Still here . . .

I still have a blog, dogblammit! And I will be heard!

For one thing, I will use as many exclamation points (!) and parentheses as I like!!!!!

First, let me address Dear Donald,

You are a frightening man. I'm sure you are smart, like you say - at some things. Lots of people are smart. But, people who are not smart at one thing are bad at other things. Hitler was smart in some ways, wasn't he? He managed to take himself from a lowly corporal to Chancellor and then pretty much rule continental Europe for a few years before . . . oops - not as smart as he thought he was, was he? Without doubt, he knew how to motivate many people and they were not all Germans. And to be fair, not all of the Germans were murderous Nazis. Some were probably people who later emigrated to the U.S. and were thought of as nice people.

And I'm sure you are nice too, Donald, at least, in some ways. Maybe your family does like you. But, maybe not - who knows? Maybe you are a great father. You are rich (I think - we've all been fooled by pseudo-billionaires; remember Robert Maxwell and his sons, for example; Clark Rockefeller?)

But, Hitler's secretaries liked him. Many people thought he was wonderful. Perhaps I go too far to make a point. You are not Hitler. I'm just trying to say that nice is relative and it's not everything.

And I actually agree with you that we are too politically correct, that many things we do are stupid, that are leaders are often stupid, and on a number of other issues. People need a leader, but, they don't need a bad leader. We need someone who will stand up to bullies, not be one.

You are not that nice to everyone. You are not that smart (okay, so Obama and Newt Gingrich, etc. aren't either). You are very insecure about who you are (yes, Donald, very, very rich people can be insecure too) and that leads you to be insulting. I call what I see a bully.

I did not vote for Obama. I would not vote for Clinton (though I did her husband). I preferred Romney (didn't vote that time, long story), voted for McCain and to Bush the second time (a horrible choice - but the other choice was John Kerry). But, I would not vote for you. I don't care if Chairman Sanders is running against you - I'd stay home.

Believe me when I tell you Donald, some people think I'm a racist or bigoted too (though I play it up for my family). I do believe in some profiling on airplanes at borders and some other sensitive places. I would of course restrict immigration, particularly from some countries, I would not welcome 100,000 Syrians that some in government admit we cannot possibly vet, and other things that would make my liberal family cringe.  I despise the Black Lives Matters movement - but for the same reasons I despise your campaign. You can't be an incipient fascist bully. It doesn't work for me. 

Do you understand that when you talk about banning Muslims that you are banning people from India, Canadians, British citizens, and so on? You seemingly don't care that they are decent people. You admit you would have custom officials ask people if they are Muslims. Not only is it stupid, but it is unconstitutional.  I'm not sure if anyone can really advise you in the traditional sense, but if there is anyone, ask them to tell you about intelligent, good Muslims. Maybe have them watch C-Span and they will see them all the time.

Contrary to the legions of commentators who use words for you like "strong," I don't see it. I see a very - very - insecure man who must constantly talk about being nice and liked and how smart and rich you are.  And, is working. You were right when you said to Jeb Bush, who came at you for your personal insults, that you are winning. 

Let me sum up in part. You appeal to the worst of us. You are bigoted, insecure and in some ways stupid man who might single-handedly elect the next Democratic president. 

Because, you make Hillary Clinton look good! She has her problems. I don't want a continuation of Obama's policies for the most part. And she has her own personality problems. But your bombast makes her sound measured and smart compared to you.  So much so that, though I don't believe it, it makes the conspiracy theory that you have a secret agreement with her to give her the presidency not seem so crazy these days. 

But - all that being said - there is a reason so many people I know who seem like good and intelligent people, support you. You are a reaction to all the idiocy on the left. You are a reaction to the president's resistance to saying "radical Islamic terrorism," to the people who actually say that domestic Christian terrorism is the equal, or a greater risk than Islamic terrorism (by starting to count bodies after 9/11 and by ignoring the fact that there are 250 million Christians and maybe 7 million Muslims in our country). You are a reaction to our government's inability to stem terrorism here, to challenge ISIS in terms of rhetoric and leadership, desire to show its charitableness by taking Syrian refugees without protecting us from Trojan horses, the almost ubiquitous political correctness, the distractions about firearms and global warming to avoid the more imminent issues, and the championing of the Black Lives Matter narrative, victimization and the drum beat that white males are inherently a problem in this world. At least American white males. They are tired of being demonized, tired of the political correctness run rampant, tired of a president who has not defended them equally, made excuses for reverse bigotry, attempted to divert attention from it and make political hay out of it.

But, you don't help. You make it worse. Your behavior gives credence to their positions. No doubt they are reacting to your side's religious fervor too. So it goes around. Bunch of squirrels on treadmills.

And, you have no credibility. The birther nonsense was the most deceptive, embarrassing, partisan and frankly, stupid, bit of partisan nonsense I've ever heard. I really believed it helped Republicans lose to Obama a second time.

Meanwhile, though picking on you, I probably will have no one to vote for, since you've sucked all the oxygen out of the universe. I would vote for Kasich, who is, like most of my choices, a terrible campaigner. He's someone I like, who is reasonable and decent. I was happy with the last two Republican nominees - and they were terrible campaigners too. And lost. So maybe it's better I don't get a say. I like Carly Fiorina a bit, though sometimes she goes over the top. Generally speaking, she is more eloquent, sounds more intelligent and educated than pretty much everyone else running. She may be a little partisan for me. By the way, did you notice her wince when Rubio patted her on the shoulder as she was being introduced? Play it back. And right now, Trump has made Bush and Graham both look more enticing in comparison.

In closing, let me say to the other Republican candidates, I absolve you of your pledge. If Republicans nominate Trump, you should not support him. If you do, you are supporting someone who said he was going to ban all Muslims from coming into the country, even if temporary. That wasn't out there when you made the pledge. Enough.

But, let me get to what's really important - Star Wars: The Awakening.

28 years ago, I believe it was May, I stood on a very long line to get into a movie my sister told me about that I must see. I had no idea what it would be. Believe it or not, I fell asleep in one of the opening scenes. Yeah, while we were with young Luke on his home planet and it was sort of slow going. I'm sure it had more to do with the fact that I didn't sleep. It was only a few minutes at worst and the rest of the movie was ground breaking, riveting and magical. The music, the writing, the filming, the characters, the technology. All brilliant. And it turned George Lucas, its creator, from a great director into one of the two greatest directors of his generation.

