0 9678 777 000 5675 245 0
SIMS : ROCKS ARE FREE, AND SLINGSHOTS EASILY STOLEN.
1 comments

Monday, August 01, 2011
A Defining Moment

I was watching The Office on television, when a commercial came on for an upcoming episode of The 700 Club. I began vigorously rolling my eyes, but before they completely dislodged themselves from their sockets, I couldn't help but notice that the upcoming episode was going to be about 9/11.

"Damn," I thought, "it's coming up on ten years."

Before I could slip into a proper state of melancholy, I heard the voiceover guy read that the attacks were "a defining moment for the US." That jolted me out of my Atheist's Prayer For The Death of Pat Robertson, and got me thinking.

Were the attacks ten years ago a defining moment for the United States? I honestly don't think so.

I think of defining moments in terms of the Civil War, the signing of The Declaration of Independence, or the moon landing in 1969. Events where the nation looked down the road into the future, asked itself whether or not it was up to the task of becoming more than it was, and then began the hard work of making it happen.

9/11? With no disrespect to the dead and their families, I don't feel like it measures up in terms of what it had to necessarily mean to America.

The closest comparison would be Pearl Harbor. When Japan attacked Hawaii, FDR declared that we were no longer sitting on the sidelines, it was time for the US to stop being a provincial backwater, and to either assume its destiny as a world leader, or perish in the attempt. My reading of history tells me that Roosevelt was a great leader at a time we needed one. But even without that, Americans knew what was going to be necessary, that the cost would be appalling, and your grandparents and great-grandparents created the arsenal of democracy, and began giving their lives by the thousands in Africa, Europe and Asia.

Pearl Harbor was not a defining moment. The selfless response of an entire nation was the defining moment. There was no other choice to be made.

In the case of 9/11, the attacks were not a defining moment. Instead, we stared at the moment, had a collective freakout, looked to the president for leadership, were told to go shopping, and just went downhill from there. And this isn't even about Bush, I'm pretty sure any of the weasels in office from LBJ on would have blown it.

This country has chosen to be defined by 9/11, instead of the event choosing our destiny for us.

We are now victims. We aren't simply the wronged, out for focused payback, we are a gigantic angry infant, lashing out at anyone and everyone who doesn't worship art the altar of American exceptionalism. Muslims? Europeans? Chinese? They're all against us, probably socialist, and definitely not Christian! We have been attacked (for some reason!), and it was because they hate our freedom, our iPods and our Jesus.

We had choices on September 12th, 2001. We could have taken effective, highly focused military action in specific places. We could have tried to act like adults who live in a scary world, and sorted out what the best short and long-term responses would have been. There were choices that could have been made that would have made the country and the world a better place for the next hundred years.

Alas, no.

I don't think 9/11 was a defining moment. It did not make plain for us what to do next. No, 9/11 was an illuminating moment, one which shined a harsh light on how truly small we have become since World War II. Walt Kelly called it 40 years ago:

Labels: , , , , ,


posted at 8:37 PM

0 comments

Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Transfer

Tuesday will be a momentous day, as one president leaves office, and another assumes responsibility. As much as I've wished for a coup in the past eight years, I'm still kind of proud that we manage to make changes like these without bloodshed. We've done it this way longer than most.

The worst president in my lifetime will head back to Texas, which would be considered a punishment in many circles. But he will live richly, and his lackeys will cast a wide net over the oil-producing regions to raise money to build his presidential library. The first lady, in her younger days, was a librarian, but there is a great deal of doubt as to whether George W. Bush would even consider setting foot in a library, even one bearing his name. One may tempt him with a complete bound collection of Highlights magazine, but discerning the literary tastes of a man more Goofus than Gallant is not easy.

But what this monument to arrogance will not contain will be any hint of second-guessing, admission of mistake, and certainly evidence of responsibility taken for the damage done to the United States, in both the physical and mental senses, not to mention to the reputation of this nation as a country of laws. I hope the president will be buried in his Mausoleum of Thought, and right soon.

The Bush administration has an endless list of crimes for which it is responsible. It has been relatively easy for the ever-increasing throngs in this country who have turned their backs on the failed dreams of a bankrupt ideology to pin blame where it belongs. It took a great deal of looking the other way on the part of the press and citizenry of this nation to allow such outrages to be perpetrated in our names, but on Tuesday one thing changes:

Bush crimes become American crimes.

At noon Eastern time on Tuesday, the people of this country, and the Obama administration do not begin a new history, we merely continue one. Over the past few months, administration officials and others in a position to know have said in no uncertain terms that this country has tortured people. There is no longer any need to use euphemisms, the word is out there, and the word is "torture." We have unofficially admitted to officially sanctioned war crimes.

The new Attorney General, Eric Holder, when asked at his confirmation hearing whether or not waterboarding is torture, stated unequivocally that is. As the highest ranking law official in the United States, his responsibility is simply to apply the measure of the law to people in this country. No one is above it, no one is exempt. He will take his cues from the new president on what to do with the evidence that exists, and that which still requires investigation.

Barack Obama is reticent to start a cycle of the new gang going after the old gang, which, practically speaking is sensible. In this case, he simply has no choice but to allow the Justice Department to freely investigate the heinous crimes of the Bush administration. There are two simple reasons:

This country can not be allowed to sink to the depths of third-rate dictatorships, where whomever is in charge can make arbitrary decisions about what the law means, and whom it applies to.

If these crimes are not prosecuted, they will serve as precedent for the next time it happens.

And there is always a next time.

The United States has made a much-needed course correction, but it has not done anything to fix the damage done. I beg of you, President Obama, for the greater good of the American ideal, and that of justice, investigate, investigate, investigate. Anything less is tacit approval and continuation of the crimes of the Bush presidency. That is not change. And I cannot ever believe in it.

Labels: , , ,


posted at 5:34 PM

0 comments

Monday, December 17, 2007
Chris Dodd

This man is an American hero, plain and simple. "Hero" is a word that is used far too often, and it has become largely meaningless, but once in awhile, someone stands up for principle, and sadly, it's remarkable.

Senator Dodd today, stood up against the president, the Republican party, and even against his nutless fellow Senate Democrats as he filibustered against the FISA Amendments Act. This proposal, which would update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also would provide legal immunity to the giant telecommunications companies which handed over information about your phone conversations to the NSA following September 11, 2001. That's the sticking point.

These companies all insist that they did nothing wrong, and yet want immunity against lawsuits. Well, to paraphrase the people who are monitoring our communications, if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of, right?

