Ahem...check, check...

We have sang(yes, I know it should be 'sung') to the saints for millenia(yes, that's the proper plural of millenium) and n'er have they answered. For how long are we to believe that they will come to us in our need...before we take it upon ourselves...to answer our own prayers, to provide our own justice, to build a world after our own designs since they don't seem, having been built themselves in our most honorable(thus we pray...to whom?) image, to be destined to save us from ourselves?

Email to Dad.

"Dad, I don't know if you know this, but I have stopped communicating with people I know who voted for Bush. Therefore I wasn't sure whether or not to write and thank you for your B-day message and gift. I decided I should. so, thanks for the phone message and the book. I appreciate the thought. However, I will also take this opportunity to remind you that the man you voted for for President is a war criminal among other things and your vote has brought us many steps closer to fascism in this nation. This is not only my opinion. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune has even now decided that this war in Iraq has no justification and is killing our young people for no reason. If you have reason to doubt this and would like proof, since I know you don't get any real news let me know. This Memorial Day, I want you to know that the blood of the US soldiers and that of the perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed so far in your President's war is on your hands.

Krome"

Addendum

Rereading my birthday note below, I thought I would just note that that slight 'review' of 'Brave New World' and '1984' begs more questions than it answers. I have no intention of soon giving full reviews of either. But just to muddy waters, last I was in London(did I mention that I am now a UK citizen and should recieve my passport sometime next week?), I was there to see a concert at the University College London and walking to pick up my tickets walked by some laboratory buildings that are certainly the same that Huxley descibes as housing the London labs in 'BNE'. One or the other had big banners on it proclaiming the wonderful science that was going on inside. Well, as a lapsed scientist, I still don't buy it.

And, just in case you've forgotten

Featuring the inimitably wonderful Mike Malloy:

http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

Demand answers from the admin!

Ok, here are a couple of links that youu should visit

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

http://www.johnconyers.com/

Both will get you to a letter that Rep. John Conyers is asking 100,000 of us to sign demanding that the admin respond to the implications in the "Downing Street Memo" which the first link describes in great detail. Do it!

On 40 and "Brave New World" and "1984".

Well, that's a pretty ambitious title, isn't it? On 5/21/2005, the day of the last of my posts here, I turned 40 years of age. While this is not uncommon, I will tell you that I have had reason to believe, at more than a few points in my life, that I would never do this. I don't mind it. I think I minded becoming 35, but not 40. Some friends and I went to a gun show at the Cow Palace Saturday morning and I drank not as much as I thought I might during the day. I was stunned to reach 25. 40 seems like a nice plateau on which to reflect. Thus:

I believe I know what it is to be in love and I know what it is to have that dream completely shattered. I think. That is I think I was in love with the woman who stabbed me, at least at some point, but I'm no longer sure. I mean, I don't know what 'being in love' means anymore. I don't know if I ever did. And it doesn't matter.

I know what it's like to be brought up 'right' and go 'wrong' and still end up 'right' by your own effort. I know what it's like to have a degree in chemistry that you have paid for and are no longer using. I know what it's like to pass out for 3 days from intentionally taking too many Mandrax. I know what it's like to have friends take turns sleeping next to you all that time to make sure you "don't choke on your own vomit or something"(Thank you Linda Smith, Diane Herrera and Dede (nee) Harrison(I don't know what her last name might be now)).

I know what it's like to watch the Sun come up over the desert(TX, NM, CA) , being hundreds of miles away from 'home', having nowhere to go, and knowing that the Sun may be your only friend and thriving on that.

I know what it's like to have people want to have you love them so much that they must destroy you.

