- Now Online
2008
- 01/31/08 Grading The Candidates
- 01/29/08 Big Boobs Are Easy to Like
- 01/22/08 Baby Blue Panties
- 01/18/08 I'm not short, Dammit!
- 01/14/08 LIfe in Rural Texas No Bed of Roses (But It Ain't Bad)
- 01/12/08 Voting: Why You Have To (If You Love Democracy)
- 01/07/08 Born in the Shade
- 02/15/08 The Chump
- 02/08/08 Two Makes A Duo: What About A Presidential Partnership?
- 02/02/08 Grading The Candidates, Part II
2007
Posts: 16
-
The Jesus Bug #2
22.Jun.08, 10:28 EDT
I'm taking the liberty here of reworking a sermon blog by Buck Blue, who has a profile here at Campo Madrone. Buck's off touring in his bus, stopping anywhere he can draw a crowd and preaching against the forces of evil behind the rise of gas prices. He's blaming Republicans mostly, but he's not taking sides for or against either party right now. He holds all politicians in contempt for this one, but that's not what this blog is about. In a previous sermon Buck investigated why fundamentalist Christians get stupid when they get saved. And if you remember, he consulted a world famous diagnostician about it, a man of varied associations and inclinations, and he says fundamentalist Christians become stupid because of the Jesus Bug. His ideas on this get-dumb-scenario is that a bug actually crawls into your head and causes loss of intellect.
The following segment is directly from Buck's sermon:
"So is this Jesus bug a virus or bacteria of some kind? It it catching?" I ask. "No," my friend said, "it's not a microscopic bug like that. It's a bigger bug, like about the size of a bee. It's actually an earwig insect that looks like a forficula auricularia bug that comes from the Dermaptera order of insects . . . almost. The thing is, this particular earwig is invisible to the human eye."
I told my over-educated friend that I wasn't buying it. I know for a fact that earwigs exist, but the old legend about how they crawl into your ear and then lay eggs in your brain is a bunch of bull. Some real earwig might've crawled into a person's ear before, but they don't burrow into the brain and lay eggs. They're just a bug looking to find something to eat, and earwigs are notorious about liking to get into garbage, and . . .
"Hey! Wait a minute! I think you might be on to something," I said to my friend, who's smiling broadly now.
He went ahead then and explained to me that an unfortunate side effect of fundamentalist Christian thought is that a lot of really stupid ideas come with it. Then he cited a few examples, like how fundamentalist Christians are supporters of big business, and they hate environmentalist. They think God put them on this great earth to use it any way they want, that it's God's gift to them. If you need to cut all the trees, go ahead, chop them all down because you're a Christian and you have a right to do it. It's the same with the commandment about killing. Thou shalt not kill, unless somebody screws with you. Then it's OK because God supports righteous wars, and if George W. Bush tells you it's righteous, he knows because he's a Christian. And that kind of thinking is nothing but garbage, which is why the Jesus Bug crawled inside your ear.
I made sure to ask my friend if folks who're born again Christians were stupid before the Jesus Bug crawled in their ears. He said no, that it's probably true that most of them already had a head full of garbage before the Jesus Bug got there, but that they only got proud of being stupid after their conversion to Christianity. Being a born again Christian just served to reinforce the garbage, gave it proper justification. And this Jesus Bug lays lots of eggs, he said, because it wants to spread itself around as much as possible. Once those eggs are laid, the host becomes a big blabbermouth for Jesus. That's why they're always harping about how everybody else should join up with them. They don't tell you about a garbage brain business, though. They can't because they're not aware of it. That's what's so bad about getting the Jesus Bug in your brain.
I'm convinced, I tell my friend. I see where you're going with this, and I agree that something is bad wrong with all these fundamentalist Christians. Your explanation is as good as any. Then I asked him if he thought that's why so many of these Jesus Bug infected people joined the Republican Party. He started nodding slowly, the leaned closer when he said that it was Jesus, the real Jesus, who gave Republicans their name. "Really?" I asked, hardly able to believe that. Then he explained how it happened.
He knew I'd remember the story of Jesus going into the synagog and driving out the publicans. You remember them, right? If not, they were the government officials who went into the church to collect taxes. Jesus thought this was wrong, and it made him so angry to find them in the church doing government business that he took a whip to them and ran them out. Now that was the real Jesus, not the comic book character these modern day Christians envision. And maybe you noticed, but the word publican fell into disfavor, maybe because Jesus exposed them as what they were - a bunch of jerks hiding behind the church to do their dirty business. Then nearly two thousand years later, they turn up again, and since this was their second time around, the took the name re-publicans, or just Republicans.
It's just me talking now, but I think Buck nailed it with this one. The story of how Republicans got their name won't hold up in light of historical records . . . but it's a wonderfully truthful tale anyway. Think about it. Along comes a nitwit President who wants to start a war in Iraq, and he sells it as the Christian thing to do. He seeks the support of fundamentalist Christians, and gets it, of course, because the Jesus Bug has done it's work on them. God won't mind if we kill of a quarter of a million people because they're bad people . . . and they have our oil. Shame on them for being so much different from us. Why, they're not even Christians. In fact, they're from a faith that hates us. Praise God! Let's go kill the bastards. Now . . . is that not hiding behind religion? Is that not just publicans among us again, looking to do their dirty work behind the churches of a country?
OK, that's all an exaggeration, and we'll freely admit it. Nobody here is stupid enough to believe that all Christians are Republicans, or that they are stupid, or that they are infected with a bad old Jesus Bug. Most of them, in fact, are decent (albeit confused) people. The problem is that a sizeable segment of them are infected with those mind robbing little bugs. Stay clear of these people because they are democracy's most dangerous enemy. And if you are a Christian who's trying to do right, to apply your intellect in a useful way, then stand up to these people. Being a good Christian does not require of you that you also be stupid.
