Of Maniacs and Campuses...
Several weeks late and a few dollars short, time to chime in on the Virginia tech shooter.

I guess I should, I mean, everyone else has. And most of them, I think missed the mark, so why shouldn't I take a whack at it?

To begin with, Cho Sung-hui (or whatever his name is, I can't be bothered to actually look it up) was a deranged man. That should be obvious to even Ted Kennedy. Sane people do not murder 32 people, make rambling video statements, and mail them off to NBC News, apparently all on the same day.

The obvious questions have been asked; How did this hapen? Where were the police and campus security? What made this guy flip? What made him tick?And then the stupid questions were asked; Isn't this a wonderful example of why we should have gun control in this country? How many more Cho's are out there? I can answer those last two questions: no, and, who the hell knows?

There was one interesting development in this case that I noted just as soon as I'd heard it; at some point in his life, Cho was deemed insane by a judge (and we all KNOW what fine arbiters of sanity American judges are), and let loose on his own recognisence, i.e. on the premise that he get himself some help.

Now here is where I can sympathize with Cho. I certainly don't agree with what he did (I don't see how any reasonable person can), but given that shred of information and viewing his rambling video monlogue in this light, I can make a leap (and I admit, I have no idea if it's correct) and see where a guy just might get pissed off enough to shoot 32 people; someone labeled him a lunatic (whether or not he was prior to his enocunter with the legal system is immaterial to this argument) and then made no effort to get him any help.

Worse, and I can attest to this, since I've suffered from the same stigma; once you have that (you've been branded a lunatic or have a history of mental illness, no matter how slight) in your jacket, God help you. It follows you around. Want that choice job? You won't get it after your prospective employer does a rudimentary background check on you. Want insurance? You won't get it when the insurance company finds out a judge said you're off your chump.

Now, What if...

What if Cho was indeed mentally ill, but that it was an illness of such a nature that it was treatable with therapy and medication, and would not impair him or cause him to be a danger to himself or others? Is that fair to him to have that stigma attached, and worse, electronically transmitted everywhere in the world for anyone willing to make an effort to find it? (Do a Google search on yourself and see what comes back. You'd be amazed!).

What if Cho seriously was ill and the judge abrogated his responsibility (not wanting to seem harsh to a sick man) to society, and instead of doing the proper thing (commiting this guy against his will), let him go, without supervision, without treatment, and probably stewing in his own juices long enough to go postal on his college campus?

The one question that has NOT been asked in the aftermath of the entire episode is this: was this man sick enough to go beserk BEFORE he ran afoul of the law and the judge, or was his intial condition perhaps treatable and curable, but the resulting stigma of a ruling of serious mental illness propelled him further into psychosis? For all we know, Cho might have had something as simple as an anxiety disorder or maybe was bi-polar, conditions that are easily treated, and that relatively slight disorder became something else because he felt persecuted for it afterwards.

The news media was much too quick to drop this story, and for obvious reasons. The storyline had run it's course; man shoots 32 folks, man is identified as a lunatic, man leaves rambling video for Brian Williams to exploit. There's nothing left to talk about after that. Just one more crazy bastard roaming our streets, but fortunately, they only pop up every few years in this fashion and then we can go back to ignoring them again.

A million "experts" will now rummage through Cho's diaries, writings, computer, etc. in an attempt to "understand" the "mind of a mass-murderer". They will learn very little, I'm betting, and in another year or so we'll have another Cho.

The only lesson to be learned form this is that how we treat people who are mentally ill, (especially those who exhibit symptoms that are, of their nature, usually temporary, and completely curable) just might have repercussions. Deadly repercussions. I'm not for imprisoning people against their will (unless there's simply no other way), but I'm also convinced (from personal experience) that the current methods leave much to be desired when it comes to getting people back into society either during, and particularly after, treatment.

Let Brian Williams do some "investigative journalism" on that! What he finds will shock you, not so much because there is a host of disturbed folks out there, but by how shabbily they are treated by the medical establishment, the insurance companies, the police and social services, and especially by employers. And pay special attention to what happens to them once their 'condition' becomes common knowledge, courtesy of the Information Age. It makes Nuremberg Laws regarding the wearing of the Star of David seem tame by comparison. (Ed. Note: Yes, it is as bad as the Holocaust and the harrassment of Jews under the Nazis. Please, don't bother to complain).