The record that just ended(actually a CD copy of a cassette that I bought on the street for $1 a couple of years ago) was the Stranglers "Dreamtime" which came out in '86 or '87. I was 21 or 22 at this time. I had gotten my GED and was taking classes at Austin Community College so that I could transfer to UT without taking the SAT. I was, by this point, very well aware that this world was a very, very sad place and I had decided that it was in my power to make the best of it. Things were looking up. If I had been 12 going on 21, then I was now 22 going on 35. Most of what I've described(or alluded to) in the above paragraphs happened before this, some of it after. I once had a cassette of "Dreamtime" that I played in my '61 Cadillac driving to ACC. It got totaled when I was t-boned by someone going fast enough to bend a '61 Caddy frame with an Isuzu Trooper. Since he never even tried to stop there were no skid marks to measure by which to judge his speed. I was cited for failure to yield the right-of-way. There is a traffic light at that intersection(Avenue F & Koenig) now to keep from happening to others what happened to me.

Apropos of nothing except the current political situation, which looks a lot like the situation in 1981 or so(except worse) , I recently reread Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World' and I am currently rereading "1984". I haven't read either of these in over 20 years, since I was 16 or so. It's interesting to read what were "world-view shaping" books on the other side of quite a bit of experience.

They are very different works dealing with common themes. If one didn't know it in advance, it would not be surprising that the years between their publications('32 and '48 respectively) contained a brutal world war, one that certainly changed London(where they both take place) greatly. One theme that shows up in both that I may or may not have noticed 20 years ago is the 'desexualization' of the upper class. First obviously, they both deal explicitly with explicit class distinctions and in both the lower classes are pretty much left to their own, natural sexual devices. In "Brave new World" the upper classes are 'desexualized' by 'hypersexualization'. All passion and possession, jealousy and desire are removed from the sexual activities and expectations of the upper class(Alphas and Betas) because they are expected to have sex with as many people as possible. This is stated explicitly in one mantra expounded by the characters; "Everyone belongs to everyone else". And sex in this book is never for reproduction since natural reproduction is unnecessary.

In "1984" the 'proles' are the lower class left to deal with sex naturally while members of the Party are expected to engage in sexual relations only with their spouse and only for reproductive reasons. Indeed, Orwell says that the Party goes out of its way to select spouses that have no physical attraction for eachother. The female Party members actually wear red sashes signalling their membership in the Anti-Sex League.

Now that I think about it; of course I noticed this 24 years ago. If the politics of these works was only faintly understood, sexual inhibition or the lack thereof was an extremely important part of my daily life. I am asexual these days just because it's more trouble than it's worth. I've had enough over the years. I don't miss the sex. I miss my youthful ability to believe that lust was love, that sex was actually touching the other. I can't get drunk enough to be as naive these days.

Anyway, the other thing that I've come across in "1984", which was undoubtedly the more important of the 2 for post WWII residents of this planet, is the idea that the 'proles' hold some charm/intelligence that the indoctrinated do not. This probably had something to do with my early decisions to abandon school and set out for the world(I hitchhiked and rode trains across the western part of this country twice before I was 17).

I have lived and worked among the 'proles'(restaurant workers and such) for longer than I have worked among the corporate 'educated' class and I can tell you that the 'proles'(short for 'proletariat' if you haven't read the book) aren't necessarily smarter than the 'corps', but they are typically more fun, more imaginative and more realistic about the state of the world than are these 'educated' folks. We feed you people and you are not always on your best behavior when you are in public. You are occaisionally demanding, ill-mannered, loud and self-important. And we smile and give you what you want in exchange for your money(I very rarely get a tip of below 20%). This is the simplest form of business there is and, yet, not everyone can do it . Most of the 'corps' I have ever met wouldn't last a day or an hour on the floor of a Denny's much less the place I work. They are far too uninterested and uninteresting. And they have no style. That's the shame of it all. They spend their lives making money that they spend on ugly clothes. How boring.

Anyway, that is my birthday note to myself. No links, no rants, just the merest tad of didactism. If I was 35 going on 60, I am now 40 going on 25. There are a great many things I don't have to learn. So I can spend my time learning things that perhaps aren't as urgent. If most of my life until now has been spent making up for lost(in advance) time, I believe I have caught up and can make more informed decisions about how I will live.

For instance, it is now 9AM and I have the day off. I have been up since 5. I think I will have a beer and turn on Air America and get ready to do a little painting. Ciao.

