Barak Obama recently responded to a question about the North Carolina, Duke University, LaCrosse team rape case charges by asserting that Mike Nifong, the prosecutor of the case, should be investigated for a variety of alleged offenses, notably the purposeful withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence in the case. Obama said this in response to a question from the forums of Liestoppers, who have a blog which I have now placed on the blogroll. You can access the forums from the blog.
My question is, where the hell is John Edwards in this? He of all presidential candidates, democrat or republican, should be especially interested in the case developments as, after all, he is from North Carolina. I linked to his web-site and to his issues page here, which is amusingly short-half a screen of blank page.
Well, John, you could easily add to the volume of this page by simply stating that you are for equal justice and rights to legal representation for all Americans, black or white, rich or poor. Wouldn’t that fit in with your usual campaign schpiel about “Two Americas”?
You wouldn’t even have to specifically mention the Duke LaCrosse case. But, really, why wouldn’t you? You made your reputation and considerable wealth as a trial attorney in North Carolina, you grew up there, and you represented the interests of North Carolina-allegedly-in one term as a US Senator. When you ran for Vice-President on the Kerry-Edwards Democratic ticket in 2004, it was as a native son of North Carolina.
How hard can it be to say that Nifong should be investigated and if the charges of prosecutorial misconduct aimed at him turn out to be true, he should be disbarred and face criminal prosecution his own self? Was it perhaps because he was a supporter of yours in the past?
Cool. I want to rob my neighborhood bank. If I promise to donate ten percent of the proceeds to your campaign can I count on your friendship and support? Naw, I didn’t think so. So why don’t you just do the obviously sensible thing and lay your cards on the table? How hard can it be to just do the right thing?
In fact, why don’t any of the Democrats besides Obama speak up? Are they so afraid of losing the monolithic black vote in North Carolina that they are willing to shut up in the face of an obvious attempted miscarriage of justice in the form of an illicit prosecution of a group of innocent men on false charges of rape? After all, isn’t it obvious that Nifong got himself into trouble, when this charge was first made during the course of an election season, by pandering to his black base in Durham? Isn’t it equally obvious that the NAACP and other black activist groups, leaders, and supporters unfairly demanded this persecution of the white students for political reasons? Why pander to the likes of people like that?
Please explain to me, how does this make the Democrats any better than certain corrupt Republicans that always look out for the interests of their crooked (in some cases) rich friends and big business interests, regardless of the potentially harmful consequences and the innate unfairness of it all? No difference that I can tell.
Again, I have to stress that Obama does deserve some credit for his publicly stated stance in this matter. On the other hand, he is a black politician, and it must be considered that, in the bizzarro parallel universe of Democratic party politics, he being a black man is allowed to criticize blacks when they demand en masse the persecution of whites despite the lack of evidence. White politicians are not allowed to do so, in fact, they should either take the oppossite position, or shut the fuck up.
There are many reasons why Democrats on the national level rarely win elections in the South. Some of those reasons are good reasons, some are bad reasons. This would be an example of one of the good reasons. It should be John Edwards as a native North Carolinian who should lead the way here. It’s one thing to exhibit personal fortitude in the face of breast cancer, or political acumen in the removal of bloggers with a decidedly anti-Catholic bias. But those are the kinds of acts of courage that can hardly be considered controversial, they could even arguably be considered self-serving. A true act of courage is one that could conceivably cost support, such as a stand in this matter. But Edwards, like most Democrats, have pandered to their base for so long, perhaps a reversal from normal procedure in a controversy such as this is just too much to hope for.
Hat tip here goes to Sonia Belle, who doesn’t wear a hat, or anything else, with which to tip back. Her original post can be accessed by clicking the link which is in this post's title.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Dogs Are People Too
Want to know what I would pay good money to see? Well, see these two guys here? If the charges against Paul D. Pennington, top, and Larentay G. Bennett, bottom, are true as reported here, I would like to see them covered in raw meat and torn to pieces by pitt bulls. That would be mean, wouldn't it?
Like this, perhaps?
64 dogs confiscated, only to be euthanized, while these and four others, including Terry Kendrick, Jerry Pounds, and Cornelius Burnett-seemingly the ringleaders of a criminal gang that was busted in what has been described as a devastating blow-have been arrested and charged with a variety of offenses.
Amazingly, it took a consolidated effort and investigation by federal, Ohio State, and Dayton Ohio officials to make the raid on the warehouse, arrest the participants (the fight was just beginning) and confiscate all the dogs, from an area that included not only Dayton, but other areas as well, including Cincinnati.
People were paying to see these fights in the warehouse, and taking their families to watch. Their kids, even.
Luckily, dog-fighting is a felony offense in Ohio, but not in some other jurisdictions, in which case I am not in the least adverse to the prospect of a federal law mandating it as such nationwide.
I always said pitt bulls are friendly dogs, though naturally dangerous in certain situations (including around young children), and that the really mean ones are trained to be mean-brutally trained.
The story in this article about the female pitt bull wagging it's tail and licking the hand of an investigator before being taken to be euthanized was heart wrenching. She was missing a part of her jaw due to an earlier fight.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The Pope And The Witch (And The Bitch)
I think I’ve come up with a master plan to achieve literary success, and it’s almost sure-fire. Just write a movie script, tv script, novel or play that is offensive-the more offensive the better-to Bill Donahue, the head of the Catholic Leaque. He’s sure to go on all the major news networks caterwauling like a little bitch, and you’ve got more publicity than you could possibly have imagined, for not one red dime.
That’s the way it seems, anyway. Just a couple of months ago, he went after little Dakota Fanning, of all people, for portraying a character who becomes a rape victim in a movie. He must not have raked in much in the way of contributions from that controversy, as it seemed to die out relatively quick. Now, he’s found another target-a school play, of all things (you would think catholic leaders would know better than to harass child stars and school play performances, but I guess some people just don’t have a sense of irony), called “The Pope And The Witch”.
Here is a very brief synopses of the play. The Pope in question is in a state of anxiety over an impending visit of a hundred thousand children from the third world. No, you wags, not because he doesn’t know possibly how he can ever secretly pick out the most attractive from such a large number in the middle of what will be a media circus. It’s because he thinks it’s all part of a leftist plot to embarrass the Catholic Church over it’s doctrinaire stance on birth control. These children are all from impoverished regions, and families, and they are soon to arrive in Saint Peter’s Square for an audience.
Sometime during the play, the Pope engages in a dialoque with an African shaman (the “witch” of the title), with whom I imagine he engages in a narrative exchange pertaining to wisdom, righteousness, and the responsibilities and consequences of power.
Yeah, it sounds kind of cheesy to me too, and if I had to wager money, I would be willing to bet the play is indeed somewhat anti-Catholic. Does that give Donahue the right to complain about the school’s production? Yes. Does it give him the right to issue a response? Yes.
Did it give him the right to demand the school stop production of the play, which was scheduled to be performed from March 1-9 at the University of Minnesota? No, in my opinion. Luckily, in what Donahue calls a "collapse of leadership" the school decided to go ahead with this example of what Donahue called "hate speech".
What Donahue and his cartel of supporters were attempting, obviously, was the censorship of a work of art that didn't meet their approval. And, thankfully, censorship lost, this time.
And I come at this position honestly as one who is totally opposed to all forms of censorship, save in the following cases- is the work in question slanderous/libelous? Does it encourage incitement to violence? Does it contain child pornography?
In the case of the play in question, the answers would seem to be no, no, and no. So there’s your answer, Bill Donahue-no dice.
So, how about my ideas?
BURN- A drama in which a group of early Christians plan out the burning of Rome in the days of Nero, and carry it out, resulting in the entire movement being persecuted.
So, would this be slanderous? A case could be made for that, I guess, but on the other hand, this is theoretically within the realm of possibility. In point of fact, this is actually what I honestly believe happened. Also, there are no living people that could be directly impacted by the accusation, of course, so no one would be unfairly maligned by such a theory( involving fictional characters), which again, is a most reasonable assumption to make. So, let Billy bitch, about this one and others, such as-
THE PROMISED LAND-A comedy in which a Catholic Priest, whose parish is in danger of shutting down, becomes involved with coyotes smuggling illegal immigrants into his parish in order to increase his flock, which becomes filled with drug smugglers and prostitutes, and gang members. His parish prospers due to the influx of illegal money but his conscience takes a hit-especially when he is investigated by the authorities-though he is encouraged by many of his superiors.
FATAL CHOICE-Yet another Catholic Priest, one involved in the Pro-Life movement, undergoes a crises of faith when he learns the Anti-Christ is soon to be born. He comes to suspect that the mother is a woman in his parish who is-yes, seeking an abortion.
And, finally-
CUTE-
Guess what this one is about? If you need a clue, put it this way: I have to be careful that it doesn’t cross over the line into the realm of matching my third criterion for acceptable censorship.
On the other hand, I’ll probably never write this one, or in fact any of these, I’ve got too many irons in the fire as it is. But just in case I change my mind, I will be counting on Billy Bud, Wailer, for all the publicity I need to make the debut of whichever one I might choose a resounding success.
Hat Tip To Renegade Eye, my cool communist friend who, if communism ever does take over, I hope is put in charge of all the Gulags.
That’s the way it seems, anyway. Just a couple of months ago, he went after little Dakota Fanning, of all people, for portraying a character who becomes a rape victim in a movie. He must not have raked in much in the way of contributions from that controversy, as it seemed to die out relatively quick. Now, he’s found another target-a school play, of all things (you would think catholic leaders would know better than to harass child stars and school play performances, but I guess some people just don’t have a sense of irony), called “The Pope And The Witch”.
Here is a very brief synopses of the play. The Pope in question is in a state of anxiety over an impending visit of a hundred thousand children from the third world. No, you wags, not because he doesn’t know possibly how he can ever secretly pick out the most attractive from such a large number in the middle of what will be a media circus. It’s because he thinks it’s all part of a leftist plot to embarrass the Catholic Church over it’s doctrinaire stance on birth control. These children are all from impoverished regions, and families, and they are soon to arrive in Saint Peter’s Square for an audience.
Sometime during the play, the Pope engages in a dialoque with an African shaman (the “witch” of the title), with whom I imagine he engages in a narrative exchange pertaining to wisdom, righteousness, and the responsibilities and consequences of power.
Yeah, it sounds kind of cheesy to me too, and if I had to wager money, I would be willing to bet the play is indeed somewhat anti-Catholic. Does that give Donahue the right to complain about the school’s production? Yes. Does it give him the right to issue a response? Yes.
Did it give him the right to demand the school stop production of the play, which was scheduled to be performed from March 1-9 at the University of Minnesota? No, in my opinion. Luckily, in what Donahue calls a "collapse of leadership" the school decided to go ahead with this example of what Donahue called "hate speech".
What Donahue and his cartel of supporters were attempting, obviously, was the censorship of a work of art that didn't meet their approval. And, thankfully, censorship lost, this time.
And I come at this position honestly as one who is totally opposed to all forms of censorship, save in the following cases- is the work in question slanderous/libelous? Does it encourage incitement to violence? Does it contain child pornography?
In the case of the play in question, the answers would seem to be no, no, and no. So there’s your answer, Bill Donahue-no dice.
So, how about my ideas?
BURN- A drama in which a group of early Christians plan out the burning of Rome in the days of Nero, and carry it out, resulting in the entire movement being persecuted.
So, would this be slanderous? A case could be made for that, I guess, but on the other hand, this is theoretically within the realm of possibility. In point of fact, this is actually what I honestly believe happened. Also, there are no living people that could be directly impacted by the accusation, of course, so no one would be unfairly maligned by such a theory( involving fictional characters), which again, is a most reasonable assumption to make. So, let Billy bitch, about this one and others, such as-
THE PROMISED LAND-A comedy in which a Catholic Priest, whose parish is in danger of shutting down, becomes involved with coyotes smuggling illegal immigrants into his parish in order to increase his flock, which becomes filled with drug smugglers and prostitutes, and gang members. His parish prospers due to the influx of illegal money but his conscience takes a hit-especially when he is investigated by the authorities-though he is encouraged by many of his superiors.
FATAL CHOICE-Yet another Catholic Priest, one involved in the Pro-Life movement, undergoes a crises of faith when he learns the Anti-Christ is soon to be born. He comes to suspect that the mother is a woman in his parish who is-yes, seeking an abortion.
And, finally-
CUTE-
Guess what this one is about? If you need a clue, put it this way: I have to be careful that it doesn’t cross over the line into the realm of matching my third criterion for acceptable censorship.
On the other hand, I’ll probably never write this one, or in fact any of these, I’ve got too many irons in the fire as it is. But just in case I change my mind, I will be counting on Billy Bud, Wailer, for all the publicity I need to make the debut of whichever one I might choose a resounding success.
Hat Tip To Renegade Eye, my cool communist friend who, if communism ever does take over, I hope is put in charge of all the Gulags.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Defending The Patriarchy
Alas, I am a troll, and my comments have been banned from a certain site due to their excessive trollishness. No, I won’t say who they are, however if you care to memorize the contents of this sites blogroll, you might be able to figure out who they are once they have been deleted from the list. Hurry though, it won’t be there much longer. Truthfully, this will hurt me much more than it will hurt them, judging from the relative larger number of comments per average post on their site than mine, but on the other hand, they never bothered to reciprocate my linkage, so maybe not. At least I got their attention momentarily.
So what is all this about? Well, they insist that the evil patriarchy should be demolished. I disagree. I think it should be reformed from within, assumming it needs to be reformed at all..
I also dare to hold that patriarchy has it’s beneficial components as well as it’s most obvious negative ones, and further that a “feminarchy” would (gasp) hold a comparable ratio of positive to negative aspects. As such, being male, I would remain entrenched in said patriarchy, other than working to reform it from within, though this would not be, as they wrongly assummed, from a privileged position.
And, selfish human being that I am, yes, I demand credit and appreciation for my efforts. This really gets to them for some reason, they seem to hold the position that you should do something because it is right, and expect no appreciation for that. Oh, I take that back, they modified that position. It depends on the quantity of work you do (are you willing to engage in unquestioning drone labor) or the quality (can you demagogue and lead said mindless drones to the new paradise of feminist domination, errrr, equality).
