WAS IT THE GRINCH WHO STOLE TRUST IN AMERICA?

It seems no one trusts anyone these days.  I don't even trust in God.  Is that Anti-American or is it anti-American to think badly of me because I can't trust in God?  There are those who would ostracize me for saying that trust in God allows people to become to passive and complacent and forget that they are the same ones who believe the saying, "God helps those who help themselves". 

For almost every homely saying, there is another claiming the opposite in most cases. Today we are dealing with the comedian who asked, "Do you trust me or your lying eyes?"   Today I happened to run across an article claiming that Republicans don't trust Americans.  Judging from the last Presidential election, one might assume that lots of Americans didn't trust Republicans, either.  The article by Leo Gerard  might be found to have some interest by some of you.  Click here.. 

One of the things Mr. Gerard writes is:  " Under Republican presidents, the wealthiest benefited the most, increasing income inequality."  "After the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades of precedent in January in its Citizens United ruling, defining corporations as “persons” and permitting them to pour unlimited cash into political advertising, Democrats offered legislation to temper that newly-granted corporate power. Called the DISCLOSE Act – for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections — it would have required revelation of corporate donations."

"Republicans wanted concealment of their corporate sources, however, and scuttled the DISCLOSE Act. This freed private political fund-raising groups to take as much money as they can from corporations while providing a cloak of anonymity"

 What does it take for people who really care for this country to see where their future safety lies?  Since the Republicans got us here in the eight years preceding the election of Obama, how can anyone explain there is sanity to anyone wanting to put the Republicans back in power for change.  Those who want to keep the Republicans in power are those who want to continue having only two classes in America, the rich and the poor.  Is there something wrong with me that once burned I shy from fire?  We know that there are many people in our country for whom change is not a possible move.  The resistance to change is massive.  This has to be why history has a tendency to repeat itself and why South Carolina want to fly a Confederate flag.

My trust is that the bright people of the world will lead us into new pastures; the evil and greedy ones will try to prevent it.  It looks like the Supreme Court is backing the latter. With luck, we may see a Legislature full of men and women who want what is best for the country before that for themselves.  That will certainly be a novelty when , or if, it happens.

IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

Yesterday I wrote, in my naivety, that authors are publishing under new titles without properly informing readers that it is the same old book under a new cover.  Feedback from authors whom I trust indicates that they are opposed to the practice but have no choice as the publisher's run the show.

There must certainly be truth in that and those who are interested should read the comments on yesterday's blog.  If there are any other readers out there who have bought a book, thinking it is new, only to find out that you read it before and only the title and cover picture have been changed on this 'new' book.  If you have, you perhaps felt cheated and became annoyed.

Two of my favorite authors of Jane Austen related books have suggested that the best way to stop the practice is to write to those publishers who are doing this.  I would suggest that book sellers also have some responsibility to know what they are selling.  Thus Amazon, Powell Books, World Wide Books and others might be alerted , or any others from whom you purchase books.  .

There is strength in numbers!

CAUTION: AUTHORS PLAGIARIZING THEMSELVES

Addenda from Yiayia...Apparently readers failed to see my 'tongue in cheek' use of the world plagiarize.  Obviously one cannot plagiarize one's own work and I publicly apologize to authors who may have misunderstood and taken offense, especially to the wonderful author.made visible by the book covers since she is one of my favorites and I heartily recommend her books to anyone who loves this genre as much as I.. 

Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice was such a favorite of mine that I have been buying most all new versions of it (and sequels) I can find..  One I refused to read was: Mr. Darcy, Vampyre.  I really thought that was just too insulting to Austen's original..

It is easy to understand why a new version requires much of the original dialogue at times. I recently ordered a book whose title I did not own though I had read that author before and liked her.  When the book arrived, I eagerly started to read it and wondered at its familiarity.  Since I often read the few pages Amazon provides, to review, I hoped that was what I was remembering.  However, it became just too many pages. Having liked the original, Impulse and Initiative, I read, on as I frequently like to relax re-reading when I know I don't have to worry through the suspense.  I thought I had missed something when it didn't seem to be as I remembered it.  My count of such books is currently 82 so I read on, thinking that I must have skipped what I was now missing.

