Whay were they thinking?

                                 What were they thinking?

        I was struck, while listening to the music coming from my wife's sewing room, by the fact that sometimes people with great voices choose to do material for which they are not suited. Examples: Little Richard should not do "You'll never Walk Alone" and Beverly Sills (who didn't) or Pat Boone (who did) should never have recorded  "Long Tall Sally." Similarly,  John Lee Hooker should avoid "Ave Maria", and Tony Bennett need not record  "Barracuda." I also have two examples of male singers, both excellent, one of which I feel,  is impeccable in choice of material, Josh Groban, and one who is a bit less so, Michael Buble.

        Buble sometimes strays into Beatles and Queen material which, while he has a great Sinatra like style, just isn't in his wheel house. His "Fly Me to The Moon" is superb, his "Can't buy Me Love", replacing the Beatles driving rock beat with a swing rhythm, isn't. I say all that as introduction to today's musical critique. I just listened to Josh Groban's new album "Stages." What Josh does is, as expected, flawless, as is the selection of material. Go get it, it's wonderful!

        What is puzzling, in an otherwise superb Broadway playlist, is the two duets which are included - "All I Ask of You, from "Phantom," and "If I Loved You," from "Carousel". Of the two, I vastly prefer the former musically as a matter of personal taste , but the producers in a moment of "who knows what?" decided that the perfect choice to sing the part of Christine would be Kelly Clarkson. While I actually like much of Kelly's own  material, the little semi-Reba/sobby catch in her diction, so quaint in country rock, just sounds really out of place. Ga Ga could have killed it, even Carrie Underwood might have gotten close, but Kelly's part just sounds  sappy. As all my musician friends know, just hitting the right notes is insufficient.

        On a much, much brighter note, the same producer, apparently anxious to atone for the former, chose the incredible, impeccable, multi-Tony winning Audra McDonald to pair with Groban for "If I Loved You." The result is simply gorgeous. Lesson for today, only Lady GaGa, Charlotte Church and a very select few others can cross genre's convincingly. As I write this, I think back to when Ed Sullivan would periodically attempt to bring culture to an audience which was far more attuned to, and preferred, the plate spinners, dog acts and talking mouse sock puppet. He would bring out aging former Metropolitan Opera star Helen Trauble, who would mangle a pop standard or two, take the check and leave to scattered applause. She was far worse than Ms. Clarkson, but the concept is similar.

Preach Sister

Preach sister!

Senator Warren hits hard at the heart of many American's bad feelings re: Wall Street - the apparent double standard related to personal vs. corporate financial accountability. 

      Frankly, I'd be delighted to see, in lieu of monetary settlements, the top execs in these cases do a little federal time for fraud. There are only two options in these cases, re: accountability. Either,  a: the CEO's personal ethos was corporate philosophy, and criminal activity is directly attributable to top management, or,  b: the CEO and top management were criminally negligent in failing to supervise underlings. In either case, accountability resides at the top. Period. Watching lesser employees fall on their swords might satisfy some, but it fails to send the proper message.

        

      As long as a guy like (Fl governor) Rick Scott and United Health Care (his former corporation) can buy their way out of illegal activities, there's no real incentive to play honestly. This is far from new. There has long (as long as we've existed) been the sense of privilege and entitlement ascribed to "our kind of people" - persons of wealth -mostly inherited- who are deemed to be quality folk, ergo not to be treated like criminals, even when their actions meet that definition.

       Bernie Madoff and Michael Milken are stark and isolated examples of the few instances where justice has been done. Had Madoff not scammed so many of his peers, thereby violating the upper crust's  prime directive of  "don't s**t where you eat," he'd still be walking around a free man.

     It is long past time for a renewed Progressive long, hard look at business practices in this country. I do believe that one job of Government is to, whenever possible, help American industry and business to be successful. At the point, however, that doing so unfairly disadvantages any single taxpaying citizen for the profit of the wealthy - that crosses the inviolable line.

        I think Senator Warren is correct in her proposition that fines should actually be fines, not pseudo-fines riddled with write-off opportunities for admission of guilt. Perhaps a public trial, admission of guilt and exposure in public of economic malfeasance, might hurt a corporation's market standing. So be it. We see many corporate tax loopholes lumped in the category of "cost of doing business."  Perhaps public disclosure and jail time need to be the cost of doing business fraudulently.   

Let Them Eat Cheese

Before you Far Rightists take to the streets to beat and debase those minimum wage workers on strike for a living wage, read this. Essentially the 2 only "real" reasons given by the radical right for keeping minimum wage low (discountinmg the insane ramblings of Michele Bachmann) are 1: it will make some items cost more, and 2: it will slow job growth and hurt the economy.

Taking the first, first (makes sense, huh?): If the cost of a McDonald's burger increases by 5 or 10 cents because their workers actually can support a family of four if both work there, so be it. I have zero problem with that. As an aside, if McDonald's just raised the price by that amount, no one would even notice. Don't give me any crap - no one would notice. The thing to remember is that this is disposable income for most - I mean the cost of dining out, and many of us eat out at far more expensive places where we willingly pay an additional 20% of the bill in tips, without considering the extra cost. Even adding 10% to the McDonald's bill would cover the increase without much impact on the owner The impact on the employee, however would be huge. even a "split the difference" raise of $ 3.50 hourly, to $11.50 would move a worker who was married with a child from below to above Federal Poverty level income. Add a second parent working just half time, and the family is still well above the guidelines, even for as family of four. So much for that canard.

Second: "It will slow job growth and hurt the economy!" (usually stated in a whiny tone by people who own more stuff than they can count). reality? well, don't take my word for it, since I was going to deal with dull economics concepts like money multiplier, and things like that. Check this out instead:  "The effort (to raise minimum wage to $15/hour has been boosted by a growing body of economic research suggesting that raising the minimum wage doesn’t significantly reduce job growth. That’s helped undercut conservatives’ central argument in opposition to a raise. An analysis by Goldman Sachs last June found that job growth was actually a little higher in states that raised their minimum wage at the start of 2014 than in those that didn’t. Get that? A LITTLE HIGHER!!

As an aside, higher paid workers might actually (would) be able to afford more contribution to their health care insurance, and far fewer would qualify for earned income tax credit, decreasing the burden on taxpayers. In a Congress where there is yet another effort underway to reduce or eliminate the inheritance tax ($10.6 million is exempt for a couple, so you go figure how many of us middle class persons will ever be affected by this anyway!) it's small wonder that there is Far Right opposition to the minimum wage increase. We seem to just keep slapping workers in the face as they see income gap statistics continue to escalate. The Far Rightist response almost seems to be (Parodying Marie Antoinette, and we remember what happened to her) "Let them eat government cheese!"

When Morons Attack

It is depressing to consider with all the bitching and moaning of conservative, usually Evangelical, Christians, that what they are bemoaning isn't actually attacks upon them or their faith. The Mike Huckabees, Ted Cruz's and Rick Santorums, not to mention  Far Right Christian shamans too numerous to mention, are shamelessly whoring faith for votes.

        Statements such as "gays hate America" (Mike Levin) are not so very far removed from Russia's oppressive and repressive laws on the subject.  When asking for equal treatment under the law and in a civilized society is seen as an attack, there is something very wrong in the mind of the accuser. In the mid 50s to early 60s the same vile hatred was visited upon Black Americans by some White ones. Like the current anti-gay attitudes of a vocal minority of alleged Christians, the race hatred of that era was supported by some religious leaders, and led but a group who characterized themselves as Christians, first and foremost - the KKK.

        It almost seems as if Evangelicals and Muslim extremists, portrayed as mortal enemies, actually have a great deal in common. Both have for over a thousand years, periodically used their beliefs as a basis for murder. Both have demonstrated an unwillingness to consider that any other spirituality than theirs has sufficient merit to be conceded equal rights. While Muslims ignore color as a qualification, Many  (not all) truly racist Evangelical Americans also carry the remnants of racism within. One only need  look no further than the inbreds of Duck Dynasty for proof of both points. In like fashion, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell decades ago demonstrated their willingness to use slur, innuendo and  bullying tactics to further the flow of money into their  coffers.  Today it is the  morally bankrupt, political opportunist politicians  who, using the big lie in a manner which would make Hitler proud, lead the field of liars.

