There are days .....

I would love to have a machine in my vehicle that could produce commercial-quality bumper stickers.

I was standing in line at local grocery store, and could not help overhearing two people in front of me. One was complaining that her kids had had a "meltdown" because some program had been pre-empted by coverage of Senator Edward M. Kennedy's funeral. Not such a big deal, I suppose. I can remember all kind of events that pre-empted the usual programming, and there were always a few people who got upset.

What bothered me was the particularly judgmental way they spoke of a man who, though flawed, did a great deal of good in his life, and went through more pain and trauma than most of us could stand. Yet they both spoke about him "leaving his mistress to drown" and one of them got a laugh from her companion with "I don't see why they're making such a fuss about the old lech's body when his soul is burning in Hell."

On a better day, I might have said something, but I'm still trying to process the impact of this man's death on many levels. Besides, the only appropriate things I could think of fell into the classification of "things one does not say in mixed company."

So I paid for my groceries, and walked to my vehicle. Passing me was a car containing these two thoroughly disturbing people. On the back, they had that fish that is supposed to be the earliest Christian symbol.

Yes, I know the anchor came first, later stylized into a cross, and the Greek word for fish, being used as an acronym, is fairly recent. Before someone writes me, I will also stipulate that excavations have found the symbol, without the lettering, in the Catacombs of Rome and Tarquinia , probably dating to (or before) the First Century of the Common Era. But there is general agreement that these rooms were used by Mithrians and Zoroastrians for centuries prior to the "Jesus Cult" of Judaism that would eventually become Christians.

But I'll give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they were just ignorant. It was the bumper sticker on the other side that cried out for amendment:

"Christians Aren't Perfect, Just Forgiven."

At that moment, I would have given a lot to add a secondary sticker to read

"But Not By Our Kind Of Christian."

No great point, no lesson, just me venting. Thank you.

Can't pass up a chance for a Thurber reference

I don't know what's worse -- the fact that they treat us like idiots or the way it so often works!

A few days ago, while having dinner with a young lady who works for a government agency. She was telling me about people who call her office to express their fear that "Obama is going to cut off my disability (or other benefit) if I don't turn in my guns or if I even keep a gun in my house."

When she said she wasn't sure if "Obama" had signed the law yet or not, I mentally reviewed pending legislation, and assured her I hadn't heard of anything approximating such a bill, and was reasonably certain nothing like that had made it through either the House or the Senate, much less both.

Since there are any number of resolutions floating through the system, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge, so the next day, I ran a search. A week's worth of delay due to the wonderful bandwidth limitations of my wireless service, then back to the search.

No luck, but then I considered the journalistic standards of the so-called Mainstream Media.

You remember them, right? Massive corporations owned by some of the farthest-right Conservatives on the planet, owing their existence to the NEVER even so far as center-right FCC? The corporations that somehow keep getting called "Liberal Press or Liberal Media" when they let a day go by without suggesting that the President of the United States should be dragged out of the White House, horsewhipped, and lynched in Lincoln Park?

So, like any good research wonk, I checked draft bills that predate the current administration. Yes, there is a bill, currently without co-signers, still in committee in the House, on its third try since it was first drafted in 2007.

Interesting story to it, and since you're already reading this, I'll tell it to you. I will warn you: it doesn't sound much like the bill that the Coulters, O'Reillys, and Limbaughs have described, but that is about par for the course when we're talking about a group that can look at a standard, boilerplate lesson/activity plan for "what do we do now that we've heard our guest speaker?"and see a mind-control plot to turn millions of children into something approaching informed citizens.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

Our story starts in Chicago, Illinois, in May of 2007. Blair Holt, a high school Honor Student in his junior year, is riding a public bus when a 17-year-old gets on the bus, pulls out a gun, and starts firing. Blair, without hesitation puts himself between a girl sitting in the next seat and the shooter. Blair died, four other people were severely wounded, and the shooter just walked off the bus, having dropped the gun.

Even though it would later turn out that the shooter, not any older than his victim had purchased the gun for the express purpose of killing "the guy who stole my girlfriend", there was no way to trace the gun, since the 90-day limit on record keeping had passed. Some weeks later, the shooter was captured when he bragged to his friends about his brave, manly act.

At Blair Holt's funeral, U. S. Representative Bobby Rush promised the family of this slain hero that he would draft and fight for a bill making these tragedies less likely.

Rep. Rush drafted H.R. 2666 and saw it presented to the House Judiciary Committee. There were 15 co-signers, each of whom received death threats and each of whom faced vitriolic comments from the Right Wing and the Christian Right. The bill was called everything but legal by the Right. A multi-million infusion of bribes from the gun lobby did what you might expect. The bill died in Committee.

In 2008, Rush tried again. No real results until it became possible that his bill (now renamed H. R. 45) might get through to committee. The bill was submitted on 6 January, 2009. It is still in the Judiciary Committee, doesn't have a lot of hope, but it makes a wonderful rallying point for the more vicious elements of the Right Wing.

So is it, "an Obama Bill to seize all our guns"? No. Our President at that time was George W. Bush.

