New Rule #23 - Saying it doesn't make it so.

      A letter to the editor in today's daily newspaper  just leapt off  the page at  me because it was another case of having a conclusion in mind and making all sorts of groundless statements in support of the predetermined thesis. We seem to get a lot of this these days, in all media, not just here in The Villages.  we hear that certain segments of the populace oppose HPV vaccinations for younger girls, because apparently it would "encourage pre-marital sex," (like it needs encouragement!)  One is left with the conclusion that some parents would rather see their daughters  ill, than take the chance. The same is ascribed to the "morning after" pill; which does not induce abortion, but "who knows what kids will do if it's available?"
          Today's leap of illogic was a letter that blames every ill of society (violence, murder, lawlessness) on the Supreme Court "removing God from our schools."  This is ridiculous for a host of reasons which I shall attempt to state sensibly.

          First, if "God"  is anywhere close to the standard model espoused by most mainstream Christian sects,  the Supreme Court would be hard pressed to "remove Him" from anyplace he chose to be. The two principal USSC decisions regarding religion and public schools, Engel v Vitale and Abingdon Township v Schempp,  related  to public prayer, and the general premise was that even if the majority of the students agree, it still has the effect of establishing religion to the minority who are in the classroom, assembly, etc. (see the "Lemon Test")  What would be the reaction in most districts if Suras from the Kuran were posted on classroom walls or selections from the Bhagavad Gita read in class? In California, there was parental unrest because in one public school, meditation was taught as a way to relieve stress. Even though meditation is not per se a religious exercise and was probably beneficial, due to ignorance  it was out. If parents wish to have their children bring God to school, then let them do so. If they would have their children pray, then let them do so. Public ostentatious prayer  (the kind radical evangelicals. et al. want in schools ) is exactly what Jesus inveighed against when he chastised the Pharisees for their religiosity, as opposed to their religion.

          Second, blaming lack of school prayer for societal ills reflects a  monumental ignorance regarding History, Sociology, and Technology. Let's begin with history. Mass murder isn't new, and as horrific as recent events of the past year seem, none of these were products of the school. Loughner, Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, all were emotionally disturbed adults. Adam Lanza was not a student in any school, but like the rest was emotionally disturbed. But, the writer says , all this is a new high in violence. Really?  On July 26, 1764, a teacher and 10 students were shot dead by four Lenape American Indians in Greencastle, Penn., in what is considered the earliest known U.S. mass school shooting .

          Herman Webster Mudgett,  alias  Dr. Henry Howard Holmes, was one of the first documented American serial killers in the modern sense of the term. In Chicago at the time of the 1893 World's Fair, Holmes opened a hotel which he had designed and built for himself specifically with murder in mind, and which was the location of many of his murders. While he confessed to 27 murders,  his actual body count was probably over  200. As  a  child his mother,  a devout Methodist, read the Bible to him every day, and I am sure prayer and Bible reading were a part of every school day as well.  You can learn more about the good doctor in "The Devil in The White City." Howard Barton Unruh  was another  American mass murderer who killed 13 people (including three children) on September 6, 1949, in Camden, New Jersey. The schools still had prayers and Bible reading then, too.  Charles Starkweather was an American teenager  who murdered eleven people, all but one during a two-month road trip with his 14-year-old girlfriend, Caril Ann Fugate, in Nebraska and Wyoming. Prayer and Bible reading were still in schools then, too.

          Ok, so why so much more in the news these days? You just answered it - The News. Few outside of Chicago  ever heard of Dr, Holmes, but imagine if he committed the same crimes today! First, Forensics would probably have caught him much sooner, and TV and Internet sources would alert  the entire nation in 5 minutes.  We hear more, we see more and in is almost impossible not to be exposed to it. Evil has always been around, and emotionally ill persons have always done heinous things, but what was local or regional is now international. The Norwegian Police arrested Anders Behring Breivik, a then 32-year-old Norwegian right-wing extremist, in late July, 2011 ] and charged him with the shooting deaths of 69 youths. Breivik admitted to having carried out the actions he was accused of and claimed the defence of necessity (jus necessitatis) He described himself as a "Cultural Christian." Americans followed this story from the onset. 

          In many ways this is the same pattern as child abuse, in that there is now no doubt that child abuse in the past was a well established pattern in entire families and cultures, but few spoke of it because of social pressures. Has child abuse increased due to "removing God from schools?" - assuredly not, since teachers and other adults are more vigilant than in the past. Do we hear of "more" child abuse? Probably,  due to media, but the actual incidence is down markedly. Today sex offenders are prosecuted and identified, not so 40 years ago, they lived and predated in the same neighborhoods for decades.

