AOB has this excellent post:
Native American Proverb:
An elder of the tribe is talking with a young boy. He says to the boy "I am so very tired, because I have these two wolves inside of me and they are having a ferocious fight.
"The child looks up at him with eyes that are wide with fright and curiosity. "What are they fighting about?"
The elder says "One wolf is full of rage, humiliation, envy and violence because he feels he has been mistreated. The other wolf wants justice, nuture, love and prosperity."
The little boy is concerned for his old friend. He asks " Which wolf will win?"
The elder man replies "Whichever one I feed."
I ask the Presidents of all countries today..."Which wolf are you feeding?"
Thursday, December 07, 2006
RAISE YOUR HANDS!
Who thinks Bush will implement the Iraqi Report in it's entirety, as a whole, as it is intended?
Anyone? Someone? Somewhere?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I hope the moron lives just long enough to realize that his legacy is to go down in history as the worst President ever, minimal, and if there is any justice in the world, realize that his actions led to the demise of his political party and all of it's deplorable ideals, and no one even builds his library. Then that he dies as a disgraced, roundly despised, rotten old man, abandoned by friends and family. Maybe let him have one mean nurse who defrauds him of whatever he has left. He's despicable.
Anyone? Someone? Somewhere?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I hope the moron lives just long enough to realize that his legacy is to go down in history as the worst President ever, minimal, and if there is any justice in the world, realize that his actions led to the demise of his political party and all of it's deplorable ideals, and no one even builds his library. Then that he dies as a disgraced, roundly despised, rotten old man, abandoned by friends and family. Maybe let him have one mean nurse who defrauds him of whatever he has left. He's despicable.
Angry Black Bitch
I stumbled over this blog while doing a search in Google and I love it so much it's going on my blogroll immediately.
Yes, I am a southern white woman and this is a southern-ish black woman and we speak the same language. We just might use a different vocabulary here and there.
Read it. She's awesome.
I stumbled over this blog while doing a search in Google and I love it so much it's going on my blogroll immediately.
Yes, I am a southern white woman and this is a southern-ish black woman and we speak the same language. We just might use a different vocabulary here and there.
Read it. She's awesome.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
If I were the President
Sometimes, I like to play a little game I call "If I were the President". When I do, I usually go off on a tear in about 20 different directions, but for here and now, I am going to attempt to play "If I were the President, I would solve the problem in Iraq by:"
I would call every single power broker in the middle east, every single one, no matter what their position as long as they have real power, money, and influence (no figureheads or puppets) and tell them that I was sending Air Force Two to pick them up in the next 24 hours and they could either come or be shut out of the policy making and peace process for peace in the middle east and have no say on what would be decided in the meeting. If they come, they should come prepared. I know they could get to DC on their own steam, but I'm impatient and I want them to get to know each other on the flight and get used to talking amongst themselves. Plus, I want to be responsible for all security.
I would have them in Camp David or other suitable location with all living and able previous Presidents, and Congressional leaders, supported by fully briefed and prepared Joint Chiefs of Staff, Cabinet, and NSA, CIA, along with the CEO of every major American and multi-national corporation doing business in the middle east or interested in doing business in the middle east, and one reporter from every major news outlet in the world, for three days.
I would inform them that the American people were going to be fully informed of every thing I was about to tell them.
I would announce to them that on the fourth day, the U.S. military would begin withdrawing and would be completely withdrawn from Iraqi territory by January 30th (or whatever date closest that is actually possible).
I would announce that all American based businesses currently doing business in every country would either shut down its operations immediately or I would ask Congress to withdraw all tax credits, price supports and whatever else I could find propping them up, if an agreement was not reached by the end of the three days.
I would authorize the oil reserves of our country to be released until further notice.
I would tell them that the past was not to be discussed, only the future.
The first day, each power broker would get one hour to put forth their individual ideas and committments on what they would be willing to do to stabilize the region and Iraq in particular in order for the U.S. to continue to do business with their country.
The second day would be discussions chaired by the panel of Presidents and Congressional leaders.
The third day, each power broker will be asked if they want to modify their stance or committments based on the discussions. Then we vote on which offerings are acceptable. Any power broker who has not stepped up to the table sufficiently for his offerings to be voted acceptable will be given 10 minutes to upgrade or lose their influence entirely. A second vote will be tallied. That vote will stand.
The only thing, and I mean the only thing, that will remain off the table is Israel's right to exist peacefully within it's own borders. Israel will have to bargain just like everyone else, for everything else. Land, wall, whatever.
Iraqi power brokers, the president, the mullahs, whoever, can discuss and either accept all accepted offerings or none by unanimous vote. Either way, the U.S. is leaving the country. The other middle east countries will either take responsibility for making the right kind of offers to stabilize their region or not. Iraq will take responsibility for accepting the assistance of their neighboring countries or not.
One way or another, it's in their hands. It is anyway. All entities who have made acceptable attempts will be given most favored nation status to the U.S., if they are a nation. If they are an entity, like a mullah or whatnot, they will be given favored status and the power that comes from the gratitude of the American people.
