My gods, how I hate these bastards.
Hate is not a word I use lightly.
This is unconscionable.
Read it and scream:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/opinion/22thur3.html
It does show, however, that Republicans are not all of a stripe: John McCain, at least, is doing his level best to cauterize these festering open sores upon the body politic.
I have, however, little hope for his success. Because I have no doubt that many Democrats will cooperate, Russ Feingold notwithstanding.
As Supreme Chancellor Palpatine so memorably put it: "All those who gain power are afraid to lose it."
Or you can simply quote Stover's Rule of Politics: "Politics is the science of human nature, and so it is governed by the three fundamental principles of human behavior: Greed, Stupidity, and Fear."
Thursday, September 22
Wednesday, September 21
Here's one for all you Unclear-on-the-Concept whiners who kept whingeing on and on about Kelo v. New London:
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050920154609990003
Get it, now?
All the Supreme Court did was state that the Constitution does not bar state and local governments from using eminent domain in whimsical ways. This is what the Supreme Court does: interpret the constitutionality of law or legal action. That's all. Sadly, they don't actually rule on whether something is fair, or right (O'Connor's dissent notwistanding -- though I haven't read it in detail, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was based in the first paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment); though disagreement is possible, this is the current Law of the Land.
The decision, as is noted in the article above, specifically noted that the state, local and federal governments were free to re-write their eminent domain laws to prevent such seizure.
Thus: If you don't like the eminent domain laws where you live, you'd better fucking get busy to elect a local and state government that will write eminent domain laws you're more comfortable with.
Tangential issue:
I got an email this morning from my regular correspondent who goes (on this blog, and on some other forums 'round the 'net) by the handle Shevchyk, concerning some stuff in the Village Voice about the Republicans using the Katrina furor to quietly snuff any Congressional investigation of the Valerie Plame affair without drawing attention from the national press. He closed the email by mumbling in passing something about looking into the idea of becoming a constitutional lawyer.
More power to him.
Canadian or not.
My beloved wife, the Fabulous Robyn, happened to glimpse that over my shoulder this morning. She said, "Shit. You should be a constitutional lawyer."
I said, "Are you fucking kidding me?"
She said, "This country's in a lot of trouble. This is what you care about. It's half of what you write about in your books, and most of what you write about on your blog. Maybe you could do this country a lot more good with a degree in constitutional law."
I said, "I'd be FIFTY YEARS OLD, for Christ's sake."
She said, "So what? At least then the next time you're in DC, you might be able to stand in the Lincoln Memorial without tears in your eyes."
Which is a salient point.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050920154609990003
Get it, now?
All the Supreme Court did was state that the Constitution does not bar state and local governments from using eminent domain in whimsical ways. This is what the Supreme Court does: interpret the constitutionality of law or legal action. That's all. Sadly, they don't actually rule on whether something is fair, or right (O'Connor's dissent notwistanding -- though I haven't read it in detail, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was based in the first paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment); though disagreement is possible, this is the current Law of the Land.
The decision, as is noted in the article above, specifically noted that the state, local and federal governments were free to re-write their eminent domain laws to prevent such seizure.
Thus: If you don't like the eminent domain laws where you live, you'd better fucking get busy to elect a local and state government that will write eminent domain laws you're more comfortable with.
Tangential issue:
I got an email this morning from my regular correspondent who goes (on this blog, and on some other forums 'round the 'net) by the handle Shevchyk, concerning some stuff in the Village Voice about the Republicans using the Katrina furor to quietly snuff any Congressional investigation of the Valerie Plame affair without drawing attention from the national press. He closed the email by mumbling in passing something about looking into the idea of becoming a constitutional lawyer.
More power to him.
Canadian or not.
My beloved wife, the Fabulous Robyn, happened to glimpse that over my shoulder this morning. She said, "Shit. You should be a constitutional lawyer."
I said, "Are you fucking kidding me?"
She said, "This country's in a lot of trouble. This is what you care about. It's half of what you write about in your books, and most of what you write about on your blog. Maybe you could do this country a lot more good with a degree in constitutional law."
I said, "I'd be FIFTY YEARS OLD, for Christ's sake."
She said, "So what? At least then the next time you're in DC, you might be able to stand in the Lincoln Memorial without tears in your eyes."
Which is a salient point.
