In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one.

“Starting”? What, this guy’s catching on to the phenomenon only now? Sheesh. I’ve been blogging about it for years. Back in 2003, the year I started blogging, I noted the cause as being:

When we gain something, we tend to believe it is earned, not stolen; when we lose something, we do feel that a deserved reward has been taken from us. Similarly, white men are used to a superior position, and believe it is their due; when the scales are made more balanced, it feels to them as if something they have earned is being unfairly stolen and given to someone who does not deserve it.

Whites in general, up until the 60’s at least, were far disproportionately advantaged; they had more wealth, more power, more influence, more everything relative to a balanced norm. And while no one acknowledged it, it was clear that the advantage was taken, not earned.

Minorities were not underachievers; they were, like the term or not, oppressed. Most family lines started from literally nothing in this country, and were denied most opportunities open to whites; they received substandard education, and were constantly discriminated against and shut out, a situation that lasted openly for a century after slavery was ended, and has continued more quietly since.

But to a white person, who had indeed worked hard all of his life, the idea that any of his position or status was due to others being actively kept down was considered insulting. Racism was rationalized and/or committed out of sight, distanced from the positive achievements of white individuals. Few whites would ever know they got a position because a minority was turned down out of their field of view, by an individual who did so because of race but would never admit to it.

No, whites felt they had what they had because it was rightfully theirs. Their race, their religion, their views, all naturally dominant. So when it started being less than dominant, there was no other explanation than that it was being stolen from them. Because if it weren’t, that meant their position in life wasn’t 100% honestly earned, and that was not something they would consider.

It helped that while the unfair elements that helped them were so easily dismissed, and yet even the weak and partial systems of redress, such affirmative action regulations and legislative & court-ordered quotas, were not only visible but so easily vilified. Over the past 40 years, little if any racism in matters of record is overtly committed, and so is deniable as a cause (we are, after all, a “color blind” society now, and any accusation of racism is vehemently and automatically denied as an unfair charge no matter how outrageous the offense), and so whites can act as it there was nothing helping them at all.

Minorities are told that any achievement they make must be viewed as tainted if there is a chance that any equalling program played even a small role in their achievements, but few if any whites ever insist that they must feel the same way themselves about racial discrimination or past advantages ever being a factor in their achievements. So we have the mindset that there is little or no racism by whites, but that there is a good deal of “reverse racism” that subjugates them.

Whites have started to see their supremacy slip, and can only conclude that it is being stolen, and so they are oppressed. Christianity is naturally dominant (didn’t you know that everything we are as a country owes its origins to Christianity?) and so Christianity not being allowed into every last crevice is persecution.

It’s hard being a white Christian male. We suffer so.

The iPods, perhaps, had to be reworked to keep ahead of the iPhone’s shadow, and there’s some pretty cool stuff–a lot of it for people who don’t want the phone.

iTunes 10 looks OK, but really it’s all about Ping. It’s a question as to whether it will actually take off, but frankly, it looks like a no-brainer. Me, I’m not so centered on my music, and I tend to stay with what I’ve had for some time. But I can see a lot of people doing this, and more significantly, use it as an engine to sell music. Bands can use it to popularize their music, and for people who are really into music, it’ll be with them quite a lot. Will it come close to Facebook or Twitter? If anything can, it probably will.

Between these products, it’s not a far stretch to say that Apple is keeping a pretty solid lock on the hold they have on the market by now.

But the potentially big thing is Apple TV. I didn’t used to want it. Now I kinda do. It’s affordable enough, and looks so versatile about content that I’d love to be able to have it there. My only problem is that I live in Japan, which is a crummy place for video content, alas. But even with that–and so much of what the product does closed off to me–I’m still thinking about this.

This could be Apple’s chance to finally have their TV box take off.

FInally, just a quick word about Apple’s streaming webcast: I like it. Not perfect–at some points, it sputtered and blacked out for a minute at a time, but it gave a great picture, high quality, despite streaming live–Apple is doing some pretty nice things with video. It looked perfect in its 850 x 480 window, and almost as good full-screen. Below are some screen shots, displayed here at 500 pixels, but they’re full-screen (1440 x 900) screenshots; click to see the full images. And it’s late, so good night!