The next two movies in the series - projected to be nine in total - were also top notch, ever moving the story, always making us laugh and feel the thrill.

But that was then. In the '90s the second trilogy - technically the prequel - came out. And, despite even more spectacular technology - it wasn't ground breaking. It wasn't memorable. The writing was boring, blah. I remember zero lines from the three movies - zero! I have vague memories of a couple of fight scenes and I had trouble telling some characters apart. And Jar Jar Binks? I wanted someone to blast him so he could say "me so hurting" and evaporate.

So, new movie. Disney takes over. Everything is on the line. The old folks are in it - and they are kind of old, coupled with some new characters that look like they were picked to fit politically correct notions. Need a black hero. Need a female hero. A New York Times' reviewer wrote today that it was the director's major contribution. I hope not. I mean, fine, no reason aliens should be white or male as opposed to black or female, and it doesn't matter at all when political correctness isn't the point and the movie is great - it just matters when it is the point and the movie itself isn't. Thankfully, reviews from regular people - the only ones that really count, have been good.

I'm going next Friday with tickets bought long in advance with 9 friends. It's an event and I can't remember the last time I was at a movie event. Maybe the last time they revamped the series.

We'll see. I'll say it again. Everything is on the line. May the Force be with us!

Potpourri II

It’s one of those weeks when I’ve had a few things on my mind to talk about. So, it’s a potpourri week (did I steal using potpourri for this purpose from Jeopardy or did we both steal it from somewhere else?) 

No, Grandpa, you graduated school in 1976, not 1977

In the last couple of years I’ve been discussing with people my belief that in two generations, that is – at the worst, my great grandchildren, will have a computer right in their heads. They will be cyborgs in a real sense. My only doubt about it is that it might be much sooner than that. Naturally, over time, the cyber part will greatly increase, just as computers in my lifetime have gone from room filling monstrosities owned only by the largest companies that could perform a task or so, to desktops that could run games or a maybe a word processing program to little phones you can hold in your hand which seem almost magical to the older generations.

The power of these cyborgs may become so superior to ordinary humans that no ordinary parent would want their own child not to have all of the advantages. The genie, or shadow, or whatever it will be called, will cure deceases, increase all performances, eradicate normal learning time or limits, bad habits and obsessions, sharpen every sense and make what is fantasy no less real than anything else in your brain.

Just to take one example, because the possibilites are endless, at some point, it may just seem ridiculous to continue with things like sex since you will be able to realistically dream any fantasy you want for pleasure while conceiving babies without physical contact (they can already do that). To give other example, when you can someone the image of anyone you want to talk to, alive or dead, real or imagined, why would you need to even leave your house? You could go anywhere or have anything come to you without moving. Of course, we can take this all the way to the premises of The Matrix or the Terminator movies, but, you’ve seen those and know the risks.

Sometimes I add that I hope I am dead before my grandchild says to me something like the title to this section, because age will lose its last advantage - experience.  But, who knows how I will feel if I'm alive when it happens (and if they can hook up an already grown person)? It took me a while to get used to cell phones and email, but now they are completely integrated in my life. I have even considered the possibility of getting – don’t be freaked out now – some ipad like device, now that the prices are crashing. On the other hand, I still resist getting my emails outside of my home, but really – what is the practical difference between that and getting cell phone calls and text messages on the fly? Hard to see any but the most technical difference, although the junk and work email I receive at home makes me want to continue my practice. Later on the ipad and Kindle.

Of course, I’m no expert or even well informed about computers or cyborgs or anything related. I just learned what SEO means (if you don’t know, you are more of a Luddite than I am and that is sad). But, when I pontificate about the likelihood of computer chips being implanted in humans upon birth (for whatever reason, I imagine at the juncture of the spinal cord and the brain), I notice that other people seem to like it and sometimes later restate the same thoughts to me, sometimes just weeks later, usually in the form of “they say that . . . .”  That’s okay, as I haven’t invented or even conceived of anything that many other people haven’t thought or written about before me. It’s been a science fiction plot pretty much forever. All I really say is my conviction that I think this will happen before most people do (if they have ever thought about it) and believe that we already have the rudimentary technology for most of it.

What do we need for this futuristic process?

Computer hardware and software. This already exists, of course, and if you are reading this, you use it, probably every day. And, it has already made its way into humans. A working robotic arm complete with a nerve graft has been operated. Scientists have made brain computer interfaces that allows quadriplegics to move a computer cursor, though it is external right now. This is, of course, just the beginning.

Miniaturization. The capability to have a superchip the size of a pea or as thin as a sheet of paper does not seem far away, does it? As I stated above, the earliest marketable computers filled a room, and  now we're down to tiny little phones that even poor people can own. That’s just marketable computers. The University of Michigan has developed what it claims is the first complete millimeter size computer. Take a penny out of your pocket and look at it. That’s way, way bigger than this computer. Look closely at the word “ONE” on the penny. That also is way too big. Now take a look at just the letter “N.” That’s the size of this little computer. How soon before a commercially viable one is made? A few years? How soon before it is the size needed to put in a human? I say 10 years, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 5 either. How small? Already they have made chips a few atoms – I said atoms – thick. That means millions in the dot on the letter "i" in the words "millions." Do we need it smaller than that?

Safety. I see two minor issues here. You can’t just put stuff in human bodies willy nilly, because your body may reject it as an immune response – typically, this is done by covering it in a collagen fibers as a type of scar tissue (yes, I looked that up). When these fibers thicken it can compress the enclosed object causing pain or malfunction. However, we know that they put all kinds of things in people's bodies already – organs, metal, balloons filled with silicon, etc. – and have mostly mastered this problem. They have also placed chips in animals with gps locaters surrounded by bio-compatible material (I’ve read glass is the most useful material), but without batteries, and which are only activated by being scanned from the outside. If it has gone beyond that, I am not aware of it. The other safety aspect is damage caused by radiation from the device. I don’t believe this will be much of a problem either, but more of a fear. Frankly, though radiation poisoning can be real, I don’t think any of the radiation fears we read about electro-magnetic radiation from power lines or cell phones are much of a concern. In any event, if a mini-computer or chip presents more of a problem, it will be solved by shielding.

