War with Iran seems inevitable at this point. Blair will attack Iran, and the States (ever notice that in the Declaration of Independence it's a little "u" in united States?) will back him up, because that's what we do. Our pockets will be picked for more bombs, and more of America's bravest, more of your sons and daughters, will die over A BULLSHIT LIE SO THE RICH CAN GET RICHER.
And the fifteen sailors and marines... It doesn't make sense. The leadership of Iran knows that Isreal, the UK, and America can turn their whole country to glass. Why would they invite an attack like that? Who in Iran profits from war with us? Do they think Blair won't attack? Fifteen prisoners will pull a lot of heartstrings in the UK. It's an iron-clad excuse for some cruise-missiles and an SAS raid. Then Iran retaliates by cutting off someone's body parts, and it's all out war.
The beauty of it is that no one can prove it's a setup. Whose waters were those sailors in? I don't know. There is no evidence either way. I would have to see their GPS positioning (and I would have reservations regarding it's authenticity), and even then there might be some dispute over where the line is drawn. It's fishy, though. Two dinghies with fifteen personnel in or near Iranian waters without support. Wasn't it a destroyer they deployed from? Where was that destroyer while those sailors were being captured by patrol boats? The cargo vessel they boarded would have been within gun range of that destroyer, yet some Iranian patrol boats can take them prisoner without a fight, or even a display of superior force. That destroyer was one radio signal away from air support that could devastate the entire
Iranian navy. They wouldn't have had to fire a shot. They would have just had to say "Hey! Hands off!" and the Iranians would have backed off. Why didn't they?
I'm done with this shit. I'm getting mad, and I hate to lose my temper. Judgment suffers when emotion rises. It's a set-up, though. Not one bit of it makes sense. We're being had.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Woodward and Bernstien are hacks...
In today's Daily Texan, the UT paper, Woodward, Bernstein discuss government corruption, faults."
This is ironic. Just the other day someone mentioned Woodward and Bernstein, and their journalistic integrity, and I thought to myself "Yeah, where are those guys?" Woodward and Bernstein took down the Nixon administration through tenacious investigative journalism, I'm told. Surely Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't break a sweat tearing down the Bush regime. The fifth-grader who reads the lunch menu over the school loudspeaker every morning wouldn't have any trouble digging up enough dirt on Bush to have him executed for treason. "What would Woodward and Bernstein say," I wondered?
I didn't know much about Watergate. It was before my time. Even my older friends would have been in grade school at the time. For a refresher this evening, I perused the Washington Post's Watergate Time-line, which has handy links to all the relevant Post stories. So now I know roughly what happened with Nixon, and that Woodward and Bernstein wrote down what "Deep Throat" (a porn classic) told them.
Good job, guys, but what have you done for me lately?
So what do these heroic living testaments to journalistic integrity have to say about the Bush administration?
"It's better to have a criminal president than an incompetent president," Woodward said. "Nixon was impeached because his actions were criminal, while the actions of many incompetent presidents do far worse damage, but aren't grounds for legal action," he said.
There's no law against stupid.
I won't get into an indictment of Bush II. Everyone knows enough to have him hanged from the nearest street-lamp, and his daddy, too, and his granddaddy if anyone feels like digging up his putrid, syphilitic corpse.
Okay, you got me. I made up the syphilitic part.
It's not necessary for a president to break the law to be impeached, though. Wil S. Hylton, a writer for GQ, wrote in THE PEOPLE V. RICHARD CHENEY that "Only two conditions must be met (for an impeachment). First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be," and "as Gerald Ford once pointed out while still serving in the House of Representatives, the only real definition of an 'impeachable offense' is 'whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'"
Mr. Hylton goes on to list historical grounds for impeachment: "The reasons for impeachment have ranged from the outrageous to the banal: from putting political enemies in jail (Judge James H. Peck, 1830) to cheating on taxes (Judge Harry E. Claiborne, 1986); from being rude to Congress (“unmindful of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches,” President Andrew Johnson, 1868) to being a drunkard (“a man of loose morals and intemperate habits,” Judge John Pickering, 1803). One president was even impeached for having the good taste to keep his sex life private (concealing “the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee,” President William Jefferson Clinton, 1998)."
