Code Words and Bogey Men

I heard a worker say these very words at Walmart yesterday, "I always never stop until it's done..." What was she trying to say, I ask, tongue firmly placed in cheek.

Can anyone tell me why, in police procedural television programming, the guy who snaps when a bad guy gets off, grabs a police officer's gun and shoots the criminal, they always have perfect aim? They never miss, they never hit an innocent bystander, their aim is always dead on.

I'm an animal lover, but mostly a dog person. I used to have only cats, but that was many years ago. I have a neighbor/friend who has cats, and occasionally when she goes out of town, I take care of them for her. I know that women who are pregnant are told not to scoop their cat's litter boxes because they can carry toxoplasmosis.  I have noticed from time to time that when I scoop the litter for my neighbor's cats, the smell is so strong that it makes my eyes water. I feel I should do as I've heard the people needed to do in Haiti to avoid the smell of rotting bodies, which was to smear a liberal amount of toothpaste under their noses. My question is, could these fumes be an actual cause for an actual syndrome that could be called "Crazy Cat Lady Syndrome?" We've all heard of the Crazy Cat Lady, with multiple cats and no human friends, but what if it's a real illness, and gases given off by cat urine is the cause?

I have a question that makes me kind of sad. It came to me after reading an article on "Hyperbole Post" talking about just anemic our economic recovery has been. In the United States of America, we have historically been an extremely innovative people. Our innovations used to create great wealth, and middle class status for most of our people. Now there is a huge division between rich and poor, with more people falling out of the middle class and into the caste of the "working poor." My question is; have we come to the end of our ability to innovate? When I was in grad school several years ago, I believed I saw the beginnings of new areas in which we could create new businesses, such as green energy and building. But the fossil energy companies spend billions (possibly an exaggeration) to tell us that green energy is too expensive and will never work. If a green energy company takes some risk and loses (Solyndra) it becomes a buzz word for blind optimism and stupidity. They don't want innovation, they want to continue with the status quo that makes them hundreds of billions (no exaggeration) of dollars per year. The new inventions that we see are on poorly produced commercials, and are mainly fodder for comedians...and the occasional humorous comment from someone like me. Is it too late for the next big invention, such as the automobile, to lift the American people up from poverty into the middle class?

What do we learn from every president's second term? Here I propose an answer to my question; we learn (once again) that the entrenched powers that be begin to all look alike when they stay in power. This is a big reason why I would be for a female candidate for president, but not Hillary Clinton. The two party system has blurred into a one, fuzzy, morphed party system in which the peace presidents act like war presidents, and giving up individual liberty for the sake of security against an enemy that we can never see coming. The two party system is broken and corrupt, and by the second term of any president, we begin to see that the idealistic language they used to get elected was just that; purty words.

Many of us eat out. A lot! We don't think about the conditions in which the food servers work, though there is a movement now, beginning with an excellent book called "Behind the Kitchen Door," that has contributed to the (hopefully) start of a conversation about how our wait staff is treated in their work places. Most of them are still paid a bit over two-dollars per hour salary, the alleged thought being that the difference between that and minimum wage will be made up by their tips. Their paychecks are taxed as if that is true, even when it isn't. Most of them do not get paid time off, even when they are sick. My question is this; why is this okay? Does it concern any of us that the people serving our food might be sick enough to stay home and not make the public, or their coworkers sick? Line cooks make a bit more per hour, but if the wait staff has to come to work sick, and makes the cooking staff sick, they could start an epidemic s just by not having this simple, basic rule applied to them; if you're sick, stay home. Don't make yourself worse, or anyone else sick. But if a person works for practically slave wages, with no paid sick time, taking a day off til the fever breaks is not possible.

