"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Monthly Archives: July 2011

In one of the recent daily meetings between the White House and the House and Senate leaders focusing on getting past a threat by the GOP-led House to hold back on raising the national debt ceiling, Speaker Boehner explained, “Our disagreement with the president is not about closing loopholes, none of us are fond of loopholes; our disagreement is over the idea of raising taxes on the very people that we’re asking to create jobs in our country.”    This idea of job creation by eliminating taxes for businesses has been around for a while and proven to be a straw man argument in recent years.

As Pulitzer-prize winning economist Paul Krugman pointed out recently Over the last two years profits have soared while unemployment has remained disastrously high. Why should anyone believe that handing even more money to corporations, no strings attached, would lead to faster job creation?”

I have pointed out also in a recent article that high taxes are not an issue here an if low tax rates are supposed to generate job creation then the GOP needs to seriously look elsewhere for a talking point that has a modicum of credibility.  Other bogus excuses handed to us by political pundits are also used to justify not doing anything.

The ideological belief that businesses will significantly reinvest their profits to create jobs is a whitewash for a couple of reasons.  From what few jobs are generated as a result of profits, many companies are creating them outside the U.S. labor market.  The other monkey wrench thrown into this perceptual fantasy is that much of the wealth generated isn’t being made by businesses, especially manufacturers, but by investment income earners who only indirectly may allow some of their money to be invested in businesses that create jobs while a lot more of it goes into future investments that sit in financial institutions with the intent of increasing their own personal wealth.

Republicans, who, in this writer’s view, are responsible for the worst economic recession since the Great One back in 1929 have tried to lay this crisis on the back of President Obama and the Democrats.  By utilizing half-truths and tweaking the numbers to their advantage supporters of the GOP are receiving bile from the bowels of those who should know better.

Last month alone the GOP has posted three blatant falsehoods about the economy and the recovery, something many have yet to experience.  All have been researched by the Pulitzer prize-winning Politifacts team.  It is this apparent incessant distortion by those who voters are expected to trust that creates the gridlock amongst us.

In a June 3rd press release from the national Republican Senatorial Committee stating that “President Obama and liberal former DNC Chairman Tim Kaine’s $787 billion stimulus failed to create jobs”.  This false claim would dispute the findings below of the CBO and 3 private economic analysis companies.  Here’s what the groups found:

*CBO: Between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs saved or created.

*IHS/Global Insight: 2.45 million jobs saved or created.

*Macroeconomic Advisers: 2.3 million jobs saved or created.

*Moody’s Economy.com: 2.5 million jobs saved or created.

A little over a week later on June 12th, the new RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, on NBC’s  Meet The Press, compared the unemployment situation since the start of the past recent recession to what the nation faced during the Great Depression.  The first part of a two-fold yarn came as Priebus was trying to avoid the question about his failure to call for Senator David Vitter’s involvement in a prostitution ring but was among many Republicans clamoring over Anthony Weiner’s pitiful sexual foray on social media.  Priebus said, in part, “Look, I’m not defending these guys, but the fact of the matter is, we have big issues here to tackle in this country. We have unemployment that rivals the Great Depression.”

Without even running to google search on this bit of contrivance I knew from history lessons in high school that the Great Depression was far worse than the current recession.  A simple look at the annual unemployment rates during an eleven year period following the stock market crash in 1929 attests to this:

1930: 8.7 percent
1931: 15.9 percent
1932: 23.6 percent
1933: 24.9 percent
1934: 21.7 percent
1935: 20.1 percent
1936: 16.9 percent
1937: 14.3 percent
1938: 19.0 percent
1939: 17.2 percent
1940: 14.6 percent
1941: 9.9 percent

Priebus’ second far-fetched claim was that “almost 45 percent of (the unemployed) have been out of work for six months,” a number that “rivals the Great Depression”.  This assumption was loosely based partly on an earlier CBS news story that was later found to have “an error … due to some garbled relaying of information and that a corrected version of the story had been ordered.”  Though unemployment rates were close in Roosevelt’s and Obama’s second year as President – 12.8% vs. 13.9% – Politifact notes the absurdity of this number “since the population of the United States was 123 million then, compared to nearly 309 million today.  More actual people were looking for jobs then than are actually looking by twice as many.

