KillSilly

Matters That Hardly Matter

2010-11-13T19:03:00.004-05:00

Do you hear that? It is the sound of indifference. The trouble with indifference is it can blossom into aggressive apathy, a state of affairs in which one cares so little that the point about not caring gets belabored in an almost bellicose manner. So be forewarned. If the phrase "nobody cares" appears below, assume that "nobody" refers to the author.

Nobody cares what sports your kids play, except those who ask a question similar to this one: do your kids play any sports? This applies across the board to things like your child's scholastic achievements and his or her hobbies. Your children also operate on an Inverse Attractiveness Scale (IAS), meaning the more you rave about how cute they are, the less cute the rest of us perceive them to be. No guarantees here, but you might try the following tactic.

Parent: This is a picture of my daughter. Isn't she ugly?

Disinterested Co-Worker: Certainly not, she's a gorgeous child.

Nobody cares where you're having a house built, or if you're having a house built, or if you have an in ground pool, or if you just got a new car.

Nobody cares if you're no-nonsense or old school. Maybe we prefer lots of nonsense and new schools (see Rhymes, Busta). We might care (a little) how hard you had it growing up, but there's a definite law of diminishing returns. The more you yammer, the less we're moved.

Don't brag about having been to prison. Don't brag about going to a better school than someone else. If you are a fan of a particular high school or university sports team, that's fine, but don't bore us with old stories or try to make rival schools look bad; you only make yourself look more ridiculous.

Not everyone who claims to be tougher than everybody else is tougher than everybody else, based on simple mathematics. Tough, by the way, is not necessarily synonymous with mean.

Tattoos are not a particularly compelling way to express individuality. Asking someone to permanently draw an image you like on your body is an acceptable pastime, one that harms nobody except possibly--though rarely--the recipient of the artwork, but it is no more or less noble or daring than collecting stamps or crocheting. A true individual doesn't have to explain--either verbally or visually--why he or she is unique because fascinating traits will undoubtedly manifest themselves over time. It is utterly wrong to stigmatize the inked as degenerate just as it is fatuous to laud them for body art alone.

The election is over. For the most part, the people who prevailed in the last election took a pounding this time around. That means there's fluidity in the system, not an altogether bad trait even if your preferred side doesn't win all the time. Are things perfect? No, and they never will be. Politics is worthy of our interest but hardly our tears.

And that's today's truth. But, of course, nobody cares.

Have a Dog Kicking Halloween

2010-10-28T19:57:00.008-04:00

Screamin' Jay Hawkins (born Jalacy Hawkins, Cleveland, Ohio, 1929) may have become something of a musical footnote but he's a colorful one. Best known for his rabid love ballad "I Put A Spell On You", Hawkins recorded other memorable numbers such as "Alligator Wine", "There's Something Wrong With You", "Little Demon", and "Yellow Coat", and choreographed a stage show during which he, among other things, emerged from a coffin and carried around a skull he dubbed Henry.

It is around this time of year that one generally hears Hawkins' music and perhaps learns in passing of the vast number of children he allegedly fathered, maybe fifty, maybe more. This might not seem like the eulogy Screamin' Jay Hawkins, who died in 2000, would have desired but bizarre lives lived lead to strange post-mortems.

The constant use of high-profile recording artists to perform mini-songs to promote sporting events is a bit difficult to understand. Most recently, Kid Rock can be glimpsed during the Major League Baseball Playoffs broadcast belting out a single line repeatedly when the station goes to commercial break. How does this help the ratings? Or, for that matter, hurt them? Do baseball enthusiasts who despise Kid Rock give up the sport altogether? Do Kid Rock fans who hitherto loathed baseball now embrace the game? So maybe it gets the artist some free publicity, but otherwise, who benefits? Is it worth Kid Rock's asking price?

Now that the Election is almost over, it will be a while before we get to hear candidates say things like, "While my opponent was punching 90 year old ladies in the face and stealing ice cream from little kids, I was brokering a peace deal between rival street gangs and composing a symphony."

Here's a charge worth leveling at one's opponent: dog-kicking. It could be done overtly or subtly; examples of each can be seen below.

Overt:
In 2004, Mike Lobotomy deliberately and maliciously kicked a dog. This is the dog, Buster. (photograph of dog looking very sympathetic appears onscreen) Buster died the following year. Did the kicking incident traumatize Buster and send him to an early grave? This veterinarian says yes. (Source and date of quote by veterinarian appears onscreen, although actual quote is not visible)

Vote for Lefty Knucklehead and say no to dog-kicking!

Veterinarian's actual quote in response to question on whether kicking incident contributed to Buster's premature death: "Hard to say, really."

Subtle:
I'm Joe Vintinwhenmen and I approve this message. My dog-kicking opponent, Dame Janet Floop, voted to murder all people between the ages of 52 and 57 and a half in their beds. I did NOT support this measure (candidate was not in office at the time). I'll bring integrity and dog kindness back to whatever office it is I'm running for. Thank you.

Paid for by AADK (Americans Against Dog Kicking)

Actually, the subtle example isn't all that subtle, it's just less blatant than the first one.

Get out and vote. Or don't. But remember, if you don't vote you'll be shot. That'll teach them!

Kill It, Kid

2010-10-09T18:58:00.006-04:00

Nobody knows why crime rates spike or recede. Law enforcement and politicians love to take credit when crime decreases and display equal passion for dodging blame when it rises. Contributory factors to crime do not necessarily cause crime, which is why trying to determine the root of criminal behavior remains a thorny and convoluted proposition.

Poverty is considered one of the leading factors associated with crime and it's certainly true that poor people are statistically more likely to resort to criminal behavior than their rich counterparts. But to cite poverty as a direct causal link to crime is, at best, dubious. Approaching matters from a more philosophical angle, it seems most likely that a person of average moral standing--neither exceptionally ethical nor utterly amoral--possesses a certain number of options he or she is willing to pursue before turning to crime. The better off financially a person is, the more options said person exhausts before crime enters the picture. But not everyone exhibits average morality, which explains why some poverty-stricken individuals never engage in illicit activity while some wealthy folks embrace larceny and violence with zeal.

The 2009 homicide total for selected cities can be seen below. As is so often the case with crime, one can detect patterns but there are no sure things. Approximate city populations--which, it should be noted, are always changing--are listed parenthetically followed by the source of the statistics. As remarkable as New York City's about face in murder over the past two decades has been, San Jose's stunningly low figure of 27 homicides in a city of over one million might be even more astounding, though it is worth noting that San Jose is more or less an affluent bedroom community in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region where other cities do indeed have high crime. Tulsa and Kansas City's relatively high numbers may also be somewhat of a surprise, while Atlanta's figures, though hardly a patch on the similar-sized Denver, represent an improvement compared to recent years and are far better than the unfortunate Baltimore.

Gary, Indiana's violent crime woes are well-known to most Midwesterners, and probably to many in general, but even that rusty enclave has witnessed a recent decline in murder. Gary's diminishing population might be seen as a contributing factor to reduced mayhem; however, it is often shrinking cities that suffer the most, as those who remain typically have with the fewest resources.

Race is another definite factor when it comes to violent crime. African-Americans kill African-Americans. A lot. Members of all races are quite capable of killing within or outside their ethnicity--Latinos kill Caucasians, Caucasians kill African-Americans, African-Americans kill Asians, and so on--but the most statistically persuasive murder trend is the oft-lamented but difficult-to-resolve black on black.

What's the problem? Fatherlessness enters the discussion a great deal, but again this is more of a contributory than causal factor. And it prompts two points that those who appear desperate to marry off African-American women come hell or high water seem eager to overlook. First, how do we know that the main problem with fatherlessness isn't simply the exacerbation of poverty? In other words, sure a good father could provide guidance and discipline, set a positive example, and serve as a strong male role model. But millions of children lacking this presence fail to turn into miscreants. Secondly, how bad is too bad? Is it better to have a lousy father or no father at all? If the father in question is violent, a career criminal, a drug user, is it preferable that he be absent? What about indifferent fathers? Cold, distant fathers? Drunk fathers? There is probably a threshold, an invisible line indicating that, generally speaking, a passive-aggressive father is superior to no father but an abusive father is worse. But since not all children react the same way to things like abuse or passive-aggressiveness, it's impossible to make a definite determination.

So what's the answer? Anyone who claims to have a single, indisputable one should probably be viewed warily.

Atlanta--80 (540,000) www.11alive.com/

Baltimore--238 (640,000) www2.citypaper.com

Columbus--83 (755,000) dispatchpolitics.com

Denver--38 (600,000) denverpost.com

Fresno--42 (500,000) fresnobee.com

Gary, IN--49 (100,000) theindychannel.com

Houston--281 (2.2 million) chron.com

Indianapolis--101 (800,000) theindychannel.com

Kansas City--110 (480,000) mcclatchydc.com

Los Angeles--302 (3.8 million) latimes.com

Milwaukee--72 (605,000) jsonline.com

New York City--461 (8.3 million) reuters.com

Philadelphia--302 (1.5 million) nbcphiladelphia.com

San Jose--27 (1 million) abclocal.go.com

Tulsa--70 (390,000) tulsaworld.com

The Direction

2010-10-05T22:20:00.008-04:00

There's no turning back. Individuals now use ambiguous, abstract nouns as nicknames. Sure, they called Hakeem Olajuwon "the Dream", but that rhymed and, in context, "the Dream" sounded like something undeniably upbeat, the good kind of dream.

But "the Situation"? That's what the guy wants to be called? Does he spend time with his friends "the Scenario" and "the Boondoggle"? I am not convinced this represents a winning development in the evolution of nicknames. In fact, I'm leaning the other direction. I might start asking people to call me "the Direction", which makes little sense and could be interpreted as positive or negative. I'd fit right in.

Still no response to the incantatory-like lyrics from the middle of "Der Kommissar", but then nobody reads this blog. And here's my whiny complaint: it's not that much worse than a lot of other nonsensical blogs. Do I need to promote it more gooderly? Do I need to write about different topics? And do I care whether or not it's a great blog? Sometimes I do, other times I'm indifferent. Being known as a "great blogger" is roughly tantamount to being a "great fantasy football owner". In other words, it's nothing to be ashamed of, but if you go around bragging about it, you're setting yourself up for ridicule.

On the flip side of things, you have to start somewhere. PerezHilton has achieved high levels of notoriety for his work. Is that what I aspire to? Nah, I don't really consider it my place to out closet homosexuals, although I have it on good authority that PerezHilton himself is gay.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether I want to do this as a spare-time hobby or as a means to get my writing recognized, and I have always straddled that commitment, never quite embracing either option.

Botswana President Ian Khama, heretofore a supporter of economic sanctions against Zimbabwe, now regards sanctions as a hindrance to progress. Such measures represent a blind corner, a hidden thorn bush, a hole that may contain a snake, or any other metaphor one cares to use. Usually, sanctions are issued for the right reasons but the results are rarely an unambiguous success or failure. President Khama claims progress in Zimbabwe is being made under the country's new unity government, in which ancient and entrenched President Robert Mugabe shares power with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. Although I don't question the possibility that conditions in Zimbabwe are improving, I believe a great and rapid leap forward will not be witnessed until Mugabe resigns or dies.

Does that count as real news? I needed a break from talking about my writing career, or lack thereof. Time to go in a new direction.

Source: allafrica.com

Missteaks

2010-09-30T21:17:00.004-04:00

Is it possible people make writing errors so that certain things will stick in our minds? Today I read that a certain species of carp "can weigh up to ten pounds and is three feet long." You see the problem there. The fish's weight is variable but, if one interprets the passage precisely, the length is not, so this carp is three feet long whether it weighs one or ten pounds. That's hardly likely, so it must be a careless phrasing oversight on the part of the author. Or is it? Guess which factoid I remembered? It wasn't about the rock bass or the blue gill. I doubt this error was deliberate, but the fact remains that clumsy writing sometimes leaves a deeper impression than smooth, effortless prose.

What on Earth are they saying during the interlude of "Der Kommissar"? I refer to the version by After the Fire, not Falco's original rendition, which, sadly, is not as good as ATF's cover. Could it be "chuck"? "Chop"? Some German word? Listen to it some time. Right after the second chorus, the vocalist hisses insinuatingly, "Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?" (German for "all clear, Mr. Kommissar", but it is not, repeat not, all clear) and then an acoustic guitar kicks in and the band shouts something on every drumbeat. It sounds like a word starting with "ch", but who can tell?

Perhaps it is unfair to generalize the situation quite so starkly, but it almost appears that many Democrats are saying "no tax breaks for anybody unless the wealthy get their tax rates restored to earlier levels" and that a number of Republicans are saying "no tax breaks for anybody unless the wealthy keep theirs." Does that sound like sensible governance? For my money--and only a little of it is my money--the argument for retaining tax cuts for earners of more than $250,000 is more or less the same for letting them expire: in terms of revenue generation/deficit reduction, it isn't really all that much money.

So why does the battle seem so fierce? You know how it goes once the lines get drawn. Although some economists present the reasonable point that nobody's taxes should increase during difficult times, the exceptionally wealthy and their allies seem to have personalized the issue, claiming that, in fact, they aren't really so rich after all. That's news to the rest of us. It doesn't behoove the rich much to become whiners but it doesn't benefit the rest of us much to relentlessly castigate the rich. But which begets which? (Accidental, though not good, poetry)

For a long time, I didn't really know what the Tea Party wanted or stood for. To an even greater degree than most political groups, they seemed to offer a mish-mash of varying interests and objectives without many central ideas to unify and clarify their intentions. So you know what I figured? Maybe, I thought, they should produce a document or paper or manifesto in order to present their beliefs more clearly. Then I read the Pledge to America.

Now I think, never mind, Tea Party. Just forget it. I realize that, to some degree, Tea Party ideology, whatever that amounts to, has been integrated into the Pledge. The GOP needs at least some people from the GTP (Granulated Tea Party) to make itself viable. But basically, the Pledge was developed by Republicans intended to appeal, at least in part, to the GTP, not a GTP credo per se. Take a tip from that tripe, GTP, and forget it! You, too, Democrats. Do NOT give us anymore platitudes and grandiose statements! By the way, I could have made the "G" stand for a lot of things, but settled on "granulated". I have no good reason, just like the way it sounds.

I'm probably not the first nor will I be the last to foresee this, but it has to be written:

"Vote Rahm Emanual for Chicago Mayor"
RE: I'm Rahm Emanual and I approve this f#$%ing message.

Adult Education

2010-09-12T18:37:00.004-04:00

Attention grown-ups (if you exist):

If it's not too much to ask, could you spell simple words correctly? U R driving me nutz with dis! It's not cute. It's not funny. And it's not that much of a timesaver.

Would you please watch sports--especially football--and have fun, but take winning or losing like an adult? I stopped caring what teams other people rooted for in high school. Your team won. Great, good for you. Your team lost. That's too bad, but the sun will still rise tomorrow morning. Don't care how drunk you got; don't care if you cried; don't care if fans of the other team upset you. Watch the game and go to bed. Idiot.

How about you stop dressing like you're cycling across a continent when you're just on your way to Walgreen's? Lose the tight black shorts and the shirt with all the stupid numbers. You don't even need the helmet that protects your head about as well as a marshmallow stuck in your hair.

May I suggest you stop pretending that certain horrible things that happen today didn't happen when you were a kid? They did happen. You name it, it happened. Child molestation, terrorism, rape, and murder are not new phenomena. It wasn't better in the old days. Trade AIDS for polio, trade identity theft for segregation, trade unemployment for... well, unemployment. You like the old days better now because you remember being young and unaware of a lot of things you are aware of these days. You can't even give people what they want without them carping.

New Parent: I just hope my kids don't have to work as hard as I did.

Seasoned Parent: Kids today don't have a good work ethic.

Isn't it time to retire the word "new" in the following context? Forty is the new thirty. Pink is the new black. The next person who uses this lingo in my presence is going to get socked right in the face, whereupon I will say, "Violence is the new peace."

Why are people pretending that "sexting" is any worse than playing doctor? You show me yours and I'll show you mine. Over the phone! So it's safer. Granted, there's also the risk of permanence since there might be photographic evidence. All the same, how can it be child pornography if it's the children who are distributing it? It's only child pornography when it's viewed by adults, who are such a rare breed that maybe the entire concept of child pornography needs to be rethought. Maybe all pornography is child pornography. You think teenagers didn't play sex games before there were cell phones? There's that denial again. If your teenager is "sexting" and you don't like it, take the brat's phone away! Will that solve the problem? Well, I don't know, it's your kid!

Is it possible to fling all of the following words or phrases onto the verbal scrapheap? "Moving on", "Closure", "Bromance", "Rocket Science", "At the end of the day", "Just Saying", "Going Forward" and all Snoop Dog vocabulary modifications that end in "izzle".

If you take care of all these things by the end of the year, I promise the economy will turn around!

Forgiven

2010-09-06T06:14:00.003-04:00

Dear Mr. West,

Listen, KDub. Do you mind if I call you KDub? How about KWest? Never mind. The point is, I forgive you. There was never really much to forgive. All you did was behave foolishly in public, though not for the first time.

But it's over. You did indeed act like a "32 year old child", to quote your very own Tweet, and like a "jackass", to quote President Obama. But so what? In the general scheme of things, it hardly matters.

You still seem to be a bit of a martyr. Your apology to Taylor Swift came across as very sincere and genuine, but it was surrounded by a swamp of self-pity. For your own sake, I recommend you get yourself out of that quagmire.

But through all of it, you have a point. The reaction to celebrity misbehavior and/or controversy is almost always disproportionate. On one hand, members of the public declare "who cares what celebrities think?" and on the other they ask their co-workers "did you hear what the Dixie Chicks said about President Bush?" So what if the Dixie Chicks criticized ex-Prez GDub (not to be confused with you, KDub); those who disagree with what they say can refuse to attend their concerts or purchase their products. But the seething rage, the death threats, the umbrage? What's the point?

So Kanye West rushed the stage at an awards show and criticized a decision. Not the smartest thing to do, but life goes on. You also have a point about the "angry black man". This is one stereotype that just needs to plummet down a well and die. It's not that there aren't some people who qualify as "angry black men" or, should I say, disproportionately angry black men, but "angry black man" is too often used to dismiss anyone who says things people don't want to hear. Instead of examining what a person says and determining if his claims are valid, the knee-jerk reaction is to call someone "angry" or "bitter" or "militant" and that's the end of the discussion.

It is too bad that your rather minor errors have produced very vicious reactions by some people. However, one thing you have to bear in mind is that some of your worst moments have occurred in front of television cameras. You are a public figure. It isn't fair, I know, but I'm afraid all of us must confront inequities at one time or another, some more than others.

I think you are a sincere and earnest person. I think you are well-intentioned but often self-serving. I think you feel sorry for yourself a little too much. I think your ego ranges from inflated to flat and you find it difficult to keep balanced. On this last point, join the club because I'm right there with you. A lot of us are. Basically, you're just about like the rest of us except you're rich and famous and we're not. All I can suggest is, carry the burden of fame and fortune as best you can and make the most of the benefits.

Oh, and stop buying so much stupid nonsense, like fur pillows that are apparently hard to sleep on (http://www.slate.com/id/2264784/). This isn't because such purchases make you a bad person. It's just that if you want to be perceived as a genuinely kindhearted man of depth and complexity, and if you want sympathy and understanding from the general public, hollow and overpriced toys are not the way to go.

You've got talent. You've got brains. The road to Hell could be paved with your good intentions--and it almost has been--so take your own advice and grow up. It probably won't be easy. There will be fits and starts, same as with the rest of us. But you can do it because you want to do it.

By the way, you almost made me care about Twitter. Almost.

It's A Compliment

2010-08-25T09:02:00.007-04:00

Mosque near Ground Zero? I'm for it. It should help to exemplify tolerance and religious freedom. That doesn't mean it will, but the potential exists. Opposition to the mosque? I understand it, but the tone of dissent should not descend into namecalling and generalizing, as has unfortunately been the case.

Anchor babies? It's not a nice term, for one thing, but it's also a compliment. You're saying certain people take great risks to ensure their children are born in the United States of America rather than somewhere else? And you're offended by this? I, on the other hand, am honored. And in any event, why should the children of illegal immigrants suffer consequences for the decisions of their parents? This is not to say the concept of birthright citizenship produces no undesirable results, but I believe the revocation of citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants would inflict far more damage.

Many of the concerns about integration, immigration, and assimilation actually serve as a major compliment not only to the United States but to the entire western world. Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States are where a great many people from other parts of the globe want to be. There are, of course, some Westerners who would rather be elsewhere and that's fine too. We may refer to developing nations as "Third World" but that doesn't make every country with a low GDP a filthy, disease-infested dump with a revolution every year.

Indeed, despite their reputations, which range from mediocre to, in some cases, completely neutral due to lack of information, "poor" nations aren't all bad. Yes, South Africa and Mexico have their share of squalor and social upheaval, but they are big countries with plenty of livable space. Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Chile all possess reasonable measures of stability, not to mention beauty.

But back to the point. Why aren't some of us more flattered by the idea that people from poor countries want to come hang with us in the developed world? Is there a perception that they are coming to take away what we have? Or that they "don't fit in"? What is it that creates anti-outsider sentiment? The instinct for self-preservation? Fear of the unknown? While clearly the West cannot simply throw the gates open and extend a hand to every one of the hundreds of millions worldwide who lack adequate food and water or are stuck in repressive political regimes, it makes little sense to lock ourselves down when we profess to be "open" and "free" societies.

The long-term goal is to make everywhere in the world livable but the feasibility of this objective may prove very daunting. I am no follower of Thomas Malthus so I don't feel threatened by overpopulation per se. Overpopulation may present problems in certain parts of the world, most notably small, crowded, and poor Asian countries like Bangladesh, but if you check the population density of Niger, Chad, and Mali or even non-Saharan countries like Liberia and Zambia, it's easy to see that their poverty is not brought on by overcrowded conditions. But even if overpopulation is not a major concern, distribution is. Is it realistic for three to four billion adults to have iPads and drive hybrids to drop their 2.4 kids off at school on their way to jobs at the software engineering complex or the space science center? Clearly, it is not. Progress will be, and always has been, incremental.

In the meantime, let's not give up on immigration. It has been both necessary and desirable in the past and there's no reason to suspect otherwise about the future.

Not That Sensitive, Really

2010-08-18T07:58:00.010-04:00

This post is intended mostly for non-Doctor Laura Schlessinger. The primary gist of the message is this: Black people aren't that sensitive. On average, they are probably no more or less sensitive than members of any other race.

It is true that some individuals who happen to be Black Americans are overly sensitive; this is also the case with many White Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans and other Americans. It's even true of non-Americans, like, say, Canadians, or Italians, or Greeks, or Laotians, or Kenyans, or Russians, or Chileans. Some people are too sensitive, which is, in any case, a subjective description, while others are not.

The reasons you toss around terms like "black think" and dismiss others as hypersensitive may be many and varied. We can't look inside your mind but based on what you say, it's pretty safe to infer that you are upset by the apparent double standard that permits black people in some circumstances to utter the dreaded "N" word while white people are universally castigated for using the same word. Let's keep this as simple as possible.

While many African-Americans employ the words "nigger" and "nigga", there is not universal agreement of the appropriateness of these terms within the Black community. Regardless of whether ninety percent of Blacks, fifty percent of Blacks, or ten percent of Blacks think it's okay for Chris Rock to say the word, they are almost universally agreed that you stepped way out of line by taunting your African-American caller with the same word.

You are almost certainly guilty of willful ignorance, as are many people who rail about double standards when, in fact, double standards surround us, consume us every day. Speaking very generally and depending on the situation, women can say things men can't say. Your friends can say things your casual acquaintances can't say. Your mother can say things your friends can't say. An objective observer with no agenda can say things your mother can't say. Doctors, real doctors, can say things almost nobody else can say, especially something like "you're fat." Why, then, is it such an outrage to you that there is less resistance to Jay Z saying "nigger" than you saying it? Jay Z doesn't try to do your job. He doesn't host a radio program dedicated to browbeating legions of sycophants, many of whom parrot your inane catchphrase the instant they get on the air. So why are you trying to do his job?

Maybe you're quitting your radio show to become a rapper. If so, perhaps you would allow for some suggestions on lyrical content. Please see below:

"My program and books kept gettin' bigga and bigga

Then I hit the airwaves saying 'nigga, nigga, nigga'

What's the matter, fool? This is my show!

Don't you ever turn the dial to HBO?

They're always spewing out racial epithets

Cursing and swearing just like they got Tourette's

Well, now it's my turn, I'm going off like a rocket

Anything to get more Benjys in my pocket!"

Pardon the digression; back to the original point. The reason it seems to you that Black people are so sensitive might be because it's always the most sensitive people, of any race, who get offended and complain. It may also be because it's hard for you to accept racism still exists so your knee-jerk reaction is to deny this and accuse others of hypersensitivity.

As to whether the individual caller who contacted you is overly sensitive, we'll never really know because you accused her of it too quickly and launched into a slur-ridded tirade. Based on what little we did learn from the transcripts, it's seems like her complaints were reasonable enough. She mentioned that her husband's white friends often asked her what "Black people" thought about a particular topic. That might not be such a terrible thing if it only happened once, but can you not see it getting tiresome, the idea that you appear to be the sole representative of a particular race and therefore becoming a kind of token? She also indicated her husband's white friends used the term "nigger" a lot. This is a pretty nasty thing to say in the presence of your friend's African-American wife and only the most unusual circumstances would make it acceptable.

Non-Doctor Schlessinger, you did the wrong thing this time, as you have admitted, but not for the right reasons. Now you say you're quitting radio to reclaim your First Amendment rights, as though they were somehow trampled because your words made people angry. You introduced the non-sequitur of President Obama and implied that Black people voted for him based solely on race. How do you know why people of any race do what they do? Why can't you grow up?

If Black people were overly sensitive en masse, why wouldn't they object to an NBA basketball coach with the name Vinny Del Negro? They don't object because that's his name and he can't help it. Remind us again who it was that objected to Barack Obama's middle name being Hussein. It wasn't Black people, was it?

Do Black people object to the racial jokes of programs like "Family Guy" and "South Park"? Some might, but only as individuals. A "South Park" episode on the controversy over the "N" word actually received praise from an organization called "Abolish the N Word". That's because Black people, and most people in general, got the joke. Remind us again who kicked up a massive fuss over various "South Park" episodes. It wasn't Black people, was it? Even Kanye West was amused, if somewhat wounded, by his depiction in an installment and that guy is pretty sensitive.

Non-Doctor Schelessinger, do you understand the historical circumstances that might lead Black people to be vigilant about racism? It's the same dynamic that makes Jewish people wary of oppression. It's the reason Protestants and Catholics don't always see eye to eye. There are examples of it all over the world: the past, sometimes even the very distant past, is persuasive. That doesn't mean every accusation of racism, or sexism, or hatred, or oppression is accurate but we understand what generates these feelings. It is easy enough for someone to suggest that we bury the past, let it rest, don't let it dominate us; it's not a terrible idea, but it's an unrealistic one.

No doubt you have been asked this before, but one is tempted to inquire how you got to be a non-Doctor when your mind seems to lack agility. How did you get through non-medical school without being able to think on your feet? Perhaps you don't lack intellect so much as your area of expertise is narrow. If that's the case, no wonder you host a radio show commenting about a wide variety of topics to millions of people.

This concludes the analysis of the recent furor over your boundless duncity. As a supplement, the list below displays other non-Doctors who are least as qualified--if not more so--as you to host a program about relationships, family, and social problems.

1. Dr. Pepper
2. Dr. Robert Hartley from "The Bob Newhart Show"
3. Anyone who has ever portrayed a Doctor on "Scrubs"
4. Dr. J (Julius Erving)
5. Dr. Funkenstein
6. Dr. Dunkenstein (Darrell Griffith)
7. Dr. Dunk (Darnell Hillman)
8. Dr. John (Mac Rebennack)
9. Dr. Dre
10. Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier
11. Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier
12. Dr. "Bones" McCoy
13. Dr. Richard Kimble

Sources: Wikipedia, The Root

Epitaph 14

2010-08-09T14:07:00.019-04:00

I have never seen a full episode of "The Sopranos" or "Jersey Shore" and am therefore clueless when I encounter real Italian-Americans, having no idea how to engage them. This is my failing and I apologize.

I have never watched "Real Housewives of Atlanta", "Desperate Housewives", "Army Wives", or "Wife Swap" and therefore have no idea how to interact with married women. This is a clear abdication of my responsibilities and I apologize.

In my entire lifetime, I have seen about one complete episode each of Rikki Lake, Sally Jesse Raphael, Maury Povich, and perhaps four episodes of Oprah Winfrey, calling into question my ability to communicate through speech.

This is how bad it is for me.

On the other hand, I have seen almost all the classic Tom and Jerry and Warner Brothers cartoon shorts many times over, so I am well-versed in falling off cliffs, hitting others over the head with frying pans, and stepping on a rake so the handle flies up to smash me in the face. And while I may lack advanced linguistic skills, I can say "sufferin' succotash" with a pronounced lisp.

And I know pure genius when I hear it. Anyone who conceives the phrase "sufferin' succotash" deserves as many accolades as those who developed automobiles and antibiotics, those who discovered planets and microscopic particles. Because we need simple joy as much as we need advanced science and medicine; if we're going to live longer, there ought to be more to laugh about.

Mel Blanc's tombstone really does say "That's All Folks." Regrettably, DeForest Kelley's does not read "He's dead, Jim" but I sure wish it did! And evidently, W. C. Fields' epitaph offers no snide commentary about the city of Philadelphia. Again, this is too bad. Speaking of inscriptions, what do you suppose appears on the tombstone of Edgar Lee Masters? You would think if anybody had a clever or profound epitaph, it would be him. Perhaps the best epitaphs are concise and honest. I'd like to see one that said something very straightforward:

Harold Alan Truncate

born 1923 died 2006

Jerk

A Stitch In Prop 9

2010-08-06T20:54:00.009-04:00

According to The Root, Dr. Cornel West is upset with President Obama because Obama confronted and "demeaned" him, treating him like a "Cub Scout." Look, Dr. West, you're the one who accepted roles in the Matrix sequels; nobody made you do it. Sooner or later, you knew you were going to have to pay for that decision. All right, so "Reloaded" wasn't awful, but "Revolutions" didn't make any sense at all and the Prez probably wanted to say something to you about it for a long time, but never had the opportunity. Granted, you out-acted Keanu Reeves, but who couldn't?

Speaking of the Commander-in-Chief, happy 49th birthday! Feeling old yet? The job grinds people up. We don't necessarily condone expensive and largely unproductive military operations, or NOT having sexual relations with "that woman", or trading arms for hostages, or breaking into the opponents' headquarters and obstructing justice, or expensive and largely unproductive military operations, but, to a certain degree, we understand. It's a tough gig.

Isn't it great that the US President who got stigmatized as a clumsy oaf wound up living to be 93, a longer lifespan than any other individual to hold the office? President Ford, I hope you're up there "tripping" in Heaven!

I tried to be a pet psychic, but it didn't work out. I could communicate with the animals just fine, but they all told me telepathically that they didn't believe in psychics and to get lost. Stupid animals!

Now that Proposition 8 has been overturned, maybe California can get on with Proposition 9: no more guys from the cast of "Predator" running for governor. I'm looking at you, Carl Weathers! Nothing personal, it's just that the idea came too late to keep Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura and Sonny Landham off the ballot. Obviously, Ventura and Landham ran in other states and Landham's bid was unsuccessful, but maybe if California passes such a measure, the rest of the country will follow suit. Incidentally, if you have ever thought Schwarzenegger and Ventura might be a little touched in the head, get a load of Landham. He's crazier than both of them combined. He's even crazier than the character he played in "48 Hours".

The older you get, the less often your parents begin nostalgic anecdotes with the phrase "when I was your age" because, well, you remember when they were your age.

Career Choices

2010-08-02T08:13:00.017-04:00

Since, as indicated by a recent post, I find myself a bit fed up with political commentary, I'm exploring new options on what to write about. Maybe nothing will come of this and I'll be back to the same old third-rate satire and unhelpful suggestions within a month, but perhaps I will hit on a new and groundbreaking idea or settle into a staid, boring format that's apolitical, but uninteresting. Keep reading and prepare to be underwhelmed.

One tired, easy-way-out technique I could adopt is listmaking. Lots of bloggers do this. They expansificate (made up word) on their favorite films, favorite books, favorite television shows, favorite songs, but rarely their favorite lists. I don't know very many people who would be even remotely interested in lists of my favorites, but the number probably isn't much different from the quantity of readers I have already.

I could become an online bully or an Internet malcontent. This is easy. First, do a lot of swearing. Also, indulge in menacing rhetoric so people know you're serious. Work in sentiments like "I'm not going to take this "$%& anymore" or "Do you know what'll happen if you mess with me?" Tough talk is even easier on the World Wide Web than it is in person or over the telephone. You can become the punk you've always wanted to be, sticking it to the Man or the Republicans or the Democrats or the terrorists or the immigrants or the foreigners or Big Business or any other group you want to stand up to by bravely posting anonymous messages from inside your house. But of course, this kind of thing is usually at least tangentially political, so maybe it isn't such a good idea.

Another option is the tedious diary. I could dullifalate (made up word) about shopping trips, weekends at the movie theatre, running errands, telephone conversations, and pass along information about my friends and family that even my friends and family don't care about. One of my friends, who is 6'1" with brown eyes and was born in 1970, suggested this to me.

There's always sports. I could feign expertise about athletics and try to get coaches fired. Nothing makes me feel better about myself like costing someone else his or her livelihood.

Clearly, possibilities abound here. Perhaps I could delve into more esoteric material, like a blog about Clifford Hayes and the Dixieland Jug Blowers or a series of articles on Neptune's moon, Triton.

Or maybe I could try all of them at once. Here are my favorite television theme songs:

1. The Jeffersons
2. Barney Miller
3. QI
4.

What? You don't like my list? Well, @!%&, you *#!&!))#$@!)*("\", see if I care! I've had just about enough of &^$!?*# like you and don't have to take that! I decided just today as I was purchasing a soda at the filling station that the Pacers ought to try to unload some of their overpriced players and make "Try and Treat Her Right" by Clifford Hayes their new warm up song. Triton is the coldest known object in the Solar System.

