How I spent my Spring vacation

How I spent my spring vacation, or comments and impressions on the United Kingdom

          My sweetie and I recently returned from 24 days in the United Kingdom and Ireland the tour was guided and travel was by luxury coach. We saw more of the UK than (by their own admission) have many of the wonderful persons we chatted with along the way. Beginning in London we travelled to Canterbury, Brighton, Plymouth, Dartmoor, Glastonbury, Bath, Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland and back to Ireland again (Waterbury, Limerick, Killarney, Sligo, Derry, Belfast, Dublin). Recrossing the Irish Sea we then travelled to Holyhead Wales, Liverpool, Glasgow, Isle of Skye, Inverness, Aberdeen, St. Andrews  and Edinburgh, crossing and recrossing the highlands. Back through the lowlands to Newcastle, York, the Cotswolds, Stratford on Avon and London. I also watched a lot of BBC news. Lovely trip, but good to sleep in one’s own bed again!

          First, allow me to say, “It’s friggin’ green!” Everything everywhere  from  Brighton to Isle of Skye is green, mostly due to the islands’ situation at the confluence of the Gulf Stream and Europe’s mainland weather patterns.  Ireland’s rural areas are the greenest places I’ve ever seen, and the Cotswolds are a close second.

          Secondly, there are gazillions of sheep. I don’t mean just a lot, but actual gazillions, because I counted them. Unfortunately (for them) most will not see their first birthday. Too “baaad,” but England eats a lot of lamb. 

          Third, it’s much larger with much more open space (Ireland and the UK) than the smallish map, representation makes one think. There are vast empty spaces, even in lower England.  Dartmoor and the mountains of Wales are examples, and don’t even get me started about the Scottish Highlands, where I think there may yet be clansmen who don’t know the Stuarts are out of power. 

Fourth, the Irish and British people are, as a group, lovely warm persons who will speak to strangers and offer help at the drop of a confused look.  They also have supported, in the past and still do to some degree, a lavish lifestyle for a small portion of their countrymen who are landlords of “huge.. tracts”  (thank you, Michael Palin)  mostly  due to lucky circumstances of birth in the lineage of an ancestor who did nothing to deserve such wealth other than help William the bastard, Duke of Normandy, hijack their way of life almost 1000 years ago! Driving through the highlands, one sees numerous deer, which are actually culled annually from helicopter due to overpopulation, yet the average Britisher cannot hunt them, just like in Robin Hood’s time. Almost all the apparently empty highland areas are under ownership and control of nobles who simply inherited the land and who still control the hunting rights on this land.

The rights of public access to private land in Scotland are very different to those in England and Wales, The code of practice that governs access in Scotland has been formulated as the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. This essentially ensures the public’s right to wander private land, including woodlands, provided that they behave responsibly. However, the code expressly excludes right of access for hunting, shooting and fishing. To carry out any of these activities, a member of the public must have permission from the landowner (usually expensive, if granted at all); and in the case of deer stalking (the expression used for tracking and shooting deer), or fishing for salmon or sea trout, the permission must be in writing. It should be noted that unauthorized entry onto private land with a firearm is a serious criminal offence. If you own woodland in Scotland (and remember most is privately owned in huge estates), you also own the rights to fishing and hunting on that land. Only one exception to this rule is found: the rights to salmon fishing are sometimes owned separately to the land. Woodland owners can lease the rights to hunting or fishing on their land to others, and do, at rates which preclude hunting and fishing for many average persons. The rights to fish for salmon and freshwater fish in Scotland are privately owned. Fishing for salmon and Sea trout without the legal right, or written permission from a person having such a right, is a criminal offence. Fishing for all other freshwater fish without the right or written permission is, in general, a civil offence.

