Never thought I'd be quoting from rap. But, there's wisdom here...
Chorus
Imagine it pouring, it's raining down on us
Mosh pits outside the oval office
Someone's tryina tell us something,
Maybe this is god just sayin' we're responsbile
For this monster, this coward,
That we have empowered
This is Bin Laden, look at his head noddin'
How could we allow something like this without pumping our fists
Now this is our final hour
Let me be the voice in your strength and your choice
Let me simplify the rhyme just to amplify the noise
Try to amplify the times it, and multiply by six...
Teen million people, Are equal at this high pitch
Maybe we can reach alqueda through my speech
Let the president answer a higher anarchy
Strap him with an AK-47, let him go, fight his own war
Let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our own soil
No more psychological warfare, to trick us to thinking that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country, we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes its all lies
The stars and stripes, they've been swiped, washed out and wiped
And replaced with his own face, Mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you know why,
Cause I told you to fight.
...And assemble our own army
To disarm this Weapon 0f Mass Destruction
That we call our President...
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Computer Problems
Sorry, but I had to run my recovery disk yesterday and, as a result, I've been unable to access secure sites AND it appears there is something wrong with my blog site. So, it may take a few days to figure this one out and before I'm able to really post something of note.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Bush Celebrates His Isolation
AlterNet: Election 2004: "I Was One Guy in a Bubble"
Echoing the anti-empiricism state-of-mind in the post below, Dumbya celebrates the lone wolf, High Noon mentality that keeps us bogged down in Iraq.
Echoing the anti-empiricism state-of-mind in the post below, Dumbya celebrates the lone wolf, High Noon mentality that keeps us bogged down in Iraq.
Getting to Know You, Georgie
Okay. First things first.
I've read the Denver Post's endorsement of Dumbya this past Sunday about four times and still find the piece a curious hodgepodge of non-sequiturs; a litany of Dumbya's failures but, hey, let's vote for him anyway. What the Post's editorialists tell us is that "...it isn't sensible to assess the state of our union in easily definable ways. Ours is an era in which security matters most, and national security is the preeminent duty of the next president."
Now, wait a minute. In one breath you're telling us that it's really stupid to try to assess problems and issues through reasonable analysis -- "...easily definable ways...," and then, in that curious second breath, you're telling us that you've easily defined that "...national security is the preeminent duty of the next president."
The editorial is a litany (look at it for yourself) of Dumbya's failures. Yet, the editorialists at the Post rely upon that fear factor; that soccer-mom-protecting-her-child's-peanut-butter-and-jam-sandwich-from-being-laced-with-ricin-by-some-Islamic-fundamentalist-with-a-towel-on-his-head-and-an-AK47-strapped-to-his-back mentality to justify their endorsement. Oh, how clever Karl Rove has been. Feed the fear and it will feed thee.
I don't get it. But, then, the Post's editorial reminded me that that the editorialist doesn't have to depend upon fact for what they say, just opinion; just what they think might be truthful, not necessarily what is truthful. Such is the sublime temerity of the editorialist whose insulated interaction with the world occurs through paper and ink, and, of course, editorial board meetings.
God bless the editorialists. They keep us reminded that the pursuit of truth is something we're responsible for because they sure as hell aren't going to do it.
Now, as to truth.
An incredible article in the New York Times Magazine by Ron Suskind who was the senior national-affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal from 1993 to 2000, has, for me, provided a glimpse of Dumbya and his minions that explains a lot about who these people are; these intellectually blind and deaf scrappers who, in a thousand years, would never understand John Kerry's observation from the first presidential debate: "...you can be certain and wrong."
Ron Suskind tells us that, in a conversation with Bruce Bartlett, "...a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush...," that Dumbya possesses and preaches "...this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do. ...This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them..." [The emphasis is mine.] "...He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence. But, you can't run the world on faith."
Suskind notes in the article Dumbya's repeated use of the word Crusade -- and all of its natural connotations -- to describe his war on terror. Jihad. Crusade. Pretty much the same thing, don't you think?
The Suskind article goes on for fourteen pages. But, it is fascinating and revealing. Here's several other quotes from the article:
"...A writ of infallibility..." permeates the White House staff with respect to their leader. "Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased."
Indeed, Suskind quotes from a former supporter and friend of Georgie, Jim Wallis of the Sojourners -- a faith-based group -- as describing Dumbya as, "...a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him."
Suskind writes that Bush "...has created the faith-based presidency. The faith based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret. ...This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogure, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith."
