NYT Election Post-Mortems

First, it’s heartening to see that the New York Times reminds readers this morning: “the likely House speaker, John Boehner” has made a few boasts that aren’t true, such as, American voters want to repeal health care reform and they blame Obama for our economic problems.

In its “Sorting Out the Election” column, the NYT said: “The ‘loud message’ to cut spending cited by Mr. Boehner was actually far more muted. The polls showed that 39 percent of voters say cutting the deficit should be the highest priority of Congress, but a statistically equal 37 percent prefer spending money to create jobs. Fully a third of those who want to spend money to create jobs were Republicans.

“More voters (correctly) blamed President George W. Bush for the economic problems than President Obama, and even more (also correctly) blamed Wall Street.”

It’s no doubt a path Boehner is going to stick to—claiming results for this election that aren’t true--because the GOP has failed to propose alternatives to Obama’s policies.

Or, as the NYT said this morning, “The question is how the Republicans will act. For two years, they have refused to cooperate on any of those ideas (Obama’s) simply to deny Mr. Obama a policy victory and try to reduce his re-election prospects. If they are serious about accepting Tuesday’s mantle, they will join in governing and not simply posturing."

Now that the GOP has won an advantage, John Boehner and his cohorts are going to have to put aside their horror at having a black president and start working for the good of the country…if they can remember what working for the good of the country entails.

Reminders From Me and Frank Rich

Reminder One, Mine:

In the midst of the election posturing, DO NOT FORGET: Every woe we are facing today is directly due to the crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by the George W. Bush administration from 2000 through 2008. And whatever Barack Obama has faced since the moment he took office on January 20, 2009, and whatever he has done during his term has been to alleviate and correct the mess left by the Bush administration in 2008.

Reminder Two, Frank Rich’s:

As usual, Frank Rich’s column in the New York Times this morning cut through the bullshit that has taken over the media’s reporting on Obama’s presidency so far and the up-coming election.

In his lede paragraph, Rich wrote: “One dirty little secret of the 2010 election is that it won’t be a political tragedy for Democrats if a Tea Party icon like Sharron Angle or Joe Miller ends up in the United States Senate.”

And the reason is, Rich says: “The Tea Party’s hopes for actually affecting change in Washington will start being dashed the morning after. The ordinary Americans in this movement lack the numbers and financial clout to muscle their way into the back rooms of Republican power no matter how well their candidates perform.”

However, Rich also points out that the movers and shakers in the Republican Party will be thankful if the Tea Party candidates lose since they are a distraction and embarrassment. But the fate of the Tea Party candidates doesn’t really matter. The old-guard, far-right, hooray-for-the-wealthy-and-me-and-mine Bush administration GOP power brokers are going to call the shots in the Republican Party in any event.

And Rich says, “what the Tea Party ostensibly wants most — less government spending and smaller federal deficits — is not remotely happening on the country club G.O.P.’s watch. The elites have no serious plans to cut anything except taxes and regulation of their favored industries.”

“That’s not happening either,” Rich says. “Mitch McConnell (Minority Leader-KY) has explained his only real priority for the new Congress with admirable candor. ‘The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.'"

There you have it. Frank Rich has put it in a nutshell. The GOP has allowed the Tea Party candidates to be center-stage, to distract, to embarrass, to muddy the waters, to be the clown act in the Republican three-ring-circus, because the real aim from January 20, 2009 until the next election for president is to unseat Obama, no matter what it takes.

The Republican focus has not been about policies, it has not been about ending or continuing wars, it has not been about Health Care, and it has not been about the economy--which will correct itself in time.

The GOP’s cause celebre has been to make sure Obama does not win a second term. And in light of that fact, we can toss down the toilet the idea that Sarah Palin will run for Prez in 2012. That would be folly. The GOP will have to run an electable male candidate.

Ignorant, narcissistic female buffoons need not apply.

Daood/David Headley…Again

So…the New York Times came out with a news story this morning about David Headley (“U.S. Had Warnings About Plotter of Mumbai Attack”). Not to go into too much detail, but Daood/David Headley is the son of Serrill Headley who owned a couple bars in Philadelphia. I worked in one of them with Daood/David in 1983. He subsequently plotted the devastating terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008.

Now we learn that two of Daood's three wives ratted him out to the US Embassy, telling the officials that they were sure their husband was plotting a horrendous deed. It is fascinating to find out he was married to all three women at the same time.

The US (as in, the FBI and the CIA) is claiming that they listened to what the women had to say, but thought they were simply women who were pissed off at an errant husband.

We also find out that the DEA says it used Headley as an informant but ceased the association in 2001.

Um…do I have some opinions about all this?

Are pumpkins orange?

Opinion Number 1

It is safe to assume that the DEA NEVER cuts off ties with informants who sell their souls to the DEA in exchange for favors like the DEA making it impossible for toxic governments (Pakistan and India) to do whatever they want and with great creativity to drug-dealing scum.

