LAURAL'S DISH
Laural is our dog, my dog. Everyone else heads off to school, "people like me and Laural" stay home. He's a fine companion, but you have to understand. If he's having a really good time he tries to bite you, me, anyone. Not hard, just…similarly, if you're scratching his belly real good, but then shift to his (apparently less preferable) ears, he'll growl at you. The irregular spelling of his name results from the time that Alexandra and I were mulling the possibilities, in a tunnel in Newton Abbot, when we came across the graffiti: Laura L is a dog.
Laural loves to eat more than any living being ever created, and he will eat absolutely anything. We've weaned him from rocks but he once tried to eat an unopened can of Carlsberg Export. surprise! So his dish frequently has unusual things in it, bits of this or that, absolute treasures that others might consider slightly unfit for human consumption, for whatever stupid reasons.
Beneath please find my literary reflection of Laural's Dish:
Laural's Dish comes out on Fridays, before lunch, usually.
27 May 2011
Every member of congress should be required by law to review this graph. And if they ever...ever....use the terms "small government" and "Reagan" approvingly in the same sentence...be penalized. I would suggest that the penalty be that they receive no further corporate contributions to their campaigns for ten years, though the classic and patriotic version of tar & feathering and running them out of town does have a certain appeal....
The problem is not that President Obama has done anything radical or in even the vaguest way, socialist*, the problem is that he's been yet another timid, unimaginative, docile caretaker for the Reagan Revolution. Look at all that money! Where the hell do you think it went?!!!! (I ask this the same week that congress voted to give ever more to oil corporations showing record profits, but they're just the sludge on the iceberg)
*it bears repeating, until people start to get it--that what's happening is literally the reverse of socialism--rather than the government owning the means of production, as Marx suggested; the corporations now own the government. So you look like an idiot calling Obama a "socialist, "and there's really no excuse for it, unless you're from the fictitious Simpsons berg of Shelbyville where the inhabitants have a vocabulary of 12; in which case I suggest you drop to 11 and just use the perceived synonym "bad." Sounds smarter: "Obama is bad. The government is bad..." ...and wastes less time of literate people trying to understand your views.
“a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it... all this populist language is just a facade.”
--Cornel "Brother" (as Obama calls him) West
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_obama_deception_why_cornel_west_went_ballistic_20110516/%20
-----------------------
There are a lot of unusual occurrences in this life, and not the least of them is when your children are-very suddenly-adults who leave home and set out to seek their fortune. Kasmira has been out on her own for a few years now, and it seems that Alexandra's departure from the nest is imminent.
It's great to have adult children, and you don't love them less, but it's not, you know it can't ever be the same. That being the case please indulge me in a brief trip into sentimentalist history, with a picture of the girls at Lourdes, and a moment that I immortalized when we'd first come to Exeter, when we were staying in a B&B and were looking for a place to live.
From the north windows of our rooms we can see Exeter Cathedral, one of the most beautiful cathedrals in England. You can see the cathedral from any street corner in town, it stands at the top of the hill off the High Street.
Because of the disjointed English streets, set at anything but right angles to each other, the cathedral tends to move around, to not be where you expect it to be, but off to the right, or left.
But it's always there somewhere.
Our eastern windows are over Alphington Road, on the second floor. It's one of the main roads of Exeter and like the others leads, more or less, over the canal and to the cathedral. The other way heads south, to the Cornwall coast.
***
SCENE: Alexandra (recently turned 8) and I are talking and casually looking out the window.
Time: late afternoon, mid-November, 2001.
ALEXANDRA: We have a good view of the road, don't we papa?
PAPA: Yeah, we sure do...it would be really cool if there was a parade down there sometime...like at Mardi Gras or something...a room over Bourbon Street like this would cost you more than a thousand dollars a week during Mardi Gras.
ALEXANDRA: That's a lot. That's too much isn't it papa?
PAPA: Yeah, it is.
(we look out the window and Alexandra mentions that it would be nice if it snowed [as it is at 5 a.m. as I'm writing this])
ALEXANDRA: Do they celebrate Christmas here like in America?
PAPA: Yeah, pretty much. They have Santa but he's called Father Christmas. Everyone gets presents, there are midnight church services, the Christmas carols tend to be a little more religious here...it's a little bit different but pretty much the same. They have Christmas Eve, Christmas, and Boxing Day.
