Goodbye, Sonia...

On Friday, May 27th, Sonia Gaudet Worthington succumbed to illness, leaving her husband and best friend, John, who was side by side with Sonia for the last 23 years, and by her side as usual in her last minutes of life.

Sonia was special. I've never met anyone like her and will likely never meet anyone like her.

She was quick to laugh (and had a wonderful laugh, at that) and was extremely slow to blame or accuse. She humored me with my stupid jokes and one-liners, she loved John and all their animals, and she made some of the best jambalaya it was ever my pleasure to eat.

I met Sonia and John through my wife, who worked with Sonia at Alza (now Johnson & Johnson) back in the early 90s. Sonia was a force of nature in Alza's shipping and receiving department and my wife took an instant liking to her kind and gentle heart, which Sonia allowed anyone who took the time, to see. I loved her instantly as well, and I'd prefer not to meet or know the person who didn't.

This is a cliché, but it's true: the world is diminished with Sonia gone from it, but through our brief chance to get to know her it was made a better place, and all of us, better people, by her presence, her grace, and her great strength.

I'll always love you, Sonia.

WSJ slams Mitt?

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has come out against presidential wannabe Mitt Romney saying he's a "compromised and not credible" candidate (and using the "RomneyCare" demagoguery they usually reserve for President Obama).

The newspaper's argument against Romney is that he put through a healthcare system in Massachusetts when he was governor. The WSJ (owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp) is yet again on the wrong side of an legitimate issue.

Rather than use its editorial voice to put forward a real plan, to suggest a way forward, to report on anything that could help millions who need assistance, to report on the plans for healthcare reform being offered by its Republican/corporate masters (from which not a single real plan has been offered, by the way), the WSJ instead chooses instead to slam Romney for his good-faith effort to help the people of Massachussetts.

If this clear cynicism doesn't prove the point, then nothing does.

Mitt Romney, like him or not and regardless of his party affiliation, at least tried to do the right thing for Massachusetts. Full stop. His current calls for repeal of the Affordable Care Act notwithstanding (and seemingly hypocritical), the irony of the situation he finds himself in is that he's probably an honorable man who is being vilified for having tried to do something honorable, yet he's being dishonored by people without a spec of it themselves.

Is Massachussetts' health system perfect? No way! But doing nothing helpful, simply sitting on the sidelines and criticizing those who are at least trying to help, is cowardly and shameful.

Now Romney is having to run away from the right side of an issue toward the wrong side only to be blind-sided.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Why attack our commuter rail when we're already destroying it?

The intelligence materials recovered from Bin Laden's compound indicate the terrorist was planning to attack the USA's commuter rail lines.

Consider the contempt our congress already demonstrates through their poor opinion of our rail lines: withholding rail funds; viewing light-rail as elitist and unnecessary; and seeing high-speed rail as a generally bad investment even as Japan and Europe effectively demonstrate its clear value.

Then, combine our government's general lack of leadership and interest with the public's general lack of ridership for Amtrak, and it could be argued that we're already doing far more to destroy or own commuter rail system than 10 Bin Ladens ever could have.

Yes, Bin Laden has preceded it in death, but our commuter rail system is not far behind him.

Theocracy, here we come!

Rick Santorum, proponent of intelligent design, opponent of gay marriage, proponent of the need to fear sharia law, opponent of any Democrat simply on the basis of his claim of how unsafe they are when they're in power, etc., etc., is running for President of the United States, in 2012.

In a recent interview with CBN, he and his wife, Karen, suggested this action is what God has "told" them to do in order to "defend God's truth."

OK. Maybe it's just me, but this is goofy on several levels.

First, when you lose your job as senator, it's usually for a pretty good reason: you probably did/said something to demonstrate you're not at all qualified for the position. So, what does Mr. Santorum do as a result of this clear demonstration by the voters of their gross loss of confidence in him (he lost re-election by 18 percentage points)? He decides to run for POTUS!

Riiiiight... Mr. Santorum might need to research "The Peter Principle."

When a mid-level manager loses his job for doing or saying something that results in a lack of confidence in him, chances are pretty good that then going for the CEO position is not a brilliant move.

