Elizabeth Edwards R.I.P.

by Rich Miles

It's an odd thing that so few of the local bloggers have written about the passing of Elizabeth Edwards. She was a woman of distinction, of accomplishment, and a woman who showed the rest of us what it was like to conduct oneself with dignity when circumstances sought to relieve her of any vestige of dignity.

I saw her speak during the pre-primary 2008 election season. She was extolling the virtues of her husband, and as I listened, all I could think of was, I wish I had a woman who had that much faith in me.

As it turned out, I DID have such a woman, but I didn't know it, but that's another story for another time. In any case, Elizabeth spoke eloquently of her husband, and his plans for America, and how all it would take to accomplish these plans was for all of us to vote for her husband, get him the Democratic nomination and then he'd be on his way.

She may have been right, I don't know. None of us will ever know if John Edwards would have been a good president, because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants, but at that point in time, Elizabeth thought so.

And now, she's gone and John is unquestionably mourning her. As well he might. I feel saddest for her little girls.

But in any case, we are all the poorer for the loss of Elizabeth Edwards. We should keep that thought in mind as we move toward 2012. She, even with her by-then unelectable husband, might have taught us some dignity. God knows we can use some of that in America these days.

I admired her. You should have too. God bless her, and may she rest in peace.

War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

by Rich Miles

If you go back over my essays for the past 6 years or so, one of the things you will find is a relatively frequent use of the expressions "I don't know how..." or "I can't understand how" this or that happened.

And in almost every case, you will find that I will be making that observation about a fine point of human nature. For instance, "I don't know how these people can be so effin' stupid as to" vote for such and such a moron candidate.

But now, I think I may understand, at least a little bit better.

People vote for Republicans because they (the repugs) appear to be able and willing to kick the shit out of the opposition. And deep down in their shrivelled little hearts, that's what the "people" want: politicians who are as close as we can get today to the ancient warriors. Men like Achilles, and Odysseus, and in another context, Geronimo and Chief Joseph. George Patton. George Custer. All our heroes, not just the ones mentioned here but many more, are bloody, murderous men, who were ruthless to their enemies and took no prisoners.

(Why doesn't Hitler make this list, you may wonder. He certainly had the raw skills. It's because he overdid it, and killed too many innocents. And did it too publicly. Too visibly. IMHO. And this we couldn't stand in our relativistic moral universe.)

And these are the men we want our leaders to be like today. But we're too civilized for all that, so we elect Republicans instead - men who do the rhetorical equivalent of killing all the enemies, who at the very least do the modern equivalent of counting coup on their adversaries, an exercise with no other purpose than to humiliate their enemies, and weaken them by that.

Every once in a while, we tire of all the bloodshed, and we elect some Democrats for a while. But sooner or later - usually sooner - our bloodthirstiness catches up with us, and we elect the ones who do the most damage to the enemy, who leave the most mutilated corpses on the field of battle - the Republicans.

We are not so civilized as we think much of the time. We seek leaders to do these things for us, and to keep us in a state of war as close to constantly as possible. (Think about that one for a minute - how long have we NOT been in some war or another in the history of the republic?) And it is our leaders' duty to make it look as if WE are the peaceful ones, who only go to war when provoked. But a closer reading of history will show differently. We were not provoked in very many of our longest conflicts.

For you see, wars are excellent ways for leaders to control the people. It's happening right now. It's been happening in an undeniable way since 9/11. We are being lied to and controlled. I don't need to offer examples of this, because thinking persons will see it with very little prompting.

And the rest don't matter.

How much of our nation's substance has gone for "defense" - how much could we as a race have accomplished if we had not spent so mucn on war?

Impossible to say. But the above is, I believe, the reason why we vote for Republicans, despite clear and unmistakable evidence that it's bad for us to do so. They spend all our money on wars. They kill our children in wars. In short, they keep us in control with wars. And we let them do it, because we WANT war. Macro or micro, World War or political wrangling - we want war. We want the conflict. It makes us feel manly - even though women sometimes feel it too.

And that is why we keep electing Republicans. And it makes me so very sad to see it. Every time it happens. The older I get, the more it simply wears me out to see it. My fellow human beings are so foolish as to yield (without knowing it most of the time, I believe) to their "baser instincts". That of the kiiler. The maimer. The destroyer.

I don't know why human nature is this way. I personally do not conform to this model. But I know why our leaders use it this way. Because they can. Because we let them. We don't put together the cause and effect - haven't done so for 5000 years and more. And the net result has been nearly 5000 years of war and death and destruction.

And as Sean Connery says in the film "The Untouchables": What are you prepared to do about it?

Major government corruption

by Rich Miles

Geez, I didn't sleep last night with contemplating this Ark Park thing. Our economy is in deep and ongoing shit, and promises to remain so for years to come, and our illustrious goobernator proposes to GIVE AWAY multi-millions of taxpayers' dollars to religious nut-freaks who preach total rubbish!

THIS will rob you of sleep! It did me, anyway. How do politicians think this shit up? How do they twist their powers of rational thought around until it looks like this? I really don't get it.

And there's really not much chance that the lege will put a stop to this, since our Senate prez has recently embraced the nutso-crazoid Tea Party, and the rest of both houses is liberally (get it? LIBERALLY) sprinkled with some of the worst mental cases ever to occupy a public office. Which is saying something in this day and age.

A couple off-hand predictions: you know that 900 jobs they're bandying about? Most of them will be part-time with no benefits, and the merest whiff of unionism will get the perpetrator run off with a shotgun (figuratively, I think.) I'll have more predictions as time goes by, but these two I'd almost bet on. File these away some-where, where you can retrieve them when truth time comes.

GOD, people! Can't you do any better than this? I mean really, must you bury your heads in the sand like this? Must you waste time, effort and money on shit like this? There is so much more we have to achieve, not only in this state but all across our country. Can we do no more than sit around jacking off?

I wasn't kidding about the taxpayer revolt, you know. Bring it on!

OK, so I missed something...

by Rich Miles

OK, I didn't read about the Ark amusement park before I wrote the piece on Ken Ham and the governor. Sorry about that.

But having said that, the only thing I could find in reference to Steve Beshear's involvement in this massive goatfuck is that the governor "joined" the developers of the park, and that the developers will seek tax breaks - which is where MY tax dollars enter into it.

Because obviously, if the creationists get tax considerations, that's the same as the state supporting this unquestionably religious undertaking.

And that makes me sick to my stomach.

I did not, and as far as I know, neither did any other Kentuckians, vote in favor of giving tax dollars to a bunch of religious nuts. It's estimated that the park will produce some 900 jobs when it opens in spring of 2014, and in the abstract, that's a good thing. Lord knows we can use another 900 jobs in Kentucky, especially in Grant County, where they're trying to put this monstrosity.

But if this is such a winning plan, consider this: the reason most governments give tax breaks is as an incentive for the business receiving the breaks to stay in the jurisdiction that is providing the tax breaks.

But one is tempted to ask: if Kentucky doesn't provide the tax breaks, where are these zealots going to go?

I mean, Ohio and Indiana have been known to go off the deep end in matters religious on occasion, but seriously - do you think either of those states would want this bunch of loonies enough to offer incentives?

I've been surprised before, so I can't say "no" with certainty. But I think not. I hope not.

So why are we in Kentucky paying these fools for the privilege of having them stay here? I mean, they already have their own incentive for staying here, in that they've already put the museum here. So where would they go?

And why has Beshear cozied up to them like this? Inquiring minds want to know.

Is it time for the taxpayers' revolt yet?

Our governor is an idiot!

by Rich Miles

Steve Beshear is taking bribes from Ken Ham. Not just campaign contributions, but actual bribes.

That's the only explanation I can come up with. Or at least the only one that doesn't require me to come to the conclusion that the governor of my state (Kentucky) is a complete lamebrain, who is sucking up to the republican radical religious right-wingers nearly a year before the 2011 election.

Ken Ham is the moron - and I use the term advisedly - who owns and operates the Creation Museum up in Northern Kentucky. The museum that says that dinosaurs co-existed with humans several thousand years ago. The one that tells this tripe to children, who are intellectually malleable enough to actually believe it.

Yellow Dog at Blue in the Bluegrass calls this intellectual child abuse. I concur. It is very likely that children who are indoctrinated with this mind rot now will hold these beliefs well into their adult years - all efforts to rethread these kids' heads in the intervening years notwithstanding. There is even the possibility that the kids will grow into adults who NEVER recant this shit. After all, there are an awful lot of adults who were taught the pabulum of fundamentalist religion as children, sometimes as infants, and still hold those beliefs today, the evidence of daily living on this planet notwithstanding.

But our governor - our GOVERNOR, the chief executive of our state - accepts this crap. Not only accepts it, but embraces it. And we have to lower our eyes as we walk the streets anywhere away from home, lest anyone recognize us as Kentuckians.

You know, I was a member of one of the political organizations who endorsed Beshear in '07. Sure wish I could take that vote back. But even as I say that, I realize that there wasn't much else to choose from at the time. Gatewood Galbraith? Steve Henry? Etc.?

When do we get some GOOD candidates for governor? You know, ones with a bit of intellectual acuity about them?

What's that you say? NEVER???? Never as long as we're Kentuckians?

I was afraid you were going to say that.

The Thievery Becomes More and More Transparent

by Rich Miles

A "boondoggle" is defined as a government program which is claimed to be intended to perform a service for the people of a country, but which in reality is a major waste of government funds with virtually no benefit to the people.

It's also defined as "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security". One of the biggest, if not THE biggest, boondoggle in the history of the world. And I do not exaggerate.

Homeland Security is a conglomeration of some 8 or more Cabinet-level sub-departments which were, before the attacks of 9/11/01, separate departments with their own budgets, staffs, and other levels of autonomy.

However, after the 9/11 attacks, it was decided (by whom, it's hard to trace to this day) that national security, or "homeland" security, would be better served if all or nearly all those who served in that regard were under one legal aegis, rather than 8 separate entities.

One of the ways in which this was supposed to be beneficial to America was supposed to be in the realm of cost savings. Much brouhaha was made of the waste of government resources pre-Homeland Security, and how the combining of all those departments would save billions of dollars each year.

Not very many people believed this, especially Democrats. But those who were old enough to remember, also remember how difficult it was to resist anything the White House was trying to do in this regard. The atmosphere back then gave new meaning to the term "juggernaut".

So, all in all, the Dept. of Homeland Security was destined to be a-borning from the day it was first proposed. There was absolutely no way to stop it once it got underway. And so it was.

I'm sure it was a good idea in fine. But those of us who had any sense of realism about the function of government realized that, far from reducing the costs associated with homeland security, the combined form of the eight agencies were far more likely to cause sharply INCREASED costs.

And so it did.

I had intended to provide some monetary statistics in this piece to demonstrate my  premise: what DHS cost last year, what the same departments cost pre-DHS, etc. But despite the supposed savings due to combining the departments, it's very difficult to pull all those numbers together. Almost as if the departments were still separate, and the government is trying to keep it a secret from us dim, dumb taxpayers.

Almost.

My friends, my fellow taxpayers - we are being had in the worst kind of way. Obama has not tried to close the cash spigot, no one has even mentioned the possibility, at least as far as I have seen - and I do try to pay attention to such things.

If we wish to balance our federal budget, a good start would be to "undoggle" the boondoggle that is Homeland Security. But it's going to take a brave president to take on that bag of wildcats. Because the Republicans will put on their shiniest patriot armor, and accuse the Democratic president who makes this move - for it will be a Democrat - of being weak on national defense.

And on and on and blah blah blah. One can almost predict exactly what the debate will consist of - and thus it will take many years and many trillions of wasted dollars.

And why say anything else? God help us, if there is one.

Tom DeLay is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!

by Rich Miles

Update: As of this date, April 12, 2013, DeLay is, according to Wikipedia, still free on bail while he appeals his conviction. I wonder who is paying his legal bills - or did he steal enough to pay them himself? Nah, these crooked bastards NEVER pay their own way as long as there's some poor sucker to do it for them.

With apologies and thanks to Gary Trudeau, creator of Doonesbury.

But I am delighted to report that Tom DeLay, disgraced former representative from Texas and Majority Leader of the House, was on Wednesday November 24 found guilty of money-laundering charges in a Texas state court.

I mean, this really makes me happy. He's going to appeal the verdict, but the original conviction seems firm enough that the appeal won't do any good. And if it doesn't - TOM DELAY WILL GO TO PRISON!!!

Or most likely will anyway - the judge in the case has the option to sentence DeLay to probation, but even in Texas that would be a bad idea.

So one of the bastards of the Bush administration is quite likely to eat steel for at least 5 years. And my heart could not be gladder!

The only thing that might make me happier than this, in fact the only thing that could make me die happier than this, would be if this same fate befell the Shrub, El Arbusto, the jerk of the century George W. Bush.

Perhaps DeLay's conviction is a step in that direction. One can only hope!

Palins bedamned

by Rich Miles

Edit: It's Bristol Palin, not Crystal. Not that I give a shit. And Jack, you really seem to have some serious negative energy on these women! I mean, I do too, but you really kick ass and take names. Good on ya!

This will be a short post, because I don't want to waste bandwidth on these twits (did I spell that right?)

Sarah Palin has hired a really top-notch PR agent. I am so sick to death of seeing her and her daughter all over TV. But if I ever need a PR agent (God forbid!), I'll get that guy, or lady.

But there may be a downside to this blitz. In fact, there may be several downsides.

First off, it's beginning to appear that there's a fix in for Crystal Palin to win DWTS. In fact, it's beginning to appear unquestionable that this is so. Crystal may turn out to be Sarah's biggest albatross by the time it's over. One thing about that phenomenon will be to see how and how fast she will dump her own daughter if it becomes necessary to do so. And where the hell is her husband, fer cryin' out loud? She'd do better not to have one than to have one so marginal in her life.

Second, this is all happening WAAAAAYYYY too far in advance of the 2012 election. With the insufferably short memory of American voters, by May of '12, the main question in the air may be "Sarah who?"

Third, she's in essence making a fool of herself and behaving very UN-presidentially in her activities. I'll leave that to the opinions of the viewers.

And fourth, she is making the mistake of believing that anyone gives even a remote shit what she does and how she lives her life.

Is this the way we want our president to look? I mean her behavior and demeanor, not her actual appearance, which if I have to admit it is kinda hot and milf-ish. But is that how America wants its president to present? I kinda doubt it, on either side of the aisle.

This is all McCain's fault. He made the mistake of giving her something she could read as evidence that she mattered to America or to anyone who doesn't have the same last name as hers. One more mistake from McCain.

Not as short as I thought. Sorry.

My "Salon.com" Opus

by Rich Miles

I've been meaning to do this for a while now. Below is a link that will take you to the "Other Posts by Rich Miles" section of the archives of Salon magazine online. The dates of the pieces are April 10, 2007 to November 15, 2007 - the latter date being just about the time my brain disorder kicked in and made me stop anything like writing. Or indeed, reading.

I'm putting them up here for several reasons, not least among them that I'm quite proud of some of the posts and don't want them to be lost forever. But also, the posts have attached to them a link that will take you to the Salon article about which I'm writing, so you can, if you wish, figure out exactly what it is I'm commenting about. Most of my essays don't have that info, so you have to remember as well as I do what it is I'm on about with each one.

So - if you really like my writing, here are 68 pieces of varying length from letter to the editor to full essay. Hope you enjoy them!

(I have a similar body of work on The Nation online. I just have to figure out how to access them. Might take a while.)

Letters by Rich Miles

You repugs gotta be kidding!

by Rich Miles

Awright, this shit has got to stop. There's an editorial in today's New York Times in which it is recounted how the repug leadership of the House AND Senate have refused, or in truth simply ignored, a dinner invitation from the President of the United States at the White House.

From the editorial:

It has been more than two weeks since President Obama issued a postelection invitation for Congressional leaders to join him for dinner on Nov. 18 to discuss “how we can move the American people’s agenda forward.

And all of 'em - all 200+ repug members of the U.S. House and Senate - were just too busy. Couldn't make it. Not even a "Sorry, Mr. President" - just ignored him, and didn't show up for dinner at the White House to discuss the people's business.

I mean, is it me, or is this stuff becoming more and more childish as time goes on? Childish AND disrespectful. I mean, is snubbing the Prez like this supposed to make him look weak, and thus hurt his chances for re-election? Does no one in the electorate even notice this kind of behavior? Are repug voters actually PROUD of their leaders for treating the holder of the highest office in the land like a fiel' hand? I mean, why don't they just come out with it, and say "We ain't sittin' down to eat with no n***er"? That would at least be an honest representation of their feelings.

I've said this about other things since Obama became prez, but think of it: can you just IMAGINE the uproar if the Dem leadership had done something like this to Saint George of Bush? I mean, it's just impossible to fathom.

And why can't we on the left use similar tactics? Yes, they're dirty tactics, and yes, we should, just like the repugs, be ashamed of ourselves for using them, but hey! Our opponents have shown repeatedly that anything goes, any tactic is a proper means to an end - so why shouldn't we do the same?

I'd be ashamed, if I didn't have such shit sonsabitches for opponents. In fact, I'm still ashamed. But I think the Dems should do it.

Raise holy hell, Dems! It would happen to you if the situation were reversed! For once, take the low road like your opponents.

Please! I'm getting tired of seeing my leaders gutted and left to die by the side of the road. Let some blood be let on the other side for a change.