It's the Internet, Dummy.

Facebook is not a diary kept under lock and key.  Twitter is very public. How many times have you heard on the news of some person who has lost a job because they posted racy pictures on Twitter or Tumblr. They lost a job because they went on a rant about their employer and yes, they have first amendment protection to say it, and the employer has first amendment protection to respond -- negatively.  I actually don't have much sympathy for these folks and their poor decision making.

I'm not talking about celebrities like Gilbert Gottfried who tweeted jokes following the Japan tsunami and lost his job as the Aflak duck. In all honesty, Aflak got what they deserved.  The man has no filters. What did the expect?

So many live their lives online tweeting and posting and Instagramming their every move.  I joked once that a friend of mine must be ill because he had only posted pictures and status 25 times that day instead of his usual 45 or 50 posts.  I know I can fall into that trap too posting mindless status reports that no one really wants to see, but I would like to think most of my posts may be something that will entertain or perhaps cause a bit of thought. I hope that perhaps others would do the same, and I try to do it with out vulgarity.

I know many of you probably don't think twice about cussing around your friends, but does every post need a swear word for emphasis?  Has our ability to communicate become so poor that we can only construct a post of 140 characters? Is it really necessary to put the word f***ing in the title of every page? "I love Effing science," or "I hate Effing  everything" are just two pages I've seen.  If it weren't for the title, I would love to like the science page, but I really don't need yet another swear word floating into my time line.   As it is, I won't even share that page's information because I don't want to offend someone with its title.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not commenting on literature or social comedy that use swearing for the purpose creating a certain kind of reality. I am referring to people who curse just because they can and seem to think that anyone who finds it offensive is wrong to comment.  I know the folks in Hollywood go on talk shows and cuss up a storm giving the censors a work out, but as Craig Ferguson, also a comedian with no filters, pointed out intelligence and talent do not go hand-in-hand.  I would point out that if it were so okay there wouldn't be censors.  If you are using these folks as your example that swearing is okay, you might want to reconsider who exactly it is you are using as your example.  They aren't pushing the envelope, they just aren't necessarily the bright.

Yes, I know.  I sound like least hip person you know, but I don't measure my coolness by the number of times I can swear and show how grown up I am.  I am also not trying to be a moral compass here. There are things I am not proud of, but I don't post them for billions of strangers to view, and I do not think my language should be the reason someone is offended.  My point here is that this is the internet, dummy.  You may be posting for specific friends, but the fact is we all get to see it, and we all get to deal with it, and it is forever online.  I am also one of those people who when I see someone who swears, I automatically think this person lacks the ability to make any kind of reasonable point.

When you rant about gun control or Obama or Tea Party or Socialists or that movie you vehemently disliked and then punctuate your point of view with swear words you are only saying you have neither a cogent argument or that you lack the support for any argument you might have. You also seem immature calling people vulgar names or even made-up names "Dumbocrap: or "Repuke" instead of Democrat or Republican. You may think you're being witty and clever, but take my word for it, you're not.

So next time you want to share, rant, or name your page, stop for a moment and ask yourself:

Will my employer or future employers see this? Will the college I am applying for see this? How many folks who you like might be offended? Would you really want your mom or grandma to see this?  Would your children be proud of you? Do you want your kids saying that? Do I really need this word? How many people get to see this that I really don't want to see this?  Does it make me look like a moron?

Am I really such a moron that I don't get the placement of this on the internet is forever?

Answer "yes" to just one question, then don't post it because if you do anyway, it does make you look like a moron.

The internet has no delete button.

Do We Forgive Mary Sanford?

(from http://hellemanworld.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-politics-of-forgiveness.html)

Congratulations to Mark Sanford on winning his seat in the House.  We forgive the former

governor of South Carolina for his Appalachian  trail trip, which was actually a cover for his tryst with his mistress when he disappeared from public view and was in South America.  Progressives are, of course, appalled by this win of someone who left his wife for another woman.  Conservatives point out rightly that Sanford is engaged to the other woman and that she is the love of his life.  We should forgive him.

I know nothing of Sanford's politics.  I don't know if he is a Tea Party Conservative or Centrist Republican.  I do know that winning the seat was no great feat in a district that has voted  Republican for about 30 years.

I also know he did it without money from the National Republican Committee who pulled their funding and a very lukewarm endorsement for the Speaker of the House.  But we should forgive him for his very human indiscretion.  Hey, we forgave Bill Clinton.  True he was impeached but it failed.

There are other politicians we have forgiven, and a few not so much.  We forgave not only Bill Clinton but others as well.  We may forgive General Petraeus although the jury is still out on that one, but it is looking more likely.  No one really ever hated Governor Swartzenegger.  He went back to making movies.  I don't think we forgave Thad Viers for his affair, but he has never really tried to make a comeback.  We did forgive Newt Gingrich for his many indiscretions. I seriously doubt that anyone will ever forgive John Edwards for his affair while his wife was dying, or Anthony Weiner for tweeting graphic pictures, but he has tried.  Generally speaking, though we do tend to forgive our all too human politicians when they try to make a comeback.  I cannot say what we would do for the ones who haven't tried to make a comeback.

Still I have to wonder, given how close Sanford's win is how much forgiveness would we have for Governor Mary Sanford who lied and had an affair with her boy toy in Brazil? How forgiving would be for General Diana Petraeus for her affair while commanding overseas?  Who exactly do we forgive?

A Presidential Run from Canada?

(from http://www.policymic.com/articles/19948/ted-cruz-2016-the-critical-reason-the-texas-senator-will-not-be-president)

Here's one for Birthers.  Ted Cruz the Republican Freshman Senator from Texas is a Tea Party favorite.  He has been called already the most hated man in the Senate and is actually proud of comparisons made between him and Senator Joe McCarthy.

You may remember McCarthy from your history class as the Senator who went on a modern day witch hunt with his Committee on UnAmerican Activities as he accused without any proof person after person  of being a Communist and played on the Red Stain and fears of Communist Pinkos. By the way, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but even Communism and Socialism are protected by the Constitution.  Not saying I agree with either philosophy, just saying that whole freedom thing gets in the way.  But I digress...

Ted Cruz has spread some pretty stunning rumors during his first few months in the Senate.  He stated that Chuck Hagel received money from the North Korea and that there were at least 12 communist professors at Harvard Law when he was a student there.  He has played the ideological Republican purist card.  It has endeared him to the far Right conservative movement and created problems for the Republican establishment.  He has even received a rebuke from John McCain who called him a "wackobird." In other words, rumor is he is planning on a possible run for president.

So why might this be interesting for the Birthers who swear that their attacks on Obama have no basis in racism? It is because Cruz was not born in this country. His father is an immigrant citizen and his mother an American.  Sound at all familiar?  Cruz's parents who worked in the oil industry, were in Canada when he was born.  He was not born on an America military base as was John McCain, but born in Canada.  When asked about this, Cruz has responded that he would let others sort that out. So here is my question Birthers:  Will you attack and go after Cruz with the same vehemence as you have Obama?  If not, then maybe you need to question your real reasons for doubting Obama's birth place. There is no question, by the way, Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. 

I am only asking this of Birthers.  Ted Cruz is, I think, a "natural born citizen" despite being born outside the country, although there is debate among scholars about what is meant by "natural born" in the Constitution. If, however, Birthers do not hold Cruz to the same standard they have held Obama, it is going to be quite clear that Birthers are driven by something other than legality of Obama's birth.  

