And That's the Way It Was

Last night, I came home to find out that veteran newsman Walter Cronkite had died at the age of 92. Chosen several times over as “the most trusted man in America” in viewer opinion polls, Cronkite’s long and distinguished career extending from before World War II into the 21st century.

Morley Safer, a longtime “60 Minutes” correspondent, called Cronkite “the father of television news.”

“The trust that viewers placed in him was based on the recognition of his fairness, honesty and strict objectivity … and of course his long experience as a shoe-leather reporter covering everything from local politics to World War II and its aftermath in the Soviet Union,” Safer said. “He was a giant of journalism and privately one of the funniest, happiest men I’ve ever known.”

As the anchor of the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981, he brought the news of countless world-changing events to millions of Americans, from the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King to the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the Iranian hostage crisis. He ended each evening’s broadcast with his signature statement: “And that’s the way it is.”

From the perspective of a five year old in 1963, I well remember Cronkite choking up as he delivered the report of President John F. Kennedy’s death.

Walter Cronkite reports the death of JFK
November 22, 1963

His 1968 editorial declaring the United States was “mired in stalemate” in Vietnam was seen by some as a turning point in U.S. opinion of the war. He also helped broker the 1977 invitation that took Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem, the breakthrough to Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel.

Cronkite was also an fervent supporter of America’s space program and was on hand to report every milestone in the high-coverage sixties from the first suborbital flight to the first moon landing to covering John Glenn’s return to space in 1998. His enthusiasm was evident when he exclaimed “Look at those pictures, wow!” as Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon’s surface.

“He had a passion for human space exploration, an enthusiasm that was contagious, and the trust of his audience. He will be missed,” Neil Armstrong said.

I, like millions of others, grew up with Walter Cronkite bringing us the news, He was a nightly constant from my earliest memories to the time my son was born. His death is but another part of my childhood gone forever.

And that’s the way it was.

Hypocrisy and Human Nature

With all the recent outings of politicians engaged in extramarital sex, my favorite liberal news site, Alternet, has been doing a flurry of articles relating to this subject. In a recent article, Relax: Adultery Is Not That Big Of a Deal by Samara O'Shea, she explores the idea:

I'm not justifying infidelity. But it certainly isn't going to shake the nation's moral foundation or destroy the institution of marriage.

My response follows below:

Monogamy is not natural for human beings, male or female. Yet, considering the strict sanctions against adultery that have existed for centuries, people still do it.

We must ask ourselves, what was the original point in mandating monogamous marriage in the first place?

Religion?

No, guess again. In ancient times, when hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies, the ideas of private property and inheritance were established. To reliably name heirs, a man had to know which children were actually his. To do this, the sexuality of women had to be tightly controlled. Thus, formal monogamous marriage was established, with polygyny for the rich(and where the women were still monogamous, even the men weren't). This is also why women have been traditionally punished more harshly than men for adultery and why virginity was required for brides.

It had nothing to do with love, as marriage was mainly a practical arrangement until around the beginning of the 18th century.

Religion put its stamp of approval on this, which gave it the force of law in societies where religion was the law. The pronouncement of "God said it" was to ensure compliance to what went against basic human nature.

Yet people have committed adultery all through the centuries, as it's almost impossible to completely thwart human nature.

We see adultery more in the news now, as the original valid reasons for monogamy no longer exist:

Marriage is no longer primarily about reproduction, DNA tests prove paternity, non-marital children enjoy the same rights as marital children, women are no longer legally dependent on men for their survival, etc.

However, cultural sensibilities have not caught up to current practical realities, especially considering that few people know the real reasons why monogamy was mandated in the first place.

It's time our society stopped insisting that every marriage be a monogamous one in "one size fits all" style. Only then will the hypocrisy end, as human nature will surely not change.

Manipulation 101

While browsing the main Yahoo page this morning, I noticed a particular link: 6 Ways to Train Your Boyfriend. Irritated about this obvious bit of sexism, I clicked on the link, thinking it might be ranty blogging fodder.

And it was. While it was written in a tongue-in-cheek style, she was deadly serious about using these manipulative techniques.