Nevertheless, being obstinate, I compared the books paragraph for paragraph for several chapters.  The author had changed 'knocked' to 'rap' in a later version and a few words here or there were slightly different though the meaning and general story stayed the same.  However, the new version, To Conquer Mr. Darcy was not easily associated by me with Impulse and Initiative.  In the newer version, the paperback, the author had left out a whole sub-plot which made Caroline Bingley a worse conniving villain than her usual cattiness and attempt to disparage Elizabeth.  It didn't essentially change the story, it simply removed a piece of it.

However, it made me wonder.  What are the rules of selling a book without telling the reader beforehand that it is simply a rewrite of a previously published book with little change?  I don't know what publisher's rules are but I can certainly comment on the view as a reader. The seller should make it possible for me know if I might already have bought a copy of this book.  Before I buy, I check my database to see if I already own it.  When I don't see it there, I read the blurbs the seller has on the book.  Having done this, there was nothing to connect the two since most of the sequels have the same characters and many don't deviate that far from the basic premise of the original Pride and Prejudice.  Only when I received the book, read it, and checked the very fine print on the bottom of the Copyright page did I learn it had previously been published  in 2008 by Sourcebooks Landmark as Impulse and Initiative.  Amazon showed it as a 2010 book.

Addenda from Yiayia...Apparently readers failed to see my 'tongue in cheek' use of the world plagiarize.  Obviously one cannot plagiarize one's own work and I publicly apologize to authors who may have taken misunderstood and taken offense. 

HOW CAN SNEAKS AND LIARS CONVINCE THE WORLD THEY ARE GOOD CHRISTIANS?

Having read enough history of the part Christianity has played in our world that has not been constructive nor 'Christian'.  The role of the pedophile priests and the way their superiors covered for them with denial of the pain they were inflicting is but one small example.

Tara Ganeva, an Associated Press reporter writes about a new law that would force sneaky Christian crisis pregnancy centers to reveal their anti-choice agenda.  Apparently these centers do not offer choice which is part of the reason they get Federal funding.  She writes:  "A New York law introduced Tuesday would force Crisis Pregnancy Centers — religious, anti-choice organizations that counsel pregnant women against getting abortions — to stop posing as health clinics. The law requires CPCs to disclose that they do not provide abortion services, contraceptives or referrals for abortions.

CPCs, which receive federal funding, rarely indicate their anti-choice agenda. Most are indistinguishable from women’s health clinics, except that in place of health advice they proffer medical misinformation, Bible study and pictures of fetuses to dissuade women from choosing abortion. There are over 2,300 pregnancy centers across the country, according to the Wall Street Journal"

She continues:  "Democratic Council Member Jessica Lappin, who sponsored the bill, told the WSJ, “These are anti-choice centers masquerading as health clinics … Women who are scared and vulnerable and having a very tough decision to make have a right to factually accurate medical information, and the fact that these folks would purposely try to mislead them is not right.” "  For the complete article, click here.  To see the NARAL report, click here. 

If anyone is curious about what abortion services are listed online, click here. 

A few years ago I thought we were through, for the most part, with this being the issue it has been made today.  It amazes me that we, in the United States, a country which states there is a separation of church and state, is fighting to preserve that in a most half-hearted way.  I confess to having dropped out of the cheer leading section because it didn't seem to be a current need for me or my family members.  I stopped contributing a few years ago but have decided that what little I have to contribute will undergo a priority review.

ANOTHER MISNOMER: HATE CRIME

What makes people 'hate' homosexuals?  Usually, those who are the loudest have had no contact, do not understand that it is not a 'choice', and fail to see their own character flaws for the crimes they commit.  Has anyone ever figured out what they hope to accomplish with such behavior? Colleen Long, an Associated Press writer, describes picking up the ninth suspect in the recent crime in the Bronx.

Latino gangs do not tolerate a gay in their group.  There are cultural issues involved but is this a kin to Muslim women wearing head and face coverings?  I see a similarity here, not because the actions are similar, but that they are both a threat to our legal system.  We have laws to control the actions of people on others who have not harmed them.  We have laws to allow police to look for people suspected of crimes.  In both instances, there are reasons for our laws and they do not allow those who plan to break them, a choice to obey or disobey.

 It seems that whether people are here and plan to apply for citizenship or not, they should be expected to take a course on our laws and why they are there and expected to be respected and followed.

It is also imperative that the media be a bit more respectful in the way they allow those who profess to want to 'take our country back' and openly speak of turning back laws that have been in existence for decades.

