Mitt in his own words.

Reasons why Mitt Romney cannot be trusted to be president in his own words:

"President Barack Obama has stood watch over the greatest job loss in modern American history. And that, my friends, is one inconvenient truth that will haunt this President throughout history."   Mitt Romney

Reason 1: He's a liar.  Reason 2: He apparently has no sense of history

        The "greatest job loss in American history" would certainly not be at any time during the Obama Administration. The worst year during that period (2009-2013) was 2009, the first year of President Obama's  first term when job losses increased unemployment by 3.5% to 9.6% unemployment.  All conditions leading upo to this were in place even before the 2008 campaign!

        In 1928, Herbert Hoover, a Republican (inconvenient truth spoiler alert), took office with a national unemployment rate of 4.2%. By 1930, it was 8.7% , up by 4.5%, more than in Obama's worst year, but wait, it gets better! by 1932, unemployment had increased to 23.6%, which means without even adjusting for population growth, that Hoover stood watch over more job loss then President Obama, and adjusted for population growth lost a whopping 19%  of the workforce. Yet Mitt says President Obama was the worst?  Now, in the interest of fairness, presidents don't create or lose jobs, the economy  does, and in both Hoover's and Bush's case, lack of regulation of the market(s)  and other factors, especially in 1928, bear the burden of blame. In Hoover's case, he did relatively little on the federal level, and  the result was the Great Depression. It was ten years and the start of WWII until unemployment dropped back below 10%!   

        President Bush  took action in 2008 , signing the huge bailout, criticized by many of his own party, and President  Obama continued stimulating the economy in much the same way. By 2013, unemployment was back under 7% and by late 2014, under 6%.  In other words, the actions of Presidents Bush and Obama curbed the recession. what Mitt also overlooked is the fact that in 1982, (Reagan was president and had been for a year) unemployment was 9.7% - higher than at any time in the Obama years, and had risen 2.3% since Reagan took office! In truth, during the first 5 years of the Reagan years, the unemployment rate was higher than it currently is under President  Obama. Anyway you cut it Mitt Romney is either a liar or slept through history class!

Reason 3: He is apparently oblivious to reality

"Ronald Reagan was a president of strength. His philosophy was a philosophy of strength - a strong military, a strong economy and strong families."    Mitt Romney

       Really, Mitt? Reagan family values?  Of the Reagan children, two have been divorced, two have lived with unmarried partners, and all went through extended periods of strained relations with their parents. They disagreed outspokenly with their father on crucial issues in the 1980 campaign—nuclear power, the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion—and they are in some respects unforgiving with each other. Patti refused to use dad's last name, and lived unmarried with Eagles' guitarist Bernie Leadon for some years. Eldest daughter Maureen was effectively shunned by Reagan handlers during the campaign, as they were afraid of what she might say or reveal on the stump.  As for Ron, he was the Gipper's  darling until he  wanted to study ballet, after which he was never mentioned. And Nancy - running "Ronnie's" daily calendar on the predictions of her personal astrologer? Puleeze - these people put the fun in dysfunctional, Mitt. 

       And, Mitt, by the way,  the divorce rate in America was higher throughout the entire eight Reagan years than at any time during the Clinton years and the Obama administration to date! Delusional much, Mitt?

"In the richest country in the history of the world, this Obama economy has crushed the middle class. Family income has fallen by $4,000, but health insurance premiums are higher, food prices are higher, utility bills are higher, and gasoline prices have doubled. Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before."  Mitt Romney

Reason 4:  He's bad at math

        The number of Americans in poverty is a large number, but so is the number of Americans, therefore the percentage of families in poverty is the only statistically meaningful way to address the issue. Mitt apparently fails to grasp this, because if he did, he'd realize that as a percentage of the population, there are fewer Americans in poverty today than there were from 1959-to 1965, 1981, and 1992, those last two Reagan and G.H.W.Bush  years by the way! 

