...or has everyone had about enough of George W. Bush?
If you are a fan of this administration; if you think that George W Bush is just doing one hell of a job as president; if you think that we should repeal the XXII Amendment so that George can run again - you may want to go read George Will. For those who remain:
Let's talk Iraq.
For the record... opposition to America's unwarranted attack on Iraq does not make a person anti-American or unpatriotic. You are not a traitor if you suggest that we need to find a way out of this disaster...soon.
Bush & Co. have a lot to answer for with regards this war. They have lied and misdirected the American people at every opportunity. They have added new meaning to the phrase "by any means necessary". George and the boys wanted this war, and by God they got it. They sold it to America as shamelessly as any bait-and-switch huckster. The president might not have known about a planned attack on Sept 11, 2001, but he managed to turn events to his purpose. One wonders how Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the gang would have justified invading Old Saddam without the destruction of the WTC; but make no mistake, they would have managed. Bin Laden just made it easier.
Can there be one single person in this country that believes that George W. Bush never intended to link the attacks on 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq? For him to stand in front of America and boldly assert that we attacked Saddam for any other reason is a insult.
We can argue about the intelligence concerning WMD and every other red herring that these deceitful men have put forth, but none of it means a thing. Forget about Dick Cheney (if you can) and his rosy predictions of the war's rapid, glorious conclusion. Ignore Don Rumsfeld's almost criminal lack of planning and understanding of modern warfare in spite of repeated warning from everyone in the Pentagon.
This country was conned into this ridiculous, embarrassing conflict by its leaders who continually reinforced one message; It was Arabs/Muslims who attacked us and the invasion of Iraq is payback.
Can there really be any citizens left in this country who think that Saddam Hussein had the weapons necessary to attack the United States? Then why the hell are our kids dying in the desert? See above.
I know. Many of you don't like the things that Democrats believe. You don't like Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, or Al Gore. Tough. None of those feelings can possibly hold a candle to the realization that you were lied to by the people you elected to lead the country.
We impeached Bill Clinton and he only lied about sex. We were angry, not because Bill got a bj in the Oval Office, but because the president of our country looked like a fool. He embarrassed us. However, 2,600 Americans aren't dead because of Bill's infidelity. If you must blame Bill Clinton for something, blame him for ignoring the same warnings that GWB ignored. 9/11/2001 could just as easily have been 9/11/1998.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove & Co. repeatedly misled America about Saddam's ability to wage war and sent Colin Powell to the UN to reinforce the big lie to the world. Powell, a man of actual character and integrity, was constantly marginalized by the Bush's people but when it came time to sell the war to the rest of the planet, Colin was the guy. Why did we even bother? World opinion never mattered.
Powell's misplaced sense of loyalty prevented him from retiring as Secretary of State until after the 2004 election, and he hasn't been heard publicly since. How much damage might he have done if he had told the truth about the run-up to combat in March 2003. He'd make a hell of a witness at the Bush impeachment.
Now that this catastrophe in the Middle East is swirling toward the drain, the administration is playing it's final desperate, despicable card.
The White House is accusing anyone and everyone who opposes continuing this nightmare of "appeasing terrorists". The line goes that if we don't continue the war in Iraq, we are guilty of the same mistakes that Neville Chamberlain made in dealing with Hitler at Munich in 1938. This would be funny if it weren't costing American lives. Hitler was a serious threat to England. He had the will and the muscle to make war anywhere in Europe. Had Chamberlain played hard ball, WWII probably would have started that much sooner, but it could never have been prevented. In any event, no one at that time (including Churchill) was suggesting that England should attack Heir Hitler in 1938. Let's also try to remember that Hitler was elected in a democratic election.
But why bother to point out the flaws in this shameless monologue. All the White House wants is an excuse to use Hitler, Bin Laden and Saddam in the same sentence.
At least the president's library has a few history books. If they look really hard, perhaps they will find a volume on the closing years of the Vietnam conflict.
When it was clear that our involvement in Southeast Asia was going nowhere (Nixon's library apparently included no books on French Indochina), the White House constantly impuned the patriotism of war protesters even those who had served. Nixon was quoted as saying, "Opposition to the war is the biggest single factor working against the United States." Sound familiar None of the dire predictions of the Nixon administration regarding Communists invading San Francisco, should we fail in Vietnam, came to pass.
The real tragedy of Iraq is that we are now powerless to confront the real threat to the region proposed by Iran. We clearly do not have the ground forces to confront the Iranians should they cross their border, and the lesson of Vietnam is that once America leaves the field, we have no desire to return for round two. Nice job, George. You fell for the geopolitical version of the rope-a-dope.
If there is any good news, it is that America is catching on quicker than we did during Vietnam. Let's hope that our fearless leaders can read the tea leaves and craft an exit strategy before more lives are lost.
We don't even mind if you lie to us.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
...or is polygamy a concept that only God understands?
A recent archaeological expedition in Spain uncovered a cave painting, which when translated read: "Take my wives...please!"
Comedians since the dawn of time have made a living lampooning marriage. The underlying truth is, of course, that marriage is a tricky business. You have a better chance of opening a successful restaurant in Manhattan than you do staying married to the same person for seven years. So, if it's so difficult for people to navigate the waters of one relationship, why would anyone want to try it with two or more partners?
First of all: Have you noticed that it's always men with multiple wives - not the other way around. Once again, women show themselves to be the more intelligent sex.
Second: Why would any women let themselves get into one of these relationships? Brain washing? Low self esteem? Bad hair day? At least the "marital obligations" (wink! wink!) get divided among the team.
Third,(and you knew this was coming): Have you noticed that all of these nutjobs are out in the Red States? Massachusetts, where those sinful gay marriages are legal, is not dealing with men who feel the need to sire five families.
At some points in history it may have been necessary for men to have more than one wife to more rapidly increase the population. Wars caused an inbalance in the boy to girl ratios. Infant mortality being what it was, there was always a chance of a tribe or civilization dyinng out. Now, however, some deluded souls feel that they are too special to be limited to just one woman.
The state attorney generals of Arizona and Utah place the number of state residents practicing polygamy at between 20,000 and 40,000. I don't know if that represents just men with multiple spouses, or if the figure includes wives. It is also unclear how many wives each polygamous husband feels is sufficient. One would imagine that supply and demand would come into play. The figures are scary in any event.
Nevada recently arrested one Warren Jeffs. It seems that Mr. Jeffs, age 50, has wives numbering in double figures, many of whom are under age. The rest of the story is fairly predictable.
Old Warren is the son of Rulon Jeffs, the leader of a break-away Mormon group that is big on polygamy. (If multiple partners is such a good idea, why do these guys need to bring God into the equation?) Having started their own church, the first commandment is that the women, (and apparently the kids, too), have to sleep with the leader. Charlie Manson, David Koresh, and Jim Jones all professed a divine spark and used it to seduce their female followers. None of the sheep that follow these guys ever notice the pattern. My guess is that they have been abused by men all their lives and at least the church provides structure and a measure of safety...unless, you were following Jim Jones).
The current Mr. Jeffs claims 10,000 followers. Yikes!
Television, in yet another attempt to be on the cutting edge of bad taste, actually made a comedy series for HBO, loosely based on Mr. Jeffs families. The show, called "Big Love", presumably left out the parts about shtooping fourteen-year olds.
There's nothing funny about exploiting vulnerable women and children. If states like South Dakota (or maybe it's North Dakota) would stop worrying about gay couples and Planned Parenthood for one minute, they might try sending a few of these animals to jail.
Fortunately for Mr. Jeffs, he won't have to worry about multiple partners in prison. He'll just be on the receiving end for a change. (Ouch!)
A recent archaeological expedition in Spain uncovered a cave painting, which when translated read: "Take my wives...please!"
Comedians since the dawn of time have made a living lampooning marriage. The underlying truth is, of course, that marriage is a tricky business. You have a better chance of opening a successful restaurant in Manhattan than you do staying married to the same person for seven years. So, if it's so difficult for people to navigate the waters of one relationship, why would anyone want to try it with two or more partners?
First of all: Have you noticed that it's always men with multiple wives - not the other way around. Once again, women show themselves to be the more intelligent sex.
Second: Why would any women let themselves get into one of these relationships? Brain washing? Low self esteem? Bad hair day? At least the "marital obligations" (wink! wink!) get divided among the team.
Third,(and you knew this was coming): Have you noticed that all of these nutjobs are out in the Red States? Massachusetts, where those sinful gay marriages are legal, is not dealing with men who feel the need to sire five families.
At some points in history it may have been necessary for men to have more than one wife to more rapidly increase the population. Wars caused an inbalance in the boy to girl ratios. Infant mortality being what it was, there was always a chance of a tribe or civilization dyinng out. Now, however, some deluded souls feel that they are too special to be limited to just one woman.
