Missing the point after...

What Colin Kaepernick did is not about him being an admittedly privileged, seemingly ungrateful, and assumedly petulant athlete, who is once again misbehaving by acting badly in public. 

Nope. This is not about him. 

Moreover, I’ll bet you that he doesn't believe this is about him, either, and for folks to suggest otherwise (via their words or their memes), is probably proof of either denial or ignorance of what he has so clearly told us is the underlying issue. In saying this, however, I’m not criticizing anyone for going after him via word or meme or for being in denial or ignorant, two things with which I'm all too familiar. They are simply states of mind and everyone has a right to visit them on occasion. Go ahead. Have at him. I understand that on its surface, what he did could be seen as rude and puerile, yet even as he would probably tell folks he has nothing about which to complain because he has a great life, and that this imbroglio is about something larger than just him, he would probably also tell them they have the right to think he’s a douche-nozzle. 

But this is not about him and to make it about him is to completely miss his point. 

Of course, I could be wrong, and I so often am, but what this is about is an American who's acting within his constitutionally protected right to free speech (as irritating as that speech might seem to some), by standing up (irony intended) for what he believes are injustices to others who are marginalized and less fortunate than he is. If we’re being honest, we’ll admit that if Joe Schmoe sat through the anthem, no one would have cared aside from maybe Joe’s family or those adjacent to him, and if Joe had been caught on camera, it would have led to yet another GIF going viral. Poor Joe.

But that the “someone” who did do this is one who routinely has a microscope focused on him due to his chronically well-aimed, self-inflicted foot wounds, this might make it seem like he was not thinking and was just being thick. But this is wrong-headed, because if you don’t think he knew that the same microscope would probably serve to focus attention on what he believes (and what he actually said) is the real issue, and that doing what he did might keep a discussion going, then it’s probably questionable exactly who is being wrong-headed here. 

I’m a white guy, so WTF do I know about being anything else, but please allow me to suggest that to many people of color, our national anthem's phrase, "land of the free," just might ring more than a bit hollow and that, for them, this reality is objectively true. So why would they want to say “land of the free” if they don’t believe the words to be true for everyone, even though these same words are absolutely true for Colin (a point he freely admits)? But allow me to also suggest that "home of the brave" might simultaneously (and perhaps, to some, ironically) ring just as true in Colin's case as well. But before I get there, please know that for a long time I’ve been trying my hardest to empathize as best I can, trying to see the points of view that spawned things as simple as his recent action and as complex as Black Lives Matter, and I'll continue to try. Yup. OK. All lives matter. Got it. Thanks, but one perspective does not preclude the other; one perspective is just a different one than the other, and they can both exist simultaneously. And here's why: for a much longer time, and obviously to many people of many backgrounds, some lives seem not to matter much at all (also objectively true), so is it really that surprising, then, to see frustration boiling over? 

By way of an answer, try this simple thought experiment: ask yourself honestly if, after watching what he did, you A) saw his action as the problem/issue, or B) at least tried to understand the reasons behind his action (his inaction, as it were) as the possible genesis of why he felt he needed to take the action? If the former, this could be saying more loudly than anything else ever could exactly what the real problem is. 

As with so much else, so much of this tempest in a jock strap seems to be about perspective. Case in point. If this event can be viewed as a matter of patriotism--- as in, you're unpatriotic for having done this thing, as seems to be the case here --- then this event can also be viewed as the act of a brave, patriotic person who loves his country. So much so, in fact, that he feels he has to tell that country when he thinks it's wrong about something, even as he has to also know that doing this could quite possibly be viewed as career-limiting petulance at least, and as personally dangerous behavior at worst. And it's exactly this essential, seemingly mutually exclusive dilemma, this dichotomy, that makes America one of the best fucking ideas ever, even as some of its ideas are the most fucked-up ideas ever, and this, too, is objectively true. 

Just like the next guy, I love the idea of a place like the USA. This is easy to say and I know it; it’s like saying, “I’m against violence” or “I’m for goodwill toward all.” Easy, right? Who isn't and who doesn't, aside from assholes? The point is, though, that I’m daily delighted that I live here, and I appreciate the happy accident of birth that put me here as I am, and make no mistake: "happy accident" is how I came to be born in the USA and not somewhere else, and "happy accident" is how Colin came to be found by those who adopted him. We’d be singing a different tune if we had been born in 1930's Germany, in 1980's South Africa, or in 1400's Spain. We'd definitely be speaking a different language, if we were still alive to be speaking at all. Q.E.D.

But as I continue to try to grow and listen and read and learn, and as great of an idea as I see America to be, I'm not always proud of some of the ideas America comes up with, with some of the things some Americans do, or with some of the ways some Americans think. I admit this freely, but folks are entitled to do and say what they wish, within the bounds of law and ethics, and regardless of what I might perceive to be good taste and decorum; therefore, truly being "the land of the free," truly living this as a reality, just has to mean that we should be free to simultaneously hold seemingly diametrical thoughts, or at least to respect that some among us do hold them. Lambaste if you must; it’s your right to do so. But one position doesn't negate the other; one position shouldn’t threaten the other; one position needn’t preclude the other. An action taken by one is not an action taken against all. Two conflicting positions can exist within the same mind and, most importantly, among the same people, as in this case, but do agreeably disagree as needed, by all means. Just maybe, though, you could try to work to respect and presume the possibility of an honorable, ulterior motive rather than immediately suspect and assume the presence of a dishonorable, hidden agenda. As trite as this might be, judging a book by its cover does little to discover what’s inside that book. Put in another, equally timeworn way, metaphorically walk a mile in some other shoes, and if, when you’re finished, you and those shoes are still in the place you were when you started, then so be it: but at least you tried.

I hope some of this makes sense, and I offer all of it with respect.

Learn something new every day...

I've been on Facebook for almost 10 years and have never blocked someone... until today.

Like most folks do, I post things on my FB page (which, thank you, I know is public) as they occur to me and try my best to make points about things that I see happening in the world. I guess I do this mostly to make sense of them for myself. Call it, "thinking out loud." Yes, I do make fun of demagogues, politicians, and celebrities, but I don't try to be mean, demeaning, rude, offensive, or intentionally controversial, provocative, or argumentative; nor do I ever intend for arguments to start based on something I've posted (a statement which, itself, could, I suppose, start one), and really hate it when they do start. I'm often wrong, freely admit when I am, try to learn from it, and then just move on. Intransigence is its own reward and I've learned to bend in a breeze. 

I'm politically independent: I'm not tied to a party or a political ideology. Moreover, I'm spiritually/religiously independent: I'm not tied to a religion or a religious ideology. I try not to wear my philosophy like an article of clothing and, instead, try to just live it by my actions and my deeds. I might often fail, but I keep trying. For me, this is a personal thing, not a bumper sticker, and nothing I would ever expect someone else to do. I know I'm an ethical and kind person, and I don't require subsequent validation in order to know this is true. I just do.

If what I post doesn't suit folks, they have two options: like it or don't like it. It's pretty simple.

Unfortunately, however, they can, and quite often do, take a more overt action, such as, A) troll it, which just seems pointlessly mean-spirited and rude; B) start an argument, which rarely, if ever, goes well; C) block me, if what I've posted (or I, myself) really pissed them off; or they could just, D) simply ignore my post and go about their days, which, I admit, is sometimes the hardest thing to do, but is, perhaps (and, again, arguably in itself), the more dignified approach.

All of this having been said, I see many, many, many things that folks post with which I disagree fundamentally, thoroughly, and in no uncertain terms, or that I simply find objectively inappropriate for public consumption, but... this view, my view, is entirely my problem, not theirs. I would never, ever, ever attack them for what they're saying. If I disagree, I demonstrate that disagreement by simply ignoring the post and choosing to not view the world in the way it's being presented.

Thank you if you already take a similar approach, and please have no worries if you don't, because I've not said this as some sort of share bait; rather, I've said it because it's true for me. 

C'est la vie, and respectfully so...

A scene from a gangster movie?

Reporter: So, Mr. Trump, what's your perspective on the possibility of a contested convention in Cleveland?

Trump: They have an amazing town, Cleveland does. An amazing town. An amazing convention center there. Beautiful. It'd be a shame if something were to... I don't know... happen to it. A real shame. Terrible shame.

Reporter: Mr. Trump, what are you saying will happen?