Is Mr. Santorum demonstrating good judgment in his decision to run for POTUS?
Is this the act of someone who will (re)instill confidence in him?
Or is this the act of a man who's playing to a perceived base?

Second, I stake no claim to having a personal relationship with the Almighty. Back when I was in Catholic school, serving masses as an altar boy, and going to church pretty much every day, I made a couple of heartfelt pleas: when my dad lost his job and when I allowed his heirloom Elgin pocket watch to go through a wash and rinse cycle and come completely apart. But since then, we don't speak much.

Having said this, and given my admittedly limited intimacy with God, I'm nevertheless fairly certain He doesn't give a good running rip whether or not Rick Santorum runs for dog catcher, let alone POTUS. And while I also think that God doesn't much care that football players or baseball players want Him to care about the outcome of their kick-off returns or at-bats, if Mr. and Mrs. Santorum are suggesting their direct line to the man upstairs is manifesting itself in God's need to have Mr. Santorum run for president, then they're both not to be trusted on this score alone, along with Misters Falwell (RIP, 1933--2007), Farakhan, and Robertson, the Pope, and anyone else who thinks that God gives a good Hisdamn about what they think or do!

Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Santorum say they (and that along with them we all should) fear the Islamic goal of establishing Sharia law throughout the world (their claim, not mine), and that this sort of forced theocracy is a bad thing.

OK. We finally agree on something. A theocracy is a bad thing. No argument there.

But in their hearts, what do they want here? What is it they're working for here? A Christian theocracy, that's what.

Aside from Christianity being their religion, aside from Christianity providing the laws in which they believe and by which they wish to live, a theocracy is a theocracy is a theocracy, and whether it's founded on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, or the Church of the Subgenius, a theocracy has no place in a democratic republic such as ours.

Look, like everyone else, Mr. and Mrs. Santorum have every right to say the things they say, to pray to whomever they wish to pray --- and about what they wish to pray --- and to believe the things they believe, but they have no right to force on anyone else what they claim is being forced on them, because just as there is freedom of religion, there is also freedom from religion.

I say good on you, Mr. Santorum! Run for POTUS. But what'll you do after you lose... yet again? Run for king of the world? Nowhere to go but up.

Good luck with that, Rick and Karen. Maybe you can sue someone for giving you bad advice. Now... who might that be?

Give me a break, please!

A wonderful friend of mine who I've known for years sent me a link to another one of those sites that purports to have the real skinny on the whole Obama-isn't-one-of-us thing.

This friend is a good person who wouldn't harm a fly and who doesn't buy into any of this stuff, but he's being inundated with a barrage of emails from an acquaintance of his who does believe this crap.

He asked me what I thought about the issue addressed in the latest hateful email he's received.

Following is my response to my friend.

CAUTION: This response uses a word that I never use and that should be offensive to anyone with even half a brain!

"This is just more of the same pure bullshit that Tates, Limbaugh, et al., have been spewing and nothing more.

Full stop.

The statement that snopes.com says this is true is a lie, but these folks know that if you repeat any lie often enough people will believe the lie. For proof of this: they believe the lies that all this is true!

See this link and this link, which is GREAT as well! (the second one shows one of these fake certificates that someone actually created for Michelle Bachmann!)

This crap is just that. Crap.

Although I don't know him, please allow me to suggest that you find a new doctor, because yours is either an idiot, a bigot, a racist, or all three. Only one of these would suggest this BS is true, let alone believe it, and especially someone with a proper education.

This all comes down to one simple thing: some really cruel and stupid people are pissed because we have a n&@@er in the White House, and you know me, I do not use this word, EVER! I use it here only rhetorically, to make a point.

They just can't stand it. It's driving them nuts. They're pissed. They're beside themselves.

Well guess what? The democracy they're so fond of waving a flag for works after all! Oh horrors. Go figure.

They're assholes, the lot of them.

Look, we have SO many truly important issues that we just HAVE to address before we EVER get to this sort of hateful, racist garbage.

Question: When was the last time a sitting president was asked to prove citizenship?

Answer: It's never happened.

Reason it's now happening: We have an African-American president whose name is Barack Hussein Obama and whose father is from Kenya.

Reason it's never happened before: see 'Reason it's now happening.'