The mosque controversy is a struggle between the reckless and the prudent, between the dim-witted and the progressive. But we’re not the reckless radicals they wish for. No, liberals span the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotyping, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church, your grocery store–that’s us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinary people. War heroes, sports idols, U.S. Presidents, and movie stars.

But the screeching hyperbole leveled at liberals has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile and confrontational and disrespectful on both sides they have forgotten that we are first Americans. I am asking all of us, on both sides, to take one step back from the edge, than another step and another… however many it takes to get back to the place where we are all Americans. Different…different, imperfect, diverse, but one nation, indivisible.

This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop, because so much more connects us than that which divides us because tragedy has been, and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can’t become an ax for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction. When an isolated, terrible event like 9/11 occurs, a group is chosen for blame. Right now, it’s American Muslims. Why? Because their story needs a villain. They want someone to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief. To provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food.

The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all to often bloom on fresh graves. I remember a better day, where no one dared politicize or profiteer on trauma. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do. But today, carnage comes with a catchy title, splashy graphics, regular promos and a reactionary passage of legislation. Reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles as news anchors race to drench their microphones with the tears of victims.

Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn’t be brought to you by sponsors. That’s pornography. It trivializes the tragedy it abuses. It abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commonplace. And Muslims are being cast as the villain. That is not their role in American society, and they should not be forced to play it.

Our mission should be to remain a steady beacon of strength and support for the First Amendment. We cannot, we must not let tragedy lay waste to the most rare, and hard-won human right in history. A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Reactions? –Though if you have a pat answer, hold back and give others a chance to express themselves thoughtfully.

The mosque — which is still two years away from being completed — has sparked protests in the city of Murfreesboro. There have also been other acts of vandalism: A sign marking the site of the future building was spray-painted with “Not welcome,” and then later broken in half.

Sbenaty expressed shock over the atmosphere in a town he’s lived in for 30 years. For most of that time, he said, the community has been extremely supportive and welcoming. Even after Sept. 11, 2001, he said, neighbors came up to him and said, “Please do not feel scared. We know your religion has nothing to do with this.”

“It’s a wide shift, and a shock,” he told TPM. “It’s just mind-boggling.”

Sbenaty, who is also a member of the Middle East Center at Middle Tennessee State, pinpointed the shift to the 2008 elections and allegations that President Obama is a Muslim.

Interesting that the major shift was not the NYC mosque but the whole movement that preceded it; not too much difference, as the Obama Muslim thing and the NYC mosque Muslim thing are artifacts of the same political campaign and mindset. Of course, despite the shift happening with 2008, the anti-Muslim sentiments have exploded with the NYC mosque outrage, thus we got the arson and vandalism spree at the mosque site and against the company doing construction for it in Tennessee. And the NYC cab driver stabbing, and the turban-wearing man being punched out, and so on.

But hey, right wing, if it helps get votes this November, by all means, keep spewing rabid hate. Maybe you’ll get lucky and lynchings will start up again. Can’t make an omelette and all that, right?

Not too long ago, there was a bicycle sweep at our apartment complex. This happens in Japan from time to time. In many places in Japan, bicycles are, if not a disposable item, certainly one that depreciates quickly and is forgotten about. Parked bicycle congestion is rampant, with people having bikes but either choosing semi-permanent parking places, or abandoning them outright, in the damnedest locations. If you see any group of parked bicycles in Japan (except for carefully regulated and attended lots, especially near train stations), odds are that half of them are covered with dust and have flat tires.

It seems that everybody has bikes, but most people don’t use them most of the time, and eventually just forget about them. Sachi and I are of the maintaining group–we have ‘em and use ‘em. Not so with others. It’s sometimes frustrating, in fact, trying to find a parking space, but most are taken up by grungy old wrecks that obviously haven’t been touched for a year or two, and would require serious maintenance before being ridden again.

That is undoubtedly why the complex had this roundup, likely a regular thing every few years. First, they tagged the bikes where they were parked, noting that if the owner did not remove the tag, the bike itself would be removed. This was already in progress when we moved in. They gave everyone notice and left this going for some time, so that everyone could see what was up and make their move if they so wished.

