Hillary's Speech

The whole world--and by "the whole world" I mean seven undergraduates in the Political Science department of Georgetown University--is abuzz with speculation about what Hillary Clinton will say in her acceptance speech on Thursday at the Democratic National Convention.

I, of course, can tell you exactly what she is going to say; but even better than that, I can and will tell you exactly what she should say; namely, the following:

"Thank you! Thank you so much!  It's such an honor to be hear speaking to you tonight.  I especially want to thank those of you who have learned that my favorite baseball player growing up was the legendary Baltimore Orioles first baseman, Boog Powell.  Those chants of "Boog!  Boog!" just now really warmed my heart.

I have a lot to say about what has made this country so great, and what we can and will do together to make it greater still, but first I want to express my appreciation and respect for some of the wonderful people who have already spoken here these last four days.  Michelle Obama.  When I grow up, that's who I want to be.

Ernest Hemingway defined courage as grace under pressure.  I think beauty is also grace under pressure; and integrity is grace under pressure.  And if anyone ever wants to see the embodiment of courage, beauty, integrity and grace, their best course of action is to look at Michelle Obama.  Thank you, Michelle, for your friendship and your example.

And I hope all of you were here to listen to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.  If so, you understand what the Democratic Party in 2016 is all about, and why I am so proud to be a part of that party.  We are about the ideals of equality and opportunity, of community and commitment to public service, of the belief that those of us who have had the chance to prosper in this great country should give back to society and community.  I know I can speak for Bill and myself, but also for Elizabeth and Bernie, when I say that America has been unbelievable great and generous to us.  We have achieved things that could not have happened anywhere else.  And it is a shame--it is a sin--when politicians say that we who have profited so much from what America has provided to us should not be asked to give more back to America.  Wealth in the service of more wealth is not admirable; it is not enviable; it is not an America value.  It is the system of kings and barons and earls that we rejected over two hundred years ago when American patriots created a new republic; a republic like none before.  A republic founded on the ideal of equality.

And while I am thanking the prior speakers at this convention, I want to express my greatest thanks to the Man of My Dreams, the Man who Captured My Heart all those years ago and holds it still, the one, the only, Barack Obama.  (pause)  What?  (pause)  Did you think I had someone else in mind?

Seriously, though, how is it possible not to be a little in love with President Obama?  Talk about great leadership; talk about courage; talk about a vision of a better America, and fighting every day to achieve that vision.  Barack, I don't know what plans you have for yourself after next January, but if you want a chance to travel and see the world, I have an opening for a Secretary of State.  (pause)  I even have a private email account set up for you. 

And now, I really do want to thank Bill and Chelsea.  I've always known that they have believed in me, but even more importantly, that they have believed in the importance of standing up for the rights of children, of women, of religious minorities, of people who have been demeaned because of their skin color, their sexuality or their ethnicity.  Knowing that Bill and Chelsea were with me in spirit always has made things possible that I could never have done alone.

So now let's talk about the things I believe in, and how we are going to make them happen.  Most of these are not new things.  They are things we fought for in the first Clinton Administration.  (pause)  Sounds good, doesn't it--the first Clinton Administration?  And they are things we continued to fight for under Barack Obama's leadership.  So we know that the opposition is strong--there are vested interests who profit from making wealth, privilege and opportunity scarce commodities, available only to a limited number of their own friends and family.  But they are about to get a rude awakening.  A few months ago, Ali Davis on the website bitterempire.com posted an analysis of "The Presidential Candidates Ranked by Their Usefulness in a Bar Fight."  Care to guess who was Number One?  (pause)  Yep.  That's right.  You're lookin' at her."

That's not the end of her speech, but the rest of it I'm sharing only with Hillary.  Well, actually, only with Hillary and Boog Powell.

Rope-A-Dope for Gender Equality

In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Marc Antony (before he married Jennifer Lopez and changed the spelling of his name) gave a famous speech remembering Julius Caesar, in which he noted, "The evil that men do  .  .  .  is generally the sum and substance of their interpersonal relationships." Or words to that effect.

If, as suggested by the above photo, Marc Antony bears responsibility for the existence of Zumba, then it is safe to say that the evil in him was spectacularly horrible and long-lasting.

However, except for any role that any man has had in the creation of any form of aerobics--for which an eternity of confinement in Hieronymus Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights" is the only suitable punishment--I am not here to suggest that this essential characteristic of the bulk of us men is particularly terrible. After all, we are a species, both male and female of which watched "Jersey Shore." So horrible, disgusting behavior seems to be a universal constant for us humans.

But the fact that men are more likely to blow off their toes while calling to their buddies, "Watch this here, y'all!" than to correctly solve a long division problem is a fact that has a direct bearing on a proper understanding of what feminism is and is not. And why it's stupid for feminists (or any other sane person) to respond to the assertion that a "feminist" is a "man-hater," or similar assertions. But first: time for a picture of Bosch's painting and a picture of the cast of "Jersey Shore." If you can tell which is which, shame on you.

So, as Snooki would say, (which is to say, as Snooki would say if she would a completely different person), "The great subversion of feminism occurred when traditionalists managed to make the debate revolve around the relationship of women to men. In reality, defining women's roles by considering men is like defining Gloria Steinem by looking at a bicycle."

The subversion I am talking about is tactic of anti-feminists to characterize feminists as a bunch of women who hate men and/or a bunch of lesbians and/or a bunch of "bra-burners." I don't fully understand why the last claim is put forth--I can only assume that, in the minds of those making the claim, it is proof that feminists are radical terrorists seeking to destroy America's foundations.

