Another Memorial Day weekend, another act of disrespect by foreigners in my country.
I'm sick of it. If I come off as an ugly American, so be it. This is my country. When I go abroad, I bend over backwards to behave appropriately and show respect. Apparently, this idea of being a good visitor is only applied to Americans, such that when we step out of line, we're roundly condemned by people whose conduct in our country is no better and oftentimes worse.
Last year, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery, there was an Asian woman who wouldn't get off her hind quarters during the changing of the guard despite the fact that it was loudly announced before the ceremony and then reiterated, again loudly, three times. Even if there was a language barrier, it would be fairly obvious once everyone -- and there were roughly three hundred people in attendance -- stood and removed their headgear that solemnity did not include sitting through the ceremony. Yet it took three very loud reminders for her or the people around her to get her arse off the ground and standing in respect for men who gave their lives in defense of our country and its freedoms.
In 2007, there was a fight in Las Vegas between Floyd Mayweather and the Brit Ricky Hatton. After playing the British national anthem, which the Brits sang lustily in full lung, the American national anthem was played, during which the Brits booed just as lustily. When called on it, Brits excused the behavior saying that this happens all the time. Even assuming this is true elsewhere, there are two inescapable facts that put the lie to that reasoning: The Brits and the Americans were then fighting together Islamofascists in the Middle East and had Americans done the same thing in, say, Liverpool, this would be front-page news the world over. Yet this ugly British behavior merited barely a blip on world news.
Then there was this weekend. Karen and I took the boys on a trip to a popular northern tourist destination. We were leaving that morning but Karen wanted to buy one more thing for the road, only to find out that the store didn't open for another half hour. So we decided to walk around to kill time. We came to the local American Legion house where preparations were underway for the annual Memorial Day ceremony honoring America's fallen heroes. We decided to sit and observe the ceremony.
After it began with a heartfelt speech by the commander of the Legion hall and an invocation by the local Legion chaplain, a young Indian father pushing a baby carriage walked in front of us and loudly asked, "Where is the Starbucks?" I'm quite sure that the people attending the ceremony across the street heard him. As angry as I've ever been, I hissed -- I'm quite sure I hissed -- "It's that way" and raised my arm in the direction of the coffee house. The man walked off slightly miffed at my demeanor but apparently unaware of its cause.
Were this the only foreign transgression during the ceremony I might have given it a pass. Yet not ten minutes later, just as the Star and Stripes were being raised during the playing of the national anthem, a debate among a group of young Indians ironically in the direction of the Starbucks was being conducted none-too-quietly in Hindi. Karen and I, alerted to their presence by the din of their discussion, instantly shushed them, which caused the first male of the group to stop and come to attention. The woman behind him, unaware that anything more important than her discussion was going on, continued to prattle on in Hindi, which prompted an even louder shushing from Karen and me. Finally, she stopped, chastened if unaware. When the ceremony ended a minute later, Karen and I walked by them on the way to the shop for Karen to make her belated purchase. Neither of the loud Hindi speakers looked our way.
People come to this country for the wonderfully expansive freedoms we enjoy. Among those freedoms, however, is not the liberty to denigrate our traditions. How would these Indians like it if I walked up to a cow roaming the street in Mumbai and drew a smiley face on its flank? Or if I stripped at the Taj Mahal? I'm sure the Brits would attack me if I changed the lyrics to their national anthem to more accurately reflect my feelings for their regent. And the Asians would find an inscrutable way to teach me a lesson were I to piss off the top of their Great Wall.
I'm tired of being lectured by foreigners about how badly Americans behave and then having to witness their dismissive indifference to our traditions. Enough is enough. There's a reason this is the best country in the world, whether they like to admit it or not.
From now on, if there's a misbehaving foreigner, I'm going to chide them publicly. They've been warned, whether they read this blog or not.
I'm pissed.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Mexicans and Immigration
I'm sorry. I've had it.
As Donald Trump's improbably presidential campaign ends its first phase, more and more supporters of open border immigration are getting louder and bolder in opposition to his candidacy. That's fine; that's their prerogative. But as with most liberal positions, this one has as its underpinnings a huge dose of hypocrisy.
For starters, let's just consider the basic facts: Laws exist for rightful immigration. Proponents of open borders (what I'm calling open borders, anyway) suggest that those people who are here illegally should be allowed to stay here without penalty and be made U.S. citizens in short order. Some of this is motivated by political opportunism, as Democrats see potential votes from the immigrants whose trespass they support.
But my patience for the illegal Mexican immigrants has expired. Images of them holding signs outside Donald Trump rallies that read Make America Mexico Again, complaints about building a wall to secure our border, allowing illegal Mexican immigrants to practice law, the lack of interest in learning English -- all of it -- I'm done. And lest anyone think this is supportive of Mr. Trump, understand that the sign irks me, not where it was displayed.
There are a couple of hypocrisies at work here. First, why is it all right for Mexico to enforce its immigration laws but it's wrong not to say immoral of the United States to enforce its own laws? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Second, if Mexico is so grand, why do Mexicans move to the United States and then declare they intend to make America Mexico again? What's the point in moving to another country for opportunity that doesn't exist in their home country and then strive to make it like the country they've left? If Mexico's so great you want to turn the United States into a new version of Mexico, why move to the United States?
What offends me is the level of belligerence some Mexican immigrants show when they arrive here. Putting the Mexican flag above the United States flag, refusing to learn English, refusing to adopt customs that are American -- this behavior isn't indicative of a people who want to assimilate. As plenty of other immigrant groups have done, retaining culture from the old country is fine. But elevating that culture over the American culture to the point of denigrating it is unacceptable.
Sovereignty means that there is integrity to a country's existence. What with liberals' push to have open borders in some sort of nod to a kumbaya mentality, Mexicans in particular seem to have taken that as a clue to flood the country, immigration laws be damned.
My solution remains as it has for the last twenty years: Bring home our troops from Europe and Korea, station them along the southern border, with fixed emplacements, foo gas trenches, land mines, concertina and drones flying overhead. Have roving patrols in remote areas. Costs for housing and feeding our troops will be reduced, illegal immigration will be reduced and the drug cartels will lose members.
And just try to fly the Mexican flag over the American flag in front of our troops.
Go ahead. I dare you.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
As Donald Trump's improbably presidential campaign ends its first phase, more and more supporters of open border immigration are getting louder and bolder in opposition to his candidacy. That's fine; that's their prerogative. But as with most liberal positions, this one has as its underpinnings a huge dose of hypocrisy.
For starters, let's just consider the basic facts: Laws exist for rightful immigration. Proponents of open borders (what I'm calling open borders, anyway) suggest that those people who are here illegally should be allowed to stay here without penalty and be made U.S. citizens in short order. Some of this is motivated by political opportunism, as Democrats see potential votes from the immigrants whose trespass they support.
But my patience for the illegal Mexican immigrants has expired. Images of them holding signs outside Donald Trump rallies that read Make America Mexico Again, complaints about building a wall to secure our border, allowing illegal Mexican immigrants to practice law, the lack of interest in learning English -- all of it -- I'm done. And lest anyone think this is supportive of Mr. Trump, understand that the sign irks me, not where it was displayed.
