Category Archives: anit war

>LMAO: Of peace and pate …

>One would think that with all the serious problems besetting Chicago, the Windy City council of aldermen would be overburdened with the serious business of municipal governance. But noooooooo. This week, the city’s oversized and over stuffed legislative chamber came to grips with two issues that can only provoke well deserved public ridicule.

First the ward bases wielded their mighty power to defeat themselves. In an overwhelming vote the aldermen struck down the ban on the sale of pate de foie gras — a ban, they themselves past only a short time ago.

The main argument against the delicacy is how the birds are fed to produce those succulent fatty livers. Somehere along the way, the anti goose viscus crowd provided a humanized example of the process (pictured). Hmmm. I wonder if the demo offended as many people as it aroused. One of those “unanticipated consequences” things. Personally, I was more … uh … never mind. Not saying.

Mayor Daley orderedthe booting of the ban, calling the original action “the silliest ordinance” the Council has ever passed. Considering the impressive list of silly things done by the Chicago City Council at the order of the Mayor, that is an interesting indictment.

This of course raised an obvious question. Since the Council only does what the Mayor tells them to do, how did the silliest law ever get passed in the first place? Obviously someone failed to get the Mayor’s opinion on goose livers. Oh! Wait! Now I get it. The Mayor was saying that not getting his marching orders … that was the silliest thing the Council ever did. Now it makes sense.

Since the Council has now undone the silliest thing it ever did (and this time making sure they got the directive from the Mayor), they needed another silly thing to takes it place. Being very creative, it did not take them long to come up with a resolution to forbid the United States government from taking military action against Iran.

I certainly do not know whether we should or should not use our military to preempt the Iranian mad man from having nuclear weapons. Almost everyone in the world, and even those in their own world over at the United Nations, seems to think that an atomic armed Iran is a very bad idea, indeed. But still … personally … I can’t say. After all, I am not privy to national security briefings. I am not in on the behind the scenes international disucssions. Of course, those high-minded alderman are at least as clueless as I am. But ignorance may not be enough to stop them if making the Chicago City Council one of the few municipal governments in America … nay … in the world … with a foreign policy. (Neighboring Evanston has a similarly afflicted city council, as I have noted in previous blogs. Maybe its the fluoride in the local water.)

This is not the first time the Chicago legislators went down this road. About six years ago, they passed a similar resolution forbidding George Bush and the United States Congress from toppling Saddam Hussein. You can see how much the opinion of Chicago aldermen means in Washington. Needless to say, this new foray into foreign policy will garner about the same amount of attention in the nation’s capital.

I hate to disagree with the Mayor, but I think these war room decisions of the City Council may be the silliest things they ever did. If not the silliest, then certainly the most useless.

In the meantime, the Chicago Transit Authority is crumbling. The schools are producing more drop outs than graduates. Innocent people are being murdered at an alarming rate. The city faces a monumental budget crisis. The once sacrosanct parks are being auctioned off to the highest bidders. “The city that works” can’t even fill pot holes.

But thanks to the City Council, the social elite will again nibble on their fancy goose liver paste, and Iran can rest easier knowing that U.S. troop are being held at bay by civic action.

>OBSERVATION: I can’t bare it any longer

>Someone recently noted that I seem to be locked in on the Obama/Clinton race for the White House. Okay. I will talk about something that has been bothering me for a long time.
I am not sure what it is about the radical left that equates nudity with social conscience. I am talking about striping down to one’s birthday suit to advance a cause. Seems like a lot of them advance thier issues with their tissues.

Certainly the most prolific proponent of genital activism (<– I think I just coined a new term) is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). It would appear to me that they view their own au naturale presence as some sort of solidarity to the unclothed fauna of the world. (Except the couple in the below photo, who seem to sieze other advantage). PETA even gets publicity desperate has-been movie stars to pose naked on their way to the taping of their latest age-reducing skin cream informercials.

However, PETA people are not alone in equating nudity with protest – and it is way not a Millennium phenomenon. I recall my 1960s days as a resident of Washington, D.C., when hundreds of thousands or war protesters descended on the Capital City. One of the delights of my youth was to observe bare breasted women walking down the street, and completely nude demonstrators splashing in the public fountains.

Wars seems to have an unusually strong appeal for public strippers. I guess if your slogan is “make love, not war,” you have to always be ready to engage. I assume this because some of those 1960s radicals did engage in intercourse on the concourse – demonstrating that their iconic slogan was not empty rhetoric.

I have the impression that those youthful exhibitionists are the very same people who have barely protested Vietnam and Iraq. I say this because the nude bodies on the front line of anti-war activism today are not the svelte sexy figures I recall from those “days of rage.” They are decidedly more mature (being polite here) and far less worthy of admiration. In fact, it has come to the point that it is almost impossible to read the painted slogans on the sagging and wrinkled skin. (Yes! Yes! For my graphic, I purposely chose svelte over saggy).

Nudes against nukes take the issue beyond any specific war. I am not sure what the symbolism might be. Are we to look forward to a world that is nuclear free, clothes optional? Annihilation and Armageddon are not the only reasons to prance around with bouncing breasts and swinging johnsons. Opposition to everything from oil drilling to the 2004 presidential election seems to result in an ocassional “show” of solidarity.

Once a year, in most cities, the more colorful fringe of the gay community takes “pride” in parading through the streets in various stages of undress (and occasionally offering street a theater versions of gay pornography) in demands for AIDS funding and civil equality (inadvertently proving that all men are definitely NOT created equal). I am never sure if they are exposing themselves to expose us to gay rights, or is it just public orgy?

Nudies have protested animal mistreatment, war, poverty, racism, nuclear proliferation, civil rights and immigration. Maybe that’s how these things happen. You read about the Pope wearing ermine and you are overcome with an obsessive desire to strip off you clothing in public in defense of the poor animal that gave up his life for the pontiff.

Or course, we can always mount (no pun intended) a protest against such bald-faced (and everything else) civic disobedience. But, what is the protocol of demonstrating against naked demonstrating? In our own counter protest, do we remain clothed? Or is it better to take up the tactic, thus giving evidence of its impropriety? I am sure my own naked appearance on the front line would provide significant incentive to abandon the custom.

I have a theory that all this started when an invitation was issued for a big PUBLIC protest, and a typo resulted in the call for a big PUBIC protest. This is only my threory, but how else can you explain a bunch of people shedding graments as a means of saving the whales.

So I ask … how long are we to bear the bare?

FOOTNOTE: Frankly, I don’t really care much if folks want to strip in public, but I do wish the liberal activists would find sexier people. Let’s have a rule, like, no naked protesting by people whose relevant numbers exceed 40 and 250.

FOOTNOTE 2: I was told that a bit of nudity would help build readership. I was pondering a photo of myself naked, but decided against. ……………….. Your welcome.