On the upside of the STUPAK amendment, against any inclusion of pro-choice services in the healthcare bill, will be the death of the 'tort reform' (read 'repeal') movement.
This amendment, if it actually makes it to law, will become the lawsuit bonanza that the Christian right will use to grind most women's services in the US to a halt, through the active civil litigation to prove a 'not-one-federal-dollar' money trail for every instance of every one of those services.
In addition, I think Regents University (look it up) will start a new degree program in 'Forensic Accounting' with a minor in Women's Health Services, the better to harass all providers.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Friday, November 06, 2009
Science is where you find it...
After Columbine, and again especially after the Virginia Tech horror show, a certain group of deep thinkers and social theoreticians posited the proposition that if everyone was trained in the use of arms, both handguns and rifles, AND if everyone was allowed to carry them, openly, then events such as Columbine and Virginia Tech wouldn't happen, or at least would be minimized in scope.
After the experiment that these scientists held yesterday in Texas, at Ft. Hood, can we pronounce that theory dead?
After the experiment that these scientists held yesterday in Texas, at Ft. Hood, can we pronounce that theory dead?
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Tomorrow's Headlines
Today, 'bat-shit crazy congresswoman' Michele Bachman led a contingent of DeMint teabaggers from the capitol steps into the halls of Congress. Arrests were made.
Today, Sen. Barbara Boxer told the Republicans to suck eggs, and called the vote for the Climate Bill in her committee, with no Republicans present. It passed, 10-1. (Typical Dems)
Today, the Dow gained 200+ poiunts, growing over two percent.
Today, President Obama (love the sound of that still) announced the endorsement of the healthcare bill from the AARP, and the AMA.
None of that will be the headline on your website or newspaper or radio news tomorrow.
It'll be the shootings at Ft Hood.
And on the sites that love 'bat-shit crazy congresswoman' Michele Bachman, it'll be emphasized that the shooter had a foreign, muslim-sounding name. Obama will be blamed.
I'll just remark that this is one of the worst days of Army casualties since the current wars were started. Fortunately, we don't lose 12 in one day very often.
Wherever you are, donate blood.
They need it.
Today, Sen. Barbara Boxer told the Republicans to suck eggs, and called the vote for the Climate Bill in her committee, with no Republicans present. It passed, 10-1. (Typical Dems)
Today, the Dow gained 200+ poiunts, growing over two percent.
Today, President Obama (love the sound of that still) announced the endorsement of the healthcare bill from the AARP, and the AMA.
None of that will be the headline on your website or newspaper or radio news tomorrow.
It'll be the shootings at Ft Hood.
And on the sites that love 'bat-shit crazy congresswoman' Michele Bachman, it'll be emphasized that the shooter had a foreign, muslim-sounding name. Obama will be blamed.
I'll just remark that this is one of the worst days of Army casualties since the current wars were started. Fortunately, we don't lose 12 in one day very often.
Wherever you are, donate blood.
They need it.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Looking Back, Looking Forward.
Perspective on a year without Republican Rule, and the 2010 Elections.
(This is a long one. It's the first day on the path to the next 'first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.')
One year ago, Obama became president-elect. Republicans for months have been pointing to the 2010 mid-terms and licking their chops, swearing a replay of 1994's Republican sweep of Congress. Yesterday, two states that went for Obama last year elected Republican governors to replace democratic ones. But a congressional district in upstate NY went Democratic for the first time since the Civil War.
What the hell's going on? Should Dems be worried?
Looking Back
1964 will always be remembered as the second-lowest point for Republicans in the 20th century. (The lowest, of course, was Hoover, the Great Depression, and the resulting 4 terms of FDR.) Goldwater, 'AuH2O', had built on the anger and paranoia of the McCarthyites and the John Birchers, and led them off an electoral cliff.
But by 1968, the Republicans had retaken the White hHouse. The death of the Republican Party was announced too soon. But this was the beginning of the end of the GOP as America had known it for a century. In Johnson's first term, from '64 to '68, Civil Rights, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security expansion, Voting Rights, all brought about an uprising among the racists of the south, who'd always voted Democratic. George Wallace became the candidate of the Dixiecrats until he was shot. The GOP saw the opportunity to throw in with the racists to expand their electoral base, and the 'Southern strategy' gave Nixon the bare electoral edge he needed to take the White House. But through it all, Democrats held both houses of Congress. Coalitions often were created across the aisle to work together on particular bills or initiatives. But Dems could take credit for the agenda, and its successful enactment.
From '69 to '74, Clean Air, Clean Water, the EPA, the banning of DDT, all came from the citizens, through this Democratic Congress. Democrats still held both houses of Congress.
By '74, by acting out the new populist GOP foundation of paranoia and hatred of others, Nixon's crew had committed crimes for which they had been indicted and disgraced. Nixon himself ran from the White House rather than face the impeachment charges that even old-school Republicans were supporting in the House and Senate. His apponted beard, Ford, served two years then was rolled out, replaced by Carter. Still the Dems held both Houses of Congress. Still they set the agenda.
1980 Reagan, 1988 Bush I, 1992 Clinton. With one two-year exception, in the Senate at the beginning of Reagan's first term, Democrats still held both houses of Congress. Iran-Contra, Bork, BCCI, Thomas, all these hearing were in front of Democratic Congressional chairmen.
By the time of the the 1994 sweep of both ends of the Capitol by Newt Gingrich's New Republicans, America had seen 40 years of almost solid Democratic Congressional policies and agendas. Blacks could vote. Women couldn't be kept in the kitchen. Air was becoming more breathable, the water drinkable again. America took these things for granted again, and gave no credit to anyone, instead assuming these were manna that fell from heaven. America had also by then heard over ten years of powerless Republicans telling it how much better it would be when the Republicans took over.
America took the chance. It voted for something new, something shiny, something Republican.
In 12 years, America saw exactly what a Republican Revolution would do in Congress. In the last six of those twelve, it how disastrous a lock-step, doctrinaire Republican monolith, owning all three branches of America's government, could be. When they finally had to walk the talk, Republicans were shown to America for hat they were: bait-and-switch hucksters out for nobody but themselves and their owners. Certainly not out for America. So in 2006, America turned them out of the capitol, and two years later, turned them out of the White House.
That's the look back.
Here's the Look Forward
The 2010 midterms aren't anything like the 1994 midterms. The Dems will have had the White House less than two years, Congress less than four. the Republicans will have been successfully crying 'wolf', sure, but also evidently playing sour grapes and stopping all legislative movement, with no agenda but "NO!"
Then the math of the midterms works against the Republicans too. Most of the Senate seats up for election are Republican, which means a lot of party money will be spent defending existing seats, not as much grabbing for new ones (more at a later date,) and 37 governorships up for election, more than in '94.
And with the demented DeMint Teabaggers working the primaries in 2010, expect a lot of hardline Republicans to find themselves suddenly painted as liberals and wimps as the only active part of the GOP pushes the rest of its body politic over the same cliff Goldwater ran his lemmings off 46 years earlier.
But the 2010 elections are doubly important, especially at the state level. because the governors elected in 2010 will be signing off on the redistricting maps that their states legislatures drwa based on the 2010 census. Those governors, as well as their state legislatures, will need to be Democrats to kept the Republicans at bay for enough time for America to heal from the hurt that 30 years of Republicans put on it.
For thirty years, the Republicans had the White House since 1981 (except for Clinton) or had Republicans running the Congress (since 1994, with criminal charges brought up on any Republican who consorted with Dems), with only one brief period, from 1993 to the end of 1995, when Democrats ran both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. And of course, Clinton crashed and burned on Health Care, while the Congressional Dems thought their 40-year reign would last for ever, so they didn't stand up for him.
So now the next elections start. We have to hold the seats we have. We ought to be able to take some more in the Senate, while holding a wide margin in the House. And we have to get Dems elected to state houses across the land, a prospect made more likely in the face of last night's several rejections of spending limits and tax repeals.
If Republican rule did anything for America, it's this: it reminded America that the way of the Republican is the path to disaster, and that when all the companies fail, America is all that's left. It's We The People, using our government to create the bootstraps we pull ourselves up with. Up from the hole the Republicans dug, and which, after we get ourselves out, we should bury the Republican in.
And with any luck, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and the DeMint Teabaggers will help us do it.
(This is a long one. It's the first day on the path to the next 'first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.')
One year ago, Obama became president-elect. Republicans for months have been pointing to the 2010 mid-terms and licking their chops, swearing a replay of 1994's Republican sweep of Congress. Yesterday, two states that went for Obama last year elected Republican governors to replace democratic ones. But a congressional district in upstate NY went Democratic for the first time since the Civil War.
What the hell's going on? Should Dems be worried?
Looking Back
1964 will always be remembered as the second-lowest point for Republicans in the 20th century. (The lowest, of course, was Hoover, the Great Depression, and the resulting 4 terms of FDR.) Goldwater, 'AuH2O', had built on the anger and paranoia of the McCarthyites and the John Birchers, and led them off an electoral cliff.
But by 1968, the Republicans had retaken the White hHouse. The death of the Republican Party was announced too soon. But this was the beginning of the end of the GOP as America had known it for a century. In Johnson's first term, from '64 to '68, Civil Rights, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security expansion, Voting Rights, all brought about an uprising among the racists of the south, who'd always voted Democratic. George Wallace became the candidate of the Dixiecrats until he was shot. The GOP saw the opportunity to throw in with the racists to expand their electoral base, and the 'Southern strategy' gave Nixon the bare electoral edge he needed to take the White House. But through it all, Democrats held both houses of Congress. Coalitions often were created across the aisle to work together on particular bills or initiatives. But Dems could take credit for the agenda, and its successful enactment.
From '69 to '74, Clean Air, Clean Water, the EPA, the banning of DDT, all came from the citizens, through this Democratic Congress. Democrats still held both houses of Congress.
By '74, by acting out the new populist GOP foundation of paranoia and hatred of others, Nixon's crew had committed crimes for which they had been indicted and disgraced. Nixon himself ran from the White House rather than face the impeachment charges that even old-school Republicans were supporting in the House and Senate. His apponted beard, Ford, served two years then was rolled out, replaced by Carter. Still the Dems held both Houses of Congress. Still they set the agenda.
1980 Reagan, 1988 Bush I, 1992 Clinton. With one two-year exception, in the Senate at the beginning of Reagan's first term, Democrats still held both houses of Congress. Iran-Contra, Bork, BCCI, Thomas, all these hearing were in front of Democratic Congressional chairmen.
By the time of the the 1994 sweep of both ends of the Capitol by Newt Gingrich's New Republicans, America had seen 40 years of almost solid Democratic Congressional policies and agendas. Blacks could vote. Women couldn't be kept in the kitchen. Air was becoming more breathable, the water drinkable again. America took these things for granted again, and gave no credit to anyone, instead assuming these were manna that fell from heaven. America had also by then heard over ten years of powerless Republicans telling it how much better it would be when the Republicans took over.
America took the chance. It voted for something new, something shiny, something Republican.
In 12 years, America saw exactly what a Republican Revolution would do in Congress. In the last six of those twelve, it how disastrous a lock-step, doctrinaire Republican monolith, owning all three branches of America's government, could be. When they finally had to walk the talk, Republicans were shown to America for hat they were: bait-and-switch hucksters out for nobody but themselves and their owners. Certainly not out for America. So in 2006, America turned them out of the capitol, and two years later, turned them out of the White House.
That's the look back.
Here's the Look Forward
The 2010 midterms aren't anything like the 1994 midterms. The Dems will have had the White House less than two years, Congress less than four. the Republicans will have been successfully crying 'wolf', sure, but also evidently playing sour grapes and stopping all legislative movement, with no agenda but "NO!"
Then the math of the midterms works against the Republicans too. Most of the Senate seats up for election are Republican, which means a lot of party money will be spent defending existing seats, not as much grabbing for new ones (more at a later date,) and 37 governorships up for election, more than in '94.
And with the demented DeMint Teabaggers working the primaries in 2010, expect a lot of hardline Republicans to find themselves suddenly painted as liberals and wimps as the only active part of the GOP pushes the rest of its body politic over the same cliff Goldwater ran his lemmings off 46 years earlier.
But the 2010 elections are doubly important, especially at the state level. because the governors elected in 2010 will be signing off on the redistricting maps that their states legislatures drwa based on the 2010 census. Those governors, as well as their state legislatures, will need to be Democrats to kept the Republicans at bay for enough time for America to heal from the hurt that 30 years of Republicans put on it.