President Obama is said to think the theory of the bill is good, but the practicality may be doubtful, given the emotional pull of firearms upon certain segments of the American people.

Is it Unconstitutional? Probably not, but that depends on how it is challenged. It does not violate the Second Amendment, unless we disregard the positions of the NRA and similar organizations. For years, they have insisted the "right to keep and bear arms" is an individual right, not associated with membership in a Militia.

Digressive mutter: It should have made President Obama popular with the Right when he agreed with the "individual right" position when he was a candidate. It should have helped when he asserted the same position a few months ago. It should have helped that he took that position when he was teaching Constitutional Law.

To be very obvious, the first genuine Constitutional scholar to be President since we ran out of Presidents who were there at the writing AGREES WITH THE NRA on this point.

Here's the problem. With individual rights come individual obligations.

Examples:

We have Freedom of Speech as an individual right, but if I want to set up a TV or radio station to exercise that right, I have the responsibility to meet a number of requirements, obtain a number of licenses, and generally provide evidence that I will neither disrupt the communication of my neighbors nor use my station to "advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence."

We have freedom to assemble peaceably to petition for redress of grievances. Since these gatherings tend to happen in populated areas these days, there are a whole batch of requirements that must be met to ensure that our peaceable assembly doesn't destroy the neighborhood.

We have a right to travel freely, but we need a license to drive a car, you must pass written/practical tests that vary from state to state,you can't buy a car without a background check to convince a dealer will give you credit to buy one. You need to pass certain criteria to use a Commercial aircraft. If you buy a boat, whether skiff or schooner, you must take written and practical tests, get licenses from local authorities and the U. S. Coast Guard, and agree to periodic inspections.

We have a right to be secure in our homes, which is generally regarded to extend to "you can make your home anywhere you want," but the banks have credit and background checks that make getting a security clearance look like a walk in the park. If there is a Neighborhood Association, you may have a list of things you can and cannot do with your home. In many states you cannot keep certain animals within the city limits. Cross the invisible line, and it all changes.

We have freedom of religion. But when a pastor (in 2004) told his flock "I won't make any political endorsements. All I will do is to tell you to look at the facts and examine your consciences before you vote." The Bush Administration took it personally, moved to revoke his congregation's tax-exempt status, and directed the IRS to audit the pastor's financial records for the past 5 years.

That equine is not likely resurrect, so back to the points of H.R. 45.

It revives the NRA suggestion of testing gun owners from back in the 1950's (actually, they wanted training and testing).

It overcomes the "not within our capability" problems with local registration systems.

It gets around the frequent situation where person A, who has no criminal record buys five guns, gifts them to people B through F, and magically finds the purchase price (plus a small percentage) in his pocket.

It treats handguns and guns with removable magazines with the same regard for "trackability" given to pickup trucks and bass boats.

OK, H.R. 45 is not likely to get out of committee. Emotion and ignorance will just about always beat reason and fact in the American political system. why the big hoo-hah? The Becks, Limbaughs, O'Reillys etc. have gone through so many insane charges and innuendo that some of their followers are starting to notice. So this hopeless exercise in dealing with the fact that this is not the Wild West of John Wayne (and it never was!) at least has the unique quality of being something real.

So, to paraphrase Thurber, the whole fuss has no factual pedigree, and less substance, but one can at least be amused by its presumption.

Here we go again

While watching the bussed-in, well coached "grassroots" screamers who do their best to scare the bleep out of anyone who shows up to hear their elected representatives explain health care, among other things, I remembered watching TV commercials many years ago. In the days of outlandish claims and no regulation to keep at least the worst of the scams off the airwaves, my father would mutter "I don't know what's worse -- the way they lie, or the number of people who believe it."

Default position: dumb

A few days ago, I ran into a gentleman who identified himself as a member of a militia group that's "mustering and training" somewhere in central Oregon. Apparently, these groups (who were so extreme that other right-wingers noticed) did not, as we thought, die out after the departure of the Clinton Administration.

Some changes have been made, of course. They are better funded, tend to have more up-to-date weaponry, and have dropped some of the Klan symbols for "white power" and "Christian Identity" icons. Thanks to the re-emphasis on "enlist with your buddies" recruiting tactics of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps following the Iraq invasion, A whole bunch of folks came back from their tour of duty with considerably better training and the knowledge of how to procure and repair a staggering array of equipment.

But they still have this cherry-picking approach to the Constitution. They call themselves militias as reference to the line in the Second Amendment. So why is it they ignore the main body of that noble document which defines one of the additional duties of the Chief Executive as Commander of the Militia.

They still parrot the latest mildly insane rumor coming through the airwaves or across the Internet. Most recently, they are putting out rhetoric calling on members of the Military to disobey orders due to a totally unfounded "question" as to President Obama's citizenship. This whole idea is somewhere between laughable and obscene on SO many levels it defies even my well-known verbosity to give a full rendering. Let's just bear in mind a couple of minor details, and leave the rest as an exercise for the student.

