sometimes...

you just need a hug...

this is wonderful. it may be what the whole world needs right now.



thank you Lawrence for sending me this hug. you're a special friend.

what's going on here (III)...

can someone please explain?

Opera Canceled Over a Depiction of Muhammad

Journal: Agency blocked hurricane report

New York City Plans Limits on Restaurants’ Use of Trans Fats

Council urged to duck repeal of foie gras ban

Many Rights in U.S. Legal System Absent in New Bill

Coast Guard's live-ammo drills on Great Lakes raise ire


can someone please explain what exactly is it that I'm being protected from? ducks? weather information? fat? torture? tiger mussels in Lake Michigan? off-pitch singers?


just asking...

Mr. Bush needs to listen...

to the wisdom of a true conservative and a true liberal both of whom were former presidents.

Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.
Harry S. Truman

Do you feel that things have changed for the better since Mr. Bush became President?

just asking...

I have only one yardstick by which I test every major problem - and that yardstick is: Is it good for America?
Dwight D. Eisenhower

When do you think the last time, if ever, Mr. Bush asked himself this question?

just asking...

no one should apologize...

for telling the truth.

As much as I do not approve of the human rights, pro-life stance and other positions of the pope and his church, I don't believe he should apologize for telling the truth by citing a medieval tract of a dialog between Emperor Manuel Paleologus and a Persian scholar.

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry." Benedict XVI

A more pointed and direct quote from the tract is below:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.... God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...." Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus

Islamists, Christianists, fundamentalists of all kinds put words into the mouth of god that make their beliefs the only truth they think everyone should support. I quote the pope again, "Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry."

So, if that is not the will of god, wouldn't there just be one religion with one god by his/her design instead of many religions with many dogmas, rites, and theologies?

just asking...

ever wonder...

Why women can't put on mascara with their mouth closed? !


Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?


Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?


Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?


Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?


Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?


Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?


Why isn't there mouse-flavored cat food?


Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes?


You know that indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?!


Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?


Why are they called apartments when they are all stuck together?


If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?


If flying is so safe, why do they call the airport the terminal?


Why the sun lightens our hair, but darkens our skin?


Why do they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?




just asking...

only in america...

Only in America.....
do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front!


Only in America......
do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries, and a diet coke!


Only in America......
do banks leave both doors open and then chain the pens to the counters!


Only in America......
do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our useless junk in the garage!


Only in America......
do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight!


Only in America......
do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'!


Only in America......
do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering!



I like to be in America
Okay by me in America
Everything free in America
For a small fee in America.


My cousin sent this to me. I don't know where she found it, but it should be shared and that's what I'm doing.

any questions?

out of the mouths' of babes...

A teacher was doing a study testing the senses of first graders, using a bowl of Lifesavers.

The children began to say:

"Red............cherry,"

"Yellow.........lemon,"

"Green..........lime,"

"Orange.........orange,"

Finally the teacher gave them all honey Lifesavers.

After eating them, none of the children could identify the taste.

"Well," he said, "I'll give you all a clue; It's what your mother may sometimes call your father."

One little girl looked up in horror, spit her Lifesaver out and yelled,

"Oh My God! They're !#*holes!"

One of the joys of my job is that I hear these sorts of things every day. Friends tell me I should write a book. My response always is, "No one would believe it!"

I've often wondered that little kids learn how to lie. They are always so truthful in their innocence. Do you remember when you learned to lie?

just asking...

"I.R.S. Eyes Religious Groups as More Enter Election Fray"

The I.R.S. better be careful. They may well be joining the forces that are perpetuating the attack on Christianity in this country and may well find themselves on the Dobson, Fawell, Robertson et.al. hit list. [Not to mention, the I.R.S. may probably be on the Gay and Abortionists agendas now.]

“We became concerned in the 2004 election cycle that we were seeing more political activity among charities, including churches,” said Lois G. Lerner, the director for exempt organizations at the I.R.S. “In fact, of the organizations we looked at, we saw a very high percentage of some improper political activity, and that is really why we have ramped up the program in 2006.”
New York Times, Monday, September 18, 2006

Oh wait, Katherine Harris says there is no separation of church and state in the U.S.