Opinion Number 2

Although American newspaper accounts are full of info about Daood’s arrests in 1988 and 1997 for drug-trafficking, they never mention that Daood tried to sell drugs in Pakistan in 1983 and his mother had to go to Pakistan and get him out of the jam.

Now I grant you, Serrill Headley could summon up salty tears to sob over her life in general (which version she changed to suit her reason for the histrionics), her disastrous love affairs and her son’s wayward ways. But she told me (yes, in tears) that Daood had been arrested in Pakistan and that she was going over to get him out. I know he went to Pakistan toward the end of 1983 to visit relatives, I know he contacted his mother that he was in jail. And I know she went to Pakistan and he returned to Philadelphia. All of us who worked in the Khyber Pass North bar were amazed she could do it. We conjectured she had friends in high places or spent a fortune on bribes or both.

This had to be in 1983, because I never saw any of the crew again after Daood fired me the day after the Raiders won the Super Bowl in 1984.

Opinion Number 3

What I cannot corroborate, but would bet my bottom dollar on, is: it was in 1983 that Daood started working for the DEA and he never stopped working for the DEA.

And that is why the NYT reported this morning: “An examination of Mr. Headley’s movements in the years before the bombing, based on interviews in Washington, Pakistan, India and Morocco, shows that he had overlapping, even baffling, contacts among seemingly disparate groups — Pakistani intelligence, terrorists, and American drug investigators. Those ties are rekindling concerns that the Mubai bombings represent another communications

breakdown in the fight against terrorism, and are raising the question of whether United States officials were reluctant to dig deeper into Mr. Headley’s movements because he had been an informant for the D.E.A.”

Some things are predictable, if not inevitable. Whenever he’s in trouble, Daood will always cut a deal, with whomever, wherever and do whatever it takes.

Woody Allen in Today’s New York Times

A guy named Dave Itzkoff interviewed Woody Allen about Allen’s new movie (“You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger”) and one quote stood out.

Itzkoff asked, “Were you prepared for the firestorm of media coverage you set off by casting Carla Bruni-Sarkozy in your next movie, ‘Midnight in Paris’?”

Allen said, “I was very surprised at the level of journalism that occurred in relation to her. She has a small part in the movie — a real part, but it’s a small part. And I shot with her the first day, and then all the papers said she was terrible, and I did 32 takes with her. Of course I didn’t even do 10 takes with her. This was just a magical number that some guy created in a room. Then they printed that her husband came to the set and was angry with her. He came to the set once, and he was delighted. He felt she was a natural actress and couldn’t have been happier.”

Nicholas Sarkozy is, of course, the current President of the French Republic, and Carla Bruni is, of course, the woman he married in 2008 after a torrid and public affair.

Allen went on to say, ”For some reason, the press wanted to say bad things about her. I don’t know if they had something against the Sarkozys, or it was a better way to sell papers. But the fabrications were so wild and so completely fake, and I wondered to myself, Is this is what happens with Afghanistan and the economy and matters of real significance? This is a trivial matter. That’s a longwinded answer to your question: I was not prepared for the amount of press that was attached to the picture because of Madame Sarkozy.”

I too wonder if that’s what the press does concerning matters of true importance.

Another trivial matter that makes one wonder about matters of real importance was a Versace ad on page 29 of the September 20th issue of "The New Yorker”. It had been so weirdly photo-shopped that the sleeve of the woman in white looked like she had elephantiasis. Probably the armpit of the woman in black had to be re-defined so that it didn’t melt into the woman in white…but still…in so doing everything got loopy and out of proportion and out of sync.

Our news is getting loopy, out of proportion and out of sync. It all started when reporters (or their editors and publishers) decided to change the old Who-What-Where-When formula of the lede paragraph of all news stories, to a paragraph that sounds like the beginning of an asshole’s idea of the Great American Novel.

Not a good change.

LATEST MORMON/JEW CLASH IS NUTTY

But then…most religious disagreements are nutty.

That said, this one goes beyond reason, if one can reason about religion.

This morning, the New York Times reported (“Utah: Mormon Holocaust Survivers Reach Accord”): “The Mormon Church says it has changed its genealogical database to better prevent the names of Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps from being submitted for posthumous baptism by proxy.”

That lede sentence is mind-numbing to start with. Take a moment to try to wrap your mind around it.

Okay…continuing....

The short article went on to state: “In a joint statement on Wednesday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors said a new computer system and policy changes should resolve a yearslong disagreement over the baptisms. Mormons believe posthumous baptism by proxy provides an opportunity for deceased persons to receive the Gospel in the afterlife. The names used are drawn from a church-run genealogical database. Jews are offended by the idea that Mormons are trying to alter the religion of Holocaust victims.”

I have to admit, I laughed.

But, the fact is, the Mormons believe they can baptise people into their religion after they have died. This, of course, is to save those who weren’t baptized while living from eternally roasting in hell now that they are dead.

