The Pope’s Hubristic Twaddle

What balls! Before Joseph Cardinal Aloysius Ratzinger became Pope exactly three years ago, he was called Pope John Paul II’s “Enforcer”. And if he learned anything as one of Hitler’s Nazi Youths (oh yes, I know he says he was forced into it), he learned that freedom of choice is a bad thing and that people’s freedom must be curtailed or they will start thinking for themselves and making personal decisions. Which is why he was called John Paul’s Enforcer. As Ratzinger’s biographer, John L. Allen has said, “Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarianism. In other words, he believes the Catholic Church serves the cause of human freedom by restricting freedom in its internal life, thereby remaining clear about what it teaches and believes. “ As the keeper of the Roman Catholic Church’s arrogant, mythical and patently silly dogma and hype that it alone is the one true religion, Ratzinger was and is unbending, dictatorial and mean as a snake. But yesterday, this nasty piece of work pontificated before the General Assembly at the United Nations: “The promotion of human rights remains the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security,” Pope Joseph Aloysius Ratzinger Benedict XVI wouldn’t understand human rights if it bit him in the ass. Barack Obama and his preacher-friend Reverend Jeremiah Wright have gotten in so much hot water over Wright’s fiery prose from the pulpit. And yet, who is calling the lying, oppressive, bigoted, greedy, Prada-wearing sinners in the Vatican to account? NO ONE-NO ONE-NO ONE-NO ONE-NO ONE-NO ONE-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Catholic churches are being closed down all over the US. There aren’t enough priests. And the nuns have finally gotten wise that they were performing free cleaning, washing and ironing for these cigar-smoking, good wine and spirits drinking guys who were too holy to wash their own underwear, so nuns have called a halt on their menial services. The Catholic Church is falling apart from the inside. But the CEO’s and CPA’s and MDivs and Cardinals and THE POPE in the Vatican are still living high. And they would no more think of divesting themselves of one ounce of gold or one gem, or one piece of art, or one foot of real estate than they would think of scrubbing their own floors or servicing their own computers. There is no moral difference whatsoever between the Vatican and a company like Exxon. Both organizations lie and screw the little guy. I will say, the Pope’s hats are more fanciful than those worn by moguls in mega-corporations, but that’s the sole dissimilarity.

NYT’s Rich: Petraeus/Crocker Show is Dead

And the reason it’s dead is because Americans are so sick of the Repubs’ war in Iraq that they don’t even want to hear about it. Today, the New York Times Sunday Op/Ed Columnist Frank Rich said (“The Petraeus-Crocker Show Gets the Hook”) that even if John McCain becomes president, the US will have a new policy as soon as next January, including serious troop withdrawals in Iraq and serious talks with Iraq’s pals in Iran. The part about the possibility that McCain might become Prez is a horror I can’t even remotely entertain, but Rich is right about everything else. Iraq has come to mean guilt and shame to Americans. As a nation, we want out. In addition to wanting to have done with a war that most Americans feel should never have happened, the US can’t sustain the war and also have even a semblance of readiness to engage in other threats that may arise. As Rich says, “No war can be fought indefinitely if the public has irrevocably turned against it.” And this public has turned against it. The Senior US Commander in Iraq David Petraeus and American ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker looked ridiculous and sounded like robots repeating nonsense phrases and meaningless sophistry at the Congressional hearings last week. Rich said, “The best General Petraeus could muster was a bit of bloodless Beltway-speak — ‘national interests’ — followed by another halfhearted attempt to overstate Iraq’s centrality to the war on Al Qaeda and a future war on Iran. He couldn’t even argue that we’re on a humanitarian mission on behalf of the Iraqi people. That would require him to acknowledge that roughly five million of those people, 60 percent of them children, are now refugees receiving scant help from either our government or Nuri al-Maliki’s. That’s nearly a fifth of the Iraqi population — the equivalent of 60 million Americans — and another source of our shame. “The prevailing verdict on the Petraeus-Crocker show is that it accomplished little beyond certifying President Bush’s intention to kick the can to January 2009 so that the helicopters will vacate the Green Zone on the next president’s watch. That’s true, but by week’s end, I became more convinced than ever that in January we’ll have a new policy that includes serious withdrawals and serious conversations with Mr. Maliki’s pals in Iran, even if John McCain becomes president.” And both Colin Powell and the army’s vice chief of staff General Richard Cody said the current troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be continued. Even a Republican prez will find he can’t sustain vetoes, Rich said, “after the Democrats increase their majorities in Congress in November.” And that’s pretty much where it’s at. Or as Rich put it, “Unable to even look at the fiasco anymore, the nation is now just waiting for someone to administer the last rites.”

