WE'VE MOVED! Click here: http://www.hartwilliams.com/blog/blogger.html
Saturday, December 24, 2005
MIXED TIDINGS OF CHRISTMAS
(and my Christmas Gift to YOU - see end)
This week, the Zogby poll revealed that 49% of my fellow Americans are morons. Yes, Virginia, it's true, sad to say:
Released: December 21, 2005You would think that the novelty of self-rule, of not being bullied by some imperious schmuck would not have worn off so quickly. But evidently, 49% of Americans have not taken the time to familiarize themselves with the Constitution. It is clear that the illegal snooping, the spying on Americans, and persons living in America (which are PROTECTED by that Constitution, whether or not they are citizens), well, it's clear that Bush engaged in illegal action -- all the more so because of revelations that he ASKED for the authority from Congress, and Congress said "no."
Clearer still from these comments archived on the White House Web Site:
April 20, 2004Which he stated, knowing full well that he was NOT getting court orders. Lying, in other words.
But, alas, 49% of the American public are so self-satisfied, so smug, and so stupid that these nuances are lost on them. The lesson of Christmases past suggests that they will have plenty of time to contemplate the error of their ways in gulags, or when their children are sacrificed to Moloch and the War Machine in unjustified wars waged by those too craven, too cowardly to have served themselves.
Sadly, the Christmas economy has been severely depressed by the current state of things. Worse, we have, for some reason, based our entire commercial economy on rabid consumerism at Christmastime (ironically, depressed by the Faux Nooz Team and their phony "War on Christmas" harangues -- as though fighting, name-calling and rabble-rousing by these demagogues would assuage their God, Mammon).
Retailer step up holiday discounts"Business! Mankind was my business!" quoth Jacob Marley's Ghost, in the Dickens classic. Too bad that we've perverted Christmas into Scroogian seeking after profits.
I won't be patronizing the stores this year. It would be an insult to whatever we generally agree that Christmas means. No blood for oil; no presents to prop up the misers.
And while we're on the subject of obscene profits, here's a little story to warm the cockles of the monopolist's wallet:
Alastair Cooke's bones may have been stolen, soldI leave it to the reader to reflect on the fixation on money and the Burke and Hare-brained evil of this scheme.
The Voice of America reports that Bethlehem is hurting, as well:
Christians Disappearing in Birthplace of JesusWell, thanks to your Tax Dollars At Work, the Voice of America provides these reports ... but are prohibited by law from broadcasting them inside the United States. Thank Kris Kringle for the Internet (since Bush has successfully foisted off the lie that Al Gore had nothing to do with its genesis, funding and nurture).
But all is not doom and gloom. Far from it. The wicked are getting their lumps of coal:
FINANCIAL TIMES (of London)And, a great (if based in fundamental cowardice) Christmas present for a dad whose son is currently a hostage to Bush's bloodlust (from the same source):
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/693130be-7421-11da-ab91-0000779e2340.htmlTHAT is good news! ANYTHING that draws down our presence is good news.
And in other good news, the Olin Foundation (far MORE lucrative a funding source for the various right wing attack dogs like the Heritage Foundation, etc. than Richard Mellon Scaife) is going out of business. That's a kick in the slats for the endless far-right fringe groups his dead hand supported (as I've reported here before). From NEWSMAX, who may well have been a recipient of John Olin's dead largesse:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/28/113010.shtmlTHAT is good news (if seemingly obscure and certainly little noted). The engine that drove the Right Wing putsch just ran out of gas. And just as the Repugnantlicans are breaking down like the Germans during the siege of Stalingrad.
And, speaking of an agenda fueled by money that ofttimes seems antithetical to freedom, here's some more tidings of comfort and joy:
Microsoft Sells Most of Stake in TV Channel
And, finally, we put on my 19-year-old radio pilot script as a live radio drama yesterday morning (which is why I had no time for blogging, of late). It turned out wonderfully well, and I was astonished at the response.
My Christmas gift to you, this Christmas Eve, is the remixed, remastered and cleaned up, compressed 23-minute, complete version, from yesterday morning.
It's a 4.1 meg .mp3 (mono, as was the original AM broadcast). Download the MP3 (right click and "save as"):
God Bless us Every One!
And, from myself, to all the many readers and secret assistants that make Skiing Uphill not only possible, but a joy to do, thanks so much. Merry Christmas. Enjoy.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
or, GOD BLESS US, ALL BUT ONE!
[Warning: this is a polite rant. If not in the mood, please disregard. I'll return to speaking in the third person on the nonce. Or the nonce-and-a-half.]
One of the perks of having turned fifty is that I'm no longer just a "kid from Wyoming" trying to make it as a freelancer. Now, I'm a grizzled veteran of thirty years' media wars, and, as if to underscore the point, I had an interesting interlude with Salon.com last Sunday that bears careful examination. (Well, that, gray hair and my incipient crows feet. But those will have to wait for another blog entry.)
It begins back in October, when I sent a polite, professional query to Salon's book editor regarding the possibility of doing book reviews for the online magazine.
Here are the guidelines on their website:
Salon welcomes article queries and submissions. The best way to submit articles and story pitches is via e-mail.So, using these guidelines, I queried. Please note that I have reviewed books for 29 years now, and have invariably been assigned by my editors. I have never had to, nor been asked to "pitch" a particular book. Here's the query, more or less in the same format that I've used these past three decades.
From: "Hart Williams"A month goes by. Things do get lost in cyberspace, so I followed up in November. You might note that I cc'ed ****s boss. The sad fact of publishing is that editors change a lot, and the "correct" contact on the Chain-of-Command might be absent for whatever reason, so you cc: the department head (in this case the "Arts Editor") and that way, the query follow up can be filtered to the proper sub-editor or secretary.
From: "Hart Williams"Now, at this point ANOTHER month goes by, and then another fortnight. I have no knowledge of the arcane politics of Salon.com, but they evidently are "reinventing the wheel" by dumping generations of editorial/auctorial politesse in their low-flow toilets.
Get this straight: I spent a good chunk of my twenties reading slush -- the generic term for unsolicited manuscript submissions. On my twenty-fourth birthday, I had, as per usual, a more than foot-high stack of slush dumped on my desk. This had been a source of some bureaucratic infighting, but I requisitioned an extra two plastic, stackable "in" boxes for my desk, because the sheer weight of the manuscripts that came in each and every day warped the one tray I already had.
[Bureaucracy being what it is, after personally explaining the situation to whatever passes for the quartermaster of my publisher, I got my two plastic trays.]
And what you had, back in those stone ages of Selectric III typewriters and manila envelopes with paper manuscripts paper-clipped to a cardboard backing, was a pre-printed stack of "rejection notices." These said, politely (everybody used them, more or less like this):
[Company Logo] We thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, due to the large volume of manuscripts received, we cannot respond personally to each submission.And that was minimal professionalism. I have literally hundreds of them. And even PLAYBOY, which was once the toughest market to crack (since they paid better than anyone else) sent polite form rejections on those mad occasions that I felt myself presumptuous enough to submit a short story.
Now, with macro scripts, and etceteras, I would create a standard form rejection (in plain text and .html with the Company Logo) that I would assign to function key "F-11" (F-12 is invariably used for an "em-dash") and simply hit "F-11" to send a form rejection.
But these Salon boobs are either too technically inept, or too self-absorbed to acknowledge the simple act of manuscript submission.
Because it takes something to submit a query, or a short story, or a whatever. Minimal professional courtesy used to suggest that the courtesy of a reply was obligatory (presuming that you DID include a Self-Addressed, Stamped Envelope, the infamous SASE).
In a computer age, it costs nothing to send a reply.
So, recognizing this fact, I decided to burn my bridge, and, roiling a stick in the hornets nest of narcissism that invariably surrounds a successful publication, I thought they might tip their hand. They did.
From: "Hart Williams"Yeah, I know. But remember that I had already determined that these weren't people that were worth doing business with. Frankly, this casual abuse of writers (this Louis the XVIIth attitude) is counter-productive on every level, and I thought their noses needed a tweaking. And you never know what will happen if you poke the stick in the hive a couple times.