The state attorney generals of Arizona and Utah place the number of state residents practicing polygamy at between 20,000 and 40,000. I don't know if that represents just men with multiple spouses, or if the figure includes wives. It is also unclear how many wives each polygamous husband feels is sufficient. One would imagine that supply and demand would come into play. The figures are scary in any event.
Nevada recently arrested one Warren Jeffs. It seems that Mr. Jeffs, age 50, has wives numbering in double figures, many of whom are under age. The rest of the story is fairly predictable.
Old Warren is the son of Rulon Jeffs, the leader of a break-away Mormon group that is big on polygamy. (If multiple partners is such a good idea, why do these guys need to bring God into the equation?) Having started their own church, the first commandment is that the women, (and apparently the kids, too), have to sleep with the leader. Charlie Manson, David Koresh, and Jim Jones all professed a divine spark and used it to seduce their female followers. None of the sheep that follow these guys ever notice the pattern. My guess is that they have been abused by men all their lives and at least the church provides structure and a measure of safety...unless, you were following Jim Jones).
The current Mr. Jeffs claims 10,000 followers. Yikes!
Television, in yet another attempt to be on the cutting edge of bad taste, actually made a comedy series for HBO, loosely based on Mr. Jeffs families. The show, called "Big Love", presumably left out the parts about shtooping fourteen-year olds.
There's nothing funny about exploiting vulnerable women and children. If states like South Dakota (or maybe it's North Dakota) would stop worrying about gay couples and Planned Parenthood for one minute, they might try sending a few of these animals to jail.
Fortunately for Mr. Jeffs, he won't have to worry about multiple partners in prison. He'll just be on the receiving end for a change. (Ouch!)
Monday, August 28, 2006
...is the EU in need of an education, or are they onto something?
The subject for the day is rice. No, not the Secretary of State. (She of the Franz Liszt fingers and the Leon Spinks dentation) We are talking about the kind of rice that Uncle Ben made famous.
It seems that our European friends have their collective bloomers in a bunch over the fact that some of a recently purchased shipment of rice contained a few genetically altered grains. Mon dieu! Ach du liebe! I say!
This current episode is part of a continuing disagreement over genetically altered foods. Europe doesn't know why they don't want it but they don't want it.
Here in the U.S. we really don't care all that much. We eat what's advertised. Americans don't much notice if the tomatoes at the local supermarket are the size of basketballs or if the cucumbers glow in the dark so long as the price is right. We eat processed foods that have less actual organic ingredients than a wad of silly putty. Thirty weight motor oil is closer to "natural" than the soft drinks we give our children. You would be better off eating the packaging for the fiber.
Still, we are Americans. I thought everyone wanted to be like us. Europe mimics our clothes, our music, (sadly, not out hygiene) and, of course, our language. So how come they're so afraid of our produce?
There is not one shred of evidence that genetically altered apples or onions cause any ill effect at all. (Except in the middle of America where these foods appear to cause the population to vote for baboons.) The alteration in the gene structure of these products causes them to be more flavorful, resistant to disease, and they last longer in transit. Some alterations even make the foods look prettier. Potatoes, for example, discolor almost as soon as you peal them. Science (and McDonald's) is forever seeking a way to reverse this process.
The attitude in Europe is that the jury is still out on the potentially harmful effects of these "Frankenfoods". (Think Mr. Potatohead with stiches in his forehead and bolts in his neck.)
Frankly, I think Europe may be on to something. It's not so much that Americans are growing an extra ear or fourteen toes, it's that we are growing, period.
Belgians, Italians, and Dutchmen see a lot of American tourists and they can't help but notice that they are getting a little thick around the middle. When the elevator in the Eiffel Tower can handle thirty-five Japanese but only six Floridians, that's a problem. When the Leaning Tower in Pisa asks the family from Kansas to enter one at a time, it's troubling.
Here in America we know that the problem is lack of exercise, processed foods, super-sized portions, etc. However, Europeans might think that it's the fooled-around-with rice and the monkeyed-around- with corn.
They are, of course, partially correct. The problem is rice...and potatoes...and bread, and a lot of other stuff. Unfortunately, it's not the genetic composition of the spuds, it's the number of french fries that we stuff into our faces that's causing us to look like the road company of Hairspray. Tragically, if we ate more of the genetically altered green vegetables we produce perhaps Air France could stop issuing seatbelt extensions on their flights from America.
Note to the European Union. Genetically altered foods aren't harmful. It's only if you eat enough to sustain the crew of the space station for a month that you get into trouble.
As for the correlation between the food you eat and the poor choices at the polls...too soon to tell, but you may be onto something there. Don't risk it!
The subject for the day is rice. No, not the Secretary of State. (She of the Franz Liszt fingers and the Leon Spinks dentation) We are talking about the kind of rice that Uncle Ben made famous.
It seems that our European friends have their collective bloomers in a bunch over the fact that some of a recently purchased shipment of rice contained a few genetically altered grains. Mon dieu! Ach du liebe! I say!
This current episode is part of a continuing disagreement over genetically altered foods. Europe doesn't know why they don't want it but they don't want it.
Here in the U.S. we really don't care all that much. We eat what's advertised. Americans don't much notice if the tomatoes at the local supermarket are the size of basketballs or if the cucumbers glow in the dark so long as the price is right. We eat processed foods that have less actual organic ingredients than a wad of silly putty. Thirty weight motor oil is closer to "natural" than the soft drinks we give our children. You would be better off eating the packaging for the fiber.
Still, we are Americans. I thought everyone wanted to be like us. Europe mimics our clothes, our music, (sadly, not out hygiene) and, of course, our language. So how come they're so afraid of our produce?
There is not one shred of evidence that genetically altered apples or onions cause any ill effect at all. (Except in the middle of America where these foods appear to cause the population to vote for baboons.) The alteration in the gene structure of these products causes them to be more flavorful, resistant to disease, and they last longer in transit. Some alterations even make the foods look prettier. Potatoes, for example, discolor almost as soon as you peal them. Science (and McDonald's) is forever seeking a way to reverse this process.
The attitude in Europe is that the jury is still out on the potentially harmful effects of these "Frankenfoods". (Think Mr. Potatohead with stiches in his forehead and bolts in his neck.)
Frankly, I think Europe may be on to something. It's not so much that Americans are growing an extra ear or fourteen toes, it's that we are growing, period.
Belgians, Italians, and Dutchmen see a lot of American tourists and they can't help but notice that they are getting a little thick around the middle. When the elevator in the Eiffel Tower can handle thirty-five Japanese but only six Floridians, that's a problem. When the Leaning Tower in Pisa asks the family from Kansas to enter one at a time, it's troubling.
Here in America we know that the problem is lack of exercise, processed foods, super-sized portions, etc. However, Europeans might think that it's the fooled-around-with rice and the monkeyed-around- with corn.
They are, of course, partially correct. The problem is rice...and potatoes...and bread, and a lot of other stuff. Unfortunately, it's not the genetic composition of the spuds, it's the number of french fries that we stuff into our faces that's causing us to look like the road company of Hairspray. Tragically, if we ate more of the genetically altered green vegetables we produce perhaps Air France could stop issuing seatbelt extensions on their flights from America.
Note to the European Union. Genetically altered foods aren't harmful. It's only if you eat enough to sustain the crew of the space station for a month that you get into trouble.
As for the correlation between the food you eat and the poor choices at the polls...too soon to tell, but you may be onto something there. Don't risk it!
...or does Katherine Harris personify obnoxious?
Seriously, if the people of Florida don't see the hand of God in all these hurricanes, I don't know what it will take. Electing people like Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris to high office was bound to bring down the wrath of the almighty.
Ms. Harris is desperately seeking her party's nomination for the Senate. To that end, she was quoted in the Florida Baptist Witness (I guess the Times reporter wasn't available) saying that the separation of church and state in America is a "lie", and that God and the Founding Fathers did not intend for America to be a "nation of secular laws". She stated that if Christians are not elected, politicians will legalize sin, including abortion and gay marriage. (If we do legalize sin, those are not at the top of my list.)
WOW!
If it's one thing we can never get enough of, it's politicians that know the will of the Almighty. I wonder if He told her who will be the next American Idol.
Let's be clear about one thing. The Founding Fathers were not divinely inspired. They were wealthy, practical men who had a healthy skepticism for organized religion. There is a reason why the First Amendment leads with the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". The founders weren't atheists, (and would have been disinclined to admit it if they were, but they had seen the damaging effects of state-sponsored religion. If Ms. Harris had recently perused a newspaper, (aside from the Florida Baptist Witness), she might have noticed the delights of mingling God and law... in Iran. Make no mistake, the imams think that God/Allah is a Muslim. They think that they're right and that we are the great Satan.