As Duke of Cornwall, Prince Charles has income from rents on 133, 602 acres of land with a value of over a billion pounds, due to a grant (Gift) issued by King Edward III in 1377. Of course, all he does is collect rents, not manage anything. Charles isn’t even close, however to the richest of the do-nothing nobility in the UK. Their assets account for 20 million out of Britain’s 60 million acres of  land, and researchers estimate that the vast majority is actually owned by a wealthy core of just 1,200 aristocrats and their relatives! Remember, these are not Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or the like, who have worked hard to earn their wealth. In fact, they are much more like the Bush and Kennedy boys or the Rockefeller heirs, but at least, at some point, that money was earned and the property purchased.  For example, the Duke of Westminster has a property portfolio totaling around £6 billion. A retired  professional army officer, Gerald C. Grosvenor inherited all his wealth. The first Grosvenor peer was “created” a Baronet by James I in 1622, and given land awards later  which today include the wealthiest areas of London, including ¬Belgravia and Mayfair.  The top private landowner, not just in Britain but Europe, is the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensbury, whose four sumptuous estates cover 240,000 acres in England and Scotland. As recently as the 19th-century, the Church was among the largest landowners in the realm, but more recently their land has been snapped up by the state, charities and the private sector.

          Much of this  information has been uncovered only in the past five years after a registration campaign targeting huge landowners who had previously avoided disclosing their assets. A small minority still own a huge amount of Britain’s land and over the last 100 years, little has changed. For the rich the control of land is as important as it’s ever been. They receive subsidies and most of their assets are held in trust, avoiding inheritance tax. A case in point is Blenheim Palace, estate of the Duke of Marlborough, the family of which Winston Churchill is a scion. The land on which it is built, 55,000 acres, was given by Queen Anne and its recipient created as the first Duke in the early 1700s. The current heir, the 11th Duke is a three time jailbird and heroin addict who will inherit this huge estate, which today is maintained by tourism, while the family continues living there - free, of course.

          For many working class Brits  this means that the diversions of hunting and fishing which in the US are considered rights (and rites of passage for many fathers and sons) are out of reach, as fishing licenses may cost as much as £100 (about $170) per person and in Scotland permission may simply be refused by those who “own” streams and make money charging the wealthy to fish. Hunting is similarly out of reach for most average UK residents. While enjoying the beauty of Great Britain and Ireland it is easy to forget that the conspicuous and wretched excess of the peerage was built and supported by a servant and in many cases peasant class and is today, in some instances supported with tax dollars extorted by VAT taxes and generally high costs. It certainly isn’t, as some would claim, the cost of the National Health Care System, which actually costs Britain only about half the per capita cost of health care in the US!       

        So enjoy Downton Abbey, but be a realist about the society which created this tiered system. I find it sad that the British Government which decried the caste system in India, is still very much operating under its own version. And by the way, Hilton, you cheap bastards, why can I get free wi-fi in even the sleaziest Motel 6 in the US, but while I’m in England where overseas data rates are $5 per minute, you want to soak me £5.00 per hour for what every hotel in Ireland and most in Scotland offers free? 

Interesting facts about the truth

                                 Some interesting facts:
Of all chain e-mails checked by Politifact, 81% were rated either "false" or "pants on fire" (blatant lies) More than half were in the latter category.
 

Of the ten most frequently fact checked politicial figures, President Obama was checked twice as often as the next one, more than 500 separate statements,  (not unusual, since Politifact was created by a conservative newspaper specifically for that purpose, originally).

Despite the frequency of checks, President Obama was rated as truthful 73% of the time.

 Mitt Romney was rated truthful 59%, John McCain 56% truthful, Rick Perry 53%, Rick Scott also 53% truthful.

Chris Christie was rated truthful 69%, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was truthful 43%, Marco Rubio 60% truthful.

 

There was only one woman in the top ten most checked persons, Hilary Clinton, and her truth rating was 72%, second by 1% to the President.