There are a couple of hypocrisies at work here. First, why is it all right for Mexico to enforce its immigration laws but it's wrong not to say immoral of the United States to enforce its own laws? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Second, if Mexico is so grand, why do Mexicans move to the United States and then declare they intend to make America Mexico again? What's the point in moving to another country for opportunity that doesn't exist in their home country and then strive to make it like the country they've left? If Mexico's so great you want to turn the United States into a new version of Mexico, why move to the United States?
What offends me is the level of belligerence some Mexican immigrants show when they arrive here. Putting the Mexican flag above the United States flag, refusing to learn English, refusing to adopt customs that are American -- this behavior isn't indicative of a people who want to assimilate. As plenty of other immigrant groups have done, retaining culture from the old country is fine. But elevating that culture over the American culture to the point of denigrating it is unacceptable.
Sovereignty means that there is integrity to a country's existence. What with liberals' push to have open borders in some sort of nod to a kumbaya mentality, Mexicans in particular seem to have taken that as a clue to flood the country, immigration laws be damned.
My solution remains as it has for the last twenty years: Bring home our troops from Europe and Korea, station them along the southern border, with fixed emplacements, foo gas trenches, land mines, concertina and drones flying overhead. Have roving patrols in remote areas. Costs for housing and feeding our troops will be reduced, illegal immigration will be reduced and the drug cartels will lose members.
And just try to fly the Mexican flag over the American flag in front of our troops.
Go ahead. I dare you.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
More, More Fun With New Words
In my not-so-subtle-homage to Sheldon Cooper, here's another edition of More Fun With New Words. To be more accurate, it's More, More Fun With New Words.
Nescience: This is a more high-falutin way of saying ignorant. So when someone is being pecurliarly ignorant, I may say "Stop being nescient" and enjoy the confused look it provokes.
Polder: I had no clue what this was, but it's land that's behind a dike or levy, or land reclaimed from wetlands. Not what I thought when I first read this word.
Chiasmus: I knew what this was before I knew what the word was for it. Chiasmus is when a sentence is flipped to reveal opposite or complimentary meanings, such as: When the going gets tough, the tough get going. I think it comes from the Greek for cross.
Blench: Technically to have a sudden movement out of fear or pain, it might well be the pair to blanch, which is what some people do after the fear or pain registers with them.
Brandish: This is to shake or wave menacingly, but it almost always involves using a sword or knife. People rarely brandish guns, although they could, but etymologically the edge makes more sense since to brandish comes from Middle English or German for the stem of a sword.
Ineluctable: Inescapable. Oddly, this comes from the Latin regarding wrestling. Who knew?
Gruntled: I looked this up on a lark. It means pleased, satisfied. I always wondered if disgruntled actually had a root. Now I know.
Famulus: This is a magician's or a scholar's assistant. It comes from the Italian. I have little use for it.
Jeremiad: Coming from the Biblical Jeremiah, it means, as seen on Wikipedia: the lamentation of the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and always contains a prophecy of society's imminent downfall. I've seen this enough I should start to use it, especially since some of my blogposts are jeremiads.
Prepossessing: Attractive or appealing in appearance, which would make unprepossessing its antonym. Frankly, I'd go with pretty and ugly instead. This is too pretentious for my tastes.
Ineffaceable: Easy enough: Unable to be erased or forgotten. Again, just a little too pretentious for my tastes.
Costive: Depending on the context, it either means slow or reluctant in speech or action or constipated. Frankly, I think constipated and costive could be interchangeable regardless of context.
Proles: This comes from George Orwell's 1984, apparently, and it refers to the lower or working class. It serves me right for never having read it.
Metonymic: The adjectival version of metonymy, it is a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is called not by its own name but rather by the name of something associated in meaning with that thing or concept. For example, Wall Street and Hollywood refer to the financial and entertainment worlds, respectively. This is my favorite new word.
Vinous: O' gee, yet another word to refer to wine-related things.
Scabious: Related to scabs, go figure. I prefer scabby.
Fettle: I've always known of the phrase in fine fettle, but I had no idea what fettle meant. Apparently, this is a relatively recent word, having first appeared in 1881. It just means shape, for some reason, so I don't know why shape is replaced by fettle, other than it's the Brits who did this.
And that ends our latest foray into More, More Fun With New Words.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Nescience: This is a more high-falutin way of saying ignorant. So when someone is being pecurliarly ignorant, I may say "Stop being nescient" and enjoy the confused look it provokes.
Polder: I had no clue what this was, but it's land that's behind a dike or levy, or land reclaimed from wetlands. Not what I thought when I first read this word.
Chiasmus: I knew what this was before I knew what the word was for it. Chiasmus is when a sentence is flipped to reveal opposite or complimentary meanings, such as: When the going gets tough, the tough get going. I think it comes from the Greek for cross.
Blench: Technically to have a sudden movement out of fear or pain, it might well be the pair to blanch, which is what some people do after the fear or pain registers with them.
Brandish: This is to shake or wave menacingly, but it almost always involves using a sword or knife. People rarely brandish guns, although they could, but etymologically the edge makes more sense since to brandish comes from Middle English or German for the stem of a sword.
Ineluctable: Inescapable. Oddly, this comes from the Latin regarding wrestling. Who knew?
Gruntled: I looked this up on a lark. It means pleased, satisfied. I always wondered if disgruntled actually had a root. Now I know.
Famulus: This is a magician's or a scholar's assistant. It comes from the Italian. I have little use for it.
Jeremiad: Coming from the Biblical Jeremiah, it means, as seen on Wikipedia: the lamentation of the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and always contains a prophecy of society's imminent downfall. I've seen this enough I should start to use it, especially since some of my blogposts are jeremiads.
Prepossessing: Attractive or appealing in appearance, which would make unprepossessing its antonym. Frankly, I'd go with pretty and ugly instead. This is too pretentious for my tastes.
Ineffaceable: Easy enough: Unable to be erased or forgotten. Again, just a little too pretentious for my tastes.
Costive: Depending on the context, it either means slow or reluctant in speech or action or constipated. Frankly, I think constipated and costive could be interchangeable regardless of context.
Proles: This comes from George Orwell's 1984, apparently, and it refers to the lower or working class. It serves me right for never having read it.
Metonymic: The adjectival version of metonymy, it is a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is called not by its own name but rather by the name of something associated in meaning with that thing or concept. For example, Wall Street and Hollywood refer to the financial and entertainment worlds, respectively. This is my favorite new word.
Vinous: O' gee, yet another word to refer to wine-related things.
Scabious: Related to scabs, go figure. I prefer scabby.
Fettle: I've always known of the phrase in fine fettle, but I had no idea what fettle meant. Apparently, this is a relatively recent word, having first appeared in 1881. It just means shape, for some reason, so I don't know why shape is replaced by fettle, other than it's the Brits who did this.
And that ends our latest foray into More, More Fun With New Words.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Misleading the Public
In his 2008 campaign for the Presidency, then-candidate Barack Obama promised that his presidency would be the most transparent White House in history. Flush with confidence, Mr. Obama made plenty of promises that haven't been borne out by subsequent events.
Recently, Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, said in an interview that the White House created an "echo chamber" that eventually misled journalists about the timeline regarding the negotiations with Iran over the much-maligned nuclear deal. That the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications felt the need to deceive the American public is astounding. That the White House went along with it is almost criminal.
But we really shouldn't be surprised. Since gaining the White House, Mr. Obama's administration has been repeatedly lied to and misled the American public, all while touting itself as the most transparent administration in history.
