New Rule #9 Jocks and Malaprops

New Rule: (apologies to Bill Mahre)  If you are going to broadcast  commentary on college football games you must be literate enough to have passed freshman English.

          I am sick and tired of hearing broadcast staff , in all fairness, usually the "color" commentator,  mangle the language as if it was his third or fourth.  An especially egregious  offense is the frequent use of a phrase which revolves around "gaining  positive yardage!" will someone please tell these clowns  that positive yardage is the only kind you can  gain. The opposite is a loss of  yardage!   Many  ex-jocks in the booth seem to have difficulty with when to use He, Him, I, and Me in conjunction. The examples of incorrect usage are too numerous to single one out. Another fave is former pro, now commentator  Joe Theismann  who, when someone described a particular coach as a genius, stated that, ""Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein." Norman? Really?

          Another , heard yesterday, is "This team really came to play ball!" No shit? I thought it was a quilting bee. Here's another Duh! moment: "It's clear Stanford is going to have to outscore Arizona if they want to win."  Yes, Virginia, it has always been thus. The urge to sound like a deep thinker sometimes leads to flights of totally unintended semi-religious homoeroticism, such as "If you're fortunate enough to spend five minutes or 20 minutes around Tim Tebow, your life is better for it." And I thought that was Steven Hawking or someone with real value! Another from yesterday, "He was looking ahead with his eyes." We must assume the sonar wasn't working!? This gem from Lee Corso, actually not usually an offender, but... "Hawaii doesn't win many games in the United States." Another from ol' Lee: "He's a tough runner, and he's really tough."  We get it, Lee, he's tough. Coach and now commentator, Bill Cowher, on allegations that his Steelers were doing something shady: "We're weren't  attempting to circumcise rules."  Now that's a relief!  This from sideline genius, Tony Siragusa:  . “It looks like they didn’t have enough offenders to defend defensively.” Huh? This statement in and of itself is offensive.

          Terry Bradshaw, the sage of Pittsburgh, is a weekly offender. He   made a statement which is grammatically correct, but syntactically incorrect, "I may be dumb, but I  ain't stupid." If he were dumb, we wouldn't have to listen to examples of his stupidity.  Former FSU QB and announcer Danny Kanell showed us he still has the gift: "You look at this guy & in a few seconds, you can see he's a football player."  Was it the uniform? The shoulder pads? The glazed stare? Not to be out done, another Floridian, Jesse Palmer, had this to say  "Alabama gave up 435 yards to LSU. That's the most they've given up in 5 years this season."  Now I know what a coach means when he says it's going to be a long season, but five years???  "That was a pre-determined play called in the huddle." Sooo, that's where they call 'em!  Never  fear, Reece Davis put us back on track with : "And the second half is going to follow this halftime."

          Now for a series of simply stupid statements, all from "color" commentators: "There's grass between the knee and the ground.",  "They've lost 5 games by a total of an average of 3 points.", "Steve Spurrier will go for the Juggler here.", "It's a gimme throw as long as the QB puts it on the money and the WR catches it.", "Let's update you on Auburn vs LSU. The Tigers lead it 9-0."(both teams are nicknamed the Tigers!) ,  "I'm not big on the Beavers right now, I know David Pollack is big on the Beavers, he's sipping that Beaver juice."( I'm afraid to ask!), "It's got to be inconclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field." (That would be "conclusive", idiot), "The ball is getting wet b/c of the raindrops" (glad it's not snot, phlegm, or blood!)   

          Sometimes, the statement may be fine, but the double entendre quality makes it funny anyway. here are just a few: "David Ash has had guys coming in his face all day"(Todd Blackledge)   "Did the center get it up? Did the quarterback pull out?" (John Madden) "Another set of Cougars are blocking the Beavers."( Chris Fowler) "She can't put that thing in her mouth...wow, that is huge!"(Kirk Herbstreit, yeah, really).

          This sort of thing makes Michael Strahan,  a bright guy anyway, come across like Sir John Gielgud by comparison.  And we ask ourselves, "Is our children learning?" (G.W. Bush) 

.

Enough Already!

Some sore loser wrote a letter, published in today's Villages paper citing the three reasons President Obama (It just feels good to say it) won the election. Apparently this person subscribes to the "If I say it often enough it must be true" school.

Reason #1: Bill Clinton. Per this person's logic, Bill sold his soul and endorsed President Obama in 2012 exchange for the promise of a Hillary presidency in 2016.  While I think that would be ok, any assumption that anyone besides the electorate could deliver such a thing shows the monumental gullibility of the writer and little else. If the outgoing President could guarantee the White House to his successor, we'd already be lamenting President McCain!

Reason #2: The recovery of the economy. Weelll, OK, isn't that what the Republicans bitched about all through the (seemingly interminable) campaign? So, let's be clear: All through the campaign, he (POTUS) didn't do enough for the economy, and now that he won, the reason is that he really did do enough? That loud sucking sound is the unjuxtaposition of your head and your butt!

