Ted Cruz says Net Neutrality is the "Obamacare" of the Internet.

Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz Tweeted that President Obama's call for the FCC to put into place "Net Neutrality" protection, is "the Obamacare of the Internet".

I'm sure that Senator Cruz, a well-known partisan who many believe will run for president himself in 2016, meant that as the worst of insults. But let's dissect that statement rationally. First we must define terms.

What is Net Neutrality? It is defined as the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

While the term "net neutrality" was coined by a Columbia University professor named Tim Wu, back in 2003, in reality it is how the Internet has always functioned since its inception, and continues to function to this day. It is not something Obama is trying to add to the Internet, but rather a status quo he aims to defend from destruction. Most large telecommunications companies are also Internet service providers. They would love to have laws changed to eliminate net neutrality and allow them dictate speed and tier pricing and access to the Internet, even though they don't actually own the Internet. The Internet is a public resource, built and maintained by taxpayers.

Is it like "Obamacare"? The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2010 - aka "Obamacare" - is complex law that seeks to allow greater access to affordable health insurance, in part by removing corporate barriers imposed by insurance companies related to pre-existing conditions and other factors.

So, if one were to find a parallel, it would be that the purpose of both the ACA and net neutrality is to prevent huge corporations from limiting access to an important service which they don't even own, and charging exorbitant and erratic rates for that access, in a way that overwhelmingly benefits large corporations over small businesses and individual citizens.  So the good Senator may be onto something, here.

The biggest difference is that the ACA sought to break down existing barriers in the status quo by creating new laws, while net neutrality seeks to protect existing liberties from new barriers imposed by more laws wanted by the big telecom corporations.

What's the harm of letting the telecom companies have their way, and why does Senator Ted Cruz feel compelled to get involved?

The greatest concern from allowing the dismantling of net neutrality is the ability of large corporations to stifle and impede entrepreneurs, start-up companies and innovators, who are the backbone of the US economy, but are often seen as a threat by huge corporations. If the government fails to protect net neutrality, the real losers would be small businesses and American ingenuity. Most Internet service providers operate as monopolies or near monopolies in most markets. They stifle the free market and eliminating net neutrality will only exacerbate that problem. They, in fact do function as a utility, but without any of the market controls that utilities require so they don't take unfair advantage of consumers and other businesses.

As for Senator Cruz, if you go to opensecrets.org, and look at his largest campaign donors, you'll find names like Martin Lewis LLP of Philadelphia, and Sullivan and Cromwell LLP of New York - both huge law and lobbying firms who have among their clients several giant telecommunications companies, including many based outside the US. So Senator Cruz owes a large debt to these companies. And what Senator Cruz wants to do to the existing freedoms on the Internet would allow large telecoms, including those in China, France and elsewhere, to dictate the speed and access of the Internet for US small businesses. As with all things in politics - follow the money.

I don't know about you, but I'm not OK with allowing huge, international corporations the power to put American small businesses and innovators at a competitive disadvantage. But that's exactly what will happen if Senator Cruz gets his way.

Tip o' the cap to Dan Helfond for this article.
Six Reasons Real Conservatives Should Reject The GOP And Support Net Neutrality

Put the Adults back in charge of Kansas

It is time to restore adult supervision to Kansas politics.

I find it remarkable that Kansas has become so radical that lifelong traditional Kansas Republicans have no choice but to ally with Democrats just to get a moderate and reasonable voice heard again. Kansas has a proud history of moderate Republicans - from Dwight Eisenhower to Alf Landon to Nancy Kassebaum to Bill Graves. But the current failed cabal has pushed traditional lifer Republicans like Jean Schodorf to run on the other side just to have a chance. Democrat Paul Davis is supported by over 100 traditional Kansas Republicans, including several on his senior staff.
The Brownback "experiment" is a very measurable, and absolutely complete abject failure, and there is no way to put lipstick on this pig. There isn't any extremist who even tries to defend it, other than to say, "Trust us, it looks bad now, but it will get better!" Really? Sorry, you've worn out your trustworthiness, not just with Democrats and independents, but even with reasonable Republicans.
And Kansan Kris Kobach is the poster child for wasting taxpayer money - failing to do his elected job while soaking the depleted Kansas coffers to fund his personal quixotic quest, sending him to Arizona and other states to pimp his bizarre voter suppression strategies that have been ruled unconstitutional by nearly every court that has reviewed them.

