GERALD R. FORD
I voted for him.
On June 17, 1972, police apprehended five men who were attempting to burglarize the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. A little more than two years later, on August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency and Gerald R. Ford was sworn into office as our thirty-eighth President.
One of Ford's first official acts was to issue a pardon for Nixon, protecting him from prosecution for any crimes Nixon committed while in office and effectively ending the ongoing Congressional investigations that were gathering evidence for his impeachment.
There are those who believed this pardon was the result of a deal between Nixon and Ford. Suspicion about this possible act of political corruption was one of the reasons Gerald Ford became our first unelected President, losing to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Personally, I didn't suspect Ford of doing anything shady. I assumed that Nixon people had been sniffing around the Hill and that they had decided that Ford was likely to end the Watergate spectacle with a pardon if given the opportunity. Ford was well known around Washington after 25 years in Congress, and his opinions on the eventual conclusion of the Watergate proceedings were probably widely circulated.
When Nixon left office, and Ford pardoned him, I thought that was fine. I thought the worst punishment that Nixon could face would be removal from office, and that had already happened. I thought the nation had been paralyzed by the continuing Constitutional crisis of Watergate for almost two years, and it was time to move on.
So in 1976, I voted for Ford. I don't even regret that, since the better candidate won anyway.
But now I wonder about that pardon.
On the night of Nixon's resignation, I was walking across a college campus and saw a security guard I recognized. I said, "Hey, did you hear the news? Nixon has resigned!" I was surprised by his reaction. He seemed irritated and said, "Yep, they hounded him out of office."
I wonder how many other people still supported Nixon at that point, and might still believe today that he deserved to remain in office.
For me, Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg. I thought sleazy Nixon campaign aides had planned the breakin to spy on the Democrats , and that Nixon had just bungled his way into a failed coverup.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for carrying on an illegal and unapproved war run by the CIA outside the borders of Vietnam, in Laos and Cambodia.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for his doctrine of "impoundment", when he asserted the authority to ignore laws passed by Congress by "impounding" the funds authorized for programs he didn't like.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for extortion and corruption in raising millions of dollars of cash contributions from donors who were promised favors if they did and punishment if they didn't support his 1972 re-election campaign.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for many serious Constitutional issues, and I was glad to see him go no matter how he went.
But with the pardon, the investigations stopped, and the full extent of the criminal acts of his administration were never exposed. And a whole host of sleazy criminals were left to continue their traitorous assault on our democracy. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz were all working for Nixon at the time of his resignation.
If the investigations had proceeded, if all the facts had come out then, maybe the Nixon Administration would have become universally disgraced and discredited before the American public. Maybe those who served in it would have become political pariahs, forever deemed unfit for public service.
And the world would be at peace today.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
GLOBAL WARMING
At one point, many astronomers believed that there was a significant chance of finding life on the planet Venus. It was closer to the sun, and its average temperature was expected to be 10-20 degrees warmer than Earth's. It was blanketed with clouds, and it was easy to imagine that these clouds covered a moist, fertile environment, teeming with life.
That view changed throughout the twentieth century, as new observations produced a dramatically different picture of conditions on our sister planet. In the 1930's, spectrographic analysis found no oxygen and high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere. In the 1950's, radio astronomy indicated a surface temperature over 600 F. And in December 1962, the Mariner 2 mission measured a surface temperature of 800 F. More details are in
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_22.html
The discovery of these high temperatures on Venus called for an explanation. And over time an understanding emerged. Venus was so extremely hot because its atmosphere was different from Earth's. The Venusian atmosphere consists of 95% carbon dioxide, at an atmospheric pressure 75 to 100 times greater than our Earth's. We know from experiment that carbon dioxide is relatively transparent to visible and ultraviolet light, but is highly absorbent of infrared and lower energy emissions. The thick Venusian atmosphere acts as a blanket to trap solar radiation and to raise the surface temperature, making it hotter than an open flame.
This phenomenon has become known as the greenhouse effect. The term was coined in the 1930's by astronomer Rupert Wildt to describe the expected effect of high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Venus. At the time, most Americans would have been familiar with the experience of walking into a backyard greenhouse on a cold day and feeling the warmth inside. Modern Americans are more familiar with cars than greenhouses. We know what it's like to open a car that has been parked in direct summer sunlight for a few hours with its windows rolled up tight. Maybe we should come up with a new name. Should we call this the parked car effect? The rolled up window effect? The car upholstery effect?
OK. The greenhouse effect it is.
Glass is made to be transparent to visible light and is also transparent to higher energy ultraviolet light. But glass absorbs infrared and lower energy wavelengths. The emission spectrum of the hot sun contains plenty of high energy radiation that passes through the glass and into the car. But the emissions of the lower temperature car surfaces are blocked from escaping. As solar energy is trapped within the car, the temperature rises. Eventually, the temperature difference between inside and outside starts heat flowing through the structure of the car, and its hotter inside surfaces produce higher energy emissions that can pass through the glass. An equilibrium is reached when the energy entering the car equals the energy escaping from it. Ouch, that's hot!
There are various gases that share the same property of being transparent to high energy ultraviolet radiation while being highly absorbent of low energy infrared radiation. These greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and others. They do not interact much with high energy light, and therefore visible and ultraviolet light from the sun passes through them unaffected. But they interact strongly with infrared radiation, and therefore act as a barrier to reflected energy from the surface of the Earth.
The physics is not in question. Adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere will allow solar energy to reach the Earth but will form a barrier to its escape. In the absence of other factors, this added energy will cause the temperature of the Earth to rise.
But here we are talking about an entire planet, and the "other factors" and their interactions are so complex that human science can not make precise predictions of the present and future behavior of our climate. Cynical vested interests have used this uncertainty as an opportunity to sow confusion and doubt, and to make it impossible for there to be a reasoned national response to this issue.
But the truth is out there.
It can be found on the bone dry searing lifeless surface of Venus.
It can be found in the blast of heat that brings beads of sweat to our foreheads when we slide onto the seat of a car that was parked with its windows closed in the hot summer sun.
We're rolling up the windows. And we can't get out of the car.
An inconvenient truth indeed.
At one point, many astronomers believed that there was a significant chance of finding life on the planet Venus. It was closer to the sun, and its average temperature was expected to be 10-20 degrees warmer than Earth's. It was blanketed with clouds, and it was easy to imagine that these clouds covered a moist, fertile environment, teeming with life.