There was some discussion this week of women in the work force after a couple of things happened. The first was a report that in a growing number of households, women are the only bread winner. In some of these homes, the men are stay home dads, and in some the woman is the only parent, and bread winner. The other was when representative Marsha Blackburn, R TN, stated that  "women don't want equal pay laws." I'm not sure which women she is talking to, but that's what she said. A libertarian friend of mine jumped into the conversation with the notion that laws aren't necessary if a woman is hired because of her qualifications, she should just demand equal pay or quit. I never would have guessed that my libertarian friends are living in such an ideal world, where employers pay fairly, based on qualifications, and they choose the person best qualified, no matter the race, gender or sexual orientation. The fact is that women still make .77 to the dollar as their male counterparts. When that was pointed out, my friend postulated that probably don't have the same education, length of service, etc. Another truth here would be that women are graduating from college at a higher rate than men, but these pay and promotion disparities still exist. But the big picture that came to me during this back and forth was that the man who was taking the side of the men in this conversation was advocating for the continuance of the "good ole boy" network...not what you know, but who you know, not how well trained you are, but longevity with the company. I suppose there is some bit of the "good ole boy network" in place at most work places, but is that how we want the country to go forward? Especially with more women as the only breadwinner in the household? In the study I referred to, those households were not doing so well..because the women make less than a male in the same job would make. I don't believe that unfettered, unregulated businesses will EVER make the "proper" choices on their own, and yes, there is apparently a need for some kind of laws to allow women who have families to support get the same pay as a man in the same position.

A nutrition question: how can we say that? I talk a great deal about health and nutrition, and my friends and I talk about these subjects a lot. There are groups of people now who say that we need to eat lots of whole grains, and some others who say that our dependence on grains is why we are so sick. The anti-grain folks say that our ancestors did not eat grains, and therefore we did not evolve with the ability to digest them properly. The consumption of grains apparently exploded when we began to develop agriculture, which lead to communities, cities and so on. So, how did our ancestors decide what to farm? Did they just go out and say, "Nah, we can't grow berries and melons, so lets farm grains?" It may be that they foraged when they first left the trees, hunting and gathering berries and other fruits because that's what they could reach from their new place on the ground. But growing melons takes work, so I'm not sure that early man ate that many melons. But I also doubt that they just went out, saw a wild grain and said to themselves, "Hmmm, maybe we can make this grow;" and then went out and created ways to make it dominate our diets. Even if grains have only been a major part of our diet for six-to-ten thousand years, how can they say grains weren't a part of human diets until "recently?"

I was born in 1957. I'm not sure if it is still true, but there was a time that my birth year held the record as the year more babies were born than in all of history combined. The birth rate in the United States is declining, and in 2012 the greatest decline was in children born to immigrant women. The so-called "baby boom" is what the children born between 1945 and 1963 is called-roughly the years between World War II ending and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. We are now in 2013, which means that at the end of this year, the last baby boomers will turn fifty. They are now at middle age, and will soon need bone density tests, their first screening colonoscopies, and will likely be on blood pressure meds, statins, and likely a number of other prescription medications.  My question is, how will our aging change the world? Will we actually have made a difference?


1. Saru Jayaraman is co-founder and director of the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC-United) and author of Behind the Kitchen Door. She was featured on Moyers & Company in February 2013.

2. Marsha Wedgeworth Blackburn is the U.S. Representative for Tennessee's 7th congressional district

When Life Gives You Lemons, Ask Questions

The first thing I must do today is call BS on the left. Yes, the left that I have belonged to for many years. Senator Mitch McConnell recently made a crack about Former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's looks, saying she reminded him of a character in that 1980s sitcom The Golden Girls, in which four elderly women lived together in a house and wise-cracked a lot. The left went crazy that he would make a comment about a woman's, especially such an esteemed woman's appearance. Personally, I have always thought Hilary was kind of cute, and definitely more attractive as a blonde than a brunette. But she was also the hardest working and most traveled secretary of state in history. Just as the job does our presidents, it aged her. In the month or so since leaving office, she has appeared tired. But all that aside, I have done, and I have heard many, many liberals make fun of Mitch McConnell's looks. So my question here is, just how stupid are we on the left? Our feelings get hurt when what we have done is done to us? Here is an idea: what if we all stopped picking on each other on such a shallow basis? It's not as if Mitch McConnell hasn't done plenty for us to criticize on a much deeper level. Can we approach this as adults and not third graders on the playground?

While we are on the subject of political discourse, I would like to ask if we can all get off  the picking on people, in particular former president George Bush for saying the word "nu-clear" as "nook-yoo-lur." Not that it doesn't make my skin crawl when I hear it, but I've heard dozens of very smart people pronounce it the same way he does. And there are several words that I hear pronounced as oddly, by just as many people, that no one ever jumps on. For example, the word huge. I hear more and more people pronounce it "yooj," in politics, in the media, and in person (my husband being one.) Can't we all just get along? Every region has its unusual way of speaking...why can't we consider it all a part of regional charm? And when it isn't just regional, since many of the people who say nookyoolur are from different parts of the country, can't we just consider it part of their personal charm?