Otherwise, just being for something, donating a little time, money, and say, voting for the appropriate political candidate, such minor details as living by example, gets you not so much as a smidgen of respect. Yeah, try selling that to a skeptical to begin with public.
Anyway, I’m a troll, i.e., someone who doesn’t agree one hundred per cent with the party line and dares to question the validity of it’s observations and conclusions.
Well, ok, and also I guess because I related that “my bitch” had best not stand in the way of the tv screen when the game is on. Just bring on the cold cuts. Can I help it that I’ve got an edgy sense of humor? Actually, while I do have that, in reality I do not have a “bitch”.
I also don’t have a lot to do with the patriarchy. I have not personally benefited from it. According to them, you see, all males pretty much have benefited from it by just the obviousness of their male-ishness, though they later modified this position as well to denote that many men have not.
The patriarchy has been with us for some time, though. It was invented by the United States founding fathers, by way of their purposefully malicious bending of the words of the Bible, and then enshrined into the constitution. George Bush recently unveiled plans for a new cabinet department, the Department of Patriarchal Security.
I’m kidding. Actually patriarchy predates not only the US, it also predates Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Neo-Pagan/Wiccan mythology to the contrary, the ancient pagan cultures were patriarchal, for the most part. Their goddess cults pretty much not only defended it, they promoted it. Their goddesses were all good little girls who did what Daddy Zeus told them, unless they were shrewish bitches like wife Hera, or out and out sluts like Aphrodite. This example of course is the Graeco-Roman one, but all pagan cults pretty much toed the patriarchal line.
Women were bartered by their fathers as young girls to the proper mate (a scion of the wealthiest family the woman could be arranged to be married into). Women had no say, were considered their husband’s property, could be divorced at will, while men had the ultimate last word in all matters of both major and minor importance. Women may have ruled their children in some respects, but even here the man had the final say. Women could own no property, could not hold public office. While there have been notable examples of exceptions to these rules, by and large this was the reality of the ancient world. Women were chattel. Their lives and the quality thereof were dependant solely on first their fathers, and then their husbands, and finally, their sons if they were fortunate enough-or unfortunate enough-to survive their spouses.
And of course men have ruled since the days of recorded history, and so far as any available evidence attests, well before then.
Thing shave gotten better, though. There is a social evolution as well as any other kind, and patriarchy has fallen under the sway of mother nature as much as anything. And it will continue to do so. Thus the feminazis can continue to rail against it, will probably even make minor temporary progress from time to time, but for the most part theirs is an impotent rage with no real point.
Just, “look at me. I’m against the patriarchy, so I’m great and wise. If you are not against it you are a part of the problem so you are scum. But if you change your mind and are against it you still don’t get to be great and wise like I am.”
Oh, and of course, I almost forgot their other typical stance-
“Don’t criticize Muslims, you racist.”
Still, change will come in time, but it won’t be rushed, because it just won’t take if it is. And when it gets to the point that women are truly the equal of men in all things, women will probably still be bitching about their lot in life. And so will men. That is probably one thing that’s never gong to change on either side of the equation.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
What Would Gandhi Do?
I’m always hearing about how the left wing anti-war movement is always holding up Gandhi as an example of how the world should enact foreign policy, and how they themselves should set an example of how to protest against other policies that are not to their liking.
Evidently, to these people there is no set of problems anywhere, no matter how profound, grave, or complicated, that can’t be solved by peaceful protest. Gandhi himself seems to have felt this way. I have recently read that he even criticized the Allied nations for resisting Hitler in World War II. Worse, he even suggested that the Jews should not have tried to fight him, nor even should they have attempted to escape his atrocities. They should have just peacefully acquiesced to the savagery of the butcher’s gas chambers and ovens, and all the other horrors visited upon them by the Nazi regime.
If this was truly his position, that is most remarkable. What can you say? Try as I might, words fail me in providing a sufficient response to such profound naivety.
But I can still try. In fact, appropriately enough, I just can’t resist sharing with you a few-
GANDHI RIDDLES
How many Gandhis does it take to change a light?
A: One Gandhi can change a light, so long as it’s a dim bulb.
How many dicks does Gandhi have?
A: Gandhi only has one dick however he somehow manages to stick it in millions of asses at once.
How many peaceniks does it take to change Gandhis diaper?
A: Gandi can change his own diaper and you can kiss his ass.
How many Gandis does it take to fill a gas tank?
A: One Gandi can fill one gas tank of a medium sized car however it might take two for an SUV.
Why does Gandhi always smile so serenely?”
A: Because he’s a fucking idiot.
If Gandhi were to watch American Idol who would he vote for?
A: Who gives a shit?
How many Gandhis would it take to bring about permanent world peace?
A: Oh, as of right now, somewhere between seven and eight billion.
But wouldn’t the world be better off if a lot more people followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Yep, it would be especially great for the ones of us who don’t.
I have heard it said that Gandhi might be an avatar of some great Hindu god, like Vishnu. What do you think?
A: I think you’re fucking stupid.
I think you are just a mean, angry person. Why are you so hateful, why don’t you try to be more like Gandhi?
A: Gandhi this dick.
You are disgusting. If I make love to a man it will be a kind and considerate man like Gandhi. They are out there you know.
A: You got that right. They certainly are “out there”.
So would you consider learning more about Gandhi? Maybe you will see the light if you try.
A: Ok you win. I’m like Gandhi. Let’s fuck.
HaHa very funny. Do you think I’m a complete idiot?
A: Yes.
Well, you’re not so smart yourself mister. Gandhi won his country’s independence from the British through his policies of non-violent peaceful resistance. What do you think of that? Doesn’t that prove his way is right?
A: No, it just proves the British had turned into a bunch of wusses. Of course, they also pulled all their investments out after which India slid into abject poverty, but what the hell, who needs food and clothing and shelter?
But don’t you think there are more important things in the world than material things, things like love and compassion and tolerance?
A: Nope. Not when I’m starving to death anyway.
Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King is an example of a person that followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Nobody’s perfect.
But it worked, didn’t it?
A: Peaceful protest and striking against your own countries improper policies is one thing. That formula is unworkable in the arena of international relations, especially in cases of war. Taken to it’s logical extreme, if the country were invaded and everyone were to do nothing about it but “peacefully protest”, it would probably amount to national enslavement-or suicide.
But if people everywhere were to peacefully protest against the Iraq war, don’t you think it would work?
A: Yep, I think the Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Shi’ite death squads would be so fucking impressed they would lay down their arms tomorrow and make peace and want to help us all establish a worldwide international movement of peace and love.
Then if you know that why don’t you join the movement? Will you join us in protesting this evil war?
A: No thanks. I would prefer to agitate for a sensible long term solution. But it has to be a comprehensive, common sense solution, none of this pie in the sky wishful thinking.
But don’t you see that we are just fueling the insurgency by our presence. Don’t you think we should get out and make amends? War and fighting never accomplishes anything. Just ask yourself, WHAT WOULD GANDHI DO?
A: Oh, I don’t know. Establish, arm, and try to fund the Indian military, perhaps?
So are you saying Gandhi was a hypocrit? India is a democracy, you know. Maybe the Indian parliament did that and he couldn’t stop it, just like he couldn’t prevent the partition of India. It’s not his fault the people wouldn’t listen to him. But don’t you know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
A: Maybe in some cases, but it’s always nice to have that cure available regardless, just in case.
So, I see. You are a conservative wingnut, aren’t you?
A: Not at all. I might vote Republican the next election, however.
KER-SLAP!!!
A: Hey, that hurt!!!
Evidently, to these people there is no set of problems anywhere, no matter how profound, grave, or complicated, that can’t be solved by peaceful protest. Gandhi himself seems to have felt this way. I have recently read that he even criticized the Allied nations for resisting Hitler in World War II. Worse, he even suggested that the Jews should not have tried to fight him, nor even should they have attempted to escape his atrocities. They should have just peacefully acquiesced to the savagery of the butcher’s gas chambers and ovens, and all the other horrors visited upon them by the Nazi regime.
If this was truly his position, that is most remarkable. What can you say? Try as I might, words fail me in providing a sufficient response to such profound naivety.
But I can still try. In fact, appropriately enough, I just can’t resist sharing with you a few-
GANDHI RIDDLES
How many Gandhis does it take to change a light?
A: One Gandhi can change a light, so long as it’s a dim bulb.
How many dicks does Gandhi have?
A: Gandhi only has one dick however he somehow manages to stick it in millions of asses at once.
How many peaceniks does it take to change Gandhis diaper?
A: Gandi can change his own diaper and you can kiss his ass.
How many Gandis does it take to fill a gas tank?
A: One Gandi can fill one gas tank of a medium sized car however it might take two for an SUV.
Why does Gandhi always smile so serenely?”
A: Because he’s a fucking idiot.
If Gandhi were to watch American Idol who would he vote for?
A: Who gives a shit?
How many Gandhis would it take to bring about permanent world peace?
A: Oh, as of right now, somewhere between seven and eight billion.
But wouldn’t the world be better off if a lot more people followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Yep, it would be especially great for the ones of us who don’t.
I have heard it said that Gandhi might be an avatar of some great Hindu god, like Vishnu. What do you think?
A: I think you’re fucking stupid.
I think you are just a mean, angry person. Why are you so hateful, why don’t you try to be more like Gandhi?
A: Gandhi this dick.
You are disgusting. If I make love to a man it will be a kind and considerate man like Gandhi. They are out there you know.
A: You got that right. They certainly are “out there”.
So would you consider learning more about Gandhi? Maybe you will see the light if you try.
A: Ok you win. I’m like Gandhi. Let’s fuck.
HaHa very funny. Do you think I’m a complete idiot?
A: Yes.
Well, you’re not so smart yourself mister. Gandhi won his country’s independence from the British through his policies of non-violent peaceful resistance. What do you think of that? Doesn’t that prove his way is right?
A: No, it just proves the British had turned into a bunch of wusses. Of course, they also pulled all their investments out after which India slid into abject poverty, but what the hell, who needs food and clothing and shelter?
But don’t you think there are more important things in the world than material things, things like love and compassion and tolerance?
A: Nope. Not when I’m starving to death anyway.
Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King is an example of a person that followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Nobody’s perfect.
But it worked, didn’t it?
A: Peaceful protest and striking against your own countries improper policies is one thing. That formula is unworkable in the arena of international relations, especially in cases of war. Taken to it’s logical extreme, if the country were invaded and everyone were to do nothing about it but “peacefully protest”, it would probably amount to national enslavement-or suicide.
But if people everywhere were to peacefully protest against the Iraq war, don’t you think it would work?
A: Yep, I think the Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Shi’ite death squads would be so fucking impressed they would lay down their arms tomorrow and make peace and want to help us all establish a worldwide international movement of peace and love.
Then if you know that why don’t you join the movement? Will you join us in protesting this evil war?
A: No thanks. I would prefer to agitate for a sensible long term solution. But it has to be a comprehensive, common sense solution, none of this pie in the sky wishful thinking.
But don’t you see that we are just fueling the insurgency by our presence. Don’t you think we should get out and make amends? War and fighting never accomplishes anything. Just ask yourself, WHAT WOULD GANDHI DO?
A: Oh, I don’t know. Establish, arm, and try to fund the Indian military, perhaps?
So are you saying Gandhi was a hypocrit? India is a democracy, you know. Maybe the Indian parliament did that and he couldn’t stop it, just like he couldn’t prevent the partition of India. It’s not his fault the people wouldn’t listen to him. But don’t you know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
A: Maybe in some cases, but it’s always nice to have that cure available regardless, just in case.
So, I see. You are a conservative wingnut, aren’t you?
A: Not at all. I might vote Republican the next election, however.
KER-SLAP!!!
A: Hey, that hurt!!!
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Begging Your Pardon, Mr. President
The pardon the agents petition that is the subject of this post can be accessed by clicking on the post title, which contains the link to the site which is promoting the petition, which can be likewise accessed by a link at the upper right hand of that page. Also, a hat tip to Lemuel Calhoun of Hillbilly White Trash, who kindly posted the link on his blog at my request, as well as this one here which also goes into some detail as to the chain of events which lead to this controversy.
If you want a job where you are treated with respect, it seems the last thing you might want to consider is the life of a government employee, in at least some cases. And the lower you go down the totem pole, the worse off you are. You get about as much respect in some cases if you’re a burger flipper or 7/11 clerk. Of course, to see the idiot smiles on the faces of actors portraying clerks in tv commercials, you would think they live the life of reilly. Yeah, what do you want your daughter to bring home from Pizza Hut? A supreme with extra cheese and breadsticks, maybe, but certainly not the clerk, if she does that you’ll probably send her back.
Now, you might think you’d be proud if your daughter brought home a government employee, but you might want to rethink that a bit.
Military enlistees are, technically speaking, “government employees”, and they get little respect. Oh, sure, we all “support the troops”, some would even go so far as to say they “love” them, but where does the lip service end and the reality begin? You can leave all that love and respect right outside the door of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center, thank you very much, it might damage the decorative mold.
Or, if your daughter brings home a US Attorney, you might consider wondering just what you did wrong. Can’t your daughter find a decent tort attorney with a real job?
But it seems these days like if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, you might come out with an INS border security guard. Talk about getting no respect. Here are these two guys that went out of their way to apprehend an illegal Mexican alien who was smuggling some 74 pounds or so of marijuana across the border, whom the two guards thought was armed, and when he tried to escape they shot him in the ass.
They were then tried and convicted of numerous trumped up charges, including civil rights violations.
Now, after this trial, at which three of the jurors involved later claimed they were coerced into delivering a guilty verdict, (the prosecutor, incidentally, is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct due to his part in the trial) they have been sentenced to twelve and thirteen years in prison, where one of them was recently brutally beaten by Mexican inmates who demanded “death to the border guards.”
They were convicted in part due to the testimony of the illegal alien drug smuggler, who was granted immunity in return for his testimony. But why the hell were they even charged and tried to begin with? According to some reports, this was done at the instigation of the Mexican government itself. Now, I don’t know if that is true or not, though I certainly believe they at least encouraged it, along with the other usual suspects, the pro open borders and amnesty crowds and open immigration factions among the liberal left and the various other immigrant advocacy groups.
