Inner curmudgeon #10

My inner curmudgeon reared its head today at lunch. Seems like this often occurs at lunch. Well, maybe that's because I'm the Curmudgeon of Sandy Springs, and I usually go out to lunch somewhere in Sandy Springs, where I live and have to keep up my title.

Today, I'm sitting there eating my pear and gorgonzola salad (with pistachios and cranberries -- very good, which is why I go there) when a scantily dressed woman pranced by and sat at the table next to me. I felt an instant repulsion and wanted to say to her, "Honey, why don't you go home and put some clothes on. It's almost the end of September, and fall is officially here."

Now this was no ordinary young thing, eager to show off her sexy charms. Well, this was no young thing, even though she seemed desperate to appear young; and she probably thought she was showing off sexy charms. She was mistaken.

Alas, there were no sexy charms in evidence and not a trace of youthfulness -- except for the inappropriate clothes. But then I just admitted in my last post to being a prejudiced age-ist. And maybe I'm just too old to notice sexy charms.

This woman had to be at least 6o, if not more. Now I have seen many women that age, and much older, who are beautiful. She was not one of them. She was wearing a halter top that barely contained the things those things are supposed to contain. And she was wearing short-shorts. I mean sho' 'nuf shortie shorts -- the kind you expect to see on a Hooter's waitress. Well, let me just say that they did not seem appropriate for the time and place nor for this woman's body.

I admit, she was remarkably trim, if somewhat misshapen, but all that wrinkled skin and frizzy, bottle-blond hair on display at mid-day in public -- it gave me the creeps. And then a youngish man, who might have been her son but most likely was a "kept" boy toy, came and joined her.

It was not a pretty sight. And I had to suppress my inner curmudgeon, who had the impulse to tell her what I was thinking: Act your age, woman !! Or at least be more attractive when you display so much skin.

On the beach in July, you'd look slightly ridiculous. Lunching in Sandy Springs in late September, you actually looked pathetic.

I know I sound very very judgmental. But that's my privilege as a curmudgeon, isn't it?

Bah humbug !!

Ralph

Inner curmudgeon #9

My rant for the day is about being called "Sweetie" by young women two generations younger than I am.

The waitress at the local deli today kept referring to me as "Sweetie."

"What can I get for you, Sweetie?" "How's the sandwich, Sweetie?" "Do you need change, Sweetie?"

Grrrr. Yes, I'm sure she meant it as affectionate solicitousness, so I held my tongue. But it felt demeaning, infantalizing.

It's true, I am old and use a cane. But I still have my mental faculties, am reasonably intelligent and competent, and I get around under my own steam.

I don't want stuffy formality either. No need for "Doctor" or "Sir." It's OK for nurses in my doctor's office to call me "Ralph." But not "Sweetie," please. Save that for when I am truly old, drooling unintelligibly, and need to wear a diaper.

Until then, talk to me like a competent adult -- at least as long as I'm acting like one.

Bah, humbug !!!

Ralph

Inner curmudgeon #8

I just signed a petition to the news directors of every major news network, sponsored by my phone company, Credo. It asks them to stop reporting on Sarah Palin's bus trip to nowhere. She's not a serious presidential candidate but a media-manipulating TV personality engaging in yet another publicity stunt to milk the gullible conservative public into boosting the earning power of her and her exploited children.

She is news only if you cover her antics. So, just stop.

Ralph

Inner curmudgeon #7 - statistics and lies

I've railed before about the sorry state of understanding of statistics, not only in our populace but especially in our journalists.

For example: a study shows that 52% of people favor x, while 45% favor y, and 3% have no opinion. The article, and especially the headline, will often claim that "most Americans" favor x. Obviously there is a confusion between "majority" and "most."

Now my latest gripe about misleading use of statistics has to do with medical statistics and especially drug studies. Example: the big flap in the news about whether cell phone usage causes brain cancer.

On one day the WHO put out a report that says there is no evidence that cell phones overall result in higher risk for brain cancer. The next day the same WHO puts out a report that says those with the highest use of cell phones have a 40% increased chance of developing gliomas, a type of brain cancer.

