More Code

Did you know the State Department has a Diversity Officer?  Wow.  I'm not sure why nor do I understand exactly what he does other than remind us we're all victims if we really want to be.  Of course we have to learn the code.

I've learned the 'code' MSNBC talking heads have been reporting on has it's origins in the government, not the political parties!  It would seem  that no matter what we say we are likely offending some one some where.  We already know we aren't to use the word squaw or call a sports team the Braves or Warriors because it's offensive to American Indians.  I had no idea how much farther it goes.

Some where between my growing up years and my present elderly state, slang has practically been outlawed.  Why?  Because those to whom we're speaking may misunderstand our intent.  The State Department tells us so.

On occasion I do wonder where a phrase originated.  Sometimes I actually look it up, find it interesting, or not, and tuck it away.  Such knowledge never made me quit using a phrase. Words and phrases can be obviously mean spirited and insulting but we can also be far too sensitive.

One of the more obscure of the codes was a shoe ultimately recalled by NIKE.  Guess which?  Black and Tan.  It's a mix of brews, right?  Pale ale and Guinness.  Nope.  It refers to a group of khaki uniformed thugs who committed atrocities against Irish citizens.  Who knew?  Who knew enough to raise a fuss sufficient to make NIKE recall a sneaker?  Those folks were really into code.  Sneaker.  Does that mean they were trying to 'sneak' a message out there?

Hold down the fort.  Another insinuation about our Native Americans.  Protecting the fort from attack by the vicious savages.  Who came up with that stereotype?  They're not my words! Of course not.  They're code.

Going Dutch, where each pays his own way, is code that the Dutch are cheap. Does it sit better if you say frugal?

Rule of thumb is code for spousal abuse for the thumb was the measure of the diameter of an appropriate switch with which a man could beat his wife.  If her bruises were no larger than the diameter of the switch the man could not be charged.

The biggest reach, however, is handicapped.  This is code for beggar coming from the time when people begged with cap in hand. Ironic, isn't it, how many beggars you see today that are by definition handicapped?

Is the State Department Diversity Officer paid to research these phrases and terms to determine their potential to offend?  Do people send them in?  I have no idea. I do know though that accusing a presidential candidate of inadvertently killing someone or suggesting they may have committed a felony are every bit as offensive.  Calling one another liars. Accusing every one who is against a policy a racist. Code. Code for incivility.

With that I think I'll head down to the pub and order me a Black and Tan.  In Dogwalk code that means quenching a thirst.  I don't yet have a code for finding some sanity in all of this.  I could use one.  It seems no one understands plain talk any more.  Maybe it's 'Clint Eastwood'!   

Dogwalk's Secret Code - "They're Nuts!"

First Donna Brazile says Mitt Romney's joke about no one having asked him for a birth certificate is code.  Last night Al Sharpton went on about dog whistles - you know, the ones we can't hear but dogs can.  That's how the code is sent.  Then Chris Matthews tells us "Chicago" is code for racism.

This code, you realize, is designed for those of us trying to figure out which undeserving party is going to weasel a vote out of us.  The pitch of the dog whistle is just such that we can hear it and realize it's a plot against the President and we had ought to tune it out.

We're supposed to listen to this crew and take any of their commentary seriously? Seriously?

The birther joke is old news.  It really didn't go anywhere except maybe with Donald Trump.
At my age I have trouble hearing anything, what's more a high pitched dog whistle!  Heck, I'm not sure my old dog Bacchus ever heard one.  He could turn a deaf ear to anything if it suited his purpose.  Especially 'come'.  But then this isn't about dogs.  It's about those vile Republicans and the lengths to which they'll stoop to remind voters the President is (gasp) black!  Next, no doubt, there will be rose colored glasses to alter the perception of the fact.

Then there is Chicago.  That toddlin' town.  It has always been code for the White Sox or the Cubs or da Bears.  If you want to get away from sports code try the arts - fine museums, opera, symphony, a couple of great zoos.

Really though, the Chicago stereotype has do do with Al Capone,  booze, prohibition, gangsters and g-men.  Not to mention deep dish pizza.  Corrupt politicians and the multitudes of dead who vote.  Really, nothing racist there.  Ethnicity, yes.  Race?  No.

I can name two blacks from Chicago other than the family of the President.  Roland Burris who got the Senate seat vacated by the now President and - well, the President.  They have similar claims to fame - monumental egos.  Burris built himself a monument where one day he will be buried.  Obama is building himself one of a different sort.  Neither has to do with race as much as personality.  No secret code there.

MSNBC.  Code? Maybe though it's hardly secret.  It's way too obvious and certainly easy to hear if you can stand to listen. It stands for a collection of idiotic conspiracy theorists who are so vacant this is all they can come up with as commentary at a political convention - and beyond.

  ...  --- ... !

The Social Administration Ordered 174,000 What???

I get my ideas for posts from a variety of sources.  Today it comes from the ever ripe letters to the editor column in our local paper.  A doctor was expanding on a former letter about how the UN is advocating international gun control and the possible implications for American citizens.

In a list of dire possibilities as to what could happen should we lose our gun bearing rights, he mentions that the Social Security Administration has ordered 174, 000 hollow point bullets for their special agents.