Sometimes, that's even after the medical establishment, such as it is, considers them cured.

Yet Another Hiatus...And A New Idea...
Long time, no blog.

It's inevitable, sometimes. Sometimes I don't feel like ranting. Sometimes the potential subject matter is so inane or so disinteresting as to make it impossible to get up the ambition to post something. Anything.

Unless, of course, you get yelled at for apparently not having anything to say at all.

That's what happened to me last week, if you'll believe it.

I was informed by an old friend, who now lives in England, that having started this little screed, I have a sorta-kinda responsibility to continue it on a regular basis. Not the least because, it's some sort of outlet for me, but because he actually reads this thing in order to get some idea of what is actually happening here in the United States. Somehow, he's come to depend upon me (silly bastard!) for an 'unbiased' view.

The BBC must really suck.

Of coure, it's flattering to know that someone is reading this (and taking it seriously, no less!), and that this slender audience is, as they say in the business world, 'global'. Never mind the actual numbers, dammit (I never have); someone in another time zone, on another continent is scarring his eyeballs with this caustic bullshit.

Which got me to thinking (which hurt incidentally); if there's one guy in another country looking at this, then the potential is there to have another guy in Bombay reading it. And then, with any luck, some lady in Japan with a few minutes to spare (and a similar mental affliction) , might think this is a good way to brush up on her English. Going global? Who woulda thunk it?

I certainly didn't. But in a sense, this is a global medium. On the 'net there is no such thing as borders (no matter what the Chinese gov't and Google say). So, why shouldn't I make an effort to take this global?

The only problem is I'm one person. I can't possibly know everything that's happening everywhere, let alone form opinions on it all. Sooooo...I think I'm going to allow other posters to use my site, too. Not only would it be interesting to get more feedback about what happens here (when it does happen) from one guy in Watford, but it would also be interesting to see what other people are thinking. No more monlogue to myself; perhaps a forum for actual debate on world-wide issues and viewpoints?

Lord knows doing so might actually get someone reading this besides me and my relatives.

So, if there is anyone, anywhere, who is interested in joyriding and taking this beyond it's current, limited scope, please respond to this post. The only requirements, I guess, are that you can write in English and can make a half-way decent argument, about anything, without getting too venomous. Various viewpoints welcome, but I reserve the right to editorial control. I don't wish to impose censorship upon anyone, but I will not allow a post that is extremely nasty or somesuch. After all, my name (for what that's worth) is attached to this.

So, I hope to hear from several eager, wanna-be bloggers in the very near future!

Old-Time Hockey...
I don't think I've ever mentioned it here before, but I'm a huge hockey fan. Have been since the late 80's when baseball went though it's multiple strikes and became a "pretty-boy's" game. Funny, but my brother is a collegiate baseball coach, and I constantly hear him refer to some of his players as being "hard-nosed", and it's all I can do to keep from laughing. There is nothing "hard-nosed" about baseball anymore. Pete Rose was hard-nosed. Frank Robinson was hard-nosed. Most ball players these days break a fingernail and spend 45 days on the Disabled List. Heck, the Chicago Cubs Kerry Wood just injured himself exiting a hot tub! Hard-nosed injury, indeed!

I was thinking about this yesterday while watching the Rangers/Flyers game. The thought also crossed my mind last week watching my Devils play the self-same Flyers. The carnage on the ice recently has been great. I don't mean "carnage" as in resulting from the gratuitous violence of the sort that marred the game in the past; this is carnage that is being inflicted by playing the game by the rules. In yesterday's game, the Ranger's Brendan Shanahan, on of my all-time favorites, was carried off the ice on a stretcher after a collision at center ice, a total accident. I certainly hope he's perfectly fine, of course (I don't want to see people hurt) and returns to the game soon, but it's incidents like this recently that remind me just why I took to hockey to begin with.

It's a physical game. Infinitely moreso than baseball. Much more than football (in which the physical aspects of the game take place in 3-8 second bursts, interspersed with 2 minute intervals in which people stand around waiting for the officials to spot the ball and start the clock). It's IMMESURABLY more physical than basketball, which is hardly a sport at all, in my opinion. In my opinion, if you don't get bones broke on a regular basis, it ain't a sport; it's a game.