In the meantime, these men have gotten little in the way of support from among the conservative forces that would ordinarily be up in arms about these kinds of shenanigans. Of course, as usual, both parties for the most part care more about kowtowing to the far left (in the case of Democrats), or to the business oriented open borders, free trade neo-cons (in the case of Republicans), while both are trolling for as many Hispanic votes as they can muster. It’s fucking shameful. Out of all the members of Congress, only twelve-all Republicans-have gone on record as actively opposing this shameful sham of a trial and demanding that the border agents be granted a presidential pardon.
It is not looking good, however. Although he could definitely grant the men a pardon at a drop of a sombrero, Bush seems to be hiding behind the excuse that pardons are typically granted only after time has been served. Of course, there are numerous instances where this was not the case. Clinton’s pardon of billionaire tax cheat and fugitive from justice Mark Rich comes to mind. Granted, these two men don’t have wealthy wives who can contribute hefty sums of money to a presidential library. Nor are they former high ranking cabinet officials, as in the case of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, pardoned for his role in Iran-Contra by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Nor are they former Presidents, such as Richard M. Nixon, pardoned by Gerald Ford before he was ever even tried.
They are however men who were merely doing their jobs, maybe not perfectly, but still putting their lives on the line for little in the way of appreciation, renumeration, and respect. Now, they may be compelled to spend the best remaining years of their lives in a federal prison.
If you feel the way I do about this shit, you can click on this link, which will take you to a page where you can donate money to keep the cause alive or, at least as good and maybe even better, in the upper right hand corner of the page you will see a link to a page where you can sign a petition to President Bush encouraging him to grant these men the pardon I honestly feel they should receive as quickly as possible.
I also personally feel they should be granted a public apology, and back pay, in addition to a hefty amount of money for their pain and sufferring. In addition, they should receive an extra amount for whatever harassment they received while in prison, and the warden should be fired for not insuring their safety.
Yes, prison is rough, but all prisoners who are deemed to be potential targets are typically afforded some degree of protective custody, and this would obviously have been the appropriate precaution in the case of these two men.
You see, these two men are both Hispanics, and so in addition to the “crime” of being border agents, to the Hispanic street trash thugs who threatened them and attacked one on at least this one occasion, they are also doubtless viewed as “race traitors”.
Still, for the time being, let’s concentrate on getting them freed. Copy and paste the link and send it to as many people as you can think of to sign and forward to the President.
Like I told Lemuel Calhoun, of Hillbilly White Trash, who was kind enough to post these links on his blog at my request, if Bush would actually do the right thing in this regard, it might go a long way toward demonstrating evidence of this stiffened spine and backbone he allegedly has that we are always hearing so much about.
And I might add one other thing. I know that some that might peruse these links might have a knee jerk reaction to one of these sites, WorldNet Daily, but please try to think outside the box. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, or even on most things. I know I don’t. But when you're right, you’re right. If you agree with me that this is one of the times when they are right, not wrong-and there is little if any gray area here, in my opinion-then get over your initial objections to the site and support this petition drive.
And do more than that. Forward these links to your House Representatives and Senators. I think it’s a disgrace that no Democratic Congressmen or Senators have supported these two men. But that should be considered more a reflection of the Democratic leadership than on the individuals. After all, committee assignments might be in danger if they were to engage in an activity that goes beyond the accepted parameters of the House and Senate leadership as it currently stands. To say nothing of endangering funding of congressional projects and support for sponsored bills. Still, you would think at least one would have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up for what’s right. In all fairness, as I said, only twelve Republicans have done so, as of the writing of the petition.
The drug smuggler in question, by the way, has sued the US government for five million dollars. Like they say-only in America.
If you want a job where you are treated with respect, it seems the last thing you might want to consider is the life of a government employee, in at least some cases. And the lower you go down the totem pole, the worse off you are. You get about as much respect in some cases if you’re a burger flipper or 7/11 clerk. Of course, to see the idiot smiles on the faces of actors portraying clerks in tv commercials, you would think they live the life of reilly. Yeah, what do you want your daughter to bring home from Pizza Hut? A supreme with extra cheese and breadsticks, maybe, but certainly not the clerk, if she does that you’ll probably send her back.
Now, you might think you’d be proud if your daughter brought home a government employee, but you might want to rethink that a bit.
Military enlistees are, technically speaking, “government employees”, and they get little respect. Oh, sure, we all “support the troops”, some would even go so far as to say they “love” them, but where does the lip service end and the reality begin? You can leave all that love and respect right outside the door of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center, thank you very much, it might damage the decorative mold.
Or, if your daughter brings home a US Attorney, you might consider wondering just what you did wrong. Can’t your daughter find a decent tort attorney with a real job?
But it seems these days like if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, you might come out with an INS border security guard. Talk about getting no respect. Here are these two guys that went out of their way to apprehend an illegal Mexican alien who was smuggling some 74 pounds or so of marijuana across the border, whom the two guards thought was armed, and when he tried to escape they shot him in the ass.
They were then tried and convicted of numerous trumped up charges, including civil rights violations.
Now, after this trial, at which three of the jurors involved later claimed they were coerced into delivering a guilty verdict, (the prosecutor, incidentally, is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct due to his part in the trial) they have been sentenced to twelve and thirteen years in prison, where one of them was recently brutally beaten by Mexican inmates who demanded “death to the border guards.”
They were convicted in part due to the testimony of the illegal alien drug smuggler, who was granted immunity in return for his testimony. But why the hell were they even charged and tried to begin with? According to some reports, this was done at the instigation of the Mexican government itself. Now, I don’t know if that is true or not, though I certainly believe they at least encouraged it, along with the other usual suspects, the pro open borders and amnesty crowds and open immigration factions among the liberal left and the various other immigrant advocacy groups.
In the meantime, these men have gotten little in the way of support from among the conservative forces that would ordinarily be up in arms about these kinds of shenanigans. Of course, as usual, both parties for the most part care more about kowtowing to the far left (in the case of Democrats), or to the business oriented open borders, free trade neo-cons (in the case of Republicans), while both are trolling for as many Hispanic votes as they can muster. It’s fucking shameful. Out of all the members of Congress, only twelve-all Republicans-have gone on record as actively opposing this shameful sham of a trial and demanding that the border agents be granted a presidential pardon.
It is not looking good, however. Although he could definitely grant the men a pardon at a drop of a sombrero, Bush seems to be hiding behind the excuse that pardons are typically granted only after time has been served. Of course, there are numerous instances where this was not the case. Clinton’s pardon of billionaire tax cheat and fugitive from justice Mark Rich comes to mind. Granted, these two men don’t have wealthy wives who can contribute hefty sums of money to a presidential library. Nor are they former high ranking cabinet officials, as in the case of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, pardoned for his role in Iran-Contra by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Nor are they former Presidents, such as Richard M. Nixon, pardoned by Gerald Ford before he was ever even tried.
They are however men who were merely doing their jobs, maybe not perfectly, but still putting their lives on the line for little in the way of appreciation, renumeration, and respect. Now, they may be compelled to spend the best remaining years of their lives in a federal prison.
If you feel the way I do about this shit, you can click on this link, which will take you to a page where you can donate money to keep the cause alive or, at least as good and maybe even better, in the upper right hand corner of the page you will see a link to a page where you can sign a petition to President Bush encouraging him to grant these men the pardon I honestly feel they should receive as quickly as possible.
I also personally feel they should be granted a public apology, and back pay, in addition to a hefty amount of money for their pain and sufferring. In addition, they should receive an extra amount for whatever harassment they received while in prison, and the warden should be fired for not insuring their safety.
Yes, prison is rough, but all prisoners who are deemed to be potential targets are typically afforded some degree of protective custody, and this would obviously have been the appropriate precaution in the case of these two men.
You see, these two men are both Hispanics, and so in addition to the “crime” of being border agents, to the Hispanic street trash thugs who threatened them and attacked one on at least this one occasion, they are also doubtless viewed as “race traitors”.
Still, for the time being, let’s concentrate on getting them freed. Copy and paste the link and send it to as many people as you can think of to sign and forward to the President.
Like I told Lemuel Calhoun, of Hillbilly White Trash, who was kind enough to post these links on his blog at my request, if Bush would actually do the right thing in this regard, it might go a long way toward demonstrating evidence of this stiffened spine and backbone he allegedly has that we are always hearing so much about.
And I might add one other thing. I know that some that might peruse these links might have a knee jerk reaction to one of these sites, WorldNet Daily, but please try to think outside the box. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, or even on most things. I know I don’t. But when you're right, you’re right. If you agree with me that this is one of the times when they are right, not wrong-and there is little if any gray area here, in my opinion-then get over your initial objections to the site and support this petition drive.
And do more than that. Forward these links to your House Representatives and Senators. I think it’s a disgrace that no Democratic Congressmen or Senators have supported these two men. But that should be considered more a reflection of the Democratic leadership than on the individuals. After all, committee assignments might be in danger if they were to engage in an activity that goes beyond the accepted parameters of the House and Senate leadership as it currently stands. To say nothing of endangering funding of congressional projects and support for sponsored bills. Still, you would think at least one would have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up for what’s right. In all fairness, as I said, only twelve Republicans have done so, as of the writing of the petition.
The drug smuggler in question, by the way, has sued the US government for five million dollars. Like they say-only in America.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Partisan Hacks-Why I'll Never Be One
Ann Coulter has finally done it. She's succeeded in pissing me off. Well, ok, she done it once before, with her statements about the 9/11 Widows, who, according to her, were the first women she had ever seen "enjoy their husbands deaths so much".
Well, her latest salvo tops even that one. She has now gone way over the top by putting the blame for the recent scandal of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center-on the Democrats.
Yep, according to Annie, this whole mess would have never come about if only those evil Democrats did not insist on civil service protections for federal employees. Because of this, you see, it's impossible for all practical purposes to fire any government employee, therefore they can merrily draw their pay while doing diddly squat while Building 18 is overrun by rodents and mold gathers on the walls. She even implies that in the event that they were ordered to correct any such problems that might arise, they could just pretty well tell their supervisors to go suck eggs.
She then goes on to remind us that when former Senator Max Cleland, a decorated Vietnam War veteran-and double amputee as a result of his service in that conflict-ran for re-election in 2002, he was accused by the Republican Party of being a terrorist sympathizer for having the temerity to insist that federal employees of the newly created boondoggle-err, Department of Homeland Security-be granted the same civil service protections as all other federal employees.
Those goddamned labor loving Democrats!! Don't they know that federal employees are mere worker ants, and should be fired at the drop of a hat if they don't toe the line and do what the fuck they're told-sort of like federal prosecutors?
Actually, Anne misses the mark, like all partisan hacks do. This ain't the fuck about Democrat versus Republican. It's about the welfare of our fucking veterans. Oh, wait, I'd better not use the word welfare, that might be misconstrued. Anybody with a brain knows the only people that have a right to fucking welfare are multi-national corporations and illegal immigrants.
Ok,then, it's about the well being of our veterans. You know, the people that have been sent to a fucking stupid ass unnecessary war and are in a great many cases returning sans legs, arms, faces, scrotums, and sanity. Yeah, the ones the GOP loves so much yet just can't agree to funding embryonic stem cell research that might cure them. After all, that might prevent the births of multiple thousands of potential "souls" that can then be saved, and then sent to be yet more fucking cannon fodder.
Those are the ones this is about, not the fucking Democrats, not the fucking Republicans. It's about taking care of the ones that are supposed to be taking care of us.
It's not about casting blame, it's about demanding solutions to the red tape and bureaucracy that BOTH parties have encouraged and nurtured over the decades which in turn has resulted all too often in this kind of horseshit.
Baaaaad Anne. Baaaaad Anne.
Well, her latest salvo tops even that one. She has now gone way over the top by putting the blame for the recent scandal of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center-on the Democrats.
Yep, according to Annie, this whole mess would have never come about if only those evil Democrats did not insist on civil service protections for federal employees. Because of this, you see, it's impossible for all practical purposes to fire any government employee, therefore they can merrily draw their pay while doing diddly squat while Building 18 is overrun by rodents and mold gathers on the walls. She even implies that in the event that they were ordered to correct any such problems that might arise, they could just pretty well tell their supervisors to go suck eggs.
She then goes on to remind us that when former Senator Max Cleland, a decorated Vietnam War veteran-and double amputee as a result of his service in that conflict-ran for re-election in 2002, he was accused by the Republican Party of being a terrorist sympathizer for having the temerity to insist that federal employees of the newly created boondoggle-err, Department of Homeland Security-be granted the same civil service protections as all other federal employees.
Those goddamned labor loving Democrats!! Don't they know that federal employees are mere worker ants, and should be fired at the drop of a hat if they don't toe the line and do what the fuck they're told-sort of like federal prosecutors?
Actually, Anne misses the mark, like all partisan hacks do. This ain't the fuck about Democrat versus Republican. It's about the welfare of our fucking veterans. Oh, wait, I'd better not use the word welfare, that might be misconstrued. Anybody with a brain knows the only people that have a right to fucking welfare are multi-national corporations and illegal immigrants.
Ok,then, it's about the well being of our veterans. You know, the people that have been sent to a fucking stupid ass unnecessary war and are in a great many cases returning sans legs, arms, faces, scrotums, and sanity. Yeah, the ones the GOP loves so much yet just can't agree to funding embryonic stem cell research that might cure them. After all, that might prevent the births of multiple thousands of potential "souls" that can then be saved, and then sent to be yet more fucking cannon fodder.
Those are the ones this is about, not the fucking Democrats, not the fucking Republicans. It's about taking care of the ones that are supposed to be taking care of us.
It's not about casting blame, it's about demanding solutions to the red tape and bureaucracy that BOTH parties have encouraged and nurtured over the decades which in turn has resulted all too often in this kind of horseshit.
Baaaaad Anne. Baaaaad Anne.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
American Wake
I've run into a bit of a snag in my efforts at researching an aspect of the Iraq War, so rather than just post what amounts to little more than a personal opinion, with no facts to back it up (for now), I decided there is something else that needs to be said that requires no proof, only powers of observation.
I think the idea that America is still a free and democratic society is every day becoming more of a delusion than an ideal to be grasped and nurtured. Just look at the current political season, the race for the two major parties presidential nominations, and you have to wonder, is there ever a break from this shit?
After the election of '04, the pundits were already discussing in earnest prospects for the '08 election, as well as the then next '06 mid-terms. It has been non-stop.