        When it comes to household income, my blog regarding minimum wage explains the lie inherent in Romney's statement. He blames Obama for the decline in average family income, but overlooks two hugely significant factors. First,  the numbers include unemployed families, higher during the first Obama years due to recession, and also overlooks the static minimum wage, raises of which have steadily been opposed by Romney and most other Republicans.   Romney would have you believe that somehow President Obama's economic policies have caused this decline, rather than attempted to staunch the bleeding.

        Health Insurance premiums are higher? Of course they are, they have been so every year for decades. What Mitt fails to admit (and this is a quote from before the Affordable Care Act, so it's really not his fault) is that in 2013, and again in 2014 for the first time in years, the rate of increase is lower than before! The ACA, another Romney bugaboo, is working! So contrary to Romney speak  health care costs are decreasing adjusted for inflation, but not by much, as much remains to be done. In any event, Obama bashing over health care costs is dead in the water.  

        Of course the "blame the black guy for fuel costs" part of this is ludicrous in light of current events, but the pity is Romney knows , and knew when he said it that the president has no control over fuel costs, that federal gasoline tax ha remained constant over the last 22 years at 18 cents per gallon.

      So why say it at all, knowing it's a lie by implication? Well, maybe he's stupid, or maybe he's a lying asshole, or maybe he's just another Republican empty shirt. You choose, I'm going to lunch.

More things that make me wonder.

         More things which make me wonder.

Is there a direct linkage in the minds of advertising agencies between the price of an automobile and the linguistic ability of the chosen spokesperson?

        It almost seems as if ad agencies are afraid to tell a auto dealer  that  they should not be doing their own TV commercials. There are numerous examples in this area which demonstrate this point. The Lexus dealer in Orlando has a female spokesperson who is tastefully dressed, wears minimal and tastefully applied makeup and speaks every syllable distinctly, in a conversational tone and without noticeable accent.

        Moving up a notch, a local multi brand dealership which used to feature the owner mangling the word Toyota into a two syllable word  ("Tyo-ta") with rapid fire  enunciation, now uses a blonde with rouge spots reminiscent of  circus makeup, who says all three syllables, but pronounces the word as "tee-oh-ta" as she yells at you.

        At the top of the bad decision scale is a dealer who is the owner and has decided to be the public face of his (Buick)  dealership. he has an unfortunate shape to his mouth which makes it seem as if a stroke had paralyzed some facial muscles, and the gleam of spittle as he speaks is off putting as  he elides syllables as if skiing downhill  avoiding moguls. One is left at times wondering what it was that he just said.

        If, in some distant future, an alien civilization should recover and decode recordings of some of our current TV commercials, they would conclude that, as a species, we were all hard of hearing, especially if the commercial was for Oxy-Clean or some similarly pitched product. Obviously the commercials are effective, as the product continues with the same pitchman, which begs the question why?  Is there a segment of the population which is conditioned to, "loud is better?"  Or is it, "If it's loud it must be true?"  

Another thing that makes me wonder:

        Are Tea Party supporters of middle and lower class economic status really as ignorant  as their choice makes them appear?

        When I see groups of Tea Party supporters there appear to be a fairly significant portion of them of middle or lower middle class means. They are also some of the most vehement, racist and enthusiastically vile in their mannerisms. I find this unusual, since the "leaders" of the Tea party movement, and I mean the behind the scenes money, not the public mouthpieces, have nothing in common, and even less affection for this demographic other than their votes. 

      The Tea party supports reversal  of what small headway has been made in controlling the greed of Wall street pirates. In 2007, many of the Tea Party power base were hurt by the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and subsequent economic collapse which these robber barons precipitated, and yet...?  They excoriate the current administration for economic recovery efforts, while conveniently forgetting who signed the "too big to fail" bailout package.

