Thinly veiled hate crimes

       A  dear friend, who is a gay Christian, proposed that we simply allow marriages to be civil unions and let churches decide who they will or won't marry "In the eyes of God."  Of course that is exactly the situation for heterosexual couples now, in many instances. Many rabbis won't marry a Jew and a gentile unless the gentile converts. Some Catholic churches/priests refuse to marry a couple if either is a divorcee.

Another acquaintance, a heterosexual Christian  responded by saying essentially "yeah, what's wrong with letting it be like that?"  My response is below

          The difficulty, _______, is that in this country, we have kowtowed to religion in that we have granted to various churches what amounts to almost a monopoly on marriage. True, one can marry in a civil ceremony, but ask yourself this:  If all marriages were done in civil ceremonies, do you honestly think we'd be having this discussion?  Along with tax exempt status, we allow churches and religions the authority to make decisions/unions which then affect numerous national non-religious issues - taxation, inheritance, hospital visitation, Social Security, insurance and the list goes on.

          For the extreme rightists, this issue is about what they interpret in their sect/cult/flock, whatever, and their desire that all of us conform to their whim.  This isn't about freedom of religion to those persons, they have it and always will. it's about forcing their particular viewpoint on those who don't share their ideas.

          We use "Marriage" in this country as a synonym for "legal union", but far rightists can't stand the idea that it might not always meant their particular definition. We don't allow clergy to give driver's licenses, act as notaries, sell tax stamps, close mortgages, so why even them to do that thing which changes so many legal aspects of two person's lives?  If a "minister" of the first Church of the Divine Rutabaga or  fat Elvis impersonator can do it, what more does any clergy bring to the table, legally? For their congregation, maybe, a sense of consecration before the destination honeymoon. Why not allow the same guy to sign off on their divorce 3 years later. Statistically, that's a very much "real world" possibility.

          Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, this isn't a states' rights issue. We won't allow Florida to refuse a properly licensed New Hampshire  resident the right to drive here. We don't make persons who married in another state remarry in Florida. We don't reject marriages between heterosexual couples as being legal here if they married elsewhere.  If a state tried to do any of these, they'd be slammed to the wall for violating the Fourteenth Amendment rights of  the complainants. By custom,  tradition, and USSC decisions (Fletcher vs. Peck, Dartmouth vs. Woodward, and Cohen's vs. Va. to name a few) contracts have been protected from state interference.  The defense of marriage act would essentially allow by state fiat a contract between two persons, legally entered into in New York, to be voided in Florida by whim of the state legislature. This is a dangerously slippery slope, on which to  venture.  What kind of legal voiding could be next? Forced repayment of sales tax if you moved here from another state having already paid it?  I mean after all, if you're going to drive here, shouldn't you pay for the roads?

          It comes down to belief. Those religious persons who jump on Civil Unions as the cure all don't realize that in the eyes of the law, all marriages are civil unions. Some of them are overseen by clergy, because we in the US give churches special status. We allow the whims of some  to be crammed down the throats of all.   If this were any issue but marriage, the Tea Partiers would scream the loudest. As it is, they are the joined by homophobes nationwide in this hate crime of the mind.

Be careful what you wish for!

          I recently was subjected to a too loud, too long,  Sunday  rant, wherein the speaker gave a very brief summary of the tenets of several of the world's great religions and their view of the afterlife, if any. He elided over Judaism and Islam,  because.....well, I'm not really sure why, but I suspect it's because it's difficult to distinguish those religions'  concepts of "what it takes to move on up to the big house" from Christianity's view, and he wanted to hold out Christianity, specifically belief in Jesus  as  (his words)" the only way to get to heaven." I think by omitting Judaism and Islam he was trying to avoid dealing with the "So belief in God isn't enough?" question. He was fairly specific (and incorrect in several points)  about  others he mentioned - Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism. 

 

      The whole thing, as intellectually and theologically superficial as it was, set me to thinking about a book  I've heard of but never read,  "Five People you Meet in Heaven", by Mitch Albom. As the title churned around in my mind, I began to reflect on their statement regarding only Christians being certain of a supernatural, eternal, and really nifty reward. That prompted me to reflect on what this meant from a world view standpoint regarding who you (by this person's definition of believing in Jesus as the only way) would be likely to meet if there were a  heaven and if you went there, as well as who you definitely would not see because they were Atheists, Agnostic, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sihks, Taoists, or just heathens in general.  This list might be surprising, and perhaps alarming,  to some who put stock in the propositions  I outlined from the sermon.

          "Many people you might and might not meet in Heaven" - a partial listing!

          Atheists who wouldn't make it:

Douglas Adams ,Woody Allen, ,Isaac Asimov,,George Carlin, Francis Crick, Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein, Jodie Foster,  Bill Gates, Bob Geldof,  Robert Heinlein, Ernest Hemingway, Katharine Hepburn, Christopher Hitchens, Billy Joel, Diane Keaton, Hugh Laurie, Richard Leakey, John Lennon, ,Barry Manilow, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur Miller, Claude Monet, Julianne Moore, Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Ronald  Reagan Jr., Rob Reiner, Gene Roddenberry, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, Annika Sorenstam, Vincent van Gogh, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Ted Williams, Steve Wozniak,

          Agnostics and/or self professed skeptics you won't see

Margaret Atwood, Antonio Banderas, Alexander Graham Bell, ,Warren Buffett,, Dick Cavett, ,Charles Darwin,  ,Enrico Fermi, ,Morgan Freeman, ,Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, James Taylor, Henry Fonda, Irving Berlin, Sting, John Steinbeck, Gene Kelly, Gustav Mahler, Guiseppe Verdi, Elie Weisel, Dr. Oz, Paul McCartney, Neil Armstrong, Sandra Bullock, Michael Caine, Arthur C. Clarke, George Clooney, Clint Eastwood, Danny Elfman, alph Waldo Emerson,  Mikhail Gorbachev, Stephen Hawking, ,Sir Edmund Hillary, Thomas Jefferson, Angelina Jolie, Mark Knopfler, Stan Lee,  Abraham Lincoln, ,Thomas Paine, Natalie Portman, Christopher Reeve, Dr.Oliver Sacks, William Shatner, Neil Simon, Mira Sorvino, Donald Sutherland, Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain, Gene Wilder,  