But Ms. Harris can be forgiven. After all she's had a rough go recently.
As we all remember from our history books, Katherine was the Florida secretary of state during that messy election in 2000. With her help, the recount in Florida was stopped and GW was ultimately declared our 43rd President.
Please, no tears from you whiney Democrats who feel that the 2000 election was stolen by Katherine and the Supremes. If you are a presidential candidate and you can't win your own state, or the state of the most popular out-going president since FDR, you don't deserve to complain about the raw deal you got at Disneyworld. If Al Gore wins either Tennessee or Arkansas, Florida doesn't matter and Katherine Harris would have remained in the obscurity she so richly deserves.
Ms. Harris has been very busy since 2000. In 2002 she called in her chits from the presidential fracus and was awarded the GOP nomination for Congress from the 13th district - a district so far to the right that John Michael Karr could get elected if he ran as a Republican.
Convinced that it was her charm and good looks, (more about that later), that won the day in '02 she immediately began to explore the possibility of running for the Senate in 2004. The Rove/Bush cabal had other ideas. Mel Martinez was next in line. Mel, after all would give the GOP that "diversity" image that they are so desperate to project. (See also Condi Rice and Albert Gonzales). Sadly, the only subgroup that Katherine could call her own was the rich,w hite, cosmetically challenged. (OK you knew that was coming.) She agreed to sit out in '04 but bargained her way into a promise of support to challenge Bill Nelson for the other Florida Senate seat in 2006.
Well, here we are in '06 and Dear Katherine is about as popular with the GOP as bird flu in in Col. Saunders chicken coop.
For at least the last year KH has been under investigation by the FBI for accepting illegal campaign contributions from a convicted felon named Michael Wade from MZM Corp. The details are boring but available. Naturally, Katherine was shocked, shocked! to learn that the contributions were illegal, (and that Rep. Jefferson assumes that we all keep $90,000 in our freezer).
The gang at the White House might suck at foreign affairs but they're aces at politics and they know a loser when they see one. (They should. They've elected enough of them. Rim shot). The GOP has been combing the palm trees to find a different candidate on the theory that anyone would be better than Katherine. Bad news. For the second time in a week, Pluto was excluded.
This sort of messy politics is more typical of the Democrats than the GOP. Karl Rove must be having an off year. Whether Ms. Harris is nominated or not, she has a much better chance of being sworn in at the Justice Dept. than in the Senate. At least she'll be able to swear to God.
Just remember, it's hurricane season!
Seriously, if the people of Florida don't see the hand of God in all these hurricanes, I don't know what it will take. Electing people like Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris to high office was bound to bring down the wrath of the almighty.
Ms. Harris is desperately seeking her party's nomination for the Senate. To that end, she was quoted in the Florida Baptist Witness (I guess the Times reporter wasn't available) saying that the separation of church and state in America is a "lie", and that God and the Founding Fathers did not intend for America to be a "nation of secular laws". She stated that if Christians are not elected, politicians will legalize sin, including abortion and gay marriage. (If we do legalize sin, those are not at the top of my list.)
WOW!
If it's one thing we can never get enough of, it's politicians that know the will of the Almighty. I wonder if He told her who will be the next American Idol.
Let's be clear about one thing. The Founding Fathers were not divinely inspired. They were wealthy, practical men who had a healthy skepticism for organized religion. There is a reason why the First Amendment leads with the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". The founders weren't atheists, (and would have been disinclined to admit it if they were, but they had seen the damaging effects of state-sponsored religion. If Ms. Harris had recently perused a newspaper, (aside from the Florida Baptist Witness), she might have noticed the delights of mingling God and law... in Iran. Make no mistake, the imams think that God/Allah is a Muslim. They think that they're right and that we are the great Satan.
But Ms. Harris can be forgiven. After all she's had a rough go recently.
As we all remember from our history books, Katherine was the Florida secretary of state during that messy election in 2000. With her help, the recount in Florida was stopped and GW was ultimately declared our 43rd President.
Please, no tears from you whiney Democrats who feel that the 2000 election was stolen by Katherine and the Supremes. If you are a presidential candidate and you can't win your own state, or the state of the most popular out-going president since FDR, you don't deserve to complain about the raw deal you got at Disneyworld. If Al Gore wins either Tennessee or Arkansas, Florida doesn't matter and Katherine Harris would have remained in the obscurity she so richly deserves.
Ms. Harris has been very busy since 2000. In 2002 she called in her chits from the presidential fracus and was awarded the GOP nomination for Congress from the 13th district - a district so far to the right that John Michael Karr could get elected if he ran as a Republican.
Convinced that it was her charm and good looks, (more about that later), that won the day in '02 she immediately began to explore the possibility of running for the Senate in 2004. The Rove/Bush cabal had other ideas. Mel Martinez was next in line. Mel, after all would give the GOP that "diversity" image that they are so desperate to project. (See also Condi Rice and Albert Gonzales). Sadly, the only subgroup that Katherine could call her own was the rich,w hite, cosmetically challenged. (OK you knew that was coming.) She agreed to sit out in '04 but bargained her way into a promise of support to challenge Bill Nelson for the other Florida Senate seat in 2006.
Well, here we are in '06 and Dear Katherine is about as popular with the GOP as bird flu in in Col. Saunders chicken coop.
For at least the last year KH has been under investigation by the FBI for accepting illegal campaign contributions from a convicted felon named Michael Wade from MZM Corp. The details are boring but available. Naturally, Katherine was shocked, shocked! to learn that the contributions were illegal, (and that Rep. Jefferson assumes that we all keep $90,000 in our freezer).
The gang at the White House might suck at foreign affairs but they're aces at politics and they know a loser when they see one. (They should. They've elected enough of them. Rim shot). The GOP has been combing the palm trees to find a different candidate on the theory that anyone would be better than Katherine. Bad news. For the second time in a week, Pluto was excluded.
This sort of messy politics is more typical of the Democrats than the GOP. Karl Rove must be having an off year. Whether Ms. Harris is nominated or not, she has a much better chance of being sworn in at the Justice Dept. than in the Senate. At least she'll be able to swear to God.
Just remember, it's hurricane season!
Thursday, August 17, 2006
... or is regime change not working out the way we hoped?
Item: Afghanistan is headed for a record opium crop, posting an increase in production of 40%.
Be proud America! Thanks to the intervention of our State Deptartment, Afghanistan has moved from marginal occupation by the old Soviet Union to the dictatorial theocracy of the Taliban to a shining new democracy (minus the purple digits). Not only are the Afghans now a free people, (assuming that you live within about nine square blocks of downtown Kabul, but their number one cash crop is breaking all records.
The next logical step is to initiate a program similar to the wildly successful system that keeps American farmers running to the polls every year to vote for their favorite Republican Congressman: farm subsidies. (To be fair, this particular nightmare is nonpartisan).
When farmers in America grow too much of something, Uncle Sam rushes in to either prop up the price or buy the excess. After all, why should farmers be required to shoulder the risks born by other small businesses? If we are so determined to export our way of life to people who haven't asked for it, why not introduce Afghanistan to the wonderful world of no-risk farming - Global Capitalism at its best.
We can send the MBAs from the Department of Agriculture to Marseilles and Amsterdam to determine the average price for poppies, as well as opium, and offer Afghan growers the best price. The excess opium will presumably be used by the current administration who is clearly already smoking something if they believe that their foreign policy is working.
After 9/11 America wanted to attack someone - anyone. The WTC terrorists were Saudis but torching Saudi Arabia seemed ill-advised. We still need to fuel those Hummers.
Incinerating any of the countries in the Middle East suspected of aiding terrorists would have required proof for the court of world opinion. What's a superpower to do? Bomb Afghanistan. Nobody will care. It has no oil, no industry, no vacation spots, and almost no embassies. It's run by the Taliban and we know that half the terrorists in the world have camps there. Perfect! Even the French won't care. The world might not even notice, if we can just distract Christiana Amenpuhr for a day or two.
Well, that was almost five long years ago. A lot of good men have died on the ground and there is nothing humorous about that. We have blown up Tora Bora and Hamid Karzai is president. Presumably, he is in no danger of assassination. Having almost no real power, and because he poises no threat to the warlords that run the country outside of Kabul, he is welcome to address the United Nations and appear on Larry King Live.
Congratulations George. Your global dabbling has resulted in the deaths of 2,600 American kids, at least 60,000 Iraqis, (2,400 in just the month of July), and no increase in United States standing abroad. The only recruiters meeting their quotas are the ones praying towards Mecca.
But take heart America. At least the junkies of the world won't suffer the wrath of cruel price increases. Too bad so few of them vote.
