Does anybody have any idea, at all, why the Coast Guard would issue a cease and desist order to ships trying to suck up the oil out of the Gulf of Mexico? What could they be possibly thinking? Does anybody really buy for one minute their explanation that they were concerned that there might not be adequate life jackets and fire extinguishers on board the ships, and that they just could not seem to get into contact with the barge's owners in order to verify that they were properly equipped?
Or could it be because somebody in the White House or otherwise connected with the Administration does not want to give Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal-who happens to be the one who arranged for the barges-any opportunity to get any credit for his efforts, politically speaking?
This is starting to look to me like this is a crisis not in the making, but in the planning. What other reason could there be for such a boneheaded order? In fact, where are the aircraft carriers? Is the Gulf of Mexico not big enough for them. It seems to me aircraft carriers, which are probably much bigger than the typical barges ordered by Jindal, could suck a lot more of this oil up in a relatively quicker period of time.
Maybe too damn quickly.
But hey, let's hold out some hope. Maybe, eventually, Obama will call out the Navy with three or four destroyers, maybe even more, and maybe even some nuclear submarines along with them and, working together, they'll make short work of these spills. Maybe the Army Corps of Engineers will work in tandem with BP engineers and scientists to come up with a way to finally plug that damn leak.
In fact, I have every degree of faith possible that this whole problem will be solved by, oh, say late October at the latest.
And at the earliest.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Ozzy Osbournes Genetic Make-Up-A Study In Madness
Ozzy Osbourne is to be the subject of a new round of medical research into the mysteries of the human genome. Researchers will map Ozzy's genes in an effort to find out why he is even still alive. After constant years of drug abuse and other outrageous and dangerous behavior, such as biting the heads off of bats, and snorting a line of ants, and who knows what else, he should by all rights be dead. Therefore, the reasoning is there must be something special there that might serve to identify differences as to why some individuals are just more hardy than others.
Ozzy talks about how befuddled his doctors are-
"Every time I have a medical, they say, 'There is nothing wrong with you', and they are shaking their heads as they do it."
Be that as it may, Ozzy would in all probability be long dead if it weren't for wife Sharon, their kids, and the fact that he's been clean for the last eight years. As such, I think the research, at a cost of roughly twenty-seven thousand dollars-and this was back in the early days of human genome mapping-will be pretty much a waste of time.
Even Ozzy is smart enough to know there's nothing medically special about him. He's just lucky, and he has even wisely impressed upon his children that they shouldn't think they are immune because they have inherited some kind of super gene. He also stated that such is the level of his addictive nature that if he so much as smoked one cigarette, by week's end he might well be back on heroin.
So there's your answer. In order to survive years of risky drug abuse, you have to have an evolved genetic factor leaning towards addiction, which facilitates adaptation to drugs and other dangerous substances. Then, after so long, like after you've been committed a time or two, you have to find a kick-ass, take no prisoners wife who takes total control of your life, both personal and professional, screens your friends and associates, cleans you up, and drags you kicking and screaming into some semblance of personal responsibility.
Does anybody really believe Ozzy would even be alive, let along semi-functional, had it not been for the change in his life Sharon engineered? Whatever one might think of her and her motivations, this is plainly the case.
This is just another cool way to get a research grant, obviously. These people should go ahead and clone Ozzy and get it over with. You know they're dying to do just that. Then we can find out, hopefully, how Ozzy would have fared if he had lived all of his years like he's lived the last eight. That now would be some research worth funding.
Ozzy talks about how befuddled his doctors are-
"Every time I have a medical, they say, 'There is nothing wrong with you', and they are shaking their heads as they do it."
Be that as it may, Ozzy would in all probability be long dead if it weren't for wife Sharon, their kids, and the fact that he's been clean for the last eight years. As such, I think the research, at a cost of roughly twenty-seven thousand dollars-and this was back in the early days of human genome mapping-will be pretty much a waste of time.
Even Ozzy is smart enough to know there's nothing medically special about him. He's just lucky, and he has even wisely impressed upon his children that they shouldn't think they are immune because they have inherited some kind of super gene. He also stated that such is the level of his addictive nature that if he so much as smoked one cigarette, by week's end he might well be back on heroin.
So there's your answer. In order to survive years of risky drug abuse, you have to have an evolved genetic factor leaning towards addiction, which facilitates adaptation to drugs and other dangerous substances. Then, after so long, like after you've been committed a time or two, you have to find a kick-ass, take no prisoners wife who takes total control of your life, both personal and professional, screens your friends and associates, cleans you up, and drags you kicking and screaming into some semblance of personal responsibility.
Does anybody really believe Ozzy would even be alive, let along semi-functional, had it not been for the change in his life Sharon engineered? Whatever one might think of her and her motivations, this is plainly the case.
This is just another cool way to get a research grant, obviously. These people should go ahead and clone Ozzy and get it over with. You know they're dying to do just that. Then we can find out, hopefully, how Ozzy would have fared if he had lived all of his years like he's lived the last eight. That now would be some research worth funding.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Thrill Is Gone
This is too good to pass up. Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Newsweeks Howard Finneman don't know what to make of Obama's Oval Office address on the oil spill. When this crew criticizes Obama, to this extent, you know Obama has a big, big problem. That tingle running up Matthews' leg seems suddenly flaccid. Olbermann must have felt like he woke up in the morning on some weird, alien planet. You know, the one called earth. Finneman might finally be starting to get a clue as to why Newsweek is about to fold. They even rip the President a new on. Not so they can collectively get off in it, but over his bizarre rant about forcing BP to set up a fund for "victims", on nothing but his own executive authority.
They also razz him on his lack of specificity in discussing plans to meet the challenge posed by the leak, discuss the unlikelihood of any kind of comprehensive energy bill passing the Senate, and outright ridicule his talk of Nobel Prize winning appointees and blue ribbon panels.
Watch and enjoy. You will not soon again see the likes of this. Then again, it does somewhat serve to restore your faith in humanity and its capacity for common sense, even that of the most seemingly brain dead among us.
They also razz him on his lack of specificity in discussing plans to meet the challenge posed by the leak, discuss the unlikelihood of any kind of comprehensive energy bill passing the Senate, and outright ridicule his talk of Nobel Prize winning appointees and blue ribbon panels.
Watch and enjoy. You will not soon again see the likes of this. Then again, it does somewhat serve to restore your faith in humanity and its capacity for common sense, even that of the most seemingly brain dead among us.
The Gulf Oil Leak-What Can We Do?
Okay, after last nights address from the Oval Office, I am firmly in the camp of those who believe Obama is purposely taking advantage of a national tragedy of epic proportions in order to push his agenda.
Either that, or he is just totally classless.
The politic thing to do would be to say something along the following lines-
"Now is not the time to concern ourselves with energy policy. We have been studying and debating that issue for years, and will continue to do so, and eventually, we will arrive at a consensus towards a comprehensive energy policy. I don't know yet what that will look like in the end, but I know we have to get there, and some day, hopefully sooner rather than later, we will get there.
"But it is not appropriate now to turn this tragedy into a political stump speech. My main concern-my only concern-is to solve this massive, epic problem that is threatening our shores, the economy and the very way of life along the Gulf States, and working out a solution, a plan, that will insure that this tragic event will never reoccur anywhere."
Instead of that, Obama spent a sizable portion of his address pushing his energy policy. What is even more notable, the bulk of this was towards the end of the address. Granted, there will come a time for a large scale effort to diversify our energy portfolios, so to speak, but this was just not the time or place to dwell on that. What is worse, if he absolutely had to bring that into it, he could have been brief, and a bit more imaginative, but he seems to have glossed over many promising potentials. He never mentioned anything other than solar and wind technology-two things that could never, under the most advanced technological progress imaginable, on their own answer for the energy needs of the entire US-to say nothing of the entire world. Does anyone else suspect the fledgling solar and wind energy industries, along with the ethanol promoters, have deeper pockets than we might suspect, and that they are in fact deep enough, and wide enough, to hold a considerable number of Democratic Senators and House members, and maybe even a President?
Not one word was mentioned, or even hinted, about clean coal, geothermal, hydroelectric, or even natural gas. No word even on nuclear energy which one blogger here mentions would be much more efficient, and safer, than natural gas-which according to him is actually nothing more than methane.
But again, the main thing this address should have centered on was something he only vaguely alluded to-a need to treat this disaster as an on-going threat. He made that point, that it was more than a mere one time event that took in a day or a few days, and he talked of the need to marshal all the resources available of the federal and affected state's governments to bring to bear on the problem.
But he never offered any details, or any even possible solutions.
I think this is best described, as some have, as a war-like situation. To put it as concisely as I know how, send in the Marines. And the Navy. The Coast Guard and National Guard, while a good first step, will just not be sufficient to deal with this threat. Nor can we afford to diddle while BP churns, offering excuse after excuse in an obvious effort to buy time while trying to reassure their stockholders. Remember, this is not oil that belongs to BP. This oil is, ironically, a national treasure. BP has just been granted the license to drill in this specific area, extract the oil, process it, and sell it.
They should have to pay through the nose for what they have done. On this I and the President are in total agreement. However, in saying this, I am not intending this in a punitive sense. They should simply, first and foremost, foot the bill for the clean-up effort, and stand good for legitimate claims due to losses traceable directly and indirectly to this tragedy.
That in itself would be sufficient punishment. I personally have no desire to tack on an extra thirty or forty billion dollars in fines beyond all legitimate claims and expenses.
By the same token, BP has lost all rights to control of this oil well and its contents. It's time to bring the full weight of the US government to bear on this, something it has the legitimate authority to do, for once. There is much the Navy can do here.
How about a fleet of aircraft carriers, destroyers, etc? Large craft that are capable of holding massive amounts of oil are what is needed here. The major task, and challenge, would be as to how to extract that oil from the ocean. It would take some degree of ingenuity, but one thing that might possibly be considered is the prospect of huge, high-tension pressurized vacuum tubes, capable of functioning at deep ocean levels, perhaps extending from the carriers down towards the area of the leak, from thence suctioning as much of the oil as they can almost directly from the source, or as close to it as they can manage to get. Submarines might come into play here, something capable of monitoring the progress and guiding it along from below. There is even a slight possibility that some nuclear subs might be able to draw in large amounts of the oil through turbines and recycle it. This would probably produce some waste, by necessity (otherwise what amounts they could take in at one time would be negligible). They too could also be fitted to transfer the absorbed oil onto the tankers above.
Would any of this work? I don't know, I'm no scientist or engineer, but it certainly sounds feasible enough that someone should look at it and ponder its veracity. If such a plan is implemented, then in the meantime the Army Corps of Engineers can look at ways to finally and completely plug this damn leak.
Otherwise, its going to be a long, hot, dirty summer for a lot of places, and maybe not just in the Gulf.
Either that, or he is just totally classless.
The politic thing to do would be to say something along the following lines-
"Now is not the time to concern ourselves with energy policy. We have been studying and debating that issue for years, and will continue to do so, and eventually, we will arrive at a consensus towards a comprehensive energy policy. I don't know yet what that will look like in the end, but I know we have to get there, and some day, hopefully sooner rather than later, we will get there.
"But it is not appropriate now to turn this tragedy into a political stump speech. My main concern-my only concern-is to solve this massive, epic problem that is threatening our shores, the economy and the very way of life along the Gulf States, and working out a solution, a plan, that will insure that this tragic event will never reoccur anywhere."
Instead of that, Obama spent a sizable portion of his address pushing his energy policy. What is even more notable, the bulk of this was towards the end of the address. Granted, there will come a time for a large scale effort to diversify our energy portfolios, so to speak, but this was just not the time or place to dwell on that. What is worse, if he absolutely had to bring that into it, he could have been brief, and a bit more imaginative, but he seems to have glossed over many promising potentials. He never mentioned anything other than solar and wind technology-two things that could never, under the most advanced technological progress imaginable, on their own answer for the energy needs of the entire US-to say nothing of the entire world. Does anyone else suspect the fledgling solar and wind energy industries, along with the ethanol promoters, have deeper pockets than we might suspect, and that they are in fact deep enough, and wide enough, to hold a considerable number of Democratic Senators and House members, and maybe even a President?
Not one word was mentioned, or even hinted, about clean coal, geothermal, hydroelectric, or even natural gas. No word even on nuclear energy which one blogger here mentions would be much more efficient, and safer, than natural gas-which according to him is actually nothing more than methane.
But again, the main thing this address should have centered on was something he only vaguely alluded to-a need to treat this disaster as an on-going threat. He made that point, that it was more than a mere one time event that took in a day or a few days, and he talked of the need to marshal all the resources available of the federal and affected state's governments to bring to bear on the problem.
But he never offered any details, or any even possible solutions.
I think this is best described, as some have, as a war-like situation. To put it as concisely as I know how, send in the Marines. And the Navy. The Coast Guard and National Guard, while a good first step, will just not be sufficient to deal with this threat. Nor can we afford to diddle while BP churns, offering excuse after excuse in an obvious effort to buy time while trying to reassure their stockholders. Remember, this is not oil that belongs to BP. This oil is, ironically, a national treasure. BP has just been granted the license to drill in this specific area, extract the oil, process it, and sell it.
They should have to pay through the nose for what they have done. On this I and the President are in total agreement. However, in saying this, I am not intending this in a punitive sense. They should simply, first and foremost, foot the bill for the clean-up effort, and stand good for legitimate claims due to losses traceable directly and indirectly to this tragedy.
That in itself would be sufficient punishment. I personally have no desire to tack on an extra thirty or forty billion dollars in fines beyond all legitimate claims and expenses.
By the same token, BP has lost all rights to control of this oil well and its contents. It's time to bring the full weight of the US government to bear on this, something it has the legitimate authority to do, for once. There is much the Navy can do here.
How about a fleet of aircraft carriers, destroyers, etc? Large craft that are capable of holding massive amounts of oil are what is needed here. The major task, and challenge, would be as to how to extract that oil from the ocean. It would take some degree of ingenuity, but one thing that might possibly be considered is the prospect of huge, high-tension pressurized vacuum tubes, capable of functioning at deep ocean levels, perhaps extending from the carriers down towards the area of the leak, from thence suctioning as much of the oil as they can almost directly from the source, or as close to it as they can manage to get. Submarines might come into play here, something capable of monitoring the progress and guiding it along from below. There is even a slight possibility that some nuclear subs might be able to draw in large amounts of the oil through turbines and recycle it. This would probably produce some waste, by necessity (otherwise what amounts they could take in at one time would be negligible). They too could also be fitted to transfer the absorbed oil onto the tankers above.
Would any of this work? I don't know, I'm no scientist or engineer, but it certainly sounds feasible enough that someone should look at it and ponder its veracity. If such a plan is implemented, then in the meantime the Army Corps of Engineers can look at ways to finally and completely plug this damn leak.
Otherwise, its going to be a long, hot, dirty summer for a lot of places, and maybe not just in the Gulf.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
She Shoulda Said No (Pt.4)
Previously-while the police investigated a tragic accident, Hugo warned Markie to stay away from his girls; Markie nevertheless introduces Anne to the joys of marihuana; and Rita assures Bob that Markie is just a friend.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Bizarre Candidacy Of Alvin Greene
When word got out that victorious South Carolina Senate Democratic primary candidate Alvin Greene paid the $10,400.00 filing fee required to run in the South Carolina Senate Democratic primary, even though he has been unemployed for nine months and only has a little over one hundred dollars in the bank, it understandably raised suspicion. Many Democrats especially have questions as to whether the South Carolina GOP might be behind this. But why would they do that? No Democratic Party candidate is going to beat Senator Jim DeMint in November. Why would they take that chance?
Then it occurred to me. Obviously, Alvin Greene is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. What if he was supposed to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in order to dilute the vote totals for Democratic House Minority Whip James Clyburn, so that he or Clyburn's other opponent might win, and as a consequence present an easier target for a GOP takeover of that seat?
Instead, the big lug, not really grasping the difference between the Senate and the "Congress"-the term many people use as shorthand for the House of Representatives-filed for the wrong race. Under this scenario, everything that transpired after the filing starts to make some kind of coherent sense. It explains why he was not given any further seed money for campaigning. He didn't have a campaign website, never appeared at any candidates forums or debates, never made any campaign stops or appearances, never made any speeches, never passed out campaign literature or even so much as put up and yard signs-not even in his own hometown.
Yet, ironically, he still defeated his lone primary opponent by eighteen percentage points. Which is not so mysterious. His opponent was not that well known either outside his home district. His overall name recognition was somewhere in the upper teens. But more tellingly, his approval rating was a dismal five percent. Al Greene, meanwhile, appeared at the top of the ballot and shares the name of a well-known and much beloved R&B music icon. And yes, he is black, among a voting demographic that makes up roughly a third of all South Carolina voters, and the majority of Democratic ones. Yet, for all the hoopla over the amount of votes Greene received from black voters, it bears mentioning that so nonexistent was his campaign, if you even want to dignify it with that appellation, one is hard pressed to answer as to how any voters could have possibly known whether Greene was in fact black or white.
That's the real irony. His campaign for the Senate was undoubtedly more successful than he would have been had he filed for the House of Representatives against Clyburn, even though I have this nagging suspicion that might have been the original intention.
What's more, after all this, though he certainly won't win, he'll probably pick up more votes than his Democratic opponent would have, and by a hefty margin at that.
Of course, the South Carolina Democratic Party is in a tailspin over this. They have even threatened him by warning him in effect, "If you don't withdraw from the race, you might lose our votes!!"
What the hell kind of threat is that?
Assuredly, their concerns are understandable. First off, this guy was seemingly forced out of the Army-that's pretty much his story, although he is mum as to why, and insists that his discharge was an honorable one.
Then, he gets accused of obscene behavior by a USC student. According to her story, which she relates to Shepherd Smith here, he approached her and asked her if she likes football. When she said yes, he showed her a picture of man-on-woman porn. When she asked him to leave, he laughed and invited her to his room. She left and told her mom, who called the police.
Right there is where this story probably by rights begins, but let's trace a time line. The discharge from the Army happened nine months ago. What exactly was the reason for this, and who all knew about it? The obscenity charge happened in November of last year. So who was in the loop on this matter, and perhaps knowledgeable about both issues? Who talked to this guy between the date of the charge and his filing for the Senate run? What was the police jurisdiction? Perhaps most importantly, what is the relevance of the Congressional district where this happened?
Or was it a different type of misunderstanding? Was he meant to run for the South Carolina State Senate? Or South Carolina State House? However much fun it might have been to see a race between this guy and Nicki Hailey for South Carolina Governor, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume even this guy isn't so dense as to misunderstand an encouragement to run for Governor and somehow end up running for the US Senate.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. This could be totally innocent. The ten thousand dollars might well have come from some kind of payment from the Army following his discharge. But if that's the case, why not start out small, with something that offers even a slight chance of success? Maybe City Council, or Mayor, Magistrate, or even Sheriff or some kind of County or Circuit Court Clerk position? You know, something he might have had at least a snowball's chance in hell at winning in the general election. Why, for God's sake, the US Senate?
Unless, of course, he's just so dumb he got the offices mixed up in a way that is totally innocent. But then again, what would make this guy want to run for any political office to begin with? Where would he even get that idea? I'll tell you where. He probably talks politics with his lawyers and with other people he's come into contact with, possibly as a means of putting himself across as a responsible person. In a way, he planted the seed himself. The question then becomes, who nurtured that seed and transplanted it? And was it necessarily even a Republican? If so, then again, a relevant question becomes, who was the intended target?
Follow the money. The most likely victim of such a conspiracy would have been one of those few South Carolina politicians who might be vulnerable to a challenge from his own party, though otherwise safe in the general election. Clyburn again comes immediately to mind, although Democratic State Senator John C Land III could be another possible answer. The beneficiary becomes obvious as well, in both cases. That would be whatever Republican might defeat a weaker candidate than either one of these men in the general election.
If I'm right, somebody should probably be ashamed of themselves, but you know what? We need stories like this. This is like something out of some cornball movie, though not necessarily a comedy. It's just one of those things you can file under the "You can't make this shit up" category.
Then it occurred to me. Obviously, Alvin Greene is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. What if he was supposed to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in order to dilute the vote totals for Democratic House Minority Whip James Clyburn, so that he or Clyburn's other opponent might win, and as a consequence present an easier target for a GOP takeover of that seat?
Instead, the big lug, not really grasping the difference between the Senate and the "Congress"-the term many people use as shorthand for the House of Representatives-filed for the wrong race. Under this scenario, everything that transpired after the filing starts to make some kind of coherent sense. It explains why he was not given any further seed money for campaigning. He didn't have a campaign website, never appeared at any candidates forums or debates, never made any campaign stops or appearances, never made any speeches, never passed out campaign literature or even so much as put up and yard signs-not even in his own hometown.
Yet, ironically, he still defeated his lone primary opponent by eighteen percentage points. Which is not so mysterious. His opponent was not that well known either outside his home district. His overall name recognition was somewhere in the upper teens. But more tellingly, his approval rating was a dismal five percent. Al Greene, meanwhile, appeared at the top of the ballot and shares the name of a well-known and much beloved R&B music icon. And yes, he is black, among a voting demographic that makes up roughly a third of all South Carolina voters, and the majority of Democratic ones. Yet, for all the hoopla over the amount of votes Greene received from black voters, it bears mentioning that so nonexistent was his campaign, if you even want to dignify it with that appellation, one is hard pressed to answer as to how any voters could have possibly known whether Greene was in fact black or white.
That's the real irony. His campaign for the Senate was undoubtedly more successful than he would have been had he filed for the House of Representatives against Clyburn, even though I have this nagging suspicion that might have been the original intention.
What's more, after all this, though he certainly won't win, he'll probably pick up more votes than his Democratic opponent would have, and by a hefty margin at that.
Of course, the South Carolina Democratic Party is in a tailspin over this. They have even threatened him by warning him in effect, "If you don't withdraw from the race, you might lose our votes!!"
What the hell kind of threat is that?
Assuredly, their concerns are understandable. First off, this guy was seemingly forced out of the Army-that's pretty much his story, although he is mum as to why, and insists that his discharge was an honorable one.
Then, he gets accused of obscene behavior by a USC student. According to her story, which she relates to Shepherd Smith here, he approached her and asked her if she likes football. When she said yes, he showed her a picture of man-on-woman porn. When she asked him to leave, he laughed and invited her to his room. She left and told her mom, who called the police.
Right there is where this story probably by rights begins, but let's trace a time line. The discharge from the Army happened nine months ago. What exactly was the reason for this, and who all knew about it? The obscenity charge happened in November of last year. So who was in the loop on this matter, and perhaps knowledgeable about both issues? Who talked to this guy between the date of the charge and his filing for the Senate run? What was the police jurisdiction? Perhaps most importantly, what is the relevance of the Congressional district where this happened?
Or was it a different type of misunderstanding? Was he meant to run for the South Carolina State Senate? Or South Carolina State House? However much fun it might have been to see a race between this guy and Nicki Hailey for South Carolina Governor, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume even this guy isn't so dense as to misunderstand an encouragement to run for Governor and somehow end up running for the US Senate.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. This could be totally innocent. The ten thousand dollars might well have come from some kind of payment from the Army following his discharge. But if that's the case, why not start out small, with something that offers even a slight chance of success? Maybe City Council, or Mayor, Magistrate, or even Sheriff or some kind of County or Circuit Court Clerk position? You know, something he might have had at least a snowball's chance in hell at winning in the general election. Why, for God's sake, the US Senate?
Unless, of course, he's just so dumb he got the offices mixed up in a way that is totally innocent. But then again, what would make this guy want to run for any political office to begin with? Where would he even get that idea? I'll tell you where. He probably talks politics with his lawyers and with other people he's come into contact with, possibly as a means of putting himself across as a responsible person. In a way, he planted the seed himself. The question then becomes, who nurtured that seed and transplanted it? And was it necessarily even a Republican? If so, then again, a relevant question becomes, who was the intended target?
