I’ve been asked to do a meme by Sonia Belle, so I’m going to do it, because I need a break anyway. I’m not going to tag anybody though, because most of the time that I tag anybody they ignore me. So I’ll just let my end stop with me. But this particular meme is kind of interesting. It’ a request to do a list of things that you are obsessed with.
At first, I thought it would be hard to come up with much of a list, but it didn’t take me long to start thinking about it before the list really started to flow in my mind. The following list, however, is not made in the order of importance. That comes and goes.
1. Politics-I hate it, and the polticians who politic it, and the government(s) they aspire to. They poison society and culture. And in those rare instances when a true leader arises, one that might really be more than just a shill, a demagoque, it’s hard to view that person without a degree of cynicism. Of course, this might be the one healthy aspect of politics in general. On the other hand, a leaders political enemies will try to destroy him, come what may. I’ve come to the conclusion that Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and John McCain might be collectively the greatest leaders the world has ever known, because there are always some people somewhere that are trying to destroy them. Same with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
But then I take a deep breathe and say, well, that’s just politics. By the same token, it’s hard not to draw comparisons in the way George W. Bush-commonly called “The Chimp”-has been treated, to how similar was the treatment afforded Abraham Lincoln-commonly called a “gorilla”. Especially when you consider that both were as much hated by the European elites as they were by their political and journalistic enemies at home, both for pretty much the same reasons, in essence.
2. Religion-Both my own and others. What really makes it interesting is I realize that mine is fucking absurd, but few other people make the connection. How can people buy into this crap? People have allowed themselves to be enslaved by a set of dogmas that might at one time have been an aspect of evolutionary necessity, and as a result it has become so much a part of the human psyche that you just can’t shake it off. As a result, we all have allowed our own natural, innate human social bonds and drives to be hijacked and held for ransom in a fantasy world that is slowly unraveling with each successive period of advancement. And of course it is going to be traumatic, but in the end, people have got to say, “look, there is good and bad, right and wrong. We don’t have to have a god to know that.” Admittedly, religion when it is utilized right adds to the charm and mystery of life and provides a great deal of comfort and symbolic inspiration. But when you really literally believe in shit like the great flood, or The Tower of Babel, or in gods swallowing their children whole and then regurgitating them alive years later, fully grown, then you have transcended common sense. No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, you are a fucking nut.
3. Political Correctness-Anybody that knows me in the least knows that if you want me to not take a word you say seriously, start spouting this shit off to me. I hate it no matter who spouts it off, and how. I hate it when the “left” spouts it. I hate it when the “right” spouts it. I hate it when the “middle” spouts it. Mainly because I see it for what it is, a means to stifle debate and dissent, and to categorize opposing points of view in derogatory terms. Like politics and fundamentalist religion, it poisons society and culture. When I hear common, ordinary people say it, I know that nine times out of ten they are just repeating what they’ve read or heard and accepted it either to fit in or because it fits their own preconceived world views. Rarely do they ever try to pick it apart and separate the valid aspects of it from the bullshit aspects that make up the bulk of what it is. Sometimes I feel sorry for them. Sometime I hope their own shit blows up in their faces just so I can have the pleasure of seeing how they cope with the inconsistencies of belief to reality. When I hear politicians and pundits do it, I want the same thing to happen to them, and more. I want them to shit all over themselves in public. When I catch myself doing it, I want to slap myself silly.
4. Prison Break-My favorite television show, by far. Nothing else comes close, even though in some respects it is ridiculous. Inconsistencies abound compared to the reality of prison life, or life on the run. Not that I know from experience, but still, some things are just obvious. But still, this is one of those programs that is so well written, despite the inconsistencies, I find myself glued to my seat while it is on. The characters are great, as are the actors that portray them, and the dialoque, action, suspense, and overall plot development is so well thought out, so gripping, it would easily qualify as an addiction. I guess that is because of the adrenaline rush. When it’s over, I find myself thinking out scenarios as to how the next episode is going to go, though I rarely end up being close. But that is another good thing, the surprise element. It is coming back for a third season, on August, either the 27th or 29th.
5. Love-It amazes me how people make jackasses out of themselves over it. I used to be one of the worse offenders, and if I met the right person, probably would do so again. I don’t know though. Over the years, I have learned not only the value, but the pleasure of solitude. It translates as PEACE. But people that are obsessed with love don’t seem to regard PEACE as highly as they do PIECE. Until of course it gets old and then there they are, tied down to a bunch of obnoxious brats and their lives are shit, precisely because their lives are no longer their own, and so they live them through their kids by trying to turn them into decent worthwhile human beings. Well, that’s the way it’s supposed to work, anyway. But let’s face it, nobody would buy into this shit if they weren’t lured into it by the fantasy of love. Then, when the fantasy fades, there you are-TRAPPED. Of course, it can still work out, the kids can grow up worthwhile, you can retain that love and it can grow and blossom, I know all that, and how it’s the building block of society and culture, etc. My only question is, is it worth the risk on the off chance that it is going to end up like well over half of the relationships that are just nothing but crap? I guess it depends on your perspective.
6. Goth Chicks-If I ever do fall in love again, it will probably be to a woman with purple hair, multiple piercings, and tattoos. Admittedly, I could never fit in with the Goth Culture, I just think it’s cool and artistic, even though I concede a lot of the people in it are probably pretentious little nerds and some might be a little on the psychotic side. But hell, you find that in every culture-and sub-culture. And I’ll probably never have a Goth girlfriend, and I’m not sure I want one. The novelty would probably wear off, for one thing, and it would end, probably badly, or she would cross over to my dull and boring lifestyle, or I would make a complete ass of myself and have my tonque split. But I do, in the meantime, think they are pretty, and sexy, and provocative, and alluring. So, on the off chance that anyone reading this is a Goth chick, do you want to watch me jack off?
7. My Cat-This is the one living thing that I love besides myself and my mother, and a few friends and family members. But I list the cat as an obsession because I know it’s dependent on me, especially seeing as how it suffers from epilepsy, which is something I myself used to struggle with. It’s dependent on me, and loves me. Now I know some people are going to say, it just loves you because you feed it, stop feeding it and see how long it stays around. My response to that-stop feeding your kids and your wife. Stop supporting them. At the very least, don’t provide for anything more than their absolute basic necessities, and spend all the rest of your money that you want to or can just on yourself. See how long they “stay around”. Same with everybody else in your life, don’t give them shit that you absolutely don’t have to. Your best friend is in a bind through not fault of his own and he can’t feed his family or pay the rent or bills. He asks you for two hundred dollars. You could easily afford it with little or no problem but you tell him, “sorry, I’m going to buy me and ipod and a case of beer and some cigarettes and catch a movie. Besides, your family is not my responsibility.” Yep, you can kiss that friendship goodbye. So don’t fuck with me about my cat.
8. Magic-I know how it works. I’ve done it. I’ve practiced it, sometimes successfully, sometimes with mixed results, sometimes with no effect whatsoever, and sometimes it’s blown up in my face. But it’s real, and that is because if it is done right, it involves a certain kind of energy that everyone possesses naturally, and with training, study, and practice can utilize it. You just have to know how to utilize it. Yes, a lot of it involves psychology and self-hypnosis. But it is also a real energy that has nothing to do with deities or spirits. Like I said, it’s natural. That’s all I can tell you. Well, unless you want to pay me. A lot.
9. Books-I’m the kind of person that judges them not so much by their covers, but by their titles. If a book has a catchy, compelling title, I want to to read it. Of course, if it turns out shitty, that’s a different story, but of course I don’t judge by just that criterion, I also go by author, subject matter, and genre. I’m obsessed with writing my own, and one of my goals is to write trashy literature. That doesn’t mean what it sounds like. I mean to be able to write something that is appealing on several different levels. I want it to have commercial appeal, be trashy, smutty, violent, mysterious, engaging, humorous, inspiring, gripping, seductive, thought provoking, irreverent, and subversive. And I want it still to qualify as literature. Think of a collaborative effort involving John Grisham, Mark Twain, Steven King, John Steinbeck, Elmore Leonard, William Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, and the Marquis de Sade, and you’ve pretty much got the general idea.
10. Mythology-Yeah, Sonia Belle, you called it right when you guessed one of my obsessions would be paganism, but maybe not in the way you think. I appreciate the genius of mythology and how it speaks to everyday life. That applies to Christian mythology as well as pagan varieties, and yes I know this might sound like I’m repeating myself in that I’ve already listed religion as an obsession. But true mythology and ritual transcends religion. What I am referring to recognizes the difference between mythology and literal fact. One that recognizes the deities as real in a distinct way, as representing universal energies and distinct, separate yet interconnected powers that exist throughout nature, and as components that are indwelling within the human psyche, or what Jeung called “archetypes”. There are many ways of viewing them, actually. All of them have certain degrees of validity. At the same time, all of them are bullshit. But mythology is a way to connect with them in a way that is inspiring and uplifting. Until you take them too seriously, at which point you have crossed that fine line over into first neurosis, then psychosis, and then pure unadulterated insanity. So that would be the difference in the obsessions of religion and mythology. Both can be positive, but it is when the mythological aspects are discounted that the religion itself becomes dogmatic, oppressive, corrupt, and insane.
11. Science-Something I don’t know shit about, still I am obsessed with it. But that provides me an advantage. Because I’m on the outside looking in, I can recognize the bullshit from the true, even if I don’t know how to explain it even in layman's terms. Science, like religion, can be dogmatic. And the world of theory is something I am very much at home in. To give you an example-someone once proposed studying ways to transmute matter, to break it down by it’s molecules and then reassemble it elsewhere, like the matter transmitter on Star Trek, or “The Fly”. Not being a scientist, I still knew this was a boondoggle to get federal money from the government. It’s impossible. So is time travel. That is because there is, in my opinion, no such thing as a past or a future, there is just a now. Even if you could theoretically go back to the past, say for example to the time of Christ, there would be nothing there, because the world has left the point in space and time where it was in that past. Same with the future. The world hasn’t gotten to that point in time or space yet, so you would end up in a vacuum. This makes sense to me if to no one else. The past is written in stone, but the future is a blank slate, dependent on countless trillions of decisions to be made that could go in any number of ways, with no assurance whatsoever as to the actual choices, or consequences. How can you transcend that process? The answer in my opinion is, you can’t, at least not physically, and that is probably a good thing. It was probably wholly unintentional. But it’s still just the way it is. No god or whatever planned it that way. It’s just natural. I know people, including scientists, will disagree, but I don’t care. I know I’m right. Just don’t expect me to be able to explain it any better than I just now have.