I tried to find out what Woodward and Bernstein have done since Watergate, and it appears they've spent the last forty years milking their one big story. They're the Walter Koenig (he played Chekov in Star Trek) of journalism, signing autographs for five bucks a pop at Watergate conventions.
This is ironic. Just the other day someone mentioned Woodward and Bernstein, and their journalistic integrity, and I thought to myself "Yeah, where are those guys?" Woodward and Bernstein took down the Nixon administration through tenacious investigative journalism, I'm told. Surely Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't break a sweat tearing down the Bush regime. The fifth-grader who reads the lunch menu over the school loudspeaker every morning wouldn't have any trouble digging up enough dirt on Bush to have him executed for treason. "What would Woodward and Bernstein say," I wondered?
I didn't know much about Watergate. It was before my time. Even my older friends would have been in grade school at the time. For a refresher this evening, I perused the Washington Post's Watergate Time-line, which has handy links to all the relevant Post stories. So now I know roughly what happened with Nixon, and that Woodward and Bernstein wrote down what "Deep Throat" (a porn classic) told them.
Good job, guys, but what have you done for me lately?
So what do these heroic living testaments to journalistic integrity have to say about the Bush administration?
"It's better to have a criminal president than an incompetent president," Woodward said. "Nixon was impeached because his actions were criminal, while the actions of many incompetent presidents do far worse damage, but aren't grounds for legal action," he said.
There's no law against stupid.
I won't get into an indictment of Bush II. Everyone knows enough to have him hanged from the nearest street-lamp, and his daddy, too, and his granddaddy if anyone feels like digging up his putrid, syphilitic corpse.
Okay, you got me. I made up the syphilitic part.
It's not necessary for a president to break the law to be impeached, though. Wil S. Hylton, a writer for GQ, wrote in THE PEOPLE V. RICHARD CHENEY that "Only two conditions must be met (for an impeachment). First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be," and "as Gerald Ford once pointed out while still serving in the House of Representatives, the only real definition of an 'impeachable offense' is 'whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'"
Mr. Hylton goes on to list historical grounds for impeachment: "The reasons for impeachment have ranged from the outrageous to the banal: from putting political enemies in jail (Judge James H. Peck, 1830) to cheating on taxes (Judge Harry E. Claiborne, 1986); from being rude to Congress (“unmindful of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches,” President Andrew Johnson, 1868) to being a drunkard (“a man of loose morals and intemperate habits,” Judge John Pickering, 1803). One president was even impeached for having the good taste to keep his sex life private (concealing “the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee,” President William Jefferson Clinton, 1998)."
I tried to find out what Woodward and Bernstein have done since Watergate, and it appears they've spent the last forty years milking their one big story. They're the Walter Koenig (he played Chekov in Star Trek) of journalism, signing autographs for five bucks a pop at Watergate conventions.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
It's a waste of time to hate Bush...
Bush isn't the problem. It's fun to Bush-bash every once in a while, but, when you get down to it, there's just no sport in it. He's a joke. Everyone knows he's a joke. That's what he's for. Everyone bashes Bush, and they think "Now I feel better." Bush gives people something to vent about.
It's the same with blogging. Blogs allow people to vent. I might be venting right now, but I doubt it. However, do you know what else I'm not doing? I'm not marching to Washington with the rest of the angry bloggers.
I have no strong feelings about Bush. Not Bush II, anyway. He's too dumb to be a threat on his own. Jim Marrs once called him a "post-turtle." He said if you're driving down the road, and you see a turtle perched up on a fence post, you know he couldn't have got there unless someone put him there. That's a post-turtle. Bush II is no threat, but...
