Roadkill Journal

LOOKING LEFT ON THANKSGIVING

2006-11-23T15:16:00.000-08:00

I’m reading the Huffington Post –its blogs, specifically – so you don’t have to…

You’re welcome…

Arianna Huffington leads off, cackling briefly about the election, and then going after the Orwellians in the Bush administration “(who) have decided to no longer use the word "hunger" to describe the 35 million Americans -- that's 12 percent of the population -- who aren't always sure where their next meal is coming from. Instead, the poor people formerly known as the hungry will now be referred to as people experiencing "very low food security."”

The old lady has a point… The kind of doublespeak she quotes herein is pretty hard to take:

“Hunger, you see, is actually the byproduct of being "food insecure" and thus harder to precisely measure. In the words of a USDA advisory panel, hunger "should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."”

Arianna admits “Just writing that gives me an "uneasy sensation."” It triggers my slap reflex – I want to slap the clinical fool who originally penned it… But at least she goes on to admit that this isn’t just a Republican problem…

******************************************************************************

Arianna ends - more or less - saying “chang(ing) the reality of hunger in America … will take a national commitment to overcoming poverty from our leaders -- and from all of us. Something to think about as we sit down to our Thanksgiving feasts.”

Guilt… Jews invented it; Catholics perfected it… Manipulators use it as a weapon. The strict, true conservative that still hides deep within me peers out and asks, when and where has “a national commitment to overcoming poverty from our leaders” ever worked? Don’t tell me it hasn’t been tried. Churches, philanthropic organizations, Great – and lesser – societies, governments of all kinds in many lands and times have tried. The closest anyone has came to “success” that I can recall are the relatively socialized societies of Western Europe – Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and Scandinavia. And that success has been fraught with – hopefully – unintended consequences, creating “entitled” groups notoriously smug and more than willing to aggressively protest and even riot in order to maintain their status.

Ungrateful, if you are into the guilt shtick…

It is a poison of the spirit to give a man everything he needs to survive except hope. Hope cannot be found in a stipend. Poor men have poor ways. Enrich their path.

Arianna, worry less about the poverty of hunger and more about the poverty of hope. Then you may have a chance of success.

Moving right along, John Ridley gives thanks “for the political center.”

“I'm thankful for The Political Center. The hard-core, radical middle that's finally taking control of discourse in this country. I am thankful that Republican, Democrat, Red and Blue are fading obelisks on the cultural landscape. Irrelevant, and replaced by the only ideology that is of any substance: pragmatism.”

My knees jerk, each in its own direction… I started blogging just over a year ago, billing myself as a moderate – a designation I have since changed to, by chance, pragmatist. So I should give John bravos… Except I really don’t know what he means. The more I do this the less I know what “liberal,” “conservative,” “left,” right,” or “center” mean.
Mostly, it means someone is calling someone else a name, and likely with derogatory intent…

But I agree with John on some specifics. While I think he overstates the case “the left has found a path” I agree the midterms were won “by backing the likes of small d Democrats (such as) Bob Casey, Jr. and Jim Webb”… I also agree “That Joe Lieberman’s win as an independent indicates how badly the far left … underestimated the Middle's ability to look beyond a single issue and pull votes from all sides.”

The war, of course, being that “single issue”…

I’ll take a line here to again plug an excellent WSJ Op-Ed by Senator-elect Webb: “Class Struggle.” I think he makes good points…

The American political conversation, from “a more perfect union” to “a chicken in every pot” to “it’s the economy stupid” has always been partly about prosperity… And Joe Rustbelt is nervous. His dad retired from the old factory with a good pension. He’s doing OK, which is more than can be said for his neighbor, who lost his pension in a corporate collapse. And they’re both better off than Joe, who has never even been offered anything like the sweet deals his parents’ generation got. At that, he’s lucky – he has a “family wage job.” Joe III is stuck shoveling shit for a hopelessly inadequate minimum wage. He’s considered college, but his college-educated friends don’t find their degrees help them much in the restaurant or mattress superstore, and those student loan payments suck… He’d like to break into construction, but Mexicans have taken that over, and no habla Espanol, se?... Besides, the contractors have all the applicants they need, waiting in Tijuana… Well, there is always the army…

Meanwhile, the corporate hacks who sold out Joe Sr., his neighbor, and their kids are doing fine, floating down on their golden parachutes…

The conversation has been about prosperity, but it has been about equity as well. Now, I posit Americans generally have an instinctive apprehension to equality of outcome, but very much support equity in opportunity. It’s bred into us; a product of wide-open capitalism and a frontier mentality. Well, the frontier is – temporarily, at least – closed to the average man, and capitalism has become its own worst enemy.

Joe is voting with his feet. He’s walking away from a system that seems to have turned on him. Let’s hope he doesn’t walk into something worse…

Moving on down the evolutionary tree to the domain of the lizard brain, John Seery thanks nobody in particular for the infinite superiority the dysfunctional California Yuppie lifestyle he lives today enjoys over the dysfunction of his traditional Iowa upbringing… If you like the kind of piece that sends Rush Limbaugh into spittle emitting, paper crunching tirades, you’ll love this one…

And finally, arriving at the very bottom of the evolutionary slime, we find Tony Hendra, ranting back at us… Tony offers a heartfelt prayer to whatever god he worships, first entreating the almighty? to bless Dick Cheney with another heart attack and then giving thanks that, among other things, “Thy glorious sun is finally breaking through the viscous, vomit-colored cloud-cover of Republican bigotry, repression, fear-mongering, greed and graft. A blighted carapace of despair and depression that has blotted out the clear blue sky from horizon to horizon for six long years, O Lord, like a billion pairs of enormous morbidly obese buttocks sitting on our heads.” It goes sub-slime thereafter…

Really, this is just the thing, if you’re a Republican who enjoys a good bout of holiday indigestion.

You might even want to save it… You never know when you may need a good example of far-left liberal “compassion”…

VIOLATING THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

2006-11-22T20:31:00.000-08:00

There are a couple of stories kicking around of late that demonstrate the folly of too much law and the unintended consequences it generates…

Last week our own lead neoconservative trooper was outright sky-falling astonished to hear the ACLU was defending a lawsuit involving guns!

Well, sort of… It was really a free speech case involving internet filters. Owing to a Federal “strings attached” arrangement, libraries which received certain Federal grants were required to install filters to prevent minors from “seeing visual depictions of sexual activity,” whatever exactly that means… Is this what we used to call porn?

Well, some Eastern Washington libraries, contrary to Supreme Court edict, didn’t remove the filters to allow unfettered adult access. “The plaintiffs include a Ferry County woman who wanted to do research on drugs and alcohol while studying at Eastern Washington University; a professional photographer blocked from researching art galleries and health issues; and an Okanogan man unable to access a Web log he maintains, as well information relating to gun use by hunters.”

Nobody is explaining how a porn filter blocked access to those subjects, but I think it’s time to slap the software writer…

And a few hundred members of Congress, too. Why do we need this law? Protect kids from porn? C’mon… They don’t need porn. They have Britney Spears, appearing here half a sneeze away from pulling a Janet. Fox calls her single and sizzling… I got another “s” word for her… And a note to Fox – she isn’t single, yet. Some icon… Keeping kids away from explicit sexuality is hopeless.

And BTW, isn’t this one of those parental functions? I know… Ma’s at work. Somebody has to pay for those porn filters.

This one is a lot grimmer… FoxNews, among many others, is reporting the case of a 92 woman who was killed in a “shootout” with narcotics officers who broke down the wrong door on a botched warrant. It’s claimed they announced themselves properly, followed all the right procedures, etc… Except it was the wrong damned house. It’s a good guess Kathryn Johnston didn’t hear their declamation before she wounded three of them…

Something in me wants to curse her aim and curse twice the apologists who insist this was justified – or at least that the cops were justified in their response. I would wish at the very least they never wear a badge again, and that the fool who got the location wrong go to jail for involuntary manslaughter, civil rights violations, and wounding – its his/her fault the cops got shot.

I would, but it’s so futile. It’s just one more case of collateral damage from the most misbegotten war this country has ever fought, the war on drugs.

Over at National Review there is a link to a ten year old article by WF Buckley and the NRO editors. If you haven’t read “The War On Drugs Is Lost” do so now. It’s long and wordy – what else? – but it makes the case very well. And it is especially significant that the observations Buckley et al made in 1996 are still so applicable.

So how goes the war today? Oh, you can search and search – you’ll find thousands of opinions, estimates, and hyperbolic rhetorical excesses – but you’ll find almost no “facts” because nobody knows. All we know for sure is that since 1996, as estimates of total users have gone up and down, methamphetamine and prescription drugs like oxycontin – Limbaugh’s balm – have become hugely popular while the old standbys maintained their popularity and availability - as cheap or cheaper than ever. We know that cops keep busting and users keep buying, while those true capitalists of the black markets wax ever more ingenious in their techniques, digging tunnels and building submarines to facilitate their enterprises…

Lost? Worse than lost: Stalemated. The war on drugs is a quagmire that makes Iraq look like a shining success. And just like Iraq, the collateral damage goes on, as Kathryn Johnston found out…

I don’t expect it to change. Religious zealots and similar dogmatists, fighting side by side with dealers, crooked cops and judges, and the huge numbers of drug customers make this almost certain. I have to wonder, though: Do the anti-drug legions realize they are perpetuating the problem? Do they realize their futile efforts are lining the pockets of those they purport to oppose?

Do they know they have blood on their hands – the blood of people like Kathryn Johnston – just as surely as do the druglords?

Do they care? Or is any means justifiable in their war?

I guess so… That’s what war means.

BIG 'OL BAG OF DIRTY LAUNDRY

2006-11-21T14:32:00.000-08:00

I’ve a lot of different things chasing each other through the fetid crags of my dirty little mind today… I thought I’d scoop ‘em all into one bag…

First, an opinion:

Establishment liberals waxed derisive while conservatives hooted catcalls as Nancy Pelosi worked to elect John Murtha Majority Leader. After the effort failed, pundits provided a plethora of analyses as to the damage “her failure” did to her upcoming Speakership.

Keeping in mind one can be scrupulously principled and dead wrong at the same time…

You have to admit that so far the Speaker-elect is being uncommonly principled – uncommon, that is, for the House of Representatives… She clearly believes the election just over is a mandate to “get us out” of Iraq, whatever that means. She also believes Representative Murtha played a significant role in popularizing the message.

So ignoring his many other shortcomings and the potential damage of failure she pushed his candidacy.

