Finally eclipsing Abu Ghraib as the scandal of the year, the human capacity for cruelty is so tellingly evident in the torture one 14-year old boy was forced to endure.

I for one can tell you that in 1958, when I was at the tender age of this poor fellow, such an experience would have scarred me for life. An illicit affair with such a woman 9 years my elder probably would have been the tipping point for a life-long slide into pain and despair. I can only thank my lucky stars that such a hideous fate never befell me.

Pity the poor soul. Hire a psychiatrist. Call the news weeklies. Get this boy some security because he is going to be the envy of the 9th grade class.

[And for goodness sakes, please for once can we forego any comment on the ultra-obvious moral dimensions of this story? Of course the youngster should not have been preyed upon by the woman in her early 20s. Of course there is danger lurking for all involved. I just finished watching that Sherlock Holmes Of The Obvious, Bill O'Reilly, addressing this same topic, and I am now well aware that the activity is to be condemned. I'm just trying to place this Horror within the proper context relative to other Horrors of the age. If you don't see the humor in this, then I encourage you to shuffle along to a more clearly delineated outrage.]

Posted by hemmingway at 09:46 | Permalink

It's a word that has not shown up around the Forum very often, but it's here today because of an unexpected conversation the other night.

I was chatting late into the evening with some intelligent, articulate and thoughtful younger women, as is my wont, and I was asked to justify my largely conservative outlook.

This happens with some frequency because new acquaintances, or old acquaintances long out of touch, assume I must be some sort of Jerry-Garcia-era aging hippie. Why anyone would have such an impression is a mystery to me, because one would think the overall impression given by my farmer tan, ubiquitous cigar, "I'm The NRA" ball cap and bait-scented dungarees would be "aging redneck" if anything. But I did have some seafaring adventures a few decades ago in the dawn of my stupidity, involving exotic beaches and midnight ocean crossings, and the mythology of that period has reached the present day in certain circles.

Anyway, I had not gotten a chance to make a statement when I was told of a heartbreaking scenario involving a medically required termination of pregnancy. The point was this: How can you support an agenda that would make such a procedure illegal, and thereby endanger the mother's life?

Although I did express that I didn't think there was any real disagreement between us, I was not able to give a fully adequate answer at that late hour - it was well past the hour for me to hit the trail on home - but if I had had a chance to extend the discussion the answer would have been: "I don't, of course, and I doubt many abortion opponents would. Who in the world believes that abortion should be illegal when the mother's life is at stake? The problem with abortion, for those who consider it a matter of chief concern, is when it is used as a form of birth control."

(For the record, my personal belief is that the issue should be decided through public education rather than via the power of the state).

The thing that bothered me, and what I really would have liked to discuss, is the completely misguided impression these women must have. The idea apparently being promulgated is that the entire pro-life movement is really an anti-woman movement: We would like to see abortion on demand outlawed because ultimately we would like abortion as a medical procedure outlawed so woman could die in greater numbers. I assume it is being sold as a slippery-slope story, like the argument that decriminalizing medical marijuana is the first step toward complete legalization.

On this issue, it appears these ladies believe conservatives are evil solely as a result of propaganda. Who is selling this bill of goods to them? And if women such as these were to understand the true orientation of those on the right, would they be likely to become more friendly to conservative positions on other issues?

It is a sad situation if such a major cultural division is rooted in a misunderstanding. I do intend to pursue the conversation further.

Posted by hemmingway at 08:04 | Permalink

Today is pleasant, warm, muggy, vitriolic and everything else the nation's capital is supposed to be.

The only way this could have been more enjoyable would be the VP dropping an f-bomb on Dana Milbank somewhere in the course of the article, but you can't have everything.

Vice President Cheney on Friday vigorously defended his vulgarity directed at a prominent Democratic senator earlier this week in the Senate chamber.

Cheney said he "probably" used an obscenity in an argument Tuesday on the Senate floor with Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and added that he had no regrets. "I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it," Cheney told Neil Cavuto of Fox News. The vice president said those who heard the putdown agreed with him. "I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue..."

"...I informed him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms. And as I say, I felt better afterwards."

I'm just back for a brief spell, and to be perfectly honest I have little to say....which is nice, actually.