On a lighter note, I saw a woman on TV this week who had a really cute hair cut. And her hair had one of those zigzag parts. It made me wonder who was the first person who thought it was cool to have a crooked part? Was it someone who was rebelling against a mother (a type with whom I'm familiar) who wouldn't let her leave the house without a ruler-straight part?

I've recently heard commercials from some of the big-box, super chain stores telling us all about their commitments to the environment. I wonder how many of us know just how hypocritical this advertising scheme is? Are we going to fall for it? I wanted to, but then I've been to two of those stores with my reusable shopping bags, in which they put things in plastic bags. I have at least twice commented to cashiers about it, and one of them stopped, commenting that many customers wish to have their meats in plastic within their reusable bags. So, much like the litigiousness of our culture bringing us animal testing of cosmetics, some of our fear of germs have led to more plastic in our landfills that will never, ever go away. Another thing that has happened to me several times at one of those big box stores which advertises its environmental commitment is putting only one item per plastic bag. Can we call BS on them too when their advertising is such a lie?

I know the US Postal Service is having lots of economic problems, and they are making commercials trying to drum up business. But I caught a discrepancy in the wording of the commercial about how your mailman will drop off boxes that you can fill and let him know you are ready to have him come and pick up. Please understand, I'm a words person, and I notice such things, and when they say, "You can weigh, PAY, and print your labels online, and the mailman will pick them up. He says, "I'll even drop off boxes for free." Here's my problem: didn't they just say you can pay online? So he's not dropping off those boxes for free, everything about that service is paid for. It is a good value, admittedly, and I'm all for saving the postal service. But the commercial doesn't add up for me.

Many of you who have read me before, or know me, know that my minor was biology and environmental studies. So I know that the lower an animal is on the food chain, the more they reproduce. Krill, for example, is the largest biomass on the planet. It has to be, since krill provides food for many of the larger sea creatures, including some of the largest animals that have ever existed. Rabbits are among those prey animals that reproduce much because they are a food source for many larger carnivores. Including dogs. I have had a few experiences with my dogs becoming bunny killers, including Abigail (my copilot on Zeus' Chariot), who entered that esteemed canine club last Saturday.

We went out for her final evening constitutional last Saturday, and she went directly under a bush at the bottom of our apartment stairs. A bunny ran immediately away, but Abigail went to ground, true to her terrier nature, and I heard that frightened "eeh, eeh, eeh," squeal, and knew there was a baby bunny nest there. Based on my past experience with other dogs and rabbits, I knew there was nothing I could-or should do. So I waited for her to come out, which she shortly did, with a baby bunny that she proceeded to eat. I swallowed my human discomfort and continued our walk. The next morning she went there again, bringing out another baby bunny that was dead. It seems Mama Rabbit didn't come back after she saw Abigail coming. So, perhaps I should know the answer to this, but why didn't Mom check back later, when the danger was gone, and see if she could save the twin? Better yet, why on earth, did she put her nest there, under a bush so near where so many dogs sniff, walk and urinate? We've all seen adorable bunny noses wiggling about, sniffing the air. Surely she could smell all the dogs that live so near that particular bush?

This past week has been a very exciting one for all of us who believe in equal rights for all Americans as the Supreme Court of the United States tackles two cases that have to do with marriage equality for same sex couples. These judgments may come down to a very ironic hinge; States Rights. Were States Rights not the precedent used to try and keep African Americans enslaved just over 150 years ago? I couldn't help but smile at the irony that gays may wind up able to marry in some states as a result of this very same idea. I may be an atheist, but ain't karma a bitch sometimes? 

Beware the Ides of Mercury in Retrograde

Last week it seemed that I and many people close to me were having a collective bad day. One of my dearest friends, who is pagan, and very in tune with universal movements attributed it to a phenomenon called Mercury in Retrograde, during which the planet Mercury looks as if it is going backward. She says this phenomenon throws the world out of whack, which is just as good an explanation as any that I could come up with. But then, just before Mercury got his act together, this Monday, came the Ides of March, which all of us who read Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" know can also be a pretty bad day. So, I thought I would dedicate this post to her. Hopefully we are spinning in the right direction for now, and things are looking up.

I'd also like to include an addendum to the conversation we were having about cruelty free cosmetics. I contacted a company whose products I have used for years, but they are no longer on PETA's "good list" because they are now owned by a giant conglomerate the does use animal testing. They directed me to a statement from the ECG (Evil Corporate Giant) in which they stated that they completely understood consumer concern about animal testing, and said they are working hard to eliminate animal testing from their products. They also said, however, that their primary concern is that their customers not have allergic reactions to any of their products or product ingredients. It dawned on me as I read the statement that we, the consumer, have probably asked for this with our litigious behavior. They don't want to be sued by a customer who has a reaction to their products. Now, I would be happy to volunteer to test products as long as treatment was paid for, but I'm not sure how many consumers would be with me on that. So, on the one hand, we can't seem to escape animal testing-either directly or indirectly, so it would be easy to just say, "Well, screw it, I'll buy whatever..." And on the other hand, we all want risk free results. So we may be stuck for now. We'll have to keep an eye on what happens in the EU now that their ban on animal testing is on.

Now, I have a question about the laws of physics. Wouldn't it be logical that larger items would displace smaller items in closed spaces? So, why is it that in my purse, the smaller things, such as my wallet, always float straight to the bottom, and the larger things, such as my notebook computer go to the top?

Spring is upon us now, and it seems that eggs are in everything. So, since everyone seems to love deviled eggs, and their are typically a dozen eggs deviled for any given event, why does my deviled egg plate only have egg shaped spaces for eight eggs? There is empty space in the middle, where I usually put the other four eggs. But does that make sense?

And can anyone tell my why these words were printed on a bag of ice: "Ice. Tasteless. Odorless." Really? Is there any other kind of ice?

I've also wondered recently if some parents ever stop and think about the names they are giving their babies. Or am I the only one who feels an inappropriate desire to giggle when I meet someone called "Randy." Do the parents of LeRoy and Regina really think their children are royal? And poor Patsy-do they know they are sentencing her to a life as a fall guy?

Why do people keep falling for some ridiculous beauty myths? Such as if you drink from a straw it will make your lips wrinkle. How silly is that!!! Do we suppose that people who don't wrinkle never drank from a straw? And did you know that your pillow case wrinkles will also cause actual wrinkles to one day appear on your face? DNA and sun damage cause wrinkles. Or can we never escape from the warning, "Your face is gonna freeze like that?!"

I hope this question doesn't offend, but I am quite curious about nail salons. It seems that nearly all of them are owned by Asian women, and all the staffs are Asian women. The owners, in my (admittedly) limited experience are Asian American, and the nail techs are immigrants. Are there people in Viet Nam telling ladies that if they come to America they will have a guaranteed job, and will be able to live the American dream? I don't mean this in any racist way-but Asian owned salons and techs are pervasive, and these women work very hard, long hours. I just can't help wondering how this tradition or movement got started.

Now if I might ask a political question: Is a lack of understanding of language the reason that the filibuster is being abused so dreadfully now? About two weeks ago Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky filibustered a cabinet nominee. Now, I have to say that I find Senator Paul to be a rather loathsome character, and I think he's wrong on just about everything. But I do agree that our use of drones is a huge problem. The question about language though, came to me because the Honorable Senator's actions were referred to as a "talking filibuster." A filibuster is supposed to involve talking. That the threat of a filibuster is now called a filibuster, and is being used to hijack democracy rather than protect the minority party from being silenced by the majority. Perhaps if the language were respected this process would not be so onerous.

Lastly, there is a movement afoot to remove reproductive choice from women, despite the fact that this question was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States forty years ago. Now there are some states that are trying to pass laws that claim life begins at conception, and therefore, any abortion is murder, even if a fetus is not viable. There have been very emotional campaigns that insist fetuses feel pain, that they are, in essence, human at conception.  Now, in the United States, perhaps because of the Judeo/Christian traditions in our country, little boys have been circumcised shortly after birth. Many doctors tell parents that the pain is minimal and harmless. I see a problem here...if zygotes are considered living human beings, why would anyone claim that they can't feel pain? I have been told the same thing about fish-that they don't have nervous systems and don't feel pain. But the last time I was fishing, I caught the first and only fish that day. The fish was attached to a tether and was doing its best to escape. I don't know if it was the hook in its jaw that tied it to a stake in the shallows that was causing the poor thing pain, but I could see that it felt fear, and I believe pain, though I can't prove the pain part. But doctors  are basically telling parents that their sons feel no more than a fish, and yet women are told that their fetuses are human and feeling pain from conception? Do they really think women are not smart enough to see the discrepancy here?