That view changed throughout the twentieth century, as new observations produced a dramatically different picture of conditions on our sister planet. In the 1930's, spectrographic analysis found no oxygen and high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere. In the 1950's, radio astronomy indicated a surface temperature over 600 F. And in December 1962, the Mariner 2 mission measured a surface temperature of 800 F. More details are in
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_22.html
The discovery of these high temperatures on Venus called for an explanation. And over time an understanding emerged. Venus was so extremely hot because its atmosphere was different from Earth's. The Venusian atmosphere consists of 95% carbon dioxide, at an atmospheric pressure 75 to 100 times greater than our Earth's. We know from experiment that carbon dioxide is relatively transparent to visible and ultraviolet light, but is highly absorbent of infrared and lower energy emissions. The thick Venusian atmosphere acts as a blanket to trap solar radiation and to raise the surface temperature, making it hotter than an open flame.
This phenomenon has become known as the greenhouse effect. The term was coined in the 1930's by astronomer Rupert Wildt to describe the expected effect of high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Venus. At the time, most Americans would have been familiar with the experience of walking into a backyard greenhouse on a cold day and feeling the warmth inside. Modern Americans are more familiar with cars than greenhouses. We know what it's like to open a car that has been parked in direct summer sunlight for a few hours with its windows rolled up tight. Maybe we should come up with a new name. Should we call this the parked car effect? The rolled up window effect? The car upholstery effect?
OK. The greenhouse effect it is.
Glass is made to be transparent to visible light and is also transparent to higher energy ultraviolet light. But glass absorbs infrared and lower energy wavelengths. The emission spectrum of the hot sun contains plenty of high energy radiation that passes through the glass and into the car. But the emissions of the lower temperature car surfaces are blocked from escaping. As solar energy is trapped within the car, the temperature rises. Eventually, the temperature difference between inside and outside starts heat flowing through the structure of the car, and its hotter inside surfaces produce higher energy emissions that can pass through the glass. An equilibrium is reached when the energy entering the car equals the energy escaping from it. Ouch, that's hot!
There are various gases that share the same property of being transparent to high energy ultraviolet radiation while being highly absorbent of low energy infrared radiation. These greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and others. They do not interact much with high energy light, and therefore visible and ultraviolet light from the sun passes through them unaffected. But they interact strongly with infrared radiation, and therefore act as a barrier to reflected energy from the surface of the Earth.
The physics is not in question. Adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere will allow solar energy to reach the Earth but will form a barrier to its escape. In the absence of other factors, this added energy will cause the temperature of the Earth to rise.
But here we are talking about an entire planet, and the "other factors" and their interactions are so complex that human science can not make precise predictions of the present and future behavior of our climate. Cynical vested interests have used this uncertainty as an opportunity to sow confusion and doubt, and to make it impossible for there to be a reasoned national response to this issue.
But the truth is out there.
It can be found on the bone dry searing lifeless surface of Venus.
It can be found in the blast of heat that brings beads of sweat to our foreheads when we slide onto the seat of a car that was parked with its windows closed in the hot summer sun.
We're rolling up the windows. And we can't get out of the car.
An inconvenient truth indeed.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
A NEW YEAR
Who would have believed it? After such depths of agony and disgrace, the people of America, one by one, decided it was time for a change. The Republican strategy - lies, secrecy, distraction, judicious cheating where it counts and where it won't be caught - didn't quite work this time. Of course it helped a lot that the really close elections - Virgnia and Montana - had Democratic governors instead of Republicans. We can only thank the heavens above that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris weren't in charge of counting the votes in Montana, that Ken Blackwell wasn't responsible for providing voting booths in Virginia.
And now we will have a new Congress, a Democratic Congress. We can only hope it will do its duty to the nation in fostering open debate of national policy instead of the shameful bootlicking performed shamelessly by the Republicans. We can only hope it will do its duty in questioning the deception and propaganda so skillfully manufactured by the vicious right wing fanatics who occupy the White House. We can only hope it will do its duty in seeing that our nation invests its prosperity in building a future for America instead of bleeding our national treasury into pockets of corruption and greed.
But after such horrible pain and international disgrace and cynical corruption, at least we can say that there is new hope for America in this coming year.
Happy New Year to us all.
Who would have believed it? After such depths of agony and disgrace, the people of America, one by one, decided it was time for a change. The Republican strategy - lies, secrecy, distraction, judicious cheating where it counts and where it won't be caught - didn't quite work this time. Of course it helped a lot that the really close elections - Virgnia and Montana - had Democratic governors instead of Republicans. We can only thank the heavens above that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris weren't in charge of counting the votes in Montana, that Ken Blackwell wasn't responsible for providing voting booths in Virginia.
And now we will have a new Congress, a Democratic Congress. We can only hope it will do its duty to the nation in fostering open debate of national policy instead of the shameful bootlicking performed shamelessly by the Republicans. We can only hope it will do its duty in questioning the deception and propaganda so skillfully manufactured by the vicious right wing fanatics who occupy the White House. We can only hope it will do its duty in seeing that our nation invests its prosperity in building a future for America instead of bleeding our national treasury into pockets of corruption and greed.
But after such horrible pain and international disgrace and cynical corruption, at least we can say that there is new hope for America in this coming year.
Happy New Year to us all.
Friday, December 22, 2006
SUCCESS
Why did we invade Iraq?
It was always a lie to say we invaded because Iraq was a threat. In fact it was just the opposite. You can't imagine a weenie like Rumsfeld arguing with the professional leadership of the U.S. military that we needed FEWER troops if they really considered Iraq to be a threat, can you? Actually, after the Gulf War, years of sanctions, and Clinton's Tomahawk attack in 1996, Iraq was clearly on the ropes. The Chicken Hawk Bushies wanted to attack BECAUSE Iraq was no conceivable threat. And if Big Dick Cheney's blood lust for Saddam was to be satisfied, the sooner we attacked the better.
And what about Weapons of Mass Destruction and that stuff? Just lies for idiots.
But there were real reasons for invading Iraq.
First and foremost was getting U.S. hands on Iraqi oil. Success! We've got thousands and thousands of U.S. government contract employees operating the Iraqi oil fields these days.
And second was getting permission from the Iraqis to allow the U.S. to locate a string of major military bases in Iraq. Success! Halliburton and Bechtel and other contractors have been paid to build 14 military bases within Iraq.
And third was gaining the political advantage of "being at war", being able to squash opposition by claiming it was unpatriotic and disloyal. Well, this has faded a little, but it lasted for years and years.
So whether Iraq is a success or failure depends on what it was meant to achieve in the first place. The Bush Administration has gotten most of what it wanted from Iraq. It's been a great success, as you might guess from the stolid persistance of the Dimwit Decider Himself.
