morialekafa

Republican Wonderland

2009-12-21T22:35:00.000-08:00

Man dressed in a barrel and
Santa Claus hat, arrested
for defacing Las Vegas sign.

Alice’s bizarre adventures in Wonderland would seem to have nothing on the Republican adventures in politics. Republicans announced months ago, after Obama was elected to the Presidency, they wanted him to fail. They also promised they were not going to cooperate and were, in fact, proud to be the party of “No.” They have voted NO religiously every since, to a person (except for one vote by Olympia Snow). Now that the Democrats have managed to pass a Senate health care bill against the overwhelming opposition from Republicans, these latter are now complaining it was not a bipartisan bill. If that does not one up Alice in Wonderland I wonder what would? Republican refusal to cooperate on health care (and everything else) has meant Democrats have been forced to give outrageous concessions to a few Democratic shills for the Insurance companies, like lifetime Medicaid expenses to the state of Nebraska, and other concessions to Lieberman to get their required 60 votes. And now the Republicans have the gall to criticize this. But I think all this pales into insignificance when you consider what Republicans are actually doing, deliberating killing health care reform if they possibly can. Put simply, Republicans do not want American citizens to enjoy universal health care. Put even more basically, they want Americans to continue to suffer illnesses and deaths and misery, to say nothing of bankruptcies caused by health related expenses. They apparently want this to continue so badly they even pray for it to happen. Apparently many Americans do not understand that Republicans are their deadly enemies who want them to die and go bankrupt, presumably because the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries have pumped so many billions of dollars into outright lies and misinformation about health care and the ability of the government to manage it.

If it is not bad enough that Republicans in general are opposed to health care reform, they have forced the Democrats to have to deal with a pair of Democratic Senators who are being paid by the Insurance industries to help kill any reform. Joe Lieberman has refused to vote even on things he himself once proposed for health care, piously claiming he is ideologically opposed (all of the sudden). Ben Nelson is using the excuse that he does not believe abortion should be funded by government money, but he is himself an old Insurance man and obviously is in the pockets of the Insurance giants, piously claiming his reasons for opposing health care have to do with how abortions are being paid for. These two hypocrites having been bribed to vote for cloture are now threatening to vote against the combined bill when it finally materializes out of the House and Senate. In short, they are going to keep millions of Americans without health care because of their claimed personal beliefs. We are apparently supposed to accept the fact that Ben Nelson’s private beliefs about abortion are so strong he is going to allow hundreds of thousands to die from other causes, while Lieberman will let them die because his beliefs about government programs is stronger than the lives of others. What hypocrisy, what bullshit, what unconscionable and unbelievable positions, all for money.

The Republican Party has done something I believe is completely unprecedented in American political affairs – they have taken their ball and gone home, refusing to play. Given what is at stake for the United States, when it comes to all of our current problems, two “wars,” a recession, unemployment, global warming, a dysfunctional health care system, and so on, this petulant infantilism simply cannot be permitted. They have no right to desert our country in its time of need, even desperate need. Republicans have abandoned any pretense of being interested in the welfare of our country or our citizens, they seek only to regain power so they can continue to loot the taxpayers and give even more to those who already have far too much. Make no mistake about it, these are evil, greedy people who will apparently do anything to achieve their goal of autocracy, where a few at the top will apparently be able to fulfill their desire to build a new paradise for the wealthy while the rest of us, having lost our homes, can live once again in mud huts and tenements and work for the Lords who own everything.

It is not at all obvious that the Democrats are going to prevent this from happening, for they, too, with a few remarkable exceptions, seem to be willing to do the corporate bidding. We have come dangerously close to a one party system that is going to separate us into haves and have-nots, the super wealthy and the poor, the Rulers and the ruled, the “Divine Rights of the Rich,” against the piteous cries of the peasants. What is even more threatening in this situation is that unless Obama changes course and begins to act as he said he would, or some new truly remarkable leader emerges, we could end up with Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, representing the growing body of tea baggers, full of sound and fury, but so ignorant, inept, and incompetent they would be totally unable to govern.

All in the golden afternoon
Full leisurely we glide,
For both our oars with little skill
By little arms are plied
While little hands make vain pretense
Our wanderings to guide.
Lewis Carroll

True Compass - book

2009-12-20T22:06:00.000-08:00

True Compass a Memoir, Edward M. Kennedy (Twelve, N.Y. and Boston, 2009)

This wonderful book is more than a memoir, it’s a love story, a love story about family, place, and tradition. It is also about the love of sailing, the sea, duty and obligation, the Senate, and even more fundamentally, love of country. I found it truly inspiring and I would recommend it to everyone.

Edward Moore (Teddy) Kennedy, the youngest of the nine Kennedy children, spent his life in public service, trying to do what he felt best for his country and its citizens. His was a remarkable family, born into wealth and privilege; none of the Kennedy children would have needed to spend their lives in public service, but all of them (with the exception of the unfortunate Rosemary) did, in one way or another, three of them paying the ultimate sacrifice for their choices: Joe Jr., killed on a volunteer airplane mission during WWII, John and Bobby both assassinated. Teddy, who might have seemed at first to be the least likely to rise to the heights, after some youthful mistakes, then hard work and perseverance, was rewarded by being elected to the Senate by age thirty, representing Massachusetts for forty-seven years thereafter.

This memoir was begun in 2004 as part of an oral history program at the University of Virginia. In it Senator Kennedy reviews his fifty years of public service, describing his role in the election of his brother John to the Presidency, his work on civil rights, Vietnam, Watergate, Northern Ireland, health care, and on through to his role in the election of Barack Obama and his unfortunate health problem at the end of his life. He also reviews the politics of his brother Bobby, the Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush years, and much more.

In addition to being an enlightening discussion of American politics in the past fifty years it is also a fascinating personal account of his early life, his father and mother, his siblings, all of whom he adored, his first wife, Joan, from whom he was amicably divorced after many productive years together, and finally his second wife, Vicki, whom he credits for changing his life. Whatever questions there may be about his father, Joe Sr., and the source of the family fortune, there is no doubt his youngest child worshipped and was inspired by him, and also no doubt that he raised an incredibly fine family. Jackie Kennedy is highly praised along with all of Ted’s siblings. In spite of the fact they were all brought up to be highly competitive, there seems to have been a remarkable absence of serious sibling rivalry. Ted was awed by all of his older brothers and felt he had to live up to their remarkably high standards.

If there was any major flaw in Senator Kennedy’s character it might have been his penchant for occasional bad judgments. This can be seen in his early school days when he sometimes engaged in questionable practical jokes, was certainly featured in the Harvard scandal when he allowed another person to take a Spanish exam for him, resulting in a year’s suspension, and can be seen in other cases as well. Curiously enough, sometimes what I take to be his bad decisions turned out to have positive consequences, as, for example, when he agreed to ride a bucking bronco in a Wyoming rodeo, something he had never done before, which turned some Wyoming voters more favorable to his brother John’s quest for the Presidency. On another occasion he attempted a serious ski jump with no previous experience that again gained him favor. He could easily have been seriously hurt on both of these attempts but, as luck would have it, he wasn’t. His later bad judgment at Chappaquiddick, however, was to haunt him the rest of his life and helped to keep him from the Presidency he later sought. There is no way of knowing what actually transpired on that unfortunate evening, but he does confess to bad judgment, and I have no reason to seriously question his account. I do believe there was absolutely no romantic involvement with Mary Jo Kopechne, contrary to the scurrilous accounts at the time. Kennedy does admit to sometimes drinking and partying too much, and enjoying the company of women, but there is no indication of the notorious philandering characteristic of John. After the assassination of Bobby, Ted became the oldest male of the Kennedy clan, and as such responsible for their welfare. He performed these duties cheerfully and well. He was a good father, a responsible uncle, and a fine grandfather. If there was a dark side to Teddy Kennedy we would not expect to find it in his autobiographical memoir, perhaps future biographers will uncover something, but I doubt they will find anything very telling. The fact seems to be that although Edward M. Kennedy was, like all of us, flawed in some ways, he was always on the right side, if the right side involves trying to do what is best for the American public. He was a “liberal’s liberal,” who spent his entire career trying to improve the lot of his constituents as well as the public at large, attempting to look out for those lacking but needing influence. Unlike many of our current Senators there is no suggestion he was “bought” by subversive elements attempting to keep us in chains. He was, in short, a good and great man, representing what I believe to be the best in America. He did, as well as he could, follow a “true compass.”

Do I envy Kennedy’s birth into material wealth and privilege? Of course, in a way I do, but what I envy most is his being born into intellectual privilege, into a family that valued learning and knowledge, the wherewithal to achieve it, and the motivation and resources to convert it into notable public service.

Iranaphobia

2009-12-19T22:48:00.000-08:00

Killer of three trips over
his baggy pants and falls
to his death from fire escape.

One of the first things I heard this morning when I turned on my TV was an announcer telling us that Iran would not have missiles that would reach the United States for at least ten years. Boy, was I glad to hear that. Apparently some people worry about such things. They seem to believe that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and missiles to attack us, or at least Israel. I cannot understand this paranoia when it comes to Iran. Does anyone with a mind above that of a second grader really believe that Iran is preparing to attack the U.S., or even Israel? Do they think the Iranians are so stupid as to believe either the U.S., Israel, or even the rest of the world would somehow fall to their weapons, no matter what they were without some kind of massive retaliation that would destroy them? This is about the stupidest idea I have ever heard. If it is true that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb (and there is no evidence for this), and if it is also true they are trying to develop missiles with a longer range (that they probably are), they are obviously developing them to protect themselves from being attacked by Israel and the U.S. who constantly threaten them. As I can see no objective basis for believing we are about to be attacked by Iran I am forced to conclude that our verbal and probably illicit spying on them has to do with our hostile attitudes towards them rather than vice versa, trying to set the stage for an Israeli attack (with our blessing). Iran has not attacked another country for over 200 years, can we say as much?

It appears that the Senate has completed its dirty work and managed to more or less kill any meaningful reform of our totally dysfunctional for-profit health care system. The optimistic view seems to be that when the Senate bill has to be reconciled with the House bill something meaningful might ensue. I doubt it. I don’t believe our Congress or President had any serious intention of reforming health care. If they had they would have worked toward a single-payer system in the first place. They gave in to the Insurance industry before they even started. And with their billions of dollars to spend on false advertising, and their hundreds and hundreds of lobbyists, they have apparently managed to convince many Americans that health care is just too expensive, the government is too incompetent, or what they have is the greatest health care in the world. I guess people will believe anything if they see it repeated often enough on TV or hear it often enough on talk radio. I find it utterly amazing that there are some people who would seemingly rather die than have government health insurance. You can thank Saint Ronnie for helping convince people that government is all bad.

A California man, instead of having a crèche on his lawn, had a scene of Jesus shooting Santa Claus. Jesus is standing there pointing a double-gauge shotgun at Santa who is lying dead on the lawn. I gather one of the reindeer was stretched over a fender of the car. When the neighbors complained he claimed it was a work of art, with Santa representing commercialism. Not bad, but they will probably try to crucify him.

I hate to dwell on it, but I cannot reconcile myself to the fact that so many of our “leaders” in Congress and elsewhere simply do not want all American citizens to have health care. Until now I would never have believed this could be the case. How can any thinking, feeling, responsible, human being be opposed to health care for his/her fellow citizens, some of them to the point of actually praying they not have it? I do not have a very high opinion of human nature, it is true, but I would never have believed this. To me this represents greed, selfishness, and egocentrism magnified to the highest degree possible. I believe there are animal species that have more concern for their fellows than human beings do. I find this shocking and I am having a great deal of trouble trying to accept it. What makes it worse is that this seems to be a peculiarly American problem. All the rest of the industrialized world provides universal health care, and even in non-industrialized countries, not matter how “primitive,” people try to help those who are ill and cannot care for themselves. In the New Guinea Highlands, where I lived for a time with people who might be said to have been still living “in the stone age,” people took care of others when necessary. If someone became so old and inform they could not longer care for themselves someone would bring them food and firewood, often someone who had just volunteered to do it. They did not believe in modern medicine, the little they knew of it, but they cared for each other. They did not say, “I’ve got mine, you get yours.” When it comes to empathy and caring for each other it is capitalism that is the truly “primitive” form of society.

LKBIQ:
What we need to do is learn to work in the system, by which I mean that everybody, every team, every platform, every division, every component is there not for individual competitive profit or recognition, but for contribution to the system as a whole on a win-win basis.
W. Edwards Deming

TILT:
There are 33 football bowl games this year.

Tabloids

2009-12-17T22:39:00.000-08:00

Four-year-old boy, with open
can of beer, found stealing
neighbor’s Christmas presents.

