The First Surfer

About 61 years ago I was a student at Redondo High in Southern California, one of several high schools that had been attended by Charles Lindbergh (not that I knew it) and would eventually be attended by the famous Traci Lords (porn actress). My friends and I were body surfers, but the real Jeff Spicolis in the school were three or four board surfers who were--and who knew this?-- part of a long tradition. The father of California surfing, the half-Hawaiian George Freeth (1883-1919), had brought board surfing to Redondo and Venice, California, in 1907. He was the first. Freeth was a surfing teacher and innovative leader of lifeguards. Today forgotten, he was a huge sensation until his death in 1919 in the Spanish flu epidemic described in Katherine Anne Porter's classic "Pale Horse, Pale Rider." But the city eventually remembered Freeth and erected a bronze statue of him on the Redondo Pier. The statue was stolen by metal thieves in 2008 and replaced in 2010.

Snott

Everyone is talking about something Mitt Romney's son said the other day. The son's name is Blapp, I think, but it might be Fragg or Lipp or Glopp. I am not good at remembering names, particularly if I'm hearing them for the first time and don't expect to hear them again . . . ever. Also I tend to mix up Romney's kids, with names like Blipp or Flitt, with Sarah Palin's kids, with names like Targg and Snott.

Romney has a handsome family, four sons, I believe, with lantern jaws and eyes like diamonds. I've seen them on TV. One of them, Snott, was quoted as saying that his father--Mitt Romney--had never wanted to run for President. I suspect that Snott is the same dude who offered to beat up Obama. 

Snott has given us the key insight pundits have been waiting for. Snott explains why his father ran poorly. It's not that his father would refuse to serve if elected (General Sherman once said that). Mitt Romney would not mind being President--he just didn't want to run for the office. I understand that. In fact, I feel the same way. I am willing to serve as President if I don't have to run. Running is ugly work. You have to be polite to idiots who come to rallies waving empty revolvers and you have to pretend that Newt Gingrich and John McCain are quite likable. You have to get out of bed early. You find out that half the voters automatically hate you for no reason, and some of the worst bloggers will make fun of your name and your stupid sons. It's not fun. But you run hard for six years, although you really don't want to, and you destroy the reputations of the other Republican candidates, and all of that turns into a waste of time.  You never wanted to be around so many ordinary people.  You were just being nice, doing the nation a favor. And no good deed goes unpunished. 

Why Krauthammer Is a Moron

Charles Krauthammer is a moron because he takes his talking points from clever Wayne LaPierre, chief lobbiest for the gun manufacturers, who earns $1,400,000 a year by promoting the sale of the guns of mass killings. Today Krauthammer blamed the murders of 26 people in Connecticut on "an entertainment culture soaked in . . . violence." Now if Krauthammer could actually think, it might occur to him to compare the United States to other nations with an entertainment culture soaked in violence. Japan might do. What is the murder rate in Japan? About 1/15th that of the USA. So it isn't the violent entertainment that makes us different. . . . How do we differ from Japan? Well, Americans own half the guns on the planet. The Japanese do not.



Today

Evil

Once in a while people ask me if I believe in evil. The question is well meant, and I reply that evil is a word in the English language. We employ the word in certain ways, mainly to designate an act or person that strikes us as irredeemably wicked. John Boehner, for example, does not strike me as evil. He is, of course, a bagman who distributes bribes to members of congress from corporations and Wall Street. Boehner is a bad human being but capable of a decent act once in a blue moon (as I see him). The members of the NRA do not seem evil to me. Many of them behave in sounder ways than I do when it comes to moral decisions. But the leaders of the NRA make me shudder. Their continued rabid support of murderous gun manufacturing is not redeemable. They are evil shadows walking among us.

A Bushmaster Christmas

This Christmas many stockings will be stuffed with Bushmasters, a compact, ergonomically enhanced solution for the man who plans on overthrowing tyrants, including the Democrats who have stolen this country. The Bushmaster is favored for grammar school attacks in English speaking countries around the world. Your loved ones can buy you an affordable semi-automatic pistol with its clip for $871.13--I don't know why Bushmaster doesn't round off the price. The kit that converts the pistol to fully automatic is extra. In most cases you will have to purchase the kit at a gun show.

One group of buyers that caught my eye on television are the zombie preppers. These are adults arming themselves for the onrushing zombie apocalypse. They believe the brain eating has already begun thanks to certain unsafe experiments conducted by the federal government or maybe the United Nations. Think mad cow disease. We will need many guns, boxes of ammo and food supplies to fort up when the time comes. Or, some suggest, we can live on the second floor of our homes because zombies can't climb stairs (too stupid).

Meanwhile a committee in Washington is being set up to look into why Americans need machine guns in the home. I'm afraid this committee is increasing my paranoia. 

Ammo Is Cheap

Chris Rock once suggested that we put a tax on ammo of about $10,000 a round. End of problem. Yes, some people (my father) would make their own ammo, and there would be black market ammo, but the reduction in school shootings would be considerable.

Guns and Murder

In a UN study of murder rates per 100,000 inhabitants, the world average was 7.6%. The USA averaged 4.2% with many countries in Africa etc. averaging much worse. But if you compare the USA to Europe and Japan and China, we don't look good. The murder average for the United Kingdom is 1.2%. Japan is 0.3%. Ireland is 1.2% and Germany is 0.8%. The role played by gun ownership is not entirely clear. Canada, as Michael Moore pointed out in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, has gun ownership similar to the USA but a far lower murder rate. Cultural differences must account for that. I suspect that we are, as a people, more paranoid and violent than Canadians. The American argument that easy access to semi-automatic weapons lowers the murder rate, however, is contradicted by the statistics cited above.

The 2nd Amendment has proved remarkably useful in the overthrow of tyrants or has it? 

Gun Violence

In the United States about 200 people die each week from gun violence. President Obama has gone on TV four times in four years to respond to a mass atrocity. Today he was in tears.

What can we do about violence?

It's obvious that we need better gun control legislation. I say this although I grew up with guns, served in the army and own a gun. But legislation regulating guns will not be enough: 250 million guns will still be out there.

One thing we should understand is that the great majority of mass murderers are not psychotic, although what they do strikes us as nuts. Mass killers are usually badly depressed. Under ObamaCare more money is now available for social workers and mental health work. What can help is a much stronger mental health program that identifies troubled people and reaches them before they begin to plan their revenge and suicide. It might also help if our political leaders turn away from politics based on the hatred of others. We need to set a new tone.

Chomsky Sucks

A favorite of some on the Left, Noam Chomsky recently wrote: "Going back to why people don't vote, I presume the main reason is because they understand without reading political science texts that it doesn't make any difference how they vote. It's not going to affect policy, so why bother?"

The basic problem with that position is that it does not reflect reality. How ordinary people vote affects policy and can save lives. When some on the Left decided that it made no difference whether they supported Gore or not, the people of Iraq paid a bloody price. The working people of this country got a Great Recession. Yes, this country is mostly--but not entirely--an oligarchy, but that does not make voting pointless. Without intending to, Chomsky is helping the Republicans suppress the vote . . . or he would be if what he writes mattered.

Chamber Pots

The Founders of this country believed that sovereignty belonged to  white males. They set up a representative form of government that had four parts: a House of Representatives that was directly elected by white males. That was supposed to be the most sovereign branch, and it was given the power to originate money matters; a Senate that was indirectly elected and would serve as a guardian for the rich and the small states and a brake on the anticipated excesses of the directly elected House; an indirectly elected President, who would act as an office coordinator, and an appointed Supreme Court to decide issues when two states came into conflict.

Founders differed on which body should act as the final authority when it came to interpreting the Constitution.  Madison, if I remember correctly, thought that the Constitution should be interpreted by the House, because the House was directly elected. The House most closely mirrored American sovereignty. But the opposite occurred. The least representative body, an appointed bunch of lawyers, about as far from sovereignty as you can get--the Supreme Court--today decides what the Constitution means, and from their decisions there is no appeal. (I might be wrong, but as far as I know, the USA is the only country on earth that is this undemocratic.)

To this mess you can add the notion that the  Constitution is a sacred document deserving of worship with the preaching done by nine appointees. I doubt if worship is what the Founders intended. Remember that they were revolutionaries. They invented a new kind of country. Their Constitution reflected the compromises needed at the time. I doubt if the Founders wanted the Constitution to last fifty years. Instead they expected that their descendants would come up with new ideas as times changed, new Constitutions, new revolutions, new kinds of countries. What they did not expect was that we would become a nation of timid ancestor worshippers, so frightened of change that we keep attempting to freeze culture in place. Some of us are "originalists," but nearly all of us try to argue political decisions in terms of a document as outmoded as a collection of chamber pots. 

