Happy 50th, Mr. President

I have my differences with Mr. Obama, but birthday wishes is not one of them.

Many happy returns on reaching the big 5-0!

Crash Courses

I'm proud of what I came up for my title today, as this post is about more than one crash course. One, as in the seminar I attended last week. And Two, as in our crashing credit rating and economy-sinking debt (see cartoon above).

I am finally posting about the 2 days of the Health Care Costs Containment seminar with my friend Vanny.
I am really supposed to avoid doing anything stressful 2 or more days in a row as an all-day activity, so attending it did have me limited as to my activities. Anyway, this is it!
I'd planned to blog more in a lot more detail about the seminar, mostly to avoid writing about the congressional debt ceiling crap, but also because I think what I learned was very surprising. Now that I'm getting a later start on it, let me just summarize it as best I can.

Did you know that there are companies called risk analysis firms, that take our health care info and create statistics out of them? Yup. Because of privacy laws, insurance companies, private employers and doctor practices cannot send them our names or social security numbers, but they can assign each of us code numbers, scrub the records of privates and then share them with these kinds of companies. The risk analyzers take this info (which also includes what we each cost the system) and make all kinds of statistical conclusions out of it, sending reports and recommendations back to the sender companies.

They've been around for a few decades now. So far, they've just mostly been able to advise about tweaking benefit packages -- increasing co-pays on this plan or that, this procedure or that. But recently, as health care costs have increased even more, they are being asked to go further and deeper with their data analysis. It's predicted that risk analysis will soon dramatically change health care as we know it, no matter who provides it, and in surprising ways.

After recovering from the shock, it becomes apparent that this is enormous. For good and ill. I'd read an article in The New Yorker earlier in the year about some do-good doctors who used this kind of data analysis done by Verisk Analytics to actually help a few patients reverse damaging longterm trends and become cheaper to the system as well as healthier. At the time, I considered it noble, but I also wrote it off to anecdoctal insignificance. After last week seeing its power spotlighted, it's gotten me to taking it more seriously.

We attended a few talks and panels that attempted to show this analytical power in more specific (and surprising) settings. The one which stood out most in my mind was the panel discussion that dealt with the longterm health care cost liabilities of marathon runners. Not the professional ones. I'm talking the ones among us. The guy or gal down the block, the coworker, the boss...there are tons of folks who do this and/or train to do this. If you read crafters and artists' blogs, you read about plenty of them. It seems to be the in-thing, especially among Generation X women, as far as I can tell.

As the panel explained, at first people usually begin running as exercise to lose weight or get fit. But for many it soon becomes an obsession linked with higher risk taking, similar to those who get hooked on drag racing or bungee jumping or even four-wheeling. The runners don't often see it this way, though. Many see it as some sort of ultimate character-building. And they tell themselves it is the healthiest thing they can do for themselves and that it's all-good with no health downside. Many doctors agree.

But the more sophisticated emerging risk analysis statistics are beginning to tell a bit different tale.

Short-term damage to the heart after extended running (basically triggering a flight-or-fight response that lasts way longer than it ever was meant to in humans) is also being suspected now of causing long term damage as well, because of statistics being analyzed patient history by patient history over longer time by fresh third-party eyes.

Then, there is also the long term damage to skeleto-muscular frames. This was actually one of the high cost items that first caused health care providers to marry up with risk analyzers, because of the increase in surgeries on joints and ligaments. One panel presenter said he's learned they are alarmed at the huge increase in arthritises, wondering if this is solely a degeneration thing, or whether the aggravated state of joint distress may actually trigger the disease.

It does not help that researchers cannot help answer this yet. While they have made strides in identifying congenital / hereditary dna markers for it, there is still a big internal debate about it being a virus and how it strikes. Hereditary cases only account for perhaps 20% of all forms of arthritis as far as we know now, so that's alot of cases out there being triggered by stuff that's still mysterious.

Yikes! As someone who owns 5 of those arthritis babies through my genes (I never was a runner...aka jogger in my day...although I did try once, my boobs were always too big for comfort), I can honestly say that mine were not triggered by running, but I cannot think of any kind of high worth the pain and crippling that I now endure. So, my empathy is with someone who does something for years they think is healthful, only to find out, not completely.

Heart and joint damage are one thing, but another panel added addiction to the list, and frankly this surprised me most of all. I really wanted to scoff, but I did google once I got home, looking for something to confirm or deny. And geez, I landed in more than a few online running forum discussions about this! Wow. Comments like, have you ever known a dedicated runner who wasn't grouchy and demanding? And what if they cannot run due to injury or environment? I really only spent less than an hour on it, but just in that small timeframe I found more than a few runners who were quite candid about their concerns about having OCD or Narcissistic Personality or being an addict to the endomorphins and the self-discipline, the sacrifice, the uber-human effort.

Another presenter talked about how it's really tough to tell the addict that what they are doing has good effects for one part of the body (lungs and circulation), but they are playing with russian roulette fire when it comes to other body systems. He talked about all the teenage school sports deaths where the kid just drops dead, and that the majority of them are on the basketball court after a prolonged period of constant running.

Plus, remember when it came out a few years back that you could receive similar aerobic results with less work or time? He said that also buried in that were study finding recommends to walk and swim over running/jogging. That was the beginning of what these analyses were showing, but as often happens, never got fully explained, because the media does not always interpret properly. The panel said there should have been more emphasis placed on the dangers of marathon running.

The next panel day dealt with future trends possibly resulting from findings like these. IOW, a health care system that uses risk analysis to determine care, pre-existing conditions, coverage of procedures...would it end up treating a marathon runner as suspiciously as an obese smoker? Quite possibly, was the panel's consensus, because it is all about the numbers and cost is a big number. Someone noted at that point that, thanks to risk analysis, they are also discovering there are a shockingly big number of older and elderly people still among us who are obese and/or who smoke. Hehe, you know I heard that, for sure.

I learned other things at the seminar, but I've shared what was to me the most surprising thing, about the marathon running. I frankly hesitated at first about sharing this, because I do not want to turn off readers who do run. So just know that I am only the messenger here! So if you think it's all bunk, then go right ahead. But at least I've shared it.

I just hope that my friends who choose this form of exercise know all the risks in order to make an informed decision, and that many doctors are not the ones to inform them, as they are not privy to all of the risk analysis and many of them run themselves so they think it's wonderful. But, really, we live in a time where research findings and associated advice change all the time, so how would we know what is right or wrong long term anymore? Sigh. So, I'd say, take this with a grain of salt, but file it away as well, in case later you see corroboration to add to it later.

So Much for Don

I know I owe you a post about the seminar I went to this past week, but I am still trying to type it out. My thumbs are trying their best to drive me mad with pain. So for now, let me share with you the cell phone photos I took on Thursday of Tropical Storm Don's outer bands arriving in my neck of the woods.

I just happened to be on the road and the photos do not do the contrast of clouds justice. It was actually kinda hard to concentrate on driving, but to be fair, I must confess that I had never taken photos before on my cell phone, so part of the distraction for me was learning on the fly how to do that {busted!}.

Photo #1, driving south up on the Hartman Suspension Bridge. Believe it or not, I was in blinding sunlight seconds before.



Over the bridge now and still going south, but at ground level it's a more monstrous sight.



My quick errand done, now driving due north and back over the bridge, the clouds have beaten me back home.

You can better see the stark contrast between sunny and stormy in this cloud shot.

This one gives an idea of how low-hanging Don's clouds were, as well as the sunny-stormy contrast.

Throughout the entire trip, not one drop of rain fell on my dusty dirty car. When we finally got a little bit of rain on Friday, it was almost anti-climactic. I heard thunder and one slight wind gust at 6 a.m. exactly. Then a gentle shower lasting 10 minutes. That was as bad as it got. I was grateful for the cloudiness, though, as our temperatures dropped a few degrees. So, so much for Don.