Obamacare is starting to unravel. Passed without a full investigation by the Congress -- Nancy Pelosi defended its questionable passage by declaring that We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it -- the ramifications are only now starting to be understood. Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare who -- depending on which administration flack is talking -- either did or didn't work with the White House to design the colossal mess, was caught on camera stating that it was the stupidity of the American public that should be credited with its passage. President Obama himself was quoted dozens of times declaring that one could keep his doctor, or his plan, when in fact very little of that proved to be true.
Benghazi is another example. Despite knowing that there was no spontaneous uprising that led to the murder of four Americans, the administration hewed to its line that a movie critical of the prophet Mohammed sparked the demonstration when in fact it was well-known that this was an Al Qaeda inspired attack that was forecast beforehand. Yet rather than level with the American public, the administration continued to peddle the story that some poor schmuck of a filmmaker was responsible for the incident. They sent out their piñata Susan Rice to serve up the pablum to an adoring media and, even more insultingly, it continues to stick to its story that it didn't know before or at the time of the attack.
The IRS scandal is slowly and quietly unfolding in Cincinnati. There, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has directed the IRS to release documents it was withholding while hiding behind 26 U.S.C. §6103. Citing that statute, the IRS has claimed it cannot turn over documents that courts have directed it to turn over because the agency is forbidden from releasing information gleaned from returns. The only problem with that tale is that the information sought comes from applications for section 501(1)(c)(3) status, not returns. In March, the Sixth Circuit directed the IRS to turn over the requested information post haste. It remains to be seen whether the documents will be released on time.
Cankles used a home brew server and swears up and down that she never received any classified material there. This ludicrous claim is repeated by her fawning press organ and the Obama administration despite the fact that the FBI is investigating her and reports have already surfaced that a couple of thousand emails contained classified information. That this information was readily available to anyone capable of hacking the decidedly un-NSA hardware and software that Cankles was using is actionable under any number of criminal statutes, but still she, her unofficial press organ and the administration refuse to admit that there was anything wrong in what she did.
The Clinton Global Initiative, or CGI, is probably violating any number of tax laws, the money donated for charitable causes being used by Slick Willy and Cankles. But believe them when they tell you that there is no monkey business at CGI...even when Cankles' State Department bent the rules so her hubby and his cronies could profit from regimes that violate our most basic principles.
And now Mr. Rhodes. Mind you, he's already got a defense shield: His brother is the head of the CBS News Division. I can't wait to see how much scrutiny this story gets there. But Mr. Obama is already citing executive privilege to deny Congress the right to interrogate Mr. Rhodes. So much for transparency.
Back in 2008, Christopher Beam at Slate wrote an article about the promise of transparency and closed with this paragraph:
Is there such a thing as too much information? Yes—but only if there's no way of processing it. The key to increasing transparency, therefore, is to allow people to interpret what they're seeing. That means not just more documents but better databases, more navigable interfaces, and more visual aids to help people analyze information. If you've got that, there's no such thing as over-sharing.
The key to that analysis is in the second line: The key to increasing transparency, therefore, is to allow people to interpret what they're seeing. I'm sure Mr. Beam didn't anticipate this, but what the Obama administration has done in its much vaunted transparency campaign is limit what it allows the American public to see. Controlling the message, after all, allows for better manipulation of the content.
Americans of all political stripes should be horrified. Democrats and those who supported Mr. Obama should be outraged and feel betrayed at what he and his minions have done to them and the rest of the country.
It will be years until historians have the proper perspective and the amount of documentation necessary to render a proper verdict on Mr. Obama's brand of transparency. In the meantime we're left to count the number of days left in his sorry administration and to hope that Cankles doesn't get in so Groundhog Day doesn't occur.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Recently, Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, said in an interview that the White House created an "echo chamber" that eventually misled journalists about the timeline regarding the negotiations with Iran over the much-maligned nuclear deal. That the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications felt the need to deceive the American public is astounding. That the White House went along with it is almost criminal.
But we really shouldn't be surprised. Since gaining the White House, Mr. Obama's administration has been repeatedly lied to and misled the American public, all while touting itself as the most transparent administration in history.
Obamacare is starting to unravel. Passed without a full investigation by the Congress -- Nancy Pelosi defended its questionable passage by declaring that We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it -- the ramifications are only now starting to be understood. Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare who -- depending on which administration flack is talking -- either did or didn't work with the White House to design the colossal mess, was caught on camera stating that it was the stupidity of the American public that should be credited with its passage. President Obama himself was quoted dozens of times declaring that one could keep his doctor, or his plan, when in fact very little of that proved to be true.
Benghazi is another example. Despite knowing that there was no spontaneous uprising that led to the murder of four Americans, the administration hewed to its line that a movie critical of the prophet Mohammed sparked the demonstration when in fact it was well-known that this was an Al Qaeda inspired attack that was forecast beforehand. Yet rather than level with the American public, the administration continued to peddle the story that some poor schmuck of a filmmaker was responsible for the incident. They sent out their piñata Susan Rice to serve up the pablum to an adoring media and, even more insultingly, it continues to stick to its story that it didn't know before or at the time of the attack.
The IRS scandal is slowly and quietly unfolding in Cincinnati. There, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has directed the IRS to release documents it was withholding while hiding behind 26 U.S.C. §6103. Citing that statute, the IRS has claimed it cannot turn over documents that courts have directed it to turn over because the agency is forbidden from releasing information gleaned from returns. The only problem with that tale is that the information sought comes from applications for section 501(1)(c)(3) status, not returns. In March, the Sixth Circuit directed the IRS to turn over the requested information post haste. It remains to be seen whether the documents will be released on time.
Cankles used a home brew server and swears up and down that she never received any classified material there. This ludicrous claim is repeated by her fawning press organ and the Obama administration despite the fact that the FBI is investigating her and reports have already surfaced that a couple of thousand emails contained classified information. That this information was readily available to anyone capable of hacking the decidedly un-NSA hardware and software that Cankles was using is actionable under any number of criminal statutes, but still she, her unofficial press organ and the administration refuse to admit that there was anything wrong in what she did.
The Clinton Global Initiative, or CGI, is probably violating any number of tax laws, the money donated for charitable causes being used by Slick Willy and Cankles. But believe them when they tell you that there is no monkey business at CGI...even when Cankles' State Department bent the rules so her hubby and his cronies could profit from regimes that violate our most basic principles.
And now Mr. Rhodes. Mind you, he's already got a defense shield: His brother is the head of the CBS News Division. I can't wait to see how much scrutiny this story gets there. But Mr. Obama is already citing executive privilege to deny Congress the right to interrogate Mr. Rhodes. So much for transparency.
Back in 2008, Christopher Beam at Slate wrote an article about the promise of transparency and closed with this paragraph:
Is there such a thing as too much information? Yes—but only if there's no way of processing it. The key to increasing transparency, therefore, is to allow people to interpret what they're seeing. That means not just more documents but better databases, more navigable interfaces, and more visual aids to help people analyze information. If you've got that, there's no such thing as over-sharing.
The key to that analysis is in the second line: The key to increasing transparency, therefore, is to allow people to interpret what they're seeing. I'm sure Mr. Beam didn't anticipate this, but what the Obama administration has done in its much vaunted transparency campaign is limit what it allows the American public to see. Controlling the message, after all, allows for better manipulation of the content.