President Petraeus, Chairman of Lunacy Bush

Yesterday our Chief Lunatic said that Acting President of the United States and Senior US Commander in Iraq David Petraeus could “have all the time he needs” before reducing US troops in Iraq. The Lunatic spoke at the White House to a small group including VP Dick Cheney, the secretaries of State and Defense and representatives of veterans’ organizations. Bush defended the lives lost and the money spent on his unnecessary war in Iraq. He said that his “surge” last year had averted potential defeat and that withdrawing troops would be catastrophic to American interests. All of which, of course, only an insane man and his insane cohorts could claim. American forces have been defeated in Iraq. And the entire Iraq operation from beginning to now (there is no end in sight) has been catastrophic to all American interests except Vice President Dick Cheney’s companies that profit from war and the consequences of war. Bush said that Al Qaeda and Iran are the biggest threats facing the United States. He said, “If we fail there, Al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies,” he said. “Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq, and our failure would embolden its radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region.” The US has already failed in wiping out Al Qaeda and will continue to fail. And wiping out Iran is the success Bush and Cheney envision, which, of course has failed and will fail. All of the failures feared by George W. Bush have already happened. The only way he can keep from acknowledging that his worst fears have come to pass is to keep stating that they will come to pass unless the war in Iraq goes on for the next 100 years. Six more months. And then voters have to decide whether they want John McCain to prolong this madness or if they want it to stop.

The Madness of John McCain (and Others)

The guy that President George W. Bush turned the Iraq war over to when he abdicated all responsibility for his unnecessary and illegal attack on Iraq, General David Petraeus, is in Washington, DC for two days of hearings before Congress. The hearings started yesterday. Petraeus acknowledged before the Senate, “We haven’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.” He said any new withdrawals of American troops should be delayed until the fall. As in, after the election. And yet, according to the New York Times this morning, Senator and candidate for president John McCain (R-AZ) said at that same hearing: “We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success.” Presumably McCain was talking about the war in Iraq. Although he could have been talking about some war game he’s got going in his addled brain. Who knows? The Prez steered clear of the hearings, but will make a speech tomorrow regarding his Iraq policy for the coming months, However, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said in frustration, “A year ago, the president argued that we wouldn’t begin to withdraw troops from Iraq, because there was too much violence...now the president argues we can’t begin to withdraw troops, because violence is down.” The April 14, 2008 issue of The New Yorker reported that when General Richard A. Cody appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, he said, in essence, Iraq and Afghanistan have so weakened our defenses that we’d be up the creek if we need our army to protect us. “Today’s army is out of balance,” he said. And he went on to say, “The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply, and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies.” We can’t defend ourselves, the nation is bankrupt, the President lives in an alternate reality of delusion, his clone and Republican candidate for president John McCain not only loves war, but he lives in permanent nostalgia for war mode and he is also seriously demented. Last Sunday, Frank Rich said in his New York Times Op/Ed column that the Dem candidates for president Senators Obama and Clinton are doing John McCain a disservice by constantly saying McCain “is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq.” Rich reported that McCain actually said in the New Hampshire town-hall meeting that he “could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-terms presence in South Korea and Japan”. Fair enough. But when reviewing what people say and have said, it is also necessary to review the mind-set of that person. And John McCain’s unsettled mind is obsessed with war. The other day he said he hates war. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! John McCain would sink into a morass of elder depression without a war on which to feed his Vietnam POW neuroses. Today, General Petraeus and American ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker will take their Iraq war song-and-dance to the House of Representatives. I have two memories of these two men. Alas, they are my only memories of these two men. One is of Petraeus handing out bags of money from the backs of trucks to any and all comers in Iraq, friend and foe alike, as bribes. The other is of the pretentious little putz Crocker holding piss-elegant soirees in the safety of his mansion in the Green Zone in Baghdad as a way of coercing visiting Congresspersons into prolonging the Iraq war and ponying-up more money for the Republican’s ridiculous war. McCain, Petraeus and Crocker—what embarrassing specimens they are.