After a certain time, they took all the bikes which were still tagged and moved them to the place pictured above. Yep–every single one of those bikes is a throwaway. They left that pile, impossible to miss, out there in the middle of the complex for a few weeks, giving owners one last chance to wade in and reclaim their bike. (I never asked if it was kosher to just take one for yourself or not; probably not, I’d guess.)

Now, the bicycle parking areas are much more open. But they’re already filling up again, and all too many bikes that remain are still covered with a layer of undisturbed dust and resting on flattened, airless tires.

Ah, Japan.

“Freedom” and “Liberty” are interesting subjects to examine, as their definitions seem to be highly subjective. Looking up dictionary definitions of the two, one might see them as synonymous–the ability to act as one pleases without external restraints. The lines are blurred, the definitions shift.

“Freedom” describes the power to do what you want without others acting to restrain you; this is limited only by the potential of your actions to harm others, the classic “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” In Benen’s example, gay marriage serves well to define this: two people of the same gender making a social contract to love, honor, respect, and support each other harms no one–in fact, only helps people, and serves if anything to strengthen society by strengthening the individuals. Others acting to thwart this act of love and support could serve as a classic example of the opposite of freedom. This exists in contrast to, and really completely externally to, what is allowed within past definitions of the institution–definitions which have changed so radically over time that any attempt to restrict marriage upon the basis of the past becomes a practice in hypocritical self-indulgence, of cherry-picking morality to suit one’s bigotry.

“Liberty” is often considered a natural right, the state of being free, but also is commonly associated with having rights to act freely in relation to the society in which you live. Certainly if there is a liberty we have claim to in our country, it is the liberty to believe as we will, to worship or not as we wish, and not be restricted or hindered by society or the state in the free expression of that belief. Again, Benen’s example is well-chosen; the people who wish to build that community center, mosque and all, should be allowed to do so even if it were directly across the street from Ground Zero instead of a couple of blocks away. They are at liberty to do so; trying to stop them is a restriction of that liberty. Allowing them to do so honors the victims of 9/11 at the highest order, as it perfectly exemplifies the principles upon which the nation is founded; but even that is a side point to the fact that liberty means they can believe what they wish and worship where they please. Again, the only restraint is where the expression of that liberty deprives others of theirs, by causing harm or restraining others, and the mosque does not do that. Any crass or slanderous analogies of harmful acts to this one would simply express ignorance and bias.

Where Benen seems to have reached not far enough is in exemplifying “opportunity”; certainly, having the opportunity to access affordable health care is one. Frankly, anyone who argues that private health care, health care for profit, which skims at minimum 30% off the top and works its hardest to deny and cheat and steal, is better, cheaper, or more ‘efficient’ (efficient in terms of serving the patient) is, to put it bluntly, a moron. Just ask any senior-citizen Tea Party member if they’d prefer private health insurance over Medicare; they’ll tell you which is better. They’re not morons, just hypocrites. But “opportunity” is much more than just health care. It’s a chance at the American Dream. Of owning a home–but that’s become a money game, filled with predators who, free of regulation and policing, have stolen that opportunity from too many of our number. Opportunity is the chance to get a meaningful, productive job for decent compensation–but the current conservative mindset is intent on maximizing profit for shareholders and depriving the worker of every opportunity possible. Opportunity means getting a fair and equal education–but the localization of education, not to mention its defunding at all levels and the skyrocketing costs of higher education, robs most Americans of what is considered one of our most fundamental opportunities.

The real and unavoidable conclusion here is that opportunities are best served when provided or regulated by the state, as ‘free market’ methods to key services simply throw the doors open to inequality, unrestricted greed, and savage predation. In this way, public health care is, in fact, one good example of a true American opportunity–being fought and quashed by the fearful throngs of the small-minded.

Benen’s example of “values” comes from a similarly rich field, but this one is an excellent choice. Separation of Church and State is one of our most fundamental values, essential to religious liberty and freedom. Only the most unobservant or intentionally ignorant could fail to recognize the fact that where a system of belief merges with state, religion suffers horrifically. For in the end, only one belief system will prevail, and it will then act to mercilessly quash all others. So many Americans are willing to see this marriage because it is their religion they see as married to the state, and they feel fine with quashing the rights of others in this regard. But ask any Christian if they believe that official state atheism under Stalin was a fine idea; I doubt they’d agree. My grandfather, a Spanish Republican, believed in the freedom of religious liberty, but had to flee Spain after the fascists elevated the Church of Spain to power, oppressing all other beliefs, including all other Christian beliefs. What the church-and-staters fail to recognize is that Christianity is hardly monolithic; which sect prevails? The answer: probably not yours. Prepare to suffer, like those who came to America roughly four hundred years ago to escape the persecution at the hands of their Christian brethren.

