Felon accidentally shoots off
his own testicle, avoids jail,
Judge says he suffered enough.
I absolutely do not understand this hysteria over Iran and its possible nuclear bomb. First of all there is no evidence that the Iranians are actually pursuing a bomb. Second, what would happen even if they did have a bomb? With one or two or three bombs would they try to destroy Israel and Western Europe? This is a simply absurd assumption, especially as Iran has not attacked anyone for over two hundred years, and Israel and the U.S. would presumably respond massively. Then some say it would set off an arms race in the Middle East. It conceivably could do that, but why assume that Iranians and Arabs are so crazy or irresponsible they would start blowing each other up with nuclear bombs? Even the West versus Russia was not that stupid, and there is no reason to assume any difference for those in the Middle East (unless, of course, you are a bunch of racist paternalists still daydreaming about the “white man’s burden.”). As Israel has had nuclear bombs for years, the only nation in the Middle East to do so, I am rather surprised there hasn’t already been a nuclear arms race in that part of the world. I don’t think it’s because the Arab states are too poor. Anyway, this whole approach to the Middle East seems to me to be predicated on the assumption that Iranians and Arabs must be really stupid and unable to manage their own affairs. Besides, if there were to be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East it would probably not mature until after global warming had already done us all in.
Another article I saw today says that “diplomats” (unnamed diplomats, of course) say that Iran could conduct an underground nuclear test within six months. There is absolutely no evidence for this as far as I can see. Furthermore, the same article then goes on to point out why the Iranians would not do this even if they could (it would tip off Israel which would immediately respond and etc.). The article also suggests that the Iranians are nowhere near having the capacity to launch a nuclear weapon even if they had one, and then goes on, interestingly enough, to point out, it will be years before Iran would be in a position to have and use nuclear weapons. So why, I ask you, all this continued talk about an Israeli attack on Iran, with the blessing of the U.S., and so on? Why do people like Hillary and Gates keep repeating that “nothing is off the table,” and they should not think the U.S. is weak, and blah, blah, blah. At the same time they keep threatening, they also indicate that an attack on Iran is not imminent or planned or whatever. And why do we try to frighten Europeans by pointing out that if Iran had a bomb it would threaten them also? They probably have better intelligence than we do (not a difficult achievement these days) and know more about the situation than we do. Having been following this for months, even years, I have to conclude that it is mostly racist Israeli paranoia which results in nothing but gobbeldy gook instead of common sense on the part of most everyone. I have no doubt that if the West and Israel would reach out diplomatically to Iran, without preconditions, and without assuming they are just irresponsible children, this “problem” would turn out to be mostly a figment of Israeli and U.S. imagination. I believe this would be true no matter who is in charge of Iran at the moment.
As far as I know the American public (at least that portion of it that is actually awake) is in favor of a single-payer health care system. And many of those who are actively involved in trying to negotiate a new health care system also favor a single-payer plan. Obama himself, as a candidate, also favored a single-payer plan. It now seems to be pretty much universally understood that a single-payer system would be much, much less expensive than any other plan, much more cost effective and efficient, and would eliminate the enormous profits that just go to the Insurance industry (an organization completely unnecessary for health care, basically a form of parasitical bloodsuckers). Thanks mostly to Dennis Kucinich it is apparently going to be possible for individual states to opt for a single-payer system should they so desire. The Obama administration, and others, believing there was no chance for a single-payer plan, have opted to create a public option so people, if they wished, could by-pass the insurance leeches entirely. The Insurance and Pharmaceutical and Hospital industries are predictably opposed to even this form of public option. Obama remains determined to get some kind of plan this year, and is talking of just ramming one through without the help of Republicans (and a few Democrats being heavily bribed by the corporations). I don’t know how possible this may be, but if it is possible, why not ram through a single-payer plan and have done with it? If they succeed in getting a public option it will almost inevitably turn into a single-payer plan eventually, so why wait? Why would anyone, especially any Congressperson, who is supposed to have the public interest foremost in their minds, oppose the most efficient and practical plan? Because the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industries are paying them big bucks to do just that. It is, alas, that simple, and that disgusting.
LKBIQ:
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.
Aesop
TILT:
Alexander the Great’s horse, Bucephalus, was said to have died of old age at thirty. Alexander named a city after him, Bucephala.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
No Numbskulls Allowed
Police seek man with
sexual fetish for slashing
exercise balls.
Should some kind of credentials be required before running for public office? I mean, you know, you have to take a test just to get a driver’s license, and many jobs require either oral or written tests. It seems there is nothing required of those who aspire to public office. Unfortunately, this shows. The Sotomayor confirmation hearings offered glimpses at Senators who seem to be truly dim bulbs. Senator Sessions is a good case in point, and Inhofe has repeatedly revealed his apparent lack of contact with reality. Just now some ten Congresspersons have signed on to some ridiculous “birther” statement. Obama has done everything necessary to prove he was born in Honolulu, part of the United States, but these dimwits refuse to believe it, claiming his birth certificate, certified by the State of Hawaii, must be a fake, and so on. In short, nothing anyone can do or say can make these people believe Obama is a bona fide citizen of the United States. This reveals, to me at least, an absence of common sense, if not the ability to reason. There are probably thousands of examples of our Senators or Representatives saying and doing absolutely boneheaded things. Many of them do not believe in evolution, an indication of genuine ignorance. Even our past President said he wasn’t sure about it. Michelle Bachman comes out every day with some new absurd claim that makes you wonder how in the world she was ever elected to high office. Of course even bright people occasionally make some stupid mistake, but in some cases this is a consistent pattern that indicates something is missing when it comes to brains.
Nothing is required for someone to be elected to office other than just the ability to get elected. Thus our elected officials can have all kinds of backgrounds: haberdashers, schoolteachers, pest controllers, and what have you. Many elected officials come from legal backgrounds, sometimes having never actually practiced law, and still others may be doctors who for whatever reason became politicians. Some of these turn out to be effective public servants, but some do not. The question becomes, how do we screen out the occasional loonies who manage to get elected to high office, then prove themselves over time to be stupid and/or incompetent, but for some reason continue to be elected? I do not know the answer to this question, but I believe it is an important issue we should consider more carefully. I would not suggest that having a college degree necessarily helps, nor is there necessarily anything wrong with having been a comedian, plumber, exterminator, or even governor. But how in the world does someone like Bachman get elected? Or Inhofe? Or Sessions? I confess that watching the performance of these individuals, and others, during the recent confirmation hearings, was an embarrassment, virtually too painful to watch. I do not believe my feelings about this have merely to do with the fact that I disagree with them. There are many people I disagree with that I still admire, but some individuals just do not inspire admiration at any level. They are, in my judgment, truly “dim bulbs.”
Could we not at least consider mandatory classes for anyone who aspires to high public office? That is, once someone decides to become a politician and run for office might they not have to take some courses in politics, current events, the Constitution, things like that, just basic information they should need to know, or is it enough they can see Russia from their front porch? Of course many candidates already possess such knowledge and could be exempt from tutorials. Sarah Palin is a good example of someone who was running for very high office with virtually no qualifications at all, other than a brief governorship of a sparsely populated state, where she has been accused of multiple ethics violations. She knows far less about the world and world affairs and the functions of government than most of my acquaintances and friends. That she could be considered a serious candidate for President of the most powerful country on the planet is not only shocking, it’s terrifying. I’m not certain that in Palin’s case tutorials would make much difference as she shows no inclination to learn or be told anything. But did we learn nothing from eight years of know-nothing Bush? Is that something we should be eager to repeat? If wanting to have someone as President who is intelligent, reasonably well educated, and well-informed, with at least, ideally, some relevant experience as well, makes me an elitist, so-be-it. I do not want my future dependent upon Joe the (non) Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin or even Sessions and Inhofe. We seem to have evolved a system in which politics has been completely divorced from both common sense and responsibility, and certainly from any sense of trying to improve the public well-being. Perhaps it might help if there was a sign over the entrance to the Senate: “No Numbskulls Allowed.”
LKBIQ:
“…the level of American elementary school education in America is not high enough for her immense possibilities and her limitless aspiration…The insufficiency of the American common school is a danger to the peace of the world.”
H. G. Wells (in the 1920’s)
TILT:
Walter Cronkite died today. He was 92. There will never be another one like him, not even close.
sexual fetish for slashing
exercise balls.
Should some kind of credentials be required before running for public office? I mean, you know, you have to take a test just to get a driver’s license, and many jobs require either oral or written tests. It seems there is nothing required of those who aspire to public office. Unfortunately, this shows. The Sotomayor confirmation hearings offered glimpses at Senators who seem to be truly dim bulbs. Senator Sessions is a good case in point, and Inhofe has repeatedly revealed his apparent lack of contact with reality. Just now some ten Congresspersons have signed on to some ridiculous “birther” statement. Obama has done everything necessary to prove he was born in Honolulu, part of the United States, but these dimwits refuse to believe it, claiming his birth certificate, certified by the State of Hawaii, must be a fake, and so on. In short, nothing anyone can do or say can make these people believe Obama is a bona fide citizen of the United States. This reveals, to me at least, an absence of common sense, if not the ability to reason. There are probably thousands of examples of our Senators or Representatives saying and doing absolutely boneheaded things. Many of them do not believe in evolution, an indication of genuine ignorance. Even our past President said he wasn’t sure about it. Michelle Bachman comes out every day with some new absurd claim that makes you wonder how in the world she was ever elected to high office. Of course even bright people occasionally make some stupid mistake, but in some cases this is a consistent pattern that indicates something is missing when it comes to brains.
Nothing is required for someone to be elected to office other than just the ability to get elected. Thus our elected officials can have all kinds of backgrounds: haberdashers, schoolteachers, pest controllers, and what have you. Many elected officials come from legal backgrounds, sometimes having never actually practiced law, and still others may be doctors who for whatever reason became politicians. Some of these turn out to be effective public servants, but some do not. The question becomes, how do we screen out the occasional loonies who manage to get elected to high office, then prove themselves over time to be stupid and/or incompetent, but for some reason continue to be elected? I do not know the answer to this question, but I believe it is an important issue we should consider more carefully. I would not suggest that having a college degree necessarily helps, nor is there necessarily anything wrong with having been a comedian, plumber, exterminator, or even governor. But how in the world does someone like Bachman get elected? Or Inhofe? Or Sessions? I confess that watching the performance of these individuals, and others, during the recent confirmation hearings, was an embarrassment, virtually too painful to watch. I do not believe my feelings about this have merely to do with the fact that I disagree with them. There are many people I disagree with that I still admire, but some individuals just do not inspire admiration at any level. They are, in my judgment, truly “dim bulbs.”
Could we not at least consider mandatory classes for anyone who aspires to high public office? That is, once someone decides to become a politician and run for office might they not have to take some courses in politics, current events, the Constitution, things like that, just basic information they should need to know, or is it enough they can see Russia from their front porch? Of course many candidates already possess such knowledge and could be exempt from tutorials. Sarah Palin is a good example of someone who was running for very high office with virtually no qualifications at all, other than a brief governorship of a sparsely populated state, where she has been accused of multiple ethics violations. She knows far less about the world and world affairs and the functions of government than most of my acquaintances and friends. That she could be considered a serious candidate for President of the most powerful country on the planet is not only shocking, it’s terrifying. I’m not certain that in Palin’s case tutorials would make much difference as she shows no inclination to learn or be told anything. But did we learn nothing from eight years of know-nothing Bush? Is that something we should be eager to repeat? If wanting to have someone as President who is intelligent, reasonably well educated, and well-informed, with at least, ideally, some relevant experience as well, makes me an elitist, so-be-it. I do not want my future dependent upon Joe the (non) Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin or even Sessions and Inhofe. We seem to have evolved a system in which politics has been completely divorced from both common sense and responsibility, and certainly from any sense of trying to improve the public well-being. Perhaps it might help if there was a sign over the entrance to the Senate: “No Numbskulls Allowed.”
LKBIQ:
“…the level of American elementary school education in America is not high enough for her immense possibilities and her limitless aspiration…The insufficiency of the American common school is a danger to the peace of the world.”
H. G. Wells (in the 1920’s)
TILT:
Walter Cronkite died today. He was 92. There will never be another one like him, not even close.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Sotomayor 100, Republican Clowns 0
Anthrax scare in embassy turns
out to be woman’s ashes, with
request they be strewn in Rome.
Well, it’s finally over and it appears there is no doubt Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed. I think it is perfectly safe to say Sotomayor 100, Republican clowns 0. After asking her the same trivial question over and over for four consecutive days (and apparently expecting to get a different answer each time), they finally gave up, and several of them indicated she had a fine record and they might be inclined to vote for her. What a charade and a four day waste of time (of course there is no other pressing business for the Senate to worry about these days). Most everyone seems to be pretty satisfied with the outcome, except Pat Buchanan.
I have never liked Buchanan, mostly because he is a conservative Republican, but once in a great while he says something that sort of makes sense. His tirade against Sotomayor is not one that makes sense. Buchanan is so blinded by his absolute objection to affirmative action I fear his head may become unscrewed. He insists that she is an affirmative action appointment and is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. This, in spite of the fact that she is known to be far more experienced and qualified than any nominee for the past 70 years. According to Buchanan she was admitted to the University as an affirmative action choice (which is true), and he implies she made her outstanding grades only because, he says, “half the students nowadays graduate summa cum laude.” Her record of collegiate success and her years of experience on the bench seem to mean nothing to Buchanan because he keeps insisting, “she is an affirmative action choice, a Puerto Rican.” He also argues that she is not a brilliant legal mind, having not written any outstanding books or articles, and Supreme Court Justices should all be extraordinarily brilliant (like Clarence Thomas, I guess). While I don’t know offhand whether Roberts or Alito have written brilliant legal books, I rather suspect not. When challenged by Rachel Maddow as to why only 2 Justices out of 110 have been non-white, he ranted and raved about how the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written by white men, the war of Independence was fought by white men, and it was white men who stormed the beaches at Normandy. To him this seems to mean white men rule forever, never mind that conditions are hardly the same as they were back then (actually, I think there may have been Blacks fighting back then, but probably only in small numbers). Buchanan is apparently unaware of the profound changes in American life that have occurred during his lifetime. Maddow said he was “dated,” and she is dead right.
Affirmative action is a complex and difficult issue. It is sometimes true that a somewhat more qualified white person is passed over in favor of a minority. After so many centuries of discrimination against minorities this strikes me as unfortunate but not exactly criminal. It also raises questions in my mind about how or why the reasons for admittance even matter (as least theoretically). In Buchanan’s racist mind it apparently doesn’t matter how well you do once you are admitted, if you were an affirmative action choice you are doomed no matter how well you perform (I wonder if he would use this same criterion for Obama). When Maddow pointed out how well Sotomayor had done, Buchanan just dismissed her success as a gift from the lowered University standards these days (a questionable assertion in the first place). I wonder if he thinks the same thing about Obama’s success. More importantly, what does he think about so-called “legacy admissions?” George W. Bush certainly did not get admitted to Yale on the basis of his academic record or performance. He was admitted because he was a Bush and his father was important. And apparently he was not awarded high grades just as a matter of policy as he was, by his own admission, a “C” student. Thus we have a situation of obvious discrimination (some other better student, surely white, was not admitted because of Bush), and the individual so admitted was a relative failure (but his name was Bush and he went on to become President of the U.S., certainly a bit of irony there). I would argue that why you were admitted is basically irrelevant if you subsequently succeed (success is apparently not possible for affirmative action appointees, no matter what they do as far as Buchanan is concerned). His idea seems to be: affirmative action candidate = minority person = diminished capacity = failure = blatant racism (he does not stress this latter). There is no doubt that the Sotomayor confirmation hearings were shot through with racism, however disguised, but Buchanan does not even bother to disguise his racism. Perhaps we should give him credit for exposing himself as a bigot. The Great Chain of Being, with white Western-Europeans at the apex, does not disappear overnight, and perhaps never in the eyes of some true believers like Buchanan. The confirmation of Sotomayor, like the election of Barack Obama, are new important steps toward a new and more realistic paradigm.
LKBIQ:
The world knows of Rosa Parks because of a single, simple act of dignity and courage that struck a lethal blow to the foundations of legal bigotry.
Bill Clinton
TILT:
Carp were domesticated and used for food in Europe and Asia thousands of years ago.
out to be woman’s ashes, with
request they be strewn in Rome.
Well, it’s finally over and it appears there is no doubt Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed. I think it is perfectly safe to say Sotomayor 100, Republican clowns 0. After asking her the same trivial question over and over for four consecutive days (and apparently expecting to get a different answer each time), they finally gave up, and several of them indicated she had a fine record and they might be inclined to vote for her. What a charade and a four day waste of time (of course there is no other pressing business for the Senate to worry about these days). Most everyone seems to be pretty satisfied with the outcome, except Pat Buchanan.
I have never liked Buchanan, mostly because he is a conservative Republican, but once in a great while he says something that sort of makes sense. His tirade against Sotomayor is not one that makes sense. Buchanan is so blinded by his absolute objection to affirmative action I fear his head may become unscrewed. He insists that she is an affirmative action appointment and is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. This, in spite of the fact that she is known to be far more experienced and qualified than any nominee for the past 70 years. According to Buchanan she was admitted to the University as an affirmative action choice (which is true), and he implies she made her outstanding grades only because, he says, “half the students nowadays graduate summa cum laude.” Her record of collegiate success and her years of experience on the bench seem to mean nothing to Buchanan because he keeps insisting, “she is an affirmative action choice, a Puerto Rican.” He also argues that she is not a brilliant legal mind, having not written any outstanding books or articles, and Supreme Court Justices should all be extraordinarily brilliant (like Clarence Thomas, I guess). While I don’t know offhand whether Roberts or Alito have written brilliant legal books, I rather suspect not. When challenged by Rachel Maddow as to why only 2 Justices out of 110 have been non-white, he ranted and raved about how the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written by white men, the war of Independence was fought by white men, and it was white men who stormed the beaches at Normandy. To him this seems to mean white men rule forever, never mind that conditions are hardly the same as they were back then (actually, I think there may have been Blacks fighting back then, but probably only in small numbers). Buchanan is apparently unaware of the profound changes in American life that have occurred during his lifetime. Maddow said he was “dated,” and she is dead right.
Affirmative action is a complex and difficult issue. It is sometimes true that a somewhat more qualified white person is passed over in favor of a minority. After so many centuries of discrimination against minorities this strikes me as unfortunate but not exactly criminal. It also raises questions in my mind about how or why the reasons for admittance even matter (as least theoretically). In Buchanan’s racist mind it apparently doesn’t matter how well you do once you are admitted, if you were an affirmative action choice you are doomed no matter how well you perform (I wonder if he would use this same criterion for Obama). When Maddow pointed out how well Sotomayor had done, Buchanan just dismissed her success as a gift from the lowered University standards these days (a questionable assertion in the first place). I wonder if he thinks the same thing about Obama’s success. More importantly, what does he think about so-called “legacy admissions?” George W. Bush certainly did not get admitted to Yale on the basis of his academic record or performance. He was admitted because he was a Bush and his father was important. And apparently he was not awarded high grades just as a matter of policy as he was, by his own admission, a “C” student. Thus we have a situation of obvious discrimination (some other better student, surely white, was not admitted because of Bush), and the individual so admitted was a relative failure (but his name was Bush and he went on to become President of the U.S., certainly a bit of irony there). I would argue that why you were admitted is basically irrelevant if you subsequently succeed (success is apparently not possible for affirmative action appointees, no matter what they do as far as Buchanan is concerned). His idea seems to be: affirmative action candidate = minority person = diminished capacity = failure = blatant racism (he does not stress this latter). There is no doubt that the Sotomayor confirmation hearings were shot through with racism, however disguised, but Buchanan does not even bother to disguise his racism. Perhaps we should give him credit for exposing himself as a bigot. The Great Chain of Being, with white Western-Europeans at the apex, does not disappear overnight, and perhaps never in the eyes of some true believers like Buchanan. The confirmation of Sotomayor, like the election of Barack Obama, are new important steps toward a new and more realistic paradigm.
LKBIQ:
The world knows of Rosa Parks because of a single, simple act of dignity and courage that struck a lethal blow to the foundations of legal bigotry.
Bill Clinton
TILT:
Carp were domesticated and used for food in Europe and Asia thousands of years ago.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The circus is not over
Toddler floats eight miles
In B.C. river on toy truck,
when found, wants to continue.
The circus is not over yet. Too bad, I was beginning to truly enjoy not watching it. The little bits and pieces I’ve seen today simply indicate more of the inane questions that have already been answered several times over. The Republican obsession with Sotomayor’s trivial “wise Latina woman” remark appears to be the only thing they have going, and it is not going so well. Why the Republicans are doing what they are to delay her confirmation is somewhat of a mystery to me. It does seem pretty pointless as they all know she will be confirmed. Tomorrow she is said to be having another series of private interviews with Senators and presumably on Friday a date will be set for her confirmation. Sessions, the airheaded leader of the Republicans, wants to delay as long as possible. He says they need the time to read and analyze all of her opinions and publications and so on. This, of course, is nothing but a delaying tactic as her record is already extremely well known, and Sessions lacks the mental capacity to understand any of it anyway. What is going on is so obvious and such a complete and utter waste of time it makes me want to scream at the TV (a bad sign). I guess what is going on here is the last gasps of White racists who cannot tolerate the idea that anyone but White males is capable of being a Supreme Court Justice (or President or Attorney General or much of anything else).
We still do not seem to know precisely what Dick the Slimy’s private assassination group was all about. Today I heard that it not only was meant to target al Quaida members, but also supporters of al Quaida. There may be more to it than this but it remains a bit of a mystery. In any case, it is most interesting. How, for example, would one know for certain who supported al Quaida and who did not? I guess it would be up to Cheney to decide (think carefully on this). I wonder if it was so secret that even Bush didn’t know about it, something that would not surprise me either way.
It appears, at least at the moment, that we might actually get some kind of health care bill, and it looks like it will have a public option. Obama seems to have finally come to his senses and realizes that trying to get bipartisanship our of the remnants of the Brafia is a lost cause. But remember, if we do now get a new health care bill it will not because of any altruism or empathy on the part of Washington, but, rather, because our big companies finally had to realize that having to pay for their employees health care made them less competitive, so they finally succumbed. You might notice that we will not get an efficient, sensible, and cost-effective single payer system, the Insurance and Pharmaceuticals do not give up that easily. What will ultimately happen with our new system is hard to predict, but it could hardly be any worse that what we have now (unless you are either rich or a Congressperson or both).
Here at Sandhill we have developed a problem with cats. The basic problem is one of our own making. I should say my wife’s making, as she is the one who insisted we get four cats to begin with. If you own cats you no doubt understand the problem. We had three cats, two of which died of natural causes. That left one cat. So then we acquired two all gray cats, sisters. The one cat didn’t take very well to the two gray kittens but over time it worked out. Then this young black male cat appeared in the neighborhood. He was aggressive, tore a hole in our neighbors screen door in his attempt to get in, then decided he liked our house better and essentially just moved in (we have a cat door). I didn’t want him but my wife fell in love with him and he with her (he knows a sucker when he sees one). Even after we had him fixed he still bullied our oldest cat and one of the sisters. The other sister, the smallest of our cats by far, was not intimidated and now dominates him along with the others. This has been a problem for some time but in recent weeks has sort of simmered down. However, now there is another cat, Spencer by name, who supposedly belongs to one of our neighbors. He has decided he likes our house and our cat food better and now regularly comes here meowing to be fed. And he always seems to be famished. We are trying to keep him out of the house but I predict this will fail. He is all white with blue eyes and he stands at the door looking in at our other four cats no doubt wondering why he cannot come in. I feel sorry for him, he’s being treated rather like a leper, but we really don’t need a fifth cat tearing up our furniture (the other four have already done that job very well). So Spencer shows up on the porch, he gets fed, but then he goes away (he is apparently learning about his second class status). Now we are threatened with a sixth cat, a gray and white creature that is turning up virtually every day. We haven’t fed him but he sometimes discovers food on the porch that we forgot to bring inside. So, you see how it goes. I like cats okay, but I really wish we didn’t have any. I know people who routinely kill them. I could never do that. Taking them to the pound is not an option (unless I was tired of my marriage), killing them is out of the question, no one I know wants one (there are always kittens available here), so we just go on being adopted by cats we don’t really want but are too soft-hearted to turn away. We should never have allowed the cats in the house, but it is too late now. Well, we could be homeless, displaced, refugees, or even worse, Republicans (they have compassion for no one).
LKBIQ:
Women and cats do as they damned well please, and men and dogs had best learn to live with it.
Alan Holbrook
TILT:
There are over three hundred distinct breeds of goats.
In B.C. river on toy truck,
when found, wants to continue.
The circus is not over yet. Too bad, I was beginning to truly enjoy not watching it. The little bits and pieces I’ve seen today simply indicate more of the inane questions that have already been answered several times over. The Republican obsession with Sotomayor’s trivial “wise Latina woman” remark appears to be the only thing they have going, and it is not going so well. Why the Republicans are doing what they are to delay her confirmation is somewhat of a mystery to me. It does seem pretty pointless as they all know she will be confirmed. Tomorrow she is said to be having another series of private interviews with Senators and presumably on Friday a date will be set for her confirmation. Sessions, the airheaded leader of the Republicans, wants to delay as long as possible. He says they need the time to read and analyze all of her opinions and publications and so on. This, of course, is nothing but a delaying tactic as her record is already extremely well known, and Sessions lacks the mental capacity to understand any of it anyway. What is going on is so obvious and such a complete and utter waste of time it makes me want to scream at the TV (a bad sign). I guess what is going on here is the last gasps of White racists who cannot tolerate the idea that anyone but White males is capable of being a Supreme Court Justice (or President or Attorney General or much of anything else).
We still do not seem to know precisely what Dick the Slimy’s private assassination group was all about. Today I heard that it not only was meant to target al Quaida members, but also supporters of al Quaida. There may be more to it than this but it remains a bit of a mystery. In any case, it is most interesting. How, for example, would one know for certain who supported al Quaida and who did not? I guess it would be up to Cheney to decide (think carefully on this). I wonder if it was so secret that even Bush didn’t know about it, something that would not surprise me either way.
It appears, at least at the moment, that we might actually get some kind of health care bill, and it looks like it will have a public option. Obama seems to have finally come to his senses and realizes that trying to get bipartisanship our of the remnants of the Brafia is a lost cause. But remember, if we do now get a new health care bill it will not because of any altruism or empathy on the part of Washington, but, rather, because our big companies finally had to realize that having to pay for their employees health care made them less competitive, so they finally succumbed. You might notice that we will not get an efficient, sensible, and cost-effective single payer system, the Insurance and Pharmaceuticals do not give up that easily. What will ultimately happen with our new system is hard to predict, but it could hardly be any worse that what we have now (unless you are either rich or a Congressperson or both).
Here at Sandhill we have developed a problem with cats. The basic problem is one of our own making. I should say my wife’s making, as she is the one who insisted we get four cats to begin with. If you own cats you no doubt understand the problem. We had three cats, two of which died of natural causes. That left one cat. So then we acquired two all gray cats, sisters. The one cat didn’t take very well to the two gray kittens but over time it worked out. Then this young black male cat appeared in the neighborhood. He was aggressive, tore a hole in our neighbors screen door in his attempt to get in, then decided he liked our house better and essentially just moved in (we have a cat door). I didn’t want him but my wife fell in love with him and he with her (he knows a sucker when he sees one). Even after we had him fixed he still bullied our oldest cat and one of the sisters. The other sister, the smallest of our cats by far, was not intimidated and now dominates him along with the others. This has been a problem for some time but in recent weeks has sort of simmered down. However, now there is another cat, Spencer by name, who supposedly belongs to one of our neighbors. He has decided he likes our house and our cat food better and now regularly comes here meowing to be fed. And he always seems to be famished. We are trying to keep him out of the house but I predict this will fail. He is all white with blue eyes and he stands at the door looking in at our other four cats no doubt wondering why he cannot come in. I feel sorry for him, he’s being treated rather like a leper, but we really don’t need a fifth cat tearing up our furniture (the other four have already done that job very well). So Spencer shows up on the porch, he gets fed, but then he goes away (he is apparently learning about his second class status). Now we are threatened with a sixth cat, a gray and white creature that is turning up virtually every day. We haven’t fed him but he sometimes discovers food on the porch that we forgot to bring inside. So, you see how it goes. I like cats okay, but I really wish we didn’t have any. I know people who routinely kill them. I could never do that. Taking them to the pound is not an option (unless I was tired of my marriage), killing them is out of the question, no one I know wants one (there are always kittens available here), so we just go on being adopted by cats we don’t really want but are too soft-hearted to turn away. We should never have allowed the cats in the house, but it is too late now. Well, we could be homeless, displaced, refugees, or even worse, Republicans (they have compassion for no one).
LKBIQ:
Women and cats do as they damned well please, and men and dogs had best learn to live with it.
Alan Holbrook
TILT:
There are over three hundred distinct breeds of goats.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Why would he not?
Brazilian woman claims she
spent ten hours with husband
in hotel room, unaware he was dead.
It is being said that Attorney General Holder is thinking about appointing a special investigator to look into the torture issue. Thinking about it? What’s to think about? How can he not appoint an investigator? He is confronted with obvious flagrant violations of the law and constitution. He is the head of our Justice Department. There have been multiple and obvious war crimes committed, some of which have already been admitted to, so what’s the problem? Personally, I believe this whole business has been a charade. Obama does not want to appear vindictive and has insisted all along that he does not want an investigation, but only to look forward. Holder has been biding his time, waiting for the best opportunity to announce his intention, as our chief law enforcement officer, to investigate what both he and Obama have had to know all along were crimes of great magnitude. Dick the Slimy has now made it easy for them to finally investigate. If, after the revelation that Cheney was conducting a secret (probably assassination squad), and had instructed the CIA to not inform the Congress about it, our Attorney General would look like an absolute and incompetent fool if he did not investigate. And once the investigation begins there is no telling where it will ultimately lead. Justice delayed is justice denied.
John McCain, probably speaking for most or all Republicans, insists that to open up an investigation of the wrongdoings of Bush/Cheney, and especially releasing the torture photographs, will just cause our enemies to hate us all the more, so we shouldn’t do it. I disagree entirely. It is no doubt true that revealing the depths of our depravity in this matter will (and should) create even higher levels of anti-American animosity, but to not investigate what the whole world knows were serious war crimes, because they were committed by Americans rather than Germans or Japanese, will lead not only to more revenge but also to utter contempt for our nation, a contempt that will linger probably forever. The only way we can avoid the worst of the fallout from our crimes, and to exonerate at least most of our citizens who were unknowingly dragged into this mess, is to investigate and prosecute and hold accountable those who were the guilty parties. In this case Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Yoo, and many others. And if what we think we know already about their crimes can be legally demonstrated they must be suitably punished just as any other war criminals have been punished. You cannot seriously try to maintain a case for American exceptionalism based upon a foundation so teeteringly rotten as this one.
What useful purpose is being served by the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings? It cannot be her confirmation which everyone, including Republicans, knows is going to happen. I am proud to say that I did not watch this dreary and wasteful performance (although I did catch a few snatches of it). Why do we need to waste days in listening to every Senator pontificating about the duties of judges (to a judge), the story of Sotomayor’s life and accomplishments, tales their own lives and accomplishments, Row vs Wade, past nominees, and whatever else pops into their heads. Don’t they realize just how silly they look, both Democrats and Republicans? Of course in the case of Republicans they not only look silly, they look positively obnoxiously idiotic. This is especially true of Hatch, Graham, Inhofe, and overwhelmingly true of Sessions. The fact that Sotomayor can sit there and tolerate the levels of stupidity being expressed is enough by itself to assure her confirmation. She appears to me to be so far above the level of her inquisitioners as to be virtually saintly. Shouldn’t we have some kind of rules, regulations, or laws that insist states cannot elect senators unless they can demonstrate intelligence beyond the level of ground squirrels? The level of discourse being currently demonstrated during these farcical hearings is embarrassing, even shameful. If there are any kind of supernatural beings looking down on us they must be laughing hysterically, along with the rest of the world. Racism, sexism, and paternalism live! Intelligence and reason, not so much.
LKBIQ:
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
Ambrose Bierce
TILT:
The average life expectancy of a Tasmanian Devil in the wild is estimated at six years.
spent ten hours with husband
in hotel room, unaware he was dead.
It is being said that Attorney General Holder is thinking about appointing a special investigator to look into the torture issue. Thinking about it? What’s to think about? How can he not appoint an investigator? He is confronted with obvious flagrant violations of the law and constitution. He is the head of our Justice Department. There have been multiple and obvious war crimes committed, some of which have already been admitted to, so what’s the problem? Personally, I believe this whole business has been a charade. Obama does not want to appear vindictive and has insisted all along that he does not want an investigation, but only to look forward. Holder has been biding his time, waiting for the best opportunity to announce his intention, as our chief law enforcement officer, to investigate what both he and Obama have had to know all along were crimes of great magnitude. Dick the Slimy has now made it easy for them to finally investigate. If, after the revelation that Cheney was conducting a secret (probably assassination squad), and had instructed the CIA to not inform the Congress about it, our Attorney General would look like an absolute and incompetent fool if he did not investigate. And once the investigation begins there is no telling where it will ultimately lead. Justice delayed is justice denied.
John McCain, probably speaking for most or all Republicans, insists that to open up an investigation of the wrongdoings of Bush/Cheney, and especially releasing the torture photographs, will just cause our enemies to hate us all the more, so we shouldn’t do it. I disagree entirely. It is no doubt true that revealing the depths of our depravity in this matter will (and should) create even higher levels of anti-American animosity, but to not investigate what the whole world knows were serious war crimes, because they were committed by Americans rather than Germans or Japanese, will lead not only to more revenge but also to utter contempt for our nation, a contempt that will linger probably forever. The only way we can avoid the worst of the fallout from our crimes, and to exonerate at least most of our citizens who were unknowingly dragged into this mess, is to investigate and prosecute and hold accountable those who were the guilty parties. In this case Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Yoo, and many others. And if what we think we know already about their crimes can be legally demonstrated they must be suitably punished just as any other war criminals have been punished. You cannot seriously try to maintain a case for American exceptionalism based upon a foundation so teeteringly rotten as this one.
What useful purpose is being served by the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings? It cannot be her confirmation which everyone, including Republicans, knows is going to happen. I am proud to say that I did not watch this dreary and wasteful performance (although I did catch a few snatches of it). Why do we need to waste days in listening to every Senator pontificating about the duties of judges (to a judge), the story of Sotomayor’s life and accomplishments, tales their own lives and accomplishments, Row vs Wade, past nominees, and whatever else pops into their heads. Don’t they realize just how silly they look, both Democrats and Republicans? Of course in the case of Republicans they not only look silly, they look positively obnoxiously idiotic. This is especially true of Hatch, Graham, Inhofe, and overwhelmingly true of Sessions. The fact that Sotomayor can sit there and tolerate the levels of stupidity being expressed is enough by itself to assure her confirmation. She appears to me to be so far above the level of her inquisitioners as to be virtually saintly. Shouldn’t we have some kind of rules, regulations, or laws that insist states cannot elect senators unless they can demonstrate intelligence beyond the level of ground squirrels? The level of discourse being currently demonstrated during these farcical hearings is embarrassing, even shameful. If there are any kind of supernatural beings looking down on us they must be laughing hysterically, along with the rest of the world. Racism, sexism, and paternalism live! Intelligence and reason, not so much.
LKBIQ:
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
Ambrose Bierce
TILT:
The average life expectancy of a Tasmanian Devil in the wild is estimated at six years.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Great Mortality - book
The subtitle of this book says most of it: An Intimate History of the Black Plague, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time. The Black Plague, something of a misnomer, is commonly used to refer to the three types of plague that exist: Bubonic, Pneumonic, and Septicemic. These vary in their intensity and symptoms, with bubonic being the least likely to inevitably kill, to pneumonic, a much more serious form, and septicemic which almost always kills and does so very quickly. These various forms can sometimes be found at the same time, especially bubonic and pneumonic, septicemic being, thankfully, much more rare. For the people that lived through this terrible time the plague was known more commonly as the “Big Death,” or the “Great Mortality.”
Kelly attempts to trace the spread of the Black Plague from its presumed origins somewhere in inner Asia, spreading slowly to the west through the Middle East and thence to Europe. It also spread eastward into China, following the international trade routes that existed in the 1300’s. Virtually no nation was spared. Before this version of the plague ran its course in the 1350’s it had spread throughout Europe, both from north to south as well as from east to west. It devastated China as well as Syria, Egypt, Iran and Iraq, and extended all the way to Greenland and Scandinavia. No one knows how many died but it is estimated that at least 33% of the entire population of Eurasia, with some places losing anywhere from 30 to 70% of their citizens. Only WW II exceeded the total number of deaths. Not bad for a disease primarily of rodents: turbots, marmots, rats, squirrels, gerbils, prairie dogs, and some 200 other rodent species, where human deaths were basically collateral.
For people like me, who knew very little about the plague, this is a very informative work. The author traces the movement of the disease from country to country, and in some cases virtually from city to city. Because of the nature of transportation in the 14th century the disease spread rather slowly, by caravans and ships, while it made its way steadily across Eurasia. Cities often were aware that the disease was coming, but as they had no idea what caused it, whatever precautions they tried to take were pathetically ineffective, as were their attempts to cope with it. It is difficult to imagine how overwhelmed people were in the face of this epidemic, even though Kelly does a fine job of describing the situation. People commonly refused to help each other, parents deserting their children and vice-versa because of their fears. There were, of course, some who sacrificed themselves to help others but this was more rare than not. Deaths on such a massive scale completely disrupted the ordinary ways of life of those caught up in it. People made out wills but often by the time they might have been used all the beneficiaries were themselves dead. Church services had to be modified as so many clergy succumbed. Funerals were often abandoned completely because there were not enough living to carry them out, and so on. Business and agriculture was directly affected because the labor pool shrank, driving wages up, and banks were in trouble and were unable to collect on their loans, or make new ones, and so on.
What I personally found of the most interest, however, was not the plague itself, but the relationship of the plague to the cultural practices of the time, especially those dealing with sanitation and cleanliness. It is difficult for us to imagine people who bathed only rarely, if at all, who changed clothes perhaps once or twice a year, who threw the contents of their chamber pots directly into the streets, and who were perennially lice infested and diseased in many other ways, making them even more susceptible to the plague. Factors of weather, diet, personal hygiene, and many other customs and beliefs were all involved in the movement, even in a sense the inevitability, of the Black Death.
Perhaps of even greater interest to me was the scapegoating. As the people had no idea what was causing this terrible carnage they tended to blame others, sometimes lepers and other diseased persons, but much more commonly, the Jews. Rumors abounded that the Jews were poisoning the wells because they wanted to take over the world, and they were also targeted because of being moneylenders, and because they were believed to want to kill Christian children, and so on. Jews were rounded up and killed, often burned to death, by the thousands, all over Europe. Indeed, this was so common I wonder that the Jews and Judaism survived at all. Even when it was pointed out by some of the more reasonable people that the Jews could not be responsible for the plague because they, themselves, were dying of it in large numbers, few paid any attention, It was not a time for reason. I think my favorite example might be the claim by some that the Jews were killing Christian children because they all suffered from hemorrhoids which could only be cured with Christian blood.
There have been many plagues since the Great Mortality, they still occur periodically, but they are generally more localized and result in far fewer deaths. And we have learned much more about the causes and nature of the plague, as well as much more about preventive measures. Reading about how our ancestors lived in the Middle Ages, and even up to the 1900’s, makes me wonder how the human species has survived at all. This is a fine book for those interested in such disasters, and certainly makes one thankful for living in somewhat more enlightened times. Of course we have our own serious problems at the moment.
Kelly attempts to trace the spread of the Black Plague from its presumed origins somewhere in inner Asia, spreading slowly to the west through the Middle East and thence to Europe. It also spread eastward into China, following the international trade routes that existed in the 1300’s. Virtually no nation was spared. Before this version of the plague ran its course in the 1350’s it had spread throughout Europe, both from north to south as well as from east to west. It devastated China as well as Syria, Egypt, Iran and Iraq, and extended all the way to Greenland and Scandinavia. No one knows how many died but it is estimated that at least 33% of the entire population of Eurasia, with some places losing anywhere from 30 to 70% of their citizens. Only WW II exceeded the total number of deaths. Not bad for a disease primarily of rodents: turbots, marmots, rats, squirrels, gerbils, prairie dogs, and some 200 other rodent species, where human deaths were basically collateral.
For people like me, who knew very little about the plague, this is a very informative work. The author traces the movement of the disease from country to country, and in some cases virtually from city to city. Because of the nature of transportation in the 14th century the disease spread rather slowly, by caravans and ships, while it made its way steadily across Eurasia. Cities often were aware that the disease was coming, but as they had no idea what caused it, whatever precautions they tried to take were pathetically ineffective, as were their attempts to cope with it. It is difficult to imagine how overwhelmed people were in the face of this epidemic, even though Kelly does a fine job of describing the situation. People commonly refused to help each other, parents deserting their children and vice-versa because of their fears. There were, of course, some who sacrificed themselves to help others but this was more rare than not. Deaths on such a massive scale completely disrupted the ordinary ways of life of those caught up in it. People made out wills but often by the time they might have been used all the beneficiaries were themselves dead. Church services had to be modified as so many clergy succumbed. Funerals were often abandoned completely because there were not enough living to carry them out, and so on. Business and agriculture was directly affected because the labor pool shrank, driving wages up, and banks were in trouble and were unable to collect on their loans, or make new ones, and so on.
What I personally found of the most interest, however, was not the plague itself, but the relationship of the plague to the cultural practices of the time, especially those dealing with sanitation and cleanliness. It is difficult for us to imagine people who bathed only rarely, if at all, who changed clothes perhaps once or twice a year, who threw the contents of their chamber pots directly into the streets, and who were perennially lice infested and diseased in many other ways, making them even more susceptible to the plague. Factors of weather, diet, personal hygiene, and many other customs and beliefs were all involved in the movement, even in a sense the inevitability, of the Black Death.
Perhaps of even greater interest to me was the scapegoating. As the people had no idea what was causing this terrible carnage they tended to blame others, sometimes lepers and other diseased persons, but much more commonly, the Jews. Rumors abounded that the Jews were poisoning the wells because they wanted to take over the world, and they were also targeted because of being moneylenders, and because they were believed to want to kill Christian children, and so on. Jews were rounded up and killed, often burned to death, by the thousands, all over Europe. Indeed, this was so common I wonder that the Jews and Judaism survived at all. Even when it was pointed out by some of the more reasonable people that the Jews could not be responsible for the plague because they, themselves, were dying of it in large numbers, few paid any attention, It was not a time for reason. I think my favorite example might be the claim by some that the Jews were killing Christian children because they all suffered from hemorrhoids which could only be cured with Christian blood.
There have been many plagues since the Great Mortality, they still occur periodically, but they are generally more localized and result in far fewer deaths. And we have learned much more about the causes and nature of the plague, as well as much more about preventive measures. Reading about how our ancestors lived in the Middle Ages, and even up to the 1900’s, makes me wonder how the human species has survived at all. This is a fine book for those interested in such disasters, and certainly makes one thankful for living in somewhat more enlightened times. Of course we have our own serious problems at the moment.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Sexy
Elderly Ohio woman finds
fawn in her flower garden,
beats it to death with shovel.
Let me begin, however immodestly, by saying this is going to be a really “sexy” essay. In the course of pursuing my hobby (collecting sex tips on the covers of womens’ magazines) I have discovered another phenomenon I find of considerable interest, the use of the adjective, “sexy.” It seems that nowadays virtually everything can be described as sexy. Without even trying I have discovered sexy picnics, sexy photos, sexy stocks, sexy strapless dresses, sexy dreams, sexy summer styles, sexy pets, sexy legs, sexy arms, sexy baths, sexy losers, sexy guests, sexy people, sexy pictures, crazy sexy cancer tips, sexy books, sexy strappy sandals, sexy armpits, and an absolute obsession with sexy hair. I am reasonably certain, although I have not stumbled across them yet, sexy eyes, sexy hands, sexy thighs, sexy buns, sexy shoes, sexy handbags, sexy cars, sexy sandwiches, sexy pizza, sexy massages, and I wouldn’t even bet against sexy feet. About the only thing I might feel confident betting against would be sexy insurance policies or bowel movements (I’m not so sure about this latter). In other words, the adjective sexy seems to have little meaning anymore. According to an online dictionary, sexy is supposed to be an adjective for being sexually attractive, sexually suggestive or stimulating. I notice they have now hedged a bit and added a second meaning which is simply attractive or interesting. I believe there is more to it than this. For example, it would be easy, and perfectly acceptable, to speak of attractive hair, or attractive shoes, or interesting handbags and books, along with many other things. But people don’t describe things as interesting or attractive, they prefer to describe them as sexy. Obviously there is something titillating about sexy that goes beyond attractive or interesting. The word sexy seems to be a magical term that brings to mind (however unconsciously) some kind of basic sensuality that is not necessarily even remotely present in what is being described. This seems to hold true even when speaking about things that could not reasonably be considered sexy, stocks, for example, or cancer tips, or pets (questionable, perhaps in some cases). There is also now something called sexpresso stands. I guess this is because the servers are dressed in bikinis and bikinis are, of course, sexually attractive, even though there is little or no chance one would ever engage in actual sex with these dispensers of coffee. We all know, after years of advertising, that sex sells, hence the pictures of scantily clad women leaning over car hoods, riding bicycles, and being featured in ads for just about everything for sale, including sex itself. I guess the adjective sexy, no matter where used, conjures up images that go far beyond the particular item involved. I guess one can only conclude that the use of sexy to describe anything and everything is just part of the American obsession with sex (think Viagra, Enzyte, Cialis, etc., along with rampant pornography and so on). I am bothered with this ubiquitous use of sexy only in the sense that I view it as an example of the increasing impoverishment of our language. I feel pretty confident in predicting that it won’t be too long before there are only two words to describe virtually everything: fucking and sexy. I do not view this as a positive development.
Just another piece of irrelevant trivia? It has now been shown that Dick the Slimy, himself, ordered the CIA to not inform Congress of a secret program that apparently went on for eight years. This was so illegal and/or unconstitutional Panetta stopped it when he first heard about it. So we can add this bit of apparent trivia to the discovery that it was Bush himself who ordered Gonzales to Ashcroft’s hospital bed to get him to sign on to an unconstitutional program. Does anyone care about any of this? Apparently not, least of all the Obama administration. Congress is too busy trying to figure out how they can change our health care system without actually changing anything, that is, when they are not trying to figure out if Michael Jackson should be given a Congressional Medal or something, or Saint Ronnie’s face should be carved on Mt. Rushmore. And Karl Rove was grilled for eight hours the other day about his potential role in the Department of Justice scandal, but so what, we’ll probably never hear about it again. All this will just disappear along with the other infinite number of scandals that occurred during the Bush/Cheney nightmare years. The powers that be know the American public has an attention span of only a few minutes at most, and the memory of amnesiacs. War crimes? What war crimes? Lies? What lies? Elephant? What elephant? And so it goes. I am beginning to conclude that Barack Obama is not really our White (and Black) Knight after all. I’m pretty sure that if he fails to get a “Public Option,” after failing to prosecute Bush/Cheney, his public esteem will probably be pretty much finished.
LKBIQ:
There are times when one would like to end the whole human race, and finish the farce.
Mark Twain
TILT:
True oysters, as opposed to pearl oysters, are incapable of producing pearls.
fawn in her flower garden,
beats it to death with shovel.
Let me begin, however immodestly, by saying this is going to be a really “sexy” essay. In the course of pursuing my hobby (collecting sex tips on the covers of womens’ magazines) I have discovered another phenomenon I find of considerable interest, the use of the adjective, “sexy.” It seems that nowadays virtually everything can be described as sexy. Without even trying I have discovered sexy picnics, sexy photos, sexy stocks, sexy strapless dresses, sexy dreams, sexy summer styles, sexy pets, sexy legs, sexy arms, sexy baths, sexy losers, sexy guests, sexy people, sexy pictures, crazy sexy cancer tips, sexy books, sexy strappy sandals, sexy armpits, and an absolute obsession with sexy hair. I am reasonably certain, although I have not stumbled across them yet, sexy eyes, sexy hands, sexy thighs, sexy buns, sexy shoes, sexy handbags, sexy cars, sexy sandwiches, sexy pizza, sexy massages, and I wouldn’t even bet against sexy feet. About the only thing I might feel confident betting against would be sexy insurance policies or bowel movements (I’m not so sure about this latter). In other words, the adjective sexy seems to have little meaning anymore. According to an online dictionary, sexy is supposed to be an adjective for being sexually attractive, sexually suggestive or stimulating. I notice they have now hedged a bit and added a second meaning which is simply attractive or interesting. I believe there is more to it than this. For example, it would be easy, and perfectly acceptable, to speak of attractive hair, or attractive shoes, or interesting handbags and books, along with many other things. But people don’t describe things as interesting or attractive, they prefer to describe them as sexy. Obviously there is something titillating about sexy that goes beyond attractive or interesting. The word sexy seems to be a magical term that brings to mind (however unconsciously) some kind of basic sensuality that is not necessarily even remotely present in what is being described. This seems to hold true even when speaking about things that could not reasonably be considered sexy, stocks, for example, or cancer tips, or pets (questionable, perhaps in some cases). There is also now something called sexpresso stands. I guess this is because the servers are dressed in bikinis and bikinis are, of course, sexually attractive, even though there is little or no chance one would ever engage in actual sex with these dispensers of coffee. We all know, after years of advertising, that sex sells, hence the pictures of scantily clad women leaning over car hoods, riding bicycles, and being featured in ads for just about everything for sale, including sex itself. I guess the adjective sexy, no matter where used, conjures up images that go far beyond the particular item involved. I guess one can only conclude that the use of sexy to describe anything and everything is just part of the American obsession with sex (think Viagra, Enzyte, Cialis, etc., along with rampant pornography and so on). I am bothered with this ubiquitous use of sexy only in the sense that I view it as an example of the increasing impoverishment of our language. I feel pretty confident in predicting that it won’t be too long before there are only two words to describe virtually everything: fucking and sexy. I do not view this as a positive development.
Just another piece of irrelevant trivia? It has now been shown that Dick the Slimy, himself, ordered the CIA to not inform Congress of a secret program that apparently went on for eight years. This was so illegal and/or unconstitutional Panetta stopped it when he first heard about it. So we can add this bit of apparent trivia to the discovery that it was Bush himself who ordered Gonzales to Ashcroft’s hospital bed to get him to sign on to an unconstitutional program. Does anyone care about any of this? Apparently not, least of all the Obama administration. Congress is too busy trying to figure out how they can change our health care system without actually changing anything, that is, when they are not trying to figure out if Michael Jackson should be given a Congressional Medal or something, or Saint Ronnie’s face should be carved on Mt. Rushmore. And Karl Rove was grilled for eight hours the other day about his potential role in the Department of Justice scandal, but so what, we’ll probably never hear about it again. All this will just disappear along with the other infinite number of scandals that occurred during the Bush/Cheney nightmare years. The powers that be know the American public has an attention span of only a few minutes at most, and the memory of amnesiacs. War crimes? What war crimes? Lies? What lies? Elephant? What elephant? And so it goes. I am beginning to conclude that Barack Obama is not really our White (and Black) Knight after all. I’m pretty sure that if he fails to get a “Public Option,” after failing to prosecute Bush/Cheney, his public esteem will probably be pretty much finished.
LKBIQ:
There are times when one would like to end the whole human race, and finish the farce.
Mark Twain
TILT:
True oysters, as opposed to pearl oysters, are incapable of producing pearls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
