I am just not that into you …

I’ll confess, I do look at Facebook when I can. 

On its best days, it’s an interesting and thoughtful place. 

You can see photos and catch up on news from old friends, reconnect with people you haven’t seen in a long time, congratulate friends on birthdays, anniversaries and the like, and let people know they are still in your thoughts. 

I am especially taken by the “Are you from …” groups that feature articles and old photos from newspapers, yearbooks, and personal collections spanning decades.  Often you see people, places and events you remember fondly, and discover historical facts you never knew.  

Through Facebook I’ve connected with people I haven’t seen or spoken to in 40 or 50 years, learned the sad fates of some childhood pals, and the successes of others, and been surprised at how some of them have changed – or not changed – over the years.  It’s fascinating at times.   

Then there’s the rest of Facebook. You know, where egos soar and narcissists abound. 

If you’ve been on Facebook you know what I’m talking about. 

And if you’re one of these people who feel compelled to share every waking moment of your life with all of us, I want you to know something.

I’m just not that into you.   

Seriously, I know you find yourself fascinating – and the center of the universe – but I don’t.

So if anyone wondered why I don’t show up in their friends list anymore, or why I haven’t commented on their latest posting, that’s probably the reason. 

I don’t care what you’re thinking of having for dinner, what you’re actually having for dinner, or what you had for dinner. Or where you had dinner.  Or breakfast.  Or lunch for that matter.  I don’t need to see pictures of what you’re about to eat or the label on the bottle of wine you are about to drink – I’ll  take your word for it that it’s all good. 

You routinely share pictures of you on a plane, on a boat, in some foreign location, wearing a stupid hat, holding a fish you caught or tacky souvenir you bought, or pictures of what you see out your hotel or airplane window.  No one wants to tell you this, but it’s all really boring; kind of like being stuck in an extended slideshow of someone’s month-long bus tour of Nebraska. 

I am glad you had a good time wherever you went.  Be satisfied with that.

On a related issue, understand that while some of your followers might be, I’m not obsessed with you.  I don’t need to know every step of your journey to wherever.  You are not a rock star or celebrity, except to yourself and maybe some of your friends.  So documenting where you are every minute of every day isn’t necessary for me.  If you are in the Platinum Cloud Club awaiting your next flight, good for you.  If you’re just leaving or arriving at SFO, MIA, PHL, EWR or some other airport, that’s something your family might want to know.  Me, not really.   

The same goes for what you’re listening to right now.  Or, most likely, what you’ve pirated from some online file-sharing (stealing) site.  I get that you want to be hip and listen to what you think the younger, infinitely more hip generation likes.  If you’re 30-something or older, you know most of the stuff deemed edgy today sounds like crap, with no melody, stupid lyrics, and ripped off “sampling” from real artists.  And it all pretty much sounds the same.  Like crap. 

So stop pretending that you really, really like bands with names like “Stabbing Puppies with a Fork” or “Jesus on Toasted Rye” or “Kill all the Bitches and MoFo Pigs.” Frankly, you're embarrassing yourself. 

Do you want to know what young people – early 20s – really enjoy?  Surprise – it’s the same stuff we grew up with – classic rock, Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple – and modern day groups that still have that sound.  You know, the music you listen to when you’re not trying to impress someone.  The tunes you have on your workout mix.  Sure, they may like some hip-hop, too.  But they really love the classics. 

Flagging your pathetic desire to be seen as cool by claiming your adoration of obscure, forgettable bands and artists today, or your embrace of Spotify as the second coming, only makes you look shallow.  Which you are, but there’s no reason to keep demonstrating it. 

Here’s another tip:  Reposting drivel from special interest PACs and single-issue lobbying groups won’t change my mind or anybody else’s about GMO foods, Obama, gun control, liberals or conservatives, vaccinations, immigration or anything else.  If you’re doing it in hopes it will, you’re wasting your time; you’re just preaching to the choir. If you’re hoping to start a dialogue so you have something to rant about with other people who already agree with you, go right ahead.  I won’t be there. 

