From Pompano Beach

Dear Fans,
I'm using the computer in the PB library - I only have 3 more minutes on the timer. The weather here during the past ten days has been unseasonably cool. 60's most of the day, colder at night. Good thing we brought long sleeves and long pants.
Food has been scrumptious; many of the drinking establishments serve Sierra Nevada on tap so, no complaints.

Heading down to Key West for a few days. Forecast is for high seventies and sunny. Maybe we will get to go to the beach!

Talk soon,

Signed,
The EPA (Exceptionally Pale American)

Out of Office Message

On Vacation for a few days

Please check the archives if you need a Hellhole Fix, otherwise I should be back soon, tanned, relaxed and ready to resume my job here at the helm of the Hellhole Journal.

I'm feeling a need to rethink the raison d'etre for this blog. In the beginning, it was called Hellhole Update to chronical the experiences and learnings of a typical working guy - a victim of hierarchy and professional management that sought to stifle humor, creativity and above all else, dissent. The intention was to be entertaining more than informative.

Then, a few years ago, I retired, sort-of. Since I have been out of (Escaped...) the workforce, I've lost the passion about work topics. After all, how many different ways can you say that management is generally clueless, nasty, brutish and short?

In the past year I have drifted into political issues. There has been no dearth of events and points of view worthy of derision and mockery. Yet, I have become weary of politics. It is clear that no amount of discussion will alter anyone's position, and that is just a sad state of affairs, and not entertaining.

So it is. I have come to a journalistic crossroads, he wrote dramatically

I need a new topic.

Any Ideas?

Jumping Ugly on Obama

On Tuesday WSJ printed an OP-ED piece,  "The Obama Spell is Broken" by Fouad Ajami. The author is a senior fellow at Stanford University Hoover Institution - a  Republican leaning Small Government Think Tank. I mention the author's credentials because this piece reveals how utterly wrong a fancy pants intellectual can be when his research is colored by his preconceptions.

"The curtain has come down on what can best be described as a brief un-American

   moment in our history. That moment began in the fall of 2008, with the great financial

   panic, and gave rise to the Barack Obama phenomenon. 

  The nation's faith in institutions and time-honored ways had cracked. In a little-known

   senator from Illinois millions of Americans came to see a savior who would deliver the

   nation out of its troubles. ..."

Ajami seems to forget that the reason for Obama's election.  A lot of voters felt like we needed a drastic change in 2008.  There was a huge shift of independent voters who had voted for Bush in 2004 but who became alienated by the Bush administration's arrogant excesses in the name of the 'war on terror' -  which had badly damaged US credibility around the world. 
Voters were further driven away from the republican party by the failure of the "small government" party to keep the government small and instead of tax and spend, they were cut-tax and spend.  Added to that was the palpable weakness of the McCain-Palin ticket.  Then came the stunning collapse of the financial sector, widespread job loss, and the clear indictment against unregulated free markets.   Compared to the alternative, Obama seemed to the majority like "not such a bad guy". 
To those who see Obama as a Socialist and therefore a threat, his popularity is explained by his appeal to the leftmost of lefties.  But that position ignores the fact the independents are the biggest chunk of voters, and neither Bush nor Obama could have won if their support lay only among ideologues.  It may have seemed to his opponents that Obama was protected by some magic spell.  There were furious and unrelenting  efforts to smear him (via associations) as a Socialist bomb throwing sympathizer and Black Nationalist - even questioning his citizenship.   To their chagrin, only the conservative choir seemed to resonate with this negative nattering. 

When Obama won the big election decisively, and delivered a supermajority to his party,  the opposition  -  failing once again to understand that most of the people who actually show up to vote might actually be thoughtful and deliberative -  wrote off the President's popularity to charisma, magic, mystique. 

Progressives pressed for a draconian attack on the workings of our health care, and on the broader balance between the state and the marketplace. The economic stimulus, ObamaCare, the large deficits, the bailout package for the automobile industry—these, and so much more, were nothing short of a fundamental assault on the givens of the American social compact.

I don't think most voters were tuned-in to the same things that conservatives worry about  about all the time.  Sure, people want security, but some of us are not convinced that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are making the US more secure.  Most people don't feel that the mistakes that have been made over the past year were intentional assaults on the American social compact. 

The vast majority of people are mainly concerned with their jobs.  Moreover, they understand that there is little that the government can do in the short term to "create jobs" in the private sector.  Voters are unhappy that the unfettered free market doesn't work.  Most people don't think tax cuts for the wealthy will generate more jobs either. 


Ajami projects his idea of Obama as Icarus; he  has over-reached and has flown too close to the sun

And then there was the hubris of the man at the helm: He was everywhere, and pronounced on matters large and small. This was political death by the teleprompter.

In effect, Ajami (and others) are declaring that Obama has "jumped the shark". This phrase is used to declare the clear turning point where a sitcom or celebrity has lost it's popularity and has started sliding downhill.  

I think they may be jumping the gun.  The shot across the bow sent by Massachusetts was a warning shot, to be sure.   To the amazement of everybody, it changed everything.  It stopped the bloated shipwreck of a healthcare plan dead in the water.  But it does not necessarily sink Obama.

 Deliberative minds might see the election of a Republican to the "Ted Kennedy" seat as a statement about status quo, not so much about Obama.  The conservative claque has been unrelenting in their criticism of every word and gesture of the new president.  But many of those who have expressed disappointment with his results have maintained a positive view of the man.  Much of the criticism is leveled at the leadership of the partisan congress who have botched the public trust.

Obama has 3 more years to get things right.  News of his demise may be premature.

Ask Someone ...

For years, the Toyota tag line has been "Ask some one who owns one."


Today, maybe you should ask someone who owns a late model Camry- as soon as they get out of the hospital.

Ironies - continued

So The Kennedy Senate seat went to Scott Brown the independent Republican, much to the shock and awe of a lot of people who thought the Democratic candidate ("Marsha" Coakley) was a shoe-in.

Here is an interesting tidbit:
Prior to 2004, the succession law provided for the governor to appoint a replacement to a vacant senatorial seat. This appointee would serve as Senator until the next regular election cycle.

When John Kerry became the Democratic nominee for President in 2004, Massachusetts Democrats, who dominated the state legislature, were urged by none other than Ted Kennedy, to change the succession law, just in case Kerry won in the big election. So, they rushed a bill into law that eliminated the power of the Governor (who so happened to be a Republican, Mitt Romney) to appoint a replacement. The new law ensured that the seat would remain vacant until a special election could be held to choose a (presumably Democratic) successor.

Fast forward to five years later. When it became clear that ailing Senator Ted would not survive to the end of his term, he once again sought to change the law. As a strategic move to maintain the supermajority in the Senate, Ted wrote to the Massachusetts leadership, this time urging them to pass a law that provided for the Governor (Democrat Deval Patrick) to name a successor until the special election could be arranged. Even jaded observers such as your humble scribe were shaking our heads at this blatant example of cynical power politics.

But, they messed up.

If they had simply repealed the 2004 change, Gov Patrick would have appointed party loyalist who would have served until the next regular election in 2012. But they left the special election provision intact, which was a mistake as it turned out..
Into that special election rode Scott Brown in his GMC pick-up truck, fueled with independent voter outrage at the workings of political hacks both in the state and in Washington. Hope collided with anger and hope lost.

There will be plenty of analyses offered as to why Scott Brown won the special election. But the irony of this story is this: the guy ultimately responsible for losing the Kennedy seat was - Ted Kennedy!
Furthermore, the initial change turned out to be unnecessary, since Kerry didn't get elected President.

You may be Right

As the great philosopher Billy Joel said, "You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic you're looking for..."

It is interesting to see all the reactions to the Scott Brown victory over Martha Coakley on Tuesday. Some disappointed Democrats are pouncing on Ms Coakley for her supposed failures. Elsewhere, Starry eyed Liberals are ranting on their Facebook pages that the Massachusetts Redneck truck drivers voted against homeless orphans getting health care coverage. (I guess these were the same Rednecks who voted for Deval Patrick and Barack Obama). Local Conservative talk show hosts are gloating and taking credit for mobilizing their listeners to produce the sudden last minute surge for Brown.