How can both be true? Statistics. Glioma is only one type. So, let's suppose that the overall incidence of brain cancers is 10 in 10,000 people. And half of those are gliomas. That's 5 in 10,000. In highest cell phone users, maybe the incidence is 7 in 10,000. That's a 40% increase. But it's also a very very tiny difference in incidence: from 5/10,000 to 7/10,000. [I'm making these numbers up for illustration; I don't know the actual incidence.]

But -- you see the different? To say 40% sounds really alarming. To say from 5 to 7 per 10,000, not so much.

In fact, the WHO has categories of cancer risk: definite, probable, and possible. They classified this one as "possible." Also in that category?

Coffee.

So, let's don't get all hysterical about cell phones. Bah humbug.

Ralph

Inner curmudgeon #6

My curmudgeon cup runneth over. This one is especially galling.

Last year, after a lengthy, well-conducted appeals trial, Federal District Judge Vaughan Walker ruled that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. His order was stayed pending appeal.

Proponents of Prop8, who have appealed the decision, have now filed two court challenges:

1. To have the decision thrown out, based on their claim that Judge Vaughan should have recused himself because he is gay.

Actually, they claim it's not that he's gay but that he's in a long-term relationship with a man. In view of the possibility that he might then want to get married, he was biased on the case.

Come on, we didn't just fall off the turnip truck. If you're straight, you wouldn't be biased about a marriage issue; but if you're gay, you necessarily are? In that case, no man should rule on a gender-discrimination case -- nor a woman either. We'd have to breed a genus of asexual beings to be judges.

2. They also demand to have the video-recording of the trial proceedings sealed and off limits to the public.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled out the live broadcast of the trial as it was in progress, but it was video-recorded and stored in the court archives. Judge Walker, now retired, recently played a small segment of the testimony in connection with a talk he gave that was broadcast on CSPAN. Now the other side wants to prevent any further release of the recording. Presumably the written transcript is available as a public record, as all are all trial records unless ordered sealed by the court.

You know why they don't want it shown? Because people would watch what was actually introduced as evidence in this public trial on an issue that was voted on by the people; and, if people watch it, they will get educated about the real evidence and the real issues.

And mostly (obviously) they want to suppress it, because the case against Prop8 was so brilliant and thorough, while the case for it was so pathetic that it would be a humiliating embarrassment, as it was in court.

Given their day in court to make the case for denying an equal right to marriage to same-sex couples, the only argument they had was "it's tradition and overturning it will harm the institution of marriage." That was it, essentially. No facts, nothing to back it up but religious beliefs and tradition.

Never mind. The tide has already turned. If this case is not the final death knell, it will come soon.

Ralph

Inner curmudgeon #5

There's political bloviation and obfuscation, and there's campaign excess and outright lies.

And then there's the appalling behavior of pretend-journalists that is so biased that it becomes unprofessional and unethical. That's where my inner curmudgeon gets roused.

No one does it as often as the denizens of Fox television network. They're at it again, and it's deplorable.

I have my own ambivalence about the morality of assassinating an unarmed man, even of the likes of Osama bin Laden. I am relieved that he is no longer in the world, and I might very well have given the same order that President Obama did, given all that he had to consider -- sort of like shooting a mad dog in the streets even though it's not in an act of killing that requires immediate self-defense.

The questions here though are philosophical and moral.

FoxNews is just being political -- and, I submit, committing unprofessional journalism (the word 'journalism' hardly even applies to Fox).

Two different Fox anchors have called killing the unarmed Osama "illegal."

Here's what rouses my inner cur:

1. We know, as well as we know the sun will rise tomorrow, that they would not be doing so if GWBush were the president who gave the same orders.

2. We know that the denizens of Fox have led the pack in calling Obama weak and ineffective on foreign policy and war-waging. Now that he's done what they demanded he do, they say it's illegal.

3. We know that if news had leaked that this opportunity to take out Osama had arisen and Obama had not taken it, they would have (figuratively) dragged Obama's body through the streets.