So there.

Politics Me Off

2010-07-26T12:08:00.008-04:00

It's another birthday for Mick Jagger and for two-or three-hit wonder, Dobie Gray. According to Gray's official website, dobiegray.com, he was able to persuade South African authorities to let him perform for an integrated audience back in the 1970s. That's a pretty impressive, and underrated, achievement. "Drift Away" remains the vocalist's best known track while "The In-Crowd" and "Loving Arms" receive occasional airplay on oldies radio. "Drift Away" is a nice song and all, but it's a little overplayed and Uncle Kracker's cover version didn't help; it wasn't terrible, just unexciting. Still, at least he had the good manners to involve Gray in the project.

I've concluded that I remain interested in the subject, but don't really like politics much. Like any human endeavor, there are a few heroes, a few villains, but mostly flawed human beings lost in a moral miasma, where it's difficult to know what's right and even harder to do what's right. Politicians who compromise their principles in order to achieve results are spineless and those who cling to principles in order to play obstructionist games are intransigent ideologues. So you can't win.

It isn't that politics is so terribly different from other pursuits, like business, entertainment, medicine, media or personal relationships. All of these are subject to human frailties like jealousy, greed, revenge and plain honest mistakes. Politics is not, by definition, more corrupt or more wasteful than these other arenas but it is understandably more reviled than most. There are a number of reasons for this, but two stand out and, of course, interrelate. First, in a more direct way than any other human undertaking, it is our money that bankrolls government. To be fair, government and politics are not precisely the same thing, but the association between the two is undeniable. Second, with that money controversial things happen. Wars are started; programs are funded; deals are brokered. Not everyone wins and those who don't are generally unhappy and disillusioned.

Corporations waste money, too. Mass media can, either deliberately or unwittingly, shape public opinion in directions that may endorse war or reject it. And personal relationships are always a factor in how decisions are made. So it isn't that these other forces aren't powerful, but when things go well, it's often because someone is said to have "set aside" politics. And when things go badly, politicians get blamed.

For me, then, it isn't that politics is worse--more petty, more vindictive, more corrupt--than, say, entertainment, but it is more of a grind. Preconceived notions are undermined so often that it's jarring. Not that rethinking one's preconceived notions is altogether a bad thing, but it's something people almost inevitably resist. So it's tempting to either tumble into the realm of foolish consistency--whatever my "side" says is undeniably correct and unassailable--or withdraw in disgust--they're all crooks anyway. For the contemplative sort, politics is a confusing business. People you loathe are sometimes right and those you respect and admire are sometimes wrong. And nobody's perfect so you have to decide what you can live with.

I see why so many view politics with disinterest and watch Entertainment Tonight or professional wrestling. But I can't do that. In order to preserve my own self-worth, I have to pretend to be intelligent and engaged. I have to claim I know what's going on even when I don't. This must be the curse of all people who write for no money. We want acclaim and notoriety and if the only people from whom we can get them are friends, families, and ourselves, it will have to do.

Meanwhile, give me the beat, boys, and free my soul. And cheer up. At least you can read.

Swearing Foresworn

2010-07-23T07:45:00.008-04:00

What the world needs now is a Swear Off between Andrew Breitbart and Rahm Emanuel. Just think of how many times the phrase "expletive deleted" would appear in the transcripts? Who would win? The age difference is only ten years, a lot in athletic terms but not much in foul language competitions, so to say Breitbart would have the edge due to his "youthful energy" or Emanuel gets the nod based on "cursing experience" might be something of a stretch.

I keep complaining about the apparent late 70s, early 80s redux. Previous examples included gripes about the New York Yankees winning yet another World Series and the Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics competing for an NBA title, not to mention high unemployment and a shaky economy. But it doesn't stop there. Jerry Brown, governor of California from 1975 to 1983, is now running for--yes, that's right--governor of California.

Speaking of things that never change, how many years out of the last fifty-five has the mayor of Chicago not been named Richard Daley? Time's up. Thirteen. The Daleys have dominated Chicago for about three generations. There were five mayors between father and son, one of whom served for only eight days. The younger Daley has had his share of success but I think it's time for him to go. People can only remain in power so long before things turn sour.

Basketball players are turning into city mayors. Former Piston legend Dave Bing is now running Detroit; ex-Sun Kevin Johnson occupies Sacramento's top office. And for years Charles Barkley has toyed with the idea of running for Governor of Alabama, although the fact he keeps hedging doesn't say much for his decisiveness. Still, it would be any reporter's dream to have Barkley as an elected official. He was blunt and direct as a player, is blunt and direct as a writer and sports commentator, so there's no reason to believe his behavior would change as a politician, at least not at first. If he got a few controversies under his belt, then maybe. It's hard to say whether Barkley's DUI in late 2008 would undermine his electability; I never know with these things anymore.

France's reputation as a cowardly nation has not been enhanced by a decision to ban a garment worn by fewer than 2,000 individuals. The French are not cowardly or, at any rate, French people are no more likely to be cowards than Americans, Chileans, or Japanese, but this is a bush league move. Rather than get serious about societal difficulties that run much deeper than clothing, French officials have chosen to take legal action against the very people they claim are victims of oppression. It is reasonable enough to require people wearing veils to remove them when taking passport photographs and there's also no harm in asking someone to take one off during a face-to-face discussion or business transaction. But there's no logical basis for preventing people from covering their faces while they're walking down the street. And this approach doesn't seem like the best angle to confront the problem of women who are being browbeaten, pressured, and intimidated into wearing burqas. This is nothing new. I made largely the same points a few years ago in reaction to a similar campaign by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. To no a veil. Get it?!

What the Hell, Mel?

2010-07-11T04:30:00.002-04:00

Is it possible that Mel Gibson was the craziest member of the "Lethal Weapon" cast, which included Danny Glover and Gary Busey? Don't get me wrong, I didn't think Gibson could possibly be as good a guy as his public image suggested about fifteen years ago, but is he really that bad?

Say what you like about Glover (see Chavez, Hugo), but as far as I know he has never left a phone message to a former love interest with references to her getting raped by a pack of crackers. And take your shots at Busey (see Accidents, Motorcycle) but he hasn't threatened to report anyone to the people who take money from the "wetbacks".

Poor Mel. Always being victimized by the Jews who start all the wars, the packs of niggers who rape women, and the wetbacks who... well, apparently they just get their money taken. Is the guy as stupid as he sounds? As Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts pointed out, the "N" word isn't even the most offensive part of the diatribe, it's the word "pack" that implies animalistic tendencies among African-Americans. The only animal here is Gibson, a man unable to measure his words or blunt his rage.

Everyone has prejudices. A man who reveals prejudices is not necessarily a villain. But this is really mean-spirited stuff. And let's not overlook the fact that Gibson has also been accused of domestic violence against Oksana Grigorieva, the woman toward whom he directed these reprehensible comments. Knocking a woman's teeth out is worse than hateful speech but it's the words that present more of a public relations problem for Gibson because they can never, ever be taken back. No one actually saw him strike Grigorieva but people have heard and read his words over and over. It's not a fair world and I think a guy whose worst offense is violence toward women deserves more castigation than a guy whose worst offense is making bigoted remarks, even recorded ones, but I suspect the hate will stick to Mel longer than the hitting. Of course, there is a chance he isn't guilty of the violence, that those claims are inaccurate. We shall see.

If indeed the European crisis, slow growth, housing market woes, and persistent unemployment are going to induce a "double dip recession", can we at least find something else to call it? That seems like such a tired, boring phrase. How about a "reeeeecession"? Or a "rerecession"? Or "recession squared"? Let's just hope it doesn't happen, for both practical and linguistic reasons.

The Jones Act doesn't need to be waived. It applies only to foreign ships within three miles of the United States' coast. That's why President Bush deactivated it during the Hurricane Katrina crisis and why President Obama doesn't need to now.

But, President Obama, please pardon this personal appeal, would you mind getting off the golf course? Seriously. That's one of the claims that dogged President Bush, that he seemed out of touch. Despite golf's transformation over the past twenty to thirty years, there remains an aura of exclusivity and privilege about it. Sure, it's more of an "everyman" game than it used to be, but so many stereotypes about aloof doctors and bad executives involve their presence on the golf course when they should be addressing problems elsewhere. One of the things I liked about Obama from the beginning was his preference for basketball, far more of a blue collar game and one I play myself. I identified with it. I realize golf isn't solely a game for upper class twits anymore, but under the circumstances, I think every appearance on the golf course does incremental damage.

Things I Don't Believe In

2010-06-26T14:53:00.015-04:00

The first three things I don't believe in are interrelated, so the explanation as to why I disbelieve in these forces appears only once.

1. Fate

2. Karma

3. Everything Happens for a Reason

All these ideas suggest the presence of order in the world and I simply don't believe in order on a large scale over great spans of time. That doesn't mean there aren't staggering coincidences that feel like fate. Nor am I suggesting the idea of karma is complete nonsense. If you treat people consistently well, it is often the case that good things come your way. If you treat people badly, you often suffer the consequences. But not always. And the levels of reward and punishment are frequently disproportionate, inconsistent, and far from universal. Some people get by with causing misery; others lead blameless lives and never find happiness or contentment. And it only appears things happen for a reason because humankind invented reason and applies it to as many events as possible.

4. World Peace

I'm not only deeply skeptical that world peace is possible, I am also uncertain that it is desirable. Of course, I also don't favor a state of constant war. But as long as humans remain, well, human, war must exist as a possibility. I would only support world peace if it were accompanied by a shift in fundamental human nature. Otherwise, without conflict, necessary changes are difficult to put into place. That doesn't mean I endorse senseless violence, only that violence must be retained as a last resort for those who fail to see reason. I do not support war as a means for population control, to enhance wealth, to oppress peoples, or for any other petty political reason. But in the world as currently constructed, the sword has to be an option if the pen fails. If there's a deep change in the state of the world, maybe global peace will appear more viable. We can hope.

5. Intelligent Design

The possibility that the universe was created by God, or merely by entity or entities unknown, still resonates with me. The idea that the universe evolved without intervention from a creator due to a series of events both spectacular and ordinary also holds some sway. Neither notion explains everything perfectly, but I think some combination of the two may account for our existence.

However, the Intelligent Design argument as it stands now lacks both moral and spiritual integrity. ID advocates take the portions of various scientific theories--the Big Bang, the Modern Synthesis-- they are willing to accept and ignore what they dislike. That's a very human reaction to something controversial or counter intuitive, but it isn't really scientific. They fill in all the uncertainties of scientific theory with the idea that "God did it." Well, maybe God did do it, but that doesn't tell us anything. Science may sometimes be about whether God did something, but the larger question is how God did it. Whether God created a constantly expanding universe or designed very peculiar creatures like the woodpecker and the platypus represent keys to fascinating philosophical and spiritual questions, but that's no cause to simply attribute the inexplicable to God and stop investigating. The mysteries explained by Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were perceived by many as intractable as well until those men solved the problem. Maybe there was a designer and maybe he or she or they was/were intelligent, but shortcomings in evolutionary theory do not constitute direct evidence of a creator, only, at best, circumstantial evidence.

6. Ghosts

7. UFOs

When I say I don't believe in these things, that doesn't mean I think everyone who claims to have seen ghosts or UFOs is either insane or lying. Nor do I consider either of these ideas to be impossible. All I'm saying is I have never been persuaded.

Odds are, planets in other parts of the universe support life, perhaps even intelligent life. However, given the huge distances between different points in space, the behavior of alien life forms during alleged sightings strikes me as curious. They seem to have come an awfully long way just to be fleetingly observed before they vanish. Are we to believe beings advanced enough to cover the vast emptiness of the cosmos would simply turn away at the last moment rather than risk a direct encounter with humans? Could be, but I doubt it. It's possible they have observed and researched us and concluded we are not to be trusted. It's possible they have attempted communication and we have failed to detect their efforts. Maybe. But I remain unconvinced.

As for ghosts, who knows? I don't discount the possibility of disembodied spirits, I simply haven't seen any compelling evidence. I have known people who have seen, heard, even engaged in interaction with what they thought were ghosts. Some of those making such claims seemed pretty crazy; others appeared perfectly levelheaded.

8. -isms

9. Principles

Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Fascism and most other systematic -isms are just names people give to ideas in order to simplify and organize them. The general principles of any of these notions are not universally agreed upon and it is dangerous to apply them across the board in every situation just for the sake of remaining consistent with a set of ideas that were conceived by imperfect humans in the first place.

I actually do believe in principles but sometimes people confront situations where any choice one makes violates one principle or another. As referenced above, consult the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson when it comes to the dangers of a foolish consistency. So what principle should not be subject to compromise under any circumstances? The first that springs to mind is never actively betray your friends or loved ones.

10. Bigfoot

Come on, now.

Loudmouths

2010-06-22T18:59:00.008-04:00

I care about my politics. You care about your politics. But I probably don't care about your politics. And if I do, I'll ask.

I have had this blog nearly five years now and a fair volume of political commentary has appeared on it. Nothing wrong with that. No one is forced to read a blog so if something offensive shows up in the text, it is easy enough to close the page and never type in that web address again. My problem has more to do with immediate declarations of political allegiance before I've even gotten acquainted with someone.

The latest example is some stranger on a social networking site sending me a friend request. To begin with, I do not understand this practice. At the very least, if you want to be my friend and we've never spoken at all, send me a message saying "hello, we don't know each other, but you seem like a nifty guy." I would probably agree to be friends with someone like that, even if it's what the person says to everyone to whom he or she sends a friend request. At least it's cordial. But this message contained no salutation or explanation; somebody I don't know apparently wanted to be my friend. So I looked at his profile. One of the first things to appear was his declaration that he was of a particular political persuasion and was, furthermore, "proud of it." Seriously. He was proud of his political philosophy.

Doesn't this go without saying? Unlike being Irish or from New Mexico or over six feet tall, political philosophies are something individuals choose. If we weren't proud of our own politics, chances are we would change them. A guy who's proud to be Persian I can respect. He didn't choose to be Persian but he has decided, on the whole, it's a nice state of affairs. Great. But a guy who is proud to be a Democrat or a Republican, proud to be pro-life or pro-choice, proud to be in favor of school vouchers, well, I understand less.

There is a distinction here, I suppose. If tomorrow afternoon Representative Andre Carson rescues seventeen children from a burning school bus, I guess it's all right to say "that makes me proud to be a Democrat." By the same token, if Charles Rangel throws a tomato at a four year old child and further explains there is no Santa Claus, it's probably okay to say you're embarrassed to be a Democrat, at least for the short-term. Those are situational declarations. But to just say you're proud to be something that, presumably, you would alter if you weren't proud of it doesn't make a lot of sense. And anyway, the next day Olympia Snowe might rescue those school children and Richard Lugar might throw that tomato. What does the person who felt pride and embarrassment at the actions of his fellow Democrats feel when Republicans bask in both the zenith and nadir of daily activities?

In politics, bear in mind, there is always a sense of victimization and of taking a stand, a kind of implication that while others may be ashamed to call themselves conservative/liberal, you most certainly are not and are prepared to shout your allegiances from the mountaintops. Well, all right, if you insist. But must it be the first thing I see on your social networking profile? And if you say it must, again, that's fine, but in that case, I'm not sure I want to be your friend, not if we are previously unacquainted. I'm willing to put up with unsolicited political pronouncements from existing friends, but I find myself far more guarded with potential friends.

Perhaps I'm making too much of this. People shouldn't have to fear talking about politics or walk on eggshells to avoid offending others who may disagree. But so often I find that people who are verbose about their political views in the presence of relative strangers react poorly to disagreement. There seems to exist an inverse curve; the more prone a person is to unprovoked political diatribes, the less inclined the person is to tolerate someone else's opinions. If you ask me about my politics, I don't mind discussing them. If you're of a dissenting opinion, you're free to say so. But loudmouths, while within their rights, can fairly be said to have personality defects. Loudmouths like to claim their right to free speech is being challenged when they blow off their big bazoos about something and another person steps in asks them to shut the hell up. Wrong, loudmouths. You have a right to talk. I have a right to say put a sock in it. You have a right to continue talking. I have a right to think you're a creep if you do. Nobody's rights have been trampled.

There's so much going on in the world but so little to write about. What more is there to say about BP? Or Afghanistan? Or the economy, not quite recovering, not quite declining, flat out confusing? Well, there's General McChrystal, an interesting affair but not one on which I'm very knowledgeable. If I were a loudmouth, I'd pretend to understand the affair intimately.

You Down With MCC?

2010-05-30T12:09:00.009-04:00

British Petroleum's efforts to stop the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico have thus far come up short. The economic recovery is threatened by Europe's financial problems. And doggone it if the Celitcs and the Lakers aren't in the NBA Finals again! If I have to relive the 1980s, can't I at least have my youth back? I mention all this to demonstrate I am not blind to current realities, but not all news is bad news.

Late last week Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf came to Washington for a meeting with President Obama. Sirleaf, who was jailed and exiled at various times during Liberia's various crises of dictatorship and civil war, painted an optimistic picture of improvements in the West African country, though she admitted the recovery remained fragile. President Obama lauded Sirleaf for her courage and pledged continued support for Liberia, a nation founded in 1822 by former slaves of the United States of America.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation also announced a $15 million grant to bolster the nation's reform. Never heard of the Millennium Challenge Corporation? It's little wonder. Created in 2004 under President Bush, it seems so far to be one of the best things to emerge from his administration and one of the least talked about. The general idea is to support developing nations with sound principles but few resources. Thus far, more than 25 countries have received aid from MCC and feedback--both from recipients and the donor--has been pretty positive.

Daniel Yohannes, an Ethiopian-American, acts as the current CEO of the organization and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a member of the Board of Directors. In February, President Obama requested a $1.28 billion budget for the Millennium Challenge Corporation in 2011.

So if you're beleaguered by all the negativity, think about the fact that, despite the oil spill, the price of fuel has recently dropped. And think about the MCC.

Sources: allafrica.com
Center for Global Development
mcc.gov

Not Buying It

2010-05-17T17:54:00.003-04:00

I won’t go so far as to suggest the political division in this country is purely a media fabrication because it’s not, but I do think its severity is greatly exaggerated. We have our differences and will—in fact, should—continue to, but it’s not as bad as some of us think. And the number of people who really are as bad as some of us think is pretty small.

Make no mistake, the United States of America does have extremists; from Communists (real ones, not faux ones labeled as such by talking heads) to Klansmen, anarchists and separatists, religious zealots of Muslim, Christian, Jewish and many other varieties, rabid environmentalists, rabid anti-environmentalists, gun nuts, gun-control nuts, and single issue-obsessed fire breathers on either side of hot button issues like abortion and immigration. And that’s all right. These people have their place, if for no other reason than to serve as a cautionary example for the rest of us.

But most individuals simply don’t fall comfortably into a category. California, perceived as one of the most “liberal”—whatever that means—states in the country, has a Republican governor, albeit a very moderate one. Oklahoma, considered a “conservative”—whatever that means—state, has a Democratic governor, but voted overwhelmingly for John McCain in 2008. Indiana, a state carried by every GOP presidential candidate since 1968, voted for Barack Obama in 2008 even as incumbent Republican governor Mitch Daniels prevailed handily. And dare I mention that the largest city in Texas recently elected a lesbian Democrat as mayor?

What does it mean? It means we don’t know what it means. It means people don’t have to make sense, according to rather artificial standards of “making sense.” It means you can be anti-abortion and pro-immigration or pro-health care reform and pro-Second Amendment. More than that, it means there’s nothing wrong with you if those are your positions.

“The Media” is, of course, a favorite punching bag, but criticism of “the Media” often originates from, curiously enough, “the Media”. There is no Media, not in capital letters, not as a unified conglomerate of radio, television, internet, newspapers and magazines. While it may be true that particular large organizations—Fox, TimeWarner, Gannett, Clear Channel—control a large number of media outlets, this does not ensure unity of thought and purpose even within those organizations. Indeed, The Simpsons, a program carried by Fox, relentlessly parodies Fox News. If anything, we are “the Media” because consumers drive the markets.

On a day to day basis, Americans do pretty well. There are lots of reasons for this, but perhaps I can best sum it up this way: we want to be here. Most people living in the United States today are there because either they themselves or someone in a previous generation chose to be. And even the largest group of people who didn’t travel to the USA by choice—African Americans—is now heavily invested in its past, present, and future. Not only were they slaves in this country for over two hundred years, they subsequently helped build it, fought for it, died for it, the same as all other Americans whether their ancestral heritage lies in Europe, Asia, South and Central America, or elsewhere.

I don’t want to take the “we are all one” rhetoric too far. The tragic legacy of Native Americans is enough to blunt anyone’s enthusiasm for this talk of unity and harmony. But even in that sad example, their blood runs through our veins. How many among us can identify no Native American connections whatsoever? Very few, and those who do, such as, perhaps, recent arrivals from Burma, have a different, but no less valid, claim on the nebulous, elusive, but far from imaginary American Dream.

So what if we don’t always get along? Sure, there’s too much violence. There are too many drugs, too many people out of work, and way, way too many procedural police shows. And sure, a crazy person gets more attention than any ten sane folks. But before you go assuming things are worse now than they’ve ever been, think about the things you hardly have to worry about anymore that previous generations obsessed over: polio, chicken pox, mumps, measles, small pox, Hitler, Stalin, the Soviet Union, Yellow Fever, malaria (severe outbreaks of the last two were recorded in the United States as late as the early 20th Century), whooping cough, infant mortality, maternal mortality. No, not every item on this list is extinct, but in the United States and most of the developed world they no longer pose significant threats.

Even some of the nation’s, and the world’s, darkest forces that aren’t completely dead sure ain’t what they used to be: breast cancer, the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army, leukemia, AIDS, the threat of all out nuclear war (replaced, regrettably, by the threat of rogue nuclear attacks).

I’m not saying stop complaining. By all means, keep complaining. Keep drawing attention to anything you perceive as unjust, unfair, unethical. But all this melodramatic chatter about division and tension is almost certainly overblown. I’m just not buying it. Before you get carried away with the idea that humanity is currently caught in an irreversible downward spiral, come on and checkity check yourself before you wreckity wreck yourself. It’s probably not as bad as you think.

Thanks for reading.

Sources: Wikipedia.com
cdc.gov
Ice Cube and Das Efx

Gaygin Short

2010-05-16T16:41:00.006-04:00

There's no way this can be true but a Google search and a quick query among acquaintances indicates no one yet has stooped to calling the most recent Supreme Court nominee "Elena Gaygin." Is this even possible? I would have thought some second rate comedians would have it written as soon as Kagin's name hit the media just for the sake of the rhyme, even before speculation about her sexuality began. It seems inconceivable that I am simultaneously the most tasteless and most innovative individual within the blogosphere, but perhaps this is my moment in whatever the Internet equivalent is to the sun.

Somebody Else's Blog

2010-05-11T18:00:00.005-04:00

For The Birds: In a way, I want to condemn and ridicule Twitter. Seriously, how many avenues of expression do people really need? Still, its usefulness during emergencies, like the California wildfires of 2007, is difficult to deny.

Most conspiracy theories aren't theories, at least not if the dictionary definition of the word applies; thefreedictionary.com defines theory as:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Conspiracy theories remain difficult to disprove due in part to the tenacity of their adherents. This comes as no surprise because anyone who can devise such wild, incredulous tales is bound to be unmoved by rational evidence. And of course, a lot of the most popular conspiracy "theories" fall within the realm of possibility--in, ahem, theory--even if there are no, or very few, facts to support them.

In the case of 9/11 Conspiracies, I can't prove all, or any, of them false, but I do wonder about the motives of whomever the 9/11 conspirators are meant to be. If the September 11 attacks were devised as a ruse to implement the War on Terror, well... where do we start? If these sinister, devious elites are so skilled at creating elaborate hoaxes, why were the participants--or those identified as such--from Saudi Arabia? If it was all a sham to build up public support for attacking either Afghanistan or Iraq, why weren't any of the attackers Iraqi or Afghani? Why didn't they frame Saddam Hussein?

And why, if the government knew about the attacks ahead of time, didn't they allow one of the Twin Towers to be destroyed and shoot down the second plane? That would have made them look far more competent, riding in on their F-16s --white horses-- t0 thwart the terrorists. In such a scenario, they could have gotten the body count they presumably needed to justify war while still salvaging some heroic and telegenic moments.

Some supporters of the 9/11 Conspiracy claim that the collapse of WTC 7 establishes there was something suspicious about the whole affair. Popular Mechanics has already done an excellent job of demonstrating how each of the structures fell, but I think Building 7's destruction hurts more than helps the idea of government collusion. By the time it crashed to the ground, the damage was done. Nothing was to be gained by razing it. A 9/11 conspiracy/cover up is not impossible, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

The Kennedy Assassination Conspiracies are simply too numerous, varied, and head-spinning to take seriously. President Kennedy's murder was almost undoubtedly a conspiracy--defined as two or more people attempting to execute a criminal act--but besides the obvious, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the nearly as obvious, Jack Ruby, its tentacles are tough to trace. All the chatter about the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, Fidel Castro, and Lyndon Johnson makes for fascinating speculation but it's too unwieldy to unravel in a way that assembles all the strands logically.

As for Barack Obama's birth certificate, this is the realm of the truly desperate. I, for one, would like to know the cost of an airplane ticket from Honolulu to Nairobi circa 1961. How long did the journey take and how many connecting flights were there? What kind of telephone system was in place in Kenya--or for that matter, Hawaii--in the early 1960s? With all this in mind, what are the odds President Obama's mother happened to be in Kenya at the time of his birth while somehow hoodwinking Hawaiian authorities and newspapers into believing she was actually still in Honolulu? Sorry, but no.

The moon landing was genuine too. Claims to the contrary are not theories, they are speculation. Stop hijacking the word "theory" to use as a cover for your absurd ramblings.

I didn't really write this.

He'll Need It (Get It?)

2010-05-06T15:25:00.004-04:00

Of course I am concerned about the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, the Times Square Bomber, and the Economy That Is Sort Of Recovering But Not Very Fast and there is no doubt I am (marginally) interested in US Primary results, the general election in the United Kingdom, and the financial crisis in Greece, but the really important news today originated in Nigeria.

That's because, following the unfortunate death of Umaru Yar'Adua, the President of Nigeria is Goodluck Jonathon. It's not a joke or a hoax or a typo, it's his real name. Actually, he's been acting President for months, ever since Yar'Adua's debilitating illness forced him to seek treatment outside the country, but now it's official.

If you were not already aware of this news, what you're almost certainly doing now is Googling the name "Goodluck Jonathon" to discover if your leg is being pulled, your chain yanked, your beard tweaked. Knock yourself out.

Convinced yet? Well, all reet. It can't be real, but it is. We are treated to seemingly unreal reality often enough, but typically in unpleasant guises. The September 11 attacks didn't seem real at first, nor did video footage of the Tiananmen Square Protests, nor, I suspect, did the televised murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. Okay, so this isn't exactly the Fall of the Berlin Wall in terms of Pleasant Surprises That Seem Fake But Aren't, but we have to take what we can get.

The bad news is, Goodluck Jonathon probably can't live up to his own name. Who could? And Nigeria remains a troubled, violent, and corrupt country. It is also West Africa's greatest economic power. President Jonathon has vowed to fight corruption and promises election reform. If he delivers, he can become more than a historical punchline. But even if that is his legacy, it could be worse. He has almost indisputably the best name of any global leader in history, and that includes Dag Hammarskjold and Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

So let me be neither the first nor the last to say to Nigeria's new leader... well, no. But the sentiment is there, my man.

Unhappy Anniversary

2010-03-19T21:35:00.005-04:00

Today represents the seventh anniversary of the Iraq War, a conflict that has sapped unfathomable resources and funds with results that even the most optimistic would deem disappointing. Cynics, on the other hand, would undoubtedly call the effects catastrophic. These days, Iraq is calmer, not quite as volatile and not quite as visible; focus has shifted to Afghanistan or to domestic issues.

Without pride or shame, I can say to both readers of this blog that I didn't support the war at first, nor did I particularly oppose it. I was nervous, on-the-fence, wishy-washy. The pessimist in me foresaw some of what would occur in the years that followed the invasion, while the Pollyanna hoped for a quick resolution and transformation. I walked the line between naivete and bleak realism.

So what happened? What went wrong? A lot of this information is known. Some of it remains subject to speculation. I don't think the Bush Administration completely fabricated the WMD hype so much as it believed its own lies. With scant, outdated information, some of which was verified on the Internet--which we know never misleads--proponents of war made a decision first and gathered facts later. It's curious because the Iraq invasion took place nearly a year and a half after the conflict in Afghanistan began, yet the whole affair seemed rushed and slapdash. I don't know the reason for this, but I suspect it's because they ("they"? well, you know, not merely Bush and his colleagues but all those who were gathering data and assembling agendas for battle) dedicated too much time spinning and justifying the move and too little anticipating what would actually occur, studying the country's history and understanding the existing dynamics.

The results were mostly an embarrassing, humiliating shambles with a great many people killed, wounded or traumatized and a number of careers ruined. Admittedly, not everything went grievously awry. Saddam Hussein was caught and tried. His sons were killed in combat. People in Iraq actually have been permitted to vote in the intervening years, albeit under very difficult conditions.

I didn't detest President Bush and still don't. I believe his policies were misguided and the worldview of his administration too narrow and impractical to succeed. To them, democracy was almost like dessert, a nice big pie! Who wouldn't want it, they reasoned? The idea that most people want pie is not incorrect. The problem is, not everyone has the ingredients on hand to make the pie very well. And that's okay, too. No democracy works perfectly. But when an occupied nation is forced to assemble a representative government quickly and without a large grass roots movement insisting on the development of its framework, it's tough to imagine things getting anything but messy, especially when terrorist organizations, religious, ethnic and political factions are also involved. Of course the Iraqi people want democracy in principle; most people do. But the circumstances made instant success impossible.

So if we should never have invaded Iraq, what should we have done? In retrospect, the most tantalizing, though admittedly speculative, answer is let it fall on its own. No one lives forever; Mobutu Sese Seko didn't and Robert Mugabe won't. Meanwhile, the Allied Forces could have dedicated increased resources to the conflict in Afghanistan. Maybe Osama Bin Laden would have been caught. Would this scenario mean Afghanistan would now be as peaceful and quiet as Ontario? Probably not. But at least the Bush Administration and its allies would have appeared singularly focused on toppling the Taliban and Al Qaeda instead of being perceived as wildly incompetent, even sinister and megalomaniacal.

It's depressing. And it's not over yet, though I do believe the worst is behind us.

So how's President Obama doing? Here's what I like: he's not backing away from things that are difficult. Could it be he's dedicating too much valuable time to health care reform that is not being widely embraced? That's a possibility. With the overall economy improving but unemployment still high, many people are looking to the President for a shift in emphasis. Give up this complicated and confusing health care bill, they say, and turn your attention to job creation. That would be the more popular move, something that might get his approval numbers up. But maybe, just maybe, he's adhering to principle and doing what he said he would do during the campaign, something he thinks is best for the country, and the polls be damned.

There are complaints about Obama's foreign policy too, including whispers that he keeps US allies at arm's length. It does appear to me sometimes that he has too many irons in the fire, but on the other hand, I still admire his aspiration for greatness. I just don't know that his abilities to get tangible results are as yet commensurate with his obvious desire to do so. One knock on Jimmy Carter was that he tried to do everything himself, didn't delegate duties very well, and simply got ground up by the rigors of the job. Maybe Obama is suffering a similar condition, but he still has time to figure things out. If nothing else, he did look good when he addressed House Republicans: no teleprompter, no canned responses, just smart, sensible answers. Not everything he said was right, but he was correct more often than the opposition that day.

I still approve. It's a guarded approval and I understand and respect those reasonable people who are frustrated. I don't understand those who are still spewing the same tired, hysterical nonsense about Obama--un-American, Communist, evil, blah, blah blah--but his levelheaded critics on both the right and left have valid points to make. But I haven't turned against him and don't foresee an about face in the near future.

Professor Longhair Is A Vampire

2009-12-19T15:55:00.008-05:00

The world clearly needs more vampire-related entertainment. In recent weeks, the paucity of vampirical books, films, and television programs has been decried by vampire enthusiasts, who demand swift action to rectify the problem.

"I don't understand why there isn't more empty-headed, pseudo-erotic claptrap about creatures that don't exist," said Stram Boker, a stockbroker from Hoboken, "When I get done watching seven consecutive episodes of 'Law and Order: Egregious Parking Offenses', I want to unwind with a little escapism."

Who doesn't? What the Zeitgeist really needs is to be captured by a series of vampire books transformed into films featuring a young and attractive, but pasty, cast. There is no need to thank me for these groundbreaking ideas.

Today would have been Professor Longhair's 91st birthday. Sadly, he remains a fairly obscure figure outside of his native New Orleans, but the music he produced was astoundingly vibrant. Much of his vintage material was recorded several years before the phrase "rock & roll" was coined, but the songs--"In the Night", "Hey Little Girl", "Who's Been Fooling You?"--swagger and sway with the same assurance as Fats Domino's best work.

Let's be honest: 2009 hasn't been a stellar year by many measures. In the world of sports, it could easily be mistaken for the late 1970s or early 1980s, what with the Pittsburgh Steelers prevailing in the Super Bowl, the Los Angeles Lakers taking the NBA title, and the New York Yankees raising the World Series trophy. The economy has been about the same as that time period, too. Overall, it's been a great year for unimaginative front runners. Just what we need.

Incidentally, Professor Longhair died in 1980, so if he came back now (as a vampire, no doubt) he probably wouldn't notice much difference.

Chuck and Dave Without Vera

2009-10-18T07:19:00.003-04:00

Two men born in 1926 about five months and five thousand miles apart have made deep impressions on me. One is Charles Edward Anderson Berry, known to most of the general public as "Chuck" and the other is Sir David Frederick Attenborough.

Of all the people in the world, David Attenborough is the person I might most like to trade lives with. No one has witnessed more fascinating natural events than Attenborough and I challenge anyone to fashion a reasonable argument for somebody else. For those who do not know of Mr. Attenborough, he has for over fifty years researched and presented scores of television programs for the British Broadcasting Corporation, the vast majority of which involve filming flora and fauna throughout the globe. He has traveled to every continent, through dozens of countries, and seen creatures many of us would never have heard of if it weren't for him. A national hero in the United Kingdom, anyone on the west side of the Atlantic who is unfamiliar with his work and even remotely interested in biology is advised to seek out "Life on Earth", "The Living Planet", "Blue Planet", "Planet Earth", "The Life of Birds", "The Life of Mammals", or any of the rest of his absolutely astonishing television series.

And now, Chuck. From the man of science to one of sheer musical genius. Chuck Berry made music so definitively rock & roll and so American, it seemed like it must have always been there, the kind of of songs nobody in particular wrote but were always around. But somebody in particular did write "Maybelline", "Johnny B. Goode", "Let It Rock", "Sweet Little Sixteen", "Almost Grown", "Brown Eyed Handsome Man", "You Can't Catch Me", and "Around and Around."

His songs could be harmless fun or they could be stirring and profound and some of them--lots of them--could be either or both depending on the mood of the listener! "Brown Eyed Handsome Man" is a whimsical number in which the Venus DeMilo, identified in the song as "Marlo Venus", loses "both her arms in a wrestling match to meet a brown eyed handsome man". It's a fun song that gives silly names to classical sculptures. But what about the guy "rounding third and headed for home"? Does that refer to Willie Mays or perhaps another black baseball player, a "brown eyed handsome man" tearing up the big leagues following the relatively recent collapse of the color barrier?

The best word to describe Berry's music is glorious. It's not quite as lyrical as the best work of Bob Dylan, nor quite as melodic as the best Beatles, nor quite as angry and edgy as the best Rolling Stones, nor quite as driving and danceable as the best James Brown, nor quite as earthy and arresting as the best Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters, but it combines all those elements into something more liberating than any of them. If Freedom itself had a radio station, the first song played would be one of Chuck Berry's.

David Attenborough celebrated his 83rd birthday on May 8th while Chuck Berry turns the same age today, October 18th. Attenborough remains active in television and Berry still performs once a month at a night club near his native St. Louis, Missouri. I hope for many more birthdays from these two and that anyone previously unacquainted with their genius gets a taste of it soon.

Call It A (Not Terribly Welcome) Comeback

2009-10-11T16:57:00.003-04:00

The reason for my recent blog inactivity is a valid one: I'm working on a novel. It's good, too! I'll concede parts of it are rambling and convoluted but that tends to be the style I employ, for good or ill. I will dish out an obligatory summary of recent events, for what it's worth.

First, I wanted Chicago to get the Olympics. I love it there. It's far from a perfect place, but I consider it the definitive American city full of all the contradictions for which this country is known, loved, and loathed. However, I'm pleased South America finally gets an opportunity to host. Africa ought to be next. Cape Town put together an unsuccessful bid for the 2008 games but whether they're poised for another run in the near future is uncertain.

Reasonable opponents of Obama's health care plan could probably formulate sensible arguments and propositions, really adding something substantial to the proceedings. Indeed, they have probably done so already, but their voices are, for the most part, being drowned out by histrionics. Equating the Obama Administration with Nazism is offensive, over the top, and deeply insulting to people who actually had to endure the Third Reich. If it wasn't fair to compare the Bush Administration to Nazis--and it wasn't--it isn't fair to hurl the same epithets toward Obama.

Special recognition goes to Investors Business Daily. About two months ago, that publication printed an article indicating how fortunate physicist Stephen Hawking was not to be living in Great Britain, since someone with ALS was not "valued" by their health care system and therefore would not have survived to his current age (he's 67). There were two problems with this, one of which proved very embarrassing to Investors Business Daily while the other went largely unremarked. Stephen Hawking, as anybody capable of picking up one of his books or performing an Internet search can easily discover, was born in Britain and resides there yet. The other problem, obscured by IBD's egregiously lazy error or general disinterest in facts, is the sweeping generalization and assumption made in the first place, the idea that anyone can know for certain whether Stephen Hawking, or anyone, would have fared as well in another country. This is pure guesswork because it isn't merely a matter of the health care system employed by one country or another; so many other factors can influence patient outcomes--doctors, nurses, the patient's own behavior--that it is impossible to made accurate predictions about whether a patient would have lived or died in another situation. Besides that, it's crass. Stephen Hawking is alive and well and even if he weren't British, it's very tasteless to imply he'd be dead if he had a different address.

President Obama should not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He has all but admitted as much himself. But he should accept it, then go out and earn it. Receiving an award before you deserve it is unorthodox, but instead of making him complacent, he ought to use it as motivation. That's what I'm hoping for anyway.

Is it just me or are the Pussycat Dolls even worse than most performers of their ilk? Not many contrived girl and boy groups make great music, but the Pussycat Dolls seem so derivative, overwrought, overproduced, and flat-out dull that I simply can't understand the appeal of listening to their alleged music. I do understand that dirty old men and pre-teen boys might find their gyrations alluring even if they are a canned and phony act. They are, in fact, canned and phony even by the standards of the genre. In terms of spontaneity and passion, the Pussycat Dolls make Destiny's Child look like the Donnas. "I Hate This Part", indeed!

Regrettably, there has been no desperate outcry for me to resume blogging. It seems the forces of the world still expect me to earn a living and this stands as yet another bitter disappointment.

It's Not But It Should Be

2009-08-19T02:45:00.003-04:00

Fifty years ago, on August 19, 1959, the life of Blind Willie McTell came to an end in Milledgeville, Georgia. McTell's date of birth is a matter of debate; though it is generally accepted his birthday was the 5th of May, the exact year he came into the world remains sketchy. Some sources say 1898, others 1901, and very occasionally a date of 1900 is given.

Today ought to be Blind Willie McTell Day in the United States, if not throughout the world. His story is as rich and fascinating as any blues legend, and that's saying something considering the legendary lore surrounding the likes of Tommy Johnson, Robert Johnson, Huddie Ledbetter, and Sonny Boy Williamson, among scores of others.

Among the most interesting, if unlikely, tales about McTell is the claim he once shot a marauding dog with a pistol. More plausible, though still remarkable, are anecdotes about his exceptional navigational skills in Atlanta, Georgia, where he assisted lost travelers in finding their way. What is known for certain about Blind Willie McTell is that he recorded under a variety of names--including but not limited to Barrelhouse Sammy, Georgia Bill, Pig and Whistle Red--and played the 12 string guitar with rare grace, speed, and beauty. He also had a distinctive voice and wrote pheonomenal songs. The best known of these is probably "Statesboro Blues", but a number of others are equally timeless, such as "Georgia Rag", "Stomp Down Rider", "Atlanta Strut", "Warm It Up To Me", "Dyin' Crapshooter's Blues", and the offensive but irresistible "Southern Can Is Mine."

"...mama died and left me restless; Daddy died and left me wild, wild, wild
No I'm not good looking, but I'm some sweet woman's angel child."
(from "Statesboro Blues")

"Went up the Kennesaw Mountain, gave my horn a blow
Prettiest girl in Atlanta came stepping up to my door
Hugged me and she kissed me, called me sugar lump
Throwed them sweet arms around me like a grape vine 'round a stump."
(from "Atlanta Strut")

"Boll weevil, he told the farmer, don't buy no Ford machine
Ain't gonna make enough money to even buy gasoline."
(from "Boll Weevil")

Don't deny it. Anyone who writes lyrics like this deserves his own day.

Trouble

2009-06-07T18:45:00.003-04:00

Lately, I've been working on a novel. This isn't my first attempt; in fact, I've even made it to the end of the story a few times, though more often than not the effort was aborted midstream. However, this time something is different: I've actually gotten good!

It's hard to say precisely when I turned the corner, nor can I definitively declare that I have, only that it seems so, but my skills at fiction have moved pleasantly from adequate to above average. Who knows what brought on this creative springtime? I just hope it continues.

Sixty-five years have passed since the Normandy Invasion. I don't think we should "retire" all talk of D-Day now that it's come of age, but I do hope we can always remember it without ever having to repeat anything of the kind. The world is not a peaceful place; one need not look very far to recognize this truth. But these days thousands upon thousands of soldiers perishing on heartbreakingly bloody battlefields is almost unheard of. Not that the changes in warfare give one much cause for celebration--guerrilla tactics, terrorism, "smart bombs"--but military institutions appreciate more than ever the value of human life, even if this is not always for the right reasons.

Whether out of compassion or expedient coincidence, wars just don't kill like they used to, not even in the world's most violent conflicts, the possible exception being the horrors within the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has cost an estimated three million lives over six years, mostly due to disease, famine and displacement rather than shells and bullets. Granted, these numbers pale compared to the lives lost in World War II in only four years, but the latter conflict had a far more massive scope and involved many more participants. Congo, however, is a desperately poor country fighting in, for lack of a better term, the "old school" way. This should neither trivialize its plight nor dissuade us from addressing the problem, but it is something of an archaic war being played out in modern times.

But let's face it: Congo's plight has already been trivialized. It's a punch line. Not a funny one, not something that makes most people literally laugh, but something that surprises few, another war-torn nation in the Third World. It diminishes us all to think this way, but what can we do from such massive distances and against such great odds? Whose job is it to stop the fighting, the conscription and exploitation of children, the masses of refugees? Other nations in Africa? The United States? The United Nations? Europe? China? No one is stepping forward into the quagmire. Perhaps they should reconsider from the perspective of enlightened self-interest, since empathy alone seems insufficient. Congo is one of the world's most mineral rich nations: they have diamonds, gold, copper, bauxite, and many other valuable commodities. A stable, healthy Congo benefits not only the Congolese but the entire world. So far, no one has deemed it worth the risk to step in, possibly because some of these industries are being exploited by ruthless factions within the country.

It's a sad example. On the other hand, while Congo's status is not unique in the world, it reminds us that locales enduring high casualty counts are relatively rare these days, at least compared to nations at war in the recent past. Part of that reflects where wars are occurring. Sudan and Afghanistan are large, desolate countries where the population density and the nature of the fighting keep the number of dead reasonably low. Is this what we want? In some ways, war seems crueler, more capricious and random, more absurd than ever. In others, it seems more contained and not as lethal.

Evidently, there are no good old days, not even now. But it could always be worse. We know this because it has been!

The National Insurance Lottery

2009-05-18T02:51:00.004-04:00

In the past, I have expressed reservations about a nationalized health care scheme. It is unfair to label the Canadian and Western European health care systems as disastrous just as it is absurd to say they are unmitigated successes. Fact is, like almost all large government programs, they giveth and they taketh away, solving some, rarely all, of the problems they hope to while at the same time creating new ones. Among the citizens of nations that employ these large scale health care initiatives, one is likely to find plenty of cheerleaders, plenty of critics and, most of all, plenty who are both, recognizing the system's virtues as well as its warts.

President Obama's tentative health care proposal represents a hybrid of the current system and a national one and is therefore unlikely to please hard-line conservatives or die-hard socialists. This is just as well, as these two groups make a point not to be pleased most of the time. The President's idea, sound on the face of it but probably not as straightforward as it seems, is to leave what's right about the system alone while building new programs to repair what's busted. Well, okay. I do not profess any expertise on this topic, but I do have thoughts on how to raise money for it.

There is some logic in a tax increase on unhealthy foods, but I have another idea: there should be a National Insurance Lottery. For, say, two dollars a ticket, purchasers could win a shot at the monthly grand prize, one million dollars and free health care for life. Impractical, you say? I respectfully disagree. If only one in ten Americans purchased only one ticket every week--again, one out of ten and only a single ticket--it would generate about a quarter billion dollars every month, not enough to pay for the program, but a handsome sum of money just the same. And the best part is, it's all voluntary.

Of course, there might be complaints that such a system encourages gambling. But that ship sailed a long time ago. State lotteries around the country already fund dozens of important initiatives and, in the words of the Cornelius Brothers and Sister Rose, it's too late to turn back now.

Get A Job, Man, You're Fifty!

2009-04-02T11:23:00.007-04:00

This is my message to the protesters at the London G20 Summit, even the ones considerably under the age of fifty and the ones who already have jobs. Yes, of course, I am painting with a broad brush here; some of those involved in acts of civil disobedience have noble intentions and likely are marvelous people. However, most of the attention falls to hostile, bitter loudmouths who are more interested in shouting slogans and slinging stones than genuinely advancing the cause of the planet's poor and downtrodden.

Understand, the overall points that the global economic system is not altogether fair and that power, money, and resources are concentrated in too few hands are not without validity. Solutions to these problems remain nebulous and elusive but, if nothing else, no -ism or -tion advocated by simplistic catch phrases will resolve the world's problems. As delightfully subversive as overthrowing or undermining the system might seem, it works much better as an idea than as a reality.

It is the ultimate self-delusion to believe destroying property and hurling insults at police officers will somehow change the world for the better or ease the misery of families in Cambodia or Sierra Leone. But a lot of protesters probably realize this already and are more cynical than idealistic; they are, in fact, more driven by revelry and mayhem, by perceiving the victims as themselves, as martyrs fighting for their rights.

Some people interpret criticism of a particular group of protesters as an assault on the right to protest. That's as nonsensical as the idea that one malpractice suit against an incompetent doctor is an indictment against all of modern medicine. The right to air grievances against any and all governments should be sacrosanct--even though it isn't in many parts of the world--but some petitioners raise better arguments than others and we should all be free to criticize those who criticize.

Pardon the Shoe Thrower

2009-03-13T03:22:00.007-04:00

Three years for attempted assault? Sorry, but that's absurd. This is not an attempt to embarrass former President Bush nor a defense of journalist Muntadhar al-Zeid's actions; he was dead wrong to do what he did and fortunate to be alive, because when you heave objects at a global leader, getting shot full of about fifty slugs is not unheard of. Critical as so many have been of Bush, he displayed impressive reflexes during this incident. However, following the footwear chucking, I believe he should have requested a meeting with al-Zeid and stated publicly that while he did not condone violence as a method of protest, he understood the frustration of the Iraqi people and the emotional scars left by the invasion.

Bush could not have pardoned al-Zeid, but as targeted victim and leader of the free world, his recommendation for clemency would have carried a lot of weight and perhaps provided a small measure of good public relations for a conflict that has enjoyed very few. Now that Bush is out of office, President Obama might appear to be tweaking Bush, showing him up, if he urged the Iraqi government to let al-Zeid off the hook. If Obama wishes to act now, he must do so by consulting Bush himself and making sure the two are on the same page.

This would be the right thing to do. Throwing a shoe at the President of the United States is reckless, unwise, and bellicose, but the man missed and people should not be punished for speculative damage and injury, except if this had been some type of failed assasination attempt, in which case conspiracy would be added to the charges. If al-Zeid had received a lighter sentence, it would not make sense to intervene, but if we are expected to set powerful examples for the Iraqi people on how to run a democratic government, it is prudent to include mercy and forgiveness among our values, particularly in cases where no real damage was done. Plus, let's face it, the whole thing gave almost all of us a good laugh. Some revered the shoe thrower for his guts and the sheer madness of what he did and others admired Bush for reacting quickly and managing to smile about the incident not long after it happened; but nearly everyone found some humor in it. And the Iraq War has not given us much to laugh about over the last six years.

Muntadhar al-Zeid was way out of line, but let's encourage the neophyte Iraqi government to set him free.

Down on the Coroner

2009-02-12T06:01:00.006-05:00

Recently, a retired coroner who had presided over some very high profile murder cases in Liverpool died in North Wales. This sad occasion prompted the following question: If the coroner dies, who gets called to examine the body? If it's a coroner from another community, imagine how self-conscious he or she would have to be while examining a colleague. Would the out-of-town coroner attempt to employ the same style of corpse examination used by the recently deceased coroner?

There is a reason coroner is an elected office in many parts of the United States. There may, in fact, be many reasons, but one of them is because under the old "spoils system" in political machines, city administrations often decided the best candidate for a high-paying was Cousin Fred, who learned everything he knew about post-mortem examinations from a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. To combat this corruption, many reformers strove to hold elections for as many local offices as possible. At this stage, it often seems a bit unwiedly and superfluous. Does anyone really care what political party the coroner is? Has anyone ever employed the campaign slogan "The Dead Dislike Democrats"?

Here's what kind of person the world can do without: anyone who sits in the studio audience of a daytime talk show. And also daytime talk show hosts. These polygraph administering, paternity testing, conflict stoking, headline grabbing simpletons need to catch an airplane to Tuvalu and never, ever return. And all current citizens of Tuvalu are welcome either to move to the country of their choice or remain in Tuvalu and use the former talk show hosts as household appliances, such as doorstops or hat and coat racks. The former talk show hosts are not under any circumstances permitted to speak for the rest of their lives and should consider themselves fortunate to be living in a tropical climate in which they aren't mangled by Cape Buffalo.

As awful as the lying, cheating, deceitful guests on talk shows can be, members of the audience who boo, jeer, and taunt them are, if anything, worse people. The guests are merely guilty of being stupid enough to air out their asinine problems and pathetic lives on television, but the gawkers take delight in openly ridiculing others and that's just plain mean-spirited (and so are these words, but enough is enough!) Someone needs to open up a can of John 8:7* on these people? Not because it isn't human nature to sometimes be judgmental, even hypocritical, but because they are such hyperbolic nitwits about it. How about you tone it down a bit, Sir Laurence Olivier, and save the theatrics for your upcoming appearance in "The Iceman Cometh"?

Okay, so this comes across as a little bitter. What can I say? It's been a long winter!

*John 8:7 contains the passage "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", or some variation thereof.

New, Improved, Bigger, Better and Americaner

2009-02-10T12:06:00.005-05:00

The time has come for the United States of America to set herself apart in yet another way. What we need is a rotating National Anthem, because a nation such as ours can never be complete with only one.

"The Star-Spangled Banner" has taken its share of pounding from critics over the years, including claims that it is difficult to sing and that it's too war-oriented. The first claim has some merit, though because of the challenges associated with singing the song, our gratification increases when a vocalist really handles it (see Marvin Gaye, NBA All-Star Game, 1983). As for the second charge, well, what can be said? We cannot ignore history nor deny that some of our country's wars have yielded positive outcomes. War is not, and shouldn't be, all we're about, but nor should we forget the toil and sacrifice of the soldier.

Ultimately, "The Star-Spangled Banner" seems like a better poem than it is a song, but it's too important to leave out of the rotation. Two things to bear in mind are that Francis Scott Key originally wrote it as a poem and it was not set to music until years later and that the writing chronicles not a great victory, but a state of affairs much closer to defeat. The War of 1812's conclusion left the United States with a favorable treaty as Great Britain rushed her troops back to Europe to confront a resurging Napoleon, but Britain won nearly every battle, sacked Washington, and set the city ablaze. The events chronicled by Key in Baltimore in 1814 tell us a story of survival and resilience, not of glory and triumph. This, by the way, is a good thing and unusual for a National Anthem. You can't always prevail, but you can live to fight another day. And we have.

"The Banner" must not be abandoned, but its limitations are precisely why we need alternatives. The first and most obvious of these is "America the Beautiful", a stunningly wonderful number far more anthemic than Key's piece. The antithesis of "the Banner's" narrow focus, this song's first verse describes the beauty and grandeur of America's appearance. Also originally a poem by Katharine Lee Bates, the piece was set to music composed by Samuel Ward, who died before the song became popular and never met Bates. It's another perfect American story: sad, funny, and ironic.

Now comes the time for adventure. Forget "God Bless America" and "My Country 'Tis of Thee", not because these are bad songs, but because they are too similar in spirit and form to the previous two. Besides, "My Country 'Tis of Thee" has the same melody as "God Save the Queen" and we don't want one of our National Anthem's sounding exactly like Britain's. Continue to perform these songs, by all means, but leave them out of the National Anthem rotation. What we need here is variety without creating so many alternate National Anthems so as to become hazy and convoluted. In short, we need one more song to create a tidy rotation of three.

Probably the best way to do this is to proclaim "The Star Spangled Banner" and "America the Beautiful" permanent members of the mix, with various third songs working their way in and out over a period of a few years. All three songs would officially be The National Anthem, so at public forums, ceremonies, or sporting events, any of the three could be played, or all three could be played, assuming the audience is patient enough.

So what should the third anthem be? Many people are partial to Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land", and it's hard to blame them. The song does have some controversial lyrics in its later verses, but why shrink from controversy? Though this idea of multiple National Anthems originates somewhat out of the desire to illustrate and embrace the great variety of the United States, there is no possible way to please everyone. As it stands now, many people are unhappy with the present National Anthem. If that Anthem were replaced, at least as many people would be unhappy with that development. The various National Anthems won't delight everyone either, but at least in this scheme, "The Star Spangled Banner" doesn't disappear altogether, so the people devoted to the song can retain it and the people uncomfortable with it have options.

"This Land Is Your Land" is an undeniably great and glorious piece worthy of consideration for the third Anthem, but it shares one slight drawback with Francis Scott Key's masterpiece: the song never mentions any of the three words "United", "States", or "America." Not that there's any question what country the song is about, with its references to "the New York islands", but it does seem jarring that this kind of song never explicitly mentions this country.

Lovely as Woody Guthrie's composition is, there might be an even better one. In the late 1950s, reputedly following a trip to Australia where he witnessed hardships endured by the Aborigines, Chuck Berry wrote "Back in the USA". Though not exactly an obscure song, it is far less well-known than the others mentioned in this writing, so the lyrics are reprinted below.

"Oh well, oh well, I feel so good today
We just touched ground on an international runway
Jet-propelled back home from overseas to the USA

New York, Los Angeles, oh, how I yearned for you
Detroit, Chicago, Chattanooga, Baton Rouge
Let alone just to be at my home back in old St. Lou'

Did I miss the skyscrapers? Did I miss the long freeway?
From the coast of California to the shores of the Delaware Bay
You can bet your life I did 'til I got back in the USA

Looking hard for a drive-in, searching for a corner cafe'
Where hamburgers sizzle on an open grill night and day
And the jukebox jumping with records like in the USA
Well, I'm so glad I'm living in the USA
Yes, I'm so glad I'm living in the USA
Anything you want, you got it right here in the USA."

Those who have not heard the song before must also envision the Moonglows chanting "uh huh huh, oh yeah" in the background. Now THAT is an American song, performed in an idiom largely of American design--rock and roll--by a great American success story. Chuck Berry also happens to be a sex deviant, but in a way even that regrettable fact adds more than it detracts from the overall picture. Thomas Jefferson was both a great man and a slaveholder. That's America: we are weak and strong, brilliant and ignorant, big and noisy, subtle and graceful, war-mongering and peace-loving, selfish and generous.

So let's not waste another minute. We want three National Anthems: "The Star-Spangled Banner", "America the Beautiful", and "Back in the USA". We're just too big, varied, and insane for anything less!

This Could Have Been You

2009-02-01T11:19:00.005-05:00

Speculation of this type is more fun than fruitful, but surely many Republicans realize and have considered the possibility that they could have produced the first African-American president and not the Democrats. Among Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and J. C. Watts, it is not too far-fetched to believe one of them could have made a viable candidate for the nation's highest office. Powell and Rice have repeatedly insisted a lack of interest in the job and Watts withdrew from public office, though not entirely from politics, following a not-so-friendly parting of ways with the GOP. Rumor has it much of the split involved Watts' decidedly uncordial rapport with now-disgraced former House Speaker Tom DeLay. If this is true, it is a shame that Watts' career was hampered by a man so rapidly approaching outcast status.

Indeed, during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Watts stopped short of endorsing Obama, but criticized the Republican Party for failing to appeal to minorities. On a national level, Latinos are underrepresented in both major political parties, but they cast their lot with the Democrats this time because Republicans made no discernible effort to earn their votes.

What if all people named Watts were related and required to live in Watts, California? This might be the best idea to come along in a while. J. C. Watts could live next door to his brother and sister-in-law, Charlie and Shirley Watts, and their daughter Naomi could reside across the street. Think there would have been mid-1960s riots in Watts if they were all family? Hard to say since families don't always get along, but we can at least assume the riots would have taken a different direction. A direction such as "why are we forced to live so close to our stupid families?"

Another thing that would improve the world is if the French expression spelled viola exchanged pronunciation with the largely uncelebrated musical instrument also spelled viola. Then people could say "vy-oh-la" when presenting a pleasing and sudden conclusion and at band concerts you could hear people murmuring, "she's in the second row, playing the wah-la." Come on, who can deny this idea makes the world a better place?

Okay, how about this? Many cemeteries are home to ducks, who swim in ponds and streams and perhaps affirm life at a time when people are preoccupied with death. That's great. But what if it were possible to perform some kind of surgery on a duck and make its quack sound like a police siren? Every cemetery could have this procedure done on a single duck. If you walk beside the stream and over the little stone bridge one reflective afternoon following a relative's funeral and hear the police siren duck, it could be a sign of really good fortune, of better days ahead. And if you just hear normal quacking, it's just that sedate, life-affirming stuff. It could be called Duck Luck. Don't fight it; resistance is futile.

It Should Be Obvious

2009-01-30T10:36:00.008-05:00

Many things seem obvious, but obviously they're not. This explains why some advertisements for birth control devices or erectile dysfunction drugs note in fine print that said product cannot protect users from HIV or other Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The very fact this disclaimer appears indicates somebody somewhere assumed Viagra could keep him from getting gonorrhea.

So perhaps it would benefit the general public to compile a list of ideas that ought to be obvious, but for some reason have not made the rounds of common knowledge quite as well as they should. Observe:

Toads cannot give people warts.
Warts can be caused by a variety of viral infections and are sometimes passed from human to human, but never, as far as anyone knows, from toad to human. Even the toad-licking craze that swept across North America in the mid-1990s did not lead to an increase in warts, though it did drive home a curious dichotomy about certain members of the general public: on one hand, dumb enough to believe toads can cause warts, but on the other, dumb enough to seek hallucinogenic pleasure by putting one's tongue on this same type of creature.

The world won't end because someone you don't like is President of the United States.
Four of the five most recent Presidents--Reagan, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama--have generated adulation from their supporters and intense and vitriolic criticism from their detractors, and yet the nation and the planet carry on. Richard Nixon couldn't wreck the country, nor could Jimmy Carter. Neither paranoid narcissism nor hemorrhaging incompetence nor faulty intelligence nor White House soft pornography nor any of the myriad petty rivalries and scandals have ever managed to rend us asunder. So easy, tigers.

The Blues Brothers did not record the original version of "Soul Man".
No, sir, Sam and Dave did it first. And Little Willie John's rendition of fever came out before Peggy Lee's, too. To be fair, Lee did a superb job with it, though Willie John's is even better. Incidentally, it is not entirely clear who composed "Fever", but it might well have been Otis Blackwell, the same songwriter who penned "All Shook Up", made famous by Elvis Presley.

The severity of brown recluse spider bites has been greatly exaggerated.
Brown recluse spiders reside mostly in the American South and Midwest and hardly exist on either coast, though they turn up occasionally. Some arachnologists estimate that up to 80% of reported brown recluse bites are actually caused by something else, a different spider, an insect, an allergic reaction or rash. The kind of sickening necrotic damage depicted in a variety of Internet hoaxes is extraordinarily rare. People need to grow up about spiders, period. Understand, if a large, hairy, eight-legged gem were found on this writer's hand as he typed up this post, he would be understandably shaken. Otherwise, spiders are completely unworthy of the hysteria they generate. Sort of like the Jonas Brothers.

More Days Off

2009-01-19T22:05:00.002-05:00

Two friends and I had a discussion this week and ultimately arrived at the following possibly unanswerable question. If you were attending a party and the host said Oprah and Stedman were coming over, which is more likely?

A) Oprah Winfrey and Stedman whatever were actually coming to the party.

B) A different Oprah and Stedman were coming. Let's say Oprah Kubelsky and Stedman whomever.

Clearly, it's most likely that the party's host is simply a lying dirtbag, but leave that aside. Can the probabilities be determined?

A few years ago, I wrote a piece suggesting perhaps we ought to honor people like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King on the days they died rather than the days they were born. Obviously, the idea is a bit morbid, perhaps even a little tasteless, but part of the overall point was these men were killed primarily for the principles they espoused and they were good principles. That's something Americans ought not to forget. That writing advocated making holidays of April 4th and 14th to honor the aforementioned men, but an idea occurred to me today that would retain a national holiday for the third Monday in January.

Benjamin Franklin was born January 17, 1706. I can think of no American who does not already have a holiday more deserving of one. It's strange that as revered and admired as Franklin was and is, he is not individually commemorated at any particular time during the year. Admittedly, old Ben was a notorious skirtchaser, a rake, and by some accounts a lamentable father. But so what? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and King all were flawed men. Flawed need not mean "less great." And though this point should be obvious, we would honor Mr. Franklin on his date of birth rather than his date of death because he did not perish violently as a result of a courageous and controversial stand he took, though he was indeed a courageous man who risked a great deal to help found the country.

Not everyone can have a holiday, even though there are considerably more than 365 citizens of any country who probably deserve one. And not everyone can agree on who has earned a holiday either. Sometimes it seems like if a vote on whom to award a holiday in this were ever taken, it would result in a 300 million way tie with each person supporting him or herself. If I ever got my own holiday, I wouldn't want it to fall on my birthday or the day I died, but on the first really pleasant Friday of each year. Now that's a holiday!

No Need to Miss Piggy

2009-01-06T22:22:00.005-05:00

It's finally 2009 and there's no need to opine about football, politics, the economy, or Middle Eastern turmoil because every hack with a PC and a personal agenda is already doing that. Not that there's anything wrong with PCs or personal agendas, but sometimes the latter must be set aside so the world can attack a problem in a unified front.

And that problem is bacon. Grease-swimming pig nipples. They wrap bacon around fillet Mignon because a small, fat piece of steak just isn't enough and have the audacity to charge customers forty bucks even though few things come cheaper than dead cow and dead pig. They put bacon on any fast food sandwich that is allegedly spicy, though no direct connection exists between bacon and spiciness. Burger King has the Angry Whopper (angry because cows and pigs don't get along, maybe?), Dairy Queen has the Flamethrower Burger, Wendy's has the Spicy Baconator or something. Even Taco Bell has gotten in on the act with some sort of bacon cheese tortilla thingy. Clearly, the days of mistaking Taco Bell's food for actual Mexican cuisine have faded well into the past, but could they at least try? Nothing says Mexico like bacon, right?

This is not an attack on the existence of bacon, but on its overuse and overexposure. People have the right to eat all the bacon they want anytime they want, but the ubiquity of sowbelly really has crossed the boundaries of good--sorry--taste. Salads are sprinkled with bacon bits, baked potatoes become bacon potatoes, overpriced restaurants offer it, greasy spoon dives can't get enough of it.

If Jews and Muslims agree on nothing else, they at least share a religious aversion to the consumption of pork. Maybe they had the right idea, even if it isn't for the reasons the founders of these great faiths envisioned. God save us from bacon!

Ghana Way

2008-12-14T12:33:00.004-05:00

The United States is not the only country to experience an interesting election cycle this year. One of Africa's more prosperous nations will also replace a two term incumbent with a newcomer.

It now seems likely that a runoff election to establish a clear victor between Nana Akufo-Addo and John Atta-Mills will be held near the end of the year. According to Ghana's Constitution, a candidate must receive the majority, rather than a plurality, of votes to be declared the winner.
Despite a checkered history, this West African nation of more than 23 million is on the verge of becoming what some observers call a "mature democracy." This most recent election qualifies as Ghana's toughest test since 2000, when John Kufuor prevailed and the country successfully transferred power from one political party to another. After serving two terms, Kufuor will now be succeeded by one of the two aforementioned candidates; Mr. Addo is a member of the incumbent party while Mr. Mills heads the opposition.

In 1957, Kwame Nkrumah became the first President of an independent nation in Sub-Saharan Africa. For this reason, Ghana has long been seen as an inspiration for the rest of the continent. But for some thirty years between the 1960s and 1990s, Ghana raged with civil war, coups, and ethnic strife. Only during the last decade has this resource-rich locality began to realize its potential.

Ghana's assets include cocoa, gold, diamonds and even petroleum, which was recently discovered off the coast. Though smaller than the state of Oregon, Ghana also produces timber, bauxite, and rubber. Suffice to say, any country that can provide oil and chocolate will generate interest from the West. But generous natural resources alone cannot ensure a nation's wealth or stability; ask the citizens of Congo.

Even following a deeply contentious race during which Atta-Mills intimated his opponent might try to steal the election, the citizens of Ghana displayed remarkable equanimity and restraint, not merely by African standards, but by global standards. Regardless of which candidate wins, the policies pursued by the new President will likely remain similar to Kufuor's, with various programs to improve health and reduce poverty, as well as continued economic development with the help of Ghana's trade partners and benefactors, notably the countries of Scandanavia and the United States.

Though it is too early to declare the political process in Ghana has again succeeded without incident, all early indicators are positive. Ghana's increasing prosperity and stability are essential to the future of a turbulent West Africa. This triumph should serve as an example not merely to Africa but to all the developing world.

Sources: allafrica.com, voanews, 2009 World Almanac and Book of Facts

Generational Generalizations

2008-11-09T14:26:00.005-05:00

Is it too much to ask that we get our fabricated generations straight? Sometimes the "Baby Boomers" are identified as those born between 1946 and 1964 while other times the latter date is 1963. A recent treatise identified Barack Obama as the first "Generation X" president, even though the above dates would indicate he is actually one of the latter day Baby Boomers. But according to yet another source, members of Generation X were born between 1961 and 1976.

Clearly, these ideas were just made up by observers to simplify discussion. All of these generational breakdowns are artificial; a person born on 31 December 1945 would probably fit best with the "Baby Boomers" even though he or she is not a member according to these arbitrary standards. For analytical purposes, it often makes sense to categorize by generation or by decade, but what gets tiresome are the generational generalizations, the efforts to lump every individual born between this date and that one as perceiving the world the same way or possessing the same ideology. This all too frequently leads to dismissiveness ("Typical Baby Boomer").

Do the people who think Barack Obama's middle name means he might behave similarly to Saddam Hussein or renders him a closet Muslim also believe that John McCain was a threat to kill his own brother or that Bob Dole would have expanded the welfare rolls? And is Mitt Romney made of leather? Sometimes it's tough to distinguish where political manipulation ends and sheer idiocy begins.

