Lindsey Jacobellis is the last person on earth a person should ordinarily feel sorry for, yet even though she did seemingly bring her loss of Olympic Gold on herself, it's hard not to feel at least a smidgen of symppathy for the World Snowboarding Champion. Even though she did somehow manage to pull herself together enough to bing home the Silver Medal in the Womens Snowboarding Event at the 2006 Olympic Games currently being held in Torrino Italy.
Here's how it went down. After winning handily in her matches in the quarter finals and semi-finals, Lindsey, the clean cut, bright eyed blonde haired 20 year old American got off to a quick start in the finals. At one point early in the match, one of her competitors touched the back of Lindsey's snowboard with her own (an incidental type of contact which is legal in snowboarding). This, however, had no effect on Jacobellis, who quickly pulled far ahead.
A bit later, tragedy befell two of her other competitors, both of them Canadians, when they both quickly crashed. Neither of them recovered their footing, and in fact at last count one of them had to be carried off on a stretcher. No word as of yet on her condition, yet, as what I watched was a replay, I am hopeful she was not seriously injured.
At any rate, Lindsey was well ahead of the other remaining competitor, a Swiss snowboarder, and the victory, and the gold, was well within spitting distance, when she looked back. Turning back around, after making the last jump, she did a little twisting move, which turned out to be a bit too celebratory, as it seems to have thrown off her timing. She lost her footing after landing from the last jump, and fell. She recovered quickly enough to finish the race, unfortunately, she finished behind the Swiss snowboarder, who as a result will take home the gold.
Lindsey's entire family was on hand to witness the event, and the disapointment,the anxiety, was palpable on the faces of her father, and other family members, with whom Lindsey evidently still lives. This might be the first time in history a world champion sports figure will be sent home to bed without supper.
I know she was disheartened, and I imagine she felt stupid standing there while the Swiss staff gathered around the victor in cheerful celeratory mood, while Lindsey just stood there, obviously wanting to appear gracous in waiting to offer her congratulations, yet being compeltely ignored, totally out of the loop.
The worse thing about this is if both of the other two competitors had not ealier crashed, she well may not have even taken the silver, or the bronze, for that matter. All because she felt the juvenile need to show off. The world champion snowboarder, who probably felt she was a shoe-in for millions of dollars in commerical endorsement contracts, will now have to temper any potential promises of such with a bit of crow for her dinner. Any appearrances she makes will probably be tempered with all the expected shows of contrition and self-effacement expected of those who make a complete ass ofthemselves.
In the meantime, she will be held up as an example,though not the kind of example she had hoped to be presented as, but an example of how pride can go before the fall-leterally. She will now be seen as a living embodiment of an Aesops Fable, and a reminder to all future potential sports enthusiasts, a warning to keep pride in check and to keep everything in the proper perspective.
"You don't want to end up like Lindsey Jacobellis, do you?', will now be the refrain.
She will I am sure recover from this, and hopefully will be strengthened by it. But when you stop to think of what could have been, in this, her first ever Winter Olympics appearrance, that is, indeed, cold comfort.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Thursday, February 16, 2006
The Boring Misadventures Of Deadeye Dick Cheney
It was, said Bryan Wiliams, the anchor of NBC News, the first time a sitting Vice-President of the United States had shot someone since Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel a little over 200 years before. That is perhaps the most extreme example of hyperbole which has been constant since Dick Cheney accidentally shot his friend, Texas lawyer Harry Whittington, in the course of a quail hunt on a private ranch, an incident which put Whittington in a hospital in intensive care, and in time led to his sufferring a mild heart attack when one of the bird shot pellets whilch remained lodged in his body made it's way to his heart.
Here's what I don't discount about the incident, yet I don't and will not believe it until it is proven otherwise:
*Cheney was having an affair with one of the other of his hunting companions, the ambassador to Switzerland, and formerly the ambassador to Luxembourg.
*Cheney was drunk.
*Cheny deliberately witheld information from the press for an extended period of time in order to cover up one, or both, of these facts.
Following is what I tend to believe about the incident:
*Cheney's delay in reporting the incident to the press is symptomatic of his and other high administration officials reluctance to be forthcoming with the American people concerning matters both large and small.
*Cheney avoided the press possibly due to concern about his friends well-being. He feared the possible descent of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of reporters on the small hospital and the potential for interference in the duties of the doctors and other hospital staff, especially since his friends injuries, after all, may have been, so far as was known, more serious than they turned out to be. In fact, they indeed were more serious than was initially believed.
In conclusion, the following is what I know for a fact:
*A great many people secretly wish that Whittington had been killed.
*It was an accident
*It's time to move on.
I might also add that, if there is anything that can be gleaned from this incident about the Vice-President's character, it is the fact that Cheney, though seemingly an avid hunter, is no sportsman. Cheney is the type of guy that would rather sit safely and securely in his car, or in an otherwise controlled setting, and shoot his helpless prey like so many ducks-or in this case quail-in a shooting gallery. He certainly has no interest in the prospect of the hunt, or in giving his prey a fighting chance for survival.
Which leads me to my final observation
"Mr. Vice-President, I have followed your career for lo, these past five plus years now. Mr. Vice-President, I feel that I know you well. Mr. Vice-President-you're no Aaron Burr.
Here's what I don't discount about the incident, yet I don't and will not believe it until it is proven otherwise:
*Cheney was having an affair with one of the other of his hunting companions, the ambassador to Switzerland, and formerly the ambassador to Luxembourg.
*Cheney was drunk.
*Cheny deliberately witheld information from the press for an extended period of time in order to cover up one, or both, of these facts.
Following is what I tend to believe about the incident:
*Cheney's delay in reporting the incident to the press is symptomatic of his and other high administration officials reluctance to be forthcoming with the American people concerning matters both large and small.
*Cheney avoided the press possibly due to concern about his friends well-being. He feared the possible descent of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of reporters on the small hospital and the potential for interference in the duties of the doctors and other hospital staff, especially since his friends injuries, after all, may have been, so far as was known, more serious than they turned out to be. In fact, they indeed were more serious than was initially believed.
In conclusion, the following is what I know for a fact:
*A great many people secretly wish that Whittington had been killed.
*It was an accident
*It's time to move on.
I might also add that, if there is anything that can be gleaned from this incident about the Vice-President's character, it is the fact that Cheney, though seemingly an avid hunter, is no sportsman. Cheney is the type of guy that would rather sit safely and securely in his car, or in an otherwise controlled setting, and shoot his helpless prey like so many ducks-or in this case quail-in a shooting gallery. He certainly has no interest in the prospect of the hunt, or in giving his prey a fighting chance for survival.
Which leads me to my final observation
"Mr. Vice-President, I have followed your career for lo, these past five plus years now. Mr. Vice-President, I feel that I know you well. Mr. Vice-President-you're no Aaron Burr.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Joan D'Arc-A Real Man's Woman
Scientists may be on the verge of at last solving one of the great mysteries of the last half century. Using advanced genetic scientific testing, they may be able to prove conclusively that the remains of Saint Joan of Arc- the peasant girl who, disguised as a man, lead the French to numerous victories over the English during the One Hundred Years War before being finally captured and burned at the stake as a heretic-may actually be her remains.
Huh? Yeah, that's right, it all depends on whether the few remaining pieces of skin and bone fragments, faithfully preserved for all these centuries, can be shown to come from the right period of time, and, in addition, whether it can be proven that they are, indeed, the remains of a female.
If either one of these two conditions are not met, then this would prove conclusively they do not belong to the late cannonized Saint. But, if these conditions are met, then again, it proves that they might, indeed,have belonged to the late Joan of Arc.
And after all that trouble the British went to to destroy her. First, they burned her, but she only died by way of smoke inhalation. Being a superstitous lot,they buned her again. However, this did not destory her internal organs. And so, they burned her a third time, leaving nothing but the aforementioned bones and some skins, which were later dutifuly collected and preserved.
Again, if they are really hers. The first test-do they belong to the right period of time-should be easy to prove or to disprove, since carbon dating has advanced to the point it should be able to narrow down the span of time in which the person, whoever it is, lived to within a half century. I guess.
The second part of the test, however, may present a problem. What if the remains can be demonstrated to having belonged to a male? Well, so much for that, right?
Not exactly. You see, there is a theory which hasn't really been considered, let alone accepted, which makes a great deal of sense, and that is, Joan D'Arc may have, in fact, actually been a man. A hermaphrodite, in fact, whose penis may have been all but invisible, hidden within the folds of her-or his-labia. Yet, the vagina, according to this theory, while visible, may have been of no more a contributing factor to her physiology than what it added to her appearrance, that is, that of a woman, while the penis,hidden from view,may have been the truly functional sexual organ, albeit small though it was.
To those whose heads are now spinninng, I understand enough to know that a clitoris is little more than an extremely small penis hidden inside the folds of the vagina, so what I am describing here may sound at first glance to be simply an ordinary, every day, garden variety female. But it's more complicated than that. There may have been a small though likewise functional set of testacles involved, likewise hidden from view.
In other words, Joan Of Arc, for all intents and purposes, may have been, in all but physical appearrance-a young teenaged boy.
This would certainly explain the onset of voices which she heard after what must have been a partcularly traumatic experience going through puberty. One can certainly imagine the implications .
I saw this theory expounded years ago, but it was quickly discounted by the Catholic Church, and by the legions of followers of the Saint,who was cannonized, finally, early in the last century.
The idea was never repeated, though to be sure, there was never any scientific evidence presented to dispute what seemed to me to be a very sensible theory, unprovable though it seemed to have been.
Yet, it seems ironic that,should these scant few remains be demonstrated to have belonged to a male, this may indeed point to the possibility that it was the truth after all. Yet, doubtless the Church, in all it's wisdom, will declare the remains to be a fraud if proven to be male, while, if shown to have belonged to a female, they will be proclaimed as possibly and probably being legitimate-though in fact they may well not be.
Huh? Yeah, that's right, it all depends on whether the few remaining pieces of skin and bone fragments, faithfully preserved for all these centuries, can be shown to come from the right period of time, and, in addition, whether it can be proven that they are, indeed, the remains of a female.
If either one of these two conditions are not met, then this would prove conclusively they do not belong to the late cannonized Saint. But, if these conditions are met, then again, it proves that they might, indeed,have belonged to the late Joan of Arc.
And after all that trouble the British went to to destroy her. First, they burned her, but she only died by way of smoke inhalation. Being a superstitous lot,they buned her again. However, this did not destory her internal organs. And so, they burned her a third time, leaving nothing but the aforementioned bones and some skins, which were later dutifuly collected and preserved.
Again, if they are really hers. The first test-do they belong to the right period of time-should be easy to prove or to disprove, since carbon dating has advanced to the point it should be able to narrow down the span of time in which the person, whoever it is, lived to within a half century. I guess.
The second part of the test, however, may present a problem. What if the remains can be demonstrated to having belonged to a male? Well, so much for that, right?
Not exactly. You see, there is a theory which hasn't really been considered, let alone accepted, which makes a great deal of sense, and that is, Joan D'Arc may have, in fact, actually been a man. A hermaphrodite, in fact, whose penis may have been all but invisible, hidden within the folds of her-or his-labia. Yet, the vagina, according to this theory, while visible, may have been of no more a contributing factor to her physiology than what it added to her appearrance, that is, that of a woman, while the penis,hidden from view,may have been the truly functional sexual organ, albeit small though it was.
To those whose heads are now spinninng, I understand enough to know that a clitoris is little more than an extremely small penis hidden inside the folds of the vagina, so what I am describing here may sound at first glance to be simply an ordinary, every day, garden variety female. But it's more complicated than that. There may have been a small though likewise functional set of testacles involved, likewise hidden from view.
