Sunday, April 1, 2012

Criminal Law and the Popular Hoorah

CRIMINAL LAW AND THE POPULAR HOORAH





Whether or not our criminal justice system is the best or worst in the world, pundits will no doubt inform us. I assume it is somewhere in between. Nothing is perfect and how the hell would such comparisons be measured? Noisy people rant on about how the system is broken and point with alarm at egregious examples of how the law-enforcement fails us. None, however provide sufficient data to support their belief. There is a strong tendency to ignore triumphs and emphasize failure, and the old dictum, “You find what you are looking for,” prevails. Well, if the standard is perfect success then we all are failures and that, of course, is the notion of original sin. Sorry, that's not for me.



The latest hoorah is about the young man killed by a neighborhood watch fellow. More accurately, it's about his killer. The noisy ranters carry on that he is a murderer and should be immediately jailed with such certainty that the listener is amazed at such true belief, at least the listener who maintains a rational mind. I must admit, it took me a while to sort out. Clearly, passion distorts thinking and overwhelms any discussion. Mr. Zimmerman, the shooter called 911 and, according to some listeners, he included a racial slur. Others cannot hear it; I assume that means it never can be determined and that means that the feds cannot use it to establish that the killing was motivated by hate. That means, unless they discover other hate evidence, they cannot take action. Apparently, the direction of one's passion affects hearing as well as thinking.



It is quite surprising that without evidence Mr. Zimmerman should be popularly accused of murder, while the absurdity of the police department is barely commented on by TV pundits. Experts in police investigation have all asserted that that police department simply did not do its job. They didn't question neighbors who heard the events, they checked the dead man for drugs, but not the shooter. They took Mr. Zimmerman at his word about self defense without exploring how the event occurred. They made little of the reality that Mr. Zimmerman chased after the young man in his truck after being told to let the police handle the matter. An outraged elected official pointed out that a police officer would be carefully investigated but Mr. Zimmerman disappeared from the police radar. My guess is that he did wrong, but so far that has not been determined. One police investigator wanted to arrest him but that never happened.



If we get away from our rage at the killing, and get away from the demand to arrest Zimmerman for murder we can look at that police department and wonder about their apparent indifference. Whatever the outcome of developing a case against Zimmerman, we are again faced with a national crisis about police behavior or police inactivity. Where are we if we cannot trust our police? It surely is not fair to tar all police departments with the same brush, but we are reminded that the police, our first line of defense against mayhem have considerable power. No so long ago, racial profiling was of major concern. Police would pull over black drivers for whatever infraction they could identify, sometimes it was simply driving in the wrong part of town, and harass them, ticket them and otherwise demean them. Keep in mind that police are members of our culture and carry with them the prevailing assumptions and prejudices extant in our society.



Police are faced with a perpetual dilemma: they need to be, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion. Hell, they are ordinary people; don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But, that Florida police department has failed miserably. Whatever else happens, they need to be fixed.



The police are a wonderful crew

Whose malfeasance is hopefully few

But, sometimes they do bad

That makes us all sad

Do we get the best they can do?


Sunday, March 25, 2012

MOVE FAST, CRASH SOON

MOVE FAST CRASH SOON
 (Comments are always welcome.)


I don't like the concept of “deep truths.” It implies that such are significant with a new, special, and positive understanding of , broadly speaking, a life experience. Instead of “truths”, perhaps let me suggest “a re-framing” of a life experience that is accompanied by a sense of belief in the new perspective, sort of an I-got-it experience. And, I think, it comes as a solution to a problem about which the individual might have been totally unaware.
While I understand what is meant, that such insights are totally personal, that others are not involved I’m not sure it makes sense. Perhaps the I-got-it experience that comes with others is not as significant as the more isolated experience but a positive I-got-it is, whether with others or alone is quite exhilarating. Certainly, the practice of brain-storming a problem can lead to such got-it moments with pleasure intensified when others agree with enthusiasm.
I remember struggling for an idea for my PHD but uselessly. My faculty advisor chided me with, “you're not getting any younger,” and I thought perhaps I'd drop out and sell shoes (Why shoes? I have no idea.) But, doodling with words on my typewriter a tiny, somewhat absurd idea popped into my head. Wife was away and that eliminated interruptions. Mostly for a kind of bitter fun I explored the possibilities; my mind ranged across a number of unanticipated implications and pretty soon I was typing like mad – with an excitement that got me to leap up and dance around the room. I'd rush back to the typewriter with ideas bursting out through my fingers and did more dancing. In truth, I was one with the universe.
When I calmed down a bit, I wrote up a formal statement of the idea and later presented it to my advisor. “Bert, this is crazy; it'll never work.” So I pointed out this part of it and that pert of it and how it tied together some badly understood aspects of personality testing – and persuaded him, at least to the point of suggesting that I do a pilot study. The rest, as they say is history.