Add to this the fact she has come out in opposition to a new draft, it becomes all the plainer she is serious about pushing to “get us out.” We won’t need a draft if we’re not stuck in Iraq…

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports this morning that the Democrats are planning a REALLY BIG SHEW on ethics. From the article:

“Despite divisions among Democrats over how far to go in revising ethics rules, House leaders plan a major rollout of an ethics reform bill early next year to demonstrate concern about an issue that helped defeat the Republicans in the midterm elections.

But they will do it with a twist: Instead of forwarding one big bill, Democrats will put together an ethics package on the House floor piece by piece, allowing incoming freshmen to take charge of high-profile issues and lengthening the time spent on the debate. The approach will ensure that each proposal -- including banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists as well as imposing new controls on the budget deficit -- is debated on its own and receives its own vote. That should garner far more media attention for the bill's components before a final vote on the entire package.

"This will be the most significant ethics and lobbying reform that Congress has ever voted on," promised Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), one of the point men on the effort.”

I wondered if Jim McDermott would be involved in the circus, so I perused his page… Web, that is, not Congressional… Jim doesn’t even have a link to ethics…

Moving down the pecking order, Arianna Huffington bitch-slaps James Carville for his criticism of Howard Dean, opining Democrats need to send the “Agin' Cajun to the Political Consultants' Retirement Home.”

I have to say I enjoyed that, and I bet a lot of other people did too. I bet if you charged $5 a pop for the chance to slap Carville, you could pay off the National debt…

Meanwhile, with the jury still out, the vigilantes are advocating a hanging. Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute opines in the LA Times that we must bomb Iran.

Blood pressure time… I think it is cowardly and foolish, not to mention ultimately counterproductive, to insist there is no legitimacy to Iran’s desire for nuclear power generation capacity. As I read this article, I see one theme repeated over and over… Hezbollah. Hezbollah this, Hezbollah that… Hezbollah isn’t my problem, and neither is the security of those whose problem they are…

But the nightmare Medusa of fossil fuel reliance is my problem, and as I have opined in the past and will in the future, I think the way out – the only way out – is nuclear power. I think the US should go all out to build energy self-sufficiency via nuclear power. That said, I think it hypocritical for us to attempt to block others…

Yes, I know the arguments. I don’t care. This is inevitable. And I’m tired of watching the American people be dragged around by their fears. We spent 40 years steeling ourselves for an Armageddon that never happened and in fact came closer to happening by accident than design. Now the Fear Party wants to drag us around by a fear of a nation that cannot possible give us more than a bloody nose and almost certainly won’t, if it comes to it, even try. Oh, I know. There are millions of people in the Middle East – and millions in the US – who want to create Armageddon in the unholy land, today. But I think I’m going to cast my lot with common sense. In the end, most people will realize in time all this religious stuff is pure crap and they won’t follow the freaks off the cliff…

Over at Slate Christopher Hitchens has a few choice words for James Baker & co, asking “Who’s Cutting and Running Now?” I found this piece interesting not so much for his criticisms as for it’s value as a reminder of what a radical departure GWB’s Iraq policy was from previous policies. Now, it seems some of the same people who created the long standoff between the Gulf Wars are being tapped to talk us out of the quagmire.

It’s also a flag for anyone in Iraq who is really supporting us: As Hitchens notes, Baker was a chief author of the policy that encouraged Shiite and Kurdish dissent against Saddam Hussein and then failed to support that dissent. “For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it.”

They should.

Well, I guess all you can say is WAAAAA!!! “Young people in developed countries unhappy, survey says” Of course, a lot of theories are offered as to why kids in India are happier than kids in Japan or the US. Here’s mine: Western kids have an impossible to attain definition of success. In Japan, its work related success, in the good ‘ol USA, it’s an insidious combination of materialistic goals and obsession with beauty.

What did the Mr. wizard of my childhood cartoons say? “Be just what you is, not what you is not. Those who do this are the happiest lot.”

Maybe these kids need better cartoons.

I knew there was more to this story and I hoped it would come out. A few weeks ago, a much-reported study claimed Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000. Fred Kaplin at Slate took issue with the study, and his criticisms have elicited a response from the study authors, which Fred responds to.

The heart of the issue: Using an accepted statistical technique not heretofore applied in Iraq, the study authors concluded the total death rate from all causes was 13.3 per 1000. The pre-war rate had to be estimated, and was pegged at 5.5 / 1000, which is lower than in the graying West but higher than other Middle Eastern Nations which have the young populations a high birth rate provides. Other estimates, however, place the pre-war rate as high as 10 / 1000.

So even if the 13.3 figure is correct – I expect it probably it is – we still don’t know where we are because we don’t know where we came from…

This is ugly… H Candice Gorman, attorney for a Mr. Al-Ghizzawi, currently being held in Guantanamo, without, she maintains, any cause – let alone a just or legal one. Speaking of Rumsfeld, Gonzolez, and their cronies she writes: “Even if the only thing they were guilty of doing was what they did to Mr. Al-Ghizzawi, they deserve to be tried and convicted as war criminals. They need to sit in tiny cells for the rest of their lives and ponder their cruelty.”

More blood pressure… If her assertions are correct, I agree. Anyone involved in this should be stripped of all immunity and turned over to The World Court for trial as war criminals. If GWB was in on it, this alone should be a slam dunk for impeachment.

And this should be a wake-up for all Americans: Under current law, anyone can disappear into these hellholes. Being an American is a meaningless protection if you are held incommunicado. In fact, it would make it worse. If they grabbed Joe Citizen by accident and then figured it out six months of torture later, they almost certainly wouldn’t let him go for fear of legal reprisals.

IMO, the recently passed exceptions in Habeas Corpus robs the US government of all legitimacy. “We” are now ruled by criminal thugs no better than a Saddam Hussein. If they want my allegiance, they can repeal that ghastly law. Until then, it ain’t my government…

Here’s some bile from the sore-losers of the right wing: Jenean Mcbrearty laments in The Lexington-Herald Leader “Hippies still trying to ruin the country”

Note to Ms. McDipshit: I’ll take hippies over you hillbillies any day… She writes: “America won't win another war until the 1960s flower children are pushing up petunias.” Idiot. America won’t have peace until all her kind are pushing up Skunk Cabbage…

Then on a values note: William Saletan at Slate suggests a novel idea for the Democrats: "Go back to being the party of responsibility." He weaves several themes together, but the one I find the most interesting is the latest morphing of the prohibitionist vs. liberalist position on abortion. Prohibitionists have managed of late to back themselves into a corner over birth control. To Saletan, the remedy for the public perception of Democrats as the “if it feels good, do it” party is simple: Advocate that “Democrats are for reducing abortion without banning it. The most effective way, short of abstinence, is through birth control. Birth control isn't about doing what feels good. It's about taking responsibility.”

I think ultimately this will be the winning position…

And last an economic twofer: Drudge led this morning with one of those “grabber” headlines he is so fond of: GOOGLE HITS $500 A SHARE; MARKET VALUE $154,570,000,000.00

This reminded me of a piece by Daniel Gross at Slate: “The Mystery of the Disappearing Stocks” Gross offers “A bizarre explanation for the stock market rally,” suggesting “The continuing stock rally in the face of a slowing economy and a cratering housing sector is something of a mystery, baffling economists and investors alike. But there could be a simple explanation: supply and demand.

Simply put, the supply of U.S. stocks available for individual investors, mutual funds, and index funds. Call it de-equitization. In the last few days, deals have been announced or concluded to take large publicly held companies private.”

He goes on to elucidate this ongoing trend: “According to Thomson Financial, buyouts worth $334.5 billion have been announced or completed so far this year, up from $115 billion for all of last year. According to Standard & Poor's, members of the S&P 500 Index spent $325.15 billion on their own shares in the first three quarters of 2006 and have spent more than $674 billion since Jan. 1, 2005. Between buybacks and buyouts, that's more than $1.1 trillion of stock taken out of public hands in less than two years.”

I have long thought this economy is badly overrated – and I think he’s on to something here. It is the same as the just busted speculative boom in oil. There is a lot of money out there looking for a home, and fewer and fewer places for it to go.

I don’t think it will last – I think once the buyback frenzy described subsides, the P/E ratio will reassert itself and the prices will “re-align”… Translation: 8,000 DOW within a year.

Good Day…

Cross-Posted to NW Bloggers

THE REAL DEMON

2006-11-19T12:40:00.000-08:00

This morning we have another spewing of evil from the sickest bastard in America. Bob Cesca over at Huffington Post links Crooks & Liars for some fine Sunday fare:

“Pat Robertson: All Others Worship “Demonic Powers””

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/18/pat-robertson-all-others-worship-demonic-powers/

In its entirety:

“A viewer wrote in to ask Pat Robertson a question

Why [do] evangelical Christians tell non-Christians that Jesus (God) is the only way to Heaven? Those who are Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, etc. already know and have a relationship with God. Why is this? It seems disrespectful.

Robertson replied that it is not all disrespectful because all other religions really just worship "demonic powers."

No. They don't have a relationship. There is the god of the Bible, who is Jehovah. When you see L-O-R-D in caps, that is the name. It's not Allah, it's not Brahma, it's not Shiva, it's not Vishnu, it's not Buddha. It is Jehovah God. They don't have a relationship with him. He is the God of all Gods. These others are mostly demonic powers. Sure they're demons. There are many demons in the world.”

Sick bastard.

This isn’t free speech, its hate speech and incitement. There are unfortunately billions of people who are religious, and he just hurled the worst possible insult at two-thirds of them. He should at the least be prosecuted and his broadcast licenses should be revoked.

And stuff your first amendment arguments, please. Freedom of speech was intended to protect political speech and was primarily intended to apply to speaking out for or against government. Likewise arguments of freedom of religion are misplaced. This isn’t a church; it’s a for-profit enterprise whose product is pseudo-religious hatred such as the above example. And like any product, it deserves to be regulated. Robertson has made millions with this. Allowing him to hide in the first amendment is despicable.

Discussing the fact he said it should be protected – he made it political by using the public airwaves. What he said should not be and neither should the speaker. If someone were incited to violence against him over comments like these, well, that’s fine by me. He asked for it.

Bring back dueling!