Reason 3: The Liberal Media Bias. Golly whillikers, those lefty news anchors swayed the election again! Granting that MSNBC is more liberal than not, Fox "news" is certainly the western companion to Al Jazeera in terms of slanted, unabashed media favoritism, surpassing even Donald Trump in smarm, slant and twisted non-factual point of view. Their election night coverage sealed that issue for all time. The majority of the rest of significant news outlets are, without doubt, clumped around a middle ground position which includes most Americans. It is that way for simple economics: too much slant either way costs viewers; and while Fox has made the decision to go there, the three major networks have not.

Maybe, just maybe, President Obama (ooh, there it is again) won because his opponent didn't appeal to enough voters and the party handlers (the Roves and others) proved again that the Republican party has become simply the party of the rich and the radical.

A monkey's uncle? - You bet!

New rule #8 : It's way past time to stop using the words "Creation" and "Science" within the confines of the same sentence. It's also time to stop juxtaposing  the words "Theory" and "Evolution" in like manner.

          I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but I just happened upon an article entitled "Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution."  The apparent answer is that they learn essentially that it's a sham of psuedo-science, created by godless communists, while Creation "Science" is the real deal. And you wonder why some kids are at a disadvantage getting into good schools?  here are several selections from the article:  "The Bible says that Christians should be discerning. That means that Christians should understand what is right and what is wrong. In this activity, you will be given several articles to read. You must evaluate whether the writer is writing from an evolutionist viewpoint or a Creationist  viewpoint."  Note here that this is pre-loaded to push the child to the concept that Christian viewpoint is right, and the exercise goes on to blatantly show that Creationism is the only Christian viewpoint. Examples include: "The Bible talked about unusual animals that were very likely Dinosaurs." ..... "So Dinosaurs and man would have lived at the same time. God's word is always accurate. We can trust it to be true, even in matters of science"   This ludicrous article goes on to say that the Bible proves that some dinosaurs survived the great flood (Noah) therefore man and dinosaurs roamed the earth together!

          Creation Ministries International offers a six videotape set (each tape is called a "session" for some reason) which describes each of the "six days of the Creation" promising to let the viewer (purchaser, and they ain't cheap!) "Explore each day of creation in fascinating detail. The Six Days of Genesis fills a void in the creation student's library. It follows the six creation days, as found in the first two chapters of the Bible, expounding each Scripture with scientific facts and theologically sound doctrine." Whooo, Leroy, that says it all! The website further states, " Creationist research is having a global effect that is worrying the atheists and secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now, Journal of Creation has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that has been fueling the war against evolution, creating little fires all around the world, including Great Britain."  This organization's founder is a (no longer allowed to practice) medical doctor from Australia, a Dr. Weiland. Another genius, a Dr. Gitt has produced his own version of Luther's famous Protestant  Document. His is called "The 95 Theses against Evolution".

          In thesis #4 this Gitt (note my  sly use of the Brit derogatory term for a rural nitwit) claims to refute Evolution by stating that  JBS Haldane, a famous neo-Darwinian and atheist, had disproved his own theory, when his calculations showed that for Evolution to have any validity it would have had to been in operation for more than 1,000,000 years; clearly impossible, since as everyone knows, the earth is only about 10,000 years old! 

          Thesis #42 deals with radiocarbon dating. Gitt now, apparently forgetting his 10,000 year earth age, attempts to prove radioisotope dating unreliable because of variances in "aging" the same sample. What he  apparently fails to notice is that the dates range from 516 million years to 1588 million years. Disregarding the factor of three difference, these are all far older than he states the earth must be in thesis #4!

          Thesis #75 states :  Unnecessary beauty: "The unnecessary beauty occurring in nature is an important criterion for intelligent creation. The naturalistic approach fails to explain the development of unnecessary beauty. Natural selection would favour exclusively practical mutations providing a survival advantage in some manner. Unnecessary beauty would not be favoured or selected according to evolution theory." Apparently this imbecile has never seen plumage displays among birds, or the red butt of a baboon, or the mane of a lion, or men flocking around a well built blonde. None of this is practical, it's all about mating, with the most attractive getting the prom queen. (except in Gitt's world) The "survival advantage he denies is the passing on of the selected male's DNA.

          Thesis #76: "Intelligent Information. Since all forms of life contain a code (RNA/DNA molecules) and the other laws of information. (Laws of information?) this clearly falls within the definition of information. We can therefore conclude that there must be an intelligent originator sender."  Why, you ask? Well, silly, because he says so. Obviously he has not read some of the Facebook entries I've seen. Some information indicates no intelligence whatever on the sender's part. This is vintage Creationist gobbledygook  clad in psuedo-scientific hogwash.  He rambles a bit, about Biblical references to "God said" in Genesis and then "proves his assertion with this: "The word said is in bold type to emphasize how God created life on Earth by means of His word in the role of the information sender." Ooohhh Kay.

