Bond. James Bond.

I’ve decided James Bond deserves some attention. These are “top ten” lists, which, of course are official and not just my opinion. Others may differ and be damned. The first category is the most important.

Ranking of James Bond Actors

1.               Sean Connery

2-3.      - Roger Moore

            - Pierce Brosnan

4.         David Niven

5.         Daniel Craig

6.               Timothy Dalton

7.               George Lazenby

Discussion – I know that many people are now Daniel Craig fans and he is or I guess now was a great James Bond. But, there have been several greater ones. It’s like, Jimmy Foxx was a great baseball player, but he wasn’t Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb. I simply can’t choose between Moore (RIP) and Brosnan. Moore played it more comically, but Brosnan is an underrated actor who brought back the grit mixed with sophistication in 007.  He was clearly Bond even when he was playing in the comic adventure Remington Steele. David Niven was Bond in a comedy, Casino Royale, in which Woody Allen played his evil nephew, Jimmy Bond. But, it was pretty good and if ever there was an actor perfectly cast for the role other than Connery, it’s probably Niven. Daniel Craig, as said, was also really good, but I don’t think quite as good as most of his predecessors. Dalton was okay and . . .

Lazenby – well, I wouldn’t say poor George. Lazenby was actually a highly paid male model before he got the Bond gig, which he claims he learned about during a threesome. He quit after one film thinking he could do better in other roles. He has had an acting career since then (although retired between 2003-14), but mostly movies like the Emmanuelle series, which, if I recall, were soft core porn, and kung fu films. Nevertheless, he’s an interesting guy with several black belts. He was a Bruce Lee student and had just signed contracts to star with Lee in Game of Death and other kung fu films when Lee died, kind of putting the kabosh on the whole thing.

Now for other Bond matters:

Ranking of James Bond movies

     1.     From Russia with Love

     2.     Goldfinger

     3.     Dr. No

     4.     Live and Let Die

     5.     The Man with the Golden Gun

     6.     Never Say Never Again

     7.     You Only Live Twice

     8.     Casino Royale (Niven)

     9.     GoldenEye

     10.  For Your Eyes Only

Ranking of James Bond books by Ian Fleming (top ten)

      1.     Casino Royale

      2.     You Only Live Twice

      3.     Dr. No.

      4.     Goldfinger

      5.     From Russia with Love

      6.     The Spy Who Loved Me

      7.     On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (short stories)

      8.     The Man with the Golden Gun

      9.     Thunderball

     10.  Diamonds are Forever

Bond books are still being written by others. I’m not a big fan of this practice, which is becoming more and more common. I read a few of them and then stopped. It’s not the same.

Ranking of James Bond movie villains (top ten)

      1.     Odd Job (villain) – Harald Sakata (actor) – Goldfinger (film)

      2.     Jaws – Richard Kiel – The Spy Who Love Me/Moonraker

      3.     Fatima Blush – Barbara Carrera – Never Say Never Again

      4.     Maximillian Largo – Klaus Maria Brandauer – Never Say Never Again

      5.     Auric Goldfinger – Gert Fröbe –– Goldfinger

      6.     Colonel Rosa Klebb – Lotta Lenya – From Russia with Love

      7.     Le Chiffre – Mads Mikkelson – Casino Royale

      8.     Xenia Onatopp – Famke Jannsen – GoldenEye

      9.     Red Grant – Robert Shaw – From Russia with Love

      10.  Elecktra King – Sophie Marceau – The World is Not Enough

Discussion: Some might find it hard to believe that I put Fatima Blush and Max Largo ahead of Goldfinger. Bond films are an embarrassment of riches. I thought all of these villains and others were great roles, but I have to rank them according to what I think, not the conventional wisdom. Carrera and Brandauer were just great in their roles and deserve a lot of credit.

You might also notice no Blofeld, who I agree is a conventionally classic Bond character. But, I just didn’t think anyone captured the role the way the above group captured theirs.  I was never a Blofeld guy. I know some of the above ended up on Bond’s side, but if they were villains for a while, I count them. There are so many great bond villains that I had to leave out characters like Dr. No. That’s hard – but. . . .

Ranking of James Bond movie lines (top three – there were just too many great ones. In no particular order)

1.         

Plenty O'Toole:	Hi, I'm Plenty.
Bond:	But of course you are.
Plenty O'Toole:	Plenty O'Toole.
Bond:	Named after your father perhaps?
2.
Bond:	The name's Bond, James Bond.

     3.

M:	007!
Gen. Golgol:	Triple X!
Sir Gray:	Bond! What do you think you're doing?
Bond:	Keeping the British end up, sir.

Discussion: The meaning of the first two are pretty obvious. The last one, you may or may not remember, when Bond and his co-star are caught in a compromising position, which happened more than once.