ALEXANDRA: What's Boxing Day? I heard something about it, but I don't know what it is.
PAPA: Well, Boxing Day is the day after Christmas when...(he stops, half realizing that he isn't positive of the integrity of his answer but diverted by a shiny concept on the periphery)...HEY! That's when this window is going to be great!!
ALEXANDRA (excited): Why? Why papa?
PAPA: Well, you see, Boxing Day is the day after Christmas. And everyone runs around in the streets boxing!
ALEXANDRA: What?
PAPA: Yeah they, you know, run around in the street hitting each other...we can watch them from up here!
ALEXANDRA (suspicious): What do you mean, hitting each other?
PAPA: They walk around on the streets, you don't go out if you don't want to participate, no one has to, and they walk around and if they feel like hitting someone, you know punching them, they do.
ALEXANDRA: Are you sure?
PAPA: Of course, I was born here wasn't I? We can watch them from up here, and if there's anyone we want to hit we can run out and hit them! (Alexandra frowns) Well, obviously you don't hit anyone smaller than yourself, a little bigger usually, but much bigger if you feel like it. It's an old English tradition, I mean obviously you don't hit someone if they're already hurt.
ALEXANDRA (who probably thinks that she's heard of stranger things, what can this possibly have on bullfights?): You want to go down there and do this....(papa shrugs)...what kind of people would you hit?
PAPA: Well, there are basically two ways to decide who to hit. You can either hit people you don't think you would like, or you can hit people you think you might like to be friends with.
ALEXANDRA: Why would you hit someone you think you might like to be friends with?
PAPA: It's a way of meeting them, of introducing yourself, you know like a John Wayne movie...you know how he always hits people and then they become friends...
ALEXANDRA (very thoughtfully):...yeah....
PAPA: I don't know if I'm going to go hit anyone or not. We'll just stay up here in the window and I'll see what it looks like out there. It's probably a lot of fun in its own weird way. Explore different cultures, that's the thing. Do you think you might like to come down and hit someone?
ALEXANDRA: I don't know. Probably not...can I hit anyone I want?
PAPA: Sure, we can both-
(he is interrupted as Kasmira (12) and Amelia (6) come blowing in from the other room)
KASMIRA: Oh, papa! Captain Scarlet was so funny today-the Mysterons turned into this girl, who was a model, in Italy, and then when they had the fashion show they tried to take over the world, so Captain Scarlet and Captain Blue, they were dressed up like boy models, and they all started shooting everything and making a big mess -
ALEXANDRA: Papa was just telling me about Boxing Day. It sounds (wrinkles nose and eyes) really funny.
KASMIRA: What's Boxing Day?
PAPA: Oh, Kasmira. You know what Boxing Day is...it's when the British run around in the streets hitting each other!
AMELIA: What?!
KASMIRA: They hit each other?
PAPA: Sure, they box. I thought you knew that...
KASMIRA: Well, I heard of it...
PAPA: Sure, you know how traditional everything is here. They've been boxing for centuries. They day after Christmas, as good exercise, they run around on the street boxing.
ALEXANDRA: They don't hit people smaller than themselves, and sometimes they hit people so they can get to know them.
AMELIA: Wow! That sounds great!
KASMIRA: Is that really true papa?
PAPA: Of course it is. What did you think Boxing Day was?
KASMIRA: Well I don't know, I....
ALEXANDRA (now excited): We can watch them from up here. We can go out if we want to, but we don't have to.
KASMIRA: I don't think I want to. .. But I'll watch for awhile and see what it's like.
AMELIA: I'm goin'. Are you going papa?
PAPA: I think so. I'll take a look at it first, then I'll probably-
AMELIA: I'm going.
(Mama and Myles (2) breeze into the room)
ALEXANDRA: Papa was telling us about Boxing Day!
MAMA: That's nice. (to papa) Can you help me bring the carriage up the stairs? I got food for a week and there were some killer clothes on sale at the thrift store.
ALEXANDRA: -It sounds really weird.
PAPA: Sure, did you get me anything?
(the cart is retrieved and they move on to making dinner, most everyone has a part besides papa, who runs a verbal counterpoint to the news, pointing out who's doing a good job and who isn't, who knows what they're doing and who doesn't, etc. Boxing Day is forgotten)
*******************
SCENE: Papa is waiting outside Exwick Middle School. The school bell rings, children emerge through doors, some explosively, others casually like a cat. Alexandra runs out with a hop and a skip, eyes narrowed and with a look of determination on her face...
PAPA: Hey Boo, did you have a good-
ALEXANDRA: PAPA PEOPLE DON'T REALLY BOX ON BOXING DAY!!!!! I WAS TALKING TO SOME OF MY FRIENDS AND THEY LAUGHED AT ME AND SAID....(fade)
----------------------
Waal, ok, I know I can't top that. Anyway, though, here's what I've been listening to:
Next Week: Nazis and dogs!
20 May 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110517/lf_nm_life/us_australia_beer_space
Never been there, but met many Australians, and liked 'em all.
http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com/2011/05/willie-nelson-endorses-gary-johnson-for.html
Me and Willie are gettin' quite a track record. We were both among the (unfortunately) few people who endorsed Dennis Kucinich in 2004, both early supporters of Obama before anyone was giving him much of a chance, and now...he's endorsed the Republican that I'm leaning towards. That Willie, he's a wise man.
I think that Wilie Nelson's endorsement is a much bigger deal than most people realize. He will not directly swing votes--in the manner, say, of Mike Huckabee's sheep turning towards wherever he points them...but everyone knows what Willie is a man of intelligence and integrity, and his endorsement will lead to their consideration of Gary Johnson.
Of course lots of people will just say that Willie just likes Johnson because he wants to legalize weed, which is no doubt part of it. Weed's a big issue to Willie, but he hasn't put nearly as much effort into it as saving the family farm over the past three decades (Farm Aid, think that's easy to put together every year?), and Willie's views on a variety of subjects including what the Iraq War would inevitably lead to have been on point.
Marijuana's not a big issue to me in the personal sense of worrying about cops and courts, because I haven't smoked it in going on decades. But I have (um, lots of times) before, and I remember the stoner years with a certain fondness (and with several university degrees as souveneirs-and music's never sounded quite as good ever since I stopped), don't consider it anywhere near as dangerous as tequila, and I pay taxes for all kinds of people-saints and idiots-running around trying to catch all kinds of people-saints and idiots-smoking it so they can throw 'em in jail, which is an absurd waste of time, energy and resources.
What the libertarian wing of the Tea Party does during the 2012 presidential campaign is the most interesting question in American politics, and of their two articulate candidates Johnson is in my opinion more electable than Ron Paul for a number of reasons, now including that Willie likes him better, and will play for free for candidates he likes.
----------------------------
So far the Republicans are the only interesting game in town with regard to the 2012 presidential election. The liberal intelligentsia may or may not launch a third (or fourth) party candidate-Bernie Sanders seems to be speaking in particularly sweeping and populist terms, even louder than usual-but for the moment the 'pubs are the only game in town. And they in no small part because of the question of whether or not the Republican Civil War of 2012 will yield a single candidate, or a third party challenge. I'm betting on the latter, because the heart and soul of the party is with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, and the big bucks are both probably too much to beat, and with whoever they think might be able to beat them.
Donald Trump says he's not going to be president. Dammit, gone, a Corporato candidate who refers to himself in third person as "The Donald." Mike Huckabee says he's not either. Not so fast. Huck is the one guy who potentially could unify the party, and the simple truth is that the less you see of the guy the more you like him. I call on corporate stalking horse (his sticking with FOX and all).
If Huckabee had to go through debates and such, it's not unlikely that someone would bring up his close friendship with a certain missionary in Uganda who has now repeatedly used his influence-and food is a big influence in Uganda-to press for the death penalty for homosexuals. Gay pride has never, obviously, been a plank of the Republican platform, but neither I think has quite such an extreme reaction. And then there's that matter that Huckabee (and this is one of the things that I like about him) pardoned a hell of a lot of convicted criminals in Arkansas, got a lot of people out of jail who probably didn't belong there in the first place; but was horrendously wrong in at least one instance in which the ex-con set off to Seattle to murder policemen. Not the kind of thing you pitch to the law-and-order wing of the law-and-order party. So Huckabee may be playin' possum...if things get so out of hand that party reconciliation is impossible then he wouldn't have been part of it and so is credible for 2016. If there's a locked convention willing to look for a saviour with warts I'd be real surprised if he's not available.
I do think that Obama would beat him, in a two-way race which-let's be real-is another perfectly acceptable outcome to Corporato.