In other words, Joan Of Arc, for all intents and purposes, may have been, in all but physical appearrance-a young teenaged boy.
This would certainly explain the onset of voices which she heard after what must have been a partcularly traumatic experience going through puberty. One can certainly imagine the implications .
I saw this theory expounded years ago, but it was quickly discounted by the Catholic Church, and by the legions of followers of the Saint,who was cannonized, finally, early in the last century.
The idea was never repeated, though to be sure, there was never any scientific evidence presented to dispute what seemed to me to be a very sensible theory, unprovable though it seemed to have been.
Yet, it seems ironic that,should these scant few remains be demonstrated to have belonged to a male, this may indeed point to the possibility that it was the truth after all. Yet, doubtless the Church, in all it's wisdom, will declare the remains to be a fraud if proven to be male, while, if shown to have belonged to a female, they will be proclaimed as possibly and probably being legitimate-though in fact they may well not be.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Screwing Your Future Mate
If you begin a relationship this Valentine's Day, there's a good chance it will last the remainder of your life. And, if that happens to be a scary thought, that is a pretty good sign you are with the wrong person. It's easy to be fooled-or to fool yourself-with all that you find attractive about your mate on an outer level, and be lulled into the false sense of security that this is indeed an accurrate reflection of the persons innermost being. But is it?
If you answered yes to this question, you had better ask yourself the following question. Do you put your innermost being up for display for all the world to see. Obviously, you do not, I would bet. If you can agree to be that honest, then it follows that you should ask, am I giving not only the world, but those closest to me, a totally honest and accurrate image of the inner person that is me. If you are like most of us, probably you are not.
Valentine's Day has become so ingrained in the popular imagination, it has become almost a ritual of love, in all it's forms, but it still predominantly seems more devoted to lovers and spouses. Any person beginning a relationship at this time will be in addition to the properties of this time period be adding into the make-up of the relationship the properties of magic and illussion inherent in the planet Neptune, which the sun is now in conjunction with, though barely. Over the course of the next couple of years, the conjunction between Neptune and the Sun will be more pronounced on Valentines Day, as Neptune inches ever so slowly through the sign of Aquarius, at about the rate of two degrees per calendar year.
By February 14th 2009, the Sun and Neptune will be in almost a perect conjunction, and therefore the magic-and the illussion-of love will be particularly strong. Take heed, therefore, and enjoy the magic, but with a wary eye for the potential possibilities, good and ill.
As the years progress from that point on, and the planet Neptune goes ever forward through the sign of Aquarius, the conjunction between Neptune and the Sun, on Valentines Day will become less and less pronounced, until by about 2015, the conjunction will have no applicable connection to Valentine Day when it does finally occur, this time in the sign of Pisces.
And from 2009 on, until that time, that magic and illussory beauty might well start to fade, as it almost always does, but this time, it might well be with more obvious, and even drastic, results.
Want to give some more thought to those roses and candies?
If you answered yes to this question, you had better ask yourself the following question. Do you put your innermost being up for display for all the world to see. Obviously, you do not, I would bet. If you can agree to be that honest, then it follows that you should ask, am I giving not only the world, but those closest to me, a totally honest and accurrate image of the inner person that is me. If you are like most of us, probably you are not.
Valentine's Day has become so ingrained in the popular imagination, it has become almost a ritual of love, in all it's forms, but it still predominantly seems more devoted to lovers and spouses. Any person beginning a relationship at this time will be in addition to the properties of this time period be adding into the make-up of the relationship the properties of magic and illussion inherent in the planet Neptune, which the sun is now in conjunction with, though barely. Over the course of the next couple of years, the conjunction between Neptune and the Sun will be more pronounced on Valentines Day, as Neptune inches ever so slowly through the sign of Aquarius, at about the rate of two degrees per calendar year.
By February 14th 2009, the Sun and Neptune will be in almost a perect conjunction, and therefore the magic-and the illussion-of love will be particularly strong. Take heed, therefore, and enjoy the magic, but with a wary eye for the potential possibilities, good and ill.
As the years progress from that point on, and the planet Neptune goes ever forward through the sign of Aquarius, the conjunction between Neptune and the Sun, on Valentines Day will become less and less pronounced, until by about 2015, the conjunction will have no applicable connection to Valentine Day when it does finally occur, this time in the sign of Pisces.
And from 2009 on, until that time, that magic and illussory beauty might well start to fade, as it almost always does, but this time, it might well be with more obvious, and even drastic, results.
Want to give some more thought to those roses and candies?
The New Prohibitionist Movement
It was announced earlier today that Great Britain would soon enact and enforce tough new laws against all forms of public tobacco smoking, including in pubs, and, even more insidiously, even in private clubs.
This is exacly the kind of thing which, here in the United States of America, has made it next to impossible for the Democratic Party to make any real headway in their constant and agonizing uphill stuggle to retake the Congress, as well as the White House, from the Republican party,which has been the majority paty now for going on twelve years.
It is certainly the reason the Democratic party lost it's stranglehold on power in the state of Kentucky after nearly a half century of no oppossition to speak of. Of course, this in itself was by no means a bad thing. Still, it was indeed a major reason for the Democrats reversal of fortune.
Certainly, for the country as a whole, the tobacco issue is a fairly minor one, but it is a factor. It is a perfect example of how the Democratic party, over the last three decades, have become more and more intrusive in the arena of privacy rights, and in personal choices and lifestyle decisions, while to the amazement of all who pay attention, claiming to be the champions of same.
I think a boycott on Great Britain is now in order, and indeed on all nations of the EU who would impose this dictatorial social policy disguised as a matter of public health. And the same holds true for the states, and cities in those states, including Lexington, Kentucky and Louisville, Cincinnati, and all others here in the U.S. who apply it. As for how to approach the boycott on the national level, the answer is simple and straightforward. Simply refuse to support any candidate of any political party who would take it any further than it has all ready gone. Enough is enough.
It sttarted out well and good, and reasonable. It was a legitimate health concern, and a reason could be found in the added burden on medical expenses. But it soon became obvious that this could be a cash cow, a way of raising taxes in order to promote all kinds of social programs the politiciasns didn't have the political courgae to ovetly raise taxes across the board in order to promote. In other words, they could care less about public health, in fact the more that people continue to smoke, the more money they damned well know they are going to rake in in the form of taxes, and the constant harrassment of the tobacco companies are helping them to achieve their goals in two ways.
One, it enables the politicians to put on a good face to the anti-smoking fanatics, while at the same time forcing up ever more the price of tobacco products, which means all that much more tax money. Who the hell do they thinkthey are fooling.
It is the United States government who is responsible to begin with for the smoking addictions that plaque the nation. It was Congress who for so long supported the tobacco industry at every step of the way. At one time, the tobacco lobby was one of the most powerful in Washington, even well into the time that it was well known that smoking was a contributing factor to heart disease, cancer and other lung diseases, and was highly addictive to boot. On top of that, a heavy percentage of the tobacco industry supporters in Congress, maybe even a majority of them-were Democrats.
So now, the very people who openly supported and promoted a lifestyle choice that was so mainstream I was easily led into becomming addicted by it, are suppossedly concerned for my health and well being, and want to try to make it as difficult as possible in order to make me quit. Gee, thanks guys, I don't know what to say.
Except I hope you all come down with cancer.
This is exacly the kind of thing which, here in the United States of America, has made it next to impossible for the Democratic Party to make any real headway in their constant and agonizing uphill stuggle to retake the Congress, as well as the White House, from the Republican party,which has been the majority paty now for going on twelve years.
It is certainly the reason the Democratic party lost it's stranglehold on power in the state of Kentucky after nearly a half century of no oppossition to speak of. Of course, this in itself was by no means a bad thing. Still, it was indeed a major reason for the Democrats reversal of fortune.
Certainly, for the country as a whole, the tobacco issue is a fairly minor one, but it is a factor. It is a perfect example of how the Democratic party, over the last three decades, have become more and more intrusive in the arena of privacy rights, and in personal choices and lifestyle decisions, while to the amazement of all who pay attention, claiming to be the champions of same.
I think a boycott on Great Britain is now in order, and indeed on all nations of the EU who would impose this dictatorial social policy disguised as a matter of public health. And the same holds true for the states, and cities in those states, including Lexington, Kentucky and Louisville, Cincinnati, and all others here in the U.S. who apply it. As for how to approach the boycott on the national level, the answer is simple and straightforward. Simply refuse to support any candidate of any political party who would take it any further than it has all ready gone. Enough is enough.
It sttarted out well and good, and reasonable. It was a legitimate health concern, and a reason could be found in the added burden on medical expenses. But it soon became obvious that this could be a cash cow, a way of raising taxes in order to promote all kinds of social programs the politiciasns didn't have the political courgae to ovetly raise taxes across the board in order to promote. In other words, they could care less about public health, in fact the more that people continue to smoke, the more money they damned well know they are going to rake in in the form of taxes, and the constant harrassment of the tobacco companies are helping them to achieve their goals in two ways.
One, it enables the politicians to put on a good face to the anti-smoking fanatics, while at the same time forcing up ever more the price of tobacco products, which means all that much more tax money. Who the hell do they thinkthey are fooling.
It is the United States government who is responsible to begin with for the smoking addictions that plaque the nation. It was Congress who for so long supported the tobacco industry at every step of the way. At one time, the tobacco lobby was one of the most powerful in Washington, even well into the time that it was well known that smoking was a contributing factor to heart disease, cancer and other lung diseases, and was highly addictive to boot. On top of that, a heavy percentage of the tobacco industry supporters in Congress, maybe even a majority of them-were Democrats.
So now, the very people who openly supported and promoted a lifestyle choice that was so mainstream I was easily led into becomming addicted by it, are suppossedly concerned for my health and well being, and want to try to make it as difficult as possible in order to make me quit. Gee, thanks guys, I don't know what to say.
Except I hope you all come down with cancer.
Ganesh-Theft Of A Sacred Idol
Modernization surely has it's rewards, but it brings with it a good many things the nation of India would gladly do without. Thanks to the increase in tourism to even the more remote areas of the Indian subcontinent, there has been an increase in the theft of sacred artifacts, including those of idols. The latest casualty to be recorded occurred very early in the morning hours of this last Monday, when an idol of the Hindu God Ganesh was stolen in what has been described as a throughly professional operation.
The eight armed idol, made of stone, was two feet high and weighed 22 kg. It had for the last 1100 years stood outside the temple of Durga in Himachal Pradesh, in the Rahru valley, by what is described as the winding, crystal clear Pabbor River. The Chief Priest of the Temple of Durga, Hari Chand Sharma, has expressed great distress at the theft, which will bring equal consternation among the villagers who, quite naturally, consider the idol to be not only a sacred idol, but an important part of their religous and cultural heritage.
It has been theorized that the idol was probably stolen by armed professional thieves,working with ATVs, which would seem to be the only explanation for the way the idol was removed so quickly, without being detected.
It is hoped that this theft will conclude with a happy ending, much as occured with an earlier theft of a Bhuddhist idol, which was recovered with the help of Interpol. Unfortunately, security at the majority of Hindu and Bhuddhist temples has not kept pace with the growing increase of moden tourism, and the obvious increased potential for robberies by temple thieves.