Awaiting Armageddon

Don't know about you, but the closer we've been getting to August 2nd, the more fidgety and anxious I've tried to be. And the stress just snowballs for me when that happens, so when my girlfriend Vanny called and asked me to tag along to a symposium in Houston with her, I lept at the chance.

This is how desperate I was to get out of the house and visit with her -- it's 2 whole days of all aspects of health care cost containment trends through statistical analysis. Just the trends and not the strategies or processes, thank the Lord. But as quirky as Life often is, I have to say I learned a LOT of stuff I never knew about and got away from the cable news minute-by-minute of nothing. And, as I hadn't seen Vanny in a long while, we got to catch up and that was worth everything to me.

Today was Day One, and as I must be up early for Day Two, I promise to blog about it tomorrow. Til then, stay calm and cool! We are apparently getting a tropical storm on Friday, so the rain will be good.

Domi-Nation Psychology

Ok, so I'm watching CNN and Dr. Drew comes on to tease his upcoming interview with Bristol Palin. A few of their topics of conversation were shared with Sanjay Gupta asking basically what-wrong-with-that (how she answered), which gave Dr. Drew the perfect opportunity to analyze Bristol's behavior. I was struck by the number of times Dr. Drew and Gupta criticized Bristol for quote-unquote hiding or masking or being less than forthcoming with her emotions.

Now, as I was watching Bristol, I was continuously struck by how mature and well-spoken and honest she was for someone her age. So, the guys' take on this was stinking a little to me. Something about it was odd. Thinking further, I began to think, can it be that Bristol was being pushed to be more sensational, and because she did have control and maturity, she never took the bait and was subsequently criticized?

I left feeling pretty sure that I was believing that was the deal.

Dang, that line is so blurred and micro-thin that I need to start feeling sorry for people who are interviewed nowadays. Cuz if that isn't already happening, you know it is just a matter of not alotta time before it is. I like Dr. Drew. I want to like him, but it is hard sometimes. Like when he's on Nancy Grace and just nods affirmatively to all her insane nonsense instead of standing up to her. He should analyze her ass. Now, to be fair, he turns around and on his own show builds his own case around the exact opposite of what he just puppy-dog agreed with, but still, geez. No balls on that one.

It makes me think, what's the use, when I get aggravated with him not being fair enough to note in all honesty, what smart person would bare her soul like his producers want. He'll just say it is the price he has to pay to be on TV. And that's pretty sad. What lengths we go to nowadays in order to dominate others.

So, this whole thing reminds me of a French art film with subtitles from 1980 called Mon Oncle d'Amerique (My American Uncle). I watched it the other night and it was quite interesting. A very young Gérard Depardieu does a very nice job as a sensitive cog in a corporate wheel.

If you know what evolutionary psychology is, the movie's plot was about an EP researcher doing lab experiments with mice that illustrate the four human reactions of that theory, and then it showed human examples of them in the characters and their integrated story plots. Think, perhaps, of an R-rated Plaza Suite , but with an over-arching behavioral science applicability.

IMDB describes it as this: "Prof. Henri Laborit uses the stories of the lives of three people to discuss behaviorist theories of survival, combat, rewards and punishment, and anxiety. René is a technical manager at a textile factory and must face the anxiety caused by corporate downsizing. Janine is a self-educated actress/stylist who learns that the wife of her lover is dying and must decide to let them reunite. Jean is a controversial career-climbing writer/politician at a crossroads in life."

Call me crazy, but I find it fascinating to see how differently people react to dominant acts made upon them by others. I do believe that we have physiological hard-wiring in us that tend to make us do things in certain predictable ways, but like William James, I think that is only part of the story, and it is possible for cultural or societal variables to influence us as well.

If I were debating a skeptic of EP, I would defend the existence of EP without it being the sole answer. Rather, part of the puzzle, but I'd insist that EP is not a dead or limited theory since the human brain and body are constantly evolving, including its hard-wired circuit board. Humans' use of language is always given as an example of EP, but we did not and do not start out knowing one.

I read a column this year by David Brooks where he dissed EP as being a dead theory and not accounting for change. I was almost wild with frustration over his assertion, like I wanted to grab his shoulders and ask him what the fuck did he think the word evolutionary meant in the name??? Hello?

This is just another example of where I think some people get all tied up in believing all the politically correct things they think they are supposed to think, and then they either don't see any contradictions or just throw up their hands and say oh well, not everything goes together, so sue me. I still cannot fathom how a Liberal who believes in Evolution to the point that he vehemently opposes the teaching of any other theory in schools, can sit there and diss capitalism for its obvious Darwinian ways. I mean, wft? Or how he might diss someone who believes that Evolution is totally logical and probable, and also believes that God invented it as a way to expedite his creating abilities.

Anyway, once a brain gets to thinking about EP and how we react to being dominated, it begins to notice there is a whole lot of it happening on a daily basis. For one thing, advertising methodology is very much based on it. Political behavior totally is. I would love to know what has caused so much bullying in schools, because I have never seen adolescent children so mean to each other as they are getting to be. Back in my day, we had them too, but were we just better able to do what we were advised, which was to just blow them off and not let them get to us? Really? Like they are the same bullies and the bullied have gotten softer? Maybe it is the reactions that are different now, and EP and this movie are all about that. So, if you ever have occasion to see it, take a chance on it.

Nancy & Bill *Jonesing* Again

Well, I have tried to just not comment any further on the Casey Anthony trial. The verdict came in, largely as I'd predicted, not because I'm clairvoyant, but because the jury concluded as I did - the State over-charged its case and then did not prove it's charge. However, thanks to Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace, we are not able to move on and are likely to be stuck in emotional hell all summer.

O'Reilly and Grace -- makes a great team title, no? -- are appearing tonight on Bill's show The Factor, and I will not be watching. I've watched Bill's show faithfully (and with 3 runs per night, how can one avoid it?) for years, mostly because I like his regular guests and skits (Greg Gutfeld, Tanya Reiman, Dennis Miller, Bernie Goldberg, Culture Quiz, Culture Warriors, and the grandaddy of them all, original guest commentator Kinky Friedman). I would excuse his constant interruptions and leprechaun-ish anger-fits as so much entertainment, because it would only show itself occasionally.

But as I have seen it increase, I have been tiring for months now of Bill's Irish-Catholic kneejerk evangelical bully-pulpit tirades, and the latest series of them over the Anthony verdict is the last straw for me. I emailed his producers that Bill was turning into a female Nancy Grace, and apparently they like that idea and perhaps thought it was a compliment, which it was not. (I also wrote that imo Bill slandered Juror #3). Tonight's desperate attempt to mirror-justify themselves sickens me, and I have to wonder if Melinda Duckett is turning over in her suicidal grave.

Back in 2006, Nancy similarly went off the reservation and her tirading resulted in Grace paying Duckett's family off after taking her own life because of being in Nancy's crosshairs. It was called Grace's "Jenny Jones moment", and I submit that Grace is once again Jonesing and O'Reilly is along for the ride.

This is outrageous behavior, and both show hosts need to stop right now. "Justice for Caylee" is not achieved by increasing ratings at her expense, and when you think about it in the light of day, that is all that is getting accomplished by Bill and Nancy's behaviors. How are they any different than Casey Anthony would be if she were taking book deals and paid interviews...seriously?

Send both of them a message -- quit watching their shows. You are not missing a thing because they are both so predictable. You probably already know what they are gonna be saying. How is that compelling or otherwise worth it? Besides, if as I fear, either of them have fanned the flames of a vigilante "justice for caylee" fan taking it upon themselves to kill Casey after she is released, then by not watching, you are washing your hands of any indirect involvement in something that sordid and ugly. And please do not laugh at my fears -- the Druckett family would like to tell you a few things, I'm sure.

O'Reilly and Grace are nothing more than matching bookend BULLIES. Don't be a party to feeding their ilk. They eat their young...and may perhaps end up eating each other, if we are lucky.