          So, if the theory holds that a secular society is far worse than a religious one, there should be plenty of historical and present day examples to prove it, no? NO! Let's start from an historical perspective. A prime example of a religious society  is 10th and 11th century Western Europe. Religion was the focus of life throughout the region. What did this produce? 200,000 deaths in the Crusades, a conservative estimate, to be sure, but no need to inflate numbers. The Spanish Inquisition killed close to 5,000 individuals.  Their crimes? being  Jews or Muslims. Of course during the period all learning was firmly in the hands of the Church. Once the Spanish rediscovered the "new" World, they showed the same compassion for the Indians that they showed Jews at home. Spanish commanders read a document known as the Requerimiento  to native  American populations, in Spanish of course, which required them to convert and acknowledge the Pope as supreme, and Ferdinand and Isabella and their heirs as their sovereigns. This was sometimes read aboard ship, as a formality and of course no Indian heard it. If Indians were foolish enough to believe that their own customs traditions and religions were fine the results are described here "But, if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us."  (And our God Loves You!!) Nice, huh?  But, you say that was long ago, we Americans aren't like that! Wanna bet?

          Setting out from Fort Lyon, Colonel John Chivington  (a Methodist preacher and  freemason ) and his 700 troops of the First Colorado Cavalry, Third Colorado Cavalry and a company of First New Mexico Volunteers marched to Black Kettle's campsite along the Washita River. Black Kettle was a southern Cheyenne Chief who flew an American flag over his tent and was abiding by reservation boundaries, while some younger  males had infrequently raided neighboring white ranches  taking cattle for food.  The night of November 28, soldiers and militia drank heavily and celebrated their anticipated victory.  On the morning of November 29, 1864, Chivington ordered his troops to attack, sparing no one. Two officers,  refused to follow Chivington's order and told their men to hold fire. Other soldiers in Chivington's force, however, immediately attacked the village. Disregarding the American flag, and a white flag that was run up shortly after the soldiers commenced firing, Chivington's soldiers massacred many of its inhabitants. An eyewitness description says it all: "I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces ... With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from sucking infants up to warriors ... By whom were they mutilated? By the United States troops.".  Yes,  under the command of a Christian minister!

          Here's an excerpt from an "Oath of Allegiance":  "I swear that I will most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve by any and all justifiable means and methods the sacred constitutional rights and privileges of free public schools, free speech, free press, separation of church and state, liberty, white supremacy, just laws and the pursuit of happiness"  This was an oath administered by several KKK branches in the 20th century in America, of course, their "Christian" (Protestant, of course) ethic did not support any of these lofty ideals for Jews, Roman Catholics, or persons of color.  Again,  the Bible and prayer were still firmly ensconce nationwide. It is estimated that these fine Christian folk, all charged up with their daily dose of the scripture and prayer, lynched  3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites in the name of God and country.  These numbers do not include more recent murders, maiming,  and beatings of blacks and whites during the Civil right movement. Where were southern Christians? (I mean , they had Bible reading and prayer in schools everyday) Well, in Birmingham, Alabama, they  probably attended  churches pastored by  the white ministers who chastised and chided Dr. King for "stirring up trouble."  

          In conclusion, it makes little sense to tie violence on today's society with advocating Christianity in schools, since Christians and/or followers of the Christian faith have so frequently been the cause of such violence.  If one actually wishes to live in a country where one religion  dominates daily life and prayer is mandatory in schools and students pray  every day, here's an idea. Move to Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. If Islam ain't your thing, move to India, where the wrong move by a woman can get her gang raped and the rapists get a pass. If that won't work, go to Ireland, but don't get pregnant and have septic complications, because the vestiges of Roman Catholic fundamentalism still exist in their arcane approach to abortion for any cause. Move to El Salvador, whose laws on abortion are worse than Ireland. Most of  the most brutal regimes in the world have been those established and governed by religious fundamentalism. Most of the really hideous atrocities of war have their roots in religion, and the list is long. Muslim/Hindu, Muslim/Christian, Christian Germany/European Jews, Serb/Bosnian ( Orthodox/Muslim) , Turks/Armenians, England/Ireland, which just skims the surface.

          Blaming today's violence for the lack of school prayer shows a total lack of common sense  and critical thinking skills. There is no statistical linkage, and upon inspection it becomes obvious that the discontent really is the offence taken by those who have the supreme arrogance of the true believer, i.e. "I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong." I'm a believer in the John Lennon school of philosophy: "Whatever gets you through the Night" but I place the accent on the "You." If it works for you, I'm happy for you, but don't ritually slaughter  my chickens a la Santeria or make me or mine mindlessly recite your rote memorized prayer in school.

