Blogging Plus Urban Dictionary Equals Posterity

I have 12 entries in Urban Dictionary. All of them are from this past year. Most of them appeared here or were conceived of while drafting a blog entry. The rest are from conversations with my sister. [Don't read anything into that. We like to "cut up." By that I mean being silly, not carpel tunnel surgery.]

They are:

1 hypocriture - the gaping hole in the logic and reasoning of a person or group that is filled with hypocrisy.

2 eye rape - forcing someone to spontaneously or suddenly see a disturbing or offensive image or picture without their consent, especially through electronic media. [Ok. One of my Facebook friends is responsible for this one. You know who you are. Also, see picture above.]

3 OMGyn - a text-ese exclamation of shock or surprise at the news you get from your gynecologist.

4 Benatini - a cocktail of any variety mixed with Benadryl to increase the impact of the drink.

5 vamporn - vampire-themed fiction with overt sexual depictions. (Two thumbs up on this one!)

6 Tinx - a texted curse placed on the person you are texting with when he or she simultaneously texts the same thing you do.

7 Fishford Wife - individual who neglects real life obligations and activities in order to care for a virtual fish tank and his/her menagerie of eFish in Fishville.

8 ePETA - organization of people who advocate the fair and humane treatment of epets and other eanimals that virtually exist as Farmville livestock and Fishville fish.

9 hag up - A woman connecting with a male gay friend, or a gay man connecting with a female friend. Like a "hook up" but platonic by virtue of his being gay.

10 uptighty-righty - a very conservative, repressed, judgmental, fundamentalist right-winger.

11 dickumentary - extremely detailed and awkwardly thorough description of your boyfriend's penis.

12 omniterran - covering, including or involving the the entire planet Earth.

So, I contributed 12 new words to the modern, popular English language. What did you do this year?

We Wish You a Victorious Festivus, and a Happy New Year!

As we pause at the end of 2010 to gather for our respective Festivus events, let me say that we are sadly lacking in Festivus songs. Like atheists, Festivus revelers have no songs.

(Allow me to remind those of you who do not celebrate Festivus what this tradition entails. No tree, or candles, or garland, or elves, just an aluminum pole. And we engage in the annual Airing of Grievances. (I’m really looking forward to that one this year!) And, finally, we show off in the Feats of Strength. What could be better and/or less controversial?)

So, may I suggest to following Festivus Song ideas?

“Silver Poles”

“I’ll be Fit for Festivus”

“You Treated Me Like Crap All Year and Now You Want a Present?”

“Festivus Miracles Everywhere”

“All I Want For Festivus Is to Kick Your Ass”

“Screw You!”

“Festivus for the Rest of Us”

“You Say Aluminum, I Say Aluminium”

“No War with Festivus (We Don’t Care If You Put a Pole in the Park)”

“Keep You Myrrh, Bring Your Gripes”

And I suppose we can still sing “Let It Snow,” “Sleigh Ride,” Jingle Bells,” and “Auld Lang Syne.” That’s enough for a Festivus CD, if someone would actually write the songs suggested above. I wonder if Adam Lambert could be convinced to sing them?

I Used "Frak" So You Would Read This and Not Be Offended

[This is the family friendly version of a blog I posted today on my page in the Adam Lambert Fan Site. One or two of you might find it interesting.]

The Many Messages in Adam Lambert’s “Frak You”

Last night, December 15, 2010, Adam Lambert performed the second to last concert of his Glam Nation Tour at the Henry Fonda Theater, aka The Music Box, the same theater he performed in 6 years ago to the day. Six years ago, he was a virtually unknown talent (except in certain LA circles) when he sang “A Change Is Gonna Come” in that performance of The Zodiac Show, dressed in feathers, leather, and glitter, looking like a human-peacock hybrid.

Those of us who know countless trivial facts about Adam’s life were aware of the circuitous nature of last night’s performance, and were all hoping he would sing “A Change Is Gonna Come” again. He did not disappoint.

But before singing the song, he had something to say.

He called the song “an amazing anthem that was originally intended for civil rights.” He then added that the gay and lesbian community is currently involved in a civil rights movement. The crowd cheered.

He continued, “Being told years ago, “You’re not gonna make it frakking looking like that.” He told the story of working on a project while in rehearsals for that same Zodiac Show and someone said to him “You gotta take off your eye makeup and your nail polish, man, we just, we’re very uncomfortable with that.” He looked at them and said, “I’m in rehearsal and I’m a frakking singer. What the frak is your problem?” He then explained that his performance of “A Change is Gonna Come” in The Zodiac Show was charged with his feelings from that experience.

He continued, “And then, in the long run, it was the same thing. ‘No.’ ‘No.’ ‘No.’ ‘You’re never gonna make it.’ ‘No.’ ‘No.’ ‘No.’” He told the crowd that he is not cocky, just thankful for his friends and proud to have completed a world tour and be a Grammy nominee.

But here’s the moral to the whole story that he wanted us to understand: “Anybody that tells you ‘no,” tell them, ‘Frak You!’”

There is a lot of meaning in that “Frak You!” It’s not just a dismissal. It’s an “I will not let your prejudices stop me!”, a “Your discomfort with my appearance is not my problem!”, an “I know there are people out there who will appreciate me just the way I am, so just get out of my way!,” an “I told you so!”, a “You were a fool to doubt me!”, and an “It doesn’t matter that I’m gay!”.

And it’s not just directed at homophobic bigots. It’s a “Frak You” to record label executives who would not give him a chance. It’s a “Frak You” to other artists and industry people who pressured him to change because they were “uncomfortable.” It’s a “Frak You” to Simon Cowell who called “Ring of Fire” “indulgent rubbish” and to Randy Travis who was rendered “speechless” by nail polish and flamboyance. It’s a “Frak You” to the 1500 people who complained to the FCC about his AMA performance while ignoring the crotch-grabbing, rifle-brandishing, and rape-extolling performances of other artists on the same show, earlier in the evening. It’s a “Frak You” to ABC for banishing all live performances from their network. It’s a “Frak You” to Gene Simmons who said his coming out would kill his career. And it’s a “Frak You” to the religious nuts all over the world who think he’s immoral or evil or deviant or whatever judgmental garbage they think.

The conventional wisdom continues to be that openly gay artists cannot succeed. And to be sure, prejudice does exist. But Adam Lambert’s success is proof that talent, training, hard work, courage, sexiness, and glitter can overcome that small percentage of “uncomfortable” people and forge a fan-base all over the world of men and women, young and old, gay and straight, of all races, cultures and beliefs. And as much as we loved hearing his story and his words of defiant encouragement, he really did not need to say it. His perseverance and triumph over bigotry is the ultimate “Frak You!”

Do You Know the Difference?

As northern Georgia gets blanketed in snow, many Climate Change naysayers point to the icy white fluff as evidence that there is no global warming.

Do they not know the difference between the "weather" and "climate?"

Weather is "the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure."

Climate is "the meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region."

Weather is made up of the separate eggs, oil, flour, and sugar. Climate is the cake.

Also, do they not understand what the word "global" means? It does not mean "northern Georgia." It means the entire planet Earth. "Omniterran" if you will. (Yes, I made that word up. It's going on Urban Dictionary as soon as I can get to the site.)

According to scientists, 2010 will go down in the record books as either the warmest or second warmest year on Earth since we started keeping records. And the decade from 2000 to 2010 will be the warmest decade.

So, I'm asking on behalf of everyone who knows the difference between "weather" and "climate," and between "Jasper, Georgia" and "the Earth," please do not point to snow and decry Climate Change. It makes you look stupid and it pisses me off!

