Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. Pnorny!
He is reachable at:
littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com

All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma

tBlog Mirror

Some fun links:
Little Miss Attila - polar opposite and origin of LMM.

Critical Sites:
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Slashdot
Games Slashdot
UserFriendly
James Randi
Snopes
Home of the Underdogs
The Sun Online

For those generous in spirit, heart, and wallet:

But let's play their game for a moment. Let's take that position that "Life begins at conception therefore abortion is murder" - a clear, simple position albeit unrealistic and untenable as I hope to show.

Let's start with the latter half of the proposition, that "abortion is murder". If that is true what about the case of a woman who cannot carry full-term, whose body rejects the fetus and causes spontaneous abortion? This is a real possibility, I know someone like that. Should she, according to this proposition, be tried for murder? The answer is..."yes" by their definition but we are not that barbaric so the answer is "no". The woman didn't seek an abortion - it just happened. We now have one exception to the proposition.

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, is she allowed to seek an abortion or should she be forced to carry to term agaisnt her wishes, placing her life and lifestyle in jeopardy? The answer is "she must carry to full term" by their all-or-none definition but we're more humane and our answer is "no, she may seek abortion". Another exception. Therefore Abortion is not murder in all cases, or even if it is murder we're willing to look the other way under certain circumstances.

If a woman is pregnant - wants the baby - but has an accident and suffers a spontaneous abortion, should she be tried for manslaughter? The answer is "yes" by their definition. She killed a human though through no fault of her own as if she accidently killed someone in a car accident, and that's manslaughter. That's what "abortion is murder" would mean - the full weight of the Law would apply. But we're not that brutal - to have the mother suffer incarceration and loss of pregancy - and so our answer must be "no". Even the Right would have to admit that they can not, in all cases and circumstances, hold that "abortion is murder". Kind of like the Commandment "Thou shall not kill" from the voice of God, the Right has plenty of exceptions to that, showing hypocrisy isn't an obstacle for them.

But let's consider the first half of the proposition, that "Life begins at conception". Is this true? Can you create life with a dead egg? No. Can you create life with dead sperm? No. You must have both living sperm and a viable egg. Is that enough? No, you must also have an appropriate environment. A test tube is initially viable but really you need a willing female whose body can handle the process. But what process am I referring to? Not the process of life for life is already present in the egg and sperm. Both components are alive! The process I refer is the creation of a human being, not life. Big difference.

If life and not the process is so important then a woman, with every menstrual cycle, could be guilty of denying life. Men even more so for not every "Sacred Sperm" (sorry Monty Python) is used in procreation, and don't even mention masturbation - that's tantamount to genocide. So already we have shown that arguably life doesn't begin at conception. The first part of the proposition is false.

The act of creating a human being which, as we have seen, needs three components: egg, sperm, and a proper environment. Ending the life of an egg isn't murder - it happens worldwide every moment. Ending the life of sperm isn't murder - it happens during sex and other activities. We've seen that if the environment - the woman's body - is not capable of supporting the forming of a human, it's not murder. If the woman is raped, becomes pregnant - an involuntary vessel, abortion isn't murder. So then is abortion murder when the pregnant female chooses to stop the process of human formation? Arguably no, for when egg and sperm combine, starting the chemical process of human formation, how is stopping that process any different then stopping the living components?

The counterargument here would say that by this logic one could have an abortion in the ninth month and that is true. But we recognize viability, that after 6 months or so the "baby" can be delivered and will likely survive. But until then is the problem. Until then the "baby" - the fetus, the embryo, the blastocyst - is a part of and depends on the vessel - the mother - and it is the mother's choice of whether to continue the process of formation. For she is more than a mere vessel.

Or let's consider an alternative scenario, that science somehow creates an artificial environment that can support the growth of a human from conception through viability. Who would take responsibility for overseeing the process? the State? The Federal Government? Church Groups? And what would be the requirements to get a human package placed in such an environment? A woman raped and impregnated? A couple of teenagers giving in to the moment and getting a pregnancy? What would be the cost and bureaucracy of transferring the fetus from human to laboratory? A lot to think about.

The Right wants it both ways: make abortion illegal and not have sex education, which can only result in an explosion of unwanted pregnancies and illegal abortions, both a drain on society. Worse, to try to inhibit or limit sex is completely unnatural. We need to eat, to sleep, to reproduce. It's an inherent drive hormonely pushed. To ask teenagers to simply keep their legs shut is even beyond the capabilties of most adults. To expect teenagers and adults to hold off sex until marriage is artificial and unrealistic. Doesn't the Bible command us to multiply? Not that this is a call for orgies in the streets but instead a call for responsible sex, for education.

The Right spews forth on personal responsibility and then seeks to relieve us of that option. If they want to make abortion illegal - fine - then educate our kids about sex, about being parents before you're ready, about true responsibility. Instead of blindly declaring that "abortion is murder", opening a can of legal worms, driving personal responsibility further underground, the Right needs to recognize that the issue is more complex than their black/white viewpoint. They need to cut the semantic crap and use their (god-given) brains for more than rote simplistic bleatings.

To counter "Big Bubba" Kerry would have to act as the person who knows what he's doing. No waffling. He has to show that "Big Bubba" is an act, an image, and that he - Kerry - has the answer to damn near everything. "Big Bubba" can strut around and look tough all he wants but Kerry will get things done and done right! Kerry needs to come off as the smart diplomat instead of the playground bully that is Bush. Kerry is that type of leader. Bush is the Sarge - "C'mon men! Yeehaw!" - do as ordered, as trained, little thinking involved. Kerry needs to come across as the General - cool, savvy, and determined to win.

Kerry can also undermine Bush's image by pretty much saying that "Bush may be a bubba but not like his daddy...", make Georgie W. seem like he's nothing more than a daddy's boy trying to act all growed up. Really, what leadership abilities has Bush shown? An unwarranted war in Iraq, financial insecurity for most Americans, environmental insecurity for all Americans, personal freedoms under attack, and on and on. Bush is the boy with his hand in the cookie jar. Kerry needs to come off as an adult - responsible and mature.

I keep hearing some people say that they will vote for Bush because they see him as standing strong in Iraq. They somehow gloss over the fact that he was the dumbshit who got us in that mess in the first place. It doesn't take a backbone of steel to stay in Iraq, it takes ignorance. Ignorance of what most Americans and Iraqis want. But, as long as there's easy money to be had for the Corporations involved in rebuilding and with the oil, we're staying in Iraq.

The Intelligence Czar would be like the Drug Czar (Remember him? Didn't think so) and about as effective, certainly more destructive. An Intelligence Czar may solve some intelligence issues but wouldn't affect the other half, namely that the Administration had an agenda (and here I'm veering towards the invasion of Iraq) that it wanted to fulfill regardless of Intelligence. That is, what good is an Intelligence Czar if you have an Administration that will twist the results for its own purposes. If the Czar is an appointed crony then the situation will be worse. Truth will be a foreign concept if it isn't already.

So, no, we don't need an Intelligence Czar. What we need is a President with Intelligence.

"Hey!" I thought, "I'm not completely out of it! I'm still hip at 42!"

And then my nextdoor neighbor's teenage daughter bounced over with her iPod perpetually plugged in her ear.

"Whatcha listening to?" I asked.

"Hoobastank," she replied. I checked the bottoms of my shoes.

"What is a Hoobastank?" I asked.

She rolled her eyes. "Don't you know anything? They're the Bomb!". She took the iPod earplug out of her ear and put it in mine. I heard atonal aural flatulation but I bobbed my head in rhythm, trying to look cool.

"You're such a spaz!" she said, taking back her earplug and bouncing away.

"Linkin Park?" I whimpered at her disappearing back.

My kids came out to play on the swings in front. I went over to them.

"J---- came over," I said. "We listened to Hoobastank."

They rolled their eyes. "They suck!" said my 7-year old.

"Yeah," my 9-year old agreed. "Have you heard Beethoven's 'Goldberg Variations'? It's the Bomb!"

"Beethoven wrote a song about the wrestler?" I was impressed.

"Dad, you're such a spaz! Get with it." said my 9-year old.

I'm out of it.

If you haven't seen the Bush-Kerry "This Land Is Your Land" parody you have to see it. Click here Equally Opportunity Assholism - Only in America.

Looking over some older postings I called that Iran would be next on the hit list. They still have oil?

Front page LA Times. The saber rattling towards Iran is picking up steam and we're running war exercises in the Formosa Straits. Amazing that for a country that preaches Peace, in our 200 years we've had so few periods where we weren't in a war, even more so now. A long while ago I recommended Addicted To War. Get a copy. If you don't want to send them money check your local library. It's kind of like "Fahrenheit 911", you may disagree with some of it yet it bares a truth that is hard to deny overall.

And in the meantime just read the paper and watch how Bush is in a constant state of denial over his illegal actions while he blunders and plunders ahead, firmly stuck in his beliefs, solidly avoiding facts and reality.

On the news last night they mentioned that Iraq may have been trolling for nuclear materials. Gosh, Bush might have gotten one right. But there's a big difference for shopping for nuclear materials and having a nuclear missile poised asnd ready for launch. Bush got us into Iraq by sounding alarms, that Iraq was ready to launch right now. If shopping for nuclear material is enough of a threat then there's plenty of other countries who should then be eyeballed for invasion. What scares me is that Bush may be doing precisely that. It's not "Peace Through War" - never was - it's "Profits Through War". And a parent should never have to measure out their kids for coffins to satisfy someone else's gluttony for power and wealth.

Divac Back to Lakers
Get rid of a 32-year old all-star for a 36-year old flop artist. Looks like the Lakers are simply scrambling for big bodies to fill the center gap (particularly when they face Miami). But - hey - we have Kobe to single-handedly lead us to the promised land.

"Payton brings the ball past midcourt...he passes to Kobe. 15 on the clock. Kobe drives left, double-teamed. Malone is open under the basket. Kobe drives right, still double teamed, now triple-teamed. 8 on the clock. Odom is open. Malone is open. Kobe can't pass. They have him pressed towards half-court. 2 seconds left. Kobe launches a prayer...and it misses the backbaord." He will be like Iverson, jacking up a couple hundred shots per game, making a low percentage, and scoring 40 points. How exciting. He'll get the scoring title. Wowee!

By Colum Lynch

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, July 16, 2004; Page A16

UNITED NATIONS, July 15 -- The Bush administration is withholding information from U.N.-sanctioned auditors examining more than $1 billion in contracts awarded to Halliburton Co. and other companies in Iraq without competitive bidding, the head of the international auditing board said Thursday.

And, of course, the Bush Administration assures us - gives its word - that everything is hunky-dory and that there's no mis-management whatsoever with the open-contracts to Halliburton or the Iraqi oil sales. Nope, nope, nope - everything is peachy-keeno.

Start the clock because this will likely prove another blatant violation of Trust, Law, and who knows what else. The Bush Administration had repeatedly shown that it's not honest and in matters of money is beholden only to its financial allies. When the Truth eventually comes out and we discover how much money was siphoned out of Iraq (and the U.S.) to these companies rebuilding Iraq, will we shake our heads in disgust (again) or will we see action? "Bush Behind Bars" has a nice headline appeal, don't ya think?

"Kerry Licks Bush"
Should be the headline we see in November. What other headlines could we see?

The other article was about the draft and how the military is so thin that the draft may be inevitable. Remember Bush running for President claiming he wouldn't spread of military around? This was in response to the notion that America could fight maybe two wars at a time. Well, we're fighting at least two wars, our military is thin, our President is clueless, our treasury has direct deposit to god know how many Bush Buddy Businesses. As I've previously blogged, you'll hear draft until November. If Bush wins it's a go. It might even be a go with Kerry - don't know. But by that time the word will have lost much of its scariness as it gets repeated and used. And with the current explorations of the draft expect that the idea "Withdrawal from Iraq is a non-option" will get similar airplay.

Perhaps we need to send a message to our Government like "Our children are not your play toys. The Draft is unwanted, unnecessary, and will not bring about peace. As you consider whether to vote for or against the Draft consider this - You work for us, the American people. You do not work for and are not beholden to a company or a religious group or a PAC. You work for American people: parents; singles; young; old; healthy; infirmed. You work for us tax-payers."

Religion And Politics Again
In the opinion section of the 7/11 LA Times there was an article by Charlotte Allen about religion entering politics and how it was a good thing. She starts off by quoting the positions of Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor) and Barry Lynn (Executive Director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State) that not only is religion in politics bad but could lead a major conflict between "those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority...between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma".

From this basis she attacks subtly. Mixing religion and politics is acceptable because:

"Most Americans don't mind - indeed many demand - that their president not only honor religious faith, an American hallmark, but function in some sense as a religious leader." This is an opinion expressed without any facts or statistics and therefore has no merit. What a President does and says in public is usually with an eye towards the polls. For a Republican President spouting religion in general is worth poll points but that doesn't mean we demand a President honor religious faith. Certainly we do not want a President who functions as a religious leader. We're fighting wars against those type of leaders. Our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of having leaders who served dual functions hence the eparation of Church and State.

"America owes its high level of religious intensity to the separation of church and state." Which is a damn good reason to keep and strengthen that separation, not weaken it. By keeping the wall intact we honor all religions and those who chose not to believe. By keeping the wall intact we keep the Government's focus on governing, on country issues, and not on religious matters. By keeping the separation intact we truly become "one nation, indivisible."

"Religion, by nature, is a public thing, because it acknowledges a reality that is outside the private realm of the inner heart. Individuals' faith and religious experiences are private matters but religion itself...is shared and communal. Those who would banish religion to the realm of the strictly private in effect contend that religion has no relevance to public life. This notion fatally trivializes religion by treating it as essentially meaningless." Religious dogma is public and does have relevance to public life, and does have meaning. In has no relevance in Government for by infiltrating Government religion forces the Government to give focus to a subset of the American people, namely those who believe. By spewing references to God you further eliminate those who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian dogmas. In short, religion entering politics can only be divisive.

"..religion recognizes there is inherent meaning, order, and purpose in the universe. It thus induces humility, a recognition that our puny ideas about how things are and ought to be may not be the final word. The horror of 20th century totalinarianism was the insistence of atheistic, militantly secularist intellectuals..." More opinion and poorly stated. Religious expression and belief is subject to interpretation and abuse. Sure, religion may hold that there's order and meaning in the universe but that rationale can be used to justify suicide bombers or as reason to open a charity. Religion may induce humility and it may induce a feeling of superiority, that one's religion is the true path to God and other religions are false. From that, we get religion fractionalizations and wars. The references to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are commonly made to show that Atheism is dangerous in Government. If religion is usually and commonly held as belief in a higher or supreme being, I would contend that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were forms of religions themselves int hat they passed themselves off as the ultimate powers. Sponsored Atheism would be a means to force the focus onto themselves.

More importantly the totalitarian argument implies that if you knock religion out of politics then you end up with a totalitarian regime, which is completely false. Knocking religion out of politics may also lead you to Democracy, example being the United States. By letting religion infiltrate politics we run the massively dangerous risk of having a President act as political and religious leader. The President could then demand that he be given the power to declare war without permission from Congress (*cough*). From there it's an easy short step to totalitarianism.

Is that what we want in America - a President with absolute power? Our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of that scenario, hence the "checks and balances" system of our Government. We must not let our system of Government be undermined by religious influences. It's bad enough that it's corrupted Corporations. We, the American People, must retake our Government, enforce the separation between Church and State, vote loudly, and re-take our Freedoms and Liberties. If we don't, the Government surely won't.

Moore is fat and ugly. And so was Peter Jackson, oh he of Oscar-winning "Lord of the Rings" fame. Heck, Jackson is far more troll-like than Moore. And it's not as if the Administration doesn't have their share of fat and ugly people...(*cough* Cheney *cough*).

Moore is making money off the film. And we know the Repulbicans are against making money... I think they're upset that people are paying to see it and in droves, as if the film might have merit and meaning. And it's not like federal tax dollars are being diverted to Halliburton...I mean...Moore for his work.

Someone did note that this may be the start of a new wave of political films. When Kerry takes office look for some Rightwing filmmaker to make a documentary about Kerry.

Isn't Freedom of Speech wonderful?

Lost Lakers
We go Rudy T. - fine - but I still contend that an older, out-of-shape, "can't shoot free throws" Shaq is more valuable than Kobe. Consider that the Lakers had a center a while back, old, couldn't always hit his shot, couldn't run but Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was still a player, still a force on the court. Shaq is that unique and that valuable.

Kobe is a great player - no argument - but he's replaceable by a like number of other great players and many of those players don't have criminal charges hanging over their heads. The Lakers could completely kowtow to Kobe and still lose him to the criminal court system.

Maybe this is just a downshift. It was - what - over a decade between Magic's Moments and Shaq/Kobe/Phil. Maybe in 10 years we'll get Lebron James, some awesome young center, and rattle off a few more championships. Maybe...

Absolute morality is impossible for us mortal humans. In fact, absolute morality may be impossible even for God. Even worse, absolute morality may also be relative. That's 3 conjectures that I have to explain so let me start with the middle.

"Absolute morality may be impossible even for God." I've heard more than once that God must exist because otherwise we couldn't have absolute morality. I contend that not only doesn't God factor in to the argument but that God can't be an absolutist. If God is by definition omni-everything then certainly God must be the example of absolute morality. But God must also be the example of absolute im-morality otherwise God is not omni-everything. Or to put it another way who are we to change the definition of God to suit us? If God is truly the be-all and end-all then it holds that God has elements of good and bad, morality and immorality. Therefore God can not be an example of absolute morality. And, to use the Torah, as an example we have the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" - plain, simple, absolute. Yet God kills (Egyptians and parting of the waters) and commands others to kill (Israelites wiping out tribes to conquer their land) so God's word and actions conflict. So much for absolute morality for God.

"Absolute morality is impossible for us mortal humans" - too wordy. Simply put, we can't be moral absolutists. If we were we'd likely die or go crazy from paranoia. Consider "Thou shalt not kill." That's pretty absolute and damn near impossible to live up to. You'd end up living off of dairy products and nuts - no fresh-picked fruits or vegetables. No fresh meat. - and be afraid to walk outside for fear of crushing ants. Ants? Ants?!? Yes, ants. They're living and the law states "Thou shalt not kill" without any qualifiers. It means all living things are sacred and protected, including ants. It means anything else - any qualifiers - are us humans interfering with the commandment of God. Do you think you could go through a day without killing anything? Very doubtful. And consider this scenario: you're being attacked unto death. Do you kill your attacker? The absolute moralist must say no, let the attacker kill you. But this is against our nature to defend ourselves. So right there the absolute law must be amended and once amended becomes subject to other amendments and thus a relative morality.

"Absolute morality may also be relative." Above I stated "Thou shalt not kill" as an absolute moral example. But someone else could come up and claim that it's not a valid example at all. They could claim that "Thou shalt not steal" is an absolute moral law. In other words what defines an example of absolute morality is itself a relative judgement.

We are, I believe, all relative moralists. Some might strive to become absolutists - yay, for them - but by our very human nature we tend towards relativism.

What I'm wrestling with is "the more moral a person the less freedom they have." To have absolute freedom you'd need a complete lack of a morality, which doesn't sound right. Certainly to have complete freedom you'd need a lack of oversight - no neighbors, no government, no religion - which then implies that morality would be at ones discretion. A corollary of this is that the greater the morality and/or the fewer liberties for an individual requires a greater oversight by a government or religion. And we see this with our own government as the Right tries to assume more power, impose "morality", and restrict liberties, we see our Government has grown to enforce those positions. Homeland Security has many meanings and purposes.

Bush Predictions
Time for some predictions:

"The Hussein trial will end before November with a guilty verdict." A "Not guilty" verdict would make Bush look even more foolish but worse if the trial extends past November and Bush loses then he and his cronies can be called as witnesses. They wouldn't be able to hide behind their Governmental positions! Look for a quick trial.

If Bush wins in November expect an agreement with Iraq that the U.S would "help" with security by maintaining a permanent military presence. To keep the military in its numbers expect the draft to return with the proviso that college students would be exempt from duty. The catch here is that many colleges and universities are facing massive budget crises so given a choice between accepting an in-state applicant or a higher-fee paying out-of-state applicant or an out-of-country highest-fee paying applicant guess who'll they'll choose. Which means if you're poor or middle-class the choice will be the military and McDonalds or the military and a body bag.

You thought Bush et al were secretive now, if they get elected you'll see a lot more secrecy, stuff you'll never find out about because it's a secret. By the way, the LA Times had a little blurb about the U.S. moving uranium out of Iraq without getting permission from the U.N.. It was to keep the stuff from getting to terrorists. Uh-huh!

Stoopid Is As Stoopid Does
Tony Blair says the WMDs may never be found but he believes they exist. Bush says he doesn't care about evidence to the contrary he believes that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to the U.S.. Kids, there's a life lesson here. Disregard facts and act how you see fit because if you believe in yourself enough then your actions are OK. I'm sure those parents and spouses who've lost folks in Iraq will want to hear that. And the 13,000+ Americans injured in Iraq can take comfort in knowing their injuries resulted from the actions of a President acting off of intuition.

