March 1

It was about 8:00 PM when I dropped my coat on the stairs and made it to the bathroom barely in time to vomit from adrenaline and exhaustion. Awake for thirty-eight hours, hardly anything to eat, and I had the easy job. I might have fallen asleep on my way to the bedroom. When the phone woke me an hour later my shoes were on, neither foot on the bed. I would have ripped the caller a new one, but it was my mother-in-law, and she deserved a special dispensation.

She’d only been a grandmother for three hours.

She wasn’t home when I called from the hospital; she had only just received the message.

It took a little over thirty-four hours of labor to become an official father. Mom was getting stitched up when the midwife invited me to meet my daughter. Unseeing and cold, she looked everywhere and nowhere until they told me to speak to her, and she looked straight at me. We played that game a few times and it was time for neo-natal ICU after a less than perfect Apgar test.

That was twenty-one years ago today. Happy Birthday to The Sole Heir.

Almost eight years ago someone else with a March 1 birthday came into my life. She’s still around, too, known better to readers of this blog as The Beloved Spouse.

Happy birthday to the two women in my life. You are the reasons I look forward to every day.

“Smarter Than Bush” Sets the bar Pretty Low

Barack Obama’s easy election in 2008 said more about the state of the country and John McCain’s relative merit as a candidate than it did about Team Obama. This guy, and his crack staff, have all the political savvy of Don Imus.

It started with picking Joe Biden for vice-president. I love Joe Biden. Voted for him for president as far back as 1988. I think he’s done a nice job as VP. The trouble is, he would have been a lot more help in the Senate, where he was a senior member who knew how to get things done. Casting the tie-breaking vote in The Age of Filibuster so neutered his abilities his dog feels sorry for him. Hillary Clinton has been a fine Secretary of State, but she and Biden (along with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar) could have given Obama the filibuster-proof majority he needed for some of his initiatives.

Senate and House Republicans routinely roll him on negotiations, yet Barack “Charlie Brown” Obama keeps thinking John “Lucy” Boehner will let him kick the football. A prime example can be found in last year’s deficit reduction negotiations. The original ratio of tax increases to budget cuts was supposed to be 1:1, until Obama looked like he might agree to it. Then it was two dollars in cuts to every dollar of tax increase. Then 3:1, 6:1, until now moderate Republicans say 10:1 and the firebrands will accept no tax increases. Obama doesn’t only not draw lines in the sand; he doesn’t even draw them in water.

The current blow-up over health insurance paying for contraception is a perfect point. First, how could people smart and sensitive enough to public opinion to win a presidential election not realize conservatives would pounce on this like a tiger on a tethered goat? (I left out religious leaders because they are but stalking horses for conservatives here. This is all about politics, or they would have complained over similar rules put out by the Bush Administration.) After getting burned once, Obama stepped in it again with his “compromise,” which not only failed to satisfy the original critics (surprise, surprise) but now placed a burden on private enterprise by requiring insurers to provide birth control for free.

The solution was easy. These are health insurance companies we’re talking about, right? They pay for prescriptions, right? Then just say they have to pay for all prescriptions and be done with it. Birth control pills, Viagra, insulin, tranquilizers, heart medications, you name it. Don’t distinguish among what the scrip is for; just fill, baby, fill.

Anyone who isn’t depressed by the fact that Obama is far and away the best choice to be president for four more years—considering what Republicans are passing off as candidates—isn’t paying attention.

21 the Hard Way

Football teams usually score 21 points on three touchdowns and their subsequent conversions. Last night’s Super Bowl saw the New York Giants score a two touchdowns, one point after touchdown, two fields goals, and a safety; they missed a two-point conversion after the second touchdown. It was still enough to beat New England 21-17.

I have come to realize nothing is better than watching the Steelers beat Baltimore; the second best thing in football is seeing New England lose. I wondered why last night, and I think I’ve figured it out. The Ravens are mere felons; the Pats are cheaters.