And then I see where a new poll says most religious people in America are for John McCain. I see that, and I immediately remember Buck's sermon about the Jesus Bug and how it eats up brains. Damn! That little bug is at it again. But help is on the way because our over-educated friend, the one who knows all about Jesus bugs, is working on a spray that will kill this bug. Yep, he's planning on making it available soon in a small spray bottle, like a breath freshener size thing. It's really nothing but a little colored water, but the Jesus bug infected person won't know that. No instructions are necessary. If you run across some dumbass spouting the praises of John McCain in the name of Chrisitianity, just squirt a little Jesus bug disinfectant in his ear. Doing this won't shut him up (nothing will), but it might change the direction of the conversation.
And when you squirt him, be quick about it. Christians might be slow of wit, but they're quick on their feet. And most of 'em don't like being squirted.
D. Paz, 7/22/08
Buck Blue, 2/07/08
-
Will
14.Jun.08, 02:06 EDT
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I had a shitty day today. Yeah, I know, I'm supposed to be taking the summer off . . . like gone fishing or something. But this day was bad enough to have to share with somebody. You know how it goes, right? Most of the folks who want to share have something less than delightful to give away, and this blog sure won't break the mold on that one.
I met Will today, but we'll get back to that later.
First, I got up lame and in pain, hardly able to get around. That's just part of the game when you're an old fart with lots of damaged parts, so I gobbled some Advil and went about my business. The leg that wouldn't work for me refused to gave way to pain killers, so I retired to the computer room to do some work there. But I got no cooperation there either, couldn't get the stupid machines to work for me. The dogs were restless, wanted attention . . . this and that. You know how it is with pets.
My day got better when I got in a long afternoon nap, but that ended when my wife came in and said a kitten was badly injured and dying in our driveway. She called Animal Control but was told they were off for the weekend. "Crap!" I said, then slipped on my shoes and went out to look at the kitten. It was in a bad way, sure enough . . . blood dripping from it's mouth, hardly able to stand. I went back inside to find a pistol, loaded it, then went back and put the kitten out of its misery. And believe me, the little guy was suffering a lot.
That's when Will showed up. I don't remember his last name, but he's with Animal Control, just happened to be closing up when the call came in to come by my house. He's a tall man, thin, with grey eyes that hold a steady gaze. I liked him right off, but I sure wish he'd arrived a few minutes earlier. It's been a while since I killed . . . and it's a thing I can do without these days.
Killing has not always been hard for me. Hunting was a big thing with me for many years when I was a younger man . . . and I regret every moment of it. Of all the useless things I've done in my life, hunting wild animals was the most wasted of efforts. I always thought of myself as a sportsman, not just some chickenshit hunter out to get drunk and have a good time. But killing is killing, any way you cut it . . . and it's never a good deal. These days, even when it's a mercy killing, I hate doing it. That's why I'm still up in the wee hours of the morning - because I can't sleep due to the images in my head, and not just from shooting some poor animal that needed it. No, tonight I'm being visited by lots of animals I've killed in the past.
I tried to make a killer of my son. I'm proud to say that I failed at it, that he couldn't stomach it and didn't make a hunter. I tried to make him a cowboy, too, but I failed again there. I can still see him dragging around his little bull rope, wearing spurs and looking for something to strap his rigging on. But he outgrew that, thank God. It took me a helluva lot longer to outgrow rodeo. I've got a long history of less than honorable associations with animals, and I'll probably rot in hell for it.
But . . . today I met Will, the Animal Control guy, and that helped me deal with having to turn killer again. The cat was hopelessly injured, no chance of survival . . . and we have one vet in town who doesn't work weekends. But I've grown old enough to appreciate how precious life is . . . and how little respect we seem to have in this society for it. Well, that's if you talking about some life other than your own. Then it's a different thing, when it gets personal like that. But overall, we seem not to care all that much about life . . . the most precious thing in the universe. And I'm sitting up this night wondering just why that is. Talking to Will is what got me thinking about it. I just had to do the one unpleasant task of putting a kitten out of its misery . . . and Will has to do it every day . . . and he loves animals. In fact, Will even loves rattlesnakes. Yeah, rattlers.
And you see, this is where Will and I found some common ground, a bonding thing, if you will. I too love rattlesnakes. In fact, I've killed less rattlers than I have cats and dogs and rodeo critters. I can't even remember the last time I killed a rattler. And then I found that Will keeps rattlers, raises them . . . along with lots of other snakes. Before long, I'll be going over to his place to get a tour . . . and maybe we'll go rattler hunting together. No guns. That's where the chickenshit part comes in with most sports . . . the gun. Leave that out, and the hunt becomes more of a sporting thing, like when you start catching a six foot rattler with your bare hands.
Yeah, baby . . . now that's sport.
But as for this night, I'm still dealing with the ugly image of death. It was just a kitten's death, but it's an image I could sure do without - that and all the other images that event drug up. It's sure easy to pull a trigger that ends a life, and it's damn hard to watch the results of that action. But I'm still a little thankful that I don't have even worse images to recollect. As if it happened just yesterday, I still remember standing six feet away from a very drunk and angry man, two of them in fact . . . with me holding a loaded 12 gauge shotgun . . . and with it pointed directly at one of the men, the one struggling to get at me. Fortunately, the other man was able to wrestle him down . . . and I don't have the image in my memory to deal with, that of watching a man die at my feet.
And would I have pulled the trigger? Oh, yes . . . 'cause that's the easy part. And I hate that about the life I've lived . . . about coming to a point where pulling the trigger is easy. But I hate the images I live with a whole lot more.
