by Rich Miles
Army Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, the head of American forces in Northern Iraq, has banned pregnancy under his command.
That's right - it's now against Army regulations to get pregnant.
Now, this is the very definition of mixed emotions for me - I really don't know which way to look on this one.
I have for years been an advocate for responsible penis and vagina use, and abhor the massive number of inadvertent pregnancies in all segments of our society, including the military. I personally have no biological children ('bio-kids', as I coined them.) That's just how good *I* am.
But according to a story printed in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, any member of the armed forces who becomes pregnant or impregnates another servicemember, including married couples both in the service, could face a court-martial and jail time.
Note that "or" clause - OR anyone who impregnates another service member. This includes married couples who are both in the service. If one is and the other isn't, I guess only the service member gets busted.
Now, how are we to think about this matter?
On the one hand, it's at least gender-neutral, since both the impregnee and the impregnor are liable for these penalties. Since it's nearly impossible to hide one's paternity these days, both parties will face sanction. That is, IF they are both members of the military. Frankly, not a very frequent occurrence.
But on the other hand, what de fuck BIZNESS is it of the military command structure as to whether a couple choose to conceive? Married or no?
And then on the inevitable third hand, do the armed forces in essence own yo' sorry ass for as long as you're in the service? And do they thus have the right to tell you that you can't get knocked up, or do any knocking up?
Col. David S. Thompson, the inspector general for all soldiers in Iraq, says that this is a legal order. I'm not quite sure of that. I have too much experience of the military SAYING that something is legal etc., and just waiting for it to be proven so or not at a future date - kicking the can down the road, as they say.
So perhaps it remains to be seen. But my initial response to this knowledge is that it's just SOOOOO very illegal, even for the military, to pass down an order like this.
I'd enjoy reading your comments on this. I really need guidance.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
What does it take to learn?
by Rich Miles
So I'm sitting here multitasking, that is, watching TV and reading blogs etc., and all of a sudden, two HUGE (to me) obvious thoughts pop up out of the mire, to wit:
1) Most Americans don't realize why we're at war, and
2) Almost no one has made the obvious connection between the fact that Joe Lieberman is from Connecticut and the fact that he is doing his level best to defeat national health care reform legislation.
Let us address #1 first. It's traditional, after all:
Ever hear the expression "Defense industries"? Ever given any serious thought to what it means?
It means billions of tax dollars flowing from government coffers into the hands of privately owned corporations and private individuals. I mean, in the worst of times for the nation, it's absolutely necessary that things flow that way.
But in the BUSH of times, in which we've been living for 8 of the past 9 years, the money was made to flow in that direction, no matter the need for national security, etc.
And this is what it seems most people don't realize. They can spot when there is government waste in other areas, but for some reason it doesn't occur to them that the treasury can be deliberately drained in time of war.
This seems obvious to me, and perhaps to you as well - but do you remember the last time someone pointed it out in no uncertain terms? That "we're being robbed by being at war"?
I don't think I ever saw that. But it's true nonetheless. The Iraq War, and now the Afghan War, are nothing more - NOTHING more - than ways for unscrupulous war profiteers to appear to be serving the national interest while in reality robbing the country. And American soldiers are dying in service of this venal enterprise.
You see, the Bush administration was all about the money. In fact, it's arguable that every administration since, oh I don't know, Washington was all about the money. But Bush (and his pals) were just that much more obvious in his ways of robbing us. In fact, that was what pissed me off the most about him and his pals: he robbed us, then laughed at us when we noticed our wallets were a little light. Or missing.
See, everyone knew he and his cronies were robbing us. It's just that damn few people knew they were using the armed forces and the federal procurement system to do it.
Which brings us to point 2: Joe Lieberman is from Connecticut. You know - the INSURANCE capital of the nation?
And you remember how he surpassed all expectations for fundraising when he ran against, and almost lost to, Ned Lamont?
Gee, I wonder how all that happened? Don't you?
So there are your two obvious points for the day. Not very elegantly presented, perhaps, but true nonetheless. At least as far as I can tell.
And even without proof, don't the above two points make perfect sense? Doesn't even require too much in the way of paranoia, does it?
How do we stop it? How do we make the corruption in our government stop?
Because it's everywhere, and it's killing us.
So I'm sitting here multitasking, that is, watching TV and reading blogs etc., and all of a sudden, two HUGE (to me) obvious thoughts pop up out of the mire, to wit:
1) Most Americans don't realize why we're at war, and
2) Almost no one has made the obvious connection between the fact that Joe Lieberman is from Connecticut and the fact that he is doing his level best to defeat national health care reform legislation.
Let us address #1 first. It's traditional, after all:
Ever hear the expression "Defense industries"? Ever given any serious thought to what it means?
It means billions of tax dollars flowing from government coffers into the hands of privately owned corporations and private individuals. I mean, in the worst of times for the nation, it's absolutely necessary that things flow that way.
But in the BUSH of times, in which we've been living for 8 of the past 9 years, the money was made to flow in that direction, no matter the need for national security, etc.
And this is what it seems most people don't realize. They can spot when there is government waste in other areas, but for some reason it doesn't occur to them that the treasury can be deliberately drained in time of war.
This seems obvious to me, and perhaps to you as well - but do you remember the last time someone pointed it out in no uncertain terms? That "we're being robbed by being at war"?
I don't think I ever saw that. But it's true nonetheless. The Iraq War, and now the Afghan War, are nothing more - NOTHING more - than ways for unscrupulous war profiteers to appear to be serving the national interest while in reality robbing the country. And American soldiers are dying in service of this venal enterprise.
You see, the Bush administration was all about the money. In fact, it's arguable that every administration since, oh I don't know, Washington was all about the money. But Bush (and his pals) were just that much more obvious in his ways of robbing us. In fact, that was what pissed me off the most about him and his pals: he robbed us, then laughed at us when we noticed our wallets were a little light. Or missing.
See, everyone knew he and his cronies were robbing us. It's just that damn few people knew they were using the armed forces and the federal procurement system to do it.
Which brings us to point 2: Joe Lieberman is from Connecticut. You know - the INSURANCE capital of the nation?
And you remember how he surpassed all expectations for fundraising when he ran against, and almost lost to, Ned Lamont?
Gee, I wonder how all that happened? Don't you?
So there are your two obvious points for the day. Not very elegantly presented, perhaps, but true nonetheless. At least as far as I can tell.
And even without proof, don't the above two points make perfect sense? Doesn't even require too much in the way of paranoia, does it?
How do we stop it? How do we make the corruption in our government stop?
Because it's everywhere, and it's killing us.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
What We Can Learn from Movies
by Rich Miles
Those who know me well know that I am an inveterate film buff. I would rather watch a film from the 1930's than from the 2000's, and Turner Classic Movies is the best thing that ever happened to television, as far as I'm concerned.
Well, anyway - the reason I mention all this now is that I am in the process at this very moment of watching a film that has much to say to us. It's not a terribly well-known film, though it has some quite popular actors in it. James Stewart, Margaret Sullavan, Robert Young, Maria Ouspenskaya, Ward Bond, Frank Morgan, among others whose names and faces most of us would recognize, film buffs or no.
The film is called "The Mortal Storm". It was made in 1939 and released in 1940, even before the full ramifications of its subject matter was known worldwide.
And quite a subject matter it has, too. The film is about the beginnings of Nazism in Germany. ALL the beginnings, most especially the ugly ones.
And in addition to being something of a historical document showing how fascism took root in Germany back then, and the powerlessness of the average man and woman in the face of such psychic and physical violence, it also manages to be something of a precursor to the world as it is today.
I know, I know, everyone always calls his adversaries Nazis. Rush Limbaugh has been doing it for years with his "Feminazis" shtick, among many others on both sides of the political spectrum.
But if ever there were a filmic demonstration of what fascism actually looks like, at ground level and in the daily lives of men and women, this film is it.
An eerie moment, reminiscent of far too many things, takes place early in the movie. Here's a short description of it:
Germans were well known for their fondness for singing - group singing in bars and restaurants especially. Such a group sing takes place with the local Nazi cell leading the song.
And they sing an early Nazi anthem, with their arms raised in the traditional Nazi "Heil Hitler" salute.
And it reminded me for all the world of the way fundamentalist Xtians often raise their hands while they sing supposedly rapturous hymns to the alleged almighty.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it is a spooky reminder, or precursor if you prefer.
Those who seek to control the hearts and minds of others often make the same outward moves and gestures every time it happens.
And now - how did we get to this point? Where supposed "Christians" have become our 21st century Nazis?
And more to the point - what do we do about it now?
As Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan are about to escape over the border into Austria, he gives her one last chance to change her mind: "Shall we go, over the border? Or shall we go back?"
And she says, "Back to what?"
Good question.
Those who know me well know that I am an inveterate film buff. I would rather watch a film from the 1930's than from the 2000's, and Turner Classic Movies is the best thing that ever happened to television, as far as I'm concerned.
Well, anyway - the reason I mention all this now is that I am in the process at this very moment of watching a film that has much to say to us. It's not a terribly well-known film, though it has some quite popular actors in it. James Stewart, Margaret Sullavan, Robert Young, Maria Ouspenskaya, Ward Bond, Frank Morgan, among others whose names and faces most of us would recognize, film buffs or no.
The film is called "The Mortal Storm". It was made in 1939 and released in 1940, even before the full ramifications of its subject matter was known worldwide.
And quite a subject matter it has, too. The film is about the beginnings of Nazism in Germany. ALL the beginnings, most especially the ugly ones.
And in addition to being something of a historical document showing how fascism took root in Germany back then, and the powerlessness of the average man and woman in the face of such psychic and physical violence, it also manages to be something of a precursor to the world as it is today.
I know, I know, everyone always calls his adversaries Nazis. Rush Limbaugh has been doing it for years with his "Feminazis" shtick, among many others on both sides of the political spectrum.
But if ever there were a filmic demonstration of what fascism actually looks like, at ground level and in the daily lives of men and women, this film is it.
An eerie moment, reminiscent of far too many things, takes place early in the movie. Here's a short description of it:
Germans were well known for their fondness for singing - group singing in bars and restaurants especially. Such a group sing takes place with the local Nazi cell leading the song.
And they sing an early Nazi anthem, with their arms raised in the traditional Nazi "Heil Hitler" salute.
And it reminded me for all the world of the way fundamentalist Xtians often raise their hands while they sing supposedly rapturous hymns to the alleged almighty.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it is a spooky reminder, or precursor if you prefer.
Those who seek to control the hearts and minds of others often make the same outward moves and gestures every time it happens.
And now - how did we get to this point? Where supposed "Christians" have become our 21st century Nazis?
And more to the point - what do we do about it now?
As Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan are about to escape over the border into Austria, he gives her one last chance to change her mind: "Shall we go, over the border? Or shall we go back?"
And she says, "Back to what?"
Good question.
Friday, October 09, 2009
The Secret of the North
by Rich Miles
There's a dirty little secret being revealed in Massachusetts. You know, that state up north where the former governor, Mitt Romney, rammed through a universal health care bill REQUIRING that all residents of the state have health insurance? The state where they actually FINE residents who don't have the money for health insurance?
And a writer named Wendy Button, a former speechwriter for some of the brightest lights in liberal thought, has written a summary with an admittedly subjective, what-I'm-not-getting-from-it POV. But Ms. Button's description has the advantage of being from the perspective of someone who has gotten her insurance from a reasonably priced (yes, there is such a thing) place like Washington DC to the state with the highest health insurance premiums in the country.
Click on the link and read Wendy Button's description of how she went from insured to can't afford to be insured in one geographical move. It's a cautionary tale not only for NOT moving to Massachusetts, but for our Congress as they seek a path through the maze to universal health care.
This doesn't seem an impossible task. Can we reduce it to its simplest form?
Nah. I mean, this is American politics we're talking about, after all. We have that serious, major fuck-up period to go through, then 20 or so years later it gets fixed. More or less.
I'll never live that long.
There's a dirty little secret being revealed in Massachusetts. You know, that state up north where the former governor, Mitt Romney, rammed through a universal health care bill REQUIRING that all residents of the state have health insurance? The state where they actually FINE residents who don't have the money for health insurance?
And a writer named Wendy Button, a former speechwriter for some of the brightest lights in liberal thought, has written a summary with an admittedly subjective, what-I'm-not-getting-from-it POV. But Ms. Button's description has the advantage of being from the perspective of someone who has gotten her insurance from a reasonably priced (yes, there is such a thing) place like Washington DC to the state with the highest health insurance premiums in the country.
Click on the link and read Wendy Button's description of how she went from insured to can't afford to be insured in one geographical move. It's a cautionary tale not only for NOT moving to Massachusetts, but for our Congress as they seek a path through the maze to universal health care.
This doesn't seem an impossible task. Can we reduce it to its simplest form?
Nah. I mean, this is American politics we're talking about, after all. We have that serious, major fuck-up period to go through, then 20 or so years later it gets fixed. More or less.
I'll never live that long.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Financial Ramifications of Birth Control
by Rich Miles
'...in the words of Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel, "The minute sperm enters egg, we have a person. One way birth control pills work is by thinning the womb so if an egg is fertilized, it will not implant. Some Christians consider this an abortion."'
Is it me, or are the religious nuts getting even nuttier with each passing headline?
I mean, read that opening graf again. "Some Christians" consider this an abortion? What the FUCK do I care what "some Christians" think?
In fact, I question the entire premise that "some Christians", or any Christians, think at all. It's my contention that, by the simple act of being Christians, they relinquish all claim to "thought" or "consideration".
But I digress.
The above quote is from an article by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux called "Birth Control Threatened by Recession", in which several other such ridiculous and sexist ideas are propounded as well (on the con side, I'm pleased to report.)
I recommend you read the entire post. Especially if you live in Florida. Florida is a loony bin in this and other wingnut regards. But then, if you live there, you already knew that.
Seriously, the abject lack of respect for women - not MORE respect than is accorded men, but simply ANY respect at all - is just galling, for lack of a better word. I mean, there is a definitive link between global warming and reproductive rights, and the main stumbling block to the link is that women must not be allowed to decide whether or not they have children. I mean really, WTF?
Read the whole thing, and decide for yourself.
'...in the words of Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel, "The minute sperm enters egg, we have a person. One way birth control pills work is by thinning the womb so if an egg is fertilized, it will not implant. Some Christians consider this an abortion."'
Is it me, or are the religious nuts getting even nuttier with each passing headline?
I mean, read that opening graf again. "Some Christians" consider this an abortion? What the FUCK do I care what "some Christians" think?
In fact, I question the entire premise that "some Christians", or any Christians, think at all. It's my contention that, by the simple act of being Christians, they relinquish all claim to "thought" or "consideration".
But I digress.
The above quote is from an article by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux called "Birth Control Threatened by Recession", in which several other such ridiculous and sexist ideas are propounded as well (on the con side, I'm pleased to report.)
I recommend you read the entire post. Especially if you live in Florida. Florida is a loony bin in this and other wingnut regards. But then, if you live there, you already knew that.
Seriously, the abject lack of respect for women - not MORE respect than is accorded men, but simply ANY respect at all - is just galling, for lack of a better word. I mean, there is a definitive link between global warming and reproductive rights, and the main stumbling block to the link is that women must not be allowed to decide whether or not they have children. I mean really, WTF?
Read the whole thing, and decide for yourself.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Jews have the right idea
by Rich Miles
News reports out of Jerusalem today tell us that former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has been indicted on charges of public corruption. It was the first ever indictment of a current or former Israeli prime minister, and is an extension of corruption charges that were originally filed during Olmert's tenure as prime minister.
Now, I don't have a clue as to whether Olmert is guilty or not. But I do know this: if guilt by association were an acceptable legal principle in Israel, Olmert would already be fried or at best would be on his way to the frier.
But so far it's only an indictment, so we'll pretend for the time being that Olmert is innocent until proven guilty, though I don't know for certain if THAT is an accepted Israeli legal concept either.
Anyway, here's the point I want to make with this: what if the Israelis, one of our staunchest allies if not best friends in the region, did this in part at least to show us a valuable lesson: that a strong and democratic nation can indeed arrest, indict, try and convict a former leader (prime minister, president, etc.) without the country in question falling apart at the seams?
And what if we, fairly intelligent as a nation, got the clue and indicted our former president for much the same charges and more, and in the process managed to punish the worst criminal we ever elected?
Is it possible? Could we yet punish Shrub? Not commensurate with his sins without resorting to the death penalty, which I personally abhor even for Shrub, but what if we could do that?
What would it do to our international prestige? Would we look like asses in the international community? Or would we, as I personally contend, look better for having acknowledged our mistakes and sought to redress them?
I don't know if Israel is that devious. But I do know that the arrest and indictment of Olmert sets an international precedent that we should not ignore.
I myself would pay a quarter to watch the trial of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on TV.
News reports out of Jerusalem today tell us that former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has been indicted on charges of public corruption. It was the first ever indictment of a current or former Israeli prime minister, and is an extension of corruption charges that were originally filed during Olmert's tenure as prime minister.
Now, I don't have a clue as to whether Olmert is guilty or not. But I do know this: if guilt by association were an acceptable legal principle in Israel, Olmert would already be fried or at best would be on his way to the frier.
But so far it's only an indictment, so we'll pretend for the time being that Olmert is innocent until proven guilty, though I don't know for certain if THAT is an accepted Israeli legal concept either.
Anyway, here's the point I want to make with this: what if the Israelis, one of our staunchest allies if not best friends in the region, did this in part at least to show us a valuable lesson: that a strong and democratic nation can indeed arrest, indict, try and convict a former leader (prime minister, president, etc.) without the country in question falling apart at the seams?
And what if we, fairly intelligent as a nation, got the clue and indicted our former president for much the same charges and more, and in the process managed to punish the worst criminal we ever elected?
Is it possible? Could we yet punish Shrub? Not commensurate with his sins without resorting to the death penalty, which I personally abhor even for Shrub, but what if we could do that?
What would it do to our international prestige? Would we look like asses in the international community? Or would we, as I personally contend, look better for having acknowledged our mistakes and sought to redress them?
I don't know if Israel is that devious. But I do know that the arrest and indictment of Olmert sets an international precedent that we should not ignore.
I myself would pay a quarter to watch the trial of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on TV.
Friday, August 28, 2009
What's a few measly popularity points?
by Rich Miles
OK, OK, we don't want to pull a George W Bush and deny the facts, but there are extenuating circumstances:
President Obama's job approval ratings have fallen below 50%.
But you see, he's done some pretty profound and brave shit in his first 7 months in office, and it should be expected that a number of people are going to be against him because of that. This whole health care initiative has probably cost him 8-10 points in the polls. No one knows where it's going to go - no one knows if it's going to pass, or tank taking Obama's presidential fortunes with it. And of those who have changed their minds about Obama in the past few months, I'd wager that a good 8-10 points' worth have changed simply because they think Obama is gonna crash and burn, and they don't want to be seen to be supporting a loser.
So I'm not too worried about Obama's loss of some popularity points. I rather doubt he is either, in fact he says in the linked article that he's not. Not in the same arrogant way that GWB wasn't concerned, but nonetheless.
After the health care initiative has made it to the floor, and been voted on, and passed, we'll revisit this issue. And my guess is, if it DOES pass, and I think it will, then Preznit Obama's job approval rating will lodge somewhere in the low to mid-70's.
At least, that's what *I* think...
OK, OK, we don't want to pull a George W Bush and deny the facts, but there are extenuating circumstances:
President Obama's job approval ratings have fallen below 50%.
But you see, he's done some pretty profound and brave shit in his first 7 months in office, and it should be expected that a number of people are going to be against him because of that. This whole health care initiative has probably cost him 8-10 points in the polls. No one knows where it's going to go - no one knows if it's going to pass, or tank taking Obama's presidential fortunes with it. And of those who have changed their minds about Obama in the past few months, I'd wager that a good 8-10 points' worth have changed simply because they think Obama is gonna crash and burn, and they don't want to be seen to be supporting a loser.
So I'm not too worried about Obama's loss of some popularity points. I rather doubt he is either, in fact he says in the linked article that he's not. Not in the same arrogant way that GWB wasn't concerned, but nonetheless.
After the health care initiative has made it to the floor, and been voted on, and passed, we'll revisit this issue. And my guess is, if it DOES pass, and I think it will, then Preznit Obama's job approval rating will lodge somewhere in the low to mid-70's.
At least, that's what *I* think...
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
When did making sense become optional?
by Rich Miles
You know what I don't understand about conservatives?
Well, there are a lot of things I don't understand about them, like for instance why they even exist, but here's the main thing, and while I haven't articulated this before now, it's been true for quite a while:
What I don't understand is, why do conservatives believe - and believe as if Gospel - the words and thoughts of idiots like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck (less and less as time goes on), and others of their lying, self-deceiving and hate-filled ilk, but they DO NOT believe the President of the United States.
Now, these are the same people, in large part, who got their knickers in a major twist ANY TIME anyone even so much as questioned the slightest judgment of their beloved George W. Bush.
And never, or hardly ever, do ANY of these people even question whether the heinous crap they're laying on Pres. Obama even makes SENSE!
I mean, does the concept of "death panels" make any sense? Does anyone really believe the government could even get away with instituting such a horrible concept?
Surely, if it's thought through, the answer to the above MUST be "no".
And so it is with any number of other points of objection maintained by the righties. They just don't make sense. And yet, the right-wingers believe them. And WILL NOT believe the standard authority figures, not that they should be believed out of hand, but that they are at least a first point of departure.
For sensible people, anyway.
But au fin, the Marching Morons continue to live in fear, and continue to refer NOT to people who might reasonably be able to allay their fears, but to those who play to them, and who increase their fears.
I don't get it. And it's my guess that even the people who DO it don't understand why they do it either.
They're just like Pavlov's dogs. Only dumber.
You know what I don't understand about conservatives?
Well, there are a lot of things I don't understand about them, like for instance why they even exist, but here's the main thing, and while I haven't articulated this before now, it's been true for quite a while:
What I don't understand is, why do conservatives believe - and believe as if Gospel - the words and thoughts of idiots like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck (less and less as time goes on), and others of their lying, self-deceiving and hate-filled ilk, but they DO NOT believe the President of the United States.
Now, these are the same people, in large part, who got their knickers in a major twist ANY TIME anyone even so much as questioned the slightest judgment of their beloved George W. Bush.
And never, or hardly ever, do ANY of these people even question whether the heinous crap they're laying on Pres. Obama even makes SENSE!
I mean, does the concept of "death panels" make any sense? Does anyone really believe the government could even get away with instituting such a horrible concept?
Surely, if it's thought through, the answer to the above MUST be "no".
And so it is with any number of other points of objection maintained by the righties. They just don't make sense. And yet, the right-wingers believe them. And WILL NOT believe the standard authority figures, not that they should be believed out of hand, but that they are at least a first point of departure.
For sensible people, anyway.
But au fin, the Marching Morons continue to live in fear, and continue to refer NOT to people who might reasonably be able to allay their fears, but to those who play to them, and who increase their fears.
I don't get it. And it's my guess that even the people who DO it don't understand why they do it either.
They're just like Pavlov's dogs. Only dumber.
Teddy's passing
by Rich Miles
Update: What about Kennedy's widow? I'm not kidding, she's one sharp cookie, and has the same or nearly the same politics that Teddy had. What about Vickie Kennedy, no joke!
Ted Kennedy is dead.
It's a strange thing, but I feel a personal sense of loss at his passing. Just as I did when his brother Jack died in 1963, when I was 10 years old, and when his brother Bobby died in 1968. Only a little bit worse, because I'm now an old man, or oldish anyway, who has some understanding now of mortality.
But enough about me, let's talk about the country. How are we going to replace Ted? Doesn't matter whether the governor of Massachusetts does it, or there is a special election, how are we going to find a new Ted Kennedy? There is a reason he was known as the Lion of the Senate, and not just any old fool can replace him.
Barney Frank might be a good choice, but then the people of Mass. will be faced with the problem of replacing Barney in the House. No mean feat in itself.
Other than that, I have no idea. But I know this: we - all Americans, and perhaps even all the world - are the poorer for the passing of this fine, humane and brilliant man.
Requiescat in pace, Edward M. Kennedy. We will miss you in ways that we cannot even anticipate today.
Update: What about Kennedy's widow? I'm not kidding, she's one sharp cookie, and has the same or nearly the same politics that Teddy had. What about Vickie Kennedy, no joke!
Ted Kennedy is dead.
It's a strange thing, but I feel a personal sense of loss at his passing. Just as I did when his brother Jack died in 1963, when I was 10 years old, and when his brother Bobby died in 1968. Only a little bit worse, because I'm now an old man, or oldish anyway, who has some understanding now of mortality.
But enough about me, let's talk about the country. How are we going to replace Ted? Doesn't matter whether the governor of Massachusetts does it, or there is a special election, how are we going to find a new Ted Kennedy? There is a reason he was known as the Lion of the Senate, and not just any old fool can replace him.
Barney Frank might be a good choice, but then the people of Mass. will be faced with the problem of replacing Barney in the House. No mean feat in itself.
Other than that, I have no idea. But I know this: we - all Americans, and perhaps even all the world - are the poorer for the passing of this fine, humane and brilliant man.
Requiescat in pace, Edward M. Kennedy. We will miss you in ways that we cannot even anticipate today.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Obiter Obit
by Rich Miles
OK, so I don't speak Latin:
Don Hewitt is dead. What a shame. Would that we had 20 more like him only younger.
Robert Novak is dead. I have absolutely nothing else to say on this topic, or at least nothing that's decent.
OK, so I don't speak Latin:
Don Hewitt is dead. What a shame. Would that we had 20 more like him only younger.
Robert Novak is dead. I have absolutely nothing else to say on this topic, or at least nothing that's decent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)