Things that make me wonder

                           Things that make me wonder

I have noted over the 35  or so years that increasing concerns have  been raised about global warming, that there seems to be a profile that fits most of the nay sayers who seem content to pooh pooh the general consensus of most responsible scientists worldwide.  I’m not sure why, but these groups seem to have certain characteristics as follows: politically conservative, self identified  (usually fundamentalist) Christians, and/or somehow involved in some way with industries which are in some respect causative factors in said warming.  

          This is compounded by the numerous public forums in which bad or non science is displayed without disclaimer of credential to the masses who are, for the most part, not equipped to distinguish opinion from data. As an example – there is a cartoon strip, “Mallard Fillmore,”  which runs in the local politically conservative  newspaper.  This strip is about 95% political in content. In the Orlando Sentinel, this strip runs beside Gary Trudeau’s “Doonesbury” on the op-ed page. In our local paper it runs in the comic section. The cartoonist uses this strip to make statements of political opinion and bad science, without disclaimer. Recently, the talking duck (yeah, talking duck) made a claim that the increase in Antarctic sea ice proves that global warming is bogus science, an opinion this man has staunchly endorsed over the years. Reality is that the statement comes from an “expert” whose bio tells us he “studied atmospheric science” while obtaining a Political Science degree from Dartmouth and his Juris Doctor from Syracuse. Plainly put, he is a lawyer. He consults to several “think tanks” among which is the Heritage foundation, whose website encourages the reader to “Join Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity” as members. See the pattern?  A cartoonist cites a lawyer, who works for an ultra conservative group funded heavily by the energy industry, but it’s ok, you can trust him to tell the truth.   

          Obviously, there are several reasons the energy industry hates the idea that humans are responsible for climate change. In the first place, if that is so, surely the hydrocarbon by-products of their sources of revenues are primary offenders.  It is amazingly and hauntingly similar to Ronald Reagan : “On the campaign trail, Reagan supported teaching creationism in public schools. As president, he failed to acknowledge the AIDS epidemic until near the close of his second term. And on environmental science, his administration was atrocious. On the environmental issue most prominent at the time—acid rain—Reagan dragged his feet until 1986 before copping to the scientific consensus that it was being caused by human activities. Then he ran out the clock without taking any action to rein it in—just like George W. Bush did on climate change.” (Chris Mooney, “The Republican War on Science.” Reagan opposed government regulation of essentially everything as did many if his fat cat supporters in industry.

 This thread of business opposing any facts which may affect their bottom line is central to their almost universal opposition to accepting that climate change is caused by the planet’s inhabitants and not the planet itself. Imagine if, in 1980, an American company had embraced the concept of wind turbines as a non-polluting power source. Would we now, 33 years later be buying Danish and German technology in that field? Many initiatives in the area of alternative/renewable and more environmentally friendly, energy funding have been sidetracked without even serious public discussion by back room deals brokered by Big Oil. All through the Bush years, Republicans, led by the likes of Palin, Perry, Bachmann et al, have shouted “drill baby drill.” Well, “fracking” is drilling, and some of its conservative Christian victims in Ohio (earthquakes) and Texas (polluted water supplies and actual natural gas coming from faucets) are having second thoughts.

A second possibility for the denial syndrome is that if, as a  fundamentalist Christian, you believe that A supernatural God created the earth 4800 years ago,  and all His creations are perfect, then obviously, nothing we humans  do can hurt it. This implies, I guess that believing in climate change is denying God’s role in the universe.  This also is a great comfort to polluters who know that no matter what science says, they can continue to count on the support of the Christian Right as they pollute our lakes, streams and air. Most of these persons tend, also, to be pro life, espousing the belief that God also creates babies, as shown by massive billboards along the Florida Turnpike between Wildwood and Orlando .  If true, what was He thinking when he made Ted Bundy?

