New Rule #26

New Rule #26: If you forward e-mails out of political sympathy with the orientation of the sender, at least read them to be sure what you're endorsing!

I responded to an e-mail from a dear friend which was a video of a woman stridently questioning "who's gonna pay for my fifteen kids?"

below the link was this message:

" I  will be interested to hear how many more children you think the taxpayer should support. You always offer clever and innovative ideas. Looking forward to your observations"

My first response: Their fathers need to pay for their fifteen kids and she needs a hysterectomy!

My follow on a couple of minutes later:         Something else occurred to me after my original response, and that is: Why now? This shitty situation has existed for the last 50 years at least. Why not post this during the Reagan administration? There were at least as many shiftless baby makers like the one shown then too. Again, the statement "This is what our country is coming to" is really this person's (the original sender, not my friend) not even close to subtle attempt to blame this, too, on the current resident of the White House. He, as I recall has two children, neither of whom, I will guess, are receiving public assistance of any kind. Unless he fathered this woman's kids, he's blameless.

          There has been no significant change to welfare laws during the Obama administration  and I must have  missed the Public Service Announcement where he urged all single women to get pregnant on his dime. So what was the purpose of this "post."   Another racist trying to hide his sheet?  Blaming the President for this woman and her situation makes about as much sense as blaming me for the Orlando Magic having a bad season.  This isn't even subtle, and it isn't rocket science to see through the intent, so why forward and perpetuate this trash?

original sender's response:   I see your point and it's probably been more than 50 years. Actually, I really hadn't connected this to this WH. But, this administration wants to give away money it doesn't have. If there are no consequence for this behavior what's going to ever changing it?

My final response: Again, this administration "wants to give away money it doesn't have"?????  If you truly believe that, and think it relates to welfare, cite the instance. The welfare rules are tighter now than in the Bush (Sr.) administration, thanks to Clinton's "workfare" initiative, which has remained largely intact since. This administration wants to spend what it thinks needs to be spent to keep the economy afloat. Closing many tax loopholes would help hugely, but the opposition has rejected the idea. So who really has America's welfare in mind? The truth is that the guy in the White House has far more concern for persons in our income bracket than the House leadership.

           In an interesting aside, a newly elected Congresswoman  was complaining about the difficulty of maintaining her lifestyle on a "mere"  $174,000 annually. She doesn't get much sympathy from her peers, however, since the average net worth of members of Congress is $3.8 million, and surprisingly, that is up 23% between 2008 and 2010. Moreover, 78% of the wealth in the House is controlled by....wait for it...Republicans!  This makes it a bit easier to  understand why they oppose closing tax loopholes the rest of us don't even have. If Republicans were sincere about debt reduction (without crashing the economy, which would actually be in their favor for 2016!) they'd agree to both revenue streams. (increased taxes on the upper brackets, which they did, and closing huge tax advantages for "their kind of people" which they won't)

           I close with a reminder that a top marginal tax bracket of 39% in 2013  is less than half of some previous years. In 1982, the top bracket was 50% with a Republican President, in 1970, the top bracket was 79% with a Republican President. in 1965, the top rate was 90% with a Democratic President, and in 1956, Ike and a Republican majority presided over a 91% top bracket. In none of those cases am I castigating the president or the party for keeping tax rates high, since we were spending more on defense and foreign aid. I am , however very critical of those moderns (Tea Partiers, especially) with short memories who fail to recognize that the current situation traces its roots back to the massive marginal tax rate cuts of  1987-88, when in two years the marginal rate dropped from 50% to 38.5% and then to 28%. This was the gift handed Bush Sr. by his predecessor. Ronald Reagan, on the way out the door, and fully aware he would be long gone,  lowered marginal tax rates to the lowest since WWII. We are still reaping the results and paying the price.

American Taliban???

New Rule #25: Stop whining about religious freedom, when what you really want is the opportunity to practice religious oppression.