The New York safety came when Tom Brady was called for intentional grounding in the end zone. Grounding calls when the ball is thrown deep down the field are unusual, but this was the right call. Announcer Chris Collinsworth noted how rare such mistakes are for Brady, but a look at Brady after the call shows he was convinced the error was the officials’; not his. He’s Tom Brady. How could officials advance through what is allegedly a merit system and make a borderline call against him?

Doubly sweet was watching Pats coach Bill Belichick after the game. The players looked disappointed; 99% of coaches would, too. Belichick wore an expression you’d expect to see from Tony Soprano after he’d fixed a horse race and the wrong horse won. Somebody fucked up somewhere, and it wasn’t him.

The ending was satisfying, but not because I rooted for the Giants; I was cheering against the Patriots. I dislike New York teams on principle, flowing downward from the Yankees. The Giants and Rangers have worn me down a little. Eli Manning is hard to dislike, and even Tom Coughlin has been supplanted as the Official Rat-Faced Fuck of the Home Office by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. Still, I would have rooted for the forces of darkness against the Patriots, except the Pats vs. the FOD would be an intra-squad game.

The first pitchers and catchers report in five days.

Conservatives Are Not Dumber Than LIberals

A new study is getting a lot of play lately, as it suggest conservatism and racism are linked to low intelligence. That’s an iffy proposition on multiple levels.

The first is trying to define intelligence. The study uses childhood IQ. That’s one measure, though over time this has been debunked as a magic number for determining intelligence. There are different kinds of intelligence; IQ measures only one.

Second, and maybe more damaging, is linking conservatives and racism. There may be studies that show conservatives are more likely to be racist than liberals or moderates; I really don’t know. I do know that racism takes many forms, and the less intelligent may be less able to cover it up in their actions. Many conservative politicians are happy to sprinkle racist comments through their speeches using code words. Whether they are truly racist, or cynically appealing to racist voters is open for discussion.

Linking “conservative” and “racist” in the same breath brings to mind the stereotypical redneck who lives in a trailer, drives a pick-up truck with a shotgun rack and a Confederate flag, and thinks getting some strange means sleeping with other than a blood relative. Yes, those people are out there (stereotypes have to come from somewhere), but not in the quantities people believe. Therein lies the problem.

Let’s separate true racists from the argument. A died in the wool racist is a piece of shit not worthy of discussion. They can all die and the world will be a better place. Yet there are shades of racism. Is a person a racist because they are uncomfortable among others who are different, and want better outcomes for those more like them? Common sense and scientific studies imply these traits are natural. We may well be hardwired that way from our tribal ancestors. It’s how we respond that’s important, and is the crux of the discussion.

We live in a country that believes the average TV viewer cannot understand a football play because it’s too complicated, yet can solve the problems of society with a solution that fits on a three-by-five note card. Life is complicated, and it’s a lot more complicated than even those who think it’s complicated want to deal with a lot of the time. Pull one thread and the whole sweater will eventually unravel. An enlightening discussion could probably arise from playing Six Degrees of Separation with what’s going on in the country instead of movie stars.

Conversations, blogs, and message boards have led me to believe conservatives are not inherently less intelligent than liberals. They’re perfectly capable of thinking about an issue in depth; they just don’t want to. Life is hard enough as it is, with jobs and family and health and retirement and the transmission and your pain-in-the-ass shiftless brother-in-law. A lot of people don’t have the energy do sift through the ramifications of No Child Left Behind or the Affordable Care Act or Dodd-Frank. They’re busy, and they want someone to distill it for them.

Up step Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and their ilk. (Rarely has “ilk” seemed a more appropriate word.) These “pundits” cherry pick statistics and ridicule opposing points of view and lower the bar for rational discussion. Much has been written about why there is no counterbalancing liberal talk radio. Among the reasons cited is that, while liberals will listen to conservative radio (if only to better understand the enemy), conservatives are not inclined to listen to a liberal. Once the idea is set, let no thought pull it asunder.