And then supporters of the principles of feminism get drawn into a defensive debate of trying to disprove those claims. "No, not really. There are lots of feminists who like men! I was talking to one just last week!" or "Sure, there are a few lesbians, but we don't let them make any decisions!" or "Bra-burning was just a fad in the 60's--like love beads and Wayne Newton--and we modern feminists all wear proper undergarments."

But, if you think about it, how do those arguments have any bearing on what feminism stands for? I mean, the fact that Rafael "Call me Ted" Cruz is a flesh-eating cyborg manufactured in Dr. Mengele's secret Canadian workshop is not a valid reason for opposing his plans for America. Rafael "I'm not really Hispanic" Cruz's plans for America are the valid reason for opposing his plans for America.

Likewise, the principles of feminism stand or fall on their own merits, not on the basis of whether we feminists have a somewhat troubling fascination with undergarment combustion.

Clearly not a picture of two drunken dumbass young men (but I repeat myself) doing stupid shit (and now I re-repeat myself), but rather two socially motivated and thoughtful males expressing an appreciation for the moral imperative of equality for all.

Which brings me back to my point. "Equality for all" logically and syntactically cannot mean "equality for some--but only for those women who don't hate men, and do hate--or at least, feel queasy about the prospect of ever feeling an attraction toward--other women, and who don't burn anything except occasionally the pot roast, the silly, brainless creatures that they are." And the anti-feminist arguments which focus on what kind of women (and only women, for some strange reason) are feminists implicitly assume that equality isn't actually a right, but is a privilege that must be earned by proper behavior, and can be and is granted or withheld by the people who have historically enjoyed the privileges of "equality."

A feminist, on the other hand, believes that "equality" means "equality" (the mathematical name for this principle is The Reflexive Property, and it is taught to preschoolers--not that I'm making any judgment about the intellect of opponents of feminism). Another way of putting it is that, if rewards are given out on any basis other than based on who has gotten the best results, the process is not "equal." It seems obvious that rewards should be granted on the basis of results, but we all probably have examples in our personal experience of rewards being passed out in accordance with the Old Boy Network, or via afternoons on the golf course, or because "I just feel more comfortable with X than Y", and the person who has done the best work not getting rewarded.  

 

So far in America, "equal opportunity for women" (as well as "equal opportunity for minorities", "equal opportunity for homos", and every other kind of "equal opportunity") has meant "permission on a limited basis for members of this group to get the some of the privileges of privileged white men, provided that they behave in a manner that falls into step with the expectations of those privileged white men." For example, Harvard School of Business recently created a special course for women in its MBA program that seeks to teach them to be more aggressive, pushy and self-promoting. Because, heaven knows, the way men always done things has to be the best way for everybody to do things.  I mean, the alternative would be to let different people do things in different ways, and then judge them based on the results they achieved.  But now I'm talking crazy talk.

 

It's like when Dick Fosbury decided to do his high-jumping with his back to the bar. All the top high jump coaches and established jumpers were saying, "What the f*ck is that long-haired guy doing?! That can't be right! We've never done it that way. That can't be legal." And all the young jumpers were saying, "Wow!   .  .  .  Hey, hippie!  Yeah, you. Fosbury. Can you teach me how to do that?" And they looked at the rule book, and there was nothing that said, "You have to do it the way it's been done in the past." And Dick Fosbury won the gold medal at the 1968 Olympics.

 

In simple (i.e., sports) terms, the idea of feminism is that life should be like the high jump. Dick Fosbury got the gold medal because he cleared the highest height. And the established coaches and jumpers (read this as "traditional white males") didn't get to say, "that's not the way a real man would jump, so it doesn't count."

 

A similar lesson can be learned from Muhammad Ali. Before the Rumble in the Jungle, the boxing experts heavily favored George Foreman, based on an assumption that Ali would get in the ring and box with Foreman like all of Foreman's prior opponents had done. Instead, Ali did none of the traditional ("I'm full of testosterone and you're full of testosterone; so let's charge into each other like two water buffaloes") boxing strategies. He did Rope-A-Dope; he leaned against the ring ropes and let Foreman do all the punching. The commentators questioned whether he even was trying to win the fight, since he refused to engage in the standard boxing behavior of standing toe-to-toe and trading punches. That is, they questioned his toughness, his heart, and--at the core of it all--his manliness, until he knocked George Foreman out. And then they called him a boxing genius.

So you see my point. Because Ali's different, unconventional, "unmanly" approach worked, that was the end of the debate. They didn't ask him if he hated men, or if he slept with men, or if he thought men belonged in the kitchen, or any of the things that feminists get asked when they want things to be done a different way. No, they gave him this garish, ugly, monstrous belt and called him the Heavyweight Champion of the World. Hmm.

Now you're starting to see what feminism really means. Olympic gold medals. Muhammad Ali beating George Foreman. Rope-a-Dope. The Road Less Travelled. "And may I say, not in a shy way; oh, no, oh, no, not me, I did it my way."

Wow! It turns out that, just like Muhammad Ali and Frank Sinatra, you've been a feminist all along!
 

 

 

Madame President

You may have heard that Hillary Clinton is running for President in 2016.

Alternatively, you may have cotton batting stuffed in your ears.  And be living in a hermetically sealed soundproof room.  And be dead and decayed to a moldering mass of maggots.  [clever use of alliteration by me]

 

Those being the only two possibilities.

 

Now, you may consider this good news.  Or you may consider it bad news.  In either case, you are wrong.  This is great news!  Because once again, the United States of America can show the rest of the world what democracy is all about--freedom and opportunity for all!  And by "opportunity for all", I--needless to say--mean all potential presidential candidates born into the upper middle class, with a personal net worth of millions of dollars, and rich friends who will give her or him millions of dollars more, and a high enough national profile that his or her campaign will get free national news coverage.  You know, all of us!

