WHY THIS WRITER COULD NEVER BE ELECTED AS U.S. PRESIDENT

It's not that we're actually entertaining the thought of even wanting to hold the U.S. presidential position -- or any other political one whatsoever -- but this piece is simply devoted to the changes we'd strongly propose if ever so elected.  As the reader will quickly note from the following list of our campaign issues, they would accomplish little more than cause this fellow to be blackballed from consideration as being labeled a radical, a  socialist, an anti-semitist, an unpatriotic villain, and a downright traitor, to suggest just a few epithetical titles.


Nevertheless, we intend to go ahead with what we deem to be essential to the ultimate survival of this supposedly great nation throughout the not-too-distant future. So, without further ado, here are the changes considered vital to ongoing success, presented by category:


1.  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
     A.  Legislative Branch
           1.  A single parliamentary body only, presided over by a duly   
                elected Speaker, with the majority party in control.
           2.  The similarly elected Prime Minister required to be present at 
                 each parliamentary session.
     B.  Executive Branch
           -- Essentially an administrative body, carrying out the laws, 
               regulations, and policies established by Parliament.
     C.  Judicial Branch
           -- The same 9-member body as at present, but with each Justice 
               subject to periodic popular re-election.
     D.  Election Process
           -- Replacing the electoral college completely, to be replaced by
               straight popular vote.
II . LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
      A.  Income Tax
            -- Drastic revamping and simplification, eliminating virtually all
                existing loopholes. 
      B.  Political
            1. Compulsory voting by all citizens age 18 or over, subject to a
                heavy fine for non-compliance. 
            2. Lobbying to be completely outlawed, under threat of prison
                sentence.
      C.  Health
            1.  National health care for all citizens and legal immigrants,
                 covering everything except:
                 a) Abortion
                 b) Cosmetic surgery
                 c) Dental work for beautification purposes only
            2.  Heavy taxes on the following products:
                  a) Alcohol and tobacco
                  b) Soft carbonated drinks
                  c) Candy and chewing gum
                  d) High glucose, sodium, and cholesterol foods
            3.  High import tariff on coffee, tea, and cocoa beans.
            4.  Posting of public signs virtually everywhere, stating simply that
                 "cigarettes kill".
            5.  Government takeover of full control over narcotics under the
                 following conditions:
                 a) Resale to registered users at nominal prices.
                 b) Compulsory use cessation for registered users, covered by
                      national health.  
      D.  Education
            1.  Free education to level sought for all duly qualified citizens and
                 legal immigrants.  
            2.  Spanish treated as official second language, and required to be
                 taught along with English from starting age. 
      E.  Welfare
            -- Ongoing state-sponsored job creation programs.
      F.  Crime Prevention
             -- Hand guns only for police, with unlawful possession -- including
                 in the home -- subject to imprisonment.
      G.  Criminal Punishment
             -- Elimination of death penalty, except for conviction due to
                 corruption.
      H.  Immigration
            -- Available to all who can prove capability of earning a normal
                living.
       J.  Marriage
            1.  License subject to renewal by written consent of both parties at
                 consecutive 5-year anniversary dates.
            2.  Automatic divorce if no renewal executed on time.


By way of conclusion, the reader is invited to think about what we solemnly view as highly-needed social improvements illustrated above.  Granted, they'd never get this fellow elected, but we're confident of their value in seeking solutions to countless hitherto insurmountable impracticalities, injustices, inequities, inconsistencies, and unnecessary dangers to health.                                                     

THE CLASSIC AMERICAN FALSEHOOD

Time and time again, dating back to childhood days, we’ve been hearing politicians and other superpatriot types loudly proclaiming the United States to be the greatest country in the world, often to tumultuous applause from bands of naïve, shortsighted listeners.

 But is it really that?  If so, why have we always had so many inhabitants who are:

     Hungry,
     Homeless,
     Inadequately educated,
     Unemployed,
     Chronically ill,
In most cases though no fault of their own?

Yes, it’s unfortunately true that we can’t avoid having:
     The lazy,
     The listless,
     The careless (e.g. improper eaters, smokers, heavy drinkers, drug abusers).

Even so, how many of these supposedly hopeless people might revert if once given a chance for a better shake in life – rather than continually beyond reach due to social and economic imbalance?

No indeed, Folks, we have no right to call ourselves the greatest, chiefly because of the mess our government and our less-than-sufficient human rights  system have been  building up for generations.

We allow ourselves to be inspired by Thomas Jefferson’s classic words about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness …..

But what do we actually do, as a democratic society, to maximize or even optimize its universal attainment, except in restrictive half-way legislative measures, unduly compromised by special interest groups galore? 

In the simplest of terms, we’ve failed out citizenry miserably.