But, here is the point – suppose it had been a crappy idea? Suppose I had, out of desperation, deluded myself and created a meaningless melange of nothing? The fact that I truly believed it had absolutely nothing to do with its validity. If you have ever attempted to create a recipe you know what I mean.
Which takes us to religion. Religion is, among other things, an attempt to understand the universe. Where did everything come from? Who created it and why? Does the universe care about me? Why am I here? Such questions, and others seem universal in the human experience; apparently all societies invent creation stories with a god or gods to explain everything around them. And, they receive great comfort from such ideas. They confirm that universe is not a vast, unknowable and chaotic enterprise but orderly and with purpose and guidance for human behavior.
Imagine the excitement when such ideas first popped out, the happy excitement to realize that everything fit together and the comfort in knowing that everything was designed for our well-being and – we would never die! If that doesn't make you feel good, well perhaps you are from Mars. Decent and honorable people believe such; For a long time it was the best idea around. The adults enthustiastically taught it to their kids. All was well.
Still, remember my advisor; he told me to check out my crazy idea to see if it had some virtue. Do a pilot study because it might not work; but had my idea failed, at least it wouldn’t end my quest for a doctorate. Test whenever possible. The message is that we humans are not trustworthy (I don't mean in an immoral sense.). We are not particularly good at sorting out what makes sense and what is, at best, only partially useful. We easily can see how other religions are faulty but retain faith in our own. Politicians leap with joy when they discover the “truth” about how to fix a problem and don't examine it from all angles. Carpenters understand the value of measuring twice; we all would do better living that way.


There once was a fellow named Simpson
With an idea he thought worth a billion
To the bank with a dash
He withdrew all his cash
At his death he had naught to leave no one.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

