You just can't trust your employees these days. Being human, they might actually have a conscience. Some of them just can't be bribed, or threatened, and thankfully, a good many of them are familiar with the work of Chuck Hamel, an activist who has amassed a veritable treasure trove of documented treachery related to British Petroleums Prudhoe Bay oil pipeline operations.
Therefore, when BP announced it would have to suspend operaions on a substantial portion of the pipeline, it was quickly ascertained that this was the line that supplied eight percent of the country's domestic oil production.
400,000 barrels a day.
Hamel then responded quickly, letting it be known that the reason for the problems, the leaks, at this part of the pipeline, had everything to do with negligence on the part of the company. A kind of negligence that has been on-going for roughly eight years.
Simply put, they had been performing no maintenance whatsoever, and had even gone so far as to order maintenance operations suspended. This resulted in the build-up of bacterias which slowly yet consistently ate away at the line, corroding it, and eventually resulting in the leaks.
It gets worse. Acording to Hamel, one of the whistleblowers, a Robert Brian, had met with two Senators, who failed to follow up on his claims of company neglect. The Senators involved? Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham.
The Connecticutt Senate race just got a little nastier.
Nor does this tell the entire story. Gayle Norton was also informed, and nothing was done. According to Hamel, Britsh Petroleum has consistently lied to regulators and government officials, who routinely fail to follow up.
Now, we see the result. It is interesting to note that, since the story of what can only be described as evidence of BP's criminal neglect surfaced almost as quickly as the news of the failure of the pipeline itself, they have suddenly come out and said the problem, though substantial, is not as bad as initially feared. Very interesting indeed. I can't help but surmise that they initialy intended to shut down more of the pipeline than was necessary, but realized this would not be a good idea. Not good at all.
Such as another story told by Hamel, who was told by whistleblowers of a cover-up in 2003 that involved the disposal of more than 2000 gallons of toxic drilling mud and fluids through the ice. This of course was not the proper method of disposing of the material. But this act saved the company a lot of money.
And, according to the same whistleblowers as related through Hamel, this was pretty much the reasoning behind the lack of maintenance on the pipeline. It saved a lot of money.
Of copurse, companies never tell their employees everything, and they sure don't tell them anything more than they absolutely have to know. My feeling is, this wasn't about saving money.
This was about making money. It may have also been a form of domestic terrorism.
In 1998, when this policy was first begun, Clinton of course was President. and by the end of the year had been completey exonerated of the charges brought against him in his trial in the Senate following his impeachment. He was riding a crest of popularity and approval, and Al Gore, staunch and some would say rabid environmentalist, looked to be a sure bet to win the Democratic Party nomination for the year 2000, and seemed a safe bet to suceed Clinton to the office of the Presidency.
Al Gore of course was every energy executives worse nightmare. To the people who have advocated drilling in ANWAR, he was the reason for a lot of sleepless nights.
If the pipeine had to suddenly largely be shut down for extensive repairs, that would of course increase the pressure to drill in ANWAR and in other areas not favored by Democrats and liberals.
In the meantime, supply would not be up to meet demand, and so the prices, and thus the oil company profits, would rise. Therefore, oil company stocks would stay steady, and may even rise, to thus offset any negative influences of a potential Gore presidency.
Gore of coure was not elected, but the policy continued. Why not? Under Bush, and his Administration, including the Interior and Energy Departments, and the EPA, regulation became increasingly less stringent, even, by golly, downright friendly.
There were a couple of slaps on the wrist here and there, just for the sake of the technicality that these people are, of course, suppose to enforce the law. But for the most part, the energy industry has had a free hand for the last six years.
Strange how all those Republican tax breaks, with less and less in the way of regulatory enforcement, seems yet to not have trickled down to the rest of us. In fact, the oppossite is the case. There always seems to be a reason-an excuse, to increase the price of oil and gas. The ever increasing profits should, it is explained, be understood as the market forces at work. Those profits are best put into expansion and into research, blah, blah, blah.
This then was planned as yet another excuse to raise the price of gas and oil, thus increasing profits and so the price of industry stock.
Thank God, or the Goddess, or the Gods, or the Great Pumpkin, or whoever you want to thank, for activists like Chuck Hamel and the whistleblowers who depend on him. Or, perhaps more appropriately, just thank Chuck Hamel.
This is a criminal matter, and a national security matter. The industry, and all others that are vital to our national security, should be nationalized, or, failing that, offending companies such as BP should be confiscated and sold off to the highest qualified bidder.
Finally, all laws and regulations should be strictly enforced, in the most brutal way allowable by law.
The Republican and conservative ideals of a market economy are a string of fables based of deceptions and manipulations. It's time for the gravy train to come to an end.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
Conspiracy And Strategery
A whole lot of planes blowing up in mid-flight, or maybe upon landing at their destination (which would conceivably have an even greater both immediate and long term impact, in addition to causing incalculably more damage and loss of life) sounds like one hell of a conspiracy to me.
Of course, there are some who cry foul. How convenient. Had the news been released a couple of days prior to the Connecticutt primary it would have been insisted it was done to help out Joe Lieberman-Bush’s Democratic butt-boy. But since this was not the case, I would imagine there are frenzied board meetings to try to ferret out exactly what happenned, in an attempt to spin, er, determine the truth.
Within a number of days, I expect word to circulate that it was intentionally timed to be released after Liebermans defeat, in order to help the ousted three term Democrat, a., siphon off enough votes to enable the Republican Schlessinger to win the newly vacant Connecticutt Senate seat, or b.) to insure a Lieberman victory as an independent, with no demands of loyalty to the Democratic Party.
And to really be clever, to make it look really good and authentic, the entire British government and Intelligence services were co-opted to play a pivotal role in the plot. The so-called “British Muslims of Pakistani descent” are probably innocent, ignorant dupes.
Why do I bother? I’ve tried ridicule. I’ve tried sarcasm. I’ve tried accussations of stupidity, and even duplicity. To no avail. People willingly believe this crap, and the people who promote it either believe it just as strongly or are purposely promoting what they know to be a wild-eyed falsehood for the purpose of crass political gain.
Why? Because to believe otherwise means you are loyal to George W. Bush. That is pretty much it in a nutshell. That is how simple-minded these people are. Any appeal to reason is going to be met with the response that you, in fact, are the deluded one. Okay. So maybe an appeal to reason might work a small miracle. I am going to work here on the assumption that, out of all the peoele that might one day read this, who are of an extremsit liberal mind-set, roughly ninety nine point ninety nine percent of them are not going to buy into it, and will for the most part think I am either a conservative shill who just is too ignorant to know any better, or a paid shill who only cares about profiting from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice, etc. war machine.
Still, if I can only convince that meagre point zero one percent, I wil feel like I have accomplished something that will have made this post worth the time and effort. I can also find solace in the fact that my reasoning is such that it can not be disputed-although I am certain someone somewhere will forward me a link to a web-site that will contain the “proof” of the evidence of
Well, on the grounds that you can’t necessarily believe everything you read on a web-site, no matter how well “documented” it is; and on the grounds that bullets will not bounce off Supermans hide, with or without exposure to Kryptonite; on the grounds that one out of every three government employees were not involved in the Kennedy assassination; and on the grounds that hundreds of thousands have people have not been at any time abducted by intergalactic aliens piloting UFOs;
I therefore present the following essay, an appeal to reason which I call:
GET REAL YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS!
For the purpose of making my point, I am going to pretend that I am George W. Bush. I have been presented with a plan that will insure my re-election, and in the meantime, before and after, I will be presented with the prospect of going down in history as the greatet President in the history of the country. My name will be up there with the great ones, the ones on
All I have to do, is murder thousands of Americans, on American soil, and make it look like the work of a shadowy Islamo- Fascist terrorist organization, known as Al-Queda, which, I have been told, is actually a US funded psy-ops operation headed by a denizen of a wealthy Saudi family with whom my family has had a long business conection going back decades.
It’s the perfect plan. A group of disgruntled, Muslim fanatics that adhere to an extremist branch of Islam known as “Wahabism” hijack a bunch of American jets as soon as they take off, and they will fly these flying bombs of death and destruction straight into the heart of a heavily populated urban area. The resultant exlosion of the jet fuel, combined with the impact of the planes coming down at top speed, filled with said jet fuel, will kill thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of American citizens.
I am wary of this plan. Aftr all, will I not take some blame for this, will it not be laid at my doorstep? No, I am told. After all, I have only been President for about eight months as of the tentative date set for this event-September 11th, 2001-so the blame can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the previous Democratic President, who held the office for the previous eight years, and did nothing substantial to reduce the terrorist threat that had been on-going and of increasing concern throughout the entirety of his presidency.
Okay, that sounds good to me. So, I set about with my Vice-President and some of the other Neo-Cons as we strategerize. What would be the best targets? For some reason, we are only limited to an ability to hijack four planes, so we had better make sure we make it count, with as much impact as possible. The more innocent Americans who are mercilessly slaughtered, the better. A number of potential targets are discussed-
- Disneyworld-Hell yeah. Let’s make sure it’s in the middle of the day, hell just think of all the tourists out milling around, riding rides and seeing all the sights, having the time of their lives with their little sons and daughters. The nation would be horrified and thrown into the depths of despair, followed by an immediate call for revenge. If we strike
- The
- The
- The United States Capitol Building-Yeah, I know the Republican Senators and Representatives will be killed as well. Tough shit! There will just be another round of elections, and in the meantime me and my Administration will have total control over the country, emergency powers that no one would dare defy me or begrudge me in the slightest way, not even the ACLU. After a few months, when we go ahead and have a new round of elections, a new batch of Republicans will once again make up the majority in both houses. I’ll see to that. I have Diebold.
Of course, the point should also be made that if Bush and the Neo-Cons were actually the ones behind 9/11, why stop at four planes? Why not nine or ten? Why were the terrorist stooges utilized for this operation not sufficiently armed to prevent their loosing control of one of the planes, resulting in it being crashed into a field in
Finally, why the Twin Towers? Why would Bush and Cheney purposely seek to destroy people who were, for the most part, probably their supporters? Why attack a part of
I understand of course that anybody,through supposition and theory, can offer plausible answers to these questions, or any others. Of course, then they need something in which they are sadly lacking-a little something called proof.
Unfortunately, these people are not the kind to let a little thing like lack of factual evidence stop them.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Joe Liebermans Concession Stand
Joe Lieberman lost his primary election by a landslide of somewhere it looks to be between three and four percentage points. I call that a landslide when you consider the incredible ground his victorious opponent, Ned Lamont, gained over the course of roughly three months. Thanks to the unwavering hostility towards Lieberman and enthusiastic support for Lamont by such leftist blogging establishments as The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and AmericaBlog-all three of which are included on the Blogroll, by the way-in addition to support from liberal figures and organizations such as Jim Deans “Democracy For America”, and MoveOn.org, and Michael Moore, it was almost, in retrospect, an inevitability.
The anger, in some cases hatred, toward Lieberman, was intense, even visceral. Joe LIEberman. Joe Looserman. Joementum. Holy Joe. Nomentum.
Well, when you have to reassure your own party members that you are not the leader of the oppossition party, you know you might well be on the way out.
There were plenty of reasons for honest disatisfaction with Liebermans positions and record. For me, it was his support of the vile and evil bankruptcy bill that was mainly a Republican gift to the credit and banking industry. It was to my way of thinking a reward for predatory lending practices, and encouragement for more of the same. It was a hearty “fuck you” to all those who have amassed a mountain of debt, whether it be from carelessness, ignorance, intentional abuse, spendthrift immaturity, unforeseen circumstances beyond their control, and in not a few cases, through outright lies and deceptions by the industry. It made no difference to the supporters of this bill. It was a stop-gap measure, a band-aid solution to keep
There were those who blamed him for supporting the war on terror, and who remembered he was one of the original sponsors of the Homeland Security Department, back when that newest cabinet department was previously oppossed by Bush, who then proceeded to hijack it and twist it to suit his own ends. Every abuse, real, potential, and imagined, that has been blamed on the agency, has been left at Liebermans doorstep, despite the fact that, in the final analysis, he had little-actually nothing-to do with how the new agency took shape and evolved.
Finally, of course, while there are other reasons, the main reason is his support for the Iraqi War, and his overall and bluntly stated support for the nation of Israel, which has been unwavering and unflinching. Of course his detractors point out his Jewish heritage and wonder just who he is loyal to,
Finally, they call into question his loyalty to the Democratic Party, in the wake of his recent announcement to file a peition with the Connecticutt State Attorney General’s office to run for re-election as an Independent. There are people who spend hours on the Internet raging about this latest development. Before this, some seemed to spend all their waking moments on the subject. Now, they never sleep, it seems. The anger and hatred has turned into a manic frenzy, and has evolved to the point where this is considered as a warning to other Democrats who once supported the war in
The defeat of Lieberman has been turned into a call to arms, a demand for complete Far Left Liberal Democratic orthodoxy-and woe be unto any that spout the heresy of compromise and bi-partisan cooperation.
Personally, I am sorry that Lieberman has decided to pursue this route, though I was one who had hoped he would rally back from behind and pull off a victory. But, he did not. Within five minutes of his announcement remarking of how he had phoned Ned Lamont to congratulate him on his victory, he went on to announce his plan to file the following day. He used a sports metaphor. Lamont is ahead, but the game itsn’t over, it’s only half time.
Lamont for his part called for an urge for a return to investment in
I’m afraid though that Liebermans third party candidacy might well be the factor that enables the Republican Schlesinger to emerge victorious. Though no one as of now gives him much of a chance, he is a relatively unknown quantity. You can bet the Republican Party will throw tons of money into his campaign, money Schlessinger would never have seen otherwise.
It would be ironic if the Republican party held on to control of the Seante by just this one Connecticutt Seante seat, due to the machinations of the Far Left, and their virulent hatred of any views contrary to theirs, and their dictatorial drive to dominate Democratic Party politics. Of course, they would blame it on Liebermans disloyalty and stubbornness in running as an independent and splitting the Democratic vote. But, though I don’t agree with his decision to run, I certainly understand his anger and frustration at the Far Left, and his desire to reign them in.
If Schlessinger wins, I am going to laugh my ass off at them. If Lamont wins, as a Democrat I will hope for and encourage the best. He might actually be the breath of fresh air the country needs. He might be of better character and higher quality than the nature of the origins of his candidacy might suggest.