12. Mysteries-All kinds of mysteries. Murder mysteries. The paranormal. Spirits. UFO’s. Psychic phenomena. Conspiracy theories. The Kennedy assassination. By the way, yes, it was a conspiracy, involving a small handful of people knowingly involved, none of who are probably who you think they were. Yes, Oswald was a part of it. Ruby was not. Not until after the fact anyway. No, the mafia was not involved in it, though one mafia member in particular was originally intended to be the fall guy, until he got out of a jam he was in that put him in a better position to protect himself. No more fall guy. That’s why the whole thing ended up looking like shit. The government was also not involved. Neither was the military industrial complex, the KKK, foreign governments or cabals, intelligence services, the oil industry or big business, LBJ, the Bush family, or anti-Castro forces, or pro-Castro forces. So who was? I’m not saying, because I can’t prove it. And though the fucking nut that was the head of the conspiracy is dead and gone, the man that actually did the bulk of the work is still alive and kicking, the last I heard. Most of the other people that were involved were just manipulated in ways that they didn’t realize what was really going on, and once they found out, nothing could be done about it. One guy thought he was involved in a plot to get Castro, for example. So there you have it. Anyway, that is the extent for the most part of my belief in conspiracy theories. A lot of the other things I listed are things for which there are probably natural, scientific explanations for, and that is how I approach them, as mysteries to be solved. Not as “supernatural”, but as perfectly natural forces that just haven’t been explained yet. Or maybe in some cases as delusions, mass hysteria, or outright bullshit. But those are possible explanations as well. As for real life crime and murder mysteries, chalk that up to an addiction to Mickey Spillane.
13. Jack The Ripper-The murder mystery to end all murder mysteries, the granddaddy of them all. After a great deal of study, I’ve come to the conclusion that he probably wasn’t the artist Walter Sickert, but he probably was instead somebody that had at one time in his life got into some kind of trouble that caused him to be kicked out of the Masons, more than likely for some kind of sexual misconduct that at least bordered on perversion, if not outright violence. There is also of course the slight chance the person knew Masonic lore through a relatives' involvement. Do to the use of several Americanisms in his written communications, and the fact that what are referred to as the canonical murders ceased sometime late in 1888, I have decided he-or they-might well have been an American with a connection to the embassy in London. There was a change in Administrations after that American election year, when the Democratic incumbent Grover Cleveland was defeated by the Republican Benjamin Harrison, after which of course a new ambassador was appointed, who brought with him his own staff. Whoever the person was might well have had a connection to Sickert, who himself was an associate of the American artist and expatriot Whistler. It might seem like a bit of a stretch, but at least I’m not destroying artistic masterpieces as a means of trying to prove my theory. It might well be worth looking into, however, certain possibilities, like for example the occurrence of similar Ripper like murders in proximity to persons who might have been associated with the American embassy in Britain during the first Cleveland term. Or to people known to have been banned from the Masons.
14. History-Love it. Nuff said. I also love sausage, and don’t give a shit how it’s made or what it’s made of. I will make it myself, and then I will eat it. That is how I look at history. I want to know all of it, the good, the bad, and the ugly. That includes, but is not limited to, American history. I don’t want to see it though rose colored glasses, but at the same time, I’m not interested in anything that is driven by any kind of anti-American bias, or any other kind. I just want the fucking truth, no matter what it is. Is that too much to ask for? I guess you can include my love of archeology and anthropology, and I guess sociology, as a subset of my obsession for history. Who knows what answers these sciences together might one day reveal? Sometimes, I wonder if maybe the Great Pyramid of Giza might in reality turn out to have been no more than a grandiose, massive beer or ale brewery. Or at the most, nothing but a mortuary center for use by anyone who could afford the service, or willing to put themselves in thrall to somebody that could, just for the sake of assurance of a blessed afterlife. By the time all is said and done, belief in God, religion, ethics, morality, etc., might all eventually turn out to be based on nothing more profound than some guy at some point preventing some atrocity, not for any foreseeable gain on his part, but perhaps because he himself had previously barely survived a similar circumstance. Who knows?
15. Society-To be more precise, social pretensions, manners, the general pecking order we all bow down to. It’s ridiculous but we all do it, me as much as anyone, but at least I see through it. I honestly believe we are all nothing but animals. The highest level of animal on this planet, no doubt of that, but animals all the same. Anything that bursts our bubbles of pretentiousness in that regard is to be applauded. Anytime some arrogant asshole cuts loose a rip-roaring fart, or slips and falls on his ass on the ice, or literally shits his or her pants full, or anything. Some people are mortified if they so much as burp or hiccup. The more embarrassed they are, the worse it becomes, thus the more hilarious the results. That is because when that happens to somebody else, especially some person that considers him or herself to be the pinnacle of the utmost standards of behavior, we see that person distilled down to his or her true essence, an animal, no better or no worse than the rest of us, and they see it too. This is the entire essence of the story of the Garden of Eden. We are no more than animals, no matter how high in esteem we hold ourselves and wish to attain, and if we fail to see that, that truth is going to manifest itself, one way or another, until you eventually fall down to the level that you are and always were. A miserable fucking beast.
16. Music-I especially used to be obsessed with rock music, couldn’t get enough of it, and it is still my favorite, but now I like all kinds. Country, blues, jazz, metal, alternative, even rap and hip hop (though, by the way, I’m not sure I understand the distinction in those two related though apparently different genres). I can appreciate rap on an artistic level while not overlooking the reputedly pernicious influences on black urban youth and the white middle class suburban youths as well. Hopefully this can be addressed in ways that do not amount to censorship, and in the meantime, I like it, have ever since a friend convinced me to sit through the entire CD of Tupac Shakur released under the name Makavelli. I loved it, and started hearing rap from a different perspective from that time on. I also like classical, by the way, and though I can’t say I love opera, I am enthralled with the possibilities the genre contains. I would like one day to compose an opera based on the myth of Aradia, for example. Of course, I’d better learn something about writing and composing music first, something I don’t know shit about. Maybe a rock opera instead. Yep, rock remains far and away my favorite.
17. Food And Drink-Though I’m a barbarian at heart, I am obsessed with one day experiencing fine cuisine and wine and other drink. I love a good mixed drink, and have been known to invent my own. Here’s a good one. Mix to suit your own taste some vanilla ice cream and peach schnappes, add a dash or two of grenadine syrup, and garnish with two or three cherries. As for food, it doesn’t really have to be anything extravagant, I just love a good meal. And I love to prepare them. By the same token, I have to admit I doubt I’m going to be running any four star restaurants anytime soon.
18. Creative endeavors in general-Fashion (sorry, Sonia), art (though I don’t understand diddly squat shit about it, I still enjoy it), architecture, television, movies, drama, poetry, and even in some cases commercial advertising.
19. Technology-I’ll never be an inventor of anything great or important, but I like to keep up on new shit that comes out, and this includes the fields of medicine. It seems like every time I come up with my own ideas for an invention, I end up finding out somebody has already done it, so I’ll just shut up. I also like the idea of cloning, provided it is done with oversight, to prevent such abuse as, say, somebody purposely creating a race of subservient slave laborers, as the Soviet Union was once accused (probably falsely, but who’s to say) of tinkering with. By the same token, I admit to being fascinated by the concept of the creation of races of animal people. Bird people, cat people, snake people, etc. Yeah, it would probably be a bad idea, I guess. But I bet somebody eventually does it, just because at some point it time, they will be able to do so. When you stop to think about it, if you see somebody lounging around and suddenly he reaches over and starts licking his balls, or he walks up to you and starts sniffing your ass, well, I guess it’s just how you look at things. Just say “no, no”, pet him or her on the head, and go about your business. After all, they might just think they’re being polite.
20. Animals, Nature, Environment-Yeah, I’m obsessed with it. I’m just not a fucking nut about it. Of course I want a clean environment, a thriving world ecosystem, abundant rain forests, and a solution to global warming. Of course I believe in animal rights, and human rights. But you have to be reasonable as to how you go about things. Sometimes moderation is not only the best policy, it might in many cases be the only one that can hope to work in the long term. And unfortunately, like it or not, there might come a time when people just have to face the facts that there is nothing they can do. They can do so, or they can go around wiping their asses with one square of toilet paper. In the long run, the result will probably be the same, only you’ll have dried shit caked on your ass.
21. Charities-Some of them do good work, needed work, work that the government and others can’t or won’t do, but at the same time, I am resentful of the fact that most of them have become de facto big business entities. They pay their directors and VPs, etc., huge sums of money amounting in many cases to seven figure yearly salaries in addition to bonuses, an expense account, and other perks. Some are even given their own homes and a new automobile every year. It’s obscene. And some of these companies have a list of salaried personnel as long as your arm, while employing bottom level wage earners that make little more than minimum wage, and in some cases less than that. They get by with this by keeping them as “part time workers”, without benefits. And in a good many cases, once you add up all the overhead and other expenses, very little of what they raise actually goes into the charity they purport to raise all this money for. It has turned into a sham and a shell game. Then there are the ones that run the PACS and influence legislation, the most atrocious ones of all in some cases. I think they should all pay taxes. Yes, that includes the churches. Not on money that goes to the charities, just on the money they raise that goes to other things. Especially salaries. Plus, they should be required to pay overtime and all their wage earning employees should have to be counted as full time employees. Yeah, I’m a hardass, sue me.
22. The National Debt-It should be the governments highest priority to pay this shit down to a manageable level, in fact, it should be a long term goal to pay the fucking thing off, and enact legislation to where it would be a criminal offense to ever allow it to get any higher than 500 billion dollars, ever again. I don’t care how they do it. Just do it. Put all that money back into Social Security, which is exactly what the money to pay it off will be coming from if it’s not paid off in other ways. If there really is such thing as a “right wing conspiracy”-this is it. This leads me to another obsession.
23. Foreign Affairs- Bring our soldiers home from all over the world-not just Iraq, but every fucking where, including Europe, and let the fuckers fend for themselves. Then we can cut the Pentagon budget in half and still pay for our needs and our veterans needs. It’s time for the rest of the world to grow the fuck up, and they want us out of their lives anyway, right? Well, so be it. Let the Europeans solve the Darfur crisis, after all, they are the ones that paved the way for it, it’s frankly not our problem. They also started half the other shit in the world, including most of what has happened in the Middle East, another of their former group of colonies, after the fall of The Ottoman Empire, now known as Turkey-another European country, come to think of it. So they want to bitch at us to solve these problems that they started and caused to fester. Fuck them. The chickens have come home to roost, and the crowing is just barely started. It’s only the US’s problem if we allow it to be. If we want to be involved in another country’s problems, let’s declare war on Mexico, overthrow the corrupt white descendants of the Spanish conquistadors that have run roughshod over the mixed Indian majority of the population. Then we can help them build that country, to where they don’t feel they have to flood in over here and bring our country down to a third world level. We can gradually start building a level of advancement throughout Central and South America. Not run roughshod over them, just help them develop, and establish a fair trade policy with them, based on real economic growth and rule of law which benefits all the people. Then they can immigrate over here legally if they want, and we there, and as their economies develop, we won’t have to worry about our companies abandoning American workers to get slave labor from those indigent populations. And we won’t really have to invade the country to accomplish this, just secure our borders, stop propping up the ruling elites of Mexico, and fund a true democratic movement among the people there. Let the rulers and their families suffer the consequences of their actions, one thing we won’t have to supply is the rope or the will to hang them with it. By the time all that comes together, maybe fifty years from now, maybe we can buy the great works of art and architecture from Europe and have the best of it shipped over here, before the ruling caliphs and mullahs decide to burn or bulldoze them. Jerusalem? Again, not our problem. There will be Jews from all over the world immigrating to America from Europe over the course of the next few decades, four or five million more won’t make that big a difference. I think they might like Utah, or maybe the Virgin Islands. Or Mexico. Or wherever. It will be interesting though, to see how much the Right supports them when they start coming over here. Who knows, though, maybe after a few more decades have come and gone, they’ll be able to go back to Jerusalem, rebuild the Temple, and learn how to process nuclear energy from the ruins of Mecca, and other surrounding areas.
24. Energy-Not particularly worried about it, because I know it’s a problem that can and will be solved. The major cause of the problem is increased population, which results in ever increasing energy needs. If we don’t solve it, nature will. She has a full-proof plan to deal with overextended populations. It’s called death. She does it all the time, sometimes en masse. In the meantime, know that most energy supplies you can envision have temporary lifespans their own selves. That includes, by the way, nuclear energy. Think about it. If there are limits to how much oil there is in the world, then how much more limited do you think the supply of uranium is? And this is not to be interpreted as a discouragement of the use of nuclear energy. Far from it. Just that, like everything else, it has it’s benefits, it’s drawbacks, and it’s limitations. Even the fucking sun is going to go out one of these days, believe it or not.
25. The Constitution-Most people haven't caught on to the simple fact that the Bill of Rights were written in order to limit the power of the Federal Government over the states. It then evolved to where it limited the power of both the federal and state governments over private citizens, after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. This just doesn't mean that the First was meant to do so, and then the Third through the Tenth, and the Second was something that should be interpreted a different way. It means what it means. Private citizens are a potential militia, and have the right to keep and bear arms, as a means of keeping the power of the government in check. Of course, sometimes shit happens, some nut gets a gun and kills a bunch of people. Shit happens with the First Amendment as well. If you're going to chuck one, then by god chuck all of them. Otherwise, leave them all alone, including the Second Amendment.
26. How The Universe Was Formed-No, I don’t believe it was a product of any kind of blueprint, or intelligent design, and yes, I do think it formed naturally, and evolved. But I always wondered how. How does something come from nothing? Well, it had to somehow, right? Even if you accept for the sake of argument there is a Creator or Creatrix, a God or a Goddess, who created everything, then you are left with the enigma of where He, or She, or They came from. So you’re back to square one. Well, I don’t believe in an intelligent creation, I believe in the formation, not creation,of the universe. Some people, maybe a majority of the scientific community, at least, take it back to the “Big Bang”, others believe that another natural force is at work. But one thing I do know, there was never at any time in history “nothing”. There has always been “something”. So what could that have been, that one original form of energy which eventually developed into other, more complex forms, which then evolved from there into others? Some people just say “oh, there was these swirling gases and”- but that misses the point. What were these “swirling gases”? And where did they come from? Yep, I know, arrogant as that might sound. Not that big a deal. If you think long and hard about it, you can pretty well figure out what that first and original form of energy was, and you don’t really have to be a great scientific intellect to figure out the basic manner in which it evolved, and from there, how all else was eventually formed. Maybe not in every exact detail, but enough to where it becomes easy to see in general terms. It might even start to seem all too obvious. Some of you would probably smack yourselves on the forehead and say, “so that’s it”. No, I’m not going to say it. Well, unless somebody wants to pony up maybe ten million dollars, then I’ll tell, but you’ll have to be satisfied with it. No refunds.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sheryl Crow-The Nasty Ass Of The Year
People that have read my blog might recall from time to time I've mentioned a late uncle by marriage. He was badly injured in World War II, and never quite recovered. In his last years, he suffered from two serious conditions-prostrate cancer and Alzheimers disease. It was the first one that killed his body, but the second one that caused the gradual, long term disintegration of his mind.
No, this isn't another rant about the Veterans Hospitals that have suffered severe funding shortages. It would hardly be fair to blame them for the mental deterioration he suffered, which manifested in many ways.
Once, he looked for a chain saw in the drawer of the microwave cabinet. Another time, he looked for a set of bed rails in the cab of another uncle's pick-up truck. His perspective in many ways was that screwed up.
It only got worse with time. But perhaps the grossest, nastiest way it manifested itself was in the way he went to the bathroom, and most especially in the way he wiped his ass afterwards. With one square of toilet paper.
He was that much of a tight ass. I shit you not.
Diarrhea? No difference. One square. A normal, healthy shit? One square. Just passing gas? Hell, one square, just to be on the safe side. Just in case there was a little turd hanging around up there somewhere, I guess.
Sounds nasty, huh? Yeah, it does to me too. I didn't know it for a while, but since I learned of this peculiar behavior, I still get sick when I think of all the times I shook his hand. Wouldn't you?
So is Sheryl Crow that much of a nasty assed bitch? Or does she just think all the rest of us should be? Is she really that determined to save trees that she wants to ration toilet paper, with no regard for just how unhealthy and fucking nasty that would be? Isn't there a better way?
Can you imagine how chapped that ass would have to be, and all that shit caked on it. Listen, you know she doesn't really do the crap she's advising.
On the other hand, well, she did start out as the opening act for Michael Jackson, and according to her, her friends a communist, so I guess this all makes a degree of sense.
For me, even a normal healthy shit requires the use of, oh, about three squares per turd. Make that four. Otherwise, I would have no other option than to drop my pants and drag my ass on the ground about four feet like a dog with worms.
I don't intend to do that, nor do I intend to limit myself to one square of toilet paper per shit, or even per turd. Fuck that. If Sheryl Crow really wipes her ass that way, she's welcome to be a nasty ass all she wants. I think she's full of shit myself.
As for anybody else that might buy into this crap, well, you know, if you insist. If it makes you happy, I guess it can't be that bad. Just don't take it hard if I keep my distance.
In the meantime-earth to Crow: When Rosie O'Donnell makes fun of you, you know you've made an ass of yourself.
No, this isn't another rant about the Veterans Hospitals that have suffered severe funding shortages. It would hardly be fair to blame them for the mental deterioration he suffered, which manifested in many ways.
Once, he looked for a chain saw in the drawer of the microwave cabinet. Another time, he looked for a set of bed rails in the cab of another uncle's pick-up truck. His perspective in many ways was that screwed up.
It only got worse with time. But perhaps the grossest, nastiest way it manifested itself was in the way he went to the bathroom, and most especially in the way he wiped his ass afterwards. With one square of toilet paper.
He was that much of a tight ass. I shit you not.
Diarrhea? No difference. One square. A normal, healthy shit? One square. Just passing gas? Hell, one square, just to be on the safe side. Just in case there was a little turd hanging around up there somewhere, I guess.
Sounds nasty, huh? Yeah, it does to me too. I didn't know it for a while, but since I learned of this peculiar behavior, I still get sick when I think of all the times I shook his hand. Wouldn't you?
So is Sheryl Crow that much of a nasty assed bitch? Or does she just think all the rest of us should be? Is she really that determined to save trees that she wants to ration toilet paper, with no regard for just how unhealthy and fucking nasty that would be? Isn't there a better way?
Can you imagine how chapped that ass would have to be, and all that shit caked on it. Listen, you know she doesn't really do the crap she's advising.
On the other hand, well, she did start out as the opening act for Michael Jackson, and according to her, her friends a communist, so I guess this all makes a degree of sense.
For me, even a normal healthy shit requires the use of, oh, about three squares per turd. Make that four. Otherwise, I would have no other option than to drop my pants and drag my ass on the ground about four feet like a dog with worms.
I don't intend to do that, nor do I intend to limit myself to one square of toilet paper per shit, or even per turd. Fuck that. If Sheryl Crow really wipes her ass that way, she's welcome to be a nasty ass all she wants. I think she's full of shit myself.
As for anybody else that might buy into this crap, well, you know, if you insist. If it makes you happy, I guess it can't be that bad. Just don't take it hard if I keep my distance.
In the meantime-earth to Crow: When Rosie O'Donnell makes fun of you, you know you've made an ass of yourself.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Dragon Girl
She's not there yet, but hopefully she will be. She's not the skinny, anorexic type of model that has become the standard over the course of the previous decades, but she's not exactly a fat ass sweat hog either. In fact,at a height of 5'7", she is a scrumptious 110 pounds. She calls herself Dragon Girl.
Me, I love the modeling industry, and I dig models, which is why I am involved in this, I kind of dig the idea of helping somebody possibly make an impact in this industry. So, vote for her. Since you can only vote once, cheat and go to your local library or other public access and vote for her again.
In fact, you can do it here-
That way, if she wins, you can say, "hey, I am one of the ones that helped her get to where she is today." And who knows where that will end up being.
And don't worry, as to the policies of Smashbox, they do not conduct animal testing.
So why am I doing this outside of what I said? Well, I for one really dig the cosmetics industry. They have added immensely to the attractiveness of society. And it is an ancient industry as well, steeped in a tradition that at one time involved ritual religious and magical practices as well as enhancement of personal attractiveness.
It was condemned in the Bible. In one of the Books of Kings, the Tyrian Jezebel, who married the Israelite King Ahab, was an idolator, and lead her husband astray to the worship of idols. This lead to his downfall, and for her reputed wickedness, Jezebel paid a heavy price. She put on make-up one morning and, as she gazed out a window, she was made to fall to the ground below, where dogs tore her to pieces.
Ancient Israelite prophets though were an exception as regarding the attitude toward this most ancient of practices, which can be traced back to prehistory. It was discovered that by utilizing the skins of animals, hunters could get close enough to their prey to enhance their chances of making a successful kill. Scent had as much to do with this as anything, and over a period of time it was ascertained that the utilization of scents held other advantages.
Especially, it so happened, when people started gravitating more and more into villages and cities. People reacted favorably to the pleasing scents of nature which were becoming ever more rare, and so the fledgling industry might well have stumbled upon a way to satisfy a subconscious longing, almost a primal urge to return to it's roots. Of course, it helped that they found themselves more and more repulsed by the dirty and sweaty odors resulting from prolonged exposure, due to constant close contact, with ever growing numbers of humans.
Perfumery became a method to disguise natural human body odor, and it advanced from there to the techniques of applying make-up to enhance physical appearance, and to hide the ravages of age.
And as I said it was invaluable in ritual and temple sacrifices. Linear B tablets discovered in the ancient Greek town of Mychenaea relates how untold thousands of pounds of incense were burned to certain deities in just one day, for certain religious festivals.
Sandalwood, frankincense, cedar, cinnamon, etc., were among many examples of scents that have been utilized for religious ritual purposes throughout the years, not only by pagan cults but during ancient Hebrew sacrifices as well.
The application of other cosmetics was possibly developed at about the same time. The application of make-up for religious ritual purposes might even predate the use of scent. But it as well evolved beyond ritual use, and became a standard method for the enhancement of physical appearance and attractiveness. It was doubtless a luxury reserved for the wealthiest aristocrats and royalty in the earliest days, but it soon became more widespread.
It soon became common usage in the context of temple prostitution, which was probably the main reason for the objections to the practice raised by the Old Testament prophets.
Now, of course, it is used today by pretty much everybody, to some small degree. If you bathe with a bar of soap, or shampoo and condition your hair, or use an underarm deodorant, then you too are taking part in an ancient ritual.
But if you go beyond those daily commonalities to the point that you use cologne, perfume, make-up, rouge, eye-liner, blush, etc., then you can legitimately say that you are a part of a long historical heritage of the art of cosmetic enhancement. One that is in reality one of the most ancient of all the traditions of mankind.
Okay, shit, I just like this model. Vote for her, alright? Sheeesh!
Me, I love the modeling industry, and I dig models, which is why I am involved in this, I kind of dig the idea of helping somebody possibly make an impact in this industry. So, vote for her. Since you can only vote once, cheat and go to your local library or other public access and vote for her again.
In fact, you can do it here-
 |
 |
 |
That way, if she wins, you can say, "hey, I am one of the ones that helped her get to where she is today." And who knows where that will end up being.
And don't worry, as to the policies of Smashbox, they do not conduct animal testing.
So why am I doing this outside of what I said? Well, I for one really dig the cosmetics industry. They have added immensely to the attractiveness of society. And it is an ancient industry as well, steeped in a tradition that at one time involved ritual religious and magical practices as well as enhancement of personal attractiveness.
It was condemned in the Bible. In one of the Books of Kings, the Tyrian Jezebel, who married the Israelite King Ahab, was an idolator, and lead her husband astray to the worship of idols. This lead to his downfall, and for her reputed wickedness, Jezebel paid a heavy price. She put on make-up one morning and, as she gazed out a window, she was made to fall to the ground below, where dogs tore her to pieces.
Ancient Israelite prophets though were an exception as regarding the attitude toward this most ancient of practices, which can be traced back to prehistory. It was discovered that by utilizing the skins of animals, hunters could get close enough to their prey to enhance their chances of making a successful kill. Scent had as much to do with this as anything, and over a period of time it was ascertained that the utilization of scents held other advantages.
Especially, it so happened, when people started gravitating more and more into villages and cities. People reacted favorably to the pleasing scents of nature which were becoming ever more rare, and so the fledgling industry might well have stumbled upon a way to satisfy a subconscious longing, almost a primal urge to return to it's roots. Of course, it helped that they found themselves more and more repulsed by the dirty and sweaty odors resulting from prolonged exposure, due to constant close contact, with ever growing numbers of humans.
Perfumery became a method to disguise natural human body odor, and it advanced from there to the techniques of applying make-up to enhance physical appearance, and to hide the ravages of age.
And as I said it was invaluable in ritual and temple sacrifices. Linear B tablets discovered in the ancient Greek town of Mychenaea relates how untold thousands of pounds of incense were burned to certain deities in just one day, for certain religious festivals.
Sandalwood, frankincense, cedar, cinnamon, etc., were among many examples of scents that have been utilized for religious ritual purposes throughout the years, not only by pagan cults but during ancient Hebrew sacrifices as well.
The application of other cosmetics was possibly developed at about the same time. The application of make-up for religious ritual purposes might even predate the use of scent. But it as well evolved beyond ritual use, and became a standard method for the enhancement of physical appearance and attractiveness. It was doubtless a luxury reserved for the wealthiest aristocrats and royalty in the earliest days, but it soon became more widespread.
It soon became common usage in the context of temple prostitution, which was probably the main reason for the objections to the practice raised by the Old Testament prophets.
Now, of course, it is used today by pretty much everybody, to some small degree. If you bathe with a bar of soap, or shampoo and condition your hair, or use an underarm deodorant, then you too are taking part in an ancient ritual.
But if you go beyond those daily commonalities to the point that you use cologne, perfume, make-up, rouge, eye-liner, blush, etc., then you can legitimately say that you are a part of a long historical heritage of the art of cosmetic enhancement. One that is in reality one of the most ancient of all the traditions of mankind.
Okay, shit, I just like this model. Vote for her, alright? Sheeesh!
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Truth Can Be Ugly
In a day and age when Iran can grab British Royal Navy sailors out of the Persian gulf with impunity, Nancy Pelosi should be careful where she travels. Her visit to Syrian President Bashar Assad may not amount to a violation of The Logan Act, as I have read, nor might it constitute treason in any other way. On the other hand, she might well be guilty of some violation. I’m not an expert so I’ll reserve judgment one way or another.
I will say one thing though unequivocally. You don’t have to be an expert to see that this was an act of political grandstanding. I’m not really sure what she thought she was going to accomplish, but it looks like a make-believe overture to show her own personal constituents, as well as the overall Democratic voter base, that she, as the head of the Congressional Democrats, second-in-line to the Presidency in her role of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives, is demonstrating that the Democratic Party stands for diplomacy and the hopes and prospects for peace.
The symbolism is obvious. Bush will not talk to Assad. Pelosi will. The Republicans don’t know anything about peace, they are all about belligerence and warfare. The Democrats are all about negotiation and peace. The bumbling misstep when Pelosi informed Assad that the Israelis were wanting to make peace with the Syrians was easily rectified by Prime Minister Ohlmert, who immediately let it be known that any peace deal was dependent on certain conditions that Nancy, being Nancy, neglected to point out.
All of this bothers me, the missteps, the obvious political grandstanding to the Democrats leftist base, the potential violation of The Logan Act or other laws. What some people don’t seem to get by pointing out that some congressional Republicans accompanied Pelosi on this trip, and have indeed made other trips, is that those individuals are not in the position to formulate policy nor are seen as doing so.
Arguably, the office of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives is the second most powerful office in the country, more powerful technically and legally than Vice-President, whose true power is limited to casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate when necessary. Otherwise, none of his duties really constitute any kind of auhority. This may be different in Cheney’s case, true, but I am speaking in historical and legal terms. There have been times when the Speaker was more powerful than certain Presidents. John Tyler, for example. There have been times when there was a complete shutdown of government due to friction between the two offices. Bill Clinton’s Presidency, of course, as well as Andrew Johnsons, were paralyzed by a kind of political civil war waged by an ambitious Congress and/or House Speaker.
Pelosi seems to have wanted this type of power, and foresaw the same kind of political showdown that would get the Democratic base all fired up. When this ended up failing to materialize in the form of the war funding package, to which Pelosi inadvisably attached a troop deadline withdrawal which was slated for a month before the ’08 elections, Pelosi was left with no other option but to back down. Of course, the Democrats are not going to withhold funds from the troops.
Now this, a chance for Pelosi to redeem herself and stick it to the Republicans at the same time. And though Assad, it has been said, preferred to spend his time at a soccer game, he did agree to put aside some time for the strange little woman from San Francisco who appeared before him in the traditional Arab head covering as a sign of respect.
That is what I guess bothers me as much as anything. By appearing with this garment on her head, whether she sees it this way or not, Pelosi was in a very real and symbolic way projecting an image of submission to Assad. And Assad’s Syria, by and large, is arguably the major player in the constant Middle East friction regarding Israel and to the dismay of many observers is primarily responsible for a good deal of the Sunni insurgent violence in Iraq. It is by way of his borders that most of the non-Iraqi Sunni insurgents travel, after all.
Nor are they all Syrians. Many are Saudis, while a good many as well are Jordanians,in fact from all areas of the Middle East and other Muslim nations. Pelosi is not qualified to engage in diplomacy with him in any event, whether or not her trip constitutes any kind of breach or willful violation of US law. But for her to appear under these further conditions is incredible. A San Francisco woman, representing a constituency which is a bedrock of liberalism and feminism, to appear in an attitude of subjugation before the head of a country where the rights of women are held to be secondary at best, is at least surreal.
And it is not even as though Syria is the worse offender in this regard, in fact, a Syrian woman is probably by and large better off than a woman in, say, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or most other Arab or Muslim nations, due to the fact that Syria is after all ruled by a secular regime that does not abide by shariah law. There is a good argument to be made for engaging Assad diplomatically, actually for a variety of reasons, the secular nature of his regime being one of them. Personally, I think the main reason he is lax at his borders has as much to do with wanting these religious radicals out of his country as it does with wanting to cause a problem for the US and the present Iraqi government. If they get killed by us as a result, I doubt he is shedding any tears for them.