Item: Afghanistan is headed for a record opium crop, posting an increase in production of 40%.
Be proud America! Thanks to the intervention of our State Deptartment, Afghanistan has moved from marginal occupation by the old Soviet Union to the dictatorial theocracy of the Taliban to a shining new democracy (minus the purple digits). Not only are the Afghans now a free people, (assuming that you live within about nine square blocks of downtown Kabul, but their number one cash crop is breaking all records.
The next logical step is to initiate a program similar to the wildly successful system that keeps American farmers running to the polls every year to vote for their favorite Republican Congressman: farm subsidies. (To be fair, this particular nightmare is nonpartisan).
When farmers in America grow too much of something, Uncle Sam rushes in to either prop up the price or buy the excess. After all, why should farmers be required to shoulder the risks born by other small businesses? If we are so determined to export our way of life to people who haven't asked for it, why not introduce Afghanistan to the wonderful world of no-risk farming - Global Capitalism at its best.
We can send the MBAs from the Department of Agriculture to Marseilles and Amsterdam to determine the average price for poppies, as well as opium, and offer Afghan growers the best price. The excess opium will presumably be used by the current administration who is clearly already smoking something if they believe that their foreign policy is working.
After 9/11 America wanted to attack someone - anyone. The WTC terrorists were Saudis but torching Saudi Arabia seemed ill-advised. We still need to fuel those Hummers.
Incinerating any of the countries in the Middle East suspected of aiding terrorists would have required proof for the court of world opinion. What's a superpower to do? Bomb Afghanistan. Nobody will care. It has no oil, no industry, no vacation spots, and almost no embassies. It's run by the Taliban and we know that half the terrorists in the world have camps there. Perfect! Even the French won't care. The world might not even notice, if we can just distract Christiana Amenpuhr for a day or two.
Well, that was almost five long years ago. A lot of good men have died on the ground and there is nothing humorous about that. We have blown up Tora Bora and Hamid Karzai is president. Presumably, he is in no danger of assassination. Having almost no real power, and because he poises no threat to the warlords that run the country outside of Kabul, he is welcome to address the United Nations and appear on Larry King Live.
Congratulations George. Your global dabbling has resulted in the deaths of 2,600 American kids, at least 60,000 Iraqis, (2,400 in just the month of July), and no increase in United States standing abroad. The only recruiters meeting their quotas are the ones praying towards Mecca.
But take heart America. At least the junkies of the world won't suffer the wrath of cruel price increases. Too bad so few of them vote.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
...is the world awash in reality TV?
There once was a very clever ad campaign in New York a few years ago that stated, "I only watch PBS and I never read the New York Post."
Reality TV might be America's newest guilty pleasure, but honestly - I don't get it.
I know why the networks love it, because it's dirt cheap to produce. Even adding the cost of Simon Cowell's tee-shirts, these shows cost nothing. All you need is people willing to make fools of themselves on national TV. There's a reason that "talent" costs money. It has something to do with having TALENT.
The reason I won't watch this crap has nothing to do with being a snob. I can be entertained by an old Three Stooges movie (and have been on many occasions).
The fact is that these shows are about nothing. "Survivor", "Big Brother", and "Fear Factor" are all tutorials on man's inhumanity to man, not to mention tragic examples of what people will do to hurry along their 15 minutes of fame. "American Idol", "So You Think You Can Dance", and "America's Got Talent" are dressed up versions of Ted Mack's original "Amateur Hour". The difference is that Ted Mack wasn't going for cheap laughs. (I guess I shouldn't complain. Ted Mack gave us Frank Sinatra.)
If you like to watch people behaving badly and also getting what they deserve, you must have loved that Hatch guy from "Survivor" getting tossed in jail. Who knew that appearing on TV with no talent or ability could land you in the pokie. Tony Snow, take note.
I understand that in Japan they had a show where people actually maimed themselves for cash and prizes. Now that's entertainment.
These shows, especially "American Idol", have become a genuine phenomenon. I believe that more people voted for AI than voted in the last presidential election. And judging by who won, the Idol voters made a more informed choice. (Sorry. That was too easy.)
Maybe we have stumbled onto something here.
Maybe we should run our elections like "American Idol". Now that's a reality show I would watch.
Each week America would get to vote people out of the race. Candidates would have to strut their stuff in front of a panel similar to the three geniuses that judge "Idol". How about Bill Clinton, Ralph Reed, and for comic relief Ross Perot. At least we would have more choices than those handed to us by the primary system.
Back to TV.
I try to take a democratic view of this stuff. (Big of me, I know) If the American viewing public wants reality TV, they should have it. If you want to watch people just like you eat worms and bathe with scorpions, knock yourself out. Just because I don't see the entertainment value in watching someone with a modicum of singing or dancing ability be humiliated by a troglodyte like Simon Cowell doesn't mean that others won't.
As for me, I'll be over at PBS watching the Stooges retrospective. YNACH! YNACH! YNACH!
There once was a very clever ad campaign in New York a few years ago that stated, "I only watch PBS and I never read the New York Post."
Reality TV might be America's newest guilty pleasure, but honestly - I don't get it.
I know why the networks love it, because it's dirt cheap to produce. Even adding the cost of Simon Cowell's tee-shirts, these shows cost nothing. All you need is people willing to make fools of themselves on national TV. There's a reason that "talent" costs money. It has something to do with having TALENT.
The reason I won't watch this crap has nothing to do with being a snob. I can be entertained by an old Three Stooges movie (and have been on many occasions).
The fact is that these shows are about nothing. "Survivor", "Big Brother", and "Fear Factor" are all tutorials on man's inhumanity to man, not to mention tragic examples of what people will do to hurry along their 15 minutes of fame. "American Idol", "So You Think You Can Dance", and "America's Got Talent" are dressed up versions of Ted Mack's original "Amateur Hour". The difference is that Ted Mack wasn't going for cheap laughs. (I guess I shouldn't complain. Ted Mack gave us Frank Sinatra.)
If you like to watch people behaving badly and also getting what they deserve, you must have loved that Hatch guy from "Survivor" getting tossed in jail. Who knew that appearing on TV with no talent or ability could land you in the pokie. Tony Snow, take note.
I understand that in Japan they had a show where people actually maimed themselves for cash and prizes. Now that's entertainment.
These shows, especially "American Idol", have become a genuine phenomenon. I believe that more people voted for AI than voted in the last presidential election. And judging by who won, the Idol voters made a more informed choice. (Sorry. That was too easy.)
Maybe we have stumbled onto something here.
Maybe we should run our elections like "American Idol". Now that's a reality show I would watch.
Each week America would get to vote people out of the race. Candidates would have to strut their stuff in front of a panel similar to the three geniuses that judge "Idol". How about Bill Clinton, Ralph Reed, and for comic relief Ross Perot. At least we would have more choices than those handed to us by the primary system.
Back to TV.
I try to take a democratic view of this stuff. (Big of me, I know) If the American viewing public wants reality TV, they should have it. If you want to watch people just like you eat worms and bathe with scorpions, knock yourself out. Just because I don't see the entertainment value in watching someone with a modicum of singing or dancing ability be humiliated by a troglodyte like Simon Cowell doesn't mean that others won't.
As for me, I'll be over at PBS watching the Stooges retrospective. YNACH! YNACH! YNACH!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
...or does Israel need some PR help...quickly.
OK gang repeat after me... "Israel is right. Hezbollah, Hamas and everyone else opposed to Israel's survival is wrong."
Now, don't you feel better.
There is no gray here. (or grey for the Brits among you.) If an organization or government attacks your country with the stated purpose of sweeping you into the Mediterranean,
you get to fight back. Nowhere in the texts by VonKlauwitz or General Giap does it stipulate that you must count the number of enemy combatants and structure your response accordingly. Just because Hezbollah attacks in small units and retreats into the civilian population is no reason to soften your response. If you don't make them sorry, they will do it again. Use any schoolyard confrontation for reference.
The attitude of Western Europe is infuriating. As discussed yesterday, most countries in Europe have substantial Muslim populations and no one wants more unrest in Paris but come on; right is right. France has used the Foreign Legion (yes, they're still around) in Africa on several occasions and they apologized to no one. If virtually all of the UN member nations acknowledge Israel's right to exist, then why should any country support organizations that hold a contrary position?
Hezbollah is a surrogate for Iran. No surprise there. France and Germany are in business (and in bed) with Iran. They want quiet commerce. A few kidnapped Israeli soldiers seems, to them, a poor excuse to disturb the peace. Easy for them to say. Should Poland decide that it's payback time for 1940 and cross their western border, Germany would be rearmed in a cocaine heartbeat and they wouldn't be asking UN approval to do it.
