I don’t want to be a downer, but I don’t quite understand all the fuss about this latest Bush Administration scandal. So, they fired eight United States Attorneys for political reasons and lied about it.
And...?
It seems a little like busting Al Capone for tax evasion or giving Martin Scorsese an Oscar for “The Departed.”
“It’s not your best work, but... you’re due.”
Maybe America has just hit Maximum Scandal Density, and there is simply no room in the collective denial cavity for one more. After Ken Lay, Enron, and closed-door energy task force meetings; Abu Ghraib prison torture; no-bid contracts for Halliburton; Halliburton overcharges to the army for fuel; missing documentation for $1.8 billion in Halliburton charges; fabrication of evidence to get us into a prolonged war in which over 3,200 Americans and countless Iraqis have died; outing a CIA agent; and tampering with elections, to name just a few, it’s no wonder that these people believe that they are superheroes and cannot be stopped by mere humans. So far, it’s been true. When this one bubbled up, I just rolled my eyes and thought sarcastically “How SHOCKING! I cannot BELIEVE that our government would be involved in anything politically untoward.” I figured it would vaporize, just like the rest of them.
Then yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee authorized subpoenas for Karl Rove and others, and two and a half months after the attorneys were fired, the scandal just keeps roiling.
I think that my shock levels have been so altered and my sensibilities so numbed by six plus years of deceit and nefarious behavior that this one was just absorbed into my consciousness and stored away with other lies, like “I’ll call you,” and “Of course you don’t look fat in that.”
The Administration’s response to this event is the same attitude of scoffing challenge that I am used to. It rivals that of any 18-year-old kid still living at home: “Yeah? Well what are you gonna do about it?” *insert smirk and shrug, swagger out of kitchen into basement room*
This time, the message comes along with a buddy-like-yet-threatening-slap-you-on-the-back “Trust us! You don’t need a transcript or a fussy oath. We’ll tell the truth.” Well but of course; transparency is the modus operandi of this administration. They deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Because it turns out that The Bush Administration is very concerned with the separation of powers. Who knew? They are also concerned that someone out there might be doing something for political reasons that are less than honest. This is why they don’t want Karl Rove to testify, under oath, with a transcript: the constitutionally established separation of powers and honesty.
See, they should have explained that right at the very beginning. Clearly, they have precedent, posterity, and the country’s morale close to their hearts. It’s not because they are afraid of exposure, censure, and possible criminal charges. They have not operated for over six years in a culture of alarming opacity for reasons of greed or consolidation of power in the hands of a corporate oligarchy; it’s that they firmly believe in the sanctity of the plans of our Founding Fathers and the veracity and purity of their own motives. They do not want to take part in a political game such as this; to sink into the quagmire of political muck that the Democrats are slinging around.
Give those liberals a little bit of power, and they go and take advantage of our poor, beleaguered president and his posse.
They just can’t catch a break.
(By the way, I’ll be holding my breath until Karl Rove swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Cooking is Informative
The above image makes me feel:
a. hungry
b. aroused
c. inadequate
d. dirty
e. confused
f. confrontational
g. all the above
h. a & b
i. a, b, & d
j. a, b, & e
k. other (please specify)
Thursday, February 22, 2007
"What do you DO with something like this?"
she thought as she attempted to untangle the necklaces from the mess they had lain in for months on her dresser.
Not what do you do with the mess, but with a piece of jewelry like the one that was causing most of the trouble. It was a slim gold chain—-one of those smooth ones with the tiny square links like little magic boxes—-and hanging from it was a small gold tear drop pendant with three tiny diamonds and two small emeralds.
It wasn’t her.
It never had been.
She assumed that the stones and the metal were real—-that was the sort of retarded thing that he would have done. Bought her a too expensive and not at all right piece of jewelry when what she really wanted was for him to come home from the bar after his shift. Just to come home. Not be drinking after hours with his coworkers every night while she lay awake in their apartment in the city, waiting, crying, simmering. Wearing the wrong necklace. And here, ten years later, she sat on the couch in her bathrobe, a world away from that place, that girl.
She had worn the necklace until the end of the relationship and then it had moved with her to a new apartment through a series of relationships and not-so-relationships, to a husband she knew would never pan out and who also gave her jewelry she never now wore. (What is it with jewelry? she thought. Has society just pummeled this into their heads to the point where they wandered out like robots, mechanically handing over their maxed out credit cards to suited men in malls all over the country?) She didn’t want jewelry from them. She never had. She wanted love and acceptance. She wanted safety and comfort. She wanted cookies. Like now. Pete had just walked in the door from running off to the store in the ten degree weather because she wanted cookies with her coffee.