An observation from Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, remarks that, Bush "...is plenty smart enough to do the job. It's his lack of curiosity about complex issues which troubles me."
Probably the most frightening information -- for me, at least -- that Suskind imparts is what he believes "...gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency."
Suskind had a conversation with a Bush senior advisor in which, "The aide said that guys like me were in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I [Suskind] nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
Finally, the Suskind article hit the key to what I've been wondering about and suspecting for a long, long time.
Mark McKinnon, a senior media advisor to Bush, challenged Suskind with: "You think he's a idiot, don't' you?"
Suskind replied, "No."
McKinnon jumped in: "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washing Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!"
Suskind noted that McKinnon's final "you" was, of course, the "...entire reality-based community."
Well, I have gone on. But, I do believe I am beginning to get it; beginning to understand the mentality not only of Dumbya but of his minions as well. The only truth they understand, cling to, worship, revere, is that Dumbya's certainty makes him right; all the time, without exception, because that certainty comes from God. And, certainly, if God is charting the course, then the course is true.
And now, Lord, we've come full circle: "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. ...they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them..."
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I've read the Denver Post's endorsement of Dumbya this past Sunday about four times and still find the piece a curious hodgepodge of non-sequiturs; a litany of Dumbya's failures but, hey, let's vote for him anyway. What the Post's editorialists tell us is that "...it isn't sensible to assess the state of our union in easily definable ways. Ours is an era in which security matters most, and national security is the preeminent duty of the next president."
Now, wait a minute. In one breath you're telling us that it's really stupid to try to assess problems and issues through reasonable analysis -- "...easily definable ways...," and then, in that curious second breath, you're telling us that you've easily defined that "...national security is the preeminent duty of the next president."
The editorial is a litany (look at it for yourself) of Dumbya's failures. Yet, the editorialists at the Post rely upon that fear factor; that soccer-mom-protecting-her-child's-peanut-butter-and-jam-sandwich-from-being-laced-with-ricin-by-some-Islamic-fundamentalist-with-a-towel-on-his-head-and-an-AK47-strapped-to-his-back mentality to justify their endorsement. Oh, how clever Karl Rove has been. Feed the fear and it will feed thee.
I don't get it. But, then, the Post's editorial reminded me that that the editorialist doesn't have to depend upon fact for what they say, just opinion; just what they think might be truthful, not necessarily what is truthful. Such is the sublime temerity of the editorialist whose insulated interaction with the world occurs through paper and ink, and, of course, editorial board meetings.
God bless the editorialists. They keep us reminded that the pursuit of truth is something we're responsible for because they sure as hell aren't going to do it.
Now, as to truth.
An incredible article in the New York Times Magazine by Ron Suskind who was the senior national-affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal from 1993 to 2000, has, for me, provided a glimpse of Dumbya and his minions that explains a lot about who these people are; these intellectually blind and deaf scrappers who, in a thousand years, would never understand John Kerry's observation from the first presidential debate: "...you can be certain and wrong."
Ron Suskind tells us that, in a conversation with Bruce Bartlett, "...a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush...," that Dumbya possesses and preaches "...this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do. ...This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them..." [The emphasis is mine.] "...He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence. But, you can't run the world on faith."
Suskind notes in the article Dumbya's repeated use of the word Crusade -- and all of its natural connotations -- to describe his war on terror. Jihad. Crusade. Pretty much the same thing, don't you think?
The Suskind article goes on for fourteen pages. But, it is fascinating and revealing. Here's several other quotes from the article:
"...A writ of infallibility..." permeates the White House staff with respect to their leader. "Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased."
Indeed, Suskind quotes from a former supporter and friend of Georgie, Jim Wallis of the Sojourners -- a faith-based group -- as describing Dumbya as, "...a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him."
Suskind writes that Bush "...has created the faith-based presidency. The faith based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret. ...This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogure, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith."
An observation from Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, remarks that, Bush "...is plenty smart enough to do the job. It's his lack of curiosity about complex issues which troubles me."
Probably the most frightening information -- for me, at least -- that Suskind imparts is what he believes "...gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency."
Suskind had a conversation with a Bush senior advisor in which, "The aide said that guys like me were in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I [Suskind] nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
Finally, the Suskind article hit the key to what I've been wondering about and suspecting for a long, long time.
Mark McKinnon, a senior media advisor to Bush, challenged Suskind with: "You think he's a idiot, don't' you?"
Suskind replied, "No."
McKinnon jumped in: "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washing Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!"
Suskind noted that McKinnon's final "you" was, of course, the "...entire reality-based community."
Well, I have gone on. But, I do believe I am beginning to get it; beginning to understand the mentality not only of Dumbya but of his minions as well. The only truth they understand, cling to, worship, revere, is that Dumbya's certainty makes him right; all the time, without exception, because that certainty comes from God. And, certainly, if God is charting the course, then the course is true.
And now, Lord, we've come full circle: "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. ...they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them..."
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Friday, October 22, 2004
The World According to a Bush Voter
AlterNet: War on Iraq: The World According to a Bush Voter
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the mentality that is documented in this piece. The documented truth is out there. The facts are clear. Yet, the typical Bush supporter chooses to ignore truth, ignore facts. Why?
That's a silly question, isn't it. The President himself chooses to ignore the truth and the facts. His flock is simply wagging their tails behind him ... as more Americans and Iraqis die; as more billions are spent; as more domestic programs are cut; as the national debt sours to trillions.
Nope. I just don't understand it.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the mentality that is documented in this piece. The documented truth is out there. The facts are clear. Yet, the typical Bush supporter chooses to ignore truth, ignore facts. Why?
That's a silly question, isn't it. The President himself chooses to ignore the truth and the facts. His flock is simply wagging their tails behind him ... as more Americans and Iraqis die; as more billions are spent; as more domestic programs are cut; as the national debt sours to trillions.
Nope. I just don't understand it.
The Polemic Continues - Iraq (As in Quagmire!)
This from the New York Times this morning was, of course, not a surprise. It seems that everyone except the President understands the nature of the mess he's thrust America into over there, in Iraq where those damned so-called insurgents keep popping out of the woodwork.
Definition: Insurgent -- (Random House, Webster's Unabridged)
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.
–adj.
3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.
4. surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore.
Whatever law, whatever order that is extant in Iraq comes from the muzzle of a weapon carried by an American soldier whose presence in that ugly, dangerous place is financed overwhelmingly by the American taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Our soldiers -- as has been touted, celebrated even -- by President Bush, have not become liberators of a country hungry for American-style democracy. No, rather our soldiers have become (and always were) occupiers of a sovereign nation whose presence in that sovereign nation was the direct result of President Bush's preemptive caprice, the motivation of which was surely the product of testosterone (The little guy just had to prove to his daddy that he had the balls to do it ... for daddy!) rather than any reasonable consideration of the enormous quagmire the occupation of Iraq would become. But, of course, that's obvious.
The President and his people just simply had no fucking idea what the hell they were getting themselves and this country into. Period. And, who is paying the ultimate sacrifice for that wee bit of misjudgment? Ask the mothers and fathers, the wives and husbands, the children, the lovers and partners, the grandparents of those American soldiers who have returned (or parts of them have returned) to their homeland in a box; ask them who has made the ultimate sacrifice.
But, what do we hear the President telling the American people? "We've turned the corner. We're making progress. We're going to have free elections." And, what did the President tell Pat Robertson of the 700 Club? (I do believe Pat Robertson, by the way.) Well, Georgie told Robertson that we'd have no casualties in Iraq. Not a one. Nada.
Well, I'll beat that old horse again. These people killing Americans in Iraq are NOT insurgents. No, the people who are killing Americans see themselves as freedom fighters who look upon the Americans as infidels ... unclean. The American infidels have soiled their holy places, their land, their country, their women, their history. And, if there are twenty-thousand insurgents today, there will be one-hundred times that number in ten, fifteen years as Islam embraces each new generation of Muslim men, women and children with the same, certainly infallible truth that their ticket to heaven remains irrevocably tied to ridding their lands of the unclean infidel.
God, I hope I'm wrong. Bet I'm not.
Being the highest phase of capitalist development, imperialism ... draws within the orbit of finance-capital, exploits all colonies, all races and all nations.
Joseph Stalin
Definition: Insurgent -- (Random House, Webster's Unabridged)
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.
–adj.
3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.
4. surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore.
Whatever law, whatever order that is extant in Iraq comes from the muzzle of a weapon carried by an American soldier whose presence in that ugly, dangerous place is financed overwhelmingly by the American taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Our soldiers -- as has been touted, celebrated even -- by President Bush, have not become liberators of a country hungry for American-style democracy. No, rather our soldiers have become (and always were) occupiers of a sovereign nation whose presence in that sovereign nation was the direct result of President Bush's preemptive caprice, the motivation of which was surely the product of testosterone (The little guy just had to prove to his daddy that he had the balls to do it ... for daddy!) rather than any reasonable consideration of the enormous quagmire the occupation of Iraq would become. But, of course, that's obvious.