I'll stop now."

This really pisses me off...

The White House has just released President Barrack Obama's long form birth certificate for public viewing.

Section 1, Article 2 of the constitution sets eligibility requirements for serving as president. The 12th and 14th amendments provide additional clarifications.

So tell me, please... when in your lifetime has a candidate for president been forced --- either by public outcry or some legal justification --- to make public his or her birth certificate?

The answer? Never.

This really pisses me off.

His having to do this is pure bullshit and, worse, a function of pure racism, and there's no two ways about this.

The White House has had to do this only because the president's name is Barrack Hussein Obama, only because the president is an African-American, and only because to those US citizens who didn't vote for the president --- and it's the right of every US citizen to vote or to not vote for whomever they wish --- to those who are unhappy he won, to their way of thinking we now have a darkie in the White House for the first time ever.

Rather than seeing this as a milestone, as one of the strengths of the democracy they claim to love, these assholes use it as a wedge to divide us further.

Look, I apologize for using the clearly pejorative term "darkie"; I know it's offensive. I don't use it in conversation and I don't use it lightly.

But please understand I use it now only to make a point because I'm pissed off: this whole thing is garbage and anyone who has suggested he needed to do this, needed to prove himself to anyone else, should be ashamed.

But they won't be ashamed because the same shamelessness that caused them to open their small-minded traps in the first place will prevent them for demonstrating any shame now.

This really pisses me off, and it should piss off anyone reading this as well.

And now The Donald, Clown Circus Spokesperson, is taking credit for this release by the White House, and Rence Preibus, Chairman of the RNC, is accusing President Obama of playing politics by the timing of the release.

Could there be two cheekier f%&@ers than these guys? Ever hear the expression "you just can't win?" Sheesh.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Taxing the boundaries of common sense...

Speaker of the House Boehner is claiming that the good jobs data out today is a function of tax cuts and not the stimulus, that if you make rich people richer, they'll in turn give jobs to or somehow create jobs for non-rich people. He went on... wait a minute.

Wait just a damn minute.

Isn't this just voodoo economics? Isn't this just trickle down economics? Isn't this just the same tired foolishness the Repos have been trying to sell for 30 years?

It is?

Oh, OK. I thought for a minute the Repos might have finally come up with something new. Too bad. It sure sounded good.

I've solved the health care problem!

According to Global Research, the USA has 757 military bases throughout the world. According to about.com, our world is home to 195 countries. Simple math tells us this is an average of 3.8 military bases for each country. Now obviously, we don't have a base in every country, but it begs the question "Why do we have military bases anywhere else but here?"

Is this some sort of oddly internecine jobs program? Is the USA trying to maintain full employment for soldiers?

Before you dismiss me as a liberal (and I am one), please know that I'm a huge fan of our soldiers. Every time I see one of them I walk up and thank him or her and shake hands. I've bought tables of Air Force pilots lunch here in Albuquerque. I think these men and women are often asked to do thankless jobs (as they are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and needlessly as it turns out), and they deserve my thanks, at the very least.

But let me ask a simple question: How would we feel if another country felt it was in their national interest to put a military base somewhere in the USA?

What if France wanted to put a base in Napa or Sonoma Counties to monitor the sparkling wine industry?

What if Ireland got fed up by Idaho's cutting into its potato market share and decided to put a base in Boise?

What if Australia thought that not enough Foster's Beer was being sold in Las Vegas and wanted to put a base next to the Bellagio to ensure Foster's sales were competitive?

What if Italy suspected pasta flour made from Kansas wheat was somehow tainted and wanted a base in Wichita in order to track its production?

What if Germany decided that the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee was being threatened by a union protest and wanted to protect its interests by installing a military presence in Chattanooga?

What if any country decided to take over Cape Hateras off the North Carolina coast, kick out all the locals, and install landing strips and munitions depots (just as the USA did to the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean)?

What if any country decided it would be a good idea to go to someone's island home, kick everyone out, test nuclear bombs there, and render it a radioactively hostile environment for anyone wanting to return there (just as we did to the Bikini Atoll)?

Answer? how do you think these countries felt about us doing this to them?