Kennedy Vs. Nixon

Most people know that the first televised Presidential campaign debate took place between JFK and Richard Nixon. On TV Kennedy looked good. Medication for his back problem gave Kennedy a good complexion, and he used an excellent makeup person. Nixon was ill, haggard and badly made up. When polled after the debate, television viewers thought Kennedy had won; radio viewers opted for Nixon. The often repeated explanation for this discrepancy was that Kennedy had won on TV because he looked better. What is interesting in retrospect was what a weird explanation that was.

We know today that Presidential debates have at best a small impact on how people vote. Losers of debates--George W. Bush, for example--often win the Presidency. Ask yourself how many times you have decided whom to vote for based on his appearance in a debate. The huge majority of voters make up their minds before a debate begins.

There is little doubt that Kennedy was a more charming man than Nixon. In fact, Kennedy's political career was in great part built on charm. He was tall, handsome, commanding, cool, witty, amusing. His press conferences were treats. After he won the Presidency, he became about as well liked as a politician can be. I happened to meet him once. He was someone men and women, including Nixon and Eisenhower, took to immediately. But that is probably not the reason for the discrepancy between those who watched TV and those who listened (a small number) on the radio. In those days, like today, most of the people who followed politics on the radio were old Republicans. Of course old Republicans listening to the radio thought Nixon had won. But the weirder explanation (better makeup) caught on, which shows how easily we get misled when it comes to cause and effect. 

The GOP: How Balmy Is It?

Exactly how insane is the Republican voter? Yesterday's polls showed that 49% blame ACORN--which doesn't exist--for stealing the election for President Obama.  I doubt if 49% of the Republicans are balmy. But 25% of them want their states to secede and another 19% lean in that direction. That totals 44%. And that is nutty, given that the states represented mostly live on a dole supplied by New York, Illinois and the West Coast.

Life Expectancy

Some years back I noted here that rich people live four or five years longer than poor people in this country. This occurs--obviously--because rich people are so much wiser than poor people--the rich have the foresight to be born to wealthy parents. It follows that the wise people who own the country are best equipped to rule it. Now that might sound crass but it was, in fact, the position taken by the Federalist party, which was as astonished as Mitt Romney when the voters decided to hand over the Presidency to a commoner. 

Anyway, the remarkable difference between the life expectancy of the rich and poor recently reappeared in a column by Paul Krugman. He was commenting on the argument made by the Republicans (Federalists) that we should add a few years onto the age when people become eligible for social security because now Americans live longer. 

Americans, Krugman pointed out, live longer today if they are rich. If they work for a living, if they wait on tables or change the sheets in hotels or tend a vineyard, they are probably ready to retire at 65 and give their aching backs a rest. And they are apt to die soon enough. Let's not penalize the people who actually work because Bush cut the taxes on the wealthy and ran two wars on a credit card.

Scrappy Dogs Can Swim

It's raining hard here, and I read the following item in our newspaper. "The rain came so fast that a homeless Republican couple who had built a platform to use as a bed inside a 36 inch culvert along Santa Rosa Creek were violently flushed out of the pipeline and into the creek while they slept. " This event left them and their Republican dog Scrappy floundering in cold water, but all three had made it to the bank by the time firefighters arrived.

(To be truthful, I added the party affiliation. It just struck me as likely, given the state of Republican thought these days.)

The Guilt of Susan Rice

At first glance the attacks made by Sen. John McCain on UN Ambassador Susan Rice seem inexplicable, something like the attack on Iraq after the Twin Towers fell. In that case we took revenge by attacking a country at random, so to speak. Susan Rice had nothing to do with the murders in Benghazi. Therefore, she is the right person to hold responsible. At second glance, though, McCain's reasoning becomes less stupid. This is his argument. Susan Rice must have been given the unclassified account of the Benghazi incident, prepared by the CIA, and she was also given the secret classified account prepared by the CIA. When she went on TV, she repeated what was in the unclassified account. She should have presented the secret classified account and then--I guess--have been tried for treason and gone to prison. McCain's case here is undeniable, and it is backed up by two facts the Democrats will have trouble denying: Susan Rice is a woman, and she is not an old white man.

Celebrating War

About 150 years ago my great-grandfathers were fighting in the Civil War. They were privates in the American Army (sometimes called the Union Army). My family never had much luck when it came to promotions. Anyway those times are getting a long look on current TV programs devoted to history. Most of what I have seen are lectures by history professors (not bad, usually) and talks by park rangers (empty blather). What you seldom see in the lecture audiences is black people. They don't attend. Why not? 

Well, my guess is that black people view Civil War programs as white people telling stories about white people. The other reason is less appetizing. In many of these talks, especially by national park employees, the Civil War is presented as a noble battle between two equally noble sides led by fine Christian gentlemen like Robert E. Lee and Abe Lincoln. The attitude is that it is a shame one side had to lose. So here's what I suspect. Black people might not consider the slave-whipping Robert E. Lee good material for nobility. He was, for starters, a traitor. According to Grant, Lee's army fought for the worst cause this country has ever known: the extension of slavery to new territories. And then Lee ruined his own army by making rash assaults on well defended positions. 

In life Lee remained a vicious bigot as long as he drew breath.

Lee's excellent but fake reputation was part of a political shift that occurred during the period running from about 1880 to 1945 (I'm guessing at dates). During that time in America it was fine to be a racist as long as you were polite about it. Racism was common among Great White Men and found all over the nation. Accepting the South back into the Union and binding the country together meant keeping company with loony bigots, and that was no problem--until Hitler's example made racism seem trashy, low class and not respectable. Odd, isn't it? Hitler woke us up.

If we want people of color to take an interest in American history, we need to tell the truth about what happened and who did what to whom.

Why Hate Obama?

The other day I heard a social scientist giving a talk on the Tea Party, which she had studied in depth and with respect. One of her conclusions was that Tea Party people were not usually racist but that they hated President Obama with a terrible passion. 

I have not studied the Tea Party closely. What I know comes from TV, which probably tapes the most racist protest signs it can find at Tea Party gatherings. In an interview, one Teabagger claimed that the Tea Party was open to people of any race.  In that sense the party might not be racist.

So why do they hate Obama? My guess is that they hate his intelligence, his well-fitted suits, his grace, his kindness, his tolerance, all of which are foreign to teabaggers. They hate diversity. They hate his strange name. They hate Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia and Chicago--and Europe. They hate Harvard Law School. They hate the fact that Obama has won a majority of the vote in two Presidential elections. They hate his Christianity, his Islamic and Buddhist coloring, his faith in prayer (which I do not share), his supposed Nazi beliefs and Stalinist leanings, his lack of macho posturing. They hate the idea that a white American woman married a black man from Africa and had a child. They hate the Other. But of course they aren't racist.

Tit for Tat

Hamas and Israel are currently attempting to kill civilians again. As usual Israel has escalated the original violence, generating more recruits for Hamas. President Obama is calling for a cease fire.
Escalation is the wrong response for either side. 

The most effective response (given game theory) when four people get wounded on your side is to wound exactly four people on the other side. Not five people or three people. The effect of an automatic tit for tat strategy is that the conflict becomes an unrewarding empty ritual, and people see that and it dies out.
 
The current conflict is not a war between the peoples of Gaza and Israel. It is a war between the leaders of Hamas and the leaders of Israel, fought for the purpose of keeping in power the leaders of Israel and Hamas. No doubt they hate one another--but they work together so well.

If You're Black, Get Back

A few weeks back, John Sununu revealed that President Barack Obama was "not very bright." Within the Republican bubble, the evidence seemed overwhelming. Obama did not have white skin. End of case.  Today Senator John McCain, the man who picked Sarah Palin to run as his Vice Presidential candidate, told us that UN Ambassador Susan Rice is not very bright. Inside the patriarchal Republican bubble, the evidence against Rice is compelling. She is a woman, so she can't be  bright. Also her skin is not white. (For some reason the term "loathsome racist creeps" comes to mine.)

Diane Feinstein's Affair

As I understand it, Sen. Diane Feinstein learned today that she had had an affair, and no one had told her about it. She found out during an interview on national television. You can imagine her anger. The FBI had been investigating Feinstein for more than three months without reporting the matter. "They should have told me about this affair immediately, " the senator snapped at Andrea Mitchell, reporter. "Little people like you are not supposed to get information about sexual scandals before I do; and when I have an affair, I want to hear about it the next morning if not sooner. I'm not the richest senator in Washington for no reason."