But Bush is doggedly determined that the entire Middle East will be democratized, feeling the overall result of this will be peace and economic progress in the region, and long term stability. I think he is wrong, I think it would result in nation after nation adopting a form of shariah law which will then be considered the final word on the matter.
After all, the people will have voted for it, right? That is what they will have said they wanted, correct? End of story. Democracy has spoken, why second guess it every four years or so?
Womens’ rights? Minority rights? Religious rights? Of course they all have rights? There is no need whatsoever in spelling that out in a national constitution. Their legitimate rights have already been spelled out, in the words of the Holy Qu’ran. How could the law of man possibly improve on that?
This is the true irony, the fact that governments like Assads, and yes, Saddams, were in some ways an actual improvement over what would otherwise be the case, and what will in the majority of cases be the reality if Bush and the Neo-Cons get their way in the Middle East.
That is not to say that a constitutional democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. Just that if it does, it is still a hell of a long way off. Three or four lifetimes, at the very least, and very likely longer than that. And yes, very possibly never. People point to the success ultimately in removing communism from the Soviet Union and it’s sphere of influence particularly in Eastern Europe, as proof that it is possible, but there is only minimal comparison between the two.
Communism is unnatural, so much so it could only be maintained through fear and force, even by imprisonment of it’s peoples within it’s borders, by uprooting entire populations in some cases. The difference between communism and Islam is profound in this regard. Islam is, or seems to be, perfectly suited to the nature of it’s adherents. It has had fourteen hundred years to take root in the psyche of the Arab people of the Middle East, and many hundreds of years as well in the cases of other peoples. And it wasn’t that hard to take hold in any event, as it itself was in many cases and in many ways an improvement over what those people had experienced previously.
With Islam, they were given a sense of unity, of cultural identity, of spiritual meaning, of assurance, stability, security. They got all of this without really having to give anything up, for the most part, with the exception of a few ancient idols that were quickly forgotten, and constant intermittent tribal feuds. With Islam, they went from being dessert varmints to an actual civilization to be reckoned with, and everyone was an integral part of that.
Then there is the Qu’ran itself, written in Arabic, one of the worlds great languages, which lends itself easily to poetry, which is what the Qu’ran is, a poetic rendition of what amounts to a mixture of Arab tribal laws and adaptations from various faiths, including Judaism and Christianity, with just enough remaining of the ancient Arabic pagan religion to provide a cultural anchor.
Converts to Islam are encouraged whenever possible to learn Arabic, to travel to the Middle East and study there, especially the language, and I suspect that it is because the Arabic language makes the Qu’ran more particularly compelling to the student who meditates and prayers and recites it on an on-going, regular basis.
You can make the case that it amounts to a form of brainwashing. In this regard it is certainly on a much higher level of efficiency than, say, “Das Capital”. Try reciting that five times a day while bowing towards Moscow. Then you’ll see why Assad and Saddam had to exercise such brutality in the manner in which they kept these people in line. Life is seldom pretty, but when the caliphate fell in the aftermath of World War I, after which came such things as western colonialism on it’s last legs, culminating in the British Mandate, the UN Charter, and finally, Soviet expansionism and the ever growing and constant need for oil, you can begin to understand the pattern that emerges.
All of this used to be pretty much understood, of course. There was never any idea that democracy versus socialism was a viable or winnable ideological contest in the context of the Middle East countries, that is why there were few differences of distinction between Western allies and those nations that fell under the Soviet axis.
The lesson should have been quickly learned when the Afghan mujahadeen fighters repulsed the Soviets with our aid and support. Those same mujahadden to a large extent went on to make up the Taliban. Not exactly a stellar example of freedom on the march, is it? Well, it depends on what your definition of freedom is, I guess. And that is just the problem the West can’t wrap it’s head around. Freedom, in the context of Middle Eastern Arab and Islamic culture, does not seem to equate to democracy and civil rights.
But again, both sides have it wrong. To the Right, the speak softly and when necessary whack ‘em with a big stick approach will work over time, and when the people see the long term benefits of a free market economy, they will gradually change. Yeah, like China. Like Russia. I guess when you stop to think about it, ancient Babylon, the wealthiest nation by far at it’s apex of power, must have been a “free market economy.” But let’s not dwell on that, why disturb the fantasy?
The make nice approach of the left isn’t any better, though in the long term it may also not be any worse when it comes to encouraging democracy and civil rights. Their approach seems to hinge on the threat of imposition of economic sanction, or the promise of removal of same, under the auspices of the UN. In the meantime, a firm diplomatic stance involving aid and international low interest loans and grants will serve best to ease the restrictions on those same peoples rights to vote for or against the imposition of shariah Islam.
The people will vote in their own best interests, and will more likely do so the more they are exposed to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and civil rights. After all, they certainly want to be a part of the world community, no one wants to remain isolated for the sake of some ancient religion, right?
Okay, here’s the problem with both approaches. They are arrived at from the narrow perspective of Western concepts of justice and idealism, and history. Both of these conclusions have been reached from a Western mind-set with little if any regard for the fact that we are dealing here with a society and culture that, to all intents and purposes, has so little in common with our own way of life and philosophy, they might as well be from the far side of Andromeda galaxy.
Arrogance, is what it amounts to, and on such a remarkable level it is beyond description. And the sad thing is, it is in the long run only going to result in more tragedy, more ruined lives, more wasted resources, and ever more bitterness and hatred. To an extent it might have been unavoidable in any event. But that reality should have been faced squarely.
It’s like telling a fat, profoundly ugly woman that she is the prettiest woman you have ever seen in your life. You might think you are sparring her feelings and might make her feel better about herself. Well, if she has any kind of sense of reality, all you are really going to do is piss her off and make her hate and resent you more than she already might. So the only sensible alternative is to see her for what she is, help her improve her situation to the extent she wants to and can improve, and help her in the meantime to focus on developing her potential by way of what strengths and talents she might actually possess. But you have to do so in a kindly but firmly diplomatic way. Otherwise, you just let her go on and live her life as is. There is only so much, after all, you can do.
All the bombs and military force in the world is not going to change reality. Neither is appearing as a woman in a diplomatically miscalculated pose of subjugation. The only thing that is going to do it, is strength, the kind of strength that realizes the simple fact that all nations, all people, all cultures, are in fact different to a degree, sometimes to the point that there is nothing in a relationship between the two that is redeemable, or workable. Sometimes, unfortunately, you just have to go your separate ways, and live your own lives.
Unfortunately, that requires the setting of firm boundaries, and the promise of the assurance of firm reaction when those boundaries are breached. And that is something that neither culture can tolerate. What puts the West for now at the most severe disadvantage is that here, while neither the left nor the right can stomach it, they are both so divided as to how to deal with it , that neither side can come to grips with any semblance of the reality.
The Islamists are all too aware of this, and play it for all it is worth. And they are by no means divided, at least not when it comes to that.
I will say one thing though unequivocally. You don’t have to be an expert to see that this was an act of political grandstanding. I’m not really sure what she thought she was going to accomplish, but it looks like a make-believe overture to show her own personal constituents, as well as the overall Democratic voter base, that she, as the head of the Congressional Democrats, second-in-line to the Presidency in her role of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives, is demonstrating that the Democratic Party stands for diplomacy and the hopes and prospects for peace.
The symbolism is obvious. Bush will not talk to Assad. Pelosi will. The Republicans don’t know anything about peace, they are all about belligerence and warfare. The Democrats are all about negotiation and peace. The bumbling misstep when Pelosi informed Assad that the Israelis were wanting to make peace with the Syrians was easily rectified by Prime Minister Ohlmert, who immediately let it be known that any peace deal was dependent on certain conditions that Nancy, being Nancy, neglected to point out.
All of this bothers me, the missteps, the obvious political grandstanding to the Democrats leftist base, the potential violation of The Logan Act or other laws. What some people don’t seem to get by pointing out that some congressional Republicans accompanied Pelosi on this trip, and have indeed made other trips, is that those individuals are not in the position to formulate policy nor are seen as doing so.
Arguably, the office of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives is the second most powerful office in the country, more powerful technically and legally than Vice-President, whose true power is limited to casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate when necessary. Otherwise, none of his duties really constitute any kind of auhority. This may be different in Cheney’s case, true, but I am speaking in historical and legal terms. There have been times when the Speaker was more powerful than certain Presidents. John Tyler, for example. There have been times when there was a complete shutdown of government due to friction between the two offices. Bill Clinton’s Presidency, of course, as well as Andrew Johnsons, were paralyzed by a kind of political civil war waged by an ambitious Congress and/or House Speaker.
Pelosi seems to have wanted this type of power, and foresaw the same kind of political showdown that would get the Democratic base all fired up. When this ended up failing to materialize in the form of the war funding package, to which Pelosi inadvisably attached a troop deadline withdrawal which was slated for a month before the ’08 elections, Pelosi was left with no other option but to back down. Of course, the Democrats are not going to withhold funds from the troops.
Now this, a chance for Pelosi to redeem herself and stick it to the Republicans at the same time. And though Assad, it has been said, preferred to spend his time at a soccer game, he did agree to put aside some time for the strange little woman from San Francisco who appeared before him in the traditional Arab head covering as a sign of respect.
That is what I guess bothers me as much as anything. By appearing with this garment on her head, whether she sees it this way or not, Pelosi was in a very real and symbolic way projecting an image of submission to Assad. And Assad’s Syria, by and large, is arguably the major player in the constant Middle East friction regarding Israel and to the dismay of many observers is primarily responsible for a good deal of the Sunni insurgent violence in Iraq. It is by way of his borders that most of the non-Iraqi Sunni insurgents travel, after all.
Nor are they all Syrians. Many are Saudis, while a good many as well are Jordanians,in fact from all areas of the Middle East and other Muslim nations. Pelosi is not qualified to engage in diplomacy with him in any event, whether or not her trip constitutes any kind of breach or willful violation of US law. But for her to appear under these further conditions is incredible. A San Francisco woman, representing a constituency which is a bedrock of liberalism and feminism, to appear in an attitude of subjugation before the head of a country where the rights of women are held to be secondary at best, is at least surreal.
