could have made their point.

Unfortunately, it seems as though the group was determined to get in the faces of the targets of their protests, and worse, the city seems to have been glad to oblige. As a result, what might be described as a counter protest did indeed get way out of hand, which could have resulted in tragic consequences. What is more, this seems to have been encouraged by gang members working in conjunction with anarchists from out of town. One thousand anarchists or more, in fact.

If I didn't know better, I would swear that the city allowed this to occur not out of any concerns for the free speech rights of the Nazis, so much as out of a perceived method of working the city residents up into on the one hand shaming themselves into cleaning up the very real problems of the city, and on the other hand inflaming them against the nazis in a way they could then use to harness the energy of their indignation come the next election. Toledo is I think a Democratic city, and this could have been perceived as a way of working up even more furor against the Republicans, who tend to be identified with the Nazi crowd by a large segment ofthe black population. At the same time they could have made the point that they were the champions of free speech.

But the city of Toledo bit off more than it could chew here. It may never have occurred to them that with racial tensions being on such a jagged edge now, in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster and rampant unemployment (Toledo's being at 6 per cent, a point higher than the national average) the last thing the black population of the city of Toledo needed was a dressing down by American Nazis giving the German Nazi salute. And more to the point, the blacks who were riled up to the point of rioting seems to have been as resentful of the city which allowed the protest, as it was of the Nazis themselves.

All told, not a good day for Toledo, nor an admirable example of the practice of free speech or the support of same.

Harriett Miers-Just What Does Dobson Know?

A lot has been made out of a recent statement by Dr. James Dobson, of Focus On The Family, to the effect that he knew some things about Harriett Miers-George Bush's most recent Supreme Court nominee-that he probably shouldn't know. The information evidently came to him in the coure of a conversation with senior Presidential advisor (for the time being) Karl Rove. As a result of this conversation, Dobson has pledged his support to Ms. Miers. To Bush's obvious chagrin, he is one of the relatively few social conservative leaders to do so. In fact, even Dick Cheney recently founmd himself in the absurd predicament of having to call-in on the radio show of conservative windbag extraordinaire Rush Limbaugh in a seemingly vain attempt to convince the fat blow hard to support the Miers nomination.

 

To be sure, Dobson's support is tepid, to say the least. He has said that he gives the support with the knowledge that the blood of more innocent babies might well be on his hands, in part. But he has given it, nevertheless. Why?

 

I have always been of the opinion that most conservatives want the fight more than they actually want a conservative nominee. But without a truly known conservative nominee, there can be no fight. No rallying of the troops. No blood, no guts, no money. Again, what does Dobson know? Could this be a simple means of gearing up the conservative Christian camp for a fight, to sound the alarums of war? Or is there truly something in Miers background that Dobson has been made privy to?

 

It would be too easy to suppose that Rove told Dobson that Miers has expressed oppossition to abortion in private, and has all but assurred the President that if nominated she will if given the opportunity vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course, if she were to have actually said that, she would if it were to come out be immediately disqualified from the court, or at the very least would be obliged to recuse herself from any ruling on the matter of abortion rights versus right to life. Possibly even if it was a ruling that just sought to nibble around the edges of Roe v. Wade.

 

I find it hard to believe that Rove would have told Dobson something like that, and if he did, it seems incalculable to me that Dobson would have mentioned it on his radio program, or anywhere else, publicly or privately.

 

That leaves very little else to consider. Perhaps Rove has just stressed to Dobson that the President knows Miers very well, and would not have nominated her for the Supreme Court if he did not know her and her beliefs and feelings on a myriad of subjects, including not only such issues of concern to Dobson as might one day come before the court, but perhaps more importantly, that Bush is well aware of Miers' judicial philosophy. Perhaps Miers has stated in no uncertain terms that she is a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution. She may have said that there is indeed precedent for oveturning precedent when a case has been wrongly decided, as in the case when a decision might smack of politics, or of "judicial activism".

 

This could be it. But there seems to be something missing here. Something personal. After all, Dobson could easily assume any or all of the above that I have mentioned, without Rove's or anyone elses input. It is really not a matter of something that one should know that maybe one shouldn't know.

 

It occurred to me just the other night, and I know it's a stretch, but there might indeed be something personal in the life of Harriet Miers that a person like Dr. James Dobson might well find reassurring, to a point.

 

Harriet Miers, at the age of sixty, has never been married, and it has even been rumored that she has never engaged in sexual relations. I find this unlikely, to tell you the truth, yet it is a fact she has never married. She was at one time a Catholic, and yet, for some reason as yet unspecified, she converted to evangelical Christianity. This is somewhat of a rarity. Yet, it seems to have occurred sometime during the late seventies to early eighties. Well before Harriett Miers reached the age of forty. She has been a devout evangelical Christian ever since, and has involved herself to some extent in Pro Life matters, donating money to Pro Life charities. A decade later, she converted as well, from a supporter of the Democratic party to a Republican supporter. Soon thereafter, she met Bush, to whom she has been attached ever since.

 

My question is this? Did Harriet Miers ever have sexual relations-consensual or otherwise-with any man? Is it possible that this resulted in a pregnancy? And is it even possible that, yes, Harriet Miers, possibly after agonizing over the decision, possibly not, had an abortion? How would this have affected her life? Did she go through a torrent of agonizing guilt over her actions? Some women, it is said, have been racked by guilt and depression after undergoing an abortion, sometimes even when the aborted pregnancy is the result of rape-or incest.

 

Did this lead to her future abandonment of the Catholic Church, where such an act would be considered an heinous sin, and carries with it to this day even the threat of permanent expulsion, of excommunication? Did this convince her to turn from the church, which she came to view as cold and harsh, and turn to the open, and loving, and forgiving arms of the evangelical Christian movement?

 

Of course, all this is the most rank speculation, I know that. But it is easy to see how Harriet Miers and George W. Bush, also a born again convert, would become so close. I have no doubt that Bush knows her well-too well. But is it possible that she would have confided such a harrowing life experience as this to the comander-in-chief that she so admires and respects. I think she would.

 

Of course, all this brings up yet another question. If it were to turn out that Harriet Miers had had an abortion, a life changing experience, which, out of guilt and remorse, turned her into a staunch abortion opponnent, this in itself would certainly not disqualify her from a seat on the Supreme Court. What is more improtant, it may not even require her to recuse herself from any decision involving Roe v. Wade, or any other Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice issue that might come up before the court.

 

On the other hand, it might well indeed disqualify her. For, what if it were to turn out that this abortion transpired before 1973? The year before Roe v. Wade was decided, and then became the law of the land? Then, assumming Harriet Miers was an adult at the time of the abortion, and that it was thus not forced upon her, but that it was the result of her own adult decision-then Harriet Miers would have broken the law. In fact, she would have to be considered a murderer, and of her own child at that, accordding to the law as it stood at the time. 

