Yappin Blog

My Favorite Spam Ever

2010-04-06T16:27:00.001-04:00

I got this evocative message today from Lesya T. You know Lesya, right? Well, read on:

Good day, dear Mr/Mrs/Ms,

With this letter I would like to express You my respect and ask for assistance.

I am a representative of the company Free Time Club (Concierge Service) in Ukraine (Odessa).

Because of the receipt of the order, there is a necessity of drawing a visit of a lawyer (attorney) to the Prosecutor General's Office of U.S. for obtaining certain documents. Tell me, please, if You could You handle this issue this week?

May I ask what form of payment is most convenient to you?

With respect, hope for cooperation and waiting with anticipation for Your soonest reply,

Lifestyle manager, Taranova Lesya.

PS.If You need to prove my identity, which can sometimes be necessary, You can find me on Facebook.

OK. So......... Where to begin. How do you respond to a lady offering to wire you money? All I have to do is visit the "Prosecutor General's Office of U.S." "this week" "for obtaining certain documents." I'm sure I can get some documents (I am a lawyer, after all), and I've got time this week. However, can anybody tell me where to find the Prosecutor General's Office of U.S. I'm not familiar with that.

Wait. I guess I should get proof of Lesya T.'s identity, but then again, is that so important? If Ms. Lesya wires me money, why do I care whether she exists?

I was curious though, so I followed her suggestion and looked for Taranova Lesya on Facebook. Here's what I found:

Oh yeah. That's right. I guess this proves that Ms. Lesya is a fooooxxxxx. I really didn't order any "concierge services" from this very fine "Lifestyle Manager," but I'm definitely thinking about letting her wire me some money. Advice?

Did You Momofuku When I Told You To?

2009-11-03T01:32:00.002-05:00

Don't be offended. Momofuku is not the newest nasty word from Urban Dictionary.

Momofuku is:

The name of soup's best friend: Momofuku Ando, who invented ramen noodle soup in Japan in 1958, and Cup Noodles in 1971.
Elvis Costello's 2008 album
The flagship restaurant in David Chang's expanding food empire

Wait. I'll be right back.

(waiting...
waiting...
waiting...)

I had to make myself a steaming cup of ramen soup.

Now, back to the story. 90% of Momofuku's short menu is about pork and noodles. However, the other 10% consists of fantastic cold ginger scallion noodles and steamed buns stuffed with shitake mushrooms.

Chang just published his first cookbook, called, believe it or not, Momofuku. Read about it in this months Vogue, or Bon Appetit (print editions only) or listen to the interviews playing over the next few days with David Chang on All Things Considered on NPR.

Other things you might like to know about Momofuku:

They serve RC Cola in the bottle
Did I mention the pork?
The Noodle Bar takes no reservations (except see below) and the lines are insane. Don't go at lunch time or dinner time.
The one exception to the "no-reservations" problem at the Noodle Bar is that you can reserve ahead for groups to have the fried Chicken dinner, which I will be doing next time I go to New York, because I love New York, and I love fried chicken.
David Chang was born right here in Vienna, Virginia (I hope he will bring his pork magic to a restaurant here in Washington D.C. soon).

And That's Why I Love the Intergoogle

2009-10-29T16:42:00.003-04:00

I've been trying forever to think of a website that harnesses the whole range of human stupidity and repulsiveness in the same way as, say, Overheard in New York, or PassiveAggressiveNotes.com, or the execrable but curiously mesmerizing RateMyPoo.com. Or, a site that capitalizes on our capability for obsession, like icanhascheezburger.com, or Perez Hilton.

Once again, I failed to see the gold mine, when it was right in front of my face. Let me introduce you to www.peopleofwalmart.com. As with most all of the other fantastic websites where I waste time during the work day, this one comes to me courtesy of my perverted Brooklyn friend (to protect her privacy, I'll refer to her here as Colleen).

Jus' picking up some milk and eggs after dance class:

Fruity Booty:

TACO!

Mannequin? or Womannequin?

Not a Detail Person

No words necessary. Visit www.peopleofwalmart.com and pick out your favorites. Or, snap a photo next time you head in for a gallon of pickles or 50 cans of tunafish.

Stuff I'm Real Proud Of

2009-09-04T15:29:00.003-04:00

1. I've never seen the original Rocky.
2. I've never owned a pair of bright blue Dockers pants (or any color of Dockers pants).
3. I've never listened to a Michael Buble song.
4. I don't believe gay people are evil.
5. I know where to retrieve my car if it gets towed in Brooklyn, New York.
6. I own a tie personally gifted by Italian Prime Minister, media tycoon, and notorious philanderer Silvio Berlusconi.
7. I was familiar with Reverend Ike and his ministry before the Internet.
8. I ate beef in England and Italy, and avoided getting the mad cow disease or the Mucca Pazza (at least so far).
9. I know the difference between affect and effect, and I don't understand why college-educated adults don't.
10. I hate Glenn Beck (I refuse to provide a link to him, to any picture of him, or to any material related to him).

Soul Brother Number One

2009-07-23T03:59:00.009-04:00

Is there any question in your mind who is the Soul Brother No. 1? It is, of course, the Godfather of Soul, James Brown, who begins and ends the fantastic documentary Soul Power, now in theaters in major cities on the left and right coasts, and coming soon to all those other towns.

Soul Power is the story of Zaire 74, the R&B music festival staged in Kinshasa, Zaire in September 1974, in connection with the legendary heavyweight title fight -- the Rumble in the Jungle -- between Muhammed Ali and George Foreman. Check out the great critics' reviews of the movie on Metacritic.com.

(The Ali/Foreman fight was the subject of the earlier great film "When We Were Kings.")

Other names for James Brown:

the hardest working man in show business
Sex Machine
Mr. Dynamite
King of Funk
Minister of the New New Super Heavy Funk
Mr. Please Please Please Please Her
I Feel Good

As JB says in the movie: "When I say hit it, you hit it; when I say quit it, you quit it." Get it?

James' greatest songs:

Cold Sweat
Night Train
Prisoner of Love
Sex Machine
Out of Sight
I Got You (I Feel Good)
Papa's Got a Brand New Bag
It's a Man's Man's Man's World
Licking Stick, Licking Stick
Mother Popcorn

I could go on and on.

Other great things about the movie:

Muhammed Ali talking SMACK about everything and everybody
Miriam Makeba
BB King: "The Thrill is Gone"
Celia Cruz
The Spinners singing "One of a Kind (Love Affair)" and dancing
The 70's clothes - I want to go to there

A Tale of Two Governors, and Random Thoughts about Love and Honesty

2009-07-09T02:00:00.010-04:00

Kathleen Parker is one of the newer "wave" of conservative columnists that I can read and appreciate. That's not to say a good liberal like myself can often agree with her, but she's smart, articulate, and about Sarah Palin, she hits the bullseye:

"When you're up to your waders in barracuda, blame the media. And quit your job. And say you did it for the people. And hire an agent. And try to keep a straight face. On your way to the bank."

See the entire column -- Gold Rush in Alaska -- in the July 8, 2009 edition of the Washington Post.

Parker, a resident of South Carolina, also takes aim at her own governor, whom she advises on today's edition of Hardball to "Shush up." OUCH.

Governor Sanford is definitely wiggedy wiggedy wack to vomit the salacious details of his amours to the Associated Press, yet the spectacle is sadly compelling.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

The honesty is breathtaking (if thoughtless as regards his wife and children). But it is brutal truth, and hard to resist for that. One has to admire Sanford a little for speaking from his heart about his failings, and for foregoing the advice of handlers and public relations specialists.

It's easy to call Governor Sanford a hypocrite. But in the face of his public self-immolation, it's beside the point to me. I feel sorry for him. He's passionately human. He's ended his own political career for what he believed (or still believes) to be a once-in-a-lifetime love. Sanford is only a little more of a hypocrite than the rest of us, and a little more deluded.

I think that when Governor Sanford expounded his political, personal and religious beliefs in the past, he probably did so honestly, but without real insight into the possibilities and limitations of his own life and heart. That's no more or less than we all say and do, until we gain (hopefully) some empathy and understanding about where life may lead us. For most of us, the joy and agony of relationships is a private drama; it's shocking to see it happen to a politician, and to witness the unexpected public detour into such personal emotional territory.

I probably would never have voted for Sanford or Palin for any office, before or since their recent stumbles. But if I had to choose between them, I'd choose Sanford any time. Ironically, despite his mistakes, I think one could rely on him to be honest. In contrast, I can think of only one matter Sarah Palin has ever spoken about that struck me as substantive or honest: her outrage over David's Letterman's joke about her daughter.

Also, what language does she speak?

End of a Long Dry Spell

2009-06-10T01:50:00.003-04:00

It's appropriate to return to blogging, I think, with this interesting picture:

see more Fail Blog

What? Only $999? I think it should be pointed out that upside down, that's 666.

And wouldn't everything about this cruise be upside down?

To Torture or Not to Waterboard. That is the Question

2009-04-23T22:38:00.003-04:00

Is it possible that any person who claims to be a religious person, a follower of Christ, can also speak out in favor of waterboarding?

See for yourself:

I'm embarrassed to be on the same planet as this moron, not to mention a citizen of the same nation or a member of the same religion.

You don't even have to agree that waterboarding is torture to recognize that it's fundamentally wrong on moral grounds. It's inhumane. Can you imagine being subjected to the physical feeling of drowning dozens of times, or hundreds of times? Is safety worth the debasement of treating a human being this way? And does it really make you or me safer?

The solution: if every buffoon that maintains waterboarding is not torture would agree to be subjected to a rousing session of waterboarding, this national debate would be over quickly.

Sean Hannity said yesterday that he would be willing to undergo waterboarding for charity. I would contribute. Would you?

Call Me Irresponsible, But Don't Call Me a Crazy Cat Lady

2009-03-25T23:40:00.009-04:00

So, I'm crazy about my cat. I don't care. Big Deal.

Does your cat patrol the drain in your shower, making sure that nothing and nobody comes out of there to get you?

Meet Lux. He's my Patrol Cat. He knows that hell is down there somewhere at the bottom of the drain, and he's watching out for me. He volunteered for this job. Can your cat do this? Probably not.

Your cat is probably really overweight, eating you out of house and home, on the couch all day, just getting up to eat a new can of Fancy Feast Beef Feast with Gravy whenever it's served.

In fact, I think this is your cat.

Or this one.

Rush Limbaugh Really is a BIG FAT IDIOT

2009-03-17T19:42:00.006-04:00

I don't usually care about Rush Limbaugh, or pay attention to anything he says, unless it is so outrageous that it qualifies as comedy. (Actually, a lot of it does.) But his recent statements about President Obama failing really bother me. Then, it bothers me that anything Rush Limbaugh says bothers me. It's a vicious circle.

Why should I care? Rush Limbaugh is a fool, and so are the people who actually believe him (in this group I don't include all the people who listen to his show; that's a somewhat larger group). Myself, I would never listen to his show, read his hateful garbage, or be influenced by what he thinks or says. However, it is undeniable that many people do care. They are on the right fringe of American life, but there are millions of them, and they vote Republican. That's why every Republican politician, no matter how moderate, kisses the ring on Rush's sausage-like finger, and apologizes for any statement perceived to be critical of anything Rush Limbaugh says or does. They really have no choice. The already demoralized GOP would come apart if the dittoheads became disillusioned and bolted. This is how Rush Limbaugh really is, in some measure, the current and most authoritative spokesperson for the Republican Party.

Today, it finally dawned on me what's so wrong with hoping that President Obama fails: it's a conscious rejection of our national goals, and an unwillingness to accept the clear results of the election process. That's a big deal. After all, the peaceful relinquishment and transfer of the power of the state to the winner of an election was one of the innovations of our government, and represented a step away from armed conflict to resolve domestic political disputes. Maybe we are headed back that way. At least one Republican congressional leader advocates a Taliban-style "insurgency" against Democrats.

