Don't worry, you can trust me. I'm not like the others.

Banned In China

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

I Hope You Had A Happy War On Xmas or The Holiday Of Your Choice


I'm back at work after Xmas. (I just can't help myself, I need to keep fighting that war even if it is all over for the year. Incidentally, I live in the heart of Ohio in the middle of the bible belt and all over the place there are "Happy Holiday" signs. What is the matter with hill billies don't they take the war on Xmas seriously.)

At any rate I am over whelmed with work as I always am after Xmas. I think that perhaps I expect to be hit by a meteor during the Xmas break and therefore I don't have to be prepared for the week after. Unfortunately that has not yet happened. If it does, I expect that it will only happen when I am all caught up on everything. So, there is another reason not to get caught up.

A felony jury trial on the Eleventh and a Brief due the same day. Major custody matter the day before and here I sit writing in this blog. It might be a country and western song.

Thursday, December 23, 2010


Coming back after comparing Obama to Martin Vanger and the liberal interest groups to unnamed victims of the guy, and seeing that the republicans "convinced" the democrats to cut the health benefits for first responders to 9/11. It reminds me of Bush cutting veterans benefits shortly after or just before the start of the Gulf War. Perhaps I shouldn't have limited my analogy to merely the democrats and the liberals, perhaps I should have expanded it to include all the ruling class as Martin and the rest of us as the nameless victims. Kind of like Charlie Brown and Lucy but with more sexual innuendo.

I've been thinking for some time about writing a bit about "facts" and how they are not very powerful, strong or important, but are in reality pretty delicate, then Digby and Krugman both beat me to writing about it, however I do insist that I thought about it before I read either of their essays. The most interesting thing about it all is that the "facts" about HCR are already being distorted less than eighteen months after everything went down badly. Now it is in the interest of the ruling class to insist that the liberals or leftists held up reform and therefore made it worse and what it is today and caused the massive democratic losses in the last election. Not that Obama screwed around trying to placate the republicans and big business and caused the massive democratic losses, which is what happened.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised, given that we are coming up on the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War, and the defenders of the lost cause are again insisting that the war wasn't about slavery, but rather the South's desire for freedom and economic issues not involved with slavery, when all one has to do is go to the actual session documents from the state legislators, to see that is a lie. Or for that matter I can remember when that was a real issue in history departments around the United States. It had been accepted popular and mostly professional history that slavery was not the primary cause of the civil war. It took the Civil Rights Movement to change that (temporarily apparently).

Sunday, December 19, 2010


A couple of more thoughts about the repeal of DADT. First, the blind pig analogy. It really isn't possible for Obama and the congressional democrats to always fuck up all the time. And when there is a happy confluence of the wishes of the military industrial complex, the neo-liberals and their desires for more colonial wars, no money lost for billionaires and a major constituency actually withholding their votes; then perhaps something good can come out of this administration.

Then there is my other thought, (if I can be forgiven from fixating on the Millennium books) is the torture scene of Blomkvist from The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (can't find it on Y0uTube) where the sociopthic serial killer offers Blomkvist a glass of water while taking a break from torturing him to death and Blomkvist thanks him. The guy then says: "See it is so simple, I offer you something that doesn'tt matter and you think that maybe I won't kill you now." Of course, he has every intention of killing Blomkvist and is openly contemptuous of Blomkvist's weakness in thinking that now maybe he will be ok. Just saying, not to imply that Obama is a sociopathic serial killer or that liberals are willing to take any offering from him as evidence of his humanity, or anything.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

A Blind Pig

So I was wrong and the repeal of DADT passed the senate. So now when the generals tell the president it is OK to actually remove it, well it will be removed I guess. Let's see how long it takes before Obama reports to the senate. It is a good thing, but it is hardly the most important thing out there. The most important thing is the economy and that pouch has been screwed for some time.

I predict that this will be pushed by the veal pen as the greatest thing since sliced bread and continued reason to support Obama no matter what because McCain or whatever other republican will be nominated would never have done this. Of course no money is taken from the rich; this provides no real aid to the middle class or poor. People who happen to be homosexual will (eventually) be able to serve openly in our military in an ever widening series of colonial wars all over the world.

In the mean time budget failed, massive tax cut for rich passed (which will in all probability prevent any real economic recovery), DREAM Act failed all this week.

Pardon me if I do not completely cream my jeans.

Monday, December 13, 2010

I'm Just Pissed

Not in the best of moods, after yelling at a client; and looking over what I wrote yesterday I'm not thrilled with that either.

I no longer enjoy reading the blogs I go to for political humor: World-O-Crap, Sadly No, or even Tbogg. They make fun of the right wing, but the right wing is winning and there seems to be no one on the left who is capable of dealing with the current malaise we find our selves in and anyway I do not like slave humor all that much.

The arguments on Balloon Juice are examples of what is going on in the liberal/progressive/leftist side of the political spectrum. I can kind of understand the demand that one not blame all the troubles we are currently having on Obama (although he would certainly want all the accolades if things were going well). Certainly, once the 2008 election was over it should not have been difficult to realize what could happen in the senate given the make up, with or without Franken. A change of procedural rules might have been in order, although no one in power was willing to push the issue.

Some other backers of Obama seem to feel that there is something else that might theoretically have been done, but that he could not do it because of institutional limitations. Then the next logically step, which for the most part they do not make is that therefore, no one could have done anything, therefore we as a nation are in a place where there is no hope. Literally, no hope. There are a lot of things wrong, but no way around the internal limitations so they can't be fixed. Ever. By anyone. That may also be true, but well as I've said before I'm not a nihilist for nothing.

Others make fun of leftists who have been known to ask "Where is the leadership we were led to expect?" They point out that no one seems to be listening to Obama now so although he can demand say the end of DADT no one cares. Leaving out the real question of whether or not what he says to people outside his very private meetings with the powerful is what he really asks for or believes. Let's say he really does want to repeal DADT (unlike what he said he wanted to do about private insurers, or pharmaceutical companies, or FISA, say), why would anyone be interested in doing what he asks or what he wants. He just led his party to the biggest defeat in decades, what makes him a leader who should be followed now. These people do not seem to understand that there is a thing called "time." Things that one may do or be able to get done at one point they may not be able to accomplish at another. Months or years of dithering and showing little or no leadership may cause one to "spend their seed on the ground," as it were and leave them nothing for on down the line.

The background of these arguments assumes that he wanted to accomplish some sort of liberal/progressive/leftist agenda. Or that he at least looked at the world from that prospective. Nothing that he has done in the last two years should cause people to believe that and when one points that out one tends to get shouted down. From the very beginning, with his appointment of Rahm, the fat homophobe to give the invocation, and the economic team who are as conventional as conventional can be and really do believe in the very things that brought this country to the edge. Well that should have been a wake up call to those of us who thought he knew what he was doing and that he at least had an outlook that was not totally controlled by the oligarchs.

