whats up with this?

There were a couple of news bits that I scanned this week that caught my attention, and may be related, (though one wouldn't think do right off the bat...).

The first of these is a report in Newsweek and other online sources regarding a soon-to-be-released documentary and book about the historic Jesus. The book and film document an archeological discovery that some claim to be the actual burial place of Jesus and his family and what is left of the physical remains of the well known Rabbi from the 1st century, CE, (also known as AD). I have not read the book or seen the documentary, (it will air on the Discovery channel March 4th), but have seen in the news reports that the producers of the film believe that the find is authentic, that this is the historic Jesus, and his family, including his mother and Mary Magdelene, who, the produders claim was Jesus' wife, and a son, whose name was Judah. I commented on this when the claim was first made, (last year--you look it up), and I won't go real deeply into it right now.

The other story that I relate in a strange way to this one is the saga of Jim Zumbo, a writer for various sporting and outdoor life magazines, and a spokesperson for some manufacturers of equipment that caters to that type of individual. Mr Zumbo apparently made a remark, in print, that was critical of those who use assualt weapons for hunting such ferocious maneaters as prairie dogs.

Now I am a guy who backs the right to own, carry and use firearms in a responsible manner, and I did not find too much fault in Jim's logic; it seems to me that the practice is a lot like using
dynamite to dig holes for fence posts. It would seem, to the untrained eye, to be overkill, inexact, (to say the very least), and its utility would be in the actual use rather than the elimination of a varmint. (Exactly how small can one chop a rodent with 39 .223 bullets?).

In any case, I relate the two stories by the reaction that they evoked. Mr Zumbo effectively committed professional suicide with his comment, his association and endorsement deals were cancelled, his columns in the magazines suspended, and he found himself in the sites of the big Kahuna of firearms-related issues, the NRA, who immediately attacked his opinion and banished him from the ranks of those who think correctly, (that is, along the lines of the NRA).

The NRA found it justifiable to sacrifice Mr Zumbo's right to free speech and his own considered opinion, because, as they noted in their commentary, that "their rights were under attack".

In the case of the book/movie, some members of the Christian community are up in arms that someone would even think, (let alone suggest), that there might be some artifactual remnants of the life of Jesus that don't exactly conform to the company line.

These illustrate one of the defining characteristics of twenty-first century American culture, an apparent fear of discussion or dialog one those issues that one considers to be paramount in his or her life. One need not agree, or even participate in the discussion, to be entitled, for some perverted reason, to attack with any means available any person who does so indulge his or her "rights".

This seems to be true in religion and politics especially, although I am certain that the trait permeates nearly all aspects of our life, (though I can think of no instances where one has been fired from a cooking magazine over the use of molasses over brown sugar...).

Lets get a grip on things folks, the ability to express and possibly exchange ideas makes America what it is, not the jealous protection of ones own notion of truth. I am sure that what I write tends to piss a lot, (well, one or two of you), off at times, but the great thing about this forum is can engage in debate, or simply ignore it, without any threat to owns own intellectual, ideological or spiritual autonomy. We all have a right to our own opinions and beliefs, if these are so fragile that they cannot stand up to somebody elses opinion, then they really aren't worth much.

Hope the NRA doesn't ban my blog....

2 wrongs.....

George W Bush is a despot and a scoundrel. He is to statesmanship what the National Enquirer is to journalism. That goes double for his master, Dick Cheney, who is clearly the brains of the outfit. Make no mistake about it, W is a bad President and is detrimental to the citizenry, to the nation as a whole and to the world.

Then there is the US Congress. Frankly, not too much better, but all we have at the moment.

Right now, there is a move afoot in the Senate to severely curtail or revoke the War resolution of 2002, thus limiting the presidents legal authority to act with regards to Iraq or possibly Iran.
As much as I want to see the war rolled back and ended, I am not sure that this is a good idea.

The President has vowed to fight such a move, (George, can you say & spell 'duh'?), and warns that there will be consequences to that action.

What's he gonna do, invade the Capitol building?