Americans of all political stripes should be horrified. Democrats and those who supported Mr. Obama should be outraged and feel betrayed at what he and his minions have done to them and the rest of the country.
It will be years until historians have the proper perspective and the amount of documentation necessary to render a proper verdict on Mr. Obama's brand of transparency. In the meantime we're left to count the number of days left in his sorry administration and to hope that Cankles doesn't get in so Groundhog Day doesn't occur.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, May 12, 2016
May 12, 1996
Twenty years ago today was the last time I ever saw our Mother alive. A curious set of coincidences occurred on this very bittersweet day: Not only is May 12 my favorite day of the year -- admittedly, I'm a little odd -- but twenty years ago, May 12 was Mother's Day. Somehow, although it's not what I would have chosen, it's fitting that the last day I saw our Mother alive was Mother's Day.
Less than a month later, Mom died.
It's hard to believe that twenty years have passed. I miss her more today than I did when she died. Not a day goes by that I don't think about her, whether it be a memory we shared or her presence to discuss a problem or just to be able to share a story about my day or hear one about hers. Had she lived she'd be eighty-four years old, with her eighty-fifth birthday being this November 25.
Our Mom was my best friend, the woman who taught me to love music and literature, how to throw a baseball and how to bake. There are those who would disbelieve the latter, but I can recall many hours in the kitchen learning little tricks about how to make pie crusts, how to bake certain cookies and what substitutes to use for certain ingredients. Our sessions in the kitchen were what they were meant to be: Mother-son bonding over food. Mom always told us to be jacks of all trades. Consequently, I can not only cook but I can wash the dishes, too.
Mom was a gentle soul. I rarely remember he raising her voice in anger, although there were times when I'd transgressed somehow that caused Mom to use every one of the three names she gave me and the one I added at confirmation to get my attention. When I learned that she'd named me after a priest friend of hers, I only half-jokingly told her I knew why I had so much trouble with women: I'd been named after a priest. Thankfully, Mom had a good sense of humor.
As I got older and grew taller, I could tease Mom about her very normal but quite short for me height of 5'4". Although she would fuss every time I called her by the title I'd bestowed on her, I think secretly she enjoyed being called Your Shortness. At least it sounded regal.
When I graduated law school, I gave her my diploma. I still don't have it. That's fine. Without her guidance and encouragement, law school would never have moved past dreaming.
I met a woman right around the time Mom's cancer returned. Four months later we learned she was terminal. Six months after that she died. I married the woman and later got divorced, something I never thought I would do. Had Mom been in better health, I'm sure her wise counsel would have helped me prevent entering into that doomed relationship and spared me a lot of time and hurt.
Sadder still for me is that Mom never got to meet and know Karen. Sure, she's smiling down on us and is quite happy for me, but I was deprived the benefit of seeing that joy. I'm sure she would have disagreed with certain aspects of our relationship, but being my Mother, she would have overlooked them and reveled in our happiness. I'm equally sure that together, she and Karen would have bedeviled my life in the most delicious and fun ways.
Mom's life was cut short by lung cancer. I always abhorred cigarettes growing up; I positively detest them now. It's one of the few subjects about which I get preachy. Had Mom's life been easier, perhaps she could have given up the cancer sticks sooner.
Mother's Day, for me, is now a bittersweet day. I remember my Mom, but I also remember seeing her alive for the last time on this day. I try to celebrate the day for Karen as much as I can, despite the fact that we don't have children together. But Mom would have wanted it that way. Mom was as selfless and thoughtful a person as there ever was. She rather I celebrate Karen's motherhood than dwell in the absence of my own Mother.
The sharp pain caused by Mom's death is now a dull ache. If I think about Mom for too long I get teary. Yes, a fifty-five-year-old man can still cry about his mother. I was robbed of a relationship -- the only pure relationship I ever had before I met Karen -- and the hole that's been left by her departure never goes away. I try to reason that Mom's been in a better place for two decades, that she's no longer in pain, etc. But I'm selfish in this regard: I miss our Mom.
Two decades. It seems like only yesterday that she was here. I know I'll see her again someday, but that won't be until I die, and who knows how long that will take?
Life can be cruel. Life can be unintentionally cruel as well. But it can also be mysteriously magical.
Life allowed me to see our Mother alive for the last time on my favorite day of the year, which also happened to be Mother's Day.
What a fitting way to close that chapter on my life....
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Less than a month later, Mom died.
It's hard to believe that twenty years have passed. I miss her more today than I did when she died. Not a day goes by that I don't think about her, whether it be a memory we shared or her presence to discuss a problem or just to be able to share a story about my day or hear one about hers. Had she lived she'd be eighty-four years old, with her eighty-fifth birthday being this November 25.
Our Mom was my best friend, the woman who taught me to love music and literature, how to throw a baseball and how to bake. There are those who would disbelieve the latter, but I can recall many hours in the kitchen learning little tricks about how to make pie crusts, how to bake certain cookies and what substitutes to use for certain ingredients. Our sessions in the kitchen were what they were meant to be: Mother-son bonding over food. Mom always told us to be jacks of all trades. Consequently, I can not only cook but I can wash the dishes, too.
Mom was a gentle soul. I rarely remember he raising her voice in anger, although there were times when I'd transgressed somehow that caused Mom to use every one of the three names she gave me and the one I added at confirmation to get my attention. When I learned that she'd named me after a priest friend of hers, I only half-jokingly told her I knew why I had so much trouble with women: I'd been named after a priest. Thankfully, Mom had a good sense of humor.
As I got older and grew taller, I could tease Mom about her very normal but quite short for me height of 5'4". Although she would fuss every time I called her by the title I'd bestowed on her, I think secretly she enjoyed being called Your Shortness. At least it sounded regal.
When I graduated law school, I gave her my diploma. I still don't have it. That's fine. Without her guidance and encouragement, law school would never have moved past dreaming.
I met a woman right around the time Mom's cancer returned. Four months later we learned she was terminal. Six months after that she died. I married the woman and later got divorced, something I never thought I would do. Had Mom been in better health, I'm sure her wise counsel would have helped me prevent entering into that doomed relationship and spared me a lot of time and hurt.
Sadder still for me is that Mom never got to meet and know Karen. Sure, she's smiling down on us and is quite happy for me, but I was deprived the benefit of seeing that joy. I'm sure she would have disagreed with certain aspects of our relationship, but being my Mother, she would have overlooked them and reveled in our happiness. I'm equally sure that together, she and Karen would have bedeviled my life in the most delicious and fun ways.
Mom's life was cut short by lung cancer. I always abhorred cigarettes growing up; I positively detest them now. It's one of the few subjects about which I get preachy. Had Mom's life been easier, perhaps she could have given up the cancer sticks sooner.
Mother's Day, for me, is now a bittersweet day. I remember my Mom, but I also remember seeing her alive for the last time on this day. I try to celebrate the day for Karen as much as I can, despite the fact that we don't have children together. But Mom would have wanted it that way. Mom was as selfless and thoughtful a person as there ever was. She rather I celebrate Karen's motherhood than dwell in the absence of my own Mother.
The sharp pain caused by Mom's death is now a dull ache. If I think about Mom for too long I get teary. Yes, a fifty-five-year-old man can still cry about his mother. I was robbed of a relationship -- the only pure relationship I ever had before I met Karen -- and the hole that's been left by her departure never goes away. I try to reason that Mom's been in a better place for two decades, that she's no longer in pain, etc. But I'm selfish in this regard: I miss our Mom.