No one, including Israel, wants civilian casualties. They create photo ops for Al Jezzera and make recruiting for Al Qaeda that much easier. (Is Arab television showing the same women over and over in front of different bombed buildings?) It is , however necessary to remember that these "innocent civilians" are the ones dancing in the street at the announcement of a Hezbollah victory. There are over a thousand rockets in Southern Lebanon (less the few hundred that found their way into Northern Israel recently). If they are not in an easily identified armory, then they must be hidden among the civilian population. Those would be the aforementioned "innocent civilians".
There is one interesting irony in all this.
Israel responded quickly to the attack on it's border but:
- committed too few troops
- underestimated the civilian resistance
- quickly got bogged down in a nasty street fight that is unsuitable for a convention fighting force
Any of this sound familiar? Israeli generals were seen carrying copies of, "Don Rumsfeld's Guide to Warfare, 2003-2006 and beyond". They would be better off with copies of, "The Pet Goat".
At least Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resisted the temptation to stand in front of a banner in Hebrew reading "Mission Accomplished". George W Bush, oblivious to the facts (again) declared Israel the victor. Must have been a TKO. "Ehud, you're doin' a hell of a job".
The central issue for Americans (aside from the upcoming season of American Idol) is why the population of Southern Lebanon continues to support Hezbollah when it's their cities that are being turned into overflow parking lots for Bethlehem. No one could seriously believe that Hezbollah can defeat and occupy Israel. There may be something to Muslim Brotherhood but can this really be about Palestine and the Palestinians? Israel came into existence before most Lebanonese were born. Enough Already! Israel is a fact...like France; you may not like it, but there it is. Done. No one in Northern Mexico is gathering an army to retake Texas (although I'm still up for returning Crawford).
It becomes necessary to quote James Carville. "It's the economy, stupid!" Poor people need someone to blame for their situation and, throughout history, no group has worn that mantel more often than the Jews. They made a great target back when they were just a suspicious group of non-Christians that prayed on Saturday. Now that they are a political and military force, they are irresistible.
The difference today is that the Jews no longer roll over and play dead. It seems that they learned a little something from their most recent persecution (that would be 1936-45). No more of that "turning the other cheek", stuff (that's New Testament anyway). From now on it's strictly Exodus 21 "an eye for an eye". The only thing they need now is a better play book.
Where is Moshe Dayan when you need him?
OK gang repeat after me... "Israel is right. Hezbollah, Hamas and everyone else opposed to Israel's survival is wrong."
Now, don't you feel better.
There is no gray here. (or grey for the Brits among you.) If an organization or government attacks your country with the stated purpose of sweeping you into the Mediterranean,
you get to fight back. Nowhere in the texts by VonKlauwitz or General Giap does it stipulate that you must count the number of enemy combatants and structure your response accordingly. Just because Hezbollah attacks in small units and retreats into the civilian population is no reason to soften your response. If you don't make them sorry, they will do it again. Use any schoolyard confrontation for reference.
The attitude of Western Europe is infuriating. As discussed yesterday, most countries in Europe have substantial Muslim populations and no one wants more unrest in Paris but come on; right is right. France has used the Foreign Legion (yes, they're still around) in Africa on several occasions and they apologized to no one. If virtually all of the UN member nations acknowledge Israel's right to exist, then why should any country support organizations that hold a contrary position?
Hezbollah is a surrogate for Iran. No surprise there. France and Germany are in business (and in bed) with Iran. They want quiet commerce. A few kidnapped Israeli soldiers seems, to them, a poor excuse to disturb the peace. Easy for them to say. Should Poland decide that it's payback time for 1940 and cross their western border, Germany would be rearmed in a cocaine heartbeat and they wouldn't be asking UN approval to do it.
No one, including Israel, wants civilian casualties. They create photo ops for Al Jezzera and make recruiting for Al Qaeda that much easier. (Is Arab television showing the same women over and over in front of different bombed buildings?) It is , however necessary to remember that these "innocent civilians" are the ones dancing in the street at the announcement of a Hezbollah victory. There are over a thousand rockets in Southern Lebanon (less the few hundred that found their way into Northern Israel recently). If they are not in an easily identified armory, then they must be hidden among the civilian population. Those would be the aforementioned "innocent civilians".
There is one interesting irony in all this.
Israel responded quickly to the attack on it's border but:
- committed too few troops
- underestimated the civilian resistance
- quickly got bogged down in a nasty street fight that is unsuitable for a convention fighting force
Any of this sound familiar? Israeli generals were seen carrying copies of, "Don Rumsfeld's Guide to Warfare, 2003-2006 and beyond". They would be better off with copies of, "The Pet Goat".
At least Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resisted the temptation to stand in front of a banner in Hebrew reading "Mission Accomplished". George W Bush, oblivious to the facts (again) declared Israel the victor. Must have been a TKO. "Ehud, you're doin' a hell of a job".
The central issue for Americans (aside from the upcoming season of American Idol) is why the population of Southern Lebanon continues to support Hezbollah when it's their cities that are being turned into overflow parking lots for Bethlehem. No one could seriously believe that Hezbollah can defeat and occupy Israel. There may be something to Muslim Brotherhood but can this really be about Palestine and the Palestinians? Israel came into existence before most Lebanonese were born. Enough Already! Israel is a fact...like France; you may not like it, but there it is. Done. No one in Northern Mexico is gathering an army to retake Texas (although I'm still up for returning Crawford).
It becomes necessary to quote James Carville. "It's the economy, stupid!" Poor people need someone to blame for their situation and, throughout history, no group has worn that mantel more often than the Jews. They made a great target back when they were just a suspicious group of non-Christians that prayed on Saturday. Now that they are a political and military force, they are irresistible.
The difference today is that the Jews no longer roll over and play dead. It seems that they learned a little something from their most recent persecution (that would be 1936-45). No more of that "turning the other cheek", stuff (that's New Testament anyway). From now on it's strictly Exodus 21 "an eye for an eye". The only thing they need now is a better play book.
Where is Moshe Dayan when you need him?
Monday, August 14, 2006
...or is the Muslim/terrorist/Israel situation just frustrating as hell?
What's a liberal to do?
No, I don't want to round up everyone in Dearborn or Miami named Ali or Mohammed. (How many cell phones does it take to make a terrorist? More than 1,000?)
No, I don't want the federal government to have the power to detain citizens for 28 days without charge. (The Brits enacted that cute bit of legislation to deal with the Irish)
And no, I don't believe that every Muslim that ever listened to a fundamentalist imam or took home a pamphlet is a dangerous subversive.
However...
I don't know how to stop religious crazies from blowing-up planes, and I don't want to stand for a cavity search every time I board a flight.
Hence the frustration.
Although I refuse to listen to the idiots that comprise the conservative radio talk circuit, I can't imagine that they have any sterling ideas (short of blaming Bill and Hillary) either. Apart from tired refrains like, "Send them back where they came from", (How?) or "It just goes to show the wisdom of invading Iraq", (even the Bush braintrust doesn't believe that anymore), the problem of Muslim/Arab terror defies simple solutions.
So where are we today?
In spite of the shooting of an innocent Arab who ran from the police in London earlier this year, we don't think of the British police as cowboys, so we tend to believe that the suspects arrested on Friday really were bad guys. (Scotland Yard doesn't have a "Ruby Ridge" in their recent past.)
The men arrested in England were maddeningly average. They just don't look like Mohammed Atta. They were accountants and government workers. One of them just got married, and there didn't appear to be a Richard Reid in the group.
Memo to the news media: If you want to help stop terrorism, stop running that mug shot of Richard Reid. The American public has come to believe that no one who looks that stupid could possibly be a serious threat.
If all of the detainees prove to be true terrorists, everyone in America and Western Europe will start wondering about their neighbor with the Jordanian wife or the soccer coach whose family is from Algeria.
This is less of an issue in America where Muslims comprise only about 2.5% of the population. Those percentages increase substantially in France, Germany, Denmark, and everywhere else West of Pakistan. To further complicate the matter, unlike the U.S., Europe's Muslims are poor, underemployed, and living is substantial-sized ghettos. Every move by European governments takes into account the reaction of their Muslim minorities. You can hardly blame them.
None of this really helps, but because this is my rant, allow me to make a suggestion or two:
America...Forget carry-on luggage. Stop trying to shove all of your worldly possessions into one suitcase and bring it aboard a plane. I don't care how often you fly and how many times your bag has been lost. The days of humping a suitcase, a laptop, a soft-carry bag and a briefcase,(for women, add a purse the size of a hockey equipment bag), aboard a plane are over. Get used to it. If you can build two hours into the front end of your trip to account for the added security, you can build in an additional 1/2 hour to collect checked bags. If the bag gets lost (and that doesn't happen often) stop at the first store you pass and buy a three pack of tidy-whities. Trust me, you'll live.