Mixed Nuts

The last two weeks have been emotionally tiring for me. I always get this way during presidential elections, but it has started really early this cycle, mostly because I can honestly not believe that anyone could vote for anyone on the republican side. Well-maybe Jon Huntsman, who is the only candidate that actually made me nervous for Obama when he announced. But it seems fairly clear that he is too libertarian for the republican base.

That out of the way, I have a few observations. I love nuts. I've also recently read that women who eat some nuts every day weigh less than those who eat other things. So I keep a jar of delicious mixed nuts in my desk at work for those days when I need a protein boost to get through the morning. But I became aware of doing something I found rather amusing-I pour some nuts into a dish so I don't just keep eating, which I could easily do. But I found myself eating them segregatedly. I eat cashews together, Brazil nuts, pecans, etc. I've even found myself eating the almonds with skin separately from those without. Is my mixed nut behavior a little nutty?

A language rant: THERE IS NO FREAKING SUCH WORK AS EKSETRA!!! That phrase comes from the Latin et (which means AND) cetera;. which means "other things." It is translated as meaning "and other things," or "so on." And while we are at it, it doesn't make anyone look smart and continental to say, "Wala." That is a mispronunciation of the French, "Voila," It starts with a V, and it means something like, "Well, there ya go!" And the latest word I'm getting tired of hearing thrown around over and over again-like "like," and "amazing," is "authentic." Do the people who use it for everything good these days know that it means "real?" That means it is very unlikely that it will ever apply to an American politician. The oft dropped journalistic phrase, "He doesn't come across as authentic," is rather oxymoronic, don't you think?

I'm a very fidgety person. I fidget constantly; I have a hard time sometimes even getting myself situated in the very same desk I worked all day on yesterday. When I talk with my hands, I use both hands. This made me think one day as I walked with my dog, and we passed one of those young men who wears his pants super-baggy and around his thighs, what a great sacrifice these people make for their fashion statements. Every guy I see dressed that way, whether at WalMart, the bus stop, or just walking down the street, must walk around with one hand on his crotch at all times in order to keep his pants from falling down all together. Sigh. None of those guys could ever describe the size of a fish he'd caught, let alone talk with his hands in a regular conversation. I've been waiting almost 20 years for this silly fashion to pass. A few years ago, when an older man auditioned for "American Idol" with the song, "Pants on the Ground," I really hoped the foolish appearance of it would be brought to the consciousness of that demographic, but I guess the age of the man singing the song should have been a dead giveaway that it wouldn't work.

I was walking in to my office the other day, and saw a squirrel with a bare tail. Some other people had seen it, and said that they had seen them before. Is that just an anomaly? The first thing I saw was the tail, and I thought it odd that such a large rat would be out in broad daylight, climbing a tree.

I was in a shop last week that has candy vending machines. The kind that give you a few M&M's or nuts for a nickel, and supposedly give the money to charity, and I couldn't help wondering if anyone gets candy from them anymore. With Americans so constantly freaked about "germs," I can't imagine anyone buying unwrapped food from one of those little machines nowadays.

There is a Christmas commercial getting regular rotation lately that gets my anti-Walmart heart pounding. There is a woman asking for a price guarantee on Christmas merchandise. She stands there long enough to makes several comments to the sales associate, and then sing part of a song. The first thing that struck me about it is that the actor playing the sales associate looks an awful lot like a young, brunette Goldie Hawn, but then I thought, who has ever seen a WalMart sales person spend anywhere near that much time with a customer? In fact, who shops at WalMart and can get any help at all when they need it?

I'M SO HAPPY!!!! Not really. I hate so-called "reality shows," and I've been seeing commercials recently  now for the return of one of the early ones-"Fear Factor." In the commercial they promise to be bigger and better than ever-including "bigger stunts." I guess they may be referring to the feats and humiliations that contestants are required to be subjected to in order to win, but in my classic movie mind, big stunts mean optical illusions of people appearing to do very dangerous things, or being killed or whatever. "OH, did you hear-Fear Factor? They did it with mirrors!"

