Education in the United States

Problems and Weaknesses in the American Education System

Education in America-- is it a bird? Is it a plane?

Destroying Public Education in America

This is an issue that brings me right to the border of going linear! I have a lot at stake in this American educational system. Some is my own grandchildren ages 3 to 12. Some is my belief that our future as a nation is only assured through doing the best we can to get an educated populace.

Hey, I benefited from such a system. Today I hear many old folks who did also, but they don't give a damn about the kids of today. They blame the teachers. They blame the lefties. They blame taxes. In the end, they just don't want to pay for a good system and do like the idea of privatizing education for the kids they regard as the elites and to hell with the rest.

When I spend time with my daughter and daughter-in-law, two young women with three children currently in public schools (one in preschool), I hear their stories of what they are seeing in the public schools and feel as though I am hearing from those on the front lines of a battle for our nation's future. They both volunteer and put in long hours in the school systems to try and help more than their own children.

There is a lot of talk, mostly from righties, about how public education isn't worth it and how we should end it by effectively taking tax resources from it. The people who say that often don't work in the schools or even have kids there. They really don't give a damn about anything but themselves. Anyone who tells them they pay too much in taxes, that's their guy/gal.

Without public education, with vouchers where parents can send their children to any private school they choose, our public system is gone; and my tax dollars (yes I do pay taxes) will be going to teach religious concepts I find abominable. For the children who have parents who care, who are smart enough to get their kids into a school that works, it might look like it's a good idea. It leaves behind everybody else, but those who say that is just fine are also the very ones who wave flags about this nation and how great it is. Who do they think this nation is?

Most people who find fault with public education had the benefit of one. They received reasonable prices for college tuition but that's the problem. They got theirs and don't care about anybody else.

In 2001, when Bush began the No Child Left Behind, he had the support of Ted Kennedy; so bi-partisan, right? Well whatever was going through Kennedy's head, that program is a shaft to educating students for a future where they need to be able to use logic. If all they will need to keep jobs is to pass form tests, well maybe it'll be okay but does anybody believe that? This system is built around rote learning, standardized tests, requiring teachers to teach to the test, and then assessing results by a standard. It's just fine if all you want is a future of zombies. Which some do want.

All the teachers I know feel that their time now to really instruct has been reduced. This has worked well for those who hate public education, hate teachers and want to see the system fail. The question is how well does it work for the rest of us?

If we cannot educate future engineers, those who can invent products we can manufacture, if we ignore science as having no value, if we put down intellectuals, and think the only thing that determines someone's value is the size of their investment portfolio, I guess it's just fine.

If you think that, then you aren't thinking because our only hope for a democracy is educating a thinking populace. For some, a lack of educated people is not a bad idea. They just need serfs. You ready to be one or see your grandchild be one? Education used to be the way up for the lower and middle classes. No more?

As for me, I am really angry and hope that a lot of Americans will be also because it isn't about forgetting public education and letting it disappear. It's about making it work! Yes, not every kid can be a doctor, but they can all learn how to read, to understand history and what it takes to get along in our culture. Education is the base for that.

The Company Men

Since I have been doing a lot of thinking and talking about what is going wrong with our country, what is impacting us to the point of bringing us to where our manufacturing is disappearing, I want to recommend this film from Netflix-- The Company Men.

It's a well done story of the human impact of jobs disappearing, how some are being asked to downsize (which means fired) while others are growing wealthier and wealthier. It stars Tommy Lee Jones, Ben Affleck, Kevin Costner, and Chris Cooper and through the stories of four men (Costner plays a construction boss), it gives us a window into what many are experiencing today. The men who lost their jobs weren't failing at them. It was a constant need to feed the stock market's expectations.

If you aren't someone who has experience in corporate America, don't hear real people talking about what they have had happen, you may not realize how close to life this movie is. It has impacted my life all my marriage and now also has my son in that world.

The thing is some would say well who cares, the guys made too much money. I suggest their caring should come as part of understanding the impact it has to every part of the economy when jobs disappear, when people don't have the money to buy anything including food. When manufacturing disappears in our country, for how long can the stock market be the whole criteria for economic health? Give this movie a try if you aren't in a corporation and haven't really understood what is happening and why.

Conservatives claim they have the best ideas, and the country should do whatever they claim will help it get on its feet-- which is generally lower taxes. What evidence do we have for their claims?

How Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality

Watch the film, read the article above and if you are a Republican, defending Republican values, tell me what you think the party is doing that will help ordinary Americans. Talk is cheap but it's ignorant and stupid to try and claim that all we need is to lower taxes on the wealthiest. That will NOT get jobs in manufacturing back. I'd like any positive examples of Republican politicians showing any evidence at all that they have plans for this problem. Everything I hear from them shows their solutions are to give more to the wealthiest and to hell with everybody else. They don't believe in government and are doing all they can to make it fail.

Someday somebody else will be you and me. All I hear from right wing politicians is some kind of mystical concept that if we just lower taxes on the highest earners, everything will be fine. Eight years of Bush trying it and now Obama extending it should have shown it wasn't working but it's the mantra right wing voters buy. Trickle down. Well I'll tell you what trickles down won't support a family and if we don't value real manufacturing in this country, we are done as the stock market won't stay up forever when it's dependent on financial shenanigans or products made overseas. Who buys the stuff here when they don't have jobs?

Now I can see situations where lowering taxes to encourage manufacturing, encourage investment in certain things, what I would call targeted taxation, that makes sense but blanket lowering them with no plan, no incentive, well do you still believe in the tooth fairy? It has as much chance of being real.

And for Republicans who claim it will work, explain why it didn't? The government still takes too much from the wealthiest is the only answer I have heard during a time when the rich's tax rate is the lowest its ever been, where nations with much higher tax rates are doing better economically. It's time for Republicans to put up or admit that they were wrong and taxes need to be targeted or the rich will only take-- which is where we are now. Here's the truth of tax rates:

How much lower can taxes go?

For those who don't care about anybody but themselves, who maybe have no future generation they care about, it isn't bad to hear government can't do anything right so why should I give them any of my money. The short-sightedness of this bunch is beyond communicating with. What about everybody else?

If people cannot see that a good government is worth paying for and when it's not good, figure out how to fix it, for that bunch, their selfishness is beyond my comprehension. I suggest they quit talking about how much they love this nation because they don't have a clue what it even is and sure aren't willing to sacrifice what earlier generations did. I wash my hands of them!

As for Democrats, the wimps, don't deserve a defense and I won't make one. They had their shot at it and they made it obvious they are either also on the payroll, most likely, or simply cowards.

The illogic of the right

Right wingers love the following quote from 1770 by Alexander Fraser Tytler (sometimes credited to later interpretations of it byAlexis de Tocqueville specifically about the United States). Righties use it often as a way to prove our country is heading the wrong direction. You have all heard at least a version of it, but have you thought about how those who use it limit their application for it.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

Here's the thing that I find amazing. First right wingers want their candidates to constantly tell them how exceptional they are and woe unto the candidate who doesn't do it repeatedly. Once is not enough.

But then they find fault with the very government they claim is weak, unable to do anything right, and should be downsized to the point where it only does the things they particularly like. The United States is exceptional except for half its people (or even more) and not at all its government? It's exceptional for a document written at its beginning which has limited information for today but somehow is nearly gospel to a certain bunch.

Ask a rightie what should be cut in terms of spending and it's easy for them-- anything they don't personally use, know that they benefit from, are ignorant about what it does, and never about something that might hurt them. So nothing about cutting the military and a lot about cutting education for the masses. Why should the masses need educating? And yet the very point by de Tocqueville was that a democracy can only survive with an educated populace-- and that doesn't mean just the elites.

Then comes this paradox. While they see that quote as meaning the rabble, the poor, the weak, they do not appear to see it being about the rich and powerful using their money to influence voters and issues. Hence they don't fight for an end to oil subsidies but will fight for an end to anything for the poor. The poor don't need it but the rich do?

Righties don't see the rich in the above quote. Whatever the rich have, they deserve, and they would never abuse the country or not do what is best for us all *gagging*. The rich value clean air and water, hence need no regulations. They also do not need any financial regulations because the rich, well they'd never take what they didn't deserve; BUT not so where it comes to the poor or even the middle. Those folks don't know what's good for us all. They are the ones who prove it isn't good to have a democracy because they will constantly vote themselves more benefits. The rich, oh no way would they do that!

*taking a deep breath and saying a few ohhhmmmmmsssss* because I am really angry and the more time I spend with my grandchildren, wondering what their future will be, the madder I get!

Does the United States want a theocracy?

The interesting question for Republican voters in 2012 will be whether they want a right wing religious extremist*, someone who has stated the United States would be better under a theocracy**.

A certain percentage of Americans would agree with that, but others might not be eager for a theocracy but would vote for a candidate who said what they wanted to hear as they ignored that person's religious zeal, or as it was toned down for the campaign.

