the talking dog
October 2001 Postings
The Left-Leaning Dog Says: |
The Rabid Dog Says: |
October
31, 2001, Brooklyn, Jamaica and White Plains, NY.
I started this Halloween standing on
interminable lines at the entrances to Queens
County Supreme and Civil Courts, two high
priority targets of terrorism if ever there
were! New
York's court system decided that lawyers - who
by custom could breeze into court if they had
valid court-issued identification cards - must
now wait in metal detector lines like everybody
else. The
topic among my fellow forced-line waiters
drifted between the Yankees (could you believe
Arizona would start Schilling on 3-days rest?),
to anthrax, to the "war on terrorism"
and the general "alert" of
"something" happening on Halloween. While
we wait for the inevitable further disaster, I
find myself troubled that we have an
illegitimate government which is, ostensibly, a
redux of a prior (albeit less illegitimately
elected) government -- literally son of Bush --
the people who gave us the Gulf War.
The SAME people who gave us the Gulf War
-- because then, as now, Saudi oil was more
important than American blood.
Thus, now, even after we have witnessed a
Saudi-planned, Saudi-financed, and Saudi-staffed
attack on our largest city and on our capital,
we must still kowtow to the pashas of petroleum.
It makes me want to go out and shoot up
an SUV! Unfortunately,
the "constraints" of having to not
offend the perpetrators of the most horrible act
ever inflicted upon the United States leads to
the inevitable failure of the "war on
terrorism", the escalation of that war into
germ warfare here and meaningless strikes at
meaningless targets in response, and a prayer
that we all live the 3 years and one week
necessary to vote the Gulf War Gang out of
office.
Brooklyn,
October 28, 2001.
In reading the Sunday New York Times
editorial page -- Paul Krugman lambasting the
House "stimulus package" that seems to
stimulate only the balance sheets of already
politically favored mining and oil companies, as
well as already affluent, Maureen Dowd noting
the Bush Administration's emphasis on political
spin over public safety, and, well, you know the
rest. It
is endearing to know that your LLD, in fact, is
ahead of general knee jerk liberal consensus. Andrew Sullivan at lays out an alarming scenario (Yes, there ARE members of the punditocracy ahead of your LLD though they are not, of course, liberals. I don't purport to be the leading edge of thought -- just of left-leaning thought.). Ostensibly, the traditional military doctrine of deterrence is that if a foreign enemy uses "weapons of mass destruction" against the United States (you know: the HOMELAND, apologies to the apartheid era South Africans for having expropriated THEIR term), the response of the United States would be NUCLEAR. While arguably the use of four 767's can be tortured into NOT qualifying as "weapons of mass destruction" (though don't ask your LLD -- and the thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of other up-close eyewitnesses to the horrors of the 11th to accept this), but bio-weapons are, without doubt, along with chemical and nuclear weapons themselves, the basis for a NUCLEAR response by the United States. For some background reading links, try reading this from the Coalition To Reduce Nuclear Dangers. As
Sullivan points out: wouldn't
it be horrible if the whole point of the LIMITED
bio-weapon attack were to create a slippery
slope so that,
like killing 5,000 civilians in an office
building is "not" a weapon of mass
destruction, so that the horrors of bio-terror
and bio-warfare can now be inflicted on the
United States in a "ratchet-up"
manner, with progressively more horrors, noting
that not only will the United States
"response" not be nuclear, it will be
the same sort of travesty that our
"response" to the September 11th
attacks has been.
Which, of course, only ENCOURAGES further
and more aggressive attacks on the United States
(as does our bizarre minuet with Israel,
orchestrated to impress Saudi Arabia, a country
which we should be BOMBING instead of
Afghanistan -- as it is frankly, as or more
complicit on the events of September 11th as the
anarchic Central Asian quagmire).
White
Plains, October 26, 2001.
Your LLD sends birthday greetings to
Senator Clinton (and, more importantly, happy
39th to himself).
Its now official:
15 of 19 hijackers on September 11th were
SAUDI nationals.
Saudi Arabia: a government dependent on
the United States for its security -- and the
security of its oil revenue stream.
The government that immediately escorted
the bin Laden family members out of the United
States within hours of the WTC and Pentagon
attacks (lest they be subjected to
"embarrassing questions"), that
executed the Khobar Towers perpetrators, lest
the United States actually be able to solve that
murderous crime committed against our military
members. Saudi
Arabia: the country that could have captured
Osama bin Laden -- and was requested to by even
the inept Clinton Administration, right after
the embassy bombings in Africa -- but still
refused to help up, allowing bin Laden to escape
to Yemen, and then Afghanistan. Saudi
Arabia. Our
trusted ally.
The country we try to court most
strenuously in our little games of
"condemning" Israel for having the
audacity to hunt down the killers of its
citizens outside its borders, there by
encouraging terrorists with a simple message:
kill Americans, and Washington will put more
pressure on the Jews.
(What exactly is the UNITED STATES doing
in Afghanistan again?)
To court the Saudis -- who would just as
soon murder our citizenry-- nay do so much
faster -- than it "helps" our efforts
at "enduring freedom" (something you
won't find IN Saudi Arabia).
Brooklyn,
October 24, 2001.
Well, much as we despise
"Reverend" Sharpton and his political
protégé Freddy Ferrer, and as much as we
despise race baiting ourselves, your LLD can
think of no other conclusion than the District
of Columbia postal workers (largely
African-American) were simply not as important
as the pampered and privileged (largely White)
Congress and its staff; indeed, police
(non-talking) dogs on the Congressional police
force were tested and given antibiotics; postal
workers who handled the ultimate poison pen
letters were not. When
it came to the simple matter of public health,
the government just behaved as if the events of
the last 43 days did not happen.
(43 - interesting number).
In all fairness, we attribute this more
to a lack of seriousness about the business of
governance of our so-called leaders than any
insidious motive.
That's good enough for us to suggest
voting out the entire government -- any
incumbent, regardless of party -- at the first
chance we get. This is not a right or left issue: both sides have shown
themselves to be no better than clowns.
Safety first -- that's PUBLIC SAFETY --
especially to hard-working ORDINARY government
workers who deliver to every home in America.
Regressive and counter-stimulative tax
cuts for the affluent and subsidies for the
murderously reckless airline industry later.
** Talking Dog ISRAEL Extra ** (White
Plains, Brooklyn, and points in between)
(October 23, 2001).
Unfortunately, your LLD, notwithstanding
the fact that it means "the terrorists have
won," realizes that the State of Israel is
in a very precarious time. We
offer the following as the "peace plan
plus"; we recognize that Yasir Arafat wants
peace about as much as Osama bin Laden does;
ultimate peace will require his ouster, or more
likely, his death.
Still, the amazing thing about the absurd
Barak proposal was that Israel could have
actually lived with it:
a divided Jerusalem as the double capital
of Israel, ostensibly the 48 borders, minimal
settlements (and those traded for land in Israel
proper) and a contiguous Palestinian entity.
Your LLD proposes to settle the troubling
"right of return" issue by BUYING IT
from individual Palestinians.
For a price, representing the probable
value of property abandoned by Palestinians in
1948 when they chose to leave Israel and fight
for its destruction rather than stay and build
it, we can simply buy a quitclaim deed from
individual Palestinians for any interest they
may have in the State of Israel.
I suggest $1,000 per person -- a princely
sum in Palestine -- or $5,000 for a family of 5
-- really, a lot of money there. In return, they would deed their "rights" to
"property claims" in Israel. Since most Palestinians HAD NO property as of '48, they will be getting a gift; those that DID have property can negotiate a price. I propose to fund this with private philanthropy: 5 billion should be enough to buy off ALL of the 5 million or so Palestinians-- and end this bogus issue once and for all, while simultaneously creating a wealth base in the Palestinian community. Your LLD hereby pledges $100 to the effort. In coming weeks, we will endeavor to seek your input, and if feedback is favorable, your money -- and that of Michael Eisner -- to bring this about.
Brooklyn,
October 23, 2001.
As we take a few moments to contemplate
whether we will stop bombing Afghanistan for
Ramadan, and we finish washing our hands after
taking in the mail, let's take a look at our
awe-inspiring government, in these troubled
times, and just thank God we're Americans living
in a time of peace and prosperity. When
it’s not running away, AFRAID of anthrax
itself - though more than willing to cover up
and obfuscate the threat when it comes to mere
postal workers -- or non-congressional employee
Americans, our House of Representatives features
Tom "Hey, We Congressmen Are So Important
That WE Are Targets Of Terrorism -- But The Rest
Of You Pretend Life Is Normal" DeLay (an
EXTERMINATOR by profession; very reassuring) and
Bob "The Real Danger Of This Crisis Is That
The Federal Government May Actually Get Its
Powers Expanded" Barr; the executive branch
features HHS -- the agency charged with
protecting us from bio-attacks -- featuring
Tommy "That Guy Got Anthrax From Some
Bad Water He Drank While Trout Fishing"
Thompson; Defense is headed by Don "Don't
Talk To Me- I Just Put My Hand Through A
Wall" Rumsfeld; and State is ably managed
by Colin "Sure, Iraq Is Welcome To Join The
Anti-Terrorist Coalition" Powell.
All respond to the siren call of George
"W. As In We Will Win Against
The Evil One (And Crush The Death Star)"
Bush. What to do? Don't pretend life goes on as usual; it doesn't. Not even close. Your LLD's life ain't the same; not Mrs. LLD’s -- and not even Baby LLD's (though she's too young to know it, and we do he best we can to make sure she doesn't). Let's not pretend. We're now in serious shit. Our government, unfortunately, does not appear itself sufficiently serious enough to comprehend HOW serious. Perhaps it should learn fast, or discover what happens in a democracy when it doesn't.
Brooklyn,
October 21, 2001.
Your LLD is just wondering if our
put-upon American fighting man has any chance at
all in the war on terrorism.
If it isn't Secretary of State Powell
negotiating away our reason to have or ability
to fight our war on terrorism with our new
"anti-terrorist" coalition friends in
Khartoum and Damascus, our own (genius) military
commanders have to seek LEGAL advice before
killing the enemy.
It took several efforts of explaining it
to him before the LLD finally GOT the story (not
even he can believe it). Apparently,
we have gotten so good at push button war, that
one of our airborne UNMANNED drones actually
locked in on Taliban Supreme leader Mullah Omar
-- the guy who officially keeps refusing to turn
over bin Laden (and who is protected BY bin
Laden -- not the other way 'round).
The field commander apparently inquired
of someone in higher command if it was OK to use
the drone's capabilities to launch a rocket or
whatever to KILL Mullah Omar.
Problem 1: our field military does not
believe it is supposed to take any initiative --
IN A WAR. I
can't blame them -- in today's environment,
someone who took a clean shot at Hitler during
WWII would probably be court-martialed for
violating the "no assassination"
order. Problem
2 -- SOMEONE decided to ask advice of the
military’s legal arm -- the Judge Advocate
General. As
a lawyer, I can tell you that a lawyer's job is
to give you as many reasons as possible NOT to
do something.
Naturally, the JAG's advice was
"here are the problems with killing Mullah
Omar". So the shot wasn't taken. As
a result, the war that could have been over
within HOURS (the Taliban have been held
together by Mullah Omar, despite the fact that
he’s said to have bouts of delusion when he
gets into parked cars and makes driving noises
for hours on end!) may go on indefinitely.
Countless Afghan and American lives will
be needlessly lost now -- because our military
is more afraid of violating the "no
assassination of foreign leaders" EXECUTIVE
ORDER than they are of COSTING THIS COUNTRY A
WAR (and quite possibly, its continued
existence). By
way of footnote, this country does not recognize
the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan,
and accordingly, Mullah Omar is NOT a foreign
leader to whom that order would have applied;
furthermore, we are now at war, and he is also a
military leader. But why go there?
Brooklyn,
October 18, 2001.
Well, we at The Talking Dog congratulate
Dan Rather on finally having gotten into the
anthrax story by having HIS OWN assistant become
infected by anthrax (what's the postmark,
Kenneth?) I
know how awful it must be for a media superstar
to have to sit on the outside of a story like
this, while Brokaw gets to have his personal
assistant infected, and ABC gets to have a
producer's infant child infected -- while all
CBS could do was watch.
But now, Rather can join in the fray.
Good for you Dan!