Of all the analyses, I think Brown himself nailed the reason for his victory: People are fed-up with the status quo. So fed-up that they were willing to vote for a guy that most of us would label Conservative. I say most of us, because my favorite Conservative (George) worries that Brown might be a RINO (Republican in name only).
Another example of how we tend to see what we want to see?

My vote for Brown was directed at the current health care bill, which he has promised to vote against. I am not opposed to health care reform, I am against this "train wreck" of a plan, which would immediately increase the cost of health insurance for most working families an added 15-20% and give them less choice and less access. Not mention that NO one would get ANY benefit from this plan until 2014 for Crissakes!

I think we can do better. I am hoping that sending Mr Brown to D.C. as the messenger will help the Dems get rid of the special deals that have been written into the bill and focus on providing healthcare coverage to people who can't afford it.

By breaking the super majority in the Senate, Brown's election could serve the country well. Instead of maintaining a polarized status quo The Dems will have to seek common ground with Repubs to get anything done.

Maybe it's a little starry-eyed of me, but I'm hoping that the threat of getting thrown out of office will make our elected reps pay more attention to the voters and less attention to the special interests. Yeah, I know, You may be right...

But, the beauty of this vote is this: If we made a mistake, we can fix it in 2 years, when Brown comes up for election again.

Doing the Right Thing

Most of the staff here at the Hellhole Journal have been outraged at the sneaky deals and outright cynical payoffs that seem to be accepted as "business as usual" by US Politicians.
It is distressing to hear Harry Reid say the "by definition legislating is about making deals." (I always thought that by definition, legislating was about making LAWS). Apparently I am not alone.
The other day Ben Nelson senator from Nebraska (who has been getting serious flak from just about everyone in and out of Nebraska) has written a letter asking Reid to remove the "cornhusker kickback" clause from the final bill. Now, after watching his personal approval ratings sink like a whale turd, he says, he believes the tax exemption should apply to all states.

This is encouraging news that someone may be listening to the chorus of boos coming from the customers of this "sausage factory." Now we need to hear from the Unions, Louisiana, Vermont and all those other porkers. (BTW this includes the separate outrageous pork barrel deal that our own John Kerry strongarmed through committee to get a contract for GE to manufacture an jet engine that the Pentagon doesn't want. ) We have to acknowledge that these things cost tax money which we do not have.

I probably need to reiterate that me and the staff are not against health care reform. We think that there are plenty of areas where something positive can be done to help people who want and need it. We just don't want the bloated piece of crap that they are fighting for in congress.

For example, we have changed our position on chronic illness. I confess that I was a bit tin-eared about this issue myself, until I had a discussion with a friend who has been losing mobility because of MS. He recently got laid off and may face the daunting challenge of getting affordable health care coverage in the future. I've always realized that no one except the very wealthy can afford to be chronically ill, but I never actually had to confront the situation with a family member or friend before. While I still defend the business decision of an insurance company to decide who they insure (i.e., they should not be forced to lose money), there is a need to cover people with pre-existing conditions. And, that by definition is the role of government. There are plenty of programs that could be cut to allow the funding of care for people with chronic illness - that would indeed be health care reform!

Surf's Up in Massachusetts

So this morning I read that President Obama is going to come to Massachusetts to promote his candidate (current state attorney general, Martha Coakley) in next Tuesday's special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. The dems have been confident the the majority of voters who showed up on election day would vote for a guaranteed 60th democratic vote for healthcare reform and other party line votes.

But, not so fast, says Scott Brown, the republican state senator who opposes Ms. Coakley. Brown has tuned-in to the dissatisfaction many independents have expressed about the current health care bill and the sleazy deals that have been made to ram the plan down the throats of the electorate. The dems have demonstrated chronic tone deafness by dismissing any criticism of its plans as partisan rhetoric.

Following their debate last week Coakley saw her lead in opinion polls going downhill like an outgoing tide. Brown's strong performance in the debate and sharp rise in polls elicited national attention with editorials in WSJ and other non regional media. Coakley's campaign hit back with an expensive attack ad campaign. As a non-partisan, my opinion is that Coakley's ads will backlash against her, because the attempts to distort Mr Brown's record and position are obvious.

The tsunami of support for Brown is palpable here. It is a wave of discontent with politics as usual. It should not be seen as pro-republican either. It is a cry of "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."

Now, Mr. Obama is in a bit of a pickle. If Coakley loses the election, Brown has already stated that he will vote to block the current bloated health care plan. "We need to go back and start over," he says. So, Obama cannot ignore the situation because his loyalists (and all those who have sold their souls for the current plan) will blame him if he does nothing and Brown wins. Yet, if he comes here and Brown still wins (shades of New Jersey) Obama will be perceived as weak.

The irony is in the fact that if the healthcare bill is defeated and the dems are forced to go back and rewrite a cleaner, less expensive plan, they will ultimately come out better for it. If the current legislation is passed, the dems will be swept out of power at midterm elections and Obama will be heading back to Chicago in three years.

My advice, stay home Mr. Obama, Our minds are made-up. we taxpayers don't need the cost and hassle of your visit. (Ramp-freeze at Logan, traffic tie-ups to allow his motorcade to cruise at will about our fair city). No matter what the final result on Tuesday, one thing is certain: the tide has turned. And the shockwaves will be felt around the world.

(OK so I mixed up the metaphors. Sue me.)

Cruel Ironies

One cannot adequately describe the appalling devastation that was wrought in Haiti from the earthquake that struck Port-au-Prince. Today's estimates of the death toll is around 50,000. Maybe three million hurt, and/or homeless.

The mind recoils at the magnitude of sorrow. Turn away, it urges us. We grab for the remote, switch to another channel looking for for mindless pap to soothe our abraded synapses

The images echo other places, where "nature" has struck fiercely. I'm thinking of New Orleans after Katrina. Throngs of people dazed and waiting for help - perhaps wondering, if the camera crews can get here why can't we get food and water?

And a few years ago (2004) the Indian Ocean earthquake and resultant tsunami which is reported to have killed 230,000 people in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India. Those images of helpless people being swept into the churning killing surge are unforgettable.

The evening news featured a local man who had just been informed that his daughter who worked in Haiti, was found alive in the rubble of the earthquake. "God is good!" he kept shouting. "they found my daughter."

This seemed ironic to me. How can this man think God is good when tens of thousands of people have been killed, maimed, orphaned - but He is good because He chose to save one man's daughter? What about all the others?

Talk about cruel ironies, this morning it is reported that the saved woman was not his daughter. The Almighty, it seems, was not answering prayers, again.

Heads vs Hearts

The times they are a-changin, goes the old Bob Dylan song. Indeed.

As we roll into a new decade, Americans are basically divided into two groups. The first group sees the world changing for the better. We call these people Progressives. They tend to be naive and hopeful. They view the ever-changing cultural norms with equanimity. They see possibilities, they regard 'having fun' as a worthwhile goal. Fundamentally, they believe that things will work out if we just try to get-along and treat each other decently. They feel superior to the other group because they are driven by compassion to share the wealth (especially the wealth of the rich fat cats) with less-fortunate souls. They regard human laziness and stupidity as an unfortunate result of a bad dice roll. By contrast, if one is lucky enough to be born good looking , healthy and smart enough to take advantage of opportunity, you must always keep in mind that you were not entitled to it; you were given a break and you must pay it forward.


The second group - the ones we call Conservatives - are a grumpy bunch of stick-in-the-muds. They spend their workdays trying to get ahead. Then they stay awake at night afraid of slippery slopes and camels' noses in tents. Cons clearly see the negative aspect of anything that smacks of change. They love traditions and old authoritative books and parchments. They think everything worth knowing was already known by the Founding Fathers; new fads and ideas are regarded with suspicion and skepticism. They don't see the point in having fun, because people hate us and we need to stay on guard. They think they are superior to the other group because they are driven by their heads instead of their hearts. They see most taxation as stealing money from hard working people and giving it to ignorant slackers. They feel they are entitled to what they have, and hard cheese if you were born into the servant class, but that's the way it goes.