You’re Not Alone

Headline in the New York Times this morning: “81% in Poll Say Nation Is Headed on the Wrong Track” The NYT reported: “In the poll, 81 percent of respondents said they believed ‘things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track,’ up from 69 percent a year ago and 35 percent in early 2002. “Although the public mood has been darkening since the early days of the war in Iraq, it has taken a new turn for the worse in the last few months, as the economy has seemed to slip into recession. There is now nearly a national consensus that the country faces significant problems.” And a news aviso from the NYT at 8:50 this morning said: “U.S. Economy Shed 80,000 Jobs in March. U.S. employers cut payrolls for a third month in a row in the biggest monthly job decline in five years, government data showed.” So, who are in the 19% who think everything is just ducky? For certain, the folks in the White House who haven’t already jumped ship would be in that group. And the folks who are stumping for delusional loose-cannon John McCain to continue the Republican track record of the last 7 years would be in that elite number. And the born-again warmongers who think God has it in for everyone but born-again warmongers would be part of that crew. The NYT went on to say: “A majority of nearly every demographic and political group — Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and rural areas, college graduates and those who finished only high school — say the United States is headed in the wrong direction. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said the country was worse off than five years ago; just 4 percent said it was better off.” What’s it all mean? Well, our nation is in really bad shape. And the world knows we’re in bad shape, which makes us vulnerable to economic, and security disasters, of course. And the world and compilers of facts that become the tomes of history know that the whole nasty shebang is due to the Bush administration. But more than that, it means that everyone in Congress is going to have a very tough time getting re-elected and that is good. Throw the bastards out is a healthy national attitude. Of course, the real culprit in the downfall of the nation is the entire Republican Party. But the Democrats in Congress who let the Repubs get away with it for 7 years cannot be ignored. So what about the three who are now candidates for president? They were part of the out-of-control Congress that brought the US to grief. That’s true. But this democracy thing is a work-in-progress and very imperfect. However, it’s the system we’ve got. And the system we’ve got needs a lot of improvement.

This Is Okay With the AMA?

Veramyst (commonly misspelled Veramist) is a prescription nasal spray (fluticasone furoate) used to treat “seasonal and perennial allergies”. Veramyst is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. Veramyst is being hawked on television. The ad I’ve been seeing is on ABC (Channel 6 in Philadelphia.) A 30-day Free Trial is offered. On-line ads make it clear that it is “the first 30-day prescription” that is free. As an afterthought in the TV ad, it is suggested you tell your doctor you are using Veramyst. For God’s sake, Veramyst is a steroid. The possible side-effects mentioned in the TV ad are: nasal sores, nosebleeds, cataracts and glaucoma. Additional side-effects noted in the on-line blurbs are: slow growth in children, steroid toxicity, weakening of immune system. It’s not news that the medical profession is in bed with the pharmaceutical profession because of GREED. It’s no news that the pharmaceutical profession is at least as corrupt as the mobsters depicted in “The Sopranos”. (At least da mob on TV had a sense of humor.) But it is news and it’s also shocking that the medical profession condones free trial offers of dangerous drugs. How these free 30-day prescriptions are monitored, I have no idea. The fact that they are offered at all is scandalous. It’s one thing for your doctor to hand out samples of drugs in his office. It’s quite another for hucksters and snake-oil salesman to hawk free trials of drugs on TV. But the disturbing thing is that it’s okay with the AMA. At long last, sirs, have you no shame?

Five Years Later

On March 19, 2003 president George W. Bush announced that he and his imperialist cronies had decided to invade Iraq on March 20th. Yesterday, on the anniversary of that announcement, the Prez said: “Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision, and this is a fight that America can and must win.” Yesterday when Vice President Dick Cheney was told that two-thirds of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, he replied, “So?" When questioned further he said, "I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls." Yesterday, Barack Obama said: “Where are we for all of this sacrifice?...We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained.” Yesterday, Hillary Clinton said she would begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of her taking office. She added: “Every one of you who has served knows with drawing troops can be as dangerous as inserting them.” Yesterday, George Bush’s clone John McCain said he had visited Iraq this week and the US and its allies are “on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism.” Yesterday, the number of American soldiers killed in the Bush/McCain/imperialist Republicans' war had risen to 3992. Yesterday, the cost of the war in Iraq to US taxpayers was $600 billion and escalating. Today, Iraq is in a civil war with no end in sight, except in the addled minds of two mentally unstable men—George W. Bush and John McCain--and in the minds of men who look to make money on war, and/or can’t admit they were wrong. Today, the rest of the world says, ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