The President and his people just simply had no fucking idea what the hell they were getting themselves and this country into. Period. And, who is paying the ultimate sacrifice for that wee bit of misjudgment? Ask the mothers and fathers, the wives and husbands, the children, the lovers and partners, the grandparents of those American soldiers who have returned (or parts of them have returned) to their homeland in a box; ask them who has made the ultimate sacrifice.
But, what do we hear the President telling the American people? "We've turned the corner. We're making progress. We're going to have free elections." And, what did the President tell Pat Robertson of the 700 Club? (I do believe Pat Robertson, by the way.) Well, Georgie told Robertson that we'd have no casualties in Iraq. Not a one. Nada.
Well, I'll beat that old horse again. These people killing Americans in Iraq are NOT insurgents. No, the people who are killing Americans see themselves as freedom fighters who look upon the Americans as infidels ... unclean. The American infidels have soiled their holy places, their land, their country, their women, their history. And, if there are twenty-thousand insurgents today, there will be one-hundred times that number in ten, fifteen years as Islam embraces each new generation of Muslim men, women and children with the same, certainly infallible truth that their ticket to heaven remains irrevocably tied to ridding their lands of the unclean infidel.
God, I hope I'm wrong. Bet I'm not.
Being the highest phase of capitalist development, imperialism ... draws within the orbit of finance-capital, exploits all colonies, all races and all nations.
Joseph Stalin
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Amendment 36 -- Democratic Opposition
DenverPost.com - Local Politics
For Colorado Voters: I was definitely going to vote for Amendment 36, as the concept of "one person, one vote" seemed paramount to me and overshadowed all the reasons set forth against the Amendment. But, the arguments contained in this piece have convinced me that it is not a good idea. The Amendment is probably doomed to fail anyway.
For Colorado Voters: I was definitely going to vote for Amendment 36, as the concept of "one person, one vote" seemed paramount to me and overshadowed all the reasons set forth against the Amendment. But, the arguments contained in this piece have convinced me that it is not a good idea. The Amendment is probably doomed to fail anyway.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Red Sky in the Morning, Sailor Take Warning
Melissa's and my run this morning around Berkeley Lake was both blanketed and reflected within the lake by a sky brushed with a thousand strokes of fire-orange wisps of elongated clouds, hanging there just out of reach and whispering what my Irish-Italian mother truly, in her heart, believed: Red sky in the morning, sailor take warning; an ominous whisper ... for a sailor.
Or, perhaps for other matters.
A friend asked me at a party the other night if I truly believed John Kerry was going to win the Presidency. I was not surprised that I didn't immediately answer, Why, of course. I paused for a moment, collecting my thoughts, putting together those things which, intellectually, give comfort to a wish, a belief, a yearning for the election of John Kerry. What I told my friend -- after my pause -- was that, yes, I have to believe he will win.
"The polls aren't very indicative that Kerry will win."
"Well," I said, having already formulated my argument, "look at who they're polling: most likely voters. Now, understand that a most likely voter is someone who voted in the last election; is probably someone who always votes."
A most likely voter is not one of the 180,000 newly registered voters in Colorado alone; or the 187,000 newly registered voters in Arizona; or the 633,000 in Florida; or the 225,000 in Pennsylvania; or the 231,000 in Nevada; or the 101,000 in New Mexico. No, and I told my friend that amongst those newly registered voters there are so, so many of those who, in the past, were simply disenfranchised by their own volition because they had no interest; or believed their vote wouldn't count; or thought the corruption of the American politic was so thorough and overwhelmingly entrenched that it was useless to even try to exercise their franchise. Many, if not most of those folks are people of color. "Blacks and Hispanics, Latinos," I told my friend, "they're the newly registered along with so many young people who have become so enthusiastically interested and involved in the election this year."
The Rocky Mountain News (AP story) reported this morning that the majority of newly registered voters are Democrats or Unaffiliated rather than Republicans ... except in Florida. (Way to go, Jeb! Considering the disgusting imbroglio in Florida of 2000, should we be at all suspicious of those newly registered Republicans in Florida?)
So, yes, I do believe John Kerry will be elected President. I believe there is a true, newly spirited and inspired electorate out there who will understand the importance of this year's vote.