Less than week later, on June 16th, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, stated the 3rd false claim.  On a campaign spot in Tampa, Fla., he told a small audience that “It’s been a failure in the last several years to get America back on track again. It’s taken longer to get Americans back to work than it took during the Great Depression. This is the slowest job recovery since Hoover.

Taking Romney at his literal word, that this is “the slowest job recovery,” following the declared end by economist of the recession/depression, Politifact found, based on available data from the National Bureau of Economic Research, that there were as many as four recoveries “that were weaker than the current one.”  Those occurred under the presidencies of Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Carter/Reagan).  It is clear why Romney would not want to point out the failure of his fellow Republicans to generate any significant job growth following serious previous recessions.

All of this information coincides with the continued failure of the Party of NO to offer anything resembling a serious plan for job growth that they haven’t tried in the past, as well as threatening a greater recession by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.  Current headlines reflect the effect of an unwilling GOP to raise the debt ceiling as businesses hesitate to hire new people for fear of the uncertainty this moronic action will have.  The credit default of the U.S. dollar would have a tremendous impact on not only jobs here but global markets as well.  especially many of the faltering Euro economies of Greece, Italy and Ireland.

Some major figures in the Democratic Party along with some reputable economists, most notably Paul Krugman, have accused the GOP of sabotaging efforts to create jobs in hopes that the voting public will see this recession more as a failure by Democrats than Republicans. This notion is not totally far-fetched when you remember Rush Limbaugh’s broadcast that hoped Obama’s efforts would fail.

The diagram below demonstrates the tactics the GOP and their supporters have taken to undermine a recovery.

I would be remiss if I failed to include the Democrats and the President himself in the overall failure of doing what the government can and should do to simulate jobs.  The amount and extent of stimulus money was seen early on as being too little for having a significant impact.  At almost every turn the Party of Jackson looked more like wimps as they battled Republican posturing on the important issues of health care, financial reform and raising taxes on the most economically sound and comfortable wealthiest Americans.

On researching Michael Moore’s claims that the 400 wealthiest Americans make more than the lower half of all American workers. Politifact found that to be essentially a true claim.    Poll after poll has found that Americans are in favor of a tax increase, especially for the wealthiest 2% to help stimulate job recovery rather than take away benefits from Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Yet the President and many in his Party seem oblivious of the polls and react instead to the vitriol of extremist within the Republican party who hardly represent mainstream Americans.  Their lack of backbone to take the majorities the voters gave them in 2008 and push through a universal health care plan and a bolder economic stimulus plan that reflected more of what Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1930’s shows that the American worker really doesn’t have a true ally within the Washington Beltway.


When people close to us are taken without expectation, how we deal with our grief depends on how we view life.

It seems like there has been an unusual number of incidences in the news lately about people dying while at sporting events or entertainment venues.

In just the last week we’ve had the Iraq veteran leg amputee James Thomas Hackemer, 29, who was ejected from the Ride of Steel roller coaster at the Darien Lake Theme Park Resort in upstate New York.  About a week before this there was 39-year-old Shannon Stone, the firefighter from Brownswood, Texas who fell 20 feet to his death as he was trying to catch a ball tossed to him by outfielder Josh Hamilton, his 6-year-old son’s favorite Ranger.

In early June, an 11-year-old girl on a class trip to Morey’s Mariner’s Landing Pier in Wildwood, N.J., fell about 150 feet from near the top of a Ferris wheel and was killed.  About a week later on the other side of the world at Kavakli amusement park near Istanbul, Turkey, an 18-year-old girl was killed after falling 30-40 feet from an amusement ride called Discovery.  RideAccident.com which tracks such incidences at theme parks noted that there were 55 occurrences of injuries or fatalities on their website for 2010 alone.