Normally, I think of myself as a fence-sitter between the two groups, usually falling on the side of the progressives due to a tendency to feel empathy and to acknowledge the relativity of moral truths. Conservatives are driven by their heads, thus they see human existence as a zero-sum equation where someone has to lose for you to win. For them everything is black or white, right or wrong. They regard fence-sitting-seers-of-grey with contempt.

Throughout the 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration* we were treated to the monotone nattering drumbeat from ultra progressive partisans, ranting negatively about everything that "W" said or did. It was tiring but often laughable for the extremes that the Libs would go to find fault with the President.

Now the cons, apparently feeling that turnabout is fair play, are filling the blogosphere and airwaves with silly criticisms of everything Barack Obama has done since his inauguration. Examples abound:
He is blamed for the ineffectiveness of the economic stimulus package (which was started during Bush's term), he is blamed for not bringing the troops home, for supporting a surge in Afghanistan, and the record unemployment is clearly his fault - all accomplished in just 9 months in office!
Lately, the criticisms are even nastier. You would never know that the Christmas day Northwest underwear bomber failed to complete his mission if you listen to some Conservative commentators. They are falling all over themselves accusing Obama of crimes and misdemeanors, sins of omission, commission and admission.
It's laughable. They used to say of Bush "He kept us safe" because there were no successful repeats of the 911 terrorist attacks in the USA. But Obama has been criticised as weak because of recent reports of foiled plots. (Hello, Cheney himself testified that there were several foiled plots after 911.)

Cheney, Limbaugh, and others talk about the Christmas day incident as if the bomb had exploded. They say Obama doesn't care about the safety of Americans - Which is about as block headed as it gets.

Most Americans are not as worried about crazed terrorists as they are about getting ripped off by some identity thief or taxed to death by out-of-touch elite legislators.

The main thing for which Obama should be criticized is this abomination of legislation called health care reform. As a candidate, Obama promised transparency, but has been silent while his pals in congress concocted this monstrosity of a reform bill behind closed doors. Candidate Obama pledged not to sign any legislation with earmarks, ("...we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.") Yet, nothing has changed. Deals were made in exchange for votes. Obama has has failed in his promise to us on these most important issues.

Already, two prominent Dems in the senate, seeing the tide of public opinion swelling against them, have already said that they will not run (and probably lose) in the next term.

Times they are a-changin'






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I admit that I voted for George W. Bush both times. I'm still convinced that he was better than the opposition: 2000 Al Gore then 2004 Kerry for chrissakes. I've never liked Cheney; he always impressed me as the type of guy who would shoot you in the face after a couple of schnapps.

New Years Resolutions 2010

New Years resolutions are the tradition fodder for people who want to change something or accomplish some lofty goal. Studies* show that 75% of these resolutions become forgotten or abandoned within the first month. Virtually all resolutions fall by the wayside before 3 months have passed. Yet, being creatures of hope, people continue to dutifully write lists and consciously try to apply that self-discipline which is needed to reach the goal.

Generally my requisite resolutions repeat themselves from year to year: Travel more, write more, read good books, exercise and lose a few pounds, be nicer to telemarketers...and so on. In the past, these aspirations have evaporated like cat puke on a rug - within a few weeks.

But this year is different. This year, I did not make ANY resolutions. Thus I will not have to experience that gnawing sense of failure that most of you will feel as February draws to a close, and March rages like a lion, mocking your lack of productivity and weight loss. By April, you are slamming the phone down on telemarketers and beginning to hate that stack of unread books. Travel? Hah, June blows in like a lamb - and you have not even begun to plan that Cape vacation...

Not me, amigos. This year, instead of making resolutions we are making plans. We have already booked our getaway vacations for February in Florida and August on the Cape. Doubtless, by February I will be boasting that I am writing more, getting paid, losing weight, paying more attention to investments, reading good books, and learning a foreign language. By March, the taxes will be done, we will have trained the kitten NOT to jump on the counter and eat my eggs while I am taking a phone call. In June I will be counting my lottery winnings (and perhaps giving gift$ to my fans). By November we will be sending picture postcards back from Amalfi.

Yes, this is the year for accomplishment --- I can taste it like a 12 year old single malt scotch.


*The "Studies" I cite are - like most blog data - fictitious, fabricated to lend credence to specious factoids. (Papa always said never let the facts get in the way of a good story.)

Looking Forward to Another Fearful Decade

So here we are, witnessing the last few dessicated days of this decade drop one-by-one like leaves swirling into the storm drain of history.

One cannot help but compare our current media-stoked fears of melting ice caps and rising sea levels to the sense of trepidation (and in some cases - panic) that characterized the waning moments of the last decade.

Y2K
If you were working in IT and you were working for a company that had been around for more than five years, you were in some way involved with the desperate race to convert your legacy COBOL based Mainframe scatter-base business systems to the infinitely more complicated world of Client-Server, enterprise-wide, shared database environments. Nearly everyone was convinced that because some computer programs carried only the last two digits of the year, this would cause the entire infrastructure to a halt. Planes would fall out of the sky, elevators would get stuck between floors, automobiles wouldn't start.

It seems kind of silly now; nothing bad happened when the century did finally roll. Yet the fear that was generated by gurus and pundits caused businesses to spend trillions of dollars changing their perfectly adequate systems. Do you think the lack of reported disasters was the justification for all the remedial activity? Was there a monetary incentive for software companies and consultants to promote the fear of doing nothing?

Deja Vu?
One cannot help but see a similarity in the current Global Warming controversy. I say controversy because not everyone agrees that humans are substantially affecting climate change. Heck legitimate scientists even disagree on whether the temps are warming or cooling. But, which ever side you are on, you cannot help noticing that the dire warnings echo the fearmongering of the Y2K crisis. Most of us non-scientists find it easier to go with the consensus opinion. But we should remember that historically, consensus in scientific thought has generally been proven incorrect by the accumulation of more information. The data upon which the current global warming fears are based cannot be verified. Not very scientific, if you ask me. Again, we can see a monetary gain for industries that will benefit from selling green stuff. I am not suggesting that our energy policy is for sale. That would be cynical.

Y2K was not the only impending disaster of the millennium. Ten years ago, we were worried that the cloning of a sheep named Dolly would lead to Frankenstinian experiments and armies of warrior human clones, body part farming and a global market in spare body parts. No one wanted to eat genetically engineered corn, nor even steaks from cows that had been fed such scary food. Remember the Mad Cow disease panic? It ruined the US beef export market for years.

In 1999 we were worried about the war in Kosovo, we worried about the flare-up between nuclear powers India vs Pakistan. We worried that the Columbine massacre would spark more copycat mass shooters among Gen-Y malcontents. We were worried about WMD's in Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Most of these fears fizzled early in the new decade.

What Really Happened.
Who among us anticipated the debacle of the 2000 presidential election? The world watched while we learned about hanging chads in a ballot count dispute that raised the spectre of third-world style election fraud in Florida and other states. And, we were shocked and awed by the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington DC. This was followed by paralyzing terror in the form of Anthrax in the mail, and sniper attacks in DC/Virginia area. The war on terror drew into a long and costly occupation which has yet to end. Images of Katrina victims stranded on roofs in New Orleans compete with pictures of hundreds of homes destroyed by fires in LA. Oh, I almost forgot the near total collapse of the economy that virtually wiped-out half of our retirement nesteggs, sent millions of Americans to the unemployment line and worst of all - destroyed our faith in the integrity of the fat cats and politicians who run and oversee the system.

The summary point here: just about everything we were worried about in 1999 turned out OK and the real disasters were unforseen. Let us assume that the next decade will bring more surprises - that is indeed scary.

Have a predictable New Year!

Christmas 2009

No pony again this year.

Tis the Season.... to be Famous

In today's Globe, columnist Ellen Goodman writes an op-ed piece entitled "Whatever Happened to Shame?" which echoed my own musings in yesterday's blog. Goodman writes that anthropologists say that "shame comes from a violation of cultural norms". She goes on to cite several cases to demonstrate that the cultural norms seem to be shifting towards acceptance of the antics of the rich, famous and wannabees. Examples include the mistress (and rat) of Gov Spitzer has just landed a job as an advice columnist at The NY Post.
"Now they have hired the hooker to be an advice columnist. This is like hiring Bernie Madoff as a personal finance columnist." She also cites the cynical attitude of fat cat bankers who seem to have no sense of embarrassment when details of their greed are reported.