          Persons of other religions who do not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus (who, therefore, you also won't see)

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, in fact the entire Old Testament, Buddha,  Confucious,   Leonard Bernstein, Marc Chagall,  Baruch Spinoza, Maimonides,  Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Julio Iglesias, Elizabeth Taylor, Alicia Silverstone, Barbara Streisand, Mandy Patinkin,  Harrison Ford,  Gwyneth Paltrow,  Michael Landon, Sarah  Jessica Parker,  Robert Downey, Jr.,  Paul Newman,  Cary Grant,  Bob Dylan,  Itzhak Perlman,  Isaac Stern, George and Ira Gershwin,  Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin  Herb Alpert,  Niels Bohr, Jonas Salk, Milton Hershey, Marcel Marceau,  Jerry Seinfeld,  Sarah Silverman,  The Marx Brothers, Jack Benny, Harvey Korman,  Steven Spielberg,  Mel Brooks,  Ben Stiller, Art Blakey, Muhammad Ali, Omar Khayyam, Omar Sharif, Dave Chappelle, M. Night Shamalyan, Jon McGlaughlin, J.D. Salinger, Ben Kingsley, Carlos Santana, Deepak Chopra,  George Harrison, Vijay Singh.    

 

          People you could see, being self identified Christians, therefore guaranteed a seat at the big table:

  Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Gerry Adams, God's army in Thailand, Lord's Resistance army in Uganda, National Liberation Front of Tripura in India, anti-Semitic league in Romania, George C. Wallace,
the KKK (which claims to be a "white, protestant brotherhood")
Adolph Hitler, John Wayne Gayce, Torquemada, "Bloody" Mary Tudor, Vlad the Impaler, The Perpetrators of Crusades I through IV, Cortes, Pizzarro, Columbus, de Soto and every Spanish Conquistadore and Indian slayer, Every Pope who ordered anti-Protestant massacres.

          It's too bad, really;  Imagine a scenario where Mel Brooks, Harvey Korman, , Sarah Silverman, Groucho Marx  and Adolph Hitler were together. Now that's a show I'd go to New York to see!

The fog of war can't mask the smell of bullshit

 

       Well, kids, If it's Tuesday, it must be bullshit editorial day again in the Villages Daily Sun. Today there are myriad columns to choose from, but Ollie North (you remember him, disgraced Marine, convicted felon?) Grabbed my attention with his pathetic attempt to put a positive spin on the thousands of American and more than a million Iraqi deaths.

          I have zero difficulty with North lauding the bravery and sacrifice of US troops assigned to Iraq; but I am disgusted with the fact that the fat cats who sent them there at the President's behest still maintain that it was a  well intentioned and honorable endeavor. All the reasons why the Iraq debacle was an ill thought out, monomaniacal, self serving (on Bush's part) attempt at nation building have been thoroughly wrung out here and elsewhere. Bob Woodward, who had extraordinary access to the Bush White House in the first administration (2000-2004) quotes several unimpeachable sources as  stating unequivocally that the war in Iraq was Bush's goal from inauguration onward, and all the smoke and mirrors of WMD, enriched Uranium rods, etc,  was just that. Of course, other casualties besides the truth included Colin Powell's credibility, Valerie Plame's career, and any semblance of reliability in the human intelligence community, overt or covert. For perhaps once in the last 75 years, the French were proven correct and the US in error in the great Iraq adventure.

          So, why bother to mention this? It revolves around the fact that after most  traditional hostilities had finished, a civilian was selected to oversee the return to nation statehood of Iraq.  His attempts to reintegrate Sunni former military and police into the human infrastructure of a rebuilt Iraq were nixed by  both SecDef Donald Rumsfeld and VP Cheney. This created a disaffected underclass of unemployables (Sunni) and upward mobility for minority Shiites,  essentially forging a closer bond between two former enemies,  Iran (an overwhelmingly Shiite state) and an Iraq which is now far more Shiite friendly. As big a bastard as Saddam Hussein was, he was a force keeping militant Shi'ism  at bay.    Saddam Hussein was a secular Sunni dictator. He despised Iran. Saddam fought a war with Iran in the 1980s in which each side lost a half million men. Saddam let the world think he had nuclear weapons to keep Iran in check. 

          How times have changed! Iran now has both a close ally in Iraq and a key trading partner. Just look at the taxis in Iraq, which used to be old Volkswagen Passats manufactured in Brazil. Now, many of the yellow taxis choking Baghdad with traffic are boxy Iranian-made Saipas.  Iran is building an oil pipeline to Iraq, too.  The largest single ethnic source of foreign entries into Iraq is  now Iranian, and these are just the overt entries, as the 900 mile border invites insurgent border crossings. Iraq has become a Shiite-led state that feels a certain affinity to Iran, its giant Shiite neighbor.

          So,  Oliver North continues to be a toady and a mouthpiece for the son of the man who pardoned his felonies, while he lauds the efforts of the son to strike a blow for "democracy", and far more odious, while he attempts to spin the Iraq debacle as a prime example of "mission accomplished."  But I repeat this: Iraq has become a Shiite-friendly and dominated nation drawing ever closer to Iran.  It is hard to imagine any of this was part of the plan when President Bush gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave on that cold night in Baghdad.

         It is inexcusable that the far more intelligent Rumsfeld and Cheney both failed to foresee the results of their doctrine driven exclusion of Sunnis and the predictable ascendency of Shiites, and overrode the recommendations of those who did.   And the Bush administration is responsible.  The properly lauded serviceman and women who died in Iraq didn't have to. It serves as another  in a long chain of scenarios of  angry old men sending beautiful young men and women off to fight their wars.

Just be consistent. A history lesson in three acts.

