In a day and age when Iran can grab British Royal Navy sailors out of the Persian gulf with impunity, Nancy Pelosi should be careful where she travels. Her visit to Syrian President Bashar Assad may not amount to a violation of The Logan Act, as I have read, nor might it constitute treason in any other way. On the other hand, she might well be guilty of some violation. I’m not an expert so I’ll reserve judgment one way or another.
I will say one thing though unequivocally. You don’t have to be an expert to see that this was an act of political grandstanding. I’m not really sure what she thought she was going to accomplish, but it looks like a make-believe overture to show her own personal constituents, as well as the overall Democratic voter base, that she, as the head of the Congressional Democrats, second-in-line to the Presidency in her role of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives, is demonstrating that the Democratic Party stands for diplomacy and the hopes and prospects for peace.
The symbolism is obvious. Bush will not talk to Assad. Pelosi will. The Republicans don’t know anything about peace, they are all about belligerence and warfare. The Democrats are all about negotiation and peace. The bumbling misstep when Pelosi informed Assad that the Israelis were wanting to make peace with the Syrians was easily rectified by Prime Minister Ohlmert, who immediately let it be known that any peace deal was dependent on certain conditions that Nancy, being Nancy, neglected to point out.
All of this bothers me, the missteps, the obvious political grandstanding to the Democrats leftist base, the potential violation of The Logan Act or other laws. What some people don’t seem to get by pointing out that some congressional Republicans accompanied Pelosi on this trip, and have indeed made other trips, is that those individuals are not in the position to formulate policy nor are seen as doing so.
Arguably, the office of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives is the second most powerful office in the country, more powerful technically and legally than Vice-President, whose true power is limited to casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate when necessary. Otherwise, none of his duties really constitute any kind of auhority. This may be different in Cheney’s case, true, but I am speaking in historical and legal terms. There have been times when the Speaker was more powerful than certain Presidents. John Tyler, for example. There have been times when there was a complete shutdown of government due to friction between the two offices. Bill Clinton’s Presidency, of course, as well as Andrew Johnsons, were paralyzed by a kind of political civil war waged by an ambitious Congress and/or House Speaker.
Pelosi seems to have wanted this type of power, and foresaw the same kind of political showdown that would get the Democratic base all fired up. When this ended up failing to materialize in the form of the war funding package, to which Pelosi inadvisably attached a troop deadline withdrawal which was slated for a month before the ’08 elections, Pelosi was left with no other option but to back down. Of course, the Democrats are not going to withhold funds from the troops.
Now this, a chance for Pelosi to redeem herself and stick it to the Republicans at the same time. And though Assad, it has been said, preferred to spend his time at a soccer game, he did agree to put aside some time for the strange little woman from San Francisco who appeared before him in the traditional Arab head covering as a sign of respect.
That is what I guess bothers me as much as anything. By appearing with this garment on her head, whether she sees it this way or not, Pelosi was in a very real and symbolic way projecting an image of submission to Assad. And Assad’s Syria, by and large, is arguably the major player in the constant Middle East friction regarding Israel and to the dismay of many observers is primarily responsible for a good deal of the Sunni insurgent violence in Iraq. It is by way of his borders that most of the non-Iraqi Sunni insurgents travel, after all.
Nor are they all Syrians. Many are Saudis, while a good many as well are Jordanians,in fact from all areas of the Middle East and other Muslim nations. Pelosi is not qualified to engage in diplomacy with him in any event, whether or not her trip constitutes any kind of breach or willful violation of US law. But for her to appear under these further conditions is incredible. A San Francisco woman, representing a constituency which is a bedrock of liberalism and feminism, to appear in an attitude of subjugation before the head of a country where the rights of women are held to be secondary at best, is at least surreal.
And it is not even as though Syria is the worse offender in this regard, in fact, a Syrian woman is probably by and large better off than a woman in, say, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or most other Arab or Muslim nations, due to the fact that Syria is after all ruled by a secular regime that does not abide by shariah law. There is a good argument to be made for engaging Assad diplomatically, actually for a variety of reasons, the secular nature of his regime being one of them. Personally, I think the main reason he is lax at his borders has as much to do with wanting these religious radicals out of his country as it does with wanting to cause a problem for the US and the present Iraqi government. If they get killed by us as a result, I doubt he is shedding any tears for them.
But Bush is doggedly determined that the entire Middle East will be democratized, feeling the overall result of this will be peace and economic progress in the region, and long term stability. I think he is wrong, I think it would result in nation after nation adopting a form of shariah law which will then be considered the final word on the matter.
After all, the people will have voted for it, right? That is what they will have said they wanted, correct? End of story. Democracy has spoken, why second guess it every four years or so?
Womens’ rights? Minority rights? Religious rights? Of course they all have rights? There is no need whatsoever in spelling that out in a national constitution. Their legitimate rights have already been spelled out, in the words of the Holy Qu’ran. How could the law of man possibly improve on that?
This is the true irony, the fact that governments like Assads, and yes, Saddams, were in some ways an actual improvement over what would otherwise be the case, and what will in the majority of cases be the reality if Bush and the Neo-Cons get their way in the Middle East.
That is not to say that a constitutional democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. Just that if it does, it is still a hell of a long way off. Three or four lifetimes, at the very least, and very likely longer than that. And yes, very possibly never. People point to the success ultimately in removing communism from the Soviet Union and it’s sphere of influence particularly in Eastern Europe, as proof that it is possible, but there is only minimal comparison between the two.
Communism is unnatural, so much so it could only be maintained through fear and force, even by imprisonment of it’s peoples within it’s borders, by uprooting entire populations in some cases. The difference between communism and Islam is profound in this regard. Islam is, or seems to be, perfectly suited to the nature of it’s adherents. It has had fourteen hundred years to take root in the psyche of the Arab people of the Middle East, and many hundreds of years as well in the cases of other peoples. And it wasn’t that hard to take hold in any event, as it itself was in many cases and in many ways an improvement over what those people had experienced previously.
With Islam, they were given a sense of unity, of cultural identity, of spiritual meaning, of assurance, stability, security. They got all of this without really having to give anything up, for the most part, with the exception of a few ancient idols that were quickly forgotten, and constant intermittent tribal feuds. With Islam, they went from being dessert varmints to an actual civilization to be reckoned with, and everyone was an integral part of that.
Then there is the Qu’ran itself, written in Arabic, one of the worlds great languages, which lends itself easily to poetry, which is what the Qu’ran is, a poetic rendition of what amounts to a mixture of Arab tribal laws and adaptations from various faiths, including Judaism and Christianity, with just enough remaining of the ancient Arabic pagan religion to provide a cultural anchor.
Converts to Islam are encouraged whenever possible to learn Arabic, to travel to the Middle East and study there, especially the language, and I suspect that it is because the Arabic language makes the Qu’ran more particularly compelling to the student who meditates and prayers and recites it on an on-going, regular basis.
You can make the case that it amounts to a form of brainwashing. In this regard it is certainly on a much higher level of efficiency than, say, “Das Capital”. Try reciting that five times a day while bowing towards Moscow. Then you’ll see why Assad and Saddam had to exercise such brutality in the manner in which they kept these people in line. Life is seldom pretty, but when the caliphate fell in the aftermath of World War I, after which came such things as western colonialism on it’s last legs, culminating in the British Mandate, the UN Charter, and finally, Soviet expansionism and the ever growing and constant need for oil, you can begin to understand the pattern that emerges.