Two decades. It seems like only yesterday that she was here. I know I'll see her again someday, but that won't be until I die, and who knows how long that will take?
Life can be cruel. Life can be unintentionally cruel as well. But it can also be mysteriously magical.
Life allowed me to see our Mother alive for the last time on my favorite day of the year, which also happened to be Mother's Day.
What a fitting way to close that chapter on my life....
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Pairs
Last night while mowing the yard I admired the sunset that graced our front yard. It occurred to me that I much preferred sunsets to sunrises despite the fact that I'm a morning person. That led me to ponder what other things I preferred in pairs and thus, to this blogpost.
So here we go:
Sunsets over sunrises.
Tea over coffee.
Savory over sweet.
Trains over planes.
Mountains over beaches.
Domestic over foreign.
Brunettes and redheads over blondes.
Older over younger.
Rural over urban.
Coke over Pepsi.
Carson over Letterman.
Beer over wine.
Automatic over manual.
Conservative over liberal.
Rain over heatwave.
Top Chef over any other reality cooking show.
Hardbound over paperback.
Photography over painting.
Turkey over chicken.
Iced tea over soda.
Chocolate chip ice cream over any other flavor.
Vacation over staycation.
Sam Adams over any other beer (Guinness is porter).
Chess over checkers.
HBO over Cinemax.
My wife over every other woman.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
So here we go:
Sunsets over sunrises.
Tea over coffee.
Savory over sweet.
Trains over planes.
Mountains over beaches.
Domestic over foreign.
Brunettes and redheads over blondes.
Older over younger.
Rural over urban.
Coke over Pepsi.
Carson over Letterman.
Beer over wine.
Automatic over manual.
Conservative over liberal.
Rain over heatwave.
Top Chef over any other reality cooking show.
Hardbound over paperback.
Photography over painting.
Turkey over chicken.
Iced tea over soda.
Chocolate chip ice cream over any other flavor.
Vacation over staycation.
Sam Adams over any other beer (Guinness is porter).
Chess over checkers.
HBO over Cinemax.
My wife over every other woman.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Questions for the General Election
The primaries have almost run their course. The nominees are almost set: It'll be Cankles versus Trump.
Let the underwhelming begin.
Vague and Brash v. Duplicitous and Deceptive.
I can't remember a time when the American electorate had it so good. Then again, it's done it to itself. Rather than separate the political wheat from the chaff, it's decided to eschew reason and good sense and nominate two people who are eminently unqualified, for different reasons, to be president of the United States.
With an eye to the inevitable mud-slinging, let's examine some of the more salient issues that may become particularly interesting in the run-up to Election Day in November:
-- Can the Donald learn to shut his gob? Trump loves to hear himself prattle on. His adoring minions clap rapturously whenever he takes on Ted Cruz, the media, Rosie O'Donnell, Megyn Kelly Mexicans, NBC or whatever or whoever else offends him that day. That's fine when one is discussing a partisan election, but now he has to persuade he's the better candidate. I don't think Trump is stupid -- he went to Wharton and built an empire, after all -- but he's rash more often than not. In short, can Trump approach appearing presidential? If he continues to behave like a superannuated frat boy, he may turn off sizeable segments of the undecided he hopes to win over.
-- Women: This is more complicated than it appears at first blush. It's not only whether Trump can ratchet down his offensive comments about women, abortion, etc. It's about whether Cankles takes the female vote for granted and acts as if it's a given. If Cankles keeps trotting out the worn line about equality for women without addressing other meaty issues, it will appear as if the only issue about which women care is income equality and other gender-specific matters. Women are equally concerned about other issues such as the economy and security, too. Too much pandering may offend women just as much as Trump's chauvinist rhetoric may.
-- Unforeseen Events: Let's just make it easy and refer to this as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- War, Famine, Pestilence and Death. Let's say Slick Willy dies in the middle of the campaign. What happens to Cankles's candidacy? Iran? What if war breaks out in Ukraine? What if there's an economic collapse in India? Unforeseen events, like injuries in sports competitions, can upset the balance and change the direction of the campaign. This is a real wild card.
-- The Media: It's almost a foregone conclusion that the media adores Cankles. Much as they did with President Obama, will it overlook her myriad scandals and shortcomings and nitpick Trump like a pack of wolves going after a wounded bison? Will there be any attempt at unbiased and impartial reporting? Will reporting be fair and balanced, or will the status quo continue as the new norm? What's more, will Trump use that to his advantage? Will the media wake up to the fact that most Americans distrust the media?
-- Legal issues: Trump is facing a lawsuit about his Trump University. On the scale of social consciousness, I don't think that resonates much. Sure, people aren't happy with him and his school, but that imperils no one. Cankles, on the other hand, is facing issues related to her home-brew server, which apparently has been hacked already. The security of the nation was put at great risk -- perhaps even more than we can understand at this early date -- and if the FBI pursues an indictment it will be interesting to see how the electorate views that.
-- President Obama: Which brings us to a real wild card, wilder even than Unforeseen Events. It's almost a fantasy of mine, actually. Allegedly, the Obamas and the Clintons don't really get along. It was a marriage of convenience at best. Imagine, just for a second, that Loretta Lynch comes to Mr. Obama and tells him that the FBI investigation supports a cause of action against Cankles for putting the country in jeopardy with her home-brew server. In what would be one of the finest paybacks of all time, imagine if President Obama, contrary to what most would expect him to do, unleashes Ms. Lynch and tells her to do what she is sworn to do: Uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States. I'm positively drooling at the thought...
-- Court decisions: Most people are unaware of matters of great significance presently pending before Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court. Depending on those decisions and their impact on the average American, it could sway voters one way or another.
-- Oil prices: Already there's been talk of oil prices being manipulated by Saudi Arabia to destroy the American oil industry. Don't think that Saudi Arabia wouldn't do it to influence the American election.
-- Terrorism: This could fall under Unforeseen Events, but as a concept, sadly, this is a constant. What if ISIS assassinates President Obama? Does that give Cankles the sympathy vote? What if it angers Europe enough that finally it sheds its cowardice and declares war, but President Obama demurs? Does that sway public opinion to Trump?
-- The Debates: Another wild card. Will the Democrats and their lackies control the debates as they did last time around and as they did during the Democratic primaries? Will the moderators be equitable or will they be partisan? Will Cankles and Trump say something so outrageous as to sink their chances?
-- Running Mates: It will be interesting to see how the candidates approach this issue. Does Cankles slavishly choose a woman or a minority? Can Trump surround himself with quality advisors?
Of course, there are so many more issues that can crop up. But these are a few of the external forces that could affect the general election.
Whatever happens, this promises to be one of the most freewheeling elections we've ever experienced.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Let the underwhelming begin.
Vague and Brash v. Duplicitous and Deceptive.
I can't remember a time when the American electorate had it so good. Then again, it's done it to itself. Rather than separate the political wheat from the chaff, it's decided to eschew reason and good sense and nominate two people who are eminently unqualified, for different reasons, to be president of the United States.