Maureen Dowd Nails It

This morning, Maureen Dowd talks about Barack Obama’s speech yesterday (New York Times Op/Ed column--"Black, White and Grey"). She says Obama has finally entered the realm where politicians actually live—the realm of ambivalence, ambiguity and complexity. Dowd says Obama’s speech on race was “momentous and edifying”. She also said “facing up to his dubious behavior toward his explosive friends, he had his first rude introduction in his political career to ambivalence, ambiguity and complexity.” That’s for sure. Obama has constantly slammed Hillary for her vote on the Iraq war. His refrain has been that from the beginning he was against the war. And yet, at the time the vote was taken he did not have to vote. He could not have voted. He didn’t have to confront the ambivalence, ambiguity and complexity that our Congresspersons were faced with at that time. But now, as Dowd says, “he was finally confronted by a problem that neither his charm nor his grandiosity would solve.” He has finally entered that grey area where politicians spend 95% of their time. Dowd signs off with this: “Leaders don’t need to be messiahs. Gray is a welcome relief from black and white.” I could not agree more.

Now We See What Became Prez in 2000

As Gail Collins said in her New York Times OpEd column yesterday, “The country that elected George Bush — sort of — because he seemed like he’d be more fun to have a beer with than Al Gore or John Kerry is really getting its comeuppance.” There are those who would counter that George W. Bush has changed while he’s been president; that the pressures of the presidency have derailed his mind; that in 2000 he wasn’t the lame and silly buffoon he showed himself to be as he danced a jig waiting for the appearance of John McCain the other day. Gail Collins says the man who joked and babbled at a meeting of New York’s financial mavens this past Friday has not changed one bit since his first term in office. Collins said, “The president squinched his face and bit his lip and seemed too antsy to stand still. As he searched for the name of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (“the king, uh, the king of Saudi”) and made guy-fun of one of the questioners (“Who picked Gigot?”), you had to wonder what the international financial community makes of a country whose president could show up to talk economics in the middle of a liquidity crisis and kind of flop around the stage as if he was emcee at the Iowa Republican Pig Roast...This is not the first time Bush’s attempts to calm our fears redoubled our nightmares.” There was his speech after 9/11, and of course, who can forget when no one could make him leave Crawford, TX after Katrina. Collins said the president’s performance at The Economic Club of New York on Friday made her recall “a day long ago when my husband worked for a struggling paper full of worried employees and the publisher walked into the newsroom wearing a gorilla suit”. And now Senator Hothead (an epithet given to John McCain by writer Harry Jaffe) wants to replace President Buffoon. A wonderful "Shouts & Murmurs" article in the March 17th issue of The New Yorker by Paul Slansky shows exactly how much of a hothead (not to say, also buffoon and liar) Senator John McCain really is. When Chelsea Clinton was eighteen, McCain told this joke: “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.” What did McCain say to Edward Kennedy? (a) “Shut up.” (b) “Fucking jerk.” (c) “Fuck you.” (Shut up.) What did McCain say to John Cornyn? (a) “Shut up.” (b) “Fucking jerk.” (c) “Fuck you.” (Fuck you.) What did McCain say to Charles Grassley? (a) “Shut up.” (b) “Fucking jerk.” (c) “Fuck you.” (Fucking jerk.) Last year, McCain said, “When I voted to support this war, I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I’m sorry they were mistaken.” What did McCain say before the war started? He told Larry King that “success will be fairly easy.” He told Wolf Blitzer, “I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.” And he also said, “It’s a safe assumption that Iraqis will be grateful to whoever is responsible for securing their freedom.” The main point for Americans is not whether Hillary or Obama becomes the candidate in the general election next November. The main point is that John McCain must not become our next president. Yes, I would prefer Hillary. I don’t like Obama’s style. But should Barack Obama become the chosen candidate, I will have no problem whatsoever in voting for him in the general election. McCain is a liar, a nasty hothead and a buffoon. We’ve had eight years of that kind of president. Enough is enough.

Will Another Shoe Drop?

Spicy as New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s travails are, and lovely as it is to witness a pontificating, preachy reformer dangle from his own petard, still, one wonders, is this all there is? Will a second shoe drop with even more resounding echoes? Is this scandal, after all, about money laundering? The New York Times reported this morning (“Revelations Began in Routine Tax Inquiry”): “The criminal investigation that discovered the tryst began last year in a nondescript office building opposite a Dunkin’ Donuts on Long Island, according to law enforcement officials...there, in the Hauppauge offices of the Internal Revenue Service, investigators conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks found several unusual movements of cash involving the governor of New York, several officials said.” Yes, of course, I love it that affidavits reveal “Mr. Clean” Spitzer, the moral scourge of Wall Street, the crusader for all that’s good and decent and pure in this fine land, the Democrat’s holier-than-thou icon of moral rectitude was paying a hooker named Kristin four thousand bucks and change for unspecified delights. I think it’s wonderful bordering on delicious that he was called Client 9 by the tryst providers and the investigators. And yes, I’m delighted to find out that not only had the Gov paid for the services of hookers from the “Emperor’s Club VIP” previously, but those other hookers advised Madam Temeka Rachelle Lewis...er...Booking Agent Lewis that Client 9 asked them to do things that might not be considered “safe”. Oh yum!!!! And even though I suppose I have to feel sorry for Mrs. Spitzer, as I felt sorry for Governor James McGreevey’s clueless wife, yet, I do wonder, along with CNN’s Jack Cafferty: Just exactly how do these guys get their wives to stand up with them when they make their horrendous announcements? Cafferty said that he agreed with the guy who claimed, “My wife would be standing over my bleeding body with a shotgun saying, 'How do you reload this thing?'" My sentiments, exactly. What’s with these politician’s wives? Is it for the children, as Mrs. McGreevey said on Larry King last night? Please! Spitzer’s daughters are 17, 15, and 13. From what are they going to be protected if Mrs. Spitzer stands by her asshole husband? Is it for the good of The Party? Crap! Is it because these women love their philandering lying hypocrite husbands? Fah! Is it because a bunch of guys said they should? There you go. Anyway, all that titillating stuff aside, are Spitzer and the other nine guys who paid The Emperor’s Club for services (there were 10 in all) up to their necks in money laundering? And I don't mean penny-ante money laundering to hide fees to hookers, but money laundering on a huge scale. Eventually, will bigger fish get caught and will Dubai and the other Arab Emirates be involved? Will Saudi Arabia’s name come up? I cannot wait to find out.

Aha! That’s It!

I haven’t been able to put my finger on it. I don’t like Barack Obama. Up until now, I haven’t been able to pinpoint why. And then on March 3rd, Jon Stewart said the words on The Daily Show. Stewart said that Obama’s latest message to Hillary Clinton amounted to, “I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were still here." "Obama seems to be a bit of a dick," Stewart said. "He might be a good candidate, but seems like he’d be kind of a dicky boyfriend.” Yup. That’s it. Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head. Barack Obama is a bit of a dick. Which by me knocks him out of the good candidate box. I could never have voted for George W. Bush in any election. He’s a liar and a cheat, his eyes are too close together, and he’s a dick. I wouldn’t have trusted H. Ross Perot near the poor box in a church, his ears stuck out and he was a dick. John McCain is an old fool who loves war more than life itself, he needs heavy makeup to make him look reasonably normal and he’s a dick. Condoleezza Rice is a stiff overachiever who will step on anyone anywhere to sit at the top of any heap, no matter how stinky and corrupt, her death’s-head smile gives me anxiety willies and she’s a dick. And Barack Obama is a bit of dick. A bit is way more than too much.

Bloomberg Sounds Good, What’s He Mean?

I just read New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 700-word OpEd article (“I’m Not Running for President, but ...”) in this morning’s New York Times. And I don’t know what he’s talking about, other than he made it clear he’s not planning to run for Prez this time around. How would he implement his vaunted “independent approach” in governing the United States? “We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership,” Bloomberg said. That can’t be argued. He says he’s done it in New York City. “That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.” If he says he’s done it in New York City, I won’t say he hasn’t. But how he thinks an independent president can solve the nation’s problems was certainly not outlined in his NYT piece. Nor did he say who that independent president might possibly be. And it surely did sound like "empty rhetoric” and “pie-in-the-sky”. “I am hopeful”, Bloomberg wrote, “that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.” Real and honest debate between whom? About what? He didn’t say. Bloomberg finished his article by saying, “In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.” Bloomberg does not say how he’ll help an independent, nonpartisan candidate win the White House. Money? Maybe. But first, Bloomberg has to find an independent, nonpartisan candidate in the company of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. If independence and nonpartisanship is guiding the approach of any of these three, none has convinced me of it. And if a truly independent candidate wins the election (if there were a truly independent candidate running for election), how then would this independent president convince the lunkheads in Congress of the wisdom of his/her independent approach? And what would the independent approach of an independent president be? I believe there are many independent-thinking voters in the United States who would love to translate their independent thinking into independent nonpartisan action in Congress. But how could that be accomplished in 2008? It will take many years for our Senators and Representatives gradually to be switched from the hidebound Republican and Democratic pols we now have into a group of nonpartisan independent thinkers, if ever that can happen, which I doubt. What is more likely, at least in the person of Michael Bloomberg, is that he will decide that McCain, or Clinton or Obama is the independent candidate of his dreams, and then he will anoint his choice with words and a mantle of rhetoric that proclaims the person to be an independent with an independent approach, but it will just be old Hillary, or Barack or John dressed up in Bloomberg’s hopes. In fact, no independence or nonpartisan approach can change in even the tiniest way the manner in which politics is now practiced and will be practiced for the next four years. But New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will have joined the ranks of wishful thinkers who have more money and words than they know what to do with, who throw both to the winds and then claim they have changed the course of history.

