Taking a humorous but analytical look at just about anything in the spirit of Groucho Marx: I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!
I just heard that US Senator Arlen Spector, long-time (and many-term) Republican from Pennsylvania, has decided to switch parties and become a Democrat. Knock me over with a feather!
I suspect he did it because as a Republican, he'd be facing a nasty primary fight next spring against a really far right nut job, which he could well lose. That's the problem with "vote by party" primaries--the extremists and uber-zealots wield power way out of proportion to their lack of clout in the general election.
There's almost no doubt Spector would win the general election in the fall--if he were on the ballot. So his switching party affiliations must be designed to maximize his chances of making it onto that ballot in the first place.
Still, I shouldn't sell him short. In many ways, and for many years, he's been a relatively centrist, moderate, and sensible voice within the GOP. My biggest problem with him is the way he savaged Anita Hill during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings. Spector's behavior and tone were totally uncalled for and were, frankly, disgusting. It's obvious to me that Hill was telling the truth, because she had absolutely NOTHING to gain from doing so--while Thomas had a lot to gain by lying. But Spector did his GOP-mandated trashing and bashing, and Thomas was confirmed, despite the fact that he was totally unqualified. He's just a "me-too"er, a right-wing ditto head, taking his lead from Antonin Scalia. Creepy!
So I am not overjoyed that Spector has "seen the light." Nor do I see him making a world of difference to the Democrats in the Senate, even though with him and Al Franken (once former Minnesota Senator Coleman gives up his idiotic challenge to Franken's election), the Democrats will have a 60-vote majority. Spector will be a blue-dog Democrat, or as some like to describe the phenomenon, a DINO (Democrat-In-Name-Only).
But the psychological impact of Spector's defection cannot be overstated. The rats are leaving the sinking ship, boys. The GOP as a national party is sinking. USS Titanic redux!
(and with apologies to Monty Python for the oblique reference to the Church Police sketch)
A European product called Bio-Oil is being marketed on American TV ads during weekday soap operas. It allegedly reduces the obviousness of scars, stretch marks, and uneven skin tones, which is a most useful product innovation, indeed. [If it works as advertised, of course.--Ed.]
Normally, I'd be willing to cut non-native speakers of English a little slack when they make grammatical errors. English as a language is positively fiendish and difficult to master, even for native speakers. However, in this case, I don't feel quite so generous.
The error? An incorrect preposition: a woman in the commercial says she is "embarrassed with" her stretch marks. One can be "embarrassed by." One can be "embarrassed about." One can even be "embarrassed for." One cannot, however, be "embarrassed with." Not properly, that is. I'll be among the first to admit that prepositions in English are especially tricky. Most of them grew organically, before people got the bright idea to make language make sense; thus, prepositions are hard to explain in nice, neat, comprehensive-but-simple rules. The vast majority of them are idiomatic. [Hey--I said idiomatic, not idiotic.--Ed.]
So why am I reluctant to be kind? The woman doing the speaking doesn't sound like a non-native speaker of English. She sounds 100% American. If the company marketing Bio-Oil could go to all the trouble of finding an American to read its advertising copy, it could have found someone capable of editing that copy correctly.
The underlying reason I'm cranky about this is that every day, I see more examples of people misusing prepositions, which makes what they are trying to say incomprehensible--and which furthermore makes it nearly impossible to teach our impressionable, TV-guzzling youth to do, say, or speak any better.
T.S. Eliot was correct when he wrote "This is the way the world will end, not with a bang but a whimper." Alas for us, the whimper is going to be "But I didn't understand what you meant . . ."
In my unceasing efforts to demonstrate why losing local, printed newspapers will be a disaster for all of us, I submit the following, originally published in the Bellevue Leader dated April 23, 2009:
On April 4, a man went into [the] No Frills Supermarket on Harlan Drive and paid for three bundles of firewood. He then went outside and loaded 31 bundles into a truck. He was stopped before he left the parking lot, and the truck was towed away since the man was not the registered owner and he wasn't able to produce a driver's license.
Just another public service of your friendly neighborhood blogger!
Are you familiar with the brand of cheese called "Laughing Cow"? I frequently wonder whether it was the inspiration for the California Happy Cow advertising campaign. But that's neither here nor there, at least not this morning. I heard a news report about Nebraska US House Representative Lee Terry (R) that inspired the title of this post.
First, a little background. Lee Terry represents my district in the US Congress--more correctly, he represents the rightmost of the right wing voters in my district. [When called to account for his stand on any particular issue, even when the illogic of his position is pointed out to him in the most polite, most rational way, his answer is essentially "I'm right and you're wrong--get over yourself. I represent the people who voted for me, not people like you."--Ed.] Note that this district comprises the metropolitan Omaha area, the most urban area of Nebraska. That's not to say that there are no farmers in this district; there are many--but when compared to the rest of the state, metro Omaha is like New York City compared to the Australian Outback.