        An "attack" carries the connotation of attempting  to defeat a foe with the object of achieving some sort of superiority by that effort.  The issue here is that Christians have occupied the high ground and favored position in America, and for centuries, they have enjoyed that privileged position with relative impunity. Christian metaethics dominated the political and societal landscape and there were few willing to or courageous enough to point  out publically and persistently that the Constitution  didn't actually create or enforce such a situation. Even worse was that, just as slave owners had, the Evangelicals were happy to evangelize, but only certain groups were welcome to the table. In the 1950s there were relatively few Christian congregations in most of this nation with both White and Black communicants. No one claimed that this was what Jesus wanted; it was their own bigotry and bias which fostered it.

      By the turn of the century, Evangelicals had actually turned their bigotry into a parody of Blazing Saddles, where the mayor says, "Ok, the Niggers and Chinks can stay, but we don't want the Irish."  In Evangelical speak, this has become, "Ok, the Blacks can stay and women can preach (sometimes), but we don't want the gays."  Any literate person, regardless of who or what they may believe Jesus was, was not, or if he even existed, can read the new Testament  words describing his actions and quickly see just how f***ed up Evangelicals are on this issue. If anyone who actually thinks of them self as a Christian believes for  a minute that Jesus would have refused anyone, prostitute, thug, asexual, gay, Black, or whatever, a seat at the table, is lying to themselves and their God if they have one.

       Only in the deluded mind of fanatics, is asking for equality seen as an attack. Accusations of lack of patriotism are the same garbage. What minorities are seeking is simply to be treated equally. If this is seen as an "attack,"  then surely that is a bigoted and subjective opinion originating  with the person who is being called upon to actually live their life in a moral fashion instead of judgmentally  telling others what to do with theirs.          

The other foot!

what follows is part of an exchange  stemming from the following posts on a (gay former student) friend's Facebook page:

"I'm from the Right Wing but I would simply haul ass to a place that would serve me. Has anyone refused to serve a gay couple? I must have missed that."

At this point I felt  my interest piqued so I looked at the respondents bona fides. Amazingly enough, she  (this person) "studied at the London School of Economics" and now works at a volunteer fire department in Maine!

My first response:

"Yes, XXXXXX, it has happened all over the country, most frequently at bakeries who don't want to make a same sex couple cake. It extends, or has done , to refusal to rent. It has kept lifelong partners from deathbeds, disenfranchised surviving partners, and the list goes on. Apparently the London School of Economics didn't cover historical persecution of England's own gay population (Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing (forced chemical castration) in our lifetimes. It seems that you subscribe to the "I'm not gay, so screw 'em" school of thought. Of course one could use that vastly bigoted point of view to justify allowing discrimination to any group different from oneself. And for the record, I am a happily married (50 years) straight man. I just happen to be sick of seeing such ignorance in print. Kick this one around the firehouse, I'll bet they agree with you,  more's the pity.

She then asked why if a photographer refuses to shoot a wedding, so what? " Were other photographers available? If so, why the fuss?"

I responded:

"Because, if you offer your services in an open commercial setting, then you should provide those services to any legitimate customer who asks for them and can pay. The concept was (supposedly) settled by the USSC in Heart of Atlanta Hotel vs US in 1964 (yeah, 50 years ago) Although the case was brought by a motel chain wishing to avoid providing rooms for Black potential customers, and sought to enjoin enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it related to any business involved in commerce. As  federal Law, it relates only  to "interstate" businesses, and therefore, if your photographer or baker isn't an interstate entity, there is the possibility that persons like yourself could deny service based on prejudice. Many Americans supported the abandonment of Jim Crowism, discrimination and bigotry during the Civil rights era. Some still cling to the idea that it is just fine to treat one group different from another based on bias and prejudice. The same principle you seek to justify would allow a very broad range of discrimination, not just anti-gay, but anti-single parent, anti- black, anti- Jew, Muslim , Hindu ....in fact against anyone who isn't just like you. The only conceivable reason one would support these "religious freedom" laws is if one, in extremely un-Christian fashion, I might add, given the example of the Biblical Jesus, chooses bigotry, bias and hatred over love. If that is you, XXXXX, you need to look to your soul."

"One last note, It amazes me that the only people we hear complaining about this reaction to the "religious freedom" laws, are persons who have never been the specific targets of discrimination ....not until their own allegedly religious based patterns of behavioral and overt discrimination were finally met by people of good will who challenged their right to be bigots. The shoe is on the other foot and apparently it pinches. Of course these "victims" of equal opportunity will never be lynched shot or burned for their complaints. They will, like you, just be scorned and shamed for their "pick and choose the scripture" religiousity. See a difference here?