 

How ironic would that be? People have been disqualified from lower court seats and from lower cabinet posts for a lot less than that. But for Harriet Miers to be disqualified from a seat on the Supreme Court because she had at one time had an illegal abortion, well, that would take the cake.  

---

Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

America No Longer The Worlds Greatest nation

It just struck me last night as I was watching Hannity and Colmes, as Sean Hannity was berating a guest who had recently taken a job as a reporter for the Arab network Al-Jazeera. The former American soldier was asked repeatedly whether he thought America was the worlds greatest nation.

 

The soldier turned reporter answered in the affirmative, but it seemed to me as if he did so by rote, that his heart wasnt' really in it. And I understood quite well the reason for this. What does it mean, really, when somebody states that the Untied States of America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth, the greatest nation, in fact, to have ever existed?

 

Well, the answer to that would depend on who you ask. Some people, the more simple minded, would say because we are the most powerful nation, militarily and economically, and because of our "freedom" and our purported belief in God. A great many would agree with this assessment only in part.

 

The real answer, of course, should be because of our founding documents, the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, the Declaration of Independence. Because of our history of adhering to the principles inherent in these documents, and of being the shining light to the world for those who long to live in liberty, and propserity, and the promise that everyone who "works hard and plays by the rules" stands a good chance of achieving their dreams-the so-called "American Dream."

 

Unfortunately, the American Dream may well have turned into a nightmare. No longer are we the worlds greatest nation. Oh sure, we are still the greatest economic power, the greatest military power, and we still have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and in fact the infrastructure of our government is still very much in place, as strong or stronger than it has ever been before.

 

But none of that is important, when you get right down to it. A country is not it's government, nor is it it's military or economy. It is not even it's founding documents, admirable though these all are. The greatness of a nation, of any nation, is in it's people. So, let's rethink this assertion of greatness.

 

When, ever, if at all, was America truly "The Greatest Nation On Earth"? I submit that there was indeed a time when this was the case. Never was there a time when this was more true than during the onset of the nineteen thirties, during the darkest days of the Great Depression. This had been ongoing by 1932 for some three years, and the country was now at it's bleakest period. Franklin D. Roosevelt rallied the people after this, and though the struggle was long and hard, the people persevered. Note I said the people persevered. Not Roosevelt, not the Democratic party. Although Roosevelt and his Party were indeed instrumental in harnassing the power of the collective will and faith of America, it was the spirit of the people itself that enabled the long term transformation. It was a story that is itself the stuff of greatness.

 

This greatness continued, as we persevered through the horrors or World War II in the 1940's, on through the on-set of the Cold War in the late forties and throughout the fifties. Despite the trepidation that existed then, again America persevered, throughout even the tumltous decade of the ninteen sixties. It was perhaps this decade during which America was tested like never before, when our very values were called into question, and when we were forced to really examine whether or not American justice and values were only for the chosen few, or for all Americans. The unrest of the Civil Rights and Viet Nam era was cetainly a testing period. We lived through the assassination of a President, a former attornedy general and Presidential anti-war and pro-civil rights candidate, and the greatest of all civil rights leaders. All this culminated with the end of Viet Nam war, and the resignation of a President in disgrace.

 

Things had indeed come full circle. Throughout the decade of the nineteen seventies, America was going through a healing process, what Jimmy Carter mistakenly referred to as a "malaise". America was, in fact, an exhausted nation, a nation sufferring from an advanced case of collective clinical depression.

 

For just a brief time, Ronald Reagan inspired a kind of revitalization of the American spirit during the decade of the nineteen eighties, but this was illussory, based on empty premises of a new "morning in America", where most of the people were still left in the dark, until the glaring light of Iran Contra temporarily shocked us out of our complacency. But still, we didn't really care. Not enough.

 

We continued to live our delusions, on into the nineteen nineties. Then came Clinton, and, quickly following his ascension to the presidency, in 1994, came what was billed as the "Republican Revolution". Lead by Newt Gingrich, soon to be the first Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives in more than forty years, this was the one event that set the stage for the ultimate downhill slide of America, into the doldrums of a Third World Backwater.

 

Clinton, who was luckily re-elected in 1996, managed to maintain some semblance of control over events, enough to oversee probably the greatest economy in American history. But by this time, the bitterness and factionalism between Democrats and Republicans had manifested to an extent not seen since the days of the American Civil War. By the time Clinton left office, there was no way to go but down.

 

Yes, we still have the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. Our democratically elected leaders should read it every now and then. Both sides. The way it stands now, both factions have become so intransigent, their heels dug in so deeply, as they become more and more controlled by PACS and spercial interest groups, as oppossed to being guided by the will, and the rights, of all American citizens.

 

Because of this, precious little is ever accomplished anymore. Moderation and compromise have become as rare, if at all existant, as the civility which used to at least pretend to exist among our elected leaders.

 

We are, in effect, in the middle of a Second American Civil War. But it is one fought not for the achievement of a lofty goal, or for the righting of one of humanities great evils. It is a war fought for the simple acquisition of power, and wealth, and control. And the American people, for the most part, either sit on the side-lines, wathcing in dismay and disgust, or they take sides, some rather tentatively,without really giving a whole lot of thought to the choices they make. In fact, a good lot of them, I am afraid to say, are really too ignorant to make an informed choice, they just act accordding to what they perceive their own selfish best itnerests to be, rightly or wrongly, and try to tell themselves that they are doing it for the "good of the country", or to please some supposed divine personnage.

 

Perhaps it was a little harsh to refer to the country as a "backwater". But that is exactly where we are headed, and quicker than one might think, if things aren't changed, and quickly. But this is unlikely to happen. The factionalism, the bitterness, and the outright hatred that has overtaken the country tells the true story of the state of our nation. And it might well be the final chapter. What's liable to replace it afterwards could very well be an entirely different type of volume, one based on totalitarianism, with an economic system that would probably be best described as a modern kind of feudalism.

 

Not exactly what the Founding Father's had in mind, in fact a far cry from the lofty ideals as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. And that is all that matters. The greatness, long term, of any nation, is not where it has been, but where it ends up going.   

---

Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Mars Retrograde-What Will Happen This Time?

As of this month, the first of this month in fact, the planet Mars, which is currently transiting the sign of Taurus, began going through retrograde motion, which is an illussion that makes it appear that a planet is going backwards. This illussion is caused by the position of a planet in relation to the position of the earth in the zodiac. Thus, when the Sun appears to be transiting a sign which is at the oppossite end of the spectrum from the planet in question, the planet-in this case Mars-appears to be moving backward. Although this is an illussion, astrologers have long noted certain conditions that seem to be prevalent in regards to retrograde motion of various planets. Mercury retrograde, for example (which likewise starts again later on this month) is said to cause difficulty in communications and travels, etc.

So what is the influence of Mars retrograde? A look back at past events may provide a telling example. In the year 2001, Mars went retrograde in the sign of Sagittarrius, when the Sun was in the sign of Gemini. About the middle of June of that year, the Sun and Mars came in complete oppossition. Two and a half months later was September 11th, 2001. At this time, Mars had resumed it's normal forward trajectory, albeit slowly, and had returned to the point roughly in the Zodiac at which it began it's retrograde motion.