New rule #22 - truth in advertising

New Rule # 22:   If you're going to sell a product, there are two criteria. First, it must really do what you  say it will do, and second, It can't be repackaged common sense stuff which you magically brand as "new and different".

          Have you ever noticed that all the ads that start with "What ____ (insert profession) don't want you to know" are usually for some off the wall weird shit like "homeopathic Crystal aroma therapy bunion powder" or something equally strange. One of the more ridiculous ones recently is the "What the power companies and Obama don't want you to know" advertisement for a set of DVDs entitled "Power for Patriots,"  since apparently only patriots need electrical power.  The purveyor's advertisement begins with a tirade which generally states that everyone in government, but especially the President (why not? He's been blamed for everything else?) is part of a massive plot to raise your electricity bill and have you become a slave to the electric companies who, according to this guy can raise your rates at will (totally false, that's why there are Public Utilities Commissions to regulate them) and enslave you. But, if you buy his DVDs, you will be empowered to independently power your home and be free of the utilities.  You get this far, and are expecting at the very least, a home cold fusion breakthrough or something equally exciting, like the Delorian's "Mister Fusion" power supply from Back to the Future. Actuality is somewhat more prosaic. The DVDs are simply recycled information readily available on the internet, with "how tos" on U-tube for making solar panels, wind turbines and solar water heaters. Patriots can save all the money they were going to spend on the DVDs and buy an assault rifle before the supply dries up, lol.

          Another serious fraud is that perpetrated by author Kevin  Trudeau in the ultimate collection entitled "Natural Cures, what 'They' Don't Want You to Know"  (damn them!) Here, then are ol' Kevin's "can't miss" weight loss secrets (which apparently, the medical profession doesn't want you to know) 
Drink a glass of water immediately upon arising from bed.

Eat a big breakfast, Drink 8 full glasses of pure water a day,
Walk for at least one hour, non-stop, per day, Do not eat after 6 pm.
Do a candida cleanse ( not sure, but I don't think that's an "eating thing")
Do a colon cleanse (I am sure this isn't),
Consume 100% organic, virgin, unrefined coconut oil. (off the scale in saturated fat!)
Use infrared saunas (vice real ones, with steam and stuff?).
Absolutely no aspartame or artificial sweeteners, Absolutely no MSG.
Take digestive enzymes,  Absolutely no diet sodas or diet food.
No fast food, No high fructose corn syrup, Fast.
Eliminate the urge to eat when not hungry, Allow yourself to "cheat" by having a food craving once a day.

Absolutely every one of these "miracle " discoveries has been recommended by doctors for decades, with the exception of the Coconut Oil, Candida cleanse and colon cleanse, and they are of doubtful benefit. Kevin's opus is replete with other info of dubious benefit.

          Even more egregious are the various products that are guaranteed to remove "toxins" from your body via soles of the feet (Japanese foot pads),  through the skin (the "Aqua Detox" machine") or more familiarly, via the open end of your digestive tract (too many "purge/detox" ads to specify) The "skin detox pad " products all share one common trait; they  all contain in various quantities, crystallized wood vinegar, a massively hygroscopic salt that absorbs water through the soles of the feet (or wherever else you stick them) and in doing so turn a dark brown which is,  coincidentally, what their purveyors claim are the "toxins" leaching from your pores. Another scam is the "detox foot bath" which gasses off the "bodily chlorine you've been accumulating all these years." This little gem is simply a battery powered electrolysis salt water bath. The chlorine "gassing off your body" is the result of NaCl (the salt in the water) being broken by the weak electrical current into its constituent atoms, while the faint brown "toxin residue" in the water is the result of oxidation of the electrodes.  If you had toxins, they would  likely  either be creatinine or urea, two compounds resulting from natural bodily metabolic processes. The good news is that you don't need to send for the detox kit, just use your kidneys.  

          Another super scam is "brain training", all the rage these days . "Brain Gym" is a popular package for kids. (we all want smart kids, don't we?)  Most of  Brain Gym is a string of complicated (and copyrighted!)  exercises for kids that “enhance the experience of whole brain learning.” Water, apparently is a prime brain food.  “Drink a glass of water before Brain Gym activities,”  “As it is a major component of blood, water is vital for transporting oxygen to the brain.” Heaven forbid that your blood should dry out. This water should be held in your mouth, they say, because then it can be absorbed directly from there into your brain. Is there anything else you can do to get blood and oxygen to your brain more efficiently? Yes, you can do "Brain buttons": “Make a ‘C’ shape with your thumb and forefinger and place on either side of the breastbone just below the collarbone. Gently rub for twenty or thirty seconds whilst placing your other hand over your navel. Change hands and repeat. This exercise stimulates the flow of oxygen carrying blood through the carotid arteries to the brain to awaken it and increase concentration and relaxation.” Why? “Brain buttons lie directly over and stimulate the carotid arteries.”  No, they don't.  If your carotid arteries can be  massaged  through your breastbone you are either dead, or an alien lifeform, and probably already smart enough to get by here on Earth. This, from a medical standpoint is not even good fertilizer, let alone good science. Over 400 schools in the USA and UK advertise on their websites that they do Brain Gym. And they're the smart ones?