During the first 55 Presidential Elections, no candidate other than a white male possessed even a puncher's chance of winning. And the first time a woman was ever on a major ticket as a Vice Presidential candidate, an immense blowout ensued, though it had almost nothing to do with Walter Mondale's selection of Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate and almost everything to do with the fact that Ronald Reagan was riding high at the time and was, in fact, running against Walter Mondale. Anyway, does it not seem a bit rich to hear people lament that Obama's election was buoyed by those who voted solely on the basis of race?

To imply race was the only reason Obama prevailed is fatuous. Sure there were voters on both sides who considered ethnicity as a contributing factor, but for most people it was probably not the only factor. And even if it was, it can't be stopped. People can vote for a candidate because they like his clothes. Or her accent. Or for any reason at all. If they choose to reveal this information to the rest of us, we may have the right to call them shallow and uninformed but not to negate their votes. Besides, if skin color was all he had going for him, why didn't previous black candidates--Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, L. Douglas Wilder, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosley Braun--dominate like Obama?

Obama's election is not a magic stroke that wipes racism out. As mentioned in a previous writing, his ascent is highly symbolic and impressive. Race relations may be affected by his presence in the White House but people who were racist before he was elected are not suddenly enlightened now. I don't buy into these clean declarations that the United States of America used to be a racist nation and now isn't. As a general rule, nations aren't racist or non-racist, people are. True, it's fair to say that many of the policies pursued by this country up until the mid-1960s were racist. So by that measure, America was racist. But the letter of the law has not been explicitly racist now for more than forty years, yet the bigots of this country did not all go hide in a box, though that might not be the worst idea ever.

In short, the best analogy for racism is probably a comparison to gravity. As two objects drift apart, their gravitational impact on one another declines but never quite drops to zero, no matter how much distance separates them. Similarly, as slavery and segregation recede further into the past, racism declines but will probably never disappear entirely. The difference between gravity and racism is that the former can be mathematically calculated and diminishes consistently as the bodies move away from each other. Racism moves in fits and starts and can flare up for a while, then wither away. That's because we're human, not celestial objects. But you knew that.

Surprise, Vinny Sausage Pizza Head!

2008-11-05T10:40:00.005-05:00

The above phrase can be credited to an old acquaintance of mine who was known to utter it from time to time. I have no idea of its origins, if he made it up himself or heard someone else saying it. All I know is how funny we found it.

I expected Barack Obama to prevail in this election, but did not anticipate such Electoral one-sidedness, even though it was predicted by some pundits who clearly know more than me about politics. But Indiana? New Mexico? Winning 52 percent of the popular vote? No, I didn't foresee it. Granted, except in Virgina, Florida, and possibly North Carolina--still undeclared for either side as of 10:00am November 5--Obama did not make the kind of impact in the Deep South many speculated he might. He did not merely lose in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee, he was trounced. In the scheme of the overall election, he scarcely needed them, but whites in those states, if nowhere else, apparently would not vote for him. It would be simplistic, though tempting, to blame some of it on plain old prejudice, so I am not going to. The truth is, I simply don't know. But somebody does or will claim to, I'm certain.

So yes, I'm surprised. And pleased. This is the candidate I have supported for years, before he ever threw his hat into the ring. I obviously don't believe his election signals an end to the problems in either our country or our world. Obama cannot make Israel and Palestine close friends, end the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or induce extremists around the world to lay down their arms, abandon their grudges, and all be friends. And much as I marvel at the celebratory mood of Africans in general and Kenyans in particular, I don't think life changes much for Africa, at least not in the immediate future. There is a great deal of symbolism to Obama's victory and symbolism is not unimportant, but Obama will need to build some real achievements as President, probably quickly, to shake his reputation as a charismatic lightweight.

On the other hand, I don't believe Obama is a socialist, a communist, someone who is going to transform the presidency into a dictatorship. Such hysterical claims overlook the fact that the President's domestic power, though significant, is nowhere near boundless. So even if he has designs on creating a one-party Marxist state--and I don't think he has--it is highly unlikely such a move could be executed in a society whose institutions are as entrenched as our own.

If there is one thing about Mr. Obama that concerns me, it's his clear desire and zeal to be great. Aspiring to greatness is, of course, what we want and expect in our politicians and our people. But sometimes, to paraphrase Ralph Ellison, we can be blind to realities because of our ambitions. In short, I worry that he may try to do everything himself and his reach may exceed his grasp. Many of his supporters expect this greatness and may be disappointed if he falls short, so the pressure to end wars, to fix economies, to broker peace and good will throughout the globe may ultimately prove crippling.

Still, I voted for the man and I'm optimistic. I expect good things from Obama. Why not great things? Because I tend to hedge, to be guarded, to be mitigatory. And it's hard to be great these days because the spotlights are so bright, the media attention so overwhelming, and somewhere, somehow, everyone has a flaw. All our heroes have had flaws but the sheen of history tends to obscure them among those we revere. Mr. Obama will not have that luxury for at least another generation. So I say, don't be disappointed with mere goodness.

Defensive Postures

2008-10-25T14:54:00.009-04:00

Last month, Michael Medved of townhall.com penned an audacious column that attempted to mitigate the role of the United States in the sad institution of slavery. As is often the case when someone tries to make the harrowing reality seem less harrowing, Medved made some accurate statements. His overall point was, to simplify, sure it was bad, but it wasn't that bad.

It would have been somewhat like Saddam Hussein declaring, "Yes, I used chemical weapons on the Kurds and oppressed the Shi'ites, but it wasn't as bad as Stalin's purges, Mao's Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, or the Holocaust, which by the way never happened." (For the record, it was Iran's president who publicly questioned the validity of the Holocaust, something Saddam did not do, as far as I know; remember, this is just an exercise) If Iraq's former dictator had engaged in this sort of moral relativism, most of us, Medved included, would have sneered dismissively. Medved himself wrote an August article attacking the use of "moral equivalency" and "relativism" with respect to the Russian invasion of Georgia. But in his slavery treatise, he practices the same thing he rails against.

What is most mystifying is that no public declaration by any fringe political group seems to have prompted Medved's writing. No high-profile figure appears to have claimed that American slavery was the single most barbarous institution in human history or that the United States is the worst country in the world for once permitting slavery to exist. Of course, some individuals somewhere have probably made this assertion, but "some individuals somewhere" have said almost everything. Medved goes on and on about how slavery had been practiced for centuries by other nations, that "though brutal, slavery wasn't genocidal", that some African groups helped advance the practice of slavery by acting as hired kidnappers for European tradesmen, that there is no guarantee African-Americans would be better off if they had never left Africa, and so on.

Medved's entire piece is a hyper-defensive load of twaddle. One thing he fails to understand when he gripes about "America-bashers", as he dubs them, is that a nation that espouses freedom and justice and is in possession of such astonishing military power and widespread prosperity will likely be held to higher standards than, say, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, or Angola. In fact, we typically hold ourselves to higher standards than those nations, as well we should. Medved seems to desire all the advantages that come with being American, but doesn't want to endure any of the criticism our preeminent position in the world inescapably elicits.

Certainly, it is possible to exaggerate the horrors of American slavery. But it is not possible to come off well when trying to, shall we say, paint slavery in a more favorable light. Most of what's true in Medved's article was already reasonably well-known--comparatively few Americans owned slaves, certain African tribes acted in collusion with European slave traders--and some of his claims are purely speculative and irrelevant. Who knows if current Americans of African descent are "better off"--when he says this, Medved undoubtedly means financially-- than if they had remained in Africa? Nobody can say with any certainty how different life in Africa or America would be if slavery had never occurred, though it would not be absurd to suggest our nation's legacy might be a bit less blemished, but our current culture and society greatly diminished.

Moral relativism is not always wrong. In fact, sometimes it would be hard to do without it in a complex and brutal world. But Medved mocks "liberals" who apply it in global affairs even as he relies on it to explain away our own country's transgressions. We don't need this sort of weak-kneed defense of one of our most appalling national episodes in order to be proud of the United States of America. What nation in history has managed to avoid cruelty and atrocity altogether? It is true we should not spend all our time obsessing over the past, but nor should we shrink from history's ugly realities when reminded of them. To borrow a sports cliche', own it!

Yes, for many years this country sanctioned and condoned slavery. It was a sickening, degrading practice, a source of national shame. But eventually, after a lot of blood and toil, slavery came to an end and, after a great deal more struggle, so did the post-slavery institutions of segregation and voting rights' infringement. No, we have not achieved absolute equality among the races and we may never, but we will never stop striving for that elusive goal. That's why we are great, not because we do no wrong, but because we confront the horrors of our past head on and try to right them.

Would this be "America-bashing", Mr. Medved? There's no denying that some people both here and abroad are overly critical of the United States. But here's the thing: at our best, we can take it! And we don't have to mitigate slavery to do so.

It's Too Much, But It's Just Right

2008-10-20T22:27:00.005-04:00

It's a bit late now, but could Joseph Biden have really said that FDR went on "TV" following the stock market crash? If he meant "THE" stock market crash of 1929, Franklin Roosevelt wasn't even President yet. One of the chief reasons he became President was because of that crash. In addition, television was not widely available in American homes until after World War II.

When Barack Obama first selected Biden as his running mate, it looked like it might be a mistake. But then Biden got off to a pretty solid start. Now the same questions about his Both Feet In Mouth Disorder are surfacing again. Not that McCain's choice looks any better at the moment. Vice Presidential selections of the past have provoked some wry observers to ask if a running mate was tabbed because of his or her--okay, mostly his--ability to make the presidential candidate look better by comparison. While that may be, it's difficult to understand why either McCain or Obama, both of whom are impressive figures for different reasons, would need to do this.

So what else is going on in the world besides financial crises and election overexposure? Well, while we may rightly gripe about too much election coverage, Makwaia wa Kuhenga believes there is too little coverage in his native Tanzania. In a column for Dar Es Salaam's The Citizen, Kuhenga laments the paucity of public debates in Tanzanian politics and praises the American system for its transparency and civility, at least in this respect. While clearly not delighted with all things American, Kuhenga nevertheless writes:

"It is not simply true that everything the Americans represent is 'imperialistic'. One may pick a quarrel with their fundamental path - that is that they are fundamentally capitalist and imperial in real terms in their relations with other nations of the world. But it is also true that they have virtues worth emulating such as making its possible for the electorate to make intelligible choices in the competing voices."

That last sentence was a bit poetic, was it not? Americans may bristle at being characterized as "imperial" even if Kuhenga admits not "everything" we represent can be described that way, but Tanzanians might not warm to some American perceptions and generalizations about them, either. As a sidebar, we may ask ourselves if these perceptions are, in either case, true. Does the United States really stand for greedy imperialism and bellicose foreign relations? Does Africa really stand for corruption, antiquated tribal conflicts, and incompetent governance? Sadly, like many questions, the answers are a little bit yes and a little bit no. There's scarcely enough space anywhere to chronicle the historical factors that contributed to this nation and the African continent winding up in their respective positions at this moment in history.

But back to the point. There's no doubt United States elections generate more than enough hectoring and grandstanding to test any sane person's tolerance. But as Kuhenga's piece demonstrates, if one must choose between too little attention and too much attention to the political process, opt for the latter. The television and radio can always be shut off for a while, the newspaper left unread for a day or so. But if there's no coverage at all, you may very well be sorry.

Kuhenga's article can be read in its entirety using the following link:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200810200906.html

Substantial Criticism

2008-10-14T20:48:00.010-04:00

Some people like to remind you how little they care what their critics think. "No matter what my critics say..." or "I don't care what the critics tell you..." are common refrains among public figures in sports, entertainment and politics. There seems to be an element of martyrdom and proud rebellion in these pronouncements, the notion that these people are pressing on against long odds. It's enough to make you sigh, really.

Well, I care what my critics think, assuming I have any. Because if I have critics, that must mean I have readers. I understand why people are disinclined to let detractors dictate their actions, but the very claim of not caring what critics think is most generally an admission that you actually do care quite a lot. And it's okay! There's no need to pose as such a brave contrarian.

After months of portraying Barack Obama as a celebrity without substance, it's a bit galling to witness some of the empty catch phrases and slogans conceived by the Republican side, which range from the disgraceful to the somewhat clever. However, even at their best, what they most certainly are not is substantive. For instance, one image displays something quite similar to the colorful "Hope" symbol used by Obama but instead shows a portrait of McCain and the word hope is replaced by "Hero." Worse, there's a similar depiction that dubs McCain "hero" and Obama as, you guessed it, "zero." Classy! Less offensive, but not terribly innovative, are the "NoBama" signs and t-shirts, as well as one that superimposes the letter "y" over "o" in "Hope" to spell "Hype."

On the last point, Republicans aren't wrong. Of course a lot of what sells Obama amounts to hype and buzz. Obama has created a "brand"--another word seeing so much use lately that it might soon need to face mandatory execution--and done a stellar job of it, too. At first, many tried to dismiss Obama as the chief of a personality cult, which might not have been altogether incorrect, though it should be remembered that a "personality cult" does not always translate into something sinister (ask Mohandas Ghandi). Still trailing in the polls and poised for possible, though far from definite, defeat, the GOP has now taken to the same type of vacant sloganeering they accused Obama of practicing. Only theirs isn't half as inspiring.

Who doesn't enjoy a little mockery? It's a practice most of us will probably never cease, even though we know at times it's a childish way to behave. But when it comes to Presidential politics, it should be regarded as a bad omen when one has to resort to it. Sarah Palin called her Vice Presidential opponent "O'Biden" during the debate. It was pretty funny. But it wasn't substance. It had nothing to do with policy or character or ideas. And Palin has now generated a hype similar to Obama's among the Republican base. It is unfair to imply Palin has no substance, but since she lacks Obama's flair for the spoken word and has not demonstrated anything resembling the encyclopaedic body of knowledge shown by the other three candidates, she may encounter difficulty proving herself "substantial."

Though far from a certainty, it is possible that Barack Obama could carry the state of Indiana this election, marking the first time a Democrat has won the state since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Despite this surprising development, Indiana's Republican governor Mitch Daniels has scarcely been threatened by Democratic challenger Jill Long Thompson, who has run a laughably lackluster campaign and failed to capitalize on the momentum generated by Obama. Ms. Long Thompson, a fixture in Indiana politics for two decades, has offered virtually no reasons why she should supplant Daniels as governor; she has merely supplied reasons why Daniels should not be governor. Not all her criticism is invalid, as Daniels has made some very poor decisions during his tenure, but much of it is vague. As a sharp contrast to her early career, when she seemed like a plucky underdog, Long Thompson now comes across as smug and snobbish. Or maybe that's not it. Perhaps she just doesn't care what her critics think.

Writer's Blockhead

2008-10-09T21:14:00.004-04:00

I have three entries pending for this blog and have so far been able to complete exactly none of them. So I decided to write about writer's block. In one sense, it's a subject on which I am somewhat of an authority because I experience it frequently enough. But I honestly don't know a cure and doubt there is any sort of universal panacea for the condition. Like any mental or emotional problem, one person's remedy is another's toxin.

The cause of writer's block--for me, anyway--generally has to do with trying too hard, either because I haven't written anything for some time and decide I'm "due" or because a great idea has dawned on me and I can't hammer out commensurately worthy prose. An oft repeated phrase about writer's block goes "it's all in your head." Which, of course, is the problem! Another alleged cause of the condition is stress, but that of course is the time people need to be writing and failing to write only adds to the anxiety, so the paradoxical nature of writer's block has no doubt occurred to thousands before I ever thought of it.

In "Pure Drivel", a delightfully off-the-wall collection of musings, Steve Martin defines writer's block as "a fancy term made up by whiners so they can have an excuse to drink alcohol." Martin, as is often the case when at his most absurd, has a point: writer's block can become quite a self-indulgent exercise. And a self-perpetuating one. That's one reason I hope this silly aside can help me get back to the marginally more meaningful material I began weeks ago and have as yet failed to finish.

Fall, Fall, Fall

2008-10-01T22:46:00.014-04:00

Everything's tumbling in a poetic sort of autumnal way. A financial crisis created by almost everyone has been blamed on, well, almost everyone. To summarize things very baldly, Democrats blame Republicans and greed, Republicans blame Democrats and their insistence on allowing the unworthy to borrow money, taxpayers blame politicians in general, and a few observers blame taxpayers.

The problem with such a blame merry-go-round is all sides produce evidence to establish their arguments but tend to ignore the evidence provided by everyone else. Plus, almost no one fully understands global economics enough to fully explain what precipitated this latest panic. Truth is, nobody's really wrong. Excessive executive pay and reckless lending and deregulation and deadbeat home buyers and a weak dollar and rising prices and unemployment and who knows what else are all likely contributing factors. Unfortunately, no public figure, to my knowledge, is both smart enough and objective enough to offer a detailed and balanced account of what has really taken place.

So whom can we ask? It would have to be a non-partisan person who pretty much knows and understands everything. I wish that person were me, but it ain't. How about Ken Jennings? Marilyn Vos Savant? Neil DeGrasse Tyson? How about a foreigner who has less stake in United States politics? Stephen Hawking? Nelson Mandela? It's pointless, really. No choice would satisfy everybody and no opinion would be likely to sway those who cling pugnaciously to preconceived notions.

During a crisis like this, the President of the United States very often receives a disproportionate share of responsibility. Even if you believe his policies have damaged the economy, it would be unfair to claim he created this problem all by himself. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to criticize the "Ownership Society" advocated by the Bush Administration and many other previous administrations of both parties (Only the moniker, not the notion, is novel). Emphasis on ownership, most specifically home ownership in this case, may not always be a bad idea, but somewhere along the line it began to be perceived among many as the key to the ever-elusive American Dream. Home ownership can, of course, be a marvelous thing and may fulfill the lifelong aspiration of many Americans, but a far more important component of the Dream is the ability to choose, the ownership--forgive me--of options. The freedom to decide for yourself what you want means far more than merely a house or an automobile. As a result of this political rhetoric, I fear home ownership has become greatly overvalued.

Crumbling fortunes and a plummeting stock markets may seem symbolically autumnal, but so far the weather remains quite summery. It is perhaps the only sunny news we're likely to get in the immediate future.

Spend Some Time In Mozambique

2008-09-24T08:48:00.010-04:00

Not so very long ago--fewer than twenty years--Mozambique rated at or near the bottom in United Nations living conditions surveys. Along with Angola, a nation with very similar colonial history, the former Portuguese colony was considered Hell on Earth in the early 1990s, a country plagued by drought, famine, and a protracted civil war.

Though it will not soon be mistaken for Beverly Hills, Mozambique has seen several years of substantial economic growth, in part because there was no direction to go but upward. Still, compared to Angola's preposterously tenuous version of peace, Mozambique has witnessed no large scale outbreak of hostilities since a late 1992 accord in Rome formally ended the nation's conflict. This relative stability permitted thousands of expatriates and refugees to return home and allowed for the rebuilding of much of the infrastructure that had been waylaid either by war or the destructive departure of the Portuguese in the mid-1970s.

These factors, along with increased cooperation with both African nations and western governments, have fueled the aforementioned economic advancement. According to allafrica.com, the World Bank recently lauded Mozambique for its decreased number of "at risk" projects funded by that body. And though a number of wealthy nations, including the United States and Sweden, have extended nascent development aid, their contributions have been auxiliary rather than essential.

Sadly, promising economic statistics cannot offset the scourge wrought by the AIDS virus nor do broad numbers alter the fact that most Mozambicans remain in abject poverty. However, without such macroeconomic growth, this developing nation would probably have no chance to allay many of its social difficulties. The question as to whether nations, rich or poor, should focus on large scale economic development or improving the quality of life of individuals on a smaller scale is a source of long and rancorous debate. The ideal answer, of course, is that both agendas should be pursued in a delicate and sensible balance, but nations tend to lack both the political consensus and the abundant resources often necessary to do both of these things simultaneously. In any case, a nation that has risen from the ashes in the manner Mozambique has must learn to relish small victories.

Be Very, Very Quiet

2008-09-19T16:11:00.013-04:00

With all due respect to family members and friends who engage in some type of hunting, I find the practice creepy. To be sure, I find it less creepy when the hunter makes efficient use of prey, most notably for food, though other uses also spring to mind. But unless you're a member of the Kalahari San or some other small hunting and gathering society that employs no currency and/or hours from any grocery, I'm not entirely convinced of the necessity of hunting. In other words, I fail to understand acting on the impulse to kill unless one's subsistence relies on it. Let me clarify that I don't outright condemn said impulse unequivocally, only that its rationale eludes me.

This comes from someone embarrassingly incapable of killing much of anything. The only visible creatures I terminate without qualification are mosquitoes, cockroaches, and flies; anything else will be spared barring extenuating circumstances. Kill a spider? Forget it! I've even developed a bit of a superstition about this, so a spider gets put outside. Maybe I could make an exception for a brown recluse or some other dangerous arachnid, but only maybe. I do believe I could kill most anything--even a human being--that represented a direct mortal threat, but beyond that I can't fathom taking a life.

Still, I don't eschew meat. A dedicated hunter might argue there is more honor in the exhaustive labor required for transforming a live animal into a meal ready to serve than there is in stopping by KFC on the way home. Well, maybe. On the other hand, millions of domestic animals are bred for the sole purpose of human consumption. Thus, my conscious is not terribly bruised simply because I'm largely unwilling to take a life even as I voice no objections to others doing my killing for me.

Some varieties of hunting assail my sensibilities more than others. For instance, I once watched footage of men in large four wheel drive vehicles aided by packs of hound dogs successfully trap a mountain lion in a tree before blasting the harrassed creature onto the ground. Sick. Where's the sport and the challenge and the risk? How can a person feel good about him or herself after doing something like this?

Similarly, a consultant contracted by my former employer once boasted of traveling to Argentina to kill doves. He further explained that the doves were garden pests who sometimes decimated the farmers' crops and their vast flocks needed thinning. So, in his eyes, he was doing the world a favor. Sorry, but I thought his claim was bogus. While I have no objection to a farmer taking shots at doves that threaten his livelihood, I can't fathom anyone beaming with pride after having snuffed out the lives of animals about a hundredth his size. I figured the guy just liked to kill. And I have a problem with that.

I don't want most types of hunting outlawed. It's not difficult to see the cultural importance of it. But I remain troubled by the rationalizations some individuals employ to defend certain types of senseless killing, especially where they involve rare and/or helpless creatures.

Death to All Capital Punishment Proponents

2008-09-16T09:59:00.005-04:00

Sweeping declarations typically get people into trouble, but I've never known anyone who opposed capital punishment for exactly the same reasons I do. This probably makes me crazy; I'm comfortable with that.

Twenty years ago, during a televised presidential debate, Bernard Shaw asked Massachussetts Governor and White House hopeful Michael Dukakis if he would want the death penalty imposed on the hypothetical rapist and murderer of his wife. It was a provocative question, one that required Dukakis to envision a horrifying scenario. Millions recall the question, but few remember the Governor's response. That's because the governor's response was rubbish, some dispassionate nonsense about the death penalty not being a deterrent to violent crime (I had to look up what Dukakis said, as I too failed to recollect).

Death penalty opponents make some reasonable arguments against capital punishment, but they make some bogus ones too. I used to be full of the same canned, predictable responses when it came to discussing the matter, but I've changed my tune. I won't say the song is unique, but I'll at least claim it's unusual.

Some people may deserve to die. And if I had been asked what I wanted to happen to the person who killed my wife or mother, I would have declared that I'd be tempted to destroy that person with my own hands. That's exactly what I would want to do! Given an opportunity, would I follow through? Who knows? But I know how I would feel. There's nothing wrong with those feelings when one experiences a devastating loss: rage and sorrow and misery. It's difficult to blame vicitms who confuse justice with revenge; after all, the difference between the two depends heavily on point-of-view.

But that isn't how our system works. We do not permit crime victims, direct or indirect, to carry out justice as they see fit. Doing so would be a prescription for chaos, disaster, anarchy. That doesn't mean victims should have no voice in the process, only that punishment cannot be meted out according to their desires.

Executions are not merely about what they do to the executed; they are about what they do to the executioners too. To us. I am not sorry Timothy McVeigh is dead, but I am sorry "we" killed him. Ditto for Saddam Hussein and for thousands of other depraved wretches who have been hanged, electrocuted, poisoned. It is fair enough to decide in one's own mind that someone deserves to die, but something else again to carry out the killing. In my opinion, government should never sponsor such killings, regardless of the crime.

There's more, of course. These are nearer to the conventional arguments made by death penalty opponents, but some of them bear repeating. Execution is the one thing you can't take back if a mistake is made. Recent DNA tests have exonerated a number of death row inmates. And since no system can ever be error free, it seems a dangerous risk to continue to advocate life's most irrevocable act. In addition, our formal justice system does not see fit to rob from thieves, to rape rapists, to beat up assaulters, to blackmail extortionists. So why should we kill killers when reciprocation is not acceptable elsewhere?

Opponents of the death penalty are not wrong to encourage compassion and forgiveness. But they sometimes come across as insensitive when they imply all people, especially the families of murder victims, who support capital punishment are bloodthirsty oafs. They are not. But neither are all death penalty critics weak-kneed bleeding hearts. We are not.

Capital punishment detractors often cite the "death penalty is not a deterrent" point and the compassion and forgiveness points and the "death penalty is too expensive" point and the "what if you've made a mistake?" point. All these possess some degree of merit, but aren't necessarily relevant to grieving families, most of whom don't care if executions deter murderers as a whole, aren't in the mood to forgive, aren't terribly interested in the cost, and are reasonably sure the only mistake was the murder. But there may be other ways to reach people that have yet to be tried.

For now, capital punishment is supported by most Americans. I accept that. But I believe most Americans are wrong about this. And instead of insinuating the majority consists primarily of thoughtless boors more interested in a pound of flesh than in justice, I would like to see deeper philosophical ideas discussed with less hectoring and namecalling. Of course, this is how I feel about most debates. Don't count on my wish to become reality anytime soon.

So Long To All That?

2008-09-11T18:30:00.008-04:00

The world now contains boys and girls who possess a reasonable awareness of the world around them but carry no or very little direct memory of the September 11th attacks. So what are we supposed to tell them? And should we imbue the narrative with the same kind of emotion we ourselves felt that day or convey the events in detached, logical terms?

Many variables must be factored in when determining the answers to such questions, not least one's own level of involvement. A lower Manhattan police officer will no doubt elucidate a chronicle quite unlike one relayed by an accountant from Spokane. Maybe the best approach of all, then, is simply to wait until they ask. After that, tell the tale from as many perspectives as possible: emotional, rational, first hand, international. Give these kids something we who experienced 9/11 were denied, that is, a decent overview of the events all at roughly the same time. Do you recall how difficult it was to clarify things in our minds, how many questions surfaced, the variety of allegations and outrageous claims, the endless speculation? It was chaos on a level most of us have not witnessed before or since. So tell them. But wait for them to ask. And they will, what with the endless retrospectives and references to September 11, 2001. No doubt they will ask.

I've known two people whose birthdays fall on September 11; my own is September 13. In 2001 and a couple years thereafter, I still felt the pall of 9/11 on my birthday, but for whatever reason that sensation seems to have subsided. I'm guessing the same may not be true of those born on the actual day.

But enough is enough. Seven years later, most of us, with a few notable and understandable exceptions, ought to be able to observe these events sans the misery and the rage. My hope is we carry the lessons with us, honor the fallen and the heroes but without allowing those old, sour emotions to cloud our judgment.

GOhyPocrisy II: The Palin Papers

2008-09-08T08:01:00.009-04:00

Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President and Barack Obama is qualified to be President. All this claptrap about age and experience is overblown. No particular set of life experiences can accurately foretell whether or not someone is prepared to run the White House and the Constitutional requirements are spare and very general, as they should be.

Voters are entitled to ask whether it is fair for the Obama camp to hammer away at Palin's lack of experience given their own candidate's relative youth, just as they may question McCain's selection since he has spent months insisting Obama isn't ready for the job only to tab an even younger individual to be his running mate. But none of the four candidates can be dismissed outright as unready to be President. Fact is, everyone is unready to be President until he or she is President. That's just how it works.

As for Palin, she has generated among Republicans a great deal of enthusiasm, a quality largely absent among this group prior to her emergence. McCain made the right choice if his aim was to produce buzz. Palin's pregnant daughter does not really trouble me, though I can't help but wonder what conservatives would be saying if Obama had a 17 year old daughter expecting a child. Still, it doesn't make Palin a bad parent. Teen pregnancy can strike just about anywhere, whether the parents are attentive or neglectful, conservative or liberal, religious or secular. In fact, my only quibble with Palin on this matter is letting her daughter wed at such a tender age. Clearly, there are occasions when this works, but I don't generally perceive marriage at 17 a prescription for a happy and productive future. However, I could easily be mistaken in this case. One must be very careful second guessing parents or blaming them for their children's errors; just ask John Walker Lindh's mother and father, or those of the shooters in the Columbine massacre, all of whom received intense criticism when it was not really known one way or the other if their parenting styles contributed to the havoc wrought by their kids.

Large contingents of the GOP remain embarrassingly hypocritical. After a great deal of whining about Sarah Palin receiving unfair coverage from a sexist media, there were nevertheless lapel pins saying "Hottest VP" at the Republican convention. Still, that's only minor, as the pins could be taken as either a compliment, a joke, or both. What's worse is their continued insistence that the media is out to get them. Yes, Keith Olbermann is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal and yes, Chris Matthews confessed to being smitten by Barack Obama. But Bill O'Reilly continues to claim "the media" is openly campaigning for Obama. Apparently, he means "the media" excluding himself. And Glenn Beck recently fielded a triumvirate of guests attacking Obama. So it's obviously not okay for CNN or MSNBC to at least attempt a level of professionalism and objectivity, but it's perfectly fine for Beck and O'Reilly to assail Obama at every opportunity.

One of Beck's guests, columnist Jonah Goldberg, really disappointed me. Goldberg is a thoughtful and intelligent writer capable at times of rising high above his own personal biases and producing exceptional insights. Even when he's clearly stumping for Republicans, he often does so with enviable logic and clarity. On Beck's program, however, he seemed little more than an attack dog and went right along with the tired "liberal media" contention made by so many others. Understand, it isn't that "liberal media" is an utter falsehood, but this phrase oversimplifies a very intricate system and is just as laughable as Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy".

But I digress. Goldberg went on to say that "good guys" like Rush Limbaugh attempt to fight the liberal media bias, but intimated his ilk were greatly outnumbered. Sorry, but Limbaugh will never be a good guy, as far as I'm concerned. He can be funny, witty, and observant, but much of his program is on the level of a morning radio DJ--check out his Ron Artest parody if you don't believe me--and it's hard to view his "Operation Chaos" as the actions of a good person. If the shoe had been on the other foot and, say, Al Franken had been calling on Democrats to vote Republican to lengthen the race between John McCain and Mitt Romney, Limbaugh and company would have been screaming bloody murder that someone had the audacity to tamper with a national primary election. I will still read Goldberg's articles when I see them, but there are too many items on the debit side of Limbaugh's resume' for me to ever see him as anything but a creep.

And the biggest hypocrite of all is me! I said I wouldn't write much about the election and here I've devoted two consecutive articles to it. Ah, well... on with the show!

GOhyPocrisy

2008-09-02T15:53:00.012-04:00

You know perfectly well you're a hypocrite and so am I. Regardless of our religions or ideologies, everyone has failed at some point to remain true to the values he or she professes to follow. It happens, and I can live with it. Often as not, I have had to live with it because I myself was the hypocrite.

We all know Democrats can be hypocrites. The word liberal implies open-mindedness and acceptance of others when, in fact, many who claim allegiance to liberal ideals can be as dogmatic and rigid as those from whom they try so hard to distance themselves. Similarly, those on the left often display a smarmy condescension toward those who disagree with them. Having admitted all this, the level of hypocrisy emanating from the Republican Party has lately become insufferable for me. I realize I'm painting with a broad brush here, but one has little choice but to do so considering all the nuances associated with politics.

First, we must consider who has wielded the most political power recently. The Republican Party has dominated the White House for the past eight years and controlled Congress for much of the same period. We have witnessed the party that vociferously opposed "Nation Building" embark upon very costly and interminably long projects intended to alter the political landscape of two separate countries in a practice conservative columnist George Will once referred to as "nation building pursued incompetently." Many argue that the September 11th terrorist attacks fundamentally altered this country's foreign policy approach. That's right enough, up to a point, but it doesn't excuse scores of absurdly expensive blunders made by the Bush Administration and its subordinates. Check out Will's column from November 11 2007 and Bob Drogin's book "Curveball" for further details on this.

In addition, we have seen the political party that emphasizes fiscal responsibilty for government create an almost unfathomable mountain of debt. This party's supporters believe in personal responsbility and not resorting to finger pointing and victimhood, but spend an awful lot of time decrying a biased media, blaming them not only for many of the nation's problems but also for keeping Republicans from getting their message out. This party wants government off the backs of citizens and embraces individuality and personal choice, though not when it comes to abortion or gay marriage. Their rhetoric insinuates a general disapproval of social programs but that opposition appears now to depend on what type of social programs they are. If it's a plan to impose the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, that's money well spent!

In all fairness, a discussion about abortion constitutes more than merely arguments about personal choice; it includes also a philosophical question about when life begins. Still, it's not difficult to spot the inconsistency. Conservatives often insist on strict adherence to the Constitution, but abortion is not directly addressed in that document, so the deferred to source typically becomes the Bible. Nothing wrong with that, except it's not the Constitution. Some may believe the Bible unequivocally trumps the Constitution but the founders of this nation hitched their wagons to the latter document, so the Bible qualifies only as a major influence. Therefore, to many Republicans, the Constitution isn't everything, it's the only thing, unless the Constitution doesn't address a particular matter or the Bible says differently. Well, okay!

Understand, a great deal of heat conservatives receive is due to the general air of strictness they claim to exude, only to about-face on anti-flexibility when it suits them. This is the same principle that gets liberals lambasted when they exhibit closed-mindedness and intolerance. Perhaps if the Democrats prevail in the upcoming election cycle, I will be calling attention to their folly and transgressions. My perceptions tend to change somewhat, depending on which party holds the power (does that make me a hypocrite as well?) However, until such time, I suppose I'll have to include myself among those in the "mainstream media." Gosh, I'm underpaid.