Some of these are pretty gruesome, like the 27-year-old woman who was strangled to death after her cultural hajib head dress became tangled in a go-kart axle at high-speed at Port Stephen’s Go-Kart track in Sydney, Australia.

Most all of these occurred with younger people; some as young as 5 years old while the oldest were usually in their 30’s.  Too young to die such agonizing and quick deaths, leaving parents and young spouses behind to deal with this trauma.  But at 62, I tend to look at such human suffering philosophically.

Chuch Palahniuk, a freelance writer, satarist and author of The Fight Club is quoted as saying that “The best way to waste your life … is by taking notes.  The easiest way to avoid living is … to report.  Don’t participate”.  Life is about being involved and active everyday, some more than others.  There is no real life where there is no joy and for those over-cautious souls unwilling to participate in the human experience, there will always be something missing that cannot be found as a voyeur.

This is not to encourage reckless behavior without forethought.  Some of the greatest adventurers planned their strategy and prepared themselves with proper equipment to avoid the dangerous risks they were bound to face.  But even knowing that there were risk, the excitement of taking that risk was itself exhilarating and the thought of achieving what few have or will is itself rewarding and life affirming.

The ability for a father to convey to friends and family back home that he caught a pitch for his son from their favorite baseball player or the Iraqi vet that felt a thrill he hadn’t since losing limbs in the arena of war would have been a treasure to keep had fate not cut their future short.  The experience, even for the moment, was something that was timeless and seldom enjoyed.  A short life tragically ended but full of joy from living it is to be valued more than longevity where fear and age prevent creating memorable moments.

In Tennyson’s poem we are reminded that love of life and all that that entails is to be our greatest goal and our greatest reward:

 

I hold it true, whate’er befall;

I feel it, when I sorrow most;

‘Tis better to have loved and lost

Than never to have loved at all

 

We wake up each day for the most part never thinking it will be our last and are hardly prepared for it when it occurs at events that we envision will bring us joy.  But to die while doing something thrilling is hands down better than to wither away in an infirm state being kept alive by artificial means.

The loss of life in the flash of a moment, even from circumstances we created for ourselves, leaves grief behind for those who remain but allows those who lose their life under such conditions to cheat the slow painful death of age, perhaps providing a certain amount of solace for loved ones who will remember them the rest of their lives.

The memories of lost ones are brightest when they do not encompass agonizing slow death in a hospital bed are in home respite.  To watch as those we love wither away while they are fed by a tube, have their clothes changed as a result of uncontrollable bowels or gaze into their eyes as if we were strangers to them has to hurt more and for much longer than the instant end occurring at a very young age.

Death claims us all and to feel that we can avoid it longer if we just play it safe is unrealistic.  But worse, consumed with such a notion can rob us of fulfilling that life we are all afforded if we but try.   Greater I think is the remorse of those who think upon the loss of the loved who had nothing to show for their long life than the remorse of one that envisions the memory of a close friend or loved one who will remain eternally young and vibrant in our thought over the years.



My good friend Donna Cavanagh enjoys a good “Frazier” re-run on the Hallmark network but takes offense at being treated like a child as it airs on this “family friendly” channel.

Recently, the Hallmark channel had a Frasier marathon.  I love that show. It just never ceases to make me giggle. The same is true for the Golden Girls which also airs on the channel.  As I was watching the Frasier episodes, I noticed that certain words were being bleeped out or edited out  including the words ass, hooker and maybe butt—about that one, I am not sure.

Anyway, at first I thought I imagined the bleeping. I couldn’t figure out why these words would be considered “bleepable”.  After a few more words didn’t make the Hallmark cut, I really became curious, so I emailed the network .  In truth, I was pretty rude. This is what I said:

May I ask why you feel it necessary to cut out some words from your broadcast of Frasier? What kind of prudish people work at your channel or worse, what kind of prudish people watch your channel, that you feel this is necessary…?

