I wrote this piece in a moment of prescience about six months ago, only a month after the Coronation Inauguration of our current White House Resident. Even then, while most of America still found him enchanting, which is to say “while they were still hypnotized,” I knew the day would come when the Obots would start waking up and wondering, “OMG! What the hell have we done?”

I imagined it would be that kind of feeling you get when the honeymoon is over, when you wake up next to the person you have just pledged your life to, and see a total stranger… and it’s someone you don’t like anymore. So I imagined what one might say to a friend or family-member when she realized she had made a fool of herself over some nogoodnik.

*********************************************

Awww. Poor baby. There, there. It’s going to be OK.

So the guy you thought was Mr. Wonderful turns out to be Mr. Disappointment. He’s let you down in so many ways. You thought he would change your life for the better, and now you wish you’d taken time to get to know him before making that big commitment. It’s called “vetting.”

After your previous long and painful relationship, you had a chance to do it right this time, and you blew it. You made a bad choice while you were on the rebound, and now you’re stuck with him.

We tried to warn you, but you wouldn’t listen.

Rebound relationships are usually doomed from the start. You’re so happy to be free of the old one, you rush into the next with your hair on fire.

You start thinking how all the happiness you’ve been missing is just around the corner, in the person of that attractive stranger you hope to meet real soon.

Before you know it, you’re making the rounds, asking friends for introductions, looking for love. Having just ended a bad relationship, you are a bit vulnerable, whether you realize it or not. You find yourself willing, even eager, to believe in magic again.

So, as it usually happens, along comes someone that sweeps you off your feet. Someone who seems really exciting and not at all like The Monster you just got out of your life. This person is different! This person could be The One! Your Savior!

It’s called “infatuation.” You are chemically ready to form a new partnership with a new love. It’s over-powering! It’s so fun! So exciting! So… insane!

You don’t even KNOW this person, and yet there you are, giving all you have to a virtual stranger, swept up in the “newness” of it. You keep saying, “it’s never felt like this before! This must be true love!”

“I feel like I’ve known you my whole life!” you exclaim passionately. Or perhaps it’s, “I feel like we were meant to be together! You are the one I’ve been waiting for!”

You are so excited, you can’t stop talking about your new love to all your friends. While they may share your happiness, inside they are trying to think how to tell you to slow the hell down!

They may know something about this person that you don’t, or maybe they just think you are not thinking clearly. They try to warn you to be careful. Slow down. Think it through. What do you really know about him?

And how do you respond to this caution from your friends? Not well!

You become defensive and paranoid. You think it’s ridiculous anyone would question your judgment.

“Why are you against me finally being happy? Why can’t you see how wonderful we are together?”

Your friends may ask if you have checked up on this person, if you have done any background investigating, or if you have some references to vouch for this stranger. The nerve of these people!!

You are willing to defend this stranger with your life. You are ready to dump lifetime friendships for this person who has bowled you over with giddy excitement. Whatever New Love says is the ultimate truth!

“And besides, all his friends are so cool! And they all think we are perfect together! So who needs fair-weather friends who can’t support my decisions and accept that I am now a better person and in a better place than before? Who needs you?!”

They try to reason with you, but to no avail. You are already over the edge. You are convinced this is it!

Now that you are committed to New Love, your Old Love is now The Enemy, along with all the old mutual friends! And the in-laws! And the people at your old hang-outs, and all your old friends who don’t enthusiastically support your new obsession. So you shut them out, every one of them.

Your new life now established, it’s time to settle down again and just be a couple.

Now for the first wavelets of doubt.

First, he disses your family and friends, more and more. He seems to care nothing about your life outside of him. He’s always needing money. You begin to wonder about the whole thing, and start to question him about a few things in particular.

Who was that on the phone? Why do you hide your email?

What happened to the money I had hidden in the cookie jar? What do you mean, “our” money?

Why can’t we go out this weekend? You have other plans? With who?

Are you lying to me? I can’t believe this! I gave up my whole life for you, and now you lie to me!

Is that even your real name? I feel like I don’t even know you anymore!

You told me when we met that you were going to do all these things, but now you’re saying something completely different! Whatever happened to our plans? Why are you turning away from me? Don’t you even care what I think anymore?

The Rebound Relationship everyone warned you about came into your life when you wanted someone different to change your life, to give you hope for something magical, to transform your life from the dreary to the new and exciting. And now, POOF! It’s over. And you are sadder, but wiser.

And your life has changed, all right. New Love has already maxed out your credit cards. Your bank account is empty. Mr. Wonderful is even bad-mouthing you while spending your money, and laughing at you because you were so gullible.

And your old friends, who tried so hard to warn you? Most of them will take you back, if you show a little remorse for treating them badly, and show that you have come back to your senses.

But for now, just have a good cry. There, there. It’ll be OK.

Why did the ragged rascal run around the rugged rock? There are searching questions to be asked!

The video is an oblique attack on political correctness and those dreary Sea Penn fans. (I have finally got around to watching Sean Penn’s performance in “Milk”. I think it’s a caricature that gives gay people a bad name. I will have more to say on that in a forthcoming video).

One viewer on my Youtube channel wrote that the poltically correct wording for “around the rugged rock the ragged rascal ran” is “”Around the irregularly-surfaced mineral chunk the pristine apparel-challenged mischievous person moved swiftly”.”

Oh, I still marveled at the painful truths he revealed to his audience. I was still awed by his ability to connect dots that the rest of us couldn’t even see. But strangely, I found myself envious of the audience’s ability to clap, cheer and even laugh. They were like some alien creatures from another era. They still had that Pre Election 2008, Pre Economic Meltdown, Pre Bank Bail Out mindset that wanted to believe – life is good. They knew Carlin spoke the truth. Yet, they still were able to believe that the best was yet to come.

_____

And if you think I’m being overly dramatic. And Mr. Carlin was exaggerating for the sake of laughs. Then you probably believe the Andy Borowitz’s piece below (h/t BGD) is just satire.

Goldman Sachs in Talks to Acquire Treasury Department:
Sister Entities to Share Employees, Money

In what some on Wall Street are calling the biggest blockbuster deal in the history of the financial sector, Goldman Sachs confirmed today that it was in talks to acquire the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

According to Goldman spokesperson Jonathan Hestron, the merger between Goldman and the Treasury Department is “a good fit” because “they’re in the business of printing money and so are we.”

The Goldman spokesman said that the merger would create efficiencies for both entities: “We already have so many employees and so much money flowing back and forth, this would just streamline things.”

Mr. Hestron said the only challenge facing Goldman in completing the merger “is trying to figure out which parts of the Treasury Dept. we don’t already own.”

_____

And if you still believe the Federal Reserve is still chaste and pure and doing good, then you might want to view this video by Lagan Sebert, Harry Hanbury and AmericanNewsProject.

h/t- Sonic Ninja Kitty
______

Then read this little excerpt from Glenn Greenwald’s recounting of The events preceding Goldman Sachs’ new “blowout profits”

UPDATE: … back in September, the Federal Reserve allowed Goldman (and a few other surviving institutions) to convert from an investment bank into a bank holding company. The Wall St. Journal claimed at the time that the move meant the firm would “come under the close supervision of national bank regulators, subjecting them to new capital requirements, additional oversight, and far less profitability than they have historically enjoyed.” …

But what the conversion did allow was access to lending from the Federal Reserve. Since then, the Fed has increased its balance sheet by $2 trillion while steadfastly refusing to disclose the beneficiaries of that credit. Thus, even aside from the bailout money it directly received and the billions in bailout money which it indirectly received (through AIG), Goldman has had access to massive amounts of Fed lending in order to fuel its bulging profits. …

As of Tuesday, the House bill to require a full-fledged audit of the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010 had won 275 co-sponsors and the companion bill in the senate has 17 co-sponsors. Sounds great. But lets not forget that the road to passage travels right through the House Financial Services Committee chaired by, none other than – Barney Frank. More Greenwald:

UPDATE III: It’s worth recalling this bit of central truth, blurted out in April by the number two Democrat in the U.S. Senate, Dick Durbin:

And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.

That was nice and blunt. That same week, it was announced that the newly-hired top lobbyist for Goldman Sachs, Michael Paese, was — immediately prior to his hiring — the top staffer to Rep. Barney Frank on the House Financial Services Committee chaired by Frank. …

_____

Now, if you still believe Ron Paul’s bill will magically pass through Barney Frank’s committee intact, maybe you need to start at the beginning and watch Carlin’s riff again, then read…

__________

And a major hat tip to American Girl in Italy for bringing these pictures to the attention of the NQ writers.

How did we miss this before?

This picture and the accompanying story ran in a NY Times blog back on January 20, 2009, the week before the inauguration of Barack Obama. The pictures are puzzling and a bit amusing, the story is kind of interesting (in a yadayadayada kind of way), and the public comments are nauseating. I’ll try to summarize each of these elements, but I fear if I have to read some of those comments more than twice, I’ll likely be too queasy to finish.

Here we see our current president in a picture from his college days, sitting next to his self-professed best friend and roommate, Sohale Siddiqi. These photos were taken in 1981, according to the NYT article. And by the way, isn’t that sofa upholstery the same material as Michelle Obama’s Inauguration Day outfit?

And who took the picture? Obama’s other roommate, Phil Boerner, who was the voluntary source of these pictures and was interviewed for the blog article in NYT from January. His picture is below, but please don’t peek ahead!

Here is a quote from that blog:

Mr. Boerner, who lives in California and is a registered Democrat, said he had kept his recollections to himself during the campaign, but thought he would share them now as his friend makes history.

Who are these people? Where have they been? And where are they now? And more importantly, what did they have to hide during the campaigns?

Is either of them married? Are they normal family men now, successful in their careers? Can they pass a UA?

Why were they silent and unknown during the election? Did someone “ask” them to hide in spider holes until after the election? Was a hint of cement shoes involved?

Is it just me, or does this seem kind of hinky? We’ve been asking each other and the world for the last year, “Where are Obama’s friends from his youth?” And, like our questions about his school records and other documentation from his adult past, those questions go unanswered. Even the crickets are mum.

Why the HELL didn’t the NYT, or any mainstream media, find and interview these guys and other people from Obama’s life when it counted most!?! During the election!

Why are we just now seeing this and hearing about his college roommates? The NYT buries it in a blog, and no other major media has done stories on Obama roommates and friends from his past. Why the hell not?

The answer is obvious. The MSM was protecting Obama.

We count on the media to investigate politicians. What they did to Sarah Palin was not that unusual for yellow journalism. However, there was a complete breach of faith and goodwill from the vast majority of major media; they made no attempt to vet Barack Obama. Instead, they became part of his team, labeling all the vetting questions as racist, right wing, and/or lunatic fringe. Meanwhile, they pass off their partisan opinions as neutral news.

And out of Obama’s whole academic and young adult life, not one single friend came forward at any of his campaign appearances, that I know of. Were these guys, or any other old friends from his youth, invited to the Inauguration? Or were they told to STFU?

Was Obama invisible for ten years? Didn’t he have any friends besides these two? Was he the original model for “The 40-year-old Virgin?”

So far, we still don’t know.

If I won the lottery or got famous, I’m absolutely confident that I’d be hearing from dozens of old friends from school days and beyond. Whether to ask for money or simply to share the spotlight, I know they’d be showing up. But not for the most popular president in history! Apparently he only knew these two guys.

Obama included Siddiqi in his book “Dreams of My Father,” referring to him as Sadik. Several sources I found used this description, or similar words:

Obama describes Saddiqi as “a short, well-built Pakistani” who smoked marijuana and snorted cocaine. Siddiqi was from Karachi, Pakistan and came to America from London on a tourist visa. He overstayed his visa, becoming an illegal alien.

Well-built? This is what Obama considers buff? He looks a bit, you know, frail to me. But then I wasn’t his roomie. Perhaps he was referring to a part of his anatomy not visible in this photo.

OK, that was a low blow. But speaking strictly for myself, if I was one of the guys on that sofa, there’d be some space between us. Pose or no pose.

This Sadik guy is worth a little research. I offer this link only as a suggestion for further reading about him, not as an endorsement of the sources. But I do advise you read up on him to help put their relationship into perspective.

Now it’s time to check out the picture of his other former roommate, Phil Boerner. He looks like he has Asperger’s Syndrome, like Jerry “Hands” Espenson, a character on Boston Legal (damn, I miss that show!). If you’re not familiar with Jerry, he keeps his hands clasped to the tops of his thighs most of the time, even while walking. It’s part of his Asperger’s Syndrome. I don’t know if the roomie pictured here has the syndrome, but his posture looks a bit odd to me. Maybe he’s just a dweeb. Or possibly a dork.

Left: This is Obama’s other roommate, Phil Boerner, in a photo he says was taken by Barack Obama in 1981. That’s probably why it’s fuzzy. Right: Jerry “Hands” Espenson, a character on Boston Legal, played by Christian Clemenson. And yes, he’s standing on his desk.

OK, that’s enough of the photos. Let’s review the article they came from. And then we’ll deal with some of the comments posted when the article ran in January, if I don’t upchuck on my keyboard first.

This article, based on Boerner’s recollections, does not say that Sohale Siddiqi was a roommate of Obama and Boerner, but nearly every source I could find stated that Obama and Sohale Siddiqi were roommates while Obama attended Columbia University in NYC, at the time these photos were taken.

Anyway, this article doesn’t even mention “Sadik,” but focuses instead on Phil Boerner, who stated that Obama was his roommate “for a semester.” I suppose there could easily have been three of them living together, but then this article states:

Though the two men stayed in touch, the housing arrangement ended that winter. Mr. Boerner thinks the leaseholder took the apartment back. Mr. Obama recalled in his memoir giving up the place “for lack of heat.”

Or maybe they were kicked out for other reasons. Mr. Boerner doesn’t seem to recall. Could it have been drug use? The illegal alien? Jealousy? I’m just asking myself these questions, not insinuating anything, mind you.

Boerner also recalls “Museums. Jogging in the park. Breakfasts at Tom’s on Broadway, not yet the celebrated hangout of Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza.” Hey, what about Elaine and Kramer? You can’t break up a set!

And “They listened to reggae. Bob Marley. Peter Tosh.” Gee, I used to love Bob Marley, too. I remember those pictures of him smoking those huge “spliffs,” or cigar-sized marijuana joints. And those lovely Bob Marley lyrics, like this line from Talking Blues, “And I feel like bombing a church, now that I know that the preacher is lying.” That’s a real quote, folks, just so you know.

And Boerner also recalled, “Some nights Mr. Obama would whip up some chicken curry, a dish he learned from a Pakistani friend. Other meals were at Tom’s.” Hmmm. A Pakistani friend? I wonder who that would be. Oh, I know! It must have been Babu!!

OK, let’s move on to the comments. Seriously, I’m provoking my own gag reflex here, so I hope it’s not contagious! Please, don’t read any further if you have a full stomach or are eating. Especially if it’s curry!