This Just Cracks Me Up!

Dude! No one wants or needs to see this while eating dinner!

Let's ANALyze the situation, shall we?

Can he not feel the icy cool draft wooshing down his ass crack?

Does he not bother to check his pants prior to leaving home to make sure they will stay up?

My friend Kristen and I were eating sushi, minding our own business, when I excused myself to go to the loo. When I returned, she was "cracking" up. I asked her what was going on. She softly said that she just texted me a picture. This above is her shot of Mr. Bareass.

Luckily I had my back to his bare backside.

Ew. Just Ew.

There is not one thing appealing about seeing this. Not one. Funny? Yes. Attractive? No F'ing Way!

Could You Interview Someone Who Wants to Kill You?

Last night on The Rachel Maddow Show, she interviewed a Ugandan man who has authored a bill in that country that, if passed, calls for life imprisonment for gay people and the execution for those who engage in "aggravated homosexuality" (defined, in part, as repeated offenses of homosexual conduct).

Rachel Maddow has never made a secret of her sexuality. She sometimes even refers to her girlfriend in lighter moments on the show. And there she sat, via satellite, interviewing this ignorant lunatic who, in his home country, is advocating the extermination of homosexuals.

The law was partially written by members of the American group known as "The Family," and as the "C Street" group. The Family includes some prominent US politicians, including Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford. Members of the Family have travelled to Uganda to lend a hand to the homo-cidal nuts there who justify the murder of gay people with the scripture: "The wages of sin is death." (If that were really a justification, we'd have a death penalty for all crimes, and adultery, and lying, and coveting, etc.)

He kept pointing out that in his culture homosexuality was not a human right as it is in the US. Uh, maybe someone should explain to this moron that human rights are universal, that is what makes them human rights - the fact that all humans have them! The fact that he thinks it's OK to kill gay people just shows how badly the Ugandan government fails in recognizing and protecting human rights.

What I was so amazed by was Rachel's ability to stay calm and cool while interviewing someone who would have her killed if he had the power to do so.

The entire spectacle was sickening. He kept saying that homosexuals in Uganda "recruit" children, but when asked to provide what evidence he had to support this accusation, he just repeated that there was substantial evidence. The "recruiting" thing is the same myth Jerry Falwell and the other religious haters in the US have used too. It was even used in support of Prop 8 in California. Guess we know where he learned that lie. And it is a lie.

It is really should not be surprising that the hate-speech from so-called Christians in the US gets amped up to gay death squads when the gay-hating-missionaries make their way over to Uganda. In this country, we don't condone killing people who are different. We just pass laws to deprive them of rights. But in Uganda, the standards are a little different. Persecution is insufficient to cleanse the population. They must kill gay people to make sure God's law in enforced.

God must be really pissed off at the hate and ignorance being promulgated in his name. I just wish He'd do something about it.

you pick the headline for this blog

Some of you have seen this by now. It is video footage of a woman being attacked by an otter. We actually see very little of the otter as the woman starts flailing and screaming trying to flee from the aggressive little fur-ball.

Here is my moment of geek: Otters belong to the same family as weasels, badgers and polecats, so it should not really be a big surprise. But it is unusual for the nice member of the family to be so nasty. Still, keep an eye on your small dogs, children, and family members with video camera.

So, that's my blog. But the fun part? The TITLE!

Here are the options I came up with.

Don't Put One Foot In Front of the Otter

Otters Fed Up With TSA Scans and Remote Cameras

Victim From An Otter Mother

Otterly Ridiculous Animal Attacks

Auburn Paid Otter to Attack Florida Gator Fan

Wikileak: Otter Attacks Part of Obama Leftist Conspiracy

Violence Increases Near Harry P Otter School

This Is My Commandment That You Love One An Otter

The Tyranny of Otter Babies, Otter Rabies

Tea Party Chooses Wrong Angry Momma. Otter Mommas Kick Grizzly Ass!

What are your suggestions?

Three Cheers for Government Bailouts!!!

I have a question for those who believe the government should NOT have bailed out the banks and the automobile industry: Why not?

As this is a blog and not a conversation, I will describe what I understand to be the philosophy behind such a position: The market punishes bad businesses by letting them fail and rewards good businesses by helping them grow. (I agree with this premise, actually, to a point.) The market is based on demand and supply. If the banks and car companies go under, new ones will replace them without any outside help. (I actually agree with this too. Don't act so surprised!) But the flaw in allowing the market to solve all problems is that it operates on its own schedule without regard to human suffering.

Recent studies estimate that the bailout of the car companies saved 1.14 million jobs. It is probably true that given time the market would have rewarded a new or different car company with those jobs as demand for cars slowly went back up after the economy eventually recovered from a devastatingly high unemployment rate and a serious depression that would have resulted from the complete collapse of the American auto industry. Not to mention the devastation from a gutted banking industry. But why should we suffer for that long just for some silly principal that sounds really great in a college classroom, but actually can be quite painful when practiced without exception?

To pretend that the government is not a major market player is just setting up your tent on the banks of denial. The US government is the largest consumer in the world, spending more than $500 million a year purchased goods and services. And yet, has this involvement stifled our economy? No. The US has the largest economy in the world, if you rank by country, and it is either first or second if you combine the European Union into one economy. (Yeah, no government involvement in the EU economy at all. (That's sarcasm for those of you who don't know me very well.))

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence[sic],promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This is the preamble to the Constitution. Can I summarize? It means, government exists to make our lives worth living. We give up some of our power as individuals and states to that government, that we choose, so that we can live with less fear, with more comfort, and with a system of laws and justice that promote fairness and peace. Ideally. At least that's the goal. And we balance the exercise of government power with our liberties. Or we try to.

What we have learned in the past century is that having a government with regulatory and purchasing power can take the sting out of the market while still allowing market forces to grow the economy. And you can label it whatever you want - socialism, big government, whatever - but it works. It has a cost, sure, but one I'm willing to pay. And if you have ever received unemployment, disability, social security, medicaid, medicare, CHIP or you work for a government contractor, you have benefited from it.

Though it was railed against as wasteful government spending, we bailed out the banks and the auto industry. And the result?

Banks and the auto companies are back on their feet. And even more importantly, the auto bail outs have been paid back and TARP actually made a profit for taxpayers. TARP yielded better than a Treasury Bond (at 8.2% profit).

So can we stop rending our garments over the government interfering in commerce? One hand of commerce may be invisible, but the other is wearing stars and stripes. Allowing the visible hand to steady the market and protect us from disasters is a good thing. And as a practical matter, I prefer that protection to free market fanaticism.

Gender Equality Still Controversial in Some Countries

It is a very sad and disappointing day in one struggling democracy. The legislature of that country voted today on a bill that, if passed, would have required women to receive equal pay for work equal to that of their male counterparts. Sadly, the law failed to pass. Even in 2010, gender equality is offensive to some.

Aside from the obvious fairness of receiving equal pay for equal work, the requirement of equal pay for equal work would have helped reduce poverty among single parent households (since most of them are single moms) and among retired widows. But to some, the idea of women being treated as men's equals was just too much.

In this same country, struggles for racial equality have resulted in the passage of sweeping laws, but women have been unable to get their shoes on and get out of the kitchen. Some have tried, with various levels of success, but have been unable to actually end gender inequality because of religious dogma, social convention, and what can only be described as being undermined by other women.

For example, a few very powerful women in this country's legislature, who are paid the same as their male counterparts, voted against the measure, refusing to extend the sort of income equality they enjoy to all women in their country.