The most troubling aspect of all this to me is that as in many areas, currently health care being a prime example, political opportunists  hurl shibboleths like “Socialism” etc. to convince supporters to agitate against their own best interests. This is definitely true in health care and the climate change arena. Many conservative Christians, as in other groups, are not persons of means, and many of them and their children will benefit from the Affordable Health Care Plan, yet looking at some of the Tea Party rallies, these are the same persons demonstrating against it. The propaganda machine of the right has sown so many lies, half truths and distortions in both areas that the average person has no idea what is reality, so they continue to embrace the partisan affiliations of their parents and grandparents, little realizing that neither Eisenhower or Nixon would recognize today’s Republican party or its policies.   

Dwight Eisenhower was a huge booster of science and research. He created the Atomic Energy Comission, the office of the president’s science adviser, encouraged the development of civilian nuclear power production,  and manned the U.S.’s response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik by creating NASA. Ike's answer to Sputnik was to ramp up the country's scientific capacity. The bipartisan tradition of supporting science that began with Eisenhower carried on through the Nixon era. Nixon, a Republican president,  signed into law the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of many landmark environmental laws.  Ronald Reagan is where it all changed. The Reagan years were characterized by a decisive turn toward a Republican electoral strategy that drew upon the religious right base (then called the "Moral Majority") and corporate interests. These constituents had beefs with science in multiple areas, and Reagan’s administration catered to them again and again.  The lies told by the Reagan administration regarding the evils of  government regulation were echoed to grass roots Christians by the Falwells, Robertsons, and Buchanans.   

So here we are. Antarctic ice is increasing – global warming is a sham! Not so. Data shows Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly. Arctic ice is depleting even faster. The reasons are varied. In the case of the cartoonist’s duplicity, he fails to mention that the statement he makes refers to sea ice, which is partly frozen sea water and partly continental  pack ice which has ( wait for it)  sheared from the normal continental shelf ice and  become free floating. There are other reasons as well, but they are unglamorous, fact and data driven, and therefore not of interest to the far right’s unwashed faithful and the corporate polluters they support.

Why Idol jumped the shark

There is a phrase which has no literal meaning, but which is used to describe a show (play, TV, anything) which has become no longer relevant. That phrase is "Jumped the Shark" as in "Hitler's National Socialist idea jumped the shark."  OK,  OK. Maybe a bad example. It is frequently applied to TV series which have failed to hold viewer interest and are in danger of cancellation. A man whom I admire, British dancer and TV executive , Nigel Lithgoe, is co executive producer of two shows, "So You Think You Can Dance" on which he is also a judge, and "American Idol." They couldn't be much more different. The vibe on SYTYCD is universally positive, and the judges actually are people who have the expertise necessary to judge dancers and give valid opinions. This is not, and has not always been the case in American Idol, and I won't go farther into that here. The recent Emmy Awards favored a competing singing show, "The Voice." Mr Lithgoe spoke: This is my response.  

I noted that executive producer Nigel Lithgoe, who also produces “So You Think You Can Dance”, was somewhat taken aback that "The Voice" won an Emmy in the category in which "American Idol" was nominated. His comments seemed to focus on Idol's being the first, therefore the best of its type. Mr. Lithgoe should bear in mind that his own show (SYTYCD) has almost always had, as the winner, a legitimate talent - dancers who are truly the best at what they do. Yes, the public chooses the final winners, but by that time there are six or even eight dancers remaining they are  all truly talented artists! Also in SYTYCD, as in “The Voice”  the contestants have had hours of training and coaching (in the case of SYTYCD, probably 40 or more hours with choreographers who give feedback to the judges) by professionals. In the case of Idol, the real personal contact with pros is minimal, and seemed to have little effect, other than to serve as exposure for the professional.   Idol, on the other hand, in my opinion, and this is, of course, an opinion piece, jumped the shark around season 5.