Meanwhile, however:

     The rich continue to get richer, as always;
     And our esteemed government is galloping toward total fiscal insolvency,
     As it keeps dumping money down the drain in a never-ending quest for absolute military 
          supremacy;
     And making countless arch enemies by meddling needlessly in the Middle East and elsewhere ,
     On the supposed premise of national security,
     When we aren’t the least bit stable or secure, in a far too many respects. 

What, then, would be so wrong with spending such vast sums instead for:

     Public welfare,
     Full national health care for every citizen,
     Enhanced educational opportunities, and
     State-sponsored public job creation ?

Most certainly, we could manage all this, and still retain the individual human right to reject any and all such benefits, strictly on a voluntary – rather than an unjustly imposed – basis.

 

 

 

 

OBESITY, BY GEORGE

According to recent news reports, our esteemed medical profession, in all its wisdom, has now declared obesity (aka overweightedness, fatness, lardbuttedness, and so forth) to be a disease.  And, by George, they’re right!

However, in our not always so humbly expressed manner, and adopting thesimulated title of honorary medicinis doctoris, we hereby opine that said malady should be added to the already lengthy list of mental  setbacks, along with paranoia, schizophrenia, manic depressiveness and so many others.  We say this in all earnestness.  As far as this writer is concerned, except in certain out-of-sync glandular cases, obesity stems from a person’s mind being too weak to pursue careful dietary habits, and to know when to  push one’s way back from the table.  

By way of evidence, we offer that endless daily parade we see of men looking as though they might be six months pregnant, and women who  should make pretty fair middle linebackers.

A STUDY IN CANINE ACTION PRIORITIES

One morning several years ago, having left the house  enroute to work, we found our forward path temporarily  blocked by two dogs of varying breed – a male and a female.  Considering what action was about be undertaken, we could readily discern that the little lady was “in heat”, as the standard expression goes.

Just after the masculine party had put himself into the appropriate position, the idea struck us that an interesting  experiment might be in order.  Quickly then, we opened a briefcase and extracted about a half slice of bread from a planned lunchtime sandwich, and tossed it on the ground a few feet to the pair’s right, in the male’s peripheral view.  Which, we were endeavoring to determine, takes precedence?

The answer came without the slightest hesitation, as our canine Casanova abandoned his intended action long enough to go scoop up the food in his teeth and gulp it down.  Then, of course, he proceeded to take up where he’ d  left off.

Consequently, we were able to surmise that in the wonderful world of man’s best friend, the underlying philosophy must be “you can always find a convenient girl friend, but a meal is much harder to come by”.

WARNING

When U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the Supreme Court ruling in the 1819 case of McCullough vs. Maryland, he declared that no state could hold the right to tax the federal government.  The logic applied, which remains on our laws to this day, was quite succinctly expressed by his words:   “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

Jumping to the present day, we find people blithely choosing to register often manifold credit card numbers with internet vendors galore.  Accordingly, such  persons are leaving themselves wide open to charges,  whether authorized or otherwise.  We sincerely urge that heed be taken of Mr. Justice Marshall’s sound advice, duly rephrased in 21^st century fashion, by stating that:  “The power to debit is the power to bankrupt.”

IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU

In a great many long past conversations with fellow members of the male species, this writer can readily  recall at least  a dozen different cases, wherein the other chap openly admitted to having once acquired “a dose”.  Although such term should be fully explanatory unto itself, any reader failing to grasp the meaning right off might simply ask the nearest person over age seven.

Taking this theme just a step further, it stands to reason that, statistically speaking, if some twelve lads have brought such fact to light, perhaps we’ve also carried on acquaintanceships over the years with roughly twice that many who’ve been similarly smitten, but would never admit it in a thousand years.

This feeling  on our part stems from having observed two highly divergent male philosophies in this respect  ever since  boyhood days.  In the frank admission instances, the underlying motivation is to portray  optimum achievement vis-a-vis the fair sex from the masculinity standpoint.  Meanwhile,  the supposed majority maintains a never faltering silence,  since confession would undoubtedly smack of excess promiscuity in one’s femininity conquests.  In other words, it’s preferable to perpetuate an atmosphere of association with only the most high-class glamorous mates.

If any reader deems this an extremely oddball subject to dwell upon, please rest assured, we’ve already done worse on previous literary occasions.

SHOCK WAVERS AND ICE BREAKERS

The intent of this piece is to focus briefly on a few modest but notable milestones, wherein we’ve experienced welcome breakthroughs, with what’s come to be known today as excessive permissiveness  gradually winning out over ridiculous ultra-conservatism.   Altogether, a  half-dozen key events are covered.  Each one either involves, or is directly related to, the world of public entertainment.