Project Runway Way More Fun than Politics

The reality shows all have the same plotline and the same story arcs. The only thing we don’t know about Project Runway and the Fatties shows is who will be the final winner. And yet, we are glued to the TV set each week because the storyline is fascinating. And in the case of Project Runway, the talent is excellent and the creations each week are awesome. The Clinton and Obama strategists have decided that they too should keep the pot boiling day after day and week after week until the Democratic Convention. Apparently the politicos think that if it works for Project Runway and The Biggest Loser, it will work for the candidates. And not only that, after the Conventions we can count on the Repub and Dem strategists being determined to keep the suspense level high. There is only one problem with the politicians’ plan. The US election contestants are dreary and there is no inherent drama in anything they say or do. In addition, the voters have tuned out. God knows, the ABC show “LOST” is fascinating and I am hooked totally. However, that show has been immeasurably helped by the fact that the citizens of the world have found the US election candidates and particularly McCain, Clinton and Obama unutterably tedious, irritating and tiresome. And not only are the candidates deadly dull and snore-worthy, but the pundits and analysts who comment on the candidates are phoning it in because they said everything they were going to say three months ago. Will people stay home and not vote because the strategists’ strategies have been so childish and flawed? No. We’ll vote. Knee-jerk assholes in the Repub party will vote for McCain. And Dems will vote for Clinton or Obama and not give a damn which one it is. But between now and the election, the vast majority of people in the world will find something to watch other than the US candidates. Unless of course, they are looking to fall asleep. I certainly am done watching or listening to anything McCain, Clinton or Obama says from here on out. And I’m done watching or listening to what anyone else says about what McCain, Clinton or Obama says from here on out. It’s a little present I’m giving to me.

Funny Thing About Senator John McCain

McCain believes that if he says it, it makes it true. Sounds like the guy he wants to replace in the White House. An article in the New York Times this morning (“For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk”) chronicles a few of McCain’s more arrogant forays into ethically troubling and/or downright shady actions while he's been in political office. However, even in the face of proof to the contrary, McCain says, “I have never violated public trust or done favors for lobbyists”. Not true, Dishonest John...not true. The NYT reports that eight years ago McCain’s personal and political relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman was so worrying to his advisors they blocked her access to McCain and to his office. This was ten years after McCain had done a favor for a friend that involved McCain in the Charles Keating savings and loan scandal. In about a half hour, John McCain is going to hold a press conference in order to say he’s Mr. Integrity and that he’s never done a thing during his career as a public servant that has not been Simon Pure. And yet, we know he wrote letters to government regulators on behalf of Iseman’s clients who often had business before a Senate committee led by John McCain. And the NYT reports “Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest.” However, McCain often flew on corporate jets of business executives who sought his support. A small thing? Yes...but not in a man who claims he is the very model of the highest moral standards it is possible for a human being to hold. I particularly like this little rat-out from the NYT: “Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor.” John McCain is 73 years old and has come to believe his own press releases that equate him with a living saint. He likes that image and I don’t blame him. But he is not the man he wants to think he is. He has made mistakes, told lies, and committed improprieties. All of which is not a terrible legacy because it’s very typical and normal of men who have had a career in politics. But don’t tell me you’ve never violated public trust, John McCain. You have violated public trust. You violated public trust in Iraq with your shameful little charade when you denied that you had monumental protection from hundreds of US soldiers. And you’ve violated public trust by giving special access to lobbyists. As the NYT said, “When the Senate overhauled lobbying and ethics rules last year, Mr. McCain stayed in the background.” And don’t get in high dudgeon when people tell the truth about you and call it “a smear”--that's just childish and silly.

Doctors Wise Up... Duh!