While I’m at it, enough with the treacly “repost if you agree” crap about how wonderful cousins, sisters, brothers, mothers, daughters, grandparents, brothers-in-law, whatever, are.  Nobody disagrees.  But sometimes “sweetness” has its limits. Too much and you risk a diabetic coma.  Even K-mart stopped selling the big-eyed-kids-holding-flowers prints decades ago.  

I feel the same about multiple inspirational postings.  These are the modern day equivalent of the kitten-on-the-clothesline picture captioned “Hang in there!”  If you find solace in a particular quote, great; thanks for sharing.  But when you post three or four of these a day, every day, you probably need professional help, not an audience for your angst.  

And why do you constantly change your profile picture?  Are you constantly reinventing yourself – one day you’re your current age, another day you’re a baby, yet another you’re a car, or a kale salad, or a piece of abstract art … I give up. 

Honestly, don’t you have something better to do with your time? 

Now that I’ve made it seem like I’m a heartless monster, there were some things some of you posted that I really enjoyed. 

I liked when you dropped all the pretenses and were yourself.  I liked seeing and sharing the big events in your life – the engagements, the weddings, the new-born babies, the new house, the retirement party – as well as the more thoughtful moments.  I liked learning more about the people who made you who you are, where you came from, and seeing the product of your own hands. 

I liked the photos and personal stories that showed another side of you and your life.

In short, I liked the real you.  But I got tired of the Facebook you.   

I’m still up on Facebook on a regular basis.  I just don’t follow you anymore. 

Sorry. I have better things to do.  

I can’t abide a weasel …

It’s probably another character flaw of mine, but I can’t tolerate a weasel. 

Weasels always play the edges. They speak in half-truths and hide in unspoken disclaimers.  They’re always playing a game of catch-me-if-you-can.  They are tedious and annoying to deal with because getting the true story out of them is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.    

They routinely withhold the truth, misrepresent facts, or claim ignorance of something they know full well. They shift blame to others, or to some special circumstance, when they themselves are at fault.  They never step up, they never take responsibility, and they never admit they are wrong. 

It’s a game with them.  They want to see how far they can go.  Everybody else is a gullible rube to be fooled; the sport is to see how far they can take the rubes before disbelief sets in.     

Being a weasel is not a temporary thing; once a weasel, always a weasel.  Ordinary decent people admit mistakes; weasels “misremembered” or “misspoke” or perhaps weren’t “clear enough,” as if that makes their conscious, outright lie somehow more forgivable. 

I really despise these bastards.     

Maybe that’s why I have such disdain for politicians in general, and Democrats like Obama, Biden, Holder, Reid, Pelosi, Durban and Hoyer in particular.

They all believe we are stupid.  Apparently a lot of folks in the media are as well, or agree that the public is too stupid to know the difference.    

As I’ve said before, if you really want to piss me off, make me feel you think I’m stupid.  I suspect I’m not alone in this.  I think most Americans probably feel the same. 

Yet here we are again, with even more preposterous claims from the Obama administration and its spokespuppets that the answer to terrorism is … wait for it … jobs. 

Holy Mother of Jesus. 

Did some writer from The Onion hack into Obama’s teleprompter and put that in? 

ISIS is cutting off the heads of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, burning alive people in cages, crucifying children, and selling female captives into slavery.  Boko Haram is slaughtering the male populations of entire villages and raping and enslaving the surviving daughters and wives.  Other Islamic terrorists have killed people at the Boston Marathon, attacked and murdered innocents in the UK, France, Denmark, Canada and lest we forget – the Twin Towers in NYC.    

And our answer is to find them better jobs and more economic opportunities than choosing to be a murderous barbarian? 

Really?  Obama said something like that?  Someone at the State Department agreed? 

News flash, folks – the Islamists are busy fulfilling an apocalyptic vision.  They aren’t killing people just to kill time while they wait for better career options to open up. 

The Islamists want to provoke an all-out war between Muslims and infidels.  It’s a holy war for them.  It’s a full-time gig. They already have the jobs they want.   

Someone who straps on a suicide vest isn’t doing that because they couldn’t get a job in the service department of Ahmad’s Used Camels, or as a designer at David’s Burkas.  They aren’t blowing themselves up out of despair over the lack of entry-level jobs.

They are killing themselves and others because their religion rewards it. They are doing it because they become heroes.   