I have already given a citation for the original article, so you can read them all there, if you are inclined. And since I have cited the original, I don’t feel obliged to give “credit” or blame, in the way of giving the names of commenters quoted here. And I don’t mean to be overly dramatic about it. These comments are probably no worse than others you’ve seen in the last few months, but I was just so stunned seeing them with barely any rebuttal from sane people. So here are a few samples:

We have a President who befriended white guys from the Catskills and shared smokes with Pakistani students as a college student. That is severely cool.

Oh, yes!  Severely, if not catastrophically!

Obama has the psychological make-up of major world leader, let’s hope it’s for the good.

You can tell by the way he snuggles up to Pakistanis.

What humility, what heart, what a mind. I am in awe that we, the American people, finally picked a good one. Tears well in my eyes every time I look at him and his beautiful family. Let’s really get behind him and do what’s right.

Where’s my Mylanta?

He will be THE BEST, he is a true human being.

Oh, jeez, I hope I can make it to the bathroom!

I think it’s safe to say that if these political parties represent a family, it’s dysfunctional at best.

Democrats want to mother everybody, and that’s good in general, although it can be a bit stifling. Some of the mothers reading this might take offense at this idea, but ideally, everyone should aspire to taking care of ourselves without Mom coming over every day to clean and cook for us. I mean, Mom’s great, but jeezus, sometimes you just need her to mind her own damn business and let you live your life as an adult. She rearranges things in the kitchen, puts blue stuff in your toilet, and irons your wash’n'wear shirts. You just don’t need all that much help!

Republicans as dads are even worse. They not only demand you be perfect (or just like them, or both), they’ll refuse to help you out when you make a mistake! They figure that’s the only way you’ll learn your lesson. “OK, have it your way,” Dad says as you ignore his advice against eating a habanero pepper for the first time. He watches smugly as you defiantly bite into it, then laughs his ass off as you yell and start gulping water. Then comes his coup de grace:  “Just wait’ll it comes out the other end!” And he laughs some more.

OK, enough with the similes. My point is that it seems like the Republicans want to do what is best for us as a nation, as they interpret it, but when push comes to shove, they’re willing to let you hurt yourself or otherwise pay dearly for ignoring their advice. They are not always right, as in correct, but they are always sure they are right. In their defense, they would put their lives on the line to protect you from others, but if you want to hurt yourself, they’ll let you. In fact, they think it builds character for you to suffer. It’s good for you! But for themselves, they have most of the money and power, and they plan to keep it that way. They always keep the lion’s share for themselves. They make damn sure of that.

Democrats, by and large, are more likely to want to make you “be good.” They want everybody to be happy, but sometimes their good intentions backfire. They want everybody to feel special. But if everybody is special, nobody is special. Sometimes you just want what’s yours, what you’ve earned, and to hell with everyone else. But Democrats, like some mothers, are more socialistic. They insist you share everything, eat the same food, and wear the same clothes. It’s like Communism!

Take for example the mother who insists you share your Hallowe’en candy stash with your whiny little brother (who makes you sick with his fake crying). Mom says, “You’ve got more than enough for both of you, now you need to share!” Doesn’t matter that the little punk was too lazy to do his own trick-or-treating! You walked over 20 blocks in a stifling mask for that bag of treats. It was supposed to last you till next year! Meanwhile, little brother is making faces at you from behind Mom’s skirt.

Dad steps into the fray and says, “Give me that bag! If you can’t get along, neither one of you gets any candy!” He grabs the candy bag and takes it to his bedroom, where he starts digging through it for himself!

Now you’re mad. It’s all the little brother’s fault, and he’s gonna pay! But Mom sees that look you’re giving him, the one that burns holes in the wall behind him, and she decides she’d better do something before someone gets hurt. She marches into the bedroom to retrieve the candy from Dad, who by now is sucking melted chocolate from his fingers and the Milky Way wrappers in his lap.

Mom grabs what’s left of the candy and takes it into the kitchen, where she puts it on the top shelf, behind the old china passed down from her mother-in-law. She brings back two little packages of Smarties, gives one to each of the kids, promising you each get one piece of candy a day… “if you’re good”. This makes little brother happy, but you’re still pissed and thinking revenge. Mom is all proud of herself for being the peacemaker. She’s also thinking about which candy she’ll be munching on tomorrow while you’re at school.

Then there’s a crash in the kitchen! Pieces of broken china fly across the room as Dad yells some words you haven’t heard before. Mom grabs a broom and tells you kids to stay out of the kitchen. She sweeps up the worst of the broken stuff while Dad slips out the back door with the candy. Mom yells at him to stop, but he knows better and rushes to the garage, where he hides the candy in his gun locker.

Mom knows the candy is gone, and the kids are now fighting again, but she knows how to solve the problem. She packs the kids in the car and takes them out for ice cream!

Meanwhile, Dad takes advantage of being alone. He gets in his own car, stops at the liquor store, and rushes over to his girlfriend’s house for a quickie. She’s also his attorney, by the way. You know how Republicans are. They’re all in bed together behind our backs.

On the way back from the ice cream store, little brother pukes all over himself, thanks to the stress of the fighting, the candy, the ice cream, and that juice box Mom gave him on the way home. Too much of a good thing, I guess, but at least she meant well. Sometimes, Democrats and Moms just can’t help being generous to a fault.