And, as I write this post, do I recall the whisper of the sky and the reflection of that sky in the water as Melissa and I huffed our way around our wonderful lake, amongst the turning of the leaves and the early-morning, unmistakable hint of the big freeze just around the corner reflected in the hunkering down of the ducks and the geese who inhabit that space? Do I recall my mother's belief in the magic of the sky; of the morning fire of the sky?
Take warning, it whispers.
Or, perhaps for other matters.
A friend asked me at a party the other night if I truly believed John Kerry was going to win the Presidency. I was not surprised that I didn't immediately answer, Why, of course. I paused for a moment, collecting my thoughts, putting together those things which, intellectually, give comfort to a wish, a belief, a yearning for the election of John Kerry. What I told my friend -- after my pause -- was that, yes, I have to believe he will win.
"The polls aren't very indicative that Kerry will win."
"Well," I said, having already formulated my argument, "look at who they're polling: most likely voters. Now, understand that a most likely voter is someone who voted in the last election; is probably someone who always votes."
A most likely voter is not one of the 180,000 newly registered voters in Colorado alone; or the 187,000 newly registered voters in Arizona; or the 633,000 in Florida; or the 225,000 in Pennsylvania; or the 231,000 in Nevada; or the 101,000 in New Mexico. No, and I told my friend that amongst those newly registered voters there are so, so many of those who, in the past, were simply disenfranchised by their own volition because they had no interest; or believed their vote wouldn't count; or thought the corruption of the American politic was so thorough and overwhelmingly entrenched that it was useless to even try to exercise their franchise. Many, if not most of those folks are people of color. "Blacks and Hispanics, Latinos," I told my friend, "they're the newly registered along with so many young people who have become so enthusiastically interested and involved in the election this year."
The Rocky Mountain News (AP story) reported this morning that the majority of newly registered voters are Democrats or Unaffiliated rather than Republicans ... except in Florida. (Way to go, Jeb! Considering the disgusting imbroglio in Florida of 2000, should we be at all suspicious of those newly registered Republicans in Florida?)
So, yes, I do believe John Kerry will be elected President. I believe there is a true, newly spirited and inspired electorate out there who will understand the importance of this year's vote.
And, as I write this post, do I recall the whisper of the sky and the reflection of that sky in the water as Melissa and I huffed our way around our wonderful lake, amongst the turning of the leaves and the early-morning, unmistakable hint of the big freeze just around the corner reflected in the hunkering down of the ducks and the geese who inhabit that space? Do I recall my mother's belief in the magic of the sky; of the morning fire of the sky?
Take warning, it whispers.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Spittle and Cackles
Spittle and cackles. Sounds like a breakfast cereal, doesn't it.
The last debate is, of course, history and -- no news to those who watched it -- was pretty much same old, same old. Except, yes, except for Georgie's spittle in the right corner of his mouth and his cackle at the end of the debate. I don't know which one was more disgusting. I guess the spittle.
Now, the Cheney's -- Mr. and Mrs. -- are highly indignant that Kerry mentioned their lesbian daughter during the debate. Now, does it take a rocket scientist to figure out who the Mr. and Mrs. are playing to? Those good fundamentalist Christian ideologues -- "Them homa-sex-u-alls choose their deviancy, Martha!" -- surely sympathize with mama and papa Cheney for bearing the indignity of their daughter's deviancy which -- Shame on you, John Kerry! -- was pointed out by Dumbya's opponent (Why does Dumbya always refer to Kerry as his opponent rather than Mr. Kerry or the Senator? Kerry has always referred to his opponent as, The President, not Dumbya!) during the last debate. That damned Kerry had the audacity to congratulate the Vice on his apparent loving acceptance of his lesbian daughter. I think Kerry couched his remark with the statement, "We're all God's children." How dare him!
Oh, well... I think we're going to be in for a very difficult, legally intrusive nightmare with this election if it's anywhere as close as the polls show it to be today. The courts here in Colorado are already trying to sort out the incompetency of this state's Republican Secretary of State, Donetta Davidson. Doesn't she look like a real happy camper?
The last debate is, of course, history and -- no news to those who watched it -- was pretty much same old, same old. Except, yes, except for Georgie's spittle in the right corner of his mouth and his cackle at the end of the debate. I don't know which one was more disgusting. I guess the spittle.