Did you ever think what would have happened if that bullet had killed Reagan? The Bushes are an old family. Their roots go way back, and mingle with a lot of other old families. Old money, and power. Prescott Bush's financing of the Nazis is public knowledge. The Bushes' familial relation to the British royals are public knowledge. The Bushes are a powerful, greedy family with powerful, greedy friends. This is not news.
Reagan was an actor.
This is real. They're trying to cause trouble. They've already caused quite a bit. They're not ready to make their final move, though. They would need another 9/11.
A lot of people I know have kids. Kids get hurt, sometimes, and nobody likes to see their child injured or in pain. Whether it's a broken bone or just a shot at the doctor's office, your child's pain is your pain. But there's a switch you flip, in your mind. An old friend called it the Mommy Switch. It allows you to wipe your crying baby's diaper-rash even though you know it hurts. It allows you to hold your child down for a shot. It allows you to remember first aid, or the fastest route to the hospital, while trying to keep the kid calm, because you keep your head. You keep your head because there are things to be done, and you're the one to do them. And if you lose your head, and that which needs to be done is neglected, an emergency becomes a tragedy.
They need a bigger one.
It's the same with blogging. Blogs allow people to vent. I might be venting right now, but I doubt it. However, do you know what else I'm not doing? I'm not marching to Washington with the rest of the angry bloggers.
I have no strong feelings about Bush. Not Bush II, anyway. He's too dumb to be a threat on his own. Jim Marrs once called him a "post-turtle." He said if you're driving down the road, and you see a turtle perched up on a fence post, you know he couldn't have got there unless someone put him there. That's a post-turtle. Bush II is no threat, but...
Did you ever think what would have happened if that bullet had killed Reagan? The Bushes are an old family. Their roots go way back, and mingle with a lot of other old families. Old money, and power. Prescott Bush's financing of the Nazis is public knowledge. The Bushes' familial relation to the British royals are public knowledge. The Bushes are a powerful, greedy family with powerful, greedy friends. This is not news.
Reagan was an actor.
This is real. They're trying to cause trouble. They've already caused quite a bit. They're not ready to make their final move, though. They would need another 9/11.
A lot of people I know have kids. Kids get hurt, sometimes, and nobody likes to see their child injured or in pain. Whether it's a broken bone or just a shot at the doctor's office, your child's pain is your pain. But there's a switch you flip, in your mind. An old friend called it the Mommy Switch. It allows you to wipe your crying baby's diaper-rash even though you know it hurts. It allows you to hold your child down for a shot. It allows you to remember first aid, or the fastest route to the hospital, while trying to keep the kid calm, because you keep your head. You keep your head because there are things to be done, and you're the one to do them. And if you lose your head, and that which needs to be done is neglected, an emergency becomes a tragedy.
They need a bigger one.
Friday, March 23, 2007
I can't believe I'm taking Rosie's side...
I can't stand Rosie O'Donnell. She's annoying, and dumb, and reactive. I don't watch the View, either. I've never seen it once in my life. This was brought to my attention, though, and it makes me sick. This is why my TV stays off. Go Rosie.
My poor, poor truck...
I finally got the head off. The gasket is fine, but there's a spacer that's cracked. The valves, piston-heads, and spark-plugs are all fried, on top of the fan clutch, thermostat, probably the water pump, and the front suspension. That truck needs more than I can immediately provide in order to get it moving. I'm going to fix it, but it's going to take more money, and even more time. Till then... Well, damn.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
We can't impeach him...
It's simple. Think of it as an arrangement of pieces on a chessboard. Bush is not the king. He's a rook at best. The rook is inflexible, moves only in straight lines, but properly placed can create an impassable barrier. Bush's position is protected by Cheney, the most evil man on the planet, and a slippery knight in this game. Bush's removal would leave Cheney at the front, where he would no doubt usher in the end of the world. Cheney is covered by Pelosi, a mere pawn. I saw her on TV today, and I thought she was Judge Judy. That may be funny, but it's no joke. I thought Judge Judy was overseeing Gore's report to congress. Pelosi might even be another player's pawn, but she still blocks any form of attack.