On the other hand, Michelle Bachmann is truthful less that 25% of the time! Rush Limbaugh is false/pants on fire 86%, partly true 9%, mostly true 4% , true - never! The "Reverend" Mike Huckabee lies 53% of the time, not good for a man of Gawd.  Glenn Beck lies 64% and Senator Ted Cruz 79% of the time. How curious that the two most vilified by the far right (Obama/Clinton) are the most consistently open and honest, while those who slander them are the most consistent prevaricators. 

 

The all time winner for most venal liar, however is Louie Gohmert, who apparently is incapable of a truthful statement. Gohmert is either "totally false" or "pants on fire" 76% of the time, and "mostly false" the other 24% ! and this man is a member of Congress....oh wait, never mind!

Random thoghts

                                                 Random thoughts:

We are appropriately saddened when we read of the death of the beautiful young mother of two in Orlando who was shot in her bed with her (surviving) 4 month old child beside her.  We originally were led to believe by her “boyfriend” that she was the victim of home intruders who were trying to kill him as he was trying to defend them, thus explaining the GSR on his hands!  Today we find that the boyfriend is in jail after being charged with her murder.  There can be no doubt that the boyfriend, a former Latin Kings member with 35 (yes, Virginia, 35!) arrests on various charges including several violent crimes, is a bad guy. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there can also be little doubt that if the young woman, who also had a four year old child, now orphaned, by a previous relationship, had used even a modicum of good judgment, she might still be alive. All who knew her describe her as a devoted mom, going to school and trying to do the best for her kids.  Since when does doing the best for your kids include cohabitating with a gang banger felon? There is an old and still valid adage that says “when you lie down with dogs, you may well get up with fleas.”  Time and time again we see this proven in the untimely death of women and children because of horrible lifestyle choices made by the women who are the mothers and, in many cases victims of these bad choices. If one believes that they will change a 35 time arrested bad guy, that belief is, in this case as in others recently, sheer fantasy. The same is true for the mother so desperate for male companionship, and with such low self esteem that she entrusts their welfare to men who have no business being in the same house with young children, let alone being left alone with them to be care givers.  It sadden and sickens us all, yet it continues.

In like manner, we see reports of various atrocious acts committed on college campuses by persons with too much alcohol and too little common sense. These range from sexual assault to hazing deaths and accidental deaths from various causes, usually alcohol fueled. Right off the top, sexual assault is always, unconditionally,  the fault of the perpetrator, and no one ever “asks for it” or “deserves it.”  Having made that clear, is it just possible that bad judgment and inexperienced drinking may allow victims to place themselves in precarious situations into which they might otherwise never dream of treading?  College administrations are all too ready to publically decry hazing, usually only after a death or near death event which makes the news. Why are they not immediate in permanently banning any campus organization which allows even one hazing? Stating a policy and then enforcing it only in the breach is an open invitation to “do it as long as you don’t get caught.”  The parents of the dead Florida A & M drum major certainly wish the school’s “no hazing” policy had been enforced over the years, as their son might still be alive. Of course, the person with direct responsibility will be fired or disciplined, as the school says all the right conciliatory words and makes the proper press releases, but enforcement of such policies begins at the very top. Paterno and the others who even considered trying to find a “humane” solution to the Sandusky sex crime spree may well have been guilty of allowing further assaults of children while dithering over whether or not to perform their state mandated  duty to report him. You want to reduce the number of times your school makes the news for sexual , criminal acts or hazing incidents? Enforce existing alcohol laws. Simple ain’t it? Try and find a public university outside Utah that seriously does it.        

Things Which Test One's Sense of Sympathy

Things that strain your sense of sympathy and/or concern:

    

    1.    The “reality” shows that pit man against nature in some barbaric contest. Examples might include the “The Deadliest Catch”, “Man Against Wild” and the filming of idiocies such as “Grizzly Man.” Where is the sympathy and concern for the poor camera man/crew who do all the same things, are exposed to the same deprivations and dangers,  and do it while recording the actions of the hero? As tough as “Bear”Grylls may be, the cat who films him has a harder job.