There is the argument that he could not have known just the kind of intransigence nor the type and viciousness of the attacks that would be leveled on him. Really? From the git go the right attacked him for not being a real American and a Muslim Further, the last democratic president from whom Obama took many of his policies and personnel was attacked, I think, as viciously. The Clinton Death List anyone? How about we have pictures of Bill loading cocaine off a drug cartel plane, or how about what about two years of impeachment proceedings? I'm being told that it is worse because Obama is black. I'm not sure that it is worse, I just think it is different.

Then there is a new argument that apparently he is afraid of being mistaken for an angry black man and so therefore he does nothing to lead or really push because he might be seen as a new version of H. Rap Brown, I guess. Instead he must look and act like Jackie Robinson. Or what? Or he will be attacked even more than he is right now? Oh really? That is one of those things that one cannot really respond to because the implication in the argument is that the person making the argument is from some other planet where they cannot understand the languages spoken on this one.

All of these arguments assume thatObama wants something other than what is happening. I suspect that he does not want any other policies, but that he does want someone else to take the blame for them. Although why he thinks that he might look better if he does anything else is beyoned me. I also do not quite understand why he would bring the last big democratic loser out to shill for him either.

I also do not touch here on the absolute crazy of the real crazies who talk death pannels and socialism and Kenyan births. Maybe some other time, although truth be told I could not figure the absolute hate for Clinton either.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

I Guess I Need A Headline

Argghhh. I'm reading Balloon Juice today and finally decided to move them over into my Fake Progressives folder. That'll show them all right, all right.

John Cole has done yet another blog post telling leftists just that well we are asking too much of Obama, or unfair, or that we are racist in our criticisms of his. Then right on cue he links to a New York Times Op Ed Ismael Reed saying essentially the same thing. That blacks and hispanics know when to be quite and, I guess take what they are given, something that apparently white folks never learned. Or forgot I guess.

The comment section is a free for all, something that one wouldn't have seen six months ago at Balloon Juice. Now Cole is complaining about the folks coming in to argue about whether or not Obama has done what he could or should do.

I'm actually not sure what people are arguing concerning criticism by white folks of Obama being as he is African American. Generally, at least out loud, they are not arguing that any criticism of him is racist, but I see them coming close to that. One of the suggestions was that Obama is like the political Jackie Robinson and has to hold is temper at all times else he be called an Angry Black Man (apparently the 60s never happened). Another, is that the African American (called AA in the comments which confused me quite a bit for a while) community will react, as a group, negatively to too much criticism and to primary him. Another person ran a time line of how he tried to save the middle class tax cuts while ending them on income over $250,000.00, of course the time line started this summer.

The interesting thing about these discussions is that they completely ignore all that has happened in the last two and a half years. That is what Obama has actually or chosen not to do or who he has put the muscle to. He has not arraigned himself with a cabinet of dashiki clad black radicals like Putney Swope. He appointed the most conventional of main stream thinkers[?] around, when he wasn't reappointing Bush republicans.

Yet his defenders seem to be completely unaware of this it is as if they have been living in a parallel universe where there is an effective Obama who cares about the poor and middle class. It is if one is talking past these people. One tries to point out just what he has done or failed to do and the argument is well if he had tried it wouldn't have worked so he had to do something else that didn't work either.

Friday, December 10, 2010

More WikiLeaks

Some times wonder if I do not run off down the off ramps in all the directions the "Man" wants me to go. Do you suppose the survivors of the '48 uprisings felt about the world they ended up living in the same way liberals do about this one, but without I-phones I guess.

So I find my self writing about the sex charges against Assange and the positions taken by the liberal blogs, serious liberal blogs are taking on this. I kind of find myself going to the same place I was with the Roman Polanski thing. I was correct to seriously wonder about what kind of guy Polanski was, but not I was not correct to wonder about the "victim's" motives, or for that matter what was going on with the whole thing and the motives of all those involved because well it just wasn't right and proper.

The same with Assange and his accusers. It does seem that we are not permitted to seriously question the motives or the timing of the two women who brought these charges. One has allegedly worked extensively with the C.I.A. and anti-Castro groups. One gave a party for the guy after the alleged incident and texed friends about how neat he was also after the alleged incident. The complaints appear to be based on the allegations the Assange wasn't a particularly nice guy and didn't stop in mid-thrust as it were. (I'm not sure I've ever had that request.) Both women found out about each other and met and discussed things before they filed their formal charges with the police. The case was dismissed by one prosecutor and then refiled by another and placed on the "Most Wanted" Interpol List. Then Assange is denied bail even though he turned himself into the law when the arrest warrant was shown to be valid.

All of this is of a piece. You cannot take one part of it out and say let's just look at this by itself. If it was a simple assault case that had gone this route one would look at the complainants with a very jaundiced eye. As Rumpole would (and did in fact say): "I am treating this woman as a perfect equal and demanding the same level of proof that I would demand from a man."

I recall a Guild convention I was at in Atlanta decades ago. There was a very heated discussion about the feminist arguments that some pornography needed to be banned, because it was by its very nature harmful to women. I didn't have enough nerve to participate. But the positions of the participants were very interesting. Mostly it was younger women who were arguing that some things needed to be banned because they were just beyond the pale. Older individuals and they were mostly men who I suspect now been through the censorship wars involving Lady Chatterley, Junkie, and others; and remembered that censorship had once been used to keep birth control information from women took the other position.

But the position of the younger people was that women needed to be protected from these things. Not it seemed to me at the time a very empowering position.

So I guess it is possible that Assange is guilty of something, but not likely, and it looks like his accusers are willing pawns and being used by the very reactionary powers who always use those kind of people.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Oh Hell

Brisk and cold outside, the sun just starting to come up over a scattering of mostly old snow on the ground. The chow is outside and the St. is inside. The chow likes us well enough, but she wants to enjoy the cold weather. She'll stay out for twenty or thirty minutes and come inside to check us all out, then turn around and go back out for another twenty or thirty minutes. The St. is more than willing to put up with the heat if he can be near us.

Assange is all over the news which is more than a little depressing, when I look and see the government was able to get just about every power that matter arrayed against him, from corporations like VISA and Mastercard to nations one would normally expect (Sweden and Switzerland) to have gone their own independent way, to international organizations like Interpol, which up to this point seemed to have a certain (at least in my mind, but perhaps I just wasn't paying attention) independence and honesty. But as I say what do I know? Also, even thoug Obama himself is keeping quite he is the one who is pushing this, don't forget.