Kansas has, since its introduction into the union, been a voice of moderate reason. The Kansas of today would appall all those leaders who preceded the current dismally failed regime. Kansas is not as radically red as the world thinks. I know. I have lived here for 21 years. This is a state that was once a beacon of progressive leadership. It is now a pitiful butt of national jokes.

To fix this my slate:
Davis/Docking - Governor/Lt Governor
Kutala - US Representative
Schodorf - Secretary of State
Orman - US Senate.

KY-102 - the tainted soundtrack of my misspent youth

Former KY-102 Jock, Randy Raley had his friend Ben Crain put together this really cool video montage for the 40th anniversary reunion party on Friday. Ben just posted it. 

For any one "of a certain age" raised in Kansas City, this will bring back a flood of great memories. Click it to view... 

Click Here for KY 102 video montage

It was my honor to provide food for the KY-102 40th anniversary party.

I wish I could share all the memories, all the fun, all the love, all the stories. But I can't. Watch the video. If you don't get it, there's nothing I can say. If you do get it, there's nothing else I need to say about the most important cultural phenomenon of my youth.

Except, Thank you to my friend Randy Raley for making this happen, and inviting me to be a part of it. Check out his online radio project, Planet Radio. You won't be disappointed.

The truth about the 1985 World Series - aka quit whining, Cardinal fan.

Time for Dr. Doggity's History lesson. This has come up for 29 years, and now that both the Royals and Cardinals are one series away from a reprise of 1985, it's bound to go crazy again. It has already started. 
Game 6, 1985 World Series. Don Denkinger was the first base umpire. Dana DeMuth was second base umpire (anyone remember him?)
The blown call no one remembers...In the fourth inning of the scoreless game, the Royals' Frank White appeared to have stolen second base, but was ruled out in a questionable call, confirmed as the wrong call by later review of the tape. The batter, Pat Sheridan, hit a single to right field two pitches later. This would have likely given the Royals a 1–0 lead had White been called safe. Instead, Leibrandt and Cox traded scoreless innings until the eighth, when Brian Harper singled home Terry Pendleton to give the Cardinals the 1–0 lead. By all rights, it should have been 1-1. Might have changed KC's strategy in the 9th, right? So shut up.

Then there was another call - the first out of the top of the 9th. The next at bat, Jack Clark dropped a routine pop-up. Darrell Porter -the Cardinal's catcher then allowed a passed ball and failed to make a tag on Jim Sundberg. Denkinger didn't do any of that. Jorge Orta - the guy Denkinger called safe was later forced out at 3rd, and never even scored. So he was a non-factor in the inning. And so, thanks almost exclusively to Cardinal errors, not Denkenger’s call, we were tied up 3 games to 3. 
The Cards still had a chance to win it in game 7. What did they do? Lost 11-0 and had their pitcher and manager ejected. Bottom line - the Denkinger call may have been the wrong call, but it didn't cost the Cards the game, let alone the series. Any more than the DeMuth call changed the game. Period. 
You can be mad about a call. I get mad about calls all the time. Sometimes they impact games. But one call almost never actually costs a game, if a team has the toughness and heart to shake it off and make plays, as the Royals did after the horrible call against Frank White in the fourth inning. 

And certainly one call never costs a team TWO games. The Royals won, and Don Denkinger did not “give” them one game, let alone the series. Period. 
History. 
It matters. 

Cards fans - be happy with your 19 pennants and 11 World Series wins, and recognize our ONE championship - won fair and square. Hope to see you in a couple of weeks.

The Hunt For Blue October!

As a kid, I went to Kansas City A's games at Municipal Stadium with my grandpa. We'd park his Chevy in some guy's yard, and to avoid traffic. He'd give me a buck - which, in the 1960's would buy everything in the park. #sugarrush. Grandpa hated traffic (which is likely why he worked nights), so after the game we'd walk down the hill from 22nd & Brooklyn to Arthur Bryant's BBQ at 19th & Brooklyn, to wait out the traffic vacating the 35,000 seat stadium on two-lane city streets.

