Mark Twain Was Right

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

"Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." This is not to insult teachers, or pigs . . . or anyone. It is to say there's no point in pursuing a futile activity. Truer words were never spoken.

A woman I consider a friend recently told me "I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if he were on the Republican ticket." That's tantamount to admitting that she cares not for the facts--she's going to shoe-horn them into her preconceived notions of what's right and proper. [Or should I have said Right?--Ed.] It is no different from saying "Don't confuse me with the facts; I've made up my mind." She is intelligent, so her attitude shocked me. I thereupon undertook the fool's mission of trying to get her to open her mind a bit. Her only response has been to accuse me of being just as shallow, but from the opposite end of the American political spectrum. {Which is much narrower than the world's political spectrum, but that's a topic for another day.--Ed]

That's a problem, because I've related to her numerous specific incidents that show it's not true. I've never voted a totally straight ticket in my life; I doubt I ever will. No one political party has a monopoly on all the good people and ideas in this world. In 2000, I thought John McCain would be quite acceptable as the GOP presidential candidate. Barack Obama was not my first, nor even my second, favorite among this year's potential Democratic Party nominees.

But as I have watched the two men campaign this summer, and now especially after the events of the past 2 weeks, I just don't think McCain is up to the job. I won't recount all the outrages I've previously described. I'll just add a few of the most recent. McCain said he'd fire the Chairman of the SEC, when the President has no such authority; he called the president of the SEC the president of the Federal Elections Commission; he said the "fundamentals of the American economy are sound" at the very moment the stock market was dropping over 500 points. He then came up with the lame excuse that he was talking about American workers. No dictionary or thesaurus in the world says "workers" is a synonym for "fundamentals."

McCain attacked Obama because one of Obama's fundraisers was linked in the past to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Yet McCain's own campaign chief of staff was taking $15,000 a month till last month to lobby on Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's behalf. McCain claimed that his campaign chief of staff had cut ties to his lobbying business in 2006, but he's still listed as that business's treasurer and is a member of that business's board of directors. Talk about a pot calling a kettle black! [I shouldn't complain, I suppose. It is more evidence in support of my contention, expressed in previous my previous posts, that McCain's tactic is to run against himself by accusing Obama of all the things he, McCain, has done wrong.--Ed]

After Barack Obama called McCain this morning to suggest they issue a joint statement to address the economic crisis, McCain unilaterally announced he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington until the crisis was solved, and that he wanted to postpone the debate already scheduled with Obama for tomorrow night (on the campus of Ole Miss). Yet McCain's TV ads attacking Obama are still running nationwide, his campaign offices are still open (many staffers of which didn't even know about McCain's "suspension"), and McCain's web site is still accepting donations. First, what about this constitutes "suspending the campaign"? Second, Obama has correctly observed that now is the very time the American people need to hear as much from the candidates as possible on this issue, and he also noted (again, correctly) that the president has to be able to do more than one thing at once. America's enemies are not going to stand in line and wait their turn while the president deals with the crisis du jour.

McCain is careening all over the place with no rhyme or reason. It's "shoot first an ask questions later." It's a fighter jock mentality, which figures, since McCain was in fact a Navy fighter jock. My mother, who spent the better part of her 40+ years in civil service working at SAC (now STRATCOM) headquarters, in the Plans and the Personnel sections (the two busiest places in wartime), in wars from Vietnam through Iraq, says fighter jocks make the worst bosses--they refuse to acknowledge that they could not do what they do without the support of the rest of the military and civilian teams who handle everything from arranging their pay to gassing their jets. Their perception of reality isn't, for lack of a better term, realistic.

She also says that after those 40+ years of 12-hour days, she knows at 71 that she'd not be up to handling the job of the presidency . . . and she further knows that (1) her job was not nearly as demanding as the presidency would be, and (2) that she never suffered the physical deprivations McCain suffered while a POW in Vietnam. She thus has legitimate reasons, based on facts and her experience, to question whether McCain is physically up to being president, given what being president entails.

Based on the things I've seen this summer, I doubt it.

But my acquaintance thinks I'm just a liberal who's blind to "facts" with which I disagree. I'm scratching my head here. I'm quite sure that if she and I were to sit down and go down a list of "The Issues" one by one, I'd predict her stand on each of them correctly more often than she'd pick mine. For just two examples, I am way out of step with most "liberals" on things like illegal immigration and making English the official language of the USA. I base my positions on what I experienced while living overseas, both in Europe and in Asia, and on my understanding of American history--which, I am not ashamed to admit, seems to be better than most Americans'.

I think things through first, and only THEN make my choices. Why she refuses to recognize that, I do not know. [I can guess that it has something to do with the implication that forcing the facts to fit one's preconceptions is not merely lazy and shallow--it's wrong-headed and unwise. If I am just like her, my opinions are no better or worse than hers. But I cannot say for sure that that's her reason.--Ed.] It was driving me crazy that I couldn't seem to make that clear to her . . . until I remembered my Twain. I hereby give up my attempt to encourage her to see a wider world.

Oh, well. She probably thinks my quoting Twain was meant as an insult. It was not. If I'd wanted to insult her, I'd have quoted Dorothy Parker: when asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence, Ms. Parker thought for a moment, then said, "You can lead a horticulture, but you cannot make her think."

Here endeth the lesson.

Pardon, Your Myopia Is Showing

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The Omaha World-Herald is at it again. The editor on Monday chastised the Huffington Post for running articles about unnamed individuals hacking into Sarah Palin's email accounts. It showed "election-season hysteria" and a "disturbing disregard for someone's privacy."

Of course, what the World-Herald failed to note was that the reason Palin's email accounts were hacked is that she deliberately created and used personal accounts to conduct official Alaskan government business while avoiding the oversight legally required of anyone sitting in the governor's office.

Don't get me wrong. I do not condone illegal activities (as a rule) such as hacking. But I don't condone illegal conduct of official government business, either. There's plenty of wrong to go around on all sides in this slimy little scenario.

I wish the World-Herald had spoken out as strongly against the improper and probably illegal behavior of the one being hacked as it did against the hackers . . . who, for all we know, are the moral equivalent of whistle-blowers.

Ah, So That's What It Is!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Many in the electronic and print media have confessed to having trouble figuring out Sen. John McCain's campaign strategy. McCain seems to be all over the place: one moment, he says offshore drilling is "a gimmick" that won't work, and the next, he's chanting "drill, baby, drill!" One [twenty-six year long--Ed.] moment, he's calling himself "a de-regulator," and the next, he's all for close federal oversight of stock markets and the entire investment banking industry. One moment, he says Sen. Barack Obama lacks the experience necessary to be president; the next, McCain says Obama is to blame for the economic mess we now find ourselves in. One moment, all Republicans (including the Dubya Administration) are saints from Heaven and all Democrats are the Devil incarnate; the next [and despite his 90% pro-Dubya administration voting record--Ed.], McCain is a maverick and the only candidate who can bring us real change as he will "clean up Washington."

Don't you get it? McCain knows if we were all smart enough to vote purely on the basis of the issues, he'd lose in a landslide. He therefore is trying to turn Barack Obama into McCain's evil black twin. If you want to find out what McCain stands for, all you have to do is consider the latest charges he's leveling against Obama.

It's ridiculous; it's wrong; it just may work. And so is proven my hypothesis yet again . . . for isn't McCain the one who said Obama's ambition to be president was so strong he'd do anything to win the election?

Wakey! Wakey! This Is Your Nine O'Clock Alarm Call!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The New York Stock Exchange lost nearly 10% of its value in the past 2 days due to the ongoing effects of the subprime mortgage meltdown and its attendant effects on the entire banking structure of our country. How could this happen? Deregulation has once again come home to roost.

And now Sen. John McCain, who for the better part of 26 years has called himself a "de-regulator," says HE's the one with the knowledge and expertise to straighten out Wall Street, end unconscionable greed in America and get our economy back on track. And oh, by the way, he wants to privatize Social Security. That means taking all the money currently in the hands of the Social Security Administration and putting it into the SAME stock market.

Talk about your Social Insecurity!

I cannot believe that anyone who is paying attention to the issues is still even contemplating casting a vote for McCain. Are that many people so stupid and self-destructive? Or are America's problems with continued racism far worse than I want to believe? Or some of each?

The Piranha Brothers Have Nothing On John McCain

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I want to make sure I understand this: John McCain says the tone of his campaign against Barack Obama would have been different if only Obama had agreed to appear with him in several "town hall" style debates throughout the country.

So McCain wouldn't be spreading sleazy lies about Obama if only Obama had given in to McCain's demand that Obama agree to appear repeatedly in McCain's preferred campaign forum.