Of course, most Iraqis view the U.S. as an occupation force, which it is, and no legitimate Iraqi government can ever accept those bases as a permanent feature. And Iraqis will ultimately reject sharing oil profits with foreign leeches like Halliburton because foreign leeches are foreign leeches. So the whole effort is doomed.
The only way out would be for the U.S. to do what's right for Iraq, to sponsor an international peacekeeeping force to maintain order while a new Iraqi government is formed. But that would mean withdrawing U.S. operatives from the oil fields and abandoning the U.S. bases. This will never happen while Bush and Cheney are in power.
Fortunately for democracy, it means the Iraqi mess will be even messier in 2008. And maybe there will be enough decent, sane Americans to bring decency and sanity into the White House again.
Why did we invade Iraq?
It was always a lie to say we invaded because Iraq was a threat. In fact it was just the opposite. You can't imagine a weenie like Rumsfeld arguing with the professional leadership of the U.S. military that we needed FEWER troops if they really considered Iraq to be a threat, can you? Actually, after the Gulf War, years of sanctions, and Clinton's Tomahawk attack in 1996, Iraq was clearly on the ropes. The Chicken Hawk Bushies wanted to attack BECAUSE Iraq was no conceivable threat. And if Big Dick Cheney's blood lust for Saddam was to be satisfied, the sooner we attacked the better.
And what about Weapons of Mass Destruction and that stuff? Just lies for idiots.
But there were real reasons for invading Iraq.
First and foremost was getting U.S. hands on Iraqi oil. Success! We've got thousands and thousands of U.S. government contract employees operating the Iraqi oil fields these days.
And second was getting permission from the Iraqis to allow the U.S. to locate a string of major military bases in Iraq. Success! Halliburton and Bechtel and other contractors have been paid to build 14 military bases within Iraq.
And third was gaining the political advantage of "being at war", being able to squash opposition by claiming it was unpatriotic and disloyal. Well, this has faded a little, but it lasted for years and years.
So whether Iraq is a success or failure depends on what it was meant to achieve in the first place. The Bush Administration has gotten most of what it wanted from Iraq. It's been a great success, as you might guess from the stolid persistance of the Dimwit Decider Himself.
Of course, most Iraqis view the U.S. as an occupation force, which it is, and no legitimate Iraqi government can ever accept those bases as a permanent feature. And Iraqis will ultimately reject sharing oil profits with foreign leeches like Halliburton because foreign leeches are foreign leeches. So the whole effort is doomed.
The only way out would be for the U.S. to do what's right for Iraq, to sponsor an international peacekeeeping force to maintain order while a new Iraqi government is formed. But that would mean withdrawing U.S. operatives from the oil fields and abandoning the U.S. bases. This will never happen while Bush and Cheney are in power.
Fortunately for democracy, it means the Iraqi mess will be even messier in 2008. And maybe there will be enough decent, sane Americans to bring decency and sanity into the White House again.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
THE AXIS OF EVIL
Were you puzzled, too?
In his first State of the Union address, the Little Bush used the term Axis of Evil to refer to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
It is unlikely that his speechwriters were unaware of the Axis powers of WWII - Germany, Italy, and Japan formed an actual alliance that opposed the Allied powers. Using the term "Axis" was probably meant as some kind of call to arms to the people of the United States, in the same way we had been called to defend democracy in the 1940's.
Bush's Axis of Evil was a lie, of course. In fact, these countries had no alliance and few political or economic connections. Iran and Iraq had in fact fought a bitter war after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980.
Was it a lie? Well, I think it was, and a good one. A statement which is intended to deceive is a lie, in my book, even if it is subtly phrased so that it becomes difficult to contradict. The lie was simply this: Instead of viewing the fall of Communism as an opportunity to begin a new era of world peace and prosperity, it was necessary for the United States to go back to war.
Bush had already sent our troops to war in Afghanistan in October 2001. One of the allies of the United States in the struggle to force Soviet troops out of Afghanistan had been a Muslim fundamentalist organization calling itself Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda had carried out a shocking attack on U.S. targets on September 11. Al Qaeda still had a presence in Afghanistan, including sanctuary for its leader Bin Laden. The Bush Administration wanted to invade, even though the government of Afghanistan was made offers to arrest and try Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership if we provided evidence that they had been involved in the attack. But the Bushies decided to invade.
Five years later Bin Laden is still mocking us, the Taliban is seeking to force U.S. troops out of Afghanistan just as they once forced out the Soviets, and American troops are still dying there. So things haven't worked out all that well. But at least there was an argument for Afghanistan.
But Iran? Iraq? North Korea? Where did that come from?
Please see http://www.newamericancentury.org/ for an answer.
This is a group of moral degenerates, proudly following the traditions of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin in promoting military occupations and wars of aggression. The organization was formed during the Clinton years to plan and work towards their goal: world conquest by the military forces of the United States to create an unassailably dominant position that would allow them to rule the world during the next century.
They had a problem with this plan. Well, actually, the plan had lots of problems - as you might expect when a sycophantic group of moral degenerates with no military experience begins planning such crimes against humanity.
But one problem they saw was in getting sufficient political support within the United States to allow them send off our troops on this vicious and brutal quest. They said so in one of their reports:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
They published this concern in September 2000. See page 63 of this document:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Fortunately for them and unfortunately for the rest of humanity, by various foul means they managed to win the U.S. Presidential election in November 2000. And when it came to be their responsibility to act on the warnings they receieved prior to September 11, 2001, they simply had to wait. They got their Pearl Harbor, and they were ready.
We heard about the Axis of Evil. And we were in a War on Terror.
Were you puzzled, too?
In his first State of the Union address, the Little Bush used the term Axis of Evil to refer to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
It is unlikely that his speechwriters were unaware of the Axis powers of WWII - Germany, Italy, and Japan formed an actual alliance that opposed the Allied powers. Using the term "Axis" was probably meant as some kind of call to arms to the people of the United States, in the same way we had been called to defend democracy in the 1940's.
Bush's Axis of Evil was a lie, of course. In fact, these countries had no alliance and few political or economic connections. Iran and Iraq had in fact fought a bitter war after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980.
Was it a lie? Well, I think it was, and a good one. A statement which is intended to deceive is a lie, in my book, even if it is subtly phrased so that it becomes difficult to contradict. The lie was simply this: Instead of viewing the fall of Communism as an opportunity to begin a new era of world peace and prosperity, it was necessary for the United States to go back to war.