This is what they sent back:

Crown Media Networks is committed to family friendly programming. Our Standards & Practices (“S&P” – the things that are or are not acceptable for a particular network) are very conservative.  There are words and phrases commonly used on other cable channels and broadcast networks that Hallmark Channel’s S&P guidelines deem unacceptable.

Okay, this is what is wrong with that statement and why I need to rant. First, this is censorship at its worst. Family Friendly, my ass – oops, my BLEEP. Worse than censorship, this is hypocritical censorship. The Hallmark channel broadcast Frasier at various times of the day. The show is filled with sexual content; yet, the word ass, as in pain in the ass, got them upset. If they are so FAMILY FRIENDLY they wouldn’t be broadcasting this show at all.  Frasier episodes are filled with sexual dialogue and sexual situations that depict mostly casual sex – not married-people sex. And let’s face it: if family entertainment advocates had their way, we would only see married-people sex or no sex at all on TV.  If “bad” language sends up the red flag to the Hallmark people why not one-night-stand sex?

The same goes for the airing of Golden Girls. Anyone who has ever watched that show knows sex and orgasms are the primary topics of discussion over cheesecake. I don’t ever remember hearing any bleeping when the “Girls” graphically reminisced about their sexual escapades.  Again, why are these conversations not subject to the same censorship?

So, what exactly are Hallmark’s guidelines?  I assume it’s to set a high moral standing as long as that standing does not interfere with revenue dollars. To be honest, I am lashing out at Hallmark here because I hate anything to do with censorship, and I hate groups that advocate censorship with words like Family Friendly. To me, Family Friendly are the two “F” words we might all fear in the censorship game.

Here is an idea: You want to protect your children:  Be parents. Change the bleepin’channel or take the bleepin’TV out of your kids’ bleepin’ rooms so that they can’t watch the bleepin’ shows that are deemed by some ultra-conservative watch groups as amoral or sexually explicit. It upsets me to no end that a cable channel has been duped into thinking that censorship is the right way to go.

Perhaps, Hallmark cards, which is part of the same corporation, should be banned from retail outlets because–let’s face it– their Shoebox Greetings, while incredibly funny, can get a little crass. Maybe retail outlets should adopt the strategy of the now extinct video stores and place the less family friendly cards in a back room out of view of the general population. God knows what would happen if small children happened upon one of those more adult cards.  The words or images might be seared into their innocent brains and their lives will no doubt take a 180-degree turn away from purity rings and toward sexual promiscuity. Yes, it will be Sodom and Gomorrah all over again, and it will be all Hallmark’s fault. Isn’t that ironic?

Donna’s work has been published in More.com, SOP.org, Divine Caroline and First magazine and local and national newspapers as well. This year, her first two humor books were published. Life On the Off Ramp is a collection of her earlier humor columns and Reality: Fantasy’s Evil Twin is a look at the contrast between how we imagine relationships to be and how they truly are.


Would any election-site official truly inhibit another’s right to cast their vote in a legitimate election?  Voter rights are inherent in the Constitution and for anyone to block the path of a legitimate voter not only violates the spirit of the law but depending what state you live in, could violate the letter of the law.  There is no specific delineation of a citizens right to vote spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.  This right is one of those reserved for the individual states under the 10th amendment.  It appears that at least one state in the union however has opened the door to violating this sacred trust.

According to Tanya Somanader with ThinkProgress the Ohio GOP-led House “passed an election law overhaul [that] tweaked the bill to weaken a law mandating poll workers to direct voters in the wrong precinct to their correct voting location. Under the new language, a poll worker need not direct a voter to where they are eligible, adding that ‘it is the duty of the individual casting the ballot to ensure that the individual is casting that ballot in the correct precinct.’”’

Ms. Somanader goes on to point out that over 14,000 votes were lost in Ohio alone in 2008, especially in “urban and impoverished areas of the state,” – where the poor, minorities and elderly tend to dwell – making it the “second most common reason [ballots were] not counted … because while the person was properly registered to vote in Ohio, they cast the ballot in the wrong county or precinct.