Of course, chess is really too simple for an effective analogy. To expand it any further, we would need a game for twelve or thirteen players, with hundreds of ranks of pieces that can move forward, backward, over other pieces, under the board, and also switch sides every once in a while.
We're stuck. If we can't get rid of Bush, he has seventeen more months to rape the world. Is there some way to tie his hands? Myself, I'd like to see a public Salem-style witch-hunt on every member of the federal government and clean house. I'm not saying burn them at the stake (you don't kill a snake for being a snake, just don't put yourself in a position to get bit) but remove them from power. Is there some way to tie their hands? To neutralize this cabal without leaving ourselves open to further manipulation?
Manipulation is tricky. there are such things as social engineers. People go to college for it. They study psychology and sociology and statistics and trends and then they get jobs at Pepsi, and FOX, and marketing firms, and ad agencies. Then people hire them, and say "We'd like to raise peoples' awareness of the impact of otter-scrubbing on wildlife," or "We want you rapping about big-screen TVs, blunts, forties, and bitches." They put articles in newspapers, guests on talk-shows, episodes of sitcoms involving blunt-smoking otter-scrubbers watching bitches on big screens.
There's something else going on. If Bush, Cheney, and Pelosi were pieces on my side of the board, I'd be pretty confident right now. I'd also be coiled to launch an unexpected flanking attack while my opponent was looking at the big pieces.
Sun Tzu says deception is at the heart of warfare.
This game isn't going to end in seventeen months.
Of course, chess is really too simple for an effective analogy. To expand it any further, we would need a game for twelve or thirteen players, with hundreds of ranks of pieces that can move forward, backward, over other pieces, under the board, and also switch sides every once in a while.
We're stuck. If we can't get rid of Bush, he has seventeen more months to rape the world. Is there some way to tie his hands? Myself, I'd like to see a public Salem-style witch-hunt on every member of the federal government and clean house. I'm not saying burn them at the stake (you don't kill a snake for being a snake, just don't put yourself in a position to get bit) but remove them from power. Is there some way to tie their hands? To neutralize this cabal without leaving ourselves open to further manipulation?
Manipulation is tricky. there are such things as social engineers. People go to college for it. They study psychology and sociology and statistics and trends and then they get jobs at Pepsi, and FOX, and marketing firms, and ad agencies. Then people hire them, and say "We'd like to raise peoples' awareness of the impact of otter-scrubbing on wildlife," or "We want you rapping about big-screen TVs, blunts, forties, and bitches." They put articles in newspapers, guests on talk-shows, episodes of sitcoms involving blunt-smoking otter-scrubbers watching bitches on big screens.
There's something else going on. If Bush, Cheney, and Pelosi were pieces on my side of the board, I'd be pretty confident right now. I'd also be coiled to launch an unexpected flanking attack while my opponent was looking at the big pieces.
Sun Tzu says deception is at the heart of warfare.
This game isn't going to end in seventeen months.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Today's Austin American-Statesman...
If you look on the front page (I couldn't find the shot on their website), you'll see a guy holding a big sign that says "IRAQ WAR: WRONG WAY." About thirty yards behind him you would see me, if he wasn't in the way.
I was only there by accident. I took the bus to Guadalupe to get some books from Brave New Books (A great store, but the selection is highly specialized - you'll find books there you won't find anywhere else, but don't go there looking for Stephen King), then decided to tour my old stomping grounds downtown. There was a place I used to panhandle on 6th street, so I walked past it and gave some change to the guy sitting there (His name is Eric), then decided to walk to Luke's apartment, about a mile and a half away.
Those protesters were on the bridge, with about twenty cops (no riot gear - they probably don't like the war, either) watching over them. I'm not a big fan of cops. Cops can bind your hands and take you away forever. They can shoot you and get away with it, under the proper circumstances (for instance, if you don't like having your hands painfully bound behind you with the cuffs locked down hard between the joint in your wrists with the backs of your hands together before they throw you in a concrete cage). They would probably taze you, though. Know this: It is better to kill a man than to take away his dignity. All the non-lethal methods so favored by law enforcement are designed for exactly that purpose. They can control you, and take away your right to fight to the death for your freedom. Take a look at the "crowd control" technology available today.
