Accept disgrace willingly,

Accept misfortune as the human condition

What do you mean by accept disgrace willingly?

Accept being unimportant.

Do not be concerned with loss or gain

This is called accepting misfortune willingly.

What do you mean by Accept misfortune as the human condition?

Misfortune comes from having a body.

Without a body, how could there be misfortune?

Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things.

Love the world as your own self; then you can truly care for all things.

Tao Te Ching (Ch-13)

Always look on the bright side of life.

Eric Idle

He's certainly no "father figure." After smashing his car into the back of a truck in England early Saturday, George Michael was arrested on suspicion of "drug-driving." He drove his silver Range Rover into the back of a seven-ton truck just after 1 a.m. Saturday. His car bounced and skidded to a stop--witnesses thought Michael was dead, but the singer miraculously climbed out of the wreckage. According to the trucker, "He must have been doing 100 mph. When he got out he couldn't walk straight." An onlooker who stopped nearby said of Michael: "Eventually the guy got out of his car. He came over to my cab and asked if I had stopped to give him a lift. I was stunned. He was absolutely not with it, so I told him no. But he insisted and came around the other side of the truck and tried to get in the passenger door." Read it at The Sun   http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/?cid=bsa:topnav:cs

How best to accept our disgrace?

Do not worry because C-Street is there to help us with this problem.

The well-kept brick home just blocks from the Capitol known simply as "C Street" has been a tranquil living space for a handful of Members and a sanctuary for Christian prayer and fellowship for many others over the years. But news last week that yet another one-time tenant had an extramarital affair while serving in Congress has reignited the frenzy of intrigue about the house at 133 C St. SE, and sources close to it say the scandals have underscored the need to lift the veil of secrecy.

While some believe that Members familiar with C Street should publicly discuss the service missions, prayer groups and overall camaraderie that provide them with a haven of sorts, other sources interviewed for this article said that such a move might backfire. So far, the recent news about the extramarital affairs of two of the current and one-time housemates -- Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and former Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) -- has not shaken the resolve of the lawmakers who now reside there. Indeed, all five have steadfastly upheld their silence. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_9/news/36960-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

The trifecta of trysts has made C Street an easy target for charges of "family values" hypocrisy .  http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9538432C-18FE-70B2-A84E0DD40EF3AC7A   (This does not mean anything, it's just that trifecta of trysts should get some sort of recognition)

Here's one typical explanation of the group's value to its mostly Republican members, given by Forbes, to Politico:

Politico reports that the Fellowship focuses on what its leaders call the "'up and out,' or powerful politicians struggling to confront their personal demons." And Hall, the former Democratic congressman, explained to Roll Call what he sees C Street as being for: "These men [Ensign, Sanford, and Pickering] are good men. They made mistakes and they're paying for it. And that's what these ministries are about."  Tpm

The right-wing Christian Broadcasting Network does damage control for C Street, explaining that the real question isn't, how many affairs were covered up, but rather, "how many affairs were thwarted."

By the way, at this point, I must underline the law of logic in force here. If you cannot prove it happened, it never happened.

Upon reading this gem, one other gem came to mind from Eric Idle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

What Drugged Up George needs to do at this point in his career ( unless he plans to get a position on one of those panels in a reality show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82-FJyniP7A ) is to make a strong showing.  He might say:

1.     After all, I did miss the school bus.

2.     At least I quit drinking.

3.     Thank god the Hummer was in for maintenance

4.     I could have done this in the States and received a year and a day.

I am amazed at the manner in which some neocon fascist corporate fronts attempt to revise the history of w's administration.  It is like they are sending out 'feelers' to see what the public might accept.  I mean as Eric Idle might say:  How much shi' will the public actually eat up.

But w has got an out; an out that really fits into the theme of this essay.

The man I have despised more than any other (as far as this first decade of the new millennium) is working on his own revisionist volume.  I mean the sense I am getting is that cheney is claiming his reign lasted from 2001 thru 2004.  Then w decided to run his own presidency.

W, I think is going to come up with gems like this:

1.     Well at least I did not nuke North Korea.

2.      I ran from Iran which has got to have saved ten or twenty million lives.

3.      So maybe some Fourth and Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights may have been lost, but now at least you can come to presidential rallies armed to the teeth.                                                  

4.     We did not send the marines into Buffalo.

5.     Never once was I quoted as saying: Soooooooooooooooooooooo.

I kind of see Gonzo in a new light. I think Gonzo and w were intellectually compatible.  I mean they would understand each other. When Alberto came back to his office after his first appearance before one of two Congressional Panels, he was heard to say by a staffer:

I nailed it.

Gonzo failed worse than anyone I ever remember appearing before Congress.   I know that during these hearings there was the blond who admitted giving her allegiance to the Commander-in-Chief rather than the Constitution--and then taking the statement back. (When the 'slip' was the truth and the 'take back' a damnable lie.)  But gonzo's rating of his own performance belies something.

Clearly the best testimony was either by James B. Comey or Robert Mueller: both of these men came across so clear, so honest, so to the point. I recall the righteous indignation of Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey but the irony in the face of FBI Director Robert Mueller.  And all of that testimony was clearly aimed at Gonzo. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/worse-than-watergate-part_b_49147.html

Months ago I did a blog on Gonzo in his current state of retirement. Remember, he was writing a book. But he had not yet written anything about anything that was still under investigation. Which meant of course, he had written nothing. And of course, he had no publisher.  Which made me feel a real kindred to him since I had seven or eight blank notebooks and no publisher either.

Mr. Gonzales, 53 years old, doesn't have a publisher for his book. He said he is writing it if only "for my sons, so at least they know the story."The chapters on the Bush administration's surveillance program, which involved eavesdropping without court warrants, and other controversial aspects of his work, remain blank. That is in part because he remains under investigation regarding allegations of political meddling at the Justice Department. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123068159621944041.html

So too, w would not have a clue as to why anyone would challenge what he 'accomplished' during his administration. Larry H. gave me permission to take a couple of paragraphs from his comment to Obey a couple days ago:

Watching those two videos in succession it occurred to me that George Bush may have been the ultimate anarchist and simultaneously the best argument against anarchy. His anarchy was the anarchy of the soul. In him the forces of his nature rioted against one another like some WTO street confrontation. On one side was arrayed the uniformed and disciplined ranks of civil order, in his case his Christianity. On the other side were the myriad masked passions of an injured psyche. Like any mob the individual members might have their decency but en masse they form an angry and dangerous animal. But George was President of the United States, not some part-time student activist or otherwise under employed youth. He held the primary scepter of civil authority and, shaking with the chaos inside him, threw it to the ground and gave his answer to everything and everyone - the finger.

We all suffered under him and so much so that it is clear what are the consequences of abandoning leadership and embracing anarchy. If there had been ten thousand George Bushes then they might have dissipated their energy fighting amongst themselves thus causing little harm, but there was only one Il Duce and he was free to trash everything. And the lesson: "What is left after the rule of anarchy except to rebuild?" http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/obey/2009/08/weekend-pop-ethics-quiz-cheeze.php#comments

Be sure to check out Obey's short quiz and the videos. The President of the United States is giving the finger to America really.  Like a teenager playing with Dad's new camera. W represents an injured psyche according to Larry. And the injured psyche is at war with his 'Christianity'.  And notice how Larry prefaces this Christian force. 'Uniformed and disciplined'.

The reporters 'found out' about the 'bible study' w during the 2000 campaign. That alone should give you a hint of w's adherence to his new found 'rebirth in The Christ'.  But some clever reporters (we really do not have intense investigative journalists anymore of course, only reporters who think they are very clever) would confront w about his "bible studies"

What biblical passages or chapters were you honing in on Governor?

Oh, I...oh I know what you are trying to do (he says with a grin) you are trying to trick me so that you can say to your readers I really do not study the bible....

This biblical study ruse was just like the rover ruse concerning the duel of the books. If you recall, rover and w were in a contest . Who could read the most books in a week or a month or...who cares?  Would it not be fun to somehow corral w and Willie and make them read a couple of books and issue book reports. Guess who would hand in the best homework?  When you think about it President Clinton and President Obama are the best examples of a real meritocracy; American issued and right out of de Tocqueville. And there is w, a product of our permanent oligarchy.

w would be incapable of giving you an assessment of Augustine vis a vis Aquinas for sure. Clinton and Obama could.

W could never discuss the concepts of venial sins and mortal sins.  Clinton and Obama could.

W could never give you a run down of Christianity and its effect upon the monarchies of Europe over the last thousand years.  Clinton and Obama could.  I simply refer you to the telephone call between w and Chirac. Neither Clinton nor Obama would be capable of communicating that kind of ignorance to a European leader.

And yet after the 12th grade, the three men had similar educations in the same educational institutions established for the ruling class of this country. My point is simply that w could never take any responsibility for his training and education in secular or religious matters. He is simply incapable of it.

Our ex-president could never accept disgrace willingly because he is incapable of accepting any responsibility; for anything. Not any more than Gonzo. The dynamic duo really thought that status alone counted. Not that status alone counted for something, but that status counted for everything.

But w, as Larry points out, thinks he believes in something. The Christian Right tells w that there is a right and a wrong. And w is sure there is a right and a wrong. Which lead to a potential problem between w and cheney.  Without knowing it, w's commutation of Scooter's sentence but his refusal to grant an outright pardon may be representative of a real struggle within w. A struggle that Larry can see but a struggle that cheney can never understand.

I do not believe that cheney believes in right and wrong. Cheney does not think like that. For me cheney is the embodiment of two rules:

If you have access to power, grab all the power you can and use it.

Power is to be used for the benefit of you and yours.

There really is no pro bono publico. Unless of course you define publico as the reigning oligarchy.

And if the evidence for C-Street of the good it does is represented by the fact that there were not a myriad of other adulterous affairs (and who really believes that anyway?), then the real evidence to cheney of the success of his administration is the lack of attacks upon this country since 2001. It is the same logic in force.

If the event did in fact occur, it was not cheney's fault, it was not C-Street's fault.  If the event never did in fact occur, it was through cheney's effort, it was through C-Street's effort.

The entire logic here could not really be intellectually grasped by w or gonzo.  These two can not grasp why anything has to be proven in the first place. But both understand that if something happened, it must be blamed on someone.  And they both would certainly take credit for bad things that did not happen.

So cheney will blame w and w will blame cheney.

W will have to end up comparing his administration to what it would have been if cheney had had his way.

For that reason, and that reason alone, both bios will be an interesting read. The only real difference will be that cheney will actually write his own book.

In Genesis God gives as his name:

I am who I am

How's that for a statement of status?