Sunday, September 18
Friday, September 16
Another Victory For Limited Government!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/politics/16blackout.html
A pertinent quote:
"The most serious mistake we can make is pretending that markets do things that they do not do," said Kellan Fluckiger, executive director of the electricity division at the Alberta Department of Energy. "Markets allocate risk, they allocate capital, they provide price signals. Markets do not have a conscience, they do not provide social policy, and they do not do things they are not paid to do."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/politics/16blackout.html
A pertinent quote:
"The most serious mistake we can make is pretending that markets do things that they do not do," said Kellan Fluckiger, executive director of the electricity division at the Alberta Department of Energy. "Markets allocate risk, they allocate capital, they provide price signals. Markets do not have a conscience, they do not provide social policy, and they do not do things they are not paid to do."
Thursday, September 15
And for those of you too busy, too apathetic or too disgusted to listen to the Roberts Supreme Court confirmation hearings, here is a useful summary from David Brooks, the brighter of the two house conservatives from the NYTimes OpEd page:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/opinion/15brooks.html
It is, in fact, the most incisive column he's ever written.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/opinion/15brooks.html
It is, in fact, the most incisive column he's ever written.
Sunday, September 11
Can the crooked fucking politico change his morals in the face of a deepening national crisis?
The answer, reprinted from Reuters:
--
WASHINGTON (Sept. 10) - Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President George W. Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.
One is Shaw Group Inc. and the other is Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.
Bechtel National Inc., a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., has also been selected by FEMA to provide short-term housing for people displaced by the hurricane. Bush named Bechtel's CEO to his Export Council and put the former CEO of Bechtel Energy in charge of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
--
There is more, of course. The article goes on to mention the more than one billion dollars in fraudulent billing KB&R submitted on their sweetheart no-bid contract to provide essential services for Our Proudly Supported (As Long As It Doesn't Cost Us Too Much Money) Troops in Iraq, and that sort of thing.
The slugline was:
FIRMS WITH BUSH TIES SNAG FIRST KATRINA CONTRACTS.
I would say something along the lines of "Fuck me like a goat," but the Administration, apparently, has that part covered. So to speak.
Jesus stinking bloody Christ on a stick.
The answer, reprinted from Reuters:
--
WASHINGTON (Sept. 10) - Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President George W. Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.
One is Shaw Group Inc. and the other is Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.
Bechtel National Inc., a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., has also been selected by FEMA to provide short-term housing for people displaced by the hurricane. Bush named Bechtel's CEO to his Export Council and put the former CEO of Bechtel Energy in charge of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
--
There is more, of course. The article goes on to mention the more than one billion dollars in fraudulent billing KB&R submitted on their sweetheart no-bid contract to provide essential services for Our Proudly Supported (As Long As It Doesn't Cost Us Too Much Money) Troops in Iraq, and that sort of thing.
The slugline was:
FIRMS WITH BUSH TIES SNAG FIRST KATRINA CONTRACTS.
I would say something along the lines of "Fuck me like a goat," but the Administration, apparently, has that part covered. So to speak.
Jesus stinking bloody Christ on a stick.
Saturday, September 10
As much as it pains me to write anything that may be construed as in any way defending our multiply-criminal Bush Administration, when the Hurricane Katrina accusations fly thick and fast, it will be worthwhile for the cognoscenti to bear in mind the first corollary to Caine's Law:
Whenever somebody tells you things are simple, they're trying to sell you something.
And that, my friends, is about as far as I'm gonna go into the Who's At Fault business, too.
Whenever somebody tells you things are simple, they're trying to sell you something.
And that, my friends, is about as far as I'm gonna go into the Who's At Fault business, too.
Friday, September 9
And another thing
Bill Moyers has the right of it.
As usual.
Read, and shudder:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050909/911_and_the_sport_of_god.php
Those of you who have read JERICHO MOON, of course, are already familiar with his Old Testament exegesis. The rest, however, is pertinent.
Ahh, fuck.
Why didn't *I* "preserve my political viability"?
As usual.
Read, and shudder:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050909/911_and_the_sport_of_god.php
Those of you who have read JERICHO MOON, of course, are already familiar with his Old Testament exegesis. The rest, however, is pertinent.
Ahh, fuck.
Why didn't *I* "preserve my political viability"?
Friday, August 19
Everything interesting happens in the dead zone . . .
One of my favorite cartoons of all time has a physicist in front of a huge blackboard that is filled with this vast, intricate, insanely complex calculation, checking his work with obvious satisfaction. All the way at the bottom, right in front of the final "=1", there's a parenthetical notation that reads:
"Here, a miracle happens."
When I plot a novel, most of it is scenes that I can jump into inside my head: it's like opening them on a hard drive, or accessing them on DVD. I touch them, and I'm there. These are easy for me to write, because I'm literally inside the scene and all I have to do is transcribe what happens: what's there, what it looks like, sounds like, smells like, feels like, who does what to whom, whatever.