I should open by stating-clearly and honestly-my general impression of Stephen Hawking. I don't have impressions beyond the general. He's been faced by obstacles that dwarf those that most of us can imagine, much less overcome. He's overcome them. He is one of the brilliant scientists, one of the great minds, in the world. I say this not so much because I am in any position to judge who's a great scientist and who's not, but because we live in a time of incredible and obvious scientific advance, and everyone who has something to do with it seems to think that he has a lot to do with it. He is clearly-and I can say this from just listening to him-a very, very bright man.
Like any great mind, I am interested in what he has to say, at least on things that interest me or that I can comprehend to any extent. He has a great deal to say about things that interest me on things that I can not comprehend: I'm suddenly all into the concepts of physics and quantum mechanics, to the point of wishing that at some point I had studied them. I did not. I was not, quite frankly, in any shape to do so. I lacked the discipline and Stephen Hawking, clearly, did not. I'm so lame on the subject that the other day I was looking on Amazon to see if there's a book called "Astral Physics for Dummies," which credits that I've been reading some esoteric stuff, but what I found was "Astrophysics for Dummies," from which I will no doubt learn a lot.
Of course Mr. Hawking this week described any conception of the afterlife as "a fairy tale." I am, as I said, interested in his views and he has every right to state them in whatever manner he considers most appropriate and effective. His views are interesting as soon as he says that he has them, and considering the dogma of religions that adherents of any different religion adhere to mock, I don't consider the term terribly misplaced.
But let's face it, he's a scientist, which is impressive but limited and certainly not omnipotent. He couldn't hold his own with me in a conversation on Led Zeppelin bootlegs or the 1969 Mets, though he might well offer some interesting insights.
It's a weird and fascinating thing, the dynamic between scientists and religious leaders. For the most part it's just sectarian crap on the lowest level. If you can't prove it it isn't true, or, if you don't believe it you're wrong. There are those, of course, who bridge the gap.
My understanding is that Albert Einstein is kind of the Babe Ruth of scientists, and in response to the question as to whether or not something was a miracle he famously stated that "either everything is, or nothing is." Pressed, he endorsed the position that everything is. And I'm with Albert on this one. Einstein went to far as to say that at the height of his calculations, deductions and discoveries he felt like he was communicating in a special language with God. That also sounds right, and I'm a little bit jealous.
It strikes me that the difference between Einstein and Hawking-in this limited sense-is that Einstein has come to terms with what he does not understand, and Hawking has not. Hawking's flat denial of something that has been neither proved nor disproved strikes me as a somewhat defensive reaction formation, while Einstein's smile and shrug is, among other things, more pleasant, optimistic and scientific.
I would be surprised if Hawking's latest comments changed anyone's thoughts or beliefs much, other than to make them either more irritated or impressed. His views are legitimate, and expressed in a manner well calculated to gain them audience, but there's nothing about the man that's ever struck me as particularly spiritual. And, quite frankly, I think that he would have sounded more scientific if he'd said, "There is no evidence of the afterlife, it's not my experience so far as I know and I don't believe it."
I don't think Hawking less of a man for stating an opinion that seems wrong to me, and I'm impressed to some extent by the confident manner in which he stated it. He was very clear and took what will be an unpopular stand in many quarters. But science is his long suit, and I think he only undermines his own credibility in making definitive statements on matters that it doesn't seem to me he's resolved to the slightest degree.
My best guess is that they're all-Einstein and Hawking and, you know, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford-laughing about it over pints of Guinness, or Australian space beer, in 2112. Something like that.
13 May 2011
Theresa and Amelia went to London for most of last week, and so here are some nice picture of Londoners and goings-on that they took...
THE NEXT ROYAL WEDDING
When Prince Harry was a younger…when he was a little boy…I had some hopes for him. He was silly and irreverent, in that charming way that you can only get away with. His mother was the most hopeful of all royals, mainly I guess because she was so obviously uncomfortable to with it all to start with, and to some observable extent turned against it: not so much that she turned good, but that her good triumphed and could not help but manifest itself in something anti-. I am blessed with not having to have had to grow up without a mother, and so Harry's troubles are his own in deepest measure, to the extent that he's able to keep them there. And I have nothing against his father, he's a bright and philosophical man-my best guess is that he's a good father…and yet…there was, it did seem possible at one time, when Princess Diana was still alive…it didn't seem impossible that…offered the crown…Harry'd pretty much just say "Fuck it, no thank you, let's move on. Give the cash to bomb victims, I'm gonna work construction."