If Liebermann wins, on the other hand, I won’t be the slightest bit upset. I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Paradise Lost
A lot of people are looking toward the island of Cuba in lustful, unbridled anticipation. They dream of sun drenched, sandy beeches, of margueritas and pina coladas, or brown skinned, lithe and muscular men. And women. And boys and girls.
Of extravagant dining and entertainment, music and laughter, and dancing. Of resort hotels and gambling casinos. Of billions and billions of dollars. They stare wistfully at their humidores, and dream of days gone by, and, for most of them, of days that never were. Merely legendary stories handed down now for going on four generations, and more, from aged lips and wizened old eyes that stare out from wrinkled, furrowed brows.
There are less and less of them. They, too, are dying out. But they still dream their dreams, and they smile outwardly at the thought of bygone glorys, of happy memories that seem ever more distant. Their memories might in some cases be faulty. But it was the dream that was important.
Inwardly, they rage.
Castro's days are numbered. For fifty years he has kept the island nation in the vise like grip of Stalinist Communism, and now death seems to be knocking at his door. No further word on his current state of health for some days now, and no appearrance by his brother Raoul, to whom he temporarily ceded the reins of power. Can he maintain Fidel's hold on power after Fidel is gone, or will the country fall apart? Will he be open to minor economic and social and political reforms, or will he ruthlessly crush any dissent, real or imagined, in order to establish the totality of his new reign?
Fidel has all but carried Cuba to hell in a centralized planned handbasket in which no entrepreneur or business interest is wiling to invest any degree of capital. Everything is a shade of it's once fromer glory. The hotels, the beaches, the hookers, the liquor, the casinos, all those things that made Havanna one of the vacation spots of the world. Even the cigars aren't as good as what they once were.
There is a technique to making fine Cuban cigars that amounted to a secret recipe jeaousy guarded by a few families-all long gone from the island. What remains, while yet of the highest quality, is said to pale in comparison.
When Fidel overthrew business friendly and yet brutally dictatorial strong man Fulgencio Batista in the late nineteen fifties, the life blood of the island, it's inviting party atmosphere economy, similarly went up in a puff of smoke. Batista was friendly to the Mafia that made billions of dollars on the island. While he was there, they operated freely. When he left, they had to follow, along with the wealthier families, what ones were able, their properties confiscated by the new state, which pledged to never again allow the poor people of Cuba to become downtrooden, oppressed, and abused for the pleasure of the wealthy elites.
The party was over.
So what happens next? If the brothers Castro days are numbered, then what awaits the island and it's inhabitants?
The great hotel chains are doubtless bursting at the seams to re-establish a foothold on the island, along with assorted criminal enterprises and their devotees. You can almost imagine them clearing a space on their travel itinerary. The gamblers, the beach addicts, the hookers, the pimps, the johns, the pedophiles, the drug cartels, the land speculators, and on down the line to the remaining bottom feeders.
Who knows how many hundreds of millions, no, make that tens of billions, has been privately earmarked for Cuban investment?
But, not so fast. The last laugh could indeed be Fidels. News of his demise may be greatly exxagerrated, if that day ever comes, and any indication by Raoul of a willingness to consider any economic reforms might well turn out to be the greatest April Fools joke of all So don't pour that money into the island just yet, wait for the autopsy.
Fidel will eventually die, of course (and at seventy five, can Raoul be far behind?), but it won't be that easy. Thanks to the American embargo of the island, America has no diplomatic presence there, as of roughly fifty years ago. In other words, we have not the teeniest, tiniest leverage with which to influence events.
And there are of course more communists on the island than merely the Castro brothers. And they will not go quietly. Eventually, of course, there stands to be a great deal of tension, hostility, and even all out Civil War. The few remaining original Cuban ex-patriots in mainly Florida, especially the Miami area, will see to it that communist opponnents are well endowed with arms and tons of moral support.
They will fan the flames of Civil War, and will expect the US government to put out the fire, which could well conceivably turn into an inferno. Of course, the Bush Administration denies any plans to invade Cuba.
But there is, of course, a lot of oil there, just off the coast-lots and lots of oil.
Naturally, there will be a new tidal wave of immigration from the island on the offset of hostilities. The way the law stands, all any Cuban has to do is reach American soil, set foot on the ground, and he is home free. Percentage wise, they will rival Mexico in the amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal. A great many of these, of course, will be common criminals in addition to organized crime cartel members, such as gun runners and dope smugglers.
When people like Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice insists that Cubans will be discouraged from coming here in mass numbers, and Cuban Americans will be discouraged from returning to Cuba to further inflame tensions and incite rebellion, of course she is talking out of her ass. She knows that there is precous little that can be done to prevent it, if they wanted to, which they do not.
All of this is speculation, of course, but in the event of a massive, bloody civil war on this island jewel just fifty miles off the coast of Florida, can we stay out of it? Of course we can't, and anybody that thinks otherwise is smoking something stronger than any cigar.
The best thing for the island would be for either Castro to survive, or for Raoul to take over, and for both of them or either of them to agree to some of those limited reforms and to dialoque with the US. But it takes two. There has to be somebody here willing to partake of a diplomatic stategy, even if it were for no other reason than to validly establish a presence, and thus an influence, on the island when that day does eventually come around.
A nice, thoughtful get well card, even if insincere, might work wonders. Elean Gonzales wished Fidel a speedy recovery, surely we can, if but with tonque firmly, and diplomatically, planted in cheek.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
An Intelligible Design
Very littlle has been said lately about the past Kansas Primary, but I think myself it is profound in it's implications. Kansas is as a state amongst the reddest of the red. Look at any detailed election map and I would guess you would see very little there in the way of blue, or even purple. You might see a slight shade in kansas City, and I am betting that is questionable.
Yet, in this last primary, Conservative Republicans went down to a stunning defeat for school board elections, seemingly based on their approval of new classroom standards that question the legitimacy of the theory of evolution.
Five seats were on the line, and in the end, it looks like at best, the anti-evolution conservatives will maintain a hold on only five of the ten seats. One exception to the state wide trend was the victory of Conservtive Republican John Bacon, yet this was made possible in part due to the fact that he had two Pro-Evolution opponnents who split their votes.
Even Conservative Democrats are in trouble. Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat and supporter of the teaching of evolution in science classes, defeated a conservative Democratic opponent.
So, what does all this mean? Is this dissatisfaction with Republican Conservative policy limited to this one issue, or is it indicative of a larger trend?
Are Kansans becomming dissatisfied with the Republican Party in general, or just their overall position on social issues, or is it limited to mere anger at this one issue? This insistence on the discarding of evolution and teaching the creationist version known as Intelligent Design-not as a philosophical prospect in a comparative religion or social studies context-but as science.
Kansans might not believe that man descended from the apes, but they evidently don't appreciate their elected officials making asses out of them either.
Yet, in this last primary, Conservative Republicans went down to a stunning defeat for school board elections, seemingly based on their approval of new classroom standards that question the legitimacy of the theory of evolution.
Five seats were on the line, and in the end, it looks like at best, the anti-evolution conservatives will maintain a hold on only five of the ten seats. One exception to the state wide trend was the victory of Conservtive Republican John Bacon, yet this was made possible in part due to the fact that he had two Pro-Evolution opponnents who split their votes.
Even Conservative Democrats are in trouble. Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat and supporter of the teaching of evolution in science classes, defeated a conservative Democratic opponent.
So, what does all this mean? Is this dissatisfaction with Republican Conservative policy limited to this one issue, or is it indicative of a larger trend?
Are Kansans becomming dissatisfied with the Republican Party in general, or just their overall position on social issues, or is it limited to mere anger at this one issue? This insistence on the discarding of evolution and teaching the creationist version known as Intelligent Design-not as a philosophical prospect in a comparative religion or social studies context-but as science.
Kansans might not believe that man descended from the apes, but they evidently don't appreciate their elected officials making asses out of them either.
1946-The Battle Of Athens
It was sixty years ago when corrupt officials, determined to continue the tradition of stuffing ballot boxes with pre-marked ballots in their favor, were faced with an uprising by an armed militia of World War II veterans determined to put an end to the practice.
The veterans surrunded the courthouse of Athens and, using parked cars as a barrier, engaged in a pitched gun battle with the corrupt city officials barricaded inside the building, while supporters of the veterans served them refreshments.
It was a surreal event, and seemed to take on almost a carnival type atmosphere. The city officials, nevertheless, held out for a long time, but eventually gave in when the veterans made use of dynamite. Following this, the ballot boxes were surendered and the veterans ensured the ballots were proper;y counted. Their candidates were declared the victors.
Now in their eighties, the survivors of this historical event recently celebrated this little known nor remembered occassion, which occurred sixty years ago in Athens-not Athen,s Greece, however, but in Athens, Tennessee.
Now, they bemoan the fact that voting for the primary this coming Tuesday is projected to be about 35%.
Said one witness to the event, "the lesson is that people ought to take voting a whole lot more seriously than they do and not let things get out of hand."
The link to the entire story is in the post title.
The veterans surrunded the courthouse of Athens and, using parked cars as a barrier, engaged in a pitched gun battle with the corrupt city officials barricaded inside the building, while supporters of the veterans served them refreshments.
It was a surreal event, and seemed to take on almost a carnival type atmosphere. The city officials, nevertheless, held out for a long time, but eventually gave in when the veterans made use of dynamite. Following this, the ballot boxes were surendered and the veterans ensured the ballots were proper;y counted. Their candidates were declared the victors.
Now in their eighties, the survivors of this historical event recently celebrated this little known nor remembered occassion, which occurred sixty years ago in Athens-not Athen,s Greece, however, but in Athens, Tennessee.
Now, they bemoan the fact that voting for the primary this coming Tuesday is projected to be about 35%.
Said one witness to the event, "the lesson is that people ought to take voting a whole lot more seriously than they do and not let things get out of hand."
The link to the entire story is in the post title.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
A Teenage Sexual Fantasy
Johnny had been wanting to get in Mary's pants for as long as he could remember. He remembered the first time he had a real hard on, was in a dream. He saw Mary in that dream, and she seemed so real, her long, sexy, tanned, silky smooth legs, perfecly formed, her flat, brown stomach and abdomen, her luscously proportioned hips and waist, and her breasts. Just the right size. And that ass. God, that ass.
Mary's hair was a long, thick, wavy, sultry blonde, and her face was perfectly formed, with full, inviting lips, and bright, deep blue eyes. She was a goddess, the epitome of perfection, and the minute he saw her, he experienced a raging hard-on that was like nothing he had ever experienced, and as he stood there before her, both of them naked, he felt oddly aware and yet not the slightest bit ill at ease.
She reached out for him, with longing in her eyes. She reached out for his painfully hard and throbbing cock, and took it in her hands. And he cum then, all over himself, and woke up dripping in sweat.
He was fourteen and had had sex only once, a tryst arranged by his older brother Jim and his friends on the basketball squad, with a neighborhood slut who it was said could be had by all. They fucked her one night on the back of brother Jimmy's car. Johnny had been last. It was a scary, awkward experience. But he had done it, climbed on her nervously, and after a brief moment of embarrassing difficulty had entered her. Within twenty seconds he had cum.
He had lied about enjoying the experience, it was strangely dissapointing. But he was a man now. He was now one of the guys.
In time, however, he had wanted more. And in particular he wanted Mary.
Mary was different. She was experienced. She had had five different boyfriends, had been fucked by them all, but she was not easy. Still, she had been screwed, but only when she was ready. She was an immensely popular girl, and could have her pick of guys.
So when Johnny stammerred out an attempted conversation with her, he expected to get shot down. But she surprised him. Johnny was not a jock like his brother. He was a straight A student, and yet still found time for sports as well, and other activites. Small wonder, then, in retrospect, that Mary asked for his help with her homework.
"Hell yes" he responded. "I mean, I'm always eager to help people with their school work."
"Johnny, I know you like me," she said. "I like you too. You're good looking, you're smart, you're funny. You're just the kind of guy a girl really likes. I need more than just a jock, that gets old. Besides, I bet you got a lot to offer a girl-if you know what I'm getting at."
No one was watching when Mary reached down and put her hand on Johnny's dick and began slowly, sensously massaging it. But it was too much for Johnny. He didn't know for sure how to react, so he looked around, and though he later felt like a complete fucking moron, he backed away.
She just smiled and said, "we'll get together on that later." She walked away as Johnnys' heart felt as though it would beat out of his chest.
He had a talk with Jimmy that night, though he didn't mean to tell him anything. Still, Jimmy seemed to know everything.
"Yeah, I know you like her, hell, who don't know it?", he had advised him. "Shit, goofball, go for it. She likes you too."
"She-she does"?, Johnny asked, hopeful and yet far from convinced.
"Johnny, she has asked me about you twice," he said. "What in the hell did you think that was all about with Martha the other night, me and you and the guys, on the car? She was wondering if you might be gay and-"
"Well, by God I'm not", Johnny responded indignantly.
"I know that", Jimmy said. "You're just shy and unsure of yourself. I went through the same thing. Just take it slow, get to know her, and everything will be fine."
"But why does she like me?", Johnny asked. "Shit, what am I? I'm not that good in sports like you are, I don't have any talent, I can't sing, I can't-"
"Johnny, none of that is important", Jimmy said. "You've got a lot of great qualities. And, by the way, in case it's never occurred to you, you've got probably the biggest fucking dick in the whole goddamned school you little fuckhead. It's bigger than mine, so fuck what the hell are you worried about?"
"Yeah, I know, I was starting to think there was something wrong with me."
Jimmy gave him this strange look, and said, "you know, for somebody that is so smart you sure are a fucking idiot. Come on, mom has probably got supper ready."
Supper consisted of hamburgers and homemade french fries with cole slaw and coke, and though usually Johny wolfed his food down like a wild animal, tonight he was strangely not hungry.
"You're not on drugs, are you boy?", his father asked, whereupon Johnny looked away, assumming he was talking to Jimmy. "Goddammit boy I'm talking ot you."
"Me?", Jimmy asked. "No, I don't have any use for that stuff, dad."