Follow the money. The most likely victim of such a conspiracy would have been one of those few South Carolina politicians who might be vulnerable to a challenge from his own party, though otherwise safe in the general election. Clyburn again comes immediately to mind, although Democratic State Senator John C Land III could be another possible answer. The beneficiary becomes obvious as well, in both cases. That would be whatever Republican might defeat a weaker candidate than either one of these men in the general election.
If I'm right, somebody should probably be ashamed of themselves, but you know what? We need stories like this. This is like something out of some cornball movie, though not necessarily a comedy. It's just one of those things you can file under the "You can't make this shit up" category.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Dhimmiwit Of Britain-Prince Charles
Recently, the Archbishop of Canterbury went on record as stating the practice of Sharia Law by Muslims in Britain might be unavoidable. Nor did he seem to consider it any great cause for concern.
Now Prince Charles has added his voice-yet again-to the mix of Islamic enablers and apologists in Britain (whose numbers seem legion) by suggesting that the world should follow "Islamic spiritual principles" in caring for the environment. He says that although our current misuse of the environment and the earth is against the principles of all religions, he states that it is especially abhorrent to Islam, which teaches that people should live within the boundaries and limitations of nature.
So who is this guy listening to for advice, Osama Bin Laden? Or is this some kind of PR statement meant to draw a distinction between radical Islamists and "moderate" Muslims, and to soften the image of Prince Harry's involvement in Afghanistan?
Does he have his sights set on a Nobel Prize by putting himself across as the Al Gore of Great Britain? Like I said, this is not the first time he's done something like this. In fact, he's done it so often there are troubling rumors to the effect the Prince has converted to Islam. I used to think he was just trying to gain more political influence with the Labour Party, or other leftist politicians and activists who in all honesty would be inclined to end the monarchy at the first opportunity. Or, it might have had something to do with accusations of a government conspiracy in the death of his ex-wife, Princess Diana, aimed at preventing her marriage to a man of the Muslim faith.
But naw, I think more than likely the Prince of Wales is just a fucking dhummass.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Some Learning Experience
Abby Sunderland is missing. Her last known location was somewhere north of the Antarctic Islands and somewhere south of Madagascar. The California native is sixteen, and determined to be the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe. As of the last post made to her blog, she has not been found, nor does anyone seem to be sure as to what might have gone amiss. One possible clue-she's a sixteen year old girl alone in the ocean on a sail boat.
A part of me hopes this will turn out to be just another publicity stunt, that she will turn up unharmed after a brief rest stop on a small little uncharted island, but it doesn't look good.
Running Scared insists that we should concentrate on hopes for her safe return and avoid the obvious recriminations against her parents for allowing such a young girl to engage in such a risky venture.
I see their point. Abby's parents are obviously the kind of people who want to give their children free reign to express their creativity and develop their talents and skills, to be "the best people they can be", and not stand in their way with negative discipline.
Who knows, just like the young Australian girl whose recent voyage around the world obviously inspired Abby, Abby herself might well inspire some young teen to be the first American kid to join a crew of Somali pirates-become a member of an Amazonian tribe of headhunters, or maybe head out into the wild and join a pack of wolves. Some lucky kid might fall in with a group of coyotes-the kind that smuggle illegal immigrants across the border, that is, or maybe drugs. There, now wouldn't that be a great learning experience? Don't trust your kids education to books and school. Let them go out and experience life for themselves, with all its wonders and dangers.
So yeah, I'll join in with the Village Voice in hoping that Abby is safe, and that she is soon found and brought to safety.
By Child Protective Services, that is. Take note of the picture at top, which is from her blog. If you magnify the picture to where you get a real good close up shot, she does not look like a happy camper. Sure, I might be reading too much into one photo, but it did make me wonder, how much of this little adventure was really her idea. Did her parents just give her permission, or did they in effect push her into this?
If this does turn into a tragedy, at least it might make some parents think twice before "allowing" this kind of thing. But then again, I seriously doubt it.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Career And Life Advice For Chris Brown
Hey Chris Brown, I hear you had to cancel your scheduled European tour because you've been banned from Britain, all because of that domestic violence incident between you and your one-time girlfriend, Rihanna. That's really too bad, but hey, take heart. There might be a way for you to move beyond this in a way that you can sustain your career and get it back on track. What should you do?
Simple-convert to Islam. Do that, and you can beat your bitches all day long. You can do so for any reason, from talking to somebody, leaving the house without your permission, or walking too close to you while out on the street. If you ever have daughters, you can beat them too. You can even hire somebody to perform circumcision (otherwise known as clitoral castration), once they get so old. If you're really cool about it, you can have them or your wife beheaded.
As long as you don't leave any real solid proof that you yourself killed them or had them killed, those Brits aren't going to look too hard for evidence. After all, David Cameron, the new British Conservative Prime Minister, is promoting the Anti-Discrimination Law, which would make it illegal to criticize Islam, or to act in any way towards the religion, or its adherents, that might be construed as "oppressive".
Just between you and me, though, Chris old boy, you'd better draw the line when it comes to promoting or inciting acts of terrorism. That might be going too far-for now. In order to get away with going that far, for the time being, you might have to go the extra step of becoming an Imam, a complicated and time consuming procedure. Who knows though, maybe you can become an honorary Imam, at which point you can preach jihad against the West and against Britain, right in the mosque-hell, maybe even in Piccadilly Square.
It might be worth looking into. If you are interested in bringing about the spread and acceptance of shariah law in Britain's Muslim community with the sanction of the British government, you could find numerous Muslims who would sponsor your training and help you with all the ins and outs of life in Britain as a faithful, devout Muslim.
Remember, Chris-no matter what Muamar Khadafi might tell you, you don't have to necessarily be a Muslim from Turkey to be a hidden soldier in that great big Islamic Trojan Horse being allowed into Europe by clueless EU elites. All you have to do is convert to Islam, preach jihad, engage in hate speech against other religions, oppress women and gays, accuse anyone that criticizes Islam of religious intolerance-while you call out for their murder-and all the other things a faithful Muslim is supposed to do. Do all that and not only can you go to Britain anytime you want, you can probably immigrate there permanently and, HaHaHa, the British government might even give you a monthly check and free medical care.
Just something else to consider in the event your career takes a dive. Let's face it, anythings possible these days. Just hope your fan base is more tolerant that the fans of, say, the Dixie Chicks. But even if they are not, you will have something the Dixie Chicks did not have in their favor. You will have the power of a barbaric, savage religion that has remained essentially unchanged since its founding in the seventh century by a brutal, merciless warlord whose forces raped, murdered, and pillaged their way across three continents, merrily engaging in the practice of ethnic cleansing all along the way throughout the centuries.
With a force like that behind you, how could you possibly go wrong?
One further word of advice. If you do convert, don't change your mind and convert from Islam to something else. That would be a sure-fire way for you to get you a quick death sentence-courtesy of the "religion of peace".
Simple-convert to Islam. Do that, and you can beat your bitches all day long. You can do so for any reason, from talking to somebody, leaving the house without your permission, or walking too close to you while out on the street. If you ever have daughters, you can beat them too. You can even hire somebody to perform circumcision (otherwise known as clitoral castration), once they get so old. If you're really cool about it, you can have them or your wife beheaded.
As long as you don't leave any real solid proof that you yourself killed them or had them killed, those Brits aren't going to look too hard for evidence. After all, David Cameron, the new British Conservative Prime Minister, is promoting the Anti-Discrimination Law, which would make it illegal to criticize Islam, or to act in any way towards the religion, or its adherents, that might be construed as "oppressive".
Just between you and me, though, Chris old boy, you'd better draw the line when it comes to promoting or inciting acts of terrorism. That might be going too far-for now. In order to get away with going that far, for the time being, you might have to go the extra step of becoming an Imam, a complicated and time consuming procedure. Who knows though, maybe you can become an honorary Imam, at which point you can preach jihad against the West and against Britain, right in the mosque-hell, maybe even in Piccadilly Square.
It might be worth looking into. If you are interested in bringing about the spread and acceptance of shariah law in Britain's Muslim community with the sanction of the British government, you could find numerous Muslims who would sponsor your training and help you with all the ins and outs of life in Britain as a faithful, devout Muslim.
Remember, Chris-no matter what Muamar Khadafi might tell you, you don't have to necessarily be a Muslim from Turkey to be a hidden soldier in that great big Islamic Trojan Horse being allowed into Europe by clueless EU elites. All you have to do is convert to Islam, preach jihad, engage in hate speech against other religions, oppress women and gays, accuse anyone that criticizes Islam of religious intolerance-while you call out for their murder-and all the other things a faithful Muslim is supposed to do. Do all that and not only can you go to Britain anytime you want, you can probably immigrate there permanently and, HaHaHa, the British government might even give you a monthly check and free medical care.
Just something else to consider in the event your career takes a dive. Let's face it, anythings possible these days. Just hope your fan base is more tolerant that the fans of, say, the Dixie Chicks. But even if they are not, you will have something the Dixie Chicks did not have in their favor. You will have the power of a barbaric, savage religion that has remained essentially unchanged since its founding in the seventh century by a brutal, merciless warlord whose forces raped, murdered, and pillaged their way across three continents, merrily engaging in the practice of ethnic cleansing all along the way throughout the centuries.
With a force like that behind you, how could you possibly go wrong?
One further word of advice. If you do convert, don't change your mind and convert from Islam to something else. That would be a sure-fire way for you to get you a quick death sentence-courtesy of the "religion of peace".
Monday, June 07, 2010
The Gulf Oil Leak-No Nukes, Please.
There are a lot of good reasons not to nuke the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. One of those is not that it would be a violation of the test ban treaty, of which the US is a signatory. We should get out from under that, by the way, but until we do, if ever, I doubt that could be a serious drawback to such a plan, for the simple reason, if this ever happened, it would have nothing to do with conducting a test. It would not be testing a weapon, it would be the explosion of a nuclear warhead for a specific purpose which would have nothing to do with war, or with testing.
But that's really beside the point. There are all kinds of other valid reasons not to do something like that. One being, there's no assurance it would work, and on top of that, it would kill no matter how much marine life and, worse, render a large portion of seafood totally inedible for no telling how long. I'm not really so much concerned with radioactive mutants rising up out of the sea and wreaking havoc, but radioactive oil is quite another matter. If such contaminated oil made its way to our shores, onto our beaches and swamps, we have a whole new set of problems that would make the present situation look like child's play.
And then there's the prospect that the heat generated from such an undertaking would be considerable, hotter than the sun's surface in fact. That in itself might be inconsequential at such depths, and for what would be a very brief instant, but there's the residual problem of the overall increase in surface temperatures of the Gulf waters, at a time just heading into hurricane season, which is fed and influenced by, of course, warmth. Just a slight increase by as much as three or four degrees could have a major impact, and who knows how long it would last. It could double the amount and intensity of any hurricanes that come into contact with the affected area.
What could result is a series of hurricanes that could shoot up the interior of the country, starting out as level four or five and ending up shooting all the way up to Kentucky and beyond at levels two and three, in the meantime spouting numerous tornadoes and dumping tiny droplets of oil all along the way-radioactive droplets of oil at that.
Shit, if nobody can come up with a better idea that that we might well be better off just letting the damn well keep on spewing until it runs completely out.
This accident is a sterling example of the need for reasonable regulations, which are on the books, but which have been continually ignored, due to BP's untoward influence with regulators. Safety precautions were ignored, at obvious severe and hazardous risks to the operation and its employees, resulting in the loss of eleven lives. BP of course is notorious for this, and its beyond me why we even allow them to operate in the Gulf. There are plenty of American companies that I would imagine are just as capable of doing the job. Granted, BP has experience in the North Sea, but so what? What it really amounts to is, in my opinion, an agreement with Britain, to the effect that they get a certain percentage of our oil for their own needs. Well, nothing against the Brits, but we need all the oil we can produce here for our own needs.