And how much money are we spending on all these bases? What is the value of the real estate? Who do the bases serve besides us? Why are we spending all this cash? And, how much health care could the billions upon billions upon billions that we spend purchase for people in the USA?

No, this is nowhere near a new or original idea, but it's a good idea, nevertheless, and it simply has to be explored.

Where's the big-government outrage, Republicans? Where's the fiscal responsibility, Tea Partiers? Where's the sense of altruism and fair play, Democrats?

Whose fault will some see this to be?

Sadly, the four US citizens aboard the yacht taken by Somali pirates were killed by their captors at some point during the negotiations for their release.

There is no doubt about it, this is tragic. These people did no one any harm and were simply doing what their faith moved them to do.

Faith is a funny thing; it's usually difficult to prove, but I would argue these four self-made missionaries proved theirs absolutely in no uncertain terms. I'm not a Christian, but I respect a sincere search for truth, and I'm sad for their families and and their friends and that's the truth.

But another truth is this: these people were murdered by Somali pirates. No one else did this. No one else is responsible. No one else is at fault.

All of this said, however, this tragedy will be spun, somehow and by some, as the fault of the Obama administration, if even only tangentially, it will be nevertheless their fault, their shortcoming.

Wait and see, and mark my words.

Among the evangelical far-right fringe (a base well represented by Fox News), this episode will be spun as a lack of leadership, that had Obama truly been a Christian (and not a closeted Muslim as "everyone knows" him to be), he never would have allowed this to happen; as if his long presidential arms could somehow reach to the East African coast and pluck these people away from their boat, away from harm, away from what will inevitably be viewed as their martyrdom.

Make no mistake: this is tragic.

And again, I'm sad for their families and their friends, but what's more tragic is that supposedly Christian people will sadly use it to their own un-Christian ends.

Mubarek's post-departure plans change...

Upon announcing that he would step down after 30 years of repressing his own people, Egypt's Hosni Mubarek told the press he planned to travel to the USA as soon as practical in order to give a big wet kiss to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh for supporting his regime by trying to convince their listeners that Mubarek's staying in power was a good thing for Egypt, for the US, for Fox News, and for the world.

Mr. Mubarek said through an interpreter that he wanted to, "Give a big shout out and props to his new BFFs on the rockin' Republican right," and to visit the US banks where he's squirreled away millions during his rule. "Then I might go to Disneyland," he said.

Upon hearing of Mubarek's plans, Beck said, "I fear for what's to come... place a new world order to buy gold now," and then began to cry into a gilded towel; Palin said through an interpreter that she wants "Anyone from the Obama administration to call me in Alaska and tell me who will now be in power in... in... what country was that again? I wrote it on my hand but it wore off"; on his radio show Hannity screamed, "Muslim Brotherhood, RAWK! Muslim Brotherhood, RAWK!" and Limbaugh said, "This sucks because I've been practicing mockingly rude imitations of an Egyptian accent for a week."

With friends like these, Mr. Mubarek is indeed a lucky, lucky man.

Life imitates art... er... commercials...

Is it just me, or has anyone else who regularly watches the Golf Channel noticed that almost every advertisement is for Cialis, the erectile dysfunction (ED) drug.

These ads used to involve couples sitting in separate bath tubs. (Nope... I have no idea either.) But lately, they're a collection of scenarios involving some couple busy doing some thing --- eating breakfast, working in the yard, painting a wall, hiking on a trail --- when suddenly they're both overtaken by a rampant urge to rut.

Then, as they begin smiling suggestively at one another, readying themselves for pleasures to come, the buildings and land around them mechanically transform into what, Sexworld?

Now, I had thought these ED ads were just bizarre, simply goofy, but an insidious undertone is emerging that makes me realize advertisers just might be smarter than we give them credit for being.

Think about it.

The Golf Channel airs all things golf, and golfers are an odd lot whose jargon is replete with innuendo.

From balls, to shafts, to stroke play, to "getting it into the hole," to "nutting" shots, to spectators shouting "In the hole!" to "getting it up and down," to "knocking it stiff," golfers talk it, and all those ED ads suggest golfers must walk it as well.