 I don't remember for sure which number it was, but I clearly remember the circumstances. Some early Idol winners went on to great things, but some very talented others did not win, but proved the fallaciousness of open voting. While several early winners are great advertisements for the show, such as Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, a look at who didn’t win shows a different story. Clay Aiken, Chris Daughtry, Adam Lambert, Crystal Bowersox are all also rans. The turning point for me was Kathryn McPhee losing to Taylor Hicks, who resembled no one quite as much as your embarrassing uncle with the lampshade on his head singing even when not asked.   Earlier that season, Chris Daughtry (multiple Grammy nominations, American Music Awards) also lost, while Hicks plowed on. Three seasons later, current international superstar Adam Lambert lost to Kris Allen, who is now working at a Holiday Inn lounge somewhere, Similarly, season two runner up Clay Aiken went to Broadway, while winner, Rueben Studdard apparently went back to IHOP. Not to worry, though, Reuben is set as a contestant on season 15 of “The Biggest Loser”(really!)  The genuinely talented Crystal Bowersox lost to (bet you can’t even remember his name) – Lee DeWyze. She has two albums released, the first of which sold twice as many as all three of DeWeze’s  and is headed to Broadway, while ‘ol Lee is ….who knows?  

Even in years with successful winners, the losers have in some cases had much more successful careers. The year Fantasia Barrino won, Diana DeGarmo was second. She (Diana) has worked (and starred) on and off Broadway continuously every year since.  Seventh place that year went to Jennifer Hudson, of whom you may have heard, her career outdistancing almost every Idol winner except Carrie Underwood.

So, Nigel, when the losers began to win and the winners began to lose, the show began to be irrelevant. I would think that, considering the brilliance with which you handle SYTYCD, you’d recognize that, to steal a line from another wretched reality fiasco, that while America’s got Talent, its viewing public doesn’t always have taste.     

"Fastly" Really?

              Further ruminations on the abuse of language.

If you ever feel the need to hear truly egregious examples of poor grammar and syntax, watch an afternoon of college football.  Actually, the more insignificant the schools, the better the opportunity. Why,  You ask? Well, it goes like this.

At the pro level, there is plenty of atrocious usage and gratuitous chatter,  especially if Terry Bradshaw is doing commentary, alongside Bill Cowher spraying the mic (shut up, I know he can’t help it). Bradshaw even recently dropped an “f-bomb” on an open mic. This in itself isn’t surprising, but the fact that the context was in regard to someone’s maternal ancestor, was!  At least the major networks get fairly well known former successful pros as  color commentators who have been on mic before and in many cases are actually lucid and well spoken, if occasionally given to mind numbing repetition and bad taste in clothes. “We have to establish the run” is the favorite here. These guys’ main entertainment seems to be “dissing” each others’ former teams (Troy Aikmen). Another prime example is Chris Collinsworth, who seems to feel the need to fill  every second of dead air space with his encyclopedic knowledge of the game. On the extreme other end of this spectrum is Tony “Goose” Siragusa, who is as bright and well spoken as a block of cheese. And puhleeeze, will someone please tell Deon Sanders that Superfly called and wants his wardrobe back.

          Less given to prolixity, but also frequently somewhat less intelligible are the former jocks who may have had a brief pro career, but Tebowed when reality set in. See Jesse Palmer  as an example.  These guys seem to feel the air time with their keen assessment of the game, probably as they would have played it had they been talented enough to sustain careers more than two years. Some of these guys , Palmer, in all fairness is one, are actually bright, well spoken guys who are actually better at broadcasting than passing. They still are a step down the food chain as a group, when it comes to mangling the language. Yesterday I heard (yet again) the comment that a running back “gained positive yardage.” Really, no shit?  I wanna know when he “gains negative yardage.” Now that will be a story because, as I understand it, that’s actually called a “loss of yardage.” I’d love to think the announcer was doing some sort of algebra and assigning signs to ….. ahh, never mind, he’s just an idiot. I also got to hear (I swear, I’m not making this up) an on air color guy state that someone’s (a player) ability in one of the game fundamentals was “improving more fastly than the coaches had hoped”. Yes really, I played it back – “more fastly!” There  is no context in which that is even a word.