          FAT BURNERS! We've all seen these ads. what we should read is the small print disclaimer below them, that points out that all these claims are unsubstantiated. The secret, apparently is a :  take these (expensive)  substances, whatever they are,   b: eat less and more sensibly (free),  and c: exercise more (also free).  I submit that part a is superfluous. The small print also says that the miraculous results for the babe in the ad are atypical and are part of a sound plan of nutrition and exercise. Well, duh! Perhaps the only bigger weight loss scam is letting someone prepare good tasting healthy meals, dehydrating and/or freeze drying them and mailing them to you at an exorbitant price because you're just too dumb to cook and eat healthy. Not talking Weight Watchers  here, which, like most twelve step programs, works because of mutual support. The one I have in mind rhymes with Jenny Craig and is synonymous with gullible.

          A final favorite is the string of "secrets" they don't want you to know about cosmetics. Usually these show a pretty woman in her twenties and under the pic there is some sort of statement that a 55 year old woman has discovered this miracle wrinkle cream. It never says it's the girl in the picture. It isn't but you are supposed to believe that it is. Like the "miracle cure for Diabetes (lose weight, much type II vanishes with significant weight loss and sane dietary habits), none of this is new or in many cases effective, but we are a gullible people when promised an easy way to accomplish difficult tasks.

          So put on your copper bracelets beside your magnetic bracelets with the crystals on them, torch up some aromatherapy candles and  adjust your color lamp to your favorite shade of energizing  greenish-blue. Whip  up an  Acai berry and Coconut oil smoothie  with Goji  berries and alfalfa sprouts  and feel good about yourself, because your gullibility is supporting a lot of quacks, scammers and charlatans.

Shakespeare on golf

New Rule #21     Even though we tend see golf as we know it as being a game of the last three or four centuries, I propose (with tongue firmly in cheek) that even though the first Open Championship was played in 1860 at Prestwick, Ayreshire, Scotland,  William Shakespeare must have been familiar with the game and that many of our modern terms and golf idioms are, in fact, derived from the immortal bard.

Upon being suckered into the life-long addiction that is golf, one soon learns that there are numerous idiomatic terms, some unique to the sport and some adapted but with other than standard meanings.  Upon studying the complete works of Shakespeare as I have, because as previously noted I have that kind of time, these terms show up in sometimes eerily similar context to their golf meanings. This leads me to the conclusion that William Shakespeare was really a time traveler who on a foray into the future  ( a la Dr. Who and Arthur Dent, other well known Brit temporal navigators) discovered the game and cleverly began inserting golf references into his works. There are but a few examples of this linguistic jiggery-pokery in the sonnets, but as one looks through the plays (especially, appropriately enough, the tragedies) many  more become evident. To make this thesis easier for the non-golfing reader to comprehend, I have broken the examples  into general areas of applicability.

          Scoring is the object of the game, the fewer strokes, the better; examples of both good and bad scoring  references follow, for the sake of brevity (yeah, I know, too late) I won't cite the play, just trust me they're all Shakespeare:

 "What, one good in ten?"   "When I break twenty? I am perjured most"

"I will be even with thee, doubt it not"  "Have you scored me? Well?"

"Upon the stroke of four."      "A wager they have met."

" 'Tis fond to wail inevitable strokes"   "Who devised this penalty?"

"Let's see the penalty"  "He shall have nothing but the penalty."

"To fright them hence with that dread penalty"

          Contributor factors  to all this angst about scoring include equipment and weather, but usually derive primarily from the practitioner striking the ball is such manner as to place it somewhere inappropriate.

Sand Traps, waste bunkers, etc:

"Give up yourself merely to chance and hazard"  "To the extreme edge of hazard."

"Under an oak whose antique root peeps out" "Sometime diverted their poor balls"
"Even as men wrecked upon a sand"  "Here in the sands Thee I'll rake up"
"Huge rocks, high winds, shelves and sands"

"Hazard so near us as doth hourly grow"

"my ancient skill beguiles me; but, in the  boldness of my cunning, I will lay myself in hazard"

 "Drives him beyond the bounds"  "And drive towards Dover, friend"

"Where lies he?"   "Yonder they lie"   "For this relief much thanks"

Water hazards:

"Nor what I have done by water"   "Too much of water hast thou"

"Smooth runs the water where the brook is deep"  "Trust not those cunning waters"

"The other down, unseen and full of water"  "Well, I am standing water"

"here is a water, look ye"   "'tis with him in standing water"

"One of the prettiest touches of all and that which angled for mine eyes, caught the water"

"Here lies the water; good. Here stands the man; good"

The Object(s) of the game:

"In warlike march these greens"  "Thou art not firm enough, since griefs are green"

"And I serve the fairy queen, To dew her orbs upon the green"

"Making no summer of another's green"  " How lush the grass looks! how green"
"Summon'd me hither, to this short-grass'd green"

" For the great swing and rudeness of his poise"   "This way, my lord; for this way lies the game."

"Come, bird, come"   "O, well flown, bird"

"This bird you aim'd at, though you hit her not; Therefore a health to all that shot and miss'd."

"Thou with an eagle art inspired"  "Save the eagle"

General Golfer comments and excuses:

"I have myself resolved upon a course"   "mine honour was not yielded"

"And with those hands, that grasp'd the heaviest club, Subdue my worthiest self"

"Some Cupid kills with arrows, some with traps"   "I'll call for clubs, if you will not away"

"True is it that we have seen better days"  "My gracious lord, here is the bag"

"My arm is sore; best play with Mardian."

"Go get thee gone; fetch me an iron"  "I will dry-beat you with an iron"

"If our betters play at that game, we must not dare  to imitate them"

"Give me the iron"

Great truths:

"Good words are better than bad strokes"

"Fathers that wear rags  Do make their children blind;

But fathers that bear bags Shall see their children kind"

                                I rest my case!

Time to quit

      In a column in the Villages Daily Sun of January 24, Phyllis Schlafly makes myriad assertions without substantiation regarding early voting in national elections. Most, reading between the lines, seem to center far more on her concerns about just who benefits from early voting. She is also adamantly opposed to absentee balloting. As so many on the lunatic Far Right fringe do, she throws up the bloody shirt of "voting fraud", and in a leap of illogic, attributes it to early and absentee voting. During the Bush administration, the Justice Department conducted a 5 year study and found zero prosecutable cases of federal election fraud related to illegal voting! In point of fact Ms. Schafley's sole example of an actual instance in justification of her rant is a case of fraud in an Arkansas State legislature (not Federal) election! 
     
      As a serviceman, I sometimes voted absentee because I was deployed; as a public school teacher and Registered Nurse, we usually voted early because there was generally one day we could get away early and do it, instead of just one day when we had to do it. In truth, early voting enfranchises those who, unlike Ms. Schlafly, have to work every day to feed their families. In typical Schlafly style, she cites statistics from one state (Ohio) in which election turnout (2012) was a bit lower than the previous election (2008). Looking at the lines on election day nationwide it seems obvious that not only was Ohio an anomaly, but that her candidate for Anti-Christ (you know him as President Barack Obama) won the state both times, which is her real problem. In an even more desperate attempt to make her point, she cites the example of a "videographer" noting a Virginia Democratic (of course) Congressman showing a reporter how it was possible to fake a utility bill on the internet to bypass Va. voter ID laws. She neglects to point that this was Congressman Jim Moran commenting on what he thought needed to be more stringent requirements.

     So who is Phyllis Schlafly? She is a political activist who, for over 60 years of her life has been afforded the luxury of telling women they should not want what she has! A married mother, she lobbied against the Equal Rights Amendment. She has lost every election in which she has been a candidate. Although vocal about stay at home moms and opposed to many laws protecting women, she has been an attorney and public figure for more than half a century, including her childbearing years.

         

     What does she believe ? "By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape." Women's lives are better today primarily because of "clothes dryers and paper diapers" She supported "impeachment of Justice Anthony Kennedy, citing as grounds his deciding vote to abolish the death penalty for minors. Apparently in Schlafly World killing kids is ok, but only after they're born. She also adamantly opposes marriage equality. I wonder how her openly gay son feels about that? 

     Phyllis Schlafly, much like Pat (Voldemort) Robertson is an embarrassing anachronism who should just go gently into that goodnight.

Consistently Inconsistent!

New rule # 20

If you're going to be an extremist in your insistence that the Second Amendment means what you say it means and that you are guaranteed the right to have and hold all the ordnance you could ever want, then you must be equally rabid in support of  all the Amendments, especially the First one.

