Big surprise. Dick Cheney dodged the draft, so why should anyone be surprised that now he's dodging the press. Whenever the going gets tough Cheney hides in a dark & secret corner where nobody can see or challenge him.
When the going gets tough, Cheney gets... a deferment. But not to worry, later he gets even.
Now he's finally come clean. He's talked to the press. The Press?... You can't mean Fox News is the press? The same media wankers who do the Monica Lewinsky for the entire administration every day.
When he gets up the balls maybe he'll go on a friendly Sunday talk show and lie to us again.
Cheney is a coward. Always has been, always will be. I can't wait until the war crimes trials... for the war he started, not the one he dodged.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Sartre - You Cad
BBC just concluded an interesting online reading of "Tete a Tete", which recounts the life and loves of Sartre, De Bouvoire, and the "family" that formed around them.
"Family" has an interesting meaning when used in relation to Sartre. It's meaning describes "family" in a way similar to the Manson family, except without the drugs or murder (but with all the sex).
The Sartre describe in "Tete a Tete" is intellectually gifted (which we already know from reading "Being and Nothingness.-"). His superior intellect and his free thinking attitudes attract a harem of intellectual free thinking groupies. De Bouvoir was the first. She became something like the head ayah of this harem.
This book approaches Sartre and De Bouvoire from the perspective of their relationship with each other and their ancillary loves. After the book you have come to know Sartre the man: the deceptive, manipulative, exploitive, and immature, "in bad faith" man. De Bouvoire, for all her alledge free thinking, is ultimately the victim. She is an extremely smart, literate, bisexual, boy toy. Sartre treats her like an object, and trailer park mama that she is, she's ok with that. Ofcourse, Sartre needed and emotional and intellectual crutch - a second fiddle - so why not someone who can tell all about it in a really literate manner in the "seminal work" called "The Second Sex."
How is it possible that two people of such great intellect could have lived so stupidly?
One thing I was rather disappointed with: There was very little discussion of Sartre's ideas. No mention of his writing of Being and Nothingness, nor mention of any role De Bouvoire may have had in formulating the ideas. I imagine she had at least as big a part in Sartre's thories as Mrs. Einstein (a physicist herself) had with the discoveries attributed solely to Albert. One can hope that Sartre felt her influence in his famous proof of the existence of others - proof obtained by the immediate experience, when caught doing wrong, of shame.
"Family" has an interesting meaning when used in relation to Sartre. It's meaning describes "family" in a way similar to the Manson family, except without the drugs or murder (but with all the sex).
The Sartre describe in "Tete a Tete" is intellectually gifted (which we already know from reading "Being and Nothingness.-"). His superior intellect and his free thinking attitudes attract a harem of intellectual free thinking groupies. De Bouvoir was the first. She became something like the head ayah of this harem.
This book approaches Sartre and De Bouvoire from the perspective of their relationship with each other and their ancillary loves. After the book you have come to know Sartre the man: the deceptive, manipulative, exploitive, and immature, "in bad faith" man. De Bouvoire, for all her alledge free thinking, is ultimately the victim. She is an extremely smart, literate, bisexual, boy toy. Sartre treats her like an object, and trailer park mama that she is, she's ok with that. Ofcourse, Sartre needed and emotional and intellectual crutch - a second fiddle - so why not someone who can tell all about it in a really literate manner in the "seminal work" called "The Second Sex."
How is it possible that two people of such great intellect could have lived so stupidly?
One thing I was rather disappointed with: There was very little discussion of Sartre's ideas. No mention of his writing of Being and Nothingness, nor mention of any role De Bouvoire may have had in formulating the ideas. I imagine she had at least as big a part in Sartre's thories as Mrs. Einstein (a physicist herself) had with the discoveries attributed solely to Albert. One can hope that Sartre felt her influence in his famous proof of the existence of others - proof obtained by the immediate experience, when caught doing wrong, of shame.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Partial Birth Abortion: Stop the vaccuum I want to get out!!!!!
There was an interesting story in the news tonight. On this the first day of Alito a couple of appeals courts have ruled that partial birth abortions, despite the Bush administration law passed to the contrary, remain legal.
The basis for this ruling - surprise - is the same old saw: the laws in question don't contain an exception to preserve the life of the mother.
Seems reasonable at first glance. But a second look reveals this to be the most reflexive ruling by the court imaginable. Would someone please tell me why there is a necessity that this particular procedure be permitted to preserve the life of the mother? Listen, this is an extremely late term procedure. The fetus at this point is fully viable. All it needs to live a full and happy life is to be delivered into this world and slapped on the ass. Welcome to earth, Bucko.
Maybe I just don't know enough, but it's hard to believe that if a baby can be killed and extracted to preserve the life of the mother, it can't be spared and extracted. In this last scenario you preserve not just the life of the mother but the baby as well.
Ofcourse I know that I'm fooling with words. What is this business of calling 8.99 month old fetal material a baby? Have I no tact, no sensitivity? A poor woman has enough to worry about trying to cope with her choice without being saddled with the suggestion that the thing she's about to chop up insider her uterus is a baby.
I'm a liberal. And yes, I'm all for fillibustering against Alito and Roberts (for reasons of excessive deference to corrupt Presidents). But in this one case I'm glad W has installed his boys on the court. Both claimed during confirmation hearings that they would approach challenges to abortion with an open mind, and I'm ok with that. I'm ok because there is now hope that a perponderance of judges on the Supreme Court will now be open to the possibility of overturning at least the worst excesses of the "culture of death."
The basis for this ruling - surprise - is the same old saw: the laws in question don't contain an exception to preserve the life of the mother.
Seems reasonable at first glance. But a second look reveals this to be the most reflexive ruling by the court imaginable. Would someone please tell me why there is a necessity that this particular procedure be permitted to preserve the life of the mother? Listen, this is an extremely late term procedure. The fetus at this point is fully viable. All it needs to live a full and happy life is to be delivered into this world and slapped on the ass. Welcome to earth, Bucko.
Maybe I just don't know enough, but it's hard to believe that if a baby can be killed and extracted to preserve the life of the mother, it can't be spared and extracted. In this last scenario you preserve not just the life of the mother but the baby as well.
Ofcourse I know that I'm fooling with words. What is this business of calling 8.99 month old fetal material a baby? Have I no tact, no sensitivity? A poor woman has enough to worry about trying to cope with her choice without being saddled with the suggestion that the thing she's about to chop up insider her uterus is a baby.
I'm a liberal. And yes, I'm all for fillibustering against Alito and Roberts (for reasons of excessive deference to corrupt Presidents). But in this one case I'm glad W has installed his boys on the court. Both claimed during confirmation hearings that they would approach challenges to abortion with an open mind, and I'm ok with that. I'm ok because there is now hope that a perponderance of judges on the Supreme Court will now be open to the possibility of overturning at least the worst excesses of the "culture of death."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)