Snakes and (corporate) ladders

“Reverend Jim, so good of you to see me today! I’ve been looking forward to meeting you and giving you a close look at what I’ve got. Your rectory is beautiful, by the way; did you decorate it yourself, or was it your wife?

Coffee is fine, thank you. Just give me a minute to set up my case, and we can get started. I’m simply thrilled to have the opportunity to present to the largest organization of your type in the state. I can’t tell you how much it means to our entire company that you agreed to give us a chance to help supply you with all your needs.

OK, all settled in? Great, let’s begin, shall we? First, please note that all our specimens receive the finest of care and conditioning, and should you ever be dissatisfied, for any reason, with any of our products, we will happily provide a replacement from a comparable line as soon as practicable.

Right, so here we have our first option. As you can see, this is one of the American Southwest’s finest. Please examine the exquisitely detailed back markings. Ahhhh, yes, listen to that! Such a distinctive warning sound! Imagine that echoing through your church on a Sunday morning!

But, perhaps you’d like something a little more exotic, eh? Well then, take a gander at this little beauty right here. She’s a bit shy, likes to keep under that rock there, but trust me, she’ll come around. Let me just get her with this stick… there!  Will you just look at those colors? The inky black, the vibrant yellow, the radiant red! I’ll tell you one thing: this baby would look great on camera. We also have the ‘scarlet king’ variety, for lesser cost. Well, I mean, not for you, of course! But perhaps for one of your younger pastors? You, know, kind of a training model? Just remember, ‘red touch yellow, you’re in trouble fellow..’

Anyway, as you can see, we have many other choices: there’s this copperhead here, the moccasin over there. In those cages I’ve set by the window are the various types of viper; very biblical. While I’m out of display models, we do also carry the ‘African two-step,’ and for that ‘Asian feel’ many krait varieties, as well as the aptly-named ‘Death Adder.’

Reverend, no! Apologies, but I must ask that you not touch the sheet over the cage by the door. That contains the King Cobra; I have an appointment this afternoon with a fakir down the road. Besides, just between you and me, those models spit.

Thank you Reverend. You are most kind. I am, in fact, the highest-grossing salesman for our company east of the Mississippi. I like to joke with my customers that I’m as Charismatic as they are! 

Please, take my card, and if I can ever be of service to you do not hesitate to contact me. Our warehouse will begin fulfillment of your order immediately. And again, thank you for being a valued customer of ‘Nice Asp, LLC.’”

Chaplin's Final Bit

His name was ‘Chaplin.’ Well, that was his given name, anyway. No one called him that. He was, to any and all who knew him, ‘Bitty Kitty,’ or just ‘Bitty.’ While I understand the nickname was given unironically when he was very small, by the time I met him, it was more like calling a fat man ‘slim.’ Bitty was big. When I came into his life, a decade ago, he shared the house with another cat, Jolson, and a German Shepard mix, Rowan. Jolson and Bitty, being cats, tolerated each other, and the dog. It helped that Jolson and Bitty had what I would call ‘complementary’ personalities at that time. Jolson was a prowler; an adventurer. It was not rare, when coming home late at night, to see Jolson dash from several houses away, or across the street, to meet the car. Bitty, on the other hand, while he would go outside, tended to stick close to the house; perhaps climbing the big oak tree and lying in the sun on the roof. More often he chose a spot inside, curling up on a soft surface, or a lap when it suited him.

Bitty also had another interesting feature; his fur. While short-haired, his fur was incredibly soft, and petting him was more like stroking a young rabbit than a cat. Also, while Jolson was around, Bitty was ‘the quiet one.’ He had the softest meow I had ever heard, in contrast to Jolson’s little lion’s roar. Bitty's purr, however, could be heard across a room.

We lost Jolson several years ago, his adventurousness being his undoing. A fortnight later, it seemed Bitty had grown into his voice. His meows became louder, more insistent. He outlived Rowan, and shared the house with another cat, Mo, for a short time, and outlived him. He lived to see the introduction of two puppies, Aurum and Lucy, and while I won’t say he was particularly thrilled to be sharing the space with them, he handled himself with equanimity. In fact, that’s how I will remember him; as a calm, constant presence, who could curl up with you for an hour, or greet you from his nest in the shrub bed under one of the windows. If Mo was irascible, and Jolson was swashbuckling, Bitty was solid, steady, and dependable.

Like Jolson’s, Bitty’s life ended in, perhaps, an appropriate way. After a number of long months seeing his human mother through her battle with cancer, comforting her, it was determined he had been fighting his own battle, with a large tumor on his liver. It finally started affecting his appetite, and causing him pain and illness. He left us today at the vet’s office, with his mother at his side. I understand he went quietly, as any good silent film star should. 