 

Hillary Clinton would a first for American presidential politics.  There have been dynastic political families before in U.S. history:  John and John Quincy Adams; Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt; William Henry and Benjamin Harrison; George H. W. and George W. Bush.  But this will be the first time that the second member of the dynasty was not known for wearing a skirt.  ("Oh, George, you little devil!") 

 

Also, I am told, that Hillary would be the first female American president, which would be quite groundbreaking--if not for the fact that it had already been done by Ireland.  And Scotland.  And Finland.  And Britain.  And Germany.  And Norway.  And Iceland.  And India.  And Bangladesh.  And Costa Rica.  And Liberia.  And Chile.  And Canada.  And South Korea.  And just about every other country that has democratic elections.

 

But to be fair to the United States, although voters have not yet selected a female president, we did grant women the vote  .  .  . well, not as the first country to do so, nor the second, nor the twentieth, but at least American women got the vote at the same time as women in that other progressive beacon of democracy: Albania.  Which is good enough reason for me to put in some pictures of the great sights to be seen by tourists to Albania, "the Other America."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of you Fox News viewers are now saying, "I get it!  You can't write about Hillary Clinton without talking about Lenin and Stalin!"

 

Actually, I could, but what's the fun in that?  It's so much more enjoyable to stir up the anti-Hillary faction.  And then to give them the news that will really make them foam at the mouth:  "There is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the next President of the United States!"  As much as it pains me to tell you this--that delighted smile you see on my face is only there to mask the pain--it is an actual, factual certainty.

 

Even if you repeat to everyone you know any crazed, rabid, made up, paranoid ideas you hear on Fox News--or, to express my point in simpler language--any ideas you hear on Fox News, it won't matter.  Even if you get all of your neighbors to go to the polls and vote for the Republican candidate--or, if their standards are too high to vote for the Republican candidate, to vote for a dead dog--it won't matter.  Even if you get everybody interred in the local cemetery to vote against Clinton, it won't matter.

 

Because you tried all that last time, and the time before that, and IT DIDN'T MATTER!  Barack Obama still won 332 to 206 and 364 to 174. 

 

Think about that for a minute.  The Republicans couldn't beat a black Muslim from Kenya with a foreign-sounding name, who inherited the worst economy of my lifetime.  In fact, they couldn't come within 100 electoral votes of him and Joe "Everybody's Looney Uncle" Biden.  And yet you think you can beat a nice white lady from the suburbs of Chicago?!  Sorry.  While I am willing to entertain the possibility that you are right about the earth being 6000 years old and about Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs out of the Garden of Eden, when you start trying to deny the one true God--by which I mean, MATHEMATICS, well, I have to draw the line.

 

Let me show you what I mean:

 

 

 

These are the results of the 2012 Presidential election.  In case you can't make out the numbers on this chart, Barack Obama won by a margin of 126 votes, by prevailing in every state in which "school" and "Bible school" are not the same thing.

And what that means is the following: If you live in one of the Romney Red (a new color selection available at the paint department of your local WalMart) states, you don't matter in 2016.  Other than North Carolina and Georgia, every red state voted for the Republican by roughly 110% for Romney, minus 10% for Obama.  And still, Romney got thumped (so much so that the Washington Generals were embarrassed for him).  So Hillary knows she can win without you.  As for the blue states, there were 4 that Obama won by less than a 5 percentage point margin:  Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.  Without those 4 states, the Democratic total would be 262 electoral votes:  8 shy of victory.  Winning any one of those states, or North Carolina, or Georgia, or using the Joseph Kennedy strategy of buying all the votes in West Virginia (gotta love a man who's there for his son at a time of need), and Hillary is the next president.  

 

 

And if Bill Clinton can't cajole all the pot-smoking hippies in Colorado to wander into the polling booths and light a doobie--I mean, pull a voting lever--for Hillary, then Bill is in danger of losing his legacy as the most devious rascal in the history of American politics, and I just don't believe he would let that happen. 

 

 

(If you are bored and have A LOT of time to kill, do a Google picture search for "Bill Clinton women".)

Not to mention that it's hard to imagine how Hillary Clinton does not win Ohio.  Can you explain to me who that voted for Barack Obama would not vote for Hillary Clinton?  On the other hand, consider the large blue collar white vote in Ohio.  Not Barack's core constituency, I'd guess.  I can't picture Obama going into working class hangouts, having a shot and a beer and arm wrestling the local union rep.  And I can't picture Hillary doing anything but that!

 

This is not to say that Hillary Clinton really will be the next President of the United States.  She has an archenemy that seems totally committed to thwarting her every hope and dream.  Someone so clever and diabolical that it's hard to feel that this conniving, scheming evil shadow-figure will not defeat even the most powerful of forces for good--meaning, MATHEMATICS.

 

And, no, this demonic figure is not her husband Bill.  (Though that was a good guess on your part.)  Nor is it that person whose picture is in the dictionary beside the term "conniving, scheming evil shadow figure."  Which is to say, Karl Rove.  Because, compared to Hillary Clinton, he is just a feckless clown.  (Come to think of it, compared to Bozo the Clown, Karl Rove is just a feckless clown.  Take a look at his 2012 Presidential Election electoral map, which he put out the week of the 2012 election:

 

 

For those keeping score at home, Karl only missed by six states and 79 electoral votes and by who was going to win--in other words, a blond pig could have done better. (I meant to say "a blind pig", but what I accidentally wrote sounds better.)  Apparently, Karl Rove made the silly mistake of believing what he heard of Fox News--not remembering that what he was hearing was bullshit that he himself had made up to appeal to Fox's core audience of old, scared white people. 

I suggested earlier that the Republicans might do better to run a dead dog as their presidential candidate, which all reasonable people would agree with.  But even unreasonable people--aka, Republicans--should agree that the Republicans would do better with a dead dog as their political strategist than Mr. Rove.  And, I am told by my good friend George W. Bush, the dead dog would smell better.

 

But, as to the one person who could thwart Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions  .  .  .  it is Hillary Clinton.  Obviously.  Because no one in modern politics has mastered the art of treating people like morons better than Hillary Clinton.  Of course, compared to Hillary (Wellesley '68 and Yale '71), most of the people she encounters are morons.   But there are two important ideas that she needs to learn about people dumber than her (I am now speaking as one of those people): (1)  We dumb people can live with knowing that someone is smarter than us; but we expect them to have the good taste not to point it out to us; and (2)  As Winston Churchill observed: "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes."  So she needs to listen to other people's ideas and worries, and to consider the possibility that these ideas and worries--even if not shared by her--could be legitimate.  If she makes that simple adjustment, she really will be unbeatable.

And I don't ask for anything in return from Ms. Clinton for my brilliant advice.  Except for this.  The day of your inauguration, give me the job of going to every Republican Senator and Representative to deliver the message that all federal funds to their district have been discontinued immediately.  And we can all rest assured that that will happen. Because from the time she was First Lady up through the present, Republicans have hated her; and like any Chicago politician, Hillary knows that "getting elected" is synonymous with "getting even."

Not to mention that federal money should go to "winners." (To quote the great philosopher, Donald Trump.) We can't be throwing away the people's money on a bunch of losers.  But don't worry, there are still some non-governmental opportunities out there for you Republicans.

 

My Civic Duty

With the Finnish Parliamentary elections now only 17 days away, it is incumbent (ha, ha--what a clever pun) upon me to advise all of my readers about the proper choice for them to make when they cast their ballot. 

 

Let's start with a careful examination of the eight political parties which currently have representatives in Parliament.  And by "careful examination", I of course mean, let's look at the slogan of each party, pick the one that has a good beat and that we can dance to, and vote for that party.

 

So here are the slogans (translated for the 99.922% of the world's population that would rather go through life with a live rat in their mouth than learn Finnish): 

 

• "Bravery"
• "We Will Fix It"
• "The Way for Finland"
• "The Way of Business"
• "Finland to Fitness"
• "The Finnish Party"
• "Now, If Ever"
• "Close to You" (actually, a better translation of this would be "Near You", but I wanted to honor those musical geniuses, The Carpenters)

 

  

As you can see, you are now a fully informed voter and can easily distinguish the party that best reflects your values from all the others.

 

But, in the unlikely event that you want even more information before making your voting decision--which is another way of saying, "in the unlikely event that you are not a Hoosier voter"--I will provide you with a translation of my translations.
 

"Bravery" - "If you believe that the role of government is to act as the Old Testament God and to smite anyone who strays from your own personal religious beliefs, then we are the party for you!"  This party, Kristillisdemokraatit, also takes the position that some immigration should be permitted into Finland--but only if the immigrants are Christians.  (This is true.  If you think this position is somehow at odds with "freedom of religion" then you weren't listening when I explained the plague-of-locusts governmental model, were you?)

By the way, let me just point out to all my Tea Party readers that this immigration rule is not one that I support for America, and nor should you.  Because even if we had adopted this policy two hundred years ago, it wouldn't have kept the Irish out.

 "We Will Fix It" - "If you believe that the role of government is to give you everything you want at no cost to you, then we are the party for you!"  Now, because you are a Finn, and therefore have actually received an education during your years at school, you know that this makes no sense.  But you also know that there's no way in hell that this party, Vasemmistoliitto ("Leftist Group"), will ever be a major political party, so a vote for them is a vote to keep the right-wing nuts from being the only cuckoo birds in the Parliament.  And, besides, as long as they don't get ahold of the checkbook, Vasemmisto will advocate for things we like: gender equality; marriage equality; ecological responsibility; public education; building a statue to Joseph Stalin.  (Well, maybe the last one might meet some opposition from extremists, such as those shown in the following photograph.)

"The Way for Finland" - "If all of your friends are voting for the Leftist Group and you want to pretend to be progressive, but you really don't want any changes, vote for us!  Our official name is the Social Democratic Party but our real name should be the 'Don't Make Waves' Party.  We are usually in the governmental coalition, no matter how right-wing the lead party of the coalition is.  Because we really don't have any firmly held beliefs!"  For my American readers, just think of the SDP as the Indiana Democratic Party, if the Indiana Democratic Party were being marketed by Hallmark.

 

 Actual Campaign Photo of the SDP

Because, contrary to my diatribe, the SDP

is willing to take a firm stand

in favor of cute little girls with backpacks.

 

 

"The Way of Business" - "If you think that all of your problems are caused by Finnish CEO's not making 1000 times the income of the average worker--such as is the case in the United States--and that getting prompt, reliable and courteous service from government agencies is proof that we need to change how those agencies do business, then we are the party for you!"  We are the pro-business wing of the American Republican Party, only without the political necessity of giving a rat's ass about social issues.  Marry who you want.  Believe or don't believe in what you want.  Pick the sins that suit your dysfunction.  Just join us in reducing upper income taxes, business regulations, and--most importantly--reducing salaries for workers.  Can you believe that some of these people want jobs AND wages?  The temerity of workers these days.  This party also suggests that if you vote for another party, you will end up either on the road to Subsistence Living or on the "Greek Road."  As for the latter, I'm not sure whether they are suggesting it's the road to national bankruptcy or to deviant sex practices.  I'd better find out, as that will strongly affect my choice of parties to support.

 

 

 

"Finland to Fitness" - "If you grew up in the countryside or a small town and never left, because you heard wild stories of the big city--restaurants that don't serve boiled potatoes and fried meat; buildings where people go just to look at pictures that other people drew; brown people; electrical music; dancing; even all of the last three things in the same place!--then we are the party for you!"  We think it was a good thing when Finland got its independence in 1917.  And that every change since then has been for the worse.  But with your support, and our total disregard for reality, we can return to that wonderful time!

 

 

"The Finnish Party" - "If you are suspicious of everything--immigrants, intellectuals, women, people who read books, the police, that neighbor who looks at you funny each morning when you come back from the grocery store carrying only six cans of beer--then we are the party for you!"  This party is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Tea Party, but not so vocal, nor so given to getting worked up at every crazy rumor they hear.  In short, there is a lot to be said for the six-cans-of-beer-a-day principle as an essential part of the political platform of most political parties.

 

 

"Now, If Ever" - "If you care about nature and the environment and haven't figured out that there is no chance in hell that America will ever get serious about reducing carbon emissions--which renders pointless all of the good works that Finland has done or could ever do to save the planet, then we are the party for you!"  This is the party for people who studied Emmanuel Kant in school rather than John D. Rockefeller.  And, like the Leftist Group, the multiparty system in Finland means that the Green Party's 8% of the vote is enough to be heard in Parliament and maybe even to get a spot in the ruling coalition.  Until it's time to build a nuclear power plant in Finland, and then it's "Hit the bricks, Treehugger!"  (Actual occurrence in Finnish politics in 2014, complete with rude English-language proclamation by the pro-business party.)

 

 

 

(It's true.  The Green Party in Finland embraces not only trees, but

also diversity.  You can be a Green even if you have red hair.  Amazingly.)

 

"Close to You" - "If you are Finnish but your first language is Swedish, you will vote for us.  Period.  We don't stand for anything.  Because we don't have to.  We're the only politicians that can understand that gibberish that you speak--not even actual Swedes are quite sure what you're saying most of the time--so you will vote for us.  And that's why we can use a sappy love song as our political motto!"

 

 

And The Winner Is . . .

With Finnish national elections less than two months away, the campaigns are in high gear.  One would assume.  But as a survivor of US national elections, I am hard-pressed to find evidence of said campaigns here.  No billboards telling me which candidate will save America/Finland.  Not even any TV ads warning me which candidate hates America/Finland and/or is a known thespian.  And I have yet to hear those magical campaign words "legitimate rape."

 

So one has to wonder, is there really a political campaign occurring here in Finland right now, or when I was told that Finland is having national elections, was I actually an unwitting victim of a Finnish version of Punked, with a Finnish version of Aston Kutcher?  (Now, there's an idea that should give you nightmares.)

 

 

But I'm not as gullible as you might think.  I have not blindly accepted the word of a Finnish person that there is an election in Finland.  Instead, I investigated, examined and analyzed the question with all the skill of an American college student.  Which is to say, I googled "election in Finland" and skimmed the first randomly selected Internet page I came across.  So now I can tell you with full certainty that there is a national election in Finland scheduled for April 19, 2015.  And Barack Obama has introduced secret legislation that makes us all subject to Sharia Law.  And Elvis is still alive, but has been kidnapped by aliens and transported to a strange, distant world where he is worshipped as a god (and, surprisingly, the name of this strange, alien place is NOT Mississippi).  And Dan's hand tremors will be cured on Days of Our Lives, probably by Jack Deveraux when he returns once more from the dead.

But back to the Finnish election.  Apparently, the law in Finland is that candidates and political parties cannot start their campaigns until two months before the date of the election.  I guess the idea is that these people should spend the other 3 years and 10 months between elections actually doing their jobs!  That damn work ethic they have here.  Luckily for me, since I am an American, I am not afraid of hard work.  I can always fall asleep sleep right next to it.  Ho, ho, ho.

 

 U - S - A !  U - S - A !

 



 But back to the Finnish election.  The political parties only have two months to get their message to the voters.  So why am I not being besieged by slanderous, foaming-at-the-mouth accusations about the opposing party?  Probably because there is not ONE opposing party, but ONE DOZEN.  The Finnish system, I have learned, uses proportional D'Hondt representation, so that there is not a head-to-head, winner-take-all vote for each separate legislative seat but a sharing of the seats based upon the relative popularity of the different parties' ideas. 

Sorry.

I apologize.

I strayed into factual information.

Lucky for you, it's a lot like hard work--I'm sure you can fall asleep right next to it.

Anyway, there are currently 10 different parties with representatives in parliament, plus several other parties that came close last time.   (By the way, the top vote-getting party among the "also-rans" was The Pirate Party.  For real.  Unfortunately--this being Finland--even The Pirate Party has political principles and a platform.  And--anticipating your feeble attempt at cleverness--no, the platform does not have a "plank" for landlubbers, swabbies and Johnny Depp [real 18th Century pirates really hate that guy, I am told].  Among other things, they are against the current patent laws and daylight savings time.  Which are two things that, to be honest, I really did not anticipate would be things that pirates would give a flying f**k about.)

So, with so many different candidates to choose from, you can see why that staple of American politics, the "my opponent is a Satanist who drinks the blood of babies" campaign slogan, wouldn't play well here.  Because the candidate would then have to add "And so is my other opponent   .   .   .   And my other other opponent   .   .   .  And those ten other opponents as well."   Not all that credible a campaign tactic, I suspect.  Not to mention the fact that, if people are willing to support pirates, what makes you think they won't vote for Satan?

Moving on--if people here don't cast their votes on the basis of negative advertising-induced fear, panic and greed, then how in the world can they make their choice?

Well, it turns out that there are these things called "issues" and candidates and political parties are expected to state their "positions" on these "issues."  Even more surprisingly, these "issues" are more controversial than "foreign terrorists attaching the United States--for or against?" or "Do you favor or oppose allowing Americans to go to Christian churches?"

Instead, candidates and parties are asked, on the record, about economic policy--deficits, spending on social services, tax rates on upper income Finns, the bailout of Greece; foreign policy--joining NATO; health policy; education issues; and values--same sex couples, accepting political refugees, etc.  And most surprisingly of all, these candidates and parties state their positions on the issues!

Last week, the Helsinki newspaper compiled the answers from candidates and parties to about 30 questions and then let voters answer the same questions.  Then it matched you with both the parties and the individual candidates that most reflected your views.  Although I am, technically, not supposed to vote in the election (some nonsense about not being a citizen), I also did the matching.  After which, I realized that the Finnish election laws are wise not to let me have a vote.  The three parties I matched best with were: (1) The Greens; (2) The Commies; and (3) The Left Alliance.

   So, either I've found a country where the ideals of the 60's counter-culture are still admired or all of this is actually a flashback to when I dropped acid at Woodstock.  Although, I never dropped acid, and I wasn't at Woodstock.  Which is what most of the people who dropped acid at Woodstock would now say.  Say, is that Hendrix starting his set?

 

What Were They Thinking?

This is the story of a lawyer who caused justice to prevail in a lawsuit conducted under the American Judicial System.  He is currently being disbarred for conduct unbecoming an attorney.  Needless to say.

 

Not really.  At least not yet.  Right now he is basking in a well-deserved success.  It is a tale fraught with anguish, pain and insanity.  It wasn't any of those things when it happened, but now that I am telling it, it has all of those things in great volume.  And from the horror that is my thought process, only I alone am escaped to tell thee the tale. 

 

Yes, yes.  You should now call me Ismael.

(If you are not of such a literary bent, then in the alternative you can refer to me as "the man from Nantucket.")

The heroic lawyer in this tale is my buddy, Cory Brundage.  And if "heroic" seems a, well, generous choice of words to describe Cory, it will all make sense when I tell you that on the opposite side of this case in the courtroom were a bunch of lawyers on the payroll of an auto insurance company.  You have to see how that would make Cory a shining pillar of moral goodness by comparison (notwithstanding those convictions for consuming "lite beer" and for watching an entire episode of "The Bachelor").

 

Now, it is not in my nature to hold anyone up to negative comment, so the actual auto insurance company will remain anonymous.  Though it couldn't hurt for me to tell you that the company is not All STATE; and neither is it FARM Bureau Insurance.  (Nod, nod, wink, wink.)

 

 

 

The key facts are as follows.  A nice, middle-aged woman is driving along a quiet street, peacefully and sensibly.  As she crosses an intersection, a car driving at the speed of a Shenkansen bullet train comes over a rise, runs the red light, and explodes the car of the nice woman.  And, for that matter, pretty much explodes the nice woman, too.

 

 

It turns out that the driver of the bullet train does not have any insurance.  And why would he, since he also doesn't have a driver's license?  But that's not a problem for nice lady because she has faithfully paid premiums to [delete company name before publishing] Insurance Company for "uninsured motorist coverage."   Which means that they pay the same as if they had insured Johnny Jetpack.

 

Except that they don't.  Of course not.  What's the point of taking people's insurance premiums if then they are going to come back and hassle you to pay for things?!  Just drag you feet and tell them 'no' until they get that crazy idea out of their head.

Then in steps Cory Brundage, in the uncomfortable position of being on the side of Truth, Justice and The American Way.  And tries to get the company to pay the nice woman.  Who, by the way, has terrible, permanent injuries, ongoing medical bills, and chronic, persistent and excruciating pain.  Oh, wait.  That latter problem only occurs when she has to listen to Cory explain the law.

Nonetheless, when unnamed insurance company with the initials S- F- suggested that the right amount of money to fix all of the nice woman's problems was   .   .   .   wait for it   .   .   .   wait for it   .   .   .   a payment of less than $22,000, it makes you suspect that you can get a job in that company's claims department without having completed your Ph.D in mathematics.  Or, for that matter, your preschool course in number blocks.

However, it is possible that the decision-makers actually went through some sort of thought process to arrive at an offer that can best be put into words as "Take us to court!  We double-dog dare you!"  And I can think of two scenarios in which that would have seemed to them to be the epitome of cleverness.

The first scenario is that the Einsteins at the insurance company thought that the fear of having to conduct a trial would cause Cory to accept a payment of the loose change found in the sofa cushions in the company's break room.  Their reasoning would have been:  He's a solo lawyer, while we have an army of lawyers--so while we can spread the burden of a trial, he is facing days or, more likely, weeks of misery, grindingly hard work, too little sleep and caffeine-fueled monomania.  So he'll take our offer.

If that was their thinking, it gets the honor of being the greatest, most boneheaded misreading of another person since George W. Bush looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and thought he saw a soul.

 

 All you really need to know to understand how bad the misreading of Cory was is to know that he doesn't just run marathons; he runs ultramarathons; and not just ultramarathons, but super-long 100-mile ultramarathons.  Through the Arizona desert one time; and through the highest mountains in Colorado another time.  When I say that these races are crazy hard, what I mean is that at the end of the race, most competitors are greeted with the enthusiastic greeting, "Great job!  Now get back in your straitjacket so that we can take you back to the asylum!"

 

Since Cory is not legally committed to an insane asylum--and, no, living in a state governed by Indiana Republicans and Governor Mike Pence does not qualify as being in a looney bin--okay, it almost qualifies, but not quite--the only explanation for Cory's participation in these events is a deep, turbulent wellspring of self-loathing at his very core.  His inner hatred--well founded, we can agree--drives him to make himself miserable.  Like Dunbar in Catch-22, Cory is only truly happy when he is completely miserable.  So forcing him to go to trial is like a belated Christmas present.

 

So that is scenario one of the possible thought process.  Scenario two is even more concerning, in terms of disturbed, delusional thinking.  In that scenario, the insurance people want to go to trial.  They want a jury of ordinary civilians to make a decision as to whether to side with a nice middle-aged lady with a verified, documented collection of injuries that would put to shame the collective rosters of the entire NFL; or to side with a gaggle of lawyers flying the battle flag of corporate greed. 

 And how would that thought process have gone?  Given that ordinary people view claims adjusters, insurance company lawyers, and insurance executives less favorably than the IRS or the Taliban--or even an IRS operated 100% by members of the Taliban?  I can only assume that these decision makers had been watching too many of their own commercials, which take place in some nonexistent, glossy, heartwarming, scripted world, in which your hypothetical good, neighborly insurance agent is always be there to find your hypothetical lost dog, give a hypothetical doll to your hypothetical sweet, adorable daughter, and to save you from your own stupidity of wandering into a herd of angry buffalo.

 

Maybe the folks at this unnamed insurance company convinced themselves that jurors for a trial in the real world would think they were living in the advertising world.  It would explain why they made sure that they did not make an offer to pay the claim that came within 100 miles of being reasonable.

And it would qualify as the stupidest idea to ever cross the human mind since the beginning of prehistory.  Hey, somebody has to be Number One in Stupidity.  And auto insurance companies are starting that race in the front of the pack.

(By the way, if you keeping score at home and want to see the rankings of the top five dumbest ideas of all time, the second through fifth, as determined by Stephen Hawking, Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Rene Descartes and Lindsey Lohan, are as follows:

 

2.  "Let's develop a new line of cars called the Edsel!"

 

3.  "I think I'll enter into a relationship with Madonna!"  (Ranked No. 2 in the Coaches Poll.)

 

4.  "I'm going to invade Russia as winter is about to start."

 

5.  "I need to write a blog because people are so eager to hear what I have to say.")

 

And now the happy ending to my story.  Cory stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum and said, "What a good boy am I!"

 

 

 (Actual Courtroom Artist's Drawing)

 

 

Jury Award:  $750,000.





Merry Christmas!

Okay, okay; you win.

So many of you have been pestering me for weeks, "Where is my Christmas present?"  "What have you gotten me for Christmas?"  "When will I see that ten dollars that you borrowed from me?"

And, when I pointed out--repeatedly--that I am not a member of any organized religion, denomination or sect, and certainly not of any group that believes that a child is born nine months after an angel visits the household, you merely snickered.  And then told me, "What's wrong with you?  Don't you realize that the Christmas holiday has nothing to do with Christianity?  Shoot, everybody knows that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th.  Early leaders of the Christian church pegged his birthday at sometime between mid-March and mid-June, and historical studies support their conclusion.  The choice of December 25th as Jesus' 'birthday' was made in the fourth century as a PR ploy to attract Roman sun worshippers to the 'new and improved--not your father's faith--more sins at the same low price--religion'.  Because as we all remember, December 25 was the Invictus Sol celebration for the ancient Romans."

 

And so I'm feeling like I've been painted in a corner.  You have made really valid points about the REAL meaning of Christmas--a day dedicated to selling something to some simple-minded consumers through manipulating their emotions.  And I'm the king of simple-minded and emotional consumerism.  So, yes, I have gotten you a Christmas present.  This Blog Post!

 

And what cheery, uplifting topic have I chosen for my holiday blog?  Why, "Race In America", of course.  Something that rates second only to the whoopee cushion as a sure-fire laugh riot.

 

But to clarify:  when I say "race" I am not talking about the Boston Marathon, The Amazing Race (copyright CBS television) or even Don Big Daddy Garlits.

 

 

 

No, I'm talking about the imaginary conception that different human beings belong to different "races."  Even though there is not physical marker, genetic marker or genealogy that has any meaning when applying our ideas of race to different individuals.  Of course, the fact that identifying individuals according to race makes no sense scientifically or otherwise just means that many, many people (and by 'people' I mean 'Americans') hold onto the fiction of racial identity so fervently.  Because they find the imaginary world they have bought into so much easier to deal with that the real world where nobody is simply their outer appearance.

 

 For example, you have undoubtedly heard the rumor that Thomas Jefferson had frequent conversations with his slave, Sally Hemings, over many years.  Oh, did I say "conversations"?  I think I may have picked the wrong word from my thesaurus.  It seems that "intercourse" is a more descriptive choice of words.  Anyway, whether you chose to believe this rumor or not, your reaction to this rumor is probably grounded primarily in the racial aspect--a white man having sex with a black slave.  But whether your visceral reaction was "TJ, how could you do such a disgusting thing?" or "TJ, you da man!" or maybe both, there is one big problem.  That being, that, if the idea of race has any meaning, then Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming were of the same race. 

 

You see, Sally Hemings' mother's parents were an African woman being transported to the new world to be sold into slavery and the British captain of the slave ship.  As Mick and Keith told us, "Scarred old slaver knows he's doing all right  .  .  .  hear him with the women just around midnight" 

 

 

Or--another way of expressing it--"That's no slave ship.  That's the Love Boat!"

 As you can see, life was all smiles aboard the H. M. S. You-Are-Now-My-Chattel.  No wonder Sally Hemings' grandmother had a shipboard romance!  Of course, unlike most passengers who have shipboard romances while on a cruise, when the ship docked and the romance had to end Ms. Hemings did not go back to her regular boyfriend or husband but rather to the slave auction block.  Not that that's such a big difference for a woman, to be honest.

 

So, Sally Hemings' mother, Betty Hemings, had one European parent and one African parent.  So, it's a little confusing to say that her "race" was European or  African.

 

But let's hold off on that question and consider instead the matter of Sally Hemings' father.  The place to start on that topic is to look at how Sally Hemings ended up as Thomas Jefferson's slave in the first place.  Well, it turns out that she came to Monticello as part of the dowry of TJ's wife, Martha Wayles.  And what was Hemings' background leading up to that glorious day when she, the silverware and the table linens moved to Monticello?

 

Well, the best explanation is the one that Jack Nicholson got when he came to visit the Jefferson's.  After a few rye whiskeys, Jack pointed out Sally Hemings to Martha Wayles Jefferson and asked who she was.  I have a picture of the encounter right here:

 

 

 

The conversation went like this:

 

                                       "Who is that young woman?"

                                       "My slave."

                                       (slap)  "Who is she?!"

                                       "My sister."

                                       (slap)  "Stop lying!  Who is she?"

                                       "My slave and my sister."

 

Yes, Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Thomas Jefferson's wife.  And the three of them, of course, were the first guests on the Jerry Springer Show.  And I have a photo from that show.  Of course I do.

 

 You see, Martha Wayles' father, John Wayles, was quite the chatty slaveholder.  He was such a big fan of conversations with Betty Hemings that he had six children with her, including Sally Hemings.  Of course, all six of those children were, and remained for their entire lives, slaves.  And since in the Americas it was not allowed to hold European/"white" people in perpetual captivity, then it was necessary to adjudge this six children who had three European grandparents and one African grandparent to be Negroes.  So that's what John Wayles did.  He declared these children of his to be condemned to lifelong servitude.  And that is what forms the underpinnings of the issues of race in America.

So Martha Wayles brought along her slave-slash-sister when she became Mrs. Jefferson.  And when she became the late Mrs. Jefferson, Thomas began sleeping with her sister, which suggests that--though Jefferson was not a practicing Christian--he did take a Biblical attitude toward finding a new wife.  And he and Sally also followed the Biblical admonition to go forth and practice the multiplication tables (although probably not "3 x 23") and they begat four children.  And since these children had two white parents and seven of eight white great-grandparents, they were, of course, Negroes and slaves.  Except that as each child became an adult, Jefferson freed them and three of the four at that moment in time changed from being Negroes to being white.  Because IT IS ALL A FICTION!

 And because fictions are by their very nature not factual, so is the issue of race in America not a matter which is grounded in fact.  Rather, it is based on prejudice and stereotyping. 100% based on prejudice and stereotyping.  And I am referring to how we Americans perceive people of "our own race" as well as people of "another race", and our expectations on how these other people will behave.  And, unfortunately, this prejudice and stereotyping is predictive of behaviors enough of the time that we hold onto it--not because of actual racial differences but because these other people tend to hold the same prejudices and stereotypes about themselves and their racial identities as we do.  Which is a testament to the power of a longstanding fiction because THERE ARE NO ACTUAL RACIAL DIFFERENCES, SINCE THERE ARE NO ACTUAL RACES.

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Ferguson, Missouri, I read so many expressions of outrage from people who selectively culled bits of rumor that they then wove into a grand pronouncement of good and evil applied to a generalized population (black people or white people or police or liberals or conservatives or black leaders or President Obama [for some folks, it appears that he is an entire population]).  While a few were insightful and thoughtful, most were not.  Sadly, most were just ignorant condemnations of some group of people, based not on the available information about what occurred but rather by doing what our professors in law school called "assuming facts not in evidence"--which is an educated way of saying "you are just making shit up."

For example, on the liberal side, there was an article by Ezra Klein saying that Darren Wilson's account of his encounter with Michael Brown was literally unbelievable.  That it could not be believed.  Klein said this after numerous eyewitnesses (all of them black) had come forward and substantiated the bulk of his testimony.  But aside from that, Klein's reasoning was based on what he wanted to be true in order to have the narrative he had already chosen.  Among other things, Klein said that Wilson could not be believed when he said that Brown grabbed the waistband of his pants before charging at Wilson.  "No one would do that!", asserts Klein.  Well, Ezra, I happen to think highly of you in general (I really do), but if you were any more "white" you'd be Chevy Chase.  If you are wearing those stylishly sagging jeans that are de rigueur with young black males, you HAVE TO grab the waistband if you want to run.  (Yes, what I just said is a stereotype, not based on my having known Michael Brown.  Which makes my point, actually--that stereotyping is like a dysfunctional family--each person plays a role that preserves the dysfunction.)

As for what conservatives said, I'm not going to repeat what I read because some things are too vile to ever be repeated.  However, the tamer aspect of these comments seems to be that race and violent conduct are connected attributes.  To which I would suggest that these people spend some time in non-safari parts of Africa and then explain why these young black men--who have 100% African ancestry, unlike the bulk of black men in America--are not killing each other or anybody else at even the rate that American whites kill each other.  It's almost as if it's not a racial thing at all!  But rather a cultural thing?  And, by the way, the people who say that the high rates of violence in the American black communities are a symptom of poverty?  Same thing.  Go to sub-Saharan Africa and tell me that they don't know poverty there like we do in America.  Yeah, right.

Okay.  So the problem is deep seeded and endemic.  What's a non-prejudiced, morally impeccable, genuinely nice person--meaning, you--supposed to do about it?  Actually, the solution is easy.  All you need to do is to forward this blog post to all of your friends, enemies and vague acquaintances, with the admonition to read and follow all my writings.  The end result, I fervently hope, will be the realization of my dream to be the leader of a vast mob of simpleminded, brainwashed, fanatical followers.  Ideally  .  .  .  carrying pitchforks.