Yes, it is a very sad day indeed for this backwards country that cannot find a way to value their female citizens the same as their male citizens. It's especially sad for me since it is my country.

Sports Failures

Photo is of Reggie Bush, former Trojan running back, with his Heisman Trophy. He recently gave the award back after the NCAA found he had received benefits (i.e. a house for his family to live in) from a USC booster while he played football there.

I enjoy college football. I'm a huge fan, and in the first weeks of the season, I'll watch any good game on TV. But once in a while, things happen that really just turn my stomach. Here are a few things that really ruin sports for me.

(1) Coaches berating college players. I don't mind as much when professional players mess up and the coach goes ballistic. They are paid millions and they are doing a job. When they screw up, it's about more than just a game. But this past weekend, Nick Saban launched into back-up quarterback McCarron relentlessly, and he even hit him - on the butt, but still. Yes, AJ McCarron, adult and college football quarterback, got spanked by his coach on TV. He walked next to him for more than 30 seconds screaming in his face. What exactly is this type of humiliation supposed to accomplish?

Nick apologized to everyone when he used the word "shit" in his press conference a few weeks ago. But honestly, he can swear all he wants, IMO. I am much more offended by the disrespectful way he treated this young man. And Coach Saban is not alone. Many coaches have engaged in this method of coaching. I agree that sometimes a raised voice and some negative reinforcement can help train and teach, but what was the point of humiliating that young man on national TV?

(2) The sight of Cam Newton (or any player) praying at the goal post prior to the game. The individual hypocrisy of Mr. Newton's behavior aside, I am so over the whole "giving God the glory for my football performance" and "thanking Jesus for helping me score a touchdown." Is there anything more crass than invoking religion in a sporting competition? (OK, yes, thanking Jesus for winning an Adult Film Award might be worse.) Want to pray that everyone stays safe and healthy? Fine. But PLEASE SPARE US YOUR SANCTIMONY WHEN YOU SCORE A TOUCHDOWN! Also, people might actually get hurt less IF YOU STOPPED TRYING TO HURT THEM! Which transitions nicely to my next point -

(3) Football players trying to hurt opposing players. There is nothing wrong with a good, legal hit, and sometimes people do get hurt. Football is a rough game. But this weekend, I saw a quarterback essentially punch a defender in the head (no flag), a defensive player spear a quarterback in the back after the ball was gone (flag thrown), and numerous other defensive players in numerous games trying to knock players unconscious by blindsiding them. Is that what this game has become? Is it so much about winning that we no longer care about following the rules? Just win at any cost, no matter how many rules you break, no matter how viciously you hurt someone? If this is true, it is no longer football. It has become Ultimate Fighting.

(4) Finally, I want to address the Cam Newton situation. As an Alabama fan, I have no love for Cam Newton, Auburn's quarterback. But as a sports fan, I was happy to see him find a place and do well. His story was a really good one. I enjoyed watching him run all over people and jump up smiling into the arms of his teammates, even though I was not excited about what he will likely do to my team. (Maybe I can be more objective than some Bama fans since I live in Utah.) I had the same mixed feelings about Tim Tebow. I really got sick of hearing about him, but he seemed like a genuinely nice guy, a great competitor, and a very talented athlete. All of these things seemed to apply to Cam Newton. I even went so far as to question the objectivity of the Florida coaching staff, wondering why Tebow was elevated to star prior to arriving on campus while Newton, who seems to be even better that Tebow, was essentially anonymous. I wondered if it was the result of racism since I had never heard of him prior to his appearance at Auburn this year.

I have to apologize to Florida coaches and fans for my accusing thoughts and give Urban Meyer credit for putting character over winning. Florida fans probably find that small consolation as they watch South Carolina pack their bags for the trip to Atlanta and the SEC Championship, but Coach Meyer at Florida got an eye-full of the real Cam Newton, and he did little if anything to stop him from leaving.

Some of my Facebook friends who are Auburn fans have made a lot of jokes about this situation. The one about the cruelty to animals was particularly funny - Cam accused of beating tigers, bulldogs, hogs, etc. Very amusing. But is it funny that he was about 30 seconds from being expelled from Florida for "academic fraud?" (Most of us call that cheating.) Or that he purchased a stolen notebook computer (or may have even stolen it himself)? And is it really funny that his father demanded a six-figure sum from Mississippi State for Cam to play there instead of Auburn?

I am aware of no evidence that any Auburn supporter paid Cam to attend Auburn and I assume that it didn't happen. But the facts that are supported by evidence are enough to make both him and his father (who is a pastor, BTW) look really, really dishonest. In summary, they appear to be cheaters.

I guess if I was an Auburn fan, I would hope that at least Auburn's program did nothing wrong. Also, I'd prefer to lose with him on the bench or off the team rather than be known as the school that played him and won, despite knowing about his "character issues." Bama has had violations in the past that involved players receiving benefits from boosters, etc., and has taken their lumps for them. But even aside from sanctions, I enjoy the sport more when the rules are being followed.

I predict Cam will be booed a lot in Tuscaloosa. Bama fans do boo opponents (though I wish they wouldn't), especially Auburn, but usually do not single out particular players. I suspect this will be an exception. No one likes a cheater, except the fans wearing his colors.

Cam Newton may be too good of an athlete for Alabama to stop. But as a fan and a human being, I think those so-called important lessons learned from participating in team sports really have more meaning when the players actually play by the rules. Because ultimately, whether your team wins or loses - a game, a championship, or a trophy - character is all you have that really matters. I feel sorry for players, coaches and fans of all teams who don't get that. Not because of a sense of moral superiority, but because the beauty of sports is the integrity of following the rules and competing within the bounds. People who accept cheating as part of the game simply don't get to experience that kind of beauty.

Addendum: Just read online that Tony Dorsett called the investigation of Cam Newton a "modern day lynching."

I am really sick of this phrase. I think it really cheapens the suffering of real people who were actually lynched out of hateful racism. Moreover, Cecil Newton has admitted to soliciting money from MSU in a pay-to-play scheme, so there actually is something here to investigate.

There is racism in this country, and people are sometimes oppressed, attacked, and harmed because of their race, but to suggest that racial hatred is behind this investigation is both irresponsible and incredible. I have heard no evidence or accusation of such a motive by any party involved. But hey, Tony Dorsett got a headline, so I guess it was worth something to him to say it, evidence by damned.

In A Rut

This may be the strangest safety warning I've ever read.

These are fraught weeks for drivers, deer and the nation’s car insurers: costly auto-deer collisions make a special jump during the mating season, usually October through December, and peak each November. “The bucks throw caution to the wind as they chase does during the breeding season,” said Billy Higginbotham, a wildlife specialist at Texas A & M University.

"The bucks throw caution to the wind as they chase does...."

What can be done about these reckless, horny deer? May I suggest some dating advice?

Dear Overeager, Undersexed, Reckless Bucks:

Here are some tips to help you achieve your goals of procreation while avoiding those fatal collisions with speeding cars and trucks.

First, the does are likely going to be more responsive, and therefore less likely to run into traffic to get away, if you would just slow down a bit. I mean really! What self-respecting doe would want to have sex with a buck so wound up he's got the technique of Hammy from Over the Hedge? Running towards your beloved at full speed like a blitzing linebacker may just be a bad strategy to start with.

Second, maybe a little dinner before getting on to making Donner. You should try hanging out around the tender leaves and overripe berries and lingering near the does that catch your eye. The buzz from the fermented berries can help relax both you and your chosen one, slowing you down from Tigger to Bambi (who was a buck, don't forget) and maybe making the doe a little less likely to bolt.