Ranking of James Bond movie gadgets and weapons (top ten)

     

      1.     Walter PPK (various films)

      2.     Aston Martin with various gadgets (Goldfinger)

      3.     Underwater tow sled weaponized with spears (Thunderball).

      4.     Bede BD-5J – the world’s smallest jet plane (Octopussy)

      5.     Pen gun (Never Say Never Again)

      6.     Jet pack (Bell Rocket Belt) (Thunderball)

      7.     Laser beam watch (various films)

      8.     Attache case (a sort of Swiss watch of attache cases)  (From Russia with Love)

      9.     Wet Nellie – half car/half submarine (The Spy who Loved Me)

     10.  Cigarette Rocket (You Only Live Twice)

      Ranking of James Bond chase scenes (top five)

      1.     Ski chase in Austria (The Spy who Loved Me) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaEU_A405zA

      2.     On foot chase (Casino Royale) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaEU_A405zA

      3.     Motorboat chase with Louisiana Sheriff, John W. Pepper (Live and Let Die) -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBRqPFkAQCM

      4.     Parachute chase (Moonraker) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4zT2X8MT0

      5.     Airplane on the ground (Live and Let Die) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvqldWwbRcA

Discussion: Clifton James, who was perfect as Sheriff Pepper, just died at age 96 in April. The Live and Let Die chase scene ended with Bond asking the traumatized student who he took along on his demolition chase – “Same time tomorrow, Mrs. Bell?” Moonraker also had an excellent chase motorboat chase with Jaws, but the parachute one was more spectacular. Still in the motorboat scene, Jaws goes over Iguazu Falls while Bond, pops up a glider and floats away.

That should do it. Feel free to criticize. Few things are more controversial than opinions about Bond.

Who said it XV

"'Well, I'm back,' he said."  So uttered Sam to end The Lord of the Rings. But, no this isn't yet another LOTR post. I'm just borrowing it to explain that I've been delinquent here because I had my daughter's wedding a few weeks ago, which really started in terms of gathering together a couple of days after my last post. Then a few days after her wedding we left for another wedding in Minneapolis, which was followed by a week of touring the Midwest - Minnesota, S. Dakota, Wyoming, Iowan and Illinois (lot of driving, definitely over 2000 miles). Then I came home and got sick for a while. And all during that time, I didn't write anything. Well, I'm back.

This is the 15th such game. The usual "rules" apply and I try to make the four multiple choices famous people pretty much everyone with a reasonable education has heard about. I have to have it somewhere in my own library (though I cheat sometimes) and I admit if I didn't know the answers, I would have to guess too for the most part.  Some of the questions are inspired by the current news cycle, Russia, Mexico and civil rights being so much in the news these day, but that won't help you solve these. Answers are below after the last questions. Write down your own answers on something before you look.

1. 

"The great difference between Young America and Old Fogy, is the result of Discoveries, Inventions, AND Improvements. These, in turn, are the result of observation, reflection and experiment. For instance, it is quite certain that ever since water has been boiled in covered vessels, men have seen the lids of the vessels rise and fall a little, with a sort of fluttering motion, by force of the steam; but so long as this was not specially observed, and reflected and experimented upon, it came to nothing. At length however, after many thousand years, some man observes this long-known effect of hot water lifting a pot-lid, and begins a train of reflection upon it. He says “Why, to be sure, the force that lifts the pot-lid, will lift any thing else, which is no heavier than the pot-lid. “And, as man has much hard lifting to do, can not this hot-water power be made to help him?” He has become a little excited on the subject, and he fancies he hears a voice answering “Try me” He does try it; and of that tremendous, and now well known agent, called steam-power. This is not the actual history in detail, but the general principle."

a. Lincoln  b. Teddy Roosevelt  c. Einstein  d. Trump

2.

"The more I see of the Czar, the Kaiser and the Mikado, the better I am content with democracy, even if we have to include the American newspaper as one of its assets – liability would be a better term. Russia is so corrupt, so treacherous and shifty, and so incompetent, that I am utterly unable to say whether or not it will make peace or break off the negotiations at any moment. Japan is, of course, entirely selfish, though with a veneer of courtesy and with infinitely more knowledge of what it wants and capacity to get it."

a. Lincoln b. Teddy Roosevelt  c. Einstein d. Trump

3.

"My skepticism is based on the fact that it was America that lent expression itself to pronounced reservations regarding the effectiveness of conferences. Without doubt, the greatest council of all time was the League of Nations. It was the will of an American president that created this body. All nations of this world together were to solve the problems of mankind at its council table. However, the first state to withdraw from this endeavor was the United States. And this was case because President Wilson himself already had voiced severe misgivings about the possibility of solving truly decisive international problems at the council table."

a. FDR  b. Adolph Hitler  c. Winston Churchill  d. Trump

4.