It is far better to reward responsible commentators like Greta Van Sustern, Piers Morgan, Geraldo Rivera and Dr. Drew Pinsky with your viewership (even Sean Hannity was even-minded enough to present both sides and not slander the jury for their decision, and I give him kudos for not falling for the kneejerk law & order mindset on this one).

The Anthony jury foreman will be on Greta tonight, and this is probably because he knows Greta to be fair. I am interested in learning how they arrived at their decision, and Greta is a champion deposer. She will ask the questions that get the illuminating answers without bullying, disparaging or disrespecting her guest.

Wouldn't it be nice if O'Reilly could learn to do the same, and wouldn't it be even nicer if attorney Grace could once again show some respect for our legal system? Until they do (or it snows in Hell), I will not condone them, remember them, or egg them on by watching them. I invite you to do the same.

Global Guilties, Anyone?

I've heard from some of you on the Casey Anthony case, but not as many of you as I'd thought. Hmm, if it wasn't summer, I might be tempted to wonder the reason. Let me hear from you via email if you are of a mind to.

I learn something new every day, and thanks to your emails, my position has evolved a bit. I now have a complete and total distrust of George Anthony. Forget what I said about him not being able to conspire to commit or cover up a crime. Many of you would not trust him as far as you could throw him, as we say in Texas.

I got an email from a very old girlfriend of mine (who has a degree in law enforcement and 3 decades of experience), who reminded me that when she was in college, she dated a married cop in Houston and discovered an entire black market world of what they call "holes" -- places where cops can, shall we say, unwind while on duty, meaning places they can go for sex when they need or want to, or a meal, or a nap, as well as many other things. It blew her mind (and mine) to discover this underground world.

I must admit, I'd forgotten all of that. Thanks, G, for reminding me. G said that George is quite convincing, but then liars often are. G's reason for thinking George is guilty as an accessory is because the execution of the crime (whether it be chloroform or drowning) was almost successful in it leaving no trail for the coroner. She asked me, how often does that appear in a prosecutable crime? And how often is an ex-cop involved? Her radar detects a family cover-up of immense proportion, and I have to vouch for her radar, which is right-on most of the time.

I am still seeing a covered up accidental death by chloroforming, and not a drowning accident, and here is why. A drowning accident would not be indictable by a grand jury. But an accidental chloroforming death would. Simple as that. Don't make it any more complicated than that. Add in George's police experience expertise, both parents wanting to save their daughter's life, and a daughter who is an expert at lying and deceit (and having learned it from her parents, they are equally gifted in lying). The prosecution says the chloroform searches were evidence of premeditation of intent to kill, and I've already addressed that it seems more like premeditation for chloroforming with intent to keep alive. Seems like it would have been a better defense to come clean about the accident and argue that difference of intent, but this is now, not at the trial's beginning. And, besides, it is obvious that this lying family had a big hand in whatever story was fed to Jose Baez.

Speaking of which, today we found out that Cindy had apparently lied on the stand about doing the google searches, because her work records were subpoenaed and they do not corroborate her testimony. I missed seeing today's court proceedings, but the work records show that Cindy was logged in at work, not home. I have to wonder why Cindy attempted this admission at all, knowing full well the limits and rules of her employ. You might just brush that off as her being a dumb-ass, me not at all. Perhaps she thought she had the employer records figured out to be not as detailed, or that they may have been purged due to age. It does prove one thing, though. It proves Cindy's boldness for lying. Should she be cited for this? I think so, especially if a kid can get 6 days in jail for shooting the finger in the courtroom at the prosecutor.

Yesterday, George's alleged mistress Krystal Hollaway aka River Cruz, testified. (G says she thinks Krystal still wants him and is in love with him, and I got that impression as well). Her testimony was what began to erode my trust of George being the stand-up guy I'd believed him to be. To me, this was not the behavior on the stand of a woman trying to scam anyone. She was believable and quite human. Also, when George was back on the stand and asked about it, he twice wrote her allegations off to being very funny, as in humorous. Folks, would this not be the LAST thing you would say in the same position (but innocent)? I mean, use the word laughable, preposterous, even fiction, but not funny. Really, really weird response there. And Jose Baez could have replied, not funny, Mr. Anthony. Dang, I should be a consultant, haha.

It seems strangely consistent, when I look around the world at other big court trials, that there are others besides Casey Anthony apparently being railroaded to conviction based on evidence that ain't quite all there.

Take, for instance, Dominic Strauss-Kahn, the French IMF head who was arrested in NYC for allegedly accosting a hotel maid...remember him? Or perhaps more importantly, remember the way he was treated? He had to do the perpwalk in handcuffs and was refused bail on his own recognizance.

Nobody stood up for the guy really, other than Ben Stein, who warned us to remember about the presumption of innocence in his courageous essay titled "Presumed Innocent, Anyone?" (a witty jab at his Buellar days, and inspiration for my title today). Well, NOW it seems that the case against Strauss-Kahn is in jeopardy, due to some questions about his accuser. All together now, apologies to Mr. Stein....anyone? anyone? You know you owe it, especially those of you who called him a slug or worse.

And remember Amanda Knox, the American student over in Italy, who was convicted there of the murder of her roommate? And while it was happening, we just watched it with passive mild disinterest? Well, NOW, her case is being appealed, this time uncovering corruption during the trial by the prosecution, as well as shoddy evidence that may have been tainted.

It is becoming obvious to me that people the world over have become more knee jerk and pessimistic in their jurist duties, anyway. (This may spell trouble for Casey Anthony, with a Capital M). They say people act this way when times are bad. How else do the violent crowds and rebellious insurgencies form? Could this be why so many liberals see the Tea Party as violent thugs? And why don't they react similarly to those liberal environmental and anarchist student groups who actually do riot, loot and lob Molotov cocktails through store windows at G7 conferences? Ah, food for another thought time, my friends.

Finally, I want to change channels and express my thanks and appreciation to outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates. If you click on his name, it'll take you to his Wiki page where I guarantee you will get seasick trying to absorb all the man's accomplishments. On one hand, he's probably one of the few men in our history that George Washington himself would approve of heartily to oversee our common defense. So, it's a sad day to lose his service, and the world will be a bit more dangerous now. On the other hand, the guy deserves a vacay, retirement, whatever he wants. He's earned it several times over. I admit to having just put my worries in that dept. on the back burner and given them up to Mr. Sec-Def Emeritus. Definitely one of the best role models our society has. He will be missed, but I wish him well and thank him for his service.

McMurtry's Blessed Curse

Right now, I'm a-wallering bad. Tears are streaming down my cheeks and all cuz of a Lonesome Dove. I can't remember how many times now I've seen it, but it ain't enough. God, I wished I knew my favorite characters in real life: Gus, Loree, Newt, Jake, Clara.

I love 'em all so so much...except that I cannot stand the character of Woodrow Call.

Now, I loooooooovvvvvve Tommy Lee Jones. Just the thought of him makes me stand a little taller to be a Texan. But that character was a lowdown nasty butt who pushed every one of his friends to their deaths all because of his gall dern stubborn so-called "vision". And he got to live in the end. I hate him. Always have. Always will.

Aside from that, though, Jones did a grade-a perfect job portraying him. That and Larry McMurtry are why I hate Call so much. He is just too vivid to be ignored. Some of the best dialogue is the small talk between Woodrow and Gus. And then there are the daily gems of Gus's, like "Mornin', Girls" and "Loree, Darlin'".

The more times I see it, it gets shorter and shorter. That's because there are certain parts that I just can no longer watch. So, I take breaks. And there always another scene that gets added to the no-watch list. First always comes to mind -- when the mess of snakes kill the O'Brien boy crossing the river, when Gus dies of gangrene, when Blue Duck kidnaps and tortures Loree, when they hang Jake, lots of breaks for me. The last scene between Gus and Woodrow...oh, God, I cry like a baby. Duvall and Jones are just perfection perfected. But I always have to watch the end, because I have a gutteral need to scream out at Woodrow, "You MURDERER!" as the credits roll.

It was Larry McMurtry who first taught me why book jackets are useful at all: to cover up book spines so badly broken from reading that the title can no longer be read. This is my Texas section on my bookshelf, and it is pretty near holy. As you can see, every book has a jacket and now you know why.

You regular readers will notice that I even got into character to write this. That's what old Larry does to folks who read him. McMurtry is one of the finest writers to ever put pen to paper. He writes Texas. His characters are Texas. Sometimes it takes my breath away to think one man wrote The Last Picture Show, the Lonesome Dove trilogy and Terms of Endearment.

Just how does it get much better than that? xoxo

On Liberty...and prosecutors

Behold this axiom of our American justice system:
"Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man."

Now, many folks today use this as logic why we should not profile at airports or road checkpoint stops, etc., but I want to apply it to a specific process, one that it was originally intended to address: a courtroom, a trial -- the proper context for it (as opposed to profiling people for safety against terrorism, where no conviction is even a possibility at that point, just a way to look at certain people in more depth who fit the profiles).

I believe this was one of the BIG things our founders believed in; therefore, I have always tried to believe in it as well. It has its seminal roots in Blackstone, which is a cornerstone of our legal system. It is why we make a prosecutor prove a case beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict. And I further believe that we all need to remember this, especially those of us chosen to sit on trial juries of our peers, but also those of us watching trials and rendering judgments in the marketplace of culture.

Once, back in 1978, I sat on a capital murder trial jury. I admit, I did not want to be chosen, but I was. A baby had been beaten to a point where it had developed abdominal peritonitis and had died. The boyfriend of the mother was on trial for the murder. But, as testimony later showed, during the time period that the baby was supposed to have incurred the fatal injury (because untreated peritonitis causes a slow, painful death), several members of the mother's family had custody and were alone with the baby.

Another thing about peritonitis in a baby: the pain and sickness causes a baby to be a pain in the ass. It cries and cries, screams in pain, and never quits. I'm sorry you have to read this, but you do need to know the picture painted to the jury. It was, needless to say, an agonizing job we all endured just listening to the testimony.

When it came time to deliberate is when I learned the hard way about this axiom of legal justice. It was explained to us ad nauseum throughout the trial that this was a case entirely based almost completely upon circumstantial evidence. This basically means in practice that all evidence other than direct eyewitness testimony of the crime is indeed circumstantial, and that the way the jury navigates this is to logic out what happened using the evidence. But also given equal weight is where another result can be equally inferred using logic and the evidence. And in the end, somehow, we must arrive at a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict.

This is where I found myself as a juror in deliberation. Sure, I could clearly see where this boyfriend, left to babysit, could have gotten ticked off at this baby and hit it. But I could also see some other scenarios involving other family members alone with the child that could yield the same result, and the prosecution never helped me dispel the likelihood of those happening with the same odds.

In other words, it began to look increasingly to me that they picked the person to indict who was the easiest in their minds of convicting. Especially when the mother was given immunity to testify against the boyfriend, thereby shielding herself from accusation, and by omission of her own testimony, her family from being accused of similar guilt.

Which was a problem, because they did not have any evidence against the boyfriend, other than he was one of several alone with the baby during the critical period of probably injury. So, my friends, as much as that baby's injury and death sickened me, I hung that jury. And it was because the prosecution had not proven its case against this one person.

Because I was sequestered and admonished not to read or see news about this, I did not know that the press was saying the same thing about this boyfriend being railroaded just to get a conviction. So while that later made me feel a bit better, I am here to tell you that it is a very hard thing to hang a jury, meaning that if it truly be your conviction to force the prosecution to prove a case, you had better cling to that tightly because you will need impressive strength. The likelihood is great that other jurors are going to be prone to just believing whatever the prosecution asserts. Getting the job done and going home is a huge motivator.

For 5 days, the other jurors went through all kinds of nasty behavior because of my stubbornness. If you have ever seen the 1957 movie Twelve Angry Men, then you might remember Henry Fonda, Juror #8. Honeys, I know know know what his character went through. There was even another juror who could have been Lee J. Cobb's disgusting character, Juror #3. If you have not ever seen this movie, I can also tell you that it is one of the most accurate depictions of what it is like to be on a jury where you are the only one to believe in the above axiom throughout. Even down to the immense sweating...

I was angrily insulted, shunned, patronized like a child, for the first 3 days...whatever anyone else thought would change my mind to the majority. But beginning on Day 4, a few others spoke up that they had begun to see what I was saying, and it was later said that my backbone and clarity of thought gave them the courage to see it as well. Without that and the time it took for some to actually think on their own, they had been just agreeing with the status quo: the prosecution's charge and then the outspoken bossy jurors who wanted to obey the prosecution and go home pronto.

During the trial, I kept a diary of it. In it, I wrote down all the names -- the accused, the mother, the other family members, the prosecution team, the defense team, the judge, the witnesses, the jurors. And I even added to this diary in the years following the trial. After the trial, I would refer back to this diary as I read news about people that triggered my memories of those names.

About 4 years later, I noticed a news story about a man who was charged with the exact same crime, except this time, the poor baby was his own child. I looked back at my diary, and the accused turned out to be the mother's brother, who was one of the family members in my trial who was alone with the baby. This time, there was no immunity and family members came forward to testify that they witnessed a beating of the child that experts then testified was such that could and probably did cause the fatal injury. There were also 3rd parties who witnessed it (and this time, the family took the baby to the hospital immediately, not weeks later). It came out that this brother had a long history of violent erratic behavior. The boyfriend? Long gone from this family.

If I ever needed to see justification that I'd done the right thing, this probably would qualify. But, in fact, I never really needed it. I had no sleepless nights over it. I never once questioned what I'd done, and that is huge, for I tend to devil's advocate most everything. To me, to my own little mind, I knew I had done what was right. I knew I had used what tiny power I had as a citizen to honor the principles we were founded upon. And, I always felt like I'd do it again if I had to.

So, why am I talking about this now? Well, it is all flooding back to me these days, whenever the Casey Anthony trial is on TV. Let me just say this: I do not think much at all of Casey Anthony as a person. Casey is a proven liar and a spoiled brat of a daughter. She is 2 years older than my own daughter, and so my sympathies go often to her parents, who, although they had a hand in creating this diva, also had to deal with the Frankenstein they created. And my heart cries for that sweet little Caylee.

But I find myself increasingly concluding that Casey's murder trial is another case of the prosecution not adequately proving its case for the specific charge of first degree murder. Further, the media has convicted Casey based upon her despicable personality and her abhorrent behavior in other areas that are not what she is accused of here. IOW, it's like, she had to have killed this child knowingly and premeditatively because she is a slut, a bitch, a liar, a cheat, a thief and hopelessly insensitive.

Believe me, I'd love to know that she indeed did as she is charged. But, my mind goes forward to the jury deliberation room, as I know firsthand what that is like. And my first question is, just what is she charged doing specifically, exactly? The prosecution says, she did it, but they cannot tell you how, or when, or why, or where. In my mind, there is a hug hole in this case where an accidental death can easily sit. Why didn't the prosecution go for that lesser charge? Maybe it is because they wouldn't even be able to prove that, so they went for broke. At any rate, there is just too much here that is unresolved, unprovable, and open to reasonable doubt.

Had the state kept first degree murder out of it, I could go there. The probability is about equal to lightning striking that there was a kidnapper or Zanny the Nanny. I think they have proven that whatever befell Caylee, it was directly or indirectly at Casey's hand or in her custody. But, they have never proven that she was a bad mother. In fact, there has been much testimony directly or indirectly addressed that proves otherwise. So, I keep asking myself, why would a proven loving mother suddenly and knowingly and premeditatively kill her child? And has the prosecution proven that?

I think a lot of folks out there trying this case in emails, on their blogs, on Facebook, in chat rooms and forums do not let themselves accept is that Casey was an attentive, loving mother who never once put her child in any testifiable harm prior to the death. That's the testimony that a juror must accept. And so should we out here in Public Opinion Land. Could she have accidentally killed Caylee by over-chloroforming her in order to see a boyfriend who banned Caylee from his home? Yep, definitely. And here is where my logical mind rests most of the time. This is what I think probably happened. The testimony is there to back this up as one logical conclusion.

Lord knows why the defense brought up accidental drowning, and I do have a rough theory developing in my mind, but feel compelled to assert that because we are not given a proved case, we in PO Land must now delve into alternate theories as to what happened. And that is the prosecution's fault. So, shall we?
 
Of course, one such theory IS the prosecution's, that she decided one day to finally be rid of Caylee for good and killed her, probably with the chloroform (although, again, we have no cause of death, just chloroform residue found in the trunk and Caylee's remains that no longer give medical examiners the proper clues).  I'll not get into this theory further, as it is being played out as we speak and they can prosecute from her to eternity, but as I've said, their case is missing some key elements that lacks proof beyond reasonable doubt, in part because they have gone for broke as to the charge.
 
Another theory is the theory the defense described in opening statements, that Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool, and that her grandfather helped to dispose of the body. I find this HIGHLY improbable, as George Anthony is a cop. And again, having gotten to know both George and Cindy Anthony enough by their statements prior to the trial, there is no way that had George been somehow persuaded to cooperate in this, Cindy never would. And the two are still together like glue. Nope, doesn't pass the smell test, just like the abuse accusation.
 
The prosecution's chloroform scenario brings up a third theory. This is the one I am inclined to believe more than any other. Casey, told by her boyfriend (who had a picture of a girl with a caption that read "Win her over with Chloroform", on his myspace profile) that Caylee was banned from his home, began chloroforming Caylee and would leave her to sleep it off in the car trunk while she visited the boyfriend. This, to me, reconciles two important things I cannot otherwise dismiss: that she was basically a good enough mother that she would never be able to willingly murder Caylee in cold blood, and this also sounds plausible as to why she would leave the child's body in the trunk long enough for it to decompose and smell.
 
Think about it: Casey is messed up in the head, to be sure. I'm thinking she could easily see chloroforming as simply medicating. She researched it on the computer thoroughly, and the boyfriend was an advocate of it. Perhaps he'd even given it to Casey before, and she lived. Hey, some people would find that proof that chloroforming can be controlled. There is no accounting for taste and intelligence.
 
Now, think about it again. If she'd meant to KILL Caylee with chloroform, as the state asserts, she could have found out the right amount just by asking the boyfriend. She could have also have given the child a humongous dose as well. Why do 84 searches for chloroform? Perhaps...to find how much one could give a child of a certain weight in order to NOT kill her? Bingo!
 
So, if you are still with me, think about if you had medicated your child that you do indeed love, and she died? Do not focus on what dumbass would have done this to begin with! Would you not be in a state of shock, no matter how stupid or selfish or immature you were? I propose that she was struck dumb by fear and remorse and shock, but selfish and scheming to the end. She needed time to think, what to do, what to do.
 
Casey is, to put it nicely, a grand schemer. Her lies have shown that she goes big and then doubles down. In fact, some of the lies that she has been shown to tell are what I grew up calling "super whoppers", yet people in her life often believed them. In fact, many a liar and many a philosopher as well has reflected upon the irony that the bigger the lie, the bigger the acceptance of the lie. So, she thinks up kidnapping and Zanny the Nanny was born. Casey struggles to let as much time go by, to cover up what really happened, and so her scheme to deal with the fantasy kidnapping and *find* Caylee on her own developed. And it worked for 30 days of time, before her mother finally forced Casey's disclosure by calling 911 about the car smell. And then another call to report the kidnapping. And more time was gained while Casey stonewalled and continued to stick to the fantasy whopper.

And that tattoo she got, La BellaVida, The Good Life? Hey, that is no proof to me of her killer mind, as many just too easily conclude. For instance, Judge Jeanine Pirro said last week that the tattoo incriminates Casey because it obviously was not a commemorative tattoo, because if it was, it would say something like Caylee and her dates of birth and death. Uh....HELLO Judge. At the time that Casey got the tattoo, the child had not even been discovered missing! My Lord, couldn't you have thought that one out before speaking, Judge? Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Let me suggest that it was a melancholy choice by Casey and had little or nothing to do with Caylee's death, other than a way to pretend it never happened. I can see that just as much as I can see it being a brazen statement like, I'm free now! Let's party! And as to her uber-partying during that time, I can also see that as a way to escape from pain. Maybe it comes from my many single years of nightlife in bars: not that many people there are happy. though many smile and laugh. Most are there to wash away and party away emotional pain of some kind.

Let's now talk about Casey's lawyer, Jose Baez. Boy, he looks like an incompetent boob, but have you considered what information that he has had to work on? Who knows what stories he has been told, what wild goose chases he has been led on?  To Casey, lying is like her own skin. Baez is new to the Anthony's world. Maybe he believed things she'd told him. There are two reasons I can think of as to why he could be (unwisely in my opinion) asserting during opening statements that Caylee drowned and that George was an accessory to it. One reason would be that Casey told him this was the truth and he believed her, and realized it couldn't be disproven as well. But then, he also had to realize that if he presented an alternate theory, he would have to prove it later. Surely? Well, what if Casey told him she would provide proof, but after opening statements, he found out she was lying about it.

I sure hope that is what happened, because if not, he appears to be more than a bit stupid for not just keeping his mouth shut and rightly challenging the state to prove its case. And that brings me to the other reason, that he is just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, that his gameplan is to assert enough doubt and chaos in the mix to get her off the murder charge because he has no fricking idea what really happened. Again, not a good way to do it, but the trial is not over yet. We've yet to see how he resolves it all.

It is possible that in Baez's closing arguments, he may tell the jury that he proposed the pool accident to show them that it is as plausible as the state's argument, because the state has no proof behind its murder charge. Just today, Cindy Anthony added more fodder for doubt. She testified that she looked up chlorophyll and chloroform on the computer for some of those searches. I just now googled "chloro" and stopped, and google did have chlorophyll as a clickable choice in the box that opens up. IOW, if you have programmed for google to finish words partially typed in, this will pop up. And Cindy laid a little more chaos in her testimony when asked if she googled the word 84 times, replying that she didn't but she didn't know what the computer did (meaning on its own).

As I type this, CNN is reporting that the Anthonys now believe Casey is guilty, when in fact, her lawyer went up to the CNN reporter earlier today to clarify some other things that he felt the reporter was exxagerating. He told the reporter that the Anthony's were in fact not decided on Casey's guilt, they were wondering if she did it or not, not convinced either way. The reporter then translated that into them believing her guilty. This is just amazing that it was caught as it was in real time. A wonderful example of just how badly the media has handled this whole thing. And I have to wonder: what else have they added their own cynical interpretation to and then presented as fact?

Do you know? Cuz if you want to convict this woman based on what you have learned from the media, you'd better know. If you are giving odds as to if she did or not, that's fine. Not what I'm talking about. If you are thinking the state has proven its case, though, and basing it on said media, well, I do not want you judging me especially if I am innocent.

Now, if you can see the logical arguments I have offered here and find them to be credible, and if you want to avoid believing the trumper-uppers in the media, I can advise a couple of things. First, Bill O'Reilly is, as he is on most topics involving children and drugs, a Catholic evangelical reactionary activist. IOW, he cops an attitude and will not budge on it. (Ditto to a lesser extent as to Hannity on these kinds of issues.) Bill gives no credence whatsoever to anyone suggesting Casey should not be convicted of first-degree murder.

Second, Judge Jeanine Pirro has been reporting on Greta Van Sustern's show and has been really pro-prosecution. Yet, last weekend, on her own show, she laid out with her version of proof what she thinks really happened. Curiously, it's the same theory that I put the most stock in. Why she defends the prosecution so much is strange to me, but maybe she has orders to color it that way while on Greta, or else she may just be pro-prosecution in general. Not delineating her views on each crime Casey is convicted of, though, paints her as just a believer of media kool-aid and not worth my time.

Greta and Geraldo are the two commenters that have given the most even coverage and discussion in my mind. Greta is pretty much saying now that the state's holes are too big to prove the murder case, which is the case they are bickering over. Geraldo has said from the start of the trial that the state's case has fatal holes in it. These are the only two commenters that I have heard who seem willing to look at this thing fairly and with a similar burden to prove belief as mine.

Are they right? Not saying that (although as of now, I think they are). Just saying, those are two places to go for the other side. From what I have seen from CNN, they are pretty much in the tank for conviction. I have not seen much from MSNBC beyond reporting the daily bits of the trial.

Another bit of advice: listen to the guest commenters' intros, as to whether they have defense or prosecutorial backgrounds. Then, weigh what each says in the appropriate light.

This BOOK I've just written is in response to emails received asking me what I thought about the Casey Anthony trial and her guilt or innocence. To reiterate, my gut says she caused the death of her child, but the state's case does not prove first degree murder. She is also charged with aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, and I've no problem with her being found guilty of any of those charges.

I thank those who stayed with me to the end for reading!

Republican Senator: 'F**k It,' Gays Should Marry
6/17/2011 11:24 AM PDT by TMZ Staff

Republican New York State Senator Roy McDonald has SHATTERED party lines in support of gay marriage -- telling reporters, "F**k it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing."

The battle rages on in New York to legalize gay marriage -- but McDonald threw his hat in the ring earlier this week ... with the greatest statement of all time, claiming, "You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing."

"You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, f**k it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing."

"I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this."

With McDonald's support, the gay marriage bill is only ONE vote shy of being made into law -- which would make New York the sixth state to legalize gay marriage.

Now, I was just impressed with this guy's courage. He realizes, we have got to compromise. Both sides. And, I'm reading into his decision when I add this: I think he also sees that this issue pits religious teaching on one side against inalienable rights on the other. Yup, I said that...me, who believes that all of us who are married need to be legally bound by civil unions, and that marriage needs to be a religious rite that can then be defined as between a man and a woman.

So, I am against marriage defined any other way. That comes from knowing that marriage is a holy sacrament that was eventually co-opted by the legal system because then there was no other kind and it was easy to codify the religious. But really, that breeches the wall of separation. Civil union would correct that. Apply it to everyone, gay and straight.

So, I probably should be against states voting to allow gay marriage, like New York. And I should be against what McDonald's decision. But, I'm not, because no one is changing marriage laws to civil union laws, and this is a basic issue of your inalienable rights. Think of it this way: the issue of *choice* over one's sexuality just obfuscates the real thing, which is that no man can be free unless he has free will. How does that work in protestant Christianity and not here? My beliefs about marriage are in part a compromise because I realize how important and sacred this act, this label, this name, means to religious Americans.

And, I also like to call them like I see them. Regardless how any of us feel about gay marriage, this Roy McDonald deserves 15 seconds of kudos because he stood up and voted his conscience -- a mixture of religious and secular. He dared to compromise. I say, bravo to that.

Look, in my spare time when I read, I have been lost deep in the 18th century for the last few months. I have absorbed everything I can find written from that period and about it. And what I come away with is pretty scary. So many parallels in the people's attitudes and fierce partisanships then compared to now. So many lost opportunities to have compromised a solution to the Civil War and disunion, when we came within a hair's width of losing it all in mutual destruction. It is quite romantic and idealistic to conclude that some things are just gonna go that way, or to propose that nothing could have stopped it. Read the details and you know that is not true.

Earlier in the month, when I wrote about the somber mood of Americans, increasingly I wonder if it is because many of us are beginning to see finally that we are in virgin territory. Nothing in our history has been quite like what we are going through now. That is pretty scary, too. And couple that with (my belief, anyway) the realization of more and more people that Obama is in over his head, and that makes it scarier still. (Either because of the virgin territory or because of his remedies, take your pick...even if you still insist on believing it to be Bush's fault...the end result is still a bummer). And then, it is getting hot with summer setting in. It's just one big snotball of fun (not), as a friend of mine used to say.

I don't know, but to me it is shaping up to be a somber summer. I wonder if the 10th anniversary of 911 coming up might can unite us any or at least help the word compromise be more palatable.

I've been reading

One thing I've been reading (here's my review on Goodreads):

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin


My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Okay, I unfortunately lack the time presently to do this book justice, so please be warned: this will be a stream-of-consciousness review. hehe First, it was totally worth my time, all 757 pages of it (not including notes, bibliography and index which makes it 916 total). As a story, it reads gorgeously. I read it in a week. And at one point, I was reading a few chapters with David Donald's Lincoln biography open alongside it (explained later). The author, heretofore identified as DKG, used a novel theme twist that added richly to it: Lincoln's bio was the main thrust throughout, but she weaved in Lincoln's 2 eventual Repub rivals for the 1860 nomination and 2 eventual members of his Cabinet into the chronology, so that before Lincoln's presidency, it was 5 bios and their interactions. Once he was elected though, the events were the major character thrust, as they are in most every book covering the Civil War era. Approaching the book's end, the it's almost like the events were propelling the narration to move faster; and in reaction I read faster and more dedicatedly. The ending is unforgettable in its construction of the storytelling and startling overall. I learned much more because of this theme choice and her plentiful research and quotes. I have 2 dislikes about the book. The smaller one was that I really needed more maps and charts. It would have helped greatly. The larger dislike of mine concerns her sly, beguiling, persistent need throughout the book to sell Lincoln's saintly status. I constantly found myself running my hands through my hair and asking, Doris, could you PLEASE let me make up my own mind about Lincoln????? I will conceded that in the last third of the book or so, she held this annoying habit down to the last paragraph of each chapter, so I was thankful for small favors. I borrowed the hardback edition of this book from my dad and I believe if I was faced with buying it or not reading it, I would buy the Kindle version if that helps anyone. A physical book this big can be a pain to read.
View all my reviews

Something Else I've been Reading:Your emails! There has been a temporary spike in them, caused in part by my comments concerning Sarah Palin. All who wrote think I dissed her. About half think I was wrong and the other half thanked me.

Oy. The truth is, I wasn't dissing her. I didn't mean to, anyway. I was trying to be frankly honest in my criticism of her. See, in my mind, Hillary is the presidential female leader Prototype, the one model made to sell the thing. I see Sarah as Version 1.0 of the real thing. And the first version, much like software, has all the bugs. It is rarely the version people remember fondly, like the version that finally clicks with the masses in the end. But the biographers later on, they *get* how revolutionary Version 1.0 was. They tend to see the good things and force others to acknowledge, this is necessary for the evolution. I admire her. I respect her. I think she did a good job in Alaska and think they made the best choice all around when she resigned. I would probably not vote for her for President, but she has never made me physically ill or want to gag and I really haven't ever thought her stupid at all. She has a perfect right to be who she is like everyone else and be taken seriously like everyone else. And, honestly, I look at people who react to her so vehemently and wonder what is up with that? My mind is entirely open to her, say, down the road given she does something to elevate herself to above what is her official weakness in many eyes: education. I've no ideas about how she would go about obtaining that in proveable form, but the point is, she is young and smart and time fades negative passion. I might add, the most passionate I am about her is on two things: her right to be respected and taken seriously, and why does she evoke such visceral negativity in some people? I wonder if I will ever know.

Back into the Routine...

Well, golly. I've been gone from here awhile, eh? I have to admit that it was even longer because I got so out of the blog habit towards the end of my absence that I put my re-entry off even longer! I dunno, I think it really all boils down to my meds and me not wanting to accept the fact that they make me pretty introverted when I have to take a big dose.

Several times a year, I get my arthritis meds intravenously, which the latest was the week before my last post. Sometimes there is not much of that effect, but other times, wham. The mimic symptoms of ADD hit me, and along with that is just not being able to communicate a lot like I normally can. So, just know that for the future, and I will likewise try to remind when it's that time again.

So, okay, then. Wow, May was very active for me. There were a few family birthdays, Mothers Day, graduations, company dinners, and a visit from my Arthurs a couple times. I have planned for June to be a non-working vacay at home to rest up. I'm taking a couple of much-needed online classes in art, but otherwise I plan to do a lot of reading and resting and photo organization and painting of backgrounds.

However, I've developed an annoying habit this week...cannot quit giggling "Weiner's weiner!" like some 7-year old kid. Man, I've never liked Anthony Weiner that much and will definitely never forgive him for his atrocious bullying of Meghan Kelly on her noon Fox show a few weeks before she went on maternity leave(which she graciously endured, much to her credit, as it really showed him to be the ass we all now know he is).

So, I really have zero empathy or sympathy for him in his current scandal. He acts almost all the time on TV like some pubscent pimply-faced teenage know-it-all, and I think David Letterman should be his bff, quite frankly. However, I don't particularly think I'll be angry should he not resign, and I'm not holding my breath as I would say if I had to predit that he's not gonna go voluntarily. The whole thing is just *ick*, though, and then tonight we hear that his wife is pregnant and the ironic icing on the cake is that she is one of Hillary Clinton's aides. Oh geez, it just never ends (and on both sides of the aisle as well).

There has been a multitude of contentious and major issues that I could have blogged about, but I do not dare to unearth any of them right now as the new ones keep coming. Remember that Lucy episode where she and Ethel were on that chocolate candy assemly line? Yeah. That. But what has struck me as appearing all of a sudden is the real wave of pessimism and fatalism in the American spirit lately. People are scared and trying to act like they aren't. Scared or nervous...something like that.

I devoted a little time earlier this evening to thinking about this, and had to stop as it was bumming me out (as I guess it logically would, right?). And I lucked out with a feel-better escape as it happened. I surfed onto Piers Morgan interviewing Jack Welch. And that was all I needed to feel better. Weird? Probably. But that Welch can make you buy swampland in a desert. His enthusiasm is so contagious. How old is he? 75, I believe. Amazing. And hey, Piers Morgan does a great interview. I don't know why he gets a bad rap cuz I think he is better than Larry King. I always try to check out whose on his show.

About the country's bummer mode, what I do know is that the Lamestream liberal media is not even trying to sweep it under the rug this week. Guess too many unemployment numbers and negative polls came out to allow them to downplay it (which it turns out they have been doing for weeks now -- Fox has been the exception, was bumming me out, so I've been watching a greater amount of CNN and MSNBC for awhile now...so I know.).

I am even hearing predictions of another dip, this time worse than the first one. And that with no QE3 to soften it, look for even higher prices for everything, in particular commodities and interest rates. Yeah, that's good if you have a lot of savings and don't drive a lot. Or use electricity. Or water. Add in that housing is calling out "Help, I've fallen and I can't get up." winkwink

Now, my empty nester Hubster and I do happen to be sitting on a lot of cash savings, and you know that evil Exxon feeds and clothes us, so I could just say lettem eat cake. But that's not my style, plus I'm superstitious. Say it and watch it catch in the wind and go splat back in your face. I am hoping actually that this is just a short-term adjustment for the adults in Congress cutting the spending strings. I mean, even though they haven't successfully passed any huge cuts, you can bet your bottom dollar that Bernanke would be begging for some QE3 money and Obama would already have proposed another bail-out by now, but the message is frugality + no tax increases. So we sit and make the economy struggle to right itself. We rely on capitalism to save the day. It will be a long wait.

Personally, I don't think it hurts most of us to do without some things. I know that we are watching things, choosing just a few faves and not doing everything we like. I do worry about those who fall apart because they were week to week and then lose a job or incur big unexpected expenses. All I can say is that I hope those folks run to the govt safety nets we do have in place and if they get screwed then yell at the top of your lungs and don't quit til we pay attention. In bad times, you want these systems to be running on all cylinders and not need a tune up. I mean, I know they are the subject of debate over continuing to fund them, but while they are here and now, they should be used. I don't know what upsets me worse, a gov't program that is not absolutely necessary, or one that is and under-utilized.

Not really firing my sparkplugs over any of the GOP prez candidates, but I really do wish that Sarah Palin hadn't opened her mouth to opine on Paul Revere. See, I know exactly what she meant. I think I can figure out what she says because I have kind of the same problem she has. I call mine verbal dyslexia. And I consistently score a 151 on Mensa's IQ test, so don;t be calling ME an idiot. Likewise, I doubt she is, either.

But, this latest gaff of hers gets replayed over and over. And after awhile, I'm like, cringing. I really hope she doesn't run for prez. I mean, I like her and admire her, but she is like version 1.0, full of bugs. Essential to the evolution, but at times really uncomfortable to live with.

Way-Back Wednesday: That Cajun Sound

One of my guilty pleasures is watching Swamp People on the History Channel. Reason being: I've always been amazed that a place so close to me (cajun Louisiana) is sooo completely different. I mean, I can get there in a car within 3 hours, and the terrain even looks like I never left home, yet I cannot understand a word they say!

Anyway, my favorite in the cast is Troy (you can hear his voice at this link):

Troy Landry (at Right with son Jacob)

I mention hearing Troy's voice because I have this strange attraction to it. And frankly, I've wondered why? Well, while idly surfing (ok, not really true, I always have a definite surfing destination, I just always get detoured on side streets), I happened upon a Blast from the Past...a Way-Back Machine Gem...that I think explains in part my love of listening to Troy.

Anyone remember this man?



There was once upon a time on television, where the only cooking show hosts were Justin Wilson and Julia Childs, both on PBS. The above video, which is quite entertaining, is apparently from the 1970's. The film's video and audio qualities, as well as the kitchen pots, bowls and appliances, pretty much give this away. Plus, I was there, I remember. This was pre-MTV and cable (which came onto the scene in Houston around 1981 or so.)

I can remember my mom or my dad watching one of these shows and yelling at me to go run get a notepad so I could help write down the ingredients. Between us both, we could usually get it all, but there were a few times when we couldn't and so that recipe never got made. Wow, how times have changed with VCRs, DVRs, and the internet and all, huh?

I enjoy kicking back and listening to storytelling like Wilson's. It reminds me of when all the comics had LP records. Bill Cosby's were probably my most fave of all.

When I said I can't understand Cajun, I'm exxagerating. I can understand it, it just takes me a while like my brain is on a delay, to re-assemble the language. It just kills me how Wilson uses the wrong verb tense practically all the time: did for do, took for take, etc. Love that. I've caught Troy on Swamp People doing the same thing, and every Cajun I've ever known does likewise.

Funny how regional dialects develop and remain. And everybody has one. Remember this when you feel the urge to make fun of the way someone talks. You probably sound to them as you think they sound. I just hope I'm a tenth as entertaining as old Mr. "I Guarantee".

P.S. - Incidentally, that Gumbo recipe on the video is worth its weight in gold if you are looking for the real deal. I guarantee! {winkwink}

Watching the GOP Debate...

...and finding myself almost aghast at how the Fox questioners are slyly and consistantly (so far) managing to showcase their 2 analysts Santorum and Pawlenty (and their often-times guest Cain) at the expense of Johnson and Paul! Do not do that! Emailng Bret right now...

And running commercials during it? Come on! Very disappointed so far...

Oh, sorry, it's over now. I got caught up in the chat on Fox's website. It was fun. They started asking all the candidates questions because we were over there complaining on realtime chat. Thanks, Fox.

Wow, conservative South Carolinians are now in love with Cain. He may be emerging as the conservative darling. I sure like him, but I like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson more. I cannot stand Santorum for president at all. And Pawlenty, eh, never have been thrilled about him. I realllllly hope that Newt get no traction and has to drop out.

Well, anyway, it's been a while since I last posted. It's been because I have been pretty flustered. For one thing, things happen way too fast nowadays for me to think on it and then post before the next thing is happening, so I just do not post at all. If I'd just post something flippantly, I wouldn't have a problemo and get a daily post to boot. Maybe that's what I should do......