The last time Mars went retrograde, was in July of 2003. Mars and the Sun came in oppossition in August of that year. About the time things started going horribly wrong in Iraq, although the U.S. forces had succeeded finally in tracking down and killing the sons of Saddam Hussein.

This year, the Sun and Mars shall come in oppossition about midnight of November 7th. Around the last of January, 2006, will be about the time which would be the equivalent of September 11th of 2001.

So what does it mean? Does it have some mystical connotation that we can barely grasp for now? Possibly. However, there could actually be a mundane explanation, besides mere coincidence. Bear in mind that the terrorists who advocate a return to what they purport as the original intent of Islam as propogated by the prophet Muhammed look forward-or backward-to a return to the so-called glory days of Islam. In those days, Islamic societies had established a reputation as the cultural centers of their day. They were adept at various branches of science and mathematics, had an admirable literary heritage and, more importantly, were considered at the forefront of astronomy and astrology.

The point? Is it possible that the Al-Queda terrorists actually use astrology as a means of plotting strategy? It would make a good deal of sense when you consider the difficulties they have, especialy now, more than ever, in maintaining effective real time communication capabilites in regards to leaders to their followers. By utilizing astrology, they could conceivable therefore have planned well in advance their strategies. Weeks, and months, and yes, even years ahead of time.

If this is true, what might be their strategy this time around? Unfortunately, it could well be that we will just have to wait to find out. Hopefully, the utilization of astrology as a strategic tool, while it might be effective, need not necessarrily be a guarantor of success.

Conservatives Seem To Hate Harriett

It seems that very few in the Republican Party care for her one whit, which surprises me to no end. Bush must be beside himself. His last nomination, that of John Roberts, played to such good reviews, he must have thought a follow through hit was guaranteed to be a success. After all, how can anyone legitimately criticize a woman who was HIS-George W. Bush's- White House counsel, and had been associated with him for a number of years before that. A woman who had been the first woman to head the Texas branch of the American Bar Asociation, an organization which she, as well, encouraged to not support "abortion rights". A woman who would be easily asummed to be a staunch conservative, with not only a conservative view of the Constitution, but one who, as a former attorney, could easily become a "conservative activist" when it was deemed appropriate.

If that sounds contradictory, all you have to do is remember that conservative activism generally hides behind an illussion, a facade if you will, of "States Rights" (Federalism), and even more importantly in the case of the hard core social conservatives, "Traditional Values" (Judaeo Christian values, in other words). But they would insist that it is never, ever, "activist". After all, how can it be "activist" to simply go back to the way things are supposed to be. Get it?

But they are genuinely upset, and to a large degree are even questioning Ms. Miers's conservative credentials. Something I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams, even after an ounce of pot with a brand new shiny deck of tarot cards. What is going on here? Rush Limbaugh complained bitterly over the appointment, which he opined seemed to have been made "from weakness". Even more unbelievably, Vice-President Dick Cheney called in to Limbaugh's program to defent the nomination.

Also to my amazement, most Democrats seem to actually be happy with the nomination. Why? Do they know something, some people have openly wondered? Some have made hay over the fact that Ms. Miers donated money to the Al Gore campaign in 1988. Okay, that is an eyebrow raiser, for sure, but remember, Al Gore in 1988 was a far cry from the Al Gore of the Clinton Presidency, from the Presidential 2000 race. Gore was considered a moderate, maybe even a conservative to an extent, and his wife Tipper had made headlines by encouraging some degree of what many critics regarded as censorship of television, movies, and music. Al Gore may even have taken a Pro-Gun, Anti-Abortion stance at this time. (He certainly did at some point up before the time in question).

It is worth noting that Al Gore, of course, did not receive the 1988 Democratic Presidential nomination, nor is there any record of Ms. Meirs's donating money or campaigning in any way for eventual nominee Michael DuKakis-or for any other Democrat past that point.

Other Republicans and Conservatives have started a litany of complaints due to her suppossed support of other "liberal" causes-support for women in combat, for gay adoption, etc. But is this true, or is it simply a pack of lies meant to derail the nomination, meant to force Bush to make another appointment, of a better known conservative judge, one with unimpeachable credentials.

The Democrats might be right to be happy with this appointment, to be sure. But I can't see it. Certainly Bush has taken the time to get to know this woman and is at least reasonably sure as to not only her judicial philosophy and view of the constitution and the interpretaiton of laws-one would strongly suspect he would be well aware of her views on a variety of subjects, most particularly on the matter of abortion rights.

I would be willing to bet that Bush has nominated, in both Roberts and Meirs, two people who will indeed be in time regarded as judicial activists of the conservative variety. I would be more certain of Ms. Meirs in this regard than I would be of recently confirmed Chief Justice Roberts. Maybe not. Certainly, I could be wrong, that would hardly be a first. But the question becomes, why should the Democrats be so content. And why should the Republican Conservatives be so stridently oppossed-so bitterly dissappointed?

And it suddenly occurred to me what might-just might, mind you-be the problem. It's not the Republican faithful as a whole. They pretty much, like the Democratic faithful, believe what they are told, and act accordingly. So who is it, besides Limbaugh, and other pundits, who are beating this drum against Meirs. And why?

And it all comes down to money. With a Miquel Estrada, or an Edith Jones, or any of a number of other known conservative judges, they know there would be a fight. They know the Democrats would balk. And that is exactly what they want, a fight. They don't really care, in my view, whether they lose that fight or not. It's the fight that is important. Why? Because that is what brings in the money, the contributions, and gets the base out and active and excited.

Face it, the Republican base has had very little these days to feel good about. A conservative activist judge would be the one thing that could conceivably renew their spirits, and help them to overcome the doldrums, the malaise, that has come about as a result of the horrible state of affairs in Iraq, or the meagre response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, especially in New Orleans, and the tragic consequences attendant with that. With the staggerringly high cost of gasoline prices, with home heating fuel price concerns looming in the very near future.

Bush has taken the one thing from them they most need to revive their sagging spirits-a good fight, for the cause they most believe in, that which to them is the most noble cause of all, the fight for conservative family traditional values that takes a special kind of judicial nominee to inspire. But that would require a paper trail, the very thing Bush at this moment of weakness in his Presidency, at this time of greatest vulnerability, fears the most.

Moves Toward A Conservative Activist Supreme Court

A good many people have come to realize over the last few years of the Bush Presidency that the Administration as well as, for the most part, the party in power in Congress, seldom says exactly what it means. In fact, a case can be made that it usually does exactly the oppossite of what it says. When the Republicans, for example, bemoan the lack of civility in Washington, and speak in negative turns about the Democrats and their suppossed inclinations to engage in personal "ad hominem attacks", they usually go on to engage in what is a good lot of the time the most outrageous example of smear tactics, and innuendos, and in some cases plain flat out falsehoods. Ask former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, for one. Or consider the case of the Homeland Security Department. Initially an idea of for the most part moderate Democrats such as Joe Liebermann, and at first oppossed by the Bush administration, it was soon seized and confiscated by the Bushes upon the perception of the growing popularity of the idea. Then, a lot of questionable policies were added on to it, and the same Democrats were then berated for oppossing some of these additions, such as the right to seize library records, for one.