The Gerrymander

Geoffrey R. Stone wrote:

"How could the Republicans have won 55 percent of the House seats at the same time that Mitt Romney received only 48 percent of the popular vote? Did that many people split their vote? It turns out the answer is "no." Although the Republicans won 55 percent of the House seats, they received less than half of the votes for members of the House of Representatives. Indeed, more than half-a-million more Americans voted for Democratic House candidates than for Republicans House candidates. There was no split-decision. The Democrats won both the presidential election and the House election. But the Republicans won 55 percent of the seats in the House. This seems crazy. How could this be?

"This answer lies in the 2010 election, in which Republicans won control of a substantial majority of state governments. They then used that power to re-draw congressional district lines in such a way as to maximize the Republican outcome in the 2012 House election."

Romney Wins!

Romney is not a loser. Jon Stewart noted that Mittly has been elected President of the Confederate States.

Obama Now White?

On November 6, ABC News analyst Matt Dowd stated twice that this "may be the last election that we see two white men run against each other for President." Dowd apparently suffers from the Stephan Colbert syndrome, which is the inability to see color.

Nate Silver Wins

To my blue eye, for the last six months the TV talking heads I watch have been finding the most threatening poll results each morning and then warning me of a hideous doom. But the statistics expert Nate Silver kept me sane. His careful daily analysis struck me as realistic, and he consistently had the President ahead in his race for re-election. Obama led from beginning to end. That was reality.

In the final week Silver came under attack from some of the TV gasbags on the Left and Right. They make a living inventing imaginary causes for thrilling nonevents. Silver was exposing them for what they are, entertainers with not a clue as to who was ahead in the voters' affections.

Silver said the Presidential race tilted about 9 to 1 in Obama's favor. He said that Obama would win the popular vote by about 2%. Silver listed every state in which Obama would prevail. 

It all came true. Thank you, Nate Silver. (Remember this name two years from now.)

Chances Are

Nate Silver has set the President's chance of reelection at 9 to 1 odds. The usual TV analysts have it at about 50-50, and many of them are angry with Silver, who might be making bloviation a lost art, unless Silver is totally wrong.

In Silver's favor he can add and subtract. He knows math and statistics, but statistics can be misleading. Hence, "there are lies, big lies and statistics."

My sense (but what do I know?) is that President Obama began with a small firm lead and will end with the same lead. I suspect that voters made up their minds six months ago. It was one of those choices--between a lunch of chicken or chicken poop--people on both sides found easy. Anyone agonizing slowly over a choice between Obama and Romney is a political idiot.

Reality

Reality is that which, when you don't believe in it, doesn't go away -- written by Peter Viereck, a conservative (back when conservatives were not nutters). Of course, we need an illustrative example: how about global climate change? 

Nate Silver has President Obama at about 9 to 1 to win Ohio. Fingers crossed.

Romney Reveals He Is A Lesbian

In the last week of his Presidential campaign, former governor Mitt Romney has revealed that he is a 47-year-old black Latina lesbian who entered this country from Venezuela without documentation. Born in Kenya, Romney stated that he had been raised on welfare in Hollywood, California, supplemented with aid from the several Muslim temples where his family worshiped, while maintaining their status as atheists.

In a speech delivered in Chicago, Romney pledged that on Day One of his administration he would require every adult woman under 40 to undergo at least one free abortion. His new plan to tax billionaires at 107% surprised some observers, but a Rassmussen poll taken after the talk revealed that Republican support for Romney suddenly increased from 93% to 99%.

You Can't Cure Stupid

Driving in my car today, looking for the address of an elderly woman who wants to be taken to the polls, I head another woman on the radio. She said that she was voting against President Obama because he went to a bad church for 20 years, that he was an atheist and that he was a Moslem. You can't cure stupid.

A business plan

The one daily newspaper in Sonoma County, currently owned from Florida, is being purchased by local real estate champions of the sort who bundle huge sums of money for conservative Democrats.  In other words, greed guys tied to Indian casinos, exploding developments, and the media that support them. The small group of 1%ers includes a former publisher (SF Chronicle), a former conservative Democratic congressman and two real estate moguls. They intend to take total control of the aspects of county government that interest them, aspects like who grants building permits. That's part of any good business plan, right?

Of course, that will not be much of a change--it might even be an improvement. 

Part of a Horse

One of the main things holding Mitt Romney back so far in this election is that he is a horse's ass. But what does that mean? It means he's a fool of a special kind, a kind that makes you cringe.  He's pompous and clueless, and no one likes him. Chris Christie doesn't like him. If Romney hadn't been born rich, he'd be childless and living alone. He's never felt a genuine emotion in his life other than envy. He's empty.

Nate Silver has President Obama as a four to one favorite over the horse's ass this morning. Five days to go.

The Many Polls

On the last day in October, Nate Silver, who looks at all the polls and then sets odds, has President Obama's chances of reelection at 77.4%. The Democrats' chance of keeping control of the Senate: about 90%.  Watching Silver's odds has proved calming over the last few months, because on television what gets reported--apparently--is whatever individual poll makes the race most exciting. In actual practice that has meant reporting whatever poll puts Mittly Romney in the lead or close to it.

My best guess is that President Obama has held a small but stubborn lead in the swing states all along. Voters made up their minds months ago. We'll find out next week.

Sununu's Head

Maybe the race-baiting John Sununu should model a mask for the Halloween holiday. Certainly the man's visage, like his soul, is ugly to the bone. His latest TV charge is that Colin Powell endorsed President Obama because both men are black. Black people are, in Sununu's view, robots who vote as a unit on the basis of race. Let's look at the facts.

Three prominent black leaders ran for President before Obama. Shirley Chisholm, the first elected black woman in the House, ran and drew little support from black voters. Carol Moseley Braun, the first elected black woman in the Senate, ran and drew little support from black voters. You might say that they were guilty of running while being female. Jesse Jackson ran and did better with the voters but lost in key primaries at the end.  None achieved anything like the 95% or better support from black voters that Obama gets today. Obama does better because he more fully represents an ideology, and he does it with grace. The United States is divided between voters who prefer authoritarian leadership, mostly white and male, and those who respond to discussion, reasoning and compromise. President Obama leads the second group.

When JFK became President, my family, which was about half Irish Catholic, was delighted. But they never supported Joe McCarthy for anything, because McCarthy was a drunken destructive irresponsible liar, not as bad a person as Sununu but close enough. It is true that race has become a growing factor in elections--polls show white racism on the rise--but the claim that black people vote for Obama because he is half black is mendacious, echoing from deep inside Sununu's bowel system, into which he has inserted his astonishingly ugly head.

Evangelical Equality

Women will defeat Romney in the swing states, and I thank them. But there is a kind of evangelical woman who likes authoritarian subjection. My wife worked with one and asked her, "Who makes the decisions in your family?" My husband and I do, the evangelical told her. We are equals. "What happens when you disagree?" my wife asked. Oh, he decides. He's the husband. (My wife was unable to convince the women that this wasn't equality.)

Romney vs. McCain

I'm not a John McCain fan, but I think I detect a difference between him and Mittly Romney. Both of them supported the Vietnam War, but one of them volunteered, was captured and tortured, and the other hid out in France, trembling in the sack. Both debated Obama, but only one of them ended up adopting nearly all of the President's positions on foreign policy while bug-eyed in fright. Yesterday both responded to Richard Mourdock, a Republican senate candidate who opined that a pregnancy resulting from a rape was God's will. Keep in mind that Mourdock is five feet tall and molded from dark but runny vulture poop. McCain immediately withdrew his endorsement from Mourdock; Romney is running ads for this mound of fecal matter. I'd say one of them--McCain or Romney--is an outstanding coward of a sort seldom seen in a Presidential campaign.

Rewriting History

When Lance Armstrong went for his first Tour de France title, his competition was Jan Ulrich, a former winner. Armstrong won; Ulrich finished second and a few years later was caught doping and retired. At the end of Armstrong's career, his main rival was Alberto Contador, who won the final Tour that Armstrong rode in (Armstrong finished third). Contador was later suspended for a year because he failed a drug test. So it seems that Armstrong's main competitors were cheating, and it's unlikely that he was helping them. 

Armstrong, maybe using smaller dosages and better masking drugs, never failed a drug test.

Today the bike racing establishment and the sportswriters are heaping all blame on Armstrong. Twenty or thirty professional bike riders have claimed that Armstrong forced them to cheat. It wasn't their decision or their fault--blame Armstrong, a terrifying giant of a man, menacing at nearly 165 pounds.  His long time friends have announced that they were never friends. His sponsors are getting ready to sue him to get their money back. His prize money over the years is in jeopardy. People who donated to his cancer charity--Livestrong--claim with faces screwed up in emotional agony that they have been disappointed and want their donations returned, which--I have to say as a cancer survivor--creeps me out.