Philosophy and Jackson Brown

So, I've struggled a bit with writing this post. I've composed it in my head several times, edited and deleted, all in the space of my brain. Anyway, yesterday, I must have been in an even more philosophical mood than normal (hard to believe, I know.) On my way home, a lesser known Jackson Brown song came on the radio. It is titled "For a Dancer," and a few phrases of the verses struck me harder than usual. So, of course, in the spirit of the 21st century, I figured I'd share them with anyone who cared to read.

The song is really, thematically, anyway, about death. But the first verse that struck me was this:

      "Just do the steps that you've been shown
       By everyone you've ever known
       Until the dance becomes your very own"

This happened to dovetail precisely with what I happen to believe about life in general. That is, every interaction one has with another is a learning opportunity. Whether that experience is good or bad, we must, or at least we should, learn something from it. I'm not a dancer, but the steps I've learned in 43 years are varied and numerous. That includes steps to be taken, as well as steps to be avoided. I don't always do them correctly, but I try very hard to follow the basic rhythm.

I believe I was more or less impacted by this due to two situations. First, I just finished doing a show very different than most of what I've done in the recent past. It was a musical, and I had to sing, alone, on stage. It doesn't diminish the love I have for all the people I work with on stage or behind stage on a regular basis, but this was a different experience. These were folks with whom I couldn't just fall into the same old patterns. Getting to know them and love them was an example of how many steps there are left for me to learn. I thank you, one and all, for that.

Second, I just started a new "temp" gig, in an area in which I have no real experience. Although the job isn't particularly taxing, the terminology is that of "marketing," with which I am not in the least familiar. I am listening, however, and trying to learn. I don't pretend I'll ever love marketing, but I will take what I get from it, and, hopefully apply it in my life.

The other verse which resonated with me was the following:

 "Into a dancer you have grown
   From a seed somebody else has thrown
   Go on ahead and throw some seeds of your own
   And somewhere between the time you arrive
   And the time you go
   May lie a reason you were alive
   But you'll never know "

Which, I think, supplements the former thought. That is, not only do we learn, but we should try to teach. When it comes down to it, the only legacy we will leave in the world is who we touched, and what wisdom, if any, we passed on. So, I guess, I hope that some of the seeds that I have thrown find fertile soil, so I may give back at least some of what I have taken from the world. In the end, it seems that is all we can hope for.

Thanks for reading.

Thoughts on Robin Williams

So, Robin Williams is dead. That fact makes me sad. I watched Mork and Mindy as a child, I believe between the ages of 8 and 10. I've seen many of his movies and listened to his stand-up routines. By all accounts, he was a gentle, loving, and good-hearted person. He was also an addict. He apparently struggled with cocaine addiction during the 1980's and with alcohol addiction for most of his life. Early reports are that the cause of death was suicide.

I do wonder about the comments I've seen regarding his death, however. People in the public eye have expressed their shock and sadness, mostly in a socially acceptable way. I have also seen many comments by private individuals, in the comments section of various stories about his death. Many of these comments run along the lines of "if he only knew how other people saw him," or "if he could have realized how happy he made people..." These types of comments puzzle me. We tend to be taught to not worry about how others perceive us. We are often told to do what we think is right, regardless of what others might say. And yet, people apparently believe that Mr. Williams didn't know himself. That if he had realized how "great" he was, how talented, how loved he was, he would never have taken such a step.

I think this may be a disconnect in our collective consciousness. We assume that Robin Williams' perception of himself was wrong. We blame conditions, such as bi-polar disorder or more "run-of-the-mill" depression for his actions. But what if he realized all that about himself? What if he knew he was great at certain things, like acting and comedy? Many people dream of living the life he lived, so how are we to make sense of him voluntarily leaving such a charmed life? I think this may strike at the heart of one of human beings' most basic fears: What if being loved is not enough? What if success, either in career, or family, or any other endeavor, does not bring complete happiness? We are taught to pursue various goals, be they academic, or financial, or personal. We are told, or at least are led to believe, that if we have such success, we will be happy. And yet...

Having goals may be a good thing for some people. It may be an obstacle for others. I guess it just seems a bit arrogant to assume that a perfect stranger, who may have watched a person on screen, knows more about that person than he knows of himself. My guess is that Robin Williams was aware of his talent, and how many people loved his films and TV shows and stand-up. He likely was also cognizant of the love his wife and children had for him. But that didn't matter. After all, when everything else is stripped away, we all have to live with ourselves. Mr. Williams apparently no longer could; who are we to judge that decision?

In MeMOriam

We’ve had a lot of Facebook posts recently about the new canine addition to our little family, which is great. Now, however, I would like to take a moment to tell part of the story of another member of the clan, a cat. This feline’s name was Geronimo, but to most who knew him, he was just “Mo.”  The way he came by his appellation is a story in itself, but one I will let others tell; I know it only third hand, and those who knew him at that time may wish to do so.