Pete who had given her the two rings she now wore, amounting together to less than a hundred dollars and without measure in their worth.
"But what does one DO with something like this?"
If she ever got it untangled.
It was a little knot of experience. The waxed cord attached to a pewter talisman she had bought at the renaissance festival when she was in high school and interested in witches and darkness and punk rock; the recycled glass orb on the leather thong she had bought when she was working in Jackson, Wyoming; the frail little silver and green bead necklace her friend Greta had bought her "just because"; and this ridiculous gold necklace—a little reminder of her crazy period. Addled on birth control pills, migraines, and unsatisfactory attention from an unfulfilling man.
"Wear it," Pete said.
She told him where it came from.
"Sell it?"
she thought as she attempted to untangle the necklaces from the mess they had lain in for months on her dresser.
Not what do you do with the mess, but with a piece of jewelry like the one that was causing most of the trouble. It was a slim gold chain—-one of those smooth ones with the tiny square links like little magic boxes—-and hanging from it was a small gold tear drop pendant with three tiny diamonds and two small emeralds.
It wasn’t her.
It never had been.
She assumed that the stones and the metal were real—-that was the sort of retarded thing that he would have done. Bought her a too expensive and not at all right piece of jewelry when what she really wanted was for him to come home from the bar after his shift. Just to come home. Not be drinking after hours with his coworkers every night while she lay awake in their apartment in the city, waiting, crying, simmering. Wearing the wrong necklace. And here, ten years later, she sat on the couch in her bathrobe, a world away from that place, that girl.
She had worn the necklace until the end of the relationship and then it had moved with her to a new apartment through a series of relationships and not-so-relationships, to a husband she knew would never pan out and who also gave her jewelry she never now wore. (What is it with jewelry? she thought. Has society just pummeled this into their heads to the point where they wandered out like robots, mechanically handing over their maxed out credit cards to suited men in malls all over the country?) She didn’t want jewelry from them. She never had. She wanted love and acceptance. She wanted safety and comfort. She wanted cookies. Like now. Pete had just walked in the door from running off to the store in the ten degree weather because she wanted cookies with her coffee.
Pete who had given her the two rings she now wore, amounting together to less than a hundred dollars and without measure in their worth.
"But what does one DO with something like this?"
If she ever got it untangled.
It was a little knot of experience. The waxed cord attached to a pewter talisman she had bought at the renaissance festival when she was in high school and interested in witches and darkness and punk rock; the recycled glass orb on the leather thong she had bought when she was working in Jackson, Wyoming; the frail little silver and green bead necklace her friend Greta had bought her "just because"; and this ridiculous gold necklace—a little reminder of her crazy period. Addled on birth control pills, migraines, and unsatisfactory attention from an unfulfilling man.
"Wear it," Pete said.
She told him where it came from.
"Sell it?"
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Kudos to Representative Virgil Goode (R-VA) for pointing out that passing a non-binding resolution against sending more troops to Iraq would inevitably lead to “In God We Trust” being replaced on our coins and legal tender with “In Muhammad We Trust.” Representative Goode reveals his stunning grasp of cause and effect, logic, the powers of congress, and comparative religion in his reasoning. I’m impressed. I’m pleased to hear the Representative Goode (what a lovely name) equate God with Muhammad. That shows that he is really paying attention.
He also asserts that the main goal of Islamic extremists is to wave the star and crescent over the United States. If Islamic extremists really want to replace the Stars and Stripes with the Star and Crescent, they are going to have some work to do. They will be quite occupied for some time putting new stickers on bumpers, raising flags over malls, and replacing little nylon banners on wooden dowels sticking out of chain link fences all over America, because if Americans know one thing, it is respect for the symbol of our nation. Why, just this morning, I was behind a lovely Ford F-150 sporting a back window screen emblazoned with the red, white, and blue.
He also asserts that the main goal of Islamic extremists is to wave the star and crescent over the United States. If Islamic extremists really want to replace the Stars and Stripes with the Star and Crescent, they are going to have some work to do. They will be quite occupied for some time putting new stickers on bumpers, raising flags over malls, and replacing little nylon banners on wooden dowels sticking out of chain link fences all over America, because if Americans know one thing, it is respect for the symbol of our nation. Why, just this morning, I was behind a lovely Ford F-150 sporting a back window screen emblazoned with the red, white, and blue.