Our elections are intensely partisan, as they were designed to be. But when a candidate is elected and becomes the President, don't we all have a stake in his (or her) success? Especially in a dangerous world and economy like the one the United States faces today, is it not basic patriotism to support the President in carrying out the constitutional duties of the office?

These questions are more than rhetorical. They go to the heart of what the office of President means in the United States. Our President is our head of state, as the British monarch is the symbolic head of state in Great Britain. As such he represents and acts not just on behalf of his political party, but on behalf of the people of the United States. The party out of power in the British Parliament is referred as the "Loyal Opposition," and the term "loyal" is included for a reason. The opposition party may dissent in matters of government and politics, but remains "loyal" under all circumstances and in all events to the head of state.

I know what some of you are thinking. What about the hatred of President Bush that became endemic among liberal Democrats during his eight-year administration? I know. Yes. Okay. It's a good point, and I am partly guilty. The passion against President Bush maybe went too far in many cases. But there is an important distinction between disagreeing with a President -- even hating him -- on the one hand, and wanting his Presidency to fail, on the other.

Haters of all kinds, listen up: disagreeing with the President is part of our political tradition. It's even patriotic, in my mind, to care enough about politics and government to speak out and dissent passionately. But hoping that the President fails is something entirely different, and is pernicious in a way that principled political opposition is not. It's a sort of intellectual (if unactionable) treason. Though it sounds simple-minded, it is nonetheless true, that if the President fails, the United States fails in its role in the world vis-a-vis other nations. The intense unpopularity of the Bush Administration is the case most ready-to-hand. President Bush's unpopularity hindered the implementation of many of his policies and the effective operation of his government. Over eight long years, the nation suffered, no matter what you may think of the particular policies Bush pursued.

I didn't want President Bush to be elected or reelected. I opposed and oppose the Iraq War. I think many of President Bush's policies, especially those related to fighting terrorism, starting the Iraq War, interrogating suspects and operation of the Guantanamo Bay facility, are disastrous for the United States. We may spend the rest of this century living down and overcoming the ill will created in the world community for the United States.

As a Democrat, I wanted different leadership, and am thrilled the electorate finally chose it. However, as an American, I sincerely wish I could be proved wrong about Bush's policies.

And listen up Bush haters: It may still happen. The jury is still out. Though the Iraq War cost over a trillion dollars (so far), hundreds of thousands of lives and had indisputable adverse geopolitical consequences (among them, the rise of Iran as the major regional power), it is entirely possible that the longterm result will be a secular, moderate Islamic democracy. What American is against that? Nobody.

If Iraq turns out well someday, President Bush may be vindicated, and it could be a great moral, military and strategic victory for the United States. Whether it was just and wise to start the war in the first place would cease to be relevant in the perspective of the writers of history. History will celebrate the successful outcome, and the controversial beginning will become an interesting footnote. Americans should fervently wish for this result. Regardless of what you think of the war and the other Bush policies, this outcome would be good for the United States, for Iraq and for the world.

Bush haters have to concede already that the Iraq "surge" policy was a success on some level. Perhaps President Bush should have gotten more credit at the time. But by then, his Presidency was on the wane, and too unpopular. However, the surge led to the more stable, less lethal Iraq that appears to exist today. If Bush's Iraq policy is successful eventually, it will be in part because of the success of the surge. Ironically, President Obama has benefited greatly from the surge, which he opposed emphatically in his campaign. If the surge had not worked, there is no way Obama could have announced the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2010, despite campaign promises.

So, where are we? On the one hand you have your thoughtful, enlightened patriots like myself, who may engage in dissent and passionate discussion, and on the other hand you have your big fat idiots like Rush Limbaugh, who propose and incite nothing less than subversion of the State. These are strong words, but not too strong. To openly wish for the failure of the constitutional Head of State is unprecedented in our politics, and it is wrong.

Still, if it were only Rush Limbaugh, it wouldn't be such a big deal. It's a free country, and he can say anything he wants. Limbaugh is a very large person, but he doesn't have the "big" ideas that one might expect to emerge from jowls and chins of that size. He's not smart, and I don't think the implications of subverting the Presidency even occur to him. He just spews invective. He's not a strategist, he's a loud and widely heard hater. He doesn't attract thoughtful listeners to his show. His content plays on the resentments of alienated people on the rightward margin of American society, and on their prejudices. He doesn't educate or enlighten; he pronounces, incites, and ridicules.

(I could not resist reusing the Foghorn Leghorn picture.) No, it's not Rush Limbaugh that bothers me. It's the politicians that kowtow to him. To be fair, the great majority of Republican politicians have not expressly endorsed Limbaugh's wish for President Obama to fail. However, almost to a man (or woman), they carefully avoid criticizing him or disagreeing with him, about this or anything else. If they do speak out, they are compelled to seek forgiveness and absolution from him. To wit:

These people are supposed to be the Loyal Opposition, with emphasis on the word "loyal." However, they are powerless to denounce Limbaugh's incendiary and self-loathing notion that it would be good for individual Americans, or for the nation, if President Obama fails in his efforts to end the recession he inherited, to reduce the enormous leftover debt of the Bush years, and to regain the respect of the world. Who would this failure in fact benefit? Rush Limbaugh, and maybe not even him. The unwillingness (or inability) of the Republican leadership to disagree with Limbaugh is almost as bad as if they spoke out in agreement with him. This is why a pill-popping, unpleasantly corpulent, hate-spewing dumbass really is the most powerful spokesperson for the Republican Party.

It's time for comic relief:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Loyal Opposition

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Mark Sanford
NASA Name Contest

Would You Like To Laugh?

2009-03-11T00:30:00.003-04:00

Who wouldn't like to laugh? If you want to laugh, A LOT, have a look at this Onion news piece , courtesy of a friend we'll call Weeny. Weeny, you know who you are:

WARNING:
F-BOMB ALERT

Sony Releases New Stupid Piece Of Shit That Doesn't Fucking Work

If you think this is not about you, answer the following questions:

Is the clock on your DVD player at 12:00, and blinking?
Do you know how many gigabytes are on your hard drive?
Do you know how to post a picture on Facebook?
Do you know how to start a blog?
Do you know where the USB plugs are on your computer?
Do you know how to use the PIP function on your TV?
Do you know what PIP is?
Do you know how to convert an MP3 into a WAV file?
Can you program your remote control?
What does the RAM do on your computer?

See, the news piece is about you, in the sense that it is making fun of you.

Oyez, Oyez

2009-03-04T00:26:00.008-05:00

In my opinion, the single gravest danger of electing another Republican president in 2008 was the power he (or she) would have exercised over the federal judiciary. The right wing of the Republican Party has made judicial activism one of its key issues in recent elections; these activists care more about this issue than any other, because they see "liberal judges" as being intent on legalizing abortion and gay marriage, against the will of the majority of the American people.

John McCain, who in many respects was a moderate candidate, would have been under tremendous pressure to satisfy this part of the Republican base with his judicial appointments. I think he would have succumbed to this pressure, as a reward for conservative support in 2008 and as the price for their support in 2012. Thankfully, we will never know what he would have done.

The urge to control the judiciary is not new.

I remember billboards like this when I was a child. I had no idea who Earl Warren was, but this made me think he was the devil. My readers know of course that Earl Warren was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1960's, a time of tremendous social unrest and change in the United States. The Court is popularly remembered for being soft on criminals, for forcing the desegregation of public schools through busing, and for enforcing the new civil rights laws. When you educate yourself a little, you learn that being "soft on criminals" meant that the Supreme Court required the police to tell suspects their constitutional rights before interrogating them, and outlawed "coercive interrogations." With the perspective of 40 years, these radical "innovations" don't seem like such a big deal to me anymore.

So why did the conservatives of the 1960's want to impeach Earl Warren? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the President and all "civil officers" can be impeached by the Congress for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Article III, Section 1, provides further that federal judicial appointments are for life, "during good behavior." Chief Justice Warren was never credibly charged with bribery, treason or any other crime, or of bad behavior. His offense was that he exercised his judicial power in a way that conservatives of that day disagreed with. In my opinion, the conservatives' hatred of today's judiciary boils down to that same problem.

The Warren Court was bad, but even to conservatives, those liberal rulings pale in comparison to the work of the Burger Supreme Court of the 1970's, which found that the Constitution protects the right to privacy, including the right of a woman to choose medical care, and to terminate her pregnancy. Since the day in January 1973 that Roe v. Wade was decided, abortion has been the San Andreas fault of American politics, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. With same-sex marriage, the religious right has a new cause to reinvigorate its movement. Conservatives fear that unless they can get ideologically like-minded judges appointed, it is only a matter of time until the liberal federal judiciary legalizes same sex marriages.

This explains the strong support of the Republican party for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. The socially conservative wing of the Party recognizes that this is the only way to stop this final moral calamity.

I think they are right. In other words, I believe that eventually, federal courts will have to recognize that reserving the rights and privileges of legal marriage to the majority while denying them to a significant minority is unconstitutional. It is only a matter of time.

So, what's wrong with wanting to curb "judicial activism?" Where should I start?

Earl Warren, Warren Burger and many other "liberal" federal judges were in fact Republicans, and/or appointed by Republican presidents.
Though conservatives despise it, the federal courts have played a crucial role in modern American life, a role that only courts -- with their independence from politics -- could play. Whether you think that's a good thing depends on whether you agree with their rulings. Conservatives wanted the Florida and federal courts to intervene in the case of poor Terri Schiavo. After losing numerous battles in Florida state courts (no bastion of liberal judges), Schiavo's parents, supported by major conservative and right-to-life groups, lobbied Congress to legislate a special rule transferring jurisdiction of Schiavo's case to the federal courts. (The legislation was passed, but federal courts, including the Supreme Court, refused to intervene.) What is this, if not an endorsement of a certain kind of judicial activism?
Federal courts have increasingly protected the rights of minorities in America. The other branches of government contributed, with their support and enactment of civil rights laws, but the courts enforced these laws and brought about unbelievable social change and progress in the United States in the short space of 40 years. Without independence from politicians and disapproving interest groups, the courts could not have accomplished this. Their independence is vital. Whatever you think about abortion and same sex marriage, requiring judicial nominees to pass a litmus test of acceptability can only erode the independence and effectiveness of the federal judiciary, and limit their role in interpreting the Constitution.
The conservative disdain for judges, and frequent diatribes against them, erodes respect for the judiciary and could even endanger the safety and lives of federal judges.

You may ask yourself, "what launched the yappindog on this tirade?" It was Sandra Day O'Connor. She's one of those "liberal" justices, appointed by Ronald Reagan. She served on the Supreme Court for 26 years, survived breast cancer, and retired from the Court to take care of her ailing husband. She voted in favor of abortion rights, which earned her death threats and the lasting condemnation of the religious right.

During her time on the Court, O'Connor became concerned about increasing political attacks on the judiciary. Since her retirement she has spoken and written extensively on this issue. Most recently, O'Connor worked with Georgetown University and the University of Arizona to create an educational website -- www.ourcourts.org -- aimed at teaching young people about the important role of the independent judiciary in American government. Tonight, Justice O'Connor did the ultimate "reach-out" to young America: she appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Not posted yet, but check the Daily Show website to see the interview soon. I say, "you go Sandy."

By the way, while surfing the net as I wrote this blog entry, I came across this amazing story of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist who is credited with getting the Supreme Court to ban prayer in schools in the early 1960's. Where did I find it? Where else: Wikipedia. Her violent end reminds me of something a college English professor once said. He argued that even though Americans like to think of themselves as peace-loving and religious people, that we are in fact most defined by the amount of violence we sanction in our culture. I thought that was outrageous in 1975, but I have come to agree with it. That's why I think it is not farfetched for judges to be worried about their safety, and to speak out against the demagoguery of politicians who trash judges to gain favor with their conservative supporters. In America, people are armed to the teeth, and sometimes kill for their beliefs.