There used to be a saying to the effect that the only two things that kept the American economy going were war and Christmas. Soon, you might well be able to add politics to the list.
So, what is the reason for this? It looks to me like we are heading back to the days when political conventions picked their candidates in the confines of the proverbial "smoke filled rooms", only we are fed the illusion that the people actually have a say in the process.
And, with the internet, it looked for a while as though the people might actually be given a voice after all, might actually make an impact. In the '04 elections, it started to look as though former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean might well have succeeded in translating a grass roots internet based campaign into the surprise nomination of the century. However, the power brokers of the Democratic Party, fearful of a general election debaucle, joined forces to derail Dean by the time the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries rolled around. By the time of the South Carolina primary, his campaign was obviously done.
To his credit, he parlayed his initial success into a movement to take over successfully the chairmanship of the DNC, after which he initiated the "50 state strategy" that was of paramount importance to the Democrats electoral mid-term victories in '06.
Though Dean is unfairly, in my opinion, maligned by the right as a "far leftist", his strategy has actually presented a problem for the entrenched leftist majority of the Democratic party. After all, the success of Dean's strategy depended on the enlistment of centrist candidates to run in states like Montana, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The danger here, of course, is that these candidates might actually turn out to be legitimate centrists (as opposed to moderates of convenience, like Hillary Clinton) and so actually bring the party over toward the center, where of course is where most people in America reside. True, this would make the party all but unbeatable, but the left PAC gravy train would be seriously in jeopardy. Also, the people that make up the majority of Americans-the moderate majority-would tend to actually hold them or any political party accountable for their actions-something most parties aren't used to from their established bases of support.
So, how best to derail this movement than by moving the primary season up and compressing it into a time span early enough in the year so that both parties will have chosen their candidates by early April, at least. This gives the party power brokers the opportunity to insure that their chosen candidates have the money to get their message out before a lesser known candidate, such as Dean, has time to get off the ground, financially or otherwise.
The end result of this is that in order to be competitive, candidates must begin their campaigns ridiculously early, thus we have this phenomenon of the never ending campaign. But unless you're a Hillary Clinton or a Rudy Giulliani, it's a losing proposition. A whole year of tilting at windmills during an off year leading up to the legitimate and traditional campaign season is not a recipe for success. By the time the campaign starts in earnest, the establishment candidates have all their papers in order, their war chests overflowing, and their talking points memorized. They also have the state party machines lined up, as well as most media outlets who are ready to fawn over their every utterance, as they have for the most part throughout the off year.
It is almost a sure fire bet that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party, and though the Republican outcome isn't nearly as certain, the smart money is on Giulliani, for now. Of course, the uncertainty of the Republican outcome is based on a lot of soul searching and angst over the last electoral defeat, not over the viability of the system at large.
But the people at large have less say about these matters, as the PACS, other big money contributors, and the party elites, and all those who by and large profit from the system as it is, will do anything to protect their own interests, which sometimes dovetails with the national interest, but at least just as often does not.
But who cares about all that? There's a party going on-a political party primary season, that is. Get out early when it comes to your state, make sure you dress warmly, and vote early and often. This year, your state could well put the winning nominee over the top. Wave at the nice cameraman. Remember, if you are lucky enough to be singled out by a reporter, you are the face of your state and region. Act appropriately.
And remember-though this might be like a wake, of sorts, for American politics, at least it will give the local economy a shot in the arm.
I think the idea that America is still a free and democratic society is every day becoming more of a delusion than an ideal to be grasped and nurtured. Just look at the current political season, the race for the two major parties presidential nominations, and you have to wonder, is there ever a break from this shit?
After the election of '04, the pundits were already discussing in earnest prospects for the '08 election, as well as the then next '06 mid-terms. It has been non-stop.
There used to be a saying to the effect that the only two things that kept the American economy going were war and Christmas. Soon, you might well be able to add politics to the list.
So, what is the reason for this? It looks to me like we are heading back to the days when political conventions picked their candidates in the confines of the proverbial "smoke filled rooms", only we are fed the illusion that the people actually have a say in the process.
And, with the internet, it looked for a while as though the people might actually be given a voice after all, might actually make an impact. In the '04 elections, it started to look as though former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean might well have succeeded in translating a grass roots internet based campaign into the surprise nomination of the century. However, the power brokers of the Democratic Party, fearful of a general election debaucle, joined forces to derail Dean by the time the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries rolled around. By the time of the South Carolina primary, his campaign was obviously done.
To his credit, he parlayed his initial success into a movement to take over successfully the chairmanship of the DNC, after which he initiated the "50 state strategy" that was of paramount importance to the Democrats electoral mid-term victories in '06.
Though Dean is unfairly, in my opinion, maligned by the right as a "far leftist", his strategy has actually presented a problem for the entrenched leftist majority of the Democratic party. After all, the success of Dean's strategy depended on the enlistment of centrist candidates to run in states like Montana, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The danger here, of course, is that these candidates might actually turn out to be legitimate centrists (as opposed to moderates of convenience, like Hillary Clinton) and so actually bring the party over toward the center, where of course is where most people in America reside. True, this would make the party all but unbeatable, but the left PAC gravy train would be seriously in jeopardy. Also, the people that make up the majority of Americans-the moderate majority-would tend to actually hold them or any political party accountable for their actions-something most parties aren't used to from their established bases of support.
So, how best to derail this movement than by moving the primary season up and compressing it into a time span early enough in the year so that both parties will have chosen their candidates by early April, at least. This gives the party power brokers the opportunity to insure that their chosen candidates have the money to get their message out before a lesser known candidate, such as Dean, has time to get off the ground, financially or otherwise.
The end result of this is that in order to be competitive, candidates must begin their campaigns ridiculously early, thus we have this phenomenon of the never ending campaign. But unless you're a Hillary Clinton or a Rudy Giulliani, it's a losing proposition. A whole year of tilting at windmills during an off year leading up to the legitimate and traditional campaign season is not a recipe for success. By the time the campaign starts in earnest, the establishment candidates have all their papers in order, their war chests overflowing, and their talking points memorized. They also have the state party machines lined up, as well as most media outlets who are ready to fawn over their every utterance, as they have for the most part throughout the off year.
It is almost a sure fire bet that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party, and though the Republican outcome isn't nearly as certain, the smart money is on Giulliani, for now. Of course, the uncertainty of the Republican outcome is based on a lot of soul searching and angst over the last electoral defeat, not over the viability of the system at large.
But the people at large have less say about these matters, as the PACS, other big money contributors, and the party elites, and all those who by and large profit from the system as it is, will do anything to protect their own interests, which sometimes dovetails with the national interest, but at least just as often does not.
But who cares about all that? There's a party going on-a political party primary season, that is. Get out early when it comes to your state, make sure you dress warmly, and vote early and often. This year, your state could well put the winning nominee over the top. Wave at the nice cameraman. Remember, if you are lucky enough to be singled out by a reporter, you are the face of your state and region. Act appropriately.
And remember-though this might be like a wake, of sorts, for American politics, at least it will give the local economy a shot in the arm.
Friday, March 09, 2007
What Is The Secret? What Secret?
In the beginning, before the vast explosion of the universe, all the energy contained therein could have conceivably fit onto the head of a pin, maybe less space than that. When this all finally erupted, it was chaos unbridled.
So, what finally bridled this chaos, gave it this new and on-going semblance, this illusion, of order? Was it by by any chance something called “The Secret”?
No. It was nothing that can’t be explained quite succinctly. You have movement of physical mass which by it’s nature creates a force which serves as both an attractor of a smaller body to a larger one, while at the same time serving to keep the attracted body within general limited parameters.
Thus the the sun’s force field attracts the earth, and all other planets within it’s orbit, where they all stay positioned within a set orbit determined by their mass, make-up, gravity, speed, etc-yet the same force field keeps them from getting any closer than what they presently are-for the time being-or any further away.
The same principle can be observed in regards to the earth and our moon. There is no grand scheme here, no master plan at work. It just is.
But chaos is still at the root of the universe and it’s formation, ans so invariably there will be collisions of objects, of meteors, comets, asteroids, planets, and even galaxies. There is even a school of thought that claims the present period of global warming may be caused by a large patch of radiation emitted from the time the universe was just formed, which we are now entering into. Why, because of some divine master plan?
No-Chaos.
The Secret, in the meantime, is nothing really new. It is just another attempt to make sense out of this chaos by ascribing some divine master blueprint which is supposedly available to be tapped into. Just a newer version of “The Power Of Positive Thinking”. Or even a newer version perhaps of the laws of karma.
True, it has some validity. The tapping into the vast universal energy field which we are all a part of is a viable philosophy, and even utilizing that energy to create change. That is in fact the essence of magick, of witchcraft.
But The Secret has a built in flaw that is already threatening to rupture it into a schism. One school of thought takes into account the existence of the chaos factor, albeit to a limited extent. Yet another does not accede this much. To this last school of thought, nothing happens that there is not a reason for it. Thus, when eight year old Jessica Lunsford was abducted from her Florida home, form her bedroom, while sleeping in the middle of night, by forty two year old multiple convicted sex offender John Couey, and was held prisoner in his trailer bedroom, in a closet, tied and gagged, and over a course of several days beaten and raped, along with whatever else she was subjected to-somewhere deep down in her subconscious mind she attracted somehow this atrocity on herself that lead to her eventual death by being buried alive in garbage bags under the trailer.
Uhhhh-no, she didn’t.
This is the major flaw in most religions and spiritual philosophies and disciplines. While insisting on a master plan, on an all-powerful, loving, all-wise creator, it ends up falling apart by failing to take into account one of the fundamental building block of the universe.
Without chaos, we have nothing, we are nothing. By all means utilize the Secret, or any other such discipline that encourages positive growth and change in combination with living right, acting in positive ways, utilizing the powers of love, forgiveness, etc. But if a plane falls out of the sky in the middle of the night and crashes into your house, and destroys it, and kills you and everybody else inside it, who are you going to blame? Yourself? God? The devil. The pilot? The airline? A terrorist or other crazed passenger(s)? I bet in the last minute of your life, you might well find yourself asking, “what did I do to deserve this?”
The answer, of course, is nothing. Yet, if you are like a good many people, you might find yourself wondering this, in your last minute of life, and that would be a shame. Even if there is an understandable set of circumstances that can explain why the plane fell out of the ground, it still doesn’t account for what made it fall on your house, as opposed to a neighbors, or in an open field, or a skyscraper seven blocks away. Nothing, that is, except the thrust of the plane, the velocity of it’s descent, and gravity, in combination with the exact part of the sky it all transpired. You were not, I would wager, sending out an energy field that caused the pilot to go nuts and kill himself and his co-pilot at just the right moment for the plane to be attracted to the exact spot which would insure your destruction.
There is science and there is fantasy. The Secret contains way too little of the first, and way too much of the second.
So, what finally bridled this chaos, gave it this new and on-going semblance, this illusion, of order? Was it by by any chance something called “The Secret”?
No. It was nothing that can’t be explained quite succinctly. You have movement of physical mass which by it’s nature creates a force which serves as both an attractor of a smaller body to a larger one, while at the same time serving to keep the attracted body within general limited parameters.
Thus the the sun’s force field attracts the earth, and all other planets within it’s orbit, where they all stay positioned within a set orbit determined by their mass, make-up, gravity, speed, etc-yet the same force field keeps them from getting any closer than what they presently are-for the time being-or any further away.
The same principle can be observed in regards to the earth and our moon. There is no grand scheme here, no master plan at work. It just is.
But chaos is still at the root of the universe and it’s formation, ans so invariably there will be collisions of objects, of meteors, comets, asteroids, planets, and even galaxies. There is even a school of thought that claims the present period of global warming may be caused by a large patch of radiation emitted from the time the universe was just formed, which we are now entering into. Why, because of some divine master plan?
No-Chaos.
The Secret, in the meantime, is nothing really new. It is just another attempt to make sense out of this chaos by ascribing some divine master blueprint which is supposedly available to be tapped into. Just a newer version of “The Power Of Positive Thinking”. Or even a newer version perhaps of the laws of karma.
True, it has some validity. The tapping into the vast universal energy field which we are all a part of is a viable philosophy, and even utilizing that energy to create change. That is in fact the essence of magick, of witchcraft.
But The Secret has a built in flaw that is already threatening to rupture it into a schism. One school of thought takes into account the existence of the chaos factor, albeit to a limited extent. Yet another does not accede this much. To this last school of thought, nothing happens that there is not a reason for it. Thus, when eight year old Jessica Lunsford was abducted from her Florida home, form her bedroom, while sleeping in the middle of night, by forty two year old multiple convicted sex offender John Couey, and was held prisoner in his trailer bedroom, in a closet, tied and gagged, and over a course of several days beaten and raped, along with whatever else she was subjected to-somewhere deep down in her subconscious mind she attracted somehow this atrocity on herself that lead to her eventual death by being buried alive in garbage bags under the trailer.
Uhhhh-no, she didn’t.
This is the major flaw in most religions and spiritual philosophies and disciplines. While insisting on a master plan, on an all-powerful, loving, all-wise creator, it ends up falling apart by failing to take into account one of the fundamental building block of the universe.
Without chaos, we have nothing, we are nothing. By all means utilize the Secret, or any other such discipline that encourages positive growth and change in combination with living right, acting in positive ways, utilizing the powers of love, forgiveness, etc. But if a plane falls out of the sky in the middle of the night and crashes into your house, and destroys it, and kills you and everybody else inside it, who are you going to blame? Yourself? God? The devil. The pilot? The airline? A terrorist or other crazed passenger(s)? I bet in the last minute of your life, you might well find yourself asking, “what did I do to deserve this?”
The answer, of course, is nothing. Yet, if you are like a good many people, you might find yourself wondering this, in your last minute of life, and that would be a shame. Even if there is an understandable set of circumstances that can explain why the plane fell out of the ground, it still doesn’t account for what made it fall on your house, as opposed to a neighbors, or in an open field, or a skyscraper seven blocks away. Nothing, that is, except the thrust of the plane, the velocity of it’s descent, and gravity, in combination with the exact part of the sky it all transpired. You were not, I would wager, sending out an energy field that caused the pilot to go nuts and kill himself and his co-pilot at just the right moment for the plane to be attracted to the exact spot which would insure your destruction.