     

    2.    In the case of the “Grizzly Man”, Timothy Treadwell, who ended up as the texture in bear turds (yeah, literally) why waste sympathy on such an imbecile? He certainly was aware of the dangers inherent in dealing with these animals at close range before he became simply another nutrient. Treadwell was repeatedly warned by (Katmai National) park officials that his interaction with the bears was unsafe to both him and to the bears. "At best, he's misguided," Deb Liggett, superintendent at Katmai and Lake Clark national parks, told the Anchorage Daily News in 2001. "At worst, he's dangerous. If Timothy models unsafe behavior, that ultimately puts bears and other visitors at risk." Treadwell filmed his exploits, and used the films to raise public awareness of the problems faced by bears in North America. In 2003, at the end of his 13th visit, he and his girlfriend Amie Huguenard were attacked, killed, and partially eaten by a bear; the events which led to the attack are unknown. By the way, the “dangers” Treadwell referred to were simply not a factor to the grizzlies of Katmai, who were delighted to see another item on the buffet! 

       

    3.    North Korea has detained yet another incredibly stupid American. This young man (Matthew Todd Miller,24) apparently tore up his tourist visa and claimed sanctuary/asylum, or whatever they call it these days. The fact that he was immediately arrested by North Korean authorities may well indicate their assumption that any person claiming asylum in their god forsaken hell hole, is demonstrably either insane or a spy. A corollary to this action is the behavior exhibited by those “missionaries” stupid enough to go to this rogue state and openly defy authorities there while disrespecting their religion, which predates Christianity by about 600 years.  In like manner, there are already several western “missionaries” whose need to tell others of their theological errors overcame common sense and the repeated warnings of governments, friendly and hostile, and led them to North Korea, where they languish in the Kim’s totalitarian nightmare. Sympathy for these loonies is wasted. 

    

    4.    And finally, what of “poor” Cliven Bundy, hero to the lunatic right until they realized his racist attitude might cost them votes if they continued supporting his idiot and criminal acts. Facts in his case  are as follows: Cliven Bundy is a rancher in Nevada who grazes his cattle on public land. Not his land, not “Nevada’s land” as he and his sycophants charge, but your and my land – Public Land of the USA. 20 years ago the rules regarding grazing on public lands changed, a deed done by a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, but tracing its roots all the way back to the first US Government under the Articles of Confederation. Current laws regarding grazing on these lands trace to the Depression, when desecration of these lands by overgrazing and poor farming practices helped create the “Dust Bowl” and all its accompanying misery. In 1946, responsibility for responsibly managing (and conserving ) these lands was rolled into one Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A requirement of the program was that ranchers wishing to graze on public lands would apply for leases and pay for grazing rights. Over time, ranchers, especially more affluent ones began to dominate the process such that the regulators were being more regulated (good leases going to the same influential families over and over) than those whom they were assigned to serve and regulate. So the rules were changed to require leases to be bought as usual and to be renewed every ten years.

 The current dispute began in 1993 when grazing rules were changed and Bundy refused to pay the new bills to the US government for his cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy was eventually prohibited from grazing his cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment by an order issued in 1998 by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in United States v. Bundy. (He refused to abide by the rules his neighbors obeyed!) The BLM complaint was supplemented when in July 2013 the George Court ordered that Bundy refrain from trespass on federally administered land in the Gold Butte, Nevada area in Clark County. After about 15 years of repeated violations of multiple court orders, in early April 2014,  the BLM began rounding up Bundy's cattle that were trespassing on the land. While they were doing so, they were confronted by protesters and armed supporters of Bundy.  The government backed off and Bundy became the flavor of the month, garnering support for his lawlessness from other like minded persons who believe the law is inapplicable to them.