However, to look at hockey over the last few years, you could be forgiven for questioning whether it ever was a physical game. In an attempt, I guess, to respond to the pussified cries of Canadian fans who nowadays blanch at the THOUGHT of the sight of blood, the panty-bunched uber-parents of suburban America determined to mold their little tykes in an antisceptic way, and due to the influx of (relatively cheap) European players who play years without giving or receiving a body check, the game got soft. It's current brain-trust (led by the soft-brained Commissioner, Gary Bettman) seems determined to make it even more so with it's ridiculous rules changes.

However, there is a ray of sunshine on the horizon. The players themselves seem to have taken matters into their own hands, and seem determined to revive the sport they grew up playing and which I so love. Tune in nowadays and you'll see more hitting, more fighting, more grit, than you have seen in a decade, and which many of the rules changes were intended to eliminate. And I've seen it all happen within the last few weeks.

Despite last night's aberration (the game between the Ottawa Senators and Buffalo Sabres saw 110 penalty minutes racked up, with a few brawls, even between goaltenders), the game is getting back to it's roots: speed, physical play and grit. It's a beautiful thing.

So, if you've never watched hockey before, I recommend you do so now. It's exciting again!

It's Official!
It's official: Bill O'Reilly is no longer watchable. At least I say so.

There was a time when Bill actually engaged in journalism and debate. Those days, alas, are all over. While there are segments of O'Reilly's program that do, almost purely by accident, managed to convey information, the remainder is simply given over to shameless self-promotion; of O'Reilly's books, of the personal attacks upon O'Reilly, upon the supposed effect which O'Reilly's program has upon the actions of the powerful. The problem, as I see it, is that Bill has become the center of everything, and the news gets somewhat skewed and often buried.

Want to ensure that you get attention for a trivial issue? Write an editorial which mentions Bill O'Reilly by name; Bill will make reference to it on his show. If you wish a little commentary on your commentary, mention Bill in a negative light --- he'll make you into a personal crusade.

In any case, when your program devotes weekly segments to examining "body language" and, invariably, you as host are having your body language analyzed in the context of your personal appearances with Stephen Colbert, David Letterman and Oprah, it's no longer just an examination of a slightly-interesting semi-science; it's now an advertizement of how visible Bill O'Reilly is, and how far he's risen in the pantheon of...ahem...television personalities. Bill is, perhaps subconciously, measuring himself against the giants in his industry and bragging about his stature, too.

It's pretty sad when the most interesting segments on the show as of late have been the monologues of Dennis Miller.

Speaking of unwatchable television, we come to Glenn Beck. On a good day, Beck is a poor-man's O'Reilly, but he does, in my opinion, have the quality of at least being willing to handle topics in a more than cavalier fashion. He often, I admit, turns me off with his smarmy uber-conservative smugness from time to time, but he does present an entertaining and informative show. Most nights.

Which leads us to what happens to Beck's show when he isn't there. Last night, Beck was replaced by one Michael Smirconish. It's enough to make one pine for O'Reilly.

Smirconish last night, in reference to the Anna Nicole Smith kerfuffle (and can can we please get back to something important on the news nowadays?), made the comment that Ms. Smith's baby daughter is perhaps better off with her mother dead. He delivered this gem of graciousness with an oily assuredness that he was right and justified in being so harshly judgemental, most probably because God contacted him, personally, about this very subject many times through the fillings in his teeth. At least that's impression his expression and evident self-assuredness in making such ridiculous statements gave.

Now, I will admit, the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Smith, and the circumstances surrounding her final days and death all have the typical salacious elements we've come to expect in such cases. However, if the Duke (Non-)Rape case taught us anything, and especially taught those in the responsible media anything, it was not to jump to conclusions. If Mr. Smirconish had irrefutable proof that Ms. Smith was a drug-addicted lowlife (like, say a coroner's report stating she died of an overdose, for example), then perhaps his opinion might be valid. However, we only have circumstantial evidence of Ms. Smith's drug use and the resulting behavior. While a reasonable person might assume, given the evidence, that Ms. Smith was a drug addict incapabpe of raising a child, we have no definitive proof of such.

In that regard, Mr. Smirconish should have kept his big, fat, yapper tightly closed about the woman's personal character and fitness as a parent. However, since Smirconish is one of the self-appointed defenders of 'merican society (i.e. Bible-thumping conservative) he feels he has the right to say whatever he wants, improper or not, because he's been granted the power of the Almighty to judge.