George W has run roughshod over the civil liberties of everybody, looked away while the treasury was looted in the name of the war effort, lied to the press and through them to the citizens of the country he purports to lead, but attempting to roll back authority that is granted by the Constitution to the Commander-in-Chief is just as detrimental to all of us in the long run.

The 2002 resolution and authorization was predicated on fabrications, bad information and a desire on the part of a few to tuck a quick victory under their electoral belts, but it was approved by the Congress, including I might add, not just a few Democrats, (some of whom are running for other offices right now, and attempting to dance around that fact). Bush and Cheney need to be dealt with, the war situation needs to be resolved, but it won't happen with a quck legislative gotcha, and those who support it are doing future generations a disservice. This takes some tough oversite, the kind promised by the party on the left prior to last fall's elections. And that is a lot more than a non-binding resolution. Truth is, law or no law, that war will continue until the C-in-C pulls the troops out, and that most likely, will not be George W. This is the time to expose the GOP juggernaut for what it is, to throw a little daylight onto the situation and let those of us who vote decide for ourselves. That approach will give much credence to the party on the left, and some moral authority to attack other issues that really need some attention.





While I am on this soapbox, how about that Joe Lieberman? Threatening to join the GOP if the Senate appears ready to move on the curtailment (in any form) of the Iraqi war. That asshole! He simply can't take the high road here, vote his conscience, (whatever that might be), and let the chips fall where they may. He is a detriment to the party, (though he is not really a member), and ought to be shown the door. There are enough GOP senators vulnerable in '08 to make up for his lost vote. He wants out, let him out. Give him all the perq's due a Senator and nothing else. He might shut up when his calls go unanswered and the network news people want no more from him than to know what it is like to be a shithead.



Today's tune has been called "the worst record of all time", and is therefore dedicated to the worst President, and (possibly) the least classy Senator of this century.

Try not to puke while it is playing, (although laughing aloud is permitted).


Stay focused.

I just don't know how much of this we can take

Well, blame it on George W Bush. (God knows that we are hanging damn near everything else on the poor guy----he can't help that he is an idiot and a moron).

I am talking about the ugly attitude that is the Democratic presidential primary campaign. were George a bit shrewder politician, and so damned unliked by nearly everyone, the race for the Democratic nomination might not be seen as being tantamount to being elected, and we wouldn't have to start on all this crap until the day after Christmas....

Things out there are ugly. Hillary and Barack are at each others throats, by proxy of course, and the party on the left stands towards a very real danger of burning itself out well before 2008 even begins. They need to watch that a little bit. Hillary has the money, but she also carries the baggage of being, well, her. Barack has the charm and appears to be out in front at the moment, but he is still an unknown quantity and has many, many opportunities to screw up between now and the Iowa caucuses. Already, one candidate, Tom Vilsack, has quite the race. (We barely had time to google him, let alone learn to spell his name...). Time was, not too may ears ago, at this stage of the game, many of the really viable candidates hadn't yet declared their candidacies. he pointed out, correctly, that the race is all about the money. That leads me to reiterate that it might not make much of a difference who winds in '08, they all work for the same unseen boss.

But the real factor in the race this week is not being discussed too much. Al 'your pal' Gore is up for an Academy Award this weekend. Think about it, this may be one more as yet unrecognized step towards securing the eventual nomination. If the other players continue at this pace they will have flailed themselves to death by the end of the year, and then Al might be seen as the parties elder statesman, available to serve in whatever capacity the people may choose.

You may not have heard it here first, but I'll take the credit anyway.



This weekends tune goes out to special correspondent JB, who has been a bit under the weather, though we hope to see him back, wise-assing off again, soon.

the genie and the bottle

Tomorrow, Feb 21 is a deadline set by the UN for Iran to cease its enrichment of uranium. To the casual observer, Iran seems to give not one tenth of a sh*t about the deadline, and the member nations of the security council seem to be in a tizzy about what to do next.

Feb. 21 is yet another day when the value of the UN is demonstrated to the world, one way or another.

