The Political Circus

The big news is that Giuliani has sunk to fourth place among the Republicans. Even the mayor friendly media was saying if he cane in third in Iowa he'd win the nomination, and now he's not even doing that. Fred Thompson is beating him. Huckibee is second place. He was interviewed on CNN last week right after Romney. The deal breaker with him is his regressive 23% consumer sales tax that will impact the poor relitively the most. Huckibee went on Chris Matthews last week and stated that he doesn't like the idea that President Bush lied to Scott MeLellon about the outing of Valerie Wilson. How interesting it is how fast THAT story was buried by the media. You would think an admission like that by a Press Secretary would be front page news, but it wasn't. And neither was one of these stories that was repeated ad nausium like how the stores will be doing on Black Friday. At least Huckibee is an honist conservative. He has a continence. It's amazing how many "dirty conservatives" there are out there. Conservatives used to stand for clean government. In fact once upon a time the Republican party used to stand for clean government as opposed to the corrupt leadership of democratic big city political bosses with their political machines. Those days are long gone. What is equally overlooked is even if Bush were guilty of no other crime, this alone would stand as an impeachable offence. I'm getting tired of hearing things such as "We don't have the time" or "we hare other priorities". All the time you are hearing stuff in the news about how this or that permission to violate our rights was just granted by Congress. You know what they say. "Time is all you have". There is nothing else conceivable to congress that would be a better usage of their time than restoring respect for the US Constitution. I could reccomend that you read all three of John Dean's latest books, though I must confess I haven't read them myself, particularly the one about the three branches of government being broken.

I've been reading Jimmy Carter's book on the screwing over of the Palistinian people. Even the deals that look good when summarized in the US press really have negative implications for the Palistinians. Israel didn't really accelerate their settlements in Palistinian territory till the mid 'nineties. And they say there is a "foot print" around the settlements where Palistinians are not allowed. You have The Wall, that is built entirely on Palistinian territory by a foreign government with its security zones. You have things in treaties like how the electronic air waves belong to Israel. Also there are vast amounts of Palistian lands- - from the map it looked like half the territory, that the Isriali government as "appropriated". It's not enough that Palistinians have to go through all these checkpoints to get from point A to point B within their own nation because the land is so fragmented, often the check points are closed down and they aren't allowed to get through at all. Of course Carter's biggest complaint is that Palistianians are dealt with as a second class people in their own land much as Blacks were in South Africa. Carter points out that much of the press coverage of the Mideast situation, and certainly what I've heard from the Evangelical Right, has been inaccurate and unfair to the Palistinians.

On the democratic side the best they can say is that now Hillary is in a tight race, even though she's four points down to O Bama. But the other statistics are much worse for Hillary. She trails Obama even among women. It's only among single women that she leads. If Oprah Winfrey has anything to say about it she won't be winning even here. The better the people of Iowa get to know Hillary and Obama, the more they like Obama, and the more they dislike Hillary. This trend can only continue. Polls indicate that Hillary is lacking in the truth telling department and that people rate Honesty among the highest virtues they are looking for in a candidate. These polls also indicate that freshness and "a new beginning" trumps experiance every time. The same things Hillary is saying about O Bama about experiance, Nixon in 1960 said about Jack Kennedy, and we know how far it got him. Of course it's seldom now that John Edward's name ever comes up. If you're looking for a candidate with Experiance AND credibility, John Edwards is your logical choice, and indeed, Edwards consistently leads in polls that liberal call in stations conduct. Bill Richardson has the most credible position on the Iraq War. This notion needs to be refuted that the Democrats, as a party are for failure in Iraq. On the contrary they are saying that the best way to deal with the situation there now is to put pressure on the Meliki government to get their act together and also use diplomatic tools to coordenate with Syria and Iran. Also it's pointed out that when the British withdraw troops from Bosera, violence actually dropped in that area. Of course now the Austrailian government has changed hands and one less nation will be supporting our policies in Iraq. Richardson is the only major candidate who is truely committed to Ending his war. Republicans don't want the war to ever end. It will Always be the "wrong time to withdraw" our troops in their sight. It's pointed out that Mc Cain is actually to the right of Romney and Giuliani on both the abortion and immigration issues when you look at the stands Romney and Giuliani have taken in the past. Perhaps what should happen is that Mc Cain and Richardson should be the nominees. That way you will get an honist and frank discussion of the issues. Hillary is a polarizing candidate. She would be the worst choice those people who are enlightened agree. She would be the great unifier of Republican forces. She's had "experiance" like an old boxer that hears any bell and comes out punching on reflex alone. This political jousting is not always the best way to solve real problems. What appeals to me about Richardson is that he wants to talk about The Issues. Most liberals would like a dialog on The Issues and cut out this petty political bickering the media so likes to foster.

How does Jesus Christ stack up as a Christian when you look at the Bible? This sounds like a silly question but I'm talking about the Jesus on KFI. First of all Jesus said prayer is something you do in public to impress other people, both Christian and unbeliever alike. It is not something you do when you really Expect an answer. Indeed expecting "God" to do anything for you is kind of anathama to the modern Christian like at Calvary. Basically their idealized prayer is to thank God for things like how they aren't a sinner and how God has favored them over their rivals in the work place. Christians and Jesus, too believe that the chief appeal to "Witness" is NOT to quote from the Bible. In fact they have names for people who quote the Bible. They call them "Biblolitrists" (Gene Scott's term) or else "Letterists". I looked it up and there's no such word but Walter Martin uses it. A Christian is supposed to have an inner pride, such as that he doesn't need to pray to God for anything. This looking to God is to them a sign of "immaturety" in others. They don't need God's gifts, such as prophecy or tongues. They're really too "good" for that sort of thing and look at the noses of others who seek these gifts. They look upon the poor and see "Well, it would be wrong to interfear with the path God has them on". And "God has them on a path and knows what he's doing and if I were to give a hand-out I'd be interfearing with God's plan for their lives". (At other times, Jesus merely refers to the needy as "Swine") When you look at things, how different if what Jesus and Gene refer to as the ideal Christian, who sound the trumpet before they give an offering and size definitely takes precidence over sacrifice, how different is this "idealized Christian" who speaks of "Instilling a Godly jealousy in others" when they see your priveleged and bless life with your wife, your, kids, your money and your respectability- - how different is this from say the Priest and the Levite who would not help the injured sougerner on the road to Jerocho in the parable of the good Semaritan? How different is he from the Rich Man in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazerus. Remember that both these were "religious men". So they all are "religious men". Indeed two of my favorite new testiment sayings against "religious men" is the one about "You travel the sands of the desert to win One convert, and when you have won him you make him twice the child of Hell you yourselves are". (I think of children of Born Agains and the Jesus gene) The other saying is "You lock the kingdom of God in men's faces, yet you yourselves will not go in". I don't know whether this means the volitional WILL or the predictive WILL. It really doesn't make any difference. I believe either translation is correct. They refuse to enter into God's true Kingdom AND when they die they will discover that they then CANNOT go there. (Selah)

There are a few Beatle Anthology songs I think should have been used on official album releases rather than the ones that were. For instance, "All Things Must Pass". I much prefer the version on Anthology III with its lone guitar rather than the schmalts up version on the album. Another candidate is "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". I think the accoustic version is better. Also in the case of O-bla-dee-o-blad-dah, the Anthology version is a hundred percent better. In like matter versions of "I Me Mine" and "Good Night" are better on Anthology. A song like Sexy Sadie, you could go either way. (no that isn't a suggestion) It's almost as if tword the end the Beatles perhaps lost their touch about what a finished song would ideally sound like.