We'd have a brisket sandwich, fries and a red cream soda. A guy with mits four times the side of a normal adult would load the sandwich with meat. Sauce applied with paint brush, a huge order of fries - and that nectar of the gods - red cream soda. To this day, whenever I see that A's logo, I crave that grainy, peppery Bryant's sauce and a red cream soda. 
It is looking very likely that next Tuesday, the A's will come to KC for the wild card play-in game. While I would prefer to have the division, there's a part of me that wants this game. And I will have to get some Bryant's brisket and red cream soda. And just like all the times with grandpa, we'll watch the A's lose.

Go Royals!

The 50th Anniversary of the Birth of the Stadium Rock Concert

The Beatles began the now commonplace standard of the stadium rock concert fifty years ago today. 

For the astronomical (at the time) sum of $2.00 to $8.50, (the top number was about $63 in today's money) tickets were swallowed up by just over 20,000 fans, making it tied for the second largest crowd on the Beatles' first North American tour. I think there has been some false impression that the concert was a flop, but it was truly anything but.

But it almost never happened.

The Beatles weren't originally scheduled to perform at the Municipal Stadium in Kansas City, Missouri. Their day off was cancelled, however, after local promoter Charles O Finley persuaded the group's manager Brian Epstein to let them play.

Our days off were sacred. If you look at our 1964 timetable you can see why. I didn't realise until recently that we used to have a whole year of work, and then get something like 23rd November off - and then have to judge a beauty competition that day. So, by the time we got to Kansas City, we probably needed a day off. I can't actually remember falling out with Brian about him wanting us to work on a day off, we'd talk to each other rather than fall out.

Paul McCartney
Anthology

Charles Finley was the controversial owner of the Oakland Athletics Major League Baseball team, who at the time were based in Kansas City. He initially offered Epstein $50,000 but was turned down. He increased his bid to $100,000 but was again rejected. Finley then raised his offer to $150,000 - at the time the highest sum ever paid for a single performance - which Epstein accepted.

I remember the Kansas(sic) offer - for them to play an additional, unscheduled gig - kept coming up. It started out at $60,000 and they were saying 'no' because they had so few days off. Already that year they'd been to Paris, the States, appeared on the Ed Sullivan shows, come home and made the A Hard Day's Night record and movie. Then flown straight off on a world tour, and back to England for more concerts, TV and radio shows. And a visit to Sweden and straight after that an American tour.

They weren't getting any rest. A day off was precious; so if Brian wanted to fill one of their days off with an extra gig, they'd have to stop and think. To play thirty-five American cities was a big tour in those days. They'd play a gig on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, in different cities all over the States - flying in, hotel, press conference, gig, back to the hotel, flying out.

Brian had booked a 35-gig tour and they knew what they were doing and were committed to that. But to shove one more show in the middle was another story. So, The Beatles kept saying 'no', and the money kept going up. They agreed to do it in the end. The offer started at $60,000 and finally went to $150,000.

Neil Aspinall
Anthology

The Beatles arrived at Municipal Airport at 2am, with around 100 fans waiting in the pouring rain to greet them. The group were taken by limousine to the Muehlebach Tower hotel where they stayed in the 18th floor penthouse. The hotel later sold their bed linen to a Chicago businessman, who resold it in small pieces as souvenirs.

20,280 fans attended the unscheduled concert, with tickets costing between $2 and $8.50. The Beatles added their version of the Kansas City/Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey! medley to the setlist. Something they had not played since their days in Hamburg. 

The show lasted just 32 minutes, for each of which The Beatles made $4,687. The opening act was a local group, Jack Nead and the Jumping Jacks, followed by, in order of appearance, The Bill Black Combo, The Exciters, Clarence 'Frogman' Henry, and Jackie DeShannon.

The Beatles attracted sell-out crowds throughout their inaugural US tour, except in Kansas City. The group attracted a crowd of 20,207, well below the Municipal Stadium's capacity of 35,000. The concert was billed with the slogan "Today's Beatles Fans Are Tomorrow's Baseball Fans."

The low attendance was due to local animosity toward Finley, who guaranteed the payment of $150,000 out of his own pocket regardless of ticket sales. Ticket sales may also have been low because of high price for the best seats, which at $8.50 were the most expensive for any of The Beatles' US tours. Even still, it was tied with Vancouver for the second-largest crowd on that tour.