Glad we got Obama daNGIT, I did it too, OSAMA, but my gut tells me we could have gotten him for awhile now. Judging by how Hillary's been a squawkbox broken record for a year now about how Pakistan is not our friend and Osama is there, well, I'm now wondering if she pushed Obama to give the go ahead now when he might have wanted to wait until October 2012. That's so sad, using our #1 Enemy as a political stunt. That's our prezzy, though.

He knows no bounds sometimes, does he? I mean, lecturing to Paul Ryan and trying to dress him down is one despicable thing, but then to act like we like it and do it again to Trump at the Correspondents Dinner? Oh, they want him to run so bad cuz they think he's a joke and only dilute the GOP strength, so they are taunting him on. And you know what? It's a pretty good strategy. We are so headed for Obama 2.0 if they fall for it. What would cure it? One awesome debate between Ron Paul and Obama might. Oh, man, the thought of that gives me goose bumps. Yeah, Ridiculer-in-Chief, try that on Ron. Go ahead. Hehehehe.

Well, that's all the flippancy in me tonight. Gotta go now. But I'll try to *flip-out* on something for manana.

Happy Cinco de Mayo!

He Got Her Done

A funny thing happened on the way to passing H.R.1: Speaker of the House John Boehner proved to anyone with a functioning brain that he can handle whatever is thrown him. The man with the orange tan and teary eyes finally got something that Rodney Dangerfield would have coveted: respect.

If you read my blog, you know that I was betting on Mr. Boehner. Underneath the cheesiness, the almost-embarrassing urge to outfit him in a white knit liesure suit, lies a genuine article. That's what I saw...a small-town Catholic boy who was taught right from wrong, humility from hubris, and spine from spin.

Most of all (and great for us), I think he was taught to see the forest above the trees, find your real versus imagined adversaries, keep your eyes on realistic versus ideologic, figure out the best thing to fight for and then give it all you got.  And, think outside the box if you have to, but get her done.

And git her done was what Boehner did. We just saw a President who began the year hawking a spending freeze in his state of the union address, and ended last week trying to take credit for the historic spending cuts that Boehner negotiated. As Michelle Obama liked to say during the campaign, the playing field kept moving on Barack. Well, Boehner moved that playing field on him again and pretty much made him cry uncle.

How? Why, just a week ago the talking heads were aching for Boehner to fall apart under the weight of his challenges. It seemed impossible for him to handle the different factions of the House GOP membership, as well as the Dem opposition. Add to that: Obama's silence. It was as if the president was literally standing on the sidelines waiting to see who to support, who to oppose. Or perhaps he too was waiting for Boehner to fail.

In the end, Boehner ended up brilliantly playing those supposed challenges into IOU markers against the Dems. He took partisan GOP threats and offered to stifle them for Dem concessions in spending cuts, and the Dems had no chance but to agree. NO ONE saw that coming until it had come and gone. NO ONE, and I read the opinions every day.

Now, this week, I've read several Dems asking what are Boehner's weaknesses, what can Obama use in the next standoff to best Boehner. And my first response to this is to remind those Dems that Obama is in re-election mode now and not even caring about acting as if he gave a wit what you want. His only Master right now is the independent voter because he needs them to be re-elected. He already has you, Dem. I mean, where ya gonna go? And independents like and support Boehner, so the best Obama can do in that relationship is to negotiate, and negotiate from a standpoint of weakness, and that means concessions. After all, spending cuts are no longer optional, they are reality and neccesity.

The next fight, for trillions of cuts instead of billions, should be fun to watch. Of course, Boehner's only human, and the stakes are higher than ever, so the possibility for blow-up is still there. Yesterday on his show, John Stewart admiringly described Boehner's success as "mundane, pragmatic compromise", something we need more of. So, I'm betting on Mr. Mundane...or as Dennis Miller teases, Tammy Faye Boehner...or as MSNBC talking head Ed Shultz calls him, "The Tan Man".

A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. :-)))

The Back-Up Plan

This is one time when saying I'm backed up and loving it doesn't mean I'm addicted to Imodium! {winkwink}

As I may have mentioned previously, my trusty OLD (circa 2007) Windows XT desktop died last fall when the motherboard decided to fry itself. Although I had recently done a data backup to my portable hard drive, I opted to buy another portable hd and have the local computer shop back up my hard drive again, thinking at the time it was just the graphics card that had fried since it had done it once already. My pan was to just transfer the data to my Gateway laptop and move on with life.

Luckily, the shop guy was able to do a backup, but I was panicked when I couldn't read my Outlook Express and Address Book data. Turns out that when you migrate from XT to Windows Vista or 7, you cannot import that data. I would have had to have upgraded to Vista or 7 on the old desktop, which I would have been more than willing to do, except that my motherboard had other plans and I wasn't willing to fork out $400 for a refurbished (and hard to find) replacement. So, I had to accept the sad fact that my contacts and emails were gone forever. I transferred what I could to my Gateway and made plans to check out online backup.

Actually, my files really weren't gone. They are still sitting in my backups, merely waiting for the right program to come and wake them from slumber. I do have a 2000 model Gateway laptop that I think still may work and is probably running Windows 98, but I have temporarily misplaced it...it's in a box somewhere waiting for me to find it. And when I do, look out.)

Since that very traumatic month in my life, I've discovered that life did go on, much easier than I'd feared. I really didn't miss much of anything aside from the addresses of a handful of online friends. So, I became less enthusiastic about checking out Carbonite, the online backup service that I'd researched and decided to go with. Finally, after a meltdown with The Hubster over our photos and my nonexistent scrapbooks he never could look at, a plan was developed jointly, and #1 on the list of to-dos was "Back up to Carbonite".

So, for the last week I have been doing that. The first 4-5 days I was doubting the exercise. 50 gigs takes forever to back up even with high speed cable internet. But then I got a wild hair and decided to pay for a year subscription (I began the backup on their 30-day trial.).

Well, guess what? The backup *suddenly* began to go much faster and I finished Monday. And that's the hard part, because the program works in the background and immediately backs up anything new or changed. So, I guess I have 2 bits of advice for anyone considering Carbonite: pay before starting your backup, and don't freak out about it taking a while the first time you do it, because unless or until you have to restore all of your files (if you get a new computer or hard drive), you won't have to endure that again.

Anyway, I really underestimated how plain old good it feels to have this done. I feel safer, lighter (even more so, I've already lost 3 of the 5 pounds I'd gained leading up to that gastric attack I had recently).  I feel like I don't have to worry one wit about losing any more data. That is such an awesome feeling! And for $55 a year, it's an awesomely inexpensive feeling, too, for what I get. Most anywhere, paying to feel this good would surely cost several hundred to a thousand bucks, no?

One nagging thought remained, though: exactly how would the restore work? Well, today, as if to read my mind, Carbonite sent me an email, with this in it:

Congratulations! Your initial backup is complete. Now, you can rest easy knowing your irreplaceable files are backed up safely offsite. From now on anytime you add or change a file, it will be backed up automatically in the background – you won’t even notice it happening.


Want to see how easy it is to get your files back when you need them? Try restoring a file from your backup by following these easy steps:
1.Create a new document that you will use to test a restore. Save and close the document.
2.Let Carbonite back up the file. You’ll know it’s backed up when there’s a green dot next to the file. If you want to back it up right away, right click the file and select “Back up this file as soon as possible” from the Carbonite menu.
3.Delete the file from your computer.
4.Double-click on the lock icon in your system tray to open the Carbonite InfoCenter.
5.In the restore tab, click on "Search for files to restore."
6.Type in the name (or part of the name) of the file you deleted. Locate it and select "Restore."
7.Check to make sure the file has been restored.

Now, I feel even better! Obviously, I highly recommend Carbonite. So far, so very good. The removal of worry is in my opine worth every penny and then some.