Thursday, May 22, 2008

Texas Polygamy

Date Line May 22, 2008

The Texas Superior Court has reversed a lower court ruling and held that Texas Human Services had no right to remove some 440 children from the custody of their parents after the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, claimed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. Which they were – but who cares?

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ believes that the bible has significance in how they should run their lives – their bible, now the one everyone else uses; and certainly not the Koran.

The Judaeo-Christian types should – if they every read the bible – would know that girls can be married rather young, and that all the patriarchs had more than one wife. The exception being Jesus, who either violated Judean – hence God’s laws – law by being single, or was homosexual.

There is the third option, revealed in the Church suppressed Gospel of Peter, which has Mary as Jesus’s apparent wife, and certainly as his lover. But there in lies yet another hypocritical logic problem for the fundamentalist Catholics and Evangelicals – if Jesus was here to fulfil the law, he had to have been married in his twenties; it matters not what he did in his thirties, he had to marry in his twenties, and he had to have fathered children. The law demands, and demanded, it.

But back to Texas. Seems the Texan logic is that the residence of an individual is not relevant when the women of the various households have a common sexual partner. If the male is shared, the households are unified into a single legal unit – they are legally one under the law.

That is the core of the Texas Human Services, and Texas Attorney General’s, argument. And I cheer it. Hence forth, if they both appeal, and prevail in that appeal of, the Superior Court ruling, Texas will have established a single household is created whenever a man has multiple sexual partners. Possibly future rulings will require that the relationships be ongoing; but certainly, legal marriage will not be a factor in creation of a common household unit across divergent residence.

Every man who picks up a ditzy blond in a bar will automatically incorporate her into an extended household. Will that be sufficient for tax purposes? If it is the law, and the courts hold it is the law, than most certainly it will apply.

Hum, now how will that play in a nation which already accepts the concept of “palimony”? Would one woman be able to sue the others in the extended household? What claims could be made on property? The polygamist marriage are not recognized and so ... HOLD IT!

HOLD IT! That is exactly what the Texas Attorney General has effectively argued – any polygamist marriage in Texas is legal and forms the basis for the unification of the households for the purpose of applying laws governing the Texas Department of Human Services.

Texas has argued, or is in the process of setting the president for, declaring polygamy legal. California and Massachusetts have both declared same sex marriage legal; Texas is now working to introduce polygamy and over turn the idea of one-man-one-woman marriage.

YEA! Texas. Polygamy legal! That means divorce is no longer need marry that mistress – think of the savings in legal fees, think of the savings in family disruption, think of how nice it will be when Bush and his Saudi masters finally allow Islam to prevail.

OH... I need to apologize for a prior posting. I projected 2037 as the year oil will be gone. A recent IGA pre-report release has stated that the official estimate to be formalized by November will be 2030. It is therefore necessary to state that the Iraq nonsense will reduce that to 2026, and – should we attack Iran – 2020.

OK so we will be out of oil, the Islamic rulers will take over Iraq and Iran – hence controlling the only existing oil supply. Therefore, the Islamic prophecy of a world dominated by Islam will come to pass sometime in the presidency which begins in 2016 – at the end of the second term for the President elected this November. The Islamic overseers sent to govern America will therefore be legally allowed to bring all four of their wives.


Wednesday, May 21, 2008

‘Imbalances of Power

Date Line May 21, 2008

In a May 21st Op-Ed piece (‘Imbalances of Power’), Thomas L Friedman wrote, “It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break than ask the American people to drive 55 miles an hour, buy more fuel-efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might actually help free us from what he called our ‘addiction to oil.’”

But is it baffling to you? After all, you have read my musings and are aware that the name of the game is to cause rapid consumption of oil. If Bush can get more pumped, without any cutbacks un consumption, there is a possibility that he can live to see the final war.

What “final war”? HEY! You read it in previous blogs – this is the war that will be won by the people who have the only remaining oil supplies. OK. We all know that the Bush regime and its Evangelical Right-wing Conservative backers do NOT want America to be the one with the last drops of oil.

We know that because Ronald Reagan demonstrated it when he removed the solar collectors from the Whitehouse. Thereafter, it was a Republican Right-wing Congress which played games with fuel consumption standards. Think about it! In Europe cars get 35mpg and have since the 1960's – think the Ford Cortina and BMW of that period; and yes, I said “Ford”, the American car company which seems to have so much trouble surviving its native market.

When the 1974 oil embargo caused fuel lines here, Ford had the best selling car in England – the GT luxury model was better than anything on the road, with the possible exception of the BMW. Aside from price (BMW was far more costly), the only difference between the two cars was the hood latch.

Consider how big auto has killed itself. At today’s oil prices, General Motors – once the controlling force in America (Think Little Abner’s General Bullmoose) can be bout with five days of OPEC production. The nation with the oil can, in fifteen years, buy the military might of America. The Saudis will be that power – if the kowtowing of the Bush family serves as a yardstick.

When has a president had to beg another country for resources? When did America become Nazi Germany scrounging for oil and gas in the burnt out vehicles of its enemies?

The answer is, of course, when the Right-wing managed to subvert all that was America and convert it into this preeminent self-destructive, apocalyptic era seeking, third rate power. And yes, we are now a third rate power – a nation dependent on the third world for all the trappings of our extravagant lifestyle.

It is time for serious change. We can expect an obstructionist Right-wing and Democratic fifth columnists to continue their work. But it is now or never. Now, the next three presidential terms, are the controlling force in where the world will be – or if the world will be – when our grandchildren should be reaching maturity.


Sunday, May 18, 2008

Iraq and Palistian forever and ever

Date Line May 18, 2008

Mr. Bush, long hailed as a true friend of Israel, said all those things:
1. There has to be “an end” to the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank “that began in 1967.”
2. Any peace agreement “must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people.”
3. “The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it.”

Bush recently was taken back – or taken down by a sixteen year old Islamic girl – when his interest in Jewish boys and Islamic girls meeting and dating lead to the question of them meeting at dances. It would appear that this graduate of Harvard and Yale, with one of his degrees in history, could not connect the idea that girls, who cannot be out with any non-related males, would go somewhere where strangers of the male kind would have their arms around the girls waist.

Any wonder that he has so egregiously screwed up the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation? This clown has no idea of how Islam works; or how it works to those he is personally addressing.

Obama has lived in an Islamic nation, his father has been both Islamic and Christian, it is doubtful that Obama would make such a mistake. It is also doubtful that Obama would call for the creation of an Islamic nation adjoining Israel – setting aside a reality which see sufficient of them – one would ask how peaceful such a state would be.

Consider: Where the Palestinian live together they riot and kill each other based upon whether their form of Islam is Shiite or Sunni. So would the “new” Palestinian State be Shiite or Sunni? And who would decide?

Which ever was the official Islam the “new” Palestinian State, it would have to be imposed by “Christian” nations and immediately anger the excluded sect and all those nations, or peoples, which support that sect and its beliefs.

Any attempt to declare a non-sectarian “new” Palestinian State would obviously also be a Christian imposition. Moreover, the Palestinians and Iraqis have demonstrated their love for killing each other based on this fourteen hundred year old division. It follows that any the “new” Palestinian State would immediately fall into the same style of civil war Bush and his idiot followers have been denying exists in Iraq.

We could elect John McCain – he says he can win this by 2013. This being the invasion and occupation of Iraq. So, McCain has publically declared he can bring an end to fourteen hundred years of sectarian hatred and murder. McCain has declared he can subdue Iraq – for one most subdue and enemy in order to have victory over them – and thus create what? What type of Nation State would he leave after his “victory?” Or would he leave? It is likely that McCain envisions permanent occupation of Iraq – that hundred years occupation he spoke of – and even making Iraq a fifty-first American State. Is that what McCain has in mind? Is that “victory” – to incorporate warring Shiite and Sunni into America? Hardly realistic; but no more fanciful than the idea of a victory by 2013.

Why 2013? Is it because that is a year after the next election, the year the second term of the next president would begin? Or, given McCain’s advanced age, dose he expect to be dead? Hence the problem, the broken promise, would be his vice-president’s broken promise – a promise to be renounced as belonging to an old prisoner of war suffering from PTSD and given to irrational outbursts of anger.

