Nicer Ways to Say "Stupid"

Most of us don't often think of the dictionary as a source of fun and entertainment, but Merriam-Webster is doing its best to make us more literate and have fun doing it.

As far as I can tell, it began in earnest when Merriam-Webster began trolling Donald Trump and his minions on Twitter for their gross abuse and imprecision of language, as when it noted after Kellyanne Conway's coining of the term "alternative facts" that, "In contemporary use, fact is understood to refer to something with actual existence."

The dictionary's Twitter account now has nearly half a million followers ... not bad for dusty reference book.

Here's a recent fun article from Merriam-Webster: 8 Nicer Ways to Say 'Stupid.' Are you running out of socially-acceptable ways to describe some people in government, politics, or entertainment? The article gives you eight new ways to let people know what you think; these two are my favorites:

Addlepated - defined as, "stupid and confused, mixed up, or eccentric." It derives from two root words, pate ("head") and adela ("filthy or foul-smelling") ... an addled egg is one that is rotten or putrid. I consider myself to be proudly eccentric for any number of reasons, but not addlepated ... at least, not all the time.

Nescient - defined as, "exhibiting or characterized by nescience: ignorant, agnostic." The root word of this wonderful term is the Latin verb scire ("to know"), which is also the root of the term omniscient (“having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight”) ... nescient, thus, means the polar opposite - "lacking in knowledge and awareness." Much like the Trump administration and its blind followers.

There are also lots of comparative expressions to indicate various levels of stupidity, such as dumb as a post and dumb as a box of rocks. The German language also has some nice words and phrases, including the well-known Dummkopf ("dumbhead"). And, of course, I keep finding it necessary to hone and expand my system for the National Stupidity Index - the DUMBCON - the most recent update of which can be found here.

Here's today's question, Dear Readers: what is your favorite, suitable-for-use-in-mixed-company word or expression - in any language - to describe someone or something as "stupid?" Leave a comment and let us all share the fruits of your vocabulary.

Have a good day. Don't let the nescient, addlepated buffoons get you down.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Dropping the F-Bomb

This editorial ran in the Washington Post on November 4th: "Is It Legal to Curse at Police? Hell, Yeah."

The editorial is based on an incident in which a local reporter dropped the "f-bomb" (twice) on a local police officer, who then threw him to the ground, pinned him, handcuffed him, and arrested him for "disorderly conduct and avoiding arrest," but not with "profanely curs(ing) ... in public," which is, in Fairfax County, a Class 4 Misdemeanor*.

Well, as far as I've observed around here, “if any person profanely curse or swear or be drunk in public, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor**,” Virginia could probably eliminate all income, property, and personal property taxes and still have plenty of money left over to help offset that $1.5 trillion deficit from the GOP tax reform plan, just from all the $250 fines on people cursing in public. And that's just from teenage conversations at the local mall.

Personally, I find the "f-bomb" to be pretty distasteful, although I have been known to drop it myself on occasions when I'm enraged beyond civility by the ass clownery of the moment. And it goes without saying that the reporter in this case is guilty of profoundly bad judgement (as well as poor linguistic manners).

So, Dear Readers, here's today's question: what's your favorite - and most civil - curse word? Does gosh-darn-it! or mother of pearl!*** or the like always work, or are there times when only the f-bomb will do? Leave a comment.

For more of my thoughts on cursing, read this post from back in August.

Have a good day, gosh darn it! More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Punishable by a fine of not more than $250.

** Fairfax County Code, §5-1-1.

*** A favorite of mine from W. C. Fields.

Curses!

"Curses! Foiled again!"

This was the standby line shouted by caped, mustachioed villains in old cartoons when their plans went awry. Of course, they never really cursed back then ... it was a more innocent time, and certain standards applied to what was broadcast. Nowadays, of course, it seems as if the foulest and coarsest of language is almost expected, even of young children.

My mother used to say that people who had to resort to shouting four-letter words did so because they weren't smart enough to say anything less ugly, and we were raised to avoid using foul language whenever possible (although my father was fond of referring to certain individuals as horse's asses ... which, given some of the other language you hear in modern communication, seems almost quaint).

I got to thinking about the topic of foul language when I read Kirstin Wong's recent article in the New York Times: The Case for Cursing.

First of all, she distinguishes between swearing and cursing, writing,

"Swearing and cursing are often used interchangeably, but there’s a subtle difference in their origins. A curse implies damning or punishing someone, while a swear word suggests blasphemy — invoking a deity to empower your words. For the sake of modern discussion, both words are defined as profanity: vulgar, socially unacceptable language you don’t use in polite conversation."

She also notes that the words we consider objectionable in polite company are objectionable only because we have come to a general agreement within our culture that they should not be spoken aloud. For instance, we've decided that the f-bomb is a bad word, but spelunking isn't. Many of the words we have come to accept as curses involve variations on the act of sex, or "unmentionable" parts of the body ... actions and things we've decided are cultural taboos.

Are there good reasons for swearing or cursing? Ms Wong points out that while swearing can make your language more ... well ... colorful, some studies also show that it can increase your tolerance for pain, and also temporarily increase your strength. This is why you scream %#$! instead of great golden lilypads! when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

Now, I can curse with the best of them, but I try not to do it unless nothing else quite meets my linguistic requirement of the moment. I'm often subjected to my daughter's withering stare and warning of Dad, language! when I'm less than careful with my speech near the grandchildren, and so I try to use expletives that are less objectionable. Great Caesar's Ghost! is a good one, as are Godfrey Daniels! and Mother of Pearl!*. There are also two wonderful (and perfectly innocent) Russian words that I've found can be wonderful expletives when shouted angrily: chemodan! (which means "suitcase") and ptitsa! (which means "bird") ... ptitsa is especially good because you can really spit it out. German also has a lot of innocent words that sound bad just because of how they're pronounced, but one of my favorites is a bit on the more colorful side - Arschgeige (literally, "butt violin") refers to a person who is disgustingly arrogant or egotistical** ... and I can think of several of those without much effort.