But I picked up the Post this a.m. to see what was playing at the movies and, what do you know, there's one of those articles that has you grinning from ear to ear from the first sentence to the last. Not only does a public figure finally say what WE all want to say, but he then steadfastly affirms there will be no apologies forthcoming!

This is good for the nation's psyche, and we need more of it. Nuance and games of patty cake with the progressive insurgency get real frustrating to watch - senators always making nice with fellow senators regardless of what sort of malignant, disingenuous stupidity they spew.

Someone should start a newspaper or Web site that only carries good news, stories of people bringing credit to the human condition. If there was such a paper, Dick Cheney would be the Man of the Week.

And on top of all that, Allah is back! He seems to have mellowed a bit, but it's sure nice to hear from him again in whatever voice he happens to feel like using. This will get me onto the Internet a few times a week at least.

In a previous life I probably would have had all kinds of opinions on the most boring public figure in American history, now that he's back in the news. Oh, he wasn't boring at certain times, I'll grant you that: But by the third week of January, 2001, weren't we all saying "thank goodness that's over, now please go away!"

There will be some entertainment value to following the Legacy as it unfolds in the coming decades, and certain aspects of the historical record would probably be useful for educating the general public in the coming months.

But if we can all just keep our distance and avoid eye contact for a little while, I am certain he will eventually go away again, and everything will be fine.

Posted by John Climacus at 12:51 | Permalink

Dropping the bomb so many would drop, if only we could get within shouting distance.

Thanks, Mr. Cheney, and after further review we at the corporate headquarters of Joe's Original Alpaca Burger hereby withdraw our suggestion that you step down from the 2004 ticket, unless it can be ascertained that either Condi or Rudy would carry the same straight-shooting manner into the White House.

Gotta love that man. My first reaction yesterday was to chuckle. I'm far past the age where the Pat Leahys of the world can disrupt my day with their antics. But after some reflection today, I wonder how many of us would take the opportunity to drop the Cheney bomb on so many perpetrators of inanity.

After poor Pat Leahy? Oh my, let us count the targets:

...and of course we could fill an entire Web site with journalists media personalities, but this would take us into the realm of the tiresome rather quickly.

Have a lovely weekend and watch your tongue: You are not the Vice President.

Posted by hemmingway at 02:24 | Permalink

My first attempt to build a powerboat was inauspicious, like so many aspects of my personal history.

This was in the early 1960s in my teenage years, and an unscrupulous acquaintance got me to pay $40 for an old 25 hp Mercury outboard engine, which in those days probably weighed in at about 300 lbs.

I was at the marina attempting to affix the Mercury to my dinghy-sized rowboat when an old salt walked over and gave me a quick look up and down.

"Son," he said, "You cain't put an outboard that big on that boat. It's not even built to have a motor on it."

This was a devastating prospect! Not only had I spent every penny I had earned or would earn for the next few months, I had bold dreams of long journeys that had enchanted my soul for weeks as I lie in bed each night.

Summoning all my self-respect, I replied with assurance, "Oh, I'm going to reinforce it. Right now I'm just seeing how it will fit."

Old Salt responded with unexpected fierceness: "I said you CAIN'T do it! It'll either tear the stern clean off or pull the whole dinghy straight to the bottom with you in it."

"This isn't a dinghy. It's a good strong boat..." I attempted to explain.

He shook his head ruefully and spoke gently, like he was about to have me put to sleep: "Son, when you climb Mt. Dumbass, you never get to the other side."

This lesson in futility comes back to me again and again, and never more appropriately than in recent months as I follow public conversation about the war and related issues. My readings in the alternate universe recently have been a vivid reminder of how big this mountain is.

At a birthday party among incorrigible leftists recently, I was asked to justify my support of President Bush and attempted to do so with reference to national security. I had not gotten far past a mention that it seems to me the European position being appropriated by the anti-Bush crowd was that America needed to be knocked down a notch or two, and this translated into an overabundance of sympathy for those who want to destroy us. A listener broke in to say, in his view, America DID need to be knocked down a notch or two. There was general agreement among the others.

The realization came upon me that there was no point in further debate or discussion. Everything I would have had to say would amount to nothing more than a few more steps on Mt. Dumbass.

