Returning Soon, in the fall!

This column has lapsed for a while now. I have lots of excuses but won't bore you all with them. Keep an eye on October for a return to Sharp Commentary.

JJ

I'm Ticked, I'm Peeved, But I Am Never P***ed Off

Most petulant peeves are just that: petulant. Little annoyances most of us have that, in the big picture, are of little consequence.

But this one ticks me off more than others, although still probably petty compared to dying from swine flu (oops, H1N1), which would be pretty annoying.

I am speaking of the increasingly common usage in the mainstream, of people saying they are "p***ed off" at something. This word, associated with uh....urinating, is nearly as offensive as its companion word (uh...slang for # 2). For some reason, p***ed is seen in magazines, heard in interviews on broadcast TV and other places where it shouldn't be.

Occasionally, a "star" will utter the word as in "That really p***es me off!" and then quickly says to Leno or Letterman, "Oops, can I say that on TV?" Well, obviously someone thinks they can or it would have been bl**ped. And the English must hear it even more if Chef Gordon Ramsay is illustrative of its use, as he tells nearly everyone to "p**s off".

I guess it is just one more instance of the "dumbing" of American English, that through use (and misuse) it has been added to the vernacular.

When irritated, I get "peeved", "ticked off", but never "p***ed off". For me, that should only be reserved for the fly on the toilet seat.

A (Healthy) Cry in the Wilderness

It was beginning to be one-sided with all the screaming about health care reform (or lately, health insurance reform). Sometimes the most influential voices in any debate are either the loudest, or the ones who speak last. For sure, there have been some loud, and at times rude and obnoxious, screeches at the so-called Town Hall meetings. Most of those were opposed to what they thought was being proposed as ObamaCare (ironically, Obama has not written one word of the current bills in play).

Now, there is finally a sleeping giant aroused in the name of a non- (or multi-) denominational religious group called Sojourners and Jim Wallis. He writes a calm statement about the misinformation and fear mongering going on now. So much of what is said and written is pure hyperbole - a widely irresponsible and inflated view of the bills as written so far.

Proposed end-of-life counseling, which could put many older folk at ease about how their lives might end, has been twisted into "death panels" by Sarah Palin and others. Now with so much mis-information, even the good parts of such legislation have been removed to take away some of the fuel from the fire. The sad thing is that, as it was written, the voluntary (not mandatory) counseling was to be paid for by whatever health plan that was crafted. Folks near the end of life could have felt comfortable talking with their own doctors and others about advanced directives, the same things we are counseled on each time we are in the hospital.

Dialogue is a good thing and it helps to clear the air and quash rumors and reveal falsehoods. The problem has been that the public discourse has often been monologues - the views of one side screamed over the voices of others. That is not productive, not fair, and certainly not democratic.

How Will You Say the Year 2010?

The year 2010 is fast approaching and it is creating a sort of apprehension for some folks. The question is: How do you speak 2010? For the past nine years, most people have been speaking the years as "two thousand", two thousand one", up to "two thousand nine".

I had been mildly irritated with Charles Osgood of CBS's "Sunday Morning" program when he would say "and now for the headlines this day, August ninth, twenty oh nine." He has been doing it since the millennium and it kind of grated on me. After all, the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was not "Twenty oh one: A Space Odyssey"; it was Two-thousand one..."

But 2010 and beyond presents another issue. I suppose we could (and some will) say "Two thousand ten" but in keeping with past practices, I've come to realize, it should be, as Charlie determined 9 years ago, "Twenty ten".

The proof is in how you spoke the years 1776, 1890, 1910, 1941, and the like. We all said "Seventeen seventy six, Eighteen ninety, Nineteen ten, and Nineteen forty-one". We did NOT say (in keeping with the "two thousand one" theme) "one thousand seven hundred and seventy six", did we? (Except on hoity-toity documents like diplomas and wedding invitations thought to add some class). So it was Seventeen, Eighteen, and Nineteen so now the next number should be "Twenty"

So Mr. Osgood, you were right all the time, and Twenty Ten it will be. I can check one more thing off my peeves list.