There were no clashes, though. Not even the appearance of the threat of one. Like I said, the cops probably hate the war, too. Everyone was chill - they were having a good time. As I was crossing the bridge I said hey to the protesters, and they asked if I wanted to join them. So I hung out for a minute. No big deal, I was just one more body present, but I think that's what it's all about. In a majority rules society, it's all about how many like-minded people you can get in the same place at the same time.
I don't feel like it accomplished anything, though. Everybody hates the war. Even the poor misguided souls who think there's some reason for us to stay even one more day hate the war. It's not like they're out there swaying the opinions of people who already agree. I feel like something more meaningful. I feel like getting about a hundred thousand people to surround the White House and the Capitol Building and just sit down. Sit down in the streets, and nothing moves in Washington until some things get sorted out. Bring the kids, let them run and play. Bring some barbecue grills and some coolers and some music and tents and just chill in the streets of Washington, D.C, shutting it down.
I doubt the city would issue a permit for that kind of thing. "We want to assemble in the streets and shut down all traffic until government of the people, by the people, for the people means something again, and we'd like a permit." A protest permit can be easily acquired, it seems, but I just don't see that one happening. The rules would have to be bent. The Constitution (actually the Bill of Rights, but they go together like peanut-butter and chocolate), defines our right to peaceably assemble. The Constitution doesn't give us that right, or any others. We're born with our rights. The Constitution just recognizes them. It being a right means you don't have to ask.
I was only there by accident. I took the bus to Guadalupe to get some books from Brave New Books (A great store, but the selection is highly specialized - you'll find books there you won't find anywhere else, but don't go there looking for Stephen King), then decided to tour my old stomping grounds downtown. There was a place I used to panhandle on 6th street, so I walked past it and gave some change to the guy sitting there (His name is Eric), then decided to walk to Luke's apartment, about a mile and a half away.
Those protesters were on the bridge, with about twenty cops (no riot gear - they probably don't like the war, either) watching over them. I'm not a big fan of cops. Cops can bind your hands and take you away forever. They can shoot you and get away with it, under the proper circumstances (for instance, if you don't like having your hands painfully bound behind you with the cuffs locked down hard between the joint in your wrists with the backs of your hands together before they throw you in a concrete cage). They would probably taze you, though. Know this: It is better to kill a man than to take away his dignity. All the non-lethal methods so favored by law enforcement are designed for exactly that purpose. They can control you, and take away your right to fight to the death for your freedom. Take a look at the "crowd control" technology available today.
There were no clashes, though. Not even the appearance of the threat of one. Like I said, the cops probably hate the war, too. Everyone was chill - they were having a good time. As I was crossing the bridge I said hey to the protesters, and they asked if I wanted to join them. So I hung out for a minute. No big deal, I was just one more body present, but I think that's what it's all about. In a majority rules society, it's all about how many like-minded people you can get in the same place at the same time.
I don't feel like it accomplished anything, though. Everybody hates the war. Even the poor misguided souls who think there's some reason for us to stay even one more day hate the war. It's not like they're out there swaying the opinions of people who already agree. I feel like something more meaningful. I feel like getting about a hundred thousand people to surround the White House and the Capitol Building and just sit down. Sit down in the streets, and nothing moves in Washington until some things get sorted out. Bring the kids, let them run and play. Bring some barbecue grills and some coolers and some music and tents and just chill in the streets of Washington, D.C, shutting it down.
I doubt the city would issue a permit for that kind of thing. "We want to assemble in the streets and shut down all traffic until government of the people, by the people, for the people means something again, and we'd like a permit." A protest permit can be easily acquired, it seems, but I just don't see that one happening. The rules would have to be bent. The Constitution (actually the Bill of Rights, but they go together like peanut-butter and chocolate), defines our right to peaceably assemble. The Constitution doesn't give us that right, or any others. We're born with our rights. The Constitution just recognizes them. It being a right means you don't have to ask.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Jumping the gun...