Tada!

It's gone! Disappeared! Nothing to see here, folks! Just pretend you never saw this. Guess what! We are in deep, deep trouble and it has nothing to do with whether or not the chef at work hates me.

Oh,

Here they are and it's only, oooooh, TEN DAYS AFTER THE STORY BROKE!!!! Or so

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html?

AND, it's a really bad piece, supposing a great many things to basically dismiss the importance of this memo.


And, guess what? I was pasting this

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116648000&
;amp;en=6cca0512a38427c3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

all over the place last night. This is good stuff, you guys, but so is the PROOF that this admin and this preznit was determined to go to war in Iraq WMDs or no! AAAARRRRGH, you people drive me nuts! Will you at least tell us WHAT YOUR EDITORIAL POLICY IS?????

Sooooo...

Care to see and hear how a well-spoken UK MP deals with sanctimonious US senators?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm

About as clear an indictment of this lying government's failed Iraq policy from the ground up. And the ground is several decades ago.

Rhetoricocity?

So, here's Editor & Publisher on the the "Downing St. Memo"

And here's Paul Kruman on the the "Downing St. Memo"

And here's the LATimes on the "Downing St. Memo" Hmmm, couldn't find this link....

And here's the Washingtoon Post on the "Downing St. Memo"

And here's CNN.com with a "White House refutation of the 'Downing St. Memo'" (which includes Scottie McClellan lying again)

So, where the hell is the NYTimes with even the slightest mention IN THE NEWS SECTION!!??

NYTImes redux

Here you can find a letter to the Times from Mediamatters.org which includes the following:


"This is especially important now, at a time when the current administration has, for all intents and purposes, declared open war on the very idea of an independent press. The administration's conservative allies have simultaneously endeavored to impose a post-modern ideology of doctrinaire relativism on the media, so that all news is seen as ideological and there is no common set of facts on which we can all agree. In this context, the "he said-she said" trap into which the Times and other news organizations so regularly fall becomes particularly pernicious."

And here we find that the Times will start charging for certain online features:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050516/165886.html?.v=1

Well, I can only hope that they use the money to actually start covering some news again.

And...

just to make myself clear: Karl Rove is a fascist, George W Bush is a fascist, Tom DeLay is a fascist, Denny Hastert is a fascist, Bill Frist is a fascist, all the "Christians" that you regularly hear from like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson are FASCISTS. These are enemies of freedom at least.

well...

here's the response to my younger brother's response to the previous post. I will repeat the Flannery O'Connor quote of many posts ago;

"To the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost blind you draw large and startling figures."

"Indeed, I know it is a harsh statement, little brother, but I can't keep supplying links to important news that no one reads. I just recently had lunch witth a very bright friend who didn't know that we had a memo from 10 Downing that proves that we have been lied to as I have known for a week. Why? Because this person has never bothered to check out the links I supply along the right margin of this blog. They are not there for decoration. I am not a dispensor of information, only a conduit. You guys are going to have to get it from the source eventually. Or not.

I have seen this happen b4 and if you guys want to blunder your way into fascism or McCarthyism again....well, I will do my best to allow you to do it without me.

Chill indeed. Apparently, I can't adequately describe to you where you are. That is extremely frustrating.

8:20 AM"

No...

I'm not going to give you the f**king links. You already have them to the right of your screen and most of you have never bothered to check this stuff out. You are sheep. You think you are too busy to find out that you are under the rule of fascists, but what you are busy doing is watching the TV which lies to you constantly. And maybe bitching about your worthless lives. Yeah, life is tough, babe! Go listen to some fucking Dave Matthews(Oh American baby....) or some oldies station that will make you feel OK. YOU ARE STUPID! Face it. You can't be trusted to govern yourselves. You simply don't understand the world around you and how it came to be. It came to be through your fanatical self regard you stupid fucker. It came to be because you can't possibly understand how you might fit into this world without being at the top of the food chain. Your Ego is your undoing, you stupid fuck. I could provide links to numerous articles to prove that I am not the only one who feels this way, but why bother? You won't read them anyway. Fuck you!