There was a story last week about Bernie Madoff in "prison" (his door is not even locked) where he is regarded by other felons as the "Godfather". Tiger Woods alleged girlfriends are showing up in droves, each eager for her 15 minutes of attention. Pols caught on camera taking bribes get re-elected. They justify their behavior declaring that everyone does it. Fame trumps shame. It's just part of the evolution (or is it devolution?) of cultural norms.

Collectively, we have accepted the premise that famous people can get away with stuff that would have embarrassed most of us, if our mothers had found out.

Heck, Nowadays, Mom proudly shows her tattoos for anyone at the mall to ogle while she is loudly talking on her cell phone ignoring her bratty kids who will, undoubtedly, grow-up to be shameless bratty adults.

'Tis the Season to be Greedy

Fa-la-la-la-lah La-la-la-lah.


I'm getting worried. Shame, the traditional weapon against corruption and abuse has been rendered ineffective - or so it seems to this wizened observer of the American scene.

While most of us are still tightening the old fiscal belt, bank executives, Wall Street fat cats, college presidents and politicians are unabashedly gorging themselves in a feast of excess.

In the news yesterday, the costs of congressional travel to conference in Scotland.  Our elected reps and spouses spent 5 days at a "conference", and spent taxpayer money like water from a firehose. 

Banks, Wall Street, GM are paying back billions in TARP money so they can continue to pay exorbitant bonuses to themeselves and cronies. They say the top execs are irreplacable but anyone who has worked in a successful company knows this is not true. No one is indespensible. And most of the important work is not done in Mahogany Row.   Besides that, most of the guys looking for bonuses were calling the shots when the economy tanked.  Aren't bonuses supposed to be a reward for success?

In his 2002 book Throwing the Elephant Stanley Bing presents a zen approach to managing the boss (the elephant). This observation (p172) is dead-on:

"Unlike you, the great elephants do not concern themselves with personal feelings because they have taught themselves to view the vast range of human interactions as 'just business', nothing more, and this distance gives them incalculable power."

So there you have it. The main reason execs have the perks is because they are a) smart and most importantly b) are not burdened by conscience.    Relieved of a sense of shame for their actions, there is no reason not to continue to claw and grab any money on the table because everyone else is doing it too.  Tough darts for the vast unwashed.  It's just business saith the Godfather, nothing personal. 

The problem is, we  (who still feel shame even when we undertip a waitress because of  lousy service)  are becoming personally revolted by these excesses - especially when it is on our backs.   

The great philosopher Tom Leher  nailed it in his Christmas Carol: 
"On Christmas day you can't get sore
Your fellow man you must adore
There's time to rob him all the more
the other three hundred and sixty-four..." 

Endangered Species

Just a few hours before he was to give a speech the other night, Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick cancelled a scheduled appearance at a local gathering of a men's club when he found out that women were excluded. Until this news item, I had never heard of The Clover Club either.

Today, the Boston Globe editorial praised Patrick for "Skipping boy's night out". The Globe thinks that it is evil for white males to get together to eat, drink and be merry.

On the other hand, the Globe thinks it is OK for women and "other minorities" to establish gender or even race-based clubs - because "there are substantial differences between a club that literally perpetuates an old-boy network and an organization formed to encourage networking among underrepresented groups." Really? Substantial differences?

The only difference I see is a double standard. Maybe the Globe needs to do a recount of who the minorities are these days. In 2009 English speaking white guys are out-numbered by "underrepresented groups."

I don't disagree with Gov Patrick making a personal statement about his participation at a club that excludes a selected group. What bothers me is the editorial assumption that people do not have the right to congregate with people who they feel most comfortable with - even if that means to exclude some groups of people. Secret societies, leagues, clubs, fraternities, associations, cults - Such groups have existed since men lived in caves.

It is clear that the government needs to intervene where "clubs" that are really fronts for criminal gangs, violence-preaching (eg, skinheads) or other illegal activity.
If the group is not conspiring to actively hurt nonmembers, leave them be.

These days, the government enforces a public policy of inclusion. Equal opportunity (ie, minority preference) is mandated at every level of federal, state and local organizations. Government and civil contracts, grants, job opportunities are all subject to affirmative action.

Family wise things have really changed. Women have (understandably) rebelled against their former role which primarily involved childcare, housewifery and provider of connubial bliss. Nowadays, the tables have turned.

Men long for the days when they were treated as kings of their castle, inscrutable Martians who were exempt from the hospital delivery room. Heck, they aren't even the principle breadwinners,anymore. Today, guys have to do everything women do: they are expected to come directly home after work instead of having a few pops at the local watering hole; in many cases they have to shop, cook, clean, watch the kids, etc. Most social engagements are still decided by women, friendships with other couples are dictated by females.
She "owns" all the rooms in the house; if he is good, she lets him have a corner where he can have a TV and a comfortable chair. She monitors his meals, drinks and wardrobe.

So what is wrong with a bunch of guys getting together a few times a year to smoke cigars, tell dirty jokes and have a few drinks.

It used to be The American Way.

Not H1N1

Not to worry. I probably have a common cold, according to a licensed health care professional with whom I have had recent intercourse. (No, not the Tiger Woods kind of intercourse - you people really need to get a dictionary).

Also this diagnosis did not come from my social network of self-appointed health experts (i.e., everyone with an opinion and an email account). They didn't need a stinking diagnosis to offer a cure: "Take antibiotics", "Gargle with salt water", "Bury a dead cat under an elm tree in the moonlight" they tell me. "Leeches", "Irish Whiskey", "Juice", "Seaweed" they shout.

Just a common cold: Tell that to my throat and sinuses; they obviously think that they are entitled to a more interesting diagnosis. But beyond coughing and sneezing there is No fever, no gastrointestinal problems (i.e., probably not the flu & not a bacterial infection).

The Irish whiskey cure seems like it would be worth a shot, I argue. There might be some basis in medicine. After all the alcohol kills bacteria, right? Then Reality pours cold water on that track. A cold is caused by a virus, not a bacteria. Still, the nurse distinctly said to "Drink lots of fluids." My wife - who does not have a medical degree - insists that the nurse meant water-based fluids. I argue that whiskey is 80% water.

This is just another instance of a situation where everyone thinks they know what you should do.

But, in fact, no one knows really knows anything for certain. The Internet is full of conflicting information. One expert says to use hand sanitizers to kill cold and flu germs. Another expert says that rhino virus (common cold) thrives on alcohol! Some experts say wash your hands with hot soapy water long enough to sing "Happy Birthday" Another news item says it doesn't matter if the water is hot. To kill germs you need water to be boiling hot.

Anyway, thanks for all your get well cards and letters - and well-intended advice, however wrong and misguided.

Cough cough

Looks like I am in the grip of one of the many animal flu's that are "going around". Not bad enough to go to Dr., but bad enough to make me miss the Thanksgiving gathering at my daughter's on Thursday.

In the old days, I'd have just taken a cough suppressant dutifully arrived and mingled with the other unsuspecting guests, spreading deadly pathogens with every handshake and hug. Nowadays, with heightened awareness, I felt nobler by staying home in self imposed quarantine, mollifying myself by watching Football on TV. (I think it is the first time I have missed T-day in my adult life.) Will other family members appreciate my selflessness or will they think of me as a wimp?

My wife was feeling fine on Thursday morning and went without me (she was bringing the stuffing, turkey gravy and of course a cake) and she had a nice time. She brought me home a nice plate of turkey and fixin's. They say "feed a fever", right? Or is it the other way round? Anyway, I did get my dinner, reheated in the microwave, though I missed the warmth of family and friends.

My sense that I was contagious was justified when, alas, yesterday evening - after a full day of mandatory post-Thanksgiving-Day-frenzy-shopping - my wife began coughing and sneezing. Today, she is feeling the way I felt on Thursday, and is staying in bed to rest. I feel a bit better today. Hopefully, I am on-the-mend after 4 days of malaise, so now I can make* chicken soup for her.