Historical Rewrite

(from http://im4givn.blogspot.com/2012/06/rewriting-history.html)

Michelle Bauchmann, former Presidential candidate and member of the House, took to the floor the other day to announce how awful the Sequestration is because it "breaks everyone's heart" to see services like Head Start and Meals on Wheels cut.   She announced, “There were numerous Republicans that voted against the sequestration because we knew all of these calamities were in the future. And so it reminds me of the Shakespeare line: ‘Thou protestest too much.’ Didn’t you know this was going to happen? We knew it. That’s why we voted against this bill.” Besides clearly demonstrating her lack of knowledge of Shakespeare by not only misusing but butchering a quote from Hamlet, which is about someone who is guilty denying that guilt by declaring their innocence too loudly, Ms. Bauchmann is also lying.  There is no other way to put it.  She is ignoring the truth. She does, in fact, protest too much.

It is true that she voted against the Sequestration. Not, however, for the above reason.  It is pretty well documented that she voted against the sequestration not because of the impact it would have on children in Headstart or the numbers of elderly going hungry as Meals on Wheels is cut back. She voted no because it didn't cut enough. In fact after the passage of the Budget Control Act she said “We needed real cuts and a fundamental restructuring in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars to solve the spending crisis we are in. Someone has to say NO to more spending. I will." There is not a single statement she made at the time that she felt for those that coming "calamities."

The problem is not just Bauchmann ignoring what she actually did.  The problem there seems to be a movement afoot to not just ignore history but to rewrite it.  It is common enough among many a politician both Democrat and Republican to try an rewrite their own history, but it is also becoming common where it shouldn't be.

Take for example the new history of Texas Board of Education.  As one of the largest textbook purchasers in the USA, the new history could literally alter history taught in the nation.  Want some examples? Try these. Thomas Jefferson's role is down played as a founding father removing him from history standard.  The change questions the idea of the separation of church and state as being a belief of the founders and the Constitution. The change would also state the US government was, in fact, infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War making Joe McCarthy a hero instead of a zealot who saw Communists everywhere.  The new history would also include emphasis on the rise of the Conservative movement but have little to no discussion on Liberal movements.

Another example is in the new Bush Library which glosses over the Iraq war and the reasons we were given by ignoring the original statements that there was a link to Iraq and AlQueda or the search for non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Iraq war is in fact handled under the general title of the War on Terror.

Once upon a time there as a writer who warned us of historical rewrites.  His name was George Orwell and the folks who created unpersons worked at the Ministry of Truth.  In the spirit of the new history rather than the warning Orwell gives us, I offer this. Orwell would be so proud.

Hugs

This Meme showed up:

So I have just a few things to say about yet another divisive and untrue thing.

First I want to say is this

and this

















and also this













and maybe this.

There is also this to say just in case your meme is about hugging soldiers.

I might as well say this,

and maybe I might say this.

Do you remember now? 

And by the way there is this one for irony's sake

Come on folks with all we have to fix, you're worried about hugs?  Get a grip. Honestly...

I Vote No

In a rare moment of clear talk, Republican Senator Pat Toomey announced that gun laws were filibustered not because of personal belief or just because of the gun lobby.  No, the reason that the law supported by 90 percent of America didn't pass was because Republicans are scared to appear to be helping Obama. Toomey said in an interview with Digital First Media "In the end it didn't pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it." I should note that Toomey helped to craft the bipartisan bill on background checks and voted for it, but has since backed off his support since the filibuster. This is despite that since his support, his poll numbers have climbed unlike those who voted to filibuster who saw their numbers drop.

What makes the statement important is something that many have long been saying.  Regardless of the sense something makes or its importance, ideas once supported on the Right are a vote "no" if Obama's name is attached.  We knew this to be true, but now we have a senator admitting that congress no longer votes on ideological lines, political lines or even moral lines.  They vote in fear of appearing to help one man.  They don't give a tinker's dam about what is right or even appearing to do what is right.  It must be tough to be such cowards that they cannot even support something they support because they live in fear of the name of a single individual.

The stress must be awful.  Let's give these cowards some piece of mind and send them home.