With an eye to the inevitable mud-slinging, let's examine some of the more salient issues that may become particularly interesting in the run-up to Election Day in November:
-- Can the Donald learn to shut his gob? Trump loves to hear himself prattle on. His adoring minions clap rapturously whenever he takes on Ted Cruz, the media, Rosie O'Donnell, Megyn Kelly Mexicans, NBC or whatever or whoever else offends him that day. That's fine when one is discussing a partisan election, but now he has to persuade he's the better candidate. I don't think Trump is stupid -- he went to Wharton and built an empire, after all -- but he's rash more often than not. In short, can Trump approach appearing presidential? If he continues to behave like a superannuated frat boy, he may turn off sizeable segments of the undecided he hopes to win over.
-- Women: This is more complicated than it appears at first blush. It's not only whether Trump can ratchet down his offensive comments about women, abortion, etc. It's about whether Cankles takes the female vote for granted and acts as if it's a given. If Cankles keeps trotting out the worn line about equality for women without addressing other meaty issues, it will appear as if the only issue about which women care is income equality and other gender-specific matters. Women are equally concerned about other issues such as the economy and security, too. Too much pandering may offend women just as much as Trump's chauvinist rhetoric may.
-- Unforeseen Events: Let's just make it easy and refer to this as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- War, Famine, Pestilence and Death. Let's say Slick Willy dies in the middle of the campaign. What happens to Cankles's candidacy? Iran? What if war breaks out in Ukraine? What if there's an economic collapse in India? Unforeseen events, like injuries in sports competitions, can upset the balance and change the direction of the campaign. This is a real wild card.
-- The Media: It's almost a foregone conclusion that the media adores Cankles. Much as they did with President Obama, will it overlook her myriad scandals and shortcomings and nitpick Trump like a pack of wolves going after a wounded bison? Will there be any attempt at unbiased and impartial reporting? Will reporting be fair and balanced, or will the status quo continue as the new norm? What's more, will Trump use that to his advantage? Will the media wake up to the fact that most Americans distrust the media?
-- Legal issues: Trump is facing a lawsuit about his Trump University. On the scale of social consciousness, I don't think that resonates much. Sure, people aren't happy with him and his school, but that imperils no one. Cankles, on the other hand, is facing issues related to her home-brew server, which apparently has been hacked already. The security of the nation was put at great risk -- perhaps even more than we can understand at this early date -- and if the FBI pursues an indictment it will be interesting to see how the electorate views that.
-- President Obama: Which brings us to a real wild card, wilder even than Unforeseen Events. It's almost a fantasy of mine, actually. Allegedly, the Obamas and the Clintons don't really get along. It was a marriage of convenience at best. Imagine, just for a second, that Loretta Lynch comes to Mr. Obama and tells him that the FBI investigation supports a cause of action against Cankles for putting the country in jeopardy with her home-brew server. In what would be one of the finest paybacks of all time, imagine if President Obama, contrary to what most would expect him to do, unleashes Ms. Lynch and tells her to do what she is sworn to do: Uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States. I'm positively drooling at the thought...
-- Court decisions: Most people are unaware of matters of great significance presently pending before Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court. Depending on those decisions and their impact on the average American, it could sway voters one way or another.
-- Oil prices: Already there's been talk of oil prices being manipulated by Saudi Arabia to destroy the American oil industry. Don't think that Saudi Arabia wouldn't do it to influence the American election.
-- Terrorism: This could fall under Unforeseen Events, but as a concept, sadly, this is a constant. What if ISIS assassinates President Obama? Does that give Cankles the sympathy vote? What if it angers Europe enough that finally it sheds its cowardice and declares war, but President Obama demurs? Does that sway public opinion to Trump?
-- The Debates: Another wild card. Will the Democrats and their lackies control the debates as they did last time around and as they did during the Democratic primaries? Will the moderators be equitable or will they be partisan? Will Cankles and Trump say something so outrageous as to sink their chances?
-- Running Mates: It will be interesting to see how the candidates approach this issue. Does Cankles slavishly choose a woman or a minority? Can Trump surround himself with quality advisors?
Of course, there are so many more issues that can crop up. But these are a few of the external forces that could affect the general election.
Whatever happens, this promises to be one of the most freewheeling elections we've ever experienced.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
More Hollywood Hypocrisy
By now, news of Will Farrell's misguided but ultimately reversed decision to portray Ronald Reagan suffering from Alzheimer's has been heard by plenty of people. Either because he was advised properly or he heard the hue and cry from people who've been touched by the wretched disease in their families, Mr. Farrell pulled out of the project, wisely if belatedly.
It's bad enough to seek humor in someone else's medical misfortune. Had the mocking been directed at his policies, or his performance as president, or even his lackluster career as an actor, that would be acceptable to most people. But attacking someone's medical infirmity is not only politically incorrect, it's insensitive, infantile and injurious.
But that's beyond the point of this post. For as much as everyone pretty much agrees on that subject, few agree on the following subject: Hollywood wastes little time taking shots at its political opponents. Say what you will, but Liberal Hollywood is decidedly antagonistic to conservative thought and values. It never hesitates to mock either.
Imagine, though, all the fertile material that exists coming from the other side of the political aisle that, as yet, has gone unmined. Unlike the movies attacking Nixon, Bush, Palin and other conservative political personalities, there is a paucity of movies that examine and then either condemn or mock liberal foibles. The reasons are clear: One does not bite the hand that feeds it. And as sure as Hollywood is liberal, it receives untold benefits -- direct or indirect, financial or intangible -- from liberal politicians.
So to that end, I offer the following suggestions for movies that would be eaten up by the conservative movie-going public:
-- Anthony Weiner: Can you imagine what a movie would be like based on his failed political career? Sexting and insulting the media all while married to Cankles aide-de-camp?
-- The Clintons: Egads, talk about a motherlode. Slick Willy and all his affairs. Slick Willy dumping on candidate Obama. Whitewater. The Rose Law Firm. Vince Foster. Cankles as aCubs' Yankees' fan. Cankles landing under sniper fire. Cankles defending Slick Willy against his accuser. Cankles as feckless senator. Cankles as inefficient Secretary of State with a reset button. Benghazi. Cankles crying poor mouth, writing a boring book no one buys. Cankles whining before Congress during her false testimony. Cankles' homebrew server. Cankles lying and taking Bernie Sanders's platform positions. The Clinton Global Initiative and its money trail. The way the DNC protects her in the face of Mr. Sanders's primary surge.
-- Eliot Spitzer: Mr. Law and Order, Spitzer was caught in a prostitution scandal.
-- Al Sharpton: Although not technically a politician, his involvement as a neighborhood organizer a la President Obama, but without the intelligence. Tax evasion, race baiting, and false accusations (Tawana Brawley). They can't find something to parody in a movie???
-- Kwame Kilpatrick: Ask any Detroiter about this.
-- John Edwards: He fathered an illegitimate child and his wife died thereafter. If that isn't tawdry, I don't know what is. This is tailor made for Lifetime.
-- Antonio Villaraigosa: This has the ethnic element that Liberals love. A Latino mayor of a big city has a fling with a sexy reporter who follows him around like a puppy dog. True love didn't triumph in the end, and it put an end to his political career. Undaunted, Mr. Villaraigosa had another relationship with another reporter, this time a former beauty queen. Unfortunately, that ended too
-- Neil Goldschmidt: Apparently, Mr. Goldschmidt had an affair with a minor back in the 1970's. Lolita, anyone?
-- Jim McGreevey: Liberals would love this one. Mr. McGreevey was married twice -- to women -- before coming out as a gay American and resigning as the governor of New Jersey. Imagine the empowerment that would provide aggrieved groups.