[*open can, pour in pan, heat and serve]

Time to End Legal Dishonesty

Except for the cost, I don't have any complaints about my health insurance. So "reform" is a misnomer. Instead of actually improving things for all citizens, the current health care bill should be called "Situation Normal - Fouled-up and Getting Worse."

Instead of creating more complex monster laws, lawmakers ought to be figuring-out how to make life more simple, more fair and to protect us from getting ripped-off.

If these guys want to reform something, how about the IRS? The tax laws are too complex for an ordinary citizen to comprehend and yet there are loopholes through which high-priced tax accountants can drive a luxury yacht.

How about truth in pricing? For some reason, the Law thinks it is OK for companies to lie about the actual cost of their products.

• Banks. We have been conditioned to accept the phony and usurious mortgage rate calculation formula which loads all the interest into the front of the loan. No peeps you aren't paying 6% on your mortgage. Over 30 years you actually pay more than 200% (do the math: if you borrow $100,000, you pay back $215,838!)
• Credit Card Companies. They promise you great deals, cash back schemes, cash advances and low rates to seduce you and then charge you exorbitant late fees and raise your interest rate to impossible limits.
• The travel industry is another big offender. They lie to you about the price of an airline ticket, omitting taxes, surcharges and fees - which can add-up to a significant delta between advertised price and net amount. Rental car costs are almost humorous when you tick off the multiple exceptions to the advertised price (airport fees, recovery fees, usage surtax, local taxes, and on and on).
• Telephone companies. Are permitted by law to send you an incomprehensible bill, which no person can reasonably be expected to understand. The buried fees and charges boggle the mind in their variety and silliness.
• Utility Bills. Ditto.

So, my point is, maybe our elected representatives would serve us better if they protected us from some of these daily assaults on our net worth. I am not asking the government to control prices, mind you; all I am demanding is honesty.

Here are a few changes I would make if I were the Emperor:

• Eliminate fine print. The text of all contracts, ads and legal documents would be in 12 point normal Ariel font.
• Plain English. All commercial and legal documents must be composed using language that a high school graduate can understand.
• Fees or surcharges will be illegal; all costs must be included in the advertised price of all products and services. Handling charges will be illegal. Shipping charges must reflect the actual cost to ship the item.
• Applicable Taxes must be clearly stated in every ad. The final net price must be prominently displayed.
• Credit card fraud and ID theft will be punished severely. Full restitution to victims will be required by the perpetrators by liquidating all assets.
• Political ads would be forbidden. This eliminates the need for political contributions. Elections will be based on Facebook Profiles. Lobbyists would be hanged if they refused to get real jobs.
• Class action suits would be illegal; civil negligence awards would be capped at projected cost of necessary medical care and actual property damages.
• Rebates, cash back, and other phony gimmicks would be banned.
• Companies that produce pop-up ads will be fined heavily.

This would be just for starters.

The End of the Era is Near

The recent announcement by A.G. Eric Holder to bring the Sept 11 terrorists to civilian trial in NYC is astounding -- not only because it defies common sense, but also because if anything goes wrong, the shit will fly directly on President Obama.

By anything going wrong, I mean: Acquittal, more terrorist attacks, revealing damaging information which compromises US intelligence activities, lengthy PR appearances by defendants, and obligatory media circus. In other words, there is almost zero chance that at the end, reasonable people will say, "Ah, justice was served."

The more credible result is that the majority of the American voting public will conclude that Mr. Obama has terrible judgement. They will recall the bad fellas that he associated with in the past, and the poor choices he has made in appointing Holder and Geitner, not to mention the choice of Biden as VP. Despite having a filibuster proof congress He has failed to accomplish any of his major campaign promises, and this monstrosity of a health care reform bill will be remembered - if it gets passed - as the worst piece of lawmaking since prohibition.

Thus, I am predicting the end of the Obama era, starting with the terrorist trial. The Republicans will sweep in the legislature next year, by promising to undo the bloated health care reform bill, and Obama will be back in Chicago looking for a new house in 2012. The slogan for the election: "Obama Lied; Hope Died."

You heard it here first.

Macho Conservatives Bow to No Man

It is amusing to see how culturally sensitive the NeoCons are these days. Everywhere you look today they are yammering about Obama's break with US protocol, because he bowed too low to the Japanese royals.

Well, at least he didn't refer to them as "Your imperial Majesties," as Richard Nixon did during his 1971 meeting (in Alaska) with Hirohito and his wife. And he didn't puke on his host, like George H Bush did on the Japanese Prime Minister in 1992.

Conservatives would love to go back to the old days when guys like Obama would not even be admitted to the local country club, much less represent our nation as the Leader of the free world. They yearn for the days when people knew the rules and knew their place.

They were silent as GW Bush alienated everyone in the solar system with his swaggering cowboy approach to world politics. You are either with us or with the terrorists! Hey Fraulein, how about a little neck massage. Talk about embarrassing.

These macho keyboard warriors, most of whom have managed to evade any form of national service, ironically urge the most bellicose position for the US (which policy would be enforced by your son, not theirs) call themselves patriots and accuse anyone who disagrees with narrow views and their stiff-pants arrogance as "America haters." This is amusing because it is the neocons who actually despise the majority of their countrymen.

Instead of imagining a world where nations try to coexist, conservatives prefer the world filled with strife. The mantra "We're number one and the rest of you suck!" is a losing slogan for the next century. Sabre rattling and waterboarding will not stop terrorism.

"My flag must be higher than your flag," they say to the world. Apparently, they have not learned the lessons of history: all empires fall, the world must change, and conservatives because of their rigidity always lose to progressives in the end.

What conservatives fail to comprehend is that their view of a black and white, zero-sum, right and wrong world is flawed, because it leads logically to doomsday. If Obama errs a little by being too polite how much damage can that cause?

Doing Nothing is Definitely an Option

The other day Bill Clinton joined the chorus of talking heads that are lecturing us "Doing nothing (about healthcare reform) is not an option." The Democrats have recently voted to pass into law the 2000 page monstrosity that The Wall Street journal calls "the worst bill ever." Granted the WSJ is no fan of Obama-care, but sheesh, this statement gets my attention. "In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago..."

The political world is becoming increasingly un-rational. The Dem leadership have been scary in their monomaniacal pursuit of something called Health Care Reform. They say that they want to extend health care insurance to the uninsured, which is indeed a noble objective. 5 double spaced typewritten pages would be enough to describe the changes necessary to accomplish that goal.

The problem here is the flaw of all design-by-committee proposals. You know what they say about a camel being a horse which was designed by a committee. The problem with committees is that rationality becomes lost to politics. The initial goal, however worthy, is subordinated to the wishes of the most powerful person in the room. Votes based on principle or logic are changed to votes based on perceived approval by the person who is in power to dispense future favors. The larger the group, the less personal responsibility for outcomes is assumed by committee members.

Obama and Pelosi have been urging rapid action, yet have been incapable of defining the specific outcomes of the laws they would foist upon the public. This is insanity.

How anyone is supposed to make sense out of a law that is so big that my PC jammed-up trying to download the bill in PDF format? No, I haven't read it. But I am nervous about some of the problems that are being raised by the opponents of the current bill:
- Stiff penalties for electing not to be insured - substantial cash fines and even felonious jail time .
What happened to freedom? The goal of helping people who need help has been perverted to
totalitarianism. We know what is good for you. Submit, or else....
- Cost - It is unclear how the current bill will reduce healthcare costs for the majority of working and retired citizens. I fear that we will be charged more money for less access than we have now. How is that fair? Or rational?

Fortunately, the Senate has to vote on this bill before it becomes law. We can only hope that some force brings our solons to their senses. When I see the four Democratic candidates for Senate arguing for the plan because it is what Ted Kennedy would have wanted, it makes me nervous.

Today they are bickering over reproductive rights. They should be discussing how to simplify the problem of funding health insurance for citizens who need it and want it.

Politics As Usual

Here in Massachusetts, we are often forced to witness the ugly workings of cynical politics. Following the death of Ted Kennedy, there was a hue and cry from the local democrats that the world would certainly come to a disastrous end, if we waited until the special election in January to fill Kennedy's seat.


The Democratic Governor Deval Patrick saw the urgency and quickly appointed a party loyalist in an emergency measure to not suffer the 4 months of senatorial vacancy. The argument was that we absolutely needed a special appointee to represent our interests. (Some cynicals opined that Pres. Obama wanted to be assured of a filibuster proof voting bloc just in case the congress was able to get its act together on health care).


Last week we had to watch our most absentee senator in history (Kerry) is wandering around the world trying to upstage Hillery Clinton. How can he be away from his desk during this critical moment? What happened to the emergency? Have they no shame!
========

Last night there was a debate among the 4 candidates for Ted Kennedy's seat. The election will be held in January 2010. I was disappointed that all of them assumed that all democratic voters wanted a Ted Kennedy clone in the senate. All the candidates were soft in illegal immigration, very supportive of President Obama's agenda and against the wars.

I actually have to agree with them about the wars. We can never succeed in Afghanistan or Iraq if our mission is to ensure democracy. It cannot happen. Thousands of years of tribal strife will not go away just because we hoisted an American flag over the embassy and installed a leader who seems to pass our leadership test. Our military mission should not be Daddy to the World. The military should not be wasted trying to spread democracy; Bush was right in his assertion that the original mission was accomplished. Afghanistan was purged of Al Quaida; Iraq does not have WMD's. The threat is over. What we are doing now is futile. Bring the troops home.
Just my opinion. Don't shoot me.

Unfuzzy math

I just did the math - $250 times 57 Million. Where $250 is the one-time gift that president Obama is proposing to send each social security recipient in lieu of a cost of living increase, and 57 million is the number of current SS recipients.

The answer is $14 Billion.

As one of those would-be recipients, I am compelled to ask "WTF?"

Much as I like the idea of a lagniappe, there is no logic to support this type of un-necessary government expense on the backs of working folks. $250 can't buy squat. It would make zero difference in my life style, other than incenting me to buy a case of good wine, probably French.

So how does it make sense, when the cost of living (measured by inflation) has actually gone down since last year?

Unless, you think that Obama might see this as a grand scheme to buy 57 million votes in the next election...hmmn.

Wait, I just did another calculation. Me and the missus together would get $500. Now you are talking real money.

But who, ultimately, will pay for this publicity stunt? Hmmn.

Good Idea going Bad?

With all the political blather about health care reform in the news, I remain skeptical that if the thousands of pages of legislative mumbo jumbo will result in a benefit to any tax-paying citizen - much less my family. The idea of helping poor folks get medical treatment at a reasonable cost seems like a good thing, but there must be a simpler way.

Since no one seems to know what the final proposal will say, I feel pretty certain that the result of "reform" will cost me more and reduce the level of service I am getting today.

I fear that the noble objective of "reform" will mutate to appeasement of the many special interests, and once again we will end-up with a costly set of new regulations that no one - including the people who vote on it - understands.

As they say down at the local gas station "If it's broke, and you don't know nuthin' 'bout 'chinery, don't mess with it."

Myth Informed

Pardon me if I am not in the mood to celebrate Columbus Day today. I know what you are thinking: Hey, when you are retired, every day is a holiday. Or, Perhaps you speculate that I am a bit dejected because I had the misfortune of watching losing performances by BOTH the Red Sox and the Patriots yesterday on TV.
While these are indeed valid observations on your part, they are not the reason for my non-celebratory mood. I am bummed-out by too much information.
One of the prevalent myths of my youth was the celebration of the birthday of of a valiant explorer seeking to find an efficient trade route to the East. While the rest of the world thought the world was pancake flat, Christopher Columbus persuaded the royals of Spain to subsidize his crazy idea of heading West to end-up in the East.In 1492, with his trusty ships, The Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria, he left Spain and did not fall off the edge of the Earth. He ended-up in the Caribbean. Thinking he had found the West Indies, he claimed discovery of a New World, called the indigenous peoples "Indians" showed them how to cook turkey in a deep fryer and traded a few beads in exchange for New Amsterdam.
(Ok, I never got good grades in history but I got most of the story right.)
It always seemed like a pretty good story to me. Courageous explorer, hero, visionary. Noble stuff.

But, now we discover that he was not such a nice guy. He was a self-serving tyrant (much like many of my former bosses). He did not prove the world was round since he did not actually find India (so the earth could technically have still been flat). Besides, it turns out that the flat-earth myth was invented in the 19th century by malevolent historians. During Columbus' time, scientists were well-aware that the earth was round. We were never taught that the Columbus agenda included bringing the gift of Christianity to the heathen, and that he subsequently gave the poor natives the most unwanted gift: smallpox (in return, sailors brought a nice little thank-you gift from the New World - syphilis which was hitherto unknown in Spain. You can google all these facts if you want. I find it depressing to learn that this fine hero of my youth was really wrong (and lost) most of the time.

Some modern descendants of the original inhabitants of the New World refuse to acknowledge Columbus as a hero and do not observe his birthday as a holiday. They decry the fact that this should be considered a day for Americans to celebrate. Perhaps I should go to the Casino today to say thank you for giving us New York.

You gotta have Hope

A lot of debate about the Nobel prize going to Obama . Some people think that the award was based on hopes and expectations. I dunno about you, but my hopes have been raised. Perhaps in the next round they'll award the Nobel in literature to someone who has never published anything longer than 800 words.

It could happen.

Ten Four

Some people still stay up late watching TV on Saturday nights hoping to find a laugh or two. Last night on SNL, the opening skit depicted President Obama (Fred Armison) addressing those right wing critics who portray him as an arrogant power monger who is bent on leading the country down the path of Socialism and/or Fascism.
The Armison-Obama character tries to clarify, citing a list of un-fulfilled promises, demonstrating that he has actually had very little impact of the lives of Americans. Closed Gitmo? No. Out of Iraq? No. Health care Reform? Hell no. And so-on. The clip will be viral in the news this week so keep an eye-out.

It is a double-whammy joke because it depicts his critics as hand wringing slippery slope Jeremiahs - and Obama as just another do-nothing politician. Pretty good satire and irony in the same package.

For those who speak twitter, It was LOL funny, but not rolling on the floor funny (ROTFL).

===

Facts Are Stubborn Things

If you do an Internet search on the phrase "Facts are stubborn things" you will find that the cyberworld is full of conflicting information. You get about 60,000 hits. Within the first dozen citations, the quote is attributed to John Adams, Mark Twain, Ronald Regan, Lawrence Peters, and several unknown French guys. So much for stubborn facts, eh?

This, in a nutshell, is the problem for seekers of Truth ever since Al Gore invented the Internets. There is too much conflicting data, misinformation and outright malicious fabrication. As Lincoln observed, "It is easy to fool most of the people most of the time. "

Guys like Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart make their living maliciously distorting the words and deeds of anyone of the other side of their political ideology. They may think they are doing it for entertainment, but too many of their fans miss the humor and believe anything they hear from the lips of their guru.

We do not know who we can trust to tell the truth. The stubborn facts are buried deep in the mine and we do not have time to go in and dig them out ourselves. Google and other search engines are constantly gamed by special interests and clever marketers to make their interest-friendly results appear near the top of the list of returned hits.

Like me, most seekers-of-truth are in a hurry for enlightenment. So, we usually abandon our online research after viewing a few pages of search results. We click on the one or two that seem to agree with our preconceived notions. If the writing is intelligible, and it supports our point-of-view, we hyper-link it to verify our source. We shamelessly ignore contradictory data.

The problem remains:

“Facts are ventriloquists dummies. Sitting on a wise man's knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense, or indulge in sheer diabolism.” Aldous Huxley. At least, I think he was the one who said it.

The enemy of my enemy is my - huh?

Interesting news item today: Another long video rant was released yesterday. This one took aim at President Obama. "America has come in a new, hypocritical face. Smiling at us, but stabbing us with the same dagger that Bush used," said Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri in the message.