Finally, remember to apply the important lessons of John Forbes Nash, Jr. Don't obsess over the biggest or fattest doe. After all, the biological imperative you are fulfilling is simply to spread your seed and procreate, as often and as successfully as possible. So, just go with the slutty (or slower) does.

So, my horny friends, follow these simple tips and I promise, this will be the best, safest, and most fruitful rut of your life.

Sincerely,

Heather
A Driver in Deer Country

PS to blog readers: This is the pic featured with the article. Is that guy's name Buck? 'Cause it looks like he's chasing that doe in a street. Just sayin'.

Are You a Sheep? Does It Make You Feel Baaaaaaaad?

If someone told you God spoke to him and told him to plant his tomatoes on a certain day, what would you think of him? Be honest. Would you think, "Wow, what a truly righteous man?" Or would you think, "Wow, what a kook?"

Obviously, it does not matter why he he chose to plant his tomatoes on one day or another. Whether he heard the voice of God or simply had a dream about planting his garden inspired by eating pizza really late at night, who really cares?

But what if he claims God told him to offer his unwed daughter to a group of men looking for an orgy? Or if he claims that God told him to kill his son? Would you simply assume that God would never tell anyone to do such heinous things to his children? If you assume that, you'd be making an assumption directly in contravention of the Old Testament, BTW.

Or would you assume he was mentally ill? If so, why? Why is it believable that God told Lot to offer up his daughter for an orgy and told Abraham to kill his son, but not believable that God told Brian David Mitchell to take Elizabeth Smart as his wife?

Apprently, there is some concern that people might believe Mitchell is a prophet because Elizabeth Smart has been questioned in such a way to establish that Mitchell was "not religious" and would receive revelations rather "conveniently" to permit him to take actions he wanted to take. (Huh. Not sure what that testimony proves.)

[Before I go further, let me make it clear that I think Mitchell's abduction, rape, and brainwashing of Elizabeth Smart was a cruel and sadistic crime. I have no sympathy for him, mentally ill or not. He needs to be separated from normal society forever as he is, IMO, a threat to young girls. Whether he belongs in a mental institution or a prison, I leave to the jurors and judge.]

My point is this: because of centuries old teachings and religious beliefs, we continue to believe that God spoke to his people and told them to do cruel things: kill entire villages (genocides), sacrifice their children, commit genital mutilation, stone and beat people for minor offenses like weaving the wrong materials together, etc. Take a good read of the Old Testament if you have forgotten. Do you believe that God commanded these things or not? If so, why is it so easy to just discard the word of seemingly devout believers today who claim to hear directly from God just because they don't lead a large international church?

Why do we accept that the leaders of mainstream churches - Catholic, LDS, Baptist, various Pentecostal denominations, etc. - "hear" God's voice and are speaking with His authority while calling people like David Koresh and Brian Mitchell "crazy?"

If I advocate something completely false and harmful, while claiming I am speaking on behalf of God, I would be labelled crazy or mentally ill or delusional or some such thing (even if I am a licensed minister). But when the Catholic church perpetuates the lie in Africa that condom use actually causes the spread of AIDS, no one does anything to interfere because it is "religion."

Religion can bring comfort and peace to a worried mind, it can bring solidarity to a group in need of community and support, and it can be the blue pill we swallow that perpetuates the most absurd and harmful delusions.

The Bible refers to people frequently as "sheep." Are you a sheep? Do you bleat when the wolf gets too close and makes you uncomfortable? Do you look to the bellwether to follow his lead? Or are you a thinking, rational human being who recognizes that YOU SHOULD NOT JUST STEP IN LINE BECAUSE SOMEONE CLAIMS HE (OR SHE) HEARD GOD'S VOICE? Work it out for yourself. Don't be a sheep. At best, sheep get sheared. At worst, sheep get butchered.

Don't Tread on Me, But I'm Gonna Tread on You

You knew I was going to blog about this, didn't you?

A large, angry Rand Paul supporter (along with his tea party co-horts) assaulted a MoveOn.org activist and stepped on her head. Here's the video.

No, I don't think all Tea Partiers are violent. But should we be surprised this happened given the rhetoric about "feeding the tree of liberty with blood" and invoking "second amendment remedies."

The a-hole who did this says the video takes his actions out of context. Really? In what context would it be OK for a man to hold a woman down and step on her head for disagreeing with him and having the nerve to say it out loud. Maybe in the long-lost good old days of 1789 that would have been fine. But in 2010, it's actually a crime. Have fun in prison!

Watching him stomp on this woman, I can feel his hatred of her permeating off the screen. She had no weapon, she made no threats. She just wanted her dissenting POV to be seen and heard. So they held her down and stepped on her. And this is the party that thinks the federal government is oppressive? What's it going to be like if these yahoos get elected?

Rand Paul's reaction has been slow, but he finally did condemn the actions. Thanks, Rand. Big of ya, Rand.

With the hateful, inciting rhetoric we have heard this election season, I'm actually a little surprised this hasn't happened more. This is what happens to people who live in a democracy who are told that if they don't win at the polls, they have the right to become violent. And that's what these boneheads have been told. They think they are part of a revolution when actually, they are part of an election campaign.

Allow me to respond to this bullying by saying, "Hey, don't tread on me (or anyone else) you bone-headed, ignorant, woman-abusing, unChristlike coward."

The federal government may be big, and at times inefficient, but it never beat me up and stepped on my head.

Buy Your Stock in Hostess and Frito Lay Immediately!

Who is winning the war on drugs?

Drug cartels.

This is a really interesting and timely article about the legalizing of marijuana. From an economic standpoint, there is a lot of upside to legalizing pot.

We will reduce the costs of law enforcement, prosecutions, incarceration, and prison construction. And we will generate revenue by taxing it.

From a health standpoint, we will regulate the strength (THC levels).

Read the article to see what I mean.

Pot is not as harmful to the body as either alcohol or cigarettes - two vices that are already legal.

Yet we continue to keep marijuana illegal because, wait, why is that again? Habit? Fear? How about ignorance.

Famous economists have analyzed the drug war failure and concluded that by keeping drugs illegal, we are basically just helping the drug cartels maintain a monopoly and get really rich.

What would happen to the Mexican drug war if America legalized drugs? It would virtually stop in its tracks. It is the illegality that leads to the violence, underworld nature of the business. Just look at our history of prohibition in the US.

Legalizing and legitimizing the marijuana growing, processing, and selling businesses would transform a huge part of the drug underworld into an above-board endeavor that
contributes to society rather than costing us billions in tax dollars.

If you're squeamish about legalizing pot, let me ask you this: Do you drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes? What is really the difference?

If you don't drink or smoke, and you are resistant to legalizing another vice, think about this: Should every vice be a crime? Particularly vices that are relatively inexpensive and mostly lead to people becoming more mellow and craving junk food?

I'm not necessarily advocating taking up the toking habit. I am advocating that we stop pretending that smoking pot is some evil, deadly activity when it is not as dangerous as many things we see and do every day. And I am hoping that we can recognize both the bad economic effects of keeping it illegal and the good economic possibilities of legalization.

The up side of this far outweighs the potential downside IMO. So let me know if you're on board. And pass the Cheetos.

The Mad Haters' Tea Party

My mind was wondering around aimlessly today when it formed the name "Mad Hater" and immediately, I pictured NY Senate candidate Paladino.

It then occurred to me that some of the hateful innuendo - and overt statements - made by Tea Partiers really did make this year's election a Mad Haters' Tea Party.

We are told the Tea Party has emerged because people are "angry" about how government works, or doesn't work.