On 4 November 2008 a two minute film containing silent footage of The Beatles performing at the concert was sold at auction for £4,100 ($6,600).

The Head of State's Bunghole. It's Everyone's Concern.

It is important that a President have adequate room for his bunghole.

I think that nearly all subsequent presidents could have used more room for their bungholes, and we'd be a better country.

9/11/01 Ground zero - Ground level.

My jacket patch from the recovery project. 

I was preparing for a flight to Chicago for an executive meeting. I was the Vice President of safety & training for Medcor. One of the largest occupational health providers in the US. It was a beautiful Tuesday in September. Cheryl dropped the girls off at School and when she returned home, she said, what is this news about a plane hitting the World Trade Center? I was in my tiny "office" (a ridiculously small bedroom we couldn't put a bed in, so I put a desk in it). I turned on the tiny TV sitting on my file cabinet in time to see Bernard Shaw, and watch the second plane. Little did I know that less than a month later, we'd be the occ health provider on that pile.

I was there. I saw the outpouring of love and patriotism. I saw the "Taj Mahal" - a giant canvas tent building that included decon, rest bunks, counseling and the huge mess hall with walls lined with pictures from children around the world, and food prepared by the best chefs of New York - Bobby Flay, Mario Batali, Lidia Bastianich, Emeril Lagasse - and many others - volunteered time to feed the weary workers on the pile.
We all have our questions, but I am stating right now that I will delete any responses that are other than those honoring and respecting the memory of those who died, and those who worked that event. Please save your conspiracy theories for another time.

The deaths were real. The tragedy was real. And I am very proud of the people with whom I worked, who did the heavy lifting on that pile.

God bless them all.
God bless America. 

The Economy. Everything you are sure you know is wrong.

Which president would you rather have manage the economy, hold down taxes, reduce the debt, deliver high returns to investors, create a positive climate for business growth, and reign in the size of government - Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan?

That's a joke, right? Everyone on the face of the earth knows that Obama is a big government, socialist, tax-and-spend liberal, who hates business, right? And The Gipper was the bestest ever gen-u-wine, gold-plated example of everything good, righteous and true when it comes to conservative creed. Hell, he deserves to be the fifth face on Mount Rushmore for his brilliant handling of the economy. Everyone knows that.

Except it's completely false.

"Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories.  Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the debt, which skyrocketed under Reagan.  Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a 'smaller government.'  Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy."
~ Forbes Magazine, Sept 5, 2014

“President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President.  So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’
President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan. President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did.  At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year.  So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration. We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015.  A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.
[...] The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work.  This is not a 'hidden unemployment'. (In other words, it's not a false number created by people who have 'given up')  It is a measure tracked since 1900 and called 'U6' today by the BLS. 

What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction.  Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the 8 years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America.  We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.”

~ Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners and author of “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box”

Who knew?
Those who follow the actual data, and not the media Obama-bashfest knew. And that's why they're all making a ton of money right now in the market, and you're not. 

You've been awfully quiet.

I have been busy, but out of the spotlight.

While I have been struggling to form opinions on things going on in the world right now, I have been myopic in my focus on local hunger and health issues.

ISIS, Ferguson, Israel/Hamas, the murders in South KC and many more things - all are rattling around in my brain bucket. These issues are too important to knee-jerk react with some bullshit Facebook meme that relies upon bumper-sticker mentality. These matters require careful thought and consideration of all facets. To borrow from the President, I refuse to act on these things until I have a strategy. Mock all you want, but a well-reasoned, purposeful and effective strategy takes time. It takes getting all the facts on the table and careful deliberation. You don't just start dropping bombs - literally or figuratively.

Right now, my righteous indignation is directed at recent changes in public policy by both the US Congress and the Kansas State Legislature, that are causing children to suffer, while those resources are diverted to lining the pockets of political allies, cronies and even out-of-state billionaires. This is happening right now. It's real. It is going on in my state and county and school district and neighborhood. And it pisses me off more than anything else happening in the world right now. These are my neighbors and friends whose lives are being turned upside down by malevolent political hacks doing favors for each other at the expense of those in need. And worse, these hacks are painting the needy children as vultures and themselves as benevolent victims. It's sickening.