Where other dopers were given suspensions of six months, Armstrong has been banned from sports for life and his seven straight wins of the Tour de France (against other cheaters) have been wiped from the records. I doubt if they will be erased from our memories, though. This twist in the Armstrong  tale will make him even more mythical. Meanwhile Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Karl Lewis, the NFL and countless other cheaters find most doors wide open and their money not under assault.

Why Obama Disappointed Scott the Voter

"I, Scott, was one of about 70 million people who voted for President Obama, and I have been disappointed. When I cast a ballot for Obama, I thought he had agreed to make the same decisions I would make. That is why I supported him.  I know what is right, and he should do what is right and not what is wrong. Of course, a few times he made the right decision, but often he made decisions other people wanted, including people who had voted for John McCain or people who disagreed with me, people who were wrong. Or he would make a decision that was part right and part what a different voter wanted. I am forced to ask, What sort of man acts like that, compromising my views with other views? Let's be honest. That is weak. The President was supposed to be my representative, and I can't tell you how many times he fell short. He should do what I want, the right thing. That's how democracy works."

CBS ENDORSES ROMNEY BS

As most of you know, in his first short speech after the attack in Benghazi, President Obama said (on film) that "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." In the debate last night, Mittly Romney insisted that the President had not called the Benghazi attack an act of terror until two weeks later. Romney was then corrected by Obama and by the moderator, Candy  "Right Wing" Crowley. Today the claim being made by Mittly Romney is that when Obama said "acts of terror" he was not talking about Benghazi. In fact, on film, Benghazi is the sole topic of the brief talk. Total Romney bullshit. But CBS News tonight gave a lot of time to support Romney on this matter, parroting the Fox News line. So much for CBS News and the corporation that owns it--totally biased. I've watched CBS News for the last time.

Toe Walker

Some time back my younger brother mentioned what is wrong with Romney: he's a toe walker. Compare him to the more talented George W. Bush, the Connecticut Kid, who moved to Texas and learned to walk bowlegged like a cowboy. 

Last night on the stage, with President Obama easily loping about, Romney was toe-walking up to people, lurching forward with tentative tiny steps, unsure of how to relate or proceed. He wasn't sure what to fake. What to do, what to do?

Surely we will not be electing a toe walker President.

Are the Poor Stinky?

In the process of filling out my ballot, I came across an interesting race for the Sonoma County Board of Education.  Among the candidates are Cheryl Scholar, a Democrat who has served on the Windsor Town Council, and Lisa Schaffner, a Republican who manages the office out of which corporations gut the people of Sonoma County. Lisa Schaffner is the sort of high-toned Republican who finds poor people kind of stinky. 

It's a close call, but I will vote for Cheryl Scholar.

Amazing Stakes

When Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon accepted the New Deal reforms and moved on, most of us believed that those gains had become permanent. They remained permanent until President Reagan began the process of undoing the New Deal. He got a few steps down that road. President G. W. Bush took some bigger steps. What we are faced with today is Mittly Romney and the Tea Party, who intend to repeal the social gains made in the 20th century. All of them.

Today the Republicans are hard at work restricting the right to vote, denying voting to the poor, to Latinos, to Black people. They are intent on reducing women's right to make their own health decisions (resuming the patriarchy's control of women's bodies). If the Republicans win, the graduated income tax will likely fall. Medicare and Social Security, of course, are under attack. There is talk among Republicans about reverting to having senators elected by state legislatures, although that seems far fetched. But 30 years ago an attack on Social Security seemed unlikely. 

What can you do? Send a small contribution to President Obama's campaign or to your local congress member.




mmm

Ryan Is Stupid--No Wonder Biden Laughed

I've gotten so used to the stupidity of Republican positions that I seldom react to them. For the last month (for example), Mittly Romney has been telling reporters on screen that he agrees with President Obama's timed withdrawal from Afghanistan. And then he tells them that a timed withdrawal is a mistake. Within the space of 120 seconds he takes both sides on the matter. That is Mittly, and no one turns a hair. No one cares. Then last night Paul Ryan did the same thing. Rachel Maddow called this to our attention. And look, nearly 50% of the voters are going to support these two morons. Nothing is too stupid to alter the votes of half of our nation, the half that made a mediocre actor the President of the United States and followed up by supporting a dim-witted, burned out, dry alcoholic for two terms that ended in a second great depression. What did they learn from this? Nada.

President Obama Leads

10/10/12
Nate Silver has President Obama as a 2-1 favorite to win, which is down from 3-1 before the first debate. Life is still good--but Obama cannot afford another media feeding frenzy. By the way, these ritzy shows are not debates. They are two guys with talking points. They serve no purpose now except to give Romney a platform for lying, which raises money for advertising, which means that a feeding frenzy is highly profitable for TV networks.

Did Romney Win New Votes?

I'm not sure who won the debate. Noisy male analysts on TV seem sure that Obama was not noisy enough. Why can't he be more like them?

 Romney's style appealed to men who want to dominate, men like Chris Mathews, for example. Mathews supports Obama, but on style alone Romney seems a winner to him. 

Obama's style appeals to calmer people who don't set the highest value on how loudly you can push others around. Why would most women find Romney's style to their taste? They must get tired of loud men. Why would minority people find Romney's bullying of a timid moderator and a Black President a reason to vote for a bully? I'm beginning to think that Obama's calmness will work in his favor over time. I'm beginning to think that Obama decided to be himself, that he's not a bully, and that calmness might be good strategy. (Fingers crossed.)

The purpose of a Presidential debate is not to win the debate but to win over voters. Romney pleased his base--but did he please anyone else? Maybe the next round of polls will tell us.

A Rabid Dog Enters The Room

The first Presidential debate has been won by an Mitt Romney in the much the same way that a rabid dog coming into the room wins your attention. Romney was deeply unpleasant, President Obama looked like a man wondering why his course in life had led him to an encounter with a troll  who wanted to eat Big Bird. Meanwhile Jim the Moderator helplessly flapped his gums in the far distance. Aside from Romney's aggression, the debate was a snoozefest for people not dedicated to the analysis of the federal budget.

Neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama has a history of winning debates. That's not how they got elected. Meanwhile Romney has provided more quotes for future Obama ads. I'm waiting for the ad in which Romney repeats his plan to end PBS and fire Jim the Moderator and Big Bird.

The Radical Right & Paranoia

The Internet serves as a good place for the Radical Right to make money. Below is a brief sample of how the Right goes about raising cash. The "DHS" referred to is the Dept of Homeland Security.

Obama is nationalizing industries (automakers, the internet, healthcare) and going around Congress to impose his agenda (Net Neutrality, the Dream Act, cybersecurity). America is now paying the price for the “hope and change” propaganda of 2008.
And he is placing the DHS front and center as the Gestapo of the United States.

This is the same agency that gropes you at the airport (and steals your belongings with increasingly regularity); and they also released a report warning of radical groups in the U.S. comprised of Christians, war veterans, pro-life supporters and small government promoters.

Are conservatives now going to be labeled as “terrorists” by the Obama administration and singled out for destruction?
His administration has targeted many conservative individuals and groups for auditing; it is no reach to assume he will use the power of the government to stamp out any dissenters.

MItt, The Name

People have been making fun of the name Mitt. That strikes me as odd, given the many famous Mitts in our world. Consider this list: Mitty Mouse, Mitt N. Berle, Mitty Mantle, Mitt Jagger, DeMitt Clinton, Mt. Mittney, Eartha Mitt, Brad Mitt, and many others. Willard Mitt Romney is a name as American as spam sushi.  I'm thinking of adopting Mitt as my own middle name.

I Volunteer. . . .

Yesterday I drove to the HQ of the Democratic Party in Sonoma County, at 701 2nd St., Santa Rosa, and volunteered to staff a desk one afternoon a week. I didn't meet anyone I knew there, but the office manager set me up. I've done political work of various kinds, but this will be my first stint in a county HQ.

Driving home I listened to Rush Limbaugh fulminating about how President Obama's campaign is floundering and failing. Actually it is Limbaugh who is floundering and failing. I love it when the radical right pushes misinformation onto its cult members. They are doing what Clint Eastwood thought was impossible (much like Mittly Romney).

From what I've read recently, Romney thinks himself quite gracious in offering his problem solving skills (as an efficiency expert) to the American people. A major reason he has no program is that he considers himself a problem solver. After he is elected by acclamation, he will take up each problem and find an expert solution. No worries.

What Goes Around: Federalism

People want to know if Mitt Romney is a Federalist. Well, there were many kinds of Federalists, serious idealists like George Washington and John Adams and all those plutocrats whose names we don't remember. Soon we won't remember "Mitt Romney."

A Federalist believed that there were two classes of people, a 1% born to leadership (enhanced by a Harvard education and the leisure to think deep thoughts supplied by wealth) and a natural loser class of followers, the 99%,  who worked on farms or in useful businesses. Federalist leaders did not work in useful businesses--they speculated. Even in 1780 the leaders were venture capitalists, not manufacturers, according to Federalist ideology.

