Stan Berenstain, RIP

One-half of the great children's writers is dead at age 82. He's off to the "Great Honey Hunt" in the sky, and we here on Earth shall miss him.

Liar

I'm getting awfully tired of this word, used in so many ways...and often times used wrong.

It is becoming almost commonplace--if you say something I believe is wrong, it's a lie. It happens in law; it happens in life; it happens in business.

Yes, you probably can see where this is going.

I was frustrated by a post at that quaint, misguided, late-to-the-game "Huffington Post" clearinghouse. Want to see a bunch of Hollywood rejects, bad actors, unknown "authors", policy wonks who are not known at all but somehow are better known than these "authors," and sons of former presidential candidates tout (a) their pet projects, and/or (b) their Hollywood liberal credentials? Go to the HuffPuff and prepare to be bored.

Now, I mention this because comments currently on the HuffPuff by "Darren" titled starts off with the well-tired meme "Bush the Liar".

Excuse me while I consult my directory of government officials and the phone directory...

[Musak, featuring the dulcet tones of "Cat Scratch Fever" performed by Raffi drones in the background]

Yep. Checked it...there is no "Bush the Liar".

So, Darren, check your nomenclature next time.

One of these lesser known "authors" is Robert Schlesinger, who wrote a piece on the new strategy in the White House to "reformulate" the debate about the war. The piece also used a tired leftist meme, Bushit. Therein he asks,"Is anyone surprised at how full of shit [Bush] is?" Essentially, calling Bush a liar. Way to raise the level of discourse there, Bob. But that's the way to the Golden Cookie at Arianna's pad. (Is that indecent?)

But, pace, let me calm the humor for a moment--this is important.

Do these people know what a serious charge lying is?

Allow me to be philosophically legal for a moment. To lie, you have to enter whatever statement you're going to make with the knowledge that it's untrue and the intent or reckless disregard to carry on with that untruth with the intent of making it your position and the position publicly represented to others.

Lying is a serious moral issue, and in some matters it is criminal (see, e.g., crimes of perjury and false statements). It is not a charge to be thrown out willy-nilly to score easy rallying points.

It is possible that the Bush administration selected choice pieces of intelligence, military strength reports, and political rap sheets that supported its cause to launch a war against Iraq. All of that is not lying--every single piece of the puzzle was true, and continues to be true.

The law has a very important truism--it is not up to the plaintiff/proponent to eliminate all other causes to make his case. He must only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that one event proximately caused the injury. The same truism exists in life, and most certainly in politics.

Lst I checked, one side in an argument does not need to make the other side's argument for him. In our democratic society, we are free to engage in open discourse and free to associate and form factions for our collective beliefs. Our establishment political institutions and our voters have implicitly recognized a two-party system. In most circumstances where there is important debate, we will modulate toward the party that supports and speaks our ideas.

There was nothing stopping the anti-war crowd, or partisans in the media (in fact, nothing did stop them), or opponents in Congress from making the argument opposing the war in Iraq. As Bush mentions, the Congress had access to the same intelligence he had and could make arguments based off the same information.

The late "realization" by some that we were "lied to" and "misled" into Iraq is phony-baloney posturing of the worst kind. But the worst part is that these people actually believe that, deep in their hearts, that George W. Bush is a liar. They truly believe that he possesses a soul so deprived of moral value that he would intentionally state an untruth and make that his position. These people truly believe that George W. Bush would sacrifice his own personal moral health, his own convictions with God, his own interactions with others.

And what do they base these revelations on?

Reading the same documents Bush did.

I think it speaks volumes that two interpretations of intelligence and reports existed, and the other side never made a peep until now.

I supported the war then, I support it now. In fact, we're not doing ENOUGH over there.

I see the evidence they're using differently. Yet, I'm not proffering that the other side lied. But they sure didn't make their moral objections when they had the chance.

So, please--let's take this word "lie" and put it back on the shelf to use when people commit serious moral infringements that are objectively wrong; not to use it when one side in an argument interprets stuff differently.