Tabloids, you know, those sensationalistic papers you cannot avoid while standing in line to check out of the supermarket, have become an item of interest to me. They also feature huge headlines like “Hippo gives birth to giant watermelon,” or “Tiger Woods seen dating Hillary Clinton,” or “Oprah Winfrey has only six minutes to live,” and other such gripping tales of utter foolishness designed to make you want to read them immediately (if, that is, you are a complete idiot). Anyway, they became of interest to me simply because I remarked to my wife that in all of my 80 years of life I had never, ever, seen anyone buy one of these rags. She replied that I must not be paying attention because people buy them all the time. I doubted this, but in the spirit of continued discussion I suggested I didn’t see how they could stay in business, just producing so much BS all the time. My wife, who is a very intelligent woman most of the time, but occasionally comes up with something that seems to me to be impossibly wrong-headed, said they stay in business because lots of people buy them. I suggested that was impossible, they could not survive just by the number of papers (I’ve never been able to decide if these are newspapers or magazines) people buy, they must have lots of advertisers. But, as I had never actually read one of these tabloids, I couldn’t prove it. Thus I was faced with having to somehow obtain one of these items. The thought of actually paying for one never crossed my mind. First of all, I could never pay money for something so frivolous and useless, but more importantly, I felt it would be degrading. I have already been stung by the looks I received from the checkout people when I bought pig’s feet, squid, and octopus, all of which they regarded with horror. My wife suggested I simply peruse one of the tabloids while in the store, an activity that I regarded as something akin to shoplifting, and besides, would make me look ridiculous. It’s easy to read the covers, in fact almost impossible not to, as they feature the damn things right there at eye level no more than a couple feet from where you are forced to stand and wait. But I wanted to get inside one to see who advertised and how lavishly in these fantastic journalistic masterpieces of utter crap. In desperation I approached a young man standing idly by and suggested that perhaps he would buy one of these for me when he went through the line. Apparently thinking I had asked him to perform an unnatural act, he looked at me with such disgust and sidled away so fast I feared he might call the police so I quickly left. The next day I tried to screw up my courage enough to buy The National Enquirer that featured a particularly racy headline. I thought I might explain to the clerk that I was buying it as part of a scientific study. Then, remembering that scientists here are regarded as people who spend their lives trying to prevent the locals from doing everything they would like to do, like killing all the animals, cutting down all the trees, polluting and damming all the rivers, and so on, I chickened out at the last minute. The following day, knowing my wife was going to the store, I slyly said, “Buy me a National Enquirer while you’re there.” She is no fool, my wife, she looked at me like she was about to step on a stink bug, and said, “Oh, no, Buster, if you want an Enquirer, buy it yourself.” I begged and pleaded, but to no avail whatsoever. Finally, exasperated, she said, ”Look it up on the web.” I did. I didn’t find out much, but I did learn that of course they have advertising, lots of it. When I tried to say, “I told you so,” she pretended she didn’t remember the original conversation. Everyone has to save face.

But enough of my misadventures with tabloids, let’s turn to serious stuff, like health care reform. It seems that now there are three schools of thought about what is currently happening. Everyone seems to agree the bill about to come out of the Senate is pretty terrible, but one group of people thinks it should pass because “it’s better than a kick in the ass,” and presumably can be improved later. Another group, those who did not want any reform in the first place (Republicans), and have done everything possible to destroy it, want it simply junked so we can start over (thus making it probably impossible to have any reform for a long, long time). A third group (that I gather might exist), following Dean, thinks the bulk of the bill should be scrapped but we should try to keep at least some portions of it (this group has been improperly cited as supporting the second group that wants it killed). I guess the strategy that will be followed is to pass any bill possible out of the Senate and hope that it can be improved when it must be reconciled with the House bill that is much better. I have sadly come to the conclusion that this is mostly farce. I doubt that Obama or anyone else truly wanted to reform health care, in spite of their claims. If they had they would have opted for a single-payer system in the first place, one that would have eliminated Insurance companies entirely. As far as I am concerned any bill they might pass would not constitute health care reform unless it eliminates entirely the Insurance companies. There is no reason whatsoever why Insurance companies should be involved in health care. They contribute nothing, skim off enormous profits for doing nothing except shuffling paperwork, and represent the privatization of health care. Health care, like the water we use and the air we breathe, and other very basic necessities of life, should not be privatized. It is possible, of course, to argue that health care is perhaps not a god-given, or even natural right, but it is certainly a priviledge (if not a right) that should be awarded the citizens of any so-called “civilized” society. We are seeing right now before our eyes the basic fact that our country is being controlled by Insurance and Bank companies, along with other huge corporate entities that are not going to allow us universal health care without their obscene profits being insured. They win, we (ordinary citizens) lose. President Obama and our “leaders” in Congress have sold us out once again. So be of good cheer, Christmas is here, there is peace and good will towards men everywhere (except on earth).

LKBIQ:
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Bible

TILT:
There are people in the United States, right now, actually praying that 30 million of their peers not receive health care.

A Terrible Misunderstanding?

2009-12-16T22:07:00.000-08:00

Drunken Santa stumbles
out of car, hugs children,
asks where his reindeer are.

Can you believe the mess we seem to be in? Obviously somewhere along the way there has been a terrible misunderstanding. I thought, and I guess Democrats thought, that citizens of the United States would like to have universal health care, as does all of the rest of the industrialized world. Apparently this is not so. After months of (presumably) hard work to pass a health care reform bill of some kind, instituting universal care, reducing costs, and stopping some of the more criminal policies of our greedy Insurance companies, it appears this attempt is going the way of all previous attempts to reform health care, namely, nowhere. There are two reasons for this, one of which I could have predicted, the other I would not have thought possible.

It is no secret that the Insurance giants, pharmaceutical giants, and some others, are willing to do anything to prevent any change in the system of graft they have enjoyed for so many years. And as they have so much money they can pretty much undermine any serious attempt to change our dysfunctional health care system. This was predictable. I do not think it was predictable that every single Republican, with no exceptions, decided not to cooperate in any way. More importantly, however, some of those Republicans, joined by a small number of Democrats, are known to be essentially bribed by these corporations to do whatever they can to prevent any positive action on health care reform. They have been doing a fine job of obstruction, thus preventing 30 or more millions of their fellow citizens from enjoying any kind of health care at all. How they can possibly ignore their consciences I do not know. I do know that the reasons they offer for resisting health care reform are not the real reasons, and this is especially true of Joe (the Killer) Lieberman. Given the nature of our current political system I guess it is not surprising that Senators and Congresspersons can be bribed to essentially betray their fellow citizens, and do so with some regularity. We do indeed have the best Congress money can buy.

While I think this is unconscionable and even despicable, I am not surprised by it. What does surprise me, and where I believe there has been a terrible misunderstanding, is that such large numbers of citizens apparently would rather have no health care at all than have some form of governmental health care system. Frankly, I am at a loss to explain or understand this. Somehow, in recent years, people have been taught to distrust their government, and what is even worse, they have been taught to believe that government is incompetent to run things. I mean, we do have things like the Postal Service, Medicare, Veterans Care, Social Security, universal education (at least through grammar school), and such. And we do have Federal laws that function pretty well, and highways, and things like that (for which we pay taxes of course, for how else would we have them). For the most part these institutions, laws, and practices function very well (with the exception perhaps of education). But we hear this almost constant refrain coming from Republicans and their fellow travelers, “Do you want the government between you and your doctor?” I fail to see why having the government between you and your doctor (which is not actually something that would happen in any case) is any worse than having an Insurance person between you and your doctor. These kinds of claims lead me to believe that those making them have never had any experience with private corporations. I could tell you horror stories for a week about trying to deal with Insurance companies, telephone companies, energy companies, banks, and so on, experiences far worse than anything I have ever encountered when dealing with a governmental agency (although of course there are sometimes problems with them also). When you have a problem with some governmental agency you know they are at least not trying to maximize their profit at your expense. In principle, at least, governmental agencies are there specifically to try to help you with your problem, something that cannot be said for private companies nowadays who can rarely even offer a human voice to discuss your problem.

I do not understand where this irrational hatred and suspicion of government comes from. I find it interesting, even fascinating, that probably the majority of citizens in the county in which I reside are in one way or another on the “dole.” They get farm subsidies, social security, government jobs, unemployment insurance, dependency aid, welfare, food stamps, and so on. Even 4-H kids sometimes get subsidies. They also get their roads fixed, police protection, fire departments, and so on. And yet the very people who enjoy this government largesse are the ones who complain the most about government (and also at the same time pride themselves on being “rugged individualists,“ who whine incessantly about having to pay taxes). I do not believe this began with Saint Ronnie, but he certainly helped it along.

This dismal situation is related to the fear of socialism, which dates back to the late 19th and early 20th century when socialism was actually an active and important social movement trying to organize unions and improve the lot of working people (which, in fact they did). I believe there is an inverse correlation between the suspicion of socialism and any actual knowledge of it, and those vocal opponents of Obama who claim he is a socialist are so far from reality they might as well be on another planet entirely. That there seem to be so many of these appallingly ignorant citizens I find frightening. Our corporate masters with the elaborate propaganda organs (the MSM) they own and control have done a fine job in virtually eliminating any semblance of critical thought in our country. Why so many of our citizens would apparently rather die than have universal health care administered by their own government is a mystery so grotesque we should find a slogan to inscribe on their tombstones, something along the lines of, “I died a martyr to my own ignorance,” or something like that.

LKBIQ:
To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost.
Gustave Flaubert

TILT:
Milkfish bellies are a national dish of the Philippines.

Economics?

2009-12-15T22:35:00.000-08:00

Man gets life in prison
for killing wife in dispute
over christmas tree lights.

Inspired by my recent reading of The Invisible Hook, an economic analysis of piracy, I have decided I should take economics more seriously than I have up to now. I have some questions that seem to be of a basic economic nature that I would like to understand. I confess I have long regarded economics as the “dismal science” and likened it to witchcraft, but I have decided to try to be more objective about it.

My first question has to do with gold. Every day I notice we are being beseeched to buy gold. Gold is said to be a wonderful hedge against inflation, just seems to increase in value forever, and should be part of everyone’s portfolio. I don’t really have what you might consider a portfolio but nonetheless I think about buying gold (I don’t have any money to buy gold either, but that doesn’t keep me from thinking about it). I don’t know what the price of gold is at the moment but I believe I heard somewhere that it is now well above a thousand dollars an ounce. That is truly expensive for gold as it used to be worth for a long time somewhere in the vicinity of 35 dollars an ounce. I do not understand how gold could be worth so much, and I would certainly not buy it at its current price. One of my questions has to do with the gold standard that we long ago abandoned. You know, it used to be the case that a dollar was backed up by a dollar’s worth of gold. There are some, like Ron Paul, I believe, who think we should go back to the gold standard. But given the amount of dollars we have printed since we went off the gold standard, is there enough gold in the world to back them up? I somehow doubt it, so I don’t think we could go back to the gold standard even if we wished to do so. Another question about gold that troubles me has to do with its intrinsic worth. I once knew an Economic Anthropologist who knew about such things and I asked him one day why gold was worth anything. He explained that unlike paper dollars and such, gold had an intrinsic value in that it could be used for practical things, like gold fillings in your teeth, gold watches, and other forms of jewelry. I guess it may have certain industrial uses beyond that but I don’t know what they are or how important they are. However, I do know that gold is no longer used to fill teeth, nor is it used to make handsome gold pocket watches or gold watch fobs, or such things. And as it is now so expensive I doubt that most people can buy the jewelry that it is used to make. I have concluded that the price of gold is mostly determined by the hype those who sell it use to get us to buy it. And as I know that historically the price goes up and down, sometimes dramatically, I would not advise anyone to buy it at the current prices. For those who buy and sell it, it doesn’t matter what the going price is, as long as they know enough to get in and out before the suckers. But, then, what do I know, I’m not an economist.

Another economic question that has been troubling me has to do with unemployment. It seems that unemployment has slowed considerably in recent weeks, leading some to conclude that the worst of it is over. But I do not understand why this is so. That is, it seems to me there must be a finite number of jobs in the United States. That means to me there are only so many jobs that can be lost. As jobs have been lost month after month for a long time, does that not mean that the number of jobs lost has to diminish simply because there are not that many jobs left than can be lost? If this is so, does it mean that the job market will necessarily pick up? I think it might, and I hope it might, but I cannot see why the slowing of the loss of jobs indicates that. Of course if we have arrived at the point where no more jobs can possibly be lost, and we are all still alive, I guess employment would have to go up as it cannot go down any further. But why could it not just stay where it is forever? I trust you appreciate my confusion here.

If my above (primitive) economic analysis of jobs makes any sense, how about applying it to mortgages as well? That is, like jobs, there must be a finite number of mortgages that can fail. As they have been failing at an alarming rate for a long time, could it not be the case that mortgage failures would necessarily have to slow down or even stop? And if this happens, can it be taken as a positive sign that the mortgage crisis is over? I wouldn’t think so, but, again, what do I know?