I'll admit that as a person with some knowledge of history there are still some things I simply can't wrap my head around. Let's call what follows case studies for want of a better word.

Case study#1.  In 1492, After the thrones of Aragon and Castile were united, Ferdinand and Isabella, fresh from the Pope's blessing decided to support  an Inquisition to drive out, or kill, any who didn't believe as they  (the Catholic Spanish) did and  to fund a voyage of exploration. There was some dispute between the two (at the time) principal Atlantic maritime nations, Spain and Portugal,  regarding who "owned" what in these unexplored lands. The Treaty of Tordesillas was an edict by the Pope, Alexander VI,  the infallible Christian source who spoke ex cathedra  with the voice of their supernatural, all powerful protector (God.) It gave almost all of the western hemisphere to Spain, on the condition that they were really just channeling the real power of the Church. By order of the Spanish throne, all conquistadores were to read a statement to indigenous peoples: ("El Requerimiento") was a declaration by the Spanish monarchy of its divinely ordained right to take possession of the territories of the New World and to subjugate, exploit and, when necessary, to kill the native inhabitants. The Requirement was read in Spanish to Native Americans to inform them of Spain’s rights to conquest. Those who subsequently resisted conquest were considered to harbor evil intentions. The Spaniards thus considered those who resisted as defying God’s plan, and so used Catholic theology to justify their conquest.

          What ensued became known to much of Europe as "The Black Legend" because of the extreme brutality and genocide which resulted from this belief in divine approval and mandate. Oddly enough, it was a Spanish bishop, a man named Bartolomé de Las Casas, formerly Bishop of Chiapas, who was the first whistle blower. No matter how, it remains that the result was entire Indian groups extinction , gold and silver plundered, forced conversions and even one Mayan Inquisition, all in the belief that God ordained it and granted this "privilege" to Spain.

          Many today, bemoan and condemn Spain's actions as brutal, unjustified and ungodly.

Case study #2.       Beginning in 1607 with Jamestown and again in 1620 with Plimoth Plantation, English settlers came to North America for various reasons. In the north, the primary motive was to escape religious persecution. The search for religious freedom was  based on each group's belief that their invisible, supernatural  being (God)  had ordained and blessed their endeavors. In some respect, MA., CT, MD, RI., and PA. are all manifestations of groups who were absolutely convinced of the rectitude of their actions and firm in the belief that God ordained them. The other commonality, was that in each case (less so with the Quakers in PA.) native religions, land holdings and traditions were ignored and in many cases those Indians who refused to convert were killed or driven out.    

          As Indians retreated and English presence increased, independence from England, sold to American colonists as a righteous search for "liberty", now left the "Indian Problem" in the hands of the new United States government. By the third President, Thomas Jefferson, there was consensus that something had to be done because, even though many Indians had converted to Christianity, they still were inferiors who couldn't be trusted with all the good farmland in Alabama, Missisppi, or the gold in Georgia. In the 1830s, with faith in God as his guide, Andrew Jackson ordered the "Five Civilized Tribes" to join all the rest of the Indians formerly east of the Mississippi, in Indian Territory. In other words, based on the assumption of divine approval, they had to go, Christian or not.

          Following an internal bloodletting know as the US Civil War, all pretense of fairness was shattered, as the doctrine of Manifest Destiny became US internal policy for relations with indigenous  peoples. The concept should sound familiar, since it echoes case study one in many ways. Americans, became convinced that their invisible, supernatural all powerful protector wished them to possess what had formerly been Indian land and the Indians were to be content with  being relegated to small areas of land, frequently poor land, and be happy and consider it God's will.  

          Most people of conscience, with the exception of some far right bigots,  consider this to be second only to slavery as a national shame. many historians condemn today that behavior what was just fine and in accordance with divine will only 150 years earlier.

Case study #3 The middle east. The town of Jericho dates to 11,000 BCE as a site  occupied  by humans. By no earlier than 8500 BCE, the Neolithic revolution had begun and Jericho was permanently inhabited by farming peoples. Around  April, 1400 BCE, Jericho was a town in Canaan with a stable population.  From the south came a group of wanderers whose invisible, all powerful supernatural being (God) had told (one of) them that regardless of the fact that Jericho was inhabited, it was to be theirs. If this is sounding familiar, it should. Once again invaders, invoking some supernatural favor steamroll an indigenous population and in the case of Jericho, after some nonsense involving blowing horns and a friendly prostitute, the entire city wall collapses and the inhabitants are slaughtered. Note that I did not say "given a chance to convert, or given a chance to move out" I said "Slaughtered." Men, women and children. Of course this same group had butchered either 3,000 or 23,000 of their own in a dispute over a golden calf. 'Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: Put ye every man his sword upon his thigh, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.' And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men." (but the Knox translation says 23,000!)   And this God loves you! 

          So here are three stories, as factually true as available information allows. Why do we bemoan and feel remorse for the first two and delight in the third? Same cosmic approbation. Same sense of "God is on our side."  Actually, there is a reason and it's buried in the psyche of most Christians. If the Spanish King and the Pope said it, and they did, in writing, they could be wrong, no biggie because it's past. If earlier Americans said it and supported  it, that was them, and we can disavow it. But Moses or Abraham? There is far less reason to believe either of them really said or did anything except spread folklore. As diligently  as Israeli archeologists have tried and are trying, there is absolutely no indication of a 40 year trek anywhere in Sinai, which troubles many, who desperately need it to be true. As rigorously as the Egyptians kept records, there is zero record of a Hebrew escape, led by Moses, Steve McQueen or anyone else.

            But, if we as a nation are to continually support the existence of the state of Israel, regardless of their totally self serving policies, even when they marginalize persons who have lived in the region for centuries, even when they bulldoze homes of poor Palestinians and let their people build on the site,  we need a justification. That of course, means it's time once again to play the God card.  It's not enough, apparently that Israel has built a thriving nation state in the desert, which we admire.  It's not enough that massive world guilt post Holocaust sanctioned a massive wave of forcible displacement of  Arabs by others, which had been incepted by Zionists pre WWI. We must also, evidently sanction the evictions of indigenous persons, forced out by political coercion,  in all fairness by numerous bad guys, some of who were Israeli, more of whom were not. To swallow this we need to believe that the supernatural, all knowing, all powerful sky creature also thinks it's a good idea. There are those in America who support Israel blindly because in their fractured theology, things must get so bad in that specific region that the all powerful, supernatural sky creature sends his kid back to kick ass.

