Is it just me, or is there something a bit perverse in this craze of @HiddenCash that is sweeping the Bay Area and poised to move on to other places? 

I know it's great for the people finding the $100 bills in San Francisco and elsewhere. But in this era of outsourced jobs, shrinking opportunities for more and more people, the disappearance of the American Dream as it were, I can't help but have this image...

of a retreat somewhere where billionaires sit around, drinks and cigars in hand, having their agents plant prizes of what amounts to their pocket change. And then sitting back and entertaining themselves watching "the little people" scurry like rats to collect the crumbs. Maybe even thinking of the landscapes in the hunts as the laboratory maze.

I'll admit I'm torn by the decision of the House Democrats to participate in the House select committee on Benghazi.

On the one hand you can argue that the Democrats should participate to keep an eye on the GOP members and call them on the unadulterated bullshit that you know the proceedings will be.

But that presumes that Democrats inside the Beltway have spines and will stand up to the Republicans rather than merely roll over and try to appear collegial and bipartisan. Clarence Thomas hearings anyone?

I wish they had stayed away. Let the GOP single-handedly continue this farce. You can still hold daily briefings to "set the record straight". But now you have provided cover, a patina of legitimacy, to what at best can be called a charade. 

If only the inside the Beltway Democrats would listen more to the rank and file Democrats around the country, they, and the country, would be better off.

A short one today.

Was going to comment on the report I saw yesterday morning on the Today Show on NBC concerning the Monica Lewinsky article in Vanity Fair.

In the report correspondent Peter Alexander told of her article and some of the comments in it concerning Hilary and Bill. His report included a clip of Lynne Cheney, delivered on Fox News naturally, speculating that the Clintons themselves were behind the publication of the story. You know to get it "behind them" so that by 2016 it was "old news". (As if something that happened almost 20 years ago and figured in an impeachment proceeding from 16 years ago isn't already old news).

Alexander came out of the Cheney clip with the phrase "true or not...". 

"True or not?", I wondered incredulously. The more accurate statement from a reporter following the clip would have been "As crazy as that is". I thought here is everything wrong with traditional network news media today. Take an inflammatory wild-ass statement from someone with no particular credentials to be considered an expert, and incorporate in your newscast, and give it the weight of credibility with a tepid "true or not". 

"Fair and balanced" and false equivalency trumping accuracy and sanity once again.

Funny thing is I went to the Today Show and NBC News sites to find the clip so I could link to it for this post and guess what? No Lynne Cheney. The Alexander clip on the Lewinsky story does not contain the Lynne Cheney opinions/speculations regarding the article and its timing. Instead we find a clip of Ron Fournier of the National Journal opining on how this hurts Hilary because it is not moving forward but dragging us all back into the past. No "true or not" response to the wild speculation from Ms. Cheney. Here is the current video of the report.

Apparently even the people at NBC News must have looked at their report and realized they were re-peddling batshit insanity on their network and making it seem that they themselves found it serious enough to air.

And in case you're curious here is a link to a Politico story about Ms. Cheney's musings that includes the clip from Fox News. 

Good times. Good times.  

Or more precisely what's in a word? 

I know there has been much written and said about the Donald Sterling matter and his lifetime ban from the NBA. 

I have nothing particular to add to the conversation, no new or unique insight to share.

But we can all use a laugh on a Monday, so did want to pass along something on the subject that was amusing to say the least. Well I found it amusing anyway. Continue on and see if you agree.

Visited my mother over the weekend. While she was occupied with some other matters in other rooms I sat in her living room. I noticed she had the weekend edition of the local paper sitting on her couch. While waiting for her to return I leafed through the paper and came upon their editorial page. There were several letters to the editor on the page, most dealing with local issues. One letter however dealt with the Sterling matter. 

I'll provide a link to the full letter here. It's quite the amusing read, though unintentionally of course. The letter hits at Democrats, Magic Johnson, and the "liberal media", so you can guess the basic tone and tenor of the opinions.

The letter writer had seven points he wished to convey concerning the topic of Donald Sterling. He had me hooked with point number one:

1) I listened to the tape. There is nothing “racist” about it. The man has a mixed-race mistress and he is complaining she hangs around blacks. Prejudice? Sure. Bigoted? Probably. Racist? Give me a break; 

Now I was a Chemistry major in college, not an English major. But I began my college career as an English major and did take some English courses which I passed easily. So while the contention that somehow there must be a subtle distinction between prejudice, bigotry and racism certainly struck me as obviously wrong, I thought I should do some checking just to see if this esteemed writer was onto something from a technical definition standpoint.

My source for this investigation was the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The definition pages for the individual words are linked to below. 

Prejudice:

an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc.

: a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logical


Okay I believe we can all agree that the sentiments expressed by Mr. Sterling were not at all reasonable or logical and did convey a certain dislike for a group of people based on race. Strike one.

Bigoted:

 a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)


Asking his mistress not to bring black people to his basketball's teams games? Sure sounds like refusing to accept the members of a particular group to me. Strike two.

But of course at this point we are in agreement with the letter writer who conceded that Donald Sterling was prejudiced and a bigot. Well okay technically he only conceded that Sterling was "probably" a bigot. Now, as they say, is where it gets weird.

Racism:

poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

First of all while the author of the letter used the term "racist" I am giving the definition of "racism". This is because the definition of racist pretty much referred to someone who exhibited racism, so the definition of "racist" itself was meaningless to this investigation. 

To a lay person such as myself, not wanting your mistress to bring people of a certain race to your games would meet the standard of "poor treatment of...people because of their race". Strike three. 

So the conclusion of this non-linguist is that the letter writer was incorrect and in fact Donald Sterling did hit the trifecta and was prejudiced, bigoted AND racist. 

If you do read the entire letter at the link above you'll see in the final point, #7, is where our poor letter writer went astray. In his world the term "racist" can only be applied to those who condone or practice violence against others based on the color of their skin. Treating people like second-class citizens without violence to back it up doesn't count, and he wishes the liberal media and all the rest of us would cut it out, including apparently the Merriam-Webster dictionary.  Save it for the pointy heads wearing the pointy sheets.

As a final thought, looking at points 2 and 3 in the letter, it is also funny to see yet another self-professed fan of First Amendment freedoms confusing free speech with the consequences of free speech.

2) Hello, we’re in America, not China or Russia. You’re allowed to be ignorant and stupid in this country. It’s not a crime.

3) Since when did we rescind the First Amendment? I know Democrats use it like a buffet, using it only for speech they object to (like school prayer), but it protects all speech. Even objectionable speech.

 Yes the amendment does protect all speech, even vile, objectionable speech and insures it is not a crime. However, the First Amendment does not mean there cannot be private sector consequences to that speech. 

Mr. Sterling will be charged with no crime. The government will take no action against him. But that doesn't mean his business associates can't decide he's bad for business and kick him out of their organization based on bylaws and rules he agreed to follow when he "joined the club" by purchasing the team.  

Finally I'd like to end on a positive note by saying I did find something in the letter that I agree with wholeheartedly. From the author's point #2 above:

You’re allowed to be ignorant and stupid in this country.

Amen brother. Exhibit 1 - your letter.