And it is not even as though Syria is the worse offender in this regard, in fact, a Syrian woman is probably by and large better off than a woman in, say, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or most other Arab or Muslim nations, due to the fact that Syria is after all ruled by a secular regime that does not abide by shariah law. There is a good argument to be made for engaging Assad diplomatically, actually for a variety of reasons, the secular nature of his regime being one of them. Personally, I think the main reason he is lax at his borders has as much to do with wanting these religious radicals out of his country as it does with wanting to cause a problem for the US and the present Iraqi government. If they get killed by us as a result, I doubt he is shedding any tears for them.
But Bush is doggedly determined that the entire Middle East will be democratized, feeling the overall result of this will be peace and economic progress in the region, and long term stability. I think he is wrong, I think it would result in nation after nation adopting a form of shariah law which will then be considered the final word on the matter.
After all, the people will have voted for it, right? That is what they will have said they wanted, correct? End of story. Democracy has spoken, why second guess it every four years or so?
Womens’ rights? Minority rights? Religious rights? Of course they all have rights? There is no need whatsoever in spelling that out in a national constitution. Their legitimate rights have already been spelled out, in the words of the Holy Qu’ran. How could the law of man possibly improve on that?
This is the true irony, the fact that governments like Assads, and yes, Saddams, were in some ways an actual improvement over what would otherwise be the case, and what will in the majority of cases be the reality if Bush and the Neo-Cons get their way in the Middle East.
That is not to say that a constitutional democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. Just that if it does, it is still a hell of a long way off. Three or four lifetimes, at the very least, and very likely longer than that. And yes, very possibly never. People point to the success ultimately in removing communism from the Soviet Union and it’s sphere of influence particularly in Eastern Europe, as proof that it is possible, but there is only minimal comparison between the two.
Communism is unnatural, so much so it could only be maintained through fear and force, even by imprisonment of it’s peoples within it’s borders, by uprooting entire populations in some cases. The difference between communism and Islam is profound in this regard. Islam is, or seems to be, perfectly suited to the nature of it’s adherents. It has had fourteen hundred years to take root in the psyche of the Arab people of the Middle East, and many hundreds of years as well in the cases of other peoples. And it wasn’t that hard to take hold in any event, as it itself was in many cases and in many ways an improvement over what those people had experienced previously.
With Islam, they were given a sense of unity, of cultural identity, of spiritual meaning, of assurance, stability, security. They got all of this without really having to give anything up, for the most part, with the exception of a few ancient idols that were quickly forgotten, and constant intermittent tribal feuds. With Islam, they went from being dessert varmints to an actual civilization to be reckoned with, and everyone was an integral part of that.
Then there is the Qu’ran itself, written in Arabic, one of the worlds great languages, which lends itself easily to poetry, which is what the Qu’ran is, a poetic rendition of what amounts to a mixture of Arab tribal laws and adaptations from various faiths, including Judaism and Christianity, with just enough remaining of the ancient Arabic pagan religion to provide a cultural anchor.
Converts to Islam are encouraged whenever possible to learn Arabic, to travel to the Middle East and study there, especially the language, and I suspect that it is because the Arabic language makes the Qu’ran more particularly compelling to the student who meditates and prayers and recites it on an on-going, regular basis.
You can make the case that it amounts to a form of brainwashing. In this regard it is certainly on a much higher level of efficiency than, say, “Das Capital”. Try reciting that five times a day while bowing towards Moscow. Then you’ll see why Assad and Saddam had to exercise such brutality in the manner in which they kept these people in line. Life is seldom pretty, but when the caliphate fell in the aftermath of World War I, after which came such things as western colonialism on it’s last legs, culminating in the British Mandate, the UN Charter, and finally, Soviet expansionism and the ever growing and constant need for oil, you can begin to understand the pattern that emerges.
All of this used to be pretty much understood, of course. There was never any idea that democracy versus socialism was a viable or winnable ideological contest in the context of the Middle East countries, that is why there were few differences of distinction between Western allies and those nations that fell under the Soviet axis.
The lesson should have been quickly learned when the Afghan mujahadeen fighters repulsed the Soviets with our aid and support. Those same mujahadden to a large extent went on to make up the Taliban. Not exactly a stellar example of freedom on the march, is it? Well, it depends on what your definition of freedom is, I guess. And that is just the problem the West can’t wrap it’s head around. Freedom, in the context of Middle Eastern Arab and Islamic culture, does not seem to equate to democracy and civil rights.
But again, both sides have it wrong. To the Right, the speak softly and when necessary whack ‘em with a big stick approach will work over time, and when the people see the long term benefits of a free market economy, they will gradually change. Yeah, like China. Like Russia. I guess when you stop to think about it, ancient Babylon, the wealthiest nation by far at it’s apex of power, must have been a “free market economy.” But let’s not dwell on that, why disturb the fantasy?
The make nice approach of the left isn’t any better, though in the long term it may also not be any worse when it comes to encouraging democracy and civil rights. Their approach seems to hinge on the threat of imposition of economic sanction, or the promise of removal of same, under the auspices of the UN. In the meantime, a firm diplomatic stance involving aid and international low interest loans and grants will serve best to ease the restrictions on those same peoples rights to vote for or against the imposition of shariah Islam.
The people will vote in their own best interests, and will more likely do so the more they are exposed to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and civil rights. After all, they certainly want to be a part of the world community, no one wants to remain isolated for the sake of some ancient religion, right?
Okay, here’s the problem with both approaches. They are arrived at from the narrow perspective of Western concepts of justice and idealism, and history. Both of these conclusions have been reached from a Western mind-set with little if any regard for the fact that we are dealing here with a society and culture that, to all intents and purposes, has so little in common with our own way of life and philosophy, they might as well be from the far side of Andromeda galaxy.
Arrogance, is what it amounts to, and on such a remarkable level it is beyond description. And the sad thing is, it is in the long run only going to result in more tragedy, more ruined lives, more wasted resources, and ever more bitterness and hatred. To an extent it might have been unavoidable in any event. But that reality should have been faced squarely.
It’s like telling a fat, profoundly ugly woman that she is the prettiest woman you have ever seen in your life. You might think you are sparring her feelings and might make her feel better about herself. Well, if she has any kind of sense of reality, all you are really going to do is piss her off and make her hate and resent you more than she already might. So the only sensible alternative is to see her for what she is, help her improve her situation to the extent she wants to and can improve, and help her in the meantime to focus on developing her potential by way of what strengths and talents she might actually possess. But you have to do so in a kindly but firmly diplomatic way. Otherwise, you just let her go on and live her life as is. There is only so much, after all, you can do.
All the bombs and military force in the world is not going to change reality. Neither is appearing as a woman in a diplomatically miscalculated pose of subjugation. The only thing that is going to do it, is strength, the kind of strength that realizes the simple fact that all nations, all people, all cultures, are in fact different to a degree, sometimes to the point that there is nothing in a relationship between the two that is redeemable, or workable. Sometimes, unfortunately, you just have to go your separate ways, and live your own lives.
Unfortunately, that requires the setting of firm boundaries, and the promise of the assurance of firm reaction when those boundaries are breached. And that is something that neither culture can tolerate. What puts the West for now at the most severe disadvantage is that here, while neither the left nor the right can stomach it, they are both so divided as to how to deal with it , that neither side can come to grips with any semblance of the reality.
The Islamists are all too aware of this, and play it for all it is worth. And they are by no means divided, at least not when it comes to that.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
And It's So Easy Even A Caveman Can Do It.
In the Geico commercial, the pundit interviewer is told by an apparent female sociologist that “we are living in a day when individual ego is predominant.”
The opposing viewpoint is delivered by the caveman, who when invited to reply, says, “yes I have a response. Uuuuu-WHAT?”
Point taken. We are living in an age of hive mentality, and this is especially true when it comes to minority culture, it seems. A perceived or real slight at any one member or segment of a particular society is seen as an assault on the dignity of the entire hive, and no one now is learning this lesson better than is Don Imus, the radio talk show host of the CBS show “Imus In The Morning”, which is simulcast on MSNBC in the mornings Monday through Friday from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.
The “nappy headed hoes”, to borrow the offending Imus quote, of the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights Women’s Basketball team, who just lost to Tennessee in the championship NCAA women’s basketball tournament, certainly have a right to take offense and even to demand the firing of Don Imus, and truthfully, Imus has purposely disturbed enough hornets nests to know better by now. He is currently on a two week suspension from both CBS and MSNBC, and could very well end up being fired for this remark, despite the fact that he actually made them with a degree of admiration. In fact, he personally knows one of the players (who has also nevertheless expressed offense at the statement).
He certainly at least owes them an apology. But does he owe an apology to Al Sharpton, whose radio show Imus voluntarily appeared on? He did so doing as he has done non-stop the last several days, apologizing profusely while maintaining that he is a good person. Sharpton was not impressed, and called forth his own daughter. She stepped forward, whereupon Sharpton informed Imus that she, his daughter, was not a “nappy headed hoe.”
So, is the offending words the observation that the girls are “nappy headed”? Or that they are “hoes”? I could see where the first would apply to Sharpton’s daughter, and perhaps she should have a right to feel insulted at this slang. But I don’t see how the second qualifies as an offense to the daughter of Al Sharpton, unless she knows something her father evidently doesn’t. Unless they are implying that Imus meant that if you are nappy headed, then you must be a ho, especially if you are a college woman’s basketball team player with tattoos. Personally, I don’t think the man meant it that way, nor do I think he really meant it as an insult. I tend to think Don Imus just hasn’t caught on to the fact that he isn’t black.
Like I said, the girls have a right to take serious exception to this, and even they might be taking it hard to some extent for the wrong reason. One of them stated that they worked hard to get to where they got, in their underdog status, to rise to the level of playing in the NCAA championship game, and Imus took away from that sense of accomplishment. Yes, I can see that point. Then, unfortunately, one went on to inform us that they are “the future leaders of tomorrow”.
With that, she almost through what sympathy I initially had out the window. No matter how well you do in life, you’re still just like all the rest of us, just another cog in the wheel of life. You are just as deserving of respect, but no more so, than anybody else. That being said, these young women are certainly more deserving of respect than is implied by the term “ho”, nappy headed or otherwise. But that is true of any non-ho from any branch of society. If she or they think otherwise, maybe their egos needed to be brought down a notch or two. But so too does Don Imus, perhaps.
I just wonder how long the Sharpton’s and Jacksons of the world have been laying for him. Perhaps ever since show producer Bernard MacGurk delivered a scathing satirical “poetry” reading supposedly from Maya Angelou, in which the poetess delivered a tribute to her black ancestors, bemoaning the fact that the white man, “took from you your pride, your dignity-your spears.”
Yes, Imus has long been a raw, edgy, at times over the top show that always pushed the envelope, to use all the standard cliches in one line, but now he might soon be gone. After this week, of course, after he has concluded a telethon to raise money for children’s charities. Then, there are plans for Imus to meet with the Rutgers women’s team. Then, soon, the decision will be made. It don’t look good. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are sticking to their guns in demanding that Imus be fired, and in the meantime at least one advertiser has threatened to withhold sponsorship, while at least one more is seriously considering taking the same action.
It would certainly save me the trouble of deciding whether or not to return to expanded cable. If they fire him, that would take away my main reason for paying the extra money for it, and certainly for watching MSNBC. But like I said, he’s pretty much brought this on himself. I could moan here and go on about the First Amendment, but really, the First Amendment cuts both ways. Sponsors have a right to withhold support and station owners and broadcasters have a right to respond to that reality, every bit as much as Imus technically has the right to make an ass of himself. In the grand scheme of things the First Amendment is pretty much worth just about as much as the paper it is reproduced on.
Especially when you consider that he has also seriously damaged his credibility as a host who typically can get major political interviews with politicians and presidential candidates, respected journalists, performers, and newsmakers of all stripes. John Edwards has been a frequent guest in the past, as has John McCain. Both of these and others might well be rethinking the wisdom of such appearances now.
Maybe he should just call it off, and bow out gracefully. There is always Sirius, or XM Satellite. After all, a big part of the current controversy stems from the fact that the public networks are in fact federally regulated, in addition to corporate sponsored. The First Amendment still applies, however, it is a true democracy. Unfortunately, what that amounts to these days is a kind of mob rule that fuels and drives a corporate plutocracy, with the rule of law executed by advertising dollars.
Monday, April 09, 2007
White Easter
I’m jealous. Jealous as hell, of people in certain parts of Michigan,Cleveland, and some other areas. All week, I’ve been dreaming of a “White Easter”, and what do I get? Disappointment in the form of a long, hard snowfall that barely registered in the end at a quarter of an inch. Not enough to cover the ground or the road, just a slight dusting.
No easter egg in the snow hunts for me this year. Just the cold without the beauty. Yeah, I think snow is beautiful. Of course I don’t have to be out in it for very long at a time either. Still, there is nothing prettier than standing at your window at night and looking out over the ground and road covered with a thick blanket of snow, especially if snow is still falling, as you watch it through the street lights, and it clings to the trees.
Oh well, enough of that, maybe next year. Of course I realize a lot of people are going to trumpet this as proof that global warming is a fake issue. After all, how could it snow on or near Easter, in April, enough to stick to the ground, if the earth really was experiencing global warming? How the hell could it be cold in South Carolina, for Pete’s sake?
Don’t get me wrong, I am by no means a big believer in global warming, at least insofar as how it is supposedly being caused for the most part by human activity. But this does not constitute proof or evidence against it. What seems to be responsible for this phenomenon is the jet stream forcing cold air down from the north and maybe the Arctic circle, further south than is typically the case this time of year. This while dropping the temperatures also adds to the moisture of an already typically moist time of year, and so voila-the result being snow. You can actually make the case that the melting glaciers through global warming actually adds somewhat to the accumulated moisture from the north.
And actually, you can make the case that human activity might play a role in this present phenomenon, not in the sense of carbon emissions, but at least insofar as cold temperatures in South Carolina. Might the constant mountaintop removal and land flattening that has taken place over the years in the aftermath of coal mining-especially strip mining-play a role in allowing the cold air to travel more or less uninterrupted further than usual?
I think there is more to the removal of trees and mountaintops that plays into the change in weather patterns in the midwest of the US, actually, than can be blamed on carbon emissions. Or, at least, it plays as large a role. I talked about it in this post here, and I am somewhat perturbed that it has really taken a back seat to concerns about carbon emissions. After all, as I said-well, it’s speculation to a large extent on my part, but I think I’m on fairly strong ground-the more trees that are removed and not replaced, the less carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere, while the less oxygen is being returned at the same time.
At the same time, the lowering of land levels through mountain top removal, as well as trees, eliminates the buffer that therefore allows more warm gulf air to travel northward into the midwest, thereby warming temperatures in the winter. And, so now it seems, allowing the gulf stream to carry colder temperatures from Canada to, say, South Carolina.
Of course, bear in mind that there would be a huge political drawback to regulating mining in mining states, even though there are supposed to be laws that mandate land restoration to the original contours. They are not strictly enforced, in fact, they can be ignored and discarded if there is a demonstrated need for city expansion.
Still, it’s not a winning issue in Kentucky. The business owners don’t want it, of course, but neither do the workers, who might be threatened with lay-offs. Also, after all, some of the citizens in these towns own land that they potentially stand to make millions of dollars from, but in a good many cases, not if the companies have to tack on the expense of land contour restoration. In a lot of cases, they would stand nothing to gain by the purchase of such lands.
Then, of course, you add the expense that will be added, passed on actually, to the consumers in these regions. What would that amount to? Most people might be able to suck it up and deal with a one or two percent increase, but a seven or eight percent increase of more would cause a severe hardship on some families. And I’m just sticking with this to the region. Outside the immediate region, the increase would be much more, so you can multiply the economic hardship exponentially.
This of course is precisely why mining safety regulations are rarely enforced, and why therefore you have the resultant mining tragedies that have occurred (though to be fair mining is still much safer than it ever was in the past). At any rate all these reasons are why not much headway is being made. It’s that old road to hell paved with good intentions scenario.
It’s just an unfortunate fact that, if all of these laws and regulations ever were enforced, you might well end up looking forward to that lump of coal in your Christmas stocking. Or in your easter basket.
No easter egg in the snow hunts for me this year. Just the cold without the beauty. Yeah, I think snow is beautiful. Of course I don’t have to be out in it for very long at a time either. Still, there is nothing prettier than standing at your window at night and looking out over the ground and road covered with a thick blanket of snow, especially if snow is still falling, as you watch it through the street lights, and it clings to the trees.
Oh well, enough of that, maybe next year. Of course I realize a lot of people are going to trumpet this as proof that global warming is a fake issue. After all, how could it snow on or near Easter, in April, enough to stick to the ground, if the earth really was experiencing global warming? How the hell could it be cold in South Carolina, for Pete’s sake?
Don’t get me wrong, I am by no means a big believer in global warming, at least insofar as how it is supposedly being caused for the most part by human activity. But this does not constitute proof or evidence against it. What seems to be responsible for this phenomenon is the jet stream forcing cold air down from the north and maybe the Arctic circle, further south than is typically the case this time of year. This while dropping the temperatures also adds to the moisture of an already typically moist time of year, and so voila-the result being snow. You can actually make the case that the melting glaciers through global warming actually adds somewhat to the accumulated moisture from the north.
And actually, you can make the case that human activity might play a role in this present phenomenon, not in the sense of carbon emissions, but at least insofar as cold temperatures in South Carolina. Might the constant mountaintop removal and land flattening that has taken place over the years in the aftermath of coal mining-especially strip mining-play a role in allowing the cold air to travel more or less uninterrupted further than usual?
I think there is more to the removal of trees and mountaintops that plays into the change in weather patterns in the midwest of the US, actually, than can be blamed on carbon emissions. Or, at least, it plays as large a role. I talked about it in this post here, and I am somewhat perturbed that it has really taken a back seat to concerns about carbon emissions. After all, as I said-well, it’s speculation to a large extent on my part, but I think I’m on fairly strong ground-the more trees that are removed and not replaced, the less carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere, while the less oxygen is being returned at the same time.
At the same time, the lowering of land levels through mountain top removal, as well as trees, eliminates the buffer that therefore allows more warm gulf air to travel northward into the midwest, thereby warming temperatures in the winter. And, so now it seems, allowing the gulf stream to carry colder temperatures from Canada to, say, South Carolina.
Of course, bear in mind that there would be a huge political drawback to regulating mining in mining states, even though there are supposed to be laws that mandate land restoration to the original contours. They are not strictly enforced, in fact, they can be ignored and discarded if there is a demonstrated need for city expansion.
Still, it’s not a winning issue in Kentucky. The business owners don’t want it, of course, but neither do the workers, who might be threatened with lay-offs. Also, after all, some of the citizens in these towns own land that they potentially stand to make millions of dollars from, but in a good many cases, not if the companies have to tack on the expense of land contour restoration. In a lot of cases, they would stand nothing to gain by the purchase of such lands.
Then, of course, you add the expense that will be added, passed on actually, to the consumers in these regions. What would that amount to? Most people might be able to suck it up and deal with a one or two percent increase, but a seven or eight percent increase of more would cause a severe hardship on some families. And I’m just sticking with this to the region. Outside the immediate region, the increase would be much more, so you can multiply the economic hardship exponentially.
This of course is precisely why mining safety regulations are rarely enforced, and why therefore you have the resultant mining tragedies that have occurred (though to be fair mining is still much safer than it ever was in the past). At any rate all these reasons are why not much headway is being made. It’s that old road to hell paved with good intentions scenario.
It’s just an unfortunate fact that, if all of these laws and regulations ever were enforced, you might well end up looking forward to that lump of coal in your Christmas stocking. Or in your easter basket.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Wet Dreams And Democrats
The current war funding bill, what little I know of it, is generally a good bill. Sure, there is some pork in it, as with all bills. But when you scrutinize it, even the pork isn’t all that bad, for the most part. A good deal of it is involving relief for farmers that have suffered through recent droughts, flooding, temperature extremes, etc. It’s easy to criticize such measures as that. Pay ten dollars for a grapefruit and you will see them in an entirely different perspective, however.
No, the problem with the bill isn’t the porks-it’s the dorks. The kind of dorks that just had to insist on a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq that oh my, what the fuck do you know, just happened to have been slated for the October before the next elections in 2008. My, what an amazing coincidence.
Of course, the bill will be vetoed, then we’ll see what happens. We’ll see what happens for example to the money allotted by the Democrats for veterans health care, and for making sure the troops receive the appropriate training before they are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, like I said, it’s a good bill, were it not for that one provision. Take that one provision out, and it could well be one of the best bills ever considered, and certainly one of the best ones ever passed by Congress. But what good is it? You can go out on a date with the most beautiful woman the world has ever seen, she can fall madly in love with you and be willing to do anything you want. She can be charming, witty, and intelligent. She can make every man's head turn and every woman green with envy with just a glance. Despite all this you can rest assured she is all yours. But if you take her to your bedroom and lustfully undress her only to see maggots crawling out of her pussy, what good is it?