Dad was of course drunk as usual, as he typically was by supper time after getting off work for the city water company. But he was a quiet drunk, most of the time, like he was hiding a thousand different secrets and trying to keep them from getting mixed up in his head all in one big mess.
There were rumours that he was having an affair, and word was getting around. Johnny almost gotten into a fight with some kids in school who made some kind of insinuation about it, and came close to being suspended. But for the most part Martin, Johnny and Jimmy's father, kept that part of his life seperate, like just about everything else really, and had nothing much to say. But tonight, he was curious, inquisitive, and kept his eyes peeled on Johnny.
"He's in love", Jimmy volunteered.
"Oh, is that all?", Martin asked. "Well, shit boy, get you some pussy and stop worrying about it. You'll find out soon enough what that fucking love shit will get you."
"Yeah," Johnny's mom responded sarcastically. " Like maybe the clap. Or maybe a couple of other problems you could do without."
Without another word she walked out and Martin said, "in other words, wear a rubber."
That night, Johnny dreamed. It was his first fully erect, raging hard on. Usually,when he felt them coming on, he stopped them as it made him feel uncomfortable. Even the night on the car with Martha, though he had managed to make it inside of her, he was only partially erect. But this was agony. Yet, it was ecstasy.
Over the next few days, Johnny and Mary got to know each other, and before long they were making out, stealing feels, and wanting each other as much or more than he had ever thought it possible two people could ever want each other.
Then, one evening, as Johnny was walking Mary home, from the cinemas, they went past the wooded area they always walked by.
"Let's go up there", Johnny blurted out, almost desptie himself.
Mary nodded in what seemed like a desperately relieved agreement, and they quicly strode up the embankment. They walked, for what seemed like miles, desperate to find a place where they could feel they were secure, and totlally alone.
They made it to a clearing, and Mary collapsed. She was breathing heavily, as she began to slide out of her jeans. Johnny was on top of her and they were all over each other, breathing and panting heavily, kissing and tonqueing each other, as Mary undid his pants, then slid them down then impatiently pulled down his briefs. She gasped when she saw the size of his erect, gigantic, throbbing cock.
"Please fuck me, Johnny", she amost screamed.
But in the back of Johnny's mind, he could hear the voice of his mother.
"Yeah, like maybe the clap. Or maybe a couple of other problems you could do without".
His father.
"In other words, wear a rubber"
"Mary, are you on the pill?", he asked.
"Yes", Mary said. "Come on, baby, I need it now."
But Johnny was still anxous. He was still scared. He was, in fact, terrified. But he wanted her, so bad. Soon, the blood rushed to his head, and he practically jumped on top of her, but before he could enter her, a gunshot rang out. It was loud, and it was close.
They both stopped, and hurriedly put their clothes back on. Johnny peered around the corner, and saw old man Dooley and his sons, drunk as a skunk and laughing and still drinking what looked to be a fifth of some kind of liquor they passed amongst them
Everybody was aware of the Dooleys penchant for hunting and drinking, but everybody gave them a wide berth. Johnny was determined to do the same. He didn't want to think of what the consequenes might be if they caught them out here. Especially what they might do to Mary. The thought horrified him and filled him with revulsion.
"Mary, we've got to get out of here", he said.
Mary was still breathless, and afraid, but frustrated and angry at the same time. Still, they slowly, quietly, yet quickly began to make their way back to the main road. It seemed to take forever, but they eventually made it.
Now, Mary was crying.
"Johnny, I have a confession to make", she said. "I was lying. I'm not on the pill. Mom's doctor warned her that if I took it long enough it could cause problems, maybe even ovarian cancer. Plus, I'm allergic to latex. I found that out when I first started dating."
"Mary, what's wrong?", Johnny said. She was crying, and obviously there was something she wasn't telling. "
"That's why I never stay with anybody for long", she said. "Nobody wants to stay with a girl that can't take any steps to protect herself. Oh sure, they don't mind taking that first chance, but pretty soon after they get what they want they figure why the hell should they take the chance when there's plenty of other girls that will put out that don't mind taking the pill."
Suddenly, the answer hit Johnny immediately. It was as clear as a bell to him.
"I'll never break up with you", he said. "I love you. You know that, don't you?"
"Oh, Johnny", she said. "I love you too."
"I have an idea", he said. "There's this new pill. It's called 'Plan B'. You take it the morning after you have sex. Actually, it's effective for up to seventy two hours after sex, but it's best to take it right away. It's said to be even more effective than regular birth control pills, and you only have to take it only after every time you have sex. The best thing is, you don't need a doctors precription. You can get it over the counter at any drug store, just like aspirin."
"Johnny lets get it then, damn I want some of that dick baby, I need to be fucked so bad it's going to make me crazy if you don't do it to me."
And so they made their way past the cinemas and on to the drug store. Johnny still had a hard on and he walked with great difficulty, and Mary had the most intense, hungry look in her eyes and in her raspy voice he had yet seen or heard.
They hurried into the unusually crowded drug store past the crowds of well dressed people, barely noticing them in fact. They had only one thing on their mind, and Mary spoke up loudly and aggressively to the man who stood with their back to them at the drug store counter.
"We want to buy that morning after pill, please", she said in desperation, and yet with steely determination.
"Well, young lady, one of you are going to have to have the proper ID first. Are you eighteen?", the strange man asked, and as he turned around to face them, Mary and Johnny got the shock of her life. It was Johnny who stammerred in amazement-
"PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH!"
"That's right, son", the President said. "Evidently you weren't aware of my scheduled appearrance here in your lovely town, and I'm here now to explain my Administrations policy regarding the very morning after pill you are looking for. And I'm guessing by looking at the two of you that you're not eighteen, either one of you. Would I be correct?"
"Yeah, we're both fourteen,Mister President," Johnny admitted.
"You mean", Mary said, "you can't buy the pill unless you're eighteen?"
"That's right, little lady", the President affirmed. "And you know why that is? Because I feel it would be morally wrong to allow young people such as yourself to purchase this pill. It would only encourage you to engage in a seuxally active lifestyle way before you are emotionally mature enough to do so.
"Why, the minute two young kids were to go in and buy a morning after pill, do you know what the first thing is they would do? They would have sex, that's what? Therefore, by my establishing the sane and moral policy that I have established, instead of having sex, and risking pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, you will more than likely decide instead to engage in a course of sexual abstinence, until such time as you can be married, and are emotionally mature enough to take responsibility. Then, you'll raise a family, and live a happy fulfilling life, instead of falling into a lifetime of hopelessness and despair."
Bush smirked and chuckled and shook his shoulders as suddenly cameras flashed and the gathering crowd applauded and, suddenly, reporters started asking questions.
But Johnny didn't hear their questions to the President. Neither did Mary.
They both walked out of the drug store, slowly. It was like a veil had suddenly been lifted.
Mary was no longer near insane with desire. Her breathing, like Johnny's, was back to normal. They were happy, relaxed, composed. At peace with themselves.
Johnny's penis was now completely flaccid.
"What a great man", Mary said. "I'll be glad when I am old enough to vote so I can go to the polls and help re-elect him."
"I don't think he is allowed to run anymore, Mary", Johnny explained. "He's in his second term. A President is only allowed two terms."
"Well, that's not right", Mary said in dissapointment. "They should make an excpetion for someone so smart, and wise, and caring."
They walked on down the road. Mary found herself experiencing the odd urge to go home and jump rope. Johnny wanted to go fishing, for the first time in a long time.
"So, what do you want to do", Johnny asked her. "Have you got any plans for tomorrow?"
"Oh, I don't know", Mary said. "We could study. Maybe Sunday we can go to church if you like."
"Hey, that's an idea", Johnny said. "We could go to your house and read the Bible together."
"That sounds great", Mary said enthusiastically. "What book of the Bible would you like to read first?"
"Lets just start at the beginning and see how long it takes us to read it all the way through."
"Well, okay, but you'll have to go home at a decent hour tonight. Before dark."
"Of course".
Mary's hair was a long, thick, wavy, sultry blonde, and her face was perfectly formed, with full, inviting lips, and bright, deep blue eyes. She was a goddess, the epitome of perfection, and the minute he saw her, he experienced a raging hard-on that was like nothing he had ever experienced, and as he stood there before her, both of them naked, he felt oddly aware and yet not the slightest bit ill at ease.
She reached out for him, with longing in her eyes. She reached out for his painfully hard and throbbing cock, and took it in her hands. And he cum then, all over himself, and woke up dripping in sweat.
He was fourteen and had had sex only once, a tryst arranged by his older brother Jim and his friends on the basketball squad, with a neighborhood slut who it was said could be had by all. They fucked her one night on the back of brother Jimmy's car. Johnny had been last. It was a scary, awkward experience. But he had done it, climbed on her nervously, and after a brief moment of embarrassing difficulty had entered her. Within twenty seconds he had cum.
He had lied about enjoying the experience, it was strangely dissapointing. But he was a man now. He was now one of the guys.
In time, however, he had wanted more. And in particular he wanted Mary.
Mary was different. She was experienced. She had had five different boyfriends, had been fucked by them all, but she was not easy. Still, she had been screwed, but only when she was ready. She was an immensely popular girl, and could have her pick of guys.
So when Johnny stammerred out an attempted conversation with her, he expected to get shot down. But she surprised him. Johnny was not a jock like his brother. He was a straight A student, and yet still found time for sports as well, and other activites. Small wonder, then, in retrospect, that Mary asked for his help with her homework.
"Hell yes" he responded. "I mean, I'm always eager to help people with their school work."
"Johnny, I know you like me," she said. "I like you too. You're good looking, you're smart, you're funny. You're just the kind of guy a girl really likes. I need more than just a jock, that gets old. Besides, I bet you got a lot to offer a girl-if you know what I'm getting at."
No one was watching when Mary reached down and put her hand on Johnny's dick and began slowly, sensously massaging it. But it was too much for Johnny. He didn't know for sure how to react, so he looked around, and though he later felt like a complete fucking moron, he backed away.
She just smiled and said, "we'll get together on that later." She walked away as Johnnys' heart felt as though it would beat out of his chest.
He had a talk with Jimmy that night, though he didn't mean to tell him anything. Still, Jimmy seemed to know everything.
"Yeah, I know you like her, hell, who don't know it?", he had advised him. "Shit, goofball, go for it. She likes you too."
"She-she does"?, Johnny asked, hopeful and yet far from convinced.
"Johnny, she has asked me about you twice," he said. "What in the hell did you think that was all about with Martha the other night, me and you and the guys, on the car? She was wondering if you might be gay and-"
"Well, by God I'm not", Johnny responded indignantly.
"I know that", Jimmy said. "You're just shy and unsure of yourself. I went through the same thing. Just take it slow, get to know her, and everything will be fine."
"But why does she like me?", Johnny asked. "Shit, what am I? I'm not that good in sports like you are, I don't have any talent, I can't sing, I can't-"
"Johnny, none of that is important", Jimmy said. "You've got a lot of great qualities. And, by the way, in case it's never occurred to you, you've got probably the biggest fucking dick in the whole goddamned school you little fuckhead. It's bigger than mine, so fuck what the hell are you worried about?"
"Yeah, I know, I was starting to think there was something wrong with me."
Jimmy gave him this strange look, and said, "you know, for somebody that is so smart you sure are a fucking idiot. Come on, mom has probably got supper ready."
Supper consisted of hamburgers and homemade french fries with cole slaw and coke, and though usually Johny wolfed his food down like a wild animal, tonight he was strangely not hungry.
"You're not on drugs, are you boy?", his father asked, whereupon Johnny looked away, assumming he was talking to Jimmy. "Goddammit boy I'm talking ot you."
"Me?", Jimmy asked. "No, I don't have any use for that stuff, dad."
Dad was of course drunk as usual, as he typically was by supper time after getting off work for the city water company. But he was a quiet drunk, most of the time, like he was hiding a thousand different secrets and trying to keep them from getting mixed up in his head all in one big mess.
There were rumours that he was having an affair, and word was getting around. Johnny almost gotten into a fight with some kids in school who made some kind of insinuation about it, and came close to being suspended. But for the most part Martin, Johnny and Jimmy's father, kept that part of his life seperate, like just about everything else really, and had nothing much to say. But tonight, he was curious, inquisitive, and kept his eyes peeled on Johnny.
"He's in love", Jimmy volunteered.
"Oh, is that all?", Martin asked. "Well, shit boy, get you some pussy and stop worrying about it. You'll find out soon enough what that fucking love shit will get you."
"Yeah," Johnny's mom responded sarcastically. " Like maybe the clap. Or maybe a couple of other problems you could do without."
Without another word she walked out and Martin said, "in other words, wear a rubber."
That night, Johnny dreamed. It was his first fully erect, raging hard on. Usually,when he felt them coming on, he stopped them as it made him feel uncomfortable. Even the night on the car with Martha, though he had managed to make it inside of her, he was only partially erect. But this was agony. Yet, it was ecstasy.
Over the next few days, Johnny and Mary got to know each other, and before long they were making out, stealing feels, and wanting each other as much or more than he had ever thought it possible two people could ever want each other.
Then, one evening, as Johnny was walking Mary home, from the cinemas, they went past the wooded area they always walked by.
"Let's go up there", Johnny blurted out, almost desptie himself.
Mary nodded in what seemed like a desperately relieved agreement, and they quicly strode up the embankment. They walked, for what seemed like miles, desperate to find a place where they could feel they were secure, and totlally alone.
They made it to a clearing, and Mary collapsed. She was breathing heavily, as she began to slide out of her jeans. Johnny was on top of her and they were all over each other, breathing and panting heavily, kissing and tonqueing each other, as Mary undid his pants, then slid them down then impatiently pulled down his briefs. She gasped when she saw the size of his erect, gigantic, throbbing cock.
"Please fuck me, Johnny", she amost screamed.
But in the back of Johnny's mind, he could hear the voice of his mother.
"Yeah, like maybe the clap. Or maybe a couple of other problems you could do without".
His father.
"In other words, wear a rubber"
"Mary, are you on the pill?", he asked.
"Yes", Mary said. "Come on, baby, I need it now."
But Johnny was still anxous. He was still scared. He was, in fact, terrified. But he wanted her, so bad. Soon, the blood rushed to his head, and he practically jumped on top of her, but before he could enter her, a gunshot rang out. It was loud, and it was close.