For thirty years, the Republicans had the White House since 1981 (except for Clinton) or had Republicans running the Congress (since 1994, with criminal charges brought up on any Republican who consorted with Dems), with only one brief period, from 1993 to the end of 1995, when Democrats ran both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. And of course, Clinton crashed and burned on Health Care, while the Congressional Dems thought their 40-year reign would last for ever, so they didn't stand up for him.
So now the next elections start. We have to hold the seats we have. We ought to be able to take some more in the Senate, while holding a wide margin in the House. And we have to get Dems elected to state houses across the land, a prospect made more likely in the face of last night's several rejections of spending limits and tax repeals.
If Republican rule did anything for America, it's this: it reminded America that the way of the Republican is the path to disaster, and that when all the companies fail, America is all that's left. It's We The People, using our government to create the bootstraps we pull ourselves up with. Up from the hole the Republicans dug, and which, after we get ourselves out, we should bury the Republican in.
And with any luck, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and the DeMint Teabaggers will help us do it.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Inherent Problems With Our Healthcare System
There are two obvious flaws in the current health-care system in the United States.
First, through no fault of the individual companies, there is NO incentive for preventive care. Especially with ever-fewer 'cradle-to-grave' jobs out there, almost no one stays with the same provider for their whole life. So why would a company go to the expense of helping their customers stay healthy, insuring that the next insurance company collects premiums from healthy, and therefore profitable, customers, without making any preventive care investments of its own?
The second is definitely their fault: less payout means more profit. Not just by canceling policies or refusing coverage, but by making the process of receiving coverage so cumbersome to everyone involved. Imagine being as certain you were covered as you are that the premium will be automatically deducted from your paycheck, and that the paperwork were as easy.
At a minimum, these inherent flaws mean the current system cannot last, and as a functional portion of America's economy, has run its course.
First, through no fault of the individual companies, there is NO incentive for preventive care. Especially with ever-fewer 'cradle-to-grave' jobs out there, almost no one stays with the same provider for their whole life. So why would a company go to the expense of helping their customers stay healthy, insuring that the next insurance company collects premiums from healthy, and therefore profitable, customers, without making any preventive care investments of its own?
The second is definitely their fault: less payout means more profit. Not just by canceling policies or refusing coverage, but by making the process of receiving coverage so cumbersome to everyone involved. Imagine being as certain you were covered as you are that the premium will be automatically deducted from your paycheck, and that the paperwork were as easy.
At a minimum, these inherent flaws mean the current system cannot last, and as a functional portion of America's economy, has run its course.
Republicans, Iran, and North Korea
Republicans are whining that Obama, already "with too much on his table", should start interfering with the Iranian elections.
And do what, exactly? "Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb Iran!", to quote John McCain? And that's from the guy they wanted to lead the country and the free world. Schmucks.
Iranians are in a place that North Koreans only dream of, where elections are actually held, and more than one candidate is on the ballot. Of course, Iranians were in a similar position only 30 years ago. And thirty years from now, North Korea may have learned from the ayatollahs' mistakes.
In the meantime, how will America respond if, as FOX News works to gin up the fear, N. Korea actually succeeded in exporting or, worst, detonating a nuclear bomb somewhere in the world? Some few hundred of the millions in North Korea would have been in any way responsible.
But we can be sure that the Republicans, and the 28% of Americans who still take them seriously, will be screaming for us to "Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb North Korea!" And kill thousands that hate their leader as much as those FOX viewers do, or perhaps don't even know anything about anything happening anywhere else in the world, and think their horror-show of day-to-day life is the norm around the world.
Open hand first, iron fist last.
And do what, exactly? "Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb Iran!", to quote John McCain? And that's from the guy they wanted to lead the country and the free world. Schmucks.
Iranians are in a place that North Koreans only dream of, where elections are actually held, and more than one candidate is on the ballot. Of course, Iranians were in a similar position only 30 years ago. And thirty years from now, North Korea may have learned from the ayatollahs' mistakes.
In the meantime, how will America respond if, as FOX News works to gin up the fear, N. Korea actually succeeded in exporting or, worst, detonating a nuclear bomb somewhere in the world? Some few hundred of the millions in North Korea would have been in any way responsible.
But we can be sure that the Republicans, and the 28% of Americans who still take them seriously, will be screaming for us to "Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb North Korea!" And kill thousands that hate their leader as much as those FOX viewers do, or perhaps don't even know anything about anything happening anywhere else in the world, and think their horror-show of day-to-day life is the norm around the world.
Open hand first, iron fist last.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Lesson 1: How NOT To Steal An Election
Amateurs!
If the Supreme Leader had waited two days after the election, and then announced that the returns gave Ahmadinijad 52%, Mousavi 43% and the rest of the contenders 5%, the losers would have grumbled and complained, but that would have been it. A plausible finish after a plausible period for the count.
The Grand Council and the Supreme leader could still have just pulled the results out of their rectitudes, but they'd have been accepted.
Instead, they got over-eager, and announced a ridiculously wide margin of victory before even Allah could have counted all the ballots.
Any good American politician could have warned them off. And there are plenty of unemployed but successful campaign consultants who'd have been happy to help in the theft of a national election, to the detriment of the nation and the world.
Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell come to mind...
If the Supreme Leader had waited two days after the election, and then announced that the returns gave Ahmadinijad 52%, Mousavi 43% and the rest of the contenders 5%, the losers would have grumbled and complained, but that would have been it. A plausible finish after a plausible period for the count.
The Grand Council and the Supreme leader could still have just pulled the results out of their rectitudes, but they'd have been accepted.
Instead, they got over-eager, and announced a ridiculously wide margin of victory before even Allah could have counted all the ballots.
Any good American politician could have warned them off. And there are plenty of unemployed but successful campaign consultants who'd have been happy to help in the theft of a national election, to the detriment of the nation and the world.
Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell come to mind...
The Return of the Peacock Throne
The reign of the CIA-installed Shah Reza Palahvi was one of violence-enforced adherence to the Shah's edicts, enforced by the Savak.
The Shah was overthrown by the youth of Iran rioting in the streets, overwhelming even the Iranian Army. Those students created a new, religious democracy, in their idealistic dream that religion would moderate the tendency towards dictatorship.
The Supreme Leader's actions f the past week have put the lie to those dreams, and while almost all the students in the streets this time are still Muslims, they have been taught, by the example of the dictatorship those earlier students now endorse, that this form of government doesn't work either.
Other than claiming his source of power from Allah instead of the CIA, there's little difference in the actions of the Supreme Leader, in his attempt to hold power.
The Shah's Peacock Throne, upon which the Supreme Leader now sits, may be replaced by the Green Revolt, or the Lipstick Revolution, but it will be replaced. More violence against the students will simply give more fodder to their cause, and less will be acquiescence to the revolution.
Either way, the legitimacy of the 30-year reign of rigid religious conservatism has run its course, and its lie is now seen not just outside the nation but within it as well.
Gosh. Sound like any other nation we know?
The Shah was overthrown by the youth of Iran rioting in the streets, overwhelming even the Iranian Army. Those students created a new, religious democracy, in their idealistic dream that religion would moderate the tendency towards dictatorship.
The Supreme Leader's actions f the past week have put the lie to those dreams, and while almost all the students in the streets this time are still Muslims, they have been taught, by the example of the dictatorship those earlier students now endorse, that this form of government doesn't work either.
Other than claiming his source of power from Allah instead of the CIA, there's little difference in the actions of the Supreme Leader, in his attempt to hold power.
The Shah's Peacock Throne, upon which the Supreme Leader now sits, may be replaced by the Green Revolt, or the Lipstick Revolution, but it will be replaced. More violence against the students will simply give more fodder to their cause, and less will be acquiescence to the revolution.
Either way, the legitimacy of the 30-year reign of rigid religious conservatism has run its course, and its lie is now seen not just outside the nation but within it as well.
Gosh. Sound like any other nation we know?
Friday, June 19, 2009
Health Insurance: The Easy Metric of Success
There's a very simple metric for the success of the Democratic Party's follow-through on the mandate of Health Care Reform from the 2006/20008 landslides.
By the 2010 mid-term elections, is there anyone in America who is uninsured?
Because if there is, America lost, and the ReagaNaziCorporation (RNC) won, and we should vote the Dems out just to remind them of their responsibility to represent us.
By the 2010 mid-term elections, is there anyone in America who is uninsured?
Because if there is, America lost, and the ReagaNaziCorporation (RNC) won, and we should vote the Dems out just to remind them of their responsibility to represent us.
Iran's Supreme Leader: "Suck Eggs!"
No, he didn't say it in those words, but how else should his two hour's of "Nothing to see here. Move along" be taken?
On the one hand, he told all the marchers that marching in the streets is no way to solve anything, hoping the older Iranians won't remind the younger ones that that's how he and his pals overthrew the Shah and came to power.
Instead, his reminder was that the way to change things is by elections. Like the one they just had, where the results were announced before the ballots could be counted. By a margin that no one believes, on either side of the election.
Which leaves exactly what options for the citizens of Iran? Shut up, sit down, take what we dish out. And be glad we don't come in the night and take you away, Allah be praised.
How exactly is this different from the reign of the Shah?
On the one hand, he told all the marchers that marching in the streets is no way to solve anything, hoping the older Iranians won't remind the younger ones that that's how he and his pals overthrew the Shah and came to power.
Instead, his reminder was that the way to change things is by elections. Like the one they just had, where the results were announced before the ballots could be counted. By a margin that no one believes, on either side of the election.
Which leaves exactly what options for the citizens of Iran? Shut up, sit down, take what we dish out. And be glad we don't come in the night and take you away, Allah be praised.
How exactly is this different from the reign of the Shah?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
How George HW Bush Almost Died...
| Not in that silly tandem skydive last Friday to celebrate his umpty-umpth birthday. No, in the one on June 12, 2001. And not by accident. If Jeb hadn't stolen Florida for Dub-ya in 2001, removing Poppy would have become a preferable outcome to many of his associates to his continued breathing. See, '41', or 'HW', or 'Poppy', whatever you want to call him, knows where most of the bodies in DC are buried. From his days as the head of the CIA, to his ambassadorship to China at the beginning of our great sell-out to them, and then of course disappearing in mid-campaign in 1980, to chat it up with Iranians about arms-for-hostages (and for a Reagan Presidency) at the hotel the Ayatollah had stayed at until he and his students took American hostages for 444 days. Then, there's all the fixes he was involved in while he was 'out of the loop' on the culmination of the Iran-Contra deals he'd started back in Paris off the campign trail. No wonder he preemptively pardoned everyone in his Administration on the way out of town in January 1993. At that point, he still had clout in the GOP, and especially in the boardrooms of the companies that'd benefitted from his policies for so long. And with Coors and Bradley and Scaife money keeping Clinton pinned down defending Arkansas from Ted Olsen and the Elves, no one in the White House had a chance to look over the records from the Reagan-Bush years. After all, the real point of the Elves wasn't just to keep Clinton from moving forward, but also from looking back. But Poppy's power and influence began to fade after 8 years. But the toxicity of the secrets he knew couldn't fade. His conspirators were still in office, still in boardrooms, and of course, the chance that the truth about Reagan's election, as well as about Iran-Contra, ever sullying the Great Prevaricator's legend, could not be tolerated. So, in an act not just of holding power, but of self-preservation, Poppy maneuvered to get one of his boys (the two that don't have felony convictions) elected president, from either Texas (Dub-ya) or preferably Jeb in Florida. Think how horribly wrong the seating of Gore would have been for Poppy, with Florida the electoral tie-breaker. Dub-ya becomes a political non-entity for at least eight years, maybe forever after his petulance at his loss makes the national papers. And the fact Jeb couldn't deliver his own state to his brother, his family, his party, would have ended his political future in the GOP right there. The presidentcy of Al Gore, despised by all Republicans, and supported by a majority of the voters, would be laid squarely at the door of the Bush family. Leaving no more favors to hand out, either from a former president or his two governor-sons. And while his sons didn't know anything about Poppy's backroom dealings, Poppy would have needed to be taken out before he let anyone in on those goings-on, as some sort of life insurance. Which is why I would have bought a ticket to that tandem jump in June 2001 if Dub-ya hadn't been coronated. And which is why the Poppy fought so hard from the back room to get his boy coronated when he didn't win. It was a matter of life and death. |
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Well, so much for GalaxyQuest.
Friday was the end of analog video broadcasts in the United States. And while many nay-sayers are now taking great pleasure in pointing out the millions of Americans that no longer have any television service, who will speak for the aliens?
I will.