Cronkite's assistant never got anthrax! Folks,
the rules don’t apply to this war.
Hijackers are not looking to trade
hostages for prisoners somewhere: now they just
want to kill and inflict pain.
Now the media are no longer to be courted
-- THEY are the target too!
Doubtless, as discussed in your LLD's
last entry, Indian Point nuclear plant would
have been a brilliant target, though we suspect
that the Iraqi-Al Qaeda-Pakistani-Palestinian
network that arranged the September 11th horrors
knew that a large migration of swarthy Southwest
Asians out of the New York area would have been
noticed, while a couple of hundred Pakistanis
staying out of downtown Manhattan would not. I suppose we would feel better if we could all be confident that the American government were at least on OUR SIDE. Well, we'll give them time. We have no choice. Hopefully we'll all make it to the happy day when Saddam is dead or out of power, or if not, at least to late January 2005, when our own then-failed government is replaced (in a landslide that not even the Supreme Court can overturn).
Brooklyn,
October 17, 2001.
Well, your LLD already thought that
Secretary of State Colin Powell was cynical for
even SUGGESTING contacts with such nefarious
terrorist sponsoring states as the Sudan (which,
besides being Osama bin Laden's hometown for
years and years, is also the current home of
SLAVERY), Syria (as Delaware is to corporations,
so Syria is to terrorist groups) or Iran (proud
sponsors of Hezbollah and proud exporters of
petroleum and, well, terrorism) as
"coalition members" in the "war
on terrorism".
Your LLD -- who has suggested since as
far back as the immediate aftermath of the
bombing (check the September archives if you
don't believe me!) that the United States lacked
the political will to do more than a token
strike -- perhaps a "war" on terrorism
defined as a "war" on Afghanistan's
Taliban with "victory" declared after
the body of someone who looks like Osama bin
Laden is dumped on a commander's doorstep.
I thought I was being a bit hyperbolic:
the American public would demand more.
But, in context, the war on terrorism has
been forfeited before it has really started.
If those terrorist sponsoring governments
that we should be bombing and replacing are now
our partners and allies -- then your LLD
suggests we simply declare that we have already
won the "war" now! Your
LLD admits he was wrong:
Colin Powell is FAR more cynical than
even your LLD imagined him to be (which was
pretty damned cynical).
The Secretary of State now suggests (to
our "friends" in Pakistan) that
"moderate" elements of the TALIBAN are
welcome to participate in the "new
government" that will replace, well, the
Taliban! Its
as if General MacArthur invited the more
"moderate" members of Tojo's war
cabinet to assist his occupation administration
-- or asked the more "moderate" SS
officers to serve as the nucleus of the
Post-WWII West German government.
Secretary Powell (aside from YOUR OWN) --
just whose side are you on? I
can't figure it out.
Unless the president is as stupid as he
is purported to be -- HE must know that the
"war on terrorism" is a non-starter if
virtually every major terrorist from Yasser
Arafat to the Hezbollah are our partners in... a
war on terrorism!!!
In which case, he is not only cynical --
he is deliberately engaged in a public relations
stunt designed to quell the anxieties of the
American people, while actually accomplishing
nothing meaningfully positive.
Dubya's his father's son, I guess. Speaking
of Arafat -- his minions decided to assassinate
Israel's minister of tourism – that’s right,
TOURISM -- obviously, a provocative portfolio to
the Palestinians, as they are THEMSELVES
dependent on visitors to the Holy Land!
Rest assured that members of Mr. Arafat's
cabinet will be sleeping uneasily tonight --
something that Saddam Hussein and, frankly,
Osama bin Laden -- have no reason to be doing
thanks to the Bush Administration. Meanwhile,
it has been reported that the Coast guard (the
Coast Guard, NOT THE NAVY) has withdrawn from
its "protection" of the Indian Point
nuclear plant -- a target that, had it had a 767
crashed into it, would have had approximately
twice a "Hiroshima" impact, killing
virtually all of Westchester and Rockland
Counties immediately, and probably 10-15% of the
American population within 72 hours.
But our Coast Guard tells us it is too
expensive to bother with full time guarding. Hell, our East Coast (including our capital) weren't worthy
of ANY attempts at air defense. And we're worrying about anthrax!
Brooklyn,
October 15, 2001.
Obviously, someone has developed an
"A my Name is Anthrax" obsession:
hence, mail from Malaysia goes to Microsoft (in
Reno, NV, anyway) and mail from Trenton goes to
Tom -- Brokaw and Daschle, evidently (I suppose
wouldn't open my mail, if I were Tom Seaver, Tom
Hanks, Tom Cruise or Tom Jones -- especially if
it came from Trenton).
Tom is obviously an upsetting name to the
perpetrators of yet another atrocity on the
American workplace -- probably because it rhymes
with Saddam.
Beware any kind of alliteration -- it may
represent annihilation.
As the manager of the office I worked in
donned rubber gloves today, the prominence of
the organization as target became irrelevant.
All of the stupid '90's analogies of the
workplace as battle zone (management secrets of
Attila the Hun) take on a bizarre cruelty as, of
course, the American office becomes, well, a
battle zone (at least with respect to
casualties). The
fact of the matter is, it is absolutely
necessary to understand the mindset of those
attacking us at every turn -- if for no other
reason than to understand where the next strike
is coming from.
These motherfuckers unquestionably think
"outside of the box" -- our national
security apparatus seems to be several steps
behind. Mrs.
LLD is most upset, having web-surfed the
alarmist AMA bio-terror anthrax protocols.
Once again, your LLD is not so sure those
panicking (and trying to stock up on
antibiotics) are wrong:
anthrax is actually MUCH more horrible
than anyone is saying:
the antibiotic treatment is actually
prophylactic; once full blown anthrax develops,
assuming it is treated before death, the
FATALITY rate is 89%.
Scary shit. Of
course, anthrax could just as easily be a
misdirection: note the terrorist attention
grabbing brilliance at every turn:
get every eye turned to the WTC by
crashing a plane in it, ONLY TO CRASH A SECOND
PLANE IN IT.
Get the media's attention (and hysteria,
thereby fueling the public's) by SENDING ANTHRAX
TO THE MEDIA!
(Send some to Tom Daschle because they
still don't seem to like him; still pissed that
those irritating guys on the 4th flight
prevented it from crashing into the capitol like
they wanted!) So
I disagree with the RD:
this is an enemy that has to be figured
out -- if for no other reason, to figure out
what will stop them.
Personally, I am quite certain that the
total destruction of some Middle Eastern capital
would IMMEDIATELY bring a stop to ALL of this
shit. Once
again, just as our quaint habit of
"yielding to hijackers so that no one will
get hurt" got over 6,000 people killed, our
quaint habit of purporting to be a civilized
country may prove our undoing:
your LLD suspects that apologizing for
civilian casualties when one of our "smart
bombs" goes awry is suicidally
counterproductive.
In fact, its insane.
We are conducting a WAR -- not a tea
party. If
we are to WIN this war, Middle Eastern capitals
(certainly Baghdad and Damascus, and probably
Kuwait and Mecca) will probably have to be
leveled -- LEVELED.
Or we can fight with both hands and feet
tied behind our back -- and apologize to the
world for having to defend our country.
If we finally understand what and who it
is we are fighting -- and realize that their
point of view is not worthy of our respect, and
frankly, is beneath our CONTEMPT, then and ONLY
THEN will we do what is necessary to defend our
country (which, will not be a tea party). In
the meantime-- pass the sugar, please. I'm glad the RD can deal with trivialities like the mayoral race. Milk or cream with your scones, RD?
Brooklyn,
October 14, 2001.
In the few moments involved either
commuting to and from his new labor deployment,
working at
it, taking care (such as he can) of his
daughter, eating or sleeping, your LLD has been
obsessing (frequently while tearfully reading
the New York Times "A Nation Challenged”
section listing the brief bio-obituaries of the
WTC and Pentagon victims).
Your LLD has obsessed at exactly what
sort of bastard could knowingly and deliberately
render thousands upon thousands of children
parentless, or parents childless, or some
variation of lifelong grief imposed on thousands
and thousands thereon. And
apparently, to understand the mindset of such
bastards requires a level of "out of the
box" thinking that this country has sorely
been lacking.
Your ordinarily doctrinaire LLD certainly
confesses to an inability to see other angles of
the big picture all too often. The
best explanation of the uniquely Islamic mindset
capable of these particular horrors (aside from
a brilliant exegesis -- complete with
geo-political, tribal and Islamic theological --
Sunni vs. Shia -- description given to me by a
South Asian cab driver the other evening) --
comes from an article
forwarded me by the unseen editor,
with thanks to Mickey
Kaus for bringing it out
. (Of
course, after reading the article, Mickey -- one
would THINK you would THINK TWICE before making
scandalous statements about the United States'
position vis a vis the barbarous Palestinians
(who turned down their own state with Jerusalem
as its capital because it involved the continued
existence of the Jewish state next door). In the months to come, when the war will be taken to all fronts, knowing the mindset of the enemy will become more and more crucial. This is a good place to start.
Brooklyn,
October 12, 2001.
Is it IRONY that, not just employees of
some sleazy supermarket tabloid, but no less
than Tom Brokaw's personal assistant is mailed
-- and then develops -- anthrax?
No, frankly it was inevitable.
One month after an event SO BIG in its
own right that the media couldn't overplay it --
an event is now being pulled on the media
itself. The
media has become a media event!
The thing MOST troubling is the
“assurance" of "law
enforcement" officials that this is NOT
related to the September 11th terrorist events. It
isn't? I feel better knowing that there is no relation.
I feel better knowing that the first
victim, who lived less than a mile from where
Mohammed Atta took his flying-into-buildings
lessons, was killed by an absolutely unrelated
event -- no connection to the terrorists!
I was so afraid that Saddam Hussein had
something to do with this, given his obsessions
with ALL forms of weapons of mass destruction.
Whhheeewww.
I feel better knowing it had nothing to
do with terrorists!
Perhaps the anthrax just came from a sick
sheep. We
are, of course, starting to get troublingly
mixed messages from our government. The president is shockingly fluid -- even at ease -- with a
prime time press conference -- something that
his allegedly telegenic and personable
predecessor didn't do for his entire second
term! And yet, just as the commander-in-chief suddenly appears
presidential, leading prudently deliberate (if
insufficient) military action on a likely
terrorist stronghold, we are told that the
anthrax "was some criminal act unrelated to
terrorist action". Perhaps the public's collective head will explode from
comprehending the OBVIOUS -- that the terrorist
war is ALSO proceeding apace, even as it appears
that we may be up to the shooting war.
And the FBI issues a general
"terrorism is coming somewhere but go about
your lives and don't panic" warning. Frankly,
your LLD, within 100 yards or so of meeting his
own fate last month, is too numb to panic -- but
isn't panic a correct reaction? Anyway, your LLD is NOT pleased to report that the statute of limitations for "everything has changed" was exactly 30 days: today, for the first time since September 11th, on a commuter train, people deliberately put their bags and their feet on seats while lots of people (including your LLD) were forced to stand, and even worse, on the subway, some psychopath (and we never gave Mayor Giuliani enough credit for his oft-challenged policy of just picking up psychotics and removing them from the street) insisted on screaming about how he discovered Jesus and blah blah blah and we're all sinners blah blah blah and because none of us are sexually chaste we're all going to hell (except him of course -- because HE discovered Jesus). Unthinkable just 2 weeks ago -- and yet, the statute of limitations on abstaining from inconceivable self-absorption is now over. In this case, a casualty of the passage of time.
Brooklyn,
October 10, 2001.
One day to the primary, and the City's
"economy" has already soured for your
LLD to the point that at the moment, at least,
he is forced to leave the City for work.
Your LLD is doubtless not alone -- but
the numbers will, of course, jump into the
stratosphere when, like "President
Quayle" or "Mayor Dinkins" --
the possibility of Mayor Ferrer closes in
on reality. The
man who takes credit for "rebuilding the
Bronx" could be our next mayor.
Obviously, if the Bronx is the standard
Freddy is setting for the rest of the City, our
panic at the mere possibility for a Ferrer
mayoralty is at best, a gross understatement of
what's coming.
So how about a big Bronx cheer for
Freddy! Meanwhile, your LLD understands that we have run out of targets in Afghanistan; bombers are returning with unused ordnance. May I suggest that there are PLENTY of targets in IRAQ. Of course, I'm sure Secretary of State Colin "let's invite Syria to the Security Counsel as a reward for all their anti-terrorism activity" Powell will soon be petitioning Saddam Hussein to join the anti-terrorism coalition, instead. But an LLD can dream.
Brooklyn,
October 8, 2001.
Well, I heard someone else say it best
today: watching the long-distance explosions of
some far off Asian city reminded him of the good
old days of the Gulf War -- when he would go
home early from work so he could turn on CNN to
"watch the war" -- the way one would
watch a football game (complete with the
telestrator and locker room chat with Wolf
Blitzer). We
at the Talking Dog are proud that it only took
one cross-word from us (read the 10-6-01 LLD
dispatch) and the Bush Administration was
finally cowed into action in Afghanistan. Don't
get your LLD wrong: he is not one of those, let
me politely say, unpatriotic, "peace
protestors".
Our country has been attacked, innocent
blood has been shed, and the only people talking
about "peace" did not lose friends and
loved ones on September 11th. (By the way, Happy 60th Birthday -- its today -- to America's
favorite part-time "peace ambassador"
and full-time extortionist, Jesse Jackson!
Sorry we talked you out of going to
Afghanistan yesterday, Jesse!) On
the contrary: your LLD believes that the
allegedly tough right wing government that
placed itself in charge of our nation last
winter will not go FAR ENOUGH in conducting its
current campaign against terror, despite the
rhetoric. I
assure you that deep inside our national
security apparatus, ten times the effort that is
going into finding perpetrators and stopping the
next wave of terrorism is going into the cover
up of responsibility for the last wave, of which
our national security apparatus almost certainly
had some level of
foreknowledge of the events of September
11th. Your
LLD won't accept the "incompetence"
argument from the son of the former president
AND CIA DIRECTOR -- even if it seems to fit. That
said, your LLD believes that the current
government will perform EXACTLY the way it did
in the Gulf War: a series of showy explosions
(the terrorists liked showy explosions, too, of
course-- though we tend to go to extremes to
avoid "collateral damage" -- while
that is their aim). Notice the reversion to an official secrets act as pertains to
war correspondents?
Its always "officially" about
"national security" -- but its
actually about a psychosis for secrecy that has
permeated through Bush and Cheney about
everything -- even the release of Ronald
Reagan's NON-CLASSIFIED presidential papers!
Well, I guess that's what America's about
-- that and watching what you say! Suffice it to say, the showy explosions will NOT end with the
removal of Saddam Hussein (necessary if we
actually want to end terrorism -- even if we
only want to end the "bad" kind
against the United States and not the
"good" kind directed against Israel)
from power, violently and viciously, and leaving
his country in flaming ruins, as the only sort
of message the Arab world (you know, the people
who merrily crashed our planes into our cities)
will comprehend. Again,
I have said it privately, and now I'll say it
publicly: if
Saddam Hussein is dead
(I'll even take natural causes) or out of
power within 180 days, I will vote for, hell,
I'll CAMPAIGN for, George W. Bush to be
reelected.
I'm not worried about having to pay off
that bet. Prove
me wrong, Mr. President.
For America's sake, prove me wrong.
Brooklyn,
October 6, 2001. You
knew that when Dub surrounded himself with Colin
and Daddy's boys that this administration would
become Daddy's Oldsmobile (and the Bushes are
the kind of people who DRIVE Oldsmobile -- as
were my father and grandparents -- so I simply
mean upper middle class Americans at one time --
but I digress). Look,
its now 3 1/2 weeks after September 11th, and,
you can't walk around downtown Manhattan
anymore- because its STILL ON FIRE!
After 3 1/2 weeks, Baghdad is not only
still there, its probably not even on alert! And as to Afghanistan, we evidently can't even figure out
where it is!
It has a brilliant "hit and
run" strategy: it is utterly landlocked!
The United States, with its allegedly
awesome air and sea power can't figure out what
to do with it unless our "friend"
Pakistan and our "friends" in
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (and perhaps our
newest "friend", China?) allow us to
"borrow" their "airspace" or
bases. It
takes a special vision to understand how can one
carry out a "war" on terrorism by
immediately seeking an "alliance" that
includes Syria and Iran, which even Colin
Powell's State Department considers terrorist
states. A
vision called blindness and insanity!
Despite being allegedly stronger than
ever, and accused of unilateralism everywhere,
the United States (as led by the abdicated
president Bush and the effective co-presidents
Powell and Rice) now believes it is
impermissible for it to act- even and especially
in its own self-defense, unless the thugs who
attack it (you know- the Arabs) approve of our
actions . It is most unfortunate that the terrorists failed to leave an official return address. had they done so, we probably could have formally surrendered by now.
Brooklyn,
October 5, 2001.
I can already see the wheels turning in
Al Sharpton's mind about today's Daily
News: on
the front page, a story about firemen
sacrificing their lives at the WTC -- only one
of whom was African-American. In the back of the tabloid, in the sports section -- some
mention about Joe Torre (a White man) and his
plans for the upcoming playoffs (which, yada
yada yada, the Yankees will be just good enough
to somehow win again -- with a peculiarly
bittersweet parade past Ground Zero).
Only WAY INSIDE THE PAPER were the two
accomplishments that SHOULD have occupied those
pages: Rickey Henderson (an African-American)
beating out that nasty White cracker racist Ty
Cobb's runs scored record, and most importantly,
Barry Bonds' (also an African-American) triumph
over being pitched around to tie a record
that heretofore had ALSO only been held by a
White man, the single season home run record. Few
people realize that Mark Green (NOT Freddy
Ferrer, or Vallone or Hevesi, or that old George
Spitz guy) went on a DOUBLE DATE with Al
Sharpton (they saw, I kid you not, Judgment
at Nuremberg).
No wonder Green panders for his
endorsement!
You know what?
I don't know! Your LLD favored Green for two things (at the behest of the
invisible editor):
Bill Bratton (a good man who has never
been given all the credit for reducing crime
that Giuliani has taken for himself!) supports
Green, and, in direct response to his campaign
promise to hold the line on the untenable wage
increases demanded by the teachers union, that
union now supports Ferrer (as does the
aforementioned Al Sharpton). Of
course, Sandy Feldman's teachers get out and
vote for THEIR self-interest.
Your LLD suggests that everyone else in
New York WITH A JOB should also get out
and vote for THEIR self interest, which,
bizarrely, is Mark Green!
As unlikable as he is (notice that since
his former mentor Ralph Nader helped hand the
presidency to GW Bush, we don't hear much about
that earlier relationship), he is probably
mostly harmless.
And as apparently, RD now concurs, our
State and Federal government have come to regard
New York as too important to allow its
electorate to destroy it -- so state and
national authorities will see to it that some
basic level of service is provided to all New
Yorkers in any event. (Meanwhile,
someone somewhere decided to shoot down a
passenger plane bound from Israel to Siberia.
Draw your own conclusions.)
Brooklyn,
October 4, 2001.
And so its been 26 years since my bar
mitzvah, today -- and happy birthday greetings
to my brother Fred - as of tomorrow (he pulls in
at 33). Your
RD can barely drag his ass out of bed for the
schlep to Westchester - let alone keep up with
the nimble RD (who, after all, is too busy
foaming at the mouth to tire). I
can't keep track of the RD anymore -- he's just
TOO rabid (perhaps God will get him -- and the
RD will be completely blindsided by it, seeing
as he doesn't believe in God!)
What is it we don't like about the
prospect of Al Sharpton as our mayor?
For God's sake -- after his Nelson
Mandela-like 90 days in Club Fed for a probation
violation (just exercising his free speech
rights -- which he also exercised toward that
nasty Mr. Pagones in the Brawley case) --
Sharpton isn't even that fat anymore!
Is it the haircut?
I mean, what is the RD's problem?
All citizens of New York owe Sharpton a
debt of gratitude for serving as the foil in a
senate race that ended the political careers of
Liz Holtzman, Geraldine Ferraro, Bob Abrams,
and, eventually, Al D'Amato. In
a way, Ferrer has a point about endorsers:
Ed Koch endorsed him, as did Peter
Vallone -- losers both -- respectively, to Dave
Dinkins and Mark Green (also related by
endorsement). Your
LLD doesn’t like Mark Green either (despite
voting for him in the primary -- and intending
to vote for him in the runoff) --for a very
simple reason.
NO ONE likes Mark Green, presumably
including his own family.
He is an arrogant, self-righteous,
self-important jerk.
But let's face it:
if you were appointed to the Hague as
judge and juror of O(u)sama bin Laden, Al
Sharpton and Saddam Hussein for their crimes
against humanity, what would you do if there was
only enough juice in the electric chair for two
of the three?
RIGHT!
Release all three of them immediately
because, despite the fact that most European
citizens FAVOR the death penalty in polls, the
elites who run those countries are far less
Democratic than ours (than Rudy?) and they would
DEMAND their unconditional release because of
the "inhumane" punishment we planned! Who
do I blame for this fiasco that creates the
almost inconceivable possibility of an even
worse mayor than David Dinkins?
You got it!
I blame none other than Rudolph Giuliani!
How many times?! He has set up this election cycle: he threatened to veto a repeal of the term limits law when it
was with the City Council!
And he's turned an otherwise sensible
plan of a mere 90-day extension into political
ammunition - FOR FERRER!!!
(Besides, enough Mr. RD,
Giuliani himself has ruled out running
for another term -- though he still keeps
pushing for this 90-day thing -- which will
happen- IF Green wins the runoff). We will see: if Green can't take the runoff there is no reason to try to murder a substantial part of the electorate anymore. We will muddle through-- that's all. Doubtless, the State will take over the City's finances (by law, anytime the deficit exceeds $100,000,000; current projections are an unbelievable deficit of $4 BILLION). And, under a Ferrer mayoralty, the State will doubtless also take over the school system, the national guard will handle policing, etc.: in short, far less to worry about than the RD frets (unless you were relying on property values, or your job).
Brooklyn,
October 3, 2001.
Your LLD must be brief and curt (that'll
be the day), as it is early in the morning, and
the commissar of labor has assigned him to a
position in far off Westchester County for which
he must leave extremely early. Amazingly,
with respect to the continued service of our
mayorissimo -- which even I would not support if
the alternatives did not consist of Mark Green,
Mike Bloomberg or (God help us all) Freddie
Ferrer -- the RD seems to join in the mayor in
wanting it both ways.
We had a whole to-do last year in the
Florida elections over the
never-satisfactorily-resolved issue:
did the Florida Supreme Court change the
election law after the election had started?
Regardless of what one feels about the
outcome (which led to the installation of the
Bush Administration, which finds itself in
charge of our country in these troubled times)
-- almost everyone can at least agree that that
was the issue!
Well, what Mayor Rudy has in mind is just
that: changing
the rules of the election at the last minute to
give himself a (grossly unfair) advantage.
Too late, I say. Now,
of course, our Republican mayor -- who was in a
position way before this election process got
started to OPPOSE term limits (like just about
EVERY OTHER politician in the City) -- instead
chose to surf on the issue, benefiting from its
popular appeal (or as I said, at the very least,
refusing to take the political flak for opposing
it). As
an aside on the unbelievably troubling Israel
issue (note that the Bush Administration, like
its indistinguishable predecessor, was willing
to sell out Israel long before the WTC events --
see the Tuesday, October 2nd New York Times front
page story), the RD asserts that many people in
the US believe in astrology and UFO's, so even
if they support Israel, so what.
Amazingly, the RD suddenly IS concerned
with the "people's choice" for mayor
as (Rudy, his favorite, albeit mine would win,
of course). Which is it? Perhaps it is the people who believe in UFOs and astrology who are the same ones who believe that the mayor should be permitted to evade term limits!
Brooklyn,
October 1, 2001. Well, earlier trepidations aside, your
LLD and Mrs. LLD spent the better part of the
weekend (after our Friday night bacchanalia with
our unseen editor) upstate in Ulster County,
celebrating our tenth wedding anniversary back
where we got married -- and the baby spent an
overnight with grandma for the first time.
Thus explaineth my recent reticence --
when coupled with the Jewish holidays, and other
factors. Alas,
I concede that the RD is correct on one point:
Israel, having been established nearly 150 years
after the original ratification of our
Constitution , does not appear to have been
mentioned in it (though there are references to
the continuity of the slave trade, at least for
a time). I
suppose the response to the RD's provocative
stance toward the State of Israel (and,
presumably, its supporters) is to question
whether the United States (and its either over-
or under-deployed military might) should use its
power in the interests of "doing the right
thing".
To the extent we deter a large ground
invasion (through Canada or Mexico?) or a naval
assault by Japan or Great Britain, or even a
nuclear strike by Kazakhstan or Ukraine, the
point is obvious.
However, the "Powell Doctrine"
as interpreted by all the Presidents since
President Powell has meant that the United
States should use its force for its national,
vital interests (read, commercial interests). A
little history on the recent "moral"
use of force by the United States. Obviously, we need to recall the "moral" basis of
the Gulf War:
Saddam Hussein and the Elite Republican
Guard had invaded Kuwait, and were threatening
to invade Saudi Arabia.
As a moral matter, we had to prevent
Saddam from control of world oil supplies. We preferred that they be in the hands of the more
commercially reasonable Saudis and Kuwaitis.
Both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are, of
course, hopelessly corrupt, dictatorial states
(who, interestingly, join Iraq, Iran and Libya
on the not so long list of countries whose
nationals suffered no casualties in the WTC
tragedy). But
high gasoline prices were deemed "against
the national interest" -- so lower gasoline
prices were subsidized by a few servicemen's
lives, and the expense of a prolonged campaign
and a couple of hundred billion dollars, and the
current "world order".
Near the end of his term, President Bush
I (over the objections of President Powell)
deployed a "humanitarian" mission to
Somalia -- of course, to save Muslim lives. If
the United States devoted 5% or 10% or 15% of
its GDP to solving world hunger and disease, we
would still be perceived as an arrogant
aggressor by certain irrational forces in the
Arab world (there are maniacs everywhere - but
only the Arab world has decided to go through
the trouble of crashing planes into our cities).
And on college campuses, of course.
(I know I'm supposed to be the lefty). Anyway,
the point vis a vis Israel is that there ain't
nothin' in the Constitution about the use of
military force to maintain lower gasoline prices
-- but we do that too. The basis of the United States support of Israel is because
its the RIGHT thing to do.
Notwithstanding criticisms (of which it
is cognizant, and which, as a free democracy, it
receives from its own people as well as
outside), Israel's values and interests are
consistent with those of the United States -- as
well as being a well-placed reliable military
and intelligence ally. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about Israel's moral lapses
from the likes of places like Belgium (King
Leopold and the subjugation of the Belgian
Congo, not to mention setting in motion the
bloodbath in Rwanda), or France (whose
RESISTANCE turned in Jews! and by the way,
ditto, Rwanda), or the Arab world (!). We
support Israel because it is the right thing to
do. Period.
The average American understands this --
even if our elites (such as the RD?)
don't seem to.
Also, the average American believes in
God (or won't publicly say they don't!)
However, the fundamental basis for this
country, and why it is BETTER than every other
country that now exists or has ever existed, is
that we recognize the right of EVERYONE to
believe - or not believe - in the deity (or
deities) of their choice, without reservation
(short of human sacrifice or the use of illicit
drugs, I suppose).
The Taliban, of course, don't believe
this. Nor
does most of Europe, Asia or the rest of the
world. We
do. Anyway,
I guess we'll hear more from the RD on this! Jumping
to what seems to concern HIM -- the machinations
of the no-win New However, I certainly see an almost certain Mark Green mayoral victory, followed by one term and then defeat at the hands of Rudy Giuliani in '05 (the City's election law only prohibits Rudy from running for a third CONSECUTIVE term). |
October
15, 2001. I'm
not sure whether the LLD believes that
"understanding the mindset" of the Bin
Laden & Co. is 1) irrelevant because they're
bastards and no mindset could justify what they
did, or is 2) necessary because we have to
understand the enemy to defeat it.
He seems to be leaning towards No. 2,
asserting that knowing their mindset will become
"more and more crucial," but in fact
this position differs little from No. 1, insofar
as he concludes that we must understand that
they have the mindset of bastards. In
which I concur.
But, of course, they had the same mindset
when we were funding Bin Laden to fight the evil
Soviets, which, in turn is the same mindset of
the Northern Alliance we are now siding with to
fight the evil Bin Laden.
The ultimate question in matters such as
this is WHICH bastards pose the greatest danger
to American interests.
So, as "barbarous" as the
Palestinians might be, if appeasing them is in
our best interest....let's go for it! Now,
on to what's left of New York.
I never imagined that this year's mayoral
campaign would have any interesting, much less
delicious, moments, but Freddy Ferrer's demand
for a recount is just that. Remember, the overriding issue among the Democrats was which
candidate could best UNIFY all New Yorkers.
And yet Freddy and Mark cannot even unify
their own narrow, Sharpton-worshipping
constituency of the far, far left.
And the issue that divides them, even
with DINKINS in Green's camp, and Sharpton in
Ferrer's camp, is RACE!
Yes -- Ferrer is charging that Green's
ads, which accurately quoted the New York
Times(!!) in calling Freddy unqualified, were
racist. Unify
New York? These
guys couldn't even unify the parents in
"Heather Has Two Mommies"!
October
13, 2001. Today
Governor Pataki issued an executive order
permitting the partners of gays and lesbians
killed in the World Trade Center attack to
collect Crime Victims Board benefits.
The ostensible reason was that "the
terrorists targeted Americans . . . [t]hey
didn't care if they were gay or straight." Well,
actually, I think the Taliban DID care a bit
more if they were gay.
After all, collapsing a building upon a
person is the traditional method of execution
for homosexuals in Afghanistan.
So technically, Pataki should have said
that "the terrorists targeted Americans
because they are all infidels who support Israel
over the Palestinians...[t]hey cared very deeply
whether they were gay or straight, but it didn't
matter since both the gays and straights were
American, Israel-supporting infidels."
October 9, 2001. I see that our unseen editor has elected to join the fray with a little bit of provocative race-baiting. Apparently there is not enough diversity in death for him. He bemoans the fact that so few black and Hispanic firefighters were incinerated in last month's WTC attack. Perhaps next time we should keep some on hand nearby to toss into the flames to keep the stats up to a politically correct level. Or perhaps UE's disappointment would be assuaged if the newspapers published pictures of the firefighters from after the attack--the 2000 degree heat likely darkened their skin to an acceptable shade.
October 5, 2001. The LLD has truly offered a bright ray of hope. If Fernando Ferrer is elected, we will "muddle through." Perhaps Freddy should use that as part of a new campaign slogan: "I am so incompetent that we will muddle through only when the budget, the schools and the police force are taken over by George Bushes' federal government." Ah, and Fernando Ferrer WILL likely be elected. Green is playing a pathetic game of catch-up, attacking Sharpton for his "Bozo" comments nearly a week after the fact. The attack looks particularly ridiculous given Green's statement in the debate that he would accept Sharpton's endorsement, and given Sharpton's own revelation that he spoke to Green only two days ago on the phone without being criticized for the anti-Giuliani comments. Green's attack on Ferrer's "divisiveness" is also too little too late, given his complete refusal to characterize Freddy's "two cities" campaign as divisive only two nights before. The only positive sign is Green's decision to campaign with Bill Bratton at his side. It has Ferrer in hysterics, calling the joint appearances "troubling" and "unprecedented." Freddy apparently sees some conflict in the appointment, as a political reward, of someone who has supported your political campaign.
October 4, 2001. For the umpteenth time, Rudy was NOT talking about changing the rules or violating the law. The rules expressly PERMIT the legislature to abolish term limits at any time. It is the LLD who is advocating a change in the rule, one that would strip the legislature of that power. And if the LLD is truly concerned with "the rule of law" (whatever than means) he should concentrate on denouncement true anti-democratic violations of the law, such as when the legislature wantonly ignores the statutory requirement to pass a budget on time. And what IS the LLD talking about when he says that the alleged rule change will give Rudy a "grossly unfair" advantage? Merely being on the ballot is an unfair advantage? Don't the other candidates have that same advantage? Isn't the true advantage actually BEING Rudy Giuliani, the overwhelming choice of the people? And if, in fact, the "will of the people" decisively favors term limits, won't that preference doom the Giuliani candidacy? Despite my alleged elitism, I do embrace the "will of the people" when it comes to the elections. That is the very basis of democracy...the person with the most votes wins. And of course I reject it when it comes to determining particular truths -- who but a complete idiot would believe that questions of fact, such as the existence of UFOs, whether astrology works, whether 1 + 1 = 3--can be determined by a poll? That being said, this militant atheist is PRAYING for a serial killer to eliminate enough of the electorate so that the will of the remaining people is NOT to elect Fernando Ferrer. Having viewed last night's mayoral debate. I conclude that the terrifying, unthinkable, suicidal possibility of a Ferrer/Sharpton mayoralty is now a cold hard reality. Green was in full self-destruct mode, managing to be both too arrogant to be likeable, and too wimpish to challenge Ferrer on any disputed issue. Two incidents in the debate particularly disgusted me. First, Green actually EMBRACED Al Sharpton, stating that he would have accepted the Reverend's endorsement had it been "dropped" on him. At the same time, he called for a moratorium on criticism of either candidate's endorsers, presumably because the practice was "divisive." Thus, the most outrageous aspect of the Ferrer candidacy, the pervasive and malicious influence of Sharpton, has been effectively removed from public debate. Second, Green refused to denounce Ferrer's "two New Yorks" slogan as divisive, on the ground that Freddy, and not he, was responsible for coining the phrase. Apparently, then, ANYTHING Ferrer says is now beyond criticism or comment, merely by virtue of the fact the Green is not responsible for what Ferrer says. Wha? Huh? I wasn't happy with the rest of the debate either, but nothing in the candidate's bromides about the need to rebuild and protect while defending civil liberties was concrete enough to merit discussion. I do wish I knew what imbecile decided it was a good idea to having a panel of ignorant, uniformed left-wing public college students lob softball questions, though. We're on our way to hell, folks. Abandon all hope--all is lost.
October 2, 2001. Our constitution has been amended a number of times in the past 150 years,. Some of those amendments were enacted after the creation of Israel, but none of those later additions defined the national interest in terms of subservience to a Jewish state. In contrast, the constitution has always provided for the promotion of the general welfare of citizens of the United States. Lowering gas prices easily falls within that clause. I rather doubt the average American, outside of New York City, ever even thinks about Israel. If he does, however, and believes that Israel's survival is essential to the United States' welfare, then his belief is as false as his supposed belief in God. In any event, most polls show that John Q. Public believes in astrology and UFO's. The fundamental basis for this country is freedom of speech and expression, not freedom of religion. However, the extent to which this country actively encourages its its sky-god worshippers to pursue their insane delusions at the expense of others is one of its main weaknesses. The government should be discouraging such conduct, just as it discourages racism and sexism. I agree with the LLD that the Taliban and Israel (with its Law of Return) are deficient in the religious freedom category. As to the mayoral race, I agree with the LLD that Giuliani would be the best candidate. And he can very easily legally be on the ballot if the Legislature simply changed the law (which it won't). It's no threat to democracy when elected officials enact or repeal laws in response to the will of the people. And nobody is talking about eliminating regularly scheduled elections. They're talking about holding the election as scheduled with Giuliani on the ballot so the people can elect who they want. That's a dangerous precedent? And as far as regularly scheduled elections go, wasn't the one scheduled for September 11 canceled? Wasn't that a dangerous precedent .... rescheduling an election just because of an emergency? Didn't that let "them" win? Of course not...it was precisely BECAUSE of the emergency that we changed the rules. I cannot understand why the mindless adherence to some abstract democratic principle (in fact, the anti-democratic principles embodied in the term limit law) is more important than preventing mediocrities and idiots from ruling the city in this time of crisis. As to the Mayor's hypocrisy, so what? Ferrer and Green opposed terms limits, and are embracing them now only because its in their own self-interest. The question is WHOSE self-interest - - Giuliani's or his opponents' - - coincides with the interest of the city. One last point...the expressed purpose of the term limit law was to ensure that "citizen representatives" rather than "career politicians" run the city. Those are the exact words of the statute. Aren't Ferrer and Green violating at least the SPIRIT of this law by running, when each is indisputably a "career politician?" Why isn't THAT a dangerous precedent and a violation of the will of the people? |