Trump: Nothing. Nothing. I would never say something will happen. But it'd be a shame if something did happen. It'd be a terrible thing. Terrible. A riot is a terrible thing. Top people have told me this. Top people. I don't know, but those people have told me they're terrible. What do I know about riots? Just terrible, though.

Reporter: Mr. Trump... ummm... are you threatening there will be... uuuh... riots?

Trump: I never said there will be riots. Never said it. You disgusting reporters are always saying disgusting things by putting words in my mouth.

Reporter: I'm just...

Trump: Disgusting reporters.

Reporter: ...trying to get you to use words to answer questions.

Trump: You know what this is? 

Reporter: Ummmm... an interview?

Trump: I'll tell you what this is... it's another hit piece, let me tell you! A real cheap, disgusting hit piece! I just said it'd be a terrible thing if there were riots. And what do you do? you ask me if I'm saying there will be riots. I'm not saying that. Never said that. 

Reporter: Well then, Mr. Trump, what did you just say?
 
Trump: I said it'd be terrible if something terrible happened. Amazing town, Cleveland. It'd be a shame to see something bad happen. Terrible. Riots are terrible, so I'm told. You? You're disgusting. I'll sue you.

Reporter: Back to you Bill...

Falling for David Bowie...

Here's an admittedly tangential, but nevertheless true, David Bowie (-ish-esque-y) story.

In autumn of 1975, our band, Flood, was playing a late-Saturday-afternoon matinee at a large college club called Maxwell's in Iowa City, IA. Earlier that afternoon, a number of us had been at the Iowa State-Iowa game and witnessed Iowa win on a last-minute, classic, Statue-of-Liberty play. The stadium was a frenzy and that celebratory mood found its way to the club, fully intact. Maxwell's, a fairly large club (between 200 to 250 seats) --- with a capacious four-foot-high stage, a sunken dance floor, and a large high-wattage, Cerwin-Vega house PA (that rocked) --- was completely full by the start of our first of two matinee sets. Dancers and revelers were well lubricated and definitely interpreted the word "party" as a verb.

By the time we got to the end of the first set, our energy level was at least equal to the room's, and our volume level was probably twice that. We closed that set with Bowie's "Suffragette City," from the "Ziggy Stardust and The Spiders from Mars" LP. We were in the song's raucous ending chorus and, as I had the habit of doing back then, I was rocking back and forth with abandon. Stupidly loud met energized bombast and rarely had either one had it so good.

Then, it happened.

In less than the blink of an eye, I lost my balance on a backward rock, then, as I rocked forward, dizzy but aware I was out of control, I kicked out with my foot to catch my now lost balance, whereupon my foot smacked firmly against a strip of 1-inch-high molding that ran along the front edge of the stage. The Laws of Physics being what they are --- constant and immutable --- my forward foot-action resulted in an equal-and-opposite body-action, and I went up and out, feet over hands, into the wild blue yonder and onto the sunken dance floor. As I fell in what I recall being a cross between flying and diving into a sea of startled dancers, my left hand stayed firmly around the neck of my bass even as my right hand tried to find something/someone to grab. My bass's head stock struck the dance floor first (snapping off a small piece of wood that I would never find), my right hand landed second, and the rest of me, faithfully still attached, landed third in what could best be described as, a crumpled heap. Had the Russian judges been there, I would have carded a solid 9.0, easy. I had not had a drop to drink, by the way.

Anyway, and amazingly all the while, the band was still blasting away, with Tommy, Steve, Don, and Paige still singing the chorus. Even as I was helped to my feet, the band was still playing, seemingly oblivious. Even as I found my place on stage and re-tuned my now-sharp A string with the tuning gear that I had just bent on landing, the band was still playing.

I managed to finish the song with the rest of the band, and our version of David Bowie's tune, one of my all-time favorites, and one of Flood's best, might never have sounded better.

It was a small price to pay for rock-and-roll. May David rest in peace. I have always believed, and will continue to believe, he would have appreciated the moment.

Learning to Roll with The Little Stuff

The first winter we owned the cottage (2006) a Jehovah's Witness apparently opened the front storm door to leave a flyer --- I know because a Watchtower promotional flyer was hanging from the inside door's outside knob --- but just as apparently didn't fully close the front storm door, because the relentlessly constant, and, oftentimes, brutally strong, southwest wind from the lake tore the storm door off, twisting it into a weird aluminum and glass sculpture. (Ceci n'est pas une porte?) And so, as of winter 2007, we started latching the (new) storm door from the inside when we closed the place. And, as much of a shock as this might seem, we never did subscribe to that magazine.