       In like manner, the Affordable Care Act which overwhelmingly benefits middle and lower middle class persons without insurance and has been proven to work, much to their (Tea Partiers) chagrin, is targeted by them as (in some fantasy world) a Bad Thing which must be dismantled. All the while, it goes unnoticed that Ted Cruz, a prime opponent of the ACA and Tea party idol, opposes it because his wife is a major player in a private health care company.  The rate of health care cost increases is lower, ERs are less slammed, and millions have decent health insurance for the first time, and yet...?

        You have to hand it to the Cruzes, McConnels, the  Koch brothers, the Walton heirs and their ilk - they have convinced millions of Americans that it is an act of patriotism to vote against their own best  interest!

Reality Therapy for Dummies

     This, today, in response to a poster on the MSNBC website excoriating Democrats for supporting minimum wage increase , immigration amnesty, Wall Street regulation, etc. His post was as follows: "But according to the Obama Administration, the economy is on FIRE! Then why is the cost-of-living so high? Why is the demand for a minimum wage hike? Why the millions of US Citizens still unemployed? When Obama's Amnesty Immigrants flood the anemic job market, unemployed US Citizens are truly screwed!"   

       You, sir, are not malicious, simply ignorant. Starting with the last: The immigrants you hate so much are already here, already working and nothing the President has done will increase that number, but it will get them "on the books" tax wise. You apparently don't realize that being "legal" also means paying taxes. The jobs many immigrants do are jobs other Americans won't, can't or don't.  

       Case in point  - I live in Florida and I don't see many Caucasian or black skilled tilers or roofers working here. Immigrants, on the other hand, want to work and view any work as honorable. If more native borns felt that way, we'd all be better off. As for economic recovery, the dirty little secret no one wants to acknowledge is that the world  around us has changed. We no longer have the raw materials to fuel industry as we did in 1850-1950. We must change the nature of what we do to make money, to reflect that change. Americans who want to make a living via manual labor will continue to be disappointed as good jobs become more and more technical. Unfortunately, we are still burdened with young people 18-30 who never got that message in high school, and for whatever reason, are not just unemployed, but in many cases unemployable. Blame that on the President if you wish, but that doesn't make it his fault.

       The recent recession was the fault of an under-regulated financial sector who placed corporate earnings above good judgment (can you say "sub-prime mortgages are really just like cash?") and we all paid the price. I wouldn't blame that on either Bush or Obama, but the recent stated Republican goal of removing recent regulatory restrictions on Wall Street is squarely in the lap of Boehner and his gang. You don't have to like it, but cast your blame where it belongs rather than the current Far Right mantra of "Blame the black guy."

        In like manner, Congress will seriously try to undermine the Affordable Care Act (or as you hate mongers call it "Obamacare") although by any standard you can apply it has been successful, actually reducing the rate of health care cost increase while insuring tens of millions of tax paying workers who couldn't afford insurance otherwise. 

      The real problem, in my opinion, is the extremely wealthy in this country who seem to cling to the fact that with enough retrograde legislation, the economy can once again be as it was in 1950, when we led the world in tech and heavy industry  (steel, auto production, etc) and produced sufficient basic raw materials domestically to sustain that. Those days are gone forever, but the Kochs, etc live in denial, and why not? They are rich and invested internationally to stay that way. In like fashion, the Walton wastrels, whose patriarch, Sam, based his business on "Made in America" products, have forced US manufacturers too numerous to mention, to shift offshore for cheaper labor, offering "cheap and Chinese" to keep market share. We hear far rightists slaving themselves to big businesses who trumpet their patriotism, while undercutting working families. The sad thing is that ignoramuses like you believe them.

      Finally, as regards your statement whining about the cost of living, also, apparently in your estimation higher under the current administration, let's just let the facts (you know data - real stuff?)  speak for themselves:  

      Under the Bush administration, the CPI (the measure of the increase in cost of living) rose by a factor of 1.27 (27%) . During the Obama years to this November, the increase has been 1.11 (11%) half that figure. Again, you sir, are simply ignorant. Meanwhile, due almost exclusively to Republican resistance in the House, the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation (the only real way to view it) has increased  by only 1/2 of 1% since 1993. So - Cost of living up by 34% over 14 years, real value of minimum wage up just .5%  - do the math (if you can). 