I, who am not noted for being all that compassionate towards people whose belief systems differ from mine, can understand that this is a deeply held belief of the Mormon religion and I can respect it. (Just barely, but what the hell.)

But for the Jews to get their undies in a twist over this belief of the Mormons is, by me, totally nutsoid.

It’s my understanding that the Jews do not hold with baptisms. It is not part of their belief system.

So fine. I, personally, like the idea of baptism…the rite, by me, is lovely, whether done to babies, or taken on by adults, I like it.

But what I don’t understand is:  Why do the Jews care if the Mormons baptise everyone who ever lived and who are now dead?

The folks are dead…so WHAT THE FUCK?

Oh well, maybe these Mormons and Jews don’t have enough to worry about. Maybe what is going on in the world of the quick is not sufficiently worrisome, so they are taking on the vast world of the dead to fill the void.

But to me, it is totally nutty. And even the détente is nutty.

But I will grant, a nutty détente is preferable to a nutty argument.

Blackwater Founder Decamps to Abu Dhabi

How about that?

This morning, the New York Times reported: “Erik Prince, whose company, Blackwater Worldwide is for sale and whose former top managers are facing criminal charges, has left the United States and moved to Abu Dhabi, according to court documents.”

Abu Dhabi, is the largest of the seven emirates making up the United Arab Emirates. It is located in the Persian Gulf region and adjoins the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Sultanate of Oman.

The NYT went on to report: “Mr. Prince, a former member of the Navy Seals and an heir to a Michigan auto parts fortune, left the country after a series of civil lawsuits, criminal charges and Congressional investigations singled out Blackwater or its former executives and other personnel. His company, now called Xe Services, has collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the United States government since 2001.

“Mr. Prince does not face any criminal charges, but five former top company executives have been indicted on federal weapons, conspiracy and obstruction charges. Two guards who worked for a Blackwater-affiliated company face murder charges from a 2009 shooting in Afghanistan, and the Justice Department is trying to revive its prosecution of five former Blackwater guards accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007.

“In documents filed last week in a civil lawsuit brought by former Blackwater employees accusing Mr. Prince of defrauding the government, Mr. Prince sought to avoid giving a deposition by stating that he had moved to Abu Dhabi in time for his children to enter school there Aug. 15. In the documents filed in federal court in Virginia, Mr. Prince’s lawyers describe Abu Dhabi as Mr. Prince’s place of residence. His deposition is now scheduled to take place there next week, lawyers involved in the case said.

“Mr. Prince made a name for himself during the height of the war in Iraq, when Blackwater became the most recognizable brand name in the booming field of private security contracting. The company, which Mr. Prince founded in 1997, expanded rapidly, winning a series of contracts with the State Department, the C.I.A. and the Defense Department.”

In case readers of Ratbang have any lingering doubts about how much of a skunk Erik Prince is, and in case readers of Ratbang do not remember that former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney elevated Erik Prince to the throne of power he enjoyed during their unnecessary and egregiously wrong-headed war in Iraq, I am reprinting herewith an article I wrote about Blackwater, which appeared in BuzzFlash on May 14, 2007.

“A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION by Joy Tomme

We've been warned. Is anyone listening?

Jeremy Scahill's book, "Blackwater, The Rise of the Most Powerful Mercenary Army" lays it all out in detail. "Blackwater" was published this year and is touted as a New York Times Bestseller. And yet, I don't see a groundswell of outrage in either the blogosphere or in the mainstream media.

For me, the most unsettling thing about our State Department paying a bunch of gun-for-hire mercenaries and deploying them to Afghanistan and Iraq is that a far right Christian religious fanatic is training these thugs. And the second most unsettling thing is that each soldier in this shadow army, numbering 120,000, is being paid $1,000-a-day by the U.S. State Department.

Currently, the United States military has about 130,000 troops in Iraq, but the mercenaries bring that number to a total of 250,000 troops in Iraq.

General David Petraeus says the latest buildup of 28,000 extra troops will be in place by mid-June, at which time the U.S. will have a total of 280,000 troops in Iraq. The U.S. will pay 160,000 of these troops the regular military pay for its grunts in Iraq. But 120,000 of those troops will get $1,000 a day, the going rate that Blackwater USA pays its mercenaries.

What is Blackwater? And who are these guys the State Department has secretly hired to double our troop level in Afghanistan and Iraq?

In 1998, William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and a score of other neocons issued their Project for the New American Century manifesto. It was a written validation for the United States to make pre-emptive strikes on any nation the U.S. government had a bad feeling about. Essentially, it justified United States' global aggression.

Also in 1998, wealthy far-right Christian fanatic and former Navy SEAL Erik Prince broke ground on the construction of a training camp for mercenaries. Prince had bought a 100,000-acre tract of land in Camden County, North Carolina for his proposed training camp. Not so coincidentally, the training camp was a half-hour ride from the largest naval base in the world, Norfolk Naval Base.