Flash forward to today... Row and I drove down to Crystal, about an hour's drive, to check on some things, drop off some stuff, and pick up some other stuff. When we arrived at the cottage, we found that a snow drift, which had formed on the brand-new-as-of-last-August back stoop, had melted and refrozen enough times to transform itself into an impenetrable ice drift that now prevented the back storm door from being opened.

With the front storm door securely latched from the inside, as I mentioned previously, and the rear door rendered unopenable by the ice dam --- and not having a shovel or icebreaker because both were inside the safely locked garage, the key to which was inside the safely locked house --- we had no choice but to declare the place functionally impregnable, throw up our hands, laugh about it, capitulate to fate, and head home.

But it wasn't a total loss: it was a beautifully sunny day, a fun round-trip drive with Row, and a perfect excuse to have spare garage keys made, which we'll leave in our respective glove boxes... or cover the rear stoop... or rethink latching the front door...or stop on the way home at the Shepherd Bar for a beer.

Being back in Michigan has been enlightening, and there are only worse things.

I Want to Vote for a Woman for President

I mean it. I really do. I want to vote for a woman for president. We’ve had a couple centuries of male presidents, and it’s well passed the time that we give a female a shot at it. Throughout our history, lots of women have run, and rather than provide a list here, see this site.

It wasn’t until 2008 that someone other than a white man was elected POTUS, and because I know our first African-American president, President Barack Obama, engenders strong feelings on both sides, and because this is about women candidates, I’ll keep my opinion to myself and leave judgments to history. But, like I said, I really do want to vote for a woman for POTUS. I’d add “in my lifetime,” but this would be silly as I clearly couldn’t do it any other way.

This year, 2016, two women are running. I think this is great, and I hope it’s a trend for the future. I’m an independent voter and am registered with no political party. I’m a Liberal, but although I do know many folks who are far left of me, I tend to think and act moderately. Call me a Moderate Liberal, I guess. I think it’s great that the two women who are running are on opposite sides, but I’ve known that I won’t be voting for either one of them for some time.

I can’t abide Carly Fiorina because I think she’s making that faulty assumption that a government is like a business and that it can be run by applying business principles. It isn’t, and it can’t; otherwise it would have been long before now. Besides, even if I accepted this false premise, her questionable business choices at Hewlett-Packard, a once amazing company, would disqualify her. As for the other woman running, I simply don’t trust Hillary Clinton.

I used to be a big fan of Hillary Clinton. So much a fan was I that I wrote her a letter in 1999 offering my services as a speechwriter should she ever decide to run for office. (Yes, I really did this.) She was kind enough to reply to my letter back then, but I don’t trust her because I think she is as much a political opportunist as any man and is as beholden to outside interests as any man, and these are two things I don’t like about politicians in general, regardless of gender. Cynics might argue that this is how you have to be to be a politician, but I would argue that you don’t. You just have to be a human being, a good person, and people will respond to that. You don’t have to be someone who will say anything to get what you want. 

I don’t care about her emails; this is a red herring. This is just a way to get at her, to make her look bad. Should she have done things differently? Of course. I don’t think what happened in Benghazi disqualifies her either, because plenty of horrible things have happened on the watches of other Secretaries of State, and no one convened hearings about them, let alone the endless string that has come since Benghazi. I’m deeply sad for the families of those who died helping, but what’s happened since has been a dishonor to them, in my opinion. 

Nor do I care about her husband potentially being back in the White House as First Gentleman, although I have to think this title alone is causing no end of heartburn for thousands who hate the man. But I like him. Yes, he got Don’t Ask Don’t Tell completely wrong, he never should have pushed DOMA, he never should have allowed Glass-Steagall to die, and as a person in an obvious position of power, he totally messed up by having a sexual dalliance with an intern, a direct report (although all things being equal, I would argue that a smile on the face of the man [or woman] holding “the nuclear football” isn’t always a bad thing). So Bill doesn’t bother me. 

However, he’s not running; his wife is, and I don’t trust her. I do think she has some great ideas, and I agree with her on pretty much all of them. Yes, she made a mistake voting us into the Iraq invasion, and so did President Obama make mistakes where Nouri Al-Malaki was concerned after the last Iraq election. Many mistakes have led to the birth of yet another terrorist group; this was not all Bush 43’s fault or all Hillary’s fault or all Obama’s. I just don’t trust Hillary, and I can’t vote for her.

But I’ll say it again, I want to vote for a woman for president. I just don’t see the current options as folks I can support with my vote. I wish it were otherwise, but there it is. Maybe I'll get the chance to vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020, or as VP in 2016... hint, hint.

Update: I ended up voting for HRC in 2016 because the alternatives were far too awful. In retrospect, I'm glad I did.

Batman vs Superman? Really?

OK. I'd like to suspend disbelief, allow silliness to flow freely, let my mind wander back to a time when I was reading comic books regularly, and consider the upcoming Batman vs Superman film. 

Forget that these are DC Comics characters and DC Comics characters have not fared well in films: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace? The Green Lantern? Really? Jerry Seinfeld loving Superman notwithstanding, what am I missing, here? What's the draw? How can this POSSibly generate any sort of drama? Superman kicks Batman's ass, every time, no contest, end of movie. 

Batman and Superman walk into a bar, and the bartender says, "What is this, a joke?"

Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Batman.
Batman who?
The Batman who gets his ass kicked by Superman, every time.

Batman is a normal human with no super powers, a hardened suit, an off-road vehicle even the US Army rejected, and a Swiss Army-belt full of gadgets. 

Superman is, well, Super. He can fly. He can lift buildings. He can make the earth spin backwards. He can melt things with his eyes, freeze things with his breath, and change clothes faster than you can say, "Does this cape make my butt look big?" 

Wait... did I mention he can fly? 

Batman? He can jump and hang from things. Golly. This would be like Michael Jordan playing H.O.R.S.E. against me. I can spell the word.

Nope. Unless Batman dresses in Kryptonite pajamas and hugs Superman nighty-night, Batman gets his ass kicked and I just don't get it.

Christmas cookies...

Even though I'm pretty much a heathen these days, I do appreciate Christmas stories and am moved to tell one that took place back in December, 1988, our first Christmas in California. 

My mom used to make these great cookies. They were peanut butter with a Hershey Kiss in the center of each cookie. They rocked. They were like their own food group. Row loved them as well. That year my mom told us she had sent a box of them to us in Mountain View and we were jazzed when the box arrived. My dad had packed the box. He was the packing guy. He could pack anything to withstand a direct hit from a bazooka. 

Anyway, upon unwrapping and opening the box, we noticed this dreadful, wafting, evil aroma of rubber. Really nasty. (Like walking into a tire store or a modern-day Harbor Freight. If you've ever done either, you know that smell.) Her legendary McFadden olfactory sense operating perfectly as ever, Rosemary immediately made a face and backed away, but I --- not wanting to believe what I knew in my heart was the real truth of it --- grabbed one and popped it in my mouth. How could I not? It was one of those cookies and... it was made by Rita O'Brien! You guessed it, that cookie tasted exactly how the box smelled, only a whole lot worse because it was in my mouth. It was dreadful. I had a boot in my mouth, but a boot I was, nevertheless, yearning to chew and swallow. It was beyond dreadful. It was whatever word that "dreadful" uses.

We examined the box and sure enough it was a box in which a pair of rubber boots had been shipped from some factory and in which those (or other) boots had been stored for what was probably a very, very, very long time. My dad had, no doubt, found the box, had probably thought, "This'll be perfect!", and had then faithfully worked his usual packing magic, all the while never noticing (or simply ignoring) the delicate-as-a-hammer fragrance of Eau de Firestone. Well, not being the brightest bulb at times, I had to try another, only to remove it from my mouth every bit as fast as I had removed the first one. I even tried airing out the cookies, but to no avail. The odor was in each cookie, forever. In fact, wherever those cookies are now, they probably still reek of rubber. Eating those cookies was a non-starter from the moment Harry found that box. Those cookies were doomed.

The word "heartbroken" doesn't quite cover it.

At any rate, being the kind person my folks made sure I was, I told my mom and dad that the cookies were great, told them thank you, and told them that I loved their thoughtfulness. I never told them the true story. There was no need. The simple acts of baking them, packing them, and sending them to us were better than all those cookies ever could be, times 1000 boxes. In retrospect, it was just as well, because that single box probably contained more useless calories than any 20 people needed in a week, let alone the two of us.