While Americans thump their chests on social media, pontificating their cable-news-spoonfed, armchair "expertise" at geopolitics and world religions, most are oblivious to the silent suffering of some child in a house on their block. Suffering caused by politically-motivated, reverse-Robin Hood rule changes that are stealing the health, hope and future of our children in order to feather the nests of the comfortable.

It's un-American. It's un-Christian. It's wrong. And these politicians must be stopped.

But the first thing that has to happen - Americans need to get off the sofa, get involved in their neighborhoods and communities, and stop wasting time pretending they know exactly how to bring peace to the Middle East. One person really can make a difference with a little applied effort in their community. How about starting by taking some of that time wasted in futile, and worthless online debates about international politics, and reallocating it into something useful?

President Nero?

We are all familiar with the story of how Emperor Nero "fiddled while Rome burned" during the great fire that consumed more than 70% of the capital city of the Empire in 64 AD.

Everyone assumes it must be true. The facts however don't support it. The first historical record of the existence of any bowed instruments similar to a modern "fiddle" were from the Byzantine Empire in the 10th century - a thousand years after Nero. And the first modern violins emerged in Europe nearly 500 years after that. Further, records from that fire indicate that significant and prompt action was taken by Nero and his subordinates to provide relief to those injured and displaced by the great fire. In other words, you can be told a story and believe it, and it still can be utter bullshit.

Fast forward.

We are now being told that it is abominable that a President seek something to clear his head when the world is burning. A round of golf, we are told, is an unacceptable way for the Commander-in-Chief to blow off some steam after dealing with a crisis. Why? Because "it looks like he's fiddling while Rome burns".

The first time I remember anyone being critical of "how it looked" for a President to seek relaxation on the golf course during a crisis was in Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 911", when George W. Bush is caught on the golf course, and admonishes all nations to take on terrorism, and then says, "Now watch this drive." The criticism of President Bush caused him to swear off golf the rest of his time in office. However, he still did manage more days on vacation than any President in history.

http://youtu.be/pJvRUL81ZU8

Prior to that, I don't recall the President's need to escape into a mindless activity for a bit to clear his head ever being called into question.

For instance, this picture of President Reagan was taken on October 23, 1983, by an AP photographer during the President's vacation at Augusta National Golf Resort in Georgia, the day after Reagan was told of the plan to invade Grenada, and less than an hour after he was briefed on the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon that killed 241 US Marines. The New York Times nonchalantly reported, "Mr. Reagan, on vacation, and others in the Administration were ”shocked and grieved” at the deaths, a spokesman said."

Why was there no hair on fire outrage in 1983? Wouldn't a military invasion and the terrorist killing of 241 Marines a day apart be a bigger crisis than anything the current President has yet faced? Could it be that in that kinder, gentler time, it was acknowledged that the President is first, and foremost, a human being? And could it be that it was understood then that human beings often need to escape with their thoughts into a book, or a movie or a game to clear their minds in order to make better decisions?

I, for one, am thankful for the opportunities that Presidents get to relax. It is likely the world's most stressful occupation. Just look at how rapidly they age in office. And I frankly don't care if his instrument of choice was made by Stradivari or Titleist.

Why I Cook - Geneva and Julia

I cook. I do not call myself "chef" because the only people, in my opinion who have earned that honor are those who have been the "chief" (en Français = chef) of a kitchen, in the French brigade tradition. I have not. There are many I know who also have not, but have no problem wearing the term "chef" loudly and proudly, anyway. But that's not me. I'm a cook. I have not earned the "chef" moniker.

Two women most influenced my decision to cook - Helen Geneva Wright Thomas and Julia Carolyn McWilliams Child. The former was my paternal grandmother, and the latter, the most famous chef in the world.

When I was a teenager, we kids would be shipped off to "the farm" with Geneva and Ray Thomas - my grandmother and her husband. The farm was really a house in a remote area of St. Clair County, Missouri, a few miles east of Lowry City. There was a barn, a small lake, a huge garden and woods. It was adjacent to the south of my great aunt & uncle, Faye & Roy Vinyard's dairy farm.

