Cut Clint Some Slack

Okay, I have received word from reliable Hollywood sources that Eastwood's Convention speech last night wasn't as odd as it seemed. He thought he was auditioning for a revival of Harvey on Broadway.

Ryan’s Hope: Reality is What I Say it Is

Paul Ryan’s lies and misstatements during his speech at the Republican Convention last night bring up an interesting existential question about the nature of “reality.” Is there more than one reality? Can you claim your own reality in a world where the facts say otherwise? Aren’t people who do that considered mentally ill (or politicians. Take your pick)?

Many of us remember a quote from an anonymous source in the Bush Administration early in W’s tenure who said, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Ryan and Romney and their surrogates seem to have taken this philosophy to heart. Just a few days ago, a pollster for Romney responded to accusations from a variety of sources that the Republican candidate’s campaign ads were factually wrong by saying, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”

So facts be damned, apparently. Ryan’s not a stupid man. He must know that he is spewing lies and misstatements about Obama. Has he convinced himself that they are not lies or, more likely, he, like many Messianic Republicans, believes that the ends justify the means. Lies and distortions in the name of a greater good are acceptable. Sounds kind of cult-like to me.

I just don’t know how we can ever solve the pressing issues we face as a country when we can’t even agree on the very nature of “reality.” It’s one thing to say, “I disagree with your approach to dealing with global warming,” but when one side doesn’t even acknowledge the reality of man-made global warming, finding solutions is nearly impossible.

Yes, there is some truth to the argument that both sides do it, but in my sixty years I’ve never seen anything like the egregious and even contemptuous distortions of reality exhibited by today’s Republicans. When the mainstream press starts calling you out for lying, it must be pretty damned blatant. Is it a sign of desperation? Or do they really believe they can create their own reality? Stay tuned.

Where's George?

The theme of the Republican National Convention, “We built that,” which is based on a blatant misrepresentation of an Obama statement, should be, “We tried that.”

Conspicuously absent from the speeches up to this point is any mention of two-term president George W. Bush. What’s up with that? Bush implemented many of the policies and plans being pushed by Romney and company today: A tough, shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy, tax cuts for the wealthy, more privatization, more money for the war on drugs, an ongoing assault on public education, using war as a foreign policy tool rather than an act of last resort, more government secrecy, the use of torture, etc., etc. Many of the policies that Romney now champions were already tried by Bush. So why the Bush blackout? Because the Bush presidency was a miserable failure.

Bush took an economic surplus from Clinton and turned it into a black pit of debt eight years later with tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and unlimited defense spending. His tough Texas cowboy personae got us into two wars that we continue to pay for with young people’s lives and enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars. The war on drugs is acknowledged by virtually everyone outside of Washington as a disaster that is causing much more harm than it is preventing, not to mention billions of dollars annually.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Why on God’s green earth would we want a repeat of the Bush years? Folks, we tried it, and it didn’t work. Please, don’t make us go through it again.

Rep. Todd Akin wants to party like it’s 1799

Are we on the verge of our own American Dark Ages? We now have a major political party, one of only two allowed to exist within our deliberately constrained process of elections, that turns its back on science and rational thinking. Hijacked philosophically by the Tea Party and conservative Christians and funded by corporate America (that has its own agenda), the Republican Party has abandoned reality for a patchwork quilt of religious dogma, superstition, pseudo science and wishful thinking. The result is a continuous barrage of jaw dropping, astonishingly stupid statements not confined to the paid bloviaters of talk radio, but now bubbling up through the sludge to our elected officials sitting in leadership positions in the legislative branch of government. The latest comes from Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), who claimed in a television interview that victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant.

"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."

While some might assume that such a ridiculous notion was pulled from thin air (so thin it resulted in a lack of oxygen to the brain), research by blogger Justine Larbalestier reveals that Akins belief is actually grounded in historical precedent. In fact, it reflects a long-debunked eighteenth century assertion based on nothing more than biased male conventional wisdom.

Larbalestier pulls this section from Thomas Laqueur’s book “Making Sex:”

Samuel Farr, in the first legal-medicine text to be written in English (1785), argued that, “without an excitation of lust, or enjoyment in the venereal act, no conception can probably take place.” Whatever a woman might claim to have felt or whatever resistance she might have put up, conception in itself betrayed desire or at least a sufficient measure of acquiescence for her to enjoy the venereal act. This is a very old argument. Soranus had said in second-century Rome that “if some women who were forced to have intercourse conceived . . . the emotion of sexual appetite existed in them too, but was obscured by mental resolve,” and no one before the second half of the eighteenth century or early nineteenth century question the physiological basis of this judgment. The 1756 edition of Burn’s Justice of the Peace, the standard guide for English magistrates, cites authorities back to the Institutes of Justinian to the effect that “a woman can not conceive unless she doth consent.” It does, however, go on to point out that as matter of law, if not of biology, this doctrine is dubious. Another writer argued that pregnancy ought to be taken as proof of acquiescence since the fear, terror, and aversion that accompany a true rape would prevent an orgasm from occurring and thus make conception unlikely.