Fractured speech

Words we need to stop using or use correctly

I'm going to start with several phrases or usages which particularly bug me, and then just riff on several more until I'm ranted out.

Legendary:  I heard a commercial recently for a relatively new (open about three years) club in Orlando which extolled the qualities of their "Legendary Drink Specials."  Legendary implies at least some extended period of accomplishment, passing into the collective  memory later to invoke waves of nostalgia and fond remembrance, usually grossly exaggerated and hyped. One example might be the Gunfight at the OK Corrall. A really big frozen Margarita  isn't a legend, it's just liver abuse. When Arthur and Lancelot start coming to your bar to hang out, you  may resume calling it legendary!

Technology: If you have a mop with a squeegee, it is just that. Calling it Soap Extraction technology doesn't make it clean any better. In the same vein, Insurance companies are now touting "enhanced claims technology."  It that anything like taking better care of customers?  The same soap that used to be advertised as simply cleaning better, now has  "enhanced surfactant  technology" Apparently the current guiding concept of modern advertising is that a consumer on seeing the word technology related to a potential purchase will close their mind and open their  wallets!

Hand crafted/craft brewed:  All too frequently, this term is applied to things I definitely don't want hands touching. "Hand crafted" micro-brewed  beer is a good example. These micro brewers seem to believe that we picture them burning charcoal, hoeing barley, growing yeast and hops, all to be stirred with a paddle in a washtub  until just right, at which time they pour it through a funnel one bottle at a time and seal it with wax. Craft Brewed? Really? Micro-breweries are exactly like large ones, only -  wait for it....."smaller!" Disappointed? I know I was. Now if you make it at home, mix it in the sink, etc...... Go for it; but don't expect me to drink it instead of my favorite ale.

Went to Steak and Shake today. Hey, we were hungry and it was there, ok?  They proudly advertise "hand dipped"  milkshakes. Now if you call something a milk shake, it must have ice cream and milk as well as assorted flavorings in it, that's the rule. If it comes out the spout of a fast freeze soft serve machine, you might call it a shake, but we know it isn't a MILK shake and you can't claim it is.  So how else would one get ice cream into the thing if not hand dipped? I looked for the robot dippers in other places, but alas, they don't exist.  Of course it's hand dipped. In like manner, they advertise hand crafted burgers. I would buy this if, after I order, they  hauled out of the locker a whole primal cut, ground it , added just the right amount of fat , mixed it and then hand formed it into the perfect patty. What they do, however, is open a refrigerated drawer, take out a pre-formed patty and mash it a bit on the grill. hand crafted? For the record, that's also how White Castle makes hamburgers, minus the hubris of calling their gut bomb sliders "hand crafted!"

I saw a recipe today, with accompanying video for  "hand crafted" goats milk soup." Yeah, I  know;  yummo, huh? I watched, expecting to see the goat milking and cheese making , spice gathering, etc. Instead I watched a lady open a container of commercial goat's milk and dump the pre-measured ingredients into a pan. That was the extent of the hand crafting. we are grossly overusing the term, which used to actually be applied to one of a kind original handmade furniture and the like. stop it!

There are many more of these misuses, but here are some favorites with short discussions relating to the misuse:

Groundbreaking (or its cousins, breakthrough and late-breaking): Very few products are groundbreaking in the sense that they figuratively broke new ground, created a new market where none existed before or even actually are a true innovation.    The Ford Model T, typewriter, iPod and sliced bread come to mind. Most others need not apply!

Revolutionary: Did your product or service start a revolution? Probably not. If it did, you probably got in trouble at some point, unless you're a weapons manufacturer.

Advanced: we  see this word applied (and generally misapplied) to almost everything. “Advanced ingredients.” “Advanced technology.” “Advanced processes.” "Advanced formula".....It`s being used so much that it has lost its value. The word is essentially meaningless in the previously shown contexts.

Bleeding edge: This is a favorite in the technology industry. Apparently when “cutting edge” wasn`t enough, marketers started using “bleeding edge.” I suppose that if the edge was actually a  "cutting edge" and one was careless, it could become a "bleeding edge", but that wouldn't really be a positive product aspect, would it?

Pioneering:  See groundbreaking, above. If you aren't experimenting and creating in relatively uncharted waters, sorry, you aren't "pioneering."

Exclusive: Unless whatever you make, or whatever service you provide is only available to one person, it`s not exclusive. You are simply selling snob appeal to people with little tiny penises. (see Humvee)

Unique: We all think we`re special. But unless what you do, produce or sell does something nothing else ever made has done,  it's not unique. In fact, if there is one other good, product or service like yours, it can't be unique. I'm just sayin'.  A far better approach would be  to let your consumer public  come to the conclusion that what you offer is unique, by describing its real features and benefits. Just saying that it`s unique, outright, does nothing to convince and is almost assuredly a lie.

Best: Can you say "Hubris?"  "Best" is a comparative word, just like better. Best compared to what? Better than what? Use of "best" to describe a product or service implies that some authoritative agency has compared and found yours to be better than all the rest. It is a bit reminiscent of the Zen koan- "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" This is pretty high ground to be on, and claiming it makes a statement which is almost assuredly fatuous at best and   false at worst.

OK, that's enough for now.

Treason? - Not!

    

This in response to the significant number of persons who should know better, regarding the use of the word treason to describe the childish, disrespectful and poorly thought out letter open letter to Iran written by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and signed by 47 Republican members of the Senate. These persons are using the word treason, which I suppose makes them feel better, but which in fact, simply displays the same lack of knowledge the Tea Baggers showed when they called several Obama initiatives treason some time ago.

    "One more time. Read the definition of treason. Where? In the Constitution. It's the only crime actually defined in the document. Why is that? Because the British screamed "treason" anytime someone did something they didn't like. "Treason against the United States shall consist only of waging war against the United States or adhering to its enemies ( which had historically interpreted as in actual declared war) ......." . Before one calls for a specific action, it might behoove one to actually have a clue what they're talking about! Aside from that, the offending Senate members are flaming assholes, which is heinous , but not treason.  I am far from an apologist for these Far right imbeciles, I just hate to see the term Treason bandied about with the same vituperation and much the same context as the Tea Baggers have used it against the current President of the United States. What we are talking about here and your response to it is precisely why Hamilton, Madison and Jay felt it necessary to define it in the Constitution. If simply doing something some people don't like is treason, we would have a lot of executions. (but if it changes, start with Tom Cotton, boy asshole!, lol)

        There simply is no legal precedent that is relevant. Because the Constitution, ratified in 1788 wasn't in force during the War for Independence. In fact for much of it the US had no governing document at all, until the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. The fast and loose use of the charge "treason " by the British is the precise reason why the Framers of the Constitution made it the only crime actually defined and described in the document, to avoid exactly the sort of thing you suggest.

         Jefferson couldn't even get a treason conviction against Aaron Burr in 1807 for conspiring to break away Louisiana, parts of several and several southern states and part of the Texas territory to form a southern confederation, even though such action would probably have constituted war against the remaining states. Chief Justice (and presiding judge in the trial in Richmond) John Marshall, no fan of Jefferson, insisted upon the strictest possible interpretation of the wording. Since all law in the US before the Constitution is irrelevant, the precedent stands. As much as you might want these guys to be tried for treason, what they have done just doesn't come close to meeting the Constitutional definition. Don't get mad at me for pointing it out. Hell, using the one time loose British definition, I'd have been jailed during the entire Bush administration.

        Several Treason cases during the Civil war were heard by military tribunal, which might make it strange today because of the obvious public knowledge of it. In our history, there have been relatively few events which have engendered the majority of treason charges (less than 20 have ever been convicted and two of them Washington pardoned almost immediately (Whiskey Rebellion). The rest stem from: WWII (Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally, a guy who broadcast for the Germans, a pilot defector, and a US born Japanese defector , John Brown's raid - He was actually charged with treason against Virginia, a weird R.I. thing (Dorr's rebellion), and Lincoln's assassination (Five convicted, 4 hanged, Dr. Mudd got life. As for the whole definition thing, in the UK as little as 150 years ago, calling for treason charges against members of the upper house of government might well, in and of itself, been sufficient to get a charge of treason. I don't want to go there."