Sorry, I forgot.

never mind...

things come in pairs...

or threes?

Coincidence is an ephemeral thing. After writing the previous post with Louis XIII cognac, it was a surprise to see an article in the Chicago Sun-Times entitled At the tipping point that is about tipping in restaurants. More specifically, it's about the problem of getting stiffed by customers. The phrase getting stiffed deals with clients who leave less than a 15% tip - susbstantially less.

Traditionally, in the United States, it is customary to leave at least a 15% tip for service. The article mentions that the current average is now 17.7%. There is controversy as to whether people actually tip for service or just because the waitperson looks good, "wears a flower," etc. That's neither here nor there. In my mind, I tip for service, but I worked in the restaurant business for 8-10 years. I have a different perspective. Waitpersons do not make minimum wage. Like it or not, it is part of the law. Waitstaff relies on tips to survive.

The article, along with my previous post, reminded me of an incident that happened while I worked at one of the top restaurants in Chicago. I was assistant manager at the time [the owner was the actual manager]. The average cost per person was around $40 per person and this was in the 1980's. It was a top fine dining restaurant.

We dealt with many types of customers, mostly people who were thoroughly happy with the food and service. From time to time, however, there were people who were unhappy, but it was very infrequent. Very.

On this one ocassion, we served a large group (8 people) a long, service-intense dinner. It included cocktails, champagne, appetizers, salads, entrees, desserts, multiple wines by course, and, yes, glasses of Louis XIII. They gushed not only about the food but also about the service. The check came to around $1,500.00. That's around $185.00 per person! They were celebrating a multi-million dollar deal they had just completed.

The tip at the customary 15% should have been around $225.00. The host left $75.00. The waitstaff, including the busboys, were furious. They had worked extra hard for this party. They knew a great party from past experience. The diners also sat around for an additional 30 minutes keeping the restaurant open beyond closing time making the staff even madder as time wore on.

I was confronted by two issues as on-site manager/maitre d' that night: 1) the staff's anger and 2) what the owner was going to say [not to mention going nuclear] when he saw a tip that was barely 5%. He was going to want to know what was wrong with the service; who screwed up; who needed to be fired.... He was known for the best service in the city. I had to appease the staff and him.

As the party left, I asked the host if everything was all right. He continued to gush on how everything was near perfect. I broached the subject of the gratuity from the standpoint that when Jimmy saw the tip he was going to be all over us about the service demanding to know what went wrong. He assured me everything was perfect.

At this point his wife and partner piped up and said, chuckling almost in unison, "He doesn't believe in tipping. He's Australian."

The host explained how they were correct. He didn't believe in tipping. He believed that the restaurant should pay the waitstaff from it's profits. He tried to go into this long diatribe about his beliefs. The staff wasn't interested in his beliefs and neither was I. I cut him off almost immediately.

I explained to him that the law allowed this procedure to happen and it was the way things were. He said he didn't care. I did keep my cool, and I'm not sure if I embarassed him in front of his wife and staff, but at this point I didn't care and had nothing left to loose. I kept my cool and explained how we all had rent, mortgages, bills, insurance, car payments, etc. He didn't care.

I thanked him for coming and enjoying himself and, to the staff's delight, asked him never to come back again.

When I explained this to Jimmy the next morning, he accepted it wholeheartedly. He had seen the check and was ready to go ballistic the minute I walked in the door. Not only did he accept it, he went to the telephone, called the gentleman up [we had the phone number from the reservation], explained the exact same things that I had said to him AND asked him never to come back to the restaurant again. There was never any fallout from this that I ever heard. The staff was pleased with what happened even though they were out the money. AND the man never came back.

I admit I'm one of the over-tippers the article in the Sun-Times talks about. I know what waitstaff has to go through. I am also one of the most critical diners when it comes to service because of this. I know good service and I do hold that you pay for it. On the other side of the coin, I also will not pay for bad service. I will leave less that 15% if it warrants, but I do one other thing if I really like the food and will return. I let the management or at least the host/hostess know. Word of mouth can really kill a place and bad service is always part of the gossip. I think the restaurant needs to know if people are not pleased before customers stop coming to it. It's the same with any business.