So how popular will Michele Bachmann be as she runs for the Republican nomination? And if she wins that, how will the numbers play out in a general election-- assuming that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee (not a given) who also says he is a Christian but at the other end of the religious spectrum***?

Bachman's unrivaled extremism where it comes to religion

Keep in mind, as best I can understand this lady, she is the real deal. She believes this way. This isn't about getting the vote. She has lived her life following the dictates of her religion following teachers like Francis Schaeffer (who I also read back in the days). Bachmann isn't a hypocrite about it. This is her life truth which makes her the logical successor to Mike Huckabee for the religious right.

Palin, who might be more popular, cannot really stand up to Bachmann if there is a debate between them as clearly Bachmann knows her doctrines, is very intelligent, and can argue a viewpoint consistently. None of this you betcha for her.

Now I do not know if she is a christianist or a Christian because I haven't seen enough of her discussion on how she can get past the commands of Jesus for instance to feed the poor or heal the sick; but if a voter is a rock hard, religious fundamentalist, who has their mind set on doctrine put out by religious leaders of the last say 50 years, she's a logical choice.

The issue though is how many Americans do believe the Bible is the absolute last word for what should be done regarding government? The world does seem to be in a time of division with those who have turned totally from religion, such as myself (and yes, that means not New Age either) and then those who believe religion dictates every choice possible (and that's not just Christians). I think the religious types are in far greater numbers-- if you count all religions anyway. I think for an atheist to be elected president is as unlikely as a gay at this point anyway.

A theocracy demands a leader who can govern according to a god's dictates. That leader must either get messages from God or believe all the answers are in a holy scripture written or dictated by god, which they have the ability to interpret. Voters who want someone like that, or have a leader, who claims it, will have to evaluate how close they think that person is to God-- and even if they believe in a god, do they think it's how he/she/it operates?

There are those who want to end Democracy in this country because voters don't use good judgment, and want instead a government that governs more like they think it should be done. A god ruled political force would be right up their alley. How big a percentage of Americans is that? At one time I would not have thought the United States would go for it, but recently I read 92% of Americans believe in God. Where does believing in God lead someone?

For some, a theocracy seems to represent security. If a god their god is running things, won't they go better? For those, who think that way, it might be good to look back on the Bush years where he claimed a god his god was running things. How well did that work?

Notes:

*By extremism, I do not mean someone who is violent but rather who takes their religious views to what I consider an extreme level by denying what they see, what science has proven, and they depend instead on their faith. They will deny evolution, science, not worry about global climate change with a god there to tweak things and a possible rapture before it gets too bad. Current religious leaders often help them form their doctrine using bits from their Scriptures to suit their agenda. To me, it is at the extreme end of believing to think that every word in the Bible or any 'holy' doctrine has to be literally true.

** theocracy-- a form of government in which a state is understood as governed by immediate divine guidance especially a state ruled by clergy, or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. God is in short recognized as the head of state.

*** the other end of the spectrum where it comes to say Christianity would be one who read the Bible, tried to live as Christ taught, might belong to a church but as with Reagan may not attend regularly, but might still believe in prayer but not as an absolute must happen way.

Health care in the US

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann and her ilk are delighting their followers with talk of ending Obamacare. None of this socialized medicine for their people. I am not sure who their people are, but here is an interesting article on what is happening to health care in this country under the do-nothing approach from Republicans.

Life Expectancy in U.S. Counties 2011

Of course, that's not a Republican politician's problem. Their problem is keeping the money flowing from people like the Koch brothers who were responsible for getting oil derivatives as a way to make even more billions for themselves. It's working so well for the average American at the pump and actually for Republican politicians who can blame it on Obama instead of any of the actual causes-- and gambling on oil futures is definitely one of the causes.

The question I have is why do ordinary Americans support a system that means many American have no access to routine health care which so many take for granted if they work for the government or big corporations? Or does being against Obamacare mean you don't really give a damn about anybody but yourself and those who promise you money.

More on the Weiner story

Although even here, I don't use language that is considered crude, I feel this story requires it; so if such offends you, quit reading right now.

Since the Anthony Weiner story broke, I have had mixed feelings on whether he should resign, have gone back and forth on my opinion, and this article says well why I am not so sure as some about it. One moment I think yeah he should go. The next I ask-- did this reflect on his job?

