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.