I would like to think that a crash course in economics might help me understand what is happening with respect to employment, mortgages, and even gold. But as I know already that for any given question you can find two equally respectable economists who will completely disagree, would it really be helpful? I would almost surely fail at economics because I do not believe people act rationally in the first place, and at the moment I see nothing coming out of Congress or anywhere else that would cause me to change my mind.

LKBIQ:
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith

TILT:
Deer are much, much smarter than you think.

In the Culture of the Absurd

2009-12-14T22:46:00.000-08:00

German man floors pensioner,
steals his shopping cart. Oldster
retaliates by attacking with a salami.

Little did I know that my golfing idol, Tiger Woods, was not only going after Jack Nichols record of 18 major tournament wins, he was apparently also going after Wilt Chamberlain’s (exaggerated and unobtainable) record of 2000 sexual liaisons. Can you imagine how much money Tiger could make endorsing something like Viagra or Cialis? I saw today somewhere that Tiger’s conquests now stand at l6. I have no idea if this is true, no idea what all was involved, and, in fact, I don’t care. I promise here and now I will no longer mention Tiger Woods and sex together forever.

But speaking of absurd things, does no one appreciate how absurd it is that only one Senator, by himself, can potentially block health care reform for millions of his fellow citizens. Joe Lieberman is threatening to do just that, and his fellow Democrats are apparently going to let him get away with it. Rather than negotiate with him they should move his office into some convenient latrine, take away his Chairmanships, refuse to talk to him, and, if that doesn’t work, run him down the Senate steps tarred, feathered, and completely disgraced. Given the fact that Lieberman has done a complete about face more than once when it comes to this health care business, I suspect he may actually be crazy. Only a complete and total jerk could possibly bask in the negative attention he is getting. He seems to thrive on it.

Another absurdity of our Culture of the Absurd here in the U.S. was revealed tonight by Rachel Maddow. It seems there are seven states in which it is written into their state constitutions that atheists cannot hold public office. Ignore for the moment that this is entirely unconstitutional, as the constitution says clearly no religious tests can be required for holding office, and think of the fact that this represents a world view somewhere on the level of the Cro-Magnons (no, this probably does even them a disservice). Religious beliefs of this kind seem to be widely held in the U.S., far more than in any other industrialized nations, and can exist only because of an educational level akin to that of the Afghans (who are said to be only about 8% literate).

We traveled to Coeur d’Alene to do some business and Christmas shopping. As I predicted it was hideous, with that awful music being played everywhere and shoppers apparently oblivious to each other, shoving and pushing, grabbing and lining up like a bunch of idiots to buy mostly Chinese junk. I was struck again on the way by just how much storage has become big business in the U.S. There are huge storage facilities being built everywhere, as if there is no end to the demand. I guess everyone has to have a place to stash the junk they buy at Christmas. As I have observed previously, there is something very wrong with a culture that requires so much storage.

My wife prepared beef cheeks for the first time. I found them to be quite delicious, although I could see nothing in them that set them aside very importantly from most other cuts of beef. I guess their emergence in some of the more upscale or trendy restaurants lately probably has more to do with the novelty than with the taste. Food in general in the U.S. is another example of the absurdity of our culture. Fast foods predominate, along with obesity, and the apparently completely lost appreciation of dining. It seems like the easier something can be prepared, and the faster, the more appealing it is to most consumers. This goes hand in hand with corporate farming, genetically modified foods, and a diet that consists now mostly of corn that has to be subsidized to be grown. One of the great paradoxes of our time, it seems to me, is how can it be that our food and eating habits grow progressively worse at the same time we are living longer (of course we don’t live as long as many other people who eat much healthier foods, but we are living longer than we used to). I think this has to be the result of health care, but, then, as so many do not have health care, this would not seem to be a very good explanation. I shall have to look into this more carefully.

LKBIQ:
It is very difficult to know people and I don't think one can ever really know any but one's own countrymen. For men and women are not only themselves; they are also the region in which they are born, the city apartment or the farm in which they learnt to walk, the games they played as children, the old wives' tales they overheard, the food they ate, the schools they attended, the sports they followed, the poets they read, and the God they believed in. It is all these things that have made them what they are, and these are the things that you can't come to know by hearsay, you can only know them if you have lived them.
W. Somerset Maugham

TILT:
When cooking octopus, remember it will shrink to less than half its original size.

The Invisible Hook - book

2009-12-13T22:03:00.000-08:00

The Invisible Hook The Hidden Economics of Pirates, by Peter T. Leeson (Princeton University Press, 2009)

I must say this is the first book I have ever read where the dedication is a proposal (I believe she accepted).

Peter T. Leeson is not a historian, anthropologist, or sociologist, he is an economist. Thus his approach to this analysis of Pirates and their behavior begins with the usual economic assumptions: (1) individuals are self-interested, (2) they are rational, and (3) they respond to incentives. Beginning with these rather formulaic assumptions, Leeson goes on to (quite predictably) demonstrate that Pirates, far from being irrational, lustful, revengeful, or insanely criminal, were in fact rational beings that acted in their own self interest most of the time. He describes how Pirates basically invented democracy far earlier than it came to England or the United States (or most anywhere else exceed ancient Greece). They did so out of necessity, he argues, because being beyond the laws of anywhere, they were forced to govern themselves and democracy proved the most useful way of doing so. According to Leeson, Pirate Captains were elected officials who could be replaced by their crews if they did not act properly. They also invented checks and balances because in addition to the Captain there was also an elected Quartermaster with a great deal of power, including the right to divvy up the loot. The Captain and the Quartermaster usually received a slightly larger share than the others but this was not excessive. The Captain’s main responsibility was to lead the crew in battle when taking over other ships. Both the captain and the Quartermaster could be voted out of office if they were found violating the terms of their offices. There was also, according to Leeson, a well-established Pirate Code that was followed by most if not all Pirates. This code, like most everything else, was designed to help Pirates maximize profits, and it limited in many ways what they were permitted to do to captives and each other.

Even the Pirate flag, the “Jolly Roger” (usually but not always a skull and crossbones) was designed for the purpose of helping to maximize profits. It did this by instilling such fear in their prey they would more or less gladly turn over their wealth rather than meet what were believed fearsome tortures and such that Pirates employed. And even the tortures were controlled and designed to maximize profits, in ways that Leeson explains in some detail. Walking the plank, he assures us, did not actually occur, and torture was not as widespread as everyone believed, as it would not have been economically rewarding beyond a certain point.

Pirate conscription is also discussed in detail in this interesting account. As you probably know, the British and others were notorious for the ways they conscripted individuals to serve in their navies, and you also doubtless are aware that service in the maritime industry was for ordinary seamen a most unpleasant experience. Not only were their floggings and other methods of severe punishment meted out at the whim of Captains, the pay was also very slight. It was from these regular navy vessels that many Pirates were recruited, as they could potentially make more money in a year than in forty years in the regular service (this is one reason the powers of Pirate Captains came to be limited). Part of the Pirate Code held that if a pirate was injured he would be paid a recompense geared to the seriousness of his injuries, a custom that did not exist in the regular service. Leeson also discusses the practice of equal pay for all (except for the Captain and Quartermaster), and the fact that this held even in the case of black Pirates (again, this was not because of lack of racial prejudice, but, rather, economic practicalities).

There is a chapter on “The Secrets of Pirate Management” that is of interest as compared with other management techniques, the conclusion being that Pirate Management was designed over time to deal with the unusual demands of Pirate society, being essentially lawless and otherwise unrestrained, but at the same time needing to always maximize profits for these early 17th and 18th century entrepreneurs. They were for a couple of hundred years pretty successful for a variety of reasons discussed, but of course quite a few eventually ended up on the gallows. There is little concern in this book with such uneconomic matters such as lust, sadism, revenge, pathology, or other human emotions or motives. Rape, for example, is not even mentioned as a possibility, and interpersonal relations on shipboard are deal with rather casually (he does claim that women and boys were not allowed on ships, however). Leeson does mention, more or less in passing, that such things might have occurred, but apparently for him they were somewhat rare aberrations. Nor does he deal with the basic question of leadership, assuming that all Captains were democratically elected and generally followed the rules. I find this not very convincing and I suspect that some Pirate Captains were not as democratic as he wants to believe.

In any case, this is an interesting book, and it does give a picture of Piracy that I am sure bears some resemblance to the real thing. While reading this account I began to wonder why all men do not act so rationally and inevitably become democratic, towards the end he discusses this. As for the “Invisible Hook,” he explains: “If the invisible hand examines the hidden order behind the metaphorical “anarchy of the market,” the invisible hook examines the hidden order behind the literal anarchy of pirates.”

Notes on Christmas

2009-12-12T22:35:00.000-08:00

I confess to being of two (or more) minds when it comes to Christmas. On the one hand I like the idea of the tree all decorated, hanging stockings, exchanging gifts, and even the pretense of peace on earth and goodwill to men and all that. But then there is the unfortunate reality of the Season. First of all there are those (to me) unbelievably dreary Christmas carols that I have heard every year now for 80 years. You know, the religious ones about mangers and wise men and angels and round yon virgins and stuff like that. If I find these dreary I must say I find the more secular Christmas songs absolutely insipid. Jingle Bells isn’t so bad, except that having heard it probably thousands of times it no longer does anything for me. But beyond Jingle Bells things really get stupid, “I Saw Mommie Kissing Santa Claus,” for example, or that all-time winner that made Gene Autrey so famous, “Rudolf the Red-Nose Reindeer.” I mean really insipid stuff that they play over and over and over until I want to cover my ears until New Years Eve when I like to hear the champagne corks, something to which I can truly relate, along with having made it one more year.

I confess that this year I have been spared Christmas and all the songs and hype because my life has become so sheltered. I do not listen to the radio, watch only a couple of TV programs, and seldom venture far from the safety of Sandhill. I did notice the first inkling of Christmas on November 2nd, I believe it was a Wal Mart ad, and I have accidently seen a couple of other ads, but nothing really offensive as yet. This will no doubt change tomorrow as I am visiting a city some hundred or so miles away that will no doubt be inundated with Christmas hype in all its overblown plastic forms and blaring music everywhere.

My mixed feelings about this important holiday have not kept me from thinking about possible gifts for people. As most of the people I know already have most everything they could possibly wish, this requires some creativity. One of my friends has a dog so my eye was caught by an ad for a collapsible water dish for a dog. It comes with a logo from a Brewhouse. Not a bad idea. Doggie doorbells are another possibility here, as is an “I love my grandogs” bone magnet. We only have cats but it is up to my wife to provide for them (which she does generously every Christmas when they stay high on catnip for days).

My wife, being a very accomplished chef, has most everything in the way of kitchen gear and utensils. She does not, however, have a battery operated salt and pepper mill. However, a gift of such a thing might not please her as it could be seen as implying she is getting too old to use ordinary salt and pepper shakers. Then I thought of some stainless steel turkey lifters, large sort of claw-like things that help one lift turkeys out of the roasting pan, and a mere $34.99 on sale. That’s kind of expensive for such an unneeded tool, after all she’s been cooking turkeys for quite a long time without such specialized help. A “pizza dough docker” would be cheaper, you just roll it across the dough to keep it thin. Alas, that has sharp spikes that could hurt someone, and as she never makes pizza, I decided against it. A “single server sugar dispenser” might be nice. It would save her all the trouble of having to find a spoon and it can be operated with just one hand, of course she doesn’t use sugar herself. Then there is something described as a stainless steel “soap” that removes all onion, fish, or other odors from your hands. It comes with a wall mount so it is quite handy. But then I found the onion goggles with the fog-free lens and the soft foam seal, perfect for keeping her from crying, a really fine choice. I looked for a dressing gown made from the throat hairs of the wild Himalayan Ibex, but then I remembered that was something made up by Max Schulman, or maybe Perlman. When I was about to give up completely I finally stumbled on the perfect solution: Intentional chocolate---“delicious Hawaiian chocolate infused with positive intention my meditating Tibetan monks.”

We don’t have our tree yet, we’ve been just too busy. Unfortunately my wife, being thrifty, and living in the middle of an evergreen forest, refuses to pay money for a tree. She makes either me or my son find one somewhere on our six acres here at home. This is not as easy as you might surmise. There are lots of trees but most of them are not very suitable as Christmas trees. We invariably end up with what she refers to (for reasons I do not know) as a “Charlie Brown” tree. This cost-saving demand makes her happy and once it’s loaded with all the ornaments and lights you can hardly see how spindly and ill-formed and inappropriate it actually is. The cats love it so much we cannot put ornaments lower than about three feet above floor level. This does present a rather strange-looking, top-heavy, somewhat grotesque, but still functional object of reverence that satisfies our every Christmas wish until just after the New Year.

It’s Christmas time! Try to be of good cheer.

LKBIQ:
Dear Lord, I've been asked, nay commanded, to thank Thee for the Christmas turkey before us... a turkey which was no doubt a lively, intelligent bird... a social being... capable of actual affection... nuzzling its young with almost human- like compassion. Anyway, it's dead and we're gonna eat it. Please give our respects to its family...
Berke Breathed

TILT:
We are importing octopus from Thailand.

Money...

2009-12-11T22:54:00.000-08:00

Elderly woman, 98, indicted
for strangling her 100 year-old
nursing home roommate.

Money makes the world go ‘round. Tiger Woods has announced he is taking an indefinite leave from professional golf. I would bet a lot of money (if I had any) that indefinite in this case means until the next major championship in March. The PGA tour and the profession of golf cannot afford to let Tiger take any more time off than that. When you realize that their audience falls off by some 50% when Tiger is not playing you come to realize that for all intents and purposes Tiger Woods is golf. Besides, those who follow golf are going to be much more interested in whether Tiger can win the next major, or go on to beat Jack Nichols record of 18 majors, than in his extramarital affairs, no matter how juicy they may be. I suspect the only people who are concerned about Tiger’s affairs are his family. Many athletes have survived sex scandals. All they have to do to erase any stigma is win, win, win. It’s not that Tiger himself needs money, after all he’s the first athlete to earn a billion dollars (that ought to keep him for a time), he makes lots of money for others, and money is what it is all about here in the good ol’ US of A. I try not to get too interested in the extramarital affairs of Tiger Woods, but I must say I do find it curious. For example, what constitutes a “mistress.” It is inconceivable that all of those women Tiger slept with could all be considered a mistress. I should think that even trying to stretch some of the encounters into “affairs” is probably stretching it a bit. Anyway, there are more important reasons for questioning Tiger’s behavior than his sexual proclivities, his failure to denounce questionable business practices, for example, but enough of Tiger.

Speaking of money, and money making the world go, ‘round, consider our politicians and their rather futile attempts at reforming health care. Can you believe we have “leaders” who themselves have the finest health care available but do not want millions of their fellow citizens to have any health care? And can you believe this is happening in what is said to be the wealthiest country on earth, a country that is spending billions upon billions year after year murdering people around the world in futile, illegal, and unncecessary “wars,” but also contains many people who argue seriously that we cannot afford health care for our citizens? Why do these people oppose health care for their fellow citizens? For money, that’s why. They are being paid by the Insurance, Pharmaceutical, and other industries making gigantic profits under the existing scam that is called health care, and they are spending huge sums of money to make sure there is no significant change. We should change the way we describe our Congresspersons and Senators and introduce them as So-and-so money-grubber from wherever. This is shameful and those who have said we have the best Congresspersons money can buy are speaking the absolute truth.

Do you suppose even for a minute that it is not money that is going to bring Sarah Palin to speak to a Canadian socialized medicine group that also performs abortions? Silly Sarah has already proven she is in, whatever it is she is in, solely for the money. She has been milking her undeserved “fame” for all it’s worth, ever since the moronic McCain picked her as a running mate, surely one of the greatest mistakes of all time. Now she is presuming to argue with Al Gore about global warming, and with President Obama about Foreign Affairs. She refused to debate Gore because she says she will be “clobbered.” Of course she’ll be clobbered, she doesn’t have the slightest idea what the hell she’s talking about. The media is doing us a terrible disservice by even covering the activities of this genuinely ignorant and incompetent imposter. Hey, it makes the networks money, and money is what it’s all about here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

I remain concerned with, perhaps even obsessed with, the fact that President Obama and Eric Holder are obviously not going to pursue war crimes charges against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I find this not only objectionable, but downright criminal. In fact, although I am not absolutely certain about this, I believe they are obliged by our laws and constitution to bring charges against war criminals. It is said that Obama has assured them he will not bring charges against them, I guess arguing that (1) there are more important matters, and (2) there is no precedent for an administration to press charges against the preceding one. Personally, I believe (1)this is an exceedingly important matter and should be given priority, and (2) we never before had a previous administration that admitted to war crimes, even boasted about them. I believe this behavior on the part of our President and Attorney General to be completely unacceptable.

LKBIQ:
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln

TILT:
We are importing tilapia from China.

A "Just" War?

2009-12-10T22:49:00.000-08:00

Breaking up with her, he
gets second degree burns
as she pours boiling grits on him.

I did not hear Obama’s acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, but of course I heard several excerpts from it, and I know basically what he said. While it may be true that occasionally there is a “good” war, and sometimes wars may be necessary, as in the case of WWII, I cannot see how by any stretch of the imagination the “war” in Afghanistan can be seen as a case in point. Why would anyone go to “war” with a country whose citizens had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11. Remember, the men who hijacked the planes and destroyed the world trade center and tried to destroy the Pentagon, were all Saudis, not Afghans. And while it is true they may have received some training in the remote parts of Afghanistan, the plans were also laid in Berlin and the U.S. The attackers were in fact international criminals, not soldiers of war, and they did not represent any particular nation. To infer that Afghanistan is a “good” or “just” war I believe is demonstrably untrue. What is happening in Afghanistan, with the additional troops, is not going to lead to peace. Far from it, we will doubtless be there for many years, wasting more troops and more money, neither of which we can afford. With respect to Afghanistan and peace Obama is just faking it.

This leads me to wonder, once again, just what it is that is keeping us in Afghanistan. I do not believe it has anything to do with bringing democracy, improving women’s rights, or rebuilding the country, at least there is little evidence we have done much of any of those things. I am forced to conclude that we are not being told why we are there or why it is so important that we stay there. It must have something to do with oil and the proposed pipeline that would bypass Russia. I guess it must also have something to do with what we are doing in Pakistan. But what does a mere mortal like me, living in a remote part of the world and dependant mostly upon the internet for news, know about anything. I only work from whatever bits and pieces of information come my way, but on that limited basis, I think there is something very fishy about our obsession with Afghanistan.

Now General McCrystal says that success in Afghanistan depends upon capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I find it incredible that after eight or nine years of neglect, when we seem not to have been very serious about finding him, that now all of the sudden he is regarded as the key to success. In fact, I find this rather hilarious as just the other day Gates admitted that no one knows where he is, or whether he is even still alive. We have been told over and over again that he is known to be hiding somewhere around the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, and now we are being told we have no idea where he is, but the success of our misadventure in Afghanistan depends upon capturing or killing him. Is this not something out of Alice in Wonderland? I think what we are doing, or trying to do in Afghanistan is terribly mistaken, a complete waste of time, troops, and money. If someone would admit that it is really all about oil and pipelines and stuff I might not feel better about it, but at least I might understand it. As far as bin Laden goes, my wife thinks he is probably living in Odessa, but what does she know (I have found, strangely and embarrassingly enough, that often her seemingly bizarre claims end up being correct). I have no idea why she believes this. I suppose it is no more far-fetched than my belief that bin Laden remains a CIA asset and we never have had any real intention of capturing or killing him (although if my belief turned out be true they might now want to kill him, just to keep him quiet about it).

Sarah Palin is arguing with Al Gore about global warming? And people might take this seriously? And apparently she has compared her book to Obama’s speech? Surely we have gone mad. Why can’t someone agree to just give her a couple of million agree to go away. And why is Dick Cheney not being put away? Somehow I keep (desperately, I guess) clinging to my belief that Obama might actually improve things. However, his Afghan policy and his failure to prosecute our war criminals, I will never be able to forgive, no matter how successful he may otherwise prove to be.

LKBIQ:
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

TILT:
We are importing smelt all the way from Peru.

Are We There Yet?

2009-12-09T22:29:00.000-08:00

Man who wants a bread roll
instead of a slice of bread
gets slapped with a raw steak.

Are we there yet? This is a common enough question in some quarters, especially on long automobile trips. But, you might well ask in the context of our current sociopolitical travails, just where is “there.” There is little doubt in my mind that we are on our way “there,” wherever “there” is exactly. Consider our current situation. First, we have a “war” in Afghanistan that no one seems to understand very well. That is, just why we are there is not clear. What is clear is that this is almost certainly not a necessary “war” and is going to be very expensive for a very long time (in spite of claims to the contrary). In terms of our economy this could very well be the “war” that breaks the camel’s economic back. We are near bankruptcy, in debt up to our eyeballs, and no end in sight. But still we persist in this seeming rush to “there” (victory, defeat, or whatever), with little or no regard for the cost. Ironically enough, this “war” is being pushed an accelerated by what we believed was a “peace” President.

Then consider our attempt to create a system of health care that, if successful, would put us at least somewhat on a par with all other industrialized nations. This attempt is failing miserably. Our “leaders” have sold us out to their masters in the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries. After months of apparently “good faith” efforts on the part of a few, what we have at the moment, it seems, with respect to being “there,” is a plan that would rid the Insurance companies of older people (55 years and up) that are the most likely to need expensive health care, while at the same time forcing all those younger than that to take out health insurance or be fined for not doing so, thus adding some 30 million or so more suckers for the Insurance giants to fleece. A few of those involved in these negotiations seem to believe that by lowering the Medicare eligible age to 55 we are at least “getting our nose under the tent.” But, you may wonder, why discriminate against those who are younger than 55? Why not lower the age to 45, or even 35, or even make it available to everyone? That would then constitute genuine health care reform that would be simple and efficient and include everyone. Well, because to go “there” would cost the Insurance companies money and of course we couldn’t have that. Why should they not receive huge profits for doing nothing but shuffling papers and scheming for new ways to rip people off?

Of course the banks are doing well. Banks always do well. Our banks do very well indeed because they are concerned only with making money for themselves at the expense of the general public. So while our “leaders” have made sure the banks are not suffering, they have done so at the expense of the public. Our citizens are losing their jobs, their homes, their pensions and life savings, but the banks are booming. They are colluding with other huge corporations to reduce our country to a situation roughly approximating the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, where there is a superabundance of serfs and peasants to do the simple tasks of cleaning latrines and sweeping floors and other services, while the real jobs have been shipped overseas to places where labor is even cheaper. The “stimulus plan” has certainly stimulated the banks and the ultra-wealthy, but left everyone else far behind, sinking into a morass of poverty and misery not of their own doing.

Gobal warming, probably the greatest threat to the human species ever, although agreed upon by all reputable scientists, is considered nothing but a nuisance by the corporations that make their money by creating it. There is to be a meeting in Copenhagen of most of the powers that be (and I guess a few others) to discuss this truly dangerous change in climate. The best guess is the best that will come of this meeting is to delay any meaningful action until the next meeting. In the modern age this seems to be the only real function of meetings.

Our current situation, dire as it is, is the direct result of what is called “free market capitalism.” What this really means is something like “the law of the jungle,” whereby the strong take from the weak with no regard for human health or welfare, and short term profits are the “there” we are striving for. This is a system that promotes human greed to an exalted status and has no respect for those who might not be entirely sympathetic to this cannibalistic culture. This system, having failed completely and plunged us into a deep recession with real unemployment probably hovering around 20% is still regarded by some (mostly Republicans) as “the way to go.” We could, as many very successful countries have, go to a system of Democratic Socialism, except that our citizens for the most part have been conditioned to view the term “socialism” as roughly equivalent to cyanide poisoning, and, as most of them have no idea of what this is all about, simply accept capitalism as “the best system on earth” (in spite of what they see with their own eyes, and experience with their own emotions). The capitalists have done a fine job in bringing this about and are determined to keep it going until they have squeezed out the last drop of capital and self-esteem from a completely devastated, ignorant, and largely helpless population.

While all this is going on, and our President is (at least presumably) trying to make things at least a bit better for us, there are those who have nothing but contempt for him (he’s not all white, you know). Sarah Palin, a women who lacks the brains of a horses’s ass, but has the chutzpah of an old time snake-oil salesman, is touring the country hawking her book of whines and lies to an adoring public who seem to think she is worthy of even the highest position in the world (this is frightening almost beyond belief). If this is not bad enough, there is a small group of people who are trying to promote Dick (the Slimy) Cheney for President. As Cheney has all the popularity of leprosy you might wonder where these people have been for the last few years. They are, of course, among those who have been “there” for the past few years, living off the sweat of your brow, your equity, and savings. Oh, I mustn’t omit the obligatory obeisance to the Mighty Malevolence himself, God Bless America.

LKBIQ:
If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
Woody Allen

TILT:
Tai Chi, although it appears innocent enough, is actually a martial art.

What is "Participation?"

2009-12-08T22:35:00.000-08:00

During argument, she pours
soda on his hamburger,
he rubs it on her face.

Just what is “participation?” I always thought this meant something like “take part in,” or be part of a larger enterprise or something like that. In recent years I have become somewhat confused over this seemingly simple word. For example, decisions are sometimes made in various cultures, certainly in some American Indian cultures and other relatively small scale societies, by consensus. Consensus means that whoever the participants are who are trying to make a decision keep discussing it until everyone involved agrees to a solution. A couple of years ago we had an interesting example of this. There was a committee formed to make a decision about the future of a particular species of fish. Several different groups were involved in this enterprise, representing different parts of the community. They decided their decision would not be widely accepted unless they also included a group of environmentalists. So they invited such a group to be represented. All went well for several months, many discussions were had, the issues were debated from all sides, everyone had their say, and they attempted to reach a consensus. They failed to do so because the environmentalists held out for something all the others disagreed with (or at least did not want to accept). This led to the resignation of the representatives of the environmental group. It was then announced that a consensus had been reached! In other words, the definition of consensus was changed to mean everyone was in agreement after those who were not were eliminated. Simple, no? People were asked to participate but when they offered their opinion they were no longer participants. The rules were changed.

I began thinking about this because I think a somewhat similar situation exists regarding the Republican Party. You may have noticed in the past year Republicans whining fairly regularly about not being able to participate in decisions being made by Democrats who now hold majorities in both houses of Congress. Leave aside for the moment the fact that when Republicans were in charge they systematically denied Democratic participation on important decisions. Leave aside also the fact that it is not strictly true they have been denied participation as they have at times offered amendments and such, many of which were accepted. In a democracy (such as ours is supposed to be) decisions are not made by consensus. Majority rule is supposed to be the standard. Immediately upon the election of President Obama the Republicans made it known they wished him to fail and they were not going to cooperate. They rather proudly proclaimed they would be the Party of “No,” and they have faithfully followed this strategy, no matter what it was Obama and the Democrats wanted to do. It seems to me this is changing the rules. If you are part of a democratic process where the majority rules, are you not obliged to continue participating even though your side or your particular position lost? How can a viable democracy continue if the losers simply no longer participate? Is this not what Republicans are doing, opting out of the democratic process? If you announce that your position is going to be “no,” no matter what the issue is, is that really participating? I guess in a sense you could argue that it is, you are participating by saying no, and saying no might be interpreted as a way of participating. This seems to me to be a weird claim of participation and makes little or no sense. Thus, in my opinion, Republicans have changed the rules of democracy, claiming that you do not have to abide by the majority will. By announcing they wish Obama (and by implication his administration currently representing the nation) to fail, and by refusing to participate, are they not perhaps committing treason? Is there such a thing as a little bit of non participation, something maybe like being a little bit pregnant. Or is it the case that you are either a participant or you are not. I have not previously heard of a case where one party to a democracy changed the rules, took their ball and went home. Oh well, it’s just a matter of running the country in a dangerous world and a dangerous situation. That can’t be as important as how many lovers Tiger Woods had, or whether or not Lolita has a new tattoo, or whether 40 million Americans have health care. Bravo Republicans! I am currently touting a Palin/Lieberman ticket. Let stupidity and egomania rule!

LKBIQ:
Even he, to whom most things that most people would think were pretty smart were pretty dumb, thought it was pretty smart.
Douglas Adams

TILT:
Chows have purple/black tongues and cannot swim.

Irrefutable Stupidity

2009-12-07T22:42:00.001-08:00

Frankfurt researchers claim
staring at womens’ breasts
helps men to live longer.

I refer you to an article in The Smirking Chimp by Cenk Uygur, “The Irrefutable Stupidity of Sarah Palin.” Using excerpts from three of her interviews, Uygur points out that there is no conceivable way anyone could conclude Palin is anything but unbelievably stupid when it comes to even basic knowledge of the Middle East, her qualifications for the Presidency, or even for carrying on a knowledgeable conversation. I confess I have to agree with him, although I never believed she was anything but stupid in the first place. What I found amusing about this piece of Uygur’s was his obvious outrage and exasperation about the entire Palin phenomenon. He appeared to be almost in mental and physical pain when discussing McCain and Palin. If you haven’t seen it, you should. It’s true, Palin makes George W. Bush look intelligent.

And talk about irrefutable stupidity, think of Tiger Woods. I almost wanted to say “poor” Tiger Woods, because he is in such deep and probably unforgivable and never-to-be-forgotten trouble, and all because of his apparently insatiable lust. I can’t keep track of all the women, and I don’t know if all of them are telling the truth, but the count now seems to be somewhere between seven and ten. I heard today that his wife has, in fact, moved out. How could she not have? I mean one affair, maybe two, might be sufferable, but multiple affairs with so many different women? Obviously, she had no choice. I mean, a woman has to have at least some pride. And she is going to become very, very rich, which may not be enough to heal the terrible hurt she must feel. What is so unforgivably stupid about all this is that Tiger left emails and telephone records of his wrongdoing. You might think a Stanford graduate would have a better grasp on reality and modern technology, but apparently that knowledge didn’t rub off on Tiger. Perhaps he was just too busy practicing his golf game. Doesn’t it make you wonder, with all his “extracurricular” activities, when did he have time to practice? It is in a sense a genuine tragedy, the greatest golfer of all time, undone by his inability to keep his pant s on. I wonder how he will be greeted when he returns to the tour. Will he be greeted with masculine admiration as “macho man,” or jeered for being such an unmitigated cad. Only time will tell.

Well, it turns out that President Obama’s claim that we will be withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan in July of 2011 was just another misleading political move. It seems clear now, from what Hillary and Gates have been saying, there is no firm deadline for withdrawal. I knew this couldn’t be true because it doesn’t make sense from anything I know about what has been happening in the Middle East, and firm deadlines for “wars” are impossible to predict. I don’t know if Afghanistan is still properly considered “Pipelinestan” or not. If our presence there is not somehow related to oil and pipelines I cannot see the point in our being there at all. Afghanistan is not a threat to us. The Taliban are not a threat to us. And even al Quaida, realistically viewed, is not much of a threat to us. Surely Obama does not expect us to believe we are there to “spread democracy” or improve the status of women. Maybe he really believes we are there because we are so worried about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. If so, it seems to me what we are doing is increasing the chances of their falling into the wrong hands (as if nuclear arms were ever in the right hands of anyone to begin with).

Another example of what I think must be seen as irrefutable stupidity has to do with that good old example of unmitigated stupidity, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. They grow some strange Senators down there in Oklahoma. Inhofe is going, with two others of his non-global warming fantasies, to Copenhagen to prove to the world’s greatest scientists they are wrong and there is no global warming. It is, according to Inhofe, the second greatest myth in the world, next to the idea of the separation of church and state. Bon voyage, Inhofe, I wish you luck, when the men in the white coats come to take you away. Remember, you won’t be in the U.S., where at least some fellow nutcases might take you seriously. I really believe people should take the election of Senators a bit more seriously. I mean, one or two or perhaps a few more really stupid Representatives don’t make much of a difference, but even one stupid, egotistical, or loony Senator can cause a great deal of trouble. Perhaps, as some have suggested, we should just do away with the Senate.

LKBIQ:
The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois.
Gustave Flaubert

TILT:
Beef cheeks have now become a hot item in trendy restaurants.

Putin and the Rise of Russia - book

2009-12-06T22:46:00.000-08:00

Putin and the Rise of Russia, by Michael Stuermer (Pegasus Books, 2009)

Michael Stuermer is a well-known and recognized authority on Russia and Germany. If you are interested in Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and today’s Russia this is an excellent and informative recent history that I recommend highly.

This is not a biography of Putin, but it does tell you how it is he came to power, what roles he had previously, and how he has managed to pull Russia back from the brink of nowhere to the position it has again now as one of the great powers. Above all, Putin is an ardent Russian nationalist who is trying to improve the lot of the Russian people and develop the Russian economy for the future.

Stuermer offers what I believe is truly a “fair and balanced” account of contemporary Russia. He discusses both its strengths and weaknesses. Putin’s success in bringing Russia back from near bankruptcy coincides with the rise in the price of oil and natural gas. Energy is now the main source of Russian wealth as they have lots of it and furnish most of Europe with power. Putin is wise enough to know that this cannot last forever and is trying to use these windfall funds to develop the Russian economy to be strong in other ways in the future. Along the way he has increased pensions for his citizens, began paying salaries regularly, and has, in general, improved the lives of Russians, thus achieving a relatively high level of popularity. After the failure of the Yeltsin attempt to introduce democracy, which degenerated into a wild contest to see who could grab the most and created vast fortunes for a few and left the majority far behind, Putin has been forced to create what has been described as an “authoritarian democracy.” The majority of Russians seem willing to accept this as they have been so eager for stability, although there are some, like the ex communists and a few others, who are opposed and have caused trouble from time to time. As Russian natural resources, especially in the energy field, are so vast, and international demand is so huge, there is no doubt that Russia will remain a powerful nation for a long time to come.

There are, however, genuine and serious problems facing Russia that Stuermer does not hesitate to discuss. They lag far behind the West in technology, for example, and although they have the natural resources they desperately need technological assistance. They also lag behind in health care and life expectancy. Far more importantly, they have a serious demographic problem with a birth rate among Russians that has been falling dramatically for years. This has led Putin to offer special financial incentives to Russians women to have more children. Related to this is the huge Muslim population that exists in Russian, especially to the South and East. The “wars” with the Chechen Republic are the best example of this, but the problem is much greater due to the large and expanding Muslim population in general that threatens the ethnic Russian population. Unlike the European problem with Muslims, those in Russia are not immigrants, but have lived there for centuries. The sheer size of Russia is itself a potential problem. We think of the U.S. as a large country with our three time zones, Russia has eleven! And in the east and southeast there is China with its huge population sitting near the Siberian border which protects huge tracts of relatively undeveloped territory.

Not only does Putin have to deal with the abovementioned problems, there is also the question of his relationship with his protégé, President Dmitri Mededved. When Putin announced Mededved as his successor to the Presidency there were obvious misgivings about how power might be shared between the two, although in general the Russian people seemed to think this was a fine choice. So far there seems to be no particular problems with this arrangement, but of course there is always the potential, and it is not clear whether Putin intends to reclaim the Presidency in the future. And there still remain the remnants of the communists that are not on board Putin’s version of democracy. How ruthless Putin has had to be to attain and hold on to his power is largely a matter of speculation, but there is no doubt about his determination to re-establish Mother Russia as a world power.

There is no mention of it at all in Stuermer’s fine account, but I would love to know what Vladimir Putin, who is fluent in four languages, educated by the KGB, and involved in Russian, European, and International politics since a very early age, thought of the marginally retarded George W. Bush who claimed to look into his eyes and,” saw his soul,” and then called him “Pootie-Poot.” Indeed, I would like to know what he thinks of a country that would elect such a person in the first place.

In any case this is a fine book that I hope will be widely read, especially by members of our Congress (if any of them actually do read).

Public Option be Damned

2009-12-05T22:31:00.000-08:00

Woman fails to trick
husband’s mistress into
having an abortion.

Public option be damned. Let’s have real health care reform. Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and Roland Burris have offered an amendment that would provide medicare for all. No one believes this amendment has a chance of survival. But why should it not? It is the most perfect solution to our dysfunctional health care system there is. It would provide a single payer system that would be less expensive, more comprehensive, simpler, efficient, and would solve the problem. You might think that in a so-called “civilized” society, leaders would jump at the chance to offer health care to all the citizens. Indeed, all other industrialized societies do. The U.S. is the only one left that does not offer universal health care in one form or another. Why is this? Because too many people, including most of our “leaders,” believe in free market capitalism. This means that private enterprise should be able to provide health care for a profit. But providing health care for profit is actually inconsistent with the goal of providing health care, because the way you make a profit is by not providing health care to those who need it most.