Although Prince billed his camp as a "$2 million dollar outdoor shooting range," it actually was a camp to train militias to fight the battles Prince foresaw as coming up between believers in Jesus and the U.S. government. The name Blackwater is a reference to the black waters of The Great Dismal Swamp, a huge peat bog in northeastern North Carolina near the Blackwater compound.

Prince and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson had the same vision for the course Christians would have to take. Dobson said, "I stand in a long tradition of Christians who believe that rulers may forfeit their divine mandate when they systematically contravene the divine moral law. We may be rapidly approaching the sort of Rubicon that our spiritual forebears faced Choose Caesar or God. I take no pleasure in this prospect, I pray against it. But it is worth noting that such times have historically been rejuvenating for the faith." Dobson wrote and Prince agreed that the United States was heading for "a showdown between church and state" and a "morally justified revolution."

It is the Prince family that has bankrolled James Dobson. The U.S. State Department has paid Blackwater USA to the tune of $750 million since June 2004 to deploy mercenaries to Afghanistan and Iraq.

They are called "contractors" and/or "security forces" by the State Department, which claims they are a necessary adjunct to the U.S. military. However, there is no oversight of these hooligans. They can do whatever they damn well please and they get $1,000 a day for doing it.

Plus, they have been trained by Erik Prince, a right-wing religious fanatic who believes that private Christian militias should rise up and take over the ungodly, unholy U.S. government.

Our State Department is aiding, abetting, funding, and promoting Blackwater USA, the American equivalent of a jihadist organization. I ask again, is anyone listening?”

Here is my prediction. Erik Prince is willing to make a deal with the Devil himself, if it means promoting his brand of thuggery and fanatiscism. But even Prince has no clue as to the company he will be keeping in Abu Dhabi. I think he’s out of his league and in for an ugly comeuppance.

The Vatican Outdoes Its Troglodyte Self

Whoa! This morning, when I read the New York Times report on the Vatican’s latest PR gaffe, not to mention its latest Biblical malfunction, I almost could not believe it. But hold on!

It was the Vatican making the incredible pronouncement…so what’s not to believe?

What the Vatican said was (and I quote the NYT): “The Vatican issued revisions to its internal laws on Thursday making it easier to discipline sex-abuser priests, but caused confusion by also stating that ordaining women as priests was as grave an offense as pedophilia.”

Yep…there you have it.

Nevermind that the early followers of Jesus included women, who, Biblical historians tell us, not only sponsored the early church with money from their own (not their husbands, but their own) coffers, but also acted as servers of the Eucharist. But now the Vatican says that since the men-only club has been in existence since Christ, women cannot be considered as priests, and the idea of a woman as priest is an offense as grave as pedophilia.

 

The NYT reported that Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, a top official in the group, called the document a “welcome statement,” even as he took pains to praise the role of women in the church. “The church’s gratitude to women cannot be stated strongly enough” ne said. “Women offer unique insight, creative abilities and unstinting generosity at the very heart of the Catholic Church…but the Catholic Church through its long and constant teaching holds that ordination has been, from the beginning, reserved to men, a fact which cannot be changed despite changing times.”

And well might a Vatican spoksman praise the women in the Roman Catholic Church who have been a free workforce for priests for eons. But it is also true that the constant teaching of the RCC that ordination must be reserved to  men is a choice of the RCC, not a mandate from God.

The early Christian church’s founders (which of course, includes Jesus Christ) believed women were on a par with men. And this idea that the ordination of women is as evil as pedophilia must have them rolling in the graves.

BTW, one can look at this ruling from the RCC in two ways:

1.      The Vatican feels that the ordination of women is equal in evil to pedophilia, or,

2.      The Vatican feels that Pedophilia isn’t all that bad since a lot of the guys in the Vatican are participating in pedophilia and they don’t think it’s any worse than ordaining women.

Well,  I know which ruling I think sounds like Vatican thinking.

Well, I Never…!

Gail Collins’ Op/Ed piece in the New York Times this morning (“Bad News Bears”) is hilarious. And juicy. It’s about Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol and her sometimes-sometimes-not-bf Levi Johnston now deciding to get married.

Collins starts out saying, “Today’s additions to the category of No Good Can Ever Come of This: Mel Gibson is on the phone; The Bachelorette is close to selecting the man of her dreams; Bristol and Levi are back together.”

Since the Palin family isn’t big on speaking to each other one-on-one, the world found out about the Bristol/Levi plans, as did Family Palin, via an eight-page spread in “Us” magazine. And the world found out that Sarah Palin is not happy about this newest wrinkle in the Bristol/Levi saga, as did Bristol and Levi, via a press conference.

Following up the “Us” tell-all with a “People” tell-all, Bristol said her mother would come around when Levi got an education and a job and proved that he could support their son Tripp “the right way”. As Collins said, the wrong way, presumably, is earning a living as he previously tried to do by posing for “Playgirl”.

