Word Jumble

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .

I am alternatively amused and fascinated by the different meanings we imbue on a word. God knows that I love and make frequent use of my share of obscenities and profanities.

"I had heard that word at least ten times a day from my old man. He worked in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay. It was his true medium; a master."

Someday, perhaps the spawn will speak so lovingly and eloquently of me.

I honestly think I could make some sailors blush if given the opportunity and I managed to snag the spouse largely as a result of my salty tongue, but I digress. Word meanings—isn't it crazy how we decide that "fuck" is a bad word and that "flock" is not. They are merely letters and sounds put together that we put our meaning on.

Then there are those words that mean different things in different places. One favorite of mine is shag. Here in the good 'ole U.S of A it is a rip, roaring dance made popular on the beaches of the southern states back in the 1950s and 60s. But you cross the pond to our intrepid neighbors in the English language and shag is a less than romantic form of copulation. You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe . . . that sort of thing, you know?

So I am intrigued by the hullaballoo that the Right has made about President Obama's lack of the use of the word terror. Does it matter what we call it when someone decides that their ideas and opinions are more valuable than the lives of other innocent human beings? Or does the fact that those human beings don't hold those same values or opinions dear, make them somehow guilty? I guess in the eyes of those terrorists or bombers or extremists, those who aren't with them are against them. Gosh, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

In the end, terror is just a word that tries to contain the horror of one person or one's group decision to cause harm, unexpectedly and without warning, to another person or group. It is the action and meaning behind the word that we need to focus on, not the word itself.

New Year, New Rant

Pardon me gentle readers as I digress from our typical topic of politics, although god knows I haven't exactly been verbose on the topic of late. There has been so much back and forth, most of it mindless about the health care debate for the past several months that I have been only too willing to tune it out. Today's little ditty touches on the healthcare topic, but not quite in the vein that our beloved politicians have been tossing about since before Santa squeezed his fat ass down the chimney.

So, today's post is going to get a bit personal, I promise to not get graphic or icky, after all some of you may be delicate. I am going to talk about my yearly visit to the lady doctor. For those of you who aren't female, we of the xx chromosome persuasion are expected to visit the lady doctor on an annual basis and get our girly bits checked out. While I know you men have to go groped in the giblets, trust me, it ain't the same. But I promised not to be graphic.

When I called several weeks ago, after realizing that my normal time of year for this appointment had come and gone with no note from the lady doctor to remind me, I was told that my doctor of the past five-ish years had left the practice. So I picked someone who I saw once during the rotation during my pregnancy with the spawn. This doctor had seemed pleasant enough and I figured it was no big deal.

I arrived 15 minutes early as requested. I waited. After about half an hour, the nurse called my name and took me back to get my blood pressure, height and weight. Ms. Personality asked me no other questions and took no other information. This took maybe five minutes. She then asked me to wait in another waiting room. Almost 45 minutes go by this time and I am finally escorted to the examination room. I don my lovely little gown and sit beneath my paper sheet, eager to share my private parts with someone new. At least another fifteen minutes go by. Finally the doctor enters, shakes my hand, says nice to meet you. She asks me a brief question or two and then begins the exam. She finishes, asks if there is anything else, hands over my chart and leaves. In all, she saw me for five minutes.

Listen, I get that doctors are busy. And she apologize for keeping me waiting. But when the lady who does my bikini wax spends more time in my nether regions than my gynecologist, something is seriously wrong. I had met this lady only once, she obviously didn't remember me (which is fine and to be expected), but to not take the time to a) meet me with my FREAKIN' clothes on and b) to ask me a bit about me and my medical history is flat wrong.

The spouse asked, "Did you expect her to take you out to dinner, like a date?" Well, no, but back in the day when I was dating, a dude had to do a bit more than just make me wait almost two hours and ask me how my birth control of choice was working for me. Admittedly my standards weren't super high back then, but I had some self-respect.

So I think I will be shopping for a new doctors office. I mean, if you are going to stick your head in my crotch, I at least expect you to make a bit of small talk first. I don't think that is asking too much.

Et tu, Newsweek?

I know that I need to hear both sides of the issues. I should want to hear both sides, and while I have still not resolved my lack of love for Newsweek's redesign from earlier this year (WHEN will people learn that sometimes things are left well enough alone—yeah I am looking at you Facebook), I get their efforts to present a somewhat balanced approach to news and politics. Of course I am admittedly partial to their leftist-leaning writers—sue me I am an unabashed, unapologetic liberal.

But I had to stop and post something in response to the article by Yuval Levin I just read in their latest issue (November 16). And who you might ask is Mr. Levin? (It's ok, I had to ask that question myself.) Well, according to his byline he is the editor of National Affairs. A new publication, National Affairs is a quarterly journal, launched this year, "that aspires to help Americans think a little more clearly about the challenges of governing ourselves." Well bully for them.