Now it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that there are people capable of denying polling information to certain individuals deemed “unworthy” or likely to vote for the candidate that election official is opposed to.

Allowing someone to work as an election official at a polling site and who is white and tends to view all immigrants with disdain could lead them to deny a Mexican-American voter the information they need to get to the proper polling place to cast their vote.  Likewise, someone of middle or upper middle-income who is 40 something might refuse to help an elderly person locate their proper polling place feeling that their vote might impact issues they oppose, like Social Security or Medicare benefits.

I don’t personally see this tweaking of the election law in Ohio leading to mass voter right violations, but why would the Party that wears their patriotism on their shoulder and suit lapels even consider opening an avenue for some hateful constituents to allow even one missed opportunity for one of the few democratic aspects established by the founding fathers?


When people preface their remarks with words that essentially demean and denigrate the ones they are fixing to disparage, it’s usually a pretty good indicator that they lack an all-encompassing view of the subject matter themselves.  It further indicates that the writer is about to make us aware of how superior he or she is to the one who has incurred his or her ire.  Such is the case with conservative columnist Walter Williams’s recent attack on the what he sees as part of a “leftist agenda”.

To undermine the comments of someone and assume their take on things is from some less intelligent and informed mindset is to presume that there are absolutes that are easily perceived and capable of being clearly defined.  This is seldom the case and most surely is in Mr. Williams attack of Time Magazine’s piece by Richard Stengel, “One Document, Under Siege”.

Without going item by item on Mr. Williams assertions about what the Constitution does and doesn’t say as he attacks Stengel’s piece, I would like to point out his overall shortcomings on a single aspect of this revered document that Mr. Williams addressed in his previous column here.

My column last week addressed the compromise whereby each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. Had slaves been counted as whole people, slaveholding states would have had much greater political power.

This is pretty much a fact based on what I have read concerning the issue.  What Mr. Williams seems to be getting his dander up about is that Stengel and others appear to be using this status given to slaves by some of the founding fathers as a derisive commentary aimed at their moral character, at least as we understand slavery today.  This may have been assumed in Mr. Williams “absolutist” take on such comments but it is far from an objective perspective.

What Richard Stengel and others are referring to when they point out that our constitution was written by less than perfect people, who were none-the-less “plain, honest men”, saw things then as their world allowed without much condemnation.  Many of those who proposed the 3/5’s allotment for slaves were themselves slave holders but were opposed to the institution of slavery.  Yet all of them held heart-felt views then about blacks that would undoubtedly be viewed as extreme racism today, even by the likes of Walter Williams.  None of these white aristocrats felt that blacks were capable of becoming the white man’s equal.

In his excellent book – Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution – about the 1787 Consitutional Convention and the delegates who assembled there, Richard Beeman points out a factor that Walter Williams either overlooks or expediently dismisses:

“The three-fifths compromise was, fundamentally, about states individual interests, not the morality of slavery.  Those few Northerners like Gouverneur Morris, Rufus King, or Elbridge Gerry who voiced unhappiness with the idea of counting the slave population in apportioning representation did so either out of a fear that Northern interests were being sacrificed to those of the South or, as James Wilson phrased it, the ‘disgust’ that their white constituents may have felt about being considered even in the same category as slaves.  [...]  many Northern delegates were merely uncomfortable with the idea of being associated in any way with slaves.  That uneasiness was generated at least as much by a deeply seated racism as by any humanitarian concern about the plight of enslaved Africans.” (p. 214)

This is not to discredit these men whose intelligence and insights were formidable and rose above many of their contemporaries.  It is merely to point out, as Richard Stengel does quite capably, that had these men the power to see the future as it is today, they would be astonished at how far we’ve come and how puny their notions were in comparison.  This concept will apply to our best and brightest today by those who look back at us 230 years later and wonder why we held women in such low esteem and treated homosexuals as inferior, much like Madison, Washington and Jefferson did with the black people during their time.

Stengel’s argument, that William’s has lost sight of, is to remind us all that the Constitution was written at a time when the things we need to address today were not even around to consider back in 1787.  It was also written by a select group of white males who were for the most part well-educated and wealthy land owners.  Not exactly a representative sample of the general population then or now nor one by which all factors could be evenly weighed.

But Mr. Williams, in his absolute certainty about “liberal leftist comments” and their agenda to destroy his sense of American values, has refused to consider this perspective.  He misses Stengel’s argument that this great document which opened the door for personal freedoms around the world, was much more a compromise document than he seems willing to acknowledge and was meant to correct the major deficiencies of the earlier Articles of Confederation.

In it is the room to expand the rights of it’s citizens and check the abuses by self-centered interests of the states and powerful individuals, a condition that drove all the Constitutional Convention delegates, especially Mr. Williams’ favorite – James Madison – to form a more perfect union by creating a central government with broader powers than the states had allowed following their defeat of the British army.

The fact that they compromised and allotted a 3/5 human status to slaves then does not make these men monsters, considering the social and political environment of their day.  But noting that they felt superior to blacks does indicate that had we continued to hold such wrong and dated views today, we may not have become that “shining light on the hill” conservatives are eager to promote.  This attitude changed as a result of the social dynamics we faced as a nation.  A document that doesn’t recognize that need to change is not worthy of the esteem Mr. Williams feels it deserves.


I recently watched the 2007 documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So” which addresses the cultural perception of homosexuality in America as it does in many other cultures.  The one striking thing I got from this film that I have hit on in just about every piece I have written on the subject, is how contemporary Christians take biblical phrases and notions out of context.

They are also guilty of attributing meanings to words and stories in the Bible that were not intended by the sources they take them from, especially from the hebrew version of the Torah that Christians refer to as the old testament as well as any ancient greek text used by early christians as they began to document the New Testament.  Too many lives have been ruined because of the unfounded notion that the Bible is the “inerrant word of God”.

Like many heterosexuals, I was raised in a conservative christian environment that condemned homosexuality and routinely compared it predatory sex offenders, bestiality and pornography.  I have found however that like other subject matter provided me through a focused set of standards, reality is often far different.  It was only after faithfully researching the available data outside some forms of religious dogma did I discover why we were raised thinking as we did about gay people.

The word “abomination” used by the church and her followers is one word that has been used in excess when it comes to homosexuality, especially in comparison to the other abominations referred to in the Bible.  The seven Noahide Laws do not mention homosexuality explicitly nor is it in the Holiness code found in the Book of Leviticus that permitted slavery while it authorized killings for the “abominations” of a disrespectful child, an adulterer, a person who takes the Lord’s name in vain or the daughter of a priest who commits prostitution.

The original meaning that comes form the jewish word, “sheqet”, finds certain behavior not acceptable to their customs and therefore made them less than pure in the eyes of their God.  Jews who followed the Torah and the Mosaic laws therein were more likely to be rebuked or ostracized from their people for their abominations rather than killed or condemned to hell.  There is nothing in the Old or New Testaments that condemns homosexuals to such a level that makes it preeminent above all the abominations mentioned in the Bible.

What are considered abominations as stated in Proverbs 6: 16 – 19 are

A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among  brethren.

Much of this is behavior that we see in the anti-gay crowds who protest anything associated with the gay lifestyle of our friends, neighbors and relatives.

Fundamentalist Christians today have somehow justified their hate for homosexuality but seldom do they convey any hate towards those who charge interest on a loan (Lev 25:37),  crossbreed livestock (Lev 19:19) or get tattoos (Lev 19:28), all violations of “God’s law”..  They have made an unfounded statement that “same sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage” without providing any real argument that stands up to close scrutiny.

What is an abomination in this country is the discord among people created by some to fit a narrow, hateful frame of reference.  Biblical scholars have found this possibly derives primarily from a single biblical source using a Protestant English translation of Paul’s comments in 1Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28.

These translations generally interpret the Greek words “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” as referring to homosexuals.