I Miss the Smell of Nuts in the Dime Store

2009-02-23T15:41:00.007-05:00

Walking into the drugstore can be like traveling back to childhood. A visit to the CVS or the Rite-Aid is the closest thing left to the childhood experience of going to Woolworth's or Rose's. Of course, nothing will replace the smell of hot nuts and grilled sandwiches at the lunch counter at Woolworth's on Main Street in Kannapolis, North Carolina, and the candy counter with chocolate stars and jelly beans. The big competition was between Chicago-based Woolworth's and North Carolina dime store classic Rose's, just a block away on West Avenue. But I digress. I'm a adult now, and I'm in the drugstore..

The minute I walk in the door, I immediately forget I am there to pick up one of the 10 to 20 prescriptions I need (to maintain the facade of physical health and sanity), or Rogaine, or Tucks, or support socks. Instead, I am drawn -- like an ant to the picnic -- to the hypnotizing rows of candy that announce the arrival of the next holiday. It's Easter now, even though the Valentine's candy occupied the same shelves just one week ago. The leftovers of that holiday are relegated to a small shelf at the end of the candy row, and everything there is 75% off. Even for a bargain hunter like myself, this candy is now unappealing. It is not the right color.

This is the right color:

But, I'm not there to buy candy anyway. I take a breath, close my eyes and try to focus. I lose the sensation of brightly colored candy, and remember it's the drugs I'm here for. But I can't walk to the pharmacy counter with my eyes closed. I open the eyes, and I'm back in the candy aisle. Maybe I could buy just one chocolate bunny? The old-school bunnies (Russell Stover, Balmer, and other chocolates that I haven't tasted in 40 years) sit next to Cadbury, Hershey and other brands I have tasted recently, with disturbing regularity.

Maybe I should skip the candy and get some easter egg dye.

I lose all sense of purpose, reason and proportion, and linger by the egg and bunny-shaped Sweet Tarts, the candy eggs, and the foil-wrapped Hershey's kisses in pastel Easter colors. What a great holiday.

Easter is still a month away, but if you went to CVS on February 15, you would have seen this already:

And, did I mention the Marshmallow Peeps?

The green ones taste best.

I briefly consider how silly it would look if I collect the armful of candy I want and pay for it at the pharmacy counter where I am picking up prescriptions. Solution: I pay for the prescriptions and then haul my candy to the front counter, where, apparently, I don't care what people think of me.

One last thing: where else can you see so many products "As Seen on TV?"

Ped Egg, Kinoki toxin-removing foot pads, Super Putty, HD Vision glasses, The Thighmaster, and of course, the Slap Chop and the classic Clapper.

I've been in the drugstore for two hours.

Toxic Lunch

2009-02-18T18:20:00.005-05:00

Have a look at this great political carton by Tom Toles from yesterday's Washington Post. It would be funnier, if it weren't so true. This fellow is in trouble.

And now that his company has declared bankruptcy, who's going to provide all the institutional peanuts?

End of a Long Drought

2009-02-10T21:49:00.003-05:00

It's been a long time since I posted; are there any readers left out there? Since I last wrote, so much has happened, so much to think about, so much to comment on, so much to complain about, so much to celebrate. I have been overwhelmed. A sampling:

I went to the Obama inauguration on January 20. It was a privilege. It was like a great national catharsis.
It cannot be an accident, or merely evidence of President Obama's rock star status, that millions of ordinary people came to Washington to celebrate. The crowds were unbearable, but nobody seemed to mind. It was great just to be there, and to experience the great, pent-up desire of people to see our government move in a new direction.
It is such a relief that the Bush Administration is over. I don't know a single person, including all the Republicans I know, who is not relieved.
Where was the Bush Administration in November and December, when the economy was going from bad to gruesome? Did anybody notice that Henry Paulson disappeared? Was he managing the TARP, or making after-Administration plans?
I found out on January 16 that I only have one kidney. Read about my condition.
Are we experiencing a severe recession or a mild depression? What's the difference?
I am sick of listening to Republicans complain about how much the stimulus bill will cost. These are the people who controlled Congress in six of the last eight years and consented to the tax cuts and spending over the last eight years that created most of the current U.S. national debt. However, just recently, they have decided to be fiscally responsible. It apparently was worth incurring massive debt held by China and other countries when the purpose was to wage war in the Middle East, but it is not worth incurring debt to try to create jobs for Americans and fix our own economy?

What are you thinking about?

I'm Not No Limburger

2008-12-13T03:07:00.003-05:00

Have you ever been on an elevator by yourself, daydreaming, all distracted, and all of a sudden, you fart? You don't think too much about it, but then it really smells, and just when it begins to dawn on you that the elevator could stop at any moment and somebody could get on and it would be obvious who farted, the doors open, and a really pretty woman gets on the elevator, and then you still have 20 floors to go?

It has never happened to me.

Delicious Succulence Contest Winner Announced

2008-12-10T01:58:00.002-05:00

Remember the salacious "poem" (using the term loosely) that I published here recently, asking contestants to interpret? Well, 2 readers (out of 4) are clamoring for the results, and therefore, the results of the contest are in. Jakie Wakie correctly (and quickly) identified my favorite line: "Investigate your dark places with a flashlight." Nothing else was even close. I think about that line often, and wonder, if I had a flashlight in bed with me, what I should be doing with it. Even if I shined it in my dark places, I am not limber enough to see. But, that's another story for another blogging day.

The judges had a difficult time choosing the best interpretation of the "poem," but finally we chose Smash. Her interpretation was sassy and dirty, and that's what that "poem" (if you can call it that) was all about.

People who participate in my blog contests will find themselves richly rewarded. Jakie wins a used pair of size 9 shoes and a CD of his choice. Smash, you win a pork dinner, and an extra Christmas present of my choice.

Thanks for playing.

Some Thoughts (Random and Not So Random) About Proposition 8

2008-12-03T23:25:00.004-05:00

First, a little comedy to lighten the mood:

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Thanks to Jakie Wakie for the heads up. More hilarity at the Funny or Die Website.

Since election day 2008, I've been thinking hard about the defeat of Proposition 8 in California. For those of you who don't read the newspaper or pay attention in Sacrament meeting, Proposition 8 was on this year's California ballot. Added in response to the May 2008 ruling of the California Supreme Court legalizing same sex marriage, Proposition 8 modifies the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Pre-election polling showed wide shifts in opinion among voters, but on election day, Proposition 8 won, 52.3% to 47.7%. 13,000,000 Californians voted.

I am disappointed. The election was so close. It was bitterly fought, with intelligent people of good will on both sides of the debate, and a lot of dumb haters too. (I might be one of the dumb haters.) A huge portion of the pro-Proposition 8 campaign -- over 50% by some estimates -- was paid for by members of my Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Church leadership actively encouraged California members to become involved, and encouraged members all over the United States to support the campaign financially. And Mormons are nothing if not followers. They took to the Church's direction in this matter with gusto, contributing as much as $22 million, by some estimates. The Church's involvement is now being investigated by the State of California in response to a complaint that it failed to report all monetary and in-kind contributions under California law.

I've been thinking about why Mormons and other people are so passionately opposed to same sex marriage. I'm not done, but here are some of my thoughts, in part spurred by the sweet little musical piece above:

Back in the olden days (say, Sodom and Gomorrah), scripture records homosexuality as a grievous sin practiced openly in decadent civilizations, as a symptom of evil, as rejection of God and his commandments. That's how the Hebrews saw it, and that's how we churchgoing, godfearing folks were taught to regard same sex attraction in Sunday School.
In the 1960's and 1970's, dramatic social changes in America brought into greater public view all kinds of sexual experimentation and the relaxation of sexual mores, including the more open practice of homosexuality. Science still didn't have too much to say about same-sex attraction, and the emergence of gay culture was seen by many Christians as a grave threat to the founding mores of the United States. Like heterosexuals in the pre-AIDS 1970's, many gays were openly and unapologetically promiscuous. Christians admittedly view heterosexual licentiousness with horror, but homosexual promiscuity is special; it seems to arouse fears and expectations of the end of civilization as we know it in a way that ordinary adultery does not.
As recently as 20 years ago, Mormon Church leaders routinely counseled young men (including friends of mine) that same-sex attraction (not the act of sex but merely the feeling itself) was a serious sin, and could and should be repented of and overcome. Young men (and probably women, though I don't know of any) struggling with same-sex attraction were told to repent, go on a mission, and get married and have children as soon as possible.
Since then, science has begun slowly to overtake ignorance and superstition that has governed views on this matter for millennia. Numerous scientific studies show that same-gender attraction is fairly common (as much as 10% of the male population), occurs on a spectrum of attraction, occurs commonly in the animal kingdom, etc. etc. The mounting evidence shows it is not a learned behavior, or a choice. The first such studies are always routinely dismissed by religious folk as heresy, or the product of a godless scientific cabal, as has been the case with now commonly accepted discoveries of countless scientists, explorers and adventurers. However, the evidence on same gender attraction is consistent, and is becoming overwhelming. It cannot continue forever to be dismissed by wingnuts. The nature/nurture debate continues, certainly, but there is no real debate anymore that some proportion of people experience same gender attraction from an early time in their lives, long before such a feeling could be characterized as a "sin."
LDS General Authorities have modified their views on this important subject in recent years. President Hinckley began to speak out on same-sex attraction in 1991, and several subsequent articles, conference addresses and statements of Church policy clarify that the Church recognizes that a certain proportion of people are born with or obtain very early in life same gender attraction. Once you've acknowledged that much, it's not possible to call the feelings themselves a sin, and the Church no longer does. A notable recent statement of policy can be found at the Church website, in the form of a conversation between a Church Public Affairs representative and Elders Dallin Oaks (from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) and Lance Wickman (from the Seventy). This interview makes clear that no person with same-sex feelings should be counseled to repent, or to marry somebody of the opposite sex as a "cure." The interview also discourages aggressive therapies to "correct" homosexuality.
When gay liberation activists sought the right to be openly promiscuous in San Francisco in the 1970's, religious people could avidly oppose such liberalization while finding a certain comfort in it, because it fit what we have been taught to believe about gays and their lifestyles. They sleep around, they are promiscuous and discinclined to fidelity or monogamy. Their very assertion of their freedom to be gay and have sex with other men (or women) fulfills the hopes of people who look for Christ to return to Earth, and who believe his return will be preceded by wickedness of the worst kind, like the wickedness that caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. It's evil, but it's evil of the kind we recognize from the Bible and that we expect to see as evidence of the truth of our religious beliefs.
But then the gays go and mess things up by seeking the same right to live in a legally recognized monogamous relationship as heterosexuals enjoy. This brings the battle into our homes. It interferes with the us vs. them way that we feel comfortable looking at gay people. How will we explain gay marriage to our children? If society sanctions gay marriage, will our children somehow believe it's OK to be gay, and starting going all gay on us? The maneuver is so extreme, and feels so threatening to Christians, that I believe the vehemence of their opposition comes in part from the disorientation they feel.
There is something new about this newest debate over the nature of homosexuality. When homosexuality was condemned in the Bible and until very recently, it was always understood as deviant, antisocial behavior, against the interest of a nation in perpetuating itself through childbearing, and the worst sin of sexual impurity: the "love that dare not speak its name." However, with what we now know about same-sex attraction, and what we are learning, it seems to me no longer possible to characterize the matter in Biblical terms. Speaking not based on religious beliefs or morals, but purely as a matter of rights under state and federal constitutions, is it possible to deny gay people legal rights that heterosexual people enjoy solely based on sexual orientation? Should a gay man seeking to live in a legally-recognized monogamous lifelong relationship be regarded as a "Sodomite," evil, and contributing to the erosion of morals and the legalization of serious sin? Science no longer supports this kind of discrimination. Sooner or later the courts, state and federal, will also recognize that it has no constitutionally justifiable basis.
This is the future, and it is why Mormons and other religious people want a federal constitutional amendment enshrining heterosexual marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Unless the Constitution is so amended, gay marriage will eventually and inevitably become legal, state by state, and possibly as a matter of federal law. It might take 100 years, but it will happen. Opponents characterize this as antidemocratic because courts will force this change in our society over the will of legislatures and popular referenda like Proposition 8. But that's sour grapes. That's exactly what courts in the United States are supposed to do: interpret and enforce the Constitution, free of political influence, especially when necessary to protect the rights of minorities and disadvantaged groups that the majorities in America refuse to speak up for. When it works, it is the genius of our democracy, not to be decried as religious conservatives do. They resent courts, because more often than not, judges can be counted on to apply the Constitution and protect us from the demands of particular religious or other groups that we live according to their rules.
I understand what my Church teaches currently about homosexuality, and about gay marriage. I understand why many of my fellow Church members are afraid of gay marriage on moral grounds. However, I do not understand why, based on the moral stance of the LDS Church, members feel justified in transferring those moral beliefs into the law of the State of California, to be imposed on all citizens, whether or not they care to adhere to the tenets of Mormonism or any other religion.
I think Mormons expected to be congratulated on the brilliance of their strategy and the enthusiasm of their efforts in getting Proposition 8 enacted. I know many pro-Proposition 8 Mormons who are baffled by the anger, the demonstrations at temples, the disproportionate amount of criticism directed at Mormons instead of African American churches or Catholics, who also were active in the effort. But what did we expect? We contributed a disproportionate share of the money. We wanted a disproportionate share of praise and credit for the success. It seems to me we have to take our lumps too. That's democracy, and we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Unlike many of my fellow Church members, I have no desire to live in a theocracy, run by Mormons or by anybody else. More than just about any other founding principle of our democracy, I believe in the separation of church and state. It is necessary to the other great religious principle in the Constitution: the right to the free exercise of religion. The last eight years, in my opinion, have demonstrated the danger when government becomes too interested in enacting the wishes and morals of any one religious group.
Who were we trying to impress with our massive effort to enact Proposition 8? I believe the leadership of the Church did it for the right reasons (though I disagree with them): they see it as a fundamental and defining moral issue upon which the Church and other like-minded people must speak. This is fair. I also appreciate the explicit recognition of Church leaders that Members may differ in good conscience on the approach, because I do. However, I fear that many Mormons continue to seek the approval of and to make common cause with other religious conservatives on this and other moral/political issues. Unfortunately, I think the joke is on those of you who believe this makes sense. By and large the religious right believes that we are polytheistic pagans who believe in a Jesus not based in scripture but made up by Joseph Smith. Many of these people would have stayed at home and not voted at all if Mitt Romney had been the presidential candidate, or the VP candidate. They are not our fellow travelers. They do not wish us well. I'm afraid Mormons just financed their hate campaign, and won't get much out of the investment in the long run except most of the blame.
The vote was much closer this time in California, than the previous, overwhelming vote in favor of "traditional" marriage. The trend is in favor of giving people who wish to the equal right to live together in a legally sanctioned relationship and call it marriage. I, unlike most of my fellow Mormons, see this as a cause for celebration, not as evidence of the decline of our civilization or of the end of time. Again, leaving aside whether same sex relationships are "moral" from the perspective of one or another religion, their sanction in our society is no different than our ability to protect the rights of other historically disadvantaged groups, including the disabled, black people, women, etc. This is the great thing about America; it is inexorably moving towards greater equality for all its citizens. It's the first great civilization in history to invest massive resources and the power of law in the evolution towards ever greater equality for ever greater proportions of its citizens. It is not perfect, but is always working on greater equality and greater perfection. I regard this as a highly evolved society, not a depraved one. Recognizing the rights of people to live differently than I, but to be protected by and guaranteed the same rights as me, does not interfere in the least with my ability to practice my religion.