I sip my coffee trying to shake off the lack of sleep. I'd gotten the DVDs of James Clavell's Shogun before the long weekend and started in on them after the kids would go to bed. Problem is "going to bed" is not the same as "going to sleep" and there'd be sounds of roughhousing necessitating loud intervention by the evil Daddy. In short, I would get to watch the DVD's in peace starting at around 10:30 and ending well after midnight. Not really a problem since I'm more night owl then morning person but - damn! - it was hard waking up this fine Tuesday morn. Part of it was that I couldn't fall asleep due to the LA heat and some mis-casting in Shogun.

I'm a big fan of the book, having read it far too many times. In the movie I have a big beef with casting and some plot liberties. If you don't care about Shogun skip to the next yawn-inspiring paragraph. OK, in the book Kiku (the first-class prostitute) is young and drop-dead gorgeous; in the film - ewww! She's too old and looks shop-worn. In the book Fujiko (Anjinsan's consort) is plain looking but in the DVDs she's arguably the prettiest one around and that's including Mariko! Gyoko (the mama-san) is supposed to be plump according to the book but needs fattening in the film. Omi appears a tad too old but the rest of the cast is right on. Plotwise the film doesn't play up enough the sliminess and plotting of Yabu which is a shame because the actor is perfect in appearance. But I get it - the film is about Blackthorne and Mariko, and since the film weighs in at 9 hours they had to cut out some stuff. Yet, yet, yet, it's still a great series and highly recommended but get the book too to read what's missing.

We had a nice, quiet 4th o' July. There's a church on a hill that does a fantastic, free fireworks show so we went and had a picnic, and had a good time. No excessive politics. No blatant evangelism. Just 15,000 Americans together to celebrate the nation's birthday. My kids ran into their friends and happiness reigned, though not in a sickening propagandanistic way. Ooooh, cool word. And then on Monday we did a very American thing: we replaced a dead car battery at Sears and ate at Northridge Mall. Very consumerist.

So Kerry picked John Edwards. Yawn. Whatever. Pretty boy in 2008. Don't think that anti-Bush as I am that therefore I must be pro-Kerry. The dagger I wield is two-sided. Both sides come under scrutiny as my expectations for excellence don't change. As I see it Kerry is better than Bush the same way gonorrhea is better than syphilis.

Lakers, Lakers, Lakers. Maybe it's time for Dr. Buss to sell the team. I'm sure some cash-rich corporation would pay handsomely (*cough* Microsoft Lakers *cough*).

One complaint about the film is that Michael Moore is making money off of it (?!?). It's his film and he's not supposed to attempt to profit from it? Let's see, he makes a stinker film. It bombs. He loses his investment. He loses his credibility as a filmmaker. If it doesn't bomb, he makes money. he gains credibility as a filmmaker. All filmmakers run this risk. It looks like Moore made a winner and so deserves his rewards.

Go see the film or wait for the DVD. For a $3 rental you can make up your own mind instead of blindly bleeting what some Rightist power freak wants you to spew.

Trial of Hussein
"Let the sideshow begin...hurry, hurry / step right on in / can't afford to pass it by / guaranteed to make you cry" or "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends..". The trial will be most interesting because the U.S. is pre-emptively saying that Hussein won't be able to call Bush (or likely any other U.S. officials - (cough)Rumsfeld(cough)) as witnesses. Pity. I bet a lot of dirt would come out. My guess is that either the trial will be open-and-shut against Hussein with execution all happening before November, or if it looks like too much information is coming out that makes Bush look bad, the U.S. will stall until after November when Bush loses. In other words, politics as usual. Whatever Hussein says on the stand will see comments from the Bush Administration to the contrary (and without chance for Hussein to counter). Talk about propaganda.

And I noticed that the charges against Hussein are all 1990 or older. Nothing about placing Iraq in jeopardy by (1) pursuing WMDs, (2) consorting with terrorist groups, or (3) threatening the United States. Neat huh?

Perfect Albums
A complaint against buying CDs has been that most CDs have only 1 or 2 songs worth buying, hence the tendency to download. That got me thinking about the albums I have that I consider "perfect" - every song a gem. My list tends towards ancient rock but please comment in your suggestions for newer possibilities - I welcome to hear something new and complete. Remember the criteria: every song a gem and no "Best of.." cheats. Note that many of the albums below were remastered for CD and may include new tracks. I can't vouch for the new additions in that I still listen to my original vinyl editions.

Here goes (and it is a work in progress):

Kate Bush - "The Kick Inside": Kate's inaugural album was spectacular. With a voice that soar, swoop, cut glass, and knock bats out of flight, this album from 1978 had me locked in my room, staring at the cover, listening, drooling. It's magic.

Steely Dan - "Can't Buy A Thrill": another debut album. Steely Dan set a high standard with this album from 1972, one I think they never matched with any of their later releases.

Pink Floyd - "The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn": Of course the Floyds' "Dark Side of the Moon", "Animals", and "The Wall" easily qualify for the list but this album, their first, from 1967 is special. This was when they had guy named Syd Barrett writing most of their material before he succumbed to the effects of too much Vitamin L. Look him up on the Net if you want more info but get this album and discover genius of the "crazy diamond". Warning: do NOT listen to this album while under the influence of anything.

Flogging Molly - "Drunken Lullabyes": A recent group! I'm not entirely out of it and punk rock refuses to die. Irish punk at it's absolute best and shows that Los Angeles can still turn out a decent band. Singin' drunken lullabyes.

Black Sabbath - "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath": The album name alone could get you grounded for a month but this is Black Sabbath's best work period. This is the definitive monster rock album.

Cat Stevens - "Tea For The Tillerman": This album could easily double as his "Best of" - it's that good. Not quite Easy Listening, more than simply Folk Rock, it's I dunno. It's a shame that too many people are willing to judge this work based on Cat Steven's, now Yusuf Islam, current politics and religion.

Elvis Costello, oh he of large glasses and dubious look, started off his career with IMHO three (3) - yes three, tres, trois, drei, tri - perfect albums. I haven't been impressed with his works since then. Anyway here are the big 3 - "My Aim Is True", "Armed Forces", and "This Year's Model". Get one; get them all - you can't go wrong.

Led Zeppelin - "In Through The Out Door": This may be blasphemy but I consider this their only perfect album. Their other albums had one or two songs that just weren't quite high enough but this album is wall-to-wall gems. Stop throwing rocks! Led Zeppelin is still the second greatest rock group ever (see below).

Jethro Tull - "Thick As A Brick" and "Aqualung". Two albums to make you "start away uneasy". These are the best examples of what I'd call Renaissance Faire Rock which included King Crimson and lesser beings. "Thick As A Brick" is essentially a 45-minute song, famous not only for it's length but for the record cover and insert. The album was a piece of art that tragically didn't transfer from vinyl to CD, though the CD has extra tracks.

Fleetwood Mac - "Rumours": Way too easy to have this on the list. It sold a bazillion copies, won a bazillion awards, and deservedly so. Very close to perfect was the previous album Fleetwood Mac - "Fleetwood Mac" showing the first incarnation of the superstar lineup - Fleetwood, McVie, McVie, Buckingham, and Nicks.

Beatles: They have too many perfect albums to list. Any one care to disagree when I say the the Beatles were The Greatest Rock Group? Didn't think so.

I'm stopping now but this list isn't done. Expect "more, more, more" - how d'you like it? ("Gosh, Mahatma, no disco?!?" - yeah, I may be old but I'm not stupid.)

OK, not done yet. I have to mention a group that didn't have perfect albums though a few came darn close. They didn't stay together all that long and they had a tendency to switch lead guitarists. Their music however was unbelievable. Their influence undeniable. Give you a hint: their lead guitarists were Eric Clapton (AKA God), Jimmy Page (Led who?), and Jeff Beck (who?). The group: The Yardbirds. Find an album like "Over Under Sideways Down" and hold on for a great ride. Pity that the guitarists never amounted to anything.

Saturn And Mars
Stupid politics aside anyone notice the incredible achievements of exploration? Mars is ours and now Saturn. Unbelievable! Seeing the amazing photos and reading about the technology keeps my spirit high that the blinders the Bushies and Rightists want us to wear will not fit. You cannot contain soaring imagination combined with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. Kudos to JPL, NASA, and ESA for yet another stupendous achievement.