After everything has been cleaned up, and the kids put to bed, Dad comes home, a little tipsy, and kind of red in the face. “What’s for supper? Eww, it smells like vomit in here! What stinks?” Mom starts toward him to get a hug and to cry on his shoulder, but stops three feet from him. “What stinks?” she asks mockingly. “From the smell of you, I’d say Johnny Walker and cheap perfume!”

They argue, then Dad storms out and doesn’t return for three hours. When he returns, he has a dozen roses in one hand, and in the other… a box of chocolates. Mom turns her back on him and stomps off to “her” bedroom. Dad attempts to follow, but trips in the dark over “his” suitcases in the hall.

He leaves, but before he’s gone a mile, he’s got his lawyer/girlfriend on the phone, ordering her to clean out the joint bank accounts and move it offshore.

Meanwhile, while little brother was sleeping, you put his hand in a cup of warm water and he pees himself in his sleep.

Well, it seems the similes crept back in. Or is it now satire?

Anyway, the moral of the story is this:

“Revenge is sweeter than chocolate! But in the end, everybody suffers.”

h/t suselit

____________

h/t Flopping Aces

___________

h/t Flopping Aces

___________

h/t Flopping Aces

___________

h/t Flopping Aces

___________

h/t Flopping Aces

This is the second, and probably last part of what I originally thought would be a serialized treatise on helping women to understand the idiosyncratic weirdnesses of men. I think maybe men are just too damn weird for women. Seems the more they learn about men, the less they like them. I can’t say as I blame them.  I don’t like men much either.

No offense is intended by anything written here, and I apologize if anyone is hurt or insulted. I’m just trying to explain those other guys… not myself. My thoughts on these matters is based on my many long years as a heterosexual male, observing my peers. This doesn’t mean I think as they do.  I just understand it from a man’s perspective.

Lesson Three: “Why are so many men homophobic?”

Probably the most contradictory aspect of the typical American man’s outlook on homosexuality is the dichotomy of homophobia as regards men, and the predominant male sexual fantasy of having sex with two women at once. Heterosexual men are as likely to entertain this fantasy as they are unlikely to ever actually achieve it.

Now don’t blow a gasket; I’m not talking about love and marriage here. I’m talking about sexual fantasies and primitive urges. And in the average male’s sexual fantasies, two women are better than one.  Three women becomes a bit cumbersome, but what the hell, why not.

As far as the fantasy goes, this shouldn’t be held against men, nor should men feel guilty for thinking about it. It’s part of our primal genetic wiring to want to enjoy the pleasures of women as often and as abundantly as possible. A plurality of sexual partners is not evil; it’s just culturally foreign to our Western sensibilities. It’s the urge for reproduction, continuing the species. Since one male can impregnate a large number of females, the beast (or id) within men sub-verbally and instinctively pushes them to want sexual relations with every attractive woman they meet. And her friends too!

Of course, a man has limitations, losing the ability to stay in the game after his big moment. But he can still watch, can’t he? And since everyone is naked anyway, he reasons, the two women should keep things going while he watches… and recovers from his 90 seconds of participation.

In other words, most hetero guys have no objection to bisexual women.

Some, however, are confounded by true lesbians. They don’t understand being excluded. Some morons might even think, “Well, she could change; she hasn’t tried me!” Believe me, 90% of normal guys know that any guy who thinks like that is not just stupid, he’s offensive. She should kick his ass. And we want to watch that too!

So the only time homophobia is a problem for most hetero men is if it involves other guys. This is the heart of the matter, and it’s a bit complicated.

As the famous Seinfeld episode repeatedly stated, paraphrasing, “I don’t want anyone to think I’m gay… not that there’s anything wrong with that.” I think what made that episode so funny and famous is the universal understanding of the truth in it. Men who aren’t gay always want to be 100% certain that nobody thinks they are gay, but they’re not anti-gay. They just don’t want there to ever be any question about it, where they are concerned. But they truly aren’t anti-gay. Homophobia doesn’t mean anti-gay, it means they are afraid of gay men. They think homosexuality might be contagious.

Where it starts getting complicated is when people tease a guy, insinuating latent homosexuality, if he shows any interest in any of the things commonly associated with gay men. Enjoying things like show tunes, gourmet cooking, interior decorating, or flower arranging are some things that have come to be associated with gay men, which makes them pretty much taboo for most hetero men. And some gay men think it’s funny to “out” guys who exhibit any interest in such things, even if they know for a fact it’s not true. They’re the “mean girls” among men.

Homophobia is often most apparent in the way straight guys keep their distance, physically, from gay guys. Where they might feel totally comfortable putting an arm around a buddy, or even hugging male friends, they are totally unsettled by physical contact with a gay man, even if they are friends.

There are several reasons for this. The most obvious is that they’re afraid the gay man will take it the wrong way. Similarly, they are terrified a gay man might make a pass at them or try to “convert” them. I mean, what if a gay guy grabs his ass and he likes it? What if one of them gets “visibly excited” or something! It doesn’t matter which one!