So we, the voters, are handing the levers of governance to individuals whose belief systems are rooted in an era when female hysteria was a common diagnosis and masturbation was considered a serious public health threat. In other words, we are rewarding stupidity rather than relegating it to obscurity. America has long had a strain of anti-intellectualism, but we are carrying that regressive notion even further by electing officials who vocally denounce science (climate-change deniers) and revel in their superstitious beliefs.

It’s maddening that the society that put the first person on the moon is now electing people who want to dismantle public education and replace it with Taliban-style religious indoctrination. People like Akin (and Bachmann, Ryan, Cantor, Pence and so many others) are attacking the very things that made this country the envy of the world at one time. Not anymore. Today we are in the midst of America’s decline, which is being funded by corporate America and abetted by a misinformed, fearful public.

Ironically, the eighteenth century was the height of the Enlightenment, while in America, the twenty-first century heralds a new Dark Ages.

Late for work. Now where did I put my powdered wig and snuff box?

How Long?

The "Self-Made Man" of the twenty-fist century

What's really depressing is to think that a portion of my taxes helped this dipshit get where he is.
(Thanks, Dan)

Tomorrow’s News Headlines Today!

“Congresswoman Bachmann Says World is Flat. Some Experts Disagree”

“Democrat’s ‘Puppies are Cute’ Bill Stalls in Republican-lead Committee”

“Romney Denies He Was Governor of Massachusetts. Blames Past Record on Evil Twin”

“Michael Phelps Steps in for Injured Javelin Thrower. Wins Gold”

“Mars Photos From Curiosity Prove Obama Not Born on Planet Earth, Claims Trump”

“Broadway Producer Says Madonna and Bieber Signed On for All-Star Remake of ‘Springtime for Hitler’”

“North Korea Leader Kim Jong-un Promises to Give New Wife Belated Wedding Gift: South Korea” 

Immortality? No thank you, Science.

Every now and then a story pops up in the news about some scientific discovery that could extend our lives. Among researchers, the hunt for physical immortality goes on. My question is “why?” Why would we want to live forever?

No matter how long you live, you still won’t pay off your credit card balance.

How many more times do you want to hear “Stairway to Heaven?”

Do you really want to be around to watch seven generations of grandchildren flunk algebra?

The desire to live forever seems particularly odd when expressed by those people who claim to be religious. In America, nearly 80% of the population identify as Christians. If you’re a Christian, it goes without saying you believe in the concept of heaven, with its streets paved with gold, eternal bliss, and 24/7 pasta buffets. So why would you want to live forever on this fragile pebble drifting through the black emptiness of space?

On the other hand, existence is a series of transitions, from egg to zygote to fetus to newborn and on and on to death. But is death the literal end of the cycle? I am a nonbeliever who considers religion and superstition synonymous, however, I also have a difficult time looking at the continuous thread of existence that science has opened our eyes to and accepting that whatever energy animates us as human beings — and how can you dispute the existence of energy if at one point we are animated and living and another point we are simply a dry pile of flesh and bone no more alive than a pile of leaves? — disappears once our bodies have worn out. Science tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. What happens to the energy that animates us with what we call “life”?

This brings me back to the idea of immortality. If we are in fact animated by energy, aren’t we already immortal? Organized religion is a naïve, childish and ultimately destructive way created to try and comes to grips with this idea, but the very core belief of most world religions — that the energy (soul) that compels us to move and live does not die when our physical bodies do — may actually prove to be correct.

Do what I did and stand in front of a mirror while considering physical immortality. No thank you. Science, please stop wasting your time on this and turn your attention to more serious matters, like how to make Brussels Sprouts taste like Boston cream pie.

Reflections on Italy

We’re all guilty of measuring ourselves against others and fudging the yardstick in our favor. Over the years I talked to many people of my parent’s generation about their experiences traveling abroad, and it was often apparent that the base measure used to compare themselves to others was grossly skewed. Americans of the forties and fifties left their home country with an attitude that I’m sure was shared by Romans, Egyptians, the British and others who ventured abroad during the height of their empires; a sense of innate superiority and an inclination toward condescension and even pity. Even those Americans who lived in other cultures for extended lengths of time came home with stories accentuating the glaring differences between “us” and “them.”

I didn’t want to travel to Italy with that attitude, and it was one of the reasons why, at the age of 60, I opted for a backpack as opposed to wheeled luggage. It sounds superficial, I know, but as Katharine and I walked the streets of Rome and Florence and Lucca, the backpack gave us a sense of being true travelers as opposed to clattering, myopic visitors. The distinction is important. We were there to mingle, smell, taste, touch, and absorb Italy. We got lost often on our walks around these cities, and while we were always concerned with getting to our destination, it didn’t keep us from sitting on benches to inhale our surroundings or stopping for a gelato or glass of wine.

The museums, the art, the history; it was all wonderful and rewarding. I came away from it with a clearer vision of the thread that connects us today to more than two thousand years of Western history — our attitudes toward beauty; the folly of war; the repeated political mistakes; and the evolution of art, science and philosophy. My most memorable moments, however, were those spent at café tables on piazzas as the sun was setting, bruschetta and a glass of wine in front of me, Katharine sitting across from me, women in house dresses leaning on the sills of the open windows looking out on the square, people conversing in Italian or German or French at tables near us, the well-dressed Arab man toking on a hookah, motor scooters zipping by, the smells of oregano, cigarette smoke and sweat, and the ancient cobble stones beneath our feet.

Being half Italian, I went to Italy with some sense of wanting to connect with my roots. I’m not sure that I really accomplished that on a personal level. The reality is that Italy, and specifically Rome, is a part of every Westerner’s past, whether you’re German, Irish or Albanian. Italy belongs to everyone. Katharine and I walked (and walked and walked) through the same streets and alleyways that were trod by Augustus, Nero, Michelangelo, Da Vinci and Dante. Our hotel in Florence was situated in a building that was over 500 years old. We stood where gladiators fought and died, where heretics were burned alive, where great works of art were created, where plague victims died by the thousands, where fundamental issues of law, freedom, and justice were debated. It was an amazing experience that reached back and forth through time.

Odd as it sounds, for me, going to Italy didn’t seem like traveling to a foreign country. I felt at home there. Comfortable, like visiting some place from my past, even thought I’d never been there before. I truly hope Katharine and I can go back one day.

Ciao

On Monday, July 9, Katharine and I will be off to Italy for two weeks. This will be a huge adventure as we explore Rome and Tuscany on our own (no tour groups for us). I’ll take many photos and post them here when I get back.

Arrivederci

Why Johnny can’t think

The cat is finally out of the bag. If any of you were under the illusion that Republicans and Democrats simply had differing views on education policy in America, Texas Republicans have finally explained out loud the party’s real motives in attacking public education in this country: It inspires children to think.

What? Wait a second, you say. Isn’t that the whole point of an education, to help people learn to think? Not according to the Texas Republican delegates who met in Fort Worth recently to approve their 2012 platform. Amid a slew of Draconian proposals aimed at education reform, including instituting corporal punishment, Texas conservatives added a statement opposing the teaching of “higher order thinking skills,” because they might challenge, “student’s fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”

So, Texas Republicans don’t want children to actually think. For anyone who has paid attention over the years, it’s been clear that this was the ultimate endgame of the conservative approach to education all along, it was just never stated so plainly and obviously. Conservatives want children to be indoctrinated, not educated. Critical thinking skills are a threat to blind obedience; hence, they need to be discarded.

Even the age-old canard that public education indoctrinates children with liberal ideas is thrown under the bus by this group. They don’t want young people to have an opportunity to “choose” conservative values over liberal values; they don’t want them to have any choice at all. This is, of course, telling as to how they perceive the strength of their arguments in the marketplace of ideas.

There have been plenty of jokes made over the years comparing America’s Christian Right to the Taliban, but I’ve stopped laughing. Every time they feel emboldened to say what they actually believe as opposed to what they think is politically acceptable, I hear a brand of extremism that is determined to turn a first-world superpower into a third-world theocracy.

One of the enduring quotes from the Vietnam War is, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” This seems to be the driving philosophy of the Religious Right in America in the twenty-first century. The biggest threat to this country doesn’t come from Afghanistan or China or Cuba, but from the daises and pews of conservative Christian churches across the United States.

Fishing With Cats

Here’s a quick tip for any single man out there who still clings to the romantic notion that you’ll bump into your life’s love while squeezing cantaloupes at the supermarket or riding the express bus to work in the morning. Consider this advice supplemental to your online dating service and hanging out in front of Victoria’s Secret at the mall on weekends.

Every guy has tried or thought about trying “Puppy Fishing.” You acquire (buy, borrow or pick up one loitering around a local trash bin) a puppy, leash it, and troll (not “lurk,” but troll) nearby parks or jogging trails. This technique has merit and has proven successful for some, but I propose a slight variation. Cats.

After visiting a state park recently on vacation, I came across a guy with a large grey and white cat on a leash. He had drawn a significant crowd. This was a place where dogs were allowed and there were plenty of people parading around their labs and collies, but the cat guy was clearly the center of attention.

Start by being honest with yourself. Are you a cat or dog person? If you’re a dog person, that’s one thing. But if you’re a cat person and you troll with a dog, you are going to attract the wrong species — a dog lover. So don’t be shy about exploiting your cat. It lies around all day sleeping and licking its ass, so why not put the little ingrate to good use? It could probably use the exercise.

Some might be nervous about the “manliness” factor involved in strolling around public places with a cat in tow, but I think it is negated by the uniqueness of the event. It demonstrates that you’re not afraid to show your feline side, and that can be an attractive thing to some women.

Be warned however, that this approach does not translate to other pets. Walking your weasel, ferret, tarantula or rat for the purpose of attracting the opposite sex is not recommended. The danger is that you might actually catch something. If this should happen, throw it back immediately. 

Nailed it, Google

Found this in my Google search, "photos confused people."

Fact or Fiction? It’s Hard to Tell These Days.

America is in decline. Many people, both left and right, would agree with this. When you ask what the reasons are for the decline, however, responses will be all over the board, from gay marriage to the Federal Reserve to The New World Order. So how do we come to any kind of consensus on the problem when there are as many answers as there are blogs on the Internet?

Back in the old days, or maybe it was just a dream I had, we used to rely on facts to lead us to solutions. We sifted through the known data and then made decisions based on what the information was telling us. That approach is not how we deal with things in 2012. Today, ideology, superstition and corporatism have replaced debate and consensus. Simple facts are now disputed. Genuine solutions are attacked as ideological assaults. Common sense is questioned if it does not fall into line with the religious doctrine popular at the moment. A fog of obfuscation hangs over this country.

Perhaps there is no such thing as a totally objective fact, but in order for this country to avoid total paralysis and make policy decisions and move forward, we have to select, and agree on, some set of data in order to even say, “Here’s a problem that needs to be addressed.” Then comes the even more difficult task of coming up with a solution. So is there objective data out there that points to a serious problem that exists in this country; data that isn’t from a political think tank or corporate PR agency? In my opinion (and yes, I admit I am a biased observer) there is, and it reveals a crucial problem that needs to be addressed: Income disparity and the destruction of America’s middle class.

Of course, here’s the real problem. The data may conflict with your ideology. So the million-dollar question is this: Is there a problem with the facts or does your ideology need adjusting to accommodate the facts? At least ask yourself that question.

Here are the facts. Decide for yourself.

O Democrats, where art thou?

I’ve been arguing for decades that one of the primary problems with Democrats is that they continuously allow Republicans to define the terms of debate on too many issues. When you look at how we discuss issues related to the economy, national security, the drug war, capitalism, religion, you name it, Democrats take their cues from Republicans, defining their views in relationship to conservative ideology, rather than the broader aspects of the argument in relationship to what’s actually right for America.

I came across a perfect example of this on the website of Jim Graves, a democrat who is challenging Michelle Bachmann for Minnesota’s sixth district Congressional seat.

In the section, “Why I am running to represent the 6^th District,” Graves begins with the obligatory pap about being “a successful businessman with the know-how to create jobs.” Okay. Jobs and the economy are important issues. Then we work our way down to the second paragraph on why Graves wants to replace Bachmann in Congress. He wants Bachmann’s job because she is part of the “inflexible extreme,” a bland euphemism for lunatic fringe, and that her comments have made her “a national media phenomena,” again, a weak, wishy-washy way of saying she’s made Minnesota a laughing stock in political circles.

As we read on, we go from flaccid political euphemisms into the fantasy world of bipartisanship. Graves writes, “What the people of the District need in Washington is someone who can get along with members of both parties so that the District is truly represented.” Right. I can only assume that Graves has been living in a cave on the banks of the St. Croix River for the past four years without access to electronic devices of any kind. As President Obama has learned through painful experience, there is no such thing as bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. in 2012. Republicans won’t have it. They’d rather have their faces eaten off by bath-salt crazed zombies than spend five minutes at a table negotiating with Democrats. Graves goes on to say, “It is time we come together and mount a unified response to our economic crisis.” There are only two ways to analyze this sentence. 1) Graves is spewing hackneyed campaign jargon because that’s what he thinks his constituents want to hear, or 2) he is going to vote with Republicans. Hell will freeze over, thaw out, and freeze over again before there is a “unified response to our economic crisis.”

And now we are into the fourth paragraph, and here is were the thirty years of hard work on the part of Republican message-crafters Lee Atwater, Frank Luntz, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes, Karl Rove and others, really starts paying off. Let’s look at some of the lowlights:

“Government has a role to play in society, but it should be limited to what citizens cannot do for themselves.”  This sentence acknowledges and agrees with a fundamental cornerstone of conservative ideology: The only good government is a small, unobtrusive government. Never mind Roosevelt’s New Deal, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil War, women’s suffrage, environmental protections, etc. Never mind the great government-sponsored scientific and technological breakthroughs of the fifties and sixties. Never mind that almost every citizen in this country benefits in one way or another from government subsidies. As Reagan said, “Government isn’t the solution. It’s the problem,” and that’s good enough for Republicans and weak, opportunistic Democrats.

“I believe that the free market makes better decisions than politicians.” Here is another line that could be lifted directly from Karl Rove’s Playbook. First and foremost, free markets are not, nor have they ever been, truly free. Secondly, the implication here is that government needs to stand out of the way and let the markets do their thing. Well, we’ve already seen how well that works. Remember 2008? Rules and regulations on business practices are necessary and can often mark the line between life and death, when you consider the importance of work place safety and food inspections. The only constraint the free market has is the bottom line. It’s government that bears the responsibility of looking after the health and safety of the American people, and Republicans don’t even like that role.

“I also believe government must balance its budget and my solution is to end the blame game and start working together.” Again with the bipartisanship. But the eye-roll inducing line here is “government must balance its budget.” First of all, in 1999, George Bush inherited a balanced budget and started charging on the U.S. credit card immediately, running up a deficit of a half-trillion dollars by the time he left office in 2009. This is one of the Republican’s favorite “Do as I say not as I do” tropes. For years, Republicans have argued that we should run the country like a successful business. Unfortunately, that is comparing apples to oranges. The government is not in the business of running a profit. It is in the business of running a country, where the needs of the people should trump the bottom line. A balanced budget is a good thing, but it is not paramount over the well being of this country’s citizens. Just look at what is happening to Europe as it sinks deeper into economic stagnation as its leaders doggedly continue pushing fiscal austerity in the name of balanced budgets.

There’s more in Graves’ writing to prove my point. The reality is crystal clear. Democrats have to grow a pair. They have to start standing up and stating what they do believe in as Democrats. They have to reestablish the parameters of the debate and put Republicans back on the defensive where they belong. Poll after national poll indicates that the American people are far more tolerant and progressive than we are lead to believe by the media. It just takes some courage to tap into that vein of voters. The process should begin with the new crop of Democrats running for office, but, if Jim Graves is an example, we may have to wait until next season. 

Sigh...

The most discouraging aspect of Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall election is the message it sends to other conservative candidates that the voting public is truly as clueless and gullible as they had hoped, and that with huge amounts of money, you can count on swaying enough people to vote against their best interests.

Look at those eyes. Are those the eyes of a sane man? 

Beware Your Garden Ornaments

GNOMBIES!

The mystery of the close campaign

Two men are running for president, but only one of the candidates

• Is an unrepentant member of the 1%
• Remains clueless about how the rest of us are affected by the current economic situation
• Wants tax breaks for wealthiest Americans, higher taxes for the rest of us
• Advocates totally unrealistic and unworkable policies related to fixing the economy. Most economists agree his policies will inevitably make things worse
• Has no true political convictions. Long record of saying anything to get elected
• Attacks Obama for policies he once supported
• Allows religious beliefs to take precedent over logic, analysis and science
• Has vowed he will take us back to failed Bush-era policies
• Opposes any rationale discussion related to the failed war on drugs
• Wants to provide more money to an already bloated Defense budget while cutting essential safety net programs
• Doesn’t mind a man having more than one wife, but opposes gay marriage
• Claims to want government out of people’s lives yet promotes policies that allow government to control women’s medical choices
• Won’t openly reject Donald Trump’s insane birther rants
• Is a member of a religious group that believes Jesus came to America and that a woman can’t get into heaven unless the spirit of her husband calls her name. Oh, and there’s the polygamy thing, too

Yet this presidential campaign remains close, according to the media. Why?

Name That Band

This band played at a high school prom in 1971. Who is it? (Dan H., you are disqualified.)

Okay. Maybe it's just too obvious it's ZZTop. It's just a shame that no one gets to collect the $1 million prize money. Better luck next time.

It's never too early

I ran across the perfect Christmas gift for all of my nieces and nephews. It's fun, realistic and educational. What more could you ask for?