          If Stan Lee had written it, we'd call it a comic and suspend our disbelief, but to bemoan the treatment of Indians  by the Spanish and United States  while supporting the same kind of oppression  in the Middle East, because of our blind adherence to ancient Hebrew legends??  Bless your hearts.  

How soon we forget!

     

hy·poc·ri·sy (/hiˈpäkrisē/)

Noun The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

     

      During the last presidential campaign, Willard M. Romney castigated Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular, for the (Dem.) platform's omission of language specifically supporting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.   Romney also  accused the President of throwing Israel “under the bus", while former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty said Obama had made a “mistaken and very dangerous demand.”  How soon we forget!  Both parties have, through the years, generally held much the same positions on Israel, that it is up to Israel and the Palestinians to decide Jerusalem's final status, essentially a neutral position.

         Imagine, if you will, Republican reaction to the President  saying  this: "The other party's position (platform language declaring Jerusalem Israel's capital)  is dishonest." "To make Jerusalem the capital of Israel is not the platform of a major American political party, that is what I find so revolting here."  Or try this, the Secretary of State, reviewing the opposition party's policy on Israel says, "Then all out on Israel, I mean in a really nauseating way...in a degree of detail you know, Jerusalem should be the capital, direct negotiations between the parties, nauseating detail. I mean, this is a disgrace, this was written by a bunch of cynical amateurs."   Then imagine then President responding, " To be all out on Israel - isn't that something though? that is so dishonest. Well, it shows you what we have to contend with, and it also shows the necessity for us to be in good shape, because these people (the other party) are so revolting that they have to be smashed!"    

          Well, boys and girls, the above conversation did take place;  not between President Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton or John Kerry or any other Democrat. Although Republicans, desperately split on many issues, are grasping at the Israel issue to castigate the President, they would do well to recall their own party's leaders, and the positions they established for their party.

          Richard Nixon and SecState Henry Kissinger (himself Jewish)  had the above  conversation in the oval office in June of 1972.  Once again Nixon's taping system, installed and upgraded to "preserve his legacy" does much more to reveal the man's inner mental pathology.  Along the way, it also reveals the pathetic specter of Henry Kissinger, whom Nixon referred to as his "Jew Boy" (again those damned tapes) fawning over a borderline sociopath who cared little for the man, but needed his imprimatur on foreign policy.

Bless their hearts.

Ya wanna talk fiscal irresponsibility?

     The next time you hear Paul Ryan or someone else cut from the same cloth, criticize the Obama administration, remember this. "In March, 2003, Pres. Bush and VP Cheney sent American GIs into war in Iraq. Why? Bush said Saddam Hussein was an “evil” person. (personal interjection, Saddam was an evil person, so is Assad in Syria, so, for promoting the poverty status quo among Indian women was Mother Teresa, so is Vladimir Putin, so was anyone in Korea named Kim, we just didn't invade them!) Then Bush said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (he lied). Members of the U.N. told Bush to stay out of Iraq. Benjamin Ferencz, prosecutor in Nuremberg War Crimes warned of war crimes in Iraq. On May 1, 2003, Bush thought the war was over and proclaimed “mission accomplished.”

     Now, after ten years of constant war, occupation, and death, it is time to put a price tag on the Bush failure. Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies finds the war has cost U.S. taxpayers $1.7 trillion----so far. When future expenses are added up such as medical expenses for veterans and their families, the cost of the war will grow for the next 40 years.

      Of course, the war destroyed Iraqi healthcare. Thousands of Iraqi medical doctors left the country. The Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found massive waste, fraud, and theft of construction funds. Prof. Catherine Lutz at BrownUniversity says the appropriations, the expenses of borrowed funds, and cumulative interest through 2053 will exceed a huge $3.9 trillion burden on the U.S. taxpayer.

      David Lazarus, LA Times, says the price tag for the war in Iraq will eventually pass the $6 trillion mark. When the financial toll is added up, we see war appropriations at $1.3 trillion. Add to that figure, the costs of interest on the debt, veterans’ medical claims, social costs to vet’s families, foreign aid to those who suffered from the U.S. invasion, and more war spending from 2012 through 2020, and soon the U.S. taxpayer will be on the hook for more than $6 trillion."

      And the Republicans warn of Democratic attempts to provide health care to all Americans as "fiscally irresponsible?" They need to extract their heads from their collective asses.

In Response!

This was a response to a former student, a very conservative Republican partisan who said that the war in Iraq "wasn't all bad", because several Iraqi students were able to enroll in an International Human Rights Law Class. He said, in effect, war is bad, but good things can come from it, that it's more important that we learn from our mistakes. I responded to his post by name, which I won't use here.

 

