Rant #3,410: You Don't Own Me

Well, Facebook is at it again.

They banned yesterday's blog post ... more to the point, they banned the link I put up to direct you to this site.

They said it violated "community standards" ... again, only they know what those "standards" are.

I have seen virulently sexual and political posts allowed, but my G-rated posts ... how can such posts violate any definition they might have about "community standards?"

Yesterday's post was health-related, mainly about my eyesight.

How could this violate any rules and regulations that they could possibly have?

I don't see it.

Yes, that is a pun, but it is not very funny.

I, myself, have put up more pointed posts, and those have been OK, but my post was about my eyesight this time around ... how could such a subject violate any rules at all?

Maybe it was the link itself.

Funny thing, I have seen links to sexually expressive sites that somehow are OK by Facebook "standards," but I put up a link to a G-rated site, and it is no good, according to them.

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

But what it does do is decrease traffic to this site, which is not good.

Thanks for those who have found the link themselves and have gone to the site to read what I wrote.

I have complained to Facebook, but I doubt they will get back to me with a satisfactory answer, or any answer at all, for that matter--even though they profess that they will.

As you know, I have been in this situation a couple of times before, most prominently when I was in Facebook jail for several months after I had the nerve, audacity and absolute gaul to post about my mother's passing.

But as you know, I will not be stopped.

I will say what I want to say, need to say, and most importantly, HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SAY.

I do not post porn, I have never used a curse word in any of the thousands upon thousands of posts that I have made, and while I do, often, wear my opinions on my sleeve, there has never been anything salacious in any post I have ever made.

We will see what happens, because I have lodged my complaints, and let's see if Facebook has the chutzpah to reply to me and try to make sense of all of this.

Anyway, I have an extremely busy week coming up, with several important visits to a variety of my doctors--

Including the surgeon who performed the two operations on my left leg.

So yes, I will speak to you again on Monday, but I will have to give you a day-by-day summation of what I can do and what I can't. 

So have a great weekend, I will definitely speak to you again on Monday, and hopefully, this entire mess will be cleared up, and we can all go on our merry way.

Speak to you then.

Rant #3,409: Doctor My Eyes

(This post was banned by Facebook. Perhaps someone can explain this to me, because it appears only Facebook knows why they banned this post.)

I am currently having one of those eye migraines that I have on occasion.

What happens is that they pop up intermittently, here and there, and I just happened to get one when I began typing this Rant out.

What happens is that I get some floaters in my eye, and they eventually reach the outer edge of my eye, and this goes on for anywhere from five to 20 minutes or so.

This time, it is in my right eye, and I just have to wait it out, and then it goes away as quickly as it came.

I usually get these in my left eye, and they just come ... I can go six months without having one, and I can get an eye migraine on two straight days.

Very unpredictable.

It is kind of weird, but at least I am home now.

I have had this thing happen when I am driving, and while it does not impede my sight, it is simply annoying.

Does anybody else out there get these things as I do?

I started getting them a couple of years ago, and since I have macular degeneration to begin with, it just adds more bricks to the load.

I have worn glasses nearly all of my life ... I was the little kid who wore those Coke-bottle glasses--but once I got used to them, it never bothered me that I had to wear them.

When kids were getting contacts, I never even tried wearing them, as I was comfortable with my glasses.

But my eyes have aged with the rest of my body, and like the rest of my body, my eyes are showing some wear after all of these years of use.

I take those Areds pills that you see advertised on TV, and while I don't see any recognizable difference in my eyes since I have been taking them, I have been told they are good to take for my eyes' upkeep.

And as we are talking, those floaters have reached the outer edges of my right eye, so I have a few more minutes of this situation to peter out.

At least the non-stop rain has made the weather a bit cooler, so while my allergies--which do have an effect on my eyes and the rest of my body--are still bothering me, I am not sweating through my shirt.

Such are the problems of aging.

I tell people in my age group that they are getting older, they are NOT old ... unless that is the way they want to feel.

To me, being old is being decrepit, and while, as I said, I have aged, I am NOT old.

Am I 25 years of age anymore?

No, I am not.

I am very proud to be 67 years of age, and I will be happy when I reach 68 years of age by the end of April of next year.

I look at what I have experienced in my life, and I have had quite a full time here on this earth--

I hope to be here many more years.