No, not the ever-present, lurking menace of illegal aliens, always the #1 problem on right-wing radio. No, I speak of the interstellar aliens, off-worlders who will, some day in about 26 years or so, suddenly find that all those re-runs of Lucy and Star Trek and The Simpsons suddenly have stopped.
Those transmissions traveled farther, faster, than any satellite carrying gold disks of sounds or naked pictures of our species. And they are now, or some years in the future, some light-years away, turned off, with less fanfare than any dying star.
Oh, well. At least they can still get broadcast radio: baseball, NPR and Rush Limbaugh.
And we wonder why they never communicate with us...
I will.
No, not the ever-present, lurking menace of illegal aliens, always the #1 problem on right-wing radio. No, I speak of the interstellar aliens, off-worlders who will, some day in about 26 years or so, suddenly find that all those re-runs of Lucy and Star Trek and The Simpsons suddenly have stopped.
Those transmissions traveled farther, faster, than any satellite carrying gold disks of sounds or naked pictures of our species. And they are now, or some years in the future, some light-years away, turned off, with less fanfare than any dying star.
Oh, well. At least they can still get broadcast radio: baseball, NPR and Rush Limbaugh.
And we wonder why they never communicate with us...
"Start Again!"
This blog has been dormant for quite a while, as I was busy >ha!< during the last election.
Since then, I've been trying to decide whether to return here, or just leave it, another of the millions of blogs abandoned every year, for lack of diligence, for lack of something to say, or overtaken by newer technology.
So, as is evident from this post, I'm back. Here's why. The voices in my head won't shut-up.
There's the vociferous hater of Republicans, often the loudest and longest-winded(!). There's the tech geek, agog at what science discovers and engineers invent.
The comedian calls back to the humor of the past to inform the events in the news.
And then there's the analyst, always rolling problems and situations over and over, trying to find a new and better solution, or pry apart a system to find its flaw.
Eugene Volokh wrote once that a successful blog should stay focused on one subject, and that its postings should be relatively short.
I've considered having a blog for each of these voices, to prevent readers from having to wade through them to find the subjects they want.
But for simplicity's sake, I'll simply label the voices, and the reader can fallow the ones of interest to them...
But first, I am called to dinner. And 'cause my wife is a great cook, I'm never late for dinner.
Since then, I've been trying to decide whether to return here, or just leave it, another of the millions of blogs abandoned every year, for lack of diligence, for lack of something to say, or overtaken by newer technology.
So, as is evident from this post, I'm back. Here's why. The voices in my head won't shut-up.
There's the vociferous hater of Republicans, often the loudest and longest-winded(!). There's the tech geek, agog at what science discovers and engineers invent.
The comedian calls back to the humor of the past to inform the events in the news.
And then there's the analyst, always rolling problems and situations over and over, trying to find a new and better solution, or pry apart a system to find its flaw.
Eugene Volokh wrote once that a successful blog should stay focused on one subject, and that its postings should be relatively short.
I've considered having a blog for each of these voices, to prevent readers from having to wade through them to find the subjects they want.
But for simplicity's sake, I'll simply label the voices, and the reader can fallow the ones of interest to them...
But first, I am called to dinner. And 'cause my wife is a great cook, I'm never late for dinner.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Take Back America Conference: Day 2
The morning plenary was Bob Borosage hosting a panel of Julian Bond, Jesse jackson & Taylor Branch discussing the legacy of King and the Civil Rights Movement. My sister, who's sofa is my hotel this week, wanted to hear about Donna Brazile, whom she blames for both the 20000 and 2004 debacles, but Julian Bond was a sub speaker. No show, no explanation. And s much as I like Jesse Jackson
I'm writing now from a session on the Rogue Presidency, including David Cole, a regular witness at the House JudiciaryComm, and John Conyers, House Judiciary Chair (who got hung up in traffic,) and Christ Hardin Smith, who blogs on constitutional matters for FireDogLake.
Christy Hardin Smith, FireDogLake:"Giving up our rights doesn't make us more safe, it just makes us less free"
John Conyers refers back to Gingrich's "Contract ON America" (the phrase I've been using since 1994, thank you)as the start of the current attitude of the Republicans toward the presidency. (I'd think it goes back at least to Nixon.) He's now remarking on his committee's report, "What Went Wrong In Ohio" about the 2004 election, and the invitation (and threat of subpoena) issued by the Committee to former Sec. o' State Blackwell, who was responsible for that disaster.
Conyers says he isn't hopeful about the rulings of the current Supreme Court, and that the most important thing between now and November is voting integrity.
More later..I want to listen.
I'm writing now from a session on the Rogue Presidency, including David Cole, a regular witness at the House JudiciaryComm, and John Conyers, House Judiciary Chair (who got hung up in traffic,) and Christ Hardin Smith, who blogs on constitutional matters for FireDogLake.
Christy Hardin Smith, FireDogLake:"Giving up our rights doesn't make us more safe, it just makes us less free"
John Conyers refers back to Gingrich's "Contract ON America" (the phrase I've been using since 1994, thank you)as the start of the current attitude of the Republicans toward the presidency. (I'd think it goes back at least to Nixon.) He's now remarking on his committee's report, "What Went Wrong In Ohio" about the 2004 election, and the invitation (and threat of subpoena) issued by the Committee to former Sec. o' State Blackwell, who was responsible for that disaster.
Conyers says he isn't hopeful about the rulings of the current Supreme Court, and that the most important thing between now and November is voting integrity.
More later..I want to listen.
Finishing Conyers' session
Quick note: after spending some time trying to explain why there won't be an impeachment before the election (because "it would jeopardize the chance of a young, excellent man running for the White House") Conyers made two unusual statements. First, that there were already ample examples of crimes that Cheney ("the brains of the operation") and Bush had committed crimes they could be convicted for in both US criminal courts and in Int'l War Crimes tribunals, which could still end up with them being held responsible for their actions...
And second, that Conyers and several other members of Congress (no names mentioned) had sent Bush a letter saying that if he goes into Iran, he will be impeached.
Well, there's no hedging that statement...
And second, that Conyers and several other members of Congress (no names mentioned) had sent Bush a letter saying that if he goes into Iran, he will be impeached.
Well, there's no hedging that statement...
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
The Obama Surge - a media product?
(Been a while, but it's gonna be wild from here on out. Strap in)
Last night, Hillary Clinton beat Obama in New Hampshire. And everyone, especially the progressive wing of my party, is trying to figure out why Obama had to give a great concession speech last night, five days after getting to give a great victory speech after the Iowa caucuses (caucii?) And everyone is WAY over-analyzing the 'flip.'
I usually eschew (gesundheit) simple explanations for apparently complicated situations (and simple solutions to complicated problems.) But this one seems easy.
Until two weeks ago, no Republican candidate, no FOX pundit, and barely any other media face, spoke any Democratic candidates' name but 'Hillary.' In several Republican debates, they never even said 'Bush.' This feels like marching to the tune from Grover and Karl, too coordinated to be accidental.
WHY Hillary? Because they (GOP) calculate that America won't vote for a woman, even the Virgin mary, much less Hillary. So all focus was on her.
Imagine their wet dream come true, the hope they dared not hope at the RNC, when Obama won Iowa. And now, all focus is on Obama, win or lose in the primaries. WHY? because, in the mind of the GOP, the only thing easier to beat that a white woman is a black man.
They'll never even have to mention it, to place the race or gender card, (like Coulter calling Edwards a 'faggot.')becaue every time either of these candidates is seen, their 'difference' is evident to the GOP electorate.
I hate that America is still held hostage by the misogymistic racists whose parents committed treason back in the 1860's. Can't we let them out now? Other than Coca-cola and Cape Kennedy, they can all fall into the Gulf of Mexico...
Watch for Edwards v. McCain
Last night, Hillary Clinton beat Obama in New Hampshire. And everyone, especially the progressive wing of my party, is trying to figure out why Obama had to give a great concession speech last night, five days after getting to give a great victory speech after the Iowa caucuses (caucii?) And everyone is WAY over-analyzing the 'flip.'
I usually eschew (gesundheit) simple explanations for apparently complicated situations (and simple solutions to complicated problems.) But this one seems easy.
Until two weeks ago, no Republican candidate, no FOX pundit, and barely any other media face, spoke any Democratic candidates' name but 'Hillary.' In several Republican debates, they never even said 'Bush.' This feels like marching to the tune from Grover and Karl, too coordinated to be accidental.
WHY Hillary? Because they (GOP) calculate that America won't vote for a woman, even the Virgin mary, much less Hillary. So all focus was on her.
Imagine their wet dream come true, the hope they dared not hope at the RNC, when Obama won Iowa. And now, all focus is on Obama, win or lose in the primaries. WHY? because, in the mind of the GOP, the only thing easier to beat that a white woman is a black man.
They'll never even have to mention it, to place the race or gender card, (like Coulter calling Edwards a 'faggot.')becaue every time either of these candidates is seen, their 'difference' is evident to the GOP electorate.
I hate that America is still held hostage by the misogymistic racists whose parents committed treason back in the 1860's. Can't we let them out now? Other than Coca-cola and Cape Kennedy, they can all fall into the Gulf of Mexico...
Watch for Edwards v. McCain
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Obama vs Edwards, speech-wise
I'm at Campaign For America's Future's annual "Take Back America" Conference. Three thousand progressives, several dozen sessions, on policy and the practical side of campaigning. And 'the candidates' are here.
Just got out of the pre-lunch session in the main ballroom, Obama followed by Edwards, each running about 30 minutes. I was a delegate to the California Dem Convention in April, and saw each of them, and all the others, there, also. But not back-to-back, not to the same craowd at almost the same time. I'm just ending a year as the president of my Toastmasters Club, and as such I do speeches or speaker evaulations several times each week. This was an experiment in style, and I tried to do a side-by-side comparison.
Obama and Edwards both have a populist style of speechifying. They tell heartwrenching stories and give absolutist pronouncements. They use the string-of-examples-in-the-same-format that develop rolling waves of applause and get the crowd on their feet. And their comfort levels,both with their material and with the crowd, are comparable, and a hge improvement over Junior's discomfort at stringing two sentences together.
But here's the most important difference I've seen so far. Obama is speaking to a crowd. Edwards is talking to each person individually. Obama is speechifying, Edwards is talking to me over the fence. Obama is sticking almost exactly to his speech, while Edwards veered off to 'today' twice, extempore. I only noticed about a one-percent diff from the April speeches in CA for either. But I felt like I was hearing Edwards for the first time, not the third, while I'd already heard Obama's speech.
Maybe this is good for Obama. He's still a new item, unlike Edwards, whom we all saw a lot of in 2004. So Obama's speech, its' 'Turn The Page' mantra sticking in people's heads, may work in his favor. He packed the largest ballroom at the Washington Hilton, literally overflowing into the foyer. Maybe 10-15% left when he did, rather than stay and hear Edwards. So there's an energy for Obama that Edwards may not have anymore. But hell, Obama may not have it either, by the time the primaries actually arrive...NEXT YEAR!
But Edwards got huge applause as often as Obama, and the two folks sitting net to me, sold on Obama at the end of his speech, were equally sold on Edwards at his finish, both repeating his take-away lines/concepts: "That's Not Who We Are!"/"We're Better Than This" after examples of Republican failings, and still-existing problems.
The GOP is envious. The Dems are suffering from a wealth of riches, candidate-wise. The GOP looks at their ten dwarves and weeps.
Hillary tomorrow, 8AM
Just got out of the pre-lunch session in the main ballroom, Obama followed by Edwards, each running about 30 minutes. I was a delegate to the California Dem Convention in April, and saw each of them, and all the others, there, also. But not back-to-back, not to the same craowd at almost the same time. I'm just ending a year as the president of my Toastmasters Club, and as such I do speeches or speaker evaulations several times each week. This was an experiment in style, and I tried to do a side-by-side comparison.
Obama and Edwards both have a populist style of speechifying. They tell heartwrenching stories and give absolutist pronouncements. They use the string-of-examples-in-the-same-format that develop rolling waves of applause and get the crowd on their feet. And their comfort levels,both with their material and with the crowd, are comparable, and a hge improvement over Junior's discomfort at stringing two sentences together.
But here's the most important difference I've seen so far. Obama is speaking to a crowd. Edwards is talking to each person individually. Obama is speechifying, Edwards is talking to me over the fence. Obama is sticking almost exactly to his speech, while Edwards veered off to 'today' twice, extempore. I only noticed about a one-percent diff from the April speeches in CA for either. But I felt like I was hearing Edwards for the first time, not the third, while I'd already heard Obama's speech.