Health Care Reform Discussion Getting Uncivil

The health care reform debate is a hot one, but unlike formal debates, the rules seem to have been tossed aside. Town Hall meetings, which can show democracy at its best, are deteriorating into rude and crude yelling sessions, often with one side screaming to block others freedom to speak their views. Hardly democratic and disrespectful of the freedom of speech tenet, some people are choosing to figuratively cover their ears and say "La la la la" to avoid hearing what the other side might be saying. Only it is not quite that nice.

When one side organizes to create such a ruckus so as to keep others from expressing their views, it is not what our forefathers had in mind when they sought to assure open dialogue, no matter the issue.

The sad thing is that most of the loud mouths do not have the whole story, and seem to be parroting the words of others, namely talk show hosts. Certain buzzwords appear in their yelling, on their signs, and in the media reports. They'd rather spew the drivel of radio entertainers then think for themselves and actually read some of the proposed legislation.

To be sure, there is a long way to go before any agreement is reached on this issue. All the more reason to have cordial, civil, and respectful dialogue to talk out this extremely important topic which will effect every one of us. But to promulgate hyperbole, extrapolating to the point of ridiculous is of no possible help.

Both sides need to tame the rhetoric, and both sides need to allow others, not of their persuasion, to speak their piece....in full sentences, and without getting hoarse. I am not so optimistic that we will get to that point because there are many whose agenda is to stifle other's rights. They could not stand still for someone having the floor for even a few minutes without tossing rude epithets, or worse, threats, to the speakers. Let's continue to pray for peace, but now for peace within our own borders. Another Civil Was is fomenting.

Nothing earthshaking today. Just a great day overall. The weather is decent, the family is calm, and the political world is still as crazy as ever. I suppose I could make some predictions.

Sonia will confirmed as and Associate Justice. The CARS or Cash For Clunkers program will be refilled, not sure if for $1 billion or $2 billion, but something.

The "birthers" hounding Obama about not being a natural born citizen will not stop any time soon. They seem to not be satisfied with this certified copy of the Hawai'i birth certificate; they want to see the original from the bowels of the archives. Heck, I'd like to see it too. I like history so I like old documents. Actually, though I am not one who subscribes to the birthers blather, I think it odd that the President doesn't just have the officials dig deep and bring up the original certificate and show it to the world. But you know, I'll bet that some STILL will not believe he wasn't born in Kenya.

The recession seems to be ebbing, as it often does after about 18 months, so I don't really know if the stimulus money did any good, or if this sign of recovery is just the normal cycle. But things seem to be improving no matter what, and that is good. We must not fail to watch our backs though. One terrorist attack might cause us to lose lots of momentum. Pray for peace.

No Easy Answer to Racial Profiling

There is little doubt in my mind that there is some level of racial profiling committed by some of the cops in this country. No one can know completely what goes on in the heads of the 800,000 full-time sworn police officers in the U.S., but it is a sure bet that there is some profiling going on.

However, I would wager that the numbers of officers actively profiling is a minuscule number compared to the whole. Just as there are doctors, lawyers, clergy, and teachers who stray from the acceptable, it would be incredulous to think that there are not some in the police profession as well.

And just as in those other professions, acts that hurt or demean others in any way are no more acceptable in professional policing. No argument can be made whatsoever for blatant race-based enforcement, meaning that police officers take actions based primarily on the race of the individual involved.

One of the problems, and there are many, is in how to define which actions constitute racial profiling and which are legitimate acts of law enforcement. More and more states are beginning to wrestle with this issue and some are mandating data collection to attempt see what is happening. The issue will then be how to analyze and interpret the raw data. In legitimate research, the researchers must be able to control for multiple variables so that the desired variables can be studied. In the world of humankind, there is no perfect solution for this. So even the best data will be subject to interpretive variants. There is no easy answer; however, there is so much to talk about to get to the racial healing that is so elusive.

The quickest way to stop racial profiling (but not necessarily the accusations) is for every police officer to assess his or her enforcement actions to be sure that they are based solely on behavior, and not on any other factor. Teachable moments abound, and police administrators better get busy and grab them.