Bush had already sent our troops to war in Afghanistan in October 2001. One of the allies of the United States in the struggle to force Soviet troops out of Afghanistan had been a Muslim fundamentalist organization calling itself Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda had carried out a shocking attack on U.S. targets on September 11. Al Qaeda still had a presence in Afghanistan, including sanctuary for its leader Bin Laden. The Bush Administration wanted to invade, even though the government of Afghanistan was made offers to arrest and try Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership if we provided evidence that they had been involved in the attack. But the Bushies decided to invade.
Five years later Bin Laden is still mocking us, the Taliban is seeking to force U.S. troops out of Afghanistan just as they once forced out the Soviets, and American troops are still dying there. So things haven't worked out all that well. But at least there was an argument for Afghanistan.
But Iran? Iraq? North Korea? Where did that come from?
Please see http://www.newamericancentury.org/ for an answer.
This is a group of moral degenerates, proudly following the traditions of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin in promoting military occupations and wars of aggression. The organization was formed during the Clinton years to plan and work towards their goal: world conquest by the military forces of the United States to create an unassailably dominant position that would allow them to rule the world during the next century.
They had a problem with this plan. Well, actually, the plan had lots of problems - as you might expect when a sycophantic group of moral degenerates with no military experience begins planning such crimes against humanity.
But one problem they saw was in getting sufficient political support within the United States to allow them send off our troops on this vicious and brutal quest. They said so in one of their reports:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
They published this concern in September 2000. See page 63 of this document:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Fortunately for them and unfortunately for the rest of humanity, by various foul means they managed to win the U.S. Presidential election in November 2000. And when it came to be their responsibility to act on the warnings they receieved prior to September 11, 2001, they simply had to wait. They got their Pearl Harbor, and they were ready.
We heard about the Axis of Evil. And we were in a War on Terror.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
PRESIDENT PELOSI
Hmm.
Dubya has committed all sorts of crimes. He abrogated the SALT agreements so that he could pour federal tax money into the pockets of his buddies in the defense industry - and get some nice kickbacks afterwards. He waited for the September 11 attack to happen so that he could pursue a war of aggression to get his buddies some sweet deals in the Iraqi oil fields. He set loose the NSA to spy on Americans in complete defiance of the laws to regulate that kind of thing. And, of course, he's tried to hide torture and murder at Guantanamo AND IN FORMERLY COMMUNIST PRISONS IN EASTERN EUROPE! He's the worst President in history; he's a monster; he deserves to be convicted as a war criminal and hanged.
And Cheney is just as bad, maybe worse. Bush was never very smart, and after heavy drinking and drug use throughout his pathetic youth, he hasn't gotten any smarter. Just listen to him talk - you know just what I mean. He - at last - has become a President who represents the Double Digit People. IQ < 100. The Double Digit People. But Cheney isn't that dumb.
Cheney is perverse. He's a paranoid. He's spent millions of your tax dollars building an underground bunker beneath the Vice President's Residence because he sleeps with a guilty conscience. His blood thirst for Saddam Hussein was a driving force for the invasion of Iraq.
I remember a press conference Cheney held during the first Gulf War. He was the Old Bush's Secretary of Defense then. Near the end of the fighting, the U.S. used special concrete-penetrating bombs to attack a bomb shelter in downtown Bagdad. Peter Arnett was on hand the next morning as they carried out the hundreds of burned bodies of men, women, and children.
It is a war crime to attack a civilian facility, and there is no question that hundreds of civilians died horrible deaths that night. What justification was there for this brutal, deliberate attack?
Well, it turns out that the Old Bush Administration thought this might be where Saddam Hussein was sleeping at night. And we planned the attack to take him out - along with hundreds of innocent people. But we were wrong. Saddam wasn't there. Just the innocent people.
On the day after the attack, Dick held a press conference. Reporters asked him if Saddam Hussein had been seen since the bombs fell. It was sickening. Cheney smirked, tried not to smile, and giggled like a schoolgirl. He was so happy to say that, No, no one had seen Saddam since the attack.
It made me sick. It's one thing to wage war, to be forced into violence in national defense. But no one who giggles, who feels excitement and pleasure about such things, should have war making powers. Dick Cheney is a sick, perverted, monstrous creature.
He lied about the falsified justifications for this war. He lied about his connections to the huge no bid contracts given to Halliburton for their occupation activities on the heels of our troops. He's lied about so many things. He lies every time he opens his mouth. Surely there must be grounds for impeaching this monster.
So, what if... Bush is impeached for multiple high crimes and misdemeanors. Cheney is then impeached for the same crimes and worse.
And, whew, we have a new President.
President Nancy Pelosi.
And we can stop worrying about the possibility of a Hilary Clinton campaign.
Nice.
Hmm.
Dubya has committed all sorts of crimes. He abrogated the SALT agreements so that he could pour federal tax money into the pockets of his buddies in the defense industry - and get some nice kickbacks afterwards. He waited for the September 11 attack to happen so that he could pursue a war of aggression to get his buddies some sweet deals in the Iraqi oil fields. He set loose the NSA to spy on Americans in complete defiance of the laws to regulate that kind of thing. And, of course, he's tried to hide torture and murder at Guantanamo AND IN FORMERLY COMMUNIST PRISONS IN EASTERN EUROPE! He's the worst President in history; he's a monster; he deserves to be convicted as a war criminal and hanged.
And Cheney is just as bad, maybe worse. Bush was never very smart, and after heavy drinking and drug use throughout his pathetic youth, he hasn't gotten any smarter. Just listen to him talk - you know just what I mean. He - at last - has become a President who represents the Double Digit People. IQ < 100. The Double Digit People. But Cheney isn't that dumb.
Cheney is perverse. He's a paranoid. He's spent millions of your tax dollars building an underground bunker beneath the Vice President's Residence because he sleeps with a guilty conscience. His blood thirst for Saddam Hussein was a driving force for the invasion of Iraq.
I remember a press conference Cheney held during the first Gulf War. He was the Old Bush's Secretary of Defense then. Near the end of the fighting, the U.S. used special concrete-penetrating bombs to attack a bomb shelter in downtown Bagdad. Peter Arnett was on hand the next morning as they carried out the hundreds of burned bodies of men, women, and children.
It is a war crime to attack a civilian facility, and there is no question that hundreds of civilians died horrible deaths that night. What justification was there for this brutal, deliberate attack?
Well, it turns out that the Old Bush Administration thought this might be where Saddam Hussein was sleeping at night. And we planned the attack to take him out - along with hundreds of innocent people. But we were wrong. Saddam wasn't there. Just the innocent people.