Being not entirely sure what it means to "think a little more clearly"—I have found that generally liqueur is involved, or at least it should be—I decided to read on. Another journal, The Public Interest and its former editor Irving Kristol were credited as the model for Levin's new publication. Kristol, Kristol . . . any chance 'ole Irv is related to Bill Kristol of the conservative rag The Weekly Standard? Well a quick little jaunt over to Wikipedia confirmed that yes indeedy, Irv was the proud papa of Bill.

So with just a few quick search statements Levin's credentials as a conservative were established, but I kinda new that from the tone of his article. Titled "What Coattails? Why right-of-center candidated are succeeding in the age of Obama," Levin details why last week's off-year elections were a good thing for the GOP and should be a wake up call for the Dems.

Obviously, I am not convinced that an off-year election, when people are focusing on their own local issues, is really qualified as a referendum on the current president and the entire Democratic party. I will grant you that a mid-term carries a bit more weight, but I think we are jumping the gun to say that 10 months into the Obama administration, people are already fed up and looking to the benevolent Republicans to save us from the savage atrocities of the lefty liberals.

But what got me going about the article came down to two things. First that Levin said "Republicans are not in the midst of a destructive civil war, any more than the Democrats were when they kicked out Joe Lieberman in 2006." Lieberman was never kicked out of the Democratic party; rather, he chose to leave when it became obvious that he was facing a serious challenge during the primary from another Democrat. Last I checked it was certainly allowable for a member of someone's own party to challenge them during the primary season, thus the reason for a primary in the first place. Lieberman likes to whine, that is painfully apparent, but he created a situation in Connecticut where Democratic voters were no longer enamored of him and were leaning toward giving the Democratic nomination to Ned Lamont. So Mr. Levin, if you want me to give ANY credence to your musings, I suggest you get your facts straight.

Second, Levin ended the piece by saying "liberals in Washington would do well to let go of the Republican breakdown narrative, take a real look at the mood of the country and the state of their own party's prospects, and pull back to the center—or suffer the consequences." As some one who freely admits to being left of center, I can assure you that I in no way consider the current administration or the Democratic party in general to be left of center, if anything, the Democrats have become center in many cases with the Republicans veering more to the right. I wish the Dems would behavior as bigger lefties (dare to dream), but sadly, that is just a boogie man created by the right to scare those few Americans who sit on the fence and to reinforce the ideology of the right.

Oddly enough I agree in a way that the Dems aren't taking a real look at the mood of the country. In fact, in my opinion, if they were taking a look at the country's mood they would be doing a lot more left-leaning things, i.e. getting out of Afghanistan, funding a public option (otherwise known as "Medicare for everyone,") and sticking it to Wall Street but good.

So Mr. Levin can live in his fantasy land that the GOP is on the rise and the Dems are causing it. But I don't think that is the case. Not to say that the Dems aren't mucking things up, but I don't think the country is thinking the Republicans are the answer. At this point, I would hazard a guess that most Americans agree neither party has an answer.

Taking Stock

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi can be vulgar, crude and beyond incendiary and usually I love him all the more for it. Especially with the piece he wrote in the October 15th issue (RS 1089). Dude might want to relax on some of the heavier drugs though because he is getting super paranoid, and yet frankly I fear he may be on to something.

He addresses the unknown figure who gambled on March 11, 2008 that Bear Stearns' shares value would precipitously drop and was right. Taibbi calls it as insider manipulation, an effort on behalf of this mystery figure to cause Bear Stearn's demise. Adding to the general X-Files aura of the whole thing, there was a meeting that same day of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY which was attended by Both Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner and all the major Wall Street investment banks EXCEPT Bear Stearns. And the plot thickens.

It isn't known exactly what happened at the meeting, but by the time it ended Bear Stearns' fate was sealed and investors started banking that the company was going down. Apparently it all has to do with a practice called naked shortselling. Taibbi explains it and I almost understood it which says a lot of his powers of explanation, because banking ain't something Broad gets. I won't bore you with the details or try to explain it myself, but suffice it to say it is dirty and underhanded and generally kind of illegal (you can check out the link to the article above to get the scoop yourselves).

But it doesn't stop there. Apparently someone later tried this with Lehman Brothers and it of course worked again. Vanity Fair addressed the topic in an excerpt from Andrew Ross Sorkin's upcoming book in its November issue. Of course Sorkin is more deferential, polite, etc. than Taibbi and he also doesn't have the paranoid "they are all out to get us" ideas behind his article, but he adds that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs feared they were next. From the tenor of Taibbi's piece I would say that just ain't so, that those two were in on the death of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, but I don't want to fall into complete conjecture.

The takeaway for me is that the banking and investment worlds are dark, murky places and the inside folks like it that way. They don't want the average American to know or understand what they are up to because once we understood it, we would be appalled. It appears that much of what is going on Wall Street is legalized stealing and lying in many ways, but I guess that shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to any of us anymore.

What I can't help but wonder is if we had allowed these banks and investment companies that were deemed "too big to fail" to actually fail, how much would the average American have been hurt? Or would if have just wondered those people who will be fingering their six figure bonuses come this Christmas?