As of now, there are 200 Bhuddhist and Hindu temples registered with the state, as well as some 300 idols. Evidently, fears of ancient curses are no deterrant to the thieves who would gladly prey upon the treasures for the money they might bring in some quarters. But what about their customers? One might assume that, in at least some cases, they want these idols for their religous value. Also, is there a possibility this might, in at least some cases, be an inside job. After all, are temple priests really that well enumerated? Of course, even if this is not always the case, it goes without saying that a native guide to the area would be all but essential in securing not only the theft, but a quick and relatively easy get away.
One thing I know, if I were going to disturb a temple, and steal an idol, Durga would be about the last deity I would want to mess around with. She has a particularly bloodthirsty reputation. Nor would Ganesh, the Elephant God,be likely to ever forget this indignity.
The eight armed idol, made of stone, was two feet high and weighed 22 kg. It had for the last 1100 years stood outside the temple of Durga in Himachal Pradesh, in the Rahru valley, by what is described as the winding, crystal clear Pabbor River. The Chief Priest of the Temple of Durga, Hari Chand Sharma, has expressed great distress at the theft, which will bring equal consternation among the villagers who, quite naturally, consider the idol to be not only a sacred idol, but an important part of their religous and cultural heritage.
It has been theorized that the idol was probably stolen by armed professional thieves,working with ATVs, which would seem to be the only explanation for the way the idol was removed so quickly, without being detected.
It is hoped that this theft will conclude with a happy ending, much as occured with an earlier theft of a Bhuddhist idol, which was recovered with the help of Interpol. Unfortunately, security at the majority of Hindu and Bhuddhist temples has not kept pace with the growing increase of moden tourism, and the obvious increased potential for robberies by temple thieves.
As of now, there are 200 Bhuddhist and Hindu temples registered with the state, as well as some 300 idols. Evidently, fears of ancient curses are no deterrant to the thieves who would gladly prey upon the treasures for the money they might bring in some quarters. But what about their customers? One might assume that, in at least some cases, they want these idols for their religous value. Also, is there a possibility this might, in at least some cases, be an inside job. After all, are temple priests really that well enumerated? Of course, even if this is not always the case, it goes without saying that a native guide to the area would be all but essential in securing not only the theft, but a quick and relatively easy get away.
One thing I know, if I were going to disturb a temple, and steal an idol, Durga would be about the last deity I would want to mess around with. She has a particularly bloodthirsty reputation. Nor would Ganesh, the Elephant God,be likely to ever forget this indignity.
Don't Screw With Jack Bauer
Last nights episode of 24 was arguably the worse episode of it's entire run of, as of now 4, and 1/3 seasons. Last nights episode eight of the current season, in fact, marks episode 104. The final episode of this year will be number 120, and I wonder where, or if, it will go on from there.
Jack Bauer,(played by Keifer Sutherland) of course, is the CTU (Counter Terrorism Unit) agent, stationed in Los Angeles, who seems to not only not mind breaking the rules in order to accomplish his mission, he appears to relish it. He will engage in coercion and in torture in a heartbeat if it means the difference in the accomplishment of his mission, or for that matter if it means this will speed things up by, oh, say, a second or two.
But in a Jack Bauer mission, of course, every second counts. Hey, remember, he's only got 24 hours in each season, to accomplish such feats as:
* Prevent the assassination of a candidate for President of the United States (Season One)
*Prevent a nuclear bomb from exploding somewhere in Los Angeles (Season Two)
*Prevent Mexican drug lords from selling a bio-terrorism virus to a terrorist group (Season Three)
*Prevent the televised execution by terrorists of the Secretary of State, prevent the meltdown by way of sabotage by terrorists of a dozen nuclear plants, and then prevent the launching of a nuclear missile (A particularly busy season four which also saw the shows second President shot down out of the sky by a traitorous military pilot flying a stealth bomber).
Now, in season five, which opened with the assassination of the shows first and then former President, David Palmer (yes, the same David Palmer whom Jack went to all that damn trouble in season one to save), Jack has come out of hiding (he had been forced to assume a new identity to prevent his being handed over to the angry Chinese government for a staged attack on their embassy-long story) in order to prevent the release of a dozen chemical weapons cannisters which had been stored in an airort in Los Angeles, and then hijacked, and will be released in a dozen different locations of highly populated areas. The potential fatalities could well exceed over one hundred thousand people, we are told.
Originally, these cannisters were to be delivered to Russia, to aid a seperatist terrorist movement in their ogoing struggle with the Russian governemnt. But since they were betrayed by the current Presidents Chief of Staff-he had intended to detonate the weapons on them after they had been delivered to them, (in a wild plot which would have enabled the U.S. to secure a military presence in Central Asia, and thus secured for the U.S. a large and steady oil supply) they have now decided to take revenge on the American government by releasing the cannisters here.
Once he had found out the Chief of Staff, Walt Cumings, had been involved in this plot, as well as the assassination of David Palmer (who had somehow found out about it), Jack did what jack does best. Disabling the terrified Cummings, in the presence of the President himself, who was prevented from protecting him by a particularly patriotic Secret Service agent, Jack threatened to cut out first one eyeball, and then another eyeball, and he would, he promised, keep cutting until he found out what he wanted to know. And he meant it, and was just about to go through with it,when Cummings relented.
This is standard Jack Bauer fare. It is nothing unusual for him to oversee the attachment of electrodes, or the administering of a neurotoxin by way of injection into an artery of the neck which causes severe pain. In one episode he threatened a captured terrorist, during the course of interrogation, with his entire family, his wife and children, being shot, and even set it up so that it appearred that one of his sons was executed as he watched it live by way of satellite feed.
In last weeks episode, when attempting to interrogate a particularly uncooperative suspect, he intimated, "you don't want to go down this road with me."
So imagine my agitation, my consternation, when this hard-boiled, embitterred agent took the time to save the life of an adolescent girl, at significant risk to his own life. He had taken off the gas mask he had been wearing in order to prevent the girl from further breathing in the nerve gas which had just been released, as a test, in a busy Los Angeles mall. This, of course, put his own person in danger of exposure to the gases, and of course he should have known if that had happenned, the nation would have been short a valuable, perhaps an irreplaceable agent in the war on terrorism. But he did it anyway. What gives?
Okay, yes, it was the decent thing to do, and I like to think I would have done it myself. (On the other hand, I know good and damn well I wouldn't have). But the point is, why was this even put in the show? Was it realy necessary? Do we need a reminder that Jack has a "human" side? Hell, the man has saved America four seasons in a row, is well on his way to saving it a fifth time, at considerable risk, to say nothing of extraordinary self-sacrifice, to himself. Yet, he still keeps plucking along, despite the fact that the current President, Logan, whose hide he stands to save by this, is the very President who was willing to throw him to the wolves, and in the end okayed his assassination in order to keep peace with the Chinese and insure his own political standing as president. Yet, Jack Bauer has thrown himself back into the battle for his country, without a second thought, and with no complaint.
Well,okay,maybe he does need something to make him look human. But this?
I think this has as much to do with the Ultra Left peace and love crowd, more than anything. As an aside, I refuse to call them "Liberals" anymore. These people would ruin a wet dream. These are the same people that used to demand that any group of people should include at least one black. Now, they insist there should be one Hispaniic, and one Oriental, etc. Nothing against these folks, but is it really necessary, any time you see a specific number of peopel gathered together, that a percentage of them be a minority? Every damn time?
These are the same people who also ruined the classic television Western dramas. They were, "too violent", they used to whine. And so the American Western died with it's boots on. Every now and then, an attempt is made at a revival, but there is seldom any real violent fare one usually associates with the Western lifestyle. Now, they are more like the Waltons on horseback, are particularly family oriented, suppossedly emphasize plot, character, and storyline as oppossed to range wars and gunfights, and usually, after the first few episodes, you've seen enough. They do good enough at times to warrant an extended run, though are seldom in the top ten of the Nielson ratings, at least not for very long, and eventually die, albeit sometimes a long, slow death. They are boring.
But they help make the feel good crowd, well, feel good. They are suppossedly good family fare, and set good examples for "the children". Of course, they never explain to you just why we can't have both. After all, there are other kinds of shows on television that portray violence, and sexually oriented material, and the Far Right is rightly lambasted for wanting to censor these, but one does wonder why the peace and love sissies-er, excuse me, I meant to say sixties- ressurrectionists don't join in with them on this.
Of course, these people are hypocrits. It's not the violence they object to so much as the perspective. They dislike the portrayal of American history in anything that might promote it as a heroic era. This includes the era of the American West. Think about it. When was the last time you saw a group of neighborhood children playing "cowboys and Indians". Or "cops and robbers". Or, "Army". You probably don't. The peace and love crowd dislikes violence, and to tell you the truth, they dislike America. Certainly not the violent aspects of it. And that's their right, I guess, to not like it, but it's not their right to criticize it on the one hand, and at the same time try to change history. The American West, for example, was what it was, good and bad. It wasn't always "Little House On The Prairie". Let's see history portrayed as it was, at least when it's well past the young'uns bedtime. If you don't want them to play "Cowboys and Indians", hell, buy 'em Barbie dolls, and make them go to bed at nine o'clock.
And another thing, next football season, I goddamned sure had better, at the approach of the last two minutes of any given game I watch, hear the announcemnt of "Sudden Death"-not "Two Minute Warning". We're watching a goddamned football game, not cooking a fucking soft-boiled egg.
And finally-stop trying to tinker with Jack Bauer. Got it? Just because you read something by Craig Crawford referring to President George Bush as "the Jack Bauer President", doesn't mean you should suddenly conduct intervention on one of my favorite shows. Got it? Understand? If not, let me speak as plainly as I know how-
You don't want to go down this road with me.
Jack Bauer,(played by Keifer Sutherland) of course, is the CTU (Counter Terrorism Unit) agent, stationed in Los Angeles, who seems to not only not mind breaking the rules in order to accomplish his mission, he appears to relish it. He will engage in coercion and in torture in a heartbeat if it means the difference in the accomplishment of his mission, or for that matter if it means this will speed things up by, oh, say, a second or two.
But in a Jack Bauer mission, of course, every second counts. Hey, remember, he's only got 24 hours in each season, to accomplish such feats as:
* Prevent the assassination of a candidate for President of the United States (Season One)
*Prevent a nuclear bomb from exploding somewhere in Los Angeles (Season Two)
*Prevent Mexican drug lords from selling a bio-terrorism virus to a terrorist group (Season Three)
*Prevent the televised execution by terrorists of the Secretary of State, prevent the meltdown by way of sabotage by terrorists of a dozen nuclear plants, and then prevent the launching of a nuclear missile (A particularly busy season four which also saw the shows second President shot down out of the sky by a traitorous military pilot flying a stealth bomber).
Now, in season five, which opened with the assassination of the shows first and then former President, David Palmer (yes, the same David Palmer whom Jack went to all that damn trouble in season one to save), Jack has come out of hiding (he had been forced to assume a new identity to prevent his being handed over to the angry Chinese government for a staged attack on their embassy-long story) in order to prevent the release of a dozen chemical weapons cannisters which had been stored in an airort in Los Angeles, and then hijacked, and will be released in a dozen different locations of highly populated areas. The potential fatalities could well exceed over one hundred thousand people, we are told.
Originally, these cannisters were to be delivered to Russia, to aid a seperatist terrorist movement in their ogoing struggle with the Russian governemnt. But since they were betrayed by the current Presidents Chief of Staff-he had intended to detonate the weapons on them after they had been delivered to them, (in a wild plot which would have enabled the U.S. to secure a military presence in Central Asia, and thus secured for the U.S. a large and steady oil supply) they have now decided to take revenge on the American government by releasing the cannisters here.