Of special note is the manner in which Faux News, led by Hannity decried the rule of law in favor of this scofflaw (Bundy). Senators aligned themselves either on the side of Bundy, or the side of the law. Nevada Senator Harry Reid(D) decried Bundy’s actions as illegal and his ever more inflammatory rhetoric as essentially homegrown terrorism. This was a bit strong, as “frontier loudmouth shitkicking lawbreaker” was more apt. The Republican Senator from Nevada, Dean Heller, meanwhile hailed Bundy as a patriot. What fell off the table here was the fact that Bundy had once paid grazing fees and simply stopped doing so about 21 years ago. In my humble estimation, 21 years is a lot of patience on the part of the BLM considering the flood of court orders ignored by Bundy.  It’s important to understand that what Bundy basically believes (He doesn’t, but he says he does) is analogous to me living in Hagerstown, Md, raising cattle with the belief that I should just be able to herd them to City Park to graze. Moreover, even if another rancher was paying for the right to graze there and I wasn’t, I should still be able to get away with it.   

Fast forward to the last several days when the grand dragon took off his sheet, and lo and behold, it was Cliven Bundy! I am only symbolically calling him a klansman, but will literally brand him a racist. He has gone so far as to blame Martin Luther King, Jr. for the lamentable (to Bundy) fact that he can no longer properly use racial epithets. The skid marks of Tea Baggers and others including Hannity, trying to distance themselves from these remarks, and in most cases, from Bundy, are awesome to behold. He has been revealed, finally, as have the vast bulk of far rightists when the sheets come off, as simply another racist redneck. What troubles me is that Bundy’s Congressional supporters believe that they can separate and compartmentalize his actions and attitudes , separating his concept of “liberty”(which it ain’t) for the white rancher from his absolute disdain for the same rights for persons of color. 

Reality? Check, please!

What is he common connection between these widely divergent persons?  Cotton Mather, The  Connecticut General Assembly members, the Shakers, Christopher Love, Joanna Southcott, John Wesley, William  Miller, Harriet Livermore, Charles Taze Russell, Wovoka, Camille Flammarion, Margaret Rowen, Herbert W. Armstrong, Dorothy Martin, Jeane Dixon,  Charles Manson, Leland Jensen, Chuck Smith, Benjamin Crème, Pat Robertson, José Argüelles, Edgar C. Whisenant, Lee Jang Rim,  Harold Camping, Marshall Applewhite, Chen Tao, Philip Berg, Hon-Ming Chen, Jerry Falwell, Nazim Al-Haqqani, Isaac Newton, Ruth Montgomery, José Luis de Jesús, Warren Jeffs?

The obvious answer is that all these persons have at least once, and a few several times, predicted the end of the world in the “second coming.” Most of these predictions were the result of a convergence of ego, hubris, superstition and in almost all cases, religious zealotry. Some, like Livermore, Miller, Chen, Whisenant, Camping, Dixon, Robertson, David Berg and others are/were repeat offenders, simply unable to come to grips with their own delusions and their failures to materialize.

The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 BC was "foretold" by a comet four years before. In 79 AD the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius which destroyed the city of Pompeii was attributed to a comet. In 1665 a comet preceded an outbreak of the Black Plague that killed almost 100,000 people in London. In 1835 a comet was blamed for such widely diverse events as the fall of the Alamo, a major fire in New York City and a massacre of 280 people in Africa. While some people dreaded the poisonous cyanogen gas (determined by who knows what method to be contained in the comet’s tail), others feared that the tail of the comet would bring deadly influenza. There were stories of farmers who were too busy preparing for the end of the world to bother to plant crops. One paper from Louisville reported that "Preparations for the end of the world are being made today by the ignorant persons through central and eastern parts of Kentucky." Near Memphis, Tennessee, there were reports of people following a prophet who proclaimed that the comet would destroy the world at noon on May the 18th. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, newspapers reported that the Rev. Abraham Lincoln Johnson was holding revival meetings where his congregation was "reduced to a paroxysm of fear" as the preacher pictured the destruction the comet would bring. In Italy, farmers were blaming floods and unseasonable weather that destroyed their crops on the celestial visitor.