Equally indicative of homophobia is the way straight men won’t sit close to each other. They may sit next to each other, but there is always a space at least the size of a basketball between them. And if it’s two guys on a sofa, it means opposite ends; neither one sits in the middle. But in any situation, they must make sure there is a buffer zone between themselves and the next closest guy. Especially if there are witnesses!

They wouldn’t want anyone, especially the other guy, to get the wrong impression. Peer pressure from homophobes can make even the average guy really apprehensive about being perceived as “playing for the other team.” Homosexuality isn’t contagious, but homophobia is!

Even if they don’t think it’s catching, I think some men are afraid homosexuality is like cancer or something. They think they might discover, even by accident, that they are in fact gay. Maybe they think it’s like finding out you were adopted, something you never would have suspected, then out of nowhere you find out you’re not who you thought you were. I guess it’s kind of like having a fear of spontaneous human combustion; it’s not likely to happen, but you never know!

Come to think of it, it kind of makes sense to compare homophobia to any other phobia: an unreasonable fear that can’t be swayed with logic. It’s kind of like a superstition or a religious practice (like holding up a cross toward a vampire or other symbol of evil, or making the sign of the cross). It’s as instinctive as covering your face when you think something is coming at you. When the object of your fear gets too close, the phobia kicks in, and you instinctively take a defensive stance. Several feet away, if possible.

Am I homophobic? I don’t think so, but in all honesty I do confess occasional discomfort when I see gay men engaged in public displays of affection. My favorite uncle has been openly gay since I was 15, and I always enjoy his company, and have always treated his partners as welcome guests. I’ve always had gay friends or workmates whose company I enjoyed, so I have no guilt for my minor aversions. I’m certainly not afraid of gay men, nor do I fear catching the disease of gayness. So I don’t think I’m homophobic. I still prefer my buffer zone with other men, though. Arm’s length seems about right.

Part One (Lessons One and Two) can be read here.

But Keepon, the little yellow spongiform “peeps” looking robot, has developed a more serious side – dealing with autism.

Keepon was originally created by Marek Michalowski at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, US, and Hideki Kozima of the National Institute of Communications Technology (NICT) in Japan to be a less robotic, robot. And as the video above shows it would be hard to find a more engaging, human friendly robot. Which is why Keepon is one of many new robots being employed by researchers to study and possibly provide therapy to children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD).

From Robots to Fight Autism

Children with ASD often have trouble with the “dance” of body language and facial gestures needed to have successful conversations and social contact with others. Both reading the intentions of others and knowing their own emotions can be a struggle, and children often become stranded both emotionally and socially.

One baby in every 150 born today in the U.S. is diagnosed with ASD. Treatment involves a combination of therapies — behavioral, educational, physical, occupational, and speech — that is costly and not always effective. After finding that children with ASD interact more easily with robots than with people, researchers began developing expressive and interactive robots that can assist them in studying and creating effective therapy for the children.

Keepon’s gentle boogieing and its simple, innocuous appearance (five inches tall, rubbery, resembling two tennis balls stacked one on top of the other) make it perfect for interacting with socially withdrawn children. Armless and legless and only possessing two eyes and a nose, Keepon expresses itself mainly through its four movements: nodding, turning, rocking and bobbing.

However, Keepon does have a camera behind those eyes and a microphone hidden in its nose. Researchers Michalowski and Kozima have studied preschool children with ASD in Japan and have found that interacting with the robots draws the children into a range of new social behaviors. Videos of those encounters show the children feeding Keepon imaginary food, giving it imaginary medicine when it has a Band-Aid on its head, and protecting it against abuse by other children.

The most striking video shows one girl slowly forging a relationship with the robot. At first she refuses to even directly look at Keepon, but as the days go on, she draws closer to the robot, eventually touching it with a xylophone stick, then her hand. After weeks, she can be seen looking into Keepon’s eyes, putting a hat on it, and even giving it a kiss, an action she rarely performed even towards her own mother.

_____________________

Here is the original YouTube video of Keepon that created a bit of a sensation in 2007.

_____________________

And here is a great video of keeper Marek Michalowski explaining Keepon’s motions and capabilities.

_____________________

Keepon and Marek Michalowski on the Today show, last week.

_____________________

“BAIL EM OUT! ????

“Hellooooo,
back in 1990, the Government
seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada
for tax evasion and,
as required by law, tried to run it.

They failed and it closed.

Now we are trusting the economy of our country
and our banking system
to the same nit-wits
who couldn’t make money
running a whore house and selling whiskey!”

Only in America!

So, what other spectacular failures of government run businesses should we be remembering?

I have always been a huge Will Rogers fan. So when I spotted The Wit and Wisdom of Will Rogers at a used book fundraiser for our local Humane Society last summer, I snatched it up, took it home and added it to my collection of must read books. And there old Will sat, forgotten, amid dust bunnies, dog fur fluffies, and 30-50 other must reads on my office bookshelf, until this last Monday evening.

It was after listening to our new president give a lecturing rant to the American people on national (and international) television and then hearing the adoring hype of the talking heads, that old Will reintroduced himself to me. I, in a frustrated effort to cleanse my mind of all the saccharin cobwebs and ‘shovel ready’ garbage I’d just heard, stormed my office armed to the teeth with cleaning products, ready to scour everything in sight. 