I learned to garden, to cook, to smoke meats and to can foods from my grandmother, Geneva. Mostly because I prefered her company to her crusty, grumpy old Marine husband, Ray. He was cantankerous and surly. She was joyous and kind. She had a record player on an old wooden chair in the corner of the kitchen. She didn't cook without a stack of records on the record player. From big band jazz to old time country, her music was the sound track of my earliest memories in the kitchen. And to this day, I can't cook without music.

Then came Julia. I was a newbie cook, playing around with recipes in my 20's, in the 1980's when I discovered a public television show called "The French Chef", starring a 6'2", lumbering woman with a raspy voice, who defined what I had learned, and put wheels under it.  I learned later that she was the wife of a spy, and all kinds of other amazing things that made her my hero. But at that time, I only knew that she mesmerized me. She wasn't afraid to screw up. She took everything in stride. She made cooking look fun, and yet stressed discipline and structure. She taught me the importance of mis en place. She taught me the value of knife skills. She was the most remarkable, enthusiastic and intelligent person I'd ever seen work a stove. She inspired me to take what I had learned at my grandmother's apron, and improve it - push it - learn more, do more.

So today I cook. Some say pretty well. But I would have never cooked without the inspiration, knowledge and enthusiasm of two brilliant women - Geneva and Julia. I will be forever in the debt of you both - may you both rest in peace.
DD

What would you be if you didn't even try?

I understand too little too late
I realize there are things you say and do you can never take back
But what would you be if you didn't even try
You have to try
So after a lot of thought
I'd like to reconsider
Please
If it's not too late
Make it a cheeseburger

Stupid is as Stupid does.

With all due respect to one of my dearest friends, Rusty Crewse, who is in a Kiss tribute band, Gene Simmons is a mouthy ignorant asshole. He is Rush Limbaugh Junior. And anyone who agrees with these ignorant fools is sick and needs help.

Robin Williams' death is only more important than any of the other tens of thousands of suicides from depression because he was a celebrity, but it does appropriately focus much needed attention on the issue. I've had many friends who have sadly met similar fates. Far too many.

Depression is every bit as real a disease as diabetes or hypertension or cancer. People have fundraisers for illnesses that impact organs other than the brain, but blame the afflicted for their disease when the brain is the organ impacted. If you aren't smart enough to get that - like, apparently Rush and Gene - you need help, too. As the son of someone who has suffered for more than 45 years with this nasty illness, learn the facts before you get diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

If you agree with Gene Simmons and Rush Limbaugh, please stop being my friend, but I will pray for your recovery from your diseased mind.

DD

What is marriage anyway?

So many people are so vitriolic about who does and doesn't have the right to get married. What is a "marriage" anyway?

Marriage really has two definitions. One civil and one religious. And they are not the same thing.

Let's talk first about the civil definition of "marriage. I'm not a lawyer, but I've discussed this with several. It is simply a contract between two people, which entitles both parties certain legal protections and rights under the law. It is very similar to an LLP or LLC in corporate parlance. The state certainly has an established right and purpose in setting certain exclusions to this sort of contract. For instance, there's no doubt but that there is plenty of precedent that the government can set a minimum age limit for engaging in such a contract. No reasonable person can deny that. The government also has an interest in the mental capacity of those who enter into such a contract, to ensure one is not taking unfair advantage of the other. LLP's, LLC's and other contractual entities also establish that there is a legal precedent for determining the number of persons who may be involved in the contract. So an appropriate number of persons of legal majority, and of sound mind may enter into the contract. So far, so good.

Name one other similar contract for which there is an established precedent in which the government has any interest, whatsoever in the gender of the parties to the contract. To my knowledge, there isn't one.

Then there is the religious definition of marriage. Currently there are over a dozen established, recognized entities, including several mainstream Christian churches, who perform same-sex marriages within their interpretations of the scriptures. The "free expression" clause of the first amendment prevents any laws which discriminate against these churches and other religious entities from performing such unions, and those unions being legally recognized within the law the same as any other.

So, please, someone explain to me how same-sex marriages are any of the government's business, and why any laws against such unions pass any level of constitutional muster.
DD

Robin Ferguson Stewart Putin Mashal Maliki Zuckerberg

No, I can't begin to make sense of today's news. I refuse to get sucked into the racial, gun culture, anti Semitic, anti Muslim, freshly re-frozen cold war crap.