But in between those scenes there are always "dead zones." Places where I know what's supposed to happen, but I can't quite see it. It's only mist. I can't bring it into focus.
Now, I can carve that mist into workable shapes. I can make a quality scene out of just about anything. I've done it, and I can do it again. But, y'know . . .
I keep discovering those dead zones are there for a reason.
Those of you who read the Caine novels know that they tend to be Big Picture stories -- that even though they take place in short periods of time and are focussed on specific incidents and problems, the fundamental interconnectedness of reality in my personal universe means that a story about anything is also a story about Everything . . .
When I stare into a dead zone long enough, the mist begins to clear, and son of a bitch, y'know, what I knew was supposed to happen wasn't supposed to happen at all. Or not the way I thought. And the story gets better than I thought it was going to be.
Who's in charge here, anyway?
Where's Bakker? I need a Derrida expert, because I'm beginning to suspect that the author really is irrelevant.
Everything interesting happens in the dead zone . . .
One of my favorite cartoons of all time has a physicist in front of a huge blackboard that is filled with this vast, intricate, insanely complex calculation, checking his work with obvious satisfaction. All the way at the bottom, right in front of the final "=1", there's a parenthetical notation that reads:
"Here, a miracle happens."
When I plot a novel, most of it is scenes that I can jump into inside my head: it's like opening them on a hard drive, or accessing them on DVD. I touch them, and I'm there. These are easy for me to write, because I'm literally inside the scene and all I have to do is transcribe what happens: what's there, what it looks like, sounds like, smells like, feels like, who does what to whom, whatever.
But in between those scenes there are always "dead zones." Places where I know what's supposed to happen, but I can't quite see it. It's only mist. I can't bring it into focus.
Now, I can carve that mist into workable shapes. I can make a quality scene out of just about anything. I've done it, and I can do it again. But, y'know . . .
I keep discovering those dead zones are there for a reason.
Those of you who read the Caine novels know that they tend to be Big Picture stories -- that even though they take place in short periods of time and are focussed on specific incidents and problems, the fundamental interconnectedness of reality in my personal universe means that a story about anything is also a story about Everything . . .
When I stare into a dead zone long enough, the mist begins to clear, and son of a bitch, y'know, what I knew was supposed to happen wasn't supposed to happen at all. Or not the way I thought. And the story gets better than I thought it was going to be.
Who's in charge here, anyway?
Where's Bakker? I need a Derrida expert, because I'm beginning to suspect that the author really is irrelevant.
Everything interesting happens in the dead zone . . .
Wednesday, August 17
Friday, August 5
People.
Shut up for a minute.
This is NOT about whether there is a Higher Power in the universe. Or more than one universe. Or whatever the fuck.
Personally: I do not believe in the "supernatural." Because the "natural" is plenty -- it is, in fact, everything. I am a pagan pantheist. To me, there is nothing that is not God.
Not even President Bush, but let that go . . .
I've been haunted by real, actual ghosts (as those who followed my RotS tour blog will recall). I do energy work; I have felt the power of kundalini and chi (which ain't the same thing, by the way -- and don't argue with me, I speak from experience), as well as reiki. I am, in fact, a reiki master. I have felt things -- and done things -- that science cannot explain.
I know things exist beyond the realm of current scientific verification.
Shit, that's why I write fantasy. Because novels without magick are not the truth.
However, none of these phenomena are supernatural. They are natural. We just don't have the science to measure them yet.
Which means WE SHOULDN'T BE TEACHING THEM IN SCIENCE CLASS.
Get it? Science is not about whether something is true. Science is about whether something is verifiable.
You want to talk about truth, go study philosophy.
And Intelligent Design is the WORST thing we could be teaching in a public school science class, because it is an EXPLICIT STATE ENDORSEMENT OF A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.
Period.
Those of you who are interested in the politics of it might want to check out Paul Krugman's column in today's NYTimes.
[an aside to David Welch --
Holy Shit, dude -- doesn't a Major League pitcher make enough money to get a decent education? Or have the 'roids gone to your brain?
But thanks so much for playing. Vanna, show him his parting gifts.]
Shut up for a minute.
This is NOT about whether there is a Higher Power in the universe. Or more than one universe. Or whatever the fuck.
Personally: I do not believe in the "supernatural." Because the "natural" is plenty -- it is, in fact, everything. I am a pagan pantheist. To me, there is nothing that is not God.
Not even President Bush, but let that go . . .