I don't know if the dinner host learned anything that night but I did. It is important that you confront the truth. This may be a silly incident to think about something that may be this monumental. It is when you least expect it that this type of thing happens. They are sometimes life-altering and sometimes thought provoking.

I am living in a world right now that avoids the truth at all costs, blames everyone else for its state, cares little about others, bases itself on absolutes that are inflexible, does not take other's beliefs into consideration, and lacks understanding & compassion.

I am a child of the hippie-generation. I am against war, against discrimination, against bigotry, against lowering human dignity one iota. I believe in

"What a piece of work is man..."
How noble in reason
How infinite in faculties
In form and moving
How express and admirable.
In action, how like an angel
In apprehension how like a god
The beauty of the world
The paragon of animals

I have of late
but wherefore I know not
lost all my mirth.
This goodly frame
The earth
seems to me a sterile promontory

This most excellent canopy
The air-- Look you!
This brave o'erhanging firmament
This majestical roof
Fretted with golden fire.
Why it appears no other thing to me
Than a foul and pestilent congregation
of vapors.

What A Piece Of Work Is Man
How noble in reason*

how noble in reason?

just asking...

*Lyrics by James Rado & Gerome Ragni, music by Galt MacDermot, HAiR: The American Tribal Love-Rock Musical; William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I Scene 2

[p.s. I realize I'm in a funk right now. I have been having a couple of physical problems and have recently made a major decision that has put me into the start of the grieving process. This too shall pass. To quote my favorite Hopi Indian adage again, When hope is gone life is over. There is always hope...]

my kind of school...

"Now", asked Sister Mary Joseph, "Who can spell 'straight'?"

A boy in the front row shot up his hand. "Straight," he said, "S-T-R-A-I-G-H-T."

"Very good," said Sister Mary Joseph, "And do you know what it means?"

"Without ice," the boy replied.



It's right now 7:23 am. Is it too early for a Louis XIII?

just asking...

p.s.


A ROYAL DRINK INDEED
"Une Celebration du Moment"
current retail $1,500.00-$1,800.00 per bottle! By the glass $100-$120!

I have had the distinct pleasure of getting totally boxed drinking Louis on more than one occasion. And, no I wasn't paying. It is the most exquisite sensation on the pallate one can experience!

I wanted to cry...

when I read this on andrewsullivan.com today from an email he received from a soldier who fought in Iraq:

What We've Lost

The last paragraph is what really got to me.

Its gone now, even from me. I can't get past that image of the Iraqi, in the hood with the wires and I'm not what you'd call a sensitive type. You know the picture. And now we have a total bust-out in the White House, and a bunch of rubber-stamps in the House, trying to make it so that half-drowning people isn't torture. That hypothermia isn't torture. That degradation isn't torture. We don't have that reputation for fairness anymore. Just the opposite, I think. And the next real enemy we face will fight like only the cornered and desperate fight. How many Marines' lives will be lost in the war ahead just because of this asshole who never once risked anything for this country?

I remember the dirty little war* in Vietnam. Yes, there was Mi Lai, but there was still humanity. Vietnam had it's rogues and villains but they weren't backed by a regime that talked openly about reinventing the Geneva Convention. The frustrations behind fighting a guerilla war [Remember, the Americans used gueriila warfare in 1776 to win freedom from Great Britain!] paid a great toll on not only the soldiers fighting but back in the U.S. The fairness was still behind it all.

Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam?

just asking...


*from the song Three-Five-Zero-Zero in the musical Hair

a public service message...

How to Quit Smoking

this would make you think twice - maybe even once!

ignoranus...

def.

(n): A person who is both stupid and an asshole.

...and not necessarily in that order!



examples anyone?

just asking...

ephemeral:

def.