America...Regardless of GWB and his spinners,
Muslim
Arab
Middle Eastern
Sunni
Shiite and
terrorist are not, repeat, not synonymous terms.
I realize that it's complicated but if you are able to differentiate between Catholics, Baptists, and Scientologists (Jesus, what's that about); and between Southerners, Yankees, and Midwesterners, you'll figure out the rest.
If there is anything good that can be said about the disturbing events of last weekend it's that the plot was discovered in time and, it happened during a Congressional recess so our crack legislators weren't able to rush through another ill-conceived law like the Patriot Act. Small comfort!!
We'll do Israel tomorrow.
.
What's a liberal to do?
No, I don't want to round up everyone in Dearborn or Miami named Ali or Mohammed. (How many cell phones does it take to make a terrorist? More than 1,000?)
No, I don't want the federal government to have the power to detain citizens for 28 days without charge. (The Brits enacted that cute bit of legislation to deal with the Irish)
And no, I don't believe that every Muslim that ever listened to a fundamentalist imam or took home a pamphlet is a dangerous subversive.
However...
I don't know how to stop religious crazies from blowing-up planes, and I don't want to stand for a cavity search every time I board a flight.
Hence the frustration.
Although I refuse to listen to the idiots that comprise the conservative radio talk circuit, I can't imagine that they have any sterling ideas (short of blaming Bill and Hillary) either. Apart from tired refrains like, "Send them back where they came from", (How?) or "It just goes to show the wisdom of invading Iraq", (even the Bush braintrust doesn't believe that anymore), the problem of Muslim/Arab terror defies simple solutions.
So where are we today?
In spite of the shooting of an innocent Arab who ran from the police in London earlier this year, we don't think of the British police as cowboys, so we tend to believe that the suspects arrested on Friday really were bad guys. (Scotland Yard doesn't have a "Ruby Ridge" in their recent past.)
The men arrested in England were maddeningly average. They just don't look like Mohammed Atta. They were accountants and government workers. One of them just got married, and there didn't appear to be a Richard Reid in the group.
Memo to the news media: If you want to help stop terrorism, stop running that mug shot of Richard Reid. The American public has come to believe that no one who looks that stupid could possibly be a serious threat.
If all of the detainees prove to be true terrorists, everyone in America and Western Europe will start wondering about their neighbor with the Jordanian wife or the soccer coach whose family is from Algeria.
This is less of an issue in America where Muslims comprise only about 2.5% of the population. Those percentages increase substantially in France, Germany, Denmark, and everywhere else West of Pakistan. To further complicate the matter, unlike the U.S., Europe's Muslims are poor, underemployed, and living is substantial-sized ghettos. Every move by European governments takes into account the reaction of their Muslim minorities. You can hardly blame them.
None of this really helps, but because this is my rant, allow me to make a suggestion or two:
America...Forget carry-on luggage. Stop trying to shove all of your worldly possessions into one suitcase and bring it aboard a plane. I don't care how often you fly and how many times your bag has been lost. The days of humping a suitcase, a laptop, a soft-carry bag and a briefcase,(for women, add a purse the size of a hockey equipment bag), aboard a plane are over. Get used to it. If you can build two hours into the front end of your trip to account for the added security, you can build in an additional 1/2 hour to collect checked bags. If the bag gets lost (and that doesn't happen often) stop at the first store you pass and buy a three pack of tidy-whities. Trust me, you'll live.
America...Regardless of GWB and his spinners,
Muslim
Arab
Middle Eastern
Sunni
Shiite and
terrorist are not, repeat, not synonymous terms.
I realize that it's complicated but if you are able to differentiate between Catholics, Baptists, and Scientologists (Jesus, what's that about); and between Southerners, Yankees, and Midwesterners, you'll figure out the rest.
If there is anything good that can be said about the disturbing events of last weekend it's that the plot was discovered in time and, it happened during a Congressional recess so our crack legislators weren't able to rush through another ill-conceived law like the Patriot Act. Small comfort!!
We'll do Israel tomorrow.
.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
...or should the Catholic Church have better sense?
Item: Pilgrims (not the kind with buckled shoes) have begun to arrive in Wadowice, Poland. Why, you ask. Wadowice is the birthplace of Karol Josef Wojtyla, better known to you and me as Pope John Paul II, deceased Pontiff of the Catholic Church. A monument has been erected in the town and there is a spring. Nothing draws the faithful like water. People are showing up not just to pay homage to JP II, but in hopes of a cure for their illnesses. (Why is it that no one is ever cured by sand or gas?) Someone saw Mel Gibson seeking to heal his reputation. Rim shot.
Now before you all start calling me a cynical bastard, I am not unsympathetic to people with incurable ailments trying anything they can to improve their situation. If I were suffering with a fatal disease, I'd kiss Pat Robertson on the mouth if I thought it would help.
My issue, if there is an issue, isn't with the faithful but with the Roman Catholic Church (big surprise). If you were raised Catholic, you know that the Church takes sainthood very seriously. A person proposed for sainthood is required to ascend through several stages before cannonization. In the old days, during a time that we will call BI (Before the Internet), hundreds of years had to pass before anyone could be so honored. Establishing the validity of miracles (an interesting concept in itself) took considerable time and study. I suspect that the Church wished to ensure that no "unfortunate" information surfaced after St. Bono had a parish in the Bronx named for him. Even today, it will probably take more than a Google search before anyone gets the nod from the Vatican.
People wishing to be cured in Poland will pray to John Paul II and, if they are healed, that will be used as evidence that God is answering the prayers of this good person. The Church requires several such signs before conferring sainthood.
I am not anti-faith. What people believe is very much their own affair. It is troubling, however, that at a time when the Catholic Church is hemorrhage members in developed countries as a result of serious, tangible issues; Rome has misdirected the faithful toward the mystical. Has Karl Rove take a job with the Curia?
Naturally, None of this is official. The stated position of the Church is that places such as Wadowice and Medjugorje in Herzegovina (How did The Blessed Virgin find it?)have no special significance. Presumably, people are encouraged to pray anywhere they like but, for the moment, no particular benefit attaches to a visit to "unrecognized" sites.
People of faith in America and Europe love the rich traditions with which they were raised, but they also have intellect. They see a Church unwilling or unable to confront the issues that scream at them from their newspapers. What is the Vatican doing to stop AIDS in Africa. There is nothing in Scripture about condoms. And what about priest pedophiles. The Church was more than happy to see that issue recede into the distance.
People expect leadership - not perfection, and they can spot a cover-up from a fair distance. When a commercial product is found to be dangerous, companies try to get out in front of the news. The Catholic Church in America seems capable only of reaction. Instead of dealing decisively with the problems of religion's place in 2006, Rome debates the possibility of cannonizing Pope Pius XII. (See also "Hitler's Pope" by John Cornwall).
We already have Lourdes and Fatima. It's difficult to understand why God would cure your gout in France today and Poland tomorrow. This isn't like opening up a new WalMart. OK, so I'm going to hell, but you see the point. The Catholic Church needs to deal with the real issues of faith and religion in the 21st century and leave the miracles to a higher power.
Item: Pilgrims (not the kind with buckled shoes) have begun to arrive in Wadowice, Poland. Why, you ask. Wadowice is the birthplace of Karol Josef Wojtyla, better known to you and me as Pope John Paul II, deceased Pontiff of the Catholic Church. A monument has been erected in the town and there is a spring. Nothing draws the faithful like water. People are showing up not just to pay homage to JP II, but in hopes of a cure for their illnesses. (Why is it that no one is ever cured by sand or gas?) Someone saw Mel Gibson seeking to heal his reputation. Rim shot.
Now before you all start calling me a cynical bastard, I am not unsympathetic to people with incurable ailments trying anything they can to improve their situation. If I were suffering with a fatal disease, I'd kiss Pat Robertson on the mouth if I thought it would help.
My issue, if there is an issue, isn't with the faithful but with the Roman Catholic Church (big surprise). If you were raised Catholic, you know that the Church takes sainthood very seriously. A person proposed for sainthood is required to ascend through several stages before cannonization. In the old days, during a time that we will call BI (Before the Internet), hundreds of years had to pass before anyone could be so honored. Establishing the validity of miracles (an interesting concept in itself) took considerable time and study. I suspect that the Church wished to ensure that no "unfortunate" information surfaced after St. Bono had a parish in the Bronx named for him. Even today, it will probably take more than a Google search before anyone gets the nod from the Vatican.
People wishing to be cured in Poland will pray to John Paul II and, if they are healed, that will be used as evidence that God is answering the prayers of this good person. The Church requires several such signs before conferring sainthood.