Conservative “solutions” tend to be simpler. They won’t work, but people can understand them without taking time off work to attend a focus group. Too many immigrants from Mexico? Build a fence and be done with it. Ignored is the fact the Soviet Union couldn’t keep people from slipping through the Iron Curtain when they lined it with machine guns and had a border a fraction the size of ours to seal.

I can’t begin to recount how many discussions I’ve had with conservatives where points are won until the argument is conceded, only to have the final point be, essentially, “I don’t want to.” That is the core of conservative thought today. They have things they want, or don’t want, and they don’t really care what the potential complications are, or who else is affected. Conservatives by and large aren’t stupid, but their thought processes are often selfish and immature.

Four Years Late and Billions of Dollars Short

Mass re-financing is in the news lately, a program where the federal government will guarantee the loans of homeowners who have established credit worthiness but have homes so far underwater no mortgage company will touch them. This is a radical concept for some, as it could put the government at risk for billions of dollars if people start defaulting. That alone will probably kill the bill, as the government is currently afraid to buy three-ply toilet paper if it will increase the debt.

The real problem is the whole idea is too late. This idea should have been crammed down the banks’ throats as a condition of TARP, with the banks accepting most of the risk. It’s not like the banks haven’t extended themselves in a similar manner before.

Remember when Donald Trump was bankrupt? The Donald certainly doesn’t. Trump has claimed various levels of bankruptcy four times and come out ahead each time. Why is that? It’s not because he’s smarter than everyone else; one look at his hair tells you that. No, The Donald got so far into the banks they couldn’t afford for him to go tits up, so he pretty much got to dictate terms. (Sound familiar?)

What the banks and government fail to recognize—or just don’t care about—is that we’ve been in the same situation for the past four years, with one exception: it’s not one guy who owes a massive amount of money, it’s a lot of people who owe a little. True, loans in the $100,000 to $300,000 range seem like a lot of money to us, but to these guys $100,000 is an office decorating expense. They’d rather throw thousands of people into the street than say, “Let’s find a win-win here. We won’t make quite as much, but we won’t have to sell a $250,000 home for $100,000, either.”

But they won’t. And no one will bring it up to them now, because government has no place telling banks how to run themselves. All government does is make sure they stay afloat when their Ponzi schemes fall apart on them.

Theology 101

Last week I received—along with twenty or so others—the following e-mail from someone I have known as far back as I can remember:

Brilliant in its simplicity................
A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.
B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.
C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.
D. In three generations, there will be no Democrats.
Damn - I love it when a plan comes together
--
God Bless America

My reply (To all, of course; this is me we’re talking about):

I know well two gay couples who are married, one male, the other female. The men adopted an infant girl two years ago; the women each have a child from sperm donors. Those children are raised in loving, stable homes. If Rachel were of the proper age, I would not hesitate to let her stay with either couple.These are people who are hurt by the perpetuation of attitudes that convey them as somehow less worthy of the same consideration any of us would want or expect, not stereotypes standing in as straight lines for a joke.


Since we’re just kidding around and no offense should be inferred (right?), let’s talk about the inbred cousin fuckers who, left to their own devises, will constitute the core of Tea Party support in three generations.


Oh, wait. That’s been done already.

The sender of the original e-mail then replied with:


I am totally anti gay. You will never convince me that gay marriage is right or should be condoned. Thank god I live in a state where the governor thinks the same.

This leads me to several questions about Christians I have wondered about for years. I hope someone can enlighten me.

The dictionary definition of “Christian” as a noun is, “a person who believes in Jesus Christ; an adherent of Christianity,” and as “a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ.”

We all know I am no Bible scholar, but I’ve been around enough to know a little. Things like:
There are two books to the Bible: the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The New Testament covers the teachings of Christ.

Christ’s teachings include such sentiments as “love thy neighbor,” “hate the sin but love the sinner,” and, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

The Old Testament tells the tales of God before Christ’s time, when, to paraphrase Lewis Black, He was a Prick. Fire and brimstone, stoning, plagues, floods, slavery. The Old Testament sounds a lot like Mississippi in 1957.