There are plenty of other expressions we can use to describe undesirable or irritating people without resorting to cursing. My friend Lily recently referred to someone as a slimy douchenozzle, which I think is a marvelous combination, and much more emphatic than the more common expression douchebag.

And, of course, if horse's ass was okay for Dad, it's okay for me, too.

What are some of the expressions you use when you don't want to use objectionable language? Leave a comment and let the rest of us in on your linguistic skills. You never know when you may need to fire off a broadside in genteel company.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Courtesy of the master of cursing without really cursing, W. C. Fields.

** I think it derives from the attitude of such a person that even when they break wind, it sounds like a maestro playing a Stradivarius. 

Fixing What's Broken

The other day my friend Ed posted a commentary on Facebook in which he discussed reactions to a story about a woman who, after the death of her husband, relied on Medicaid to provide medical care for her children. The story generated an ever-downward-spiraling swell of anger and vituperation, accusing the woman of being lazy, demanding she get a job, accusing her of living large at the expense of others, and worse. Ed's commentary on the story and the online reactions to it ended with this paragraph:

"At one point in the discussion, someone asked, how did we get here? That's what I am wondering about. What has gone wrong in our culture that so many people are filled with this anger, looking for something to be offended at, and so bereft of the simple human virtues of kindness, civility, and empathy? How did rage and contempt become successful marketing tools, while compassion and kindness are looked on as weakness? What got broken with us, and how do we fix it?"

How, indeed? There are a lot of reasons our society has become more coarse and uncivil.

One of them is the lack of good examples set by parents. When I was growing up in the 50s and early 60s, my parents were loving, but strict. We were expected to be polite and courteous, and to reserve anger for the few times it was the only reasonable response to a bad situation. Nowadays, it seems that parents ignore foul language and bad behavior on the part of their children, whether because they're too busy with work and their own recreation to pay attention to it, or because of a misguided belief that their children should "express themselves honestly," even at the expense of common courtesy and civility.

The comforting anonymity of the Internet is another, allowing despicable trolls to spew hatred and propagate the most ridiculous lies, wrapped in the warm blanket of anonymity provided by a screen name and an opaque IP address. It's much easier to act badly when you don't have to face the target of your bad behavior.

Yet another is the belief of many present-day Americans in the absolute primacy of individual freedom over responsibility to others. When the individual is considered supreme, it isn't much of a stretch to believe that one has not only the right, but the obligation to say and do whatever one wants, without regard to the rights and feelings of others. It represents the erosion of empathy and compassion - two things that once were hallmarks of America and its people.

An outgrowth of this attitude is the belief that if another person has fallen on hard times, it is their fault for not accepting personal responsibility for their own lives. If a person loses his or her job as a result of economic decisions made by their employer, is it their fault? If they try to find a new job and discover that all the jobs for which they're qualified have been sent to India and China where workers are cheap, is it their fault? If they try to get the training and education that will qualify them for other jobs, only to find that it's priced beyond their reach, and their governments - in the sacred interest of cutting spending - have eliminated the assistance that might have helped them, is that their fault, too? Yes, we each have an obligation to be responsible for ourselves and our well-being ... but we also have an obligation to understand that sometimes there really are circumstances beyond our control.

Finally (for now, at least), we have elected to the presidency a boorish and utterly unqualified individual whose personal behavior is in many ways the opposite of what we once found admirable in our leaders. His total lack of gravitas, crass behavior toward women, proud ignorance of public policy, jingoistic attitudes, cavalier jettisoning of decades of international agreements and norms, and crude, 140-character Twitter attacks on those who disagree with him demonstrate the sort of person many of us were ready to put in the chair once occupied by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Our children look at his execrable behavior and assume it must be okay because, hey, he's the president ... and why should they be expected to act any differently? And why did we decide things were so terrible that a person like this seemed like a good option to so many people?

What got broken with us?

How do we fix it?

They're excellent questions. I think the first one is easy enough to answer; the second, much harder. We can fix it only by returning to the qualities that really did make America great: not just individual determination and self-reliance, but on a sense of community and a shared understanding that we all have a role to play in making the country great by working together and helping each other.

Unfortunately, I don't see that realization dawning on much of America any time soon.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Things We Shouldn't Say

We didn't need to watch the insulting circus of last Sunday night's "presidential" debate to know that New Yorker commentator Andy Borowitz called it correctly in his satirical article - "Bar Officially Cannot Be Lowered."

Mr Trump has brought public discourse to a new low of civility, and has coarsened our presidential politics to a degree not seen since ... well ... a long time. This article discusses some of the political insults that have been lobbed in American political campaigns across our history ... for example:

Abraham Lincoln was described as a "Filthy Story-Teller, Despot, Liar, Thief, Braggart, Buffoon, Usurper, Monster, Ignoramus Abe, Old Scoundrel, Perjurer, Robber, Swindler, Tyrant, Field-Butcher, [and] Land-Pirate."

A North Carolina congressman said of President Franklin Pierce that "The minions of power are watching you, to be turned out by the pimp of the White House if you refuse to sustain him. A man sunk so low we can hardly hate. We have nothing but disgust, pity, and contempt."

And Thomas Jefferson - a man we think of today as one of the heroic and brilliant members of the founding generation, said that then-president John Adams was "A blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who is a hideous hermaphrodite character with neither the force and fitness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

The insults were a bit quainter back then than some of the "locker-room" talk brushed aside by Mr Trump, but they were still as bitter and angry.

Here in the States, we revere our Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech ... well, perhaps not quite so much as our Constitutional guarantee of being able to pack iron, but some of us still revere it. We do recognize some limits on our freedom of speech, though, even if we aggressively oppose limits on freedom of armament. The Federal Communications Commission, for example, tries to keep vulgar language off our television screens and radio airwaves ... George Carlin parodied this losing battle in his classic skit "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television." 

