Rip Snorter's Blog

These things sometimes sneak through my spam-guard.  This one did:

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 21 2006

In focusing solely on Hugo Chavez's characterization of Bush as the devil, the mainstream media have succeeded in aiming attention away from the Venezuelan President's most salient point made during his UN speech - CIA control of terror cells around the world and their protection of plane bomber Luis Posada.

According to documents released by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, and verified by the BBC, Luis Posada Carriles was a CIA agent and on the payroll from the 1960s until mid-1976.

Posada was part of an anti-Cuban terror cell called Commanders of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU), led by another CIA operative Orlando Bosch. From the mid-1970's Posada and Bosch instigated a reign of terror that spanned seven countries, carrying out over 50 bombings and political assassinations - including the October 1976 bombing of a Cuban passenger plane as it took off from Barbados, killing 73 innocent people on board.

All at the behest of the current President's father and then CIA Director George H.W. Bush.

Posada and Bosch were arrested and jailed in Venezuela but promptly escaped in 1985 when money from Miami, funneled in by fellow terrorist Gaspar Jimenez Escobedo, was used to bribe prison guards.

The two were then transported by terrorist handler and Cuban expatriate Felix Rodriguez to El Salvador to link up with Oliver North and the Iran-Contra conspiracy, supplying Contras against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Two years later Senator Tom Harkin stated the American people "deserve a full accounting of [then Vice President] Bush and the vice president's office and its knowledge of Luis Posada's role in the secret contra supply operation."

Posada's terrorist accomplice Rodriguez, pictured above with Che Guevara in the hours before Guevara's assassination, bragged during his Iran-Contra congressional testimony of having personally met with George H.W. Bush.

After El Salvador, Posada was given safe passage by the U.S. government and allowed to continue to carry out terrorist atrocities, including a wave of tourist industry bombings in Havana during the 1990's.

Posada was finally arrested by federal agents in Miami in May of 2005, but a recent ruling by US magistrate Norbert Garney in El Paso, Texas, will pave the way for the CIA asset and mass murderer to be released once again.

Whether or not you agree with the politics of trying to undermine Communist regimes during the Cold War - the fact remains that the U.S. government has historically created and hired terrorist organizations to carry out acts of mass murder of innocent people to further geopolitical agendas - and has then deliberately protected terrorists from arrest or prosecution.

The hypocrisy of a government and a Bush dynasty supposedly engaged in a war on terror and yet concurrently the biggest sponsor of global terror was made plain by Chavez during his speech yesterday.

"And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner," said Chavez.

"And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government."

"And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to," said the Venezuelan President.

"I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse."

Subsequent media response to Chavez's speech framed the debate to only include discussion of his "devil" reference - an almost offhand joke at the start of the talk - and completely ignored the detailed enunciation of the U.S. government's protection of the CIA's terrorist operatives.

Fox News (see video here) seized upon the "devil" quote and used it to demonize Chavez as having lost his mind - absent any mention of the Posada topic.

Chavez again alluded to U.S. government complicity in 9/11, a subject he had raised in a previous speech.

"And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists."

Amid the difficult translation, Chavez is clearly making reference to elements of the CIA being behind 9/11.

The media is complicit, acting as gatekeepers in a desperate attempt to edit and obfuscate the hard-hitting and increasingly revealing speeches given by Hugo Chavez. The Venezuelan President's bold intention to rip away the veil of deceit in exposing western state sponsored terror should be applauded and given as much play as possible by the alternative media.

Infowarnews and prisonplanet 

I don't usually read much news, but Konane's blog title about Rangel saying all Americans are insulted when someone says uglies about the prez caused me to go searching to see.  Evidently there's a body of concern that if the president isn't the devil, and someone says he is, he'll become the devil.  That's the only reason I can think of anyone would care what some guy wossname, prez of Venezuela, says about wossname, prez of the US.

I personally don't feel insulted by what Chavez said, but I do believe Rangel's statement is as accurate as any I've seen him make.  Only time I ever saw him make any statements was debating WF Buckley during the late 1980s, Buckley arguing against the war on drugs, Rangel letting off  some whoppers, diatribes and a lot of posturing in favor of continuing the war on drugs.  Gave me to suspect Rangel might have a little investment in keeping the prices high.