A SLIP OF THE TRUTH

2006-11-19T10:45:00.000-08:00

Well, the Brit Minister of “He didn’t say that” issued a statement yesterday, commenting on Tony Blair’s recent agreement with David Frost that Iraq was a disaster. From AFP VIA Breitbart:

“Blair 'disaster' admission over Iraq a 'slip of the tongue': official”

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/18/061118191126.gfcbmuyt.html

The piece sums the matter well:

“Downing Street moved swiftly to play down an apparent admission by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that the invasion of Iraq had been a "disaster," labelling his comments a "slip of the tongue."

In an interview Friday on Al-Jazeera's new English-language channel, broadcaster Sir David Frost suggested that the 2003 US-led and British-backed invasion had "so far been pretty much of a disaster."

"It has," Blair replied, before adding quickly: "But you see, what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It's not difficult because of some accident in planning.

"It's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy... to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

But during Blair's trip to Pakistan for talks with President Pervez Musharraf, the prime minister's official spokesman told reporters: "It was a straightforward slip of the tongue... sometimes he does this when he's half-listening to the question and wants to get on and respond."”

A slip of the tongue? A slip of the truth… These war party hawkers never tell the truth unless it’s a slip of the tongue…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Really this is of little if any note. It’s absolutely old news that there is an irreparable disconnect between what our governments are claiming about Iraq and the actual situation. It even goes to his credit that he “slipped;” to constantly and completely deny the truth requires a psychopathic mind – one like Cheney or Rove possesses. At least Blair isn’t stark raving mad… Like our VP…

I wouldn’t have thought to comment on the matter at all, except for another bit of honesty here that I think we Americans need to consider:

“"It's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy... to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."”

As this country continues down the path to a class-ridden, have vs. have not society, we need to remember the survival of our free, open, representative Republic – and the rights it guarantees – depends on overwhelming popular support. If even a few percent of America gave up on the process and decided the only way to survive was to take the fight to the streets, our Nation and its ideals would be doomed.

We have had a small taste of what terrorists can do. We have seen what tiny numbers of domestic terrorists can accomplish.

What havoc could a few million wreak? And why if they are dispossessed in the land of their birth shouldn’t they do so?

Jim Webb, the junior Senator-elect from Virginia, said much the same thing – in far more circumlocutious terms - in a must read op-ed in The Wall Street Journal back on November 15th:

“Class Struggle”
“American workers have a chance to be heard”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246

Read it, please. Mr. Webb obviously still believes the system can cure itself – or at least he hopes to project that belief. But I have to wonder how many of the people who elected him share that view. Seeing, as he notes:

“The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.”

Seeing the trends, and:

1) Seeing manufacturers forsake our shores in favor of profits while still expecting to market their wares here,

2) Seeing any outsourceable job outsourced,

3) Seeing corporate America use illegal immigrants to bust unions and turn family wage jobs into slave labor,

4) Seeing, as Mr. Webb notes:

“Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.”

In the face of all this, is it reasonable to expect people to remain peaceful citizens, respecting a system that respects neither they nor their needs?

I don’t think so. It certainly isn’t my expectation.

I do think that this issue was a big part of the turnaround in Congress this last election. Americans are very patient as a group – look at how long “we” tolerated failure in Iraq – but the big lie of the Bush / Republican economy has simply become too big to accept anymore. Wall Street be damned – it’s main street that matters to Joe Citizen. And main street has been raped by Wal-Martization and the globalist treachery of corporate America.

Joe Average knows the Republican establishment wants to enslave him. Joe is hoping Democrats will rise to the challenge and restore equity. If the government doesn’t do something now, a lot of average Joes may give up and start studying Jefferson… A little revolution, you know, being good every once in a while…

COSSACKS!

2006-11-18T15:38:00.000-08:00

Judge this one for yourself…

From Huffington Post:

“Houston Police Trample Protesting Janitors With Horses...”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/18/houston-police-trample-pr_n_34427.html

If it’s true, it’s a damn shame the protesters weren’t armed and inclined to fight back. At the very least, none of these Cossacks should ever wear a badge again – and whoever ordered this should go to prison for life.

Damn… Is it absolutely certain we can’t just give Texas back to the Mexicans?

RESOLVING A PARADOX

2006-11-18T12:33:00.000-08:00

A couple of pieces this last week on environmental matters make a fine addition to the environmental loony bin – the first reminding science what it is up against, the second providing a springboard to explain a paradox that’s long needed it…

First, this from Think Progress VIA Huffington Post:

“Inhofe: Don’t Worry About Global Warming Because ‘God’s Still Up There’”

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/17/inhofe-hoax/

The title says it all…

Senator Inhofe, the anti-Gore… The cure is worse than the disease…

Idiot. We got these fools out of the driver’s seat just in time. But at least he provides a sterling example of just why the State needs insulation and even protection from the church…

And then from the mad scientist file of the loony bin:

“Scientists: Pollution could combat global warming”

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.warming.ap/index.html

From the article:

“Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.

Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a "shade" from the sun's rays and help cool the planet.

Reaction to the proposal here at the annual U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such "massive and drastic" operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself "not enthusiastic about it."

"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this."

Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously.”…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma has recently became a defacto spokesman of sorts for a wide spectrum of opinion on global warming that ranges from those who believe the debate isn’t over to those that believe the whole thing is nonsense, and on over to those who believe it’s a socialist plot to destroy their inalienable right to drive a Hummer to work, through the forest, or down a clam beach at low tide… Realistically, the only shred of sanity these people hold onto is their assertion the debate isn’t over – we have a lot more to learn about climate dynamics before we can make the kind of projections we need to be able to make if we’re going to start spending real money on solutions, be they economic incentives or the kind of mad scientist shtick Dr. Crutzen suggested.

But a lot of the popular arguments against global warming stem from a failure to properly evaluate what we in fact already know. For example…

One of Senator Inhofe’s oft-quoted assertions is that the measured rise in temperatures posited to be due to man-generated greenhouse gasses has lagged the actual creation of those gasses by quite a long time. It is pointed out that while man has been pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere throughout recorded history and in vastly increasing volumes since the industrial revolution got going 300 years ago the rise in temperatures has only been noted very recently.

Why?

Pollution. Particulates seed clouds while forming reflective layers by themselves. Unburned hydrocarbons, acid-forming oxides and ozone form smogs that reflect still more sunlight.

Put together, the effect is significant. Consider natural examples:

When Krakatau catastrophically erupted in 1883, everything from anecdotal accounts to actual measurements over the next two years pointed to reduced crop yields and unseasonably cold temperatures worldwide. While there wasn’t really good global temperature tracking back then, there was 108 years later when nearby Mount Pinatubo did the same thing – and there were significant, albeit short-lived drops noted in global temperatures.

“Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming”…

Throughout the first 200 years of the industrial revolution, the fuel of industry was coal – the dirtiest fuel on the planet. During the 19th century, London and southern England were famous for their impenetrable fogs – fogs created by the smog from coal burning. As technology evolved, more and more of the fuel consumed came from oil – cleaner but still very dirty. And we all know the rest. By the latter half of the 20th century, particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, ad acid-forming oxides in the air had built up past being a nuisance, past being a problem, up to the point of being in many places a crisis, killing forests, animals, and people with poisonous smogs while the acid rains literally dissolved stone buildings and destroyed metal bridges.

Back then, a little carbon dioxide was the least of our worries…

But we the people had had enough, and beginning in the early ‘70’s, we forced ourselves to change. Now we have nice clean air, sunlight reflecting smogs are far les common – and most all the fuel we consume is converted into carbon dioxide and water vapor, the two greatest contributors to global warming.

I won’t belabor the obvious any further, except to point out that the one place on earth that is bucking the trend – and measurably suffering for it – is mainland China, where downwind industrial pollution in some areas is creating cold spots and ruining crops…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

It all comes down to the simplest of ideas: There is no such thing as a free lunch. The great fuel reserves of earth are like a huge bank account built up over millions of years. Now, if somebody suddenly dumped bales of cash into the economy that wasn’t based on current economic activity – cashed in a huge bank account, so to speak – what would happen? Would there be a significant change in the economy? Would there be inflation?

Think of global warming as natural inflation…

And just like economic inflation, there are and will be winners and losers. I think that’s why so many people don’t want to believe it’s real – they know that after acceptance comes check writing time. Tony Blair’s likely successor has already endorsed a carbon tax, and so have some Republicans… It’s raising the interest rate on global warming inflation. But if I’m the payor, who is the payee? I can’t write a check to Mother Nature…

So does my contribution go to a fund to build seawalls for threatened coasts? Maybe relocate people whose ancestral lands have been destroyed by desertification? Or retrain workers whose jobs are destroyed by the downturns created by Kyoto-style arrangements?

Are “they” going to take my money and give it to the mad scientists for building city-sized smog pots designed to cloud the sun? Hmmm… I like the sun…

Who administers this? Gas taxes should in theory go to building roads. In practice even this simple guideline is hard to follow, because governments treat revenue sources the way little boys treat five bucks from grandma. They always figure out a way to spend it quick…

And what about Kyoto? If we say yes, we commit economic suicide. If we insist the whole world participates, then two-thirds of mankind is left hobbled in their quest to achieve what we take for granted. If we say no, the problem???

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I’d be willing to settle for a little practical compromise. GWB needs a legacy – something really important to work on for the next two years. Not something impossible like nation building, but rather something that can easily be done today, but only by a great leader. I have a suggestion for the President: Become the Nuclear President.

I’ll happily pay a carbon tax if the money goes to building a nuclear solution to the two biggest challenges the industrialized world faces today: Fossil fuel dependence and climate change. Will anyone else?

It beats smog pots…

OUTFOXED!

2006-11-15T09:57:00.000-08:00

This is telling…

Huffington Post has obtained a nasty little memo from FoxNews Vice President of “news”…

“Fox News Internal Memo: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"...”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html

Fair and balanced, my ass…

It’s even worse without the edits:

“And let’s be on the lookout for any statements by the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress.”

He… She… It? Goes on to refer to the Democrat’s Iraq plan as being a very short angle, insists twice that the war on terror isn’t over “just because the Dems won,” and stresses the need to pursue stories on a Hamas threat to American interests…

Hamas… They’re Israel’s problem – one Israel created – not ours. They’ll leave us alone if we leave them alone… Instead of pumping billions into the Israeli coffers to be used to kill Palestinian doctors…

FoxNews clearly wishes to promote Hamas as our problem – and make the problem as bad as possible.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

It’s so telling. This is a perfect example of the neoconservative attitudes that have been used to poison the attitudes of the non-thinkers among the Republicans. Everything about it is delusional.

First off, the last thing “Iraqi insurgents” want to see is a Democratic congress or administration. As Abu Ayyub al-Masri, head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq stated on the 9th:

“"I tell the lame duck (U.S. administration) do not rush to escape as did your defense minister...stay on the battle ground"… "Remain steadfast in the battlefield you coward!"”

They – all of the warring factions - are desperate to keep US over there.

It’s important to remember the “insurgents” – an idiotic term in the first place – include native-born Iraqis of at least two religions and several parties, tribes, etc as well as foreign adventurers. We provide the cause celebre that brings in millions of dollars and thousands of recruits which fuel some factions. At the same time, we are providing millions more to the phony government in cash and arms, much of which is just ripped off or turned over to the militias that hide inside the Shiite-dominated administration –fuelling the other factions. Dollars and weapons they are using to kill US troops with…

Then as we bomb and destroy, we leave behind survivors who become recruits for all factions…

The Democrats just might figure out a way to get us out of the fray without giving up the fight – to isolate the battlefield from the outside through a combination of smart battle strategies and smarter diplomacy. If that happens, one side or another will come out on top fast as all sides run out of the wherewithal to continue the battle. Their mutual eradication agendas will be starved out…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Wars are never fought for discrete, simple reasons, let alone the reasons stated, even though the misleaders of war try to reduce their agendas of carnage to simple reasons and single provocations in the public’s eye.

The war on terror / the war in Iraq… Never before has a rationale been so twisted; never before has the truth been so thoroughly occluded…

Anyone with a lick of common sense sees that nobody in the west would be interested in the Middle East but for two reasons: Oil and Israel. The greatest driver – one the neocons won’t face – is the oil. The hard core of the neocons try to pretend they are moral, even though they are moral toilets. Admitting they are out for plunder shatters the illusions they mollify the public with.

And admitting the money that fuels “terrorism” comes out of our own pockets at the gas pump is an admission of pure stupidity they can’t make.

But still a significant minority promotes the “war on terror” for the second reason. The New York Times reminds us that the destructive religious fantasies of the evangelicals do affect American foreign policy:

“For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=2ddf96aacd3748dd&hp=&ex=1163480400&oref=slogin&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

From the article:

“As Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon for a second week last July, the Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio arrived in Washington with 3,500 evangelicals for the first annual conference of his newly founded organization, Christians United For Israel. At a dinner addressed by the Israeli ambassador, a handful of Republican senators and the chairman of the Republican Party, Mr. Hagee read greetings from President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and dispatched the crowd with a message for their representatives in Congress. Tell them “to let Israel do their job” of destroying the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, Mr. Hagee said.

He called the conflict “a battle between good and evil” and said support for Israel was “God’s foreign policy.”

The next day he took the same message to the White House.”

And of course when the pro-Israel lobby needs to advertise, they know where to spend their money:

“Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, the founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and the Israeli government’s official goodwill ambassador to evangelicals, said the statements turned out to be superfluous because there was a groundswell of grass roots evangelical support.

Mr. Eckstein said he had discovered the depth of that support when he ran television commercials on the Fox News Channel seeking donations. The response, mainly from evangelicals, “burned out the call centers,” Mr. Eckstein said. During the five-week war, his group added 30,000 new donors. Thanks to the influx of money, he said his organization has exceeded its income from the first 10 months of last year by 60 percent, putting it on track to pull in $80 million this year. “The war really generated a momentum,” Mr. Eckstein said.”

FoxNews… Where else? They know how to reach their target audience. And no wonder Fox is interested in ginning up a Hamas threat to the US. They are after all doubly motivated by the ideologies of their senior management and their customers…

The neoconservative / religious right cabal.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

To be sure, the arguments for the war on terror and the Iraqi occupation are often couched in much more convoluted terms – but the arguments can almost always be distilled to the same two issues: Oil and Israel.

Before the election, the lead rabid monkey at Orbusmax was trying to scare people, linking an Orson Scott Card piece via Rainmaker, who claimed it was a "must read before voting." Card's writing is still a must-read, I think.

“The Only Issue This Election Day”

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html

Card opines:

“There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.”

Card goes on to make some unpopular assertions about our progress in Iraq and the usual arguments for the war, and he makes them very well. He very carefully refutes my position that the Iraqi insurgents want us to “stay the course.” But there is one interesting error and a paradigm assertion, made in the role of Devil’s Advocate:

“Every Congressman who says "We must set a timetable for departure" is providing ammunition to the tyrants in their campaign of terror… That is certainly not what most who call for withdrawal intend. They see Americans dying and they have no hope of victory. The Iraq War (as they call it) is costing lives and shows no sign of ending. Meanwhile, Iran is getting nuclear weapons, North Korea already has them, Syria and Iran are sponsoring continuing and escalating attacks on Israel -- how can we possibly "win" a war that threatens constantly to widen? Let's cut our losses, retire to our shores, and ...

And will you please stop and think for a moment?

There is no withdrawal to our shores. American prosperity requires free trade throughout most of the world. Free trade has depended for decades on American might. If we withdraw now, we announce to the world that if you just kill enough Americans, the big boys will go home and let you do whatever you want.

Every American in the world then becomes a target. And, because we have announced that we will do nothing to protect them, we will soon be trading only with nations that have enough strength to protect their own shores and borders.

Only ... what nations are those?”

“There is no withdrawal to our shores. American prosperity requires free trade throughout most of the world.” That is literally paradigmatic. Have we wholeheartedly accepted this? And have we accepted the burden of defending the entire trading community – for free? Consider the case as you consider Card’s mistake. Speaking in the context of the Islamist position, Card goes on:

“President Bush has offered something quite different. We don't want to turn you into mini-Americas, he says. We offer you, instead, democracy, in which you can choose for yourselves what parts of western culture to adopt. You will govern yourselves. It isn't a choice between wickedness and righteousness, it's a choice between freedom and oppression.”

“Choose for yourselves.”

I’m not sure Card speaks for all when he says we don’t want to make them into “mini-Americans.” Clearly, the globalists want as many glutinous consumers as possible. But we’ll leave that aside.

Because “choose for yourselves” isn’t how our government works, of course. We don't have a democracy - if we did, we'd have a "living, breathing" - growing, changing - constitution that meant nothing intrinsically. As a concept - one we have somewhat abandoned - we have a limited government of enumerated powers that recognizes individual rights, even ones that are destructive to society as a whole.

Oh, it's not a choice between freedom and oppression, democracy and totalitarianism? Of course not. Democracy and totalitarianism are not mutually exclusive. In a democracy, "the people" are free to elect a dictator, or anyone else.

And that is plainly what has happened in the Middle East. In Iraq, in Palestine, in Lebanon – “they the people” have democratically chosen government by tyrant – tyrants in the flesh wielding tyrannical religious attitudes.

So put it together. What if a democratically elected government declined our trade in a vital commodity or initiated an outright embargo? Will we take it – accept the decision and do without – or will we TAKE it?

In the early ‘70’s, we took it, as OPEC cut us off over our support of Israel. Back then, they supplied a significant but not crucial amount of “our” oil.

Would we take it again? That was answered when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. As Rush Limbaugh remarked at the time, Gulf I was about oil at market prices.

We TOOK it – we handed it back to the emir, whose claim to the land, resources, and rule of the people was as tenuous as they come. But he was – is – our lackey…

Is it ours because we need it?

At the kernel of the core lies this attitude from which all the other issues spring. It’s the attitude Fox slants everything to promote. It’s we’re right, they’re wrong, and history is on our side because we are the victors. Might gives us the right to allocate the wealth of a planet. And consistency isn’t required of us, any more than following international law is.

But it was the victors of a war on another continent who created Iraq – something Card reminds us of. The victors re-established the long defunct State of Israel. In both cases, the will of millions was ignored. We are still dealing with the backlash of those bad decisions – they are part of the roots of the “war on terror.”

We support pliant tyrants like the House of Saud and denounce nationalistic movements that bear unfavorably on our hegemony, giving tacit support to such as the Russians as they brutalize the Chechnyan separatists. More roots…

We ignored 12 years of genocide by Saddam Hussein, only taking action when it became apparent he intended to threaten the oil we apparently believe is ours by right because we need it.

We ignore the brutalities of China, whose slave factories destroy the environment as they supply our “needs.”

We ignore the genocide of Darfur. Darfur doesn’t exist to the neocons. Why? They have nothing we want. Our morals do not reach beyond our appetites.

It’s no wonder we are making enemies faster than we are making friends, Card’s assertions notwithstanding.

We’re never “fair and balanced”… Any more than Fox is. No wonder they are so popular.

ONE MORE REASON BOLTON MUST GO

2006-11-11T16:00:00.000-08:00

AP reports VIA MyWay News:

“U.S. Vetoes Condemnation of Gaza Strikes”

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061111/D8LB3ICO0.html

Disgusting…

I’ve always been an opponent of the arrogant, prima donna-ish way the Israelis have handled their “international affairs” – and I think as long as we support them, any retaliation that comes our way is earned.

But at least in the past you could count on the Zionists to be efficient and effective. But since their defeat in southern Lebanon earlier this year – damn right they lost – they aren’t even efficient and effective anymore.

This bunch of yahoos weren’t shooting at the enemy. They were just shooting – it’s freely admitted the nearest enemy position reports were for targets hundreds of yards away from where they shot.

And they called it a “technical error.”

They were just shooting – they killed 19 people, most of them well-placed, peaceful professionals.

Sorry… You’re doctors appointment has been cancelled. The doctor was blown to pieces by a random barrage of artillery fire from our “peaceful” neighbors.

So here’s another good reason to be glad the Democrats won control of Congress:

“US Democrats baulk at extending Bolton term”

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1786218.htm

“President Bush has re-submitted Mr Bolton's nomination to the Senate but Senior Democrats and even a key Republican have declared there's no way the envoy's term will be extended.”

Get that creep out of there. He is a disgrace to the human race and a danger to the Republic.

We’ll just have to hope the Senate makes sure the shrub doesn’t just replace him with another neocon sycophant bent on supporting foreign over American interests. Until he appoints someone with a neutral view, I'd say we can do without an ambassador…

NEWS FROM THE PLANET DRUDGE

2006-11-11T12:10:00.000-08:00

VIA Drudge from Reuters:

“Students at Calif. College ban Pledge of Allegiance”

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-11-10T021338Z_01_N09494500_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-PLEDGE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Only in a world where communication is dominated by Drudges and the internet could a purely local story such as this receive so much exposure… I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t get considerable attention, although the usual foot soldiers for the cause may still be a little too shellshocked to peek out of their holes…

They didn’t ban the pledge, BTW… They banned it at their meetings – or, more accurately, they eliminated it from their proceedings by parliamentary process.

They can’t ban it, of course, as Christine Zoldos proved by “loudly reciting the pledge in front of the board on Wednesday night in defiance of the rule.”

And she insists she will do it again! Damned anarchist…

Oh well, legislative bodies set their own rules, as our contrarian political science major protester should know… After what the Republican House did over the last several years, this is small potatoes – if these kids are looking for examples to follow, that is…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Regular readers probably know what I think of the Pledge – I think it is pure anti-American poison; 100% evil. I’m proud to say I have been a major pain in the ass on this subject at every opportunity presented since junior high school – except when I was a student government representative at my junior college.

Representatives represent… They don’t “lead”… Oh sure there is a mix; leaders get elected by people who want to go somewhere. But while 51% may be a victory, it isn’t a mandate to run roughshod over the other 49%.

This was, I think, a big part of the reason the Republican revolution has finally been put down. Real Americans, longsuffering though they habitually are, got tired of being bulldozed like a Gaza village.

Unless you are going to kill all the opposition, bulldozing doesn’t work. The survivors will get you.

So my advice to the kiddies: Climb off the bulldozer, sit down, and shut up. Your mouth won’t catch fire if you say the damned pledge. Ultimately, you will accomplish nothing if you begin by starting a riot – nothing except your own future defeat.

MORE POSITIVE ELECTION FALLOUT

2006-11-11T11:51:00.001-08:00

Huffington Post links VIA Yahoo an AP story by Laurie Kellman:

“Warrantless wiretaps unlikely to be OK'd”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061111/ap_on_go_co/warrantless_wiretaps

Very good news; precisely the sort of thing I hoped would follow a change of the guard.

It’s not the power; it’s not the wielder… It’s the lack of oversight, aggravated by the autocratic assertion oversight is unnecessary or even unconstitutional during times of war.

This is too much power for any man to wield outside of checks and balances – and its offensive that the president should ask for it.

Well, he asked for it… Now he’s really gonna get it – on this and a lot of other issues.

Get it?

MORE POSITIVE ELECTION FALLOUT

2006-11-11T11:51:00.000-08:00

STAY THE COURSE!

2006-11-10T14:10:00.000-08:00

The usual neoconservative water-bearers are giving top billing today to the latest foaming at the mouth from Al-Qaeda in Iraq. While Drudge luridly fills column space with Fire Engine Red clip quotes, Fox leads off with the by-line “Al Qaeda: We'll Never Rest Until White House Destroyed”…

You can get pretty much the same information from AP VIA Fox or from Reuters:

“Al Qaeda Claims to Have 12,000 Fighters in Iraq”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228636,00.html

“Al Qaeda gloats over Rumsfeld”

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-11-10T172059Z_01_IBO132069_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3

Oh hell… If burning the White House is all it will take to shut you up, we’ll lend you some matches… It’s been burned before… Probably has termites, anyway…

We are more than a house.

Aside from always reminding me of Foghorn Leghorn and the “chickenhawk,” these Al-Qaeda releases seem to be tracking a never ending descent into the ridiculous…

Which is a good one-word description of this one…

“"I tell the lame duck (U.S. administration) do not rush to escape as did your defense minister...stay on the battle ground"… "Remain steadfast in the battlefield you coward!"”

Thus spake Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, head foamer of Al-Qaeda in Iraq inc…

I’m a chickenhawk, and I’m not done chewing on your ankle!

Still, it’s revealing. Both sides – all sides, I should say – who have an interest in prolonging the conflict in Iraq want this same thing: They all want the US army to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Nobody knows who would come out on top in the meltdown that will follow our withdrawal when it inevitably comes, but everybody knows it’ll shake out fast.

It’s our presence that maintains the stabilized chaos we see today which allows death squads to roam the Baghdad night and provides Al-Qaeda in Iraq – Al-Qaeda anywhere – its best recruiting tool.

Meanwhile, the state of war itself provides powerful tools which bolster the militarists in the US. It would have given them a permanent hammerlock on the electorate and the government itself I fear, if they hadn’t botched the execution so badly.

BRAVO neoconservative incompetence!

And our continued presence allows the oil lobby to hope they will yet be able to implement the hugely one-sided production contracts they are forcing on the supine Iraqi puppet government.

An odd bunch of bedfellows, this, but then, what would one expect in so crooked of an enterprise?

But at least it can be said the American voter has finally done something that has scared Al-Qaeda in Iraq… We’ve elected people they think will walk away from their war, leaving them fresh out of bogeymen.

“Remain steadfast in the battlefield you coward!” Stay the course!

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, if he could have voted, would have voted Republican, I think.

IT'S ABOUT TIME

2006-11-10T11:00:00.000-08:00

Hat tip this morning goes to Matt Drudge for linking a Time.com exclusive:

“Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse”

“A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the former Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

Hand them over, I say.

The American exceptionalist crowd needs to see this happen – for the good of the Republic. Their attitude is just as dead as Nationalism, I posit.

And I ask: If their attitude should be supported, then why not the rest of Nationalism?

Where are my protective tariffs?

It’s clearly an “a” or “not a” argument. We’re either part of the community or we are the exception that seeks to prove the rule. If we are that exception, we shouldn’t expect any of the normal protections of the larger community to apply to any of our property or people – especially those overseas.

Protecting accused lawbreakers like Rumsfeld endangers every other American.

That said, let’s keep in mind he wouldn’t necessarily be prosecuted – the charges might be found to be without merit. And if prosecuted, he wouldn’t necessarily be convicted.

If he and the others were acquitted, it would certainly raise the value of our “moral stock” worldwide - as would submitting to the process itself.

Hand them over.

THE BEST ARGUMENT YET FOR EUTHANASIA

2006-11-10T10:44:00.000-08:00

VIA FoxNews, AP relates how a real Brit patriot celebrates British history:

“British Man Injured After Lighting Firecracker in Buttocks”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228517,00.html

A Tommy just back from the war at that… AP explains:

“The incident took place Sunday, when Britain celebrated Bonfire Night, traditionally marked with fireworks to celebrate the Guy Fawkes' gunpowder plot to blow up Parliament in the 17th century.”

Meanwhile, “Several of the man's friends recorded the incident on a mobile phone.”

May there always be an England?

What I want to know is how he lit it. My guess is somebody lit it for him, as in “You hold it and I’ll light it, Butthead”…

And I’d like to suggest to the attending physicians… Please, put this fool out of our misery… He’s using up valuable air…

ONE DOWN

2006-11-09T16:10:00.000-08:00

By now everyone has read about the first – let’s hope not the last – “casualty” of the 2006 election. Don Rumsfeld is out at Defense.

Well, that’s one… One neocon down. We got two more that need the axe…

So if we could get rid of Rice next, we’d start making real progress. We need someone new at State, a real charmer with a proven track record of deviousness equal to the job…

I’d like to suggest Slick Willie. He’s not doing anything right now…

And then if we can just get rid of Cheney… The shrub would have to get used to having nobody pulling his strings, but rid of the evil influences he just might be salvageable.

Maybe Cheney could be tricked into eating breakfast every day with Hillary, Nancy, and Barbara… Boxer, that is...

You know, uniting, not dividing… For a change…

A week of that and the fat bastard will spontaneously combust!

YANKING OPEN THE CLOSET DOOR

2006-11-09T15:54:00.000-08:00

We’ve got a mini tempest in a teapot brewing over at Huffington Post this morning… It seems CNN has censored Bill Maher, who suggested to Larry King that Ken Mehlman is gay…

Censor Bill Maher? Why, that’s totally unheard of!

“Censored By Cnn: Bill Maher Suggests Rnc Chair Mehlman Is Gay....”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/08/censored-by-cnn-bill-mah_n_33701.html

There are videos I didn’t watch and a pair of transcripts, edited and unedited. Unedited, Maher remarks:

“BM: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. I don't want to mention names, but I will Friday night...

LK:You will Friday night?

BM: Well, there's a couple of big people who I think everyone in Washington knows who run the Republican...

LK: You will name them?

BM: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first. Ken Mehlman. Ok, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it when he's been, people have suggested, he doesn't say...

LK: I never heard that. I'm walking around in a fog. I never...Ken Mehlman? I never heard that. But the question is...

BM: Maybe you don't go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.”

It seems CNN didn’t want to get sued, so they dropped the name dropping…

Note to self: If ever in Washington DC, do not go to the same bath house as Bill Maher… He hangs out with butt pirates…

But wouldn’t that just ice the cake? To find out that the Republican Party elite is as queer as a three-dollar bill?

We might need to print a new currency in their honor…

PROTECTED AS LADIES OR EMPOWERED AS WHORES - PICK ONE ONLY

2006-11-03T17:18:00.000-08:00

I accumulated one of those accidental collections of unrelated but irresistible articles over the last few weeks, providing a view of woman the animal…

First, there was this little hornet’s nest:

“Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412697&in_page_id=1770

“A Muslim cleric's claim that women who do not wear the veil are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators sparked outrage around Australia yesterday.

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the nation's most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women who do not wear the Islamic headdress with meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats…

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it… Whose fault is it - the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."”

Poor sandbunny… Stood up on his hind paws and got mauled…

It does give us a good social timeline to compare his world and ours… I am just old enough to remember “good girls don’t get raped; bad ones shouldn’t complain if they do.”

50 years… You’ve come a long way, baby???

Not according to Joan Shore over at Huffington Post:

“Liberated Women? Think Again”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/liberated-women-think-ag_b_32289.html

“Call it liberation, emancipation, sexual equality -- we are living under a grand delusion…

We look in revulsion at Muslim women wrapped in scarves and veils. We pity them, and we despise the male chauvinism that imposes that on them. But here's the catch: they are not caught up in our Western cult of exhibitionism and vanity. They are not openly competing with each other for men and men's favors. They are even, to a large degree, protected from assault and rape because they are virtually invisible. Home is their domain, husbands are their guardians…

We must understand that an internet hooker, a porn star, a naked fashion model, is not a liberated woman but a subjugated one. She is being exploited, or knowingly exploiting herself, for the sleaziest motives, and whatever she earns for that is shameful money. Prostitutes have more integrity.”

Then, icing the cake today, William Saletan over at Slate writes:

“Why Girls Sleep Around”
“The evolutionary case for female promiscuity.”

Just a short, almost tongue in cheek blurb on a study of marsupial “mice” and breeding success… Female promiscuity, the study concludes, enhances female lifetime fitness by enhancing the survival of offspring. Saletan goes on to note it also promotes small brains and big balls in males…

I must say: As an evolutionist, I find all this to be powerfully validating – especially the feminist take…

Evolutionary science teaches there is something called the battle of the sexes. It isn’t so much a battle as a competition, but it teaches a powerful lesson: The sexes can never be equal. Now, the monkey man, thoroughly out of touch with his/her inner monkey, resists accepting this truth. But the truth nevertheless prevails:

“"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."”…

“We look in revulsion at Muslim women wrapped in scarves and veils. We pity them, and we despise the male chauvinism that imposes that on them. But here's the catch: they are not caught up in our Western cult of exhibitionism and vanity. They are not openly competing with each other for men and men's favors.”…

In the competition of the sexes, either men or women rule – never both. The competition is over the limited female breeding capacity – a human female can be bred by at most two males at once, and one at a time is the overwhelmingly likely situation.

So males seek to accumulate the exclusive “rights” to as many females as possible. Females seek to accumulate the resources of as many males as possible, while saving the breeding for her “best” opportunity…

We see the general trend in the two cultures we are told are at war today. In the Moslem world, men rule and women are a protected commodity men fight over, buy, and sell. Hence, the woman not protected is “uncovered meat” provoking strays…

Whereas in the West women rule… Rule in everything that matters to the inner monkey. Men are free to do their best to accumulate resources, but all they can do is hand them over and hope… Women make all the real choices.

Which means women compete to accumulate men instead of the reverse. And ultimately, there is only one thing they can compete with, because it’s always the same “commodity” being marketed.

Lady or whore – it’s built into us. Pick one. You can’t have both.

SINKING BENEATH CONTEMPT

2006-11-03T14:41:00.000-08:00

This one is just too much…

“Offer of free flu shots halted at polling places”
“Mayor cancels program after critics slam it as a politically motivated ploy”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/4304540.html

It speaks for itself…

“Mayor Bill White ordered a halt Wednesday to the city health department's privately funded drive to offer flu vaccinations at early voting sites in predominantly Hispanic and black neighborhoods, amid conservative criticism that the effort would boost Democratic turnout… White's decision followed two days of criticism from some conservative bloggers and talk radio shows hosts after officials announced the program Monday. At least 20 other municipalities have launched the same initiative in several states, city officials said.

Local Republicans, who had scheduled an afternoon news conference on the vaccination issue before the mayor's announcement, accused White of deliberately selecting early voting sites in Democratic strongholds in an attempt to gin up votes favorable to city propositions on Tuesday's ballot.

"I think the program was completely motivated by a plan to turn out Democratic voters," said Harris County Republican Chairman Jared Woodfill.”

The people who set the program up dispute the claims – and so do those the program targeted:

“City health director Stephen Williams said the program was motivated by public-health concerns and said anyone 50 or older was eligible for a shot — not just those who voted.

"The sole purpose of doing the 'vote and vaccinate' initiative is to actually go where the people were," Williams said.

Other voters at Sunnyside said they weren't even aware that vaccinations would be available when they voted.

Ida Gibson, 59, said "it's just ridiculous" for anyone to tie her vote to a shot. "It's not an incentive for me to come," she said.”

Filthy scumballs. This is beneath contempt. If there is a god, every one of these bastards will die of flu this winter – starting with Jared Woodfill.

But there isn’t of course… Which is why his kind survive and flourish…

A FATAL DISTRACTION?

2006-11-03T14:13:00.000-08:00

Richard Black over at the BBC pens a reminder note to civilization:

“'Only 50 years left' for sea fish”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm

Black writes:

“There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study.

Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the rate of decline is accelerating.

Writing in the journal Science, the international team of researchers says fishery decline is closely tied to a broader loss of marine biodiversity”…

“In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.”

Note this isn’t another study based on SWAG. This is fish in the net.

“Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.”

We’re getting better at fishing all the time, and catching fewer fish…

We’ve heard this before… We didn’t listen, and we won’t this time, I think. We’re too busy gorging on fish & chips…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I’ve never been comfortable with the way “global warming” issue is debated. On the basic level, there is no debate: The issue is as simple as a blackboard full of equations. Increasing the atmospheric concentration of substances with molecular absorption bands in the near infrared enhances planetary energy retention. Period… But the erasers start to fly when “we” begin to discuss what it means to the continued prosperity of man and the rest of life… Let alone what should be done about it…

And I have never been disposed to lend much support to the Kyoto treaty – in its present form, it is probably worse than nothing for two reasons. First, from an economic standpoint, it is unilateral surrender by “the west” in the war of competition, since the restrictions “we” would take upon ourselves would not apply to the world’s two most populous Nations – Nations possessing two of the world’s fastest growing economies.

But there is a far more important reason. The real goal – the only one that can ever really solve the problem – is for “we the consumer” to decide, each as individuals, to make do with less junk… In other words, we have to overcome human nature, which isn’t likely. As long as we continue to provide the endless market for the junk the slave factories of the Orient pump out, cutting our greenhouse emissions will merely result in more and more of the greenhouse gas generating production capacity deserting our shores for theirs – and taking our balance of payments with it.

It has already happened, and we all know it, but we don’t want to think about it. We want to think we are doing something about “the environment,” whatever that means, or alternately, that there is no need to do anything, or at least anything more.

The smokestacks are disappearing from the skylines, and we need those new giant TV’s…

Kyoto is really just another kind of denial.

And “global warming” may well be a fatal distraction.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

We know what more of those energy absorbing “greenhouse gasses” will do, at least on a blackboard. We don’t know what a net energy increase will mean to us, or the living and inanimate systems that support us. The best predictions available are based on models which are in turn based on theories. All we know for sure is we’re stoking the fires of change, which stokes the fiery arguments of politicians.

Scientists seek to understand. Politicians seek to control. Control requires creating phantoms to be chased with the people’s money and at the cost of their freedoms.

It also requires a kind of fanatical, beady-eyed obsession; a religiously single focus.

Al Gore, High Priest of Global Warming.

It’s gotten so damned glamorous lately. What is being ignored?

30% of the world’s commercial fisheries depleted beyond practical recovery; At the current rate, 50 more years and… The half of the world for whom these fish are a dietary staple starve. It’ll come on in stages, of course, and there will be fearful competition and confrontation, but it won’t matter. Gone is gone, at least for a very long time.

In 50 years, models based on theories suggest the warming climate will be causing expensive problems. Counting the fish says in 50 years they will be gone.

And so it goes. Deforestation, destruction and depletion of arable land, the rape of the oceans, biodiversity issues, irreplaceable ores... Global warming is just one more symptom of the human footprint and not the most important. This is something one will find wide, quiet agreement on in the environmental community: Steven Milloy, well-known crusader against “junk science” - which includes, in his opinion, global warming – objects to the single-minded focus on global warming for exactly the reasons I outline here.

Ultimately, the skeptic cannot avoid seeing the crusade against global warming as the perfect platform for the high priest / witch doctor / presidential candidate. It incorporates all the elements: A scary future a long way off, an opportunity to gain huge political, economic, and social power now to combat that future, and murky, realistically immeasurable results. Once the paradigm is accepted, any bad news becomes the fault of the bogeyman and any good news is credited to the crusader. And pretty soon it is entirely forgotten we are measuring the immeasurable, that before Saint Albert Carbonslayer came along there was good and bad news…

Meanwhile, as our modern Quixotes joust, harder, deadlier issues sit and fester. Most of the real peril the world’s environment faces today comes from the burgeoning populations and consumption of the very people agreements like Kyoto simply don’t address. A lot of these issues – like fisheries depletion – are despite their immediacy so much more difficult to solve than global warming it isn’t surprising our politicians don’t have the balls to take them on but would rather chase shadows they can affect with taxes and efficiency mandates. But that’s what real leaders are for: They take on the things from which ordinary men shrink.

It has been recently reported Gordon Brown, expected to head the next government in Britain succeeding Tony Blair, will push for a carbon consumption tax to combat the “global warming crisis.” It isn’t clear where the money will go or how it will combat global warming other than the minor effect it may – or may not – have in promoting conservation.

Leading by taxing… Mr. Brown, you are no Winston Churchill, any more that Al Gore is a Lincoln.

Enjoy your fish and chips, Mr. Brown… While you still can.

CHARTING ABSURDITY

2006-11-02T14:33:00.000-08:00

FoxNews brought us the story yesterday that the Pentagon is “looking into” who leaked the latest OMIGOD ABSOLUTELY TOP SECRET THE TROOPS ARE ALL GOING TO DIE NOW document to the dastardly COMMIE TERRORIST BIN LADEN SUPPORTERS at the New York Times:

Sorry… Channeling the RNC there…

“Pentagon Looking Into Leak of Classified Intel to New York Times”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226832,00.html

The report claims the Pentagon is now trying to determine whether or not leaking the classified information was illegal…

To view the earth-shattering POTENTIALLY ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED PowerPoint, descend into the ENEMIES LAIR:

More RNC…

“Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/world/middleeast/01military.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The chart is, of course, very simple… It was, after all, intended for the highest ranks of the American military…

OOPS! Channeling Kerry…

It shows a horizontal bar, green on the left and red on the right… Right side, bleeding to death blood red… Got that straight…

The left is peace – the right chaos… This PowerPointer had a pretty good grasp of the obvious…

There are a series of dated position markers, moving forward toward right-wing chaos…

Damn! More Kerry…

There are a few bullet points… Short & simple… Tailored to the audience…

Did it again…

But I think it could have been improved. The chart should be vertical – red end up – and it needs to be interactive. Make it ten feet tall, put a carnival kicker at the bottom and a bell at the top… Give the high-heeled boys a mallet made out of Don Rumsfeld’s head and make whoever rings the chaos bell Secretary of Defense…

OOPS! I mean “a mallet made out of a rock shaped like Don Rumsfeld’s head”… Hey… If Kerry can drop a few words, so can I…

Not that you could tell the difference between a rock and…

Ta Dum, Bum!

Anybody disgusted yet? With such a smorgasbord, I don’t know where to start… At the beginning, I guess…

Why is this secret? Does anyone really not know this? Let’s see… There are those in a coma… The addled in their nursing homes… The residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue… The whole rest of the fucking country knows Iraq sliding into chaos – and we didn’t even need a sliding bar graph to figure it out…

But then, we aren’t generals leading the army… OUT OF MY HEAD, KERRY!

As for the so-called enemy in Iraq… They knew it before anyone…

Our government has become paranoid – and that’s a psychotic condition.

But why did the Times leak this?

Now, I’m all for patriots who leak things our government is hiding from us we need to know. Secret, illegal prisons, illegal surveillance programs? Bravo leakers!

But why this?

As noted, everyone already knows Iraq is going to hell in a bucket. Most of us suspect even the high-heeled boys know it. What purpose did this leak serve?

It served the purpose of proving they could do it. It’s just their way of flipping the bird at Don & his buddies.

A purpose every bit as rational as the urge to classify everything right down to the toilet paper the Pentagon suffers from…

Ta dum bum…

Oh where is that asteroid now when we really need it?

HOW THE DEFICIT STOLE CHRISTMAS

2006-10-29T13:51:00.000-08:00

I sat down to write a piece on society’s misplaced priorities on elections and election spending… I intended to start with the well-worn comparison of election spending vs. Halloween spending – the latter, by any estimate, far larger than the former.

I’m still going to write that piece, but another matter caught my attention…

While looking for some gee-whiz numbers on holiday spending, I ran into this from KRT Fort Wayne:

“Adults hijack Halloween goodies”

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/15864168.htm

According to Brianna Bond of Capital News Service, “we” will spend around $4.96 billion on Halloween and $438.6 billion on the winter holidays this year.

That $4.96 billion almost doubles what “we” will spend on the election, but that’s another post…

And then this crossed my bow: A piece by Matt Crenson of AP, writing on the Federal deficit and detailing the efforts of a few sturdy patriots who are trying, Paul Revere style, to wake Middlesex, village, and farm to the danger it poses. The Seattle Times links story here:

“Economists warn of nation's coming fiscal meltdown, call for hard choices”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003328801_deficit29.html

You can get the same story straight from AP via MyWay:

“GAO Chief Warns Economic Disaster Looms”

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061028/D8L1OC5G0.html

Alas, I fear Middlesex, village and farm will sleep through it once more…

After all, it’s so abstract; so … Tomorrow… So maybe. Today’s economists - like our worthy GAO Chief David Walker - squinting down the trendline connecting yesterday, today, and tomorrow, can only say that IF we continue along the same trend, we are in big doo-doo. The words barely leave their lips when they are answered by a host of theorists taking alternate squints and advocating fixes…

If we just raise the GDP by a percent or two and assume thus and such theory is the magic bullet that kills inflation while promoting growth and filling the Treasury to overflowing…

We’ll throw in cold Fusion on top of that, since we’re theorizing…

It’s a lot like Global Warming… What little we can see doesn’t look good… But “we” can’t see much, and greed is stronger than those dim, dark warnings…

But the holidays and the deficit. What an interesting coincidence.

The current annual budget deficit, recently widely reported in the media as $250 billion and falling slowly, was actually $437 billion in August: The $260 billion reported, and another $177 billion borrowed from the Social Security surplus…

Oh, yea… We’re still borrowing that, aren’t we? The entire surplus in Social Security payments is automatically “invested” in T-Bills… We’ve been doing that since the ‘80’s, when Reagan, that great fiscal conservative – NOT! – conceived a new way to juice the books…

$437 billion… Or just about the same amount “we” will spend this year on the Holidays…

How could “we” balance the budget today, for this year? Just spend nothing on Christmas, and forward the money saved to the Treasury.

I know, that’s an apples and oranges argument, even if apples and oranges would be on the list of things forgone. And no, this Grinchy Atheist isn’t suggesting it. But I think it is an apt comparison in one sense:

Christmas is all about joy, celebration, giving, and giving thanks. As we rack up the bill, we should consider that joy is just what “we” are stealing from ourselves and those who follow. Joy tomorrow.

Someday, there won’t be a choice anymore, if Dave Walker is right. If he’s right, the ghost of Christmas future will reveal a day when we won’t be able to afford Christmas cheer – or any cheer. Everything we will be able to produce in that someday will go to repay the past we’re making today.

Merry Christmas, kids…

POWERFUL COMMON SENSE FROM A PROGRESSIVE

2006-10-27T11:33:00.000-07:00

My hat is tipped once again to Matt Drudge who links a window into a brilliant mind. From Salon:

“Salon Interview: Camille Paglia”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/27/paglia/index.html

The best five pages I have read in years. Conservatives, you must read this, especially if you think the left is intellectually spent… Liberals, you must read this, especially if you think it isn’t…

She absolutely excoriates Democrats… A few gems:

On the topic of Democrats, defense, and our dearth of choices:

“What candidate do we have to offer when national security is the No. 1 item on the front burner? Democrats became so distracted by their focus on domestic issues over the past 25 years that they're weak on national defense… My generation of baby-boom Democrats hasn't done much deep thinking about international issues except in terms of postmodernist fragmentation or fuzzy, smiley-face multiculturalism. We desperately need better candidates… John Edwards… Good Lord, that guy is such a lightweight! Are we really going to put America's national security in Edwards' hands? He has no relevant experience whatsoever… Except for Charles Rangel, who served in Korea, few Democratic leaders have military experience, so their rhetoric isn't likely to convince this skeptical and apprehensive electorate.”

Really nailed that one… But what are the choices?

“The country is being asked to take a gamble with the disordered Democrats or to choose nascent fascism on the Republican side -- the intrusion into personal files and phone records, the shadowy sweeps that may have imprisoned innocent people along with genuine terrorists. The electorate could be ready to accept abrogation of basic constitutional rights in a time of war.”

If we do, we will never get them back. But as Paglia notes:

“In this anxious atmosphere, the Democrats look addled and self-absorbed, with their handmaiden major media and showbiz sermonizers and celebutantes. All that vulgar posturing”…

On the Democrats’ characterization of Republicans as “fat cats:”

“The Democrats' portrayal of Republicans as fat cats out of touch with ordinary Americans just doesn't fly anymore, and they should drop it. I think the center of the Republican Party really is small-businessmen and very practical people who correctly see that it's job creation and wealth creation that sustain an economy -- not government intervention and government control, that suffocating nanny-state mentality.”

Nanny Pelosi…

“The Democrats are in some sort of time warp in always proposing a government solution to every problem. It's like Hillary's philosophy that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, does it? Or does it take a strong family and not the village?”

And that from a woman who supported Ralph Nader over her own Democratic party…

On Democrats’ fascination with right-wing media success:

“This overblown fear of Fox News is such a sentimentality on the part of too many Democrats. Talk radio is infinitely more powerful than Fox. Radio hosts are blanketing the country with round-the-clock conservative ideology -- not because they're dastardly conspirators manipulating the media but because they've achieved their success, market by market, in creating programs that millions of people want to listen to…

I think there is a connection between talk radio and the ordinary Republican Paglia so accurately characterizes: those “small-businessmen and very practical people” are a natural audience for talk radio. They run their own shops, and don’t have to be overly concerned with PC issues. They are mostly contrarian by nature – you need an independent streak to survive on your own these days – and the “stir the guts” nature of talk radio is a natural fit.

Perhaps most importantly, a lot of small business owners spend half of their lives in their cars…

And Air America?

“The recent filing for bankruptcy by Air America dramatizes my party's abject failure to produce shows that are informative and entertaining and that systematically build an audience -- the way all the top radio hosts did who climbed the ladder from obscurity to their present prominence. Aren't we the party of Hollywood? The fact that we've failed so miserably at this central medium of communication shows how something has gone very wrong in Democratic sensibility… Don't even mention Al Franken -- I can't listen to him for 30 seconds without falling asleep. A voice like molasses and never a fresh idea.”

On religion:

“To claim, as Democrats often do, that there has always been a separation of church and state in America is misleading: The U.S. simply has no official state religion. The formative influence in our intellectual heritage came from Puritan dissidents in New England. Major universities like Harvard and Yale were founded on religious principles.”

No revisionism there…

“As long as the Democrats are perceived as the anti-religion party, we're going to lose the culture wars… Religion is absolutely central to this country in ways that Europe's secularized intellectuals fail to understand. I'm speaking here as an atheist who studies religion and respects it enormously. In the history of mankind, the benefits that religion has brought to society in shaping behavior and moral choice are overwhelming in comparison to the negatives, which anyone can list -- like religious wars and bigotry. Without religion, we'd have anarchy… I think that the constant sniping at religion coming from liberal Democrats is really a dead end.”

I have to agree, with the qualification I think religion has outlived its usefulness – we’ve outgrown it. Our ancestors were barbarians and their religions reflected it… But seeing good aspects in our religious history in no way tempers my disdain for the evangelical jihadists of the religious right… Paglia offers a similar caution, continuing:

“But there's reason for alarm at the right-wing intertwining of religion and politics, where the Bible is seen as the prophetic master plan of the universe and where Israel as the Holy Land must be protected at all costs from Muslim infiltration -- duplicating the agenda of the medieval crusades.”

Damn straight. Yet Paglia notes a powerful disconnect:

“The more liberal parents are, the less contact their children have with religious ideas. That will surely disable our future American leaders from being able to understand the religious commitment of Islamic fundamentalists. Liberal journalists often seem incredulous about how anyone would seek death for religious principles. But that was the entire history of early Christianity, when the saints willingly sought martyrdom. We're heading into that world again.”

I hope she is wrong. I think she is right.

And what does this liberal intellectual think of liberal intellectuals?

“What do contemporary intellectuals have to offer anyhow? What passionate engagement do they have to appeal to young people? Liberal secularism has become bourgeois and materialistic. It's snide, elitist, and politically marginalized… The intellectuals, with their cultivated internationalism, always counsel procrastination and leave it to the men of action to deal forcefully with fascist regimes”...

And finally the war:

“Of course Democrats are genuinely divided about how we should proceed. There are people like me who want immediate withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq... Withdrawal would probably plunge Iraq into civil war, and the Democrats don't want to be blamed for the blood bath. But it's going to be nasty whether we stay or go.”

That’s just it. Democrats – and liberal intellectuals in general - don’t want to be blamed for anything. So they do nothing, and get blamed for that…

And predictions about “staying the course:”

“I doubt withdrawal has ever been a possibility for this administration. Bush sees Iraq as a staging station to safeguard the oil fields by democratizing the Middle East. Our military bases may be permanently planted in Iraq. It will require a very strong and visionary future president of either party to get us out of this mess.”

Plus a lot more – Foley, Woodward, the first woman President…

A must, must, must read.

A NEW STRATEGY

2006-10-26T14:19:00.000-07:00

Matt Drudge gets the hat tip for a link to a must read from the BBC:

“Travelling with the Taleban”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6081594.stm

The by-line sums it well:

“The BBC's David Loyn has had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against the British army in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan.”

Remarkable… Does he wave to Tommy as he drives by?

The article provides a few interesting insights into how the Taliban survive, move, and about the political forces and corruption that are helping to re-popularize them in the region.

But the sheer fact of his being there is the most singular of all.

You know, I hope the shrub is reading this story. There is a new strategy here he needs to consider. Fire all the CIA spooks and retire the special forces macho mutts… Bring their sorry, failing asses home…

Send in the reporters. In six months they’ll have the details every Taliban rat hole in Asia…

Assuming they don’t already…

RULING FOR EQUALITY - AND AGAINST BIGOTS

2006-10-26T13:09:00.000-07:00

The long anticipated New Jersey Supreme Court decision on “Gay Marriage” was handed down yesterday, and the winner is… Equality. One of many accounts:

“Gay Couples Can Get Marital Rights, N.J. Court Says”

http://www.kirotv.com/family/10151332/detail.html

For the full decision – 90 pages worth – go here:

http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;7006713;8704162;d?http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/lewisharris102506opn.pdf

The first three pages are a syllabus prepared by the Clerk as a public service. I am including it at the end of this post. It’s a worthy read. I’m taking the liberty of abbreviating their work.

As for the decision: Bravo!

First off, contrary to the slant applied to this decision by the right-leaning MSM, the Court did not find gays have a “right to marry.” Rather, the Court expanded on Appellate Division Judge Anthony Parrillo’s concurrent filing in the appellate action. Judge Parrillo elucidated “the twofold nature of the relief sought by plaintiffs -- the right to marry and the rights of marriage. He submitted that it was the Legislature's role to weigh the benefits and costs flowing from a profound change in the meaning of marriage.”

Thusly the Court held the “plaintiffs' equal protection claim to have two components: whether committed same-sex couples have a constitutional right to the benefits and privileges afforded to married heterosexual couples, and, if so, whether they have a constitutional right to have their relationship recognized by the name of marriage.”

The decision goes on to cite legal precedents for equal protections and against similar discrimination, and noted the existence of inadequate remedies.

Following this logic, the Court did not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples. Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.”

The Court noted the State raised significant issues pertaining to preserving the institution of heterosexual marriage but concluded that in recognizing the separateness of the two issues the institutional arguments became collateral.

Thusly, “To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision.”

Bravo!

Hopefully, this ruling will take the wind out of Republican hopes that a Court ruling for “gay marriage” would help to bring the bigots slithering out from under their rocks in record numbers on November 7th. Hopefully, by dropping this matter back on the legislature, the ruling will de-energize arguments that an activist court is pursuing an agenda.

Hopefully, it will pull a few more bigot’s fangs… The bottom line here is… The bottom line. There are still all too many people in this Nation who adhere to yesterday’s barbarisms, and seek to wield power over others to enforce their sick attitudes. The best weapon they have is the power to pauperize. Denying someone equal compensation due to a non-work related issue is vile. It’s even worse when the government becomes a defacto partner in the shagging. The more similar laws and rulings we have, the fewer opportunities the bigots will have to wreak their assaults.

If government has legitimate roles in the workplace, this is one of them.

The syllabus:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris, etc., et al. (A-68-05) Argued February 15, 2006 -- Decided October 25, 2006
ALBIN, J., writing for a majority of the Court.
Plaintiffs are seven same-sex couples who have been in permanent committed relationships for more than ten years. Each seeks to marry his or her partner and to enjoy the legal, financial, and social benefits that marriage affords. After being denied marriage licenses in their respective municipalities, plaintiffs sued challenging the constitutionality of the State's marriage statutes.
In a complaint filed in the Superior Court, Law Division, plaintiffs sought a declaration that laws denying same-sex marriage violated the liberty and equal protection guarantees of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. They also sought injunctive relief compelling the defendant State officials to grant them marriage licenses. (The named defendants are Gwendolyn L. Harris, former Commissioner of the Department of Human Services, Clifton R. Lacy, former Commissioner of the Department of Health and Senior Services, and Joseph Komosinski, former Acting State Registrar of Vital Statistics. For the purpose of this decision, they are being referred to collectively as the "State.")
Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court, Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg, entered summary judgment in the State's favor and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed. In a split decision, the Appellate Division affirmed. Judge Stephen Skillman wrote the majority opinion in which he concluded that New Jersey's marriage statutes do not contravene the substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the State Constitution. He determined that only the Legislature could authorize same-sex marriages.
Appellate Division Judge Anthony Parrillo filed a concurring opinion. Although joining Judge Skillman's opinion, Judge Parrillo added his view of the twofold nature of the relief sought by plaintiffs -- the right to marry and the rights of marriage. He submitted that it was the Legislature's role to weigh the benefits and costs flowing from a profound change in the meaning of marriage.
Appellate Division Judge Donald Collester, Jr., dissented. He concluded that the substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of Article I, Paragraph 1 obligate the State to afford same-sex couples the right to marry on terms equal to those afforded opposite-sex couples.
The matter came before the Court as an appeal as of right by virtue of the dissent in the Appellate Division.
HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

As this case presents no factual dispute, the Court addresses solely questions of law. The Court perceives plaintiffs' equal protection claim to have two components: whether committed same-sex couples have a constitutional right to the benefits and privileges afforded to married heterosexual couples, and, if so, whether they have a constitutional right to have their relationship recognized by the name of marriage. (pp. 19-21)

In attempting to discern the substantive rights that are "fundamental" under Article I, Paragraph 1, of the State Constitution, the Court has followed the general standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court in construing

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the asserted fundamental liberty interest must be clearly identified. In this case, the identified right is the right of same-sex couples to marry. Second, the liberty interest in same-sex marriage must be objectively and deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State. (pp. 21-25)

New Jersey's marriage laws, which were first enacted in 1912, limit marriage to heterosexual couples. The recently enacted Domestic Partnership Act explicitly acknowledges that same-sex couples cannot marry. Although today there is a national debate over whether same-sex marriages should be authorized by the states, the framers of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution could not have imagined that the liberty right protected by Article I, Paragraph 1 embraced same-sex marriage. (pp. 25-28)

Times and attitudes have changed. There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State. On the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has struck down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. Although plaintiffs rely on the federal cases to support the argument that they have a fundamental right to marry under our State Constitution, those cases fall far short of establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage "deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State." Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution. (pp. 28-33)

The Court has construed the expansive language of Article I, Paragraph 1 to embrace the fundamental guarantee of equal protection, thereby requiring the Court to determine whether the State's marriage laws permissibly distinguish between same-sex and heterosexual couples. The test the Court has applied to equal protection claims is a flexible one that includes three factors: the nature of the right at stake, the extent to which the challenged statutory scheme restricts that right, and the public need for the statutory restriction. (pp. 34-3 6)

In conducting its equal protection analysis, the Court discerns two distinct issues. The first is whether same-sex couples have the right to the statutory benefits and privileges conferred on heterosexual married couples. Assuming that right, the next issue is whether committed same-sex partners have a constitutional right to define their relationship by the name of marriage. (p. 37)

New Jersey's courts and its Legislature have been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment toward gays and lesbians. In 1992, through an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), New Jersey became the fifth state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of "affectional or sexual orientation." In making sexual orientation a protected category, the Legislature committed New Jersey to the goal of eradicating discrimination against gays and lesbians. In 2004, the Legislature added "domestic partnership status" to the categories protected by the LAD. (pp. 37-40)

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is also outlawed in our criminal law and public contracts law. The Legislature, moreover, created the New Jersey Human Relations Council to promote educational programs aimed at reducing bias and bias-related acts, identifying sexual orientation as a protected category. In 2004, the Legislature passed the Domestic Partnership Act, which confers certain benefits and rights on same-sex partners who enter into a partnership under the Act. (pp. 40-42)

The Domestic Partnership Act has failed to bridge the inequality gap between committed same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples. Significantly, the economic and financial inequities that are borne by same-sex domestic partners are also borne by their children. Further, even though same-sex couples are provided fewer benefits and rights by the Act, they are subject to more stringent requirements to enter into a domestic partnership than opposite-sex couples entering a marriage. (pp. 43-48)

At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples. Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people. (p. 48)

The State does not argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is needed to encourage procreation or to create the optimal living environment for children. Other than sustaining the traditional definition of marriage, which is not implicated in this discussion, the State has not articulated any legitimate public need for depriving committed same-sex couples of the host of benefits and privileges that are afforded to married heterosexual couples. There is, on the one hand, no rational basis for giving gays and lesbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships. To the extent that families are strengthened by encouraging monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the Court cannot discern a public need that would justify the legal disabilities that now afflict same-sex domestic partnerships. (pp. 48-51)

In arguing to uphold the system of disparate treatment that disfavors same-sex couples, the State offers as a justification the interest in uniformity with other states' laws. Our current laws concerning same-sex couples are more in line with those of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut than the majority of other states. Equality of treatment is a dominant theme of our laws and a central guarantee of our State Constitution. This is fitting for a state with so diverse a population. Article I, Paragraph 1 protects not only the rights of the majority but also the rights of the disfavored and the disadvantaged; they too are promised a fair opportunity for "pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." (pp. 5 1-56)

The equal protection requirement of Article I, Paragraph 1 leaves the Legislature with two apparent options. The Legislature could simply amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples, or it could create a separate statutory structure, such as a civil union. Because this State has no experience with a civil union construct, the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude. New language is developing to describe new social and familial relationships, and in time will find a place in our common vocabulary. However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship. (pp. 57-63)

In the last two centuries, the institution of marriage has reflected society's changing social mores and values. Legislatures, along with courts, have played a major role in ushering marriage into the modern era of equality of partners. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process. Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs' quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives. (pp. 63-64)

To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision. (p. 65)

The judgment of the Appellate Division is MODIFIED and, as MODIFIED, is AFFIRMED.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ has filed a separate CONCURRING and DISSENTING opinion, in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join. She concurs in the finding of the majority that denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. She dissents from the majority's distinguishing those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage. She also dissents from the majority's conclusion that there is no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage encompassed within the concept of "liberty" guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 1. She is of the view that persons who exercise their autonomous liberty interest to choose same-sex partners have a fundamental right to participate in a state-sanctioned civil marriage.
JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ALBIN's opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join.