I thought I'd share.

They're definitely not a JV team...

Before I begin, please know that I'm a naive idealist. One more thing. I employ a logical fallacy by engaging in ad hominem (name-calling) argument. I admit all this freely. Enough preface. 

Back in 2014, the conservative media were beside themselves when President Obama compared Da'esh to a junior varsity (JV) sports team. Was that a glib remark on his part? Sure. Should he have never said it? Probably not, because that sort of blithe statement always seems to come back to bite. But regardless of the spun/counterspun defense by supporters, or of the hateful invective of detractors, his was a fair comparison between real teams versus faux teams; however, his analogy was unfair to JV teams everywhere, because when a JV team does compete, it has the self respect and good grace to do so against other JV teams, head to head, team to team, evenly matched. What Da'esh has been doing, conversely, is surprise-attacking target-rich, non-militarized environments, such as civilian aircraft, magazine offices, small Iraqi and Syrian towns, and French shopping malls, theaters, and restaurants. 

This is akin to a fully suited-up football team scrimmaging with children from a daycare center and then bragging about a victory that was never a contest and not anything even remotely close to a fair fight. 

Oh, bravo and well done you. 

Clearly, I'm facetiously straining this army-as-competing-sports-team analogy, but it does accurately describe things: Da'esh has yet to go head to head with a real army, with a real fighting force, with another evenly matched group on an even playing field. The Iraqi army is a living oxymoron, unworthy to be used as a comparable entity. It truly is the "daycare kids' team." A possible exception? the Kurdish Peshmerga, with whom Da'esh has had its hands full; if the Peshmerga could get the weapons they need to be on an equal footing, Da'esh would be in big, big trouble. Da'esh seems to realize this, too, because what they've done in response to it is lash out at the defenseless and unarmed and claim, in so doing, to be heroes for their cause. 

Look, it must be absurdly and understandably frustrating (as admittedly understated as this word might seem) for anyone to have had to live under the results and effects of the poor decisions made by Britain and France when the ridiculously arbitrary and unfair Sikes-Picot Agreement was struck back in 1916. Yes. Agreed. No argument from me. These two countries were nothing but invaders and colonialists, and it is inarguably and always wrong for any outsiders to lay claim to any land that isn't theirs and to dictate policies to that land's sovereign people. The Brits tried it with us and look where it got them. The French tried it in Indochina, which we 60-somethings know as Viet Nam. Some might argue that the Israelis have been doing something similar since the late 40s with disastrous effects. The USA pulled similarly heinous stuff with the North-American Indians in the 18th and 19th centuries. And it was equally unfair and unwise of the USA to invade Iraq in 2003 under the false flags of a connection with the 911 attackers and the presence of non-existent WMDs.

But before you get your gung-ho hackles up, be completely honest: how would you feel as an American if some other country came into the USA and set up an unjustified, uninvited presence in, say, Arizona or Montana or Oklahoma, simply because that invading country claimed that doing so was necessary for A) its national interests and B) your country's own good? Precisely. You'd be pissed. Allow me to further suggest that even the most vitriolic Obama-haters would probably go out of their minds if a foreign entity attempted to come into the USA and depose him by force, but this wanders from the point. 

The point is, we are not even close to blameless in this regard, and no matter the actors, them or us, all such examples have largely been a function of making huge mistakes, resulting in bad decisions, yielding terrible outcomes. We aren't doing ourselves any favors when we continue to prop up (or depose) dictators who mistreat their own people and who will inevitably be replaced by, you guessed it, more dictators. The other side-effect of laying down with dogs is waking up with insurgencies; some have suggested that Da'esh is just one such insurgent result of our incursion into Iraq. Does anyone doubt that a home-grown insurgency would rise up here if another country invaded the USA?

Yet even as bad as these historically and objectively terrible decisions were, and they were all really terrible decisions, none of them is an excuse for throwing grenades at unarmed people at a rock concert or murdering unarmed diners in a restaurant or slaughtering unarmed children in their schools or selling women and children into slavery or beheading dutiful journalists or burning innocent people in cages. You want a real fight? You want to show how tough you are? Then man the fuck up and fight with real combatants who are just as well armed as you are, and stop killing innocent people who are blameless, unarmed noncombatants. Seriously. If someone slaps you, only an asshole kicks the cat in response.