Federalist leaders were entitled to hold our public offices. The offices supposedly came to them without effort, as the farming masses eagerly voted for their betters. A Federalist expected American class divisions to grow until they resembled the class divisions in Great Britain. That was, for Federalists, the natural order. Unfortunately about 90% of the voters were farmers, and as the right to vote was extended, farmers and other ordinary folk began to win elections. The Federalist Party vanished. Or maybe not.

Romney's Apology

SJG sent me to view THE ONION, which had prepared an apology for Mite Romney to deliver. It went something like this: "First and foremost, I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores, junkies, bums, and grime-covered derelicts out there who make up nearly half our nation. Let me assure you that I in no way meant to offend any of the putrid-smelling barefoot masses. My campaign is not about dividing the nation, but about bringing all sides together--the rich, elegant members of the upper class, as well as the 47 percent who are covered in flies and eat directly from back-alley dumpsters."  (A recent poll suggests that most Republicans now agree that Romney could improve his public speaking if he hires as a coach  Mr. Clint Eastwood.)

The Corporate News

Unions exist to represent people who would otherwise be powerless wage slaves in our economic system. Unions are actively fought by those who prefer that ordinary Americans be powerless. Among those trying to destroy unions here in Sonoma County, north of San Francisco, is our local daily newspaper, THE PECKERWOOD DEMOCRAT, owned by some cracker down in Florida. In today's paper (Sunday), the lead editorial argues that the County Supervisors should not require large county contracts to contain agreements that tie workers to union benefits.

Such contracts "are unfair, pure and simple," the corporate newspaper tells us. They are unfair because such contracts discriminate against corporations that treat powerless employees badly.  And, as Mute Romney puts it, "Corporations are people, my friend." Corporations are people, but carpenters are mere work units to be manipulated by efficiency experts. 

In the 1950s we called people like Romney efficiency experts and feared them. Today they are known as vulture capitalists, and they specialize in pecking the jobs out of this country. 

The Smirking Brooks

Several of my progressive friends harbor respect for David Brooks. I can say this much. Brooks is an intellectual, which is hard to find among the Teabaggers. He's not a Teabagger, of course, just a member of the Teabagger party. The problem is that, just as there are inferior dentists, there are inferior intellectuals. Brooks, George Wills--the list is short--have standing because in the Teabagger Party they have no competition.

Now Brooks has predicted that Romney will smash President Obama in the debates. We can now test whether Brooks is, as I suspect, a smirking but intellectual idiot. We will all see the debates.

Here is my take. In the Republican debates, Romney was either dully robotic or downright weird, offering to bet ten thousand dollars etc. He seemed unable to guess how voters might respond to the remarks he blurted out. Against the weakest field of nutters possible, Romney won no one over. Supported by towers of cash, he became merely the last fool standing.  Now he's doing to smash Obama? Or is Brooks a smirking idiot?

Leo Carillo

One of our promising and very young country supervisors, Efron Carillo, was arrested last week in San Diego (!) for knocking down some dude outside a bar in the tough part of town. The facts aren't in yet. So far it sounds like Carillo was defending some women from unpleasantness. More like Leo Carillo than Efron Carillo. Anyway, so far it doesn't seem like a major event to me. I did that kind of stuff when I was young, and no one cared. I would suggest to Supervisor Carillo that bar hopping leads to problems. . . .

Somewhere down there Leo Carillo's old ranch is now a state park.

Voting for President

Before voting for President, I remind myself of several related matters.  (1) Of the 44 Presidents elected in the United States, 44 of them have been supporters of capitalism. That happens because this is a capitalist country with voters who prefer capitalism. Our next President will be a supporter of capitalism. Those surprised that President Obama supported capitalism might want to read more American political history.  (2) In examining the candidates for President, I start by eliminating those who have no chance to win.  I refuse to cast symbolic votes for losers when people will live or die by the outcome. For example, the elevation of George W. Bush to the Presidency doomed many Iraqis. (3) It is true that my state will support President Obama whether I vote or not, but if I am going to participate in the system at all, I intend to do the right thing. (4) I will vote for the viable candidate who will do the least harm to others. 

Sometimes this process yields three viable candidates to consider, but this time it produced only two, Barack Obama and Mute Romney. One of them will be our next President. I'm going to rate them both in ten areas.

1. Ability to Resist Sociopathic Tendencies

Obama seems good in this area despite being aloof and ungrateful for his support from the Left. I'm going to give him an 8.  Mute Romney likes to fire people and has little to no empathy for dogs or men, but he hasn't murdered anyone or beaten his charmless obedient wife. I'll give him a 2.

2.  Approves of Torturing Prisoners

Obama has banned some forms of torture: 5 points. Romney has vowed to restore the right to torture if he is elected. But he probably won't use the rack: 1 point.

3. Expertise in Foreign Policy

Obama has restored fairly good relations with our former allies, and he is acceptable to Russia and China. Mute Romney likes to insult China and Russia. He is familiar with Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Island mail drops, bets on the Irish sweepstakes and the taste of eel sushi. Around foreigners Mute likes to talk with a gold spoon in his mouth. Obama 6, Romney 1. 

4. Thirst for Wars 

While Obama has ended the war against Iraq and will end the war against Afghanistan, he continues the policy of interfering militarily in the Middle East. Mute Romney is fervently calling for an attack on Iran. Obama 4, Romney 0.

5.  Health Care/Women's Rights

ObamaCare, while it isn't Medicare or single payer,  has saved thousands of lives, and the President supports a woman's right to choose. Romney is very strongly committed to forcing women to bear unwanted children and to repealing ObamaCare while reintroducing--he lies--the parts he knows are popular. Romney lies and lies. On this issue, Romney is probably best compared to a hot sack of wet chicken droppings.  Obama 6, Romney 0.

6.  Gay Rights

Obama integrated gays into the armed forces and now supports gay marriage. Romney's position is unclear, but his church, in which he is a bishop, leads the attacks on gay rights.   Obama 9, Romney 0.

7. Supreme Court Appointments

Obama likes centrist women. Romney will appoint delusional males struggling with their sexual identity. Obama 7, Romney 1.

8. Latinos and Undocumented Workers

President Obama has deported many Latinos (and few Irish), but he has also made it legal for some young Latinos who grew up in this country to establish residence. He's looking for a humane solution. Mute Romney distinguished himself  recently with a plan to make Latinos so desperate that they "self deport." Obama 6, Romney 2.

9.  Voter Suppression

Romney's party has passed many laws to suppress the votes of people of color, young people, and poor people, all of whom tend to vote Democratic. Obama encourages people to vote. Obama 10, Romney 0.

10.  Taxation and the economy

Not much is at stake here. Romney's plan is to cut the taxes of the top 1% while raising taxes on the middle class. The effect would be to tip much of the world into another Great Depression. Obama's plan is to increase taxes on the top 1% and cut the deficit. Obama 6, Romney 0.  Romney is an economic drooling idiot. He drools all the way down his red tie.

Totals: Obama 67, Romney, 7

This race turned out be much closer than I anticipated, but I do have to pick a winner, and it will be President Obama, although he is not a revolutionary.

    

FOX vs. Clinton

I never look at FOX news, but tonight, out of curiosity, I tuned in for a few minutes after the wonderful Clinton speech (and I don't like Clinton). What I saw on FOX astonished me. They agreed Clinton's speech had been such a sad failure that most viewers probably left in the middle for a more interesting channel. Charles Krauthammer, supposedly a literate man, opined that Clinton had made the speech to sabotage President Obama, getting even for Hillary's loss four years before. The other FOX people nodded with expressions more suitable for Germans crouching in the snow outside of Stalingrad. If that is the most realistic thinking the Republicans can come up with, God help them.

What I Don't Know

I'm one of many founders of the revived Healdsburg Peace Project, which came back to life a few months before George W.  Bush attacked Iraq for no good reason. We have held a vigil on the Healdsburg Plaza every Thursday for the last ten years, not a bad record. Currently we are out there trying to end our part in the endless war in Afghanistan and to prevent the war the George Romney is calling for, an attack on Iran for no reason. But I'm not a pacifist. I served in the army. I am opposed to initiating wars of aggression and to risking the lives of our troops in the hope of increasing corporate profits.

Anyway, last night I was at a meeting and discussion, in which it became clear that some of our members had missed the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq that had taken place almost a year back. In other words, those of us opposed to the war against Iraq had finally won, but certain members of the Peace Project hadn't noticed. As far as I could tell, there were two reasons for this. Some people never listen to the news or read newspapers or magazines. I'd say that these people seem more cheerful than average. There is a second group of people who have heard the news but don't believe it. They believe that America faked the moon landing, lost World War II, blew up the Twin Towers, and has hundreds of thousands of troops still fighting in Iraq under assumed names. This view might seem bleak, but they appear to take satisfaction in knowing grim things I do not know.  I hope someone is studying this phenomenon.