Anyway, searching the stuff I came across the following, which might have something to do with why this guy wossname, Chavez is blessed with a certain amount of attitude.  Daddy Longlegs politico/religious leader Pat Robertson wanted to have someone put his lights out.  Likely as not that's what made Chavez think there was devilment involved. 

Pat Robertson calls for assassination of Hugo Chavez
VIRGINIA BEACH (AP) - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

'We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,' Robertson said.
By Gene Puskar, AP

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club. (Related video: Robertson speaks)

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous. (Related story: Venezuela VP slams Robertson)

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." (Jack note:  Hmmmm.)

Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59% of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/washington/20detain.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fR%2fRepublican%20Party&oref=slogin

White House Drops a Condition on Interrogation Bill


By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: September 20, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 - Seeking a deal with Senate Republicans on the rules governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects, the White House has dropped its insistence on redefining the obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions, members of Congress and aides said Tuesday.

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Senators John W. Warner of Virginia, left, and John McCain of Arizona are part of a small group of Republicans negotiating with the White House over how to redefine techniques for interrogating terrorism suspects.

 The new White House position, sent to Capitol Hill on Monday night, set off intensified negotiations between administration officials and a small group of Republican senators. The senators have blocked President Bush's original proposal for legislation to clarify which interrogation techniques are permissible and to establish trial procedures for terrorism suspects now in United States military custody.

The two sides were said to be exchanging proposals and counterproposals late Tuesday in a showdown that could have substantial ramifications for national security policy and the political climate heading toward Election Day.

The developments suggested that the White House had blinked first in its standoff with the senators, who include John W. Warner of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and John McCain of Arizona. But few details were available, and it was not clear whether a compromise was imminent or whether the White House had shifted its stance significantly.

Until this week, Mr. Bush had sought to address the issue through two channels. One was to clarify the limits on interrogation techniques under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions by proposing legislation saying that the nation's obligations under the article would be satisfied as long as it complied with the Detainee Treatment Act. That legislation was passed by Congress in December and bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

The other was to seek changes in the War Crimes Act, a step the administration had said was necessary to provide interrogators for the Central Intelligence Agency with protection from prosecution at home and abroad. The Republican group led by Mr. Warner favors addressing the issue through changes to the War Crimes Act but has resisted efforts to recast the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican on the Armed Services Committee who has supported the president's legislation, said Tuesday morning that the White House had agreed to work within the War Crimes Act to refine the obligations under Common Article 3.

"There's agreement on the goal," Mr. Cornyn said, "that is, that we continue to comply with our international treaty obligations and all of our domestic laws, but at the same time not tie the hands of our intelligence officials."

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, another Republican on the committee who has backed the president's approach, said: "It's an argument between people with strong wills. Sometimes you have to step back and re-evaluate; the president has done that. Apparently he's said, O.K., let me look at this in a different way."

Mr. Warner declined to comment on specific proposals, saying only that he had "great optimism" that an agreement could come soon.

White House officials declined to discuss their offer and said they expected negotiations to continue for at least another day.

"We are continuing negotiations in good faith and remain cautiously optimistic about our ability to reach a resolution," said Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary.

Common Article 3 guarantees humane treatment to combatants seized during wartime. The two sides agree that the article's language prohibiting "outrages upon human dignity" is too vague and leaves military and C.I.A. personnel uncertain about what techniques they may use in interrogating detainees.

The White House has argued that without more "clarity," it will have no choice but to shut down a C.I.A. program for interrogating top terrorism suspects. But Mr. Warner, Mr. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have argued against any changes in the language interpreting the article, saying such a change would invite other countries to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions as they saw fit, which in turn could endanger captured American troops.

The senators propose to provide clearer guidelines for interrogators by amending the War Crimes Act to enumerate several "grave breaches" that constitute violations of Common Article 3.

Several issues appeared to remain in flux, among them whether the two sides could agree on language protecting C.I.A. officers from legal action for past interrogations and for any conducted in the future. Beyond the issue of interrogations, the two sides have also been at odds over the rights that should be granted to terrorism suspects during trials, in particular whether they should be able to see all evidence, including classified material, that a jury might use to convict them.

Mr. Graham declined to discuss specifics of the talks but said, "I am very pleased with the tone and the progress."

Mr. McCain said only that discussions continued. "There has been no rejection of anything by anybody," he said.