Anthony Weiner's holier than thou critics

We know Republican politicians and pundits say he should go (no surprise), but many of them don't say the same thing about Senator David Vitter who did more than cyber sex and who broke a law in doing it. They are helping that offender raise more money to run again. They don't even answer if someone asks them about this discrepancy.

The Democrats say he should go because they are afraid it will impact them in 2012. That's more about selfishness than fairness. It is also possibly because some of them fear their own lives might get an inspection that they cannot safely endure.

So this all brings back something I said after the Clinton scandals. You know we, Democrats, elected Clinton twice even though we knew exactly who he was in terms of sexually. So far as I know, only two women claimed he got out of line with them when they didn't consent to it and he didn't rape or molest them just was disgustingly inappropriate. But we elected him anyway. Why was that do you think?

How many women do you think there are who have never had a man put his hand where it didn't belong, who never had a man say uninvited suggestive things? Of those who had that happen, how many brought charges? If nothing more followed, most women let it go and avoid the creep in the future which is what the women that Clinton made a failed pass at did. Should it have meant he not be elected to an office again? Well Republicans would say yes. There is a reason Democrats don't.

It's because of this little saying I had back then. The language is a bit salty possibly and it can get cruder depending on who I am talking to and how well they tolerate certain words. The mildest version is here and it explains why I would vote for a Weiner over a Bush whether one was sexually pure or not.

Democrats attempt to screw certain women but Republicans attempt to screw us all.

You see it time after time where the Republicans cut taxes on the richest to cut programs on the poorest, where they start wars for secretive reasons and send off many, of the same ones they screwed, to fight them. They don't care about our schools, our freeways, our health programs. They screw us over and over through deregulating banks, environmental controls, taking away liberties in the name of their moral code or safety.

So if doing that is where they get their energy and the Weiners of the world get theirs from sexual interactions with women who are of age and consensual (Democrats draw the line at underage and when it's not consensual), then guess who gets the vote.

With many of the right wing voters, it's the opposite. They don't care what a Republican does to the country, just be sexually pure or get religious absolution from proper penance (who knows what they do after that if they don't get caught again).

This is why Gingrich is running again in the Republican race and feels he has a chance to win (well less today than last week probably). He did wrong, but he got religion and begged forgiveness. He has a beautiful wife and is very happy; but I will say one thing to her-- don't get sick, honey!

Bill Moyers is another of my heroes

Bill Moyers said:

"I think this country is in a very precarious state at the moment. I think, as I say, the escalating, accumulating power of organized wealth is snuffing out everything public, whether it’s public broadcasting, public schools, public unions, public parks, public highways. Everything public has been under assault since the late 1970s, the early years of the Reagan administration, because there is a philosophy that’s been extant in America for a long time that anything public is less desirable than private.

"And I think we’re at a very critical moment in the equilibrium. No society, no human being, can survive without balance, without equilibrium. Nothing in excess, the ancient Greeks said. And Madison, one of the great founders, one of the great framers of our Constitution, built equilibrium into our system. We don’t have equilibrium now. The power of money trumps the power of democracy today, and I’m very worried about it. I said to—and if we don’t address this, if we don’t get a handle on what we were talking about—money in politics—and find a way to thwart it, tame it, we’re in —democracy should be a break on unbridled greed and power, because capitalism, capital, like a fire, can turn from a servant, a good servant, into an evil master. And democracy is the brake on my passions and my appetites and your greed and your wealth. And we have to get that equilibrium back."

I can only add-- Amen!

Soundbites for Idiots

One of the most frustrating aspects to trying to talk to extreme right wing people (those who used to say they were teabaggers [yes, they did and they had hats with tea bags hanging from them] until they found out that had another meaning they didn't like so much and now call themselves tea partiers even though they don't have much of an idea what that meant either regarding what was behind the Boston Tea Party) anyway the most frustrating part of talking to such people is they do not base anything on facts. They rearrange and use things and they have had an expert guide to doing it in Glenn Beck.

So we have a group of people who deny the science of global climate change using a few oil company paid scientists to refute what hundreds of other scientists have said as well as the evidence of their own eyes. Because Romney dared tell the truth about it, Limbaugh declared his candidacy over.

These people, who happen to also be voters, avoid facing facts whenever it doesn't suit their previous agenda. They are fundamentalists whether religious ones or not. They know all they need to know and Sarah Palin is their hero.

An excellent example of this happened recently with those who would deny history if Palin says they should, who will use whatever bits of history they do know to try and fit some current political agenda.

These same people want public schools ended and it's not hard to see why given their lack of respect for education or intelligence. Private schools will teach their children whatever they decree.