All of this used to be pretty much understood, of course. There was never any idea that democracy versus socialism was a viable or winnable ideological contest in the context of the Middle East countries, that is why there were few differences of distinction between Western allies and those nations that fell under the Soviet axis.
The lesson should have been quickly learned when the Afghan mujahadeen fighters repulsed the Soviets with our aid and support. Those same mujahadden to a large extent went on to make up the Taliban. Not exactly a stellar example of freedom on the march, is it? Well, it depends on what your definition of freedom is, I guess. And that is just the problem the West can’t wrap it’s head around. Freedom, in the context of Middle Eastern Arab and Islamic culture, does not seem to equate to democracy and civil rights.
But again, both sides have it wrong. To the Right, the speak softly and when necessary whack ‘em with a big stick approach will work over time, and when the people see the long term benefits of a free market economy, they will gradually change. Yeah, like China. Like Russia. I guess when you stop to think about it, ancient Babylon, the wealthiest nation by far at it’s apex of power, must have been a “free market economy.” But let’s not dwell on that, why disturb the fantasy?
The make nice approach of the left isn’t any better, though in the long term it may also not be any worse when it comes to encouraging democracy and civil rights. Their approach seems to hinge on the threat of imposition of economic sanction, or the promise of removal of same, under the auspices of the UN. In the meantime, a firm diplomatic stance involving aid and international low interest loans and grants will serve best to ease the restrictions on those same peoples rights to vote for or against the imposition of shariah Islam.
The people will vote in their own best interests, and will more likely do so the more they are exposed to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and civil rights. After all, they certainly want to be a part of the world community, no one wants to remain isolated for the sake of some ancient religion, right?
Okay, here’s the problem with both approaches. They are arrived at from the narrow perspective of Western concepts of justice and idealism, and history. Both of these conclusions have been reached from a Western mind-set with little if any regard for the fact that we are dealing here with a society and culture that, to all intents and purposes, has so little in common with our own way of life and philosophy, they might as well be from the far side of Andromeda galaxy.
Arrogance, is what it amounts to, and on such a remarkable level it is beyond description. And the sad thing is, it is in the long run only going to result in more tragedy, more ruined lives, more wasted resources, and ever more bitterness and hatred. To an extent it might have been unavoidable in any event. But that reality should have been faced squarely.
It’s like telling a fat, profoundly ugly woman that she is the prettiest woman you have ever seen in your life. You might think you are sparring her feelings and might make her feel better about herself. Well, if she has any kind of sense of reality, all you are really going to do is piss her off and make her hate and resent you more than she already might. So the only sensible alternative is to see her for what she is, help her improve her situation to the extent she wants to and can improve, and help her in the meantime to focus on developing her potential by way of what strengths and talents she might actually possess. But you have to do so in a kindly but firmly diplomatic way. Otherwise, you just let her go on and live her life as is. There is only so much, after all, you can do.
All the bombs and military force in the world is not going to change reality. Neither is appearing as a woman in a diplomatically miscalculated pose of subjugation. The only thing that is going to do it, is strength, the kind of strength that realizes the simple fact that all nations, all people, all cultures, are in fact different to a degree, sometimes to the point that there is nothing in a relationship between the two that is redeemable, or workable. Sometimes, unfortunately, you just have to go your separate ways, and live your own lives.
Unfortunately, that requires the setting of firm boundaries, and the promise of the assurance of firm reaction when those boundaries are breached. And that is something that neither culture can tolerate. What puts the West for now at the most severe disadvantage is that here, while neither the left nor the right can stomach it, they are both so divided as to how to deal with it , that neither side can come to grips with any semblance of the reality.
The Islamists are all too aware of this, and play it for all it is worth. And they are by no means divided, at least not when it comes to that.
Showing posts with label political hacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political hacks. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Wet Dreams And Democrats
The current war funding bill, what little I know of it, is generally a good bill. Sure, there is some pork in it, as with all bills. But when you scrutinize it, even the pork isn’t all that bad, for the most part. A good deal of it is involving relief for farmers that have suffered through recent droughts, flooding, temperature extremes, etc. It’s easy to criticize such measures as that. Pay ten dollars for a grapefruit and you will see them in an entirely different perspective, however.
No, the problem with the bill isn’t the porks-it’s the dorks. The kind of dorks that just had to insist on a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq that oh my, what the fuck do you know, just happened to have been slated for the October before the next elections in 2008. My, what an amazing coincidence.
Of course, the bill will be vetoed, then we’ll see what happens. We’ll see what happens for example to the money allotted by the Democrats for veterans health care, and for making sure the troops receive the appropriate training before they are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, like I said, it’s a good bill, were it not for that one provision. Take that one provision out, and it could well be one of the best bills ever considered, and certainly one of the best ones ever passed by Congress. But what good is it? You can go out on a date with the most beautiful woman the world has ever seen, she can fall madly in love with you and be willing to do anything you want. She can be charming, witty, and intelligent. She can make every man's head turn and every woman green with envy with just a glance. Despite all this you can rest assured she is all yours. But if you take her to your bedroom and lustfully undress her only to see maggots crawling out of her pussy, what good is it?
Well, in the case of this bill it's not quite that bad, but only because it is not too late. When Bush vetoes it as we all know he will, this provision can be excised, which it should be. Then, the Democrats can pass this bill otherwise intact. Bush wouldn’t dare then veto it on the grounds of pork, if he does, I will agree he’s as fucking stupid as a lot of people say he is. But he’s not that stupid, so he wouldn’t.
By excising this provision,the Democrats will have salvaged their chances of winning the ’08 elections, which if they win, then they can devote their agenda to ending the war on their terms, with control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress, it would be an almost sure bet the war would be ended by the next mid-terms.
Otherwise, if this provision is kept, the Democrats might be sabotaging their chances of winning, at the very least it will be a huge negative against them, and the Republicans will probably win for this as well as other reasons. Then, the war will more than likely go on longer, which may or may not be as big a catastrophe as a premature withdrawal. Still, it will go on longer than it will if the Democrats win. But with this provision in an otherwise excellent bill, they have pretty much screwed themselves.
I have never fucked a woman with maggots crawling out of her pussy, and it’s just as unlikely that Bush will ever pass this bill with this provision intact. As for the Democrats, I hope they are experiencing one hell of an orgasm right now, because they sure are fucking themselves.
No, the problem with the bill isn’t the porks-it’s the dorks. The kind of dorks that just had to insist on a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq that oh my, what the fuck do you know, just happened to have been slated for the October before the next elections in 2008. My, what an amazing coincidence.
Of course, the bill will be vetoed, then we’ll see what happens. We’ll see what happens for example to the money allotted by the Democrats for veterans health care, and for making sure the troops receive the appropriate training before they are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, like I said, it’s a good bill, were it not for that one provision. Take that one provision out, and it could well be one of the best bills ever considered, and certainly one of the best ones ever passed by Congress. But what good is it? You can go out on a date with the most beautiful woman the world has ever seen, she can fall madly in love with you and be willing to do anything you want. She can be charming, witty, and intelligent. She can make every man's head turn and every woman green with envy with just a glance. Despite all this you can rest assured she is all yours. But if you take her to your bedroom and lustfully undress her only to see maggots crawling out of her pussy, what good is it?
Well, in the case of this bill it's not quite that bad, but only because it is not too late. When Bush vetoes it as we all know he will, this provision can be excised, which it should be. Then, the Democrats can pass this bill otherwise intact. Bush wouldn’t dare then veto it on the grounds of pork, if he does, I will agree he’s as fucking stupid as a lot of people say he is. But he’s not that stupid, so he wouldn’t.