Listen UP, FoxNews: don't try to peddle to this old curmudgeon your tired political smears wrapped in the bloody gauze of morality and integrity. You have none.

None. Absolutely none.

Bah humbug.

Ralph

Beating a dead horse #6

Adam Liptak, writing in the Sunday New York Times, has a somewhat different reading of the King & Spalding withdrawal from defending DOMA.

He suggests that we have rapidly arrived at a tipping point in public opinion, and that it was this, more than internal struggles on gay marriage among its own staff, that led K&S to take the unusual step of backing out of a contract to defend the House of Representatives in a challenge to the constitutionality of one of its own laws, one that the Obama Justice Department decided not to continue defending.

Liptak writes:

For many gay rights activists, the decision amounts to a turning point in the debate -- the moment at which opposition to same-sex marriage came to look like bigotry, similar to racial discrimination and the subordination of women."

Of course, here he's attributing the assertion to "gay rights activists," but the the tone of the rest of his article supports that view.

It's important to distinguish the point Liptak is making -- a genuine change in social attitudes akin to changing view of race and gender discrimination, not "caving in to pressure" from important clients and staff and gay activists.

I agree that changing societal attitudes is a strong factor. I think K&S's commitment to diversity and to its own gay staff may have put them a bit ahead of the curve among law firms -- but not far ahead. Liptak also points out that the legal profession as a whole has been a leader in acceptance of equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Another factor that no one else seems to consider: K&S's assessment of whether they could make a plausible defense of a bill that, at least in parts, has been deemed unconstitutional by legal scholars. That was the DoJ's rationale for no longer defending it. Maybe it really boils down to this: K&S did not want to take a case they would lose, perhaps look both naive and bigoted in trying to defend, and at the same time alienate their own staff, some of their clients, and much of society.

Ralph

Inner curmudgeon #4

A close companion to obnoxious narcissism in my list of grumps is:

chutzpah n. shameless audacity, utter nerve, effrontery.

The popular example is the man who murdered his parents and then pleaded for the court's mercy because he was an orphan.

We could add: Republicans starting two wars, giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and beginning the prescription drug entitlement -- without paying for any of it. Then blaming the Democrats for the ensuing deficit.

Another: The Chicago Tribune called it "The Utter Shamelessness of Reince Priebus."

With a name like Reince Priebus, you've got to be either a clown or a serious person. From his appearance, I would have guessed that the new chairman of the Republican National Committee is a serious person.

Reince does seem to be a more careful man than his predecessor, Michael Steele; but today he released a statement -- not an off the cuff verbal gaffe, like Steele -- that makes him seem every bit as audacious and shameless. He wrote, about President Obama:

Unfortunately his campaign politics and talk about birth certificates is distracting him from our number one priority – our economy.

Now that is just about as shameless chutzpah as the examples above. Republican nuts started the birther thing, then their media mouthpieces amplified it, and even some of their presidential wannabes took it up. Obama ignored it.

Then Donald Trump, with reckless abandon, flooded the airwaves with the birther thing; and he repeated it on every megaphone he could command, and the polls began to reflect a growing doubt. So Obama took a little time out of one day to put it to rest. He did what the Repubs had been demanding for months, even years. He made a special request and got a copy of his long-form birth certificate; and he showed it and talked about it -- a small part of one day.

So now it's Obama's fault for distracting us from all the problems we face by talking about his birth certificate ! ! ! !. That is really shameless.

Bah humbug.

Ralph

Inner curmudgeon # 3

My inner curmudgeon's rant for today is this:

When I am in line at the grocery store, I do not want the cashier to ask, as my total mounts: "Do you want to give a dollar to the March of Dimes?" Or "Would you like to make a contribution to help save the Amazon rain forests?"

The answer, from me, is always going to be "No."

I have nothing against the March of Dimes or the saving the planet. I write checks to many non-profit, good-works groups. But I want to make my own choices -- and I hate the coercion of this increasingly common method that forces people to give -- or to say no for all in line behind you to hear.