Not because they want to be someone’s employee of the month.

So now, faced with widespread astonishment that Obama and State would say such a stupid and unbelievable thing, the inner weasels are emerging. 

Now they are quoting George W. to support what they said: didn’t George W. say something similar? That one of the root causes of terrorism was poverty and lack of economic opportunity?  

Is this the same George W. the same people blame for everything else?  The dumbest President ever, in their view?  Why yes it is. And now, suddenly, he's adding credibility to their claim?  

The answer to all that is yes, but that was years ago and out of context -- way, way, out of context. George W. wasn’t talking about terrorists cutting off heads, burning people alive, invading countries, etc. A little selective editing, don't you think?  

And haven’t heads of state in areas spawning terrorists claimed the same? That poverty and lack of economic opportunity spawn terrorists? Maybe, but most them are always looking for money from us, anyway. 

So try this, instead, all you weasels.  Consider Osama Bin Laden.  Wealthy, well educated.  Did he plan 9/11 and the killing of thousands of innocent Americans because he didn’t have a job?  Consider the people who piloted the planes that flew into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and tried to hit the Capitol?  They were all from affluent, well-educated Saudi families. 

The people who are coming from Europe and America to join ISIS aren’t job hunting, either. 

Recently, Obama’s spokespuppets referred to “Egyptian citizens” who were beheaded by ISIS, instead of calling them Coptic Christians, which is why they were beheaded.  This is a classic weasel move – it’s true they were also Egyptian citizens, but leaving out the critical fact of “why” they were beheaded is intentionally deceptive. 

Of course there are always the classics:  “If you like your plan you can keep your plan.  If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” The hidden disclaimer was that this would be true if, and only if, you were willing to pay a lot more to keep your plan (assuming it was still available), and to keep your doctor.  

The same goes for his claim that the average American family would see their premiums fall through ObamaCare; which is true if they qualified for a subsidy and agreed to ridiculously high out-of-pocket deductibles. Oops, forget to mention that, huh?    

It goes on and on. 

It’s all weasel stuff.  And sadly, weasels tend to admire other weasels. 

Worst of all, weasels vote for weasels. 

That’s how we’ve come to where we are today as a nation. 

We’re not “One nation under God,” but one nation under weasels.   

For Christ’s sake …

ISIS beheads 21 Coptic Christians and posts the gruesome event online.  It also makes a point of saying that they were killed because they were Christians. 

And Obama refers to these victims as merely “Egyptian citizens.”   

After he attempted to make some moral equivalency between the barbarism of ISIS with the actions of Christians in the Crusades, and called the killings of Jews in the Kosher market in Paris simply random acts against “people” in a deli, I thought I was long past being astonished at what Obama does or says. 

I was wrong. 

Obama’s not just incompetent. He’s doing this intentionally – for what purpose, I don’t know.

It’s clear to everyone that ISIS is waging war on Christians, Jews, Hindus and other Muslims who don’t measure up to their standards of what a good Muslim should be.

It is, in fact, a religious war between ISIS and every other form of religion. Everyone else acknowledges this.  Even ISIS itself.

Everybody, that is, except for Obama.   

The leaders of ISIS must be as puzzled as I am. They’ve been as clear as they could be about their motives, in video, online, in print and in official releases. They continue to ratchet up the barbarity and brutality to horrific levels, including burning alive a caged man.

They must be wondering what it takes to have Obama admit that they are Muslim jihadists in a religious war to exterminate all other religions.  What must they do – what depths have they yet to plumb – to get a visceral reaction from this guy?  What do they have to do?  Kidnap Michele and cut off her head?  Rape and murder his daughters?

I am starting to wonder myself. 

Is Obama simply afraid to call the terrorists what they are?  Has he got something against calling the victims of these murderers what they are?   If so, why?  Christians, Jews and others are clearly being targeted by these Muslim terrorists.  So why not be more specific?  Is this like some Candy Man myth where the terrorists and their victims aren’t real as long as he doesn’t call them by name?  Or is he afraid of offending the so-called “good” Muslims?

A this point, who cares?  Predominantly Muslim countries like Jordan and Egypt are launching air strikes against ISIS – do you think they care about the niceties or political correctness of what we call the Islamic terrorists butchering their innocent people? 