By excising this provision,the Democrats will have salvaged their chances of winning the ’08 elections, which if they win, then they can devote their agenda to ending the war on their terms, with control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress, it would be an almost sure bet the war would be ended by the next mid-terms.
Otherwise, if this provision is kept, the Democrats might be sabotaging their chances of winning, at the very least it will be a huge negative against them, and the Republicans will probably win for this as well as other reasons. Then, the war will more than likely go on longer, which may or may not be as big a catastrophe as a premature withdrawal. Still, it will go on longer than it will if the Democrats win. But with this provision in an otherwise excellent bill, they have pretty much screwed themselves.
I have never fucked a woman with maggots crawling out of her pussy, and it’s just as unlikely that Bush will ever pass this bill with this provision intact. As for the Democrats, I hope they are experiencing one hell of an orgasm right now, because they sure are fucking themselves.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Politics Of Silence
Barak Obama recently responded to a question about the North Carolina, Duke University, LaCrosse team rape case charges by asserting that Mike Nifong, the prosecutor of the case, should be investigated for a variety of alleged offenses, notably the purposeful withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence in the case. Obama said this in response to a question from the forums of Liestoppers, who have a blog which I have now placed on the blogroll. You can access the forums from the blog.
My question is, where the hell is John Edwards in this? He of all presidential candidates, democrat or republican, should be especially interested in the case developments as, after all, he is from North Carolina. I linked to his web-site and to his issues page here, which is amusingly short-half a screen of blank page.
Well, John, you could easily add to the volume of this page by simply stating that you are for equal justice and rights to legal representation for all Americans, black or white, rich or poor. Wouldn’t that fit in with your usual campaign schpiel about “Two Americas”?
You wouldn’t even have to specifically mention the Duke LaCrosse case. But, really, why wouldn’t you? You made your reputation and considerable wealth as a trial attorney in North Carolina, you grew up there, and you represented the interests of North Carolina-allegedly-in one term as a US Senator. When you ran for Vice-President on the Kerry-Edwards Democratic ticket in 2004, it was as a native son of North Carolina.
How hard can it be to say that Nifong should be investigated and if the charges of prosecutorial misconduct aimed at him turn out to be true, he should be disbarred and face criminal prosecution his own self? Was it perhaps because he was a supporter of yours in the past?
Cool. I want to rob my neighborhood bank. If I promise to donate ten percent of the proceeds to your campaign can I count on your friendship and support? Naw, I didn’t think so. So why don’t you just do the obviously sensible thing and lay your cards on the table? How hard can it be to just do the right thing?
In fact, why don’t any of the Democrats besides Obama speak up? Are they so afraid of losing the monolithic black vote in North Carolina that they are willing to shut up in the face of an obvious attempted miscarriage of justice in the form of an illicit prosecution of a group of innocent men on false charges of rape? After all, isn’t it obvious that Nifong got himself into trouble, when this charge was first made during the course of an election season, by pandering to his black base in Durham? Isn’t it equally obvious that the NAACP and other black activist groups, leaders, and supporters unfairly demanded this persecution of the white students for political reasons? Why pander to the likes of people like that?
Please explain to me, how does this make the Democrats any better than certain corrupt Republicans that always look out for the interests of their crooked (in some cases) rich friends and big business interests, regardless of the potentially harmful consequences and the innate unfairness of it all? No difference that I can tell.
Again, I have to stress that Obama does deserve some credit for his publicly stated stance in this matter. On the other hand, he is a black politician, and it must be considered that, in the bizzarro parallel universe of Democratic party politics, he being a black man is allowed to criticize blacks when they demand en masse the persecution of whites despite the lack of evidence. White politicians are not allowed to do so, in fact, they should either take the oppossite position, or shut the fuck up.
There are many reasons why Democrats on the national level rarely win elections in the South. Some of those reasons are good reasons, some are bad reasons. This would be an example of one of the good reasons. It should be John Edwards as a native North Carolinian who should lead the way here. It’s one thing to exhibit personal fortitude in the face of breast cancer, or political acumen in the removal of bloggers with a decidedly anti-Catholic bias. But those are the kinds of acts of courage that can hardly be considered controversial, they could even arguably be considered self-serving. A true act of courage is one that could conceivably cost support, such as a stand in this matter. But Edwards, like most Democrats, have pandered to their base for so long, perhaps a reversal from normal procedure in a controversy such as this is just too much to hope for.
Hat tip here goes to Sonia Belle, who doesn’t wear a hat, or anything else, with which to tip back. Her original post can be accessed by clicking the link which is in this post's title.
My question is, where the hell is John Edwards in this? He of all presidential candidates, democrat or republican, should be especially interested in the case developments as, after all, he is from North Carolina. I linked to his web-site and to his issues page here, which is amusingly short-half a screen of blank page.
Well, John, you could easily add to the volume of this page by simply stating that you are for equal justice and rights to legal representation for all Americans, black or white, rich or poor. Wouldn’t that fit in with your usual campaign schpiel about “Two Americas”?
You wouldn’t even have to specifically mention the Duke LaCrosse case. But, really, why wouldn’t you? You made your reputation and considerable wealth as a trial attorney in North Carolina, you grew up there, and you represented the interests of North Carolina-allegedly-in one term as a US Senator. When you ran for Vice-President on the Kerry-Edwards Democratic ticket in 2004, it was as a native son of North Carolina.
How hard can it be to say that Nifong should be investigated and if the charges of prosecutorial misconduct aimed at him turn out to be true, he should be disbarred and face criminal prosecution his own self? Was it perhaps because he was a supporter of yours in the past?
Cool. I want to rob my neighborhood bank. If I promise to donate ten percent of the proceeds to your campaign can I count on your friendship and support? Naw, I didn’t think so. So why don’t you just do the obviously sensible thing and lay your cards on the table? How hard can it be to just do the right thing?
In fact, why don’t any of the Democrats besides Obama speak up? Are they so afraid of losing the monolithic black vote in North Carolina that they are willing to shut up in the face of an obvious attempted miscarriage of justice in the form of an illicit prosecution of a group of innocent men on false charges of rape? After all, isn’t it obvious that Nifong got himself into trouble, when this charge was first made during the course of an election season, by pandering to his black base in Durham? Isn’t it equally obvious that the NAACP and other black activist groups, leaders, and supporters unfairly demanded this persecution of the white students for political reasons? Why pander to the likes of people like that?
Please explain to me, how does this make the Democrats any better than certain corrupt Republicans that always look out for the interests of their crooked (in some cases) rich friends and big business interests, regardless of the potentially harmful consequences and the innate unfairness of it all? No difference that I can tell.
Again, I have to stress that Obama does deserve some credit for his publicly stated stance in this matter. On the other hand, he is a black politician, and it must be considered that, in the bizzarro parallel universe of Democratic party politics, he being a black man is allowed to criticize blacks when they demand en masse the persecution of whites despite the lack of evidence. White politicians are not allowed to do so, in fact, they should either take the oppossite position, or shut the fuck up.
There are many reasons why Democrats on the national level rarely win elections in the South. Some of those reasons are good reasons, some are bad reasons. This would be an example of one of the good reasons. It should be John Edwards as a native North Carolinian who should lead the way here. It’s one thing to exhibit personal fortitude in the face of breast cancer, or political acumen in the removal of bloggers with a decidedly anti-Catholic bias. But those are the kinds of acts of courage that can hardly be considered controversial, they could even arguably be considered self-serving. A true act of courage is one that could conceivably cost support, such as a stand in this matter. But Edwards, like most Democrats, have pandered to their base for so long, perhaps a reversal from normal procedure in a controversy such as this is just too much to hope for.