Maybe this is good for Obama. He's still a new item, unlike Edwards, whom we all saw a lot of in 2004. So Obama's speech, its' 'Turn The Page' mantra sticking in people's heads, may work in his favor. He packed the largest ballroom at the Washington Hilton, literally overflowing into the foyer. Maybe 10-15% left when he did, rather than stay and hear Edwards. So there's an energy for Obama that Edwards may not have anymore. But hell, Obama may not have it either, by the time the primaries actually arrive...NEXT YEAR!
But Edwards got huge applause as often as Obama, and the two folks sitting net to me, sold on Obama at the end of his speech, were equally sold on Edwards at his finish, both repeating his take-away lines/concepts: "That's Not Who We Are!"/"We're Better Than This" after examples of Republican failings, and still-existing problems.
The GOP is envious. The Dems are suffering from a wealth of riches, candidate-wise. The GOP looks at their ten dwarves and weeps.
Hillary tomorrow, 8AM
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Monica gets no immunity from the GOP
Listening to Monica Goodling's immunized testimony today shows how far the Republican Party has fallen. Because even with immunity, she's living in 'I don't know'-land. And that's because there's no one left in the GOP to give her immunity from political retribution for telling the truth. If she actually tells the truth she'll never have another job. Rightfully, no Democratic-leaning operation would have her, and she'd be radioactive to any Republican-connected operation, especially after the abuse Tom DeLay's "K Street" project put them through. And there is no respectable, ethical faction left in the Republican Party, willing to accept the fact of the crimes of this Administration and others in the administration of the current Republican party.
It's a damning thing that the government's immunity can be trumped by the oath of Olmerta taken by members high and low in the criminal operation known as the GOP.
It's a damning thing that the government's immunity can be trumped by the oath of Olmerta taken by members high and low in the criminal operation known as the GOP.
Monday, May 07, 2007
How and Why Regulations Are Born: An Evolution Lesson
Republicans always whine about all these laws and regulations that keep them from being able to ignore everyone but themselves. The correct response is,"Because we tried it without those regulations, and you and your friends almost killed or bankrupted us, that's why." And because they didn't live through the world as it was before those regs, and because they have the imagination God gave a salt shaker, they don't get it.
So let's watch it happen all over again, in a whole new arena, for the same damned reasons it ever happens: greed, collusion and theft. I'm talking about the widening Student Loan Financing disaster. We relied on the ethics of the financial officers and boards of the universities. We relied on the integrity of the bankers. We were fools, again. They took our trust and literally laughed all the way to the bank, leaving teenagers, teenagers!! holding the bag. One is my youngest niece, who starts college this fall.
As always, add a pinch of Bush-Crony Incompetence. Jon Oberg, a high-ranking staff researcher at the Dept of Education reported on federal subsidies supporting loan-pushing collusion back in 2003 and recommended action to stop it. Two different Secs of Education, both Bush loyalists from Texas, told him, 'Go work on getting us some grant money. We have no power to change the situation.' Then add a dash of Congressional Oversight, when, in January, faced with a suddenly-Democratic Congress, the Dept of Education ended these subsidies...with a single letter to the lenders. And began an investigation.
This is the cycle that creates regulation: a small problem becomes larger, comes to the attention of experts, who warn the players, who ignore the warnings because 'it's not illegal, so the morality is irrelevant'. When it finally comes to the attention of the general public, first they rear back in horror, then they rise up in anger, and demand that the law match their sense of fairness.
This is one way Democrats are created.
So let's watch it happen all over again, in a whole new arena, for the same damned reasons it ever happens: greed, collusion and theft. I'm talking about the widening Student Loan Financing disaster. We relied on the ethics of the financial officers and boards of the universities. We relied on the integrity of the bankers. We were fools, again. They took our trust and literally laughed all the way to the bank, leaving teenagers, teenagers!! holding the bag. One is my youngest niece, who starts college this fall.
As always, add a pinch of Bush-Crony Incompetence. Jon Oberg, a high-ranking staff researcher at the Dept of Education reported on federal subsidies supporting loan-pushing collusion back in 2003 and recommended action to stop it. Two different Secs of Education, both Bush loyalists from Texas, told him, 'Go work on getting us some grant money. We have no power to change the situation.' Then add a dash of Congressional Oversight, when, in January, faced with a suddenly-Democratic Congress, the Dept of Education ended these subsidies...with a single letter to the lenders. And began an investigation.
This is the cycle that creates regulation: a small problem becomes larger, comes to the attention of experts, who warn the players, who ignore the warnings because 'it's not illegal, so the morality is irrelevant'. When it finally comes to the attention of the general public, first they rear back in horror, then they rise up in anger, and demand that the law match their sense of fairness.
This is one way Democrats are created.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Apocalypto Redux
Sometime today, like an Aztec king sharpening the dagger he'll use to remove beating hearts from living subjects to appease the gods, Junior will announce the need for more sacrifice, in the name of burnishing his name.
He'll sacrifice our military, not just our soldiers.
He'll sacrifice our reputation, not just his.
He'll sacrifice our dreams, not his fantasy.
He'll sacrifice our future, because he has none.
This sacrifice will be made by the soldiers he sends to the slaughter.
This sacrifice will be made by their families, whose hearts will be ripped from them, in many cases forever.
This sacrifice will be made by their children, who will spend their lives and their childrens' lives paying for the privilege.
This sacrifice will not be made by the 'haves and have-mores' who are the king's base.
This sacrifice will not be made by American industry, which continues to build gas-guzzlers and video games, instead of electric vehicles and solar panels.
This sacrifice will not be made by you or me, who will find all the gas we want at the corner station.
What a relief that he told us to go shopping instead.
Got your Christmas gift cards?
Let's go!
He'll sacrifice our military, not just our soldiers.
He'll sacrifice our reputation, not just his.
He'll sacrifice our dreams, not his fantasy.
He'll sacrifice our future, because he has none.
This sacrifice will be made by the soldiers he sends to the slaughter.
This sacrifice will be made by their families, whose hearts will be ripped from them, in many cases forever.
This sacrifice will be made by their children, who will spend their lives and their childrens' lives paying for the privilege.
This sacrifice will not be made by the 'haves and have-mores' who are the king's base.
This sacrifice will not be made by American industry, which continues to build gas-guzzlers and video games, instead of electric vehicles and solar panels.
This sacrifice will not be made by you or me, who will find all the gas we want at the corner station.
What a relief that he told us to go shopping instead.
Got your Christmas gift cards?
Let's go!
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Listen...in the distance...a funeral
Listen. In the distance, the sound of a funeral march. But not the usual, brass-and-drums version played in New Orleans. No, this is The Washington Republican Dirge, played on shredding machines, with a whining choir. Security paper services, the ones that take away those rollaway bins lurking in the corner of every office in Washington, are working overtime, and hiring extra crews. Even the White House, especially over at Dick's office, has turned off the heat and cranked up the A/C to offset the heat the industrial-grade shredders are throwing off, as White House staffers, in shorts and shirtsleeves, throw ream after ream into the maws of those shredders. There are even a few, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, that can grind almost anything into unrecognizeable pulp. Hard drives, CDs, thumbdrives, even framed photos of Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, Hussein, even Rumsfeld, all the evidence goes into the hoppers, to become fuel for alternative-energy generators.
"In the meantime" now becomes a literal designator of the next sixty-some days, the official name of the last throes of this Republican Congress. And in this mean time, expect to see some of the ugliest behaviors, in service of ramming through the most extreme bills. Constitutional ban on abortion, make Bush's tax handouts permanent, more hand-off of legislative and constitutional powers to the executive, any an all are possible, even probable. And the floors of the House and Senate are going to make Hormel's rendering plants look pristine. Republicans are mean masters, and sorer losers, and they'll do everything they can to take their ball, OUR Constitution, home with them when they have to leave.
To any and all that can get near to these operations: Take picture, get copies, record conversations. Keep "contemporaneous journals," as both the FBI and IRS call them, because they can be used in evidence, even when the original evidence has been ground up, hauled away, and used for fuel or landfill.
Because America is doomed to let these fascists back in, if we don't learn exactly what they did, and hold them publicly accountable in such an extreme way that NO ONE will ever dare try steal America from its citizens again.
Treason is a hanging offense, and I wouldn't mind a few hangings. (Names available on request.)
"In the meantime" now becomes a literal designator of the next sixty-some days, the official name of the last throes of this Republican Congress. And in this mean time, expect to see some of the ugliest behaviors, in service of ramming through the most extreme bills. Constitutional ban on abortion, make Bush's tax handouts permanent, more hand-off of legislative and constitutional powers to the executive, any an all are possible, even probable. And the floors of the House and Senate are going to make Hormel's rendering plants look pristine. Republicans are mean masters, and sorer losers, and they'll do everything they can to take their ball, OUR Constitution, home with them when they have to leave.
To any and all that can get near to these operations: Take picture, get copies, record conversations. Keep "contemporaneous journals," as both the FBI and IRS call them, because they can be used in evidence, even when the original evidence has been ground up, hauled away, and used for fuel or landfill.
Because America is doomed to let these fascists back in, if we don't learn exactly what they did, and hold them publicly accountable in such an extreme way that NO ONE will ever dare try steal America from its citizens again.
Treason is a hanging offense, and I wouldn't mind a few hangings. (Names available on request.)
Monday, October 30, 2006
ARVN, anyone?
As more Republicans, in the electoral fights of their lives, find themselves facing the hard choices in Iraq, of either ramping up our manpower or 'redeploying' it, more and more of them are finding some refuge in the GOP line about training and supplying an Iraqi Army to replace our personnel there. As Junior puts it, so eloquently that you know someone wrote it for him, "As the Iraqi Army stands up, we'll stand down."
I've got a one-word answer to these weasel-words: ARVN. Army of the Republic of Viet Nam. Look it up. The parallels are so eerie, and obvious, that I'm amazed that no one's made this connection.
And as we continue to build the largest, most barricaded US Embassy in the history of the world, right there in downtown Baghdad, I remember a joke from National Lampoon, from that period that Junior avoided, both in service and in lessons.
What do you call 2500 people hanging from a helicopter?
Our orderly retreat from Viet Nam.
Iraq: Viet Nam Redux.
I've got a one-word answer to these weasel-words: ARVN. Army of the Republic of Viet Nam. Look it up. The parallels are so eerie, and obvious, that I'm amazed that no one's made this connection.
And as we continue to build the largest, most barricaded US Embassy in the history of the world, right there in downtown Baghdad, I remember a joke from National Lampoon, from that period that Junior avoided, both in service and in lessons.
What do you call 2500 people hanging from a helicopter?
Our orderly retreat from Viet Nam.
Iraq: Viet Nam Redux.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Mark, Laura, Denny and the Cardinal
OK, everyone's weighed in on this Foley affair, some pretty despicably. What did you expect from Republicans?
The farthest-out was the plaintive squeal from ditto-heads that Ted Kennedy was still in office, killer that he was. God, they go for their last argument first. So boring. I'm not going to compare an single accident to a ten-year pattern of behavior, or 40 years ago to here and now. Naw. I'll drop my murder-bomb: why is Laura Bush still in the White House?
Granted, most of the gang-bangers Laura's supposed to be mentoring should be listening to her, but only because she's a killer, something most of them haven't gotten to...yet. Don't believe me? Look it up. Welcome to the reality-based world.
Moving on. Do Dennis Hastert and the Republican leadership in the House remind anyone else of Cardinal Mahoney, Cardinal Law and the rest of the American Catholic prelate? Pages, choir boys, what's the difference? Moving their priests and congressmen around, just to maintain their power and avoid scandals. Maybe this is that convergence of Protestant evangelists and the Catholic priesthood that the Republicans have been working on. Big Tent. Just don't look inside. "Deliver Us From Evil" is in theaters now. But does that title refer to the Catholic priesthood or the Republican Party?
Finally, the two Foley talking points Republicans seem to have settled into are the following:
One, "It's a vast, Soros-financed conspiracy...that we got caught with our pants down, masturbating while e-mailing, right before an election." Yet the left-wing can't get Soros to write a measly check to keep AirAmerica financed. Face it, the left ain't that well organized.
And two, "See, this is what homosexuality leads to: wanting sex with teenage boys." This is a personal favorite of the evangelical loonies of Dobson, Robertson and Falwell. They ignore that the same logic implies heterosexual Christianity leads to shooting 10-year-old Christian girls in their schoolrooms because otherwise the killer will want to molest them.
The scandal isn't that a Congressman was diddling teenage boys or girls (I'm waiting for that shoe to drop.) The scandal is that all evidence says that the Republicans have known, for YEARS, about this situation, and always relied on fear to deal with the problem. Fear of the congressman being outed. Fear of the pages being blackballed from politics for reporting this. Fear of the homosexuals in the RNC and the House leadership being accused of being pedophiles.
So Republican. "We have nothing to use but fear itself."
The farthest-out was the plaintive squeal from ditto-heads that Ted Kennedy was still in office, killer that he was. God, they go for their last argument first. So boring. I'm not going to compare an single accident to a ten-year pattern of behavior, or 40 years ago to here and now. Naw. I'll drop my murder-bomb: why is Laura Bush still in the White House?
Granted, most of the gang-bangers Laura's supposed to be mentoring should be listening to her, but only because she's a killer, something most of them haven't gotten to...yet. Don't believe me? Look it up. Welcome to the reality-based world.
Moving on. Do Dennis Hastert and the Republican leadership in the House remind anyone else of Cardinal Mahoney, Cardinal Law and the rest of the American Catholic prelate? Pages, choir boys, what's the difference? Moving their priests and congressmen around, just to maintain their power and avoid scandals. Maybe this is that convergence of Protestant evangelists and the Catholic priesthood that the Republicans have been working on. Big Tent. Just don't look inside. "Deliver Us From Evil" is in theaters now. But does that title refer to the Catholic priesthood or the Republican Party?
Finally, the two Foley talking points Republicans seem to have settled into are the following:
One, "It's a vast, Soros-financed conspiracy...that we got caught with our pants down, masturbating while e-mailing, right before an election." Yet the left-wing can't get Soros to write a measly check to keep AirAmerica financed. Face it, the left ain't that well organized.
And two, "See, this is what homosexuality leads to: wanting sex with teenage boys." This is a personal favorite of the evangelical loonies of Dobson, Robertson and Falwell. They ignore that the same logic implies heterosexual Christianity leads to shooting 10-year-old Christian girls in their schoolrooms because otherwise the killer will want to molest them.
The scandal isn't that a Congressman was diddling teenage boys or girls (I'm waiting for that shoe to drop.) The scandal is that all evidence says that the Republicans have known, for YEARS, about this situation, and always relied on fear to deal with the problem. Fear of the congressman being outed. Fear of the pages being blackballed from politics for reporting this. Fear of the homosexuals in the RNC and the House leadership being accused of being pedophiles.
So Republican. "We have nothing to use but fear itself."
Thursday, September 07, 2006
A newer mini-series at ABC
A new mini-series is in production at ABC, based in part on a report of findings from Senate hearings into past Administration actions. The docu-drama also draws interviews with participants, news reports and books. Several Administration figures have written ABC to object to their portrayals, and to the fictional events that appear in the drama.
"People won't be able to tell where the truth stops and the lies start," complained Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, who is portrayed in one scene hanging up on a CIA agent who is complaining about contractors using water-boarding and electric shock on detainees at a secret CIA prison in Romania. Gonzales said further, "And at no time did President Bush say 'I don't care if they're dead after we get the info, as long as we get it!' "
VP Cheney has written an op-ed piece denouncing the portrayal of him making several phone calls to Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of his former company, Halliburton, assuring them they will get all the reconstruction contracts once the war in Iraq starts, and his ordering his Chief of Staff, in a meeting with Karl Rove, to shut down the CIA's monitoring program of Iran's nuclear effort by exposing an undercover CIA agent. "It's a two-fer," his character says in the mini-series' scene. "We discredit Wilson on Iraq's nuclear program, and we keep the CIA blind to Iran's. Hell, we can use the same Powerpoint slideshow again at the UN."
The mini-series, "Inside Bush's Secret Prisons" was written by one of Al Franken's close friends.
Hope Hartman, ABC spokesperson said that, as with another, similar series, this one will be broadcast without commercials, as a public service.
And no, she was not being ironic.
"People won't be able to tell where the truth stops and the lies start," complained Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, who is portrayed in one scene hanging up on a CIA agent who is complaining about contractors using water-boarding and electric shock on detainees at a secret CIA prison in Romania. Gonzales said further, "And at no time did President Bush say 'I don't care if they're dead after we get the info, as long as we get it!' "
VP Cheney has written an op-ed piece denouncing the portrayal of him making several phone calls to Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of his former company, Halliburton, assuring them they will get all the reconstruction contracts once the war in Iraq starts, and his ordering his Chief of Staff, in a meeting with Karl Rove, to shut down the CIA's monitoring program of Iran's nuclear effort by exposing an undercover CIA agent. "It's a two-fer," his character says in the mini-series' scene. "We discredit Wilson on Iraq's nuclear program, and we keep the CIA blind to Iran's. Hell, we can use the same Powerpoint slideshow again at the UN."
The mini-series, "Inside Bush's Secret Prisons" was written by one of Al Franken's close friends.
Hope Hartman, ABC spokesperson said that, as with another, similar series, this one will be broadcast without commercials, as a public service.
And no, she was not being ironic.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Five Years Later
If you are against this invasion and/or occupation in Iraq, you have to vote Democratic in 2006. And you know why.
But if you believe every reason that George W Bush gave for us to invade and/or occupy Iraq, then you have to vote Democratic this year, too. Because if you believe we have to succeed in Iraq, whatever that means to you, you have to elect someone who will fight this war. Because every day this Administration is in charge of this war is one day closer to the day when we HAVE to leave Iraq because we CAN'T fight any more.
The Administration's idea of success isn't yours. Their idea of success is a location of continuing hazard and havoc, to use as a place to make money as mercenaries, on no-bid, no-oversight contracts. Their idea of success is to use a made-up war to keep you distracted from their theft of your job, your tax money, your health insurance, your pensions and your Social Security. Their idea of success is keeping you in line by questioning your patriotism while they make you work harder every day to make the same money you made last year.
And that's not your idea of success, is it?
If Iraq is the central front on the war on terror that threatens the entire civilized world, then we need to fight it like that. No new cars, so we can build thousands of Hummers and tanks, fighters and choppers. No deferments, for men or women, because we need a million people in regular uniform to take over the Middle East, rather than MBAs driving Beemers. No tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, the least patriotic of our citizens, profiting from this war twice each day, by paying less, and not sending their kids.
We need to add two hours to every flight boarding period, and half a day to the sched of every unloaded ship, so that no one can ship any WMD by air or sea. And we need to apply these rules to the private jets that avoid all this scrutiny.
We need to build and staff more emergency clinic facilities, to react to the injuries and diseases of a chem/bio/rad attack.
Not to mention bring our exhausted Guard back home, to rest, and then to protect the Homeland. We need to train more police, firemen and nurses to be the front line in this 'war of cultures' that is bound to last for tens of years.
Five years after, the clowns in this administration haven't done any of this. They can't win it over there, and they won't protect us over here.
And now they want to invade Iran? Haven't you had enough?
But if you believe every reason that George W Bush gave for us to invade and/or occupy Iraq, then you have to vote Democratic this year, too. Because if you believe we have to succeed in Iraq, whatever that means to you, you have to elect someone who will fight this war. Because every day this Administration is in charge of this war is one day closer to the day when we HAVE to leave Iraq because we CAN'T fight any more.
The Administration's idea of success isn't yours. Their idea of success is a location of continuing hazard and havoc, to use as a place to make money as mercenaries, on no-bid, no-oversight contracts. Their idea of success is to use a made-up war to keep you distracted from their theft of your job, your tax money, your health insurance, your pensions and your Social Security. Their idea of success is keeping you in line by questioning your patriotism while they make you work harder every day to make the same money you made last year.
And that's not your idea of success, is it?
If Iraq is the central front on the war on terror that threatens the entire civilized world, then we need to fight it like that. No new cars, so we can build thousands of Hummers and tanks, fighters and choppers. No deferments, for men or women, because we need a million people in regular uniform to take over the Middle East, rather than MBAs driving Beemers. No tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, the least patriotic of our citizens, profiting from this war twice each day, by paying less, and not sending their kids.
We need to add two hours to every flight boarding period, and half a day to the sched of every unloaded ship, so that no one can ship any WMD by air or sea. And we need to apply these rules to the private jets that avoid all this scrutiny.
We need to build and staff more emergency clinic facilities, to react to the injuries and diseases of a chem/bio/rad attack.
Not to mention bring our exhausted Guard back home, to rest, and then to protect the Homeland. We need to train more police, firemen and nurses to be the front line in this 'war of cultures' that is bound to last for tens of years.
Five years after, the clowns in this administration haven't done any of this. They can't win it over there, and they won't protect us over here.
And now they want to invade Iran? Haven't you had enough?
Thursday, August 31, 2006
"There Must Be Consequences"
Junior gave a speech today. He's angry that Iran won't roll over on his demand that they shut down their uranium enrichment program. Regardless of the ins and outs of that, which will be discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseum, from left and right, I want to remark on one phrase he used.
"...there must be consequences."
Why? What leads him to this conclusion? What experience in his life leads him to think that actions have consequences? Not his family's history. Certainly not his academic career or his avoidance of his military service. Not his business career. And he has paid no price for his absolute (and I use that word in its mathematical sense) failure in service to the nation and and its constitution.
What consequences have been delivered unto him? 'Consequences' is a word he uses to justify his petulant foot-stomping when he doesn't get his way. And until someone teaches him what the word actually means, it's meaningless coming from his mouth.
He wants to start a war, and he should say so, like he told his biographer in 1999, about Iraq.
This is why I want a Democratic House and/or Senate. Not to impeach this clown, at least not right away. First, I want two years of showing this guy the consequences of his absolute failure.
Then we impeach him between the 2008 election and the swearing in of the next President, just so his name always has that stain, that asterisk, that lumps him with Nixon and Clinton. That would be a bitter pill. A better one would be for the impeachment to conclude with conviction, and his ouster.
Like he says, "there must be consequences."
"...there must be consequences."
Why? What leads him to this conclusion? What experience in his life leads him to think that actions have consequences? Not his family's history. Certainly not his academic career or his avoidance of his military service. Not his business career. And he has paid no price for his absolute (and I use that word in its mathematical sense) failure in service to the nation and and its constitution.
What consequences have been delivered unto him? 'Consequences' is a word he uses to justify his petulant foot-stomping when he doesn't get his way. And until someone teaches him what the word actually means, it's meaningless coming from his mouth.
He wants to start a war, and he should say so, like he told his biographer in 1999, about Iraq.
This is why I want a Democratic House and/or Senate. Not to impeach this clown, at least not right away. First, I want two years of showing this guy the consequences of his absolute failure.
Then we impeach him between the 2008 election and the swearing in of the next President, just so his name always has that stain, that asterisk, that lumps him with Nixon and Clinton. That would be a bitter pill. A better one would be for the impeachment to conclude with conviction, and his ouster.
Like he says, "there must be consequences."
Olbermann Has Arrived
Keith Olbermann, over at MSNBC, has been a comer for a while now. As he has snarked at the various mouthpieces for the Reaganazis, pronouncing 'Coulter-geist' or O'Reilly the "Worst...Person..In The WOOORLLD!", at least for that evening, his writing has become more pointed and (to mix geometric metaphors) more edgy. And his ratings have climbed.
Well, last night, he arrived. Taking more than five minutes to give as good as he thinks we got from Rumsfeld, Olbermann took not only Rummy but the whole Administration to the public square, and flogged them for the miserable little people they are, and for what they are doing to America. No pulled punches, but no name-calling, the preferred tactic of the little minds that are trying to justify their support of this Administration. Just excellent analysis, perspective, and rhetoric in the classic sense of that word.
His blow-off is a long quote from Edward R. Murrow, eerily appropriate to the current situation, though Murrow spoke the words in 1954, at the height of the Joe McCarthy's manipulation of the Red Scare. If he seeks to wear Murrow's shoes, that ghost would have permitted it, at least this once.
Without further ado, watch this. And welcome Keith Olbermann to the A-list or journalistic analysts.
A while in coming, but worth the wait.
Well, last night, he arrived. Taking more than five minutes to give as good as he thinks we got from Rumsfeld, Olbermann took not only Rummy but the whole Administration to the public square, and flogged them for the miserable little people they are, and for what they are doing to America. No pulled punches, but no name-calling, the preferred tactic of the little minds that are trying to justify their support of this Administration. Just excellent analysis, perspective, and rhetoric in the classic sense of that word.
His blow-off is a long quote from Edward R. Murrow, eerily appropriate to the current situation, though Murrow spoke the words in 1954, at the height of the Joe McCarthy's manipulation of the Red Scare. If he seeks to wear Murrow's shoes, that ghost would have permitted it, at least this once.
Without further ado, watch this. And welcome Keith Olbermann to the A-list or journalistic analysts.
A while in coming, but worth the wait.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Who has principles in Connecticut?
Who has fewer principles? Is it Joe Lieberman, for refusing the judgement of his party and of the people of Connecticut that he's supposed to represent? Or is it the Republican party, and more specifically the Republicans of Connecticut, who would rather vote for a man who disagreed 90% of the time with the president they elected? Well, they ARE Republicans, so what do you expect?
In this situation, the people with principle are the Democrats of Connecticut that voted based on the candidates' records and campaigns, not on the candidates' electability. Also principled are the Democratic Party leaders, who supported the incumbent in the primary, as they should, and now support their party's new choice for Connecticut. Because it's about preferences in the primaries, and about party in the general election.
And the win-at-any-cost, never-mind-the-ethics White House has decreed that the party's own candidate in Connecticut will get no money and no support from the RNC, the NRSC, or any other official party organ at the national level. As always, since they don't care about the law, they have even less care for ethics and principles.
So right now Joe's ahead, because all the Republicans are running to him, and he'll take all comers, and their money. Ned's behind for now, because the rest of the Democrats haven't come to grips yet with the fact that voting for Joe Lieberman will mean a vote for more Republican dictatorship, more Republican malfeasance, more Republican destruction from the Senate, because he'll vote with those that brung him, and that'll be Republicans.
Wake up, Connecticut.
In this situation, the people with principle are the Democrats of Connecticut that voted based on the candidates' records and campaigns, not on the candidates' electability. Also principled are the Democratic Party leaders, who supported the incumbent in the primary, as they should, and now support their party's new choice for Connecticut. Because it's about preferences in the primaries, and about party in the general election.
And the win-at-any-cost, never-mind-the-ethics White House has decreed that the party's own candidate in Connecticut will get no money and no support from the RNC, the NRSC, or any other official party organ at the national level. As always, since they don't care about the law, they have even less care for ethics and principles.
So right now Joe's ahead, because all the Republicans are running to him, and he'll take all comers, and their money. Ned's behind for now, because the rest of the Democrats haven't come to grips yet with the fact that voting for Joe Lieberman will mean a vote for more Republican dictatorship, more Republican malfeasance, more Republican destruction from the Senate, because he'll vote with those that brung him, and that'll be Republicans.
Wake up, Connecticut.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
"Macaca" - Welcome To The Real World of Virginia
George Allen is a racist SOB! George Allen also happens to be the senator from Virginia. And his racism is, according to him, the real representation of Virginia. And he's right. Virginia is home to hundreds of thousands of racist bastards. You know how I know? Because they elected him! This is a guy who moved to Virginia from California because he knew they'd never elect him in California, not after driving around with a Confederate flag painted on his car. This is guy who keeps a noose in his office in Washington, to remind himself of the good old days. A guy who knows a nigger when he sees one, and would have been laughed out of that Virginia Republican meeting if he'd called S.R. Sidarth, a native Virginian born of Indian parents, a nigger. Because George Allen knows that this guy was a 'macaca,' actually spelled macaque in his mother's native Tuunisian French, at whose knee George learned his racist attitudes and the correct vocabulary to go with it. It's the name of a type of monkey, and it's been used for decades, in Africa and in white supremacist gangs here, to specify non-whites of Arab or Indian ancestry. And George Allen is a very discriminating racist!
Go check out '
Go check out '
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
So Much for "Adults In Charge"
It's amazing what motivates me to write. I'm listening to Franken, interviewing Eugene Linden, author of the new book on climate change, The Winds Of Change. And he says ..."we caused it, and we can change it...". Yet the Republicans continue to deny it is happening, as well as refuse to acknowledge that anything can be done.
This is one more example of the refusal by Republicans to be held accountable. For anything!! And that's what gets me to finally write on this thread I noticed that runs through the behavior of all Republicans. By now, we've all heard the quote from Cheney that "the adults are back in charge," from his first days in the White House. But Republicans NEVER want to be held responsible. And the litany of "nobody could have foreseen"s, for the use of planes as missles on 9-11(Rice), for the cost and length of the Iraq insurgency(Cheney), for the collapse of the levees(Bush), is just the beginning.
Let's start at the White House. Do not hold them responsible for imprisonment or torture. No one has jurisdiction to tell the President what to do. The same with wiretapping and all the other invasions of privacy, from library reading lists to outing undercover CIA agents. The 'unitary executive' theory is just a fancy name for 'king,' and kings only answer to God. The examples are unending, from increasing air pollution and child poverty to decreasing real incomes and food quality, best epitomized by Bush's inability to think of any mistakes he'd made after more than 4 years in office. He was angry anyone had the gall to ask him a question. he certainly doesn't think he has to explain anything, to anyone.
How about Congress? Nope, not here. By letting the president have everything he wants, from tax cuts to a shiny new war every couple of years, without ever investigating any of the financial losses or policy changes that have come out of the White House, they have said "We don't want to do anything. Let them do it!" And by refusing to change any policies on how Congress operates, they demonstrate their refusal to be held responsible for their own actions. From dismissing and repacking the Ethics Committee until it wouldn't indict Tom Delay, to attempting to have a dinner honoring former Congressman Randy Cunningham, who was unable to attend because he's doing 100 months in federal prison for bribery and ethics violations, Congress refuses to change at all, even as the Abramoff scandal continues to send Congressional staffers to prison and require ever-more members, ALL REPUBLICANS, to put criminal defense attorneys on retainer, using campaign funds to do it.
Of course, the judiciary is an exception. Oh, yea? Read the Supreme Court's first decision of the Bush era, the one that selected him for high office. A more unsavory bit of torture was not committed until Guantanamo, a year later. And the Court knew it. Why else would the decision also say, essentially, "You can't hold us responsible for this, so we refuse to allow this decision to be used as a precedent. This is a one-time deal!" That precedent of not being willing to be responsible for the reality of their decisions especially informs the knackered pencil shavings of Scalia and Thomas to this day.
And what of the heavily-moneyed group of industrialists and theocrats that fund this continuous error in judgement? The whole POINT for them is to never be held responsible. Corporatists like Olin, Scaife, Allen-Bradley and Coors all want nothing more than to go back to when their money began, back to the turn of the last century (all of these boys having inherited their wealth.) That was when nobody could tell them who they could hire, how much they should pay, how long they could work their employees, or in what kinds of conditions. No one could hold them responsible for the cyanide and mercury they dumped in the water or the lead they burned into the air, or for the lies that passed for lists of ingredients, if they put a list on the label at all.
Theocrats want the government's money, but don't want to have to tell how they spend it, or if it does any good. And that's why George W Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. In a later stage of government-based theocratic enforcement, it'll be the new FBI. It's already got the initials. For now, it's why they work so hard to undermine science. It requires review and accountability, both anathema to the religious right.
And finally, we come to the folks that elect these politicians, who worship these theocrats, who dream of being one of the 1/2 of 1% of America that runs the corporations. And they don't want to know. They don't want to see the disasters these policies have caused. They don't want to invesitgate the collusion, the money-laundering, the bribery, the sheer theft. They don't want to worry about the economics or the health of the world they're leaving their children. So sooner or later, you get one of two bottom lines from them. Either it's Clinton's fault, or it won't matter when the Rapture takes them.
The worst thing about this attitude of non-responsibility is that it is based on a fear of failure. And fear always leads to anger, directed first at the thing that did the scaring. And the scariest thing to a person like this is someone else who knows this person failed. So Bush lashes out when asked about mistakes. Cheney belittles anyone who questions. Rush refuses to admit he committed a crime, while O'Reilly buys the silence (and the phone-sex tapes) of the staffer he sexually harrased.
Ultimately, the only resolution would be to have no one left that pointed out the failures. So, first, no Democrats are Americans, so their opinions don't count. Then, per Ann Coulter, Liberals, including all Democrats, should be killed. Only Republicans will be left, scared to death they'll be next. But since the failures will continue, someone must be to blame. And since it can't be those who actually failed, another group to blame will be found, and killed.
This will continue to one of two ends. Either some contingent finally wakes up to reality, and overthrows the failure-prone leadership AND its philosophy, or it ends with two people at each others' throats over who was responsible for that last failure. And no matter who wins that fight, they'll be wrong.
But the 'winner' will never admit it.
This is one more example of the refusal by Republicans to be held accountable. For anything!! And that's what gets me to finally write on this thread I noticed that runs through the behavior of all Republicans. By now, we've all heard the quote from Cheney that "the adults are back in charge," from his first days in the White House. But Republicans NEVER want to be held responsible. And the litany of "nobody could have foreseen"s, for the use of planes as missles on 9-11(Rice), for the cost and length of the Iraq insurgency(Cheney), for the collapse of the levees(Bush), is just the beginning.
Let's start at the White House. Do not hold them responsible for imprisonment or torture. No one has jurisdiction to tell the President what to do. The same with wiretapping and all the other invasions of privacy, from library reading lists to outing undercover CIA agents. The 'unitary executive' theory is just a fancy name for 'king,' and kings only answer to God. The examples are unending, from increasing air pollution and child poverty to decreasing real incomes and food quality, best epitomized by Bush's inability to think of any mistakes he'd made after more than 4 years in office. He was angry anyone had the gall to ask him a question. he certainly doesn't think he has to explain anything, to anyone.
How about Congress? Nope, not here. By letting the president have everything he wants, from tax cuts to a shiny new war every couple of years, without ever investigating any of the financial losses or policy changes that have come out of the White House, they have said "We don't want to do anything. Let them do it!" And by refusing to change any policies on how Congress operates, they demonstrate their refusal to be held responsible for their own actions. From dismissing and repacking the Ethics Committee until it wouldn't indict Tom Delay, to attempting to have a dinner honoring former Congressman Randy Cunningham, who was unable to attend because he's doing 100 months in federal prison for bribery and ethics violations, Congress refuses to change at all, even as the Abramoff scandal continues to send Congressional staffers to prison and require ever-more members, ALL REPUBLICANS, to put criminal defense attorneys on retainer, using campaign funds to do it.
Of course, the judiciary is an exception. Oh, yea? Read the Supreme Court's first decision of the Bush era, the one that selected him for high office. A more unsavory bit of torture was not committed until Guantanamo, a year later. And the Court knew it. Why else would the decision also say, essentially, "You can't hold us responsible for this, so we refuse to allow this decision to be used as a precedent. This is a one-time deal!" That precedent of not being willing to be responsible for the reality of their decisions especially informs the knackered pencil shavings of Scalia and Thomas to this day.
And what of the heavily-moneyed group of industrialists and theocrats that fund this continuous error in judgement? The whole POINT for them is to never be held responsible. Corporatists like Olin, Scaife, Allen-Bradley and Coors all want nothing more than to go back to when their money began, back to the turn of the last century (all of these boys having inherited their wealth.) That was when nobody could tell them who they could hire, how much they should pay, how long they could work their employees, or in what kinds of conditions. No one could hold them responsible for the cyanide and mercury they dumped in the water or the lead they burned into the air, or for the lies that passed for lists of ingredients, if they put a list on the label at all.
Theocrats want the government's money, but don't want to have to tell how they spend it, or if it does any good. And that's why George W Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. In a later stage of government-based theocratic enforcement, it'll be the new FBI. It's already got the initials. For now, it's why they work so hard to undermine science. It requires review and accountability, both anathema to the religious right.
And finally, we come to the folks that elect these politicians, who worship these theocrats, who dream of being one of the 1/2 of 1% of America that runs the corporations. And they don't want to know. They don't want to see the disasters these policies have caused. They don't want to invesitgate the collusion, the money-laundering, the bribery, the sheer theft. They don't want to worry about the economics or the health of the world they're leaving their children. So sooner or later, you get one of two bottom lines from them. Either it's Clinton's fault, or it won't matter when the Rapture takes them.
The worst thing about this attitude of non-responsibility is that it is based on a fear of failure. And fear always leads to anger, directed first at the thing that did the scaring. And the scariest thing to a person like this is someone else who knows this person failed. So Bush lashes out when asked about mistakes. Cheney belittles anyone who questions. Rush refuses to admit he committed a crime, while O'Reilly buys the silence (and the phone-sex tapes) of the staffer he sexually harrased.
Ultimately, the only resolution would be to have no one left that pointed out the failures. So, first, no Democrats are Americans, so their opinions don't count. Then, per Ann Coulter, Liberals, including all Democrats, should be killed. Only Republicans will be left, scared to death they'll be next. But since the failures will continue, someone must be to blame. And since it can't be those who actually failed, another group to blame will be found, and killed.