Mo was, at least in part, a “Maine Coon” type of cat, with long hair that fell around his face a bit like a lion’s mane, and tufts of hair between his toes. He also had one of the loudest voices I’ve heard in an animal of his size. He could, and would, come down to the bedroom, stand on the floor and meow loudly enough to wake us when he felt it was time to eat.

Those of you lucky enough to have lived with cats know that they each tend to have a different “personality,” for lack of a less human-centered word. The best way I would explain Mo’s personality is to use a cinematic metaphor.  Mo was, in my opinion, the blend of two classic movie characters; one an archetype, the other a specific character. If anyone is familiar with old films set in WWII, there is often the grizzled old sergeant who acts tough and gruff and berates the new soldiers constantly. He has been shot 43 times, but hasn’t died yet, and the young troops whisper about his immortality. Of course, there is invariably a scene when we discover that the sergeant has the proverbial “heart of gold,” and is tough on the men because he cares about them and wants them to survive. Usually, he gets killed saving his men the day before the war ends.

To me, this fits Mo completely. I only knew Mo in his older days, and he looked, and sounded, a bit like that crotchety old sergeant. Plus, for the longest time, he refused to die. He was thin as a rail, yet ate like a horse. He often moved like some furry automaton, stiffly, but with resolve. We are unsure of his exact age, but I am fairly certain his first job was guarding King Tut’s bedroom. There were multiple occasions on which we went on “Mo death watch,” figuring that, since he was acting a bit sick or listless one day, it was his time. Yet every time, after a day or so, he’d be back to his crusty old self, yowling for his food, and to be let out in the back yard for 5 minutes, before he tired of it and came in. He was often referred to in our house as “Miracle Mo.”

The second character of which Mo reminded me was “The Dude.” If you don’t know The Dude, Google “The Big Lebowski.” As gruff as Mo seemed, at least when I knew him, he pretty much let any chaos going on around him go unacknowledged. Parties, flooding, dogs, it didn’t matter. Mo was just Mo through it all, and I often found myself commenting, whenever something happened through which he remained stoic, that “The Mo abides…”

Mo came to live with us at a time when we had recently lost our faithful dog Rowan. We already had another cat, Bitty, whom we still love very much, but Mo brought to us a new challenge that helped us move on after Rowan’s death. He gave us a year and a half of his life that made ours immeasurably better. 

 

Last Friday, the gruff old sergeant finally succumbed to that Stygian fate at which he laughed for so long. He hadn’t been himself for a day or two prior, but, of course, we hoped he had one more miracle in him. Alas, this time, the metaphorical bullet found its mark. But, as I watched him slip away, I knew that for the rest of my life, in my heart, the Mo would abide.

Chronological Conundrum.

Trifecta's weekend prompt: "This weekend, we want you to give us a 33-word time travel story.  We don't usually tell you what to title your piece, but we'd love it if you could title it with the year/date that you choose."

April 20, 1889.

Braunau, Austria-Hungary. I stand in front of an inn. Knowing what I know, horrors yet to be imagined, I must act. As I begin, my partner stops me with two words: “unintended consequences.”

O.K. So, I've been neglectful of this blog and the Trifecta site long enough. Life, blah, blah, and all that. No excuses, just an answer to the weekend prompt, which is: "we are giving you three words and asking for you to give us back another thirty of your own, making a grand total of thirty-three words. Your words to work with are: ring, water, stage"


The planet’s ring glowed, splendiferous against the void. Shimmering surface water glittered. As the last stage of the rocket detached, no one checked the capsule’s telemetry, the stasis field warning light flashing red.

Stone-Cold

A "serious" Trifecta entry this weekend:

The word lithium comes from the Greek word lithos, which means stone (http://chemistry.about.com/od/lithium/a/10-Lithium-Facts.htm). This weekend, we want you to give us a thirty-three response using the word stone as one of your thirty-three words. You can use any definition of the word that you'd like, but we are specifically looking for serious, well-conceived entries. This isn't the weekend for light-hearted posts about the difficulty of posting before the linkz close, and we are not looking for hilarious commentary about your cats (THIS time). We want something serious and deep from you guys this weekend, because the sun is starting to shine a bit more, and we think we can handle it now. Take your time with it and give us your very best work.

So:

Do not burnish your ego until you can see yourself in its polished surface; reflections are but backwards shadows of reality. After all, the finest diamond is, in the end, just a stone.

Relieved of Corporeality

Back after a lengthy hiatus with a Trifecta entry.  I've let myself be distracted by some political issues, which can be found over at "Dispatches From the Culture War,"  if that's of interest to anyone.