Our cousins across The Pond, on the other hand, are noted for their good manners, their politeness, and their stoic and understated reserve, as exemplified by the much-parodied World War II campaign that enjoined them to ...

Today in America, we might need a similar campaign ...

And we might begin by taking note of this comprehensive, well-organized list from British communications regulator Ofcom that ranks the offensiveness of individual swear words. 

Because I know that my grandchildren sometimes read this blog, I won't go into detail on the words themselves. I will just note that Ofcom has organized objectionable language into four categories: mild, medium, strong, and strongest. Mild includes such quaint and often-heard words as damn; strongest includes the sort of language now appearing in some reporting about our presidential campaign.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had some politicians who could actually use the language creatively ... like Winston Churchill, who had this comment that was as appropriate then as it is today:

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."

Have a good day. Use the language well. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

"Politically Correct" vs "Polite"

One of the reasons you often hear for why a person supports Donald Trump is that he's not politically correct ... that he says what everyone else wishes they could say.

While I don't like linguistic pussyfooting and really don't like divisive hyphenation (such as "Italian-American" and "African-American"), I don't have a problem with being polite and avoiding language that I know will be offensive to someone*.

You shouldn't, either.

Have a good day. Come back tomorrow for September's first collection of Great Moments in Editing and Signage. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Unless they're wearing an extra-thin skin and looking for opportunities to be offended.

The Things That Matter

One of my favorite songs is a John Denver ditty from back in the 70's called "Late Night Radio," which includes this line -

"I turn the dial a little bit past one-oh-one point two,
In time to catch the news and see who's shootin' who"

Those lines are more relevant now than ever before. What's wrong with our country that these things keep happening?

I think the best explanation of why things are the way they are was written in a 1972 memoir by Dennis Smith. Report from Engine Company 82 describes Smith's experiences - by turns dramatic, funny, and horrifying - as a career firefighter in New York City. Commenting on demonstrators who were pelting his crew with rocks as they tried to fight a fire in a New York slum, he wrote:

"I used to believe that people who threw rocks at firemen were motivated by conditions - the lower depths of American society. I used to believe that the fundamental problems were housing and education ... but I don't believe that anymore ... The disease is much more seriously latent, more pernicious than uncaring landlords, or bureaucratic, apathetic school officials. The malignancy lies in the guts of humankind at all levels. We have unlearned the value of a human life."

There are a lot of "explanations" for why we're stuck in this insane cesspool of violence. It's easy to spread the blame, and commentators from across the political spectrum are busy doing it. Depending on your political persuasion, the fault lies with the ready availability and glorification of powerful weapons, ultraviolent movies and television shows, parents who don't teach their children right from wrong, people who value individual freedom over responsibility to the community, religious and social bigotry, or any of a thousand other excuses. But the real reason is the one Dennis Smith identified more than 40 years ago - we have unlearned the value of a human life.

A human life. Not black or white or asian or hispanic. Human.

And I don't know what else to say.

Have a good day. And be careful. I need you all safe and sound.

More thoughts tomorrow, when we salute the Left Cheek Ass Clown for July.

Bilbo

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, 2015

In the biblical book of Revelation, verses 1 through 8 of Chapter 6 introduce the figures we know today as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Only one of them (Death) is actually named; the others are simply described - War, Famine, and Pestilence.

But the Bible was written more than a thousand years ago, and things change. The traditional Four Horsemen certainly are still with us, but I contend that they are slowly being displaced by the updated Four Horsemen - Vanity, Ignorance, Demagoguery, and Denial.

Vanity is exemplified by self-important celebrities and political figures interested only in their own self-aggrandizement. Many televangelists, and rabble-rousing community leaders like Al Sharpton follow the Horseman of Vanity.

Ignorance is exemplified by those who deny evidence and blindly follow their prejudices. Those who choose to ignore common sense, compassion, morality, and established science in favor of blind religious belief follow the Horseman of Ignorance.

Demagoguery represents political blowhards who rage endlessly and irresponsibly, without regard for the consequences of their ravings. Right-wing TV and radio gasbags like Rush Limbaugh, and irresponsible politicians like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz follow the Horseman of Demagoguery.

Denial is the twin brother of Ignorance, and represents those who blindly follow their chosen beliefs, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, refusing to admit or acknowledge objective reality. Climate change deniers and Second Amendment zealots follow the Horseman of Denial.

America is a free country, although there are those who would play upon our basest instincts and fears in an attempt to take those freedoms away. Nobody will ever take away the hundreds of millions of guns now in the hands of people who take counsel of their worst fears, but our other fundamental freedoms - of speech, peaceful assembly, and religion - are on the block*. We are afraid of the wrong things.

Look around you. Think. And if you're going to follow a horseman, do it at the track.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Look under "p" for Patriot Act.

Religious Freedom

This little meme has been making the rounds on Facebook ...

I think it's pretty accurate.

It seems as if nowadays many people's religious beliefs serve less as a guide to an upright and moral personal life than as a cudgel with which to beat those who express a different set of beliefs, or no beliefs at all:

Conservative Christians try to impose on everyone else a muscular Christianity they believe (falsely, as it happens) was written into the Constitution;

Aggressive atheists feel the need to loudly show their disdain for the deeply-felt beliefs of others;

Radical Muslims believe it's their duty to kill those who don't worship as they do;

Some Ultra-Orthodox Jews make life miserable for others by demanding accommodation of their insistence on strict separation of the sexes, to the great embarrassment and inconvenience of everyone else;

And every one of them absolutely, positively believes - beyond all doubt, reason, and compassion - that they, and only they, are right.

Perhaps if we just went back to the Golden Rule, things would be a lot better ... but I think that train sailed long ago.

Have a good day. Live your own life ... the rest of us can take care of our own.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Sex, Marriage, and Hysteria

Since there obviously hasn't been enough written about the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges that marriage between same-sex couples is legal in all 50 states, I thought I'd weigh in with my two cents. Stop reading if you're sick of the whole thing ... I'll be off on another tangent tomorrow and you can come back then.