This will continue to one of two ends. Either some contingent finally wakes up to reality, and overthrows the failure-prone leadership AND its philosophy, or it ends with two people at each others' throats over who was responsible for that last failure. And no matter who wins that fight, they'll be wrong.
But the 'winner' will never admit it.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Two slogans and some math...
Well, the Muddled East continues to entertain...
1) "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" - someone far wiser than I.
2) "A Theocracy Is NOT A Democracy Is NOT A Theocracy Is NOT A Democracy..."ad infinitum - A major facet of the problem of Israel.
At the same time these two seemingly-neverending characteristics of the current situation play themselves out in a delightful new variant, Junior and his strange bedfellow, Condi, demonstrate how completely clueless they both are. Condoleezza literally spoke for 10 minutes without constructing a declarative sentence that had semantic content. Listen to her. Students of semantics are impressed, but none others.
And now, the math. Solve this series of simultaneous equations:
Is > P + S + L + J + In + Iq + SA
P > Is
S > Is
L > Is
J > Is
In > Is
Iq > Is
SA > Is
This is the military balance-of-power problem of the Middle East, defining the perceived military needs of each player, where Is = Israel, P = Palestine, S = Syria, L = Lebanon, J = Jordan, In = Iran, Iq = Iraq, SA = Saudi Arabia...
The situation is one of perception, leaving sheer religious and racial hatreds out of it (yea! right!)
Israel sees a pan-Arab enemy, and so must have more arms than all Arab countries combined. Meanwhile each internationally-recognized shiekdom (Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia) as well as each of the other nations, who all see themselves as sovereign, free-standing nations, contending with the others as well as with Israel, must have more arms than Israel.
The joke is that the non-governmental Islamic organizations, Hamas in Palestine (Sunni), Hezbollah in south Lebanon(Shi'ite), and the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt and Pakistan, ARE creating a pan-Arabic movement. Using the hatred of Israel, and its biggest supporter, US, to organize and motivate followers to overthrown their national governments, the rise of a pan-Islamic federation is happening before our eyes, and without a whimper from the Junior Administration. Hamas was elected in Palestine, Shi'ite mullahs run Iran, and we have not a civil war but a religious war happening in Iraq. Now Hezbollah has dragged the nation of Lebanon into supporting its fight against Israel.
1) "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" - someone far wiser than I.
2) "A Theocracy Is NOT A Democracy Is NOT A Theocracy Is NOT A Democracy..."ad infinitum - A major facet of the problem of Israel.
At the same time these two seemingly-neverending characteristics of the current situation play themselves out in a delightful new variant, Junior and his strange bedfellow, Condi, demonstrate how completely clueless they both are. Condoleezza literally spoke for 10 minutes without constructing a declarative sentence that had semantic content. Listen to her. Students of semantics are impressed, but none others.
And now, the math. Solve this series of simultaneous equations:
Is > P + S + L + J + In + Iq + SA
P > Is
S > Is
L > Is
J > Is
In > Is
Iq > Is
SA > Is
This is the military balance-of-power problem of the Middle East, defining the perceived military needs of each player, where Is = Israel, P = Palestine, S = Syria, L = Lebanon, J = Jordan, In = Iran, Iq = Iraq, SA = Saudi Arabia...
The situation is one of perception, leaving sheer religious and racial hatreds out of it (yea! right!)
Israel sees a pan-Arab enemy, and so must have more arms than all Arab countries combined. Meanwhile each internationally-recognized shiekdom (Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia) as well as each of the other nations, who all see themselves as sovereign, free-standing nations, contending with the others as well as with Israel, must have more arms than Israel.
The joke is that the non-governmental Islamic organizations, Hamas in Palestine (Sunni), Hezbollah in south Lebanon(Shi'ite), and the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt and Pakistan, ARE creating a pan-Arabic movement. Using the hatred of Israel, and its biggest supporter, US, to organize and motivate followers to overthrown their national governments, the rise of a pan-Islamic federation is happening before our eyes, and without a whimper from the Junior Administration. Hamas was elected in Palestine, Shi'ite mullahs run Iran, and we have not a civil war but a religious war happening in Iraq. Now Hezbollah has dragged the nation of Lebanon into supporting its fight against Israel.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Two last thoughts on Junior's press conference...
1) The story of the disbanding of the CIA unit that searches for Osama is "not true."
[from the NYTimes transcript today]
PRESIDENT BUSH: I -- you know, it's just an incorrect story. I mean, we got a -- we're -- we got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden. So whatever you want to read in that story, it's just not true, period.
2) The transcript doesn't let you hear how Junior's exasperation at the 'hard work' of answering questions allows him to slowly work himself into a high dudgeon at the end of the press conference, so that he is literally gritting his teeth when he says "I've enjoyed it. Appreciate it."
Is this just his usual disgust with having his policies questioned, or if it's a sign that his anti-psychotic meds need adjusting?
[from the NYTimes transcript today]
PRESIDENT BUSH: I -- you know, it's just an incorrect story. I mean, we got a -- we're -- we got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden. So whatever you want to read in that story, it's just not true, period.
2) The transcript doesn't let you hear how Junior's exasperation at the 'hard work' of answering questions allows him to slowly work himself into a high dudgeon at the end of the press conference, so that he is literally gritting his teeth when he says "I've enjoyed it. Appreciate it."
Is this just his usual disgust with having his policies questioned, or if it's a sign that his anti-psychotic meds need adjusting?
Still Listening to Bozo
During this press conference, he has touted diplomacy, that it takes time, and that we have to do things with partners, not alone. Who says he can't learn new talking points?
About 45 minutes into it, a gal busts him on the failures of his North Korea policy, and asks why stick with a policy that's failed. And he literally repeats all his talking points on North Korea, the same ones he'd used in his speech and in answering a previous question. Literally verbatim.
It's awe-inspiring to see someone so uninterested in participating in doing the work his job demands. (As I type, he has just stormed off angrily, saying 'I've enjoyed it!' through actually-clenched teeth.) This guy has been coached to the nth degree, and sticks to his talking points.
There's 'on message' and then there's 'automaton.' This man isn't just a white-knuckle drunk, he's a white-knuckle speaker, gripping his talking points and agenda and never letting go, no matter what the facts, no matter what the question...
Dear Lord, how much longer must we suffer in this desert that is the Junior Bush intelligence vacuum?
About 45 minutes into it, a gal busts him on the failures of his North Korea policy, and asks why stick with a policy that's failed. And he literally repeats all his talking points on North Korea, the same ones he'd used in his speech and in answering a previous question. Literally verbatim.
It's awe-inspiring to see someone so uninterested in participating in doing the work his job demands. (As I type, he has just stormed off angrily, saying 'I've enjoyed it!' through actually-clenched teeth.) This guy has been coached to the nth degree, and sticks to his talking points.
There's 'on message' and then there's 'automaton.' This man isn't just a white-knuckle drunk, he's a white-knuckle speaker, gripping his talking points and agenda and never letting go, no matter what the facts, no matter what the question...
Dear Lord, how much longer must we suffer in this desert that is the Junior Bush intelligence vacuum?
It's "hard work" listening to this clown's press conference
Junior is still interrupting all the summer school trips to the Museum Of Science and Industry in Chicago. He just made his "You look like you're over 65" joke to the first member of the press corps. As always, an inslt treated as a joke. Typical 3rd-tier frat boy humor...
And he has reminded us, at least a dozen times, that "it's hard work", whether in reconciling the House and Senate Immigration bills, or fighting the "war on terror," or creating jobs...
First, I don't think I ever heard Clinton talk about how hard the job was, which may have been one of the reasons why he made it look so easy.
Second, whenever Junior says it, it comes out as a whine. "Y'know, I mean, it's haaaarrd wooorrk!" I can't stand having this whiner as our leader. No wonder we get no respect.
And third, WE all know being president is a tough job, WTF did he expect? Oh, yea! This is the first job he's ever had where he actually had to show up every day, where Daddy's money and his connections couldn't bail Junior out. Where he at least had to look like he was paying attention. No wonder he's so incredibly bad at the job. Even the "Governor Of Texas" gig was easy, because that governor's job is to be a figurehead (read their state constitution), and his legislature only met for 90 days every other year! No wonder the family ran him for that job.
Man, it'll be hard work digging America out of the pile of shit this guy has dropped on us...Post-Republican America will be a turdblossom, or just a turd. Either way, it'll be hard work...
And he has reminded us, at least a dozen times, that "it's hard work", whether in reconciling the House and Senate Immigration bills, or fighting the "war on terror," or creating jobs...
First, I don't think I ever heard Clinton talk about how hard the job was, which may have been one of the reasons why he made it look so easy.
Second, whenever Junior says it, it comes out as a whine. "Y'know, I mean, it's haaaarrd wooorrk!" I can't stand having this whiner as our leader. No wonder we get no respect.
And third, WE all know being president is a tough job, WTF did he expect? Oh, yea! This is the first job he's ever had where he actually had to show up every day, where Daddy's money and his connections couldn't bail Junior out. Where he at least had to look like he was paying attention. No wonder he's so incredibly bad at the job. Even the "Governor Of Texas" gig was easy, because that governor's job is to be a figurehead (read their state constitution), and his legislature only met for 90 days every other year! No wonder the family ran him for that job.
Man, it'll be hard work digging America out of the pile of shit this guy has dropped on us...Post-Republican America will be a turdblossom, or just a turd. Either way, it'll be hard work...
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Happy Birthday, Mr. Pres-i-dent...
Marilyn sang for Jack Kennedy's birthday in a sheer, skin-tight dress that she had to be sewn into. The only thing that kept it legal was the splash of sequins across the front...
Dick Cheney may have worried, in some fever-dream, that Kenny-Boy would sing for Junior, in some orange jumpsuit that he was shackled into....
But Kenny-Boy gave Junior a MUCH better gift for his birthday.
Boy, Dick might think about giving something similar to America on its birthday next year. I'm sure America would appreciate it even more than Junior appreciated his gift...
Happy Birthday, Junior!
Dick Cheney may have worried, in some fever-dream, that Kenny-Boy would sing for Junior, in some orange jumpsuit that he was shackled into....
But Kenny-Boy gave Junior a MUCH better gift for his birthday.
Boy, Dick might think about giving something similar to America on its birthday next year. I'm sure America would appreciate it even more than Junior appreciated his gift...
Happy Birthday, Junior!
Give me your poor, your tired...
Tuesday I celebrated America's Independence doing the same thing as many American men: yard work.
Differently from most, as I worked, I listened to 'The World' on NPR, as they played two articles that explored the naturalization of immigrants, many of whom became citizens yesterday across America.
The first story interviewed several long-time immigrant workers, one a mechanic of 22 years, one a housekeeper for eight years. Both still live in the deep south of the Southwest, both were originally illegal, both still speaking in their native Spanish. Both are now determined to become citizens, to protect themselves from the animosity towards illegals in the current debate.
The second story was of a woman, now 22 and graduating from college, who came to the US five
years ago from the Sudan as a sanctioned refugee. She settled with a host family, was given legal status from the US and funding the refugee agency, and was prepping for her naturalization ceremony yesterday. Her entire interview was in perfect, lightly accented American English.
From two stories, a choice of lessons: If even a refugee girl can learn English and join
American culture, then those illegal immigrants that haven't learned English must not really want to be Americans, and don't really even want to try.
Or: Keeping people illegal keeps them out of the mainstream of America, keeps them segregated, huddled with others in their situation, and prevents them from ever reaching their economic potential here, even while they exceed their economic potential in the country they came from.
It seems like a choice between America's hopes and its fears.
Pick one.
Differently from most, as I worked, I listened to 'The World' on NPR, as they played two articles that explored the naturalization of immigrants, many of whom became citizens yesterday across America.
The first story interviewed several long-time immigrant workers, one a mechanic of 22 years, one a housekeeper for eight years. Both still live in the deep south of the Southwest, both were originally illegal, both still speaking in their native Spanish. Both are now determined to become citizens, to protect themselves from the animosity towards illegals in the current debate.
The second story was of a woman, now 22 and graduating from college, who came to the US five
years ago from the Sudan as a sanctioned refugee. She settled with a host family, was given legal status from the US and funding the refugee agency, and was prepping for her naturalization ceremony yesterday. Her entire interview was in perfect, lightly accented American English.
From two stories, a choice of lessons: If even a refugee girl can learn English and join
American culture, then those illegal immigrants that haven't learned English must not really want to be Americans, and don't really even want to try.