No one knows how quickly Iran will be able to take the know-how that they have and convert it first to industrial capacity and then to a workable, deliverable, atomic or nuclear weapon. estimates range from one to ten years. The DPRK did it in about ten years, but Iran is better connected to the world, (despite its western image as a pariah), has a lot more money to spend, and no incentives to discontinue its work.

Much can be, and is being said about the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran. I would like to add my own brief opinion:

So what?

There. Now you have it.

The prospect of atomic weapons first became known in 1905, in germany, with Albert Einsteins postulations regarding the structure and nature of the atom. The ideas that he put forth were gradually proved, and applied in such diverse countries as Switzerland, Germany, The USSR and Japan. The US, sometimes depicted as the black hat in this pseudo western drama, came on the scene relatively late in the experimental phase, but quickly harnessed its own physical resources, as well as the intellectual power of much of Europe, and made the concepts realities.

What was known at the outset of the second world war was known worldwide, it has not been a secret, although some of the details of the physical processes used in development have been somewhat jealously and unsuccessfully guarded by powers of all stripes, but the truth is, any country with enough in the way of money can do what those powers who are members of the nuclear club have done, it just takes a little time.

What surprises me is that the errors of all these countries have been emulated by every nation that has attempted or succeeded at acquiring these weapons. The illusion here is that they have no real value anymore. This is another treatise altogether, so let me skip quickly to my conclusion: if Iran, or North Korea, or any of the others who are setting their sites on these devices were actually to use them, under any circumstances, they would quickly be reduced to a huge pile of rubble, through retalliation or by powers not directly involved in the conflict. If Iran were to nuke Israel, (a popular scenario in the horror stories that seem to dominate the discussion), they would invite full retalliation by Israel first, whatever capacity that might be, and the rest of the world second. Even Russia and China, who have been seen as siding against the US on the issues of the mideast, could not allow a new hegemony on their borders. Even India and Pakistan could not tolerate the possibilty of falling under the shadow of such a power. I don't know what country would actually pull the nuclear trigger, but it would be pulled by someone. Were an incident of terrorism ever to occur, the onus would be on those nations to quickly demonstrate a lack of culpaability or face retalliation just to appease the rest of the world.

In striving for, and attaining these devices, Iran chains itself to the same rock that many of the other great economies are chained to. That may stroke their ego's for a while, but it will eventually suck the life out of their economy, oil or no oil, and it would probably happen to them a lot faster than it has happened to the US or any other nuclear states.

They know that. We know that. The value in this 'conflict' is its ability to whip the peoples of the involved states into a frenzy of pride or fear, and thus, leaving them open for exploitation by a military-industrial or a theocratic complex whose goals and methods are hidden and largely misunderstood.

Let them have their day, it will be an anchor for them, in many respects.

here we go again

An article that appeared today on FOX News indicates that having Hillary Clinton as President may also bring Bill back into the limelight as the man who takes her Senate seat.

It's possible, but I think the Bill would hold out for a Supreme Court appointment.

But what we are faced with today is the article. It is simply one of many little paper cuts that the FOX organization will throw at the Clinton's in particular and any Democrat in general.

The little attacks ad up, (something like the gravitational attraction of a giant satellite, flying along a meteor...).

Stay focused.

where will it end?

Should we accept, and possibly embrace the horror?

A few weeks back, I noted an article that mentioned, almost casually, that the planet may be hit by a meteor in 2026. It looks like some of the lurkers on this blog may have taken this to heart, and are now gearing up for the massive effort to wonder what will we do about it?

To read some of the rather vague articles on this, one might think that there is a significant outcry from the world in general to attack this issue, and to protect ourselves from this and other like possibilities.

For those of you who don't follow the news, an asteroid named Apophis, whose size is estimated to be between 320 and 350 meters across; whose composition is unknown, (or at least unreported as yet); and whose orbital period is just less than that of our planet, (about 330 days), will apparently pass within 20,000 miles or so of the planet in 2029. There is a remote possibility that the gravity of our planet will cause a slight adjustment to the asteroids trajectory, which will set us up for an impact on or about April 13, 2036. The odds of such an occurrence are now listed as about 1 : 45,000, (give or take a couple), and one source estimates that an impact could take out an area the size of England.