Main Entry: 1 ephem·er·al
Pronunciation: i-'fem-r&l, -'fEm-; -'fe-m&-, -'fE-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek ephEmeros lasting a day, daily, from epi- + hEmera day
1 : lasting one day only
2 : lasting a very short time
synonym see TRANSIENT
- ephem·er·al·ly /-r&-lE/ adverb
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Headline from pinknews.co.uk:

Pope calls gay rights an "ephemeral social trend"

Historical list (partial):

Pedro Aldomovar, filmmaker
Alexander the Great, conqueror 356-323 BCE
Hans Christian Andersen, writer
Marshall Applewhite, cult guru
Joan Armatrading, singer
Sir Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts
Joan Baez, singer
Mr. Blackwell, asshole fashion critic
Dirk Bogarde, actor
William S. Burroughs, writer
Julius Caesar, caesar
Truman Capote, writer
Marilyn Chambers, actor
Traci Chapman, singer
Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney
Ellen DeGeneres, actor
Emily Dickinson, poet
Divine, actor
Matt Drudge, columnist
John du Pont, heir and ornithologist, alleged homosexual
Melissa Etheridge, singer
Rupert Everett, actor
Harvey Fierstein, actor
Malcolm Forbes, businessman [bisexual]
Pim Fortuyn, assassinated Dutch candidate
David Geffen, Geffen Records [bisexual?]
Jean Genet, felonious playwright
Boy George, singer
Sir John Gielgud, actor
Allen Ginsberg, poet
Hadrian, Roman Emperor
Rob Halford, singer, Judas Priest
Keith Haring, artist
Nina Hartley, actor [bisexual]
Todd Haynes, filmmaker
Anne Heche, actor [bisexual]
David Hockney, artist
J. Edgar Hoover, longtime head of the FBI.
Rock Hudson, actor
Billie Jean King, tennis player
k.d. lang, singer
Charles Laughton, actor
Ralph Lauren, fashion designer
Ursula LeGuin, author
Leonardo da Vinci, genius 1452-1519
Liberace, pianist
Greg Louganis, Olympic diver
Paul Lynde, Hollywood Square
Robert Mapplethorpe, photographer
W. Somerset Maugham, writer [bisexual]
Armistead Maupin, writer
Joseph McCarthy, Senator and persecutor
Sir Ian McKellen, actor
Freddie Mercury, singer, Queen.
George Michael, singer
Michaelangelo, Renaissance man 1475-1564
Harvey Milk, gay rights activist and martyr
Morrissey, singer
Martina Navratilova, tennis player
Sir Isaac Newton, scientist and celibate homo 1643 - 1727
Rimbaud, poet
Sappho, poet
Dick Sargent, second Darrin on Bewitched
Dan Savage, advice columnist
Matthew Shepard
Socrates, philosopher [bisexual] 470–399 BCE
Annie Sprinkle, sexpert
Gertrude Stein, author
Andrew Sullivan, conservative gay columnist, barebacker
Pëtr Ilich Tchaikovsky, composer 1840-1893
Scott Thompson, comic
Billy Tipton, jazz musician, lifelong male impersonator
Andrew Tobias, writer
Alice B. Toklas, cookbook author
Lily Tomlin, actor
Pete Townshend, The Who [bisexual]
Alan Turing, genius
Gus Van Sant, filmmaker
Versace, fashion designer
Gore Vidal, writer
Bruce Vilanch, joke writer
Andy Warhol, artist [bisexual]
John Waters, filmmaker
Oscar Wilde, writer
Tennessee Williams, playwright
(source - Famous Homosexuals)

That's quite an ephemeral list, don't you think?

just asking...

the age of terrorism vs. "The age of horrorism..."

Martin Amis in today's, September 10, 2006, The Guardian Unlimited has written a review entitled "The age of horrorism" in which he explores the nature and history of the rise of Islamism and its roots. It goes more into depth than anything I've read so far.

There has been much written about the rise of Islamism over the last five years but little emphasis on what is behind it and what possibly goes on in the psyches of Islamists. We really have only heard the official version from govenment offices and it merely is based on "They hate us."