The claim is that separation of church and state has “gone too far,” but this is false victimhood; religion is everywhere and prospers just fine, it is only limited in very narrow confines seen as great only because they are wildly exaggerated and emphasized by those in evangelistic fervor, craving to fill every last crevice with a dominant faith, and refusing to recognize that entanglement of church and state is not a freedom, but a vital threat to that freedom.

James Madison, primary author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, made it very clear: “Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” Nor was this Madison’s only reference to the value; find here a long list of references to exactly this principle. However, the fundamentalist and right-wing crowds see history through a fog of their own bias. They quote statements of faith by various historical figures and equate them to professions arguing for the merging of church and state, as if Madison’s values were somehow false or non-existent. They belittle those who would fight even the smallest entanglements between church and state as spiteful pettiness, and then turn around and claim that these exact same incursions justify full marriage of church and state.

The fact is, as Madison wisely saw, perfect separation of church and state–secularism, not atheism–is the only true path to religious freedom. That is perhaps our most proud, honorable, principled, fair and priceless values. And it is being trashed by selfish hypocrites who aggrandize themselves in cloaks of fraudulent persecution, who ironically work to defeat themselves but are just too shallow-minded to realize it.

Benen’s example of sacrifice is also spot-on. Back in WWII, people sacrificed nobly and severely. They passionately collected materials to be used in the war effort, selflessly and patriotically went without meat or sugar so that these could be diverted to the troops, and did so much else to give to their country so they could secure the future of their children. But now we have despicable faux-patriots, people who clamor for war but will not serve; people who claim to support the troops but then mindlessly put them in harm’s way with inadequate provisions while cutting benefits to them and their families back home; people who drape themselves in the flag but do not even understand the sacrifices it represents. People who use debt and deficit as political weapons of the moment, who now scream about their danger, and yet cannot bring themselves to list what must be cut, and whine endlessly about how the super-rich deserve to inherit every penny of what they did not earn and remain free even from tax levels lower than at just about any time in recent history. Sacrifice means giving up a great deal so that all may prosper. But the current clarion call from the dexter is “I’ve got mine, so go fuck yourself.” The right wing today, the child of Reagan’s “greed is good” Me Generation, is the absolute antithesis of sacrifice.

And about truth? Let’s face it, the last thing the Tea Partiers and the right wing in general today are about is “truth.” They scream that the president is a communist, socialist, and fascist, without even the wit to understand that these descriptions are contradictory. They mock global climate change because it’s cold outside where they are, then go mute when heat waves cover the globe. They smear opponent after opponent with bald-faced lies and doctored videos, only shifting focus to new smears when the original lies are brought to light. They never, ever acknowledge when their lies are disproved, they simply move on to the next lie, often returning to ones repeatedly exposed as such. They sketch lurid and self-contradictory conspiracies on chalkboards, or else believe the most pathetically absurd of claims, so long as it suits their ideology. They condemn the president for doing things they themselves promoted only shortly before. The list goes on and on and on and on.

For the right, it’s about one thing and one thing only: power. That’s all that matters. The ability to control; and since they cannot win power honestly, they do it any way they can–and often state it exactly that way, we’ll do whatever works for us. Sadly, they have now latched on to the worst of realizations: the power to destroy a thing is the power to control it. And they are destroying with abandon. Truth is simply the first casualty.

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious men to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.

Fear and hate. Phobos and Deimos. Tools of the conservative trade. Hallelujah, and pass the rifles. The black Muslim communist is destroying our country, time for a Second Amendment solution.

This is about “freedom.”

Well, I’m certainly pro-freedom, and as far as I can tell, the anti-freedom crowd struggles to win votes on Election Day. But can they be a little more specific? How about the freedom for same-sex couples to get married? No, we’re told, not that kind of freedom.

This is about a fight for American “liberties.”

That sounds great, too. Who’s against American “liberties”? But I’m still looking for some details. Might this include law-abiding American Muslims exercising their liberties and converting a closed-down clothing store into a community center? No, we’re told, not those kinds of liberties.

This is about giving Americans who work hard and play by the rules more opportunities.

I’m all for that, too. But would these opportunities include the chance for hard-working Americans to bring their kids to the doctor if they get sick, even if the family can’t afford insurance? No, we’re told, not those kinds of opportunities.

This is about the values of the Founding Fathers.

I’m a big fan of the framers’ generation, who created an extraordinary nation. But if we’re honoring their values, would this include their steadfast commitment to the separation of church and state? No, we’re told, not those values.

This is about patriotic Americans willing to make sacrifices for the good of their country.

That sounds reasonable; sacrifices can be honorable. But if we’re talking about patriots willing to sacrifice, does that mean millionaires and billionaires can go back to paying ’90s-era tax rates (you know, when the economy was strong)? No, we’re told, not those kinds of sacrifices.

This is about a public that, at long last, wants to hear the truth from those who speak in their name.

What a great idea. Maybe that means we can hear the truth about global warming? About the fact that health care reform wasn’t a socialized government takeover? About Social Security not going bankrupt? About how every court ruling conservatives don’t like doesn’t necessarily constitute “liberal judicial activism”? No, we’re told, not those truths.

The point is aptly made: this new political movement is not about values or principles, it is about narrowly defined values and principles. Narrowly defined so as to only apply to specific cases they wish to defend, otherwise screw it.

Take the Constitution, for example. They say that they love it, cherish it, defend it, want it to be valued and followed. But, when you get down to the details, only certain parts of it. Only the parts they like. And only in the way that they interpret it to be.

The First Amendment, for example, is vital, the way they read it: freedom of religion, but that part about “establishment,” and what Madison and Jefferson, two of the most significant figures related to the document, called a perfect separation, a wall of separation–screw that, that’s some fascist-liberal myth to attack religion. We’re sure they meant something else. And free speech, that’s what is infringed when people don’t like what we say, that’s what we’re being robbed of when our words have consequences. But only ours–when others say things we don’t like, we feel free to clobber them, because we have the right to speak back. But not them. That’s how it works–I read it right there, on the label.

The Second Amendment, holiest of all holies–this, to many of the Beck-Palin-Tea crowd, is the raison d’etre for the whole bill of rights, and aside from the religion part of the First Amendment, really the only thing worth paying attention to.

The Third Amendment they tend to ignore, not because it’s out of date, but because it shows that an amendment can be out of date, far too proximate to the Second Amendment for comfort.

The Fourth through Eighth Amendments? The bad aftertaste of the first two amendments. Criminal rights? (Never “rights of the accused”–we don’t arrest innocent people!) Best those be swept into the dustbin. Except, of course, until someone we like is found to have committed a crime, then they’re handy for getting them out of jail.

The Ninth Amendment? Dare not speak its name! That harlot of amendments, giver of substance to all kinds of civil rights we do not approve of! Privacy? What an abomination! How would we ever meddle with the rights of others if they have privacy?

And the Tenth Amendment? A handy tool to get issues we approve of handled at the state level when they don’t go our way at the federal level. Except, of course, when the states get uppity, and then the federal government rules all.

Yes, the Constitution and all of its amendments, we love it and believe in it, and damn that communist Obama for saying it’s not a perfect document! It is perfect!

Well, except for those parts we want to amend. Like the 14th Amendment. Oh yeah, and the 16th Amendment, Jesus, let’s not forget to repeal that one. And the 17th–what were they thinking, people voting for senators? And the 22nd, that’s no good when we have presidents like Reagan! For Democrats, we should keep it around, I suppose. And–hey, you know what? Just give us that thing, let us rewrite it to suit our current ideology, OK? Lessee, cross out those ones… add amendments to make sure those courts can’t stop religion from being in schools and courts and government, and to ban flag burning and gay marriage and abortion and income tax, and to ensure God stay in the Pledge and the classroom, an’ oh yeah, let’s not forget to add a whole slew of “Victim’s rights,” ‘coz they don’t have none, and that would really gut the 4th-8th in a way we like. What else is it we don’t like recently? Oh yeah, TARP! No government ownership of private companies. And let’s not forget Bread and Circuses, so how about making it harder to raise taxes, and letting people vote to override Congress because that worked so well with Prop 13, and presidents can’t sign international treaties because, Obama, damn!

Of course, by doing all of this, we’re actually protecting the Constitution, keeping it the way it’s supposed to be, not the way those crypto-fascist commie librulz want us to think it is.

I think there may be some link to the fundamentalist Christian lines of thought in here–the ones that allow a person to say that the Bible is a perfect document, every word from the lips of God himself, and then to proceed to selectively interpret and ignore various parts of that document so it just happens to come out saying what they, in the end, would like it to say. Forget its history, forget the mistranslations, forget the political, historical, and cultural background that got worked into the document.

This is pretty much how conservatives today approach the Constitution: romanticize, edit, ignore, and otherwise re-interpret the original intent; pay attention only to the parts that back up what we agree with, and otherwise ignore, deem moot, or amend the parts which say things we don’t like.

And then stand up and say that we are the champions of the “original” document as we say it is, using the coin of historical reverence to proclaim our mangled version of this document as holy writ that must be honored and obeyed.

As Benen pointed out, it’s not about values. It’s about picking and choosing.

If you’ve lived in Japan, you could not have failed to see this. In August, when the heat and humidity are turned up beyond high, the two- to three-inch cicadas (“semi” in Japanese) are everywhere, and are quite loud. In traditional insect fashion, they buzz then mate and die. So you see first this, above, and then just parts after the ants get to them.

Of course, they run low on gas the last few days and so many of these bugs are still alive while prone like this. I gave this fellow the obligatory “you dead?” nudge with my foot, and he took the momentum I offered and righted himself, with a few insectoid thank-you clicks.

Find a nasty close-up of the fellow here (full-res, but cropped), if you swing that way. Me, I can put up with a lot of stuff, but insects tend to get to me. The bigger they are, the worse they are. And these cicadas are sizable bugs. Snakes and frogs and other amphibians and reptiles I think are cool; Sachi weirds out when I catch the local salamanders, which I think are cute as hell. But the cicadas are too much for me.

Recently, at their peak buzzing fervor, they started coming to my home-office window at night. Makes sense–I stay up after midnight, it’s a big frosted-glass window all lit up like an insect welcome mat. So it begins when you hear them flutter up and then bump against the glass. And these bugs have mass, it’s like a small stone hitting your window, kind of loud. Flutter clickclick flutter BONK flutter BONK BONK clickclick flutter. Then they start their trademark high-pitched, very very loud mating-call buzz.

The other night I was trying to get some work done and they started up. So I went out with an umbrella to poke at them until they went away. Problem is, these things, in classic bug form, are attracted to light as if it held them by a bungee tether. And this night, it turned out there were three of them. Just by approaching, all three started flying about–golf-ball-sized buzzing insect horrors, all blurry wings and sharp edges and too many chitinous spindly legs and bulging thoraxes, three of them flying fast and randomly about. Please, kill me now. I run for cover till they settle, then come back and poke at them with the umbrella, before they spook and start the process again, whereupon I bravely and boldly squeak like a little girl and run for safety. Repeat this about a dozen times until two of three have settled elsewhere.

But that one last one is stubborn. Another dozen attempts and he sticks to my window area like glue. When I finally get him out, where does he go? Our recessed front door alcove. Where he again refuses to leave–and now I’m trapped outside my own apartment by a bug. If I try to sneak past him, he could easily just fly in the door, and then God help me.

After a full 20 minutes or so outside, I finally get past him (he slowly crawled away when I left him alone), and went back to work.

Egads, I hate bugs.

Wait, didn’t somebody promise to restore “honor and dignity” some eight years ago? Oh yeah, him. Well, I suppose that if Beck is now trying to restore honor, then Bush must have only been able to restore dignity.

Don’t you just love it that in explaining his “Restoring Honor” rally, Beck lies rather transparently? His rally is not only being held at the Lincoln Memorial, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his historic “I have a Dream” speech, but it is being held on the 47th anniversary of that event. But Beck claims that it’s “only a coincidence,” and that the date was chosen to fit people’s schedules only. Yeah. And he claims that the rally, featuring him and Sarah Palin, with the Tea Party in large presence, is “nonpolitical.” Again: yeah. Very honorable there, Beck.