Assange and WikiLeaks managed to take my mind away (for part of the time only) the ongoing disaster that is the Obama presidency and the lame duck congressional session. It is nice to see Obama call out his real enemies: the liberals and progressives who got him elected. Obama's and the democrats complete and total inability to learn from their mistakes in the last two years (if they are actually mistakes) is breath taking. He apparently blames the losses in the last election on the "professional left" rather than on his unnecessary compromises and inability or unwillingness to effectively negotiate for his stated positions. He also doesn't seem to have understood the effect of his various lies on those who worked and voted for him, or perhaps he is just shocked that people are recognizing the lies for what they are, but maybe I shouldn't hold him to too high a standard.

It is also interesting to read stuff from the various Fake Progressive Blogs to see how they are more than willing to keep defending Obama and attacking people who are calling him out. No More Mister Nice Blog has managed to get itself moved into my Fake Progressive folder because of an essay claiming that there are people who prefer to see the top marginal tax cuts maintained rather than extend the unemployment benefits if that was the trade off. Of course I'm not at all sure that is the trade off, but we will see. I'm sure it will pass in the same bill that repeals DADT, perhaps a little sooner than card check though. Congratulations No More Mister Nice Blog.

The professional villagers who were convinced by Bush that there were possibly WMDs in Iraq are the same people who are leading the charge to defend Obama and the democrats. Reliably liberal when there is no chance of their policies passing and more than willing to defend the status quo other wise.

Perhaps the most interesting commentary is that by those who more or less correctly identify Obama's short comings and then go on to say that they will not only vote for him, but will also give money to him and work for him. I can't understand that position at all. It resembles the dead enders who supported Bush right up until the end. The old (comparatively speaking) joke is that if Bush had eaten live kittens on tv they would find a way to not only justify it but praise it. Or perhaps abused wives or girlfriends who just know that the abuser will change if she just gives him one more chance and this time what he says will be what he does, not like the other times.

There is also the: "But Obama couldn't have done any more than he did, he was trapped" line of comments. Completely ignoring the real world out there with so much to contradict it that I do not feel like listing all the explanations as to what that is a miss reading of the real world. There is the little thing about being a leader and acting like a leader and pushing for enactment of certain important changes that one says one believes in. Something that appears to be sorely lacking in the current leadership.

I said on Facebook that I am more hopeless than I was during Bush's terms. I could work to try to defeat Bush, but those of us who want to fight against what Obama and the democratic party are have to do what? We are not considered "serious" people. We must work completely outside the normal systems and it is clear that we are marginalized beyond belief. Apparently, most of the voters think Obama is doing a fine job. Or if he isn't Palin or one of the reserve republican fascists could do a better one. What to do? So I guess we have to leave that sort of thing for our betters, you know:

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Things Can (And Apparently Will) Always Get Worse

Geeze. I was going to lay off WikiLeaks for awhile, but I guess they insist on being attacked by "my" government. Just a little something from Greenwald again, and from yesterday.

More and more depressing news. I suspect that the kind of stuff I post or even the kind of stuff Greenwald does will be left alone. We just kind of nibble along on the edges, obviously WikiLeaks hits them where they hurt. I also suspect that they are going all out at this point to make a point for anyone else who might want to shed a little light on the vile internal working of our government and its minions (minions including other countries and large corporations).

In passing I find it depressingly interesting that the law most frequently cited is the 1917 Espionage Act. It is a law from one of the most reactionary periods of Twentieth Century American History. It was intended to aid in crushing dissent against one of the more unpopular wars in American history. It did a fairly good job of it, Debs served almost five years for a speech he gave against that war.

The least just and more unreasonable the government's position on any issue the more intense will be their attempt to destroy any dissent. So the United States has now officially and openly, joined the governments of Burma and China. Congratulation on us.

And I would argue, I expect to see them succeed more times then they fail.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Block That Analogy

Let's leave fiction and go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear for our extended analogy. No I mean really yesteryear. Like about 63 B.C.E and the Catiline rebellion. Class war fare, no real war and feckless and incompetent leaders of the peoples party. Ending eventually with the entrenchment of the wealthy as the complete powers, for a short time. Then it just turned weird, see my friend Caligula. Although the satisfaction of the various noble and wealthy family being cut down by the crazy emperors does give one a nice cozy feeling of schadenfreude.

Or if you prefer:

We are kind of like the Titanic and Bush II would be our captain Smith of the Titanic he's already steered us into that iceberg and now Obama is the lesser officers; he has many different roles: the guy that allows the the life boats to leave half full, the guy who holds the gun on the the steerage passengers forbidding them to come up to the deck to try to get off the sinking ship, or perhaps one of the guys in command of a life boat who refuses to go back and rescue the passengers in the water take your pick.

Finally, I feel like the individual in one of the old movie series, who has gotten their foot stuck in that railroad track and sees that training barrelling down on him, but is unable to get lose and do anything about it.

There enough metaphors or analogies for you?

Saturday, December 4, 2010

The Air Castle That Was Blown Up

So my last post on WikiLeaks most recent leaks until Assange gets taken before some Swedish tribunal for something hopefully resembling the last scene from The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest. But in Googling the title I see that the Swedish title is more accurately translated as: The Air Castle That Was Blown Up, perhaps even more apropos. OK, OK, but the damn thing is playing out so closely to that movie that I just cannot get over it.

I watched Greenwald and Aftergood (what a great name) debate the WikiLeaks thing on Democracy Now (yesterday streaming on the computer thingy). First, Aftergood who has a (kind of) organization that pushes for (apparently) more openness in American government seemed to be really jealous. Here he has worked for years within the system and he is barely noticed. I had heard about his organization, but not a lot. He had apparently going through FOIA requests and the proper court channels gotten some information, but none that appeared to really get a lot of interest outside the belt way types. He was angry about what WikiLeaks had done and how they had done it.

In fact Aftergood (insert own sarcastic comment here) simply lied and said that WikiLeaks had published a blue print for a nuclear bomb, the only one ever publicly published. That was simply, apparently not true. Then he went on to argue that some of the leaks shouldn't have been leaked although others were apparently alright. One of the leaks that he chose to mention that was bad and shouldn't have been leaked, was the one which revealed the German politician who gave the U.S. Ambassador detailed notes about what went on in the formation of the current German government. Since the German was essentially a spy for the U.S. it reveals a terribly America centric point of view and another way Aftergood would be more than willing to censor what the average citizen knows.

Essentially, it is an argument that someone must always stand between the people and their government's secrets. The Wise Men (mostly men) know what the hoi poli need and should know. We're just arguing about who those Wise Men should be. Clearly Aftergood believes that he is one of those Wise Men.

A second point, though. I've been wondering whatever is causing the completely unrestrained rage which has been expressed by the ruling class of at least this country, if not the world. The ruling class as I mentioned before being the media types (perhaps; they at least are given to think they are part of that class and encouraged to believe it), elected types, appointed types, wealthy types, and it now appears the educational types (those who hope to move on to jobs in the government or think tanks). They are the Wise Men (even if some of them are women). Assange is not (nor are you, by the way).

This unrestrained rage does seem to be kind of strange coming as it does at the release of diplomatic cables rather than at the release of the military stuff of a few months ago. I do not mean to imply that there was no anger at WikiLeaks and real rage from those in power, but it didn't seem to take hold as it seems to be this time. It is certainly being pushed more aggressively by the media than it was before, and I think that might be because the media are starting to realize that WikiLeaks is making them look like the ineffectual bumbling handmaidens of the rulers that they are and that they always knew they were, but were able to deny it to themselves up to this point maybe.

Another reason for this completely uncontrolled rage is the sheer number of cables that make the writers look like middle school children back biting each other: "She's so fat," etc. It is one thing to be shown to have killed people for no good reason, but that you have the power to do it, it is quite another to be shown to be merely petty.

Friday, December 3, 2010

WikiLeaks: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The Pentagon Papers and the revelations concerning the "secret" Cambodian bombings were, to me and my generation at least, the origins of major document dumps. I do believe that there are people who are still pissed about them.

When the "secret" bombings of Cambodia were finally revealed, my how the powerful squealed. Who were the bombings secret from? Us. Not the Cambodians certainly, nor the USSR, and most of Europe knew it. I was only us rubes here who didn't have a clue. Oh well more of the same, I guess. The anger was extreme and it was all because the American people were given some information about who else their government was killing in that interminable war. The anger was really, once again, directed against the people who leaked the information, not against the people ordering the "secret" bombings.

The anger against Ellsberg for the Pentagon Papers was even more extreme and even less reasonable. An internal "Defense [Orwell quotes]" Department study that came to the conclusion the the war was not winnable. No new information concerning tactics or war plans, but now everybody could know that we were there in a losing cause, killing untold numbers of Vietnamese and killing very told numbers of American and allied troops killed for apparently no reason at all.

At least as far as our military leaders thought at the time. But at any rate no anger against those who were insisting on killing for no particular reason, just against those who told us there was no particular reason. Since Ellsberg was in therapy the government went after his psychiatrist and lucky for him were caught breaking in. However, that didn't stop them from implying the Ellsberg was crazy and so shouldn't be believed because of it. Still most of the anger was directed at Ellsberg not those who were insisting on waging an unwinnable war.

Yes I do understand that the New York Times did publish these things, but they were attacked for giving aid and comfort to the enemy by most of the middle American press.

Now Assange is under attack by Sweeden not because he is letting the people in a democracy know what their government won't let them know, but rather because he allegedly is guilty of sexual misconduct with a couple of women who it turns out if and this is a big if his lawyer is correct decided after the fact that they were assualted. I guess they just didn't think of this for Ellsberg.

Well, well, well lookie at this there is nothing that the governments of the world and their lackies won't do to keep the people of a democracy from having information about their governments.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Hey, I Though It Was Just A Novel

Wow. So the powers that be are after Assange. One of the ten most wanted for what is apparently an allegation of date rape, maybe. Not that date rate is anything that should be blown off. On the other hand, I find it interesting that this is a guy who is on Interpol's Ten Most Wanted List. I am sure it has nothing to do with WikiLeaks, no suree bob.

In the meantime our great and powerful "leaders" (yes I'm being snarky, thank you) like president Lieberman assist Amazon in finding its patriotism and blocking information concerning what our country is doing all over the world.

The interesting thing is in the way that the government has reacted to this most recent leak. In a way that is out of all proportion to what the leaks contain, at least to those who have read them. And by government I mean the ruling junta which includes the media and the corporate power boys (and yes some girls), not just our (more or less) elected and appointed rulers. I suspect that our rulers believe that this stuff is going to keep coming and that eventually people are going to start paying attention.

Greenwald has been all over this for the last couple of days.

There is no question that there is now a full court press against Assange and that the various governments of the world will not rest until the guy is in custody and the hope is, of course, that he is really not just the face of WikiLeaks, but the real moral authority there and that getting rid of him will get rid of this pesky irritant. It will also have the added benefit of scaring others who might consider doing something similar in the future. (Paging Scott Ritter and Eliot Spitzer anyone?)

Just watched The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest last weekend and have now seen all the Millennium Trilogy and read two and a third of the books. It certainly does give one pause. I did not think that the various government agencies would take the books as a How To, rather than as a warning against harming innocent citizens, silly me. Another interesting thing is that it was difficult, but not impossible, to find a link other than Amazon, that handles the books. Well I guess sex crimes are better at smearing people than the good old fashion drugs and violence, do not want to hew too closely to the printed page in the adaptions, now do we.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

I'm Really Getting Tired of the News

Hey, welcome back.

I've been listening to NPR some while I drive to and from home to work and when I say some I mean until I become so enraged that in order to drive I have to turn the radio off. One reason we have no TV is that my wife got tired of me yelling at the thing during the various news casts.

I used to watch CNN Headline News because the first fifteen minutes or so was decent hard news, even if the last fifteen or ten was fluff. Then one day I realized that I had watched two cycles of Headline News and seen no news at all just fluff from beginning to end. Well I guess that was better than my reaching for my trusty six shooter to blast the carn sarn piece of devil's equipment to hell. I would not have been able to endure Dancing With Stars with or without Bristol. I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing part of a Duggers episode when I was at another persons house, and that was just weird.

At any rate to get back to the original thought today I listened to someone from The Wall Street Journal explain that Obama has taken the last election as a sign from the voters that they want more bipartisanship in government. The discussion was that this was a not unreasonable position for him to take. That was when I turned the radio off.

Well we are certainly living in interesting times, I guess. I have no doubt that Obama has taken the election as proof that he was doing just what the voters wanted, just not enough. What I have a difficult time understanding is how anyone outside a completely bunkered facility, somewhat like the place Hitler was in the final days of WWII, could believe this.

Well perhaps not really believe this, but say it at least. And sound like they believe it. How is that possible? I guess they could be brilliant actors, but other than that I really do not understand this. You lie and don't deliver on much of anything that you promised, but you make sure that the people who opposed you in the last election get everything they want.

The other strange thing is that many of the original Obama supports continue to support him no matter what he does, but some how believe what he says even though he never (or almost never) delivers on his promises. Drifting over and around the various blogs it appears as though Tbogg has decided that Obama is simply incompetent rather than malicious or evil where I think that he is incompetently evil. Trumka and the AFL-CIO is just disturbing, what are they thinking they support the guy and get nothing of substance from him? Once again discussing this with people who will not give up on him is..............what? Certainly not illuminating and it is getting less and less interesting as one can give them literally dozens of major examples of issues that he has lied about and/or failed to deliver on and it doesn't seem to matter.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

I Want My Scroll Back

There are days that I think I am almost monk like in my attempt to comprehend our electronic world. Perhaps I would be in better mental shape if I just took a little time and surfed the web and read some simple books concerning the stuff that goes on inside these little thingies.