"It is the shallow fashion of these times to dismiss the Tsarist regime as a purblind, corrupt, incompetent tyranny. But a survey of its thirty months' war with Germany and Austria should correct these loose impressions and expose the dominant facts. We may measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the battering it had endured, by the disasters it had survived, by the inexhaustible forces it had developed, and by the recovery it had made. In the government of states, when great events are afoot, the leader of the nation, whoever he be, is held accountable for failure and vindicated by success. No matter who wrought the toil, who planned the struggle, to the supreme responsible authority belongs the blame or credit."

a. FDR  b. Adolph Hitler  c. Winston Churchill  d. Harry S Truman

5.

"I know these Latin Americans. I grew up with Mexicans. They'll come right into your back yard and take it over if you let them. And the next day they'll be right up on your porch, barefoot and weighing one hundred and thirty pounds and they'll take that, too. But you say to 'em right at the start, 'Hold on, just wait a minute,' they'll know they're dealing with somebody who'll stand up. And after that you can get along fine."

a. Harry S. Truman  b. JFK  c. LBJ  d. Trump

6.

"In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle, who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

a. Leon Trotsky  b. Hermann Goring   c. George McGovern  d. Trump 

7.

During the "Freedom Rides," in 1961 a little problem developed. They couldn't find anyone to drive the bus from Birmingham to Montgomery, Alabama and then to Mississippi. A frustrated politician complained to Mr. Cruit, a Greyhound bus superintendant. It didn't take long for him to explode.

"[Cruit]: Drivers refuse to drive.

[Politician]: Do you know how to drive a bus?

[Cruit]. No.

[Politician] Well, surely somebody in the damn bus company can drive a bus, can't they? . . . I think you should --had better be getting in touch with Mr. Greyhound or whoever Greyhound is and somebody better give us an answer to this question. I am--the Government--is going to be very much upset if this group does not get to continue their trip. . . . Under the law they are entitled to transportation provided by Greyhound . . . . Somebody better get in the damn bus and get it going and get these people on their way. Mr. Cruit, I think that if some of your people would just sit down and think for a few minutes that somebody would be able to drive a bus 80 or 90 miles."

That politician was:

a.  Bobby Kennedy   b. LBJ  c.  George McGovern  d. "Bull" Connor

8. 

"Jefferson thinks he shall by this step get a reputation of a humble modest, meek man, wholly without ambition or vanity. He may even have deceived himself into this belief. But if the prospect opens, the world will see . . . he is as ambitious as Oliver Cromwell. . . . Though his desertion may be a loss to us of some talent, I am not sorry for it on the whole, because his soul is poisoned with ambition."

a. Alexander Hamilton  b. George Washington c. John Adams  d. Benjamin Franklin

9.

"Our friendship was not easy, but I will miss it. If you end it today, that doubtless means that it had to end. Many things drew us together, few divided us. But these few were still too many. Friendship, too, tends to become totalitarian. It insists upon either total agreement or total discord. And even the partyless behave like militants in an imaginary party. I shall not go through all this again: it is in the order of things. Bur precisely for this reason, I would have so much preferred that our present quarrel went straight to the heart of the matter, without getting confused with the nasty smell of wounded vanity. Who would have said, much less thought, that everything would finish between us in a petty author's quarrel . . . I did not want to reply. Who would I be convincing? Your enemies certainly, perhaps my friends. And you, whom do you hope to convince? Your friends and my enemies."

"    a. Jefferson to Adams   b.  Thoreau to Emerson  c. Sartre to Camus   d. Olivia de Havilland to Joan Fontaine

10. 

"I say again that I'm not a racist. I don't believe in any form of segregation or anything like that. I'm for brotherhood for everybody, but I don't believe in forcing brotherhood upon people who don't want it. Let us practice brotherhood among ourselves, and then if others want to practice brotherhood with us, we're for practicing it with them also. But I don't that we should run around trying to love somebody who doesn't love us."

a.  Gandhi    b. George Wallace    c. Malcolm X   d. Trump

_________________________________________________________________________________

Answers

1. 

"The great difference between Young America and Old Fogy, is the result of Discoveries, Inventions, AND Improvements. . . . 

a. Lincoln.  He liked technology, trains and such. Given how limited his formal education was - virtually none - his mind was a marvel. I can easily see Einstein or Roosevelt having written this.

2.

"The more I see of the Czar, the Kaiser and the Mikado, the better I am content with democracy, even if we have to include the American newspaper as one of its assets – liability would be a better term. Russia is so corrupt, so treacherous and shifty, and so incompetent, that I am utterly unable to say whether or not it will make peace or break off the negotiations at any moment. Japan is, of course, entirely selfish, though with a veneer of courtesy and with infinitely more knowledge of what it wants and capacity to get it."

That was b. Teddy Roosevelt  I thought this was a gimme. Why would it be Lincoln or Einstein? Only Roosevelt was arbiter between Russia and Japan. I guess it could be Trump, given the broad assessments, but I think even he knows there is no Czar, Kaiser and Mikado right now.

3.

"My skepticism is based on the fact that it was America that lent expression itself to pronounced reservations regarding the effectiveness of conferences. Without doubt, the greatest council of all time was the League of Nations. It was the will of an American president that created this body. All nations of this world together were to solve the problems of mankind at its council table. However, the first state to withdraw from this endeavor was the United States. And this was case because President Wilson himself already had voiced severe misgivings about the possibility of solving truly decisive international problems at the council table."

This could have been FDR or Churchill but it was a very sober sounding b. Adolph Hitler. If you read everything he said before and after this paragraph it would't seem that way. But, I cheat. In any event, he has his facts wrong too. Wilson fought for it in America against opposition from those who felt it was giving up sovereignty. It was a noble idea, but he handled it badly. 

4.

"It is the shallow fashion of these times to dismiss the Tsarist regime as a purblind, corrupt, incompetent tyranny. But a survey of its thirty months' war with Germany and Austria should correct these loose impressions and expose the dominant facts. We may measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the battering it had endured, by the disasters it had survived, by the inexhaustible forces it had developed, and by the recovery it had made. In the government of states, when great events are afoot, the leader of the nation, whoever he be, is held accountable for failure and vindicated by success. No matter who wrought the toil, who planned the struggle, to the supreme responsible authority belongs the blame or credit."

This time it could have been FDR, Hitler or Truman. But it was c. Winston Churchill.

5.

"I know these Latin Americans. I grew up with Mexicans. They'll come right into your back yard and take it over if you let them. And the next day they'll be right up on your porch, barefoot and weighing one hundred and thirty pounds and they'll take that, too. But you say to 'em right at the start, 'Hold on, just wait a minute,' they'll know they're dealing with somebody who'll stand up. And after that you can get along fine."

This time I could see Truman, LBJ or Trump, but not JFK.   It was  c. LBJ, who really made Trump look like a true gentleman in some ways.

6.

"In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle, who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

      Okay, if you thought that was Trump you have to read something other than the NY Times. It was a. Leon Trotsky.

7.

During the "Freedom Rides," in 1961 a little problem developed. . . . 

I love this quote just because it is fun watching the pol blow up in frustration. I don't know if McGovern would have sounded like that.  LBJ and Bobby Kennedy fit because they were both relentless arm-twisters and explosive. Why would it be Bull Connor (if you know who he was)?

      It was Jack's little brother, a.  Bobby Kennedy. I wonder if he really thought there was a Mr. Greyhound who owned the company or if he was just being sarcastic. In any event, he did get a driver eventually - I don't know who or how they did it because death was quite likely. The violence the riders, even reporters and feds faced makes you sick to read about. And the local police just watched. This was one of America's most despicable and heroic periods. Most of the heroes are nameless or forgotten. 

8. 

"Jefferson thinks he shall by this step get a reputation of a humble modest, meek man, wholly without ambition or vanity. He may even have deceived himself into this belief. But if the prospect opens, the world will see . . . he is as ambitious as Oliver Cromwell. . . . Though his desertion may be a loss to us of some talent, I am not sorry for it on the whole, because his soul is poisoned with ambition."

Certainly Hamilton felt that way and I think Washington came to eventually. Franklin was more subtle in taking down a man and he and Jefferson got along well, maybe b/c Jefferson was such an admirer and did not see Franklin as an opponent. I think this was a gimme if you've read much about the founders. Adams badmouthed almost everybody - especially the other founders.  c. John Adams

9.

"Our friendship was not easy, but I will miss it. If you end it today, that doubtless means that it had to end. Many things drew us together, few divided us. . . .

"    Jefferson and Adams had a long feud, which they famously patched up with a long correspondence. But neitherwrote this at the end of the first friendship. It could have been Thoreau. I've written here before about some of his and Emerson's issues.  Olivia de Havilland to Joan Fontaine are Hollywood sisters who stopped talking long ago. I think de Havilland was a bit of an author. I don't know if Fontaine wrote her own auto-biography. In any event, their estrangement has been the subject of several books. The usual crazy story, but it's mostly about a dysfunctional family, sex and sibling rivalry. Fontaine died a few years ago, but the older of the two, de Havilland is over 100. In any event, he answer was c. Sartre to Camus, more particularly Sartre's reply to Camus, all published. Like so many groups of famous men and/or women, they seem to stop talking to one another eventually over petty spats. Come to think of it, though it's not that long of a list, the number of people I talk to has gotten smaller too, either by their choice or mine. So maybe it's everybody and we just know about them because they are famous.  Some people just can't stand being disagreed with, no matter how small the issue or how much more they have in common and some great "thinkers" seem very sensitive in this way. The arguments among these French existentialists were pretty much idiotic. 

10. 

"I say again that I'm not a racist. I don't believe in any form of segregation or anything like that. I'm for brotherhood for everybody, but I don't believe in forcing brotherhood upon people who don't want it. Let us practice brotherhood among ourselves, and then if others want to practice brotherhood with us, we're for practicing it with them also. But I don't that we should run around trying to love somebody who doesn't love us."

Trump was not the answer to any question. Sorry. I can't see the answer being Gandhi because who thought he was a racist and frankly everything in the quote sounds the opposite of his philosophy. George Wallace was for segregation, at least before he was shot and paralyzed. After that I know he came around, but I suppose it could have been him at some transitional point, unless he had a sudden transition - I don't really know how it happened but he ended up asking blacks to forgive him. If you don't know who he was do some reading, because he was an important figure, if a negative one, in the 1960s-70s. He ran for president four times and thankfully lost each time. The answer was c. Malcolm X. If the answer doesn't sound like the Malcolm X you are used to hearing about, he also changed quite a bit after he was thrown out of the Nation of Islam. This speech was just after his former friends burned his house down and just before they shot him dead. His is a fascinating story, and though initially very angry, he had some very valid points too. His autobiography, written with Alex Haley, has been criticized as fanciful in parts. But, I would bet there are not a lot of autobiographies that couldn't be criticized if you took the time. I couldn't imagine the diversity of opinions, facts and mostly criticism you'd get about me if someone took the trouble to interview my friends, never mind those who completely hate me.

New Miss Malaprop V

From time to time I post here on my amazing gf aka my 25 to life sentence, my girl-fuhrer, my ball and chainsaw and her favorite (which she has co-opted for me), my insignificant other. She has, among other talents, an amazing ability to mix metaphors, say things just about right - but not quite and other verbal propensities that just slay me. If you haven't read The New Miss Malaprop I, II, III or IV, they are worth it and frankly, probably better than this group. Still, below is a slice of my life. I usually say a few things first when I go do these posts: First, don't be offended for her. I understand it can be read as my being condescending to her, but it really doesn't feel like that when it is happening. Think of it more George and Gracie (she calls herself Gracie). Besides, even if I am, you have no idea of what I go through every day with my beloved - I'm a martyr, and she loves it when I tell these stories. Second, I swear I am not making them up. I write them down as closely as I can, as soon as I can. Third, most of them aren't technically Malapropisms. But who cares, if they are funny? Here we go:

One day - well, actually every day, she complains I don't help her. She's right. I can't help her because nothing I can do will be right and I don't feel like being mocked or scolded the entire time I am helping her, even if she has no idea what she's doing and I am actually right. It's too punishing. But, this day I decided to tease her about it, not even realizing myself the cunning of her mind when it comes to me:

P: I have no one to help me.

D: If I help you, you’ll say I did it wrong. If I don’t help it’s wrong too. So, I might as well do the one that’s easier.

P: I don’t say you always do it wrong. You need to learn.

D: Learn what?

P: To do things correctly.

D: And I do it the opposite of correctly?

P: Yes.

D: What’s the opposite of correctly?

P: Wrongly.

D: Yet somehow you don’t see my point. Amazing.

Once, forced to admit an error herself, she explained it more succinctly: "We were both right, but you’re wrong."

The following is another one of her famous idioms:

D: (Looking at a left over potato) I wish this was baked instead of mashed.

P: You know the old saying.

D: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?

P: No. Beggars can’t be choosy.

D: Actually . . . that’s not the saying.

P: Sure it is.

We do a NFL playoff contest every year in which you have to pick the games every week from the Wild Card round through the Super Bowl. Of course, every week, the teams who will play each other have changed depending on who won the week before.  She just doesn't understand sports very well. I walked in on her while she was looking at the email reminder I sent in which I asked everyone to remember to pick that week's games. 

D: Hello.

P: What are you talking about?
D: I shouldn't say hello?

P: No. With this email?

D: (I look over her shoulder) You have to pick this week's games.

P: We did that last week.

D: How is it possible someone can know as little about sports as you do? 

P: No, you asked me questions last week and I already gave you my picks.

D: Okay (holding my head), these are new games. You couldn't pick them until this week because you couldn't know who would be in them until last week's games were over.

P: Well, how do I know who is playing?

D: I sent you an email a few days ago with the games.

P: Oh, I just delete those.

D: I'll send it again. We done here? 

P: It's ridiculous.

D: I don't care.

P: It's ridiculous to have to do it again.

D: Still don't care. Bye.

The amazing thing is, she won the contest that year, which tells you how much skill is involved. Another day we are watching an NFL playoff game. She is only interested because she wants to win the contest again. She has learned that Aaron Rodgers is the Packers' quarterback and he's really good. But, at one point this conversation happened:

P: So, why aren’t they playing Rodgers?

D: Umm, because the other team has the ball.

P: So, when are they going to put him back in?

D: When his team has the ball.

I suppose if you don't watch football you don't get that one. 

Still, another day we are watching Veronica Mars. It's a show I like a lot and have told her the name of it at least twice before this when we were watching it. I can never watch anything without having to constantly explain things to her, so sometimes I am a little petulant about it and just hit pause and dramatically put down the remote to look at her:

P: What's the name of this show?

D: Same as her name.

P: Which is?

D: Okay. (I hit pause and put down the remote). Her first name is the same as one of your sisters' middle names, remember?

P: Marie? Ann? Oh, Veronica.

D: Right. Last name is one of the planets.

P: Veronica Moon?

D: Really? Patty, what are planets?

P: Stars?

D: Yes, exactly, the stars are planets. Same thing.

P: (knowing my sarcastic voice). Wait, Veronica Mars.

D: So you knew it?

P: I guess.

Yet another day and I’m listening to Bach’s Cantata no. 8 when she walks downstairs past me on one of her endless self-imposed chores.

P: You really should have been born in a different century.

D: Okay, I'll bite, why?

P: Because of the type of music you like.

D: Patty, it's Bach. Lots of people still like him. I promise you they don't record it just for me.

P: Bach?

D: Yeah, he was the composer something like 300 years ago.

P: Really. That's strange, because it sounds like a woman is singing.

D: It is a woman singing. He was the composer. How could they record him 300 years ago?

P: Okay, but that's still a woman.

D: Oh boy.

Another day and I am commenting on her strangely acute hearing. She nods and proudly says  

"I have x-ray hearing." I don't bother to challenge it. I like it.

We have plans to go to the movies one day. I usually pick the movies. I am telling her what we are going to see - a remake of a western classic.

D: So we are going to see The Magnificent 7 tomorrow.

P: Oh, okay. I saw the one they made in 2015 yesterday.

D: You did?

P: Yeah, I think it was called The Fantastic 4.

Again, please understand, she's not kidding. She doesn't do puns. And I have to admit, there is that strange logic to it - a superlative followed by a number in both cases. If it was on purpose, I'd have to say she was really clever. 

Sometimes, it is not what she says is mixed up; it's just scary. For example, she kind of likes to kill.

P: Do you know when I was coming in the garage before I saw two crickets waiting to get in?

D: Uh, okay.

P: So, I killed both of them.

D: You're mean.

P: Gonna kill them all.

D: Didn't you ever see Pinocchio? (Of course, I meant something like - Wasn't Jiminy Cricket cute?)

P: Yes. Going to kill him too.

That will do it. Check out 4/26/07, 6/1/12, 11/29/13 and 10/13/15 for previous adventures with the New Miss Malaprop.

It's a right (says the left)

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)    

This post was inspired by the claims of politicians lately that health care is a right. When I started this I was watching a call-in program on C-Span where it is being discussed. It is quite obvious that liberals and conservatives were thinking about “rights” in different ways. It seems like a simple question. But as I learned when I’ve asked students what “democracy” meant, there are more than one answer. And if there is more than one answer, then it is not as simple a question as it appears.

There was a time when I was young when I would have fully agreed that health care was a right. I was very liberal and also very politically uneducated. As unorthodox as I was in many ways, and relatively immune (I said relatively) to peer pressure and believing what I was told, I pretty much adopted my family’s views on politics. That’s because I really wasn’t interested and never really heard other views until I was fairly well indoctrinated. Back then, I even thought there might be a “Constitutional right” to a clean environment. You never stop educating yourself about policy or politics if you are so inclined, but my own education started when I was a young lawyer in my mid-20s. Best I can remember I started looking at the “other side,” who I thought of as the bad guys, on the right then because I was amazed that so many people liked Ronald Reagan.  I never became a conservative. Just there religious views would be enough for me to generally reject their philosophy. But, I ceased being a liberal too. In fact, it was a long slog to become a moderate because it is so hard to admit to yourself that the opinions you had formed – just might be wrong or even that there were other valid opinions out there. I’ve written elsewhere about my political development and won’t repeat myself much, but I call myself a moderate, not because I am more “fair” than others (everyone thinks they are fair) but because I seem to disagree with both conservatives and liberals roughly the same and often, sometimes even when they know me well, they tend to see me as the opposite of what they are.

But, just because you are a moderate or independent (that is, no party allegiance) doesn’t mean you don’t think that some ideas of one party or the other is plain wrong or that they haven't gone off the deep end about any particular issue or in general. I felt that way about Republicans when they were in heat over impeaching Clinton because he had sex outside his marriage and even – as if the White House was a church – in the Oval Office. And I kind of feel that way about liberals right now (although both parties gave us the worst choices for president in history).

Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, John Lewis and Bernie Sanders have been very vocal that health care is a “right.” I find that preposterous, unless we mean by a "right," something the government has provided by legislation that we are “entitled” to as a member of our society or class. But, that’s not what they mean, because there is no such law right now which says healthcare is a right – not even Obamacare.

When they say it is a right, or someone else says it is not a right, I’m pretty sure they mean by it the same thing they mean when they talk about a right to free speech or other rights that some people think are “God given,” and others think are just part of our social contract. It is something you have, not something you are given or can be taken away. And that’s generally what I will talk about here. But, to determine if people have a “right” to health care, you have to better define what it is. In this case, I will try to define what liberals and conservatives each mean by it.

When I bother to try to define something, I am not always that interested in the dictionary definition, but what I think people really mean by it. Sometimes it is the same, but sometimes different. Words do not exist except as symbols, which are concepts in our minds, or ideas. We seem programmed to learn language, at least most people are, and most young people can effortlessly learns several at a time. Just as example, the letters of the word “key” in that order do not have to mean a tool for opening a locked door or critical information in order to understand something or an island on a coral reef. In fact, the word “key,” as a door opener, is not so in French (“clef,” if my high school French is still current) and the sound of the word in Spanish can mean “who?” And, of course, as with “key,” one sound often has different meanings. A “right” too has different meanings. For example, it is a means of orienting as in right and left. But, even when talking about it in the political sense, people mean different things when they use it.

Consequently, when we say what a word means, or answer a question like “what is a right?” we have to acknowledge that it can mean different things to different people and at different times and places. And even a single person in one place and time can use it in different ways.

Conservatives and liberals, which probably describe the majority, but not a plurality of voters, use “right” or “rights” very differently, although it might also be said, as Humpty did, that it means exactly what they say it means. If we are talking about political parties or ideologies, there is not a lot of consistency. They change their own minds if it is politically expedient, and then cite the opposite as authority. So, there are always exceptions. I’m making generalizations, because that is usually the best you can do.

What is a right is an important question because it is fundamental to understanding liberals and conservatives as well. You could take the essence of the meanings (and I haven’t even gotten there yet) and apply it to other issues. For example, the purpose of government is closely related. So is the issue of Constitutional interpretation.

And, I am only speaking here of the broadest sense of rights, that is, the individual’s relationship to government, not particular rights found in positive laws.

Conservatives generally have two related ways of defining rights in the larger sense. One is -- those prohibitions on the government that are embodied in the Constitution or so generally recognized in the nature of our type of government such that we are entitled to them, many of which are embodied in the Constitution. The other is – those prohibitions on government to us given to us by God (I am having the argument here about whether God exists – they believe he does and have assigned this role to him). Another way to say that is that there are prohibitions on government and freedoms that “God” gave us, or are “unalienable” and no one can take away from us. Note that it is almost always framed in the idea of a prohibition against government.  The government can’t make us do something or deprive us of something we have. I’ll leave aside limitations for now. This view explains why so many conservatives believe in textualism or originalism. It is a fixed number of rights that do not change over time unless the Constitution is amended. The Constitution set a template and congress can make laws provided for in it, which are sometimes called “powers.” Limits are, in the abstract anyway, are found in the text or as historically preserved or as reason would dictate.

Liberals also generally have two related ways of defining rights. One is the same as the first one I stated Republicans believe concerning the Constitution and our society. The other is where the real differences lie. Liberals tend to believe that rights include those things which are consistent with what they feel is “good government” or make sense in the modern world. They tend to read these into the Constitution. Whether a theorist might say that it is because the Constitution is a “living document” (and no, they do not think it has consciousness or is actually alive – it is a metaphor) or that the founders set a template and it has to be interpreted by reference to modern values, doesn’t matter so much as the result. It is a broader reading which does not require amendment for change to occur, because it allows congress to go beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution (powers). Some seem to think that there are no limitations on what congress can do if there is a rational explanation why it needs to change. Congress knows few bounds beyond what is expressly restricted (and even there, the restrictions are looser, even where express). That also means “rights” can be prohibitions against government, but also entitlements from government.

Again, whether we are talking about rights, or Constitutional interpretation or the purpose of government, the very same general approach applies to each parties. Even the way they speak of the general welfare clause in the preamble to the Constitution (the “We the people” clause), reflects this understanding. They agree that government can be restricted from doing certain things. Sometimes they even generally agree (as when the NSA was recording data from our phone calls). They more so disagree more on the other end – whether rights includes entitlements.

I will say here that generally, I think in the abstract that the conservatives are more right, solely because, if limits do not have some firm, if not arbitrary, boundaries, it lends itself to government being more important than individuals. Moreover, the Constitution provides for its own modification. 

That being sad, conservatives are always fighting a rear guard action. It is the nature of the two ideologies that one is more offensive in changing our culture or overarching laws – the liberals (because they are trying to change or progressive) – and the other more defensive  – the conservatives (trying to conserve or keep the status quo). I didn’t come up with that myself. It’s inherent in their philosophy.  I always recommend the essay “Why I am not a conservative,” by Hayek, which you can find online. I’ve written on it before. It is a poorly named essay because it presupposes people knew he wasn’t a progressive – in fact was closer to the conservatives. It is also a difficult essay to understand if you don’t understand by “liberal” he meant what we call “libertarian.” What we call liberals or progressives, he calls “progressives” or “socialists.”  I refer you to my previous posts (5/23/11, 7/25/11 and 8/28/11) if you want to know more. I haven’t re-read recently (I frequently go back and correct my embarrassing grammar I didn’t edit when I posted) but I believe I set out much of my political philosophy.

So much for the abstract. In reality, the liberals have their own claims. If you believe that the Declaration of Independence helps illuminate the Constitution, and many scholars and commenters have thought just that, numerous phrases come to mind, particularly from the second paragraph – “all Men are created equal,” “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” “Safety and Happiness,”  -  and you consider the general welfare clause in the preamble of the Constitution, there is an argument to be made that the more expansive view of rights is what moves us towards “a more perfect union.” think of all of the social advancements our society has made since Teddy Roosevelt, and in so many cases I can’t help think, thank God (said the atheist) for the liberals. The end of many forms of discrimination, the right to collectively bargain (although as applied I often rue it), the increased sexual and concomitant freedoms, not to mention the loosening of social mores. The reason the liberals seem to always win in the end is because people like these things in general.

I’m not suggesting the conservatives also don’t play an important role too though. But for them, the progressive notions of the left would have swapped out capitalism and a number of individual rights for socialism and the demands of the state long ago as has often happened in places where it has been tried. And even now, it seems to me that having succeeded with so many changes in our society for which I am glad (and I think most Americans are), they want to enforce these views on everyone, not just in terms of prohibitions, but personally. That’s what the health care mandate is; that’s what hate crimes laws are, that’s what some supposed anti-discrimination laws are. You are now required to participate in something; in some cases you are now required not to think a certain way and forced to participate.

Since 1788 we’ve been slowly trying to balance the two ideologies under different names, but usually represented by two dominant parties. And like many things on a long path, they ebb and flow, while heading in a general direction. Unfortunately for conservatives, even though there are periods of push back, the general direction is left. And to make those new ideas into Constitutional law, liberals have relied on a number of strategies, the most successful of which has been deeming certain rights in the Constitution as “fundamental,” that is, to put it one way, inherent in our system of government. Conservatives, or at least many of them, have jumped upon that bandwagon in order to find their beloved 2^nd Amendment fundamental status. In doing so, they have abandoned the argument that there is no such thing as a fundamental right in Constitutional law.

Again, I have to point out, that because of the nature of political parties with their win-win mentalities, these are all generalities, and either party, often both at the same time, will spin on a dime theoretically to try to win something it wants. I usually use as an example Bush v. Gore, when all of a sudden the Republicans thought that the federal government would decide the outcome of Florida’s election though normally they are all about state’s rights and the Democrats all of sudden thought the state should decide, though they are normally all about federal control of pretty much everything. The reason – Republicans had a majority of judges on the Supreme Court and Democrats on Florida’s high court.

I do have a personal opinion. I don’t know anyone (I think) who would not like to have good health care for everyone if they thought it possible. I mean, why not, if we could afford it as a country. Some obviously believe it is a right, but, in order to do so, they have to argue that it is a new one based on principles of natural law. And to some extent this just means they want what they want, and calling it a right is an effective way to get there. Ultimately though, I can’t adopt this meaning of right, at least when I use it. Because if we can have anything anointed Constitutional, then all bets are off – there is no rule of law, just the rule of men and what they think should be a right as defined by the political majority. I doubt very much the left would like a right to life extended to fetuses (which it has not been), or a right discriminate. I’m sure we can go on.

As always, I await your comments (usually when I say that, no one has one – but . . . .)