A MARITAL TRAGEDY


A Marital Tragedy

When in the army I met a fellow from Appalachia with one of those slow drawls that can both infuriate and fascinate the northern listener. He explained how the passion of newlyweds superseded almost every other consideration; the sexing was sometimes more frequent than eating. “If you put a pebble in a large jar every time they do it,” he told me, the jar would be filled. At the end of the first year, take a pebble out on every occasion and you won't empty the jar by the end of five years. We laughed. This story is about Clarabelle-Sue Smith.
Born on the family farm to hard working folk, they lived too far away from any town to easily get there. It took a family outing, but her hard working parents never had outings so they never went so did not Clarabelle. Her father in particular, in addition to his devotion to work also was devoted to God, a being whom he believed frowned of human frivolity. There was little laughter in Clara's life and no radio or television. Well, yes a radio, but turned on only for the farm report; Clara had little idea of the outside world.
The school bus picked her up, deposited her at school and later committed the same feat in reverse at the end of the day. The schoolchildren barely knew her and her awareness of her ignorance kept her separate from them. She grew into a comely young woman and in her teens became aware of sensations located in unmentionable parts of her body. While somewhat slow in many ways, she understood that those sensations had something to do with pleasure and in some way had to do with boys. She wandered the hallways and visited classrooms but her hormones affected her brain so it could not bring itself to think clearly. Her few girl friends clearly had solved the problem but too timid, she could not ask.
It so happened that one day the athletic department gave out free tickets to a basketball game. The team was so bad it was the only way they could somewhat fill the arena. Clara waited with dull interest until the team ran onto the court ... and she saw Zeke. Six ft 1 inch tall and muscular and fell instantly in love. The Italians call it The Thunderbolt and it crashed into her brain and blew her mind. He was only a middling player on a mediocre team but he was the man for her and she went after him. Other girls, as was their wont, went after him and the other players, but none with the zeal that Clara poured into getting Zeke for her own.
She never thought about what would happen, what it meant if she got him. What went on between men and women was only a vague blur. She knew about bulls and cows on the farm but had not the capacity to translate such knowledge into a reasonable facsimile of what happened between men and women. But, she wanted him and she could figure it out later.
Though he had been flirted many times, Zeke had never had a girl so enamored of him. Still, he was slow in responding until she removed her bra and he got the idea. It happened, or, more accurately, he made it happen. She liked the two minutes of foreplay but the culmination was a resounding failure as far as pleasure for her, but she became pregnant and got her man. Poor Zeke cursed his fate but in the small town, Drudgeville, where they lived, the young men had to pay the piper and since he had piped her, a wedding ceremony was quickly arranged. Clara's mother consoled her. “Don't worry, dear, you'll probably like it in a few years.”
Her mother need not have worried. They piped away and she became an enthusiast, only reluctantly ceasing such activities because of the birth of their child, a girl. Zeke played basketball at a local community college but quickly was relegated to the bench. A semi-star in high school, he was a dud in tougher competition. They moved back to Drudgeville where he got a job at a body shop scraping rust off damaged cars. He was promised a promotion to real bodywork but that never happened.
So, with the child born and him working, she had nothing to do but care for the child and cajole him into bed. A full time job and sex twice a day, morning and evening and six times over the weekend, began to wear on him and in spite of her eager stimulation, he would fall asleep. This was not Clara's plan for a good life. She had found pleasure, more pleasure that she had imagined and would not give it up without a struggle. But, the struggle failed. Back off,” Zeke growled, “four times a week is enough, I need to rest.
It was then she decided he had to die. She would never break her marriage vows by finding another man to fill the gaps, her vows were sacrosanct. The solution was to kill him, but in such a way that suspicion could never finger her as the perpetrator. She thought of accidents, fake suicide, poison, knives and guns. She even thought of hiring an assassin but all the possibilities had weak points and she panicked at the thought she would have to spend the rest of her suddenly dreary life with only little of that glorious pleasure. But, she found a way. On a visit to the doctor, he was told he had gained too much weight and ate too much fried food. “It's fried food that will kill you in the long run.”
It took a few days for her to understand the significance of that warning. Fried food would kill him. Of course, that was it. He loved fried food and he would now get it, morning noon and night. Fried fish, fried chicken, chicken fried steak, fried zucchini, fried potatoes, hash brown potatoes, cottage fried potatoes, fried onion rings, fried Twinkies, fried shrimp and whatever else she could think to place before him. She understood it would take a few years, but at 21, she had plenty of time after his death for a fulfilled life.
He loved her newfound enthusiasm for cooking and he loved fried food. Every year the doctor warned him about weight, blood sugar cholesterol and heart attacks, but when Zeke expressed some concern she would place before him deep fried cantaloupe slices and he was doomed.
At twenty-three, she could see that he had only a few more years to live and rejoiced. His increased dehabilitation made sex almost impossible for him and his belly fat repulsed her but OK, she could wait. She made up for her loss with fantasies and self-gratification. All was well; the plan was working and she could wait.
Until he came home one day. He explained that he had spoken with twelve-year-old Tommy Jones, the youngest preacher in the county. The pre-adolescent had told him that eating meat and fish was a sin and that starting that day, they were vegetarians. She smashed in his skull with the frying pan.

She could not enjoy life without sexing
Its absence in life was perplexing
To her it was balm
Without it no calm
No sex was simply quite vexing