I've been haunted by real, actual ghosts (as those who followed my RotS tour blog will recall). I do energy work; I have felt the power of kundalini and chi (which ain't the same thing, by the way -- and don't argue with me, I speak from experience), as well as reiki. I am, in fact, a reiki master. I have felt things -- and done things -- that science cannot explain.
I know things exist beyond the realm of current scientific verification.
Shit, that's why I write fantasy. Because novels without magick are not the truth.
However, none of these phenomena are supernatural. They are natural. We just don't have the science to measure them yet.
Which means WE SHOULDN'T BE TEACHING THEM IN SCIENCE CLASS.
Get it? Science is not about whether something is true. Science is about whether something is verifiable.
You want to talk about truth, go study philosophy.
And Intelligent Design is the WORST thing we could be teaching in a public school science class, because it is an EXPLICIT STATE ENDORSEMENT OF A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.
Period.
Those of you who are interested in the politics of it might want to check out Paul Krugman's column in today's NYTimes.
[an aside to David Welch --
Holy Shit, dude -- doesn't a Major League pitcher make enough money to get a decent education? Or have the 'roids gone to your brain?
But thanks so much for playing. Vanna, show him his parting gifts.]
Wednesday, August 3
Just for a change of pace . . .
I'm NOT gonna bash Bush for being a moron.
He is, but this time I'm after the press.
So Shrub gets up on his hind legs and tells some TexAss reporters that he believes "the theory of intelligent design" should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in our nation's science classes, because students should be exposed to both sides of the debate.
So he's a moron. As is anyone else who thinks "intelligent design" is science.
I don't have a problem with the argument itself. It may even have some merit. I'm no atheist -- personally, I agree with Stephen Colbert that atheists are merely people who have chosen to abandon the worship of a higher being in favor of worshipping their own sense of smug superiority. [Sorry, Scotty -- but you've gotta admit it's a pretty good line. What do you expect from a guy with a Libertarian moustache?]
I don't even have any problem with Intelligent Design being taught -- but it should be confined to social studies classes, where it belongs. Unless you're in a religious school, in which case they can teach you whatever they want, as long as they're not using my tax dollars to do it.
This is why I'm after the press.
They keep saying "the THEORY of intelligent design" [caps mine, of course], sometimes in the same breath with the theory of evolution.
Let me say this nice and loud, so there is no misunderstanding, here:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Not in the scientific sense.
That pisses me off as much as the idiots who keep saying, "Well, Eeevil-ution's just a THEORY . . ."
Which is why I'm gonna take a minute here an explain to the morons -- which include, I'm sad to say, our national press corps -- what a theory is in the scientific sense.
It is, at its most basic form, a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
When one moves a theory into the scientific realm, however, one adds the element of testability.
Let me say that again.
TESTABILITY, YOU MORONS.
That is: you can use the theory to generate new hypotheses about as-yet unobserved phenomena, which can then be investigated. If they prove to be consistent with the theory, then the theory stands. If they are not, the theory is changed until it is consistent with ALL OBSERVED FACTS.
With evolution, we can even observe its action in short-lived organisms in a junior-high biology lab. We see it in action every day. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, anyone? Anyone? Mr. Bush? Senator Frist?
THERE IS NO TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Not one.
We cannot see Intelligent Design in action. It is BY DEFINITION mysterious and unknowable, occurring by the action of a deliberately-undefined supernatural force.
Therefore it is not a theory. It cannot be a theory.
STOP CALLING IT A THEORY, YOU MORONS.
Call it an argument. Call it an explanation. A rationale. Call it a Faith-Based Program -- the Bushitters love those. You're goddamn journalists, aren't you? Isn't it your job to get the facts?
The fact is: it's not a theory. When you call it one, you're engaging in partisan rhetoric, not journalism.
What does it take to get through to these people?
Sure, they don't have science educations -- but neither do I. My college degree was in THEATRE, for shit's sake.
Get it right.
I'm NOT gonna bash Bush for being a moron.
He is, but this time I'm after the press.
So Shrub gets up on his hind legs and tells some TexAss reporters that he believes "the theory of intelligent design" should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in our nation's science classes, because students should be exposed to both sides of the debate.
So he's a moron. As is anyone else who thinks "intelligent design" is science.
I don't have a problem with the argument itself. It may even have some merit. I'm no atheist -- personally, I agree with Stephen Colbert that atheists are merely people who have chosen to abandon the worship of a higher being in favor of worshipping their own sense of smug superiority. [Sorry, Scotty -- but you've gotta admit it's a pretty good line. What do you expect from a guy with a Libertarian moustache?]