Recently, Allah finally revealed the reason for his sparse postings since Mother's Day was related to a similar awareness of this futility. Lileks described an encounter similar to mine:

I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated.... Perhaps this is why I haven’t written much about the subject lately with the usual chest-thumping brio: I think it’s going to have to get much worse before we get clarity. Most days I just don’t know what to say anymore.

I believe Climacus' exit from the conversation was impelled by the same realization.

Further discouragement comes as we see our leaders and opinion majordomos fail to recognize the mountain in front of them and continue to jabber away about facts and interpretations thereof. A person wants to just exclaim, "Don't bother arguing with these people! It does not matter what you say or what happens, they are never going to take your point of view."

A person wonders why we don't just tell it like it is more often, as our excellent Vice President finally did today.

Instead, there is fastidious reviewing of events, with conclusions like "the Major Media still haven't connected the dots." They are never going to connect the dots, they are only going to scramble the arrangement when the emerging picture contrasts with their worldview.

Now, we expect this from the die-hard reality reshapers:

Gore Accuses Bush of Lying About Saddam/Al Qaeda Tie

We certainly expect it from the Mainstream:

Washington Post Covers South Korean's Beheading With Four Paragraphs on Abu Ghraib Included

Ignoring Putin's Iraq Revelation

We'd rather shoot our own leaders than admit we have enemies who would cut our throats

Critics are Still Confusing Proof and Evidence

But among ourselves, we shouted-down and vilified clingers to true facts, let us step back from the mountain, take a breather from the tit-for-tat argument, and focus on the reality of the situation. Herewith, some reality:

Beheadings allowed by Islam, but only in extreme situations

The Great Cash Cow - U.N. oil-for-food scandal

U.S. Drops U.N. Bid for War Crime Shield

Jihadis' hatred is independent of our policies

Terrorists have not been motivated by cravings for democracy

9/11 Panel: New Evidence on Iraq-Al-Qaida

The Connection - How Saddam collaborated with Osama

Iraq-al Qaeda connections

Deadly Connections - Syria, North Korea and WMD

Saddam's Saviors

And let us keep it real.

Posted by hemmingway at 07:54 | Permalink

John Climacus and I were discussing the possibilities this evening, in light of the recent din, and we're thinking the next 16-20 years might go something like this:

Dynamic duo scores first of consecutive GOP landslide victories over fragmenting Democratic Party.

Rudy and the Bush Boys' 30-day Hummer campaign road trip wins America's heart and votes.

Beloved "President Rudy" steps down after one term for health reasons, and to serve as first Secretary-General of the Coalition of the Willing.

GOP wins first of several landslide victories over outgunned but scrappy Green Party.

As long as there's a Bush in the White House, the saying goes, Americans can sleep peacefully.

Posted by hemmingway at 07:35 | Permalink

  Lest we forget there is more to living than war and politics.

Here's how it all developed last week: One of the Wee Ones in my life mentioned that what she would like most for her high school graduation is a "serious fishing trip" with old Uncle Angus. Well, after I had recovered from the shock I quickly began to put the plan together. First, realizing that my craft would not be up to the task - you may find the rare woman who enjoys fishing, but you'll never meet one who will enjoy it on a boat lacking enclosed lavatory - I contacted the friendliest, most straight-shooting skipper on the Chesapeake.

As a foreshadowing of things to come, we were in luck because Captain Dick Grimes was unbooked for Wednesday.

We steered out of Happy Harbor Marina at about 6:50 am, after a surprisingly quick trip around the Beltway. It was then about a one-hour ride south to the Gooses, an area in the middle Chesapeake where the bottom rises from 65+ feet to about 30. During the ride, First Mate Herbie shucked razor clams for bait, mashing the shells in a bucket to mix with the chum. The trick in extracting the clam meat is to scrape the entire shell clean so the tentacle-like muscles stay attached to the main body. These "legs" flutter in the current.

The chum mixture is ground menhaden, blended into a special brew in lots of about 2 quarts at a time. First it is scooped from a five-gallon bucket into a smaller one. Razor clam shells are added along with a cup or two of concentrated menhaden oil. The shells keep it from floating on the surface.

We anchored on the western edge of the Gooses, 150 yards or so from the closest boat (of about five there before us). Three or four scoops of chum were splattered out into the mild current. The rigs we used were medium-weight spinning rigs with 14 lb test line, a 1/0 hook and two or three split shots a couple feet above the hook. This was baited with a single clam and dropped about 20 feet down with the chum slick.