There is science and there is fantasy. The Secret contains way too little of the first, and way too much of the second.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Ancient Days-Ancient Pains
It’s hard to believe that a lot of old bones and dust could stir up such controversy, but then again it’s not often that a Hollywood filmmaker comes out with such an extravagant claim as James Cameron's recent declaration of the discovery of the remains of Jesus Christ. As if that were not enough, also included in the alleged find were the remains of a woman whose name, according to Cameron and his supporters, translates into Mary Magdalene, who it seems must have been married to Jesus, as their four children are also included in the family crypt discovered as long ago as 1980 in the suburbs of Jerusalem.
Add to all this the realization that the second Mary is allegedly none other than the mother of Christ herself and we are faced with what amounts to a triple sacrilege. The most profound disputes toward the findings are as follows-
1. Jesus was resurrected from the grave, after which he ascended into heaven.
2. Jesus Christ never was married, nor did he engage in sexual relations, therefore he could not have had children
3. Mary the mother of Jesus in fact never died, according to Catholic Church tradition, but instead was taken bodily and alive up into heaven.
Therefore, these must be the skeletal remains of a different family, albeit with similar names, right? Well, according to Cameron, that would be a near statistical impossibility, as the discovery is all the more enhanced by the markings on one of the ossuaries that identifies the one set of remains as those of “Jesus son of Joseph”.
Aside from the theological disputes, there is one curious response give by opponents of the claim as to why this could not possibly be the holy family. This being that Jesus was a poor Galillean, and as such would have been buried with any family members in an ordinary grave-not in Judea or outside of Jerusalem, but in Galillee, probably in either Nazareth, or maybe in Cana, where he apparently had relatives.
Of course there might well be one incidental bit of admittedly circumstantial evidence that would support Cameron’s claim. What would this be, you might wonder? Well, how about a certain little old ancient book called –
THE BIBLE?
It doesn’t take much digging through the chapters of the Gospels to ascertain that, indeed, Jesus was buried in the outskirts of Jerusalem, such as might well make a fine location for a modern day Jerusalem suburb, I would suspect, in a rock cut tomb that happened to have been donated for the purpose by a certain Joseph of Arimathaea. This Joseph was a wealthy member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and one of the few members of that august Jewish body who was a sympathizer of the Roman era teacher, rabbi, and some would claim, messiah.
Here’s how it worked in those days. Wealthy Jews had their bodies entombed in caves cut out from the natural rock of cliffs or other sheer natural rock walls and ledges, the entrances to which were covered after the bodies were deposited inside specially cut niches within the inner walls. After an appropriate amount of time, the skeletal remains were removed from the niches and deposited within special ossuarie boxes which were inscribed with the persons name. His or her spouse and children would later join him in the cave in their own special ossuarie box, or at times more than one set of bones would be placed inside one box.
At any rate, this much is in keeping with the gospel records, but there is a small problem. According to the Gospels, the Jews accused the early Christians of deliberately removing the body of Jesus from it’s tomb and hiding it, or perhaps even ignominously disposing of it, after which they developed what they insisted was the fiction of his resurrection and ascension into heaven.
We have to make a lot of assumptions here, the most important of which would be the assumption that Jesus Christ (or Yeshua) actually existed as a historical personage. I am willing to make that assumption, at least for the sake of argument, though insofar as the myth of his resurrection and ascension-well, sorry, I just ain’t ready to go that route. However, if he did exist, then it is easy to conclude that something happened to his remains. Could the Jewish opponents of the early Christians have been correct?
If so, it seems they would have been taking a big chance to either re-inter him and his family within the confines of the old tomb, or to bury him in yet another similar edifice on the outskirts of Jerusalem. This, however, is not taking into account the great Jewish rebellion of 67 AD. It was probably during and after this time that the Gospels were composed, and this would have been during a time when most Jews were expelled from the environs of the city. It might have been a perfect time for the Christians of that day to decide to re-inter the remains, along with the other members of the family that might have been dead at that time.
Let’s make another giant leap of faith that Jesus actually died the way it was described, including his brutal beating by a cat-o-nine tails. This was an implement that contained not just a leather whip, but shards of sharpened stone, metal, and glass. Wielded by a strong and brutal soldier, this device caused excruciating pain and torture. It could rip through flesh and muscle and conceivably chip and scar down to the bone. It was considered so harsh and torturous, a Roman citizen could not be legally flogged with the cat-o-nine tails more than a set number of times, although there was no limit to the lashes a non-Roman citizen-such as Jesus- could receive.
If this really happened, no wonder he died fairly quickly upon his being hung on the cross. But was he really dead in such a way that would be recognized clinically in this day? Or was he just in the beginning stages of death-a coma, as it were-and thus technically dead, just not all the way so?
After a relatively few hours of this agonizing ordeal, a centurion speared him in the side to insure that he was dead, whereupon it was noted that a mass of plasma which had congealed flowed out from the wound. He was then taken down and doubtless unceremoniously dumped on the ground, after which he was handed over for burial to his mother, let’s assume.
Now comes the intriguing part. Is it possible that the spear thrust, along with possibly the thudding drop upon the ground, inadverdently and unnoticeably made his heart once more resume beating? Were the soldiers stationed at his tomb (assuming there really were such soldiers so stationed) drugged? Or were they bribed? Was someone in this or in any other such fashion given entrance to the tomb only to discover that the messiah yet clung barely to life, thus enabling this person to nurse Jesus back to health enough to remove him from the tomb?
The other more fanciful accounts of his words and deeds we can put down to embellishment, but this would definitely explain his resurrection. After all, his period of hanging on the cross has been said to have been no more than about six hours, by far a less amount of time than afforded the average crucifixion, some of which could last for days. In addition, there were no broken bones, no damaged organs outside the flesh and skin, and possibly some bone nicks and at most some slight fractures.
He would have been in a great amount of pain, would have been exhausted physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually, but outside of this, and the very real possibility of infection from his wounds, and loss of blood, no true damage was done. Even the larger side wound from the thrusting spear might have afforded some healing by encouraging and enhancing blood flow.
As such, he could have in a very real sense “risen from the grave”. His ascension into heaven would have come later, through the hearts and minds of his followers, throughout the years to come. As for his actual physical body, who is to say that at some point in the years to come, he did not finally meet his death, and was returned to that old donated crypt, now long forgotten by those few remaining Jews that lived, most of whom had by then moved on to other lands.
Or maybe he was buried instead in Japan. Or Kashmir. No matter where he was buried, his bones might well conceivably bear the nicks and cuts from the cat-o-nine tails, though admittedly they might not after all this time show to the naked eye. Still, with infrared lighting, with x-rays, etc., they might show up. Or maybe they wouldn't. Maybe it has just been too long, and the circumstances of his internment just were not conducive to their preservation. And, it has to be noted, even if these were to show up, as compelling as this might be, it still would not necessarily constitute proof.
It doesn’t really matter in a sense. No matter where he was buried,or whether or not his remains are ever found, or whether even his physical body has long ago entirely faded into the dust of the ages-he is still very much alive.
Add to all this the realization that the second Mary is allegedly none other than the mother of Christ herself and we are faced with what amounts to a triple sacrilege. The most profound disputes toward the findings are as follows-
1. Jesus was resurrected from the grave, after which he ascended into heaven.
2. Jesus Christ never was married, nor did he engage in sexual relations, therefore he could not have had children
3. Mary the mother of Jesus in fact never died, according to Catholic Church tradition, but instead was taken bodily and alive up into heaven.
Therefore, these must be the skeletal remains of a different family, albeit with similar names, right? Well, according to Cameron, that would be a near statistical impossibility, as the discovery is all the more enhanced by the markings on one of the ossuaries that identifies the one set of remains as those of “Jesus son of Joseph”.
Aside from the theological disputes, there is one curious response give by opponents of the claim as to why this could not possibly be the holy family. This being that Jesus was a poor Galillean, and as such would have been buried with any family members in an ordinary grave-not in Judea or outside of Jerusalem, but in Galillee, probably in either Nazareth, or maybe in Cana, where he apparently had relatives.
Of course there might well be one incidental bit of admittedly circumstantial evidence that would support Cameron’s claim. What would this be, you might wonder? Well, how about a certain little old ancient book called –
THE BIBLE?
It doesn’t take much digging through the chapters of the Gospels to ascertain that, indeed, Jesus was buried in the outskirts of Jerusalem, such as might well make a fine location for a modern day Jerusalem suburb, I would suspect, in a rock cut tomb that happened to have been donated for the purpose by a certain Joseph of Arimathaea. This Joseph was a wealthy member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and one of the few members of that august Jewish body who was a sympathizer of the Roman era teacher, rabbi, and some would claim, messiah.
Here’s how it worked in those days. Wealthy Jews had their bodies entombed in caves cut out from the natural rock of cliffs or other sheer natural rock walls and ledges, the entrances to which were covered after the bodies were deposited inside specially cut niches within the inner walls. After an appropriate amount of time, the skeletal remains were removed from the niches and deposited within special ossuarie boxes which were inscribed with the persons name. His or her spouse and children would later join him in the cave in their own special ossuarie box, or at times more than one set of bones would be placed inside one box.
At any rate, this much is in keeping with the gospel records, but there is a small problem. According to the Gospels, the Jews accused the early Christians of deliberately removing the body of Jesus from it’s tomb and hiding it, or perhaps even ignominously disposing of it, after which they developed what they insisted was the fiction of his resurrection and ascension into heaven.
We have to make a lot of assumptions here, the most important of which would be the assumption that Jesus Christ (or Yeshua) actually existed as a historical personage. I am willing to make that assumption, at least for the sake of argument, though insofar as the myth of his resurrection and ascension-well, sorry, I just ain’t ready to go that route. However, if he did exist, then it is easy to conclude that something happened to his remains. Could the Jewish opponents of the early Christians have been correct?
If so, it seems they would have been taking a big chance to either re-inter him and his family within the confines of the old tomb, or to bury him in yet another similar edifice on the outskirts of Jerusalem. This, however, is not taking into account the great Jewish rebellion of 67 AD. It was probably during and after this time that the Gospels were composed, and this would have been during a time when most Jews were expelled from the environs of the city. It might have been a perfect time for the Christians of that day to decide to re-inter the remains, along with the other members of the family that might have been dead at that time.
Let’s make another giant leap of faith that Jesus actually died the way it was described, including his brutal beating by a cat-o-nine tails. This was an implement that contained not just a leather whip, but shards of sharpened stone, metal, and glass. Wielded by a strong and brutal soldier, this device caused excruciating pain and torture. It could rip through flesh and muscle and conceivably chip and scar down to the bone. It was considered so harsh and torturous, a Roman citizen could not be legally flogged with the cat-o-nine tails more than a set number of times, although there was no limit to the lashes a non-Roman citizen-such as Jesus- could receive.
If this really happened, no wonder he died fairly quickly upon his being hung on the cross. But was he really dead in such a way that would be recognized clinically in this day? Or was he just in the beginning stages of death-a coma, as it were-and thus technically dead, just not all the way so?
After a relatively few hours of this agonizing ordeal, a centurion speared him in the side to insure that he was dead, whereupon it was noted that a mass of plasma which had congealed flowed out from the wound. He was then taken down and doubtless unceremoniously dumped on the ground, after which he was handed over for burial to his mother, let’s assume.
Now comes the intriguing part. Is it possible that the spear thrust, along with possibly the thudding drop upon the ground, inadverdently and unnoticeably made his heart once more resume beating? Were the soldiers stationed at his tomb (assuming there really were such soldiers so stationed) drugged? Or were they bribed? Was someone in this or in any other such fashion given entrance to the tomb only to discover that the messiah yet clung barely to life, thus enabling this person to nurse Jesus back to health enough to remove him from the tomb?
The other more fanciful accounts of his words and deeds we can put down to embellishment, but this would definitely explain his resurrection. After all, his period of hanging on the cross has been said to have been no more than about six hours, by far a less amount of time than afforded the average crucifixion, some of which could last for days. In addition, there were no broken bones, no damaged organs outside the flesh and skin, and possibly some bone nicks and at most some slight fractures.
He would have been in a great amount of pain, would have been exhausted physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually, but outside of this, and the very real possibility of infection from his wounds, and loss of blood, no true damage was done. Even the larger side wound from the thrusting spear might have afforded some healing by encouraging and enhancing blood flow.
As such, he could have in a very real sense “risen from the grave”. His ascension into heaven would have come later, through the hearts and minds of his followers, throughout the years to come. As for his actual physical body, who is to say that at some point in the years to come, he did not finally meet his death, and was returned to that old donated crypt, now long forgotten by those few remaining Jews that lived, most of whom had by then moved on to other lands.
Or maybe he was buried instead in Japan. Or Kashmir. No matter where he was buried, his bones might well conceivably bear the nicks and cuts from the cat-o-nine tails, though admittedly they might not after all this time show to the naked eye. Still, with infrared lighting, with x-rays, etc., they might show up. Or maybe they wouldn't. Maybe it has just been too long, and the circumstances of his internment just were not conducive to their preservation. And, it has to be noted, even if these were to show up, as compelling as this might be, it still would not necessarily constitute proof.
It doesn’t really matter in a sense. No matter where he was buried,or whether or not his remains are ever found, or whether even his physical body has long ago entirely faded into the dust of the ages-he is still very much alive.
Political Ramblin's And Wranglin's
While Hillary and Barak have been busily presenting their credentials to the black community and sucking all the oxygen away from the other potential presidential candidates (at least all the Democratic ones), Ann Coulter has been busily trying to breathe much needed oxygen back into the campaign of that little “faggot” John Edwards.
Okay, maybe it was unintentional, but I have to wonder. Ann probably had to have known how her remark about Edwards would have been taken, and how it would doubtless inspire much sympathy towards him from the left. And really, Edwards is trailing the other two candidates distantly in the polls, in fact, according to some, he is actually a distant fourth, behind Hillary, Barak, and-former Vice-President Al Gore.
That’s bad.
Now, I can see the potential for much mischief here. All the major Republican contenders have chimed in with their own various disavowals of the remarks. Yet, Edwards himself has put them on his own web-site. This could actually be a real shot in the arm for him. If it was intentional on her part, the implication is that, of all the Democratic contenders, Coulter considers Edwards the easiest to beat in a general election match-up, while dreading to the point of obsession the thought of a Hillary candidacy, who would draw a campaign war-chest that would be hard for any Republican to match, at least in theory.
For what it’s worth, I think Hillary would be the easiest Democrat to beat in a general election, though I can’t help but feel she is virtually unstoppable in her quest to gain the Democratic nomination. She is too hated by way too many people, at worse, and simply mistrusted by way too many others at least.
Edwards would probably be the hardest of the Democrats to beat. All he would have to do is win all of Gore’s old 2000 states, and add a relative handful of southern states, along with Ohio, and he is is in like Flynn. Still, even this is dependent on who he has to face in the general election.
The overall winner-Giulliani, the man whom I can see no one beating in a general election, but more on that later.
For now, the main area to watch is the fascinating rivalry between Obama and Clinton. The anniversary of the march across the bridge of Selma is just the beginning. Barak, though a relatively inexperienced campaigner and public servant, continues to impress and inspire as he siphons off votes from the Clinton tank, along with money from the Hollywood left, as he plays up his strengths as a Washington “outsider”, a breath of fresh air from the old stale politics as usual, and inspirational minority success story.
Hillary will stop just short of shining Al Sharptons shoes on a street in Harlem to maximize her share of the black vote, and for a while the two will be neck and neck, but about half way though the primary season, look for her to pull ahead considerably. Look for a Democratic convention where all the current contenders stand side by side with Hillary, the I’m sure eventual nominee, as they put on a united front.
John Edwards of course will give his two America’s speech, as he hopes against hope for a seat at the table of a Clinton presidency, maybe as Attorney General, yet another position that would be way out of his league. (To be fair, I think he would make an excellent Solicitor General, however).
Barak Obama will speak of a need to heal the divisions of our country, code for “okay, bothers and sisters, it’s cool, vote for the honky bitch”.
Al Gore will of course have a spot at the speakers podium, and will be hailed as the sort of heroic Christ like prophet that is not without honor save in his own country, while he pontificates on the need for drastic changes in America’s environmental policy. He will doubtless speak at length about the dangers of global warming in the middle of the giant air-conditioned convention center.
John Kerry too will make a speech, but will probably find himself relegated to about twenty minutes somewhere between 1 a.m. and ZZZZzzzzzz.
Bill Clinton will of course be the real star of the show, and I’m sure he will make it worthwhile. He probably knows he had better make it good while he can, because it’s all downhill from there.
The entire Democratic convention will be so staged and artificial it will be as antiseptically perfect as a Stepford Wives toilet seat cover. But there’s a rat making it’s way through the plumbing, and if the Democrats ain't careful, ‘08 will be the year they really get bit in the ass.
Think back to the Coretta Scott King funeral, to the speeches of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who for a time stood side by side on the podium as they addressed the mourners (and the remaining majority of the crowd).
If you are a true Democrat, or at least independent and fair minded, Clinton’s speech would have brought you to tears. He was in turn up-lifting, inspirational, humorous, and heart stopping as he reflected on the very real woman that they were there that day to honor.
Then up came Hillary, who shrilly advised the crowd to “send me”.
That is just the difference in the two. Bill Clinton inspires and uplifts while he tugs at your heart, brings you to tears, puts a smile on your face, and makes you feel that everything can actually be right again, all in the space of one speech. You end up feeling a vital part of something worthwhile.
Hillary just pisses you off and scares you to death. That just won’t cut it in a general election against the likes of “America’s Mayor”, or about any other serious Republican contender, with the possible exception of McCain (whom a large portion if not most of Republican conservatives actually hate more than they do Hillary, if that were possible).
The end result will be the election of Giulliani. The next four years might well bode good for the country. It might seem pretty dreary in most of New York though. If Giulliani wins that state, as I think he might well do (along with, incidentally, Pennsylvania and New Jersey), that might write finis to the political career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might pick up Ohio as a consolation prize, and otherwise be relegated to the remainder of the Kerry states, along with possibly one or two southwestern states.
But it will be a wash, I’m sure. Why? Because most Republicans seem to have learned their lessons from the ’06 debaucle. Democrats, most of them, still haven’t really learned the lessons from ’72. Or ’80. Or ’84. Or ’88. Or ’94. Or 2002. Or 2004.
As for the 2006 victory, they are to some extent busily trying to silently bury the architect of that victory, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, now the head of the DNC, who instituted the 50 state strategy that won them the last election. That, and the more time goes by, the more obvious it becomes that it is rapidly going back to Democratic Party politics as usual. The list of examples is way too many to list here in this already way overly long post. Besides, they deserve a post of their own.
For now, I’ll just leave you with the mental image of Hillary shining Al Sharpton’s shoes on a Harlem street as I bemoan my lack of ability as an editorial cartoonist.
Okay, maybe it was unintentional, but I have to wonder. Ann probably had to have known how her remark about Edwards would have been taken, and how it would doubtless inspire much sympathy towards him from the left. And really, Edwards is trailing the other two candidates distantly in the polls, in fact, according to some, he is actually a distant fourth, behind Hillary, Barak, and-former Vice-President Al Gore.
That’s bad.
Now, I can see the potential for much mischief here. All the major Republican contenders have chimed in with their own various disavowals of the remarks. Yet, Edwards himself has put them on his own web-site. This could actually be a real shot in the arm for him. If it was intentional on her part, the implication is that, of all the Democratic contenders, Coulter considers Edwards the easiest to beat in a general election match-up, while dreading to the point of obsession the thought of a Hillary candidacy, who would draw a campaign war-chest that would be hard for any Republican to match, at least in theory.
For what it’s worth, I think Hillary would be the easiest Democrat to beat in a general election, though I can’t help but feel she is virtually unstoppable in her quest to gain the Democratic nomination. She is too hated by way too many people, at worse, and simply mistrusted by way too many others at least.
Edwards would probably be the hardest of the Democrats to beat. All he would have to do is win all of Gore’s old 2000 states, and add a relative handful of southern states, along with Ohio, and he is is in like Flynn. Still, even this is dependent on who he has to face in the general election.
The overall winner-Giulliani, the man whom I can see no one beating in a general election, but more on that later.
For now, the main area to watch is the fascinating rivalry between Obama and Clinton. The anniversary of the march across the bridge of Selma is just the beginning. Barak, though a relatively inexperienced campaigner and public servant, continues to impress and inspire as he siphons off votes from the Clinton tank, along with money from the Hollywood left, as he plays up his strengths as a Washington “outsider”, a breath of fresh air from the old stale politics as usual, and inspirational minority success story.
Hillary will stop just short of shining Al Sharptons shoes on a street in Harlem to maximize her share of the black vote, and for a while the two will be neck and neck, but about half way though the primary season, look for her to pull ahead considerably. Look for a Democratic convention where all the current contenders stand side by side with Hillary, the I’m sure eventual nominee, as they put on a united front.
John Edwards of course will give his two America’s speech, as he hopes against hope for a seat at the table of a Clinton presidency, maybe as Attorney General, yet another position that would be way out of his league. (To be fair, I think he would make an excellent Solicitor General, however).
Barak Obama will speak of a need to heal the divisions of our country, code for “okay, bothers and sisters, it’s cool, vote for the honky bitch”.
Al Gore will of course have a spot at the speakers podium, and will be hailed as the sort of heroic Christ like prophet that is not without honor save in his own country, while he pontificates on the need for drastic changes in America’s environmental policy. He will doubtless speak at length about the dangers of global warming in the middle of the giant air-conditioned convention center.
John Kerry too will make a speech, but will probably find himself relegated to about twenty minutes somewhere between 1 a.m. and ZZZZzzzzzz.
Bill Clinton will of course be the real star of the show, and I’m sure he will make it worthwhile. He probably knows he had better make it good while he can, because it’s all downhill from there.
The entire Democratic convention will be so staged and artificial it will be as antiseptically perfect as a Stepford Wives toilet seat cover. But there’s a rat making it’s way through the plumbing, and if the Democrats ain't careful, ‘08 will be the year they really get bit in the ass.
Think back to the Coretta Scott King funeral, to the speeches of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who for a time stood side by side on the podium as they addressed the mourners (and the remaining majority of the crowd).
If you are a true Democrat, or at least independent and fair minded, Clinton’s speech would have brought you to tears. He was in turn up-lifting, inspirational, humorous, and heart stopping as he reflected on the very real woman that they were there that day to honor.
Then up came Hillary, who shrilly advised the crowd to “send me”.
That is just the difference in the two. Bill Clinton inspires and uplifts while he tugs at your heart, brings you to tears, puts a smile on your face, and makes you feel that everything can actually be right again, all in the space of one speech. You end up feeling a vital part of something worthwhile.
Hillary just pisses you off and scares you to death. That just won’t cut it in a general election against the likes of “America’s Mayor”, or about any other serious Republican contender, with the possible exception of McCain (whom a large portion if not most of Republican conservatives actually hate more than they do Hillary, if that were possible).
The end result will be the election of Giulliani. The next four years might well bode good for the country. It might seem pretty dreary in most of New York though. If Giulliani wins that state, as I think he might well do (along with, incidentally, Pennsylvania and New Jersey), that might write finis to the political career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might pick up Ohio as a consolation prize, and otherwise be relegated to the remainder of the Kerry states, along with possibly one or two southwestern states.
But it will be a wash, I’m sure. Why? Because most Republicans seem to have learned their lessons from the ’06 debaucle. Democrats, most of them, still haven’t really learned the lessons from ’72. Or ’80. Or ’84. Or ’88. Or ’94. Or 2002. Or 2004.
As for the 2006 victory, they are to some extent busily trying to silently bury the architect of that victory, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, now the head of the DNC, who instituted the 50 state strategy that won them the last election. That, and the more time goes by, the more obvious it becomes that it is rapidly going back to Democratic Party politics as usual. The list of examples is way too many to list here in this already way overly long post. Besides, they deserve a post of their own.
For now, I’ll just leave you with the mental image of Hillary shining Al Sharpton’s shoes on a Harlem street as I bemoan my lack of ability as an editorial cartoonist.
Military Discipline Not Too Much To Ask FOR our Soldiers and Veterans
I used to feel bad that I had never joined the military (though there were valid health reasons for this), but after what I have been seeing and hearing the last few weeks, my guilt has evaporated like the morning dew on a warm spring day. No country, people, or ideology is worth putting up with the treatment our soldiers and veterans have been putting up with as recently reported by the Washington Post pertaining to the outpatient treatment center of Walter Reed Hospital, known as Building 18.
It is the duty of the American soldier to accept his assignments with no complaints, and as well trained as they are, it is hard to break that cycle of obedience once they are returned to what passes for a semblance of normal life. Therefore, it is no surprise that they offered not a lot of complaints due to their treatment.
What is surprising and disgusting is that when these complaints were made, they were most of the time not looked into, and what times they were they were generally swept under the rug.
Actually, this is a systemic problem that goes well beyond our recent era of the Iraq War and the “war on terror”, this is a problem of long duration, one that I am actually somewhat familiar with through family members.
One relative with advanced dementia and prostrate cancer was refused admittance to a VA Hospital, though after some wrangling and threats he was finally taken in-for one night. He died two weeks later. They tried then to stiff his widow for the hospital bill he had incurred from the necessity of his stay at an area hospital after all the other times he was refused admittance, even though he had been an out-patient there for years. By the time he was correctly diagnosed, he was too far gone.
Another relative was lucky enough to receive 30 per cent disability due to work related back problems, while a general whom he had some familiarity with received full 100 per cent disability after his back went out, due to assuming a rigid posture throughout the entirety of a transcontinental flight.
It’s who you know, and who you are. No wonder they call them grunts. Severe discomfort will do that to you.
Add to this the fact that most of the people sent to Iraq these days are not adequately trained or equipped for the job they are expected to perform, and are kept way past their normal terms of enlistment without adequate leave, or psychological counseling and other therapy, and you have a situation that is only going to get worse in the long run, no matter how shiny the veneer they throw temporarily over the surface to pretty it up, till the next big story breaks.
For now, in the meantime, let's hear it for the Washington Post, who in at least this one instance lived up to their obligations, though it took them long enough.
It is the duty of the American soldier to accept his assignments with no complaints, and as well trained as they are, it is hard to break that cycle of obedience once they are returned to what passes for a semblance of normal life. Therefore, it is no surprise that they offered not a lot of complaints due to their treatment.
What is surprising and disgusting is that when these complaints were made, they were most of the time not looked into, and what times they were they were generally swept under the rug.
Actually, this is a systemic problem that goes well beyond our recent era of the Iraq War and the “war on terror”, this is a problem of long duration, one that I am actually somewhat familiar with through family members.
One relative with advanced dementia and prostrate cancer was refused admittance to a VA Hospital, though after some wrangling and threats he was finally taken in-for one night. He died two weeks later. They tried then to stiff his widow for the hospital bill he had incurred from the necessity of his stay at an area hospital after all the other times he was refused admittance, even though he had been an out-patient there for years. By the time he was correctly diagnosed, he was too far gone.
Another relative was lucky enough to receive 30 per cent disability due to work related back problems, while a general whom he had some familiarity with received full 100 per cent disability after his back went out, due to assuming a rigid posture throughout the entirety of a transcontinental flight.
It’s who you know, and who you are. No wonder they call them grunts. Severe discomfort will do that to you.
Add to this the fact that most of the people sent to Iraq these days are not adequately trained or equipped for the job they are expected to perform, and are kept way past their normal terms of enlistment without adequate leave, or psychological counseling and other therapy, and you have a situation that is only going to get worse in the long run, no matter how shiny the veneer they throw temporarily over the surface to pretty it up, till the next big story breaks.
For now, in the meantime, let's hear it for the Washington Post, who in at least this one instance lived up to their obligations, though it took them long enough.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Mascot Madness
In the annals of sports, there are few things more maddening than the manufactured controversy over team mascots, with the NCAA going the extra mile of denying post season playoff berths to schools who utilize mascots that are deemed inappropriate, insulting, or denigrating to a special interest group. The most obvious example here would be the use of Indian mascots, as reported by the good folks at American Legends, the post for which you can find linked to in the title of this post.
Actually, if this post is widely read enough, I will probably be sentenced to death in
some quarters for refusing to refer to them as “Native American”, which I used to do, but no longer. I’m spiteful that way.