Let me begin by saying that I'm not gay. I'm as straight as they come, and I find the idea of sexual attraction between men or between women to be ... well ... unsettling, if not actually distasteful*. But I also understand that there are people in this world who, for whatever reason, are attracted to persons of the same sex. I don't know why this is so ... if the reason is chemical, psychological, or whatever. I accept that there are such people. I don't have to think or feel the same way, and it's certainly not my place to pass judgment on them when even the Pope says it's not his place to do so. As it happens, I have a great many friends who I know are gay or lesbian, and probably others who are, but haven't "come out." That's fine. If they don't make a fuss about my being straight, I won't make a fuss about them being gay. There are too many worse problems that divide us to waste time on this one.

However ...

I don't believe that a marriage between two adults of the same sex is the right environment in which to raise children. I believe that a child grows and benefits from having loving parents of both sexes, and while a same-sex couple can certainly love a child, they cannot give that child the lessons of life and the points of view that can be taught by a father and a mother. Same-sex marriage is wonderful for adults ... not so good for children.

That's all.

Have a good day. Grit your teeth and accept that not everybody thinks and acts the same way you do ... you'll be happier. More thoughts tomorrow, when we consider something we really ought to worry about.

Bilbo

* This has nothing at all to do with religious beliefs and everything to do with what I personally feel comfortable with. 

P.S. - I doubt that the issue of marriage - gay or straight - ever crossed anyone's mind while they were writing the Constitution.

The Slogan at Mike's

One of our favorite local restaurants is Mike's American Grill. The food is excellent, the prices are reasonable, and the service is excellent. It's too loud, and the parking is yucky, but in the end everything balances out and we always enjoy going there. I particularly like their motto, which appears on the website and in large neon letters around the big clock overlooking the dining room:

Be Nice or Get Out

It's a shame that such a sign is needed, but nowadays people seem to go out of their way not to be nice. My father was among the most polite and gentle of men, and he lived a good life, succeeded in business, and was surrounded by a huge circle of friends that appreciated the pleasant demeanor that he tried (successfully, I hope) to pass on to us.

It seems that the default position for behavior today is screw-you-I'm-right-you're-wrong-you-can-go-to-hell. We almost expect shameful behavior from so-called celebrities like Kanye West, whose antics at the Grammy Awards proved yet again that he combines mediocre talent with despicable manners.

Why is it so hard to be nice? We know that the anonymity of the Internet encourages bad behavior, a fact you can prove to yourself simply by reading the comments posted to any online news article or participating in many online games ...

But I think that the real reason is that many parents no longer value or teach the kindness, politeness, and good manners that parents of my generation found so important. People don't value words like "please," "thank you," "you're welcome," and "after you." The Kanye Wests of the world demand respect without being willing to give it, and legitimize boorish behavior to their circles of fans.

Do your part. Observe the Golden Rule, and teach it to your children.

Be nice, or get out. This means you, Kanye and Kim. I hope it's not too late for baby North*.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* And who in their right mind would saddle a defenseless child with a name like that?

Bringing Back Acts of Chivalry

You may have noticed that in the "About Me" section of my blog (over there on the left) I tell you that I believe in "courtesy, common sense, and fair play." Think about that first one for a moment - courtesy. One of the sad things about modern life is how poorly we tend to treat each other. Simple acts of courtesy and kindness are relatively rare, particularly in comparison to the number of acts of boorish behavior on the part of people who ought to know better. Just look at the fact that we need a term for "road rage," that people shoot each other in movie theaters over texting, that some young people feel the need to act like thugs to establish "street cred." Listen to some of the intemperate comments made by the members of Congress you'd think should be setting a better example. In the words of Rodney King, "Why can't we just get along?"

A few days ago one of my Facebook friends posted a link to an interesting article titled "Eight Acts of Chivalry to Bring Back." The author is part of the "New Chivalry Movement," described as "a community for modern men who are striving to be better in all areas of life." It's sad to think that we need such a movement, but good to see that we actually have one.

But getting back to the eight acts of chivalry to bring back ... here they are, in case you don't want to read the whole article:

1. Giving up Your Seat. I was always taught by my parents that it's proper for a gentleman to offer up his seat to a lady or to a sick or elderly person if there are no other seats available. They may not take you up on it, but making the offer is the right thing to do. Interestingly enough, a while back on the Metro, a young woman actually offered me her seat on a crowded train. I declined, but it was a very nice gesture, even if it made me feel old and decrepit.

2. Pulling Out a Woman's Chair. This was another of the polite things I was always taught to do. The lady is, of course, perfectly capable of pulling out her own chair, but the action indicates that the gentleman cares for her comfort.

3. Opening Doors for Her. I do this whenever the situation arises. But it's interesting that I've often had doors opened for me by ladies. Chivalry lives in both sexes, even if it's on life support.

4. Calling, Not Texting a Date Invitation. This one is pretty new ... when I was dating, texting wasn't an option, you had to call the lady or ask in person. Sending a text seems a pretty shabby way to ask someone out.

5. Compliments, Compliments, Compliments. Nowadays, paying a lady a compliment can be a dangerous thing, no matter how sincere and well-intentioned (can you spell harassment lawsuit?). This is sad, because I'd like to think that a real lady would appreciate a simple, honest compliment. If someone tells me that I look good (a rare enough occurrence, to be sure), I am pleasantly surprised and genuinely appreciative.

6. Walking on the Street Side of the Sidewalk. This one is pretty simple - historically, it was designed to protect the lady from being splashed by passing traffic, hit by garbage thrown from an upper floor window, or harassed by ass clowns shouting unwanted comments from passing cars. It's also a relatively safe act that generally won't lead to complaints of sexist behavior.

7. Walking Her to Her Door. This is a nice gesture that tells the lady you are concerned about her safety. It can also lead to uncomfortable situations in which it appears that you are angling for a kiss or an invitation to come inside for some advanced nookie, so - unfortunately - it's best to be careful with this one.

8. Dropping Her Off First When Parking Far Away. I do this for Agnes all the time if it's raining or the parking place is a long way off. It's a nice gesture.

To these eight acts, I might add these:

9. Put the Phone Away. If you're with someone and you're not a doctor on call, it's very rude to check your phone every fifteen seconds, send text messages, or answer every incoming call or text. Give your attention to the live person you're with.

10. Be Cheerful. I don't know if it's true that it takes fewer muscles to smile than to frown, but smiling is a good idea. I try to be cheerful as much as I can, and I find that people react well to it. There's plenty of time to be grumpy if the other person turns out to be an ass clown.

The article notes that although some chivalrous acts derive from the chauvinistic mindset of the past, when they were performed for women because “they can’t do it themselves," they can also represent thoughtful measures that can reflect love, caring, and respect. In a time when everybody believes they deserve respect, all too few people seem willing to give it.

Let's bring back chivalry. Or, as the motto of one of our favorite local restaurants says, "Be nice or get out."

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Training Officers to Be Gentlemen*

I found this interesting story from Time Magazine online yesterday: Becoming an Officer and a Gentleman: Air Force Academy Seeks Help to Teach Cadets Finer Points of Finer Living.

Yes, Dear Readers, although an act of Congress can make one an officer in the armed services, it requires special training to make today's officer a gentleman.

It seems that the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs has issued Contract Solicitation Number: FA7000-14-T-0013, titled "Social Decorum Training Program at the US Air Force Academy." You can download and read the actual Performance Work Statement (PWS) here, in case you were considering putting in a bid. Here is the Background/Scope section from the PWS ...

"2.0 BACKGROUND/SCOPE

Cadet Social Decorum Program. The contractor shall be responsible for administering, planning, and continued development of a comprehensive etiquette training program. The contractor shall provide areas of instruction and mentorship that include military, business, communication, dining, social and professional etiquette. The contractor shall present a syllabus and comprehensive training programs (seminars, workshops, lectures, briefings, and hands-on practical sessions) for all classes of cadets covering a broad range of topics related to etiquette and military customs and courtesies. Contractor shall support planning sessions and review meetings related to the Cadet Social Decorum Program.

SCOPE. Topics of instruction shall include but are not limited to: Social activities, event planning, personal correspondence (invitations, RSVPs, thank you notes), writing social correspondence, receiving lines and introductions, civility, behavior, basic hygiene, uniform wear and maintenance, appropriate civilian attire, posture, basic manners in a myriad of settings, common courtesies, telephone etiquette, table etiquette (settings, seating, decorum, conversation), the art of conversation (tact and diplomacy, small talk, use of proper language style, body language and non-verbal communication), social conduct in stressful situations, leadership roles outside the military structure, and ceremonies. Proper conduct and dress for functions such as USAFA Ring Dance, sponsor visits, USAFA graduation and commissioning ceremonies, dining-ins, dining-outs, events at commander’s and general officer’s quarters and formal and non-formal events in the community. The list above is not all inclusive but it does provide some examples."

I think that the fact that the Air Force sees a need to train its newest officers in ordinary social graces - including civility, basic hygiene, common courtesies, and the art of conversation is a poor comment on our society. What are parents teaching their children nowadays?

It's been widely reported that many college graduates, particularly athletes, nowadays can't read at a high school level, do basic mathematics, or write coherently. That's a failure of priorities in our system of higher education. But the fact that the specially-selected students we are training to to fly multi-million dollar aircraft and satellites, to manage contracts worth billions of dollars, and to lead others into war require supplemental training in basic social graces is pretty disheartening.

One can argue that warriors don't need to understand which fork to use with which dinner course, or the intricacies of etiquette in various social settings ... but they really ought not to need special instruction in common courtesy or how to carry on a social conversation.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I use the term in its generic sense to include female officers, of whom there are many in today's armed services.

Sorry, No Prince Charming Here, Just Move Along, Ma'am ...

If you remember your childhood fairy tales*, you will remember the story of Sleeping Beauty, who was saved from a curse by the kiss of Prince Charming. Well, it's a good thing she didn't live in 21st-century America, because we seem to have a serious shortage of charming princes. Or charming men in general, for that matter.

I ran across this very interesting article by Benjamin Schwartz in the Atlantic Monthly the other day: The Rise and Fall of Charm in American Men. Mr Schwartz maintains that modern America men lack the indefinable quality of charm that marked many great actors of the past like Cary Grant** and, more recently, James Garner and George Clooney. He writes,

"For nearly 20 years, any effort to link men and charm has inevitably led to [George] Clooney. Ask women or men to name a living, publicly recognized charming man, and 10 out of 10 will say Clooney. That there exists only one choice—and an aging one—proves that we live in a culture all but devoid of male charm."

What is charm, though? I think all women would recognize it, even if most men probably woudn't ... and wouldn't care. Mr Schwartz offers this partial analysis of charm ...

"It’s an attribute foreign to many [American] men because most are, for better and for worse, childlike. These days, it’s far more common among men over 70—probably owing to the era in which they reached maturity rather than to the mere fact of their advanced years. What used to be called good breeding is necessary (but not sufficient) for charm: no one can be charming who doesn’t draw out the overlooked, who doesn’t shift the spotlight onto others—who doesn’t, that is, possess those long-forgotten qualities of politesse and civilité. A great hostess perforce has charm ... but today this social virtue goes increasingly unrecognized. Still, charm is hardly selfless. All of these acts can be performed only by one at ease with himself yet also intensely conscious of himself and of his effect on others. And although it’s bound up with considerateness, it really has nothing to do with, and is in fact in some essential ways opposed to, goodness. Another word for the lightness of touch that charm requires in humor, conversation, and all other aspects of social relations is subtlety, which carries both admirable and dangerous connotations."

So why don't today's American men value the quality of charm?

I think it's probably because of the desire on the part of many men to return to a simpler, more basic America, to a time when "men were men and women were glad of it," a time before metrosexuals and thug culture, the imagined time of the rugged American individualism so beloved of the GOP. Modern American men are supposed to combine the best qualities of Paul Bunyan, John Wayne, and Sam Spade, and screw all this charm stuff. We live in a high-tech time when charm is an attribute of quarks, and not of men.

I like to think of myself as being charming, although I'm not sure everyone who knows me well would agree, at least all the time. As my Blogger profile says, I believe in courtesy (certainly an attribute of charm), common sense (very uncommon nowadays), and fair play (not always available in a country and a time when the degree of fairness available to one depends largely on the amount of money one can apply to its purchase). I try to apply the Golden Rule, to be polite (until given reason not to be), and to give people the benefit of the doubt before assuming guile or rank stupidity. Does this make me charming, or does it just reflect what I'd like to be able to experience from others? Who knows? Maybe a little of both.

I think we could use a little charm nowadays. Sadly, a little is all we're likely to get for the foreseeable future.

Have a good day. Try to be charming. It can't hurt.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I mean, traditional fairy tales like "Cinderella," "Rumplestiltskin," and "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," not modern fairy tales like GOP economic theories and Democratic social idealism.

** When an interviewer once told him, "Everybody would like to be Cary Grant," Grant is said to have replied, "So would I!"  Another time, a reporter looking for accurate information for a story sent a telegram reading "How old Cary Grant?," to which Grant telegraphed back, "Old Cary Grant fine. How you?" I think I'd have liked this fellow.

On Being Kind

You all know, of course, about the recent terrible events in Stubenville, Ohio, in which a drunken 16-year-old girl was raped by two members of the high school football team. The fact that the rape happened at all was bad enough, but no one associated with the crime smells very good ... from the young men who committed the rape to the other party-goers who filmed and photographed the crime and then discussed it on social media to the CNN reporter who filed a sympathetic story about the impact of the crime and the trial on the young criminals who violated a helpless girl.

Much has been written about the whole affair, from the mainstream media to the blogosphere (including this piece from Heidi), but I feel the need to weigh in on top of it all with my own observation ...

Just what kind of society have we become?

I was raised by parents who taught me good values and constantly drove home one basic lesson: the one we call The Golden Rule ... "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It means we should all treat each other with dignity and respect and compassion, and to think of the impact of our actions on others before we barge ahead and do whatever we want.

Unfortunately, there's precious little of the Golden Rule to be seen nowadays. The emphasis today is on the rights and priviliges of the individual, and the hell with everybody else. Clueless dumbasses buy into a thug "culture" and try to build "street cred" through belligerence and an insistence on receiving the respect they are unwilling to give. Violent and misogynistic rap "music" glorifies crime, violence and the degradation of women.

In the world of politics and punditry, extremists of the far left and the far right shout past each other, tossing off ridiculous accusations and demeaning every word and action of those with whom they disagree ... perfectly willing to let the country go down the drain rather than make the least effort to seek common ground and move forward.

Ultrarighteous religious bigots of every sort, from radical Islamists to severe Christian fundamentalists to superultramegaorthodox Jews to the miserable hatemongers of the Westboro Baptist Church condemn - often with violence - those who dare to worship God in any but their own approved way.

What has happened to us? What lessons are today's parents teaching their children that lead to the Steubenvilles and the Sandy Creek Elementaries and other tragedies?

We have allowed ourselves to become a society in which personal rights and privileges are worshiped above responsibilities, compassion, and even common courtesy. The other day I read this wonderful article by Kim Simon: 4 Musts for Moms of Boys. In the article, Ms Simon talks about a question asked by another mother in a playgroup: “What quality do you want to instill in your child? What personality characteristic would you most like for your son to be known for?” Her answer was simple, but goes to the very heart of the problems we face today:

"I want my son to grow up to be kind."

That's what's missing ... we have lost the capacity to be kind to each other.

I have three children and six grandchildren I love deeply, and of whom I am enormously proud. And if there was one lesson I would try to teach them - hopefully, by example - it would be to observe the Golden Rule. To be kind.

The NRA and its apologists would have you believe that an armed society is a polite society, that we ensure our safety and earn respect by packing enough heat to intimidate and deter everyone else. This is stupid. A polite society is based not on the possession of weaponry and the willingness to use it, but on a sense of responsibility for one's actions and a recognition that the world works better when we treat each other with the dignity and respect we would like to receive in return.

Keep the gun if it makes you feel better. But try to simply be kind. It's a lot less expensive than an assault rifle, and you might find that you like it.

Have a good day. Observe the Golden Rule. More thoughts on Tuesday.

Bilbo

P.S. - You might also consider these worthwhile guidelines from George Washington's "Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation" -

#1: "Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present;" and,

#69: "If two contend together take not the part of either unconstrained, and be not obstinate in your own opinion. In things indifferent be of the major side."

Smart guy, that George.

B.

Bad Times a-Comin'?

It's no secret that we're living in an America that is very different from the one in which many of us grew up. Incivility and irrational anger have skyrocketed, the level of slime and nastiness in politics is at near-historic levels, and there's a general my-way-or-the-highway attitude that has taken hold among political parties, religions, and just about everybody but the local chess club*. Society has gotten more insensitive, more crass, and more violent, and the voices of reason and civility are being drowned out by the drumbeat of argument and unreason for its own sake.

So, Dear Readers, if we follow this miserable condition to its ultimate conclusion, where do we end up?

A very sobering possibility is suggested in this fascinating article by Natalie Wolchover from the online science news magazine LiveScience: Will the US Really Experience a Violent Upheaval in 2020?

It's not an outlandish or trivial question.

Dr Peter Turchin, an ecologist, evolutionary biologist and mathematician at the University of Connecticut, uses the new science of cliodynamics to extrapolate mathematical modeling data from the historical record. Using his methods, the article points out his conclusion that "the (historical) data indicates that a cycle of violence repeats itself every 50 years in America, like a wave that peaks in every other generation. This short-term cycle is superimposed over another, longer-term oscillation that repeats every 200 to 300 years. The slower waves in violence can either augment or suppress the 50-year peaks, depending on how the two cycles overlap." The data can be seen on this chart, which accompanies the article:

On this one, from Professor Turchin's cliodynamics website, which presents the data with a bit more color and explanation:

And on this larger chart, from LifesLittleMysteries.com, which adds still more detail (click it to see the entire thing):

Extrapolating from the historical data, we could see a spike in the level of violence in this country somewhere around 2020 ... just eight years from now.

This is not an unreasonable fear. The level of political polarization and irrational anger, the growing disparity among economic classes, the ready availability of high-powered weapons, and a culture centered on the rights of the individual rather than the benefit of the larger society all suggest that the prediction could be correct.

Of course, cliodynamics has its detractors. Massimo Pigliucci, a social scientist who studies pseudoscience and skeptical thinking, comments about Turchin's theory that,

"The database is too short: the entire study covers the period 1780-2010, a mere 230 years. You can fit at most four 50-year peaks and two [long-term] ones. I just don't see how one could reasonably exclude that the observed pattern is random."

Well, random or not, it provides food for serious thought. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the present level of heavily-armed irrationality in this country could lead to a spasm of violence in the coming years. Unfortunately, the people who most need to understand the role of their behavior in leading to this unhappy future are those least likely to pay any attention to the message.

What do you think? Is Dr Turchin being an alarmist, or are you running down to the local gun shop to stock up your arsenal for the coming explosion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* And even there, the queens are demanding the right to kiss each other at Chick-fil-A restaurants.

The Supremes Have Spoken!

No, not these Supremes ...

But these Supremes ...

Yes, Dear Readers, yesterday the Supreme Court announced two major decisions that - in true modern-day American fashion - were immediately either strongly supported or bitterly denounced, depending upon the political leanings of the individual doing the shouting.

In the first decision (National Federation of Independent Business et al. v Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et. al.)  the court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or "Obamacare," if you chose to ignore the parts that the GOP used to support, but now doesn't because the President does). You can read the text of the decision here, and I'll write about it in another post; for now, this summary from Mad Magazine pretty much sums up how things won't change as a result of the ruling ...

Today, I want to talk about the other decision, United States v Alvarez ... the one that ruled that the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to free speech. You can read the full decision here, but - of course - what you really want to hear is what your favorite legal commentator (that would be me) thinks ...

As you know, I am a very strong supporter of our First Amendment right to free speech. I believe that we are best served when all opinions, no matter how odious, are openly expressed so that people can listen to them and make informed decisions. The problem, of course, is that all too few people nowadays are prepared to invest the thinking and open-mindedness needed to make those informed decisions.

The Stolen Valor Act made it a crime to claim the award of a decoration for military service, in particular an award for valor. Writing for the court's majority in striking down the act, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that,

"Though few might find (Alvarez's) statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and expression."

You have a Constitutionally-protected right to lie. This means that the rest of us have a responsibility to listen to those lies and call you out on them.

Of course, if you aren't a truth-challenged megastar like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh, you don't have a huge media machine backing you. And, of course, you can always be charged with racism when you object to a lie that cannot be supported on any other grounds. It's hard to shine the light of truth on a liar, but we need to do it.

Because freedom of speech is a double-edged sword, and we need to ensure that we keep our edge of it well-honed.

Have a good day. Be here tomorrow for Cartoon Saturday ... you'll need it.

More thoughts then.

Bilbo

The Constitution: The Bill of Rights - Amendment I

I'm going to assume, Dear Readers, that you are not yet sick unto death of my ongoing ruminations on the Constitution. On that possibly weak assumption, I'm going to begin a discussion of the first ten amendments to the Constitution ... what we call The Bill of Rights.

The Founders had no sooner finished their work on the Constitution when they realized that while they had created a good working framework for a government, they hadn't done quite enough to clearly define the rights of the citizens under that government. They'd had the experience of living under a monarch with unlimited powers, and wanted to make sure that the rights of the citizens of the newly united states were protected. And so it was that they drafted and ensured ratification of the first ten amendments to the brand-new Constitution.

I could write multiple posts on each of the first ten amendments and, indeed multiple posts about each one of those amendments. To simplify things, let's take the Bill of Rights one amendment at a time, starting today with the First Amendment, which reads ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment codifies most of the fundamental rights we value as American citizens: the rights of free worship, free speech, a free press, and free assembly. Whole libraries of commentary and analysis have been written about each of these rights, and courts at every level have generated mountains of rulings that either uphold or limit each of them. My discussion in the next few paragraphs will represent only the very most superficial look at each one ... but a discussion that I hope will get us all thinking not just about our rights, but our responsibilities as citizens.

Consider the first part of the amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Founders lived in an era when memories of religious oppression and wars were fresh and troubling. The mother country had an established religion (the Church of England), of which the King was the head, and which everyone was expected to observe. The Founders wanted to ensure that citizens of the new country would be free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and I don't think it's an accident that freedom of religion, and from government coercion in matters of the spirit, is the very first freedom documented in the very first amendment. Consider that when you listen to far-right presidential wannabes thunder about their religious beliefs and their desire to impose them on you. Oh, and also remember that Article VI of the Constitution clearly states that “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Founders knew the negative power of extreme religious belief, and wanted to make sure that we could worship as we saw fit, but be protected from those who would enforce a particular belief.

The next right guaranteed in the First Amendment is the freedom of speech. This means, generally speaking, that we can say what we want, without fear of limitation or censure by agents of the government. In practice, though, we accept practical limits on this freedom: it's illegal, of course, to incite riots, to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, and to engage in what we loosely call "hate speech." Cases dealing with abridgement of the freedom of speech are decided in the courts every year, most recently in the case before the Supreme Court which will decide the power of the Federal Communications Commission to limit offensive language on the airwaves. What are the appropriate limits on free speech? I don't know. But what I do know is this: as I've often written about in this space, the Constitution grants us freedom of speech ... not freedom of smart. As a very smart person once said, "What this country needs is more free speech worth listening to."