Friday, November 26, 2010


I've been thinking about the current state of our once and future government and realizing that it is just going to get worse and I hate to say it worse.

I remembered that Caligula had appointed his horse as a counsel if I recall correctly, and I do. It does not at this point seem to me to be a bad idea right now. I mean how bad could a senate or house or presidency of one or more horses be compared to what we have now? I mean at least we'd get a complete horse then, wouldn't we?

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Don't Touch My Junk

Reading a post on Greenwald's blog about the "Don't Touch My Junk" guy. The interesting thing is that it takes off from an article in The Nation which essentially smears the guy.

And strongly defends Obama. In reality The Nation has been nothing, but a well kept "leftist" piece of democratic infrastructure since at least 1996. Why do you ask do I say 1996?

Because I remember reading an article which was an attack piece on Dole at the time. The article attacked Dole for waiting to be drafted rather than leaving college and joining and then attacked him for not being appropriately wounded. He happened to get seriously wounded by being hit by an artillery shell (as did most) rather than heroically leading an assault on ........well something or the other.

They also were willing to cut and run on the single payer idea early on.

Oswald Garrison Villard would be very disappointed.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010


It is a depressing day here, for many personal reasons, but politically the new TSA stuff is just sad. I almost wrote disappointing, but in reality there is no disappointment, since to be disappointed one would have to be surprised at the new rules and at the general publics response to this sort of thing. I am reminded of the Simpsons episode where the city of Springfield buys a stealth bomber to protect the city from bears, of which there was one in the entire history of the city. It is truly hard for satire to keep ahead of reality these days.

NPR today ran what can only be described as an "Ask the Frisker Segment" where "concerned real[?] people got to ask questions about whether their nine year old might be frisked, or whether they could still carry on frozen meat and pies, but not puddings or cranberry sauce. Play dough however is approved because the cracker jack security checkers know the difference between play dough and plastic explosive.

I hope that this has answered all those questions of the concerned brain dead American citizens concerning travel this holiday.

The thing that really makes me sad, is that all the problems with this will eventually blow away. I plan on driving south the next time I go. Although, I suspect that it is only a matter of time before we have full body screens at all on ramps for the Interstate.

Saturday, November 20, 2010


A crush of work, worry about my office mate, a general feeling of malaise and my normal sloth have prevented me from writing much recently. Many things have caught my eye including the report from that well known reporter, Anonymous concerning the apparent belief by the congressional democrats that the only reason they lost was that the people just didn't know how much they had indeed done and that they just couldn't get their message out there. And that because and therefore they got their asses handed them on a platter.

I have worked with people who were in an active stage of an incapacitating delusional mental illness, and they were not, I believe, as delusional as that. There are certain things believed or statements made by a person which I normally feel I cannot respond to because the statement made or belief held is so far from an even fleeting brush with reality that that person does not exist in the real world and that without entering that (kind of) parallel universe: A democratic senator thinking that they have performed admirably in the last two years and the only reason they lost was because they didn't explain it well enough to me; is just one of those things. (Some one arguing that the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or Yeman are necessary for our nation's safety is another. The continuing war on the use of marijuana is another, at least when some one insists that marijuana is a dangerous drug.) I suppose these later two things can be justified because they help the powerful get and maintain control over the hoi poli. Not, however for the reasons put out there.

But a democratic politician thinking that his party lost because they were unable to explain their governing brilliance to the electorate is a level of delusion that is simply breath taking. It evidences an ignorance that is just well, special.

Now one other reason I haven't been writing much and the cause of the title of this little piece is that I have been coming home at night and attempting to install Ubuntu on to one of my older computers to see how I would like it. It is I am told no problem at all, but I cannot get it done and now I am in a quest mode sort of like Arthur or Chevy Chase in National Lampoon's Vacation, if you will.

Curse you Bill Gates. (Incidentally this is being written on a version of Linux called Xandros if you are interested.

UPDATE: My wife points out that perhaps I should have used the Google and typed in say: "Installing Ubuntu on an older computer." But I think that that would have been cheating don't you?

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Obama Can't Fail, He Can Only Be Failed

Obama can't fail, he can only be failed.

I wish I could say that I invented that saying, but I can't. On the other hand I can't remember if I heard it or read it somewhere, so I can't say I stole it either.

There is a Brecht line about the people losing the confidence of the state. Other than that I'm not sure where I picked it up. I use it regularly when I cruse True Believe sites. Used it today at Balloon Juice, where Cole was whining about no one getting Obama's back on the trial of the sheik that was scheduled for New York and is now in all probability cancelled. Got the expect number of nasty hits, but also (surprise, surprise) got a few people who agreed.

I find the justifications for Obama bailing on a position before he is actually beaten to be kind of interesting. Now, truth be told, I kind of believe that at this point Obama couldn't get laid by a crack whore if he had a $2,000.00 rock (I know where I stole that one). He has spent so much time blatantly screwing the other members of his party, that he has no political authority left. Whether or not he had any to begin with is another question, but I do think that he did. For at least a few months after the election. He chose not to use it to push what was needed to go through concentrating on helping his corporate masters, and continues to concentrate on it without helping peope who really need it. Still is.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Two And A Half

November 11. Honor me. Horse shit.

I remember being out side a whore house in Sattahip and walking through a massive crowd of relatively small children most if not all under the age of eight. Several of us throwing change, mostly pennys, and watching the kids run from one spot to the other chasing after them. It seemed quite funny at the time.

So what is two and a half? Easy the number of war that we fought that can be called just or good:

The Revolutionary War. Probably if only because of the fact that it inspired others to try to create democracies around. It still inspires I say. Of course, we did have to keep our slaves you see.

The Civil War. That would be the half. Let's face it the destruction of slavery was a great thing, but then we were fighting against ourselves, so there you are half a just war at best.

World War II. That seems to be the one shining example and one that everybody holds out as a really good war. Although, probably good isn't the correct word, perhaps just fits it better. Maybe nearly necessary. The problem is that we have decided that we were on the side of the angels that time and that therefore, we are always on the side of the angels. (I always have a time figuring out how to spell angels and often I misspell it with an le, but that would probably have been right to.)

If one argues that the Spanish American War helped our little brown friends get out from under the Spanish yoke. I'd suggest reading Mark Twain about that. The Mexican American War, I'd go with Grant on that (or read the entire Autobiography, it is very good). Perhaps the Korean Conflict (not war don't you know). I'm not sure that the eventual outcome forty years later justifies any war. The others pointless (1812) or variations of colonial adventures. Let's face it the Indian Wars were real colonial wars, instead of doing what the English and French did we did what the Israelis are trying to do now. Kill 'em all and then just move in. It was nearly impossible even in the nineteenth century.

So there you have it over 200 years and just two and a half just wars, in a nation that calls itself peaceful, but has been at war for almost all of its existence.