What do you think?

The Great Schlep Worked

2008-11-20T15:48:00.005-05:00

It's a little late to be posting Sarah Silverman's You Tube video encouraging all Jews to get to Florida and talk their grandparents into voting for Obama. Yet, it appears that record numbers of Jews did just that, because Rabat Dalama seems to have won America's phallic state. See Sarah here:

Language Alert
(although the language is no worse than, say, Dick Cheney's greeting to Patrick Leahy
on the United States Senate Floor. If you don't know about that, YOU DON'T KNOW DICK!)

Sarah reminds me of that famous B. Kliban cartoon with the caption: "Hey Europe, Eat My Florida." I can't find it on the Internet or I would post it for your pleasure.

Delicious Succulence

2008-11-17T18:11:00.005-05:00

Today starts a new series on Yappin Blog; let's call it Delicious Succulence. I recently discovered an amazing source of plump and juicy wisdom on the internet, a dispensary of everyday advice and wisdom that makes me throb with happiness. It's like Fascinating Womanhood for the new millennium. I cannot disclose its location because it's too too special; I want it all to myself. However, from time to time, I will post sweet nuggets of fantasticitude from this special place, to share with you and lift you out of the mundane and into the fabulous.

Your job as reader is to read and ponder carefully, and translate the bon mots of juicy fruit into everyday language. What do these mysterious aphorisms really mean? (Most of this advice is for women, but I invite my male readers to join in as well. It's all for fun, and hey, we fellas might learn something). Best translation gets a prize. What prize? I haven't decided yet. Here goes:

You are a Delicious Succulent Human Bean (not a typo)

Being a Succulent Woman

Be delicious
Eat Mangoes naked; lick the juice off your arms
Discover your own goodness
Smile when you feel like it
Be rare, eccentric and original
Describe yourself as marvelous
Paint your soul
Investigate your dark places with a flashlight
Make more mistakes!
Tell the truth faster
Celebrate your gorgeous friendships with women
You are enough; you have enough; you do enough

OK. Have at it. I can't wait for the contest to begin. I have a favorite line; there is a bonus prize for the first person to guess which line it is (immediate family members disqualified).

Update: It has been suggested that my reference to "immediate family members" is ambiguous. Indeed. The following two immediate family members are disqualified: (1) a person who's name rhymes with BANANA, and (2) a person who is named after her grandmother and great grandmother. Everybody else is in the deal. Where is the tidal wave? Where?

Oh Hell to The Yes

2008-11-07T10:56:00.002-05:00

See this stirring Chocolate News tribute to one of America's most patriotic pollworkers:

Ms. Peanut Wiggins wanted everybody to vote for Mr. Rabat Dalama. She funny, from the rooter to the tooter.

Where in the World??

2008-10-24T00:55:00.000-04:00

Whenever I'm done having dinner at the Star, I always walk by to see what's happening at Inez's Dancing and Diddling. Of course, it's just the dancing I'm looking for, not the diddling.

Making Fun of Hope

2008-09-27T00:15:00.002-04:00

Did the Sarah Palin Name Generator offend you? Did you think it was sexist, nasty, hateful, elitist, liberal, condescending, judgmental, insensitive, intolerant, chauvinist, thoughtless, coarse, snobbish, mean-spirited, frivolous, or harsh? Or did you think it was just a really funny way to waste 5 minutes? Either way, you'll want to go to the Barack Obama Quote Generator and waste some more time, as soon as possible. As a friend pointed out to me this week, the liberal elite will spend all day at the Sarah Palin Name Generator, giggling at the names, because we all believe in our hearts that she's a bumpkin, and we are sure this belief has everything to do with her politics and and lack of experience, and nothing to do with her gender (and our gender biases). But we would never visit a Barack Obama Name Generator site, because that would be racist. Can you imagine the names? (I can).

We mushy-headed armchair liberals -- I am told -- are much more comfortable with our sexist biases than we are with our racist biases. Or maybe those vestigial racist biases are just more deeply buried? Or maybe, our white guilt motivates us to favor black candidates over women? (Whatever: I think white guilt is very underrated.)

OK. There may be kernel of truth here; I have searched the Internet in vain to find a Barack Obama Name Generator. Surely, thousands of Americans have been sitting at their desks for months trying to think of something to do other than work. Why doesn't anybody come up with the Barack Obama Name Generator?? In a world where you can find internet sites that allow people to upload pictures of their own feces and then invite other people to rate these "emissions" (out of respect for humanity, I will not provide a link to this and its depraved family of sites), and sites that test your knowledge of trivia, teach you how to make bombs, and categorize all the rock music lyrics ever recorded, it is amazing that nobody has created a Barack Obama Name Generator, if for no other reason than as retaliation for all the excitement millions are having at the Sarah Palin Name Generator site. I hope that someone may yet fill this gap in worthless, time-wasting internet gags.

In the meantime, all is not lost. Somebody who should have been reading the trade press, doing expense reports and entering time instead noticed that Barack Obama delivers terrific speeches studded with inspiring messages of change and hope, and hope for change, and "positive mental attitude" happy talk. Figure out the formula, and you have all you need to create the Barack Obama Quote Generator Site. Choose three plural nouns (bad things), one plural noun (a good thing), and two vague concepts (one positive, one negative). The generator does the rest, using your hand-selected words to create three versions of an Obama-like platitude. Ingeeeniousss! Here's what I came up with:

Generate a Barack Obama Quote!

"You know, there's a lot of talk in this country about Inflation. Well I think Americans are tired of the same old politics. Ordinary Americans believe in bailouts, they want less
lobbyists, they just aren't sure if their leaders believe in hope."
Generate your Barack Obama quote at Buttafly.com

Now, you try it and see if you aren't inspired and befuddled a little, all at the same time.

Thump Hummer Palin

2008-09-15T15:34:00.008-04:00

Update: A good friend viewed this posting tonight and criticized it for being sexist and inappropriate. I'm curious to know what other readers think, and I welcome all viewpoints. Is it sexist to make fun of Sarah Palin for how she named her kids? Is it inappropriate on other grounds in addition to or besides sexism? Is the Name Generator elitist? IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING: I HAVE MY OWN VIEWS ABOUT THESE MATTERS, BUT RATHER THAN SETTING THEM OUT HERE, I WOULD PREFER TO KNOW WHAT READERS THINK. PLEASE COMMENT.....

Sarah and Todd Palin make the rest of us look like punters when it comes to naming our children. Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow and Piper set a new standard for labeling your progeny. Never again will America be satisfied with Madisons, Trevors, Ethans, or any biblical names. Now, by the miracle of the Internet, you can find out what Sarah and Todd would have named you if you were their spawn. My "Palinnom" is Thump Hummer. Just call me Thump, but please don't call me Hummer. If you want to learn your own name in the new "Palinmundi," go here. Thanks to Smash for the amusement. And, thanks to Tina Fey (or Filter Skate) and Saturday Night Live for helping us move closer to our goal as a nation of all Sarah, all the time.

Alive and Bloggin'

2008-09-09T02:10:00.002-04:00

It's been six weeks since I last posted, and as far as I can tell, nobody noticed. No, that's not true. My three most regular readers noticed, and wrote to see if I was still alive. Yes, dearest readers, I am here. Those six weeks have been filled with vacation, a little work, and a visit to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. I should have been blogging from the scene, but I was just too busy, working and having crazy political fun.

My most memorable experience in Denver? The antiabortion protesters. These gasbags are crrrrazzzy, but a lot of fun to watch. One particularly obnoxious religious fanatic (whose fanatical hatred was not limited to pro-choice Democrats), stood at a busy intersection with a large, hand-lettered sign that said:

Druggies, abortion doctors, gambling addicts,
perverts, child molesters, liberals, Hollywood
filmmakers, sex addicts, porn addicts, rapists,
blasphemers, hippies, Internet predators, child
abusers, homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites,
cheaters, thiefs, criminals, embezzlers,
bisexuals, lesbians, pimps, whores, and Mormons!!!
GOD WILL JUDGE YOU

Wow. I know that God is going to judge me, but I didn't know this asshole was coming to Denver to do it. Who's in charge of pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of so-called Christians that always stand in judgment of the rest of us? That person always seems to be off-duty when the hatin' evangelicals get out their mean-spirited signs and go picketing. Or maybe this guy was just illiterate, and hasn't read the Sermon on the Mount? I wanted to ask him if he intended to visit the Republican convention the following week in Minneapolis, where he would have found a good deal more Mormons to judge than were at the Democratic Convention, but my wife would not let me stop and talk to him. Incredibly, my family thought it would be a waste of my time to have a conversation with this nice gentleman.

Insurgent Candidacy

2008-07-29T01:03:00.000-04:00

Click Here for a Surprise.

Mad WomenTaking It to DENVER

2008-07-20T01:47:00.008-04:00

I have a really good friend who is one of those people you read about -- hardcore Hillary supporters -- who will not vote for Barack Obama under any circumstances. She is a lifelong Democrat, and one of the smartest and most civic-minded people I know, but she may not vote this year. Worse yet, she may vote for John McCain, in part as a protest against the leaders of the Democratic Party who she feels helped undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

She's not alone. As she points out to me, the internet is abuzz with the anger of people like her.

My friend and I have been carrying on a conversation in the comments to one of my earlier posts . I don't understand her anger, and question how many people there are out there like her. Thousands? Millions? I reproduce her most recent comment below. To understand the context, go read the other comments .

The anger of my friend and her friends baffles me. I get the disappointment, but the disaffection, and the Obama hatred, are hard to understand. And yet, I can't dismiss my friend's views. She's mad as hell, and she's not going to take it anymore.

What do you think? Join in the conversation. See my responses to her comments below, in green:

From femb4dem:

Freshly back from vacation, I am going to dissect a few parts of your last post:

"He also figured out before anybody that he could appeal to the great unwashed out there and raise a gazillion dollars, without taking a single dollar of PAC money or lobbyist money. I would never have believed it in a million years, and I think HRC didn't believe it either (or Dean, Pelosi, Reid, etc. or the rest of the D establishment), but they were wrong and he was right."

You have got to be kidding. Obama took PAC and lobbyist money, he just did it in ways that were disguised, and upon which the media was unwilling to call him -- most of his money came from bundling, and the bundlers were themselves tied to PACS and lobbyists, or were lobbyists themselves, just not lobbyists under an Obamaland definition. femb4dem: the facts don't bear these allegations out. Look at the website for the Center for Responsive Politics at www.opensecrets.org. According to data reported and analyzed there, virtually all of Obama's money comes from individual donors, and none of these are registered federal lobbyists. I assume some, maybe even many, are registered local and state lobbyists, but isn't this consistent with his argument that he doesn't want to be beholden to the people who lobby the federal government or the PACs that make large federal contributions? This page from the Center for Responsive Politics website summarizes his most recent FEC reports, and gives him a 94% score for the quality of his report. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that approximately half of his money comes from small donors via the internet, and the other half was raised through "bundlers." As you know, HRC relied extensively on bundlers, PACs and lobbyists' money. I assume your complaint then is not that Obama raised money through bundlers, but that the media is giving him a pass. Fair enough. But you must still give him credit for raising almost $170 million from small donors. Now, don't get me wrong. It is alarming to me that presidential politics costs this much, and I don't think Obama should get a pass for going back on his promise to accept public financing. I think public financing should be mandatory in the future. However, with this unbelievable amount of money, I guess I understand why Obama's doing it. Until Obama showed that money could be raised this way on a large scale -- through grass roots -- it was almost always the Republicans that had a money advantage, and their corporate interests that tended to be heard before and after the election. I have no problem with those interests being heard (I am, after all, a federal lobbyist, and by the way, cannot contribute to Obama's campaign), but I think it's a genuine phenomenon that the largest single contributors to his campaign will be ordinary people who were energized by his campaign.

"I believe totally that McCain will be happy to govern as a moderate/maverick but give the far right their judges."

Once he is in office, McCain will not be beholden to anyone because he will not be running for re-election. Why do you think McCain will not be running for reelection? He is old, but he's not that old, and if he's healthy, why wouldn't he run? I think he will, and that's why the right will get a Supreme Court judge, as soon as possible in his first term. Particularly if the Senate develops a backbone I invite you to expand on this comment. As a person who understands politics and the Congress, I wonder what you have expected from the Senate Democrats that you haven't gotten? In a Senate divided 50-49-1, they've done pretty well. And remember, that "1" is Joe Lieberman, so on Iraq War issues, the D's don't have even a nominal majority. (and why vote for Dem senators if they are missing a spine?), McCain will be in a good position to go with his core belief, namely being a moderate. He said just the other day how much he admires Sandra Day O'Connor and would look to appoint judges like her. I wish it were so, but I believe you have read into his comments what you hope, and did not pay careful attention to what he said. Here's how it was reported in the American Conservative magazine recently: "In one Republican presidential debate, McCain expressed admiration for his fellow Arizonan Sandra Day O’Connor. Asked whether he would appoint a justice like her, he averred, 'I’m not going to second-guess Ronald Reagan.' While conservatives have gleefully denounced O’Connor for over a decade, McCain couldn’t even make the easy concession that he was sometimes disappointed with her rulings." McCain also, as reported at Bloomberg.com on July 15: "has promised to nominate justices in the mold of President George W. Bush's appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, potentially shifting the outcome in cases on abortion, race and religion. Last month, a single vote would have changed 5-4 decisions barring capital punishment for child rape and expanding the rights of Guantanamo Bay inmates." Maybe he has been saying on the stump that he would nominate Sandra Day O'Connors, but I couldn't find such a quote anywhere. I think rather that he did a perfect dodge, sending a message of hope to moderates, and then refusing to say if he'd appoint somebody like her by hauling out Ronald Reagan. I maintain my original position: McCain will get an appointment during his first term, and he will appoint a stealth candidate, but it won't be somebody in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, because he will be looking to reelection. The only check on him will be a larger majority in the Senate, which you seem also not to want.

Obama, OTOH, if he wins will do so with Evangelical help, and because he would be running for re-election from Day 1, would need to throw judicial bones to this crowd. Obama running for re-election, backed by a go-along-to-get-along, spineless Senate, truly terrifies me. There will be nothing left of my Democratic party after he gets done tacking to the right, and there will be nothing left for me but third parties. What's the evidence that Obama needs Evangelical help? The only Evangelicals he is likely to get are black evangelicals, and they are going to be a lot more interested in his appointees' positions on civil rights, affirmative action, etc. than in the litmus test issues that motivate white socially conservative evangelicals? Give me more substance here, femb4dem.

"You are right that some of the best justices have been R appointees, but I believe these were in other days. I don't think a Souter or Kennedy are possible anymore. That's what Harriet Myers might have been (maybe just not as smart), and that's why the religious right roasted her on a spit and ate her bowels."

It is Obama who will be beholden to the religious right, not McCain. Remember, McCain has a long held grudge against this group from 2000 -- I see no reason to think he placates them. I think he has to placate them to get elected, but on the other hand, if he selects Mitt Romney as his running mate during the next few days, I might start to agree with you that he is not too worried about the religious right, at least to get elected. I think one of the things he would do early on to reassure them and bring them on board a McCain/Romney ticket for reelection would be to select a conservative justice. Alternative scenario is that his campaign is stoking this speculation about Romney so that when he doesn't pick Romney, he earns plaudits from those people. Either way, he needs them, or at least some of them. Obama running for re-election from Day 1? He will offer up Doug Kmiec for the Supreme Court (his anti-choice prayer partner) before you can blink. I see no reason to trust Obama on anything -- do you? If yes, please tell me why since he has flipped on pretty much every position he has taken. (Today's latest -- his scrubbing of his website of comments that the Iraq surge has been a failure). You might be right about Kmiec, eventually, but he wouldn't be the first appointee. It will be a woman; I would bet my life on it. And I disagree with you about the flipping. He has certainly tacked to the center, but why are you surprised by that, or intolerant of it, any more than you would be surprised at McCain pandering right and then now more to the center? It's presidential politics. Hillary would have done it too. Indeed, I assert that when she called herself the representative of the white, uneducated working class in America, she was doing something like that. To the extent that she represents people like my parents, that's a true statement and has always been true, in my estimation, but at the time she said it (West Virginia, Pennsylvania primaries), the meaning was somewhat different and less salutary.

Also, I respectfully disagree with you that the "surge" scrub is a flip-flop. I'm not a military genius, but I think in the short-term, the Administration's gamble with the surge strategy has been successful. It's hard to argue with the fact that violence in Iraq is down dramatically. I think Obama is smart to soft-pedal this: he may have been wrong to oppose the surge. I also think that the apparent success of the surge is not necessarily a predictor of how the war will turn out. And I think Democrats are letting Republicans tell the story right now, without reminding Americans how much it's costing us to be in Iraq. As long as only a few Americans are dying, it looks like people don't care how much it cost to be there. I hope that's not true, but D's need to put that out there more.

"However, the fact is that the public always blames the party that controls Congress, often more than they blame the President."

I don't think this is a fact. If it is, then the Dems are in for big trouble this fall. Last time I looked, they have the numbers to control Congress (albeit with a total lack of the discipline and will to do so). I'm going to do some research to back up my assertion, but the pols I know operate on this general assumption. It explains why the D's have forced the R's to mount so many filibusters this session (trying to create news that D's are acting but R's are obstructing). It also explains why the R's are filibustering things like the medicare reimbursement bill, which was wildly popular and passed the House by something like 355 to 60: the Senate R's are doing everything they can to block any action in the Senate so this Congress gets summed up for the public by the media as a "do-nothing" Congress. It's the only chance R's has to mitigate their losses. As for your comment about the "total lack of discipline and will," I'm going to need you to come with some analysis. And when you do it, explain how, in these cases, you would get 60 votes for whatever it is you think the Senate should have done and did not do. Anything less than 60, and it can be blocked by a filibuster, as you know.

IMO, McCain will be a placeholder looking out for his legacy. I actually think he will reach across the aisle and try to solve some problems. I agree. Legislatively, I have fewer problems with him. It's the judges I am worried about. I think he can do a lot of good for the government over four years of time, or maybe eight. However, one Supreme Court justice can change the country for the rest of your and my lives, and longer. That's why I'm voting how I'm voting. He has a record of doing that, unlike a certain rookie senator from Illinois. I hate to invoke a cliche that doesn't really prove anything, but here goes: JFK also didn't have much experience compared to his opponent. FDR was wildly underqualified compared to his 1932 opponent Herbert Hoover. By the measure you seem to be applying, George W. Bush is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama, and yet, we see how foolish it was in retrospect to place stock in his "experience." I agree that Obama has arisen seemingly out of nowhere, but do you really think McCain has relevant "superior" experience? He's been in the House and Senate for 30 years. He knows how to legislate, but does that qualify him to be Chief Executive?

"I just had a "Eureka" moment. I think that you want McCain because a McCain win sets HRC to run again in 4 years? I do get that, and it would be fine with me if she were the candidate. I am not going to vote for McCain though so that can happen. That's revolting to me."

I guess "revolting" is in -- that is exactly my strategy. Since I think McCain is less dangerous than Obama on many critical fronts, I am willing to wait another 4 years for a truly transformational candidate. Your transformational candidate, if he/she appears, will be too late to counter the new majority in the Supreme Court. This is my great fear. Also, I think it is possible that Obama could be that transformational candidate. I can't back that up, but I am not angry at him (or at the people that you believe helped elevate him to victory), and therefore I can conceive of the possibility.

Finally, if Hillary is the VP, I still doubt I could vote for Obama. Even if it ultimately helped her? I have seen nothing to make me think I can trust him in a crisis to make good decisions. What do you know about McCain that makes you think he would be more qualified to make decisions in a crisis? Everything he has done since becoming the prsesumptive nominee has made me even more certain on that account. It's moving to the middle, and I can't fathom why it surprises you, but we are going to have to disagree on this, I can see. I see no evidence that he has any core beliefs from which he will not stray. He is the ultimate Chicago, Daley-machine politician. I have always loathed that style of politics, I really do not want to see it go national. When it comes down to it, I put country before party. Just as I knew I could not trust Dubya, I see no reason to trust Obama. Hasn't eight years of an untested (he was governor of Texas, one of the largest, richest and most populous states in the country, and got great reviews from R's and D's; unfortunately, they were supremely, tragically wrong in a way that will hurt our country for 50-100 years, much longer an impact than most Presidents leave) , unqualified, arrogant, overbearing, preening, juvenile jackass been enough for you? It has for me, and I refuse to take a chance on another one.

Ciao!

P.S. I'd love to hear your take on the Bernie Mac fundraiser. Can you tell me why any woman should consider voting for a young man like Obama, who should know better, who has nevertheless exhibited troubling sexist tendencies during the campaign, and now when faced with an opportunity to show he gets it -- chastizes a jerk who thinks calling women "ho's" is funny, but then says "I'm just messin' with ya, man." Huh? Why would I vote for this man who can't seem to grasp the simple concept that even if he is a sexist pig (which seems clear) he should try to disguise it? Ugh. Didn't know about this and have to look into it. I'll get back to you.

Patented Technology?

2008-07-03T02:28:00.003-04:00

I was removing my converse canvas sneakers just now, when my eye alighted upon a label inside the the tongue that says "patent pending." I find this hard to believe. Why would the patent on Converse Chuck Taylors be pending for like 100 years? This sent me vaulting through cyberspace over to Wikipedia, where I learned that the Converse company began making rubber shoes in 1908, and started to market the Chuck Taylors that we recognize today in the 1920's. Converse dominated the athletic sneaker business for a good fifty years. Is there a backlog at the patent office? Are the sneakers made of a secret new space-age substance? Is there a new anti-odor agent incorporated into the insoles? I wonder..................

They're Always On the Can - In Japan

2008-06-26T02:31:00.003-04:00

Just when you think the Japanese maybe are pretty normal after all, except for the anime porn and the sadistic nationally televised game shows, you come across this smelly floater in the Wednesday June 25, 2008 edition of the Washington Post. I have set out the article in its entirety, because you will want to read every word, and I will want to comment extensively:

In Energy-Stingy Japan, an Extravagant Indulgence: Posh Privies

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 25, 2008; A07

TOKYO -- When it comes to saving energy, the Japanese have much to teach the United States and other rich countries, whose leaders descend on Japan next month for a Group of Eight summit.

Energy consumption per person here is about half that in the United States, and the growth of greenhouse gas emissions is slower than anywhere in the industrialized world.

There is a hiccup, though, in this world-beating record. It happens inside the Japanese home, where energy use is surging. And nothing embodies the surge quite like the toilet -- a plumbing fixture that has been reengineered here as an ultracomfy energy hog.

Japanese toilets can warm and wash one's bottom, whisk away odors with built-in fans and play water noises that drown out potty sounds. They play relaxation music, too. "Ave Maria" is a favorite. [that's just wrong. Mine would play "In the Navy" or "Big Poppa" (12 inch version)]

High-end toilets can also sense when someone enters or leaves the bathroom, raising or lowering their lids accordingly. Many models have a "learning mode," which allows them to memorize the lavatory schedules of household members. [isn't there a privacy issue here? "Oh MTMGBang-San, you made big squirty mess today!"]

These always-on electricity-guzzlers (keeping water warm for bottom-washing devours power) barely existed in Japan before 1980. Now, they are in 68 percent of homes, accounting for about 4 percent of household energy consumption. They use more power than dishwashers or clothes dryers.

"For hygiene-conscious Japanese, the romance with these toilets is equivalent to the American romance with the Hummer," said Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the environmental group at the Pew Charitable Trusts in Washington. [maybe thats because some of these toilets have a built-in hummer?]

Toilets with built-in warmers for bottom-washing first arrived in Japan in the 1970s. They were U.S.-made medical devices for hemorrhoid sufferers. But they took off, becoming the most profitable innovation in the modern history of Japanese bathrooms, according to toiletmakers.

The Japanese are serious about cleanliness. The word for clean -- kirei -- is also a word for beautiful. People often sweep the street in front of their house. They remove their shoes upon entering a house. They shower before bathing. They are sensitive to odors. For all these needs, aversions and desires, super toilets fit the bill, as well as catering to the Japanese love of gadgets.

In addition, Japanese houses are often small and, in the winter, chilly. A warm, comfortable, musical and hygienic seat in the bathroom expands living space.

But as with a Hummer, romance with a high-end toilet is not cheap. Luxury models cost up to $4,000 -- plus at least $2.50 a month per toilet in higher electricity bills.

But unlike the Hummer, which few Americans are now buying and which General Motors may soon stop making, romance with toilets continues to bloom in Japan, albeit with the intensive mediation of government energy watchdogs, who have begun to monitor the behavior of the toilet-smitten masses.

The final report of the Electric Toilet Seats Evaluation Standard Subcommittee noted last year that 23 to 30 percent of Japanese men now sit while urinating. They do so, the report said, for comfort and for "prevention of urine splash." [ah, the dreaded "urine splash" phenomenom!]

The report also included findings from the Warm-Water-Shower Toilet Seat Council (an industry group) that women urinate eight times a day, with an average on-seat time of 96 seconds. [I would like to be president of this Association]

The government started gathering these details around 2000, when nationwide surveys of electricity use began to show that toilets had become a significant factor in the country's appliance-driven failure to contain energy use in the home.

The Japanese government is struggling to meet obligations under the Kyoto global warming treaty to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 6 percent from 1990 levels by 2012.

At the G-8 meeting next month, Japan will be pushing the United States and other member countries to accept mandatory limits on emissions of the gases, which cause global warming.

Since the oil shock of 1973, no industrialized country has been more effective in squeezing more affluence out of less imported energy than Japan, experts say. Relative to its economy, Japan consumes only a third as much oil as it did 35 years ago.

Industry has led the charge, more than doubling output while using less energy than it did in 1973. To make a ton of steel, Japanese manufacturers use 20 percent less fuel than their counterparts in the United States and 50 percent less than those in China.

The primary reason for efficiency gains was lack of choice. Japan is an export-dependent manufacturing economy with virtually no domestic sources of fossil fuel. In industry, fierce global competition helped compel the profit motive to marry energy efficiency.

No such shotgun marriage, however, has taken place in the Japanese home, where energy consumption has jumped by 213 percent since the 1973 oil shock. Government figures have shown that household power use has risen at almost exactly the same rate as personal spending. (Despite the rise, per capita residential emissions of greenhouse gases in Japan are only 41 percent of those in the United States.)

"Consumers won't sacrifice comfort for the sake of energy conservation," said Yasuhiro Tanaka, chief of the energy efficiency division at the agency for natural resources and energy. "Consumers won't follow that path because we are richer."

Since the government cannot stop affluent consumers from buying flat-screen televisions and super toilets, it has chosen to squeeze manufacturers, requiring them to meet increasingly strict energy targets.

In the toilet industry, progress has been impressive, with nearly every manufacturer meeting its 2006 energy-efficiency target, according to government surveys.

Toto, Japan's largest toiletmaker, says that in the past decade, it has cut the monthly cost of electricity for its multi-featured toilets from $4.69 to $2.59. Almost all of this reduction has come without the involvement of toilet users, according to Kazumi Kasahara, a Toto manager.

"We have not heard about customers who turn their toilets off because they want to be green," he said. "What we do hear about are customers who get addicted to these toilets and cannot stop using them." [I would sit on a Toto toilet 11 or 12 times a day to prevent my urine from splashing, and to get my bottom washed]

For the addicted, Toto and other manufacturers -- with government encouragement -- have invented the intelligent toilet.

After a few days on the job in a household, it memorizes when and how family members do their business. Then, with history as its guide, the toilet intermittently heats up its seat and warms its water.

When no one is likely to be in need, the toilet is cool.

New and Hilarious: David Sedaris

2008-06-23T01:46:00.003-04:00

I haven't had time to blog in a while, and since I have no following in the blogosphere, there were thankfully few fans to disappoint. Someday, perhaps, my public will not tolerate such a lapse....

I just bought David Sedaris' new book: When You Are Engulfed in Flames. Don't wait for the paperback; go buy it now.

From "April in Paris," an essay about love:

"I was at my desk one afternoon, writing a letter, when I heard a faint buzzing sound, like a tiny car switching into a higher gear. Curious, I went to the window, and there, in a web, I saw what looked like an angry raisin. It was a trapped fly, and as I bent forward to get a closer look, a spider rushed forth and carried it screaming to a little woven encampment situated between the wall and the window casing. It was like watching someone you hate getting mugged: three seconds of hard-core violence, and when it was over you just wanted it to happen again."

There is a love story there, but you'll have to buy the book to read about it.

Haters, Get out of Sales!!!!!!!!

2008-05-15T02:10:00.008-04:00

While shopping on Ebay last week, I came across this remarkable advice from an EBay seller about his listing:

"PLEASE read the ENTIRE listing. Unable or too lazy to read ? Don’t bid !"

Way to insult potential buyers right off the bat! So why did I keep reading? My curiosity got the better of me. Read on:

"Pair Of Art Deco Style Electric Wall Sconces. These likely date to the 1920’s or 30’s. Made of spelter. Have a bronze colored patina. Measure 9 ¾” tall, 4 3/8” wide, and 4 ½” deep. Need total rewiring, though I would guess the sockets are reusable. W/a good cleaning, the bronze patina will likely come through nicely. There are no breaks or cracks. Lots of potential here."

For a brief, unrealistic moment, I thought the hostility was over. I was wrong...

"***********Payment is via personal/cashiers check, or money order. PayPal is not, and will not be accepted. Monies will be rec’d w/in 10 days of auctions end. I pack things very well. My packing material is used, but clean and odor free. Packing is free. There are no handling or other hidden fees. Postage is actual. All items are shipped via USPS, unless they don‘t meet the size requirements. For multiple item buyers, postage is combined where possible. U.S. BUYERS ONLY. Insurance is optional, but recommended. Items are as described (I am brutally honest). Questions? Ask! As w/any auction, all items are sold ‘as is’. All sales are final. I generally respond w/a ship cost w/in 24 hours of auctions close (you’ll get an "Ebay Invoice". Look for it in your E-Mail). Inability to chew gum and breathe at the same time? Don’t bid. Less than 50 feedbacks? Contact me prior to bidding. Poor feedback (less than 99%)? Don’t bid, as I will cancel/negate your bid. Good Luck/Happy Bidding"

Instead of wasting all this space, why not just say: "I'm an asshole; if you don't like it, suck it!"? It would have been just as effective a sales pitch.

And then this addendum, which besides being surly, insults the intelligence of anybody stupid enough to have read this far (I plead guilty), and contradicts the above statements that PayPal will not be accepted:

"SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO USE PAYPAL (NOW AN EBAY REQUIREMENT FOR LISTING), ADD $2.00 TO THE COST OF YOUR ITEM."

Should this hater reconsider his career in sales? That's my advice. Besides being a hater, he's apparently stupid:

"On May-09-08 at 04:39:23 PDT, seller added the following information:

A dozen items listed last week, and only three sold. $450 dollars worth, and only realized $25. Expect to see most of the items listed this week to end early, due to lack of interest. Growing weary/disgusted of trying to give items away, for little or no results. Likely my last week selling on Ebay. Rwrelic"

Is it possible this Cretin doesn't get the connection between insulting and verbally assaulting customers, on the one hand, and poor sales on the other?

Many years ago, when I asked my friend Mark why he sold his used car lot, he answered honestly and without hesitation: "Because I hate the public." At least he was in touch with his inner hater.

A Collection of Re-animated Ex-Presidential Body Parts Sewn Together......

2008-05-01T00:33:00.007-04:00

Go see Lil' Bush on Comedy Central. Hysterical!

Lil' Cheney is evil. Lil' Condi is a lil' gap-toothed fox. But the best is the story of how George H.W. and Barbara got together and made babies:

Presidential Campaign Update

2008-04-30T01:22:00.007-04:00

Who cares what the candidates say? What do the T-shirts say? Here are some of my favorites:

Is Reverend Wright Right?

2008-04-26T01:15:00.007-04:00

"When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public, that's not a failure to communicate. Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a 'wackadoodle.' "

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, interview with Bill Moyers, broadcast on PBS Friday, April 25, 2008

Unless you live under a rock, you know that Bill Moyers recently interviewed Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ (until recently, Barack Obama's pastor); the interview was broadcast tonight on PBS. Excerpts have been circulating for several days and there has been nonstop reporting and speculation in the media about the damage the interview will do to Barack Obama's campaign for President.

If you did not see it, do yourself a favor and watch the interview at the PBS website.

Having watched it, it has to be said:

Reverend Wright is no wackadoodle.
It's unjust and crazy that we reduce the substance of our thinkers, spiritual leaders and politicians to sound bytes of their worst moments, or (in the case of Reverend Wright) of their most complex and baffling moments, robbed of any richness and meaning provided by context.
Richness and meaning are what you get from watching the interview with Reverend Wright. He's no hollering, speaking-in-tongues honky hater.
There has not been nearly enough reporting about Reverend Wright's patriotism, as shown by his military service during a time when Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney all got deferments or otherwise avoided the draft. Kudos to the Chicago Tribune, who reports on this.
Going to church means something different for black people; we white people don't get it, but we could learn something from it. Black Christian churches in America were places of refuge for people uprooted and trashed by the practice of slavery; they were the only places in America where black people were empowered and valued as human beings. They continue to be a place of refuge and empowerment; it's no accident that many of America's greatest black political and social leaders have been preachers.
Why do we think it is unacceptable for black people to be angry about the legacy of slavery, and to talk about it in their churches? And why do we equate anger with hate? As Reverend Wright says so poignantly in the Moyers interview, the people piloting the slave ships were not praying to the same God as the people in chains in the bottom of the ships. It could not be so. Facing that fundamental truth, and reconciling oneself to life in a world in which God allows some people to be enslaved for the enrichment of others is one of the most basic and difficult philosophical tasks of any thinking person. The true creator of the universe never gave anyone permission to take slaves, to kill innocent women and children, or to bomb civilians. But it is still left to us to figure out why it happens, and to derive meaning from it. Using Psalms 137, Reverend Wright makes a persuasive case for how wronged people (in that case, the Israelites carried into slavery in Babylon) nurse resentments until they become a dehumanizing and degrading desire for revenge. His mission as a pastor is to engage his church members in a conversation about these most meaningful and painful experiences in their lives and to lead them beyond anger and the desire for retribution. Watch the interview, and then decide if you've been adequately informed by the news coverage about Reverend Wright. I was astounded at his eloquence and the richness of this thinking about the problem of evil in the world.
Patriots and great leaders do not accept the status quo or keep quiet about what they believe, though they may be vilified for seeking change and stating the truth. Martin Luther King famously said that "America was born in genocide," referring to treatment of native Americans. He was right, though it is painful to acknowledge it (and possible for me to acknowledge only because I am not running for any office). We no longer hold such frankness against Dr King, but only because he has been dead for 40 years.
Of course, I recognize that all these observations are irrelevant when evaluating whether Jeremiah Wright will keep Barack Obama from becoming President. The pundits may be right who warn that this injection of racism could doom Obama's candidacy. What a shame that it should be so. We have come so far as a nation, but we should be much better than this.

Tagged Back

2008-04-24T14:46:00.006-04:00

My pal Drew is the first to respond to my recent tagging of some of my favorite people. This is even funnier than it otherwise might be, because he is dead serious about most of this stuff, including the pigeons and the bumper steak. Read on:

WHAT WERE YOU DOING 10 YEARS AGO:

Ten years ago would have been April 1998 and I had just finished celebrating my 23^rd birthday. I was just finishing up my double Associates Degrees in Environmental Science and Hydrology at Indian College. To you non-natives that's slang for Salish Kootenai College, where I graduated 4^th in my class of 15 highly eager and impressionable students! April is also the start of high water on the Flathead river and I was just about to re-discover “Indian Johnny” in the whirlpool off the boat launch at the base of that evil white man water holder backer-Kerr Dam.

Additionally, I was still parting my hair down the middle before Keanu Reeves stole my look and made it hip in Hollywood.

I was also driving the hottest sports car in Montana, a 1992 Oldsmobile Calais but Maroon in color with nice grey interior and a super charged 4 cylinder that just blew everybody away. (Drew: I believe this is your father's Oldsmobile. )

Oh I almost forgot: I got my first e-mail address on Al Gore’s contraption we called the inter-web while in college. I got exactly 10 e-mails in 6 months-nobody had the inter-web outside of academics like us at SKC at that time. Now that I look back we more than likely got our computers from a federal grant and the inter-web was dial-up that took days to load anything.

5 THINGS ON MY TO DO LIST:

1. Build a Roman Gate just as you enter from Mur-land on Branch Avenue like this piece of x@$*t one but with more gold, horse drawn carriages and spears.

2. Raise free range show chickens (editor's privilege: wtf?)

3. Find a suitable plot of land in Orange County – no one calls it the OC that has ever been there! To build Emy her white-on-white palace.

4. Die an old fat man with lots of hair (that's going to require surgery or a medical breakthrough)

5. Learn how to use Youtube.com better and more efficiently. I mean, has anyone else here seen the “turkey guillotine”?

5 SNACKS I ENJOY:

1. Extra lard pie crust with cinnamon and sugar sprinkled liberally and lightly baked to a crispy but chewy morsel of damn that’s goodness!

2. Black licorice of any kind except that in sweet feed which also has molasses. Sweet feed, in case you're wondering, is rolled oats, corn, and wheat and is fed to hogs.

3. Lukewarm homemade apple pie with Cheddar cheese lightly melted over the lard crust

4. Mrs. See’s peanut brittle. I love that stuff so much it’s like Polish crack and I could be persuaded to just about do anything for the promise of just one nibble of buttery decadence.

5. Raisins with cinnamon rolls or raisins with cookies. I don’t want you to get the wrong impression here, I like about 90% raisins to 10% what other good thing its used with.

5 FOODS I LOVE:

1. Potato ("e" is optional here) pancakes. That’s what they are called in my country, you all might know them as Potato Latkes (hmmmm. Is your country Montucky, or Poland? Because with your last name, I would guess that these flapjack are called Latkes in your country. Pancakes is what they are called in the South, where people tell polish jokes but have never actually seen a Polish person.)

2. Pulski and Sauerkraut

3. Indian Taco (feather, people! not dot!) To be honest I was not sure what the difference was between an Indian Taco and a Mexican Taco until Emy showed me. Nobody in my valley could believe that you would use a corn shell to house all the goodies. If my memory serves me correctly I think she made the paper with her “Mexican Taco”. Little did we know that her introduction would lead to an invasion of “Mexicans” into my country and all our road signs would have to be changed to Spanglish and the State Prison would have to upgrade their phone system from rotary dial to push button so you could access Montuckian. (At BYU's BoogerEat, these are called Navajo Tacos.)

4. Emy’s bumper fried steak in Polebridge seared over a white man fire and seasoned with years of rust, bear tongue juice from licking the rusty bumper grill plate, salt, pepper and melted plastic fork. Sooooo very good! (what a surprise that there is no picture of this)

5. Are words really necessary here?

WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WERE SUDDENLY A BILLIONAIRE:

1. Build the biggest darn pigeon loft in Spring Hill Florida

2. Buy Malibu and re-naturalize it to pre 1849. I think Grizzlies and Elephant seals deserve to have their historical and biological habitat returned to them.

3. Make this my closet.

4. Go to Africa and find our friends Ash and Joe in one of these.

I’m totally deathly allergic to these:

And I would not want to end up like this: a bent-over deed nail.

5. Have this kid's mother arrested and pay for his counseling. Something has got to be wrong with his mother; what is she thinking? Exactly! she’s not!

FAVORITE QUOTE:

“You can take my gun from my cold dead hand” (wait, let me guess: did Charlton Heston say this, or every gun-owner in Montucky? If Heston, he's ready; you can go get his gun now.)

Seacrest out!

The Theology of Polygamy

2008-04-21T00:33:00.007-04:00

For Mormons, it's always a laugh riot when the subject of polygamy comes up. It gives us lots of 'xplainin' to do. On April 3, 2008, the State of Texas raided a compound near El Dorado, Texas inhabited by elite members of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or FLDS Church), and took more than 400 children into protective custody. Unless you've been under a rock, you've been hearing about the raid and its aftermath in the news. So what does all this have to do with Mormons like myself?

Emma Smith, (first) wife of the first Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., and first Mormon lady who had to put up with the doctrine of "plural marriage."
She does not look happy about it.

One of the most interesting and infamous things about the Mormon Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) is its 19th Century experiment with plural marriage, more commonly called polygamy. The mainstream Mormon Church formally banned the practice in 1890, to avoid seizure of its property by the Federal Government and to make possible the entry of Utah into the United States.

Soon after, Reed Smoot was elected Utah's first Senator, but there was a bitter four-year-long dispute about whether he should be allowed in the Senate because of suspicions that Mormons secretly continued to practice polygamy and swore secret temple oaths against the United States. He was seated in 1907. During the controversy, a powerful Senator quipped: "In the United States I would rather have a polygamist who doesn't polyg than a monogamist who doesn't monog."

Good one. Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks mused in a 2006 UK newspaper article: "It is puzzling to Mormons who have many polygamous ancestors like I do that people get so excited about polygamy. If a man has two wives there's great excitement. If he has five mistresses it is hardly worth commenting."

After 1890, polygamy persisted among fundamentalists who left the Church and formed breakaway Mormon sects, and in Mormon colonies in the Mexican State of Chihuahua and in Canada. The most notorious of the breakaway groups is what came to be known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or FLDS Church). Its leader and "prophet," Warren Jeffs, was convicted in Utah in 2007 of being an accomplice to rape for arranging the marriage of a 14-year old girl to her first cousin. He is serving ten years to life in Utah, and still faces trial in Arizona on similar charges.

Warren Jeffs at his sentencing in 2007. Perhaps he is thinking about
whom he will be forced to marry in prison.

Among the avalanche of news reports over the last few weeks, two stand out:

On Thursday, April 17, 2008, Dianne Rehm (soon to be featured in the wildly popular "Best Things in the World" series) devoted the first hour of her excellent talk show to the subject of polygamy in the FLDS Church as a religious practice, and the conflict of religious practice with modern child welfare and sexual abuse laws. Go to this link for the broadcast in Real Audio or Windows Media, or order a CD or transcript of the show. Diane Rehm has the best talk show on the radio. It is intelligent and wide-ranging in the subject matter it covers. It does not attract many nutjob callers, and when the occasional loony calls in, Diane shuts him/her down without ado.

On Sunday, April 20, Dr. Jan Shipps, historian and expert on the Mormon Church, was interviewed on the weekly NPR show "Interfaith Voices." The segment focused on the FLDS Church, its practice of polygamy, and the theological basis of polygamy in the original Mormon movement. Dr. Shipps is professor emerita of history at Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis. She is considered generally to be one of the most prominent non-Mormon scholars to write on Mormon history and culture. Go to this link to hear the broadcast. If you don't want to hear the other topics covered in the show, you can click and drag along the soundbar until you reach the segment on Mormons, which is at 37 minutes, 31 seconds into the show. This discussion was particularly noteworthy because of Dr. Shipps' vast knowledge about Mormons and her objectivity on the subject.

If you really want to know something about this subject, and not just to be entertained by sensational news stories, skip over Anderson Cooper and the like, and listen to these excellent broadcasts.

I've Been Tagged

2008-04-16T00:04:00.008-04:00

She's been Tagged

Kind of, anyway. My niece informs me that anybody who is anybody has been "tagged," which is the email (or YouTube) equivalent of a snail mail chain letter. Typically, a chain letter is sent to five or more people, each of whom is encouraged to make copies of the letter and send to five or more of his/her friends, and so on, and so on. Sometimes the letter encourages recipients to take a specific action, to join a cause, or to mail money, business cards , photos, or other items. When I was a kid, it was commonly believed (at least in my beloved home town) that chain letters were illegal because they would clog up the mail system. In fact, the Post Office was probably sending out chain letters to drum up business. Why wouldn't they want to sell more stamps rather than less? According to Wikipedia, chain letters are not illegal unless they promote or solicit participation in Ponzi schemes or other fraudulent investment schemes. That is a federal crime and could land you in the hoosgow (an awesome word stolen right here in America from the Spanish language).

But I digress. Being tagged means that somebody sends you an email or YouTube video giving you a collection of information about him- or herself, and asking you to answer the same questions about yourself. I did not receive a personal tag; rather, I was tagged along with the dozens of other people who read www.smashgfunk.blogspot.com on a regular basis. I wondered briefly if this strictly complies with the rules, but then I realized that there are no rules, or if there are, there is nobody to enforce them, which amounts to the same thing. That's my favorite kind of situation. (I Googled "you've been tagged" and "I've been tagged" just in case, but I found no rules. Just a lot of extremely tedious and boring crap -- like I'm about to write -- by millions of people who have been tagged and decided to put it all out there on the Internet -- like I'm about to do. The picture above is from a YouTube video; this lady has been tagged and she's telling about it in her own moving picture. It looks promising; she kind of looks like Amy Winehouse if Amy had lived in the 1950's, had short hair with no rats' nests and didn't drink or take drugs (in other words, nothing like Amy Winehouse). No such luck. It's awful. What was she thinking? What was I thinking?

But I digress again. Here's my list:

What were you doing 10 YEARS AGO
Living in Las Vegas in a faux stucco McMansion on a postage-stamp lot overlooking a desert gulch. Listening to Fountains of Wayne, especially Leave the Biker (click on the link to listen for free). Going a little "crackerdog" in my head. Still not over that.

5 THINGS ON MY TO DO LIST
1. Achieve Nirvana
2. Comprehend Evil
3. Drop out of the Rat Race
4. See X 25 more times Before They Die or I Die
5. Live in Italy

5 SNACKS I ENJOY
1. Crunchy Cheetos
2. Pork Rinds (here is evidence of the incredible value of Wikipedia, which has a detailed entry on pork rinds, including fascinating facts such as that there is a vegetarian version of pork rinds. WTF? Why would vegetarians want to eat a fake version of fried pig skin? Also, the English call them "pork scratchings," Latin Americans call them "chiccaraones" [which any fool knows that frequents 7/11 or On the Run, where our immigrant workforce buys its supply of chiccarones for lunchtime snacks], and I call them delicious.) I feel confident that pork rinds have never been chronicled in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Actually, I checked.
3. Potbelly cookies
4. Sour Cola Gummi Bottles - but only if made by Haribo (Haribo macht Kinder Froh, und Erwachsene ebenso!)
5. Roast Lamb and Mint-flavored potato chips (don't believe it? Click here. The company also offers flavors such as "Cumberland Sausage and Onion Gravy," "Ploughman's Cheese and Pickle" and "Yorkshire Steak and Ale Pie" flavored potato chips. Doritos can suck it!!!!!!!!!!

5 FOODS I LOVE*
1. Hot Dogs All the Way (even Wikipedia knows about hot dogs all the way)
2. "Eye-talian" Food
3. Butter
4. Bacon
5. Cheeseburgers, esp. In-N-Out Burger, What-a-Burger (the North Carolina kind, not the Texas kind because Texas SUCKS), Five Guys, and a lot of other kinds. By the way, What-a-Burger is too much of a dying brand to have its own website, but it is listed online in a list of "wedding restaurants" in Concord, North Carolina. I love the What-a-Burger; it's like eating childhood in a large bun every time you go there, but if you have a wedding event there, that's shameful (but I would come if I were invited).

*Compelling evidence that Smash G. Funk did not take this seriously: her answer does not list the Cafe Rio Salad.

WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WERE SUDDENLY A BILLIONAIRE
Retire, achieve nirvana, comprehend evil, quit the rat race and move to Italy (after attending the rest of X's concert dates on their current 31st anniversary tour. I've already seen them in Seattle, and have tickets to see them in D.C. and Chapel Hill, so only 22 more dates to go.

5 PLACES I HAVE LIVED
1. In the Casa des Hombres (it had a sign out front that said "boys for rent.")
2. In the City of Looms.
3. In a haunted attic apartment above a church and a German-Italian Friendship Club (with a picture of the Mona Lisa hanging in the clubroom) in Fulda, Germany.
4. In a trailer park.
5. In a place called Dudweiler (is there anything Wikipedia doesn't know?)

FAVORITE QUOTE

Every Word on the X Album More Fun in the New World, including the following highlights:

all by John Doe and Exene Cervenka

from We're Having Much More Fun:

"This room has emptied out, it's time to wash your face
& throw away your food, leave your sister home & come with us
its not dark enough, not yet, louder than hell we'll be
we'll love the black night falling with every unfamiliar scene
we're having much more fun! you don't know where we've gone
we're having much more fun!
we'll crawl through your backyard & whack your yappin' dog
we're having much more fun!"

from Make the Music Go Bang:

"i've seen a lot of people with plenty of guts
they say make "my music new & loud & rough"
give it a beat or give it a twang
in a dark sweaty club it's the same damn thing
bang, bang, make the music go bang!
brilliant, shining & nasty
bang, bang, make the music go bang!
let me hear a guitar sound like a train
bang, bang make the music go bang!

you can't drive around and hear your favorite song
so you tape it live if you can get inside when it comes along
i can't stand people who bitch & whine
let's drink a beer from a paper bag while we got time
bang, bang, make the music go bang!
brilliant, shining & nasty
bang, bang, make the music go bang!
let me hear a guitar sound like a train..."

from "True Love"

"...true love...is the devil's crowbar
he uses it to pry you out of your car and into the arms of ______
the devil drives a buick & he sits inside and eats lunch
and sticks his pitchfork through the trunk and into the spare
and he pulls out true love
true love...is the devil's crowbar..."

I TAG

Dumont and Penny Carolyn, Lt. Colonel Willie-Bean, Twirlie McKay, her sister, Banana and Mattil, Ms. Emy-Lou and her Drew.

Best Food in London

2008-04-15T00:36:00.006-04:00

With this entry, I'm initiating a new service to my readers called "The Best Things in the World." Yes, I realize that right now, I have no readers. But in the event that changes someday, my "Best Things in the World" series will lead you and these other lucky future readers to the best food I've eaten, best books I've read, best places I've stayed, best sights I've seen, best movies I've seen, and best things I've done.

What are my qualifications? I love to travel, sightsee, read, go to the movies and eat. And, I have excellent taste. If I recommend it, I feel confident that you should try it.

Today's entry will take you to a fantastic and reasonably-priced restaurant in London: Tas Pide. A "pide" is kind of like a Turkish pizza, and the Tas Pide is a Turkish restaurant specializing in delicious pides. The flagship is located at London Bridge and Southwark Bridge, directly across the street from the Globe Theatre and a short walk from the Tate Modern (the former Bankside Power Station).

Tas Pide Location at 20 - 22 New Globe Walk London SE1 9DR - 020 7928 3300

This is a great and unusual location for a visit to London (more on that in a future entry). We have visited the Tas Pide restaurant on three trips to London over the last four years. In each case, the food was fantastic, the service friendly, and the prices reasonable (for London anyway). There are great salads, hommos, yogurt and other dips, delicious breads, soups, and of course, the pides. My favorite is the Kusbasili, which has diced lamb with onions, pepper puree, green peppers, parsley, pine nuts and oregano.

The closest Tube stations are Southwark or London Bridge. On our first trip to the restaurant, we walked in pleasant weather along the Thames from the London Eye (about a twenty-minute walk). The easiest way to find the restaurant is to make your way to the Globe Theatre; the restaurant is directly across the street. Or, if you are not in this part of London, the restaurant has branches around town.

"Bitch is the New Black"

2008-04-09T01:02:00.004-04:00

This is by far Hillary's best endorsement. Go Tina!! Go Hillary!! Rush Limbaugh: Suck it, and choke on it.

If you, like me, didn't understand Tina's comparison of Rush Limbaugh to Jeff Conaway, go here. All will be revealed. Hint: it has to do with corpulence, drug abuse and stupidity. For those of you too lazy to click on the link, Wikipedia's entry on Jeff Conaway ends with this nugget:

"On BBC Radio 2's Russell Brand Show,^[1] Noel Gallagher claimed that he got into a confrontation with Jeff Conaway backstage at a gig resulting in Conaway pulling a knife on Gallagher.^[2] According to his interview on the show the following week,^[3] Conaway confirmed he regularly carries a knife and sometimes even a hatchet with him which he blames on 'growing up in New York'."

You can laugh at Tina Fey every Thursday night at 8:30 Eastern Time in 30 Rock. If you are not yet watching 30 Rock, why not?

A Soundtrack to My Movie

2008-04-04T22:18:00.003-04:00

Elvis Costello

My favorite songs make up a kind of soundtrack to my everyday experience, a personal canon selected for me, by me. Sometimes the lyrics convey the meaning intended by the songwriter, but just as often my continuous interior conversation gives the words their own meaning. I appropriate them for my own use. I used to feel guilty for knowing by heart more song lyrics than Bible verses, but not any more. There is plenty of room in my canon for new scriptures.

No lyricist has contributed more to my canon than Elvis Costello. More than thirty years after he first appeared, he still writes beautiful and brilliant songs. Unlike many other artists that can master a few pop personae, or a subcategory of music, Elvis never got stranded anywhere. While his audience may be smaller than it was when he changed his name and took on a punk persona, his fans are more meaningful, because we are there for the art, not for the scene.

"I was taught to believe you were looking down on everyone
And your benevolent face is beautiful to gaze upon
Now I just don't know who to tell to go to hell
Who put the old devil in the distorted angel?

"Distorted Angel
Pure illuminated sweetness
Frightening small children is just about your only weakness
I thought that you would tell me what I'm living for
But I can't see you anymore"

from Distorted Angel, Elvis Costello, All This Useless Beauty

Power to the Peeps

2008-03-24T02:41:00.003-04:00

If you love Marshmallow Peeps, then Easter is the holiest day on your calendar. Niece Smash G. Funk blogged about the brilliant Peep Sculpture contest started last year by the Washington Post. One of her commenters tipped us off to a Mormon variant: Peeps of Mormon. Here is a great new blog with inspiring visual interpretations of our unique scriptures and history using marshmallow peeps. An example of the brilliant images to be found there:

Lehi's Dream: The Great and Spacious Building

My only request: use more peeps. It looks like the bloggers are eating more and using less for the art. Could these images supplant the powerful paintings of Arnold Friberg in Mormon iconography?

Taking Smash to Geography Class

2008-03-19T03:44:00.002-04:00

I was never the best at sports, but whenever challenged to college bowl, trivial pursuit or scrabble, my competitive juices begin to flow. So, when Smash challenged her blog readers to take this geography test, seeing how many countries you can name (by typing them with correct spelling) in five minutes, I could not resist. I easily beat Smash's 54. Some of her blogreaders claimed suspiciously high numbers, but did not provide appropriate documentation. This includes Smash's sketchy brother, the "BOY." So, I say, come with the evidence, or don't come at all.

Smash: Better luck next time, sucka.

Naughty Eliot Spitzer

2008-03-11T22:27:00.002-04:00

Like everybody else in the whole world, I am wondering to myself today about Eliot Spitzer: "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING????????" Does he read the newspaper? Does he live in the same world we do, in which the federal government monitors our phone calls in order to protect our freedom? Didn't Eliot know that somebody would be listening to those phone calls in which he had Kristin delivered to himself at the Mayflower Hotel for Valentine's Day? I wonder what Mrs. Spitzer got for Valentine's Day?

Why? Why Not?

2008-03-09T03:34:00.000-04:00

Those are the questions. Why start my own blog now, when there are millions of others in the blogosphere, and already a Barringer Blog to which I and several members of my family already contribute, and which almost nobody reads. Why publish what you think, or declare publicly what you care about, when nobody else may care about it, or worse, when nobody else may even read it?

I don't know why. Why not? A lot of people in the past wrote things on paper that they never believed would be read, at least during their lifetimes.

The good thing about a blog: it's free, and I don't have to justify it. It just is. If you find it, welcome.

For my first post I celebrate my favorite official act President Bush has undertaken during his almost eight years in office: the Merkel Backrub.
This set back German-American relations a couple of decades.