Thesis  #91: The degeneration of human language. To shorten this heap of steaming dung, I'll summarize: Language has gotten less complex in later times than in earlier times. Older civilizations could communicate more information with fewer words than is the case with modern languages. This contradicts the evolutionary idea of development from simple beginnings to greater complexity. Where to start? How about new communication methods,  print and visual media make this entire statement irrelevant, null and void. looking at just English, the language has gotten, not simpler, but far more complex in scope and vocabulary. Gitt is just making shit up at this point.

#59 - A personal favorite of mine. Planetary rings: The planetary rings of all four gas planets are demonstrably (says who?) short term phenomena. They cannot be older than 10,000 years. He continues, but this is enough. He is so locked into the 10,000 year old earth, that the solar system must be the same age! NASA (real scientists) says: "How old are Saturn's rings? No one is quite sure. One possibility is that the rings formed relatively recently in our Solar System's history, perhaps only about 100 million years ago when a moon-sized object broke up near Saturn. New evidence, however, raises the possibility that some of Saturn's rings may be billions of years old and so almost as old as Saturn itself. Inspection of images by the Saturn-orbiting Cassini spacecraft indicates that some of Saturn's ring particles temporarily bunch and collide, effectively recycling ring particles by bringing fresh bright ices to the surface." Ahh Hell, what do they know? All they did was to actually do science and send a spacecraft to observe, vice some supernatural mumbo jumbo.

Thesis #94  "Conscience and Ethics: Conscience and ethics couldn't have evolved in the merciless fight for survival that has been going on for years. Pure instinct deprived of conscience would result in the elimination of the enemy race. Conscience, on the other hand, keeps one from acting on purely unscrupulous or selfish motives" Actually, Dr, Gitt, as Dr (real PhD) Richard Dawkins points out in his latest book "The Selfish Gene" that's exactly what the motive  we call "conscience" is - self interest and/or sacrifice in the moment for a greater benefit later.

Thesis 86: Neanderthals and Australomorphs "The descent of man from apelike ancestors has still not been proved. Not a single indisputable example of the fantastic intermediate forms published in the media has been found........The hypothesis generally supported today is that Neanderthals, Chimpanzees and modern humans share a common ancestor, however, not a trace of these hypothetical ancestors has ever been found!"  Well, Dr. Gitt is correct on this point. Not a trace has been found, but numerous traces. The fossil record of the evolution of bipedal Homo Sapiens stretches back about 7 million years. Along the way we meet Sahelanthropus Tchadensis back at the 7 million year point, (or so) , Australopithecus Afarensis (numerous examples) , ca. 4 million or so, Homo Habilis (the toolmaker) ca 2 million, a dead end branch or two along the way (Paranthropus Boisei, Paranthropus Robustus), Heidleberg Man (Homo Heidlebergensis) ca 350, 000, and whether he likes it or not, H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis, both in the 190, 000 range. Unfortunately, our slower, beetle browed cousins didn't make it, but according to recent finds in borneo, Homo Floresiensis (aka the Hobbitt) lasted until ca 18,000 yrs ago. No evidence?  Sheeit, doc, we drownin' in it!

          There are about 90 more of Gitt's "Theses" each more ludicrous than the previous. This, as all Creationist drivel,  is the  antithesis of science. One of the first hard science classes we require kids to take in school is Biology (it might be Chemistry, depending on the state).  No matter which course it is, both revolve around the scientific method. No lesser light than Aristotle, 350 years before Christ, laid down precepts that are still taught today for investigating the natural world. Among these concepts are: The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. What distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. The principal  features that  distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge are simple. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.           Creationists ignore this and reverse the process. "Begin with the conclusion and reject any real world data that contradicts your preconceived conclusion." This isn't even bad science, it's not science at all.  It's akin to rejecting the smallpox vaccine in favor of sacrificing a goat to appease Mwabi,  the God of childhood diseases. It's the reason Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses die from treatable conditions.

          In summary, then, if we want our children to be competitive in the Sciences, we need to teach them science. In a parallel story with similar head shaking potential. the Pope just released the third book in his trilogy. He has declared the Virgin Birth scientific fact, apparently based on exactly the same scriptures available to all mankind for millennia. Of course one is free to believe it or not, since it is also proffered as an article of faith. Teaching  creationism as any sort of science to labile and unsophisticated children is another matter completely.

          Judith Hayes sums all this up nicely and simply, "If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.” Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, (author of The Ancestor's Tale, a superb read) puts it rather more specifically: "There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. It’s not that there are two different theories. No serious scientist doubts that we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of monkeys, we are cousins of snails, we are cousins of earthworms. We have shared ancestors with all animals and all plants. There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact."  Unfortunately there are some non-scientists out there insisting that it be taught in our schools.