Hat tip here goes to Sonia Belle, who doesn’t wear a hat, or anything else, with which to tip back. Her original post can be accessed by clicking the link which is in this post's title.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Begging Your Pardon, Mr. President
The pardon the agents petition that is the subject of this post can be accessed by clicking on the post title, which contains the link to the site which is promoting the petition, which can be likewise accessed by a link at the upper right hand of that page. Also, a hat tip to Lemuel Calhoun of Hillbilly White Trash, who kindly posted the link on his blog at my request, as well as this one here which also goes into some detail as to the chain of events which lead to this controversy.
If you want a job where you are treated with respect, it seems the last thing you might want to consider is the life of a government employee, in at least some cases. And the lower you go down the totem pole, the worse off you are. You get about as much respect in some cases if you’re a burger flipper or 7/11 clerk. Of course, to see the idiot smiles on the faces of actors portraying clerks in tv commercials, you would think they live the life of reilly. Yeah, what do you want your daughter to bring home from Pizza Hut? A supreme with extra cheese and breadsticks, maybe, but certainly not the clerk, if she does that you’ll probably send her back.
Now, you might think you’d be proud if your daughter brought home a government employee, but you might want to rethink that a bit.
Military enlistees are, technically speaking, “government employees”, and they get little respect. Oh, sure, we all “support the troops”, some would even go so far as to say they “love” them, but where does the lip service end and the reality begin? You can leave all that love and respect right outside the door of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center, thank you very much, it might damage the decorative mold.
Or, if your daughter brings home a US Attorney, you might consider wondering just what you did wrong. Can’t your daughter find a decent tort attorney with a real job?
But it seems these days like if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, you might come out with an INS border security guard. Talk about getting no respect. Here are these two guys that went out of their way to apprehend an illegal Mexican alien who was smuggling some 74 pounds or so of marijuana across the border, whom the two guards thought was armed, and when he tried to escape they shot him in the ass.
They were then tried and convicted of numerous trumped up charges, including civil rights violations.
Now, after this trial, at which three of the jurors involved later claimed they were coerced into delivering a guilty verdict, (the prosecutor, incidentally, is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct due to his part in the trial) they have been sentenced to twelve and thirteen years in prison, where one of them was recently brutally beaten by Mexican inmates who demanded “death to the border guards.”
They were convicted in part due to the testimony of the illegal alien drug smuggler, who was granted immunity in return for his testimony. But why the hell were they even charged and tried to begin with? According to some reports, this was done at the instigation of the Mexican government itself. Now, I don’t know if that is true or not, though I certainly believe they at least encouraged it, along with the other usual suspects, the pro open borders and amnesty crowds and open immigration factions among the liberal left and the various other immigrant advocacy groups.
In the meantime, these men have gotten little in the way of support from among the conservative forces that would ordinarily be up in arms about these kinds of shenanigans. Of course, as usual, both parties for the most part care more about kowtowing to the far left (in the case of Democrats), or to the business oriented open borders, free trade neo-cons (in the case of Republicans), while both are trolling for as many Hispanic votes as they can muster. It’s fucking shameful. Out of all the members of Congress, only twelve-all Republicans-have gone on record as actively opposing this shameful sham of a trial and demanding that the border agents be granted a presidential pardon.
It is not looking good, however. Although he could definitely grant the men a pardon at a drop of a sombrero, Bush seems to be hiding behind the excuse that pardons are typically granted only after time has been served. Of course, there are numerous instances where this was not the case. Clinton’s pardon of billionaire tax cheat and fugitive from justice Mark Rich comes to mind. Granted, these two men don’t have wealthy wives who can contribute hefty sums of money to a presidential library. Nor are they former high ranking cabinet officials, as in the case of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, pardoned for his role in Iran-Contra by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Nor are they former Presidents, such as Richard M. Nixon, pardoned by Gerald Ford before he was ever even tried.
They are however men who were merely doing their jobs, maybe not perfectly, but still putting their lives on the line for little in the way of appreciation, renumeration, and respect. Now, they may be compelled to spend the best remaining years of their lives in a federal prison.
If you feel the way I do about this shit, you can click on this link, which will take you to a page where you can donate money to keep the cause alive or, at least as good and maybe even better, in the upper right hand corner of the page you will see a link to a page where you can sign a petition to President Bush encouraging him to grant these men the pardon I honestly feel they should receive as quickly as possible.
I also personally feel they should be granted a public apology, and back pay, in addition to a hefty amount of money for their pain and sufferring. In addition, they should receive an extra amount for whatever harassment they received while in prison, and the warden should be fired for not insuring their safety.
Yes, prison is rough, but all prisoners who are deemed to be potential targets are typically afforded some degree of protective custody, and this would obviously have been the appropriate precaution in the case of these two men.
You see, these two men are both Hispanics, and so in addition to the “crime” of being border agents, to the Hispanic street trash thugs who threatened them and attacked one on at least this one occasion, they are also doubtless viewed as “race traitors”.
Still, for the time being, let’s concentrate on getting them freed. Copy and paste the link and send it to as many people as you can think of to sign and forward to the President.
Like I told Lemuel Calhoun, of Hillbilly White Trash, who was kind enough to post these links on his blog at my request, if Bush would actually do the right thing in this regard, it might go a long way toward demonstrating evidence of this stiffened spine and backbone he allegedly has that we are always hearing so much about.
And I might add one other thing. I know that some that might peruse these links might have a knee jerk reaction to one of these sites, WorldNet Daily, but please try to think outside the box. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, or even on most things. I know I don’t. But when you're right, you’re right. If you agree with me that this is one of the times when they are right, not wrong-and there is little if any gray area here, in my opinion-then get over your initial objections to the site and support this petition drive.
And do more than that. Forward these links to your House Representatives and Senators. I think it’s a disgrace that no Democratic Congressmen or Senators have supported these two men. But that should be considered more a reflection of the Democratic leadership than on the individuals. After all, committee assignments might be in danger if they were to engage in an activity that goes beyond the accepted parameters of the House and Senate leadership as it currently stands. To say nothing of endangering funding of congressional projects and support for sponsored bills. Still, you would think at least one would have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up for what’s right. In all fairness, as I said, only twelve Republicans have done so, as of the writing of the petition.
The drug smuggler in question, by the way, has sued the US government for five million dollars. Like they say-only in America.
If you want a job where you are treated with respect, it seems the last thing you might want to consider is the life of a government employee, in at least some cases. And the lower you go down the totem pole, the worse off you are. You get about as much respect in some cases if you’re a burger flipper or 7/11 clerk. Of course, to see the idiot smiles on the faces of actors portraying clerks in tv commercials, you would think they live the life of reilly. Yeah, what do you want your daughter to bring home from Pizza Hut? A supreme with extra cheese and breadsticks, maybe, but certainly not the clerk, if she does that you’ll probably send her back.
Now, you might think you’d be proud if your daughter brought home a government employee, but you might want to rethink that a bit.
Military enlistees are, technically speaking, “government employees”, and they get little respect. Oh, sure, we all “support the troops”, some would even go so far as to say they “love” them, but where does the lip service end and the reality begin? You can leave all that love and respect right outside the door of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center, thank you very much, it might damage the decorative mold.