I am not anti-faith. What people believe is very much their own affair. It is troubling, however, that at a time when the Catholic Church is hemorrhage members in developed countries as a result of serious, tangible issues; Rome has misdirected the faithful toward the mystical. Has Karl Rove take a job with the Curia?
Naturally, None of this is official. The stated position of the Church is that places such as Wadowice and Medjugorje in Herzegovina (How did The Blessed Virgin find it?)have no special significance. Presumably, people are encouraged to pray anywhere they like but, for the moment, no particular benefit attaches to a visit to "unrecognized" sites.
People of faith in America and Europe love the rich traditions with which they were raised, but they also have intellect. They see a Church unwilling or unable to confront the issues that scream at them from their newspapers. What is the Vatican doing to stop AIDS in Africa. There is nothing in Scripture about condoms. And what about priest pedophiles. The Church was more than happy to see that issue recede into the distance.
People expect leadership - not perfection, and they can spot a cover-up from a fair distance. When a commercial product is found to be dangerous, companies try to get out in front of the news. The Catholic Church in America seems capable only of reaction. Instead of dealing decisively with the problems of religion's place in 2006, Rome debates the possibility of cannonizing Pope Pius XII. (See also "Hitler's Pope" by John Cornwall).
We already have Lourdes and Fatima. It's difficult to understand why God would cure your gout in France today and Poland tomorrow. This isn't like opening up a new WalMart. OK, so I'm going to hell, but you see the point. The Catholic Church needs to deal with the real issues of faith and religion in the 21st century and leave the miracles to a higher power.
Monday, August 07, 2006
...or should we be paying more attention to the Mexican election?
Let's have a pop quiz!
The last president of Mexico was:
A) Vincente Fox
B) Jose Wolfe
C) Chico Esqualla
OK, that was easy.
The present population of Mexico is:
A) 210 million
B) 100 million
C) 106 million
The answer is "C" and no, it doesn't count the 12 million or so folks that are currently in temporary residence north of the Rio Grande.
Last question: How long is the president's term of office in Mexico?
A) 4 years
B) 2 years
C) 6 years
If you answered "C", give yourself a gold star.
I don't know about you but, we are rapidly approaching the limits of my knowledge of the political system of our neighbors to the South. I don't know much more about Canada (pop. 32.5 million) but somehow that doesn't seem as troublesome. (Quick...Who is the Prime Minister of Canada... Stephen Harper.)
I do know that in WWI, the Germans offered Mexico help in recovering Texas, (I suggest returning Crawford), and other state lands in return for joining the German war effort. (Are those Germans sneaky or what?)
Mexico declined the honor, but if Mexico were not an ally of the US, our world would be a very different place.
This bit of rambling arises because Mexico is in the middle of an election crisis that makes Bush/Gore 2000 look like...well, Canada. In case you haven't made it to page six or eight of your local paper (eleven in the Wash Post today), Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (that's one guy) lost a split decision to Felipe Calderon. Mr. Lopez Obredor is contesting the result and has demanded a complete recount.
Anyone familiar with the terrain and political conditions in central and southern Mexico is amazed that any government was able to count the ballots the first time, let alone twice. The election tribunal has agreed to recount 9% of the 42 million ballots cast. Nine percent? Where's Katherine Harris and the Rehnquist Court when you need them?
Anyway, those that understand such things have ruled that the original election results look pretty accurate with a minimum amount of fraud. Clearly, there's no place in Mexico called Chicago.
The issue in Mexico now is that Mr. Lopez Calderon is not bowing out gracefully. He has organized (maybe not the best word) thousands of his supporters in Mexico City to camp out in the streets and bring the city's already heinous traffic to a complete standstill. Mr. Lopez Obrador himself is living in a tent in the main square.
Regardless of how this resolves itself, America should be wary of anything that looks like instability so close to our southern flank. What if the new Mexican government finds common cause with Hugo Chevez or Brother Raul? Considering the Bush administration's success at coalition-building you can understand why Texans feels the need to carry guns.
But fear not. Thus far the administration has spoken wisely which is to say, not at all. Even if those wonderful people who brought you the coalition of the willing manage to botch our relationship with our southern neighbors by interferring in their election, there's always Canada.
Let's have a pop quiz!
The last president of Mexico was:
A) Vincente Fox
B) Jose Wolfe
C) Chico Esqualla
OK, that was easy.
The present population of Mexico is:
A) 210 million
B) 100 million
C) 106 million
The answer is "C" and no, it doesn't count the 12 million or so folks that are currently in temporary residence north of the Rio Grande.
Last question: How long is the president's term of office in Mexico?
A) 4 years
B) 2 years
C) 6 years
If you answered "C", give yourself a gold star.
I don't know about you but, we are rapidly approaching the limits of my knowledge of the political system of our neighbors to the South. I don't know much more about Canada (pop. 32.5 million) but somehow that doesn't seem as troublesome. (Quick...Who is the Prime Minister of Canada... Stephen Harper.)
I do know that in WWI, the Germans offered Mexico help in recovering Texas, (I suggest returning Crawford), and other state lands in return for joining the German war effort. (Are those Germans sneaky or what?)
Mexico declined the honor, but if Mexico were not an ally of the US, our world would be a very different place.
This bit of rambling arises because Mexico is in the middle of an election crisis that makes Bush/Gore 2000 look like...well, Canada. In case you haven't made it to page six or eight of your local paper (eleven in the Wash Post today), Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (that's one guy) lost a split decision to Felipe Calderon. Mr. Lopez Obredor is contesting the result and has demanded a complete recount.
Anyone familiar with the terrain and political conditions in central and southern Mexico is amazed that any government was able to count the ballots the first time, let alone twice. The election tribunal has agreed to recount 9% of the 42 million ballots cast. Nine percent? Where's Katherine Harris and the Rehnquist Court when you need them?
Anyway, those that understand such things have ruled that the original election results look pretty accurate with a minimum amount of fraud. Clearly, there's no place in Mexico called Chicago.
The issue in Mexico now is that Mr. Lopez Calderon is not bowing out gracefully. He has organized (maybe not the best word) thousands of his supporters in Mexico City to camp out in the streets and bring the city's already heinous traffic to a complete standstill. Mr. Lopez Obrador himself is living in a tent in the main square.
Regardless of how this resolves itself, America should be wary of anything that looks like instability so close to our southern flank. What if the new Mexican government finds common cause with Hugo Chevez or Brother Raul? Considering the Bush administration's success at coalition-building you can understand why Texans feels the need to carry guns.
But fear not. Thus far the administration has spoken wisely which is to say, not at all. Even if those wonderful people who brought you the coalition of the willing manage to botch our relationship with our southern neighbors by interferring in their election, there's always Canada.
Friday, August 04, 2006
...or is Joe Lieberman getting a raw deal.
Like most of America, I must confess to a scant knowledge of Connecticut politics. It is a blue state and one of the few that is almost all blue. (One county in the West went for Bush and then only slightly.) They have a Republican Governor and two powerful and, until recently, popular Democratic senators.
Enter 9/11
The congress, not wishing to appear weak on terrorism, is railroaded into approving a war powers act that allows the President to attack pretty much anyone he damn well pleases. (Don't you wish that, in a time of national emergency, congress would take the time to read legislation before they voted for it.) By 2004 a fair number of senators and reps (including John Kerry) were pedaling as fast as they could away from that vote. Kerry tripped all over himself backing away and in doing so gave Karl (Rasputin) Rove plenty of ammo to paint Kerry as a waffler.
One senator who has not backed away from his vote for the war powers act was Joe Lieberman.
Not only has the senator not pleaded memory loss on that bit of legislation; he has continued to support the president's efforts to bring stability to the Middle East.
As you may have gathered from previous postings I am opposed to the whole Iraq adventure. So, it appears, are most Americans, and, so are a vast majority of Connecticut's citizens. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that Joe Lieberman will be defeated in his re-election bid for possessing the one trait that all Democrats are desperate to project...integrity.
Joe Lieberman is a popular man in Connecticut. During this campaign he could easily have tap-danced around this inconvenience bit of legislation. "I was sick that day" "The dog ate my copy of the bill" I thought that we were voting for the law powers act". "...anyway it doesn't matter because I'm opposed to this wasteful war now."
But Joe Lieberman has integrity. He voted for the bill because he believed it to be the right thing to do. He still believes it and he feels that to retreat from that position merely to secure his party's nomination for forth term in the Senate would betray his conscience. (Who knew that anyone in government had one?) I don't know what Old Joe is drinking but I would love to serve it at the next DNC.