In the House, where the Armed Services Committee backed a bill that looked much like the legislation originally proposed by the White House, leaders said they still supported the president's bill. But they postponed a vote on the legislation until next week, while the Judiciary Committee examines it, and said they would look to the Senate for any signs of compromise.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader, said, "I think the president is on very firm ground here."

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.

 ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

http://agonist.org/chickadee/20060710/report_on_quantanamo

Report on Quantanamo

The Center for Constitutional Rights (New York)

REPORT ON TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN,
DEGRADING TREATMENT OF PRISONERS
AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY, CUBA

July 2006

(58 page PDF file)

"In February 2002, CCR filed a historic case against the
U.S. government on behalf of the prisoners held at
Guantánamo, Rasul v. Bush. In June 2004, the U.S.
Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Rasul
upholding the principle that the prisoners held in
Guantánamo have the right to challenge the legal and
factual basis for their detention in U.S. courts.

In the two years since the Court's decision, the U.S.
government has employed every possible tactic to evade
judicial review of its detention and interrogation practices
in the "war on terror," including allegations that
U.S. personnel subject prisoners to torture and cruel,
inhuman, and degrading treatment. During this time,
CCR has responded by creating a network of hundreds
of attorneys who work collaboratively to represent individual prisoners imprisoned at Guantánamo. This report
is a product of our united efforts."

Chickadee July 11, 2006 - 12:39am

I don't harbor any illusions that anyone's going to read that entire article about how the American Southwest came to need a fence at the particular location where it's thought to be needed.  Instead, I'll give you a brief quote by a great American to summarize the US foreign policy that got us here.

After the filming of The Comancheros, great  American, John Wayne was asked during an interview whether he had any problem with the fact we'd taken all the land away from the Indians by force of arms, then 'given' tiny pieces of it back to them.

"When Europeans got here," Wayne answered, "the Indians were selfishly hoarding the entire continent."

Europeans took care of that little problem. 

Then Mexico attempted to selfishly hoard the entire (now) southwestern US.  Which rightfully weeed-off the good Amercuns, forcing them to take it away from Mexico by armed force.

Now the former selfish hoarders of the Amercun southwest are breaking US laws by re-entering the country they had to have taken from them because of their selfishness. 

A lot of Amercuns don't like that.  So the US government has to do something to try to convince them they're doing something. 

A fence.

Meaningless gestures have always worked well, thus far.

Meanwhile, the US has discovered Moslem people are selfishly hoarding land that has a lot of petroleum beneath it.  Question is whether to send them somewhere else when we have to punish them for selfishly hoarding that land, or just figure out a justification for killing them all.

Just my rad-lib viewpoint, supported by actual history, rather than patriotic myth.

J

 Those of you who read the daily news and watch television probably don't have time to do a lot of thinking about how lucky the US is that Mexico didn't have a fence around Texas, New Mexico and California to keep out illegal aliens:

Enough Blame to Go Around: Causes of the Mexican-American War

President James K. Polk, among his campaign promises, vowed to bring Oregon and California under American control. Given a mandate by a slim margin of the electorate, Polk eventually accomplished this feat. But by no means does this mean that Polk bears the heaviest burden of responsibility in causing the war with Mexico due to his extreme expansionist views. In reality, the unrelenting movement of Americans into western North America and the concept of a Manifest Destiny are responsible for the Mexican-American War.

Upon first examination, it appears that President Polk, with his aggressive promises and desire to gain California at all costs, caused the war. However, if one looks back one term to the previous President, one can see the foretelling of the Mexican-American War. Realizing his unpopularity with both major political parties, President Tyler saw the annexation of Texas as a ticket to a second term. If he could make the American people identify the name Tyler with American expansion, maybe he could overcome the disdain of both the Democrats and the Whigs (Combs 88). Unfortunately for Tyler, Polk won the election. Wanting to finish what he started, and perhaps to make a name for himself among America's Presidents, Tyler made use of joint resolution of Congress for the annexation rather than a treaty, which would have required a two-thirds majority that Tyler did not have (Combs 89). Finally, on the last day of his term, Tyler sent messengers to Texas for the purpose of immediate annexation. Mexico was not pleased.

Now, the outcome of the above events could have been easily avoided by the new President. If he would recall the messengers and agree to negotiate a new treaty, Mexico would be placated (Combs 89). Polk did no such thing and Mexico declared that the annexation was an act of war. Premonitions of the Mexican-American War can actually be found in the lame duck days of President Tyler's administration.

The actions of the President of the United States have a profound impact on America's foreign relations. However, in some instances, the actions of the people have an even more profound impact. This was certainly the case with the Mexican-War. The settling of Texas and other western areas played a major role in the war that would be fought between America and Mexico. But why would these settlers knowingly move west of America's present boundaries, and even into foreign territory? The answer is simple: economics. By moving ahead of "official" settlement in the U.S. proper, these Americans were hoping to "get in on the beginning of the price rise" (Lavender 127). In other words, these people wanted to sell the land at high prices when it became part of the United States. There were also plentiful trade opportunities as well as a distressing power vacuum out west. What made these settlers and traders think the land would one day be part of the America? History up to that time showed how America had constantly expanded westward across the continent. America showed no signs of stopping anytime soon. The idealistic concept of Manifest Destiny also convinced people to move West. For them, certain parts of North America were simply "destined" to become part of the United States; the French, English, Spanish, Mexicans, Russians and the Indians be damned (Newhouse 142).

The forward thinking settlers simply presumed that America would eventually assume their new lands. Then they could sell the land at higher prices to farmers, plantation owners, or whomever when the land finally was part of the United States. In effect, these settlers were waiting for America to "catch up" to them (Lavender 127).

What is role of President Polk and Tyler in all of this? Surely, their actions played a large role in the Mexican-American War. This fact cannot be denied. But what was the motivation for these actions? Why did Tyler want Texas so badly? Obviously, he wanted to be the President for four more years. But it goes deeper than that. The question of Texan annexation would not have come up if there had not already been Americans settling and causing problems (from the Mexican perspective) in Texas. These settlers were in Texas due to the reasons mentioned earlier: economics and the arrogant Manifest Destiny. Why did Polk promise California and Oregon to the voters? He did this because Americans were already there and because of the massive economic potential in these areas.

The westward movement of Americans and Manifest Destiny have been established as the overall causes for the Mexican-War. However, it is important to examine, and perhaps refute, some other possible causes of the war.

During and after the war, many in the United States placed the majority of the blame for the Mexican-American War squarely on the shoulders of Mexico. There may be a grain of truth in this ultra-patriotic view (Combs 99). President Polk sent troops under General Zachary Taylor to the region between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers. Texas believed that its southern boundary was represented by the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, did not acknowledge this boundary and instead believed that it was the Nueces River. So, the Americans believed they were on Texan (soon to be American) soil, while the Mexicans believed that the Americans were on Mexican soil (Lavender 130). When Mexican forces attacked the Americans in this region, Polk believed that Mexico "invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil" (Richardson 442). With this information in hand, Polk proceeded to ask the Congress for a declaration of war, which he received easily. However, according to Polk's diary and other sources, he planned to ask Congress for a declaration before word of the Mexican "attack" ever reached Washington (Quaife 386). Refuting this "Mexico's Fault" theory even more is the fact that the government of Mexico at this time was in a period of chaos (Garraty and Gay 811). Still, the attack proved an effective scapegoat for not only Polk, but many other pro-war politicians.

The Mexicans can not be totally blamed for this war. The attack that many patriots were so fond of using as justification for the war was simply an attempt by Mexico to defend land that it believed belonged to Mexico. Of course, Mexico could have responded in a more peaceful manner to the idea of Texas annexation. And Mexico could have responded better to American desires to purchase California and other areas of the Southwest (Lavender 130). If only it could be as easy as the Louisiana Purchase had been, Polk must have thought.

Another suspected cause of the war is the desire of the southern states to gain more slave states, thereby increasing their political power. Those in the free states to the north tended to hold this view of the war. Many of the Americans that had moved into Texas ignored the slavery restriction. Northerners feared that Texas would join the Union as a slave state, since there were obviously already slaves in Texas. It was this very fear that Calhoun had used to ensure that President Tyler's annexation treaty with Texas would not get the two-thirds majority needed in the Senate for approval (Combs 88). But if the southern states wanted Texas so badly, they had a strange way of expressing it. When the call went out for volunteers to join the military in the fight against Mexico, most came from the western states and even the territories (Lavender 130). If the south was so interested in gaining Texas as a slave state, one would think that they would have sent more troops than they did (Newhouse 142).

Many probable causes of the Mexican-American War have been posed throughout our nation's history. These range from the obvious (Mexico) to the subtle (southern "slave power"). The two causes that make the most sense, however, are the constant westward movement of Americans and the concept of Manifest Destiny.

Notice: You are welcome to read and use any of the above material, but I make no guarantees as to the quality, credibility, or accuracy of the information and anaylsis. In other words, use at your own risk.

John Heys, AP U.S. History (1995)
jheys@oasis.novia.net

 http://www.azteca.net/aztec/war/Mexican-American-War.html 

Evening blogsters:

Looks as though there's a bull-goose storm between here and the Jemez Mountains, maybe moving this way.  Cats all came inside without protest before dark because of another, milder one just at dusk.

Finished the re-read of Confessions a few days ago, but as I've spent those days digesting the last half the book, seems clear I'm going to have to spend another read-worth before I can put it back on the shelf.  It's sitting over by the bed grinning at me now, wondering how long I'll hold out.

A month, I'm thinking.  But meanwhile, I keep picking up the Decameron, My Name is Aram, The Sibyl, and a Nero Wolfe novel, The Golden Spider, turn a few pages, put it down.  I think it's some sort of rebound thing, what with my brain having submerged itself too long in the Russeau mixmaster.

 Anyway, my gut tells me I want to re-read the Decameron next, but my head refuses for the moment.

Just was over reading justxploring's blog about breakfast cereals, human beans, and parties.  Made me ask myself when it was I quit eating breakfast cereal.  Hasn't been too terribly long ago, but it's one of those things just seemed to be there one day, gone the next.

Nowadays I just eat corn tortillas for breakfast.  Yeah, it's rad lib.  Pinko stuff. 

Sure sign I'm part of the underground railroad smuggling brown-skinned, non-English speaking conquistadores once-removed, previous owners of this land I live on, back into it, now that it's become sacred. 

Used to be nothing but Mexicans living here.  Now there's good Amurcans.

Jack

Rather than add another piece to the kite-tail of comments meandering underneath justxploring's blog on racism, I'll add a special place for men I consider special.

Best prez of the US during the 20th Century?

Theodore Roosevelt, Mr. Bullmoose.

Next best:

Dwight Eisenhower.

Next:

Jimmie Carter, or Gerald Ford.

Next?

Maybe Ronald Reagan.

 Worst?

Franklin Roosevelt

John Kennedy

Tricky Dixon

The one now and his dad

The one that was between the two

Lyndon Johnson

hmmm who'd I leave out?

The main things the best had in common was honesty and clearly good intentions.  They made mistakes same as the others, but they had the wisdom to appreciate the fact they could do so.  They lacked the arrogance of absolute power.

Jack

I agree.

The question is what brand of common sense we choose to adopt.  One trait we humans all share is the unquestionable fact that we have common sense.  We're able to spot the lack of it in others whenever it's out of sinc with our own, which frequently happens.

Among other things, it seems to me common sense ought to be manifested in personal and public choices about what's worth getting excited about, being afraid of, and what is not.

For instance, I read somewhere recently that in the entire history of terrorism, beginning in Russia in the 19th Century, fewer than 10,000 people have died.

Common sense would seem to argue terrorism's not a large enough issue in the world to lend much weight to private and public decision-making.

The war on drugs has been waged since the Reagan Administration.  Countless millions of dollars have been expended in the effort.  Today, forbidden drugs are as available on the streets of America, perhaps more available, than they were when Reagan declared war.

Common sense would seem to argue it was time to look at other alternatives about five years after it all began, rather than spending more on it, building more prisons, hiring more cops, judges, prosecutors.

We've known since the early 1970s that foreign energy dependence was a threat to the well-being of this nation.  Petroleum and other hydrocarbons were going away.  From Nixon onward, US presidents pledged and waved the bloody flag pretending an effort to free the US from foreign energy dependence by development of alternative energy sources.

Common sense would seem to argue we're more dependent on foreign energy today, 40 years later, than we were when our elected Chief's first made public acknowledgement of the threat to national security and well-being.  Which is another way of saying they lied, made meaningless gestures to an actual threat to national security and well-being, while devoting their attention to waging bloody wars on top of soil where the old-fashioned energy sources lay hidden.