"From 1999 to 2005, breast cancer incidence rates in the U.S. decreased by about 2% per year. The decrease was seen only in women aged 50 and older. One theory is that this decrease was partially due to the reduced use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) by women after the results of a large study called the Women’s Health Initiative were published in 2002. These results suggested a connection between HRT and increased breast cancer risk."  breastcancer.org
When I read, back in October, that the incidence of breast cancer is decreasing in this country, I got happy. Shortly after that the book "Our Bodies, Ourselves," published by the Boston Women's Health Book Collective was celebrating its fortieth birthday. It occurred to me that when women get involved, we get shit done. Before Our Bodies, Ourselves," there were very few books that dealt with women's health, and now that we have begun to be treated as different human beings from men, we are getting healthier. But then I also realized that every republican political candidate, the tea party candidates who were elected in 2010, and many right wing organizations are devoting themselves to taking back women's control over our health, and I got sad. If we can't control our own health choices, what will be taken next?  It seems that every time women begin to take any kind of power for our own lives, men get scared and try to take it away. Yes, I'm talking about choice, but I'm also talking about access to information about reproductive health, which may or may not include the choice to terminate a pregnancy. Rick Santorum says that he would outlaw all birth control. Now why would he do that? Well, he is one of those Christians who want to sublimate women, to be sure. And his holy book does say that women should submit to their husbands. Where that comes from has been addressed by me in a much earlier post. But it is also a fact that when women  have some control over the number of children they have, they tend to become something other than baby-making machines. They improve their educations, and their productivity in their societies. They thereby threaten the power of men. (Who, our current world situation should prove, have done such an AWESOME job with all their power.) How any smart woman can listen to these candidates and then go out and vote republican is utterly beyond me. I'm not saying there are no smart women who are republicans. I'm just saying that in order to cast a vote for someone like Santorum, or Romney, or Cain, McCain or Gingrich, the smart ones must really have to hold their noses in the voting booths, and I would love to know the fiercely compelling issue that forces them to do that. 


Meanwhile, I'd like for anyone who knows me well to sit down. Take a deep breath, and possibly keep your smelling salts handy. I agree with Herman Cain. Partly. Only on one issue...he was partially right when he said this week that candidates aren't supposed to know about foreign policy. Remember CANDIDATE Obama saying that he would close Guantanamo, end rendition, ET CETERA, ET CETERA? But what happens when a person becomes president, and gets up every morning for a national security briefing? He (and hopefully soon, she) see the world, and the threats against us in a different, less rhetorical way. I still believe that Guantanamo should be closed, and that rendition is wrong. We either believe in torture, or we don't. If we don't, then we should not render prisoners to other countries to do our torturing for us. I think we've been in Afghanistan way too long, and we never should have invaded Iraq. I'm deeply disappointed in President Obama for these, and some other reasons. But when he actually moved into the White House and the Oval Office, he saw a very different picture of the world than any candidate is allowed to see, and that has contributed to the breaking of some very important campaign promises. It's easy for John McCain, candidate, to sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran." President McCain would very likely have made quite different choices. While the level of ignorance that Herman Cain (or Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry) show about the world we live in is disgusting for someone who aspires to be the most powerful politician on earth, Cain had a sliver of a point when he said that candidates aren't supposed to know about foreign policy. What I would recommend for candidates of every party is a little circumspection when asked about foreign policy decisions. It is easy to be bombastic and dramatic when there are no lives on the line...yet.

The Milk of Human Kindness

I work on the phone. Sometimes I get into long conversations with the people on the phone.  This happened last week, with an older woman who, like me, has family members in both the military and law enforcement. We talked about whether or not there are people in the world who have absolutely no good in them. I commented that I don't think so-even the most depraved people have some good in them, though it is buried beneath so much garbage that it can't be seen. She responded, "I can tell  you are a Christian." I honestly didn't know what to say. Obviously I couldn't say much, being in a work setting. But I wonder, as I have for years, where the notion comes from that to have a kind outlook on humankind comes from Christianity. I can point to so much evidence of Christians who definitely do not have a kind attitude toward their fellow man, and I know many non-theists who do. In fact, atheists sometimes refer to themselves as "humanist," and for most of the atheists I know, ethics is very important...after all, this world is all we believe we have, and how we treat each other is of high importance. 


There have been some articles recently about the "Christian Dominion" movement on the right wing fringes. This idea that fundamentalist Christians should run the world isn't anything new. The "K-Street" apartment house, at which some of the sleazier politicians who've been caught with their pants down, so to speak, is a part of this movement. They believe that it is okay for some politicians to screw around on their wives because King David did and God allegedly said David was "a man after my own heart." The thing they forget is that Christianity is supposed to be based on the NEW Testament, and King David was an Old Testament king. Nor was he allowed, by God, according to the myth, to build the temple because he committed adultery and murder. Nor was Moses allowed to enter the promised land with the Jews because he had committed murder. So the whole dominion movement is just a bunch of creeps who cheat on their wives and want to rationalize that their bad behavior qualifies them for leadership. Not only is every bit of this movement ridiculous, it is wrong headed in its alleged adherence to biblical values. It is also scary as hell and needs to be kept on the fringe. 