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!

Look in the mirror: new rule #7

 

New Rule #7:   To The Republican Party - If  you wish to ever become relevant to the majority of  Americans (again) you must  stop nominating candidates who know very little about  issues central to the presidency, respect the majority of Americans, and  are smarter than a fifth grader.

          The recent election has finally (or so it seems) broken through the wall of denial which has been the facade of the Republican party for the last 12 years.  In the wake of smug,  out of touch,  Willard Romney's  drubbing in  both the electoral college and the popular vote, cracks seem to be  appearing in the wall. I know, I know, this is probably just posturing and finger pointing to distance themselves from a loser, but could there be more to it than that?  Naah, probably not, considering the sources.  GOP stalwarts like La. Governor Bobby Jindal, Wis. Governor Scott (union buster) Walker,  N.C. Senator Lindsey Graham and  Newt (the salamander) Gingrich, are very critical of some of Romney's comments before and after his loss. This somehow comes across as more damage control than ethical urging for inclusion. Gingrich sounds hollow when he says of  Mitt Romney's suggestion that he lost the election because President Barack Obama offered "gifts" to African-Americans, Hispanics, and young voters. "I just think it's nuts, I mean, first of all, it's insulting." Since when has being "insulting" not been a huge part of Newt's toolkit ? Walker's record with teachers and other public service unions in Wisconsin speaks for itself as well. There seems to be a continuing inability to find smart electable candidates with the ability to connect across party lines.

          In an effort to show just how badly the selection process (of candidates) has done , I shall highlight (or lowlight) three persons - Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and John McCain. Most of what I write, as with Pat Robertson (see N.R. #6) will be public record, with comments as I deem appropriate.

case study number 1 - Mitt Romney mostly in his own words.

          Willard M. Romney was just never able to shake the "spoiled child of privilege,  out of touch with the majority"  tag. It didn't help that he made comments like this, "Corporations are people, my friend ... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend." This to a heckler at the Iowa State Fair who suggested that taxes should be raised on corporations as part of balancing the budget. Of course in Romney World, we all own stock in corporations, so what's the problem?  Hell, there are probably people buying stock with food stamps! Or not.

          Perhaps an even greater indicator of Romney's willingness to do or say anything to get elected is shown by these two statements literally uttered 45 minutes apart. "As President, I will create 12 million new jobs."( during the second presidential debate)  "Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs."  (45 minutes later).  Another yardstick of the gap between reality and Romney World is shown by this exchange, " Is $100,000 middle income?" (George Stephanopoulos)  "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less" ("Good Morning America," Sept. 14, 2012.) Really,  Mitt? A quarter of a million annually is what it takes?  So what is a lot of money in Romney World?  "I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much." —Mitt Romney, who earned $374,000 in speaking fees in one year according to according to his personal financial disclosure . OK, can we say "disconnect?"

          But Mitt is a simple family man, and look at his lovely wife. “We can be poor in spirit, and I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing,” said Ann Romney to Fox News. “It can be here today and gone tomorrow.” Hmm. Interesting indeed, considering that her husband is worth about $200 million.  In fact, he’s wealthier than the last eight presidents combined. In a world where many college students leave school with huge debt, Romney just sold a little stock, which had been given him by daddy, according to Ann. No wonder he doesn't understand this whole school loan issue! Ann Romney’s  favorite fancy dressage horse, Rafalca, costs more to feed and shelter than your whole family. How wealthy does that make you feel? Rafalca was a $78,000 dollar a year tax deduction until 2011, when Romney decided to not use the deduction to boost his tax rate percentage. This was in addition to over $200,000 in annual tithing to the Mormon Church, also deductable and deducted until 2011.

          Rumor has it that Ann was secretly glad Willard lost, because she hated the thought of downsizing. We leave the Romneys with Willard in his new roles as party pariah and medium as we fondly recall those moments when he seemed to channel J. Danforth  Qayle, "  "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love" and "Tomorrow we begin a new tomorrow."  Say goodnight Willard.

 

case study number 2 - Sarah Palin (included only because there are those Republicans whispering "Palin in 2016")

          There is ample evidence from her own lips that Sarah Palin was in the deep end from the second she was nominated in what must still be the worst job of vetting ever performed.  There are also some ludicrous  attempts by her running mate, John McCain, to "legitimize" her candidacy. What does come shining through is her lack of any competency regarding national government, how to tell you husband to "Cool it with that secessionist crap", geography and US history.