D. Paz, 6/13/08 -
Spring Round-up
17.Mar.08, 07:50 EDT
Wanna know what we need more of in America? Cowboys. I'm starting to figure out a few things in my old age, like realizing what's missing from our society. We need more cowboys for one thing, and what I'm talking about here is the real deal. I sometimes see where some eastern journalist has called George Bush a cowboy, and that really chaps my ass. I understand why the term gets applied to him, but I hate the implication that cowboys are dumbasses. Make up your mind on your own about Dubya, but don't think of him as a cowboy - 'cause pardner, he damn sure ain't one of them. I know that for sure, being as how I used to be one.
Not many kids grow up wanting to be cowboys these days. Back in my day almost all boys grew up playing cowboys, wanting to be one when they grew up . . . but with the Hollywood version in mind. Even back then, hardly anybody knew a real cowboy, and if they had known one, they sure wouldn't have wanted to be one. It's a hard life, but at the same time, it's a wonderful life because it's what we all should be like. Known for their rowdy and reckless ways, cowboys turn out to be anything but that. In my opinion, they're perfect examples of real Americana. They are as individuals (friends) and as a group (lots of potential friends) the finest people I've ever known.
We're talking about modern day cowboys now, since that's the only kind I've had a chance to rub shoulders with. I was a middle age man before I started making friends with working cowboys, the real cowpunchers. Down here in Texas, that's what we like to call 'em - cowpunchers, or just punchers. Out in the northwest they call 'em buckaroos, and up north in Oklahoma and Kansas it's just cowboys. Some folks who don't know them at all have other names for them. An old timer once told me that the thing about rodeos he hated most was that at any given one of them you ended up with more horse's asses than with horses. I've been to hundreds of rodeos, maybe thousands, but I'd still put my rodeo friends up against anyone's. When it comes to friends who'll stick with you when the chips are down, you can't beat a cowboy for a buddy.
It's coming spring round-up time down here in the south country - a time when cowboys will gather herds for all sorts of work. Depending on the ranch and the round-up, most spring round-ups are for taking care of the calves that are new to the herd. The fall round-up is usually for separating calves from mama cows and getting ready for the winter. I don't like round-ups much, especially the ones that come in the fall. I used to have a ranch foreman friend who got drunk after fall round-up, just to recover from seeing all the yearlings he'd taken care of shipped off. He said it was a sad time of year for him. This may sound strange, but I'm not a big fan of the cattle business . . . but I love cowboys. Sometimes we love people not for what they do but because of who they are.
Spring round-up always left me a little green around the gills, feeling bad for all the things we'd done to the calves. But it was work that had to be done, for the good of the calf and the herd, and for the good of the business of raising beef cattle. When it gets right down to it, we'd all be well advised to conduct some round-ups in our own lives. It's a maintenance level thing in the cow business . . . and it should be in our personal lives. There comes a time when we need to bring in the herd, do some sorting, some doctoring, some tagging and all that. Spring is as good a time as any to take care of this hard business . . . and that's what I've been doing as of late.
It's sort of like spring cleaning, this round-up business. With the cleaning, we're throwing out lots of junk that's accumulated over the winter . . . stuff we need to get rid of. And you've got to round it up before you can sort the stuff that needs throwing away out of the things you need to keep. That's never an easy chore. Yeah, things are going to be a lot different around here in a few weeks, or maybe months.
Back in the 90's I had a little business called The Cowboy Chautauqua Company, a troupe of singers and poets who went around performing stage shows about cowboy culture. Some of the best poets and singers in the country worked with us, and we did shows all over the place - Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, and even Montana and Nevada. But my partner in that adventure died suddenly, and I lost heart in it. But after a dozen years of being idle, I've started rounding up the herd, or what's left of 'em. And I'm looking for new talent, folks who can fill in for what's gone from the old group.
And that's the way it should work, you see. A round-up isn't just for what's old and already in place . . . you have to sort through what's available to find replacements for what's missing. Before long I'll have a new profile at Campo Madrone about the new Cowboy Chautauqua Company. Keep an eye out.
D. Paz, 3/17/08 -
Moli, The Block Buster
07.Mar.08, 23:14 EST
For well over six months now, I've been vaporlocked as a writer. I could get the old engine to turn over and sputter some, but it never would really come to life and fire off like it should. Some folks call that writer's block, and if that's the proper designation for being unable to come up with anything worth reading, then that's what I've had. Who knows what happens in a deal like that, but I blame it on mental detachment instead of laziness. I'm lazy sometimes, but that usually happens when my brain runs out of stimuli. Sometimes, you know, you've got to prime the pump.
I've been writing now for 25 years, and I've gone through a number of blocks in the past. Some of the stories I completed last year were started ten or fifteen years ago. I just got tired of them, pushed them aside, and never found my rhythm again. That's what it takes for me to be a writer - rhythm. Once I catch my train of thought, get in a groove, get tapped off, whatever you want to call it, I'm usually there for the long haul. Getting my beat down, my rhythm going, is the problem sometimes . . . and lately, I've been as as flat as a road-killed frog.
But . . . I discovered moli, and that was a good deal for me because it kept me writing. I'd never written a blog in my life before this year, but once they started coming, they came in bunches. A friend once described me as being like an old jalopy - a bitch to crank but hard as hell to turn off after I get hot. Another guy once said about me, "You know, you don't see much of old Phil, but when you do, you sometimes see too damn much of him." Yeah, that's me.
For six months now I've been cranking out blogs on a dozen or more profiles, and they've attracted some attention. I don't know what good is when it comes to hits, or visits to my sites, but I'll go over 7,000 this weekend. I've corresponded with some really neat people during that time, exchanged nice emails, even had a few phone calls. And the moli people have been great about using my stuff in The View, and even in Election Central. I've never really tried to push my blogs, don't put them anywhere except on my moli profiles. The search engines picked me up, so I'm easy to find now. All in all, I'm delighted with how my work on moli has turned out.