On the day after the attack, Dick held a press conference. Reporters asked him if Saddam Hussein had been seen since the bombs fell. It was sickening. Cheney smirked, tried not to smile, and giggled like a schoolgirl. He was so happy to say that, No, no one had seen Saddam since the attack.
It made me sick. It's one thing to wage war, to be forced into violence in national defense. But no one who giggles, who feels excitement and pleasure about such things, should have war making powers. Dick Cheney is a sick, perverted, monstrous creature.
He lied about the falsified justifications for this war. He lied about his connections to the huge no bid contracts given to Halliburton for their occupation activities on the heels of our troops. He's lied about so many things. He lies every time he opens his mouth. Surely there must be grounds for impeaching this monster.
So, what if... Bush is impeached for multiple high crimes and misdemeanors. Cheney is then impeached for the same crimes and worse.
And, whew, we have a new President.
President Nancy Pelosi.
And we can stop worrying about the possibility of a Hilary Clinton campaign.
Nice.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
IMPEACHMENT
You may not remember the Watergate hearings. I do. I was living in Boston , and reading the Boston Globe every day to see what had happened in yesterday's testimony.
I didn't believe Nixon had been involved. His wacko right wing Attorney General, John Mitchell, had resigned that position to head up Nixon's re-election campaign committee. I assumed Mitchell had been the one to screw things up.
In fact, I was wrong. Years later, Jeb Macgruder admitted that Nixon had directly ordered the Watergate breakin to plant bugs in the Democratic Campaign Headquarters.
But at the time, people thought Nixon was too smart to do anything so astonishingly stupid. In fact, after the breakin in June 1972 We the People of the United States went on to re-elect Richard Nixon in November. The losing candidate, George McGovern, was so completely disgusted that he arranged to be out of the country on Inauguration Day, rather than be obligated to attend the ceremony.
But still, there had been a crime committed, and the persons apprehended were saying that they had been acting with Executive Authority. So a few individuals in the press, and one or two inside sources, kept digging and giving additional information to the public.
After a while, the Congress felt pressured to open investigations. They were obviously scared to death. But they called people in and asked questions. Bob Haldeman and John Erlichmann - top Nixon staffers - practically laughed in their faces. They said they didn't remember anything; they said the reports in the press were totally wrong. Nothing was going anywhere with the hearings. Then somehow a low level guy named Alexander Butterfield mentioned that Nixon was taping all his Oval Office conversations to help in writing his memoirs. These tapes were subpoenaed. Nixon said, no, they belong to me. A federal judge said the Congressional subpoena for investigation of a criminal offense was valid. Things started to crumble. Eventually, the combination of truth and open testimony from John Dean and others forced the Congress to bring impeachment proceedings against Nixon. He resigned.
Today, we are in worse circumstances. We're not talking about planting a bug in the Democrat's campaign offices. We're talking about massive, illegal bugging of conversations of ordinary American citizens. And dirty tricks? Try torturing prisoners to death, in hidden torture camps, kept away from the American public, the Red Cross, and the Geneva Convention. And financial corruption on a grandiose scale, billions of tax dollars stolen.
It's too soon to talk of Impeachment, just as June 1972 was too soon to get rid of Richard Nixon.
But let the Democratic Congress start investigating the criminal actions of the Bush Administration over the last few years. The Bushies have acted as though they were completely unaccountable to anyone, for anything. As long as they had a boot licking Republican Congress, that may have been true. But it doesn't have to be true any more.
Let the Democrats start doing their duty and enforcing some level of oversight over the conduct of the Bush Administration. Let them start investigations of a few of the smelliest and most repulsive of the Republican crimes over the past few years.
When the facts start coming out, when the American people start hearing how they have been betrayed, that's when there will be a natural and obvious course of action.
Impeachment.
You may not remember the Watergate hearings. I do. I was living in Boston , and reading the Boston Globe every day to see what had happened in yesterday's testimony.
I didn't believe Nixon had been involved. His wacko right wing Attorney General, John Mitchell, had resigned that position to head up Nixon's re-election campaign committee. I assumed Mitchell had been the one to screw things up.
In fact, I was wrong. Years later, Jeb Macgruder admitted that Nixon had directly ordered the Watergate breakin to plant bugs in the Democratic Campaign Headquarters.
But at the time, people thought Nixon was too smart to do anything so astonishingly stupid. In fact, after the breakin in June 1972 We the People of the United States went on to re-elect Richard Nixon in November. The losing candidate, George McGovern, was so completely disgusted that he arranged to be out of the country on Inauguration Day, rather than be obligated to attend the ceremony.
But still, there had been a crime committed, and the persons apprehended were saying that they had been acting with Executive Authority. So a few individuals in the press, and one or two inside sources, kept digging and giving additional information to the public.
After a while, the Congress felt pressured to open investigations. They were obviously scared to death. But they called people in and asked questions. Bob Haldeman and John Erlichmann - top Nixon staffers - practically laughed in their faces. They said they didn't remember anything; they said the reports in the press were totally wrong. Nothing was going anywhere with the hearings. Then somehow a low level guy named Alexander Butterfield mentioned that Nixon was taping all his Oval Office conversations to help in writing his memoirs. These tapes were subpoenaed. Nixon said, no, they belong to me. A federal judge said the Congressional subpoena for investigation of a criminal offense was valid. Things started to crumble. Eventually, the combination of truth and open testimony from John Dean and others forced the Congress to bring impeachment proceedings against Nixon. He resigned.
Today, we are in worse circumstances. We're not talking about planting a bug in the Democrat's campaign offices. We're talking about massive, illegal bugging of conversations of ordinary American citizens. And dirty tricks? Try torturing prisoners to death, in hidden torture camps, kept away from the American public, the Red Cross, and the Geneva Convention. And financial corruption on a grandiose scale, billions of tax dollars stolen.
It's too soon to talk of Impeachment, just as June 1972 was too soon to get rid of Richard Nixon.
But let the Democratic Congress start investigating the criminal actions of the Bush Administration over the last few years. The Bushies have acted as though they were completely unaccountable to anyone, for anything. As long as they had a boot licking Republican Congress, that may have been true. But it doesn't have to be true any more.
Let the Democrats start doing their duty and enforcing some level of oversight over the conduct of the Bush Administration. Let them start investigations of a few of the smelliest and most repulsive of the Republican crimes over the past few years.
When the facts start coming out, when the American people start hearing how they have been betrayed, that's when there will be a natural and obvious course of action.
Impeachment.
Monday, December 04, 2006
THE WAR ON XMAS
You know, we won't ever find a birth certificate for Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ Child.