But my attacked on dust and fur was short lived, for there sat Will Rogers patiently waiting for just this moment. What better prescription for what ailed me than the words of a man who lived and wrote through a similar time of crisis and who was beloved for making the American people think and laugh about the absurdities and contradictions that riddle our society and government. And he did it with a gentle, but shrewd “aw shucks” humor.

For those who have not had the privilege of seeing old film clips of him in action, Will Rogers was a gum chewing, lariat whirling, vaudeville showman.  He was also a cowboy philosopher, political humorist, writer, actor and rope-trick artist. He was openly and unapologetically Cherokee Indian and Irish when neither were considered respectable members of society. He skewered the political class on both sides of the aisle. And he was honored and respected world wide.

So with heartfelt thanks to The Wit and Wisdom of Will Rogers – edited by Alex Ayers for restoring my humor and reminding me what a great man and wonderful writer America had during the Great Depression, I have pulled a few of my favorite Will Rogers quotes to share. These in particular seem eerily apropos our current state of affairs. I hope you enjoy.  (I’m headed back to that must read pile to see what other treasures I can find.)

Will Rogers on …

ELECTIONS, DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATS
(No truer words spoken.)

“If the people had anything to do with the nominations, personally, instead of it being done by a half dozen men in the back rooms of some hotel, why America would be a democracy.”

“On account of us being a democracy, and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government for four years, no matter what it does.”

“What’s wrong with the Democratic party? The law killed it. It won’t let a man vote but once, and there just ain’t enough voters at one vote each to get it anywhere.”

“This Alaska is a great country. If they can just keep from being taken over by the U.S. they got a great future.”

DEPRESSION, SPENDING AND REPUBLICANS
(It was just as bad then as it is now.)

“It’s really not depression, it’s just a return to normalcy. It’s just getting back to two-bit meals and cotton underwear, and off those one-fifty steaks and silk rompers. America has been just muscle bound from holding a steering wheel. The callous place we got on our body is the bottom of the driving toe.”

“I could have told him before sundown what’s changed our lives. Buying on credit, waiting for relief, Ford cars, too many Republicans, Notre Dame coaching methods, and two-thirds of America, both old and young, thinking they possessed ‘it’.”

“I don’t want to lay the blame on the Republicans for the Depression. They’re not smart enough to think up all those things that have happened.”

THE BUSINESS OF BUSINESS
(As usual.)

“If you think banking ain’t a sucker game, why is your banker the richest man in town? Bank failures break banks but bankers don’t go broke, do they?”

“I said the bankers were the first to go on the dole. The wrath of the mighty ascended on me.”

“Big business sure got big, but it got big by selling its stocks and not by selling its products.”

“We are continually buying something that we never get, from a man that never had it.”

OIL COMPANIES V. AMERICAN INDIANS
(Wanna guess who won.)

“They sent the Indians to Oklahoma,” recounted Rogers with sadness. “They had a treaty that said, ‘you shall have this land as long as grass grows and water flows.’ It was not only a good rhyme but looked like a good treaty, and it was until they struck oil. Then the government took it away from us again. They said the treaty refers to ‘water and grass; it don’t say anything about oil.’ So the Indians lost another bet – the first one to Andrew Jackson, and the second to the oil companies.”

“I think the government only give us about a dollar an acre for it. We had it for hunting grounds, but we never knew enough to hunt oil on it.”

EVERYONES OBSESSION WITH RESTORING CONFIDENCE
(Following the stock market crash of 1929.)

“Now we have a new one. It’s called ‘restoring confidence’. Rich men who never had a mission in life outside of watching a stock ticker are working day and night ‘restoring confidence.”

“Now I am not unpatriotic, and I want to do my bit in this great movement. But you will have to give me some idea of where ‘confidence’ is. And just who you want it restored to.”

“I discovered confidence hasn’t left this country. Confidence just got wise and the guys it got wise to are wondering where it has gone.”

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
(Third party anyone?)

“All the speakers said, ‘we are making history.’ Well, I don’t want to be disrespectful to either party, but I am just tired of seeing history made.”

“Well, the election will be breaking out pretty soon, and a flock of Democrats will replace a mess of Republicans in quite a few districts. It won’t mean a thing, they will go in like all the rest of ‘em, go in on promises and come out with alibis.”

“If we didn’t have two parties, we would all settle on the best men in the country and things would run fine. But as it is, we settle on the worst ones and then fight over ‘em.”

“There ought to be one day –just one– where there is open season on senators.”

MONEY AND MAGIC
(They seem to go together like hand and glove.)

“It must be marvelous to just belong to some legislative body and just pick money out of the air.”

“The budget is a mythical beanbag. Congress votes mythical beans into it, and then tries to reach in and pull real beans out.”

“A man can make a million over night and he is on every page in the morning. But it never tells who gave up the million he got. You can’t get money without taking it from somebody.”

SOMETHING TO REMIND OURSELVES
(And the politicians.)

“I tell ‘em this country is bigger than Wall Street, and if they don’t believe me, I show ‘em the map.”

A great video of Will Rogers – America’s “Poet Lariat” 

ROPIN’ FOOL (1922) Will Rogers

Just as the world can be divided into those who prefer Mozart to Bach and those who don’t, so the world can be divided into those who prefer F. Scott Fitzgerald over Ernest Hemingway and those who don’t.

In my series on the great composers, I found that some of those who preferred Bach over Mozart tended to be very rude and hostile in their dismissal of Mozart (and of my series). These people screamed that after all Bach had done for counterpoint and in his development of the fugue, anyone who thought Mozart was the greater composer was an imbecile. It reminded me of the abuse I attracted for daring to question Obama’s credentials for being President.

I love many pieces by Bach, and ranked him third in the list, but I always felt he lacked the originality, the poetic soul and the expressive range of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven (or even Brahms, Prokofiev and many others). It’s the same thing I feel in comparing Hemingway with F. Scott Fitzgerald. Hemingway, in my opinion, lacked the poetic soul and the expressive range of a great writer like Fitzgerald.

I remember a literary critic I once worked with on a newspaper praising the “lean, sparse prose” of Hemingway. I asked him to give me an example, and he read me the following passage:

“He had a beer. It was good. He had another.”

I was totally unimpressed, but with Hemingway so highly recommended by this literary critic (who had a degree in English literature, which I didn’t), I felt I should give him a chance and tried to familiarize myself with his work. I read some of his most well known novels, but never experienced the same feeling of involvement, of going on a journey of discovery, that I did with Fitzgerald and other writers I came to love and admire.

I also found that those who preferred Hemingway tended to be hostile and insultingly dismissive of me for regarding Fitzgerald as more deserving of the title of “Great American Writer” than Hemingway, who in my opinion was nowhere near as brave or as eloquent as Fitzgerald in baring his soul and capturing both the darkness and the humor of life.

I see the same kind of attitudes behind this, and behind the reactions to my composer series, playing out in many areas of political and social life.

Naked hostility and insults are always a sign of people who are on flimsy ground and therefore feel the need to defend their elitist positions with sneering dismissal of those who don’t agree with them.

Now who does that remind you of?

Did you see what Nancy Pelosi had to say about the dire job situation in America? In case you didn’t catch it, she said that 500 million Americans lose their jobs every month that the economic downturn lasts.

That means the country has lost at least 2 billion jobs since the recession began. Even allowing for those who work two, three or even four jobs, it means that not only are there no jobs left in America, but that we now have minus a billion jobs that were not there in the first place.

This is scary stuff.

It is not only scary to have such a huge shortfall in the job market – amounting in effect to more than six no-jobs for every man, woman and child in America – it is even scarier that someone with Nancy’s loose grasp of economic reality (or at least a loose grasp on her tongue) should be one of the most influential people in Congress.

Of course this is not the first time that Pelosi has exaggerated slightly. She helped to scupper the first economic rescue package (though some, including me, may say that is not a bad thing) by making absurdly partisan claims that it was the economic policies of George Bush that were solely to blame for the crisis, whereas it was Congress (led by Pelosi and helped by Barney Frank) that blocked reforms of Freddy Mac, Fanny Mae and the legislature that allowed the whole sub prime mortgage fiasco to happen in the first place.

I am pretty sure it will not be her last exaggeration. I wonder what her next one will be. Of course there was her recent promise that no rescue package would be passed that contained any pork. Did I hear someone say something about pigs flying?

In my new video I look at the way the Emperor’s Clothing Syndrome has dominated the arts and humanities over the past half century, with the help of academic practitioners looking for theories to build on, trying to carve out some academic territory for themselves and becoming the high priests or priestesses of their chosen domains. In music, it ended with meaningless and very irritating noise.

Now I make some sweeping generalizations in this video, and may be overstating my case for effect, but that does not necessarily dilute the reality of what I am saying.

As I said at the beginning of the top ten composer series, we saw the Emperor’s Clothing Syndrome ( a tendency to pretend to see or believe something out of fear of being thought of out of step with others, or out of fear that you might be attacked or ridiculed if you show your true feelings) running rampant during the elections.

“It’s the kind of pseudo-liberal academic milieu that produces people like the Beast with No Name, who is a Rhodes scholar and yet one of the most narrow-minded and bigoted people you can find. One of the problems is that lot of people who excel academically are people who are able to absorb and reflect back what their tutors want them to,” I wrote then.

“They are the kind of people who try to impose their narrow and very theoretical world view on others and become blinkered in their focus, doing their best to beat down anyone who doesn’t agree with them. (Now what does that remind you of?).”

Academia can provide you with the tools and techniques of art, but the academic process cannot make you an artist, or even an art critic.

From a broader perspective, Academia can provide you with a framework for examining things, but to get close to the true nature of anything you have to examine it through a number of different frameworks from a number of different angles. If you keep using the same theoretical frameworks, they become blinkers.

Many branches of academia, particularly in the field of arts and humanities, strive to create a single framework or model of things and academics fight to have their models adopted as the only ones that are valid. That is what gives them power.

Art and life in general cannot be confined by academic theories or opinion. The essence of art is that it must be transcendant, and to be transcendant it has to be organic. It has to be able to grow beyond prescribed boundaries to achieve new perspectives.

As in art, so in life.