So now the conservative Obama haters in this country have finally found common ground - with Al-Quaida.

Death Panels

Today in the Boston Globe there was a seemingly innocuous item that clearly confirms the worst fears of neocons and their brethren skinheads who protest loudly against what they call the government takeover of health care because it would enable Obama to kill your grandmother legally.

The title of the piece "Seniors largely spared of swine flu threat" reported by AP (of course) was cynically designed to allay the fears that seniors (generally defined as those age 65 and above) might feel about the threat level Orange PANDEMIC THAT IS SWEEPING THE GLOBE.

The body of the story consisted mostly of quotes from the un-informed ramblings of geezers who just wanted somebody to talk to. But if you read it carefully (as your humble scribe is wont to do) there was one statement that jumped out like a zombie in a horror flick:

"Federal guidelines call for the new H1N1 vaccine to be given first to pregnant women, those who live with or care for children 6 months or younger, health care workers, people age 6 months through 24, and people with chronic health problems or compromised immune systems. Only after shots are offered to those groups will the vaccine be available to healthy adults 64 or younger. After that, seniors, age 65 or older, would be eligible."

Despite the fact that this is badly written prose, the message is crystal clear: this is exactly the sort of health care rationing that conservatives say leads down the slippery slope to the feared Death Panels. If they can do it with flu vaccine, they can do it with knee replacements and vitally-needed medicine like Viagra.


This kind of healthcare policy, based upon scientific medical research of potential risk is obviously one of Obama's stealth weapons to kill old people and further his Socialist Agenda.

You Lie!

Can't we all just get along? The flap over South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's speech on health care reform will not go away. Self righteous Dems are outraged by this unprecedented breach of decorum, (conveniently forgetting at least one incident in 2005 where George W was roundly jeered during one of his speeches.)

I am in the camp of those who APPROVE of audience reactions. I have long been a fan of those rowdy legislators in UK and Canada who loudly hiss and groan when the speechifying gets too bloviacious. Isn't disapproval every bit as legitimate as applause? If not, please tell me why not?

Let me be clear, I do NOT condone heckling, hectoring or attempts to drown out a speaker. I love the civil way they do it it UK. The representative from Northern Sussex asks whether the Prime Minister is planning to do anything about overcrowding in the schools of his district. The PM answers with some insipid declaration about no child will be left behind. At this point, the loyal opposition jeers for the requisite one-Mississippi, two Mississippi seconds, the gavel bangs and they shut-up to let the rep from the North continue his inquiry. "So the PM admits that he will continue his policy of abusing schoolchildren..." Laughter and groaning erupts in the hall for two seconds silenced by the gavel.

Now this is civilized debate, not the stilted and stuffy "decorum" practiced in the US House and Senate. Note that the British opposition would never say "You Lie!" More likely they would say, "It is well known that the president has a gift for not telling the Truth." You have to admit, the third person feels less offensive. And there is a sense of politics as a sort of professional sport.

In 2008 during a press conference in Iraq, an Arab journalist called President Bush a liar and threw both of his shoes at the surprised W (who deftly ducked the missiles). The shoe-throwing incident was considered humorous by the Bush-haters (ie, Democrats).

I'm pretty sure that the thinkers who wrote the US Bill of Rights would agree with me that the right to heckle, harass, throw objects at, or shout-down any speaker should NOT be guaranteed when the speaker legitimately has the floor. A little spirited booing and guffawing are definitely allowed.

This morning, the newspaper says that Senior Black Democratic leaders in congress are going to demand a public apology by Wilson. The implication is, of course, Wilson shouted because Obama is black. The other day, there was an article in the NYT discussing continued the racial divide in America. Co-author Barbara Erenreich writes "WHAT do you get when you combine the worst economic downturn since the Depression with the first black president? A surge of white racial resentment, loosely disguised as a populist revolt..." Now this is potent stuff because it makes a lot of sense - especially to those who see racism in every conflict of interest. If you don't agree with Obama it must be because he is black, right?

It is too easy to accuse others of latent racism, but it really doesn't stick. The real and pernicious problem going on here is extreme partisan idealism on both sides. Today we regard those who believe in different policy as blood enemies, not political opponents.

Republicans say that their suggestions and amendments to the health care reform have not been given consideration by the Democratic majority leaders. They are opposed to government run health care. The President was indeed not telling the whole truth about the illegal immigrant healthcare coverage, because the bill under consideration does not require any checks on the legal status of applicants.

A reasonable person might wish that the President be more specific about what health care reform means, and why the Republicans and Libertarians should not fear it. I myself LOL'd when the President said that the measures he was speaking about would not affect the deficit. His credibility with me sank a few fathoms on that one.

Anyhow, the thing is most of us think that it would be great if poor people could get health care insurance. Most of us do not think it should take over 1,000 pages to describe the legal changes that are needed to accomplish that end. If these guys can't do it in 5 double spaced pages, they should resign. It isn't rocket science.

Finally, the shoe-thrower in Iraq was released from prison today. He has an invitation from Hugo Chavez to come and live in Venezuela. I have a feeling we are going to see more of this guy. Twenty bucks for the person who can post a Utube video of al-Zaidi getting a pie in the face. That's the American way.

The subtle Joy of being Unstructured

I got an email from an former colleague who, like me, uses Linkedin as a career-related social networking site (real men do not use Facebook). He commented about the update that I had posted recently saying that I had left my part time job. I think he was a little bit surprised that someone would voluntarily leave a job during these hard times.

I replied:
"Yes I decided that job was not for me. The pay was $12 per hour and although I only worked 20 hours a week, I had to work 3 out of 4 Saturdays. It was mainly a retail mentality: people are interchangeable parts, no sense of humor or opinions appreciated by the management, autocratic bosses, archaic processes, demanding, but clueless customers, shall I go on? Besides, I wanted to take the Summer off to allow time to help my wife watch the grandsons 7 and 9, who were not going to camp this year. We had them for two or three overnights every week in July and August. They were exhausting to keep up with, but it was more fun than going to work, I assure you.

"IF (big if) I ever go back to work, it will be in some admin or professional organization, part-time, earning at least $20 an hour, no weekends, a buxom & attractive secretary, an office with a door and a lock (for privacy during 'conferences' with secretary.) No commute, no elevators, no staff meetings and no status reports.

"If that is too much to ask, then I will just stay retired: staying-up late watching TV, sleeping till nine every morning, having a leisurely breakfast (involving chicken and pork products), reading the paper, planning the rest of the day."

As I wrote these words, I began to realize that I am doing just fine without a job. I had often stated that a man needs work in his life. And I was convinced that I needed the structure and sociability of a formal workplace. But, as time passes I am becoming more comfortable with the prospect of full retirement and the subtle joy of not being structured.

For example, it is 10:40am and I am dressed; I have had my weekly shower and shave. I've fed the cats, read the Globe, eaten a bacon toast sandwich, drank 3 cups of Starbucks Cafe Verona, and spent a half hour answering email. If it wasn't raining, I probably would be outside, finishing my painting activities, but I am in no real hurry; I can finish next week (or the next). Later this afternoon, perhaps I will mosey down to the cheap haircut place and get a senior cut for $11.95 plus tip. (When I was working my haircuts at the fancy salon cost $35. (I did look good, but these days looking good is an unnecessary luxury). Most of the day will be amiably frittered and puttered away. I didn't get my morning walk because of the weather, but who knows - it might clear up.

Tomorrow, assuming a partly sunny day, I plan to go fishing with a buddy. Striped bass for dinner! Ok, if this outing is as bad as my last day of fishing , I may have to stop at the fish market on my way home.

Last week turned out to be pretty full too. Got my teeth cleaned, repaired a broken washer arm on the dishwasher, saw my children and grandchildren, went for walks every day, scraped and painted the east side of the house, cut down an overgrown yew that was blocking a window, spent Sunday at Little Compton, R.I. eating and drinking with friends, had a day-trip to York, Maine with my wife, did laundry, went to the dump, read a book, and so-on. Nothing remunerative or remarkable, but not so bad....


Hey, It's stopped raining, I gotta go take a walk.