Finally, this might not ever have happened if we would allow off-shore drilling in shallow waters, in addition to the North Slope of Alaska and at ANWAR, and other places where drilling is banned. If we did drill in shallower waters, people have the impression that our beaches would be ruined by the distant sight of row after row of off-shore oil rigs, which is of course ridiculous. The complaints about ANWAR are so absurd by this point they don't really even deserve further commentary, except for the fact that it too has limited our options to the extent that they have led to the present situation.
True, eventually we would be obliged to drill in deeper waters anyway, but it would be further down the line, possibly much much further. And by then, BP and other companies could have and doubtless would have developed a system for dealing with such emergency situations, one that would be for the most part unnecessary, but which would more than likely work well in the probably very rare if ever instances they might be needed. As it is, our insatiable appetite for energy-not oil, energy-has forced their hands before they had a cohesive plan in effect. That doesn't excuse their shoddy behavior in the matter of skirting safety regulations and insuring the proper maintenance of their equipment, by no means.
Nobody looks good in this mess. Obama looks so clueless, I have to wonder if his lethargy is a means of pushing for Cap And Trade in a way so as to not need that much help from Republicans, especially since Lindsay Graham walked out on the negotiations in a huff supposedly over the Health Care Reform Bill. Obama had earlier agreed to allow more drilling, but now of course he's declared a moratorium on that. Quite convenient, I would say.
But that's really beside the point. There are all kinds of other valid reasons not to do something like that. One being, there's no assurance it would work, and on top of that, it would kill no matter how much marine life and, worse, render a large portion of seafood totally inedible for no telling how long. I'm not really so much concerned with radioactive mutants rising up out of the sea and wreaking havoc, but radioactive oil is quite another matter. If such contaminated oil made its way to our shores, onto our beaches and swamps, we have a whole new set of problems that would make the present situation look like child's play.
And then there's the prospect that the heat generated from such an undertaking would be considerable, hotter than the sun's surface in fact. That in itself might be inconsequential at such depths, and for what would be a very brief instant, but there's the residual problem of the overall increase in surface temperatures of the Gulf waters, at a time just heading into hurricane season, which is fed and influenced by, of course, warmth. Just a slight increase by as much as three or four degrees could have a major impact, and who knows how long it would last. It could double the amount and intensity of any hurricanes that come into contact with the affected area.
What could result is a series of hurricanes that could shoot up the interior of the country, starting out as level four or five and ending up shooting all the way up to Kentucky and beyond at levels two and three, in the meantime spouting numerous tornadoes and dumping tiny droplets of oil all along the way-radioactive droplets of oil at that.
Shit, if nobody can come up with a better idea that that we might well be better off just letting the damn well keep on spewing until it runs completely out.
This accident is a sterling example of the need for reasonable regulations, which are on the books, but which have been continually ignored, due to BP's untoward influence with regulators. Safety precautions were ignored, at obvious severe and hazardous risks to the operation and its employees, resulting in the loss of eleven lives. BP of course is notorious for this, and its beyond me why we even allow them to operate in the Gulf. There are plenty of American companies that I would imagine are just as capable of doing the job. Granted, BP has experience in the North Sea, but so what? What it really amounts to is, in my opinion, an agreement with Britain, to the effect that they get a certain percentage of our oil for their own needs. Well, nothing against the Brits, but we need all the oil we can produce here for our own needs.
Finally, this might not ever have happened if we would allow off-shore drilling in shallow waters, in addition to the North Slope of Alaska and at ANWAR, and other places where drilling is banned. If we did drill in shallower waters, people have the impression that our beaches would be ruined by the distant sight of row after row of off-shore oil rigs, which is of course ridiculous. The complaints about ANWAR are so absurd by this point they don't really even deserve further commentary, except for the fact that it too has limited our options to the extent that they have led to the present situation.
True, eventually we would be obliged to drill in deeper waters anyway, but it would be further down the line, possibly much much further. And by then, BP and other companies could have and doubtless would have developed a system for dealing with such emergency situations, one that would be for the most part unnecessary, but which would more than likely work well in the probably very rare if ever instances they might be needed. As it is, our insatiable appetite for energy-not oil, energy-has forced their hands before they had a cohesive plan in effect. That doesn't excuse their shoddy behavior in the matter of skirting safety regulations and insuring the proper maintenance of their equipment, by no means.
Nobody looks good in this mess. Obama looks so clueless, I have to wonder if his lethargy is a means of pushing for Cap And Trade in a way so as to not need that much help from Republicans, especially since Lindsay Graham walked out on the negotiations in a huff supposedly over the Health Care Reform Bill. Obama had earlier agreed to allow more drilling, but now of course he's declared a moratorium on that. Quite convenient, I would say.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Jew Day Recipe
I decided since I'll soon be posting another installment of "She Shoulda Said No" I should put a few posts in between it and my last video post, the brilliant "We Con The World". In keeping with the general theme of that video, I decided to just do a series of posts in honor of the Jewish Sabbat and all the ass-kickery they've been doing over there in Jew Land. So let's start it off with a real ass-kicking recipe of Israeli cuisine I'm sure some of you are going to accuse them of stealing from somebody else.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not prejudiced. No, honestly, I'm really not. And to prove it, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. Just to prove I'm every bit as fair and balanced as Fox News-or "Faux News" if you prefer-feel free to send me a recipe from a Jew-hating, anti-Semitic country, and I'll be sure and post it.
Please bear in mind now, it don't have to be an Arab or a Muslim recipe. It can be from any Jew-hating anti-Semitic country. It can be French, German, Russian, Belgian, Spanish, Austrian, hell, take your pick and send it on.
So now, without further ado, let's start the first installment of Jew Day with a recipe that is sure to kick your fucking ass just this side of Sunday.
MEAT CHOLENT
Cholent, a heavy stew, became the answer to the age-old problem of how to have nourishing hot food on the Sabbath without violating injunctions in Jewish traditional law. Since it is permitted to prepare food in advance and keep it warm in an oven lit before the Sabbath began, cholent, which it is not impaired by long, slow cooking (indeed the process improves the flavor), was adopted as the principal Sabbath food in eastern Europe.
In Israel, cholent has become exceedingly popular with every segment of the population. There are even restaurants where one sees lines of customers standing with pot-in-hand waiting for their turn to get "take-home" cholent.
Cholent is served only on weekends. Anyone who partakes of this dish will understand why. It is a thick, heavy, and filling food which induces sleep.
2 cups dried lima beans
3 lbs. brisket
3 onions, diced
2 tsp. paprika
1/4 tsp. pepper
1/4 tsp. ginger
2 tbs. flour
8 small potatoes (peeled)
1 cup pearled barley
8 eggs (uncooked)
2 tsp. salt
2 tbs. fat or margarine
Soak the beans overnight in water. Drain. Use a heavy saucepan or Dutch oven and brown meat and onions in the fat (or margarine). Sprinkle with salt, pepper and ginger. Add beans, barley, small potatoes (peeled) and sprinkle with flour and paprika. Place uncooked eggs in shells on top. Add enough boiling water to cover one inch above the mixture. Cover tightly. Cholent may be baked for 24 hours at 250 deg F (125 deg C) or for quicker cooking, bake at 350 deg F (180 deg C) for 4-5 hours.
Serves 8-10.
Happy Jew Day.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not prejudiced. No, honestly, I'm really not. And to prove it, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. Just to prove I'm every bit as fair and balanced as Fox News-or "Faux News" if you prefer-feel free to send me a recipe from a Jew-hating, anti-Semitic country, and I'll be sure and post it.
Please bear in mind now, it don't have to be an Arab or a Muslim recipe. It can be from any Jew-hating anti-Semitic country. It can be French, German, Russian, Belgian, Spanish, Austrian, hell, take your pick and send it on.
So now, without further ado, let's start the first installment of Jew Day with a recipe that is sure to kick your fucking ass just this side of Sunday.
MEAT CHOLENT
Cholent, a heavy stew, became the answer to the age-old problem of how to have nourishing hot food on the Sabbath without violating injunctions in Jewish traditional law. Since it is permitted to prepare food in advance and keep it warm in an oven lit before the Sabbath began, cholent, which it is not impaired by long, slow cooking (indeed the process improves the flavor), was adopted as the principal Sabbath food in eastern Europe.
In Israel, cholent has become exceedingly popular with every segment of the population. There are even restaurants where one sees lines of customers standing with pot-in-hand waiting for their turn to get "take-home" cholent.
Cholent is served only on weekends. Anyone who partakes of this dish will understand why. It is a thick, heavy, and filling food which induces sleep.
2 cups dried lima beans
3 lbs. brisket
3 onions, diced
2 tsp. paprika
1/4 tsp. pepper
1/4 tsp. ginger
2 tbs. flour
8 small potatoes (peeled)
1 cup pearled barley
8 eggs (uncooked)
2 tsp. salt
2 tbs. fat or margarine
Soak the beans overnight in water. Drain. Use a heavy saucepan or Dutch oven and brown meat and onions in the fat (or margarine). Sprinkle with salt, pepper and ginger. Add beans, barley, small potatoes (peeled) and sprinkle with flour and paprika. Place uncooked eggs in shells on top. Add enough boiling water to cover one inch above the mixture. Cover tightly. Cholent may be baked for 24 hours at 250 deg F (125 deg C) or for quicker cooking, bake at 350 deg F (180 deg C) for 4-5 hours.
Serves 8-10.
Happy Jew Day.
Houri Alert
Don't look now, but somewhere in the darkest, deepest pits of Muslim hell a former radical Islamic terrorist is missing one of his seventy-two virgins, and he needs to take her back as soon as fucking possible.
I know she claims to be the daughter of Lebanese immigrants, and raised in Kentucky, but I ain't buying it. I'm pretty sure its against the law in Kentucky to raise something that fucking ugly to start out with, but in this case especially, ugly is really more than skin deep. I also know she apologized for her recent remarks to the effect the Jews should leave Israel and go back where they came from, but the problem with that is, she has a pretty long history of saying this kind of stuff, one example of which got her Pwned by the late former Bush White House Press Secretary Tony Snow (see Hot Air link for video).
More than likely, even though she is even on Obama's ass constantly about withdrawing our soldiers from Afghanistan, she'll still keep her position in the White House Press Corps. Hell its not like she suggested we should send all niggers back to Africa. Why should Obama care about a bunch of fucking Jews. The Press Corps sure as fuck don't. Some of them probably agree that the Jews should return to the places they came from to start out with. Like Germany.
I wonder if I could get Helen to join me and my friends in a rousing chorus of "Send all illegal immigrants back to Mexico and Central America"?
Probably not.
I know she claims to be the daughter of Lebanese immigrants, and raised in Kentucky, but I ain't buying it. I'm pretty sure its against the law in Kentucky to raise something that fucking ugly to start out with, but in this case especially, ugly is really more than skin deep. I also know she apologized for her recent remarks to the effect the Jews should leave Israel and go back where they came from, but the problem with that is, she has a pretty long history of saying this kind of stuff, one example of which got her Pwned by the late former Bush White House Press Secretary Tony Snow (see Hot Air link for video).
More than likely, even though she is even on Obama's ass constantly about withdrawing our soldiers from Afghanistan, she'll still keep her position in the White House Press Corps. Hell its not like she suggested we should send all niggers back to Africa. Why should Obama care about a bunch of fucking Jews. The Press Corps sure as fuck don't. Some of them probably agree that the Jews should return to the places they came from to start out with. Like Germany.
I wonder if I could get Helen to join me and my friends in a rousing chorus of "Send all illegal immigrants back to Mexico and Central America"?
Probably not.
The Shelf Life Of Lunacy
It had to happen sooner or later. I didn't know what, exactly, but I knew something would happen to show the flotilla activists for the capricious motherfuckers they really were. I was just surprised it happened this quick. The flotilla aid activists and their supporters have proven their abiding humanitarian love for the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza by sending them medicine that was more than one year past it's expiration date.