One of the worst things about social media is the "Lord of the Flies" democracy. Mob rule, groupthink, lowest-common-denominator willingness to "like" and thus give tacit approval and support to the most insidious behaviors because they are on the post of someone with whom you usually agree. I am outraged and disgusted by the bulk of what I've seen.

I have to admit that I do credit social media for one thing. I never really understood just how ugly and vulgar a huge number of people really are, when you scratch beneath their pleasant, superficial veneer. I didn't understand how vulnerable many perceptively strong people are. And don't even get me started on how people in their 40's, 50's 60's and beyond never let go of teenage angst, juvenile drama and catty feuds.

The reverse side of the coin, I have learned the inner strength of the timid, quiet and shy. I have learned the sacred serenity of those I perceived as aloof and agnostic. I've gotten to know the truth about "dear friends" who never really were, and distant acquaintances who were much closer to me than I ever knew. I have come to love members of my own family in a deeper way than I ever knew I could. I've met people who are "just facebook friends" who have become some of the dearest, closest people I know. I have people I can confide in that I've never been in the same zip code with, while simultaneously learning that people I've trusted and confided in for years, weren't trustworthy.

I have come to question all I think I knew about what is real, and what is superficial. I have learned that nothing you think you know is exactly real. Every data set is biased, and can be refuted by another angle. There is always more to any story than you will ever know. Everyone has secrets. Nobody is better than you - you are better than no one, either. Sanity and insanity are a sliding scale, and no one has a clean report card.

 Every time I give in to knee jerk reactions, mob mentality and succomb to buying into things at face value simply because the source agrees with me on most things - when I seek out sources of information that reinforce my current beliefs and avoid sources that provide rational disagreement, I become a weaker, less informed and more vulnerable person.

Also, anytime I question myself, question authority, question sacred cows, question reality, question the sources who agree with me, I become a stronger, more rounded and informed person.
DD

Tomatoes are not forever.

Tonight I had a BLT.  It was a multigrain artisan bread. Bacon from the farm. Organic leaf lettuce and a gorgeous Cherokee purple tomato from my garden. On the side, some homemade giardiniera and a perfect avocado with nothing but fresh lemon juice and French gray sea salt.

A BLT is one of my favorite things on earth. BLT's, San Francisco cioppino, cheeseburgers and Chef Carl Thorne-Thomsen's flash-fried octopus are just about the only things that keep me from becoming an orthodox Jew. That and not being Jewish.

Because edible tomatoes have a season, BLT's have a season. Right now they are perfect. 

I cannot for the life of me understand why restaurants continue to offer tomatoes on sandwiches through the winter. Is it just because they are too lazy to change the menu, or put up a sign that says the tomatoes are not up to standards?

I credit Jasper's in Kansas City that they refuse to do one of their signature appetizers when tomatoes are terrible. Admirable, but just the first step. 

I have a serious pet peeve. Chef Pete Peterman might relate to this - why in the day livin' shit does anyone put a sickly, anemic, pathetic, off-season, hot-house grown and gas-infused zombie tomato on a sandwich? Or a salad? Or anything else? Dear lord. Off season tomatoes are total crap. Don't offend my sensibilities by trying to convince me otherwise.

DD 

The voices in my head needed a better outlet.

Welcome to my blog. I have had several people ask me to start a blog to give a proper soapbox to the voices in my head. Facebook has it's place, but it really sucks as an outlet for how you really feel about things. This gives me the opportunity to post the random thoughts that rattle around inside my bone brain box, without the requisite filter necessary in social media.

This will not be a "political" blog. It will not be a "food" blog. It will not be a "sports" blog. It will not be a "music" blog. It will not be a "social justice" blog. It will be all of those things, and much more at times (and likely much less at other times). It will be a composite of what I think, what I feel and how I arrive at my opinions.

If you care to stop by, you're always welcome. If you care to reply, I'm OK with that, but I will filter due to spam issues, and the fact that this is my home, and the posts are by my rules. Please treat it as you would anyone's home you'd visit. As I try to always do in someone else's blog. I love differing opinions, and always respect hearing them, but if they become insulting or abusive, they'll be rejected.

Anyway - here's what it's like - Being Doggity.
DD