You may believe what you want. I personally believe that the story of his birth told in the New Testament is based on historical fact. I believe that he was born in Bethlehem, and that Herod - the local ruler - feared a popular prophesy and ordered the murder of all male children born around the time of Jesus' birth. I believe that three wise men arrvied from the East and identified him as the fulfillment of this prophesy. And I believe his parents protected him by fleeing the region until they felt it was safe to return.
However, no one kept written records of births in those days. And most of whatever records were kept of anything were lost to history. We won't ever know the date on which Christ was born.
In fact, the early Christians didn't know the date either. One thing they did know was that the Holiday Season happened at the end of December and the beginning of January. The Holiday Season? Yes, of course, the Roman Saturnalia. The earliest sunset of any year is near the beginning of December, the shortest day near December 21, and the latest sunrise near the beginning of January. No matter how you look at it, late December is a time when the darkening days of Winter are turning the corner and getting brighter again. In fact, the Romans named January after Janus, the gatekeeper god, who had two faces and looked both forwards and backwards at the same time. January looked back on Winter and forward to Spring. Sounds like a good reason to have a little party.
And that's what the Romans - meaning the people who lived in Rome - did. Every year, they had a great time celebrating the passing of the Winter Solstice and the arrival of longer days. I wasn't there, but I hear things got pretty rowdy. Eating, drinking, and, uh, well, lots of fun.
When Christainity arrived in Rome, the early Christians felt left out when Saturnalia came around. It was a tradition, their own tradition before they were converted. Not like our Christmas trees and mistletoe - those came later from the Druids - but still a tradition.
But there was a solution. Who knew when Christ was born? Nobody! Nobody then, nobody now. And so, why not celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ during Saturnalia? Let's say, December 25. Why not? And so the early Roman Christians could blend in with the pagan feast days of Saturnalia by celebrating the birth of Christ during the same times.
And so, when we celebrate "Christmas" on December 25, it's really a mix of pagan Winter Solstice partying and actual observance of the birth of Christ. But, of course, having gained ten pounds over Christmas last year and having seen the November retail displays, you already had an inkling, didn't you?
So, Happy Holidays seems about right to me.
By the way, if Jesus was born while the shepherds were on the hillsides tending their flocks, he was born in the springtime. That's when lambs are born, and that's why shepherds stay on the hillsides in the springtime, to midwife births if needed. Otherwise, shepherds sleep in beds, not on hillsides. This means Jesus was born in the springtime. Probably he was an Aries, a natural born leader. Of course.
You know, we won't ever find a birth certificate for Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ Child.
You may believe what you want. I personally believe that the story of his birth told in the New Testament is based on historical fact. I believe that he was born in Bethlehem, and that Herod - the local ruler - feared a popular prophesy and ordered the murder of all male children born around the time of Jesus' birth. I believe that three wise men arrvied from the East and identified him as the fulfillment of this prophesy. And I believe his parents protected him by fleeing the region until they felt it was safe to return.
However, no one kept written records of births in those days. And most of whatever records were kept of anything were lost to history. We won't ever know the date on which Christ was born.
In fact, the early Christians didn't know the date either. One thing they did know was that the Holiday Season happened at the end of December and the beginning of January. The Holiday Season? Yes, of course, the Roman Saturnalia. The earliest sunset of any year is near the beginning of December, the shortest day near December 21, and the latest sunrise near the beginning of January. No matter how you look at it, late December is a time when the darkening days of Winter are turning the corner and getting brighter again. In fact, the Romans named January after Janus, the gatekeeper god, who had two faces and looked both forwards and backwards at the same time. January looked back on Winter and forward to Spring. Sounds like a good reason to have a little party.
And that's what the Romans - meaning the people who lived in Rome - did. Every year, they had a great time celebrating the passing of the Winter Solstice and the arrival of longer days. I wasn't there, but I hear things got pretty rowdy. Eating, drinking, and, uh, well, lots of fun.
When Christainity arrived in Rome, the early Christians felt left out when Saturnalia came around. It was a tradition, their own tradition before they were converted. Not like our Christmas trees and mistletoe - those came later from the Druids - but still a tradition.
But there was a solution. Who knew when Christ was born? Nobody! Nobody then, nobody now. And so, why not celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ during Saturnalia? Let's say, December 25. Why not? And so the early Roman Christians could blend in with the pagan feast days of Saturnalia by celebrating the birth of Christ during the same times.
And so, when we celebrate "Christmas" on December 25, it's really a mix of pagan Winter Solstice partying and actual observance of the birth of Christ. But, of course, having gained ten pounds over Christmas last year and having seen the November retail displays, you already had an inkling, didn't you?
So, Happy Holidays seems about right to me.
By the way, if Jesus was born while the shepherds were on the hillsides tending their flocks, he was born in the springtime. That's when lambs are born, and that's why shepherds stay on the hillsides in the springtime, to midwife births if needed. Otherwise, shepherds sleep in beds, not on hillsides. This means Jesus was born in the springtime. Probably he was an Aries, a natural born leader. Of course.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
CREATIONISTS
Yesterday I pointed out that the Bible itself desribes evolution of life on Earth, along with other modern scientific concepts such as the Big Bang and the formation of the solar system.
So why isn't the religious community rejoicing, and embracing science for confirmation of its own Holy Bible?
Well, it has to do with the difference between religion, and religion gone bad.
Religion can be and usually is a good thing. It provides answers to questions that cannot be answered in any normal way, and helps people cope with their lives. The most awesome question that all religions seek to answer is What happens after death? This question is urgent enough in considering our own fate, but is especially distressing in considering the fate of our loved ones who pass away. The answers provided by various religions differ in the details, but provide comfort and hope to those bereaved.
These answers often contain a common theme: Those who live a good life will be rewarded in the afterlife. This not only offers comfort to those who have witnessed the death of a loved one, but offers hope that they too can enter a paradise by being righteous in their own lives. If religion did no more than this - comfort us in the face of death and encourage us to lead good lives - it would be what religion should be, wholly good and beneficial.
Sadly, religions are human institutions, not divine, and every religion can be perverted into evil. The dividing line is simple: Actions taken by individuals to seek their personal spiritual fulfillment are positive; actions taken to coerce the actions or beliefs of others are perverse.
It would be one thing for Creationists to approach the Bible with reverence and humility. Then they - as fallible humans - might acknowledge the difficulty in comprehending the mind of the Almighty and they - as fallible humans - would treat other opinions with interest and respect.
But here we are talking about religion gone bad.