These companies have entire departments full of lawyers, and they know damn good and well that the government had no right to the information that these companies willingly handed over. I know this because I can read the Fourth Amendment, and also because of Qwest Communications.

When Qwest was approached, in some cases well before 9/11/01, they realized that the program was designed to gather significant amounts of entirely domestic communications, based on the fact that the NSA wanted access to Qwest's most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls and that only limited international traffic also passes through these switches. Qwest said to the NSA, "Get a warrant, and you can have what you want."

The government never bothered Qwest again.

So now these collaborationist companies, who just let the government spy on whoever the hell they wanted, with no legal justification, now they want protection from the law.

Call someone who gives a damn.

Chris Dodd (who is running for president, you may be surprised to find out), flew back to Washington to filibuster in order to prevent this complete giveaway of your rights to giant corporations from coming to a vote.

And it worked.

The bill was pulled from consideration until January, at which point Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (a Democrat, you may be surprised to find out), will attempt to do what the president wants, and ram this immunity bill through into law. Reid is a wishy-washy lameass in the Arlen Specter mold, who always talks a good game in terms of respecting the law, but in the end always capitulates to what the president wants, because if he doesn't, the Republicans will say he's helping Osama.

And that always works.

I'm very proud that there are still Americans in high places who are principled enough to stand up for what's great about America, able to see beyond the fear card, and who understand that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are far more important than any one, ten or million of us.

I've said it before: The terrorists can not destroy this country, no matter what kind of mayhem they wreak, and how many of us they kill. We are better than them, and we are stronger, because we have laws and rights, and freedoms that are as good as any ever codified by man.

And let us never forget that these guarantees were established by men along the lines of Chris Dodd, and not Harry Reid or George W. Bush.

Also, you should switch to Qwest. They've earned some loyalty.

Labels: , , , , ,


posted at 10:03 PM

0 comments

Sunday, December 02, 2007
Doldrums 2007

We're just a little more than a month out from the first official presidential contests for this quadrennial, and I'm felling pretty bleah about the whole thing. I want to remain interested, because the election is important, but I think in a lot of ways the reign of George W. Bush has had it's intended effect on me, and the rest of the population. That is, I feel like things are pretty much hopeless, and will never get any better.

Mission Accomplished.

I look at the frontrunners and I'm just ready to move to Putin's Russia. There, at least, you wake up every day, knowing who is in charge of everything, and who always will be. Assuming you wake up at all.

But here, the "choices" we have are just miserable.

Giuliani? Every 72 hours seems to reveal yet another personal or political scandal about this clown, most of which were already known to the press and citizenry of New York City. Giuliani is smart, but he's more desperate for power than anything else, and it makes him look pathetic. Besides, if you thought Bill Clinton's personal life was a national embarrassment, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Hillary? Capable as any of them, but as much as I liked Bill, I'm tired of this Bush/Clinton stranglehold on the White House. The second Bush sure as hell wasn't an improvement, and I doubt a second Clinton would be, either. It's too bad Hillary has to spend all of her time showing what a hardass she is, when she could probably accomplish great things for this country.

Romney? He's still an empty suit, although at least unlike Bush, he actually had success in the business world. I still think his only position is whatever is expedient, and frankly, the guy just seems creepy. Oh, and that whole "double the size of Gitmo" thing? Do me a favor: write out the full details of your plan on the back of your Vietnam deferment, and get back to me. And please, fill it out in English, not en Francais.

Obama? Still waiting to see some teeth, although I do at least get the sense that maybe the gloves are off where Hillary is concerned. He's now leading in Iowa, and I really wouldn't mind seeing him be the nominee. Again, I want to see that GOP mud machine tie itself in knots trying not to call him Willie Horton.

Huckabee? This is a guy I've liked since I started seeing him on the talk shows a couple of years ago. He actually seems like a decent person, although I do disagree with him on a number of issues. It's funny that he's being attacked from the right because he had the nerve to raise taxes in Arkansas. I'm not sure when taxes became worse than people starving to death or dying from curable conditions, but that's your Republican Party. I'd consider voting for Huckabee if he hadn't admitted to not believing in Evolution. No, you don't get to have your hand on the nukes, sir.

Edwards? He's been written off by the media, but I'll probably vote for him anyway. My guess is he eventually throws his support to Obama, and then it gets interesting.

McCain? There's just too much water under this bridge for me to think about casting for John. He was my guy in 2000, but he told the truth about the religious right, had his leash pulled, and then apologized. Once he started pandering to people like Robertson and Falwell, I just gave up on him. I prefer to think of McCain as one of the few principled people in politics, but he lusts for the job so much, and he's kissed the ass of so many bigots, that I could never vote for him. Too bad, he'd have made a really good president.

Biden? A guy I'd be very comfortable having as president, especially given his foreign policy experience. He's a big thinker, and that'd be a nice change around here. He's also never bothered to cash in on his position, ranking 99th out of 100 in terms of personal wealth in the Senate. I hope he doesn't accept a VP slot with someone, he's too valuable where he is.

Fred Thompson? What did I tell you? WHAT DID I TELL YOU?

Ron Paul? He probably makes more sense on more issues than any of these guys, but I don't think that putting someone in charge who hates government as much as he does could possibly end well. Reform is good, but until all of us are saints, I think abolishing the IRS is probably a bad move.

There's a long way to go, a dozen Giuliani skeletons to de-closet, and a billion dollars to be spent campaigning. If I had anything uplifting to say, I'd say it now.

Sorry.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


posted at 8:57 PM

0 comments

Tuesday, November 27, 2007
A Riddle

Q: What has four I's and a PP in it?

Hint: It comes from Mississippi.

A: Trent Lott, apparently.

The Senator in college. Not being gay. Um, bottom left.

You know what other prominent Republican politician isn't gay?

From the president's Bendover days. Excuse me, Andover.

What is it with these guys? I shudder to think what we could get done in this country if Republicans would just come out of the closet. Self-loathing has got to take years off of one's life.

At least I hope so.

Labels: , , ,


posted at 7:28 PM

0 comments

Sunday, November 11, 2007
DNA

A very interesting read in the Sunday New York Times, an article about the ethical concerns over the continuing decoding of the very stuff that makes us who we are.

It's probably been over a decade since I first recall hearing about the possible prejudicial misuse of a person's DNA, in this case, having to do with medical records and insurance. If a person had a genetic scan, and was determined to have a high likelihood of developing brain cancer, diabetes, or some other ailment, then what was to stop insurance companies from denying a person coverage based on the almost certain knowledge that the poor bastard would ask for care some day?

This would be an almost uniquely American problem, I have come to understand, knowing now that all other industrialized countries have removed the middleman/vultures from the equation.

But the focus of the Times article focused on an older, more deep-seated way that the better understood nature of genetics could be misused: To reinforce racial stereotypes.

We are, all of us, very nearly identical genetically. 99% is pretty damned similar, and yet, in the remainder, there are differences worth noting. They are visible under a microscope, and quite obviously, visible to the naked eye. Most of us aren't at all burdened by the superficial, cosmetic variations, but there are already some interesting things being noted.

For example, it has been observed that there is a genetic marker in those of Asian descent that causes those persons to sweat less that those of African or European lineage. It's kind of interesting, and I can only assume that there is a sensible climactic reason for why this should be. Some people of West African descent have been noted to be far more resistant to certain diseases than people whose ancestry lies elsewhere. I'm sure as time goes on and science progresses, we will find out about many more racial idiosyncrasies, some merely odd, and perhaps some that won't be too popular.

At this early stage of the science, there has already been some indicators of differences in the IQs of persons with different ancestry. Again, all of this is speculative, and dealing in averages. Further study may disprove this entirely. But what if it doesn't?

What if it turns out that the average IQ of a person of African descent is (let's say) five points lower than those of Asian and European ancestry? And I'm talking about proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What will we do with this information? Will scientists be pressured to bury the findings because we are taught to believe that we are all created equal, and no one wants proof of an actual tangible difference?

I'm sure your various racist and white supremacist groups would suddenly embrace science en masse just to get the maximum value from a finding like this. Of course, the fact that the Klan and Fred Phelps' church exist at all is a pretty fair argument against white superiority, but I'm sure they'd miss the point.

And if this IQ difference was proven true, in the real world, would it matter? Five points isn't much, really. But what if it was ten points, or twenty-five? I can't imagine that there would be any way to prevent a finding like that from having an enormous impact on society at large. I mean, no one wants to hear proof that they might be inferior.

But again, if the science is good, you can't simply pretend that it isn't. The article quotes a Neonatologist named Perry Clark as saying, “To say that such differences aren’t real is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by. When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?”

So, that last bit talks about a physical difference that may be true, and it may be merely anecdotal. I watch sports, so I've heard various theories about why certain groups seem to excel in certain sports or events. But OK, why in the past 30 years hasn't the fastest man in the world in the 100 meters been anything other than a man of African ancestry, no matter how many generations removed? If there is a genetic difference, and one that becomes more marked at the highest levels of athletics, is that a problem?

I don't sense that it is. I don't think people of European or Asian ancestry begrudge this "advantage" that descendants of Africans hold. I imagine I might find it annoying if everyone assumed I was good at basketball just because I was black, but I'm quite positive I wouldn't appreciate scientific proof that I was, on average, mentally inferior to whites and Asians.

Again, the jury is still a long way from being in where this science is concerned. I don't think you can squelch science just because you don't like the results, unless, of course, you're in the Bush White House. But for those of us that value the scientific method, and for truth to be proven out, where would this kind of knowledge leave our society, one that is already so utterly consumed by race?

Labels: , , ,


posted at 10:24 PM

1 comments

Wednesday, November 07, 2007
This and that, 7 November 2007

The US Congress is openly questioning why we are sending aid money to Pakistan, which has recently seen its president nullify their constitution, and declare martial law. They are however, still paying President Bush's salary, and there has been no visible detection of irony anywhere inside the Beltway.

In a related story, Pakistani police beat protesters. I'm afraid that this is not a sports report.

Welcome to your inevitable, albeit less fashionable future.

General Motors reported that it lost $39 BILLION dollars in the third quarter of this year. The company isn't worth nearly that much. Can someone explain to me how this is even possible? I can't imagine why everyone isn't running out to buy Hummers to fill with $4 a gallon gas.

One study has linked birth control pills with clogged arteries, although the pill does still do a bang-up job preventing clogged vaginas.

Click here to get a look at the most adorable little terrorist I've ever seen. Still think it can't happen to you?

I'm not calling Pat Robertson a hypocrite. Some people might do so after he publicly endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president, a thrice-married, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control Catholic from New York City. But not me. All he's doing is sacrificing his principles and everything he stands for in hopes of winning. Big deal.

And the gays. Don't forget the gays.

Interpol put five Iranians and a Lebanese man on its most-wanted list. And that's how things are on the West coast.

Labels: , , , ,


posted at 5:49 PM

0 comments

Friday, November 02, 2007
Department of Just Us

A few weeks ago, the man President Bush nominated to replace Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, looked like a sure bet to sail through confirmation hearings. A former judge, he has a solid legal background, and appeared to be a candidate who would be acceptable to almost everyone.

How things do change.

His nomination is still in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it doesn't look like it's getting out of there anytime soon. A couple of weeks ago, in hearings, Mukasey seemed to indicate that it was his opinion that waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques were illegal. After further reflection, and one presumes, many angry calls from the White House, Mukasey amended his opinion to something a bit more vague.

"Waterboarding is repugnant."

But is it legal?

"Dude! I wasn't even there!"

And if I thought for a minute that Mukasey was simply ignorant, I'd just pat him on his head and send him on his way home, but that's not what this is at all. The fact of the matter is, that if Mukasey concedes that waterboarding is torture, and therefore illegal, then he would really have no recourse as AG but to prosecute those who have been using it.

And the sick fucks who ordered them to use it. Send those subpoenas to: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.

And that's what this is about, really. The people who are ultimately responsible for this immoral criminality are covering their own asses, desperate to make sure that they will never be subject to prosecution for ordering torture.

So yesterday, Bush is wheeled out in front of The Heritage Foundation to complain that Mukasey is not being treated fairly. OK, even though I think that's not really true, I won't go so far as to assail the president on that statement. Did he say anything else?

“I believe that the questions he’s been asked are unfair,” Mr. Bush said. “He’s not been read into the program — he has been asked to give opinions of a program or techniques of a program on which he’s not been briefed."

Waterboarding is not so much a program as it is a method of torture that simulates drowning. If you want to know the specifics, you can Google it. It's not complicated. Mukasey knows the details of "the program," he simply may not know what the chain of command is involved in ordering its use. So the question remains: Is waterboarding legal?

The answer from Bush should not surprise you: "9/11." Or in long form:

"It's important for Congress to pass laws and/or confirm nominees that will enable this government to more effectively defend the country and pursue terrorists and radicals that would like to do us harm."