Monday, March 12, 2012

PISSING ON THE ENEMY

PISSING ON THE ENEMY


There are some people who are convinced that world wide violence is gradually diminishing and they provide data to support that idea. I am not convinced even though the data appear solid. Their idea is that warfare is an aberration, something left over from ancient times when killing others meant survival, just a bad habit, thus expungible.
While it is a hopeful plausibility, it ignores how evolution shaped us. Fear and anger are built in, run like hell or fight like hell and survive until the next encounter. Pretty early on, bands of people, probably kin groups, realized that uncontrolled running or fighting easily disrupted the group and established rules of conduct. The kids, human kids, had to learn how not to run and not to fight when things went wrong; it makes little sense to kill someone who scowled at you though, alas that happens. After all, it could be caused by a distressed stomach. Still, the impulses are still there; civilization and religion have worked hard to tame the beast but outbursts abound. Another attack on a school, I forget where, occupied the news this morning. It's too early to know why, but you can be sure it has nothing to do with survival. It is most likely a version of: “Things should not be the way they are.” Most people feel irritated when caught behind a slow driver, but how many people wonder at that? Why the irritation? “He/she should not act that way.”
I remember discussing things with men who faced bitter guerrilla warfare. These were young American men who were trained by our society to treat people with respect, not to hurt others and to get along with the world. Alas, put them into combat and they are transformed into killers and often cruel killers. Desensitized to human anguish and pain, they participated in abominations and loved it. You may remember that some soldiers cut off the ears of the enemy dead and made necklaces of them. One of them, an old soldier of many campaigns could not believe that he acted that way. He and his buddies wore their necklaces and danced around blazing fires. Or, if an officer was disliked he might be “fragged.” Roll a fragmentation grenade into his tent and blow the sucker up.
All acted that way? Certainly not all, but such happened and became the liet motif of the Viet Nam war. Guerrilla war is sneaky, dirty and frightening.
We won the set-piece battles but dealing with the no-good, rotten MFs was personal. You see the cruelty of what they did to a friend's body and all you can think of is murderous revenge. A soldier had married a Viet Namese woman and had a child, both of whom were slaughtered by the Viet Cong. He dropped all the rules and became a fiendish killer. And, years after the events, he justified his response.
It may surprise you to learn that these are issues of personal freedom. Civilization restrains us. We know not to assault drivers who don't obey our rules of conduct, at least most of us know that. But, we have the urge. How many times have you said: “I'd like to . . .,” describing some form of cruel mayhem, but typically we don't. Rarely do we say: “I'd like to treat that person with respect” because he/she must have problems. I remember, in a novel, someone musing about his lack of freedom. If someone knocked off his hat, he would have to knock him down. His society would have contempt for him otherwise.
So, the marines pissed on some enemy dead. Hell, staying alive in a fire fight is a triumph that leaves one with surging adrenalin. Sometimes whooping and hollering, sometimes boasting and yes, sometimes desecrating enemy bodies is is a result. Guerrilla warfare leads to such.
All such behavior is motivated by fear and rage for which we should thank evolution and accept the reality that war is nasty and brutish; we better accept that guerrilla warfare is the future and men, and now women, will act accordingly. Think of what persistent fear and rage do to our psyches; an American soldier apparently slaughtered a number of Afghani citizens. He was in his fourth tour of duty; shall we execute him?
Though I try to do what is right.
How would I react in a fight?
Would I be staunch and quite brave?
Surely my morals I would save
Or be nasty and vicious … yes I might.







PISSING ON THE ENEMY
2-27-12

There are some people who are convinced that world wide violence is gradually diminishing and they provide data to support that idea. I am not convinced even though the data appear solid. Their idea is that warfare is an aberration, something left over from ancient times when killing others meant survival, just a bad habit, thus expungible.

While it is a hopeful plausibility, it ignores how evolution shaped us. Fear and anger are built in, run like hell or fight like hell and survive until the next encounter. Pretty early on, bands of people, probably kin groups, realized that uncontrolled running or fighting easily disrupted the group and established rules of conduct. The kids, human kids, had to learn how not to run and not to fight when things went wrong; it makes little sense to kill someone who scowled at you though, alas that happens. After all, it could be caused by a distressed stomach. Still, the impulses are still there; civilization and religion have worked hard to tame the beast but outbursts abound. Another attack on a school, I forget where, occupied the news this morning. It's too early to know why, but you can be sure it has nothing to do with survival. It is most likely a version of: “Things should not be the way they are.” Most people feel irritated when caught behind a slow driver, but how many people wonder at that? Why the irritation? “He/she should not act that way.”

I remember discussing things with men who faced bitter guerrilla warfare. These were young American men who were trained by our society to treat people with respect, not to hurt others and to get along with the world. Alas, put them into combat and they are transformed into killers and often cruel killers. Desensitized to human anguish and pain, they participated in abominations and loved it. You may remember that some soldiers cut off the ears of the enemy dead and made necklaces of them. One of them, an old soldier of many campaigns could not believe that he acted that way. He and his buddies wore their necklaces and danced around blazing fires. Or, if an officer was disliked he might be “fragged.” Roll a fragmentation grenade into his tent and blow the sucker up.

All acted that way? Certainly not all, but such happened and became the liet motif of the Viet Nam war. Guerrilla war is sneaky, dirty and frightening. We won the set-piece battles but dealing with the no-good, rotten MFs was personal. You see the cruelty of what they did to a friend's body and all you can think of is murderous revenge. A soldier had married a Viet Namese woman and had a child, both of whom were slaughtered by the Viet Cong. He dropped all the rules and became a fiendish killer. And, years after the events, he justified his response.

