Eden Hill Journal

Comments, dreams, stories, and rantings from a middle-aged native of Maine living on a shoestring and a prayer in the woods of Maine. My portion of the family farm is to be known as Eden Hill Farm just because I want to call it that and because that's the closest thing to the truth that I could come up with. If you enjoy what I write, email me or make a comment. If you enjoy Eden Hill, come visit.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Maine, United States

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Admitting

You know, something just dawned on me. Yeah, big surprise, right? But a puzzle had been bothering me for quite some time and finally just now it dawned on me what is going on. I still don't understand the deeper reasons why this is happening, but it certainly is happening. Maybe it satisfies the need on the right for parental authority and thus for the need to keep it hidden from the authoritative parent. I suppose the breakthrough for me in realizing this originated with my reading of the book Moral Politics where it is pointed out that conservatives think of both politics and religion within the framework of an authoritative parent.
Growing up under an authoritative parent, children learn that if they want the same liberties that other more fortunate children enjoy, they can enjoy those liberties but they have a dire need to not admit it to their parents. They instinctively know that the problem isn't enjoying what is forbidden, the problem happens when they admit to their parents what they are enjoying. That's when the shit hits the fan.
Living under that model as adults, conservatives instinctively know that it is when you admit to your unsavory behavior, that is when you will be held accountable. You need to keep that sort of thing secret. Does anybody recall Lynne Cheney's reaction to John Kerry mentioning the homosexuality of the Cheneys' daughter in one of the debates? Kerry was asking Bush to admit to Ms. Cheney's homosexuality. Lynne reacted as though Kerry had broken the rules of engagement. In conservative circles, the rule is that you can be gay, you just can't admit to being gay. You need to stay in the closet with your dirty laundry. You shouldn't expose the public to that dirt.
Unfortunately, that same problem with it being OK to do it but not OK to admit it extends beyond homosexuality. For instance:
It is OK for US soldiers to torture war prisoners but it is not OK to admit the torture. You won't get punished unless you get caught doing it and if you were the first to admit doing it, you will be the first one punished.
It is OK to lie about weapons of mass destruction as a justification for war, but it is not OK to admit to the lie. Even if it is crystal clear that you lied, and that you are continuing to lie about other nations, you will not be held accountable as long as you don't admit to being a liar.
It is OK to botch relief efforts in a natural disaster, but it is not OK to admit specific instances of where you and your fellow federal authorities botched it. If you admit your errors, you will get canned.
Until today I knew this was how things worked in the Bush Administration, but I didn't really know why it worked that way. Now that I can see it from the perspective of a child living under an authoritative parent who needs to be kept in the dark, I understand. Still, one thing baffles me about this. If God is all-seeing as it is claimed that He is, and if God is the authoritative Father that the Christian Right makes Him out to be, then how does a conservative hide his closet behavior from God? In fact, that's such a mystery to me that I actually question whether conservatives think of God as all-seeing at all. Maybe that explains why the Christian Right sees the Bible as the written "Will of God" who died on the cross and then went to Heaven?
Such Christians say that we are to "hate the sin but love the sinner." To me, that's like "Support the Troops" or such things. It's an oxymoron, a contradiction. If you support the troops at war, you support what the troops are doing. You could give a shit really about the troops. The troops are just people you don't know who could die tomorrow and you'd never know it. You support the war. Same thing with sin. If you love the sinner, you love a person whose choice in life is to sin. That is a reflection of who you know yourself to be, a person who loves to sin. It isn't the sinner you love, it is sin itself. We all love our forbidden pleasures.
But just how we can believe that God doesn't see what we do in the closet... Man, that one is beyond me to understand. Admit who you are and what you enjoy. God already knows it. Air out your closet and do the laundry. And for all you people who need authoritative parents, authoritative governments, and authoritative gods, grow up.

Roberts Support

http://supportgayjudgeroberts.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

RNC Email

Here's a good one. I received this today in my Hotmail account from:
Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman
Dear William ,
Last year, when I served as President Bush's re-election campaign manager, you were an essential part of our historic effort. Today, as chairman of the Republican National Committee, I would like to welcome you back to our team with this email.
Our victory in 2004 was historic in many ways. Not only did we help the President win more votes than any other candidate in history, and increase our majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, but we did so through an unprecedented grassroots campaign that depended on the widespread use of email and the Internet.
Through these new technologies, we worked hard to keep you up to date on the progress of the campaign, and the important issues that the President and the Republican Party were addressing. We also used email and the Web to give supporters like you opportunities to get involved, whether by communicating with us to help shape strategy and tactics, by volunteering to help the grassroots effort in your local community, or simply by passing the word along to your friends and neighbors.
Now, at the RNC, we are committed to continuing our groundbreaking use of new technology, and I hope you will join us. In July, we were proud to unveil our completely redesigned Website. We have launched a brand new eCampaign that will, in the coming weeks and months, use email to keep loyal supporters like you fully informed as to how we are working to enact the President's reform agenda and maintain our majorities in the House and Senate and in the states, and what you can do to become more involved in your community.
I hope you find these emails useful. Now more than ever, it is important that Republicans across the country keep fully informed and involved with the important issues that we face as a Party and as a nation. We will fight to ensure confirmation of the President's judicial nominees such as Judge John G. Roberts, who last week answered questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee with humility, humor and thoughtfulness. He showed once again that he is an extremely well-qualified candidate with a sharp legal mind. We will continue to support the war on terror. We will be preparing for important elections in 2005 and 2006. And, we will work to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina rebuild their lives as the reconstruction effort begins in the Gulf Coast.
You are a part of our team. We want you to know what our plans and goals are. We also would like your help in achieving these goals. As we email you, please don't hesitate to email back to let us know what your views are on these important issues. And I hope that you will join us in the party-building activities that we will be informing you about within these regular email updates.
If you would prefer not to receive these emails, I understand. But I hope you will consider remaining a part of the Republican online community. We depend on people like you to keep the Republican Party strong. And with your participation, we will continue our strong record of success and accomplishment.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, RNC

Now really, guys... Do you really want to know what I think about you and your gang? I mean, do you really really want to know that my opinion of President Bush is that he is a drug-induced puke? Really now...

Perhaps Now

Perhaps now you are ready to hear from another source what you have been refusing to hear from me. Let's just say I told you so:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=32
Of course, why would you want to believe Kurt Nimmo, right? So don't. Launch your own search for who these Brits were and why it was so vital to storm the Iraqi police headquarters in Basra. When you find the truth, let us know.

I wonder what will be made of this story by those who think escalating bloodshed in Iraq is a measure of the failure of US policy, and not its success, and who believe black ops and false flags are figments of our paranoiac fantasies. Probably, as with so much that would bedevil their worldview if only they were intellectually honest enough to permit it, this too will be filtered out and forgotten. But our burden is we won't forget. And damned if the Iraqis will.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/09/carry-on-killing.html

Bolton Miller Plame

No comment. Read it for yourself...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/plamegate-the-john-bolto_b_7648.html

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Calvi Murder

Leave it to me to stumble onto something like this...
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/calvi4.htm
This reminds me of something I read about a couple of years ago, namely the conspiracy theory involving "The Black Pope."
(Not "Black" in the Afro-American sense of the word either)
Find your own links to that topic...

Monday, September 19, 2005

Lottery

From the President's September 15 address from New Orleans regarding Hurricane Katrina relief:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050915-8.html

And to help lower-income citizens in the hurricane region build new and better lives, I also propose that Congress pass an Urban Homesteading Act. Under this approach, we will identify property in the region owned by the federal government, and provide building sites to low-income citizens free of charge, through a lottery. In return, they would pledge to build on the lot, with either a mortgage or help from a charitable organization like Habitat for Humanity. Home ownership is one of the great strengths of any community, and it must be a central part of our vision for the revival of this region.

For some reason, this use of the word "lottery" caught my ear the other night. Several thoughts have came to mind.
First is what about the low-income people who don't win this lottery? What becomes of them? How many will apply and how many such house lots will be given out by this lottery? Just the idea of a lottery suggests that not everyone will win. What will the people who have lost their property and then lose this lottery do?
Second, does the federal government own land developable for housing in New Orleans? If so, where did it come from and why hasn't it been developed before?
Third, it seems to me that only certain people would be allowed to qualify for this. People would need the financial means to build homes that conform to federal zoning regulations as well as local, state, and federal building codes. New houses like that cost a lot of money to build and a lot of money to maintain over the years. Taxes alone would be much higher than the poor in New Orleans had been paying, let alone the cost of insurance required for any mortgage. Would the real poor of New Orleans have the means to cover these costs or would the lottery process filter out those who don't have the means?
One key, I suppose, is the president's use of the term "lower-income." Lower than what?
But the real puzzle in my mind is this idea about identifying "property in the region owned by the federal government." I would expect that the president's speech writer must have known what property the president was referring to. But I sure don't know. And he certainly didn't tell us. So all we can do is speculate what this property might be. I have one suggestion.
It seems natural to assume that poor people in the region, predominantly but not entirely poor black people, owned the property on which their homes were built. Maybe that's assuming too much, but whether they owned or rented in not the issue. The issue is whether or not the federal government will rebuild the homes damaged or destroyed by the flood so the original residents can repopulate the land. Will all of the poor of the region be allowed to live where they lived before if indeed that is what they wish to do? Will the federal government enable that to happen? Or will the federal government settle with these people and take over ownership of their property? Will federal seizure of the land be a condition of the settlements? Will the feds settle the claims by paying for the losses, then take over the land, raze the damaged homes, and then run this lottery to see who gets to build on that land?
My guess would be the second option rather than the first. My guess is that a Republican-run federal government would not repopulate poverty-stricken neighborhoods with the black poor who were displaced. My guess is that those people would be resettled in other parts of the country, their property seized, and more affluent people allowed to repopulate the land. Some of the reading I have done recently would suggest that this is an agenda which the well-off Republicans in the region have been contemplating for quite some time. All that was needed to carry out their plan was a large storm like Katrina.
Perhaps that is why Louisiana's Democrat governor was a little bit leery of turning the disaster over to federal management. Perhaps that's why she looks so unhappy when she appears in President Bush's photo-ops. All conjecture, mind you. Who am I to know what's really going on down there?
It's just conjecture. I hope I'm wrong about this.
All but eight months remaining of "four more years." What next, George? What next, Karl? What comes next?

Missing Billions?

On the one hand you have a billion or more dollars missing from Iraq's defense budget:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article313538.ece
This missing money deeply cuts into Iraq's ability to police and defend itself, resulting in the need for US troops to stay longer in Iraq.
On the other hand, you have two US contractors brutally slain in Iraq late last year after notifying officials including a Pennsylvania Republican US Senator and a Pennsylvania Republican US Representative about financial problems with their contract, warning of the concerns of graft. The Senator notified Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of the contractors' concerns. Soon after, the contractors were ambushed and killed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25285-2005Jan20.html
I was reading Baghdad Burning yesterday and came across an interesting tidbit about the Iraqi draft constitution. It seems that an article in the draft, Article (16), proposing that it would be forbidden for foreign troops to use Iraq either for military bases or as a corridor, has vanished in the final draft.
And then there's Zarqawi...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
Phantom of Iraq, enemy of not only America but also the Iraqi people, yet like bin Laden himself, unstoppable, uncatchable, working overtime killing Shiites to terrorize the Iraqi people, the American public, and the world into realizing the need to maintain a strong US military presence in Iraq and the Middle East.
Call it coincidence if you must, but a pattern is a pattern.