Once he had found out the Chief of Staff, Walt Cumings, had been involved in this plot, as well as the assassination of David Palmer (who had somehow found out about it), Jack did what jack does best. Disabling the terrified Cummings, in the presence of the President himself, who was prevented from protecting him by a particularly patriotic Secret Service agent, Jack threatened to cut out first one eyeball, and then another eyeball, and he would, he promised, keep cutting until he found out what he wanted to know. And he meant it, and was just about to go through with it,when Cummings relented.
This is standard Jack Bauer fare. It is nothing unusual for him to oversee the attachment of electrodes, or the administering of a neurotoxin by way of injection into an artery of the neck which causes severe pain. In one episode he threatened a captured terrorist, during the course of interrogation, with his entire family, his wife and children, being shot, and even set it up so that it appearred that one of his sons was executed as he watched it live by way of satellite feed.
In last weeks episode, when attempting to interrogate a particularly uncooperative suspect, he intimated, "you don't want to go down this road with me."
So imagine my agitation, my consternation, when this hard-boiled, embitterred agent took the time to save the life of an adolescent girl, at significant risk to his own life. He had taken off the gas mask he had been wearing in order to prevent the girl from further breathing in the nerve gas which had just been released, as a test, in a busy Los Angeles mall. This, of course, put his own person in danger of exposure to the gases, and of course he should have known if that had happenned, the nation would have been short a valuable, perhaps an irreplaceable agent in the war on terrorism. But he did it anyway. What gives?
Okay, yes, it was the decent thing to do, and I like to think I would have done it myself. (On the other hand, I know good and damn well I wouldn't have). But the point is, why was this even put in the show? Was it realy necessary? Do we need a reminder that Jack has a "human" side? Hell, the man has saved America four seasons in a row, is well on his way to saving it a fifth time, at considerable risk, to say nothing of extraordinary self-sacrifice, to himself. Yet, he still keeps plucking along, despite the fact that the current President, Logan, whose hide he stands to save by this, is the very President who was willing to throw him to the wolves, and in the end okayed his assassination in order to keep peace with the Chinese and insure his own political standing as president. Yet, Jack Bauer has thrown himself back into the battle for his country, without a second thought, and with no complaint.
Well,okay,maybe he does need something to make him look human. But this?
I think this has as much to do with the Ultra Left peace and love crowd, more than anything. As an aside, I refuse to call them "Liberals" anymore. These people would ruin a wet dream. These are the same people that used to demand that any group of people should include at least one black. Now, they insist there should be one Hispaniic, and one Oriental, etc. Nothing against these folks, but is it really necessary, any time you see a specific number of peopel gathered together, that a percentage of them be a minority? Every damn time?
These are the same people who also ruined the classic television Western dramas. They were, "too violent", they used to whine. And so the American Western died with it's boots on. Every now and then, an attempt is made at a revival, but there is seldom any real violent fare one usually associates with the Western lifestyle. Now, they are more like the Waltons on horseback, are particularly family oriented, suppossedly emphasize plot, character, and storyline as oppossed to range wars and gunfights, and usually, after the first few episodes, you've seen enough. They do good enough at times to warrant an extended run, though are seldom in the top ten of the Nielson ratings, at least not for very long, and eventually die, albeit sometimes a long, slow death. They are boring.
But they help make the feel good crowd, well, feel good. They are suppossedly good family fare, and set good examples for "the children". Of course, they never explain to you just why we can't have both. After all, there are other kinds of shows on television that portray violence, and sexually oriented material, and the Far Right is rightly lambasted for wanting to censor these, but one does wonder why the peace and love sissies-er, excuse me, I meant to say sixties- ressurrectionists don't join in with them on this.
Of course, these people are hypocrits. It's not the violence they object to so much as the perspective. They dislike the portrayal of American history in anything that might promote it as a heroic era. This includes the era of the American West. Think about it. When was the last time you saw a group of neighborhood children playing "cowboys and Indians". Or "cops and robbers". Or, "Army". You probably don't. The peace and love crowd dislikes violence, and to tell you the truth, they dislike America. Certainly not the violent aspects of it. And that's their right, I guess, to not like it, but it's not their right to criticize it on the one hand, and at the same time try to change history. The American West, for example, was what it was, good and bad. It wasn't always "Little House On The Prairie". Let's see history portrayed as it was, at least when it's well past the young'uns bedtime. If you don't want them to play "Cowboys and Indians", hell, buy 'em Barbie dolls, and make them go to bed at nine o'clock.
And another thing, next football season, I goddamned sure had better, at the approach of the last two minutes of any given game I watch, hear the announcemnt of "Sudden Death"-not "Two Minute Warning". We're watching a goddamned football game, not cooking a fucking soft-boiled egg.
And finally-stop trying to tinker with Jack Bauer. Got it? Just because you read something by Craig Crawford referring to President George Bush as "the Jack Bauer President", doesn't mean you should suddenly conduct intervention on one of my favorite shows. Got it? Understand? If not, let me speak as plainly as I know how-
You don't want to go down this road with me.
Monday, February 13, 2006
The NSA Spying Scandal-What You Need To Know
Has anybody ever thought to wonder just who leaked the story of the NSA spying program to the New York Times. More importantly, has anybody ever wondered why?
We were all suppossed to be really up in the air when we found out that Bush, in conducting the so-called "War on Terror", was spying on American citizens, using the NSA to intercept and record telephone conversations and e-mail messages, without going through the FISA Courts as required by law. Even when Bush adamantly insisted that this would place an unnecessary burden on intelligence collection, and could even be detrimental to the process, most of us found the reasoning behind it suspicous.
After all, Bush has a number of days, after initiating surveillance, before he has to get court approval, and this more often than not is granted easily enough. Some Senators have suggested the FISA law can be changed, amended in order to more easily accomodate the changes in the pace of communications in these days, some 28 years after the FISA law was passed.
The bottom line is, they insist, the President is breaking the law.
But, come to find out, he might not be, according to the powers granted him under the War Powers provisions of the Constitution. He may be doing nothing more extreme than any wartime president has done, including FDR and Lincoln.
In addition, come to find out, the spying is, according to the administration, confined to those Americans who have been engaged in overseas communications with known or suspected members of Al-Queda, and assummedly any other known terrorist organization.
Can you hear the hissing sound? That is the sound of a different kind of leak, the leak of wind from the sails of the Administrations opponents. It's a subtle leak, one that may not be noticed until the final two weeks or so of the coming November elections.
Now, back to the original question of this post. Who did the leaking, and, well, why did the leaking leak? The answer:
I believe this to be a politcal ploy by none other than the Bush Administration themselves, and I earnestly believe the Democrats are taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker. They have taken it, and are running with it, and soon the very Republican operatives who planted this leak to begin with,though obviously by way of surrogates, will start to reel them in.
The first mistake the Democrats made was in not calling for an investigation of the leak on the grounds of national security, the way they did in the course of the Juddith Miller/Valerie Plame affair. They should not only have joined the ranks of theRepublicans in calling for this investigation, they should have out shouted them on it. They could have done so, and still expressed dismay at the potential abuse of power this might have indicated, and called for an investigation of that as well. Then, the Republicans would have been left holding thier dicks. Nor would it have been a contradictory position to take had they insisted on an investigation in a Secret bi-partisan session of the Intelligence Committee, for example.
That way, the leaker could have been punished-or, if appropriate, rewarded-while the truth could have come out about the Presidents potential abuse of power, if that's what it was, and all in such a way that national security or operational security would not have been compromised.
The way it stands now, the Democrats are the ones with their dicks in their hands. Sure, they are down their own pants for now, but it is still obvious for all the world to see. The Democrats seem to care more about partisan political gain, and in playing to their Far Left base, than they do about national security.
So who is the mastermind of this nefarious plot? No way to know for sure, but I suspect none other than Karl Rove, or maybe Dick Cheney, or someone from his office. If the actual physical leaker is ever revealed, of course, this will turn out to be some mid-level official, quite possibly someone none of us has ever heard of, who will in turn point the finger to a higher level official as the person who advised him to do the leaking. This person, if not Rove himself, will be someone directly conected to Rove or Cheney, or that office. Either that person, or the next one up the ladder, will then deny any involvement with any plan to leak classified information. The poor klutz who actually did the leaking, therefore, will be left to hang on his own, and may in fact be found hanging somewhere if it ever gets right down to the nitty gritty.
Does all this sound too bizarre to be believed? Well, think about it. Hurricane Karina, and the incompetent way that, and it's aftermath, were handled by the Administration. The Iraqi War, and the incompetent way that has been handled, to say nothing of the deceptive way we were brought into it to begin with. The Jack Abramof scandal, and all the Republican poltiicians with important links to the Bush Administration who have been tainted, and might be brought down, by it. The sorry state of the border situation with Mexico, America's overall standing in the world, the exhorbitantly high energy prices and it's resultant drag on the economy, the increasingly desperate state of health care, the environment, the budget deficit, the national debt.
What better way to avoid answering for all this than by somehow focusing attention on the one area where Bush is perceived still to be strong, perhaps the only area where he is seen as such-the fact that, since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil.
Yes, this is still a big deal to the majority of American voters. Yes, this is still one of the major issues that will drive his base, and an appreciable number of independant voters as well, to the polls this coming November. And they are all paying very close attention to what happens in the course of this controversy, and the coming hearings concerning it. A great many of them, unfortunatley, are only paying attention to what they are being told by those they should know better by now than to listen to.
Still, an appreciable lot of them are paying equally close attention to what the Democrats are saying, and doing.
Let the games begin!
We were all suppossed to be really up in the air when we found out that Bush, in conducting the so-called "War on Terror", was spying on American citizens, using the NSA to intercept and record telephone conversations and e-mail messages, without going through the FISA Courts as required by law. Even when Bush adamantly insisted that this would place an unnecessary burden on intelligence collection, and could even be detrimental to the process, most of us found the reasoning behind it suspicous.
After all, Bush has a number of days, after initiating surveillance, before he has to get court approval, and this more often than not is granted easily enough. Some Senators have suggested the FISA law can be changed, amended in order to more easily accomodate the changes in the pace of communications in these days, some 28 years after the FISA law was passed.
The bottom line is, they insist, the President is breaking the law.
But, come to find out, he might not be, according to the powers granted him under the War Powers provisions of the Constitution. He may be doing nothing more extreme than any wartime president has done, including FDR and Lincoln.
In addition, come to find out, the spying is, according to the administration, confined to those Americans who have been engaged in overseas communications with known or suspected members of Al-Queda, and assummedly any other known terrorist organization.
Can you hear the hissing sound? That is the sound of a different kind of leak, the leak of wind from the sails of the Administrations opponents. It's a subtle leak, one that may not be noticed until the final two weeks or so of the coming November elections.
Now, back to the original question of this post. Who did the leaking, and, well, why did the leaking leak? The answer:
I believe this to be a politcal ploy by none other than the Bush Administration themselves, and I earnestly believe the Democrats are taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker. They have taken it, and are running with it, and soon the very Republican operatives who planted this leak to begin with,though obviously by way of surrogates, will start to reel them in.
The first mistake the Democrats made was in not calling for an investigation of the leak on the grounds of national security, the way they did in the course of the Juddith Miller/Valerie Plame affair. They should not only have joined the ranks of theRepublicans in calling for this investigation, they should have out shouted them on it. They could have done so, and still expressed dismay at the potential abuse of power this might have indicated, and called for an investigation of that as well. Then, the Republicans would have been left holding thier dicks. Nor would it have been a contradictory position to take had they insisted on an investigation in a Secret bi-partisan session of the Intelligence Committee, for example.