In fact, I want to take the time here to extend kudos to the Seminole tribe of Florida, who in fact has supported the use of their name and image by the Florida State Seminoles, an act that probably has the NCAA officials secretly all but tearing their hair out, and considering presenting the tribe a gift of smallpox infested blankets addressed from the Florida State Alumni Association.
I contend that most Indians, in fact, could care less about this issue, and what ones do care are probably in favor of it, much like most Irish Americans look with self-deprecating humor on the image of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot. The minority that are opposed I put down to the level of-well, renegades on the warpath.
Of course, when it comes to the NCAA and others who suffer from the infestation of political correctness, it would appear they are in denial of their own bigotry. To their way of thinking, only white people are of a superior enough intellect and emotional maturity to be able to appreciate one of their cultural images being utilized in such a humorous fashion. Indians, blacks, etc., are doubtless genetically inferior, so it is wrong to “make fun” of them. After all, they obviously, as members of a lesser race, have not evolved enough to appreciate this subtlety, therefore we should go out of our way to shelter them. After all, this should make us feel better, by showing these poor unfortunate inferior people that we really care about their feelings.
Well, I disagree with this assessment, and I believe that all cultures and races should be integrated into the great American melting pot, and what better way to do this than by mercilessly making sport of them and their cultures, the way the gods intended. I propose that school names and mascots are the best way to begin this great new American experiment.
Let’s start with the mentally retarded. Let’s face it, nothing is funnier than a retardo trying to act smart, or clever, or gods help us, sexy. Admit it, haven’t you ever laughed at least once at a retarded person? You just can’t help it at one time or another, let’s face it, they were meant to be laughed at, otherwise, well, you wouldn’t have laughed at that little mongoloid chick in school that was constantly sticking her finger up her butt and smelling it when she thought nobody was looking. Or the boy that just couldn’t keep his eyes off the best looking girl in school, and couldn’t help breathing like a maniac if she got so close to him. If you were that girl, and you were a little on the cruel side, you might have flirted with him just enough to get him to admit with a glaze over his eyes, “I wuv oo”.
About the only thing that isn’t funny about them is, well, when they try to be funny. Then you finally see them for what they are-stupid. Then you feel sorry for them. But is that any better? Hell no. Let’s bring them fully integrated into America. They are off to a good start with the Special Olympics, but let’s really honor them by naming a bona fide real sports team after them. For example-
THE RHODE ISLAND RETARDOS
MASCOT-
BUGSIE BOOGEREATER
Once that goes over like a lead balloon, and it’s obvious that most people just aren’t comfortable with making fun of the “mentally challenged” (realspeak translation-idiots), then we have to persevere by bringing in other minorities. Here is where the negro can make a contribution. Oh, excuse me, I forgot, it’s not negroes anymore, it’s Afro Americans. No, shit, that’s wrong too, it’s blacks. Wait a minute, man, I’m still way back in the past, it’s “people of color”. Oh wait,though, I forgot, that was decided to be too broad to apply to people of African heritage, so let’s make sure we call them “African Americans”. Well, for the rest of this decade, at least.
To hell with it, I have the perfect team name and mascot for our Negro/Afro-American/Black/People of Color/African American/Whatever’s Next You Damn Well Better Learn To Say It Quick brothers and sisters.
THE NEW JERSEY JIGGABOOS
MASCOT-
CHIEF SPEARCHUCKER
All during the game, his cheerleading squad will be charged with shouting out incendiary racial rhetoric. After losing a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot. After winning a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot.
Now, of course, some people might think we should make some exceptions, for example, when it comes to Arab/Muslim Americans. After all, these folks feel overly maligned due to association with Islamic terrorists. It just wouldn’t be right to add to their degradation by appropriating their cultural images in a humorous way for a sports team and mascot, would it?
Perhaps you will not be shocked to learn that I disagree with this opinion, and in fact the opposite might well be the case. In fact, what better way to relieve the stress and tension due to this serious issue than be dedicating a university or perhaps a professional sports team specifically to this misunderstood and yet intriqing culture. In fact, since there are so many Arabs and Muslims in the great state of Michigan, might I suggest-
THE DETROIT DIAPERHEADS
MASCOT-
MUHAMMED BEHEDR
Now, there will be a problem here with his cheerleading squad. Of course, they will be required to dress in such a manner so that no parts of their bodies will be shown, so they can’t take the chance of jumping up and down and risk showing an ankle or calve, so they will have to be relegated to waving posters and placards that say cool things like “Death To The Infidel Team” while Muhammed Behedr runs up to the oppossing teams' cheerleaders and throws acid in their faces.
Since they can’t be seen, it would be necessary for them to mingle with the crowd during halftime in a friendly way, while passing out team pictures in envelopes that also contain powdered anthrax.
The teams lawyers might also want to consider filing a lawsuit to lift the restrictions on airspace flights over the stadium during game time. At least during away games.
Another issue that is a great cause for concern is the problem of illegal immigration, particularly that of migrant workers from Mexico. These fine folks go out of their way to “do jobs Americans won’t do”, and are so concerned about the quality of work available to American farmers and businesses, they go out of their way to insure that inferior workers from Nicaraqua and Honduras are blocked at their own country’s southern border from entering the US. I think we owe them a debt of thanks, and what better way to repay them than by honoring them with a sports team and mascot of their own. Nor does it have to be limited to a team from the American Southwest. Not any more. Now, they are all over the country, even the east and midwest. In recognition of their “contribution”, therefore, I suggest-
THE WEST VIRGINIA WETBACKS
MASCOT-
THE WELFARE BANDITO
The whole team can be driven out into the field in the back of eighteen wheelers hidden under ears of loose corn and lettuce. This will probably be one of the poorest teams, of course, to all appearances, but they can make all kinds of extra money under the table by selling good quality Mexican blow and smack to the crowd. They won’t have to worry about the border agents arresting them. Even if they try to do that, all they have to do is shoot them. Who would complain about a thing like that? The government? Hah!
Of course, not all teams have to have an ethnic or racial orientation. Some might even have a religious orientation, as well as an ethnic one. To this end, what better team for white Christian folks to rally behind than-
THE ALABAMA BIBLE THUMPERS
MASCOT-
WHITEY HOOD
Can’t you just see him now taking the field and leading cheers with a crack of the whip?
Of course, he will lead the team in a rousing prayer before every game, shout out the Ten Commandments all throughout the game, and after every home game, he will lead them in burning a cross. After every victory that is, after every defeat they lynch an opponent of the visiting team. Just one though, then they tell the rest to go back where they came from.
Or, a team can have a solidly religious structure. After all, all Christians aren’t white, nor are they all protestant. They are, however, vital members of American society. As such, I am sure that catholics, for example, would appreciate a team such as-
THE PHILADELPHIA PRIEST PEDOPHILES
MASCOT-
FATHER PHIL BUTZ
Of course, this particular team will also require a special kind of cheerleading squad to accompany the good priest as he goes about his business of blessing the game, the crowd, the players, etc. A good solid squad of about fifty pre-teen children, one girl for every ten boys, should do the trick nicely. Half the team can masturbate during halftime while they perform, while the other half of the team looks the other way. It will be Father Phil’s job as team mascot to make sure all is forgiven.
Of course, it has been often stated that not all victims of sex crimes are legitimate, some are even making false accusations. Is this possible? Would a teenager lie about being molested, why what ever for? Surely their mothers or fathers wouldn’t put them up to that. In the case of runaways, is it true, as I have recently heard, that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are unwilling victims of the sex slave industry? Especially the girls, I have heard, who just want a Prince Charming in a romantic fantasy kind of way. None of these girls actually ENJOY sex. How disgusting to even consider such a thing as that! Why, it’s impossible for a teenage girl to enjoy sex with a teenage boy, let alone a grown man, isn’t it?.
For that matter, would a grown woman lie about being raped? Why, you would have to think there are vengeful women on this earth to believe something like that. What other reason would they have to make up something so horrid, surely not MONEY?
This is where education can play a large role in teaching people the truth and bridging the sexual divide that causes these misunderstandings, and what better educational tool than in the realm of sports? Therefore, in order to show how ridiculous these beliefs are, I propose-
THE CALIFORNIA CUNTSLUTS
MASCOT-
PRUDENCE PRICKTEASER
She should be a real Amazon, of questionable sexual orientation, while her squad of cheerleaders should be women of all races, ages, and looks, ranging from drop-dead-gorgeous-and-knows-it, to god-awful-fucking-ugly, to downright trashy. When a ruling on the field goes against them, they all scream RAPE with a flashy, ear to ear grin of dubious sincerity, alternating with cries of mock anger and disgust if the offending rule stands. No matter the ruling, they threaten a lawsuit. No matter how the game ends, they are always ready, willing, and eager for the next one.
Finally, although I could name many more such examples, I would be remiss if I didn’t end this post with a recommendation to our leaders in Washington to set an example. They are always wanting a sports team, and amazingly, they have already led the way with The Washington Redskins, a team which has always come under much criticism due to the derogatory nature of this supposedly racist name. Yet, the Redskins play on, while the DC crowd prattles on, with the encouragement of the many special interest groups that demand special rights,considerations, and even privileges.
In honor of them all, what better team to grace the landscape of our nations capital than-
THE DC PC PRICKTARDS
MASCOT-
Of course, there would be many worthy candidates to hold the position of this particular mascot. Who knows what the future might hold?
Actually, if this post is widely read enough, I will probably be sentenced to death in
some quarters for refusing to refer to them as “Native American”, which I used to do, but no longer. I’m spiteful that way.
In fact, I want to take the time here to extend kudos to the Seminole tribe of Florida, who in fact has supported the use of their name and image by the Florida State Seminoles, an act that probably has the NCAA officials secretly all but tearing their hair out, and considering presenting the tribe a gift of smallpox infested blankets addressed from the Florida State Alumni Association.
I contend that most Indians, in fact, could care less about this issue, and what ones do care are probably in favor of it, much like most Irish Americans look with self-deprecating humor on the image of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot. The minority that are opposed I put down to the level of-well, renegades on the warpath.
Of course, when it comes to the NCAA and others who suffer from the infestation of political correctness, it would appear they are in denial of their own bigotry. To their way of thinking, only white people are of a superior enough intellect and emotional maturity to be able to appreciate one of their cultural images being utilized in such a humorous fashion. Indians, blacks, etc., are doubtless genetically inferior, so it is wrong to “make fun” of them. After all, they obviously, as members of a lesser race, have not evolved enough to appreciate this subtlety, therefore we should go out of our way to shelter them. After all, this should make us feel better, by showing these poor unfortunate inferior people that we really care about their feelings.
Well, I disagree with this assessment, and I believe that all cultures and races should be integrated into the great American melting pot, and what better way to do this than by mercilessly making sport of them and their cultures, the way the gods intended. I propose that school names and mascots are the best way to begin this great new American experiment.
Let’s start with the mentally retarded. Let’s face it, nothing is funnier than a retardo trying to act smart, or clever, or gods help us, sexy. Admit it, haven’t you ever laughed at least once at a retarded person? You just can’t help it at one time or another, let’s face it, they were meant to be laughed at, otherwise, well, you wouldn’t have laughed at that little mongoloid chick in school that was constantly sticking her finger up her butt and smelling it when she thought nobody was looking. Or the boy that just couldn’t keep his eyes off the best looking girl in school, and couldn’t help breathing like a maniac if she got so close to him. If you were that girl, and you were a little on the cruel side, you might have flirted with him just enough to get him to admit with a glaze over his eyes, “I wuv oo”.
About the only thing that isn’t funny about them is, well, when they try to be funny. Then you finally see them for what they are-stupid. Then you feel sorry for them. But is that any better? Hell no. Let’s bring them fully integrated into America. They are off to a good start with the Special Olympics, but let’s really honor them by naming a bona fide real sports team after them. For example-
THE RHODE ISLAND RETARDOS
MASCOT-
BUGSIE BOOGEREATER
Once that goes over like a lead balloon, and it’s obvious that most people just aren’t comfortable with making fun of the “mentally challenged” (realspeak translation-idiots), then we have to persevere by bringing in other minorities. Here is where the negro can make a contribution. Oh, excuse me, I forgot, it’s not negroes anymore, it’s Afro Americans. No, shit, that’s wrong too, it’s blacks. Wait a minute, man, I’m still way back in the past, it’s “people of color”. Oh wait,though, I forgot, that was decided to be too broad to apply to people of African heritage, so let’s make sure we call them “African Americans”. Well, for the rest of this decade, at least.
To hell with it, I have the perfect team name and mascot for our Negro/Afro-American/Black/People of Color/African American/Whatever’s Next You Damn Well Better Learn To Say It Quick brothers and sisters.
THE NEW JERSEY JIGGABOOS
MASCOT-
CHIEF SPEARCHUCKER
All during the game, his cheerleading squad will be charged with shouting out incendiary racial rhetoric. After losing a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot. After winning a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot.
Now, of course, some people might think we should make some exceptions, for example, when it comes to Arab/Muslim Americans. After all, these folks feel overly maligned due to association with Islamic terrorists. It just wouldn’t be right to add to their degradation by appropriating their cultural images in a humorous way for a sports team and mascot, would it?
Perhaps you will not be shocked to learn that I disagree with this opinion, and in fact the opposite might well be the case. In fact, what better way to relieve the stress and tension due to this serious issue than be dedicating a university or perhaps a professional sports team specifically to this misunderstood and yet intriqing culture. In fact, since there are so many Arabs and Muslims in the great state of Michigan, might I suggest-
THE DETROIT DIAPERHEADS
MASCOT-
MUHAMMED BEHEDR
Now, there will be a problem here with his cheerleading squad. Of course, they will be required to dress in such a manner so that no parts of their bodies will be shown, so they can’t take the chance of jumping up and down and risk showing an ankle or calve, so they will have to be relegated to waving posters and placards that say cool things like “Death To The Infidel Team” while Muhammed Behedr runs up to the oppossing teams' cheerleaders and throws acid in their faces.
Since they can’t be seen, it would be necessary for them to mingle with the crowd during halftime in a friendly way, while passing out team pictures in envelopes that also contain powdered anthrax.
The teams lawyers might also want to consider filing a lawsuit to lift the restrictions on airspace flights over the stadium during game time. At least during away games.