But although the underlying message here might address the overarching question of "Wanna get laid?" with the answer "Just play golf," it might instead be that all this shaft-and-balls talk is pure cover for the real problem: that knocking it stiff is only possible with some help.

I beg your pardon?

What is the freaking deal with all this Jim Morrison pardon stuff?

Seriously. WTF cares?

The guy was a spoiled-rotten-malcontent-drug-and-alcohol-addicted knucklehead who couldn't for a moment appreciate the lucky position he found himself in, who had a mediocre (at best) voice, and who possessed very little other redeeming value given his absurd behaviors. Further, The Doors were incredibly overrated (and still are) and didn't even have a bass player, for crying out loud!

And Morrison was a poet? Oh please. Give me a break.

The guy who writes cereal box blurbs for Kellogg is a better poet.

The worst Hallmark-card writer on his worst day is a better poet.

Whoever it is who writes those roadside Burma Shave rhymes is a better poet.

Who cares if Jim Morrison is pardoned or not? Who cares he was ever convicted of anything in the first place!?! Who will sleep better knowing he's been pardoned? WHO CARES?!?!

Really?

Nope... I just don't get it.

An update to this ridiculous story.

Someone just has to step up!

What we are witnessing almost universally in USA politics is a complete lack of will, an inability to demonstrate honesty and integrity, to say what has to be said to get things turned around instead of just to be re-elected. Almost no one seems to want to step up.

Instead, almost all politicians turn to pandering in order to be re-elected as their primary goal as office-holders, regardless of the shallowness and transparency (the bad kind) of the pandering remarks and positions they offer and take.

At some point people will have to step up and step into these offices at all levels, speak the truth, and take the consequences, which will mean term limits virtually by default, as recently happened with Alan Grayson in Florida. Sure, Grayson was a bomb-thrower and a loose cannon, and behaved somewhat callously toward his opponent during their campaign, but while in office he told the truth. Anyone who does as Grayson did will almost assuredly be as hated as Grayson was and be voted out of office after one term, as Grayson was, but they will have behaved honorably by speaking truthfully and acting honestly about what needs to be said and done. This is true for the US Presidency on down to City Comptroller.

John McCain, as one example, has made a career out of being a senator simply by blowing in whatever direction the wind points him in order to be re-elected and to continue and further his career. That he contradicts himself constantly, and there is abundant video tape to prove this, seems not to matter, to anyone, let alone to him.

Moreover, "the American people," who candidates and politicians are so fond of saying they understand so thoroughly, will at some point just have to stop acting like self-interested, wishy-washy wind-blown goofballs who on the one hand readily accept and use the obviously Socialistic medical and retirement payments they receive from the Socialistic government they lambaste, and on the other claim for all to hear that they hate Socialism and just want their government back, their country back, and their freedoms back.

Huh?

Even as these "American people" screeched and squealed, they voted Bush 43 back in for a second term while he and his cronies weakened the Bill of Rights, the economy, national security, and pretty much everything they touched and simultaneously strengthened the stupidly wealthy to be wealthier still. Who's more stupid?

Yikes.

And now these same "American people" are about to have these same folks back in power who are actively claiming they want to return to doing the same things they did before (QED), and, in so doing, they again ensure their careers as politicians, again ensure they can pander to a willing throng, and again ensure that these same goofballs who keep electing them will go back to gratefully accepting the public handouts and to keeping silent about the government, the country, and the liberty they now think they have back.

But we can't go back to that!

In at least one aspect, the Tea Parties are right (and I am as surprised as you to hear me say this), but I'll take it a few steps further: we will have to fix social security, and Medicare, and Medicaid, and it will take tough decisions and choices. We will have to draw down our military from around the world and use the money elsewhere as we find jobs for the returning soldiers. We will have to draw down our debt and stop wasting money, even as we spend money to help people who need help. We will have to learn to see that this "American dream" is a shared experience and not some oddly Darwinian every-man-for-himself. We will have to stop enabling corporations to ship jobs overseas and instead enable them to put people back to work here. We will have to vote career politicians out of office and continue to seek out and support people who will behave honorably and speak truthfully and accept the possibly term-limiting consequences of both behaviors.

And we will have to do all this very soon, otherwise, we will run out of time.

Someone just has to step up.