This will be a contest with no winners. If Ned Lamont wins the nomination and the election Connecticut will have lost a great champion and the senate will have lost one of the true bipartisan leaders still in office. Should Lieberman prevail (and that appears doubtful) he will be under considerable pressure to change his stance on the war.
This stinks. We Dems wail and moan that the unenlightened masses in Kansas and Nebraska vote for inane issues like same-sex marriage and look away from the body bags washing up on our shores. Now that at least one politician is about to pay for the misguided policies of George & Co and the first casualty is a genuinely good guy. Why aren't we dumping Mark Sanford of S. Carolina or Inhofe in Oklahoma.
It seems to me that a elected official should listen to the constituents that put him/her in office but not bend to every change in wind direction. I always thought that, if you trusted the person you elected, than you trusted them to use their hearts and minds to make decisions then judged them on all those decisions. Joe Lieberman has been right a lot more than he's been wrong and he deserves better than to be bested by a one-note candidate from Greenwich.
Like most of America, I must confess to a scant knowledge of Connecticut politics. It is a blue state and one of the few that is almost all blue. (One county in the West went for Bush and then only slightly.) They have a Republican Governor and two powerful and, until recently, popular Democratic senators.
Enter 9/11
The congress, not wishing to appear weak on terrorism, is railroaded into approving a war powers act that allows the President to attack pretty much anyone he damn well pleases. (Don't you wish that, in a time of national emergency, congress would take the time to read legislation before they voted for it.) By 2004 a fair number of senators and reps (including John Kerry) were pedaling as fast as they could away from that vote. Kerry tripped all over himself backing away and in doing so gave Karl (Rasputin) Rove plenty of ammo to paint Kerry as a waffler.
One senator who has not backed away from his vote for the war powers act was Joe Lieberman.
Not only has the senator not pleaded memory loss on that bit of legislation; he has continued to support the president's efforts to bring stability to the Middle East.
As you may have gathered from previous postings I am opposed to the whole Iraq adventure. So, it appears, are most Americans, and, so are a vast majority of Connecticut's citizens. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that Joe Lieberman will be defeated in his re-election bid for possessing the one trait that all Democrats are desperate to project...integrity.
Joe Lieberman is a popular man in Connecticut. During this campaign he could easily have tap-danced around this inconvenience bit of legislation. "I was sick that day" "The dog ate my copy of the bill" I thought that we were voting for the law powers act". "...anyway it doesn't matter because I'm opposed to this wasteful war now."
But Joe Lieberman has integrity. He voted for the bill because he believed it to be the right thing to do. He still believes it and he feels that to retreat from that position merely to secure his party's nomination for forth term in the Senate would betray his conscience. (Who knew that anyone in government had one?) I don't know what Old Joe is drinking but I would love to serve it at the next DNC.
This will be a contest with no winners. If Ned Lamont wins the nomination and the election Connecticut will have lost a great champion and the senate will have lost one of the true bipartisan leaders still in office. Should Lieberman prevail (and that appears doubtful) he will be under considerable pressure to change his stance on the war.
This stinks. We Dems wail and moan that the unenlightened masses in Kansas and Nebraska vote for inane issues like same-sex marriage and look away from the body bags washing up on our shores. Now that at least one politician is about to pay for the misguided policies of George & Co and the first casualty is a genuinely good guy. Why aren't we dumping Mark Sanford of S. Carolina or Inhofe in Oklahoma.
It seems to me that a elected official should listen to the constituents that put him/her in office but not bend to every change in wind direction. I always thought that, if you trusted the person you elected, than you trusted them to use their hearts and minds to make decisions then judged them on all those decisions. Joe Lieberman has been right a lot more than he's been wrong and he deserves better than to be bested by a one-note candidate from Greenwich.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
...or didn't everyone know that Mel Gibson was an antisemite.
There are only be two types of people here:
People who saw "The Passion of the Christ" and pegged old Mel as the biggest Jew-hater in Hollywood
or...
Those who have taken another look at TPOTC since last weekend's episode and, banging the heel of their right hand into their forehead, exclaimed, "Oh wow! How did I miss that?"
The death of Christ happened long ago in a galaxy far, far away. There's a reason they call it ancient history. There seems no more to be gained by nailing (sorry!) the Jews for the execution of Jesus than blaming the Founding Fathers for slavery. Does the phrase "get over it" sound familar?
Anyway, back to the event of Friday night in Los Angeles County.
When you live in a big city and you are thrown in to subway cars, ball parks, and movie lines with many racial and ethnic groups you learn two things: everyone has a prejudice or two, and, if you want to keep all your teeth you keep your prejudices to yourself. I have been in situations where someone (not me) has said something he wished he hadn't. It changes everything. Having betrayed a dirty little part of yourself, you are marked forever. If you slip in the wrong place that mark could be a rearranged nose.
Long after Jay and Dave get tired of shooting arrows into Mr Gibson, the stigma will remain. No amount of sackcloth and ashes will save poor Mel. Every news story for the next ten years will remind us, "...In Hollywood today, Oscar-winning actor, director (and jew-hater) Mel Gibson announced that he is paying to have Jerusalem's wailing wall spackled and repainted. " Forget it, Mel. You can eat Hebrew National franks and be seen schmoozing with everyone from Speilberg to Jackie Mason and you'll still be marked, 'putz'."
I guess it could have been worse. Had Mr. Gibson expressed similar feelings about black people, he would need to change his name and move to Mars. Al Sharpton would have immediately told the cameras that he knew about Mel along. "I knew that Gibson was a racist as soon as I saw Braveheart. Where were the black actors in that one?"
The undeniable truth of this story is that, when booze is involved, truth will out. Alcohol has the nasty habit of eroding the little filters between your brain and your mouth. The floral industry in America owes its prosperity to the millions of bouquets purchased to atone for beer-induced invictives made by HUI (Hunbands Under the Influence). What sober guy ever told his wife that her mother looked like Mr. Ed or defiantly bragged about boinking her sister? Guys may exaggerate their income and the size of their tool but no one makes-up bigotry.
Mel Gibson is in the sales business: his product is him. It doesn't do to run around alienating large segments of the movie-going public. When it comes to public figures, people can be funny. Tom Cruise has managed to take a wonderful film career and send it swirling toward the drain. Mel is about to learn the real meaning of "Apocalypto."
There are only be two types of people here:
People who saw "The Passion of the Christ" and pegged old Mel as the biggest Jew-hater in Hollywood
or...
Those who have taken another look at TPOTC since last weekend's episode and, banging the heel of their right hand into their forehead, exclaimed, "Oh wow! How did I miss that?"
The death of Christ happened long ago in a galaxy far, far away. There's a reason they call it ancient history. There seems no more to be gained by nailing (sorry!) the Jews for the execution of Jesus than blaming the Founding Fathers for slavery. Does the phrase "get over it" sound familar?
Anyway, back to the event of Friday night in Los Angeles County.
When you live in a big city and you are thrown in to subway cars, ball parks, and movie lines with many racial and ethnic groups you learn two things: everyone has a prejudice or two, and, if you want to keep all your teeth you keep your prejudices to yourself. I have been in situations where someone (not me) has said something he wished he hadn't. It changes everything. Having betrayed a dirty little part of yourself, you are marked forever. If you slip in the wrong place that mark could be a rearranged nose.
Long after Jay and Dave get tired of shooting arrows into Mr Gibson, the stigma will remain. No amount of sackcloth and ashes will save poor Mel. Every news story for the next ten years will remind us, "...In Hollywood today, Oscar-winning actor, director (and jew-hater) Mel Gibson announced that he is paying to have Jerusalem's wailing wall spackled and repainted. " Forget it, Mel. You can eat Hebrew National franks and be seen schmoozing with everyone from Speilberg to Jackie Mason and you'll still be marked, 'putz'."
I guess it could have been worse. Had Mr. Gibson expressed similar feelings about black people, he would need to change his name and move to Mars. Al Sharpton would have immediately told the cameras that he knew about Mel along. "I knew that Gibson was a racist as soon as I saw Braveheart. Where were the black actors in that one?"
The undeniable truth of this story is that, when booze is involved, truth will out. Alcohol has the nasty habit of eroding the little filters between your brain and your mouth. The floral industry in America owes its prosperity to the millions of bouquets purchased to atone for beer-induced invictives made by HUI (Hunbands Under the Influence). What sober guy ever told his wife that her mother looked like Mr. Ed or defiantly bragged about boinking her sister? Guys may exaggerate their income and the size of their tool but no one makes-up bigotry.
Mel Gibson is in the sales business: his product is him. It doesn't do to run around alienating large segments of the movie-going public. When it comes to public figures, people can be funny. Tom Cruise has managed to take a wonderful film career and send it swirling toward the drain. Mel is about to learn the real meaning of "Apocalypto."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)