Spring is just around the corner, and I'm getting restless again. I can sit and stare at a computer screen all winter, even when I'm not producing much worthwhile, but the warm weather will put an end to that. I'll head for Ft. Davis, down in the desert mountains of southwest Texs in a few days. I've got 450 pages of manuscript sitting idle, needs some research, some digging, and I know where to go to find what I need. I'll hang out with friends, take some pictures, maybe meet a few new people . . . and get back to work on that novel. Then next week I'll go to Austin, again for more research, more pictures, and then it's off to the border for more work there. I've got family there, grandkids.
Oh, I'll keep writing a few blogs from time to time . . . but my work on moli is going to slow down a lot. I need to go from watching this site every day to checking it once a week, maybe twice a week. When it gets down to it, I'm not really much of a blogger. I'm a storyteller, a shadetree philosopher, and a political pundit . . . and you can't really do a good job of discussing any of those things when you go stale. I never thought I'd live to say this, but I'm about to run out of bullshit!
Look out highway, here I come.
D. Paz, 3/7/08 -
Crunch Time in Texas
04.Mar.08, 23:20 EST
Did you hear that? Yeah, that crunching sound, sort of like listening to someone eating grapenuts cereal. In case you're wondering, that's just me eating my words from just a few days ago. I predicted Obama would win Texas and then the Democratic nomination, and then the presidency. Part one of that three part scenario didn't happen, therefore the word eating begins - and they are brittle words indeed.
But, I also predicted that Democrats have a way of making elections close, even when they look to be shoe-ins. From where I'm sitting right now (crunching my crispy words and not liking it too much), they're starting the process of doing just that. But worry not, dear friend, I have no more predictions - a least not about the Democratic nomination. I worked today, actually counted votes at the courthouse with a couple of ladies who were big Hillary supporters. We counted the early votes, and based on what I saw from them, I shouldn't be surprised that Hillary is sweeping most of Texas' counties tonight. Even here in good old Redneck McCulloch County, she doubled the vote on Obama in the ones I helped count.
It looks like Obama will win the counties around Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio . . . and damn few other than them. And there's 254 counties in this big state, and Hillary will get most of them. And she's winning big in Ohio tonight, and with wins in both states, that will pull her back close to Obama in delegate vote count. We may not know who our candidate is until the convention itself meets and chooses, and by then, considerable damage will have been done to the party and its chances of winning the White House. It all depends on how dirty it gets, but I can promise you one thing for sure. No amout of dirt with discourge the Clintons - they're used to it.
I once heard a comment about Bill Clinton, back when he was in big trouble about something. Asked if he thought Bill would back off and tuck his tail, a close ally of his said, "You know, when you get into a wrestling match in the mud with a pig, it dawns on you sooner or later that the pig is liking it. That's how Bill is." My guess is that Bill's not a bit tougher than Hillary, and she knows mud as well as anybody.
The people most delighted about Hillary's comeback are the Republicans. They want no part of having to run against Obama, and they think Hillary is much more beatable. I agree, but I'm not about to predict that McCain can beat her. If you think watching Hillary take Obama apart in Texas and Ohio was her best shot, you ain't seen nothing yet. He's family, and once she gets the nomination, you'll see a different campaign from her . . . if she can continue the comeback. She had a good night tonight, but she's still got a long way to go.
I'd say more, but I've got to get something to drink before I choke on the errant words I'm still trying to get down. Me and my big mouth.
D. Paz, 3/4/08 -
The Chump
15.Feb.08, 09:11 EST
The first time I remember feeling like a chump was when some girl named Brenda beat me up in the fifth grade. She smashed my lunch box, then wallowed me around in the dirt on the playground at school . . . in front of a bunch of other kids. And I had done nothing to deserve it, other than just being there and in the way. I don't know what she turned out to be as an adult, but as a kid, Brenda was a porker. She was twice my size (or any other kid's size in the fifth grade), and had a bad disposition. Regardless, her beating me up like that made me feel like the world's biggest chump.
I didn't realize this at the time, but Brenda did me a favor. Feeling like a chump was something I needed to get used to because I've damn sure had a liftetime of it. I've spent lots of time in chump recovery - you know, those days when you're feeling like an ostrich in a concrete parking lot. I hate the recovery period about as much as I do the chump moment, that exact time when I've just turned myself into a big jackass. Sometimes getting chumped isn't all my fault, but I usually set myself up for it. You know the deal. Don't lie to me and say you don't because we've all been through it.
I won't bore you with my personal chump situations, but we'll review some that men often get caught up in. If you see a car you just can't live without, and you know you can't really afford it because it's too expensive, and you buy it anyway - you just got chumped. Getting caught in an affair with another woman is a major chump happening . . . and the recovery period for that one is quite lengthy. Getting drunk at an office party and unloading on your boss about management problems is also a chump situation. There's nothing quite like waking up in the morning, suddenly remembering bits of what you did and said the night before . . . and begging God to die so you won't have to face the embarrassment of it all.
If you drink, you're likely going to be a chump from time to time. If you like to gamble, get ready, because you've got a chump situation headed your way. And if you like the ladies and have a wandering eye, well . . . you know how that story ends. If you don't keep an eye on your budget and end up with debts you can't pay, you're a chump for sure. Sometimes we get chumped just from being too eager to please, or from trying to take the easy way out, or from not paying close enough attention to details. Getting screwed around by an insurance company (something that happens to lots of folks these days) is getting chumped. Being victimized by a thief when you could have prevented it is being chumped.
Getting chumped is going to happen to us in life because there's no way to avoid it. There's just too many gunslingers (chumpslingers?) in the world to dodge all the chump bullets coming your way, but most of the time we could avoid it. We set ourselves up for being chumped. We make ourselves good targets. It doesn't have to be that way . . . if you learn something from your experiences.