I don't even have any problem with Intelligent Design being taught -- but it should be confined to social studies classes, where it belongs. Unless you're in a religious school, in which case they can teach you whatever they want, as long as they're not using my tax dollars to do it.
This is why I'm after the press.
They keep saying "the THEORY of intelligent design" [caps mine, of course], sometimes in the same breath with the theory of evolution.
Let me say this nice and loud, so there is no misunderstanding, here:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Not in the scientific sense.
That pisses me off as much as the idiots who keep saying, "Well, Eeevil-ution's just a THEORY . . ."
Which is why I'm gonna take a minute here an explain to the morons -- which include, I'm sad to say, our national press corps -- what a theory is in the scientific sense.
It is, at its most basic form, a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
When one moves a theory into the scientific realm, however, one adds the element of testability.
Let me say that again.
TESTABILITY, YOU MORONS.
That is: you can use the theory to generate new hypotheses about as-yet unobserved phenomena, which can then be investigated. If they prove to be consistent with the theory, then the theory stands. If they are not, the theory is changed until it is consistent with ALL OBSERVED FACTS.
With evolution, we can even observe its action in short-lived organisms in a junior-high biology lab. We see it in action every day. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, anyone? Anyone? Mr. Bush? Senator Frist?
THERE IS NO TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Not one.
We cannot see Intelligent Design in action. It is BY DEFINITION mysterious and unknowable, occurring by the action of a deliberately-undefined supernatural force.
Therefore it is not a theory. It cannot be a theory.
STOP CALLING IT A THEORY, YOU MORONS.
Call it an argument. Call it an explanation. A rationale. Call it a Faith-Based Program -- the Bushitters love those. You're goddamn journalists, aren't you? Isn't it your job to get the facts?
The fact is: it's not a theory. When you call it one, you're engaging in partisan rhetoric, not journalism.
What does it take to get through to these people?
Sure, they don't have science educations -- but neither do I. My college degree was in THEATRE, for shit's sake.
Get it right.
Monday, August 1
Hey, everybody
Hey, everybody . . .
Haven't been around much lately. I'll try to get better. Too busy with the book, and with living my life . . .
Random thoughts from the meanwhile:
Been thinking quite a bit about Nixon lately. Y'know, it was the Republicans who got rid of him -- after the press finally got off their asses. Well, the American press is slowly coming to life, but there is no sign that the Republicans will ever turn against Bush.
This, to my view, springs from one fundamental distinction between the two presidents: Nixon was poor white trash. [Well, not trash exactly, but the point remains. By comparison, anyway.]
Bush comes from the WASP Mafia -- and the Bush Family is legendary for the vengeance it wreaks upon its enemies . . .
Watch Saudi Arabia now that Fahd's really gone -- Abdullah looks like an honest man, who honestly hates our guts. He's an actual enemy of Islamist terrorism -- the word is that most of the real SA progress against the Islamist whackos has come directly from him -- but apparently he also hates the whole "looting the country and funnelling the cash through American oil companies" way of doing business, too . . .
Our relations with Saudi Arabia are about to get interesting, I think.
Our relations with Pakistan will continue to be See No Evil, despite the fact(s) that Pakistan is a totalitarian military dictatorship that sold nuclear weapons technology to North Korea (now common knowledge), despite the fact that Pakistan airlifted Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters out of the siege of Kandahar (cf. Seymour Hersh's CHAIN OF COMMAND), despite the fact that any woman, in that nation, who reports a rape can still to this day be routinely prosecuted for adultery unless she can producce FOUR MALE WITNESSES TO THE CRIME (cf. Nicholas Kristof's recent reports in the NYTimes for case histories).
But they're an Important Ally in the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.
For shit's sake.
And, in an entirely non-political note, I just wanted to let all you Caine fans know that the way things are going, it looks like I will successfully achieve my goal of fucking off the whole multiple-third viewpoint for CAINE BLACK KNIFE.
That's right.
Those of you who thought that the main problem with BLADE OF TYSHALLE was that Caine just Wasn't In It Enough, well . . .
I'm gonna make you very, very happy.
And those of you who felt that there just hasn't been enough Balls-Out Asskicking?
You're gonna be happy, too.
Haven't been around much lately. I'll try to get better. Too busy with the book, and with living my life . . .
Random thoughts from the meanwhile:
Been thinking quite a bit about Nixon lately. Y'know, it was the Republicans who got rid of him -- after the press finally got off their asses. Well, the American press is slowly coming to life, but there is no sign that the Republicans will ever turn against Bush.