Wow!  The picture that comes to mind is overwhelming. First of all I pull from memory my one and only visit to a Social Security office.  It was when we signed up for Medicare.  The procedure was handled efficiently by a lady young enough to be our grand daughter and obviously bored with the rote chore.  There was no sign of security though it may have been lurking as a camera or some such while the agent watched in an undisclosed location.

Actually, had I seen such a person I would have thought him to be building security, not SSA  security!  They, however, have some 295 of these people scattered among 66 offices around the country.  Their task is to ferret out fraud, among other things of which I am not quite sure, and need arms for their safety.  But hollow points?  Yep.  It's apparently a demand of training procedures.

It's perception you know.  I think of government agents much like the illustration, unsmiling and grim and packing heat. When I think of Social Security fraud or Medicare fraud I think of scooters being granted to those who don't really need them or doctors padding an office visit with procedures not really necessary or actually completed.  I picture Social  Security recipients looking much like Hub and myself.

I have to laugh about the current battle between our esteemed political parties regarding the threat of Social Security as we know it being ended. What about the Social Security we don't know?  The one that requires special agents armed with weapons that shoot the most deadly bullets available to keep agency workers safe from irate investigatees!

I am a firm believer in elder power but I had no idea we have the SSA quaking in its boots!

It's More About The Parties Than The Candidates

Ever since I read that the Republicans were including a plank in the party platform stating, in essence, no abortion regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and that Romney was going to turn a blind eye to it, I began to realize our fight is more with what the parties stand for than the men running for President.

Neither are the monsters the parties would have us believe. Neither is strong enough to be a monster, but they are what they are.

That people don't find Romney warm and fuzzy isn't nearly as important as the fact he understands how businesses work and business is what drives the economy.  Obama does not. His focus has been on making sure his union backers are well cared for.

Both have wavered on issues.  Their parties have not.  Christian conservatives have hijacked the Republicans by their obstinate and irrational stands on stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage .  The Democrats insist on spending without regard to the debt, government intrusion into just about everything and class warfare.

Both candidates will say whatever is necessary to win votes whether or not they personally believe what they are saying.  I do think it's obvious that Obama is a big government man. It's all he knows.  He has no other experience to draw upon. He has never pretended to be anything but.  Romney is just as obviously a free enterprise man. He has been in the private sector, understands how it works and has had his successes.  He didn't really get himself into trouble until he entered politics and had to say what was needed to win over voters.  It doesn't exactly generate confidence in either man's ability to lead.

We've had three plus years of Obama following the lead of his party, not the other way around.  We've watched Romney morph into whatever was necessary to win his primary.  We haven't a true picture of either of them because they have no convictions of their own to show us.

That brings us to the House and the Senate and who we elect to those offices.  We tend to latch on to buzz words like 'abortion' and 'debt' and 'social security as we know it' rather than substance.  The politicians however seem to latch on to whatever is likely to get them elected.  We lose.

I'm not sure we even have a handle on the issues.  One cannot be informed by reading Tweets or Facebook.  One only gets snippets of a politician's views designed to cater to our fears.

This election business is nasty stuff but we may be castigating the wrong people.  We need to look more closely at the people behind the throne than the men on the throne.  The people behind it are in a far better position to pull it our from under the individual seated upon it.  When that happens you have either the strength of, and I don't mean this as a compliment, of a Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi or the weakness of a Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.  It all depends on who is better at playing the game.

I'm just sorry our country is the board on which this game is being played. The direction of the country depends on who wins, but then you know that much.  The question is do you have enough knowledge to understand the implications?

Tom Friedman Identifies The Missing Piece in Political Discourse

Ever since Tom Friedman started winning Pulitzer Prizes  he has become the poster child for those who know everything about everything, whether correct or not, and he never lets us forget.

I usually give short shrift to his postulations but when I saw his New York Times opinion piece calling for a 'Conservative Party' I took notice.

A call for a third party by a figure of some note blew my mind.  Whether or not I agree with his theories on anything is beside the point.  On this issue he is on the mark.  His piece takes you another place than what I'm writing, so I urge you to read it.  I am going to merely address his point that in order to have serious political debate  the Republican 'conservatives'  need to separate themselves from the radicals - the Tea Party.  Unless they do so there will be no cohesive opposition to Obama. The Republican house is more divided than Obama's.

I disagree with him as to who exactly the conservatives are.  I see them as synonymous with the tea party.  The conservatives he refers to are the old school Republicans we now refer to as moderates and have tagged as RINOs.  Republicans in name only.

He says much the same about the Democrats though he doesn't seem to see as much of a gap between the far left and the center left.  I disagree with him on this point too.  Where I do agree is that the centers of both parties would do well to get together with the independents and stray Libertarians and form their own party. One committed to serious debate on issues and policy and a willingness to compromise.  You know, government the way it used to be until we started electing ideologues with blinders.

There are many attempts being made to get such a movement going.  The problem I've found so far is that there has been more discussion than action.  Part of the reason, I think, is because no one with national name recognition has joined in the effort.  At least no one with   solid credentials no matter which way they lean.  Mr. Friedman does lean.  Left.  But he also recognizes that the country is going in the wrong direction,  pinpoints a reason why and suggests a solution.

What a way to end the week.  No matter how short lived this may be, no matter how much I disagree with Mr. Friedman on other topics, I feel a weight lifted.  That someone who is a recognizable name and is nationally known finally has the fortitude to tell it as it is wafts over me like a fresh breeze. Ahhhh.  I had forgotten how good it can feel!