It may surprise you to learn that these are issues of personal freedom. Civilization restrains us. We know not to assault drivers who don't obey our rules of conduct, at least most of us know that. But, we have the urge. How many times have you said: “I'd like to . . .,” describing some form of cruel mayhem, but typically we don't. Rarely do we say: “I'd like to treat that person with respect” because he/she must have problems. I remember, in a novel, someone musing about his lack of freedom. If someone knocked off his hat, he would have to knock him down. His society would have contempt for him otherwise.

So, the marines pissed on some enemy dead. Hell, staying alive in a fire fight is a triumph that leaves one with surging adrenalin. Sometimes whooping and hollering, sometimes boasting and yes, sometimes desecrating enemy bodies is is a result. Guerrilla warfare leads to such.

All such behavior is motivated by fear and rage for which we should thank evolution and accept the reality that war is nasty and brutish; we better accept that guerrilla warfare is the future and men, and now women, will act accordingly. Think of what persistent fear and rage do to our psyches; an American soldier apparently slaughtered a number of Afghani citizens. He was in his fourth tour of duty; shall we execute him?

Though I try to do what is right.
How would I react in a fight?
Would I be staunch and quite brave?
Surely my morals I would save
Or be nasty and vicious … yes I might.








Sunday, February 26, 2012

CRUSHING PAIN: A Way of Life

CRUSHING PAIN: A Way of Life


There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.
High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?
Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.
Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.
The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.
What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?
Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.
While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible
If they merely wear shoes that are sensible
They put up with the pain
For sexual gain
And argue that such is defensible.


CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life
 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.
High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?
Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.
Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.
The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.
What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?
Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.
While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible
If they merely wear shoes that are sensible
They put up with the pain
For sexual gain
And argue that such is defensible.


CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life
 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.
High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?
Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.
Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.
The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.
What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?
Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.
While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible
If they merely wear shoes that are sensible
They put up with the pain
For sexual gain
And argue that such is defensible.


CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life
 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.
High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?
Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.
Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.
The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.
What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?
Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.
While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible
If they merely wear shoes that are sensible
They put up with the pain
For sexual gain
And argue that such is defensible.


CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life
 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.
High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?
Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.
Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.
The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.
What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?
Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.
While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible
If they merely wear shoes that are sensible
They put up with the pain
For sexual gain
And argue that such is defensible.


CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life
 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.
High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?
Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.
Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.
The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.
What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?
Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.
While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible
If they merely wear shoes that are sensible
They put up with the pain
For sexual gain
And argue that such is defensible.


CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life
 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.
High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?
Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.
Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.
The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.
What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?
Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.
While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible
If they merely wear shoes that are sensible
They put up with the pain
For sexual gain
And argue that such is defensible.