The Association of Space Explorers, (which boasts a membership of at least two), has called for a global effort to identify these hazards, and to take action to negate the threats posed by these wandering bits of space stuff.

OK.

How?

One article on the National Geographic website, quotes an astronaut who is a noteworthy physicist in his own right as suggesting something called a gravity tractor. I will let you read it for yourself, (if you are inclined), but I ask that you consider the logistical considerations of this, or any proposal. Think the Manhattan Project, the Apollo program, the ISS or Iraq are expensive? You ain't seen nuthin yet. Not to mention some of the details that are not mentioned with these ideas. Even if we built, and launched into orbit the mechanisms required for any of the numerous ideas , consider the problems associated with getting these machines to the errant rock in the appropriate timeframe. We are not talking about aiming at an object that orbits the earth, (such as a satellite, space station, the moon), or an object on the same orbital plane as the earth, (such as the planets that our unmanned probes have visited), we are talking moving a massive amount of materials into interplanetary space and establishing them in as exact an orbit around the sun as we are able to calculate for the aforementioned asteroid. That feat in itself would equal the technical challenges of the engineering efforts that we have undertaken so far. I am not saying that it cannot be done, I am saying that the cost would be enormous, enough that the economy of the entire planet would need to shift and reprioritize.

Those who think that will happen, please raise your hands.

I know not how you all view this topic, but I see it as a good chance to take a step back and rethink the whole structure of society.

You knew it was coming......

Rather than attempting to fend off these seeminly random cosmic gotcha's, would it not be better to learn to deal with them? It stands to reason that the time and location of any potential impact will be a calculable thing by the time that the rock goes by in 2029. If, at that time, it is determined that a certain area is likely to be adversely affected, we would have seven years to relocate the populace, the portable wealth and much of the accumulated knowledge and industry to other, safer areas. After the strike, those displaced would have the option of returning or relocating. A major hit would almost certainly affect the environment, but it is already circling the drain, and an interbention on the part of mother nature could do not too much more harm, and may even be beneficial in the medium or long term.

People would be forced to redefine themselves and the place in the world that they occupy. That would be the difficult aspect of this, but a change of attitude would do us all some good. Unfortunately, that has about the same chance of happening as the technical stuff. So, it is up to each of us, as individuals, to pay attention to this, or not, and to take action, or not.

Just points out that all things, up to and including the planet that we live on, are fleeting.

So there.

The new face of politics

I was born in the 1950's, at what was the height of the Cold War, and grew up watching and listening to leaders, (I hadn't yet made the distinction between that term and 'politicians') on both sides of the political aisle, and it seems to have formed in me, (and I think many others) a subconcious image of what a political leader is. Picture Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had the credentials of leadership not only from Washington, but from his service in the second world war. Ditto John Kennedy, but to a lesser extent on both fronts, and Martin Luther King, Jr., who was credentialed in Birmingham, AL and on the mall in Washington, DC. What followed those men, where the next wave, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, who had all served in the armed forces in some capacity, (some more than others), whose impression did not quite live up to what I had come to expect to be the norm. It did not help one bit that the tenures of these men was marked with some deep wounds on the national psyche, (Vietnam, Watergate, Iran).
What followed that era was something entirely new, leaders who were credentialed in arena's not yet marred by the ravages of scandal and deceit.

We entered the era of Ronald Reagan, the hero of "Hellcats of the Navy", "Knute Rockne, All American" and "Death Valley Days", a face with a cultivated image that may, or may not, reflect the reality behind the personna. Reagan's ascension to power as Governor of California was followed by the elevation to various offices of Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, John Warner, (Mr. Elizabeth Taylor), Fred Thompson, Jesse Ventura and others. Entertainers all, (well, most), they were able to capitalize on name recognition, and the subconcious image that the media consuming public had of them. As of yesterday, Al Franken enetered the race for a Senate seat from Minnesota. In an odd variation of the theme, former VP Al Gore has converted himself from a politician to a movie star of sorts. That move, planned or not, may keep him viable for future candidacies.