I've been reading Martin Kohut's America Against the World: How We are Different and Why We are Disliked and the book gives quite a lot of data behind the phenomenon. However, I wonder if the hatred is not based on moral corruption as we hear through the "timely" videos released by bin Laden and his cohorts but, rather, more like what Amis describes as,

The West isn't being seductive, of course; all the West is being is attractive. But the Islamist's paranoia extends to a kind of thwarted narcissism.

Most immigrant's to the "new world" did not become seduced by the temptations of freedom. Freedom became ingrained into their minds once they tasted its sweetness. It was the reason they came to the United States in the first place. This is in utter opposition to the Islamist fundamentalistic view:

Like fundamentalist Judaism and medieval Christianity, Islam is totalist. That is to say, it makes a total claim on the individual. Indeed, there is no individual; there is only the umma - the community of believers. Ayatollah Khomeini, in his copious writings, often returns to this theme. He unindulgently notes that believers in most religions appear to think that, so long as they observe all the formal pieties, then for the rest of the time they can do more or less as they please. 'Islam', as he frequently reminds us, 'isn't like that.' Islam follows you everywhere, into the kitchen, into the bedroom, into the bathroom, and beyond death into eternity. Islam means 'submission' - the surrender of independence of mind. That surrender now bears the weight of well over 60 generations, and 14 centuries.

In addition, fundamentalist Islamists believe that there is only one means to secure the order that they believe to be the perfect interpretation of the Qur'an

The most extreme Islamists want to kill everyone on earth except the most extreme Islamists; but every jihadi sees the need for eliminating all non-Muslims, either by conversion or by execution. And we now know what happens when Islamism gets its hands on an army (Algeria) or on something resembling a nation state (Sudan). In the first case, the result was fratricide, with 100,000 dead; in the second, following the Islamist coup in 1989, the result has been a kind of rolling genocide, and the figure is perhaps two million.

The Muslim world is responsible for much of what we know as civilization today. As Amis points out, if it were not for the Muslims the Renaissance would never have happened. The enlightment they provided led to many new discoveries. As an example, the concept of zero in mathematics is an Islamic scholar invention. Of course, this enlightment happened through a spreading of Islam through not only immigration but also from invasions both physical and mental. Western history is full of the very same actions over the centuries.

What happened in the 20th century was a psychological shift that Amis traces back to, of all places, Greeley, Colorado. Briefly, it refers to the exact same thing happening in the U.S. today - conflict between moderates and fundamentalists.

Until recently it was being said that what we are confronted with, here, is 'a civil war' within Islam. That's what all this was supposed to be: not a clash of civilisations or anything like that, but a civil war within Islam. Well, the civil war appears to be over. And Islamism won it. The loser, moderate Islam, is always deceptively well-represented on the level of the op-ed page and the public debate; elsewhere, it is supine and inaudible. We are not hearing from moderate Islam. Whereas Islamism, as a mover and shaper of world events, is pretty well all there is.

Amis concludes two very important premises:

1.

All religions are violent; and all ideologies are violent. Even Westernism, so impeccably bland, has violence glinting within it. This is because any belief system involves a degree of illusion, and therefore cannot be defended by mind alone. When challenged, or affronted, the believer's response is hormonal; and the subsequent collision will be one between a brain and a cat's cradle of glands.

2.

For quite a time I have felt that Islamism was trying to poison the world. Here was a sign that the poison might take - might mutate, like bird flu. Islam, as I said, is a total system, and like all such it is eerily amenable to satire. But with Islamism, with total malignancy, with total terror and total boredom, irony, even militant irony (which is what satire is), merely shrivels and dies.

we can only hope...



[Click here or on the post's title to read Martin Amis' article in its entirety.]

reality, what a concept...

Robin Williams, philospher, comedian, actor...

Too often life is overwhelming. Sometimes it just is. Sometimes we make it that way. Reality, the concept, is overrated. All of the major television companies have versions of reality. When you put these all together and add real life you end up here...




it's just a jump to the left...

more Rumsfeld fallout...

Frank Rich in the New York Times adds to what Olbermann has saying.