These people cheer when a candidate suggests a three page document is all any should ever be on any issue because he's not going to bother to read more than that. They cheer whatever is said that suits what they already believe and deny the rest. Which is why Paul Revere matters right now.

First there is what Sarah Palin said about him:

"He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms by ringing those bells, and makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free."

"You know what? I didn't mess up about Paul Revere. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we're already there. That, 'Hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms."

In my opinion, if she had normal type folks as followers, they would laugh it off saying-- there goes Sarah again; and not feel a need to defend whatever she says as gospel. It also would not require that they stop voting for her to laugh it off; but her zombies (brain's not needed minions) get all their information from one source and have to defend their princess. They don't have a choice in their own minds about defending her because it is also defending themselves. She is "who must be right". If someone asks her what she reads for information that becomes a gotcha question to them also. They are zombies not for their political opinions but because they are mind-numbed and fact challenged.

So because this matters, let's look at this from a historic viewpoint, not a pro NRA one. The British, when Paul Revere rode to warn the colonists according to his own writings, were not out to take the arms of the Americans. Paul Revere's purpose was not to warn the British even if he did get captured by them and at that time tell them the Colonists would resist. The British wanted to police the Colonists, control them, get taxes from them, but coming to their homes to take their guns. Where did she get that?

Every one of us who went to school knows what Revere did and maybe she did too (not sure about that), but what she wanted was a political soundbite that would play with those type of people I mentioned above. So this instead became that he was out there to warn the British to back off and leave us our guns.

Most of the country was going -- say what? But not her followers. They were looking for a way to make this true. They were looking for a way to rewrite Wikipedia to fit it. They will defend it every which way they can because to attack her is to attack them. Their reputation rides on hers which sounds crazy to someone like me who doesn't feel I am Barack Obama but it has to be how that weird faction of the right thinks.

Yes, Revere was captured. Yes, he did tell the British that the colonists were ready to fight them but that was his purpose? That was the important part of that ride instead of warning his friends? Give me a break! And keep in mind there are writings out there about what he himself said he was doing that night.

Why does this matter? Well because these people vote. They are about 1/3 of the Republicans who do vote. It isn't just that Palin doesn't make sense when she talks (unless you are one of hers), it's that they will only vote for someone who says what they want to hear. We could laugh about that when it was listening to a hack like Rush Limbaugh, who wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on his fat butt, but we should not laugh because these people vote and if it is not Palin, it'll be someone just like her because that's all they want in power-- ignorant, arrogant and speaking their language.

These are the same people who are denying global climate change, denying evolution and among them are those who believe dinosaurs existed side by side with men. Despite eight years of evidence, they still think that if they cut taxes more on the wealthiest, more jobs will flow in for everybody else (or they don't believe it and are lying about it).

One final point on that time in our history. There was an English Muster Law of 1572 that actually mandated that the colonists have guns and militias. Palin was trying to imply in her original statement that Revere was trying to warn the Colonists that the British were coming for their guns. NRA donations pour in on that kind of talk; but reality people, those who knew history before the Palinbots try to rewrite it, they know Revere's purpose that night.

Now once the war actually started, that is when the British would have been interested in finding secret arms' caches, but for her to imply that was the purpose for Revere's ride, that her own far right element would try to justify it, that's the thing that should scare Republicans as well as people like me. You could give those people the facts but then they'd just insult you because that's how the game works.

This matters that she is ignorant and that she and many others trying to run right now are trying to twist history to suit their own agendas. But there's a more important reason it matters. These people will defend this woman no matter what she says. They and the Rush Limbaugh addicts simply cannot use facts and it's why we are heading to where we are in this country where if they get enough voters to go along with them we will have a government with no need or use for facts on anything.

Why she said what she did was for a soundbite, to put out a political statement that would appeal to the Limbaugh types who are scared to death that Obama secretly wants their AK47s. Despite him saying nothing of the kind, despite all the evidence of more guns and ease of purchasing high powered weapons than ever, she said it for the ignorant, the fearful, the smug and the ones who will insult anybody who dares to tell them the truth.

Update: This is a link about the tour guide and how he thinks Palin mixed up the Paul Revere story. Frankly what I think is she's someone (and her followers) who always hears what she wants to hear. To me anybody can get mixed up but not anybody will then try to rewrite history to prove they were right.