          The Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution of the United States, but was added at the insistence of several southern states as an inducement for ratifying the original document. There are ample resources available to any literate person to learn the background and etiology of this group of amendments. There were originally twelve , but only ten were ratified expeditiously (by 1790). One was ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment, which limits Congress' ability to increase their own salaries until after an election has occurred (yes, 202 years later!).   The remaining proposed amendment of the twelve  is still technically before the states for consideration, but deals with the size of the US House and would, if it were adopted  have allowed for up to 6,000 representatives (with current US population)!  If you think 435 is a pain in the ass, reflect on the possibilities.

          Nowhere is there specified that any of these 10 rights of the people is more important than any other. Additionally, there are some, but not many, qualifiers in the language which might be interpreted as ambiguous. The Second Amendment has such language .  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  There has been significant debate over the years as o the intent of the "well regulated militia" qualifier. It is not my intent to debate it here, but to point out that the lunatic fringe represented by the National Rifle Association and their ilk, interpret it as an absolute guarantee, not subject to debate, and some,  even some Tea Party Congressmen, have suggested the impeachment of the President for conducting a public dialogue or even discussing what it might mean and what may be done vis a vis gun violence.

          What is troubling about this is that the selfsame Second Amendment absolutists are chief among the unwashed and the ignorant who excoriate the ACLU for insisting that the First Amendment, which has NO qualifying language, by the way, should be enforced to the letter. They are the imbeciles of ideological inconsistency (sorry, channeled William Safire  for a sec.) who sign petitions urging the deportation of Piers Morgan for stating his point of view on television, while supporting the Westboro "Baptists," in spirit at least, in their hate filled rants.  The gun nuts are the "prayer in school" shouters, they are the same crowd of misanthropic maniacal morons who, two generations ago, placed road signs urging us to "Impeach Earl Warren" because they disliked federal enforcement of other amendments, especially the 14th.  They are the same clique of twits who screamed that Miranda (Fifth and Sixth) was just a scumbag, so the Amendments didn't really apply to him.  They made up the lynch mobs during the Jim Crow era who decided that none of those amendments/rights  applied to persons of color. Most amazingly, they are the  far rightists who still get misty eyed at the mention of Ronald Reagan, even though as ex-President, Reagan pushed for and very vocally supported the 1994  assault weapons ban.

          In like manner, the hard line artillerists scream about many USSC decisions based on the Bill of Rights and its application, as being too liberal.....except of course for the Second Amendment which, in their eyes is an inviolable absolute which would allow them to have and hold the weapons which from 1870 until 1960 they used to withold rights guaranteed under the other seven personal liberty   Amendments to the darker skinned portion of American society.   

          Let me state my thesis once again in plain speak. If you want to insist on strict, to the letter enforcement of the Second Amendment, then be just as adamant in your support of the other seven personal rights Amendments or shut the F**k up!  

Stupidity reigns Supreme

The below rant occurred when I reached my breaking point perusing the list of simply inane and uninformed comments under one of those really dumb Facebook "poll" questions. The subject was whether or not The President should push for gun control legislation.

I was gonna let this go tonight , but there is so much ignorance and rampant stupidity on display here that it screams for a sane comment.

       First, those who shout "impeachment" (a Florida congressman [Tea Party] first name Trey, one of those real good ol' boy names we get a lot of down here) don't have the faintest idea what it means, what would constitute an impeachable offense, and even more, that the president has done nothing, zip, nada, relative to guns in 4 years in office. (By the way good luck with the trial part of the impeachment process, since there's a Democratic majority in the Senate and it takes 2/3 to convict) So if you're one of that crowd, check your hoods and sheets at the door and for once in your miserable bigoted life, own your bias and prejudice.

     Second. Did you scream for California to impeach Ronald Reagan when he signed the first assault weapons ban law in America? Of course you didn't because he was "your kind of guy." 

        Third anyone who makes the incredible statement that a semi automatic weapon and a musket are essentially the same since each only fires one bullet each time you pull the trigger  is simply an idiot. (Jared Manier). To prove it, Jared. let's go to the woods, you shoot at me from a hundred yards with your smoothbore musket, and then I get to empty my hundred round banana clip at you. Good luck; we'll have a drink in your memory.

      Finally the USSC decision that overturned state gun laws was 5-4 split and the five were Bush/Reagan reactionaries. And, by the way, it's extraordinary that simply discussing banning certain types of weapons gets screams of "Impeach" from some quarters. The one thing for certain is that banning assault weapons will not result in anyone's death. Period. Those same persons probably thought "W" was just fine when he essentially violated the Constitution by going to war and invading Iraq with zero proof or reason for doing so. Right after we prosecute Bush for murder (over 4,000 US citizens in Iraq and untold Iraqi women and children) then let's talk guns. Many of these posts prove that Mark Twain was correct when he wrote,"It's better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

Sorry, my ass!