Fine. But what is the Tea Party angry about?

Deficits? Where were they for the 8 years when W ran 2 wars without even trying to pay for them? I didn't see any tea bags stapled to John Deer hats from 2000-2008. And did you know that the budget deficit for the last fiscal year was 8% lower than the prior year? So, we are actually reducing the deficit while we ended combat in Iraq and have scheduled the end of combat in Afghanistan.

And bail-outs? Did you know that the bank bailouts will likely result in the US government actually making money? Most of it is paid back already. The last bit is being paid in stock which can be sold over time - for a profit. And the auto bailouts: saved thousands of jobs and will also be paid back. Plus, the taxes on income and car sales are additional revenue that resulted directly from the auto bailout. All in all - both winning policies.

Big government and entitlements? When the mostly white, older Tea Partiers sign up to give up their Medicare and Social Security, I'll believe they're serious. Until then, they're just a bunch of hypocrites. What I hear and see are demands to "Keep You Government Hands Off My medicare!" Riiiiiiight.

Yup. They're mad alright. Mad as a hatter.

They believe that taxes are the highest ever when in fact they are the lowest they've been in more than half a century. (While fighting 2 wars, mind you.) They actually think their taxes have gone up since 2008 even though they actually have gone down.

They think crazy stuff like: the President is a Muslim sleeper agent; the President is a socialist; the President was born in Kenya; the President wants to destroy America. (Weird how everything is about him.)

They think gays shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military, get married to each other, adopt children, or teach school. Just because they are gay. And they think gay is icky.

They think the Civil Rights laws are bad and the Constitution should be applied as intended when written, which means segregation - by race and gender - will be right back in style in these lovely Tea Party communities. Does that give you a warm feeling all over? It gives me the shivers.

They think public schools are a waste of money, so if you cannot afford private school, good luck to ya. (Hope you can read this.)

They think we should exchange chickens for health care (though this Tea Partier did lose).

They don't think there should be separation of church and state, so if you're Mormon in Alabama, Jewish in Wyoming, or Muslim anywhere, you better learn to pray with your shudders closed.

And this may be my favorite: they want to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Wow. Could they be more misogynistic? I doubt it.

What I do not understand is why the media treats these crack-pots extremeists like legitimate candidates with legitimate points of view. Can they say any crazy thing and still be taken seriously? Even Karl Rove makes fun of them and he's on their side!

When that Buck guy from Colorado was on Meet the Press Sunday, he was asked whether he believed homosexuality was a choice? He said yes. He was asked what he based that on and he stammered around and admitted that maybe there was some inborn tendency, like alcoholism, but that ultimately, it was a choice. (So, short answer, based on his own uninformed opinion.) There is actual science on this issue. Had David Gregory not been such a sycophantic cupcake, he would have cited scientific studies, and opinions of known scientists to the contrary, and shown Buck for what he is: a guy who thinks gay is icky because his Bible told him so. And then he should have asked: "So, Mr. Buck, when did you choose to be straight?" Buck has a right to his POV, but shouldn't intelligent people in the media try to show what, if anything, that POV is based on?

[It isn't liberal to expect more than front porch philosophy and Sunday School dogma from politicians. It is the job of the media to press on these issues. The Tea Party is taken seriously because the media has taken them seriously rather than debunk them the way it is supposed to.]

IMO, for a lot of Tea Partiers, their anger is about people of other than European heritage playing a larger role in American society, including in the White House. That is the America of the future. The Tea partiers are not going to stop the change that is coming by unravelling 100 years of racial, sociological and cultural progress. But they are going to try.

Yes, they want to "take our country back." They want to take our country back to 1789. Research your history. 1789 sucked.

It's Really About the Condom-ints

In Vermont, Devin McLaughlin sued the local Burger King claiming he bit into a Whopper and found himself chewing on an unwrapped condom.

OK. This story is weird. First - EW! Because I know you all immediately wondered, "Does "unwrapped" mean "used?" Answer: Apparently not.

Second, he CLAIMS he bit into a clean condom that some jerk at BK apparently thought would be funny to put on his burger. So? Admittedly the a$$ who put the condom there (if it happened) should be fired. But, frankly, I'm not sure this even happened.

Third, are there no car accidents and DUI cases in Vermont that some moron lawyer actually agreed to take this case? How was he damaged? He's not he first guy to taste latex. Get over it.

But most importantly, this blog is about the clever comments below the article.

"Maybe next time he should order his burger plain....no condom-ints.............."

"Don't lie you bit into a condom and found a disgusting whopper inside :)"

"Why put a condom in a Whopper? To prevent a Whopper Junior, of course..... Do you want fries with that?"

I thought these were hysterical. LOL

Do you have a clever comment about this rubber maybe burger muncher?

Who Is John Gault? Really!

Some of you who are more conservative than I am might have read my Bio and then some of my blogs and thought I was making that Ayn Rand thing up. Nope. I understand her POV (I think) and it definitely changed how I view the world. But I think a lot of other people don't really understand very well at all.

That first paragraph sounds kind of obnoxious. Let me re-phrase. This is how I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

(1) The world of her novels is extreme and unrealistic. The world is not divided into a small percentage of capable "makers" and faceless mobs of parasitic "takers." It just isn't. Most of us are willing to work for what we get even if we do carry with us a sense of entitlement that others may not agree with.

(2) The books are not about campaigning to deprive those we think of an "undeserving." In fact, the protagonists in the books simply work around the "takers" to accomplish what they are driven to pursue. Their disdain may be apparent, but our heroes do not leave industry to undertake politics in order to make sure people they think are undeserving do not receive any benefit. They do their work and reap their rewards. The welfare of the "takers" is simply not their concern. Indeed, in Atlas Shrugged, they just leave the "takers" behind and form their own community. (Oops! Spoiler alert!)

(3) Not all "takers" are lazy and unproductive. If the books teach us one thing, it is that some of the most parasitic people are the ones that have high titles and much claimed accomplishment. And unless you are following them closely and know their secrets, you cannot know the truth of this in the real world.

(4) Not all "makers" are successful and wealthy. In the Rand-world, I refer to Roark. It's hard to name real world example because they are unknown. But don't we all think they exist?

(5) Ayn Rand suffered from a little self-loathing if she thinks a woman in her right mind will fall in love with the man who raped her.

When I read these books, they gave me a way to put context around the way I view myself and the way I view others. But I don't view people as "makers" and "takers." I try to see people not as what they have done, but as what they are capable of doing. Admittedly, I put the books through my own filter. But don't we all? It's just that to me, the thing that separates a maker from a taker, a self-sufficient, deserving person from a parasitic, undeserving person, is not what the person accomplishes, but what the person accomplishes with the tools and opportunities available to him (or her).

Someone who grows up in abject poverty and who spends his or her childhood dodging bullets in the streets simply may not be capable of getting into and graduating from Harvard business school without some help, no matter how smart. Does that help make that person a "parasite?" Or more to the point, do we just give up on that person ever being more than a statistic unless he or she is able to overcome such humble beginnings? Not to me. IMO, that person - every person - should get a little assistance to help him or her achieve full potential.

On the flip side, someone who grows up well off, goes to the best private schools, and ends up masterminding a massive Ponzi scheme, bilking people out of millions of dollars is the ultimate "taker" because he has simply ignored what he is capable of doing - through honest, real work - and stolen from people.

It's not a double standard. If the person who gets help to reach his potential runs Ponzi schemes, he is a thieving taker too. And if that wealthy privileged person works and does honest business, he is our Rand hero.