          Well, kids, it's Thursday again, which means that it is editorial column day in the local Villages' "news"paper. Right wing sycophants  Thomas Sowell and Mona Charen  attack Presidential policy and all things liberal per their usual political bent, but one columnist, Kathryn Lopez reaches  new heights of misdirection and outright falsehood in a column entitled "Warren, God and the freedom to choose." She quotes  Rick Warren, another of those mega church pastors whose cult of personality influences his congregation to react to stimuli the way shoals of fish and flocks of birds all seem to  turn at the same time. "Can we really talk about the state of our union without talking about the state of our religious freedom?" Warren responded that religious freedom "(it) is the freedom to practice my faith and values and the freedom to convert"  She then writes, "He cautions against the misreading of tolerance - mistakenly taking all ideas to be of equal value an d dismissing the existence of truth." Of course, the "truth" she refers to is far from that absolute. It is her perception and belief (note the word belief) about the nature of God, the universe, morality, etc. Ms. Lopez certainly is aware that more people in the world have other "truths" that those who believe as she does. In dismissing other tenets, credos and beliefs  as being of lesser value, she is diametrically opposed to Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and others who had the foresight to endorse the intent and meaning of the First Amendment. Washington in his letter to the Hebrew  Congregation in Newport so eloquently wrote "the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."  Ms Lopez, a Catholic, has clearly decided that her "truth" is exclusive. As to Mr. Warren's "freedom to convert" line, I would posit that those of us who disagree with his personal "truth" should be allowed to be free from his conversion  efforts.

          I am personally sick of the claims from the far right that religious freedom in America is abridged by current law,  when in fact current legislative efforts protect freedom from the religiously driven  prejudicial acts of the true believers among us. This is manifested, when, for example, a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for the "morning after" pill, citing personal beliefs as the reason. The logic involved is ludicrous. His religious freedom is the freedom to oppose abortion in his personal realm -  family, church, whatever. When , in the name of "truth" that belief infringes on another's life, that isn't religious freedom, it's religious oppression. The only difference between the pharmacist and a Talibani believer who murders schoolgirls is in degree, not principal.

          The same is true of those who scream foul because their organization might be forced, under new health care legislation to provide medical care to employees which is inconsistent with their (the organization's) personal beliefs. The rights in question here are those of  the person who has been prescribed (insert whatever drug here) which runs counter to someone else's belief. The ridiculous principle now becomes  that,  even though the Doctor has prescribed and the patient needs, someone else gets to interpose their personal belief and say no. The lameness of this argument is evident when listening to Catholics who are unable to articulate any real statement in opposition except that the Church opposes birth control. So what? So don't use birth control in your personal life. In like manner, don't keep it from a non-Catholic employee.

          It's really as simple as that. Those who would impose their beliefs on others, feel justified in doing so because theirs is the "real and only" truth. All others are lesser persons until converted. I reiterate, in far too many instances the only difference between aggressive evangelicals and the Taliban is headwear and the language they speak.

F**k Rex Reed

       My list of those who have become passe', irrelevant and just plain embarrassing to themselves and the world at large has yet another name on its wall of "who gives a shit?"  Trump, Schlafly, Santorum, Nugent  and Robertson are joined by alleged movie  critic Rex Reed. Reed's cruel and undeserved criticism of  Melissa McCarthy in Identity Thief, would, if based on her performance in the high grossing film, simply be one more example of Reed's inability to critique  actors and acting. Instead, he chose to lambast Ms. McCarthy for her weight.  Mr. Reed, whose own acting performances in Myra Breckenridge and Superman gained zero accolades and were generally scourged,  has decided that the Academy Award nominated and Emmy winning actress (Bridesmaids, Mike and Molly, SNL) must do more than just be a brilliant Comedy actress. She must also conform to Mr. Reed's personal tastes regarding body type and weight. The adjectives he uses in his critique of Identity Thief  ("tractor-sized", "humongous", "obese", and a "hippo") ^[are hurtful, derogatory and, most importantly,  totally unrelated to Ms. McCarthy's performance.

          This would be intolerable even if Reed were himself an icon of healthy lifestyle and moral fiber, instead of an alcoholic accused petty thief  (shoplifting) who also gained notoriety for his scandal mongering regarding Melissa Tomei's  1992 Supporting Actress Oscar for My Cousin Vinnie when he claimed Jack Palance was "too drunk or stoned" to properly read the results, and that another had won. The Academy and fellow critics lambasted him, not for physical attributes, but for being an asshole. Reed also managed to insult the entire nation of South Korea in 2005 with his scathing review of the movie "Oldboy," apparently  based on his personal distaste for the national relish:  "What else can you expect from a nation weaned on kimchi, a mixture of raw garlic and cabbage buried underground until it rots, dug up from the grave and then served in earthenware pots sold at the Seoul airport as souvenirs?"  This review, despite the fact that the film, a winner at Cannes,  ranks 86th on the IMDB top 250, far above such films as  Slumdog Millionaire, The Graduate,  Gone with the Wind and All About Eve.  Clearly Mr. Reed has earned the irrelevant and passe' listing on my wall.