 

There are other such examples of the Republican Party talking out of both sides of their collective mouths at once, but the latest example regarding nominations to the Supreme Court, is perhaps the most serious, the most far-reaching, and by far the most troubling.

 

WIth today's nomination of Harriet Miers, long time legal adviser to the President, to fill the coming Supreme Court vacancy to be left by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, we may have now seen a perfect example of double speak come to fruition. Bush assurred us that, like the recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts, Harriet Miers is a perfect example of a legal scholar who will respect the law, the Constiutution, and, most importantly, will not seek to legislate from the bench.

 

Of course, this is a lot of nonsense. To legislate from the bench is exactly what Bush is hoping for, and counting on. From a conservative viewpoint, of course. One of the top priorities of Bush as concerning his presidency, from the very beginning of it, if not his number one priority, was specifically to nominate a judge who, in his own words, would be in the mold of a Justice Clarence Thomas or a Justice Antonin Scalia. In other words, his ideal role model would be a conservative activist. The scary thing is, Bush probably personally sees no contradiction here. But of course he can't say that, he's got to spin it in a matter which would ensure the highest probability of public palatability.

 

There can be little if any doubt as to how Harriet Miers stands on the issues. She has been an associate of Bush's since the mid-1980's, so we can assume that sometime over the course of that twenty plus years period of time, he has taken the opportunity to pick her brain on a variety of topics, ceretainly over the last few years, with precisely this in mind. He knows where she stands on abortion, for example. But nobody else need legitimately know. Bush may have scored his most important coup de gras with this appointment.

 

If the Democrats confirm her without a fight her, without much muss or fuss, it would prevent Bush from using a fight he obviously expects, (and expects in the long run to win by utilizing through his pawns in Congress the prospect of the "nuclear option" if necessary) to detract attention from his growing and obvious problems which continually mount in other areas. However, they have to put up some kind of a fight. They know that, and have no choice, and know they have no choice. To weaken now over the appointment of such a questionable nominee would be a sign of the utmost weakness, and their base, especially their core constituents, their more activist base, would go completely haywire, and for once they might be at least partially right to do so. But they have to walk a fine line nevertheless. 

 

Their best and most obvious line of reasoning in oppossing her would be precisely becuase she has no - absolutely none - judicial experience. Harriet Miers is a 60 year old woman who has made her living as an advocate, an attorney. Precisely the type of person who, if suddenly thrust into a position of judicial power, would tend to become an "activist judge". Who would be the most likely kind of judge to "legislate from the bench".

 

Her life experience has been as an advocate for her client. Not as a fair and impartial arbitrer of the law and the constiutution. Justice Roberts himself had precious little experience as a Judge on the Appellate D.C. Circuit, way too little really to be on the Supreme Court. But at least he had SOME experience, and in addition had a distinquished career before the Court as an attorney , and also served as clerk for Justice Rehnquist. So a case could be made for him.

 

But with this appointment, we now see a growing trend. The appointment of Judges, in all probability of a conservative activist temperament, who have no paper trail and no record to question or examine. This appointment I have no doubt will receive confirmation, and Harriet Miers will then become the 110th Justice Of The Supreme Court. That just leaves one appoitment to go, in order for Bush to have achieved the goal that is his most enduring wish to achieve for the establsihment of his legacy-a five to four conservative majority on the Supreme Court, led by a Chief Justice who, at age fifty, could conceivably continue for three, or even four, decades. Bush has three years to go yet before his second  term expires. The next one to retire would, it stands to reason, be Justice John Paul Stevens, the lone appointment made by President Gerald Ford, now the senior member of the bench, and arguably among the more dependably liberal members of it.

 

It is very unlikely, saving death or severe incapacitation, that Justices Scalia or Thomas will step down any time soon. So that Conservative Court that is Bush's most important goal, may just be a few heartbeats away. It is even conceivable that Bush may yet get to make not just one more appointment, but two more-or even three. If that were to occur, the long term result may well be the establishment of a conservative court, and even an activist one, which will be of long term duration. It will be a far different country then. But conservative views to the contrary, it is likely to be a far, far cry from what the Founding Fathers actually had in mind.

---

Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

Bill Bennetts New Southern Strategy

Okay, I've heard it all now. You would think a former Secretary of Education would know better, but then again you would also think he would know better than to get in hock to gambling casinos, so what can you say? Well, you can try to come up with an explanation for his recent remarks to the effect that if you wanted to curtail black crime, or end it, you could simply abort all black babies. And so, in nomination for the grand prize in the category "What the fuck is this idiot thinking", we have the following entries:

1. The New Southern Strategy-Yeah, for sure, white southern racists have been given some cause for concern over the last few years, with all this talk from Republican circles about "compasionate conservativism", and the policy of "no child left behind" and now the recent assertion of the need to use federal money to rebuild New Orleans and address the issue of poverty that has for so long afflicted the mostly black population of New Orleans. So maybe this was simply a trail balloon aimed at easing white southern racist sensitivities.

2. The Black Party Strategy-Yeah, I know this one is a stretch, but let's face it. Ask any white conservative Republican, and you're liable to hear that the majority of black folks just love to party and get high, and fuck all night. Of course, this creates the problem of a good many unwanted pregnancies, and therefore out-of-wedlock births. For far too long have Republicans put themselves across as being insensitive to the partyin' cultural needs of black folks. So perhaps this is merely a need to reassure them that, if Republicans maintain and increase their hold on power, not only do black people need have no fear of interference in their culture and society by Republicans, but they can be assurred that no interference from Republicans will be offerred if they choose to take care of the little problem of unwanted pregnancies by way of the process of abortions. After all, George W. Bush picked up two or three per cent of the black vote in the last election over the usual Republican average. Why not pick up an extra two or three per cent. Well, the only way you can do that is by picking up those wild and crazy party blacks that usually vote Democratic. Hell, who knows, maybe they can get a majority the next time around. And cleverly do so in such a way as to not undermine the strength of the aforementioned Southern strategy.

3. A Moderation Of Pro-Life Policies-Oh sure, Bennett went on to say that it would be immoral and reprehensible to actually abort black babies for the purpose of reducing crime, but still, hee hee hee, he did say it. I could almost imagine him winking as he said it. So here you have a potential trial balloon that could be a hint at a coming moderation in the hard-core Republican stance toward abortion policies. A way to hack away at that Democratic feminist base by, once again, cleverly doing so in a way as to not undermine the Republican hold on Social Conservatives. And white bigots.

4. He is a fucking idiot who has inadverdently revealed the true Republican/Social Conservative mindset in regards to blacks and minorities and other racial issues.