But that's not going to happen. And so the Royal Family, in attempting relevance to the 21st century, has become such a joke and, less than that, a tabloid joke. And Harry has-let's face it-one of the better punchlines.
The most recent Royal Wedding was-as I hear it-a great success. No one fell down during the ceremony and millions looked on in rapt amazement and awe at the pageantry of it all. Of course the Royals have between little and nothing to do with the political direction of their Kingdom (which is some way unfortunate, given that Prince Charles is a good deal more intelligent and sensible than any prime minister since at least the 1970s...though it goes without saying that the queen has shown few signs of intellectual life at all, ever)...and so let's call it what it is: they're a sideshow, entertainment, and we pay 'em like they're Brangolina cubed.
I hope the royal marriage works out well, but it's already a success written in the stone of television ratings. It was less holy matrimony than a television program, and a quite successful one at that. Obviously a lot of money was made by a lot of people, and so this thing must be repeated, as soon as possible.
Fortunately, there's Prince Harry. The second son of the beloved Princess Diana, the only royal sane enough that the whole stupid thing drove her nuts. While William has shown little of her insight or intellect (or even his father's for that matter, though he shares Charles' sense of dignity and occasion), Harry has cast himself as the rebel. He showed up to a costume party in full Nazi regalia as a youth (an unintentional insult to the millions of Brits who survived-or not-those bombs, obviously, but not intended as that). How long do they have to keep bringing that nonsense up? And, OH, how excited he got when Ozzy Osbourne played the Royal Proms or whatever….touch of the bloke or just lack of taste?
Well, anyway, he's postured himself as the wild one, as the tabloid feast at the expense of his brother (who is no doubt grateful) as the…perhaps, not the brighter one after all. But a rebel, dammit! The one willing to make racial slurs and be seen in public with young ladies of little (in some sense; or too much) breeding, Oh, what fun!
Of course the illusion collapses under any consideration at all: he's different from his brother mainly in that Harry ad libs his lines with the press a bit more but without ever saying anything of consequence, and he is, after all, an enthusiastic military man, but not one who questions the worst policies since Neville Chamberlain at that. He has not suggested that the monarchy is an absurd feudal remnant, nor donated his royal stipend to rebuilding portions of Africa or India (or Afghanistan or Iraq, etc.) destroyed by his relatives and government. Has he ever taken a political or intellectual stand on anything-right or wrong-memorable or suggesting the slightest insight? Nope. He has taken great pride in his role in imperialist military adventures in which the protection offered him is such as to render any small gain he's involved in counterproductive. His rebellion has been at least as meaningless and vacuous as the coverage it receives.
But that doesn't mean that he's useless. His role is not to be a rebel at all-which could prove dangerous, particularly if he ever said anything worth thinking about-but to play that role. Imagine Rick Moranis as Batman.
He is in fact now perfectly positioned to make his own wedding an even more spectacular popular success than his brother's. He need only identify his like female counterpart. In my best effort to assist in what he's so clearly desperate to do…I've identified her.
Enter Paris Hilton. She too is what passes for a rebel these days. Oh never mind that any unusual behaviour on her part is clearly the direct result of mortal self-centeredness, isn't that an essential requirement of a royal, anyway: that they accept what they're given, demand ever more, and never think about anyone else? It works better that way; it's the only way it can work at all. And could there have ever been a woman more perfect for Harry?
Imagine the wedding! Paris would evidence formalwear to the lowest common denominator (and make no mistake, that's the royal demographic-and has to be, or they won't survive)...I can hear it now, millions of blokes suddenly looking up from their spilling Strongbows exclaiming, "Why, what's that?! I can see the royal knickers!!" (surely she would, might, wear some, for such a formal event…) Delighted, satisfied viewers, and kind-of readers. Page 3 pictures on Page 1!!! And gender-bending should serve no barrier to entertainment of such magnitude and aesthetics--that guy she made the most famous of her porn films with could be Maid of Honour. Only Sir Elton John (who would finally break the last of the bonds that bind him, and henceforth demand to be known as Dame Elton John) could be best man, and would enhance his role by playing a meek, schmaltzy, single-note piano and entirely endorsive version of “War Pigs” as the couple marches down the aisle. Of course then he'd quickly have to waddle towards the altar, but what's high drama without a little slapstick?
