Foaming at the mouth gets you nowhere

John Bolton, the mad dog Bush unleashed on the UN based on a technicality back in '05, resigned, effective at the end of the month. Bush reluctantly accepted his resignation, conceding that Bolton would never be confirmed by the new Senate (not that the old one confirmed him, either), and he and his party will die a slow death, ending, with all hope, in a resounding defeat in 2008. Like I said, when the going gets tough, Cons get to stepping. And be sure to check out the caption under that awful picture with the NYT article. That's good for a hearty laugh.

Bolty's Security Council colleagues have given him mixed reviews, praising him for his strong stance against North Korea but wishing he'd play better with others. Bossman Annan's chief of staff, who in a speech accused the US of using the UN by "stealth", triggering Bolty to demand a public apology, which he never got, by the by, has said "no comment", but the grin on his face as he said it was of course quite telling. There has been some rejoicing around these parts, some of it by me, and I think most people believe that if Bolton had come to the UN under different circumstances, things may have turned out differently. That is to say that many at the UN knew well that Bush was not at all interested in diplomacy, and for him to have sent us Bolton was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Consequently, the US has lost some power around here. Just look at what happened with the Security Council vote. Most countries who voted Venezuela and/or against Guatemala did it for many reasons, but among them was pissing off the Americans. Anyway, I think I will take a walk on down to the conference room floor and keep an ear out. Oh, I forgot to mention.....that Security Council seat belongs to Guatemala. If y'all hear about Panama in that seat, pay no mind. We just very graciously lent it to our hermanos centroamericanos.

Robert Gates, Bush's nomination for Rummy's replacement, said, at his confirmation hearing, that the US is not winning the war in Iraq. We all know this, but it is nice to hear when someone on the inside speaks the truth for a change, and at least the comment might stop Bush from running around in flight suits talking about "mission accomplished" (I can't possibly forget that one). The crap news is that he apparently does not intend to reduce troops over there, but he might pull a fast one once he is in the Pentagon. One never knows with politicians.

“Aún hay más"

I know I am a little late on this one, as it came out in the New York Times last week.

I just wanted to remember Raul Velasco, host of the Mexican TV show, Siempre en Domingo, Latin America's answer to the Ed Sullivan Show. He died last sunday, 26 November, of complications from hepatitis and a liver transplant. The show was on the air from 1969-1998.

I watched the show religiously whenever I was in Guatemala, mostly because there were only 4 channels to choose from P. C. (that's Pre-Cable). Domingo's heyday (for me anyway) was back in the late seventies/early eighties when music was still about music, before silicona became a prerequisite for talent, and me and my cousin particularly loved Jose Luis "El Puma" Rodriguez and the lovely Luis Miguel. I miss the mariachis, huge 20 piece bands that would take the stage and throw down, all in their black suits, vaquero boots and huge, black sombreros (above are pictures of the mariachi band that played my treintañera party back in March. not the same, but you get the idea).

While we're in this headspace, I want to give special shout-outs to the telenovelas Quinceañera ( I still know the theme song by heart) and La Fiera, and of course, Chespirito/Chavo del Ocho/Chapulin Colorado, aka, That Spanish Bee Guy.

If you ask nicely, I can sing you some of the commercials from back in the day.

So what exactly are they trying to say?

An article in today's NY Magazine Intelligencer about yesterday's hike in taxi fares includes various statistics on cabbies' take-home pay and lack of health insurance. I'm not sure if this is supposed to appeal to whatever sympathetic side New Yorkers have left within themselves. First of all, if the stat regarding cabbies' take-home pay is true, they make about $3500 a month now with this increase, which is still only a dream to most people, some of whom are day-care center workers, hospital workers, school teachers and those who care for the elderly. Am I supposed to feel so sorry for cabbies that I would want to hand them at least $3 more dollars a ride, not including the tip they loudly demand, shitty attitude or not? Here's another spot where the hard-ass bitch in me takes over and replies, hell no.

People who do much more important work that actually contributes positively to the community are paid much less than men and women who sit in cabs all day and drive all over the city, blaming riders for the fact that they have such horrible lots in life and for the fact that their asses hurt with the horrible attitudes they almost always display. I've lived in New York for 8 years (not incuding college) and I have met approximately three cabbies who did not piss and moan and bitch the whole ride. And then, when they are handed the tips that are commensurate with the uncomfortable ride they have given us, they have the nerve to protest, quite rudely and loudly, and demand a larger tip. Consequently, they get the door slammed in their faces, if they are dealing with me. But I'm sure a lot of people are with me on this one. In sum, there is absolutely no change in service. Most cabbies are still as rude as they were before the hike, they all still mysteriously go off duty at the same time, which just happens to be rush hour, and they will still kick you to the curb if you have the audacity to want to go somewhere they don't feel like going. So why must I pay more for this? It's just another case of someone trying to get more for nothing, much like the MTA and other corporizations, and I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about this problem except to stop taking cabs unless I am doing the airport thing. I think a lot of people will do the same as me.

Greetings, My Christian Brethren

I got an email a few days ago from a gentleman representing a group of Christian bloggers. He had read my blog and somehow came to the conclusion that he would invite me to join his set. Of course, I was thankful for the invitation, but also curious as to what exactly he had read that made him think I was "Christian" in the "everyone must accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour" kind of way. I mean no offense, but when I think of a Christian, I think of that movie "Saved!", in which Hilary Faye, the ultra-Christian girl, hurls a Bible at a perceived heretic's back and shouts "I am full of Christ's love!!"

I do pray: if I need help or extra strength to keep myself sane, if I, my mom or dad or anyone I know are sick or in danger, you know, the usual. Sometimes these go with appeals to St. Jude, patron saint of impossible causes. For example, when I was trying to get paroled from my last office, I prayed and prayed, acknowledging of course that God would not put me in a situation He knows I can't handle. And then it happened, I was lifted out of that seventh circle of doom, and I spent the next few weeks randomly looking up at the heavens and giving thanks. I went to Catholic school for four years (but more for the fact that it was private and not so much for the parochial aspect of it), I've done time at several masses, and I've gone through First Communion and Confirmation. I've been known to wear a gold cross on a chain around my neck as well as a medal of the Virgin Mary. But I wear them more because they are symbols of protection given to me by my mother, who I really believe to be my guardian angel on earth. When I was in the hospital, close to death, my dad went to the shrine nearby to pray to the Virgin to help me, which she did, and with a quickness. We're all still thanking her for that, 20 years later.

So we are a religious family. But we tend to shun organized religion and what it teaches us, because we don't believe all of the rhetoric and dogma. Furthermore, some of it doesn't make any sense. And let me go even further and say that in my opinion, the Bible is a book written by men who insist it is the word of God, as if God said unto them "can you take dictation?" and the apostles all whipped out their old-school steno tablets and set to work. Don't get me wrong, the Bible does have a lot of good teachings in it, and for the most part, it encourages love and peace. But what doesn't make sense to me is, if God is such a benevolent and peaceful being, how then could He inspire such hatred in the world? Fanatical Muslims say that it is Allah and the prophet Mohammed who have ordered intifadahs and jihads all over the world against infidels. Christians said it was God who told them to ride off to Jerusalem to convert the Muslims during the Crusades. The Catholic kings of Spain insisted it was God who had them use torture to convert the Jews and Moors in the south of Spain to Catholicism. And now, it is God who says homosexuality is unnatural and shameful and we should pity gays and try to rid them of their "disease", as that is the Christian thing to do. Perhaps you can all see how none of this makes any sense, and even people who claim to be Christian or Muslim or Jewish misinterpret "what God said" in their respective Good Books. As for me, I'm sticking to the whole God as a benevolent and peaceful being idea, just to avoid confusion. So please, I don't want any titles or classifications being thrown my way.

Thank you.

Responsibility

I just read an op-ed in the New York Times (sorry, can't attach it) by Bob Herbert, in which he suggested that Americans should feel more responsibility and guilt for the war in Iraq, since America is the offending party. I usually like Herbert a lot, even though he is just a tad bit whiny, but he was way off the mark with this one.

I have no problem announcing that I feel absolutely no responsibility or guilt for the war in Iraq. There is no reason for me to feel responsible for a war which was started by a misguided coward that I didn't vote for and did not elect. If anyone should feel guilty, its the idiots who voted for Bush, Bush himself, and well as those who profit, directly or indirectly, from the war (and that last part takes care of the rest of the government). What I do feel is great sadness for the innocent Iraqi civilians (not the militants, to be clear), first and foremost: they did not elect Saddam, and therefore should not have to suffer invasion, occupation and crimes being committed against them in the name of deposing him and bringing Iraq to "democracy", which to the army apparently means the freedom to rape and murder a 14-year old Iraqi girl and kill her family. I feel immense pity for the soldiers who choose to go over there when they have no real idea what they are supporting, what they are fighting for or what they are doing and for the ones who "stress out" so much that they murder innocent people. I'm sorry that some of those soldiers had to come back from the war without limbs or otherwise injured so that they could realize the unnecessary danger Bush put them in. But guilt? Sorry, no.

I think the real tragedy is that not only is Iraq being destroyed, but that the government is slowly chipping away at all that which America is supposed to be made of. Responsibility for something that proves to be a mistake lies with the person who made that mistake and his enablers. Just because Americans are out in full force doing their holiday shopping, just like every year, does not mean they should be ashamed of themselves. On the contrary, for they are out there ensuring a wonderful holiday for themselves and their families. If anyone should have felt ashamed when they were shopping, it was definitely Condi, who was out buying Ferragamo shoes when the levees broke in New Orleans last year.

To improve on the government's lack of a sense of responsibility towards anything, Representative Charles Rangel has suggested that the draft be reinstated, so that government officials and the rich can be assured that their sons and daughters are in the same danger of being whisked off to war as the sons and daughters of those who are less financially fortunate. On first impact, the draft sounds like some awful and greedy policy, and there is always the possibility that, if the draft is reinstated, the rich will be able to buy themselves out of it anyway. But I can't deny that the draft definitely has an equalizing power to it, and I'm all for that.