But is goes further than obeying the law, doesn't it? Consider Donald Trump. Mr. Trump is not a thief or a crook as far as I know, but he has used Bankruptcy with numerous of his companies to build his empire. When he would overextend on a project, he would bankrupt that project, to protect his other successful ones, and just keep going. But what about the creditors who lost millions because he didn't pay them back? He could have. He has the money. But he had a legal way to avoid paying his way, so he did. TAKER, not MAKER. That is not what any Rand hero would do.

Lots of liberal don't like Ayn Rand because of how her philosophy has been used to support a war on the poor. And it definitely has: eliminate the minimum wage, no more unemployment benefits, end medicare, etc. But these class warriors leaning on Ayn Rand have completely missed the point: A Rand hero will always pay workers what they are actually worth, because to not do so would be to take something undeserved. A Rand hero will not lie, cheat, or steal to make a profit, because that would render the gain undeserved. A Rand hero would not dump pollutants in rivers and release poisons into the air because that is stealing as well. Unless and until American industries start behaving like Rand heros - doing their part honestly and only taking what they deserve - it is simply hypocrisy run amuck to ask and expect the working (or unemployed) poor to buck up and be the perfect Randian soldiers.

Bottom line: Rand's books are compelling and interesting. They sure make us think. But her novels no more reflect the real world than Alice in Wonderland or the Harry Potter stories. It's fun to discuss and argue about, even take away some lessons. But we really should not pretend that any group or person in this country exemplifies the traits of the "maker" hero. I've never seen it. And neither have you.

The Real "Bully" Pulpit

This is Boyd Packer of the LDS Church who recently made comments about homosexuality. He is likely the next leader of that church. Elder Packer spoke of homosexual tendencies saying, "Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”

(I include this as merely an example (and not to single out the LDS church from others) because it happened recently and was easy to find, and also because I live in Utah and this is the predominant faith in my community. Virtually every Christian denomination, not to mention other faiths, can take responsibility for its leaders making similar statements in recent times.)

All of the recent (and some not-so-recent) efforts to reach out to bullied youth, especially gay and perceived to be gay youth, to prevent suicides are laudable. I enthusiastically support these efforts and hope you do too.Counseling bullied young people is a great thing. Stopping bullies is great too. But what if we stopped telling them who to target in the first place?

In this country there are high-profile and influential people who say hateful, bullying, things on TV, on the radio and in churches that give license to bullies and indeed, teach the bullies who to target.

Do I need to post the hateful anti-gay statements for you to know what and who I mean? Well, I'm not going to. Partly because it's sickening. And partly because it's not really what my blog is about. No doubt, they are part of the problem. But many of us can point that out and say, "That's wrong! It's cruel and mean!" It's the nice bigots I'm talking about today.

Rhetoric doesn't have to be "hateful" in the conventional sense to be oppressive and bullying. In fact, when protesters gathered in response to Mr. Packer's statements, this is what the LDS church said:

“Of course, the Church recognizes the right of groups to voice their opinion in the public square. However, those familiar with the Church’s doctrine on the importance of marriage and family know it is based on principles of respect and love for all of God’s children. We have continually emphasized that there is no room in this discussion for hatred or mistreatment of anyone.”


I've heard it all my life: "Hate the sin but love the sinner." But is it "loving" to campaign to deny that person you consider a sinner the same legal rights you enjoy? And what Mr Packer did was basically call homosexuality sinful and perverted. His words were "impure" (i.e. sinful) and "unnatural" (i.e. perverted). That's not love; it's bigotry, and it's a form of hate no matter how much you smile and say it isn't. It's hate no matter how much you apologize that it's just that way "because God said so." It's still hate, even if you say God created it.

One religious person I know said she loved her friend who is gay even if his lifestyle is sinful and she cannot condone it. Well, I'm sure he's grateful for that begrudging affection. Moreover, did he ask her to condone his lifestyle? I didn't find out.

And why was she even referring to his "lifestyle." Doesn't she mean "sex life?" I'm sure she's not concerned with whether he wears black or oxblood colored dress shoes, or if he prefers the mambo to the cha-cha, or if he prefers BMW to Audi, or if he prefers Italian to Mexican food. She's judging his sex life.

When churches of any denomination condemn "the homosexual lifestyle," they are really saying that gay sex is immoral because it involves two people of the same gender. If they were platonic roommates, would anyone care? And, these same churches say, because gay sex is immoral, gay people should not be allowed to marry one another or have protection from being fired or be allowed to adopt children or have their partners on their health insurance or whatever else they are trying to do to discriminate. The list is long. All because they are uncomfortable imagining someone else's sex life. Here's a clue - stop worrying about it and mind your own damn business!

[Without dissecting them in detail, I think we all agree that there are many common sexual practices engaged in by gay couples and straight couples alike. So does that mean straight people who engage in those activities are also engaging in an "immoral lifestyle?" Should we prevent them from marrying and adopting too? Or is it simply the absence of a single sexual act that renders gay sex "immoral?" (I really did not intend to take this route. I just ended up here. Don't worry. I'm almost done.) Is this starting to seem silly? That's my point! It is silly! Because it really comes down to condemning people because of their private sexual behavior, behavior that most people are loathe to disclose even to their doctor. It's private! No one judges - or even speculates about - the freaky stuff heterosexual married couples might do with each other, but apparently, these dirty-minded religious people cannot help but judge the imagined "deviance" of same-sex couples. It's stupid.]

More importantly, IMO, condemning the "gay lifestyle" as immoral makes no more sense than condemning the "left-handed lifestyle" or the "redheaded lifestyle" as immoral. People are born what they are. Morally condemning homosexuality from the pulpit or the floor of the US Senate or House of Representatives is bullying just the same as shoving that young gay man into a locker or making a spectacle of him on the internet. Just because it's said from a pulpit, or by an adult, or while wearing a suit doesn't change what it is: oppression of those who are different and the abuse of power to inflict pain and suffering. Like I said - bullying.

As for those of you who insist that homosexuality is a choice, I say this: same argument applies. Mind your own damn business! It's a free society! People should have the right to love whom they choose without fear of reprisals or repercussions.

Is it ironic or merely sad that in this society, there is often less condemnation for hating the "right people" than there is for loving the "wrong people?"

My Sister Asked Me to Write This

You have probably seen this in the news by now. In rural Obion County Tennessee, the fire department refused to assist a family whose home was burning to the ground because they forgot to pay the $75 annual service fee.

Being outside the city limits, the Cranicks were required to pay a fee of $75 each year to subscribe to fire-fighting services. They forgot. They had a fire. The fire department refused to come help. They lost everything.

This is absurd.

Absurdity No. 1 - No one disputes that he should have paid the fee, not even Cranick. But he offered to pay "whatever it took," to get help. They still refused. Commentator Smirconish suggested that the fire department should have responded and then put a lien on the home for the costs of the fire-fighting services. What a good and rational idea. Instead, they wanted to teach the Cranicks a lesson I guess. Well, lesson learned: In Obion County, Tennessee, principles and fees are more important that people or their homes. What a great lesson.

Absurdity No. 2 - This is what happens when you start privatizing everything. Do you know why we have speed limits? For everyone's safety because some people would drive at top speed everywhere, safety be damned. Know why we have taxes imposed and services provided, so this crap doesn't happen. How much easier - and more rational - would it have been to just assess everyone the $75 every year and then provide fire services to them all? Simple!! So why wasn't it done this way? Because of people's stupid, irrational obsessions with preferring privatizing everything. I call BS on that. It's stupid. As evidenced by the photo above.