Hanoi Jane..Really?...Much Ado

The movie, The Butler, is scheduled for release in October.  This is usually a good sign for a movie because that means it might be an Oscar contender.  And then there was this...boycott the movie because Jane Fonda is playing Nancy Reagan.  Why? Because of Jane Fonda's infamous Vietnam comments and a notorious pictures which gave her the nickname Hanoi Jane.

This is one of the pics, and I remember the controversy well.  I was in my teens.  Like many, I have mixed emotions about Jane Fonda.  We were appalled by the young actress's actions of singing antiwar songs with the North Vietnamese soldiers and making propaganda.  Well that's the story any way.  Yes, she did go to Vietnam.  Yes she spoke with the North Vietnamese.  Yes she sang an antiwar song. With the exception of traveling North she pretty much summed up the feelings of much of a generation.  It was a sad and horrible time in the United States, and we were torn in half.  For the first time, the horror that is war was beamed into homes as it happened.  There is a very real reason why the flag draped coffins of our soldiers who sacrificed in Afghanistan and Iraq are not photographed.  Vietnam is the reason.

Why did Jane go North?  Because she could meet with American POWs and bring back messages. Later though, the young Fonda would announce that the stories the soldiers brought back of torture were lies.  It did not occur to her that the POWs she had met were propaganda tools.  She did condemn the war itself and sadly, returning soldiers.  Much to our shame many people did.  We have, I hope, learned from that ordeal and for now seem to honor those who serve.  What made it worse, is many that went did not choose to go, they were drafted and many who were slated to go fled to Canada. And so for some reason we might understand why a few, particularly veterans would be upset about having Jane Fonda portray anything.

Why though react to her playing Nancy Regan?  The only reason I can see is that for a few Nancy was married to Ronald Reagan and for more than a few, an entire Mythos has sprung up around him.  Reagan was governor in California at the time of Vietnam and in 1967 had tested the waters for a presidential run.  His pro-war stance is very clear in his reactions to the protest movement.  One of his orders to stop a protest became known as Bloody Thursday in which a student died. He used the National Guard to stop protests in Berkley.  In other words, Jane Fonda and Ronald Reagan were on the opposite sides of the spectrum.

Time though must pass.

Hopefully we all grow older and a little wiser.

"I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families. [...] I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft gun, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless." These are the words of apology that Fonda spoke in a 1988 interview with Barbara Walters.  It was an apology and regret that she would repeat in a 2005 interview with 60 Minutes stating that the incident was a "betrayal." A betrayal of the "country that gave me privilege. The image of Jane Fonda, Barbarella, Henry Fonda's daughter ... sitting on an enemy aircraft gun was a betrayal ... the largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine."  She has also said that her broadcasts on North Vietnam's radio were because  "Our government was lying to us and men were dying because of it, and I felt I had to do anything that I could to expose the lies and help end the war." It is true that we were misled about many things happening during the war.

Fonda has been very clear about the boycott.  She has told critics that they "need to get a life." She has also pointed out that Nancy Reagan has been very helpful and is pleased with the casting.  Nancy, who is 91, has been giving Fonda tips about the role, and Fonda has told the producers that unless Nancy was documented to have done something which might appear negative that she won't do it.  It seems Nancy Reagan is not as enamoured with the myth of her life as some others may be. She also understands that Fonda is an actress just as both Ronald and Nancy (Davis) Reagan were.

The movie is not even about Nancy but based on the life Eugene Allen, a real White House butler who served eight presidents and had basically witnessed history.  Allen served from 1952 to 1986.

In all honesty, I can understand why veterans from the era are upset with anything Fonda does.  I can also understand the naivete and mistake of a very young, priveledged actress, too. Besides, we have far too much else to fix than whether Jane Fonda plays Nancy Reagan.  Both Jane and Nancy are actors and understand that it is pretend.  The real problem is Alan Rickman is playing Ronald Reagan. How dare they cast a Brit as an American legend!