Now, the Cheney's -- Mr. and Mrs. -- are highly indignant that Kerry mentioned their lesbian daughter during the debate. Now, does it take a rocket scientist to figure out who the Mr. and Mrs. are playing to? Those good fundamentalist Christian ideologues -- "Them homa-sex-u-alls choose their deviancy, Martha!" -- surely sympathize with mama and papa Cheney for bearing the indignity of their daughter's deviancy which -- Shame on you, John Kerry! -- was pointed out by Dumbya's opponent (Why does Dumbya always refer to Kerry as his opponent rather than Mr. Kerry or the Senator? Kerry has always referred to his opponent as, The President, not Dumbya!) during the last debate. That damned Kerry had the audacity to congratulate the Vice on his apparent loving acceptance of his lesbian daughter. I think Kerry couched his remark with the statement, "We're all God's children." How dare him!
Oh, well... I think we're going to be in for a very difficult, legally intrusive nightmare with this election if it's anywhere as close as the polls show it to be today. The courts here in Colorado are already trying to sort out the incompetency of this state's Republican Secretary of State, Donetta Davidson. Doesn't she look like a real happy camper?
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
It's the Little Ironies
Every second Wednesday, Denver tests its Emergency Preparedness sirens -- I am listening to them now -- in an effort, I guess, to make sure we're prepared for... What?
When I was a kid, those sirens put the fear of God and the Ruskies in us. I remember we had several school-wide practice runs of evacuating the city where we'd all be assigned to a particular teacher's car for the ride into the Colorado Rockies where, surely, it was impossible for nuclear warheads to find us. We'd get in the teacher's car, sit there for ten minutes and then get out and go back to class. That evacuation scenario, coupled with the duck and cover (crawl under your desk and cover you head) method of surviving a nuclear attack comforted us mightily in those years of innocence. I wonder if our teachers thought it was all so much nonsense? Probably.
But, in those days, who could doubt the wisdom of the fatherly Ike (Dwight David Eisenhower) who was everyone's grandfather; who had fought the good fight overseas and had come back to protect us all from the evil commies lurking around every corner ... each and every one of them toting a nuclear warhead.
Now, as the sirens wind down their eerie howl, I'm thinking, Well, so much for homeland security. Tom Ridge and his bureaucracy can't even protect us from the flu, much less ... What? God, how many thousands of possible scenarios for the destruction of the American Way can you think of? Planes into buildings; contamination of our water supply; mailing ricin to ... well, anybody; nuts with nukes. God, I'm scaring myself. And, AND, we don't even have duck and cover drills anymore.
What might even be a little more scary is that China and Japan own $1.8 Trillion of our national debt. Think about it: the tax cuts ol' Dumbya came up with -- most of which went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans -- are being financed by us borrowing the money from China and Japan to, yes, pay for the tax cuts. That make sense to you?
Oh well... It's the little ironies; the little incongruities that keep life interesting.
When I was a kid, those sirens put the fear of God and the Ruskies in us. I remember we had several school-wide practice runs of evacuating the city where we'd all be assigned to a particular teacher's car for the ride into the Colorado Rockies where, surely, it was impossible for nuclear warheads to find us. We'd get in the teacher's car, sit there for ten minutes and then get out and go back to class. That evacuation scenario, coupled with the duck and cover (crawl under your desk and cover you head) method of surviving a nuclear attack comforted us mightily in those years of innocence. I wonder if our teachers thought it was all so much nonsense? Probably.
But, in those days, who could doubt the wisdom of the fatherly Ike (Dwight David Eisenhower) who was everyone's grandfather; who had fought the good fight overseas and had come back to protect us all from the evil commies lurking around every corner ... each and every one of them toting a nuclear warhead.
Now, as the sirens wind down their eerie howl, I'm thinking, Well, so much for homeland security. Tom Ridge and his bureaucracy can't even protect us from the flu, much less ... What? God, how many thousands of possible scenarios for the destruction of the American Way can you think of? Planes into buildings; contamination of our water supply; mailing ricin to ... well, anybody; nuts with nukes. God, I'm scaring myself. And, AND, we don't even have duck and cover drills anymore.
What might even be a little more scary is that China and Japan own $1.8 Trillion of our national debt. Think about it: the tax cuts ol' Dumbya came up with -- most of which went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans -- are being financed by us borrowing the money from China and Japan to, yes, pay for the tax cuts. That make sense to you?
Oh well... It's the little ironies; the little incongruities that keep life interesting.