Now there's an S-Word
“Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much... It sounded medical and secret, but also important.”
Never have truer words been penned.
The above sentences come from the 2007 Newbery Award winning book “The Higher Power of Lucky” by Susan Patron. I guess it’s about a ten-year old orphan named “Lucky” and apparently, some school librarians want to ban it because of the s-word.
One thing: were these people never children?
Another thing: don’t these people know that by censoring something, they make it more popular?
This book was written for 9-12 year olds. Even if I did not know what the word scrotum meant, I certainly knew to what it referred. Like the heroine of this tale, I may have thought it involved mucous. It does, indeed, sound phlegm-y. These grown ups who continually try to protect children from things seem to have no memory of being children and no frame of reference for what children know and when they know it. And from what they actually need to be protected. They certainly have little respect for children or trust in their comprehension. Personally, I think that a ten year old boy child certainly should know what a scrotum is because he probably has one.
Librarians and teachers are saying that they don’t want to stock the book or teach it because they don’t want to have to explain what the word means. I would like to point out that they probably would not have to, and if they did, it would not take much explaining. This also reveals what their true concern is: themselves and their own embarrassment over the human body. They certainly are not interested in furthering children’s knowledge.
A librarian in Durango, Colorado was quoted in the New York Times as saying: “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship, but you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature... at least not for children.”
Literally?
She’s probably right. Actual men’s genitalia probably are not included in “quality” literature. Or even in quality pop-up literature. She shows the precise amount of care for literature and context that I want in my librarians.
Never have truer words been penned.
The above sentences come from the 2007 Newbery Award winning book “The Higher Power of Lucky” by Susan Patron. I guess it’s about a ten-year old orphan named “Lucky” and apparently, some school librarians want to ban it because of the s-word.
One thing: were these people never children?
Another thing: don’t these people know that by censoring something, they make it more popular?
This book was written for 9-12 year olds. Even if I did not know what the word scrotum meant, I certainly knew to what it referred. Like the heroine of this tale, I may have thought it involved mucous. It does, indeed, sound phlegm-y. These grown ups who continually try to protect children from things seem to have no memory of being children and no frame of reference for what children know and when they know it. And from what they actually need to be protected. They certainly have little respect for children or trust in their comprehension. Personally, I think that a ten year old boy child certainly should know what a scrotum is because he probably has one.
Librarians and teachers are saying that they don’t want to stock the book or teach it because they don’t want to have to explain what the word means. I would like to point out that they probably would not have to, and if they did, it would not take much explaining. This also reveals what their true concern is: themselves and their own embarrassment over the human body. They certainly are not interested in furthering children’s knowledge.
A librarian in Durango, Colorado was quoted in the New York Times as saying: “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship, but you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature... at least not for children.”
Literally?
She’s probably right. Actual men’s genitalia probably are not included in “quality” literature. Or even in quality pop-up literature. She shows the precise amount of care for literature and context that I want in my librarians.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Dust up in the Dustbowl
According to an article on yahoo.com, God and Darwin are to “clash again in Kansas.” (February 13, 2007. “God, Darwin Clash Again in Kansas.”)
I wonder how that would go.
Because, first of all, Darwin was real, and secondly, Darwin is dead.
Perhaps the scientific theory of evolution is coming into conflict with the religious belief in creation by a supernatural god, but God and Darwin are not having some sort of brawl in the midlands.
I would imagine that in a contest between God and Darwin, some ground rules would have to be laid:
1. God is not allowed to smite.
2. The duel will be limited to the exchange of reasoned, logical arguments based on the evidence.
3. God must limit itself to one manifestation: Yahweh, Allah, Thor, and Zeus are not allowed to tag-team the scientist.
4. God is not allowed to say “because I said so” (See number 2).
5. Darwin is not allowed to roll his eyes and scoff.
6. Darwin will refrain from thwacking God on the forehead and reminding him that “god” itself is a creature of evolution, developed by the human mind over tens of thousands of years.
Religious fundamentalists (antiscientifics?) say that “evolution cannot be proven,” and that it is “not in accordance with Biblical teachings regarding the origins of life.” Well now, I would guess that they would get little to no argument on the second assertion. In fact, I quite agree with them. It appears we have some common ground! As far as the first assertion goes, making a claim of improvability for evolution does not make it improvable, and are they offering up their whole “done in seven days” idea to the rigors of “proof?” Because “The Bible says so, and we’re here, aren’t we?” is not proof.