We seem to be unable to comprehend there are some things that are just too important to be left to the private for-profit system. Truly basic human needs, for example, are trampled under such a system. We have seen what happens when energy, for example, is left to the private sector, as in the California energy disaster. Corporate farming is another example of how private enterprise is destroying our soils and poisoning our environment. And the attempt to reform health care is an attempt to do away with the privatization of health care. If these privatization nitwits had their way they would try to privatize water (they have in some places) and no doubt if successful with that would try to privatize the air we breathe. As I have said previously, let them have private enterprise when it comes to things like cosmetics and fashion and other areas where human lives and happiness are not at risk. We should have begun with promoting medicare for all, and not merely have assumed that it could not pass. If our Democratically controlled House and Senate, and the White House wanted to do it, they could pass it now, solve the problem, and be done with all the debate and hassle and lies and nonsense that has surrounded the effort to reform health care. And we would have universal health care that would work for all, not just Insurance companies who have no business whatsoever meddling in health care in the first place. As far as I know the only benefit we enjoy from having Insurance companies involved in health care at the moment is that we do have some form of health care, although horribly flawed and in many cases useless. There is no need for this, none, nada, zip, zero. The goal should have been from the very beginning to get rid of the Insurance industries involvement in health care completely, and switch to a single-payer system like all sensible people do. We seem to have devolved from the brilliant minds that gave us our constitution into a bunch of dithering idiots who have lost sight of any interest in the common good. As I do not believe this has a genetic base, it has to do with a failure of culture. That is, somehow we have failed to produce and transmit the extra-genetic knowledge required to maintain a system that functions for all its members. This failure has been encouraged by the corporate powers and wealthy interests (including the MSM) that have successfully “dumbed us down” for years. Our “wise men” are now fewer than they were and are not listened to in any case. Thus for those in charge, there is no global warming, no damage to the environment, no problem with health care, energy, poverty, the “war” on drugs, or endless “wars,” no problem with our beautiful “democratic” government, everything is fine (unless it might be shown that it interferes with short-term profits). Why even worry about the future, Armageddon is right around the corner, we might as well rape and plunder at will. Like one of our local bumper stickers proclaims, “After we’ve logged this one we’ll move on to the next planet.” Or how about, “Hungry and out of work, eat an environmentalist.” My all-time favorite that I saw just at the beginning of the Iraq “war,” “Nuke their ass and steal their gas.” Of course one of the most popular recent ones is just plain “Sarah.” We have a lot of really profound thinkers around here. You could hear them a lot easier if it weren’t for those damn black helicopters coming down from Canada to steal our lawn chairs. Sigh.

in these high mountains
icy rivers run wildly
nothing contains them
they rage mindlessly
as the hot blood of lovers
Morialekafa

Pre-Nups, Nups, and Post-Nups

2009-12-04T22:57:00.000-08:00

Man arrested at airport
with baked chicken…
stuffed with cocaine.

Quite a long time ago I knew a young man who was married to an unusually attractive Asian woman. One afternoon, during a cocktail party, he began quite an affectionate public demonstration of his feelings, kissing her on the neck and such. Like many people who learned English only later in life, she was articulate enough but also, shall we say, somewhat creative in her use of our language. Slightly, but not terribly embarrassed, she announced loud enough for all to hear, “George (not his real name to protect his innocence), you’re “lewding.” George replied, “No, I’m pre-lewding.” This led to some idle banter and some speculation about the actual lewding that might occur later, and the inevitable post-lewding that would follow that.

I was led to recall this amusing event by the news that Tiger Woods is involved in what is described as re-negotiating his pre-nuptial agreement. This is not, however, about Tiger Woods and his wife, per se, but, rather about the phenomena of pre-nuptial agreements and such. As far as I am concerned, wealthy and famous athletes have sex. Some of them, perhaps most of them, have lots of it. Some of them boast about it, like Wilt Chamberlin or Magic Johnson, and some of them, like Tiger, keep it quiet. Given their fame, wealth, and life styles, this would seem almost inevitable. To think this doesn’t happen is naïve. But I confess that pre-nuptial agreements are mostly an unknown practice for me. Although I have been married more than once or twice, my experience has never involved pre-nuptial agreements. If it had it would probably have been not much more than a discussion of who might get the toaster, the typewriter (remember those), or the debts. This does not prevent me from being interested in the subject.

I have seen in various places the claim that Tiger’s wife had a pre-nuptial agreement that she would receive 10 million after a certain amount of time in the event of a divorce. I have also seen the claim that the pre-nuptial agreement was actually 300 million. I have no idea if any of this is true. For purposes here it doesn’t matter what the figures were or are. Now, because of Tiger’s indiscretions, and the embarrassment involved, it is being said the pre-nuptial agreement is being re-negotiated. At least one claim is, his wife is to receive a 5 million dollar amount immediately, and perhaps as much as 80 million to stay with him for x number of years. I have no idea if this is true. The idea behind this kind of settlement has apparently to do with the belief that if his marriage is “saved,” his “image” will also be saved, and his multi-million dollar sponsors will not withdraw their sponsorships (and he will continue to get his huge sums for representing their companies). This makes sense. His wife, apparently, is to continue to live with him (I gather) and appear with him in public, and (I guess) at least pretend that everything is okay with their marriage.

So Tiger and his wife have had their pre-nuptial agreement, and now they have had for a few years, their nuptials, and now there are negotiating what I think must be more properly termed their post-nuptial agreement. I find this fascinating and I would love to be privy to what this agreement consist of, other than that they will continue to present themselves as husband and wife. Does this agreement consist, for example, of continued “consortium?” Are they to sleep in the same bed, perhaps different bedrooms, maybe even different houses? Is she to attend all important social events, or can she pick and choose? Does she have to smile and appear happy at all times? What if she has a “bad hair day” and doesn’t want to attend some function? Now that she will have her own fortune, will she be responsible for buying her own gowns and such, or does she continue to get a clothing allowance? Of course there is the more important question of what happens to the children. We can probably safely assume they will continue joint custody. How about pets? I can see how these things can get really complicated. In this specific case, I don’t even want to know the details, I just find the questions of interest.

I had much the same curiosity when Jackie Kennedy married Aristotle Onassis. I assumed this was not a marriage based on love or passion, but, rather, a pragmatic financial agreement, whereby she would be his wife in name, appear with him in public, and so on. But did she have to agree to only so many weeks a year on the yacht? In addition to the fortune he gave her, did he also buy her clothes, give money to her children, and stuff like that? Did she have to agree in advance to eat unborn lamb (aaagh).

I find this practice to be of considerable interest, as you can see. I have known of a few cases of “marriages of convenience,” where two people agree to pose as husband and wife, sometimes when one of the partners was homosexual, and sometimes when there was a great difference in age and financial well-being. It might be unfair, but I thought that in at least a couple of these cases the woman was reduced to little more than the status of a “pet.” But unlike being an animal pet, these human pets can negotiate the level of their affection as well as their duties (at least up to a point). But what do I know? These arrangements are as foreign to me as life on another planet. Happily, I don’t have to take my toaster and go home to mother.

There is here, I think, an interesting question of prostitution. That is, if a person agrees to one of these financial arrangements, if it doesn’t involve actually selling your body for sex, does it still amount to prostitution? If your answer is yes, then it would appear to me that capitalism itself is little more than a huge brothel, in which people sell their labor, politicians sell their votes, and some people sell their sex. This idea requires much more thought than I have given it up until now.

LKBIQ:
Marriage: a book of which the first chapter is written in poetry and the remaining chapters in prose.
Beverly Nichols

TILT:
Folk musicians call a person who plays the harp, a harper, whereas classical musicians call them harpists.

Does Anyone Know Anything?

2009-12-03T22:46:00.000-08:00

Man arrested for groping
nurse’s breast, forced to miss
girlfriend’s birth of his child.

I have been forced to come to the conclusion that many of our problems stem from the fact that most of our elected and appointed governmental officials simply do not know what they are talking about. I strongly suspect that they rarely, if ever, even bother to read the bills and such they are required to vote for or against. They certainly did not read the Patriot Act before they eagerly passed it. And I seriously doubt that any of them have read the Health Care Bill. Or, if they do read them, they don’t reflect on the consequences of voting one way or another. A minor case in point is the recent bill introduced by Al Franken that would have given some protection to rape victims. Thirty Republicans voted against this bill, thus leading many to say they voted for rape. They are now outraged about this and accuse Franken of pulling a fast one to embarrass them. It seems they either did not read the bill in the first place, or if they did, they failed to realize the obvious consequences of their votes. At the least this would seem to indicate a lack of interest in what they are doing. This inattention to the bills and their implications probably has something to do with the fact that whichever party is promoting a bill quite likely doesn’t even want the opposition to read it, because if they did there would be so many objections, qualifications, amendments, arguments, and so on, nothing would ever get passed. So they write the bills behind closed doors, present them at the last minute, and insist on a quick vote. This can hardly be said to represent good government, it is more like a bunch of clowns trying to one-up each other.

Similarly, it seems to me our officials do not know nearly as much as they claim to know, or if they do, they do not tell the rest of us. Now we learn that the head of Blackwater has also been for years a CIA operative, involved in who knows what all clandestine activities, including apparently death squads. Frankly, I don’t know if this surprises me or not. The case of bin Laden continues to fascinate me in much the same way. An official of the Pakistan government has recently claimed that bin Laden is not in Pakistan (contrary to what we have been led to believe). Indeed, others claim bin Laden probably is not even alive, and still others doubt that he is living in a cave somewhere. So, do we know where bin Laden is or not? He has apparently not been seen for a long time. He was said to have been on a dialysis machine. He could well be dead. Does anyone really know? Dead or alive he certainly keeps giving us an excuse to attack Afghans, killing lots of civilians in the process. Indeed, if there was no bin Laden there would have been little excuse for our attacking Afghanistan in the first place, and his continued presence there keeps on giving even now. This is amazing, given that we don’t seem to know whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, or where he actually is if he is somewhere. It is claimed that we had him trapped in Afghanistan and (deliberately?) let him escape. Bin Laden is known to have been a CIA asset during the Russian “war” in Afghanistan. Could it be he is still a CIA asset? Obviously, I don’t know. But on the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised. If anyone in our government truly knows, they aren’t telling. In fact, the situation with respect to what we are being told leads me to suspect that what is going on in the world has nothing whatsoever to do with what we try to think is going on. Does our stubborn clinging to the “war” in Afghanistan have anything to do with the pipeline the oil companies want to go through there thus bypassing Russia? If it is, why don’t they just admit it. Why don’t they just say, we need a pipeline through Afghanistan to bypass Russia because we desperately need access to oil from inner Asia, instead of feeding us nonsense about spreading democracy and all that bunk? It is pretty clear to me by now that our officials believe, as Hitler did, that citizens just don’t think. Unfortunately, that seems largely true here in the U.S. But even if we did think, and had attention spans longer than that of a fruit fly, how could we ever come to any reasonable conclusions when we are forced to start from dishonest premises? I do not believe we are being told the truth about much of anything. Is it any wonder that our Congress acts independently of the public interest? It is not at all clear that most of them know any more than we do, but presumably, if that is true, they are not doing their jobs as they, at least, are supposed to know something, even if we are not.

See Sarah
See silly Sarah
See silly sophomoric Sarah
See silly sophomoric Sarah sink scurrilously
Selling souvenirs, successfully scrounging stupid supporters,
Slowly, steadily, slovenly, saccharinely, sanctimoniously, sadistically,
Slothfully, shooting salaciously salient sanguinary salutations sassily,
Sans savoir faire.

I apologize, just playing. Mori.

Second Thoughts

2009-12-02T22:45:00.000-08:00

Told to move out, she
sprays boyfriend with mace
and sets his porch on fire.

Of course Lietta, borrow what you wish.

I am having second thoughts about President Obama’s disgraceful speech of last night. I am not only still disgusted, I am now angry. Apparently taking a page out of the Bush/Cheney instruction booklet for feeding the public nothing but crap, Obama also seems to accept their belief that the American public is completely bereft of either brains or intelligence. He wants us to believe he is accelerating the hostilities in Afghanistan in order to facilitate withdrawal, and he expects to start the withdrawal in somewhere around 18 months, except that he might not do that, ”depending upon circumstances on the ground” (where have we heard that before). In other words, he wants it both ways: placate the right-wing by accelerating this ridiculous “war,” and placating the left by claiming he is going to withdraw (but he might not). This is nothing but more Bush/Cheney obfuscation and gobbledygook, meaningless nonsense that will allow him to maintain the permanent “war” the military/industrial/political complex demands, to say nothing of the hope for Cheney’s pipeline to bypass Russia.

We had better start thinking very carefully about what is most probably the destruction of our country as we have known it for so long. We are potentially in big, big trouble. Consider that Obama has now almost guaranteed himself a one term Presidency. Much of his base is already eroding and Independents are not happy with him either. But think of the horrors that might ensue if he does lose the coming election in 2012. Who would replace him, Republicans? Republicans whose idea of a Presidential candidate is Sarah Palin, Lou Dobbs, Dick Cheney, any one of a bunch of known adulterers, Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, or at best perhaps, Mitt Romney, the Lying Mormon. This, I think, is not funny. Even if the Democrats were to run someone other than Obama, their dismal failure at trying to pass health care, ending the “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, pulling the country out of a jobless recession (at least so far), and their failure to act in unison on most anything, would hardly recommend them for another term in power. We are almost certainly going to find ourselves in the position of having two virtually hopeless political parties, neither of which seems to have any interest whatsoever in actually governing, the good of our country, or the well being of our citizens, criminally in debt, harboring our war criminals, lacking in transparency, unable, even uninterested in governing, completely subservient to the demands of huge corporations interested only in quick profits and buying votes, and hopelessly mired in mindless partisanship (mostly for show, when not simply out of unbelievable ignorance), hardly a bright future.

If ever there was an opportunity for a serious third party, this is it. It could be called, simply enough, The “Reform Party,” and could attempt to pull together those few Congresspersons and Senators that appear to have a serious interest in running the country and looking out for the well being of its citizens, rather than merely getting themselves re-elected time after time. With a strong cadre of known serious-minded individuals with some experience in government, they could reach out for all of the disaffected Obama supporters and independents who are currently being betrayed by what has turned out to be mistaking charm and rhetoric for substance. I am loathe to write Obama off completely, although I am more and more being pushed in that direction by some of the things he is doing (or not doing). If, for example, health care is passed with a strong public option, and if the jobless rate declines, and if the economy picks up, and if things go passably well in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Democrats might manage to stay in charge for a long time to come (a whole lot of really big “ifs”). That all of these positive things might happen seems unlikely. Obviously Obama cannot be blamed for everything, he did inherit an impossible world, and he does have a dysfunctional Democratic controlled Congress, but I do have to believe this terrible mistake about Afghanistan is mostly his, and I do believe it is indeed a mistake. It seems to be predicated on what I believe is a distorted view of the Afghans, the relationship of the Taliban to al Qaida and Pakistan, who the enemy actually is, what the importance of the threat really is, the efficacy of military might, and a perverted view of what ought to be our priorities. I tremble at the thought of what another Republican administration might do and I always try, at least, to hope for the best (it is becoming more and more difficult as time goes by).

LKBIQ:
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill

TILT:
In the game of draughts (checkers in America), if no player ever makes a mistake, the game will always end in a draw.

The Afghan Speech

2009-12-01T23:04:00.000-08:00

Former Argentine beauty queen dies
from plastic surgery, friend says she
“wanted to have a slightly firmer ass.”

I have just listened to President Obama’ speech about Afghanistan. I did not turn on the TV early as I did not want to hear what all the newspeople were going to say about what they thought he might say, or what might or might not have been leaked, and so on. Similarly, when the speech was over, I turned off the TV because I did not want to be told over and over again what he just said (or their particular interpretations of what he just said). So the following comments are strictly my own.

I thought it was a terrible speech. In fact, I found is so excruciatingly awful and embarrassing I had to fight myself to keep from turning it off. The speech had a weird kind of fairy tale quality about it, as if President Obama had swallowed some strange kool-aid, or had been smoking something he shouldn’t have. First of all, he seemed to accept the idea that it was necessary to start a “war” to deal with what was/is in reality just a small band of international criminals. The “war” was hardly a war of necessity, contrary to what Obama seems to believe. Even now there aren’t many al Quaida. He also seems to accept the idea that the attack of 9/11 was somehow planned by al Qaida in Afghanistan, whereas it was also planned in Berlin and the United States (and further attacks could be planned from virtually anywhere on earth). He also didn’t bother to mention that the attackers were all Saudi Arabians, not Afghans. Nor did he bother to mention that the Taliban do not represent all of Afghanistan, but are, in fact, a minority of that population. Nor did he mention that the Taliban are our “enemies” now only because they want us out of their country, nor are they a threat to the world in any way (they may be a slight threat to Pakistan, but remember Pakistan helped them in Afghanistan because they were bringing stability to that country). To say that al Quaida or the Taliban are a threat to world security is a terrible exaggeration. Al Quaida might be a terrorist threat around the world, the Taliban are surely not. He also did not mention there are in reality only a small number of al Quaida, mostly now in Pakistan, and cannot be a terrible threat to the U.S. or anywhere else. Their chances of getting their hands on a nuclear weapon are very remote, and their chances of mailing it or smuggling it into the U.S. is even more remote (and probably not even possible). Thus his insistence that what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a dangerous threat to the world is little more than the same old fear mongering we have come to expect from the Bush/Cheney years.

His claim that we are going to train an efficient Afghan army and (maybe, perhaps, possibly) leave Afghanistan after 18 months (or whatever) is no more than pie in the sky. First of all, Afghanistan is not truly a “country” in any ordinary meaning of that term. It is a huge collection of tribes and clans that have managed their own affairs and their own territories for more than a thousand years. It is unlikely there will ever be an Afghan army representing the entire country as there are few Afghans that proclaim loyalty to a nation rather than to their tribe or clan, and, as only about 10% of the country is literate that also creates a problem in trying to establish a viable military organization (to say nothing of the fact they probably couldn’t afford it). It is also not very accurate to describe Afghanistan as a country that has constantly been in turmoil and fighting and unable to survive without outside help. It is the outside meddling of Britain, Russia, and now the U.S. that has caused all the turmoil and strife, not the inability of the Afghans to manage their own affairs (which, left on their own they will no doubt do fairly well, including taking care of the Taliban problem). There is a form of stability in a tribal and clan-based society, whereas tribes and clans join and separate depending upon the particular enemies or problems they face. They are mostly joined now in a common effort to rid themselves of foreigners who are occupying their country. The U.S. wants greater stability only because we want to build a pipeline through their country, bypassing Russia, something else Obama neglected to mention. If he mentioned Osama bin Laden at all I have already forgotten it.

There were other things about the speech that I thought were mostly rhetorical. For example, we do not want to occupy their country (we only want to have bases there to protect our interests). The U.S. does not seek hegemony (empire) over the world (that is why we have some 1000 bases all around the world). The U.S. has fought for freedom and liberty for others everywhere (as long as they have oil or something else we want). We have been the world’s policeman for sixty years (only when it suits our interest). We are withdrawing from Iraq (maybe) because we will leave them with a viable and democratic government (highly questionable). I found the entire speech to be little more than one fairytale after another, with the same underlying themes of the “white man’s burden,” American exceptionalism and benign motives, that you might have expected from Bush/Cheney, St. Ronnie, or even Teddy Roosevelt. To me, at least, it was a terrible disappointment. Let’s see how it plays out with the neocons and others.

I do not believe that sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan is, in fact, “vital to American interests.” What is vital to American interests is to get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, get out of Iraq as soon as possible, and let them manage their own affairs, while we attempt to manage our own here at home (if we are even able to do that any longer). If the Afghans or Iraqis ask us for help for specific problems, we should be seriously obliged to try to accommodate them as best we can. But, you say, what about all that oil? How much oil do you think we could have bought from them for a trillion or more dollars, all the while helping them improve their economies?

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Rudyard Kipling

Rope-a-Dope Continues

2009-11-30T22:23:00.000-08:00

Man with “glazed eyes,”
“walking like Frankenstein,”
smashes store’s TVs with hammer.

Osama bin Laden’s “rope-a-dope” strategy continues to work. He must have studied at the feet of Muhammed Ali, the originator of this procedure. You remember that in Ali’s case, he allowed George Foreman to pound away at him on the ropes until Foreman exhausted himself, and then attacked and won the fight. Osama seems to have adapted this to the broader international scene through the use of economics rather than fists. You will recall that Osama made it clear that at least one of his goals was to provoke the U.S. into fighting terrorism long enough to bankrupt itself. He has been enormously successful, far more successful than even he could have dreamed. Imagine his pleasure as he saw us enter Afghanistan and start a “war” to find him. And his glee must have been overwhelming when Bush began the even bigger “war” in Iraq. You might have thought that a smart Chicago politician would have figured this out by now, but President Barack O’Bonehead has decided to keep pummeling away with another 30 or more billion of wasted funds, and 30,000 or so more troops (neither of which he can afford) and will apparently never stop until we are, at last, officially bankrupt. This may be unfair of me, as Obama has not yet given his speech in which he is to explain his strategy and (presumably) claim some sort of exit from Afghanistan. I am not sanguine about his possibilities as he is yet to exit Iraq or Guantanamo, and I strongly suspect that what he wishes to accomplish in Afghanistan is quite likely impossible. That is, if he thinks he is going to reform Karzai and Afghan corruption, create a large and efficient Afghan army (that would require a budget larger than the national income), and leave the country able to manage its own affairs in some form of democratic way without spending the next century, I think he is daydreaming. Actually, I suspect these are not really the goals he has in mind. It is more likely we are still planning to somehow build Cheney’s pipeline to avoid Russia, but this is no longer mentioned in public.

And speaking of Cheney, what I have always feared would happen is happening. Or perhaps I should say what should happen is not happening. Dick Cheney (aka Dick the Slimy) is a known, even admitted, war criminal, along with his former Presidential puppet, George W. Bush. There is no doubt about this. The world knows it, and I cannot believe that President Obama and the Attorney General are not aware of it. They do seem to be unaware that our constitution and laws demand that war criminals be prosecuted (I don’t believe they are unaware of this either). Cheney himself, who has to realize he is vulnerable, has cleverly embarked on a strategy that pits him politically against the Obama administration with respect to Afghanistan (and most everything else). This should not really spare him prosecution, but it does allow him (and his insane supporters) to claim that if he is prosecuted it would be for purely political reasons (there is nothing political about it, it’s about war crimes). This does make it awkward for Obama and Holder, but it should not really prevent justice from being done. Their excuse for ignoring the law about prosecuting war criminals, up until now at least, is that they are too busy trying to save our country from bankruptcy, health care reform, global warming, and, I guess, the cookie monster. This latest escalation of troops for Afghanistan may render all of these reasons moot, as Osama bin Laden may finally realize his dream of having bankrupted us (at the very least this may kill any attempt at health care reform, as it is obviously more important to fund a fake and unnecessary “war” for no purpose than to provide health care for American citizens). Perhaps should this happen, Obama might turn his attention to what should have been a priority in the first place, demonstrating to the world that we do not coddle war criminals, even when they are our own. Don’t hold your breath.

And what of Tiger Woods? No one really knows. I think he was fighting with his wife about a rumored affair, she chased and hit him with a golf club, followed his car with the club as he tried to leave, broke out the back window and then, realizing she had caused the crash, was overcome with remorse and helped him out of the wreck. Do I know this to be true. Of course not, but what does that have anything to do with the “news?” For all I know President Obama called him and said, “Tiger, old buddy, do something dramatic to take over the news for a few days, people aren’t going to like my escalation in Afghanistan.” Or perhaps Tiger was so euphoric over becoming the first athlete to make a billion dollars he thought he could drive with no hands and without looking. Maybe he was trying to reach the beach so he could practice walking on water. He might have had a date with his (probably imaginary) “mistress.” Who knows, who cares, case closed, play golf, guys fight with their wives all the time.

LKBIQ:
Justice delayed, is justice denied.
William Gladstone

TILT:
Dubai’s tallest freestanding building, Burj Dubai, at 2,684 feet, is the tallest man-made building ever built on planet earth.

The Indifferent Stars Above - book

2009-11-29T22:40:00.000-08:00

The Indifferent Stars Above The Harrowing Saga of a Donner Party Bride, by Daniel James Brown (William Morrow, 2009).

And they had nailed the boards above her face,
The peasants of that land,
Wondering to lay her in that solitude,
And raised above her mound
A cross they had made out of two bits of wood,
And planted cypress round;
And left her to the indifferent stars above.

W. B. Yeats,
“A Dream of Death”

Daniel James Brown could probably not have found a better poem to introduce this book about the experiences of Sarah Graves, a new bride, with the ill-fated Donner party tragedy of the 1840’s. I think it also makes for an exceptionally fine title for a description of human suffering almost beyond belief.

This book goes far beyond previous accounts of the Donner party horrors. Brown followed the known route of Sarah and the other ill-fated pioneers all the way from their starting point in Illinois to the Sacramento valley where a few survivors stumbled to safety after their weeks of snow-bound captivity and starvation in the high mountain pass. With his knowledge of the terrain and climate, and using the surviving diary entries and sparse records, he attempts to describe their daily movements, what they ate (or did not have to eat), how they managed to survive or failed to survive the bitter cold, frostbite, snowblindness, and their ravaging hunger, and, finally, the desperate cannibalism. What makes this book virtually unique is the author’s use of the most recent scientific research on nutrition, physiology, psychology, chemistry, and survival, to attempt to describe the actual physiological and psychological changes that must have affected them as they tried to live on the sparse foodstuffs that were available to them, and how these changes may have influenced even their interpersonal relations. They ate the flesh of horses, mules, dogs, boiled and chewed on hides and leather, and went for periods of time with nothing at all, until finally succumbing to the tabooed cannibalism where they sought nourishment from the lean flesh of those who perished during this terrible sojourn. Try to imagine, if you will, Sarah’s father instructing her to eat his flesh to survive, or Sarah having to watch as her few remaining peers consumed the flesh of her deceased husband. We know that one of Sarah’s younger sisters, upon learning she had survived by eating her mother’s flesh, was so obsessed with guilt she never fully recovered. Of course all of the survivors suffered their own private anguish over what they had done, but some of them went on to live reasonably normal and productive lives. Sarah, for example, recovered and eventually remarried and had children, as did a few of the other women. We cannot know for certain how accurate Brown’s speculations about their condition are, but they seem convincing and are well presented. He offers some ideas about the interesting fact that most of the survivors were female rather than male. I was not entirely convinced by his explanation for some of the cannibalism but this did not keep me from being impressed with his work.

Although Brown chose to focus on Sarah Graves this seems more an attempt to hold the story together than to offer a biographical sketch of just one woman. He describes many of the characters involved, as well as some of their squabbles and fights, both before and after their terrible time on the mountain. It is clear there were at least two murders directly related to the cannibalism, there may have been more, and there were others unrelated to cannibalism. No one was charged and at least one of the offenders went on to become wealthy and successful in California. This is an ambitious and fascinating account of one of history’s greatest and most grisly affairs. It is well conceived, well written, and well worth reading. From the dust jacket:

“One by one, feathery flakes landed on cold blankets and buffalo robes, on sweat-slicked hair, on shoulders turned to the sky, on soft cheeks – each flake delicate and slight, but each lending its almost imperceptible weight to the horror of what was about to happen….”

What is Absurd?

2009-11-28T23:21:00.000-08:00

What happens in nutty putty cave
stays in nutty putty cave. Body
of spelunker to remain there.

What is absurd? I ask this because I so often see this word used in various contexts, and I know that I myself use it, and perhaps abuse it. Consulting the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary I learn that the two primary meanings are:

1. Ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous
2. Having no rational or orderly relationship to human life

Now you might think with such clear-cut standards it should be simple to agree on things that are absurd. But nothing in human affairs is simple. The claim of absurdity, as we currently use it, is basically just the opinion of an individual. What may or may not be absurd cross-culturally is a problem far beyond the scope of this present document. Here I am interested only in what I take to be the absurdities of American culture. Indeed, I tend to believe that American culture in general is nothing less than a culture of the absurd (obviously not everyone will agree).

What brought this to mind today was another trip to the supermarket. We have only one such market here in our little town, and by big city standards it is really quite a modest supermarket. Nonetheless, when I ran an errand there for my wife I became aware for the first time of the cat food aisle. Yes, there is an entire aisle devoted to cat food. It measures roughly sixty feet long by seven feet tall, and contains kitty litter, cat food, cat toys, and such. Now, I don’t mind cats, indeed I put up with five of them on a daily basis (a result of my wife’s home for wayward cats). But does anyone truly need such a variety of cat foods and litters and toys? I doubt very much that the cats themselves appreciate this variety, if they even think about it. Thus, I believe this is absurd. And across the aisle there is a similar, even longer row of dog food and stuff for dogs. I think this is also absurd. Then when I think of all the starving people in the world, and even here in the U.S., I think it is even more absurd. I would say this is “ridiculously unreasonable,” if not “unsound.” It may or may not be “incongruous,” depending upon your opinion of American culture in general. As I previously commented along these same lines about the huge bin of frozen prepared potatoes, I will leave the subject of American food (a truly absurd subject) for the moment.

Consider the American use of the automobile, pickup truck, motorcycle, snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, and personal watercraft, all the result of the invention of the internal combustion engine. While there are obvious advantages of one sort or another for such vehicles in certain circumstances, our present-day use of most of these is absurd. The idea that virtually every individual in the country needs their own automobile or pickup truck is absurd, or that is, ought to be absurd. Snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, and personal watercraft may be “fun” as “toys,” but they are terribly polluting, noisy, and destructive of the environment, and as such are, I would say, “ridiculously unreasonable.” And here, where I live, the love affair with pickup trucks is truly a thing of wonder. It is not at all unusual to see women (and sometimes men) doing their supermarket shopping in huge Ford 350, Chevrolet 3500, or Dodge 3500 models, far in excess of just the ordinary pickup. Not long ago I watched in awe as an older, gray-haired lady left her big Dodge running while she entered the supermarket and emerged with a case of beer. There are also many dual wheeled pickups that more than 90% of the time contain nothing whatsoever except a dog. While all of these vehicles might be useful at certain times for certain things, I submit than in general the use of such vehicles in the U.S. is absurd (almost beyond belief).

One further rant while I’m on the subject of the absurd has to do with the use of energy in the U.S. The example of vehicular use as above involves an enormous waste of energy. But that is probably mild compared to our waste of electricity. We are now being told we should conserve energy, and most people probably believe we should. But hardly anyone does. Drive through any city at night and you will observe most if not all of the lights on in every large building left on all night long. And it is not only in large buildings you can observe this obvious waste, it seems like every small business has to leave lights on as well. In most homes it appears to me that the inhabitants rarely turn off lights that are not in use. Sometimes I believe most Americans, especially younger ones, are not even aware that light switches have an “off” as well as an “on.”

Anyway, as long as there is no agreed upon standard for measuring what is absurd and what is not, it seems to me unlikely that people in general are going to ever solve their common problems, or even define what they are. If culture is pretty much a unique human invention for meeting the basic needs of the species for food, shelter, security, health, etc., we have long since passed over the basic needs and elaborated to the point of madness. Absurdity has long since triumphed over practical reality. I do not think it entirely far-fetched to predict it will ultimately lead to doomsday.

LKBIQ:
If you see in any given situation only what everybody else can see, you can be said to be so much a representative of your culture than you are a victim of it.
S. I. Hayakawa

TILT:
The average weasel weighs about 7 ounces.

No One is Responsible

2009-11-27T22:15:00.000-08:00

Two bank robbers die
overestimating the amount
of dynamite required.

Many infants being born in Fallujah now are being born with unbelievable grotesque features, apparently no head, two heads, a single eye, scaly skin, or other monstrous deformities. This is a situation 15 times greater than ever before. It is not hard to find the fundamental reason for this outrageous crime. It is the result of ecocide. Ecocide is a relatively new word that refers to the destruction of large portions of the environment, especially because of man-made activities. The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, for example, but in the case of Fallujah it is more likely the result of the use of chemicals in warfare, like white phosphorous and depleted uranium used for anti tank and other ammunition. Of course there are some (those most responsible for this outrage) that will argue there is no proof of the connection between birth defects and the use of these chemicals (just as there was no proof of the connection between Agent Orange and the problems of Vietnam veterans for some time). This way of thinking (in the U.S.) has always struck me as truly peculiar because it seems to imply that human life, health, and welfare are basically less important than corporate profits. Recall all the denials with respect to tobacco and lung cancer. There was a known correlation between smoking and lung cancer, but the industry argued fairly successfully for years there was no specific proof of a connection and went on marketing their poisonous product anyway. I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that in most cultures, even relatively “simple” ones, when something is suspected of possibly doing harm to people, especially children, they stop using it until they find out otherwise. This is quite the opposite of what we do here in the good ol’ USA, where absolute proof seems to be necessary before any action can be taken. This is precisely what has been going on with respect to the use of chemicals in our military. As there is no absolute proof of a connection between the use of depleted uranium and human deformities, we just blissfully go on using them (of course we only use them on “others” we have dehumanized who are therefore less important than we are). This goes along with the apparent belief on the part of many that the life of an American fetus is absolutely sacred, whereas the lives of millions of “others” are not. I guess you can also see this reflected in our failure to sign the international ban on the use of landmines. Everyone knows that landmines kill innocent civilians, especially children, for years and years after they have been planted. But what do we care, we don’t plant them here at home. It makes me wonder at times if our “leaders” are actually human beings, or perhaps some kind of “ghouls” artificially created by the Pentagon. There seems to be nothing that can stand in the way of our doing what we want (to others). I will never forget Madeleine Albright’s absolutely outrageous and inhuman response when asked if the loss of half a million Iraqi children was “worth it,” and she replied that it was! What I find most shocking of all about this Fallujah problem, is that no one seems to be considered responsible for it. An entire city destroyed and the survivors plagued with a monstrous ongoing problem and no one is considered responsible? I guess it was “just an act of war,” roughly equivalent to the act of shaving every morning.

The word ecocide actually occurs in my dictionary (Webster’s). I don’t know why this surprised me, but it did. I guess I was surprised because ecocide, as far as I know, did not occur with much regularity until a relatively short time ago (even the word ecology, although it existed, did not really come into vogue until fairly recently). The word “humanicide” has not yet made it into the dictionary, although you can find it on google, where it refers mainly to a band by that name. I have suggested previously (Morialekafa 8-26-04) that it ought to have another meaning, but so far this has not been accepted by anyone. In any case, I think it is a sad commentary on the state of the world when words like ecocide and humanicide have to come to mind at all.

Pity poor Dubai! They have had to ask for more time to pay off an 80 billion dollar debt. I feel so sorry for them, sitting there with their artificial ski mountain in the desert, their artificial palm island covered with expensive high-rise (empty) buildings, their expensive condominiums worth half or less of what was paid for them, their upscale shops that no one can afford any longer, people abandoning their cars at the airport trying to flee the country, and so on. Is this not the perfect example of capitalism and conspicuous consumption gone berserk? I suggest they move all those foreign workers they lured there and exploited so shamelessly into all those vacant condos and give them a real taste of the “high life.” Someone should write a history of Dubai (if they haven’t already). They could call it “The Completely Disgusting History of the Rise of Dubai and Its Predictable Collapse Into the Desert Sands.”

LKBIQ:
The ability to understand a question from all sides meant one was totally unfit for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of the real man.
Thucydides

TILT:
J. R. R. Tolkien disdained automobiles and thought the internal combustion engine was a terrible invention.

Dumber than Dumb

2009-11-25T22:34:00.000-08:00

On way to his wedding,
groom crashes rented
$415,000 Lamborghini.

How dumb is it possible to be and still pass yourself off as a candidate for office? Silly Sarah has now advised Canada to scrap their health care system and privatize it. She has said the best way to create jobs is to lower taxes. She has also said Obama should just follow the advice of his generals. And she has also said that Obama does not appreciate the sacrifices of our troops. She also apparently believes that Israel is a special place that will soon fill up with Jews, thus making possible the Rapture. She apparently does not believe in evolution, abortion, or global warming. For all intents and purposes she does not read much of anything. A majority of Americans think she is not qualified to be President (and was not qualified to be Vice-President), but she has not ruled out running for President in 2012 (apparently depending upon what God tells her she should do). I don’t know what all else she may or may not believe (I think I would be afraid even to ask). What I would like to know is there any evidence in any of her stated beliefs and pronouncements or whatever of even the barest scintilla of serious thought? She just says things that come right out of the Republican or Evangelical mileu with no evidence of original thought whatsoever. She reminds me of my late aunt Mamie (bless her), who was a nice lady in her way, but the most opinionated know-nothing that ever walked the aisles of Wal Mart. Silly Sarah is the personification of the average American housewife who just repeats whatever Republican or Christian nonsense she hears. I have nothing against average (or even above average) American housewives, but I confess I would not like one of them to be my President, any more than I would want Joe the average Plumber or Pete the average Repairman or John the average insurance salesman, or even Francis the talking mule. Let’s face reality, Sarah is dumb. She is dumber than dumb because she apparently does not realize how dumb she actually is. The idea that she could be President of the United States is dumb even beyond dumbness. The fact that she has supporters is frightening beyond belief. We just had eight years of Mr. Dumbness himself that proved to be an absolute disaster. Now we have a President who is smart and these dummies hate him. They are going to hate him whether he is successful or not, and they will do whatever they can to make sure he cannot be successful, even when looking out for their best interests. What a weird country we live in.

We have arrived at a point where our culture has become so absurd I am not certain anything can be done to change it. The human species has proven it is completely inept when it comes to managing its affairs. This is apparently a species specific shortcoming as I know of no other species that has engineered its own demise. Here we are in the 21st century. I am getting requests to save the polar bears, to do something about global warming, to prevent further wars, to save the salmon and hundreds of other species, to take care of abused and neglected children and animals, to feed the hungry, to do something about health care, and on and on and on. What I want to know is, why should this be up to me at this late date? Where have all our leaders been for the last few centuries? Why haven’t these things been taken care of? Why have we allowed our own nest to be so fouled? What is it about homo sapiens that renders them so incapable of successful social life? Now we will be asked tomorrow to give thanksgiving, thanksgiving for what? Are we to give thanksgiving for the horrible mess we have made of our planet and our lives? No, appropriately enough, we are giving thanksgiving for having made it through one more year. How many more before we either blow ourselves up or drown in our own filth? So happy thanksgiving! Be of good cheer. Keep a stiff upper lip. Tomorrow may be canceled due to lack of interest. Remember the Maine, the Alamo, and Saint Ronnie. And never forget, we are good, they are bad, and we will “win” (something unknown but apparently desirable). Wheee!

AN EPITAPH
Walter de la Mare

Here lies a most beautiful lady,
Light of step and heart was she:
I think she was the most beautiful lady
That ever was in the West Country.
But beauty vanishes; beauty passes;
However rare, rare it be;
And when I crumble who shall remember
This lady of the West Country?