Absurdity No. 3 - The Cranicks knew that in past years, people were given fire fighting assistance and allowed to pay the annual service fee the next day. You can see how "forgetting" to pay would be easier when you can simply pay after you need the service. I wonder if the residents of Obion County were given notice that NO fire service would be provided - and no opportunity to pay the fee after the due date - if the fee was not timely paid. Shouldn't people know the consequences of their acts and omissions prior to taking a step forward? They already had an expectation that they could get help if they needed. Were they informed of the change? It seems not. (For more details about what the Cranicks experienced, google the video interviews of Mr. Cranick with Keith Olbermann.

Absurdity No. 4 - This is what happens when people put "being right" ahead of "doing the right thing." Of course, they didn't pay the fee, so the fire department was "right" that they had no obligation to help the Cranicks. But does anyone dispute that ignoring their neighbor's cry for help was NOT the "right thing to do?" As adults, we (hopefully) learn the difference and try to put aside our egos and do the right thing. I wish, for the sake of the Cranicks, that the Obion County fire department had been able to act like adults.

The Cranicks lost everything: 3 dogs, a cat, all of their clothes and belongings. Everything. Is that the proper consequence for forgetting to pay a $75 fee?

Oh, and if the loss of everything was not enough, Mr. Cranick gets mocked on Glenn Beck's radio show here.

Good Mormon Glenn Beck mocks compassion (while his co-host mocks all southerners) and argues that it's all about the $75. He must think we're stupid. There are more alternatives than voluntarily paying to get protection OR not paying and getting no protection. (1) Assess the fee to everyone and everyone gets fire service. (2) Save the house and place a lien on the house for the cost, or the fee. (3) Save the house and then sue the guy for the money. I could go on, but you get it. With all of these reasonable scenarios, the house gets saved and Cranick is held responsible. It is not either/or!

Moreover, Beck makes some weird parallel to "Obama Care" claiming that "Obama Care" is like putting out the fire without requiring the fee. Well, now he's not just being stupid, he's outright lying. The Health Care Reform law requires everyone (or almost everyone) to purchase health insurance. That's the fee. Indeed, the mandate forces personal responsibility where none was required before.

If the service fee in Obion County had been mandated, I would not be writing this particular blog and Mr. Cranick would likely still have a home, 3 dogs, and a cat.

So you tell me: What world do you want to live in? The one where everything is privatized and people risk losing everything with a small omission? Or the one where there are safety nets for people (which are paid for by assessments and taxes)? And be honest. If you have ever relied on the police, fire department, FEMA, or the VA, or if you have ever benefited from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability or WIC, you know that government safety nets can literally save lives. And it can be done in a way to requires personal responsibility.

Remains of the Day

Today, the Supremes declined to hear the appeal of some of the families of 9/11 victims who have sued New York City because they believe that some amount of human remains - their relatives' human remains - have been dumped in a landfill and not "properly" buried.

A lower federal court found the city had handled things properly by searching for human remains and personal belongings in the rubble prior to disposing of it in the landfill. The families of 1100 victims have been provided with NO remains to bury, despite these efforts. The families also insist that 223,000 tons of materials was not "sifted" prior to it being dumped.

As with any circumstance, we are presented here with legal issues and moral issues, some related to religious doctrine. The Courts, presumably, are only addressing legal issues. (I don't really know what those are. In other words, I don't know what duty the city owed or owes to the families to find the remains.)

Left with no further recourse, I suppose the dissatisfied families either have to accept things as they are or work out something with the landfill and find the money to pay for - whatever additional actions they want.

My Mom always says that she does not want flowers at her funeral. She wants flowers to enjoy while she is alive. She doesn't care how her dead body is decorated.

From this maternally-endorsed philosophy, I have adopted this POV: the body is merely a vessel that holds the person (mind, ego, personality, spirit, whatever you want to call it) inside it while alive. Once dead, the body is as meaningless as a side of beef(except for donated organs which can save many lives). I know not everyone agrees with me. And I have no problem with those who choose to revere human remains. But to me, it's just not that important.

What matters is not how you treat people when they are dead. What matters is how you threat them while they are alive. In summary, "let the dead bury the dead."

I wonder how much NYC revenue was spent retrieving the remains and belongings that were retrieved. I don't really begrudge the expense. I get it. People want something to say goodbye to, to have closure. But wouldn't the money have been better spent on medical care for those Ground Zero workers who now suffer from respiratory diseases and other ailments from cleaning up the site?

Why do we feel so compelled to treat dead people with reverence while we feel no such reverence towards our living fellow human beings? I know this does not apply to everyone. There are people who advocate for those sick and disabled by the Ground Zero pollution/dust/gases/smoke, etc. I just wish there were more such advocates.

I certainly do not intend disrespect to any of the families involved. They are, no doubt, still suffering a sense of grief that I cannot fathom. But it does not follow that we must sift the entire contents of a landfill to try and give them the closure they desire. Like the families of sailors who died and were buried at sea, or the relatives of soldiers lost in battle whose bodies were never recovered, they will have to find closure in other ways.

(This does not really fit into the "Above Your Raisin'" theme. But I thought it was noteworthy and interesting.)

It's Never Too Late to Apologize.

The United States today officially apologized for (unethically) experimenting on a number of Guatemalan people who were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases to study the efficacy of penicillin. The apology was offered to the nation and people of Guatemala, especially those deliberately infected.

The apology came from President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius.

"The scientific investigation, called the U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Disease Inoculation Study of 1946-1948, aimed to gauge the effectiveness of penicillin to treat syphilis, gonorrhea and chancres."

When I heard about this story I was horrified. Even in 1945 and 1946, shouldn't we have known it was unethical to perform medical experiments on unknowing, unwilling human beings?

These experiments exhibited a dehumanization and utter disregard of the victims' rights. I, for one, am embarrassed. But I am glad we finally apologized.

I think we sometimes forget that we tend to view our country differently than those in other parts of the world. Some, I am sure, covet our way of life, our freedom, and/or our relatively peaceful political process. But others probably see us as arrogant, self-righteous, and overbearing. To some extent I suppose all of these characteristics have been exhibited by our government and by us at different times.

As a nation we are as imperfect as we each are as individuals. And one of the most important lessons we learn as adults is to take responsibility and apologize when we make a mistake, or even when we regret some intentional act that harmed someone else. Throughout our history, we have made mistakes. Perhaps our willingness to apologize shows we are finally growing up as a nation. I hope so.

Is It Too Much to Ask?

This is John Marshall. He was the Fourth Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. He is credited with establishing the Supreme Court as the voice and power of interpretation and enforcement of the constitution and all federal laws.

Two blogs ago I invoked the world "fascism." It is, no doubt, perceived to be an "extreme" word. And maybe a little scary? It was meant to be.

But having made my POV clear about the choice between having a powerful government that polices corporations OR having corporations with free rein, I want to take another tack. You may find it contradictory. I don't think it is.

As much as I want a strong federal government to regulate and police corporations, I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT INFRINGING ON PRIVATE, CONSENSUAL BEHAVIOR. If government is of, by and for the people, then I, as one of those people, want to protect my rights to privacy, to freedom of speech and expression, to freedom of association and religion (or non-religion), etc..

Ironically, perhaps paradoxically, the Constitution on which our government is based empowers the government to enforce, and restrains our government from infringing, on these individual rights. And the Courts, along with active citizens, are both the guardians of these rights and the restraining hand of the other branches of government - and have been since our nation's infancy. They are not "activists." They are fulfilling a most vital role in protecting minorities and individuals not just from violation of legal rights by the federal, state and local governments, but from the tyranny of the masses. It is both the enforcing and the restraining hand.

