Manhood Exposed and Pathetic

What are we seeing?!

Clinton was very frustrating -- a demonstration of how an intelligent, dedicated politician is still run by his penis. What was most annoying about him was the bizarre concurrent behavior - not stepping away from his job for a moment to handle the cheat - the not-unusual obnoxious extra testosterone that seems to be part of the same character that has the drive and ability to reach the highest office.

Besides, I always knew he was set up. Duh, everyone knew his weakness before he even hit the White House. That meant the GOP could use that weakness to push their own agenda, and later be able to share responsibility/blame with the Democrats for the "unintended consequences" they caused -- to muddle the defining of the problem.

Thus under Clinton:

There was a major shift in banking/mortgage accountability with the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act.

Depleted uranium was in the tips of the bombs dropped by Clinton in the N.A.T.O. raids on Kosovo and Bosnia (and Europe was infuriated as they saw their cancer rates explode).

The welfare system was irresponsibly and punitively strangled, making it much more difficult for generations of women to rise above poverty (and thus rippling more stress and less education and possibilities into the lives of their children and their children and their children).

So, who knows at what point the GOP had Clinton by the balls. One time only, I heard on a major broadcast station, that Monica Lewinsky had first worked for some Republican in the Senate Office Building and when she couldn’t keep quiet about her desire for the President, she was suddenly transferred to the White House. Of course.

Men are such sell-outs for risky sex.

So, of course, we have since had to go through the inevitable (and kharmic) exposure, so to speak, of Republican and Religious Right hypocrites – with Congressional pages, in airport bathrooms, in the Department of the Interior, with staffer’s wives – by those who have tried to gain power by claiming to hold higher “moral values.”

For me, the great disappointment was John Edwards. At that point, I clearly saw that men are powerless sellouts. If Edwards, whose sincere desire to change the system that left so many so poor felt so true, can be felled by an affair, anyone can.

Please note: Shame on that woman. How could she possibly rationalize encouraging or allowing such a relationship if she believed in anything he worked towards, when such a connection would surely destroy his ability to achieve his goals.

Now, Sanford blames it on Maria in Argentina. Come on, what is this? West Side Story -- or Evita?

As I commented early today at Huffington Post,

“Don’t cry for cheating with Argentinian...” (Where is Patti Lupone when you need her?)

But seriously, I’m so tired of the lies, the greed, the toxins, the job losses, the wars – all of which come from this out-of-control, testosterone-driven, alpha male need to be in charge, no matter the “collateral damage.”

Sanford has no right to return to the Governor’s Office. He selfishly and irresponsibly turned his personal inadequacies, his inability to uphold his commitments as a husband and father, into a national security risk, disregarding the commitments of his office as well.

What an irony that he didn’t want his state to accept federal money, when his disappearance and failure to empower the lieutenant governor could very well have resulted in a more urgent need for federal assistance and perhaps even intervention if there had been an emergency.

As the infamous and brilliant Geurilla Girls have often suggested, it just may be time to break out the estrogen bombs!

Sorry, guys, but today, I must say it.

"Would you vote for Hillary", RadioWest asks

In response to RadioWest with Carl Bernstein discussing his biography of Hillary Clinton:

“Would you vote for Hillary?”

There was a time when I would have voted for Hillary for President, beyond a doubt, and if she becomes the Democratic nominee, then I still will. Whatever her flaws, I still find her to be very intelligent, capable, compassionate and wise, with honorable motives -- all qualities that have been sorely missing in the present administration.

However, the problem lies in her husband's legacy. Will she be able to move forward and act objectively, without the need to protect and/or defend the parts of his policies that, in retrospect, have not worked or have had negative, even dangerous, unintended consequences.

Most notably, there is the use of depleted uranium in U.S. military weapons. It didn't start with Bill Clinton. On the contrary, it began with Bush/Cheney, only it was George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney as Defense Secretary, who first bombed Iraq on January 17, 1991, using penetrators made effective by the extremely hard heavy metal, which would burst into flames and sharpen on contact with its target, leaving tiny radiating particles in the air, and eventually making their way into the water and land, there in Iraq, as well as travelling upon the currents of the great dust storms that Iraq is famous for. The radiation, called "low-level", is no less intense or damaging for being "low-level" -- it just means that the range of the constantly emitting bursts is small, but once particles enter the body, by inhalation, the mouth or through an open wound, that emission range is perfect for attacking nearby cells as the particles work their way through. The kinds of cancers that occur depend on the size and solubility of the particles, and where they get stuck along the way. Doctors in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen the greatest increases in leukemia, and cancers of the liver and lungs, as well as the previously rare occurence of multiple separate cancers. With the sanctions against Iraq in the 90's, treatment was almost impossible, and losses were great.

Then, under President Clinton, there was the crisis in Kosovo and Bosnia, and NATO moved in, armed with U.S. and British weapons. In January 2001, the NATO countries exploded with stories of cancers suffered by the troops who had served in the former Yugoslavia, and demanded an investigation. The United Nations sent a team from the Environmental division and the World Health Organization. Meanwhile, the Pentagon squashed scientific evidence linking DU and medical effects. It was years later that those who were still paying attention learned that Dr. Keith Baverstock of the WHO, their best expert in radiation, filed a report in 2001 acknowledging enormously harmful effects, but, under pressure from the U.S., it was shelved.

Even more horrible, then, is the fact that the U.S. military, no longer capable of pretending to be unaware of the effects, still uses depleted uranium in its missiles, penetrators, shields, tanks, and more. Yet few in Congress are courageous enough to try to introduce and support legislation to stop its use or even seek testing for every soldier who serves in the Gulf. Congressmen Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Kucinich (D-OH) have been leaders in this effort. But even Democrats have been reluctant to take this on, even though the greatest use by far has been ordered by the two versions of Bush/Cheney, in 1991 and from 2003 to the present, because in between the Bushes is Bill Clinton, their most successful President since FDR.

I don't know that Senator Hillary Clinton would be willing to face these truths and stop what so many in the rest of the world recognize as the kind of long-term, boundary-less destruction that qualifies as a war crime. It is the ultimate torture -- to watch your loved ones, especially those who are most vulnerable -- your children, suffer through cancers and birth defects.

We need a leader who will end this.
And we need citizens who will demand to know what the candidates will do about it.

A Question for Carl Bernstein on KUER's RadioWest

Carl Bernstein appeared on KUER's RadioWest with Doug Fabrizio today. He is the author of the book on Hillary Clinton, A Woman in Charge.

And the question is:

Will Hillary Clinton be willing to tackle the atrocity of depleted uranium in our current weapons -- which would mean she'd have to acknowledge her husband's culpability in this? He continued what the first Bush & his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney started in 1991 in Iraq, when he bombed Kosovo & Bosnia, and Bush2/Cheney have continued to use them despite news in January 2001 that our European NATO allies were coming up with unusually high numbers of cancers, especially leukemia.

Hillary seems to be the least likely Democrat to stop the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. military.

Know Bush Fact #8

Based on the belief that the truth shall set you free:



In the Spring of 2000, the battle for ergonomic regulations, to protect workers from the damaging effects of heavy, repetitive production line work, had its final 47 days of hearings before the Department of Labor. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provided the frightening results of years of investigation: 1.8 million American workers disabled by injuries caused by physical stress on the job each year.

Vehemently arguing against the regulations was Eugene Scalia, "the Godfather of the anti-ergonomics movement." For seven years, he'd lead a high-profile attack against ergonomics, claiming it was founded on "junk science" created by doctors, reporters and hysterical workers.

Even with the approval of the Department of Labor, bureaucracy takes time, and it took a last minute order from President Clinton to list the rules in the Federal Register so the Ergonomics Program Standard would become a part of the OSHA Code of Federal Regulations.

Then came Bush.

Determined to get rid of this expensive problem for the business community, Bush pushed for a Congressional Review which could overturn an executive order that had been on the books less than 60 days. So, with the backing of the new White House administration, on April 23, 2001, the rules that had been 12 years in the making were wiped out.

Seven months later, Bush appointed Eugene Scalia to the position of Solicitor of the Department of Labor, in charge of enforcing federal workplace laws. Congress refused to confirm the appointment, so Bush "recessed" Scalia in, installing him in office while Congress was adjourned, twice.

It should be noted that Eugene Scalia is the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the five Supreme Court Justices who put Bush in office. Eugene Scalia had been a partner in the law firm that represented George Bush in that argument before the Supreme Court.

To verify this information, Google "Eugene Scalia +ergonomics +Department of Labor".

- February 19, 2004