I can't remember all the votes I've cast over the years, but I can remember all the ones for presidential candidates. My first election was 1964, and I voted for Goldwater. I don't regret it. In 1968 and 1972 I voted for Nixon, and I regret both votes. In 1976 I voted for Ford, and in 1980 for Carter. No comment on those two. In 1984 Reagan got my vote, and in '88 I went for Bush Sr. Since then I've voted for Clinton twice in '92 and '96, and for Gore in 2000, and for Kerry in 2004. Overall, my won/lost vote stands at 6-5 . . . and I've been chumped four of the six times I cast winning ballots. I don't regret any of my losing ballots.
Sometimes I ask my Republican friends how they feel about their two votes for G.W. Bush, and the response is about fifty/fifty with half saying they regret the votes. But the half who still justify them say, "You know, he hasn't been all that good, but if I had it to do all over again, I'd vote for him again." To which my response is invariably, "Then that makes you the biggest chump on the face of the earth." And if they've got the balls to stand and take it, I tell them why they're chumps.
The chump factor is a big thing in elections, whether or not you realize it. Anyone with anything to sell, whether it's ideas or products, knows that buyers tend to be chumps. Politicians running for office count on a certain amout of you voters being chumps, and so many of the things they talk about are are tailor made for you - ya big chump. Big bucks are spent on finding out who the chumps are, where they are, and what they're most likely to go for.
I hate to use a worn out cliche, but it takes one to know one. Yeah, I've been chumped before, and I'll probably be chumped again. But I'm doing much better as a recovering chumpee these days. I don't get chumped due to my religious beliefs because I don't have any. My relationship with God doesn't fit with any of the religions I know of . . . nor with any political stance concering it. And I don't like government, period. I can't name a single government in the world today doing a good job. Some are fair, no better than that. But I still vote in elections with just a bare breath of a hope that it might make a difference.
And even though I try hard not to cast chump votes these days, I go to the polls in the belief that the biggest chump of all is the person who doesn't vote. It's better to cast a ballot that later turns out to be a chump vote than to have cast no ballot at all. Sooner or later, we might get it right.
D. Paz, 2/15/08 -
Two Makes A Duo: What About A Presidential Partnership?
08.Feb.08, 08:13 EST
I'm a troublemaker. Just ask anybody who's ever known me, and they'll tell you that I'm always trying to start something. Maybe that's because I'm a highly competitive person who really loves confrontations. I just love it when some jerk decides to take me on in a squabble, whether it's just a verbal exchange or actually pushing and shoving. I look for people like that when I'm making friends, forming alliances, doing business, or whatever. And I like candidates for public office who show some grit, determination, and a willingness to deal with confrontations. Some have it, some don't, but I've come to the conclusion that no one candidate is going to have all the qualities I'd like to have in the White House. Then the troublemaker in me pops up and says, "Then why don't we have a partnership presidency? Why just elect one candidate when we have so many to pick from?"
We elect a President and a Vice-President from a party ticket with the idea that the President runs the country and the VP is his back-up. The VP job has been described as the most useless office in the nation, and it usually is. Most Vice Presidents never make it to the Oval Office, unless the prez ahead of them dies. We use them as window dressing, a stand in, and as the sometimes presiding officer of the Senate. Nobody pays much attention to who runs as Vice-President. That changed a little with the Bush/Cheney ticket because everyone knew that Cheney was the smart one, the older one, the senior one in the bunch. In a weird way, they made a partnership of that executive office - weird in ways that wasn't good for the nation at all.
Other nations around the world have tried the plural executive concept with some success, but just having two seems to pose a problem. With three, or five, or seven, you always have the chance of a deciding vote. Most of the Supreme Court's important decisions are decided 5-4, and I hate that. Nine justices sit on the court, but one of them made the decision that binds an entire nation. I don't want to see a situation like that develop in the executive branch, but I wouldn't mind seeing a partnership presidency. Yes, they'd lock horns from time to time, but I think some of the best policies come through conflict resolution. I'm a devout believer that two heads are better than one.
There's always the big IF in politics, right? IF a single president has all the qualities of leadership we need, then why even consider a partnership? The thing is, the IF factor is usually seldom met. There's always something missing. Bill Clinton was a great manager of government business, a lousy manager of his own business. You can always advance the argument that if he does a good job in government, why worry about his personal life? My answer is that leadership comes in a variety of forms. You have to present more than a do as I say leadership style. Sometimes you need a little do as I show you through example style.
Parties often balance the ticket by offering candidates for President and Vice President from different parts of the country, or even from differing poltical views. That way, they reach more people. Personally, I like chosing two people who are like minded for those two jobs. What I don't like is having a ticket where the Vice President is more qualified to be president, just didn't have the good fortune to be popular enough to get the nod. They end up on the ticket for political (maybe even practical) reasons. I'd like to see a pair run for the office who stood before us and said, "Forget the official designations of President and Vice President, we're running as a team, a partnership. We're going to run this country together."
This, of course, would take some explaining. "But who's in charge?" would be the first question. "Who would actually live in the White House? Who will be in the Oval Office? Who'll make the State of the Union Address, and who'll do the official things a president does?" All those things could be handled with relative ease. It would take some adjustment, but it can be done - and even though we might not get twice as much done, we'd get a lot more done by having two executives who can act either together or independently. It's a thing that could be worked out.