New rule # 19: An intentional  sustained pattern of  bad behavior simply cannot in any sane context be rationalized as simply being "a mistake."

          Recently we have been inundated with celebrities, "sellebrities" and regular folks all engaging in the great American pastime of rationalizing bad actions as if  they were failed attempts to actually do the right thing that just sort of misfired. The most recent, Lance Armstrong has looked right into the camera numerous times and lied directly to Americans, many of whom have idolized him, and sworn that he has never used performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). When the overwhelming number of his teammates confess and implicate him as an instigator and heavy doper, he finally makes a media event of announcing his "mistake." Mistake my ass, tripping and falling, misdialing, deciding in haste to take a chance and failing, all are mistakes. Lance Armstrong's transgressions constitute a prolonged pattern of deceit and covering for his and others illegal actions.               Now, however we are to forgive him, because, 1: he admitted his scumbaggery,  2: everyone else did it too, and  3: so he can compete again.....really?

          In like fashion, sometimes it's not PEDs but "IEDs" (image enhancing drugs) we are victimized by. Case in point: Manti Te'o. all throughout the football season and Heisman hype we were  told of the young  Samoan Notre Dame star linebacker who wrote to a little girl with leukemia because it reminded him of his own girlfriend who had died of cancer. He even told a sportswriter he cried while writing , because of the emotional similarity to his own situation.  One problem, there is no girlfriend, with or without cancer, and  fortunately, no use bullshitting the Heisman voters either.  At least Te'o can write, because after seeing the Alabama  game there is some question as to whether he can tackle.

          It isn't just athletes either. Remember Janet Cooke? Of course you don't, but in  1981, she impressed the Pulitzer Prize selection committee enough to win the Pulitzer for feature news writing with her story: "Jimmy's World."  The touching and riveting story of an eight year old heroin addict had one flaw, however, and it was a big one. Jimmy and his story were fiction. Never existed, never happened. What did happen is the $1.5 million dollars she got for the story rights. Liar, liar, pants etc.....!  And then, of course, there's Bernie Maddoff, and the human wreckage he left behind.

          Athletes, however do seem to be more susceptible to the temptation to cheat in ways which seem almost unfathomable: Rosie Ruiz, entering  the 1980 Boston  York marathon but only running  about the last half mile of it and claiming a new record pace for women.  Danny Almonte - the 14 year old Puerto Rican pitcher with the twelve year old birth certificate and the 72 mph fastball (over Little League distance, like a 95 mph fastball in the majors!) throwing the only perfect game in LLWS history.  And of course no list of dirty jocks would be complete without the last group of Hall of Fame rejects - Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa.

           Ok, so we all know about these people, why bring it up again? Well, because when people in the news, and adults whom many admire cheat it seems to impressionable kids to semi-legitimize it; and believe me, youngsters don't need any more incentive to cheat, let alone examples of it. The common thread here, however is not just the dishonesty involved, but the response that includes the word "mistake."  A mistake is when you attempted to do the right thing and it didn't work out. Cheating is when you had no intention of doing the right thing in the first place. It involves giving away something  with which you were born  and which one can never loose involuntarily, but which many give away  with little thought - one's personal integrity. Personal integrity can be defined as "What you do when no one's watching." Far too often these  days there seem to be no limits.  

          So remember, when you see Lance Armstrong finally admitting his transgressions and  seeming to be sincere and believable about his remorse and repentance, just remember how sincere he seemed through all the years he was looking right into the camera and denying the very deeds he is now confessing, not once or twice, but numerous times, and seeming just as believable. You see, All Mr Armstrong is really sorry for is the part where he got caught! 

Letters to the editor

Sirs,

  Apparently, some of our citizens still believe that if you click your heels together three times and wish, it will become reality. In a letter to the editor printed Thursday, January 17, a  Ms. Farrell  states  categorically that violence  (I assume  she means violent crime)  is higher in America than 40 years ago and then blames it on Roe V. Wade.  In truth, she is diametrically incorrect!  Current headlines notwithstanding and regardless of  one's personal opinion regarding  Roe v. Wade, violent crime in the United States was significantly lower in 2012 than in 1972, so were gun related deaths,  gun ownership and rape. Interestingly enough, death due to sepsis following botched amateur abortions is also down. This is also true in Canada, where abortion is legal and regulated as a health care issue, not a government matter. The book "Freakonomics" offers some interesting  (and controversial) statistical analysis of why this may be  so.  This person has a moral opposition to abortion, as many of us do, but attempting to blame  abortion for violence, when the reverse is true, is a huge leap of illogic. One might as well blame an increase in  traffic fatalities on poor dental hygiene. This is simply yet another case of deciding your point of view and then reverse engineering  "facts" in support, just like in the recent political campaign. Enough, already!

Feet of Clay

 

          In Tuesday's column in the Daily Sun, Oliver North  blasts the Obama  administration, referring to the coming year as a "year of cover ups" ( the Bengazi disaster, the  "Fast and Furious"  operation, with a preemptive  swipe at Hilary Clinton and John Kerry.)  One thing certain  is that Olive North would know about  cover ups, having been a principal inceptor of one of the most significant cover ups of the twentieth century.  

          While serving  as a Marine,  having taken the oath many of us took, which includes the words "support and defend the Constitution... etc,"   In November 1986, North was  summoned  to testify before  a  Congressional  committee  investigating  Iran–Contra.  During those hearings, North  admitted that he had lied to Congress and conspired to violated the Boland amendment, for which, among other crimes, he was  charged. He defended his actions, stating that the Contras (who butchered  nuns, priests and other innocents) were  "freedom fighters, and characterized  the blatantly illegal  Iran–Contra scheme as a "neat idea,"  admitting  shredding government documents related to his Contra and Iranian activities and  altering  official records to delete references to  assistance to the Contras.  

          So Why attack John Kerry?  I can think of three  reasons. First, John Kerry had the nerve as a young naval officer seeing  through the fog of war in Vietnam to resign and  come back to protest it. He's not the only man to honorably serve during that period who rejected that particular action. I and many of my fellow submariners were of like mind. Second, he's the presumptive next Secretary of State, and North will back stab him before he even is sworn in, because that's how North works. Third, and maybe most significant in North's paranoid mind, is that in 1986 the John Kerry/ Christopher Dodd  subcommittee  discovered that North and others had  created a  Contra network that attracted drug traffickers looking to cover  their operations, then turned a blind eye to repeated reports of drug smuggling related to the Contras,  actively working with known drug lords such as Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega to assist the Contras. Cleaning up North's mess involved illegally entering Panama and seizing Noriega. Instead of  a  Court Martial  (richly deserved)  North was allowed to  retire with full benefits. Makes you wonder  who was covering who,  doesn't it? Actually it doesn't make you wonder. North was taking the bullet (so to speak - being allowed to retire with full benefits and pension after a felony is not much of a bullet) to stop further investigation of  Reagan, Bush, Weinberger, and the rest of the "unindicted co-conspirators" as Nixon had been referred to. 

          Oliver North  is an  admitted felon who broke his oath, violated federal law and abetted drug dealers!  Any claim of moral high ground  is ludicrous, just  another example of the vicious partisan sniping which is his stock in trade. Oliver North is the Donald Trump of journalism with slightly better hair. Enough, already, please.

                                 Mike Dorman

                                  Poinciana

Who are the heroes?

The Villages Daily Sun ran a page and a half with photos of fat old guys in vintage ca 1840s army uniforms commemorating the fallen "heros" of the Dade "massacre" in the Second Seminole war. It implied that the brave patriots were ambushed by the savages, and it pissed me off. My letter to the editor follows:

Sirs,
The article in Sunday's Daily Sun honoring the American fallen at Dade battlefiel...d site, seems to infer that the blameless American soldiers were, without cause, brutally ambushed by those dastardly Seminoles.
      Spain, who had made relatively minor interference with native lands, ceded Florida to the US in 1819, and white greed for Indian lands in the southeast rose to a fever pitch.. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized relocation, "by force if necessary" of all Indians east of the Mississippi (principally those five "civilized" tribes with large traditional tribal lands) to Oklahoma. In 1832, Andrew Jackson essentially ignored a USSC decision (Worcester vs Georgia) regarding Indian rights, and the forced exodus began in earnest. Some Seminoles actually had the nerve to object. The Army's purpose, then was to find, round up and forcibly relocate them.
      Major Dade knew the Seminole Indians were shadowing his men, but believed that if an attack were to occur, it would occur during one of the river crossings or in the thicker woods to the south. Like Custer in 1876, his hubris was to be his downfall. Having passed the denser woods and in order that the command could move faster, Dade recalled his flanking scouts. The "ambush" as whites call it, was an attack carefully planned by Chief Micanopy, whose first shot killed Major Dade. Two years later, Osceola, deceitfully captured under a flag of truce , died at Fort Marion. There would be another 4 years of fighting. After a third Seminole War ended in 1858 about 200 Seminole survived in the far south of Florida.
       Truth told, American forces in 1836 Florida were in about the same situation as German soldiers in 1939, rounding up Czech Jews for deportation. The heroes here were the Seminole, fighting for their homes.