Lou Dobbs freaks out over children's literature Part I

This is “The Onion” really, isn’t it?  Satire?  These guys aren’t for real, are they?  “The Onion” couldn’t have done it better.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lou-dobbs-compares-the-lorax-to-occupy-wall-street-as-the-war-on-childrens-movies-continues/

Many of you remember The Lorax, written in 1971, from your childhood; “The Lorax” was also filmed in 1971.  You should dash out and buy copies of both the book and the movie if you do not have them.  The one of which Lou Dobbs speaks is a more recent version, is supposed to come out on March 2.  Some of you also will remember The Borrowers.  Following is a partial response to Mr Dobbs.  Call it Part I.

My response to Mr Dobbs:

Mr Lou Dobbs, surely you realize that from the earliest times people have told stories to their young ones, the wise old elders passing on their culture, telling tales to instill the values and virtues that had been so important a part of their lives, that they might become part of the young ones’ lives, “indoctrinating their children”--tales of honor and valor, of love and caring, of integrity and fidelity, tales of caring for their families and neighbors, for animals and all living things, for nature and for the very earth itself.  These tales were passed down for thousands of years, bringing up their children in the way they should go; they have come down to us in the form of myths and legends and hero tales, fairy and folk tales, and through the ages have taken the form of poetry and plays, of books and movies, and still new ones are being created.  Some have pathos, some have humor, but not one does not have a lesson, not one is not aimed at “indoctrinating the children.”   And so it is with these tales you vilify, Mr Dobbs, “The Secret World of the Ariettys,” (based on that beloved book “the Borrowers,”) and “The Lorax.”  But you, Mr Dobbs, think that you alone should be the judge of what lessons are suitable for other people’s children.  You, Mr Dobbs, are no wise old elder.  And because the lessons from the stories I heard taught me that I ought not to call you an ignorant, narrow-minded, bitter old man, I won’t.  Even though I am your elder.

Gramma Windy

Renaming Days of the Week

I was dreaming that I was trying to teach a young child about ‘today’ and ‘tomorrow’.  Which goodness knows I have done a lot in my time.  And then I was thinking that it might be easier if days were numbered instead of having names.  As I awoke, I was working it out.  With Monday as the first day of the week, as in done on calendars in some nations.

Monday—One day (on)

Tuesday—Two day (‘ue’ ‘o’)

Wednesday—Three day (well at least there’s an ‘e’)

Thursday—Four day (‘ur’ ‘or’)

Friday—Five day (F…i)

Saturday—Six day (S…)

Sunday—Seven day (S..)

Hmmm…

Musings Feb 15-17

Musings February 15, 2012

Gretchen Carlson interviewing Mitt Romney, “You know that is going to be President Obama’s whole strategy now, the fairness/sharing thing…how would you combat that?”

Did you hear Rick Santorum castigating the 1%, along with the Republican candidates and the Republican congresspeople?  “Don’t you see how they see you…these elite snobs…looking down their noses at you…they don’t care about the average person.”  Well, actually, he thought he was castigating Democrats.

Martin Bashir says the choice between the parties is, “Do you want intervention in the boardroom, or in the bedroom?”

Give Gov Walker his due, he gave a gracious welcome to the president when the latter arrived in Wisconsin, presenting him with an Brewers’ athletic shirt that says:  “OBAMA 1.”  Of course, he was too sick to accompany President Obama on a trip to a factory, but that is probably not a swipe at the president, but prudence about appearing before his people at this volatile time.

Sec Panetta:  “We’ve made very clear that they [Iran] are not to develop a nuclear weapon.  We’ve made very clear that they are not to close the Straits of Hormuz.  We’ve made very clear that they are not to export terrorism and undermine other governments.”   And who are we?  Who do we think we are?  Who told us that we could not develop nuclear weapons?  Who told us that we were not to close any sea lanes or blockade shipments from any port?  Who told us that we were not to bomb civilians and assassinate people, and that we were not to foment rebellion against other governments?               

It really was a simpler time.  Men kept their wives under control by keeping them barefoot in winter and pregnant in summer.

Foster Friess goes from bad to worse.   After passing off as a joke his comment about  using an aspirin for a contraceptive, he argues that forcing religious entities to cover contraceptives is like “asking a Muslim soup kitchen to serve pork or a Kosher delicatessen to have to serve ham.”   One can see why his protégée, Rick Santorum, equates the contraceptive rule to requiring that insurance provide coverage for toothpaste and deodorant.   Both of them trivializing women’s reproductive rights and health care needs. 

And what about those sweater vests?  Mind you, I have nothing against sweater vests, at least, I never have had.  But I am getting rather sick of seeing these all the time, is this some kind of fetish?  Is this supposed to set a fashion trend?  Has anyone seen an uptick is sales of sweater vests?  But now I see,  there is Santorum’s billionaire benefactor, who accompanies him on his tour, standing at his shoulder,  and who introduces him at CPAC—while wearing a sweater vest. 

If God really meant sex only for procreation, then why did that sly old fox make it possible for seniors to still enjoy sex even in their 50s, their 60s, their 70s?  Do you suppose he’s up there, chuckling away, and saying, “Go for it, it’s high time you could enjoy sex without worrying about the consequences?”  Or perhaps he’s saying,  “Whoops, I didn’t see that coming.  What did I do wrong?”  Maybe  Rep Issa’s oversight committee should look into that.

Musings Early February

Musings feb 8 2012

The Nation’s Katrina Vanderheuvel says, about President Obama’s decision to allow superpacs in his campaign, that though she is reluctant, “There are times when you cannot win with one hand tied behind your back, when you cannot fight fire only with a philosophical opposition to fire.”

Stephen Colbert says, of Obama’s  singing:  Once again, Obama is playing his same old dirty political trick of being irresistibly appealing.  You’ll never see Newt Gingrich stoop that low.

Keith Ellison said: “If we can walk with Obama, we should…if we can’t then we should walk ahead of him.”

Sen DeMint likens the rivalry between the Democrats and Republicans to a football game—argues that when the two teams go out onto the field they have no intention of “cooperating” or “collaborating.”  They do not share the same goals.   So now we understand—it really is their “game plan”.

Romney:  I will put an end to this kind of assault on religion, if I am president of the United States.

Romney apparently objects to the auto industry  “bailout” because it didn’t hurt workers enough.

Romney would “take us back to the good old days,” while at the same time he would “Restore Our Future.”  [How do you restore something that has never been?]    He wants our country to be “the shining city on the hill” that would presumably hold out the hope of freedom and democracy for the world, but he would also have it to be the mightiest military power in the world so that all who look us it would tremble in fear.

Handel, of Komen,  says private organizations have a right to make their own decisions about grants, etc., without being subject to vicious attacks—but after all, people have the right to object to your right to make decisions that we don’t like, to criticize and withdraw support, etc.

Julian Epstein, Democratic strategist, just said that Newt Gingrich is “collapsing of his own weight.”

The Man Who Would Be Pope:  Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum reminds me of no one so much as Brother Jerome, the self-righteous monk of the Brother Cadfael chronicles.

Santorum says: 

·         When you give government power, they will use that power over you.  [much better to give the pope that power]

·         Catholics are told that they have a right to health care, but the health care will be what the government tells you you have to give your people, whether it is against your church or not.

·         Says he will fight for “your voices for freedom in America” [yes, freedom for religion but not freedom for the people]

·         Says his grandparents and parents came to this country for freedom, because they didn’t want a government  telling them what to believe, that we had a first amendment that actually stood for freedom of conscience, and not that we would have a president that would impose his secular values on the people of this country [but they meant that we should submit to a pope, represented perhaps by Santorum himself, telling us what to believe, and imposing his religious values on the people, even though we didn’t elect him]

Rick Santorum says, of gays who glitterbomb him, that they represent “true intolerance.”

Rick Santorum, inveighing against the contraceptive rule, equates that to providing coverage for toothpaste and deodorant.  Previously, he had ridiculed the idea that contraceptives were expensive—they are cheap and insurance shouldn’t have to cover cheap things.  I recall reading recently of a man who died of a tooth infection because he didn’t have $24.00 to get his prescription for antibiotic filled.

When Is Science a Hoax?

If someone should tell you that carbon monoxide, which comes out of the tailpipe of your vehicle, can kill you, you would probably say that you already know that.  You probably know that if you are working on your vehicle in your garage with the engine running, you should leave the door open.  You probably know that when you shut the car in your attached garage at night, you should not leave the engine running because the whole family could die when the odorless gas seeps into the house.  You probably know that you should keep the exhaust system of your vehicle in good repair because if the gas leaks into your car your passengers, or you, the driver, could die.  You probably even know that some people have committed suicide by running a hose from the exhaust pipe into the vehicle and then sat in the vehicle with the engine running.  It doesn’t take very long.  You may also know that home furnaces and heaters could leak this gas into your house and you would not know it, because it is odorless.  You may even have invested in a carbon monoxide alarm for your house, similar to a smoke alarm, to detect any such gas leakage.  If you did not already know this before y our friend told you about it, you would be shocked but you would believe him and you would be glad of the warning.  You might go to your computer and check the internet for more information about the problem.  And find such as this.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/health-center/carbon-monoxide-poisoning-what-happens.aspx

And perhaps you already know that some states have established a Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week, encouraging everyone to install detectors, and even making laws requiring the installation of detectors. http://www.kidde.com/utcfs/Templates/Pages/Template-66/0,8070,pageId%3D88200%26siteId%3D384,00.html  

You would be glad that there were scientists doing the research on this, and that they make the public aware of the dangers.  You might also be glad that there are government agencies that help collect data on deaths and illnesses from carbon monoxide, that help develop safeguards and warning systems, and that alert the public to dangers.

You would be very surprised then, if you heard that a congressperson called the threat of carbon monoxide poisoning a “hoax,” if he called hearings at which “scientists” were called in to decry the myth of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning, to accuse the scientists of just wanting to get more money for their research, and to defund and dismantle any government agencies that had anything to do with research and prevention of carbon monoxide poisoning.