We all know that in partnerships one of the two emerges as the dominant one, especially in some areas. It might be a 60-40 thing in reality, or maybe even a 70-30 thing, and it might vary some depending on what's up for grabs at a particular time. All I'm saying here is that the Vice Presidency needs to be beefed up some, made into an office that's worth having. About the only thing the current administration has given us is a hint as to how this might work. It didn't work well for us with Bush/Cheney because the entire administration was flawed with bad appointments and choices from top to bottom. We just had bad people to work with all around, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Maybe you've followed me close enough here to see how my final point makes sense - which is, that reglardless of how many you elect to an office, you still need to choose good people. That's been the bugaboo in the American electoral system for a long time. We're getting ready to choose our 44th president of the U.S., and most historians agree that only six of them could be classified as great presidents. Even if you add in a class of near greats, you still have ten or less. In fact, well over half the presidents we've elected fall into the mediocre category, and fully a third of them are in the unsatisfactory bunch. We should do better than that.
Folks are talking about a Clinton/Obama ticket as being the dream ticket. I think Obama would be a fool to take the Vice-Presidency, unless he can cut a deal where he gets to be more than window dressing. I'd advocate a ticket like that only if it was a partnership, with the understanding that Obama was the junior partner - but just slightly junior. And what about a third party ticket made of up Paul/Kucinich? There's all sorts of possibilities that would make for interesting tickets with the partnership principle applied.
And here's why I think it might work. The game of politics is in many ways like sex. Do you know why the male dominant position is called the missionary position? It's because Eurpoean Christian missionaries thought that any other way of having sex was deviant, that God intended for the man to be on top. When they went abroad looking for converts, they found these people having sex in all sorts of positions, even like animals, and they just had to straighten them out. Man on top, woman on bottom, that's the Christian way - that's what they taught. But anyone who has broken with that traditon and done some experimentation soon learns that the missionaries were wrong. Most good sex partners know that other positions are more than just as good; they're even better.
The only thing we know for sure about sex partnerships is that both parties can't be on top at the same time. But if we practice at being good partners, we find that shared positions, meaning both partners get to be on top from time to time, make for a better sex life. And sometimes, neither partners has to be on top, not if you have sex side by side. I'm sure you see how all this sex talk translates to politics, right?
And if you don't . . . then you've probably got a really shitty sex life.
D. Paz, 2/08/08 -
Grading The Candidates, Part II
02.Feb.08, 10:09 EST
Actually, this blog is more about grading the issues than the candidates. I took a look at Ron Paul's issues list and see that he's got about two dozen listed. I still think he's the most truthful of the candidates, but there's no chance he'll get nominated by the Republicans. McCain will probably get the nod, and my guess is Obama will win out on the Democratic side. Hillary would make a decent president, I think, but she's too much of a polarizing force. So far, Obama looks like the best bet for them.
Bill Clinton won a couple of elections handily by narrowing issues. Instead of doing what others were doing, he hammered home what he professed to believed on about a half dozen major issues. And he said it over and over again, and the voters bought it. It seems that the economy is the most important issue with prospective voters right now, but that's nothing new. The border problem and illegal immigration is a bigger issue than anyone anticipated, I think . . . and I'm sure candidates are sick and tired of talking about it. None of them have good answers to the questions as to what they'd do about it . . . not a single one of them. Then there's the environment, something the public is more and more interested in, and there's health care to worry about. But the issue that's going to really make a difference is the war issue - what to do about Iraq. That war is something most Americans are sick of, and they want it to go away.
OK, so even Time Magazine admits that the surge has worked. But at what cost? How many more soldiers have died, been wounded? Is any of it worth it? Can we win anything in Iraq? And anyone offering an argument that we've actually done some good there is going to have a hard sell on their hands. McCain supports the war, thinks we can win. I think that will kill him dead as a doornail in the election. If he goes up against Obama, who has been opposed to the war since the beginning, he's a dead duck. That issue, the war question, is going to be a big one.
Again, I'll say that an issue missing from the election (one that should be talked about), is election reform. McCain has a good record here, has fought for some reform . . . but I doubt he's interested in the kind of reform that's really needed. We need to abolish voting machines in order to remove the question of election fraud once and for all. Forget the extra expense of counting votes. Is an election that important worth the expense or not? We're choosing the President, for Christ's sake. There is nothing democratic about a computer, a voting machine. Get rid of them. And don't take my word for how bad they are, how corrupt the system is. Get on the internet and do your own research.
And what happened to the issue of quality education? The dumbing down of America is a serious thing, if for no other reason - dumbasses voting is not a good thing for a democratic system. But insead of that, we talk about things like same-sex marriages. Get this, and get it good - nobody should be concerned about same-sex marriages. Why would you care whether or not a couple of gays want to get married? Personally, I don't give a shit if they marry another species. Marry a sheep if you like, or even a rock. I don't care, and you shouldn't either. Emotional issues like this do nothing but detract from real issues, important issues. And do you think that's an accident?
We'll be talking about abortion forever, I guess. And it's all a meaningless discussions at this point. The lawmakers, including the courts, have muddled this thing to where hardly anybody knows what it means anymore. Row v. Wade went down the drain a long time years ago, for all practical purposes, since subsequent cases have watered it down. And again, is it worth all the hassle? It seems like such a simple issue to me. The lesson here is that you can't legislate some things away. The border issue is a good example of this. We don't even apply the laws already on the books, so why consider new ones?
My favorite issue is the War on Drugs. I used to teach criminology some, even headed up a law enforcement program at the college level for awhile. And I told students back then what I'll tell you now - there never has been a war on drugs. If there had been, we'd have less of them around. It's an issue nobody, even the people in law enforcement, wants to deal with. It's an expense we don't want to get too deeply involved in. But politicians have learned that it's a good talking point, it's emotional, and it gets votes if you talk tough.
My advice about issues is to do your own study, find out for yourself what's going on with things. Don't get suckered by emotional issues of silly shit like same-sex marriages. Focus on some real problems. That's important because when you walk into that voting booth on election day, it might be one single issue that determines how you vote. That is, if you pay any attention to issues at all. For all I know, I'm just talking to myself here.