          The division two announcers are usually just good ole boys who would otherwise be sitting in front of the gas station flipping bottle caps reminiscing about how good they were at age 17. Occasionally you’ll get an ex coach who is simply devoid of any other skill set, so they work cheap.  A prime example right in Central Florida is former semi-pro and CFL player, Don Jonas who, after being fired as coach of the University of Central Florida Knights went gone on to a career as the worst radio football commentator and sports talk show host ever, and from that illustrious plateau to work in the lucrative and rewarding auto glass replacement industry.  Jonas was almost unintelligible, to the point that one never was quite sure whether what he said was a sign of ignorance or a slight stroke. There are many out there like him, unfortunately.

Brain Droppings (with all due homage to George Carlin)

                        Privatization: isn’t it great?

      Isn’t it interesting that a private contractor, USIS, cleared both Edward Snowden and Aaron Alexis? When I received my security clearance, the FBI did a background check. In the age of outsourcing, we leave it up to private security firms.

There are several intriguing  (at least to me) aspects of this whole mess. First, privatization is the darling of the far right;  examples including Halliburton no bid contracts, Blackwater security, and now USIS. How odd that the first to scream about security issues and threats to the nation are generally Tea Partiers and their despicably fatuous ilk, and these are the same political hacks who support these relatively unregulated private firms. Do you think any of USIS’ $200 million annual take went to politicos of the right?

          Had Alexis been granted his clearance (secret, by the way!) under military guidelines by the FBI, the 2004 shooting of the tires on an auto in a self described “blackout fit of rage” would have almost certainly resulted in the removal of that clearance. Even a simple possession and/or use of pot would have done so.

          In a similarly remarkable coincidence, Edward Snowden (remember him, the man without a country?) also was the grantee of a clearance by the selfsame USIS. I have been on both ends of FBI background checks and I know the sort of questions asked and of whom they are asked. I just recently did one for a former student who was in the Air Force, and it is difficult to believe that Snowden’s acquaintances would have given him a clean bill on the same sort of questions, considering his narcissistic personality disorder.

          To compound the felony in Alexis’ case, he actually told police in Rhode Island he was hearing voices, yet that information was never weighed by someone with authority to revoke Alexis’ clearance before he was able to remain sane enough to kill  thirteen innocent persons in a place he should have never been able to enter.  

          For those of us with military backgrounds, the shootings at the Navy Yard have a surreal aspect. I have seen a Navy commander removed from a job requiring Secret clearance simply for wearing a Scopolamine patch  for motion sickness, but a man with a civilian firm “clearance” in a full blown schizophrenic rage can walk into a “secure” facility armed to the teeth. What’s wrong with this picture?

 

As noted above, privatization is the darling of the right, and has been used to scapegoat almost every sort of Government operation.  Charter School initiatives are a good example, except for the fact that most data comes from (you guessed it) the charter schools.  If ones listens to the charter school lobby and/or watches propaganda films like “Waiting for Superman”  or  “The Lottery” you might come to the conclusion that charter schools cure cancer, shingles, dandruff, and  make the blind see. Yet the recent CREDO study out of Stanford University shows that only 17% of charter school students outperform their public school counterparts—and 37% perform worse. To declare the success of the charter school movement based on a 17% success rate is no more sensible than declaring their inherent corruption based on their incidence of embezzlement and other shady business dealings...though I guess we can say education has now learned something from the business world.

          Let’s revisit that  “37% perform worse” statistic for a moment. What is missing here, is that charter schools start with an uneven playing field from the get-go. Most take no emotionally handicapped  students, and many take only the cream of the academic crop (see “The Lottery”) Behavioral problem children are disenrolled and shoveled down to the public schools. Sometimes even National icon charter schools fudge the data when it tells an unpleasant story.  Good storytelling includes just enough truth to make it believable and drops the contrary details—high charter school student attrition rates or Geoffrey Canada’s kicking his low-scoring inaugural middle school class out of the Harlem Children’s Zone, for instance (their score were too low!) . With all these opportunities to spitshine the record, one has to conjecture upon what the numbers would show if all charter school data, “unwashed” were on the table.  37% is probably lower than the reality! On the high side, some charter schools do well, but then again so do many public schools. I taught in one for 20 years. In the same Florida county as I taught high school , charter schools, usually run by financial opportunists and purveyors of unfulfillable promises, failed in significant numbers, usually accompanied by proof of financial malfeasance and lack of educational expertise.