          Beginning with her  positively Bushian (new word) aversion to reading,  When asked by Katie Couric which newspapers she read,   "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years" was her response. This was to qualify her to follow a man who read the New York Times and the Washington Post before breakfast? This would, however,  explain in part why she couldn't recall any USSC decision other than Roe V. Wade with which she disagreed. This was somewhat  troubling in that it followed a modest rant regarding activist judges. The specific dialogue was,  "Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―."  It must be admitted that she passed the Evangelical litmus test with flying colors. Sometimes, however, it was a bit more fanciful. "We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" In actuality, it's heroic and stupid, since the shortest line of travel from Wasilla to a Canadian town of any size is well over 650 miles and 13 hours by road.

          But lest we give the impression that Sarah is one dimensional, let's listen to her where she really shines, history, geography and world affairs.

 ''He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.'' Paul revere would puke, I know I did!

"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." ( after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas. Sorry about that 1949-53 nastiness.

 ''Our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of.'' What??  Oh, wait, she means Afghanistan. ''They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan.'' Wow, and I used to think Afghanistan was about 8,000 miles away! Not to worry. John McCain to the rescue: "Sarah Palin knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. ... And, uh, she also happens to represent, be governor of a state that's right next to Russia." --after being asked about Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience, Sept. 12, 2008. So it's all good.

          Well, maybe not all..... ''Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.'' (a twitter by a twit) Refudiate? Is that what you do after you have attempted to fudiate and failed? Apparently English wasn't our gal's strong suit, but Social Studies? ''I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out.'' Tell that to the Secretary of Law. Oh never mind, there isn't one. How about this one? ''They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.'' This last is Palin describing the duties of the office to which she aspired. An office whose real responsibilities she didn't understand. The Vice President  can "just get in there" and vote only to create or break a tie. Otherwise he raps the gavel and is seldom there anyway. In spite of this awesome display of ignorance, her front man, John McCain actually said these words:  "I think she's most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president, tell you the truth." He obviously never met Dick Cheyney, Al Gore, Richard Nixon or Lyndon  Johnson. He continued serving  dutifully as her apologist until the November mercy killing. "She's a partner and a soul-mate." "She needed the clothes." --explaining to reporters why the RNC spent $150,000 on clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin and her family. "I might have to rely on a vice president that I select’ for expertise on economic issues." Expertise? Really?

if she can convince John McCain of any of these, she should dump Todd  and move in with the McCains, taking Bristol, Trig, Track, Willow and Piper with her. In the words of Bill Maher, ''Naturally the smart thing to do to solve your economic woes is to demonize the Democrats. And of course, Sarah Palin is more than happy to oblige. She's been saying that Obama hangs out with terrorists. And you know, I think the evangelical lady who's in a video getting blessed by a witch doctor, who's married to a secessionist, and can't name a newspaper — she's right, Obama is scary." Of course, he completed his term in office regardless of partisan squabbling, something else about which Sarah Palin would know nothing.

case study number 3: John McCain

          OK, right up front, John McCain was a war hero, so was Ulysses Grant, who was a mediocre president whose administration was the most corrupt  until Harding's. So what"?  I honor his service, but being in the military at any level doesn't translate to "Good President."  Ask Thomas Jefferson. McCain has traded on the war hero cachet more than most. "Could I just mention to you, Jay, that in a moment of seriousness I spent five and a half years in a prison cell. I didn't have a house, I didn't have a kitchen table, I didn't have a table, I didn't have a chair." --once again playing the "POW/War Hero  card to deflect a question from Jay Leno about how many houses he owns, "Tonight Show" interview, Aug. 25, 2008 The question for McCain is "Why should you be President? Are you in touch with America?

          With the already ailing economy a front burner issue in the 2008 campaign , look at some of the things McCain pulled out of...(insert your word here)... the hat.

"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president and, in my view, has betrayed the public's trust. If I were president today, I would fire him." --(apparently unaware of the fact that the SEC chairman, as a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission, cannot be removed by the president)

"I understand the economy.  I was chairman of the Commerce Committee that oversights every part of our economy." --ignoring the fact that it is actually the Senate Banking Committee which is responsible for credit, financial services, and housing -- the very areas currently in crisis)

  "Our economy, I think, is still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong." (Jacksonville, Fla., Sept. 15, 2008) "Sure. Technically, I don't know." --asked if the U.S. is in a recession, ("60 Minutes", Sept. 21, 2008)

 It is also worthy of note that McCain is one of the "Keating Five" - senators from both parties who got huge campaign contributions from Lincoln S&L abuser and convicted felon Charles Keating  in exchange for their attempts to protect him

All these statements are disturbingly reminiscent of Calvin Coolidge, as he headed out the door in 1929 saying that the economy was in fine shape. "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book." "I might have to rely on a vice president that I select’ for expertise on economic issues." (GOP debate, Nov. 28, 2007) This last is previously cited, but so outrageous when Palin is considered that it bears repeating. Really? The 4 term Senator and Chair of the Senate Commerce committee knows less about the economy than the half of one term and soon to resign Governor of Alaska?