Call It "The Puke"

2008-09-01T13:56:00.013-04:00

Though it is not my favorite practice, I don't object per se to bidding wars for naming rights to public venues. If some organization wants to pay a fortune to ensure its name gets emblazoned on a basketball arena or concert hall, why should I quibble about "purity" or "integrity" or any of those things? What purity? It's been "Wrigley Field" for about a hundred years, right? However, there are limits to my tolerance and I don't think I'm the only one who believes recent comments by Forrest Lucas, he who shelled out $121 million to attach his company's moniker to the new football stadium in Indianapolis, were, shall we say, endowed with an unpleasant level of audacity.

According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, Lucas dislikes the new nickname fans and broadcasters had assigned to the vast heap, saying, "Calling the stadium The Luke doesn’t sell a dime’s worth of products for us." Evidently, a Russian-owned competitor known as Lukoil is now doing business in the United States. Lucas, already frustrated with the similarity in company names, believes "the Luke" may direct consumers toward this upstart rather than his own venture.

One can understand Lucas' dismay with the competing organization, but any attempt to dictate to the public what they should or shouldn't call a stadium comes across as extremely proprietorial, not to mention petulant. Besides, US Cellular One Field--formerly Commiskey Park--in Chicago is often referred to colloquially as "the Cell", so could he not have foreseen that a similar idea might take hold at Lucas Oil Stadium?

"The Luke" is a pretty inane name for the building, but no worse than its official title. "Lucas Oil Stadium" is cumbersome and named for a fairly anonymous organization with no known connections to the city of Indianapolis, the state of Indiana, or even the Midwest. The new behemoth was constructed largely by public money, but locals had no say in the naming of the building so therefore no incentive to display any loyalty to the created "brand", for lack of a better term.

Lucas can have his company's name on the stadium. Fine, that's the free market, baby. And for his money, he may ask the Indianapolis Colts' organization not to encourage usage of what he considers a counterproductive handle for the place. But that's all. Neither fans nor radio and television broadcasters--unless they are employed directly by the Colts--have any responsibility to move so much as a "dime's worth of products" for this man, whose comments make him sound like little more than a dictatorial ingrate. And since "the Luke" is pretty lame, I suggest we start calling it "the Puke." Thank you.

This May Hurt a Bit

2008-08-25T21:43:00.009-04:00

Culture isn't such a nice word anymore. It has developed so many linguistic applications that it now lacks a clear and concise definition, although perhaps it never had one of those anyway. Always a vague and implicit portion of the lexicon, "culture" hit a new low when it was hijacked by corporate executives to describe the atmosphere they wanted to create within their organizations. They developed "sales cultures" and "professional cultures" and all sorts of other stupid, made up "cultures". Never mind that it took ceturies for the Chinese or the Egyptians or the Cherokee or the Italians to forge their respective cultures, these MBAs, being much more advanced, sorted out culture after culture within a few meetings over lunch. To some extent, culture probably can be controlled, influenced, manipulated, perhaps even planned, but it probably shouldn't be, especially not by MBAs.

Some of the dullest people on the planet are those who are offended enough by song lyrics to become social activists. This is not a defense of some of the lyrics; clearly there are some crass recording artists who compose songs for the sole purpose of titillation or to create buzz and controversy. This, too, is pretty boring. But it is not new. And outrage over such things has not proven nearly as effective a weapon as indifference.

Anyone who believes sexually explicit or violent song lyrics did not exist before 1980 or before 1970 or even before 1960 possesses little understanding of musical history. What do you want first? The sex, the drugs, or the violence? How about the racial slurs? The list is practically endless.

"Cocaine habit mighty bad
It's the worst old habit that I ever had
Hey, hey, honey take a whiff on me."

"I stepped right back
I shook my head
A big, black nigger in my folding bed
I shot through the window
I broke his leg..."

"There was old lady Dinah
She was sitting on a rock
Had a forty dollar razor
Trying to shave that knot."

The above three passages were taken from songs by the Memphis Jug Band. All three--"Cocaine Habit Blues", "On the Road Again", and "What's the Matter?"--made it onto wax in the late 1920s or early 30s. What catch phrase was used to describe this material? "Sex, drugs and jugs", maybe?

There's much more. Try listening to "Southern Can Is Mine" from 1931 by Blind Willie McTell, "Shave 'em Dry" by Lucille Bogan from 1935, "Ain't No Tellin'" by Mississippi John Hurt from 1928. And African-American artists hardly had the market cornered on potentially offensive material. There was an unknown country singer who recorded obscene parodies of "Frankie and Johnny" and a British performer who made bawdy, double-entendre numbers.

What's the difference between the material chronicled above and some of the current popular songs, whether it's deliberately provocative dreck or legitimately gritty? Airplay, mostly. But among all the flying accusations and claims that songs make people do this or that, one fact seems too often to get obscured. How can an artist, any artist, be held responsible for how an individual responds to something? The Bible and the Koran have been proffered as defenses for murder and mayhem; so have the Beatles and Judas Priest. They're not. A song, even if it chronicles actual events, is more or less a work of fiction, unless you happen to believe Mick Jagger really was born in a crossfire hurricane.

People are, of course, entitled to wish writers and musical composers and performers were more socially responsible. They're even allowed to ask them to be, but not to force or bully them. It's a very tired act and it seems to me a new scapegoat should be targeted.

Curse of the Diverse

2008-08-22T07:19:00.004-04:00

As mentioned in an earlier entry, election commentary here will be limited between now and November. My wagon has been hitched to Senator Obama for some time and that's unlikely to change, unless he socks his wife on national television or publicly announces his admiration for the leadership techniques of Pol Pot. Still, while the John McCain housing flap has been overreported, overexposed, and probably taken a bit too seriously, a couple points could stand further analysis.

First of all, you have to admit it's pretty funny when a guy can't remember how many houses he owns. It's not criminally offensive, as far as I'm concerned, and it doesn't mean he's unfit to be President of the United States, but it might indicate that he's spending too much time on the campaign trail and too little time at home, er, homes. I can't even definitively say that owning one house for every day of the week means John McCain is out of touch with the average American--the phrase "out of touch with the average American" is at best a nebulous and misleading one anyway--but this fact, along with a few others, does seem to undermine McCain's earlier claims that his opponent is an elitist egghead who doesn't understand--:sigh:--the average American. That's not to say Obama understands. How can you prove whether you do or not? Which "average American" do you ask? Me? An Illinois farmer? A Pennsylvania steel worker? A California citrus worker? An attorney in Atlanta? A Las Vegas cocktail server? Who is average and who wants to be? I certainly don't.

All this "average American" nitwittery segues into last week's alleged big story about Caucasians becoming a "minority" by 2042. One hardly knows where to begin, but I guess I'll start with this: so what? This "big news" is more than thirty years away. Like most forecasts and predictions, this one is subject to change, but what is the role of the individual in this one? What is the role of scientists or politicians, except that the latter group should at least be aware of shifting demographics. Maybe the economies of South and Central America will transform into vibrant, thriving juggernauts, drastically reducing the number of Latino immigrants. Maybe Ireland will have another potato famine. Maybe Canada will merge with the United States. But probably none of these will occur.

But again, so what? The headlines revealing this "news" bordered on alarmist. Whites will remain the single largest group in the United States well after 2042. They may no longer be the majority, but their numbers will still represent a plurality. And the fastest growing group, known sometimes as "Latinos" and other times as "Hispanics", are hardly a monolithic bunch. Remember, these are people of the New World, so they are a mixed breed just like us. Some look decidedly African; others resemble Native Americans; still others have blue hair and blonde eyes (yeah, I know!) To the average observer, people from the Dominican Republic may seem very similar to those from Nicaragua but, except that they speak more or less the same language, there's no reason to believe they are anymore similar to each other than Polish immigrants are to Italian ones.

Granted, Mexico remains the dominant force in terms of immigration, but denying that America is, and always has been, a little bit Mexican would be like denying British Royalty is a little bit German. Mexico shares an enormous and heavily populated border with the United States and some of our current territory used to belong to our southern neighbor. Obviously, Mexico shouldn't dictate to us what our immigration policy should be, but neither should it be overlooked that we are, despite everything, friends and neighbors.

On top of all this, biracial people make up another rapidly growing group of Americans. These individuals may identify with African-Americans, with Caucasians, with Latinos, with Asians, with Native Americans, or with any combination thereof. Even moreso than most of us, they are not so easily pigeonholed and categorized. One might argue, in fact, that we are all to varying degrees biracial. And in a way, doesn't that bring us back to square one? You know, E Pluribus Unum and all that jazz? Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free? Or was all that just talk? Frankly, of course it was all just talk. No nation can ever fully live up to ideals carved on statues or printed on currency, but to stop trying on the pretext that some of us are simply "too different" from each other seems suspiciously like our citizenry declaring lamely, "The dog ate our homework."

None of this pie in the sky rhetoric means there won't be pain and hardship associated with these changes in the makeup of our population, but perhaps the best way to address this challenge is to settle down and stop treating it like a crisis. Nice and easy now. Muy bien!

It's a Bleak... HOUSE!

2008-08-16T07:26:00.006-04:00

There's breaking news on the allegedly under aged Chinese gymnast: the claim that she was only thirteen according to an "earlier report" has been verified, but it turns out the "earlier report" is three years old. Actually, all gymnasts look about thirteen, so it's hardly surprising some of them turn out to be.

Earlier this year, Festus Mogae stepped down as President of Botswana. There was no global grief or regret to this development, but there should have been, because it was the end of an era. For the first time in history, a nation selected as its leader someone named after an overbearing character on "Gunsmoke." This man served in office for ten years and the world seemed ignorant to his very amusing moniker.

Incidentally, Mogae's successor, Ian Khama, recently denied rumors that he wanted to amend the country's constitution in order to seek a third term, which is odd considering he has not even completed his first term. It turns out the speculation started because certain parties within the government want to abandon the two term maximum not for political reasons, but for financial ones. In other words, they just don't want to pay pensions and protection to so many ex-Presidents.

One can understand a relatively poor, lightly populated country's desire for fiscal responsibility but surely the citizens of Botswana understand as well as anyone the dangers of leaders remaining in power too long. They need only look to their northern neighbors of Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Congo for recent extreme illustrations of despotism. Granted, there are no signs of Mr. Khama, son of Botswana's independence leader Sir Seretse Khama, turning into an autocrat and Botswana has for forty years been a peaceful and reasonably prosperous outpost in the midst of a chaotic region, but whenever ideas like this surface in the developing world, caution is a common reaction.

Between Russian invasions, Olympic stabbings, Bernie Mac, Sandy Allen, Isaac Hayes, Paul Newman, rising inflation and unemployment, it wasn't easy to find cheerful news these past few weeks. What hard times hath befallen on the world? But whenever I hear the inspirational Commodores/Charles Dickens duet "Bleak House", I can't stay depressed for long.

My Nickname Is "Mr. Attitude"

2008-08-11T07:22:00.003-04:00

People should somehow be penalized for giving themselves stupid, self-congratulatory nicknames. The fact is, nicknames ought to be issued by others, preferably friends or family members, and should generally be concise and neither too flattering nor too demeaning. "Kitten Killer", for instance, isn't much of a nickname. "Saintly Altruist" represents another misfire. From Shaquille O'Neal deciding many years ago he was "The Big Aristotle" to Bill O'Reilly dubbing himself "T-Warrior", the trend of Self-Nicknaming has gotten completely out of hand. Let's have no more of it, except among rappers. Not that some MCs don't go overboard with their handles, but who wants to hear "Mama Said Knock You Out" by James Todd Smith when it's supposed to be LL Cool J?

It appears adulthood has become a thing of the past, if it ever existed at all. But not only does adulthood seem to be dead, the terminal childhood from which many grown people suffer is a warped and crippled variety, endowed with plenty of petulant sneering and cruelty but not much wonder or joy. The workplace often serves as an extension of high school—same small-minded rivalries, same backbiting and jealousy, same explosive mix of people preoccupied with individual agendas. Unfortunately, work doesn’t seem to have very good teachers. Perhaps the instructors we had in high school were just as dreadful, but we were too young and foolish to notice.

Of course, it could be I’m just hanging about in the wrong clique. It isn’t merely that a lot of what I hear is negative, but that people really do not know how to gripe! So many seem to have a crucifixion complex, obsessed with the idea that they have been singled out for persecution by someone, somewhere, for reasons not entirely understood. I’m not against griping—I’M DOING IT RIGHT NOW—but is it too much to ask that our incessant moaning at least occasionally become amusing, whimsical, self-deprecating?

What bothers me more than anything is the current love affair with humiliation and confrontation. This is not because confrontation is inevitably a bad idea nor to suggest there are not occasions when we shouldn’t pat ourselves on the back for dealing with a serious problem head on rather than cowering to avoid conflict. On the other hand, I don’t need to hear about how you told off the six dollar an hour server at Applebee’s because you asked for French dressing and not Thousand Island. Why get all self-congratulatory for browbeating an underpaid lackey? Is this how you validate your ego? What about referees at sporting events? Do you heckle them as well? How about at youth sporting events? Even more impressive.

The humiliation angle troubles me even more. I realize some people probably deserve to be humiliated, but I’m more concerned about those of us turning into vultures perching on a dead tree just waiting for someone to embarrass. If you are a frequent, or even infrequent, viewer of reality television, you have almost certainly observed this syndrome. People watch programs to see which “contestant” is going to be singled out, shown up, and sent packing. And then you’re happy because you didn’t like his haircut, or the way she dressed, or her “attitude.” Can we get rid of that last word altogether? It’s so overused I don’t even know what it means anymore. I have seen people humiliated enough. Maybe many of them have it coming, but I don’t think it’s anything to be happy about. If you can’t get your jollies any other way, perhaps you are the one who needs to re-examine your own… well, how about “outlook”?

Dime Store Phil O. Sofee With Your Coffee

2008-08-05T22:56:00.008-04:00

Among the most tiresome declarations people can make are these pseudo-philosophical meanderings about the type of people that reside in the world: those who "get it", those who don't; those who "have it", those who don't; those who do something and those who do nothing, and on and on. It isn't difficult to see how these things get started. Most people strive to understand life as we know it but, at the same time, they are rarely prepared to conceive or explain some cumbersome, long-winded treatise. Instead, they try to boil all the folderol away and reveal the nature of humanity in a sentence or two. I appreciate this desire--in fact, I share it--but the results thus far have proved less than stellar.

So permit me to introduce my various, light labor philosophies for those who do not even have time to come up with their own.

Puzzling Philosophy
There are two kinds of people in the world, the screwheads and the damned. The damned aren't so bad but, oh those screwheads!

Monotonous Philosophy
There is one kind of person in the world and you're exactly like that!

Uncharitable Philosophy
There is one kind person in the world and it isn't you!

Conpsiracy Theorist Philosophy
There are no kinds of people in the world due to alien abduction.

Late 1980s Philosophy
There is one Nia Peeples in the world.

Paradoxical Philosophy
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who espouse inane, simplistic philosophies inevitably beginning with "there are two types of people in the world", and those who don't.

Cow Philosophy
There are kine people in the world.

For fairly obvious reasons, the Paradoxical Philosophy is my personal favorite. Since I was the one ranting about how I disliked this kind of brief, incomplete "sum up", it's only natural I'd be drawn to the one that mocks such things. Among the people with whom I've shared these, it's the late 1980s philosophy that seems to be the most amusing. What's alarming is it might also be the closest to universal truth.

Too Much Helium in the Universe

2008-07-28T18:32:00.004-04:00

http://www.helium.com/users/248421

Last July I begin contributing articles to Helium.com, in part because it is a pay site and the allure of money always tantalizes writers. My expectations were not especially high; I figured if things broke my way, I might pull down a hundred extra dollars in a year and perhaps get noticed by someone besides immediate family members.

Little did I realize that I might as well have been hoping for a Nobel Prize and a seven figure book deal. All too often, Helium reveals itself as a parochial, amateurish operation. For instance, this past April I penned an article about Betws-y-coed, an attractive but touristy Welsh hamlet. In the text, I made references to another Helium author's piece about the same region, nothing hostile nor fawning, just a couple passing comments. Fast forward to earlier this month and I notice an E-mail from Helium saying they have removed the article from the site because I mentioned another writer by name. Not only was I not aware this violated any rules, but it also took three months for anyone to notice and I had done it several times before without ever receiving such a warning.

In addition, the quality of writing on Helium can be embarrassingly shoddy. The abysmal spelling, the questionable grammar, the misapplication or omission of words, the endless, childish, petty ranting are emblematic of how the freedom of the Internet has wounded, though certainly not slain, the art of eloquent prose. This is not to suggest people who don't write well should not be permitted to try, nor even that it's inappropriate to expose such efforts to the general public via the World Wide Web. The notion that people use writing, among other pursuits, as an outlet for self-discovery and growth is by no means nonsensical, even if it is a bit overstated at times.

Like many technological and scientific advances, Internet writing creates a double edged sword. Many deserving writers who might never have been discovered twenty years ago can now attain notoriety. But how many talentless blowhards must we endure in order to read that one rare gem? It's a dilemma we have yet to resolve.

I'm certain many Helium writers would adopt a far more charitable tone when discussing the site; I am simply not impressed with its quality or content. For many, writing is simply a sounding board, a method to vent and express uninformed opinions. There is no law against that--nor should there be--but meanwhile many of the other pleasures and difficulties of writing seem to get lost in this eagerness for self-expression: research, word selection, humor, and irony.

And if you disagree with me, I don't care. After all, I'm just venting. Writing's my outlet, suckas!

That's Right, I'm Back

2008-06-18T22:02:00.004-04:00

Yes, it's been more than a year since my last meaningful post. During that time, I've completed one book and started another and posted more than 80 articles on helium.com, all of which has netted me a little less than eight dollars. At that rate, I could retire in roughly 125,000 years. I wouldn't mind, except there will probably be some kind of mass extinction between now and then, an event that, if I read the fine print correctly, invalidates my 401k.

If I get credit for nothing else--and perhaps I deserve credit for nothing else--don't forget that I was a Barack Obama booster as early as the fall of 2005. Of course, I had the advantage of living in the Midwest and spending a lot of time in Illinois during that stretch, so I was introduced to him in the summer of 2004 when he was running for U. S. Senate against the decidedly non-Illinoisan Alan Keyes.

So let me be the first to admit that some of Obama's supporters whip themselves into an enthusiasm that borders on fanatical, a fact that clearly makes some observers uncomfortable. Other criticisms of him--that he's shifted some of his positions for political expedience, that he's inexperienced, that his ego wouldn't fit into a Russian cargo plane, that he has some extremely unsavory friends and allies --carry varying degrees of validity. Such charges have, at one time or another, been leveled against most politicians, chiefly because hedging on principles, inflated self-opinions, and shady acquaintances encompass the reality not merely for public servants, but for all of us. Obama is flawed, which should have been obvious from the start. Everyone is.

Two common laments by Obama detractors ought to be laid to rest. One is the constant complaint that he gets a "free ride" or "preferential treatment" from the media, a notion that is repeatedly expressed by, you guessed it, members of the media. Clearly, there are media types who fawn all over the guy and shamelessly gush about his recent success. And he does get a lot of attention because he is youthful and charismatic.

However, dozens of writers, reporters, broadcasters, and commentators have taken a run at Barack, sometimes with a pretty vicious tone. Pat Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Froma Harrop, Michael Medved, Marie Cocco, James Carville, and Geraldine Ferraro are just a few who have disobeyed the wholly imaginary directive to go easy on Obama. My personal favorite was when Buchanan, while savaging one of Obama's speeches, declared "no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans." Nice try! Yes, white Americans have done a great deal to assist black Americans. They have also done a lot of harm. But the real insult is the fact Buchanan is completely wrong; at least one group has done more to help black Americans than white Americans: black Americans.

The second bogus beef is Obama's handling of former mentor and pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If you're uncomfortable with Obama's alignment with Wright in the first place, fair enough. Not everyone is satisfied with Obama's explanation of how he originally gravitated to such a man, though it does appear there is, or at least was, more to Reverend Wright than just wild conspiracy theories and condemnations of America. Still, the two had a long relationship that came to an end this past spring, and I believe I would have handled things exactly the same way Obama did. The first revelations of Wright's fanatical ravings appeared in footage that was several years old. In this instance, Obama condemned the remarks without abandoning the man. He said what he said but Reverend Wright was also instrumental in Obama's spiritual revival and, as alluded to earlier, he should not be defined based solely on his inflammatory rhetoric. Where's the big problem?

Of course, a lot of observers insisted Obama did not go far enough and should have cast Reverend Wright overboard right then and there. A few weeks later, when Obama did formally end their affiliation, some of the same people claimed he was unscrupulous because he abandoned his friend for political gain. Sorry, but I disagree. The first time Reverend Wright made news from old footage, but the second time he more or less torpedoed his protege' by granting interviews and reiterating some of his outlandish ideas. It's one thing to have fringe opinions--I can live with that in a lot of cases--but after Obama spared Wright all but a moderate rebuke, he spouted off again, this time on purpose and knowing his comments would make big news. What would I have done? The exact same thing. I'd have kicked him to the curb, spiritual mentor and father figure or not.

And let us not deceive ourselves: we all know a Reverend Wright, or someone out there who would be likely to embarrass us with his or her ideas or lifestyle. It's easy enough to say Obama should choose his friends more carefully and wisely, but so should I, and the same probably goes for a great many of Obama's detractors.

So I'm still voting for Obama, something I asserted nearly three years ago. He's not perfect; his ambition seems boundless, and I think he's capable of ruthlessness. Still, the "style over substance" cry and the claims he's never really accomplished anything ring rather hollow. During his recent rise to prominence, he has outmaneuvered and outcampaigned some of the most powerful political figures of recent history. He has revolutionized campaign fundraising, finally maximizing the power of the Internet. He's a mixed race guy with a Muslim name who has actually convinced a large portion of people to either not care about those things or, better still, embrace them.

Now I'm finished. I'm actually pretty tired of writing about politics and may take a break from it, though I would like to resume regular additions to this blog. The thing is, every zipperhead with a connection and an uninformed opinion can now be a "writer." Check out helium.com if you don't believe me; it's all a bit depressing and I'm part of it. Somebody free me from this, please! Or at least start paying me so I can cash checks while mortgaging my self-respect.

Hiatus

2007-07-04T16:08:00.001-04:00

I've been away for a while, working on other odds and ends. In the unlikely event you've missed my writing, you can check some of it out at Helium:
http://www.helium.com/tm/443562/kennedys-assertion-percentage-people

Book of Rules

2007-06-03T22:00:00.001-04:00

"Each is given a bag of tools
A shapeless mass,
And the Book of Rules."

The Heptones, 1976

Rule #1
Retail customers: At least get off the cell phone long enough to transact your business. If the call you're taking is so important you can't be bothered to engage the people who process your bank deposits or calculate your clothing purchases, you shouldn't be out shopping in the first place; you should be tending to whatever matter is keeping you on the phone all day.

Rule #2
Retail clerks: At least get off the phone long enough to ring up our transactions, especially if you're on a personal call. I don't care who did what or why, I'm just here to pay for the gasoline and the Little Debbie snack cakes.

Rule #3
Turn off your car stereo at fast food drive-ins or anywhere you must converse with someone regarding a business matter. I don't care if your radio is blasting at the car wash, or the filling station, but no one wants to have to shout over your music just to tell you your total is$6.27.

Rule #4
"You're" and "Your" are not interchangeable. "You're" is a contraction for "you are", as in "You're really stupid" and "your" is possessive, as in "your stupidity is astonishing." If you write "your crazy", the appropriate response from the crazy person should be "my crazy what?" You can even observe the distinction in song: "You're So Vain" by Carly Simon is short for "You Are So Vain", because she's telling the subject of the song he's extremely self-absorbed. "Your Cheatin' Heart" by Hank Williams refers to the subject's vital organ, or at least a metaphoric representation thereof; her cheatin' heart will make her weak. Get it?

Rule #5
If you're a picky eater, you get one shot at ordering your meal. Nice and smooth now. "I'll have the double cheeseburger, no pickle, no mustard, extra mayonnaise." That I have no problem with. But all this, "Oh, and could I have some taragon on it, too? And do you have romaine lettuce or just iceberg? I forgot that I was allergic to sesame seeds..." Spare me, picky eaters! You have the right to be fussy, but not the right to amend your order time and again and make life miserable for the staff trying to get all this down and the rest of us waiting behind you.

Rule #6
Don't tell other people what the rules are or you'll come off as sanctimonious and condescending.

Ain't Pat A Shame

2007-05-29T21:42:00.001-04:00

When it comes to love songs, there's Al Green and there's everybody else. The good Reverend Green will be in Indianapolis for Jazz Fest on June 16.

I mention this because I'm ducking the issue, avoiding what was to be the real purpose of this writing. The intent here was to excoriate Pat Boone and I have to confess I'm on the verge of chickening out. This isn't because I'm afraid of Pat Boone (who would be?) but because he's such an easy and obvious target, and has been for many years now.

In the event you aren't familiar with Pat Boone, let me put it this way: he sold a lot of records in the 1950s due in large part to his ability to cover popular songs by Fats Domino and Little Richard and render them bland and soulless. In other words, his version of "Ain't That a Shame" is similar to Fats Domino's, except that Boone's really, really sucks!

At any rate, Mr. Boone has for some time been an activist on the religious conservative side of things. This is, of course, his right, no pun intended, but something Boone said recently on "Hannity & Colmes" really crossed the boundaries of credulity. While lamenting a general lack of unity in modern day America--he criticized Senator Harry Reid's defeatist attitude toward the Iraq War, among much else--he insisted the nation was far closer to being of one mind and one goal in the 1950s, his own heyday. Mr. Colmes pointed out that this was an era of segregation, to which Boone replied that in those days "we" knew we had to end segregation "together." Now, that is just egregious.

Millions of Americans of all races were undoubtedly opposed to segregation, but to imply that it was a collective, universal struggle is complete rubbish. First and most obviously, if everyone was so like-minded in opposition to segregation, why did it exist at all? Second, remember Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond and millions of like-minded constituents who fought tooth and nail for segregated schools and communities? Is this the kind of "we're all in this together" spirit to which Boone refers?

I don't have any record of Mr. Boone's attitude toward segregation fifty years ago, but make no mistake about it, this sickenening practice helped his record sales. If you don't think so, try to imagine a white vocalist these days recording pale, sanitized versions of songs originally by black artists, and what kind of commercial success he or she would encounter. Josh Groban isn't going to top the charts with a toned down version of Kanye West's "Jesus Walks", is he? So a lack of exposure to the original material among Boone's core audience worked greatly to his benefit. There is no shame in white artists covering songs initially performed by black artists; Johnny Rivers did it, Elvis Presley did it, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones did it, and all of them did it better than Pat Boone, incidentally. But when a very offensive social policy helps build your career--and that social policy was by no means Boone's creation--it strikes me as dismayingly disingeuous to appear on television fifty years later and imply hardly anything was wrong back then and today the nation is falling apart.

Wonder Full

2007-05-13T09:15:00.000-04:00

It's hard not to wonder if Utah Jazz guard Derek Fisher's recent inspirational conduct will receive as much attention as that of athletes who break the law or make offensive comments. Fisher, whose young daughter is battling a rare and bizarre form of eye cancer, began the day in New York City forced to decide whether or not to have Tatum Fisher's left eye surgically removed, and ended it in Oakland, California with a victory against the Golden State Warriors. Fisher's admirable attempt to fulfill both his personal and professional obligations will almost undoubtedly go unnoticed by those prone to making generalizations about athletes anytime one of them gets into trouble.

Tony Blair is resigning as Prime Minister of Great Britain and his replacement is a man who looks alarmingly like Terry Jones of Monty Python fame. One can't help but wonder if Gordon Brown will appear before Parliament dressed in drag and reciting menu entrees like Egg and Spam; Egg, Bacon and Spam; Spam, Egg, Sausage and Spam. Such action could only improve the tone and decorum of global politics.

Is anyone else fed up with the phrase "going forward"? It's used primarily by pseudointellectual drones who employ it as a kind of tiresome replacement for "from now on" or "henceforth." For example, a recent automated phone message promised to save me money on my monthly bills "going forward." A memo from an old boss commenced with the sentence, "Going forward, it will be my policy..." I wish someone could relieve us of this pretentious, awkward, and increasingly insufferable butchery of the English language. Henceforth, I intend to overuse "henceforth" just to annoy the "going forward" crowd.

Will Newt Gingrich hurry up and join the Presidential race already? And how about Fred Thompson? Nothing spices up an election like an actor and an amphibian!

I can't bear it when someone approaches me and asks for my "John Henry" when the person actually seeks my signature on a document. Let's get this straight: John Henry is a legendary figure who is said to have raced a railroad machine, beaten it, but died of exhaustion in the process. The man famous for signing his name in extremely large letters on the Declaration of Independence was John Hancock. One died with the hammer in his hand and the other helped found the nation. They were both important and interesting men, but not terribly similar in their actions or source of notoriety. I wonder if people are ever going to wise up about this.

So obviously, I view the world with a sense of wonder.

Obama-Lama-Ding-Dong

2007-05-04T18:57:00.001-04:00

Here's the news in a nutshell.

Zimbabwe is on the verge of social and economic collapse; Paris Hilton is going to jail; there are more people running for President of the United States than there are residents of the United States, so I suspect some of them are actually animals or, more likely, dead (surely Dennis Kucinich isn't alive now and it's questionable whether he ever was); honeybees seem to be dying off in large numbers and no one knows why, although I blame Dennis Kucinich.

For the most part, this is bad news. And frankly, I find it irritating. Bad enough that Zimbabwe President Dennis Kucinich, who has run the country since independence came in 1980, is clinging desperately to his diminishing power and apparently willing to bring the entire nation to its knees in order to do so, but poor Paris Hilton couldn't even circumvent jail time, thanks to the incompetence of her lawyer, Dennis Kucinich. Or was it her publicist who dropped the ball? Someone's to blame and it isn't her; I at least know that much.

This might be an unfair assumption on my part, but when Hillary Clinton speaks of universal health care, I interpret it as shameless political pandering. When Barack Obama refers to a similar idea, I see it as misguided good intentions. It isn't easy to admit this, as the idealist who still lurks inside me remains intrigued and heartened by the notion of health care for all, but I simply have very little faith in the government's ability to carry out such a plan. That does not mean I wouldn't vote for Mr. Obama, only that I consider his plan impractical. I also am not implying Ms. Clinton has no trace of goodwill left in her soul, no bone uncontaminated by political cynicism, nor am I suggesting Mr. Obama is all breezy optimism and has no cold, pragmatic side.

But the general public has been acquainted with the Clintons now for at least a decade and a half, and was only introduced to Obama within the last three years. Fair or not, that could be at least as much a strength as a drawback. For everyone who hammers him for his lack of experience, there will be others refreshed by his youth, charm and lack of Washington... "jadedness" (let's pretend that's really a word).

As for Zimbabwe, what's happening there is tragically unnecessary. One of Africa's few agriculturally self-sufficient nations (in theory, at least) and amply stocked with tourist attractions--from Hwange National Park to Victoria Falls to the mysterious and stunning Great Zimbabwe ruins--there is no justifiable reason for its soaring inflation rates and horrific poverty levels. But there we are. It isn't the first place or the last to be undone by poor leadership, misguided economic management, and just plain ill luck. However, I have been to Zimbabwe on two separate occasions and feel a twinge of sadness for the calamity that has befallen it. Even when I was there in 1996 and 1998, there were plenty of problems. Now they have ballooned into full-blown crisis and I want to do something about it. But what?

In Ishmael Reed's novel "The Free-Lance Pallbearers", he tells the story of one man confronting a twisted world referred to as "Harry Sam". The opening lines of the book are:

I live in Harry Sam. Harry Sam is something else. A big, not-to-be-believed, out of sight, sometimes referred to as o-bop-she-bang or klang-a-lang-a-ding-dong.

And that is our world, too. It's not to be believed; it's o-bop-she-bang; it's something else.

But there's more. One might call it a "tie in." When I was in Zimbabwe in October, 1996, Ishmael Reed was there, too, attending some kind of convention. We were both in Harare at the same time, and I looked all over for him. But I never tracked him down, a profound disappointment for me, as I didn't expect to be in the same city as him again anytime soon, especially not an African one where two Americans might be fairly easy to pick out. Mr. Reed, I'm sorry I missed you, but I can't promise you would have been pleased to see me had we met.

Wrap it up.

What On Gliese 581 C Is That?

2007-04-29T11:36:00.001-04:00

Just this month, scientists discovered a planet about twenty light years away that may have properties similar to those of Earth. It's about the same distance from its star, a red dwarf known as Gliese 581, and is about fifty percent larger than the Earth. Although it cannot be directly observed yet, some suspect it may provide conditions amenable to life.

If life does exist on the not-so-cleverly named Gliese 581 C, I hope the inhabitants of said planet also refer to their home as Gliese 581 C and not some other ridiculous name we'd all have to learn. And certainly they can't call the place the Gliese 581 C equivalent of "Earth" because that would be simply unacceptable. We've got to draw the line somewhere when it comes to planetary plagiarism.

At only twenty light years distant, this new planet would certainly have received some of our radio and television signals by now, which may explain why we haven't heard back from them. At this point in time, they would just be discovering "The Cosby Show" so if they like that, perhaps we'll receive some signals of their favorite sitcom in another twenty years, something with the exact same plot as "Gilligan's Island", maybe entitled "Lonita Ver Tubik". If this does occur, we would have to consider very seriously severing all contact with this newly discovered civilization.

Unless we develop some astonishing technology, our prospects of traveling to this new world anytime soon are absurdly remote. It's a shame, really, because whose curiosity isn't aroused by the thought of another life-bearing planet? Endless possibilities just beyond our grasp while questions abound. Not only questions of whether or not life exists there, but what kind of organisms? Is their life still in its infancy or has it advanced far ahead of our own? And do they have that same ridiculous superstition about spilling salt, the one where you have to toss it over your shoulder? How do these things get started, anyway?