Irony in the Details

Lately I've noticed that there is an ironic connection in disparate news fragments. If you saw the movie "3 days of the Condor" you might relate to my sense that there are subtle messages in the innocent seeming data that even the nitpickers among us usually overlook in their quest to find garmmar and spelling errors.

For example, if you closely read the section in the paper that is titled "Recent Bird Sightings" I'll bet that among those seemingly mundane counts of spotted grebes and lesser plovers there is a secret code which terrorist cells use to monitor troop movements and plot secret missions.

And those Legal Notices...did anyone ever actually read one? Surely these incomprehensible statements are part of some sort of evil scheme to overthrow all that we hold decent and holy.

Every day it seems they are printing another of those global pandemic charts. Are they trying to scare us? Some people insist that the new flu be referred to by the name H1N1 rather than "swine flu." Apparently, every time some talking head on TV mentions the "SWINE FLU" porkbelly futures go into the dumpster. So of course, all the lobbyists for pork products are writing letters to the editor decrying the use of the term "SWINE FLU" since you can't get it from eating bacon - thank God for that! The TV Doctors say that we should stop shaking hands, hugging and kissing. Just wash your hands, they say, and sneeze into your armpit and everything will be ok.


But back to my main point about patterns in recent news items:

First we have the open senate seat, left vacant by Senator Kennedy's recent death. Just before his untimely demise, Kennedy initiated a campaign to urge the state legislature to reverse a law that he, himself had promoted back when Kerry was running for president. At that time Mitt Romney (a Republican) was the duly elected Governor. At that time, Mass law held that if a US Senatorial seat became vacant, the Governor would appoint a temporary Senator to fill the vacancy, until such time as a special election could be arranged. fearing that Romney would appoint an odious Republican to the seat, Kennedy and others convinced the Democratic majority of state legislators to change the law, which they did. Ironically, there was no need of the change, since Kerry was defeated by George Bush in the general election.
Fast forwarding to the present day, we in Massachusetts now have a Democratic Governor (Deval Patrick), and a vacant Senatorial seat. (The special election will be January, 2010)
Now, the cynical hypocrites see that the original change was a 'mistake' that should be rectified quickly. John Kerry, the sudden senior Senator and shameless gadabout, has betaken himself away from Washington DC to urge local lawmakers to fix this mistake. During his impassioned speech, Kerry asserted that Mass needs to have representation. Someone on the other side noted that Kerry had missed 90% of the votes during his run for the Presidency. (Ouch, irony can be a painful petard) Furthermore, one cannot help observing that the late Senator Ted was debilitated for the past year, and had not been present for many votes and hearings. Summarizing: Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.

An unrelated Irony: In the Boston Globe today there was a letter to the editor complaining about a recent cartoon that mocked the hype surrounding the SWINE FLU pandemic. The letter writer, who identified himself as a "risk communications consultant", castigates the Globe for printing an "extraordinarily dangerous" cartoon that implied that the pandemic was a lot of hype. Hmm. Here, I was thinking that it was a good thing that the newspaper was printing opposing opinions. By the way, the humorous content of cartoons can be lost on one whose ox is getting gored. Pardon me if I sound cynical but I would bet a Boston Creme donut that the risk communications consultant is getting checks from the H1N1 Pandemic State of Fear lobby. Ironically, you are more likely to die in your SUV on the highway going to the doctor for your swine flu shot(s) than you are to die of the swine flu, even though you will probably contract it.

In a related item, someone should have told President Obama, ix-nay on the issing-kay during last night's prime time televised speech, which was (ironically) about healthcare. During those tedious pre- and post-speech bouts of handshaking, hugging and kissing, all I could think of was what a great way to spread the flu. Maybe it would be a good thing if no one was able to show-up to vote for a few weeks. Everytime they vote on something it costs us money.

I gotta go wash my hands.

Nitpicker Wanted

Perusing craigslist for suitable part-time employment, I came across an ad looking for a nitpicker . No kidding. There actually is a lucrative career opportunity for an experienced person.

Some of my critics might want to apply....

Obama's Socialist Agenda

I hope some of those who wanted to squelch the feared Obama Back-to-school speech are feeling a little bit embarrassed this morning. That would indicate that they are decent and smart enough to feel shame over their silly statements.

Their unbecoming shrieks of horror at the thought of The (duly elected) President's intention to address the school children of the nation were solely based upon a perverted interpretation of the press release. They were reacting (or should I say 'over-reacting') to what they thought he was going to say, not what he did say.

These same people - who have accused Obama and the liberal conspiracy of stomping on the first amendment - now think that it is OK to shut (and shout) down opponents based on what they might say.

They characterise themselves as 'Patriots', but really, they are the dis-loyal opposition to anything Obama. They confuse loyalty to an ideology with patriotism. Sadly they have stopped seeking truth, balance and fairness. Their credibility is in the trash bin.

Obama's message was very controversial: Stay in school; Don't give up; You can succeed.

If this is Socialism, sign me up.

Another Reason Why I Did Not Enter "The Best Tomato" Contest

One of the uninvited guests to my garden this years was this tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta as identified by its red horn is not to be confused with its equally voracious cousin - the tomato hornworm (Manduca quinquemaculata) - which sports a black horn and slightly different markings. Often found together, they grow into large caterpillars - about the size of your middle finger. (The ultimate insult!)


It is an eating machine that defoliates plants and eats the fruit as well. It can cause a lot of damage in just a few days on tomato plants because it strips leaves that are needed to shade the ripening tomatoes.



The good news is that they have a natural enemy (other than the gardener). The enemy is a parasitic wasp that lays eggs on the caterpillar. The eggs hatch and start to feed on the caterpillar, killing it. The bottom picture is the same hornworm a few days later, covered with wasp cocoons. The crops are saved!

Finally, with the first frost date for Northeast gardens approaching quickly, we have managed to pick a few ripening tomatoes. I pick them when they first start to blush pink and let them ripen indoors. If I do not do this, the squirrels will come and take the red ones.

Homegrown tomatoes will fully ripen in 2-3 days inside in a warm place, unlike the tasteless things you buy at the supermarket, which have been bred for long shelf-life.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the attributes that give longer shelf-life and those that produce wonderful flavor.

Wimoweh

Ted Kennedy was a consummate politician . Having emerged from the shadow of his notable brethren, he was a popular senator (46 years in the senate) and a lightning rod for trouble and controversy.

My father was a staunch Democrat and Kennedy supporter, and he was proud to display the Christmas card we got from newly minted Senator Teddy back in the 60's. It stayed on the mantel long into the summer. Even then, I knew that holiday greeting had cost my father a few bucks in campaign contributions.

As I grew older, I grew away from party loyalty. I became disillusioned by the influence of special interests, and tired of schoolyard partisan bickering. I proudly declared myself an independent. But, in truth I had become cynical and about politicians and apathetic about politics. I felt then and still believe that most politicians are in it for the glory and gold, and regardless of their affiliation, they are not to be trusted. Any casual search of the news at any given time will affirm that my distrust is well placed.

I have not been happy with the representation of my state in the senate for many years. Rich guys like Kennedy and Kerry are old school politicians with no new ideas. Furthermore, they cannot identify with the lives of their constituents. Few of us can identify with guys who spend their weekends partying with the rich and famous, sailing on huge boats and who can do pretty much anything they want. Then, feeling guilty about their privilege, they cast their votes for the most socialistic measures (if they bother to go back to DC to vote.)

Despite this, I must relate that I have a special warm feeling for Ted Kennedy. In 1990, I was working for a company that had been acquired by a firm from California. The new management came into town and "cleaned house." I and a few dozen other managers came to work one morning to find ourselves laid off, with gray envelopes containing a severance agreement.

I had been working there for less than a year but the standard severance for lay-off was 1 month's pay. But the new management were surprised by the recent Kennedy sponsored "Plant Closing Law" which demanded that the employees get 30 days notice before a lay-off. Since we had already been terminated, the new company had to kick-in another month's pay. For that extra month, I had Ted Kennedy to thank.

The rest of them I would not trust to change the oil on my van. Someone should check to see where Hillary Clinton was last night. She was none too happy when Ted endorsed BO during the primary fights.