Remember, I sent the above email at 10:15:13 AM [atomic clock time] on a Sunday morning to a "magazine" that had not replied to two polite requests in 74 days.
Less than two hours later, I received this at 12:11:04 PM
From: ****@salon.comNow, let's examine that reply. Two hours later? On a Sunday morning? And why couldn't THAT have been a reply 74 days ago? Why waste MY time? As noted, I've never been expected to "pitch" a book in 29 years of this racket, but the snippy tone suggests that I was expected to read minds, and, by the by, we don't actually use freelancers (so, WHY would they list a books editor?) and I should know THIS, because I don't have anything better to do with my time, other than matching book reviewers names with names on the company masthead.
Doesn't EVERYone do that?
But, approaching my third decade in the "books" racket, I get this New York guttersnipe of an editor, sniffing down her nose after I politely followed their guidelines.
This is, sadly, and typically, unprofessional.
After several years of writing center sections for the WASHINGTON POST (they'd send me a box with seven or eight books and say: Review five.), one day, their gutless-wonder-of-an-editor simply stopped "speaking" with me. No rhyme, no reason. Just stopped writing. Wouldn't answer phone messages. Wouldn't answer email. Wouldn't answer written letters.
What had I done? I have never found out.
And that, kiddies, is unacceptably debilitating. So much of writing is the use of one's emotions, and fighting self-doubts, and failing to observe simply courtesy (as in a canned reply to a query) is unacceptable, and unprofessional. If they have decided you can't write, at least SAY so. Not saying *anything* simply opens a black can of psychic worms, and that's not very nice.
Frankly, in the writing racket, politeness and grammar are just about all we've got. Oh, that and the various typewriter characters. (Or, you might say, "professional courtesy," which I have only ever observed in the huge magazine discounts that you are offered if you manage to get on the "professional rate" mailing lists.)
But note that she is almost undoubtedly lying. Compare "As you sent a general query about writing, I filed it away in the event that I am looking for new freelancers to take on specific books." with the earlier "I am sorry that you did not get a response to your earlier emails." -- as though this "response" were in other hands than hers.
Do any of us seriously believe that BOTH emails were inadvertently unanswered after being "filed"? This would seem an implausible explanation, given the tagline of the second query: "I look forward to a reply of any sort."
We can reasonably induce from this that neither letter was ever read, let alone "filed." This seems to be a careful rationalization for the slipshod adherence to professional ethics. In other words, it is a convenient excuse for behavior that said editor tacitly believes to be misfeasant, and, therefore, said behavior NEVER TOOK PLACE.
Why, she was SCRUPULOUS in "filing" the prior two letters in an undoubtedly imaginary "file" containing, in her words, "in the event that I am looking for new freelancers to take on specific books" (mighty long for a filename, but maybe she's got XP.).
So, I sent the following response, cc:ed to the various suspects. But I know that they are incurious, and so I really don't give much of a damn WHAT they think. If you've put up your shingle, and listed your address and your submission requirements, then you've got an ETHICAL responsibility to respond to the submissions you've ADVERTISED for. Or ASKED for: take your pick.
It is precisely the same implicit compact entered into when one sets up a storefront business: having posted your hours of business on the front door, you have an ethical (or purely self-interested) duty to be reasonably diligent in BEING open during those hours. I know this much: retail establishments that ignore this maxim are, most often, out of business in short order. Compared to this, the simple courtesy of a canned response is as nothing, stacked up against making sure that someone is ALWAYS there to open the shop and close the shop at promised (or premised) hours.
The sheer gutlessness and timorous spinelessness of editors in failing to take responsibility for their actions over all these years has never failed to astonish me.
From: "Hart Williams"I will only say this: when I was an editor, having sat on the other end of that process, I was scrupulous in sending out rejection notes, and I always tried to attach a kind word of some sort to cheer the writer, because rejection always hurts.
All these years later, it still hurts, and needs to hurt, else you take no pride in your craft. It is sad that I have too-rarely met editors who didn't somehow think that a simple kindness was too expensive a waste of their invaluable time.
Alas: instead, we get snoots like Ms. Snippy. She could have responded in October. She could have responded in November, but prick her ego about being a "professional" and you get a reply within two hours or less.
Now, it can be reasonably interpreted that I either did this foolish thing to "get back" at Salon, or else, having determined that they WERE as they proved themselves to be, I was tweaking them on behalf of a truckload of writers they've pulled this inexcusable crap on. Slapping their wrists. You are free to choose either interpretation, but I prefer the latter -- as much because it's comforting as because it's true. (Or at least what I'm rationalizing as true).
Merry Christmas, big-shot Salon.com. Old Bob Crachit will just get along with your snippy reply. But you might remember that many of the magazines that were a "big deal" when I started out aren't published anymore, or are substantially weakened and/or diluted. So I will probably outlive you, which is always the best revenge on the arrogant and self-anointed.
So: Now you know where their buttons are, go push 'em. Power to the AuthorPeople, Write On!
Peace on Earth, Good Will To Persons.
[NOTE: Today, the Winter Solstice occurs at 10:35 PM PST, or -8 ZULU time]
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
or, HOW DUMB A WIFE ARE WE?
The right-wing noise machine is about to ramp up like it's never ramped before.
I think that we were all in a bit of a shock to see a sitting president not merely admit to a high crime, but unblushingly demand that it was his right to do so and that he would continue to do so.
For some reason, I could not escape yesterday's press conference. Finally, via a miracle of technology and an accidental touch of the wrong button on the digital recorder, I ended up watching King George in slow, very slow, and then in fast and even faster motion, and both were equally odd. And weirdly homogenous.
The CSPAN or pool camera was focused to keep him tightly framed. But as he strutted and bobbed, and weaved, and went through the oddest facial eructations, I could not help but notice that it was the stance of the trapped boxer, cut off in the corner. He was often shifty-eyed, and would suddenly look down, either as an involuntary body language signal that he was knowingly telling an untruth, else to get his lines from the pea-sized microphone in his ear.
It didn't matter, either way. The act was already old -- four speeches and a press conference in four days, and ALL a prepared response to the New York TIMES' Friday revelation of domestic spying by the NSA. If Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and his editor met with Bush on December 6, to try and quash the story -- that the TIMES had been sitting on for a YEAR!?!? -- that meant they had ten days to prepare this media blitz.
The mere fact of daily speeches over a weekend (in a presidency that worships the weekend only slightly less than long Augusts in Crawford, Texas) OUGHT to tip us off that the Bushies are taking this very seriously. Hell, they called Wild Dick Cheney back home from his first-ever visit to Baghdad -- guess he must have "had other priorities." They don't circle the wagons if they don't think the attack is imminent.
But the FACIAL expressions on Bush's super-slo-mo face were weird, unstable, stressed and, at times, horrific. The camera, set on telephoto, exaggerated his motions, as the background lurched right and left, to and fro, hither and yon. Bush hacked at the air with his karate chop. He pursed his fingers as if trying to milk an onion; he spread his fingers like a spider and trampolined it on the lectern. And he made his "gee, shucks, ma, I don't know WHO broke the cookie jar" face. A lot.
Essentially, we, the "wife" just walked home unexpectedly and have caught George in bed with the next door neighbor. And now George is trying to tell us that what we think we saw isn't what we really saw while the next door neighbor is attempting to climb out the window.
I think that the eerie silence since Friday has been a long-birthing scream, on the part of "We, The People."
You know, them farmers ain't dumb.
And now comes the counter-screaming from the right wing echo machine. What will it be? I could not begin to guess. This is merely the eerie silence after the lightning bolt.
But, whatever the "talking points" end up being, this much can be guaranteed:
It will be amazing. They'll be flimming faster than they've ever flammed before. The rapid-fire patois of the Medicine Show barker will be as nothing to the steaming piles of fertilizer that they'll be shoveling.
It will be astonishing.
But another thought occurs to me, and it chills the blood.
The one thing that Bush & Co. could REALLY, REALLY use to divert attention right now would be another terrorist attack. It's really the only thing that could do the job.
And it sure would be one heckuva coincidence.
But that's just anile dithering. Such things don't happen.
Monday, December 19, 2005
THE ANGRIEST DOG IN THE WORLDhart williams
or, KING GEORGE
The director David Lynch used to do a cartoon strip for the L.A. READER (from 1983-1992) entitled "The Angriest Dog in the World," which featured the same four panels and opened with the explanation: "The dog who is so angry he cannot move. He cannot eat. He cannot sleep. He can just barely growl. Bound so tightly with tension and anger, he approaches the state of rigor mortis."
I now know how that dog feels.
Because I've been trying to write this column since Friday evening.
I have been trying to write something about the Friday revelation that King George has been using the Constitution as toilet paper again. In this case, dual Fourth Amendment revelations that Bush himself had authorized the NSA (one of our most secretive spy agencies) to spy inside the USA on, in many cases, US citizens, but, chillingly, inside the USA without any oversight or authorization but his own.
And, flying under the radar, the revelation that the Pentagon had engaged in domestic surveillance on groups including the Quakers -- for being against the war.
The whole Watergate era came crashing back, not helped by Bush's Sunday night speech, which sounded, in parts, eerily like Richard Nixon justifying his various Vietnam adventures, such as the unilateral invasion of Cambodia.
It's been tough. Every time I began to write, Bush would be back on the television or on the radio, trying to blast all other news off the front pages: another "victory" speech on Friday morning. A "rare" live radio address on Saturday, which, weirdly, wasn't available as an audio file on his PR website, www.whitehouse.gov, but as a VIDEO file!
(I speculate it was to keep the number of downloads down. The Whitehouse website's videos download with astonishing slowness, and the audio is often distorted to the point of unintelligibility -- which, in Bush's case is a hard call: how can you tell whether it's Bush or the recording? But WHY would they want FEWER downloads of this "important" radio address?)
Then, he shoved himself into prime time for a speech Sunday night (the weirdly Nixonian speech) and then held a press conference Monday morning! Four days out of four, Bush attempted to blatantly hijack the news cycle. I'd say that comprises pretty good prima fascie evidence that he's running as scared as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
But I'm still too angry to talk about it intelligibly. Here's what the Royal Bush said this morning, in part:
Press Conference December 19, 2005This afternoon on the Ed Schultz Show, former Senator (and Democratic Majority/Minorty leader) Tom Dashiell noted that there is nothing in the post 9-11 authorization to invade Afghanistan that conferred such powers.
And: "I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)[AP]
The hue and cry has been widespread, if not exactly unalloyed by conditional statements and general lawyering kinds of doublespeak. But I'd prefer to quote a couple of dead men, instead. In the landmark case, KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court held that wiretaps required search warrants (after listening to a series of Bush-like arguments that since it wasn't a home, and only a phone booth, the fourth amendment didn't apply, etc.) Justice William O. Douglas, joined by Justice William F. Brennan added this concurrence to the decision, just to make it crystal clear what might be at stake:
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, concurring.And that's the whole Bush case in a nutshell. He's a "wartime" president (though NO WAR HAS YET BEEN DECLARED!!!!), and, therefore has plenary powers to do whatever he chooses whenever he chooses, wherever he chooses, here, from the beginning of the Saturday 12-17-05 "live" radio address:
As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life. On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We're fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since September the 11th, we've been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders.Later, he baldly asserts a legal monstrousity, that:
To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.OK. He's invoked 9-11 (invariably a subordinate clause to shield perfidy in the main clause of the sentence), Al Qaeda, "terrorism," "war," congress and "U.S. law and the Constitution."
You know, that same Constitution that sources in the White House claim he referred to last week, as "just a goddamned piece of paper."
But re-read Justice Douglas' concurrence: phony or "real" wars DO not abrogate the Constitution. Neither does Congress, whether they "authorized" his depredations (dubious) or not (highly likely). The Fourth Amendment remains the Fourth Amendment, and the only felon in the land who doesn't seem to understand that the disaster that took place on his watch was not an opportunity for King George to ignore the Constitution -- as he has ignored law and rules since he was but a wee laddie.
It is time for Americans to tell George that laws apply to everybody. That is the BASIS of our system. (That and "voting.") That is what Republican hypocrites are invoking when they sneer haughtily about "the Rule of Law."