And the winner is-may we have the envelope please (Drumroll)-

NUMBER FOUR (Applause).

No, that's okay Mr. Bennett, no speeches please-PLEASE

In all seriousness, how is it that a former Secretary of Education can come up with such a nutty idea, when it should be obvious to him, of all people, that one of the best ways to address the iussue of black crime, and of crime in general, is by, well, improving education. Improved job training and job opportunities and medical and insurance coverage might be among some of the others. But wherever it would fall on the list in terms of importance, education must certainly be the starting point. But this is a man whose main emphasis in life seems to be on morality issues. He was one of the most vociferous critics of Bill Clinton and is at the vanguard of those who emphasize a return to traditional values in terms of families, and schools. There can be little doubt that if he had his way, there would be a return to not only prayer in the public schools, but probably Bible reading as well, in addition to abstinence only sex educxation, and an overall emphasis on morality as a compass in public education. But whose morality?

Well, up until yesterday, the answer to that would have been, in part, the morality of a man who once asserted that abortion was wrong, presumably for any reason. I guess Bill Bennett is just another one of those who believe there can be exceptions to that rule.

Donkeys Shouldn't Bray Too Loudly

Both parties have contributed to the racial divide in the nation today, to just about an equal extent. Yes, I do mean by that the Democratic party. For all their lip service to the cause of eradicting racism, what have they really done that is truly constructive? Once you get past the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act, for which they do for the most part deserve immense credit for remarkable political courage, the ugly truth is they have done remarkably little since then, and in a good many ways have, in fact, done more harm than good.

First you have the monstrous welfare system, which, despite the good intentions with which it was formulated, turned into more of a device to insure continued and steady employment among social servide employees than it did in actually helping blacks and the poverty stricken in general. In fact, it is generally now conceded by the majority of people that the welfare system actually did the reverse of what it porported to attempt, in that it actually kept blacks, more than any other single group, mired in poverty and transcended three generations in doing so. Had it not been reformed, it would doubtless have only gotten worse. The whole system was geared in such a way that welfare recipients were actually inadverdantly discouraged from getting off the system, and yet at the same time kept them at a base subsistence level at the same time.

But even this abject disaster pales in comparison to what the liberal movement did to the nation's education system, on a variety of levels. It started off with a reduction of the emphasis on basic educaton skills-the old three R's debate-and redirecting that emphasis on feel good social surdies which were based on assertions that had and have little if any validity. In the meantime, discipline was strongly undermined and replaced with a politically correct assumption that all kids, especially minorities, are basically good, and need only to be shown compassion, concern, and caring, and that their natural inclinations, shared by all humanity, to better themselves, would magically shine through, perhaps despite the myriad social problems and drawbacks with which they were in contention on a peer as well as an economic level.

To this end, true and honest history was replaced with the history of wishful thinking, as though the belief in theory as fact would somehow make it fact, and thus change the world for the better. Why bemoan what should have been but was not, when you can insist that it actaully was, but was covered up and disguised for some nefarious racist reason? To this end, Native Americans once again became the noble though unsophisticated victims of the white mans evil abuse, who further, in their lust for domination, fought an unjust war of aggression against the valiant Mexicans. And so, of course, these same evil white people just had to repress the black race, they had no other choice, it was almost a genetic predisposition, and any attempts by others among the white race to fight against the monstrosity of slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with their heartfelt oppossition to the practice-in fact, they probably had some other ulterior motives. And so, the animosity of blacks toward whites even to this day was not only justifiable and understandable, it was in fact to be encouraged. Whitey had it coming to him.

Discipline was severely undermined, and patriotism, once a given, was loudly decried. And liberal grading policies were assurred to guarantee that no child would be left behind when their other peers graduated. They would be passed on, and through, and graduated, and the exit door ponted out to them, in those many cases where they couldn't read the sign.

When drugs and crime and sexual promiscuity and even pregnancies and rape and violence, and finally murder, became widespread, this was a result of the social environment and the poverty in which they were raised and mired, and required understanding, but certainly not discipline-ceretainy not the passing of value judgements.

Bill Clinton was the first Democrat who actualy got it, and started making great strides toward beginning a truly comprehensive racial dialoque toward the understanding of racism in a very real way. And he made concrete strides towards addressing the issue. Welfare reform became a priority of his administration, as did the reform of the much abused system of Affirmative Action, with the rallying cry of "mend it, don't end it". And while urging furhter dialogue, understanding, and tolerance, he nevertheless addressed the need for discipline and responsibility among the black population, which was perhaps best illustrated by his chiding remarks aimed at the black female rapper "Sister Soljah" during a campaign appearrance at the black event in a joint appearrance with the reverand Jesse Jackson and other luminaries of the black civil rights movement. This was unheard of and no other democratic politician would have had the political courage to take such a stand.

Unfortunately, Clintons work and intentions in this regard, as in so many other things, was sadly derailed by his unfortunate incident with Ms. Lewinsky, which was cynically grasped by the Republican Party in such a way that almost guaranteed turning the clock back in so many ways-including fo rth eDemocratic party, which seemed determined to reverse course, and resume it's former defeatist path.

If the Democraticic party wants to start winning agian, and make a contribution to the undertanding and healing of racial divisions in America, in additions to the problem of poverty in general, and other issues, they would be well advised to take a page from the Clinton playbook. It's all well and good to pounce on such ill-advised comments and attitudes as those of Bill Bennett. Indeed, they should do this. But they can't just pile on this and assume that it will be enough. They have more they need to do-much, much more-to undo the damage done not only by decades of Republican misrule and cynicism, but in fact, they need to clean up their own house as well.

Edith Clements-New Supreme Court Nominee

Bush wants a woman, for a Supreme Court appointment, that is, and even Laura, that penultimate Stepford wife, is exerting her influence, in a overt way for once, to try to make this come about. Edith Clements is the obvious choice. For one thing, she was Bush's apparent choice to replace Rehnquist, right up until the time Bush did a 360 and picked John Roberts. This had to have been a dissappointment to Clements, who really was inordinately inconveneionced by what many took as a ruse on Bush's part to spring Roberts on the nation. In short, Bush kind of owes the woman a degree of consideration.

But there is more to it than that. In the wake of recent events in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, Clements may be seen as an acceptable alternative to other female judges that have been put under extreme scrutiny by the democrats lately as being not just conservative, but out of the mainstream, possibly even to the point where they might be considered conservtive activist judges along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas.

If Clements is nominated, she too will come under the same scrutiny, but it would be easy to make a case that she would be unlikely to come down in any judicail proceedings with a decision that might negate past civil rights gains, for example, or for entitements aimed at helping the poor and the dispossessed, especially in the face of such a tragedy that her region recently sufferred. In fact, this could turn out to be just another cog in the wheel of Bush's getting back on track with his pronouncements and assertions of the doctrine of "compasionate conservativism".
On the other hand, it might be too easy for this to become yet another ruse to distract from any questions concerning Judge Clements' stands on Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life issues, Affirmative Action, Labor Rights, Environmental Issues, etc.