Recent studies have cast doubts on medical assumptions that lowering cholesterol prevents heart disease and normalizing blood sugar protects diabetics. “Wow, we really don't know as much as we think we do,” professor of medicine at Yale University Harlan Krumholz said in a Washington Post article (“Medication Under a Microscope”) this morning. "We definitely need to pause and reassess our assumptions about what is best for patients...clearly we have more to learn." No kidding! Scott M. Grundy of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas said, "Drugs can be great, but they can have side effects...if you start piling on one drug after another, you can get into trouble." What a thought! And guess what? Now there is some doubt as to whether doctors should prescribe drugs for conditions that haven’t happened yet, as in, “pre-hypertension”, “pre-osteoporosis” and "pre-diabetic”. Although it is true, doctors haven’t gotten around to putting splints on legs before they get broken, plastic surgeons have been counseling for years that the time to get a facelift is before a facelift should be considered. In the medical community this is called preventative medicine—prescribing drugs that patients don’t need and ordering surgeries that are unnecessary. All of which might be forgiven if doctors were really looking out for the best interests of their patients. But these so-called best interests are incredibly lucrative for doctors, pharmaceutical firms and all hospital industries. "What's going on here is our research enterprise is almost completely controlled by the pharmaceutical industry," John Abramson said. He’s a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and author of the book "Overdosed America." Abramson went on to say, "It's their job to create a need for their products. Their job is not to maximize public health." "People are making a ton of money by selling the drugs and the monitoring equipment," Howard Brody, director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston said. "It distracts our patients from what really matters more, which may be getting more exercise or making lifestyle changes that ultimately may be more beneficial than obsessing about their blood sugar or playing with their little monitor device." The whole idea of preemptive strikes has worked so well in Republican circles in medical, pharmaceutical and war businesses, that if undertakers had a little more political clout we might see a trend toward pre-death burials to bolster the mortician industry.

The Big Question About Obama

And, of course, the big question about any candidate is: What will voters do in the voting booth? Because it is for certain, theoretical blocks of voters will not remain faithful in the secrecy of the voting booth. Ergo, the bigger question about Barack Obama is: Will black voters vote for Obama? For all the excited predictions that pundits and analysts are making concerning the mass defections of Republicans into the Dem camp, and Dems into the Indie camp, and born-agains into the Jezebel camp, and whites into the black camp, no one knows what blacks will do because there is no black camp, Oprah Winfrey and her posse notwithstanding. And by the way I looooove the comic who said, “Don’t you hate white people who try to sound black? Like Oprah.” But back to the question at hand: Will black people vote for Obama? WE DO NOT KNOW! I do know this: Among blacks of a certain age, there is a tendency when seeking a lawyer, a doctor, a therapist, or a financial advisor, to opt for white. My belief, although I do not KNOW this to be true, is that blacks will not vote black out-of-hand any more than whites will vote white out-of-hand. And I suspect it will be a real mistake for Obama to try to appeal to the black vote, whatever that would mean in his mind and his handlers’ minds. Oh, and one more thing I do know: Everyone is getting so sick of the trumped-up Clinton/Obama contest. There is no contest. It doesn’t matter a damn who gets the nomination. What matters is that the McCain/Huckabee/OldFart/Moron faction should not win the election. I am sure I am not the only one who breathed a sigh of relief yesterday while watching the “Tell Me Something I Don’t Know” segment on Chris Matthews morning show. Someone (I think it was David Gregory) prophesied there will be NO last minute jockying for nomination status between Clinton and Obama because the two of them will reach a consensus and save us all from 11th hour ugliness. IT IS DEVOUTLY TO BE HOPED!!!!

We Now Know Bush’s Plan

According to this morning’s New York Times, “the White House seems eager to lock in as many of the president’s policies as possible before he leaves office in 11 months.” The Prez never sounds surer of himself than when the subject is Sept. 11, the NYT said, even though “he has squandered the country’s moral authority, violated American and international law, and led the United States into the foolhardy distraction of Iraq.” The NYT reported that in all cases —the military tribunals, the wiretapping legislation, the president’s war in Iraq—“the White House seems to have concluded that each is politically sustainable and even favorable for a Republican candidate and Mr. Bush’s own legacy.” Although Bush’s war in Iraq sent his popularity tumbling a year ago and Repubs as well as Dems were naming him the worst president in the entire history of the United States, George W. Bush now has justified keeping more than 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq and he’s saying it’s “part of a broader fight against terrorism”. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates endorsed a ‘pause’ in further troop withdrawals once those troops sent in last year as part of a temporary buildup go home. So what’s going on? In the face of the worst presidency and the most unpopular president in the history of the United States, how come the Republicans want to elect another George W. Bush? The Republican Party has decided, against all analysis and against all assessment by reasonable men, that it ran the country so well under Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney, and neoconservative political strategist William Kristol and Kristol's ilk, that the Repubs are well advised to continue their policies not only for the next year, but also through the election and into the coronation of John McCain. The Republican Party is so sure that Americans love the war, love the lying Justice Department, love the lying Pentagon, love the killing of US soldiers for no good reason, love welfare for the rich, love being hated around the world, love being spied on, and most of all, love the last 7 years of White House fascism so much that we all will be pleased to have more of the same in the foreseeable future. And only the election of a Democrat President this coming November will make these madmen understand that they were wrong.