For the moment, these are unanswerable questions, but if we've learned anything from science, it's that even some of the most elusive mysteries can be unraveled. I would not be shocked within the next few years to receive a message, intentional or otherwise, from a group of organized and intelligent creatures on that distant outpost called Gliese 581 C. But it had better be a polite message; otherwise, I'll find a way to send an endless loop of "Mandy" across the galaxy. How does that taste, aliens?

Myth of the Cicada Killer

2007-04-26T07:20:00.000-04:00

This is a short story I wrote some time ago. It's my first insertion of fiction into this blog, unless you count statistics.

Myth of the Cicada Killer

When the man called Calvin rode atop the noisy green thing to shorten the green grass, she inevitably found all manner of interesting things to look at and pounce upon. So after the roar of the green thing faded to a distant enough part of the large yard, she would wander among the freshly mown grass swatting at anything that moved and many things that didn’t. Her leaps and pounces onto frequently invisible prey always ignited amused mockery when observed by her human caretakers.

"Look, Kayana is attacking nothing again," one of them would shout, and she would hear laughter in the distance, sometimes of only the woman and the child, other times of all three if the man had put away the noisy green thing. Their ridicule never bothered her, though. These creatures, after all, willingly covered themselves in water almost every morning. What could they know?

One late summer day, Calvin mistakenly ran the noisy green thing over an elevated clump of grass, exposing a small patch of earth and sand. She moved quickly to investigate the site, but at first found nothing to keep her attention. Before long, however, she observed definite activity in the vicinity of the newly found dirt mound. The following afternoon, she noticed a tiny burrow had been dug in the area; what was more, the burrowing creature was still at it, as she could see by the slight vibrations just beneath the sandy soil. She immediately put paws and claws to work, batting at the motion and caving in some of the miniscule tunnel. Before long, a creature emerged from the burrow, and it did not look at all friendly. It had wings and yellow and black bands around its body and carried a fierce, determined look. Kayana reared back and waved her front paws at the beast, but it did not attack or even appear to take much notice of her. Instead, it began repairing the damage Kayana had done to the burrow. At that moment, she heard a loud buzzing approaching from behind; she whirled to find a smaller version of the same animal, but far more aggressive. It harangued her for several moments as she made vain efforts to swat it, even once lunging straight up in the air in an attempt to bring down the pest. Presently, Calvin swept her up into his arms.

"Crazy cat," he cried, dashing away from the dirt mound and her antagonist as quickly as he could.

She struggled to free herself, but his grip was strong. Soon, she was back in the house, agitated, but also slightly relieved that he had extricated her from something she could not have hoped to escape on her own. Not that she was physically incapable of simply running away, but she was, after all, a cat.

"You won’t believe what Kayana did," said Calvin, breathlessly, as the woman and child looked on, perplexed.

"She was going head to head with a pair of cicada killers," he continued. "Those things are so dangerous!"

Dangerous. Kayana wished now she were back outside playing, frolicking with the creatures. How were they dangerous?

"How are they dangerous?" asked the child.

"They have a very painful sting," Calvin explained. "And if you have an allergy or go into shock when they sting you, you can get very sick, so stay away from them."
The child looked shaken, but kept its poise and nodded.

After that, Kayana could not resist stealing a glance at the cicada killers whenever she had a chance. Generally, Calvin would appear before too long and whisk her away from the area, but not before she leered at the large, placid digging wasp and the smaller, more bellicose flying one. On occasion, she would witness the large one dragging around another flying bug, presumably a cicada; hence the name. She was never stung.

Toward the end of summer, she found herself half-napping on a window ledge in the early evening sun when she heard Calvin call to the rest of the family, his voice both cheerful and astonished.

"I’ve been reading about cicada killers," he said, "and it’s very confusing."

The others asked how this was the case; by this time, Kayana had made her way into the same room, her ears perked and her sleepy eyes clear.

"Well, first of all, the big wasp down in the burrow is the female and the little one who buzzes around your head when you get close is the male. She’s nesting and he’s guarding. Thing is, males can’t sting at all. Only females can."

This sounded about right to Kayana. The male had bluster and bravado, like Wrecks, the loudly barking neighbor dog, but the female had the truly powerful weapon.

"But there seems to be some question as to how strong the cicada killer sting really is," he continued, "When we were kids, they told us it hurt more than any bee, wasp or hornet, that it was the worst thing to get stung by. Some of what I’ve read backs that up. But others claim the sting is just a kind of urban legend, that it feels like a pin prick or sweat bee sting."

The other two agreed this was strange.

"So maybe I’ve been protecting doofus here," he indicated, pointing to Kayana and snickering, "from nothing more than a pin prick."

"Well, how do we find out for sure?" asked the woman.

"I don’t know," Calvin replied, "but I’m not gonna be the one to get stung myself and I don’t recommend any of us do that, you included, Kayana."

Now Kayana had to know. What did the cicada killer sting really feel like? She decided to conduct an experiment to find out for certain, to prove herself to Calvin, whom she knew loved her despite often referring to her as "doofus", "knucklehead", "twitface" and "bonehead cat". It was Calvin, after all, who had taken her away from that place with all the other cats. It was he who fed her and protected her. The woman was kind enough, but only in an obligatory, common decency sort of way and the child ought to have its eyes scratched out for the things it did to her. But Calvin. She would prove herself to Calvin, establish her value by revealing the genuine nature of the cicada killer sting.

This would not be easy. The female, she recalled, was conspicuously non-aggressive. How could she provoke it enough to sting? Following several days of napping, eating, prowling around the stairs and occasionally pondering, she arrived at the obvious answer. Only the neighbor dog Wrecks could be annoying enough to induce the female cicada killer into stinging, and since she did not really wish to feel the sting herself, even if it did prove only a pin prick, she decided it was the perfect solution. Anyway, no one else would be dumb enough for her to hoodwink, aside from the child, who deserved it, but she knew Calvin would never forgive her.

Her plan worked faster and more effectively than even she could have imagined. With the dew-kissed grass of early morning at her feet, Kayana sauntered over to the neighbor’s yard and begin to hiss at Wrecks, who took the bait and lumbered after her. Wrecks didn’t run fast, in part because he couldn’t, but also because he wasn’t really trying to catch and maul her as his barks may have hinted; he merely wanted to play.

Kayana halted at the dirt mound and began to plunge her claws lightly into the cicada killer’s tunnel, just enough to get it moving, she hoped. The male did not seem to be around. Typical. She then flopped on her belly and rolled around, blissfully inviting Wrecks to join her in a friendly wrestling match. He stopped dead on the dirt mound, saw the cicada killer in motion beneath the ground and stuck his nose into the tunnel. The big wasp made a loud buzzing sound and shot upward from what was left of the tunnel. Suddenly airborne, it rocketed straight up and lunged toward the dog’s back. For a moment, all fell silent. Then Wrecks emitted an earsplitting howl of agony and rolled over on his back, in a near apoplectic fit. He clambered to his feet and bounded back to the yard from whence he had come. The cicada killer, now evidently doing her best to be unassuming, went back to work on her burrow and the male appeared suddenly to hassle Kayana. She ignored him.

It was only later she realized her mistake. Well, two of them. First, no one besides Kayana had witnessed the sting and subsequent panic, although perhaps Wrecks’ owner might behold a mighty welt on the dog’s back some time in the near future. Second, and more critical, involved the very nature of Wrecks the dog. He was such a flighty, excitable, easily panicked mutt that even a pin prick might have sent him into hysterics. Unless someone observed evidence of a ferocious sting somewhere on his body, the real power of the cicada killer sting would remain a mystery. For now.

That is, until she could somehow trick the child into getting stung. Oh, life was good when you were a cat unburdened by scruples or ethics, which is to say, when you were, quite simply, a cat at all.

Wolf At Hokie's Door

2007-04-21T00:09:00.001-04:00

All I can say about the Virginia Tech horror show is the event itself was not predictable, but the responses to it were. The Guns-Are-Entirely-To-Blame crowd made its voice heard; the Guns-Are-Not-To-Blame-At-All wing spoke up; the Hindsight-Obsessed-Why-Didn't-They-Stop-This-When-There-Were-So-Many-Warning-Signs clan (notice it's always "they" and never "we") entered the fray, too. It's all extremely sad and very tiresome because so much of it involves the desire to advance a political or social agenda and exploiting this tragedy for such a purpose.

Ours is a violent society. On a large scale, violence has worked out rather well for the country. From the American Revolution that won us our independence and the slavery-slaying Civil War to the idealized Old West and victories in two World Wars, our perception of violence as a method of conflict resolution is not altogether negative. Unlike some of our European allies--and rivals--we have never really been invaded, occupied, or bombed to pieces, unless you count the events during the War of 1812, when warfare was altogether different. Our body count in the two World Wars was substantial, but feeble compared to the losses suffered by France, Britain, Germany and Russia. This is not intended as justification for violent behavior or as condemnation of violence in all circumstanes, but merely an illustration of some of the differences between societies. And incidentally, if you think Europe is immune to violence, think again. The point is, there are no simple answers to society's ills in the United States or throughout the world, and anyone who thinks there are is probably deluded by the presumed rightness of his or her own ideals.

"During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign."

The above sentence was part of a statement released by soon-to-be former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. To my knowledge? That's good. That's very good! And to think I considered it very amusing when a friend of mine said, after being asked if he still had a particular job, "I assume I quit." Maybe he wasn't so clumsy with the English language after all; he might merely have been preparing for political office.

God Bless You, Mr. Vonnegut

2007-04-11T19:42:00.000-04:00

Don Imus doesn't matter. What he said was stupid, insensitive, ignorant and racist, but Imus is right about one thing: it's not important. Marginalize him! With all due respect to the Rutgers women's basketball team and their coach, whose response to Imus' aspersions was dignified, I would not have handled it that way at all. I would have said, "I'm not giving that man any power or sway over me by responding to his comments". Or something like that. I believe the best revenge is often to not acknowledge you're even bothered.

So which is worse? Continuing to fight an expensive and frustrating war with no timeline for withdrawal after four years of what could charitably be described as disappointment, or announcing a firm withdrawal date without any knowledge of conditions on said date, essentially admitting failure and leaving behind a vaccuum of power even larger than the present one? Is there a third option? If so, no one seems to be presenting it.

If we really want to weaken the Iranian government, we could always invite it to take over the Iraq occcupation for us. Iran wants to be the toughest kid on the Middle Eastern block anyway, so let's see how they fare. If they do a better job than us, we can get tips from them. If they do a worse job, we can stick out our tongues and say "nyah, nyah". If they do the same job, we may build a better understanding with one another.

Mitt Romney's real first name is Willard; "Mitt" is his middle name. "Mitt" is German for "mid" or "middle" as in "Mittwoch", the German word for "Wednesday" (literally "midweek"). Only one conclusion can be drawn from this: Willard Mitt Romney's parents hated him.

The next Presidential Election is still more than 18 months away. Some people are tired of it already. The theme by then might be "All Burnout, No Turnout." And I'm even angry with myself for writing that!

Something tells me there's a great Irish joke lurking somewhere within the Rosie O'Donnell/Bill O'Reilly feud. I could probably think of one if I cared enough. Marginalize them, too. That's my new swear word: marginalize. If you really want to slight someone, say "yeah, well marginalize you, buddy!" This might take a while to catch on, but when it does, remember who was in the vanguard.

Kurt Vonnegut died this night, April 11, 2007. So it goes. I believe I speak for all of Indianapolis when I say: God Bless You, Mr. Vonnegut. You'll be sorely missed.

Let's Loaf

2007-04-04T18:16:00.000-04:00

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency not because the EPA had done anything wrong, but because the EPA hadn't done anything. Rather than impose stricter emissions standards, which might prove unpopular as both consumers and manufacturers would be required to make changes, or permitting more lax emissions standards to continue, which might prove unpopular as environmentalists would complain this exacerbated global warming, the EPA evidently decided that enforcing emissions and controlling greenhouses gases simply wasn't the agency's job.

Proving that even five hundred year old men are not invariably easy to hoodwink, Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1506), writing for the majority, declared in essence that denying it's your responsibilty to set standards for greenhouse gas emissions when you've got "Environmental Protection" in your name would be a bit like a dog catcher insisting a stray mongrel who attacks kids isn't his problem. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia did not explicitly address whether or not the aforementioned duty was the EPA's job, but he did contend that ruling on the case was not the Supreme Court's job and they never should have heard it.

Meanwhile, in my home state of Indiana, the State Legislature spent several pointless days debating a same sex marriage ban, which mercifully died in committee. The whole thing is a bit convoluted, but essentially same sex partnerships are already not recognized as marriages in Indiana, but the bill's sponsors wanted to make it more illegal, or rather, preclude any chance of civil unions. The benefits of a law like this for society at large are, at best, unclear. The whole thing qualified as a "SWOT" ("Stupid Waste of Time").

Bearing all this in mind, here's the question: Doesn't anyone do any work around here?! The EPA doesn't want to work, the Supreme Court doesn't want to work, the Indiana Legislature doesn't want to work. Of course, to varying degrees and depending upon whom you ask, any or all of these institutions may serve us better by remaining idle. It could be that avoiding work is doing your job. I'll see if that works with my employer.

I'll get back with you later; I'm busy.

Double Vowels In Action

2007-03-27T20:03:00.001-04:00

The trouble with the NCAA basketball tournament is the rules are stupid, the commentary insufferable, the school administrations corrupt, and the athletes simultaneously worthy of sympathy and scorn. And every one of these deficiencies is trumped by the quality of the games, the enthusiasm and intensity of March Madness. I still like this accursed tournament!

The NCAA still insists on implementing game rules as though players ages' range from 8 to 12 and not 18 to 22. The three point line is less than 20 feet from the basket, a distance from which most self-respecting street ballers and suburban driveway shooters can hit about forty percent of the time. Instead of actually having a jump ball to address tie ups, college basketball offers the monumentally dull possession arrow. It's two, not just one, free throw for the other team when you get a technical foul, you naughty boy, and if you get too many fouls in a half, the opposition even gets to shoot free throws on an offensive foul! What on Earth is that about? College still enforces the outmoded intentional foul, rather than letting teams commit deliberate fouls when strategy dictates, provided there's no excessive contact or a case of one player trying to hurt another.

Broadcasters in all sports have many flaws: limited command of language, bombast, rambling, just to name a few. But what sets commentators of the college game apart from their counterparts who work the professional side is the absolutely infuriating coach worship.

Bootlicking Broadcaster:"You can't say enough about the job Billy Donovan has done with this team..."

Actually, you can! And you have! If you've reached the college ranks in coaching, you're good at it, no doubt about that. But spare me with all this fawning sycophancy!

The universities in the tournament and the athletes themselves do enough laudable and lamentable things to fill an entire library, so I won't bother breaching a subject that has already been covered time and time again by people who are better at it. Suffice it to say, however, that amidst the boosters, the ludicrous sums of money changing hands, the players who bypass the rules and get by with it, the players who live by the rules and are never rewarded, the self-serving school administrators, and the selfless ones, there's plenty of information out there to make impressions on both the cynical and the naive.

And did I mention the games were great? The NCAA won't fix what's broken here because they don't have to, and they know it.

In other news, the pastoral tribal group of East Africa known as the Maasai are reportedly leaving their traditional homes in Northern Tanzania for cities, and not necessarily because they wish to. It seems some rather questionable land agreements have been forged by unscrupulous property buyers, forcing many Maasai from their ancestral land. One sad consequence is the presence of Maasai warriors standing guard outside brothels in some of Tanzania's urban areas. And how are the warriors compensated? You guessed it, free--and unprotected--sex.

The good news is President Jakaya Kikwete has acknowleged the problem and wants the trend reversed. It would be one thing if individuals within the Maasai made independent, if unwise, decisions to abandon herding and set off for Dar Es Salaam to become cathouse bouncers, but that's not what's happening. By all appearances, these people are being negotiated out of their own property. Social engineering may not be a good idea for governments in most cases, but in this instance it makes more sense to intercede and set things right before the social problems created by the Maasai exodus spiral out of control. The AIDS virus is already a scourge in Africa; no need to exacerbate it.

These two seemingly disparate stories do have one common trait: the presence of double As. Insert your battery joke here.

No New Tale to Tell

2007-03-18T07:53:00.000-04:00

First Simon Cowell, then the Pope. Are people ever going to roll off of Bob Dylan? Pope Benedict XVI's assessment of Bob Dylan as a "false prophet" might carry more credibility if Dylan had ever claimed he was a real one, and the Pope himself might have more credibility full stop if he hadn't once been a member of the Hitler Youth.

In fairness to the Pontiff, he did not call a press conference specifically to excoriate Bob Dylan; his claim appeared in a book about his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, who invited the vile-voiced mythic songwriter to perform at the Vatican in 1997. Well, at least the Pope isn't concerned about trivial matters. Still, the provenance of Benedict's antipathy toward Mr. Dylan dates back to July, 1965 when Dylan played an electric set at the Newport Folk Festival. The Pope, then known as Joe Ratzinger, attended the Festival as a music critic for BonnBeat, a standout alternative magazine. Ratzinger, a noted traditionalist when it came to folk music, was outraged by the jangling guitars and obnoxious drums in Dylan's band and never forgave him, vowing someday to become Pope and label the heretic a "false prophet."

What will it take to get some books with original titles? Browsing through some novels recently, I came across names like "Slipping Into Darkness", "I Know This Much Is True", "Every Breath You Take" and "Superstition." Is this fiction or a nostalgic radio show? Naming books for famous songs might appear clever to authors or publishers, but to me it's tedious, especially as it's done so frequently. If you were the first person ever to think of it and did it only once, that might not be so bad, but this has to stop or soon we'll see this on the shelves: "I Feel Good Because I Want to Hold Your Hand But I Can't Get No Satisfaction."

James Patterson has supplanted James Michener as the author with the least imaginative book titles. "Roses Are Red", "Violets Are Blue", "Along Came a Spider" and so on. You would think even his fans might be a bit weary of this approach, but apparently not; they've already pre-ordered their copies of the long-anticipated "One Potato, Two Potato". As for Michener, at least the reader never had to wonder what his novels were about. If you were looking for a tropical setting, you knew "Alaska" wasn't for you.

The answer, my friend, is brown sugar. How come it tastes so good?

You're the Kids In America (Whoa!)

2007-03-04T12:51:00.001-05:00

I'm here to explain, children.

It isn't as difficult a job as you might imagine, but many of your parents claim they are unable to convey to you some of the realities of the world. I refer here not to complex human scourges such as war, famine, poverty or disease nor to long-debated philosophical or scientific mysteries like the origin or meaning of life. Your parents have all these things figured out; they seem flummoxed instead by matters of a far less grand nature.

"HOW DO I EXPLAIN THIS TO MY CHILDREN?"

This has been an FAQ, if you will, of parenting long before the days of YouTube and IPODs and in many instances, the question is quite valid. Often, however, there is something pernicious at work when parents utter this query. For instance, in the Pacific Northwest there is a dog grooming outlet with the crass but amusing name "High Maintenance Bitch." This sparked outrage among some citizens and was punctuated with the familiar rallying cry among so-called concerned parents: "How do I explain this to my children?"

Well, that's where I come in. The term "high maintenance" can apply to many situations but in modern slang it often refers to individuals who have expensive tastes and therefore pose a financial strain to said person's spouse or significant other. You kids probably know this already, as it is relatively nascent lingo. When you witness a young woman walk past you with heavy makeup, expensive clothing and jewelry and a general aura of swankiness, you may say to yourself, "Bet she's high maintenance." Furthermore, the term "bitch" refers to a female dog, but has also been used for centuries as an insulting or degrading term for human females. More recently, new definitions and applications for the word have surfaced, including describing individuals of either sex who are crybabies and even as a sort of backhanded compliment to women, among many others. So the name of the aforementioned dog grooming outlet has a kind of double meaning, referring both to a female canine who might need her hair brushed and washed and as a kind of mocking reference to the previously described human female with pricey accessories. Get it? See, this explanation business isn't so difficult after all.

But, young men and women of this nation, there's more to explain. It's about your parents. You see, when they utter the desperate cry of "how do I explain this to my children" following the death of a loved one, it's quite understandable. Doing so because of a pet grooming shop or, as was recently the case in Florida, in response to Eve Ensler's popular play "The Vagina Monologues" can only reveal up to three things about the people you call Mom and Dad:

1. They're stupid. This means they really don't know how to explain relatively trivial affairs like what a vagina is.

2. They're manipulators. This means they're willing to exploit you, their kids, to advance their own social or political agendas.

3. Maybe it's both. This means they're too stupid to explain things but just smart enough to use you as a cover for their real interest, which is telling everyone else how they should live.

Since I don't know most of your parents personally, I can't definitively say which of the three applies to them. But I would be cautious if I were you. They're your parents and it's best if you love them, respect them, or at least pretend you do, and listen to them to the extent it's possible. Even so, they're going to say some things to you and about you that are either untrue, overgeneralized or misleading.

First, a lot of you are fat and you play too many video games or spend too much time on the Internet. All of this is factual, but it is also misleading. Video games and MySpace are not the end of the world, but anything can be overdone, so try to get more exercise.

Second, a lot of you listen to terrible music. There is truth in this, but it's not universal and many complaints of this nature fail to take into account that your parents, and their parents before them, also listened to some really awful music. If you're skeptical or just want the point driven home, check out Tiffany or Nelson from the 80s, Emerson, Lake and Palmer or the Osmonds from the 70s, Tommy Roe or Freddy and the Dreamers from the 60s, and Pat Boone or Fabian from the 50s. Be certain to have a trash bin or paper bag handy if you decide to listen to any of these artists.

Third, a lot of parents tend to claim that dreadful things never happened when they were your age and the problem must lie in your generation's failures. Do not listen to this. Every single generation considers its successors inferior to themselves. To be sure, there are many examples of the quality of life in the past being preferable to the present. Some things really were better in the old days. But other things weren't. For every aspect of existence that was finer in the past, there is at least one that was far worse.

Now, kids, I hope you take my explanation to heart and begin to understand. And if you can't do that, don't worry; your parents and grandparents don't get it, either.

The Unheralded (and Deservedly So) Return

2007-02-25T18:36:00.000-05:00

At last I am back in the fold! Due to some difficulties with the blog site, I was nearly knocked out of commission, but the problems seem to be sorted out now. I started several entries over the past few weeks but have not been able to finish them, but I can do so now if properly motivated, which I'm probably not.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can win you a number of insincere friends.

What a stupid philosophical conundrum that whole "tree falls in the forest" thing is! If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? Using that logic, couldn't the question just as easily be: If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to see it, does it actually fall at all? See what kind of world it is? Even the philosophers are morons!

Wouldn't it be great if, instead of displaying outrage whenever somebody said something really stupid, people simply pretended they forgot who someone was? For instance, suppose immediately after Kramer's tirade, the entire world would go into conspiracy mode.

"Did you hear what Kramer said?"
"Who?"
"Kramer, the guy from 'Seinfeld'. "
"I don't remember a Kramer. I remember Elaine, George and Jerry, but not Kramer."
"You know, Kramer, the guy with the funny hair!"
"Nope, can't place him."

You can see how effective this could be if enough people became involved.

"Did you hear what Tim Hardaway said?"
"Who's Tim Hardaway?"
"The basketball player, killer crossover, you know!"
"Killer what? Who'd he play for?"
"Several teams, the Golden State Warriors in the early 90s, for one."
"Nope, I don't remember a Tim Hardaway. I remember Mitch Richmond and Chris Mullin and Tyrone Hill, but not Tim Hardaway."

I won't belabor the point, but wouldn't this really do the trick? It could help squash the endless blathering "what does this say about our society" claptrap, which would certainly make the world a better place.

I'll try to finish some of what I started so it doesn't seem like there's such an enormous gap in posts, but hey I'm not getting paid for this, you know.

One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State

2007-02-04T10:10:00.000-05:00

Fifty may be a psychologically pleasing number, but a thoughtful perusal of this country's political geography reveals a number of superfluous states. It seems in a desperate attempt to achieve a tidy quantity, we have admitted a number of places wholly unfit for statehood. Fifty is such a comfortable sum, in fact, that the nation hasn't accepted a new state since 1959, the year Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union; this eclipses the previous longest drought of 47 years between Arizona and Alaska.

So let's face it: some states just shouldn't be states. They are either too puny, too sparsely populated or both to continue existence and should therefore be combined with other paltry places to sustain their status. Before establishing the minimum requirements for statehood and engaging in some long overdue contraction, let's take a look at a few states that can stay:

1. New Jersey
Yes, New Jersey is tiny and the butt of many jokes. Some say it's filty and crime-riddled and that its nickname, the Garden State, is completely off base, as it's the most urbanized state in the country. However, more than eight and a half million people live in New Jersey and while it's true parts of it are dirty and dangerous, the same is true for nearly every other state as well.

2. Utah
It's tempting to get rid of Utah, but it seems nearly impossible to do so logistically. Not only is it very large geographically, but its population is not quite embarrassing enough to justify combining it with another nearby state. Furthermore, giving it to Nevada would place Las Vegas and Salt Lake City in the same state and, of course, rolling it over to Colorado would be quite out of the question, as people in Colorado are already self-satisfied when it comes to that state's wondrous beauty; if they had Utah, they'd be insufferable.

3. Hawaii
What state could it be combined with? Exactly. So it has to stay.

I used a population of four million as a benchmark for statehood, a kind of almost automatic bid. Most states with more than four million people have been granted admission into the new Union and several that fall short of said minimum also made the cut. Immense size does not guarantee statehood, but it does help, as many of the sparsely populated western territories will appear unaltered on the new map. Let's go over the changes.

This may unsettle the sentimental traditionalists, but Delaware is too small and lightly populated to survive. Historical significance aside, it must be combined with its neighbor in a state henceforth known as "Maryware." This may seem unfair to Maryland, as more than five and a half million call it home and, by all rights, it should remain a state unto itself. Two things, though: the system isn't fair and, more importantly, Maryland looks ridiculous only occupying a portion of the space on the East side of Chesapeake Bay.

Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont will become a single state referred to as "Cold Chowder."

North and South Dakota need not be two different states. From now on, they are unified under the name "Rushmorefargo."

Rhode Island shall be given over to Connecticut in a state now called "Connecticut." It is easy to pick on Rhode Island because of its diminutive size, but that's not why I'm eliminating its statehood; in fact, tiny Rhode Island has more people than Wyoming or Alaska and a few other states besides. What I can't forgive is the claim that it's an island when it's not. Even Texas has never claimed to be an island.

Speaking of Texas, this is my favorite change of all. Montana, Idaho and Wyoming must merge into "Wytanaho." This isn't merely because they are sparsely populated large states, although they are, but because a territory so vast will actually surpass Texas as the second largest state overall and the largest in the contiguous United States. This is essential, as not only is it fun to rankle Texans, but they deserve it anyway. Who gave us the Bush Family, the Dixie Chicks, Gary Busey, the guy who killed John Lennon, Dan Rather, and insufferably smug football fans? Thanks for nothing, Texas! Now, former citizens of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, I know this is a difficult time for you, but try to take one for the team, okay? Go Wytanaho!

Finally, I've decided to let Nebraska remain a state on the grounds no other state would accept a merger, not even Kansas.

And that's all. Makes for 43 states total, if I'm not mistaken, which I may be. I was trying to get down to about 40, but there we are. At least the map will make more sense now.

Bring Back Urban Dance Squad!

2007-01-23T22:06:00.000-05:00

Everything seems to have gone sour lately. There's nothing worth writing about; every problem, every subject, is either overexposed, tiresome or insignificant. It's not just a matter of whether anyone is interested in my opinion--I've been expressing opinions in the face of apathy for a year and a half now--but whether or not I'm interested in my own.

It's difficult to imagine some people developing a marked disinterest in their own opinions, although in many cases it would be refreshing. Suppose Rosie O'Donnell or Rush Limbaugh declared during the middle of a tirade, "But, in all honesty, what do I really know about it? Maybe I ought to defer to more knowledgeable people." Or what if Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter or James Carville declared, "I'm really not that smart, I'm just a loud-mouth. There's a difference between verbose and insightful and not everyone appreciates the distinction."

The most frustrating and worrisome thing about all these hectoring blowhards is that in confronting them, it's difficult not to come off like a hectoring blowhard yourself. How, indeed, does one combat those who never shut up? Perhaps the solution lies in the low-tech answer to nearly every problem: duct tape. It might even make for good radio or television, a talk show in which the host and all guests have duct tape over their mouths. As far as the content goes, who would notice the difference between the duct tape and non-duct tape programs?

Duct tape would also fit nicely over the mouth of Simon Cowell, who recently voiced his disdain for Bob Dylan and called Kelly Clarkson a "young Aretha Franklin." Although I personally like Bob Dylan's music, I feel it's anyone's right to dislike him, as everyone knows he can't sing, but Cowell must be smoking crack if he thinks Kelly Clarkson is anything resembling Aretha Franklin. This is not to denigrate Clarkson, who of all the "American Idol" contestants has forged the most impressive career for herself, but Aretha Franklin? Yes, and that Justin Timberlake reminds me so much of Marvin Gaye!

I think music could use some innovation right now, anyway. It seems to have stumbled into some very boring conventions, with most rappers sounding the same, most country artists sounding the same, most R&B sounding the same, and so on. This isn't, I'm sure, because no brave and innovative artists exist right now, but because most of us, my pathetic self included, are unaware of their presence. But what will it take to get some interesting and unconventional music back on the popular charts? Bring back Urban Dance Squad!

Congratulations!

2007-01-01T17:26:00.000-05:00

Welcome to 2007 and I hope you'll find it comfortable here. You might as well settle in and live with it because chances are, this will be your home for a full year. If you decide you don't like it, I'm afraid there's only one way out, and what's in store for you afterward is anyone's guess. So stick around. Better the devil you know.

I have been on a kind of informal hiatus lately, as I'm very busy with other projects, which is code for "lazy and unmotivated." And who wouldn't be lazy and unmotivated if they could get away with it? And I have been getting away with it because the only people who miss someone else's blog are lazy and unmotivated, so they're not going to complain.

The fine folks at the Westboro Baptist Church are still at it, waving angry anti-gay banners at the funerals of dead soldiers. Nine months ago, I suggested physical violence as an option for dealing with these people, but now I have a more sophisticated proposition. I don't see much point in confronting this issue after the soldiers are dead, so I suggest a more proactive approach. The WBC protesters should travel to Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else where American troops are stationed to search for gay soldiers and set them straight while they're still alive. While they're at it, they should make every effort to rebuke all homosexuals in these areas, whether friend or foe.

One thing I won't miss about the holiday seasion is those stupid biographical sketches people send as Christmas cards. You know, their year in review:

"Chad and I drove up to Lake Erie to see the two headed fish. On the way, we stopped in Kenton to get a large glass of green tea seasoned with tumeric. My, it was tasty!"

Shut up already about your stupid, boring life. I don't begrudge people who have stupid, boring lives--if I didn't have one, I wouldn't be a blogger, would I?--but don't assume I'm interested! Don't waste postage and send me something I almost have to read out of respect for the fact we call ourselves friends or relatives.

"Our dog, Twitdweller, loves to play fetch with the baby! Since my surgery, however, I can't throw the baby very far, but Twitdweller is happy if I just drop it on the floor."

Enough is enough. Somebody level with these people that we don't care! Or is the job going to fall to me? That's what I figured.

That's all for now, but I resolve for 2007 to be even more prolific with blog articles than in 2006. Or maybe equally prolific. Or slightly less.

Kramer vs. the Volcano

2006-12-16T19:13:00.000-05:00

I am not altogether sold on this new Puritannical approach to the "N" word just because one loud mouthed, C-List celebrity unleashed a racist tirade at a comedy club. Why give this man undeserved power and influence? I thought the goal was to not let racists control your destiny. And yet, I hear a lot of rumblings lately that Kramer's--the only name he deserves now is "Kramer" and even that is debatable--outburst served as a kind of "wakeup call." I must still be asleep.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating additional usage of the word, nor do I have a problem with someone making the personal choice of "N" word abstinence. What I find distressing, however, is the insinuation that African-Americans who don't make the same decision to abstain are somehow bad people and should be made social outcasts. Rappers and comedians apparently top this list of individuals being pressured to alter their linguistic choices. Well, I'm fighting for the right to say "nigger" and "nigga" in certain circumstances.

Leonard Pitts, the very levelheaded Miami Heral columnist with whom I often agree, decried the distinction between "nigger" and "nigga" as "pseudointellectual", saying that black people who try to make them into two entirely separate words--one for white racists and the other for cutting edge African-Americans-- are deluding themselves. I'll agree with him on this point, but within it there is another matter that is equally pseudointellectual, and even that is putting it charitably. This is the idea that black people can say the word and white people can't is a "double standard" and double standards are wrong. Well, they aren't wrong, at least not always.
Double standards are why your girlfriend can call you "sugar plum" but your male friends can't. They exist everywhere; it's called nuance and most people understand nuance whether they realize it or not. That is, they understand it in cases where they want to, but in matters of race, nuance is a tricky business. Essentially, I'm saying the guideline that blacks can utter the "N" word and whites can't is a double standard, but a fair one. Notice I say guideline and not absolute rule. Absolute rules are dangerous.

Ultimately, the "N" word is an ugly one and the use of it should not be encouraged. But the reasons for its frequent appearances in black vernacular are many and varied and can't be conquered overnight. Some observers have found irony in the fact it was a word created by whites to marinalize and emasculate blacks and now blacks use it among themselves. Again, this is a fair point, but there is also a sense I get of taking the hater's word and making it one's own, throwing it back in their faces, as it were. Women, after all, have done this sometimes with the infamous "B" word. I'm not a sociologist or a historian, so I can't tell you to what extent this is an example of self-hate and to what degree an act of defiance or any of the other complex emotions and sensations in between. But I can tell you this: Chris Rock, Ice Cube, Dave Chappelle and any other individuals who frequently utter the word "nigga" do not deserve our anger here, Kramer does. Save your antipathy for him and all those like him of all shades, complexions and nationalities who still confuse color with quality.

Stop Keeping It Real

2006-11-30T21:43:00.000-05:00

Maybe this is how it happened.

Some years ago--more than ten but fewer than fifteen--television audiences must have decided the programs they watched didn't reflect reality, that pretty, witty white people with perfect hair and skin spouting one liners usually with double entendres wasn't an accurate depiction of most of our daily lives. Concurrently, television producers must have decided they were spending way too much money on their product and began devising cost-cutting measures for the near future. This moment, whenever it occurred, was the watershed for reality TV, a stunning fusion of bad ideas apparently designed to ensure Andy Warhol's fifteen minutes of fame prediction would come true.

The producers got what they wanted, a way to make television on the cheap. Unburdened by the salaries of skilled writers or gifted actors, assuming such people actually exist, there was an additional, and perhaps unforeseen, benefit to the trend of reality television: thanks to lowered standards, the rare clever and creative program would now seem like a quaint, anachronistic curiosity alongside its woeful cousins.

Results for viewers have been dubious. True, they watch a lot of reality TV, but whether they've actually seen more reality on TV is an entirely different matter. Mostly, they've seen contrived situations without professional actors or scripts, which is more like "Candid Camera" than reality, except whereas Allen Funt at his best championed originality and humor, reality programs tend to aim as low as possible so the basest emotions are generated: loathing, envy, emnity, lust, duplicity, humiliation, with occasional moments of strained poignancy. This is not true of all reality programs anymore than it's true that every routine on "Candid Camera" was original or amusing, but it does seem to be the general pattern.

In spite of the travesty most such programs are, reality television is here to stay, at least for the short term. Because they save networks so much money, reality shows don't have to earn outstanding ratings to stay afloat, and because there's never any shortage of bad ideas, one poor performer can be yanked and replaced in no time. There are perhaps only two ways of stopping reality TV:
1. A large scale public rejection and revolt
2. An even worse idea

So what's my idea for a reality show? I've never had a good one, although I think the bottom of the barrel may at last be scraped when something like "American Idol Viewer" hits the small screen. In this program, a camera is installed in the home of a reality TV enthusiast and the public gets to watch this person watching reality TV. Now that's entertainment!

Let's Go Dutch

2006-11-18T18:17:00.000-05:00

The clothes do not make the woman. This simple, bordering on infantile, message has apparently not reached lawmakers and other authorities in the Netherlands who seek to ban the wearing of burqas in public. These full body garments are said to isolate Muslim women from society at large and, some have added, pose a security risk as well.

This kind of wrongheaded nonsense establishes once and for all that the road to Hell must be paved with good intentions, or at least what remote, know-it-all politicians consider good intentions. The suggestion that covering one's face and body in public might be isolating isn't altogether inaccurate, but it's not terribly relevant. First of all, in a free society, individuals should have the right to isolate themselves from whomever they choose, as long as they're prepared to accept the consequences of doing so. Secondly, this alleged isolation emerges as much from the Dutch citizens who are put off by the garments as the Muslim women themselves. Acceptance and assimilation are not one way streets and cannot occur solely through legislation; these things take time.

The security angle is interesting, but far-fetched. At the forefront of the burqa ban is Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who insists the law is also essential to reduce the risk of terrorism. Wilders, whose name is much too similar to the nappy-haired frequent costar of Richard Pryor to be taken seriously, believes everyone walking the street should be "identifiable"--that is, faces uncovered--although what exceptions, if any, will be made to this mandate remain unclear. Will the ban extend to wedding veils or winter attire? Of course, it is possible that a gaggle of burqa-clad Muslim women will commit some kind of terrorist act and their unobserved facial features will frustrate law enforcement, but it does seem unlikely. To my knowledge, nothing of this kind has happened anywhere in the world to date, giving credence to the idea that Wilders let's-do-this-for-the-sake-of-national-security enthusiasm is both exaggerated and fatuous.

Wilders argues further that such clothing is "a medieval symbol, a symbol against women." This claim, while not exactly false, does not actually miss the point so much as it strikes the point squarely while traveling in reverse, the equivalent of stroking a cat's fur the wrong way with the mistaken notion that this is better than not stroking it at all. Wilders is, in essence, saying it's not right to force women to wear austere clothing so the best plan is to force them not to.

Just across the Dutch border, in Maaseik, Belgium, a ban on wearing niqabs, a garment similar to the burqa, is already in place. Jan Creemers, the mayor of Maaseik, says he introduced the ban because elderly people were afraid and children cried when they saw women wearing the body-covering ensemble. With all due respect to children and old people, what will the world have left if everything that frightens them or makes them cry is banned? Surely spiders can't be far behind. Parents in Maaseik couldn't possibly have explained that the individual inside that garment has made a choice to dress in a traditional manner and it's a decision a free and open society should respect even if the reasons for it aren't entirely understood. Or, to put it another, more easily comprehended by children way, "yes, I know you think that's a funny outfit, but she won't hurt you and don't stare." Is this so difficult?

Ever since the murder of Theo Van Gogh, whose film, Submission, took Islam to task for its treatment of women, the Dutch have been scrambling for answers on how to approach their problems of integration and assimilation. Their old model failed because it emphasized multiculturalism so much that it turned into something closer to voluntary segregation. Now, it seems, they want to swing the pendulum so far in the other direction that nobody has a chance to catch a breath. No one appears willing to accept that laws and government mandates, while necessary at times, can only advance integration so far. The rest of it takes time and at least a somewhat willing populace, among whom people on both sides are bound to sooner or later grasp the inescapable fact that not all indiviudals in a certain racial, national or religious group think and act alike and many of them are quite worth knowing after all.

Muslims are not blameless in this saga, either. If one chooses to live in a free, affluent and peaceful nation such as Holland--and yes, despite its problems, Holland is free, affluent and peaceful compared to most of the world at large--there should exist a willingnes to accept, though not necessarily adopt, the customs of said nation. One of those customs is free speech. Critics of Islam have a right to their opinions. For Muslims to take umbrage at these opinions is understandable and expected; for any of them to threaten, injure or kill the critics not only violates the law, good sense, taste and decency, but it also gives xenophobes an opportunity to advance their agendas.

Perhaps most galling of all is the fact that an estimated fifty women in all of the Netherlands wear such attire. Fifty. Does the Dutch parliament not have more pressing matters than to ponder a ban on clothing worn by almost no one? The whole idea has done nothing but increase tensions in an already simmering debate.

The phenomenon is not new, but it is disappointing. All over the world, we see examples of the following declaration: society is free for me but not for thee. It brings to mind Abraham Lincoln's 1855 quote: "When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." And while I have no wish to emigrate at the moment, it is unfortunate that neither individuals nor government seem to fully realize that if tolerance is expected, it must also be extended.

Source: BBC News, Mark Mardell

Chad and Jeremy

2006-11-13T22:18:00.000-05:00

Small wonder St. Louis, Missouri rated number one in the country for violent crime; the mayor is named Francis Slay. Slay! Seems like this ought to have been a tipoff for St. Louis voters. Who was Slay's opponent in the last election? Sally Beaten-Todeath?

Wither Chad. That's the country I feel most sorry for right about now. Bad enough to be named for half of a tedious British Invasion duo (I notice "Jeremy" doesn't have his own country, which must rankle him), bad enough to have the world's most rapidly shrinking lake due to drought and irrigation needs, bad enough to be destitute, rarely mentioned, arid and have a capital city no one outside Chad can pronounce--how do you say "N'Djamena", anyway?--but now Chad has a refugee problem compliments of Sudan's troubled Darfur region. Darfur represents one of the planet's most pressing crises and the global response to it has been a quick and emphatic, "What's Darfur?" When is this going to be addressed and who will be brave enough to confront it? And what action would be most responsible? This is the problem with international politics: no simple answers and inaction can be as lethal and dire as action.

One problem with Sudan is the chief instigators of the conflict don't sound very menacing. They're a loose collection of warriors and mercenaries, probably operating under tacit approval of the Sudanese government, known as the janjaweed. This moniker seems better suited for an unattractive but harmless variety of crabgrass, as in "I can't seem to get this janjaweed off my lawn", or a dancehall reggae number, as in "Janjaweed, Janjaweed, is what you need, all night long", or, in a similar vein to the last suggestion, an especially mesmerizing type of marijuana, as in "Hey, man, you wanna buy some janjaweed?" Something to which the name doesn't seem at all applicable is a band of murderous semi-soldiers who engage in a practice eerily akin to genocide. Would you run if someone said, "Look out! Here comes the janjaweed." More than likely, you'd probably snicker. My, the world is a depressingly comic place. Or is it comically depressing?

Funny how many Republicans who suffered a beatdown in midterm elections were pointing the finger at President Bush for their defeat, claiming the party could have retained control of at least one chamber of Congress if Bush had given Donald Rumsfeld his walking papers sooner. It's true the Bush administration is inexorably tied to the GOP's latest setback, but lest we forget Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert and Jack Abramoff; there were plenty of missteps even without the President. But it is refreshing to see that Democrats aren't the only ones eager to blame George Bush for everything.

Larger Bees to Swat

2006-11-02T22:42:00.000-05:00

Here's something I'm really tired of: scared people. I don't blame them because they're afraid--we're all frightened of something--but I do object to the politics of fear transference, the idea that if something frightens you in particular, it's a crisis of profound import about which all of us must be concerned. Africanized honeybees, or killer bees, are an example of such folly.

Africanized honeybees, so named because they are probably a hybrid of The Bees Formerly Known as Killer from Africa and Brazilian honeybees, with which the African bees interbred, are more or less indistinguishable from other bee species and do not possess, as their nickname implies, a lethal sting, nor even one markedly more painful than their very similar cousins. Still, they can be dangerous, as they tend to be more aggressive and more inclined to swarm than other honeybee types. They also displace their more docile relatives. Thus far, they are known to inhabit several states in the Southern and Southwestern United States, including Florida, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Since their arrival in this country some 16 years ago, it is believed Africanized honeybees have killed about 15 people.

Even someone with my lackluster ability in mathematics can calculate this amounts to roughly one death per year. Dogs kill more people than this; so do snakes and spiders; so does lightning. Yet, some people have gotten themselves in a panic over the impending doom of the killer bees. One man in Arizona, who lost a leg while hiking because he fell down a mountain after being accosted by bees, has hired an attorney because he seems to feel not enough is being done to prevent the attacks. What exactly the lawyer is meant to do in this case remains unclear, and his quote is equally unscrutable: "What is more important--the life of the bees or the life of the people? What are they waiting to happen?" There is no indication of who they are or what action they're meant to take. What happened to this man seems a tragic accident, but what can be done about it now? Are park rangers, Department of Natural Resources officials, and beekeepers supposed to declare war against Africanized honeybees and seek them out at any price simply because they pose an occasional threat to citizens?

What it boils down to, it seems, is the unwillingness of many people to live with risk and the illusory notion that absolute safety and security can be attained. In India, tigers, leopards and cobras prowl not only the countryside but, in some cases, major cities. In Zimbabwe, it is not uncommon to see baboons or Cape Buffalo lurking on the edge of major tourist attractions. All over the world, people must grapple with the possibility that when they leave for work in the morning, they may not return to their homes alive, whether the reason for this is automobile accident or shark attack.

This is not to suggest people shouldn't take precautions, nor that technology should not be employed to advance the safety and quality of life of citizens whenever practical, but don't take an alarmist approach to a marginal issue; there's far too much of that already. Surely we have larger bees to swat.

source: stingshield.com

Scared of Voting

2006-10-25T19:20:00.000-04:00

If Rush Limbaugh says Michael J. Fox isn't taking his medication for Parkinson's disease, how can anyone argue? After all, if anyone knows prescription medication... Besides, I think Limbaugh was right. Fox isn't taking his meds, he's selling them. To Rush Limbaugh.

Is the election over yet? Local offices are the worst. Who cares what political party the coroner is? Has anyone's quality of life been adversely affected by a Democratic coroner? What about a Republican dog catcher? What a total waste of time. Of course, the main reason we started having to vote for what should be purely anonymous administrative positions is because city governments would hand out jobs to unqualified friends or relatives. Uncle Duke never passed the bar, but he did once mop the floor at the law school, and besides, he's really good at garnering self-promoting headlines, so why not make him prosecutor? The prosecutors should be elected, but ideally without any party affiliations. Such a system would have drawbacks, too, but it couldn't be any worse than the current arrangement. And anyway, all prosecutor races around the country seem to take place between the same two candidates: the crooked lawyer versus the lying rodent. Their debates often demonstrate a stunning lack of intrigue.

Lying rodent: This man allows criminals to go free and commit more crimes. I witnessed it yesterday.

Crooked lawyer: We released someone from jail and he was walking across the street.

Lying rodent: You mean he was jaywalking across the street. Where were you when that man was breaking the law yet again?

Crooked lawyer: Taking bribes in my office.

The names of political offices should be changed to the most well-known person ever to hold that position. For example, the office of Sheriff could be changed to the Andy Taylor, the Matt Dillon or the Wyatt Earp, Prosecutor might be the Hamilton Berger Office, and so on. This would not only add name recognition to the races, but would give the winners something to live up to and, hopefully, shoot for. In fact, a Wisconsin candidate for Sheriff has already changed his name to Andy Griffith as a vote-getting ploy, but something about it doesn't seem right, sort of like changing your name to Harrison Ford if you want to be an adventurous archaeologist.

With the NBA season fast approaching, I'd like to make my predictions.

1. The best basketball will be played when almost no one is watching.

2. The worst basketball will be played during the playoffs when two defensive oriented teams meet and a brickfest ensues. The broadcasters will rave about what a great game it is while the rest of us scratch our heads.

3. Great shotmakers like Alex English, George Gervin, Adrian Dantley, John Williamson, Dominique Wilkins and Bernard King will remain a thing of the past.

4. Talented and versatile players like LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan will be assets to the league, but the emphasis on hybridization and resistance to put players into traditional positions will remain an overall hindrance. Special players, past and present (Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Garnett, James and Wade), can defy categorization, but slightly lesser players of whom too much is expected (Stephon Marbury, Billy Owens, Lamar Odom) should learn their strengths and settle into a position, at least until they excel at it. This problem is especially troubling among point guards, most of whom have a shoot first mentality. This wouldn't be the end of the world if they could switch over to the pass first frame of mind according to game situations, but they seem to struggle with this.

5. No one will care about my predictions, whether they all prove true or false, but then, not many will care about the NBA, either, which is sad. It has plenty of warts, but it isn't as bad as many of its critics claim, and certianly no worse than the other major sports.

Good night.

Who's Really to Blame?

2006-10-20T23:02:00.000-04:00

Carol Channing, Whitney Houston, Maury Povich, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Evan Meacham, John Ashcroft, Severus Snape, Billy Carter, Cher, David Hemmings, Elmer Fudd, Alger Hiss, Ashlee Simpson, Helmut Kohl, Scott Hizer, Leo Durocher, John Dean, Anse Bundren, Nikki Sixx, Margaret Thatcher, R. Kelly, Gene Simmons, Ted Kennedy, Alan Thicke, Tempest Bledsoe, Menudo, Dan Rather, Pol Pot, Kevin Federline, Thomas Midgely Jr, Joe Christmas, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Spiro Agnew, Bill O'Reilly, Vlad the Impaler, Anne Rice, Ptolemy, David Lee Roth, Shaun Cassidy, Phil McGraw, Edgar Cayce, Emperor Palpatine, Lil' Jon, Abbie Hoffman, Clarence Thomas, Adolph Rupp, Barney Rubble, Meredith Viera, Phyllis Schlafly, Larry King, Ann Coulter, Neil Diamond, Neil Sedaka, Neil Schon, Neil Young, David Soul, Simon Cowell, Anna Nicole Smith, Georges Clemenceau, Oliver Cromwell, Howard Holt, Florence Henderson, Charles Dickens, Larry the Cable Guy, Laurence Olivier, Larry Linville, Larry Hagman, Bruce Tinsley, Garry Trudeau, Candace Bergen, Jack Straw, Bob Eubanks, you, me, and Terry McMillan.

Many people ask who is really to blame for things? For all the problems, the mishaps, the trouble, the tragedies, the horrors and the frustrations. Well, wonder no longer because you've just read the official list. Having read it, the reader is likely to have some questions. I'll try to answer as many as possible.

Q: Why aren't any Presidents on the list?
A: I'm giving them a break, for one thing. Secondly, it's common knowledge that Presidents mess everything up and the title is who's really to blame, not who's to blame that everyone already knows about.

Q: What if I don't agree with all your selections?
A: How can you? It's my list. Make your own.

Q: Did you just make some of those names up?
A: Yes.

Q: May I add some names of my own in the comments section?
A: No, you may not! Who am I kidding? I can't stop you and besides, even my mother doesn't read this blog!

Q: Does it really matter who's to blame?
A: Irrelevant question.

Q: What do you have against guys named Neil and Larry?
A: Listen, Neil, I've already explained this to you, so bug off!

Q: Did you forget Osama Bin Laden?
A: I did, but see the first question. We all know it's his fault to start with.

Q: What if I have questions that don't appear on this list?
A: Then you only have yourself to blame.

Coming soon... si kosa langu.

Carmen Miranda vs. Arizona

2006-10-09T20:12:00.000-04:00

Indiana Pacers' swingman Stephen Jackson will probably end up with some kind of community service following an ugly incident at a night club recently. A good service to the community would be shooting former Florida congressman Mark Foley--and anyone who molested him, if Foley's claims are true--but of course, Jackson would probably miss. What's all the fuss over Jackson's actions anyway? So he went 0 for 5. What else is new?

John Lennon's birthday has passed and thankfully I was nowhere near a radio the whole day. Nothing like hearing "Imagine" 500 times! The radio executive version of that classic seems to be: "Imagine that John Lennon... wrote only just one song" Amazing that a songwriter as prolific and diverse as Lennon seems to have been reduced by radio to a ballad singer, just one more thing for him to be bitter about if he were still alive.

I try to write about positive developments in Africa, as the continent seems to receive very little attention except when it comes to devastation and horror. But this slice of horror is difficult to look past without comment. It seems Wolde-Michael Meshesha, an investigating judge in Ethiopia, has determined police shot or strangled 193 people during a protest against election fraud last year; this figure represents about three times the number initially reported by the government. If the government is willing to admit the police murder defenseless people, why would it be coy about how many? No doubt foreign investors champing at the bit to do business in Ethiopia were appeased by the government's report last year.

Government: Two hundred people killed? Whaddya mean two hundred? The cops only killed about sixty five.
Foreign Investor (to his venture capitalist friend): See? It's no big deal. Only sixty five people were killed.
Venture Capitalist: How many is sixty five?

What's with Ethiopia, anyway? Like Bangladesh, the nation seems cursed with a combination of ill luck, gross mismanagement and freqeuent interenational indifference. There were the Concert for Bangladesh, We Are the World and Live Aid, but what happens on a day to day basis to lift places like this out of squalor? It's a shame, really. Ethiopia is one of the world's oldest, most beautiful and most storied countries, and yet remains mired in a cycle of misery.

There's always a group of parents outraged about something--rap songs, video games, cheerleading, Harry Potter books and role playing games--but yet to incur the wrath of the busybody-officious-tell-others-how-to-live-pretend-to-be-a-good-parent-when-I'm-really-just-a-meddler crowd is Zydeco music. Just say the name out loud, parents. Doesn't it sound like something evil lurks within such a moniker? Zydeco! Clifton Chenier. Queen Ida and the Bon Temps Zydeco Band. Get with it, concerned parents. The real demon of our society is being allowed to flourish unobserved.

I'm just trying to help.

Downing Street Groucho

2006-09-26T22:40:00.000-04:00

One recent Monday morning, I spotted a coffee tin on a co-worker's desk. But this was not ordinary coffee; the label proclaimed "Real Coffee--With Attitude!" I'm not a coffee drinker, but this isn't a trend I like. I'm not sure I want my beverages to exhibit "attitude" or any other human trait; before long, they'll be demanding to know what right I have to drink them at all. And besides that, I'm a little weary of the word "attitude" and its catch all definitions. Everything from bad manners to smarminess to mental toughness can be described as "attitude" and my attitude is: knock it off already! Just because you can't think of the correct adjective for a given situation--"arrogant", "flippant", "resilient", "obstreperous", "mean"--doesn't mean I need to be exposed to your attitude about "attitude."

This story didn't seem to get much attention when it happened nearly two years ago, but I'm quite enamored of the Downing Street Doodles (I thought of this name myself, but I imagine someone else has already used it in print. If so, it's a case of independent evolution, not plagiarism). For those not yet aware, in early 2005 a London newspaper got hold of some silly little drawings presumably penned by embattled UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. After conducting an analysis on the doodles, a graphologist concluded the author possessed an "inability to complete tasks" and was besides "aggressive" and "unstable." What a delightful way to embarrass the PM, right? Not quite. It transpired that the drawings were not created by Tony Blair at all, but by a visitor from out of town named Bill Gates, whose inability to complete tasks must by now be legendary, to say nothing of his instability. Are you still comfortable with the idea of a handwriting analysis determining whether you get a job or not, assuming you ever were to start with? Let's hear it for graphologists!

Some people say newspapers are losing their relevance because so many people now get information from television or the Internet. As far as I'm concerned, this is preposterous. Newspapers are still essential for window cleaning and I wouldn't even consider using TV or the Web for wrapping fish.

Saturn is thought to be the only planet less dense than water, which means if there existed a large enough container for it to fit in, it would float. Wouldn't that make a great bath toy for somebody? Granted, only a fairly large person could get maximum enjoyment from it, but I foresee a market here for spoiled rich kids whose parents buy them everything at Christmas.
"I swear, these kids ask for the moon."
"Moon, hell, you're lucky! My kid wants Saturn!'
Just don't ask the store to giftwrap it.

I believe every business should be run by the Marx Brothers. This one measure could change the world as we know it. First of all, the field of genetics would have to advance profoundly just to make it possible. And can you imagine the economic benefits of having Groucho in charge?
Who's with me?

From the Sidelines of Life

2006-09-17T21:11:00.000-04:00

Not again! Please tell me it isn't football season again. Every autumn the public is subjected to the endless and insipidly overblown hype machine known as the National Football League. Equally obnoxious for different reasons is the college football circuit, but that's an entirely separate discussion; the professional game will be the focus here.

Let me make this perfectly clear: my favorite sport is basketball, but I like football. And the NFL has its strengths. Indeed, it is the most popular sport in the United States, and many of the reasons why are good ones. First, the season is compact and only sixteen games are played, making every contest crucial. Second, the vast majority of games are played on Sunday, when most people are off of work and looking to be entertained. The NFL is deftly marketed, offers good drama and can certainly brighten an otherwise dull and somber Sunday afternoon.

The chief problems with professional football stem from its enormous popularity; it's the sport people in this country are most likely to take way too seriously. Fans paint their faces, their bodies, go shirtless in frigid weather, indulge in entirely too much alcohol even before the games commence, and generally come across as pathetic goons whose lives are so absurdly unfulfilling they have to attach their hopes and aspirations to the fortunes of a sports team.

Worse still are the football commentators. All sports broadcasters say moronic things; it goes with the territory when you have to talk all the time. But football telecasts seem to have upped the ante on idiocy. First of all, in other sports, the ball can just be the ball. A basketball can be "the ball" as in "he shoots the ball" and a baseball can be a ball as in "he hits the ball." In football, the object that acts as the central concern of the game is mystifyingly never referred to as simply "the ball." It's always "the football", as though you might forget which kind of "ball" you're watching. Is this connected to its non-spherical shape, perhaps? "He threw the football and the receiver caught the football in a good football play."

Here's my abbreviated Hall of Fame for dumb football quotes:

"No one in football should ever be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."

"In order for this team to improve, they've got to get better."

And probably my personal favorite:
Announcer #1: He's built like a doorknob...

Announcer #2: And just as hard to bring down!

If you know what the last one means, I imagine you'll be the first.

But the true double bane of football season are a particularly purposeless pair known as the sideline reporter and the fantasy football enthusiast. Similar in that they add nothing to the game, they have something else in common; both are doomed to observe rather than participate. Assuming there are still unitiated people out there, a sideline reporter is called upon to provide insight from near the actual football field. Let's say there's a collison on the field and a player is struck on the head so hard his helmet falls off. In that event, a sideline reporter will generally say something like this:

"The trainer told me the player has a bad headache and may have sustained a concussion. He's very dizzy. Back to you, Phil."

Now, how could that indispensable information have been collected without a sideline reporter? A headache and possible concussion after a sharp blow to the head? Thank you very much!

Fantasy football is a loose affiliation of fans who employ a complex statistical system to "draft" players and compete against each other for prizes or cash. Unlike sideline reporters, who get paid to do a useless job, these people actually pay to do something useless! And don't get one of them started talking about it, whatever you do.

Despite my gripes, I suspect the real reason football gives me a bad feeling is it's a harbinger of the long, dark winter. This sensation accentuates all the negative and makes me grumpy. What I ought to do with all that grumpiness is rid the world of a few fantasy footballers or sideline reporters. But, you know... live and let live.

What If We're Wrong?

2006-09-11T21:53:00.000-04:00

This is cause for celebration. The time as I write is 10:30pm on September 11, 2006 and I have managed to avoid so much as glancing at a television screen all day. It's not that I have a particular aversion to remembrance, nor am I above woolgathering about the past, even sometimes wallowing in it, but I don't care to see it depicted onscreen.

It is often said that anniversaries are a time for reflection and I've been reflecting. I haven't drawn any definite conclusions, but a question keeps occurring to me: what if we're wrong? Perhaps our entire approach to the specter of terrorism is flawed and doomed to fail. Maybe the only way to win the game is not to play.

In terms of law enforcement, terrorist acts must be confonted. People who blow up buildings, drive vehicles into a mass of humanity or otherwise launch unprovoked attacks against civilians should be pursued, caught, tried and imprisoned. Like any criminal activity, complete victory over terrorism is probably an unattainable objective--even though to avoid sounding like defeatists, those who fight it should probably say they're out to eliminate it altogether--but with patience and sound techniques, relative triumph might be possible.

Five years in, the rest of the War on Terror appears ripe for re-examination. The present strategy, if accepted at face value, goes something like this: the West will attempt to undermine or attenuate despotic governments that either openly support or blithely tolerate terrorist organizations. In two instances--Afghanistan and Iraq--military action has been taken in order to facilitate regime changes and assemble fledgling democracies; a third country--Libya--has renounced terrorist sponsorship and relinquished weapons of mass destruction on a voluntary basis. Several other nations--North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, Somalia, among others--either pose direct threats or suffer from instability which could lead to security risks in the future. Is this sounding stilted enough? I'm trying to write like a Pentagon employee.

The upshot of all this boils down to a frustrating lack of progress. The situation in Afghanistan seems to have regressed lately, after some encouraging developments in the last 24 months. Iraq appears no closer to tranquility than it did three years ago. Why has this happened, or failed to happen? There probably isn't a single person who could name every possible reason, for even if a particular person knew them all, he or she would die of old age before getting through each one, but one rarely mentioned is the old fashioned anti-outsider syndrome that took place in Vietnam forty years ago. It wasn't that everyone in the country who opposed to the United States occupation was a Communist; many were simply war-weary xenophobes who had seen Vietnam controlled by China, then by France, then invaded by the US. In the present day, then, bearing in mind the situations in Iraq and Afganistan are not exactly the same as that which prevailed in Vietnam two generations ago, maybe a lot of Iraqis and Afghanis are simply tired of foreigners dominating their respective countries. This is a necessarily oversimplified telling of the tale, but you can see how this sort of thing would give rise to disillusionment.

Another problem in the War on Terror involves a pervasive cynicism around the world. Very few people want the terrorists to win, but from the beginning, the motives of the United States and its allies have been questioned. This second guessing was not as loud at first, in part because the attacks on September 11th, 2001 offered a kind of honeymoon, but also because ulterior motives were harder to detect during the initial phase of the War, that is, the Afghan phase. A deserately poor country ruled for years by the tyrannical Taliban and before that victimized by Soviet expansion desires--which failed--it was easier for most people to believe that the reason for action in Afghanistan was the stated one.

The same did not hold true in Iraq, an oil-rich nation ruled by Saddam Hussein, with whom the West had already quarreled repeatedly. Immediately, people all over the world claimed the rationale for war was exaggerated and the reasons given for it were not the real ones. Burdened by a poor communicator in the United States and a decent one in the United Kingdom who was by many perceived, rightly or wrongly, as servile to America, the Western leadership was unable to convince most doubters that it just wanted to rid the world of a menace. Not coincidentally, one reason Iraq has been so difficult to secure is probably due to its oil reserves. As much as religious fanaticism plays into the equation, there are many people who simply want power, control, and resources. In fact, it's clear now that the religious aspect of the conflict is often used by cold and pragmatic elders as a ploy to attract idealistic and callow youths who volunteer for suicide missions. The elders, it seems, never get around to sending themselves on these engagements.

So what can be done? Could it be that the only way to really combat the sort of extremism we're up against is to disengage and let it fail on its own? To a large extent, this happened with Communism. Attempts to battle Communists head on met with mixed results, heavy loss of life on both sides, and questions about true motives and intentions. More indirect forms of pressure, along with a sort of scornful neglect of the Communist world, contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc states, mostly because the system itself was unsustainable. Except for North Korea and Cuba, other nominally Communist nations have had to introduce sweeping changes just to retain power. Could the current crisis, which relies largely on religious zealotry and perceived disenfranchisement of Muslims around the world, only subside if it is addressed locally, by Iraqis and Afghanis and Iranians and other citizens who ultimately tire of its violence and rigors?

If this is true, it's a dreary prospect. Trouble is, critics of war often don't seem to have very workable solutions; they know they're opposed to war and that's about it. They use vague, ambitious words like "negotiations" and "diplomacy", but what do they really mean? In fact, one of the problems with every side of the debate--the pro-war faction, the anti-war faction, the Islamic extremists--is they all seem to suffer from the same narrow thinking: everything would be fine if you just did things our way! We know already this isn't true: none of these groups can be right all the time. What we don't know--and may be loath to discover--is if there's really only one way to do things: the hard way. Let's hope not. And if it must be this way, let's hope a better world awaits on the other side of it.

The Universe Is Controlled By Cats

2006-09-06T17:30:00.000-04:00

Where you see disorder and chaos, cats see constantly moving spheres and points of light, all of which need a good paw-batting.

One problem with the world today is people are too eager to condemn the indefensible actions of those they despise and too eager to mitigate the indefensible actions of those they like or support. So provincial. So simple minded. And personally, I detest people who behave this way unless they're from Indiana like me!

Based on my read of the situation, Mel Gibson does have anti-Semitic tendencies. He claims he's not an anti-Semite and his bizarre comments were "the bottle talking." I don't think the bottle lets him completely off the hook here. Gibson isn't, as far as I can tell, a Jew-hating, Jew-baiting, Israel-bashing, Woody Allen-thrashing vicious antagonist toward all things Kosher; he's just a guy who seems a little wary of Jews when he's drunk and makes movies that don't cast them in the best light. If I'm right--and before you get flippant, it has happened before--what would be so wrong with Gibson admitting his bias and saying he's working on it? Meanwhile, his punishment should be lunch with Peter Falk in full Columbo character, raincoat and Peugot included. "Just one more question, Mr. Gibson..."

Is it not rather cruel coincidence that the word "lisp" is very difficult to pronounce for people who lisp? And "hare lip"? Shouldn't people with speech impediments at least be able to pronounce their afflictions without embarrassment? It's a patently unfair thing. I don't have a speech impediment per se, but for a long time, I had trouble pronouncing the word "minimum", tending to say "miminum" instead. What causes these things?

I think one reason men behave in a selfish, obnoxious, loutish, narcissistic and sulking manner is because they see how much attention women give three year olds when they act that way.

It's a shame the capital of Pakistan is called Islamabad because I think that would make a great name for a place to send Muslims who misbehave.

A while back, I thought of a way to interrogate prisoners without resorting to torture: offer them lots and lots of money and then don't give it to them. Most people probably think this wouldn't work with religious extremists, but I say you never know until you try.

Speaking of Islam, in the winter of 1997, I attempted to observe Ramadan. For the uninitiated, no food or water can be consumed during the dayligt hours. I got sick. The lack of food I could handle, but not having anything to drink for so long got the best of me. Individuals who are traveling, sickly or pregnant may ignore the Ramadan restrictions and by the time it was all over, I felt all three. The family I was staying with at the time was very understanding. Although I fell short of my goal, the entire experience was Islamagood for me.

Yes, I'm ashamed so save your reproachful commentary.

All My Exes Live on Dwarf Planets

2006-08-21T20:30:00.000-04:00

It's hard to say definitively what's important. Family, career, politics, wealth, religion, social activism, tomatoes, health, sports, entertainment, science, status anxiety (a phrase I recently picked up from a friend) all figure into our daily lives somehow and how much each matters is more or less an individual decision. As a general rule, I try to avoid telling people they have misplaced priorities, as it would be quite easy for them to point out a few of mine, but some people are so infuriatingly ignorant, it's difficult to keep my mouth shut at times.

Take the case of poor ex-planet Pluto. Demoted this week in a bitter fight among astronomers over the definition of a planet, Pluto for the time being holds the rather paltry status of "dwarf planet", along with Ceres, a relatively tiny object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and a not officially named object--some refer to it as "Xena"-- even more distant than Pluto and discovered in 2003. Pluto, officially a planet since Clyde Tombaugh found it in 1930, was thought to be considerably larger upon its initial discovery, but in 1978 a moon was observed. Turned out Pluto was so miniscule and distant astronomers had failed to distinguish Pluto itself from its even smaller satellite and assumed Pluto, moon (called Charon) and all the space in between were one object. In fact, as a very young child, I learned Mercury, not Pluto, was the solar system's smallest planet.

I mention this to emphasize that I am, in fact, one of those geeks who enjoys planetary astronomy. This latest debate over Pluto's status is more amusing than rankling to me, as it seems more a battle of nomenclature and definitions than anything scientifically riveting. Nevertheless, I follow it because the world of science changes so rapidly and I like to remain up to date on subjects that interest me. I'll be the first to admit it's an academic topic and not, pardon the pun, planet-shattering.

However, during a recent lunch engagement with a moderate sized group of mostly casual friends, I was forced to endure a full fifteen minutes of Big Brother talk. Remarks as to the appearance of certain Big Brother participants, their annoying habits, their skills or lack of them, and some of those conversing seemed to possess an awful lot of rancor over a bunch of sad sack twits willing to jettison their self-respect not even for money, but for the faint hope of it. Not long thereafter, I breezily brought up the subject of the recently scorned Pluto, which incited a fair number of angrily apathetic comments like "who cares?" and "why are they wasting all this money on it?" and "now they'll have to change all the textbooks."