Our Gutless Press

Sonoma County has excellent wine, countless Democratic voters and one daily newspaper, The Press Democrat. In the last ten years the PD has endorsed the most pro-corporation Democrat in each race, unless a Republican who had a good chance was running, which seldom happened. The PD was owned by the NY  Times.

Today the PD is owned by Halifax Media, a rightwing Florida corporation. To block further endorsements of centrist Democrats, the powers that be have decided the newspaper will no longer endorse anyone. No doubt Halifax would like to endorse Republicans, but that would definitely hamper newspaper sales in this area. No endorsements is the ticket for now.

Romney and Eye

I was watching the ball game on TV, but I managed to grab at some tiny bits of the Republican convention during the ads. I observed Romney reading from his teleprompter, "If you asked Ann and I. . . . "  That, of course, is like saying, "If you asked I." Now I do understand that many of my friends might make this overly elegant error, a common mistake, and I don't usually give a damn, but it ain't Presidential.  Either Romney's writers are incompetent or Romney "corrected" what he saw on the teleprompter. Obama , on the other hand, is a native speaker of English.

Chris Hayes made a sharp comment on Clint Eastwood's feeble improvisations on stage at the convention. Eastwood  pretended that President Obama was seated invisibly beside him and then attributed to him some unheard coarse language. Hayes suggested Eastwood might want to reread INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison.

James Madison on Romney

I've watched only snippets of the Republican convention. Tonight is the big night, the nomination of Mannequin "Mittly" Romney, but the Mittly fellow is up against a Giants game and a 49ers game, and Mittly is a dud. He won't get much of an audience in this house.

In any case, here is my impression to date. The Republicans have sent before us a lineup of clowns. Take Mrs. Mitt Romney (please). She lectured us on Love. Wow. Take Apeneck Ryan--he delivered a string of lies. Why do the TV dudes keep saying they like and respect this dull-eyed chimp? And John McCain wants war with six different countries? That's cock-brained nuttiness.

Our fourth President, James Madison, put his finger on a basic American problem.  In a discussion of political parties he noted that one party was (and is) composed of those who "are more partial to the opulent than to the other classes of society; and having debauched themselves into a persuasion that mankind are incapable of governing themselves, it follow with them, of course, that government can be carried on only by the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments and the terror of military force."

 

Apeneck Ryan

The election season is on us, and I want to take a pill and wake up when it is over. My revulsion, I believe, is based mostly on the inhuman sorts of objects who run for office. Take the animatronic Romney-- he jerks about looking almost lifelike. 

Our nominating system puts forward the worst among us. Consider Paul Ryan--his budget cuts SNAP by 18%. SNAP is a program to provide food for hungry children: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

You can understand why I don't want to see Ryan's brutal features on TV for the next 80 days. He looks like a demented chimpanzee whose matted hair has been carefully shaved to give him a forehead and a five o'clock shadow.

I don't want to hear on the radio that this brainless thug is an intellectual leader in congress. I'd rather not know that nearly 50% of us delight in a lad who literally wants to take food from the mouths of babies so he can grant additional tax cuts to billionaires. 

So, to escape from electoral rubbish for ten days, I will be bicycling in Canada until September 1.

Romney's Emotion

Listening to Romney on Israel/Iraq. What I hear is a man saying the usual things but trying to force emotion into an empty voice. He could not care less. He pushes hard. It doesn't come out right. No wonder no one likes the dude.

Ayn Ryan

After devoting 20 years to pushing the vicious ideology of Ayn Rand as hard as possible, Paul Ryan recently discovered that the woman was an atheist. He has begun to edge away from her.

What?

What a shock! If only Paul Ryan had read what she had written. . . .

In any case, many other "religious" Republicans worship Rand's blue stockings, among them Alan Greenspan (the world's worst economist), Ron Paul and Rand Paul, who was named for the old film star Randolph Scott. Or perhaps not. Also many teabaggers.

Here's my point.  We have to learn how to pronounce the words "Ayn Rand." Due to unforeseen circumstances, the name is still used in political conversations. I can supply a short guide that is easy to remember. "Rand" rhymes with "sand."

 I probably don't need to add that "Ayn" rhymes with "Bain." Just think "Bain Sand."

The Four Moderators

The moderators of the Presidential debates have been named. Martha Raddatz will lead the VP debate. Raddatz is a foreign policy expert (for ABC), which makes her an odd choice to question Paul Ryan, a lifelong Beltway insider, who is as ignorant of foreign policy as he is of economics and real life.  Ryan understands nothing. I can't say that I know Raddatz well--I stopped watching ABC when they hired Diane Sawyer, a Republican hack, to front their band--but I suspect that Raddatz, an actual person,  will attempt to do a good job. 

Bob Schieffer will moderate one of the Obama/Romney debates, and that is likely to be the one worth watching. Schieffer is a somewhat crusty old feller who might follow up on a question when he gets a stupid outright lie as an answer. And he will get many such opportunities.

The other moderators, Candy Crowley and Jim Lehrer, let any crap slide. In a way they are fun to watch as they struggle not to become human.  They are pure Wall Street lapdogs, although their styles differ. Crowley is aggressively wimpy, where Lehrer (rhymes with terror) is wimpy masked by extreme fear. They both operate from that fabled position in which if Obama sneaks a cigarette and Romney strangles a baby girl, they are equally flawed candidates. Like the Vicar of Bray, Crowley and Lehrer will contort their thick faces in support of any political view that keeps them in their lucrative chairs as Wall Street TV news distorters. That can be enjoyable.

A Close Analysis of Voters

Some people have a hard time distinguishing between a Republican and Obama. “To put them in perspective,” the author David Sedaris wrote in Shouts and Murmurs shortly before the election of 2008, “I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. ‘Can I interest you in the chicken?’ she asks. ‘Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?’ ” 

Seal Rock Sucks

Yesterday three men in their seventies (me, my brother and our cousin) spent a fine morning bicycling in San Francisco and then, exhausted, stopped to have lunch at the Seal Rock Inn, up the hill from the Cliff House. Our plan was to meet there with my daughter and her husband, but we had arrived early. We decided to get a table and buy something to drink.  The hostess of this rather shabby cafe told us that we could not sit down until the rest of our party joined us. There were many tables open, but we were left standing, saving money, tired, for about 20 minutes. Then my daughter and her husband walked in (they live up the block), and we re-entered the Seal Rock (plenty of open tables).  No one appeared to seat us. We stood in the doorway for about five minutes, and finally an old Asian man noticed us and came over and told us to take table six, pointing to it. We started forward and suddenly an even ruder hostess jumped in front of us and told us to stop. I tried to explain that an old man had authorized us to sit at table six, but she told us sharply that we could not sit down. She wasn't ready for us. At that point I realized we were in a cafe that hired mental cases as servers, and I turned and led our people out. Sarah suggested we go to Mel's Diner (once featured in AMERICAN GRAFFITI). Everyone at Mel's was relaxed, friendly and helpful. Much much better.

Olympic Winners

I'll confess that I have always liked sports. It's entertainment. I watch the Olympics and root for my team, and I have been gratified immensely by one aspect of the coverage I have read in the Press Democrat. Each day the newspaper publishes an unofficial list of how many medals have been won by each nation. (The Olympics themselves refuse to make up such a list.) The country that has won the most medals is listed first, then the country with the second most medals, etc. For example, when China had won 12 medals with 9 of them gold and the USA had won 12 medals with 5 of them gold, the USA was listed first. China came in second, according to the newspaper. Now that is my sort of reporting. The USA always wins in the Press Democrat.

The Healdsburg Bridge

From: sherry adams

To: me

Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 5:34 PM

Subject: Healdsburg Memorial Bridge- bike detour

According to Sherry Adams, "The Healdsburg Memorial Bridge will be closed for 18-24 months starting in mid-2013. The detour for cars will be on the freeway, but what about bikes and pedestrians? In a PD article a month ago, Mayor Plass is quoted saying it will be Westside Road. This would turn the 6 mile bike ride from Healdsburg to Windsor into a (hilly) 16 mile bike ride! However, there are at least two better options: either allowing bikes to use the freeway shoulders on 101, or allowing bikes on the railroad bridge, after needed upgrades for safety and ridability. Both of these options have significant challenges and involve other jurisdictions, but the alternative is grounding bicycle traffic between Healdsburg and points south."