That way, the leaker could have been punished-or, if appropriate, rewarded-while the truth could have come out about the Presidents potential abuse of power, if that's what it was, and all in such a way that national security or operational security would not have been compromised.
The way it stands now, the Democrats are the ones with their dicks in their hands. Sure, they are down their own pants for now, but it is still obvious for all the world to see. The Democrats seem to care more about partisan political gain, and in playing to their Far Left base, than they do about national security.
So who is the mastermind of this nefarious plot? No way to know for sure, but I suspect none other than Karl Rove, or maybe Dick Cheney, or someone from his office. If the actual physical leaker is ever revealed, of course, this will turn out to be some mid-level official, quite possibly someone none of us has ever heard of, who will in turn point the finger to a higher level official as the person who advised him to do the leaking. This person, if not Rove himself, will be someone directly conected to Rove or Cheney, or that office. Either that person, or the next one up the ladder, will then deny any involvement with any plan to leak classified information. The poor klutz who actually did the leaking, therefore, will be left to hang on his own, and may in fact be found hanging somewhere if it ever gets right down to the nitty gritty.
Does all this sound too bizarre to be believed? Well, think about it. Hurricane Karina, and the incompetent way that, and it's aftermath, were handled by the Administration. The Iraqi War, and the incompetent way that has been handled, to say nothing of the deceptive way we were brought into it to begin with. The Jack Abramof scandal, and all the Republican poltiicians with important links to the Bush Administration who have been tainted, and might be brought down, by it. The sorry state of the border situation with Mexico, America's overall standing in the world, the exhorbitantly high energy prices and it's resultant drag on the economy, the increasingly desperate state of health care, the environment, the budget deficit, the national debt.
What better way to avoid answering for all this than by somehow focusing attention on the one area where Bush is perceived still to be strong, perhaps the only area where he is seen as such-the fact that, since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil.
Yes, this is still a big deal to the majority of American voters. Yes, this is still one of the major issues that will drive his base, and an appreciable number of independant voters as well, to the polls this coming November. And they are all paying very close attention to what happens in the course of this controversy, and the coming hearings concerning it. A great many of them, unfortunatley, are only paying attention to what they are being told by those they should know better by now than to listen to.
Still, an appreciable lot of them are paying equally close attention to what the Democrats are saying, and doing.
Let the games begin!
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Lorne Michaels And Robert Smidgel Had Better Watch Their Asses
I don't remember exactly how long ago it's been now, maybe at year, myabe two years ago, but I was up one Saturday Night, with nothing to do and nowhere to do either and, with no one around that really cared, I decided to watch Saturday Night Live. It was pretty unmemorable, as I recall, except for one thing, which I now recall all too well-a Robert Smidgel cartoon. These days, these are more often than not one of the highlights of the show, sometimes they are the only thing about the show, in fact, that make it worth watching. This must have been one of those nights, in fact.
This cartoon in particular I remember well, as it was about a group of superheroes. But oh, not just any group of superheroes, for these were a group of heroes comprised of the leading figures of the worlds major religions. Led by Jesus Christ, they included Bhuudha, Khrishna, and-Muhammed.
There was yet another hero, caled Seaman, at whose embarrassed outrage the others delighted when they playfully referred to him as "Semen".
I never really thought that much about the cartoon, I don't in fact remember the name of it, nor even the storyline other than that I have described. It wasn't one of the better Robert Smidgel cartoons. I do recall Bhuddha had power over air, Muhammed had power over fire, and Khrishna could transform himself into any animal he chose. Christ seemed to be more the leader of the group.
I have, however, been thinking about over the last week, in connction with the recent controversies involving the publication of a Danish cartoon which pictured the prophet Muhammed with his turban seemingly wrapped around a bomb, the lit fuse protruding from it.
There have been others, for example, Muhammed standing at the gates to paradise shouting for his followers to stop, as they have run out of virgins.
Th first one, however, the one that seems to have evoked the greatest outrage, was published in September, and has caused a great deal of consternation, directed particularly at the nation of Denmark, which, while apologizing for the insult to the prophet, has yet refused to outlaw any such publications on the grounds of freedom of speech and of the press.
This has resulted in widespread protests throughout the Middle East, and among Muslim populations in Europe, and though wiser heads among the Muslim immams have advised agaisnt violence, this has alllead to a boycott of Danish products in many Islamic countries, the burning and attempted destruction of Danish embassies, and a warning by Danish governemnt officials against travel to Islamic countries.
All this, now, mainly due not tothe insulting depictions per se, but duetothe fact that-get this-the prophet Muhammed should not be depicted in any artistic manner, whatsoever. Not in drawings, paintings, statues, not in any such way. It would be considered a grievous sin, for example, among most Islamic scholars, for an actor to portray Muhammed in a film, regardless of the manner inwhich he was portrayed.
The fact that the cartoons were depciting the prophet in a negative light, therefore, was not the chief offense, this only added to it, like rubbing salt in the wound.
A couple of weeks ago, a made a prediction that Al-Queda would strike, due to a prearranged schedule based on an astrological device, based probably on observing the retrograde motions ofthe planet Mars. The latest audiotape of Osama Bin Laden which was recently played on Al-Jazeera, and reported by the American media, may have been a signal for his followers to commence the attack, whatever it was, that had been planned months, or maybe years in advance, based on this astrological/astronomical schedule.
Well, this might well have been it. Why wait for all this time to protest a cartoon that had been published, after all, almost five months previously. Suppose the cartoon had never appearred. Would it have been something else? If so, what? Is Ben Laden pulling the strings behind this recent controversy, using a coterie of supportive immams? If so, what does it mean? Is it a blind for something bigger? If so, what? Sure, it could be a coincidence. One thing to consider though, according to the most fundamentalist tenets of Islam, not only is depicting the prophet Muhammed, or God himself, forbidden, so is the depiction of any living thing, including even plants. A perusal of Islamic art, from classical times till the present, reveals their art to be limited to that utilizing geometric shapes and designs. No living thing is pictured, as this is considered a form of idolatry.
So there you have it. It is not merely one Danish, along with a handful of supportive European newspapers that are being attacked. Nor is it even for that matter those govenments who refuse, on grounds of freedom of speech and of the press to suppress these publications, that are under assault.
What we may well be viewing here is a well coordinated assault on the most basic of freedoms inherent in the majority if not all of Western cultures and societies. And it is not going away quietly. Sure,this one controversy will simmer over time, but the philosophy behind it will be strengthened, and will maintain it's standing among a significant amount of Muslims, maybe even among the majority of them.
The clash of civilizations may have only just begun.
This cartoon in particular I remember well, as it was about a group of superheroes. But oh, not just any group of superheroes, for these were a group of heroes comprised of the leading figures of the worlds major religions. Led by Jesus Christ, they included Bhuudha, Khrishna, and-Muhammed.
There was yet another hero, caled Seaman, at whose embarrassed outrage the others delighted when they playfully referred to him as "Semen".
I never really thought that much about the cartoon, I don't in fact remember the name of it, nor even the storyline other than that I have described. It wasn't one of the better Robert Smidgel cartoons. I do recall Bhuddha had power over air, Muhammed had power over fire, and Khrishna could transform himself into any animal he chose. Christ seemed to be more the leader of the group.
I have, however, been thinking about over the last week, in connction with the recent controversies involving the publication of a Danish cartoon which pictured the prophet Muhammed with his turban seemingly wrapped around a bomb, the lit fuse protruding from it.
There have been others, for example, Muhammed standing at the gates to paradise shouting for his followers to stop, as they have run out of virgins.
Th first one, however, the one that seems to have evoked the greatest outrage, was published in September, and has caused a great deal of consternation, directed particularly at the nation of Denmark, which, while apologizing for the insult to the prophet, has yet refused to outlaw any such publications on the grounds of freedom of speech and of the press.
This has resulted in widespread protests throughout the Middle East, and among Muslim populations in Europe, and though wiser heads among the Muslim immams have advised agaisnt violence, this has alllead to a boycott of Danish products in many Islamic countries, the burning and attempted destruction of Danish embassies, and a warning by Danish governemnt officials against travel to Islamic countries.
All this, now, mainly due not tothe insulting depictions per se, but duetothe fact that-get this-the prophet Muhammed should not be depicted in any artistic manner, whatsoever. Not in drawings, paintings, statues, not in any such way. It would be considered a grievous sin, for example, among most Islamic scholars, for an actor to portray Muhammed in a film, regardless of the manner inwhich he was portrayed.
The fact that the cartoons were depciting the prophet in a negative light, therefore, was not the chief offense, this only added to it, like rubbing salt in the wound.
A couple of weeks ago, a made a prediction that Al-Queda would strike, due to a prearranged schedule based on an astrological device, based probably on observing the retrograde motions ofthe planet Mars. The latest audiotape of Osama Bin Laden which was recently played on Al-Jazeera, and reported by the American media, may have been a signal for his followers to commence the attack, whatever it was, that had been planned months, or maybe years in advance, based on this astrological/astronomical schedule.
Well, this might well have been it. Why wait for all this time to protest a cartoon that had been published, after all, almost five months previously. Suppose the cartoon had never appearred. Would it have been something else? If so, what? Is Ben Laden pulling the strings behind this recent controversy, using a coterie of supportive immams? If so, what does it mean? Is it a blind for something bigger? If so, what? Sure, it could be a coincidence. One thing to consider though, according to the most fundamentalist tenets of Islam, not only is depicting the prophet Muhammed, or God himself, forbidden, so is the depiction of any living thing, including even plants. A perusal of Islamic art, from classical times till the present, reveals their art to be limited to that utilizing geometric shapes and designs. No living thing is pictured, as this is considered a form of idolatry.
So there you have it. It is not merely one Danish, along with a handful of supportive European newspapers that are being attacked. Nor is it even for that matter those govenments who refuse, on grounds of freedom of speech and of the press to suppress these publications, that are under assault.
What we may well be viewing here is a well coordinated assault on the most basic of freedoms inherent in the majority if not all of Western cultures and societies. And it is not going away quietly. Sure,this one controversy will simmer over time, but the philosophy behind it will be strengthened, and will maintain it's standing among a significant amount of Muslims, maybe even among the majority of them.
The clash of civilizations may have only just begun.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
The Killer Rabbit Strikes Again
I've long come to the conclusion that Jimmy Carter is nothing but a bitter old man, who never came to grips with the fact that he led a failed presidential administration, the country, and the Democratic Party, to the precipice of disaster. I guess it's like BO, everybody you come in contact with knows you have it before you do, and by the time you catch on, you definitely stink to high heaven. It's about time Jimmy Carter woke up and smelled the stench.
The funeral of Corretta Scott King was an occassion, or should have been an occassion, to put petty politics aside, regardless of how one might feel about President George W. Bush, his policies, and his presence at the event. But no, not Jimmy Carter.
The funeral of Corretta Scott King should have been an occassion to focus on the life, dreams, goals, and accomplishments of a great woman. But no, not Jimmy Carter, who turned it instead into a mean-spirited, shameful exercise in political rhetoric and partisanship.
To be fair, he was not the only one. He was joined in this sad display of wretchedness by others, notably by the reverend who had known her and worked with her throughout the preceding forty years or more, leaving me to wonder if this man had truly been a friend of the Kings at all. Or was he, instead, merely another grandstanding opportunist and demagogue? Hearing his diatribe left no doubt in my mind as to what he was, as he demonstrated it with great acumen.