Or: Keeping people illegal keeps them out of the mainstream of America, keeps them segregated, huddled with others in their situation, and prevents them from ever reaching their economic potential here, even while they exceed their economic potential in the country they came from.
It seems like a choice between America's hopes and its fears.
Pick one.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Global War On Dick Kickin' !
It's impossible to express my disgust with the phrase 'war on terror' and the resulting 'We're in a time of war' excuse for every trampling of the Constitution by this Administration and its rubber-stamp Congress, most recently in the chest-thumping and threats surrounding the NYTimes exposure of the White House spying on American citizens, without warrants, voiding at least two constitutional amendments.
So...
1) Please tell me when Terror did not exist in the world. Tell me how we will know when there will not be any more.
2) Since you can't do #1, how's about defining how we will know when we have won the 'war on terror,' so we can go back to reading the Constitution the way it was intended, and stop using it as a door mat at the entrance to the White House.
3) Can't do that either, eh? Then let's declare a similar war, also against a methodology rather than a state or an army.
I propose a Global War on Groin Hits. Anyone who thinks about hitting someone else in the groin should be jailed and tortured, possibly with groin hits. Anyone who thinks someone is thinking about hitting them in the groin has the right to spy on that person, go through their phone calls and bank accounts, to protect their 'family jewels.'
Silly, isn't it? This has always gone on, and will, as long as there are testicles hanging from people who are thought to deserve a good whacking by anyone else.
The difference is, of course, that a groin hit rarely kills the victim, while we've seen terror attacks kill people for hundreds of years, including the WTC attack of 2001.
But the analogy equates a person to a nation, in case you didn't notice. And the WTC attack didn't particularly hurt America as a whole. The economy continues, the political system continues. Trucks navigate roads, children go to school.
But America has changed its behavior towards its citizens, and towards the world. In both cases, for the worse. And in that sense, the terror attack worked, not because of the attack, but because of what we let our government do to us and to our nation, using that attack as an excuse.
The list of what they are doing to us is already long, and sad. And oh, so pointless. Think of what we'll find when the constitutionally-required openness in government and the constitutionally-designed checks-and-balances kick in!
There will be no end to the war on terror, because there is no army to conquer, no enemy to star in a surrender ceremony. But there will be an end to America. And that is when we decide that the idea and establishment of the principles of the Constitution is no longer important.
Because the war is actually one of ideas. And how we continue to treat our citizens and our nation and our international friends and treaties will tell who wins this battle. And we come closer to losing every day that we treat our citizens more like we accuse 'them' of treating people, rather than convincing people they wanted to be treated more like we expect to be under our Constitution.
So...
1) Please tell me when Terror did not exist in the world. Tell me how we will know when there will not be any more.
2) Since you can't do #1, how's about defining how we will know when we have won the 'war on terror,' so we can go back to reading the Constitution the way it was intended, and stop using it as a door mat at the entrance to the White House.
3) Can't do that either, eh? Then let's declare a similar war, also against a methodology rather than a state or an army.
I propose a Global War on Groin Hits. Anyone who thinks about hitting someone else in the groin should be jailed and tortured, possibly with groin hits. Anyone who thinks someone is thinking about hitting them in the groin has the right to spy on that person, go through their phone calls and bank accounts, to protect their 'family jewels.'
Silly, isn't it? This has always gone on, and will, as long as there are testicles hanging from people who are thought to deserve a good whacking by anyone else.
The difference is, of course, that a groin hit rarely kills the victim, while we've seen terror attacks kill people for hundreds of years, including the WTC attack of 2001.
But the analogy equates a person to a nation, in case you didn't notice. And the WTC attack didn't particularly hurt America as a whole. The economy continues, the political system continues. Trucks navigate roads, children go to school.
But America has changed its behavior towards its citizens, and towards the world. In both cases, for the worse. And in that sense, the terror attack worked, not because of the attack, but because of what we let our government do to us and to our nation, using that attack as an excuse.
The list of what they are doing to us is already long, and sad. And oh, so pointless. Think of what we'll find when the constitutionally-required openness in government and the constitutionally-designed checks-and-balances kick in!
There will be no end to the war on terror, because there is no army to conquer, no enemy to star in a surrender ceremony. But there will be an end to America. And that is when we decide that the idea and establishment of the principles of the Constitution is no longer important.
Because the war is actually one of ideas. And how we continue to treat our citizens and our nation and our international friends and treaties will tell who wins this battle. And we come closer to losing every day that we treat our citizens more like we accuse 'them' of treating people, rather than convincing people they wanted to be treated more like we expect to be under our Constitution.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
I'm back...and feel like I've been through finals and a dissertation proposal defense...neither of which is likely to happen soon, but two weeks of business travel and family guests results in the same effect.
So, before I get back in gear, a quick rundown of the absence:
Three days in Manhattan, seeing The Daily Show, Billy Connolly, and Spamalot. The throat's still raw from laughing, and barely held together in the subsequent three days of policy at the Take Back America conference in Washington from the 12th to the 14th. I reported on the conference for a local AM AirAmerica affiliate's Sunday show, hosted by Barry Gordon. From the opening day, with Robert Redford, through the Hillary/Pelosi/Kerry breakfast the next day, and seeing Russ Feingold, Joe Wilson and Ned Lamont talk Iraq on Wednesday, it was a helluva show. I was interviewed on Father's Day on the BarryGordonFromLeftField Show, while my dad, my favorite Democrat, listened. You can hear the interview here. I'm the first guest, so you only have to suffer the ads. It's AM radio, after all.
Back home, to attend the oldest niece's HS graduation, then enjoy a few days of parents staying with me, including a night for Mom at the local hospital. Note: never test-drive a seafood restaurant with visitors...
All caught up? Look, everyone is focusing on Iraq. The conference was damned near a one-note concert in the full sessions, and only got to other subjects in little break-outs of 100 to 200 people. The best post I've read lately is from the RudePundit, here. So in the interest of change, as well as speed, I'm going to reprise a complaint from this time last year: Have you looked at the Dow Jones Industrial Average today? It's at 11079, after a 104-point rise today. "So what?", you ask, "That's a nice one-day jump." Yea, until you get some context. Remember when Junior wanted to privatize Social Security. Wanted us to do our own investing, to hand our funds over to some brokerage house to manage, (and get a fee for doing so,) even if we kept the funds in something as 'safe' as an index fund, like, maybe, a DJIA Index fund (called Diamonds in the vernacular) for example?
Well, 10218 is stuck in my head. It was the market close of the DJIA on a day in June of 2004, when I drove 12 hours straight through from home to Salt Lake City, to get a car back from a shop that had resusitated it from the ministrations of a drunken Mormon who'd rear-ended it, and me in it, about two months earlier. 10218 was on the air as I got a speeding ticket, because they ticket their own (my SLC rental had Beehive State plates) but not tourists...
Anyway, do the math. Two years, 861 points since 10218. That's a total of 8.4% increase over two years. It would be much less if your broker took his 1.25 percent the first year, which you then wouldn't earn on the second year. After which, the broker takes his 1.25 percent again. So maybe you made 5% over those two years, sitting still and betting on the Dow. You'd have made the same increase, maybe even a tad more, over the same two years if you'd still been in the standard Social Security system. And that's using Junior's own figures. But the important thing, for Junior and his corporate backers, is that 1.25 percent per year they'd make off your money if Social Security was privatized. Because they don't get any of that now. That gets used to pay for your parents, my berieved underage nieces, and the rest of the widows and orphans that expect civility and care from us, and that we, purporting to be civilized, give them through Social Security.
I compare every day's close to that June 2004 close at 10218. And I watch the fascists in the Reaganazi Party, because they won't sleep until they get their hands on that big pool of money called Social Security. 'Cause 1.25% of all the Social Security funds, every year, is...well, it's a whole lot!
So, before I get back in gear, a quick rundown of the absence:
Three days in Manhattan, seeing The Daily Show, Billy Connolly, and Spamalot. The throat's still raw from laughing, and barely held together in the subsequent three days of policy at the Take Back America conference in Washington from the 12th to the 14th. I reported on the conference for a local AM AirAmerica affiliate's Sunday show, hosted by Barry Gordon. From the opening day, with Robert Redford, through the Hillary/Pelosi/Kerry breakfast the next day, and seeing Russ Feingold, Joe Wilson and Ned Lamont talk Iraq on Wednesday, it was a helluva show. I was interviewed on Father's Day on the BarryGordonFromLeftField Show, while my dad, my favorite Democrat, listened. You can hear the interview here. I'm the first guest, so you only have to suffer the ads. It's AM radio, after all.
Back home, to attend the oldest niece's HS graduation, then enjoy a few days of parents staying with me, including a night for Mom at the local hospital. Note: never test-drive a seafood restaurant with visitors...
All caught up? Look, everyone is focusing on Iraq. The conference was damned near a one-note concert in the full sessions, and only got to other subjects in little break-outs of 100 to 200 people. The best post I've read lately is from the RudePundit, here. So in the interest of change, as well as speed, I'm going to reprise a complaint from this time last year: Have you looked at the Dow Jones Industrial Average today? It's at 11079, after a 104-point rise today. "So what?", you ask, "That's a nice one-day jump." Yea, until you get some context. Remember when Junior wanted to privatize Social Security. Wanted us to do our own investing, to hand our funds over to some brokerage house to manage, (and get a fee for doing so,) even if we kept the funds in something as 'safe' as an index fund, like, maybe, a DJIA Index fund (called Diamonds in the vernacular) for example?
Well, 10218 is stuck in my head. It was the market close of the DJIA on a day in June of 2004, when I drove 12 hours straight through from home to Salt Lake City, to get a car back from a shop that had resusitated it from the ministrations of a drunken Mormon who'd rear-ended it, and me in it, about two months earlier. 10218 was on the air as I got a speeding ticket, because they ticket their own (my SLC rental had Beehive State plates) but not tourists...
Anyway, do the math. Two years, 861 points since 10218. That's a total of 8.4% increase over two years. It would be much less if your broker took his 1.25 percent the first year, which you then wouldn't earn on the second year. After which, the broker takes his 1.25 percent again. So maybe you made 5% over those two years, sitting still and betting on the Dow. You'd have made the same increase, maybe even a tad more, over the same two years if you'd still been in the standard Social Security system. And that's using Junior's own figures. But the important thing, for Junior and his corporate backers, is that 1.25 percent per year they'd make off your money if Social Security was privatized. Because they don't get any of that now. That gets used to pay for your parents, my berieved underage nieces, and the rest of the widows and orphans that expect civility and care from us, and that we, purporting to be civilized, give them through Social Security.
I compare every day's close to that June 2004 close at 10218. And I watch the fascists in the Reaganazi Party, because they won't sleep until they get their hands on that big pool of money called Social Security. 'Cause 1.25% of all the Social Security funds, every year, is...well, it's a whole lot!
Thursday, May 25, 2006
I can dream, can't I ??
OK, so Skilling and Lay got the first taste of the rest of the life we having been wishing for them since 2001. Probably a pyrrhic victory for America. I mean, we'll NEVER see the money they made disappear, and if their lawyers are really good, they'll be able to stay out of prison until January of 2009, at which time Junior will pardon them both. He needs to make sure that they won't rat him out over Cheney's Energy meetings and the other collusions amongst the oil men in and out of the White House. After all, the one person Junior can't pardon is.....Junior!
Instead of continuing to rain on your parade, allow me to suggest that 'going away' presents would be in order for 'Kenny Boy' Lay. And being a good liberal, wanting the best for my fellow man, let me suggest the following:
Send along an order of condoms (my favorite brand) and some single-use packets of KY (also makes those gas prices easier to take) to Kenny Lay, in care of his legal representative, Danny Petrocelli, at O'Melveny & Myers, in Century City (aka LawyerLand) in LA.
I'm sure he'll be able to pass these gifts along to Ken.
After all, lawyers have a better chance of delivering to the prisoners than the rest of us. It's their job!
Instead of continuing to rain on your parade, allow me to suggest that 'going away' presents would be in order for 'Kenny Boy' Lay. And being a good liberal, wanting the best for my fellow man, let me suggest the following:
Send along an order of condoms (my favorite brand) and some single-use packets of KY (also makes those gas prices easier to take) to Kenny Lay, in care of his legal representative, Danny Petrocelli, at O'Melveny & Myers, in Century City (aka LawyerLand) in LA.
I'm sure he'll be able to pass these gifts along to Ken.
After all, lawyers have a better chance of delivering to the prisoners than the rest of us. It's their job!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)