"I need to expound on the above. The war had little bearing on whether or not Iraqi students could come to school in the US. They could, and did, before. There are just fewer of them now, since many young Iraqis were killed. Our reasons for being in Iraq were far less compelling, even, than our reason(s) for being in Vietnam. Bush White House insiders, later sickened by the results, have been very open regarding the fact that the Iraq adventure was a done deal as a result of Bush's election, and justifying it became job one. The advantage of not being hard wired into supporting a regime which was demonstrably corrupt is the opportunity to objectively evaluate it. Partisan politics clouds that objectivity. Iraq was wrong, and would have been so regardless of who ordered it. Saying there are good results from this horrid war is like pointing to sucessful Vietnamese immigrants or Holocaust survivors who have prospered in the US and saying "see, look what we did! The fact is, we didn't learn from even Cheyney's own warning to G.H.W. Bush, when as SecDef he warned about taking Baghdad and over throwing Saddam after Desert Storm. At that time Cheyney warned the father that doing so would make us responsible for rebuilding Iraq. He was right then, but ignored his own advice ten years later. It pains me that one of the brightest persons I ever taught has been so inculcated with "Conservative" ideals that those ideals become a reason for blind adherence. Equating the benefit of a handful of students with the death of > 1 million as a cost/benefit example is insensitive at the least and ghoulish at worst. And as a non-military person, as are so many young Republicans who supported the war, don't lecture a 26 year senior enlisted veteran who truly does understand that sacrifice. Of all the "support our troops" gaggle, the most vocal are the ones who are safe at home conscience cleansing. Donald Rumsfeld was another principal architect of the war, and more importantly the principal dismantler of what short lived effort was made for a reasonable peace in the aftermath. Read the book by the civilian who originally was assigned to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq, and pay attention to all the things Rumsfeld did to insure that civilian and insurgent violence would ensue by countermanding him, alienating the entire former Iraqi military and police, making them the problem rather than allowing them to be contributors to restoring order." Read Reconstructing Iraq  by Gordon Rudd far a sickening saga of interference and undermining of that effort by everyone from Bush on down. The U.S. has spent more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. And it’s not done yet.

Read this letter!

         Personal note: The one thing missing from this letter is the name Donald Rumsfeld, who is equally culpable!

                             

                          The Last Letter

A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

From: Tomas Young

    I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

    I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

    You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

    I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

     Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

    I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion.

     I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

    I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

     I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

    My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness. 

Let natural selection do its job!

So apparently rapper Li'l Wayne is recovering after being in ICU due to seizures. Not to worry, though, because one of his "posse" ( rapper code for worthless hangers on and shithead leeches) said it was just too much "sizzurp." What, you may ask, is sizzurp?

        well kids, apparently  Sizzurp is a highly addictive, recreational drug that involves  prescription-strength cough syrup, sugary sodas and hard candies, typically sipped out of Styrofoam cups. The source said, quote:  "He drank too much sizzurp to get a better high,". He needs rehab but he's not close to death or anything. He's fine and just coming down off the high."

          I don't know about you, but I can almost hear Charles Darwin screaming from beyond the grave, "Let him go, it's supposed to work this way!"

Whatever sells, no matter how bogus!

       As a veteran of 26 years'  Naval service, I am uneasy with the frequency with which the term "veteran's" has been appropriated by numerous non-veterans business entities, apparently on the belief that somehow the word implies  competence and/or integrity. One local lawyer poses in his tv ads in front of a camouflage painted Humvee. The message is clear, I guess. " I'm a better attorney because I was a soldier 35 years ago."    There was a "Veteran's auto sales" in Orlando which scammed numerous students while I was the Senior Enlisted Advisor at Nuclear Power School. There are several financial institutions, none of them with any real affiliation with veteran's groups who try to get you in the door with the word 'Veterans'" on the logo. On US 301,  an ambulance chaser law firm has huge signs portraying the three partners and listing their military service below. Why not list their law school standings, and give the consumer something they can use to make an informed decision?  Every one of us who was in the  military if we were being honest would admit that we had contact with a very wide slice of society, some competent, some lifelong friends and some (a relatively small percentage) dirtbags for whom the military was the County Sheriff's alternative to jail. Mercifully, in the modern age this is much less so, since recruiting standards are higher.

          More recently, the Lt. Governor of Florida has resigned . Ms. Carroll, a Navy Veteran has disgraced herself and my service by being intimately involved with "Allied Veterans of the World" a company claiming to serve veterans, but serving investors much better. This sham organization's "fund raising centers" were, in actuality, little more than internet slot machine sites which violated Florida law. They returned a microscopic .02% of what they "raised" to veterans' organizations!    

          I also see the "fish" symbol and other Christian symbols used as business enticements, where the standard of proof ought to be  competence and honesty. I get it, you're proud of your service and your beliefs, but in the marketplace, neither is a guarantor of quality, craftsmanship, or, unfortunately in the real world, integrity in business dealings.  The same is true of GEICO the name "Government Employees Insurance Corporation" implies at least some government imprimatur, endorsement or connection. Of course GEICO has none of those, in fact, it's owned by Warren Buffett (Berkshire-Hathaway) which is really a stronger recommendation!

          So think about the real world. It's time to quit hijacking legitimate honorifics for dishonorable or financial gain.  Timothy McVeigh was a veteran, James Holmes was a Lutheran,  John Wayne Gayce was a Jaycee, and Bernie Madoff was an observant Jew and board member of Yeshiva University.

          If this trend continues I can see it coming  "Now on sale, O'Shaunessey's Kosher Veteran Government Employee Pork sausage,  The kind Jesus would eat!"  

You Wanna see crazy????

Ya wanna see crazy??   Here's crazy from a self styled "Nordic     Christian"  website

 

 " Q - How do we know Jesus was white?

A - Because all of his relatives which included his mother.... who fled to Britain when he was crucified were pure white. They, his relatives, made tapestries and tile works of his image. The Bible clearly states that Shem was of pure white lineage.... and then the Bible carefully traces the lineage of Christ because having a pure racial lineage was important. The Bible is always specific when one of the pure white race members married a "Canaanite" (non white) Any person in the Bible who married a non white no longer had their lineage recorded in the Bible."

                                 Really, Adolph?

      So Adam was white? Then where did dark skinned folks come from? What an abortion of horseshit and gunsmoke!

     "Mary fled to Britain?"  Well, add that to the story that she fled to Ephesus (where she allegedly died) in the 50-60-AD time frame with John the Apostle. That story would rock, except John went to Ephesus at the earliest in 79 AD.