Well, in the case of this bill it's not quite that bad, but only because it is not too late. When Bush vetoes it as we all know he will, this provision can be excised, which it should be. Then, the Democrats can pass this bill otherwise intact. Bush wouldn’t dare then veto it on the grounds of pork, if he does, I will agree he’s as fucking stupid as a lot of people say he is. But he’s not that stupid, so he wouldn’t.
By excising this provision,the Democrats will have salvaged their chances of winning the ’08 elections, which if they win, then they can devote their agenda to ending the war on their terms, with control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress, it would be an almost sure bet the war would be ended by the next mid-terms.
Otherwise, if this provision is kept, the Democrats might be sabotaging their chances of winning, at the very least it will be a huge negative against them, and the Republicans will probably win for this as well as other reasons. Then, the war will more than likely go on longer, which may or may not be as big a catastrophe as a premature withdrawal. Still, it will go on longer than it will if the Democrats win. But with this provision in an otherwise excellent bill, they have pretty much screwed themselves.
I have never fucked a woman with maggots crawling out of her pussy, and it’s just as unlikely that Bush will ever pass this bill with this provision intact. As for the Democrats, I hope they are experiencing one hell of an orgasm right now, because they sure are fucking themselves.
No, the problem with the bill isn’t the porks-it’s the dorks. The kind of dorks that just had to insist on a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq that oh my, what the fuck do you know, just happened to have been slated for the October before the next elections in 2008. My, what an amazing coincidence.
Of course, the bill will be vetoed, then we’ll see what happens. We’ll see what happens for example to the money allotted by the Democrats for veterans health care, and for making sure the troops receive the appropriate training before they are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, like I said, it’s a good bill, were it not for that one provision. Take that one provision out, and it could well be one of the best bills ever considered, and certainly one of the best ones ever passed by Congress. But what good is it? You can go out on a date with the most beautiful woman the world has ever seen, she can fall madly in love with you and be willing to do anything you want. She can be charming, witty, and intelligent. She can make every man's head turn and every woman green with envy with just a glance. Despite all this you can rest assured she is all yours. But if you take her to your bedroom and lustfully undress her only to see maggots crawling out of her pussy, what good is it?
Well, in the case of this bill it's not quite that bad, but only because it is not too late. When Bush vetoes it as we all know he will, this provision can be excised, which it should be. Then, the Democrats can pass this bill otherwise intact. Bush wouldn’t dare then veto it on the grounds of pork, if he does, I will agree he’s as fucking stupid as a lot of people say he is. But he’s not that stupid, so he wouldn’t.
By excising this provision,the Democrats will have salvaged their chances of winning the ’08 elections, which if they win, then they can devote their agenda to ending the war on their terms, with control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress, it would be an almost sure bet the war would be ended by the next mid-terms.
Otherwise, if this provision is kept, the Democrats might be sabotaging their chances of winning, at the very least it will be a huge negative against them, and the Republicans will probably win for this as well as other reasons. Then, the war will more than likely go on longer, which may or may not be as big a catastrophe as a premature withdrawal. Still, it will go on longer than it will if the Democrats win. But with this provision in an otherwise excellent bill, they have pretty much screwed themselves.
I have never fucked a woman with maggots crawling out of her pussy, and it’s just as unlikely that Bush will ever pass this bill with this provision intact. As for the Democrats, I hope they are experiencing one hell of an orgasm right now, because they sure are fucking themselves.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Wackjobs Have Rights Too
I never thought I would ever see the day that I would defend the right of uber-bitch Rosie O'Donnell to be a stupid ass, but that's just what I'm doing here. She has now officially joined the ranks of British historian and holocaust denier David Irving and those two little Nazi muppets Lynx and Lamb Gaede, of Prussian Blue, as permanently enshrined members of The Pagan Temple's Twilight Zone. Why?
Submitted for your approval: Rosie O'Donnell, progressive gay feminist activist and child advocate, comedienne, and all around pain in the ass, has come out publicly on ABC's The View with the opinion that 9/11 might well be an inside job designed to ignite support for the "war on terror".
She has further stated that the current dilemna of the British navy and marines personnel, to wit being held hostage by their Iranian captors for supposedly entering Iranian territorial waters, might actually have been purposely set up by Britain to pave the way for an invasion of Iran by the US. We will invade Iran soon, as planned, she promises.
She has made it clear on her blog and on The View, the ABC morning show of which she is a co-hostess, that she is a stalwart Bush basher and is willing to believe the worse about the administration, even to the point that she is wiling to accuse them of potential complicity in the terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of 3000 Americans in one fell swoop.
I've all but torn my hair out in the past at the ignorance of these ridiculous conspiracy theories, but here I find myself on O'Donnell's side, not because I have suddenly and amazingly come to some mystical revelation that she and her conspiracy theory whackjob adherents are right after all, but-
Enter Bill O'Reilly, of Fox New's "The O'Reilly Factor". According to him, Rosie should be fired for perpetuating these conspiracy theories, for the crimes of supporting the government of Iran and standing against her own country, and for causing pain and suffering to the victims of the attacks and those who lost life and limb in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their families, etc.
Donald Trump of course chimed in saying he too believed O'Donnell should be fired, for pretty much all these same reasons, and presumably for being a fat ugly slob as well.
My response-Why do you hate America, Mr. Trump? Mr. O'Reilly, why do you hate freedumb?
As repugnant as I consider O'Donnell and many if not most of her views, including these reported here,she has as much a right to promote them as anyone has a right to promote any view. As some of O'Reilly's guests intimated to him on the subject, if O'Donnell is fired, it should be because Rosie's presence is demonstrated to have cost the program viewers. O'Reilly insists that it has, though I have heard other claims to the contrary. Perhaps that is why O'Reilly insists the ABC Network should take the step of firing her for her irresponsible behavior.
Sorry, but I consider that the proverbial slippery slope involving one of our most precious freedoms, the First Amendment right to free speech. Granted, it can be abused. You can't or are not supposed to incite violence, purposely engage in slander or libel, or engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for just some examples.
Taken one at a time-in Rosie's surreal world, it is the US and the Bush Administration who is inciting violence, she is trying to do her part to end it.
Slander and libel have to be proven to be purposefully engaged in, otherwise the onus is on Bush and the Administration to disprove the claims.
Actually the true onus is on the American people to recognize bullshit whackjob conspiracy theories when they hear them, but that's a different matter.
As for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, we are technically not at war with a country, but with a radical ideology. Iran may be our enemies in a sense, but not in the legally binding sense of declarations of war. Neither are we at war with Iraq or Afghanistan as those nations are legitimately defined. Until such time as O'Donnell gives verifiable aid and assistance to a specific individual or group of people that are known terrorists, therefore, she is pretty much in the clear.
True, O'Donnell's views might be legitimately viewed as traitorous-but she is not technically a traitor. Some might even hold forth the view that she is a patriot. The point is, when it gets to the point that activists and pundits can demand that a person be removed from their jobs for holding forth views they consider repugnant, where does it end?
Again, I come by this position honestly. I have watched with bemusement and amazement as it has been demanded that people be fired for, for example, stating that blacks are good at certain sports due to the way their ancestors were bred by former slave-owners. Makes sense to me, so why the fuss? Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, does it warrant a person being fired? Nope. Not in my opinion.
Neither should Michael Richards be continuosly tortured for his unfortunate use of "the N word" in a comedy performance. Neither should Mel Gibson be constantly derided for his drunken anti-Semitic tirade every time he is mentioned in public. Neither should an actor from the hit ABC drama "Grey's Anatomy" lose his job over his use of the slang word "faggot" (especially when he used it in the context of denying that he called another performer on the show that derogatory name).
And neither should Rosie O'Donnel be fired,despite the fact that she makes me want to see somebody just slap the living shit out of her sometimes. After all, she would be the first person to take the first opportunity to herself demand that somebody else be punished for saying something that she found offensive.
So yes, it's fine to get some satisfaction out of the prospect of the chickens coming home to roost. But the First Amendment is more important than Rosie O'Donnell,or any of the people I have mentioned in the context of this post.
To me, Rosie O'Donnell is a person with a lot of inner rage that seems to me to approach hatred. Just look at her long enough and you can see what I mean. She might hide it for awhile, but the woman oozes anger and rage all but seeps from her pores. Personally, I think she was molested as a child or teenager by a trusted family member or friend and never came to grips with it. That's one reason why she is so involved with children's issues, and yet, so far as I know, she stays relatively clear of child sex abuse issues. I might be wrong here, if so it would be understandable, as I don't watch Rosie O'Donnell enough to know in great detail what her positions all are. I do know she derided Michael Jackson from time to time, but shit, who hasn't?
Of course the question needs to be asked, why wouldn't she set an example and step forward? Well, remember, Rosie is perhaps most importantly known as a gay activist. For her to step forward and admit to being a victim of incest or some other form of sexual exploitation or molestation would invite questions as to the reasons for her sexuality. And the idea that some people might draw the conclusion that Rosie's lesbianism is based on such a serious psychological trauma as molestation would not be conducive to mainstreaming and acceptance of the gay lifestyle. That would be just too much for her to bear.
As a result, she keeps it hidden within, and the rage builds and builds, until it suddenly erupts, with more and more frequency as the more time passes, it seems. She seems to have a particularly hateful view of authority figures. Or maybe it's just conservative authority figures.
Of course, I could be just as wrong and off base on all this as Rosie is about 9/11, the current Iran hostage crisis, and, well, just about every issue she opens her mouth about. However, I have a right to express my views within reason, and so does she. Yes, I understand that she would probably not be as tolerant of my right to free speech as I am of hers, but what the hell? If ABC fires Rosie it should be solely for the reason that she is causing The Views ratings to go down the tube. No other reason is acceptable, and as such, and until such time, Rosie should stay put, though it would be nice were The View to give equal time to other viewpoints. Again, that's on them too.
So, I guess that's it. To paraphrase the words of the character Jim Halpert from the NBC hit comedy "The Office"-
Congratulations, Universe. You win.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Politics Of Silence
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.
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.
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!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)