So now that Bush has essentially said that if the Senate doesn't confirm Mukasey, he won't nominate anyone else, even a victim of torture, Senator John McCain, has lined up (again) with President Silver Spoon. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham issued a statement yesterday stating that they would now vote to confirm Mukasey:

“Once he is confirmed, however, we strongly urge that he publicly make clear that waterboarding is illegal and can never be employed.”

So, he shouldn't declare waterboarding illegal before he is the Attorney General, but he should "make clear" that it won't be used after he is made AG? Why shouldn't it be used if it's not illegal? Ah, right, because waterboarding is torture, and we signed something declaring that we don't do that. Something to do with a Swiss town, lovely in the Spring, I'm told.

Days like today, and I have them more and more often, I wake up and wonder what the hell happened to my country. Not only is the government committing criminal acts, they are doing it publicly, and the real kicker is that about thirty percent of the population thinks that the government is morally right to do it. I have a better understanding of this mentality since reading John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience, but I still don't really get the need to genuflect to authority in every circumstance, religious, political or otherwise. Sometimes the people in charge are right, and sometimes they aren't, but I must question your sanity if you suggest that stooping to the level of the worst people in the world, and using their tactics, merely to provide a thin veneer of illusory safety, is the right thing to do. I would also question your morality.

Do you understand what Patrick Henry meant when he said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" There are things worth fighting for, and even things worth dying for, although not many. An American democracy is worth dying for. The over 2900 dead from the 9/11 attacks would be, I think, quite disturbed to find what we have lost, given away really, in our quest to avenge their deaths. America is not as good as it was when 2001 started, and I truly have doubts that it will ever be again. Liberties willingly handed over to authority are never returned.

Warrantless wire taps, data mining, illegal searches, indeterminate detainment without charges, waterboarding and other torture...

These are not the actions of a democratic government. These are the moves that a fascist, autocratic regime makes, one which is willing to do anything that consolidates power and creates a fearful populace. These acts are not simply undemocratic, not simply criminal. They are immoral.

Days like this, I wish God existed so that the architects of this madness could suffer an eternity of waterboarding or Abu Ghraib-style hijinks. I wish I had faith in my fellow citizens to, at a minimum, fire the cowards who ducked their own war to send this generation's young to fight, be maimed, and die. I wish Americans would figure out that we are so damned well-armed that any terrorist who dares show his face will be riddled with thirty bullets from the citizenry.

If you support government-sanctioned torture, you are a coward. You are so fucking stupid that you don't even realize what it is that you ought to be afraid of: Your own government.

Or did you forget that Hillary Clinton may be President in 14 months? The worm turns, and the names of those who are enemies of the state do, too. Imagine all of the government powers that you so blindly support in the hands of a Hillary Clinton. Still feel tough? Still think we should stop questioning the administration? Any reason you can name which might persuade anyone that you aren't a committing treason?

Speak up now. Or don't. Frankly, you won't be missed.

Labels: , , , , , ,


posted at 7:17 AM

0 comments

Tuesday, October 23, 2007
No News?

Cal Thomas, a conservative columnist, aside from having the worst dye-job of any major syndicated writer, also routinely writes some of the lamest, chicken-hawk apologist drivel seen in major newspapers around the country. This week, however, he penned an almost lucid, only moderately paranoid and defensive opinion about the Lib'rul Media™. The gist of it was that things are going better, maybe even great in Iraq, and no one is really talking about it. The Democrats and the Lib'rul Media™ have picked a dangerous position, calling the war lost, and boy, are you pinko scum gonna pay now that things are so hunky-dory in Iraq.

And I suppose on scale, things have improved somewhat. American deaths seem to be down, suicide bombings are down to a Beirut/Saigon level of carnage, and I'm pretty sure any US Senator that wants to can still take a brigade of Marines and three helicopter gunships with him and stroll leisurely through a Baghdad market. Take that, Defeat-o-crats!

Thomas thinks that this means the tide of anti-Republican sentiment in this country will soon shift, Americans will return to blindly backing this war of choice, and we can get around to swearing in President Giuliani in 2009. Please, please, don't let him wear a dress to the ceremony...

But the media being what it is (Liberal? No. WHORES.), doesn't really like that whole "no news is good news" thing, nor should they. If things are going well in Iraq, then they will find something to focus on, perhaps something that has been utterly ignored since September 2001.

Domestic issues.

Relax, I'm not only talking about your illegal maid, Congressman. Let's keep talking about the president and Republican congressmen who have decided to make a partisan issue out of health care insurance for middle class children who currently lack coverage, and the right-wing attack on a 12 year-old boy who told his story. Let's talk about immigration. Let's talk more about the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the super-rich, stagnating wages, skyrocketing energy prices, education reform, Scooter Libby, the Walter Reed Scandal, illegal wiretapping, Alberto Gonzalez or a hundred other truly important considerations as yet another election approaches.

By all means, the less the media focuses on the Iraq fiasco, the better I'll like it. Iraq barely makes my top five things that Bush has completely fouled up.

C'mon, newspeople. Cal Thomas is a feeble old man. Can't we grant him a last wish and spend a few minutes in each newscast talking about how great things are in Baghdad? You know, maybe after you ferret out the facts on some of these other issues, if you have the time.

And the balls.

Labels: , , , , , ,


posted at 7:04 PM

0 comments

Friday, October 12, 2007
This and that, 12 October 2007

The Dalai Lama is coming to Washington to receive a medal, and will meet with President Bush. The two will not embrace or shake hands, as there is some concern that the two of them will cancel each other out.

A six-year old girl in Brooklyn has been cited by the city of New York for graffiti for drawing on the sidewalk in front of her house with chalk. This never would have happened on Giuliani's watch, rest assured. Her ass would be halfway to Gitmo if Rudy was still running things. I mean, assuming he wasn't trying to date her.


Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Your reaction to this headline tells me more about you than I really want to know.

Attention stupid parents! The holidays are coming, and here are some Do's and Do Not Do's as you shop for your spoiled brats. It never ceases to amaze me that I need a license to drive a car, and any two drunken imbeciles can have kids, and no one says a damned thing.

Lead: It's not just for kids' toys anymore. Putting it in lipstick probably seemed like a good idea at the time, and I see a lot of women with concerned looks today. And also a few guys who normally seem VERY happy look a little jumpy.

LA is the home to more homeless people than any other city in America. That headline doesn't even make sense.

The US House of Representatives approved a measure this week to label the murder of 1.5 million Armenians by Turks in 1915 a genocide. President Bush is concerned that this action will harm relations with Turkey. Too soon? I mean, it was only NINETY-TWO YEARS ago. Set your watches, Darfur will be declared a genocide by 2093.

Scientists have explained your chocolate cravings. I dunno, "It tastes good?" Still no cure for cancer.

Labels: , ,


posted at 5:06 PM

1 comments

Thursday, September 27, 2007
The SCHIP hits the fan

The State Children's Health Insurance Program funding bill made its way through Congress this week. It is pretty much what it sounds like, and it's one of the more successful programs initiated in the last decade. So given that fact, and also that wages are stagnant while medical costs skyrocket, some people thought it might be a good idea to expand the program to another 10 million kids. I know, it's crazy.

Guess who is going to veto the legislation, cutting off funding to even the current beneficiaries of such largesse, a.k.a. poor kids?

That's right, the compassionate conservative himself, President George W. Bush.

How can he do such a thing? It's easy, because he says the program "is an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American."

Now, who you are is defined by which part of that sentence you gravitate toward.

If you are a conservative, you see "government-run health care."

If you are a liberal, you see "health care for every American."

At this moment, I have medical insurance through my job, so I'm luckier than a lot of people who have no job, or have jobs (plural) which do not offer insurance. I pay a great deal for it, and in comparison to other insurance I have had, it's not really all that great. I have only the brochure's word for it that I will be treated if I actually get sick, but I have seen enough bastardry from that industry to be skeptical.

If the quality of the furniture in my doctor's office declines slightly because he is being reimbursed by a government agency instead of a for-profit insurance conglomerate, I will not just live with that, I suspect I will flourish. And so will all of the other Americans who can get medical care.

This is not bleeding-heart do-goodery. I am a misanthrope, and think the world is ridiculously overpopulated. That being said, I'm pretty sure it'd be more economically feasible to let people see a doctor when they have the flu rather than hospitalizing them when they have pneumonia. It's a cost/benefit analysis, and prevention is always cheaper than treatment. You want to see your taxes spent more judiciously? Make damn sure that children get their vaccinations, and then when your dumb ass breaks your leg skiing, you won't have to wait fifteen hours in the godforsaken emergency room, because people with preventable conditions and no insurance now require immediate treatment. WHILE YOU WAIT.

If state-run insurance is so awful, why do people in the countries that have these programs outlive us, and generally also pay less for their medical costs, including taxes? Please feel free to quote me statistics, I live for that shit.

Please don't quote me any statistics.

I am not a Christian, and I don't believe in god. I don't think that I am amoral. Morality exists, whether god does or not. And the golden rule still covers most things as far as I'm concerned. If you are someone who believes the teachings of Jesus, how does that jibe with your modern "Greed is Good" conservatism? I'm not saying you need to wear sandals and sleep in a tent, but maybe what helps others with less is ultimately good for all of us?

In 2007, it is abundantly clear that the free market has failed to produce satisfactory results in two areas: Health care, and fighting wars. 180,000 "contractors" in Iraq (Contractors! Like they're repairing the roof!) in addition to 165,000 US troops, and we are no closer to a self-sustaining Iraq that we were three years ago, or will be in another three. You can't fight this war with mercenaries, no matter how well paid, and you can't keep 300 million people healthy when profit is mandatory, and stockholders get bigger dividends when people with cancer are denied treatment.

There are some things that are so damned big that the government needs to do them. Sorry, but that should be obvious by now. If you have a free-market solution, please explain it to me, and spare me you tax credits for medical expenses. I'm not sure how those help people that can't pay for treatment in the first place. I know, I know, they should all let their accountants handle this stuff.

So go ahead, George, you silver-spoon never-worked-a-day-in-your-life elite, veto the bill. Dump it. Tell the people with kids that they're better off without insurance in a free market than they would be with insurance provided by the government. You push that argument right through election day next year. You will hand the Democrats a veto-proof majority, and the White House for good measure. If you think SCHIP will cost a lot, wait til you see what these moron Democrats come up with when there is no longer an effective opposition.

Veto it. Keep vetoing it. And enjoy the Rovian Permanent Minority you will usher into American politics for your party.

Veto it.

Labels: , , , ,


posted at 11:37 PM

2 comments

Thursday, September 13, 2007
The old Switcheroo

I was thinking this week about how great the war was going in Iraq, and it took me back to an article I read in the Fall of 2004, about why we had to invade. I know now that it is because we must grant democracy to the Iraqi people, but even three years ago, we had already gone through 21 different reasons for attacking. I shit you not, and here they are:

1) To prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
2) For regime change.
3) To further the war on terror.
4) Because of Iraq’s violation of United Nations resolutions.
5) Because of Saddam Hussein’s evil dictatorship and actions.
6) Because of a lack of weapons inspections in Iraq.
7) To liberate Iraq.
8) Because of Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda.
9) Because Iraq was an imminent threat.
10) To disarm Iraq.
11) To conclude the Gulf War of 1991.
12) Because Hussein was a threat to the region.
13) For the safety of the world.
14) To support the United Nations.
15) Because the United States could (easy victory).
16) To preserve peace around the world.
17) Because Iraq was a unique threat.
18) To transform the region.
19) As a warning to other terrorist nations.
20) Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it.
21) Because history calls the United States to action.

Now, I suppose Number 18 might cover the whole "grant democracy to the Iraqis" thing, so I won't say that this notion is yet another excuse. But lists aside, have we made any progress?

According to the rather sunny report that General Petraeus delivered to Congress this week, the number of Iraqis being killed in terrorist incidents has dropped by 50% this year (only 2000 a month now!). In spite of this great news, the Iraqi government can't seem to get anything done. There are hopeless divisions due to the different Muslim factions that are trying to get their piece of the action, none of which are willing to compromise, take a step back, or admit that their side may have blood on its hands anytime in the, oh, let's say, eight centuries or so.

If you are willing to acknowledge these facts, you may want to throw your hands up in despair. I look at them, and can only think, "Mission Accomplished." In reverse.

George W. Bush, in his efforts to make Iraq more like the United States, has actually managed to make the US more like Iraq.

In Iraq, we have religious groups who have aligned themselves politically with parties that support their particular dogma. There is not, nor has there ever been, any room for compromise between these parties, because all sides are convinced that they are the only ones who know The Truth.

In the United States, where we used to have a two-party system that was capable of compromise, especially on important issues, we now have idiotic, fruitless (no offense Senator Craig) squabbling, because both parties are certain that their way is the only way to do things, and that compromise is a sign of weakness.

Iraq is in the Middle East, it is overwhelmingly Muslim, and even as an ostensible democracy, would still have an Islamic-oriented government. There could never be an institutionalized writ of separation between church (or mosque) and state.

The United States is predominantly Christian, and even though many of the founders were themselves believers in Christianity, they saw fit to not exclude anyone by having a de facto state religion.

Now, however, we have a government in place which is run at the highest levels by evangelical Christians, whose views on the universe and law are not altogether different than those held by Taliban clerics. They believe god, or more specifically, Jesus, should be a part of every single facet of American life, and that there is no type of charity but that of the Christian variety. They know that to believe otherwise makes one an infidel in this life, and condemned to hell in the next one.

Well, no thanks.

I wish the Iraqis well, but they and their inevitable theocracy can go rot. I want my country back. I want people running things that understand science and the value of research. I want the ones in charge to be able to see past their own selfish desires and dogma, and try to figure out what the consequences of actions might be, not just today but for the next fifty years. I want a president who has doubts, because no one but children and imbeciles could possibly ever have a clear conscience. Certainty, especially the moral brand, is the clearest evidence of a closed mind, and people who claim it ought not be left in charge of anything more important than a microwave oven.

These men who would protect us from evil have instead trashed our Constitution, and lowered us to the level of the enemy whom we proclaim to be so utterly backward in its thinking. And I'm not just talking about our Saudi allies who knocked down the World Trade Center, we have become more like the fascist Communist governments run by Stalin and Mao. We may be a ways off from that level, but we sure as hell are as close to that point as we have ever been.

George W. Bush, the staunch anti-Communist who kept the skies over Texas safe from the Viet Cong in the 1960s, and now battles to keep the American Way intact by taking moral lessons from the worst people on Earth. The 3,000 who died on 9/11/01, and the nearly 3,800 American servicemen and women who have died since then are casualties of a war to promote American-style democracy. It is a war we lost the moment the so-called Patriot Act was signed into law in 2001, and its headstone was cemented in place with the signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which eliminated Habeus Corpus.

We have forfeited our birthright to a group of inbred fanatics who could not take it away from us if they had their numbers increased a thousandfold. And we have done it thanks to the type of leadership one would expect in a third-rate, pissant country like Iraq.

Iraq has American-style democracy all right. If that country even exists in ten years, I'll buy you a Coke.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


posted at 4:43 PM

1 comments

Saturday, August 11, 2007
Sound Economic Principles

It's been a real roller coaster of a week on Wall Street as stock markets jump around and nosedive. Traders are nervous, investors are panicked, and I don't give a damn.

It's all abstract, meaningless bullshit. I understand that these billions of dollars that evaporate came from the pockets of real people, and since we're also talking retirement accounts and all manner of investments, some of it was probably my money, too. It makes no difference to me. In spite of everything it would mean in terms of a serious reduction in the quality of life I would experience, I would like to see it all go to hell, and sooner rather than later.

An extended depression in the economy is inevitable, as economists have suddenly realized that extending mortgages to people who cannot possibly pay them back is not simply immoral. It's far worse.

It's bad business.

And even though the wholly bought and paid for Republican Congress changed the bankruptcy laws in the past couple of years to make it damned near impossible for normal people to get relief, when you ain't got the cash, you can't pay the vig. And since "reputable" (hah!) banks don't break legs, they are now saddled with trillions in properties that are worth less than what's still owed, due to the downturn in the housing market.

Burn baby, burn.

Let's see some banks go out of business! I want to see stockbrokers and CEOs, parasites who produce nothing, I want to see them jumping out of windows the way their predecessors did back in more honorable times. People used to take responsibility when they ran the boat aground, now it's no one's fault.

"It's just this damned economy. No one could have foreseen what would happen."

Time to start over.

Let's put a thousand men to work fixing that bridge in Minneapolis. and let's get another thousand to dig those miners out of their tomb in Utah. Why not get another twenty million on top of repairing all of the other decrepit infrastructure in this ticking time bomb of a country? And maybe we'll pay them a decent wage, and repair their injuries when they get hurt, how would that be?

The president said Thursday that he would block any attempt to raise federal gasoline taxes in order to fix the problems we face here in America.

"That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."

I wonder if trucks and trains full of consumer goods sailing off of bridges would affect economic growth. I wonder if helicopter action shots of minivans full of pretty white kids and their soccer moms being crushed by elevated roadways would make people think twice about going to the mall to buy useless shit they don't need. I'm not a graduate of the London School of Economics, but my guess is that this sort of thing would unsettle people.

President Shitbird refuses to raise the tax on gas, which hasn't been boosted in 14 years, even a nickel, one stinking dollar for every twenty gallons sold. He is incomprehensibly shortsighted. The only people that can't see into the next day are children, the insane, and fucking morons.

Pick any two you like.

This has moved beyond dereliction of his duties as president. This if malice with aforethought. It's bad enough that he has defiled huge hunks of the Constitution, that he has the blood of American soldiers killed in Iraq on his hands, that of Iraqi civilians, and also completely ignored the Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." His rationale is that if the gas tax is raised, people might actually drive less, and his cormorant oil cronies might see their profits fall from preposterous to merely obscene.

That's all he has knocking around in that little rat brain of his. "What can clown do for you?"*

*You, of course, being a billionaire.

The damage done to this country by this president and people like him is not irreparable. It will take decades to fix, but it is possible. As usual, it will be the working people that have to sacrifice while the blocks are restacked, and the scales move closer to balance. The people who wrecked the house, as ever, will not be inconvenienced by the laborious cleanup.

So I say, let it all go to hell, have the rich and poor alike in the streets selling apples, and let's see how it shakes out. Let the stock markets fall by 80%, the people with mansions will let rooms, we will default on our debts to the Chinese, unite as a country and tell them to suck it.

I'm done with it. I can do with less.

Labels: , ,


posted at 12:10 AM

0 comments

Thursday, August 02, 2007
Broken Span of Attention

A ridiculous tragedy yesterday as a thousand-foot long stretch of a US interstate highway collapsed and fell into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. This was not some country road in the middle of nowhere, it was I-35W in the center of one of the larger metropolitan areas in the richest nation on Earth.

When ferries sink in Cameroon or a garbage dump buries villages in the Philippines, we sit back with our usual smugness and sigh contentedly, "How wonderful it is that I live in the greatest nation on Earth, where we build things that last forever, and they stay that way through the grace of a loving and American God."

Why should the wish-thinking that has so infected large portions of the public discourse not filter down to the mundane subject of care and maintenance of infrastructure? It must have, or we wouldn't see these sorts of calamities happening with more and more frequency.

The President this morning offers and prayers and somber good-wishes, but also declared that the costs were Minnesota's to bear, which is odd, since the last I checked, the Interstate system was a federally operated program.