Chaput's Spin - Theocracy
In an article in the Rocky Mountain News this morning, Jean Torkelson tells us that Archbishop Charles Chaput's (for those who asked, it's pronounced Cha--poo) latest column in the Denver Catholic Register chides those of us who voice the belief that there ought to be a separation of church and state and that giving voice to the affirmation that no one should attempt to impose their particular beliefs on society are, in Chaput's words, voicing "...slogans [and] sound bites designed to shut down serious thought."
Chaput goes on to say that (and read these words very carefully), "No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. No on wants to turn meatless Fridays into federal law. So we need to understand these concerns for what they really are: ultimately dangerous arguments that confuse our national memory and identify."
Now remember: Chaput has advised his flock of some 370,000 Catholics that a vote for John Kerry is a sin and they will need to absolve themselves and confess to that sin, before receiving communion after the election.
Okay. Lets look at the definition of the word theocracy: 1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities; 2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
Admonishing your flock, dear Archbishop, that God's law precludes them from voting for a particular candidate and, if they do so, will not be held in good stead by the Holy Father you purport to represent on earth; doesn't that, dear Archbishop, sound a little theocratic?
Never mind asking Marilyn Musgrave to drum up a Constitutional Amendment instituting meatless Fridays. (Oh, wouldn't McDonalds like that one!) No, let's just go straight for the jugular; let's ban good people from using the magnificent, God-given miracle of the human brain to actually think for themselves. Let's actually write into the Constitution that giving voice to slogans and sound bites that question such paltry concerns as the separation of church and state and not forcefully or otherwise imposing your particular beliefs on other people; let's make those silly subjects the stuff of Constitutional prohibition -- kind of like yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't really a fire. Remember that one, dear Archbishop?
That, dear Archbishop, you actually believe that good Catholics will buy your argument that those who happen to think for themselves and are able to reconcile with their conscience those things they truly believe -- like, for instance, that there ought to be a separation of church and state and that, indeed, no one should force their particular beliefs down someone else's throat -- are "...ultimately dangerous arguments that confuse our national memory and identity..." is an absurd distortion on the real promise of this country where religious freedom became one of the essential components of who we are as a country; of this great melting pot of Catholic and Jew, Muslim and Protestant, atheist and agnostic.
Upton Sinclair writes in World's End: "It's nice to have a religion... Saves all the trouble of having to think."
Chaput goes on to say that (and read these words very carefully), "No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. No on wants to turn meatless Fridays into federal law. So we need to understand these concerns for what they really are: ultimately dangerous arguments that confuse our national memory and identify."
Now remember: Chaput has advised his flock of some 370,000 Catholics that a vote for John Kerry is a sin and they will need to absolve themselves and confess to that sin, before receiving communion after the election.
Okay. Lets look at the definition of the word theocracy: 1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities; 2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
Admonishing your flock, dear Archbishop, that God's law precludes them from voting for a particular candidate and, if they do so, will not be held in good stead by the Holy Father you purport to represent on earth; doesn't that, dear Archbishop, sound a little theocratic?
Never mind asking Marilyn Musgrave to drum up a Constitutional Amendment instituting meatless Fridays. (Oh, wouldn't McDonalds like that one!) No, let's just go straight for the jugular; let's ban good people from using the magnificent, God-given miracle of the human brain to actually think for themselves. Let's actually write into the Constitution that giving voice to slogans and sound bites that question such paltry concerns as the separation of church and state and not forcefully or otherwise imposing your particular beliefs on other people; let's make those silly subjects the stuff of Constitutional prohibition -- kind of like yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't really a fire. Remember that one, dear Archbishop?
That, dear Archbishop, you actually believe that good Catholics will buy your argument that those who happen to think for themselves and are able to reconcile with their conscience those things they truly believe -- like, for instance, that there ought to be a separation of church and state and that, indeed, no one should force their particular beliefs down someone else's throat -- are "...ultimately dangerous arguments that confuse our national memory and identity..." is an absurd distortion on the real promise of this country where religious freedom became one of the essential components of who we are as a country; of this great melting pot of Catholic and Jew, Muslim and Protestant, atheist and agnostic.
Upton Sinclair writes in World's End: "It's nice to have a religion... Saves all the trouble of having to think."
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Separation of Church and State -- The Myth
`Colorado's Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput is advising his flock that if they vote for John Kerry, they're committing a sin. Never mind the mendacity of the Dumbya administration; never mind the lies and the killing and chaos and the deceit and the suffering of the children and the widows and widowers and the poverty and the destruction of the environment; never mind the pederasts Chaput's Church hid away and protected; never mind the bright and beautiful promise of stem cell research and the certain miracles the application of that research will bring; never mind all of that. Let's just focus on Chaput's Repubublican agenda.