The first bite did not come for about 10 minutes, but after that it was non-stop action for nearly six hours.

  We caught almost entirely striped bass in the 17" to 21" range, although this is one of two medium croakers that found its way to our baits.

There is a general rule I've lived by, I think justifiably: If you're going to take a woman fishing, you need to be catching fish. No sexism here, just a reflection on many years of fishing trips with the fair gender. On this day, Captain Dick came through for us: We limited out (2 stripers per person, one for the boat), selecting only the largest specimens, by 11:00 am, then had continual catch-and-release action for the rest of the afternoon.

  It was by far the most productive trip I've experienced in many years, and one the Wee Ones will likely not forget.

  We prepared half the fillets as the Captain recommended: Wrapped in tin foil, with just butter, salt and pepper, about 10 minutes on the grill. The other half got Uncle Angus' special blackened treatment, dipped in butter and coated with a 60-40 mixture of paprika and cayenne pepper, then scorched for 5 minutes per side in a dry cast-iron skillet (do NOT do this inside your house without substantial ventilation).

All kudos to Captain Dick for his superior knowledge of the Bay, but I have to say my recipe is a little bit better.

Posted by hemmingway at 01:15 | Permalink

My my, this has been a busy few days. I intend to take tomorrow off to hit the water and see what has made it up to the middle Chesapeake Bay. The word is everything is late - there is good action in the lower Bay but the croakers have barely shown up yet towards the north. I'm up for the challenge.

The Doctor is working a double, some sort of luncheon in the restaurant and then closing at the bar, which usually results in an extended phase of extreme lassitude afterwards. He's no spring chicken, after all.

John reports he has little to say and is still on the wagon with regard to current news and media (interestingly Mr. Carter over at the evangelical outpost reports this has been his approach for some time now.) I don't think we'll be hearing from the Climacus corner with any frequency until existence sorts itself out for him.

The upshot of all this being, there may not be much updating going on here for the next 24-36 hours, depending on how the fish are biting and what shape I'm in after the drive back. You rest easy in the meantime, and don't get too much sun.

Posted by hemmingway at 06:48 | Permalink

My political interests hover around nonexistent most of the time, the entire spectacle having struck me long ago as demeaning to the human condition. But I do take an interest in my friends - or more precisely, I try to understand their view of the world - and this does give occasion for keeping an eye on political and cultural trends I'd otherwise gladly ignore.

I think it's fair to say that pride is a key aspect of the current imbroglio often mistakenly labeled "public debate" (what it really is is a dense thicket of miscommunication, if you ask me).

I think a big reason those on the right are desperately anxious to see G.W. Bush reelected is because they want to show the world that the 2000 election was legitimate. They want to be vindicated, able to say they were right all along. A landslide would be best of all, a truly resounding vindication.

The pleasure we derive from being in the position to say "I told you so" is elemental to our nature. Bearing the unjust burden of a false accusation or criticism is something we have all experienced, going all the way back to childhood. We know the bitter waiting often does not end in triumphant justification. Have you ever seen the idiot who cut you off on the highway pulled over by a state trooper? Isn't it a unique and memorable experience when someone who has wronged you comes back to apologize? That's because it rarely ever happens.

It appears to me that George W. Bush offers a rich bounty of grievances for which conservatives await redressing. He's called stupid; they insist he is not. He's called corrupt; they will say he is patently decent. He's said to be hopelessly out of touch with America; they proffer he's tuned in to its heart and soul. It's said he lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; they wait incredulously for the world to realize he was essentially correct. He's said to have ruined the economy; they point to proof he has saved it.

On top of these many sources of frustration is the general belief that the Clinton White House was a cesspool that the Bush team has now cleaned up. On top of everything is conservatives' deeply held belief that the media has a blatant double standard in its treatment of this president vs the previous one.

In time, those on the right say to themselves, the truth will out and the naysayers will have to eat their words.

Taken together, these many wounds awaiting compensation suggest personal pride is at the foundation of the argument. Of course it can be rationalized as desire for "truth." It can be argued that those on the left are more certainly afflicted with bruised egos. It should nevertheless be recognized that many conservatives are allowing themselves to be driven by the basest of motivations. No matter how justified the claim, there is a danger of becoming too self-focused and too insistent on personal vindication.