They both stopped, and hurriedly put their clothes back on. Johnny peered around the corner, and saw old man Dooley and his sons, drunk as a skunk and laughing and still drinking what looked to be a fifth of some kind of liquor they passed amongst them
Everybody was aware of the Dooleys penchant for hunting and drinking, but everybody gave them a wide berth. Johnny was determined to do the same. He didn't want to think of what the consequenes might be if they caught them out here. Especially what they might do to Mary. The thought horrified him and filled him with revulsion.
"Mary, we've got to get out of here", he said.
Mary was still breathless, and afraid, but frustrated and angry at the same time. Still, they slowly, quietly, yet quickly began to make their way back to the main road. It seemed to take forever, but they eventually made it.
Now, Mary was crying.
"Johnny, I have a confession to make", she said. "I was lying. I'm not on the pill. Mom's doctor warned her that if I took it long enough it could cause problems, maybe even ovarian cancer. Plus, I'm allergic to latex. I found that out when I first started dating."
"Mary, what's wrong?", Johnny said. She was crying, and obviously there was something she wasn't telling. "
"That's why I never stay with anybody for long", she said. "Nobody wants to stay with a girl that can't take any steps to protect herself. Oh sure, they don't mind taking that first chance, but pretty soon after they get what they want they figure why the hell should they take the chance when there's plenty of other girls that will put out that don't mind taking the pill."
Suddenly, the answer hit Johnny immediately. It was as clear as a bell to him.
"I'll never break up with you", he said. "I love you. You know that, don't you?"
"Oh, Johnny", she said. "I love you too."
"I have an idea", he said. "There's this new pill. It's called 'Plan B'. You take it the morning after you have sex. Actually, it's effective for up to seventy two hours after sex, but it's best to take it right away. It's said to be even more effective than regular birth control pills, and you only have to take it only after every time you have sex. The best thing is, you don't need a doctors precription. You can get it over the counter at any drug store, just like aspirin."
"Johnny lets get it then, damn I want some of that dick baby, I need to be fucked so bad it's going to make me crazy if you don't do it to me."
And so they made their way past the cinemas and on to the drug store. Johnny still had a hard on and he walked with great difficulty, and Mary had the most intense, hungry look in her eyes and in her raspy voice he had yet seen or heard.
They hurried into the unusually crowded drug store past the crowds of well dressed people, barely noticing them in fact. They had only one thing on their mind, and Mary spoke up loudly and aggressively to the man who stood with their back to them at the drug store counter.
"We want to buy that morning after pill, please", she said in desperation, and yet with steely determination.
"Well, young lady, one of you are going to have to have the proper ID first. Are you eighteen?", the strange man asked, and as he turned around to face them, Mary and Johnny got the shock of her life. It was Johnny who stammerred in amazement-
"PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH!"
"That's right, son", the President said. "Evidently you weren't aware of my scheduled appearrance here in your lovely town, and I'm here now to explain my Administrations policy regarding the very morning after pill you are looking for. And I'm guessing by looking at the two of you that you're not eighteen, either one of you. Would I be correct?"
"Yeah, we're both fourteen,Mister President," Johnny admitted.
"You mean", Mary said, "you can't buy the pill unless you're eighteen?"
"That's right, little lady", the President affirmed. "And you know why that is? Because I feel it would be morally wrong to allow young people such as yourself to purchase this pill. It would only encourage you to engage in a seuxally active lifestyle way before you are emotionally mature enough to do so.
"Why, the minute two young kids were to go in and buy a morning after pill, do you know what the first thing is they would do? They would have sex, that's what? Therefore, by my establishing the sane and moral policy that I have established, instead of having sex, and risking pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, you will more than likely decide instead to engage in a course of sexual abstinence, until such time as you can be married, and are emotionally mature enough to take responsibility. Then, you'll raise a family, and live a happy fulfilling life, instead of falling into a lifetime of hopelessness and despair."
Bush smirked and chuckled and shook his shoulders as suddenly cameras flashed and the gathering crowd applauded and, suddenly, reporters started asking questions.
But Johnny didn't hear their questions to the President. Neither did Mary.
They both walked out of the drug store, slowly. It was like a veil had suddenly been lifted.
Mary was no longer near insane with desire. Her breathing, like Johnny's, was back to normal. They were happy, relaxed, composed. At peace with themselves.
Johnny's penis was now completely flaccid.
"What a great man", Mary said. "I'll be glad when I am old enough to vote so I can go to the polls and help re-elect him."
"I don't think he is allowed to run anymore, Mary", Johnny explained. "He's in his second term. A President is only allowed two terms."
"Well, that's not right", Mary said in dissapointment. "They should make an excpetion for someone so smart, and wise, and caring."
They walked on down the road. Mary found herself experiencing the odd urge to go home and jump rope. Johnny wanted to go fishing, for the first time in a long time.
"So, what do you want to do", Johnny asked her. "Have you got any plans for tomorrow?"
"Oh, I don't know", Mary said. "We could study. Maybe Sunday we can go to church if you like."
"Hey, that's an idea", Johnny said. "We could go to your house and read the Bible together."
"That sounds great", Mary said enthusiastically. "What book of the Bible would you like to read first?"
"Lets just start at the beginning and see how long it takes us to read it all the way through."
"Well, okay, but you'll have to go home at a decent hour tonight. Before dark."
"Of course".
Sunday, July 30, 2006
The Anti-Semitic Conscousness And Consequences
Now that Mel Gibson has shown himself to be an Anti-Semitic drunk, he has taken the extra step to apologize for his recent actions, not the least of which is driving while inebriated. Although at last account there was no confirmation from authorities as to the veracity of published reports of his racist remarks, he did apologize for saying things while intoxicated that he says were wrong, further explaining that he has been fighting alcoholsim for some time.
He supposedly also said the Jews are responsible for every evil in the world. Then he asked the arressting officers and others present if they were Jews. Then he tempered his remarks by shouting "fuck you", and "I am going to fuck you."
Mel Gibson has been on the defensive lately, in fact ever since the release of his blockbuster hit "The Passion Of The Christ", which he financed with twenty five million dollars of his own money, and which currently ranks number ten in the world in box office receipts.
Still, whatever the truth or exaggeration as to his reported remarks, he has managed to come off here more as a maddened Dioysius than what you would consider a devout Christian . And, despite his apologies, you can be certain that he is destined to answer further charges of anti-Jewish racism.
The wonder is to me, not that Mel Gibson may turn out to be a virulent anti-Semitic person after all, but that, as a Bible believing conservative Catholic Christian, after all, how could he not be.
That has been the real elephant in the room the whole time, and is one that is seldom broached. When it is, it is by mainly Gibson detractors who insist that Christianity is not Anti-Semitic, that in fact at most Christianity has been used as an excuse for Anti-Semitism, though this is based on a perversion of the Gospels, that Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance and forgiveness.
Unfortunately, only one thing in the above statement is true, and that is the fact that Christianity has been used as an excuse for Anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the rest of the argument falls apart when you carefully peruse the Gospels, which upon doing so you realize there is a reason Christianity provides this excuse.
And that reason is, sadly, that the New Testament of the Bible-most especialy the Gospels-are indeed virulently anti-Semitic.
Now some will most certainly point out what they consider the fallacy of this statement, by reminding me that the authors of Matthew, Mark, and John were Jews (Luke was evidently an early Greek convert and disciple of Paul), and that perhaps most importantly, Jesus was himself a Jew. How then can you arrive at the conclusion that the Gospels were anti-Semitic?
The issue of Jesus's parentage, or even if he ever truly existed, is up for debate, to begin with. As for the so-called apostles, there is a very definite answer to that statement, which, once it is realized, makes everything all too clear.
And that is, out of all of Jesus's original apostles (Paul, who was indeed a Jew, did not come along until after the crucifixion) eleven out of the twelve were not Jews. The one Jew, incidentally, was Judas Iscarriot.
Now, it is true the others were Jews by religion-but not by race. The people of Gallilee had previously been a pagan people who had been forcibly converted to Judeaism by the first of the Haesmonean Kings, Aristobulus I. This, by the way, was a mere one hundred years approximately before the given time frame of the crucifixion (around 27-28 AD).
The ancient Romans in time definitely came to undertand this very distinction that escapes us today, and in some cases we find references to the cult of Christianity as that of "the Gallileans".
What it all amounted to was a regional prejudice exhibited doubtless by both sides one against the other. In fact, there is every reason to believe that the cult of Christianity had been around for a good many years, even prior to the forced Jewish conversion, as one of the pagan cults adhered to by many of the formerly pagan Gallileans. In order to survive, it simply went underground for a time, then re-emerged with a suitably Jewish veneer. In this way, it might have been similar to the maner in which many transplanted African slaves to the Carribbean disguised their own partiular pagan gods as Catholic saints.
So if this much is true, why was this ancient cult transcribed and mythologized as a then fairly recent historical event? To answer that question, you have to understand Judaean history, of particular importance being the great rebellion of Judaea against Roman rule, which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the magnificent temple buildt not too many decades earlier by Herod The Great.
This event took place beginning about seventy AD, the final destruction being undertaken by Titus, the son of the Emperor Vespasian, who had suceeded Nero after a brief struggle in which in one year alone four different claimants, following Neros fall, claimed the Imperial throne.
It was the aftermath of this massive tragedy that resulted in the dispersal of the Jews from Jerusalem, and throughout various parts of the Empire. They were of course looked upon with suspicion and revulsion by the majority of the Empires citizens. And, to a point, they looked upon all of them as the same, whether or not they were Judaeans or Gallileans.
There is good reason to believe that there was a great deal of antagonism between the two groups. Most Gallileans of course considered themselves Jews, but they, like the Judaeans themselves, looked askance at the practices of the Gallilean Nazarite sect known as "The Way", and engaged in a good deal of what today would be considered racist propoganda.
They were in fact accussed of vile and abominable practices, such as sexual orgies, homosexuality, and even cannabalism. All of this in fact began prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and The Temple, before even the time of Nero. As far back as the reign of Tiberius, and later Claudius, who both conducted massive deportations of Jews from Rome on the grounds of their practices for "the god Christos".
Therefore, once the destruction of Jerusalem and The Temple had taken place, there was already a long history of rivalry, distrust, and even hatred between the two groups. After the disastrous rebellion, the Gallileans took it on themselves to put down in writing their own particular take on the reason for the disaster, and did so by placing the blame squarely on the Jews in a way they could begin to distance themselves from it.
"His blood be upon us and upon our children" the Jewish Hish Priest was suppossed to have said to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (by now conveniently long dead), who had symbolically washed his hands of any blame for the death of "this innocent man".
Even the vile and corrupt Herod Antipas had failed to find fault with him after questioning him, though Jesus had refused to answer any of his impertinent questions and challenges as to his mystical powers and reported miracles.
Even a lowly Roman centurion-a pagan-was able to recognize the obvious signs of divine displeasure as Christ lay dead on the cross, and the sun stood still and darkness engulfed the land.
"Surely", he said, "this was the Son Of God".
But the Jews as a group were unrepentent. The savior, the messiah, they had so long awaited, had come amongst them, and they had hated him, revilled him, and ultimately, demanded his murder, a demand which a supposedly reluctant Pilate felt obliged to grant.
But that is not all. The prophecies of the end times that is so often discussed, as pertaining to the Gospels, has nothing to do with some far future date, but seems to be revolved around the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred around 70 AD. More to the point, this is portrayed in the Gospels as being directly related to the Jewish rejection, condemnation, and murder of the Son of God, that same personnage who the Roman Pilate, and the Roman appointed tetrarch Herod, would have wished to avoid.
This was a typical Jewish device that was also adapted by the Gallilean sect. The art of Biblical prophecy seems to have revolved, in some cases, around looking back toward a similar time, which resulted in a specific set of circumstances, and predicting the same result to the present. At other instances, the so-caled prophecies were actually written down after the fact. More often not, many fulfilled prophecies were no more than claims. For example, Jesus entering Jerusalem on the back of a donkey was an example of an action that was purposeldy performed in order to fit a required prophecy.
Therefore, it would not be a stretch of the imagination for an adept religous leader, made familiar with history to a point uncommon to most common people of the day, to recognize the impending catastrophe the Judaean leaders were bringing on themselves and their people. In other words, someone might have legitimately pointed this out. On the other hand, if the Galilleans only claimed to have made this prophecy prior to the event, but in reality did so after the fact, who was there to disprove the claim?
The whole bizarre story of the origins of Christianity are shrouded in mystery, and it takes incisive viewing to even begin to pierce through the vale of centuries of deception. But once you begin to do so, a pattern emerges. And that pattern to a great extent reveals a complex web of prejudice on both sides, while at the same time the prejudice exhibited by one side will be seen to be excused on the grounds of the provocations of the other.
Because of this, there are many instances in the New Testament of bigotry and intolerance displayed by the Jews toward other ethnic groups-for example the Samaritans. And while these prejudices may have existed, there can be no doubt they existed on both sides pretty much equally.
And, the fact that Jesus urged tolerance, forgiveness, and love might seem to mitigate somewhat the anti-Jewish hatred of the Gallileans. Unfortunately, it also serves a further purpose-that of inflaming old resentents that much greater a degree.
Unfortunately, as we have seen far too often, it has come nowhere close to extinquishing it. Evidence of Mel Gibsons reputed Anti-Semitism, if true, is a perfect example of how old hatred and prejudices are hard pressed to fade away-even after twenty centuries. Or maybe it would be best to say, especially after that long. The ingrained nature of such feelings may amount ot a kind of societally enhanced psychic, subconscous brainwashing. It will be with us for some time to come.
He supposedly also said the Jews are responsible for every evil in the world. Then he asked the arressting officers and others present if they were Jews. Then he tempered his remarks by shouting "fuck you", and "I am going to fuck you."
Mel Gibson has been on the defensive lately, in fact ever since the release of his blockbuster hit "The Passion Of The Christ", which he financed with twenty five million dollars of his own money, and which currently ranks number ten in the world in box office receipts.
Still, whatever the truth or exaggeration as to his reported remarks, he has managed to come off here more as a maddened Dioysius than what you would consider a devout Christian . And, despite his apologies, you can be certain that he is destined to answer further charges of anti-Jewish racism.