       This is why Israel makes so much money on tourists desperate to see those places where "tradition has it" precedes the name of every Biblical landmark. Why? because no one really knows if any of the sites are true, accurate or existant; so come bring your money, because "tradition has it" that you'll feel like you've proved something and we'll put the checks in the bank. I'm quite sure some Westboro Baptist moron has photos of the 7-11 where Joseph and Mary split a Big Gulp on the flight to Egypt. By the way, the epitome of this psuedo historical/archeological shuffle is the slightly submerged sheet of high strength plexiglass to allow the devout tourist the real "Walking on the Sea of Gallilee" experience! Not kidding!
        Second only to this charade is the ubiquitous picturing of the "Nordic Jesus" , the blond haired , blue eyed hunk whose picture adorns church nursery walls throughout the Christian world. There's a reason for that.  From Abraham on, every Hebrew was essentially Semetic Bedouin. Jesus would be a hard sell if he looked like Yasser Arafat, which is probably far closer to the real appearance of Jesus if he had one.  His name would actually have been Yeshua bar Joseph, anyway. Clean him up, give him blue contacts, never show him in an Arab headband, and start yourself a religion. It could happen!

      By the way, this loony's statement notwithstanding, the earliest known picture of Jesus dates from 235 AD. Either these "relatives" live a long time or had Polaroids which they willed to the tenth generation later. This picture, by the way shows Jesus dressed as a Greek philosopher with short hair and a golden sash around his waist. Finally, . The Bible definitely does not, repeat does not,  ever use the term "white" to describe individuals, families, clans or any other subdivision. Apparently the creep who wrote this ridiculous Q and A tried to piggyback on the statement that "according to tradition" the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth are the sires of the Caucasian, Black and Asian races. If they were all sons of Noah, some serious evolutionary biological shit went down!

Kindness??

Here's an amazing headline:  "Jeb Bush: 'History will be kind to my brother'" 

 

Perhaps, but only in the sense that we're kind to a new puppy which s***s on the rug because it's got limited intelligence and just doesn't know any better. In like manner, history may be gentle with this C minus (yes, really, that was his GPA at Yale) student whose family name and lots of money bought a Governor's mansion and the White House for him. A failure in every endeavor he ever attempted (excluding the avoidance of completing his military obligation and jail time on a Cocaine rap and several DUIs) He failed yet again as President. War with Iraq as a personal vendetta is the big highlight, although his failed attempt (thank God) to privatize Social Security would certainly have been disastrous when financial markets failed shortly thereafter. His failure to take seriously the Terrorism intel brief prepared for him by the Clinton NSA staff is yet another epic fail. Other than Ronald Reagan and Warren Harding, "W" may deserve to go down as the  President of the 20th century least able to think for himself. What else would we expect from the former governor of a state whose official state board of education mission statement contains the stated aim of "opposing the teaching of critical thinking skills?" 

Catspeak for beginners

     Although response to my  "Dogspeak for Beginners" was less than overwhelming, I still believe there is a place in the literature for seasoned (boy, am I seasoned) pet lovers to inform the uninitiated regarding communications with their pets. There are a limited number of species with which this is possible. Obviously,  apes have the ability to engage in meaningful communications with humans, sometimes just before they rip the human's face off, unfortunately.  What we have in that case is "a failure to communicate."  Dogs, as we saw in the aforementioned best selling essay (it was actually free), communicate somewhat less specifically, but usually in non-aggressive, nuanced ways, combining physical attitudes with sound. An example would be a tail held low and a low growl, which could mean either "I'm angry and protecting my food - beware" or "Did I hear someone say 'neuter'?"

          Cats, however provide another level of difficulty in translation for several reasons:

1. They have slightly smaller brains than dogs, and while very instinctive, they exhibit somewhat less of the "unconditional love" that endears us to our dogs.

2. They are far less forgiving of bad treatment. A dog will actually look repentant after crapping on the rug and being chastised, while a cat will simply repeat it until you tire of yelling at them.

3. Should you actually strike a dog (God forbid) the dog seems to almost masochistically grovel in an "I deserved that" attitude. A cat, under the same circumstances will shred your face and leave home.

4. Dogs have "masters", cats prefer the term "staff."

5. Cats have somewhat less expressive faces than dogs and tend to look the same when happy as when sleepy or hungry.

 Keeping the above in mind, here is my best effort at  "Catspeak for Beginners"

1. The cat meows plaintively and paces - could mean several things: " I'm hungry," "Empty the litter pan or I'll s**t on the bed," "The dog is eating tootsie rolls from my litter pan again"

 2. The cat rolls around on its back. Could mean: "I'm hungry", "I'm happy", "I itch", "I'm having a seizure", "Play with me"

3. The cat raises its butt and purrs when patted or scratched on its rump. Could mean: "I'm hungry", 'Thanks, my butt itches", "let's have sex",

4. The cat growls menacingly, tail twitching. Could mean "I'm hungry", "Back off Jack, I'm having a bad day", "Tell the dog I've had it with the licking", " I hate that laser pen", "I have worms"

5.  The cat crawls into your lap, or on your bed and snuggles up. Could mean "I'm hungry",  "I love you long time", "I love you as long as you feed me, but if you die and no one comes for days, I'll have no compunction in eating your cheeks."

I hope this helps, I ran it past our three cats, and they all asked me if I didn't have something better to do.   

More of the Same?

Warning, my Catholic friends shouldn't read this. I mean no disrespect to any individual, but it looks like another opportunity to heal is going to go by.  The headline reads:

"Pope will keep 'status quo' on moral issues":

          The article goes on to imply that current Chiurch teachings on several contemporary issues will remain as devisive as ever. This will, of course, involve continuing to stigmatize the GLBT community,  oppose marriage between persons who love each other, but are of the same sex, opposing birth control in nations which desparately need lower rates of population growth, telling the poor, as did Mother Teresa, that their pain is "God kissing " them, and keeping women, who are some of the Church's brightest and best, from ordination. One can only hope that this does not mean continuing to cover up and shield pedophiles (who are known to the Church) from the full weight of the law.  Enough damage has been done by these monsters to last the next millenium. The Church knows it and their bankbook proves it.