Or, if your daughter brings home a US Attorney, you might consider wondering just what you did wrong. Can’t your daughter find a decent tort attorney with a real job?
But it seems these days like if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, you might come out with an INS border security guard. Talk about getting no respect. Here are these two guys that went out of their way to apprehend an illegal Mexican alien who was smuggling some 74 pounds or so of marijuana across the border, whom the two guards thought was armed, and when he tried to escape they shot him in the ass.
They were then tried and convicted of numerous trumped up charges, including civil rights violations.
Now, after this trial, at which three of the jurors involved later claimed they were coerced into delivering a guilty verdict, (the prosecutor, incidentally, is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct due to his part in the trial) they have been sentenced to twelve and thirteen years in prison, where one of them was recently brutally beaten by Mexican inmates who demanded “death to the border guards.”
They were convicted in part due to the testimony of the illegal alien drug smuggler, who was granted immunity in return for his testimony. But why the hell were they even charged and tried to begin with? According to some reports, this was done at the instigation of the Mexican government itself. Now, I don’t know if that is true or not, though I certainly believe they at least encouraged it, along with the other usual suspects, the pro open borders and amnesty crowds and open immigration factions among the liberal left and the various other immigrant advocacy groups.
In the meantime, these men have gotten little in the way of support from among the conservative forces that would ordinarily be up in arms about these kinds of shenanigans. Of course, as usual, both parties for the most part care more about kowtowing to the far left (in the case of Democrats), or to the business oriented open borders, free trade neo-cons (in the case of Republicans), while both are trolling for as many Hispanic votes as they can muster. It’s fucking shameful. Out of all the members of Congress, only twelve-all Republicans-have gone on record as actively opposing this shameful sham of a trial and demanding that the border agents be granted a presidential pardon.
It is not looking good, however. Although he could definitely grant the men a pardon at a drop of a sombrero, Bush seems to be hiding behind the excuse that pardons are typically granted only after time has been served. Of course, there are numerous instances where this was not the case. Clinton’s pardon of billionaire tax cheat and fugitive from justice Mark Rich comes to mind. Granted, these two men don’t have wealthy wives who can contribute hefty sums of money to a presidential library. Nor are they former high ranking cabinet officials, as in the case of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, pardoned for his role in Iran-Contra by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Nor are they former Presidents, such as Richard M. Nixon, pardoned by Gerald Ford before he was ever even tried.
They are however men who were merely doing their jobs, maybe not perfectly, but still putting their lives on the line for little in the way of appreciation, renumeration, and respect. Now, they may be compelled to spend the best remaining years of their lives in a federal prison.
If you feel the way I do about this shit, you can click on this link, which will take you to a page where you can donate money to keep the cause alive or, at least as good and maybe even better, in the upper right hand corner of the page you will see a link to a page where you can sign a petition to President Bush encouraging him to grant these men the pardon I honestly feel they should receive as quickly as possible.
I also personally feel they should be granted a public apology, and back pay, in addition to a hefty amount of money for their pain and sufferring. In addition, they should receive an extra amount for whatever harassment they received while in prison, and the warden should be fired for not insuring their safety.
Yes, prison is rough, but all prisoners who are deemed to be potential targets are typically afforded some degree of protective custody, and this would obviously have been the appropriate precaution in the case of these two men.
You see, these two men are both Hispanics, and so in addition to the “crime” of being border agents, to the Hispanic street trash thugs who threatened them and attacked one on at least this one occasion, they are also doubtless viewed as “race traitors”.
Still, for the time being, let’s concentrate on getting them freed. Copy and paste the link and send it to as many people as you can think of to sign and forward to the President.
Like I told Lemuel Calhoun, of Hillbilly White Trash, who was kind enough to post these links on his blog at my request, if Bush would actually do the right thing in this regard, it might go a long way toward demonstrating evidence of this stiffened spine and backbone he allegedly has that we are always hearing so much about.
And I might add one other thing. I know that some that might peruse these links might have a knee jerk reaction to one of these sites, WorldNet Daily, but please try to think outside the box. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, or even on most things. I know I don’t. But when you're right, you’re right. If you agree with me that this is one of the times when they are right, not wrong-and there is little if any gray area here, in my opinion-then get over your initial objections to the site and support this petition drive.
And do more than that. Forward these links to your House Representatives and Senators. I think it’s a disgrace that no Democratic Congressmen or Senators have supported these two men. But that should be considered more a reflection of the Democratic leadership than on the individuals. After all, committee assignments might be in danger if they were to engage in an activity that goes beyond the accepted parameters of the House and Senate leadership as it currently stands. To say nothing of endangering funding of congressional projects and support for sponsored bills. Still, you would think at least one would have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up for what’s right. In all fairness, as I said, only twelve Republicans have done so, as of the writing of the petition.
The drug smuggler in question, by the way, has sued the US government for five million dollars. Like they say-only in America.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Partisan Hacks-Why I'll Never Be One
Ann Coulter has finally done it. She's succeeded in pissing me off. Well, ok, she done it once before, with her statements about the 9/11 Widows, who, according to her, were the first women she had ever seen "enjoy their husbands deaths so much".
Well, her latest salvo tops even that one. She has now gone way over the top by putting the blame for the recent scandal of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center-on the Democrats.
Yep, according to Annie, this whole mess would have never come about if only those evil Democrats did not insist on civil service protections for federal employees. Because of this, you see, it's impossible for all practical purposes to fire any government employee, therefore they can merrily draw their pay while doing diddly squat while Building 18 is overrun by rodents and mold gathers on the walls. She even implies that in the event that they were ordered to correct any such problems that might arise, they could just pretty well tell their supervisors to go suck eggs.
She then goes on to remind us that when former Senator Max Cleland, a decorated Vietnam War veteran-and double amputee as a result of his service in that conflict-ran for re-election in 2002, he was accused by the Republican Party of being a terrorist sympathizer for having the temerity to insist that federal employees of the newly created boondoggle-err, Department of Homeland Security-be granted the same civil service protections as all other federal employees.
Those goddamned labor loving Democrats!! Don't they know that federal employees are mere worker ants, and should be fired at the drop of a hat if they don't toe the line and do what the fuck they're told-sort of like federal prosecutors?
Actually, Anne misses the mark, like all partisan hacks do. This ain't the fuck about Democrat versus Republican. It's about the welfare of our fucking veterans. Oh, wait, I'd better not use the word welfare, that might be misconstrued. Anybody with a brain knows the only people that have a right to fucking welfare are multi-national corporations and illegal immigrants.
Ok,then, it's about the well being of our veterans. You know, the people that have been sent to a fucking stupid ass unnecessary war and are in a great many cases returning sans legs, arms, faces, scrotums, and sanity. Yeah, the ones the GOP loves so much yet just can't agree to funding embryonic stem cell research that might cure them. After all, that might prevent the births of multiple thousands of potential "souls" that can then be saved, and then sent to be yet more fucking cannon fodder.
Those are the ones this is about, not the fucking Democrats, not the fucking Republicans. It's about taking care of the ones that are supposed to be taking care of us.
It's not about casting blame, it's about demanding solutions to the red tape and bureaucracy that BOTH parties have encouraged and nurtured over the decades which in turn has resulted all too often in this kind of horseshit.
Baaaaad Anne. Baaaaad Anne.
Well, her latest salvo tops even that one. She has now gone way over the top by putting the blame for the recent scandal of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center-on the Democrats.
Yep, according to Annie, this whole mess would have never come about if only those evil Democrats did not insist on civil service protections for federal employees. Because of this, you see, it's impossible for all practical purposes to fire any government employee, therefore they can merrily draw their pay while doing diddly squat while Building 18 is overrun by rodents and mold gathers on the walls. She even implies that in the event that they were ordered to correct any such problems that might arise, they could just pretty well tell their supervisors to go suck eggs.
She then goes on to remind us that when former Senator Max Cleland, a decorated Vietnam War veteran-and double amputee as a result of his service in that conflict-ran for re-election in 2002, he was accused by the Republican Party of being a terrorist sympathizer for having the temerity to insist that federal employees of the newly created boondoggle-err, Department of Homeland Security-be granted the same civil service protections as all other federal employees.
Those goddamned labor loving Democrats!! Don't they know that federal employees are mere worker ants, and should be fired at the drop of a hat if they don't toe the line and do what the fuck they're told-sort of like federal prosecutors?
Actually, Anne misses the mark, like all partisan hacks do. This ain't the fuck about Democrat versus Republican. It's about the welfare of our fucking veterans. Oh, wait, I'd better not use the word welfare, that might be misconstrued. Anybody with a brain knows the only people that have a right to fucking welfare are multi-national corporations and illegal immigrants.
Ok,then, it's about the well being of our veterans. You know, the people that have been sent to a fucking stupid ass unnecessary war and are in a great many cases returning sans legs, arms, faces, scrotums, and sanity. Yeah, the ones the GOP loves so much yet just can't agree to funding embryonic stem cell research that might cure them. After all, that might prevent the births of multiple thousands of potential "souls" that can then be saved, and then sent to be yet more fucking cannon fodder.
Those are the ones this is about, not the fucking Democrats, not the fucking Republicans. It's about taking care of the ones that are supposed to be taking care of us.
It's not about casting blame, it's about demanding solutions to the red tape and bureaucracy that BOTH parties have encouraged and nurtured over the decades which in turn has resulted all too often in this kind of horseshit.
Baaaaad Anne. Baaaaad Anne.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Political Ramblin's And Wranglin's
While Hillary and Barak have been busily presenting their credentials to the black community and sucking all the oxygen away from the other potential presidential candidates (at least all the Democratic ones), Ann Coulter has been busily trying to breathe much needed oxygen back into the campaign of that little “faggot” John Edwards.
Okay, maybe it was unintentional, but I have to wonder. Ann probably had to have known how her remark about Edwards would have been taken, and how it would doubtless inspire much sympathy towards him from the left. And really, Edwards is trailing the other two candidates distantly in the polls, in fact, according to some, he is actually a distant fourth, behind Hillary, Barak, and-former Vice-President Al Gore.
That’s bad.
Now, I can see the potential for much mischief here. All the major Republican contenders have chimed in with their own various disavowals of the remarks. Yet, Edwards himself has put them on his own web-site. This could actually be a real shot in the arm for him. If it was intentional on her part, the implication is that, of all the Democratic contenders, Coulter considers Edwards the easiest to beat in a general election match-up, while dreading to the point of obsession the thought of a Hillary candidacy, who would draw a campaign war-chest that would be hard for any Republican to match, at least in theory.
For what it’s worth, I think Hillary would be the easiest Democrat to beat in a general election, though I can’t help but feel she is virtually unstoppable in her quest to gain the Democratic nomination. She is too hated by way too many people, at worse, and simply mistrusted by way too many others at least.
Edwards would probably be the hardest of the Democrats to beat. All he would have to do is win all of Gore’s old 2000 states, and add a relative handful of southern states, along with Ohio, and he is is in like Flynn. Still, even this is dependent on who he has to face in the general election.
The overall winner-Giulliani, the man whom I can see no one beating in a general election, but more on that later.
For now, the main area to watch is the fascinating rivalry between Obama and Clinton. The anniversary of the march across the bridge of Selma is just the beginning. Barak, though a relatively inexperienced campaigner and public servant, continues to impress and inspire as he siphons off votes from the Clinton tank, along with money from the Hollywood left, as he plays up his strengths as a Washington “outsider”, a breath of fresh air from the old stale politics as usual, and inspirational minority success story.
Hillary will stop just short of shining Al Sharptons shoes on a street in Harlem to maximize her share of the black vote, and for a while the two will be neck and neck, but about half way though the primary season, look for her to pull ahead considerably. Look for a Democratic convention where all the current contenders stand side by side with Hillary, the I’m sure eventual nominee, as they put on a united front.
John Edwards of course will give his two America’s speech, as he hopes against hope for a seat at the table of a Clinton presidency, maybe as Attorney General, yet another position that would be way out of his league. (To be fair, I think he would make an excellent Solicitor General, however).
Barak Obama will speak of a need to heal the divisions of our country, code for “okay, bothers and sisters, it’s cool, vote for the honky bitch”.
Al Gore will of course have a spot at the speakers podium, and will be hailed as the sort of heroic Christ like prophet that is not without honor save in his own country, while he pontificates on the need for drastic changes in America’s environmental policy. He will doubtless speak at length about the dangers of global warming in the middle of the giant air-conditioned convention center.
John Kerry too will make a speech, but will probably find himself relegated to about twenty minutes somewhere between 1 a.m. and ZZZZzzzzzz.
Bill Clinton will of course be the real star of the show, and I’m sure he will make it worthwhile. He probably knows he had better make it good while he can, because it’s all downhill from there.
The entire Democratic convention will be so staged and artificial it will be as antiseptically perfect as a Stepford Wives toilet seat cover. But there’s a rat making it’s way through the plumbing, and if the Democrats ain't careful, ‘08 will be the year they really get bit in the ass.
Think back to the Coretta Scott King funeral, to the speeches of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who for a time stood side by side on the podium as they addressed the mourners (and the remaining majority of the crowd).
If you are a true Democrat, or at least independent and fair minded, Clinton’s speech would have brought you to tears. He was in turn up-lifting, inspirational, humorous, and heart stopping as he reflected on the very real woman that they were there that day to honor.
Then up came Hillary, who shrilly advised the crowd to “send me”.
That is just the difference in the two. Bill Clinton inspires and uplifts while he tugs at your heart, brings you to tears, puts a smile on your face, and makes you feel that everything can actually be right again, all in the space of one speech. You end up feeling a vital part of something worthwhile.
Hillary just pisses you off and scares you to death. That just won’t cut it in a general election against the likes of “America’s Mayor”, or about any other serious Republican contender, with the possible exception of McCain (whom a large portion if not most of Republican conservatives actually hate more than they do Hillary, if that were possible).
The end result will be the election of Giulliani. The next four years might well bode good for the country. It might seem pretty dreary in most of New York though. If Giulliani wins that state, as I think he might well do (along with, incidentally, Pennsylvania and New Jersey), that might write finis to the political career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might pick up Ohio as a consolation prize, and otherwise be relegated to the remainder of the Kerry states, along with possibly one or two southwestern states.
But it will be a wash, I’m sure. Why? Because most Republicans seem to have learned their lessons from the ’06 debaucle. Democrats, most of them, still haven’t really learned the lessons from ’72. Or ’80. Or ’84. Or ’88. Or ’94. Or 2002. Or 2004.
As for the 2006 victory, they are to some extent busily trying to silently bury the architect of that victory, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, now the head of the DNC, who instituted the 50 state strategy that won them the last election. That, and the more time goes by, the more obvious it becomes that it is rapidly going back to Democratic Party politics as usual. The list of examples is way too many to list here in this already way overly long post. Besides, they deserve a post of their own.