Oh yea, around the corner from where I live there is a sign up that says: "Welcome home Vietnam Vets." I am beginning to think that we will never stop fighting that war and trying to justify it to ourselves. "Me think the lady doth protest too much[?]"

Monday, November 8, 2010

Why I Am Completely Unhinged About Obama

There is still a lot of stuff going on at work and I'm still doing a couple of people's jobs, but it does keep me out of the pool halls and off the streets, I guess. I've been thinking about trying to put everything down about why I think that Obama and the democrats are probably at least as bad as and possibly worse than Bush and the republicans. Worse because they make you think they will do some good and then...........

At any rate why I hate Obama and the democrats:

1. His vote on TARP, while he was the party leader and insisting that it be passed with no banking controls at all;

2. His vote on FISA, which to be fair to me caused me to stop doing anything for him for a couple of weeks, until Palin skeered me so much that I got out and actually worked for the son of a bitch again (my mistake).

3. His appointment of Rham, that guy who helped steer NAFTA and GATT through and lost the democratic party control of the congress for two decades (you can't fail, you can only be failed in big time politics).

4. Rick Warren, or as I lovingly refer to him the fat homophobe.

5. Summers, Geither, Paulson. The very people who torpedoed the economy. Oh yeah, let's not forget Secretary of Defense Gates the good Bush soldier.

6. Inaction on DADT and DOMA, except to defend them in the courts (when he didn't have to and appeal them when he didn't have to).

7. Total inaction on card check, thus assuring that it would not be passed. Now why is it that unions are backing him again?

8. Dawn Johnston and other recess appointments that he might have made while the republicans blocked his candidates including two union members of the NLRB, whom he ended up appointing only when he desperately needed union support for HCR (or the great pharmacy and health insurance bazaar give away).

9.Van Jones firing and his treatment of his long time pastor.

10. Shirley Sherrod (although to be fair here, the NAACP deserves at least as much contempt).

11. Walking back on his statements about the cop being stupid concerning Skip Gates.

12. A complete willingness to turn tail and run when any conservative or republican yelled boo (although to be fair that seems to be the current attitude of any liberal/progressive group [see 10 above]).

13. "Health Care Reform." I would say that this was a sell out to the industry, but I think that the phrase "sell out" refers to someone having a position that they then caved on.

14. The Stimulus, being half what it needed to be and by so doing causing people to believe that government spending can't really help them after all, no matter what the New Deal and WWII prove.

15. Out never ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his determination to continue them no matter what the cost.

16. His determination to control all funding for all advocacy groups on the left (and their willingness to go along with him).

17. His inability or refusal to lead.

18. His complete political incompetence, which is really surprising in the first African American president.

19. His complete ability to lie, to say that he is fighting for the repeal of DADT at the same time fighting to maintain it in court, or his promise to fight for single payer at the same time promising the insurance industry to prevent it from being seriously considered by congress, for instance. Now to be fair here, it might just be that the number of people on the so called left, who are willing to jump right in there and tell you that he couldn't have tried to do more because it just couldn't have happened no matter what might be what pisses me off the most.

20. His willingness to protect torturers at all levels (of our government only) and to completely deny any kind of due process to those arrested and held in our prisons on charges of terrorism. Well except of course to give these people trials if and only if he is sure that he can convict them and to announce that even if they are found not guilty he can still hold them for as long as he wants. Stalin would have been proud.

That is a brief list, in no particular order, of the things that cause me to feel nothing but hatred for Obama and the current crop of democrats. If I think of more things I will do updates as they come to mind.

UPDATE: Oh yes, I forgot.

21. Obama's complete and continuing lies (sense a pattern here?) concerning how he would encourage whistle blowers, and instead using every power at his disposal to crush them and anyone who helps them.

22. If I did not make this clear his embrace of the national security state in it most malignant form, which might just be a redundant redundancy come to think about it.

23. Cat Food Commission.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Nixon vs. Obama

I was in the comment sections of a couple of blogs today. Digby and Tbogg. Being my usual serious self, but there wasn't a lot of push back, so I suspect that perhaps I am not so out there after all, damn.

Tbogg's original post was an attack on people who vote third parties and who refuse to vote for the democrats because they are not good enough. Essentially beating up a straw man, in my opinion. It might have been a reasonable argument with Humphrey vs. Nixon, but I don't think it flies this year with these democrats. That was the point of a poster, that Humphrey was better than Nixon and those of us who are talking about not voting for the democrats are in the same position as those who refused to vote for Humphrey (who incidentally I did vote for, for the first time ever in a presidential election).

Then it occurred to me it is true that Humphrey was better than Nixon, but then really Nixon was better than Obama. Now, that is a real bitch.


So there are more and more slightly hysterical cries to get out the vote to liberals/progressives. That is to say you've got to vote for any democrat simply because the alternative is too awful to contemplate. Digby has a very nice video up called I Remember and it is all about the bad things the republicans did and how these people remember. Except, I also remember just how the democrats went along for the ride, or like TARP aggressively backed it while running for president and helped prevent any increased oversight so that it could be put in later at a more leisurely pace. Fucking liars.

I call bullshit. The time to start working is tomorrow to try to get better candidates to run in a couple of years and that won't happen if the democrats keep their majorities. God knows what will happen in the mean time if the republicans get real power. And I mean that sincerely, but I simply can't think of any other way to try to get something better for the average American than to throw the bums out. Elections are a blunt instrument, but they are the only instruments we have at this point.

With the exception of a very few democrats, who for the most part are not getting institutional party support there is no one to vote or work for this late in the game. Well, I've sent more money than I have ever sent to an old friend in Columbus, who is a liberal and will probably get slaughtered, but it is the least I can do. Since she voted for the final version of HCR, if I were a purist I would not support her, but I do understand the necessity of helping those who do not completely live up to our ideals. Even though I am an unreasonable, silly radical who demands too much. Way more than the average politician dare to deliver.

Aw fuck.

Monday, November 1, 2010

The Stupid It Burns

Welcome to election eve or rather the continuation of the rolling horror show that has become our government. We had a meeting tonight and were planning on having Halloween candy as treats, but completely forgot about it, so I was sent to get the candy, which I assumed would be pretty cheap since it is the day after Halloween, right? Wrong. It turns out that all that was available was Christmas candy, go figure.

So I made the mistake of having NPR on and a woman whose name I'd missed but who was identified as a senior political correspondent (no that is really how she was identified) was pontificating and I quote: "Independents are getting upset with the political parties which are becoming more homogeneous. The republicans becoming more conservative and the democrats more liberal. Independents are looking for something more in the middle."

This may be true in the sense that independents might think that democrats are becoming more liberal, but then one would think that a "senior political correspondent" might be cognisant of the fact that that is not in fact true and that both parties are much more conservative than they were 50 years ago, even 30 years ago and would say as much. Further, that the ruling party (not you'll notice parties) has been moving right almost without let up since 1968. But then if she could have that kind of a thought, she could not of course, be a "senior political correspondent." Not even for NPR.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Reformation Sunday

Cleaner than I suspect they actually were.