Last week the man who gave us “stuff happens” and “you go to war with the Army you have” outdid himself. In an instantly infamous address to the American Legion, he likened critics of the Iraq debacle to those who “ridiculed or ignored” the rise of the Nazis in the 1930’s and tried to appease Hitler. Such Americans, he said, suffer from a “moral or intellectual confusion” and fail to recognize the “new type of fascism” represented by terrorists. Presumably he was not only describing the usual array of “Defeatocrats” but also the first President Bush, who had already been implicitly tarred as an appeaser by Tony Snow last month for failing to knock out Saddam in 1991.

"new type of fascism?"

def. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice;

What could be the new type? Oh, wait, Rumsfeld must mean Islamo-fascism. There's nothing new about that. I also think it's a misnomer. [Check out this article from the Chicago Sun-Times about what mainstream Muslim-Americans are not only up against but about what they think would be a good first step: Islamic convention focuses on balance.]

Maybe he's talking about the fascism in this country? Christiantist-fascism?

What made Mr. Rumsfeld’s speech noteworthy wasn’t its toxic effort to impugn the patriotism of administration critics by conflating dissent on Iraq with cut-and-run surrender and incipient treason. That’s old news. No, what made Mr. Rumsfeld’s performance special was the preview it offered of the ambitious propaganda campaign planned between now and Election Day. An on-the-ropes White House plans to stop at nothing when rewriting its record of defeat (not to be confused with defeatism) in a war that has now lasted longer than America’s fight against the actual Nazis in World War II.

I've made reference in previous posts to George Orwell's 1984. Big Brother controlled ALL propaganda. Is this what Bush and Rumsfeld and Rove want? Total control of what we believe, think and say? Oh, yeah, thoughtspeak.

Here’s how brazen Mr. Rumsfeld was when he invoked Hitler’s appeasers to score his cheap points: Since Hitler was photographed warmly shaking Neville Chamberlain’s hand at Munich in 1938, the only image that comes close to matching it in epochal obsequiousness is the December 1983 photograph of Mr. Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia. Is the defense secretary so self-deluded that he thought no one would remember a picture so easily Googled on the Web? Or worse, is he just too shameless to care?

Can Mr. Rumsfeld explain the connection/difference between these two photos?

just asking...

and the hypocrisy never stops...

There seems to be no limits or bounds to the Repubican hypocrisy in doing anything to remain in "power." Time and again they have shat upon others. In many cases, the others are people that are close to them or those they love. In addition to the Rumsfeld flap this week comes this tidbit.

An example from a new book by James Moore and Wayne Slater, The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power, illustrates there is no shame. Everthing is fair game:

In Chapter 9, "A Few Simple Questions: What's in Karl's Closet?," the authors draw on interviews with gay acquaintances of Rove's stepfather, Louis Rove, as well as an interview with a circumspect Karl Rove, to reveal that Louis was openly gay after getting divorced from Rove's mother. The chapter jabs hard at Rove, pointing out that Louis Rove, who was clearly Rove's primary father figure, died in Palm Springs just as "his son was in the midst of launching the antigay issues campaign that was to lead to the re-election of George W. Bush."statesman.com

I am assuming that Rove had a relationship with his stepfather. Louis Rove was the only father figure he had. Even if the relationship was a cold one or there was conflict, it tells a lot about Rove and the way his mind works. There is no cost. There is no barrier. There is no boundary to what they will do to reach their final goal.

As the the old adage goes,

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.


[thanks to americablog for the heads up.]

loosing freedom...

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and

shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

That's how Keith Olbermann starts out his commentary of Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion this past week. It is well worth the 6 minutes and 15 seconds to watch.

an Olbermann money quote:

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq. It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile… it is right - and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

Freedom, liberty and democracy are based on the right to dissent and disagree with one's government. Mr. Rumsfeld and his boss do not like this. They want us to be afraid of loosing our freedom by taking away our freedom for our own sake. What's the difference between Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984 and Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld keeping us in constant fear by keeping us in perpetual war?

just asking...