Should that entity gain ruling authority over any country, they will remain in our favor.
If they are stalwart in their determination to label our nation their enemy, then we will be their enemy, and no business based in the U.S. will be allowed to do business with them under any circumstances. None. Zero. Unless they want to change their minds. We will maintain diplomatic status with them up until the moment they either declare war on us or we on them. All channels of communication will be open.
If Iraq accepts the peace brokering, and it's middle east partners assist in stopping civil war and once Iraq becomes a stable sovereign country, U.S. corporations will be asked to rebuild their infrastructure, power, roads, schools, you name it, employing Iraqi citizens only, and will be given massive tax breaks to do so, and will be subsidized to do so to a limited extent. They will be expected to achieve solvency in their efforts. They will be required to finish in five years or all grants will be recalled and they will pay back the American people.
That will be the price the U.S. pays for it's mistake. That, and a heartfelt apology from me, the President of the United States, to the Iraqi people and all the people in the middle east for the arrogance and unbridled dicking with them by both the government and U.S. national and multi-national corporations.
It stops now. It's up to them.
For anyone who might think that it would be a huge gamble with the U.S. economy, oil security, etc., I remind you that it's only a gamble if you don't know that you have the winning hand.
We still hold the royal flush. It's in the suit of green and it's dollar signs.
Money talks or money walks. Historically, it has been our best offense and our best defense. Our business is our national security, and that is what Republicans have never understood. They think it's just a method of lining their pockets, when it is a tool of government more powerful than our military when used to the advantage of this country. American business interests exists by the good grace of the American people. The American people will use it to our advantage, or we can nationalize any individual corporation not willing to be a good citizen. Stockholders need to be reminded, and if corporations think they'll get more stability, more security, less taxes, more subsidies, less government interference, a freer marketplace, and survive in a world where their products are banned from the U.S., and probably our trading partners, they might want to start looking yesterday.
I would call every single power broker in the middle east, every single one, no matter what their position as long as they have real power, money, and influence (no figureheads or puppets) and tell them that I was sending Air Force Two to pick them up in the next 24 hours and they could either come or be shut out of the policy making and peace process for peace in the middle east and have no say on what would be decided in the meeting. If they come, they should come prepared. I know they could get to DC on their own steam, but I'm impatient and I want them to get to know each other on the flight and get used to talking amongst themselves. Plus, I want to be responsible for all security.
I would have them in Camp David or other suitable location with all living and able previous Presidents, and Congressional leaders, supported by fully briefed and prepared Joint Chiefs of Staff, Cabinet, and NSA, CIA, along with the CEO of every major American and multi-national corporation doing business in the middle east or interested in doing business in the middle east, and one reporter from every major news outlet in the world, for three days.
I would inform them that the American people were going to be fully informed of every thing I was about to tell them.
I would announce to them that on the fourth day, the U.S. military would begin withdrawing and would be completely withdrawn from Iraqi territory by January 30th (or whatever date closest that is actually possible).
I would announce that all American based businesses currently doing business in every country would either shut down its operations immediately or I would ask Congress to withdraw all tax credits, price supports and whatever else I could find propping them up, if an agreement was not reached by the end of the three days.
I would authorize the oil reserves of our country to be released until further notice.
I would tell them that the past was not to be discussed, only the future.
The first day, each power broker would get one hour to put forth their individual ideas and committments on what they would be willing to do to stabilize the region and Iraq in particular in order for the U.S. to continue to do business with their country.
The second day would be discussions chaired by the panel of Presidents and Congressional leaders.
The third day, each power broker will be asked if they want to modify their stance or committments based on the discussions. Then we vote on which offerings are acceptable. Any power broker who has not stepped up to the table sufficiently for his offerings to be voted acceptable will be given 10 minutes to upgrade or lose their influence entirely. A second vote will be tallied. That vote will stand.
The only thing, and I mean the only thing, that will remain off the table is Israel's right to exist peacefully within it's own borders. Israel will have to bargain just like everyone else, for everything else. Land, wall, whatever.
Iraqi power brokers, the president, the mullahs, whoever, can discuss and either accept all accepted offerings or none by unanimous vote. Either way, the U.S. is leaving the country. The other middle east countries will either take responsibility for making the right kind of offers to stabilize their region or not. Iraq will take responsibility for accepting the assistance of their neighboring countries or not.
One way or another, it's in their hands. It is anyway. All entities who have made acceptable attempts will be given most favored nation status to the U.S., if they are a nation. If they are an entity, like a mullah or whatnot, they will be given favored status and the power that comes from the gratitude of the American people.
Should that entity gain ruling authority over any country, they will remain in our favor.
If they are stalwart in their determination to label our nation their enemy, then we will be their enemy, and no business based in the U.S. will be allowed to do business with them under any circumstances. None. Zero. Unless they want to change their minds. We will maintain diplomatic status with them up until the moment they either declare war on us or we on them. All channels of communication will be open.
If Iraq accepts the peace brokering, and it's middle east partners assist in stopping civil war and once Iraq becomes a stable sovereign country, U.S. corporations will be asked to rebuild their infrastructure, power, roads, schools, you name it, employing Iraqi citizens only, and will be given massive tax breaks to do so, and will be subsidized to do so to a limited extent. They will be expected to achieve solvency in their efforts. They will be required to finish in five years or all grants will be recalled and they will pay back the American people.
That will be the price the U.S. pays for it's mistake. That, and a heartfelt apology from me, the President of the United States, to the Iraqi people and all the people in the middle east for the arrogance and unbridled dicking with them by both the government and U.S. national and multi-national corporations.
It stops now. It's up to them.
For anyone who might think that it would be a huge gamble with the U.S. economy, oil security, etc., I remind you that it's only a gamble if you don't know that you have the winning hand.
We still hold the royal flush. It's in the suit of green and it's dollar signs.
Money talks or money walks. Historically, it has been our best offense and our best defense. Our business is our national security, and that is what Republicans have never understood. They think it's just a method of lining their pockets, when it is a tool of government more powerful than our military when used to the advantage of this country. American business interests exists by the good grace of the American people. The American people will use it to our advantage, or we can nationalize any individual corporation not willing to be a good citizen. Stockholders need to be reminded, and if corporations think they'll get more stability, more security, less taxes, more subsidies, less government interference, a freer marketplace, and survive in a world where their products are banned from the U.S., and probably our trading partners, they might want to start looking yesterday.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Interesting...
I found this interesting, though I hardly have the brain cells today to read it entirely or comprehend it marginally. Still, I suggest it as a fresh viewpoint and salient. Creek Running North is always a breath of fresh air.
A bit light
You may have noticed that my postings have been a bit light lately. I'm in the midst of another episode of my illness right now. That, coupled with a temporary lack of patience on my part, and substance in political discourse, if not actual events of import, and the ever more imminent arrival of the holidays accounts for it.
Not that you, dear reader, or anyone else, would be interested, but I have been posting to a blog I set up just for my illness. It helps me get things off my chest, so to speak, without bothering or boring my friends and relatives, or allowing it to taint this blog. If you'd like to know more about living with a rare disorder that is so unusual, the medical establishment is at a loss, for the most part, (and with no insurance coverage), read me over at Mastocytosis. It has such an uninspiring title, because I hope to open it up to other sufferers to post their experiences.
Not that you, dear reader, or anyone else, would be interested, but I have been posting to a blog I set up just for my illness. It helps me get things off my chest, so to speak, without bothering or boring my friends and relatives, or allowing it to taint this blog. If you'd like to know more about living with a rare disorder that is so unusual, the medical establishment is at a loss, for the most part, (and with no insurance coverage), read me over at Mastocytosis. It has such an uninspiring title, because I hope to open it up to other sufferers to post their experiences.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
All are punish'd
There is a disturbing trend in political discourse in the country. Let me name it the "either or" trend.
One example is the search for who to blame for the debacle that is Iraq. The best description I've found is at The Carpetbagger Report, which briefly touches on the situation, then goes on to decry that it's not appropriate to blame the American people.
"For the last several months, as conditions in Iraq have deteriorated, we’ve seen the emergence of a parallel debate that runs alongside the general question of what we’re supposed to do about this mess. It is, of course, the who-deserves-the-blame question.
You’re no doubt familiar with the list of suspects. For the reality-based community, Bush is near the top, followed by Cheney and Rumsfeld. In DC and in the media, some prefer to blame some combination of al Qaeda and Iran. Others argue the Middle East is to blame, because, they say, the region is not ready for democracy. In a variety of places, you can also hear blame go to Iraqis, U.S. troops, and the media.
But as Josh Marshall noted, Roll Call’s Mort Kondracke has nominated a new scapegoat: the American electorate."
It's not the American people's fault. Alone. But, the people of this country allowed it to happen and have, by their acquiescence, bear their fair share of the blame.
The truth is that it is not EITHER the American people's fault OR the Iraqi people's fault. It is not EITHER Iran's fault OR Al Qaeda's. It is not EITHER the media's fault OR the administration. Or the blogosphere. Or the wingnuts. Or any combination of any of the above or any other entity that did anything other than question, complain, act or speak against the war from the beginning. They are the only blameless, and even they can be held to account for not being strident enough, or loud enough, or active enough.
EVERYONE IS TO BLAME. EVERYONE BEARS THEIR OWN SHARE OF THE FAULT.
To paraphrase Shakespeare: A plague on all your houses. ALL YOUR HOUSES! ALL are punish'd. All are punish'd.
That one entity might share more blame than another is a given. And it is irrelevant.
The past, history, that is, is good for one thing and one thing only. To learn from. It is not a weight on an non-existent scale in relation to what is to be done in the present, other than to teach us not to repeat mistakes. It doesn't tell us what to do, but rather what not to do. And no amount of finger pointing is going to solve the predicament in front of us at this moment.
In technical analysis, we call this a "going forward" event. Going forward means that regardless of what we were doing before, we must now do this instead.
It's the instead that must be solved. We must look at the operator's error, and, going forward, not allow it's repetition. Sometimes that means taking the program down another pathway, sometimes it means shutting down the program and re-writing the whole damn thing.
In my humble opinion, I think we have a fatally flawed program, and our client is recalcitrant and unwilling to suspend its operations long enough to allow for new specifications to be written and implemented, nor is its management in a position to provide enough input for the re-write should the user's become able to stand by. Since the cost is now being paid not only by us in time and expenditure to constantly adjust a fatally flawed program, and by the client in chaos and bloodshed, it is time for us to withdraw and allow the client to seek internal or external remedy from another source.
However, Iraq is not the only issue where the EITHER/OR trend in discussion is hampering solution.
Take illegal immigration, for example. The solution is not EITHER amnesty OR no amnesty and deportation instead. There are many viable solutions, all of which have merit and all of which must be applied for the problem to be resolved. Polarization on this issue along partisan lines will result in no resolution. Every available option that is feasible and contributory to the desired result must be implemented.
My humble opinion is that immigration quota's and restrictions should be loosened to allow more legal immigration.
Illegal immigrants who have proven themselves good potential citizens over a long period of time should be allowed amnesty but be penalized in a way that is not merely punitive but beneficent. For example, they may purchase work visa's good for five years, during which time they may apply for citizenship and be given it if they take and pass the test within that time frame and demonstrate a working grasp of the English language. The fine should be substantial but not backbreaking, such as $5,o00, payable over the five year period. The fine should go into a trust to provide scholarships to college for the deserving (meaning good GPA's at high school graduation) children of legal immigrants, which they will be once they pass the citizenship exam. Additional prerequisites should include that they be gainfully employed or legal business owners, have health insurance coverage, pay income taxes and file federal and state income tax returns.
Those who are married, with American born children, or single mothers of same, may request and be given the same amnesty if they can meet the same requirements and be sponsored by 5 U.S. citizens, 2 of which must be native born citizens.
Illegal immigrants who have been in the country less than, say, 5 years, and have no legitimate American born children, must be deported. They may apply for legal immigration.
As of the date of the enactment, all children born to parents who are both illegal immigrants will not be granted citizenship status. One parent must be a citizen or a verified legal immigrant.
Employers of illegal immigrants with no work visa's must be heavily fined for each illegal immigrant worker. Every employee must provide a valid Social Security number and either birth certificate or work visa.
Domestic, farm, and private maintenance workers must be licensed and must produce the same legal documents to the government licensing agent in order to be employed.
Developers and home builders who contract with companies for construction or similar work must be as liable as the contracted companies.
Visa's (or green cards) must be redesigned and printed in the same type methods reserved for U.S. dollars so that they may not be counterfeited.
Illegal immigrants caught crossing at the border must be confined for six months. During that half-year, they may petition the government if they qualify for amnesty under the same conditions. If they do not qualify, they must be deported at the end of the period. If they are caught a second time, or found to be living within the borders at a later time, they must be imprisoned for one year and will be ineligible for amnesty or petition for legal citizenship or work visa for 5 years, regardless of circumstances. A third offense will be a 3 year imprisonment and lifetime ineligibility. A fourth offense will be a federal offense and a 10 year prison sentence with no parole.
Borders must be made as secure as possible, and include fencing and heavily patrolled.
Those are just what I can think of off the top of my head. Surely, our elected officials could come up with an even better comprehensive solution, if they ever tried.
One example is the search for who to blame for the debacle that is Iraq. The best description I've found is at The Carpetbagger Report, which briefly touches on the situation, then goes on to decry that it's not appropriate to blame the American people.
"For the last several months, as conditions in Iraq have deteriorated, we’ve seen the emergence of a parallel debate that runs alongside the general question of what we’re supposed to do about this mess. It is, of course, the who-deserves-the-blame question.
You’re no doubt familiar with the list of suspects. For the reality-based community, Bush is near the top, followed by Cheney and Rumsfeld. In DC and in the media, some prefer to blame some combination of al Qaeda and Iran. Others argue the Middle East is to blame, because, they say, the region is not ready for democracy. In a variety of places, you can also hear blame go to Iraqis, U.S. troops, and the media.
But as Josh Marshall noted, Roll Call’s Mort Kondracke has nominated a new scapegoat: the American electorate."
It's not the American people's fault. Alone. But, the people of this country allowed it to happen and have, by their acquiescence, bear their fair share of the blame.
The truth is that it is not EITHER the American people's fault OR the Iraqi people's fault. It is not EITHER Iran's fault OR Al Qaeda's. It is not EITHER the media's fault OR the administration. Or the blogosphere. Or the wingnuts. Or any combination of any of the above or any other entity that did anything other than question, complain, act or speak against the war from the beginning. They are the only blameless, and even they can be held to account for not being strident enough, or loud enough, or active enough.
EVERYONE IS TO BLAME. EVERYONE BEARS THEIR OWN SHARE OF THE FAULT.
To paraphrase Shakespeare: A plague on all your houses. ALL YOUR HOUSES! ALL are punish'd. All are punish'd.
That one entity might share more blame than another is a given. And it is irrelevant.
The past, history, that is, is good for one thing and one thing only. To learn from. It is not a weight on an non-existent scale in relation to what is to be done in the present, other than to teach us not to repeat mistakes. It doesn't tell us what to do, but rather what not to do. And no amount of finger pointing is going to solve the predicament in front of us at this moment.
In technical analysis, we call this a "going forward" event. Going forward means that regardless of what we were doing before, we must now do this instead.
It's the instead that must be solved. We must look at the operator's error, and, going forward, not allow it's repetition. Sometimes that means taking the program down another pathway, sometimes it means shutting down the program and re-writing the whole damn thing.
In my humble opinion, I think we have a fatally flawed program, and our client is recalcitrant and unwilling to suspend its operations long enough to allow for new specifications to be written and implemented, nor is its management in a position to provide enough input for the re-write should the user's become able to stand by. Since the cost is now being paid not only by us in time and expenditure to constantly adjust a fatally flawed program, and by the client in chaos and bloodshed, it is time for us to withdraw and allow the client to seek internal or external remedy from another source.
However, Iraq is not the only issue where the EITHER/OR trend in discussion is hampering solution.
Take illegal immigration, for example. The solution is not EITHER amnesty OR no amnesty and deportation instead. There are many viable solutions, all of which have merit and all of which must be applied for the problem to be resolved. Polarization on this issue along partisan lines will result in no resolution. Every available option that is feasible and contributory to the desired result must be implemented.
My humble opinion is that immigration quota's and restrictions should be loosened to allow more legal immigration.
Illegal immigrants who have proven themselves good potential citizens over a long period of time should be allowed amnesty but be penalized in a way that is not merely punitive but beneficent. For example, they may purchase work visa's good for five years, during which time they may apply for citizenship and be given it if they take and pass the test within that time frame and demonstrate a working grasp of the English language. The fine should be substantial but not backbreaking, such as $5,o00, payable over the five year period. The fine should go into a trust to provide scholarships to college for the deserving (meaning good GPA's at high school graduation) children of legal immigrants, which they will be once they pass the citizenship exam. Additional prerequisites should include that they be gainfully employed or legal business owners, have health insurance coverage, pay income taxes and file federal and state income tax returns.
Those who are married, with American born children, or single mothers of same, may request and be given the same amnesty if they can meet the same requirements and be sponsored by 5 U.S. citizens, 2 of which must be native born citizens.
Illegal immigrants who have been in the country less than, say, 5 years, and have no legitimate American born children, must be deported. They may apply for legal immigration.
As of the date of the enactment, all children born to parents who are both illegal immigrants will not be granted citizenship status. One parent must be a citizen or a verified legal immigrant.
Employers of illegal immigrants with no work visa's must be heavily fined for each illegal immigrant worker. Every employee must provide a valid Social Security number and either birth certificate or work visa.
Domestic, farm, and private maintenance workers must be licensed and must produce the same legal documents to the government licensing agent in order to be employed.
Developers and home builders who contract with companies for construction or similar work must be as liable as the contracted companies.
Visa's (or green cards) must be redesigned and printed in the same type methods reserved for U.S. dollars so that they may not be counterfeited.
Illegal immigrants caught crossing at the border must be confined for six months. During that half-year, they may petition the government if they qualify for amnesty under the same conditions. If they do not qualify, they must be deported at the end of the period. If they are caught a second time, or found to be living within the borders at a later time, they must be imprisoned for one year and will be ineligible for amnesty or petition for legal citizenship or work visa for 5 years, regardless of circumstances. A third offense will be a 3 year imprisonment and lifetime ineligibility. A fourth offense will be a federal offense and a 10 year prison sentence with no parole.
Borders must be made as secure as possible, and include fencing and heavily patrolled.
Those are just what I can think of off the top of my head. Surely, our elected officials could come up with an even better comprehensive solution, if they ever tried.
Humorlessness
I don't know if it's just my mood of late, or what, but I'm finding most of the political discourse on the blogosphere so redundant and humorless that it bores and depresses me. Of course, what really bores and depresses me is what is actually happening in the country.
I may simply have to take a respite from commentary unless I find myself unable to withhold myself. However, in my quest to find something, anything, that is optimistic or amusing, at the very least, I will not forget to post it here forthwith.
I may simply have to take a respite from commentary unless I find myself unable to withhold myself. However, in my quest to find something, anything, that is optimistic or amusing, at the very least, I will not forget to post it here forthwith.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Friday Night Catblogging
I would be, but BetaBlogger is being BetaBloggerish again and not allowing me to upload any images.
This is very tiresome. Very, very tiresome.
A happy return
Altmouse is back. Yeah! I've been missing her. I'll have to add her to my blogroll, but I have many others to add too, when I feel like it, so this will have to do for now.
So funny. I used to have a sense of humor.
So funny. I used to have a sense of humor.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Just 18 more years
Damn right, O'Reilly. It's our new, secret plan to grow the Dem base. Birth'em, nurture'em, grow'em, and vote'em.
It's what we're doing with all those aborted fetuses. We freeze them, ship them in a test tube to a clinic in an undisclosed location, then our mad scientists thaw them and re-implant them in specially chosen Dem single women.
Oops! Wasn't supposed to let that out. What a way you have in getting secret info, Bill. Just like the secret, private medical files of Kansas women. Oops! The clinics are NOT in Kansas. Just want to make that clear.
It's what we're doing with all those aborted fetuses. We freeze them, ship them in a test tube to a clinic in an undisclosed location, then our mad scientists thaw them and re-implant them in specially chosen Dem single women.
Oops! Wasn't supposed to let that out. What a way you have in getting secret info, Bill. Just like the secret, private medical files of Kansas women. Oops! The clinics are NOT in Kansas. Just want to make that clear.
Freeway Blogging
This is FABULOUS!!! Check it out and then go find your nearest freeway.
I had an attack from eating shrimpcakes today and am sick, sick, sick again for who knows how long. I'd probably die if I tried getting near a freeway, but this little puppy is going in my windshield!!
If you post a sign to a freeway after learning about it here, please send me a pic. I'd consider it an honor.
Thanks to Colorado Bob!
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Stop Cannabalism!
I'm very confused about the terms being bandied about in the Party. I don't understand the usage of the words "Centrist", "Liberal", "Progressive", "Left", "Right of Center", and on and on and on. On a number of influential blogs, "Centrism" seems to be attacked on every level and with a vehemism previously reserved for Republicans.
I think it's sad, really. The Democratic Party seems genetically engineered to attack and destroy itself. We should have one opponent, the other Party. I don't expect to agree with every other individual in the Democratic Party and I don't expect them to agree with me. I refuse to attack them for it, though I will state my disagreement when I find it appropriate.
Overall, I believe the Democratic Party's duty is to impose an attentiveness to the good of humanity on capitalism. I don't believe in absolute communism. I believe capitalism is the best route to a just and healthy society but must be tempered, sometimes severely, but by and large benignly, if carefully guided and supported by the will of the people. I believe that some socialist-inspired programs must be provided by the government, for the welfare of the people as a whole. This would include Social Security, public education, and universal health care. Inasmuch as this may curtail capitalism interests, so be it.
I actually took a test at The Political Compass and was surprised to find that I was a Libertarian Leftist, being left on economic issues and libertarian on social issues. I always considered myself to the epitome of the center. I was pleased, however, to be placed in the graph in nearly the exact position as Gandhi, and extremely close to Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama. So, I must be doing something right.
Still, there has to be a middle road with elements of almost every political philosophy incorporated into the path to avoid society swinging too far towards any single one political philosophy. History has proven them all to be unworkable in their extreme manifestation.
To me, that has always meant centrism and pragmatism.
prag·ma·tism (prgm-tzm)
n.
1. Philosophy A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.
cen·trist (sntrst)
n.
One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.
adj.
Marked by or adhering to a moderate political view: "The deep pool of centrist opinion in the country, that essential guarantee against violent political upheavals, is being dangerously shaken" New York Times.
cen·trism (sntrzm)
n.
The political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of right and left by taking a moderate position.
hm();Sources=Sources 2;
As someone who had read three dictionaries, one set of encyclopedia's and the complete works of Shakespeare by age 12, (not that you'd ever know it now having had so much sucked out of my brain by this disease) I've tended to stick with the legitimate definitions of words. However, reading in message boards, I've learned that Richard Perle has somehow tinged the word "pragmatism" beyond all acceptance by self-described liberals (not sure how), Centrists are empty headed, and Centrism is vacuous compromise for the sake of compromise.
I don't know. I just don't get it.
I would like for the new Congress to get all the things done that I want them to get done immediately, like (and in no particular order) universal healthcare, overturning the Military Commisions Act, reinstate posse comitatus and habeas corpus, raise the minimum wage substantially, ensure the greatest generation gets every and any damn thing it pleases in reward for saving the world, increase tariffs to impose fair trade, fully fund superior education for every student regardless of age, race, location or any other damn thing, stop the genocide in Darfur and every other damn place immediately, completely revamp election laws and procedures, abolish money donations from lobbyists, secure our ports and our borders, increase immigration quotas, solve the ILLEGAL immigration problem by engaging all possibilities such as citizenship for some with penalties, deportation for some with no questions, and fines for corporate exploiters, free the country from oil dependence, develop smarter methods of providing domestic security, abolish domestic surveillance without warrants, engage in the peace process in the middle east, rebuild the Gulf Coast, and, last but absolutely not least, withdraw from Iraq and establish a reasonable and workable foreign policy.
Oh, and impeach Bush after he blocks all of the above.
That's what I'd like to happen. And probably more. But, you know what? I live in reality and I know that they cannot do it all by January 30th. I know that compromises will have to be reached. I won't get everything I want. Other Democrats won't get everything they want. Some of us won't get anything we want. And some things we might get only if we take the White House and maintain our lead in Congress come the next election. Or the election after that. Or the one after that.
Compromise IS in the Constitution. Compromise IS the Constitution, insofar as the establishment of the three branches of government is in the Constitution.
I understand that some elected Democrats might seem like weasels to me, or backstabbers or traitors, or like downright idiots. Even so, the most disagreeable Democrat is preferable to me to the most agreeable Republican. Because, at core, I know that despite some evidence to the contrary, that Democrat is more likely to believe that corporate interests must be reigned in to some degree, even if a minor degree, for the good of the people. And I know that the Republican believes that all business, any business, is good business and good for America. I want that Democrat to do whatever he has to do in his elected position to please his constituents, the people in his state or district who cast their votes for him. I don't expect the good Democratic congressman from, I dunno, Kalamazoo, Michigan, (if there is one) to please me down here in Greenville, SC. I want him to please the folks in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Even if what he does makes me sputter and flush with frustration and irritation.
Grow up, Democrats. Quit whining. Quit name calling. Quit alienating every other Democrat, elected or not, who disagrees with one or more of your pet concerns or your preferred method of meeting an objective. Unite. Stop navel gazing and simultaneously attempting to find the splinter in the eye of your fellow Democrat while ignoring the log in your own, to paraphrase a well known book. Unite and fight the good fight and know when to compromise to achieve an achievable and reasonable move forward. But, above all, unite. Unite. Unite. Unite.
Or as my Daddy would say in his day, quit flapping your jaws. You're stirring up a hurricane.
I think it's sad, really. The Democratic Party seems genetically engineered to attack and destroy itself. We should have one opponent, the other Party. I don't expect to agree with every other individual in the Democratic Party and I don't expect them to agree with me. I refuse to attack them for it, though I will state my disagreement when I find it appropriate.
Overall, I believe the Democratic Party's duty is to impose an attentiveness to the good of humanity on capitalism. I don't believe in absolute communism. I believe capitalism is the best route to a just and healthy society but must be tempered, sometimes severely, but by and large benignly, if carefully guided and supported by the will of the people. I believe that some socialist-inspired programs must be provided by the government, for the welfare of the people as a whole. This would include Social Security, public education, and universal health care. Inasmuch as this may curtail capitalism interests, so be it.
I actually took a test at The Political Compass and was surprised to find that I was a Libertarian Leftist, being left on economic issues and libertarian on social issues. I always considered myself to the epitome of the center. I was pleased, however, to be placed in the graph in nearly the exact position as Gandhi, and extremely close to Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama. So, I must be doing something right.
Still, there has to be a middle road with elements of almost every political philosophy incorporated into the path to avoid society swinging too far towards any single one political philosophy. History has proven them all to be unworkable in their extreme manifestation.
To me, that has always meant centrism and pragmatism.
prag·ma·tism (prgm-tzm)
n.
1. Philosophy A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.
cen·trist (sntrst)
n.
One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.
adj.
Marked by or adhering to a moderate political view: "The deep pool of centrist opinion in the country, that essential guarantee against violent political upheavals, is being dangerously shaken" New York Times.
cen·trism (sntrzm)
n.
The political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of right and left by taking a moderate position.
hm();Sources=Sources 2;
As someone who had read three dictionaries, one set of encyclopedia's and the complete works of Shakespeare by age 12, (not that you'd ever know it now having had so much sucked out of my brain by this disease) I've tended to stick with the legitimate definitions of words. However, reading in message boards, I've learned that Richard Perle has somehow tinged the word "pragmatism" beyond all acceptance by self-described liberals (not sure how), Centrists are empty headed, and Centrism is vacuous compromise for the sake of compromise.
I don't know. I just don't get it.
I would like for the new Congress to get all the things done that I want them to get done immediately, like (and in no particular order) universal healthcare, overturning the Military Commisions Act, reinstate posse comitatus and habeas corpus, raise the minimum wage substantially, ensure the greatest generation gets every and any damn thing it pleases in reward for saving the world, increase tariffs to impose fair trade, fully fund superior education for every student regardless of age, race, location or any other damn thing, stop the genocide in Darfur and every other damn place immediately, completely revamp election laws and procedures, abolish money donations from lobbyists, secure our ports and our borders, increase immigration quotas, solve the ILLEGAL immigration problem by engaging all possibilities such as citizenship for some with penalties, deportation for some with no questions, and fines for corporate exploiters, free the country from oil dependence, develop smarter methods of providing domestic security, abolish domestic surveillance without warrants, engage in the peace process in the middle east, rebuild the Gulf Coast, and, last but absolutely not least, withdraw from Iraq and establish a reasonable and workable foreign policy.
Oh, and impeach Bush after he blocks all of the above.