I return you to your Musak.

More on High Council Blog v. 6.0

In the interest of our blind and aurally-attuned readers, the dulcet tones of *moi* will be heard in glorious sound, subbing your woofers, and tweeting your tweeters (is that obscene? Indecent?)

Once I figure out how the damn thing works, get read for the new podcast "Radio High Council".

Giving you aural pleasure (is that indecent?)

Time to get this going again, huh?

Ok, so it's been over a year. Things happen; people get busy; people move away; Spinner graduates and becomes an "Agent" (I didn't know Mapquest had those!); Stoosh is getting married; Jesse's about to; and Bulger, Bill & Pizert still sit around watching soccer and using Dorko's Valencia shawl as a "wipe rag".

But I got blog fever, so here goes: I shall continue this on my own. Yinz(es) are all welcome to join and post at will.

It will be politics, beer, culture, sports, what-have-you.

Most of all it will be fun.

I shall call it: High Council, v. 6.0!

I'd RATHER go drink a KILLIAN's than listen to this crap

CBS should stop it's pussyfooting and state what the entire world knows/accepts/tends to believe: the Bush Guard documenst are forgeries. The secretary didn't type them, the LTC didn't type them, no other officer typed them. CBS needs to state it, get the speculation over who gave the document done with, fire Dan Rather (who staked his life on the documentation), and get back to reality.

Some liberals (including Rather) have bemoaned the fact that the White House hasn't answered the accusations in the documents. Let's look at this logically--they want the President to answer and give the truth to something that was made up? My head hurts from just typing that.

Even assuming that the information in the documents accurately reflects the thoughts/beliefs of the late LTC Killian, so what? Nothing in the text reflects anything new. Bush was in Alabama, his commander said he didn't take the physical, Bush acknowledges he didn't take the physical, because he wasn't going to be flying. This is nothing new.

The only person being hurt by this extended "evaluation" process by CBS is John Kerry. Unless CBS thinks it helps him by keeping his dumbass comments off the evening news, major newspapers, and blogosphere, Kerry is hurt more (is it possible for Kerry to be hurt more?) by the time donated to this. Every second the major networks and papers carry news of this, is one more second Kerry cannot get out his message (does he have one anymore?)

Look, we know Bush enlisted in the National Guard to avoid the draft and, possibly, Vietnam. Lots of guys did it, lots didn't. Chances are, Bush had a connection. It wasn't necessary, but could help. (My dad enlisted in the ANG in 1972, and he's not the son of a congressman.) Kerry, likewise, enlisted in the Naval Reserve, hoping to avoid Vietnam service. He wasn't so lucky--his unit was called up, and he began patrols in the Pacific. Bush's unit could have been called up--F-102As had provided air cover around Tan Son Nhut Air Base in Saigon since the early days of 1962. There was no guarantee they wouldn't be needed again. Also, the ANG was providing air defense of CONUS (Continental United States) as a component of Air Defense Command (ADC). Bush's unit very well could have been called to active duty and transferred north to the early warning line should the need arise.

What I'm saying is that Guard vs. Vietnam service is a non-issue. Talk about now, today, tomorrow. Bush can defend his actions in the last four years and for the future; let's see if Kerry can do the same. My guess is he can't, and Rather thinks he's helping out by "uncovering the mysteries". Instead, it just seems to be a RATHER big waste of time, as well as offensive to my intelligence.

The Holy Shrine of Islam

I keep hearing this blather about the onus being on the U.S. and multi-national force, and on the Iraq security forces, to keep clear of any harm to or fighting near/in the Imam Ali shrine in central Najaf, Iraq. The argument revolves around the "holy" status of the shrine (Ali, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammed, is apparently buried under the shrine).

What I fail to understand is why Muslims and others seem to hitch onto this "holy" line. I have no doubts that the shrine/mosque is holy to that religion under normal circumstances. I say the same for the Beth Israel temple in Capital City, USA or St. Patrick Church in Anytown, USA.

But the argument falls apart when we realize that militant-warlord Muqtada al-Sadr is holed up in the shrine compound, with a number of supporters, and is firing rockets, grenades, and bullets at Iraqi, U.S. and multinational forces, as well as at Iraqi citizens al-Sadr determines to be against his stands. What is "holy" about using a sacred site of Islam as a de facto shield for illegitimate purposes?

How can a Muslim of ordinary conviction (or any person of reasonable sense) agree with such tactics? As a result of this warlord's holing himself up in a mosque, which the U.S. refuses to attack out of respect for its nature, this man is permitted to continue to attack, harm, and kill U.S. troops, as well as ordinary Iraqis, as well as undermine the government of Iraq.

What most incenses me is that no Muslims of national or international prominence have spoken out against using a"holy" site as the base for attacks on other humans and on a recognized, legitimate government. In fact, Wednesday night on CNN, Dilip Hiro, author of "IRAQ IN THE EYE OF THE STORM" made this preposterous statement: "So, in that sense, attacking something as sacred as the Vatican or the St. Mark's Square and that would be equivalent of Americans physically participating in attacking this shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf."

Last I checked, and I'm sure Drudge would have noted this if it happened, the Pope was not firing RPGs out the window of the Basilica, stating that he wants to be taken as a martyr, and that all of the College of Cardinals, as well as all Rome should take up arms against the Italian government and their supporters. And also, the Pope was not a renegade warlord, using his place of local worship as a shield against legitimate armed forces of the government and their allies (the U.S. and the multi-national forces).

A shrine being used as a shield for renegades and warlords and malcontents and anarchists armed with deadly weapons shooting at will is not "holy". It is a evil, and should not be tolerated. But I won't hold my breath for the international Muslim community to speak out against the desecration of a religious site by one of their own, or to speak against the bastardous use of the word "holy" to describe this site presently.

Al-Sadr chose to use Imam Ali shrine as his base. No one of Islamic authority has taken him to task for it or forcibly removed him from the shrine. Meanwhile, people are injured or die everyday that al-Sadr's warlordic siege continues.

The site stopped being "holy" once al-Sadr used it for his nefarious purposes. It is time to end this siege once and for all. Take him out, at all costs.

DNC

Actually, Spin, I can argue that it was not a moving speech because it did not move me to change the clicker from "Mail Call" with R. Lee Ermey over on the History Channel.  I did not see the speech and I'm probably better off.

I have watched a total of 38 seconds of the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  You want the real truth?  I was watching, last night on CSPAN 2, the 1968 Republican Convention and the 1968 Democratic Convention. 

Do I care about conventions?  No--neither Demogogue nor Republicrap.  It is one big ol' infomercial that the parties need not pay for, and thus can rampage me with their ads during prime TV time come September.

I know who I am voting for, and not need to hear a bunch of people call my candidate a "liar" and "hateful" and a "fascist" (as Robert Kennedy, Jr. did at a Boston bookstore).  Nor do I need to hear a group of people sing blindly the praises of George W. Bush.  He';s done good things, he's doen bad things.  In my mind, the good things he's done in certain areas outweigh the bad at this time.  And I see his good things being important for the next four years.

Meanwhile, Spinner, you seem to base all of your opinions on a future President on the fact that he is a) black; b) a Democrat; and c) gave a speech that was purportedly good.  Well, I've heard Martin Luther King, Jr. meet all those elements.  Could he be President?  No, because he'd never be elected, even today.

Barak Obama is this great hope for the Democrats because he is a young man who the color-conscious Democrats note repeatedly is black.  So what?  And what happened to Harold Ford, the last great "black President" hope?

I'm done ranting.  I hate blind partisanship.

JPF

We sit here today, Friday, 2 July 2004...

...in a world without Marlon Brando. He passed away yesterday, 1 July 2004, at 6.20pm PDT.

And remember, it wasn't Tataglia ("Tataglia's a pimp."), it was Barzini.