Sunday, February 19, 2012

Suppressing voters

VOTING FRAUD: A Disastrous Scourge

We are on the brink of national catastrophe, a scourge that could devastate our democracy. We are faced with the specter of voter fraud that hordes, a veritable multitude of non-Americans will descend on voting booths and, gasp, sully the core of our republic. Or at least, so a large segment of politicians and the public agree. In order to defend against this mockery of America, they have proposed a variety of preventive measures to ensure the purity of our ballot.
You may remember, or at least know about the south which devoted much of its energy to keeping black people in their place. Share-cropping, a system of bondage labor with a plantation store to reap further profits, efficiently kept black citizens from rising out of poverty. But, you will argue, they could vote and change things for themselves; could they not organize for political purposes? Well, ignorance and the Klan put quietus to such organization, but they could still vote . . . except for the poll tax and literacy tests which essentially eliminated the black American from the polls. Poor people could not afford the poll tax and with education for blacks essentially non-existent passing a literacy test became a hurdle over which they could not leap. Ugly stuff but it surely is done with, eliminated by an enlightened society. Alas not. The reality of what is now called “voter suppression,” is very much a part of our political environment. The whole point is to eliminate particular classes of voters; sometimes it is done legally and sometimes not so with concern for ethicality totally defenestrated. (See, you failed the test.)
Still, it seems reasonable to require a picture ID in order to vote. Is that not that requirement within the pale? Should we not be sure of whom it is who casts a vote? After all, who doesn't have such a document? Who? The poor. It costs money to own a car and costs money to have a license; the poor and disabled are less likely to have such financial encumbrances and whom do they vote for? Well, usually Democrats, as if that's a crime. Of course, such demands are not a poll tax, surely not, we no longer tolerate such things, do we?
Is that it? Sorry, there is more. In the recent recall election in Wisconsin, the Republicans knew they would lose so they put up a bogus slate of Democrats to lure unwary voters into voting for them, thus splitting the Democratic vote, ensuring a loss. It didn't work, most Democrats figured it out. Another trick was to call those likely to vote for recall and give them bogus deadlines to get their votes in. The idea was that the victims would think they had more time to cast their ballot until, horrors, they were too late. To some degree, such tricks worked but three state legislators were recalled in a partial Democratic victory.
How about getting people off the list of eligible voters? Here, I mean in Colorado, the Secretary of State has moved to get rid of “inactive” voters. Even though the word inactive is not defined by law, he asserted that missing one vote proved your inactivity so off you went. And, who are those who are more likely to miss a vote? You'd have to be a poor guesser not to have chosen the poor and the disabled. Never mind that they poor have a harder time taking off from work and that if they do they lose money, or that the disabled, well, they are disabled and voting is more problematic for them. Fortunately, saner heads have taken this matter to court and we might anticipate that such obvious voter suppression would be rejected. But, what if the judge is not of the saner sort?
Keep in mind that all of this is in service of keeping the multitude of the non-citizens from voting as if they are poised to do so. Are there examples of such? Of course, the system is not perfect, but aside from the few who sneak a ballot, our system works. In order for there to be a real, not fanciful problem, the non-citizens would have to organize, develop leaders and a cadre around which such a massive effort would gain coherence. Alas for the vote-suppressors, there is no such effort; if there were it would be legally flattened, turned into inconsequential mush. No, there is no voting disaster heading our way unless . . . unless it is that proposed by the suppressors. A pox on them.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

ALTE PISHER

ALTE PISHER
12-5-11

One of the great Jewish sneers is to call an aging gentleman an Alte Kocker. In strict translation, it means a man of distinguished years who shits all the time. Well, obviously, unless diarrhea is involved that doesn't happen very much. The subtle meaning of the phrase is to denigrate the person, to imply that he is not to be taken seriously. As I write this I realize that women, at least in my experience are never called AKs, short hand for the term; no point in wasting energy saying the entire line. No, I don't know why women are not included but a reasonable guess is that no one in the good old days expected women to do anything except marry and have children so there is nothing much to denigrate.
But, much more prevalent among men who reaching their glory years is the reality that they pee more than is seemly. In other words, the aging process turns us into Alte Pishers. The problem in medical terms or among the too snooty to speak of bodily functions is BPH, benign prostate hypertrophy; whatever you call it, it means that we poor souls become considerably more familiar with pissoirs, French for bathrooms. The prostate becomes big and squeezes the tube (What the hell do you call it?) running from bladder to exit device hence the problem. Suffering from AP syndrome means a) that you pee a lot and b) not much comes out. It also means interrupted sleep, getting up three or four times a night to reduce the pressure. Parenthetically, in the old days your doc would stick his properly protected finger up your behind to check its size, but of late that seems no longer medical vogue. Well, I don't mind.
Calling someone an AP in my vast experience is reasonably rare. When I was young I'd refer to some elderly folk as AKs, but the aging process reduces the number of those who deserve the term. Only an exceptionally clever person would call a younger man an AK; the older one becomes, the smaller the population of older folks thus reducing the opportunity. Still, as I write this I think the term fits for Newt Gingrich whose outrageous, mindless pronouncements , I.E. get rid of child labor laws, tell me his gravitas is simply non-existent.
Back to AP. What compounds my problem is that in a miserly way I tend to retain fluids so I am given a medicine that, you guessed it makes me pish. So, wherever I go, my pishdar locates the nearest restrooms so that when the urge appears, as is now common I know exactly where to hasten for bladder relief.So, reaching AP status is another marker along the road to being old. White hair, a bit of macular degeneration, difficulty in getting off the floor after repairing the sink, a low level of persistent arthritic pain, creaky muscles, and a brain that doesn't quite function as in the past are other markers promising that if I survive I'll truly be an old man. I know that some aged people past ninety never seem to age; I fondly hope, with little expectation of fulfilled hope that I well be in that group.
Byron wrote, in Rabbi Ben Ezra (not sure of the title) “grow old with me, the best is yet to be. Bullshit.

If you think about life I'm an ingrate
Consider my crappy old prostate
It demands that I pee
Often two times or three
If there is god that's who I'll berate.