So McCain is both: (1) blaming the victim; and (2) committing extortion, pure and simple. This makes him of the cool and mature judgment to be the president exactly how?

And just when I think things couldn't possibly get any worse . . .

McCain's chosen VP candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, has no real idea what the Bush Doctrine is. [People who are calling what Charlie Gibson asked her about that a "gotcha" question are missing the point. Her understanding of the Bush Doctrine is essential to our understanding of her foreign policy positions.--Ed] But her state's proximity to Russia makes her a foreign policy expert and ready to take over the presidency on a moment's notice. Right.

I'm still offering to sell that lovely bridge--you know, the one in Brooklyn--all you have to do is make an offer!

It Was Seven Years Ago Today

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

On September 11, 2001, I was sitting at my computer, checking my emails and contributing to a blog that no longer exists, when I got a phone call from my mother. She was at work at Offutt AFB, doing her civilian job in the STRATCOM personnel office, when the world seemingly stopped--at her behest, I turned on my TV just in time to see the second plane crash into the second World Trade Center tower.

Every generation has its own "I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when ______________ happened" moments. But it seems to me that my generation has had more than our fair share. John F. Kennedy's assassination, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, the Apollo 11 moon landing, the Challenger explosion, the terror attacks of September 11 . . . "and the beat goes on." Or, "we didn't start the fire."

Or "the road goes ever on." As worn down by my own personal tragedies as I have been at times, I never seriously wanted to die [I think.--Ed.]--the historian in me can't stand the idea of not knowing how everything will turn out. Or maybe it's the cat in me. Lord knows, I have more than enough curiosity for any three people.

Maybe I won't have long to wait. According to the Mayan calendar, the world will end on December 12, 2012. It's not worth worrying about, because there's nothing we can do about it, but there may be something behind the Mayans' prediction. On that date, a rare astronomical event will happen. Our Sun, the Earth, and the center of our Milky Way galaxy will be in perfect alignment . . . and now that we know that a massive black hole sits at the center of the galaxy, we can surmise that something drastic may indeed happen at the moment of perfect alignment.

Then again, before Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, some scientists feared doing so would set the Earth's entire atmosphere on fire. More recently, doom-sayers predicted that running the new neutron collider in Europe would create a mini-black hole that would destroy us all. Since I am still sitting here, typing, I can state with certainty that THAT didn't happen.

My mom is worried that my health will continue to worsen and that I'll start to let go. I keep telling her that no matter how bad my health gets, I'm not going anywhere: (1) I have too much to do--as long as I have even one unfinished craft project, I'm hanging in [and I have probably thousands of unfinished craft projects--Ed.]; (2) I have to find out how everything turns out [it's a rare occasion when I read a novel without peeking at the last few pages first--Ed.] ; (3) living is the best revenge. My ex-husband early this year expressed his wish that I'd die . . . and my response was that if I had to do it on will-power and one nerve, I was going to outlive him, just because of the crappy way he'd treated me when and after he abandoned our marriage. He got my Irish up. He has no one to blame but himself. [I suspect that if he had not abandoned our marriage, I would have died by 1998, just as the doctors who diagnosed my lung disease prognosed in 1988. I'd been telling myself by the time my ex left in 1993 that what was good in him was good enough, but he was draining me emotionally. I see now that I am in every way except financially much better off without his emotional poison in my life.--Ed.]

It's odd, the effects that the momentous events of the age can have on our small, individual lives. After 9/11, many people lashed out against Islam, Arabs, and anyone else they perceived to be "coddling" terrorists. It was sort of a collective wounded animal syndrome. Even people who tried to help got wounded by their indiscriminate anger.

Some of us looked inward and reexamined why we believe what we believe, and asked--and answered--the question of how we may best go about defending and preserving our beliefs. The one thing I know is that the moment we lower our tactics to the level of the terrorists', the terrorists have won. For they have made us abandon our most treasured beliefs, as embodied in our Constitution. That certainty is at the heart of my disgust with what the Dubya administration has done in the past 7 years; it is the core of my fear about what will happen to the country should McCain win the presidency in November.

Nevertheless, I'm hanging around. I'm sticking it out. I need to know for my own satisfaction that the good guys can still win. In the real world of late, it's all too often that the good guys get stomped by those who are willing to say or do anything to win--including accusing their opponents of having the overwhelming ambition that their own behavior reveals. Like lying under oath. Like ignoring the Constitution because it just "gets in the way." Like claiming to be an agent of "change" while voting 90% of the time just as Dubya wants.

Aha! Another lesson learned from Star Trek: in the episode entitled "Mirror, Mirror," a pacifist race called the Halkons is willing to die to the last man rather than to raise arms and fight, just "to preserve what we are." The Halkons knew that their integrity, once cast aside, could not be reclaimed. I daresay, if any of them survived their impending slaughter, they'd reclaim their moral high ground and continue to act in accordance with their beliefs.

Those of us who don't want to see Dubya's Third Term are no different from surviving Halkons. Our integrity is intact; if we win in November, we can bring that back to "official" America and restore the Founders' dreams. The only people who've lost their integrity are those who implemented all the illegal and unconstitutional doings of the past seven years. Their integrity is gone for all time.

There is a lot riding on the next few months. I feel the same way about this that I feel about certain baseball teams who shall continue to remain unnamed lest I unleash yet another jinx: I am full of hope, but part of me is waiting for the other shoe to drop. Nonetheless, I'm not going anywhere. If for no other reason, should I not be able to take my craft projects with me, I'm not going to go.

Veggie Tales

My cousin Anne yesterday brought me some of the bounty from her garden--tomatoes, a cucumber, assorted peppers, and green beans. I can't wait to make some Pico de Gallo with the tomatoes and peppers, and a side salad with the cucumber and some onions I already have on hand. Haven't figured out quite yet what to do with the green beans . . . and I must decide soon. When I got up this morning, I discovered that at least two of the green beans were making a break for it.

Well, actually, the cats were abetting the green beans in making a break for it. I caught Linus carrying one in his mouth while running down the stairs, and Lucy gingerly extracting one from the pile with her teeth.

I really need to get a video camera. The visuals are much funnier than any description I can provide.

Anyway, thanks to Anne for her generosity. Her garden's bounty will be put to good use . . . even if some of it does duty only as ersatz catnip.

Thank You, Garrison Keillior

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

If you have never heard nor read Garrison Keillior's Lake Wobegon story Tomato Butt, I encourage you to find a copy (in audio, it's one of the "Summer" Lake Wobegon stories; in book form, it's in Lake Wobegon Days) and listen to it or read it immediately. If you don't laugh out loud and don't recognize yourself or your family/friends, you need a mental health check-up.

Besides, it makes a perfect bookend to my tale of Linus and Lucy and the Roma tomato (see my previous post, You Say To-May-To, I Say To-Mah-To). The wandering Roma has been found . . . and disposed of without further incident, thank goodness.

Sometime in the last day, Linus retrieved it from whatever downstairs hidey-hole he'd used for it, and he deposited it amongst my stash of 1- and 2-liter bottles of water awaiting refrigeration. Complete with kitty tooth marks. [On the tomatoes, not the water bottles . . . though I wouldn't put that past Linus, either.--Ed.] My lovely friend Sarah (not Palin, praise the Powers That Be) noticed it while we were making pizza last night. As I was telling her the wandering Roma story.

Timing is everything!

You Say To-May-To, I Say To-Mah-To

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I haven't written much about my kitties of late--not because they don't do something amusing every day; they do--but my attention has been focused primarily on other things. What happened yesterday, however, deserves special mention.

That's Linus in the photo, Lord Of All He Surveys. He likes to get up on the china hutch to get my attention when he feels I am not sufficiently attentive to his needs. So far, he's done nothing up there other than rattle a lid or two, but I am relieved that the hutch's crown molding creates a 4" deep barrier. I have no doubts he'd try to push one of the soup tureens or teapots off the thing if he thought it would get him what he wanted.

Sometimes he is a bit more subtle. Monday, my mom brought me a slightly under-ripe tomato from her garden. I left it out on the kitchen counter to get a day's sun to hasten its attainment of tomato-y Nirvana, and thus hasten my attainment of tomato-eating Nirvana. Yesterday morning, as I stumbled through my a.m. routine, I heard a thump, then the sound of Linus jumping off a counter, then the scurrying of cats playing with new and interesting toys, like twist ties.

I didn't think too much of it. I wasn't yet entirely awake. [Those of you who know me know well that I am not a 'morning person,' I have never been a 'morning person,' and I will never be a 'morning person.'--Ed.] Only later, when I entered the kitchen, did I realize that Linus and Lucy were playing soccer with the once and future tomato. Which has since disappeared. I have no idea where it is. I've looked for it in all the most likely places (as determined by whence the sounds of their playing with it came). I have looked in all the places they usually stash their toys, or lose them, depending on one's point of view. I have looked in places I believe it would be impossible for the tomato to be.

It's gone. I don't think they ate it; had they done that, there would have been seeds or juice residue visible somewhere. Besides, they've never shown a bit of interest in eating "people food"--except for Lucy with clotted cream and Linus with Ranch salad dressing.

I know. If I wait a few days, the tomato's location will make itself known. I'm just not sure I really want to find it by that method.

And why the heck didn't someone tell the cats the Olympics were over already, anyway?

It's The Eleven O'Clock News

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

[Please see my 8/25/2008 post, "When 'Fairness' Isn't Fair" for background.--Ed.]

And here's the film: a Nebraska court has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to change some of the wording in the non-official parts of the proposed constitutional amendment to end affirmative action; but that a few minor changes must be made in the wording of the text of the proposed amendment itself.

So the amendment, with this tweaking, will appear on the November ballot.

I'm still scratching my head about this whole thing, and still hoping that most Nebraskans will see through the smokescreen put up by the people pushing the amendment. However, I am not going to hold my breath.

If Ronald Reagan Could Do It, How Hard Can It Really Be?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Face a fact: no one, no matter what his or her political experience has been, no matter how much history he or she has studied (and not just studied, but learned), no matter what his or her military service consisted of, can ever really be "ready" to be president.

Why should that matter, anyway? I mean, we're talking about a job that a B-movie actor held for 8 years. A B-movie actor who never ever performed military service. A B-movie actor who spent 8 years acting like the genial grandpa, telling us all what we want to hear instead of dealing with the facts of the world. How hard can it be?

On the other hand, American history is full of examples of men (that's historical fact, not political correctness) who had impeccable credentials, but who made a total muck of their time in the Oval Office. George Bush pater is merely the most recent example.

And some of our greatest presidents, while they had legislative experience at the national level, essentially learned the job on the fly--two of the most important being JFK and Abraham Lincoln.

"Experience" is not the issue. "Experience" is a smokescreen. The issue is judgment. The issue is character. The issue is ability to think, to learn, to analyze, to make decisions, to know when idealism should be served and to know when to pull back and be pragmatic. "Coolness under fire" is the military terminology. But one does not have to have served active military duty in wartime to possess this trait in any or all of its permutations.

One has to show by how one leads one's life that he or she has the judgment and cool temper to LEAD. Barack Obama is cool under fire. Almost every decision he's made since he came to national prominence demonstrates his ability to think dispassionately about a problem and find the best possible solution to it. I don't always agree with him. I'm still peeved that he voted for Dubya's FISA bill that granted the telecoms immunity from their illegal spying on all of us. But he sent out a detailed email explaining his reasons. He had several; I don't generally agree with them, but I do now understand. He had his eyes on a bigger prize, one reached by passing the FISA bill in its final form. I can respect his reasons for his vote. I doubt that John McCain is even capable of giving such an explanation for anything he's done, given that his main campaign tactic seems to be accusing Obama of being the "flip-flopper" that McCain himself has turned out to be.

John Kerrey cogently noted this in his speech to the Democratic National Convention yesterday. The candidate McCain of the past said Dubya's tax cuts, if made permanent, were dangerous. McCain the candidate today says he embraces those tax cuts and will make them permanent, to name just one instance of many in which McCain has sold out to the far, far right of the GOP.

Yes, Obama has tweaked his positions on many issues as the need has arisen. Politics IS "the art of the possible," after all. If it's better to give in on 10% of something to get 90% of one's agenda passed, it's better to give in on that 10%. That's what real politicians do. They don't cry and scream and stamp their feet and insist on "all or nothing." They don't smear their political opponents with ridiculous lies. They don't act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is a traitor.

They work together to achieve the larger goals of accomplishing what's best for the country. They don't finagle the system to get what they want by subterfuge when they don't get their way legislatively. [The way Dubya's administration is at present trying to do by redefining "abortion" to include "birth control."--Ed.] They don't regard the government as a plum to be divided up amongst only their supporters.

Our government is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men. Our government is supposed to represent all of us, not just those who want to make campaigning permanent and keep power permanently in their own hands. Our government is supposed to function in a bi-partisan way. [Indeed, the Founding Fathers never wanted our government to be subjected to political parties at all.--Ed.] Our government is supposed to be a place of (voluntarily) limited-time service by citizens who care about all of America who will go back to their private lives after briefly performing public service.

Our government can be none of those things when it's under the control of people who say "government doesn't work." Of course it doesn't work when they control it. They don't want it to, so it won't. The system has to be above the attempts of any group, right OR left, to control and manipulate it. It has to be dispassionate, credible, and as objective as the people involved in it can be. It is a higher calling, not a heap of junk to be trashed.

I hope the cheeky nature of this post's title doesn't betray what I am saying here. I think being the president of the USA has to be the most difficult job on Earth. I also think that no matter what one has done in life, there's no way one can truly get the experience to prepare one perfectly to be president. And that's why one's character, as revealed through one's actions, matters.

How hard can it be to be president? Really hard, if one cares more about doing it and doing it well than one cares about posing and posturing and acting one's way through it.

So think: do you want to elect a man who obviously loves and respects his family and his fellow citizens, or do you want to elect a man who says whatever he thinks his immediate audience wants to hear, a man who had an affair with his present wife while still married to his first one, a man who would offer up his present wife to compete in a biker beauty contest, a man who has no trouble at all lying by accusing his political opponent of all the weaknesses of character he has demonstrated during the course of this campaign? Which one has demonstrated genuine strength of character in both his life AND his campaign? The future of the country depends on how you answer.

Nobody's Home--And The Lights Are Out, To Boot

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Some of the most rabid of Hillary Clinton's supporters are disregarding Hillary's plea that they now support Barack Obama. They are threatening to vote for John McCain on the grounds that Obama disrespected and disregarded Hillary.

Hello? Anybody in there?

If these women think Obama disrespected Hillary, what the heck do they think McCain will do in regards to ALL women? After all, McCain is the one who offered up his wife as a "Miss Buffalo Chip" contestant at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally earlier this summer. Miss Buffalo Chip contestants are encouraged, if not required, to remove most or all of their clothing and perform simulated sex acts with bananas in front of the (male) biker "judges."

Now I'm sure that if McCain is confronted about this, he'll plead ignorance. I don't buy it. Watch the clips of his little performance at Sturgis. There's his wife Cindy, standing dutifully by his side, her face a riot of suppressed rage and humiliation. She knew. And if she knew, he knew. For the life of me, I don't know why she didn't sock him in the jaw and walk off the stage. I guess you can take the good little hausfrau out of the house, but you can't take the GOP toady out of her. No matter how much money she has.

Hillary supporters, wake up! McCain's willingness to humiliate his wife for the sake of a few votes is vastly more disrespectful of all women than was anything Obama did to Hillary. Where do you think that will leave all women if McCain wins the presidency?

If your real objection is in fact the matter of respect for women, you must vote for Obama. Or are you using the respect issue as a smokescreen for your own racism? You'd rather vote for a white man who treats his wife like dirt than for any black man, especially one who demonstrably treats the women in his family very, very well? What are you? Nuts?

Or is it that you have no self-respect? If you vote for McCain, don't expect me--or anyone with half a brain--to respect you, either. Your actions will prove you don't deserve it.

Chutzpah, He Has--Brains, Not So Much

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The worsening economy has sparked a rash of metal thefts in the metro Omaha area. The most common target is copper (wire, sheeting, whatever), from houses under construction, from houses scheduled to be razed, even from the construction site of the Omaha Police Dept.'s new shooting range, if memory serves. Other metals, such as steel, are also taken--the scrap value for any and all of them makes the risks of stealing them worth it in the eyes of the despicable, the desperate, and the dumb.

I was of the opinion that the copper theft from the OPD was the most brazen . . . until yesterday. Yesterday, a man spotted a semi-tractor trailer loaded with 21 tons of steel beams. So he got a semi cab, hooked it to the trailer, and tried to drive off with it. Had he succeeded, he'd have gotten $10,000 for the scrap value of the metal.

Unluckily for him, his bold daylight theft was seen, and he was caught and arrested almost immediately.

Good thing, too. The beams were on their way to Fremont, to be used in the construction of a new medical facility there.

Part of me wants to laugh about the sheer absurdity of the situation. Part of me wants to cry because things have gotten so bad that the putative thief thought his act was worth the risk.

Maybe I should have called this post "Putting The 'B' (For 'Brazen') In DumB."

When "Fairness" Isn't Fair

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

A current petition drive in Nebraska has people of all political stripes frothing at the mouth. Californian Ward Connerly is pumping tons o' money into the "Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative," which has been collecting signatures to add a ban on virtually all forms of affirmative action to Nebraska's November ballot. Apparently, he and his minions succeeded. They claimed Friday that they have turned in signatures from enough Nebraskans to put his measure to the vote this fall.