Of course, Judge Clements is likely to be as conservative on any issue, including those of the poor and dispossessed, as that of any of the other consevative judges that have been mentioned as potential Bush appointees. And probably will be, if she is the person nominated. Maybe in some cases she might even be more conservative. But as an appointee from the New Orleans area, Judge Clements-and Bush-can use the New Orleans tragedy to great dramatic and emotional effect, and probably will.

The Nicotine Troll

Yeah, I almost sabotaged my efforts at gradual cigarrette smoking cessation here over the last week, and it almost sent me into a virtual tailspin not unlike the one I went through a couple of years back when I tried a rudimentary variation on the same process. In other words, I tried to cut down too much, too quickly. The last time I did this, I ended up going back to smoking more than I had been before I started the process. Not cool. I was smoking, before, just under a pack a day. When I went into my deluge of self-detructive abandon in the aftermath of the great-great granmother of all nicotine fits, I suddenly found myself putting away a pack and a half-easily.

Of course, this is still better, much better than the two complete packs that I used to smoke, to say nothing of the two and a half packs before that. But I suddenly realized, hey, I have successfully reduced my input of tobacco, and it wasn't that hard. Money had a lot to do with it. Access had a lot as well. At one time you could smoke pretty much anywhere you wanted, at least in sections reserved for it. But this practice became more and more frowned upon as the habit itself became ever more expensive, with no end to the price hikes apparrent.

But the main problem that was keeping me from stopping all together, besides the actual addictive properties of the product itself, was the simple fact that I enjoy smoking very much. Or I did before it made me a slave to it. And I mean that literally. For a good while, I could not imagine being without a pack of cigarrettes within reaching distance, at any time. Just the thought of having to go somewhere for any purpose, for any length of time, was enough to insure that I would go out of my way to have a full pack of cigarrettes on my person, and if possible a spare pack just in case I inadverdantly was away for a longer period of time than expected.

But I made other discoveries. When I would be in certain situations that necessitated not smoking-busses, movie theatres, the librarie, etc.,I found that it wasn't actually that hard to go without a smoke. On the other hand, as soon as I got to the pint where I could finally have a cigarrette-man, did I ever put them away.

Anyway, it got to the point where I realized that I had to quit or at least try to, and so I tried, and I failed. To make a long story short, I realized that the only way that I could stop was gradually. None of this cold turkey bull shit for me, thee is no way I am going to spend the rest of my life fighting a craving for tobacco, thank you very much. So I tried again this year, detrmined, at that time, to be completely free of cigearrettes by Samhain (Halloween). The way things look, I will not suceed in that initial original goal. I will, however, have reduced to no more than six cigarrettes per day. And I will probably remain at that rate of smoking for a fairly long amount of time. maybe for as long as four months or more. Then, I will try to reduce from there. And maybe next Samhain, I can finally quit.

Yeah, I know, to some people, that probably sounds ridiculous, or at least weak. Well, yes, weak it is, that's what addiction does to you. It weakens the will and saps the energy necessary to offer any kind of resistance. And you feel edgey, nervous, irritable, and maybe in some cases even violent(Which is why I think up to a point the government and other anti-tobacco forces may have been playing with fire-no pun intended- when they started this anti-tobacco campaign).

You make so many associations when you are a nicotine addict. You have a cigarrette when you awaken in the morning, with your coffee, after meals, after sex, after a bath or shower, after a walk, before a walk, during a walk, before going to bed at night. That is the first thing, at least in my case, that you have to conquer, the mind-set that makes nicotine such an essential accessorrie to so many vital and necessary activities, or simply the most enjoyable ones.

I tried to time my reductions with the Sabbats of my Pagan religion. As these Sabbats mark pivotal points of the calendar that mark the suns gradual reduction in intensity, I was in effect seeking to magically and even spiritually have the sun take my problem, my addiction, away from me. A kind of magickal self-hypnosis, in a sense.

The scariest thing happenned early on in the process. I considered the prospect that, since there is a life force in everything, and this life force has it's own guardian spirit, in a sense, and since this would of course include tobacco, I considered the prospect of attunning with what I imagined to be the "goddess of tobacco". In my delusion, I imagined this goddess would be a dark, sultry, seductive goddess, not all together evil, but potentially destructive if crossed. And so, I went through a period of meditations, involving insense, candles, essential oils, and semi-precous stones-and, of course, tobacco-in an attempt to attune with this "goddess".

Unfortunately, the vision I finally received in a dream revealed a creature unlike anything I had previously ever imagined. Far from being the seductive siren I had imagined, the creature I saw was a horrendously ugly, dark green and oily troll looking creature, who turned away quickly from me after turning and grunting something in a kind of taunting dismissal. The best description I can give of this creature is to imagine the cartoon character Shrek. The creature was similar to that, ony far uglier, and with more of an attitude. Plus, I got the impression that this creature is actually quite stupid. But of course, this would also be in keeping with the demeanor and decription of a creature who inadverdantly destroys the life that it is dependant upon for it's own survival. In short, I was seeing my own personal, private little troll. And he has no intention of going anywhere.

Unfortunately, I have gotten to the point where, having reduced now to about eight cigarrettes a day, I now enjoy smoking again, the way I did when I first started smoking. In other words, I am now at the most dangerous point of all. Because this is the point where, as I wonder if maybe that troll is really that stupid, I start to question my need to stop all together. It does have some use, some benefit, I start to tell myself. What could be the harm of continuing to smoke, so long as I do not go more than a half pack a day.

And of course, the answer to that would be, because that would be the first step in the process of reversal of the process in reverse. Something that would be akin to a vicous cycle. To fail now, as this would surely lead me to do, would make it that much harder to start the process all over again. So long as I remain at eight a day until the carton I now am on is gone, and then reduce to perhaps six with the next carton, five a day with the next, etc., I should be okay. But there is going to have to come a time when I am going to have to stop completely, or risk that cycle reemerging and asserting itself.

Luckily, I have one thing if nothing else that is in my favor. With every reduction I sucessfuly phase down to, my will power gets a little bit stronger. The addiction gets a little weaker. And that troll becomes a little less intimidating.

The Bengals Are Back-For Now

For the first time since the 1990 season, the Cincinnati Bengals are now 3-0. Yeah, that is three wins, no losses. I think the guys are onto something. In fact, looking back over their past three games, I don't believe the boys have been behind a single game, witht he exception of the very first game, in which their first opponents, the Cleveland Browns, scored a touchdown and follow-up extra point on their first possession, in a very short time. When I saw that, I said to myself, "well, here we go again." The Bengals quickly recovered, however, and have seemingly not loked back since then.