When I hear so-called conservatives like Rand Paul criticize civil rights laws because they infringe on people's right to discriminate and exclude people from commerce based on immutable characteristics, I am dumbfounded. People really think that way in 2010?

What kind of freedom is it that is heaped on one group at the expense of the freedom and rights of another group? Are freedom and equality under the law mutually exclusive? Are any of us really free when some of us are oppressed, ostracized, and subjugated by the particular majority in a particular state or region?

Perhaps freedom and equality are at odds to some extent. Perhaps people who wish to discriminate and exclude others just because they are different do have to sacrifice their freedom to act on their bigotry in order to protect those "different" people from being excluded. Is that a bad thing?

This is getting kind of deep and complex. I guess my point is this: I want GOOD government, whatever size it has to be to accomplish these benevolent goals: protect the weak or outnumbered from oppression; prevent corporations from trouncing people and ravaging the environment; protect fair, honest competition rather than rolling over for large corporate interests; recognize and assist when its citizens need help and cannot help themselves; protect us from our enemies and do so in a responsible and as humane a way as possible; respect its citizens and their respective rights; and be a government we can be proud of, even if it is imperfect.

Is that too much to ask?

This Is the Shizzit!

Really. It is!

In a dog park in Cambridge, Massachusetts, an MIT grad has built a methane digester that converts the dog poop into energy - burnable methane gas.

He had the idea after visiting India (where they use digesters frequently) and got a $4000 grant from MIT to build it. Now, so long as pet owners pick up the poop - like they are supposed to - drop it in the digester, and give the handle a turn, the methane flame will burn perpetually.

So it reduces waste, keeps the park clean, and provides energy.

For now, the flame simply provides light, but ideas are being collected to use the energy in other ways. Suggestions so far range from a Shadow Box to a popcorn stand to a tea house.

Something to be proud of, Cambridge!

My only question is, can you run one of these on Shinola?

How Fascism Sneaks Up On Us

Ironically, Tea Partiers call Obama a fascist while their Tea Party rallies are being funded by giant corporate lobbying interests, including the Koch brothers.

The TPers rant and rave and weep about "taking our country back" and lament the long-forgotten time of our founders. While there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting your country to be better and stronger, and there is certainly nothing unAmerican about taking to the streets to rail against the establishment, what we are witnessing is in some ways nothing but silly, illogical hysteria.

What do they mean when they say they want to "take the country back?" Back from whom? Or what? To when? What has happened in the last 2 years to change the way of life in this country so starkly that they are threatening bloodshed and violence?

Assuming for argument's sake that the Tea Party is not just populated by people who are pissed that their President is black, what is it that they see lacking in our country? What is wrong?

Has anyone been able to decipher precisely what the Tea Party wants? I cannot figure it out!

To me, being an American is all about choices. Freedom is, essentially, the power to choose. And I make choices based on (1) the world we actually live in, as I understand it, (2) the goals I would like to see our society pursue, (3)avoiding the path I DO NOT want our country to head down, and (4) the likelihood of success.

So when I hear people screaming about shrinking the federal government, I want to know: which parts of the federal government do you want to shrink or eliminate? (If I knew, I might agree! Why do we still subsidize tobacco, for example? That's stupid!)

When I hear people exclaiming "keep your government hands off my medicare," I know they are obviously confused.

When I hear vague, sweeping criticisms followed by violent threats to "resort of 2nd Amendment remedies" if they don't get their way, I know I'm hearing from people who are seriously upset about something they seem unable or unwilling to articulate who have decided they no longer want to live in a democratically elected republic.

Here is our current situation as I see it. We have a large federal government. We also have local and state governments of varying sizes and influences. And we have a very large, rich and powerful corporate lobby that is comprised (mostly) of 6 industries: defense contractors, energy (including oil), banking, agriculture, health care (insurance), and telecommunications. (Some retailers are pretty powerful too, but those industries are far more competitive. The 6 named above are basically functioning as cartels now, IMO. That gives them SO MUCH POWER!)

In this real world that we have created, power will be wielded. It will be wielded by either the government or by corporations. Since the government is an extension of me (and you and all the people), I choose to empower the government. Empowering government is an extension of ME exercising MY power. If I abdicate my power, I hand it over to the private sector, which, right now, is controlled by CORPORATIONS (not small businesses or individuals or even local governments).

All this rhetoric about the government having too much power is bizarre to me. We elect the people! We should exercise our vote to control how they govern!

So, we don't trust our government, that we elected, but we do trust Goldman Sachs, BP, and other large corporations? How does that make sense? Those corporations do not answer to us AT ALL!

Giving power to corporations to control our society is a scary proposition. Government may be inefficient, but it's raison d'etre is to serve the people (you and me). If it fails to do so, it is most likely because we have become lazy and we do not elect better leaders. In contrast, the purpose of corporations is to make a profit. Period. No moral code, not ethical guidelines, just make a profit. Corporations are necessary, they perform a vital function in our economy and our society. But they are not people, and they are NOT ON OUR SIDE!


If we want to wield more power in this country then we should engage and GET BEHIND YOUR GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF UNDERMINING IT. In a democratically elected republic, we each wield power through our elected officials. If we tie their hands and weaken them to the point that they cannot do our will, protect us, and provide the vital services we need, then our choices are reduced to corporate government (fascism) or anarchy. Those are choices I wish to avoid.

Injustice Scalia Says Constitution Does Not Protect Women from Discrimination

"Justice" Scalia said today that in his opinion, the US constitution does not protect women from being discriminated against based on their gender. Well, knock me over with a feather!

Since the 1970s, the Supremes have applied the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to prevent gender discrimination. What does it say, exactly?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The last phrase, known as the Equal Protection Clause ("EPC"), is a widely used clause in American constitutional jurisprudence. Because of this clause, modern Americans think that we are all equal in the eyes of the law: "Nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But, apparently, not Injustice Scalia. When he reads this, he must be thinking, "Hmmm. Women are not "persons," so obviously this does not apply to them."

How does this NOT apply to protecting women from discrimination? And more importantly, why is Scalia trying to lick his elbow to create gender inequality?

This has been established law for FOUR DECADES. And one major reason the Equal Rights Amendment failed to be adopted is because the Supremes - and generally everyone who can read and understand English - recognized that the EPC had already accomplished gender equality.

When all you Uptighty-Righties start railing against "activist judges," I want you to consider that happens to our laws, and indeed our society, when Injustices start ignoring court precedent to reinstate discrimination.

He claims he's not for discrimination, he's just an "Originalist" who thinks we must apply the Constitution only as the writers intended. But by his decisions, he has shown that to be as utterly false as it is silly.

In January of this year, this same Justice participated in a landmark, precedent-reversing decision, holding that corporations are "persons" and therefore may not be treated differently than other "people" in capping campaign donations. Yes, for the first time in American history, and without any Constitutional basis whatsoever, Scalia and his right-wing buddies on the Court treated corporations not just as "artificial persons," but as persons with political rights equal to human beings. So, where did all his "Originalism" go on this one? What "Originalism?" I call it "End-Justifies-the-Means-ism."

So, get this: Scalia thinks corporations are persons, but women are not.

That's just F'd up IMHO! I have other opinions as well. Such as: Injustice Scalia is a misogynistic opportunist paying homage to his corporate benefactors and the GOP that appointed him.

Couching this campaign against the American people as a legitimate constitutional philosophy doesn't change what it really is: a concerted effort to take power from individuals and give it to corporations. That's not conservative, people. That's fascism.