 Foreign policy is  an area where McCain not only blows his own horn, but is frequently hypercritical of President Obama, so there ought to be some real meat here, huh?

"I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region." --after being asked if he would invite Spanish President Jose Rodriguez Louis Zapatero to the White House, casting an ally of the U.S. as a potential enemy while simultaneously confusing Spain for a Latin American country (Sept. 17, 2008).

"In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." --on Russia's military action against Georgia, (Birmingham, Mich., Aug. 13, 2008) Apparently those little Iraq and Afghanistan thingies slipped his mind.

"We have a lot of work to do. It's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border." --referring to a border that does not exist, (ABC News interview, July 21, 2008).

"I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia." --referring to a country that hasn't existed for 15 years, Phoenix, Arizona, July 14, 2008

          So; not so good in economy related issues, a little weak in foreign policy, how about building consensus and "bringing us together", every candidates favorite mantra?

"F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room." --to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), during a testy exchange about immigration legislation

"Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." --at a 1998 Republican fundraiser

"I think I'd just commit suicide." --in October 2006, on the prospects of the Democrats taking back the Senate in the November election

 "No, I'm calling you a f*cking jerk." --to fellow Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, when Grassley asked "Are you calling me stupid?"

 "Only an a**hole would put together a budget like this ... I wouldn't call you an a**hole unless you really were an a**hole." --to Budget Committee Chairman and fellow Repulican Sen. Pete Domenici, during a Senate budget hearing

 "Don't touch me. Do you know who I am? Do you know who you're talking to?" –becoming enraged when a woman grabbed his arm during a game of craps at a Puerto Rico casino in 2005.

"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." -to his wife, Cindy, after she playfully twirled his hair and said "You're getting a little thin up there," as reported in the book The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter . Have you seen how much makeup Palin uses?. Careful John!  

Now here's a consensus builder who can bring all of us c*nts. a**holes and f*cking jerks together!

          So Republicans, with this track record, why are you still asking why you lost? There are good folks  out there, but apparently a Scott Brown isn't offensive , evangelical or misinformed enough to satisfy the far right true believers. With the viable candidates out there, this was the best you could do?  Pity, that.

American Mullah

New Rule #30: Congress shall enact a bill declaring that from now until his death, every word uttered by Pat Robertson is irrelevant, mean spirited and devoid of spiritual significance.


       Before I amplify on this, I swear that every word I write about Robertson is true and documented. Born a Senator's son, Marion (yes, that's right) Robertson led a fairly normal life, but it got a bit shaky when as he claims he went Korea and was decorated in combat three times. You see, former Republican Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Jr., who served with Robertson in Korea, wrote a public letter which said that Robertson was actually spared combat duty when his powerful father, a U.S. Senator, intervened on his behalf, and that Robertson spent most of his time in an office in Japan.

       According to McCloskey, his time in the service was not in combat but as the "liquor officer" responsible for keeping the officers' clubs supplied with liquor. Robertson filed a $35 million libel suit against McCloskey in 1986, dropped it in 1988, before it came to trial and Robertson paid all McCloskey's court costs. So we have established a pattern of lying early on. Although a grad of Yale Law (same school as "W", weird, huh?) Robertson soon saw the money to be made fleecing the flock via radio and TV as a Baptist minister. Out of deference to real Baptists, many of whom have distanced themselves from him, Robertson claims to have regular conversations with God and at least once predicted the "end of days", saying the Lord told him so . Relax, it was to start in 1982 and be over by 1989! Robertson is also an advocate of Christian dominionism — the idea that Christians have a right to rule.(The World!) In several published writings, especially his 1991 book The New World Order, Robertson has offered theories about a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, plagiarizing chapter and verse from well-known anti-Semitic works.


       Lest you think all religion and no job make Robertson like most Protestant ministers, a man of average means, be advised that his personal fortune is estimated between $200 million and $1 billion. How does he do it, you say? Much of his income comes from sales of commercial time and the fleecing of viewers from his 700 Club TV show. Much of it also comes (or came) from blood diamonds. What??? Blood Diamonds - Pat? Yep : Robertson had extensive business dealings with Liberian president (and genocidal maniac) Charles Taylor. Taylor gave Robertson the rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia's mineral-rich countryside. According to two Operation Blessing pilots who reported this incident to the state of Virginia for investigation in 1994, Robertson used his Operation Blessing planes to haul diamond-mining equipment to Robertson's mines in Liberia, despite the fact that Robertson was telling his 700 Club viewers that the planes were sending relief supplies to the victims of the genocide in Rwanda.


       When the United States Congress passed a bill In November 2003 that offered two million dollars for his (Taylor's) capture. Robertson accused President George W. Bush of "undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country." At that time Taylor was harboring Al Qaeda operatives who were funding their operations through the illegal diamond trade. On February 4, 2010, at his war crimes trial in the Hague, Taylor testified that Robertson was his main political ally in the U.S! It is not known if any Blood diamond money financed Robertson's other favorite murderers - The Nicaraguan Contras, but it is a matter of record that when Ronald Reagan and Oliver North needed a way around the Boland amendment, Robertson funds provided it.

       As if these talents weren't enough, Robertson has also demonstrated clairvoyance, control of the elements, insider knowledge of the mind of God and an incredible well of hatred and bile. It's fun for me to describe his pronouncements, but I think you need to hear it from the devil himself. ladies and gentlemen, the lad himself in quotes.

      On January 4, 2012, Robertson reported that God had spoken to him and "He showed me the next president" but wouldn't name who it is. He did give an indication that it wouldn't be President Obama since Robertson said God told him Obama's views were at "odds with the majority" Really? Quick question here Pat. Was God wrong, or are you just full of hubris and bullshit?

       "It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-biased media and the homosexuals who want to destroy all Christians." (don't tell my Christian gay friends)


       "Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court." (Robertson calling in a divine air strike on the USSC)

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


       "The ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this" in addition to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians [who have] helped [the terror attacks of September 11th] happen." (who could have guessed Al Qaeda even knew what the ACLU is?)


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


       Of course, we all know that if you are a man and your wife has Alzheimer's, it's ok to divorce her. ""I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but to make sure she has custodial care and somebody (is) looking after her." (what would be the advice if the genders were switched? Any bets?) Likewise, of course general Petraeus had an affair, he's a man, she's a girl, June, Moon, alone at the drive in. It's natural (for men).


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


       “I don’t think we condone wife-beating these days but something has got to be done,” he whined. After characterizing the wife as someone who “does not understand authority,” he “jokingly” recommended that the husband move to Saudi Arabia, so that he can legally batter her.


       This is Robertson's explanation for Haitiian poverty, hurricanes, dandruff, and flatulence.
"....something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh you know Napoleon the third (actually, Napoleon the third wasn't even born yet) and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said "We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French." True story. (and you know this how, Pat?) And so the Devil said, "OK, it's a deal." And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It's cut down the middle. On one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, (really? Ever been outside any resort there?) healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty.

       And now something that hasn't made the media. Years ago, when Robertson still was a preacher in the VA tidewater area, a young man, a foster child, was hospitalized after being badly beaten by his foster father and mother (for running away, imagine that.) The foster father had two cards to play; he was an ex Navy commander, and they were members of Robertson's church , quite a big deal at the time in the area. Robertson , as a character witness, pled with child services to overlook the violence and return the boy to the foster home. They did and within several months the child was dead, abused to death by Robertson's parishioners. I guess God wanted the kid dead, huh? A doctor friend of a very close friend once described Robertson as "The embodiment of evil." On a lighter note, I think it best to include one last quote from Pat Robertson, although I know when he said it he didn't mean it to be used like it is being used on his behalf these days.

"I have a zero tolerance for sanctimonious morons who try to scare people." - Pat Robertson.

Truer words have seldom been used against the speaker. I think the late Christopher Hitchens must have had a Robertson or Falwell (or Pence) in mind when he said, “We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid. Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.”

Get a Life, Really!

New rule #4: If you obsess about the romances and splits of Psuedo-Sellibrities (my new word, now hyphenated for your enjoyment) to the point of serious emotional investment and deterioration of your normal relationships, you must destroy your TV, burn your copies of  People Magazine and its ilk, and become a hermit until you recover.

          A number of years ago, when Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston were an "item" and then split, I had tenth grade students almost unable to function due to angst and grief over the situation. In fact, neither Ms. Anniston or Mr. Pitt gave a hoot in hell about their feelings or really cared if their breakup impacted some runny eyed snotty nosed teen . In keeping  with the old show biz axiom that any publicity is good publicity, they did allow plenty of coverage of what should have been a private matter.  A  brief perusal of the current checkout counter array of printed tripe will prove that such crap is, in fact,  king.  We already knew the National Enquirer was a scandal rag, but it was all sort of tongue in cheek. We really didn't believe the "Arkansans  on butt end of alien probe" stories or the "Boy locked in refrigerator gnaws off and eats own foot to survive" tales, but the new class of checkout line garbage seems to focus on relationships gone astray and  attempt to suck us into the mix.    We're bombarded with tripe such as "Jake Gyllenhall's new girl" (which is really only of interest if she is your girl, or you thought Jake was your guy),  "Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez split" (like you have a chance now?), or any of fifty or so headlines featuring the woes of Kristen  Stewart and Robert (powder) Pattinson. This fascination by so many with the social lives and relational woes of others may well be a deeper reflection of their own feelings of inadequacy, and is just a step or two below celebrity stalking.