That's what I'd like to happen. And probably more. But, you know what? I live in reality and I know that they cannot do it all by January 30th. I know that compromises will have to be reached. I won't get everything I want. Other Democrats won't get everything they want. Some of us won't get anything we want. And some things we might get only if we take the White House and maintain our lead in Congress come the next election. Or the election after that. Or the one after that.
Compromise IS in the Constitution. Compromise IS the Constitution, insofar as the establishment of the three branches of government is in the Constitution.
I understand that some elected Democrats might seem like weasels to me, or backstabbers or traitors, or like downright idiots. Even so, the most disagreeable Democrat is preferable to me to the most agreeable Republican. Because, at core, I know that despite some evidence to the contrary, that Democrat is more likely to believe that corporate interests must be reigned in to some degree, even if a minor degree, for the good of the people. And I know that the Republican believes that all business, any business, is good business and good for America. I want that Democrat to do whatever he has to do in his elected position to please his constituents, the people in his state or district who cast their votes for him. I don't expect the good Democratic congressman from, I dunno, Kalamazoo, Michigan, (if there is one) to please me down here in Greenville, SC. I want him to please the folks in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Even if what he does makes me sputter and flush with frustration and irritation.
Grow up, Democrats. Quit whining. Quit name calling. Quit alienating every other Democrat, elected or not, who disagrees with one or more of your pet concerns or your preferred method of meeting an objective. Unite. Stop navel gazing and simultaneously attempting to find the splinter in the eye of your fellow Democrat while ignoring the log in your own, to paraphrase a well known book. Unite and fight the good fight and know when to compromise to achieve an achievable and reasonable move forward. But, above all, unite. Unite. Unite. Unite.
Or as my Daddy would say in his day, quit flapping your jaws. You're stirring up a hurricane.
Foolin' around
I am finding current events far too depressing these days.
Thanks to Ivan the Terrible, I was playing with the P.G.Wodehouse quote generator and I kept getting quotes about dogs. Don't know if they were Yaller Dogs, but here they are.
He uttered a sound much like a bull dog swallowing a pork chop whose dimensions it has underestimated.
I was sauntering on the river bank with a girl named something that has slipped my mind, when there was a sound of barking and a large hefty dog came galloping up, full of beans and buck and obviously intent on mayhem. And I was just commending my soul to God and feeling that this was where the old flannel trousers got about thirty bobs worth of value bitten out of them, when the girl, waiting till she saw the whites of its eyes, with extraordinary presence of mind opened a coloured Japanese umbrella in the animal's face. Upon which it did three back somersaults and retired into private life.
These were my favorites of a few minutes, though.
South Kensington ... where sin stalks naked through the dark alleys and only might is right.
Service With a Smile, 1962
He had the look of a frustrated tiger whose personal physician had recommended a strict vegetarian diet....
Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of Tolstoi's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby into the city's reservoir, he turns to the cupboars, only to find the vodka bottle empty.
Jill the Reckless (1921)
Thanks to Ivan the Terrible, I was playing with the P.G.Wodehouse quote generator and I kept getting quotes about dogs. Don't know if they were Yaller Dogs, but here they are.
He uttered a sound much like a bull dog swallowing a pork chop whose dimensions it has underestimated.
I was sauntering on the river bank with a girl named something that has slipped my mind, when there was a sound of barking and a large hefty dog came galloping up, full of beans and buck and obviously intent on mayhem. And I was just commending my soul to God and feeling that this was where the old flannel trousers got about thirty bobs worth of value bitten out of them, when the girl, waiting till she saw the whites of its eyes, with extraordinary presence of mind opened a coloured Japanese umbrella in the animal's face. Upon which it did three back somersaults and retired into private life.
These were my favorites of a few minutes, though.
South Kensington ... where sin stalks naked through the dark alleys and only might is right.
Service With a Smile, 1962
He had the look of a frustrated tiger whose personal physician had recommended a strict vegetarian diet....
Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of Tolstoi's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby into the city's reservoir, he turns to the cupboars, only to find the vodka bottle empty.
Jill the Reckless (1921)
Message Delivered
Charlie Stross has some thoughts regarding the Litvenenko poisoning recently, but then, he has astute observations on many things. The man has enviable skills.
The Daily Show referenced a story tonight about a gentleman possibly involved who was a judo expert with a slight limp who spoke English and Portugese fluently. I'm still trying to find the reference.
Somebody tell me it's just a rather engrossing spy novel. John le Carre', where are you when we need you?
Hat tip to Brad DeLong.
The Daily Show referenced a story tonight about a gentleman possibly involved who was a judo expert with a slight limp who spoke English and Portugese fluently. I'm still trying to find the reference.
Somebody tell me it's just a rather engrossing spy novel. John le Carre', where are you when we need you?
Hat tip to Brad DeLong.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
A Celebration
Finally, YouTube has it's kinks worked out for Blogger Beta. But, it will be down for maintenance soon and who knows after that. Blogger is down for maintenance over and over again, then its hinky as hell afterward, like now. So, if I don't post much, you'll know why. Turn up the volume. Love the tune!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