-- Mel Reynolds: Another Lolita issue, Mr. Reynolds actually went to jail for his indiscretion.
-- Rahm Emanuel: Talk about power! Brother of the influential Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel, the Rahmer is reshaping partisan politics in Illinois as he lays waste to Chicago while seeking to brighten his political star.
-- Brock Adams: The late Mr. Adams was accused by eight women of sexual harassment, abuse and rape. Or, a precursor to the Slick Willy era.
-- Barney Frank: Had an affair with a male prostitute who ran a business out of the congressman's house, which gives new meaning to the phrase cottage industry.
-- Charles Rangel: Having been accused of evading taxes, Mr. Rangel was censured by the House of Representative. Not exactly Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
-- Barack Obama: The present sacred cow of the Democratic Party, Mr. Obama has a number of doozies for potential scripts: Releasing Gitmo detainees, apologizing for perceived slights, trading for Bowe Bergdahl, the IRS mess, Obamacare, the AP scandal, immigration, executive orders -- there's plenty of material here. But it's unlikely anything will ever be made because, to cite Ed Asner, people in Hollywood are afraid of being seen as racist.
-- Sheldon Silver: The man was just convicted of corruption and sentenced to twelve years in jail at age seventy-two. The movie could focus on his mentoring fellow prisoners while in jail.
-- Gary Studds: He only had sex with a teenaged male House page.
-- Wayne Hays: C'mon, if Huey Long got a movie, this is begging for one.
-- Sam Adams: The story line of this one is juicy. A former NFL standout, he because the mayor of Portland and then had a relationship with an eighteen-year-old male intern.
-- Harry Reid: O' the myriad possibilities.
So Hollywood, stop with the tired Marvel Comics movies, the recycled attacks on conservatives and the stupid attempts to bring back the magic of the Porky's franchise. There's plenty of material out there and its close to home. Besides, this is part of the First Amendment. You have nothing to fear.
What's that you say? NEA...what's that?
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
--
It's bad enough to seek humor in someone else's medical misfortune. Had the mocking been directed at his policies, or his performance as president, or even his lackluster career as an actor, that would be acceptable to most people. But attacking someone's medical infirmity is not only politically incorrect, it's insensitive, infantile and injurious.
But that's beyond the point of this post. For as much as everyone pretty much agrees on that subject, few agree on the following subject: Hollywood wastes little time taking shots at its political opponents. Say what you will, but Liberal Hollywood is decidedly antagonistic to conservative thought and values. It never hesitates to mock either.
Imagine, though, all the fertile material that exists coming from the other side of the political aisle that, as yet, has gone unmined. Unlike the movies attacking Nixon, Bush, Palin and other conservative political personalities, there is a paucity of movies that examine and then either condemn or mock liberal foibles. The reasons are clear: One does not bite the hand that feeds it. And as sure as Hollywood is liberal, it receives untold benefits -- direct or indirect, financial or intangible -- from liberal politicians.
So to that end, I offer the following suggestions for movies that would be eaten up by the conservative movie-going public:
-- Anthony Weiner: Can you imagine what a movie would be like based on his failed political career? Sexting and insulting the media all while married to Cankles aide-de-camp?
-- The Clintons: Egads, talk about a motherlode. Slick Willy and all his affairs. Slick Willy dumping on candidate Obama. Whitewater. The Rose Law Firm. Vince Foster. Cankles as a
-- Eliot Spitzer: Mr. Law and Order, Spitzer was caught in a prostitution scandal.
-- Al Sharpton: Although not technically a politician, his involvement as a neighborhood organizer a la President Obama, but without the intelligence. Tax evasion, race baiting, and false accusations (Tawana Brawley). They can't find something to parody in a movie???
-- Kwame Kilpatrick: Ask any Detroiter about this.
-- John Edwards: He fathered an illegitimate child and his wife died thereafter. If that isn't tawdry, I don't know what is. This is tailor made for Lifetime.
-- Antonio Villaraigosa: This has the ethnic element that Liberals love. A Latino mayor of a big city has a fling with a sexy reporter who follows him around like a puppy dog. True love didn't triumph in the end, and it put an end to his political career. Undaunted, Mr. Villaraigosa had another relationship with another reporter, this time a former beauty queen. Unfortunately, that ended too
-- Neil Goldschmidt: Apparently, Mr. Goldschmidt had an affair with a minor back in the 1970's. Lolita, anyone?
-- Jim McGreevey: Liberals would love this one. Mr. McGreevey was married twice -- to women -- before coming out as a gay American and resigning as the governor of New Jersey. Imagine the empowerment that would provide aggrieved groups.
-- Mel Reynolds: Another Lolita issue, Mr. Reynolds actually went to jail for his indiscretion.
-- Rahm Emanuel: Talk about power! Brother of the influential Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel, the Rahmer is reshaping partisan politics in Illinois as he lays waste to Chicago while seeking to brighten his political star.
-- Brock Adams: The late Mr. Adams was accused by eight women of sexual harassment, abuse and rape. Or, a precursor to the Slick Willy era.
-- Barney Frank: Had an affair with a male prostitute who ran a business out of the congressman's house, which gives new meaning to the phrase cottage industry.
-- Charles Rangel: Having been accused of evading taxes, Mr. Rangel was censured by the House of Representative. Not exactly Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
-- Barack Obama: The present sacred cow of the Democratic Party, Mr. Obama has a number of doozies for potential scripts: Releasing Gitmo detainees, apologizing for perceived slights, trading for Bowe Bergdahl, the IRS mess, Obamacare, the AP scandal, immigration, executive orders -- there's plenty of material here. But it's unlikely anything will ever be made because, to cite Ed Asner, people in Hollywood are afraid of being seen as racist.
-- Sheldon Silver: The man was just convicted of corruption and sentenced to twelve years in jail at age seventy-two. The movie could focus on his mentoring fellow prisoners while in jail.
-- Gary Studds: He only had sex with a teenaged male House page.
-- Wayne Hays: C'mon, if Huey Long got a movie, this is begging for one.
-- Sam Adams: The story line of this one is juicy. A former NFL standout, he because the mayor of Portland and then had a relationship with an eighteen-year-old male intern.
-- Harry Reid: O' the myriad possibilities.
So Hollywood, stop with the tired Marvel Comics movies, the recycled attacks on conservatives and the stupid attempts to bring back the magic of the Porky's franchise. There's plenty of material out there and its close to home. Besides, this is part of the First Amendment. You have nothing to fear.
What's that you say? NEA...what's that?
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
--
Monday, May 2, 2016
A Cat, A Dog, A Bird and a Fireplace
We live in a rural area. It's not the Outback, it's not off-the-grid, but we live where critters mingle, albeit it cautiously, with humans. We've seen scores of deer, wild turkeys, foxes, muskrats, turtles, sand hill cranes and various other fauna traipsing through our neighborhood. This is surprising only because up the road lives a hunter with plenty of acreage that he rents to hunters during deer season, and the report of rifle shots is heard with enough regularity to know that hunters are honing their aim.
Still, it's not as if bears are breaking down our doors or moose trample our gardens. Our animals are smaller and much more likely to be viewed as cute and cuddly.