Freedom of the press comes right after freedom of speech in the First Amendment, and most of the same comments I made in the previous paragraph also apply. The Founders knew that a strong and independent press was important to ensuring an informed population. They also knew that a free press would not always be popular. My personal opinion is that the media (expanding the concept of the press to cover more than print) is often irresponsible and overly in love with itself ... but that's the price we pay for being able to read (and hear) things with which we may not agree.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances is the next freedom listed in the First Amendment, and we see the practical effects of it every day. Consider the "Occupy _____" movement, which is attempting - in its own disorganized and clumsy way - to draw attention to social and economic problems. Does the right peaceably to assemble include the right to disrupt traffic, to block entry to government and commercial buildings? Reasonable people (if you can find any nowadays) disagree. I think that the Occupy Whatever movement has an important message to deliver ... but that it needs focus, concepts of practical application, and a willingness to listen to (if not accept) the views of others.

The fundamental problem with the First Amendment is that it guarantees rights, but does not demand equivalent responsibilities. We have freedom of speech, but those who demand that freedom often want to deny it to those with whom they disagree - consider the despicable practice of noisily heckling or shouting down speakers. We have freedom of the press, but it means that we also have to accept that we may be offended by much of what we read ... that much of what's free to be printed may be (in our personal opinions) the most useless or dangerous drivel. We have freedom of peaceful assembly, but when does your freedom to assemble trump my freedom to go where I wish without interference?

The rights guaranteed under the First Amendment are some of the most valuable and fundamental that we enjoy as citizens of this great nation. They need to be protected, exercised with due regard for the rights of others, and considered in the context of the responsibilities they call forth.

Unfortunately, it's easier to demand rights than to behave responsibly. We'll talk more about that when we turn tomorrow to a discussion of the Second Amendment.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Of Trolls and Pseudonyms

There was an interesting story on NPR last night that I thought was worth bringing to your attention - "Who Are You, Really? Activists Fight for Pseudonyms."

As all of you know, almost no one with a blog (like, for instance, Bilbo) posts using their real name - they take a screen name, alias, pseudonym (from the Greek pseud- (false) + onyma (name)), or - with a nod to eViL pOp TaRt, nom de plume (French for "pen name"). People do this for many reasons: to maintain their privacy, to protect themselves from attack for taking unpopular positions on issues, or simply to be able to act stupid without having to admit who they are.

The last reason is probably the most common, or so it seems. Read the comments posted after any political story on CNN or any online newspaper site ... a small minority are thoughtful, measured, grammatical, and have good spelling and punctuation, but most are loud, rude, vulgar, racist, or downright stupid; it's no wonder that the commenters wish to hide their intellectual and social shortcomings behind a screen name.

But more and more, websites are requiring people to be able to prove their identity in order to post comments. Some newspaper sites require a commenter to provide a name and address (although these are not posted online without the commenter's permission), and many blogs or other sites require one to have a Facebook or other social networking account in order to post. Is this right?

Jimmy Orr, Managing Editor of the Los Angeles Times, was quoted in the NPR story as noting that some of his paper's comments sections still operate under what he called the "Wild West" system, where all one needs to post a comment is an email address; and he goes on to note that those sections tend to have more trolls — commenters who bait each other with racism or personal attacks. The sections of the paper which require Facebook logins, on the other hand, are comparatively civil. Orr believes that the reason for this is that "trolls don't like their friends to know they are trolls ... If you are who you [say you] are, you're less likely to leave a comment that makes you look bad."

Do we have an inherent right to anonymity when expressing our opinions? Should people be allowed to unleash their inner troll and act like an uneducated ass clown if they wish?

Simply by going online, we give up a little bit of our privacy and anonymity. But if we're going to express an opinion, we should be willing to own up to it. Many of you know me under my real name, and I don't mind sharing it with my readers once I've established that they aren't ... well ... trolls.

My mother always used to tell us, "If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all." And with that in mind, I have to say that John Boehner has a nice haircut.

But that's as far as I'm willing to go, whether I write as Bilbo or as ... somebody else.

Have a good day. Be willing to own up to your opinions.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

George's Farewell Message

I didn't realize it until I read my Writer's Almanac e-mail this morning, but today is the anniversary of the date in 1796 that President George Washington's farewell address was published in The Daily American Advertiser as an open letter to the people of the United States. It has been many years since I read this masterpiece, but in reading it again I understand what an exceptional and - in the words of biographer James Thomas Flexner - indispensable man Washington was. You can read the full text of the address here, but here are a few excerpts (naturally, accompanied by my comments) that prove how foresighted Mr Washington was, and how much we could use a man of his stature and common sense today:

Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. (Think about that before you call yourself an African-American, an Italian-American, or any other hyphenated variation. We're Americans, and we're all in this together.)

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth... (Mr Washington was concerned, more than 200 years ago, about the poisonous effects of political and sectional partisanship. Today's Republicans and Democrats would do well to remember it.)

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations—northern and southern—Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. (Mr Washington was concerned about the effect of regional factionalism, but also of the "misrepresentations" that unscrupulous politicians use to undermine the unity of the nation. Are you ass clowns on Capitol Hill listening?)

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. (Are all you dumbass militia nuts out there listening?)

And finally,

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty ... the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. (Think about this as you decide which set of political ass clowns - Republican or Democratic, conservative or liberal, you choose to endorse in the upcoming elections.)

I think George Washington would be very disappointed in the current crop of despicable political charlatans we have chosen to run our nation. I hope that we will be able to return to his vision of unity and amity for the good of the nation before it's too late.

But I'm not holding my breath, and neither should you.

Have a good day. Read Mr Washington's Farewell Address and think about it.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo