Sunday, September 24, 2006


Beneath Bill's Rage
Looks like President Clinton hates turning 60 even more than we knew!

Baby Boomers Life Indiscretions
The Duchess of Windsor, that crone, used to say many miserably elitist things such as "one can never be too thin or too rich" and my favorite, "a woman who would tell her age would tell anything."

I turned 61 last August. That makes me one of those BBINOs (Baby Boomers in Name Only)--you know the kind. We are not too hip, but are always willing to learn.

Anyway, I place turning 60 right up there with colonoscopies and root canals. Evidently, so does Bill.

Expect Outbursts of Tears and Rages
My year of actually being 60 sucked more than turning 30. But now that I'm through it, here are my observations, predictions, rationales, bull.

The world is beginning to see the first of about twenty years of these self-indulgent displays, so gird yourselves and your children. Nevermind. If you're a child or a parent of a BBoomer, you've already done so.

The worst are those who as they reach a mature 60 realize they were wrong, all wrong, all the time, but are afraid to admit it. They likely force the issue until they are backed into a corner, and by year's end will come out with their tails between their legs. But there are plenty of fireworks.

Another type, the quiet Baby Boomer, who never got involved will probably decide this aging thing is not for them, and go through the last gasp of anti-aging strategies ranging from goat gonad implantation to face transplantation. Again, they will go along quietly most of the year, but expect larger lips. Isolation is the hallmark. This is due to the downtime from medical procedures. By age 61, however, it's hoped this type begins to see the impact hypervanity has on the quality of life.

A third type, the academic Baby Boomer, will perish. We'll never hear from him again because he stopped publishing and just as when he was alive, no one really cares what he thinks.

The fourth type--the narcissist--will tear you apart. And insist he tried like hell to get bin Laden.

Then They All Turn Sixty-One (or have died)...
And life is normal and interesting again.

Thanks for the read.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Gas Bags
Good grief! Two of them in one place at one time!

Ahmadinejad
I've listened to him for twenty minutes now. He's a skillful little dude and uses specious quite well. However, he has forgotten that most Americans turned him off nineteen-and-a-half minutes ago.

Chavez
He's got a certain schoolboy look that just pisses me off. A bully. The best thing we can do is stop buying Citgo gas and tell everyone we know to do the same.

Thanks for the read.


Monday, September 18, 2006


The Crazy Aunt in the Attic
OMG, I've become her!

Point-Counterpoint, Family Style
I received a wonderful counterpoint email to Planet California from one of my nephews. Since "internicine" politics has always intrigued me, I decided to respond and see where it takes us. Geographical tyranny being what it is, this infernal "e-mail" ironically has brought about unexpected relationships from family members we'd love to know better.

But, what if, as during America's internal wars, our political views drive us apart?

I remember the dinner table discussions at home and at Grandma's. They were always lively, terribly loud and wonderfully funny. That forum prepared each of its participants for the outside world. If nothing else, we learned how to disagree without being disagreeable, most of the time...in addition to timing our breathing so as not to lose our turn to speak.

Perhaps in our world of gotcha, we can learn from the dinner table forum as we venture into this new reality of instant communications, anonymous, unvetted opinion and healthy, natural generational differences. With that in mind, below is my response to my nephew's email.

