A Libertine's Thoughts

Phenomenal Trumpet Solo

2010-12-13T09:56:00.002-05:00

This is Maynard Ferguson, recorded some time in the 1960s. Ferguson, who died in 2006, was best known for his incredible range with the trumpet, easily able to hit notes more properly in the range of a piccolo. As a teenager playing trumpet in the high school band in the mid-70s, this man was my trumpet playing role model. Enjoy.

If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say...

2010-12-07T18:44:00.000-05:00

A few minutes ago, I saw a breaking news bulletin on Yahoo saying that Elizabeth Edwards had died. This came just a day after announcing that doctors had advised her that there was nothing more they could do and that she’d decided to stop treatments.

After reading the short announcement, I scrolled down to read the comments. Though many people posted respectful condolences, many others saw this as an opportunity to spew hateful, grammar- and spelling-challenged remarks. For some people, everything is an opportunity for partisan politics and no exceptions are made, even to respect the grief of those in mourning. To such people, if you do not believe as they do, then you have forfeited any considerations of courtesy and common decency and it’s open season on you and yours.

I would think the old saying, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all”, should apply in such instances for everyone who has any character and integrity at all. If you don’t like Elizabeth Edwards or her husband, fine, but simply don’t comment on such articles at all if you can’t be respectful. A person’s death notice is not the time nor the place for partisan politics.

But the literacy-challenged trolls who haunt the comment sections of Yahoo News and other similar sites do not limit their vitriolic political spewing to articles relating to politics. They post comments trashing their political bugaboos on nearly every article posted, even those that don’t have even the remotest thing to do with politics. Apparently, no one has told these simple-minded fanatics that not everything in this world has to do with politics.

There are several ultra right wing politicians I find completely reprehensible, but I would nevertheless grant them the respect of my silence if they or someone in their family were to die and allow them to grieve in peace. Time and place, people. There are certain niceties that are the hallmark of a civilized society, and respect for the mourning is one of them.

Thoughts?

Musical Tastes of a Preschooler

2010-10-31T12:04:00.001-04:00

I’ve liked music since my earliest years, as music of all kinds was ever-present in my home as long as I can remember. And even from my preschool years, I expressed my preferences of music I liked best.

Recently, I’ve been exploring YouTube, as much as my limited dial-up connection will allow. I came upon two of my earliest favorite songs, which turned out to be, believe it or not, Dixieland jazz. Odd preferences for a preschooler, but there you are. Listening to them again 40+ years later, I find I still like the songs as much as I did as a little kid.

Below are videos of the two songs.

These are the two songs that made me want to take up the trumpet

Some Thoughts on the Dr Laura Brouhaha

2010-08-23T23:21:00.000-04:00

I've observed with interest the latest "brouhaha du jour", that of Dr. Laura Schlessinger resigning her radio show over her repeated use of the "n-word" during the course of a single call.

Predictably, she has been complaining about her 1st Amendment rights, backed up by the ever-present and ever-annoying Sarah Palin. I don't get what she's talking about, as I don't see anyone seeking to jail her for speaking her mind, however small-minded and mean-spirited it might be. What I do get is that others have been exercising their rights to free speech as well by objecting to what she said.

And in the free market economy that conservatives hold in such high regard, sometimes exercising that right in the business she's in can lead to unwanted consequences. In this case, the radio sponsors are voting with their wallets by withdrawing their sponsorship of her show. It's all about money.

Monitoring the Neal Boortz show the other day, he talked about this incident and it both surprised and amused me that he referred to her as a "vile woman" It's rather surprising that he'd hold this opinion because, in my opinion, the two are cut from the same cloth.

Apparently there's bad blood between the two for some reason because, on a previous show, he mentioned having to dance with her at some function they'd both attended and he opined that dancing with her was like holding a "dead fish".

I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Boortz' opinion of her, which is rather a frightening thing in and of itself.

Thoughts?

Historical Accuracy or Happily Ever After

2010-08-22T23:18:00.000-04:00

While visiting a lover the other day, she told me that she had a book that she wanted me to read, because the main male character reminded her of me. I said, sure, after which she handed me a historical romance novel, Libertine's Kiss, by Judith James.

Being a guy, my normal preferred reading material does not usually include romance novels, but I have read some, particularly to research the occurrences of libertine characters in this genre, which is a fairly common character subtype.

As I took the book from her and read the blurb on the back cover, I immediately had to laugh -- the main character shared my first name. The book's setting is the 17th century Restoration court of Charles II, who could have accurately been called a libertine king. The author's note stated that the main male character, William De Veres, was based on John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, a noted libertine and poet in the court of Charles II. He was also the subject of the Johnny Depp movie, The Libertine.

As this book was classified as a romance novel, however, I already knew how the book was going to end -- in a monogamous marriage, at which time the libertine would cease being one. This is what the romance novel industry calls the "HEA"; the "happily ever after" formula, which is ubiquitous to every romance novel.

Because of this, I knew the book was going to be a disappointment from the beginning, as it could not remain true to history, nor to the real person that inspired the novel's male lead if it were to adhere to the HEA formula. Indeed, I could imagine Wilmot's sardonic laughter if he'd been able to read the book and see the character he'd inspired go completely out of character during the course of the novel.

And not only did the characterization of the male lead deviate from actual history, so did the female lead's view of what marriage should be deviate from 17th century norms in general, which I'll further elaborate on later below.

Nevertheless, I decided to go ahead and read it, anyway. The book proved to be an engaging read, with the author throwing in snippets of Wilmot's actual poetry throughout the book. Many times during the book, the male lead expressed thoughts that could have come out of my own mouth; enough so that I wondered if the author had read my blog.

To cite a few examples, when asked why he'd ended up as a libertine, he explained to the female lead that it was simply his nature, which is something I've done many times myself.

In another scene, he proposes marriage to her, knowing that he needed to get married sooner or later if he was to have heirs. He reasoned that he might as well do so with a woman he cared for. When she asks if he would remain sexually faithful to her, he honestly tells her no, respecting her enough to be honest with her. When she protested, he explained that there was a difference between sex and love, implying that one should not be inextricably bound to the other.

And this brings me to the book's flaws. The female lead, who was a widow, rejected his initial proposal because she vowed she would not remarry for anything but love. But such a sentiment would have been far less common in the 17th century than now. People then married much more often for practical reasons and love, if present, was considered icing on the cake, rather than the reason to marry in the first place. A woman of that time would not have demanded sexual exclusivity of a prospective husband, however much she might like it, as random dalliances would have simply been considered the nature of the male beast.

Then there were the trite, cliched plot devices that could have been done away with and still allowed the story to adhere to the HEA ending.

The first cliche was that the male lead was a libertine simply because he was a damaged, psychologically tortured man, having been molested as a teen by his tutor and for having had dysfunctional parents. Rarely in romance novels is a libertine a libertine merely because he like frequency and variety with his sex life. The assumption is that every normal person desires a lifelong, monogamous marriage.

The second cliche that left me rolling my eyes in disbelief was that the male lead immediately lost the desire to have sex with other women the moment he took up with the female lead. He became de facto monogamous at this time, despite his claims to the contrary. This is completely unbelievable, as no person who'd been a libertine his entire would suddenly lose that proclivity at the drop of a hat. Indeed, I would imagine that a libertine who'd made the decision to start living a monogamous life would not lose the desire for sexual variety and would have to work very hard to maintain a monogamous life.

Taken as a whole, however, this book was an interesting read, but I strongly believe the author would have done much better had she written it as straight historical fiction. If she'd done so, she would have been free to write the main characters in a more historically accurate manner, rather than as a romance, where she was hamstrung by the romance novel formulaic HEA requirement.

Indeed, Paula Reed's historical novel, Hester, which takes place along the same time period as Libertine's Kiss, did just that, which served to produce a superior novel. Her libertine character, John Manning, is much more genuine and believable than James' William De Veres.

Just my .02 cents.

Differences of Opinion Among Conservatives

2010-08-20T23:00:00.000-04:00

Listening to talk radio in recent weeks, I was struck by a difference of opinion between two conservative radio talk show hosts.

Within the space of a week, I heard two talk show hosts comment about John Kerry's military service in Vietnam.

Neal Boortz, in his typical obnoxious style, referred to Kerry as "scum", which he said was apart from disagreeing with the man's politics. He went on to sneer at his service in Vietnam, referring to Kerry's three Purple Hearts as "band-aid Purple Hearts" and that when he left Vietnam that he shouldn't have let the doorknob hit him on the way out or else that would be another Purple Heart for him.

I'll have to hand it to Boortz. He certainly has chutzpah considering that he never served in Vietnam himself, although he was born in 1945 and was the right age to have done so. As far as I'm concerned, he has no place criticizing Kerry's service, considering that he didn't go at all.

Dennis Miller on the other hand, while also not agreeing with Kerry's politics, said that he had to give the guy credit for serving in Vietnam and thanked him for his service, Miller, born in 1953, also did not serve, but is humbly grateful to all those who did, regardless of their political opinions.

Comparing the two shows, Miller's is much easier to listen to. Though I find myself rolling my eyes at his opinions fairly often, he's got a good sense of humor, is laid back, and generally treats his callers with more respect than Boortz does. Plus, he doesn't always talk about politics and has some interesting and varied guests, even some who don't share his opinions.

Personally, I think it's a good thing to know that the other side has gradations of fanaticism and that they don't all march in lockstep.

Different Kinds of Ignorance

2010-07-06T16:05:00.001-04:00

Today, while monitoring the Neal Boortz radio show, he had a segment featuring a survey taken at an amusement park where random people passing by were asked very basic questions about the history of Independence Day.

None of the people could answer any of the questions correctly, except for one man at the end,who was identified as a grandfather. One woman who said she was a teacher did not get a single answer right.

As I continued to listen, I was stunned by the level of jaw-dropping ignorance. The questions asked were quite simple, on the level of a third grader. These were questions I knew the answer to when I was ten years old.

Several people had no idea why we celebrate the Fourth of July. One person when asked which year the United States declared its independence said 1922. Another person named Winston Churchill as the general who led American forces during the Revolutionary War. Still yet another had no clue as to which country we were declaring our independence from.

I was just as appalled as Boortz was by the staggering ignorance.

But then, Boortz showed his own ignorance, which was an ignorance of another sort entirely.

He said that the level of ignorance surprised him because they were "all good-looking people; mainstream Americans." He went on to say that there were no people with "pot bellies with cigarettes dangling from their lips" nor were they wearing hoodies or had tattoos.

My jaw dropped then at his staggering ignorance.

Since when is a person's appearance, level of subjective attractiveness, fashion sense, or weight a measure of their intelligence? At his age, Boortz should know what a crock of shit judging a book by its cover is.

Thoughts?

Boredom and Age

2010-06-29T01:44:00.000-04:00

I often hear teenagers and young adults complaining about being bored. I can remember doing likewise when I was a preteen and young teenager, before I could drive and get out on my own. As a young adult, I found I only experienced boredom whenever I spent extended periods alone which, fortunately, rarely happened. I've always liked to read, but there was a limit as to how much time I wanted to spend doing that.

As a kid, I remember my parents rolling their eyes at me when I'd tell them I was bored, telling me they'd find me something to do if I was bored. The "something" was usually something unpleasant that involved doing work. I learned pretty quickly not to say I was bored within my parents hearing!

But as I recall, I kept fairly busy when I was a kid: riding my bike, playing ball, hiking through the woods, hanging out with my friends, listening to music, being in the band, playing board games, building tree houses, and so on. Unlike today's generation of kids and teens, we spent little time indoors during daylight hours and generally only watched TV at night, with the exception of Saturday morning cartoons.

I grew up in the sixties and seventies, so we also didn't have video games, cable/satellite TV, DVDs, home computers, internet, cell phones, and so on. We had to be a bit more creative to entertain ourselves than kids do nowadays, but we didn't have any less fun. Far from it; I think people of my generation had the chance to develop our own creativity to higher degree than in generally so with young people today.

Now that I'm *cough*middle-aged*cough*, I find that I'm almost never bored when I spend time alone now. It used to be that I would avoid spending much time alone, but now I find I enjoy my own company and am usually quite content to spend time in solitude. I can't say if it's having to learn to entertain myself as a kid in the absence of most technological entertainments taken for granted today, or if it's maturity finally kicking in on me. It's also interesting to note, that other than my computer and internet connection, I don't partake of much of the current technologies currently available -- I don't have cable or satellite, am not much interested in video games, and I have only a basic cell phone that I use only for talking.

As it stands now, the only time I actually need to seek out others is if I'm horny, which still happens quite frequently, I'm happy to say. Otherwise, I'm quite content to hibernate with my computer for reading and writing, my books, and my stash of DVDs.

Thoughts?

It Was Bound to Happen Some Time

2010-06-29T01:25:00.001-04:00

Listening to the Neal Boortz show a week or so ago, I found myself in the odd position of agreeing with him. He was talking with a caller about the proposed plan to build a mosque on the site of Ground Zero in Manhattan, where the World Trade towers once stood. Boortz thinks the idea is in extremely poor taste and that in rubs the noses of the American people into what happened there that day.

Later in the call, Boortz commented that in recent times, Islam has been associated with terrorism and sectarian violence more so than other religions, but that this hasn't been always so. He then mentioned that in certain periods in history, Christianity had been just as violent in the name of their faith, referring to the Catholic Inquisition and the witch hunts, among other things. He then said that it was because of the often violent history of the world's religions that he had absolutely no use for organized religion.

For once, he was dead on the money. It was an odd thing to find myself entirely in agreement with him, but even a broken clock is right two times a day.

Personality Type and Political Orientation

2010-06-18T01:40:00.000-04:00

Recently, I came into contact online with someone I'd gone to school with and had not seen since that time. I was surprised to discover that he's now a strong conservative. Thinking of how he was when we were back in school, he would been one of the last people I'd have thought would have ended up as a conservative, as he was an easy-going, laid-back kind of a guy with an irreverent sense of humor.

I suppose it's a stereotype, but I don't associate conservatism with a people who have a strong sense of humor and an easy-going personality, If not apolitical, I would assume such a person would lean toward the liberal side.

Similarly, I went to school with some guys who were rather uptight, humorless, and straight-laced. These are the types that I'd imagine would end up as conservatives in their later years, though I'm sure that these types of people often do not fit the stereotype as my former classmate did not.

How about you? Do you associate certain personality types with various political beliefs?

Working Hard or Working Smart

2010-06-11T01:34:00.001-04:00

"Working hard" is a virtue that is often praised in our society. It is considered to be a great compliment to refer to someone as a hard worker. And while we are sometimes cautioned against overwork, most people would rather be thought of as workaholics, rather than slackers. For many, being thought of as lazy ranks right down there with being a liar or a thief.

But what exactly do we mean by the phrase "working hard"? Do we mean always doing physically or mentally ardous work every moment of every working day. Does it mean working to the point where we drag ourselves home physically or mentally spent and drop into bed exhausted at the end of every work day? Does it mean we always work as fast as we possibly can? Does it mean searching out more work, even busy work, when there is nothing productive to do, so that every minute is spent "Doing Something", even if it's pointless labor?

And this brings me to the point of this entry, the difference between "working hard" and "working smart". Someone working smart will attend to necessary tasks in a timely fashion in order to meet specific productive goals and at a steady, though not necessarily, frenetic, pace. Work done is always toward a useful goal and is not engaged in merely to "keep busy". Work is seen as but one component of a balanced life, where rest and leisure are seen as equally important, as someone who gets enough rest and leisure usually tends to work more productively. Work is seen merely as a means to an end, rather than an end of itself, so anything that can make a job easier is seen as an advantage.

Someone who works smart realizes that above all, we are paid for the time we give up for the needs of our employers, apart from the actual labor we do. Time is our most important cmmodity as , once spent, we can never have a particular block of time back in our lives to do over. In other words, once June 11, 2010 is over, I'll never have another June 11, 2010 to spend again doing different things.

Thoughts?

Book Review: Hester: The Missing Years of the Scarlet Letter by Paula Reed

2010-05-17T22:13:00.006-04:00

Hester: The Missing Years of the Scarlet Letter
by Paula Reed

St. Martin's Press, February 2010
ISBN: 978-0-312-58392-7, ISBN10: 0-312-58392-3,
6 1/8 x 9 1/4 inches, 320 pages,

When Paula Reed asked me to read through a draft of her book, Hester, a couple of years ago, I was at first a bit hesitant that I would be able to give her a useful and informed opinion. I’d never read Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter all the way through, having been put off by his writing style the one time I’d attempted to read it. And despite being a history buff, the 17th century is not an era that I am much familiar with.

Nevertheless, I decided to go ahead and share my thoughts, as the opinion Paula sought from me was whether the character of John Manning, the philosophical libertine who became Hester’s lover and friend, resonated with me. As one who has spent my adult life living the life of a libertine without shame and as one who has always been interested in philosophical questions, this was something I felt I could adequately do.

In our blogs, I’d previously expressed to Paula that I’d like to see her write an unapologetic libertine character who did not change his ways by story’s end. She assured me that she’d remembered these blog conversations when creating Manning.

To answer Paula’s original question, I would say that John Manning’s character did indeed resonate with me. Unlike improbable romance novel libertines, who always, without fail, decide all they ever really wanted was a wife and children by story’s end, Paula Reed’s John Manning rings true to reality as he stays true to his self.

While reading, I often found myself nodding along with things he said, agreeing and understanding exactly where he was coming from. To quote Paula’s own words, John Manning “never changes, never repents, and remains a dear friend of Hester’s even after their sexual relationship ends.”

As well as being Hester’s friend and lover, I saw John as a steadying influence in her life, bolstering her resolve to live without shame or apology, especially during the times when her confidence faltered. He was, to use an expression my father often used, her “BS detector”, just as she was the “BS detector” for everyone else.

What I think I enjoyed most about this book, were the questions about the nature of sin, shame, integrity, and the dictates of individual conscience vs. religion that ran through the novel, which I thought best addressed by Hester’s conversations with John. And, of course, I found it particularly appropriate and satisfying that Manning worked for the downfall of Puritanism.

One thing I particularly liked was how Sir John Manning was eulogized in the Epilogue:

“There lies Sir John Manning,” proclaimed Lady G--- “an impenitent sinner and the only man who never lied to a single woman. Not so much as ‘I shall see thee in the morning.’”

“He may never have lied to one,” avowed Lord H---, “but God knows he lay with more than his share. Can’t hate him for it, though. Many an Englishman benefited by way of a more skillful wife.”

I have to say that I would be quite happy to be eulogized similarly when my time comes.

Though I’m sure that those who have read Hawthorne’s original novel will enjoy this book as a companion novel, it also works well as a standalone for those, such as myself, who did not read The Scarlet Letter. Highly recommended for those who enjoys historical fiction.

Boortz the Boor

2010-04-25T14:17:00.000-04:00

Listening to the Neal Boortz show on the radio the other day, I was yet again reminded of what a jerk he can be.

He mentioned being in the supermarket and seeing a large, fat woman with her nine year old little boy and how their grocery cart was filled with junk food. He proudly informed the listening audience that he went up to the little boy and told him that if he ate the type of food in the cart that he would end up big and fat like his mother.

WTF?

I don't know how he was raised, but I was raised to believe that you never direct criticism of a parent to a child, especially one that young. In my book, what he did was totally reprehensible; hurting a child's feelings with his rudeness about something the child had absolutely no control over.

First of all, what business is it of his what strangers eat? Last time I checked, this was a free country and people are free to eat whatever they can afford to pay for, even if their choices are not the best ones.

Secondly, I highly doubt if he'd have meddled into what was none of his business if the woman had been loading up the cart with booze and cigarettes.

Thirdly, what kind of a fucking coward goes up to a little kid and vents his spleen about a problem he has with the child's mother? Wasn't he man enough to state his opinion directly to her? Was he afraid she'd be better able to defend herself against such cattiness than a defenseless little boy would? Did it make him feel like a big man to hurt a child's feelings?

Thoughts?

Telltale Smarminess

2010-04-24T03:25:00.001-04:00

I spend a lot of time in my car so I hear quite a bit of radio advertising. One annoying commercial is for Andy Willoughby's 3 Step Plan for work at home businesses. Every commercial starts off with him saying, "How in the world are you, anyway?" in a smarmy tone of voice that oozes fake sincerity, akin to that of the stereotypical used car salesman.

My instant reaction when I heard his smarmy presentation for the first time was to think, "This guy must be a fundamentalist Christian", even though he never mentioned anything religious on the commercial. I'd never heard of this guy, so when I got home I Googled him. And, sure enough, he's a fundie.

This type of image is common among the fundamentalist set. Many of them try to present an image of golly-gee-whiz wholesomeness, complete with the squeaky-clean Howdy Doody haircuts and deer-in-the-headlight expressions. This is combined with a forced earnestness in their tone of voice, that ends up coming across as smarmy, rather than sincere. I don't know why this is so common among fundamentalists, but I'm always able to spot it in a minute, as I did with these radio commercials.

I have news for them. God doesn't like smarmy.

China's Demographic Crisis and Foreign Adoptions of Its Children

2010-04-17T13:19:00.000-04:00

I recently heard of an old acquaintance who adopted a baby girl from China. I've heard of others in the past who have also done this, with the sex of the child always being female.

After reading several recent news stories about the lopsided sex ratio that China is facing with the current generation coming into adulthood because of the widespread one-child policy and China's traditional preference for boys with the resultant practice of sex-selective abortions, this left me scratching my head. China's rising marriageable generation will have a surplus of 30 million males who will be unable to find brides in a monogamy-only society, yet China is allowing and promoting foreign adoptions of baby girls.

I did a bit of research and China has allowed foreign adoptions since the mid to late 1990s. In 2005 alone, 7000 children were adopted by Americans, and who knows how many more from other countries. Ninety-five percent of the children adopted are female. I can only see this as widening the sex ratio, rather than repairing it.

Does this make the least bit of sense to anyone?

I'm not knocking those from other countries who adopt such baby girls; after all, they do deserve loving homes. But one would think that China would want to do anything in its power to alleviate the current demographic crisis. In previous blog posts, I've suggested polyandry as an immediate solution to the problem, which is highly unlikely to be seriously considered. But I would also think that their government would give incentives for Chinese couples to have preference in adopting these baby girls, in that they'd be doing a patriotic duty by helping to alleviate the demographic crisis.

Thoughts?

An Excess Of Accommodations

2010-04-06T15:23:00.001-04:00

Today, I went down to the county offices to pay the property taxes on my house. My county has a new building, opened last year, to conduct most business with the county. This new building is rather spacious, with about fifteen windows for people paying whatever fees applicable. I've been in this building a few times since it opened and there is never a long line.

One thing I immediately noticed the first time I went in there was that every one of the fifteen windows was at dinner table height, so that patrons have to bend way over in order to write out a check, with their butts poked in the air.

I figured that the reason was to make county offices more accessible for those in wheelchairs, an assumption that was confirmed when I asked the clerk about it.

I'm all for building alterations that make public buildings more usable for those with physical limitations, but the way it was done in this particular building was ridiculous. I saw no need to make ALL the windows at wheelchair height; three or four windows would have been more than sufficient, in my opinion. After making this comment to the clerk, she told me that they were obliged to do it this way in order to get federal funds to build the building.

Curious, I looked up demographic statistics once I'd returned home. Out of a total population of about 310 million, only around 2.7 million Americans are in wheelchairs, which tends to support my assertion that far fewer wheelchair-height windows would have been more than sufficient.

Thoughts?

Individuality and Political Philosophy

2010-04-04T13:45:00.001-04:00

blank_page

Last night, when listening to Neal Boortz' latest rant-a-thon on the radio, I heard him assert to a caller that most individualists were conservatives and that most liberals were the type to herd with the crowd.

Say what?

In my experience, it's conservatives who tend to be cautious and most concerned with conformity, sticking to traditional ways of doing things and who are suspicious of innovation and new and different ways of doing things. It's liberals who tend think outside the box, to color outside the lines, who look forward instead of back. That's why it's liberals who are called progressives, and not conservatives.

Conservatism tends to be reactive and not proactive. That's why you hear more about what Republicans are against, rather than what they are for. Nearly all innovation and progress in our country (and in many others) has been inspired or generated by liberals who were not satisfied to merely conform to the way things were, but questioned and stepped out into new directions.

It's a conservative spirit that answers "That's the way we've always done it", when someone asks why and wonders why it couldn't be done differently. It's most often a conservative who believes there is one "right" way of doing things that everyone should adhere to.

But of course, Boortz wasn't actually speaking of individuality, per se. He was speaking of a person's focus in what they put first in their lives, as his next words indicated. He jeered at liberals for being concerned with the well being of groups of people, rather than being concerned mainly for themselves. To him, "individuality" doesn't mean having a unique personality, lifestyle, or outlook, but rather, in simply being primarily out for oneself, rather than being concerned with the well being of communities and different groups of people.

Thoughts?

-------
If anyone is at all interested, today is my sixth anniversary as a blogger.

Thoughts on Conservative Reactions to Health Care Bill

2010-03-26T13:55:00.004-04:00

I was listening to the Dennis Miller radio show the other night and he was wringing his hands over the passage of the health care bill. He was of the opinion that this was a sign that the US would be going the way of the Roman Empire and would essentially be the end of civilization as we know it.

I admit to being completely puzzled by this attitude -- is allowing countless numbers of people to die in one of the richest nations on Earth simply because of a lack of funds to get adequate health care the mark of a civilized society? Is valuing money over people's very lives the mark of an enlightened and advanced society? I think not.

Miller went on to say that he believed guaranteed health care for all citizens was a bad thing because it would make people "lose their motivation to 'hustle'".

Again, I don't understand this reasoning. For one thing, all citizens deserve access to adequate health care simply because they are human beings, not because they work to "earn" it. Secondly, access to medical care is one of the basic tools that allows people to work hard in whatever endeavors they choose. It's hard to work up the motivation to "hustle" when you're sick and exhausted. Thirdly, having one's basic survival needs guaranteed will not kill people's desires to achieve and get ahead in life; as long as there are cars, electronic gadgets, luxury homes, season tickets to ball games, and so on to work for, people will be motivated to work. And for some lucky people in meaningful, creative jobs, work is its own reward well beyond the financial remuneration.

Another right-winger, Neal Boortz, said that he thought it was "too bad" for people who did not have health insurance, especially those who were denied because of pre-existing conditions, but that it wasn't his problem and that he considered having to pay taxes to help such people to be "stealing" his money. He also think it's an insurance company's right to deny such people as they don't make money off such people. Obviously, the making of money is the most important concern to him. I don't know how the man sleeps at night, knowing that people are needlessly dying, but that's not how I was raised.

Boortz not only is against the current health care reform; he also thinks that the current system is too lenient. He believes that all preventive and routine care, including pre-natal care, should not be covered by insurance; that it should be reserved only for catastrophic care. He has stated that those people who cannot afford to pay for pre-natal care out of their own pockets shouldn't be having children, anyway.

Never mind that access to preventive care is cheaper in the long run, as it often helps to prevent more serious and expensive problems down the line.

The new health care bill isn't perfect; far from it. But it's a start in the right direction.

Thoughts?

The Right to Adultery

2010-03-23T17:04:00.000-04:00

In an opinion piece, columnist and president of the National Organization for Marriage Maggie Gallagher questions whether Americans should have the "right to adultery".

Going against the commonly held opinion of many in the legal community, Gallagher takes a dim view of tolerating marital infidelity.

Citing that "adultery involves twin offenses: (1) the violation by a married person of his or her vows; and (2) a third party's decision to invade another person's marriage, to seek their own personal satisfaction at the expense of the unknowing and unconsenting spouse", she is especially intolerant of using this common phenomenon as "a pathway to commercial success, " citing websites that help straying spouses to find sex partners, Rielle Hunter capitalizing on her status as "the other woman", and prostitute Ashley Dupre making money as a sex columnist on the New York Post. Gallagher states that she would like to see commercially soliciting for adultery be legally classified the same way as soliciting for prostitution.

Waving aside the truth that one cannot legislate morality, she believes that we need to "come up with a way to encourage a little common decency."

Gallagher insists that she doesn't want to persecute "every man or woman who has sinned," but rather that "people who commit this moral trespass to have the decency not to attempt to profit from it in the national media".

OK, where to begin?

First of all, the right for any adult to have sovereignty over their own bodies; the free choice to engage in any sort of sexual behavior they see fit, provided that their partner(s) are consenting adults, should be beyond question. Even when people have willingly agreed to restrict some of that freedom when entering a monogamous marriage, any departures from this agreement should be an entirely private matter between those involved and not something for the government to meddle in. The injured party should retain the right to sue for breach of contract as a practical matter, but the government has no business meddling in the private affairs of adults as a moral matter. Better yet, the government should drop sexual exclusivity as a necessary component of a legal marriage

Secondly, notions of what is moral and decent are highly subjective matters. Who gets to decide what is moral or decent and what should such ideas be based on? Gallagher openly states that adultery is a "sin", which is a purely religious idea and should have absolutely no place whatsoever in secular law that governs the actions of all citizens of all religions and of no religion.

My suggestion to Gallagher and others like her who are offended by those making money off of adultery would be to vote with their wallets and their feet. Don't patronize businesses that match married people with new sex partners, don't tune into TV shows or read magazine articles that feature Rielle Hunter, don't read newspaper columns by prostitutes, and so on. But don't restrict the freedom of others to do so, either.

Thoughts?

Study Claims That Liberalism, Atheism, and Sexual Exclusivity in Men Correlate With Higher IQs

2010-03-01T22:23:00.000-05:00

A new study, which will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly, has claimed that higher IQs, on average, are correlated with liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity in men (but not in women!).

I buy the first two correlations, as I'm liberal and agnostic bordering on atheist, but I strongly beg to differ on the last correlation. I have never been sexually exclusive with anyone in the 30+ years I've been sexually active, yet I had the highest IQ in my high school graduating class (140). I know this because the guidance counselor made a point of telling me so shortly before I graduated.

The reasoning given was that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past.

Sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates, which helped the human species survive

George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart."

I see several things wrong with the inclusion of sexual exclusivity as a factor involved in higher intelligence. First of all, sexual activity and reproduction are no longer inextricably linked; thus promiscuity no longer necessarily means that a man will sire large amounts of children. Secondly, no libertine worth his salt, myself included, sleeps with a large variety of women with the desire to "spread our genes around." I've had hundreds of partners in my lifetime, yet I've managed to sire only one child.

Considering that every male celebrity who strays from his marriage now garners widespread societal disapproval and extensive publicity, I'd hardly say that sexual exclusivity is no longer an "unconventional" idea for men. Sexual exclusivity for both sexes has been one of our society's most sacred of cows for quite some time now, regardless of human nature.

Indeed, to be openly and unashamedly non-monogamous is now an unconventional philosophy in our current society.

And in light of the fact that it was religion that imposed monogamy on society in the first place and a large part of being religious today is to accept and adhere to the idea of sexual exclusivity with a single mate, it would seem as if intentionally non-monogamous lifestyles would be more accepted among liberals and atheists.

An interesting study to be sure, but one with a lot of holes in it.

Thoughts?

Why I Hate "Live" Albums

2010-03-01T02:25:00.000-05:00

Over the years, when buying recorded music: LP albums, and later, CDs, I've always avoided buying "Live" albums. That is, music recorded live at a concert. There are several reasons why I hate "Live" albums in general, though there are a few exceptions:

1. The songs are generally rushed, as the musicians desire to cram in as many songs during a concert as possible.

2. The songs are often stripped down as well as being rushed: fewer instruments, simpler arrangements, etc.

3. Live albums are always marred by the sound of morons in the audience who feel they must accompany the musicians by emitting frequent and lengthy high-pitched whistles. I prefer to hear my favorite musicians unaccompanied by the sound of "FWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!" every few seconds, tyvm.

I can only think of one live album that I like and that is Eric Clapton's "Just One Night", recorded at Tokyo's Budokan Theatre in December, 1979, which happens to be my favorite Clapton album.

Thoughts?

Rolling My Eyes at Tiger Woods' Apology

2010-02-19T15:16:00.000-05:00

So, Tiger Woods has made a public apology for committing adultery. Pardon me while I allow my eyes toi roll back into my head.

Woods owes no one any apologies for his private behavior except for his wife. His lack of adherence to his marriage vows is an entirely private and personal matter, not a professional one. He is a professional golfer and I can't imagine that upholding monogamy was part of his job description.

And he did not break the law; he merely violated a societal sacred cow. Indeed, I don't see real criminals, such as the Enron bunch, making public apologies to their stockholders and the general public, so why should Woods apologize to all and sundry for his infidelity. It's not as if he is married to the whole world.

And Woods mentioned getting "treatment", presumably for "sexual addiction". Give me a f'in break! Non-monogamy is not a mental disorder and I firmly believe that the notion of "sexual addiction" is a very flimsy category, based more on social mores, than science. We must remember that homosexuality was likewise considered to be a mental disorder until as recently as 1973.

"Sex addiction is one of those pop psychology diagnoses that has scant scientific support," Scott Lilienfeld, Associate Professor of Psychology at Emory UniversityLiveScience. and co-author of "50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology," told

Dr. Marty Klein, a Licensed Marriage & Family Counselor and Sex Therapist, believes that the notion of "sex addiction" is "a set of moral beliefs disguised as science" that assumes sex is dangerous. The examples he gave are: that sex should be within the context of a committed and monogamous heterosexual relationship, that masturbation should be confined to once a day, and that having sex to escape problems is unhealthy.

He pointed out that sex addiction has also been used as a political justification for censorship, eliminating sex education and birth control clinics and opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Tiger Woods' problem is his lack of honesty and failing to do as he promised to his wife, not his sexual behavior, per se. But in either instance, it's a private matter between the two of them and not any business of the public.

Thoughts?

Petty Distractions

2010-02-11T13:20:00.003-05:00

Recently, people have been making fun of Sarah Palin for writing crib notes on her palm. I even heard of someone referring to what she did as a "Redneck Teleprompter". I have to roll my eyes at this, thinking it a ridiculous thing to criticize someone about.

Don't get me wrong; I am most assuredly no fan of Sarah Palin and would never consider voting for this woman.

But fair is fair, even for Sarah Palin. Who among us hasn't written down a phone number, directions, or something else on our hands one time or another? What's it to anyone else if she wanted to do this to help her remember?

There's no need to stoop so low to criticize her about such petty things, as there are many more glaring faults that we should be calling attention to in these years before the 2012 Republican nominations for president. To concentrate on such insignificant matters distracts us from what really matters and only ends up making us look petty.

Thoughts?

Boortz on Ad Hominems

2010-02-08T21:26:00.001-05:00

Thought I know it's not good for my blood pressure, I continue to listen to right-wing talk show host Neal Boortz, as part of my campaign of monitoring what the other side thinks.

Recently, he talked about a tasteless comment made by Keith Olbermann about Michelle Malkin, who called her a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." While I heartily dislike Malkin, I agree with Boortz that this was an uncalled-for ad hominem.

That being said, however, it's no worse than the ad hominems spewed every day by many of his right-wing colleagues.

I have no problems with Boortz pointing out this inappropriate comment. That's his opinion and he has every right to express it.

But what he said to a caller about this incident nearly made me choke, with both laughter and disbelief. He asserted to the caller that liberals (and liberals only) resort to ad hominems because they have no reasoned arguments to make and because liberals supposedly argue out of irrational emotion and not logic.

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me?

Does he think his listeners are stupid and/or have no memories or is he that self-deluded about his own behavior and that of his right wing cohorts?

This assertion is coming from a man who has referred to Hillary Clinton as as "evil" woman who "hates marriage and children" and "makes a mockery out of the institution of marriage". (Boortz has been divorced himself). His personal nickname for her is "the Hildebeast".

He once opined that former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) "looked like a ghetto slut". Referring to her hairstyle, he said, "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory," like "Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence," and like "a shih tzu."

In reference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he said, "When these Katrina so-called refugees were scattered about the country, it was just a glorified episode of putting out the garbage" and "I love talking to you about these Katrina refugees. I mean, so many of them have turned out to be complete bums, just debris." Boortz also described New Orleans as "a city of parasites, a city of people who could not and had no desire to fend for themselves."

He commonly refers to all fat people as "lardasses". He recently asserted that single mothers are "the biggest danger to America today" and refers to welfare mothers as "brood mares." I've heard him refer to southerners who have thick, country accents as "blithering idiots" and he's called those who work only 40 hours a week and/or live in a mobile home as "losers"

I could go on, but I think you get the picture..

Does any of this sound like rational, helpful debate to you? I didn't think so.

Mark Sanford: A Promise Not Made

2010-02-06T14:16:00.001-05:00

Yesterday,Jenny Sanford's tell-all memoir was published. Sanford is the soon-to-be former wife of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who was recently outed as having gone AWOL from his post to visit his Argentinian mistress.

In the book she revealed that Mark Sanford did not vow to be faithful to her at their wedding. ABC reported:

Sanford recalls how she made the "leap of faith" to marry husband Gov. Mark Sanford even though the groom refused to promise to be faithful, insisting that the clause be removed from their wedding vows.

"It bothered me to some extent, but ... we were very young, we were in love ... I questioned it, but I got past it ... along with other doubts that I had."

This means that Sanford made it quite clear right up front that he either could not or would not be sexually exclusive with her, giving her the chance to back out of the wedding. Instead, she went ahead and married him, anyway.

It seems to me that she has little to complain about, considering he made his intentions quite clear years ago. It's not his fault that she didn't take him at his word. He would not promise to be faithful to her, so I don't see why she's so surprised now.

As a South Carolina resident, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not the man was monogamous. Rather, I'm more concerned that he went AWOL from his job for a week, leaving the country without letting anyone know where he was going, and not leaving anyone to "mind the store", so to speak.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the John Edwards Fiasco

2010-01-31T01:15:00.000-05:00

When I first heard of the John Edwards affair, my first instinct as a libertine was to yawn and tell people that his marriage was none of their business and that he wasn't running for the office of upholding monogamy.

But as the months have passed, I find myself more disgusted with Edwards' behavior with every new report from the media. I still don't care that he strayed from his marriage or even that he sired an extramarital child, which is entirely besides the point of my opinion.

Rather, my disgust stems from how he's handled -- or not handled -- this affair. Instead of owning up to what he'd done -- or simply telling the press that his private life was none of their business -- he first denied that he'd had an affair with the woman in question. Then he later recanted and admitted he'd slept with her. But when she had a baby girl, he denied he was the father, pushing it off on one of his campaign aides. More recently, he's finally admitted that the baby is his. And now it's come to light that sex tapes exist of him and the "other woman".

Can we give the man an award for insensitivity and general dumbassery? Having an affair and siring a child outside one's marriage happens and while it's a political liability in our society, it's hardly a unique thing. And while the timing of the affair was particularly insensitive, considering his wife's illness, he's made it all the much worse with his unwillingness to admit to the truth. He's further humiliated his wife, while at the same time left a public record of repudiating an innocent little girl who will one day grow up to know that her father valued his political career more than he did her.

It doesn't really matter that he strayed or why, as there are dozens of reasons why people do so. But if he was going to get some on the side, he should have used his brain and done it properly. First of all, Edwards in his in fifties and the woman in question in her forties. Had neither of them ever heard of birth control? Granted, he might have thought her past the age of conceiving, but he shouldn't have taken any chances.

And for fuck's sake, what kind of a moron makes sex tapes proving the adultery to all and sundry? It's shit like this that makes me question his power of judgment in other matters as well.

Edwards would have done much better to handle this as David Letterman handled being outed as straying from his marriage, instead of turning himself into a Jerry Springer sideshow.

Thoughts?

Odd Associations

2010-01-27T14:53:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I make the oddest associations between two completely unrelated phenomena. What follows below is one such example.

I use Firefox as my browser, combined with slow-ass dialup. Frequently, after I've clicked on a page, the taskbar at the lower left corner will inform me that the loading is "done", when it is most certainly not "done". I'll see "done" when I'm looking at a half loaded page, a blank white page, or a blank green page; you name it.

When I click on "refresh" to get it to load again, I often end up with the same results, but the taskbar still stubbornly insists that it is "done".

One time when this happened, I was suddenly reminded of an old MASH episode. Hawkeye and his tentmates had gotten a Korean woman to come clean up the place. She didn't do a very good job of it, but she came up to Hawkeye for her payment and did kind of a curtsey and said, "Finish!!" in her broken English. Hawkeye looked around at the still messy tent and pointed out the things that she'd neglected to do. The Korean woman gave him an obdurate expression, then did her strange little curtsey and emphatically said, "Finish!!" again. Hawkeye gave up, knowing he'd not get her to do it properly, he simply paid her to get rid of her.

So, now, every time I get "done" on my taskbar with a page not properly loaded and hitting "refresh" doesn't fix it, I picture that Korean woman in my head emphatically saying "Finish!!"

What kind of odd associations do you have?

Extra points to anyone who remembers that episode and can tell me the name of it.

Conservatives and "Big Government"

2010-01-21T10:50:00.000-05:00

I often hear conservatives banging on about the evils of big government; that they believe a small government is a better government, blah, blah, blah. Most recently, many conservatives have stated that they're against health care reform because of their belief that government would do an inefficient job of it.

But it seems they have no problem with the government meddling in the private lives of consenting adults by regulating who may and may not get married. There are no calls for privatization in this arena or hand wringing about the inefficiency of big government here.

It seems that conservatives are happy with government involvement when it serves their agenda. To them, "big government" is only "evil" when it pertains to matters they don't support.

And as far as health care goes, the more honest conservatives won't talk about the supposed inefficiency of government; they'll tell you they don't want their tax dollars going to help "those people".

Just saying...

Polyandry: The Obvious Solution to China's Sex-Ratio Imbalance

2010-01-18T23:40:00.000-05:00

In a recent report from Chinese state media, it was announced that 24 million "surplus" Chinese men of marriageable age will likely have trouble finding wives by 2020. The study specifically blamed sex-specific abortion as a major culprit. The study identified this gender imbalance as China's most serious demographic problem.

"Sex-specific abortions remained extremely commonplace, especially in rural areas," where the cultural preference for boys over girls is strongest, the study said,

Researcher Wang Guangzhou indicated that the skewed birth ratio could lead to difficulties in finding a spouse especially for lower income men and that it was likely there would be a widening age gap between spouses. Such low income men would face a scenario of marrying later in life or not finding a wife at all.

"The chance of getting married will be rare if a man is more than 40 years old in the countryside. They will be more dependent on social security as they age and have fewer household resources to rely on," Researcher Wang Yuesheng said.

Another contributing factor to this phenomenon is the country's family planning policies, which limits most couples, with a few exceptions, to only one child. An inadequate social security system also contributes to the already strong cultural preference for male children, as it is believed that men would better be able to financially care for parents in their later years.

The report also stated that the incidence of abductions and trafficking women are becoming serious problems in areas with the highest humbers of excess men.

In normal circumstances in China, there is a slight imbalance in the sex ratio, with about 105 to 107 males born to every 100 females. In 2005, the ratio had widened to 119 males to 100 females, with some areas as high as 130 males to 100 females.

The study recommended that the government relax the one child policy and to encourage "cross-country" marriages.

While I agree that these steps will help the generation after the one currently coming into adulthood, it doesn't help those who will be coming of age within the next ten to fifteen years. A more immediate solution is needed to help these men now.

It's an obvious solution, but it occurs to few people because it violates one of the biggest societal sacred cows.

In a word, the obvious solution is polyandry, which is a form of polygamy that allows one woman to have multiple husbands. If China allowed legal polyandry to exist alongside monogamy, then none of the projected 24 million surplus males would have to remain unwillingly single.

Many people both in Western countries and in China would object to this solution for "moral" reasons. But is this a valid reason?

Looked at objectively, monogamy is no more inherently moral than either form of polygamy. Instead, these three types of marriage are at their base, simply different types of reproductive strategies, each suited for different societal needs..

Polygyny, one man with multiple wives, has often occurred throughout history where population growth was desired and/or needed, such as in agricultural societies where many hands were needed to do the necessary work, and where women outnumbered men.

This is because polygyny is a much more efficient system than monogamy if the goal is to produce large amounts of children. One woman can produce only so many children regardless of the form her marriage takes, but one man can easily sire hundreds of children with multiple women.

Polyandry, one woman with multiple husbands, is suited well for societies where population growth needs to be halted and where men outnumber women. Polyandry limits population growth, as several men are sharing the limited reproductive capacities of one woman. Thus, polyandry is a reproductive strategy that would be ideally suited for today's China, as China both desires to curb its rampant overpopulation and to give its 24 million surplus males a chance of marrying that would not be possible in a monogamy-only society.

But I doubt China will seriously consider this practical solution, even as a short term strategy, because that is the nature of sacred cows, People tend to cling to them, even when doing so is impractical and is maladaptive for a society's current needs.

Thoughts?

A History of Lunacy

2010-01-16T14:49:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson's latest moronic comments about the earthquake in Haiti are just the latest in a history of moronic comments. I'm quite convinced that the man isn't entirely sane and that his lunacy is of a similar nature as what afflicts the anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps.

What follows is a list of Robertson's previous idiocy:

In light of Pat Robertson's most recent outbreak of foot in mouth disease in reference to the school board elections in Dover, PA, here is a small sampling of other moronic things he's said over the years. Makes me wonder why he's running around loose, let alone hosting a TV show.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
–Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

"Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' and 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping."
–Pat Robertson, clarifying his call to assassinate Hugo Chavez

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up"
–Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department

"That was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution! Such language only appeared in the constitution of the Communist Soviet Union."
–Pat Robertson, on the constitutional separation of church and state

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
–Pat Robertson

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
–Pat Robertson

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
–Pat Robertson, on "gay days" at Disneyworld

"Well, I totally concur."
–Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks, after Falwell said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
–Pat Robertson

"Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court."
–Pat Robertson

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
–Pat Robertson, on the dangers of judicial activism

Sarah Palin: Part of the Dumbing Down of America

2010-01-14T22:15:00.000-05:00

I think the rise of Sarah Palin is one of the manifestations of the dumbing down of America. I didn't think it was possible to find a politician on the national stage less intelligent than George Bush. But we have.

It used to be that Americans expected their presidents to be intellectuals; to be of superior intelligence and to have a healthy dose of common sense.

But it seems that many people are not only not bothered by Palin's lack of intellectual credentials, but see her lack as a good thing.

I was listening to the Dennis Miller show on the radio tonight and he made a comment: "Do I think she could win on Jeopardy? No. Do I think she could win the Presidency? Yes."

And Miller was in no way appalled by this, but has stated many times that he thinks she could make a good president.

Unfortunately, we have all too many people in this country who share this misguided opinion. I'm hoping , however, that she will use her new post at Fox News as a way to dig herself into a deep enough hole that more people will become disenchanted with her, rather than fascinated.

I'm not holding my breath, however.

Candidate For 2011 Banned Words List

2010-01-09T13:33:00.000-05:00

I was listening to the radio today and an advertisement came on that used the phrase "we've got your back" several times. This phrase means "we're behind you", "we support you", "we stand behind you." Whenever I hear this phrase, I can't help but wonder how I'd manage to walk if someone else managed to "have my back".

As I heard this, I couldn't help but think that this obnoxious phrase should have been on this year's list of banned words. I think I'll submit it for next year's list.

An Observation

2010-01-04T13:21:00.000-05:00

While out driving today, I tuned into yet another conservative talk radio show (there aren't any other kind in my listening area, unfortunately). The host was ranting and raving about Janet Napolitano, whom he sneeringly called "Janet From Another Planet", saying that she is unfit to be Secretary of Homeland Security, because of the Christmas Day "crotch bomber" incident. The host based this opinion on the question of how the hapless terrorist was able to board the plane.

Now, I can't say how good of a job Napolitano is doing in her post, as I've not really kept up with what she's been doing since being appointed to that position.

That being said, I think it's ludicrous to blame her for the terrorist getting on board that plane in the first place and being present when it took off. This is because he boarded in Amsterdam, which was, the last time I checked, not a part of the United States, but, rather, a part of the Netherlands, over which the US Department of Homeland Security has no jurisdiction.

Just saying...

2010 :List of Banished Words

2010-01-01T14:48:00.000-05:00

Lake Superior State University has released its annual list of "banished words"; words they consider trite, overused, annoying, or a combination of all three. Following below is the list, with my comments in italics:

SHOVEL-READY

"Apparently, the generally accepted definition of this phrase is to imply that a project has been completely designed and all that is left to do is to implement it...however, when something dies, it, too, is shovel-ready for burial and so I get confused about the meaning. I would suggest that we just say the project is ready to implement.” – Jerry Redington, Keosauqua, Iowa.

"Stick a shovel in it. It's done." – Joe Grimm, Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

I'd like to take a shovel upside the head of the person who coined this obnoxious phrase.

TRANSPARENT/TRANSPARENCY

"In the lexicon of the political arena, this word is supposed to mean obvious or easily understood. In reality, political transparency is more invisible than obvious!" -- Deb Larson, Bellaire, Mich.

Someone throw a blanket over "transparent".

CZAR

Long used by the media as a metaphor for positions of high authority, including “baseball czar” Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, appointed by team owners as commissioner-for-life in 1919. U.S. president Woodrow Wilson had an “industry czar” during World War I. Lesser-known “czar” roles in government during the last 100 years include: censorship, housing and oil czars in 1941; rubber czar in 1942; patronage czar (1945); clean-up (1952); missile (1954); inflation (1971); e-commerce (1998); bioethics, faith-based and reading czars (2001); bird flu (2004); democracy (2005); abstinence and birth control czars (2006); and weatherization czar (2008).

I thought the Russians took care of "czars" in 1917.

TWEET

And all of its variations…tweetaholic, retweet, twitterhea, twitterature, twittersphere….

Jay Brazier of Williamston, Mich. says she supposes that tweeters might be "twits."

Personally, I'd go for "twats", myself.

APP

"Must we b sbjct to yt another abrv? Why does the English language have to fit on a two-inch screen? I hate the sound of it. I think I'll listen to a symph on the rad." -- Edward R. Bolt, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Put "cr" in front of "app" and you get crapp!

SEXTING

Sending sexually explicit pictures and text messages through the cell phone.

"Any dangerous new trend that also happens to have a clever mash-up of words, involves teens, and gets television talk show hosts interested must be banished." – Ishmael Daro, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada.

A "word" spoken by those who aren't getting the real thing.

FRIEND AS A VERB

Came into popularity through social networking websites. You add someone to your network by "friending" them, or remove them by "unfriending" them.

"'Befriend' is much more pleasant to the human ear and a perfectly useful word in the dictionary." – Kevin K., Morris, Okla.

I pretty much hate any noun that is made into a verb and vice versa.

TEACHABLE MOMENT

What might otherwise be known as 'a lesson.'

"It's a condescending substitute for 'opportunity to make a point,'" says Eric Rosenquist of College Station, Tex.

So, portions of time are now capable of being taught, hmm?

IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES….

"Overused and redundant. Aren't ALL times 'these economic times'?" -- Barb Stutesman, Three Rivers, Mich.

I think this stuffy phrase has outlived its fifteen minutes of overuse.

STIMULUS

"Everything in the news is about the stimulus packages...it is no longer a grant, it's stimulus money, stimulus checks, etc. I think it is just being over-used." Teri Heikkila, Rudyard, Mich.

I've got your "stimulus package" right here!

TOXIC ASSETS

"Whatever happened to simply 'bad stocks,' 'debts,' or 'loans'?" -- Monty Heidenreich, Homewood, Ill.

This list wouldn't be complete without an oxymoron.

TOO BIG TO FAIL

"Just for the record, nothing's too big to fail unless the government lets it." Claire Shefchik, Brooklyn, NY.

Tell this to the owners of the Titanic!.

BROMANCE

"I am sick of combined words the media creates to make them sound catchier. Frenemies? Bromances? Blogorrhea? I'm going to scream!" – Kaylynn, Alberta, Canada.

I've been lucky to have never heard this one before.

CHILLAXIN'

"Heard everywhere from MTV to ESPN to CNN. A bothersome term that seeks to combine chillin' with relaxin' makes me want to be 'axin' this word." – Tammy, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.

What? Does this mean to put an axe into the refrigerator?

OBAMA-prefix or roots?

The LSSU Word Banishment Committee held out hope that folks would want to Obama-ban Obama-structions, but were surprised that no one Obama-nominated any, such as these compiled by the Oxford Dictionary in 2009: Obamanomics, Obamanation, Obamafication, Obamacare, Obamalicious, Obamaland….We say Obamanough already.

Let's bomb all the Obama conages.

My personal contribution to this year's list would be:

FAIL used as a noun.

For example, a football team loses big in a game and it's dubbed "an epic fail". This one made me grind my teeth the first time I heard it. It may be an "epic failure", but it's NOT an "epic fail".

Good Riddance to 2009

2009-12-31T14:54:00.000-05:00

2009 hasn't been one of my better years. My finances have become increasingly tighter this year -- I'm nearly as broke now as I was in college -- and I remain underemployed in a state with a high unemployment rate. I've spent much of the year robbing Peter to pay Paul just to barely make minimum payments on my bills. My son also lost a good job this year, and he has yet to find permanent employment.

I ended an important relationship this year out of necessity, yet I still miss her to this day. Intellectually, I know it was for the best, but my body tells me differently.

I also lost one of my cats this year and I likewise mourn his loss.

On the plus side, I remain healthy, and no one has died in my family or among my friends this year. That's always something to celebrate.

I finally paid off my car loan, so that should help to ease my finances a bit in the new year.

Plus, my "social life" is still as active as ever which is, again, always a reason to celebrate.

But I can safely say I'll be glad to bid 2009 good riddance and I look forward to see what 2010 will have to offer. I offer no resolutions, as it's not in my nature to do so, except to say that I will be alert to whatever opportunities present themselves in the new year.

The Annoyance of Ubiquity

2009-12-27T23:50:00.000-05:00

While reading a message board the other day, I saw a thread about New Year's resolutions and rolled my eyes. My first thought was that nearly everyone would resolve to "lose weight" in 2010, as that particular resolution is typical and ubiquitous. There's absolutely no originality about it at all.

Sure enough, I was right. Every person who had posted on the thread put weight loss on their list. I seriously doubt that every person who posts on that large message board is in need of weight loss, hence my rolling of eyes. But no one ever wants to gain weight or just doesn't care one way (weigh?) or the other how much they weigh. No,everyone resolved to lose weight, even if they were underweight.

And what annoyed me most about this is not so much the desire to lose weight, but rather the ubiquity of this resolution and the total lack of originality in coming up with a list of resolutions, not to mention the ubiquity of New Years' resolutions themselves.

I got to thinking and I realized that it was ubiquity in general -- the ever-present, the predictable, and the typical -- that is at the heart of my annoyance. It connotes a lack of original or creative thinking and reeks of a lemming-like ordinariness. Thinking further, I thought of other examples of ubiquity that irritate me.

One example is the fact that nearly every rock band, without question, contains only two types of instruments: guitars and drums. Why do we not see wind instruments on a more regular basis? Why not pianos? There's nothing wrong with guitars and drums, per se, but the ubiquity of the guitar-and-drums-only bands annoys the crap out of me. I can't help but think of how much more opportunity for creative music is lost because most rock musicians just stick to the same ol' thing, instrument wise.

One petty example of ubiquity is that whenever you see a couple sharing a motorcycle, the woman is always the one on the back. What? Is this a freaking law or something? You think they'd want to switch up now and then for a little variety. A funny example of ubiquity is that whenever you are driving behind construction workers in a pickup, they always have a yellow plastic water dispenser with a red lid on top. Never any other colors.

Feel free to list other example of ubiquity in the comment box, particularly the kinds that irritate you..

Conservatives and Anti-Intellectualism

2009-12-22T17:38:00.000-05:00

This morning, I read an interesting blog post by Paula Reed. Her entry was based on a quote she'd received by email:

“The Left: People who demonize those with whom they disagree.”

My first thought was to think of how so many neocons today are masters at the art of projection: they take what is commonly done by neocons and turn it around saying it's really liberals doing it.

Personally attacking one's opponents, instead of coming up with reasoned rebuttals to their ideas is intellectually dishonest and is a symptom of the creeping anti-intellectualism in this country; an example of the dumbing-down of America. It's much easier to blame liberals for everything that's wrong in our world today, than to come up with ideas on how to fix these problems together.

Gone are the days of erudite conservatives, such as William Buckley. Also largely gone are those conservatives, such as Barry Goldwater, who was able to often put ideological differences aside and work in a bi-partisan manner with his Democratic colleagues (now, I bet that is a word you don't hear too much in Washington nowadays) for the good of the country.

Now, it's neocon pundits, such as Limbaugh, Savage, and Coulter, among many others, who have brought the black and white, simplistic tactic of using ad hominems against their opponents in from the far right fringes of the tinfoil hat brigade into mainstream conservative thought. Or what passes for thought. This is not to say that the left is entirely free of such nonsense -- there are liberals, such as Rosie O'Donnell, who could hardly be called intellectual. But those such as O'Donnell hardly have the reach or the influence tha those in the pantheon on the right wing do

I heard a prime example of this type of anti-intellectualism the other night while listening to the radio. A man called the Dennis Miller show to express why he rejected intelligent design. Miller didn't give him much of a chance to speak. Instead he cut him off to say that he couldn't get on board with Darwinism because he just couldn't get into the idea of "worshipping a pile of amino acids" and that he liked the idea of an intelligent being creating life on Earth.

My jaw dropped when I heard this nonsense. I could not believe that Miller, a former liberal and former cast member of Saturday Night Live -- in other words, someone who should know better -- was spouting off such simplistic ideas. There was once a time when being a conservative did not mean one also had to accept intellectually bankrupt, fundamentalist Christian beliefs as well.

Instead of the Buckley types being the mainstream of conservatism, we now have the Archie Bunkers of the world running the Republican party, which is a sad thing for old-school Republicans and the party in general.

Thoughts?

Four Year Old Suspended For Long Hair

2009-12-17T15:02:00.002-05:00

In recent news reports I read about a four year old pre-kindergarten Texas boy who has been suspended from school for having long hair. Say what? Is this 1959 or 2009? I thought that the right of male students to wear long hair had been settled years ago. Indeed, when I was in high school in the 70s, I wore long hair with nary a comment from the school, as did my son when he was in school in the late 80s into the 90s.

Taylor Pugh, who attends school in Mesquite, Texas, was given in-school suspension because school officials say that his hair, which long on the front and sides, covering his earlobes and shirt collar, violates the school district’s dress code policies. According to the district dress code, boys’ hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt.

On the website of the Mesquite Independent School District, it makes reference to its dress code by saying:

“students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live.”

Oh, really? The Mesquite school district apparently has no problem with female students who wear long hair and do not believe that long hair on girls is inherently messy or ungroomed, nor does it doom them to being future societal losers. But it would seem as if they believe that the same hair length on a male student automatically turn the same hair into a dirty mess, not to mention marking such boys as future bums or even criminals.

The school district’s rule about male hair length has nothing to do with hygiene or safety issues, as if it did, the same rules would apply to both boys and girls. Requiring neat and clean hair for all students is a reasonable rule — requiring short hair for one sex only is blatant sexism.

So far as hair length determining character and being a “constructive member of society” goes:

You’ll note the ribbon behind his head for his ponytail!

Though a bit thin on top, it’s long in the back!

I don’t think anyone would deny that George Washington or Ben Franklin were contributing members of society, long hair and all.

Likewise, short hair is not an inherent indicator of good character or potential to contribute positively to society:

I’m sure this style would be acceptable to Mesquite schools!

The point is, that male hair length is no reliable indicator of character or potential to contribute to society in a positive manner. Hair length is simply a matter of personal preference, thus is an invalid thing to regulate when forming dress codes.

I’m not saying that dress codes in and of themselves are invalid, but they must be based on common-sense criteria that is applied equally to everyone and ideally be based on matters of safety and actual hygiene, rather than on matters of fashion.

In 1996, Bill Clinton made the following comment about school uniforms:

“I challenge all our schools to teach character education, to teach good values and good citizenship. And if it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.”

While I don’t necessarily agree that clothing styles are necessarily linked to character, I do agree that rules pertaining to clothing are valid for employers especially and also for schools to a lesser degree. The reason I make the distinction between required/banned clothing and that of hair styles is that clothing is something that can be changed at the end of the day when the person is no longer at school/work. It’s not a permanent change, as people can wear what they prefer on their own time. And nowadays, rules about clothing are generally applied equally to both men and women, considering that women are now able to wear pants.

But hair length is a different matter. It’s a 24 hour a day thing. A male who prefers long hair can’t grow it back at the end of the day after school or work.

In conclusion, schools should have a single standard about students’ hair that applies to both boys and girls: that is be clean and neat, with no reference to length.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the Tiger Woods Brouhaha

2009-12-14T01:10:00.000-05:00

I've not so far written about the Tiger Woods story because I viewed it as yet another story about a straying celebrity and that it would quickly become yesterday's news. Reports such as these are now rather commonplace and are hardly worth reporting on, let alone commenting on.

But this story outlived its fifteen minutes a long time ago and, personally, I'm getting tired of hearing about it. I don't see what all the shock and fascination is with this story. It's not as if he's the first, nor will he be the last celebrity (or non-celebrity, for that matter) to fall off the monogamy wagon.

I also don't see why Woods is off the golf tour. I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. The state of his marriage should be a private matter between him and his wife and it in no way impedes his ability to play golf. It's not as if being monogamous would make him a better golf player.

And it's not as if he beat his wife and had done something criminal. Indeed, if anything, the shoe is on the other foot in this instance. It seems the only reason he had an accident was because his wife bashed in the back window of his SUV, thus distracting him, as he tried to drive away.

I've read comments from people cheering her on for this; taking the opinion that he got what he deserved for his infidelity. The sexism of such statements boggles my mind, as I'm quite certain there would be no cheering if their roles were reversed in this drama. People would be calling to have him locked up and the key thrown away if it had been him bashing a window in with a golf club while she drove away. It seems when it comes to domestic violence and infidelity, the double standard is alive and well.

Other people are shocked, asking how could he do such a thing. Again, with the ubiquity of stories about celebrity infidelity and its corresponding prevalence in the lives of ordinary people as well, I think that people are asking the wrong questions. They take the view that people are failing marriage, but in reality, it would seem that our idea of what marriage should be is failing people.

Instead of asking why so many people are unfaithful, we need to be asking such questions as, why are all marriages expected to be monogamous, why was monogamy originally instituted in the first place, are the original reasons for monogamy still relevant in our society today, what is the exact nature of "fidelity" -- is it summed up by sexual exclusivity or can it refer to other aspects of a marriage and, if so, must sexual exclusivity always be a part of it. and so on.

Perhaps we need to be re-examining and re-evaluating the structure of marriage and the purpose it serves in our society and be willing to make some changes, instead of trying harder to cram people down into the same old, ill-fitting boxes.

Thoughts?

The Christmas Tornado!

2009-12-06T01:11:00.000-05:00

While listening to the radio tonight, the disk jockey was talking about a funny website: Ugly Christmas Trees.com. I went over there and the above picture was the first thing I saw. It's supposed to be an upside down Christmas Tree, but my first thought was, "It's the Christmas Tornado!"

I'm sure this one will be popular in trailer parks everywhere...

Some Thoughts on Bigamy

2009-12-03T22:31:00.000-05:00

Reading the webpage of one of my local TV stations, I came upon a story about a man who had been arrested for bigamy. He'd married his first wife in 2005, and had married a second woman this past October.

Neither wife had been the wiser until the first wife intercepted a text message for their husband from the second wife. After texting back to the second wife and determining who she was, the first wife called the police to report him for bigamy.

After an investigation, police arrested him and charged him with bigamy. The man is now out on bond awaiting trial.

Arresting someone for bigamy boggles my mind. First of all, I don't think the government has any business meddling in the private relationships of consenting adults, except for cases of domestic violence. If it were up to me, I'd abolish marriage as a legal category altogether.

Knowing that this isn't likely to happen any time soon, I think that as long as legal marriage exists, it should not be limited to monogamous couples.