Another issue that is a great cause for concern is the problem of illegal immigration, particularly that of migrant workers from Mexico. These fine folks go out of their way to “do jobs Americans won’t do”, and are so concerned about the quality of work available to American farmers and businesses, they go out of their way to insure that inferior workers from Nicaraqua and Honduras are blocked at their own country’s southern border from entering the US. I think we owe them a debt of thanks, and what better way to repay them than by honoring them with a sports team and mascot of their own. Nor does it have to be limited to a team from the American Southwest. Not any more. Now, they are all over the country, even the east and midwest. In recognition of their “contribution”, therefore, I suggest-
THE WEST VIRGINIA WETBACKS
MASCOT-
THE WELFARE BANDITO
The whole team can be driven out into the field in the back of eighteen wheelers hidden under ears of loose corn and lettuce. This will probably be one of the poorest teams, of course, to all appearances, but they can make all kinds of extra money under the table by selling good quality Mexican blow and smack to the crowd. They won’t have to worry about the border agents arresting them. Even if they try to do that, all they have to do is shoot them. Who would complain about a thing like that? The government? Hah!
Of course, not all teams have to have an ethnic or racial orientation. Some might even have a religious orientation, as well as an ethnic one. To this end, what better team for white Christian folks to rally behind than-
THE ALABAMA BIBLE THUMPERS
MASCOT-
WHITEY HOOD
Can’t you just see him now taking the field and leading cheers with a crack of the whip?
Of course, he will lead the team in a rousing prayer before every game, shout out the Ten Commandments all throughout the game, and after every home game, he will lead them in burning a cross. After every victory that is, after every defeat they lynch an opponent of the visiting team. Just one though, then they tell the rest to go back where they came from.
Or, a team can have a solidly religious structure. After all, all Christians aren’t white, nor are they all protestant. They are, however, vital members of American society. As such, I am sure that catholics, for example, would appreciate a team such as-
THE PHILADELPHIA PRIEST PEDOPHILES
MASCOT-
FATHER PHIL BUTZ
Of course, this particular team will also require a special kind of cheerleading squad to accompany the good priest as he goes about his business of blessing the game, the crowd, the players, etc. A good solid squad of about fifty pre-teen children, one girl for every ten boys, should do the trick nicely. Half the team can masturbate during halftime while they perform, while the other half of the team looks the other way. It will be Father Phil’s job as team mascot to make sure all is forgiven.
Of course, it has been often stated that not all victims of sex crimes are legitimate, some are even making false accusations. Is this possible? Would a teenager lie about being molested, why what ever for? Surely their mothers or fathers wouldn’t put them up to that. In the case of runaways, is it true, as I have recently heard, that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are unwilling victims of the sex slave industry? Especially the girls, I have heard, who just want a Prince Charming in a romantic fantasy kind of way. None of these girls actually ENJOY sex. How disgusting to even consider such a thing as that! Why, it’s impossible for a teenage girl to enjoy sex with a teenage boy, let alone a grown man, isn’t it?.
For that matter, would a grown woman lie about being raped? Why, you would have to think there are vengeful women on this earth to believe something like that. What other reason would they have to make up something so horrid, surely not MONEY?
This is where education can play a large role in teaching people the truth and bridging the sexual divide that causes these misunderstandings, and what better educational tool than in the realm of sports? Therefore, in order to show how ridiculous these beliefs are, I propose-
THE CALIFORNIA CUNTSLUTS
MASCOT-
PRUDENCE PRICKTEASER
She should be a real Amazon, of questionable sexual orientation, while her squad of cheerleaders should be women of all races, ages, and looks, ranging from drop-dead-gorgeous-and-knows-it, to god-awful-fucking-ugly, to downright trashy. When a ruling on the field goes against them, they all scream RAPE with a flashy, ear to ear grin of dubious sincerity, alternating with cries of mock anger and disgust if the offending rule stands. No matter the ruling, they threaten a lawsuit. No matter how the game ends, they are always ready, willing, and eager for the next one.
Finally, although I could name many more such examples, I would be remiss if I didn’t end this post with a recommendation to our leaders in Washington to set an example. They are always wanting a sports team, and amazingly, they have already led the way with The Washington Redskins, a team which has always come under much criticism due to the derogatory nature of this supposedly racist name. Yet, the Redskins play on, while the DC crowd prattles on, with the encouragement of the many special interest groups that demand special rights,considerations, and even privileges.
In honor of them all, what better team to grace the landscape of our nations capital than-
THE DC PC PRICKTARDS
MASCOT-
Of course, there would be many worthy candidates to hold the position of this particular mascot. Who knows what the future might hold?
Monday, February 19, 2007
Fuck The Troops
Danielle, a frequent reader and commenter, recently made the point that the inordinate and continuing press coverage of the recent antics of Britney Spears is "sad". Her words, not mine. Well, ok, it's sad for those whose blogs aren't listed on Technorati, maybe, but to those of us who are, Britney Spears is the gift that never stops giving.
I see Danielle's point, though,in that the on-going nonsensical press coverage of the lives of celebrities like Britney and others of her ilk seems at best an escapist distraction from the on-going vital issues of the day. Paramount among these would of course be the continuing war in Iraq and the "war on terror".
This has got me to thinking, why not bridge the gap, cross the divide that exists between entertainment fluff news and those really important issues that do truly affect our lives? Britney can certainly play an important role here.
Back in the days of the Roman Empire, a legion of soldiers might be in the field for years at a time, maybe for as long as a decade. During the time of their stationing in such faraway places as Britain, Gaul, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Spain, etc., it would not be uncommon for prostitutes to set up camp in the proximity of the soldiers. This was a common practice, really, much as was prostitution itself in the city of Rome. It went unremarked, unquestioned.
Of course, during the times of combat, during rebellions and long drawn out sieges, some of which lasted for one or two years or more, this usually resulted in a scarcity of sexual outlets. In the aftermath of the usual long term success of the war effort, it was the citizens of the besieged lands and cities that paid the ultimate price. Women and girls were immediately raped, a great many of the men and boys were killed (or raped), and a great lot of the population ended up as part of a victory procession known as a "triumph" conducted by the victorious generals through the streets of Rome (though this practice was later limited only to Roman emperors to discourage rebellion by disloyal and overly ambitious generals). They were generally then relegated to the status of hostage, or "guest", in the case of uper class families, and outright slaves in the case of lower classes.
In the meantime, the soldiers were also rewarded by being allowed to confiscate any amount of property they could take in the aftermath of a successful conquest,and so pilaging and looting of a subject peoples were also widespread.
Ah, those were the days. And they weren't really all that far in the past as in the case of ancient Rome. The highly cultured and civilized Japanese Empire of the last century also engaged in the practice of enforced prostitution of subject women prior to and during the days of World War II.
So there you have it, my idea as to how Britney can actually make a contribution to the war effort in such a way as to insure continued media coverage, in a positive way that would draw attention to the needs of our troops.
Fuck them, Britney. With your latest hairstyle, you'll fit right in. While you are at it, encourage some of your friends to join in the fun. Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, hell, even Angelina Jolie might not be remiss at the notion of relieving the stress our troops feel, especialy since the Republicans in Congress seem determined not to even allow them a year off of their active duty in Iraq during their terms of service, evidently no matter how long that takes.
After all, there could eventually be an explosion, due to need for an outlet, that could result in the eventual rape of thousands of Iraqi girls and women. Do you really want that on your consciences?
And you only have to do it once a year. Just all of you go to the Green Zone outside Baghdad, lay down side by side, and spread those legs. All of you together can service our troops, I know you can. And just think what it would do for morale. No longer would your patriotism be called into question, or your value as contributors to the American way of life.
Besides, you know you really want to. Deep down inside.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Britney-Come Back To A Future
It’s a safe bet Britney Spears hasn’t joined up with the Hare Krishnas, and she’s almost as unlikely to have become the latest edition to the Manson family. Nor do I believe that she was particularly inspired by this web-site, or the picture presented thereon as shown above.
So why then did she shave her head? Maybe this is just another example of her on-going train wreck of a life. Is it possible that she is starting to fall under, succumb to the pressures of her life as a media celebrity, pop star, and as an expert in the field of semi-conductor physics?
She had reportedly took a jet, traveling coach no less, from Miami to Los Angeles, where she went to her home for a total of two hours, before then embarking to a beauty parlor where she performed the deed her own self. Look at the pictures for your self on this fan site. Does she look like she is in a state of emotional turmoil, of mental duress?
Yet, she then proceeds to a tattoo parlor where she is heard to mutter that she is tired of people touching her, after which she has to be escorted out in the midst of a horde of concerned and curious fans.
Her demeanor in the photos, and the timing of this incident, all but screams to me pretty much the same thing as every other thing involving this woman. It’s a fucking publicity stunt, and what is really sad about it, is it was born of not just starvation for attention and publicity to the point of desperation, but it was fueled more than anything by jealousy over the inordinate amount of media attention focused on the recent death of Anna Nicole Smith and the resultant controversies.
It’s pretty fucking sad to be jealous of a creature as pitiable, in a sense, as Anna Nicole Smith, but jealousy of a dead Anna Nicole Smith is not just an extra step, but one giant leap toward the abyss.
My advice to Spears is as follows. It’s not too late. You had the guts to intimate that you didn’t give a shit when numerous parents walked out of your latest concert tour with their children, in a huff due to the explicitly sexual content of your show. And anybody that is an unapologetic tobacco smoker, and can get an old fogey Republican politician like Bob Dole to admit he wants to fuck you-in so many words-in a national television commercial for Pepsi, can’t be all bad.
But pull it together, woman, fuck, you’ve proven you’ve outgrown the Mouseketeers, enough already. Go to rehab at Clapton’s center, and commit to it, then go back to making music, only good music this time. Real music. With real musicians that play real musical instruments, doing real songs, with you actually doing real singing. If Clapton’s rehab facility can help you with your addictions, certainly the man would not be adverse to helping you with your career. He would probably feel he owes it to the world of music to salvage that aspect of your life as well.
Face the facts, the kind of music you are typically known for has a limited appeal in the grand scheme of artistic cycles. Sex appeal can only make up for so much. Your declining record sales should tell you all you need to know. In this case, a future geared toward success will require moving forward, not back.
Work on it. No orchestration, no walls of sound, no drum machines. Put on an intimate performance with your audiences when you go on tour, pour your heart out to them in song, leave the dancing where it belongs, on the fucking videos, and make that a secondary priority if you must do it at all.
Then, go to the Actors Studio and concentrate on really learning the craft of acting-or, stay out of the business.
Finally, fuck Bob Dole. Now, if you want some publicity, that will really do the trick.
First and foremost though, grow your fucking hair back, if not on your head, then at least grow some on your pussy.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Dixie Chicks-The Peeps Of Country Music
The Grammy Awards have always been the biggest joke in all the awards business. They almost never get it right, and in my opinion their awards are based on sentimentality and politics, or both, not actual merit. Plus, as evidenced by the past win of Jethro Tull for the “Best Metal Band” award some years back, the judges are obviously unlearned in the kinds of music they are charged with presenting awards for.
Another case in point was the past award for “Album Of The year” for John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s album “Double Fantasy”. Now admittedly, as a Lennon fan, I don’t have so much of a problem with this award, I feel it actually has some merit, but at the same time I wonder, had Lennon not been killed that fateful December day in 1980, if this album would have even received a nomination, let alone won the award.
A more appropriate Best Album nomination for Lennon may have been his first, the self-titled “John Lennon” which contained such awe inspiring tracks as “Give Me Some Peace”, “Working Class Hero”, “Love”, etc. Yet, unless I’m mistaken, this album was not nominated, and it certainly didn’t win if it was.
All of this goes to my point that the Grammy Awards are much more about making statements than about actual reward for musical excellence. If this last criterion were the main one, then where the hell was Ozzy Osbourne's nomination for “Blizzard Of Oz”? I may have to dig a little to make sure, but I am fairly certain the Beatles were likewise never nominated, not even for Sergeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. Ergo with Ledd Zeppellin II, III, or IV. How’s about Metallica, at their height? And I am barely scratching the surface here.
The Rolling Stones? The Doors? I’m talking here now at the height of their careers, when it would have really mattered, not when the awards were taken over by aging hippies, who replaced the similarly myopic presenters of past generations.
To be sure, I have no problem with the Dixie Chicks receiving some kind of recognition, in fact, they deserved it. They were very unfairly maligned, in my opinion, by the trash that passes for thoughtful dialoque and opinion on the majority of the so-called right wing talk radio programs. They expressed their opinion, and I will say here, I don’t particularly agree with the way Natalie Mains said what she said or where she said it, but she said it.
If her detractors wanted to criticize her for it, fine. If people wanted to express their own opinions by not patronizing them any longer, then that is fine as well. But the way the animosity against them was purposely ratcheted up by the talk radio people and by certain country music stations had nothing to do with simple protest, and everything to do about pounding the drum beat as a means of attracting more listeners, and perhaps more ominously, by demonstrating what could happen to those who deviate from the party line and oppose and criticize the plans of the preferred people in power.
It was totally unjustified and uncalled for. Yet, the Dixie Chicks stuck to their guns, for the most part, and actually had the temerity to fight back, refusing to be cowed, though I think they might have initially offered an apology to those they might have unintentionally offended. I’m not sure of that, but if they did do this, that was certainly appropriate.
To this end, yes, they deserved a degree of recognition and appreciation in some form from the presenters of the Grammys.
But, Country Music Album Of The Year? Song of The Year? Five different awards all together? Isn’t this something a little along the lines of overkill? I called them the Peeps of Country Music for a reason. They might be fun and filling, but too much of them can leave you feeling bloated and might even make you sick. You wouldn’t put them on the same level as cordial cherries, a high quality box of mixed chocolates, or even a bag of jelly beans or a Milky Way bar.
I doubt that most of the Grammy presenters are into country music. They probably sit and listen to a relative handful of standards from the top names. Loretta Lynne, Patsy Cline, Merle Haggard, Johnny Cash, Buck Owens, etc. Then, they pick a handful of current artists according to sells or reputation, listen to a few songs by each one, and ask, ok, which one of these is most like the old guard, only maybe a little more modern?
In the case of the Chicks, they were presented with an easier task, their music only had to be of a high enough quality to justify rewarding their political activism and courage. Fine, but that’s not the way to present an award, in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)