Creationists do not respect the Bible, because they treat it as a done deal, something they've got down cold, something they don't need to seek to understand. They use the Bible to intimidate any others who question their beliefs; they are pretenders to the authority of God himself. They worship themselves, not God or anything decent. They are filled with arrogance and pride, Satan's own sins.
Is it possible for a person to believe in Creationism as historically understood from the Bible, that is, a miraculaous act performed by a divine being, and not be perverse and evil? Yes, so long as that person has the humility to admit their own humanity and the possibility that they could be mistaken. If they are willing to listen to others and respect the beliefs of others, there is no harm in believing in Creationism.
But what of the person who admits no doubt, no possibility of error, who insists that all accept his one, true teaching? He has perverted religion the decent and hopeful human impulses that create our religions and turned religion into something evil. He is an abomination.
Yesterday I pointed out that the Bible itself desribes evolution of life on Earth, along with other modern scientific concepts such as the Big Bang and the formation of the solar system.
So why isn't the religious community rejoicing, and embracing science for confirmation of its own Holy Bible?
Well, it has to do with the difference between religion, and religion gone bad.
Religion can be and usually is a good thing. It provides answers to questions that cannot be answered in any normal way, and helps people cope with their lives. The most awesome question that all religions seek to answer is What happens after death? This question is urgent enough in considering our own fate, but is especially distressing in considering the fate of our loved ones who pass away. The answers provided by various religions differ in the details, but provide comfort and hope to those bereaved.
These answers often contain a common theme: Those who live a good life will be rewarded in the afterlife. This not only offers comfort to those who have witnessed the death of a loved one, but offers hope that they too can enter a paradise by being righteous in their own lives. If religion did no more than this - comfort us in the face of death and encourage us to lead good lives - it would be what religion should be, wholly good and beneficial.
Sadly, religions are human institutions, not divine, and every religion can be perverted into evil. The dividing line is simple: Actions taken by individuals to seek their personal spiritual fulfillment are positive; actions taken to coerce the actions or beliefs of others are perverse.
It would be one thing for Creationists to approach the Bible with reverence and humility. Then they - as fallible humans - might acknowledge the difficulty in comprehending the mind of the Almighty and they - as fallible humans - would treat other opinions with interest and respect.
But here we are talking about religion gone bad.
Creationists do not respect the Bible, because they treat it as a done deal, something they've got down cold, something they don't need to seek to understand. They use the Bible to intimidate any others who question their beliefs; they are pretenders to the authority of God himself. They worship themselves, not God or anything decent. They are filled with arrogance and pride, Satan's own sins.
Is it possible for a person to believe in Creationism as historically understood from the Bible, that is, a miraculaous act performed by a divine being, and not be perverse and evil? Yes, so long as that person has the humility to admit their own humanity and the possibility that they could be mistaken. If they are willing to listen to others and respect the beliefs of others, there is no harm in believing in Creationism.
But what of the person who admits no doubt, no possibility of error, who insists that all accept his one, true teaching? He has perverted religion the decent and hopeful human impulses that create our religions and turned religion into something evil. He is an abomination.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
CREATION
Human societies always have creation stories. I like the Norse myth, where a god goes walking along the beach and finds some pieces of driftwood that look like people, whittles them down a little, and breathes life into them. Sure, why not.
And it makes perfect historical sense that our Middle Eastern God should be walking around one day and decide to make a man out of clay. For one thing, there's a great shortage of driftwood in the Middle East. For another thing, clay was being used for building a lot of things back then: bricks, houses, pots, and even cuneiform writing tablets. It even makes sense that Eve was created later. In a paternalistic society in which women occupied a level lower than men but higher than camels - her comparison to the noble horse was a continuing controversy - it made sense to the author of the creation story that women should be made as an afterthought, as helpers. Subservient by God's will, so there.
But there is something very interesting here, and by here I mean in the Bible, in the story of Genesis.
You might not realize that the Bible has not always been a book. Books as we know them didn't exist until some time in the 1400's when Johannes Gutenberg invented a printing press. At the time the Bible's creation story began, books didn't exist. Even writing was a highly specialized skill not available to the general public, somewhat like Java programming or tax accounting are today. People communicated by talking, not by writing, and for many, many centuries after the creation story first appeared it was handed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth.
Now just imagine this. Imagine that you are Moses. You are an intelligent, educated person raised in the Pharoh's court. You know as much as anyone in the world knows about history and literature and science.
But you don't know about atoms or subatomic particles or nuclear reactions or chemistry or ..., well, let's just say that anyone who got a decent grade school education these days knows a hell of a lot more than you do. You don't even know how to name big numbers. Arabic numerals will be invented - by Arabs, of course - in the first millenium, but you don't even have words in your vocabulary for a million or a billion.
And now God comes to you to tell you the story of Creation.
He comes in a dream one night, and the story he tells is a dream, with images, without words.
And you see it all.
There is the Big Bang, where the universe is so dense at the beginning that light cannot pass through. After some millions of years of expansion, light appears for the first time and particles of matter begin to condense out of the pure energy. As matter collects in some regions, stars ignite, producing new elements in their cores to be blasted back into space when the stars die. Billions of years later, our own Solar System forms. The Earth, at first, is a hot rock produced by countless impacts and collisions of smaller objects. But at some point, vaporized ice from cometary collisions begins to condense, and a steady rain begins to fall. Oceans form and primitive forms of life appear in the oceans. Over time, new life forms evolve: sea creatures, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, men.
And now you must tell others. Would you say something like this:
"In the Beginning, there was nothing. And God decided to create something from nothing. And he said, Let There Be Light, and there was light! And then, He created the firmament, making the stars in the heavens and the vast spaces in between. And then he made the Earth. But the Earth had no oceans; next he made the land and the seas. And in the oceans, he made fish. And next he made primitve creatures like amphibians and reptiles. And finally, he made the animals of the Earth."
And that gets us back to the original Hebrew creation story, the one that they made up for themselves years before, with God walking along a riverbank and making a man out of clay.
It's very strange.
Human science didn't think of evolution until the 1800's. The Big Bang was talked about in the 1920's, when astronomical observations found red shifts to indicate expansion of the universe, and was confirmed in the 1960's when Bell Lab workers started measuring background microwave radiation coming from space. But in the Bible, in the Creation story of Genesis, all of that was there, already, and it's been there for thousands of years in our past.
Apparently, the Bible has no problem with Evolution, or any other scientific concept mankind has come up with so far.
It's very strange.
Human societies always have creation stories. I like the Norse myth, where a god goes walking along the beach and finds some pieces of driftwood that look like people, whittles them down a little, and breathes life into them. Sure, why not.