Isn’t it nice. We have a choice between someone with real world experience with the Arab and Islamic world, and someone suffering from PTSD with delusions of a military victory which his people could not achieve against exactly the same type of enemy – the same in terms of motivation to evict an invading army which was intent on denying the people the government they were promised and choose.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Why only Obama can win in November

Date Line May 8, 2008

OK, I will be the first to say it – in print. There are limited possibilities as an outcome of the November election.

Obama will be nominated and elected President. Hillary will have several choices:
1. She can be Vice-President. That is, assuming her petty nonsense has not lead to Obama, possibly wisely, not wanting to be associated with her. Of course, Obama might decide he wants a popular attack dog on the ticket – in which case Hilary has it locked.
2. Hilary can assume she will run in 2012. But that assumes one of two things: a) that Obama will fail, and that the people will break with the tradition of granting the Oval Office to the party whose leadership did not fail; or b) that Obama dies in office – in which case the office will probably go to his Vice President in 2012 and 2016. If (a) it is clear that Hilary will never achieve the Oval Office, and her failure to be on an Obama ticket reflects that she was never serious in her quest; if (b) Hilary will be 74 years old.
3. Hilary can expect to gain the 2016 nomination from an incumbent Vice President when she is 70.

Clearly, Hilary is either going to be Vice President in the Obama administration, or she is out of the game and must admit – or let history deduce – her political ambitions were, in reality, a myth and hoax. Senator Clinton is likely the new Senator Kennedy, having symbolically, driven herself off that bridge.

As for McCain? The race he is going to run will be about his Vice President, and the views or positions of that Vice President. The election will not be about a man from a career military family. It might be about a possibly unstable personality – an individual who is possibly suffering from PTSD as a result of six years in a Vietnam tiger cage. It certainly will be about a man who wishes to condemn tens of thousands of America’s youth to disabilities; a man who wishes to spend the next hundred years wasting the wealth and talent of America; a man who clearly is willing to continue the deficit – debt supported – extravagances associated with Reagan, Bush and Bush.

But more import, it will be about the Vice President. It will be about America electing a man whose age – regardless of the longevity of his mother – implies, almost dictates, that he will die in office before his first term is completed.

Of course, it is possible that Hilary is betting on a McCain victory. It is possible that she assumes he will complete his first term – and that it will be marked by deficits and economic collapse – thus she may well be assuming that she will be the one to lead the other party which succeeds to replace a failed administration. But here too, she assumes that Obama will lose by such an extraordinary margin that any hope of a rerun will be crushed. A lot of assumptions.

We have a reality. The Democrats will take the Whitehouse because the American people, for all the right-wing rhetoric, really do want this nation to survive. The American people – at least a majority of those who will vote – really want an end to GOP Borrow and Spend voodoo economics. The American people do not wish to see their lifestyles reduced to third world status; and they do not wish to see their children maimed, or killed, in the crossfire associated with fourteen hundred years of Shiite-Sunni hostilities over whose line is heir to the Prophet.

More important, there are Americans – possibly an electoral majority – who want America to have safe and clean energy; a majority which understand that oil is running out and that protecting what little we have is a matter of national defense. A majority who know that those who have oil can maintain a modern army and air force; a majority which understand that we cannot buy from the enemy – no mare than Hitler could buy fuel when those he attacked decided to turn off the pumps.

November will be interesting. The issues will be interesting. And the biggest issue – that which will determine the continuation of this nation – will be whether or not the media can ask more probative questions that “why don’t you wear a flag on your lapel”, or “why don’t you challenge the rhetoric of a preacher, when your opponent is so quiet about his significantly more inflammatory “white” preacher?”

Yep – the future of the nation rests on the color of a necktie, or the type of jewelry worn, or not warn. It rests on the ability of people to misrepresent the words of a scripture that they willfully, and proudly, violate while they make a living out of killing others.

Of course, the majority might decide race and gender trump the survival of America. In that case, let them have that which they wish for themselves and their posterity – they can begin by converting to Islam and then move on to learning to speak Chinese.