Anyway, great prompt at Trifecta this weekend:

"Below are photos from the 33rd page of one of our very favorite books, Elizabeth Strout's Olive Kitteridge. What we want you to do is to scour the page (click to enlarge), choose 33 words, and reshape those words into a piece of your own. "

 

 

 

 

And my entry:

 

All he wanted was to lie on the pine needles, the lilies of the valley near him; the white starflowers, wild violets, pink impatiens.  Relief came as a sensation, the remnants of corporeality.

Happy Birthday!!

Chinese Philosopher Lao Tzu said: "Kindness in words creates confidence. Kindness in thinking creates profoundness. Kindness in giving creates love."

Today is the birthday of one of the most confident, profound, and loving people I know, if measured by the above parameters.  In my experience, she is the embodiment of kindness in living, consistantly more concerned with others than herself, yet always seems grateful for the things that she has. 

She has given me beautiful art, birthday meatloafs, and is always ready to lend a hand with anything.  Most of all though, she has been kind enough to share with me her daughter and her family, welcoming me as if I had always been a part of it.

Today, all I can say is: thank you, Sandi.

Check out her blog at Sandipaints, and you'll soon see what I mean.

Scalia, the 2nd Amendment and Dead Babies.

By now, most everyone is probably familiar with the Newtown CT shooting that took place Friday morning.  While details will still come to light, initial reports are that there are around 27 people dead, 20 of whom are children.  The reports also indicate that up to 4 weapons were involved, including 2 relatively powerful handguns, and a "Bushmaster" assault rifle. 

There have been and will be outpourings of grief, anger, and, incredibly, disbelief.  The two words used in almost all the coverage to date are "unimaginable" and "unthinkable."  While these sentiments are perhaps understandable, they aren't quite accurate.  It is all too thinkable and imaginable in a society in which there are approximately 80 guns for every 100 citizens.

The National Rifle Association and its "gun lobby" barely need to spend money anymore to pass their agendas.  Politicians in this country are so afraid of "blow back" from the supporters of this organization that reasonable dialogue can no longer be had on this issue.

The case in point is the past presidential election.  While the Democrats and the Obama administration have done nothing to restrict the ownership of guns, and in fact, have presided over a repeal on the Federal assault weapon ban, much anti-Obama sentiment focused on his "plan to take our guns." The Saturday Night Live skit aired during the election hit the nail in both parties' planks when it had the candidates respond to a question about what they would do about gun control: "Nothing," and "I will also do nothing," respectively.

Long-term studies in Australia and Austria have shown marked decreases in gun violence in those societies after the implementation of strict gun control.  Law enforcement organizations have repeatedly come out in favor of stricter gun control laws.

And yet, the gun lobby continues to push laws that would allow employees to bring guns to the workplace (and leave them in their cars,) for the reason that "they have a commute and may need to protect themselves."  Really.  Just in case you need to fire a warning shot across the bow of that Prius that looks like it might cut you off.  They have been responsible for the expansion of the "Castle Doctrine" which originally allowed deadly force to be used in one's own home, if one's life were under "imminent threat."  Now, more than 20 states have either passed or are considering legislation similar to Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law," which allows one to use deadly force without having to attempt to avoid it first.  This is the law often cited in the Treyvon Martin case. 

As a fairly staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights, and being generally in favor of an expansive reading of them, I have personally wavered on the issue of gun control.  However, as evidence continues to pile up for the seemingly obvious proposition that the more guns there are, the more people get shot, I've done some deep thinking on the issue. 

Justice Antonin Scalia, a strict constructionist, said recently that courts should look to the words themselves and their meanings when written when interpreting the Constitution.  Well, the 2nd Amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It is the only one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill Of Rights that mentions regulation.  The first Amendment, in contrast, states that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedoms of speech, press and assembly.   The 5th Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that "no person shall be held to answer..." for various crimes "without due process of law."  No mention of regulation, these are, in the language of the constitution, more or less "absolute rights."  And yet, our courts have continuously found that there are limits to these rights when it is necessary for the good of society. 

Still, the Gun Lobby screams about the 2nd Amendment rights of its members and individuals cry that the government can have their guns when they "pry them from our cold dead hands."  It seems to me, that if we take Justice Scalia's comment to heart, we should look at the words "Well-regulated," as contained in the 2nd Amendment.  The situation concerning firearms is the farthest thing from well-regulated.  It seems to me that if Congress wished, it could regulate  that firearms only be held by those who belong to a government-sanctioned military organization.  I don't know that such an extreme measure would be wise policy, but it would behoove our nation to look to Europe and Scandinavia for the type of regulation that tends to suppress firearms violence. 

These questions should not be raised only when terrible mass tragedies strike, as such are still relatively rare.  It is the everyday shootings, accidental and intentional, that kill and maim hundreds every week, and that do not get more than a 2 minute mention on television, or a short column in the paper.  It is these victims, young and old, that should be pressing a real discussion of gun control in this country, not knee jerk "pry it from my cold dead hands" rhetoric. If we could do that, perhaps crimes such as this, while not disappearing completely, may actually become "unthinkable." 