But that's tough love from a Neocon who only believes in Darwinism if it's the social type, or relates to the marketplace. The winners win, the losers die off, and may God have mercy on the souls of your loved ones caught under 200 tons of concrete and rebar.

The sorrow of this event has not turned to anger yet, but it will. I'm on an accelerated program of pragmatic rage, so I was livid within the first ninety minutes of the bridge's collapse. I was even angrier this morning when I started to see some backlash to the assertion that the Bush administration bore considerable responsibility for this tragedy.

"There you go, libs, hating the president for everything. What, do you think he knocked the bridge down himself?"

Hey, there's a delightfully logical response to the questioning of Bush's priorities.

The knee-jerk defenders of this criminal administration tell you that none of this has anything to do with anything else, and especially not war in Iraq. And I know that the Defense budget has nothing to do with the monies that go into maintaining and building American infrastructure.

But it is a question of priorities.

Someone please tell me how investing even half of the $2.5 billion per week that we are currently spending in Iraq in US infrastructure would not make Americans safer on a daily basis. If the president, who incorrectly interprets his oath as protecting Americans from threats (as opposed to defending the Constitution), then repair of infrastructure that we all use every day should be a high priority.

But as usual, sir:

You have chosen...poorly.

As a person who pays attention, I know that money won't be shifted from the Sunni Triangle to Saint Paul, and besides, we're fighting this war on credit. We haven't even begun paying for this thing. Your kids will pay for it, and theirs as well.

Slap a penny, a dime, a dollar on every gallon of gas sold, and shunt it right into state transportation budgets. The feds will monitor the safety of the infrastructure, and enormous fines will be levied against states where dangerous roads, bridges, etc are found. And just to make everyone happy, those fines will be sent to the Department of Defense for any damned thing they want to spend it on, be it war or just research into how to combat the Soviet threat circa 1961. The caveat will be that none of the money can be spent on defense contractors within states that have been monitored with failing infrastructure.

It's a ridiculous solution to a serious problem, but the president has offered nothing except prayer and warm thoughts. You are The Decider. Make a decision. Do something. American lives are being threatened, yes, but far more by rust and stress than by anything Saddam, erm, Hugo Chavez, ah, Kim Jong Il, OSAMA, yes, Osama bin Laden could dream up. At least these people admit that they want us dead, instead of smiling at us and pretending to give a damn.

Keep your prayers. Fix my fucking bridges.

Labels: , , , , ,


posted at 8:54 PM

0 comments

Tuesday, July 31, 2007
FUBAR's Rube

I'm hardly extraordinary in my news consumption. I try to read the paper each day, and maybe catch an hour or so of news. These are a couple of the rare activities in my life that make me feel like an adult, so that's not so bad. Because of these things, I am aware that for some reason, Alberto Gonzales is still the Attorney General of the United States of America. I just can't understand why.

The Democratic majority in Congress has shown that it is spineless in holding the administration accountable on the war, the faked intelligence leading to the war, the slow strangulation of the middle and working classes, unlawful eavesdropping on law-abiding American citizens, or anything else. There is so much to impeach George Bush over, that most of us wouldn't know where to begin.

Well, not this Congress. There don't appear to be more than a handful who value the rule of law and this country over the prospect of the next election. There are more important things, you stupid bastards. Nancy Pelosi announcing at the end of 2006 that "impeachment is off the table." Damn her.

It's not your job to decide what is a crime and what isn't! Not one bit. Your job is to pass laws, and when necessary, rein in the other branches that have decided to ignore these laws. Your job, the oath you took as a matter of fact, is to protect the Constitution of the United States. Since the President and Vice President have pissed on their oaths, it is time for you to do your job, your Constitutional duty, and try these men for high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution.

Frankly, if you haven't instituted impeachment hearings by November, you and Harry Reid should both resign the leadership positions, and your seats in Congress as far as I'm concerned.

Someone tell me why Alberto Gonzales is still the highest ranking law official in this country. Won't someone please defend this man? Anyone? I used to just think he was a mindless automaton, doing his patron's bidding since both were back in Texas, but it's really much more than that. Gonzales has proven to be ignorant of the law in so many ways. He's not even a very good lawyer, apparently! Even I know that an attorney never asks a question to which he doesn't already know the answer. All of these Senators questioning Gonzales are attorneys, and Chairman Pat Leahy was a prosecutor. Do you really think he's just up there winging it with Gonzo?

And if Al believes it, the only conclusion that one can reach is that not only is he a courtier, a lackey, and bad at his job. He also appears to be a damned moron.

These hearings are like the chess club ganging up on the village retard. It seems cruel, but this man and the administration he so brazenly represents need to be held up to the light. If people feel pity that the smart men are picking on Corky, then we will never see the end of this tunnel of criminality that Bush/Cheney has burrowed into the bedrock of a nation that used to value its laws and freedoms.

It also likes a really extended metaphor now and again.

Impeach Gonzales. Impeach Cheney. Impeach Bush. The evidence is overwhelming, and the true beauty of the case is that these men won't even bother denying their crimes. they will sit in the dock, straight-backed and proud, desperately trying to make us understand that the only way to save America was to destroy it.

Labels: , , , ,


posted at 8:21 PM

2 comments

Monday, July 23, 2007
Summer time

And the living is boring.

I seem to be unmotivated by much of anything in terms of writing, but I suppose that's understandable. Congress is in a holding pattern, and isn't even accomplishing stupidity in an interesting way, so that's a dry well. The Commander In Chimp seems to be growing comfortable with his irrelevance, and the most interesting thing he's done in a week is put a camera up his butt.

A less creative type might make an obvious joke here, but not me. Quality matters.

Barry Bonds is about to break Hank Aaron's all-time home run record, and I can't help but feel that it's too bad. Bonds is a great player, and a Hall Of Famer, but he'd not be anywhere close to the record without using illegal steroids. It's just disappointing that the most hallowed record in sports will be held by someone with all of this scandal about him. Eh, there are worse things.

The war in Iraq continues, and no one cares about that either. The people who are against it can't get the Democrats to actually do anything, and the people who are for it won't drive their kids down to the recruiting center to sign up. And College Republicans are the funniest little fascist hypocrites in the world:



I may go to Las Vegas next week for a few days, and just see if I can bust up this cycle of dullness. I don't even know why we bother having summer once we're no longer in school. What's the point?

Labels: , , , ,


posted at 10:47 PM

0 comments

Sunday, July 15, 2007
Paging Hal Holbrook

It's Sunday afternoon, and I was laying on my bed watching television. Specifically, I'm looking at NBC's Meet The Press, which I had TiVo'ed from earlier this morning.