If we accept that the Old Testament was written before the New Testament, and that the writers of the New Testament knew this, then it is reasonable to assume the New Testament is intended to supersede the Old. Where they differ, the New should take precedence.

Christians, believing as devoutly as they do in the teachings of Christ, should then look to the New Testament when determining courses of action with things they do not understand or agree with. Forgiveness and forbearance replace the Old Testament’s eye for an eye vengeance, and punishment such as was administered to Sodom and Gomorrah. More than any other religion, and regardless of whether they truly believe homosexuality is a sin, Christians should accept and forgive; that forgiveness is the bedrock of their religion. True Christians would not dream of denying anyone, straight or gay, the same rights and pursuit of happiness they themselves enjoy.

So here’s my question: Where are all the Christians we keep hearing about in this “Christian” nation? Christianity in America is strictly Old Testament, unless someone is asking for a little forbearance and charity for themselves. That’s not what Christ had in mind for his followers. He wanted them to forgive others, not expect it for themselves.

American Christians need to walk the walk if they’re going to talk the talk. Being a Christian is not just saying all the right things when you want them to apply to you and dragging out the Old Testament when someone does something you don’t like. It means treating those others as you would like to be treated. Even more, it means placing yourself in their position, and wondering what it would be like to be treated as “good Christians” treat them, knowing the only forgiveness you’ll find will come only after abject surrender to their way of thinking.

What would Jesus Do? Right.

Willard

Mitt Romney is, and has been, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Yes, he could still be found with either a dead girl or a live boy and blow it, but given his “contenders” it might take both to derail him now.

Romney is a good choice for current Republicans, a man who will say anything if he thinks it will help him. No, I mean it. Not just the usual, “I’ll cut taxes and increase services for you personally while screwing everyone you don’t like” stuff all politicians say. I’m talking about simple stuff that points out what a clueless SOB he really is.

For example:

Comparing his current “unemployment” with Floridians who are currently unemployed. Mitt used the similarities in their situations in an attempt to bond with people he wants to vote for him. Of course, Romney is unemployed by choice, and can well afford it. He failed to notice the $200 million elephant shitting on the tablecloth.

His claim he knows what it’s like to worry about getting a pink slip. Romney was born into a wealthy family. He graduated from Harvard’s Law and Business schools with a law degree and an MBA. Even if Bain had seen fit to can him in the early days, Mitt’s family would be fed and his health taken care of, unlike someone who needs his job—and maybe a little more—to pay the rent and health insurance.

The man will lie about his own first name. When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates to identify themselves with something along the lines of, “‘I'm Wolf Blitzer and yes, that's my real name,” Romney followed up with, “I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name.” Aside from being a pathetic attempt to seem like one of the guys, his comment ignores the fact that Romney’s first name is Willard.

A faux pas? Maybe. Taken together with other comments, this last (my personal favorite) shows a rich kid who so badly wants to included with the regular guys he’ll do anything—anything—to be accepted. He doesn’t see he’s not one of them, and he never will be.

Presidential candidates are asked how they’ll handle the 3:00 AM phone call, like Russian missiles are already over the North Pole. The 3:00 phone call most people are worried about these days is the one that wakes you up to tell you your kid has been in an accident or a parent has had a stroke and you need to get there right now except the kid had the family’s only car or your parents live in Arizona now and you don have anything like the money needed to get there in a timely manner, even if you could afford the time off from work. Romney has no clue what that’s like, and shows how far he is from getting one every time he makes one of those pathetic statements.

Then there’s the story about letting making the dog ride on top of the car for a family trip. His Harvard degrees and job at Bain didn’t allow him to spring for a kennel? Maybe they thought the dog would enjoy the family reunion on Lake Huron. Rent a bigger car. It’s not bad enough the man can’t be trusted to give a straight answer about his name; he’s cheap, too.