It is difficult to discuss this issue without feeling like I've fallen through Alice's looking glass and into Orwell's 1984. The group calling itself the "Civil Rights Initiative" is working to end an important civil rights tool. And the name of the group fighting the "Civil Rights Initiative" doesn't exactly stir up images of crusaders for justice and substantive equality. It's called "Nebraskans United." It has challenged the validity of most of the petition signatures on the twin bases of improper collecting techniques and unclear wording of the petition itself. I doubt it will succeed in keeping the ban off the ballot, however. There's too much money on the other side, even though "Nebraskans United" is on the side of the angels in this fight. Money talks, especially when the group with the money adopts a name that makes it seem as though it's the "good guy," that "black is white," and that it's the group favoring fairness--as the name "Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative" has done in this case.

I am not an uncritical fan of affirmative action, but I cannot think of a better way to provide immediate redress for the centuries of discrimination which various minorities in our society have suffered at the hands of the traditional white-middle-aged-male power structure. I feel about affirmative action the way Winston Churchill felt about democracy--it's the second worst form of government . . . after every other form of government. Affirmative action is the only reasonable means at present to redress effectively that which centuries of poverty and ethnic discrimination have wrought.

Affirmative action does this by eliminating the long ladder minorities have to climb just to get to the level of the playing field, not to mention a level playing field. When you are starting in the sub-sub-basement and everyone else is starting on the 10th floor, you are never going to get out of the sub-sub-basement unless employers are encouraged to make some allowances for the wide disparity between your and everyone else's starting points.

If you grow up in a poor neighborhood with lower property values and thus lesser-quality schools (since property taxes paid into the state determine where and how much the state and its local branches spend on education), and your neighborhood has been that way for decades, you not only have no good educational system to help you escape poverty, you have no family or neighborhood tradition of getting an education to rise above your initial, impoverished circumstances. Nevertheless, many--maybe even most--minorities come close to overcoming all the disadvantages heaped upon their heads from even before they were born. They go to school, they stay in school, they learn, they graduate. [They don't generally make the news, because they don't fit the media's "if it bleeds, it leads" mantra.--Ed.] But they need assistance in getting beyond the dead-end jobs available in their own neighborhoods.

Affirmative action provides the mechanism by which those who are close to climbing out on their own can climb out for good--it's a hand up, not a hand-out. No one has to hire as a librarian someone who, say, can't read--but if a minority member has an 11th-grade reading level and a white has a college-freshman reading level, affirmative action encourages hiring the minority member. Once hired, any employee still has to be a good and sufficient employee to KEEP the job. So affirmative action is just a way to get a fair shake at the starting line. One's own talents and abilities have to carry one from there.

Unfortunately, some of the rich bigots out there won't accept affirmative action. They are masters of pitting groups of the poor against each other, often on the basis of race, because they know that as long as poor whites and poor blacks are fighting each other, the bigots and their riches are safe from both. Hence Ward Connerly's interference in Nebraska politics. His published comments make clear he wanted to get his measure on the ballot in 5 states this year alone, but citizens in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Missouri have all already rejected his attempts. Only Nebraska and Colorado seem likely to vote on Connerly's proposal this fall. [Even that is two too many.--Ed.]

I cannot speak to what's happening in Colorado. When I lived there (in the early 1960s), Coloradans made Attila the Hun look like a flower child. One example: my mother helped with a neighborhood petition drive to get a crosswalk installed so that children could safely cross the 4-lane, 45 mph, road between us and our school. At least two people in the neighborhood wouldn't sign because they didn't have any kids, so it would do them no good and (allegedly) increase their taxes. Nice, huh? I guess civilization was a foreign concept to them, but their attitude was not uncommon. I have no idea whether Coloradans have since evolved beyond such troglodyte thinking.

In Nebraska, I am hoping that people who signed the petition did so because they thought they were encouraging fairness, not taking it away. My experience with most Nebraskans has been that they are more concerned with being fair than with being bigots. Connerly's minions played on this by making the petition's wording fuzzy enough to confuse anyone not paying very, very close attention (one of the things he's counting on, no doubt), and those soliciting petition signatures were told to say that signing the petition would "ensure fairness in Nebraska" for the future. I know this because I and several others got that very spiel when we were asked to sign but said "no" and tried to explain why. We were accused of being unfair for our positions. Yet we are the ones fighting for fairness! Through the looking glass and into 1984, indeed.

Nebraskans United is using the petition's fuzzy wording and alleged misconduct by those soliciting petition signatures to challenge the signatures' validity in court. The case is on an expedited calendar, given that the election is now only about 3 months away. Nebraskans United is also challenging the financing behind the petition drive, as the principal backer, Connerly, has no valid residential or business connections to Nebraska. The problem is this: the petitioners needed a total of 112,000 valid signatures to get the measure on the ballot. The so-called "Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative" group says it passed this number by a "comfortable margin." I interpret that to mean by more than 25% (or a total of at least 140,000), as one can presume from prior petition submissions that about 10% of all signatures collected will be ruled invalid even when everything done to collect them is unquestionably proper--as most assuredly was NOT done in this case.

Keep your fingers crossed that this abomination won't make the November ballot--or if it does, that Nebraskans, fundamentally sensible, will take the care and time to see through Connerly's smokescreen and vote the ugly thing down. Connerly doesn't live here. He shouldn't be allowed to taint elections here.

Film at eleven!

Put Another Nickel In, In The Nickelodeon

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The "Top 10 Favorites" music lists recently submitted [at whose request, I do not remember, I am sorry to say--Ed.] by this year's major party putative presidential candidates surprised me. Senator Obama listed a song or two with which I am not familiar (though I recognized the artists involved), and Senator McCain listed two--count 'em, TWO!--Abba songs.

The only artist they both listed was Frank Sinatra, though they listed different favorite Sinatra songs. That's OK. My own favorite Sinatra song differs from both of theirs. I'd have listed "(One For My Baby, And) One More For The Road." Then again, after listening to Sinatra's cover of "Blues In The Night," I might have to add that to my list. On the other hand, after remembering Bugs Bunny singing "A buzzard is two-faced," I'd better go back to my original choice. Talk about [worrisome--Ed.] things you can't get out of your head!

So I got to thinking about what else I'd put on my own personal "Top 10" list. Without a doubt, I'd choose Nat King Cole's cover of "Stardust." What an extraordinary interpretation! It makes the Hoagy Carmichael song truly sublime. Not even Carmichael's own original comes close . . . though, I must admit, Willy Nelson's cover does. But Nat King Cole's version is the standard by which all other covers must be measured. They all fall short.

If instrumentals are allowed, I'd also include Benny Goodman's "Sing, Sing, Sing." I've always liked raucous percussion and reeds, and this one has the most raw clarinet and drum parts ever. It's also guaranteed to make you get up and dance in the aisles, just as it did during Goodman's Carnegie Hall premiere in 1937--if memory serves. Not that I was there. But I have seen The Benny Goodman Story several times [as if that mattered!--Ed.], and I have more than one LP and CD which include that performance.

For sheer silliness, I'd include something by Weird Al Yankovic, most probably "Yoda." We all need to laugh out loud several times a day, and the brilliance of Yankovic's parody of "Lola" cannot be overstated. I guffaw with delight every time I hear it. When you know all the lyrics to a parody and find yourself singing the parody's lyrics even when the original song plays, you are far, far gone. That the parody has lodged itself that deeply in my brain proves how brilliant it is.

I must include Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water." I know Paul Simon was unhappy with his third verse. He said it has always bothered him that he couldn't repeat perfectly the parallel structure of the lyrics from verses one and two. I don't care. The recording is ethereal--Garfunkel's tenor was at its most soaring and true; Simon's melody and the pair's original performance were--and are--perfect.

Can't add anything to that.

I'd like to include Beethoven's 9th Symphony [the whole thing, not just the 4th movement--Ed.], but it's probably too long and esoteric for most folk. Too bad. Beethoven was truly original, a voice of the people, even though he's considered very, very highbrow today. The sheer power and the hope in his music can lift me out of my deepest darknesses, and I treasure his message: all odds CAN be conquered. He is profound. That he could create and conduct such beauty when he could not hear is astonishing.

Now choices get trickier. I am not listing my preferences in any particular order, but the order in which they occurred to me, thus the order in which I write about them here, accurately indicates my probable preferences. Then again, the only reason I started with the Sinatra song is because he's the only one both Obama and McCain listed, not because he's my personal favorite. The choices from here on get trickier anyway. Limiting myself to just 10 total songs is beyond challenging. It's going to be virtually impossible.