And you might be truly astonished to learn that there was a task force established to prepare curriculum for the public schools debunking the science of carbon monoxide dangers, and teaching that it was a naturally occurring gas that was beneficial to the environment, and that those “alarmists” that said otherwise should be ignored.  

If God Were Married

Religion humor

If only God was married

10 comments

By James Kirk Wall, February 11, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Wife: Don’t put it there!
God: Why not?
Wife: You said that you didn’t want them to eat from it.
God: I told them not to.
Wife: But you know they’ll do it anyway.
God: Yes
Wife: Go put it on the other side of the planet.
God: Yes dear
Wife: What are you making?
God: A talking snake.
Wife: What?! Why on earth would you be making that?
God: I thought it would be cool.
Wife: Absolutely not! You are not making a talking snake!
God: Yes dear

SENSE AND SENSIBILITY INDEED

SENSE AND SENSIBILITY INDEED

Sense and/or Sensibility—Not/Neither

You may be familiar with Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility, in which an estate is entailed to the son, who is married and has a son of his own, whereas the stepmother and her three daughters are left with a small legacy, from which they will be expected to live on the annual income, and turned out from the estate to live in a small cottage.   The father’s dying request was that his son do something to provide for his stepmother and his sisters.  John Dashwood wishes to do the right thing by his daughters, but his wife, Fanny, is reluctant, and, as we can see, dissuades him from doing more than is meet.  As I was watching the movie, and then rereading the relevant passage in the book, I was struck with how prescient Austen was.   The following is the Dashwoods’ conversation, interspersed with imaginary conversation btween today’s Democrats and Republicans, the Democrats echoing John Dashwood, in trying to do the right thing, and the Republicans echoing Fanny Dashwood, who pretends her  selfishness if really pragmatism .

JD  says “It was my father’s last request that I should assist his widow and daughters.”

You know what our founding fathers says in the Preamble to the Constitution, that we should  “promote the general welfare.”

FD: “He did not know what he was talking of…ten to one he was light-headed at the time.”        

You know that the founding fathers weren’t thinking about providing for those who are too lazy to look out for themselves.  I am sure they meant nothing so extreme as providing unemployment insurance and cutting payroll taxes and other forms of welfare.

JD thought that he could spare the sum of 3000 pounds, from this they could secure an income of 500 pounds a year, in addition to the 500 pounds they would get anyway.

But FD thought that Mr D would not have expected JD to give away “half your fortune from your own child.”

Just think how our grandchildren will suffer if there is any debt from the government having helped their grandparents.

JD asserted that he had made a promise, he couldn’t neglect his sisters; he must do something for them.

FD says “Indeed…[but that money] will be gone forever…and could never be restored to our poor little boy. “

                That money will increase our debt by millions; it can never be restored for our grandchildren.

JD “…to be sure…the time may come when Harry will regret that so large a sum was parted with.”  He thought perhaps he should reduce the sum by half.

FD agreed tentatively…why should he do so much for his sisters, they weren’t even his real sisters…only “half-blood.”

After all, a lot of these people are not important to us, they are minorities, lazy and shiftless, who won’t look out for themselves. 

JD:  “…they can hardly expect more.”
FD:  Who cares what they would expect?...indeed…they will be sure of doing well…they can all live very comfortably together on the interest…

                It is not our responsibility to look out for the poor, they have enough to iive on.

JD:  “Perhaps I should give something of the annuity kind just to their mother, say, 100 pounds a year.”

                We should be sure their social security is protected, they could live very well on that.

FD:  “…but then, if she should live 15 years, we should all be taken in.”

                But think how much we have to pay out if s/he lives for 15 years or more.

JD:  “…her life cannot be worth half that…”

Right, what use are they to society after they reach retirement age?  We should raise the retirement age, that would reduce the payout.

FD:  “…and after all you have no thanks for it.  They think themselves secure, you do no more than what is expected, and it raises no gratitude at all.”

                They will just complain that you don’t do more, and won’t even vote for you anyway.

JD:  “…you are right…they would only enlarge their style of living, and would not be the richer for it at the end of the year.”

And after all, they are not so poor.  I have heard that 97% of them even have refrigerators.  If you give them more money, they just start living high on the hog, and still have no more left at the end of the year.

FD:  They (the mother and sisters) can “move to a comfortable small house…five hundred a year?  What on earth can four women want for more than that?—they will live so cheap!   Their housekeeping will be nothing at all.  They will have no carriage, no horses, and hardly any servants; they will keep no company, and can have no expenses of any kind.  Only conceive how comfortable they will be!  Five hundred a year!  I am sure I cannot imagine how they will spend half of it…”  It should be more than enough [for us] to send them “presents of fish and game…in season.”

When they no longer own their home, they can rent an apartment; they can then live so cheaply, they can use public transportation, they won’t even need a car.  Their worries will be diminished, they will live so comfortably and conveniently.  They don’t need a large income, it should be enough that they can go to the food pantry.