And as I write this, my eye migraine is over, like I said, leaving as quickly as it came.

I have physical therapy later today, and I will have to concentrate on that, as next week is a busy one, as I have one doctor after another to see.

No, one of those doctors is not my eye doctor, but so far, all things have checked off well with me, and I hope that continues.

I can see the light ... the eyes have it.

Rant #3,408: Black and White

I admit, I don't know that much about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who Vice President Kamala Harris chose as her running mate in the November election.

Here is what I do know: Minnesota has a large Palestinian population, so I guarantee this will be brought up by the opposition as it relates to her, and his, overall position on Israel.

And you just kind of knew she would not pick Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, because of his Jewish background. Lots of people would hold that against her, and she did not want to get into any tangles related to her campaign being "too Jewish."

Yes, there are still people who believe Jews are emissaries of the devil, and with the rise of anti-Semitism in this country, she didn't want to have to deal with any possibility of that into November and if she won, for the next four years.

I am interested in finding out why Harris chose Walz over Shapiro ... was it to kind of pacify the far left of her party, was it Shapiro's religion, or was it some other reason?

Like a true politician, she probably won't say the truth, but will break it down so no one is offended.

(And as an aside, this is the first presidential combo thst are both younger than me--Harris is 58 years of age, and while her running mate looks a lot older, he is only 60 years of age.)

Funny, we have already had a Jewish president ... well, sort of.

Dwight D. Eisenhower's father was Jewish of, i believe, German descent, while his mother was of mixed heritage, including, from what I have read, black.

About Eisenhower's Jewish background, he pretty much ignored it entirely.

He promoted himself through his mother's background, but not the black part of it.

His mother was also Swedish, so he went with that, and she was a Mennonite and a Lutheran as far as religion, so he pretty much went with that, too.

During his military career, there were some questions about his "loyalty" to America, because of his Jewish background, however much he ignored it.

So decades before President Barack Obama, we have had a President with at least some black heritage, and as far as a Jewish president, he probably is the closest we ever came to having one ... and who knows if we will ever have one?

But funny, I will bet that if modern genealogy tests could be done on all the presidents we have had, we would probably find several more with some black heritage, and probably several with Eastern European background, perhaps even some Jewishness in there.

Even though it is more prevalent in current times, there was always intermingling, if you know what I mean, between the races and religions in this country, and I will bet that our presidents reflected this as much as the general population did 

We all know about Thomas Jefferson, who himself was not black, but propagated generations of blacks through his relationships with black slaves that he owned.

One of his slaves, Sally Hemings, had at least a half dozen children with him--that we know--but did he have other children with his female slaves?

We are all Americans, but there are some of us who want to break it down to the nub, using it to define ourselves granularity.

It is wrong to do this, but the media, in particular, loves to do this.

There really is nothing you can do about it, but I try to ignore it, especially when it comes to politics.

In college, I had a friend who told me flat out, that I was the first Jewish person he had ever been friendly with.

He was Italian, and, of course, he was not the first Italian that I had been friendly with.

But neither one of us harped on any of this.

We were good friends during those four years of my life, we were in the same boat as students, and that was all that was important.

Again, I wish the real world was like that, but it simply isn't.

Too bad that it isn't that way, don't you agree?

Rant #3,407: America

This whole flap about former President Trump and his  reactions to questions at the Black Journalists' convention ...

His reactions might be taken as odd, but he was being honest about things.

First off, from what I have seen, he was not greeted properly as a former President of the United States by those moderating his segment of the convention..

He was pretty much attacked from the get-go, and I think he was blindsided a bit by it, turning the whole incident into a dumpster-fire moment.

There is no way that Vice President Harris would be welcomed to the podium like that, so you can call that lack of respect whatever you like, but it was demeaning.

He was taken aback by that, and that threw him directly into the loop that he found himself in.

On the other matters that he tied himself into a tight knot with, let's be fair about it.

I am no fan of Trump, but ...

In all fairness, I, personally, had no idea that Vice President Harris was Indian. And at one time, Jamaicans and others of Caribbean descent who lived in the United States did not consider themselves "black," per se, as in "African American." 

Further, in some circles, I have read that Harris is also "Jewish," as she is married to a Jew and some say will put a mezzuzah up on a door of the White House if elected, which of course would be a first.

Am I Czechoslovokian-Latvian-Russian-Polish and Caucasian and Jewish and American too?

