Noteworthy entries.

Idiocracy Plurubus Unum

It is refreshing to hear someone from time to time call something by what it actually is. Frank Schaeffer is a former evangelical christian whose father was one of the most influential in the budding fundamentalist movement back int he Sixties and Seventies. Schaeffer recounts his life in the memoir Crazy For God. This is a man was was there, involved, part of it. Doubtless many who did not snap out of it along the way think he's a traitor, that he's been possessed by Satan, that he is evil. Yet that still doesn't answer the criticisms he brings to the subject. A recent poll in New Jersey has revealed that one in three right wing voters believe Obama is the Anti-Christ. I will let the video take it from there. LaLa Land. That's about as accurate as one can be. What the fundamentalist movement has created of itself is a situation in which absolutely nothing can penetrate the wall of doublespeak and obfuscation they have built around themselves. They are a community living within a tautology, and they cannot allow themselves to see it. I agree with Schaeffer that it is time to encircle them and move on. But this is a democracy, wherein all voices have at least a theoretical right to be heard. We do not have a pat, rigorous response politically to the introduction of absurdisms into the public discourse. We waffle, we try to be polite (which they do not) we try to be reasonable (which they take advantage of and disrespect) we try to, ironically, turn the other cheek in the face of their fallacious onslaught of nonsense. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....and sometimes an idiot is just an idiot.

Continue ReadingIdiocracy Plurubus Unum

Snoring: The Upshot

Google "snoring" and you'll get a flood of how-to advice on how not to, and a lot of reasons to stop. Not surprisingly, the majority of links recalled were advertisements for devices, medications, surgical maneuvers, and their purveyors. In today's pharm-centered universe, the vibration caused by air traveling through our airways has been pathologized and vilified as the destroyer of otherwise sound relationships. Not only is it bad for your love life. Snoring is deadly! According to snoring alarmists, snorers who have the audacity to continue sleeping noisily can look forward to myriad cardiovascular disorders including heart attacks, atherosclerosis, and stroke, marital and erectile dysfunction (chicken-or-the-egg?), drowsiness, lack of focus and...Zzzzzzzzz. Admittedly, I'm no doctor, but let me suggest that there are some positive effects of snoring (besides the possibility that it keeps you healthy by means of temporary asphyxiation). It's a much cheaper and more effective method of subjecting those around you to intense jealousy ("Please, please, make him stop so I can lose consciousness ASAP") than, say, buying a pair of Jimmy Choos. Then again, I don't usually begrudge those masochists the pain of walking around... But I digress. If you would rather not invest in a medical solution, you could try banishing the banshee by learning a new instrument. You guessed it: the Didgideroo! Ah, it's time for bed. Maybe the lumbering Saint Bernard downstairs will give it a rest so I can, too.

Continue ReadingSnoring: The Upshot

Microsoft Practically Admits Vista Sucks

I've recently bought a new laptop, and have been battling Windows Vista for a week to get it to run some of my clients' apps. I had considered paying an extra hundred dollars to retrograde my system to XP. But I figured that the future is coming, so I might as well get a handle on it. Then tonight I saw a commercial: Did I hear this right? Microsoft is practically admitting the Vista nightmare is drawing to a close. The last clause is, "...more happy is coming". When my free upgrade to Windows 7 comes, I hope it solves some of my problems. But I doubt it.

Continue ReadingMicrosoft Practically Admits Vista Sucks

Backroom postal employees paid to do nothing.

The Federal Times has provided a disturbing example of government waste. Situations like these cause many people to distrust the federal government (except, of course, when the government is invading another country with government employee-soldiers).

The U.S. Postal Service, struggling with a massive deficit caused by plummeting mail volume, spends more than a million dollars each week to pay thousands of employees to sit in empty rooms and do nothing. It’s a practice called “standby time,” and it has existed for years — but postal employees say it was rarely used until this year. Now, postal officials say, the agency is averaging about 45,000 hours of standby time every week — the equivalent of having 1,125 full-time employees sitting idle, at a cost of more than $50 million per year.

According to Federal Times article, mail volume is way down (largely because of the Internet), and the USPS can’t keep all of its employees busy. This article states that union rules prohibit layoffs or re-assignment to locations that do need workers. Federal Times reported that postal officials admitted that 15,000 postal workers did least some “standby time” last year, many of them spending entire shifts in break rooms where they do crosswords and personal reading, and some even sleep through their shifts. The article notes that letter carriers are not among the affected employees; letter carriers are being kept busy due to reduced numbers of those positions and increasing numbers of addresses to service. Speaking of mail volume being way down, my letter carrier tells me that almost everything he delivers is advertising, magazines, bills or greeting cards. People are squawking about closing some post offices, but shouldn’t there be even a bigger cost-saving move to reduce deliveries to three per week? Couldn't I possibly wait an extra day for that magazine, for that bill or for that mailer worth 15% off on my next delivery of pizza? Think of all the fuel and money taxpayers could save if we delivered mail to residences only every other day instead of every day . . .

Continue ReadingBackroom postal employees paid to do nothing.

John Adams and Modern Perceptions

We just watched the last episode of John Adams. I got the DVD from the library and we went through it in one week, all seven installments. I have to admit, the last episode brought tears. The partnership between John and Abigail was well-portrayed and deeply moving. The older I get, the more I find the strongest story resonance with depictions of deep, deep friendships, especially those that exist between lovers, spouses, life partners. I cannot imagine losing Donna, who has become exactly that for me, in spite of the fact that I have friends of longer acquaintance, good friends, too. The casting was incredible, the make-up superb, the writing first class. What struck me most about this as well was the marvelously-nuanced dramatization of the fundamental differences in political philosophy between Adams and Jefferson. I can't help but think that when Adams declared that "the true history of our revolution is lost" he must have been thinking of the initial partnership and later dissolution of like-mindedness between himself and Thomas Jefferson, whom Joseph Ellis depicts an an American Sphinx. Adams is here portrayed as an idealist who cannot separate his philosophy from his pragmatism. In the first dozen years of the new republic, there was enormous public sentiment for France and when that country descended into the frenzy of its own revolution gone mad, that sentiment demanded that we support the revolutionaries. The irony that France supported us when it was still a monarchy and now those very people that had backed us (granted, as a move in their own war with England) were the victims of the mob ascendant was lost on most people, and apparently even Jefferson, who wanted us to embroil ourselves immediately and deeply in support of the revolutionaries. Washington---how lucky they were to have him---refused. He was a militaryman by training and he understood how to assess the chances of success and how to go about surviving a conflict in which you are outmatched. He had seen more than his share of defeat in a long career and knew well that ideology needed a strong hand to keep it in check, lest it carry you over the precipice. He refused to side with France, believing that neutrality was the only way for the United States to survive. Adams shared that belief.

Continue ReadingJohn Adams and Modern Perceptions