So it's Halloween, is it just too trite to comment on the up coming election and Halloween like terrors it holds? Yeah, I guess so, but then I already have haven't I?

Out today and into Columbus for the ordination of a guy who was the visiting pastor at my wife's church. Very nasty fights at that church over the direction this specific church is going. The congregation, on the whole, loved the guy, but the elders hated him and wanted their own. So this guy was out and they gave the "call" to the one the elders wanted and he turned them down.

We drove up, but there was also a bus from the church taking about 50 people. Very interesting, most of the big money people were there and the elders can't figure out what is happening and why they are unable to make their budget currently. Still it is just so much like what is going on at a national level that I am kind of amazed at the similarities.

In the last several years my wife's church has had several pastors (they call them in the Missouri Synod as opposed to ministers in the Presbyterian, where I grew up). One whose wife was into heavy metal and goth and writing about the congregation by name on the Internet. Then one who wouldn't baptise a kid because he was a bastard (the kid, not technically the pastor), one who didn't want to move out to our town and who didn't like visiting sick people and wanted not to do the Christmas service because it was a time for him to be with his family. They have really been without a pastor for several years. One also announced from the pulpit that if people didn't vote for George Bush they were violating God's laws. Him they didn't fire, but he left to go full time as a military pastor.

I hear this stuff from my wife and I find it very interesting. Particularly since it doesn't affect me at all as this is the first time I have been in a church (unless attending a wedding or funeral) in probably ten years. Don't figure that there is much there that is worth much so why go. Never was much interested not from since I was a kid. Don't care.

I was brought up in the Presbyterian church, as I said and just last week at a funeral, I found out why Presbyterians say "forgive our debt as we forgive our debtors" instead of trespass in the Lords Prayer. According to the minister it is because the Scots are more interested in money than land.

Oh yeah, in addition to it being Halloween it is also Reformation Day the day that Luther nailed his thesis to the church door. A big deal for Lutherans I guess.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

I Loves Me the Moral Absolutes of the Democrats

So I guess that this is some of what I mean by soft fascism as perpetrated by our government. They (our client states) "employ" children as soldiers and we respond by giving them more money with which they will buy our weapons to give to the children so that they can kill, it turns out, other children. It is necessary, you see, to protect us.

I guess that an old skin head stomping a woman's head to the curb is a hard fascist, but then that may only be because the perp. and vic. are good white Americans much like ourselves. Plus of course, it is closer and we get to see it on our teevees and computers and cell phones. The other not so much although those kids are dying just as surely as I sit here typing this. I remember a long time ago National Lampoon (when it was funny) producing an entire Sunday Dacron Daily News. The headline was: "Dacron Woman Killed on Trip to Japan" the sub headline was: "Japanese Islands Submerged in Title Wave."

So you seen that I also can see the woman stomped and see a real threat to us all here in this lovely and exceptional land of the free, but then I start to think about just who we are killing both directly and indirectly, and I am brought back to .... what just. I do like living here and being able to write and say these things out loud without worrying about being assaulted by the government (unless of course I more or less threaten an office holder or indicate my support for a group that may be on some sort of terrorist list). And in the end that may be the final definition for our time at least, of what makes a not-fascist nation. It won't last, because it always has to be ratcheted up.

As Greenwald pointed out today, many on the right are calling for the assassination of Assange. Think about that for a minute, is that not the essence of fascism and probably a hard fascim at that, stoping just short of carrying out the deed. For what? For revealing the past acts of a government lieing to a people to get them into a colonial (and in the case of Iraq, perhaps a personal) war.

So that is where we are right now. So you will want to vote democratic so that you can rest assured that Obama will continue to ...... well not continue to protect our liberties. But at any rate he will be better than the alternative, which is probably true, but a some point it is a choice between death by hanging and death by firing squad. Take your pick.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Your Duty As An American Blah Blah Blah

Voted today. Did vote for the Socialist candidate for senate. I'm sure that will have a major effect on the election out come. My wife told me that she also voted socialist so that will give the guy two votes from this county. I am told however that the (kind of) lesser of two evils, the democrat has already thrown in the hat. That would be Lee Fischer the guy who has been beaten and beaten again by about every republican in the state so of course he was the guy who was backed by the party machine in the primary this time.

Jennifer Brunner who is the current secretary of state and would have had a much better chance in the general election lost to him in the primary. Of course, this might be a good thing for her in the long run since I suspect that it would be very difficult for any democrat to win in this election, especially one who openly backs Obama as both of them do.

My pretty much pointless vote was me doing my civic duty. Voted for my congressman because of what he promised on Social Security and voted to the governor because I hate Kaisch with a passion that knows no bounds.

Voting is a habit with me, but I had a hard time doing it at all this year. I really do believe that if the democrats win they will learn nothing, and if the democrats lose they will learn nothing.

Well on that cheery note, I'll leave you all (both of you).

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Soft Fascism Vs. Hard Fascism, You Choose

As frantic as I am about work and stuff, and the fact that I am reading (listening really while I drive back and forth to work) a mystery book called Beautiful Lies the goal of which seems to be to create the most irritating main charater ever in a book. I think the author is succeeding so that if that is what you are looking for go out and buy it.

Let's see where was I? Oh yes, politics. Liberal and democratic (definately not the same thing) blogs are becoming more and more agitated as the election becomes more and more imminant and is looking more and more like the Titanic about fifteen seconds before hitting the little piece of ice. It is a little too late to be thinking about turning that wheel or that perhaps we should have veered to the left a little sooner than we have. Actually it is almost like Capt. Smith ordering an increase in speed and aiming directly at that berg (stop that metaphore).

Obama and his people have doubled down (a phrase I am growing to love) on their opposition to DADT and DOMA at the same time telling the LGBT community that they really are working with their best interests at heart, they just don't understand the politics in all this.

They have come out opposed to a foreclosure moratorium, or Cram Down which would permit bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages, at the same time they are telling those who owe the mortgages that they are working with their best interests at heart, by apparently attempting to re-inflate the housing bubble.

They have decided that their job is to protect torturers and those who violated the various amendments to the constitution concerning cruel and unusual punishments (it's only a punishment if you've been convicted after all and if we hold you for decades without trying you then you haven't been convicted and aren't being punished, right), the sanctity of the home and privacy and well just all the stuff that you learned about in school (oh, you didn't?), after all he is a constitution law scholar, trust him. They not only want to protect those people, but they want to expand on the various constitutional (no caps) violations until their is no privacy left. But hey, if you have nothing to hide than why worry, right?

On top of all this is something else I've been thinking about: Obama is increasing the size of the private armies we have working for us right now in the field C.A.C.I., Blackwater/Xe etc. Well we know how well that worked for the Romans or the Germans, don't we?

