WORDS I LOVE BUT CANNOT USE

There are so many words I'd love to use as I write this blog but don't show off as I know readers would give up on me if they had to look up words to understand my meaning.  I remember reading Gregory Bateson many years ago.  He was an anthropologist who was married to another very famous woman anthropologist, Margaret Mead.  These were the days before the ease of the Internet when the Oxford Dictionary was as much a friend to me as the toilet was to Bill Cosby's sequel to being sick and very drunk.

Bateson was brilliant.  At least, that is what I assumed because I had to look up twenty or more words on one page of his writing.  I looked up so many words I lost the basic messages in what he was writing.  I particularly recall looking up one word which, interestingly, I don't remember today, thirty five years later.  I only remember it meant 'swamp'  I'm not even sure it is in this group of words:  bog, bottoms, everglade, fen, glade, holm, marsh, marshland, mire, moor, morass, mud, muskeg, peat bog, polder, quag, quagmire, slough, swale, swampland. I only knew I had never heard the word before and wondered why he didn't just say 'swamp'.

Obtest is a lovely word meaning to beseech, plead or implore.  "I obtest!" has a lovely sound in my head but not many people I know have the same obsession as I do about looking up words they don't understand.  Thus, I obtest to those who write blogs: keep the vocabulary simple.

 

FINAL COMMENTS ON THIS CHAPTER OF REP WEINER'S POLITICAL LIFE

Anthony
Weiner

One of Weiner's constituents, a Michael Blozen, spoke for the against the hypocrites who are whining on about the fact that Weiner had lied.l  How many people have been asked intrusive questions about private matters. What makes media or anyone else think they have a right to ask personal questions about a candidate that has nothing to do with their ability govern.  There has yet to be a code set down for anything that is wrong between to consenting adults having non-contact sex.  A husband and wife may have discussion and conclusions about the behavior and what it might mean to their marriage but it is not the right of the public to get involved.

I wrote earlier that I would have liked for him to continue in the house because of the good he does there while he might be getting psychological help for his problems of non-hurtful Internet sex.  I hope there are friends he has made over the years who recognize his talent and will find ways for him to earn enough money to support his family.  I further hope he remains in a position to be able to help the middle class he has represented for so long. 

First, I urge Weiner to blog even if he gets other jobs or has some other public profile.

STANLEY CUP TO THE BOSTON BRUINS: JOY ABOUNDS

It is still not possible for me to say, "We won." as so many of my friends say of any of our Boston teams.  It remains, "They won!"  I didn't play, nor did I physically ache after the game.  I can identify the team as based in Boston, though I doubt many of the players are Boston bred.  I will also confess that I would not have felt the same elation if it had been the Canucks with a win.

This response of mine was not initially clear to me.  After the game was over I 'felt' all the emotions by listening to interviews and watching facial cues and body language.  To borrow from baseball, "There was no joy in Mudville, Vancouver. It didn't take a particularly sensitive person to read the pain and tears on the faces of the Canucks.  It also was uplifting to identify with the cheers, back slapping and joy on their faces and the many decibels from their mouths when the playoffs were over and Boston Bruins had won.

Zdeno Chara

Clearly, fans had found something and somebodies with whom they could feel pride as the team demonstrated their rapture for their win.  There is so little today that can pull out so much collective and connecting good spirit and pride in our lives today..  War heroes don't offer the same kind of joy to us, though they are certainly equally deserving.  However, we don't usually see the same expressions on their faces.  Awarded posthumously, as so many are of the medals, it is quite understandable. 

Sad to say, the places in our current America where such joy can be experienced are most apt to be through sports.  That is a sad testimonial to what life in America has become.

SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE FINALLY REALIZED THEY ARE ABOUT TO LOSE ELECTIONS AND THEIR COUNTRY

Grover Norquist

Grover Norquist has sought a pledge from Republicans which essentially said he would direct all their votes on taxes.  It has apparently worked long enough for some of them to realize that following him will lose their elections.  He epitomizes someone not elected to office who was able to become more powerful than those duly elected to public service.  He founded a taxpayer advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform (1985).  He has lobbied and ATR states that it "opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle".

Tom Coburn

Tom Coburn finally decided he had enough (he was on thin ice over the Sen. Ensign fiasco as it is).   Despite Norquist whining that he broke the pledge, Sen Coburn has pursued his attempt to rid subsidies for ethanol.

 Ezra Klein writes:  " Norquist runs Americans for Tax Reform, the sponsor of a no-tax pledge signed by virtually all Republicans. Norquist's pledge has held absolute sway over the party for two decades -- Republicans at the national level have opposed on principle any tax hike whatsoever. Any agreement to reduce the deficit is going to require Democratic support, which in turn will require some increase in revenue. Some Republicans negotiating this deal want to get this revenue by closing tax loopholes or credits, which they (accurately) see as a form of spending through the tax code. Norquist opposes any deal as a violation of the party's anti-tax theology." 

Alexander Bolton and Josiah Ryan write about Coburn's bill to due away with ethanol subsidies.
Manu Ragu  "Something odd happened in the Senate in the past few months: Democrats grew enamored with arch-conservative Sen. Tom Coburn because he was willing to consider increasing tax revenues as part of a deficit-reduction deal.".

Finally, the GOP has begun to rebuke Norquist and we might save our country's economy, after all. 

:

INNER DEBATE: WATCH THE REPUBLICANS LIE OR THE HOCKEY PLAYOFFS?