There seems to be two prime sources for these delusions. The first centering on astronomical and cosmological events, is derivative from simple ignorance. “Earth-centric” cosmology died a long and lingering death, as the traditionalists beat down, and sometimes killed anyone who dared seek a scientific explanation for the way things work in the universe.  Their descendents run the “Creationism” museum today. They harried men like Aristarchus of Samos to his grave for simply proffering the thought that the earth might not be the center of the Universe. Galileo, in like manner was threatened for daring to think critically about matters celestial. The second source is primarily planted in various “interpretations” of books considered scriptural by some sect or another. True, there are, simply some whack jobs making shit up, like Heaven’s Gate (Applewhite, et al) waiting for the giant space craft to come out from hiding behind the comet to save the chosen.

The streams of thought (if one can actually call blatant superstition thought) seem to revolve around either some cosmological disaster precipitated by, insert your favorite event here, comet (Halley’s every single damned time!) planetary alignment, rogue planet(The Nibiru cult) or others as yet undiscovered.  A second offshoot, really, of this lunacy are predictions, based on cosmological events, which are normal and have happened predictably for as long as man has watched the sky, that this time, something else is afoot.

 The current “Blood moon” bullshit of “Pastor” Hagee is one of these coupled with scriptural interpretation, which is the third primary type.  Nothing new about it except his senile ramblings!  While some believers have gone to great lengths to explain it away, a rational person has little other way to interpret the “Olivet discourses” in any way except that Jesus is reputed to have said he would return while some of those living then were still alive. I know, I know, it didn’t happen that way, but true believers were quick to write apologia explaining the absence of Christ’s return away as either allegorical or misinterpreted. Add to this the rantings of a minor Hebrew prophet (Joel), misinterpret his warning to Israel, which was (post Maccabbees), interpreted by Paul to mean the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 77 AD, and you have the current shitstorm of superstition flowing out of Texas. Even Baptist ministers are calling Hagee out on this one. The tragedy is, they really only believe he got the date wrong!       

We shouldn’t be surprised that south westerners are gullible. I offer the following as 20^th century proof:

“Girl Rescued from Death at Gory Stake”

“Aline, Okla., May 19. Jane Warfield, a pretty nineteen-year-old farmer girl, living near here was rescued after a hand-to-hand conflict between members of the sheriff of Alfalfa county posse and Henry Heinman's religious fanatics Wednesday evening just as the girl was about to be offered as a blood sacrifice for the atonement of the world's sins in order that Halley's comet might not destroy the earth. The girl, nude and partially unconscious, was tied to a stake in the center of a dancing group of the crazed followers of Heiman and within a few minutes was to have been stabbed and bled to death. Heinman's chief prophet was ready to perform the deed. It was known in the community that the much-heralded approach of Halley's Comet and the threatened danger attached to its appearance had affected the fanatics and frequent meetings were being held. All their secrets are closely guarded and it was not until the girl was tied to the stake that the authorities became aware of the intended sacrifice.

Posse Starts Out

A posse was immediately formed and preceding to the meeting ground of the fanatics the girl was rescued and given medical attention. Followers of Heinman attempted to fight the officers, but they were overcome with little difficulty. Heinman was arrested and placed in the county jail. Heinman instigated the act by telling his companions that the comet meant the end of the world and the sacrifice was necessary for their atonement.”

Really?  My dog just burped, it that a sign? A bird flew across the back yard, should I be alarmed? It worries me that anyone would evidence any concern with regard to the rantings of any person of any religion concerning the future when we know that most of them were oral history with no foundation in fact anyway. Then again, I am a rational humanist. So I am automatically disqualified from the debate, I suppose. 

Don't believe everything you read!

When the Continental Congress disliked acts of Parliament and, more specifically, the actions of a succession of not very bright British cabinet ministers, they realized that most American colonists had no idea who these various persons were. Their methodology for organizing popular opinion against these policies and persons was to place the blame squarely on the one person who was known, at least symbolically, to every English speaker – King George III.

     This blame was condensed by the brilliant writer and, even more brilliant propagandist, Thomas Jefferson into the Declaration of Independence. As a work of propaganda, it is almost without peer, blaming solely poor old George, who by this time was suffering the beginnings of the porphyria which would dog him for the remainder of his life, for everything. 

    Jefferson realized that to focus colonial anger there needed to be a target and George was a great one.  Jefferson listed numerous grievances against acts of Parliament and the afore mentioned ministers, placing the blame for them entirely against the king. A partial list of these acts alleged to be George’s offenses (abridged for brevity) includes:  

According to Jefferson,  George III  did/or has:

 ..endeavoured to prevent the population of these States;

…has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

… cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

… has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. (My personal favorite!)

… has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    While acts of Parliament may have, in fact, did impose some of these conditions on American Colonists, the principal objections came from the likes of John Hancock, the wealthiest man, perhaps, in New England, and other men of relatively high status in America whose economic fortunes were affected by hated tariffs and anti-smuggling acts of Parliament. Jefferson’s job was to make the average colonist, essentially untouched by most of these issues, not only feel that the woes of the rich were the woes of the poor, but that one, and only one man , George III was responsible.

   If this sounds a bit familiar, it should. Social media are full of posts  and/or chain e-mails by the great unwashed, blaming the President for a myriad of things created and passed by a majority of 535 elected legislators and signed into law by one man.

     One outstanding example is “US Dollar to collapse as Obama’s currency law goes into effect.”  First of all, the law in question, commonly referred to as FATCA, specifies that those who are either expatriates (choosing not to live in America, but holding on to US citizenship) or simply Americans hiding money on offshore accounts thereby avoiding taxes, must pay taxes. This was passed by a majority of both houses of Congress in 2010. It isn’t new, and until very well heeled pressure groups began to protest paying their fair share(s), many Americans were unaware of it. 

    When asked if they think it’s wrong for the super rich to hide money in offshore accounts, thereby avoiding the taxes the rest of us are responsible for, over 70% of respondents in every poll on the subject ever taken resoundingly responds “yes.” In spite of this, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz  and other Republicans are lobbying to repeal and using numerous scare tactics in the process. The “currency law” referred to is the Bill which includes provisions for FATCA, again, a law enacted by Congress.  It is astounding to me that Tea Partiers would be duped into supporting a law favoring the wealthy, yet here it is! Paul, Cruz, and their ilk are opposing a law which enacts a principal consistent with the wishes of a super majority of their constituents. Mind boggling isn't it?

     Just as ridiculous, in the other direction are the spots on Facebook and elsewhere, claiming “Obama wants …..(whatever ).”  In point of fact, these are primarily ads run by Mortgage companies and have nothing to do with the President.

    I guess what I’m trying to get across here is that if you were too (lazy, uninterested, stupid) to pay attention in American Government class to learn how the legislative process works then you probably shouldn’t believe all the crap you see attributed to the President, regardless of party, unless it’s something he really, truly did all by himself, like LBJ picking his beagle up by the ears, or Nixon being so drunk that Kissinger had to take a phone call from Mrs Thatcher, or Clinton ….well, you know! If all the right side ads on FB went away, we’d all be better off and undoubtedly more well informed! 

New rule of Linguistics

Ok, new rule of linguistics: In order to restore the significance of legitimate uses of certain words, their use in everyday, mundane circumstances is suspended for the next year, at least.  I am sick (and tired) of being besieged via all media with claims, descriptors and other inappropriate adjectives relating to events, persons or things which simply don’t merit the hype. I will give several examples, just so you know where I’m going with this.

“Legendary” - Some synonyms include : famed, romanticized, storied; chimerical. None of these words or the word legendary itself can rightly be applied to, say, a club’s happy hour drinks. I don’t give a shit if you kill the last living Agave and mix the Tequila you make from it with virgin’s blood and lime juice, it still ain’t a “Legendary Margarita special!”  Even if you have Condoleeza Rice in a thong on stage, your club doesn’t have “Legendary dancers.”  Now if you had King Arthur or Guinevere, that would be legendary. Even a topless Sasquatch or Yeti qualifies. Period.

“Hero” – We are so apparently starved for legitimate heros ( defined: a :  a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b :  an illustrious warrior c :  a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities  d :  one who shows great courage) that we will now accord the title to anyone who simply does their job well instead of backing away from responsibility. In all fairness, when the media, thirsting for a soundbite tries to pin the “hero” title on such a person, some of them actually refuse the title. The kid who calls 911 on his cell phone to report a crash isn’t a hero, the firefighter who reaches into the burning car to save a child probably is. “Sully” Sullenberger is a hero, since water landings aren’t an everyday thing, and everyone surviving them even rarer. Kanye West isn’t a hero, neither is Donald Trump, they are “sellebrities”, which is my word for persons in the public eye who are waaaay too full of themselves. No one in “Duck Dynasty” is a hero. One problem is that “Hero” should be defined by deeds, not by what other people think of a personality.  And lastly, military personnel who go wherever they’re assigned and do their jobs to the best of their ability half way around the world are heros for that commitment;  mercenaries are simply whores.

“Brilliant”/”Awesome” – Not only are they overused, they are also frequently misused. Brilliant -  “Extremely intelligent : much more intelligent than most people.”  This fits Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein, and Grace Hopper, but it certainly doesn’t fit most ordinary or even really, really neat everyday occurrences. Our British friends use brilliant almost the same way as Americans use OK. I have heard “brilliant” used to describe athletes, some of whom are barely literate, because of their physical coordination and skill. Stop it.  “Awesome” is equally overused. Awesome is supposed to be used to express a show of force or majesty. When your friend comes back with a six-pack of beer, responding with this reprehensible utterance just doesn’t match up to the awe of a powerful tornado or when viewing one of the top 10 American landmarks. Nice try, though. Unfortunately, those who misuse “awesome” when they  really mean “better than average” are not struck dumb, as, say by an event which really is awesome.

“Literally” - Literally is another word that has been misconstrued into a bastardized form. When the exact reason to use the word is to express a non-exaggeration or a realistic degree of accuracy, why do people do the exact opposite? Literally is now used as a general intensive, and its very meaning has become lost and meaningless. Literally is meant to only be used when describing something verbatim, or for a correct technical explanation. It is not a synonym for figuratively or virtually. Let’s keep it as such. “I was literally blown away……!? One can only hope!    

Let’s end this with some phrases which are almost as egregious in their contortion of meaning as the above single words:

1. “At the end of the day”: Usually this means “whenever we’re finished”,  might be in five minutes, maybe a month, but almost certainly not at midnight!

2. “Fairly unique”: Ain’t no “fairly” about it, unique means “being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.” So “fairly unique” I guess that’s perhaps “Well, it was really cool, but there was this other shit sorta like it, so …….!”  

3. “I personally”: How else can You do something? This is maybe the most redundant phrase since “Fat, stupid addict -Rush Limbaugh””

4. “At this moment in time”: Really Bunky? You mean “now?”

5. "With all due respect”: As I’ve said before, this is misused more in application than syntactically. You actually can show all due respect, but in usage today, generally it is the phrase immediately preceding an assault on the target’s character. Respect is the last thing that will characterize the words which follow that opening line.

6. “Absolutely”: Frequently used as an alternative to “Yes,” the definition is far more restrictive “with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally.” There are relatively few circumstances where this overused word is truly applicable.

7.”It’s a nightmare”: No, it might be a “f*****g mess”, or a job badly done, but unless you were asleep and dreamt it it probably wasn’t a nightmare.

8. “Shouldn’t of”: Oh no, Jethro, you shouldn’t have said shouldn’t of.

So, kids, like let’s give these usages a fantabulously well earned  rest and maybe someday, we can like resume talking good English as it was meant to be spoke.