Tomorrow, it's back to war and hatred

Today, after 5 or so days of mourning, Pope John Paul II has been buried. Some of the images--from the crowds of people gathered in the ancient cities of Vatican City and Rome, to the Pope's body for days lying still and dressed in stark garbs, to the casket being carried away into the Vatican and lowered into a crypt--have been quite powerful and beyond description.

Here was a man who clearly moved people from all walks of life, regardless of class, ethnicity or religion. There are probably few people in this world who can truly say they agree with all of his positions, but I think all of us can at least agree with some. I think the outpouring of mourning displayed is indicative of what religion can mean to us but has generally been lost or shoved aside. His general message of peace and brotherhood--of making people feel like they were essentially human beings, no better no less than anyone else--is, in my opinion, why millions ultimately paid their respects, and is what most people, deep down, are seeking in their spiritual quests (even if they are often misguided).

I'm simplifying too much because there are probably many who do not feel this way from his papacy and, instead, feel that the church regards as less equal, less human, now more than ever before. There are many people who have been hurt by the Catholic church and other churches and religions, and feel that someone like the Pope represents all that is wrong with organized religion. There are many people, like myself, who know the history of world and know that, often, Popes have been corrupt and power hungry and have played parts in great atrocities and have a cynical view regarding a human who's been appointed to Godlike status.

I think today, though, is a good day to reflect on humanity. You see millions gather to mourn one person, a man who wears funny clothes and presides over this crazy religion called Catholicism and who has been frail for several years now and at the brink of death. It's covered in media all over the world. People with great differences come together, pay respects, cross those boundaries, and become one as all of us peacemongers have so deeply wished for many years. It can be done.

And, if you're a cynic like me, you know that, come tomorrow, it's back to war and hatred and all the other sad business of this world. Any sense of unity and peace that was there during these last few days will be quickly forgotten. And you know that his legacy will be used loudly by extremists--I'm thinking of the American Christian Taliban who run this country--to promote their own causes and further divide people, and the voices of peace and tolerance will be, as they always seem to be, barely an inaudible whisper.

Will we ever learn?

Tom DeLay: The Bell Tolls for Thee

Ho, ho, ho! Tom DeLay is in a shit load of trouble, which, I think, is a riot, because he's been the number 1 Republican asshole the last few years. I don't need to tell you about his numerous transgressions because (a) you've probably heard them or have a sense of what's happening, (b) they are too numerous to list and explain, and (c) I'm too lazy to do it and provide links to reference them.

However, as the President's and Congress's approval ratings slip further and further into self-destructing territory, you have to wonder how this will play out. Will the Republicans stand bold and defiant and support him fully, or will they cut the tether and hope that all of the bad news disappears with him? I think, generally, Republicans are trying to distance themselves from him, though it would be just like them to be arrogant and back him fully believing they're impervious to any Democrat resurgence. I think, if you were talking about this in a traditional political sense, they would keep their distance for fear of losing big in 2006. However, as I've stated before in somewhat different terms, we're not in normal times, and traditions such as this have been cast aside in the Republicans' power grab and complete domination of national politics.

The 2006 election has the makings of being a Democrats' version 1994. The party established in power has become bloated, arrogant and corrupt (at least two of these things they used to claim they weren't), and there are prominent identifiable figures like DeLay who are the face of this corruption.

Will the Democrats be organized and be able to win the people over and take back a house of Congress? That's the big question. In 2004, the Presidency was ripe for the taking. It didn't happen. Could things be different this time? And if there's another war (Iran, Syria), or, God forbid, another terrorist attack (God forbid another war, for that matter), this will, of course, changes things, which, for this writer, should make one question--if one hasn't done so already--how the Republicans can repeatedly benefit from horrible things, the timing of which seems always to be quite opportune.

From the Vault III: Liars

From 9/17/03:

George W. Bush is a liar.

Dick Cheney is a liar.

Donald Rumsfeld is a liar.

Condoleeza Rice is a liar.

Paul Wolfowitz is a liar.

Remember 2000? Al Gore was supposedly a pathological liar. Why is it that Republicans are always guilty of what they blame the other side for, whether it be lying, stealing elections, or cheating on their wives?

Speaking of Gangsters

Robert Parry at Consortium News, who's been documenting the crimes of the Bush family gangsters for years, posts the "Russian Report on 1980 'October Surprise" Case," here.

The "October Surprise" has been theorized for years, and, in my opinion, there has always been enough evidence to, at least, ruin the careers of many, many people in the conservative movement, and should've, at least, been enough to spare us from anyone named Bush working at the federal level forever. This, of course, hasn't been the case. Reagan is a saint, the conservatives are in power, and we're stuck with another Bush who operates on the same level using a lot of the same people. How many people know about the "October Surprise?" Sure, thanks to the "liberal media," people know all the details--true and false, as if anyone cares about the distinction--about Clinton's supposed extramarital affairs, the death of Vince Foster and Hilary killing him herself, Whitewater, and the Clinton "body count." But what about this story, which has many, many implications that, I'm sure, no one will even discuss when the bombs start dropping on Teheran?

I was nine years old when Reagan was inaugurated and the hostages were freed. I remember it happening, and I remember thinking, how weird is that.

And, if you discount all of recent posturing about Iran and whether we will or won't start a war with them, have you ever wondered why they seem to be safe from our war machine? We've hit Iraq twice, gone into Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Somalia, and hit Libya, but what about Iran? They held our people hostage for over a year, they were the most radically fundamentalist Muslim country in the world, and they were probably the pre-eminent supporter of terrorists during the 80s. Other than the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they have probably done the most to directly hurt this country since World War II.

It seems like, according to this report, they were cozy with Israel who was delivering them the arms. When Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who, despite being a criminal, was who we wanted to be the leader of Iraq after Hussein, was found to have been basically a spy for Iran, Israel's fingerprints were also in the mix too (Israel, of course, wanted Hussein gone--Hussein hit them with them scuds back in 1991, and Israel bombed their fledgling nuclear facilities).

Israel is, of course, cozy with us, more so than probably any other country is.

What am I suggesting here? That there is a lot of history we don't know about. There are a lot of connections out there that, if we put them all together, we can see what lies behind some of our foreign policy decisions, what our motives are, and they aren't pretty, and if people knew the truth or even suspected that something might be amiss, things might be a lot different politically in this country.

Bush and the neo-cons who run this country are gangsters. They have been for years. Will they ever be exposed for what they are and have been, or have we reached the turning point where crimes like the October Surprise and Iran-Contra--crimes that, unlike Bill Clinton's sexual dalliances, defy the law and risk our nation's and other nations' security--can slip through and no one ever be held accountable, especially if you're a Republican?

RIP Pope John Paul II: The Shorter Version

Blogger ate my longer post about the death of Pope John Paul II. But the shorter version is this: Republicans will claim his legacy (the anti-abortion, anti-gay side), but Democrats should claim his legacy as well (the anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-capitalist pig stuff). Also, why did the media have to suck the Presidential dick when talking about the late Pope on Saturday, which makes one wonder, if the death of the Pope can't stop the media from fawning all over the "popular" George W. Bush (at 45% approval rating now, according to Gallup, the lowest approval rating of a second-term Prez in the 1st March of second term), what will it take for them to do so?

I'm not Catholic, but the Pope is clearly a global figure who goes beyond religious barriers. Despite his (and therefore the Church's) draconian stance on many issues, he was generally an ambassador of peace and goodwill, something the so-called Christian leaders of this country will never be no matter how much they claim to be. The closest they are to this man in Vatican City was the Mafia gangsters in nearby Sicily.