No doubt it's effective, and those one-dollars add up. Many people find it hard to say no. I took my first step in not-giving years ago, when I began ignoring the Salvation Army bell ringers outside shopping malls. But that was because of the Salvation Army's anti-gay policies.

But now it's the contrarian in me -- the curmudgeon -- that makes me say no -- even if it's the same cause that I will write a generous check for next month.

It hasn't quite reached the level yet that I'm going to stop by the manager's office and tell them about my negative reaction. But I think about it; and, if this new trend doesn't stop, I will.

Bah humbug !!

Ralph

Beating a dead horse . . .

Why give in to reality and public opinion (that now favors same-sex marriage rights) when you might be able to wring a few more votes by pandering to the anti-gay zealots? Never let it be said that Repubs left any doubt that their red-bloodedness is opposed to that whole gay thing that's sweeping the country.

Two last ditch stands:

1. The generals in charge of implementing the repeal of DADT reported to the House Armed Services Committee recently that their training of the troops for the transition is going very well and that they anticipate few problems in implementing the repeal.

Repub members of the committee didn't like it, in fact some simply refused to believe them. For example: one raised the question about the response rate to the massive survey they did of attitudes about repeal, which were surprisingly benign. The army general gave the percentage and said -- quite clearly -- that this was a typical response rate to such surveys. The next question from the dumb congressman was: "Why do you think the response rate was so low?" And, of course, then he demanded a new study (aka further delay), because this one obviously didn't get to the true feelings of the troops and their families (who essentially said: it's no big deal).

2. The Obama Department of Justice has made a determination not to defend the challenge in court to the Defense of Marriage Act, on the grounds that parts of it are deemed by legal experts to be unconstitutional. So the case would be heard without an official defense from the DoJ.

But John Boehner and his Repub troops ride to the rescue !!! They've got to save marriage as we know it !! (aka the votes of the right wing anti-gay zealots). Boehner has retained outside legal counsel to defend DOMA in court on behalf of the Legislative arm, with an expenditure of $500,000 of the taxpayers' money, and possibly more, to the prestigious King & Spaulding law firm.

Remember this at election time, folks: $500,000 for a futile defense of an unconstitutional law, but we've got to cut food stamp programs and health insurance for children. Remember !!

Ralph

Inner curmudgeon #2: Bring back censorship

I grew up in the days of censorship, back when it was sex that got people upset. Movie censors wouldn't allow a man and a woman to be in bed together, even with pajamas tightly buttoned to the neck, and even if the actual actors were married to each other in real life. The horror !! It might give the young people ideas. We're not even talking about nudity. This was when you couldn't show any leg above the knee and nothing more than a hint of cleavage.

Of course, Jane Russell's phenomenal chest development was just there, no matter how many layers of clothes she had on. And Lana Turner in a sweater? You just couldn't get much sexier than that. Countless teen-age boys could see right through those clothes in their imaginations.

No, it's not this kind of censorship that my inner curmudgeon wants to bring back. What I have in mind wouldn't try to control people's imaginations. It would be to impose some standards on what's accepted as truth -- no, let's go further -- what's accepted as fact.

I want there to be some universal loud buzzer that goes off every time a politician or preacher or pundit willfully misstates the facts. We don't even have to delete the statement -- just identify it as false right then and there, not later in some article that few people read.

The AJC has a version of this in its "Truth-O-Meter," a daily feature that investigates the truth of a statement made by such a person, and then they rate it on a true/false meter. Of course, this often appears a week later to a different audience. I want an immediate, on-the-spot buzzer that goes off to alert the listener in real time -- and to shame the liar, right then and there.

But the "Truth-O-Meter" is better than nothing. Here are two from recent days, both from Georgia Congressional Representatives -- both Republicans, as it happens, although the Dems are not immune. They just do it less often, less blatantly, and from less scurrilous motives.

1. In a 45 minute lecture to House members during the debate over the deficit, Rep. Paul Braun said that FDR sent his advisers to study socialism with Stalin so he could replicate it in the U.S.