Go on, shake your head sadly, I'm doing it, too.

I had recently returned with full belly from Wienerschnitzel, the air conditioning was on, and I began to drift into that half-awake/half-asleep state which characterizes so many of my afternoons. There was a round table discussion of political pundits, including Bob Novak, who of course, was the first to put into print that Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. Novak has a memoir coming out, from which I have no doubt he will profit handsomely.

The panel was discussing Novak's involvement in the 1972 presidential race, and in particular, Novak's part in labeling George McGovern as "triple-A candidate: Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion." This quote, published in March of that year, was made anonymously by Thomas Eagleton, a senator from Missouri. Four months later, McGovern would pick Eagleton as his running mate. It gets worse.

Apparently, ten years earlier, Eagleton had, on two or three occasions, checked himself into hospitals with mental and physical exhaustion, and received electro-shock therapy. This information naturally hit the press, and just three weeks later, on August 1, Eagleton withdrew from the ticket. The damage to the Democrats was done.

Which is not to blame Eagleton for the ensuing landslide. Nixon was still fairly popular, Watergate wasn't in the national consciousness, and McGovern wasn't exactly a formidable candidate, given the state of things in 1972. The Republicans got the opponent they wanted in the election, and the Eagleton fiasco was merely icing on the cake.

Back to today. I'm still in my half-conscious state listening to this, and then I sat up very suddenly. The Republicans have revealed their game plan, and I understood it clearly, I suspect because my questionable subconscious was at the fore.

Any Republican I speak to off the record thinks the 2008 elections are going to be a miserable, historically bad time. Every time Bush talks about progress in Iraq, and 70% of us know what a crock that is, support trickles away. Every time he talks about the stock market surging, and the rest of us see our health care and housing costs skyrocketing, another conservative voter starts to wonder what it means.

Republicans also don't like their candidates very much. They have Giuliani, who is pro-choice, for gay rights, and pro gun control. They like the fact that he had a really great day on September 11th, 2001 while the rest of us were lining up at blood banks. But they know, or at least suspect the amount of personal and political dirt that he is hiding would dwarf the pile at ground zero. And of course Mit Romney is a Mormon, so he's out.

When you have to turn to Fred Thompson to ignite passion, you are a party in trouble. If I may quote his old high school football coach:

"He was smart, but he was lazy. He probably could have been a straight-A student if he'd applied himself."

Big deal, Fred was lazy in high school. I didn't get to me the head of thoracic surgery at Harvard Med myself, in large part due to the same affliction. But when one of his advisers while in the Senate says this about his, erm, lightweight record of accomplishments during eight years in the Senate:

"While the Senate is filled with ambitious men who aren't in a rush to get home at night, Senator Thompson kept a lean formal schedule, did the bare minimum to get by and then hightailed [it] to the Prime Rib or the Capital Grille."

There will be more to come, rest assured. The man made his bones in Hollywood. You got your freebie with Reagan. Thompson will be crucified from the left, and the right. Go ahead and declare, Fred. I dare you.

But don't worry, the Democrats will screw it up and give you a chance.

It's a good-looking field, in large part. You have, just at the top, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. All three are pretty good candidates in varying degrees. Someone asked me about five months ago who I liked, and I said Edwards, mainly because he had actually outlined his plans for universal health care. Lots of candidates were talking about it, but no one had laid out specifics.

All of the press, of course, has been with Hillary, and Barak Obama. She's got great poll numbers and Bill, Obama is a rock star and raises money like gangbusters. Edwards has more time in the Senate than any of them, is an accomplished legislator, and probably should have been the nominee in 2004. But what do we know about John Edwards, or at least what are people saying in the press this year?

John Edwards has a giant house. Oh, sure, he talks a good game about dealing with poverty, but how dare he have an enormous home that he paid for with his own money!

He gets expensive haircuts. $400 dollars for a haircut? How can he possibly understand what I go through when he can drop four yards on a trim? Right, like Sean Hannity gets his mop varnished at SuperCuts. Please. If this was Romney, people would be rushing to the head of the line to talk about how great the economy must be to spend 400 bucks on a haircut, and furthermore, how this clearly gives the service sector huge incentive to show up for work. And where Rudy is concerned, they'd simply be happy if he had hair.

The sandbagging of McGovern got me thinking about Edwards.

The Democrats could run almost any politician in the party and take 60% of the overall vote next year, especially if things continue as they have, and Bush persists on dragging his feet on Iraq. Unless...

Unless you nominate a woman, or an African-American. Yes, I said it.

I like Clinton and Obama in varying degrees, although not as much as Edwards. I think Hillary would make a good president, as smart as she is, but she has been known to pander, and I'm sick of Bush/Clinton/Bush/etc in the White House. Obama, on the other hand, I just need to learn more about. What I know of him, I like a great deal, and his inexperience doesn't register for me as an issue. This guy is beyond smart, and appears to have common sense as well. What he doesn't already know, he'll learn. Thus far, however, he has not been a great campaigner.

The press has been content to feed us the "fact" that Hillary and Obama are the top tier Democrats, and everyone else is just muddying the waters. They can't bury Edwards yet, because he is a legitimate candidate with a great political infrastructure in place, and learned a few things in 2004. But they are sure as hell trying.

I'd like to think that at this point in history, a woman, a black, a Hispanic, Jew or gay could run for office and no one would really give a damn about it. I know better.

The press will continue to anoint Clinton and Obama as the legit candidates until one of them is the Democratic nominee. That is when it will get interesting, to see how the Irrational Right will spew out ugliness without resorting to gender bashing or race-baiting.

"Barak! Call me!"

My guess is that if Hillary gets it, it'll just be a non-stop Clinton bash-fest, and we will see endless streams of Lewinsky photos and the like. If it plays that way, Hillary will win, this country still loves her husband. Don't worry, Roger Ailes will come up with something that will work.

An Obama nomination will be more interesting. How will the GOP call a spade a spade (Whoops! Means nothing!), without being so painfully obvious? And is obvious the way to go because maybe this country, despite all of its protestations to the contrary, may simply not ready to elect a black president? I hope I'm wrong.

What I do know is that the GOP will face the candidate they want to face. A race that should not be remotely competitive will be a nail-biter. Allegations of mental illness and poor health that ruined Eagleton will not be needed when the largest "flaws" the Democratic frontrunners have are written in their genetic code.

You think it won't get that bad? It'll be even worse.

Labels: , , , , ,


posted at 5:07 PM

maystar maystar maystar designs | maystar designs |
Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com