Whatever common sense is, you and I certainly have a lot of it.  If we could ever discover how to inject it into the gray matter of the men we elect to office, we'd have to change the definition to something less common.

Jack

Todd's correctly observed on justxploring's blog, that the US makes errors and mistakes in policy and behavior, same as any other nation.  He's also pointed out that after having done so the US occasionally attempts to make reparations for those mistakes, such as the belated recognition by Ronald Reagan concerning Japanese American descent citizenry spending WWII in concentration camps and having their property confiscated.

From my point of view this is an important acknowledgement that's severely lacking in US Government decision-making.  Attempts were made by the founders to build-in safeguards to assure important decisions aren't made lightly, but those have now been circumvented and ignored for half-a-century.  They've now been flattened into oblivion by precedence.

• Most Americans today would agree the entire issue of the Korean War could have used some careful examination before entering it.
• Most Americans today would agree the Bay of Pigs debacle was ill-conceived. (A sizeable percentage of the population was outraged when they learned of it at the time) 
• Most historians and well-informed Americans today would agree the Cuban Missile Crisis was a mistake that led two countries to the brink of total destruction.
• Many Americans today (and then) believed the Vietnam War needed public examination and debate before entering it, rather than after it was fait accompli.
• Most Americans today would agree the sale of weaponry to various Middle Eastern countries during the Reagan Administration years was a mistake (A sizeable percentage of the population was outraged when they learned of it at the time)...
• Most Americans today would agree the ‘secret war' in Central America conducted during the Reagan Administration was also a mistake.  (A sizeable percentage of the population was outraged when they learned of it at the time)...

Some, if not all of these were certainly mistakes among many others the US made during the times of ‘Emergency Presidential Powers'.  These powers were adopted during the extraordinary times of WWII, continued afterward because of the Cold War.

The US will never avoid making mistakes in the future.  It's a given that nations will make mistakes, both within, and without.

The issue is how the US, or any nation can best avoid making these mistakes.  It's a particularly poignant issue because of the position of overwhelming power occupied by the US at the moment.

From Korea onward the pattern chosen by US Presidents for involving the nations in military adventures has been consistent.  They place American troops into a combat environment in response to one or another situation involving US ‘interests'.  As a result, Americans in, and out of officialdom who are doubtful of the wisdom of the act of war are placed in a position of questionable patriotism. 

"Support the Troops!" becomes the clarion cry from supporters of the political party, the Chief Executive, the decision.  Doubt and a desire for careful scrutiny and weighing of the matter, a desire for public discourse and debate, are drowned in platitudes and patriotic declarations and accusations.

The question really is, as a nation most powerful on earth, what sort of nation do we wish to be?

As a people do wish to allow our elected Chief Executives to continue acting in the heat of the moment involving the nation in military adventures outside our borders, except when undeniable immediate military response is necessary?

Or do we, as a people, have a responsibility to demand of the Chief Executives we've elected to act on our behalf, that they dissolve the Emergency Powers and return to the national circumspection and public involvement in national direction our founders, in their wisdom, believed we need?

Probably the issue is moot.  The simple fact is, the US citizenry no longer have the power to make such a demand.

We've abdicated the throne once reserved for 'The People', to a king.

Jack

Evening blogsters:

Most of you are too young to remember the John Birchers.  That's back when men were men and women were glad of it. 

The John Birchers were the guys who made it necessary for William F. Buckley to invent Neo Conservativism to try to add some respectability to the concept that some things in the US Constitution were worth preserving, despite the run-away choo-choo of Rooseveltism busy throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Yep.  The John Birchers believed Communism was a Jewish Conspiracy to take over the world.  They believed there was a Communist behind every tree in America.  They believed black American males wanted nothing more fervently in life than to have a white woman, corrupting the holiest of holies.

Ain't seen much of that around in a while, but it's gotten a shiny new paintjob, changed the sparkplugs, and by golly, the same sentiments can be expressed with different targets in mind.

Things really just don't change much at all among the folks who have that John Bircher place in their spirits.  If you can't can't get the Jews, at least you can get their other Old Testimentality cousins.

Jack

My own state, for instance, New Mexico, has thrice had to defend the borders by force of arms. 