Different World Views

Hi!
Thank you for your message this morning. I always love feedback regardless. It makes me a better observer and thus, a better writer.
Your world view and mine are vastly different. I come by mine via walking down many political roads. You may be surprised to know that I was a registered Democrat for six years. Then I became a registered Independent, and am now a middling Republican. Before my forays into progressive politics, I was always pretty independent.
The citations, Alterman, et al. provided in your email aren't foreign to me. I routinely read three newspapers a day, LA Times, Daily Californian and The Press Telegram and listen to all network coverage on television. Since I don't have much emotional investment in any candidate--never have had as I learned very early from your grandfather that every one of them, Dem, Repub, or other, has his eye on more power before anything else--I can only determine who will do what I think will work.
There's a new realism in the world; it is uncomfortable for many. The U.S. is the only post cold war superpower Incumbent upon that position, the U.S.has been forced to deal with foreign policy in a unipolar world. Mutally Assured Detruction (MAD) kept us honest, if nothing else, back then. Now, it's up to America. Who else is available and/or capable of responding to the threats that face our new world?
This sounds like fearmongering and preaching U.S.A. all the way. That, I believe, is our biggest personal difference. I call it realism. Its denouement will be determined eventually, regardless of what you and I say. The nuclear ambitions of Iran (God, think about the arms race vis a vis Saddam and Iran!) are pushing the rest of the world into making a decision. But, let's face it, the rest of the world is very worried. Again, in the unipolar world, it is up to the U.S. to stop it.
These policy skirmishes will continue for quite a while, I'm afraid, until again the kid has to get hit by a car before installing the stoplight. Historically, the U.S., will again move to contain the vagaries of all parties. The difference between now and the past is preemption. Unfortunately, America's detractors call it imperialism. There are volumes of historial data which indicate every president in every war has been accused of being an "imperial" president.
The reason: we're just not used to it. Americans are used to the opposite--inefficient and endless posturing until the problem either goes away or becomes uncontrollable. Usually, as with the early warnings of the Jihadists, the problem didn't go away. In fact, it became uncontrollable the minute the first plane hit the WTC.
Another huge difference, as I said, again is a new enemy who doesn't intend to draw back as per their own statements.
Again, our views are different. Mine are not, however, garnered from hearsay or your "You must watch Fox." I've come by my ideas honestly, believe me. Moreover, they come from years of study and political involvement at the grassroots level. I subscribe to the works of many think tanks, (Brookings, CSPC. AEI, e.g.,). With these involvements, I am exposed to the ideas of policy wonks and political types. I have met as many movers and shakers as any outsider. In fact, you'd be very surprised at whose hands I've shaken. Not bragging, just sayin...
So, please understand that when we discuss these issues, I'm not one of the minions of Fox or of right wing radio. In fact, I HATE right wing and left wing radio.
I would hope you would rather respect my opinions as devised and well thought out. Bring on the debate!
Meanwhile, hope you're doing well! Write soon.
Love always,
Auntie Andrea
Thanks for the read.

Saturday, September 16, 2006


Take a Muslim to Lunch
Do Muslims have a chip on their shoulders?

The Muslim Brotherhood, the 1920s hate group started by a bunch of Cairo Muslim men who preceded today's terrorist groups, now demand Pope Benedict apologize personally for his anti-Muslim statement...

Here's How I'd Apologize

  • Gee, Fellas, I was just sayin...
  • Does this mean you won't be celebrating the Holy Days with the rest of us?
  • The Muslim Brotherhood. Say, aren't you the guys who started all this jihadism back in the day? You know, the ones who facilitated and financed the assassination of Anwar Sadat? Finances Hizbulloh and Al Qaeda, among others? Yeah, I remember who you are now. And you want what? An apology for a quotation from a Muslim from the 15th century? So much for intellectual honesty!
  • Tell ya what, Messers. Imams, why don't we have a cartoon contest to see who is the more reasonable between us? No, you don't get to bring that pretty dagger with you.
  • What's that you say? You won't speak to me because I'm an infidel woman? I'll have you know I never cheated on my husband! How dare you.
  • If the Pope doesn't apologize you'll do what? Murder nuns, burn churches? Cause riots in every Muslim city in the world?

And if the Pope does apologize, you'll do what? Murder nuns, burn churches and cause riots in every Muslim city in the world?

That's exactly what I thought.

The Pope Needs to Stand His Ground

The idea that the entire world's media capitulates to the insane demands and rhetoric heard from the Muslim world is dangerous. The NY Times, for instance, says the Pope needs to retract his remarks.

Thanks for the read.

http://www.planetcaliforniatwo.blogspot.com

http://www.planetcalifornia.blogspot.com

Saturday, September 09, 2006

A Blast From The Past
Just when we thought it was safe, the same old crowd of lawyers and Clintonistas revive their favorite tactic when someone dares to call them on their shortcomings. Perhaps the idea that they'll just sue their enemies to death was what was behind the Bin Laden escape from capture and or death all along.

"Ah didn't do ut."
The cast is the same: Bruce Lindsey, attorney for Bill Clinton, sends a letter to ABC in which he basically threatens their broadcast license if they show their miniseries on Sunday and Monday, "Path to 9/11."

Then there's Sandy Berger, the Feckless, who was caught on security tape stuffing telling documents into his socks in a vain attempt to thwart the 9/11 Commission's discovery of what happened before the World Trade Centers were hit. Blustering Berger can't abide a suggestion that he and his boss had missed an opportunity to get Bin Laden where he lived.

Don't forget Madeline Albright, dancing with Kim Jong Il, in celebration of the Clinton administration's appeasement of the North Korean dictator during the early years of that country's nuclear build-up. Many years later we find that Kim had his own celebration going on--the fact that he hoodwinked the US into giving him even more time to build a bomb. In regards to this film, she is incensed, shocked and mad as a hornet whose nest has been blown away by a garden hose.

And, of course, the Liar-in-Chief, proclaims "Ah just want people to tell the truth." Uh, so did we Americans, Bill. Guess it depends on what the definition of "truth" is.

None Dare Call it Censorship
Maybe it's just a style issue, but I don't recall Republicans going nuts over Michael Moore's depictions of President Bush in his two hate-filled "docudramas." Nor do I see Dems standing up en masse to protest the latest cinematic outrage in which President Bush is assassinated.

Oh, I know, it's an election season. But this display of Democrat cajones is almost more than I can take. True to form, the Clinton agenda always comes back to its original mission: sue the bastards.

Thanks for the read.

Saturday, September 02, 2006


Appeasement: Twenty-First Century Style
I'm trying--really I am--to understand why today's antiwar groups insist on ignoring pre-WWII parallels and insist we take Jimmie Carter's advice and talk to Iran about their threats to western civilization.

They Can't Have it Both Ways
As Japan was preparing to bomb our Quonset huts and Pacific fleet into oblivion their people were also deep in discussion with President Roosevelt. In fact, if memory serves, the last conversation the Japanese ambassadors held with the U.S. was approximately one day before their attack.

Talking seemed to be the right course for Roosevelt. It placated his socialist, antiwar friends and showed America was taking the high road. Unfortunately, those meetings were nothing more than window dressing, which disguised despicable events to come.

While we were talking, the Japanese fleet contemplated whether to use torpedoes or bombs. In that case, words meant nothing. Roosevelt knew it; the Japanese knew it. War-weary Americans didn't want to know it. Roosevelt did his level best to shake the complacency of his countrymen. As usual, just as the corner that needs a stoplight, some kid has to get run over first before one is installed.

Hard as it is to comprehend, the Dems have now brought up Reagan's ability to talk us through the end of the cold war, pronouncing not a shot was fired in the meantime.

Of course what they don't understand is the fact that President Reagan's "conversation" was reinforced with a bunch of Pershing missiles sitting in Germany, aimed directly at Moscow.

If the Dems would step into their Go Back machine, they'd have to listen to their own words in this regard, i.e., yes, but the USSR was on its way out anyway. As I said, they can't have it both ways.

That Offensive I-Word
Leave it to the Dems to be put off by reality and truth. Islamofacists is a buzzword made up by Neocons, they say. How dare they scare the American public by comparing Uncle Dolfie and his Nazi regime with Ahmadinejad and Iran's theocratic thugs?

The Iranians have gone on record to explain in great demonstrative detail they will do away with non-Islamic folks (jihad) at home and abroad, destroy Israel as a people and a country, all the time insisting upon furthering their nuclear ambitions.

And we must open a dialogue with them?

We need to be scared into understanding there are people who, if given the opportunity, will destroy America. Think it can't happen? Great countries come and go. America is not exempt from history's breathtaking parallels of a complacent, naive citizenry who refuse to face reality. Words, in the face of annihilation, mean absolutely nothing.

Thanks for the read.

www.planetcaliforniatwo.blogspot.com
http://www.planetcalifornia.blogspot.com/