D. Paz, 2/2/08 -
Grading The Candidates
31.Jan.08, 14:23 EST
There seems to be a consensus out there that anything we get out of the upcoming presidential election will be a dramatic upgrade over who's running government right now. I agree that Bush is an F- President, that Big Dick Cheney is likewise an F, as are most of the cabinet members. I wouldn't give any of them a grade higher than a D, which stands for dumbass. But what about the candidates now running for that office? Could any of them be as bad? Let's run down the list of issues and see what we get.
This, of course, is just my point of view . . . but it's a fairly well educated one. I'm an old fart retired political science professor who was active in politics from time to time. I've been a Republican and a Democrat, have gone from moderate conservative to left wing activist, and then back to the center on most things. But I don't get to post grades these days, so I'll have a go at grading these politicians running for President. We'll do that by going through the issues. For a brief statement of each candidates stand on the issues, take a look at Moli's election central.
1) Abortion: McCain - D
Huckabee - F
Romney - F
Paul - D
Clinton - B
Obama - B
2) Iraq McCain - F
Huckabee - F
Romney - F
Paul - A
Clinton - C
Obama - A
3) Environment McCain - D
Huckabee - F
Romney - F
Paul - D
Clinton - C
Obama - C
4) Same-Sex Marriage McCain - D
Huckabee - F
Romney - F
Paul - D
Clinton - C
Obama - C
5) Health Care McCain - D
Huckabee - F
Romney - FPaul - F
Clinton - C
Obama - D
6) Homeland Security McCain - D
Huckabee - F
Romney - F
Paul - B
Clinton - C
Obama - B
7) Immigration McCain - F
Huckabee - F
Romney - F
Paul - F
Clinton - F
Obama - F
8) Taxes McCain - D
Huckabee - D
Romney - F
Paul - C
Clinton - B
Obama - B
9) Economy McCain - C
Huckabee - F
Romney - F
Paul - D
Clinton - B
Obama - B
I'm a tough grader, and as you can see, none of the candidates thrill me at
this time. Some of them really leave me flat, and a few strike me as complete retards. And every time I go through another presidential election, the same thought comes to me: Is this the best we can come up with? Taking an average on the candidates we have above, my grading gives us McCain with a D average, Huckabee with an F average, Romney with an F average, Paul with a D average,
Clinton with a C+ average, and Obama with a B- average. I would've given Edwards a B, had he stayed in the race. I'll vote for either Clinton or Obama, but wouldn't even consider one of the others.
Perhaps I'm too critical. Unless we pass laws in this country doing away with electronic (computer) voting altogether, we may never have a president really chosen by a true majority of voters. Unless we do something about campaign expenditures, we'll still have office holders bought by corporate (vested) interests . . . and a tiny privileged class will continue to run this country. And finally, voter themselves need to behave like level-headed adults, not junior high kids voting for class president. In fact, the kids may do a better job.
In other words, folks, our electoral system is deeply flawed. Until we make major changes, we've still got ample reasons to be suspicious of anything that comes out of it.
D. Paz, 1/31/08 -
Big Boobs Are Easy to Like
29.Jan.08, 17:54 EST
My first wife had big boobs, real big. When my dad first met her, he later said to me, "Figures. You've always been a boob man. But is there anything else to her? What kind of woman is she?" I told him that she was a nice gal, smart and energetic. And she was and still is . . . but she's had a lifetime of having to deal with the big boob image. There's a myth a work in our society that puts forth the notion that big boobs means small brain.
All good looking people have to fight off that myth. Why? That one's easy. The world is full of people who are not good looking. Most folks, in fact, are on the low side of average looking, and the myth that handsome means half-wit partly comes from their prejudices. It also comes from simple observation, since lots of handsome folks give the rest of us average folks lots of reinforcement for our prejudices against them. If they'd quit acting like boobs, we'd have less ammunition to use against them.
I guess you thought this article was going to be about breats on women, but it isn't. Yeah, that's a sneaky way of getting someone to read your blog, but it works. Mention something relating to sex, and you get readers. I didn't make things that way, but I will take advantage of it. What we're talking about here are the big boobs around us, many of them in positions of power. Big Boobs got us involved in Viet Nam (flawed policy), and they disgraced us further by abandoning our fighting soldiers in the field there (flawed ethics). Big Boobs got us involved in Iraq (again a flawed policy), and they've treated our soldiers there with almost utter contempt (long tours, poor equipment at times, lousy planning). We allowed a worn out old man and a moron to engineer that deal . . . Big Boobs . . . and we're paying for it.
Big Boobs do things like create surges as an answer to their miseries in wartime. Has the surge worked? Depends on your definition of work. Has it given us a better military advantage there? Have we secured more areas than before? Yeah, I think we have. But you see, this is where you know that Big Boobs devised the strategy. The big question is: IF YOU WIN, WHAT HAVE YOU WON? Or better yet: HOW WILL YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'VE WON? Have you defeated terrorism? Have you made America a safer place to live? Have you changed anything at all that's worthwhile in the long run? No, we haven't. In fact, we just made things worse . . . much worse. We got involved in a war that can't be won . . . at least not in Iraq. What we have accomplished is killing off some good kids over there, and we sent home many more of them in bad shape.
Big Boobs are running for president . . . several of them. I'm not pleased with any of their statements about Iraq . . . except for Ron Paul who simply says we should get the hell out as fast as we can. And he's not a serious contender at this time. I like John Edwards, but even a guy like him does boob things. We all do. It's just worse when you get caught at it in the political arena. Getting a blow job in the White House is an act of a boob, and so is getting a $400 haircut. I can see where a blow job might be more worthwhile than at 400 buck haircut . . . but damn, you sure have to wear the blow job a lot longer. At least in the case of stupid tricks like that, they didn't get anybody killed. What separates a run of the mill boob from a Big Boob is just that - the serious nature of the offense. Big Boob Bush and his band of boobers got lots of young men killed and injured . . . for nothing. Get it? For nothing.