          A concrete example of privatization failure is Baltimore County, Md.  After three years of privatization on numerous schools in the county, test scores were flat (essentially no difference) between charter (privatized) and public schools of similar demographics. Educational Alternatives (EA), the private corporation which ran the so called “Tesseract” schools in Baltimore, night have claimed to do “as well as the public schools” but several facts prove the lie of this point. First, EA was paid 11% more per student than were public schools and still failed to produce superior results. Here is a quote from the independent evaluator of the trial: “ Although our finding of no CTBS test score gain after three years has been publicly viewed as a determining factor in the decision in December 1995 to terminate the contract, it was the report's financial information that cut short EAI's effort. While at first glance, average per- pupil cost seems an appropriate funding basis for alternatives to public education in which "funds follow the student," school systems almost universally spend less than their average per-pupil cost for elementary students and more for secondary and special needs students. The unmasking of this artifice made a mockery of EAI's promise to improve schools at no extra cost to Baltimore City. We have since learned that EAI's inference that it directs a larger percentage of resources to the classroom is also a distortion.”  In plainspeak, they were in it for the money, which seems to be the way of the charter school world.

          On a final note, the Republican Party, largely hijacked by the Tea Party lobby, has once again taken aim at the Affordable Health Care Act.  Instead of arguing details, let’s ask, and try to answer  the bigger question “Why do they hate it?” 

The answers probably go all the way back to another Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, a Progressive, and ergo out of step with some of the far right in his own party. The campaign for some form of universal government-funded health care has stretched for nearly a century in the US, and on  several occasions, advocates believed they were on the verge of success. The evolution of these efforts and the reasons for their failure make for an intriguing lesson in American history, ideology, and character. During the Progressive Era, President Theodore Roosevelt supported health insurance because he believed that no country could be strong whose people were sick and poor, most of the initiative for reform took place outside of government.

In 1906, the American Association of Labor Legislation (AALL) finally led the campaign for health insurance drafting a model bill in 1915. In a nutshell, the bill limited coverage to the working class and all others that earned less than $1200 a year, including dependents (sound familiar?). The services of physicians, nurses, and hospitals were included, as was sick pay, maternity benefits, and a death benefit to pay for funeral expenses. Costs were to be shared between workers, employers, and the state. What differentiates this effort to pass universal health care from the current debacle is the support of one key group. Many of whom support AHCA today, but many of whom are vocal in their opposition.

In 1914, reformers sought to involve physicians in formulating this bill and the American Medical Association (AMA) actually supported the AALL proposal. Some physicians who were leaders in the AMA wrote to the AALL secretary: “Your plans are so entirely in line with our own that we want to be of every possible assistance.” By 1916, the AMA board approved a committee to work with AALL, and at this point the AMA and AALL formed a united front on behalf of health insurance. Times have definitely changed along the way.

Exactly as in today’s debate, the  commercial insurance industry (the only industry in America which has never as a whole , even during the great depression, lost money) opposed the reformers’ efforts in the early 20th century. The backbone of insurance business was policies for working class families that paid death benefits and covered funeral expenses. But because the reformer health insurance plans also covered funeral expenses, there was a big conflict. Reformers felt that by covering death benefits, they could finance much of the health insurance costs from the money wasted by commercial insurance policies who had to have an army of insurance agents to market and collect on these policies. But since this would have pulled the rug out from under the multi-million dollar commercial life insurance industry, they opposed the national health insurance proposal. Again privatization for profit’s sake, never mind the casualties!

Ironically, the sword that slew universal health care in the early 1900s was WWI. Since the Germans had it, and later, the Soviets as well, the Financial interests in the USA could now oppose health care by spewing patriotic tripe such as “If the ‘Krauts’ and ‘Reds’ have it, it is obviously bad.”

In the years following Communist takeovers  in the Soviet Union and, post WWII central Europe, efforts by FDR and Truman were shouted down by cries of “Socialism”, which was immediately linked to Communism. Billy Graham, anti-Semite , racist, and friend to Presidents claimed during the McCarthy era that “Communism is sponsored by Satan”  This also (in the minds of the unwashed masses who needed it most) made universal health care somehow unchristian. The drivel continued through the Clinton years, with Hillary Clinton becoming the target of scorn for nothing more heinous than hosting town hall information gathering sessions regarding healthcare.

The financial clout brought to bear in opposition to health care reform has little to do with anything besides the industries which might have to readjust to accommodate some government interface. Big Pharma, some of the AMA, American Hospital Association,  Big Tobacco, and especially the insurance lobby, have marshaled billions to oppose the AHCA. These are not persons of principal; they are persons of money, who oppose AHCA for the same reasons they like Charter Schools and privatization of what should be other government functions (security clearances, etc.)    None of the principal opponents to the AHCA will really be affected by it, which is the irony (like rain on your wedding day) of the whole debacle. The loudest opponents already have health care insurance and therefore are unaffected. It is galling that these hypocrites now pretend to have the interests of the poor at heart, since they have had precious little use for them otherwise.

As I have exhaustively written elsewhere, the cost of healthcare for the poor will be paid. Period. It will be paid by the rest of us. Period. Unfortunately, it will be paid in ER fees and extended hospital stays covered by government funds at costs far exceeding the cost of preventive medicine which a reasonable health care plan would make available. It would mean fewer moms with no prenatal care and the attendant long inpatient stays at thousands of dollars per day! There are so many more examples and small wonder that many emergency services providers have no issue with the AHCA, because they have seen the costs in human misery of the alternative.  How pathetic that those who would be relatively unaffected are the loudest in opposition. It’s sort of like men making laws about abortion, isn’t it?

So privatize away! After all what’s at stake except the welfare of our kids, our health, and the security of the nation? And if the fat cats get fatter, that’s the business of business in America.

Sheer stupidity mixed with prejudice!

      Some of the hateful Twitter and Facebook posts regarding the selection of Nina Devaluri as Miss America are simply mind boggling in their ignorance, evidence of lack of education and racial chauvinism. One hardly knows where to start in addressing the mindless nattering of these inbred bigots.

          “Pookie” said: “And the Arab wins Miss America. Classic.”

First, Pookie, you moron,  Nina  Devaluri is American, born in Syracuse N.Y. and raised in Oklahoma and Michigan. She is as American as you, but obviously brighter  (she is pre-med) than you and your ilk.   Second, she is not an Arab. We Americans are some of the most ethnocentric and, therefore, geographically challenged people on the planet, and you obviously are the poster child for “duh.”  Neither she or her parents are Muslim, and, in fact (science tip here) Indians are actually classified as “Aryans,” which will confuse the Hitler Youth among your unwashed amigos.

“Jake Amick” said “How the fuck does a foreigner win Miss America? She is a Arab!”  See above, you semiliterate churlish bumpkin!

          A Miss Jessica Ayres showed her true colors with this gem of self contradiction: “I swear I'm not racist but this is America.”  One barely knows how to analyze this! If you’re not racist, what’s your problem?

          An equally ignorant Wendy Fraser posted “nice slap in the face to the people of 9-11 how pathetic.”  Unless there was a heretofore undisclosed Hindu connection to the events of 9/11, the meaning of this ludicrous post is lost in the hatred.

One of the most ridiculous quotes comes from an Audrey Graham who flatly states:  “Miss America is a terrorist. Whatever. It's fine.”

          The ignorance displayed above really has its roots in two areas. Racial/ Cultural  bigotry is obviously the first, since Ms. Devuluri is somewhat darker skinned than most Caucasians. She is, however, lighter than several African American Miss Americas, including my friend and former student, the drop dead gorgeous Ericka Dunlap (Miss America 2004). The fact that any person born in the United States is a citizen by birth obviously escapes the haters.

Nina Devaluri is as American as George Burns and the Marx Brothers, and more so than Irving Berlin.  Remember him? He wrote “God Bless America,” the song which coined the phrase many of you haters are so proud of spewing, usually right after some intolerant act or statement. As a Jewish immigrant, Israel Baline  (he changed his name) spent the first five years of his life in Russia, unlike Ms. Devaluri, who spent hers in New York and Oklahoma.  Maybe she should have changed her name to Nina Smith?

Another nasty undertone was expressed by several idiots who called her “Miss 7-11” in obvious reference to the many sub-contintent immigrants who work for convenience store chains. This stems, I suppose,  from the work ethic usually displayed by these recent immigrants which seems to elude many native born Americans these days.  In Miss America’s case it couldn’t be more egregiously incorrect.  Her father, his siblings and aunts and uncles on her mother’s side are all physicians. She is National Honor Society and Dean’s List at the University of Michigan and plans to become a cardiologist.

This isn't new.  Bess Myerson won the title in 1945, the first Jewess to do so. There were some mumblings and whining  during the pageant, including efforts by at least one sponsor to get her to change her name, as Myerson sounded "too Jewish". During her year as Miss America, she was scheduled to speak at a country club in the South, but had to cancel because the club barred Jews!

So in summary, it seems some Americans haven’t managed to get past the insecurity of having to share our country and our institutions with persons who look different or have names or religious beliefs unlike ours. It’s ugly, it’s wrong and it’s a constant reminder to the rest of the world in this era of worldwide instantaneous communication, that we speak a good game when we lecture them about human rights, but many Americans continue  to be haters and bigots here at home.

It's the Little Things

                              It’s the Little Things

All of us have experienced things which may be of little or no consequence to others, but piss us off far beyond their real significance. Here’s my top ten. Feel free to suggest others.

10. Persons who care truly, madly,  deeply  about the love lives of celebrities with whom  they have no real interface whatsoever.

9. Al Sharpton

8. People who seek to impress casual acquaintances with who they know, rather than who they are.

7.  Anyone who believes that since they like public prayer, everyone else should have to be exposed to it, yet if they were forced to listen to a prayer of another faith, their head would explode.

6.  Persons who cite the “morality” of Christianity and/or Judaism,  citing  the Ten Commandments, yet fail to realize that within days of their delivery, the Hebrews had slain over 3000 of their own.

5. That bratty kid in the cabinet commercial who trashes the kitchen while in time out.

4.  “Dr.” Phil, “Dr.” Laura, and all other purveyors  of instant fixes for problems which probably really need serious therapy, not fraud.

3 Anyone who has never played the game and never could play the game who insists on telling you how the game should be played.

2. Nancy Grace’s hostile, whiney, sneering, shitty existence.

1. The New York Yankees   

Rumsfield - Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!

I love the fact that Donald Rumsfeld now feels obligated to criticize President Obama for seeking bipartisan consensus and seeking to do whatever is correct in Syria, vice what ever makes our testosterone surge. "Rummy" (yeah, really, "W" sometimes called him that!) was one of the principal architects of the disaster that was the Bush invasion of Iraq and was the prime mover behind ousting the original American civilian placed in control of the post invasion rebuilding in favor of his own hyper draconian measures which instantly alienated many Iraqis who might have helped rebuild instead of design IEDs. Loathed by the Pentagon almost down to the least two star,  Rumsfeld is probably the last person after Dick Cheyney who should have a microphone placed anywhere near them regarding matters military. One actually hoped at one time that temporal displacement and a change of perspective might make Rumsfeld reflect, repent and admit his colossal failings as a strategist, leader and administrator, as did Robert MacNamara (see "The Fog of War" if you haven't), but alas, like his President after Hurricans Katrina, his propensity for denial, backbiting and whiney carping seem to be boundless. 
Donald Rumsfeld has actually managed to become as irrelevant to civil, informed discourse as Al Sharpton, Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton and that's damned hard to do!