Totally false, with hardly a traceable connection to the facts. AJC contacted Braun's office and even the book they cited as source didn't say what he said. When contacted, the book's author did say that some of FDR's advisers on The New Deal had, years earlier, studied the socialist experiment going on in Russia back during the 1920's, long before FDR was elected and long before Stalin's despotic purges were known. But FDR didn't send them to Russia. She also likened the intelligentsia's interest in socialism in the 1920s to our current, legitimate interest in China's economic developments. Braun's statement is false on the face of it, and misleading in its implications. It got a 0 on the Truth-O-Meter. Shame on Paul Braun, a serial liar -- and read into the Congressional Record at that.

2. Rep. Tom Graves put out a tweet claiming that America's wealthiest 25% pay 86%, and the wealthiest 5% pay 60%, of the total income taxes paid. AJC had to give this a 100% true rating, but went to lengths to point out how it misleads -- and you can bet it was willful misleading, because the tweet is obviously a rebuttal to the Dems correctly pointing out the increasing disparity between the soaring income of the top 5% and the static or declining income of the middle class, leading to the greatest class income disparity since the 1920's.

Here is what makes this so misleading. There are two types of federal taxes on individuals: the income tax and the payroll tax. Most of what wealthy individuals pay is income tax, while a much bigger chunck of what lower and middle income inividuals pay is payroll tax. Payroll tax is levied only on the first $106,000 of income; so a wealthy person pays no more of that than a middle class person. In addition, payroll tax is levied only on earned income, i.e. wages for work. Someone whose income is solely from investments pays no payroll tax, while a person of low income may pay no income tax but still pay payroll taxes.

So, if you mention only income tax, Graves' statement is correct. But if, like Michele Bachmann, you simply say that wealthy pay that percent of federal taxes, then you are incorrect. And most people hearing Graves' claim would not make that distinction; hence it's misleading.

For example, the top 1% did in fact pay 39.5% of all federal income tax in 2007; but they paid only 28% of all federal taxes in 2007.

It's good to have these belated corrections, but I want that immediate loud buzzer -- or maybe even the old-fashioned, vaudeville big hook that pulls poor performers off stage. Maybe some young IT genius could come up with a computer program that would automatically measure the factual truth of these statements and activate the Big Buzzer.

My inner curmudgeon does not like having this kind of slipperiness with the truth from our politicians, preachers, and pundits. Let there be a Big Buzzer in the sky to zap these liars -- the preachers, the politicos, and the pundits, all.

Ralph

My inner curmudgeon speaks #1

curmudgeon: n. a bad-tempered, cantankerous old man. (Webster).

I plan to become a curmudgeon. It's been a long-held, secret desire that I've been saving for old age. Having spent my life being the anti-curmudgeon, it will be a nice change of pace. I immodestly declare that I've earned the privilege to be difficult.

Hence, I start off a new thread, calling this post "My inner curmudgeon speaks #1," indicating that there will be more. Think Lionel Barrymore, sitting in his wheelchair, snarling and shaking his cane at people.

What prompted me to begin this today was overhearing a conversation at the next table in a restaurant. Two young women were giving their order to the waiter. "I can't decide whether to do the Cobb salad with tofu or . . . no, I think I'm going to do the burrito," one said.

I'm going to do the burrito? What the hell does that mean?

Thirty minutes later, the waiter will check back, glance at their plates and ask, "Are you still working on that?" Arrrggggghhhhh. When did enjoying a meal become work? And if it's work, why are we paying for it instead of being paid?

This, by the way, is a moderately upscale vegetarian restaurant, white tablecloths, heavy flatware; upper middle class neighborhood; educated, successful clientele.

My inner anti-curmudgeon tells me that I may be showing my ignorance of pop culture (aka television). This may be the way people talk on some wildly popular tv series that I never watch. Or maybe it's chic chat among the hard-working political aides on Capitol Hill.

So be it. I don't care if I am the Troglodyte of Sandy Springs. It is an affront to my language sensibilities to "do" a burrito and to "work" on my lunch.

Bah, humbug !!

Ralph