Honestly, I think Obama is a gutless bastard more concerned with enjoying the perks of being the President than fulfilling his duties as the supposed leader of the free world. He’s risk averse to a dangerous extreme.  Instead of sucking it up and doing what needs to be done, he dithers hoping bad stuff will resolve itself. 

It’s called decision by indecision.  It’s not “strategic patience”; it’s cowardice .  He’s afraid to pull the trigger and do something – no matter how necessary right now – in case something bad might happen to tarnish his legacy.

That’s crazy.  His legacy is already one of failure after failure, and damage to the Presidency and the balance of power that may take decades to rectify, if ever.

He pretends to be a strong leader and huffs and puffs about red lines not to be crossed, and “serious” consequences, but by now no one here or abroad believes him.    

In other words, he’s a fraud. He’s also an embarrassment to all of us.   

Many Presidents in their lame-duck term take advantage of the situation to do things that may not be politically popular but necessary, since they don’t have to run for re-election. 

Not this one.  He’s even afraid describe the recently executed Coptic Christians as Christians. 

Hey, Obama …the “people” killed in the Kosher market in Paris were slaughtered by Muslims just because they were Jews.  How hard is that to understand?  Or say? 

And the Coptic Christians had their heads cut off by Muslims simply because they were Christians. 

They died for Christ’s sake.  Literally.  So go ahead, say it.

Then send our warships, bombers, stealth fighters and troops in to exterminate the vermin who did this.  There’s nothing to negotiate.  No deals on the table.  Just death and destruction.

And if Obama’s not up to the challenge, impeach him.  Now. 

More myths and misinformation ...

There’s an interesting divide in America between the people who think they know everything – but are woefully misinformed – and the people who actually know what they’re talking about, but are ignored. 

Not a day goes by that you don’t hear some nonsense about vaccines, genetically modified foods, second-hand smoke, obesity, autism, and whatever. 

Most of it is completely unproven and unsubstantiated bullshit.

Usually it’s because people don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation. 

Think of it this way:  correlation is something two or more things have in common that don’t necessarily lead to a predictable outcome; causation is a direct line from one thing to another. For example, just about everybody who became a heroin addict drank milk at one time or another – that’s a correlation, but this doesn’t mean everybody who drinks milk will become a heroin addict. On the other hand, people who are actually lactose intolerant have digestive issues when they eat or drink dairy products like milk – that’s causation; if you are lactose intolerant it’s highly probable dairy products will upset your stomach.    

Often the nonsense is positioned as a “link” between something and something else.  What they should be saying is that two things may possibly be related, but there may be other factors involved, instead of implying a direct line from one to the other.

I know this sounds overly pedantic, but I am fed up with phony science, specious “connections,” and intellectual garbage and misinformation presented as fact. 

Just because someone who is a “scientist” claims something doesn’t make it so. “Researchers” are often paid shills for special interest groups who either have an axe to grind or stand to profit from swaying public opinion.  Despite the academic-sounding titles of supposedly “independent” organizations, these are usually no more than fronts for someone or some group with a vested interest – they are rarely unbiased.

And don’t believe 90% of what you read on the Internet.  Most of it is self-serving crap. 

So here’s some truth:

• Vaccines can produce adverse health effects in a statistically insignificant part of the population; however there is no data – repeat, no data – proving that vaccines cause autism … but the risk of serious health issues from lack of vaccinations is fully proven.  Also, parents who withhold vaccinations from their children jeopardize not only their children’s health, but the health of others in the stupid, selfish and mistaken belief they are preventing autism.   Meanwhile, poor kids are getting vaccinated because their parents see the bright line connecting vaccinations with avoiding preventable diseases like measles, mumps and rubella.  It’s the more affluent who aren’t vaccinating their precious kids because they’ve read some crap on the Internet about the risk of autism.  As one CDC person said, if you want to know the hot spots for measles outbreaks today, look for areas with a Whole Foods store.  Says it all.
  