Normally I am not a sports fan.  Normally I will watch any political debate.  Why then do I draw an inner 'ho hum' when I choose hockey over the opportunity to evaluate the Republican presidential candidates.  After thinking about it for a while, I realize we are in the Internet age and all it provides media for coverage.  There is little I haven't heard about the candidates, picked apart from every bias and other perspective possible.

It seemed to me in hearing as much of the debate I could stand until the danger of retching took over, I realized that if we voted any one of them into office, we were in danger of turning back the clock socially and morally to at least fifty years.

Mitt Romney has changed his tune so many times he is hardly worth watching.  He will say whatever he 'thinks' the New Hampshire electorate wants to hear.  He did it with a smooth smile that didn't change throughout the debate..
Tim Pawlenty, one of the least charismatic candidate around.  He is against the4 new Healthcare plan and will only argue that it is "Obamneycare"  That tells the public nothing about he might best serve them in the White House.  He is with the established Republicans.
Michele Bachmann was the scariest.  She believes that life is a God creation at the point of conception until natural death.  That means no abortion or death with dignity on her watch.  She has no background for history, foreign affairs, and little else that it would take to lead this country.  She has some naive, limited ideas that support the Teaparty but comes out with a firm conviction mostly on moral issues.
Newt Gingrich has run a ridiculous campaign that has in many ways thumbed his nose at the system   Word is out that he is led by his wife.  That is enough among the Republican leaders to count him out.
Herman Cain, articulate and a good salesman but who has said some very unpopular things such as he 'wouldn't be comfortable having a Muslim in his cabinet.
Rick Santorum, also an  ultra-conservative claims to listen to everyone's issues but neglects to say that it will be with a deaf ear.. 
Lastly, Ron Paul who makes some sense when he isn't being provocative,  may not be far enough right for those who would be his base.

 All of them were in favor of having the States handle the issues they felt the government was not taking in to control such as immigration, protecting against abortions, welfare, education, budgets; in other words, they are talking about working to roll back the laws we have lived with for years that they don't like and giving the states more freedom on the basis that the government hasn't done the right job.

Most of their time was spent ranting against Obama.  I did not hear anything constructive they have to offer other than running our lives with more religion as a foundation.  Admittedly, I did not follow every moment.  I heard nothing about raising income for running the government nor getting more jobs or helping the middle class raise its standard of living.

To read BBC's take, click here.  

Despite the fact that this should be a good debate for laughs, I think sticking with the Hockey game offered a more stimulating evening.. The Bruins even won the game as added attraction.

PRESCRIPTION PILLS: PHARMAGEDDON IN kENTUCKY

Prescription pills are being blamed for addiction and deaths more in Kentucky than in other states, though the problem seems to be in all st.  It will always puzzle me how people who are not suffering chronic pain allow themselves to become addicted rather than working with their physicians to find better solutions to whatever ails them, depression or physical or emotional pain.states, sooner than later, if the drug pushers have their way (cash only business).

Do people not Google the meds they are on as soon as they get them?  If not, why not?  If the powers that be, whatever they are, gave us Google, why doesn't every one yearn to understand more about themselves and the world around them?  Xanax. Klonopin. Oxycodone. Hydrocodone were among those drugs mentioned.  Is there a doctor alive who would prescribe these medications repeatedly without becoming suspicious of addiction?  Kentucky jails are overflowing due to the illegal trafficking of prescription drugs.  People looking for happiness in a pill, or grinding a pill to inject for a faster and greater high.

Today, BBC ran a story by Paul Adams. It features the pain felt by two mothers who lost daughters, 19 and 22, to prescription drugs.  So much energy is being wasted by politicians and others intent on controlling our bodies so that women who get pregnant, regardless of the circumstances, must carry their children to full term.  Why do they worry more about a few fertilized cells than young, beautiful women, who are being killed by prescription drugs.  Is life only precious before birth?

Do these people not realize that as they continue taking their highs they are changing their bodies and creating new receptor sites which will be impossible to get rid of and will be craving these highs for the rest of their lives?

WHEN DID REPUBLICAN SENATORS DECIDE THEY HAD BEEN MADE DICTATORS?

Laws being passed in several states are shockingly violating the Constitution of the United States.  Are the Governors ignorant of the Constitution or do they really believe that the States care more power than the Federal Government?  The most recent one is the Tennessee law which   'criminalizes “transmitting or displaying” any image that under a “reasonable expectation” might “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to anyone who sees it. This includes not only images posted on the Internet, but also television and any other “electronic communications service” currently in existence.'.Nicholas Mendozza writes:  "The law has already been denounced as “pretty clearly unconstitutional” by conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh. He notes that if someone is accused of transmitting an offending image, the burden is on them to prove that they have a “legitimate” reason for posting the image, and that the legitimacy in question would be determined by the “prosecutor, judge, or jury” in question. He further notes that images that might “reasonably” fall under the law’s very broad purview could be of a religious, political or journalistic nature — all of which are forms of speech that the First Amendment was explicitly crafted to protect.": 

Jennifer Van Grove writes:  'The exact language of the law now reads:

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:
(4) Communicates with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim by [by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication] without legitimate purpose:
(A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or
(ii) In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and
(B) As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed"

Since emotions are quite subjective, the law not only violates the right to free speech since free speech is interpreted as pictures as well as oral speech, but makes it impossible to determine whether an image may only upset one irrational, paranoid, or one mistakenly interpreting the Bible, to mention a few possibilities.  How did so many despots get elected to run states this last election.  What can be done about them to make people feel like they got out of OZ and back to Kansas.

Read Pamela Geller commenting on the new law, as well.

.