Terry initially won office on what he said was an ironclad promise to enact term limits, and to abide by them even if Congress didn't enact them. When it was time for him to fulfill his promise, however, he reneged. He spouts the far-right GOP line on every issue like an automaton. He takes more advantage of the franking process than anyone else in Congress I've ever seen, and most of the mail he sends touts his allegedly starring role in all GOP pet projects, whether his role was microscopic or less. He runs dirty, negative election and reelection campaigns. He is nothing but a hack.
So imagine my lack of surprise when he tried to grab attention after the EPA announced its finding that excessive greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous to humans. He had the gall to question EPA administrators as to whether the EPA's stand meant that the EPA would now regulate methane emissions from cattle. It is true that cattle are the single largest source of methane emissions on the face of this earth. It is also true that he asked his question in a relatively [for him--Ed.] mild tone, indicating perhaps a bit of lightheartedness. It is also true that the cattle industry is a big deal in Nebraska.
But really, now! The EPA's guideline says "excessive." By definition, what cattle emit cannot be excessive. Cattle emit what they emit. And what's it to Terry, anyway? He represents an overwhelmingly URBAN area. You'd think he'd be glad the EPA was doing something that will ultimately improve the quality of the air in urban areas by reducing what belches from our vehicles and factories and power plants . . . But no--he had to go and ask an idiotic-on-its-face question, and one irrelevant coming from him, to boot. So the stereotype of Nebraska as a state full of rural rubes and hicks is reinforced.
The female EPA administrator [whose name I did not catch--my apologies to her and to anyone reading this--Ed.] answered Terry's question with a decency and grace I admit I could not have mustered. Kudos to her. But as for Terry? I'm not laughing. He embodies the worst of Nebraska politics. Back in the Seventies, Nebraska US Senator Carl Curtis responded to an objection about one of President Nixon's Supreme Court nominees by asking what was wrong with mediocrity. "After all, mediocre people need representation, too."
The objections to and complaints about President Obama's decision to release the Bush Administration Department of Justice torture memos fall into one of two categories: (1) our enemies will know exactly what we will and will not do to gather intelligence; and (2) our own intelligence agents will not carry out their intelligence gathering to maximum extent, for fear of adverse consequences later, at home.
Both objections are the results of very poor marksmanship, indeed. For the only reasoned response to either or both of them is "So what?"
One of the things that has made America unique is our willingness to live by our principles--and not torturing is one of those principles. We've survived for well over 200 years without torturing. The shape of the threats against us may have changed, but we must not. Once we do, we give up who we are, and that will kill America once and for all faster than any terrorists ever could.
[I keep thinking of the original Star Trek episode Mirror, Mirror.In the alternative universe in that episode, the peaceful Halkon race will let the Empire (the evil incarnation of the Federation) obliterate them rather than give up their planet's resources for the purposes of waging war. "We will die as a race, to preserve who we are." Of course, the Halkons weren't exterminated. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.--Ed.]
And why do we presume that it's a BAD thing if our intelligence officers have to consider the consequences of their actions? After all, they swore to uphold, protect, and defend our Constitution. Why should they be exempt from its strictures? Personally, I much prefer intelligent intelligence officers--ones who think about what they are doing, and why--and not just mechanical automatons who brutally wreak havoc all over the world in alleged defense of something they cannot be bothered to obey.
As long as the debate is allowed to be cast in terms of either or both of those two objections/complaints, however, we're never going to come to a real solution. The issue must be rephrased to put the emphasis where it belongs--not on "anything to stay safe" but on "anything to uphold our principles." As Benjamin Franklin so cogently noted, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (1759, from the Historical Review of Pennsylvania)
Question the First: When someone is testifying under oath, the attorney doing the questioning normally tells that witness to let the attorney know if s/he doesn't understand a question, so that the attorney can rephrase it. So what happens later when it's clear to everyone in the room except the witness that the witness is so utterly clueless about the meaning of the question the attorney just asked that the witness doesn't even realize s/he doesn't get it--and thus is incapable of recognizing the need to ask that the question be rephrased?
Question the Second: What is it about ESPN's "This is Sportscenter" ads and the St. Louis Cardinals? The single funniest "This is Sportscenter" ad of all time is the one wherein Mark McGwire beats the crap out of a computer (with a baseball bat, of course) after ESPN's Y2K test goes very, very wrong. But the one airing now, featuring Albert Pujols, is a close second. Two Sportscenter anchors are teasing Albert about being "The Machine" while Albert is making photocopies. As seen from Albert's perspective, his mechanical brain is evaluating what they are saying and deciding NOT to eliminate them while he verbally is denying being a machine. After the anchors leave the room, the photocopier asks Albert why he didn't eliminate them, and Albert tells the photocopier to shut up. Hilarious!
It's been a slow week. Either that, or I am so out-of-sorts from watching the current crop of local and national political shenanigans that I want to avoid serious subjects. At least for a while.
Gilbert and Sullivan should have it so bad. I think this is the worst spring for allergies I've ever experienced. My cat Linus and I started sneezing the same day back toward the end of February--which was a very bad sign, because he's normally more sensitive to spring allergens than am I. My vet suggested taking human Benadryl and giving him a half dose . . . which would have the additional benefit of calming him down . . . I considered it, then decided against it. For one thing, I know how hard it is to get a cat to take medicine. For another, I don't generally favor the use of drugs (legal or otherwise) to affect behavior. For a third, I don't particularly like Benadryl or find it effective on me, so why risk spending the money?
Not only does spring bring out allergens, however. The sap is definitely rising, and the nutty behavior of some locals proves that humans weren't meant to withstand long winters. Consider the following entries in the Bellevue (NE) Police Blotter over the past few weeks:
On March 11, police responded to a burglary on Lindyview Road. After taking down the victim's information, they discovered she had an outstanding warrant and arrested her.
On March 27, police reported that "unknown suspects" stole "unknown makeup," "unknown clothing," "unknown jewelry," "unknown medicines," "unknown shoes," an "unknown bag," and an "unknown cell phone" from an Avoca man's vehicle on Gregg Road. The value placed on "the unknown" was $1,265.00.
On March 28, a shoplifter interested in increasing the security of his own home stole a $70.00 keypad door lock from Menards.
On April 4, a Bellevue man reported that after leaving Wal-Mart his car was gone. Further investigation revealed the victim had merely forgotten where he had parked.
This is why we cannot afford to lose local newspapers, folks!
You said yourself, Mr. President, that violations of the law must be punished. Yes, you said it about North Korea and in connection with Kim Jong Il's launch of what he said was a communications satellite and everyone else in the world thinks is a long-range ballistic missile. [Just as well that the launch failed despite Kim's claim that North Korea now has a satellite in space playing patriotic songs.--Ed.]
So why aren't your words equally true when the violators are here at home and what they've violated is our own Constitution?
You taught Constitutional Law, for heaven's sake!
You need to get back on track in a hurry and have the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute the Bush Administration people who broke our most fundamental laws--no matter how high or with whom in the prior administration the responsibility rests. You were wrong when you voted in the Senate for giving the telecoms immunity for having enabled warrantless wiretaps of Americans in the US. You are wrong now for saying that we must look forward, not backward. You are also wrong now for letting the government's attorneys claim in court that the need for "state secrets" is even broader than anything the Bush Administration considered proposing.
America will never get its house in order and regain its moral stature in the world's eyes, no matter how careful and skillful your diplomacy, until we clean up the mess at home. Sweeping it all under the rug isn't going to cut it. [Pun intended.--Ed.]
Please reconsider. This isn't a matter of "liberal vs. conservative." It's all interconnected, the same way your brilliant push for infrastructure modernization, turning to a truly green energy economy, and reforming health care are all vital parts of the solution to our current economic crisis.
This is a matter of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution--of fulfilling the oath you swore when you were inaugurated. It's necessary to live up to the promise of what makes America unique. In that regard, claiming we need to punish North Korea while ignoring the criminals amongst us is idiotic. North Korea, if it ever does get one of those missiles to work, may destroy us physically--but letting the Bush Administration criminals take a collective walk destroys our belief in our system. We can rebuild bombed-out buildings, but once our integrity and our faith in our system of government (a government "of laws and not of men") are gone, America is no more . . . forever.
You're smarter than this, Mr. President. Please, please, please reconsider and apply your own standards about punishing violators to the biggest violators of all.
I hate to admit this, but Burger King has actually made a commercial with that vile fake-headed Burger "King" character that is laugh-out-loud funny. It's for the new Kid's Meal with the Spongebob Squarepants toys . . . and Sir Mix-A-Lot. "I like square butts . . ." Who knew Baby's Got Back would have such longevity?
I must be losing my grip--every time I hear or see (or both) that ad, I collapse into gales of laughter.
It's too late for me, but it may not be too late for you. Turn off your TVs! Head for the hills! Run for your lives!
As for me, I'm going to go buy a couple of Kid's Meals to see if I can get at least the Spongebob and Patrick toys . . .
Count me among those who will miss ER. I watched the retrospective and the 2-hour final episode last night, and all I can say is this: any show that, after 15 years, can make me laugh out loud one moment, bring tears to my eyes the next, surprise me with the twists and turns of various story arcs, and make me yearn for more has not overstayed its welcome--whatever its Nielsen ratings.
The writing on this show has been the best in television for so long that it's easy to forget how excellent it is. The proof? The writers do not believe in unflawed characters, even the ones we are supposed to like--especially the ones we are supposed to like. Mark Greene sacrificed his first marriage to his ER job; Abby Lockhart was an alcoholic; Peter Benton was egotistical to the max; John Carter got addicted to painkillers; Archie Moore was a twit . . . you name a character, I can name his or her often massive shortcomings. Yet we cared about all of them anyway.
The writers do not believe in sweetness and light and universally happy endings. One example: John Carter and his wife Kim love each other very much. But he loves Chicago, too; it's his home. For Kim, however, Chicago is the place her baby died. Her grief when she is physically there drowns out everything else. So they stay married, but both in pain and cut off from each other in important ways.
At the same time, the writers are skilled enough to give a sense of closure through the mechanism of the new beginning. I was thrilled to see that Rachel Greene, daughter of the late, great Mark Greene, intends to pursue a career in medicine--ER medicine--and was taking her first substantive steps toward that goal as the episode closed.
For me, watching ER has been like reading a good book, one I'll gladly reread more than once. I grieve that there will be no more new episodes. I rejoice that TNT is running the series as part of its weekday morning "Prime Time In The Daytime" block. [I just wish TNT didn't have to cut vital, even if small, snippets from every episode to accommodate additional commercial time. Oh, well. Nothing's perfect.--Ed.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
US Attorney General Eric Holder did the right thing in dismissing the indictments against Ted Stevens, former US Senator from Alaska. Stevens' conviction on those indictments was so flawed by prosecutorial misconduct that Holder had no other choice--not if he intends to run a Department of Justice that does justice instead of playing politics.
My observations: (1) This doesn't mean Stevens did not lie on his US Senate financial disclosure forms; all it means is that the prosecution messed up the case so badly that Stevens did not receive a fair trial.
(2) It doesn't mean the Department of Justice could not get a conviction after a new trial, a new trial being the almost certain ruling coming out of Stevens' appeal of his conviction. It just means the DOJ has more important and pressing problems to resolve as both part of getting its credibility back and using its limited resources to their fullest effect.
(3) The egregious prosecutorial misconduct happened in George W. Bush's "Justice" Department, to a staunch Republican senator. No objective standards, no oversight, no respect for the spirit AND the letter of the law. Typical of Dubya's entire administration.
(4) A Democratic Attorney General accepted the responsibility of cleaning up the mess. He could have fought Stevens' appeal and prosecuted the new trial. He was smart enough to realize that, given Stevens' age (86) and the fact that he was not re-elected in 2008, dropping the indictments was the most prudent course of action. It was not only the right thing to do, it was the practical thing to do.
(5) For Holder understands that the goal of the prosecution is NOT to get convictions, but to see that justice is done . . . a concept that regrettably is lost on too many people, including too many prosecutors.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I've said this before, but I'm saying it again. I am sick and tired of all the whiny high school seniors out there who are upset that Mummy and Daddy can no longer finance their college educations 100%. I was born near the middle of the calendar year that had the highest birth rate of the entire Baby Boom. I came to college age during the era of the OPEC oil embargo and stagflation. I've spent my whole life competing for resources that weren't expanded to meet the challenges of the Baby Boom until about 2 years after I needed them. [That's everything from desks in school to scholarships to student loans, to--well, you name it.--Ed.] My parents fully expected me to go to college, but I had to find my own way to pay for it.
So to those whiny seniors: GET A JOB. Suck it up and deal with it. Learn some history. This may be the first time it's happened to you, but this isn't the first time it's happened. You are not the center of the universe. Get over yourselves.
You know, I don't normally agree with much of what child-raising expert John Rosemond says in his weekly newspaper column. I have to agree with him about this, however: parents should not try to be their children's friends. They are parents, and they should act the part. Otherwise, you wind up with generations of spoiled, selfish, self-centered brats like the ones we have now. [For which I largely blame my fellow Baby Boomers, by the way. We weren't going to raise our kids the way we were raised, by God, and now we're paying the price--our kids raised their kids the way we raised them, and their kids in turn raised theirs the same way.--Ed.]
Self-esteem does not come from being told "you're wonderful" no matter what awful things you do. Self-esteem comes from having the inner certainty that you are capable of dealing with whatever life throws at you. Parents who want our schools to tell their students what to think are wrong. Children should be taught HOW to think, not what to think. The genuinely educated don't necessarily have all the "book-larnin'" in the universe. They know how to find out what they need to know to solve the problems that confront them in their daily lives. And they have the confidence that they will succeed through applying that knowledge, not through some superficial pre-conception that they are everyone's darlings and should get what they want just because they want it.