I remember when John F. Kennedy feared that the American electorate would, of course, believe that each and every one of his decisions would be forthcoming from Rome; the Pope. He worked very hard to dispell that perception. No, we don't live in a theocracy. Better remind Chaput and his minions of that fact.
Born and rasised a Catholic, I suspect that Chaput's rhetoric will fall on ears fully atuned to the mystery of the Church. But, I suspect also, it will fall on ears wondering if the lies perpetuated in the name of freedom -- or, at least, what Dumbya believes the essence of freedom to be -- I'm wondering if those ears, if those good Catholics will be believe it a sin to vote for a liar? An insidious liar whose lies have caused the death of over one-thousand good, American lives and of thousands of Iraqis?
I remember when John F. Kennedy feared that the American electorate would, of course, believe that each and every one of his decisions would be forthcoming from Rome; the Pope. He worked very hard to dispell that perception. No, we don't live in a theocracy. Better remind Chaput and his minions of that fact.
Born and rasised a Catholic, I suspect that Chaput's rhetoric will fall on ears fully atuned to the mystery of the Church. But, I suspect also, it will fall on ears wondering if the lies perpetuated in the name of freedom -- or, at least, what Dumbya believes the essence of freedom to be -- I'm wondering if those ears, if those good Catholics will be believe it a sin to vote for a liar? An insidious liar whose lies have caused the death of over one-thousand good, American lives and of thousands of Iraqis?
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Missing Calvin
Calvin E. Rowe
I am missing Calvin immensely, tonight. David has flown off to visit with his family in Eastern Washington state (Yakima Valley) and I am missing his namesake, Calvin E. Rowe, who passed from us on March 14th, of this year from the insidious effects of lymphoma.
Calvin was such a handsome boy. One-hundred and thirty pounds of the essence of pure Alaskan Malamute; a gregarious boy who, one day in the front yard after a particularly heavy rainfall, pulled his daddy -- me -- to the ground as he lunged to examine the passing of another dog across the sidewalk. Oh, he was a strong, powerful, boy.
I loved Calvin immensely. And -- even though she won't admit it -- Melissa Marie did also love our beautiful, robust little boy, Calvin.
Oh, well... LIfe goes on.... I can only hope/pray thar Calvin is chasing rabbits along with Eddie, John's wonderful Greyhound, up there, somewhere, where I hope, someday, I will be privileged to exist; to become some little presence amongst the glee, the utter happiness of our canine friends; our companions.
Kerry/Bush - Second Debate - Yesterday's Post
First of all, why doesn't this surprise me? I can just see Karl Rove sitting is some dark little room whispering into a microphone which, during the first debate, electronically transmitted answers, facts, etc. to Dumbya's ear. Nope, not surprised at all.
Kerry did well last night. Dumbya's testosterone was up last night, with the consequence that he came across as the arrogant little, dumb prick that he is. I thought he was going to jump into the crowd and throw a few punches at people just for the hell of it.
Yesterday afternoon I posted something that my cousin Butch had sent to me. Suffice it to say, my cousin's dislike of Dumbya exceeds mine by a factor of probably ten raised to the nth power. After rereading that post this morning, I realized it was a wee bit too vitriolic and graphic even for me. So, I deleted it and do apologize if anyone was offended by it.
One other note on the debate. I thought it was great when Dumbya heralded his thirty-member Iraqi coalition and Kerry made the point that twenty-seven of those coalition members are nation-states smaller than Missouri (or was it smaller than St. Louis?).
Kerry did well last night. Dumbya's testosterone was up last night, with the consequence that he came across as the arrogant little, dumb prick that he is. I thought he was going to jump into the crowd and throw a few punches at people just for the hell of it.
Yesterday afternoon I posted something that my cousin Butch had sent to me. Suffice it to say, my cousin's dislike of Dumbya exceeds mine by a factor of probably ten raised to the nth power. After rereading that post this morning, I realized it was a wee bit too vitriolic and graphic even for me. So, I deleted it and do apologize if anyone was offended by it.
One other note on the debate. I thought it was great when Dumbya heralded his thirty-member Iraqi coalition and Kerry made the point that twenty-seven of those coalition members are nation-states smaller than Missouri (or was it smaller than St. Louis?).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)