Home Sweet Home

It ain't just something Vince Neil sings about anymore. I guess you have to be a child of the 80s for that one.

Moving on. For the past 15 years, it would appear that everything we have done as a society is to insure that we can live and work anywhere, anytime. From faxes first then cell phones and finally to email and the Internet, we have created a world that makes work something that is always with us, keeping us moving constantly, both literally and figuratively as we chase the latest and greatest job.

But oddly enough an article back in the October 19 edition of Newsweek talked about how grounded Americans are in their local neighborhoods and how unwilling they are to move. And I get it. I have had to apply for jobs outside of my city, and even outside of my state, because there just aren't that many jobs out there that are both interesting to me and that I am qualified for, but that doesn't mean I want to move. I like that the baristas at my local Starbucks know not only my name, but what I drink (and I refuse to dwell on the idea that this might mean I spend altogether too much time in said coffee shop). I like that we know the name of our postman and the guy that owns the restaurant in the heart of our hood. I like that I have a "hood."

I have even dared to dream in my current state of "Funemployment" that I might be able to eke out an existence via freelance work. It would mean a change in lifestyle, somewhat, but it would also mean not working for "the man" again, something that I never excelled at in my heart.

So no, I don't want to move. While the idea seems intriguing sometimes in the frustration of a boring day or when I am longing to have money to spare, it is not one that holds much water when I really start to think about it. So while all of our technology might have first been seen as a way for us to be more mobile, more fluid in our ability to move around the world, it is in actuality allowing us to do just the opposite and stay at home.

I'm On My Way
Well, I'm On My Way
Home Sweet Home
Tonight Tonight
I'm On My Way
I'm On My Way
Home Sweet Home

Joe Lieberman Can Kiss My Ass and Other Musings on Insane Elected Officials

How in the world have we arrived at a point where that sniveling little Droopy Dog Joe Lieberman thinks he can lord over the fate of every American's health care? I get that many experts thing it doesn't matter and presumably they are right (dear lord I hope so), but it still chaps my backside that Lieberman can pull this stunt for the attention and to give him a false feeling of power. It makes me long for the Democrats missed opportunity to bitch slap him when he switched parties and became an independent because he knew he would lose the Democratic nomination to Ned Lamont. I hope the people of Connecticut give him a good swift kick in the tuckus next election.

Meanwhile, my own state's Virgina Foxx (a personal fave as my regular readers most likely know) opened her trap again and said something that almost surpasses her earlier outrageous statements about heathcare.

I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.

She later added: “It is a bad bill and the American people should be frightened of it.”

Well thank you for that little nugget of wisdom Virginia. It almost makes me wish that the Democrats really were going to institute death panels, because I know of someone I would like to volunteer to go before them first for some "end of life" counseling . . .

That DID NOT Just Happen

A couple of weeks ago, the spouse, spawn and I were cruising down one of North Carolina's major highways on our way to visit some friends from yore. My car still sports its Obama 08 sticker. As we went down a six lane road, we were in the center lane of our three. A car pulled in front of me and seemed to slow a bit. It was covered in copious amounts of anti-Obama stickers. I thought nothing of it, but the spouse remarked that the person probably deliberately slowed down in front of us because of my Obama sticker. Several moments later I moved into the far left lane and proceeded to pass the car. The driver of the car (a middle aged white woman) proceeded to flip me off when we got parallel to her.

Needless to say I was stunned and outraged–I had done nothing to this woman other than disagree with her politically via a BUMPER STICKER. Have we lost all of our ability to agree to disagree with civility?

The incident had really faded from my memory until this afternoon when the amazing level of hostility and animosity some have towards our current president came roaring back in an even more in my face kind of way.

The spouse and I were out at a small local hot dog restaurant that shall remain nameless. I was at the counter ordering when an older man got in the line next to me. As he ordered he remarked that he wished we could go back to the day of five cent hot dogs. As he said this I turned toward him and smiled, but that all changed with what came out of his mouth next. He said that it wasn't going to happen with Obama-laden in office and that he wanted to kill old people like him.

My first instinct was to inform the impolite geezer that we were all dying regardless, some of us faster than others. Then I wanted to yell at him that I was unemployed with no full time position in sight and unsure of my future insurance prospects thanks to the previous administration's negligence and that Obama's administration was trying to help that situation. But a combination of ingrained politeness and distaste for public confrontation (I know you are shocked that I avoid confrontation, but bare with me), led me to just stare straight ahead, ignoring him and stewing. Obviously saying something to someone like that would solve nothing and most certainly not change his mind. Maybe it was weak of me to not address is misinformation and blatant racism, but I also couldn't help being amazed at the sheer gall that this man thought it was not only appropriate to say that sort of thing to a stranger, but that I would agree with him.

And of course it reminded me of the incident on the highway. We really seem to be regressing as a society. I don't have an answer for this, but I am certainly in possession of a full cup of outrage and I guess that will have to suffice for today.