Barrack Obama's critics were correct: Da'esh is definitely not a JV team. Nope. What it is, though, is a psychotically delusional death-cult of pathological pricks who think it's heroic and noble to slaughter innocent, unarmed men, women, and children. The day will come that Da'esh gets the fair fight it so richly deserves, and when it does, it will have its collective ass handed to it.

For reasonable, sensible, fair-minded (and naively idealistic) people everywhere, that day can't come soon enough.

Does any GOP candidate know about Article VI?

Last Thursday evening's three-hour-plus GOP debate was nothing short of a pander fest. And before anyone takes umbrage, I know, I know... Dems pander all the time as well; it's what politicians do. But pandering for something that is counter to the spirit and, quite literally, the letter of the US Constitution is another thing entirely. 

If the GOP's candidates weren't consuming CNN airtime praising Ronald Reagan, slamming Planned Parenthood, or showing just how much they loved Israel, they were trying to show their potential voters just how Christian they were, and very little could matter less in real terms. 

In a recent Politico story, Donald Trump was said to be actively courting the evangelical vote in order to bolster his sagging poll numbers, even after he has publicly stated he doesn't read the bible or ask God's forgiveness for much of anything. Former Governor Huckabee, one of the many GOP candidates and a former Baptist pastor, is telling his followers that, if necessary, he'll ignore man's laws in order to adhere to God's laws, even as he decries the supposed rise of Sharia law in the USA. (Apparently the word theocracy has more than one meaning for the Huckster.) Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz, who's also running, launched his campaign at Liberty University (to a captive audience, quite literally), which was founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Cruz recently crashed Huckabee's pander party at the rally for Kim Davis without much success. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's Governor and yet another GOPer on the campaign trail, has recently mimicked Rick Perry's "Response" rally with one of his own. 

And the list of candidates attempting to show their close and personal connection to Jesus goes on and on. But even as these same candidates admonish voters to follow the constitution über alles, they, and the folks who support them and tacitly require them to proclaim their Christianity, all seem to ignore an important part of that very same constitution, which they all claim to love so, so dearly: Article VI.

Next time you hear or read something about someone questioning whether any political candidate or office-holder is Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Zoroastrian, or WhatEVERist, feel completely free to remind him or her of the following: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

And as you remind them, know that their doing otherwise is simply pandering. 

Updates, 10/27/15: Don Gump is now saying, "I don't know about that" when it comes to Dr. Ben Carson's religious beliefs, which happen to be founded in Seventh-Day Adventism. In other words, Don is impugning Ben (and pandering to his base, and please remember that "base" has more than one meaning) simply by pointing out Ben's religion and, thereby, calling it into question y way of a rhetorical statement. For a guy who professes to be so smart and know so much, it's difficult to believe he doesn't truly know about this. 

Meanwhile, Jeb! just met with Pat Robertson in a blatant pander to secure the evangelical vote in Bush's run for nomination. It. Just. Does. Not. Matter. Why? Because Article VI says so. Would that the same folks who constantly wail about the need to adhere to the constitution actually adhered to the constitution. 

Look, I don't give a rip who believes what, but this sort of practice and behavior represents exactly the type of mealy-mouthed garbage that Article VI of the US Constitution was intended to preclude. If you're running for office in the USA, it just doesn't matter what you believe.

Offer help to those who might need help...

Although this post will probably be taken by some as an opportunity to editorialize against what is, to them, a hot-button issue, to me what this post demonstrates is that yet another aspect of the ACA is working. (And yes, in saying this I am editorializing, but it’s my post… ;-) …go write your own.)

When we signed up for a 2014 healthcare policy under the ACA in November of 2013, we estimated our 2014 income based solely on information available to us at that time, but after doing our 2014 taxes, we found we were off in this estimate. We were low. As a result, we have to pay back 100% of what we received in 2014 policy-premium tax credits. 

So be it.

We both believe this scenario is proof that the ACA is working. Why? Because thanks to the ACA, we received A) healthcare coverage for which we otherwise could not have qualified, because of preexisting conditions or that we would not have received via an employer, because we're both retired, and B) the premium tax credit to help pay for it; however, due to a better-than-expected 2014, we ended up not being eligible for the premium tax credit after all.* Meanwhile, though, others who do qualify for this tax credit will also receive healthcare and will, subsequently, also be able to pay a little less for it. Moreover, still others who are on the cusp will have the chance to receive premium tax credits at the end of their tax year when they file, thereby reducing what they will have paid in healthcare premiums for healthcare they need, just like everyone else who needs it.

You bet this is wealth redistribution, but so what? What’s the alternative? the invisible hand of the market reaching into its invisible pocket and pulling out invisible cash? People who can't even afford feeding themselves somehow finding the cash? Or worse, people going without even basic, subsistence-level healthcare, like some bizarre, Darwinian imperative made flesh? You can only pull yourself up by your own bootstraps if you can afford boots in the first place.

Having applied twice now, I can tell you the ACA is nowhere near a perfect system, but right after you suggest it needs to be repealed/eliminated, please also suggest a viable alternative, because we have US citizens who are one severe illness away from total financial collapse, and these are people who are neither freeloaders nor welfare kings/queens. Who are they? They're our parents, our grandparents, our uncles and aunts, our brothers and sisters, our friends, and complete strangers, many of whom were maybe not as fortunate, maybe not as able to provide for themselves. 

Look, I realize healthcare is not free. I get this. It isn't free because it can't be free. Doctors aren't free. Nurses aren't free. Hospitals aren't free. Procedures aren't free. Prescriptions aren't free. Even free clinics aren't free because donations help pay for them. I am not advocating for free healthcare, because it's an impossibility, by definition. Even the countries that provide healthcare to their citizens offer anything but free healthcare, because their citizens pay the taxes that pay for that healthcare. Free healthcare? No such thing.

What I am suggesting, though, is simply offering a "healthcare hand," so called, to people who might need it, and not an invisible hand with its invisible middle finger raised, either. A real hand. One these folks can grab and use to pull themselves up a little. 

But wait, you say, can we afford this? 

By way of an answer, ask yourself what we actually choose to afford, then ask the previous question again. Sure, the US spends money it doesn’t always have. I know this as well as you. But this is about priorities.

So, as just a few possible ways to help pay for the ACA's tax credits, maybe there are some...

...military bases or NSA listening posts we can close… or 

...giant corporations that aren’t paying their fair share of income/property taxes (corporations are people, after all, right?)… or 

...esoteric weapons systems we can resist having… or 

...giant piles of scrap metal we can sell in the form of obsolete weapon systems we no longer use… or

...badly needed infrastructure projects that, in being repaired/replaced, would generate  revenue through new wages and new sales taxes...or

...millionaire congress people who can forgo their pensions or who, in retirement, can afford to provide their own security… or 

...billionaire/millionaire Americans who can forgo their social security checks in retirement… or

...wealthy athletes, coaches, actors, actresses, directors, producers, agents, or publicists who advocate for wealth redistribution and who can, instead of just talking about it conceptually, simply write a couple of large checks now and again ... or

...gun owners/enthusiasts who buy/use/hoard guns and ammo --- as is their undeniable 2nd Amendment right, and mine --- maybe paying a little something extra for the privilege of buying/using/hoarding all those guns and all that ammo (one of the prices of freedom)... or 

...obscenely giant estates that can afford to pay higher inheritance taxes… or 

...little-used presidential libraries --- and don't we have enough already? --- that can shut their doors completely or just reduce their hours… or 

...ginormous sports organizations that routinely don’t pay for their own sports facilities, and yes, I'm talking to you FIFA, NFL, NASCAR, NCAA, IOC, et al. (see also, “corporations are people, after all”)… or 

...high-risk hedge fund and derivatives investors who might not be paying their fair share of income taxes... or 

...churches/temples/mosques/synagogues that sit on all-too-often-enormous tracts of currently untaxed city and county property… or 

...any number of other ways to come up with the cash.  

The undeniable fact is that we’re an aging country with people who need help now and will need some in the future. From whom will this help come? From those who can most afford to help, that’s who. Folks in need can always refuse help, but we can at least ensure we have the ability to offer it to them in the first place.

We claim to be exceptional, but why do we so often have such difficulty behaving that way?

* We have consequently opted out of premium tax credit assistance, going forward.