Usually by the time I get half way through a Hugo Chavez blog post or news article, it's time for a fucking siesta. Still, you have to admit, the latest referendum in Venezuela that ended presidential term limits is big news.
Viva Hugo! Who needs term limits? They are as unnecessary as foreign gringo investments. If they come, fine, we'll just snatch them up. The world won't mind too much, si?
Hey, come to think about it, who needs elections? Hugo won by such a large margin, are they really necessary? Why not just suspend them on some pretext. I'm sure Hugo will be able to find plenty of good reasons. Here's the part from the article in the Financial Times I like-
But analysts also suggested that the comfortable victory will also embolden the government to confront serious economic challenges caused by a collapse in oil revenues.
Economists at Barclays suggest the government will soon implement a financial transaction tax, increase the value added tax rate and cut expensive subsidies on domestic petrol prices, which are some of the cheapest in the world.
A devaluation of some 37 per cent could soon take place, argues Barclays, now that the currency has become heavily misaligned after almost four years at a fixed exchange rate at the same time as double digit inflation.
Oh, this might be a problem, no? Hey, I think I got a solution. Why not stage a referendum declaring an end to all future elections? Hugo is soooo well-loved surely it will pass.
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Saudi Threat
One of the biggest failures of the preceding Bush Administration was in its dealings with Saudi Arabia, not only involving energy policy, but in its dealings with the Saudi regime regarding the threat of radical Islam. However, it is too easy to push all the blame off on Bush. He only failed to deal adequately with the threat. He did not create it. He only inherited the same viper that a host of preceding presidents nurtured at their breasts for decades. Now, the head of the snake knows that one day soon, the axe might fall and sever his head. When it happens, there is little he can do about it, but for now, he can desperately try to spew his venom in the desperate hopes of holding off the inevitable.
It really takes some degree of hubris for the Saudi Oil Minister to lecture to an American audience on the need to keep investments in oil up to sustainable levels. These people have had us in a grip or iron for going on four decades, and for six have built up a level of wealth and influence that would be the ency of Croesus. In return for our dependence on Saudi oil, our money has gone to fund radical Islamic schools-madrassas-that have taught hatred of America and the West in general, and have otherwise supported a terrorist network that ultimately led to the 9/11 attacks. While the Saudi elites have otherwise engaged in luxurious lifestyles and profligate spending, they have kept their people's standard of living down to where the Saudi people are easy prey to the radical imams who seem to command their allegiance in ever-growing numbers. Despite this, we have reciprocated by selling advanced weapons technologies to the Saudi regime, in large part to supposedly protect them from these same fundamentalists.
Ironically, a great lot of what the Saudi Oil Minister said in his Houston speech is true. There will need to be continued and probably increased investment in oil for the next two decades, at least. Energy independence isn't going to come overnight. It goes without saying, however, that the Saudi regime is unlikely to complain about American Democratic politicians limiting oil exploration within the US or off it's coasts or, in the case of ANWAR, banning it completely.
The idea that Saudi Arabia might probably at one point in time by necessity be powered by solar energy is probably cold comfort. After all, even though that particular area is ripe for solar energy development, in market terms, they would nevertheless be just another cog in the wheel.
This is our chance now to get some degree of reasonable control over the Saudis, if we but would. The radical Islamists should all contemplate going into hiding, though I doubt they are feeling undue concern. They are probably all too aware that, under current conditions, they still have little to worry about. On the other hand, the regime might actually adjust to reality by providing some degree of advancement to the well-being of their subordinated population. It might be the one chance for the regime's long-term survival.
The most likely long-term scenario, however, is that the Saudi royal family and other wealthier members of the regime will eventually abandon the country, doubtless immigrate to Europe and America, for the most part, and leave the Arabian peninsula a veritable no-man's land, a desert fit for nothing but the annual pilgrimmage to Mecca. When they leave, they will take their untold billions of dollars in wealth with them. In fact, it is probably already to a very large degree safely deposited in various Swiss and other such accounts.
Should this potential future Saudi exodus ever finally come about, the radicals may have by that time lost any appreciable degree of power and influence as well. After all, they will have lost their major source of patronage. They and their followers will be sufficiently isolated, and the world if only for this reason will be a better place.
It really takes some degree of hubris for the Saudi Oil Minister to lecture to an American audience on the need to keep investments in oil up to sustainable levels. These people have had us in a grip or iron for going on four decades, and for six have built up a level of wealth and influence that would be the ency of Croesus. In return for our dependence on Saudi oil, our money has gone to fund radical Islamic schools-madrassas-that have taught hatred of America and the West in general, and have otherwise supported a terrorist network that ultimately led to the 9/11 attacks. While the Saudi elites have otherwise engaged in luxurious lifestyles and profligate spending, they have kept their people's standard of living down to where the Saudi people are easy prey to the radical imams who seem to command their allegiance in ever-growing numbers. Despite this, we have reciprocated by selling advanced weapons technologies to the Saudi regime, in large part to supposedly protect them from these same fundamentalists.
Ironically, a great lot of what the Saudi Oil Minister said in his Houston speech is true. There will need to be continued and probably increased investment in oil for the next two decades, at least. Energy independence isn't going to come overnight. It goes without saying, however, that the Saudi regime is unlikely to complain about American Democratic politicians limiting oil exploration within the US or off it's coasts or, in the case of ANWAR, banning it completely.
The idea that Saudi Arabia might probably at one point in time by necessity be powered by solar energy is probably cold comfort. After all, even though that particular area is ripe for solar energy development, in market terms, they would nevertheless be just another cog in the wheel.
This is our chance now to get some degree of reasonable control over the Saudis, if we but would. The radical Islamists should all contemplate going into hiding, though I doubt they are feeling undue concern. They are probably all too aware that, under current conditions, they still have little to worry about. On the other hand, the regime might actually adjust to reality by providing some degree of advancement to the well-being of their subordinated population. It might be the one chance for the regime's long-term survival.
The most likely long-term scenario, however, is that the Saudi royal family and other wealthier members of the regime will eventually abandon the country, doubtless immigrate to Europe and America, for the most part, and leave the Arabian peninsula a veritable no-man's land, a desert fit for nothing but the annual pilgrimmage to Mecca. When they leave, they will take their untold billions of dollars in wealth with them. In fact, it is probably already to a very large degree safely deposited in various Swiss and other such accounts.
Should this potential future Saudi exodus ever finally come about, the radicals may have by that time lost any appreciable degree of power and influence as well. After all, they will have lost their major source of patronage. They and their followers will be sufficiently isolated, and the world if only for this reason will be a better place.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hillary Clinton-Is She The Last True Hope For Peace Between The US and Japan?
For her first official overseas diplomatic trip as the nation's latest Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton decided not to play it safe with the typical visits to America worshiping Europe or with a leisurely tour to the peaceful, economically and socially stable region of the Middle East. Instead, summoning the legendary courage and integrity which is practically a hallmark of the Clinton legacy, she took the bold step of visiting the strife-torn, destitute, socially fractured Asian nation known as Japan-the Empire of The Rising Sun.
She has learned greatly from past mistakes, such as her trip to Bosnia in the nineties as First Lady, when she ill-advisedly allowed daughter Chelsea to accompany her on her peril-laden trip during which the two were forced to dodge sniper fire, the two of them protected only by expert Navy Seal Cheryl Crow and ace undercover CIA operative Sinbad, known in intelligence circles as "The Comedian".
This time, however, as a unique testament to her determined bravery and sense of self-sacrifice, she went armed only with that world-class trademark Hillary Clinton charm and grace as her sole companions.
We can only hope that this trip will over time lead, at long last, to a healing of the divisions and hostilities that have so marked Japanese-American relations since the beginning of World War II, some sixty seven years ago. Unfortunately, as the following video shows, she has much hard work ahead of her. Note how Mrs. Clinton stoically holds her composure and maintains her dignity and sense of optimism in the face of the hurled taunts and even manages to elude the sniper fire of maddened Imperial Japanese Army veterans, before she is finally forced to reluctantly re-board the Enola Gay in continuance of her faithful trip to Hiroshima, wearing the dark sunglasses inspired by her hero and mentor, General Douglas MacArthur, her proclaimed role model, as she brushes aside the desperate assault from the sword of a crazed Samurai warrior.
Note how French journalist Nathalie Tourrete is seemingly awe-struck by the unimaginable heroism displayed by the former US First Lady, now our nation's Secretary of State, whom even the most devoted Ninja assassins have come to respect, and fear.
We can only be grateful that Mrs. Clinton managed to continue on her journey just in the nick of time, mere seconds prior to the Banzai pilot attack which otherwise would have ended her life along with her mission, so vital to establishing, at long last, peace between her husband, true secret President Bill Clinton, and the war-weary Hirohito, the false God of Japan who has circulated false rumors of his death in hopes of avoiding a confrontation with the unmatchable Mrs. Clinton.
Fortunately, even though Tojo has vowed to fight to the end, there is always hope as long as Mrs. Clinton is in charge at the helm of State. If anyone can finally put an end to this senseless war between America and Japan, it is Hillary Rodham Clinton, by God!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
We Pause Now For A Brief Moment Of Gallows Humor
The man in the above photo is Mr. Muzzammil Hassan, 44, a Muslim American from Buffalo New York. He is the founder and CEO of Bridges TV, which he started with the intention of fostering greater understanding between Muslims and Americans, aiming particularly at portraying Muslims in a more positive light. It features news and entertainment. Unfortunately, the web-site is now down for "maintenance".
The lady in the photo alongside him is Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, his former wife who sued Mr. Hassan for divorce and got a restraining order on him, resulting in a judgment that required him to leave the couples home by the date of February 6th of this year.
Mr. Hassan, who is so desirous of increasing understanding between Americans and Muslims, murdered his wife.
In fact, he beheaded her.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin (a good looking Asian American chick)
Octopussy
The world has found it's latest punching bag in the person of Nadya Suleman, a woman on whom it feels justified in unleashing it's wrath towards the failed economy. First, this unemployed divorcee who lives with her mother in a small house barely big enough for the two of them has herself impregnated with the fertilized eggs of six children. One of these children turns out to be autistic. Not evidently satisfied with that, she has herself impregnated again with six more embryos by the same
fertility clinic, which is now under investigation. with six other embryos. Two of them which divide, resulting in two sets of twins, for a total of eight babies, and a grand total of fourteen.