BTW

For those who don't know that we have a memo from 10 Downing that proves that BushCo was intent on going to war against Iraq before they had any evidence of WMD(remember that reason for going to war?) or about the article saying that Italy went to Iraq to protect an oil contract, first, get a look at the f**king news, you assholes. I am sick and tired of talking to bright, intelligent people who have no idea what's going on. You people aren't even smart enough to know that you are living in a fascist state! I'm over it. It's almost 6AM and you stupid f**ks are sleeping soundly while BushCo screws you. You probably deserve it.

Back tomorrow with links. Not like you are going to read them, fools.

Stupid is as stupid says...

I hate Scottie McClellan. He may not be the stupidest person on the planet(our president is stupider and those who voted for him far, far stupider) but he is one of the most annoying daily occurences. For your drinking pleasure, the daily gaggle:

"Q: Scott, yesterday the White House was on red alert, was evacuated. The first lady and Nancy Reagan were taken to a secure location. The Vice President was evacuated from the grounds. The Capitol building was evacuated. The continuity of government plan was initiated. And yet the president wasn't told of yesterday's events until after he finished his bike ride, about 36 minutes after the all-clear had been sent. Is he satisfied with the fact that he wasn't notified about this?



McCLELLAN: Yes. I think you just brought up a very good point -- the protocols that were in place after Sept. 11 were followed. The president was never considered to be in danger because he was at an off-site location. The president has a tremendous amount of trust in his Secret Service detail. ...

Q: The fact that the president wasn't in danger is one aspect of this. But he's also the commander in chief. There was a military operation underway. Other people were in contact with the White House. Shouldn't the commander in chief have been notified of what was going on?

McCLELLAN: John, the protocols that we put in place after Sept. 11 were being followed. They did not require presidential authority for this situation. I think you have to look at each situation and the circumstances surrounding the situation. And that's what officials here at the White House were doing. ...

Q: Even on a personal level, did nobody here at the White House think that calling the president to say, by the way, your wife has been evacuated from the White House, we just want to let you know everything is OK?

McCLELLAN: Actually, all the protocols were followed and people were -- officials that you point out were taken to secure locations or evacuated, in some cases. I think, again, you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the situation, and it depends on the situation and the circumstance. ...

Q: Nobody thought to say, by the way, this is going on, but it's all under control?

McCLELLAN: And I think it depends on each situation and the circumstances surrounding the situation when you're making those decisions.

Q: Isn't there a bit of an appearance problem, notwithstanding the president's safety was not in question, protocols were followed, that today, looking at it, he was enjoying a bike ride, and that recreation time was not considered expendable to inform him of this.

McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, John mentioned 36 minutes after the all-clear. Remember, this was a matter of minutes when all this was happening. ...

Q: But has the President even indicated that even if everything was followed that he would prefer to be notified, that if the choice is: tell the commander in chief or let him continue to exercise, that he would prefer to be informed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it depends on the situation and the circumstances. And you have to take all that into account, and I think that's what people were doing here at the White House, as well as those people that were with the president.

Q: I think there's a disconnect here because, I mean, yesterday you had more than 30,000 people who were evacuated, you had millions of people who were watching this on television, and there was a sense at some point -- it was a short window, a 15-minute window, but there was a sense of confusion among some on the streets. There was a sense of fear. And people are wondering was this not a moment for the president to exercise some leadership, some guidance during that period of time?

MR. McCLELLAN: The president did lead, and the president did that after September the 11th when we put the protocols in place to make sure that situations like this were addressed before it was too late. And that was the case -- that was the case in this situation. ...

Q: I have one more question. When we walked out of this door yesterday, when those of us who heard that there was a situation, when we walked out of the door, we heard aircraft, jets overhead. There is a concern that that plane came closer to the White House than the White House said, more -- it came within the three-mile radius, it was closer than you --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I said that it came within three miles.

Q: OK, but you said three miles. How close --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, it came within three miles.

Q: How close was it? Because someone has taken a picture of a plane being escorted on K street. How close was the plane?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I mean, if the Department of Homeland Security or FAA has any additional information, I'm sure --

Q: Scott, how close was it?

McCLELLAN: April, it was within --

Q: You know how close it was. Please tell us.

McCLELLAN: Yes, within three miles. I don't know beyond that. Go ahead.

Q: Might there be something wrong with protocols that render the president unnecessary when the alarm is going off at his house?

McCLELLAN: That's not at all what occurred, Ken. And I would disagree strongly with the way you characterize it for the reasons I started earlier, and that I talked about. This was a situation where the president was in an off-site location. He was not in danger, a situation where protocols have been put in place to address the situation. The protocols were followed. ...

Q: And those protocols are OK with the president despite the fact that his wife was in a situation where she might have been endangered?

McCLELLAN: She was taken to a secure location, as were some other officials.

Q: And wouldn't he want to know about that as it was happening?

McCLELLAN: He was briefed about the situation.

Q: After it happened.

McCLELLAN: He was briefed about the situation, Ken. And I think that he wants to make sure that the protocols that are in place are followed. The protocols that were in place were followed.

Q: Scott, to follow on the same line of questioning, if there is a possibility that a plane may have to be shot down over Washington, doesn't the President want to be involved in that type of decision?

McCLELLAN: Well, Keith, I think again, it depends on the circumstances in the situation. You have to look at each individual situation and the circumstances surrounding that situation. There are protocols --

Q: Doesn't the President want to be involved in what could be a decision to shoot down a plane over Washington?

McCLELLAN: To answer your question, I was just getting ready to address exactly what you're bringing up. The protocols that were put in place after Sept. 11 include protocols for that, as well. And there are protocols there. They're classified. But they do not require presidential authority. ...

Q: They don't require presidential authority, but they don't obviate the need for presidential authority, do they? They don't say the president cannot be involved --

McCLELLAN: Like I said, that depends on --

Q: -- wouldn't he want to be involved --

McCLELLAN: It depends on the circumstances and it depends on the situation.

Q: And wasn't there a possibility that a plane headed for the White House, that this was the leading edge of some broader attack, isn't the president concerned that maybe he should have been alerted to the fact that this could have been the beginning of a general attack?

McCLELLAN: That was not the case, and I think the Department of Defense yesterday indicated that they didn't sense any hostile intent on the part of the plane, so again --

Q: How did they know -- how did they know this plane wasn't laden with WMD or some other type of weapons like that? Did they get reassurances from the pilot? Or how did they know that?

McCLELLAN: Well, again, if you want to give me a chance to respond, I'll be glad to. The protocols were followed. This situation, as you're well aware, turned out to be an accident. The Department of Defense pointed out yesterday that they didn't sense any hostile intent on the part of the plane. There were fighter jets scrambled. There was a Blackhawk helicopter scrambled, as well, to get in contact with the plane. ...

Q So if it was assessed that there was no hostile intent on the part of this aircraft, can you tell us why 30,000 people -- 35,000 people were told to run for their lives?

McCLELLAN: Because of the protocols that are in place, John. We want to make sure that the people in the area of the threat are protected. After --

Q: But what was the threat? You just said there was no threat.

McCLELLAN: John, after Sept. 11, we have to take into account the world that we live in. We live in a very different world than we did before Sept. 11. And the president is going to do everything in his power to make sure we are protecting the American people and to make sure that the people in areas that could be high-risk areas are protected, as well.

Q: Right, but there seems to be so many disconnects here. You've got a plane that was assessed as not being a threat, you've got 35,000 people evacuated, you've got a person who you claim is a hands-on commander in chief who is left to go ride his bicycle through the rural wildlands of Maryland while his wife is in some secure location somewhere, it's just not adding up.