  I end with the twitter posted by  Paul Feig, who directed McCarthy in  Bridesmaids and The Heat. "I cordially invite Mr. Rex Reed to go f**k himself."  Mr. Feig, unlike me, didn't use strategic asterisks!

New Rule #24 Save the English language

New rule #24 We should all endeavor to speak and write English properly and require those in the public arena to help us by doing the same .

 There are certain phrases and usages in English that are just redundant or contradictory, yet are seen or heard every day, many of them used intentionally be advertisers. Three of these during a recent airline experience prompted this rant.

          "Please keep your seatbelts fastened until the plane comes to a full and complete stop."  In the context of a stop, "full" is "complete" and vice versa; why say both?  Does it make for more emphasis? do we say "complete" just in case you missed "full?"   "We'd like to thank each and every one of you for flying ____ airlines." I submit that by thanking "each" of us, you will be forced to thank  "every one" of us whether you want to or not.  You might thank every other one of us, but that voids the "each" part.  Most difficult to grasp of all, however was the "Pre-boarding."  If no one is on the plane, we're all "pre-boarding."  Once anyone enters the aircraft, we've begun the boarding process, and we ain't "pre" any longer. Some may board before others, but we're all gonna get on.  I can't take credit for this one, because the late, great George Carlin riffed on it 30 years ago.

          Another troubling phrase is "X %  (larger, more, stronger) ." In many cases, there is no comparator given, so we're left to ponder "So, they're saying this new Clorox is 40% stronger than (water? lye? jeweler's rouge? snot?) ??  One of the real scams enabled by our attraction to "bigger is better" is the case recently seen in the aisles of Walmart where the price per ounce of a condiment was actually higher in the large "economy" size, probably because the container was more user friendly. There was no economy of scale, but the label implied otherwise.

          Another pet peeve  is the continued dumbing down of language by misspelling or misusing  common words, apparently on the assumption that we won't understand them if spelled correctly. "Donut" is ubiquitous, yet many of us actually understand the meaning of its apparently archaic spelling "doughnut."  Interestingly enough, most have no nuts anyway and probably should be renamed "fried dough thingies."  "Ten items or less" is a prime example of misapplied simple English words. "Ten items or fewer"  is correct. You can ask for less milk, but not fewer milk. No one has ever said "I wish I weighed fewer."

          " I could care less"  may be the most widespread  diametric contradiction of all. Clearly if one could "care less," then they do in fact, care, voiding the intent of the malapropism. In like manner. A favorite of the advertising industry is the (non) "word" -"crispy." It is always seen in usage as an adjective, yet it is already an adjective as "crisp." The "y" transforms it into some other dimension apparently halfway between adjective and adverb. If "crispy" can describe an aspect of chicken, then so can "hoty, overcookedy, rawy, sicky and deady!"  "Should of " belongs in here somewhere too, as it is a widely used misapplication of the intent of "should have."

          The other interesting and supremely annoying  peeve  is that apparently, some words can be made more impressive and/or authoritative by intentional or archaic  misspelling. Examples I have seen include: olde, shoppe, wylde, kave, kool, nite, lite, tite, rite (the adjective, not the ritual),  kwik, pak. One common phenomenon is the insertion of a "u" in certain words (behaviour, colour, valour)  apparently in an attempt to show sophistication. If you aren't English,  you didn't learn it that way in school, so stop it!  Many of our children were attended at some time by a pediatrician, and it seemed to work fine, but now I occasionally see advertisements for Paediatricians, and Orthopaedics; are they better?

          Teachers frequently lament diminishing language skills,  in today's students, but how should it be otherwise when we are constantly  bombarded with these bastardizations of our native tongue. How can I expect a new language learner to speak properly when they hear such egregious examples of  mangled speech? Lemme me axe u dat!