The thought of this woman acting in such an irresponsible manner, apparently drawing at least some level of taxpayer-funded public assistance, is enough to raise the ire of the most tolerant among us. Yet, Suleman seems determined to find as many ways possible to offend.
She claimed that she would receive assistance from her church, which doubtless came as a surprise to many of the church's regular donors, who probably had other ideas. The church publicly denied her claims, probably after a hurried meeting of church elders decided this was not a good way to increase contributions from the flock.
She started a website complete with pictures and a donation button, but then was photographed shopping for video games.
Not only has she received death threats, so has the agency that represented her.
The public relations group that has represented octuplets mother Nadya Suleman is stepping down because of death threats, its president said Saturday.
Joann Killeen also said the mother now has an agent: Wes Yoder, the same man who arranged book and music deals for the McCaughey septuplets a decade ago and publicity for controversial pastor Rick Warren.
The Killeen Furtney Group was ending its free representation after receiving at least 100 graphic e-mailed threats and swarms of nasty voicemails that went to the Los Angeles agency and even to some of its other clients, Killeen said.
Some messages threatened Suleman but others were aimed at her spokespeople.
Suleman has probably at least entertained the idea of selling the movie rights to her story. The only problem with that idea is her so-called story is so well known by now it is practically in the public domain by default. Why should anyone pay her for the rights to a story under her conditions. I don't think she would care much for the most likely version of her life's story, which would be the one any studio could produce without paying her a dime. It would also be the only one the public would buy.
The jaded public isn't buying much these days. They are distressed, angry, and worried about the future. One of the few products that has made a profit over the last few months? Condoms. They especially
sold well over Valentine's Day weekend, and little wonder. Some people complained about the use of the condom display, in the shape of a heart, at the one store in question, saying it sent a bad message to the kids. Most people, on the other hand, would assert that kids are just the point.
Nobody with a brain in their head wants kids. Many of them wish they had thought it through or exercised a little self-control when they had the ones they did. There is yet another little girl missing in Florida as I write this who has probably been kidnapped and sold, if not raped and murdered, or both. I am making no inference as to the reason for this in her case, but I will say this much-she will be joined by more strangely missing children. If the economy stays bad for over a year, there will probably be enough of them to form their own state.
Everybody wants to fuck, more than usual in fact. What else is there to do? But they are being far more cautious than usual about it. You can expect not only an increase in condom sales, but a corresponding uptick in the number of abortions over the coming months, and since there is now evidently a relaxing of the old welfare reform rules of the nineties, with the passage of the stimulus bill, you can expect the anti-abortion movement to become more irrelevant than possibly ever before. It will at best go back to being the fringe movement that it was in the seventies and eighties, when most conservative Christians probably secretly wished that the welfare drawing, generally Democratic voting, mostly single mothers would have at least one abortion a year.
Nadya Suleman is a poster child for welfare reform and the Pro-Choice movement, and may in fact currently be one of the best friends both ever had. Both movements will grow in popularity over the next few years. It is only when times are generally good that most Pro-Life people feel they and the world can afford the price of their convictions. What ones remain devoted to the cause will be the ones most likely to be seen standing in sandwich signs that announce the coming end of the world, which would seem all the more a conflict of priorities to the sane amongst us, who can't help but perceive a certain lack of irony, if not integrity.
In the meantime, remember-love is never having to say "Hey, how do I know it's mine?"
fertility clinic, which is now under investigation. with six other embryos. Two of them which divide, resulting in two sets of twins, for a total of eight babies, and a grand total of fourteen.
The thought of this woman acting in such an irresponsible manner, apparently drawing at least some level of taxpayer-funded public assistance, is enough to raise the ire of the most tolerant among us. Yet, Suleman seems determined to find as many ways possible to offend.
She claimed that she would receive assistance from her church, which doubtless came as a surprise to many of the church's regular donors, who probably had other ideas. The church publicly denied her claims, probably after a hurried meeting of church elders decided this was not a good way to increase contributions from the flock.
She started a website complete with pictures and a donation button, but then was photographed shopping for video games.
Not only has she received death threats, so has the agency that represented her.
The public relations group that has represented octuplets mother Nadya Suleman is stepping down because of death threats, its president said Saturday.
Joann Killeen also said the mother now has an agent: Wes Yoder, the same man who arranged book and music deals for the McCaughey septuplets a decade ago and publicity for controversial pastor Rick Warren.
The Killeen Furtney Group was ending its free representation after receiving at least 100 graphic e-mailed threats and swarms of nasty voicemails that went to the Los Angeles agency and even to some of its other clients, Killeen said.
Some messages threatened Suleman but others were aimed at her spokespeople.
Suleman has probably at least entertained the idea of selling the movie rights to her story. The only problem with that idea is her so-called story is so well known by now it is practically in the public domain by default. Why should anyone pay her for the rights to a story under her conditions. I don't think she would care much for the most likely version of her life's story, which would be the one any studio could produce without paying her a dime. It would also be the only one the public would buy.
The jaded public isn't buying much these days. They are distressed, angry, and worried about the future. One of the few products that has made a profit over the last few months? Condoms. They especially
sold well over Valentine's Day weekend, and little wonder. Some people complained about the use of the condom display, in the shape of a heart, at the one store in question, saying it sent a bad message to the kids. Most people, on the other hand, would assert that kids are just the point.
Nobody with a brain in their head wants kids. Many of them wish they had thought it through or exercised a little self-control when they had the ones they did. There is yet another little girl missing in Florida as I write this who has probably been kidnapped and sold, if not raped and murdered, or both. I am making no inference as to the reason for this in her case, but I will say this much-she will be joined by more strangely missing children. If the economy stays bad for over a year, there will probably be enough of them to form their own state.
Everybody wants to fuck, more than usual in fact. What else is there to do? But they are being far more cautious than usual about it. You can expect not only an increase in condom sales, but a corresponding uptick in the number of abortions over the coming months, and since there is now evidently a relaxing of the old welfare reform rules of the nineties, with the passage of the stimulus bill, you can expect the anti-abortion movement to become more irrelevant than possibly ever before. It will at best go back to being the fringe movement that it was in the seventies and eighties, when most conservative Christians probably secretly wished that the welfare drawing, generally Democratic voting, mostly single mothers would have at least one abortion a year.
Nadya Suleman is a poster child for welfare reform and the Pro-Choice movement, and may in fact currently be one of the best friends both ever had. Both movements will grow in popularity over the next few years. It is only when times are generally good that most Pro-Life people feel they and the world can afford the price of their convictions. What ones remain devoted to the cause will be the ones most likely to be seen standing in sandwich signs that announce the coming end of the world, which would seem all the more a conflict of priorities to the sane amongst us, who can't help but perceive a certain lack of irony, if not integrity.
In the meantime, remember-love is never having to say "Hey, how do I know it's mine?"
Friday, February 13, 2009
Hope And Change-The Same Old Song And Dance
The stimulus bill passed the House Friday, with no Republicans voting in favor of it and only seven Democrats voting nay. Then, it passed the Senate with only three Republican votes.
Now do you get it? Hope? Change you can believe in? No, this is more like change back to the old order of business and hope for the best. Democratic supporters naturally view this as a panacea, a cure-all. Republican supporters are almost certain it is going to wreck the economy and possibly put us firmly on the irreversible road to socialism.
As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two extreme viewpoints, which is precisely the point. Remember when George W. Bush ran, promising his own brand of change, including a more civil public discourse? The only real change was from one of Democratic policies to Republican, with Bush touting tax cuts as the one sure answer for every situation both good and bad. Unfortunately, the was the only true policy change aside from those necessitated (or at least inspired) by the events of 9/11. Everything else remained the same. Bush actually grew the size and scope of the federal government, serving to further increase an already impressive mountain of debt. His unfunded mandates in education, and both of his wars, initially botched, and ran on borrowed money and time, exacerbated the situation.
By the time Obama came along, America was ready for a change, as it usually is after eight years on the average. This time it's the Democrats turn to offer the hoped-for change-but is it really change? An increase in welfare funding and grants to such organization as ACORN might in some cases by appropriate and understandable, maybe even necessary. We can have that debate. We can honestly discuss the need for funding of alternative energy sources and medical reform, and all of the other provisions in this bill, but let's call it what it is. This is more than just a stimulus package, this is a Democratic sponsored and taxpayer funded political pay-off to Democratic Party interest groups with a few targeted tax-cuts included just to take the edge off the pain.
And I for one am sure it will do some good in some areas. We obviously need more investment in infrastructure. There also needs to be some aid to state governments, who have, after all, been through no fault of their own severely impacted in a good many cases in no small part due to the incompetence and overbearing demands of the federal government. I am so serious about this, in retrospect, I am not even sure it would be appropriate to demand accountability insofar as how the states spend the money, but I guess there has to be some degree of oversight.
Be that as it may, this humongous porker of a bill is obviously a Democratic wish list of pay-offs and gifts that would have come about if times were as good as they now are bad, just like those Bush tax cuts. They are going to do some good, but they are going to also increase the debt, add to inflation and, in the long run, do little if any good as far as economic stimulation goes. What we are looking at is a long-range economic malaise that would probably best be compared to the Jackson-Van Buren years from 1832 to 1840, and might possibly even approach or even surpass those of the Great Depression.
Hopefully, things won't get that bad, but here's a clue-we have been digging this hole for years, and it's not going to go away overnight, nor can we spend our way out of it without making some tough, hard choices in the way of government waste reduction, which this bill most assuredly will not do.
Things might improve just enough in the short term to warrant in the minds of most voters an Obama re-election, but I truly dread the long term consequences of this bill, and further Democratic initiatives, which would over the course of the next eight years be even more greatly compounded by the appointment of two to three, at least, Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones to the Supreme Court, to say nothing of the countless federal court appointments.
By the time another eight years (or possibly four) rolls around, people will be yet clamoring for yet more "hope" and "change" (the oldest campaign slogans in the world, incidentally), and they will gravitate to the nearest guarantor of this promise.
This time, of course, it will be a Republican who will, in all seeming sincerity, announce to the nation that "It's time for a change", and we all will undoubtedly collectively fall for it-again. And, just like the last time, it will be a change from Democratic orthodoxy to Republican orthodoxy.
Hope and Change?
More like "Bait and Switch".
Now do you get it? Hope? Change you can believe in? No, this is more like change back to the old order of business and hope for the best. Democratic supporters naturally view this as a panacea, a cure-all. Republican supporters are almost certain it is going to wreck the economy and possibly put us firmly on the irreversible road to socialism.
As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two extreme viewpoints, which is precisely the point. Remember when George W. Bush ran, promising his own brand of change, including a more civil public discourse? The only real change was from one of Democratic policies to Republican, with Bush touting tax cuts as the one sure answer for every situation both good and bad. Unfortunately, the was the only true policy change aside from those necessitated (or at least inspired) by the events of 9/11. Everything else remained the same. Bush actually grew the size and scope of the federal government, serving to further increase an already impressive mountain of debt. His unfunded mandates in education, and both of his wars, initially botched, and ran on borrowed money and time, exacerbated the situation.
By the time Obama came along, America was ready for a change, as it usually is after eight years on the average. This time it's the Democrats turn to offer the hoped-for change-but is it really change? An increase in welfare funding and grants to such organization as ACORN might in some cases by appropriate and understandable, maybe even necessary. We can have that debate. We can honestly discuss the need for funding of alternative energy sources and medical reform, and all of the other provisions in this bill, but let's call it what it is. This is more than just a stimulus package, this is a Democratic sponsored and taxpayer funded political pay-off to Democratic Party interest groups with a few targeted tax-cuts included just to take the edge off the pain.
And I for one am sure it will do some good in some areas. We obviously need more investment in infrastructure. There also needs to be some aid to state governments, who have, after all, been through no fault of their own severely impacted in a good many cases in no small part due to the incompetence and overbearing demands of the federal government. I am so serious about this, in retrospect, I am not even sure it would be appropriate to demand accountability insofar as how the states spend the money, but I guess there has to be some degree of oversight.
Be that as it may, this humongous porker of a bill is obviously a Democratic wish list of pay-offs and gifts that would have come about if times were as good as they now are bad, just like those Bush tax cuts. They are going to do some good, but they are going to also increase the debt, add to inflation and, in the long run, do little if any good as far as economic stimulation goes. What we are looking at is a long-range economic malaise that would probably best be compared to the Jackson-Van Buren years from 1832 to 1840, and might possibly even approach or even surpass those of the Great Depression.
Hopefully, things won't get that bad, but here's a clue-we have been digging this hole for years, and it's not going to go away overnight, nor can we spend our way out of it without making some tough, hard choices in the way of government waste reduction, which this bill most assuredly will not do.
Things might improve just enough in the short term to warrant in the minds of most voters an Obama re-election, but I truly dread the long term consequences of this bill, and further Democratic initiatives, which would over the course of the next eight years be even more greatly compounded by the appointment of two to three, at least, Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones to the Supreme Court, to say nothing of the countless federal court appointments.
By the time another eight years (or possibly four) rolls around, people will be yet clamoring for yet more "hope" and "change" (the oldest campaign slogans in the world, incidentally), and they will gravitate to the nearest guarantor of this promise.
This time, of course, it will be a Republican who will, in all seeming sincerity, announce to the nation that "It's time for a change", and we all will undoubtedly collectively fall for it-again. And, just like the last time, it will be a change from Democratic orthodoxy to Republican orthodoxy.
Hope and Change?
More like "Bait and Switch".
Papal Bull
When Nazis and racists deny the Holocaust, what they are saying, in effect, is that they publicly denounce the notion of genocide. After all, they would otherwise hail Hitler's "master plan" as an ingenious idea that was years ahead of its time, and would accept this as an article of faith. Their denial is then a rejection of such policies, by denying that they actually occurred. What they are doing is tantamount to having their cake and eating it too. In a great many cases, they are probably guilty of ideological masturbation.
What Pope Benedict has done in his latest move seems to me to be somewhat the spiritual equivalent of spanking the monkey. The Pope, however, in his infinite wisdom and doctrinal infallibility, is jacking off publicly, and it is not a pretty sight.
First he denounces the statements of Bishope Williamson in the latter's expressed views which amount to Holocaust denial, he reprimands him, and then he expresses what he clearly elaborates as the known and well established Church policy, which almost amounts to a form of Church dogma. Yet, the Bishop himself gets a mere slap on the wrist, if it amounts to even that much. Bear in mind, Williamson made his statements in clear and knowing contradiction of official Church policy. What would the Pope say if Williamson claimed Mary was probably just an unwed pregnant mother who made up a really cool excuse?
Abraham Foxman had this to say about the Pope's astonishing actions-
“You can’t condemn anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial and then reinstate someone who’s a Holocaust denier,” Mr. Foxman said. He called the pope’s statements “significant and very important,” but said they “did not bring closure.”
After the global outcry over Bishop Williamson’s remarks in recent weeks, the Vatican has said that the members of the St. Pius X Society will have to accept the teachings of Vatican II in order to return to full communion with the church. This week, the bishop was removed as the head of his seminary in Argentina.
I see where Foxman is coming from. It's either a matter of personal opinion, or a Bishop is seen as a representative of the church's views and must conform to church dogma. I don't see how Benedict can justify taking both positions simultaneously, but that seems to be what he's doing. He doesn't really know what he's doing, in my opinion. It's obscene for a religious figure to act in such a way, and expect the world's Catholics to sit by and join him in what would amount to one giant public group circle-jerk. His final actions in removing him from his seminary in Argentina would seem to be more of a political response than a spiritual judgment.
Of course, this too is understandable. Most lay Catholics over the course of the last century seem to have wised up over this papal infallibility business, which is now explained as mere doctrinal infallibility. Benedict seems to have failed even that test with this debacle, and explaining away his actions as those of a comparatively weak pope only serves as a further revelation of this divine truth.
What Pope Benedict has done in his latest move seems to me to be somewhat the spiritual equivalent of spanking the monkey. The Pope, however, in his infinite wisdom and doctrinal infallibility, is jacking off publicly, and it is not a pretty sight.
First he denounces the statements of Bishope Williamson in the latter's expressed views which amount to Holocaust denial, he reprimands him, and then he expresses what he clearly elaborates as the known and well established Church policy, which almost amounts to a form of Church dogma. Yet, the Bishop himself gets a mere slap on the wrist, if it amounts to even that much. Bear in mind, Williamson made his statements in clear and knowing contradiction of official Church policy. What would the Pope say if Williamson claimed Mary was probably just an unwed pregnant mother who made up a really cool excuse?
Abraham Foxman had this to say about the Pope's astonishing actions-
“You can’t condemn anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial and then reinstate someone who’s a Holocaust denier,” Mr. Foxman said. He called the pope’s statements “significant and very important,” but said they “did not bring closure.”
After the global outcry over Bishop Williamson’s remarks in recent weeks, the Vatican has said that the members of the St. Pius X Society will have to accept the teachings of Vatican II in order to return to full communion with the church. This week, the bishop was removed as the head of his seminary in Argentina.
I see where Foxman is coming from. It's either a matter of personal opinion, or a Bishop is seen as a representative of the church's views and must conform to church dogma. I don't see how Benedict can justify taking both positions simultaneously, but that seems to be what he's doing. He doesn't really know what he's doing, in my opinion. It's obscene for a religious figure to act in such a way, and expect the world's Catholics to sit by and join him in what would amount to one giant public group circle-jerk. His final actions in removing him from his seminary in Argentina would seem to be more of a political response than a spiritual judgment.
Of course, this too is understandable. Most lay Catholics over the course of the last century seem to have wised up over this papal infallibility business, which is now explained as mere doctrinal infallibility. Benedict seems to have failed even that test with this debacle, and explaining away his actions as those of a comparatively weak pope only serves as a further revelation of this divine truth.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Being A True Hero Is Never Easy
Michael Phelps smoking a bong doesn’t set too well with a lot of people, especially people with teenage children, and so it might seem understandable that at least one of his sponsors, Kelloggs, has announced they will not be renewing their contract with the record-breaking gold-medal Olympic swimming champion. The truth is probably even more offensive than it sounds to some pro-marijuana advocacy groups. They were probably planning to end the contractual relationship anyway. It wasn’t going to last forever. How long exactly did preceding record-holder Mark Spitz appear on boxes of Wheaties? Alas, Olympic champions even of the caliber of Spitz and Phelps have limited marketing potential. Time passes quickly.
Nevertheless, they felt this was yet another potential marketing ploy, and so they released the following statement.
"We originally built the relationship with Michael, as well as the other Olympic athletes, to support our association with the U.S. Olympic team. Michael's most recent behavior is not consistent with the image of Kellogg. His contract expires at the end of February and we have made a decision not to extend his contract."
This might be a big mistake, as already several groups are calling for a boycott of all Kellogg’s products.
The leader of one of the biggest legalize-pot organizations,
Marijuana Policy Project, called Kelloggs action "hypocritical and disgusting," and said he'd never seen his membership so angry, with more than 2,300 of them signing an online petition.
Also urging a boycott were the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the Drug Policy Alliance. They encouraged their members to contact Kellogg to vent their views.
I am going to add my own name to the list, and to the calls for a boycott. Come on, people-let’s make Kelloggs the next major American business to qualify for federal bailout money.
It’s the least we can do. We can accomplish two things. We can come to the aid of an American champion, and make the point that the majority of American people want an end to the current ridiculous and oppressive marijuana laws, which remain on the books despite most of our wishes. Especially given the current state of the national economy, they are all the more inappropriate.
These days, the power of the wallet is the only power we really have-such as it is. Let’s make it plain, if you want our business, you might not want to piss us off by promoting policies most of us don't support or at least wish to see greatly reformed.
Seth Myers of Saturday Night Live also got into the act when, during a Weekend Update segment, he leveled the following criticism-
"Every one of your mascots is a wild-eyed cartoon character with uncontrollable munchies," Myers said. "Every one of your products sounds like a wish a genie granted at a Phish concert."
The USA Swimming team has nevertheless lowered the boom on Phelps, and issued the following public reprimand-
"This is not a situation where any anti-doping rule was violated, but we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero. Michael has voluntarily accepted this reprimand and has committed to earn back our trust."
That of course might be the least of Phelps worries. Several of the South Carolina college students with whom he partied during the time in question have been arrested, and Phelps himself might be subject to future charges, according to Richland County South Carolina sheriff Leon Lott, who issued the following statement-
"This case is no different than any other case. This one might be a lot easier since we have photographs of someone using drugs and a partial confession. It’s a relatively easy case once we can determine where the crime occurred."
Aside from the concerns of a handful of South Carolina college students (one of whom probably made a fistful of dollars by taking and selling the photo to begin with), some people seem to think the government, and law-enforcement, have other things to deal with that are of far greater importance, and fear that Michael Phelps latest problems might provide a greater emphasis to push for more stringent enforcement of already overly harsh and out-dated marijuana laws, to say nothing of reducing the likelihood of marijuana and drug law reform.
Still others blame Phelps, not for putting himself in such an untenable position, but for kowtowing to the dictates of a repressive anti-drug policy, which they claim is based more on hysteria than anything. They urge him to more or less stand up for himself, and not apologize. In effect, they encourage him to "get off your knees".
Indeed, they seem to assert that he should wear the pothead badge with pride while pointing out that he is, after all, a fourteen time Olympic gold medalist. The following statement by a friend of Phelps who was present at the party in question would seem to suggest that it wasn't an unusual thing for Phelps. According to him-
"At one point someone asked him if he wanted to smoke some weed. Michael didn't hesitate and headed to a small back room, where he was immediately handed a big red bong. He grabbed the bong and a lighter and ripped a huge smelly bong rip." The source continues, "He knew exactly what he was doing. He looked just as natural with a bong in his hands as he does swimming the backstroke."
Be that as it may, it is probably unrealistic to think Phelps might suddenly become an activist for legalization or de-criminalization of marijuana. Phelps is first and foremost concerned with his future career and contract potential, to say nothing of the fact that he is probably not concerned with activism on this issue to begin with. This of course is the reason why he released the following statement-
Phelps issued the following apology:
''I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment. I'm 23 years old and despite the successes I've had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again.''
The following statement seems far more contrite and personal, yet it is also tinged with an understandable hint of bitterness.
"It's time like these that you really get true support. I've been able to really find out who my friends and family are. It's by no means been easy - bad judgement, yeah, and it's something I plan learning off of. I don't take drugs. I get drug-tested all the time. You can look at the records and you can see. It was bad judgement and a bad mistake."
As for any future effect on drug laws, I doubt there will be any long-lasting effect. There will be some noise made “For The Good Of The Children”(tm), but after so long it will fade into the ether. By the time this is over, a good many of the children in question will be on their way towards mastering all levels of the latest version of Grand Theft Auto, probably while higher than hell. while Michael Phelps will have groped his seventeenth exotic dancer, thus continuing to habitually alienate yet another special interest group.
As for Phelps, when he fails to compete in the next Olympics, or if he fails to medal if he does compete-or even if he merely fails to break his own record-these same people will be blaming it on the pot, or perhaps a real or imagined gambling addiction, one that might well be enhanced by an attraction to cocktail waitresses and exotic dancers.
He seems determined to match or surpass his medal count with the number of outraged special interest groups he seems to constantly offend.
More power to him. Way too many of us seem to like our heroes pure, whether we are pure ourselves or not. Ironically, our kids could care less. They just like their heroes. After all, they need all of them they can get. Ironically, then can now identify with Phelps more than they ever could before, and this is including even the ones who never have and never would smoke marijuana, gamble, or frequent exotic dance clubs-or dance therein. Sometimes I think they understand better than do their parents that, in fact, there really are no perfect people, maybe especially including the heroes. The first people to drive this lesson home to them are, of course, their parents.
It’s only when we get older that we strive for perfection, probably out of some misguided need to atone for our own follies, or those of our parents. As always, we fall flat on our asses and continue the vicious cycle. Those who expect it from their children are engaged in the cruelest of follies, having learned nothing from one of the most important lessons life throws at all of us. Those who expect it from others are simply arrogant hypocrites.
Nevertheless, they felt this was yet another potential marketing ploy, and so they released the following statement.
"We originally built the relationship with Michael, as well as the other Olympic athletes, to support our association with the U.S. Olympic team. Michael's most recent behavior is not consistent with the image of Kellogg. His contract expires at the end of February and we have made a decision not to extend his contract."
This might be a big mistake, as already several groups are calling for a boycott of all Kellogg’s products.
The leader of one of the biggest legalize-pot organizations,
Marijuana Policy Project, called Kelloggs action "hypocritical and disgusting," and said he'd never seen his membership so angry, with more than 2,300 of them signing an online petition.
Also urging a boycott were the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the Drug Policy Alliance. They encouraged their members to contact Kellogg to vent their views.
I am going to add my own name to the list, and to the calls for a boycott. Come on, people-let’s make Kelloggs the next major American business to qualify for federal bailout money.
It’s the least we can do. We can accomplish two things. We can come to the aid of an American champion, and make the point that the majority of American people want an end to the current ridiculous and oppressive marijuana laws, which remain on the books despite most of our wishes. Especially given the current state of the national economy, they are all the more inappropriate.
These days, the power of the wallet is the only power we really have-such as it is. Let’s make it plain, if you want our business, you might not want to piss us off by promoting policies most of us don't support or at least wish to see greatly reformed.
Seth Myers of Saturday Night Live also got into the act when, during a Weekend Update segment, he leveled the following criticism-
"Every one of your mascots is a wild-eyed cartoon character with uncontrollable munchies," Myers said. "Every one of your products sounds like a wish a genie granted at a Phish concert."
The USA Swimming team has nevertheless lowered the boom on Phelps, and issued the following public reprimand-
"This is not a situation where any anti-doping rule was violated, but we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero. Michael has voluntarily accepted this reprimand and has committed to earn back our trust."
That of course might be the least of Phelps worries. Several of the South Carolina college students with whom he partied during the time in question have been arrested, and Phelps himself might be subject to future charges, according to Richland County South Carolina sheriff Leon Lott, who issued the following statement-
"This case is no different than any other case. This one might be a lot easier since we have photographs of someone using drugs and a partial confession. It’s a relatively easy case once we can determine where the crime occurred."
Aside from the concerns of a handful of South Carolina college students (one of whom probably made a fistful of dollars by taking and selling the photo to begin with), some people seem to think the government, and law-enforcement, have other things to deal with that are of far greater importance, and fear that Michael Phelps latest problems might provide a greater emphasis to push for more stringent enforcement of already overly harsh and out-dated marijuana laws, to say nothing of reducing the likelihood of marijuana and drug law reform.
Still others blame Phelps, not for putting himself in such an untenable position, but for kowtowing to the dictates of a repressive anti-drug policy, which they claim is based more on hysteria than anything. They urge him to more or less stand up for himself, and not apologize. In effect, they encourage him to "get off your knees".
Indeed, they seem to assert that he should wear the pothead badge with pride while pointing out that he is, after all, a fourteen time Olympic gold medalist. The following statement by a friend of Phelps who was present at the party in question would seem to suggest that it wasn't an unusual thing for Phelps. According to him-
"At one point someone asked him if he wanted to smoke some weed. Michael didn't hesitate and headed to a small back room, where he was immediately handed a big red bong. He grabbed the bong and a lighter and ripped a huge smelly bong rip." The source continues, "He knew exactly what he was doing. He looked just as natural with a bong in his hands as he does swimming the backstroke."
Be that as it may, it is probably unrealistic to think Phelps might suddenly become an activist for legalization or de-criminalization of marijuana. Phelps is first and foremost concerned with his future career and contract potential, to say nothing of the fact that he is probably not concerned with activism on this issue to begin with. This of course is the reason why he released the following statement-
Phelps issued the following apology:
''I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment. I'm 23 years old and despite the successes I've had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again.''
The following statement seems far more contrite and personal, yet it is also tinged with an understandable hint of bitterness.
"It's time like these that you really get true support. I've been able to really find out who my friends and family are. It's by no means been easy - bad judgement, yeah, and it's something I plan learning off of. I don't take drugs. I get drug-tested all the time. You can look at the records and you can see. It was bad judgement and a bad mistake."
As for any future effect on drug laws, I doubt there will be any long-lasting effect. There will be some noise made “For The Good Of The Children”(tm), but after so long it will fade into the ether. By the time this is over, a good many of the children in question will be on their way towards mastering all levels of the latest version of Grand Theft Auto, probably while higher than hell. while Michael Phelps will have groped his seventeenth exotic dancer, thus continuing to habitually alienate yet another special interest group.
As for Phelps, when he fails to compete in the next Olympics, or if he fails to medal if he does compete-or even if he merely fails to break his own record-these same people will be blaming it on the pot, or perhaps a real or imagined gambling addiction, one that might well be enhanced by an attraction to cocktail waitresses and exotic dancers.
He seems determined to match or surpass his medal count with the number of outraged special interest groups he seems to constantly offend.
More power to him. Way too many of us seem to like our heroes pure, whether we are pure ourselves or not. Ironically, our kids could care less. They just like their heroes. After all, they need all of them they can get. Ironically, then can now identify with Phelps more than they ever could before, and this is including even the ones who never have and never would smoke marijuana, gamble, or frequent exotic dance clubs-or dance therein. Sometimes I think they understand better than do their parents that, in fact, there really are no perfect people, maybe especially including the heroes. The first people to drive this lesson home to them are, of course, their parents.
It’s only when we get older that we strive for perfection, probably out of some misguided need to atone for our own follies, or those of our parents. As always, we fall flat on our asses and continue the vicious cycle. Those who expect it from their children are engaged in the cruelest of follies, having learned nothing from one of the most important lessons life throws at all of us. Those who expect it from others are simply arrogant hypocrites.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Livni, Tzipit
What we have here is in all likelihood the Israeli Al Gore.
She won, but will probably lose when Benyamen Netanyahu forms what will actually be the future ruling Israeli coalition-a conservative coalition. This is good news on all levels. Israeli society is obviously veering center-right, and though this will give Bibi a great deal of leverage, he will appreciate the fact that he doesn't really have a solid mandate, which will make him amenable to reasonable compromise.
Overall, this is good news for Israeli security, as well as for overall Middle Eastern stability, which needs all the stability it can muster. This should in turn help stabilize oil prices. Well, we can always hope.
Labor and Kadima have both proven they are inept, weak, and corrupt, and wholly unable to do more at best than keep the barbarians at the gate, not counting the flurry of missiles which have seemed to make their way past the gate on a near daily basis.
Obama can work with Bibi. He will have to. The US needs competent governance in Israel, not a temperamental lapdog that does little more than eat and bark.
Some of the more far right Israelis, Jews, and Jewish supporters, such as my friend Mad Zionist, will of course be wholly or at least greatly dissatisfied with Bibi, and in part for much good reason.
Still, from my perspective, this is the overall best possible scenario, realistically speaking.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Prison Brakes
About one third of California's inmate population will be freed over the course of the next two to three years in what seems to be the only viable answer to the state's prison overcrowding, which a Federal Court has deemed unconstitutional, according to this AP report.
Without a U.S. Supreme Court reprieve, California will have to free roughly a third of its prison inmates in a few years, and how that can be done safely is still hotly debated.
Corrections officials said Tuesday they are struggling with their response to a tentative federal court ruling this week that the state must remove as many as 57,000 inmates over the next two or three years.
The state's 33 adult prisons now hold about 158,000 inmates. But the judges said overcrowding is so severe it unconstitutionally compromises medical care of inmates, and releasing prisoners is the only solution.
Well, I guess that could be a way to deal with the state's budget woes. Kentucky has toyed with roughly the same idea, with non-violent offenders. Frankly, probably a good third of most prison's inmates have no business there, but are themselves victims of minimum sentencing guidelines, put mostly in place during the Reagan years as a means of addressing the problem of illicit drug use.
Still, this might be a good idea that is finally being implemented at the worst possible time. Most of these prisoners, or at least a large percentage of them, will probably end up on public assistance, therefore saving California no money, and possibly even costing more. Add to this the very real problem of the huge surge in unemployment and you can see where this is adding gasoline to an already blazing fire. What choice will they have but to turn to public assistance-or to crime? Speaking of which, let's be candid here-a good many of them probably do belong in prison after all, and that's probably exactly where they will be heading back to at some point, regardless of the economy, under the best of circumstances.
What struck me most about this news item though was its seeming presumption that time will stand still for the next three years. I am sure there will be plenty of new arrivals that will serve to keep the California prison system as overcrowded over the next few years as it is now-unless of course they either change a few unnecessarily oppressive drug laws, or just flat out ignore them. Either one would be sufficient to help solve the budget woes of many a cash-strapped state.
Well, if they are just going to turn around and put them right back on the streets anyway, what purpose does it serve to enforce the law to begin with? Isn't that a waste not only of taxpayer's money, but police resources?
Without a U.S. Supreme Court reprieve, California will have to free roughly a third of its prison inmates in a few years, and how that can be done safely is still hotly debated.
Corrections officials said Tuesday they are struggling with their response to a tentative federal court ruling this week that the state must remove as many as 57,000 inmates over the next two or three years.
The state's 33 adult prisons now hold about 158,000 inmates. But the judges said overcrowding is so severe it unconstitutionally compromises medical care of inmates, and releasing prisoners is the only solution.
Well, I guess that could be a way to deal with the state's budget woes. Kentucky has toyed with roughly the same idea, with non-violent offenders. Frankly, probably a good third of most prison's inmates have no business there, but are themselves victims of minimum sentencing guidelines, put mostly in place during the Reagan years as a means of addressing the problem of illicit drug use.
Still, this might be a good idea that is finally being implemented at the worst possible time. Most of these prisoners, or at least a large percentage of them, will probably end up on public assistance, therefore saving California no money, and possibly even costing more. Add to this the very real problem of the huge surge in unemployment and you can see where this is adding gasoline to an already blazing fire. What choice will they have but to turn to public assistance-or to crime? Speaking of which, let's be candid here-a good many of them probably do belong in prison after all, and that's probably exactly where they will be heading back to at some point, regardless of the economy, under the best of circumstances.
What struck me most about this news item though was its seeming presumption that time will stand still for the next three years. I am sure there will be plenty of new arrivals that will serve to keep the California prison system as overcrowded over the next few years as it is now-unless of course they either change a few unnecessarily oppressive drug laws, or just flat out ignore them. Either one would be sufficient to help solve the budget woes of many a cash-strapped state.
Well, if they are just going to turn around and put them right back on the streets anyway, what purpose does it serve to enforce the law to begin with? Isn't that a waste not only of taxpayer's money, but police resources?
The Press Conference
In addition to the stimulus package, there was a variety of nonsense discussed during Obama's first official presidential news conference that of worthy of note.
This was the first presidential news conference to which The Huffington Post was invited, at least to ask a question, and one would hope, however vainly, that they might ask something pertinent and perhaps a little less partisan than whether or not Obama would support charging past Bush Administration officials with crimes.
Not a very good first impression to leave the general public, but anyway, here it is-
STEIN: Thank you, Mr. President. Today, Senator Patrick Leahy announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that, before you turn the page, you have to read the page first.
Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?
Obama's response was non-specific, and about as moderate an answer as you could hope for under the circumstances. The basic gist of his reply?
My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen.
Note how he specified "clear instances of wrongdoing". That won't set too well with a large segment of the Post's readers, who would probably prefer to pour over every document and public utterance with a fine-toothed comb in order to ferret out any slight hint of objectionable actions with the aim to conduct as partisan a witch hunt as possible. Nor would they content themselves with a handful of high-level officials.
That this question is based on a proposed Judiciary Committee investigation by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy makes it all the more ominous, precisely because the page has been read-and read, and read, and read, and read-for the last roughly five years, at least. What else is there to know? If there is something actionable, it should already be on the table. Make the case now or shut up about it. Don't try to be dragging the country through yet another extended public character assassination ritual.
The Huffington Post had a golden opportunity to make an impression on behalf of the blogosphere that it has grown into a serious facet of the world of actual journalism. Instead, it doubtless left many the impression of a spoiled child that should have been left outside to play while the grown-ups endeavored to conduct adult business.
Unfortunately, many of the adults came across no better, and certainly no more mature.
Perhaps the most foolish question asked was about lifting the ban on the showing of coffins as they returned to the states, of soldiers killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars. Many, such as HuffPo, want to assert that this is showing respect to the fallen heroes.
Hell, why stop at just showing the coffins as they arrive? Why the hell not just open the damn things up and give everybody a good look inside? That would really impress people, once they got a good look at just how horrible a sacrifice these brave soldiers made for their country. Who cares what the families think? There's surely no way it would inflame passions further against the wars, would it?
Of course, no assessment of the drivel that was spewed during the course of this press conference could possible be complete without a recounting of the contribution by Helen Thomas.
She first asked a question about the "so-called terrorists" that dart back-and-forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The framing of this question tells me all I need to know about her mindset, but the really loaded question involved which Middle Eastern nations Obama knew of that actually possessed nuclear weapons.
The correct answer, of course, would have been "the only one that really needs them", but Obama skirted around the obvious inflammatory, and actually accusatory question with admirable skill.
All in all, Obama handled himself pretty well throughout all this bilge, and actually made somewhat of a good case for his stimulus package, though I am still not convinced that it is anything but a political stunt designed to buy and shore up support.
Hopefully, the Huffington Post, Helen Thomas, and others of their ilk will be just as harsh and demanding as to the truth and veracity of these and other such Obama Administration policies as they have been those of the Bush Administration, but I seriously have my doubts.
This was the first presidential news conference to which The Huffington Post was invited, at least to ask a question, and one would hope, however vainly, that they might ask something pertinent and perhaps a little less partisan than whether or not Obama would support charging past Bush Administration officials with crimes.
Not a very good first impression to leave the general public, but anyway, here it is-
STEIN: Thank you, Mr. President. Today, Senator Patrick Leahy announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that, before you turn the page, you have to read the page first.
Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?
Obama's response was non-specific, and about as moderate an answer as you could hope for under the circumstances. The basic gist of his reply?
My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen.
Note how he specified "clear instances of wrongdoing". That won't set too well with a large segment of the Post's readers, who would probably prefer to pour over every document and public utterance with a fine-toothed comb in order to ferret out any slight hint of objectionable actions with the aim to conduct as partisan a witch hunt as possible. Nor would they content themselves with a handful of high-level officials.
That this question is based on a proposed Judiciary Committee investigation by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy makes it all the more ominous, precisely because the page has been read-and read, and read, and read, and read-for the last roughly five years, at least. What else is there to know? If there is something actionable, it should already be on the table. Make the case now or shut up about it. Don't try to be dragging the country through yet another extended public character assassination ritual.
The Huffington Post had a golden opportunity to make an impression on behalf of the blogosphere that it has grown into a serious facet of the world of actual journalism. Instead, it doubtless left many the impression of a spoiled child that should have been left outside to play while the grown-ups endeavored to conduct adult business.
Unfortunately, many of the adults came across no better, and certainly no more mature.
Perhaps the most foolish question asked was about lifting the ban on the showing of coffins as they returned to the states, of soldiers killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars. Many, such as HuffPo, want to assert that this is showing respect to the fallen heroes.
Hell, why stop at just showing the coffins as they arrive? Why the hell not just open the damn things up and give everybody a good look inside? That would really impress people, once they got a good look at just how horrible a sacrifice these brave soldiers made for their country. Who cares what the families think? There's surely no way it would inflame passions further against the wars, would it?
Of course, no assessment of the drivel that was spewed during the course of this press conference could possible be complete without a recounting of the contribution by Helen Thomas.
She first asked a question about the "so-called terrorists" that dart back-and-forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The framing of this question tells me all I need to know about her mindset, but the really loaded question involved which Middle Eastern nations Obama knew of that actually possessed nuclear weapons.
The correct answer, of course, would have been "the only one that really needs them", but Obama skirted around the obvious inflammatory, and actually accusatory question with admirable skill.
All in all, Obama handled himself pretty well throughout all this bilge, and actually made somewhat of a good case for his stimulus package, though I am still not convinced that it is anything but a political stunt designed to buy and shore up support.
Hopefully, the Huffington Post, Helen Thomas, and others of their ilk will be just as harsh and demanding as to the truth and veracity of these and other such Obama Administration policies as they have been those of the Bush Administration, but I seriously have my doubts.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Resistance Is Futile
It's only a minor irritation that Barak Obama might well take to the public airwaves tonight to promote his so-called stimulus package, therefore depriving me of what is typically my favorite night of television viewing, but what really makes it bad is that if he does so, he will in effect preempt what is generally good fiction for poorly-conceived outright fantasy.
He could at least arrange to have a horror music score with nerve-raking crescendos timed at just the right parts of his speech. We could all use the comic relief.
Besides, according to Gallup, a majority of Americans are all sufficiently terrified of the potential consequences of not passing the stimulus. However, note that this is only fifty-one percent, leveraged against a forty-eight percent approval rating for Congressional Democrats versus a meager thirty-plus percent approval for Congressional Republicans. The only thing likely keeping this thing afloat is Obama's own relatively high popularity ratings-a solid 67 percent. Translation-he is still riding high off the fumes of his victory and hopes to make the most of it while he still has a chance to pay off his constituents and supporters-known in Newspeak as "save the economy before it is too late".
Although most Republicans have held firm against this obvious and blatant misuse of taxpayers money-including, surprisingly, John McCain-there are a handful of GOP Senators willing to go along with the scam-three of them in the Senate, to be precise, including Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) and Susan Collins (Maine).
Obama has also managed to bring on board none other than Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who seems to be looking toward a run for the US Senate in 2010 to replace Senator Mel Martinez.
In the meantime, several House Republicans have been the recipients of several automated calls urging their cooperation.
The calls are set to run against GOP Reps. Bill Cassidy (La.), John Fleming (La.), Brett Guthrie (Ky.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), Christopher Lee (N.Y.) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (Mo.), in addition to Rooney.
The calls come as a new Gallup Poll shows 51 percent of Americans say a stimulus plan is "critically important" and a week after the DCCC launched radio ads targeting 28 Republican members who voted against the package. The radio ads will end their run tomorrow. All seven freshmen targeted by the phone calls also had radio ads run against them.
An example of one such ad aimed at the constituents of a GOP Congressman is as follows-
"Did you know Congressman Tom Rooney voted against economic recovery that would immediately create and save nearly 330,000 Florida jobs?" asks a call targeting the freshman Florida Republican.
"Times are tough. Tell Congressman Rooney to put families before politics," the caller intones.
In the meantime, in the hurry to push this monster spending bill through, put on the back burner has been the plan of Treasury Secretary Geitner to utilize the 700 billion dollar stimulus bill from last year (what is left of it) to shore up those banks affected by bad mortgages. Many seem to think this news, once it is officially announced, will result in an upswing in the stock market, which of course would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of those pushing Obama's plan. His announcement, nevertheless, has been put off until Wednesday, at the earliest, in order to buy more time for Obama's plan to gain sufficient support to insure passage, preferably with at least some semblance of bi-partisanship.
Where to begin? It is just beyond my comprehension that public servants should be so vile, or that so many of the American public could be so servile. Is this truly the level to which we have descended? Evidently, the American public who hold out such great hope for this package have neglected to consider one important fact-just because somebody says it's so, doesn't make it true.
Even if the stimulus bill would work, under the current set of circumstances, there is so much that could happen that could render it totally useless within a matter of weeks, if not days. What if there was yet another major flare-up in the Middle East that caused the price of oil to once more skyrocket near the one hundred forty dollar-per-barrel range, or more. Much more? What if there were another major terrorist attack, especially on American soil? What if yet another major corporation went belly-up? Or two, or three? What if the stars colluded to the extent that all of these things happened over a relatively short period of time? Can we take it all back? Of course not.
The most maddening thing is, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it might all be unnecessary to begin with-even on the highly unlikely chance it could work-for the simple fact they have projected that the current recession will finally end, on its own, during the early part of the second half of this year.
So now we see yet another potential reason for this rush to implementation of a bad, ill-advised piece of legislation that just aims to throw yet more good money after bad. If the CBO's prediction holds true, then Obama and the Congressional Democratic majority can claim at least a degree of credit for the improvement. The problem is, of course, the stimulus package might actually make matters worse. In that case, they need as many Republicans as possible to help share the blame. Of course the many that refuse to support the bill will be blamed anyway.
As for the Democrats, they will continue to confuse, manipulate, obfuscate, and outright lie their way through the next two years, while average Americans will just hope, perhaps beyond all reasonable hope, that things will work out and that, indeed, the recession will end by the start of the second half of this year, as the CBO predicts.
After all, Americans will have lost a whopping three billion jobs, just from the beginning of this year until the beginning of the second half of this same year.
We just can't take much more of this.
Hat Tip to-Lee at Digital Nicotine
He could at least arrange to have a horror music score with nerve-raking crescendos timed at just the right parts of his speech. We could all use the comic relief.
Besides, according to Gallup, a majority of Americans are all sufficiently terrified of the potential consequences of not passing the stimulus. However, note that this is only fifty-one percent, leveraged against a forty-eight percent approval rating for Congressional Democrats versus a meager thirty-plus percent approval for Congressional Republicans. The only thing likely keeping this thing afloat is Obama's own relatively high popularity ratings-a solid 67 percent. Translation-he is still riding high off the fumes of his victory and hopes to make the most of it while he still has a chance to pay off his constituents and supporters-known in Newspeak as "save the economy before it is too late".
Although most Republicans have held firm against this obvious and blatant misuse of taxpayers money-including, surprisingly, John McCain-there are a handful of GOP Senators willing to go along with the scam-three of them in the Senate, to be precise, including Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) and Susan Collins (Maine).
Obama has also managed to bring on board none other than Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who seems to be looking toward a run for the US Senate in 2010 to replace Senator Mel Martinez.
In the meantime, several House Republicans have been the recipients of several automated calls urging their cooperation.
The calls are set to run against GOP Reps. Bill Cassidy (La.), John Fleming (La.), Brett Guthrie (Ky.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), Christopher Lee (N.Y.) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (Mo.), in addition to Rooney.
The calls come as a new Gallup Poll shows 51 percent of Americans say a stimulus plan is "critically important" and a week after the DCCC launched radio ads targeting 28 Republican members who voted against the package. The radio ads will end their run tomorrow. All seven freshmen targeted by the phone calls also had radio ads run against them.
An example of one such ad aimed at the constituents of a GOP Congressman is as follows-
"Did you know Congressman Tom Rooney voted against economic recovery that would immediately create and save nearly 330,000 Florida jobs?" asks a call targeting the freshman Florida Republican.
"Times are tough. Tell Congressman Rooney to put families before politics," the caller intones.
In the meantime, in the hurry to push this monster spending bill through, put on the back burner has been the plan of Treasury Secretary Geitner to utilize the 700 billion dollar stimulus bill from last year (what is left of it) to shore up those banks affected by bad mortgages. Many seem to think this news, once it is officially announced, will result in an upswing in the stock market, which of course would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of those pushing Obama's plan. His announcement, nevertheless, has been put off until Wednesday, at the earliest, in order to buy more time for Obama's plan to gain sufficient support to insure passage, preferably with at least some semblance of bi-partisanship.
Where to begin? It is just beyond my comprehension that public servants should be so vile, or that so many of the American public could be so servile. Is this truly the level to which we have descended? Evidently, the American public who hold out such great hope for this package have neglected to consider one important fact-just because somebody says it's so, doesn't make it true.
Even if the stimulus bill would work, under the current set of circumstances, there is so much that could happen that could render it totally useless within a matter of weeks, if not days. What if there was yet another major flare-up in the Middle East that caused the price of oil to once more skyrocket near the one hundred forty dollar-per-barrel range, or more. Much more? What if there were another major terrorist attack, especially on American soil? What if yet another major corporation went belly-up? Or two, or three? What if the stars colluded to the extent that all of these things happened over a relatively short period of time? Can we take it all back? Of course not.
The most maddening thing is, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it might all be unnecessary to begin with-even on the highly unlikely chance it could work-for the simple fact they have projected that the current recession will finally end, on its own, during the early part of the second half of this year.
So now we see yet another potential reason for this rush to implementation of a bad, ill-advised piece of legislation that just aims to throw yet more good money after bad. If the CBO's prediction holds true, then Obama and the Congressional Democratic majority can claim at least a degree of credit for the improvement. The problem is, of course, the stimulus package might actually make matters worse. In that case, they need as many Republicans as possible to help share the blame. Of course the many that refuse to support the bill will be blamed anyway.
As for the Democrats, they will continue to confuse, manipulate, obfuscate, and outright lie their way through the next two years, while average Americans will just hope, perhaps beyond all reasonable hope, that things will work out and that, indeed, the recession will end by the start of the second half of this year, as the CBO predicts.
After all, Americans will have lost a whopping three billion jobs, just from the beginning of this year until the beginning of the second half of this same year.
We just can't take much more of this.
Hat Tip to-Lee at Digital Nicotine
Cannibis Linked To Testicular Cancer
So now researchers are saying it looks like cannabis might be a cause of some forms of testicular cancer.
Here's what might be the vital part of the article.
Although testicular cancer is normally curable when caught early, some patients are not diagnosed until the disease is advanced. Undescended testes in childhood and a family history of the disease are known to increase the risk.
The disease is thought to begin in the womb when germ cells in the foetus (those that will eventually make sperm in the adult) fail to develop properly. Exposure to male hormones in adolescence is thought to trigger development of cancer in the affected cells. Chronic cannabis use is known to reduce sperm quality and increase impotence, which are linked with testicular cancer.
The testes have receptors for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, and the male reproductive system is known to naturally produce a cannabinoid-like chemical that is thought to protect against the disease.
The researchers speculate that cannabis may interfere with this anti-tumour effect, increasing the risk of the cancer developing.
Well, that explains Lance Armstrong's prior relationship to a certain nutcase female rock star. Somebody be sure and point this out to Michael Phelps.
Here's what might be the vital part of the article.
Although testicular cancer is normally curable when caught early, some patients are not diagnosed until the disease is advanced. Undescended testes in childhood and a family history of the disease are known to increase the risk.
The disease is thought to begin in the womb when germ cells in the foetus (those that will eventually make sperm in the adult) fail to develop properly. Exposure to male hormones in adolescence is thought to trigger development of cancer in the affected cells. Chronic cannabis use is known to reduce sperm quality and increase impotence, which are linked with testicular cancer.
The testes have receptors for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, and the male reproductive system is known to naturally produce a cannabinoid-like chemical that is thought to protect against the disease.
The researchers speculate that cannabis may interfere with this anti-tumour effect, increasing the risk of the cancer developing.
Well, that explains Lance Armstrong's prior relationship to a certain nutcase female rock star. Somebody be sure and point this out to Michael Phelps.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Etta James Kicks Some Ass
It's easy to see how feisty Etta James is for an old broad in the video above, and why she would take exception to the impression she had that she was treated disrespectfully during the Obama inauguration party at which Beyonce Knowles sung her signature song "At Last", while newly sworn-in President Obama and wife Michele shared the dance floor.
I'm not taking sides here, but I will point out in Beyonce's defense that, as she was an early and vocal supporter of Obama, it makes sense that she might receive an invitation to sing the song that she covered in the movie Cadillac Records, in which she played the role of a young Etta James.
Nor has her life been as particularly or relatively easy as some might assume. Her success came after years of training, practice, and generally hard work, through which her father quit his job to act as the manager of the girl's group that would go on to become Destiny's Child. Because of this, the family income was halved and the strain resulted in the break-up of the marriage of the budding young stars parents.