The wonder is to me, not that Mel Gibson may turn out to be a virulent anti-Semitic person after all, but that, as a Bible believing conservative Catholic Christian, after all, how could he not be.
That has been the real elephant in the room the whole time, and is one that is seldom broached. When it is, it is by mainly Gibson detractors who insist that Christianity is not Anti-Semitic, that in fact at most Christianity has been used as an excuse for Anti-Semitism, though this is based on a perversion of the Gospels, that Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance and forgiveness.
Unfortunately, only one thing in the above statement is true, and that is the fact that Christianity has been used as an excuse for Anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the rest of the argument falls apart when you carefully peruse the Gospels, which upon doing so you realize there is a reason Christianity provides this excuse.
And that reason is, sadly, that the New Testament of the Bible-most especialy the Gospels-are indeed virulently anti-Semitic.
Now some will most certainly point out what they consider the fallacy of this statement, by reminding me that the authors of Matthew, Mark, and John were Jews (Luke was evidently an early Greek convert and disciple of Paul), and that perhaps most importantly, Jesus was himself a Jew. How then can you arrive at the conclusion that the Gospels were anti-Semitic?
The issue of Jesus's parentage, or even if he ever truly existed, is up for debate, to begin with. As for the so-called apostles, there is a very definite answer to that statement, which, once it is realized, makes everything all too clear.
And that is, out of all of Jesus's original apostles (Paul, who was indeed a Jew, did not come along until after the crucifixion) eleven out of the twelve were not Jews. The one Jew, incidentally, was Judas Iscarriot.
Now, it is true the others were Jews by religion-but not by race. The people of Gallilee had previously been a pagan people who had been forcibly converted to Judeaism by the first of the Haesmonean Kings, Aristobulus I. This, by the way, was a mere one hundred years approximately before the given time frame of the crucifixion (around 27-28 AD).
The ancient Romans in time definitely came to undertand this very distinction that escapes us today, and in some cases we find references to the cult of Christianity as that of "the Gallileans".
What it all amounted to was a regional prejudice exhibited doubtless by both sides one against the other. In fact, there is every reason to believe that the cult of Christianity had been around for a good many years, even prior to the forced Jewish conversion, as one of the pagan cults adhered to by many of the formerly pagan Gallileans. In order to survive, it simply went underground for a time, then re-emerged with a suitably Jewish veneer. In this way, it might have been similar to the maner in which many transplanted African slaves to the Carribbean disguised their own partiular pagan gods as Catholic saints.
So if this much is true, why was this ancient cult transcribed and mythologized as a then fairly recent historical event? To answer that question, you have to understand Judaean history, of particular importance being the great rebellion of Judaea against Roman rule, which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the magnificent temple buildt not too many decades earlier by Herod The Great.
This event took place beginning about seventy AD, the final destruction being undertaken by Titus, the son of the Emperor Vespasian, who had suceeded Nero after a brief struggle in which in one year alone four different claimants, following Neros fall, claimed the Imperial throne.
It was the aftermath of this massive tragedy that resulted in the dispersal of the Jews from Jerusalem, and throughout various parts of the Empire. They were of course looked upon with suspicion and revulsion by the majority of the Empires citizens. And, to a point, they looked upon all of them as the same, whether or not they were Judaeans or Gallileans.
There is good reason to believe that there was a great deal of antagonism between the two groups. Most Gallileans of course considered themselves Jews, but they, like the Judaeans themselves, looked askance at the practices of the Gallilean Nazarite sect known as "The Way", and engaged in a good deal of what today would be considered racist propoganda.
They were in fact accussed of vile and abominable practices, such as sexual orgies, homosexuality, and even cannabalism. All of this in fact began prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and The Temple, before even the time of Nero. As far back as the reign of Tiberius, and later Claudius, who both conducted massive deportations of Jews from Rome on the grounds of their practices for "the god Christos".
Therefore, once the destruction of Jerusalem and The Temple had taken place, there was already a long history of rivalry, distrust, and even hatred between the two groups. After the disastrous rebellion, the Gallileans took it on themselves to put down in writing their own particular take on the reason for the disaster, and did so by placing the blame squarely on the Jews in a way they could begin to distance themselves from it.
"His blood be upon us and upon our children" the Jewish Hish Priest was suppossed to have said to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (by now conveniently long dead), who had symbolically washed his hands of any blame for the death of "this innocent man".
Even the vile and corrupt Herod Antipas had failed to find fault with him after questioning him, though Jesus had refused to answer any of his impertinent questions and challenges as to his mystical powers and reported miracles.
Even a lowly Roman centurion-a pagan-was able to recognize the obvious signs of divine displeasure as Christ lay dead on the cross, and the sun stood still and darkness engulfed the land.
"Surely", he said, "this was the Son Of God".
But the Jews as a group were unrepentent. The savior, the messiah, they had so long awaited, had come amongst them, and they had hated him, revilled him, and ultimately, demanded his murder, a demand which a supposedly reluctant Pilate felt obliged to grant.
But that is not all. The prophecies of the end times that is so often discussed, as pertaining to the Gospels, has nothing to do with some far future date, but seems to be revolved around the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred around 70 AD. More to the point, this is portrayed in the Gospels as being directly related to the Jewish rejection, condemnation, and murder of the Son of God, that same personnage who the Roman Pilate, and the Roman appointed tetrarch Herod, would have wished to avoid.
This was a typical Jewish device that was also adapted by the Gallilean sect. The art of Biblical prophecy seems to have revolved, in some cases, around looking back toward a similar time, which resulted in a specific set of circumstances, and predicting the same result to the present. At other instances, the so-caled prophecies were actually written down after the fact. More often not, many fulfilled prophecies were no more than claims. For example, Jesus entering Jerusalem on the back of a donkey was an example of an action that was purposeldy performed in order to fit a required prophecy.
Therefore, it would not be a stretch of the imagination for an adept religous leader, made familiar with history to a point uncommon to most common people of the day, to recognize the impending catastrophe the Judaean leaders were bringing on themselves and their people. In other words, someone might have legitimately pointed this out. On the other hand, if the Galilleans only claimed to have made this prophecy prior to the event, but in reality did so after the fact, who was there to disprove the claim?
The whole bizarre story of the origins of Christianity are shrouded in mystery, and it takes incisive viewing to even begin to pierce through the vale of centuries of deception. But once you begin to do so, a pattern emerges. And that pattern to a great extent reveals a complex web of prejudice on both sides, while at the same time the prejudice exhibited by one side will be seen to be excused on the grounds of the provocations of the other.
Because of this, there are many instances in the New Testament of bigotry and intolerance displayed by the Jews toward other ethnic groups-for example the Samaritans. And while these prejudices may have existed, there can be no doubt they existed on both sides pretty much equally.
And, the fact that Jesus urged tolerance, forgiveness, and love might seem to mitigate somewhat the anti-Jewish hatred of the Gallileans. Unfortunately, it also serves a further purpose-that of inflaming old resentents that much greater a degree.
Unfortunately, as we have seen far too often, it has come nowhere close to extinquishing it. Evidence of Mel Gibsons reputed Anti-Semitism, if true, is a perfect example of how old hatred and prejudices are hard pressed to fade away-even after twenty centuries. Or maybe it would be best to say, especially after that long. The ingrained nature of such feelings may amount ot a kind of societally enhanced psychic, subconscous brainwashing. It will be with us for some time to come.
Nations United In Inefficiency And Corruption
It's time for the United Nations to be disbanded. It should be more than obvious by now that it is faced with two problems, either of which might be insurmountble, but taken together amounts to almost assurred self-destruction.
The first problem is the bureaucratic inefficiency that afflicts all large organizations, compounded in this instance by international cultural barriers that make this bureaucracy an ingrained necessity, not merely an aspect of it's Byzantine size. It is a veritable labrynthe of contradictions.
The most obvious example of this is the fact that this is an organization that purports to promote peace, and even more laughably, freedom, and yet in which the majority of it's member nations are a collection of dictatorial regimes and terrorist enabling and/or enabled states.
In the meantime, the majority of it's truly democratic nations are represented within the agency by shills for giant multi-national corporations. It is these same influences, unfortunartely, that are the only truly relevant arbitrers within the UN able to reach across the vast divide of the various contradictory and conflicting goals and policies of the member nations. They have their own agendas, which have little to do with maintaining peace, justice, and most especially, liberty.
It is this which more than anything is the result of the massive and barely uncovered Oil-For-Food scandal, a perfect example of how what was purported to be an effort on behalf of a beleaquered national population-in this case that of Iraq's in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War-was hijacked by the corrupt forces that run the agency and turned into a vehicle for exploitation, graft, and international embezzlement which not only allowed the misery to continue unabated, but actually increased it measurably.
Corruption and inefficiency, of the kind that enables UN peacekeeping forces to participate in the rape of women and young girls in African areas they were sent into ostensily to protect, about which nothing has been done yet. Once word of the UN's atrocities got out, sure, there was the predictable hand-wringing and angst and promises of investigation and prosecution. I have yet to hear the name of any UN peacekeepers arrested and charged, assumming there was ever a serious investigation by this agency that at the same time seems obsessed to an incredible degree with every rumour or inuendo of American abuse in places such as Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, which were and are in most instances relatively minimal in comparison.
Bureacratic inefficiency and corruption. A far cry from what the organization was originally created for. The UN was from the very beginning riddled with problems that would be difficult to overcome, but at least in the beginning it provided some hope, a promise of providing a forum for international dialoque and peaceful arbitration of disputes. So where and when did it go wrong? When did it go sliding over the edge into the morass of from which I doubt it will ever extricate itself.
I think you can find the answer to this simply by looking at an overall history of the UN, and that of it's member nations within the organization. And you need go no further back than a mere thirty years. For it was during this time, sometime in the mid nineteen seventies, that the United Nations made a fateful decision. It was a decision on the side of tyranny and oppression, and against the side of democracy and liberty.
At the time it was considered actually a diplomatic coup, this success in bringing within the fold of this brotherhood of nations the behemoth People's Republic Of China, headed by the Stalinist regime of Zhoiu En Lai, Mao's successor, and which insisted that it would only agree to membership on one condition. This of course amounted to a demand for the ouster of the small, seemingly inconsequential island nation of Taiwan.
This nation had been formed from the remnants of the itself dictatorial regime from which the communists originally rebelled, who took control of the island and, under the protecting guidance of the US, adopted over the years democratic and economic reforms which in time made it one of the most progressive and advanced nations of Asia.
As such, though it was far from perfect, it provided a needed base in Asia, and was a solidly dependable US ally, and showed promise over the years of becomming a true bastion of freedom, democracy, and human rights. On this beleaquered island nation, ture Chinese culture was allowed to flourish, and trade with the west made it one of the most prosperous economies in the Asian world.
But China demanded, and received, assurrances of an official "One China" policy, a policy which included the island nation of Taiwan. Shamefully, the US agreed to this policy, which is recognized to this day.
There was a debate, of course, but it was a matter of mere form. The overall result was a matter of foregone conclusion. Within a short period of time, representatives of the Peoples "Republic" of China took their seats at the organization, while the Taiwanese were summarily dismissed in what had to have been seen, from the cultural vantage point of the Chinese population of the island, as the ultimate insult and humiliation.
It might have been seen as a necessity at the time. And true, the Chinese did make the concession not to invade the island, not to take it by force. But as any rape victim might tell you, a rape is a rape is a rape, whether it be accomplished by actual physical force, or by coercion. The Taiwanese have now for thirty years been undergoing a kind of coercion, to which the world community has respounded with a hearty "fuck you".
And since that time, the UN has only gotten more audacous in it's grasp and demands. It has proven inefficent at best and more often than not toally useless in resolving international disputes, to the extent that wholesale massacres are the norm, not the exception, in vast areas of Africa.
Insofar as the Middle East, look at their record. The infuence of the Arab and Muslim nations within the organization have insured the continuation of bloodshed, by demanding ceasefires in conflict after conflict which never seem to be of lasting duration, or if they are, have little or anything to do with any kind of UN involvement. The only exception to this, the 1991 Gulf War, was the result of pressure actually by neighboring Muslim nations of Saddam who wanted him put in check.
By the same token, look prior to this at the nearly decade long war in the eighties between Saddams Iraq and the Ayotollah's Iran. It would be too easy to criticize the effectiveness or lack thereof of the UN in this matter-first you have to find some evidence of their actual presence. Here, you need look no further than the infuence of the same international business interests I mentioned before, and their lackeys, including, it is sad to say, probably especially the US. Too much was riding on the outcome of this conflict that was of vital economic and strategic importance.
And so, for the United Nations, this became a matter of international war and diplomacy as spectator sport. Nor were the United Nations any more effective in dealing with the results of the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan. The list of failures goes on and on, while the only exception to be noted, besides the previously mentioned 1991 Gulf War, might be the Serbian Bosnian conflicts of the mid-nineties, and even this was mainly influenced by European determination to prevent hordes of Albanian Muslim refugees from flooding into their countries, by the potential millions.
The only other success, though this is way prior to the inclussion of the Chinese to membership, would be the Korean War, which was actually a mere stand-off which is on-going to this day, and which becomes more tentative with each passing year. And that would never have transpired had the Peoples Republic been a member nation. In fact, there can be no doubt that the dynasty of Kim Il Sung would have soon engulfed the entirety of the Korean peninsula, and this would more than likely be the situation this day.
So what it all comes down to is that the effectiveness of the United Nations is dependent on the whims, desires, and demands of the most influential and/or tenacous members. It is nothing to do with peaceful arbitration or international dialoque, and everything to do with the same graft, corruption, and international embezzlement schemes that made the Oil-For-Food scandal almost wholly synonymous with the term United Nations.
To sum up, if the powers that be at the UN have an agenda that is best served by peace and international compromise and cooperation, then something might get done. Otherwise, millions can die, and suffer, and all they will get is the same hearty "fuck you" the Taiwanese got thirty years ago.
And even in those rare instances where peace and compromise is achieved, the main beneficiaries are those who are the arbitrers of the disputes, and their international financiers and business interests that enable them Sadly, the duration of the value to them in terms of economic and political benefits is all too often exponential to the lasting duration of the peace achieved.
Little wonder then that the United Nations is revilled, hated, by more and more Americans, who look with suspicion at every proouncement from the mouth of Kofi Annan or any other figure of major importance within the organization. So when they make pronouncemnnents demanding an unconditional cease fire in the current Israeli/Hezbollah conflict that engulfs Lebannon, people naurally respond with, "there they go again", as they know all too well that such a cease fire without concrete moves to disarm the terrorist organization would doubtless result in, somewhere down the line, yet another round of hostilities, which would probably amount to even more disastrous results. As this seems to be the cycle. One conflict ends, and another eventually begins, which ends up greater than the one that preceeded it.
Nor are Americans kindly disposed towards UN insistences that the US and the rest of the world adopt international standards as to gun control and the death penalty. Whatever their reasonings, it has nothing to do with who is right or who is wrong. Simply put, it is simply none of their business.
And now, even more ominously, they are on the move on some kind of creepy drive to gain control of the Internet. According to them, this is merely to insure avialiablilty of internet access to everyone in the world, of all nations. It has nothing to do with any kind of desire to censor material and information.
Well, I don't believe them. Given their past record, why should I? And even on the off chance it were true, again given their past record, how can anyone be assurred that this would not in time fall under the same aura of coruption and inefficiency as almost eveything else they've ever touched.
Bueaucratic Ineffiency. Corruption.
I've always said, if I were to make a list of every thing or group or person in the world, and rank them in order from the most valuable, on down to the least valuable, and finally on down to those I most despise, the UN would fall somwhere under Al-Queda. That is really saying something, and in fact if I were to get some kind of information that the UN was due to be hit by Al-Queda or some other terrorist group, I would have to think long and hard before deciding whether or not to take that information to the proper authorities. I guess it would ultimately depend on the potential reward involved.
But on the other hand, I have to say that is a ridiculous thought. I would never be in a position to come into possession of such information to begin with, and if I were, I am sure such an event would never transpire. Why would Al-Queda attack the UN? That organization is one of the best friends terrorist organizations and their supporters have ever had. In fact they rank right up there with the San Francisco Bay area - well, Berkeley anyway.
At any rate, the UN should be disbanded, or at least entirely overhauled to where it is to all intnets and purposes an entirely new organization. Unfortunately, I know that neither one of these is likely to transpire in my lifetime, or if it does I'll probably be drooling and carrying on conversations with my shadow.
Still, I can't help but note that, in the course of typing this post, at various points in the course of editing, I had inadverdently typed the name of the organization as "The Untied Nations".
Now, I really like the sound of that. All nations of course have a degree of more or less bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption, this is unfortunatley natural. But all the United Nations manages to accomplish, at least up to this point, is to take all those tangled webs of bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption and mix them all up together into one big mass of a tangled mess.
I don't see it ever getting any better than that.
The first problem is the bureaucratic inefficiency that afflicts all large organizations, compounded in this instance by international cultural barriers that make this bureaucracy an ingrained necessity, not merely an aspect of it's Byzantine size. It is a veritable labrynthe of contradictions.
The most obvious example of this is the fact that this is an organization that purports to promote peace, and even more laughably, freedom, and yet in which the majority of it's member nations are a collection of dictatorial regimes and terrorist enabling and/or enabled states.
In the meantime, the majority of it's truly democratic nations are represented within the agency by shills for giant multi-national corporations. It is these same influences, unfortunartely, that are the only truly relevant arbitrers within the UN able to reach across the vast divide of the various contradictory and conflicting goals and policies of the member nations. They have their own agendas, which have little to do with maintaining peace, justice, and most especially, liberty.
It is this which more than anything is the result of the massive and barely uncovered Oil-For-Food scandal, a perfect example of how what was purported to be an effort on behalf of a beleaquered national population-in this case that of Iraq's in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War-was hijacked by the corrupt forces that run the agency and turned into a vehicle for exploitation, graft, and international embezzlement which not only allowed the misery to continue unabated, but actually increased it measurably.
Corruption and inefficiency, of the kind that enables UN peacekeeping forces to participate in the rape of women and young girls in African areas they were sent into ostensily to protect, about which nothing has been done yet. Once word of the UN's atrocities got out, sure, there was the predictable hand-wringing and angst and promises of investigation and prosecution. I have yet to hear the name of any UN peacekeepers arrested and charged, assumming there was ever a serious investigation by this agency that at the same time seems obsessed to an incredible degree with every rumour or inuendo of American abuse in places such as Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, which were and are in most instances relatively minimal in comparison.
Bureacratic inefficiency and corruption. A far cry from what the organization was originally created for. The UN was from the very beginning riddled with problems that would be difficult to overcome, but at least in the beginning it provided some hope, a promise of providing a forum for international dialoque and peaceful arbitration of disputes. So where and when did it go wrong? When did it go sliding over the edge into the morass of from which I doubt it will ever extricate itself.
I think you can find the answer to this simply by looking at an overall history of the UN, and that of it's member nations within the organization. And you need go no further back than a mere thirty years. For it was during this time, sometime in the mid nineteen seventies, that the United Nations made a fateful decision. It was a decision on the side of tyranny and oppression, and against the side of democracy and liberty.
At the time it was considered actually a diplomatic coup, this success in bringing within the fold of this brotherhood of nations the behemoth People's Republic Of China, headed by the Stalinist regime of Zhoiu En Lai, Mao's successor, and which insisted that it would only agree to membership on one condition. This of course amounted to a demand for the ouster of the small, seemingly inconsequential island nation of Taiwan.
This nation had been formed from the remnants of the itself dictatorial regime from which the communists originally rebelled, who took control of the island and, under the protecting guidance of the US, adopted over the years democratic and economic reforms which in time made it one of the most progressive and advanced nations of Asia.
As such, though it was far from perfect, it provided a needed base in Asia, and was a solidly dependable US ally, and showed promise over the years of becomming a true bastion of freedom, democracy, and human rights. On this beleaquered island nation, ture Chinese culture was allowed to flourish, and trade with the west made it one of the most prosperous economies in the Asian world.
But China demanded, and received, assurrances of an official "One China" policy, a policy which included the island nation of Taiwan. Shamefully, the US agreed to this policy, which is recognized to this day.
There was a debate, of course, but it was a matter of mere form. The overall result was a matter of foregone conclusion. Within a short period of time, representatives of the Peoples "Republic" of China took their seats at the organization, while the Taiwanese were summarily dismissed in what had to have been seen, from the cultural vantage point of the Chinese population of the island, as the ultimate insult and humiliation.
It might have been seen as a necessity at the time. And true, the Chinese did make the concession not to invade the island, not to take it by force. But as any rape victim might tell you, a rape is a rape is a rape, whether it be accomplished by actual physical force, or by coercion. The Taiwanese have now for thirty years been undergoing a kind of coercion, to which the world community has respounded with a hearty "fuck you".
And since that time, the UN has only gotten more audacous in it's grasp and demands. It has proven inefficent at best and more often than not toally useless in resolving international disputes, to the extent that wholesale massacres are the norm, not the exception, in vast areas of Africa.
Insofar as the Middle East, look at their record. The infuence of the Arab and Muslim nations within the organization have insured the continuation of bloodshed, by demanding ceasefires in conflict after conflict which never seem to be of lasting duration, or if they are, have little or anything to do with any kind of UN involvement. The only exception to this, the 1991 Gulf War, was the result of pressure actually by neighboring Muslim nations of Saddam who wanted him put in check.
By the same token, look prior to this at the nearly decade long war in the eighties between Saddams Iraq and the Ayotollah's Iran. It would be too easy to criticize the effectiveness or lack thereof of the UN in this matter-first you have to find some evidence of their actual presence. Here, you need look no further than the infuence of the same international business interests I mentioned before, and their lackeys, including, it is sad to say, probably especially the US. Too much was riding on the outcome of this conflict that was of vital economic and strategic importance.
And so, for the United Nations, this became a matter of international war and diplomacy as spectator sport. Nor were the United Nations any more effective in dealing with the results of the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan. The list of failures goes on and on, while the only exception to be noted, besides the previously mentioned 1991 Gulf War, might be the Serbian Bosnian conflicts of the mid-nineties, and even this was mainly influenced by European determination to prevent hordes of Albanian Muslim refugees from flooding into their countries, by the potential millions.
The only other success, though this is way prior to the inclussion of the Chinese to membership, would be the Korean War, which was actually a mere stand-off which is on-going to this day, and which becomes more tentative with each passing year. And that would never have transpired had the Peoples Republic been a member nation. In fact, there can be no doubt that the dynasty of Kim Il Sung would have soon engulfed the entirety of the Korean peninsula, and this would more than likely be the situation this day.
So what it all comes down to is that the effectiveness of the United Nations is dependent on the whims, desires, and demands of the most influential and/or tenacous members. It is nothing to do with peaceful arbitration or international dialoque, and everything to do with the same graft, corruption, and international embezzlement schemes that made the Oil-For-Food scandal almost wholly synonymous with the term United Nations.
To sum up, if the powers that be at the UN have an agenda that is best served by peace and international compromise and cooperation, then something might get done. Otherwise, millions can die, and suffer, and all they will get is the same hearty "fuck you" the Taiwanese got thirty years ago.
And even in those rare instances where peace and compromise is achieved, the main beneficiaries are those who are the arbitrers of the disputes, and their international financiers and business interests that enable them Sadly, the duration of the value to them in terms of economic and political benefits is all too often exponential to the lasting duration of the peace achieved.
Little wonder then that the United Nations is revilled, hated, by more and more Americans, who look with suspicion at every proouncement from the mouth of Kofi Annan or any other figure of major importance within the organization. So when they make pronouncemnnents demanding an unconditional cease fire in the current Israeli/Hezbollah conflict that engulfs Lebannon, people naurally respond with, "there they go again", as they know all too well that such a cease fire without concrete moves to disarm the terrorist organization would doubtless result in, somewhere down the line, yet another round of hostilities, which would probably amount to even more disastrous results. As this seems to be the cycle. One conflict ends, and another eventually begins, which ends up greater than the one that preceeded it.
Nor are Americans kindly disposed towards UN insistences that the US and the rest of the world adopt international standards as to gun control and the death penalty. Whatever their reasonings, it has nothing to do with who is right or who is wrong. Simply put, it is simply none of their business.
And now, even more ominously, they are on the move on some kind of creepy drive to gain control of the Internet. According to them, this is merely to insure avialiablilty of internet access to everyone in the world, of all nations. It has nothing to do with any kind of desire to censor material and information.
Well, I don't believe them. Given their past record, why should I? And even on the off chance it were true, again given their past record, how can anyone be assurred that this would not in time fall under the same aura of coruption and inefficiency as almost eveything else they've ever touched.
Bueaucratic Ineffiency. Corruption.
I've always said, if I were to make a list of every thing or group or person in the world, and rank them in order from the most valuable, on down to the least valuable, and finally on down to those I most despise, the UN would fall somwhere under Al-Queda. That is really saying something, and in fact if I were to get some kind of information that the UN was due to be hit by Al-Queda or some other terrorist group, I would have to think long and hard before deciding whether or not to take that information to the proper authorities. I guess it would ultimately depend on the potential reward involved.
But on the other hand, I have to say that is a ridiculous thought. I would never be in a position to come into possession of such information to begin with, and if I were, I am sure such an event would never transpire. Why would Al-Queda attack the UN? That organization is one of the best friends terrorist organizations and their supporters have ever had. In fact they rank right up there with the San Francisco Bay area - well, Berkeley anyway.
At any rate, the UN should be disbanded, or at least entirely overhauled to where it is to all intnets and purposes an entirely new organization. Unfortunately, I know that neither one of these is likely to transpire in my lifetime, or if it does I'll probably be drooling and carrying on conversations with my shadow.
Still, I can't help but note that, in the course of typing this post, at various points in the course of editing, I had inadverdently typed the name of the organization as "The Untied Nations".
Now, I really like the sound of that. All nations of course have a degree of more or less bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption, this is unfortunatley natural. But all the United Nations manages to accomplish, at least up to this point, is to take all those tangled webs of bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption and mix them all up together into one big mass of a tangled mess.
I don't see it ever getting any better than that.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Jackson Pollock
This site could be loads of fun. I won't say anything else, other than, once you get on it, experiment. So, nothing really to add to that, except to say you really should give it a shot, and give your creativity free reign.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Inside Andrea Yates
Andrea Yates was found Not Guilty by reason of insanity in the murder of her five (?) children-and this is one time this has happenned that I think it's an appropriate verdict. There have been times when insanity pleas are not. But I followed this case from it's inception, and in all the photos and films of Andrea that I saw, it was obvious not so much that there was no one home. The wiring had short-circuited. This happens when there is too much load on the circuits. It can blow, with dire and catastrophic results.
Andrea Yates was not so much a wife to her husband Russell Yates as she was a fuck machine, and a baby making machine, and a cooking machine, and a house cleaning machine, and a baby sitting machine, and a home school teaching machine.
A discerning person had but to look in her eyes, and you could tell that she was running on auto-pilot, and simultaneously, on fumes. She had long ago sublimated her true self to her unconscous drives. That was the only way she could cope.
Unfortunately, the subconscous mind, and the unconscous mind, are powerful things, and yet fragile; complex organisms, and yet simple. They think in amazingly simple ways. One of those ways is, if you are trapped in a situation from which there is no other way seemingly of extricating yourself-you quite simply and logically eliminate the problem. In this case, all five of them.
Russell Yates was a religous person, one of these with a very devout yet simplistic view of life and religion, and was well aware of his wifes problems. Or so he thought. Because of his religous beliefs he didn't allow her to take any medication to deal with her mounting post parnum depression. Instead, he believed the correct response was to fill her days with work, work, work. Responsibility. God would see her though it. He, however, had to go to work, as a NASA engineer. The children, their care, their education even, was solely Andrea's responsibility.
And so this obviously insane, it should have been apparrent, woman, with the ever more disintegrating and fragmented personality began to hear voices from the depth of her subconscous, which devised a simple yet foolproof plan to rid itself of this horrific problem which it was confronted with the task of solving.
The children must die for their own good. And so they were, by drowning in the bath tub, in what in retrospect seems eerily like some kind of bizzarre baptismal ritual.
Andrea Yates was eventually found guilty,and probably would have been sentenced to death had the case not garnered the attention of feminists nationwide. She was spared this fate. Eventually, the initial verdict was overturned.
Now, she might be out at some future date. Her husband, who soon after the trial divorced her, and then remarried, was happy at the latest outcome, and congratulated the jury for their ability to see beyond the obviously horrendous nature of the crime. Understandable, perhaps, that he could not do the same.
At any rate, Andrea Yates might one day be a free woman. She will be reviewed as to her progress periodically. Hopefully, she will not be released unless she is truly ready to be. But if that time ever comes, she should be.
She did not ask for the breakdown which ruined her life and destroyed the lives of her children. Her husband, who is every bit as responsible, more so actually, than she is, has gone on with his life. She should be given the same opportunity, provided that she is able to do so.
Andrea Yates was not so much a wife to her husband Russell Yates as she was a fuck machine, and a baby making machine, and a cooking machine, and a house cleaning machine, and a baby sitting machine, and a home school teaching machine.
A discerning person had but to look in her eyes, and you could tell that she was running on auto-pilot, and simultaneously, on fumes. She had long ago sublimated her true self to her unconscous drives. That was the only way she could cope.
Unfortunately, the subconscous mind, and the unconscous mind, are powerful things, and yet fragile; complex organisms, and yet simple. They think in amazingly simple ways. One of those ways is, if you are trapped in a situation from which there is no other way seemingly of extricating yourself-you quite simply and logically eliminate the problem. In this case, all five of them.
Russell Yates was a religous person, one of these with a very devout yet simplistic view of life and religion, and was well aware of his wifes problems. Or so he thought. Because of his religous beliefs he didn't allow her to take any medication to deal with her mounting post parnum depression. Instead, he believed the correct response was to fill her days with work, work, work. Responsibility. God would see her though it. He, however, had to go to work, as a NASA engineer. The children, their care, their education even, was solely Andrea's responsibility.
And so this obviously insane, it should have been apparrent, woman, with the ever more disintegrating and fragmented personality began to hear voices from the depth of her subconscous, which devised a simple yet foolproof plan to rid itself of this horrific problem which it was confronted with the task of solving.
The children must die for their own good. And so they were, by drowning in the bath tub, in what in retrospect seems eerily like some kind of bizzarre baptismal ritual.
Andrea Yates was eventually found guilty,and probably would have been sentenced to death had the case not garnered the attention of feminists nationwide. She was spared this fate. Eventually, the initial verdict was overturned.
Now, she might be out at some future date. Her husband, who soon after the trial divorced her, and then remarried, was happy at the latest outcome, and congratulated the jury for their ability to see beyond the obviously horrendous nature of the crime. Understandable, perhaps, that he could not do the same.
At any rate, Andrea Yates might one day be a free woman. She will be reviewed as to her progress periodically. Hopefully, she will not be released unless she is truly ready to be. But if that time ever comes, she should be.
She did not ask for the breakdown which ruined her life and destroyed the lives of her children. Her husband, who is every bit as responsible, more so actually, than she is, has gone on with his life. She should be given the same opportunity, provided that she is able to do so.
Islam And The Feminist Mystique
Nadine Chandrawinata was only the second entrant in the Miss Universe beauty pageant in close to a decade. Her presence in the pageant was not of long duration. Unfortunately, she did not escape notice. She has, in fact, received threats, and one group in particular, the women's chapter of the Islamic Defenders Front, have been demanding the Indonesian authorities arrest her, and prosecute her for indecency.
The offense seems to be that Miss Indonesia appearred in a bikini during the contest. According to the group, a law forbidding such practices is still on the books in Indonesia, actually a government decree issued in 1984 under the dictator Suharto, which actually bans Idonesians from taking part in beauty contests at all. Evidently, the decree remains in force by the merest technicality of not having yet been appealled.
Still, it has not been enforced since Suharto's fall from power. Sort of like some of those bizarre little laws that were never taken off the books in Kentucky.
For example, until recently, it was technically the law in the state of Kentucky that if you were driving on a curvy road, someone had to be with you, and walk ahead of you around the curve to ensure no traffic was on-coming, and to advise any that might be that you were there in order that both parties would know to proceed with all due caution.
This law was on the books until well into the ninteen eighties, and for all I know it might still be. No one is unduly concerned about it, though technically, they are breaking the law practically everytime they round a curve in the state.
Still, this is more than just a whimsical little oddity of state law. This is something that could be a substantial cause of grief, eventually, to Chandrawinata. So yes, this is far more than just an amusing little anachronism. It is, however, a throwback to an age of barbarism that all too many Muslims feel appropriate, even desirable.
Of course, it is no surprise to me, I have long been aware of Muslims barbaric and repressive practices toward their women folk. True, most of the women are okay with it. That should come as no surprise, either, given that the vast majority of them are brow-beaten from the age of youthful adolescence to acquiesce to this savage and oppressive treatment.
What I never could figure out was the reason so many Western feminists find it appropriate to take the side of Muslim brutality in any way, when they know of their history with their women. It is so ingrained in the Muslim culture, and anchored by religous dogma, it has become all but a part of their genetic make-up.
I mean, I get that western feminists are "liberals", I understand their oppossition to the War in Iraq, up to a point, and even can grudgingly accede they have a right to protest the overall "war on terror".
What I don't get is, the more time goes by, the more they seem to some degree to turn a blind eye toward an issue which should be of the urmost of importance to them, and that of course is the right of women everywhere, including the rights of women in Muslim countries to live in freedom, to live in dignity, to marry and divorce as they choose, to dress however they want to dress, to belong to any religion they choose-or none at all.
To be able to walk dow the street without a male relative and not be beaten, possibly severely, or killed, or have acid tossed in their faces.
To be able to work at any job in any place where they are qualified to do so, and to receive the education they might desire to earn those qualifications. And to receive fair pay for their work.
I could go on and on, but on the other hand, instead of drawing the usual distinctions between Islam and the feminist movement, it might be helpful to look at the one or two areas of agreement.
The dislike of the Bush Administration, of course, goes without saying. That the more far left of feminists would turn a blind eye to the plight of Muslim women does not surprise me in the least when you factor this in.
And then, of course, there is the Playboy factor. Extreme feminists have long been up in arms against the depiection of women in the popular culture. This is true not only in pornography, but in movies and television as well. They decry the whole of western culture where women have been turned into sex objects. In a sense they would argue that it is western women who have been browbeaten to accept this lot in their life.
But of course, in western societies, nobody is forcing a woman to accede to this. There are ample opportunities for women to make it in the workforce and as highy skilled and paid professionals, where physical beauty is not the requirement, but skill and knowledge, and maybe to a point overall manner and bearing. But not beauty.
It may not be perfect, but in western society, women do have choices. They do have options. They might have to make certain sacrifices, depending on what their goals in life are. But, we all do.
In Muslim socieities, those optons are not on the table. And there is no discussion. And may the gods help any woman that dares to wander out of the station in life that has been chosen for her, and imposed on her.
Of course, it is always the Islamic countries that are ruled by religous leaders where this hapens. It is not the case in secular countries. Yet, more and more, Muslim women from secular nations are finding themselves more and more under the gun, more and more receiving the same kinds of threats as this years Miss Indonesia.
To quote the Indonesian groups' lawyer, Sugito, Ms. Chandrawinata "intentionally and openly engaged in indecency".
So, I guess if this group of Muslim women have their way, Ms. Chandrawinata will be taught a lesson for daring to not be happy with being what the Qu'ran tells her she should be, and act like it teaches she should act.
I wonder what her punishment would be. Perhaps she would be beheaded, or merely shot in the public square. Or maybe she would be forced to live a life of deprivation and humiliation, married to a stern "good" Muslim who will be more of a brutal task master than a husband.
Or maybe as a punishment for her wickedness, her brazenness, she will have acid tossed in her face, and possibly her legs and breasts will be horribly carved up to where she would be a living horror to look at.
That way, these Muslim women can congratulate themselves over having punished a fellow Muslim woman who dared not be happy and content to be a good Muslim woman, like they are.
That's why I don't want them here. Not in any substantial numbers, if at all. They get more ridiculous, more arrogant, and more fanatical, with each passing year. And frankly, they don't belong here. We have enough problems with our own homegrown religous nuts, who incidentally also need to be put in their pews for good-but that's another story.
Possibly more to the point, it also happens to be one of the main reasons that you don't and never will read any objections from me about the suppossed brutal treatment of Muslims by the Israelis, or by the Americans.
It's not that I don't believe that excesses have never happenned, that mistakes have never been made, by the other side of these conflicts.
It's just that, with every day that passes by, I fucking care less and less.
The offense seems to be that Miss Indonesia appearred in a bikini during the contest. According to the group, a law forbidding such practices is still on the books in Indonesia, actually a government decree issued in 1984 under the dictator Suharto, which actually bans Idonesians from taking part in beauty contests at all. Evidently, the decree remains in force by the merest technicality of not having yet been appealled.
Still, it has not been enforced since Suharto's fall from power. Sort of like some of those bizarre little laws that were never taken off the books in Kentucky.
For example, until recently, it was technically the law in the state of Kentucky that if you were driving on a curvy road, someone had to be with you, and walk ahead of you around the curve to ensure no traffic was on-coming, and to advise any that might be that you were there in order that both parties would know to proceed with all due caution.
This law was on the books until well into the ninteen eighties, and for all I know it might still be. No one is unduly concerned about it, though technically, they are breaking the law practically everytime they round a curve in the state.
Still, this is more than just a whimsical little oddity of state law. This is something that could be a substantial cause of grief, eventually, to Chandrawinata. So yes, this is far more than just an amusing little anachronism. It is, however, a throwback to an age of barbarism that all too many Muslims feel appropriate, even desirable.
Of course, it is no surprise to me, I have long been aware of Muslims barbaric and repressive practices toward their women folk. True, most of the women are okay with it. That should come as no surprise, either, given that the vast majority of them are brow-beaten from the age of youthful adolescence to acquiesce to this savage and oppressive treatment.
What I never could figure out was the reason so many Western feminists find it appropriate to take the side of Muslim brutality in any way, when they know of their history with their women. It is so ingrained in the Muslim culture, and anchored by religous dogma, it has become all but a part of their genetic make-up.
I mean, I get that western feminists are "liberals", I understand their oppossition to the War in Iraq, up to a point, and even can grudgingly accede they have a right to protest the overall "war on terror".
What I don't get is, the more time goes by, the more they seem to some degree to turn a blind eye toward an issue which should be of the urmost of importance to them, and that of course is the right of women everywhere, including the rights of women in Muslim countries to live in freedom, to live in dignity, to marry and divorce as they choose, to dress however they want to dress, to belong to any religion they choose-or none at all.
To be able to walk dow the street without a male relative and not be beaten, possibly severely, or killed, or have acid tossed in their faces.
To be able to work at any job in any place where they are qualified to do so, and to receive the education they might desire to earn those qualifications. And to receive fair pay for their work.
I could go on and on, but on the other hand, instead of drawing the usual distinctions between Islam and the feminist movement, it might be helpful to look at the one or two areas of agreement.
The dislike of the Bush Administration, of course, goes without saying. That the more far left of feminists would turn a blind eye to the plight of Muslim women does not surprise me in the least when you factor this in.
And then, of course, there is the Playboy factor. Extreme feminists have long been up in arms against the depiection of women in the popular culture. This is true not only in pornography, but in movies and television as well. They decry the whole of western culture where women have been turned into sex objects. In a sense they would argue that it is western women who have been browbeaten to accept this lot in their life.
But of course, in western societies, nobody is forcing a woman to accede to this. There are ample opportunities for women to make it in the workforce and as highy skilled and paid professionals, where physical beauty is not the requirement, but skill and knowledge, and maybe to a point overall manner and bearing. But not beauty.
It may not be perfect, but in western society, women do have choices. They do have options. They might have to make certain sacrifices, depending on what their goals in life are. But, we all do.
In Muslim socieities, those optons are not on the table. And there is no discussion. And may the gods help any woman that dares to wander out of the station in life that has been chosen for her, and imposed on her.
Of course, it is always the Islamic countries that are ruled by religous leaders where this hapens. It is not the case in secular countries. Yet, more and more, Muslim women from secular nations are finding themselves more and more under the gun, more and more receiving the same kinds of threats as this years Miss Indonesia.
To quote the Indonesian groups' lawyer, Sugito, Ms. Chandrawinata "intentionally and openly engaged in indecency".
So, I guess if this group of Muslim women have their way, Ms. Chandrawinata will be taught a lesson for daring to not be happy with being what the Qu'ran tells her she should be, and act like it teaches she should act.
I wonder what her punishment would be. Perhaps she would be beheaded, or merely shot in the public square. Or maybe she would be forced to live a life of deprivation and humiliation, married to a stern "good" Muslim who will be more of a brutal task master than a husband.
Or maybe as a punishment for her wickedness, her brazenness, she will have acid tossed in her face, and possibly her legs and breasts will be horribly carved up to where she would be a living horror to look at.
That way, these Muslim women can congratulate themselves over having punished a fellow Muslim woman who dared not be happy and content to be a good Muslim woman, like they are.
That's why I don't want them here. Not in any substantial numbers, if at all. They get more ridiculous, more arrogant, and more fanatical, with each passing year. And frankly, they don't belong here. We have enough problems with our own homegrown religous nuts, who incidentally also need to be put in their pews for good-but that's another story.
Possibly more to the point, it also happens to be one of the main reasons that you don't and never will read any objections from me about the suppossed brutal treatment of Muslims by the Israelis, or by the Americans.
It's not that I don't believe that excesses have never happenned, that mistakes have never been made, by the other side of these conflicts.
It's just that, with every day that passes by, I fucking care less and less.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Dangers Of Swiffer Wetjet
Update: No sooner had a published the following post than I received word from Sock Puppet, who has the blog Meriels Medley (which is on the blogroll) that it is evidently a hoax. I had suspected as much, but by the same token as I am an animal lover I thought it incumbent upon me to shoot first and ask questions later.
According to Merriel, as you can read in the first comment to this post, this is a hoax that goes back to 2004 and was earlier exposed by the ASPCA.
Still, I am going to leave the post and all it's contents intact. For one thing, I feel that any post is a part of the history of this blog, so I am loathe to remove one.
Mainly, however, since this is still making the rounds, anyperson with an e-mail account with a major compnay like Yahoo might in time get this e-mail. Just on the off chance that might happen, I would advise you to familiarize yuourself with the contents of this post ahead of time.
The person who forwarded the post to me might have been as innocent a pawn in this scam as I was. Still, all e-mails you receive that is a forward and in sent to multiple addresses is automatically to be suspect, and like I said I di dsuspect, but the seriousness ofthe charges made me unsure as tohowto proceed. At any rate, forewarned is forearmed. Reading the following post might prevent you an unnecessary degree of stress and anxiety.
Now follows the original post:
I ordinarily don't do this kind of thing, but I am an animal lover, so I felt I would be remiss if I didn't do my part to make sure this information got out to as many people as possible.
I don't know how factual this is. However, just on the off chance there might be something to it, I feel it is imperative to any animal lover to ask themselves, do I really need to use this product? On top of that, it is not only dangerous to animals, but even to toddlers as well. Therefore, it makes sense to me that people should cease and desist use of this product until such time as the charges contained in this forward are answered, and disproven, or until the product is changed to where the danger is eliminated.
The problem seems to be the inclusion of an ingedient that is to all intents and purposes a kind of anti-freeze. I will say no more, and just paste the following letter that was forwarded to me earlier. Please read it and forward to as many people as possible.
At the end of each blogger post you will see what looks like a small envelope. Clicking on this link enables you to forward blogger posts to anybody you want. Please avail yourself of this feature in this case, if in no other.
The letter follows:
All right, then, it seems that either Blogger or Yahoo is acting up, and the forwarded letter can be copied, and appears on my draft when I paste it, but for some reason or another the text does not appear when I publish the blog. So I'll just tell the story my own self.
Acording to the story, someone had to have their five year old German Shepherd put down due to liver failure. As the dog had been completely healthy, they had a necropsy done and discovered the dog had ingested some kind of poison. The dog was always either inside or when outside had someone with him at all times, so they determined the dog must have ingested something inside.
A check of all household products followed. When the Swiffer Wetjet was checked, a warning in very small letters on the label was noticed, which said "may be harmful to small children and animals"
Come to find out one of the ingredients is anti-freeze. Actually, he was told by a representative of the company, over the phone, that the ingredient is just one molecule away from being anti-freeze.
Evidently, the dog had walked on the floor,after this product was used, and upon licking it's paws had ingested enough of the substance to harm it's liver. Shortly afterward, two of the persons cats died as well.
Necropsies weren't done on the cats, and so they can't sue the company, evidently due to the warning on the label. Now, as I said, I don't know how true this story is, but just on the off chance it's the truth, I felt obliged to share the story. If you use this product, read the label, and the ingredients, and make inquiries, including to the company.
This is also dangerous to toddlers, as they crawl on the floor and have a notorious habit of sticking things in their mouths.
Better safe than sorry.
End of original post
Yeah, as somebody once said, uhhh, fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice...uuuhhhhh......can't get fooled again.
According to Merriel, as you can read in the first comment to this post, this is a hoax that goes back to 2004 and was earlier exposed by the ASPCA.
Still, I am going to leave the post and all it's contents intact. For one thing, I feel that any post is a part of the history of this blog, so I am loathe to remove one.
Mainly, however, since this is still making the rounds, anyperson with an e-mail account with a major compnay like Yahoo might in time get this e-mail. Just on the off chance that might happen, I would advise you to familiarize yuourself with the contents of this post ahead of time.
The person who forwarded the post to me might have been as innocent a pawn in this scam as I was. Still, all e-mails you receive that is a forward and in sent to multiple addresses is automatically to be suspect, and like I said I di dsuspect, but the seriousness ofthe charges made me unsure as tohowto proceed. At any rate, forewarned is forearmed. Reading the following post might prevent you an unnecessary degree of stress and anxiety.
Now follows the original post:
I ordinarily don't do this kind of thing, but I am an animal lover, so I felt I would be remiss if I didn't do my part to make sure this information got out to as many people as possible.
I don't know how factual this is. However, just on the off chance there might be something to it, I feel it is imperative to any animal lover to ask themselves, do I really need to use this product? On top of that, it is not only dangerous to animals, but even to toddlers as well. Therefore, it makes sense to me that people should cease and desist use of this product until such time as the charges contained in this forward are answered, and disproven, or until the product is changed to where the danger is eliminated.
The problem seems to be the inclusion of an ingedient that is to all intents and purposes a kind of anti-freeze. I will say no more, and just paste the following letter that was forwarded to me earlier. Please read it and forward to as many people as possible.
At the end of each blogger post you will see what looks like a small envelope. Clicking on this link enables you to forward blogger posts to anybody you want. Please avail yourself of this feature in this case, if in no other.
The letter follows:
All right, then, it seems that either Blogger or Yahoo is acting up, and the forwarded letter can be copied, and appears on my draft when I paste it, but for some reason or another the text does not appear when I publish the blog. So I'll just tell the story my own self.
Acording to the story, someone had to have their five year old German Shepherd put down due to liver failure. As the dog had been completely healthy, they had a necropsy done and discovered the dog had ingested some kind of poison. The dog was always either inside or when outside had someone with him at all times, so they determined the dog must have ingested something inside.
A check of all household products followed. When the Swiffer Wetjet was checked, a warning in very small letters on the label was noticed, which said "may be harmful to small children and animals"
Come to find out one of the ingredients is anti-freeze. Actually, he was told by a representative of the company, over the phone, that the ingredient is just one molecule away from being anti-freeze.
Evidently, the dog had walked on the floor,after this product was used, and upon licking it's paws had ingested enough of the substance to harm it's liver. Shortly afterward, two of the persons cats died as well.
Necropsies weren't done on the cats, and so they can't sue the company, evidently due to the warning on the label. Now, as I said, I don't know how true this story is, but just on the off chance it's the truth, I felt obliged to share the story. If you use this product, read the label, and the ingredients, and make inquiries, including to the company.
This is also dangerous to toddlers, as they crawl on the floor and have a notorious habit of sticking things in their mouths.
Better safe than sorry.
End of original post
Yeah, as somebody once said, uhhh, fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice...uuuhhhhh......can't get fooled again.
Clinton Rushes to Liebermanns Rescue
Hoping to erase or somehow counteract the ridiculed images of George W. Bush giving Joe Liebermann what has been referred to as "The Kiss Of Death", Bill Clinton in an appearrance with Liebermann over the weekend concluded his appearance by giving the beleaquered Connecticutt Senator the Clinton seal of approval. After Clinton hugged Liebermann, the Senator smiled and almost seemed to laugh at the irony of the act.
Liebermann is in trouble. He has now fallen behind Ned Lamont, Connecticutt businessman and challenger for the 2006 Democratci primary. The latest polls have him listed at about 53% support against 47% for Liebermann.
True, that is close. But it is astounding, given that Joe Liebermann, former 2000 Vice-Presidential candidate, had started out over forty points ahead of Lamont, who has received grass roots support amongst hard core anti-war activists within the Democratic Party who are unsatisfied with Liebermanns record.
And so Bill Clinton, still very popular in Connecticutt, was called in to save Liebermann. However, the word is, he has made it clear to Liebermann that if Lamont wins the Democratic primary and Liebermann runs as an independent, he will support Lamont.
It is the greatest of possible ironies. One of the major reasons Al Gore chose Joe Liebermann to be his vice-presidential running mate in 2000 was due to concerns over the Democratic party image after the Clinton/Lewisnski fiasco, in which Joe Liebermann personally criticized Clintons behavior on the floor of the US Senate.
"It was not only wrong", Liebermann said, "it was immoral".
Reality bites. Somehow, amazingly, it escaped the managers, (if you want to dignify them as such), of the Gore campaign, that the longer Clinton was dragged through the mud by way of the press, the higher his poll numbers went up. Gore, for his part, refused to avail himself of Clintons services during the campaign, in which he was impugned throughout by George W. Bush in an amazing bit of guilt through association. When Bush talked about the Clinton Administration of which Gore was an integral part, you would have thought he was talking about the Imperial Court of Nero.
Partially as a result of this, Bush won the election, though even with all the myriad of problems that seemed to conspire against Gore in Florida especially, Gore still won a majority of the popular vote. Even with all Gore had going against him-for example, the ineptitude of his campaign-Bush only managed to win due to skullduggery in Florida.
But it should be obvious to all that Gore did as well as he did not because he disassociated himself from Bill Clinton, but becasue he had been associated with him from the start. Liebermann had been absolutely no help to the Gore campaign.
Still, Clinton obviously felt he was doing the right thing by campaigning for Liebermann. Liebermann is not only a Democrat-he is a liberal Democrat. His votes on traditional Democratic Party ideals are not to be questioned. He has supported the rights of women, minorities, gays, the environment, labor, and has been dependably pro-choice in his votes.
Most legitimate liberal groups tend to give him a libeal rating of more than 80 %.
That, however, is beside the point. The Democratic Party, as usual, is in dissaray, and Liebermann has been transormed into, suddenly, a symbolic battleground for control of the party's soul.
Just today, I received this in my e-mail, from a group known as "Democracy For America", a grass roots activist group headed by Jim Dean, who is himself the borther of DNC Chairman Howard Dean:
Jim Dean
Well, you're welcome, but I didn't do anything. This e-mail ended with the following advice:
Evidently, Mr. Dean and LaMonts other supporters are unaware that as a Connecticutt aeemblyman, Ned LaMonts' voting record is
seemingly as conservative as Liebermanns record as Senator is overall liberal.
He has even bragged about voting with the conservatives in his state 80% of the time. Yet, he is now being supported by the radical left wing of the Democratic Party against a candidate who, most of the time, has represented their issues and overall concerns more than, if the past is a guide, LaMont can ever realistically be counted on to do.
They just don't get it. Or maybe I don't.
Liebermann is in trouble. He has now fallen behind Ned Lamont, Connecticutt businessman and challenger for the 2006 Democratci primary. The latest polls have him listed at about 53% support against 47% for Liebermann.
True, that is close. But it is astounding, given that Joe Liebermann, former 2000 Vice-Presidential candidate, had started out over forty points ahead of Lamont, who has received grass roots support amongst hard core anti-war activists within the Democratic Party who are unsatisfied with Liebermanns record.
And so Bill Clinton, still very popular in Connecticutt, was called in to save Liebermann. However, the word is, he has made it clear to Liebermann that if Lamont wins the Democratic primary and Liebermann runs as an independent, he will support Lamont.
It is the greatest of possible ironies. One of the major reasons Al Gore chose Joe Liebermann to be his vice-presidential running mate in 2000 was due to concerns over the Democratic party image after the Clinton/Lewisnski fiasco, in which Joe Liebermann personally criticized Clintons behavior on the floor of the US Senate.
"It was not only wrong", Liebermann said, "it was immoral".
Reality bites. Somehow, amazingly, it escaped the managers, (if you want to dignify them as such), of the Gore campaign, that the longer Clinton was dragged through the mud by way of the press, the higher his poll numbers went up. Gore, for his part, refused to avail himself of Clintons services during the campaign, in which he was impugned throughout by George W. Bush in an amazing bit of guilt through association. When Bush talked about the Clinton Administration of which Gore was an integral part, you would have thought he was talking about the Imperial Court of Nero.
Partially as a result of this, Bush won the election, though even with all the myriad of problems that seemed to conspire against Gore in Florida especially, Gore still won a majority of the popular vote. Even with all Gore had going against him-for example, the ineptitude of his campaign-Bush only managed to win due to skullduggery in Florida.
But it should be obvious to all that Gore did as well as he did not because he disassociated himself from Bill Clinton, but becasue he had been associated with him from the start. Liebermann had been absolutely no help to the Gore campaign.
Still, Clinton obviously felt he was doing the right thing by campaigning for Liebermann. Liebermann is not only a Democrat-he is a liberal Democrat. His votes on traditional Democratic Party ideals are not to be questioned. He has supported the rights of women, minorities, gays, the environment, labor, and has been dependably pro-choice in his votes.
Most legitimate liberal groups tend to give him a libeal rating of more than 80 %.
That, however, is beside the point. The Democratic Party, as usual, is in dissaray, and Liebermann has been transormed into, suddenly, a symbolic battleground for control of the party's soul.
Just today, I received this in my e-mail, from a group known as "Democracy For America", a grass roots activist group headed by Jim Dean, who is himself the borther of DNC Chairman Howard Dean:
Three months ago, Joe Lieberman led Ned Lamont in the polls
by more than forty points. But you took a chance on Ned and
thousands of DFA members around the country pitched in to help
his insurgent campaign. The result? Two new polls show that Ned
Lamont has surged into a narrow lead over Lieberman.
Now we have the chance to put Ned Lamont over the top. Ned
has recorded an exclusive video for DFA members to give you an
update on the final 14 days. Click here to watch the video and
find out how you can get involved:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/nedlamont
The story of an insurgent, people-powered candidate moving to
the top of the polls against the Democratic establishment is not
new. My brother, Howard, was in a similar position three and a
half years ago in the 2004 presidential primary. I don't need to
remind you about what happened when the Beltway Democrats placed
a giant target on his back and took aim. Let's make sure that
history doesn't repeat itself with Ned Lamont.
We have a plan to fight back and win. Over the next few
weeks, we'll be working closely with DFA members in Connecticut
towards a Lamont victory on August 8. DFA members will be
pounding the pavement and knocking on doors in a massive effort
to get out the vote. Click here to watch Ned's video and find
out how you can get involved:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/nedlamont
It's going to be close -- now let's close the deal.
Thank you again for everything.
Sincerely,
Jim Dean
Well, you're welcome, but I didn't do anything. This e-mail ended with the following advice:
P.S. After you watch the video from Ned, don't forget to
sign-up for tonight's DFA Night School workshop about breaking
into the Mainstream Media:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/nightschool
Evidently, Mr. Dean and LaMonts other supporters are unaware that as a Connecticutt aeemblyman, Ned LaMonts' voting record is
seemingly as conservative as Liebermanns record as Senator is overall liberal.
He has even bragged about voting with the conservatives in his state 80% of the time. Yet, he is now being supported by the radical left wing of the Democratic Party against a candidate who, most of the time, has represented their issues and overall concerns more than, if the past is a guide, LaMont can ever realistically be counted on to do.
They just don't get it. Or maybe I don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)