Speaking of politicians who've been caught with their pants down, I think it is noteworthy that none of them were wearing skirts. 


One legend about St. Patrick says that he used a clover, the three-leaved variety, to explain to the Celts about the trinity-three from one. So why is the four leaf clover considered to be good luck? 

In the last week or so I've heard several pundits referring to the Tea Party movement as "patriotic anarchists." Funny thing, on July 23rd, in my blog post entitled "Demagogue Is Not a Verb," question number 7 went this way, "7. Do the anti-government right-wingers realize that people who hate the government and wish to dismantle it are called "anarchists?" Anarchists used to be considered left wing. Does anyone but me see the irony in that? Anarchy in the USA!! Brought to you by Sarah Palin." So, can I get a little credit for pointing this out first? In fact, if you are going to read my blog and steal my ideas, please become a follower. I need more followers. 

So all this talk about the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution being a rationale for ending anything the federal government wants to do that they don't like. Candidate/Governor Rick Perry, of my state, Texas, likes to call on "State's Rights." He does it all the time. When the state of New York approved of allowing marriage equality, he said that it was fine for New York to do that-in his opinion that day, he said it was a matter to be decided by individual states. But yesterday, August 26, 2011, it was announced that he had signed a pledge to a marriage inequality group that he would support a new amendment to the constitution stating that marriage in the United States under a Rick Perry presidency would be that it is only between one man and one woman. Just one example of how conveniently the Grand Ole Party uses and rejects the Big Tenth Amendment. Which simply says nothing more than, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's it. Which demonstrates why it is so easy to find so many different interpretations.  And why its multiple uses must be carefully considered before it is used to reject every proposition from the federal government that any particular governor or candidate might like or dislike at any given moment. (Or in front of any particular interest group or donor!) I do remember a line from the Bush administration, quoting Reagan claiming that "government is not the solution, government is the problem." It was said that the second Bush administration believed that government is the problem, and then spent their whole time in government proving it. 

So, speaking of tea, there is an entire shelf now at the grocery store from which shoppers can buy gallons of tea in the ubiquitous plastic jug. Why would anyone pay from $2.95 to $4.29 for a gallon of premade tea? It doesn't make good economic sense. I pay a bit over $2.00 for a box of 100 teabags, and that makes 20 gallons of tea. Have we become that lazy? Nevermind. Except that lazy doesn't even do it for this one-it takes less energy to put some water in a kettle, boil it, add the bags and let them steep, then top off the jug with water and slip it in the fridge than to drive to the store, shop, maneuver around the aisle hogs, find where it's kept, put it in your basket, take it to the register, wait in line, pay, walk to the car, drive back home, carry in all your bags, put away all the groceries you just bought, etc. Make your own damned tea! We don't need all that many more plastic jugs in the landfills, on top of your soda and water bottles. And don't insist you recycle them; only about three-percent of Americans recycle their recyclables, and there have been billions and billions of plastic bottles placed in landfills in the last fifty years. We don't need unnecessary tea jugs on top of them. 


Since when is "nevermind" not a word? I just had to add it to my dictionary-as far as I know, nevermind is just as much a word as "alot." Which my computers keep lining in red as if they are not part of the English language. Where do they come up with this crap?


Has anyone noticed the evolution of the Exxon-Mobil commercials? First it was just that they are spending lots of money on R & D to find more eco-friendly ways to produce energy. Now they are talking about trying to frac without damaging ground water supplies. And there is one in which the spokesperson actually talks about the tar sands program in Canada, and he honestly says, "We can access this energy with about the same emissions as other forms of energy." WWWHHHHHHAAAAATTTTTTT???? The wording of commercials can be very instructive, and it is quite clear that it takes so much energy to remove the oil from tar sands that it is much worse for the environment than traditional oil production. Interestingly, I heard the Canadian CEO of the company building the tar sands pipeline say that all the protests in the US will only hurt us by sending 25,000 jobs to Canada, and that the oil will be produced anyway. And we always carry on about how "nice" Canadians are-now we are being held hostage by the guys who beat baby seals on the head with clubs.