The closing of bicycle traffic between Healdsburg and points south for up to two years will shock locals (who often bike south to Windsor and Santa Rosa) and turn away the many Santa Rosa bike tourists, who visit Healdsburg restaurants and shops in large numbers. I don't know how much money they spend--riders tend to be cheap--but it has to hurt a little. The lack of mental ability involved in this totally lame non-plan challenges the vocabulary of someone with his or her own brain stem. God save us from the thoughtless blank-eyed city leaders we elect.

Weenie or Wimp?

 A Newsweek writer has revived  the controversy about whether Mitty Romney is a weenie or a wimp. On the wimp side is the fact that Mitty spent his Vietnam War years in Europe learning to speak French. He lets his fearless wife ride the horse. And in a recent photo op Mitty was seen clinging to his wife's ample back while she drove a jet ski; as Paul Begala put it, Mitty is "like a helpless papoose."

Or is Mitty a weenie, the sort of awkward rich butthead who gets every social situation a little wrong, beats up on misfits and cuts their hair and criticizes his host's cooking? Or is he a sociopath ("I like to fire people")?

Hookers in Song

During the Civil War the American Army (sometimes referred to as the Union Army) was led in part and for a short while by General Joseph Hooker--his part being the Army of the Potomac, if I remember correctly. Hooker was known in our neighborhood, Sonoma County, and there is a place up an alley off the plaza in the town of Sonoma that is known as the Hooker House. Anyway, to get to the point, the general's countless troops were accompanied on maneuvers by a second, even larger army of prostitutes; soon the term "hookers" was coined and remains with us to this day.

To be honest I have not had much interest in hookers, other than once or twice, but I am interested in songs about them. Some developed great popularity. My favorite is BUFFALO GALS, where the singer gets to dance with a dolly with a hole in her stocking and dance by the light of the moon. More recently we've enjoyed THE HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN, and from 1580s GREENSLEEVES remains a favorite. It is (sadly) a folk song about a dude who gets turned down by a hooker (probably). How embarrassing is that? 

Lest We Forget

Gaye LeBaron wrote recently about a hometown Healdsburg sports icon, Ralph Rose. You might not recall who he was--Rose was the first man to throw a shot putt 50 feet.  He went to the Olympics three times and won several medals, including gold. I had never heard of him although Healdsburg is my current home.

I do remember the first man to high jump seven feet. He competed for my first home town, Compton, and his name was Charlie Dumas. He brought home Olympic gold, too. He went on to a long career as a public school teacher.

What Goes Around

When my grandmother died, my father brought home a cardboard box of old photos, and one day my brother and I went through them. To our shock we found an ancient shot of our grandfather dressed in the sheets of the KKK. Our father later explained that Grandpa had joined the KKK because they promised to serve free beer at their meetings. It turned out that they charged for their beer, and Grandpa quit in disgust after two meetings.

As you know, the Boy Scouts of America yesterday announced that they would continue to ban gays and lesbians from membership. I have to confess that about 65 years ago I was a BSA member. Now I can expect that someday my grandchild will be pawing through a cardboard box and find a photo of me in a Boy Scout uniform.

The Corrupt Are Drawn to Power

Many are familiar with Lord Acton's remark that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. One of my daughters pointed out to me recently that Acton might not be totally wrong, and she is likely to be correct. But I think Acton got it backwards (for the most part). I believe that corrupt and self-centered people are drawn to power. In other words, they are corrupt to start with. Getting elected creates for them a field of play.  Our electoral process seeks out manipulative  power-lovers and elevates them.

Political leaders want power for the wrong reasons--there is no right reason to want power over the lives of others. Of course, all wrong reasons are not equally wrong.

At the moment,  David Brooks, a weakly pondering intellectual of the status quo, is taking on Chris Hayes of MSNBC on the question of the American meritocracy and whether it has become corrupt. What is most ludicrous about the debate is the assumption that we have a meritocracy. What sort of meritocracy would produce the paranoid Nixon, the bumbling Ford, the senile Reagan, the lecherous Clinton and the murderous dullard George W. Bush as its leaders?  We have 3,000 colleges and universities in this nation--so why is it that our "meritocracy" staffs itself mainly from Harvard, Yale and Princeton?

The central problem with our electoral system is that it insures the winners will be people seeking power over others. There is a cure for this, but I have never seen it discussed. The ancient Greeks used it in some cases. Fill our elective offices using a random lottery. Imagine ordinary citizens, women, Latinos and cross-dressers, some of whom do not want power, most of whom would not be adept at mass deception, making the decisions. They'd err. But they might not reward companies for sending jobs overseas. They might not start pointless wars. 

Psychopathic Leaders Around the World

Experts believe that roughly 1% of our population is psychopathic and maybe 10% of our corporate CEOs are psychopathic. Many criminals are psychopaths. The central feature of psychopaths is that they lack empathy, probably from birth, and there is probably no effective treatment for this lack. But psychopaths make useful generals, executioners and even authors (Ayn Rand). I know nothing about any of this, really, but I got eight senior citizens, none qualified, to rate Mitty Romney, using the standard Hare Checklist. On this list the subject can earn up to 40 points with 25 to 30 points indicating a pathological lack of caring about other people. The senior citizens rated Romney as a 30. (What, me worry? Nixon was paranoid, W. Bush was half-brained and Reagan was senile. Hail to the President!)

Canada

John Cascone sent me a column he found in The Globe and Mail, a major conservative newspaper in Canada. The thesis in the column can be summed up this way. Canada's health care system is not as good as many in Europe, but Canadians don't talk about that. Instead they compare their system favorably to that of the United States, which is setting the bar so low that the Canadian system doesn't get improved.

Three Fecal Sacs

When I first read Justice Scalia's balmy dissent on the Arizona anti-immigrant law, my reaction was "Hey, I bet he lost on the Obamacare case and can't handle it." Below is part of what Scalia had to say about the plight of Arizona: “Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services and even place their lives in jeopardy.”

This makes me want to ask exactly how many old white men like me in Arizona have been murdered by undocumented workers? None?

Is the Supreme Court the right place to publish hysterical blather?  Yes, it is. Three of the fearful justices are little more than animated fecal sacs (Scalia, Alioto and the silent fellow). We need to be reminded again and again of the sacs who sit in judgment here in these United States.

Way to Go

According to Melissa Harris-Perry, some conservatives are so upset by the Supreme Court's decision on American health care that they are threatening to move to  Canada.

REPEALING OBAMACARE

Obamacare falls far short of what some of my friends prefer, and of course they are right. But to get really good health care, we would first have to repopulate the United States with voters who understand that the strength of our species is our ability to help one another. To those who scoff at Obamacare, I'd like to make this point: if Obamacare had come along ten years sooner, my younger sister would still be alive. Obamacare saves lives. In Sonoma County alone, it will cover about 50,000 uninsured people.


Getting rid of health insurance might be worth discussing, but first I would like  to see us ban automobile insurance, which I seldom find useful, and earthquake insurance--my house has never fallen down in a quake, not even once. Also the federal government insures our savings accounts in most banks, which takes away our freedom to fail in the free market and will somehow--I'm not sure how--lead to the United Nations sending Arabs to confiscate our Glocks. Or maybe not. 

Slow growth came to Healdsburg about ten years ago over the dead bodies of the Developers Oligarchy and the Republican City Council. Citizens did it.  But the Developers Lobby is immortal, of course, and will be with us as long as greed exists. That was one reason I worked to replace the Republican Council with a progressive Democratic Council. I suppose it is a small surprise that the current Democratic City Council has now put together a committee to help them amend the Growth Management Ordinance and open up things for the Development Oligarchy, our permanent government-in-charge. There is big money at stake. Will the citizens rise again?

 

 Growth Management Ordinance Committee Meeting

Date: 6/27/2012 6:00 PM

Location: Healdsburg City Council Chambers
401 Grove Street
Healdsburg, California 95448

City of Healdsburg
Office of the City Clerk
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE

Notice is hereby given that he Growth Management Ordinance Committee of the City of Healdsburg will hold a Public Meeting on Wednesday June 27, 2012 on or after 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg California to consider the following:

A.  Discussion of topics related to possibel amendment to the Growth Management Ordinance.
Interested personas are invited to attend the special maeeting.

Barbara Neslon, Planning and Building Director
6/22/2012

Names

According to a New Yorker article, Stanley Ann Obama, after divorcing Barack Obama, Sr., moved back to Hawaii in 1965 and married Soetoro Martodihardjo, whose friends called him Lolo. Stanley was named for her father, who was named after the newsman explorer who found Dr. Livingston.

Paying Taxes to Your Boss

Let's say that you drive a truck for the Colorado Looting Corporation. The state deducts income tax from your pay check twice a month, and some of that cash is then sent over to the Colorado Looting Corporation as a subsidy. You are paying taxes to your boss.