McCLELLAN: Well, John, I disagree, and let me tell you why: You have highly skilled professionals who are involved in situations like this, in a variety of different fronts, from our Homeland Security officials to our National Security Council officials to our Secret Service officials and to others and to local officials, and they work very closely together. The protocols that were put in place were followed, and I think they were followed well."

Ugh...

OK, per the previous post and perhaps through other channels, we know that the Rev. Chan Chandler of the East Waynesville(N.C.) Baptist Church led a purge of church members who voted for John Kerry. I gave the NYTimes until Sunday to come up with a story as I figured they would need to get someone down there and all. I looked through the National section of the online paper everyday looking for some mention and never saw it.

Interestingly enough, today we find this which includes the following:

"The committee also recommended that the paper "increase our coverage of religion in America" and "cover the country in a fuller way," with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues."

which one would assume includes mention of a rural church purging members for political reasons. So, for completeness sake, we do a search for "Waynesville" and get:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Church-Politics.html

which, in fact, gives us the story and is dated Sunday. But, check out that link; it's not in the National section but in something called the aponline section which I didn't even know existed. Plus, it is an AP story with no NYTimes reporting.

News Flash, guys: it's never too frigging soon to start reporting on the nascent religiofascist movement in this country! This same movement would surely shut you guys down as a first order of business so I think you might be interested in bringing it to everyone's attention. Sometimes I think you people are just waiting to cash in your own insurance policies. Come on!

The new F-word

First this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/5/211218/4946. It is still breaking and tough to find the whole story, so this link is prolly the best place to start.

And here's something I wrote on the WELL. I have had problems searching for arcticles on Harper's website so go out and buy a copy. It's very much worth it.

"

Just finished reading Jeff Sharlet's and Chris Hedges' pieces in the
latest Harper's and, news flash, we have a problem.  I won't bother
quoting here.  If you haven't seen them, you need to.  We are on a
rapid slide towards fascism disguised as religion in this country(duh).
They are intolerant of everyone who isn't they, hatefully dismissive
of the slightest tinge of intellectualism and are willing to cull their
own ranks of those not fundamentalist enough brutally and in an
instant.  In short, I believe there is no middle ground with these
people.  They are a cult of fanatical hatred of the world wrapped in
the Word.  They are, indeed, impatient for the rapture they hate their
own lives so much.  They are certain that the rest of us, who have
learned to live with a sense of humour and dignity are having more fun
than they are and this cannot be tolerated.  If they could,without
drawing the attention of the still secular rest of America, they would
send out armed squads this very evening and we would be paying tithes
on demand by Monday.  They must be stopped.  They *must* be stopped
now.

How?  How do you fight fomenting fascism that hides behind religion?
Note that while other fascist regimes may have cloaked themselves in
moral and religious garb after coming to power, these people will use
the American idea of freedom and tolerance of religion against America
itself by insisting that they are only following the Word.  It is a
particularly troublesome nut.

These two articles and others are good for those of us who will read
them, but how do we get the rest of the tolerant people in this country
to understand what these people want?  How do we make them understand
what a theocracy would really look like?  Pat Robertson cannot simply
be laughed off anymore.  Everytime he says something it must be rebuked
and rebutted.  Same with James Dobson and the rest.  Perhaps Air
America should start a short segment on one show or another announcing
and rebutting daily what the religious right has said much as they do
with O'Reilly etal.  I don't know.  A particularly troublesome nut,
indeed."


Please let me know if you have any ideas.  We need some.  These people
are dead serious and none to bright.

To The New Yorker(again).

"My dears,
Please consider the following 2 sentences:

1) "P.p.m. is the usual abbreviation for 'parts per million'."

2) " 'Parts per million' is usually abbreviated p.p.m. "

These are equivalent sentences, no? And yet they are not. Any abbreviation must have all it's points regardless of where in a sentence it stands. So, in fact, the second sentence is missing a period. This is plain to see here and on page 68 of your May, 2 issue.
You may, of course, edit your magazine in any way you wish, but you will still be wrong if you continue to do this."

Of course, 'cooperation' doesn't have an umlaut either, but one battle at a time.