 AND WEST IS WEST

Back when television was a mere gleam in David Susskind’s eye, the prime means of family home entertainment was listening to the manifold dramatic, comedic, musical, documentary, or news reporting programs presented by the various radio networks.  And believe it or not, even then there were numerous bluenose-incited complaints about excessive violence corrupting the minds of growing children.  Such “frightening” just-home-from-school daily shows as Tom Mix, Jack Armstrong, Little Orphan Annie, and Buck Rogers, for example, featured far too many evil, cutthroat villains.  Even though such nasties would be  eliminated one-by-one as a result of heroic or clever feats by the good guys, these  broadcasts simply had to be damaging  to junior’s or junior miss’ tender psyches.  Tsk!  Tsk!

Nevertheless, our concerned adulthood vigilantes had no need to worry over their kids’ being in danger of learning a little bit extra about (shhh!) s-e-x from listening to the airways.  Well, at least not until Sunday, December 12, 1937.  That’s when Mae West, an established movie actress, whose alleged immorality-driven film performances were deemed unfit for children’s sensitive eyes and ears, did a one-shot radio appearance, which  became the talk of Mrs. Grundy’s universe, shorter than even overnight. 

The Edgar Bergen Sunday afternoon “family” show featured the famed ventriloquist and his dummy sidekick Charlie McCarthy.   Don Ameche was also a regular cast member.  On this fateful  Sabbath, Miss West became the week’s guest star. 

Following an innuendo-tinged exchange with  Charlie, she and Ameche did a skit portraying Adam and Eve’s initial “get-together”.   Although innocuous enough to most listeners,  the lady’s sultry and provocative   tone caused bells to ring and cannons to go off from the halls of Montclair NJ to the shores of Monterey.   It seems that far too much sex had been allowed to drip all over biblical scriptures – and  on Sunday yet.

We can’t really call this incident an ice breaker, but it remains somewhat immortalized in radio annals as its biggest shockeroo.  Even the FCC uttered words of condemnation, echoing those of offended souls throughout radioland.  Should the same bit be redone on television today, using identical phraseology and tones as then, it would likely create more than a few yawns, and/or viewers reaching for their remotes to try another channel.

YON BONNIE BANKS AND BRAES

1937 provided still another stunning occurrence, this time in the realm of popular music.  Long-established acceptable practice, when playing or singing a traditional “old favorite” number, was
for it to be performed note-for-note as originally composed, and at the same customary pace.

It so happened, however, that a young and enterprising pianist named Cllaude Thornhill had prepared a slightly upbeat vocal arrangement of the celebrated Loch Lomond, to be sung by Maxine Sullivan, an up-and-coming chanteuse.  Happily for the lady, the recording became an immediate hit, the principal reason being that it was quire bouncy in execution.

Despite reaping a fair amount of bucks in disk sales, Miss Sullivan became pronounced guilty of having defiled a lovely age-old tune, considered semi-sacred to the more conservative-minded music appreciators.  Oddly enough, as soon thereafter as February  1938, Benny Goodman’s orchestra played Loch Lomond as part of its renowned Carnegie Hall concert program, and the Martha Tilton vocal followed  the same swingy manner as had the Sullivan version – and nobody seemed to be offended.  Perhaps the “new” styling had already sunk in.

LARRY’S REVERIE

Again the subject is popular music.  Larry Clinton, the leader of a prominent dance orchestra, had the “audacity” to record Debussy’s Reverie, with lyrics “manufactured” and sung by lady vocalist Bea Wain.  In this instance, the pace hadn’t been stepped up, but just as written.  What was wrong with that, we hear you asking?  Well, in those days a person simply didn’t corrupt a piece composed by one of the “old masters” with romance-dripping words.  The classics just weren’t to be monkeyed with.  Horrors!

Whether “My Reverie” was a mere shocker to the bluenose (and ears) folk, or merely an ice breaker, we can’t be sure.  In any event, it didn’t take long afterward for the practice of “swinging the classics” to become rather popular.   Prime examples were Woody Herman’s Woodchoppers’ Ball (Quartet from Rigoletto); Les Brown’s Bizet Has His (Day (L’Arlesienne Suite) and Marche Slav;  Alvino Rey’a  William Tell and In the Hall of the Mountain King:  plus Harry James’  Dodger Fan Dancer (Dance of the Hours) and Flight of the Bumblebee.  Still further on, no loud objections arose when Freddie Martin recorded an instrumental version of Tchaikovsky’s  Piano Concerto under the title Tonight We Love.

UPTOWN INDEED!

In the very early 1940s, popular music produced two relative ice breakers, when Gene Krupa’s band recorded Let Me Off Uptown, with Tommy Dorsey’s Yes, Indeed close behind.  And what, one may ask, was so significant about that? It’s just that they were both vocal numbers spiritedly rendered by white girls accompanying black men – a hitherto unheard of situation up until then.  Anita O’Day and Roy Eldridge had teamed up in the first case, with Jo Stafford and Sy Oliver the other.

JOSE DIDN’[T SEE

A real shock wave hit the TV screen on October 7, 1968.  The occasion was a World Series match between the Detroit Tigers and the St. Louis Cardinals.  A young, growing-in-popularity blind singer-guitarist named Jose Feliciano had been invited to perform the customary pregame national anthem.  And history was promptly made.

To the sheer astonishment of the entire viewing nation, and maybe somewhat beyond as well, Mr. Feliciano offered a “soul” rendition of the Star-Spangled  Banner, feeling  in all sincerity that this was justified in his capacity as  a professional entertainer with unique styling.  But despite the artistically melodious phrasing ….. well, gangbusters.  Maybe it had been acceptable in earlier times to jazz up a classical piece, but the National Anthem?  No way, Buster! Never!

Unfortunately for the youthful Jose, the uproarious reaction, which began after no more than the first few bars of his singing, did indeed damage his career for a year or so afterward.   In some circles, he may still be held in contempt to this day.  Super- and even lesser-patriots galore wasted not a minute in putting his name at the top of their private blacklists, maybe never to be erased.

Isn’t it add that, shortly thereafter and up until the present, nearly every pregame sporting program has featured either an individual vocalist or a group belting out the age-old anthem in his, her, or their own note-altered manner.  And nobody complains any longer.

“A” FOR ADULTRESS

December 1949 and February 1950 brought on a pair of back-to-back Nathaniel l Hawthornian events, wherein two silver screen goddesses became adorned with bright scarlet letters, resulting in our modern age’s most lastingly significant ice breaker from the public morality standpoint. 

Although not yet divorced from Orson Welles,  glamour queen  Rita Hayworth had been carrying on a highly publicized globe-hopping affair with the fabulously wealthy Prince Ali Khan since 1948.  Very little backyard fence indignation became noticeable -- that is, until news broke to the effect that the lady was “in a family way”, as the saying goes.  Meanwhile, fellow actress Ingrid Bergman was also married to one man but involved with another, namely film producer Roberto Rossellini.  In due course, the eyebrow-raising world learned that she too had started “eating for two”. 

Even then, a touch of light courting or a  harmless flirtation in far-off Stromboli could easily be tossed aside as  girls will be girls issues.  But giving birth to illegitimate children?  Oh, dear me, that simply won’t do!  Especially for such renowned limelight figures!  So Rita’s past films immediately  became objects for organized boycott, while  Ingrid was actually denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and Ed Sullivan refused to have her appear on his TV show. 

In addition to both ladies’ film careers  suffering major setbacks for quite some time due to universal scorn,  they also became the butt of a few smirking jokes.  The one most remembered dealt with the two of them meeting on the street one afternoon.  “How are you these days?” asked Ingrid.  “Oh, very busy,” Rita replied.  “You see, my sister is getting married next month.”  “Oh,”  Bergman then stated, “ why, I didn’t even know she was pregnant.”

Fortunately, though, for both these maligned ladies and the film industry in general, their indecent interludes were eventually forgotten.    Not only did they bounce back with utmost success, but indignant public outcry over such once unforgiveable sins has long since given way to ho-hum, whenever similar occasions have come to light.  The days of “when is the wedding?”, after an unmarried lass has begun to show a slightly protruding waistline, are far behind us.  In many ways, therefore, our fickle society owes a deep debt of thanks to Dames Hayworth and Bergman for having brought about such a decided and welcome breakthrough.

 

DO IT, BUT DON'T SAY IT

We can't help but notice how the latter-day moves currently shown on television tend to include virtual copulation scenes as an almost standard bill-of-fare.  What amazes us, however, is that use of the common four-letter word describing such action has been forbidden, except during the very late evening and wee morning hours.

Aren't our supposedly do-gooder networks being a bit inconsistent?

FLYING

Our latest resolution concerns travel by air.  Following due deliberation, our personal intent from here onward, and until present airline practices change, will be to board no aircraft unless it is operated by Southwest.

A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACTS

Based on long years of varied experience, this writer has derived an indisputable conclusion as to the two most stupid acts a man can commit during his lifetime. Stated purely and simply, they are the following:

1. Smoke cigarettes

2. Get married

Although many now mature gents may be reluctant to admit it, we're convinced that an overwhelming majority would sincerely agree, at least within their own minds.

FED UP

After many years of being concerned over the anticipated, then the actual outcome of a periodic general election, this writer has finally reached a conclusion. Having grown irrevocably sick and tired of the half-truths and distortions belched forth by the candidates, we find the whole affair no more sincere than those ghastly TV commercial messages the advertising gentry endeavors to make us swallow.

As a consequence, our personal conclusion can be best stated as follows:

WE DON’T GIVE A _____________________ ANY LONGER

Each reader is invited to fill in the blank space with whatever term he or she may choose, in at least four and not more than eight letters.

GOOD OLD NO. XV

The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as ratified on February 3, 1870, proudly declares that citizens’ voting rights shall not be denied or abridged due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

We must now ask how said wording might appear to mean from a 21st century schoolchild’s viewpoint. We can’t help but feel that his or her understanding would be that every American citizen could head straight to the polls on all election days thereafter.

Well, Kids, ‘tain’t so. The teacher will have to mark your answer wrong in this particular case.

Considering the era in which this amendment became law, the obvious implication at the time was that such right would continue to be restricted to members of the unfair sex only, be their skin white, black, red, brown, blue, or green.

Actually, doesn’t it sound a bit preposterous that no necessity whatsoever called for the words male citizens, rather than just citizens? Talk about chauvinism!

So how did our latter 19th century ladies react in combating this effrontery? Were there protest marches down New York’s Fifth Avenue, fiery speeches from soapboxes across the land, or armies of female pickets outside the White House? As far as we can determine, no such endeavors were undertaken. Having been formally deprived of such right by every state since 1807, our womenfolk knew their place, and continued to content themselves at the spinning wheel and in the kitchen, while tending to a nursery filled with youngsters. Otherwise, they may have been subject to victimization by tar and feathers, or maybe even a horsewhip.

It took another 50 (count ‘em) 50 years before voting privileges were extended to the distaff side, and only after a lengthy and tedious bout with all those stuffy hidebound men running the show, as had been the practice for countless millennia.

Our sole remaining question is why did it take so much blooming time for a leading world nationality, not to mention the entire human race, to resolve what we view today as an utterly logical issue?

MENTAL POISONING (BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES)

In 1949, a renowned author named George Orwell wrote a novel entitled 1984, which depicted living conditions as they might become by that time. The book envisioned a wholly totalitarian world, with only three gigantic countries remaining in existence, each having derived from territorial conglomeration. They all ruled their citizenry in a terrifying manner, by the simple means of sheer news fabrication. The individual would receive a daily dose of disinformation about wars being fought, subversive activities attempted, and the utter necessity to maintain unceasing patriotic sentiment and loyalty by promptly reporting any suspected offenders to the central authorities. The nation known as Oceania, whose capital lay in London, had identified an anarchist named Emmanuel Goldstein, allegedly leading forces dedicated to undermining the so-called people’s government and everything it stood for. As matters turned out, however, no such person actually lived, having been fabricated to foster universal hatred, a feature most essential to the “inner party’s” undisputed control over the masses.

Although our own year 1984 came and went without the eventuality so grimly described by Mr. Orwell, we can’t help but wonder if our modern society leadership hasn’t been taking a few pages out of his work and putting them to comparable use, albeit not to such extremes. We’d like to cite a few reasons why we harbor suspicion in this regard.

For openers, one of comedian Bob Newhart’s earliest monologue sketches dealt with the presumed need to have created a public figure image for Abraham Lincoln, causing the man to appear somewhat more exciting than his true characteristics would convey. Although only a retroactive spoof, it clearly illustrated the principle of artificially fabricating a persona. The piece accurately mirrored practices known to be carried out today by TV wizards, in order to glorify candidates for office or intended prominence elsewhere.

Additionally, our private DVD collection happens to include certain films, among which are the following, based on situations of a factual or too close for comfort nature:
· Power, wherein a national election becomes a rivalry between image builders representing their respective candidates, with little or no concern over the issues each may be guided by;
· Wag the Dog, with the presidential election prospects getting completely overturned during the last eleven campaign days, by virtue of staging a bogus war scare and a fictitious martyred military hero;
· The Pentagon Papers, a biographical presentation of Daniel Ellsberg’s struggle to make the true Vietnam war results clearly understood, and the government’s two-fisted effort to discredit him;
· Network, a plot Larry King and others in the TV business consider to be pure realism put on film, explaining how the general public can be influenced and motivated solely through overblown or virtually concocted news coverage;
· Finally, JFK, where Oliver Stone endeavors to portray a believable cover-up of the actual circumstances surrounding the Kennedy assassination, and its attempt to identify a sole red-tinged young man as the culprit.

The above instances have dealt with two opposite poles, evidencing concentration either on hatred or heroic imagery, sometimes throwing both together. To our mind, each ranks as insidious as the other. Misguiding the multitude definitely falls under bearing false witness, according to the tablets God delivered to Moses. The obvious question has to be whether the U.S. government or the television industry deserves the greater guilt. In our opinion, it’s both, in the form of an ill-conceived, unofficial joint venture.

What we’re busting our tails to drive home in this piece is the extent to which utter phoniness has long been known to prevail at the highest political and show business levels, while the majority goes on blithely accepting the engineered news diet with little reservation.

It’s a foregone conclusion that our government requires a sense of national paranoia at all times, with the best means being through perpetual focus on at least one leading villain in the public eye, á la Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein. Interestingly, a fellow can be transformed from the world’s biggest schmuck into a nice guy almost overnight, whereas in some cases the exact reverse will occur. A few prominent examples from recent decades are shown below.

From mean s.o.b. to reasonably sound citizen, there have been:
· Yasser Arafat;
· Muammar Gadaffi;
· Manuel Ortega.

On the other hand, from half-way decent chap to downright louse, we offer:
· Fidel Castro;
· Manuel Noriega;
· Sadam Hussein.

The most notable feature is that elevating yesterday’s nastiest guy in the universe to today’s top semi-god must invariably be followed by immediate demotion of some new person to prime time satanic status.

Currently, however, we just may have established the all-time greatest villain in modern history, namely the very elusive Osama bin Laden, who’s been ducking our belligerent legions for such a long while that we can’t avoid wondering if such a bloke really does exist as such, or is represented only by photos of some humble middle eastern shepherd. Nevertheless, the sentiment mounted against him has become so overwhelming that our organized propaganda machine now seems to have put all its eggs in one basket.

Be that as it may, until the day arrives when this demonic personage is either slain or captured, we remain somewhat less than convinced about him and his so-called family connections not having been at least partially fabricated. Still, we’ll be more than pleased to acknowledge his evil authenticity, once duly proven.

A NEW EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM BOMBSHELL

As evidenced by an earlier blog article, we aren’t exactly enthralled with the performance qualities exhibited by our collective professorial gentry. It’s now sad to report that we’ve recently discovered yet another specific failing in the educational process.

Having become informally affiliated with the retail guitar trade, we’ve made several new acquaintances who play as amateurs or professionals, some of whom hold music major degrees. What has struck us in the solar plexus more than once lately is the general lack of familiarity displayed regarding mid-20th century jazz greats and their contribution to modern note-producing history.

Without exception, these esteemed diploma-wavers are able to converse somewhat intelligently about Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, Verdi, Debussy, and those other classical cats, having had such names crammed down their throats during classroom days. However, we find ourselves constantly appalled when, upon mentioning Goodman, Ellington, Basie, Dorsey, Miller, and even Brubeck, a blank stare results, followed by a Benny Who, Duke Who, or similar response.

Harking back to our own music class school days, we recall being thoroughly familiarized with outpourings of the “old master” fraternity by the dozen. Contrarily, of course, no teacher seated at the piano or up front alongside the record-player dared admit that “swing bands” were then reigning supreme, with their latest hits being mentally hummed by students galore. Such subject was a strict discussionary no-no.

We long ago wrote off that crew of eunuchal fuddy-duddies as not having been in tune with the times. What else could be expected in such a backward-looking era? Jumping to the present, though, we can’t help but detect a still apparent disdain for the musicianship which steadily evolved from its birth around the 1890s, through the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and onward, having become an established way of life. About the only statement we can utter to those unenlightened ex-students of music is that overworked cliché, “Your education has been sadly neglected”, with all sincerity.

At least we’ve not yet reached the ultimate stage when singers may be the conversational topic, and some youthful wizard pipes up with “Frank Who?”

CONGRATULATIONS TO WASHINGTON

Tanning salons, which tend to proliferate around our country these days, are emporia where relatively pale-skinned folk may be turned into well-bronzed bathing beauties after a few lamp or laser treatments. In some respects, this may be viewed as an extravagance, since the same effect can be achieved less expensively by a day at the beach or an outdoor pool.

Accordingly, that stalwart band of brothers in our two congressional houses has deemed this particular service to approach excessive yuppieness, deciding to levy a 10% federal excise tax on charges for its performance. Senators Laurel, Abbott, Moe, and Larry, along with Representatives Hardy, Costello, Curly, and Keaton have found a way to tack such provision onto that grand and glorious health care reform bill they’ve been debating ad nauseam over for what seems like ages.

There obviously has to be some logic to this step, because we know that United States Senators and Congress(wo)men possess nothing short of our nation’s soundest minds. Nevertheless, we can’t help but wonder what relevance artificial body tanning has to public health care improvement.

Anyway, quite a few small business establishments here and about now stand to suffer a touch of reduced revenue from the more dedicated do-it-yourselfers, not to mention an additional record-keeping and form out-filling burden. Meanwhile, our Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere oil barons will continue enjoying overly abundant annual tax deductions in the form of a percentage depletion allowances, accompanied by others among the wealthier class
who benefit from countless further gimmicks and loopholes reserved for those with more control than the tanning artists over our esteemed legislators.

How can we do anything but take off our hats and bow deeply in the direction of Washington DC, offering homage to our two highly remarkable congressional groups?

SOME VITALLY NEEDED SOCIALISTIC STEPS

Within the past century, countries throughout the world have adopted numerous and varied public healtWh care programs, ranging from totally government-backed setups to that farcical effort the U.S. Congress recently wasted months shouting across the aisles over, before winding up with still one more non-solution to a pressing dilemma. To put the issue squarely on the table, none of those supposedly beneficent schemes has ever worked effectively anywhere. Meanwhile, the human race’s collective physical condition continues to deteriorate, almost by the hour.

The medical world these days never ceases to be involved in a round robin spiral. Doctors’ clinics and hospitals invest with fervent zeal in the latest technically-advanced and increasingly expensive gadgetry for such fundamental tasks as checking temperature, pulse, blood pressure, and the like, as well as treating major or minor ailments. A “keeping up with the Joneses” atmosphere seems to prevail. Costs therefore continue to rise, causing service fees to steadily go up, leading in turn to even less affordable insurance company rates. We certainly can’t be accused of exaggeration in stating that such trend is never going to stop, unless some essential corrective action gets implemented.

Sound logic dictates a single and simple answer to this ungodly mess. What would be wrong with going the full distance, by offering absolutely free care for every male and female citizen or lawful immigrant in this country? We firmly believe that if the Almighty had His druthers, He’d be likely to opt for this sort of arrangement.

Revolutionary or not, we view the following program as mandatory, and with all deliberate speed:
· Providing for needed medical, psychiatric, and dental services to all qualified at no expense, to include doctor and nursing care, hospitalization, surgery, prescribed drugs, orthopedic limbs, canes, wheel chairs, walkers, oxygen, and whatever else may duly apply;
· The foregoing point notwithstanding, exclusion of coverage for abortions, legal or otherwise (honestly feeling the Almighty would want it this way too), surgery of a strictly cosmetic nature, and dental work for mere beautification purposes;
· Compensating doctors, dentists, nurses, and other licensed health care practitioners on a fitting salary scale, subject to annual increase according to experience and/or number of patients treated;

Obviously, this would call for subsidization of hospitals and pharmaceutical companies at government expense, perhaps in the latter case based on accepted and approved research and development achievements.

And now the bombshell:
· Cancelation of all existing health and malpractice insurance plans, as neither being required any longer.

Additionally, inasmuch as a considerable degree of ill health is brought about by poor personal eating and other habits, we’re convinced that the costs of the foregoing plan ought to be covered to a major extent by heavy, heavier, and heaviest taxes on the following products:
· Tobacco in any form;
· Alcoholic beverages, including beer and ale;
· Soft drinks;
· Candy and chewing gum;
· Meat and other foods clinically defined as being of high calorie, high cholesterol, high glucose, contributive to high blood pressure, or comparably harmful.

Furthermore, greater import tariffs should be strongly considered on coffee and cocoa beans, because of their less-than-healthful properties.

Although we deem the above program fine in principle, might we not expect gross abuses to arise? Of course. Everyone knows that. Wouldn’t those vulturous lobbyists who infest Washington and state capitals have a picnic, endeavoring to push through the perennial legislation set to satisfy special interests only? We have no doubt in the slightest. Government bureaucracy would also be sure to rear its ugly head in frightful proportions. Nevertheless, might the overall resultant improvement in public welfare not be apt to outweigh the slings and arrows? We’re inclined to believe so.

Once and for all then, can’t sensible, compassionate heads prevail after so many decades or longer of bickering, unjust treatment, and sheer failure in all health care system undertakings to date?

Any reader who fails to react at least to some degree at the program we’ve sketched out above should be subject to censorship for mental negligence.

THE ELECTRONIC AGE AND ITS HORRORS

It has become quite clear that the makers of electronic gadgetry have successfully taken a page, yea pages, what the hell, chapters from the book so long maintained by the automotive companies during their lush days, promoting dynamic obsolescence. Every new piece of equipment these silicon chip neo-geniuses foist on the market now seems to result in a clamor to visit the nearest sales spot, so the outmoded model purchased just a couple years ago can be tossed into the retirement bin or given to the kids.

Perhaps we’re more conservative than we constantly claim to be, by never appreciating the need to possess the latest pocket-sized or slightly larger device, guaranteed to perform heretofore unimaginable feats, both faster and with more storage capacity than ever envisioned. If so, we must confess to prefer behaving in an old fuddy-duddy manner, rather than like a wide-eyed yuppie. What’s wrong with being content sticking to an earlier version, as long as it does the job satisfactorily?