(I can almost picture the annual meeting of these people: antiscientifics sitting around in little hysterical huddles, talking about the load of crap that is global warming, the clever diversion of evolution, and the affront to god and nature that is stem cell research, while they feed mountains of evidence to little campfires, roasting marshmallows, all the while also lamenting the decline of modern American civilization.)
But I digress.
People who accept a book like the Bible as concrete truth purely on its own merits because “God said it” and do not subject their beliefs to rigorous standards do not seem to have the right to request “proof” of anything.
I wonder how that would go.
Because, first of all, Darwin was real, and secondly, Darwin is dead.
Perhaps the scientific theory of evolution is coming into conflict with the religious belief in creation by a supernatural god, but God and Darwin are not having some sort of brawl in the midlands.
I would imagine that in a contest between God and Darwin, some ground rules would have to be laid:
1. God is not allowed to smite.
2. The duel will be limited to the exchange of reasoned, logical arguments based on the evidence.
3. God must limit itself to one manifestation: Yahweh, Allah, Thor, and Zeus are not allowed to tag-team the scientist.
4. God is not allowed to say “because I said so” (See number 2).
5. Darwin is not allowed to roll his eyes and scoff.
6. Darwin will refrain from thwacking God on the forehead and reminding him that “god” itself is a creature of evolution, developed by the human mind over tens of thousands of years.
Religious fundamentalists (antiscientifics?) say that “evolution cannot be proven,” and that it is “not in accordance with Biblical teachings regarding the origins of life.” Well now, I would guess that they would get little to no argument on the second assertion. In fact, I quite agree with them. It appears we have some common ground! As far as the first assertion goes, making a claim of improvability for evolution does not make it improvable, and are they offering up their whole “done in seven days” idea to the rigors of “proof?” Because “The Bible says so, and we’re here, aren’t we?” is not proof.
(I can almost picture the annual meeting of these people: antiscientifics sitting around in little hysterical huddles, talking about the load of crap that is global warming, the clever diversion of evolution, and the affront to god and nature that is stem cell research, while they feed mountains of evidence to little campfires, roasting marshmallows, all the while also lamenting the decline of modern American civilization.)
But I digress.
People who accept a book like the Bible as concrete truth purely on its own merits because “God said it” and do not subject their beliefs to rigorous standards do not seem to have the right to request “proof” of anything.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Thank Goodness!
Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are going to launch a more “business-friendly business channel.” This new channel, Mr. Murdoch said, would be kinder to corporations.
Well it’s about time they got a break.
Apparently, CNBC has been too apt to “leap on every scandal.” By “scandal” I suppose Mr. Murdoch meant those messy little episodes involving homespun companies like WorldCom, Tyco, and Enron, a little-known energy trading company that had some issues a few years back.
In a country where business, profit, and the almighty dollar are certainly held in contempt, it’s good to hear that these poor and downtrodden outcasts in the competitive world of helping the little guy will finally have a voice--and an advocate other than the executive branch of the federal government.
It’s not enough that capitalism is held up by government assistance, these poor souls will really benefit from the life support that a 24-hour a day, seven day a week broadcast channel can offer.
Much like Fox News has helped to keep a poor, populist, and Everyman party like the GOP afloat and offered God-fearing Americans a choice in the anti-American field of objective news reporting, Fox Business will hopefully be a breath of fresh air in a corporate atmosphere of uncertainty and waning profits.
Well it’s about time they got a break.
Apparently, CNBC has been too apt to “leap on every scandal.” By “scandal” I suppose Mr. Murdoch meant those messy little episodes involving homespun companies like WorldCom, Tyco, and Enron, a little-known energy trading company that had some issues a few years back.
In a country where business, profit, and the almighty dollar are certainly held in contempt, it’s good to hear that these poor and downtrodden outcasts in the competitive world of helping the little guy will finally have a voice--and an advocate other than the executive branch of the federal government.
It’s not enough that capitalism is held up by government assistance, these poor souls will really benefit from the life support that a 24-hour a day, seven day a week broadcast channel can offer.
Much like Fox News has helped to keep a poor, populist, and Everyman party like the GOP afloat and offered God-fearing Americans a choice in the anti-American field of objective news reporting, Fox Business will hopefully be a breath of fresh air in a corporate atmosphere of uncertainty and waning profits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)