The pets we have -- bulldogs Sherman and Custer and Manx cat Bupkes -- are the best toys I've ever owned. They're playful, full of personality and friendly to a fault. But they're not beyond giving us trouble, as evidenced by Sherman's recent use of the living room and basement as his toilet, Custer tearing up cardboard boxes for no good reason and Bupkes's bending the blinds out of shape while he stalks prey outside the house that he'll likely never catch. All in all, we haven't had too much trouble with our quadrepedal neighbors and pets.
Ah, but what happens when the outside animals meet the inside pets? That's quite another story.
A couple of months ago we had a fire in the fireplace and forgot to close the flue the next morning. That evening when Karen got home, she found a panting Custer half out of his mind loping about the living room unable to contain his joy. Karen was mystified, worried more than anything that the boy was having a heart attack, until she made her way to the bedroom where a wayward starling was frantically trying to find its way out of its confinement. Unfortunately for both concerned, the starling did a fly-by right by Karen's head, which caused her to flee the bedroom and shut the door behind her before she called me in a panic.
Eventually, after I got home, I was able to trap with the use of child's fish net and then release the intruder into the wild. After Karen disinfected the bedroom and bathroom, we were able to resume using those rooms two days later.
A week later I had to take the standing mirror to the curb for the garbagemen to take because Custer, in his unrepentant zeal, had crashed into it on his fool's errand chasing the starling. Amazingly, Custer was unhurt. The same could not be said for the mirror, which was smashed on the lower third.
This past week we heard a bird somewhere inside the chimney. We'd smartly closed the flue this time, but this bird had somehow gotten stuck and wasn't leaving whence it came. We decided that after our jaunt out, we'd try to release the bird into a blanket or sheet and then get him out of the house.
Karen and I went to the disappointing flea market, where the only thing that was really prolific was the amount of dampness and mud. We came home to find the fireplace screen down and the smaller mesh screen torn from its channel. Sticking out of one of the holes in the vents on the left side wasn't discernible at first, but upon closer inspection, it appeared to be the lower half of a bird that somehow had been pulled through one of the circular vent holes. I got my gloves and tried to pull it through the hole, but the direction of the wings and their feathers prevented me from getting it through. Somehow, I pushed it through the hole and grabbed it in the hole beneath the one in which it was originally found and managed to extricate the carcass, less a few feathers and some blood. Custer, needless to say, was quite interested in the proceedings, while Bupkes kept a safe distance from his handiwork lest he get spanked. Yes, I've spanked our cat. Sue me.
I then vacuumed the section of the fireplace and Karen washed it down. We replaced the screens as best we could and went back out. When we came home, the screen was once again flat on the ground and the pets were hopping around as if someone were shooting at their paws. We quickly put the screen back up and shut Bupkes in the basement (he loves it down there anyway). We let him out after awhile and he tried to jump up on me as I sat in the chair, but I pushed him away, which made him sad. He pouted awhile until I picked him up and petted him. He only went by the fireplace once, and I threw one of Custer's chewtoys at the fireplace to startle him away from it. He didn't go back there the rest of the evening.
Later, Karen went to look at something on the computer and Custer strolled over to the edge of the fireplace, curious as ever. He nudged the screen with its nose and it came crashing down, as Bupkes watched from the safety of his perch on the back of the chair. We couldn't figure out how Bupkes, all twelve pounds of him, could get that heavy screen down by himself, and thanks to Custer, we now had our answer. It was a tag-team effort. Custer's curiosity opened the door, so to speak, to Bupkes's rapacity. It all became glaringly clear how that darned starling met its end.
Unimpressed by all of this was Sherman, who laid in his bed bored if not perturbed by the proceedings, probably wishing the both of them just stopped being so stupid.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Still, it's not as if bears are breaking down our doors or moose trample our gardens. Our animals are smaller and much more likely to be viewed as cute and cuddly.
The pets we have -- bulldogs Sherman and Custer and Manx cat Bupkes -- are the best toys I've ever owned. They're playful, full of personality and friendly to a fault. But they're not beyond giving us trouble, as evidenced by Sherman's recent use of the living room and basement as his toilet, Custer tearing up cardboard boxes for no good reason and Bupkes's bending the blinds out of shape while he stalks prey outside the house that he'll likely never catch. All in all, we haven't had too much trouble with our quadrepedal neighbors and pets.
Ah, but what happens when the outside animals meet the inside pets? That's quite another story.
A couple of months ago we had a fire in the fireplace and forgot to close the flue the next morning. That evening when Karen got home, she found a panting Custer half out of his mind loping about the living room unable to contain his joy. Karen was mystified, worried more than anything that the boy was having a heart attack, until she made her way to the bedroom where a wayward starling was frantically trying to find its way out of its confinement. Unfortunately for both concerned, the starling did a fly-by right by Karen's head, which caused her to flee the bedroom and shut the door behind her before she called me in a panic.
Eventually, after I got home, I was able to trap with the use of child's fish net and then release the intruder into the wild. After Karen disinfected the bedroom and bathroom, we were able to resume using those rooms two days later.
A week later I had to take the standing mirror to the curb for the garbagemen to take because Custer, in his unrepentant zeal, had crashed into it on his fool's errand chasing the starling. Amazingly, Custer was unhurt. The same could not be said for the mirror, which was smashed on the lower third.
This past week we heard a bird somewhere inside the chimney. We'd smartly closed the flue this time, but this bird had somehow gotten stuck and wasn't leaving whence it came. We decided that after our jaunt out, we'd try to release the bird into a blanket or sheet and then get him out of the house.
Karen and I went to the disappointing flea market, where the only thing that was really prolific was the amount of dampness and mud. We came home to find the fireplace screen down and the smaller mesh screen torn from its channel. Sticking out of one of the holes in the vents on the left side wasn't discernible at first, but upon closer inspection, it appeared to be the lower half of a bird that somehow had been pulled through one of the circular vent holes. I got my gloves and tried to pull it through the hole, but the direction of the wings and their feathers prevented me from getting it through. Somehow, I pushed it through the hole and grabbed it in the hole beneath the one in which it was originally found and managed to extricate the carcass, less a few feathers and some blood. Custer, needless to say, was quite interested in the proceedings, while Bupkes kept a safe distance from his handiwork lest he get spanked. Yes, I've spanked our cat. Sue me.
I then vacuumed the section of the fireplace and Karen washed it down. We replaced the screens as best we could and went back out. When we came home, the screen was once again flat on the ground and the pets were hopping around as if someone were shooting at their paws. We quickly put the screen back up and shut Bupkes in the basement (he loves it down there anyway). We let him out after awhile and he tried to jump up on me as I sat in the chair, but I pushed him away, which made him sad. He pouted awhile until I picked him up and petted him. He only went by the fireplace once, and I threw one of Custer's chewtoys at the fireplace to startle him away from it. He didn't go back there the rest of the evening.
Later, Karen went to look at something on the computer and Custer strolled over to the edge of the fireplace, curious as ever. He nudged the screen with its nose and it came crashing down, as Bupkes watched from the safety of his perch on the back of the chair. We couldn't figure out how Bupkes, all twelve pounds of him, could get that heavy screen down by himself, and thanks to Custer, we now had our answer. It was a tag-team effort. Custer's curiosity opened the door, so to speak, to Bupkes's rapacity. It all became glaringly clear how that darned starling met its end.
Unimpressed by all of this was Sherman, who laid in his bed bored if not perturbed by the proceedings, probably wishing the both of them just stopped being so stupid.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)