Sarah's History Flub and How it Happened

I heard a bit of Rush Limbaugh as he tried to justify Sarah Palin this last week. He had one of his usual pseudo experts, like David Barton, on his program to discuss the 'truth' of Paul Revere. This is a lot like the 'experts' he gets to discuss science or anything else. The sad part is those who hear Limbaugh and claim they now know more than any history book or reading of Revere's actual papers because the only experts they respect are those who parrot back what they want to hear. I am more disgusted with them than Palin. Frankly they have had a lot to do with creating her.

Would you vote for him again?

What most of us had come to assume has been admitted by Representative Anthony Weiner. He joins a hall of many many leaders who have done something they are ashamed of and lie to cover it up-- for as long as they can.

If Weiner had told the truth right away, as soon as the photos surfaced, the result of this would be different. He thought he could lie though, somehow thought he could cover it up, and he added that to his list of sins. They often say the cover-up is worse than the crime for these politicians and in a lot of cases, like with Bill Clinton, that turns out to be the case.

Now the question is whether it ends his political career. And that's the question for here. Would you vote for a politician who had done such a thing and lied about it? Some of them resign or say they won't run again. Those who committed a crime particularly, like Eliot Spitzer, pretty much don't have a choice. But what about those that committed a moral sin?

Should he have resigned? Would you vote for someone from your own party, who you had liked very much before you found out he/she had an ego problem like this, was prone to lie when necessary to save his/her bacon or had a sexual addiction? It looks like it was a consensual sort of thing, mutual sexual flirtations with women who were sending him encouragement, BUT it's not nothing. Is it too much in a leader? What should we expect from them in that area? For some, sexual moral behaviors are the most important character issues.

The Ick Factor

Oh my. How the mighty have fallen. I mean me. I don't generally write about salacious sexual issues... Honest, I don't-- even though I might read about them :) So this week-end when I first saw the articles on Anthony Weiner, I didn't remotely think I'd end up writing about it. I mean it's icky.

I can handle an affair, even a Gingrich level affair, better than this. The idea of men or women sending sexually explicit photos to strangers to evidently entice them, why it's just plain icky and not something I'd like to think any politician I respected would do. It's kind of a twisted ego thing that is beyond me.

Years ago I was exploring people profiles on Yahoo. Maybe you've done it. Maybe not. But anyway it said want it to include adult profiles? Now that didn't even occur to me what that would mean. I thought I am an adult; so I said yes, give me those too. Good Lord... ick and double ick. What on earth would make a man or woman want to put out such photos of just one part of their anatomy. I might add these were not clothed which the one supposedly of Weiner was-- barely.

Anyway I have always found the very idea of such to be as I said-- icky. It's not sexy. It's not free spirited. It's just plain weird to think people value one part of their anatomy more than the rest. Let me say that it's not just men who did that. (making my keyboard feel unclean to even write about it).

So why would I write about it? Well because it's beginning to look weirder and weirder. If you have avoided the story and don't want to know more about it, quit reading right here.

The gist of it is that supposedly he was sending this bulging underwear photo to one woman but goofed and sent it to all 40,000 of his followers on Twitter. Incompetent to say the least. It was quickly taken off the site but not before a Weiner critic had conveniently seen and saved it. What a convenient happening and of course, that guy, who was looking for just such a thing to happen, sent it right to Breitbart (who is also high on my ick factor) and who pretty much guarantees to the left that this is a set up.

Except, not so fast. Why is Weiner not going to the police with what he claims is a hacking? This is serious stuff and yet he hasn't done that. He says he doesn't want to talk about it and his denials are looking a tad strange about now. Why does he follow these young women which includes evidently a porn star?

And what the heck is wrong with men today? *Okay I am laughing*

Anyway the last word on this was Stewart which I didn't see last night but found this link online with a video of Stewart's take on it. Very funny but the photo is there if you really didn't want to see it.

Jon Stewart says

Okay basically I don't vote in New York. If I did, well I have to admit that him doing this, if he did and lying about it, might impact my vote depending on who was running against him.

You know, it's not just the ick factor but the ego thing that would get me. How blindly egotistical would he have to be if, knowing how these things come out (even if it had only gone to the one woman it supposedly was intended for), he'd done such a thing? It doesn't really seem to me he's that kind of person from all I have seen... but then how much do we really know about any of these people?

If it's him in the photo (Stewart doesn't think it can be given he has a long term friendship that went back to being young adults and swimming together), I would guess a divorce might not be too far behind as one person knows for sure who it is...

And there's more-- now Weiner is saying he can't say the photo wasn't him... So he has such photos (who on earth would want to take or have such pictures), but just didn't send it this time to that woman?