          The choice of a Jesuit is probably a step in the right direction, and I sincerely hope time proves the wisdom of the choice. The selection of a Latin American isn't "radical, or "daring" or any of those adjectives used for self congratulatory purple prose. It reflects the stark reality of the Church's situation on South and Central America, which is that as soon as national governments disestablished the Church as the state church, other brands of salvation began to make serious inroads into the Church's grip on the hearts and minds of the population. Evangelical Christians proselytize heavily now, where once they were banned. Non Judeo-Christian sects have new life, especially in Brazil. There is a reason the Church destroyed Mayan Codices in the early 1500s culminating with Bishop Diego De Landa's "Mayan Inquisition" of 1562. This pattern of destroying all vestiges of native belief systems served the Church well, so long as it was THE church. Pope Francis' selection reflects the political reality of a faith which is in crisis several places around the world due to free market competition in the marketplace of ideas. As a man with a Master's degree in Chemistry and  a Jesuit mindset, it'll be interesting to see if the headline mentioned above remains true.  It's certainly true that any belief system which openly rejects and stigmatizes some persons and protects monsters  from the law has a long way to go to get back to  relevance.

New Rule #28: Just Saying it doesn't make it So

 

        Just saying that the issues Americans disagree with the President about aren't race related sounds good. It's like saying "No, I'm not racist!  Closer examination, however reveals a willingness on the part of those who, methinks, do protest too much, to believe the most base, wicked and scurrilous assertions made by those who are self admitted racists. The "birther" issue is an example, as is the story (totally false) that He took the oath of office on the  Quran. Nancy Reagan could have appeared on American Bandstand and those of the right would have applauded, instead they criticize Michelle Obama, as they did Hilary Clinton for being too much in the public eye. Not to worry, they did it to Eleanor Roosevelt too! A Ms. Yeager, who posted this opinion on Facebook,  would be well advised to note that most Americans do agree with the idea that every American should have health care insurance, and, absent the "official line" put forth by the AMA, so do most doctors, especially those who work emergency rooms, who see critical cases that could have been ambulatory outpatient cases if the person had early GP care.        Most Americans, in fact agree with the vast bulk of President Obama's policy, which is why to the great dismay of Fox News and their idiot sycophant viewers, he swept the electoral vote.
 
      Here are three more examples of the inherent bias: 1) No one questioned the fact that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which is a hell of a long way from being a state, yet the birther maven whined,  "Well, Hawaii shouldn't be a state!" (yes, really, she said that). 2) Sarah Palin, whose thoughts must be nearly drowned out by the rush of air through the space where most of us have a brain, opined that "Well, his name is Hussein, which tells me he's a Muslim."  Well, her name is Sarah, which was Abraham's wife's name, so she must be Jewish (instead of lunatic, snake handling, exorcism believing, one step from Westboro fruitcake.) 3)  An acquaintance recently made the statement that "Obama wants to raise taxes so he can give even more to the undeserving, by which he meant welfare recipients" Many, like Ms. Yeager, would probably believe that without any hesitation.

       The truth is much more interesting. First, Until the 7th year of the Reagan administration, the highest marginal tax rate was higher than it is now, even after the modest top end increase. It was Reagan who in his last term, supported two consecutive yearly decreases in the rate, leaving G.H.W. Bush (and Clinton , and G.W. Bush and Obama)  with a suddenly shrunk federal income stream. We are still feeling the result. Second, after the first year of President Obama's  first term, Federal welfare spending as a percentage of GDP (a fair way to evaluate it, since it excludes effects of inflation) has gone down! Let me repeat, all Republican bullshit notwithstanding; except for his first year ( fiscal 2009, where he had to work with a Bush budget) Federal welfare spending under the current administration has DECREASED. That means less! How much less? From 4.5% of GDP (2009) to just over 3 % of GDP. this is a drop of 30%.  This is due, in part  to allowing more state flexibility in enforcing workfare, a Clinton concept. It should be noted that far righters opposed this, too.

        Fact driven critical thinking proves the lie to the vast majority of the claims made by those who shout their lack of racism in much the same way the Pharisees prayed loudly in public to show their religiosity. Guess what? It was hypocritical them, it's hypocritical now!  And I do believe that's all I have to say about that (for now)

 

How to tell Snowbirds from year round Florida residents

        There may be those who live here in The Villages or visit here, who ask themselves, "How do I distinguish snowbirds from real year round residents. Never fear, I'm here with some ways to do it. (for my overseas readers, a "snowbird " is  a northerner who comes to Florida during the winter months because they're too wimpy to handle a bit of cold weather) 

          Only a part timer will ever say "You are so lucky to live here all the time , you must go to Disney a lot."  In truth, most full timers, especially those from Florida, tend to avoid Disney like the plague unless forced to accompany whiney grandkids.

          Snowbirds, especially those from the northeast, drive golf carts like Jeff Gordon at Daytona, and all too often on roads which are not golf cart legal,. Their usual response to a "gentle " correction is "f **k youse"

          Snowbirds, especially those from "the city" will stare at a gator or heron for fifteen minutes as if waiting for it to speak Latin.

          Two words - Neon Spandex

          Snowbirds will play golf in shitty weather as if it were their last ever chance to play. Full time residents roll over and go back to sleep.

          Snowbirds wear swimsuits in the spa.

          Snowbirds will buy any two scruffy pieces of crap that someone else has glued together semi artistically and call it "Crafts"

          Snowbirds think the smooth part of a fairway in front of the green ten yards off the fringe is a parking space for golf carts. (yeah really, last Thursday, and the junk store license tag on their rental cart said New York, while the front had a Yankees tag.)

          Snowbirds here for the first time stare at traffic roundabouts in much the same fashion as an Orangutan regards a cellphone.

          Snowbirds go to Lakeridge Winery and buy swill that a resident wouldn't put in the cooling system of a John Deere tractor. Just because it's local doesn't mean it's good (or even drinkable).  

          Only a snowbird will hop the fence to get closer to take a "real good" picture of an eight foot alligator.

       I trust that this small tutorial has been of some usefulness. You're welcome and goodnight.