     In point of fact, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in 1968 was equivalent to $10.34 in 2013 dollars. This means that, relative to the cost of living, the minimum wage has  decreased about 30% in buying power compared to 1968!  Just to keep pace with the cost of living, federal minimum wage should be $10.60 per hour. Why is the cost of living so high? It isn't really; our inflation rate is the envy of the world, but the amount people can earn working a full forty hour week at a minimum wage job, is almost stagnant. 

     Does anyone believe that any of the fortune 500 CEOs has seen any decrease in their buying power? Didn't think so. Thanks Republicans!

Kentucky Wisdom?

         "I believe that history might be, and ought to be, taught in a new fashion so as to make the meaning of it as a process of evolution intelligible to the young."

                          Thomas Huxley

     This seems to be exactly what the Far Rightists fear when they criticize history texts for examining all sides of an issue instead of draping atrocities in the flag and moving on.  (see Philippine Insurrection, Spanish American War, etc ) We now have  school board members, some of whom are not far past literate , who feel obligated to manipulate the version of reality taught in classrooms.  History, to these folks is not an evolutionary process, subject to reexamination, rather it is fixed in stone, its connotations forever to remain as they were considered and or interpreted  contemporaneously. What do I mean? 

An example or two should suffice.

          Let's examine George Armstrong Custer's legacy as an example of an evolving interpretation of history.  Even though an early NY Times report actually ran a story confirming the rash and arrogant nature of Custer's decision to attack the Sioux and Cheyenne encampment along the Rosebud, many Americans grew up between 1876 and  1950, or so,  believing the "heroic" cavalry leader had somehow simply been the victim of bad luck. 

     In 1941, American moviegoers, fearing global warfare, were "uplifted"  by "They Died With Their Boots On", a highly fictionalized Custer biopic which lionized Custer's courage and bravery.   By about the 1960s , while some history books, such as the ones favored in some districts still today, were still painting Custer as the Indian's victim, most had revaluated Custer in the light of his , actions rather than legend.   Modern historians are generally in agreement that Custer's  hubris was responsible the   massacre.    

        Another example from the 20th century is the Vietnam War and its aftermath. Immediately post war, (Feb. 29, 1946)  Ho Chi Minh begged, then President,  Harry Truman in a poignant telegram to honor the spirit of the Atlantic Charter and the UN Charter, both of which called for an end to colonialism, and   insist that France not be allowed to reoccupy the portion of Southeast Asia known as "French Indo-China."  

     The result turned  on the ill health of  FDR, whose death left no written or even well formulated policy regarding the region.  Roosevelt, according to staffers close to him in the last term and the portion of his fourth which he served, recount his orally having made it clear that he did not favor  French return to physical presence or even influence  in the region. The history of what followed has evolved over the past 60 years. Americans, being fed a version of Communism which colored all Communists the same shade of  red were warned by McCarthy, The Dulles brothers and others ranted that all Reds were the same and it was our God given duty to help the French. While Truman stopped short of committing ground troops, we did just about everything else he could to help the French retake the entire nation and later aided the former French puppet king in  retaining control of the southern part of  what we were now calling  Vietnam. 

     We were warned  by historically illiterate politicians of a Communist Vietnam as being simply an extension of Red China's Asian influence. This ignored the fact of the almost 2000 years of enmity between China and Vietnam.  Skip ahead 2 million or better Vietnamese, American, Laotian and  Cambodian deaths and notice that we are trading partners with a unified Vietnam, a condition which we might have engineered 60 years and many  lives earlier, if we had just learned from history instead of accepting the static view that  Ho Chi Minh was a clone of  Stalin and/or Lenin, instead of just a nationalist who was sick of living in an occupied nation.

       This static view of history cripples every generation exposed to it, by implying that we must meet every  emerging circumstance with the same failed tactics used in the past. leaders who dare to even ideate other, often innovative, approaches are usually ridiculed by their far right critics.