I seem to remember a quote...How did that go, again? Oh, yeah:

"Judge not, lest ye be judged....".

Amazing What Constitutes Journalism, These Days...
This is a little blurb to warn you of the panty-bunching psychosis of the bunch over at NewsBusters.org (hyperlink not given, ON PURPOSE).

Not long ago, I was involved in a discussion with one of NewsBuster's regular contributors (regular only in the sense that he posts often. I'm not sure there's anything "regular" about him after that, and no, that is NOT a reference to his sexual orientation). The subject had to do with an offhand remark made by one Meredith Viera (of "Who Wants To be A Millionaire" fame), now a regular on the Today Show (taking Katie Couric's place).

The remark was in reference to a symptom of menopause, i.e. the hot flash. Meredith made this remark, I gather, in the context of making a joke about the guest (a Medical doctor suffering from said hot flashes) who came on to talk about this serious health risk (snicker, snicker), and the grave, deadly threat (I guess) it serves to 'Merican womanhood.

Now, ordinarily, I should think that something like this would escape most people's attention. Evidentally, it did not escape the attention of the nitpickers at NewsBusters.

The remark was made into a conservative websphere cause celebre! Meredith DARED to mention hot flashes on TV? Isn't is just ABSOLUTELY EVIL? Is there no decency anymore? Why hasn't the Lord struck her down for her sin? Oh wail and woe! The end times are nigh!

Well, guess what? They ain't. And while NewBusters continued to hammer away at this tale of depravity for all it was worth, when it was suggested that perhaps, the reporter in question had just a little too much free time on his hands and a very small mind, I was savaged. Well, perhaps savaged is a bit hyperbolic; I was instead reminded that decency was at stake and that without NewsBusters to tell the American people about the hot flash embroglio, the "Mainstream Media" would have ignored it, we'd all be pig-ignorant, and the Earth might spin off it's axis.

God forbid the children heard "hot flashes" and perhaps asked Mother and Father to explain it all (when Pastor Bill might not be conveniently available to offer the right sort of counselling to the family)! Or worse, the public schools might take it upon themselves to explain hot flashes and menopause in the classroom! Imagine that; discuss menopause, but not Jesus! After all, it's all about "the children" isn't it?

Even making mountains out of molehills, evidentally, is all about the children...

What makes this especially delicious is that not a week later, Sean Hannity and others of his ilk were beating the drums loudly over a soon-to-be-released film in which 12-year old actress Dakota Fanning takes part in a simulated rape scene (on record; 12 year girls should have nothing to do with rape, simulated or not) .I'm not sure if NewsBustwers covered that with the same hyperbole (they probably did, I couldn't be bothered to check), but I'm dead certain that NewsBusters didn't go back and review the "hot flash" post and say to themselves "perhaps we've overreacted a bit in light of this new development..."

Of course, they wouldn't. If they didn't make minor incidents into stories, theyd have nothing to post over there on NewsBusters, I'm sure.

One of the disadvantages of the internet, alas, is that anyone capable of typing and holding an opinion at the same time is capable of bringing every petty subject into the light of day, regardless of how ridiculous the issue... or the reporter.

Myself included...

I Told You So...
Got into another argument with one of the I-WILL-Hold-My-Breath-Till-Blue-in-The-Face sort of..ahem..conservatives on FR recently, and I finally got at least this one to admit to something none of them ever will. The argument was begun on the premise that a certain Mr. Duncan Hunter, a backbencher Congresscritter, should be the Republican nominee for the Presidency in 2008. Mr. Hunter, so far as I know, has but one rock-solid conservative credential to his name: Ann Coulter said he should be President.

From Ann's luscious lips to God's ear, I guess.

Now, I seem to recall about this time last year, Ann putting her stamp of Conservative approval on another backbencher named Mike Pence for the same office. I similarly recall all the "excitement" generated by this coronation on FR and other conservative sites. I also recall that after a few weeks, Mr. Pence was found to be wanting in the conservative cojones arena, and the buzz that arose from his selection by Ann, quickly fizzled. If I recall, Mr. Pence, in keeping with his name, was Pence-wise and Pound-foolish; i.e. he was profligate spender of government tax revenue. A decided no-no if you wish to call yourself a conservative, you see (although it didn't stop half of the 109th Congress).

But I digress...

Now, so far as I know, Duncan Hunter is a fine and upstanding citizen, an honest representative of the people, and a snazzy dresser. However, I do know that when the prospective republican candidates at this time include the likes of Rudy Guiliani and John McManiac, Mr. Hunter is fighting an uphill battle. McPain at leats gets good press, Rudy is still fondly remembered for is leadershi on September 11th. I would very much like to hear what Mr. Hunter migth have to say, if only in the vain hope thathe might elevate the present political debate above it's current "oh yeah?" schoolyard character. Both McCain and Guiliani, naturally, will have their issues in the primaries, but that was not the gist of the debate.

The gist of the debate was that even if Mr. Hunter was a projected no-show come primary time, no "real" conservative would bend his neck and be "forced" to vote for either McCain or Guiliani. Considering that there aren't, to my knowledge, Republican Death-Squads, frog-marching people to the polls with guns to their heads, I hardly see how anyone is being 'forced' to do anything. There's nothing that says you can't be a republican and not vote for the party's presumptive nominee, although these folks ar ein a bit of a quandry; they will be blamed if a candidate which hasn't mustered up to their skewed visionof the role of government in society doesn;t win. They simply won't vote for someone they don't agree with simply for the sake of party unity. Fair enough. Conversely, they don't take blame for skewing the primary process in the first place by only ensuring that candidates who pass the majority of their litmus tests actually DO get to compete. Like most human beings, even in politics, they want their cake and to eat it to. However, the true reason why either McCain or Guiliani is such an odious choice, is of course, God. Or at least what many of the perpetually panty-bunched on the American right believe to be God's political agenda (notwithstanding all the "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's, spiel). The problem, naturally, revolves around three cultural-conservative bugaboos;

a. Abortion should be illegal in ALL cases (I sorta-kinda agree with them on this point)
b. Gun rights (they need them thar flame throwers and RPG launchers from when the End of Days arrives to protect them from the heathens who won't be saved. Or, in some versions, to actually begin the chaos which will bring the Rapture upon us. Or, in a third version, to start the Second Revolution in which the people of "Fly-Over Country" will have to battle the federal Leviathan which has come under the control of the Fascist Gays with Fashion Sense).
c. The fact that you can say certain four letter words on television without being horsewhipped in public.

I generalize on the third issue, but you get the point; cultural conservatives rail against the coarsening of American society, seemingly remembering a time when everyone went around saying things like "gosh-darn-it!" and "oh pooh-with-sugar-on-top" whenever they were angry or required an interjection intended to convey annoyance. A time, which, incidentally, never existed, except in the milleaux hand-crafted for American conservatives; a world in which it is eternally the 1950's, Leave it to Beaver was entertainment of the highest order, and America was always right, no matter what.

Anyways, when it was pointed out to the misguided individual that the upcoming Presidential race will be less about conservative issues and more about mending Republican fences with the great American political middle, the gentleman (although he did call me a fascist, a marxist and several other, hysterical and totally unrelated-to-the-subject-at-hand names, all of which betrayed a total lack of knowledge of politics and political theory, in general) finally said that none of it mattered to him, because he had "God on his side" and that made him totally and completely correct in his assumptions and assertions. His world view was the only one that counted because it was the only one in which he believed God would agree.

There you go; the total stunting of political deabte, the complete divorce with reality, and the new weapon of the conservative ideologue; just say "God said so", and any debate which you are losing on reason and logic, is ended. No one can answer God, can they? Then again, it's not like God answers us, but that's another issue. The point was to direct the debate in such a way as to prevent adequate response, or, to squash the debate in it's entirety. In the meantime, no information of real value is exchanged, no point of view is expressed by either side which might serve to persuade.

God, apparently, is against Free Speech, too, now. Curious, since most "conservatives" will insist that God granted us our constitutional rights to begin with (you know, that time when Jefferson came down from Montecello with the stone tablets after he spoke to a burning bush (not Bush) for a couple of days). Just like the Catholic Church and it's convoluted and contradictory premise of "Free Will", the American conservative of a certain Jethro-and-Ellie-Mae bent has applied the same hypocrisy to the exercise of a constitutional right. It is both God-given and God-takeneth-away if it is not used in the "proper manner", i.e. in any way that does not reinforce or glorify God's role as Creator of the Universe, Arbiter and Judge of Mankind....Or in Support of Duncan Hunter.

I'm telling you; if you believed the left was off it's rocker (and it is), you should see some of the folks running around calling themselves "Conservatives" these days.

Stupidity: It's What's for Dinner...
Poor John Edwards. He is destined to be remembered, if at all, as the democratic party's answer to Dan Quayle. On a day when Janet Reno sticks her foot in her mouth vis-a-vis terrorism, we now find Mr. Edwards similarly enjoying a podiatric fest with regards to the new democratic party bugaboo: Wal-Mart.

Turns out that while Mr. Edwards chants the party line about how Wal-Mart is unfair to it's workers (who, as far as I know, haven't been chained to their workstations), he's been working the old network to extort (allegedly) a new Sony PlayStation 3 from Wal-Mart. James Lileks has the GREATEST explanation of the whole kerfuffle here:

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks112206.html

However, with reagards to Edwards, and a whole new generation of democrats like him: the old "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" argument lost it's lustre a long time ago. This is the 21st century, for better or worse, and it's very difficult in this day and age to be both a "principled champion of the common man" and a fucking hypocrite at the same time. You are under surveilance 24/7. There are reporters who treat your very words as divine manna fromt he heavens, bloggers who scour the net for reports of what you have said (going all the way back to your position on allowing the Huns to move into Dalmatia as a means of cutting the Roman military budget). You are under constant video surveilance by the media, by YouTube, by any jerk with a cellphone. Why, oh why, is it that when you know this sort of scrutiny is applied to you 24/7/365. do you believe that you can get away with being a hypocrite, a liar , and a moron?

It's either an incredible strain of stupidity, an arrogance beyond the capacity of the rational man to comprehend, or a deep-rooted belief that the "common man" that you "fight" so much for is, at heart, a drooling idiot with an attention span measured in RPM's.

Part of me leans towards the third alternative, because all the evidence points that way. But number two is quite popular amongst the democratic bigwigs, as well.

So, Wal-Mart is a pox upon the land, unless you want something unavailable elsewhere and can twist an arm or two? How convenient.

John Edwards can reliably be expected to be a liar and a cheat (he is, after all, a trial lawyer who made a fortune "channeling the spirits" of dead/disabled children as a courtroom tactic), and now he can add "historical irrelevancy" to his resume. Short of screaming "lesbian" a few times during his debates with Dick Cheney, he has no qualification for anything. Edwards is a confirmed mental and political lightweight, who should just pack it in already.

The American people no longer have any excuse: we have more sources of information, now instantaneously delivered, than any generation in the history of the world. Why we don't use it properly, to sift the thieves and hypocrites,from our political process, for example, is beyond me.
Unless, of course, John Edwards is right, and we're all really just drooling idiots with attention spans measured in RPM's.

Of Feet and Gaping Maws...
I wouldn't have believed it, if I hadn't had seen it. Janet Reno, she of the Seige of Waco and the pre-dawn Raid on Elian Gonzales, had the AUDACITY to criticize the Bush Administration about it's anti-terrorism policies. Said hysterical rant may be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101259_pf.html

Now, what makes this sooo fucking rich is that Janet Reno probably has more blood on her hands than Ted Bundy. If I recall, 80 people died when the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, mysteriously burned to the ground after a 51-day seige by federal agents and local law enforcement. I say "mysteriously" because at the time, Ms. Reno swore on a stack that absolutely NO pyrotechnic or explosive device was used against the Davidians, a statement which was later proven to be false. Those people were burned to death, and whether it was purposely done or not, the FBI and ATF and the rest of them, bear responsibility because they were boneheaded and unimaginative (and I say this depsite the fact that I believe David Koresh to have been guilty as sin of whatever he was accused of, and the Davidians morons for thinking they could long defy the power of the Fed'ral Leviathan). Janet Reno bears responsibility because she was the bonehead's boss.

But that's supposed to be forgotten because, you know, at the end of the whole thing, Janet explained that they had to storm the house because "children were being abused". Unfortunately, they had to be killed in order to save them from further abuse. Fifty-one days after telling the public about the Davidian's vast arsenal of illegal weapons, about what a rotten human being David Koresh was, it was all , in the end, about the children.

Everything in the Clinton Era was "about the children...."

Even Elian's televised kidnapping. It was for his own good, you know. What can you say about someone who takes to the airwaves on a holiday weekend (I believe it was Easter weekend), and announces publicly that although there is a "dispute" between the boy's American family and his obviously-being-controlled-by-Castro father, the US government would take no action with regards to Elian, and would let the courts continue to sort it out?

Of course, when Janet Reno says "do nothing" she really means "we're preparing the stormtroopers".

Behind a cloud of tear gas and extensive use of fire extinguishers, Federal Jackboots stormed the Gonzalez house and found the six year old cowering in a closet, he was taken out at gunpoint, although I remember listening for days as Clinton schills tried to explain how a man photographed with a machine gun pointed in Elian's direction, really didn't have the child at gunpoint.

In my opinion, Janet Reno is an accessory to murder. She is a liar. She is an expert on terrorism simply because she has presided over the use of terrorism right here in the United States and called it "law enforcement". Fact of the matter is that Janet Reno never enforced a law at all (if she had, her boss would have been in prison). Janet Reno is no expert on terrorism, unless that terrorism involves the Federal Government terrorizing it's own citizens.

So, shut the fuck up, Janet!

I Have My Answers...
With regards to the questions I posed the other day:

*Can Rudy Gulianin get past the God, Guns and Gays Coalition and win a nomination in the Republican party for President of the United States?

Short answer: no. From what I have been reading and chatting about lately, there is but one, slim chance of this happening: Guliani would have to backpeddle on his pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-gun control stances, and then some MIGHT consider voting for him. That fact that this would make the man a hypocrite, plain as day for all to see, matters not. All that those who might consider the possibility wish to see is their personal views justified and approved, and reflected in a candidate who's only virtue then, is that he can beat HillaryAND kow-tow to them. In effect, their problem with Guliani is not so much his views, per se , as it is their belief that ideology must be adhered to, even if it makes you a hypocrite. The PARTY, and it's appearance of ideological purity, is all that matters, and if your own personal peeeve is acknowledged, so much the better.

Then there are those for whom no amount of backpeddling would suffice. Most of these are either principled, thinking people (who could be reasonably expected to be able to smell hypocrisy a mile off) or those perpetually-brain dead masses, that short of a divine intercession, still wouldn't vote for him because their preacher said not to.

The stunning thing about the debate over Rudy and Republicanism is not that the proponents/opponents so easily fall into quantifiable and identifiable categories; it is that there is SO MUCH invested in censorship of Guliani the man, rather than Guliani the governing philosphy.

Rudy Guliani cannot get a fair hearing because:

1. There are some preternaturally disposed (either by religion or ignorance) to believe he has nothing to say,
2. There are those who are actively frightened by the prospect that HE MIGHT have the opportunity to speak at all, and perhaps cause people to think differently, thus threatening cherry-picked parts of conservative ideology. And
3. Those who cannot get past petty distinctions and irrelevancies (He's divorced, he once wore a dress as a gag, he once had gay roommates, etc) to even admit that he MIGHT have something to add to the national debate.

He's not given a fair hearing because certain interests have decided against hearing what he might have to say.... before he says it. This censorship has thus far expressed itself in a series of articles, usually quoting a single far right source (and, as always, a single, democratic agent provacateur. Can't accuse the conservative press of not being "balanced", even when that balance is contrived for political purposes) to insinuate that Guliani's social views negate his political ones. The argument is: he's far too "liberal" socially for you to stand, therefore, he has nothing to say to you that you might like to hear or which might otherwise condition your views.

He might well find himself in the position of being the only person in a hypothetical, crowded theatre, aware of a dangerous and deadly fire, who can't warn his fellow patrons because they insist on clapping their hands over their ears, and can't hear the alarm. If this continues much longer, then the republican party deserves electoral exile. It will simply stagnate because it has refused to listen to any ideas whatsoever, especially those that might be considered heretical.

Silly Season Begins...
Last week, it was John McCain. Today, it's Rudolph Guliani.

With the formation of "exploratory committees" the first two potential republican candidates for President in 2008 have stepped forward. I'll put together something later on all of this, but for now, ask yourself the following questions:

1. How does Guliani get past the religious zelots and flamthrowers-for-all crowd, and achieve a nomination in what is, for all intents and purposes, a party machinery dominated by concern for the sensibilities of the Religious Right?

2. How long will it be before John McCain's propensity to self-destruct makes itself apparent?

Seems I have some things to think about....