There are 22 such programs in place in 16 states.What we have here is a direct method of transferring wealth from working people to more deserving corporate oligarchs, and it has the added virtue of going unnoticed. There is nothing on the pay stub of the worker to indicate where the income tax cash is headed. The worker might believe that his taxes are spent on schools and road repairs. Instead the money goes for cocaine, call girls, and a corporate board dining at $400 a plate in a restaurant so exclusive it has no name and employs an English food boiler as its chef. That's life in these United States.

The Horror

 In Conrad's HEART OF DARKNESS the dying Kurtz  "cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision—he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath—"The horror! The horror!" This line has been interpreted in numerous ways, the most popular being that it expresses Kurtz's final reaction to our inhumanity to one another. But perhaps it expresses something more fundamental.

One winter, many years ago, I was down with the flu but thought it might be good to get out of the house for a few minutes. I  slowly trudged through snow along a deserted part of Centerport harbor, and I saw, across the small bay, a five-year-old boy wander out onto the ice and fall through. He was alone. For a time he held himself up on the edge of the ice. Then he sank down and only his hands appeared above water, held up, I assume by air trapped in the his sleeves. No one could reach him in time. I recall, regularly, a dozen useless memories like that, and my memories must be mild compared to what the police dream of at night or to the visual horrors combat veterans bring home and refuse to discuss.

We live on a planet where life forms feed on one another. We try not to think about it. We invent rationalizations. Descartes famously argued that dogs can not feel pain. The Preacher tells us that horrors are God's mysterious will and we should worship Him. Meanwhile, we head toward a catastrophe of climate change, population growth and environmental destruction. We are intent on turning the Earth into a mess no human being has experienced before.  Of course we cannot predict exactly what is coming, but it seems likely that the ocean will become more acidic quickly, before fish can adapt. The insects that pollinate our crops may die out. This was once the stuff of science fiction, but now we are about to make it real.

The President has announced that the most important issue he will face in a second term will be climate change. The people of our nation and China and Africa and India will not agree to any big inconveniences, of course. We might build a six inch berm of sand to ward off tsunamis but only if it doesn't force us to raise taxes. Yes, life is hard. Let's try not to think about it.

Money in Politics

Thanks to our morally bankrupt Supreme Court, vast amounts of money have enriched the Republican party and its candidates. Scot Walker just won his recall challenge in Wisconsin by swamping the opposition with ads etc. Romney won the Republican nomination by swamping Santorum and others. But I think that there is a limit to what money can buy.

For example, Stacey Lawson outspent Norman Solomon by a margin of about 9 to 5, but ran behind him in our local congressional primary. What I think I see is this: for money to make a difference, outspending your opponent by 2 to 1 isn't good enough. You need a huge difference, something like 5 to 1 or maybe 10 to 1. An opponent with half your money has enough money to fight back. This augers well for Obama, who is predicted to raise about half the cash that the 1% gives to Romney and certain radical right front groups.  

Phillip Morris Calling

I seldom answer the phone unless I know who is calling, but Susan, my wife, answers it in between. Yesterday she took a phone call from someone opposed to California's proposition 29 (which raises the tax on cigarettes). "Who are you?" my wife asked, curious to find out what sort of organization would campaign for cheaper smokes and the spread of lung cancer.  "I represent Phillip Morris," the caller explained.

A truthful answer?  Susan was astonished, and I don't know what to make of this unexpected candor. I've had a day to consider the matter, and maybe I've found a solution. What if the caller actually represented a different major cigarette company? What if the real goal was to make Phillip Morris look bad? (I hope this is true.)

Trump on Obama's Real Mother

Donald Trump on Ann Dunham, supposed mother of Barack Obama:

 "Not only is Barack Obama's so-called birth certificate a forgery, but so is the birth certificate of his mother, Ann Dunham. It has to be--if Obama's mother was a citizen, then so is he. That's the law, as some interpret it, but they aren't as smart as I am. I've been told that Ann Dunham was the daughter of Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, but have I seen their birth certificates? Obama has kept them hidden. And if they had American birth certificates, which I don't believe, how do we know that the certificates weren't forged as part of the plot that made their black grandson President? Many opportunists have forged birth certificates for their grandparents in order to make themselves American citizens. It's commonplace. And how can we be certain that Ann Dunham even was Barack Obama's mother? He's on record as calling other women mother, including his comments in a letter written while in high school about someone who might be his real mother, Moma Cass, recently identified tentatively as a woman of Liu ethnicity in Nyamaza Province, Kenya. Wake up, ABC! Why be just another wing of the Democrat Party? Get the truth out while our country can still be saved."

China and other words

Larry Litt has pointed out that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was recently forced to release the list of key words used by the US Government to identify internet comments by dangerous radicals. If you use one of the words, your remarks will end up in the pile to be checked out. For example, a key suspicious word is "China."  I plan to cooperate with the security agencies and help create a pile of information as big as the moon. That's why I include China in all my comments. China, China, China.

POWs in the Second World War

World War Two was brutal on all sides, and no doubt racism played a role. Many Japanese Americans were interned for much of the war, and nothing like that happened to German Americans. In fact it would have been difficult to intern German Americans because they were the largest single ethnic group in the nation, more numerous than English or Irish Americans. But in reading about the war (which began for us when I was in the first grade), it does strike me that more than racism became involved in the differences in American perceptions of Germans and Japanese. It's probably obvious that there was a much greater cultural gulf between the Japanese and the Americans. When the Germans or Americans forces were surrounded, they surrendered; the Japanese fought to the death or committed suicide.

Two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a continuation of a policy, pushed first by the British, of deliberately targeting civilians.This occurred after Germany had surrendered, but even so it seems clear that American policy was more ferocious when it came to the Japanese. Some part of that might have come from the Japanese treatment of American POWs. In its conquering of much of the East, the Japanese had taken about 35,000 American POWs. The Japanese Army's standing order was that these prisoners were to be executed if it seemed possible that Allied troops were about to liberate them. In various battles, thousands were executed. Thousands were starved to death. In the Japanese military tradition, surrender was dishonorable and prisoners were worthless. In all, 37% of American POWs  held by the Japanese died. Among American POWs held by the Germans, 1% died.

NATO and the Ghost

As I write this, NATO leaders are meeting in Chicago, and a variety of groups are protesting in the streets. The Chicago cops are pushing people to disperse. NATO  was invented, as you may know, to hold the line in  Europe against Stalin. We were easily frightened in those days. A rumor reached us some time back that Stalin had died and was still dead and that the Soviet Union no longer existed. If that is true (and it's hard to verify, here on the rim of the Pacific) then NATO no longer serves its original purpose. It has new purposes.  NATO stands between us and the ghost of  Stalin. Also it's a key component of the Western economic system, employing many generals and constantly generating a demand for fresh ammunition.

We might get some idea of why NATO remains viable by reading  David Brooks. In his Sunday column he points out that "human depravity" is self evident. Brooks is, of course, referring to himself, and I doubt if anyone wants to argue that Mr. Smirker is not depraved. Something that is universally not doubted is what we call a certainty (by definition). Brooks' very existence explains our plight.

The Republicans Go For Lawson

Back in my distant youth, Republican and Democratic candidates could run in each other's primaries. As a result, some candidates became the candidate of both parties at once. This probably encouraged a centrist approach to politics, and it elected Pat Brown, Earl Warren and others, including wing-nuts like William Knowland. Then primary rules were changed and deals were worked out to carve permanent Republican and Democratic districts. That created the right of right no-compromise California Republican party we've watched recently. But today we have a new system, one in which all candidates from all parties run in one mass primary per district and the top two vote-getters run against each other in the final election. And that likely calls for new political strategies.

The most interesting campaign in our area (the coast of Northern California, very liberal, no Republican can win) has come in the congressional race, where one of the possibly progressive Democrats, Stacey Lawson, has been running on themes and methods borrowed from Mitt Romney. Stacey Lawson is a rich woman with no experience in politics who has flooded the district with TV ads. In the ads she stresses American exceptionalism, talking about how she began life in a trailer and went on to make a fortune. Her other main theme is that she is a "job creator." She promises to bring prosperity back to Northern California, although how an inexperienced junior congress member can do that remains unclear.

Lawson's goal in the primary is attract votes from corporate Democrats, from women in general and from the 30% of the voters who are Republican. The Republican Party has endorsed no one, keeping the door open. Two days back the Republican mayor of Ukiah, in a letter to the editor of the only daily newspaper in our area, endorsed Lawson, a Democrat. Today the Republican mayor of Willits published a letter supporting Lawson. This is, of course, an organized campaign in which the Republican leaders are signaling to their well-disciplined voters that they should support Lawson.