• First, from invaders from the (then) Republic of Texas, 1841. 
• Next from the invading forces of General Kearney, US Army.  (Lost that one, which is the reason the former owners are now dubbed, ‘illegal aliens').
• Then, after New Mexico, Arizona and California had been persuaded at gunpoint to become territories of the United States, New Mexico had to repel another invasion by Texas Mounted Volunteers early during the Great War of Southern Independence.  New Mexico and Arizona briefly became territories of the Confederacy.  During that time, citizens of the United States were illegal aliens.

As you can imagine, this was cause for some confusion.

The Mescalero, the Chiracahua Apache, the Mimbres Apache,  and the Navajo, seeing it was devil-take-the-hindmost when it came to what belonged to whom, chose that moment to attempt to eject people of Hispanic and Anglo origins, no matter what uniform they wore.  They were sick and tired of illegal aliens.

But, of course, the Mescalero, the Chiracahua, the Navajo and the Texan were herded back into their respective, rightful places at gunpoint, while the Mimbres Apache was urged to seek peace mostly in the afterlife.

Now a new crisis has arisen. 

The evil people who originally conquered Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California and lost it fair and square to the heavier artillery and superior marksmanship of the US military keep trying to come back inside, where they're only wanted under certain limited conditions.  Heavy lifting and dirty hands, mainly.

So, here's a solution for defending our boundaries that doesn't involve the boring, hackneyed force-of-arms remedy.

Let's defend our boundaries by dissolving the United States and applying to Estados Unidos Mexicanos for membership!

By ceasing to be the unanimously despised United States, we'd no longer be targets.  Nobody's ever considered attacking Mexico (except the United States, the Apache and the Navajo, and, of course, France, but France has since become the forerunner in the vanishing manhood scenario, so there'd be no future danger from them.) 

Think of it!  No more fear of terrorists.  No more fear of illegal aliens.  No more national debt.  No more 700 mile fences.  No more foreign wars, because Mexico's never invaded anyone.  No more Democrats and Republicans.  No more sending all our manufacturing and production jobs off to Mexico.

I think it might just work, and it would shorten the fence that has to be built because of all the coastlines.  Maybe Canada would even join us, so's the only fence that had to be built would be on the southern border with Guatamala.

Jack

The story around the village is that the old man up the hill raved a bit at the deputies who visited this morning.  Shouted he was paying sky-high taxes and isn't getting any police protection.

Deputy:  Sir, that isn't true.  We're spending all kinds of resources protecting you.

Old man:  Like hell.  How are you protecting me?

Deputy:  Have you noticed the sky up here's been full of aircraft the last few days?  Helicopters and airplanes overhead almost all the time?

Old man:  I've noticed it.  How's that any protection for me?

Deputy:  We're protecting you from marijuana growers.  It's harvest time.  We're busting them right and left!  Read the papers.

Old man:  Looks as though it didn't scare the prowler.  Do they fly at night?

Deputy:  Sometimes they fly at night, but they're not looking for prowlers.  We can't protect you from him.  But if he kills you we might be able to avenge you.

The only LP member I'm personally acquainted with is my old friend, Jeanne, LP ID, LuckierLady, whom I've known since Y2K.  She's made a few comments on this blog, so I'm returning the sentiment by posting a link to her blog:

Just another hallucination  (blog link)

Jeanne's living off in grain-belt country these days. 

You won't find her professing on her blog to know any numbers that are going to hit tonight, but if you need a break from numbers you might find it an interesting browse.

Jack

The past week or so the prowler thing's creeped back in to things here.  He evidently came onto the porch several nights ago and left a few signs to show he'd been here.

There's been a break in it for several months, so I suppose we all hoped it was over.  The last incident was just before Easter, when someone left a beheaded rabbit on the porch of the rich guy up the hill behind me.  Prior to that, the bucket of blood spilled across my porch, maybe around Christmas was the next-most early event.  All of which I described on this blog.

But after the porch incident a week ago I'd been on the alert, and several middle-of-the-night sorties, darting around the shadows with a flashlight and a government .45 trying to catch this person had me thinking he might decide to take another long break.

But, around 2:00 am the cats woke me, really nervous and agitated.  The security light was on outdoors,  and the dogs across the road were barking.  So I hoisted my poor old arse out of bed, flashlight in one hand and El Palenque in the other, spent another quarter-hour stalking the shadows without much hope of this sneaky fellow still being there.

