Obama wanted for us to win together; Republicans wanted him to fail on his own (his idea of changing politics seemed naïve and hinted at inexperience).  So when he proposed a stimulus, their objective was for the stimulus to be an expensive failure and to all vote against it, then blame him for the bad results (and the cost).  That's why they loaded high-priced and non-stimulative tax cuts into it, fought infrastructure spending which would have meant something, and voted against it anyway.  

 

My question:  Was there ever a conversation like this in the White House:

 

The President:  "If it goes well, after some continued pain, by the summer of 2010 we should see signs, signs at least, of a vibrant recovery."

 

Advisor 1:  "Mr. President, marvelous, but my worry is that it is still a gamble, especially since the big-ticket stimulus really is relatively small.   Now let's just say:  What if that recovery doesn't materialize and we lose one or even both Houses of Congress?"

 

The President:  You remind me of my Malia with this worrywart mentality!  LOL!  But you're right, and even Bush people were saying by 2006, "optimism is not a strategy."

 

Advisor 2:  "Excuse me, Mr. President (and Advisor 1), but I believe I have a solid backup plan.  Imagine that somehow by summer of 2010, God forbid, the economy is still in real trouble.  We should be okay in the long run nonetheless, because even in that nightmare scenario, here's what we can do:  [ ... ] "

That would have been the professional approach, right?  So did that happen, one might like to know?

This isn't meant as a snark.

On the weekends, *we're it,* for the most part!

MSNBC is mostly shut down too, and the community here seeks an outlet.  Faced with few options, we write for one another!!

I like blogging here and appreciate the opportunity, but I also see good reasons to shut it down.  

Although it hits me now, I'm not sure they reasonably can!  LOL!!

Presented with apologies by a rank beginner:  So this Indian guy Siddhartha Gautama ("Buddha," or awakened one) was from an influential family some 565 or 400-something BCE, maybe spoke "Pali," and opted out and sought enlightenment through asceticism (fasting and whatnot), but then decided that starving was lame although meditation was good.  

The "Middle Path," he then concluded was the real ticket, and the key problem was people had trouble accepting impermanence of themselves, physical things, one another.  He set out four Noble Truths to tackle this, i.e.,

1. Life is/involves suffering.
2. Source of suffering is craving, clinging, desire.  Desire for a hot mobile phone, fancy car, gemstone, big house, that promotion, certain partner, traditional afterlife/big-payoff.  And hate is a form of clinging - same stuff in different wrapping.  All comes from non-acceptance of (a) impermanence and (b) interconnectedness of everything/everyone.
3. Suffering can be overcome.
4. And that is done through the Eightfold Path (on slide 2 below!) which is key dharma (or learning).   The 3 jewels/treasures are dharma, Buddha, community. **NO GOD!!**

   =====================================================

1. Right view is the true understanding of the four Noble Truths (above on slide 1!).

2. Right aspiration is the true desire to free oneself from craving, ignorance, hatefulness.

3. Right speech - abstaining from lying, gossiping, or hurtful talk/abusive blogging.

4. Right action involves abstaining from hurtful behaviors, such as killing, stealing, and (oops!) *careless sex* (as some phrase it).

5. Right livelihood means making your living in such a way as to avoid dishonesty and hurting others, including animals.

6. Right effort is a matter of exerting oneself in regards to the content of one's mind: Bad qualities should be abandoned and prevented from arising again; Good qualities should be enacted and nurtured.

7. Right mindfulness is the focusing of one's attention on one's body, feelings, thoughts, and consciousness in such a way as to overcome craving, hatred, and ignorance.

8. Right concentration is meditating in such a way as to progressively realize a true understanding of imperfection, impermanence, and non-separateness.

 The leading now-existing branches of Buddhism, Theravada (more South and Southeast Asia) and Mahayana (more East Asia), have five precepts as well:   no killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying or (Oh, no!!) intoxication.  Thais nervously joke that they almost all violate the 5th!  Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are thought to pertain to this Mahayana somehow.

- Thank you for viewing this presentation! - :)

=====================================================

You can dig deeper and deeper, on and on about Buddhism, and maybe some knowledgeable people (many of you here are, I know) or even real Buddhists will further enlighten us.  Though hopefully not flame me, as such would violate No. 3 of Eightfold Path!  (I said I'm a total dilettante, but the above is the basic structure according to my research, so if you've got this, it seems like you've got a lot.)  Buddhists seem to delight in lists, so you'll find more than the above (such as Hindrances, Factors of Enlightenment, Perverted Views, others) should you dig in. (Alright, *almost* fit!)

I was thinking Rand would bring back the environmentally catastrophic insecticide DDT if he could, the chemical that nearly killed off Ospreys and indeed the American Bald Eagle by wrecking their eggshells (both of which species came back *like gangbusters* since the early 1970s ban).  A pundit in the bell-bottom age had written that it was probably too late and an overreach to even try to save the Osprey (Osprey to pundit - "OVERREACH THIS!!") -- but the Bald Eagle *might* be rescueable if DDT were stopped, supposedly.  It really was that bad; this DDT was *one virulent toxin!*

I dug up Time Magazine from 1971 spreading hysteria on the supposed dangers of a DDT ban -- they trotted out a Nobel Prize winner to make the absurd anti-environmental argument, which they *adored*:  "Just try banning DDT and you'll get yourselves world starvation, smarty-pants"!!   Uh, right.

 

If we were still back in those debates, you need but two seconds' thought to picture Rand Paul's  take:  Ospreys go extinct?    Well, he likes birds (loves 'em, dammit!!), values nature, and he figures the Ospreys will make it fine if people just stop looking for a goshdarned government solution!  Although "sometimes accidents happen," like he says.  You sure can't start telling farmers how to grow crops!   *They're* the experts, and otherwise it's un-American, and *plus* they've got this Nobel Prize yo-yo!

Recall - cock-sure Rand's already weighed in on business and environmental responsibility:

 "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of  [DDT producers],'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's 'Good Morning America.' "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."  GOOD ONE, RAND!

ht

 

Product liability would be out the window, too.  Why care?  Well, say there's a defective kitchen food processor and it hacks off a couple or three of your loved one's fingers.   

In our strong system, the companies involved would be liable and terrified and would move hell and high water to make *certain* that never recurred!    Ah, but Rand Paul?  He would be philosophical:  "I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."  

OMG, Rand Fucking Paul!   People, this is a really dangerous guy and we don't want his ilk *anywhere near* the process of making U.S. federal law!  Please think if there is something you can do to stop it, such as contacting the Conway campaign.  They're making a game run of this (dead heat?) in a tough state that backed reactionary Jim Bunning for two sad terms, and think how proud you could be to part of this victory!  Against this fricking throwback menace Paul!!

Cordoba -- that's in Spain, right?

Right.   A regional capital within Andalusia (the South).

Former capital of the Caliphate of Cordoba, which ruled the Iberian peninsula and nearby North Africa from 929 to 1031, the zenith of Islamic wealth, success, cultural riches in that region.  Eventually just fell apart in infighting and civil war but Islamic rule in some form lasted until Ferdinand and Isabella.   At the heyday, Caliphs ruled from what is now Pakistan to what is now Portugal, and religion and political power were thoroughly intertwined.
  



Modern-day Islamic expansionists/irredentists romanticize year in and year out about restoring this Cordoba caliphate in particular (its final loss in 1492 to Spain seems to really irk them).  Extremist rhetoric is laced with with this throughout and so is nominally-benign Pan-Arabist thinking.  Kind of like "the South gonna do it again," although some of them, of course, are quite serious.  Part of restoring the overall geographical caliphate, in their minds.

Anyhow, this regional Caliphate is what the Cordoba reference means.

================================================================

I think the idea that this "center" is being created to show how Muslims can live in peace and it is just one big gesture of universal love is disproven by the name.

The name is overtly political, and it refers to avenging the loss of Muslim domination of Southern Spain.  I was shocked when I researched and understood the apparent meaning.  Maybe the guy wants to peacefully restore his Spanish caliphate (can't really imagine how, but that's his thing) and maybe he thinks that is somehow good for mankind.  Or maybe someone asked him to do this -- it's far from impossible.

If he does not accept an alternative site, it means either (a) he is strong-willed and sees no legitimate reason or need and somehow wants the mosque adjacent to Ground Zero for purposes of good, or (b) the mosque is to be built in that location to mock us.

The Muslim tradition being a mix of politics and religion, all sorts of scoundrels want to build mosques merely as ways of honoring themselves.  Saddam tried to build the biggest, and when some autocrat overseas one-upped him, Saddam immediately started a new one, even bigger (I used to live across the road from it during the war - a lot of weapons were stored and run from the unfinished concrete behemoth). 

Whether you find this fact palatable or not, Bin Laden is like those egoists and he's finding the mosque debate very entertaining - will savor a victory for his sick-o Caliphate it if it gets built at Ground Zero.  And don't you dare go calling me a pig or something for saying it - this is simple reality.  Now maybe we don't care, *let him laugh* let's say and who gives a damn, but we ought to be able to discuss this like adults without name-calling.  It is *basic* to Al Qaeda doctrine to use our own laws to make fools of us, it's all in their manuals, or did you forget?

 

As long as the government agrees with the organizers that they have the right to build where they acquire land and don't actually stop them, there is nothing wrong with politely asking them if they'd consider building someplace else if the government kicks in for it.  And you want to say this solution in itself raises "grave Constitutional questions?"  That honestly sounds to me like somebody with a stick up their rear end - diplomacy requires creative thinking and this *is* a 9/11 issue, worst attack on U.S. soil!

 

As for Harry Reid, now I am glad so many give Obama credit for saying they could build it there, which is great, but the next day Obama added he was not saying it was wise to do so! Many of you seem to have missed that, but Obama's pretty close on it to Harry whom many now want to toss onto the pike blades.

 

Republicans (like Cornyn, Palin, Gingrich) want to make this the "death panel" of 2010.  It will be the "Democrat death-mosque that Bin Laden masterminded."  That's very real; "Nazi Sign Next to Holocaust Museum, shrieks Gingrich.  Also Sharron Angle the psycho adores this, being just a hair behind Reid in the polls and this can help her and other odious candidates.  "So what?", some say, Tough tomatoes:  the government cannot get involved in this anyway!  And I say, poppycock.  The government provides for the general welfare under the Constitution, and if that involves offering but not imposing a creative solution once in while, there is nothing wrong with that.  Government gets involved in urban planning, neighborhood structuring, and project aspects each and every day, all touching on private individuals' rights.

 

And sure, if the promoters ultimately don't agree, then this should be built where they want, no question.  Otherwise, yeah, the terrorists have won.  But we're not there yet, and nobody has traded the Constitution away, or will, or would.

 

Pol Sci Prof Larry Sabato could imagine how grateful Reid must have felt to Obama for raising this in a year Obama was not running (and unlike TPM, Sabato does NOT blame Reid):  "A lot of endangered congressional Democrats must be wondering why President Obama waded into this hot controversy when it was both politically foolish and unnecessary [...] The political damage is done and now all Democrats will have to take a stand on this "local issue" that Obama has nationalized."

Or may be I should say Kangaroo Court?

Oh, I realize that may seem crass, but I have no respect at all for Roberts, Alito, Thomas, very little for Scalia, and not much for Kennedy.  I don't mean just as Justices, I have little or no respect for them even as ordinary public officials (or for that matter, citizens) who are supposed to act fairly.  I think the way most of the five decide cases is they're watching a Sarah Palin interview waiting for Rush to come on the radio, and do whatever that ilk would want, the law be damned.



Kennedy is the ringer, though.  Kennedy takes himself seriously, even if I surely don't.  And  they say he has been a reliable pro-gay Justice, in case after case.  

So they'll get four Kangaroo votes to overturn in a New York minute.  Five won't be easy, surprisingly.  But the cabal may strongarm Kennedy and bully him into narrowly voting their way ("Concurring in Result") on some cockamamie theory.  I think that crazy construct is actually most likely.  


Kennedy may be too much of a weakling to stick up for his key convictions.  MHO.

A Korean War hero, a twenty-term Congressman, first African-American Ways and Means Chairman, and a well-regarded icon of sorts, Charles Rangel won't recognize that at 80, it's time to move on.  The loveable guy's got 13 varied ethics charges against him, and he could just leave with accolades and collect his pension, rather than face and inflict embarrassment.  But like the Chicago machine pol, Congressman Danny Rostenkowski in the early nineties, Charlie wants to do this the hard way, and just like Danny, he doesn't care who gets hurt.

There is evidence that the Dems *may* have begun to stanch the flow of the potential bloodbath building up for November.  3 weeks of good news now, and maybe the Republicans peaked too early.  But Charlie can change all that, and help Republicans paint Dems as irredeemably corrupt in ugly public hearings that the Tea Baggers will enjoy.  Cutting back to 1994, Democrat Rostenkowski is ignominiously credited with helping Republican Gingrich take over Congress with that year's Contract with America by giving Gingrich the same opening. (Rostenkowski still ended up in the Big House by stubbornly refusing to take his deal.)

 

A reprise of 1994 is the last thing Obama needs, and on Friday, he made it clear that he wanted Rangel out of the House.  But Rangel doesn't give a tinker's damn; he's going down fighting.  Over what, though?  He didn't do these things?  Yes, he did, and none of his bellyaching can change that.  By not leaving "with dignity," he makes it harder to legislate, harder to fight for the economy, harder to appoint Elizabeth Warren to the consumer financial projection agency, and harder to hold onto Democratic seats and maybe the House majority itself.   But again, from where he sits, Charlie doesn't care two whoops in hell about that stuff. Nevertheless, that attitude didn't help Danny or Democrats back in the day, and it's annoying to watch the fricking rerun now.

 

As I wrote elsewhere, after the shameful Vilsack fiasco and other disappointments like public option, the Obama people need Elizabeth Warren to rebuild enthusiasm.  I was wrong before in once saying she's not confirmable for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency - Gibbs said she was, and he wouldn't have if they did not have some vote count (including wavering Republicans).

Dodd's been against the brilliant and savvy consumer advocate for confirmability reasons.  Dodd's amiable and good-hearted, but it's a good bet that anything banking insider Dodd is against needs a second look.   And Geithner?  Well, he can take up a new hobby if he needs soothing, and anyhow, the WH has been schooling him.  If Obama loses the fight, at least he went down punching over something that was worth trying for (better than being called a sissy by Ed Schultz!).  Win or lose, a confirmation battle has great potential to draw the most repellant Republican reptilians out of their snakepits, while pumping up the women's vote and the base for November.

 

Elizabeth is great for substance as Barney Frank relays (others as well), and great for politics, too -- so it seems.  She could be an important figure on the American stage.  (And firing Vilsack can wait till after the elections for a joint goodbye with BP-maven Ken Salazar.)  Go Elizabeth!

It is his job to make informed decisions.  When he conspicuously fails to do his job in a way that wrecks lives, denies the wrongly accused a chance to explain but fires instantly even though there is no time pressure, of course he's sorry. He's sorry that he got caught acting in grossly irresponsible way.

 

If anyone had acted so oafishly and got caught, yeah, they'd be sorry.  So what? When this guy gets his bosses in trouble, they make it his job to apologize and offer amends for his gross misconduct.  If he refuses that, he's fired without delay.

 

The apology is thus meaningless.  It is demeaning to have to listen to, benefits only him, yet the victim is obliged socially to accept the tawdry gesture.

We, though, are not.    

I am in a beach town in peninsular Thailand, having to argue to buy a pre-dawn sleeper ticket back to Bangkok on the coveted Special Express overnighting from Butterworth, Malaysia:  the agent is giving every reason not to book.   It is just a four-hour trip North to the capital, and they don't really want beachcombers sanding up their white linens, so they try hard to steer the regional passengers onto some ruder train, and most just accept like sheep.

 

A key obstacle is you can't even buy a ticket for this short trip aboard the Special Express until one day prior to departure, and then only if unsold beds remain. But it's now a day before and the agent does not have this excuse, so he instead argues the sleeper is worthless:  the porters awaken everyone at 6am,  he says, so the whole ride is sitting up, and we won't get any sleep anyway.

 

That may be true in Second Class, I muse, but what about First Class, as it will be just my girlfriend (the "Sommelier") and I in the two-person compartment, surely the attendants will agree to let us slumber.  Nope, he says, that same policy applies in First Class - everybody rise and shine at 6 am and the beds are stripped clean.

 

In *Thailand?,* I marvel, one of the most welcoming and solicitous societies in the world?  Hmmnn.  It's preposterous, and even if this *is* the policy (unlikely), I reason that at least with a tip (you can say 'bribe' if you prefer such crudities!), surely I will get to sleep *in my own bed* in First Class!  *If*a gratuity is even needed. 

 

Naw, this guy is just gassing me.

"I don't believe you!," I finally intone.  "I want two First Class tickets to Bangkok!  On the Special Express, 5:47 am!"

 

He relents, and the next morning we are on the platform.  The train is a bit late, and it's just enough delay to allow the sun to rise, so I can snap a few pictures of the train's arrival - perfect!  An official rings a good-sized, brass bell as the train is about to pull in, and I quickly pose my sleepy Sommelier as though ringing that bell - she's cuter with that cord in hand anyway!  It's all very fancy; the decorative station is kept beautifully clean and painted white and red, as this town is the King's beach residence and the octogenarian ruler is something like a living god in the Buddhist monarchy.  That brass bell looked wonderful in the morning light!

 

As the big train rolls in, a good number of passengers have gathered for the ordinary run, scheduled a few minutes later.  Railroad officials make their last insistent attempts to dissuade us from boarding:  no, the Special Express is not our train, we must wait with the Great Unwashed for the next ordinary one, they insist!  I ignore, leaving them gesticulating as we move quickly up the platform toward the front of the Special Express, worried that it will leave without us if I waste time arguing with these police-looking types!  With much relief, I see that the attendants from our car further up are waving us toward them with big smiles; they obviously got word that we are expected - whew!

 

The service is almost mortifyingly kind.  They immediately lift my bags and the Sommelier's too; I'm not allowed to even help!  It is after 6 o'clock and the beds are not made up, but without missing a beat they ask if I would like to have sheets and pillows put on the beds - yessiree!   They do a beautiful job, and immediately following, another attendant is right there asking what kind of breakfast he should bring us. 

 

I have never seen service like this anywhere outside Thailand, and the Sommelier and I have a marvelous, restful, dozy trip through palms, rice paddies, and little towns back toward the capital.  It's breakfast in bed, and it feels like a weekend lie-in in a good hotel.  The tickets cost $35 each, and I give the lead attendant a six dollar tip as a gesture of appreciation, not duty.

 

The night before I had been a bit sick, and let the Sommelier party with our new Thai friends while I recuperated - they had their goodbyes sometime after 4 and they all walked down to the beach.  She had to throw a coin in the sea according to her Slavic traditions, to guarantee that she will return some day.  As she flung a few kopecks into the surf, they all knew we'd be back sometime -- maybe before long.

The ambient "humor" in Russian-speaking countries about women drivers would make a Westerner's hair stand up -- it is something from the 1950s in USA.



Above book:  Lady behind the wheel -- black shoe diaries

Women participate in this bizarre mirth as much as men; I have been telling them all for 15 years that maybe there was a time in Western Europe or States when women genuinely *were* worse drivers, but only through lack of experience, and that those days are long gone if they did ever exist.

It's a tough sell.   Everyone can tell a couple of woman driver jokes; certainly women drivers all can --  the idea of it being sexist or humiliating is just somebody' else's notion.  They themselves enjoy a good giggle.  There are few articles that fret over it, half-hearted handwringing before readers start tittering again -- attitudes are way different here, in short.

So women like to put the above black high-heel stickers on their vehicles, to flirt (Babe on Board!), to goof around, to elicit consideration, as an expression of female achievement,and also, yes, to warn other motorists of the situation.  They slap on decal like this, as though a Student Driver sticker.


Ukrainian plates:  Not just a student driver (Y decal), but a *female* student!  

Don't flame me over this, please, I'm just relaying (scream out your window if you care to!).   More and more women are learning to drive here (my girlfriend quotes me road rules, learned in her course), but the giggling does not abate.

I made up my mind yesterday to write about it, and I was reminded of the urgency when I saw a trolley car with such a sticker, driven indeed by a woman!  I had to pass that  one on, at least!  Anyhow, happy motoring, all!  - O.T.



Pictorial Advice, Russia:  Flats for driving!

It's an established industry now:  All the Fox "news" parasites, Limbaugh, Coulter, Bachmann, etc. -- they get up every day, look at whatever Obama has done.  Whatever it is, anything at all, they denounce as incompetent and traitorous.  

Their careers depend 100% on this -- a cycle of commercial propaganda.  He does anything whatsoever and it is unspeakable outrage.  Every single day, or they don't get paid (or in Bachmann's case, can't make a celebrity-buffoon of self to get on the Idiot Box).

So, no, Mr. President, please don't worry about their foreordained "reaction"; just make your decisions.  They'll mark you down as the lowest swine; always do, and are just awaiting details.  Speaking of treason, if we were attacked militarily, they would side with the enemy as they have with BP, calling you arrogant, elitist, claiming you brought on the attack by not fighting for the ruinous, unregulated market of their loopy fantasies.   (That being the predatory, usurpatory market that provides such lavish payoffs to them!)

That's what the too-painful-to-watch Alvin Greene candidacy is.



And that's the only purpose of it:  Mocking the President and Dems on the basis of Obama's race.  "Ha-ha, black fella, we got another black loser right here for you!  Reminds us of you, darky, do you see the resemblance?  

"Did we say 'darky?'  Oh shoot, we meant, uh, whaddya call it, oh yeah, "Mr. President" if that's what we're supposed to call you, boy!"

This, in 2010!  No words.