It seems to me that there are some in America, unfortunately in many  cases in government, who believe that the nation can remain fixed in time in a state of existence consistent with their nostalgic world view, while the rest of the world, including our own population demographic,  is continually morphing.   These men and women seem to believe that if they just wish hard enough and click their heels together and pass laws, America will remain stuck at Mel's Diner ca 1960 with Richie, Potsy and the Fonz. To accomplish that end they are willing to tear down any institution , regardless of its positive aspects, that they view as inimical to their personal aims. 

     In the world of Mitch McConnell, America will eternally have a white majority, women will know their place, the poor will remain too poor to buy insurance, the rich will get richer and that's the plan God has for the USA. That certainly reflects the Palin/Romney/Faux News/Perry  point of view.

        The reason for the previous paragraphs is to hold up for inspection some of the intentions stated by such notables as new Senate majority leader, McConnell.  Just like those who would freeze history and deny its evolutionary nature McConnell has stated his intention of attempting to reverse women's rights to choose, pass legislation which would modify the Affordable Care Act in a manner which would cause several millions of currently insured  working families to lose coverage, and further gut financial reform, even though under-regulated Wall  Street operators were the cause of collapse of 2008. 

         McConnell, today, in a veritable orgy of self aggrandizement  took  Republican credit for the 11 million new jobs and the 5.8% unemployment rate, which was accomplished with constant growth 2 years earlier than candidate Romney had promised it in 2012.  The Senator from Kentucky has also voiced his intention to fight the President on immigration.  I think the Far Rightists believe that if they can just "make it like it was" (a real world  impossibility)  their supporters, the Kochs and Romneys and Waltons will like them better. I get the sad feeling that they are blind when looking forward and nostalgic when they reflect on the good old days of the Rockefellers, Morgans, Vanderbilts  and the other robber barons.

        I believe Frederick Douglass spoke prophetically when he said,    "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.

        Look around!

Colonialism by any other name.

     I wasn't gonna get sucked into this, but the longer I reflected on it, the more ludicrous it became, in my estimation. It starts with a Facebook post of a piece of video produced by some arm of  Israeli Government regarding the reasons for the size of Israel today and why it doesn't withdraw to the 1948 UN sanctioned borders. The reasoning, all sound and logical,  is based on more modern and rapid response to weapons of great range and speed. 'Nuff said about the video.  The comments in support, however are truly fatuous and frightening.

        Here's just a sample of the "logic" of the responders:  

        "Guys this is all spiritual- there are principalities and powers of darkness that are insanely consumed with hatred for God and His chosen people: Jews. There is no rational judgement being used here. These Muslims are pawns in satan's insane attempts to scrub the earth clean of God and Jewish people. This is spiritual hatred and war. The humans involved are merely the marionettes of wicked princes in high places. It has always been like this for Jewish people, they have always been persecuted and scattered and satan's attempts to destroy them are and will be relentless until Messiah returns and destroys him.

But God will defend and protect Israel, and we need to keep her in our prayers faithfully."

        "First and Foremost Israel Will not AND Cannot be Eliminated. These Countries have been after Israel for Centuries AND Israel is still here. What is happening now is a Repeat of the old Testament. We are in the END Times!. Everything Points to it NOW. The Stage is being set for JESUS Second coming you don't know when, BUT IT`S VERY CLOSE. Because of whats (sic)  going on now."

And, finally, although there are many more, as imbecilic,  this, which might be my favorite:

    

    "This should NOT even be a subject or a discussion!!!! Palestine was NEVER a state!!!!!!!!!!! Israel belongs to the HEBREW to the Jewish people and the rabble that settled here should go to the places they came form (sic) Arab Saudia (sic), Egypt, Lebanon and Syria… READ the HISTORY!!!'