Romney Lies to the End

Mitt Romney bugged out of the Republican nomination race, because, as CNN’s Dana Bash so succinctly put it last night: “The numbers showed it would have been virtually impossible for him (Romney) to win the nomination now given how many delegates John McCain has versus how many he has.” However, Romney said he quit the race “because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country...and frankly, I would be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrendering to terror.” TIP: Whenever a politician and/ or snake oil salesman says “frankly”, whatever follows is a lie. So now, the Republican Party has its nominee: Senator John McCain. But that leaves many Republican voters with no one to vote for because McCain is not conservative enough, not born-again enough, not hawkish enough, not young enough. What will they do? Some say that when the election rolls around next November, those with no one to love will write in a Republican candidate’s name. Some will no doubt rally behind a dark horse Independent. But of this you may be sure, A lot of Republican energy between now and the election will be spent on Swiftboating both Obama and Clinton, trying new versions of voter fraud, inventing terror plots where none exist and generally in making childish mischief. And how will that work for the Republicans? Not well. Dirty tricks, the empty rhetoric that the country needs four more years of Republican crimes and misdemeanors, and a tired old war vet trying to look appealing is not a winning combo.

Is There Still a War in Iraq? Apparently a war is still raging in Iraq, because American soldiers and Iraqi security forces and civilians are still dying. As of this morning, a total of 3,948 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Yet, also apparently, some unheralded law has passed in the United States that the war will not be spoken of so as to wipe it from our minds. In the first month of 2008, 40 American soldiers and 554 Iraqi civilians and security personnel were killed. And now already in February, 4 American soldiers and 144 Iraqi civilians and security personnel have been killed. But the word out of the Bush administration and the Pentagon is that the so-called surge has been successful and we are winning George Bush's Iraq war. In addition, the man who will likely be the Republican nominee for president, John McCain, said it would be “fine with me” if the US were in Iraq for 100 years. I submit that we have had ENOUGH of presidents on happy pills and adrenaline rushes. John McCain is an ailing old fool and God only knows what medications he is taking. But for anyone to say the US should stay in Iraq for 100 years is an insane statement. It implies the United States is committed to fighting Iraq’s civil war forever. Which, of course, the US cannot do, because The Commission of the National Guard and Reserves just issued a report saying the US is unprepared to handle its own emergencies at home, let alone foreign wars or attacks from foreign countries. But why has this war in Iraq that has bankrupted us and killed our young people been taken off the front pages? Is it now too boring to cover? That may well be the case. Americans may truly not want to hear about the war in Iraq. Fine. There is a solution. Let’s pull our troops out NOW!

What a Surprise!

The New York Times published an Associated Press news story today with this lede paragraph: “The United States military is not prepared for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces do not have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a new report.” I am shocked...SHOCKED! The AP story when on to say, “The study of the military’s readiness to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons attack found ‘an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk’.” The Commission of the National Guard and Reserves released the study yesterday. This commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning those forces. Because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the commission panel reported that “we don’t have the forces we need (meaning the US Military) nor do we have a reasonable alternative (meaning the National Guard) to relying heavily on our Reserves to supplement the active-duty forces, the report said. The study said the nation’s governors should be given the authority to direct active-duty troops responding to emergencies in their states. That recommendation, when it first came to light last year, was shot down by the military and immediately rejected by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. The Commission’s chairman, Retired Marine Corps general Arnold L. Punaro, said "I believe we’re going to wear him (Gates) down.” And while everyone is dicking around protecting their fiefdoms and power bases, what happens when another natural disaster happens? Or if God forbid the US is attacked (again) by President Bush’s buddies from Saudi Arabia? Not to worry. John McCain no doubt has a plan for keeping our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq while arming all 70-year-old vets with press releases about their past days of glory to hand out to disaster victims and/or potential enemies. And we can count on Homeland Security’s Michael Chertoff to have our back.