Members of the Military Forces of the United States do not swear allegiance to the current President, even though that worthy has the additional duty title of Commander-in-Chief. Enlisted or commissioned, out oath is to the Constitution of the United States of America. We also pledge to obey the lawful orders of the President and of all other officers appointed over us.

During my 26 years in the USAF, the top echelon included one paranoid schizophrenic, a borderline megalomaniacs, a couple really terrible managers/leaders, and one demonstrable genius.

I enlisted in 1966, was commissioned in 1978, and retired in 1992. You can play "guess who" if you wish. The point is, we followed the lawful orders of the President and the officers appointed over us.

Jesse Helms's maundering about President Clinton needing a bodyguard on a military base in his state and similar dreck notwithstanding, we did not have the option of just following the Presidents we liked. It was insulting for Helms to have suggested such a thing, and it is treasonous for Limbaugh, Liddy, Beck, and their brood to suggest it now.

So why do organizations who have a significant number of former military members within their ranks even consider such statements? One might be charitable and assume they were asleep in the briefings that covered the Constitution, the Oath of Enlistment, the Oath of Commission, and the applicable articles of the UCMJ. They might have been in that occasional wave of enlistees where the Army decides to recruit a vast number of people who would normally be ineligible due to academic deficiencies of poor showing on placement/aptitude/general knowledge testing. But I don't think either really applies.

Given the blatant racism and the promulgation of unfounded personal attacks on the President and his family, it appears these people have become so blinded by their rage at the very idea of an African-American in the White House thy are willing to use anything to justify their rage ...... stopping short of "there's one of them folk that used to never get into the White House lessen they wuz a servant, and he's the President!!!!"

As always, the favorite default position of the far Right is simply: dumb.

OK, with a strong shading of poorly controlled racism, but mostly just dumb

Default position: Lie Like a Rug

A few decades back, a fellow in Germany wrote what translates loosely into "Tell a big enough lie, and tell it often enough, and after a while, the nation will believe it."

About that time, a gentleman in Russia told an interviewer: "Truth is a noun that can be applied to anything, whether that thing be true or not. Just because you believe something to be true, I can tell you the opposite is true, and if I keep telling you my truth, you will eventually believe it."

The current crop of Conservative faithful have taken this idea on board with a delight that beggars the imagination. Former governors prate about non-existent "death panels" and support this fantasy be assuming that such things are the only way to reduce health care costs. The reduction of care for the poor in her state was thought to be just another example of cronyism and bad management. Now we get to wonder if she had another agendum. Yes, students, there is a singular for "agenda" even if you never heard it before. Don't bother to thank me, just use it around a Limbaugh or Liddy follower and watch them decide you're an elitist.

An actor whose reputation is built on a string of bad "I can kick you in the ear, so I'm the good guy" films and an even less nuanced television series has become a spokesweasel for one of the exceedingly Conservative blogs, and is telling us all about how bad it would be (in one memorable passage, how "parents' privacy and the security of their homes would be compromised") should the nation have the option of the same medical care system as military retirees, veterans, the less affluent disabled, and people over 65 years of age have had for decades.

Has anybody added up the people who get all or part of their medical care from Medicare, Medicaid, The Veterans' Administration, Military Care Facilities, CHAMPUS, and TRICARE?

The last four of this little list are the people who kept me and my family alive and well for the 26 years I was in the U.S. Air Force and the years from 1992 to the present. I have been told by representatives of the administrations of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush that I and my comrades in arms were getting the best care a grateful nation had/has to offer. Now Limbaugh, Liddy, Coulter, and the Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives, et al., are telling me this system is evil, dangerous, and probably un-American.

Oh, and the "evil Socialized Medicine" rubbish with its "invasion of privacy"? What started that particular bit of mendacity is something like the system we had in England where a Registered Nurse visited us frequently and gave us (first-time parents at ages 39 and 37) a lot of useful advice while giving our son a thorough health check. When it became known that any the National Health Service was happy to extend that service to any "American Citizen Born Overseas" whether or not their parents qualified for NHS, several of our friends took them up on the offer, while others didn't want "some foreigner telling us how to raise our kid." It was an option, I'm glad we took it, and the people we knew who also took it had nothing but good to say about it. Frankly, I think such a program would do great good in our land of ever-younger parents (increasingly single and poorly educated.). But some mediocre actor says it would be evil, so it's one more thing to fear.

And the Death Panels? And the NAFTA Transit Corridor? And the claim that President Obama is a tool of the Illuminati? And the "proof" that President Obama is a secret agent of Al Qaida ... or Hamas ..... or Israel ..... or the OAU ..... or the little green creatures that live at the bottom of our garden and transmit evil instructions through our toaster? I'd call them lies, but even lies deserve some dignity, and there is less dignity in such statements than there is honor in the people who promulgate them. The groups promulgating this dreck claim to be "Grassroots Movements" despite massive corporate funding, but they do validate the old adage about "the closer you get to roots, the more fertilizer you have to dig through."

We ignore these people at our peril,but sometimes it's tempting to beg whatever Higher Power there may be to go back to the old days and smite the lot of them.