Bill Clinton was one person who had the common sense, the manners, and the good taste, to act appropriately, which is to say, respectfully. He only did one thing wrong in my view. He stayed. Had I been in his position, I think I would have been sorely tempted to walk out in protest of Carters incredibly stupid display of lack of respect for the widow King. Of course, this would have made matters worse, so I guess he did the right thing. However, I would bet he felt as uncomfortable, if not more so, than the Bushes, who, after all, one would assume had been invited to the funeral by the surviving children of the Kings, or by someone acting on their behalf. Even if he had taken it on himself to come uninvited, at least he should be given credit for showing respect and having the humanity and decency to do more than just issue a shallow political statement of sympathy and respect, which was probably all anyone really expected of him to begin with.
The worse thing about all this is, this didn't hurt George W. Bush, not in the least. When all was said and done, he probably in private laughed about the whole thing, and may yet be laughing about it. Why, one may wonder?
Because thanks to Jimmy Carter, and the others who followed his sterling example of innapropriate absurdity, George W. Bush has become, to a great many Americans, maybe even the majority of them, more a figure of sympathy than was Corretta Scott King herself.
Should there be yet more childish displays of moronic behavior on the part of Carter, the Democrats, and the Far Left, this sympathy might well express itself at the ballot box, this coming November.
The funeral of Corretta Scott King was an occassion, or should have been an occassion, to put petty politics aside, regardless of how one might feel about President George W. Bush, his policies, and his presence at the event. But no, not Jimmy Carter.
The funeral of Corretta Scott King should have been an occassion to focus on the life, dreams, goals, and accomplishments of a great woman. But no, not Jimmy Carter, who turned it instead into a mean-spirited, shameful exercise in political rhetoric and partisanship.
To be fair, he was not the only one. He was joined in this sad display of wretchedness by others, notably by the reverend who had known her and worked with her throughout the preceding forty years or more, leaving me to wonder if this man had truly been a friend of the Kings at all. Or was he, instead, merely another grandstanding opportunist and demagogue? Hearing his diatribe left no doubt in my mind as to what he was, as he demonstrated it with great acumen.
Bill Clinton was one person who had the common sense, the manners, and the good taste, to act appropriately, which is to say, respectfully. He only did one thing wrong in my view. He stayed. Had I been in his position, I think I would have been sorely tempted to walk out in protest of Carters incredibly stupid display of lack of respect for the widow King. Of course, this would have made matters worse, so I guess he did the right thing. However, I would bet he felt as uncomfortable, if not more so, than the Bushes, who, after all, one would assume had been invited to the funeral by the surviving children of the Kings, or by someone acting on their behalf. Even if he had taken it on himself to come uninvited, at least he should be given credit for showing respect and having the humanity and decency to do more than just issue a shallow political statement of sympathy and respect, which was probably all anyone really expected of him to begin with.
The worse thing about all this is, this didn't hurt George W. Bush, not in the least. When all was said and done, he probably in private laughed about the whole thing, and may yet be laughing about it. Why, one may wonder?
Because thanks to Jimmy Carter, and the others who followed his sterling example of innapropriate absurdity, George W. Bush has become, to a great many Americans, maybe even the majority of them, more a figure of sympathy than was Corretta Scott King herself.
Should there be yet more childish displays of moronic behavior on the part of Carter, the Democrats, and the Far Left, this sympathy might well express itself at the ballot box, this coming November.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Britney Spears And The Follies Of Life
Yeah, I know, I should be ashamed of myself for doing this, but so probably should you, as there is a good chance you were led to this page by a Google or other such search engine device, and may be here for the first time because of it. So what do you have to say for yourself?
Okay, okay, here's my excuse-besides trying to increase my page views, that is. As a pagan, I can draw a very real correlation to the star struck adolation that Spears and other media celebrities enjoy, and encourage, as being similar to a kind of perverse idolatry. Hollywood movie and television personalities, as well as recording stars,are, in a very real sense, living gods and goddesses.
So don't bother me with this nonsense about how they are only human, they put their pants on one leg at a time, etc., because it's not true. We won't let it be true. That's why when Brittney Spears was photographed driving while carrying her baby unsecured, in her lap, it drew such media attention. A mere mortal,of course, would have been fined, and possibly even jailed, and would face the prospect of having both license and child removed from her possession.
In the case of Brittney Spears, the reaction was a bit more benign. The police showed up at her property and told her that if she ever needed assistance to be sure and contact them. Talk about idol worship.
Or, maybe they were to an extent at least subconscously wanting to get a piece of that ass, after all, her bodyguard probably is, why can't they, the much beleaquered public servants who protect us from crime, yeah, right.
Oh, I almost forgot, yeah, the bodyguard. Has anyone ever known of a time when Broccoli Spears has ever appearred in public without a crowd of fawning attendants in her company. I mean, hell, every time you see her, she is leading a procession of courteirs that would be the envy of any visiting dignitary.
So why this one time was she out and about with just this one bodyguard-especially with the baby? That's the one aspect that makes it difficult to overlook. A media celebrity out with just one bodyguard, fine, but with the baby along, you would think caution would dictate extra protection in the case of the unexpected appearrance of a nutcase.
A clue, this is a typical trick of unfaithful wives everywhere. "Hey, honey, I'm taking the baby out for a ride (or walk, etc.), be back in a bit."
"Okay", responds the unsuspecting cuckold, "be sure and take a bodyguard"(or friend,such and such neighbor, etc., in more typical cases)
"Oh, sure honey"-(clears throat to regain composure)-"thanks for reminding me, I guess that' s a good idea. "
"You should remember that, babe, there's all kinds of nuts out there. Some of them can be real dicks."
"Uuuhhh-yeah, they can, sweetie. Well, talk to you later. Love you honey. We won't be gone long. Maybe an hour or two."
Of course, the papparazi, those fiends, will never miss an opportunity to photograph Brittney and her adorable, precous baby, so how could they resist, after spotting the bodyguard entering the restaurant, with Brittney and baby out in the car. You would think she would be somewhat relieved they were there, annoying as they are, they are at least assurrance of some inadverdant protection.
But no, she freaks, this goddess, and flees, leaving the hapless bodyguard barely enough time to hop into the front seat passenger side. You know what they say about a guilty conscience. The guilty goddess flees when no one pursues. Well, okay, they were "pursuing", but not after what she thought they were after, i.e., newspaper evidence of a breaking new celebrity scandal.
So, see there, ain't you glad Google brought you here. Learn something new everyday. And if you are one of the police that ever so gracously offerred your assistance, take note of this. With just the proper approach, you just might get you a piece of that ass yet.
Okay, okay, here's my excuse-besides trying to increase my page views, that is. As a pagan, I can draw a very real correlation to the star struck adolation that Spears and other media celebrities enjoy, and encourage, as being similar to a kind of perverse idolatry. Hollywood movie and television personalities, as well as recording stars,are, in a very real sense, living gods and goddesses.
So don't bother me with this nonsense about how they are only human, they put their pants on one leg at a time, etc., because it's not true. We won't let it be true. That's why when Brittney Spears was photographed driving while carrying her baby unsecured, in her lap, it drew such media attention. A mere mortal,of course, would have been fined, and possibly even jailed, and would face the prospect of having both license and child removed from her possession.
In the case of Brittney Spears, the reaction was a bit more benign. The police showed up at her property and told her that if she ever needed assistance to be sure and contact them. Talk about idol worship.
Or, maybe they were to an extent at least subconscously wanting to get a piece of that ass, after all, her bodyguard probably is, why can't they, the much beleaquered public servants who protect us from crime, yeah, right.
Oh, I almost forgot, yeah, the bodyguard. Has anyone ever known of a time when Broccoli Spears has ever appearred in public without a crowd of fawning attendants in her company. I mean, hell, every time you see her, she is leading a procession of courteirs that would be the envy of any visiting dignitary.
So why this one time was she out and about with just this one bodyguard-especially with the baby? That's the one aspect that makes it difficult to overlook. A media celebrity out with just one bodyguard, fine, but with the baby along, you would think caution would dictate extra protection in the case of the unexpected appearrance of a nutcase.
A clue, this is a typical trick of unfaithful wives everywhere. "Hey, honey, I'm taking the baby out for a ride (or walk, etc.), be back in a bit."
"Okay", responds the unsuspecting cuckold, "be sure and take a bodyguard"(or friend,such and such neighbor, etc., in more typical cases)
"Oh, sure honey"-(clears throat to regain composure)-"thanks for reminding me, I guess that' s a good idea. "
"You should remember that, babe, there's all kinds of nuts out there. Some of them can be real dicks."
"Uuuhhh-yeah, they can, sweetie. Well, talk to you later. Love you honey. We won't be gone long. Maybe an hour or two."
Of course, the papparazi, those fiends, will never miss an opportunity to photograph Brittney and her adorable, precous baby, so how could they resist, after spotting the bodyguard entering the restaurant, with Brittney and baby out in the car. You would think she would be somewhat relieved they were there, annoying as they are, they are at least assurrance of some inadverdant protection.
But no, she freaks, this goddess, and flees, leaving the hapless bodyguard barely enough time to hop into the front seat passenger side. You know what they say about a guilty conscience. The guilty goddess flees when no one pursues. Well, okay, they were "pursuing", but not after what she thought they were after, i.e., newspaper evidence of a breaking new celebrity scandal.
So, see there, ain't you glad Google brought you here. Learn something new everyday. And if you are one of the police that ever so gracously offerred your assistance, take note of this. With just the proper approach, you just might get you a piece of that ass yet.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Cindy Gets Out Of The Race
Well, it's official, and thankfully sanity has prevailed, as Cindy Shehan has decided not to run for the Senate seat from California in oppossition to Dianne Feinstein, whom she compares to an enabler to a drug addict, refusing to cut off the funding for the Iraqi War, even though she knows it is wrong.
I'll give her this much, she has a point when she complains about how sheepishly the Democrats voted for the Presidents plan to invade Iraq. We were all a little too eager in those days, and even those Democrats who should have known better were afraid of the political consequences if they did not support the President. It was a shameful period in our history, and I am as much ashamed of myself as anything for allowing myself to be swept up into the rhetoric.
She further states that she will stand against all Pro-War Democrats,which is what she refers to thsoe who do not call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Here, again, I see her point, but she does not herself get the bigger picture. And that' s where her argument loses validity.
I stand firm in my belief that the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban was the right and proper thing to do, yet she does not see it that way, and in fact comes across as a person who never saw a war she could support for any reason. Add to this the list of other bizzarre positions held in general by the members of her far left clique, and it becomes obvious that she is fighting a loosing battle, and just why it is such a loosing proposition.
And that is the ultimate absurdity of her position. Her and her supporters various and sundry looney positions are so out of touch with the majority of Americans, no one who is seen as being too close to her and them can possibly hope to win. The end result of this, of course, is that the winners may well ultimately be those who oppose all their positions. The looney ones, and the ones that might have some validity. They will both meet the same fate, shot out of the sky, and doomed to go down in a blaze of nuttiness.
I'll give her this much, she has a point when she complains about how sheepishly the Democrats voted for the Presidents plan to invade Iraq. We were all a little too eager in those days, and even those Democrats who should have known better were afraid of the political consequences if they did not support the President. It was a shameful period in our history, and I am as much ashamed of myself as anything for allowing myself to be swept up into the rhetoric.
She further states that she will stand against all Pro-War Democrats,which is what she refers to thsoe who do not call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Here, again, I see her point, but she does not herself get the bigger picture. And that' s where her argument loses validity.
I stand firm in my belief that the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban was the right and proper thing to do, yet she does not see it that way, and in fact comes across as a person who never saw a war she could support for any reason. Add to this the list of other bizzarre positions held in general by the members of her far left clique, and it becomes obvious that she is fighting a loosing battle, and just why it is such a loosing proposition.
And that is the ultimate absurdity of her position. Her and her supporters various and sundry looney positions are so out of touch with the majority of Americans, no one who is seen as being too close to her and them can possibly hope to win. The end result of this, of course, is that the winners may well ultimately be those who oppose all their positions. The looney ones, and the ones that might have some validity. They will both meet the same fate, shot out of the sky, and doomed to go down in a blaze of nuttiness.
The Constitutional Right To Harass
Any day now, the way certain things have been going, I halfway espect to go to my window in response to a ruckus outside, and see a bunch of lunatics carrying signs that read, "Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Witch To Live". Hopefully, I would have enough sense to not open fire, unless they made the mistake of letting me catch them in the act of damaging my property. On the other hand, why wait?
That is my exact feelings about the likes of Fred Phelps, the so-called "Pastor" of the Westboro baptist Church." Among his antics, he has proposed a monument in Caspar Wyoming that declares that, on the night of his death, Matthew Shephard entered hell. Shephard,ofcourse, was the young gay man that was brtually tortured and left to die, strung up to a fence along a remote Wyoming highway. Accordding to Phelps, he met his demise while out cruising for "strange flesh" and meth. He admits Shephard may have repented during his last hours, though this is unlikely as, since he is gay, this means that God has "given him up". The monument Phelps prposes actually features an engraving of a photograph of Shephard, and he has sued the city of Caspar for what he considers his constituional right, and Christian duty, to erect the it in a public park.
Another sterling example of Phelps devotion to Chist came in the city of Lexington Kentucky, where he appearred to lead a protest at the baptism of two young children who had recently been adopted by a gay couple.
Lately, he has chosen to grace Kentuckly yet again with his presence, as he leads yet more protests, this time at the funeral of slain American soldiers of the Iraqi conflict. Why would he se fit to lead such a protest? Because accordding to him, America is doomed due to it's ongoing an ever increasing support and sanctioning of the gay lifestyle. He even asserts that this is the reason Ameica was attacked on 9/11.
What this has to do exactly with the soldiers whose funerals he proposes to picket is unclear to me, but it is plain he has little to no respect for the soldiers or their families. He has even referred to them, on his web-site(which you will find a link to in the title of this post), as worthless, no talent bums who are only in the military because they are unable to find a real,decent job. One such as his, I suppose, which seems to be based on making money through sensationalistic pandering to prejudice. Not that I can fault him for that, it would be pretty hard to otherwise live off the contributions from his lttle church in kansas, with less than 100 registered members.
Still, overeactions are never good, whether you shoot out your windows at witch haters, or pass special laws against public protests at private military funerals by the likes of Fred Phelps, as some states, including Kentucky, propose to do. Unecessary,unwaranted, and an unwise invitation to the old slippery slope. Seems to me that, if simple common decency is beyond Phelps perview, then already enacted laws in most states against harrassment should do just fine. A good class action lawsuit on behalf of the families involved might give ol' Fred pause, and maybe even some food for thought. After all, I know of no interpretation of the Constitution that gives anyone a right to protest a private function, such as a family funeral, whether or not conducted by the military.
No one has the right to intrude on a private individuals or families, pesonal,and very real grief, particularly over the death of a loved one. The family of Matthew Shephard deserves better, and so certainly do the families of our military personnel.
That is my exact feelings about the likes of Fred Phelps, the so-called "Pastor" of the Westboro baptist Church." Among his antics, he has proposed a monument in Caspar Wyoming that declares that, on the night of his death, Matthew Shephard entered hell. Shephard,ofcourse, was the young gay man that was brtually tortured and left to die, strung up to a fence along a remote Wyoming highway. Accordding to Phelps, he met his demise while out cruising for "strange flesh" and meth. He admits Shephard may have repented during his last hours, though this is unlikely as, since he is gay, this means that God has "given him up". The monument Phelps prposes actually features an engraving of a photograph of Shephard, and he has sued the city of Caspar for what he considers his constituional right, and Christian duty, to erect the it in a public park.
Another sterling example of Phelps devotion to Chist came in the city of Lexington Kentucky, where he appearred to lead a protest at the baptism of two young children who had recently been adopted by a gay couple.
Lately, he has chosen to grace Kentuckly yet again with his presence, as he leads yet more protests, this time at the funeral of slain American soldiers of the Iraqi conflict. Why would he se fit to lead such a protest? Because accordding to him, America is doomed due to it's ongoing an ever increasing support and sanctioning of the gay lifestyle. He even asserts that this is the reason Ameica was attacked on 9/11.
What this has to do exactly with the soldiers whose funerals he proposes to picket is unclear to me, but it is plain he has little to no respect for the soldiers or their families. He has even referred to them, on his web-site(which you will find a link to in the title of this post), as worthless, no talent bums who are only in the military because they are unable to find a real,decent job. One such as his, I suppose, which seems to be based on making money through sensationalistic pandering to prejudice. Not that I can fault him for that, it would be pretty hard to otherwise live off the contributions from his lttle church in kansas, with less than 100 registered members.
Still, overeactions are never good, whether you shoot out your windows at witch haters, or pass special laws against public protests at private military funerals by the likes of Fred Phelps, as some states, including Kentucky, propose to do. Unecessary,unwaranted, and an unwise invitation to the old slippery slope. Seems to me that, if simple common decency is beyond Phelps perview, then already enacted laws in most states against harrassment should do just fine. A good class action lawsuit on behalf of the families involved might give ol' Fred pause, and maybe even some food for thought. After all, I know of no interpretation of the Constitution that gives anyone a right to protest a private function, such as a family funeral, whether or not conducted by the military.
No one has the right to intrude on a private individuals or families, pesonal,and very real grief, particularly over the death of a loved one. The family of Matthew Shephard deserves better, and so certainly do the families of our military personnel.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Chocolate Lovers Alert
By the merest of coincidences I was looking at my shitty little calendar, and noticed for the first time that today is the last day of a two day festival that began on Saturday- the Fairfax Virginia Chocolate Lovers Festival. I will include a link to the site, which you can click on and learn all about it. But who could not love a chocolate festival, especially one that included, as you might have hoped, different chocolate based recipes, and samples of same, from around the Fairfax region. Yes, it is called "A Taste Of Chocolate".
This is a fairly new festival, ongoing now for a little over a decade, so you can be excused if you were unaware of it before now. In time, it could conceivably grow to Mardi Gras poential. Well, maybe not. But who knows?
If you're from the immediate vicinity of Fairfax Virginia, you are probably already aware of the two day event, which features some free admissions, some paid events, and others which are probably mixed. You get in free to the "Taste Of Chocolate" event, for example, but I have an idea you would be well advised to bring your wallet.
The website I've included a link to will give you directions to Fairfax. Drive there if you can. Fly if you have to. It might be too late by the time you read this post, but at least you can start saving up for next years event. It can only be better every year. What the hell, this is CHOCOLATE we're talking about here. What better subject for a festival, or excuse to say to hell with this fucking diet?
Chocolate. It's a magical thing. Believe me, I know.
This is a fairly new festival, ongoing now for a little over a decade, so you can be excused if you were unaware of it before now. In time, it could conceivably grow to Mardi Gras poential. Well, maybe not. But who knows?
If you're from the immediate vicinity of Fairfax Virginia, you are probably already aware of the two day event, which features some free admissions, some paid events, and others which are probably mixed. You get in free to the "Taste Of Chocolate" event, for example, but I have an idea you would be well advised to bring your wallet.
The website I've included a link to will give you directions to Fairfax. Drive there if you can. Fly if you have to. It might be too late by the time you read this post, but at least you can start saving up for next years event. It can only be better every year. What the hell, this is CHOCOLATE we're talking about here. What better subject for a festival, or excuse to say to hell with this fucking diet?
Chocolate. It's a magical thing. Believe me, I know.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
State Of The Union-Dismal
Of all the things Bush said in his State of The Union speech, one thing stood out as remarkable. No, I'm not talking about his obvious ploy to distance himself politically from the oil industry by calling on research to free us from our dependance on foreign energy sources, which by the way he none too cleverly blamed the American people for. I'm referring instead to one thing he proposed which was actually a good idea, and that is his idea to train more teachers in Math and Science. A good idea, and a vital one. It's not really all that bad,of course-yet! For the time being, it is true that there is qualified teachers in these areas that is at about the world average,cosidering our population and economy. Yet, there is an obvious trend toward growth in, particularly, China and India, in the fields of Math and Science, and it is a growth that threatens to outpace the U.S., which if it continues could leave us at a decided competitive disadvantage with these two nations.
Therefore, Bush's urgings for increased investment in these areas is to be applauded, and taken seriously.
Now, if only somebody would focus as much attention on the need for qualified teachers of history, and I mean real history, not the kind that tries to soothe the world's ruffled feathers by portraying America as the cause of most if not all the worlds current problems, but actual, true, history. In particular, I would love to see a focus on insuring that every student, by the time he or she graduates from high school,has a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the rights entailed in that document-it's history and philosophy, with a special emphasis on the Bill of Rights, though by no means limited to that.
Any chance of that occurring anytime soon? Yeahhhh, right. Politicans just want Americans to be smart enough to compete in the worlds global economy in order to contribute to the tax base. They don't want us to be smart enough to know our rights, and to know when they've crossed the line. In other words, they don't want us to know that, by and large, we should vote all these clowns out of office, in both parties.
Therefore, Bush's urgings for increased investment in these areas is to be applauded, and taken seriously.
Now, if only somebody would focus as much attention on the need for qualified teachers of history, and I mean real history, not the kind that tries to soothe the world's ruffled feathers by portraying America as the cause of most if not all the worlds current problems, but actual, true, history. In particular, I would love to see a focus on insuring that every student, by the time he or she graduates from high school,has a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the rights entailed in that document-it's history and philosophy, with a special emphasis on the Bill of Rights, though by no means limited to that.
Any chance of that occurring anytime soon? Yeahhhh, right. Politicans just want Americans to be smart enough to compete in the worlds global economy in order to contribute to the tax base. They don't want us to be smart enough to know our rights, and to know when they've crossed the line. In other words, they don't want us to know that, by and large, we should vote all these clowns out of office, in both parties.
Some Vampires Never Learn
An update on Jonathon Sharkey is in order, as he has recently run afoul of the law. An Indiana deputy recognized both his face and his former wrestler name, "Rocky Flash" as the same Jonathon Sharkey who was wanted on two counts in Indiana, and so he was detained on both of these counts, one for stalking, and the other for unlawful flight. Seems that after posting bond on the first charge, he left Indiana. He explains the latter by explaining that he never signed an agreement to remain in the state of Indiana, so this should be considered null and void. As for the stalking charge, he intimates that this was a malicous charge brought agaisnt him by an ex-girlfriend, so should not be taken seriously.
As for his current girlfriend and partner, she has had her share of problems as well. Due to the resultant publicity of Jonathons campaign for Minnesotta Governor as an independant running on the "Vampires, Witches and Pagans Party", and due to her own admissions that she is a "vampire" she has been suspended from her job as a school bus driver in her school district in New Jersey.
She asserts that she doesnt understand what all the fuss is about. She is a vampire by choice, and engages in feeding with willing partners, and would never try to engage in such practices with any against their will. School officials in New Jersey have explained that she has not actually been fired from the school system. They merely think it might be a good idea to reassign her to a job that doesnt require her to be around children.
As for his current girlfriend and partner, she has had her share of problems as well. Due to the resultant publicity of Jonathons campaign for Minnesotta Governor as an independant running on the "Vampires, Witches and Pagans Party", and due to her own admissions that she is a "vampire" she has been suspended from her job as a school bus driver in her school district in New Jersey.
She asserts that she doesnt understand what all the fuss is about. She is a vampire by choice, and engages in feeding with willing partners, and would never try to engage in such practices with any against their will. School officials in New Jersey have explained that she has not actually been fired from the school system. They merely think it might be a good idea to reassign her to a job that doesnt require her to be around children.
Old Vampires Never Die
Thanks to the magic of movies and television, they are thankfully immortal, from Nosferatu to all the incarnations of Dracula. Even Barnabas Collins will be with us forever, after Jonathon Frid has long given up the ghost. So of course the same must be true of Al Lewis, Grandpa of the 1960's sitcom, The Munsters. Thanks to the magic of TVLand, he will be with us always.
Many people are doubtless unaware that "Grandpa", as he was always affectionately known, was a politician as well, and in his later years even made a run for the office of Governor of New York. He was never a real factor in the race, more of a curiosity than anything, and his standing in the polls pretty much were a reflection of the final results, which is to say, dismal. Come to find out, Al Lewis was a staunch conservative, an old style Barry Goldwater style conservative, you might say. An economic as well as a social conservative.
I guess some people never do grow beyond their signature roles.
Many people are doubtless unaware that "Grandpa", as he was always affectionately known, was a politician as well, and in his later years even made a run for the office of Governor of New York. He was never a real factor in the race, more of a curiosity than anything, and his standing in the polls pretty much were a reflection of the final results, which is to say, dismal. Come to find out, Al Lewis was a staunch conservative, an old style Barry Goldwater style conservative, you might say. An economic as well as a social conservative.
I guess some people never do grow beyond their signature roles.
Betty Friedan And The Feminine Mystique
Betty Friedan is dead. The woman many consider the founder of modern feminism, she authored the book, "The Feminine Mystique", which started out at a modest run of 3000 copies, then suddenly mushroomed into an all time best seller-and started a movement. Back in those days, of course, it was all about womens rights to equal pay for equal jobs, and for that matter, for the right of women to get jobs, to get out of the house and out of their husbands shadows and find self-fulfillment. It wasn't all just about the symbolic act of burning bras. It was about the idea that man women still considered themselves to be viewed as second class citizens, and that they had the right to reclaim their destiny. Betty Friedan spearheaded that movement, and, to her further credit, later cautioned the feminine movement against taking on more radical elements in their philosophy, and so alienating themselves from the mainstream of American society.
And so, in honor of Betty, I will now put on my hat-and not tip it.
And so, in honor of Betty, I will now put on my hat-and not tip it.
Sheehan-Still Mugging For The Cameras
And what an ugly mug it is. There has always been something that bothered me about Cindy Sheehan, and at first I think it had something to do with the fact that she has a little girls' voice and the body of an old, and ugly, woman. There was something incongrous about that, but I tried to ignore it. After all, she can hardly help that.
But as time went on, I saw this as symptomatic. Cindy Sheehan's life is itself an incongruity. The fact that she was removed from the Capitol prior to the President's State Of The Union speech in itself was unfortunate, as it would be interesting to see exactly what her actions would have been had she been allowed to remain.
After all, this is a woman who has exhibited such a far left leaning political philosophy she has not confined herself to merely speaking out against the Iraqi War, in which she lost her son Casey, but has branched out into other areas. She has even spoken out against the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan in criticism of the forcible removal of the Taliban and the ongoing struggle there to build the fledgling democracy in that country.
She seems intent on building and holding onto her following, to the extent of issuing challenges to any Democratic Party official who propounds any position that smacks of centrist tendencies. First it was Hillary Clinton who came under scrutiny. Now she has endeavored to put out feelers about a potential Democratic Primary run for a California U.S. Senate seat against the current incumbent, Dianne Feinstein. If by some miracle she wins that primary, of course, you can chalk that up as a sure fire Senate gain for the GOP the following November.
Now, I understand that some people have showed her a lot of slack due to the loss of her son. But it occurred to me, I've known people just like her, of her political persuasion, and I'm not so sure about her stated devastation. One woman in particular that I knew personally, who was of a similarly far left persuasion, politically, had a son who joined the U.S. military, over her stern objections. She has disowned the son, and has vowed to never speak to him again.
Is Sheehan of the same ilk, I wondered? Hard to say, but I definitely have my suspicions, and I have lately heard that, indeed, she and Casey had in fact argued about his previous enlistment, and re-enlstment, in the U.S. military. She was dead set against the Iraqi War, and was admant that he have no part in it. Then, there is the fact that of all her family, she seemingly stands alone in her Quixotic anti-American zeal. She and her husband even divorced over it, though he, like the rest of the family, has been relatively silent.
I think I finally saw what I needed to see to convince me that I may at least be in part well grounded in my suspicions. An old film showed her standing in front of a banner, unfurled, which featured a picture of her dead son, Casey. She stood before it, the cameras rolling, as a crowd gathered around her. She stood facing the portrait, her mouth apape, wide open as she held her hand up to it, her eyes wide, in an expression of horror, seeming to try to control her anquish, her heartbreak, her anger at her loss.
And that is when it occurred to me-she's mugging for the cameras. And I fear she's doing it yet, today, only more and more, people are paying less and less attention. Her recent trip to Venzuela to meet with Hugo Chavez received little coverage, for example. But she keeps trying, and will continue to do so, as long as she keeps getting encouragement to do so.
It's a sad spectacle indeed.
But as time went on, I saw this as symptomatic. Cindy Sheehan's life is itself an incongruity. The fact that she was removed from the Capitol prior to the President's State Of The Union speech in itself was unfortunate, as it would be interesting to see exactly what her actions would have been had she been allowed to remain.
After all, this is a woman who has exhibited such a far left leaning political philosophy she has not confined herself to merely speaking out against the Iraqi War, in which she lost her son Casey, but has branched out into other areas. She has even spoken out against the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan in criticism of the forcible removal of the Taliban and the ongoing struggle there to build the fledgling democracy in that country.
She seems intent on building and holding onto her following, to the extent of issuing challenges to any Democratic Party official who propounds any position that smacks of centrist tendencies. First it was Hillary Clinton who came under scrutiny. Now she has endeavored to put out feelers about a potential Democratic Primary run for a California U.S. Senate seat against the current incumbent, Dianne Feinstein. If by some miracle she wins that primary, of course, you can chalk that up as a sure fire Senate gain for the GOP the following November.
Now, I understand that some people have showed her a lot of slack due to the loss of her son. But it occurred to me, I've known people just like her, of her political persuasion, and I'm not so sure about her stated devastation. One woman in particular that I knew personally, who was of a similarly far left persuasion, politically, had a son who joined the U.S. military, over her stern objections. She has disowned the son, and has vowed to never speak to him again.
Is Sheehan of the same ilk, I wondered? Hard to say, but I definitely have my suspicions, and I have lately heard that, indeed, she and Casey had in fact argued about his previous enlistment, and re-enlstment, in the U.S. military. She was dead set against the Iraqi War, and was admant that he have no part in it. Then, there is the fact that of all her family, she seemingly stands alone in her Quixotic anti-American zeal. She and her husband even divorced over it, though he, like the rest of the family, has been relatively silent.
I think I finally saw what I needed to see to convince me that I may at least be in part well grounded in my suspicions. An old film showed her standing in front of a banner, unfurled, which featured a picture of her dead son, Casey. She stood before it, the cameras rolling, as a crowd gathered around her. She stood facing the portrait, her mouth apape, wide open as she held her hand up to it, her eyes wide, in an expression of horror, seeming to try to control her anquish, her heartbreak, her anger at her loss.
And that is when it occurred to me-she's mugging for the cameras. And I fear she's doing it yet, today, only more and more, people are paying less and less attention. Her recent trip to Venzuela to meet with Hugo Chavez received little coverage, for example. But she keeps trying, and will continue to do so, as long as she keeps getting encouragement to do so.
It's a sad spectacle indeed.
Coretta Scott King-An American Tragedy
If The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, I have no doubt one of the top items on his agenda would be the present day sorry state of American health care. It might even be the top priority, in that health care is one of the things that affects all Americans, but most especially the poor and dispossessed. Expenses, whether out of pocket or by way of health insurance, have risen to astronomical levels, and the quality of health care, at least for the poor, seems to be dropping exponentially. Today, a condition or operation that might have mandated a stay of two, three, or more days in the hospital have now become nearly a drive-through procedure, not due to increased efficiency of technological procedures, but due to the demands of a dictatorial HMO culture which dictate the type of care and duration of treatment a patient may receive, regardless of physician recommendations.
Now, Corretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, is dead at the age of 78. She lies now in state at the Georgia State Capitol Rotunda, an honor that King himself was denied at his own death. Indeed, the widow King was the beneficiary of a legacy of respect and admiration, as she carried on his work to the best of his ability. About the only thing she evidently never received was decent health care.
A great deal of this may have been of her own doing, to be sure. She was the kind of woman who insisted on self sufficiency, to the point she refused to allow, in a later appearrance, a trusted family friend and confidante to aid her in walking down the steps, though she was in pain and in obvious need of assistance. Yet, she made it the distance on her own power.
One wonders if she could have received assistance in regards to her medical condition, an advanced case of ovarian cancer, but refused to seek it out. She would not be the type of person to seek help for her own needs when the needs of the poor were yet to be fulfilled.
Whatever the case, she ended up seeking medical help at a remote alternative health resort, more of a spa, in Mexico, where she died. Possibly, she sought out the care and comfort offerred there at a price which enabled her to continue to meet her other obligations. Unfortunately, while this may have brought her a degree of hope and contentment otherwise unavailiable to her, it may have also cost her her life. As it turns out, the spa in question was not licensed for the kind of medical care she received there, and the Mexican governemnt has shut down the facility.
The widow of the greatest civil rights leader possibly of all time, dead, due conceivably, at least in part, to lack of proper health care. Indeed, an irony that should focus more attention on the need to devote more resources into making quality and affordable health care a right for all mankind. A civil right.
Now, Corretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, is dead at the age of 78. She lies now in state at the Georgia State Capitol Rotunda, an honor that King himself was denied at his own death. Indeed, the widow King was the beneficiary of a legacy of respect and admiration, as she carried on his work to the best of his ability. About the only thing she evidently never received was decent health care.
A great deal of this may have been of her own doing, to be sure. She was the kind of woman who insisted on self sufficiency, to the point she refused to allow, in a later appearrance, a trusted family friend and confidante to aid her in walking down the steps, though she was in pain and in obvious need of assistance. Yet, she made it the distance on her own power.
One wonders if she could have received assistance in regards to her medical condition, an advanced case of ovarian cancer, but refused to seek it out. She would not be the type of person to seek help for her own needs when the needs of the poor were yet to be fulfilled.
Whatever the case, she ended up seeking medical help at a remote alternative health resort, more of a spa, in Mexico, where she died. Possibly, she sought out the care and comfort offerred there at a price which enabled her to continue to meet her other obligations. Unfortunately, while this may have brought her a degree of hope and contentment otherwise unavailiable to her, it may have also cost her her life. As it turns out, the spa in question was not licensed for the kind of medical care she received there, and the Mexican governemnt has shut down the facility.
The widow of the greatest civil rights leader possibly of all time, dead, due conceivably, at least in part, to lack of proper health care. Indeed, an irony that should focus more attention on the need to devote more resources into making quality and affordable health care a right for all mankind. A civil right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)