For now, I’ll just leave you with the mental image of Hillary shining Al Sharpton’s shoes on a Harlem street as I bemoan my lack of ability as an editorial cartoonist.
Okay, maybe it was unintentional, but I have to wonder. Ann probably had to have known how her remark about Edwards would have been taken, and how it would doubtless inspire much sympathy towards him from the left. And really, Edwards is trailing the other two candidates distantly in the polls, in fact, according to some, he is actually a distant fourth, behind Hillary, Barak, and-former Vice-President Al Gore.
That’s bad.
Now, I can see the potential for much mischief here. All the major Republican contenders have chimed in with their own various disavowals of the remarks. Yet, Edwards himself has put them on his own web-site. This could actually be a real shot in the arm for him. If it was intentional on her part, the implication is that, of all the Democratic contenders, Coulter considers Edwards the easiest to beat in a general election match-up, while dreading to the point of obsession the thought of a Hillary candidacy, who would draw a campaign war-chest that would be hard for any Republican to match, at least in theory.
For what it’s worth, I think Hillary would be the easiest Democrat to beat in a general election, though I can’t help but feel she is virtually unstoppable in her quest to gain the Democratic nomination. She is too hated by way too many people, at worse, and simply mistrusted by way too many others at least.
Edwards would probably be the hardest of the Democrats to beat. All he would have to do is win all of Gore’s old 2000 states, and add a relative handful of southern states, along with Ohio, and he is is in like Flynn. Still, even this is dependent on who he has to face in the general election.
The overall winner-Giulliani, the man whom I can see no one beating in a general election, but more on that later.
For now, the main area to watch is the fascinating rivalry between Obama and Clinton. The anniversary of the march across the bridge of Selma is just the beginning. Barak, though a relatively inexperienced campaigner and public servant, continues to impress and inspire as he siphons off votes from the Clinton tank, along with money from the Hollywood left, as he plays up his strengths as a Washington “outsider”, a breath of fresh air from the old stale politics as usual, and inspirational minority success story.
Hillary will stop just short of shining Al Sharptons shoes on a street in Harlem to maximize her share of the black vote, and for a while the two will be neck and neck, but about half way though the primary season, look for her to pull ahead considerably. Look for a Democratic convention where all the current contenders stand side by side with Hillary, the I’m sure eventual nominee, as they put on a united front.
John Edwards of course will give his two America’s speech, as he hopes against hope for a seat at the table of a Clinton presidency, maybe as Attorney General, yet another position that would be way out of his league. (To be fair, I think he would make an excellent Solicitor General, however).
Barak Obama will speak of a need to heal the divisions of our country, code for “okay, bothers and sisters, it’s cool, vote for the honky bitch”.
Al Gore will of course have a spot at the speakers podium, and will be hailed as the sort of heroic Christ like prophet that is not without honor save in his own country, while he pontificates on the need for drastic changes in America’s environmental policy. He will doubtless speak at length about the dangers of global warming in the middle of the giant air-conditioned convention center.
John Kerry too will make a speech, but will probably find himself relegated to about twenty minutes somewhere between 1 a.m. and ZZZZzzzzzz.
Bill Clinton will of course be the real star of the show, and I’m sure he will make it worthwhile. He probably knows he had better make it good while he can, because it’s all downhill from there.
The entire Democratic convention will be so staged and artificial it will be as antiseptically perfect as a Stepford Wives toilet seat cover. But there’s a rat making it’s way through the plumbing, and if the Democrats ain't careful, ‘08 will be the year they really get bit in the ass.
Think back to the Coretta Scott King funeral, to the speeches of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who for a time stood side by side on the podium as they addressed the mourners (and the remaining majority of the crowd).
If you are a true Democrat, or at least independent and fair minded, Clinton’s speech would have brought you to tears. He was in turn up-lifting, inspirational, humorous, and heart stopping as he reflected on the very real woman that they were there that day to honor.
Then up came Hillary, who shrilly advised the crowd to “send me”.
That is just the difference in the two. Bill Clinton inspires and uplifts while he tugs at your heart, brings you to tears, puts a smile on your face, and makes you feel that everything can actually be right again, all in the space of one speech. You end up feeling a vital part of something worthwhile.
Hillary just pisses you off and scares you to death. That just won’t cut it in a general election against the likes of “America’s Mayor”, or about any other serious Republican contender, with the possible exception of McCain (whom a large portion if not most of Republican conservatives actually hate more than they do Hillary, if that were possible).
The end result will be the election of Giulliani. The next four years might well bode good for the country. It might seem pretty dreary in most of New York though. If Giulliani wins that state, as I think he might well do (along with, incidentally, Pennsylvania and New Jersey), that might write finis to the political career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might pick up Ohio as a consolation prize, and otherwise be relegated to the remainder of the Kerry states, along with possibly one or two southwestern states.
But it will be a wash, I’m sure. Why? Because most Republicans seem to have learned their lessons from the ’06 debaucle. Democrats, most of them, still haven’t really learned the lessons from ’72. Or ’80. Or ’84. Or ’88. Or ’94. Or 2002. Or 2004.
As for the 2006 victory, they are to some extent busily trying to silently bury the architect of that victory, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, now the head of the DNC, who instituted the 50 state strategy that won them the last election. That, and the more time goes by, the more obvious it becomes that it is rapidly going back to Democratic Party politics as usual. The list of examples is way too many to list here in this already way overly long post. Besides, they deserve a post of their own.
For now, I’ll just leave you with the mental image of Hillary shining Al Sharpton’s shoes on a Harlem street as I bemoan my lack of ability as an editorial cartoonist.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Caligula And George W. Bush
Is George W. Bush sufferring from the same mental/emotional malady that best the Roman Emperor Caligula (37-40 A.D.)? There is very good reason to think so. Caligula thought he was a god. He believed this quite literally, and fervently, from all accounts. Unlike his predecessors, who adopted a kind of benign, exalted godhood out of a need to establish a social structure that was consistent and orderly, he took it quite seriously. Bush is similar in this regard. American Presidents have always believed they had a special status, as guardians of a divinely ordained institution. Bush, on the other hand, seems to go well beyond this. If I didn't know better, I would think the man believes he is the messiah, to all intents and purposes The Second Coming Of Christ. And, this would fit in well with the conservative Christian view of the present age as an end to "The Millenium", with all it's myriad supposed signs of the encroaching apocalypse. After all, Bush has made claims as to his special relationship with his supposed "Creator". The implications are obvious, and frightening.
There are other similarities. Caligula, as well as Bush, wrecked the treasury of his nation, which had previously been on not only sound financial footing, but was a repository of up until then unheard of wealth. Caligula, like Bush today, went through the treasury like it was Kool-Aid, and soon the country was bankrupt.
But what really got me interested in this possibility, and caused me to take notice of it, quite by accident, was astrology. I had long been intrigued by the possibilities inherent in the prospect of astrological planetary returns. For example, Neptune is now at roughly the 14th degree of the sign of Aquarius. It takes Neptune roughly 163 and 3/4 years to make a complete orbit around the sun, therefore that amount of time to make a complete run throughout the zodiac. Thus, one return. What do you see then if you multiply that times twelve? Twelve, of course, being a significant number astrologically in that there are twelve signs of the Zodiac. You run it back from there and, sure enough, the twelth time going back that Neptune was at the 14th degree, or thereabouts, of Aquarius, was during the year 40 A.D.-the year Caligula was assassinated.