I kept quiet, but I'll have to admit I was fairly disappointed and a bit perturbed. It's true the debate over Pluto may not be on par with the highest achievements of astronomy, like those of Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and Hubble, but I must say I consider it far more important than the emptyheaded hijinx of Big Brother contestants. Perhaps there's a bit of elitist in me, or maybe there's just a bit of ignoramus in them. Possibly both. But I couldn't help but wonder if these same dismissive attitudes were prevalent in the past.

When it became well-established and accepted that the sun did not revolve around the Earth, were there legions of naysayers lamenting the fact that all the textbooks of the day had to be changed, that the discovery was a waste of resources and none of it was important anyway? It seems a pretty childish reaction to new information. Deny and dismiss. Dismiss and deny. But as Earth, Wind and Fire--only one of which is a legitimate planet--say, "That's the way of the world."

Questionable Sources

Columnist Cal Thomas asserts that 1 in 12 illegal immigrants has a criminal record. How exactly can that be known? You'd think all their names were on a list somewhere.

Columnist Roland Martin, an admitted reality television fan, asks rhetorically why more African-Americans don't try out for reality shows. Roland, please, Black Americans are proving they're smarter than the rest of us in this respect. Don't mess it up!

Finally, a USA Today column promised to offer several ways of "fixing" the Emmys. I think only one way is needed: get rid of them! I can fix the Grammys this same way.

La La La La La

2006-08-01T23:15:00.000-04:00

August 14, 2006 as I write. I began a similar entry on the first of August, but encountered delays. This notation appears merely to inform readers of the date above that I cannot, in fact, see the future.

It's been weeks since I've written anything. The reasons for this are duller than even blog enthusiasts are accustomed to enduring, but to commemorate my return, I've decided to deny any problems exist in the world. There is no Hezbollah (this might, in fact, be true because no one can seem to agree on how the organization spells its name, a strong indicator of fictitious entities). There was no vast terrorist conspiracy uncovered on August 10, 2006. And let's hope there aren't legions of talking heads still asking the rhetorical and unanswerable question: how safe are we? We aren't completely safe, we've never been completely safe at any point in human history and most of the time we don't know we're not safe until we're dead, dying or injured. Can you dig it?

But this is good news. Chew on it for a while just so you can forget the World War III forecasts and other indicators of doom that the rest of the media enjoys imposing on you.

At the end of last month, the citizens of Congo went to the polls for the first time since 1960. Known as the Belgian Congo for much of the Twentieth Century, President Joseph D. Mobutu changed the name to Zaire and changed his own name to Mobutu Sese Seko. Shortly after his death in 1997, it was rechristened Congo. A nation of vast natural resources, but also turmoil and poverty for as long as most of us can remember, Congo is by no means a stable and placid locale today, but the July 30 election went reasonably well and perhaps a legitimate, popularly elected government can help quell what might best be described as "mini-wars" taking place in various parts of this enormous country. Among the 32 candidates for President, the frontrunners are incumbent Joseph Kabange Kabila, who took office following the assasination of his father, Laurent, and millionaire Jean Pierre Bemba. Harvard-educated Oscar Kashala is something of a dark horse candidate, and the man with far and away the best name is 60 year old economist Pierre Pay Pay. Results should be determined by the end of August.

Elsewhere in Africa, Ghana and the United States signed the Millenium Challenge Compact late last month, providing nearly 550 million US dollars in aid. By no means a wealthy nation, Ghana has nevertheless managed to avoid the bloodshed and bitter conflict many of its neighbors have recently experienced. The agreement aims to promote economic growth and it is hoped Ghana's most destitute citizens will benefit from plans to focus on rural agriculture, community development initiatives and transportation improvements. For now, it's mostly talk, but at least it's good talk.

You want more? According to the Indianapolis Star--my hometown paper and one that loses no opportunity to report and sensationalize bad news--race relations in the city of Indianapolis are improving. Not in a dramatic, earthshaking sort of way, but slowly and deliberately, which is perhaps the only way such things can occur. Indianapolis does not have a history of high-profile, dramatic racial antagonism, more of a slow, dull backwardness and heavy doses of denial. For example, the city lucked out on April 4, 1968, the night Martin Luther King was assasinated. Robert Kennedy, who in two months would be murdered himself, happened to be in town to deliver a speech. When news of Dr. King's assasination arrived, Kennedy made an impassioned plea for restraint and reflection that was largely heeded. This certainly can't be considered the sole reason there were no large-scale riots in Indianapolis the night of Dr. King's murder--as there were in most major US cities--but it's one of them. Of course, some seized this story as evidence black citizens in Indianapolis were perfectly content with the current state of affairs and not disillusioned and angry like they were in much of the rest of the country. Very funny.

Still, according to polls recently conducted in the city, it appears black and white citizens share a good deal in common and get along with one another reasonably well. I regret referring anyone to the Indianapolis Star to read the particulars, but I'm not going to parrot their statistics, either.

It's Funny Because It's True

1. I have a witness for this one. While passing the Indiana School for the Blind, I read a message on their sign outside the gates: Welcome Back Students, it said. Seriously.

2. Observed outside a garden supply shop: Japanese Beatles Are Here. Beatles? You mean, John-san, Paul-san, George-san and Ringo-san. Those in the business of plants and gardening ought to at least know the difference between beetles and Beatles. Strawberry fields forever...

3. At one of my previous jobs, employees grew weary of Canadian Geese and their generally noisome behavior. They swam in the retention pond and nested among the shrubs and bushes near the building. To combat this nuisance, someone somewhere (management, I presume) got the bright idea of building fences. Fences. Vast lengths of bright orange, plastic fencing were erected around the perimeter of the building and the retention pond. Sadly, this plan was ineffective. Geese, as it turns out, not only have wings that enable them to fly right over fences, but they are also notoriously scornful of property rights. They not only dismissed the hint they weren't wanted there by the presence of the fences, but would not even have obeyed "No Trespassing" signs had they been posted.

See, there is good news. In Africa, at home, and perhaps best of all, you, dear reader, are not nearly as stupid as most people. Take solace in that. And I'll just keep sitting here with my hands over my ears, denying the existence of Hezbollah.

We All Hate America

2006-07-16T11:21:00.000-04:00

Don't pretend you've never felt that way at some point. Nearly every thinking person--and a good number of non-thinkers, too--has hated this country and most citizens of every country have hated their own somewhere, some time. It happens. The feeling doesn't make you a bad person nor does it mean you live in a bad country. You almost have to hate it just to love it sometimes, because the United States is a nation of contradictions. There's almost no statement you can make about this place that isn't simultaneously true and false. There's plenty of opportunity; there's not enough. Racism is dead and alive and in every different phase of health, good and ill. We're warmongering, peace-loving, God-fearing atheists. We're selfish and charitable and vindictive and forgiving, stupid and ignorant and brilliant and innovative. America really is like one of our uncles, the one who combines all the traits of uncles into one huge and enormously confusing pacakage, like an uncle who, say, has dedicated his life to charity and works all day in a soup kitchen, then comes home, gets drunk and beats his wife. But I love my Uncle dearly.

When I'm not giving tambourine lessons over the Internet, I spend a lot of time thinking about these contradictions, these odd tendencies we have, and I ponder matters that confuse or confound me. In doing so, I have concluded that if people got what they wanted in every case, they would ultimately have nothing at all because their wishes would cancel one another out. Here's an example: the Honda motor company recently announced its plan to construct an auto plant near the small Indiana town of Greensburg and while many people were pleased by this development, there was also a fair amount of griping heard over the fact a foreign company was moving into the area.

The refrain: "We need better jobs."
Give the people what they want.
The reaction: "No, not a foreign company!"

The refrain: "We don't want all these Mexicans here."
Give the people what they want.
The reaction: "I'm not picking tomatoes and mopping floors!"

The refrain: "Pay us better and we'll take those jobs immigrants take now."
Give the people what they want.
The reaction: "15 dollars a pound for tomatoes? These companies are gouging us!"

Are you getting the picture now?

Want to know what I'm tired of? Stop reading here if you don't. I'm tired of these people who claim to be Americans, but display a different flag in their windows and on their cars and speak an incomprehensible language. That's right, I'm talking about Confederates!

The things we allow ourselves to get upset about are sometimes mystifying as well. The President of the United States overheard swearing in a discussion with Tony Blair is a matter so inconsequential, I refuse to give it anymore than one sentence. His impromptu massage of the Chancellor of Germany is nearly as irrelevant, unless it comes out that Ms. Merkel was offended by it. It may strike some people as behavior unfit for a world leader, but Bush is famous for that sort of thing. And I'm not citing that merely as a criticism; his informal manner can sometimes be a strength. It was probably not the right decision in retrospect, but no commentary that Ms. Merkel felt violated or offended has appeared and unless it does, it's not the end of the world. If she sues him for sexual harrassment, that'll make two Presidents in a row who have fallen victim to the charge. We're on a roll!

Something worth being upset about is Bush's recent veto of the stem-cell research bill. That is, if you disagree with him, which I do in this case. Save your criticism for the important stuff. Wait, what am I saying...? Sweat the small stuff or I'll have nothing to write about.

Now for my tambourine lesson:

Step One: Place tambourine in one hand with flat side facing outward

Step Two: Strike flat side of tambourine against other hand

Step Three: Repeat

If this goes well, I'll add maracas.

Miasma

2006-07-06T23:26:00.000-04:00

You know what sucks worse than reading this blog? Standing in line at any filling station or convenience store waiting for the cigarette and lottery addicts to conduct their business. How many times have you heard "I want two dollars in gas, five packs of Marlboro, and six quick picks" when you're waiting at the back of the line to pay for your petroleum and Gatorade? And you cringe with disgust, half-tempted to say something to the person behind or in front of you, except you're reasonably sure each of them is about to trouble the cashier for deathspikes and lotto numbers, too! You're an island, and one consumed in a miasma of smoke at that.

As far as I'm concerned, lottery tickets should be sold in machines only. Merchants make no money off of them, except incidentally, and they hold up the line something dreadful. If state lotteries are as awash in revenue as they imply--if they can make license plates cheaper and help to fund schools--it surely wouldn't break them to purchase more sophisticated machinery in order to curb delays in retail establishments.

The same goes for tobacco. Cigarettes should only be sold in machines and if they're out of your brand, tough turkey! I'm friendly with a good number of smokers and most of them recognize the dangers of their predeliction. I'm not out to get smokers; as often as I'm mildly scornful of their habit, I'm sympathetic, too. My Grandmother essentially smoked herself to death. It was painful to watch and I think it's a pain most people can relate to because who hasn't had a relative with emphysema or COPD?

But there's no reason I should have to wait in line while the clerk finds Brand X--no, not Brand X Soft Pack, Brand X in a box, no, not menthol, no not Brand X Lights, Brand X Light 100s! Why do they make so many different kinds? What's the difference between Lights and Light 100s? And who came up with these "I Smoke and I Vote" bumper stickers? I haven't seen them much lately but about ten years ago, they turned up on primer-colored 1978 Cutlass Supremes everywhere. What were these people trying to say? It isn't like being pro-choice or pro-life because every election features a healthy selection of both pro-choice and pro-life candidates. Where are the pro-smoking candidates? Or at least, where are the ones who are openly pro-smoking? Did they mean they were planning to vote against practically everyone? Or was it a coded message? Could "I Smoke and I Vote" have really meant "I Smoke, So Chances Are You'll Still Be Voting After I'm Dead!" Sheesh, everything has to be politicized, doesn't it? Pretty soon, everyone will be a political faction all his or her own and I'll have to get a bumper sticker that says, "I Write a Blog and Have a Boring Day Job and I Vote... Sometimes."

Step Into My Office

2006-06-27T18:17:00.000-04:00

To begin with, what's the deal with this Taipei 101? For those of you who don't know--and I didn't until recently--Taipei 101 is the name of a nearly 1700 foot office building in the Taiwanese capital. Since its completion in 2004, it holds the official title of the world's tallest building and I, for one, object to this. It's not because the building isn't legitimately taller than Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur or the Sears Tower in Chicago, because it is, but if you thought those two looked a bit on the odd side, wait until you catch a glimpse of Taipei 101! This structure is not terribly attractive and in certain photographs looks downright hideous. It's also quite jarring because, unlike New York City, Hong Kong and Chicago, Taipei does not offer a titanic skyline, so Taipei 101 comes off like a behemoth among a bunch of runts (granted, the runts are probably 30 stories high). In fact, since the name they've given it sounds like an introductory college course, I think its official moniker should be "the Steroid Building."

The good news is no fewer than three world cities--Chicago, Dubai and New York--have already approved plans or begun construction on monstrosities even taller than Taipei 101 and they all promise to be less visually confounding. Even the one in Dubai, surrounded itself by relative midgets, appears far more intrinsically elegant.

Elsewhere in the world of office buildings, while riding in an elevator recently, I overheard one well-dressed man in his 30s explaining to another similar looking gentleman the ins and outs of Einstein's Laws of Motion. The second listened attentively and seemed interested and, I'll have to admit, the first did appear to have a rudimentary grasp of how the laws worked. The problem, however, was that the first man was actually explaining Newton's Laws of Motion, not Einstein's. Einstein, so far as I know, never conceived any Laws of Motion, or at least, he didn't call them that, even though his description of the photoelectric effect and his Special and General Theories of Relativity did a lot to explain how light traveled. I'm no authority either on Einstein's theories or Newton's Laws, but I at least know whose idea was whose. I didn't have the heart to tell Man #1 or Man #2; they both seemed much too impressed with themselves.

Office buildings are intriguing places because they often contain large numbers of people who work closely together but have nothing in common. In general, though not always, these people attempt to be friendly toward one another, with varying degrees of strain. That strain is either amusing or disheartening or both, depending on one's mood and worldview. I've heard black people asked why they never wash their hair and it was neither a joke nor an attack, but an innocent--albeit pathetically ignorant--question. Anyone with the last name "Lopez" or "Martinez" is presumed Mexican, and when a female co-worker said she was from Nicaragua and not Mexico, someone asked her "what's the difference?" Seriously. And again, it wasn't intended as a slight, an insult or a lame attempt at levity. Some folks is just that dumb!

And interracial misunderstandings aren't the only anecdotal features that make the workplace so interesting. Differences in age, upbringing, religion or politics can lead to simultaneously sidesplitting and heartbreaking exchanges among people trying desperately to make friends, to share an experience, to know each other. The good news is, this misguided repartee doesn't always lead to lasting acrimony. Or maybe that's the bad news. After all, based on my recent output, I could sure use more to write about.

The New (Per) Version

2006-06-11T22:56:00.000-04:00

It's time I admitted to being an aspiring pervert. Not of the sexual variety, mind you, as I don't care to share that information and if you're the type who's interested in whether I am or not, I prefer you back away from the screen right now. I'm talking about a political pervert. Yes, I have decided to become a contrarian for its own sake and thumb my nose at convention.

This idea came to me in a vision. No, vision isn't the correct word for it. Visit! That's it. I received a recent visit from a political canvasser who encouraged me to support a particularly homely candidate for State Senate. The young woman assured me the man for whom she so steadfastly campaigned was a "fresh face" with "new ideas." She was a nice lady and I accepted her brochures and offered my tentative support. After she left, I looked again at the candidate's face and wondered what a stale face looked like if his was meant to be so fresh. Then I read his vanguard ideas and nearly fell on the floor at their innovation and bravery. Here were the "big three" and brace yourself, because you've never seen anything like this:

1. Healthcare

2. Education

3. Economic Development

It didn't take long to realize I had, through perversely ill luck, happened across a loose cannon. The nerve of this guy advocating education in a pamphlet absolutely anyone could have read, assuming the person was literate. I won't go so far as to say the guy can't believe what he wants, but to recklessly distribute it like that seemed very irresponsible. I also learned this candidate is married and has a golden retriever named "Smokey". Clearly, this is a dangerous man.

To spare my community further ignominy, I have decided to run for State Senate myself. I feel my most worthy qualification is the fact I have no qualifications whatsoever. Furthermore, I'm fundamentally opposed to education of any kind and since I got a 'D' in economics, you can imagine how I must feel about this so-called "economic development." I'm against healthcare and fully support the advance of all illnesses; viruses have rights, too, and it's time people stopped trampling them. What's more, I'm tired of candidate after candidate speaking out against crime. I am the pro-crime candidate. In fact, if elected, my entire staff will consist of convicted felons. I consider this a bold move for a politician, as generally officeholders tend to select future felons to handle their affairs. So it's like eliminating an entire, costly step in the process. Now that's efficiency and that's good government!

I hope I can count on my readers for support and if you're a reader who happens not to live in my district, perhaps you'd be interested in a job. Don't bother with a resume', but I will require a copy of your criminal history. If it's blank, don't bother. Thank you.

G Day

2006-06-06T20:40:00.000-04:00

When I began writing this entry, it was June 6th--D Day--and President Bush had just proposed his Protection of Marriage Amendment. Before I could even organize my thoughts about the matter, it was DOA in the Senate. It will be resurrected, of course, by somebody even if it isn't President Bush.

I'm not here to dismiss anyone who opposes gay marriage in principle as a heartless bigot, but I find the primary argument in the debate baseless. Something about marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman being the basis for civil society all these centuries. I won't say that's altogether false, but it's woefully incomplete. Many societies of the past tolerated far greater sexual deviance than ours does and, as far as I know, it was never the sole reason--and rarely even a contributory reason--for their collapse. If you don't believe me, check out the excesses of the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations.

And as far as defining marriage goes, it sounds more like semantics to me. Ike and Tina's relationship was called a marriage; Hank VIII (pronounced vee-eye-eye-eye) had wives executed and marriages annulled at a whim; husbands murder wives, wives murder husbands, and some of the most important people in history have been in troubled marriages. If these perversions of marriage take place and society presses on, why trivialize the Constitution by transforming it into a kind of dictionary?

In retrospect, it might have been wiser for Bush to keep his mouth shut on gay marriage, in light of the recent demise of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Bush can still, of course, tout this as a victory in the War on Terror, but with the door slammed shut so abruptly on his domestic proposal, it will now look like a week of mixed results for him. By the way, I neither need nor want to see pictures of a dead guy in the newspaper.

D-Day has come and gone and this time, didn't hear many people talking about it; they were too preoccupied with the whole 666 thing. Do I even have to start on the cretinous, superstitious nonsense of numbers? It's the same with 13. Let me ask this: How can the number 666 mean anything intrinsically when it was the Arabs who came up with their current appearance? If 666 were truly the mark of the beast, wouldn't it appear as VI VI VI? The current numerical system wasn't even devised until the 9th Century AD and wasn't adapted by Western Europe until 300 years later. Does the symbolic nature of numbers transfer from language to language and culture to culture? I suppose anything's possible, but I have trouble getting shaken up about it.

Thank you for reading, and remember, if you don't like this blog, XIII VI VI VI on you!

Aaron Outduels Winfrey

2006-05-29T16:13:00.000-04:00

Like many people around the world, I've been through an Oprah-hating phase and an Oprah-tolerating phase. Now I've decided I'm in the What's-the-Big-Deal-About-Oprah phase, which is directed at both her harshest critics and her most adamant sycophants. These efforts to demonize or deify her simply bore me. I don't watch her talk show and I won't; I won't buy her magazine because I'm tired of seeing her grill on it every time. Does she think people will forget what she looks like in a week? I do read some of the books she recommends, but contrary to popular perception, Oprah did not invent literature. Toni Morrison was writing good books long before anyone ever heard of Ms. Winfrey. Of course, Oprah has probably made Ms. Morrison a great deal of money by pimping her work, but some work deserves to be pimped!

I don't care what Jennifer Anniston's favorite pigout food is, where I can buy the world's most expensive cup of hot chocolate or that Oprah browbeat the author of "A Million Little Stories Real and Imagined About My Drug Addiction" on the air. In her defense, some media pundits were attacking Oprah Winfrey for recommending the book, but that would be like punching my English teacher in the face for making me read "Great Expectations." I'm not saying she couldn't have handled it better, nor am I suggesting there isn't a great deal of "embellishment" in many supposedly non-fiction works, but when you're called on the carpet for it like he was, just admit it and take your medicine.

Oprah's world is not terribly relevant to mine. She's made good and more or less done it her way, but I don't see what the fuss is about. She's far from the only celebrity who supports charitable causes and although I think she has good intentions, I find her a bit hubristic at times. So that's it. She's neither Saint nor Satan, pretty much like you and me. I, of course, am not a self-made billionaire like her, but for that I blame you readers. Not one of you has requested my address so you can send me a check for this very adequate work I do every couple of weeks!

Today is Memorial Day and that gives me the opportunity to bore readers by revealing what I think about each time I hear the National Anthem played. I think of my Great-Grandfather, who died in 1993, slogging through the deserts and mountains of North Africa on his way to Italy during World War II. He and I are not of the same blood, as he was my Great-Grandmother's second husband, so I might easily have still been born without his service. But what kind of world would I have been born into? Mind you, I get weary of the self-congratulatory bumper stickers and banners some American veterans choose to display, but my Great-Grandfather never showed those tendencies. He didn't have to tell you he fought in World War II, but he'd recount some of his experiences if you asked. Thank you, Lester, for going to war. And for coming home. We all miss you.

Isn't pizza great?

Now that Barry Bonds has surpassed Babe Ruth on the home run list, I'd just like for someone to talk about how great Henry Aaron was. We've all seen the footage from April 8, 1974 when he passed Ruth, but for some reason his greatness is presumed by many to be the product of longevity and consistency. He is widely respected for enduring death threats and racial epithets during his quest to surpass the Babe, but when the question of who the greatest player ever is, matters generally turn to Ruth, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and so on. All of these are worthy candidates for the title, and I won't turn this into a blog filled with baseball statistics, but here's something you may not realize (I didn't either until I looked it up): Henry Aaron finished his career with 755 home runs--a record Barry Bonds seems unlikely to eclipse--and a total of 3771 hits, placing him third all time behind Pete Rose and Ty Cobb. Subtract the former number from the latter and you get 3,016. Three thousand hits is a Hall of Fame career for any player, which means Aaron would be in the Hall of Fame if he'd never even hit one home run. How many players can you say that about? Well, you can say it about Rose and Cobb and even Tony Gwynn, but the difference is, they weren't home run hitters (the three of them combined for over three hundred fewer home runs than Aaron had by himself) and Aaron is number one all time! Think about that.

And then stop thinking. Give your mind the day off.

How To B Lame

2006-05-14T21:56:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush and Exxon-Mobil probably don't deserve much of our sympathy. One is a wealthy fisherman who moonlights as Leader of the Free World and it's difficult to deny he would not have achieved his current status without family connections; the other is a multinational conglomerate that just took in record profits last quarter and is billed as--not quite accurately--the largest oil company in the world. Even in the best of circumstances, most of us struggle to muster much compassion for aristocrats and huge corporations. And that's fine. But a lot of the grumbling about the aforementioned might be a bit overstated. This could be because we love to pile on, to find who's responsible for one thing and then open the floodgates, to simplify a complicated problem so we can solve it in a water cooler conversation. Call it Microwave Resolution.

Mr. Bush has taken a great deal of heat over the past few years, relinquishing nearly every scrap of the seemingly boundless political capital he possessed immediately after September 11, 2001. Now, with his approval rating hovering around 30 percent, it appears he caused everything from Hurricane Katrina to avian flu. Clearly, though, the President is most hampered by the War on Terror and its myriad tangential consequences and concerns, of which the recent immigration controversy is yet another example.

Make no mistake, the decision to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and attempt to build a fledgling democracy was made by the Bush administration and, by global standards, a scant collection of allies, most notably the United Kingdom (albeit with even less support from its populace than the United States could muster). Ultimately, it is this relatively small group which must answer for the consequences, so count on this: if the situation in Iraq stays about the same or worsens, almost no one will admit to being on board from the beginning and we'll witness enough finger pointing to baffle a three-armed traffic cop; if ,on the other hand, Iraq stabilizes and security improves, there will be a four hour line to get on that rollercoaster and more "I told you sos" than heard during a marital spat.

And don't assume I'm sparing the general public, either. We have a knack for dodging blame ourselves, and because most of us wield almost no power on an individual basis, we often get away with it. Many of the same people blaming Bush for what's happened supported the war at the beginning and are now finding quite glib pretexts to claim their endorsement was earned through deceit. The phrase "scare tactics" crops up quite frequently; the Administration employed "scare tactics" to make us think the Iraq invasion was necessary. I have no interest in defending scare tactics as a strategy to achieve desired results, but since when is this new? This is what politicians do! They do it to get elected, to justify policies, to explain errors.

Another category of war supporter turned critic is WMD Guy (or WMD Woman, but that's not as catchy). WMD Guy insists he would have been against the war if he'd known Iraq did not actually have Weapons of Mass Destruction in their possession. I cannot tell you definitively that everyone who makes this statement is a liar; some are probably being true to their word. But I remember the days shortly after 9/11 and those leading up to the Iraqi invasion in March , 2003. The eagerness to blame Saddam Hussein for something--anything--was palpable. On September 11th itself, several of my co-workers seemed certain Hussein had something to do with the bombings. And Saddam did nothing but exacerbate this sentiment by reacting to the news of the attacks with glee. Let's face it, Saddam Hussein was a butcher and remains a despicable human being. So it's safe to say that a fair number of us wanted Hussein gone whether he was hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction or just a cache of Reese's cups.

On a related note, when you hear someone say "I didn't know he didn't have WMDs; that was why I supported the invasion in the first place", this person might mean instead, "I didn't know it would take more than three years, kill so many people and cost billions of dollars." You see, many of us are very deft when it comes to circumventing blame, but blind to realities of war, occupation and nation-building. Of course it's messy. War is messy! It's not a secret and it shouldn't be a surprise.

Exxon-Mobil has been vilified by politicans, media and the public for reaping record profits during the first quarter of 2006. I shed no tears for them and I, like everyone, would appreciate a magnanimous gesture on gasoline prices, but listen: this is what companies do! They make money. That's why they become companies. And a move toward lower prices would be difficult for Exxon to make unilaterally. For while they are the largest privately-owned oil company in the world, they are not the largest oil congolmerate. Not by a long shot. National governments are big players in the oil industry and state-operated petroleum entities like those in Russia, China and Venezuela have a greater influence on pricing and production than BP, Shell or Exxon. This doesn't mean you have to support Exxon. Do whatever you want; shop elsewhere, buy a hybrid or use ethanol, take the bus, the train, a bicycle, or your feet. But don't think punishing Exxon is the answer to all your problems.

Now that this entry has nearly ended, you may be asking what I'm to blame for. After all, I've taken up several paragraphs explaining why these things are never as simple as a matter of good guys and bad guys and that we often share blame ourselves for things we wish could be attributed solely to others. So what can be blamed on me? Well, I write the blog, don't I?

Source: www.oilvoice.com

Where's The Dad-Blaine Magic?

2006-05-08T18:38:00.000-04:00

David Blaine needs a new job title. "Magician", "Illusionist" and even "Stunt Performer" seem inaccurate. Maybe something like "Practitioner of Self-Degradation and Punishment" would fit better. Blaine isn't a magician because there's really nothing magical about locking yourself in a box. Similarly, he's no illusionist for the same reason; he doesn't appear to be trapped in water, he is trapped in water. And even stunt performer is a bit misleading because of Blaine's utter failure to recognize the benefit of brevity. When Evel Knievel jumped across the Snake River on a motorcycle, it was a stunt. Blaine takes weeks to perform his alleged stunts. Where's the drama in that?

Blaine's antics bring to mind the sustained and voluntary public humiliation of reality television more than any sort of chicanery or sleight of hand employed by magicians. Not that I find a run-of-the-mill magic act riveting, but it's far better than a man starving himself inside containers for no good reason. Sitting in a box for 44 days without food isn't a magic trick, it's a hunger strike, like Ghandi and Dick Gregory used to do. Except they never claimed it was magic. And their fasting had a point.

Blaine calls his latest desperate attempt to draw attention to himself "Drowned Alive"; after several days underwater, he claims to be in great pain all over his body. Well, imagine that! So being submerged in water indefinitely isn't good for a person? Maybe he expected his fingers and toes to get all pruney, but that'd be the worst of it.

In an old Monty Python routine, a self-styled daredevil named Ron Obvious attempted a series of failed stunts. The first was jumping the English Channel; then he attempted to eat an entire English Church; after that, he planned to split a railway carriage with his nose, tunnel to Java and, finally, run to the planet Mercury. David Blaine is a real-life Ron Obvious, performing acts of profound stupidity and pointlessness; the difference is, Blaine isn't funny. In fact, he's dead serious about this stuff.

At least Evel Knievel and his ilk got the foolishness overwith fast and we could watch "The Six Million Dollar Man" or something. It's enough to make pulling a rabbit from a hat fresh and innovative.

Award Ceremony

2006-04-25T21:21:00.000-04:00

On the cover of a magazine I recently beheld, there was a photograph of the Risk Manager of the Year Award recipient . How exactly is the winner of such an award determined? It can only be through recommendations and word of mouth because what publication or institution has the resources to travel around and observe risk managers doing their jobs? So the Risk Manager of the Year is awarded not necessarily to the finest risk manager but to the one whose boss is the best writer. Here are two examples of what I mean, taken from the 2004 Risk Management Archives, as the 2005 samples haven't been made available yet:

1. "In six successive games of Risk, Jorge conquered the world each time while playing against myself and the Chief Financial Officer, so I hired him."

2. "That Kate sure can manage her a heap of risk!"

Unabashed praise and eloquent prose like this help separate run-of-the-mill risk managers--who don't know Kamchatka from Irkutsk--from the true superstars of risk management, who realize there's little point in trying to protect Europe as it has twice as many entry points as North America for the same number of bonus armies.

So I started thinking about some other awards that ought to be distributed. My list is as follows and if you have suggestions of your own, feel free to send them to me ("Worst Blog: Yours" will only be funny once so bear that in mind!)

1. The Inverse Curve of Talent to Fame Award (popularly known as the Ringo Starr Award)
I don't intend to select a winner for every award I make up, but isn't Kevin Federline the runaway victor here, despite the presence of Paris Hilton, Dr. Phil, Ashlee Simpson and Simon Cowell? It seems almost unfair, really.

2. The Board Award
To the best carpenter

3. The Bored Award
To the person who listens to the most graduation speeches

4. The Ignored Award
I'd tell you what it is, but nobody cares.

5. The Dumbest Idea to Make Millions of Dollars Awards
This would have to be broken down into different sub-categories.

A. Illicit
Winner here is Crystal Methamphetamine, a drug that can not only kill you when you take it, but also when you make it. And if you've ever met a hardcore user of the stuff, one question you never have to ask the person is, "What was your major?"

B. Entertainment
So many choices here, but I'm going with "The Chipmunks." Some guy speeds up a reel to reel tape to make his voice sound high pitched and calls the characters "Chipmunks" and is still famous fifty years later. Say it ain't so!

C. Commercial/Entrepreneurial
Lifecoaches. If you can afford one, you don't need one. That'll be two hundred dollars, please.

That's a good start. All I need now are a bunch of bad one-liners for celebrity presenters to misread.

Special thanks to AO for additional contributions (particularly those regarding Kevin Federline).

Loud Obbs

2006-04-13T07:02:00.000-04:00

I don't have a definitive position on this latest immigration uproar. Let's just say there's a lot of pro-illegal immigrant in me and a lot of anti-illegal immigrant in me, and there are people on both sides who are reasonable and people on both sides who are crackpots; it's almost like any other big, complicated debate, such as war or abortion or whether anyone who still sends fruitcake as a Christmas gift should be executed. One thing worth noting that seems lost among all the rancor is no law we've proposed addresses the situation in Mexico and other Latin American countries, which is the impetus for this exodus. More vision and less political grandstanding could help, but don't expect that from our "public servants", as they mystifyingly like to call themselves.

I may be conflicted on the immigration problem, but one subject on which my position is unambiguous deals with hectoring idiots in the media. Whenever I sulked or pouted as a child, I was advised that my grouchiness would not be rewarded, that throwing a fit was no way to get what I wanted. The younger I was, of course, the more simple the terms used to explain this to me. And I didn't even have strict parents! So why on Earth are we rewarding television and radio bobbleheads for being so grumpy?

Who the heck is Lou Dobbs? This persnickety twit railed for ten minutes about "secure borders" without one specific suggestion or idea and mocked the Governator's Wall Street Journal article regarding immigration. He said Arnold alluded to him (Lou Dobbs) in his writing without mentioning his name. "Be a man and use names," he said, "You know mine." I'm not a big fan of the Governator, but I sincerely hope he doesn't know even who Lou Dobbs is. Why should anyone care what he thinks? We're forced to care what politicians think not because their ideas are intrinsically more valuable than our own, but because they can impact how we all live. But Lou Dobbs? What he thinks is no more or less valid than what you or I think. Such hubris this guy has!

There's nothing wrong with opinion-based news per se; it gets good ratings and has high entertainment value. But if you ask me, a lot of these guys are getting too big for their britches. Because their shows are popular, they're beginning to think way too much of themselves. But I should be a man and use names: Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs! What are the first four letters in your name? Lou D! That's not only what you are; it's all you are! You should change your name to Loud Obbs; it would be more symmetrical and more accurate. Is that man enough for you? Do you care what I think? Well, you shouldn't, because my opinion is almost as meaningless as yours. The difference between us? I know it and you have delusions of grandeur. Speaking of which, where do you find those anyway? If I could get my hands on some delusional grandeur, I could probably enhance my income. I just have to practice being a grouchy loudmouth. I'm off to a good start in this entry, don't you think?

As a result of excessive Confrontational Television, I have become a committed "boring news" enthusiast. I listen to National Public Radio or the BBC when I can find it. These organizations are not wholly unbiased but at least they don't try to upstage the news with their on air "personalities". I want to learn something, not get my blood boiling. At what temperature does blood boil, anyway? 75 degrees O'Reilly? 110 degrees Dobbs? 308 pounds of Limbaugh? Okay, that was a low blow. Felt good, too! I'm ready for my audition.