We can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word “paiderasste.” That was the standard term at the time for males who had sex with males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior. Down through the years, Christians have interpreted these words as referring to people of lacking a high moral standing, or to masturbators, or to men who sexually abuse boys, or to boys who are the victims of sexual abuse. Interpreting these passages as referring to sexually active homosexuals appears to be simply the latest in a long series of attempts to make sense out of obscure words. The precise meaning is unknown; it was buried with Paul.  SOURCE

I sincerely hope that as the public becomes more educated about homosexuality apart from strict religious stigmas, that their tolerance of such increases, as recent polls indicate.   Similarly, I feel that as more states like New York refute the inequality of gay marriage taboos, many of those who have been misled by their religious upbringings will search their hearts deeper for the core message of love in the so-called “word of God”,  and acknowledge that not all people are required to present themselves within the narrow perceptions of the misinformed and the homophobic.

RELATED READING:

“THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THEREFORE IT’S TRUE” . . . AND OTHER STUPID STATEMENTS  


His music is a part of what keeps us all young.

Much is going across the internet today recognizing that Jim Morrison of “The Doors” fame passed  away 40 years ago on July 3rd, 1971.  His music out lives him as is the case with all great artist and it is his music that will primarily be discussed by those making tributes to a young man who was a part of the boomer generation as we were coming into our own in the late 1960’s.  I’ll leave to others the comments about his music as well as any of the psycho-analytical perceptions of those who would convey what the “real” Jim Morrison was like.  I would like to imagine what Morrison would be like today if he were to have survived.

We would all like to keep our image of the youthful “Doors” lead singer just as we do the skinny Elvis but the fact is,time is not always kind to what our former selves were like.  Had he lived, Morrison would be less than three years away from becoming a septuagenarian?  The picture provided above shows what he might have looked like  two years ago at age 65  through the aging process of today’s technological photographic lens.  This perhaps is too generous a picture of the rock star who was always putting mind-expanding drugs in his body and washing them down with plenty of liquor.

I suspect he might be more balding and obese.  Thus his use of products like Grecian Formula and ROGAINE®, along with pharmaceuticals that deal with characteristics of obesity like high blood pressure and diabetes would be part of his daily regimen.  Of course we’re assuming he would make enough off of his royalties and income from an occasional nostalgic tour to sustain a lifestyle that he was comfortable with.  However, if somehow that were not the case then he could be dependent on a social security stipend (provided he paid into it all those years his career was successful) and the benefits of health insurance supplied by Medicare

We might also see him supplement his income by doing ads for Attends®  Fitted Briefs while he’s on-stage rhythmically gyrating a sassy but sagging ass that so many women flushed over in his younger days.  Would he be sporting around in a power chair from the Scooter store?

I poke fun at the physical conditions that evolve as we age but you must have a sense of humor to see that we’ve become somewhat like that generation that once shook their heads at us and made asinine comments like “rock and roll has got to go”.  Morrison’s boyish image may have not remained but had he lived to celebrate his 68th birth this December I’m sure we would have seen him belt out Light my Fire with little effort on a PBS “Oldies but Goodies” marathon as well as mesmerize us with the engrossing “Riders in the Storm

There may never be another era in rock and roll quite like that of the 1960’s and the early 70’s or captivating vocalists like Jim Morrison, but music is something that breaks down age barriers, a “special friend” Morrison would refer to it as in his, “When the Music’s Over” – uniting us all and making us feel eternally young.  The body may become broken but the spirit is still aflame in those who reflect back today what it was like to be at a Doors concert and watch Jim Morrison go into a trance like state and lift us all to a transcended place where we could “break on through to the other side.”

Of course today we would have to do so after taking Fish Oil supplements for a healthy heart and glucosamine and chondroitin tabs to be better able to flex our joints to endure the tempo of that time.  But for those sporting hearing aids, you could put them in your pocket for a brief time.  The decibel levels will compensate for any hearing loss it may have cost you at a younger age.



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers