Regrets, Too Few To Mention

THOSE OF YOU OVER, SAY, 55 will remember watergate, and the resignation (dismissal) of mister nixon. Those of you too young to remember it have read about it, and are lucky to not remember it.

 Remember the two young reporters, woodward and bernstein, who busted the president. they were portrayed by dustin hoffman and robert redford in the great movie "all the president's men". 
woodward is still working for the washington post after all these years, and has now run afoul of the obama administration, or someone high up in it. The president himself is apparently not involved.

woodward, like many other reporters, claims that this crazy sequester idea, which was originally well intended but is now fixing to bite us all in the butt, was obama's idea. Obama, of course, is inthe midst of a savage effort to pin the blame on the republicans.

bob woodward has a few unflattering things to say about obama, such as, his white house is the most cult like crazy place since nixon's white house. woodward also agrees with the republicans that obama seems to be avoiding a compromise by constantly changing his terms for agreement. Not very flattering stuff.

One of obama's assistants evidently told woodward that he would regret having written such unture things. Woodward says he felt threatened. This greatly pleases the republicans, who seize upon the opportunity to portray obama as an al capone style gangster, who orders revenge hits.

Obama would probably be best advised to call woodward, straighten this out, and then get right back to the business of blaming republicans, and accusing them of being champions of the wealthy, to the detriment of everyone else.

Besides that, woodward will probably never regret what he said about obama, just like he never regretted what he said about nixon.

Free To Choose!

AS IF WE DON'T ALREADY have enough issues and problems to ponder, now we are presented, by the good graces of our great american media, and our confusing culture, the confusing situation wherein a small child proclaims herself a female, even though there are physical indications of maleness, and the american public, or at least the school district in colorado where she is trying to attend school, insists on treating her as a male. Go figure.

Are we such a regimented type A control freak society here in america that we can't even allow a girl to be a girl? Seemingly, but let us hope not.

The parents actually treated their shild as a male for the first several years, due to the genitalic maleness. However, increasingly, the child announced herself to be a girl, with increased vigor and determination, and both parents now say that they came around to her way of thinking.

The parents say that anyone who spends five minutes with their child can tell she is a girl. Quite frankly, the pictures of her face clearly show a girl, even though among six year olds there is a certain lack of obvious gender differentiation facially.

so what's the school district going to do? Keep forcing her to use the boy's restroom until she becomes emotionally traumatized, and the parents are forced to file a  lawsuit?  Or maybe accede to the parent's, and the little girl's wishes, allow her to live like a girl at school, then start a lawsuit of their own, and drag pictures of her naked into a federal courtroom?

There are many public school administrators in this country who are perfectly capable of something so pernicious, trust me.

This is america, by god, and anybody can become whatever they choose. Individual freedom of choice. That's what my ancestors, and thousands of great americans have fought and died for.

Every week in the united states several people have surgical procedures which change their gender, hence the growing "transgender" movenet. Its the next big battleground, socially. One can scarcely imagine what weapons the christian conservatives are preparing to launch against this sweet little girl, her parents, and everyone else like her.

Well, bring it. We'll be ready, using the sacred american creed "freedom" as our weapon.

Get It On Paper, Fast

TOMORROW THE POPE LEAVES OFFICE, which is an event so rare that the conspiracy theoristsare out in force, not unpredictably. The various theories are of striking quality, in terms of creativity and imagination.

The pope is being blackmailed out of office. He will be arrested for crimes against humanity as soon as he leaves the vatican. His removal is part of a vast transfer of political economic power world wide, in which powefrul people everywhere are being replaced.

Well, whatever. A large part of the beauty of the catholic church is the mystery, especially in matters of the spirit. But, admittedly, there are times when it would seem that a bit more, shall we say, "certainty" might be nice.

Take, for instance, the gospel.  The Holy Bible, formalized, organized, codified at the council of nicea, 325 A.D. There is no doubt about this historical fact. And there is no doubt that three hundred years is a very long time to allow a church, the church, to languish without Official scriptural guidance, in a faith which places so much emphasis on; it sacred holy book.

God speaks to man through the bible, three hundred years after christ walked on earth. Jesus came to earth, for one thing, to preach, to teach the word of god. Well then, who better to write the word, to put it on paper, indellibly, forever, in front of everyone..than jesus himself?

Automatic authenticity, straight from the source. The church, with its undeniable, well witnessed gospel, in print, available for all to see and read, right from the very beginning, having come straight from the son of god himself.

Well, it just seems like that would have been the way to do it, considering how questionable books, by their very nature, are. Jesus, writing in front of his followers, could have avoided all that, all the uncertainty, and after all, wasn't he here, partly, to teach us all?

Sheer Competitive Lunacy: whither compromise?

THERE IS HOPE, after all. Some republicans are agreeing to go along with obamacare, including several governors and a congressperson or two. Before you know it, the word "compromise" will be dusted off.

Compromise is the key to american history. How else can it be in a country which for centuries was half slave and half free, with fifty one different legal systems which often conflict. Thomas Jefferson and alexander hamilton disagreed eery bit as much as obama and the republicans, but they served in the same cabinet; well, for one term, anyway.

There is a pervasive adversarial characteristic to american culture. Its written into our legal system, evident in our actions. One third of the world's lawyers are americans. IN any given year, the big book which lists the names of licensed attorneys in the U.S. contains at least a million names.

Look what's popular; whatever emphasizes violence and competition. this i can assure you; all across america, baseball and football games are held in which the players are all six years old, and the parents who are watching act for all the world as if they truly care which team wins.

Engage any educated american in a conversation in which you express an opinion about some public affair; see how long it takes someone to correct you; no, not how long it takes for a different opinion to be expressed, how long it takes someone to declare your opinion "wrong" and correct it. Not long.

Money is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Using it wisely is merely a matter of intelligent decision making. Trying to collect as much money as possible in order to impress others with one's affluence is not efficient, healthy use of a valuable tool.

Government policies which degrade the very value of the very currency the govenmnet itself establishes for the benefit of all is sheer lunacy. We the people allow it to happen, and we the people can sure as hell stop it.

Less Government

THERE IS A BILL PENDING in the great state of arkansas, U.S.A. which would allow instructors at state colleges and universities to carry concealed weapons on campus. This, along with the bill that would allow guns to be carried into church, and arkansas is thinking about becoming very well armed indeed. So is the rest of america, even as the liberals push a ban on assault weapons.

Will public school teachers be next in line to get permit to pack? Will all public servants eventually be allowed to carry heat, then, eventually, be required to? Incrementalism can work in many different ways.

Will we all eventually be waking down the street, driving our cars, wide side arm conspicuously displayed on your gunbelt, after the fashion of the old west? Is that what we want, a well armed citizenry?

Bear in mind that most gunshoot wounds in america are friendly fire. Accidental fire, mistaken fire coming from good people. then too, there are the hiterto good people, people like you and I, who, inexplicably, suddenly whip out their handgun and use it murderously, sometimes on themselves.

It is absolutely critical that in the united states we th epeople do not allow the government to take away our guns. With equal vigor we should oppose govvernmental imposition of laws limiting the size of soft drinks, or where, and what, people can and cannot smoke.

How many of you NRA members support the legalization of marijuana? You conservatives who so desperately want freedom to cary guns and freedom from government confiscation of your money might wish to consider whether you really want government to make laws regarding sex and drugs.

Guns, abortion, drugs, pornography, let it be said about them all; they are best kept legal, and unpopular by popular demand.

Stand Your Ground

YOU MAY RECALL the sheriff in arizona who made quite a splash some time ago with his stern and spartan methods of treating inmates. Living in tents, dressed in degrading attire, working long, hard hours, the whole works.

This attracted a lot of attention, whether intentionally is impossible to determine. But the people who like this sort of thing really like it. Now that same sherrif has retained the services of the actor steven seagall .

For the purposes of offering instruction to anyone who wants it on martial arts, the proper handling and use of a firearm, and methods to deal with assailants; instruction provided by..an actor? Do we all realize that people like steven seagall, bruce willis,  arnold schwartzennegger and clint eastwood, not to mention sylvester stallone, are actors, in real life, and not super heros?

All over the country (U.S.A.) states have enacted or are considering enacting these "stand your ground" laws, under which self defense killing is immune fro prosecution. This is an issue in florida, where george zimmerman will go on trial for second degree murder in the gun death of the teenager, using self defense as his defense.

If we aaaaare going to become a nation in which a high percentage of citizens are armed, which certainly seems to be the current trend, then it makes sense to pass laws defending people who use their weapons in self defense.

but its a slippery slope, and a long way down the road to justifiable violence. Self defense is often a matter of opinon, and can easily be used as an excuse to do harm.

Thank You, Mr. Koop

C. EVERETT KOOP, A SURGEON GENERAL  to remember, died today at the ripe old age of 96. It must have been his clean living. What set him apart, other than his ceaseless crusade for healthy lifestyle choices and against smoking, is his apparently contractory beliefs.

Koop was a fundamentalist christian who approved of and recommended sex education and birth control, including distributing condoms to high school students. Its a rare day when any conservative, much less a fundamentalist christian, harbors such a progressive social and health care philosophy.

That just goes to show what a little scientific education will do for you. Koop was loyal to his religious beliefs his entire life, but that didn't stop him from using his power of reason to arrive as sensible conclusion, which does not always happen among deeply religious people.

Shrew conservatives analysts often lament the liberal make up of college and university campuses in america, as if they don't understand why such a high proportion of students and professors are liberal. Maybe intelligence and education have something to do with it.

When you think about intlligence levels of recent american presidents, who comes to mind, as educated intllectuals: clinton and obama, or bush and reagan? (be honest)

when reagan appointed c everett koop to the surgeon general position, he probably did so knowing that koop was a fundamentalist christian, and most likely assumed therefore that he was a conservative on social issues, such as sex education and birth control.

Reagan lived to regret his choice, and america benefitted from it, because if we need anything in this world, its sex education and birth control, not dogmatic puritanical religiosity. Thank you, mr koop.

Protecting Ourselves Against Ourselves

THE INTERESTING THING about germany is that, although it is an extremely peaceful country, it is in the top five, globally, in selling weapons to other countries, right up there with the russians, the americans, the chinese, and the french. The united states is far ahead of everyone else, though, so, don't worry, my fellow americans: we're number one! (at least in something).

All of these weapons being manufactured and sold by the world's great military powers are sold to far less wealthy, powerful nations, and the justification is always "security" or "peace". We know better than that, don't we? How about profit and emperialism? One's weapons industry can only profit with sales to customers, after all.

the german people did not enjoy world wars one or two anymore than anyone else, and we americans certainly know how can happen when a coubtry choses the wrong government, and thingts get, shall we say, "out of hand". Every country on earth has had that experience.

Since world war, even the very mention of sending german military out of the country to participate in diplomacy by other means, along with the rest of us, has met with great resistance in germany. The germans just haven't wanted any partof it, much to their credit.

Meanwhile, the united states, bankrupt, needs to relenquish her position as the world's policeman, and hand that job over to the united nations, correct? Also, the success of contemporary germany, technologically, economically, would seem to call for greater german participation in military affairs abroad, in carefully considered ways.

The wars in iraq and afghanistan, while too healviy dominated by the united states, perhaps, were at least examples of how large numbers of countries can act in unison to provide necessary corrective measures in various parts of the world.

The era of nations competing for military, economic, and political supremacy must end, lest the conflict it engenders destroy us all. Perhaps within the foreseeable future the oceans will be home to united nations fleets, the skies will be safeguared by the united nations air force, and every nation on earth will contribute to a united nations armed  force, protecting all humanity, jointly, against ourselves...

We Can Save the World

"HISTORY", remarked an esteemed historian, "is just one damned thing after another." And so it is. And often the new history, the news, seems to keep getting worse and worse. Everyday, some new act of violence, some new financial crisis.

And now, worst of all, it seems as if the universe as a whole is ending, or rather, will eventually end much sooner than we had previously thought.

Ever since we have known about the expanding universe, the question has been whether it would simply keep expanding forever, becoming more and more empty, or woulod eventually stop expanding, and be drawn back into a collapse by the force of gravity, to begin the cycle anew.

And now it looks as if neither of these scenarios will ever come to be. Scientists are speculating that within a few billion years, an imbalance in the distribution of energy will destroy the universe in its present form, and replace it with...whatever...that part they still haven't worked out.

Its easy for us to make jokes about all this, because we know it has absolutely no effect on us. Strange to think, however, that there might very well come a day when some intellgeint creatures are forced to behold the end of the universe, and their own happy lives. However, even though we need not worry about the end of the univberse, we do need to worry about the end of the world.

NO, the small asteroid which crashed into russia last week had nothing to do with global warming. But yes, it should sever as a reminder, and a warning to us, that collisions are a common occurance in our solar system, and that our world could end, literally, at any moment, no mattter how long the universe as a whole lasts.

But the great thing about it is; we can do something about it! We can prevent a big rock from colliding with and destroying the earth, even if we can't prevent the universe from someday ending. We can build a telescopic detection system, and a rocket delivery sytetm to nudge an asteroid ever so slightly off its course, thus saving earth, and us. 

Isn't it comforting to know that we can save the world? Might as well start doing it!

.Still Fighting Science, After All These Years

EVEN THOUGH DARWIN'S seminal work "the origin of species" was published in 1859, the scopes trial took place in 1925. The beautifully persuasive, emperically verifiable, provable process of evolution by natural selection had not been acceptd by all even after sixty five years of publication.

The high school science teacher who started all the trouble in tennessee by teaching about darwin, was not trying to change any of his student's religious views, not trying to cram evolution down their throats, and replace their faith with it.

He was simply informing them that the work of charles darwin is very convincing, it passes the test of reason, it stands up under the scrutingy of the skeptical scientific method, and is therefore the best effort science has thus far made to explain human existence.

The reaction he got, including his firing, his lawsuit, and bringing in william jennings bryan to argue the case against him, is still shocking, and alarming. A whole nation in an uproar because a man distinguished between science and religion, and tried to teach science? Amazing.

Even more amazing is the fact that in 2013 the situation has not fundamentally changed. Conservative christians no longer take to the streets when evolution is taught in american public schools; there is a limit to how foolish even they wish to appear.

But, for the most part, they still don't want to accept what is obvious, because the truth challenges the literal accuracy of their religious beliefs. There is currently a bill in the Oklahoma state legislature called something like "alternative scientific explanations and academic freedom".

You can tell by the title that they've updated their approach. Now, instead of insisting that science comply with their religion, they expouse the virtues of  "alternative science", and "academic freedom". How laughable. Fundmentalist christians, advocating for academic freedom, as if seeking new knowledge is their great passion in life, rather then defending ancient, superstitious dogma. 

The bill in Oklahoma would require teachers to cover religion in science classes. The christians don't like biological evolution, including chemical human origins, and they don't like global warming, or cloning. The last two exist whether they like it or not, and the first two are science, and, we must teach science in science classes, mustn't we? Offering students courses in comparative religions is also desirable. Then too, there are quite a few churches available.

Walk a Mile In Agony

THERE IS NO GREATER CAUSE, no better dream, than the total elimination of sexual and domestic violence against women, and for that matter, the elimination of all kinds of violence against anyone and everyone.

But must we work to do this by engaging in a purely symbolic activity that is virtually guaranteed to injure anyone who participates in it? We refer to the "Walk a Mile In Her Shoes" organization and activity, which is right around the corner in most american locales.

The activity consists of walking a mile in high heels, and it is intended for everyone, but especially men. Associated with this is undoubtedlly the raising of money to fund the cause, to educate the public; the primary purpose of the event is to simply draw awareness to the problem.

It is of course well known that high heel shoes are dangerous, and unhealthy. Dangerous because of the increased chances of sprained or broken ankles, or broken necks, unhealthy because repeated use as intended results in a stooped posture, back problems, ankle and knee problems, an orthopedic nightmare.

Makes you yearn for the good old "Race For the Cure", in which participants wear running shoes, and the most dangerous risk is dehydration and exhaustion. Not only that, but there is an associated activity called "sleep in for the cure", in which participants merely send in their entrance fee, and show up for the run in spirit only. This appeals to millions of americans.

Must one bring one's own high heels? If one breaks one's ankle or one's neck, is the walk a mile in her shoes organizatoin liable. or does one sign a waver before adorning one's feet with stilletos? How long, one wonders, does it take someone to walk a mile who has never even come close to wearing high heels? Hours, perchance, crawling or barefoot at the end?

I would almost rather wear a miniskirt and pantyhose...

Down With DOMA, says Obama

WHEN BILL CLINTON became president in 1993, after twelve years of republcian presidential ascendancy, conservative americans pitched a tizzy, went off like a bucket of bottle rockets over a campfire. They started roaming around in the woods in packs, carrying powerful weapons, promising to, um, make the world a better place, or whatever; the infamous, albeit short lived "militia movement" was short circuited by timothy McVeigh's mass murder in oklahoma city. This monstrous act turned the country against the militia folks, and they quietly went away.

Exactly what was the militia movement of the early 1990s? History will have to tell. Was it a celebration of the second amendment? You can think of easier ways. An expression of lack of trust in the regular professional american military? Any clues, anyone?

Undaunted, newt gingrich, spearheading a list of right wing proposals frightening enough to reenergize the right, led the great 1994 takeover of congress by the republicans. Emboldened, they promulgated all kindsa craziness, such as the 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act", sort of a rear action final offensive in retreat, using the federal government to strike one last blow against gay rights in a world increasingly tired of needless cruelty and bigotry.

So the federal government defends traditional marriage, and nobody seems to care. State after state is approving gay marriage. Society is approving gay marriage. Conservatism, on this issue, is being left behind, as always, as today's liberalism becomes tomorrow's conservatism.

Obama wants the U.S. supreme court to overturn the DOMA, and indeed soon the case will be heard, and, most probably, found unconstitutional, by a five to four vote. Good old justice Kennedy, always good for that fifth vote of sanity.

Anybody who wants to can file a brief at the high court, and thousands are, most of which one might imagine end up in the dumpster. Why obama's opinion matters anymore than anyones else's is questionable; hes has never suffered the discrimminatin of being gay in a society unfriendly to gay folk.

But rock on, mister president. Hell, the hatred which conservatives feel for you is so deep and wide that no amount of corredt thinking on your part can possibly fuel it further, and later in life, you can at least claim that you once tried to talk some sense into some sense into people who needed it badly.

Down With Citizens United! (say the people)

CITIZENS UNITED, you'll recall, is the name of the supreme court decision a couple years ago which affirmed the right of anybody, including corporations, to contribute any amount of money to political campaigns.

And of course ever since, more and more money has been raised and spent by political candidates as they frenetically collect money, and obligatoins, and purchase their way into office, through the power of advertising.

As long as you spend all the money on advertising, or travel and other campaign expenses, including paying staff members, its legal to collect as much money as possible, and to make promises to people who give you money just don't spend it on material things for your personal amusement; ask jesse jackson junior.

the system is thoroughly corrupt, no matter what the money is spent on, or what promises are made. Legalized corruption, approved by a society which seems strangely to have forgotton the meaning of the word "corruption".

The conservatives who agree with citizens united proclaim the doctrine of freeom, seemingly forgetting, or ignoring the question: "freedom to do what"?  To purchase political office? For billionaires to own the political system? In case you didn't know, they currently do.

The good citizens of the state of california are likely going to vote on citizens united in the near future, by which is presumably meant take a straw poll; whether a state can ignore or nullify a supreme court decision is, shall we say, a bit prickly, and once started a civil war.

Similar votes have been taken in various locations around the country recent years, and these ballot box opinion polls, as well as opinion surveys, strongly indicate that the american people do not like citizens united, and want to change it, by whatever means necessary, such as constitutional amendment, bless their sweet hearts.

What should it be changed to? Campaign contribution limits for everyone? How about this? Seven simple, elegant words: "the purchase of political advertising is prohibited."  We would all have to adjust to the complete absence of paid political advertising, but we could do it. Media could be required to donate time and space, for instance. (wouldn't the corporate media just love that!)

Power to the American People! Let us decide the issue by national referendum. For that matter, one can easily think of quite a few questions and issues on which a good old fashioned national referendum might be in order.

Redundancy?

SO NOW WE HAVE medicare, medicaid, and obamacare...Medicare is the socialistic government health insurance program for the elderly, medicaid is the socialistic government health insurance program for the poor, and obamacare is the socialistic, government health insurance program for...everyone who does not have health insurance.

By the time you get through with all the private health insurance providers, cover the elderly with medicade, and cover the poor with medicare, just who is left uncovered that needs coverage with obamacare? You would think nobody would be, wouldn't you? Seems confusing.

It turns out that even with with medicare and medicaid, before obama care, there are, or were, about  thirty to forty million americans uncovered. But why? Are the requirements to qualify for medicaid too restrictive, too exclusive, or ar millions of americans sumply unconcerned about their own health?

There are two kinds of people; rich, and poor. In this context "rich" refers to anyone who can, in theory , afford health insurance by whatever means they choose, which includes just about everyone from lower to upper middle to wealthy elite economic status.

there are two kinds of people: those who have health insurance, and those who don't. Those who don't are either too poor too afford it, or too irresponsible to understand the need for it.

so, really, don't we need just two health insurance providers, rather than the current four? the private sector, and , say "medicaid".  Are not obamacare and medicare in reality nothing other but redundancies? Many of america's elderly are among america's weathy, and can easily afford coverage within the private sector.

Might it not be preferrable to have a simple, efficient system, rather than a complicated inefficient  one?

Show Your Guns!

THERE IS A PROPOSAL, currently pending in the arkansas state legislature, to permit the unconcealed carrying of firearms. what is called "open carry", rather than the current law, which permits only the carrying of concealed weapons.

The purpose behind concealed firearms is presumably to allow people to defend themselves without openly posing a threat to anyone else, even by making someone uncomfortable at the sight of a weapon. But the question is: should bearers be limited to concealment only?

If open carry is passed, and in a southern, conservative, rural state like arkansas a bill like this always has a chance, it might remain legal to conceal and carry; the bearer of the arm might have a choice between concealing or exposing, or, the law might end up requiring openly carrying, and prohibiting conceal and carry, although that would seem a little bit strange. Strange, because, even if you start letting people carry openly, why suddenly prohibit them from carrying hiddenly?

Its debatable which way is better. Conceal, display, or both or either. You would think that the NRA gun lovers would be making a bigger fuss about requiring guns to be carried concealed, since the constitution does not mention concealment. Maybe they feel fortunate to have any kind of carry at all. They would probably prefer both.

You would almost feel a sense of relief knowing that if anyone near you ha a weapon, you at least have a chance to see it, intead of never knowing whether everyone near you might be carrying.

The second amendment is a perfect example of the insanity of trying to figure out what the framers of the constitution meant by their words. Two hundred years ago they had no concept of assault weapons, all weapons were muzzle lading muskets.

If we want guns in our society, we should write very definite laws about them, beginning with the constitution itself, and make those laws applicable to our situation in today's world.