I will not praise or criticize any of these folks in this particular post. I just want to ask why?

What is it about the media that we give it so much influence? In particular, I am citing television for its ubiquitous presence in our lives, but it also extends to film and radio, and, most likely, print, (whose influence is moderated by the time and energy required to absorb the content from that media). It is a fact of life, but is it a good thing?

I don't know the answer to that, but it is something worth thinking about as we approach the next election. As a side issue, it will be interesting to see how some of the candidates use TV to accentuate or moderate impressions that already exist. This is nothing new, but we have before us a few candidates with what used to be called baggage to overcome, and a few who are nothing more than one liners in the national mindset.

Stay focused. Make some popcorn and watch carefully. The digital editor is not always quicker then the eye.

The week so far

Lots of things happened this past week, many have been commented on ad infinitum, some not so much.

Anna Nicole Smith passed away this past week, and that has brought more gold-diggers out than the strike at Sutters Mill. Anna Nicole cast her lot in life a long time ago, but what we are seeing now is (possibly) the destruction of the life of her daughter, whose paternity and custody are the big prizes in this gruesome contest.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has accused the US of military adventurism around the world, and of sparking a new arms race. He is right, as far as he goes, but he neglects to mention his own countries role in these 'adventures', or its efforts to undermine the US or any country seen as a competitor in any number of arenas. OK Vlad, you made the headlines, now shut up and do something productive for a change.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seems to have stirred up a bit of a pudding with her expectation that she be provided with an Air Force transport capable of flying non-stop, coast to coast with her and her staff and the requisite press. I have a marvelous solution for this so-called problem, it is called the commercial air fleet, and flights to damn near anywhere are available at numerous times most days. The House of Representatives has always been known as the peoples chamber in Congress. Members of that chamber, including the leadership, up to the term of Tip O'Neill had always availed themselves of public transport, save for those occasions when they fly in behalf of the entire US government.

Shut up Pelosi, and remember who got you there. Do your job, don't dip too deeply into the public trough and keep your promises. That will prove your mettle, not the use of an Air Force jet.

Barack Obama has formally declared himself a candidate to the presidency.I wish him success; how he stacks up against the Hillary Clinton juggernaut will be what makes or breaks him in the eyes of the American public. Mitt Romney also hit the campaign trail, but he may be another John Kerry in terms of political clout.

Right now, I am calling the republican race for Rudy Gulliani, who is viewed by many to be a practical politician first, and a Republican second.

You heard it all here first, (or, you know, pretty close).

Stay focused.

here it is

Well, the Google-nauts finally forced me to switch to the new system. I don't like it.

I am sure it is feature rich, but I was forced to lower my security partially to sign on, this, combined with my experience with G-Mail does not impress me.

But, enough of that, have you all missed me? If so, have you reloaded?

I can't let this go on...

For the good of everyone, and especially for the good of the innocent child, I confess, that I am the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

I just wanted you to know.....

on a slightly different note

Several states, chief among them Texas have, or are considering requiring that young women be vaccinated against HPV, a sexually transmitted virus that has been linked to causing cervical cancer. Many are opposed to this requirement, as the condition is not casually transmitted, (that is, by breathing the same air, using bathrooms, water fountains, etc).

I fear that the sexually transmitted aspect of this particular bug, in conjunction with the notion that it be administered to girls around the age of 12, is going to be the leading talking (shouting) point on this, instead of the fact that it may be mandated by law, (as opposed to many vaccinations that are not).

I have a daughter old enough to have this vaccine, and as of now, I am not at all comfortable with it, not because of the sexual aspect, (legally, she is old enough to make her own decision on that), but because I know so little about the new vaccine, and its potential for harm, (unlikely though that might be).

Does anybody out there have any experience with this drug, or any specifics regarding its history and anticipated benefits?