The following is a response to a prompt over at Wattpad.


Using less that 400 words describe the setting in this photograph:

As the angle of the sun in the sky diminished, the blinding brilliance of the light reflected off the snow faded enough that he could see more clearly. It also meant that the scant warmth daylight had provided would be fading as well, replaced by a cutting wind as darkness fell. He zipped his parka to the neck and listened intently for a moment, bathed in the silence unique to the muffling effects of snow on sound. As the man peered from his vantage point in the copse of evergreen trees, he noted that the tracks he was following had been made either while the snow was still falling, or before new fresh flurries had partially filled them. The lack of white residue clinging to most of the visible tree branches confirmed his fear that he was at least a day behind. This was middle-aged ground covering, lacking the fresh smell of a new fall, but it had not yet been transformed to the mostly grey sludge that would invariably follow the human activity within his present suburban surroundings.

He carefully picked up his left foot and shook it, attempting to rid his toes of the numbness brought on by the liquid cold that managed to seep in even through his boots. Repeating the action with his right, he winced at the prickly pain that invaded his lower extremities as sensation returned momentarily due to the increased blood flow.
 
So, he was left with two potential courses of action: follow the tracks and hope to pick them up again on the other side of the street, or return to the dry warmth of his study and find some other way. It seemed an easy decision. His gaunt figure slowly dissolved back into the grey of the lengthening shadows, until there remained nothing except the faint rustle of branches stirred by the strengthening breeze.

Bill O'Reilly's Biggest Nightmare

Bill O'Reilly's biggest nightmare is coming true.  He said as much last night on Fox News:

"The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things? ...
"The demographics are changing," he said. "It's not a traditional America anymore."

The Pew Research Center breakdown for the demographics in the U.S. by 2050 is 47% "White," "29%" Hispanic," 13% "Black,"  and 9% "Asian."   Women already outnumber men in the general population by about 2 percentage points.  For once, Bill O'Reilly is right.  The demographics are changing, and the question is, what lessons will the Republican Party take from O'Reilly's observations?

Leaving aside the vaguely racist undertones of O'Reilly's statement, there's some wisdom there for the GOP.  That the economic system is stacked against these minority voters (and women), is what many in the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party have been saying for decades.  Many of these voters tend toward the middle and lower rungs of the economic spectrum.  That wealthier people benefit more from laissez-faire economic policies than the less-well off is an idea that seems to mystify no one except the leadership of the Republican Party, and their "tea-party" mouthpieces and supporters. 

This election was not about abortion, or foreign policy, or Sandy, or even really heath care or the deficit. It was about policies of voter-suppression and the continued marginalization of the economic underclass.  Poll after poll suggest that women are generally as likely to hold pro-life positions as men. What the polling does suggest, is that women disproportionately oppose foreign military intervention, and worry more about loss of funding for social programs, such as food stamps and medicaid.  These are also issues which concern people of middle and lower incomes. 

The GOP could, perhaps, come up with policies to address these problems.  There may be solutions that fit the "free-market" approach the Republican Party likes to claim as its own. There are no doubt very capable, intelligent people in the GOP, and they may be able to sell these solutions to 21st Century Americans.  But as long as conservatives are stuck in the endless droning on about "lower taxes," and trapped in the Reaganesque time warp of the "supply side," and "running government like a business," they will continue to fail with these new demographic realities.  People who live paycheck to paycheck, or have to rely on food stamps to feed their families don't benefit from lower income taxes.  Their investment portfolios don't see dramatic gains from cutting the capital gains rate.  Their children don't become wealthier by doing away with estate taxes. 

The Great American Myth of the "self-made man" is starting to crumble.  Ever since human beings banded together and formed civil societies, there has been no such thing.   We are all interdependent upon each other and, in turn, on the society in which we live.  Every individual success story is really a testament to the collective effort of human beings to create the circumstances in which that success occurs.  Unless we are willing to all go back to being subsistence farmers, that will continue to be the case.

Many of us whom demographers classify as "white," have swallowed the Myth for generations, even in lower economic classes, because we've been inculcated with it by our schools, our parents and our leaders.  There are new generations coming, however, whose parents have seen the reality that unfettered corporate autonomy and "every man for himself" economic policies create.  Every society eventually has to face the realities of the inequalities of the distribution of wealth, and how that society deals with the problem generally defines whether that society thrives or declines. 

The Republican Party can be a part of the solution.  The best ideas come about after debating the relative merits of differing viewpoints.  But clinging to outmoded policies that benefit only a very few, is a recipe for disaster, not only for that political party, but for any nation foolish enough to embrace them. 