The Jewish and Christian scriptures are replete with warnings against taking oneself too seriously, and the central message of the latter is clearly not a promise of vindication in this lifetime. On those rare occasions when we are proven right after consistent misrepresentation, we should be thankful. But I am concerned, for my conservative friends, that the overwhelming array of grievances in the current political conflict may be leading down a jungle path of unintended narcissism which would be further heightened if Bush wins the election.

Fight the good fight, but lighten up, because the ultimate concern should not be who wins in November.

Posted by drturner at 09:23 | Permalink

 Such a disappointment.

I've returned only for a couple of comments, mainly on the occasion of Ronald Reagan's funeral but Bruce's bold affirmation of Mad Al sort of ties in.

By the way, Angus and the Dr. have my gratitude for stepping up here in the Forum, and especially for the expansion at the main site. It is becoming what we intended it to be content-wise; I look forward to the continued improvement.

Around the age of 25 or so, as I began to reexamine my own political views, I found myself suffering a succession of disillusioning discoveries in becoming aware of the political views of the heroes of my youth. Rock stars were among the first to fall, the most notable being David Byrne when I saw him interviewed at a pro-"choice" rally, but nearly all the others I most respected eventually revealed themselves as advocates of positions I had come to reject.

Oddly, Alice Cooper and Ted Nugent regained my favor, and the "good guy" list has now expanded to a host of personalities I looked far down upon during my snooty teenage and young adult years - country musicians, Lynyrd Skynyrd and the like (I saw them, or what remains of them, a couple weeks ago and hot damn that is one concert to see. Trust me on this).

I was once a Springsteen idolizer and my bona fides compared with the best of them: devotion beginning prior to The Wild, The Innocent and the East Street Shuffle, concerts seen at the Carleton Theater in Red Bank, NJ, long nights spent in line for front-section tickets. I was an idiot, of course, but a supremely committed one.

I took a Springsteen hiatus for about 20 years, beginning with the birth of my first kid and the subsequent cessation of many youthful interests. But I continued to sort of like the guy in a nostalgic way, and got the opportunity to see him again last year at Fed Ex Field in Maryland. Great show, but marred by Bruce's frequent Dick Cheney jokes and tired political statements.

Today's post on his Web site is no major surprise - just another liberal entertainer - but, jeez, it does go to the outer limits.

Along the same lines, I can't say I was a Reaganite because it was not until the end of his second term that I began to realize he was not such a moron after all. George H.W. Bush was the first Republican I voted for in a major election. But this week has been an educational experience, especially for one such as I who is a wee bit historically challenged. It's all been very moving.

The Springsteen fiasco is bitter confirmation that, most of the time, there really are no heroes. The Reagan funeral and accompanying narratives are a welcome reminder that nevertheless history on occasion delivers a few.

Posted by John Climacus at 07:51 | Permalink

  An idea whose time has come?

From From WND:

There are whispers among high-level political advisers to President Bush suggesting the possibility of replacing Dick Cheney with former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as the vice presidential running mate prior to the Republican National Convention in New York beginning Aug. 30.

Cheney, who has no aspirations to run for president in 2008 and has had well-publicized heart problems, has been involved in the discussions and is open to the idea if it strengthens the ticket and helps position a viable Republican candidate to succeed Bush, sources tell WND.

It may be recalled that both I and John have ruminated on the possibility that Mr. Cheney might serve the party best by stepping aside prior to the Republican Convention. There is the issue of succession, which the Bush-Cheney ticket would presumably leave for the future, which is to say, in a mess. There is also the issue of re-electing the President.

Posted by hemmingway at 09:25 | Permalink

 This fellow could become a problem.

Democrat Senators Ream Gore for Attacking Miami's Mayor

Florida's two U.S. senators, both Dems, are furious at Gore for calling Senate wannabe Alex Penelas "treacherous and dishonest" during the 2000 election. Gore is still seething that Penelas, mayor of Miami-Dade County, didn't abet him in his failed coup attempt.