And why even bring up something that everybody already knows? Maybe so you can identify the ones now running for president. Watch for the boob moves because they'll all make them. Big Boobs are easy to like, and not just on pretty women. These politicians are slick characters, smooth talkers, often pleasing to look at and be around. But don't be fooled. Look for the real boob factor, and then decide which of them is the lesser of the boob bunch . . . and pick one. In my mind there's only one candidate running with real boobs . . . and she just might be the least of the boobs in the bunch.
Yeah, I know, it's a tacky blog . . . but it's the truth.
D. Paz, 1/29/08 -
Baby Blue Panties
22.Jan.08, 19:11 EST
One of my older friends said that old people stay together because it's just too much of a bother to separate all their stuff. He might've been closer to the truth than he suspected, but in this day and age divorce is common even among older Americans. How can a couple of people stay together fifty years and then divorce? Whenever I hear about a divorce like that, one that ends after all that time, the thought crosses my mind that somebody finally got tired of suffering. The two times in a marriage where divorce is most common is at the 7-10 year range and about the 16-20 year range. I made it past the first bump in my first marriage, but the second bump got me.
The second time around for me has been smoother sailing, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been some storms to last out. All marriages go through bumpy periods, and sometimes they're due to little things - like baby blue panties in my wife's undie dresser drawer. I do the laundry around here during the week, and she's got a bad habit of undressing in one big move. This means that when her jeans come off, so do the panties . . . and they end up beside the tub with the white panties down inside the jeans. I make rounds in the morning, scoop up all that's on the floor, and haul it into the laundry room. Later on, I do the wash.
Most of the time the panties stay inside the jeans during the washing process, even go to the drier still inside them. But driers separate things with all the tumbling, so when I go to enpty the drier, there they are - baby blue panties. Oh Shit! If there's anything that pisses off the wife, it's baby blue panties. Blue is her least favorite color, but half her panties are varying shades of light blue now. Myself, I think light blue panties are sort of sexy, but I've noticed how whenever she's wearing those blue panties, there's no chance whatever that I'm getting lucky. Just looking at them irks her, but wearing them chaps her ass in a way that has nothing whatever to do with a rash or anything like that.
I've been periodically banned from the laundry room, and my wife has gone to buying faded jeans to avoid the bleeding new jeans syndrome in the wash. I've accepted some responsibility here for being lousy at separating clothes before they go into the washer, but it seems to me that a grown woman ought to be able to separate her own clothes. Most folks don't shed clothes like a snake sheds skin . . . but my wife does. And because of that habit (and my screw-ups) she's got baby blue panties in her dresser drawer.
There was a time when I sure didn't complain about her undressing habits. Back about twenty years ago, I could say, "Hey Red! Wanna fool around?" - and she'd head for the bedroom shucking clothes like a snowblower throwing snow into the air. But age changes a lot of things. She only does that now when the bath water is ready.
I'm thinking about giving up doing the laundry.
D. Paz, 1/22/08
-
I'm not short, Dammit!
18.Jan.08, 18:19 EST
If made to pick a hero, I'd have to say it's Cartman from South Park. He makes C- on everything (and always says, Sonofabitch when he gets back his papers), he's a self-absorbed, greedy little shit, and he's fat. Oh, yeah, and mom's a nympho. How can you not love a kid like that? But I love him most of all because he always says he's not fat, just big boned. I know the feeling, old buddy. I'm always having to fight off the short image thing. And, I'm not really short, unless you consider six feet tall as short. Actually, I'm not longer a six footer. Old age has reduced me to a mere 5'11 and a smidgen. But I'm not short, dammit.
Back when I was 44 years old, I had my first date with my current wife. I walked her to the door that evening after the date and moved closer, hoping for a good night smooch. She pushed me away, looked up and said, "You're not short. I don't like short guys, but you're not short," and then she laid a big one on me. After this first big kiss, I said, "I never said I was short, did I?" Then she said that at a distance, I look short, but up close, I'm not short at all. So I walked off thinking, well, what's up with that deal?
Not long after that I was walking down main street and caught an image of myself in a store window. You've had the experience, I'm sure, of suddenly seeing someone's reflection in the window and realizing it's you. In my case, I saw the reflection, then looked around to see who the chubby guy was following me. No one was there. Shit! That's me, I realized . . . and I also realized why people thought I was short. I was a big guy then - a muscular, stocky guy with a bit of a belly. I weighed about 220 lbs., worked out regularly, and stayed in good shape. Today, I'm 66 years old, and I weigh 254 lbs, naked and early in the morning. And the belly is bigger now, and I'm not in near as good a shape as back then. But . . . I'm bigger . . . and I'm still not short, dammit.
I've got a friend up in north Texas who's about my size, a few years my junior, and we look enough alike to be brothers. He's bald too, got a big wooly beard, even bigger than mine, and he's also on the rotund side. Some of his friends call him "the vanilla gorilla." That's a good name for him, and
maybe the moniker might fit me too . . . but we're not short, dammit.
Fat is a nasty word and I always refused to use it . . . on myself. Other words for fat are about as bad, like obese. Shit, I hate that word. But I give up when it comes to finding substitute words for my body shape. I'm not chubby, or stocky, or athletic, or anything like that because I'm bigger than that. What I am in all honesty is fat . . . so there, I said it. I'm fat! Just call me Tubbo, or Fatso, I don't give a shit.
But don't call me short . . . dammit!
D. Paz, 1/18/08 -
LIfe in Rural Texas No Bed of Roses (But It Ain't Bad)
14.Jan.08, 13:54 EST
Property taxes are due the end of this month, and for this household the total comes to five grand - yeah, that's $5,000.00, if you need to see written out. And that's for good old redneck rural Texas - Brady,