And it makes perfect historical sense that our Middle Eastern God should be walking around one day and decide to make a man out of clay. For one thing, there's a great shortage of driftwood in the Middle East. For another thing, clay was being used for building a lot of things back then: bricks, houses, pots, and even cuneiform writing tablets. It even makes sense that Eve was created later. In a paternalistic society in which women occupied a level lower than men but higher than camels - her comparison to the noble horse was a continuing controversy - it made sense to the author of the creation story that women should be made as an afterthought, as helpers. Subservient by God's will, so there.
But there is something very interesting here, and by here I mean in the Bible, in the story of Genesis.
You might not realize that the Bible has not always been a book. Books as we know them didn't exist until some time in the 1400's when Johannes Gutenberg invented a printing press. At the time the Bible's creation story began, books didn't exist. Even writing was a highly specialized skill not available to the general public, somewhat like Java programming or tax accounting are today. People communicated by talking, not by writing, and for many, many centuries after the creation story first appeared it was handed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth.
Now just imagine this. Imagine that you are Moses. You are an intelligent, educated person raised in the Pharoh's court. You know as much as anyone in the world knows about history and literature and science.
But you don't know about atoms or subatomic particles or nuclear reactions or chemistry or ..., well, let's just say that anyone who got a decent grade school education these days knows a hell of a lot more than you do. You don't even know how to name big numbers. Arabic numerals will be invented - by Arabs, of course - in the first millenium, but you don't even have words in your vocabulary for a million or a billion.
And now God comes to you to tell you the story of Creation.
He comes in a dream one night, and the story he tells is a dream, with images, without words.
And you see it all.
There is the Big Bang, where the universe is so dense at the beginning that light cannot pass through. After some millions of years of expansion, light appears for the first time and particles of matter begin to condense out of the pure energy. As matter collects in some regions, stars ignite, producing new elements in their cores to be blasted back into space when the stars die. Billions of years later, our own Solar System forms. The Earth, at first, is a hot rock produced by countless impacts and collisions of smaller objects. But at some point, vaporized ice from cometary collisions begins to condense, and a steady rain begins to fall. Oceans form and primitive forms of life appear in the oceans. Over time, new life forms evolve: sea creatures, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, men.
And now you must tell others. Would you say something like this:
"In the Beginning, there was nothing. And God decided to create something from nothing. And he said, Let There Be Light, and there was light! And then, He created the firmament, making the stars in the heavens and the vast spaces in between. And then he made the Earth. But the Earth had no oceans; next he made the land and the seas. And in the oceans, he made fish. And next he made primitve creatures like amphibians and reptiles. And finally, he made the animals of the Earth."
And that gets us back to the original Hebrew creation story, the one that they made up for themselves years before, with God walking along a riverbank and making a man out of clay.
It's very strange.
Human science didn't think of evolution until the 1800's. The Big Bang was talked about in the 1920's, when astronomical observations found red shifts to indicate expansion of the universe, and was confirmed in the 1960's when Bell Lab workers started measuring background microwave radiation coming from space. But in the Bible, in the Creation story of Genesis, all of that was there, already, and it's been there for thousands of years in our past.
Apparently, the Bible has no problem with Evolution, or any other scientific concept mankind has come up with so far.
It's very strange.
Friday, December 01, 2006
PROCRASTINATION
Oh, dear.
This has been a plague on my existence.
I want to do some Thing.
And I try to do some Thing.
But it doesn't get done.
Why?
Part of the reason is perfectionism - the desire to do only what is the perfect realization of my original idea.
And the rest of the reason is perfectionism - the decision to do nothing rather than do something that is less than what I consider ideal.
It has been a plague on my existence.
But perhaps I can learn, and learn this:
"The best I can do - under the circumstances - is better than doing nothing."
Oh, dear.
This has been a plague on my existence.
I want to do some Thing.
And I try to do some Thing.
But it doesn't get done.
Why?
Part of the reason is perfectionism - the desire to do only what is the perfect realization of my original idea.
And the rest of the reason is perfectionism - the decision to do nothing rather than do something that is less than what I consider ideal.
It has been a plague on my existence.
But perhaps I can learn, and learn this:
"The best I can do - under the circumstances - is better than doing nothing."
Sunday, October 01, 2006
America, land of the free, home of the brave.
I was born an American. I will always be grateful to have been given that great gift, and proud of my heritage as a citizen of the United States of America.
And what is that heritage?
We believe governments are created to serve the people, that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We believe that government officials have no powers that have not been specifically authorized by our Constitution or laws.
We now have an Administration that deliberately and coldly manipulates public opinion through fearmongering and propaganda, and treats our Constitution and traditions with total contempt.
We have a Congress so spineless and corrupt that they have been willing to allow human torture and wars of agression to become part of out American history, following the bloody examples of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.
And we have a Supreme Court populated with political hacks willing to betray principal for partisan advantage.
We once suffered through a horrifying Civil War started by traitors to America to gain constitutional protection for the vile crime of human slavery.
But today is worse. The morally degenerate descendents of Jeff Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest have lied and cheated their way into power, and their perverse ideas are creating death and destruction on a worlwide scale.
To say the President has absolute power to declare any human on earth an enemy without rights is to violate the basic principle on which America was founded - that human rights are absolute and that government powers must be limited.
Let us understand what is at stake; let us understand the meaning of what the Republicans are saying.
Day after day, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all their foul cronies are saying the same thing: Death to America.
I was born an American. I will always be grateful to have been given that great gift, and proud of my heritage as a citizen of the United States of America.
And what is that heritage?
We believe governments are created to serve the people, that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We believe that government officials have no powers that have not been specifically authorized by our Constitution or laws.
We now have an Administration that deliberately and coldly manipulates public opinion through fearmongering and propaganda, and treats our Constitution and traditions with total contempt.
We have a Congress so spineless and corrupt that they have been willing to allow human torture and wars of agression to become part of out American history, following the bloody examples of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.
And we have a Supreme Court populated with political hacks willing to betray principal for partisan advantage.
We once suffered through a horrifying Civil War started by traitors to America to gain constitutional protection for the vile crime of human slavery.
But today is worse. The morally degenerate descendents of Jeff Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest have lied and cheated their way into power, and their perverse ideas are creating death and destruction on a worlwide scale.
To say the President has absolute power to declare any human on earth an enemy without rights is to violate the basic principle on which America was founded - that human rights are absolute and that government powers must be limited.
Let us understand what is at stake; let us understand the meaning of what the Republicans are saying.
Day after day, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all their foul cronies are saying the same thing: Death to America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)