One needs now to bear in mind that Neptune is the planet of illusion and delusion, of deception and mystery. What it's presence in the sign of Aquarius brings to bear is not to me immediately clear, as I am not, I am sorry to say, that great an astrologer insofar as comprehensive depth of knowledge goes. On the other hand, I did discover these aspects and similarities between Bush and Caligula, so go figure.
Another thing I noticed, quite by accident, is that in 40 A.D. the planet Pluto was at, roughly, the 26th degree of Saggittarius-about where it is at this present time. So we have a double whammy, a double matching aspect pertaining to the two men. What does it mean? I wish I knew. Does it mean Bush will be assassinated. Maybe not. It could augur, however, that he will come to an ignonimous end, though this might not necessarily entail a physical death. It could simply mean a political downfall, one from which he will never recover. And one which, more likely than not, he will have brought on himself.
I will be watching, and paying close attention, that is for sure.
There are other similarities. Caligula, as well as Bush, wrecked the treasury of his nation, which had previously been on not only sound financial footing, but was a repository of up until then unheard of wealth. Caligula, like Bush today, went through the treasury like it was Kool-Aid, and soon the country was bankrupt.
But what really got me interested in this possibility, and caused me to take notice of it, quite by accident, was astrology. I had long been intrigued by the possibilities inherent in the prospect of astrological planetary returns. For example, Neptune is now at roughly the 14th degree of the sign of Aquarius. It takes Neptune roughly 163 and 3/4 years to make a complete orbit around the sun, therefore that amount of time to make a complete run throughout the zodiac. Thus, one return. What do you see then if you multiply that times twelve? Twelve, of course, being a significant number astrologically in that there are twelve signs of the Zodiac. You run it back from there and, sure enough, the twelth time going back that Neptune was at the 14th degree, or thereabouts, of Aquarius, was during the year 40 A.D.-the year Caligula was assassinated.
One needs now to bear in mind that Neptune is the planet of illusion and delusion, of deception and mystery. What it's presence in the sign of Aquarius brings to bear is not to me immediately clear, as I am not, I am sorry to say, that great an astrologer insofar as comprehensive depth of knowledge goes. On the other hand, I did discover these aspects and similarities between Bush and Caligula, so go figure.
Another thing I noticed, quite by accident, is that in 40 A.D. the planet Pluto was at, roughly, the 26th degree of Saggittarius-about where it is at this present time. So we have a double whammy, a double matching aspect pertaining to the two men. What does it mean? I wish I knew. Does it mean Bush will be assassinated. Maybe not. It could augur, however, that he will come to an ignonimous end, though this might not necessarily entail a physical death. It could simply mean a political downfall, one from which he will never recover. And one which, more likely than not, he will have brought on himself.
I will be watching, and paying close attention, that is for sure.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Mercury And Autism
It has just recently come out that the CDC may have possibly been involved in helping certain pharmaceutical companies hide the effect of mercury in childhood vaccines. There has recently been a stir caused by rumors that the effects of Mercury may in fact be a contributing factor, possibly the chief if not the only one, in the sudden increase of autism among children, by some estimates as many as one out of every one hundred sixty six children born in the U.S. Also scrambling to protect the pharmaceuticals from any future potential lawsuits is U.S. Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee).
Environmental Attorney Robert F.Kennedy Jr. has been advocating research into this potential, and encouraging further investigations, and has given interviews to Rolling Stone and to Salon.com, which are now available on the Internet. He has run into a string of bad luck, however, in getting any air time on the major media outlets. Appearances by him to discuss this subject have been canceled, by The Today Show, Good Morning America, and others. Equally disturbing is the lack of attention shown to David Kirby, author of the book Evidence Of Harm, which chronicles the use of mercury in vaccines and aerosols, and points to the potential that this may indeed be a contributing factor to a problem that is approaching epidemic proportions. It is as though Kirby and Kennedy both are persona non-gratis. But perhaps the scariest episode involves radio talk show host Don Imus, of Imus In The Morning (WFAN).
He has been pushing this issue, and an investigation of it, whereupon he himself recently became the subject of an investigation by The Wall Street Journal for allegedly misuse of donor funds to The Imus Ranch, a charitable endeavor run by him and his wife Deirdre for the purpose of providing a positive experience for children afflicted with cancer. There proved to be no substance to the allegations, and the investigation was therefore terminated, but the Wall Street Journal refused to print a retraction on it's front pages, where it first ran the story. Imus has intimated, in fact insisted, the entire episode was a sham, and was meant to be a warning to him. Don't mess with the pharmaceutical industry, or else.
It would be easy to dismiss this as a paranoid rant, if it were not for the cancellations of Kennedy's appearances, and the shunning of author David Kirby. Then, there is Chris Matthews who, on an appearance on Imus's show this morning, which is simulcast on MSNBC from 6 a.m. to 9: a.m.,brushed aside any suggestion that he himself might want to cover the promising scandal. And it is easy to see why, when you consider the amount of advertising money invested by the pharmaceutical companies in the television media, that a member of that media might be wary of tackling the issue, fearful of displeasing his corporate bosses. In fact, one wonders if perhaps the word might have all ready been put out. Don't touch this issue.
And, of course, we all know how close the pharmaceutical industry is to the Bush administration. But have they gone so far as to turn the CDC from watch dog to lap dog? It's a scary thought.
Environmental Attorney Robert F.Kennedy Jr. has been advocating research into this potential, and encouraging further investigations, and has given interviews to Rolling Stone and to Salon.com, which are now available on the Internet. He has run into a string of bad luck, however, in getting any air time on the major media outlets. Appearances by him to discuss this subject have been canceled, by The Today Show, Good Morning America, and others. Equally disturbing is the lack of attention shown to David Kirby, author of the book Evidence Of Harm, which chronicles the use of mercury in vaccines and aerosols, and points to the potential that this may indeed be a contributing factor to a problem that is approaching epidemic proportions. It is as though Kirby and Kennedy both are persona non-gratis. But perhaps the scariest episode involves radio talk show host Don Imus, of Imus In The Morning (WFAN).
He has been pushing this issue, and an investigation of it, whereupon he himself recently became the subject of an investigation by The Wall Street Journal for allegedly misuse of donor funds to The Imus Ranch, a charitable endeavor run by him and his wife Deirdre for the purpose of providing a positive experience for children afflicted with cancer. There proved to be no substance to the allegations, and the investigation was therefore terminated, but the Wall Street Journal refused to print a retraction on it's front pages, where it first ran the story. Imus has intimated, in fact insisted, the entire episode was a sham, and was meant to be a warning to him. Don't mess with the pharmaceutical industry, or else.
It would be easy to dismiss this as a paranoid rant, if it were not for the cancellations of Kennedy's appearances, and the shunning of author David Kirby. Then, there is Chris Matthews who, on an appearance on Imus's show this morning, which is simulcast on MSNBC from 6 a.m. to 9: a.m.,brushed aside any suggestion that he himself might want to cover the promising scandal. And it is easy to see why, when you consider the amount of advertising money invested by the pharmaceutical companies in the television media, that a member of that media might be wary of tackling the issue, fearful of displeasing his corporate bosses. In fact, one wonders if perhaps the word might have all ready been put out. Don't touch this issue.
And, of course, we all know how close the pharmaceutical industry is to the Bush administration. But have they gone so far as to turn the CDC from watch dog to lap dog? It's a scary thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)