  
• Most conditions “on the rise” – such as autism and ADHD – are not really becoming more common.  More often, it’s just a case of a change in definitions lowering the threshold to allow more people to be “diagnosed” with the disease or malady du jour. There’s a conscious and constant escalation of what used to be behavioral issues that passed with time into “diseases” that now must be treated aggressively with expensive therapy and/or recently developed prescription drugs.  This way, parents and teachers aren’t responsible – it’s a medical thing – and doctors and drug companies make big profits.  That’s not to say that autism and ADHD are not real; however, the devil’s in the definition.
  
  
• Genetically modified foods (GMOs) have been around since primitive people first dabbled with selective breeding of livestock.  Rice, maize and other staples have been selectively cross bred with other strains for at least 2,000 years. In short, most of the foods we eat today are the result of altering the genetic makeup of an original animal or food either by nature or by man’s hand.  GMO wheat and rice alone have probably saved billions of human lives over the years – lives that would have been lost because “natural” wheat and rice couldn’t withstand local growing conditions.  Forget “Franken foods” as the misbegotten product of evil geniuses; GMO foods have generally allowed us to live longer and healthier, and fend off famine worldwide.
  
  And like vaccines, there is no direct proven link between GMO foods and autism, ADHD, nor athlete’s foot, ingrown toenails, leprosy, male pattern baldness, etc.
  
  
• All edible food is “organic.”  In scientific terms, organic compounds are defined as having carbon molecules; inorganic compounds are made of salts, metals and other stuff you can’t eat.  Well you could, but you wouldn’t last long.  However, “organic” foods are popularly defined today as having been exposed to no synthetic pesticides or synthetic fertilizers or irradiation, and containing no artificial preservatives, colors or additives. Of course fresh produce is better for you than processed or canned foods.  Yet there’s absolutely no proof that “organic” produce is any better for you or more nutritious than regular fresh produce.  Not everything labeled organic is automatically better, but it’s usually more expensive.  It’s understandable that people would prefer and be willing to pay more for organic alternatives to meat or poultry from animals raised on a diet of steroids and growth hormones; but is “organic” bundled firewood really worth more?
  
  
• Most of how healthy you are and how long you’ll live rests on the genes you inherited. I know, that’s a fatalistic view but it’s true. There’s no miracle diet that cures cancer, no magic exercise that will give everybody six-pack abs, no lifestyle change that will add another 10 years to your life – unless your genes agree.  That’s why some two-pack-a-day smokers who drink 10 cups of coffee daily, and eat nothing but waffles and sausages, can live to be 100 and die peacefully in their sleep.  Meanwhile, some non-smoker vegetarians who abstain from alcohol, sweets, fats, and coffee or tea, and who work out religiously every day, can stroke out on the treadmill at 58.  It’s unfair but it’s true.  Does this mean you should give up?  Of course not.  But the longer you live the more you realize that everything you learn about what’s good or bad for you is subject to change.  One days eggs are poison; the next day eggs are okay.  One day, a couple of drinks a day increases your risk of dying; a little later it’s recommended that everyone have a couple of drinks a day to live longer.  
  
  
• Global warming is real.  So is global cooling. Scientists have no proof that either is caused by humans. For most of us, geologic time is beyond our capacity to comprehend; the global warming advocates who blame humans use this to present a case for sweeping changes in how the world manufactures things and fuels industry and our daily lives based on short-term data. In the 1970s they predicted another Ice Age. When that didn’t happen, they predicted death and destruction from an overheated world. Now the world is cooling again so it’s called “climate change.” They really want us to stop using fossil fuels and instead rely on solar power; they also want to control every aspect of our lives – what we drive, where we live, how we heat and cool our homes, how we grow our food, etc.  Honestly, they are clueless about what causes global heating and cooling, but won’t admit it. They just don't want to let a real or imagined "crisis" go to waste as they try to redesign society.
  
  

So much of what is reported today is bogus. It’s propaganda from people who really should know better – and probably do – but have something to gain from promoting or perpetuating a myth.  Maybe it’s to get more grant money, or boost book sales or speaking fees, or to simply make more money selling something as a solution to a made-up or over-hyped condition. 

Regardless, it’s usually based on bad science.  Suppositions.  Selective use of data. 

And intentionally blurring the line between correlation and causation. 

There’s a big difference between the two.  And it matters.