The jury is still out on whether Bristol’s attempts to make money by becoming a celebrity unwed mother, being the spokesperson against teen pregnancy and hyping sexy clothes is the right way.

Apparently, the nearly non-verbal Levi and his sister Mercede have found words to say to each other, because before they broke off relations when she got mad and said it was time for her to tell her side of the story, she said, “No I will NOT sit down and shut up!” To prove she would not shut up she claimed Bristol got pregnant on purpose.

Collins bets (hopes?) we’re going to be treated to “an all-Palin-Johnston edition of ‘Dancing With the Stars.’”

Or, alternatively, Michael Steele and Sarah Palin could marry for the good of the Tea Party and put to rest all those rumors about racism and Steele being in the closet, in one swell foop.

More Medical Bullshit

One of the things that keeps us drug-dependent and constantly in a doctor’s office is the ruling from the AMA that a norm for blood pressure for all adults including senior citizens is 120/70, else one is suffering from high blood pressure. That, of course, is baloney.

But now the journal “Pediatrics” has just come out with a real lulu of a finding.

This morning, the authors of an article in “Pediatrics” reported that all children should be screened for cholesterol: The authors said, “Screening all children for cholesterol, rather than just those with a family history, will uncover many more cases of the condition that can be treated early to prevent heart disease later in life. In addition, they said, “Statin therapy has been shown to be safe and effective in lowering LDL cholesterol (the bad kind of cholesterol) and the added and undeniable benefit of identifying and screening parents and other first-degree relatives as a result to finding elevated LDL levels in their children could lead to the prevention of premature cardiac events in adults that may have otherwise gone undiagnosed."

Bullshit Detector just went off!

Who said statin therapy is "safe and effective"? Who said there is an "added and undeniable benefit"? That is total nonsense!

The jury is still out about cholesterol medications for adults. Many are not safe…many have side effects that no one is his right mind would stand for. And many times, when they are prescribed for adults, they are unnecessary.

AND, whether in fact, lowering LDL cholesterol is preventing heart disease is totally unclear. PLUS, whether high cholesterol in children leads to heart trouble as an adult is likewise totally unclear.

Which of course, leads to the big question…should ALL children be screened for high cholesterol, which  screening will put more money in pediatricians and screening labs coffers and into the bargain drain health care insurance plans…if one and one’s children have health insurance  plans in the first place..

And the answer is a resounding NO! It’s an insane idea that all children should undergo high cholesterol screening when even calling high cholesterol a disease that MUST BE treated with drugs in adults is a questionable practice.

Pediatricians have found that a huge number of our children have Attention Deficit Disorder and are Autistic…debatable findings, both. And these findings are more likely to be due to the testing parameters rather than the facts.

Medical doctors and now pediatricians cannot be trusted because they are in the employ of the pharmaceutical industry.

What to do? Use common sense and say NO to tests that are wildly speculative and will not lead to increased well-being in any case.

Oh yeah! You CAN say no to lawyers and doctors. Amazing thought though that may be.

Pope Ratz Is Going to Hate This!

On Friday, July 2, The New York Times laid out the full extent of Pope Ratz’s irresponsibility over the last twenty years regarding pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church.

The article, “Church Office Failed to Act on Abuse Scandal” begins by saying, “In its long struggle to grapple with sexual abuse, the Vatican often cites as a major turning point the decision  in 2001 to give the office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the authority to cut through a morass of bureaucracy and handle abuse cases directly…but church documents and interviews with canon lawyers and bishops cast that 2001 decision and the future pope’s track record in a new and less flattering light.”

The Vatican’s penchant for declaring that media bias, particularly NYT bias, is at the root of the recent firestorm about pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church, will surely be the Vatican’s fallback position re this new article.

We find out that although the Vatican has maintained that Cardinal Ratz immediately got behind a faction in the church hierarchy demanding immediate investigation of molestation charges, Ratz actually was the leader of the foot-dragging and protection of pedophiles that has characterized the Vatican’s response to reports of molestation of children in the RCC for the last twenty-plus years: “The office led by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Congregeation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, in 1922, documents show and canon lawyers confirm,” the article reports, “ but for the two decades he was in charge of that office, the future pope never asserted that authority, failing to act even as the cases undermined the church’s credibility in the United States, Australia, Ireland and elsewhere.”

The most damning revelation is that in 2000 a group of Bishops were so outraged that Ratz was being unresponsive to the growing pedophile problem, that the Vatican sponsored a secret meeting to hear their complaints: “The Vatican took action only after bishops from English-speaking nations became so concerned about resistance from top church officials that the Vatican convened a secret meeting to hear their complaints — an extraordinary example of prelates from across the globe collectively pressing their superiors for reform, and one that had not previously been revealed.

“And the policy that resulted from that meeting, in contrast to the way it has been described by the Vatican, was not a sharp break with past practices. It was mainly a belated reaffirmation of longstanding church procedures that at least one bishop attending the meeting argued had been ignored.

“Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, an outspoken auxiliary bishop emeritus from Sydney, Australia, who attended the secret meeting in 2000, said that despite numerous warnings, top Vatican officials, including Benedict, took far longer to wake up to the abuse problems than many local bishops did.

“But the future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction,” the NYT reports. “More than any top Vatican official other than John Paul, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who might have taken decisive action in the 1990s to prevent the scandal from metastasizing in country after country, growing to such proportions that it now threatens to consume his own papacy.”

It's maddening to read that, “During this period, the three dozen staff members working for Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were busy pursuing other problems. These included examining supernatural phenomena, like apparitions of the Virgin Mary, so that hoaxes did not ‘corrupt the faith,’” while other sections of the Ratz’s Doctrine of the Faith “weighed requests by divorced Catholics to remarry and vetted the applications of former priests who wanted to be reinstated.

It is clear that Ratz has always had priorities other than protecting the children in the Roman Catholic Church. Priorities such as: protecting the image of the RCC, ridding the RCC. not to say the entire globe and perhaps the universe of homosexuals, plus making sure that the world accepts the myth that the Pope and the Vatican are equal in omniscience and power to God, if not a bit higher and more powerful than the Great I Am!

I can only say, read the article. It’s illuminating.

The Reminder Reminding

It is time once again for a global reminder that whatever your beef may be…you hate the Democrats, you hate Obama, you love Sarah Palin… Whatever… Do not forget that George W. Bush and the tyrannical rule of the Republicans for eight years brought the world to the sorry state that it was in when Barack Obama took office. Whatever the sorry Tea Party may be up to, whatever the sorry racists may be plotting, whatever the white supremacist despots in the GOP may have up their collective sleeves, do not forget: We would not be in deficit spending land if the Republicans had not invented a war in Iraq to mask their greed for oil and power. We would not have had a financial meltdown if the Repubs had not ignored all the signs pointing to a financial meltdown. We would not be trying to repair the damage to America’s worldwide reputation if the Republicans had not put the mentally impaired, narcissistic religious fanatic George W. Bush in charge. Just doing my duty here, lest we ever forget.

The New York Times Explains LOST To You

Well, I too cried all through the finale’s two hours. But I wouldn’t have (I don’t think I would have...but who knows?) if I had known they were all dead the whole last six years. Now that’s where the NYT and I differ in our opinions. This morning, the NYT’s Mike Hale said everything that happened on LOST’s island was real. I guess Hale and I saw a different finale. Hale says he too thought they were all dead from the beginning and then he watched the finale a second time. I’ve only seen the LOST finale once, and I haven’t read Doc Jensen’s finale final in EW yet. But, by me, from the moment Jack opened his eye in Segment One, Season One, they were all dead and going through a sort of Judgment Day reconciliation for the next six years, which could have happened in an eye-blink in eternity time. And actually did, by me, when Jack closed his eye last Sunday night and Judgment Day was over. And I really hate that idea, but that is how it played out for me in the finale. Ugh! And even through my tears (before realizing the last scene would be a communal funeral carrying everyone into the white light), I was disappointed in the hokey end. OHMYGOD! So much hokum. So many laughably contrived scenes. So much giggle-inducing crappola...like all that rope stuff and the guys not looking like they were really pulling on anything but ropes tied to n0thing. Oh well...I do like the idea (my belief, not Mike Hale’s) that Hurley was the honcho all along through all the six-year-long Judgment Day proceedings and Ben was his assistant. Love that! And BTW, is there a better actor in this world (and maybe the next) than Michael Emerson? Here’s to you Ben Linus/Michael Emerson...long may you live in all possible worlds!!!

What’s The Tea Party About?

If the words “deep” and “Tea Party” are not mutually exclusive, deep in the founding of the Tea Party has been a plan for betrayal. The people who encourage other people to put up money and start an association always have their own agenda. The Republicans at the heart of the Tea Party recognized there was a dissatisfied faction in America that felt disconnected from the mainstream. These were the people who hated the idea of a black president, the people who wanted big government to bug out of their lives, the people who hated the idea of homosexuality. the people who hated abortion and birth control and the people who felt a gun pointed at anyone’s head would solve any problem. The Republicans who organized this disaffected fringe decided that if this bloc could be corralled and brought into a cohesive group, they could be a major voice in all elections. However, no group with political power can be effective unless it works within the established system. Hence, betrayal was built into the very foundation of the Tea Party. All the aims of the little people in the Tea Party, all the complaints, all the bigotry, all the prejudices, all the little angers and piss-offs were going to be sacrificed, and the big guns who started the Tea Party knew it from the git-go. Hence, the Tea Party was based on betrayal. Right about now when Rand Paul’s unfortunate racist comments are making Tea Party bigwigs uncomfortable, the little people are beginning to realize that not only do Tea Party moguls want them to shut up about the US needing to go back to its segregated heyday, but racism, white supremacy and gun-totin’ militias were planned from the beginning to be sacrificed by the founders of the Tea Party. But the biggest betrayal in the Tea Party is going to be directed not only at, but will come from Sarah Palin. The organizers knew she would be a terrific draw to get the little people on board, and so far, she has done her job to a fare-thee-well. But it won’t be long before the powers in the Tea Party tell Sarah Palin exactly what she is going to have to say and do in order to be effective. They got Palin to sign on because they knew she wanted to be a celebrity and make lots of money. But the Tea Party big guys are just about to present to the public a manifesto detailing what the Tea Party is FOR and Palin’s playbook is only about what she is AGIN. She doesn’t even know what she’s for. But when she gets the Tea Party’s guidelines enlightening her about what she is for, very soon they will hear from Palin’s own lips, “I didn’t take this job to be told what to do and how to do it!” Oh yes, Sarah, you did. And if Palin thinks these good ol’ boys are mesmerized by her charms, she should rethink her whole grandiose image 0f herself. Not only are these guys totally prepared to tell her to “take a hike” if she doesn’t agree to go-along with their plans to make the Tea Party a viable group. They are totally prepared to ruin her financially, and personally if she balks. It would be well for the Palin family to start counting their money and socking some of their ill-gotten gains into a rainy day account. Because a morning line is assuredly in the offing about what is going to happen first-- Sarah walks out on the Tea Party in a huff or the Tea Party kicks her out.

Specter Out, Thank God!

This morning, a headline in the New York Times says: “Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents”. It may be true that there is a wave against incumbents, but the Specter defeat is not about a general dissatisfaction with guys who are in office. The Specter defeat means that Pennsylvanians have had it with Arlen Specter and we decided to oust him. The Specter defeat means that Pennsylvanians think Arlen Specter is too old and too unwell to cut the mustard. The Specter defeat means that Pennsylvanians don’t want a Senator who has flipped from Democrat to Republican and back to Democrat in order to get elected during his thirty (THIRTY YEARS!) as a career Senator. The Specter defeat means Pennsylvanias don't want Specter to ever run for office again. However, I do hope the Specter defeat is a signal that Congressmen must have term limits.

We’re Waiting, Pope Ratz

When can we expect your Wow Finish? For decades now, you’ve been protecting pedophile priests and throwing little kids under the bus. Then when the truth finally came out about the Vatican’s uncharitable, immoral and callous behavior and your own culpability in the international priest abuse scandal, you immediately pointed the finger at others and publicly prayed for their repentance and for their souls. So how about it, Ratz? When can we expect you to climb up on your holy pedestal and say, “Mea culpa! I am one of the worst offenders! I protected pedophiles for decades and I am truly sorry!” We’re waiting, Ratz! When are you going to act like a man, stop pointing at others and admit your own woeful, fallible and unchristian behavior?

Oh, And Sixthly...Good Lord Deliver Us

The New York Times reminded me this morning that Senator Arlen Fucking Specter has always supported Republican nominees to the Supreme Court and was outrageous in his “contentious questioning of Anita Hill, the law professor who testified against Clarence Thomas in 1991.” That, in and of itself, is enough to pray God that Specter doesn’t get a sixth term.

From Senator Specter, Good Lord Deliver Us

First, there is his certifying the magic bullet theory regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The magic bullet theory is ridiculous and Senator Specter should be ashamed of himself for having supported it as assistant counsel for the Warren Commission investigation in 1963. And he should really be ashamed of himself for defending the theory 47 years later. But secondly, and more importantly, Senator Specter has made a career of being a US Senator. He has been in the Senate for 30 years. NO ONE should be a Senator for 30 years. The job was never intended to be a career. Six or 12 years is more than enough. And thirty years should never be sought after. Even if there is no term limit, which there should be, any man or woman with integrity and with a view toward wanting the best for the US Senate should NEVER want to be a Senator for 30 years. Thirdly, there is Specter’s age and health. The man was 80 this past February and in 2008 he informed the public that he had a recurrence of lymph gland cancer. Both facts make him a horrible political prospect. IMHO, he has always been a horrible political prospect, but now his age and health put him completely out of the running. Fourthly, he has switched from Democrat to Republican and now he’s back to Democrat, all in aid of remaining a US Senator for 30 years. Ugh! Not a good thing. And fifthly, who can stand to look at the man and listen to him for whatever time he has left on this earth? He is a walking cadaver and much of the time he makes no sense. Ugh! Really not good! Good lord deliver us!

WHY? The Big Question for the Vatican

The Vatican has to be able to answer the big question before it can come to terms with the current scandal: Why have there always been pedophile priests in the Roman Catholic Church? The current scandal is the result of modern technology, which makes it impossible for the Vatican to continue to hide its pedophile priests. But this perversion among Roman Catholic priests has been going on for centuries. WHY? The simple answer is that in the Vatican pedophilia is not seen as a perversion or a mortal sin. It’s a quirk. And again, WHY? Protecting the virginity of women has nothing to do with women. It has to do with men wanting to ensure that their heirs are legitimate. In that regard, in many Latin American and Mediterranean countries, it is acceptable for men to have anal sex with women before marriage because the entrance to the womb has been kept sacrosanct. In the same way, since both women and children are viewed as chattel, it’s acceptable to have sex with little boys because this is not sex as such, since REAL SEX is SEX only when a male penetrates a female's vagina. This is doublethink nonsense that has been accepted as right and proper in the Vatican for centuries. It’s the same skewed logic as was used by Michael Jackson when he called his little boy friends "Rubba". The name explained what he was doing with the little boys in bed. He wasn’t having sex with them, he was being gentle and kind and affectionate. He was rubbing himself against little boys to be loving. To the priests in the Vatican who have been engaging in pedophilia for centuries, they were not doing anything wrong since little children have no importance and the priests were just being kind and affectionate. To the men in the Vatican who protected the pedophiles, they weren’t protecting criminals; they were simply giving God and their religion priority before children who weren’t very important. And besides, what the priests were doing was just an idiosyncrasy that wasn’t hurting anyone. The outrageous medieval attitude about women and children in the Roman Catholic Church has to stop before progress can be made regarding the abuse of children by priests. It may be that Pope Ratz is a brilliant theologian...I’ll give him that, grudgingly. But that said, he is also a hopelessly backward, ignorant, underinformed, unreconstructed cretin about human sexuality and relationships.

Vatican Says, “Better Eight Innocents Suffer...”

Turning Blackstone’s formulation on its ear, the Vatican says “it’s better that eight innocent men suffer than that millions lose their faith”. So, forget that a foundation of criminal law dates back to Genesis 18-23-32 when Abraham importuned God not to destroy the innocent along with the wicked. And never mind that the Biblical passage in Genesis was used by jurist William Blackstone in the 1760’s when he wrote “Blackstone’s ratio“, which is—“better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. And never mind that this understanding of criminal law has been used as a basis for the presumption of innocence since the 1880’s. Now the Vatican says, Screw that! Better that eight innocent men suffer than that the Roman Catholic Church be shown to be a hollow mockery. It takes a lot for the Vatican to shock me these days. But I am SHOCKED!!!! Here’s the backstory. In 1998, a Vatican canon lawyer, Martha Wegan, told two of Father Marcial Maciel’s victims at the Legionaries of Christ in Mexico that she had “bad news” for them. The two men--Jose Barba Martin and Arturo Jurado--along with six other men who had been raped by Father Marciel had brought a formal complaint to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, led by Cardinal Ratzinger. Martha Wegan told the men that the Vatican had decided not to investigate the matter further because, Ms. Wegan said, “It is better for eight innocent men to suffer than for millions to lose their faith. Now, later, it's true, Cardinal Ratz changed his mind for political reasons. But let’s be very clear. The idea that it is better for eight innocent men (read, innocent children) suffer the horrors of the damned at the hands of perverted pedophiles than that the Roman Catholic Church should get bad press, has been the ruling idea and pervasive modus operandi at the Vatican, in the Curia and with all the popes for the last 1500 years. AND THIS MODUS OPERANDI STINKS.

Here’s My Point...

...and I do have one. The Vatican and the hopeless Curia and Pope Ratz may bloviate and steam and rant that reporters are being unfair to them by releasing documents about all the pedophile priests who have been attracted to the Roman Catholic Church and who have been protected by the Roman Catholic Church. But the fact is, the Vatican has been more concerned with protecting the reputation of the church than with protecting the children who attend the church. THAT’S MY DAMN POINT!!!! Even this morning the PR division of the Vatican is grinding out stories about how the RCC is going to be transparent and throw all abuse cases to the civil authorities now. But the Vatican is still defending the fact that in the past, for 1500 years or more, the RCC has protected its pedophile priests rather than protect the little children who go to church. And the Vatican announced this morning through it’s mouthpiece Father Lombardi that the facts the Vatican uncovers in its investigation of Father Maciel, the head of The Legion of Christ who molested little boys and fathered a number of children, will not be made public. And I don't understand how protecting Father Maciel and other pedophiles can be a good thing. Even if you are Pope Ratz and stand on your head and scream and yell that you are a good person, I don't see how protecting pedophiles and letting them continue to molest children for years and years and years can ever be a good thing. The RCC forced children to sign oaths that they would not tattle on pedophile priests. How is that a good thing? How can that ever be a good thing? How can calling children liars and swearing that a lie is the truth ever be a good thing? How can it even be defensible? That’s what I don’t understand. AND THAT’S MY POINT!!!!!