Which brings me to my new concept (or maybe I stole it from someone else, I don't remember). The idea of soft fascism vs. hard fascism. Clearly the republicans like those in Kentucky who stomp a woman's head into the curb and then demand an apology from her, or the ones in Alaska who are active duty military personnel and employed by the senatorial candidate who arrest a reporter for asking questions are real hard fascists. You don't agree? Then fuck you, you are an ass hole.

But then we look over at the kinder gentler democrats. As I say above they go along and go forward with the same programs increasing the size of the security state while decreasing the various "protections" provided by the Constitution, but they do this incrementally. At the same time working with an amazing energy to destroy what is left of the middle class, a group that existed in this country in large numbers from around the late 1930s until a couple of years ago. Moving to place all real power (if it hasn't already happened) in the hands of a few plutocrats or oligarchs, whatever you want to call them. Not only do the democrats appear to be unable to change this arc, they do not seem to want to.

Hard fascism/soft fascism; sooner rather than later. My position should be I guess, given my age that we should push it as far into the future as possible with any luck I won't be around.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010


All clean what we get to see.

What Wikileaks and the rest of the world sees.

I predict that the effect of the latest round of Wikileaks leaks will be to cause the U.S.of A. to double down on more or less (with the accent on less) accurate drone attacks that will continue to kill the number 2 (or is that number 3, I never can remember) man in the Taliban or Al Quada or whatever, plus of course, various innocent civilians who will be with any luck children so we don't have to deal with them when they grow up.

The later information concerning the kids will not of course be known here in America because the "citizens" just don't want to hear it and our rulers don't want us to know, so the vast (as in really vast) majority of us won't take the time or trouble to go look it up by clicking on foreign news sources, so there will be no need to do any real censorship.

In addition, all the people involved with Wikileaks will be charged with multiple sex crimes in many different countries (all of this will be extensively reported to the American public).

Finally, many very serious people, who were completely convinced that there were WMD in Iraq and who are now convinced that Iran is just a breath away from a nuclear bomb which they will drop on D.C. because then American won't retaliate will tell us that there is nothing new here, we already knew this and therefore we should pay no attention to it. Anyway these leaks will cause if they haven't already caused more death an destruction than all America's military and CIA attacks have caused in the last ten or twenty or thirty years.

Oh yeah, lookie lookie lookie at what CNN did to their "interview" with Assange who walked off the set when they refused to speak with him about the facts raised by the latest leaks. Instead they kept trying to do an interview about his personal life. He left their interviewer looking like the dork she was.

So there, take that you unserious dirty hippies when we don't want you to see it we make sure you don't.

I'm Drowning Here

Mental illness affects more than just those with the disease. This may seem like a simple concept and it is until you've got someone next to you who is having a serious break down. In a small office of three people two of whom have to be popping in and out several times a day to go to court and to check things at the clerk's office, when one of those two has a serious break down then the other has to more than double up.

It becomes even more difficult when the alleged professional who is treating the sick one, decides that that person can come back to the office and work half a day, but can't got to court and needs to be carefully monitored by the others in the office. The tension, to coin a phrase, could be cut with a knife.

I am simply exhausted, I nearly pass out every night at 8:00 p.m. and my gout has started to act up again. I had my first experience with it about three or four years ago when I was going through another period of intense and unusual emotional turmoil (that time of my own making). If you haven't had gout it is lovely. Imagine that one large strong man holds one of your feet up and another one smashes the large toe repeatedly with a sledge hammer for about two hours.

Right now the mentally ill person is driving the narrative and is completely controlling the play. I cannot for the life of me figure the position of the doctor, does she not under stand how a law office functions, particularly a law office where the attorneys are both trial lawyers and got to court frequently? I suspect not. Most everyone is in denial to a greater or lesser degree, including me who just hopes it will go away.

Trying to do much of anything is nearly impossible.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

I Live In The World You Deserve

I'm drifting around and around today and I've been as I said earlier reading and watching about the upcoming elections. As usual things are getting more and more frantic as we come closer and closer to the actual election day.

Greenwald today and Ehrenstein yesterday both touch on issues that directly affect the LGTB community. Greeenwald writing about Obama's defense of DOMA and Ehrenstein writing about, well his general disgust with Obama and the democrats, which mirrors mine or visa versa.

I find it interesting that Obama argues (without a lot of real legal support) that he is required to defend any law (in this case both DOMA and DADT) passed by congress (something that no other president in recent history has argued carte blanch). Assuming for the sake of argument that is true, then why does he insist on appealing when he loses and why does he feel the need to fight to stay the lower court orders?

If one jumps to the various I do too believe in fairies and Obama blogs one sees the ability of the easily led or the true believers or the ones who are part of the tribe and proud of it writers defending both the laws' defenses and the appeals and even the battles over the stays. Obama as best I can figure out is just the poor president who has so little power himself that he must to the death apparently (well at least to the death of the party he suposeldy is the leader of) defend laws he really really really wants to just go away, please.

Depressing Elections

I am not a happy camper. Work is like not good at all at this point. When I became a lawyer I really didn't know that I would also need a degree in psychology. Stuff has been happening with clients and with others in the office so that I am at a point where my small ability to suffer fools gladly (one of the reasons I thought it would not be a good idea to go into the health care field[s?]) has shrunk to an area that just might be viewable on a neutron microscope, perhaps.

Drifting over the news today, oh boy. Some stuff is interesting to me in the "This is news?" kind of way that I so often get any more. Crooks and Liars has a story about Mitch McConnel admitting that the republicans only want to break Obama and the democrats. Firedoglake has a similar essay.

Although, I did say that what interested me more were the groups who continue to support Obama after he has screwed them over, still I really wonder about what is going on in the mind of the democratic politicans who run the party. Did they not see what happened to Clinton? Was it not clear to anyone with a brain who watched how things started to play out after the first couple of months after the inauguration? Still, these are the people who tell us that they really did believe Bush about the WMDs in Iraq and those are the major pundits and the people who are running the democratic party right now, speaking of mental illness.

I'm watching the hysterical wrap up of an two year election cycle where the democrats did nearly everything wrong and the republicans are poised to take advantage. Now I'm not prepared to suggest that the republicans did everything right, in fact their successes might not be as impressive as they would other wise be simply because the people they have nominated in so many races are so dangerously crazy that people might vote against them rather than for the democrat, but the out come would be the same.

David Ehrenstein makes the point that no one in the LGBT community should be voting for the democrats because they will simply enable the people who want to screw that community. I'd say the same argument holds true for the rest of us progressives/liberals.

Well as I say I do remember who came after Weimar, and that certainly looks like those are the people (those who came next I mean) who are lining up to take advantage of the democrat's complete sell out. Never in the history of American politics has a political party accomplished what the Obama democrats have accomplished in so little time.