THE GUY NEXT DOOR

During the years of Ronald Reagan’s presidential tenure, we never ceased viewing him as a man who’d very likely make an ideal next door neighbor, based upon his consistent demeanor while appearing in public. He always seemed like the sort of chap inclined to drop by on occasion for a friendly beer at the kitchen table, or engage in frequent spirited conversation with a fellow back yard grass cutter. It’s no wonder that he enjoyed such immense universal popularity for such a lengthy time period.

In rather sharp contrast, we developed a much different feeling as regards his immediate White House successor, George Bush Sr. Should he be residing that close by, we envision an approximate weekly pounding on our door to proclaim in vociferous tones “Your dog peed
on my shrubbery!”

A LONG AND WELCOME SARTORIAL STRIDE

Whenever we venture out on various excursions for shopping, social events, or other purposes these days, we find it interesting to note the wearing apparel which adorns roughly 95% of the men observed. Clothing once viewed as fit for only a hobo or a hopeless wino is now the accepted mode. The casual look has become the universally accepted male fashion.

Anyone who watches early era movies on television or DVD will see how strictly conservative masculine garb prevailed in those days. Among our best remembered examples was a scene with approximately twenty men grouped together in the stands viewing a hockey game. Without exception, they wore business suits, neckties, and felt hats, more resembling chorus line members than spectators. To our subsequent century eyes, this seemed nothing short of ridiculous. Nevertheless, that's how we chaps were virtually required to drape ourselves much of the time a half-century or so back.

Contrarily today, about the only situations that force a fellow to clad himself thusly occur when sitting in a stuffy board room or attending church services. Being retired, and otherwise not having not occupied a pew for decades, we wouldn't be overly surprised to learn that some might be showing up at both such locations wearing more relaxed duds by now. However, we hold no particular anxiety to check either matter out.

To help the trend along, several latter-day U.S. Presidents have shed such senseless formality as well, when making public appearances under appropriate conditions.

A close acquaintance once described an incident which took place when he was an early teenager (circa 1939), vacationing with older relatives at a rustic cabin resort in the Pennsylvania hills. He showed us a family photo where every person except his father wore casual outfits. In stark dissimilarity, Pop had on a white shirt and a tie -- at an Appalachian wilderness retreat! Furthermore, he'd shaved, after allowing his five o'clock shadow to build up for several days, according to our narrator.

The reason readily became clear, as our friend went on to explain. There was periodic need for someone to drive into the nearest hamlet to seek supplies or whatever. As head of the household, the old man had the procurement obligation, and had groomed himself with due propriety. During those times, a true gentleman never trod the sidewalk without a single-color suit plus a necktie, and likely a hat on top, even in Hickburg, Pa. Besides that, only bums let their beards grow back then. His return had immediately preceded the picture-taking, with only a few minutes to shed his coat and sombrero.

Speaking very candidly, it's a pleasure not having to put up with such false formality any longer. In turn, dare we suppose the day will come when judges and barristers in England's and its many commonwealth countries' courts of law might stop wearing those silly powdered wigs, faggoty cravats, and outmoded robes?

TACTICAL ADVICE FROM A WOULD-BE FIFTH COLUMNIST CHASER

Quite recently, the apartment complex where we reside sent out invitations for any and all occupants to attend a brief reception at its club house a few days further on. With the announced hour being "by 1:00 PM", our initial thought was to drop in at 11:00 and stay only long enough to meet a 12:30 appointment elsewhere. Shortly afterward though, the realization struck that the correct starting time would be somewhat later than first anticipated, making our presence impossible.

How did reach such conclusion? Purely and simply because we knew the bulletin had been composed by a Latina lady, who had grown up in another country. With no disrespect intended, we could tell that her use of by didn't actually mean before, but rather near, hence around or about one o'clock.

To expand upon this innocent type of linguistic error, we've long held to the certainty that should we ever become engaged in counterespionage activity, an enemy agent posing as a U.S. patriot could eventually be tripped up through noting improper English preposition use. As an unofficial, yet dedicated student of various foreign tongues, we've experienced countless cases where such application can be much different between one language and another, especially when a direct textbook translation pattern is followed. Consequently, a reasonably lengthy interview with a supposed "one of us" would guarantee spy detection results in due course.

Another alleged way to catch an unwanted infiltrator would merely be to sketch a diamond on a piece of paper, then ask him or her to place an X where the shortstop belongs. We scoff at this idea for two sound reasons. Firstly, we've met any number of native-born Americans unable to perform such exercise properly, which might lead to false presumption. Conversely, a well-trained enemy agent could handle the matter with his or her eyes closed.

Everything we've said above is likely old hat to the CIA et al lads and lasses. Nevertheless, we just wanted to flaunt our vicarious capabilities.