I'd also have to include something by the Beatles, but I'll be hanged if I can limit myself to one Beatles song. I have wrestled with this for the better part of the last two days, and I just can't do it. The melody of "Eleanor Rigby" moves me deeply, though the lyrics are a downer; "All You Need Is Love" is fun, but kind of silly [we all know there's nothing wrong with silly love songs, but really!--Ed.]. "A Day In The Life" is masterful in both composition and lyrics, but it wouldn't be my first choice if I must limit myself to one. "Hey, Jude," "Blackbird," "Let It Be," "Norwegian Wood," "Revolution," and on, and on, and on . . . any or all of them would do. Here's a twist: "In My Life," but the cover by Sean Connery. It works. But it seems like something one would say at a funeral.

I give up. The Beatles. Their entire catalog. It's the only option.

And now for something completely different: Garth Brooks, "Friends In Low Places." It's the fun value. This is a great song just to sing. Perfect party music.

Likewise, Talking Heads' "Burning Down The House." Not only is it a great song, it's the greatest background music for doing the housecleaning I've ever found. A survey of NPR listeners about 19 years ago confirmed it. But I said it first!

Enya's "Caribbean Blue." I love the way her music flows over my soul. "Orinoco Flow" is wonderful, too, but I think "Caribbean Blue" is less over-exposed. Besides, I remember hearing a DJ say once that "Orinoco Flow" reminded him of the soundtrack to an epic Western. I get it. I even agree with it. But I can't get it out of my head, and that song deserves more.

I'd also have to include two songs by Johnny Cash, believe it or not. His cover of "Hurt," made a year or so before he died, proves that the man was a genuine artist. It's an amazing performance. My other Cash tune? "Ring Of Fire." Talk about "portrait of the artist as a young man"--this is it. The orchestration, with the Mariachi horns and no drums, was a first. I didn't appreciate how unique this song was when I was younger. I've grown in my understanding.

I think I've already chosen more than 10. I haven't even gotten to Duke Ellington, Barbra Streisand, Barry Manilow (jazz-oriented only, thank you), Lyle Lovett, or Beck! Let alone Prince, The Police, and God only knows how many other artists. My CD collection is embarrassingly large. I lost count at 500, and I have broad collections in just about every genre.

OK, just one or two more so that I can assuage my ethnic pride. Tommy Makem's "Rocky Road To Dublin," and De Daanan's "Hibernian Rhapsody." The former because it's a rousing good rebellion song; the latter, because hearing Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" arranged for traditional Irish instruments is simply delightfully offbeat. Even though the music is perfectly on the beat.

I shudder to think what I've left out. I'd love to know your choices. I guess my inability to limit myself just proves I don't have the self-discipline to be president. Or that I know too much about too many things.

Pssst! Wanna Buy A Bridge?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I can get it for you wholesale.

Let me see if I understand this. In the past several years, Senator John McCain has voted against every single piece of proposed legislation to help the military and military veterans . . . on the grounds that the money needed "would break the budget." When he could be bothered to show up and vote, that is. He never even bothered to attend to cast a vote on a Senate resolution to honor our Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. A resolution that would add precisely NOTHING to the national budget deficit because it would cost exactly NOTHING.

And he's the pro-veterans candidate?!?

He says Senator Barack Obama changes his position on issues because of Obama's "overwhelming ambition to be president." McCain has no ambition to become president? Or he's being coerced somehow into running as the GOP candidate?

When asked about Obama Nation, a pack of lies and smears if there ever was one, McCain said only, "You gotta keep your sense of humor." I wonder how charitable McCain would be about a book belittling him and his time as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton.

Well, if you vote for McCain, you're either totally gullible or a bigot. In either case, I want to sell you a bridge--in Brooklyn--very solid brick and steel construction. Cash only, up front. I'll take your best offer.

Let me know how much you'd like to spend.

Justice May Or May Not Be Blind, But Sometimes She Is Deaf And Dumb

Two area criminal trials recently concluded, with vastly different and unfair results. In the first, a young man who took a baseball bat to an older man's head was convicted only of misdemeanor assault. It didn't seem to matter to the jury that the young man took the bat and several of his buddies to the older man's house (in the small community of Plattsmouth, south of Bellevue), rang the doorbell intending to confront the older man, and hit the man so severely that his face is still disfigured (after at least one surgery), and that the older man faces several more surgeries and over $600,000 in medical bills.

According to several jurors, some on the panel even wanted to acquit the young man at first. This is mind-boggling to me. Those jurors apparently believed the young man's claim that he was afraid, that he swung the bat only in self-defense, and that he was aiming only at the older man's stomach. Right. After HE picked up a bat, went to the man's house, and initiated the confrontation. One does not have to be a major league baseball player to know that a level swing aimed at someone's stomach is not going to hit that person in the face, either.

I get the feeling from what the jurors who spoke up said was that the misdemeanor conviction was the best they could get, and they decided do accept that verdict rather than insist on the more serious felony assault charge and wind up with no conviction at all due to a hung jury.

Omaha World-Herald editorial cartoonist Jeff Koterba got this one just right: he depicted Lady Justice down on the ground, bleeding from her head, a bloody baseball bat tossed on the ground beside her.

Sometimes, however, the system works just right. In Omaha this afternoon, a now 15-year-old man was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of a 6-year-old girl back in 2006. He had been arguing with the girl's caregivers on and off all day (apparently about some drug deal gone wrong), and finally got a gun and shot at them while they were in a car. Of course the innocent 6-year-old was the one who was hit, fatally. And she didn't die immediately. Her last words were, "It burns." [Talk about heart-wrenching!--Ed.] The jurors in this case have been deliberating since late last week, so this was no hasty, predetermined verdict, despite what the shooter's grandmother claims.

No, the young man had no intent to kill a 6-year-old, but by shooting at the car when he could see the people he'd been fighting with sitting in it, he intended to kill. That's the only intent required for second-degree murder.

He was tried as an adult because he had demonstrated repeatedly that he knew and understood the consequences of his actions. His grandmother was also upset that he wasn't "tried" in Juvenile Court, but that's silly. Juvenile Court was set up to handle juvenile things, the kind of pranks and family problems that were common 50 years ago--not murder.

The grandmother seemed to think that since she'd convinced her grandson to go and confess his role to the police late the same night of the crime that the young man should get consideration. But the tapes of his confession, which were aired on the local news programs all afternoon after the verdict was announced, showed that he didn't even want to admit he'd fired the gun at first. It was a long time before he finally "fessed up."

The prosecution wanted a first-degree murder conviction, but I don't think that was warranted, either. Yes, the young man went and got a gun, but unlike the young man in Plattsmouth, he didn't go out and seek his antagonists and confront them. He happened to see them and after some shouted exchanges, pulled the gun and fired--to scare them, he said--but since he aimed at the car and not in the air, he demonstrated he'd formed sufficient intent for a second-degree murder conviction.

So we had a gross miscarriage of justice in Plattsmouth and a major doing of justice in Omaha. I can hope only that the injured man in Plattsmouth files a civil suit against his attacker, so that he can get compensation for some of his medical expenses, at least. Not that it will matter. As all the professors in the Damages course in law school say, "You can't get blood from a turnip."

Hello? Hello?

Please tell me I'm not the only one who finds Dubya's scolding of Russia for its military aggression in Georgia hypocritical and ineffectual. Which is not to say I disagree with it. It's just that when Dubya tells the leader (Prime Minister Putin) of another country that it has no right to invade a third and that its actions are "disproportionate," I can't get past a mental image of a pot calling a kettle black. As it were.

I very much would like to see Georgia keep its freely elected democratic government and not be re-subsumed into a revitalized Soviet Union--even if it's officially without the "Soviet," Russia is turning back into the same empire that lowered the Iron Curtain in the first place.

However, I can't see how anyone in the world can take Dubya's tsk-tsking and finger-wagging lecturing seriously, given the crap he dragged us into in Iraq. Not to mention Afghanistan (though I concede that our presence in Afghanistan is the more justifiable of the two wars).

November cannot come soon enough for me! (Assuming we get a new administration, and not McBush's third term, that is.)

I Want To Eat Lunch, Not Play Golf

As I age, I find myself increasingly distressed by people (who should know better) who mispronounce words. This despite the fact that I'm not perfect. "Poinsettia" always gives me trouble. I was raised to say "Poinsett-a," and for a long time thought it was an acceptable regional variant. "Poinsett-i-a" is correct, but so many say it the other way that I feel like a pretender or a snob if I say it correctly. But saying it wrong (i.e., according to habit) doesn't feel right, either. So I tend to avoid saying it at all. When I must say it, I tend to slide a "y" sound in the middle: "Poinsett-ya." Not pretty; not elegant; but workable. I hope.

Anyway, the current Wendy's ad wherein an animated Wendy says she doesn't like "gray areas" in her chicken is bugging the heck out of me. She also says "sand-wedge" instead of "sand-wich." She may not want any gray areas in her chicken sandwich, but I sure don't want to clamp my teeth down on a golf club in the middle of mine!

I'm not sure why it irritates me so much. Maybe it's because I tend to equate pronunciation laziness with mental laziness. This is the same reason that when otherwise intelligent, educated people like Keith Olbermann say "li-berry" instead of "li-brary," I go through the roof. It's worse than fingernails scraping a blackboard. It's worse than having aluminum foil and a stainless steel fork tine hit a dental filling at the same time. It is supremely discomforting.

Which is not to say that I still won't make mistakes. But at least I know better than the sociology professor [yes, the professor--Ed.] who repeatedly in his lectures said "ep-i-tome" instead of "e-pit-o-me." Yes, it was Sociology 101, with well over 250 students in the lecture sessions, and yes, it was the fall of [gasp!--Ed] 1975, and yes, the professor obviously was well on the way to "emeritus" status . . . but still! I was 18, barely out of high school, and I knew better than a Ph.D. with several books published how to pronounce an important word. What really scares me however is that no one else seemed to notice. Either they didn't know the word or they didn't know any better, either.

Here's hoping college broadened their horizons.

How Art The Mighty Fallen

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I hereby withdraw my call to draft John Edwards at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. I felt safe in ignoring the rumors of his having had an affair back in 2006, so long as the only media outlets "reporting" said rumors were bird cage liners like The National Enquirer. Now that both Edwards and his wife have confirmed the affair, however, I can ignore the rumors no more.

Do all our heroes have feet of clay? Is this an illustration of the "power corrupts" hypothesis? Why does it even matter?

To answer in reverse order: it matters because it goes straight to the issue of Edwards' integrity, which was one of his most important "selling points" as a potential presidential nominee. It does illustrate almost perfectly that even the potential for power corrupts. Edwards' own admission was that he became increasingly narcissistic as his efforts to become the Democratic nominee progressed. The potential for power increased his attractiveness to himself AND others; it also increased his interest in responding to the attraction others felt for him. All our heroes must have feet of clay, therefore. I can't think of a single person for whom I've ever expressed admiration who hasn't disappointed or shocked me at some point. [And I am sure anyone who has ever expressed admiration for me has been disappointed in or shocked by me at some point. If anyone ever has expressed any admiration for me, that is!--Ed]

The real tragedy of Edwards' dalliance is manifold. (1) Though his affair has little to do with his stand on public policy issues, his stand no longer has any credibility . . . at least, not when coming from him.

(2) Edwards' political rivals--indeed, rivals of all Democrats--now have an additional smokescreen issue to divert attention and energy from the genuinely important issues of the upcoming election. So what that John McCain regularly lies about his own voting record [let alone Obama's--Ed.] and about where he stands on the issues? So what that McCain can't get straight the most basic facts about foreign policy issues--allegedly his area of greatest advantage and expertise over Obama? So what that his own campaign staffers have said that McCain doesn't necessarily speak for the McCain campaign? Look at those nasty Democrats who can't keep their zippers zipped! [If you think the rabid right wing of the GOP isn't going to raise the spectre of Bill Clinton's shenanigans again, you are way too naive to be involved in politics.--Ed]

Hmm . . . that last reminds me of my ex-husband's take on Nixon's "Checkers" speech: "I may be a crook, but look at this dog." [Gotta give credit where credit is due. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, per Ann Landers.--Ed.]

(3) Elizabeth Edwards' voice has been stilled. Because of her personal experiences, she was a powerful advocate for (among other things) better health care for all Americans. Now, not only has her speech at the upcoming convention been cancelled, neither she nor her husband will even attend.

(4) Most personally, the toll it has taken on the entire Edwards family. How much energy did it take away from Elizabeth Edwards' efforts to combat her recurrent breast cancer? She has forgiven her husband, but how much of her trust in him remains broken? And their children's trust, too?

(5) The potential harm to the country. Edwards was being considered for a Cabinet post, most probably Attorney General. It is impossible, however, for someone whose personal integrity is now so tarnished to take on the task of returning the Dubya administration's politically-infected Justice Department to a state of politically-neutral respectability. Contrary to what some of Dubya's minions think, career attorneys at Justice do not serve a particular president or administration. They serve the American people. All of us. All the time. No matter who's in the Oval Office. At the moment, however, I can't think of any other Democrat who has the practical trial attorney experience and the national reputation to bring credibility back to the DOJ. And Edwards simply will no longer do.

I'd go cry in my beer, except I don't drink beer. Somehow, "crying into my Coca Cola" doesn't have the same cachet.

Three Things I Wish I'd Never Seen

My jaw literally dropped when I saw and heard John McCain offer up his wife Cindy to be a Miss Buffalo Chip contestant at the Sturgis (SD) motorcycle rally yesterday. Was it ignorance or really bad taste? Miss Buffalo Chip contestants have to take their clothes off . . . and the winners also usually simulate various sex acts with bananas . . . Gross! Of course, the bikers ate it up. Cindy just stood at her husband's side, head down, a strained, close-mouthed smile on her face. If I were her, I'd have socked McCain right in the chops, walked off the stage, and filed for divorce. Is there no low to which his pandering for votes will not stoop?

* * * * * * * * * *

Any and all of the current Citgo ads. They are full of sunniness and light, talking about how all Citgo stations are locally owned, and how that by supporting Citgo, buyers of its gasoline are helping their local economies. They very conveniently do not mention that Citgo is owned by Venezuela. Yep, it's the state-owned and run corporation of Hugo Chavez--you know, Hugo Chavez, whose anti-US rhetoric will curl your hair [or straighten it out if it's already curly--Ed.]. So we as a nation aren't fit to wipe his shoes, but our money is more than good enough to fund his nation's economy.

And for all of you who think I'm betraying my beliefs by condemning an avowed Communist, let me remind you of two things: (1) my opinions are based on fact--I do not let my personal proclivities color my evaluation of anything; (2) Communists in practice are much more to the right than to the left, as philosophical orientations go. The mistake that people make in calling Communists leftists is that thinking because Communists run their abusive power through "the state," they like "big government." And that "big government" equals being "leftist." No, no, no! They are dictators, pure and simple. And that's to the right end of the political spectrum. The mechanism they use to wield their power isn't the issue--their control over everything is.

* * * * * * * * * *

Baskin-Robbins has an ad wherein a soccer dad promises the team Oreo shakes (or sundaes, or something) if they win the game, and a soccer mom promptly kicks the winning goal, then screams at one of the opposing players, "Go-o-o-o-al! In your face!" As of a few days ago, the "in your face" has been cut from the ad. I guess B-R got a lot of complaints from people about that. I hope so. It was beyond obnoxious. I confess to not paying close enough attention to what exactly the winning players were promised, as all the local Baskin-Robbins franchises left the Omaha area years ago, and I see no point in torturing myself by wanting something yummy that I can't have. Even though the temperature is well over 90° every day lately. Even though I still miss B-R's World Class Chocolate [which, in my perhaps not-so-humble estimation, is the single best ice cream flavor ever made.--Ed.].

More Things That Make You Go "Hmm . . ."

Yesterday was the first anniversary of Barry Bonds' either tying or breaking Hank Aaron's career home runs record. No one on this year's San Francisco team has hit a many as 10 homers. So much for them being the "Giants." Which leads me to wonder whether the team should have received an automatic exemption from the steroids ban just to be able to better embody the team's nickname. Maybe Barry Bonds should use that argument as part of his defense. "I had no choice. I had to be a Giant, in every possible way."

* * * * * * * * * *

I still can't figure out why the Dubya administration felt the need to trump up a bunch of secret evidence against Osama bin Laden's driver to use (in secret) at the driver's trial at Gitmo. [That's "Guantanamo Bay" to you normal, not-infected-by-being-connected-to-the-military, people.--Ed.] There was no need to subject the driver to torture via rendition or anything else. We have a picture of the driver standing next to Obama--and the driver is holding an assault rifle. Assuming the picture wasn't PhotoShopped, I have to agree with the prosecution's argument that no one who wasn't highly trusted would be allowed to get that close to bin Laden with weapons in his hands. So what's up with all that other crap that Dubya's minions pulled?

Maybe they LIKE torturing people.

Creepy.

* * * * * * * * * *

So the Green Bay Packers apparently blinked. Brett Favre has been reinstated by the NFL Commissioner, and he's in Green Bay, and as I write this, the promised press conference hasn't yet been held so that we'll all find out what the Packers organization is doing next. Like we don't have anything else to do except wait to find that out.

The NFL is already playing pre-season games. And college football fall camps have opened. It's 90+ fricking degrees outside! C'mon! The baseball pennant races are just now starting in earnest. It's much too early for football. Excuse me while I go take a nap inside my freezer.

* * * * * * * * * *

Does anybody know the name of the singer who's featured in the current Reebok NFL-related T-shirt commercial? I've tried finding out, using "Traveling North" as the name of the title of the song she's singing, but that hasn't worked, so now I'm asking for help. And I'm going to feel really stupid for not recognizing her myself once I learn the answer, aren't I? Oh, well. So what else is new?

* * * * * * * * * *

I'm with Lisa Marie Presley. Those "Viva Viagra" commercials make me puke. Her, because she thinks they disrespect her dad. Me, because no one connected to the ads apparently gets the irony of the singer calling himself an "ol' goat." And health plans that jumped all over covering Viagra still won't cover female birth control. Feel free to roll your eyes in disgust. I know I am.

* * * * * * * * * *

John McCain has obviously planned his campaign around PT Barnum's admonition that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. He said he wasn't going to run a negative campaign, but so far, all his ads attack Barack Obama--and not even with facts, but with lies and distortions and innuendos. He said he had no intention of playing the "race card," but so far, his most-frequently run ad juxtaposes pictures of Obama with Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Washington Monument, the Eiffel Tower, and crowds of Europeans applauding for Obama. He said he was going to stick to the issues in his campaign, but so far, his tactics are to claim that Obama is either too popular or to thin to be president.

This is perfectly in line with McCain's contempt for us, the voters. He lies about his voting record on a regular basis and expects us NOT to censure him for it. Anyone who does call him on his lies is branded an evil "liberal" member of the press, denied access to McCain's so-called Straight Talk Express, and demonized as just another cog in the machine conspiring to keep McCain from getting favorable media coverage.

Where'd I put my spare barf bags? I'm gonna need more than one or two at this rate!

Cat Lady, Cat Lady, Find Me A Cat

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

In Omaha earlier this week, the Nebraska Humane Society raided the home of a 68-year-old woman because of a tip from a Council Bluffs, Iowa (just across the Missouri river, still part of the larger metro Omaha area) pet store. The woman had been caught trying to shoplift cat food. The NHS found over 100 cats in the woman's home.

I am not going to reveal her name, even though it's been in all the news stories, because she doesn't need more publicity directed at her personally. She has sought out the media (print and TV) and taken an active role in claiming she's "not one of those [weird] old ladies" who hoards cats. She merely helps and protects cats.

The NHS would disagree. While NHS workers admitted that the woman's home was not as bad as some they've had to raid [they didn't need to don HazMat gear--Ed.], even three days after they removed all the cats, cleaned what they could, and left the house's windows open, the house still smells of urine and illness.

The NHS also has had to euthanize over 60 of the cats already. NHS workers also say they found several dead kittens under the woman's bed and some dead cats buried in her back yard.

The woman disputes all these things. She says the only reason her house wasn't as clean as normal the day of the raid is that her normal 4-5 hour routine of cleaning all the litter boxes was not completed because she had to leave for a medical appointment. She says there was only 1 dead kitten under her bed, and no cats buried in the yard.

It's perfectly obvious that she is, in fact, one of those "old ladies" who hoards cats. Delusion about the good she's is doing is the hallmark symptom of an animal hoarder. My heart aches for her, because she is trying to do a good thing--but she doesn't know when or how to stop or set limits, and has allowed her need for being a care-giver to overwhelm her sense about how much care she can responsibly give.

The reason this matters? Well, Socrates said an unexamined life was not worth living, and the lady's story made me wonder how much and in what areas we all delude ourselves, and what harm we are doing as a result, even when [especially when--Ed.] we think we are doing good.

I am mulling over my answers about myself. I hope you will do the same for yourselves. Taking time to reflect--and then act on what we discover--gives us all the opportunity to improve ourselves and make our world a better place.

If nothing else, it should provoke us to donate to our local Humane Societies.

What He's NOT Saying Is As Important As What He Is Saying

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) has been indicted for accepting all kinds of goodies in connection with a second story renovation and expansion of his home . . . goodies made at the behest of a company with big oil drilling interests. Stevens has protested his innocence, claiming he paid every invoice he received regarding the redo on his house.

What he didn't say is whether he recognized that whatever invoices he received totaled a great deal less than the actual supplies and labor of the work done. That isn't exactly difficult to calculate. If he got bills totaling, say, $5,000.00, one would have only to look at the work done to see how short that bill fell of covering the actual expense. One does not have to be a construction genius to figure this out. One needs only a Menard's ad showing its charges for materials like the ones used on Stevens' house.

OK--I know what you're going to say. If President Bush (I) had no idea about grocery scanners, and Sen. John McCain wears a pair of $500+ Ferragamo shoes while claiming to be "just folks," it's possible Stevens had no clue about the actual expenses of the work on his home. Possible, but not plausible. As I said, one does not have to be a genius to have a clue.

But even if he honestly did have no idea, are we sure we want such people voting on how our taxes are spent? Stevens has been in office a long, long time . . . methinks he got a little too comfy and cozy with being Alaska's designated "Senator for life," as he was (until now) regularly called in the Alaskan media.

Listen! (Doo Wah Doo) Do You Want To Know A Secret?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I'm not usually very big on conspiracy theories. I maintain that in any society with a vigorous and truly free press, conspiracies cannot hold for long. Once exposed to the light of day, conspiracies "go poof!" Secrecy is their binding agent. Without it, they will oollapse.

This is one of the reasons I used to argue with my [dear departed--Ed.] dad all the time about the Kansas City Chiefs. From the mid-80s on, he firmly maintained that at least one player (usually he referred to the field goal kicker) was being paid to throw close games. And the kicker in those days did seem to have a problem splitting the uprights when a field goal would mean the difference between a win and a loss for the Chiefs. I kept reminding my dad that given the ever-increasing presence of sports reporters (due to the expansion of sports coverage on Cable TV), no reporter would sit on such a story--breaking it would make his reputation and ensure his career success. Therefore, if such a conspiracy existed, someone would have ferreted it out and told us about it.

He clung to his conspiracy theory nevertheless. Perhaps he found it easier to live with the Chiefs' failures when it wasn't really the entire team's fault . . . perhaps he was just "yanking my chain." Perhaps it was a bit of both. For my part, I cling just as firmly to my belief in the power of the free and investigative press, the strength of human curiosity, and the inability of most people to keep their mouths perfectly shut.

On days like today, however, I wonder. The presence of Fox "News" has corroded the concept of a free and independent investigative press--my only question is how far the damage has spread. After 7+ years of the Dubya administration debacle, I am forced to concede that Machiavelli was right about what the exercise of power does to some people. And when I hear about how school systems all over the country are under such financial pressure that (1) teachers pay for classroom supplies out of their own pockets; (2) communities hold "backpack" drives to make sure all students have what they need to attend school; and (3) people everywhere in this country demonstrate their ignorance of American history every time they open their mouths, I wonder: is there a conspiracy to demolish our public school system in order to create a permanent economic underclass?

It would make it much easier for the rich to keep--nay, increase--their riches at the expense [literally--Ed.] of the rest of us. It would do a lot to return the USA to a 19th century model of economic social stratification. It would mean the end of America as "the land of opportunity," where only one's own limitations affect how successful anyone can be. But it would make it easier for those in power to keep selling the "land of opportunity," because no one would have any education by which they could question what the powers that be tell everyone.

Education is the one thing that no one can steal. Once you have it, you are truly free. Destroy equal opportunity education for all, and you destroy the ability of future generations to rise above whatever economic circumstances limit them at their birth. That has always been the true hope America held out to the world. It won't be much for longer, if people like Fox "News" head Rupert Murdoch have their way, however. They don't want people have access to information, to think for themselves, and to make up their own minds about issues. They want to tell us what to think, and to beat down anyone who disagrees. How much easier to accomplish this once our schools are squeezed down into being mere babysitting services, instead of true gateways to Knowledge!

I hate that I am thinking this way. Maybe it's the rainy weather . . . it always makes me tired and pessimistic. But God help me, I have this urge to contact Hillary Clinton and apologize to her for rolling my eyes at her allegation several years ago of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." It doesn't matter that she said it in terms of certain people's efforts to "get Bill." It's part and parcel of the same thing. Rich right-wingers in power want to limit everyone else's access to same. They think the economic pie is limited, and they want to hog all they can for themselves. They just don't get it. When we all have equal access to the keys to success, the pie gets bigger, and there's more to share for everyone. JFK was right: a rising tide does "lift all boats."

Just Because You're Paranoid, It Doesn't Mean They're NOT Out To Get You

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Former Dubya administration toady and water carrier (i.e., temporary UN Ambassador) John Bolton has denigrated that administration's noticeable shift toward talking to and negotiating with countries Dubya said formed "the Axis of Evil." Bolton says this shift (1) demonstrates the "intellectual collapse" of the Dubya administration, thus (2) starts "the Obama administration six months early."

Two responses occur to me: (1) before you can have an "intellectual collapse," you must have an intellect. Had Bolton said "ideological collapse," his observation would have been much more accurate. Note, however, that he and I still disagree on whether said collapse is a good thing. He thinks not. I think it's more than about time.

(2) Bolton has unwittingly provided me with some support for a rather paranoid supposition, to wit: far, far right hard-liners are paying people on Sen. John McCain's election staff to screw up McCain's chances to get elected, as they are willing to "endure" four years of an Obama administration in the hopes that by 2012, said hard-liners can regain the presidency . . . only this time, with permanent control of the government. How else to explain the myriad out-and-out stupidities and lies McCain's campaign is experiencing?

[For a stupidity, consider McCain's "press conference" yesterday wherein he was filmed standing in front of a grocery store cheese case. Too tempting, and too easy, to make any number of cheesy jokes about it. For a lie, consider McCain's assertion yesterday that the Iraqi "surge" actually started several months before Dubya announced it. McCain seems to have no idea that the things he says are "facts" are easily checked and easily disproved. No surprise, I suppose, given his admitted ineptitude regarding the Internet.--Ed.]

Not that it really matters. If the Mayan calendar is correct, the world will end about 6 weeks after the November 2012 elections, on December 12, 2012. Long enough for the far, far right to know whether its nefarious plan has succeeded, but not long enough for that plan to go into effect. For them, then, T.S. Eliot's observation will be correct: "This is the way the world will end, not with a bang but a whimper."

Brett Favre, Go Away, Don't Come Back Another Day

I'm sorry, but I am totally fed up with the Brett Favre psycho-drama. For the past several years, Favre has played coy with the Green Bay Packers, leaving the organization guessing as to whether he was going to play another year--until this March, when he finally said he was now officially retired.

Except that he didn't mean it. I wondered during his March announcement whether he meant it, as he kept saying that he knew he could still play, but he wasn't sure he wanted to any more. He seemed less than committed to what he was saying, but he said it, so he should have to live with it.

And now that the Packers as an organization took him at his word and moved on--both in terms of modifying the offense to take advantage of new starting QB Aaron Rodgers's skill set and in terms of whom the Packers chose during the recent NFL college football draft--Favre has come out of the woodwork and is demanding to be given his outright release so that he can play somewhere else.

And women are hopeless prima donnas? My understanding of the situation is that Favre, still owing 3 years' service on his most recently signed contract with the Packers, has the choice of staying retired or of asking the NFL, through a letter to the Commissioner's Office, for reinstatement. Until he is reinstated, the Packers organization is within its rights to consider him retired and to do nothing else.

But Favre doesn't want reinstatement, because Green Bay most likely would neither trade nor release him--rather, Green Bay would make him the most expensive bench-sitting back-up in history, at approximately $12 million a year. Green Bay has no reason to grant Favre an outright release, as Favre would use it to negotiate a contract to play for one of the Packers' biggest divisional rivals, the Minnesota Vikings. [As Green Bay's recent complaint to the NFL suggests.--Ed.] Nor does Green Bay want to trade Favre, as that would be anathema to most Packers fans, not to mention that the only teams with the need and the wherewithal to vie for Favre's services are the very teams, like the Vikings, to whom Green Bay most emphatically does not want Favre to go.

So Favre's family has been making noises for weeks now that the Packers organization has made Brett feel "not welcome in Green Bay" for the past several years, and Favre's legal representative claims the ball is in Green Bay's court and it's up to Green Bay to make the next move.

But if Green Bay doesn't have to do anything until and unless Favre applies for and is given reinstatement, why should the Packers organization lift a finger? Favre's representative says Favre isn't going to ask for reinstatement because he has no intention of attending training camp just to be a backup, and that if Favre asks for reinstatement he'll be fined for every day he doesn't attend camp, so Favre isn't going to do that . . . but get real! He's under contract--either he stays retired or he complies with the terms of the contract, which includes paying any penalties for non-compliance.

Favre doesn't really want to play any more, I suspect. This is a case of Favre realizing he's no longer in the spotlight and still wanting to be the center of attention. He says the Packers organization has been telling him one thing for months but saying something completely different to the general public. However, I have seen no inconsistencies in Green Bay's statements over the past several months. The organization has said it tried to talk Favre out of retiring, but Favre wouldn't listen. And now he's changing his mind, but now it's too late.

If Favre was as unsure of retiring as he now says he was, he never should have made the announcement in the first place. So suck it up, Brett, and realize that you don't get to have everything 100% of your own way just because you hold a whole mess of NFL records. Show a little grace, show a little class--move on.

I have a friend who's husband insists that Brett Favre will be his #1 QB choice forever, but I say this: Favre is durable and workmanlike, to be sure, but give me Joe Montana in his prime any day of the week. At least Montana had--and still has--class. He also knew when it was time to go. [Which saddened me no end. My dad raised me to be a KC Chiefs fan, and I was so tantalized by how close to the Super Bowl Montana got the Chiefs in his 2nd year at KC that I didn't want to see him retire . . . even though I have come to see the wisdom of his decision.--Ed.]

Heck, I still remember when John Elway, newly out of college, was drafted by the Colts, and basically pitched a fit and said he wouldn't go . . . and the Colts caved in and traded him. My dad was disgusted about that for years. Being a career Air Force NCO, my dad understood that when your employer tells you to go somewhere, you go . . . no matter how much you may not want to do so . . . until you've earned the right to make other arrangements, which Elway, never having played a day in the pros at that point, had not yet done.

So I am totally fed up with the crass egoism of certain professional athletes. What else is new?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Who Won the '58 FA Cup?

A commentator on the upcoming Beijing Olympics said on TV the other day that no one should be surprised that an officially Communist country has adopted a capitalistic economic system, because "Communism is a political philosophy and capitalism is not political but economic." First, I apologize for not remembering exactly who said this, as I would prefer to attribute it correctly, and I cannot. Second, I feel like a fool--mostly because I initially attributed a great deal of sense to the statement.

But the more I thought about it, the more I began to wonder whether the commentator or I was the one who was crazy. Karl Marx defined Communism (as he would have societies practice it) as inherently political, true. But he demarked the political sides based entirely on their economic status in their communities.

So politics and economics are inherently intertwined, according to Marx. Saying China is not being self-contradictory by combining a Communist-Party-dominated government with a capitalistic economic system is thus delusional. Then again, Communism as it is and has been practiced in the actual world has virtually nothing to do with Communism as practiced according to Marx. Marx maintained that the working industrial proletariat would overthrow capitalism. Yet Communism has taken deepest root in agrarian, subsistence societies. Marx maintained that Communism in practice would cause "the withering away of the state." Yet Communist states are run by pervasive, totalitarian governments. Marx maintained that under Communism, everyone would contribute "according to his ability" and be cared for "according to his needs." [I never cease to be amused by how many Americans think this concept is enshrined in the US Constitution, but who proudly call themselves anti-Communist and who scream bloody murder at the smallest attempts at "social engineering," even when it would help them.--Ed.]

Of course, the biggest problem with Marx's entire system is that he never set forth who decides what an individual's abilities and needs are, thus determining who has to give and who gets to take. The upshot? The rise of nominally Communist totalitarian regimes, because "he who has the gold makes the rules." Even though their existence contradicts Marx's prognostications, their rise answers perfectly what Marx failed to address. Who decides? Those in power do. Whether their power is political and gives them the opportunity to control the economy or whether their power is economic and thus gives them the ability to control the government is irrelevant. Politics and economics are inseparable.

And there's the rub. Capitalism by definition promotes the idea that anyone who can will earn as much money as possible by dint of his own efforts. Thus capitalism, for all its faults, is a bastion of individual liberty. Your success is limited only by your own efforts. And that is the contradiction built into the idea of a Communist totalitarian government running a capitalistic economic system. It contains the seeds of its own destruction. Once people realize the regime is limiting their ability to earn more money, they are no longer going to support the regime. Sooner or later a tipping point will come, and the regime will come down. The only question is whether what replaces it will be worse.

Keep all this in mind while watching the Olympics. And don't worry too much about the title question for this post. It's from a Monty Python sketch wherein notable Communists in history compete in a game show to win a lounge suite. The title question stumped Karl Marx himself. At least Mao Tse Dong knew that Jerry Lee Lewis sang "Gleat Balls of File!"

-->

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com