But, about 4:30 the cats woke me again and I could see on the security camera that a car was stopped, lights on at the gate.  So I again hoisted myself out of dreamland and went out front to see what was going on.

"Officer Montoya, Sandoval County Sheriff Deputy.  Did you call?"

"I see who you are.  No.  I haven't called."

"What's the address here?"

"24."

"Where's 25?"

I pointed to the long driveway leading up the hill to the house where the rich old guy who'd been blessed Easter by the porch-rabbit.  The deputies got back into their truck, spotlight shining around all over the place, and headed up the hill.  After a while I saw them leave, and a bit later the old guy came walking down to the road to pick up his newspaper.  I was sitting on the porch watching the dawn, so I called down to his grumpy old persona.

"Trouble?"

"Yeah.  Prowler again."

We're all middling concerned what this guy's all about.  What he does makes no sense.  He leaves his little signs to show he's been there, rarely steals anything a normal burgler would take, but takes small things of little value when he comes indoors.  Evidently he's a lockpick, because Lee, next door, found a broken picklock he dropped at her back entryway.

But as a deputy told me during one of their frequent visits up here answering complaints, "This guy's going to have to die.  He's never going to stop until someone shoots him."

He might be right.  The prowler's smart, gutsy, and evidently really good at what he does.  But he's bound to slip up.  One night I was out stalking around with the .45, and Lee's husband caused me to jump out of my skin, "Jack..... psssst!"

"Huh?"  Squatting behind a bush, squinting at the latia fence around Lee's yard, wondering if it was our man, El Palenque full c*cked waiting for whatever's about to happen.

"It's me."  Stage whisper.  "I've got a 30.06.  Let me get him."

Cheeeeeerist!  Yeah, that's sure as hell what we need. 

"Stay calm.  Don't shoot him if he's over my way, or between you and the village.  In fact, don't shoot him at all with that damned thing!  No telling who you'll kill off over there somewhere."

One more bug on the windshield of life in the quiet village.

Jack

Hi blogsters:

A few weeks ago a hailstorm broke the wings off the chaos butterfly, which I thought mildly amusing.  I was sitting out front whittling a newer, more elaborate butterfly from a chunk of root wood I had lying around, thinking about the old Slaviat Onion. 

I guess it was Rosseau's Confessions actually led me along that path of thinking.  I was nearing the end of the read, him telling of life in France during those years just before the French Revolution.  I couldn't help thinking from the position of hindsight that a goodly portion of the characters, friends and enemies he was describing, petty battles and wars, were historical moments away from having something a lot more worthy of their concerns.

In fact, I'd bet, without checking the history books, a sizeable portion of the people in his circle ended up getting their heads and their bodies not talking to one another.

Anyway, thinking along those lines, the abruptness with which history has a way of surprising everyone led me, first into thinking about what happened with similar abruptness in Germany in 1932.  Weimar Republic one day, the Third Reich the next day.  Sudden and unexpected.

But I've done so much thinking on that one I didn't linger long with it.  Instead, my mind wandered to the USSR, and how they were on the map in 1990, and weren't on the map by 1995.  Poof.

One of the two most powerful nations on the planet, and one of them decides to spontaneously implode without even knowing precisely why.  Historians and 'Sovietologists' are still arguing the issue.

So what happened to the Evil Empire?

In retrospect, I'd say it was several things. 

They were bankrupt, same as we were and are.  Soviet workers weren't turning out any products worth owning  except tanks and airplanes.  Everything else from watches to shoes looked and behaved as though it was manufactured by blind dwarfs using ball-peen hammers.

They were spending too much of their resources in war and rumor or war activities.

They'd just had their butts kicked in Afghan, which might have been something of a downer for them.

 It was a matter of a lot of concern to them that in the year 2000, more than half the Soviet people were going to be folks from down on the south end of things, Kazakstan and so on, the Soviet Muslim states.  A lot of pondering was going on about what the impact of that demographic change would be.

I sat there whittling wondering which, or whether all those explained it.  I decided it was some, but probably another major factor was that everyone from top to bottom just got tired of the BS.

They couldn't believe in Communism anymore.  They took the easiest way out of it.  Probably the only way that didn't involve something similar to what happened in France 'way back there that got all this started.

J