 

 

New Rule #27

New Rule #27: If you  want to style yourselves as the "responsible" party (as Republicans do) and throw stones at Democrats, labeling them the  party of fiscal impropriety, then clean your own house first.

 

          As a Floridian, I was disgusted when Rick Scott (aka Governor Bat Boy, aka Governor Skeletor) was elected governor. I guess I overestimated the intelligence of the Florida electorate. Here was a man who acknowledged being responsible for the largest Medicare fraud case in history, yet totally avoided being held accountable.  Severing  responsibility from accountability has been generally reserved for people with names like  Reagan,  Nixon and Bush.. That this man was CEO of a corporation guilty of $1.7  billion in deliberate fraudulent accounting should have been enough to kill his career. Not in good ole Fla!. I'm sure it helped that the best the rest of the party could muster in opposition was Bill ("geneteelia") McCollum, a failed congressman.

          Not to be outdone, Republican State Chairman Jim Greer, in pleading guilty to theft and money laundering, took the bullet for the bulk of his partisan spendthrifts. If you think I'm kidding about the spendthrift part, dig a bit and find out about the wretched excesses of our legislators in Tallahassee (of both parties, to be sure). The following is an excerpt  from an article related to Greer and his legal woes. "The criminal trial of former Republican Party of Florida chair Jim Greer had promised to be embarrassing for party leaders, rising Republican star Marco Rubio and former Gov. Charlie Crist, who is contemplating a new political future as a Democrat.   Greer's guilty pleas on Monday to four counts of theft and a single count of money laundering ended the trial before it even started and ensured that some state GOP secrets will remain confidential, at least for the time-being.

"There were a number of people who did not want this trial to go forward and the trial isn't going forward," Damon Chase, Greer's attorney, said after the former chair entered his pleas in court. "Once again, Jim Greer is falling on his sword for a lot of other folks."  Poor Jim.

          But, just like they say in those TV ads, "wait, there's more".  Today, Rick Scott's right hand chick, Lt Gov Jennifer Carroll, resigned hard on the heels of an FDLE and FBI investigation of her involvement with a "Veteran's" organization with ties to the Jacksonville police union as well.  Ms. Carroll, a Navy Veteran has disgraced herself and my service by being intimately involved with "Allied Veterans of the World" a company claiming to serve veterans, but serving investors much better. This sham organization's "fund raising centers" were,  in actuality, little more than internet slot machine sites which violated Florida law. The scam was a described by the Feds as   "A conspiracy and scheme to defraud the public and governmental agencies."  Over five years, the company grossed $290 million, while giving $6 million to veterans. For those of you who are number oriented that means they returned a bit more than .02% to the deserving. Poor Jennifer!

          So in summary, among the Florida's  Republican leaders , who complain about medical care for the needy,  taxes on the wealthy and a litany of other far  right mantras we have money launderers, perpetrators of fraud on a record scale, wire fraud , collusion to commit fraud, and abuse of a veteran affiliated   charity for personal gain. Don't it make you proud?

Live from God's waiting room.

 

Well, it's editorial day again, here in The Villages, which means the usual barrage of far right editorials. Today there are two nominees for the worst of the worst, Mona Charen and (repeating last month's win) Phyllis Schafly.

Let's deal with Ms Charen first. Today's column is "Media Fawns Over Cool First Family." Of course she goes onto imply that somehow this attention is a ploy to avoid focus on "real " issues. It smacks of Republican sour grapes to me. They can be forgiven, I guess since their litany of first family media personages runs from the openly cuckolded Ms. Warren Harding, to the overmedicated and, by many accounts physically abused Pat Nixon and the addicted Betty Ford to astrology infatuated Nancy Reagan and daughter Patti, nude in Playboy, financial fraud Neal Bush and, the underage drunk Bush sisters. Their mom, the vivacious and eloquent Laura Bush was, in fact a bit of a media darling, but her husband's colossal stupidity tended to overshadow her.

By comparison, Jackie Kennedy (every bit as much coverage), Dolly Madison (the toast of Washington) and others look polished, educated and comfortable in their own skin. Eleanor Roosevelt did a weekly radio show and wrote a newspaper column. How dare she, as an articulate, educated woman do so and draw attention to herself? The President's daughters are media darlings because they are attractive, bright role models instead of whining harpies (the former Mrs. Giuliani), addicts (Jeb Bush's daughter), or social disgraces to their family (the Bush "twins"). To be fair, the Bush girls were simply parroting things their father had done. Michelle Obama is a superstar because she's intelligent, dedicated to great causes, telegenic and open to the public, as opposed to Pat Nixon and Nancy Reagan whose relations with media were about like Barry Bonds'. If, by some freak of nature, A Republican was elected (or even existed) with a wife and family as graceful and accomplished as the Obamas, Fox News would feature them several times a day in every way imaginable, with Shawn Hannity personally sponsoring them for beatification.

The second and much less deserving of much space is Ms. Schlafly's statement that " The real difference between high achieving and low achieving children is whether or not they live in a "Traditional family," which she goes on to describe as their own mother and father. In her typical "baby with the bathwater" manner she, in one line, disallows love, economic well being, and community as significant factors in child development. In Schlafly's world, as in Rick Santorum's, a child living in poverty with his poor, underfed and undereducated parents is better off than as an adoptee by persons who want to provide the real necessities of life for the child. Mom and Dad are a fact of nature. Love and caring environments are nurture. This argument may rage forever, but Schlafly's statement truly rings false, since I am sure she attributes homosexuality to some mistake in childrearing, as many conservatives and Catholics do, which makes the issue of her eldest (of six) child's sexual orientation a point of interest. Apparently, while she finally did acknowledge John's homosexuality she would consider him inappropriate as a parent! Add to this the fact, that after marrying in 1949, at age 35, she ran for Congress in 1954 and continued a public career up to the present , not exactly (or even remotely) a "stay at home mom," but certainly a judgmental one! She traveled extensively and nannies reared her six kids to a large degree. At age 89, Ms. Schafly needs a rest and goodness knows we need a rest from her.