Etta James, on the other hand, was born into hard circumstances in Los Angeles, as the illegitimate child of a single mom who claimed (and probably wrongly believed) that Jamesetta was the daughter of legendary pool great Minnesota Fats, who happened to have lived and worked as a pool hall manager in Washington DC during the time in question.
The future Etta James, however, took her own destiny into her own hands, and with her own girl group of friends, ran off to San Francisco and auditioned, where they quickly were taken under the wing of various session men and record producers. Their first hit, "Roll With Me Henry", was an answer song to an earlier R&B hit by a male artist. Due to the suggestive nature of the title and lyrics and the resultant protests by some radio stations, the title was changed to "The Wallflower (Dance With Me Henry). Etta James was fourteen years old at the time.
She found regular work as a back-up vocalist and scored several other hits, some of which did well on the R&B and blues charts, but it wasn't until 1961 and "At Last" that she scored her first crossover hit. Even then, it might surprise many to know that this now standard classic hit (which was actually a cover of an earlier version by the Glenn Miller Orchestra released twenty years earlier) never got above number 41 on the pop charts.
Over the years, James became an addict and alcoholic, but remained a prodigious performer and recording artist, eventually garnering a slew of awards and separate Hall of Fame inductions.
They seem to be complete opposites in many regards. Beyonce worked hard to achieve success, and now has it relatively easy. James achieved success with amazing ease, but her life since then seems to have been a constant struggle. Why wouldn't she want to kick Beyonce's ass? She says now of course she was joking, and in a sense she probably was. However, the best jokes are based on some degree of real sentiment.
Etta James probably has seen her share of abuse from the time she was a beginning young girl star, and never really saw any choice but to go with the flow if she wanted to achieve her dream, which she probably still in her mind has never quite grasped to the level to which she still aspires, now from the confines of the motorized wheelchair upon which she rides out on the stage for her limited sets, which yet draw respectable, and respectful, crowds.
Nor is she particularly impressed at Obama, who she probably sees as someone who would be hard-pressed to survive in the rough-and-tumble world that was the era in which she grew up, let alone rocket to the position of power to which he has soared, also with seeming relative ease.
Her statements regarding Obama and Beyonce at the Seattle concert were in keeping with her own rough-edged stage persona, crafted over years of concert appearances with the likes of B B King, Doctor John, and other such luminaries whom she would probably view as real, honest, tough, legitimate artists and performers like herself. That she would be willing to express such disdainful views is actually in keeping with her character, which can be crude to the point of obscene.
To her own way of thinking, she didn't really threaten to just kick Beyonce's ass-she actually did kick Beyonce's ass, right there and right then, and gave Obama a good knee to the groin for good measure. Beyonce declined comment, while Obama's response came through a spokesperson.
In the parlance of Etta James world, they punked out.
Darwin's Sacred Cause
Adrian Desmond has written an article which serves as something of a preview to a new book he has co-written with James Moore in which they assert Charles Darwin was inspired to arrive at his theory of evolution through his experience with slavery. So disgusted by the practice was he, that he proposed the theory at least in part as a way of asserting the universal brotherhood of all mankind. Of course, he didn't stop there. According to Darwin, all living things are related and descended from an original life form.
The BBC article makes for very interesting reading. Evidently, Darwin kept a great lot to himself, as it seems he was not the only one who propounded a similar theory, and he knew very well how other proponents of similar theories were treated by the scientific community of his day. Yet, he took it to the point that he was able to amass a body of work that could be presented as proof of the validity of the theory.
In so doing, Charles Darwin changed the world, and so has to be viewed as one of the great people of all time. I would go so far as to say it I were to make a list of historical figures whom I most admire, he would almost undoubtedly make my top ten. Even if I didn't agree with a single word of the theory of evolution, I would have to be impressed by the sheer brilliance of it.
Evidently, a group of churches in England agree with my perspective, and in recognition of his two hundredth birthday-as well as the 150th anniversary of Darwin's "The Origin Of Species"-have been holding a seminar in which they have discussed his contributions to science and ways in which they can get the point across that the theory of evolution does not necessarily conflict with religion.
Although I am sure many of the more literalistic minded, fundamentalist religions would disagree, I would have to say it's about time.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Wild Boars And Bores-And Other Miserable Beasts
It seems that early conservation efforts have produced an over-abundance of dangerous animals in a variety of places, including Texas, where the Texas State Legislature is considering adopting the same approach Sarah Palin has to reducing the wolf population in Alaska. Soon-and evidently it can't be too soon to suit the numerous farmers and ranchers of West Texas-you will be able to pay a fee in order to engage in the sport of aerial hunting. The target?
FERAL HOGS!
A word of caution though about that link. I used it due to it's focus on the Texas legislation, despite it's many inaccuracies, the most egregious being the statement by the reporter to the effect that, though feral hogs are dangerous to small animals and even some livestock, they are not dangerous to humans, from whom they would just as soon run away from "on their stubby legs".
In fact, they are as dangerous to humans as they are to any other animals. They are in fact very aggressive, especially when hungry or horny-which seems to be a perpetual state in all cases.
Aside from their aggression, they wreak havoc on plants and crops, thus endangering the food supplies of other animals in their native habitats. They will in fact eat anything and everything that is biodegradable.
A commenter to the article gives a compelling description of the feral hog, as well as a rundown of the many dangers it poses.
The feral hog population is completely out of control. We will do something about it when they take down a couple of kids near the populated areas. And when they get into a feeding frenzy, they will eat anything, including each other. I was riding around a ranch with the owner in South Texas and asked how do you know there are feral hog out here? He said "do you see any cow poop"? They travel in packs and they have werewolf-looking heads – snouts grow out, balding hair patterns, gnarly looking teeth that go ever which way, and beady little eyes mounted on the side of big ol heads. They are incredibly fast. And there are millions of them now. They have no known predator. They carry Brucellosis. They have nasty scent glands. The males are caped with an inch of tallow armor, a clavicle protecting a heart shot, a thick bone head that bullets glance off of. And they are smart until they get hungry or horny, then they make mistakes – just like us. And you can make them mad. Good eating, tho (ha!). But save the last pistol shot for yourself, if the hunt goes bad.
Admittedly, this is by no means an expert opinion, and the numbers that he cites-millions-are doubtless exaggerated, but it provides a good anecdotal backdrop to the story.
Here is another web-site that gives probably a more accurate description of the animal, along with numerous separate articles pertaining to them.
Some might mistakenly confuse them for wild boars, and although to a great extent they are part wild boar, an animal which was brought over centuries ago from Europe, they are for the most part predominantly the offspring of escaped or abandoned domesticated hogs, and native American wild hogs, which was seemingly the intended breeding target among those who brought the wild boar across the Atlantic. Now they are a big problem, not only in the ways previously listed, but due to the simple fact that they can live in, and adapt to, any type of terrain. Although they are relatively limited for now, this could easily change, given their adaptability and prodigious rates of reproduction.
Of course, there are some who object to the aerial hunting bill, though it is hard to conceive of how they could possible have the grounds to do so, and certainly garner any kind of significant support, especially in Texas, where this is a growing problem of some significance.
On the other hand, I never would have thought it possible that hunting bears would ever be illegal in Kentucky, but it was, and now that there is an official bear hunting season, opponents are trying their best to limit the kinds of weapons that could be used to kill these animals, despite the fact that they are with ever greater frequency finding their way into areas of human habitation. Despite the obvious danger involved here, the anti-bear hunting activists insist that hunters during bear season should be limited to flint-lock loading rifles and cross-bows, out of some misguided sense of fairness to the bears-one of which not too long ago broke into a man's house. Despite the fact that had the man not killed the bear it would have killed his dog and possibly himself, to say nothing of the property damage that might have resulted, the man was actually prosecuted.
Some people just don't get it, and probably never will. It's going to be interesting to see what kind of excuses these so-called wildlife activists come up with in Texas. I guess the folks there had better be thankful there are no Republican politicians supporting this bill who have a conceivable shot at achieving national office.
Palin v Judd
Evidently animal rights activist think farmer and ranchers like to kill wolves and other predators in what little spare time they have, as if they don't have more important things to do. As for the Inuit who subsist off of the moose and caribou populations in Alaska, evidently they need a cultural readjustment or some form of social retraining.
Sarah Palin is therefore taking heat from several animal rights groups, including the Defenders Of Wildlife, who have utilized the talents of actress and film star Ashley Judd in a promotional video in opposition to Palin's practices of paying bounties for the severed forelegs of killed wolves. You can see the video at the site by way of the link.
The Scotsman has what seems to be a pretty well-balanced piece on the controversy, but there is considerable more information to be found in Salon that gives a fairly detailed account of the activists position.
This following passage gives a pretty good indication of one of the major disconnects between the two opposing camps-
Detractors consider the airborne shootings a savage business, conducted under the euphemism "predator control." The airplanes appear in the winter, so the wolves show up like targets in a video game, sprinting across the white canvas below. Critics believe the practice violates the ethics of hunting, while supporters say the process is not hunting at all, but a deliberate cull.
Well, obviously the emphasis here from the vantage point of the pro-wolf hunting forces is in culling the herd, in keeping their numbers down to manageable levels in order to prevent their decimation of the moose, caribou, and other animal populations. That some might be approaching the aerial wolf hunting program as a sport might be unfortunate, but somewhat understandable. That, however, is not the major focus, so there is no need for undue emphasis on sportsmanship or giving the wolves a "fighting chance". The point is to reduce their numbers.
At the same time, I am not altogether unsympathetic to the point of view of the animal rights advocates, at least in this case. According to them, most wolves that eat caribou and moose eat them as carrion, in other words after they have died by other means. Or, perhaps, as is often the case in nature, they have run down and killed the oldest and sickest of the herd, which would undoubtedly die soon at any rate.
Those in favor of the aerial hunting of wolves and also bears, by the way, should make sure they are on firm ground here. I have a strong and unnerving suspicion that a great lot of these folks would be fine if every wolf in Alaska were destroyed, and that would be a great loss to nature if it were allowed to occur.
Politically, this is a chance for Palin to reach out to the other side and seek some form of rational compromise. She needs to double check, and even triple check her data on the moose, caribou, and wold populations and make sure they are accurate, as there does seem to be some legitimate questions as to this, and indeed as to the accuracy of the number of wolves being killed by the aerial hunting program initiated by her predecessor, Governor Mikowski, which she has greatly expanded upon.
There might also be another way of controlling the wolf population, if indeed it is too large, that would not only be less cruel, but just as effective and perhaps even less expensive. Trapping and relocating should be given a greater emphasis, and ways should be studied to see if that is a viable option.
