Our crime against humanity

I am going to float a proposal: let us now start proceedings against President George W. Bush for crimes against humanity, before some sharpie lawyer says that the statute of limitations has run its course. If the hounds of hell can’t find the creepy, creaky voiced Henry Kissinger — with the book by Christopher Hitchens and the documentary film — then we ought be able to find this bastard Bush! I know where the fucker lives!

The more that comes out about how this administration jobbed the intelligence community, and then used their faked intelligence (phony!) to sell Gulf War 2 to an easily duped american public, the more it is clear that Bush and cohort are war criminals. This article in The Independent, as newspaper in the UK, lays out the story about the fabrication of evidence and the distortion of intelligence reports, all for the purpose of goading the public into war. Krugman also presents the same facts, but adds the question, where was the media in all this? We knew Bush was misleading the country from day one, why did he get a free ride?

Santorum’s AP interview

What follows is an unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. You remember him, the latest Republican to step in it with his opinions about homosexuality and the right to privacy. Oh, of particular note in this interview is when Santorum starts talking about “man on dog” sex, at which point the interviewer stops him and says that Santorum is starting to “sort of freak [her] out”.

bq. The Associated Press Tuesday, April 22, 2003

bq. (04-22) 15:51 PDT (AP) —

bq. AP: If you’re saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?

bq. SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that’s a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent.

bq. The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we’re trying to do with other programs is, we’re setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don’t want to judge. They say, Oh, you can’t judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you’re taking my money and giving it to them. But it’s this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it’s my money, I have a right to judge.

bq. AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

bq. SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it’s in the privacy of your own home, this “right to privacy,” then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it’s private, as long as it’s consensual, then don’t be surprised what you get. You’re going to get a lot of things that you’re sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don’t really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don’t be surprised that you get more of it.

bq. AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

bq. SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

bq. AP: What’s the alternative?

bq. SANTORUM: In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it’s consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that’s fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

bq. AP: Well, what would you do?

bq. SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

bq. AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What’s the alternative?

bq. SANTORUM: First off, I don’t believe _

bq. AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

bq. SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

bq. AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

bq. SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

bq. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _

bq. AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.

bq. SANTORUM: And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.

bq. AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don’t agree with it?

bq. SANTORUM: I’ve been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don’t agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Brick house

Here is one of my all time favorite songs; I am sure it is yours too. “Brick House” by the Commodores:

bq. Chorus:
She’s a brick — house
She’s Mighty might just lettin’ it all hang out
She’s a brick — house
That lady’s stacked and that’s a fact,
ain’t holding nothing back.
She’s a brick — house

bq. We’re together everybody knows,
this is how the story goes.
She knows she’s got everything
that a woman needs to get a man, yeah.
How can she use, the things she uses
36-24-36, what a winning hand!

bq. Chorus

bq. She’s the one, the only one,
who’s built like a amazon
The clothes she wears, the sexy ways,
make an old man wish for younger days, yeah
She knows she’s built and knows how to please
Sure enough to knock a man to his knees

bq. Chorus

bq. Shake it down, shake it down now (repeat)

D.H. Rumsfeld poetry 4

Here is the latest gem from our Secretary of War, D.H. Rumsfeld, recited this past Tuesday.

bq.. *Inside And Outside The Tent*

What’s going to happen is,
as that happens,
they’ll have meetings.
And if you do something,
somebody’s not going to like it.

That’s certain in life.

It’s also true,
if you don’t do something,
somebody’s not going to like it.
But the fact is,
if you do do something
somebody’s not going to like it,
and that’s what happening.

So someone will come up and say something,
and something else,
as happens in democracies, in free systems,
somebody’s going to say,
“I don’t agree with that.”
And they’ll either say it from inside the tent
or outside the tent.

Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld number 3

D.H. Rumsfeld

Here is a new poem from our Secretary of War, D.H. Rumsfeld, which he recited on Friday.

*Henny Penny*

I picked up a newspaper today
and I couldn’t believe it.
I read eight headlines
that talked about chaos, violence, unrest.
And it just was Henny Penny —
The sky is falling.

I’ve never seen anything like it!

And here is a country that’s being liberated,
here are people who are going from being repressed
and held under the thumb of a vicious dictator,
and they’re free.

All this newspaper could do, with eight or 10 headlines,
they showed a man bleeding,
a civilian, who they claimed we had shot — one thing after another.
It’s just unbelievable how people can take that away
from what is happening in that country!

Monster seats and pesky pole

In addition to the Pesky Pole, one of my favorite things about Fenway Park is the Green Monster. I am glad that the new owners see that Fenway is an asset, and that building a new park may not be the answer to increasing revenue. I am especially happy that there is the Save Fenway Park group. This year, in just a week or two, they are going to open the “Monster seats,” which are perched atop the Green Monster! This is going to be awesome; maybe it will reverse the curse of the Bambino? Some people take that curse pretty seriously: poems, books, blogs, musicals. Some people go so far as to say, that because of the curse that they “absolutely guarantee that Boston will continue to suck”.

Bill

This just has come to my attention. I am not really a Broadway musical type of person, but this sort of describes me. The song is called “Bill” from _Showboat_ (Music/Lyrics: Rogers and Hammerstein, 1927):

bq. I used to dream that I would discover
The perfect lover someday.
I knew I’d recognize him if ever
He came ’round my way.
I always used to fancy then
He’d be one of the god-like kind of men,
With a giant brain and a noble head,
Like the heroes bold
In the books I’ve read.
But along came Bill, who’s not the type at all.
You’d meet him on the street and never notice him.
His form, his face, his manly grace
Are not the kind that you would find in a statue.
And I can’t explain–
It’s surely not his brain that makes me thrill.
I love him because, he’s wonderful
Because he’s just my Bill.

bq. He can’t play golf or tennis or polo,
Or sing a solo, or row.
He isn’t half as handsome
As dozens of men I know.
He isn’t tall or straight or slim,
And he dresses far worse than Ted or Jim.
And I can’t explain whey he should be
Just the one, one, man in the world for me.
He’s just my Bill, and ordinary guy.
He hasn’t got a thing that I can brag about
And yet to be, upon his knee,
So comfy and roomy
Seems natural to me.
And I can’t explain–
It’s surely not his brain
That makes me thrill.
I love him because, he’s –I don’t know —
Because he’s just my Bill.

Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld number 2

Here is another poem from D.H. Rumsfeld, our Secretary of War. This is from today’s Pentagon press briefing:

bq. *More Tipping*

bq. I do believe that we’re seeing,
in the case of Baghdad,
it is tipping. I mean,
I think that that’s a fair comment.

bq. It doesn’t mean that it’s over
and it most assuredly is not over,
which is why I tried to properly balance
my comment the way I did, saying
there’s going to be very tough days ahead.