I am still the angriest dog in the world. It is hard for me to even type these words. So, while I massage the piano-wires that suddenly seem my forearms, this was what Patrick Henry (remember him? "Give me liberty or give me death") stated as one of his fears of this proposed "presidency" during The Constitutional Convention debates:
from the Speech of Patrick HenryAnd while we're on the subject, let's talk about our "interrogation" methods in this phony "war" -- a "war" not authorized as such, and NEVER rising to the level that was contemplated by the founders, nor by the War Powers Act, but more like the phony PR "War" on Drugs, or LBJ's "war" on poverty. Got that? IT IS NOT A WAR! Like "the Cold War" it may be a series of confrontations with an "opponent" -- in this case "terrorism" as opposed to "communism" but NO US President ever claimed that because we were in a "Cold War" that he had wartime powers to suspend the Constitution, engage in domestic surveillance, operate secret prisons, engage in torture and other means of coercing "confessions" to "win" this "war."
Hell, if Osama bin Laden was out to destroy our way of life, he's won! But he never could have done so without the complicity, the aiding and abetting of George W. Bush. If that doesn't constitute "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," I have to wonder what DOES.
Because here is the conclusion of the 12-17 radio address:
The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.What an astonishingly strange way to "protect them and their civil liberties" (e.g. us), by shredding the Fourth Amendment. The argument that his own legal goons have "reviewed" his depredations, is laughable on the face of it, if it weren't so intrinsically vile and underhanded.
Compare AGAIN with William Douglas' concurrence in KATZ: "Neither the President nor the Attorney General is a magistrate. In matters where they believe national security may be involved they are not detached, disinterested, and neutral as a court or magistrate must be."
Every one of the parties involved in drafting that speech (excepting the giver of the speech, whose knowledge is, admittedly, limited in the extreme) is fully aware that no amount of "in-house" legal review is equivalent to the judicial review mandated in the Constitution, and reaffirmed in every generation by the Supreme Court. this is just vile satanic sputum, and offering such a transparent lie (that his lawyers seeing his orders for illegal wiretaps is enough) OUGHT to finally rouse a sleeping national conscience.
King George the Usurper is a criminal, and, finally, this week, by his own admission.
Let no false sense of national pride KEEP him from the prison cell he so richly deserves. Here, from the Federalist Papers:
The Federalist No. 69But, just to be ironical and hilarious, here's the conclusion of paper #69, comparing the King of Britain (King George) with the proposed "President of the United States." See which one our "King George" most resembles:
The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a qualified negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an absolute negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of declaring war, and of raising and regulating fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the sole possessor of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.Well, I guess that's the "original intent" kind of stuff from the "founding fathers" that the criminals occupying the White House in an obscene parody of John Adams' prayer don't want to hear. In fact, I doubt that they much care for the prayer*:
"I pray to heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that hereafter inhabit it...May none but the honest and wise men ever rule under this roof." (The prayer was later carved in the State Dining Room mantelpiece by FDR, although not literally.)
That's it. Come to your own brilliant conclusions. I'm having a hard time typing right now. I've had this problem for the past four days, as I find myself increasingly -- and inadvertently -- emulating my role model:
"... so angry he cannot move. He cannot eat. He cannot sleep. He can just barely growl. Bound so tightly with tension and anger, he approaches the state of rigor mortis."Courage.
* NOTE: Bush actually DID refer to Adams' prayer once, but spoke around it, as if its very words burned his lips:
May 3, 2001, Remarks by the President During National Day of Prayer ReceptionBut, evidently, are not interested in their content.
NOTE: ALL correspondence relating to the blog will be considered as a submission for possible posting. Submissions may be posted and subsequently published without compensation. Identities of posters will be suppressed to protect their privacy. The rabid snarling of the barking moonbats requires that comments be moderated. We certainly and respectfully ask your indulgence in this matter. Thank you.
WE'VE MOVED! Click here: http://www.hartwilliams.com/blog/blogger.html
* O T H E R S T U F Fo There is no other stuff at this time. There might be someday, though. One can always hope.