"This slash-and-burn politics has gotten us to the point that it is causing gridlock in America," said Sen. Bill Nelson. "I am pretty disappointed that Al Gore would say that about my friend, Alex Penelas."

Lame-duck Sen. Bob Graham, who like Nelson wants to be Kerry's running mate, also said Gore's comments raised concerns. "I think it would be desirable to focus on the real goal, which is to see a Democrat in this seat," he said.

Al Gore needs to tone down the wrecking-ball act if he is ever going to be viable in politics again, which does appear to be the plan. Otherwise, why the continuing stream of messages?

Anger is socially acceptable; insanity is not. Furthermore, having followed the man's career since the late 1980s, I am of the opinion that much of what he rants about now is contrived. This makes the behavior more disconcerting by an order of magnitude.

The question is, how seriously do voting Democrats take Al Gore? Maybe not very, but he does reflect on the party.

Posted by hemmingway at 06:44 | Permalink

My sister and her family have recently acquired a large obnoxious dog. I guess the reality is, the dog is young but large so the unruly behavior may be temporary. In any case, I can't see how anyone would enjoy such a thing, and they do seem to genuinely enjoy it (at least most of them do - I detected some disquiet in the ranks). The slobbering, licking, jumping, barking and generally careening around like a big Baby Huey seems to scream "I am an outside dog! I belong outside!"

But there it is, all over the place, chaos in a fur coat, eating off the table and threatening to turn a nice, quiet dinner get-together into an evening at the emergency room.

Full disclosure: I am currently, temporarily, the semi-warden of a little yappy dog, three cats and a ferret, none of which came into my domain with my consent but rather piggy-backing on an individual who, being human, enjoys some degree of toleration the animals would never garner on their own. I barely tolerate them most of the time. I can, therefore, relate to the plight of anyone who comes involuntarily into the possession of an inconvenient creature that cannot practically be sent away.

This, however, is not the case with said obnoxious dog. It was consciously sought-out by species. The owners almost seem to thrive off its tactlessness, although they themselves are well groomed and seemingly concerned with domestic order.

To me, such a case bespeaks a very different world view than my own, one in which the home is seen as harbor to both peace and riotousness, cleanliness and the potential for almost unspeakable debasement.

Personally, I think the outdoors is chaotic enough and the indoors should represent a triumph of all we have achieved since the dawn of man. Outside, we are not entirely in our element because any number of natural life forms can intrude to expose our evolutionary weaknesses: thin skin, plodding gait, poor jumping and climbing skills, slow reflexes and a tendency to spazz out when buzzing objects fly into our face.

Inside, I want to hold all the cards. I want an environment defined by me as I conceive it appropriate for eating, reading, walking unmolested from room to room and generally doing the things that must be done at the top of the corporeal chain of being. Entrances should be sealed and devices readily available to inflict massive retaliation on lower life forms that dare to trespass. Why invite the barbarians into one's castle?

We have simply come too far to be handing out free passes to those who have such a ways yet to go.

Posted by drturner at 07:19 | Permalink

I consider myself a tolerant person, at least for the past ten years or so especially. I appreciate most people from all walks of life and the multitude of vocations we are separately called to. Also, I have been working on my patience, trying to keep in mind that there is rarely anything so pressing going on in my life that I cannot allow whatever time is necessary for a transaction of any type to take place.

Unfortunately, despite these good intentions it all goes out the window the second I step foot in a supermarket.

Here's the first problem, and it's similar to an issue with other retail and service transactions: I do not usually want to chat. Small talk is not my bailiwick anyway: I have to force myself to squeeze out a remark like "So, have you all been busy here today?" or "How about this rain?" Normally, in fact, I won't do it unless the cashier has initiated a light-hearted conversation already, and I feel obliged to keep it going.

When a cashier starts getting chatty, it initially makes me uncomfortable because I have to think of things to say, and it also seems like an unnecessary extension of the time required to get me checked out and allow the people behind me to get moving.

Two days ago, for instance, I stood for approximately three minutes with bagged groceries and receipt in hand while the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed fellow at the register completed a "pop quiz" on my favorite movies (Final grade: I am ordered to go see Troy) - and all the while the poor fellow behind me stood holding a single canteloupe and a five-dollar bill at the ready.