It all comes down to three factors. For one thing, they have a dream quarterback, possibly their best ever, in first round draft pick Carson Palmer. And they have augmented him nicely with as talented a group of receivers, backs, and ends as a team could hope for, many of them rookies. But the second factor is every bit as important, yet is seemingy the most overlooked area of pro football. That is, of course, the offensive line. The Bengals have talent here to spare, and of course for any team to make it to the play-offs, this is vital. I always said, you can have the best quarterback, the best wide receivers, the best full backs and halfbacks and tight ends in the history of the game, but if you don't have an offensive line capable of providing coverage and protection, you can have Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, etc., and they are next to worthless.

The third factor, of course, is to have an at least better than average defense, and this would be an understatement in the case of the Bengals. Yesterday, against the Chicago Bears, in Chicago, the bengals defensive squad forced six turnovers, five of these pass interceptions, and one fumble recovery. The Bengals went on to win the game by a whopping 27 to 7.

It's about time. It's been going on a decade since Mike Brown, the team owner, more or less blackmailed the city of Cincinnati to build him a new stadium, seperate from the Cincinnati Reds, a demand to which the city accedded by passing a one half cent sales tax. This was a cause of much controversy, as for going on seven years the Bengals had steadily declined to where they were arguably the worse team in the NFL. The new stadium, at first, did little to dispel their woes, as the alst two seasons saw the Bengals cling tenuosly to an 8-8 record. Hardly a cause for celebration, or justification for a new stadium.

Yet, Cincinnat is a football town, it seems, maybe more now than a baseball town. Average attendance at Bengals games, it turns out, was well over 50,000 per game, in the worse of years. The last couple of years, the attendance has climbed to an impressive, maybe even a stunning, 62,000 per game. Given the rate of spill-over into other areas of the Cincinnati economy this might normally portend, you pretty much have your justification.

But will all this continue? Unfortunately, probably not. Football players tend to gravitate, with the expiration of their contracts, to those franchises that pay them the money they want, which in the best of cases tends to be appreciably more than reputed tightwad Mike Brown is willing to pay. One can only hope that enough of the better players will remain long enough to attract other, equally or even more talented rookies, and eventually a new dynasty of sorts can be established. But without a willingness to fork over a larger share of the profits in the direction of those players who are bringing in those profits to begin with, it is unlikely to be a very long lived dynasty.

But to those of us who cannot completely enjoy even the best of football seasons when the Bengals are at their typical sub-par status, when a season such as this one comes along, it brings forth renewed hope. You start looking forward again to the next Sunday, instead of channel surfing for a good movie.

Me, I can't wait to see the Bengals play long time rivals the Pittsburgh Steelers. Yep, hope springs eternal, for at least one more year.

Special Announcement

It seems as though I have discovered that, as much as I enjoy doing this Blog, it is probably a waste of my time to continue with it to the extent that I have. For one thing, it is inadverdantly taking time away from the process of writing a novel, which I now haven't touched in over a month, despite the fact that I have now written well over 500 pages and am more or less two-thirds of the way through the first draft. Add to this my dismay at learning that my Blog-this Blog-has probably been flagged, has almost in fact definitely been flagged on at least two occassions, and therefore will probably not be advertised on Bloggers home page, and you see and should understand my feelings on the subject.

In fact, not only am I reasonably sure I have been flagged, I can even tell you which two posts I almost know for a fact have been flagged. One of them has to do with Florida Secretary of State Kathryn Harris, who I reported as being in the process of preparing for a run for the Senate, as a Republican from Florida, as an opponent of former astronaut and current Democratic Senator Nelson.

The other one has to do with the Schindler family, whom I have intimated are not only on the wrong side of the issue concerning son-in-law Michael Schiavo's determination to remove his wife and their daughter from life-support (a battle in which Mr. Schiavo was ultimately succesful) but that they may have had ulterior motives for doing so, including financial ones.

Evidently, one or more people took issue with my opinions, and I would almost be willing to wager that these someones are Republicans, probably of the far right wing fundamentalist evangelical conservative Christian variety. You see, these people talk a great game about believing in freedom, including freedom of speech, but this generally applies mainly to their perceived rights to get in your face and aggravate the living shit out of anyone they feel the need to haranque, and marginalize if that person or people refuses to come around to their side. It's quite a different matter when it comes to people such as myself who express a point of view that might be at odds with theirs, which I do and shall continue to do. They will try their goddamndest to shut you the fuck up. Therefore, the idea that they would take offense at my expression of my honest opinion does not surprise me in the least. Frankly, however, I feel it is my right to express my point of view, in whatever manner I want to express it, in any style of lanquage, etc. Again, I will not be deterred from doing so by these self-righteous hypocrits.

However, this little realization I have had may have been the best thing that could have happenned. I was spending too much time planning my weekly updates, which I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible. As I said, however, they were getting to the point that they were taking too much time away from other, more important matters. The projected novel I spoke of was only one example.

Nevertheless, I have not given up on Blgger yet. I will continue this Blog, and I will continue up-dating it, in fact I intend as of now to go back to my original format. I will update the Blog probably three, maybe four days a week. Each update will contain probably between one and four posts. It just depends on the given week in question, and my mood at the time, as well as what material is availiable.

For one thing, there are lots of things I could Blog about, but I want to do far more than just report ver batim things that have appearred on the news and papers. I want to give some kind of insight into them that might not ordinarily be apparrent from other sources. Otherwise, what is the point in taking my time with them, if I don't have anything original to add in the way of analysis.

Also, I intend to do more of an occult and magical type of thing from time to time. Something I have let more or less go by the wayside over the last couple of months.

Well, I guess that is about it. As for how I determined which two posts I know were flagged, well, it's like this. On a couple of occassions, when in the process of publishing a post, I was informed that the publishing could not occur, that something would not let it go through, but I can't recall the exact wording, unfortunately. What I do remember is that upon closer inspection of the page that popped up, I learned that the post I was in the process of trying to publish was not the problem. You see, when I publish any given post, I was hit "Re-Publish Blog" which does the whole Blog over. On the two occassions in question, the first time the cause of the problem was the Kathryn Harris post. The second time, it was the Schindler's post.

I almost deleted the two offensive posts, but then I decided to hell with it. I'm not going to let these sanctimonious motherfuckers censor me. Or Blogger, for that matter. And that's just the name of that tune.

My Guardian Angel

One time, in my drunken and down and out days, I was living in one ofthe worse places in Cincinnati a person could possibly live, which was known as Over-The-Rhine. At first glance, you might not really suspect how bad this neighborhood actually was. In fact, this is the area where some of the finest of old Cincinnati architecture is to be seen and appreciated, the old City Hall building, and Music hall, where the Cinncinnati Symphoney still plays, and quite well.

Over The Rhine is a place where, on Elm Street, the god Bacchus with his leery grin can be seen on a sign advertising the Bacchus Inn, which caters to the music hall crowd and musicians. Right next door to it is the City Gospel Mission, where a sign shows the image of Christ. It caters to the downtrodden, with a meal and more often than not, a sermon. There are or was at one time limited rooms availiable for transients and the homeless. Drinking, however, was not allowed. To put it plainly, I was a patron of the mission far more often than of the Bacchus Inn.

But on those nights I had a little too much to drink, and undertood that I could not get past Kartl or Kenny's watchful and suspicous through experience gaze, I made out the best I could. I was not truly addicted to alcohol, not in the way that I am to caffeine and nicotine, but I was in a sense addicted to the need to associate with an atmosphee of camaraderie, as oppossed to one of despair, which all too often seemed the more appropriate venue in my case.

But after three or four beers, I was on my way-most of the time. Sometimes I would hit eight, or ten, or more. Then, I was gone. Sometimes, I would be completely blacked out, and would not remember the folowing day, and thus would find myself agonizing over what may or may not have transpired. But one night, in particular, I remember all too well making my way from downtown, from the old Saloon, which had formerly been Larry Flint's old place, to my little sleeping room in Over The Rhine, on Race Street, just across Washngton park from Cincinnati Music Hall.

About halfway there, however, I was hailed by a man with a gruff voice, who asked me how I was doing. I was very unnerved at the prospect of being stopped by this person in the middle of a deserted Race Street, close to Washington park, one of the most crime ridden areas of Cincinnati, infestd with drugs and the potential for violence, and even murder. And I was obviously, to myself as well as to the world, stinking, staggerring drunk. I tried to act as casual as possible when he asked me where I was going. I told him I was going home, to Race Street. He told me he would walk with me.

I noticed for the first time the tall thin serious looking black man was wearing a beret, and held in his hand a walkie talkie. He talked into it quietly, too quiety for me to hear what he was saying, which to me was disconcerting in it's own right. I tried to chat it up with him, engage in small talk, but he didn't really seem that engaged. Not really hard to understand, seeing as how I can not recall the small talk I attempted to engage him in, it must have seemed as inane to him as the whole situation seems to me now. He seemed to be a man on a mission, and the more I walked alongside him, the more I was glad he was around.

That was my one and only experience with the Guardian Angels. I never saw the man again, to my knowledge. But I am quite sure that if I were to see him again, after all these years, I would remember him. And I would thank him again, and shake his hand again, as I did that night. Because it occurs to me that, although his presence that night might have been incidental, and had he not been there, nothing untoward may have occurred-you can never really be all that sure.

Sending Up Gotti

John Gotti, Jr. must lead a charmed life, as much so as his famous old man did until his luck finally run out and he was finally sent to prison for life. True, John Jr.s luck might eventually run out as well. Of course, there's also just a slight possibility the man might be innocent, but that is just too much for some folks to believe, certainly Curtis Slews, WABC New York City radio talk show host and founder of the Guardian Angels. Part of Gotti's recent trial was the result of an allegged attempt at a hit on Slewa, who was shot in the leg by an unknown assaillant. Slewa insisted it was Gotti, but the jury disagreed, by a margin of 7-5. All the other charges amounted to a hung jury as well, and Gotti was acquitted all together of the charge of Securities Fraud.

Slewa has been a vocal critic of the La Cosa Nostra, whom he insists you can never leave under any circumstances, and of Gotti, who has insisted that he has done just that. Evidently, his father, while still alive was, though in prison, the legitimate head of the mob, and allowed his son to exit the life. Sounds reasonable. But I would have liked to have become a little more famiiar with the evidence the state seemed to think it had gathered on Gotti.

You would think it would be somewhat compelling. Why else would the government have brought so many charges? Yet, they were incapable of achieving a convicton. And now, Curtis Slewa, whose connections I have always wondered about myself, to tell you the truth, fears for his life. He is, he claims, a dead man walking.

But hell, he has been that for going on twenty years now. What else is new?

A Big Easy Tax Plan

It will never be implemented, but taxes on wealthiest Americans, if raised by a mere one percent, would probably raise enough money to pay for the reconstruction of New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast regions decimated by Hurricane Katrina, and possiby the coming destruction by Rita in the Texas and Louisiana areas as well-in one to three years time. Again, you will never see this, not under Bush.

I remember when Bush made his big grand speech with the equestrian statue of Andrew Jackson in the background, I knew better by then to take him at his word, and what he said at face value,though it sounded surprisingly good at the time. Even then, I think I knew. He's going to give yet more tax breaks to one or more corporations who will do the job, in addition to paying them handsomely for the work. What I'm waiting for is the other shoe to drop, in the form of an urging to cut taxes across the board, for all companies and corporations, on the grounds that to favor the few who contribute to New Orleans and Gulf Coast reconstruction would be unfair. Maybe even a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. All this help to the poor he promised will likely as well come in the form, to a large extent, of increased funding to Faith Based Initiatives.

I think people are slowly starting to get just what this guy is all about. And I don't say this out of a distaste at the notion of giving tax breaks to the companies that actually do the work of reconstruction. Actually, I am fine with that. But I think that in order to get those tax breaks they should be obliged to do the work on a not-for-profit basis. If they do this, do the work for merely cost coverage, with no eye to profit whatsoever, I would be fine with having all their tax liability eliminated for the next five years.

And in the meantime, for all other wealthiest Americans, and companies and corportions, yes, their taxes should be raised by one percent until the job is completed.

Hey Just Shut The Fuck Up

If I have to listen to these morons too much longer, I'm going to be the next Elvis. That is, I'm going to shoot my fucking television set. These idiots that are running the country are perfect proof that mankind is indeed an ape. At least that idiotic bitch governor of Louisiana is named appropriately-BLANCO-because this bitch is about as dumb as a blackboard that's just been erased.

And Mayor Nagin? What kind of a dumb bastard tells people to come back to a city that is still surrounded by areas and pockets of filth, flood water with e- coli and fecal matter, and contaminated with chemical waste? A place that still is not entirely with fresh drinkable water and power? As if that is not bad enough, when this moronic bastard issued this urging of citizens to return to New Orleans, it was still barely halfway through hurricane season, and the levees still had not been totally repaired.

Makes me wonder if this fool doesn't have a re-election facing him this coming November. Or something. What the hell could he possibly be thinking? And now, of course, they are being told they must evacuate again. And this idiotic bitch governor is advising them if they don't want to leave, to please mark their Social Security numbers on their thighs or somewhere so they can be identified if and when their dead bodoes are recovered.

Hey BITCH! NEWS FLASH! WHY DON'T YOU SEND SOME BUSSES IN THERE AND ROUND THEM UP, THOSE THAT ARE ABLE TO LEAVE, YOU STUPID FUCKING HEFFER. MAYBE THANKS TO YOU AND NAGIN THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO LEAVE. MAYBE THEY ARE BROKE FROM WHAT THEY'VE HAD TO CONTEND WITH SO FAR. DID YOU EVER THINK OF THAT? BITCH?

If you ever wondered why we need a federal government to provide oversight over the state and local governments, look no farther than Louisiana and New Orleans. And don't think for one minute they are the only states and municipalities that are bedeviled with corruption and incompetence. In fact, I have a feeling they are all too typical.