The author of this article compares men to lower animals and insists that we can be trained as such in order to always do a woman's bidding. She quotes another author:

"Males are card-carrying members of the animal kingdom, and they exhibit a lot of the same behaviors as many other mammals," says Amy Sutherland, author of "What Shamu Taught Me About Life, Love, and Marriage: Lessons for People from Animals and Their Trainers." "So they're likely to respond to some of the same training techniques."

She follows with six tips from animal training experts, with input on how to use each technique on a man.

Here are her six relationship dilemmas, with her suggestions for women on how to manipulate their men:

1. He's Allergic to Chores

She suggests treating him like a chimpanzee by "indulging his playfulness".

For chimps:

"When we need the chimps to perform a task, we get on their level and play with them for 5 or 10 minutes," says Eugene Cussons. " Once they've had some fun, they're more willing to heed commands because they instinctively know it's their turn to return the favor."

For men:

"Indulge him with a few minutes of acting goofy," says Anthony Riche, PhD, author of "Finally! How to Stop Dating Losers Forever." Then tell him you'll finish playing with him later, as long as he takes out the trash or does whatever else you need him to do."

Yeah, we're just big, dumb, silly kids that way. *rolls eyes heavenward*

2. He Lacks Social Graces

Her suggestion is to treat him like a dog, by "ignoring the bad and rewarding the good."

For dogs:

"Trainers reward the dog when it behaves and ignore any actions they don't like," says Sutherland. Since dogs crave affection, they slowly begin to avoid bad habits and opt for good ones."

For men:

"Men don't want to be treated like children, and if you correct him, he'll feel like you're mothering him," says Patricia Covalt, PhD "Instead, ignore him when he's being obnoxious, and give him some PDA (think a kiss or a tap on the bottom) when he's acting sweet. Since guys, like dogs, aim to please, he'll instinctively begin to avoid the behavior that makes you freeze him out."

I guess she thinks it's more respectful to treat a man like a dog, I'm guessing. She goes on to say

Timing is crucial. Be sure to reward him at the exact moment he engages in a positive behavior; otherwise, he won't be able to make the appropriate connection.

Yeah, we're dumb that way. Like dogs, we don't understand words. Sheesh.

3. He Bolts When You Argue

She suggests to treat him like a horse by "keeping a cool head".

For horses:

Beneath the powerful stallion exterior lies a skittish animal. "That's why they generally respond well to a calming voice and touch from trainers," says Patricia Barlow-Irick

For men

Like horses, men seem to be hardwired to want to bolt at the first sound of irritation. So even if he's been working your last nerve, try to approach him in a cool, collected manner. Place your hand on his as you speak. Not only does this buffer the blow of your words, but it also mimics the comforting way a trainer strokes a horse's mane to calm the animal down.

I'm surprised she didn't suggest the woman say, "Easy, boy!" while doing this. I suppose it never occurred to this woman the reason many men remove themselves from arguments is to avoid saying something in the heat of anger that we might regret saying later.

4. He Stands His Ground

In other words, he has an opinion of his own.

She suggests you treat a man like a cougar by "using proper body language"

For cougars

"Instead of trying to submit or dominate a cougar, trainers try to form a cooperative relationship," says Sutherland. They walk tall with squared-off shoulders. This stance ensures that the trainers don't look like prey but they're not threatening either."

For men

"The best way to stay on equal ground is to stand with good posture, your head up, and an open frame so he sees you as being on the same level as he is. This way, he'll be more apt to want to talk things through with you," says Wood.

Good luck with that. If I'm convinced of my opinion, all the good posture in the world won't change that. You'd have to come up with a reasonable argument to have a chance of that.

5. He Won't Drag Himself Off the Couch

She suggests to treat him like a lion by "approaching him at the right time".

For lions:

Lions are, in a word, lazy. According to trainers, they sleep for up to 20 hours a day and only move when they see it as beneficial to themselves. "That's why we make use of the animal's active time instead of trying to force it into doing something it doesn't want to when it's chilling."

For men:

"You have to gauge when he's in a productive mood and then pounce to get him to do what you want. Motivate him by making it worth his while. When you feel like you haven't been able to have a heart-to-heart but he's in a coma in front of the TV, try plying him with his favorite snack. If his cravings for the food outweigh his interest in the TV, he'll eventually cave."

Yeah, we're incapable of getting our own snacks and returning to watching TV, you know.

6. He's Not Romantic

She suggests to treat him like an elephant by "taking baby steps".

For the elephant

These mammals can learn a variety of tasks but only on an incremental timeline.

For the man

He's not hardwired to plan out the little details. So if you can't remember the last time he put together a romantic night for you both, you'll have to show him the way.

Again, we're dumb that way. We can't get the big picture; we have to be led every step of the way.

So, there you have it. Men are not rational human beings worthy of respectful, honest, or direct communication. Instead, we're nothing more than an amalgam of chimpanzees, dogs, horses, cougars, lions, and elephants -- we're just big, dumb animals who must be manipulated as such.

I can just see the fur flying if there was an article advising men to treat women in a similar manner.

If any woman tried to "handle" me by manipulating me by viewing me as a trainable animal, her ass would be at the curb so fast her head would spin. To get respect, you have to give it and I guarantee that treating a man like a big dumb animal isn't the way to do it.

I much prefer women who are honest and direct when communicating their needs to me. Of course, that won't guarantee that I'll always dance to her tune, but it does generate respect from me, along with the lust, and sometimes, love.

Thoughts?

The Elephant in the Living Room

A recent article on Alternet, For Many, Marriage is Sexless, Boring, and Oppressive:Time to Rethink the Institution? by Amanda Marcotte, asks the question:

Marriage is failing many, many people. Why do we still idealize it?

My response to this article follows below:

Formalized marriage and monogamy began for practical reasons, unrelated to any religious notions of "sanctity". Once ancient hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies and ideas of private property and inheritance came about, socially sanctioned monogamous marriage began as a way to control women's sexuality so men would know which children were actually theirs. Polygynous marriage existed for the very rich, but the women in such marriages were still monogamous, though men were not. It is because of this original reason that women are punished more severely for infidelity than are men, as men couldn't be sure of who their children were unless women's sexuality was tightly controlled.

Religious insistence on monogamy was soon added, as it gave the force of law to a practical idea in societies where religious leaders were the law. "God said it" leaves no room for debate.

People did not marry primarily for love until around the 18th century. It was strictly a practical arrangement, a vehicle for joining powerful families for the rich, along with inheritance reasons, and to have a socially sanctioned partner to have children with and work together for survival for the poor. Love, if it happened, was icing on the cake, not the reason to get married in the first place.

People lived shorter lives then, so "until death do us part", did not include decades of the "empty-nest syndrome". Most people were lucky to live long enough to see the youngest child to adulthood. Life itself was harder and more survival oriented, thus people did not worry overmuch about love or personal fulfillment then.

Still, infidelity occurred all throughout history for both sexes, despite sanctions against it, as it's very difficult to overcome basic human nature. It's always been a big scandal for women, but not so much for men until the 19th century or so. The feminist movement no doubt influenced the increasing disapproval of male infidelity, rather than freeing women to male norms.

Today, we marry for love, life isn't strictly about survival, DNA tests prove paternity, overpopulation discourages large families, we live longer lives, women can support themselves, and the abolishment of legal distictions between marital and nonmarital children have removed much of the valid reasons for legal marriage and monogamy. Thus, marriage as it's currently understood has become maladaptive for modern needs. It's no wonder we're seeing what we're seeing.

In light of this, marriage needs to be redefined if it is to survive in a workable form(s) and adjusted to reflect the realities of modern life and human nature. One of the first steps would be to cease mandating monogamy.

Advertising Rant

I've not picked on the advertising industry in awhile, so here goes.

I've been hearing different ads lately that talk about "that guy". "That guy" is usually a bumbling, figure of universal scorn; someone who isn't quite all man, somehow. Naturally, use of the product being advertised will save the men from the shame of being "that guy".

For instance, there's a radio spot for STP oil treatment with Richard Petty telling us not to be "that guy". In this instance, "that guy" doesn't know a thing about cars, barely knows how to raise the hood of the car, calls parts of the engine "doohickeys" and "thingamajigs", and so on. You get the picture.

The next buzz word I'm hearing, though not limited exclusively to the realm of actual commercials is "rebrand". From what I can gather from context, "rebrand" means to change one's image, usually used in the context of changing a corporate image.

The mental images I take away from this, however, are skittish already-branded cows running awy from psychotic cowboys holding red-hot branding irons who want to brand them again.

Another trend I've noticed is a fascination with Tuscany region of Italy. Restaurants all over have popped up with Tuscan style dishes of various kinds, I see travel agency ads promoting trips there, I see ads promoting Tuscan style home decorating, and so on.

What's the sudden appeal of Tuscany, I wonder? Twenty years ago, I never saw references to this part of Italy. I imagine it's a temporary thing until the next foreign flavor of the month takes its place, as Tuscany has apparently supplanted the chipotle mania of a few years ago.

/rant over

Governor Gone AWOL

The other day I was having a conversation with someone and we were discussing whether or not it was likely that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford would resign his office. The other person -- a Republican -- took the attitude "why should he resign -- Bill Clinton didn't!"

Yes, both men strayed from the monogamous straight and narrow, but the difference is that Bill Clinton ran his job while doing so instead of going AWOL for a week like Sanford did.

I think he should resign, but it's not because he had an extramarital affair. That is a private matter between him, his wife, and the other woman involved and I wouldn't give a flying fuck who he screws as long as he ran his job.

Rather, I think he should resign because the man disappeared without anyone, including the Lieutenant Governor, knowing where he'd really gone and was incommunicado for that week. He wasn't running the job he'd been elected to do. That is the real scandal.

Thoughts?

An Elitist View of the Health Care Crisis

The other day, I had the misfortune to listen to Neal Boortz ranting about health care reform.

Boortz believes that even employer-provided health insurance should be cut to the bone and not cover any type of routine medical care; that it should be reserved solely for complications from routine medical matters and catastrophic health problems.

As an example, he asserted that one's health insurance should not cover routine childbirth and prenatal care, because people "choose" to have children. He estimated that a garden variety vaginal birth costs about ten thousand dollars nowadays and that if people cannot come up with ten grand over the space of nine months to pay for having a child, then they had no business having children in the first place. He went on to say that with the cost of raising a child to age 18 estimated to be about a quarter of a million dollars (in his estimation), that ten grand is a "paltry" amount.

Where to begin? For one thing, even if his estimate of the cost of raising a child to 18 is anything at all realistic, it wouldn't be that high for everyone and it's a cost that one doesn't have to come up with all at once. Ten thousand dollars is a big chunk of change to come up with in a limited time frame for many people, even those in the middle class,

Boortz betrays his elitism and implies a belief that only those above a certain income level have any business having children at all. He's being rather shortsighted here, because I'm guessing he doesn't expect the little spoiled scions of the blueblooded families he so reveres to grow up to flip the burgers, fix the cars, drive the taxis, and so on.

He believes that people should save their money for routine health care and personally pay for such care out of their own pockets. Never mind that people nowadays are having trouble paying their mortgages and even basic survival expenses in an economy beset by massive layoffs and cutbacks in the employment sector. This might have been a valid argument in 1945 when my much-older brother was born and the entire cost of labor, delivery, and a ten day hospital stay for my mother was a whopping $73, but it's highly unrealistic today.

For more serious illness, he believes that everyone should buy private health insurance with a high deductible; five thousand dollars was his suggestion. Again, he assumes that it's no big deal for anyone to come up with that sum, either not realizing or not caring that this would be impossible for many people. I can only assume that he thinks those who cannot cough up five grand should do the world a favor and quietly crawl into a hole and die.

Boortz also has the curious convoluted belief that government supported health care is "stealing" parts of people's lives from them; in the form of the taxes they pay represented by the time it took them to earn the money that is paid in such taxes. He views it as nothing less than putting a gun to the heads of taxpayers and taking their money. I never hear Boortz make this argument about the taxes we pay to fund the military, for example. I guess it's only an outrage when one's tax dollars go to help the less fortunate. It's fine with him when it comes to things such as the military, though the time spent to earn the tax money that is "stolen" is just the same. It's the fact that it's going to help people that galls him about government assistance with health care costs.

He also went on a tear about his belief that a big reason why GM is going under is because of all the money they have to spend on health insurance for their employees, which in turn makes them less profitable and unable to compete with foreign automakers..

The man blithely stated this opinion, unaware that he'd painted himself into a corner with this reasoning. Did it not ever occur to him that the employees of such foreign automarkers live in countries with GOVERNMENT provided health care and that it would help American automakers similarly if we followed suit with our own health care?

After this point, my head was about to implode from listening to him, so I didn't hear what else he had to say on the subject.

Thoughts?

Bigger Government or Better Government?

As part of my habit of monitoring right wing talk radio as a method of knowing one's opposition, I regularly tune in to the Neal Boortz show. As anyone who has read my blog regularly knows, I can't stand the guy. He labels himself a libertarian conservative and his philosophy could be characterized as objectivism in the Ayn Rand vein. But I just call him an elitist, as one of his favorite topics to harp on is what he calls "wealth envy", which is his particular spin on justifying selfishness and his disdain for poor people and others in unfortunate circumstances.

But sometimes the man surprises me. Recently, he's been getting a spate of callers of the tinfoil hat brigade variety who call in to rant about President Obama, saying he "hates America" and wants to "destroy our country."

To my surprise, and to be perfectly fair, Boortz always corrects such callers. He tells them that the President doesn't hate America, nor does he want to "destroy" it, but rather that he's got a different idea from the caller (and him) on what makes America great.

True enough and a perfectly rational answer. It's a shame he's not as even-handed about other topics with conflicting viewpoints as well.

But then he goes on to say that Barack Obama believes that government is what makes this country great, unlike himself and the caller who believe that America is great because of its people and freedom (which he defines primarly as economic freedom, especially from the perspective of the wealthy). He implies that this also means that Obama believes the bigger the government, the better.

I find that highly misleading. For one thing, all politicians, regardless of party, "believe" in government in that they have been elected to it and seek to promote governmental policies that they believe are effective and useful. They "believe in government in that they wish to effect changes by working within the system as elected representatives, instead of through the private sector.

And it doesn't logically follow that because Barack Obama is committing to working through the system to implement his policies on how to make our great country greater, that he would automatically think that simply making it bigger would be his goal. Rather, he wants to work within the system to make government work better and more effectively, rather than simply increasing its size.

It's his perfect right to deride the role of government in our society, but unless the highly unlikely scenario occurs in that we turn into an anarchistic society, we will have a government of some sort. It seems to me that it would be better to talk about ways of improving government, rather than denigrating its role in a civilized society at every given opportunity

Life Lessons From My Father

What is the most valuable lesson your father taught you?

1. You can put garbage in a closet, but that doesn’t stop it from stinking

2. There are more horse’s asses in the world than there are horses

3. Everything happens for a reason

4. You can work with the devil himself, if it’s to your benefit.(Advice about bad bosses)

5. There’s good and bad in all kinds

6. Those whom you hold a grudge against, own you.

7. It’s a waste of time to try to argue with willful ignorance.

8. Stupid people are always ignorant, but ignorant people aren’t always stupid.

Is It Really a Scandal?

The news is full of stories about the latest political "sex scandal" of the day.

Yesterday, Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign publicly admitted to having an extramarital affair while legally separated from his wife. His admission was accompanied by the usual insincere, crocodile tears statement:

"Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage. It is the worst thing I have ever done in my life ," Ensign said.

Spare me the treacly fake remorse, Even among many of those who are much less permissive about sexual matters than I am, having a relationship while legally separates isn't identical to having an extra-marital affair while in an ongoing intact marriage. Though one is technically "still married" when separated and the law would consider it adultery, the de facto reality is that it has already been acknowledged that the marriage has broken down and that divorce is soon likely to occur. To remain "faithful" to a broken marriage is merely to perpetuate a useless fiction.

The man was separated. Obviously, he's not going to be able to get any from his wife. Is he expected to remain celibate while in marital limbo? I think most people would agree with me that this is an unreasonable expectation in modern society.

As sex scandals usually go, this one is pretty tame. He didn't solicit a partner in a men's room, like Larry Craig, nor did he run around on a sick wife, as did Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, and John McCain, nor did visit a sex worker, a la David Vitter.

But like Gingrich, Craig, and Vitter, he is guilty of rampant hypocrisy. Like these men, he is a social conservative, who has made many judgmental statements about the decline of "traditional" marriage, and is a member of the Christian conservative group, Promise Keepers.

But hypocrisy is nothing new in Washington.

This latest sex brouhaha doesn't rate more than a loud yawn from me.

If the Shoe Doesn't Fit, Change the Shoe, Don't Cut the Foot

I recently read that Chastity Bono, the daughter of Cher and Sonny Bono, has decided to undergo a sex change. While I support the right of everyone to live their lives in whatever way makes them the happiest, I have to say that the notion of a surgical "sex change" makes me feel uncomfortable and frankly baffles me. What I'm about to write won't be politically correct, but is not meant to belittle anyone's experiences or concerns.

While I don't dismiss the concerns of those who are unhappy with the sex they were born as and would prefer to be the other sex, there's also the fact that "sex changes" are a misnomer. Sex change operations do not actually change a person's sex; they merely provide one with the cosmetic outer appearance of the desired sex. According to Wikipedia:

Sex in humans is usually determined by four factors:

• Chromosomes cannot be changed.
• Gonads can be removed, but not replaced
• Hormone status is easily changed
• Existing sex characteristics can to some extent be changed; existing ones mostly through surgery, non-existing ones can be induced to grow through hormones.

In other words, even with surgery, one would never be fully functional as a member of the desired sex. A man who wishes to become a woman could never become pregnant, give birth, or nurse children. A woman who desired to become a man could never naturally attain an erection, ejaculate, or sire children. This is because it isn't possible for the sex change operation to include implantation of functioning ovaries or a uterus for a male to female change, nor a fuctioning penis, testes, and prostate for female to male changes.

And even attaining a believable outer appearance of the desired sex can be problematic, especially in female to male cases, as Chastity Bono wishes to do. According to Wikipedia, changing a female genital anatomy into an even reasonably male appearing one however is extremely complicated and not successful very often; function is always limited.

The hormonal changes must be maintained by taking hormones of the desired sex indefinitely. If hormone treatment is discontinued, the person's true sex will begin to reassert itself. And this isn't even considering the heightened cancer risk.

From what I've read, people who wish to change their sex are more often unhappy with the stereotyped gender/sex roles that society has assigned to their birth sex, rather than the biological realities of being that sex, per se. We must remember that sex/gender roles -- notions of what is "masculine" or "feminine"' that are not directly related to reproduction -- are largely cultural constructs and not inherent in the biology of being male or female. They vary across history and from culture to culture.

In such cases, where the person simply wants their body to match their desired sex/gender role and has no interest in the capacity to perform in a reproductive capacity as a member of the desired sex, I don't understand why they don't simply shun sex roles altogether and live as they wish to live as an "effeminate" man or a "mannish" female or as an androgyne, rather than violating their bodily integrity for the sake of culturally mandated sex roles.

In other words, if the shoe doesn't fit, change the shoe, don't cut the foot.

Same Sex Couple With Kids Denied Family Discount at Pool

POCATELLO, Idaho – A same-sex couple and their three foster children were denied a reduced admission price to a pool in eastern Idaho because the Lava Hot Springs State Foundation says the five don’t fit the definition of a famly.

Amber Koger and Jeri Underwood say they and their three children were recently denied the resort’s advertised family admission price to the Olympic Swimming Complex at Lava Hot Springs…Mark Lowe, executive director for the Lava Hot Springs foundation, said the state doesn’t recognize gay or lesbian marriage and defines a family as one male, one female and children.

“We are a state agency bound by all the laws of the state of Idaho,” Lowe said.

See the rest of the story here.

First of all, a family isn’t the same thing as a marriage. Lowe may be able to cite the state’s official definition of a marriage, but an official, state-defined marriage isn’t a prerequisite to being a family.

Secondly, does this facility deny family memberships to one parent families, where the parent is single, divorced, or widowed; where no marriage exists at all, state sactioned or not? Would they deny family membership to an opposite sex couple raising children together who were not legally married?

Thirdly, the ones really being punished in this bigoted decision are the children. Lowe may think he’s taking the moral high road by expressing his disapproval of same sex relationships in this manner, but all he’s really doing is preventing some little kids from going swimming.

Fortunately for Koger and Underwood and their children, not all facilities in their area have such bigoted policies.

At the Ross Park Aquatic Center, manager Cindy Robbins said families of all types get in for half price during Monday’s “Family Night.”

“If family members live under the same roof and parents can claim them on their taxes, they are a family,” Robbins said.

Indeed.

Compter Aggravation

Sometimes, my computer makes me want to commit “cybercide”. Some of the programs have distinct minds of their own that bear no relation to logic.

As an example, I’ve tried to set my town as the default location for the weather function on the Yahoo home page. Nevertheless, every time I click on the Yahoo site, I find that it’s been reset to Sunnyvale, CA. Who set it there, I could not tell you. I’ve never been to Sunnyvale, nor anywhere else in California, I don’t know anyone in California, and I have absolutely no interest in California weather, considering that I live on the East Coast. No matter — every time I visit the page, I have to reset it to my home town. But if I click away from Yahoo, when I click back, it’s been put back to Sunnyvale. Every. Fucking. Time. It will not accept my home town as the default location.

Firefox is another problem. As some of you know, I’m stuck with crappy dialup. As is common with dialup, I lose the connection fairly often. When I reconnect, whatever web pages I was looking at when the computer disconnected itself are frozen, along with any new pages I try to click on. When I try to refresh, I get “Stopped” in the lower left corner of the browser. Even though I’ve reconnected, the browser is dead in the water and stays that way.

I have to close the browser, then open it again. However, my troubles have not ended. I always get a message telling me that an applicatoin of Firefox is “already running” but is not responding and that I should close it and try again. Never mind that I’ve just closed the fucking thing! In order to get it to open again, I have to close every program I have running at the time, even those unrelated to Firefox. I have to close my Yahoo IM, Word Pad, the little box that tells me I’m still connected — everything. I don’t have this problem at all with Internet Explorer.

Feel free to elaborate on some of your computer’s strange quirks in the comment box.

Bluntly Stated

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

They'll have us living for the benefit of our fellow man instead of us living for our own individual benefit!
--Neal Boortz, in reference to liberals and Democrats.

I heard Boortz make the second comment on one of his recent broadcasts, which is but one of many illustrations of what makes the first statement true.. I'm not sure if I remember his exact words precisely, but this is the gist of them. He spoke in a tone that made clear that he found the idea of devoting one's live in service to humanity to be extremely revolting and something to be avoided.

I have to give the man credit for being totally honest, however. Most conservatives will not so bluntly admit their complete disguest for altruism.

Thoughts?

Who's Your Daddy?

Dennis Hatchett, a 29 year old minimum wage worker, has father 21 children by 11 different women. The children range in age from 11 months to 11 years.

"I had four kids in the same year. Twice." Hatchett admitted.

According to the Huffington Post, Hatchett was in court last week, appearing on the docket 11 times in regards to 15 of the 21 children who he's not paid child support for on a timely basis.

Though the guy is a Darwinian success and is assured of a large number of descendants to carry one his genes, I couldn't help but wonder what the fuck was he thinking. I do know, however, which head he was thinking with.

My comment to the Huffington Post article follows below:

Now, I can't blame the guy for wanting to get laid a lot with a wide variety of women. I've had a rather large number of lovers over the years, myself.

However, in 30+ years of being sexually active, I have only ONE child. I know what a condom is for and I'm not afraid to use them.

I raised the one child I had to adulthood, and wasn't interested, nor did I have the financial resources, to raise more. One was more than enough for me.

I'm wondering if this guy has chicken fat for brains by siring so many kids he can't afford to support.