This, to my view, springs from one fundamental distinction between the two presidents: Nixon was poor white trash. [Well, not trash exactly, but the point remains. By comparison, anyway.]
Bush comes from the WASP Mafia -- and the Bush Family is legendary for the vengeance it wreaks upon its enemies . . .
Watch Saudi Arabia now that Fahd's really gone -- Abdullah looks like an honest man, who honestly hates our guts. He's an actual enemy of Islamist terrorism -- the word is that most of the real SA progress against the Islamist whackos has come directly from him -- but apparently he also hates the whole "looting the country and funnelling the cash through American oil companies" way of doing business, too . . .
Our relations with Saudi Arabia are about to get interesting, I think.
Our relations with Pakistan will continue to be See No Evil, despite the fact(s) that Pakistan is a totalitarian military dictatorship that sold nuclear weapons technology to North Korea (now common knowledge), despite the fact that Pakistan airlifted Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters out of the siege of Kandahar (cf. Seymour Hersh's CHAIN OF COMMAND), despite the fact that any woman, in that nation, who reports a rape can still to this day be routinely prosecuted for adultery unless she can producce FOUR MALE WITNESSES TO THE CRIME (cf. Nicholas Kristof's recent reports in the NYTimes for case histories).
But they're an Important Ally in the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.
For shit's sake.
And, in an entirely non-political note, I just wanted to let all you Caine fans know that the way things are going, it looks like I will successfully achieve my goal of fucking off the whole multiple-third viewpoint for CAINE BLACK KNIFE.
That's right.
Those of you who thought that the main problem with BLADE OF TYSHALLE was that Caine just Wasn't In It Enough, well . . .
I'm gonna make you very, very happy.
And those of you who felt that there just hasn't been enough Balls-Out Asskicking?
You're gonna be happy, too.
Monday, July 11
A Festival of Fools
Christ, it's fun to bitchslap the troll, isn't it?
From his consistent misuse of basic English and inability to punctuate, I presume there's just one. There might be two, though I hope the odds would be against it -- one shudders to think that two minds might similarly compose with such astonishing anti-erudition.
Here's the funny thing:
This blog's more active when I DON'T post here.
I am, however, curious just what it was the troll wanted someone to "say to a Special Forces face" [sic]. Whatever it was, I'll happily say it to HIS face. Words are just words. Whoever said "Words can hit as hard as a fist" didn't train at my school.
At any rate, we stumble merrily along. I can hardly wait to see Karl Rove under federal indictment. Any bets on whether Patrick Fitzgerald has the stones to really throw the book at him? My money's on "inadvertent disclosure," and criminal case closed . . . until the Wilsons file a civil suit. That's where the fun will REALLY start.
Wonder if the Supreme Court will follow precedent and let the Wilsons' lawyers depose a sitting President?
By the way, I've stopped agitating for a Bush impeachment -- that'd leave Cheney in power, which would be worse. Bush at least still looks a little embarrassed when he lies. As ineffectual as they've been lately (i.e. Social Security), I'm wondering if the country might not be better off if we just left them in place, safely neutered, until 2008 . . .
From his consistent misuse of basic English and inability to punctuate, I presume there's just one. There might be two, though I hope the odds would be against it -- one shudders to think that two minds might similarly compose with such astonishing anti-erudition.
Here's the funny thing:
This blog's more active when I DON'T post here.
I am, however, curious just what it was the troll wanted someone to "say to a Special Forces face" [sic]. Whatever it was, I'll happily say it to HIS face. Words are just words. Whoever said "Words can hit as hard as a fist" didn't train at my school.
At any rate, we stumble merrily along. I can hardly wait to see Karl Rove under federal indictment. Any bets on whether Patrick Fitzgerald has the stones to really throw the book at him? My money's on "inadvertent disclosure," and criminal case closed . . . until the Wilsons file a civil suit. That's where the fun will REALLY start.
Wonder if the Supreme Court will follow precedent and let the Wilsons' lawyers depose a sitting President?
By the way, I've stopped agitating for a Bush impeachment -- that'd leave Cheney in power, which would be worse. Bush at least still looks a little embarrassed when he lies. As ineffectual as they've been lately (i.e. Social Security), I'm wondering if the country might not be better off if we just left them in place, safely neutered, until 2008 . . .
Friday, July 1
Can I just say here how wonderful it is that President Bush has declared all America is a hostage?
That we now have no choice but to stick to the bloody course his lies have set for us?
Gosh, that's swell.
Especially considering that we have managed to make Iraq into the planet's #1 training ground for international terrorists.
Especially considering that we still haven't even won the bloody war in AFGHANISTAN.
That helicopter full of our Best and Brightest -- gods help us: Airborne special forces and Navy SEALs on a rescue mission -- was shot down (which their courage and splendid skills doesn't exactly help them survive, y'know?) by the fucking TALIBAN.
Does anybody remember them?
That war's not over. But we don't have enough people left to fight it. Because we're consumed with Bush's uselessly stupid political adventure in Iraq.
I'm a little angry about this.
Can the War in Iraq be won? Very likely.
Can it be won by the idiots in the current Administration?
I don't see it. I just don't see it.
I'm going now.
Shit, people think my BOOKS are dark. They should talk to some of these poor bastards to have to live through what's going on over there.
And I don't mean just the Americans.
That we now have no choice but to stick to the bloody course his lies have set for us?
Gosh, that's swell.
Especially considering that we have managed to make Iraq into the planet's #1 training ground for international terrorists.
Especially considering that we still haven't even won the bloody war in AFGHANISTAN.
That helicopter full of our Best and Brightest -- gods help us: Airborne special forces and Navy SEALs on a rescue mission -- was shot down (which their courage and splendid skills doesn't exactly help them survive, y'know?) by the fucking TALIBAN.
Does anybody remember them?
That war's not over. But we don't have enough people left to fight it. Because we're consumed with Bush's uselessly stupid political adventure in Iraq.
I'm a little angry about this.
Can the War in Iraq be won? Very likely.
Can it be won by the idiots in the current Administration?
I don't see it. I just don't see it.
I'm going now.
Shit, people think my BOOKS are dark. They should talk to some of these poor bastards to have to live through what's going on over there.
And I don't mean just the Americans.
Friday, June 24
Reprinted without commentary from Alexandra Walker's TomPaine.com article at
http://www.tompaine.com/uncommonsense/index.php#5338
Because this says as much as needs to be said.
The White House is feeling the heat over Iraq and Guantanamo, so Karl Rove tries to change the subject. With public disapproval about Iraq growing and more lawmakers willing to step up and criticize Bush's war and human rights record, Rove reaches into his diversionary bag of tricks and pulls out the worn, dog-eared accusation that liberals are pansies. In ridiculing groups like MoveOn for counseling "moderation and restraint" in the days following 9/11, Rove must never have expected a 9/11 widow to come to the wimpy liberals' defense.
At 30, Kristen Breitweiser lost her husband in the World Trade Center attacks. She says the attacks left her with "no faith in my government." The tragedy transformed her into a citizen activist—-well-known for her efforts with the other "Jersey Girls " to hold the government accountable for investigating 9/11. Four years later, Breitweiser has become the most credible kind of advocate for sanity after 9/11—-she has the authority as someone who has befallen great tragedy to advocate against policies based on revenge and fear.
And she is no less than outraged about the choices the United States has made since the attacks. I heard her speak recently about these choices at an awards ceremony where she was honored for "truth-telling." She condemned the Bush administration's choice to pass the PATRIOT Act rather than open up and restore trust in government. And the choice to invade oil-rich countries instead of pursuing alternative energy resources to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. To read her powerful speech, click here . [EDIT: sorry no link; you can find it in the original on TomPaine.com --MWS]
Yesterday, on HuffingtonPost, Breitweiser unleashed on Rove for exploiting 9/11 once again for political gain. Here are some excerpts.
-- Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive.” Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run,” and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.
-- Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that “moderation and restraint” don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I digress.)
-- More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.
-- It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home — be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs — you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.
-- For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."
-- Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)
-- Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?
[SNIP]
-- Karl, if you “understand 9/11”, then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?
-- Finally Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.
-- It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
-- Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?
Bravo, Kristen. Way to keep Karl on topic.
--Alexandra Walker | Friday 11:21 AM
http://www.tompaine.com/uncommonsense/index.php#5338
Because this says as much as needs to be said.
The White House is feeling the heat over Iraq and Guantanamo, so Karl Rove tries to change the subject. With public disapproval about Iraq growing and more lawmakers willing to step up and criticize Bush's war and human rights record, Rove reaches into his diversionary bag of tricks and pulls out the worn, dog-eared accusation that liberals are pansies. In ridiculing groups like MoveOn for counseling "moderation and restraint" in the days following 9/11, Rove must never have expected a 9/11 widow to come to the wimpy liberals' defense.
At 30, Kristen Breitweiser lost her husband in the World Trade Center attacks. She says the attacks left her with "no faith in my government." The tragedy transformed her into a citizen activist—-well-known for her efforts with the other "Jersey Girls " to hold the government accountable for investigating 9/11. Four years later, Breitweiser has become the most credible kind of advocate for sanity after 9/11—-she has the authority as someone who has befallen great tragedy to advocate against policies based on revenge and fear.
And she is no less than outraged about the choices the United States has made since the attacks. I heard her speak recently about these choices at an awards ceremony where she was honored for "truth-telling." She condemned the Bush administration's choice to pass the PATRIOT Act rather than open up and restore trust in government. And the choice to invade oil-rich countries instead of pursuing alternative energy resources to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. To read her powerful speech, click here . [EDIT: sorry no link; you can find it in the original on TomPaine.com --MWS]
Yesterday, on HuffingtonPost, Breitweiser unleashed on Rove for exploiting 9/11 once again for political gain. Here are some excerpts.
-- Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive.” Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run,” and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.
-- Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that “moderation and restraint” don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I digress.)
-- More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.
-- It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home — be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs — you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.
-- For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."
-- Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)
-- Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?
[SNIP]
-- Karl, if you “understand 9/11”, then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?
-- Finally Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.
-- It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
-- Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?
Bravo, Kristen. Way to keep Karl on topic.
--Alexandra Walker | Friday 11:21 AM
Wednesday, June 22
Ahhh, crap
Holy shit, I'm alive.
I really am. I just haven't been feeling too great since the end of the Huge Motherfucking StarWarsTourFromHell, and all of my feeble energies have been directed toward reassembling my shattered life and trying to develop a head of steam on CAINE BLACK KNIFE.
Which I have.
Listen: nobody panic if I'm not around from time to time. I'm really fucking durable (not unlike some of the people I write about), and while being me is not exactly an endless weekend at Disney World, I still enjoy it enough that I will continue doing so until somebody stops me by force.
By the way, have I mentioned that Disney World is really cool? The people down there treated Robyn and me like rock stars, and the rides were great (the DW Space Mountain has to be the single niftiest rollercoaster I've ever been on, and I've been on more than my share), and Animal World or whatever the hell it's called is the coolest zoo I have ever been in, and I've been in more than my share of those, too. In fact, we had such a great time we're going back in 2006, after they finish Everest the Forbidden Mountain -- a rollercoaster that loops INSIDE a scale-model replica of Mount Everest that's gotta be 300 feet tall . . .
And was that really Gregg friggin' Dale posting down there? Holy shit. It's only been what, twenty-five years since I've seen you? And at least five or ten since we've exchanged emails, huh . . . ?
For those of you wondering if I went to high school with you, Gregg will attest that it just ain't so. Trust me -- if you'd gone to school with us, you'd remember. Everybody does. For better or worse.
So anyway, I'm back, at least temporarily. I'll be available for questions, commentary and sage advice. Mostly I'll be working on CBK and waiting for the Downing Street Memo to get enough airplay that even the Republicans can no longer avoid impeaching our Cocksmoke-in-Chief.
I really am. I just haven't been feeling too great since the end of the Huge Motherfucking StarWarsTourFromHell, and all of my feeble energies have been directed toward reassembling my shattered life and trying to develop a head of steam on CAINE BLACK KNIFE.
Which I have.
Listen: nobody panic if I'm not around from time to time. I'm really fucking durable (not unlike some of the people I write about), and while being me is not exactly an endless weekend at Disney World, I still enjoy it enough that I will continue doing so until somebody stops me by force.
By the way, have I mentioned that Disney World is really cool? The people down there treated Robyn and me like rock stars, and the rides were great (the DW Space Mountain has to be the single niftiest rollercoaster I've ever been on, and I've been on more than my share), and Animal World or whatever the hell it's called is the coolest zoo I have ever been in, and I've been in more than my share of those, too. In fact, we had such a great time we're going back in 2006, after they finish Everest the Forbidden Mountain -- a rollercoaster that loops INSIDE a scale-model replica of Mount Everest that's gotta be 300 feet tall . . .
And was that really Gregg friggin' Dale posting down there? Holy shit. It's only been what, twenty-five years since I've seen you? And at least five or ten since we've exchanged emails, huh . . . ?
For those of you wondering if I went to high school with you, Gregg will attest that it just ain't so. Trust me -- if you'd gone to school with us, you'd remember. Everybody does. For better or worse.
So anyway, I'm back, at least temporarily. I'll be available for questions, commentary and sage advice. Mostly I'll be working on CBK and waiting for the Downing Street Memo to get enough airplay that even the Republicans can no longer avoid impeaching our Cocksmoke-in-Chief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)