Forget that dowdy Archbishop of Canterbury, the proceedings would be presided over by no less than Ruppert Murdoch.
The honeymoon would be the most highly-rated reality show in history, with the naughty bits shown after 9pm, and in the most widely viewed episode in television history Harry could trot back out his Nazi suit, improved by the latest in hair gel products and a Sex Pistols-esque solid gold baby diaper pin through his ass.
William and Kate may be all the rage at the moment-to the extent that their fifteen minutes of fame may even last fifteen days, but if I'm right they're about to be forever eclipsed in the realm of entertainment-which is the only realm the royals have left-and what with public memory being what it is an episode every thirty years just ain't gonna cut it.
What? It's more likely than him turning good, again. But I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
We Americans, of course, receive ZERO entertainment on the clowns that we allow and have come to expect to rip us off as if they were royals.
http://www.truthout.org/global-economys-corporate-crime-wave/1304603221
http://www.truth-out.org/obama-administration-plans-corporate-tax-cut-year-record-profits/1304614982
http://www.truthout.org/gop-house-chooses-big-oil-over-granny/1304518949
I matriculated, my undergrad work, at Louisiana State Universary in Baton Rouge. It was a fine school, with a historically brilliant Political Science Department. The professors demanded that we never settle for less, I didn't need to make a note about it.
I used to protest the Death Penalty at LSU. It was always some black guy getting it for (allegedly) doing in a white person. The only people who showed up were me and whoever was hanging out with me that day, the same group of gentle nuns, and a rich guy who'd been on death row until his own private detective solved the case and proved his innocence.
http://www.truthout.org/troy-davis-facing-death-gurney/1304532723
Even amongst death penalty enthusiasts (the universe cringed), who's in favor of this?
And so let's close-shall we?-with an exciting film update: How about... how about in the order of how much they make me want to jump on a trampoline...
*yeah, I know I already reviewed this one, but I saw it again and liked it better this time.
6 May 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuMwwzQKatY
This is my favorite moment of the 2012 Presidential campaign, so far…it's going to be a good one.
http://www.truthout.org/backdoor-bailouts-banks-play-shell-game-taxpayer-dollars/1303856168
How you're getting ripped off by the corporate oligarchy (aka "hostile takeover of the American government," and also quite frankly British one-ran over the Lords like a rat at a truck stop), part 3,456,546,545,736:
Government takes your tax money and gives it to the banks, allegedly to create jobs for you. Instead the banks lend it back to the government at interest, which raises your taxes but creates no jobs. Then the banks get a tax break for it, which you don't.
Apparently what Candidate Obama meant when he said that he'd be "tough on corporations," was really more along the lines of "I'm a way better and more extravagant liar than George W. Bush." Not that no one called him on it at the time: I remember several commentators pointing out that he'd been thoroughly vetted and that the corporate media was lining up behind him, but I'm ashamed to say that I pretty much bought it, suggesting that while wholesale sell-out was a possibility, it was a risk worth taking.
This really isn't what Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had in mind.
http://truthout.org/anti-war-candidate-announces-president/1303823158
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson
What's this? A bona fide Republican presidential candidate that I might vote for!!!!??? I've never voted for a Republican for president before…some local ones, even a senator once, but it would feel weird.
I do have some misgivings about cutting Medicare that much but the point about overgrown bureaucracy-and doing more with less if we did it right, and 51 labs to learn from-is well taken.
The road from here to there would involve Johnson and Ron Paul reviving the saner bits of the Tea Party (e.g., not the corporate/faux celebrityism of The Donald, nor the aggressive ignorance of Palin) and battling through a few primaries, then one backing the other and going to war with the corporatist wing of the most corporate political party in the world, and winning while being out-spent on media advertising somewhere along the lines of 30,000 to 1.
Then it would be on to beating Obama and his toadying and increasingly desperate corporate media while getting outspent along the lines of 75,000-1.