That being said, with the law as it stands now, bigamy should not be a criminal offense. At the most, it should be a civil matter. In fact, I'd thought it was something that had been decriminalized -- that when discovered, the second marriage would merely be annulled and the offender given a fine.

The police have much more important things to do than being in the business of enforcing monogamy. They should not be involved in the personal relationships of private citizens if there is an absence of domestic violence. In my opinion, the first wife should have handled the situation herself, perhaps by contacting a divorce lawyer, rather than calling the police and keeping them from doing more important things. Sue the guy for breach of contract or some such thing, but don't put him in jail.

Thoughts?

More Thoughts on Religion

2009-12-01T23:20:00.000-05:00

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell

While trying to come up with something to write about today, I visited a quote site where I found the quote above. The first thing that popped into my mind was that of religion. Wars have been fought over differences of opinion about religion and evangelicals of different faiths, particularly Christianity, attempt to convert others to their faith, believing that uniformity of belief to be a worthy goal to strive for. Not merely content to share their beliefs with those who ask, some attempt to enforce their beliefs by changing laws to conform to such beliefs, while more extreme members of various religions will use literal force to impose their beliefs on others in what they believe is service to their faith.

In contrast, I read an entry on Wilford Tibbetts' blog today about the Amish. Unlike many religious people, whose faith is largely a matter of securing their ticket to heaven, for the Amish, their faith isn't merely a belief, it's a lifestyle. The Amish do not proselytize or spend a lot of time talking about their faith; they quietly live it, while content to allow their neighbors to live according to whatever beliefs they have. They are content to coexist peacefully with their neighbors with different beliefs and lifestyles and have no desire to impose their beliefs on others.

It's too bad that more religious people don't follow the example of the Amish.

Three Types of Religious Skeptics

2009-11-25T11:24:00.000-05:00

I've often considered what attracts different people to religion and what purposes religion has served in society. Recently, I've been thinking of the converse: what makes people reject religion and the different reasons why people are either atheists or agnostics.

I think there are several reasons, often depending on each particular person's personality and outlook on life. A few types immediately came to mind:

First, are the scientific types, who reject religion because there is no proof as to its claims, because it defies reason and logic.

Second, are the "pull yourself up by your own boostraps" types, who view religion as a crutch and a haven for the weak who refuse to stand on their own two feet.

Third, are the hedonists and non-conformists who view religion as a series of lists with arbitrary and outmoded rules about moral behavior that are negative in nature. To them, religion can be summed up as "Don't Do This" and see religion as a way to suck all the joy out of life.

These are the three types that most readily come to mind. Personally, as an agnostic, I'm a mixture of reasons one and three. I'm not so much the second reason, because I have no problem with whatever gets people through the night, as it doesn't affect my freedom to do differently.

Feel free to chime in with more types of skeptics and unbelievers.

Tacky Tramp Stamps

2009-11-21T12:49:00.000-05:00

Can you imagine this bimbo explaining this one to her grandchildren forty years from now? That is, if she can get laid to bear any children in the first place!

Another “classy” tattoo

Bible verses and tramp stamps — the perfect combo!

This last one isn’t a tramp stamp, but I’m guessing the owner of these tattoos has absolutely no desire to ever get laid again:

Largest Cruise Ship in the World

2009-11-14T13:16:00.000-05:00

The ship pictured above is the Oasis of the Seas, which is currently the largest cruise ship in the world.

Ship statistics:

Length: 1,191 feet (compared to 882 1/2 feet for the Titanic)

Tonnage: 225, 282 GT (compared to 46, 329 for the Titanic)

Beam: 154 feet

Height: 236 feet above waterline

Draft: 31 feet

Depth: 74 feet

Decks: 16 passenger decks

Speed: 22.6 knots (Interestingly enough, the Titanic could easily do this speed as well)

Capacity: 6,296 passengers

Crew: 2,165

Despite the ship’s impressive stats, I have to say that this has to be one of the ugliest ships I’ve ever seen. It’s top heavy, sterile, and blocky looking. It looks more like a floating apartment building than it does a ship.

Lazy Helicopter Parents

2009-11-04T09:55:00.001-05:00

While out driving on Halloween the other night, I drove through a neighborhood in full trick or treat mode. Though a minority of older kids walked from house to house, most kids were driven by their parents to each house, getting in and out of the vehicle (mostly ubiquitous minivans) ever 25 feet or so.

This meant that the road was clogged with pausing and slow moving vehicles, which made it very difficult for through traffic to drive down the street. It also made it more dangerous for drivers like me because it made it harder to see kids on foot, and made it more dangerous for the kids, as it made it harder for them to see through traffic, and because of the unpredictable movements of the minivan parade.

I don't know why the parents of small children just didn't park their vehicles and get off their lazy asses and walk with their kids to each house. And the parents of older children should have been home giving out candy and let those kids travel in groups to trick or treat on their own. It seems to me that if you're ten or eleven, having to spend the night getting in and out of a car with your parents there the whole time would suck all the joy right out of Halloween.

Halloween is totally different now for kids than it was when I was a kid trick or treating back in the sixties and early seventies. For one thing, only the smallest children had parents going with them to trick or treat, and even then the parents walked with their kids, they didn't drive them from house to house. And from about the second grade onwards (age 8), kids trick or treated on their own in groups in their own neighborhoods and the parents stayed home to hand out candy to other kids.

I lived in a huge subdivision where nearly every house participated. My mother would give me a king size pillow case and I'd fill that up, then return to get another one to fill. Trick or treating typically began at dusk, and continued for a few hours.

It was a lot more fun for us than it is for kids nowadays and I kind of feel sorry for kids now because they won't experience Halloween like most Baby Boom era kids did.

Religion Salesman

2009-11-03T14:36:00.000-05:00

It seems as if I have a homing device to attract the religious of all stripes. I don't know what it is; perhaps it's my air of disrepute that attracts them like moths to a flame.

Recently, they hired a new guy at my place of employment, a squeaky-clean, straight arrow kind of person. I didn't have a problem with him until he started peddling his religion on me. He'd heard that I liked music and had some formal musical training, so he used that as a way to start preaching to me. Starting out innocently enough, he told me that he was the "praise leader" at his church, in charge of providing the music for their services, blah, blah, blah.

After a few moments of this, he got to his point of the entire conversation -- he wanted to know where I went to church. All the fundies do this, as they believe it's their duty to sell their religion to one and all.

Not really caring to discuss my opinion about religion with him, I simply told him that I didn't go, hoping to leave it at that.

No such luck.

He invited me to attend his church, telling me that I could be an asset to their "praise team" with my musical training.

I nearly choked and laughed myself to death all at the same time. Hell, talk about barking up the wrong tree! I'd probably burst into flames if I ever set foot into his smarmy, fundamentalist church.

Still not wanting to discuss religion in a work setting, I merely declined, citing the fact that I'm scheduled to work every Sunday.

Fortunately, at this moment, he had to get back to work, so I was spared being more blunt with him. But I'm guessing that some time soon, I'll have to tell him to fuck off in no uncertain terms.

Four Types of Sex

2009-11-01T11:59:00.000-05:00

As I see it, sex is a very basic, primal, and instinctual thing. For me to
be attracted to a particular partner, an emotional response isn't
necessary, though it's not unwelcome in some instances. Rather, it's a
matter of chemistry and hormonal response. I don't have this
response with just anyone, but I most certainly have it quite a bit
more often than an emotional response.

I classify sex in four basic ways:

Sex with no love and no chemistry/hormonal response
Sex with love only
Sex with chemistry/hormonal response only
Sex with both love and chemistry/hormonal response

I've tried it all four ways.

Sex with no love and no chemistry/hormonal response is mechanical
and unsatisfying. I've only done this a few times and I don't do
this sort at all anymore.

Sex with love and no chemistry/hormonal response is not sexually
satisfying, either. Such instances are a matter of trying too hard
and trying to force something that isn't there. It also has the
highest probability for emotional hurt. I also avoid these types of
encounters as well.

Sex with chemistry/hormonal response only can be extremely
satisfying depending upon the context, such as one night stands and
fuckbuddy relationships. They work best for anyone who is able to compartmentalize and see thevalue of sex for its own sake. As a libertine, this type is what is most common for me, as chemical attraction is vastly more common than being in love.

Sex with both love and chemistry/hormonal response is, of course, also
highly satisfying in its proper context, which are long term
committed relationships. However, they are less desirable when one is
merely interested in a one time deal, or a fuckbuddy relationship without
other expectations. This type tends to create complications which are a hassle in those types of relationships.

So, though I am a libertine, I am not entirely indiscriminate, as there are only two of the four types that I am comfortably engaging in.

Quiz Question From Goodreads

2009-10-30T00:47:00.000-04:00

When I get bored, I go over to Bookreads and answer some questions from their "Never Ending Book Quiz". One question I came upon made me smile; it was as if it had been written especially for me.

The quiz follows below:

Which of the following famous libertines was a real person?

Romeo
Don Juan
Casanova
Lothario

A box of cyber condoms for all correct guessers.

Book Review: Highest Duty

2009-10-24T13:50:00.000-04:00

I was very much impressed with Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger when I first heard of the tragedy he and the rest of his crew averted back in January.

After reading this book, I'm even more impressed with him. Not just a recounting of the Flight 1549 incident, this book is a biography that highlights the many experiences in his life that served as preparation for the role he played on January 15, 2009.

His book was motivational and inspirational without being preachy or religious. It was quite obvious that Captain Sullenberger has great compassion for humanity in general, as well as being a thoroughgoing professional. And, though he'd not apply the word to himself, a true hero in a time when Americans are in need of genuine heroes.

I give this book five stars.

What Do You Think I Fought For on Omaha Beach?

2009-10-22T15:31:00.001-04:00

The following is a transcript of a WWII veteran speaking out for marriage equality in Maine. I think this man's words speak eloquently enough for themselves, so I'll not add any comments of my own, except to ask for your thoughts after reading this:

Good morning, committee. My name is Phillip Spooner and I live ...in Biddeford. I am 86 years old, a lifetime Republican, and an active VFW chaplain. I still serve three hospitals and two nursing homes, and I also served meals on wheels for 20 years. My wife of 54 years, Jenny, died in 1997. Together we had four children, including one gay son. All four of our boys were in the service.

I was born on a potato farm north of Caribou and Perham, where I was raised to believe that all men are created equal, and I’ve never forgotten that. I served in the US Army 1942-1945 in the First Army as a medic and an ambulance driver. I worked with every outfit over there including Patton’s Third Army. I saw action in all five major battles in Europe including the Battle of the Bulge. My unit was awarded Presidential Citations for transporting more patients with fewer accidents than any other ambulance unit in Europe, and I was in the liberation of Paris. After the war, I carried POWs back from Poland, Hungary, and Yugoslavia, and also hauled hundreds of injured Germans back to Germany.

I’m here today because of a conversation I had last year when I was voting. A woman at my polling place asked me, “Do you believe in equality for gay and lesbian people?”

I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that; it made no sense to me.

Finally I asked her, “What do you think I fought for at Omaha Beach?”

I have seen so much blood and guts, so much suffering, so much sacrifice. For what? For freedom and equality. These are the values that make America a great nation, one worth dying for.

I give talks to eighth grade teachers about World War II, and I don’t tell them about the horror. Maybe I have to invite them to the ovens at Buchenwald and Dachau. I’ve seen with my own eyes the consequences of caste systems, and it makes some people less than others, or second class.

Never again. We must have equal rights for everyone; it’s what this country was started for. It takes all kinds of people to make a world. It doesn’t make sense that some people who love each other can marry and others can’t, just because of who they are. This is what we fought for in World War II, that idea that we can be different and still be equal.

My wife and I did not raise four sons with the idea that three of them would have a certain set of rights, but our gay child would be left out. We raised them all to be hard-working, proud, and loyal Americans, and they all did good.

I think if two adults who love each other want to get married, they should be able to. Everybody’s supposed to be equal in this country. Let gay people have the right to marry.

Thank you.

View his YouTube video at What Do You Think I Fought For At Omaha Beach?

Buzz Words

2009-10-21T12:03:00.001-04:00

I've noticed that our society gets hung up on trendy buzzwords, which are used to death for a period of time, then slowly disappear only to be replaced by the latest buzz word du jour.

When a word or a phrase is hot, one will encounter it everywhere: in want ads, names of businesses, product names, hear it on TV, and so on.

One of the more recent trendy buzz word seems to be "solutions". As if everything in life is to be viewed as a problem that one must find a "solution" for.

I've seen an employment agency listed in the want ads called "Staffing Solutions". I've also encountered, "Hair Solutions", "Breakfast Solutions", "Landscape Solutions", and the like.

Entering "solutions" at the Yahoo search engine brought up, among many others:

Ecommerce Solutions

Network Solutions

Privacy Solutions

Solutions for Your Home

Google Business Solutions

Climate Solutions

And so on, ad nauseum.

I remember back in the early 80s, one of the buzz words then was "interface". I'd see this word constantly in want ads, as in "Must interface well with others". Mercifully, this trend did not last long, and we no longer see "interface" used as a synonym for "get along with".

I imagine that "solutions" will have an equally short lifespan of trendiness, when it will be inevitably replaced by the latest inane banality.

Malpractice Insurance and Health Care Reform

2009-10-19T13:46:00.000-04:00

Last night I was listening to the radio and came upon yet another right wing talk show. I didn't recognize the woman's voice; all I knew was that it wasn't Ann Coulter, as I've heard her voice, ad nauseum, on several different shows, on both radio and TV.

This unknown woman had the unpleasant quality of sounding both indignant and nervous at the same time. She sounded quite like she'd consumed an entire pot of coffee singlehandedly just before the broadcast. You know the sound: voice slightly raised in pitch, a haughy, prim tone, with a hint of a nervous tremor in her voice. Her voice almost hummed as she engaged in an inner battle as to what emotion would win: (self)righteous indignation or nervousness.

Though her voice was grating, I had to listen until she revealed her identity, as I wanted to hear the name of the woman who almost made Neal Boortz seem reasonable.

It was Monica Crowley, who, oddly enough, is the sister-in-law of Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Hannity and Colmes.

Anyway, enough background for now; let me get to the point of this post.

When I tuned in, Crowley was in mid-rant about health care reform. The thrust of her argument was that the Democrats are "lying through their teeth" about how much health care reform will actually cost. She mentioned tort reform. citing that malpractice insurance that doctors must carry was one of the biggest offenders in the cost of health care.

All right, I'll grant that this is no doubt a factor affecting the cost of health care in this country, but she completely lost me when she continued her argument.

She went on to say that the Democrats are against malpractice law reform simply because a large number of trial lawyers supported the Democrats in the last election and for no other reason. Paranoid, much?

If I thought I'd get a fair chance to air my opinion, I'd have called and asked her, "If malpractice laws are abolished, what do you propose be done to protect patients who are the victims of genuine malpractice and gross medical negligence?"

Naturally, she did not address this concern on her show and I'd guess that she really doesn't much care.

Thoughts?

You Can Never Be Too Rich or Too Thin?

2009-10-17T13:51:00.000-04:00

Says who? This has got to be one of the most disgusting pictures I've ever seen in my life. And, as far as I'm concerned, the one on the left is also too thin, though not as shockingly so as the living skeleton on the right, who probably has died by now.

For all you women carrying a few "extra" pounds out there, instead of taping a "fat" picture of yourself on the refrigerator as motivation to diet, tape this one to your fridge, instead, to remind yourself to practice moderation and that true self esteem must come from within.

Living at Home?

2009-10-16T14:06:00.001-04:00

The other day, another blogger made a comment on her blog about "living at home". I knew what she meant -- "living with your parents" -- but I decided to play the devil's advocate and feign ignorance. I made a bit of a snarky comment saying that everyone lived at home and I'd not seen people living at the library or the bus station. I wrote this to see what she or another reader might say in response.

The reason for that was that I've never said, "living at home" in reference to living with parents. When I turned eighteen, I was eager to move out to go to college and start my adult life. I'd go visit my father on major holiday breaks from school, such as Christmas and Easter, but I'd stay in my off-campus apartment over the summers.

I never referred to these visits as going home for Christmas, but rather "going to my Dad's for Christmas". Well, I have to admit that one big reason for that was that my father had moved to a different state during my freshman year of college and I'd never lived in his new house, so it wasn't "home" for me.

A few years later, after my brief misadventure of a marriage, I moved in with my father until I got back onto my feet, mainly for my son's sake. I never once referred to this move as "moving back home", for the same reason mentioned above, but more importantly for the fact that I was an adult now and "home" was no longer synonymous with where my father made his home, but wherever I chose to make it. Amazingly enough, I've even heard people who are the age I am now refer to moving in with a parent after a divorce as "moving back home"!

Nowadays, if I considered "home" as being where my parents are, I'd have to go pitch a tent at the cemetery.

Is This 2009 or 1909?

2009-10-15T12:50:00.000-04:00

Most people by now have heard of the justice of the peace in Louisiana who recently refused to marry an interracial couple. When I first heard the news, it boggled my mind, as I could not imagine such a thing happening anywhere in the United States in 2009. I'm not at all surprised that such racism still exists now, but it was a shock to see such an overt expression of it. One would think that he would be well aware of the Supreme Court decision of 1967 which made interracial marriage legal in all fifty states.

The judge, Keith Bardwell, said, "I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves. In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer." Yeah, they might grow up to be, oh, President of the United States or something.

He added that he came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society,that most interracial marriages do not last long. Bardwell is also of the opinion that

My disgust for his racist attitudes aside, what business of his is it to speculate on how long any individual marriage will last, regardless of race or any other characteristics, or to predict how any children born of that union will fare? He's a justice of the peace, not a social critic or a psychiatrist/psychologist, and it's his job to conduct marriage ceremonies for anyone who requests it who meet the legal requirements, regardless of his personal opinions. If he will not perform a legal function of his office, then he needs to find another line of work.

Thoughts?

Morning Morality

2009-10-10T14:00:00.000-04:00

Many people, especially those of a generation older than me, believe that there is something moral about getting up early every day, even if there is nothing that must be done at a specific early hour.

I had an aunt, even after she retired, who continued to get up at 4:30 each morning, even though she had nowhere to go and nothing more to do than sit in a chair. A religious fundamentalist, she always felt that staying in bed past dawn was a sinful thing. She was the type who would call a third shift worker at 11 am and ask, “Are you still in bed?” My response to such a question would be, “How about I call you at 2 am and ask you the same thing!”

The idea of the rightness of starting the day early is one that runs throughout our society. School days, and the majority of work days start early in the morning, even though studies have shown that peak alertness and productivity tends to come in the afternoon. Even nursing homes roust their residents up at the crack of dawn, which I think is insane. It’s not as if any of these people have anything to do and I’m sure a few more hours of blissful dreaming would be welcomed by many nursing home residents.

A corollary to the “early to rise” mentality is that one should always be doing something productive during their waking hours. Just relaxing, slacking, or hanging out is an offensive idea to the “up and at ‘em” crowd. My response to this is “I’m a human BEING, not a human DOING.”

When I’ve got something that needs to be done, I get it done in a timely fashion, but I’m not anal about schedules. Nor do I feel the slightest amount of guilt about sleeping until my body is ready to wake, just slacking on the couch, and so on. I know that saying no to a frenetic, fast paced life is better for my health, as it lowers stress levels and blood pressure.

At one time, getting up early made sense. This was in the days before electricity and most labor saving devices, so people needed to get up early in order to have light to work by. Though we’ve had electricity for well over a hundred years now, many people still attach a moral significance to rising early, even though the logical reason for it no longer exists. The “early to bed, early to rise” ethic has fallen into the realm of “that’s the way we’ve always done it”.

The hour at which one rises has no moral significance whatsoever. It’s just a personal choice, no more, no less.

Thoughts on Obama and the Nobel Prize

2009-10-09T13:54:00.000-04:00

I woke up this morning to find that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Prize, which left me scratching my head.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for the guy and think he shows a lot of promise. But I think it's premature, to say the least, to award him such a prize so early in his administration. I am sure there are others who deserve it more at this particular point in time. I'd been under the impression that the prize was awarded on the basis of actual accomplishments, rather than on the hope of promise.

It's quite possible that in a few years, Obama would rightly deserve the prize on the basis of accomplishment, but awarding it now makes me wonder if he's being given the award mainly because he's not George Bush.

Nevertheless, it's going to be amusing watching the indignant reactions from the far right wingnuts, as they get their collective boxers/panties in a wad while they froth at the mouth.

I Hate "Alot" A Lot

2009-10-07T14:17:00.000-04:00

I haven't done a language rant in awhile, so here goes.

The offense of the day is:

"Alot"

This spelling abomination is used by people to mean "a lot". It's a mistake I didn't see years ago, even by people with generally atrocious spelling and grammar. It apparently is a fairly "new" mistake, that I'm seeing more and more. And what makes "alot" different from other language errors, is that I'm seeing it used more often by people who generally don't make frequent spelling and grammar mistakes.

I've often wondered why people in increasing numbers have started to run the two words "a lot" together. First, let's look at the definition of the phrase "a lot".

A lot

Very many, a large number; also, very much. For example, A lot of people think the economy is declining, or Sad movies always made her cry a lot. It is sometimes put as a whole lot for greater emphasis, as in I learned a whole lot in his class. It may also emphasize a comparative indication of amount, as in We need a whole lot more pizza to feed everyone, or Mary had a lot less nerve than I expected. [Colloquial; early 1800s]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin.

Is it that they don't understand what a word "lot" means? Here's a couple of definitions of the word "lot" that relate to the phrase "a lot":

Lot

a piece of land having the use specified by the attributive noun or adjective: a parking lot; a used-car lot.

a distinct portion or parcel of anything, as of merchandise: The furniture was to be auctioned off in 20 lots.

a number of things or persons collectively: There's one more, and that's the lot.

Often, lots. a great many or a great deal: a lot of books; lots of money.

I'm guessing that they're confusing "a lot" with the bona fide word, "allot", which is a verb that has an entirely different meaning from "a lot":

Allot

to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers.

to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park.

to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate.

Personally, I think the rise of "alot" has quite a bit to do with the fact that increasingly fewer people read regularly, so they are spelling "by ear", rather than imitating what they've seen in print.

So ends the spelling lesson of the day.

Misguided Indignation

2009-10-03T13:25:00.000-04:00

This morning while idly surfing the net, I read one woman's rant about the latest sexual brouhaha du jour; that of David Letterman being blackmailed over the many sexual dalliances he's had over the years with women he'd worked with. In complete indignation, she ripped Letterman up one side and down the other.

She reviled him for his inability to be monogamous; that he'd been repeatedly unfaithful to his partner of 23 years. Calling him a "creepy, perverted old man", she jeered at him for his apparent inability to "keep in in his pants". And then she wrapped up with hand-wringing about the increasingly so-called "dying breed" of men who remain absolutely sexually faithful to their female partners who, unlike Letterman, in her opinion, were "upright, righteous, strong, moral men with integrity".

I won't take the time to address all her points here, because that isn't the main point of this post, save to say that infidelity wasn't something invented in the 1960s. People have been struggling to adhere to monogamy ever since it was imposed on us by religion countless generations ago.

What mainly struck me as absurd and short sighted about her post was the fact that the Letterman "sextortion" news has followed directly on the heels of the latest news about Roman Polanski's arrest.

If she wanted to vent her spleen on a "creepy, perverted old man", then she need not have looked any further than Polanski, who drugged and forcibly raped a 13 year old kid, then evaded justice for over thirty years. Polanski is the real deal when it comes to creepy, perverted old men and it's completely ludicrous to even attempt to put Letterman into the same category.

Unlike Polanski and his misguided defenders, (such as Whoopi Goldberg, who has said that Polanski did not commit "rape-rape", but "something else"), who have tried to minimize the seriousness of what he did, Letterman has stepped up to the plate like a man and openly admitted the dalliances without trying to explain them away. Unlike many other celebrity men who have been outed for adultery in recent years, was honest about his behavior.

Letterman was also involved with adult women in consensual encounters; hardly the crime of the century that will lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Polanski and his defenders, who somehow think he's special and not subject to the same laws as the rest of us, on the other hand, say something very sad about our society.

Thoughts?

More Faulty Logic

2009-09-28T08:38:00.000-04:00

While talking with a coworker recently, he stated that he was against health care reform because Nazi Germany had a nationalized, or "socialized", health care system.

Oh, where to begin with this blockheaded black and white thinking?

First of all, Hitler made the trains run on time in Nazi Germany and it was his idea to invent a cheap, well-made car so that all German workers could have their own automobile. That car survives today by the name he gave it -- Volkswagen -- which translates from German as "People's car".

So -- should we abolish punctual public transportation and scrap every VW beetle on the planet because these good ideas happened to come from an evil man? Will the retention of such things inevitably lead us to fascism? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Another point to make is that the Nazi party was not "socialist" in the way that modern Scandinavian states are. Yes, the Nazis called themselves "socialists", as the word "Nazi" is a derivative of the acronym NSDAP (National Sozialistische Arbeiter's Partei -- National Socialist Worker's Party). Make no mistake about it, Nazi Germany was not socialist but, rather, it was a far right fascist totalitarian regime. And like all dictatorships, the Nazis were masters of misleading euphemism; for example, a number of concentration camps had signs at their entrances with the slogan "Arbeit Macht FreI' on them, which translates as "work brings freedom".

In other words, the Nazis were no more "socialist" any more than the former East Germany was "democratic" or that modern China is run by "the people".

Many right wingers also confuse socialism with statism (control by workers vs control by state) and believe that anything other than laissez-faire capitalism is "socialist". If this were actually true, then every government would be "socialist" under such a definition.

Thoughts?

Faulty Logic

2009-09-27T01:32:00.000-04:00

The other night I was changing stations while listening to the radio in the car. I happened upon a station where they were talking about a survey of Americans who had been married at least once and it said that out of that groups, 76% had been married only once, 20% had been married twice, and only 5% had been married three times. A spokesman for the religious right group, Focus on the Family, said that the results were proof positive that most Americans still believe in and supported "biblical marriage".

Feel free to roll your eyes now.

Before I comment I on the faulty logic surrounding this conclusion, I have to point out that Christians didn't invent marriage; that marriage existed well before the Abrahamic religions did. One should also be aware that there's more than one kind of marriage mentioned in the Bible. So one would have to ask "Which type of so-called 'biblical marriage' are you talking about?"

But let us return to the original faulty assumptions made here.

First of all, the 76% of people who had been married once in their lifetimes were not necessarily currently married -- they'd just been married only once in their lives. This included widowed and divorced people, as well as the currently married.

It's quite possible that many of those not currently married may have simply chosen to live with any subsequent romantic partners and decided not to involve the government or the church in any new relationships. In other words, such people remaining legally single had nothing to do with any adherence to fundamentalist ideas about marriage. Similarly, there are no doubt many others who hadn't found another partner yet at the time of the survey, but who are open to being married again.

Secondly, out of the 25% who have been married more than once, this includes widowed people who have married again. Are these FotF fundamentalists saying that it's "unChristian" to be married more than once regardless of circumstances? I'm guessing that quite a number of religious people would beg to differ on this point.

Third, it would seem to me that many people who have a string of failed marriages and have several divorces under their belts have a misplaced belief in the institution of marriage and would do better not involving the legal system in their personal, intimate relationships in the first place. Marriage doesn't fit everyone and there's no shame in that.

Using myself as an example, I've only been legally married once, but they're definitely barking up the wrong tree if they think I'm a supporter of "biblical marriage". I'm one of those people in the third category who is better off remaining legally unencumbered, as marriage as it is currently understood is a bad fit for my non-monogamous, libertine lifestyle. Unlike those who have several marriages and divorces under their belts, I learned my lesson the first time.

Thoughts?

Memories in a CD

2009-09-13T13:52:00.000-04:00

Lately, I’ve been turning to the library to fill in the gaps in my music collection. I’ve been borrowing CDs to take home to upload into my Windows Media Player and will, at some point, load selected songs into my MP3 player. Money is tight right now, plus I’ve noticed that the places I usually buy CDs at have drastically reduced their selections for some reason.

I didn’t have anything particular in mind, so I just browsed the stacks. After looking through the jazz selection, I ended up with a Dave Brubeck CD, “Time Out”, which included the track “Take Five“. It brought back a lot of memories, as this was a song that I discovered when I was around 11 0r 12.

I began taking piano lessons when I was ten years old, and started in band the following year. At that time, kids in the “band culture” of my school were exposed to a lot of jazz. So, while most kids my age were listening to rock, pop, and the like, I was listening to jazz. Though I like rock music now, my first choices in music when I started getting my own albums were in jazz.

“Take Five” was one of the first jazz songs I got into, and I was fortunate to hear Brubeck, along with Gerry Mulligan perform this song in the summer of 1972 at the Newport Jazz Festival in New York City. I was also lucky enough to meet them after the set, and I think it pleased them that someone as young as I was at the time was getting into their music (I was 14), In next few years, I also saw Maynard Ferguson in concert twice and participated in a jazz workshop with Stan Kenton at my high school. At that time I wanted to be a jazz musician myself (and I’m sorry I didn’t fulfill my dream now).

The CD I borrowed was the original recording with Brubeck and alto saxophonist Paul Desmond (who wrote the song). I was surprised to see that this song was originally recorded in 1959 — at the time I first got into it, I’d assumed it was a recent recording. But as I listened to it in the car on the way home from the library, it still had all the original electricity that attracted me to the song in the first place and in no way sounded as if it had been recorded 50 years ago. It sounds as fresh now as it did in the summer of 1959 when they recorded it. And it still has sufficient power to make me feel the feelings all over again I had as a teen in the early 70s when I first wanted to become a musician.

Ludicrous Legal Fictions

2009-09-09T13:39:00.002-04:00

Recently, I read about a pre-op transsexual prisoner in the UK, convicted of murder and attempted rape, who has won the right to be transferred from a male prison to a female one. The prisoner, who still has a penis, scrotum, and testicles, had not yet, at the time of incarceration, had surgery to remove male organs and construct a simulated vulva/vagina. This prisoner has had breast implants, laser hair removal, and is taking female hormones to maintain a believable female appearance when clothed.

The decision to move this prisoner was based largely on the fact that in 2006 the prisoner was granted a certificate under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act which required that this person be recognized as a woman "for all purposes". In simpler terms, this prisoner is considered "legally female", despite the presence of a penis, scrotum, and testicles. In other words, it's a legal fiction.

I'm sorry, but no "female" of my acquaintance has a dick, nutsack, and balls. My dictionary calls such an individual a "man", regardless of the fake boobs and electrolysis. Socially, this person can call themselves whatever they want, but biologically, this individual is a male. And there is the matter that this prisoner has been convicted of attempted rape -- to let loose such a predator into a prison full of genuine women, while still having the "tools" to rape again, is completely ludicrous in my opinion.

This absurd legal fiction reminded me of another common legal fiction; that a woman's husband is legally considered to be the father of her children, even when there is DNA evidence to the contrary. Some time ago, I posted an entry about a man who'd fathered a child during an affair with a married woman, who was denied visitation rights with his child. The woman was still married and the husband was upheld as the legal father, rather than the step/adoptive father, thus the biological father was considered an "unrelated" person with no valid interest in the child.

I'm also reminded of men who are legally forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs and whom they've never raised or had any sort of relationship with.

I don't know about you, but I take a dim view of such legal fictions that try to mandate what some people think "should" be, rather than acknowledging the truth of what really is. The law should deal objectively with facts, not contrived social engineering.

Thoughts?

An Observation On the H ealth Care Debate

2009-09-08T11:09:00.001-04:00

The other night, I tuned into the Dennis Miller talk show on the car radio only to find a guest, Dr Drew Pinsky, hosting the show for the night. It's a conservative show, but considering that this is all that's available in my area, I listen to it and others just to see what the other side is thinking.

Dr Pinsky was hosting an open forum for those who had misgivings about the Obama health care plan to call in and voice their concerns.

I was surprised to hear the doctor state to a caller that though he had problems with the Obama plan, he did agree that our current system is broken and that the goal is to ensure that no one in the US has to go without access to health care. I don't remember his exact words, but this was the gist of it.

Though I was not able to listen to this show in its entirety, this attitude was markedly different from most other conservatives I've either read or heard.

For instance, the other night a man called the Neal Boortz show, explaining to him that he was not able to get health insurance, though he was willing and able to pay for it, because he had a chronic health problem. He challenged Boortz to tell him what he thought the solution should be in such a situation.

Boortz essentially told him that it wasn't his problem, which I hear much more commonly from conservatives. He asked the man if he actually expected him to pay for the health care of another person in such a situation, trotting out his tired complaint, "should the government be able to take away a portion of my life"(some of the money that he'd earned) to pay for stranger's health care?

The man quickly responded that, yes, that he'd be glad to contribute to Boortz' care if it had been him in the same situation.

Boortz didn't propose any sort of better solution to the man's problem, but took the attitude of "Oh, well, too bad for you." I wonder if he expects people in this situation to just shut up, go sit in a corner, and wait to die? It makes me wonder how the man can manage to sleep at night..

I've not heard any conservatives offer any workable solutions to the goal which Pinsky defined and supported. They are against the Obama plan, but they're not offering a better one, either.

The Obama plan may not be perfect, but it's a damned sight better than throwing up one's hands and telling the uninsured, "Too bad for you -- you'd better start praying that you don't get sick".

Thoughts?

Traffic Monstrosity

2009-08-30T14:58:00.001-04:00

While in the car the other day, I heard a traffic report on the radio advising me of traffic problems on "Spaghetti Junction", which prompted me to do a blog entry about it.

The Tom Moreland Exchange, known colloquially as "Spaghetti Junction" to locals, is what's known as a "stack interchange". It is the intersection of I-85 and I-285, along with several access roads, situated just north of Atlanta, Georgia.

I first encountered Spaghetti Junction in 1985 when I moved to this area from Texas. During that time, construction was ongoing, converting this interchange from a traditional cloverleaf into the fuckup you see today, for the purposes of reducing congestion. The construction continued for several years after that, which made trips into Atlanta a nightmare, especially during rush hour. At that time, I dubbed this area as "The Fuckup" or "The Screwup" (depending on whom I was speaking with), finding the term "Spaghetti Junction" a rather pale description.

It's the type of interchange where one wrong turn will make you end up in New York City with no clear recollection of how you got there. Even worse would be when you'd end up getting stuck in an endless loop going round and round this monstrosity, wondering if you'd have to call someone to bring you some food and gas while you tried to figure out how to finally get free of it. I've even heard urban legends about babies being delivered while making repeated circuits of Spaghetti Junction, while trying to find the off ramp to the hospital. I'd not be surprised if Jimmy Hoffa was even here endlessly circling the various access roads trying to find a way out.

Thoughts?

A Uniter, Not a Divider

2009-08-26T15:00:00.000-04:00

Late last night before going to bed, I heard of the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. At hearing this sad news I was not shocked, as his death had been expected for some time.

Though Kennedy was most assuredly not a perfect man (who is?), he was probably one of the most effective Senators in recent history. What I most respected about him in this time of sharp ideological divide in politics, with the "Us vs Them" mentality running rampant, was his ability to reach across party lines to actually get things done that would benefit all Americans. While many politicians spend time pointing fingers, he reached out a helping hand.

With conservative Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch he worked on nearly a dozen bipartisan bills, including a federally funded program for victims of HIV/AIDS, health insurance for lower-income children and tax breaks to encourage the development of medicine for rare diseases.

According to Wikipedia:

More than 300 bills that Kennedy and his staff wrote have been enacted into law. Kennedy played a major role in passing many laws that have affected the lives of all Americans, including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the National Cancer Act of 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, the COBRA Act of 1985, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Ryan White AIDS Care Act in 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Mental Health Parity Act in 1996 and 2008, the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, and the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act in 2009

During his long tenure as a Senator, Kennedy's major legislative goal was the establishment of universal health care.

I'm sorry that he did not live long enough to achieve his lifelong goal, but we can honor Senator Kennedy's memory by working to make his dream of health care reform a reality.

Pot, Meet Kettle

2009-08-25T20:40:00.000-04:00

Listening to the Neal Boortz show the other night, I heard him ragging on liberals who have decided to boycott Whole Foods because of an editorial Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote in the Wall Street Journal where he stated that "universal healthcare is no more a right than food or shelter."

Boortz believes the boycott is misguided because Whole Foods pays 100% of employees' premiums, but no deductibles, for everyone who clocks in 30 hours or more per week. Then it gives these workers $1,800 a year in "health care dollars" to use for health and wellness expenses.

Whether or not the boycott is justified isn't the point of this blog entry. My point is to call attention to Boortz' hypocrisy in light of a broadcast he'd made about a week earlier than this one.

In the earlier broadcast, Boortz talked about a stationery shop he'd patronized for several years. One day while shopping at this store, he noticed the owner leaving his car, which has pro-Obama stickers on them. At that moment, Boortz decided to never shop there again, despite the fact that he'd always been given good service there and had nothing to complain about. He chose to boycott this store only because the owner had voted for Barack Obama.

He went on to say that voting with one's wallet is a time-honored way of expressing one's opinion in a free market society, blah, blah, blah.

Pot, meet kettle.

I'm guessing Boortz won't be trotting out that old voting with one's wallet theme when it comes to the 36 sponsors who have chosen to withdraw their sponsorship from Glenn Beck's show, either.

Harry Truman on Health Care Reform

2009-08-20T14:08:00.001-04:00

President Harry Truman was among the first Americans who saw a need for health care reform. Decades ahead of his time, he was unable to make meaningful changes during his tenure as president in the late 40s and early 50s, but he’s acknowledged by some as the inspiration for the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid under the Johnson administration.

Following are a few quotes that illustrate Truman’s opinions on this matter:

“We should resolve now that the health of this nation is a national concern; that financial barriers in the way of attaining health shall be removed; that the health of all its citizens deserves the help of all the nation.”

“Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. And the time has now arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection.”

“I do not understand a mind which sees a gracious beneficence in spending money to slay and maim human beings in almost unimaginable numbers and deprecates the expenditure of a smaller sum to patch up the ills of mankind.“

A Deficit of Compassion

2009-08-16T13:04:00.000-04:00

I normally don’t repost articles written by other people in their entirety, but the following article so precisely sums up my sentiments that I am making an exception. All bolded passages are my emphasis.

The Real US Healthcare Issue: Compassion Deficiency

By Gordon Marino

Northfield, Minn. – During the height of the banking and Wall Street meltdowns, Americans seemed to love clucking about corporate greed. As far as most of us were concerned, the moral debacle was purely the fault of Wall Street, not Main Street.

Yet you don’t need a graduate degree to see that the character crisis is not restricted to those summering on Nantucket.

The healthcare debate has revealed that Americans suffer from a compassion deficiency. Many of us would prefer that our fellow citizens go without medical care rather than make even the slightest of sacrifices.

Over the summer, I have heard many groans along the lines of, “I don’t want to pay for someone else’s visits to the doctor.” When pressed, some will retreat to concerns about the degradation of care. But there are plenty who will stick with, “I just don’t feel as though I should have to foot someone else’s medical bills.”

While President Obama insists that changes in our medical system will not require middle-class tax hikes, it is plain that many fear reform will cost them. Apparently, there are a lot of folks who would choose to have young mothers with cancer go without chemotherapy, instead of giving up a bit of that disposable income that is our badge of freedom and individualism.

Those of us who abide below the money mountaintop are acquainted with hardworking people who can’t afford some critical medical treatment. Though we are inured to them, I could easily reel off 10 horror stories, including a couple quite close to home.

I reside in a small town and every week there is some kind of raffle or spaghetti dinner to scrounge together the funds to meet the medical expenses of a child with leukemia or a teenager with a brain tumor. We’re trying to pay for brain surgery with bake sales!

Back in the late 1980s, I lived in Denmark, where there is superb universal coverage. The rich aside, it is hard to know how anyone could come to the conclusion that Americans are better served by their doctors than the Scandinavians or, for that matter, anyone else in Western Europe. Despite widespread illusions, life expectancy (we rank 42nd) and infant mortality rates (we rank 29th) attest that our healthcare system is not even a contender for the best.

But the issue isn’t about the comparative quality of care; rather it’s about what we will and will not put up with as a society. As much as the Danes moan about taxes, not many of them would prefer having extra euros over the peace of mind that comes with knowing that they don’t have to think of their less fortunate but sick countryman going without medical treatment.

The fact that a significant number of Americans do not feel any urgency to revamp a system that leaves millions of our sick without care is symptomatic of the fact that we must be suffering from a hardening of more than our arteries.

There was a time when highbrows were repulsed by the fact that Americans were not appalled by the levels of violence in films. For a country that loves to moralize, we ought to acknowledge that what does or does not repulse reveals a lot about who we are.

The pandemic lack of compassion for the un- and under-insured is really not that distant from the narcissistic indifference of the avaricious CEOs that we love to sneer at. Anyone who values honesty will have to admit that many of us are not appalled by children dying for lack of medical treatment.

We don’t like it, we wish that it could be otherwise, but it doesn’t exactly make us sick. And that is appalling.

—

Gordon Marino is a professor of philosophy at St. Olaf College. His book, “Ethics: The Essential Writings,” will be published in the spring of 2010.

True Racism vs Playing the Race Card

2009-08-13T11:40:00.000-04:00

In a recent New York Times article, Reverend Jesse Jackson, has speculated about Michael Vick not yet being signed to an NFL team, wondering if it was a racist conspiracy among NFL team owners to keep him out of the league. Jackson even had the temerity to compare Vick's situation with that of Jackie Robinson, the first black American signed to play major league baseball in 1947.

Give me a break!

To even mention Vick's name in the same sentence as Robinson's does a disservice to Robinson's memory and place in history. The experiences of the two men are in no way comparable.

Robinson was a law-abiding citizen whose only "crime" was being the wrong color in a time when racial prejudice was pervasive in American society. Vick has known nothing of the racism in his sports career that was an everyday fact of life for Jackie Robinson.

Vick's current problem was caused by Michael Vick, not a racist conspiracy. They're not picking on him "just because he's black". To suggest otherwise and to compare him to Robinson just cheapens and demeans all that Robinson had to overcome to come out on top.

It's one thing to believe that Vick has paid his debt to society and to think he deserves another chance. That's fine.

But it's quite another thing to act as if he's an innocent victim in all of this by playing the race card.

Thoughts?

Answers to Health Care Reform Critics

2009-08-11T12:54:00.000-04:00

The other day, I was monitoring the Neal Boortz radio show and he was on yet another one of his rants against changing the American health care system.

Not only does he oppose a nationalized health insurance system, he also believes that the current private system should abolish coverage for routine, preventive care. He stated that he believed insurance should be reserved for major catastrophic illnesses only and that people should have to pay coimpletely out of their own pockets for routine care, regardless of income.

He used pregnancy and childbirth as an example of what should not be covered by insurance because, in his words, “People choose to have children”. He blithely asserted that if one could not afford to pay for such care, then they had no business having children at all, as they could not obviously handle the costs of raising such a child.

Never mind that one does not have to come up with the entire cost of raising a child to 18 all at once, as one would have to for pre-natal care and delivery.

And his elitist mind doesn’t seem to have thought things through all that carefully. After all, if only the affluent are to be allowed to reproduce, then who will be left to flip the burgers, drive the taxis, clean the houses, and so on? I can’t imagine he expects the scions of blueblooded families to have to stoop to such labor themselves!

Boortz, while ranting and raving about all the money it would cost to convert to a health care system like the rest of the civilized world has, also seems to conveniently forget that full access to routine and preventive health care, which is far more inexpensive than catastrophic health care, is the most effective way of reducing the need for the major medical care in the first place.

It also has the benefit of giving poor people a less expensive and time consuming alternative than having to use the emergency room for routine problems, thus allowing medical personnel to more efficiently serve those patients whom emergency care was originally designed for, which, again, would reduce costs.

Some Americans, who are fortunate enough to have good jobs which provide adequate health insurance, oppose changes to our health care system, fearing that such a change would reduce the quality of the care they receive.

While it is true that American health care is among the best in the world — provided that one can gain access to it — not all Americans have full access to it.

I was browsing Rubicon’s blog today, where he stated in a comment to another reader:

I have excellent health insurance, that includes dental, mental health, emergency room visits, and hospital stays. I can be referred to a specialist with no wait time, if I would need it I could have any procedure done immediately, and I can receive care by most any doctor and can go to any hospital, no wait, no muss, no fuss. Why in the world would I want that taken away from me??

I’m not as lucky as Rubicon — my job provides no health insurance at all and pays me so little than I cannot afford to buy my own. And I’m a worker, not a welfare recipient. In reponse to his last question, I would ask, “Why don’t you want all Americans, regardless of income, to have full access to that wonderful health care?”

He speaks of people having to wait for medical procedures under Canada’s health care system. Well, I’d much rather have to wait to get a needed procedure done, than not to be able to get the procedure at all.

What follows below is my reponse to his comments on his blog:

So far as the “wonderful” American health care system goes; yes, we have great health care here — if you have a good enough job, that is.

For those of us who don’t have good enough jobs, like me, those of us with no health insurance or inadequate health insurance, access to health care, especially the routine preventive care that can forestall major medical illnesses down the road, is extremely limited.

I have no health insurance and have not for nearly five years now, nor does my job provide any paid sick leave whatsoever. It’s easy to say “why don’t you get another job”, but the reality is quite different. My town was recently voted by Fortune magazine as being one of the “10 Worst Small Cities” in which to get a job. in other words, I’m lucky just to have a job at all right now. And people I know who have better jobs than me, who formerly had adequate health insurance, are now underinsured, with ther companies scaling back on the quality of insurance offered in order to save money.

As one without health insurance, nor the resources to buy my own, and also ineligible for Medicaid because I’m not on welfare nor have minor children living in my home, the situation is pretty grim. Health care for me is pretty much limited to praying that I don’t get sick. I can’t go to the doc for any sort of preventive health care and am pretty much limited to resorting to the emergency room for a dire emergency, the circumstances of which could have likely been avoided with the preventive health care I can’t afford.

Presently, I have a cataract in one eye and am effectively blind in that eye. I can’t afford the operation that would easily restore normal sight in that eye, nor could I afford to take unpaid time off from work to convalesce from such an operation even if I could find a doctor to donate his services. I can only pray the other eye doesn’t go as well.

And I think there’s something seriously wrong that in the richest nation on Earth, I have no access to a simple operation that would easily restore normal sight to that eye, simply because I don’t have a good enough job.

Unrestricted access to health care for everyone, from the lowliest prison inmate to the wealthiest philanthropist should be a given in any civilized society and no one should be denied full access because of a lack of money. It’s just that simple. If our society can find money to build the bombs, then it certainly can find the money to pay the doctors and hospitals.

Clutching at Straws

2009-08-09T12:53:00.000-04:00

Recently the Tinfoil Hat Brigade, aka "conspiracy theorists", have added a new facet to their arsenal of idiocy.

What I'm referring to are the "Birthers"; those who believe that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, thus making him ineligible to be President.

Do these morons not know that Obama had to have had his background thoroughly checked out before he was allowed to take the Oath of Office?

I understand that they're not happy that Obama won the election, but is probably one of the most extreme cases of sour grapes that I've ever seen. These folks need to give it up, accept reality, and to get a life already.

Obama won. Their guy didn't. Deal with it and move on.

I do have to admit, however, that I laughed when even Neal Boortz called them "moonbats", then whined that they were making conservatives look bad. Well, Boortz and others of his ilk do a pretty good job of that all by themselves, but I suppose a some contributions from the Looney Tunes section of the Republican Party can't hurt, either.

Passing the Torch

2009-08-06T13:58:00.001-04:00

I'm pretty impressed with Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea where he successfully negotiated the release of the two women, returning them to their anxious families.

I was struck by the thought that Clinton perfect for the role as an elder statesman of diplomacy and that this trip was a kind of a passing of the torch from Jimmy Carter to Clinton. Carter, who has distinguished himself in this role since the end of his presidency, is 85 now, and no doubt slowing down. I can think of few people who are more qualified than Bill Clinton to accept that torch and to carry on the work that Carter has done.

A Musical Trip Down Memory Lane

2009-07-29T17:36:00.001-04:00

Recently, I acquired a used MP3 player to use while driving, so I don’t have to lug around dozens of CDs any longer, nor worry about changing them in traffic.

In preparation for loading it up with music, I ripped all my CDs to my computer’s Windows Media Player, cherry picking the songs I wanted from each CD, in order to save space.

As I pulled out CDs from my car and from every nook and cranny in the house, I realized there were several missing, no doubt having “found” their way into my son’s collection, which I intend to remedy at the soonest opportunity. I also realized that I had a long way to go to replace all the vinyl records I owned when I switched over to CDs years ago.

Working with what I had, I realized that I had a fairly eclectic mix of genres, though it does lean heavily to classic rock. As I ripped the CDs, I listened to some of the songs as the computer uploaded them, some of which I’d not listened to in years

At my age, I am now free to admit my like for various types “uncool” music that I couldn’t have openly admitted twenty years ago: stuff from my parents’ generation, some country and folk music, and classical music.

Other songs brought back strong memories of where I was and what I was doing the first heard them. I particularly have an affinity for ballads that tell a story, as they’re a nice change from the typical songs about love that are ubiquitous to nearly all genres of music.

A small sampling of some of the “uncool” music I listened to and my thoughts about each songs:

Fanfare for the Common Man — Aaron Copland

I’ve been a fan of Copland’s music since I was privileged to play the lead trumpet part for this piece in high school. Fanfare For the Common Man, along with 18 other fanfares written by other composers, was written upon request in 1942 to be “stirring and significant contributions to the war effort….”. Copland’s Fanfare is the only one to have stood the test of time, and when I hear this, I can easily visualize the Normandy landings on D-Day as, in Winston Churchill’s words, “the new world, with all its power and might, stepped forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? — Tom Jones

I know that some people consider Jones little more than a faintly sleazy lounge lizard singer, but Jones in his earlier career, sticking to the ballads which best show off his not inconsiderable talent, is well worth listening to. Brother, Can You Spare a Dime, a Depression-era ballad, is an excellent example of Jones’ sheer vocal power and emotional range.

Originally written in 1931 at the height of the Depression, about a man, who was apparently a WWI veteran, telling about his fall from economic security. The words are uncomfortably relevant again now in the current severe economic downturn.

Once I built a railroad, made it run
Made it race against time
Once I built a railroad, now it’s done
Brother, can you spare a dime

Once I built a tower, to the sun
Bricks, rivet, and lime
Once I built a tower, now it’s done
Brother, can you spare a dime

Once in cocky suits
Gee, we looked swell
Full of that Yankee Doodle-dom

Half a million boots, they went
Slogging through Hell
And I, I was a kid with a drum

Say, don’t you remember
They called me Al
It was Al all the time

Say, don’t you remember
I’m your pal
Buddy, can you spare a dime

It Was a Very Good Year — Frank Sinatra

Though another singer with a reputation as a lounge singer, I have to admit I’ve liked this song, recorded some time during my elementary school years, since I was a kid.

I’d not listened to this song in many, many years until I uploaded the CD to my computer the other night. As I listened to this song, the words hit me like a punch to the gut. Though I’d not noticed it before, this is a song about an aging libertine wistfully remembering his libertine life as he remembered the women he’d been with over the years.

Though I’m not quite at the point of being “in the autumn of the year” yet, now that I’ve hit fifty, the words have suddenly become uncomfortably relevant to me. And I have to admit hearing this song again with new ears gave me a lump in my throat — this is my life and is my future.

When I was seventeen
It was a very good year
It was a very good year for small town girls
And soft summer nights
Wed hide from the lights
On the village green
When I was seventeen

When I was twenty-one
It was a very good year
It was a very good year for city girls
Who lived up the stair
With all that perfumed hair
And it came undone
When I was twenty-one

When I was thirty-five
It was a very good year
It was a very good year for blue-blooded girls
Of independent means
We’d ride in limousines
Their chauffeurs would drive
When I was thirty-five

But now the days grow short
I’m in the autumn of the year
And now I think of my life as vintage wine
from fine old kegs
from the brim to the dregs
It poured sweet and clear
It was a very good year

Hypocrisy: The True Amorality

2009-07-19T13:35:00.000-04:00

While idly browsing the net today, I came upon a most interesting post that expressed similar ideas to my own about the recent flurry of public moral hypocrisy we’ve seen lately on the news. What caught my interest about this post was that it came from the other side of the aisle from my own thoughts; that of the social conservative.

What follows below are my comments on this post. To better understand my comments, ead the original article first:

Why Traditionalists Should Prefer Libertines to Hypocrites

My response to this post:

Coming from the other side of the aisle, as an open, unrepentent libertine, I have to thoroughly agree with your thoughts on this matter. I’ve expressed similar thoughts on my own blog, albeit coming from the opposite side of the aisle.

In fact, I’ve had many traditionalists express similar thoughts to me; that they respect me because I am open and honest about who and what I am, without excuse or apology.

And I find it amusing, that as conservative Christians avoid company with the libertine, I tend to avoid association with the conservative Christian. I don’t avoid them as marriage partners, however, because I’ve decided that marriage as is currently defined is not a good fit for me, considering the way I’ve chosen to live my life.

Like you, I have no respect for the hypocrite; the one who gives lip service to conservative beliefs, while secretly engaging in more libertine behaviors. Just as you do, I highly value honesty and integrity in others.

Also like you, I believe that I am a moral person, even if my moral tenets differ in some key respects from yours.

Though I do not believe in sexual or emotional exclusivity of any kind, my behavior, which is congruent with my beliefs, is not “infidelity”. “Fidelity” is to honor the promises that one has made. Because I never promise to be exclusive to anyone, my non-monogamous behavior cannot be described as “infidelity”.

The core of my moral beliefs is the Golden Rule; to treat others as I would wish to be treated. Because I do not expect sexual fidelity from others, my own behavior is congruent with this tenet.

I believe true amorality resides not in the conservative traditionalist nor the honest libertine, but rather in the two-faced hypocrites you describe.

And That's the Way It Was

2009-07-18T11:25:00.000-04:00

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

2009-07-11T14:13:00.000-04:00

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

2009-07-09T14:16:00.000-04:00

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

2009-07-04T13:08:00.001-04:00

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

2009-07-02T15:31:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-30T13:11:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-25T23:59:00.000-04:00

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?

2009-06-22T20:16:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-21T13:45:00.000-04:00

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?

2009-06-17T20:52:00.001-04:00

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

2009-06-14T14:40:00.001-04:00

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

2009-06-11T13:01:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-08T12:53:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-07T15:14:00.000-04:00

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?

2009-05-29T13:06:00.000-04:00

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.

Hell on Earth

2009-05-28T02:19:00.000-04:00

Maybe this world is another planet's hell !
--Unknown

I've never believed in the concept of some people going to any sort of hell after they die. I've always maintained that if there's a hell, it's right here on Earth.

I'm not sure there's an afterlife. I'd like to think that there is, as I hope I will see my parents and other loved ones again one day.

But I can't wrap my mind around the idea of there being an afterlife and some people spending an eternity in the torment of a hell, especially for such silly reasons as picking the wrong god to worship and the like. It's easier to imagine people like Hitler in hell, but I usually think of such people being consigned to oblivion instead.

Thoughts?

Steroid Disaster

2009-05-26T21:30:00.000-04:00

I have to wonder what prompts some people to turn themselves into walking freaks as this moron has. And this guy’s story is even worse than it looks. Not only has he turned himself into a living action figure, his arms actually popped from this extreme steroid-induced body modification. I’m nominating this one as a future recipient of the Darwin Award

Click below for the video.

Steroid Disaster

Funny Commercial

2009-05-25T15:04:00.000-04:00

I’ve posted about TV commercials that annoy the crap out of me in a few past entries. Today, I thought I’d be different and write about one that is currently my favorite. I could see how people could find this one annoying as well, but there’s something about it that hits my funny bone just the right way and makes me laugh.

This one is the latest in a series of Alltel commercials where Chad the Alltel guy outwits four dweeby, dorky representatives from four other cell phone companies who wear brightly colored polo shirts.. In this most recent commercial, Chad is standing on the sidewalk trying to persuade a family to switch cell phone companies. The four dorks come along and the guy in the yellow shirt, a pudgy, short guy with a Richard Simmons lookalike hairstyle, starts ranting and raving:

So what if I smell like sour cream and failure and my mother is embarrassed by me and tells people I’m part troll!

This commercial is shown about a hundred times a day, but it cracks me up every time. I think the guy who plays the dork in the yellow shirt probably has a brilliant career ahead of him in comedy.

One Right Way?

2009-05-19T21:46:00.000-04:00

"The plague of mankind is the fear and rejection of diversity: monotheism, monarchy, monogamy and, in our age, monomedicine. The belief that there is only one right way to live, only one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual, medical affairs is the root cause of the greatest threat to man: members of his own species, bent on ensuring his salvation, security, and sanity. "
— Thomas Stephen Szasz

Since my earliest childhood, I've instinctively rejected the idea that there is only One Right Way to do various things. My natural inclination has always been to think in shades of grey, rather than adhere to the simplistic, dualistic limits of black and white thinking. My instinct has never been to unquestioningly herd with the flock, but rather to ask why, doing my own research if necessary. And if I don't find the answers to be logical, reasonable, or currently relevant, I reject them.

Humans by nature are ingenious and malleable. We are able to adjust and adapt to various situations, often finding multiple ways, albeit by different means, to arrive at a workable solution. Few things in life require a single method of accomplishment, as "All Roads Lead to Rome" tends to be the rule, rather than the exception.

However, humans throughout history tend to have an atavistic fear of difference, however benign. The desire for uniformity, for mass conformity, probably is at the root of most human conflict. The idea that all the pieces of a puzzle need not be of universal shape and design in order to fit together in a harmonious whole is nowhere near attaining critical mass at this point in human history, if it ever does.

Nevertheless, there will always be a sizable minority of contrary souls like me to make sure the idea is never extinguished.

Thoughts?

Clueless People

2009-05-18T17:18:00.001-04:00

In the last few days, I've been reminded of just how clueless and oblivious many people are.

The other night, I went through the McDonald's drive-through line. I had the misfortune to pull up behind an aging SUV which was belching toxic blue smoke from its tailpipe. Because the line was slow moving, as usual, I had to endure the toxic fumes from this hunk o'junk for several minutes before getting my food.

As I sat there doing a slow burn at the cretin behind the wheel of the elderly oversized vehicle, I couldn't help but wonder why this moron didn't just park the old bomb and go inside to get his food, instead of subjecting people behind him in line to the noxious odors.

I'm sure doing so never crossed the three brain cells of this obnoxious jerk and if it did, I'm sure he didn't give a flying fuck about anyone else.

A few days later, I pulled into another fast food joint, which has a rather narrow U shaped parking lot around the building. The clearly-marked spaces are on the outer edges of the U, with no parking against the building, so as allow traffic to move freely around the narrow lot.

When I pulled in, another oblivious idiot had parked his full-size Cadillac perpendicular to and against the building at a ninety degree angle. Directly opposite to this car was a full size long bed pickup truck, correctly parked at an angle between two white parking lines. As I pulled into the lot, I saw that the narrow space between the moron's Caddy and the truck was not enough for even my small sports car to slip through.

If I'd been driving an old crate, I'm not sure I would not have smashed into the idiot Cadillac like the woman did in Fried Green Tomatoes. There were others backed up behind me who, I'm sure, were entertaining similar notions in their head.

/rant over

A Difference of Degree, Not Kind

2009-05-10T01:17:00.000-04:00

Miss California is in the news again, this time concerning the topless photos she posed for. Pageant officials are set to strip her of her crown and give it to the runner-up, Miss Malibu.

I don't see why anyone is surprised that she'd pose for topless photos. As I see it, the only difference between posing for such photos and competing in a beauty pageant is one of degree rather than kind.

Both activities involve her capitalizing on her physical appearance for personal gain.

So, I see no problem whatsoever with her choosing to pose for these photos.

What does bother me is the rampant hypocrisy, both hers and that of those who run these beauty pageants. Hers because of her holier than thou comments about same sex marriage and that of the contest's promoters for failing to acknowledge that soft core porn and beauty pageants are simply two points on the same continuum.

And as far as her original comments about same sex marriage goes, who really cares what she had to say, anyway? It's a beauty pageant for crap's sake; it's not as if anyone expects these women to be Rhodes scholars. I'm actually surprised that these pageants still exist in 2009, to be perfectly honest.

Thoughts?

Reactionary Support

2009-05-08T14:14:00.000-04:00

Last night, I was listening to the Dennis Miller show on the radio. Miller is a former cast member of Saturday Night Live turned conservative talking head. He’s not as rabidly right wing as most of them on the radio, but he has affected an irritating “hepcat” persona on the air, constantly using old-time jazz musician lingo, calling everyone “baby” and referring to people as “cats”.

Anyway, he was talking last night about who he would support in 2012 for the Republican ticket. He mentioned Newt Gingrich as a possibility for President, but that’s not what inspired today’s blog entry.

What got me to typing was his assertion that he favored Sarah Palin to run as VP again. He went on to say that he supported her because all those in the political arena whom he couldn’t stand were against Palin and “hated” her.

Essentially this is a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of a deal, which isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of Palin. Miller didn’t cite any positive reasons he supported her, as he didn’t mention any of her accomplishments that he thought would make her a good VP. Instead his endorsement was on the lines of “if they hate her, then she’s got to be good!”.

No wonder the Republican party is in decline, as so many of them base their positions on what they’re against, rather than what they’re for. The Republican party has become the party of negativity.

Thoughts?

The Potential for Influence

2009-05-06T22:28:00.000-04:00

I visited the Time Magazine website today, where they had a list of who they considered to be the 100 most influential people in the world. The list was broken down into several categories.

Michelle Obama made the list, which isn’t surprising, considering who she's married to. Having the ear of the President of the United States certainly gives a person the potential to very influential indeed.

But it irritated me that Mrs Obama was named number one in the category of heroes, ahead of a real hero, Chesley Sullenberger, who was number 2 on the list.

I’m sure that Michelle Obama is an extremely intelligent and capable woman, as well as being a fine wife and mother, but she does not fit the definition of “hero”, especially when compared to Sullenberger, who is the genuine article.

Let’s face it; the only reason she made the list at all is because of whom she chose to marry. And as far as I’m concerned, wise romantic choices are in no way heroic. She has the potential to be quite influential in other spheres of influence and to be a role model for young women, but this doesn’t make her a hero.

And she’s been First Lady for only a very short time. It’s way too early to tell whether she’ll be able to exert true lasting influence in that role as did First Ladies Eleanor Roosevelt, Edith Wilson, Betty Ford, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few. I’m betting that she will, but right now, to include her on such a list is premature.

Thoughts?

The Ego of God

2009-05-05T12:43:00.000-04:00

As my regular readers know, I often listen to radio broadcasts of those with whom I disagree, searching for ranty blogging fodder. The other night, while monitoring a Focus on the Family broadcast, they had a couple on the show who had recently lost one of their young children.

The mother went on about she railed against God for taking her child, wondering why a loving God would allow such a thing because she couldn't see a loving God being indifferent to her suffering. She couldn't what purpose, what good could come from the death of a child.

She then went on to say that she eventually realized that her child's death did serve a purpose, as it served to "glorify God". I'm not quite sure what she meant by this; perhaps by how she and her husband as Christians handled their grief served as an example to others and how others in their faith community responded.to their tragedy. I don't know, as she didn't make it all that clear.

I nearly choked when I heard her serenely assert that God allowed her child to die in order that He/She/It could be glorified. I don't know about her, but I couldn't worship a God whose ego was so big that it required the occasional sacrifice of little children for the purpose of being "glorified". Just how shaky is the Big Guy's self-esteem, anyway?

Maybe the idea of an attention whore deity allowing a child to die for the purposes of "glorification" comforted this woman, but I find the idea completely appalling and offensive.

There is no happy reason for the death of a child, but I'd rather live with that uncertainty than to think my child died to stroke the ego of God. If I were a religious person, such a thing would destroy my faith rather than make it stronger.

Thoughts?