          Try this, work on your own life and your own relationships, because, trust me, your life will; never, ever  be like those of Kim, Khloe, Kourtney, Lindsey, Miley,et al and that's not a bad thing. What  does this sellibrity addiction lead to?  Here's an actual twitter: "Kim Kardashian?? My idol! I just love her and support her no matter what! And i also adore her family(: They are just amazing people!" Here's another: "Together again! Robert Pattinson & Kristen Stewart pose together at the premiere of Breaking Dawn - Part 2" Really??  There are loads of adjectives I can think of right off the top that apply here; self obsessed, terminally spoiled, cruelly enabled, vapid, narcissistic all come to mind , but not "amazing", unless it's used in adjective form , such as "amazingly inconsequential."   Meryl Streep,  Condoleeza Rice, Yo Yo Ma, Eric Clapton,  are amazing people. The Kardashian Klan and the others  have no place in this arena.  Of course, I could be wrong, and maybe one of these sellibrities will go back to school and find  a cure for cancer or secure world peace. Upon further reflection, it's far more likely that, they'll enjoy their 15 minutes and  gradually morph into Suzanne Summers or  Debby Boone, shilling for thigh masters and facelifts.

New Rule #5

New Rule #5. You must stop using the phrase

"Attack on religion" when what you really mean is

that you hate the concept that  freedom "of"

religion also means freedom "from" religion.

          In today's local newspaper, Kathryn Lopez 

cites laudable deeds in the wake of Hurricane

Sandy and around the world by various religious

charities. The vast bulk of her examples are Catholic

charities, which I get, since she self identifies as a

mainstream Catholic. Then, after a general

comment to the effect that implies that only

Christians act this way, she lauds the solidarity

which Americans seem to generate in the wake of

natural disasters, implying that this is proof that we

need a closer melding of religion (she uses the word

"faith") and government. In a stunning leap of

irrelevance,  she then states that "Vice- presidential

candidate Rep. Paul Ryan once sought Dolan's

(Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of the Diocese

of New York) spiritual guidance on federal

policymaking when wrangling with the federal

budget." From here, she segues into "Faith is

indispensable. It's why the increasingly narrow  view

of religious freedom that the Obama

administration harbors is an issue of historic

import." This rant then returns to the same, tired

old objection to patients rights versus Church's

rights in the health care arena. In her photo, Ms.

Lopez looks to be a normal human, but there is

obviously some sort of rational logic filter implanted

somewhere.  Only one so doctrinaire in outlook that

reason is irrelevant could cling to this discredited

argument.         

          The idea that somehow I as a person of faith 

should be allowed to impose that faith and its

dogmatic beliefs on another is diametrically opposed

to the spirit of Mr. Madison's masterpiece (The

Constitution), Mr. Jefferson's Va. Statute of

religious toleration, and George Washington's letter

to the Hebrew congregation  of Newport, R.I.  These

documents clearly imply  that the individual is,

and should be,  protected by having the religious

views of other thrust or imposed upon them.  In

specifying that health care plans must pay for

certain things prescribed by physicians under that

plan, the Affordable health care Act does not even

hint that any individual  will be forced against their

will to avail themselves of  birth control methods,

abortion, or any medically indicated item which is a

matter of conscience. In the logic employed by those

who think otherwise, the employee may as well

state that any employee using such  devices or

medications is subject to dismissal  since, if not paid

by the employer's medical plan, they must purchase

these things themselves. No one would dream of

sustaining that argument!  In an America where at

least 85% of sexually active Roman Catholic

women acknowledge using some form of birth

control at some time,  there is clearly a point at

which this argument is , simply put, bullshit!  Either

the Church's point of view has become irrelevant to

the vast bulk of parishoners or  the complaint is far

more political that philosophical.   

          There are those in America today, some of

whom have recently run for elected high office,

who would be perfectly happy to see (their)

Christian dogma  thrust down the throat of the

nation. One has only to read Rick Santorum's

pronouncements on birth control and abortion, Paul

Ryan's stance on women's issues including equal

pay,  and everything Pat Robertson and Billy

Graham (in their lucid moments) spew forth from

their thrones to feel this hatred of things different.

These modern day Christian Mullahs would make

Jesus puke.  They rail at Islam, protest California

schools teaching yoga, call one of the Teletubbies

and Sponge Bob  gay (that was the late unlamented

Jerry Falwell of the Moral majority, which was

neither)  while suborning  second class status for

women and minorities.   Don't get me wrong, I think

Militant Islamists are an even greater  danger to the

world. Religious extremism in any form has within it

the seeds of loss of someone's freedom to think,

which is perhaps mankind's greatest gift.  I end with

the words of Christopher Hitchens, whose wit

and insight were lost to us by his too early death.  

"Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a

faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason,

because these are necessary rather than

sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that

contradicts science or outrages reason. We may

differ on many things, but what we respect is free

inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas

for their own sake."  Would that it were always so.