        Where to start?  How about with the ludicrous assertion that some supernatural sky being, (whose "creation" of the earth was so poorly managed that the trees, dependent upon photosynthesis were "created"  before the Sun, which is, of course, necessary for photosynthesis to work),  ignored all the cradles of civilization in the Americas, Asia and Africa and gave a promise to an Arab herdsman that would be applicable to the entire world forever? 

     How about all the violence precipitated by the descendants of this man on a journey from Egypt, which, by the way  is unsubstantiated archeologically or in any written record except the one recorded centuries later from oral history of these same people?

      How about the 3,000 (or 30,000) of their own kinsmen allegedly killed over a golden calf? How about their genetic kinsmen who happened to be living in places like Jericho but had to be killed because Abraham's clan claimed the same God who screwed up the creation sequence had promised it to them? 

        Ignoring all the blaring inconsistency and 

brutal actions based on legend, let's address the modern, as in the common era. The video deals with the issue of the borders "agreed' upon in 1948 by the UN and since then, extended by Israel, the State. Granting that Israeli statehood is a fact, and that they have had to defend themselves from various neighbors several times, the borders are reasonable, in my estimation, actually for reasons made clear in the video. It is the commentary such as those snippets I posted at the top, which are so troublesome to me.

        Begin with the first statement involving "no rational judgement being used here."  This statement is made by a person who then states that "Muslims are doing Satan's work,"  directed by "Evil princes in high places," but it'll be ok "When Messiah comes."  In retrospect, she's right - there is certainly no rational judgement being applied here.  She obviously believes in a supernatural sky being who chose a tiny tribal group for dominion over the entire world  and anything required to accomplish that is justified. This world view is so egotistical and insane that it is almost impossible to believe, save that we are slapped in the face by it every day.

         Even odder is that many of Israel's strongest supporters are its former greatest persecutors (more on that in a bit). The late  Christopher Hitchens summed it up thusly, "I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with 'you' in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me.”  This seems to be the watchword for some of that small Arab tribe's descendants. Of course there are those,  I  not  among them,  who would claim (and do so every Christmas in music) that Messiah has come and they killed him. Those are the same persons who claim that the Bible is the word of God, and yet ignore it when it says Jesus would be back before the end of the first century, because reality has proven that to be just another legend.  

        A close second in the ignorance derby is this from the second snippet:  ".... These Countries have been after Israel for Centuries AND Israel is still here!"  As Israel has only existed for 67 years, this is demonstrably false. The rest of that selection, featuring all capital letters every three or four words, is a rant about the "end times" because it's been "going on for centuries" but this time , really, really no shit, it's gonna happen!!

        As for the last garbled scream of ignorance....."This should NOT even be a subject or a discussion!!!! Palestine was NEVER a state!!!!!!!!!!! Israel belongs to the HEBREW to the Jewish people and the rabble that settled here should go to the places they came form (sic) Arab Saudia (sic),..."  Start with "Israel belongs to the Hebrew, to the Jewish people, etc." I wonder if the writer is willing to extend that same  largesse to indigenous persons elsewhere? Of course he isn't, because God likes the Hebrews best and they get to claim Israel.  God apparently doesn't like Buddhists, Jains, Sihks, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Animists, and, one should suppose, especially Christians, since Christians have been the primary persecutors of Jews since 315 AD.

        The "rabble that settled there" was there long before the Hebrews ever came and stole it from them. I don't mean 1947-48, I'm talking about real history -  Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho, the first of which dates back 11,000 years (9000 BCE), which means the Hebrews  invaded and stole territory which had been inhabited by other Semitic peoples for about 5500 years.        Wouldn't it have been better if God had just told the people who were there to leave, because he'd promised it to his homies? No war, no Joshua and tumbling walls, no bloodshed and genocide...not God's way, apparently, not enough senseless violence.

        Jump ahead to the early 4th century, Jews disperse to the far reaches of the Roman empire and all over Europe and Western Asia. There they are systematically persecuted (through the medieval into the modern period) by the selfsame Christians  who today shout  "end times, help Israel." Seems a bit contradictory, no?  The more fundamental the Christian spirit (until very recently) the more anti-Semitic the behavior. Muslims didn't kill Jews in Palestine during the Crusades, but Christians slaughtered them by the score. Christians even killed Jews in Germany during the Crusades. Muslims and Jews fought side by side during WWII while German Christians were exterminating them. 

     Without  centuries of  institutional systematic anti-Semitic treatment of European Jews, there might well have never been a Zionist movement in the 1800s.  Without the holocaust (again, persecution of Jews by nominal Christians while the world's foremost Christian, the Pope , looked on) there would have been no flood of refugees to Palestine, already inhabited by Arab tenants of richer Arab landowners.  

        Israel as a state is simply another colonial attempt, following a war , one of whose aims was to end colonialism, as stipulated in the Atlantic Charter and the Charter of the United Nations..  Whether one  thinks it justified or not, that's all it is. Israel is Plymouth Plantation, and its Arab neighbors are Native Americans, pushed off their land and told where they may live, as long as they behave.  

To the Dog:

A letter to the  dog,


When I say "move", it means go someplace else. It does not suffice to change or switch positions with the cat so there are still two animals in the way. I'm telling you this because the cat is a just beautiful dumb-ass and listens even worse that you

The dishes with the paw print are yours and contain your food. All other dishes are mine and contain my food. Under no  circumstances does   placing a paw print in the middle of my plate and food  make it your food and dish, nor do I find it aesthetically pleasing in the slightest.

The stairway was not designed by NASCAR and is not a racetrack. Beating me to the bottom is not the object, and there is no prize for doing so.  Tripping me won't help you , because I fall at a nominal 32 feet/sec² which is much faster than you can run.








They don't make  anything bigger than a king size bed. I am very sorry about this.  Look at videos of dogs sleeping, they can actually curl up in a ball. It is not necessary to  stretched out to the fullest extent possible. I also know that sticking tails straight out and having tongues hanging out the other end to maximize space used is nothing but  sarcasm, so knock it off. And while we're at it, if Mommy lets you on the bed before I come to bed and you sleep with your head on my pillow, at least have the decency not to drool on it.  

Compact discs are not miniature Frisbees.  Cat poop isn't food, I know the litter makes it crunchy, but it still isn't kosher for dogs.
For the last time, there is not a secret exit from the bathroom!  If by some miracle I get there first  and manage to get the door shut, it is not necessary to claw, whine, try to turn the knob, or get your paw under the edge and try to pull the door open. I must exit through the same door I entered. Also,  I have been using bathrooms for years, canine attendance is neither required or desired. In fact, the yard is your toilet, so just stay the hell out of mine, including the porcelain spring.

The proper order of adoration is  kiss me, then lick your ass or smell another dog's butt.  I cannot stress this sequence enough. It would be such a simple change for you. 

We own a crosscut shredder. It is unnecessary for you to get in my wastebasket and shred the contents. Thanks for the effort, but cut it out! In somewhat the same vein, humans have thumbs.  We are capable of untying and unwrapping Christmas presents. Again, your efforts this last Christmas were unnecessary.

As a 50 pound Bassett Hound, there is no sane reason in the world to let a 5 pound cat intimidate you. If you want to get on your couch, do it,  f**k that little hairball!

Finally, for now, I am happy to let you out to pee as late as 10 pm. Meet me half way. make an effort, because I'll not be in the same frame of mind at 3am when the mood strikes you. In like fashion, if you feel the need to barf  because you had a luau in the trash can, warn a brother.

 Sincerely, the humans who live in your house.           

A Different Kind of War

The following was written in response to a young friend and former student who instead of joining the military became a law enforcement officer. He recently expressed that his "#1 regret" was not having joined the military. This my response. 

     Honestly, ******, don't let it be. I honestly believe I did  more good individually in my second job (teaching).  It's easy to get caught up in the rah rah spirit. We had ROTC kids who couldn't wait to go into the military, but having no idea what that really meant. Some are dead. 