However, the activist groups opposed to the hunting need to understand that the needs of indigent populations, such as the Inuit, as well as farmers and ranchers and those who depend on them, cannot afford to sit idly by for perhaps two or three decades in the hopes that the cycles of nature will eventually swing the pendulum back and even things out.
That is how the real world works. But, not really.
Sarah Palin is therefore taking heat from several animal rights groups, including the Defenders Of Wildlife, who have utilized the talents of actress and film star Ashley Judd in a promotional video in opposition to Palin's practices of paying bounties for the severed forelegs of killed wolves. You can see the video at the site by way of the link.
The Scotsman has what seems to be a pretty well-balanced piece on the controversy, but there is considerable more information to be found in Salon that gives a fairly detailed account of the activists position.
This following passage gives a pretty good indication of one of the major disconnects between the two opposing camps-
Detractors consider the airborne shootings a savage business, conducted under the euphemism "predator control." The airplanes appear in the winter, so the wolves show up like targets in a video game, sprinting across the white canvas below. Critics believe the practice violates the ethics of hunting, while supporters say the process is not hunting at all, but a deliberate cull.
Well, obviously the emphasis here from the vantage point of the pro-wolf hunting forces is in culling the herd, in keeping their numbers down to manageable levels in order to prevent their decimation of the moose, caribou, and other animal populations. That some might be approaching the aerial wolf hunting program as a sport might be unfortunate, but somewhat understandable. That, however, is not the major focus, so there is no need for undue emphasis on sportsmanship or giving the wolves a "fighting chance". The point is to reduce their numbers.
At the same time, I am not altogether unsympathetic to the point of view of the animal rights advocates, at least in this case. According to them, most wolves that eat caribou and moose eat them as carrion, in other words after they have died by other means. Or, perhaps, as is often the case in nature, they have run down and killed the oldest and sickest of the herd, which would undoubtedly die soon at any rate.
Those in favor of the aerial hunting of wolves and also bears, by the way, should make sure they are on firm ground here. I have a strong and unnerving suspicion that a great lot of these folks would be fine if every wolf in Alaska were destroyed, and that would be a great loss to nature if it were allowed to occur.
Politically, this is a chance for Palin to reach out to the other side and seek some form of rational compromise. She needs to double check, and even triple check her data on the moose, caribou, and wold populations and make sure they are accurate, as there does seem to be some legitimate questions as to this, and indeed as to the accuracy of the number of wolves being killed by the aerial hunting program initiated by her predecessor, Governor Mikowski, which she has greatly expanded upon.
There might also be another way of controlling the wolf population, if indeed it is too large, that would not only be less cruel, but just as effective and perhaps even less expensive. Trapping and relocating should be given a greater emphasis, and ways should be studied to see if that is a viable option.
However, the activist groups opposed to the hunting need to understand that the needs of indigent populations, such as the Inuit, as well as farmers and ranchers and those who depend on them, cannot afford to sit idly by for perhaps two or three decades in the hopes that the cycles of nature will eventually swing the pendulum back and even things out.
That is how the real world works. But, not really.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Kentucky-Disaster Strikes The Governor's Mansion
Kentucky has been hit with the old triple whammy. First, although the Mighty Quinn spared me during the course of his rampage across the Bluegrass, a good portion of Kentucky got slammed by an ice storm, followed by rain and snow, that resulted in downed power lines and loss of power to wide areas of the state. As a result of this, Kentucky, as well as Arkansas, is now officially a disaster area, and so qualifies for federal aid.
Whammy number two came in the form of the food aid which, it turns out, includes peanut butter-and/or products that include peanut butter-which seems to have originated from the same plant that has been accused of shipping products even after inspections turned up traces of salmonella, which went on to kill a number of people across the country. It is worth noting that the same Peanut Corporation of America has had it's federal contract canceled to supply food products for government aid programs, although this did not prevent previous contributions from being sent to Kentucky and Arkansas.
Now, in the midst of a federal investigation in which some members of Congress have expressed the opinion that somebody needs jail time over this fiasco, FEMA has issued warnings that people who receive food aid should avoid eating the peanut butter products included in the federal food-aid to Kentucky, due to an understandable
risk of salmonella infection.
Today, I got a glimpse of whammy number three, but this was collectively self-induced by the voters of Kentucky in the person of Governor Steve Beshear, who, during a local news broadcast today, urged calm because, as he put it, there has been not one single report of a salmonella case in Kentucky related to the food aid given the state.
Not content to leave well enough alone, he went on to further assert that he had eaten some of the peanut butter, and felt fine.
Does that tell you something about how bad off we are in Kentucky? Things are so rotten here, our governor is forced to eat federal food aid for his sustenance.
Actually, what it should tell you more than anything is that when a politician underestimates the intelligence of the general public, he usually ends up sounding like as big an idiot as he assumes they are.
Whammy number two came in the form of the food aid which, it turns out, includes peanut butter-and/or products that include peanut butter-which seems to have originated from the same plant that has been accused of shipping products even after inspections turned up traces of salmonella, which went on to kill a number of people across the country. It is worth noting that the same Peanut Corporation of America has had it's federal contract canceled to supply food products for government aid programs, although this did not prevent previous contributions from being sent to Kentucky and Arkansas.
Now, in the midst of a federal investigation in which some members of Congress have expressed the opinion that somebody needs jail time over this fiasco, FEMA has issued warnings that people who receive food aid should avoid eating the peanut butter products included in the federal food-aid to Kentucky, due to an understandable
risk of salmonella infection.
Today, I got a glimpse of whammy number three, but this was collectively self-induced by the voters of Kentucky in the person of Governor Steve Beshear, who, during a local news broadcast today, urged calm because, as he put it, there has been not one single report of a salmonella case in Kentucky related to the food aid given the state.
Not content to leave well enough alone, he went on to further assert that he had eaten some of the peanut butter, and felt fine.
Does that tell you something about how bad off we are in Kentucky? Things are so rotten here, our governor is forced to eat federal food aid for his sustenance.
Actually, what it should tell you more than anything is that when a politician underestimates the intelligence of the general public, he usually ends up sounding like as big an idiot as he assumes they are.
Monday, February 02, 2009
A Guide And Links To Today's Imbolc Posts
Since there are so many posts, and some of them are quite long, I decided to move them around from the original order. Perfectionist that I am, I was unsatisfied with the original order, but unfortunately I just didn't have the time yesterday to put a lot into it. Anyway, without further ado-
Since I always like to start off Sabbat post series with a song video, I started this set on the previous post with Wah-Wah by George Harrison, recorded live at Madison Square Garden in 1971 at the Concert For Bangla-Desh.
Validation is a short comedy film starring T J Thine, and demonstrates the need for joy in life, and how a simple good-natured smile can be so infectious.
Imbolc Food, Fun, And Games-what can i say, it's not for everybody, but you still might want to give it a try. It might even be good for your heart.
Of course, no good Sabbat celebration would be complete without a good drink, and this one is in keeping with the season, complete as it is with the fire of the God and the mother's milk of the Goddess. I am referring of course to Hot Buttered Rum Cow.
After that comes a film that celebrates human potential in the form of Free-Style Skiing.
The power animal for this Imbolc is a newbie-a cross between the polar bear and grizzly.
Astrological Aspects For Imbolc
Imbolc Tarot Reading
Kiva is about a charitable web-site that raises money to aid struggling entrepreneurs in third world countries, which is a worthy endeavor to acknowledge during a Sabbat that aims to encourage positive growth and independence and yet recognizes the need for guidance along the road to success.
Thorn is a new pagan magazine that itself shows great promise and potential for future growth into hopefully something of established and lasting success.
My "Sermon" For Imbolc might be taken by some as an ideological rant, but I did put quite a bit of thought into it. I don't think you have to be an ideologue of any stripe to appreciate where I'm coming from, or at least so I hope.
Finally, the Imbolc series ends with a Druid Meditation For Imbolc, which I lifted from a Yahoo Group in which it was posted by group owner Shadowhawk.
Well, that's it for now. I'll get around later to adding the links, for the benefit of those who find it difficult to navigate a lengthy series of new posts, especially those who aren't particularly fond of reading a large number of posts at one time. The links should make it easier, somewhat. Hopefully I'll be able to get around to adding them sometime today, sooner rather than later. Hope you enjoy them or find at least something to your liking.
Me, I'm taking a couple of days off from this, but I'll return hopefully before the weekend.
Later.
Since I always like to start off Sabbat post series with a song video, I started this set on the previous post with Wah-Wah by George Harrison, recorded live at Madison Square Garden in 1971 at the Concert For Bangla-Desh.
Validation is a short comedy film starring T J Thine, and demonstrates the need for joy in life, and how a simple good-natured smile can be so infectious.
Imbolc Food, Fun, And Games-what can i say, it's not for everybody, but you still might want to give it a try. It might even be good for your heart.
Of course, no good Sabbat celebration would be complete without a good drink, and this one is in keeping with the season, complete as it is with the fire of the God and the mother's milk of the Goddess. I am referring of course to Hot Buttered Rum Cow.
After that comes a film that celebrates human potential in the form of Free-Style Skiing.
The power animal for this Imbolc is a newbie-a cross between the polar bear and grizzly.
Astrological Aspects For Imbolc
Imbolc Tarot Reading
Kiva is about a charitable web-site that raises money to aid struggling entrepreneurs in third world countries, which is a worthy endeavor to acknowledge during a Sabbat that aims to encourage positive growth and independence and yet recognizes the need for guidance along the road to success.
Thorn is a new pagan magazine that itself shows great promise and potential for future growth into hopefully something of established and lasting success.
My "Sermon" For Imbolc might be taken by some as an ideological rant, but I did put quite a bit of thought into it. I don't think you have to be an ideologue of any stripe to appreciate where I'm coming from, or at least so I hope.
Finally, the Imbolc series ends with a Druid Meditation For Imbolc, which I lifted from a Yahoo Group in which it was posted by group owner Shadowhawk.
Well, that's it for now. I'll get around later to adding the links, for the benefit of those who find it difficult to navigate a lengthy series of new posts, especially those who aren't particularly fond of reading a large number of posts at one time. The links should make it easier, somewhat. Hopefully I'll be able to get around to adding them sometime today, sooner rather than later. Hope you enjoy them or find at least something to your liking.
Me, I'm taking a couple of days off from this, but I'll return hopefully before the weekend.
Later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)