That might be my ethnic background, but I am American first, and I really wish that people would start thinking that way again.

And as an aside, I have rarely--and I mean maybe once or twice during his entire vice presidential/presidential run--heard President Biden referred to as an "Irish American," even on St. Patrick's Day.

So why is it so terribly important that we know Harris' ethnic background?

Because it is all political nonsense, looking to compartmentalize all of us down to the very nubs of our existence.

And yes, ethnicity is run out by some as a tool to grab voters ... which it does ... people who vote for those by race and ethnicity and not the more important things, like how they stand on the issues.

I have heard several people being interviewed flatly, proudly and ignorantly state that they will vote for Harris only because she is black ... which is as wrong as stating that one will vote for Trump only because he is white, which is something I honestly haven't heard, but I am sure is on some peoples' minds.

It is wrong on both sides, yet those professing to vote for Harris simply because she is black are heralded and trumpeted and honored for their choice, and are so proud to say it by the media.

This is racist thinking, of course, just like it is if you vote for Trump only because he is white ... something which would be dismissed by the media as what it is.

Why is it OK for the goose, and not the gander?

It is all media nonsense, a media that again, is so obviously anti-Trump that it cannot contain itself.

People should vote on the issues, and what each candidate brings to the table, and not vote on the race of the candidate as the sole guiding force in their choice.

My eventual choice will have nothing to do with race at all, and as an independent voter, I have the real power to elect the right person ...

Which I don't believe is either Harris or Trump.

And again, the media must cease this race-mongering, which is what they are so clearly promoting.

We are ALL Americans, and that should be more important than anything else.

Rant #3,406: Two For the Price of One

Well, CBS was pretty quick in naming the successor to Norah O'Donnell at its forever-failing "CBS Evening News" franchise.

Taking over for O'Donnell, who is bailing out of this sinking ship after the presidential election in November  is not one, but two new anchors.

John Dickerson and Maurice DuBois will co-anchor the show, with Margaret Brennan as chief political correspondent and Lonnie Quinn as chief weather correspondent.

I read that the show will also go more heavily on interviews, sort of a "60 Minutes"-lite style format.

And the show will move back to its base in New York from Washington.

These are interesting moves and choices, to say the least, but it demonstrates that CBS has pretty much bailed out on the show.

Dickerson and DuBois are exceedingly good journalists, but the co-anchor format rarely works.

The only time I can remember it working was when Chet Huntley and David Brinkley co-anchored the nightly NBC News, but there are plenty of times it didn't work:

Harry Reasoner and Barbra Walters.

Dan Rather and Connie Chung.

And the change in format is kind of odd, more interviews and less immediate coverage of news.

I guess the CBS honchos will throw everything against the wall, see what sticks, and go with that.

The more-traditional newscast was not working, and hadn't worked for the network in decades, so why go with it again?

DuBois and Quinn are long-time New York personalities on the local CBS affiliate, and they know their business top to bottom.

Dickerson and Brennan are more well known on the national stage, and like the other two, know whst they are doing.

So yes, it is a dice roll by CBS.

When you are perpetually an also-ran, you will try anything to gain an audience, and this seems to be it.

I really like DuBois and Quinn in particular, as they have been quite good on the local CBS News on Channel 2 for years.

If they can bring the verve they have had on thst local broadcast to this new national venture, it might be an interesting daily watch.

I also like Brennan, is a top-notch journalist who moderates "Face the Nation." 

And in my eye, yes, she is a bit of eye candy that this show, as it is set up, greatly needs, but she is really so much more than that.

To me, Dickerson is the wild card.

He is kind of bland, kind of vanilla, but he is also quite talented, and might resonate with middle America.

Even though O'Donnell failed to bring this show out of the doldrums, she remains a strong presence at CBS, so the show will have to emerge out of her shadow.

Perhaps that is why CBS went this radical route, but as a long-time viewer, I am willing to give it a try.

I just wonder if the "Double D" anchors can work, but we will find out later this year if this is mere folly or something sustainable.

Rant #3,405: Hot Child In the City

Yesterday was another day, another physical therapy session, and another day where I sweated my toukis off to do the best that I could do to get better.

It is darn hot out, I can't stand it, and I live for air conditioning, whether at home or in my car.

According to my car temperature reading, it was 98 degrees in my neck of the woods at about 1:20 p.m. on Thursday.

Officially, I think it got up to 92 degrees on Long Island, but I go by my car thermometer, and it got to just two ticks under 100 degrees.

And the humidity ... fugedaboudit!

And it is pretty warm already on Friday morning, and the weatherman says it is actually going to be hotter today than it was yesterday.

Fugedaboudit!

I cannot take the heat at all, and it is getting worse as I am getting older, especially as it relates to my allergies.

I cannot take the heat, and the humidity makes it all the more worse.

I know some people enjoy this type of weather, but not me.

I would love it to be in the 60s or 70s, but heck. It is August ... it is supposed to be hot!

I remember as a kid in my old neighborhood of Rochdale Village, South Jamaica, Queens, the heat never stopped us from doing anything; we even opened the fire hydrants to get cool.

And when the ice cream truck(s) came to the neighborhood--

There was a seemingly endless line of kids getting ices, ice cream and drinks.

Good Humor, Mister Softee, Bungalow Bar, Hood ... we had them all, and sometimes, three or four of them came at once.

And we also had fountains, which we could barely feel when we played ball, but even a soft touch of that water felt so good.

And yes, the apartments there had air conditioning, so when the day was done, we could cool down in the evening with the air conditioner pumping out that cool air while we slept.

At Rochdale Village Day Camp, we went to the beach--Jones Beach, Rockaway Beach, Riis Park, Rye Beach--and to the pool--Walcliff and Casino pools, both in Western Long Island--and we had fun at these watering holes.

And on the weekend, we played in the Rochdale Vilkage Athletic League, and we sweated through whatever sport we played.

It is just so different when you are a kid.

The heat affects you, but somehow, you manage to get through it.

But when you become an adult, the heat just means something different ... much like with snow in the winter.

Personally, I can't take either one.

But with all my complaining, and with all my reminiscences, there are those who have had to put up with extreme heat well into the 100s, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding and other weather disturbances that are not just nuisances, they are life changing.

They lose their homes, their livelihoods and their lives.

So what am I complaining about?

Have a great weekend, and I will speak to you again on Monday.

And please stay cool!

Rant #3,404: Goodbye

I had no problems with Facebook yesterday, none at all.

I found this kind of funny, because they got me for having the nerve to talk about my health, but when I spoke about the numbskull actions of Facebook the next day, they let it go.

I can't make heads or tails of this, and i don't think they can either.

There are absolutely no steadfast rules on Facebook; it is like they make "rules" up as they go along.

You wonder why they are so scrutized, because nothing they do makes the least bit of sense.

But like I said yesterday, "Que Sera, Sera" ... whatever will be will be.

Otherwise, things are pretty quiet over here right now.

I have physical therapy later today, my allergy problems, cold or whatever it is, are still there, but seems to get better each day.

Something not getting better is the "CBS Evening News."

I read in the newspaper that Norah O'Donnell, the anchor of the "CBS Evening News," will be leaving her duties after the November presidential election.

Honestly, her five years in that position did not lift the show out of third place, behind ABC and NBC, and I think she just simply got bored as the captain of a ship that has been sinking for years.

As a regular watcher of the show, I was a little disappointed at the uneven coverage the show gave to various topics, most recently the Israel/Hamas conflict and the upcoming presidential election.

Her overuse of the term "breaking news" deadened the impact of what the term actually means, and although she did lessen its use in recent times, when she does use it now, it doesn't have any meaning, based on her past actions.

It is sort of like the proverbial "boy who cries wolf;" does what she is saying really need and deserve that description, or is she "crying wolf" again?

Yes, she was eye candy, for sure, but the shows leanings were so obvious.

Maybe the other network news shows camouflage their leanings better than her show did, but as the anchor, it is her responsibility to be even handed, and I think she wore her heart on her sleeve too much, leaning toward "Inside Edition" journalism more than stories that reporters could really sink their teeth into.

She was kind if blah, to be honest with you.

And the move to Washington from New York really did not help the show at all. She wanted to be closer to her family, which is admirable, but when your news division is based in New York, it didn't make sense to be that far away from it.

So she will take her multi-million-dollar salary and do what she wants to do at this point in her career, one-on-one interviews.

Sounds like "60 Minutes" territory is in her future.

She gave it a good try, but the perpetually sinking ship needs a new captain.