I invite Republicans to listen to Bill O'Reilly's observations, then ditch him, and others like him who long for a "Traditional America" that doesn't exist and never did.  People don't just "feel" entitled to things; they are entitled to a government that doesn't treat them like employees, but like partners, a government that recognizes that there are no "traditional" Americans, only people now living in American society and trying to make it work for them. 

If they don't, they may be in for more disappointment, as the country moves on without them.    

Zombie Zoo

Trifecta's weekend prompt is inspired by Zora Neal Hurston's encounter with an alleged Zombie in Haiti.  They are asking for "thirty three words that are somehow related to Hurston's zombie sighting." Here's the Photo:

Here's the challenge answer:

Eight o’clock.  Shadowed forms stagger in a macabre dance accompanied by an electronic hum.   Stiffly, they hunker down, wide-eyed, staring, bathed in the bluish glow of the cathode ray.  It eats their brains.

A Sinister Reality

Trifecta's weekly prompt this week is to do 33-333 words using the third definition of "Sinister," which is given as:

"3: singularly evil or productive of evil"

And... we're off:

“Hello!  I’m Wink Barkercrest,  welcoming you back to ‘America’s Next Top Serial Killer.’ Recapping last week, we saw two contestants go down, as they just didn’t meet your high standards of macabre mayhem.  So, we said goodbye to ‘Hacksaw’ Hank Hannigan and Marie Guadolo, AKA ‘The Angel of Death.’” 

“That leaves us with three finalists for the interview round.  Please give a warm welcome to ‘The Sheboygan Slasher,’ Sergei ‘Bullseye’  Wackoffski , and… Eugene.”

“OK, first up, ‘The Sheboygan Slasher.’  Sir, can I call you ‘slash?’  

“No.”

“All right… can you tell me your real name?”

“No.”

“Mr. Slasher  it is, then.  Tell America: what compels you to kill?”

“My goldfish, Aristotle.  He tells me who he wants for dinner, then I capture and filet that person.”

“Wow, sounds grisly!  Any idea who might be next?”

“Well, Aristotle’s been on a T.V. Personality kick recently…”

“O.K!  We’ll move on to contestant number two.  Mr. Wackoffski…”

“Please, call me Sergei, my last name does not translate well from Cyrillic.”

“I’ll say.  Now, Sergei, how do you keep track of how many people you have ‘offed?’”

“Say hello to my little friend… In this digital tablet, I have stored the particulars of all my contracts.”

“Hmmmm.  Bet Interpol would love to get their hands on that!”

“Absolutely.  That is why I would blow up this building rather than be taken alive.”

“Right!  Now, on to contestant three. It says here you go by “Eugene.”  Is that it?"

“That’s right; just Eugene.  I think it sounds more sinister that way, don’t you?” 

“Uh-huh.  So, Eugene, what do you do for a living?” 

“I’m a political consultant.  I recruit people for focus groups, lock them in a room and show them many political campaign commercials to gauge their reactions.”

“It’s a good thing we’re out of time, because I think I’m going to be sick. We’ll see you next time, and…Sergei, where are you going?”

“I am not sitting next to him.  He makes me feel dirty…”

"Wishing Well"

Trifecta's weekend prompt is inspired by W.W. Jacobs' classic short story "The Monkey's Paw." The challenge is to write "33 words exactly about three wishes that come at a high price to the wisher." 


Marty suddenly realized he should have specified he was speaking metaphorically when he wished to “rocket straight to the top,”  “burning brighter than a supernova,” having a golden parachute with “no strings attached.” 

The Problem With Twitter

I know that Twitter is "the best thing ever" right now, and I even see that it may be valuable in certain, fairly limited, circumstances.  But during the U.S. Presidential debate tonight, it struck me that the "Twitter phenomenon" may not necessarily be a positive development. 

It seems to me that it is another way to condition us to "sound byte" politics.  It is impossible, within the confines of Twitter, to make any kind of substantive argument for or against any policy or statement.  It may be fine for pithy observations, but it is completely useless for substantive discussion of issues as important as those involved in this Presidential Campaign. 

That, in and of itself, isn't a problem, except I worry that, as seems to be a trend in this country, people will begin to rely on services like Twitter for actual information, when it is not what they were designed to do. 

And that, as a continuing trend, is dangerous to our republic.

Apocalypse Now?

Well, back with a response to a Trifecta challenge.  This week it is 33-333 words using the 3rd definition of "Death," given as:

"The destroyer of life, usually pictured as a skeleton with a scythe."  Without further ado:

RRRrrrriiiiiiiiinnnngggg.

“Good afternoon, Four Horsemen P.A., this is Luci speaking, how may I help you?

Oh, hello sir. I’m fine; thank you for asking.  How are you? 

I’m sorry to hear that sir. War usually handles your account, doesn’t he?