What was the reaction of Hamas? Although the Israelis were willing to deliver the aid, Hamas has thus far rejected all of the aid from the flotilla. No, they've not just rejected the expired medications. They rejected all of it-the school supplies, toys, construction materials, all of it.
The Israelis boarded the Rachel Corrie earlier, without incident, and have commandeered it to the port of Ashdod. All relief supplies will, once again, be conducted to Gaza by way of land convoy. And probably, Hamas will reject it as well.
Why the hell not? Gaza gets in the neighborhood of a billion dollars in aid from the US, the UN,and the EU, in addition to what it gets from Arab contributors. They get further aid through the auspices of the UN and the Red Cross, and other agencies-aid that is delivered freely to Gaza with Israeli sanction and support. No problems.
What does Hamas need with expired medications? They take credit for distributing goods directly to the population, they don't want to take the responsibility for some kid or old person dying unnecessarily, or having a severe set back or reaction, because a bunch of cretins decide they want to put on a propaganda show. One can also make the point they don't want to be beholden to outsiders for seeing to the people's needs. They've made a point that they are in charge and the people are dependent and beholden to them, and along comes some jackasses from Turkey and Sweden and tries to steal their thunder? Really!
Here's the straight scoop from the Israeli website linked above-
Any organization or country wishing to transfer humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip can do so legally via the established ground crossings by coordinating with the relevant authorities, as is done on a near daily basis.
The closure of the Gaza Strip prevents the smuggling of arms to the Hamas terror organization and ensures the security of vessels traveling in the area.
It should be noted that Hamas has refused to allow any of the aid carried by the other six flotilla ships into the Gaza Strip thus far. Five days have passed since trucks were loaded with cargo and were ready to enter Gaza.
The rules of warfare allow the capturing of naval vessels prior to their actual violation of a naval blockade. This is dependent on the vessels being on their way to a blockaded area, being outside the territorial waters of neutral states and when there is a substantial likelihood (based on credible evidence) that the vessels intend to violate the blockade
Again, there is no problem with legitimate aid going to Gaza. Again, there is no need for a flotilla of aid. It's a fucking publicity stunt timed and orchestrated to make the Israelis look like brutes. Only somebody forgot to explain the whole concept to the would-be benefactors, and Hamas, who know better, and who believe it or not are fine with the situation as is. When they're ready to go to the next level, I'm sure you fucking morons will be the first to know.
What was the reaction of Hamas? Although the Israelis were willing to deliver the aid, Hamas has thus far rejected all of the aid from the flotilla. No, they've not just rejected the expired medications. They rejected all of it-the school supplies, toys, construction materials, all of it.
The Israelis boarded the Rachel Corrie earlier, without incident, and have commandeered it to the port of Ashdod. All relief supplies will, once again, be conducted to Gaza by way of land convoy. And probably, Hamas will reject it as well.
Why the hell not? Gaza gets in the neighborhood of a billion dollars in aid from the US, the UN,and the EU, in addition to what it gets from Arab contributors. They get further aid through the auspices of the UN and the Red Cross, and other agencies-aid that is delivered freely to Gaza with Israeli sanction and support. No problems.
What does Hamas need with expired medications? They take credit for distributing goods directly to the population, they don't want to take the responsibility for some kid or old person dying unnecessarily, or having a severe set back or reaction, because a bunch of cretins decide they want to put on a propaganda show. One can also make the point they don't want to be beholden to outsiders for seeing to the people's needs. They've made a point that they are in charge and the people are dependent and beholden to them, and along comes some jackasses from Turkey and Sweden and tries to steal their thunder? Really!
Here's the straight scoop from the Israeli website linked above-
Any organization or country wishing to transfer humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip can do so legally via the established ground crossings by coordinating with the relevant authorities, as is done on a near daily basis.
The closure of the Gaza Strip prevents the smuggling of arms to the Hamas terror organization and ensures the security of vessels traveling in the area.
It should be noted that Hamas has refused to allow any of the aid carried by the other six flotilla ships into the Gaza Strip thus far. Five days have passed since trucks were loaded with cargo and were ready to enter Gaza.
The rules of warfare allow the capturing of naval vessels prior to their actual violation of a naval blockade. This is dependent on the vessels being on their way to a blockaded area, being outside the territorial waters of neutral states and when there is a substantial likelihood (based on credible evidence) that the vessels intend to violate the blockade
Again, there is no problem with legitimate aid going to Gaza. Again, there is no need for a flotilla of aid. It's a fucking publicity stunt timed and orchestrated to make the Israelis look like brutes. Only somebody forgot to explain the whole concept to the would-be benefactors, and Hamas, who know better, and who believe it or not are fine with the situation as is. When they're ready to go to the next level, I'm sure you fucking morons will be the first to know.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Thursday, June 03, 2010
The Gods Must Be Crazy
Comedy Central is planning an animated series called "JC"-a comedy about Jesus Christ coming back to earth, but not to take over. No, he just wants to get away from it all and live out a relatively normal human life in obscurity. What is God's reaction? Well, God doesn't seem to give much of a damn about anything in this comedy series.
Many of his real-life earthly followers, however, are incensed. You don't have to be a prophet to predict who is involved in a recently planned conference call to discourage advertisers from sponsoring this program, currently in pre-production, and to encourage Comedy Central to withdraw from placing it on their schedule. Brent "Bozo" Bozell of the Media Research Center and publisher of Newsbuster, will be joined by the following-
Joining Bozell on the call will be Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, syndicated radio host Michael Medved, Catholic League president Bill Donohue, Parents Television Council president Tim Winter, and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the American Alliance of Jews and Christians.
I fully suspect that Doctor James Dobson would probably be on board as well, provided he could figure out a way to suck a sufficient portion of oxygen out of the room. Of course, that might be a hard task even for Dobson, with the likes of Donohue and Bozell on hand.
By no means do I discourage these folks from airing their views, or from initiating boycotts, if that's what they decide to do. At the same time, I think its a juvenile overreaction from people who mainly don't seem to have a sense of humor. These are people who will go out of their way to insist that the Old Testament God of the Bible-Yahweh-and Allah, the God of Islam, are actually two separate entities. They are by no means the same God.
My question to them would be-are you absolutely sure about that? Granted, your God hasn't commanded you to hijack jetliners and fly them into skyscrapers, or explode bombs or attack people with biological or chemical weapons, but at the end of the day, you seem to ascribe to him a rather severe, unyielding temperament. Would he really be that offended by a television program-a cartoon? Doesn't he have other things to be outraged about, in all honesty?
Now look, I understand your point about the craven cowardice Comedy Central displayed over the recent flap concerning a recent portrayal of Mohammed in a bear suit, which was even more exacerbated by a defense thrown up about not wanting to offend the majority of allegedly peaceful and well-meaning Muslims.
We all know and understand that this is hypocrisy in action. But instead of whining about unfairness and prejudice towards Christianity, why don't you take a page from the Koran? No, not to wipe your asses with, but as an example of how to deal with the problem of people who are disrespectful to your God. Why don't you blow Comedy Central clear to hell, and everybody in it? Or at least threaten to do so. After all, your God is the creator and lord of the universe and of everything therein, which he created, with nothing to work with but his will. To hear you tell it, he barely broke a sweat doing it. I guess that could be because up until the fourth day there was no such thing as the sun, and thus no heat. But I digress. The point is, whether your God and Allah are one and the same, or not, doesn't he deserve at least an equal amount of respect? And if he does, should you not be willing to go at least as far as a devout Muslim in order to make sure he is treated with all due deference befitting the Lord of All Creation?
We all know you have resources, and a willing reservoir of talent. True, in all probability they amount to less than one percent of one percent of your total flock, but how many do you need? Granted, they are for the most part a deranged, deluded crew, mostly loners, a few working in relatively small groups, but if they can mange to kill an abortion doctor and blow up a clinic here and there, surely they can manage to take down a cable network.
Of course, there is the point that the vast majority of you are more civilized than that. Your religion, unlike Islam, has grown and evolved. Which is fucking ironic as hell, seeing as how you don't believe in evolution.
Well, allow me to help you further along in your evolutionary journey. This might turn out to be a teachable moment, for you as well as potential viewers of JC, many of whom might not have the most accurate impressions of your faith. Maybe, just maybe, the program might draw young viewers who will be led to explore the Christian faith out of curiosity. It might lead to a journey of discovery for them. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
By the way, you think you have problems? My deities were recently portrayed on the WB Network program "Supernatural" as a pretty sad group long past their salad days, when they drew power from the faith of worshipers. Now they manage to maintain their existence, barely, by devouring human flesh. Talk about your subsistence level living. As if to add insult to injury, along comes Lucifer, who with little effort utterly decimates their ranks.
So should I complain, or organize a boycott? I won't for two reasons. One, its too silly to complain about, and two, organizing a boycott against the WB among most television viewers would be almost as big a waste of time as discouraging folks from bathing in buckets of piss.
I don't care, and neither should you. If our Gods literally exist, they couldn't care less about such lunacy. If they don't literally exist, its a moot point. In any event, it's not a matter of whether or not our Gods are offended, or whether or not they are wholly unconcerned, or whether or not they even are, period.
The point is, we should be better than that. If we're not, we have a big problem. Derision and ridicule comes with the territory in a free society, and in one such as ours, one with pretty advanced First Amendment rights, even for a modern democratic society, it is to be expected-even welcome.
Instead of crying about how Muslims are granted special privileges and consideration, let's go them one better. Let's set an example, one that will show their worthless, seventh-century savage Imams and Mullahs for the intolerant pricks and jackasses that they are. We're going to eventually have to put them in their places anyway. Respect for our most time honored and legally enshrined secular traditions, even at the expense of our most profoundly held religious beliefs and faiths, would be a good place to start. If we're forced to drag Muslims kicking and screaming into the Twenty-First century, it might help to have a sense of humor.
Many of his real-life earthly followers, however, are incensed. You don't have to be a prophet to predict who is involved in a recently planned conference call to discourage advertisers from sponsoring this program, currently in pre-production, and to encourage Comedy Central to withdraw from placing it on their schedule. Brent "Bozo" Bozell of the Media Research Center and publisher of Newsbuster, will be joined by the following-
Joining Bozell on the call will be Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, syndicated radio host Michael Medved, Catholic League president Bill Donohue, Parents Television Council president Tim Winter, and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the American Alliance of Jews and Christians.
I fully suspect that Doctor James Dobson would probably be on board as well, provided he could figure out a way to suck a sufficient portion of oxygen out of the room. Of course, that might be a hard task even for Dobson, with the likes of Donohue and Bozell on hand.
By no means do I discourage these folks from airing their views, or from initiating boycotts, if that's what they decide to do. At the same time, I think its a juvenile overreaction from people who mainly don't seem to have a sense of humor. These are people who will go out of their way to insist that the Old Testament God of the Bible-Yahweh-and Allah, the God of Islam, are actually two separate entities. They are by no means the same God.
My question to them would be-are you absolutely sure about that? Granted, your God hasn't commanded you to hijack jetliners and fly them into skyscrapers, or explode bombs or attack people with biological or chemical weapons, but at the end of the day, you seem to ascribe to him a rather severe, unyielding temperament. Would he really be that offended by a television program-a cartoon? Doesn't he have other things to be outraged about, in all honesty?
Now look, I understand your point about the craven cowardice Comedy Central displayed over the recent flap concerning a recent portrayal of Mohammed in a bear suit, which was even more exacerbated by a defense thrown up about not wanting to offend the majority of allegedly peaceful and well-meaning Muslims.
We all know and understand that this is hypocrisy in action. But instead of whining about unfairness and prejudice towards Christianity, why don't you take a page from the Koran? No, not to wipe your asses with, but as an example of how to deal with the problem of people who are disrespectful to your God. Why don't you blow Comedy Central clear to hell, and everybody in it? Or at least threaten to do so. After all, your God is the creator and lord of the universe and of everything therein, which he created, with nothing to work with but his will. To hear you tell it, he barely broke a sweat doing it. I guess that could be because up until the fourth day there was no such thing as the sun, and thus no heat. But I digress. The point is, whether your God and Allah are one and the same, or not, doesn't he deserve at least an equal amount of respect? And if he does, should you not be willing to go at least as far as a devout Muslim in order to make sure he is treated with all due deference befitting the Lord of All Creation?
We all know you have resources, and a willing reservoir of talent. True, in all probability they amount to less than one percent of one percent of your total flock, but how many do you need? Granted, they are for the most part a deranged, deluded crew, mostly loners, a few working in relatively small groups, but if they can mange to kill an abortion doctor and blow up a clinic here and there, surely they can manage to take down a cable network.
Of course, there is the point that the vast majority of you are more civilized than that. Your religion, unlike Islam, has grown and evolved. Which is fucking ironic as hell, seeing as how you don't believe in evolution.
Well, allow me to help you further along in your evolutionary journey. This might turn out to be a teachable moment, for you as well as potential viewers of JC, many of whom might not have the most accurate impressions of your faith. Maybe, just maybe, the program might draw young viewers who will be led to explore the Christian faith out of curiosity. It might lead to a journey of discovery for them. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
By the way, you think you have problems? My deities were recently portrayed on the WB Network program "Supernatural" as a pretty sad group long past their salad days, when they drew power from the faith of worshipers. Now they manage to maintain their existence, barely, by devouring human flesh. Talk about your subsistence level living. As if to add insult to injury, along comes Lucifer, who with little effort utterly decimates their ranks.
So should I complain, or organize a boycott? I won't for two reasons. One, its too silly to complain about, and two, organizing a boycott against the WB among most television viewers would be almost as big a waste of time as discouraging folks from bathing in buckets of piss.
I don't care, and neither should you. If our Gods literally exist, they couldn't care less about such lunacy. If they don't literally exist, its a moot point. In any event, it's not a matter of whether or not our Gods are offended, or whether or not they are wholly unconcerned, or whether or not they even are, period.
The point is, we should be better than that. If we're not, we have a big problem. Derision and ridicule comes with the territory in a free society, and in one such as ours, one with pretty advanced First Amendment rights, even for a modern democratic society, it is to be expected-even welcome.
Instead of crying about how Muslims are granted special privileges and consideration, let's go them one better. Let's set an example, one that will show their worthless, seventh-century savage Imams and Mullahs for the intolerant pricks and jackasses that they are. We're going to eventually have to put them in their places anyway. Respect for our most time honored and legally enshrined secular traditions, even at the expense of our most profoundly held religious beliefs and faiths, would be a good place to start. If we're forced to drag Muslims kicking and screaming into the Twenty-First century, it might help to have a sense of humor.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
What They Died For
There are a good many people that just can't handle the holidays. For some people, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and New Years are not times of joy and camaraderie, but instead are days filled with depression and despair.
For me, this Memorial Day was one such holiday. I never served in the military, and I never will, nor would, but the idea depresses me that so many men and now, some women, have died for what amounts to a fucking fever dream. Sure, most of them wouldn't see it that way, they would doubtless feel they died for their country, or for freedom. Or maybe simply for home, and family.
In essence, those are honorable positions that deserve respect. Unfortunately, whether they want to see it or not, they also died to propitiate the power of what amounts to an occupying government, one that has grown ever more intrusive since the days of the New Deal.
Without a doubt, we have had presidents that have gone too far, for whatever reason, beyond their constitutional limitations. Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt, and Wilson. FDR was just another in a long line of temporary usurpers, and wasn't even necessarily the worse. Like all the ones before, he had justification for his actions. What made him different was not so much the precedent he established, but the groundwork that made it so permanent. It was kept in reasonable bounds through his and Truman's presidency, as well as his immediate successors-Eisenhower, Kennedy, and even Johnson. It was during the debacle that was the Nixon-Ford era that Roosevelt's governmental infrastructure formed the foundation for the expansion of the unitary executive, but even then, this was a reaction to the increasing expansion and intrusion of Congress into the lives of the American people. It was during this era that American government mutated into the cancer it now is, and as it continues to grow.
People by and large decided, during this era and the succeeding Carter Administration, that they wanted more and bigger and "better" government, and they wanted it to manifest in ever increasing areas of the lives of the American people. They backed off briefly after the Carter fiasco, which led to the election of Reagan. It proved it be an all-too brief resurgence of the ideals of a federal government which is effective in the context of its constitutional limitations yet doesn't go beyond those prescribed boundaries. Once the mess of the previous years was cleaned up to some extent, it didn't take very long for "the people" to decide they wanted to go back to the old way of doing business.
We adopted a mindset that seems to think that government can do all the things we want it to do, and at the same time, if we stay involved and express our views and make known our wishes, and by all means demand accountability, government will work efficiently, and with honesty and integrity. After all, if they don't, all we have to do is vote the rascals out, right?
The only problem with that is, there is an ideological divide between the two parties that preclude such simple solutions. The state of identity politics being what it is, the predilection for class warfare, the constant race-baiting and hustling, the gender identification, and all of the other isms involved help to insure that a sizable proportion of the American people stay solidly on one side of the ideological divide or the other.
It is only when things get so bad that we are on the verge of collapse that a large enough percentage of Americans decide its time to make a significant change. Unfortunately, it will not be in the long run but in the very short term, that people will decide to go back to the way it was. Only this time, we're going to get a different result.
It makes about as much sense as if the Constitutional Convention of 1889, instead of ratifying the Constitution, decided to petition for readmission to the British Commonwealth, on the grounds that George III must have surely learned his lesson and would be a kinder, gentler monarch from that point forward.
Sometimes I think we'd be better off if we just called the whole thing off. Let the states dissolve the union and form whatever alliances they want with each other, or not. The Northeastern states could form their own nation, let the Southern states have theirs, the Mid-West theirs, and the Pacific Northwest theirs. California should be the first to go. In fact, we shouldn't wait for them to secede, we should actually kick them out of the Union now, before they actually drag us down to the gutter. They are to all intents and purposes their own country anyway at this point in the game, and as I said in an earlier post, they are two trillion dollars in debt. California as a state is too big to fail, and I strongly suspect that the next big bailout package debated in Congress is going to be the one to bail out California. It will be at that precise moment that our national dialogue is going to descend into wanton threats and violence. We might even see a return to the old days, when members of Congress beat each other half to death on the floor of the Senate and House.
California can reverse this trend if they would, if its Legislature would adopt sane fiscal policies. The people of California can insist they do this, or vote them out of office if they do not. But guess what? That's not going to happen, due to that ideological divide I was referring to. California will not any way soon elect a Republican Legislature. They might elect a Republican Senator, or Governor, provided such a person is suitably and consistently "moderate" and amenable to reaching across the aisle, but what is that worth in an emergency situation such as is faced by California?
Here's how compromise works, between the Democratic and Republican Parties. It's actually pretty standard, not at all unusual. It happens all the time. Democrats get the programs they want passed, with limitations, and the Republicans, in return for supporting them, get tax breaks for their wealthy friends and more pork barrel spending projects for their states or districts. That's the extent of your compromise. I call it reaching across the aisle to get things done *to* the American people.
It's all about power and influence, and establishing a framework for increased power, through taxation, and through bribery, through the same usual backroom deals, and by playing a game of intimidation on the one hand, and pretensions of benevolence on the other. What you see every day is precisely the reason why the founders did not want the federal government to be given too much power and influence. They knew all too well what happened when human beings are entrusted with too much power over the lives of their fellow man. Even the best of them can fall into the old predictable human habits of greed, exploitation, manipulation, on down the line to in some cases the worse offenses imaginable.
Why would anyone willingly fight a war for the propitiation of something like that?
Sunday Night, 60 Minutes aired a re-run of an old interview with John Gotti Jr., son of the late John Gotti, the old New York Mafia boss. I was struck as to how engaging Gotti was. This guy is really able to sell people a bill of goods. Here he is, a thug, a liar, probably at least indirectly a multiple murderer, engaged in all kinds of criminal activities ranging from loansharking to gambling, and who knows what all else-yet I found myself actually liking the guy, even to an extent feeling some degree of sympathy for him. To an extent, I would be fine with this guy being my neighbor. There would surely be beneficial aspects to being his friend, or at least a cordial acquaintance. After all, this is a guy who, at least at one point in his life, with a word could wield the power of life or death over other people. Who wouldn't want to be on his good side? Just don't piss him off. Don't cross him. If you live on the same street and he has kids with bicycles or mopeds, drive very, very, very carefully. But you should do that anyway, right? See, just living next door to a Gotti has made you a more responsible person.
The next night, last night on Memorial Day, Oprah Winfrey had a special program, this one on NBC I think, about another criminal conspirator and power hungry megalomaniac with an engaging personality and way with words-Edward Kennedy. I was struck by the compare and contrast. Granted, Kennedy is the object of adulation and near idolatrous hero-worship by a very significant percentage of the population. But he is also despised and reviled by as many people. And then there is the crowd who probably look at him as a mixed bag.
I don't begrudge Oprah Winfrey the right to produce programs about whomever or whatever she pleases, but I am amazed at how brazenly NBC solidified their position along the ideological divide with this programming decision. I mean, it would be one thing to air this program on an ordinary night.
But Memorial Day? Come on. This is supposed to be a day for the remembrance of American heroes, of military, or of firefighters, police, etc., who have given their lives in the line of duty. Granted, many people use it as a day to remember family, but basically, it is a day to honor mainly military heroes who have given their lives.
Instead of that, NBC chooses to air a program that sought to lionize, eulogize, and mythologize a man who was in many ways many different things, but most of them not good. He was not a military hero at all, although he did serve in the Navy. I don't think he ever was put in harms way in any event. While he undoubtedly had many good qualities on a personal level, the last thing you could legitimately call him is courageous. This was a man who was so horrified of assassination, he would fall to the ground at the sound of a car backfiring. in a state of abject terror. It was this craven fear that "inspired" him to craft the 1969 Gun Control Act, a clear intrusion and violation of the Second Amendment, and he was always a vociferous supporter if not outright instigator of other successive gun control laws.
So there you have it. Kennedy, who at least was honest enough in his recent autobiography to admit flat out that his philosophy of gun control was an outgrowth of his own craven cowardice, set about to use the federal government as a tool to disarm the American people-or at least those portions of the population of Americans Kennedy didn't think should be allowed to own firearms. That would probably amount to any American who was not a law-enforcement officer or government official or professional bodyguard-such as employed by himself. It would especially apply to handguns a person could easily carry on his person, regardless of the fact most people that purchased them merely did so to protect their home and families, and the vast majority of them had no intention of carrying them around with them everywhere they went. Most gun control laws now also apply to so-called "assault rifles"-a term which is basically defined as any rifle you don't have to take the time to reload after you fire it one time.
Of course, it goes without saying Kennedy was also a killer. Maybe not an intentional murderer, but a wanton killer all the same. He claims he never went a day without thinking about the tragedy of Chappaquiddick, that it haunted him every day of his life. Bring up Chappaquiddick to a Kennedy apologist, however, and you quickly start to hope they are sincere in their devotion to Teddy's gun control philosophy, because you have obviously opened your mouth in such a way as to put your own life in danger in many cases. To be blunt-at the very least, they don't care about what happened at Chappaquiddick, and they resent anybody bringing it up. And naturally, if you bring it up enough, you are eventually going to run into somebody, especially on the net, that's going to assault you with a rundown of a long, long list of Republican misdeeds, as though all of this excuses Kennedy. Or, even more laughably, as if Kennedy by contrast is the only Democratic politician who has ever done anything questionable.
But more importantly, there is Kennedy's treason. In the 1980's, Edward Kennedy, literally and technically conspired with the Soviet Union to derail Reagan's military spending priorities. The Soviets saw Reagan as a real danger to their status quo, even in the earliest of days, and they saw Kennedy, obviously, as a friend and potential benefactor. Kennedy was their advocate in the United States Senate, and he led the opposition on their behalf to Reagan's military spending policies, policies that were designed to improve America's defensive capabilities, which had been sorely eroded under the disastrous presidency of Jimmy Carter.
America was at its lowest ebb in terms of international respect in those days. We had suffered the humiliating debacle of the Iran hostage crisis, following on the heels of the disastrous withdrawal from Vietnam which resulted in the unconscionable massacre of millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians. The disastrous consequences of our mistakes and misjudgments throughout the nineteen sixties and seventies were that we were, to all intents and purposes, the laughing stock of the world.
Reagan, despite his faults, tried to reverse this trend. Kennedy did not want him to reverse it, he wanted it continued, and it bears repeating, he colluded with America's sworn enemy in order to do so, as a matter of reassurance. I think that is called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and the only thing that keeps it from being technically a case of treason is that technically, America and the Soviet Union was, again technically, not in a state of war. But that's almost a distinction without any kind of difference, owing to the nature of our relationships at the time. After all, it was called the Cold War for a reason.
I could go on and on, but it would be redundant after so long to give the many case examples of Edward Kennedy further seeking to expand the size, grasp, and scope of the federal government over the lives of American citizens, in exchange for the sops of a few expanded entitlements, and increased privileges and protections-it would really be a misnomer to call them rights-for minorities, and for public service and labor unions, for construction companies in Massachusetts on the federal dole, and now I guess you can add health insurance. Not the concept of health insurance, but the industry. You know, the kind that you are going to be forced to purchase by federal law, and which can pretty much charge you any kind of premium it damn well pleases, particularly if you drink or smoke or are somewhat overweight.
Sure, you will still be free to drink, smoke, and consume fast foods, or so-called junk food. Sure, you don't have to perform calisthenics or any other kind of exercise on a daily basis. That wouldn't be fair. That wouldn't be democratic.
Well, unfortunately, it would also not be fair or democratic to expect a health insurance company to have to sell you health insurance at the same price that it might be obliged to sell to a person who lives a healthier lifestyle. So, if you drink or smoke or you can be demonstrated otherwise to live in an unhealthy manner, you can expect a significant increase in premiums on those health insurance policies which, I must here stress once more, you will be obliged to purchase by federal law. If you do not, you run the the risk of paying a fine, or potentially going to jail.
But hey-that's only fair, right? And, since the people voted for Barak Obama, and for a Democratic Congress-it's, well, democratic, right? Its just our government being responsive to our needs. Surely they will respond to our complaints if we have them and make it an even better bill if necessary. They are our elected leaders, right? Health Care has been a big gaping wound in our national life, a big hole, if you will, and big daddy Barak, he promised he was going to plug that hole, and he did just that. He fucked us good, we just haven't got the kiss yet.
But he will be the first to tell you that the major source of influence for this bill was Ted Kennedy, who labored tirelessly for it for years. It was probably his major project. He wanted the medical system to be fair, to all. So what better way to do that than to create a massive government entitlement? Mission accomplished. Next stop-Immigration Reform. After that, who knows? Cap and Trade, probably.
But I repeat-California is in big damn trouble, and is on the verge of bankruptcy. If the Democrats maintain control of the California state legislature over the course of the next two to four years, it could be the very thing that provides the tipping point that will send not just California, but the whole country sliding into the abyss, and maybe even into civil war.
Of course, like I said, Californians can reverse the current trend by demanding their Democratic Legislature pursue sane, rational economic policies. It should be obvious by now that increased borrowing, taxation, and spending is just digging a deeper hole, but the obvious escapes people, it seems. In other words, its highly unlikely, and its equally if not more unlikely that Californians will elect a Republican Legislature. It would just be too painful in the short term, at this stage.
That leaves only one viable option which is even more unlikely. If enough states would elect legislatures that would declare an end to fealty to every dictate of the federal government, the whole damn thing would collapse like the house of cards that it is, at which point we can rebuild from the ashes. Because at some point, ashes is all we are going to be left with at any rate.
What did our heroes die for? At this stage of the game, its starting to look like whatever it was, it was all in vain.
For me, this Memorial Day was one such holiday. I never served in the military, and I never will, nor would, but the idea depresses me that so many men and now, some women, have died for what amounts to a fucking fever dream. Sure, most of them wouldn't see it that way, they would doubtless feel they died for their country, or for freedom. Or maybe simply for home, and family.
In essence, those are honorable positions that deserve respect. Unfortunately, whether they want to see it or not, they also died to propitiate the power of what amounts to an occupying government, one that has grown ever more intrusive since the days of the New Deal.
Without a doubt, we have had presidents that have gone too far, for whatever reason, beyond their constitutional limitations. Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt, and Wilson. FDR was just another in a long line of temporary usurpers, and wasn't even necessarily the worse. Like all the ones before, he had justification for his actions. What made him different was not so much the precedent he established, but the groundwork that made it so permanent. It was kept in reasonable bounds through his and Truman's presidency, as well as his immediate successors-Eisenhower, Kennedy, and even Johnson. It was during the debacle that was the Nixon-Ford era that Roosevelt's governmental infrastructure formed the foundation for the expansion of the unitary executive, but even then, this was a reaction to the increasing expansion and intrusion of Congress into the lives of the American people. It was during this era that American government mutated into the cancer it now is, and as it continues to grow.
People by and large decided, during this era and the succeeding Carter Administration, that they wanted more and bigger and "better" government, and they wanted it to manifest in ever increasing areas of the lives of the American people. They backed off briefly after the Carter fiasco, which led to the election of Reagan. It proved it be an all-too brief resurgence of the ideals of a federal government which is effective in the context of its constitutional limitations yet doesn't go beyond those prescribed boundaries. Once the mess of the previous years was cleaned up to some extent, it didn't take very long for "the people" to decide they wanted to go back to the old way of doing business.
We adopted a mindset that seems to think that government can do all the things we want it to do, and at the same time, if we stay involved and express our views and make known our wishes, and by all means demand accountability, government will work efficiently, and with honesty and integrity. After all, if they don't, all we have to do is vote the rascals out, right?
The only problem with that is, there is an ideological divide between the two parties that preclude such simple solutions. The state of identity politics being what it is, the predilection for class warfare, the constant race-baiting and hustling, the gender identification, and all of the other isms involved help to insure that a sizable proportion of the American people stay solidly on one side of the ideological divide or the other.
It is only when things get so bad that we are on the verge of collapse that a large enough percentage of Americans decide its time to make a significant change. Unfortunately, it will not be in the long run but in the very short term, that people will decide to go back to the way it was. Only this time, we're going to get a different result.
It makes about as much sense as if the Constitutional Convention of 1889, instead of ratifying the Constitution, decided to petition for readmission to the British Commonwealth, on the grounds that George III must have surely learned his lesson and would be a kinder, gentler monarch from that point forward.
Sometimes I think we'd be better off if we just called the whole thing off. Let the states dissolve the union and form whatever alliances they want with each other, or not. The Northeastern states could form their own nation, let the Southern states have theirs, the Mid-West theirs, and the Pacific Northwest theirs. California should be the first to go. In fact, we shouldn't wait for them to secede, we should actually kick them out of the Union now, before they actually drag us down to the gutter. They are to all intents and purposes their own country anyway at this point in the game, and as I said in an earlier post, they are two trillion dollars in debt. California as a state is too big to fail, and I strongly suspect that the next big bailout package debated in Congress is going to be the one to bail out California. It will be at that precise moment that our national dialogue is going to descend into wanton threats and violence. We might even see a return to the old days, when members of Congress beat each other half to death on the floor of the Senate and House.
California can reverse this trend if they would, if its Legislature would adopt sane fiscal policies. The people of California can insist they do this, or vote them out of office if they do not. But guess what? That's not going to happen, due to that ideological divide I was referring to. California will not any way soon elect a Republican Legislature. They might elect a Republican Senator, or Governor, provided such a person is suitably and consistently "moderate" and amenable to reaching across the aisle, but what is that worth in an emergency situation such as is faced by California?
Here's how compromise works, between the Democratic and Republican Parties. It's actually pretty standard, not at all unusual. It happens all the time. Democrats get the programs they want passed, with limitations, and the Republicans, in return for supporting them, get tax breaks for their wealthy friends and more pork barrel spending projects for their states or districts. That's the extent of your compromise. I call it reaching across the aisle to get things done *to* the American people.
It's all about power and influence, and establishing a framework for increased power, through taxation, and through bribery, through the same usual backroom deals, and by playing a game of intimidation on the one hand, and pretensions of benevolence on the other. What you see every day is precisely the reason why the founders did not want the federal government to be given too much power and influence. They knew all too well what happened when human beings are entrusted with too much power over the lives of their fellow man. Even the best of them can fall into the old predictable human habits of greed, exploitation, manipulation, on down the line to in some cases the worse offenses imaginable.
Why would anyone willingly fight a war for the propitiation of something like that?
Sunday Night, 60 Minutes aired a re-run of an old interview with John Gotti Jr., son of the late John Gotti, the old New York Mafia boss. I was struck as to how engaging Gotti was. This guy is really able to sell people a bill of goods. Here he is, a thug, a liar, probably at least indirectly a multiple murderer, engaged in all kinds of criminal activities ranging from loansharking to gambling, and who knows what all else-yet I found myself actually liking the guy, even to an extent feeling some degree of sympathy for him. To an extent, I would be fine with this guy being my neighbor. There would surely be beneficial aspects to being his friend, or at least a cordial acquaintance. After all, this is a guy who, at least at one point in his life, with a word could wield the power of life or death over other people. Who wouldn't want to be on his good side? Just don't piss him off. Don't cross him. If you live on the same street and he has kids with bicycles or mopeds, drive very, very, very carefully. But you should do that anyway, right? See, just living next door to a Gotti has made you a more responsible person.
The next night, last night on Memorial Day, Oprah Winfrey had a special program, this one on NBC I think, about another criminal conspirator and power hungry megalomaniac with an engaging personality and way with words-Edward Kennedy. I was struck by the compare and contrast. Granted, Kennedy is the object of adulation and near idolatrous hero-worship by a very significant percentage of the population. But he is also despised and reviled by as many people. And then there is the crowd who probably look at him as a mixed bag.
I don't begrudge Oprah Winfrey the right to produce programs about whomever or whatever she pleases, but I am amazed at how brazenly NBC solidified their position along the ideological divide with this programming decision. I mean, it would be one thing to air this program on an ordinary night.
But Memorial Day? Come on. This is supposed to be a day for the remembrance of American heroes, of military, or of firefighters, police, etc., who have given their lives in the line of duty. Granted, many people use it as a day to remember family, but basically, it is a day to honor mainly military heroes who have given their lives.
Instead of that, NBC chooses to air a program that sought to lionize, eulogize, and mythologize a man who was in many ways many different things, but most of them not good. He was not a military hero at all, although he did serve in the Navy. I don't think he ever was put in harms way in any event. While he undoubtedly had many good qualities on a personal level, the last thing you could legitimately call him is courageous. This was a man who was so horrified of assassination, he would fall to the ground at the sound of a car backfiring. in a state of abject terror. It was this craven fear that "inspired" him to craft the 1969 Gun Control Act, a clear intrusion and violation of the Second Amendment, and he was always a vociferous supporter if not outright instigator of other successive gun control laws.
So there you have it. Kennedy, who at least was honest enough in his recent autobiography to admit flat out that his philosophy of gun control was an outgrowth of his own craven cowardice, set about to use the federal government as a tool to disarm the American people-or at least those portions of the population of Americans Kennedy didn't think should be allowed to own firearms. That would probably amount to any American who was not a law-enforcement officer or government official or professional bodyguard-such as employed by himself. It would especially apply to handguns a person could easily carry on his person, regardless of the fact most people that purchased them merely did so to protect their home and families, and the vast majority of them had no intention of carrying them around with them everywhere they went. Most gun control laws now also apply to so-called "assault rifles"-a term which is basically defined as any rifle you don't have to take the time to reload after you fire it one time.
Of course, it goes without saying Kennedy was also a killer. Maybe not an intentional murderer, but a wanton killer all the same. He claims he never went a day without thinking about the tragedy of Chappaquiddick, that it haunted him every day of his life. Bring up Chappaquiddick to a Kennedy apologist, however, and you quickly start to hope they are sincere in their devotion to Teddy's gun control philosophy, because you have obviously opened your mouth in such a way as to put your own life in danger in many cases. To be blunt-at the very least, they don't care about what happened at Chappaquiddick, and they resent anybody bringing it up. And naturally, if you bring it up enough, you are eventually going to run into somebody, especially on the net, that's going to assault you with a rundown of a long, long list of Republican misdeeds, as though all of this excuses Kennedy. Or, even more laughably, as if Kennedy by contrast is the only Democratic politician who has ever done anything questionable.
But more importantly, there is Kennedy's treason. In the 1980's, Edward Kennedy, literally and technically conspired with the Soviet Union to derail Reagan's military spending priorities. The Soviets saw Reagan as a real danger to their status quo, even in the earliest of days, and they saw Kennedy, obviously, as a friend and potential benefactor. Kennedy was their advocate in the United States Senate, and he led the opposition on their behalf to Reagan's military spending policies, policies that were designed to improve America's defensive capabilities, which had been sorely eroded under the disastrous presidency of Jimmy Carter.
America was at its lowest ebb in terms of international respect in those days. We had suffered the humiliating debacle of the Iran hostage crisis, following on the heels of the disastrous withdrawal from Vietnam which resulted in the unconscionable massacre of millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians. The disastrous consequences of our mistakes and misjudgments throughout the nineteen sixties and seventies were that we were, to all intents and purposes, the laughing stock of the world.
Reagan, despite his faults, tried to reverse this trend. Kennedy did not want him to reverse it, he wanted it continued, and it bears repeating, he colluded with America's sworn enemy in order to do so, as a matter of reassurance. I think that is called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and the only thing that keeps it from being technically a case of treason is that technically, America and the Soviet Union was, again technically, not in a state of war. But that's almost a distinction without any kind of difference, owing to the nature of our relationships at the time. After all, it was called the Cold War for a reason.
I could go on and on, but it would be redundant after so long to give the many case examples of Edward Kennedy further seeking to expand the size, grasp, and scope of the federal government over the lives of American citizens, in exchange for the sops of a few expanded entitlements, and increased privileges and protections-it would really be a misnomer to call them rights-for minorities, and for public service and labor unions, for construction companies in Massachusetts on the federal dole, and now I guess you can add health insurance. Not the concept of health insurance, but the industry. You know, the kind that you are going to be forced to purchase by federal law, and which can pretty much charge you any kind of premium it damn well pleases, particularly if you drink or smoke or are somewhat overweight.
Sure, you will still be free to drink, smoke, and consume fast foods, or so-called junk food. Sure, you don't have to perform calisthenics or any other kind of exercise on a daily basis. That wouldn't be fair. That wouldn't be democratic.
Well, unfortunately, it would also not be fair or democratic to expect a health insurance company to have to sell you health insurance at the same price that it might be obliged to sell to a person who lives a healthier lifestyle. So, if you drink or smoke or you can be demonstrated otherwise to live in an unhealthy manner, you can expect a significant increase in premiums on those health insurance policies which, I must here stress once more, you will be obliged to purchase by federal law. If you do not, you run the the risk of paying a fine, or potentially going to jail.
But hey-that's only fair, right? And, since the people voted for Barak Obama, and for a Democratic Congress-it's, well, democratic, right? Its just our government being responsive to our needs. Surely they will respond to our complaints if we have them and make it an even better bill if necessary. They are our elected leaders, right? Health Care has been a big gaping wound in our national life, a big hole, if you will, and big daddy Barak, he promised he was going to plug that hole, and he did just that. He fucked us good, we just haven't got the kiss yet.
But he will be the first to tell you that the major source of influence for this bill was Ted Kennedy, who labored tirelessly for it for years. It was probably his major project. He wanted the medical system to be fair, to all. So what better way to do that than to create a massive government entitlement? Mission accomplished. Next stop-Immigration Reform. After that, who knows? Cap and Trade, probably.
But I repeat-California is in big damn trouble, and is on the verge of bankruptcy. If the Democrats maintain control of the California state legislature over the course of the next two to four years, it could be the very thing that provides the tipping point that will send not just California, but the whole country sliding into the abyss, and maybe even into civil war.
Of course, like I said, Californians can reverse the current trend by demanding their Democratic Legislature pursue sane, rational economic policies. It should be obvious by now that increased borrowing, taxation, and spending is just digging a deeper hole, but the obvious escapes people, it seems. In other words, its highly unlikely, and its equally if not more unlikely that Californians will elect a Republican Legislature. It would just be too painful in the short term, at this stage.
That leaves only one viable option which is even more unlikely. If enough states would elect legislatures that would declare an end to fealty to every dictate of the federal government, the whole damn thing would collapse like the house of cards that it is, at which point we can rebuild from the ashes. Because at some point, ashes is all we are going to be left with at any rate.
What did our heroes die for? At this stage of the game, its starting to look like whatever it was, it was all in vain.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
RIP Dennis Hopper
One of the all-time greats, as seen in this clip from Blue Velvet, unfortunately not as high a quality as I would have liked, but it will do for now.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
She Shoulda Said No-Pt. 3
Previously, Markie sold marijuana to a teenage customer, which caused the deaths of the boy and two of his friends in an automobile accident which left a fourth victim crippled for life. He quickly moved on to Anne, a dancing girl who is working to put her little brother through college. Markie assures her that she can make enough money with him to put her brother through college twice. Her brother arrived later for a visit, expressing concerns for the expense she has incurred on his behalf.
In this episode, Rita reassures Bob, who has suspicions as to his sister's well-being; Markie's ambition results in murder; while Anne finds herself totally immersed in the party life.
This segment is notable for the debut of a young Jack Elam in his first film role, as Raymond, a bodyguard and hit man under the employee of Markie's supplier.
In this episode, Rita reassures Bob, who has suspicions as to his sister's well-being; Markie's ambition results in murder; while Anne finds herself totally immersed in the party life.
This segment is notable for the debut of a young Jack Elam in his first film role, as Raymond, a bodyguard and hit man under the employee of Markie's supplier.
The Hemmorhage
Former child star Gary Coleman is dead at the age of 42 from a brain hemorrhage, but he has left us with a legacy of comedy gold. I'm not only talking about his eight-year stint as Arnold on Diff'rent Strokes, but his run for Governor of California in 2003. When Grey Davis faced recall in that year, Coleman's backers gathered 6500 signatures for a petition and raised 3600 dollars to file the necessary paperwork, in what amounted to a protest of the recall. Gary was joined by a plethora of other celebrities as well as relative unknowns. Above Coleman is pictured with one of his "opponents", porn star Mary Cary.
However, Coleman's run was not only hilarious, but ironic. When he heard Arnold Schwarzenegger was running, he stated that, while he would not withdraw from the race, he would not campaign.
Sure it was a moot point, and nobody would have taken him seriously regardless, but its really too bad, as he would have been closer to Ronald Reagan than anyone else running. He expressed a desire to cut spending and taxes. Its easy to speculate on the absurd notion of what might have happened had he been elected. He would have been chewed up and spat out on the floor of the California Legislature, undoubtedly. There will probably never be another Ronald Reagan in California as it is, but such a position would require a person who demands respect, not laughter, derision, and pity.
Yet, in the face of California's current debt crisis, can there be any doubt that Coleman would have stood head and shoulders above most of the other serious candidates of the day, such as Arianna Huffington? Instead, California has been stuck with a RINO who married into the Kennedy family and seems to forget that he was elected by the people, and has an admittedly thankless job to do, one not best performed by compromise with the same party that has brought California to the brink of ruin.
As a result of Arnold's failures to reign in the excesses of the California Legislature and the unions, among others, California is now saddled with a twenty billion dollar budget deficit. Think about that. A twenty billion dollar, not budget, but budget D-E-F-I-C-I-T!!!! That's three billion dollars more than Kentucky's entire recently passed state budget. And that's a two-year budget, by the way. And that's not all. California's actual total debt, when factoring in things like union pension funds and California's stake in the overall national economy, is a whopping TWO TRILLION DOLLARS!
Yet, the California Legislature's only response is to propose more borrowing, more taxes, and more spending. In other words, just more of the same shit that got them into this mess to begin with, s mess which makes Europe's problems with Greece seem to pale in comparison. There's a reason it seems that way-Greece's debt does pale in comparison. To put it in perspective, suppose that instead of Greece being bankrupt, it were Britain, or Germany. Ponder what that would mean to the EU, and you can see why the US has cause for grave concern.
California is hemorrhaging on life support, and sooner or later somebody somewhere is going to have to pull the plug. Californians might want to think their state is too big to fail, but it may fail regardless. California has already lost many vital businesses to other less intrusive states, with less taxes and regulations, taking with it significant numbers of jobs and their previous contributions to that tax base that just got to be too much for them to be profitable. If something doesn't happen to reverse the current crisis, the once great state of California is doomed. And you know what they always say-as California goes, so goes the nation.
Somewhere Gary Coleman is having the last laugh. But I suspect he's been laughing for a good while now. After all, if they had listened to him at the time, and stuck with it, California would not be in the mess its in now.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Ship Of Fools
The Israelis are preparing for a potential confrontation with a group of pro-Palestinian activists operating under the guise of transporting aid to Gaza by way of a "Freedom Flotilla" of cargo ships, led by the symbolically named "Rachel Corrie". The activists claim they are merely trying to deliver school, construction, and medical equipment through the Israeli blockade. The Israelis have assured other nations through diplomatic channels that there is no shortage of aid to Gaza, and that the ships will be urged to dock at the port of Ashdod for inspection, The Israelis are leaving nothing to chance, and will board the ships to search for weapons, explosives, and terrorists. Any Israeli on board the ships will be arrested. Others will be eventually deported, though also jailed if they offer any resistance or attempt other provocations.
One of the ships, the Spirit, was being held in a Cyprus port and not allowed to leave, once Cypriot officials learned its destination and purpose. The Rachel Corrie, a twelve ton cargo ship which was originally a Lithuanian ship purchased by the activists at auction, embarked from Ireland as the symbolic lead ship.
It was named after Rachel Corey, the American activist from Olympia Washington, who was accidentally killed when he she crushed by a bulldozer while acting as a human shield. You can read her true story here, stripped of the propaganda and pretensions to martyrdom. She was a martyr to foolishness and manipulation, and activist groups-actually Palestinian front groups in many cases-continue to use her memory as inspiration and recruiting tool. I do not imagine for one minute they would be adverse to creating another foolishly naive young martyr for their cause, or a whole group of them. Like say, several boat loads of them.
For my money, the IDF is more than welcome to sink the whole damn flotilla. Let it rip. Let them meet these so-called peace activists with a flotilla of warships led by the INS Caterpillar. If they are stupid enough to resist, then they deserve everything they might have coming their way.
One of the ships, the Spirit, was being held in a Cyprus port and not allowed to leave, once Cypriot officials learned its destination and purpose. The Rachel Corrie, a twelve ton cargo ship which was originally a Lithuanian ship purchased by the activists at auction, embarked from Ireland as the symbolic lead ship.
It was named after Rachel Corey, the American activist from Olympia Washington, who was accidentally killed when he she crushed by a bulldozer while acting as a human shield. You can read her true story here, stripped of the propaganda and pretensions to martyrdom. She was a martyr to foolishness and manipulation, and activist groups-actually Palestinian front groups in many cases-continue to use her memory as inspiration and recruiting tool. I do not imagine for one minute they would be adverse to creating another foolishly naive young martyr for their cause, or a whole group of them. Like say, several boat loads of them.
For my money, the IDF is more than welcome to sink the whole damn flotilla. Let it rip. Let them meet these so-called peace activists with a flotilla of warships led by the INS Caterpillar. If they are stupid enough to resist, then they deserve everything they might have coming their way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)