     The way we're using some those kids today isn't anything like your grandpa in WWII or even my Cold war experience, where we felt we were fighting a "moral" war (if that isn't too contradictory).

        In WWII we were fighting against governments bent on world domination. Their aggression was focused outward as stated political policy. In the Cold War we always knew who the "bad guys" were - the Soviet Union.  Even in Korea, we knew the South Koreans wouldn't and couldn't survive without our help, but they wanted that help.  The way we're using the military now is not a lot different from your job as a Sherriff's deputy. Unfortunately, we're dealing with a totally different type of problem.

         There are times when I see an amputee or traumatic brain injured veteran when I ask myself  "For what?"  and the answer I keep hearing is  "To fight people whom the politicians tell us we should fight, in a place  where tribal chiefs have ruled for years."  Yes they are , by western standards, harsh to women, and they may have sheltered Osama Bin Ladin, but as a group, the Taliban were no threat to the USA.   Are we doing this to convince people who have fought tribal battles for years that they should be like us? One thing that I feel down deep inside is that if there had been no First Gulf War, there would have been no 9/11. Saddam Hussein was a militaristic bastard and cruel to his own minorities, but by the same token, it focused their anger on him, instead of us, for what they viewed as an invasion of their (Islamic) territory.

        The issue of religion as an aggravating factor isn't new either. We resisted entering WWII for 2 years after Hitler invaded Poland in part because the Germans, after all, were "like us."  That included being  a nation whose vast majority of population were professing Christians. After Dec 7th, 1941, it was easy to get all but one member of Congress to agree to declare war on Japan, because they attacked us, yes, although the Germans had been sinking ships and killing Americans in the Atlantic for several years, but also because they weren't co-religionists. We look like that to many Afghans. To them we are invaders who threaten their way of life and in many cases denigrate their beliefs.    

        Prior to the First Gulf War, the only direct Taliban contact with the US had been as a supplier of arms to help defend against  the Soviets. The British Empire  in 1839-42 and again in 1878-80 fought in Afghanistan, supposedly winning both times, yet eventually realizing that they would never truly reach political control of people who fought as described in the following quote, " The British officer John Masters recorded in his autobiography that Afghan women in the North-West Frontier Province of British India during the Second Anglo-Afghan War would castrate non-Muslim soldiers who were captured, like British and Sikhs. They also used an execution method involving urine; Pathan women urinated into prisoner's mouths. Captured British soldiers were spread out and fastened with restraints to the ground, then a stick, or a piece of wood was used to keep their mouth open to prevent swallowing. Pathan women then squatted and urinated directly into the mouth of the man until he drowned in the urine, taking turns one at a time."  Hard to deal with a mindset like that!

           The Soviets from 1979-1989 tried to "control" the Afghans, essentially attempting to remold them as a semi-Soviet Socialist Republic buffer state.  Aided by covert US aid (billions of dollars and Stinger and Red-eye shoulder launch missiles) to the Mujahideen, hard liners like the Taliban, whom many were,  the Afghans eventually resisted long enough for Russia to tire and withdraw. Oddly enough while we supplied material and money, China supplied training to the rebels.  

        This isn't  your grandad's or my wars, and it isn't Korea either. If Viet Nam taught us anything, maybe that lesson should be that all the man power, material and political will can't control a nation forever if the indigenous population really sees you as the enemy, and not their saviors. 

     Despite all the hype, medals and political saber  rattling , in many cases from persons who never served, even a "just" war sucks. A war without clear justification or with unreachable objectives, such as getting the Afghans to be a democracy and 'like us' , is far worse. I believe that in Afghanistan, as in Viet Nam, the US will finally "declare victory" and leave. I'm not so sure that like the Vietnamese, we will  regain any sort of "normal" relations with them soon,  if  ever unfortunately.  

         In my heart I'm thankful you stayed here and do what you do, because it does far  more good here at home.