This is not an official endorsement, it's an early lean. But if the election was this morning and they were the only two candidates, I would vote for Governor Johnson. You dig a hole this deep, and it's a long and hard road back. But there are glimmers now and then, and this strikes me as maybe one.
http://truthout.org/harry-potter-and-network-neutrality/1303023600
http://www.truth-out.org/bin-laden-provoked-us-war-terror-strengthened-his-movement/1304437043
THE DEATH OF BIN LADEN
It's funny-strange not humorous-how his death, as his life, has brought out the worst in folk. Made them intolerant, or at least kept them that way.
I can't feel happiness at the death of anyone, but of the people around if there was anyone who I won't miss, it's him. The world is a better place without him. I understand how and why many people would express their feelings in jubilation, and relief, patriotism, triumphalism, hooting and hollering and chanting slogans...I don't have any problem with any of that and I'm surprised that anyone would. All you have to do is remember where you were that day. I don't particularly care if they would have buried him in an Islamabad sewer, or gave him to cannibals as a goodwill gesture. I hope that doesn't make me a particularly bad person, just a human one.
Bin Laden was by all accounts I've read a kind, honest, quiet gentleman in his personal dealings; and an absolute monster by any sensible political standard. It's worth noting that he couldn't have done as much harm as he did without the complicity of others' spectacularly misguided efforts: the CIA in supporting him and his group in Afghanistan to the point of arming it in the first place, Israel by giving him a cause to rally around by occupying Palestine, Bush by giving him the always-obviously-based-on-utter-bullshit recruiting gift of the invasion of Iraq.
Less troubling but easier to deal with, for me, I guess, are the people who refuse to give President Obama any credit for tracking the bastard down, or-incredibly-insist that credit really goes instead to President Bush (who tried unsuccessfully for eight years to accomplish what Obama accomplished in three). I think you have to give Obama credit, at least for giving the green light to the Special Forces who got it done. If you'd rather honor the Special Forces than Obama I guess that's fair, divvying up the honors is pretty much your business. There's plenty of credit to go around, without bothering with anyone who didn't actually have anything to do with it. Which brings me to Hank Williams, Jr.
I love Hank Williams, Jr. He's one of my handful of favorite country singers ever. I like him even more than his daddy, and his daddy was a King. Montana Cafe is arguably one of the five greatest country albums ever, songs so soulful and great that they survived even that hopelessly incongruent slick production. But here's what Bocephus posted as his web status:
Adios Bin Laden, Thank you President BUSH.
Waaaal, there's a lot of problems in there, pilgrim. My gentle response was "Would that be President Bush the Elder who armed Osama, or President Bush the Younger, who helped him recruit by invading Iraq?"
And I think that pretty much says it all, for me. The big and little of it.
Killing Osama bin Laden should weaken al-Qaeda to some extent, I would think. He was obviously largely isolated and so not calling many shots, but it's not like his martyrdom is going to inspire anyone who wasn't already off the deep end anyway. His continuing existence may have served as a lightning rod for support to some small degree. Getting rid of him was a good idea, and the way that they did it about as perfect as you'll get in difficult circumstances.
But as far as reality moving forward in time goes, I don't think it's a very big deal. The situation and dynamics that allowed bin Laden to become so powerful have only gotten worse: Apartheid in Palestine being first and foremost because it's so obviously unethical, illegal, stupid, evil and counterproductive to everyone except for the Israeli government and a majority of Israeli voters, a majority of congress and a diminishing but sizeable portion of the American electorate. If you back apartheid, people tend to think you're a hypocrite when you get all sanctimonious and try and claim the moral high ground which-let's face it-Americans consider among our birthrights.
It's not the first time we've been last in line on apartheid. Ronald Reagan was perfectly happy to go down with Pik Botha's ship little more than twenty years ago, fighting against democracy in South Africa all the way to the end. And of course Reagan had legions of followers of misguided idiots who believed he was protecting American jobs and the American way of life, making government smaller, battling for the little guy...and still wonder what happened to the family farm. (Sorry Hank, the time frame makes it difficult to blame Obama)
But so, here we are in Libya, fighting on the same side al al-Qaeda once again. We really do need to do something to clear up the global misunderstanding that we're only interested in overthrowing dictators who are sitting on top of oil; or-as in the case of Kuwait-reinstating them.
It's nice to have a world without an Osama bin Laden in it, but it would be even nicer to live in a world less likely to spawn another one. And at least comforting to think that we have a government with a sense of priorities that didn't lend themselves so readily to getting another one going. That would be nice.
Archive
2010
2009
Dish empty ! Now go home