Needless to say, last night I avoided the quizmaster's "express" line and got in a longer line with a familiar sullen and untalkative woman at the helm (and I departed the store before my counterpart in express, I might note). The calculation involved in making this decision is a source of guilt, but I will make that decision every time.

Similarly, I prize a barber or stylist who does not want to carry on a conversation while cutting my hair. I'm perfectly happy to sit with my own thoughts, and it's often difficult to make out what they are saying, anyway. When I find one who silently goes about the work at hand, I become a loyal customer. My current barber is a Turk who will be either silent or engaged in a bombastic monologue into which my comments are generally unwelcome, and this works for me.

The other source of guilt from retail experiences derives from my inability to endure more than five minutes or so of a line when the source of delay is the cashier's approach to the work, rather than the number of people in line. If it's the day before Thanksgiving, and I'm stuck behind 10 shoppers, I will quickly attune myself to the zen of it all, grab a magazine, and immerse myself in the experience.

If, however, the wait is protracted because the toll-taker is gabbing about with each customer or - worse - with another cashier, or generally moseying through the process, I can tell myself "Ok, zen - zen - this is an amusing experience of another's inefficiency," but in spite of myself the irritation will start rising up before much time has passed.

I've been struggling with this for years, and attempts at self-control do not seem to be having the desired impact. Consequently, my only solution has been to develop a keen familiarity with the various stores and their personnel, and try to patronize only those cashiers who share my dedication to ruthless, quiet efficiency. A cold attitude perhaps, but one that assuages the guilt and gets me on my way. As a great philosopher once said: A man's got to know his limitations.

Posted by drturner at 06:35 | Permalink

Though they can be shrill, you have to love WorldNetDaily. Let us note, however, that Climacus was on this story from the beginning.

I guess we all need a chuckle after the hellish cicada nightmare of the past two weeks.

Now, I want to thank all those who wrote inquiring about my return from the land of sunshine, dirt roads and innumerable tropical delights. It is good to be home, but it was better to be there, to be perfectly honest.

There is no little amount of compensation, however in witnessing the continuing crack-up of the liberal "progressive" mind here in America. (The disease has sure "progressed" since I left.)

Julian Bond, NAACP Chairman: Bush win seen as 'almost too dire'">

"There is a right-wing conspiracy, it controls the administration, both houses of Congress, much of the judiciary, and a major portion of the news media..."

And continuing in this vein, the paper of record:

America is a wonderfully resilient country, but I don’t know if it could recover from another four years of Bush degrading our democracy and coarsening our spirit. Since when did torture become okay with us? When did rights and justice come to be viewed as impediments to our way of life? When did premeditated pre-emptive murder become a righteous cause? We are on the slope to depravity, led by a NASCAR Nazi who talks about Jesus while acting like a Roman emperor.

And not to pile on or anything, but to conclude the point, just two words: Al Gore.

Don't they realize this sort of worldview will make them less competitive in politics - which, when you think it through on their terms, in effect renders them sacrilegious on top of being ineffective? No, I guess they don't. Good news for us, but too bad for them.

Speaking of good news, Americans are pretty darn happy these days, and optimistic about the future. I'll bet you my boat you won't be reading about this story in the New York Times.

Americans are optimistic, 'very satisfied with life' and have confidence in their public institutions, especially the U.S. armed forces and law-enforcement agencies, two new polls show.

[Of course, it is entirely possible that Gallup and Harris are part of the conspiracy as well!]

Happy sailing, America!

Posted by hemmingway at 07:16 | Permalink

We all have been either traveling (Angus and myself) or doing who-knows-what (John), but the upshot is minimal contribution to the Forum. Have no fear, we will be back.

I believe I have found a solution to writer's block, which is to give up the pride of ownership. Give up the pride really is the key. Writing on my own, for no intended audience, is not a problem, so this is the approach I will take.

Angus is finally returned from Belize, with precious few column inches to show for the trip but apparently a healthy mindset, and at our age such accomplishments are prized. He assures me he will be popping up in the Forum in no time.

As for the good Mr. Climacus, I honestly am stumped, but at the same time happy for him. I think he is going through the same type of reevaluation I undertook in my forties, and if I'm right about that I think it's more meaningful than a decade's worth of angry rantings to have a brief interlude of peacefulness.

More to come...

Posted by drturner at 09:54 | Permalink