No, I’m sorry, sir, he’s in meetings all day.  He really is swamped at the moment, what with the ‘War on Drugs,’ the ‘War on Poverty,’ the ‘War on Terror,’ the ‘War on Women …’ Not to mention all the real wars going on.  Could someone else help you?

No, unfortunately, Famine is out to lunch right now.

Let me check for you, sir…   Oh, that’s right, Pestilence called in sick; I’d forgotten.

 I’m afraid not sir. 

Yes, you see, Death has taken a holiday.  That does remind me though, I have to pick up his cloak from dry cleaning and get that scythe sharpened before he returns…

Well, sir, you could call our consultants, Cheney and Associates. 

No, I was not aware he was on a hunting trip.

I will most certainly pass on the message sir, and I’m sure someone will get back to you as soon as possible; after all, you are one of our best clients.

Thank you, you have a nice afternoon too, Mr. Rove."

Click.

An Open Letter to the Liberal Media

Dear Liberal Media,

Hi, how's it going?  I know you guys have been busy lately, what with undermining traditional American values, continuing your attempts to destroy marriage, the war on CHRISTmas, and all those meetings with the Illuminati elites to usher in The New World Order.  If you could land the black helicopters for just a minute, or at least set them to "hover" for a moment, I have a bone to pick with you.

See, it seems there was a U.S. Presidential debate on Wednesday evening, and I've been reading and listening all about it the past few days, and apparently, this guy Mitt Romney is pretty damn good.  It appears that he's like the best parts of JFK, Winston Churchill, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ all rolled into one adorable, well-coiffed package.  I mean, I'm thinking of voting for him, and I once voted for Ralph Nader.  (Don't ask, it's a long story.) 

I understand why the "Fair and Balanced" news outlets are talking him up; after all, he wants to make sure they can continue to make obscene amounts of money and listen in on everybody's conversations.  But I didn't realize you guys loved him too.  See, I watched the debate, (on tape delay, I admit,) and I'm a little confused.  I know Romney was all "mavericky" and had lots of cool quotes and anecdotes and everything, and good for him, because he seems like a nice enough guy, for a Mormon.  But it seems a little strange to me that all I've heard from you liberal media types for four days is how good he was and how bad the President was.

What I saw was one candidate who discussed issues and policies and made statements that included realistic assessments of the problems we face as a nation, and another who kept saying "taxes bad!" I'll let you guess who was whom.  It seems to me I've heard you guys complaining about style over substance before, and this might have been a good time to show that you care.  But when you keep repeating that the President was "distracted," and "uninspired," and "pedantic," it seems like you were only concerned with how the debate was presented, rather than what it was about.

Maybe you figure it doesn't matter.  Maybe you're right.  But I saw something to the effect that polls taken immediately after the debate showed about the same numbers as those taken before the debate; however, by Friday, after two days of endless hammering on by every news organization in the world about how badly the President "performed,"  they had swung toward Mr. Romney.  Let's face it, we Americans aren't the most politically sophisticated bunch around.   Many of us are more interested in who wins "Survivor" than a silly debate.  So we count on you to let us know who we should like.  Besides, 47% of us had to get up early to get in line for our welfare checks, so we couldn't watch it ourselves.

So my question is, as one Liberal to a Liberal Institution: "Why?"  Why would you talk endlessly about how much Mr. Romney won the debate by?  You know he's the anti-liberal here, right?  He wants to make the rich richer, and screw everybody else.  Are you scared that Bill O'Reilly might call you names?  That Rush Limbaugh might say you are biased?  (Hint: they are going to do that anyway.)  Is it because you are all owned by big corporations that stand to gain from Romney's pledge to lower the corporate tax rate?

Don't worry, Liberal Media; I still love you.  As long as you keep me updated on the latest dance craze from Korea, I'll be happy.  But you messed this one up.  Instead of commenting that perhaps we should look for a leader who sees that the country has problems, and that many of them are created by a terrible disparity in the distribution of wealth in our system, you focused on who seemed more "energetic."  Instead of pointing out that the most powerful country in the world might want a President who thinks a little, who has more knowledge about the world than the average person, you said that Obama "talked over people's heads."  Maybe what you fail to understand is that no matter what else happens, what you say tends to become the reality in people's minds. 

Next time, maybe you should challenge the narrow, conservative view of politics and economics. 

Unless, of course, you really aren't Liberal after all.

Carry on,

Eric Misener (President of the Kucinich 2016 fan club.)

P.S.  Could you guys be sure to get Todd Akin more coverage?  He's about the best advertisement we Liberals have...
   

It's Debatable

Though I've steered clear of Politics on this blog so far, it is meant to be a space for miscellaneous observations (hence the name), so I want to write briefly about last night's U.S. Presidential Debate. 

First, full disclosure: I am a registered Democrat and a supporter, in this election, of President Obama. So, you may count or discount my opinion as your partisanship moves you.

After finally seeing a good portion of the debate this morning, (I was otherwise engaged last evening), and reading and listening to the "analysis" of said debate, I have come to a conclusion: What is actually said by the candidates matters very little, excepting any "gotcha" gaffes such as Dan Quayle comparing himself to John Kennedy and opening himself up for Lloyd Bentsen's memorable rejoinder. (Speaking of which, if you're too young to have seen that moment, or saw it, but want a reminder of how a debater can make his point, and attack the opposition while maintaining a dignified, calm demeanor, go to youtube and search "Quayle-Bentsen.")

If one needs any evidence as to the fact that it is perception, rather than substance, that matters at these debates, one need only recall the actions of both campaigns in the past weeks leading up to last night's event.  Both camps went out of their way to paint the opposition as the more capable, more prepared debater.  The Obama campaign released statements with regard to the President having less time to prepare for the debate than his opponent, and how good Romney is at debating.  The Romney camp, on the other hand, made the point that the President is known as a good orator and that he would be a formidable opponent in a debate.  Though these practices may seem counter-intuitive, there is a good reason for them: to lower expectations, especially among the media.

To understand this, ask yourself who actually decides the "winner of a debate? (We'll leave aside for the moment the question of whether we should go about choosing a "winner" as if it was a sporting event.)  Generally it is the political analysts for the networks, newspapers and websites that make up the political media.  They all have their break-downs and post-mortems and bring in various experts to analyze the performance of both candidates.

"Performance" is exactly the correct word, too, because if you pay attention to the way the pundits talk about the debate, you will find that is what they are actually analyzing: how each candidate looked and sounded, rather than what was said.  Prior to the debate, each party wanted the expectations of the media to be as low as possible so that its candidate's "performance" would exceed those expectations by as wide a margin as possible. 

So, we now know that the consensus appears to be that Mitt Romney "won" the debate.  What reason is generally being given for this victory?  Romney appeared "relaxed," "confident," well-rehearsed,"  "aggressive," "polished."  Obama was "hesitant," "defensive," "reflective."  Romney's answers were "direct," "black-and-white."  Obama's were "winding," "provisional." 

I would argue there is a reason for this perception:  President Obama spoke a bit like one of my old law professors, while Mitt Romney's stock in trade were anecdotes and attempts to position himself to the Political Center; so much so that he ended up agreeing with Obama on several issues.

Let's take just the first 15 minute segment, ostensibly about "jobs."  The talk turned to taxes and the deficit almost immediately, with Obama stating that the deficit had to be reduced "responsibly" so that investment could be made in renewable energy, jobs programs and education.  He also called out Romney's proposal to cut taxes that would cost approximately $5 Trillion from the Federal treasury. 

Romney responded first by doing what he did all evening: trotting out anecdotes.  He "met a man who lost his job" and said "can you help me?"  His wife "met a woman" whose husband had had several part-time jobs and asked "can you help me?"  These are rhetorical ploys that mean absolutely nothing when it comes to public policy affecting the entire country.  (To be clear, the Democrats are guilty of using this tactic as well; Obama did not use it in this segment of the debate, however.) Romney also said he "had no $5 trillion tax cut," and that everything the president said in one of his answers was inaccurate.  Romney's own website states that his tax goals are to:

"Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, whilekeeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporateincome tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent."

The $5 Trillion dollar figure comes from a study done by the independent Tax Policy Center (which may be affiliated with the Brookings Institute), which showed the cuts Romney proposes to cost $360 Billion in the first year, which extrapolated to $5 Trillion over ten years. 

So, Obama should have been clearer in his representation of the tax cuts; and I really wish both sides, when citing "studies" would identify what studies they are talking about.  Romney at one point said, "I have six studies that say (the study referenced by Obama) is wrong."  Which ones? By what organizations?  Of course Obama didn't identify the study he cited, either.

According to the debate last night, Romney also wants to invest in energy and education, although it is unclear from where the funds to do this would come. 

One last thing I must point out about the debate has to do with health care.  Romney declared that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."  This is a part of "Obamacare" that consistently polls favorably among voters.  Last night, a top Romney advisor  Eric Fehrnstrom restated what the Romney plan is with regard to pre-existing conditions.  Basically, he said Romney wants to ensure people who have no lapse in coverage continue to have coverage; which is exactly the way the system worked before Obamacare. Pre-existing conditions aren't "pre-existing" is there is no lapse in coverage.  With regard to people without insurance or with a 90-day lapse in coverage, Romney "hopes states will do what Massachusetts has done," which is ban pre-existing conditions.  So, Romney's plan is to "hope" states do what Obama's plan already does.

That's not the kind of "hope" I'm looking for, especially living in a state whose governor may have been involved in one of the biggest medicaid frauds ever perpetrated against the citizens of the United States.