I'd like to apologize to Chris Dodd. He seems like a good guy, and is highly preferable to Hillary, Obama, Giuliani, McCain, that other guy (I can't remember his name, the guy Ann Coulter called a fag), or the other media unmentionables. Here's the thing, though - I didn't even know Ron Paul was running.
I'm sorry, Chris. I really like the issues you've brought up, but Ron Paul talks about the real issues plaguing America, like the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (A subsidiary of the Bank of England), private interests trying to subvert the sovereignty of the individual, and protection of privacy and property. He's a Republican, but he ran as a Libertarian once. I can't really tell the difference between Republican and Democrat, anyway, and I'm not sure what Libertarian means. I'm not interested in political parties. What's the difference between a one party system and a two party system? The illusion of choice, and maybe which pocket they're going to pick.
What I'd like to know, though, is why didn't I know Ron Paul was running? I pore over news reports from all over the world, analyzing everything I can assimilate. I can't recall hearing or reading the name Ron Paul connected with the Presidential race. It may, admittedly, just be me. I've been paying more attention to my Uncle Chuck, who just moved to the mountains of New Mexico with an AK-47, than I have to the circus maximus that presidential campaigning has become.
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?"
In an effort to be balanced, I've put a link to the 2008 Presidential candidates and political party references over to your right, both from Wikipedia.
I'm going to have to take a day or so off from ranting. I'll be getting my hands dirty today. I have to replace the head-gasket and thermostat on my truck. I should replace the water-pump and fan-clutch, too, but those are going to have to wait for my next paycheck.
I'm sorry, Chris. I really like the issues you've brought up, but Ron Paul talks about the real issues plaguing America, like the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (A subsidiary of the Bank of England), private interests trying to subvert the sovereignty of the individual, and protection of privacy and property. He's a Republican, but he ran as a Libertarian once. I can't really tell the difference between Republican and Democrat, anyway, and I'm not sure what Libertarian means. I'm not interested in political parties. What's the difference between a one party system and a two party system? The illusion of choice, and maybe which pocket they're going to pick.
What I'd like to know, though, is why didn't I know Ron Paul was running? I pore over news reports from all over the world, analyzing everything I can assimilate. I can't recall hearing or reading the name Ron Paul connected with the Presidential race. It may, admittedly, just be me. I've been paying more attention to my Uncle Chuck, who just moved to the mountains of New Mexico with an AK-47, than I have to the circus maximus that presidential campaigning has become.
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?"
In an effort to be balanced, I've put a link to the 2008 Presidential candidates and political party references over to your right, both from Wikipedia.
I'm going to have to take a day or so off from ranting. I'll be getting my hands dirty today. I have to replace the head-gasket and thermostat on my truck. I should replace the water-pump and fan-clutch, too, but those are going to have to wait for my next paycheck.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
More insomniacs get their news from World News Tonight than from any other source...
I don't know why I can't sleep. I've been like this all my life. I'll be sleepy all day, but as soon as I lie down, my brain start rambling. It's like an annoying roommate that won't shut up. I've only had five hours of sleep in the last almost three days, and I'm not even a little tired. I smoke pot, not crack, so that can't be it.
So I've been working on this blog for the last couple of hours, putting in links to everything I want to have in one place. I like it. I'm done, now, though. I sat at a computer all day at work, and almost all day at home. That's enough.
So I've been working on this blog for the last couple of hours, putting in links to everything I want to have in one place. I like it. I'm done, now, though. I sat at a computer all day at work, and almost all day at home. That's enough.
Al Gore will save us!
Don't fall for it. Al Gore is just as much a tool as W. He'll be even worse, because a lot of people (the majority, as I recall) think he should have been president.
It's true. Al won that election, and made a little noise when it was stolen from him. I submit, however, that that was only done to pave the way for the voting machines. America is the land of convenience, after all. You don't even have to leave the house on election day.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