Iran

Many, many headlines, lots of loose talk, some of it in somber, measured tones, some of it near hysteria regarding plans to attack Iran, or the notion that war with that country is coming.

Bullshit.

Don't get me wrong, there may actually be a plan in place to expand the conflict in the mideast to that country, (I don't think so, but what do I know?), but that is not what all this noise is about.

The whole tone of the 'Iran debate' has a ring of phoniness to it. It might be out there to make Georgie look good when he refrains from attacking that country. It may be out there to inflate the appearance of influence on the part of certain anti-George factions. But it simply doesn't ring true to me.

As far as Iran goes, it is high on the list of my least favorite countries for lots of reasons, but one should never underestimate them by lumping them in with your basic, backwards culture that seeks only to survive and get enough dates and yogurt to get by on this week. that country intends to be the premier economic force in the world, and following that comes political and social influence.

The real danger to Iran comes not from the coalition of the willing, but from the coalition of the we-want-your-oil. That commodity is the key to its future, not enriched uranium or radical Islam. The time to address this economic superiority was 40 years ago, but it is not too late.

In the coming election cycle, ask specific questions about national energy policy. Get educated on the subject. You decide what works the best.

many things happening this week

But not too many worth sitting down and writing about.

As I sit and attempt to transcribe thought to keyboard, it is about noon here on the plains, and colder than hell. I just took the dog out for, you know, housekeeping stuff, and the wind, while gentle, cut right through my jacket, and hastened the dog in her efforts as well.

Joe Biden seems to have pulled a Kerry this week, in refering to fellow candidate Barack Obama as 'clean'. Taken in the context of what he probably meant, I do not believe that it was insulting to anyone, but, American politics is nothing if not an obstacle course for the loose-of-lip. In a race where not all of the presumed candidates have officially entered, let it be remembered that the first of that group seems to have fallen. He may still be in the race, but he is running interference now for whoever the eventual nominee will be....

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome is in a bit of a pudding over an extra-marital affair he had with the wife of his campaign manager. The wife apparently admitted to the tryst while in some variety of rehab. Tsk tsk tsk. (Admit it, some of you are thinking "well, at least it was with a woman...").

The role of sex in our culture is a strange one, on the one hand, (no pun there), we are zealously protective of our personal privacy and rights. On the other hand, if one actually exercises them he or she instantly categorizes themself as one not fit for public endeavors.

Molly Ivins, a noted columnist and thorn in the side of the sitting President died of cancer this week. I did not always agree with her views, but damn I liked her style and her attitude. In a world of tapioca journalism, she will be sorely missed.

A report issued by the US intelligence community (a "National Intelligence Estimate"), states that the situation in Iraq is geting worse and it could result in the ethnic division of that country, with the conflict continuing between the various ethnic groups. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the report also notes that the current attitudes that seem to prevail across the Iraqi political spectrum will not permit any significant political compromise that might help to quell the violence. Bottom line is that this is a situation with no good result for the US, and no estimate of what, or how long it will take, to achieve such a result.

We have all gone over this numerous times over the past couple of years, and it is unlikely that I will change any opinions, so I won't try. I respect all who read and comment here, (as well as those who do not), and this is not to provoke a fight with anyone.

The single factor that worries as much as anything else is that there is no data, no clear understanding of the socio-political landscape that would permit a strategy to be formed and acted upon. Three-plus years of clearing away the informational rubble and smoke have revealed only more of the same. Domesticly, the voices that I hear crowing loudest, one way or the other, are those that worry me, and many of those voices are running for something. As a voter, I know that I have been misled, either by intention or by monumental arrogance and stupidity, (it matters little which), but there is no data on which to formulate a plan, or by which we can evaluate the situation.

Where do we go from here?

This is a significant issue for us, and will remain so, at least through the next election cycle. but the real issue that we have to face is how we intend to fit into the world, how we can accomodate other peoples who are in competition with us on various fronts, and how we can reducle our level of exposure to risks from the actions of nations or splinter-groups that don't involve us directly.

Stay focused.