We can also do without an extended opportunity for people like Carl Paladino to spout out his dangerous ignorance about so many subjects.  Spouting Leviticus is not wise as a reason for.non-acceptance of gays and lesbians,  To the best of my knowledge, it does not fit with the separation of church and state.

According to Daniel Tencer of The Raw Story, at least 78 Republican candidates would force a woman to bear rapist's babies.  Apparently we have our old fiend friend Phyllis Schlafly (who started this group) to thank for this.  As I read this, I tried to play out some possible scenarios in my head.  #1 a mother of five, husband out of work, little money to pay for groceries and the roof over their heads, is raped and left pregnant.  How would forcing her to have this baby help any one?  Balancing out those five children of hers watching her belly grow, forcing her husband to have to raise the child as his because they are legally married or find a less legal solution, and let us all hope there will be no psychological consequences added to their current mind-numbing woes.

#2  daughter, with a sister who is also adulterously being used by their father, finds herself pregnant as a result.  Mother is no longer able to look on with denial since the daughter has clearly not dated.  The marriage does not survive, mother and two daughters now without the father as a breadwinner struggle for survival.  Adding to their misery, father goes to jail when the doctors find out who the father of the child is and he is sent to jail.

I'm sure I could go on with these scenarios, many of which I've been pretty close to in my years of practicing family therapy.  For a group professing to want less government, how can there be an intelligent human being who doesn't see through their hypocrisy?  It translates to "Get out of my life, government, unless it is something I want...regardless of whether my fellow man agrees, because I am biased and pigheaded with the wish to inflict my values on all."

Tana Ganeva published, in AlterNet, five GOP candidates who would force women to bear children as the result of rape.  They are: 1. Rand Paul (Kentucky); Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), Sharron Angle (Nevada), Ken Buck (Colorado), Joe Miller (Alaska).  One can only seriously question the judgment (or even sanity) of  those politicians who consider this a worthwhile platform to run on in an era when people need to eat, pay rent, taxes, and survive in the job-hungry economy.  That should tell their supporters something critical but it is not likely to do much because, unfortunately, their supporters are as fanatical as they with equally poor sense of what the country needs to survive.  Lots of money is pouring into the coffers of these candidates and, again, one has to wonder where ti is coming from.  These people are driving our country to H*** in the proverbial hand basket, for sure.

I can see Uncle Sam on the floor yelling now, "Help!. Help!, I've fallen and I can't get up!"

I WANT ONE: GOOGLE SELF CONTROLLED CARS

It seems that once we passed 1984, the world began to move closer to the speed of light in technology. The Google car has already driven 140,000 miles and is doing beautifully.  The car literally drives itself though, they remain manned at all times by a trained driver ready to take control as well as by a software expert.Quoting from the BBC article, "The cars use video cameras mounted on the roof, radar sensors and a laser range finder to "see" other traffic, software engineer Sebastian Thrun said."  Click here for another article on it. "There are other hypothetical pluses, too. The vehicles’ instant reaction time and 360-degree awareness would allow them to drive closer together on the highway than humans can, reducing traffic congestion. They could be more careful when operating the gas, reducing fuel consumption."...."But the biggest benefit for Google would be the hour or so of daily commute time the car owner would save. Instead of driving, he or she could either be productive or entertained in the vehicle, doing work on a wireless Internet () connection or watching television. Google doesn’t say it explicitly, but TechCrunch was quick to note that this time could be spent using Google products and absorbing Google-run advertising."

Just think of all the legal cell calls one can make as well as texting all the way to work.  We have had battery operated mobility Free for those who 'qualified for insurance', we have motorized grocery carts, we have the Segue (though the current English of the company segued himself off a cliff), we have solo flying with jet propulsion, but (you might notice) all of those wonderful vehicles require an attentive operator. Now we have the ultimate upgrade to the couch potato...a car that drives itself.

We will save milliseconds on our computers with faster ISP connections, we have all learned to speed read,  we don't even have to dial our telephones.  We've cut out having to go get our pictures developed and eliminate long lenses by owning cameras with a gazillion pixels so that we can just photoChop that dot we want to show up like the old 500 millimeter moons we used to talk about in photography clubs in the 70s.

Now if we can build robots with morals and integrity who understand the American Constitution, we could have them run for office and make this country a great place to live in again.