Problems – The more we use technology to solve our problems, the less we are capable of surviving without it. Already this is true in the high tech world we live in. It is believed right now that an attack from a high altitude nuclear bomb would create an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) that will throw us back to the stone age. And, I don’t just mean it will be a year without street lights and the internet. Pretty much everything electronic – and these days, what isn’t? - will stop working and possibly hundreds of millions of Americans, at least, will be dead in a year. One year. Doubt it? The first shielding for an EMP was used back at Trinity when we exploded the first nuclear device in 1945. Still doubt it? Watch http://www.c-span.org/Events/Heritage-Foundation-Discussion-on-Electromagnetic-Pulse-Threat/10737423521/ and then ask yourself why we don’t actually do something about this very real thread? And there is so little we really need to do - relatively inexpensive shielding.

The other big problem with be extra-personal involuntary control ("EPIC attack," I just made the name up, but I like it). It refers to control of cyborgs by external computers either from the government or private persons. Imagine if the government could convince you of any fact they wanted simply by downloading it into your brain. Imagine if you could be given a computer virus. I expect that will be an ongoing battle, just like internet security is now.

This is all very real. I would find it incredible if we do not have cyborgs in my lifetime, absent unfortunate accident or illness leading to an early death. Of course, like most technology, they will just get better and better. The science fiction of today is really about to be overtaken by science. Whether this is good or bad is up to us, not the technology. But, I really don’t think I want to be around for it.

Natalie Wood

We’re not done with this? Are you kidding me?

Why are they opening up the Natalie Wood case? She drowned in 1981, 30 years ago later this month. Every one on the boat has by now long spoken their mind - the Captain, her husband, actor Robert Wagner, and Christopher Walken, then a young actor co-starring with her, and now a famous one, who may or may not have had a thing with Natalie. Not for the first time the Captain has made some provocative statements to the media and the L.A. Sheriff’s department is opening the case up once again, supposedly because of tips from multiple sources, but also admittedly because of the media pressure. Ridiculous.
The Captain has made statements before and nothing came of it. Both he and Wagner have published accounts in books. There was no sign of foul play that I have ever read before, but apparently, there was a witness on a nearby boat who says she heard screams from a woman that she was drowning and a male voice saying help was coming. If so, the Captain didn’t hear it (though, admittedly drunk) or Walken (who was supposedly asleep by all accounts). Were they all in it together? No one jumped in to save her? Come on. Additionally, an EMT who saw the body said that rigor mortis had not set in six hours later, indicating she was not dead all that long. If there was any credibility to these reports, why wouldn’t Wagner be a suspect? If he’s not a suspect, why didn’t he hear cries for help?

There definitely was a very heated argument that night between Wagner and Walken over Wood’s commitment to acting (Walken's position) as opposed to her caring for her and Wagner's children (Wagner's position), and she disappeared sometime later after things cooled down between the two men and was later still found drowned after a search. The boat’s dinghy was found on the shore, but the paddles were tied down. She had only recently gotten over her terrible fear of water but it did seem unlikely to me that she would have tried to take a dinghy in the dark over open water by herself. One theory is that she heard the dinghy banging on the side of the boat, tried to retie it, and fell in. That does not sound far fetched to me at all.

Now the Captain says he lied 30 years ago about what happened, and he blames the argument over her for her death. Obviously, that is an opinion, not an accusation. But, he has also claimed he saw bruises on her when he identified the body. If so, why didn’t the police see them? And why would Wagner not be a suspect? The sheriff’s office has unmistakably said that Wagner, who now occasionally appears on NCIS as the parent of a lead character, is not. Who does that leave? The Captain? That doesn’t make sense, since he’s the one who brought it all up. Christopher Walken? Again, everyone says he was asleep at the time.

I could have sworn that I had written on this in the past, but, I can't find it in my archives, so I guess I imagined it, or maybe I wrote it and then posted something else (I do that and forget a lot). I admit, as celebrityish and gossipy as it is, I do find it fascinating.  I’m not a cyborg yet, you know.

Wood was a beautiful woman, of course (very much my type too, although she was grown before I was born), but I was not a big fan of hers and didn’t even like West Side Story very much. I saw the movie when young and then saw the play on a secondary run on Broadway, during which I fell asleep. That may be heresy to say, as the show is considered a classic, but I think America is the only good song in the whole show.  

Then again, Wood did have an important role in one of my favorite movies, Miracle on 34^th Street when she was a little girl, and that is really how I think of her still, not as the sex symbol she grew into.

Do I think this new investigation is going anywhere? No. Just in the media. Could I be wrong? Sure I could. But only if there is a smoking gun and it doesn’t look like there is.

You can’t make enough lists like this
Speaking of Miracle on 34^th Street, it is not only one of my favorite films (maybe THE favorite) but the original was also the greatest Christmas movie of all time (I always warn - do NOT see the remakes). I’ve written too much about it in the past (12/22/08) to spend a lot of time on it here, but there is no limit to the amount of times I can give a list of my favorite Christmas movies, which, like all my lists, is subject to change.  

10. It’s a Wonderful Life. Jimmy Stewart classic that flopped at first, but became for many the ultimate classic of the genre.

9. Miracle at Morgan Creek. Nowadays, it is a virtually unknown movie, but it was ground breaking at the time, and very funny.

8. Bad Santa.

7. When Harry Met Sally. Like the next one, there are a few holidays scenes, particularly at New Years. Billy Crystal’s best. Meg Ryan’s second best.

6. You’ve Got Mail. You could argue that this is not a Christmas movie, but there were a few Xmas scenes, and I love this movie so much, I’m including it. Its predecessor, Little Shop Around the Corner, a Jimmy Stewart vehicle was terrible in my opinion, but was definately considered a Christmas flick. So, going with it.

5. Babes in Toyland. Laurel and Hardy. The print I’ve seen on tv the last few times is damaged but still viable. There was a time this movie was in my top two or three movies period, but little boys grow up, a little anyway, maybe just enough to knock it down to no. 5.

4. Elf. Will Ferrell playing a human raised by elves. It could have been horrible, but I’ve probably watched it twenty times and planning twenty more.

3. Serendipity. John Cusack back in the days when he played charming characters with the irresistible Kate Beckinsale and an effervescent Jeremy Piven at his best.

2. Love, Actually. A movie I never would have seen if my daughter didn’t insist. Great music and I think nine interwoven stories, one better than the other.

1. Miracle on 34^th Street.

Runner ups: Scrooge, Home Alone, A Christmas Story, A Muppet Christmas Carol. I am not a fan of Holiday Inn and White Christmas, as much as I love Kaye, Astaire and Crosby. I feel the same way about a sullen David Niven and too charming Cary Grant in The Bishop’s Wife. But, see them at least once.

Mrs. Malaprop redux
On 4/26/07 I introduced the New Miss Malaprop, who is also known as my Insignificant Other (Are your reading this, honey? Gulp.) She has the incredible tendency to merge different words and sayings together and make other word puzzles that defy description. I’ve been trying to keep a record, but, I am really bad at it. If more than a few minutes go by and I don't write it down, I can’t remember them, no matter how funny. However, I have recorded a few more that I post here. Some of these you have to think about:

I refuse to answer upon the grounds I may be discriminated.

* * *

She finally saw the light at the end of the tunnel.

* * *

Mrs. Malaprop: You don’t even know Jesus.

David: I know more about him than you do.
MM: No you don’t.
D: Okay, name the four gospels.
MM: Old or New Testament?
D: (laughing)
MM: I don’t know. 1, 2, 3 and 4?

* * *

It’s not worthwild.

* * *

MM: [Telling me about speaking to someone who was about to wake a dog] I said to him, don’t you know the expression - let sleeping babies lie?
Me: MM, the expression is actually about dogs – let sleeping dogs lie.
MM: Whatever.

* * *

Me: Don’t be so intransigent.
MM: I am not in transit!

* * *

Me: I don’t need more than three plates.
MM: What if you have a big shin ding?

* * *

How little they forget.

Can our leaders please learn just a little history

I have a feeling I’ll be talking to myself on this one. History is my passion, but, of course, I don’t pretend to know everything about it. There are many whole areas that I know nothing or next to it about. And I sometimes have to look things up because my brain just goes – uhhh, even if it is something I, and everyone, should know. And, once in a while I say something dumb that I should know better, because we are human and make mistakes (at least, we are for a while). I mention this because I don't expect anyone to be perfect. But, nevertheless, when someone is supposed to be an expert and makes some historical reference, usually something about the founding fathers, often with great certainty, and it is wrong, it that just annoys me.

For example, one day I was watching C-Span and the author of a book on the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention made a comment that Alexander Hamilton could not have been president because he wasn’t born in this country and the Constitution prevents it. I was a little surprised because the very same short provision in the constitution he cited for his opinion also says that anyone who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was ratified could in fact be president. And though Hamilton had pretty much ruined his chances of getting elected by outing himself on a sexual scandal (and then, of course, dying), he had been, of course, a citizen at the time of the Constitution for many years, having served in the Revolutionary War (although many non-citizen foreigners did), then serving as a representative at the Constitutional Convention himself, later as the first Secretary of Treasury and he was even appointed by Washington as the Major General of the Army. To suggest he was not a citizen would have been absurd. But, this author, who had just had finished his book, wasn't suggesting it, didn’t even seem to have actually read this provision. What made it worse was that later that day I heard two so-called pundits on television smugly re-state this proposition about Hamilton, as if they thought of it themselves that day. Of course, they were just as wrong, but this is why I get peeved about it. They should all know better.

Now, for what set me off about this, this week. I was listening to an oral argument in the Supreme Court that took place earlier this week. C-Span, tv's greatest gift to mankind, replays them. Very complicated stuff, as usual, about whether the president had a right to control what a passport says if the way he does it also violates a federal law passed by congress and signed into law. I am not sure what the outcome of the case will be, though I side with the plaintiff who submits that the congressional act is superior in this case. But, when the Solicitor General of the United States, who should be an expert on early American history, as it plays a major role in so many cases, made an important point about the Washington administration, he gratuitously stated that his cabinet had included Thomas Jefferson (right), Alexander Hamilton (right), James Madison (whattttt????) and John Jay (double whattttt????), I was floored. I was hoping one of the Justices, some of whom had to know (I hope), say – “What are you talking about?” No one did. For the record, Madison was in congress during Washington's two terms and then Secretary of State years later under Jefferson and then president himself. Jay was the first Chief Justice, Governor of New York (where he was instrumental in freeing the slaves), and a critical ambassador (minister).  But, neither was in Washington’s cabinet, and anyone even remotely familiar with it, as the Solicitor General must be, should know that.
Senators, congressmen and other run of the mill politicians, of course, quote the forefather’s so freely and inaccurately, I can't keep up.

Okay, now that you’ve said to yourself – Okay, soooooo? – I’ll move on.

Eye of Newt
Speaking of history, the present rise of Newt Gingrich, who has a doctorate and taught history before entering politics, as he determinately eyes the presidency, annoys me. Not because of anything he says about history, but because I affirmatively don’t want him to win the nomination.

I should mention that I predicted he would not run because I thought he was smart enough to know he would do badly, but he has not only proved me wrong by running, but, after embarrassing himself several times early on (like, when he was caught repeatedly contradicting himself about Libya or when his entire staff quit after he went on a two week Greek Island cruise with his wife and now claims that he gained valuable knowledge about the problems of Greece), he has actually started to do quite well in the polls, even topping some of them.

Of course, I think he and everyone realizes he may be Queen for the Day. The cultural right has sent Bachmann, Perry and Cain to the top in succession, and now that one after another has shown themselves not up to snuff, and is now, at least (I imagine) promoting a professional, Gingrich. He is a pro. He was Speaker of the House in the 90s, unofficially advised the Bush administration and deeply immersed himself in policy so that he can probably easily out argue anyone on the stage with him, except maybe on some issues Ron Paul.

So, if he is so professional, why don’t I want him to win the nomination? Starting with the fact that I presume, like I do with every candidate and president, that he has good intentions and is patriotic, and despite my dislike of attacking candidate's characters, I am going to talk about his personality, because that is actually what I have against him - not really most of his general policies. In my humble opinion, he

- is too arrogant and narcissistic to be president – and remember I am comparing him to other politicians! His feelings of superiority are self evident to me every time I hear him speak. This is, of course, very subjective, but conservatives who find Obama to have these characteristics are going to just love Gingrich when he turns his charm on them.

- is one of the most partisan politicians around. Politically, he is a flamethrower, a non-violent version of the ante-bellum Southern crowd that wanted war, and he does not know compromise. He seems to worship Reagan (at least, the semi-legendary version), but Reagan was capable of compromise – Gingrich is often not, unless he is absolutely defeated.

- cannot bear making mistakes and makes ridiculous excuses for himself. His excuse for his serially contradictory comments on our involvement in Libya was that Obama made him do it – he was reacting to him. His excuse for taking at least $1.6 million from Freddie Mac was that he was acting as their historian – a hysterically funny excuse, except that it is so obviously a complete lie. His excuse for making a commercial with Nancy Pelosi about the importance of dealing with global warming is that he just felt that conservatives should have a voice in the conversation about the environment (who says they shouldn't? He still still didn't need to make the commercial.) 

- is a hypocrite and untruthful when in trouble (yes, much worse than Obama or Romney or many, many others). He suggested Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should go to jail for their dealings with Freddie Mac, while his company made millions off representing them. He lambasted President Clinton for his adultery while he was himself cheating on his wife (now, unable to make excuses, he admits it – big deal).

- is religiously bigoted to an extent that exceeds conventional conservative religious concerns, demonizing gays, American-Muslims and those who don’t pray (who, he said in debate, could not be moral). He believes, and I don’t know how this could be constitutional, that mosques should not be allowed to be built in America while churches cannot be built in Saudi Arabia (which, makes sense how? – do we now base the first amendment on what foreign countries do? That doesn’t sound like a conservative position.)

- too in love with a younger wife. His Greek adventure with her in the midst of campaigning, leading to the bolting of his entire staff made me doubt his judgment even more than I would otherwise. This is, not surprisingly, the least of my reasons.

Besides all that, I would like someone who can beat President Obama, and it’s not him. He is way too vulnerable. Whether guilty or not, he also pleaded guilty to an ethics violation while in congress, and his attempts to explain it away have always sounded weak and defensive.

Despite these concerns of mine, right now some conservatives I personally know think he’s just nifty, despite earlier being disdainful of his marital dishonesty.

Yet, ironically, he has taken positions far to the left of other conservatives which have sunk other politicians, and are the reasons that conservatives don’t want Romney - including on immigration (pro-guest worker), health care, global warming, flex-fuel engine mandates for auto makers and even disparaged Paul Ryan’s budget plan. What gives? Why don't they look at him like they look at Romney. It may be that he just makes the right religious noise, now that he has found religion. He is the cultural right's last hope to defeat Romney before they have to get on board. And they just don’t trust him (you can understand why), and that is all there is to it. 

That's all folks.

Stream of consciousness

Here we go. About 45 minutes of stream of consciousness. No reason why. Just doing it. Follow.

Never read Ulysses, which is certainly the most famous work of fiction in the style. I did read Camus' The Fall, which is supposedly also stream of consciousness, but I didn't notice. Not as pure as Ulysses I guess.

There are so many famous novels I never read and probably never will. Faulkner for example, except for the short story, The Bear. My mother was deeply dedicated to Faulkner, working towards her doctorate on him when she got sick and eventually died (I guess she would have been a doctor of English literature as you probably can't be a doctor of Faulker). I always imagined that if there was an afterlife (nice thought, but I sure don't believe it) she would either be living with Faulkner or stalking him. Poor dad. Maybe he wouldn't notice though.

My daughter, Nicole came down from New York to visit this week for about 4 days. She's 23 and a really good girl. I always say I am the luckiest father in the world, because all the time she was growing up (not including infancy) there really were no fits to speak of. I remember two, I think both around 7th grade, and they weren't that bad. That's it. I know some parents who are happy if that's it for the day. We were hoping to go kayaking, but, life being what it is, the week of beautiful weather ended the day she came and started up again after she left - just like that.

The Kentucky Derby was today. I sometimes bet on it, but I didn't pay any attention this year. Still, since I had to walk down to the river (10-15 minutes) to get my bicycle I decided to stop in the theatre in town where they were showing it for free on my way. They had said it would rain today, but it was beautiful, so I went kayaking, which was why my bike was down by the river. If I am kayaking alone, this is how I do it. I strap my kayak on top of the car and place my bike in the back seat after removing the front tire (and, it is a pain because there is no quick release). If I am paddling downstream from my town, Buchanan, as I did today, I drop the kayak off at the public access, which, I might add, is the best one on the river that I've seen, by far, as you are right on the edge of town. Then I drive to Arcadia where I am going to get off the river, about 6 miles downstream. I take my bike out of the car, put back on the tire, and ride/walk back to Buchanan. I walk part of the way because there are two very long steep hills that this old man cannot handle. My heart beats too fast and I start heating up. So, I get off. However the last mile and a half or so is almost completely downhill, except one short part where it is fairly level.

I know I got off track - Kentucky Derby. So, I walked down to the town towards the theatre, which is one of the those real old looking ones, that is fairly well preserved. They show second run movies (out on DVD) or old ones, or sometimes have things like a blue grass festival or talent show. I've gone only twice since I moved here three plus years ago; the first time to see Hope and Crosby in one of the Road movies - not as funny as I remembered - and, coincidentally, last night, with my daughter, to see Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, Jennifer Connelly and Winona Ryder in The Dilemma, which was a fairly decent - not great - romantic comedy. I used to not be able to stand Vince Vaughn, but he has grown on me. He always plays Vince Vaughn, which doesn't mean he isn't a good comic. After all, Kevin James pretty much always plays his one character, and that is really fairly typical of comics in general, even actors. Anyway, a young guy with a small role, Channing Tatum stole the movie in my opinion. It actually raised an interesting dilemma which is hard to solve. What if you find out your best friend, or just someone you are close to, is being cheated on by their spouse. Do you tell? We all know what might happen if you do. They'll shoot the messenger, think you are lying, or trying to hurt them. Still, you might feel obligated to do it anyway, or, as here, give the offending party a choice - them or you. Either way you probably lose. And, of course, there are complications. Like, how do you know what their arrangement is - express or implicit? Maybe they know but don't want to believe it or acknowledge it. Maybe they are better off in the marriage and just getting cheated on.

Here are the factors I'd look at if trying to decide.
Are you sure?
Which of the two is more of your friend? Or are you close to both of them?
Have you ever tried telling your friend something before they didn't want to hear? What was their reaction?  How likely is this going to be a big mistake on your part?
How certain are you that they don't have what you might think is a good reason (that's obviously subjective - one man/woman's good reason is another man/woman's cheating). In The Dilemma there were actually other circumstances which I thought made some difference, but, no one in the movie seemed to think so (of course, it is a movie).
Are you biased in inclination because of your sex? My experience is, men tend to sympathize with men and women with women. Maybe that's human nature.

Let's face it. No matter what you do, you lose.

Yeah, I know - Kentucky Derby. So, I walked down to the town and coincidentally ran into Howard and Liz as I passed the post office. They are an older married couple, 75 and 61, who are among my best friends and my frequent breakfast companians at the best "diner" (as we would call it in New York) around - astonishingly cheap with plentiful food and endless coffee. We sit around a few times a week for about two hours, Howard and I trying to one up each other with cheap shots and ridiculous arguments, or watching (and mocking) Howard as he does the crossword puzzle. Liz seems to find us very amusing, and I have to admit, sometimes strangers sitting at nearby tables do too. It is the kind of place with many regulars, where people who go get themselves coffee walk around to all the tables with the pot (not me, too shy), and where the owner, Debbie, rules the roost in a very pleasant way. Anyway, it is one of the few places left that Howard hasn't been thrown out of for teasing the staff or owners, and I think he knows better than to do it there.

So, anyway, Howard and Liz drove me the last 100 yards or so to the theatre where I got out and went in, just in time for the Derby, which was won by a horse named Animal Kingdom, who came from behind and the outside to outsprint the leaders down the stretch. Not a bad race. I was only in there for five minutes, the highlight - other than the race - being when the commentator mentioned that one of the jockies (maybe all, for all I know), wore 9 pair of goggles, which he would discard as they got clouded with dirt. I did not know that.

After than, I walked down to the river, which was really only about two or three minutes walk. And, of course, it started raining. So, I road my bike back in the rain. Fortunately, if you take Lowe Street, it is down hill most of the way too until you get to the long street leading up to mind. I had to walk that too - in the rain. Story of my life. There was a wonderful book, later made into a radio series in Britain, and then a movie here, called a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by a deceased writer named Douglas Adams. It is silly stuff, but I thought very creative and funny. Anyway, there was a character in the book who, unbeknownst to himself, was a rain god. He just found it unfortunate (and depressing) that wherever he was, it rained. I have sometimes thought I may have a bit of the rain god in me too, although I have been rather lucky on most vacations.

The kayak trip, by the way, was fantastic. The weather was perfect for me - about 70-75 degrees, with some cloud coverage, as I'm not a big sun worshipper. The water was pretty cold, and you can't help but get splashed a little, but it was still warm enough to go in just a bathing suit. There was one place, where the river is cut in two by an island, and the left side has class 2 rapids. It travels in an arc around the island back to the main stream. You have a choice, you can punch through the really fast rapid current with big waves and stay on a little tributary for a bit, or - the one I took - follow the current around the arc and try and straighten yourself out suddenly when you come back to the main stream. When you hit it, you are being propelled in two directions at once and I really strained myself so that I did not tip over. Honestly, I don't know how I avoided it. When I got to the take out, a young woman was there with her labrador (she had a life vest). She was throwing sticks into the water for the lab to retrieve (she is a retriever, after all). If the stick didn't go far, the lab would rush in and get it. If she threw it more than ten feet, the lab would turn and look at her and say (I'm sure), "Seriously, that water is really cold. You go get it." Somehow, it was fairly comical.

And, I saw a heron - a familiar site I see almost each time I go - fly away with a little fish - which I've only seen twice - the first time by an osprey on the Potomac river, and now. I also saw my first owl. Here's the list of the animals I've seen on the river that I can identify.

Snapping turtles - they lay on top of logs or down trees, one on top of the other in a chain, but fling themselves into the water when you come close. Some are pretty big with shells at least a foot long.
Otter - I saw two, male and female, last year (and one once the year before). They both dived in the water. The female escaped while the male floated in front of me with his head out of the water, hissing at me. He was not persuaded to be petted by my docile demeaner.
Deer - I've seen many deer down here, even crossing my own yard, but I saw two once while paddling the most beautiful little brook under a canopy of trees that I have ever seen. It is passable only in high water, and it is normally part of the woods around the river. The scene was breathtaking as they carefully forded the stream in front of me in an almost Disneyesque landscape, until the second one saw me approach and dashed to safety.
Bear - I've seen one on the river in the early morning at about 600 yards. I'm sure he notice me too as he loped off.
Cows - I know that sounds pretty pedestrian, but it is fun to see them in the river, where you just don't expect them. Sometimes they flee when I come near, but today one stared me down and I made a circuit around him.
Beaver - I've seen a few. I thought there would be more.
Bald eagle - I've seen these majestic creatures several times and it is always thrilling. I don't care if majestic is a cliche. It fits.
Grey herons - these large and graceful birds are a pleasure to watch take off and leisurely flap away.
Coyote - one very scraggly one on the shore. No, it wasn't a dog. I know the difference.
Monarch butterflies - I know that also sounds pedestrian, but the first year I was here there were thousands on the river. Often the would congregate in mass piles on a little puddle or moist spot. It fascinated me that the dark blue ones would have their own piles separate from the more plentiful yellow ones. Segregation even in the animal kingdom.
Many hawks, vultures, innumerable water fowl, most of which I can not identify and many different types of small colorful birds of the finch, nuthatch type and about 1 gazillion dragonflies, damsel flies (they are different), water spiders (which look like they are riding on tiny little personal jet skis.
Very rarely a fish, which does not sound right, and is sad, but I think they have killed them off with pollution. People do fish there, but they don't catch much, and certainly not big ones.

Heading to New York tomorrow. Have to decide what books to bring. I am one of those people who has to read a bunch of stuff at the same time. Sometimes when I count them up I am stunned myself. Here's the list right now. I won't include The Iliad and The Bible, the first a constant for me, the second too frequent too mention.

Re-reading
The Empiricists. A collection of works by Locke, Berkely and Hume (epistemology)
The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukov. An explanation of modern physics through the prism of Eastern philosophy.

First time
The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. II (Hegel and Marx) by Karl Popper. A great book but not as fascinating as Vol 1, on Plato, which gave me a great feeling of vindication that I wasn't the only one in the world who thought Plato was a friggin' Nazi.
Essays in the History of Liberty by Lord Acton. Other than his defence of the South in the Civil War, is great stuff, by a true politician-scholar of the sort they just don't make anymore.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn. A classic in scientific history, it is not easy to read and I am slowly slogging through. Check with me next year to see if I finish it. I have a vague feeling I tried once before.
The Blue and Brown Books by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Popper's nemesis, and a revered poltician that no one can seem to understand. Was he brilliant or just nuts? These were not planned books, per se, but notes from students made into books.
Iran-Contra: The Final Report by Lawrence E. Walsh. If you ever make the mistake of believing we can trust government, read this and weep.
Her Majesty's Spymaster by Stephen Budiansky. This is a biography of Queen Elizabeth I's councilor, secretary (not the kind who takes dictation), and spymaster. It is interesting, but I would not say fascinating.
Argonautica by Appollonius of Rhodes. This third century B.C. epic is mildly interesting, but perhaps most because reading it lets you understand just how brilliant Homer was. No comparison in any manner.
The Best of the Achaeans by Gregory Nagy. One of the leading Homer scholars, his book is very scholarly and very hard to understand. However, if you are fascinated by Homer, it is breathtakingly informative.
Active Liberty by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The justice explains his jurisprudence. It is written for the laymen. Not that impressed so far, but I'll give him a chance.
An Enlightened Life by Nicolas Phillipson. A recent biography of the many times covered Adam Smith. I'm actually reading this on frequent visits to Washington & Lee University's library. Now that I got a card, I'm probably going to take it out soon.
Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth by Gitta Sereny. I have read all of Speer's books many years ago and was fascinated by his view of Nazism from the inside. Sereny seeks to take the hide off of him as a self serving liar. I just started this so I can't say what I'll think.
Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire from Columbus to Magellan by Hugh Thomas. He is a great if little known historian who rights on Spain. I finally understood the Spanish Civil War after reading his book on it.
A Short History of Everything by Bill Bryson. He's a great writer. His Mother Tongue is one of the books I most frequently recommend. This one is my car book, and it is great fun and red lights and (shhhh!) long highway stretches when I am all alone.

I'm sure I am forgetting a few, but so what.

This actually took one hour and thirty nine minutes, but I came back afterwards and added one animal and one book that I forgot. This was interesting, but I am still not going to read Ulysses. Who has time?

Potpourri - kids, candidates and presidents

Today is potpourri day where we discuss whatever strikes my fancy. Post presidential moolah Is anyone as disgusted as me with the fact that the Clintons made well over a hundred million dollars in the past seven years and kept most of it? Normally, I am a – what the market will bear - type guy. No problem for me, if a baseball player or a movie star can get many millions for their services. It doesn’t matter that a school teacher can’t make a living in some places (like San Francisco where they had to build low cost homes just for teachers). There are lots of people who can teach and very few who can hit a 90 mile an hour curveball with any consistency (or throw one for that matter). Besides, people pay for what they want and they want movies and sports (education, we know is secondary – just look at the results – we win the overall Olympic title all the time, but can’t compare to other developed nations in 8th grade math and science scores). It’s not that I believe that an ex-president should be restrained from earning money. It’s not that I believe that the Clintons have done something immoral at all. It’s not because I believe they have less rights than others or shouldn’t make a good, even great, living. But since they are completely making this money off of their so-called public service, wouldn’t it be just great if they gave it to the government? Not required, just great. The Clintons gave somewhere 9 and 10 % of their income the last 7 years to charity. All presidents and candidates have public pressure on them to prove they tithe since Reagan claimed he did in the 80s, so that's what they do. I think I would have been happier with about 50%, which would still have left them unbelievably rich. In fact, if they had 10 million each for everyone in the family, would they ever have a problem? And, of course, they would still be earning money. Sometimes people ask -- why should someone go through all the hell involved in running for and actually being president? Here’s one good reason, I guess. You will get very, very rich. For most people, it is worth doing almost anything for that – even a tiny fraction of what the Clinton’s made. And please don’t tell me that the Clinton’s would have made this money had Bill not been president because he’s a great speaker. Sorry. It’s not so. The Clintons left office with nothing except the gifts they took with them and debts. The Clinton’s certainly didn’t start the post presidential post cashing in bonanza. I’m not sure who did, but I think Reagan. I recall being furious when he was bought a 2 ½ million dollar house by some businessmen (what would that be today – perhaps 7.5 million?). Long after he left office his chief of staff claimed that Reagan paid them back when his money came out of the blind trust presidents put them in. But who knows. I have read that Papa Bush makes a fortune sitting on corporate boards and writing letters for companies, but I don't think it is Clinton type money. And, I have long predicted that George Bush and Dick Cheney will be among the richest men in the world, courtesy of oil companies, when they retire from office. But, I can’t say if presidents before Reagan did the same. It would be good to know. There’s nothing we should do about it. But it says volumes about what the presidency is really about. Money and power. No wonder Bloomberg doesn’t bother to run. He’s the only one who is rich enough not to care at all about the payola at the end. Imus II This time it’s a female commentator who got in trouble for speaking her mind. Personally, I didn’t like Randi Rhodes referring to female politicians who are running against or don’t support the candidate she likes as “whores”. Worse (to me, anyway), she said that Geraldine Ferraro was like David Duke because she had the temerity to suggest that at this time in history Barack Obama gets a benefit from being black in his run for presidency, just as she acknowledges she was only chosen as vice presidential running mate because she was a women in the 80s. The comments didn’t sound like jokes to me, although she was giving a performance at a comedy club. But, even if she had said it on her show . . . so what? Have you heard her show? Most people probably don’t know who Randi Rhodes is. She is a talk radio personality on Air America with a tiny audience. She is basically the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. She constantly says ridiculous one sided things. Back when I lived on Long Island and Air America was available on local radio there, I would often go back and forth between her and Hannity whenever there was a commercial on one of them. Often they would talk about the same thing from completely opposite perspectives. Fine. I listen because I love politics, and often I am greatly amused at the way they completely twist facts and opinions so that their side is always right. I admire Rhode’s ability to rant for seemingly forever about the same few topics day after day just as her right wing adversary’s do. But, when I listen to any of them my patience is limited because they are all so partisan. Both sides love to compare each other to Fascists and Nazis. No wonder they are so beloved. So, why is Air America getting upset now? Is it because she is attacking liberals who they hope will continue to fund their enterprise (they have come close to folding at least once for sure, and I have heard Randi Rhodes herself say that it is a chronic problem). No one seemed to care when she called Bush and company fascists (or was it, Nazis? I forget.) When you hire a partisan, be it Ann Coulter or Randi Rhodes, you have to expect them to act unreasonably and say unseemly things. That’s why people listen to them. They should leave her alone, even if she was intemperate. Her targets were public figures. They weren’t kids. What she said about Ferraro was stupid, not racist. What she said about Clinton and Ferraro was nasty and says more about her than them. Just like with Imus, nobody has to listen. Georgia’s kick ass educational system Say, what about these 7 and 8 year olds in Georgia who made a sophisticated plan to kidnap and punish their teacher who had scolded one of them? Impressive, huh? Was it their parents or teacher who deserve an award for raising really smart kids. Who knew that an 8 year old could think about things like who cleans up the blood and who draws the blinds? Seriously, I hope the kids are treated individually and not as a group in an obeisance to some ideal about fairness to them or their parents. If any of them were serious about carrying out this plan (in so far as we can discover), then they need severe punishment. Punishment usually works at that age. Of course, if these possibly crazy kids are so spoiled or twisted already, good luck to them. I have to admit that I’m a little cynical about what happened here. There is no truth so pure that the news media cannot get it completely wrong. I am reminded of an incident a few years ago when a mother lost it at a shopping center and began (it appeared) to wail on her little girl. Unfortunately for mom and daughter it was caught on video. I remember the first time I saw it, immediately realizing that she was not even touching the kid. If anything, she was just brushing her skin. It was later admitted by authorities that as hard as it looked like mom was smacking the girl’s face, there was not a mark on her. She wanted her daughter to know she was angry. Probably, the kid deserved it and probably the mom overreacted. But, her overreaction was nothing compared to everyone elses. The media played it over and over on tv. The little girl was ripped from her mother’s arms (at least metaphorically) and taken into supposedly protective custody. Mom had to admit in court that she had a problem and get therapy. Soon, she got her daughter back under supervision. It is unlikely the fake beating had very much effect on the kid other than probably making her cry. Being taken from her mother was definitely traumatic though. Maybe the forever kind of traumatic. Either she thinks it was her fault and she was never going to see mommy again, or some pinhead savior told her that it was mommy’s fault and she doesn’t have to take it ever again (yeah, that will work in the long run). Add that up with all those stories about little kids getting suspended from school because the hugged or kissed another little student. I remember a plan my neighbor and I came up with to take over the world through acts of terrorism. It was a pretty stupid plan, but I was probably ten or so. Today, we both probably would have gotten suspended and anger management classes. I’m not suggesting that child protective services aren’t necessary and doesn’t do good things. There are neglectful and abusive parents out there. But, it often is a necessary evil and sometimes it is the problem, particularly when the media is on their back. Parenting in front of the whole world Today, if you want to do anything different with your kid, you might end up doing it in front of the whole world. Take the mother who made the news this week, because, God forbid, she let her nine year old son take the subway home in a safe neighborhood. I could barely stand to hear the moron newscasters on cable wonder out loud whether she was being neglectful. As the mother explained, this is like a story about boy eats melon (actually, that’s not what she said, but it was something like that). And she’s right. Raising my own daughter I quickly found out that I was more willing than other parents to let her try things before other kids. One of her friend's parents was surprised I let her walk or ride her bike home at night a few blocks in one of the safest neighborhoods in the country at age 14. When I told one of my female friends about it, she thought I was crazy to let a 14 year old go out at night at all. Okay. I have no doubt that most of the families I knew on Long Island felt the same way. Often in New York City though, I noticed kids walking around more by themselves or groups than on the island, where it is more and more rare. Even taking the subway sometimes. Without having a study to refer to, it at least seemed to me that parents in the city were more confident that nothing would happen to their kids than parents on the Island, where, it was relatively astonishingly safe. Somehow, between the time I grew up and now, predators have materialized out of thin air (an absolutely verifiable untruth which I cannot get anyone to believe) and danger lurks at every corner (despite how much safer it is now). Somehow, I was able to ride my bicycle miles from home at age 11, and was going from Long Island to the City by myself by 14. It seems like everyone else I knew was allowed to do the same thing. My friends and I took our bikes on a three day unsupervised trip the length of Long Island when I was 15. What happened since that era? My guess, the 24 hour news cycle scares the hell out of parents. Peer pressure does the rest. Good for this mom. I admire her. Her son wants to do it again and I hope she lets him. He will end up more confident than the kids of parents who think they are protecting their kids by oversheltering them. Got MLK? I love the presidential election. Where else can you see all the candidates worship at the altar of Martin Luther King whether they want to or not. My intended vote goes to John McCain, but it is hysterical to see him have to squirm about his past opposition to Martin Luther King Day, for which he has actually had to apologize. This brings up one of the sillier things you hear on right wing talk radio. The hosts are very fond of pointing out that it was Republicans in congress that were responsible for the passage of the civil rights acts in the early 60s. From this, they extrapolate that they are the party of inclusion and tolerance. Of course, factually, they are right. Democrats, mostly Southern Democrats, were against the civil rights acts. Actually, it was more so a North/South thing if you look at the voting, but there were more Democrats in the South then. Of course, once the acts passed under the leadership of the Democratic President Johnson, the entire scenario changed with the Solid Democratic South became the Solid Republican South. It became unfashionable in Republican or Conservative circles to support an MLK day, probably all the way up through the 90s. Times are changing again though, and we have a black man, half black, anyway, running for president with a fair shot at winning if you look at the polls, his fundraising and the crowds. Now, McCain cannot afford to be seen as in any shape or form against King. No politician can. In fact, McCain now has to recognize King as “great” and participated in Martin Luther King Day festivities, where he issued his apology. Perhaps because I like McCain, and also believe in redemption and politicians who grow over time, I can accept that he has changed his mind. I am not surprised that those supporting others have difficulty accepting this, and his words were not met with cheers, to say the least. Well, you can’t win them all, Senator McCain. Thank goodness for Reverend Wright and imaginary sniper fire, right?