Night - I see starlight
A million year old twinkle
In the eyes of God
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Hey Sucka I Done Popped a Cap (and trade) in Yo Ass
Any thinking person knows Cap and Trade isn’t about saving the planet or reducing carbon emissions (even if that were necessary). Instead it is about a small group of elite making a bunch of money.
I’m sure all here have noticed in the last nine to twelve months the term global warming has given way to terms like climate change and climate chaos. This gives proponents the ability to “bob and weave” more than Walter Peyton in his heyday. So it won’t matter that more and more scientists reject the theory of man-made global warming. The proponents will still be able to alter the course of their argument to fit current circumstances. They will always be able to point to some problem of the moment and say “that is what we are aiming to fix.”
Some big corps like GE and some big banks like Goldman Sachs are poised to make hundreds of millions trading carbon credits. And like Al Gore they can claim, “Well the program is necessary for the planet but we wouldn’t be responsible to our shareholders if we didn’t take advantage of the business opportunity. Because if we didn’t do it someone else would. Even republicans can’t argue with free enterprise.” Oddly enough there are a lot of people who spent (or are still spending) many years in prison for doing the same thing with stocks - creating markets.
It’s all a sham wrapped up in political correctness.
And isn’t it interesting that, just like GM and Chrysler, AIG seems headed for bankruptcy. The initial reason given for bailing these companies out was so they wouldn’t have to go into bankruptcy. Too funny, because by now it should be obvious to anyone with a brain the size of a brontosaurus the whole thing was an ingenious manipulation - obtain a huge stake in the companies with taxpayer money and, once that was accomplished, force them into bankruptcy so this administration could structure that bankruptcy to be profitable for their friends and political supporters - like the unions. And they can do this while all the while saying they are looking out for the interests of the American taxpayers.
Down here in Florida it has been pretty hot for the last week or so - two to five degrees above what they say is “normal” for this time of year. A lot of people I know were saying they didn’t remember it being this warm this early. But I went back to look at the stats and surprise, surprise, no new records were set. In fact one day when it got to 97 degrees the record high of 98 was set in 1997 and the record low of 68 was set in 2004.
I wish people would take the little time it actually requires to research the facts. But they won’t. So from now on I will refer to the great masses who vote with their “feelings” instead of their brains as “fuzidiots” (pronounced fuh-zid-ee-uts) - people who are more interested in feeling warm and fuzzy than doing something logical or rational.
As I have mentioned before - when even the possibility of a higher power is taken out of the equation you are at the point where every problem is man made and man is responsible for (if not capable of) fixing it. That is very dangerous. I can just see it now - instead of global warming these brainiacs decide the earth is cooling so they go out to the pacific and drop an A-bomb down a volcano to cause an eruption in order to spew more CO2 into the atmosphere in an attempt to warm the planet up.
Get ready boys and girls. They are ready to pop a cap in Mother Nature's ass, but as the old Chiffon margarine advertisement used to say, “It's not nice to fool (with) Mother Nature.” And I agree because if she decides to pop a cap back it ain't gonna be pretty - and probably not survivable.
I’m sure all here have noticed in the last nine to twelve months the term global warming has given way to terms like climate change and climate chaos. This gives proponents the ability to “bob and weave” more than Walter Peyton in his heyday. So it won’t matter that more and more scientists reject the theory of man-made global warming. The proponents will still be able to alter the course of their argument to fit current circumstances. They will always be able to point to some problem of the moment and say “that is what we are aiming to fix.”
Some big corps like GE and some big banks like Goldman Sachs are poised to make hundreds of millions trading carbon credits. And like Al Gore they can claim, “Well the program is necessary for the planet but we wouldn’t be responsible to our shareholders if we didn’t take advantage of the business opportunity. Because if we didn’t do it someone else would. Even republicans can’t argue with free enterprise.” Oddly enough there are a lot of people who spent (or are still spending) many years in prison for doing the same thing with stocks - creating markets.
It’s all a sham wrapped up in political correctness.
And isn’t it interesting that, just like GM and Chrysler, AIG seems headed for bankruptcy. The initial reason given for bailing these companies out was so they wouldn’t have to go into bankruptcy. Too funny, because by now it should be obvious to anyone with a brain the size of a brontosaurus the whole thing was an ingenious manipulation - obtain a huge stake in the companies with taxpayer money and, once that was accomplished, force them into bankruptcy so this administration could structure that bankruptcy to be profitable for their friends and political supporters - like the unions. And they can do this while all the while saying they are looking out for the interests of the American taxpayers.
Down here in Florida it has been pretty hot for the last week or so - two to five degrees above what they say is “normal” for this time of year. A lot of people I know were saying they didn’t remember it being this warm this early. But I went back to look at the stats and surprise, surprise, no new records were set. In fact one day when it got to 97 degrees the record high of 98 was set in 1997 and the record low of 68 was set in 2004.
I wish people would take the little time it actually requires to research the facts. But they won’t. So from now on I will refer to the great masses who vote with their “feelings” instead of their brains as “fuzidiots” (pronounced fuh-zid-ee-uts) - people who are more interested in feeling warm and fuzzy than doing something logical or rational.
As I have mentioned before - when even the possibility of a higher power is taken out of the equation you are at the point where every problem is man made and man is responsible for (if not capable of) fixing it. That is very dangerous. I can just see it now - instead of global warming these brainiacs decide the earth is cooling so they go out to the pacific and drop an A-bomb down a volcano to cause an eruption in order to spew more CO2 into the atmosphere in an attempt to warm the planet up.
Get ready boys and girls. They are ready to pop a cap in Mother Nature's ass, but as the old Chiffon margarine advertisement used to say, “It's not nice to fool (with) Mother Nature.” And I agree because if she decides to pop a cap back it ain't gonna be pretty - and probably not survivable.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Someone just sent me an article expounding the idea that the bailed out banks should be bailing out the auto companies. What follows was my reply.
Nobody should be bailing out anybody anymore - enough already. Too many of the banks have already tried to give the money bank and the government won't let them.
The banks now understand (and some of them did beforehand but were forced to take the money anyway) that they are really dealing with loan sharks. And like loan sharks they do not want the principal back they want to continue to collect the Vig (vigorish), the Juice, the Take - and that is the stake they now have in these institutions.
In fact I am totally pissed. This weekend I was watching the golf tournament in Charlotte - one of the real prestige events of the year on tour. It used to be "The Wachovia Championship", but since they took bailout money they couldn't sponsor this year and it was too late to line up another sponsor so the tour carried it themselves.
You may say, "Well what's wrong with that?" and I would say, "Just about everything."
Sponsoring that tournament broadcast on network TV afforded Wachovia millions of dollars of marketing exposure for nothing. Without them the charities in the area that are the beneficiaries of the money raised by the tournament will, this year, receive less or left out altogether
But I have to tell you the thing that irritated me the most was a commercial I saw during Sunday's broadcast. It was a commercial for the United Negro College Fund. They were pushing their (UNCF) campaign for Emrgency Student Aid - saying during these difficult times some students might have to drop out if they can't get help with their day to day living expenses during these difficult times. Hey, I have no problem with that at all. I believe in charitable giving and if you do and that is one of your selected charities then, by all means, fire them off a check - I think they are a fine institution.
But here is what really frosted my turnips. At the very end of the commercial in small print toward the bottom of the screen it read "Sponsored by Wachovia Bank". WHa-a-a-a-a-a-T ??
They were "allowed" to spend money producing and buying air time for a commercial for a non-profit institution but not allowed to spend money on marketing their brand by sponsoring a sporting event.
Who's in charge? As the current administration would say,
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
Nobody should be bailing out anybody anymore - enough already. Too many of the banks have already tried to give the money bank and the government won't let them.
The banks now understand (and some of them did beforehand but were forced to take the money anyway) that they are really dealing with loan sharks. And like loan sharks they do not want the principal back they want to continue to collect the Vig (vigorish), the Juice, the Take - and that is the stake they now have in these institutions.
In fact I am totally pissed. This weekend I was watching the golf tournament in Charlotte - one of the real prestige events of the year on tour. It used to be "The Wachovia Championship", but since they took bailout money they couldn't sponsor this year and it was too late to line up another sponsor so the tour carried it themselves.
You may say, "Well what's wrong with that?" and I would say, "Just about everything."
Sponsoring that tournament broadcast on network TV afforded Wachovia millions of dollars of marketing exposure for nothing. Without them the charities in the area that are the beneficiaries of the money raised by the tournament will, this year, receive less or left out altogether
But I have to tell you the thing that irritated me the most was a commercial I saw during Sunday's broadcast. It was a commercial for the United Negro College Fund. They were pushing their (UNCF) campaign for Emrgency Student Aid - saying during these difficult times some students might have to drop out if they can't get help with their day to day living expenses during these difficult times. Hey, I have no problem with that at all. I believe in charitable giving and if you do and that is one of your selected charities then, by all means, fire them off a check - I think they are a fine institution.
But here is what really frosted my turnips. At the very end of the commercial in small print toward the bottom of the screen it read "Sponsored by Wachovia Bank". WHa-a-a-a-a-a-T ??
They were "allowed" to spend money producing and buying air time for a commercial for a non-profit institution but not allowed to spend money on marketing their brand by sponsoring a sporting event.
Who's in charge? As the current administration would say,
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
Let the Healing Begin
I remember back during the campaign for the 2004 election when John Edwards said that if he and John Kerry were elected people like Christopher Reeve would eventually get up out of their wheelchairs and walk. He was, of course, referring to the fact President Bush had stopped all federal funding on new stem cell lines. (As an aside he should have gotten up and walked the first time Rielle Hunter started making eyes at him. Instead, apparently, he just got up but didn't walk).
This faith healer trend seemed to continue in the last campaign when Joe “the Joke” Biden entreated wheelchair bound Missouri state senator Chuck Graham to stand up for a round of applause.
Now, I don't know if it is what they put in the democrats coffee, but it seems that Arlen Specter has jumped on the Benny Hine bandwagon.
What a putz.
If they can just heal everyone I wonder why the Obama administration is setting aside 634 billion for a national health care scheme. Instead they should be figuring out how to close down all the medical schools, set up job retraining for doctors and nurses, and renovate the hospitals for use as public housing.
Come on guys - get on the ball.
This faith healer trend seemed to continue in the last campaign when Joe “the Joke” Biden entreated wheelchair bound Missouri state senator Chuck Graham to stand up for a round of applause.
Now, I don't know if it is what they put in the democrats coffee, but it seems that Arlen Specter has jumped on the Benny Hine bandwagon.
What a putz.
If they can just heal everyone I wonder why the Obama administration is setting aside 634 billion for a national health care scheme. Instead they should be figuring out how to close down all the medical schools, set up job retraining for doctors and nurses, and renovate the hospitals for use as public housing.
Come on guys - get on the ball.
Those Energy Sucking Fluorescent Bulbs
I live in a development that puts out a monthly magazine for the residents. Besides containing information particular to the residents it usually contains "useful" or "interesting" information. This month's issue contained facts compiled FP&L (Florida Power and Light) which detailed the percentage of energy used for different functions. Heating and Air cooling was number first at about thirty-seven percent. Water heating was second at about thirty percent. Lighting was down on the list coming in at a little less than five percent.
They say compact fluorescent bulbs use about seventy-five percent less energy than regular incandescent bulbs. If that is the case (and I am not going to spend a lot of time getting the math absolutely correct) then it's probably going to get the percentage of total energy use to down around three percent.
To me that kind of puts a lie to this kind of rhetoric from the article linked here
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html
What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.
(and don't you love the way they toss out the "facts" (LOL) - Power a city for how long? Take the cars of the road for how long? Where did they get their "facts"?)
And in order to save that small percentage of energy our homes use you would need to go through this (from an advisory article posted on www.epa.gov) if you break a CF bulb (which contains mercury vapor and dust).
Fluorescent light bulbs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal below. Please also read the information on this page about what never to do with a mercury spill.
Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug
Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.
Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials
If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.
Disposal of Clean-up Materials
Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.
(notice the admonition for future vacuuming and carpet cleaning)
Personally I would just keep the number for the EPA Hazmat team on speed dial.
I also think the savings would be offset by the printing of the forty-two page booklet that will eventually needed to be included with every bulb to satisfy the manufacturers' attorneys. And what about all those plastic bags and glass jars that will end up in land fills instead of being recycled?
So what's our conclusion folks? It's the same as it is in so many cases....
It's not about science, conservation, or saving the earth - it's about an agenda.
They say compact fluorescent bulbs use about seventy-five percent less energy than regular incandescent bulbs. If that is the case (and I am not going to spend a lot of time getting the math absolutely correct) then it's probably going to get the percentage of total energy use to down around three percent.
To me that kind of puts a lie to this kind of rhetoric from the article linked here
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html
What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.
(and don't you love the way they toss out the "facts" (LOL) - Power a city for how long? Take the cars of the road for how long? Where did they get their "facts"?)
And in order to save that small percentage of energy our homes use you would need to go through this (from an advisory article posted on www.epa.gov) if you break a CF bulb (which contains mercury vapor and dust).
Fluorescent light bulbs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal below. Please also read the information on this page about what never to do with a mercury spill.
Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug
Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.
Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials
If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.
Disposal of Clean-up Materials
Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.
(notice the admonition for future vacuuming and carpet cleaning)
Personally I would just keep the number for the EPA Hazmat team on speed dial.
I also think the savings would be offset by the printing of the forty-two page booklet that will eventually needed to be included with every bulb to satisfy the manufacturers' attorneys. And what about all those plastic bags and glass jars that will end up in land fills instead of being recycled?
So what's our conclusion folks? It's the same as it is in so many cases....
It's not about science, conservation, or saving the earth - it's about an agenda.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Supreme Court Nominee
I have no idea who will be nominated to replace Souter when he steps down from the Supreme court. I'm sure Monsieur le President has hopes they can find a woman who is part Cherokee, part Black, part Latin, part Asian, and who is disabled in some way (hearing impaired would be good so we could get a signer in the supreme court).
Anyway - thinking about it brought a couple of things to mind............
Wonder what ever happened to the eminent domain case brought to try to seize Souter’s house after he tipped the scales on the New London case? (turned out the land was never developed).
A story about Justice Ginsburg. To me it is a great illustration on the intellectual arrogance of many powerful liberals - as well as some insight into her personally.
Several years ago (and this was before she was diagnosed with cancer) a friend of mine was in Jackson Hole, WY doing some fly fishing. He was staying at one of the area’s better resort hotels. Apparently there was a legal conference going on with a lot of big names in attendance.
One night he at the head of the line at the Maitre D stand putting his name on the list for a table - about a fifteen minute wait. Just as he turned away Ruthie - with hubby in tow - marched past everyone to the head of the line and announced to the Maitre D in a voice loud enough for much of the restaurant to hear “I’m Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I don’t wait and I don’t pay.”
She was shown to a table immediately and a few minutes later my friend was seated at a table near her and her husband. From what my friend said she spent the whole meal time being nasty to the wait staff and berating her husband who sat, cowed, with his head down saying nothing.
Her waiter, who was also waiting on my friend said to him after she (Ginsburg) left - “Not only doesn’t she pay but she doesn’t tip either.”
I guess I can understand her wish to look to foreign law for precedent - looks like she got her manners from Paris.
Anyway - thinking about it brought a couple of things to mind............
Wonder what ever happened to the eminent domain case brought to try to seize Souter’s house after he tipped the scales on the New London case? (turned out the land was never developed).
A story about Justice Ginsburg. To me it is a great illustration on the intellectual arrogance of many powerful liberals - as well as some insight into her personally.
Several years ago (and this was before she was diagnosed with cancer) a friend of mine was in Jackson Hole, WY doing some fly fishing. He was staying at one of the area’s better resort hotels. Apparently there was a legal conference going on with a lot of big names in attendance.
One night he at the head of the line at the Maitre D stand putting his name on the list for a table - about a fifteen minute wait. Just as he turned away Ruthie - with hubby in tow - marched past everyone to the head of the line and announced to the Maitre D in a voice loud enough for much of the restaurant to hear “I’m Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I don’t wait and I don’t pay.”
She was shown to a table immediately and a few minutes later my friend was seated at a table near her and her husband. From what my friend said she spent the whole meal time being nasty to the wait staff and berating her husband who sat, cowed, with his head down saying nothing.
Her waiter, who was also waiting on my friend said to him after she (Ginsburg) left - “Not only doesn’t she pay but she doesn’t tip either.”
I guess I can understand her wish to look to foreign law for precedent - looks like she got her manners from Paris.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Repbulican "Brand"
Arlen Specter left the Republican party this week. No big loss as I see it. He never was a conservative voice or even a vote to be counted on for the republicans. Some, perhaps many, would say it is because he voted his conscience, but I don't see it that way at all.
Understand, I have no problem with, and in fact applaud, those who would disagree with their party on matters of principle. I disagreed vehemently with President Bush on refusing to veto spending bills. I would have stood up and cheered for any republican or democrat representative or senator who did the same. Unfortunately that didn't happen enough. The republicans seemed to think it was their turn at the trough.
Specter was greeted like the prodigal son and hailed by democrats as a man of principle and conscience. Someone willing to go against the current at great risk - implying that he finally got a clue (and a soul). Funny - they never said that about Joe Lieberman with his stance on the war. In fact the two situations are polar opposites.
Lieberman knew that he risked political suicide by taking the stance he did on Iraq and national defense. It was almost the case. He so infuriated the party bigwigs they refused to back him when he ran for re-election. He managed to run as an independent and win. Due to, I believe, the fact he did show he was a man of principle who had the courage of his convictions.
Specter, on the other had, is the antithesis. As little as two weeks ago he stated that he had no intention of switching parties. In fact in 2001 when senator Jeffers from Vermont abandoned the republican party to become an independent; senator Specter stated he wanted to change the rules to prohibit congresspersons from changing parties in the middle of the term. But Specter, seeing the looming specter of defeat, decided to jump ship to save his political hide. Even though he tried to parse it, he also admitted he knew it would be impossible for him to win the republican primary in Pennsylvania and nearly impossible to win the general election as an independent. So it wasn't a case of principle or being his own man. It was a case of surviving politically at any cost.
The whole thing got me thinking about the Republican brand. What does it need to be in order for the party to resuscitate itself?
Well, they need to quit talking about Reagan and, instead, act like Reagan. Reagan didn't worry about trying to
please and appease in order to bring people to the conservative movement. Instead he talked about reigning in government spending and building a strong national defense. On other issues he said that we could have our differences and just agree to disagree.
Too many republicans these days talk about widening the tent to encompass more people, but, in doing that, they end up with no identity and nothing to rally around. They need to get it down to basics. I began saying long ago - and continue to this day -
"There is a very great difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe the role of government is to protect us from all enemies - foreign and domestic. Liberals believe the role of government is to protect us from ourselves."
Take it from there. Be it gun control, nationalized health care, welfare, global warming, or any other issue, the differences between conservatives and liberal positions on issues can all be followed back to that statement.
I gladly grant the right of use for that statement to any conservative politician who has the smarts to pick it up.
Like Reagan - they shouldn't worry about expanding the republican party. They should be more concerned about expanding conservative ideas and ideals.
Understand, I have no problem with, and in fact applaud, those who would disagree with their party on matters of principle. I disagreed vehemently with President Bush on refusing to veto spending bills. I would have stood up and cheered for any republican or democrat representative or senator who did the same. Unfortunately that didn't happen enough. The republicans seemed to think it was their turn at the trough.
Specter was greeted like the prodigal son and hailed by democrats as a man of principle and conscience. Someone willing to go against the current at great risk - implying that he finally got a clue (and a soul). Funny - they never said that about Joe Lieberman with his stance on the war. In fact the two situations are polar opposites.
Lieberman knew that he risked political suicide by taking the stance he did on Iraq and national defense. It was almost the case. He so infuriated the party bigwigs they refused to back him when he ran for re-election. He managed to run as an independent and win. Due to, I believe, the fact he did show he was a man of principle who had the courage of his convictions.
Specter, on the other had, is the antithesis. As little as two weeks ago he stated that he had no intention of switching parties. In fact in 2001 when senator Jeffers from Vermont abandoned the republican party to become an independent; senator Specter stated he wanted to change the rules to prohibit congresspersons from changing parties in the middle of the term. But Specter, seeing the looming specter of defeat, decided to jump ship to save his political hide. Even though he tried to parse it, he also admitted he knew it would be impossible for him to win the republican primary in Pennsylvania and nearly impossible to win the general election as an independent. So it wasn't a case of principle or being his own man. It was a case of surviving politically at any cost.
The whole thing got me thinking about the Republican brand. What does it need to be in order for the party to resuscitate itself?
Well, they need to quit talking about Reagan and, instead, act like Reagan. Reagan didn't worry about trying to
please and appease in order to bring people to the conservative movement. Instead he talked about reigning in government spending and building a strong national defense. On other issues he said that we could have our differences and just agree to disagree.
Too many republicans these days talk about widening the tent to encompass more people, but, in doing that, they end up with no identity and nothing to rally around. They need to get it down to basics. I began saying long ago - and continue to this day -
"There is a very great difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe the role of government is to protect us from all enemies - foreign and domestic. Liberals believe the role of government is to protect us from ourselves."
Take it from there. Be it gun control, nationalized health care, welfare, global warming, or any other issue, the differences between conservatives and liberal positions on issues can all be followed back to that statement.
I gladly grant the right of use for that statement to any conservative politician who has the smarts to pick it up.
Like Reagan - they shouldn't worry about expanding the republican party. They should be more concerned about expanding conservative ideas and ideals.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Being Virally PC
Since Janet Napolitano told us the Candian border was a bigger problem than the Mexican border and abandoned the term "terrorist attack" in favor of "man-caused" disasters why would it surprise any of us that, instead of "swine flu", she is calling it "virus H 1 N 1". The purported reason being that it is having a a deleterious effect on the livelihood of pig farmers.
If it wasn't so stupidly sad it would be funny.
If it wasn't so stupidly sad it would be funny.
Monday, April 20, 2009
He's At it Again
Your friend and mine Iranian president, Ilostmydinnerjacket is, at this moment, speaking at the conference on racism in Geneva. He is using this opportunity to accuse Israel of being a racist country.
The representatives of Israel and Canada have walked out.
The US declined to attend the conference because of the final language in the declaration.
Australia also declined because it could not support the final text for the UN's Durban Review Conference because it reaffirmed the original Durban Declaration of 2001, which singled out Israel and the Middle East,
"Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the review conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views," Smith said in a statement.
He said Australia was also concerned at suggestions from some delegations to limit the universal right to free speech.
The representatives of Israel and Canada have walked out.
The US declined to attend the conference because of the final language in the declaration.
Australia also declined because it could not support the final text for the UN's Durban Review Conference because it reaffirmed the original Durban Declaration of 2001, which singled out Israel and the Middle East,
"Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the review conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views," Smith said in a statement.
He said Australia was also concerned at suggestions from some delegations to limit the universal right to free speech.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Irene and Iran
Right now I'm watching "The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler". Being Polish it maybe has a little more relevance for me than it may have for others. But it makes me think of that idiot president of Iran Ilostmydinnerjacket - because he is an Holocaust denier. The guy ought to be "Bitch Slapped" (I feel I can use this term because Jaimee Foxworthy called Miley Cyrus a white bitch - if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson has problem with that they can probably track me down).
Maybe Obama will give good ol' Ilostmydinnerjacket one across the chops when they get together for their "no preconditions" talks. Nah - probably won't - and if he did he would be immediately apologizing and asking where to send the reparations check.
Maybe Obama will give good ol' Ilostmydinnerjacket one across the chops when they get together for their "no preconditions" talks. Nah - probably won't - and if he did he would be immediately apologizing and asking where to send the reparations check.
Revisiting Science
I was watching 60 Minutes tonight and saw an interesting story. Scientists are going back and looking (in fact some have never stopped looking)at what used to be called cold fusion. Now days, though, they are calling it a nuclear event so as not to be confused with Pons and Fleischmann in 1989. These two scientists careers were ruined when it turned out they could not recreate their results.
I'm not going to cite names as you can find the clip and watch if you want the exact information, but to summarize the 60 Minutes anchor talked to a scientist who has been working on this for thirty years and he seems to be getting positive results. They then talked to another scientist who said he was skeptical. After that they talked to the vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri who and asked him to take a look at some of the research that was going on and study the results .
Interestingly enough his first reaction was, “I thought that question (science) had been decided long ago.” But he did agree to give it a gander. He visited a lab (in Israel I think), looked at their experiments and studied their data and conclusions. He came up with the opinion that there might be something to it and it was worth continuing the research.
The anchor asked him (the chancellor) what he had learned from the experience and he replied, “Don't let anyone do your thinking for you and don't be afraid to revisit science that people say has already been decided.”
The guy from 60 Minutes was wowed talking about how great this could be and wasn't it great that there were some scientists who were willing to face skepticism and even ridicule in pursuit of what they thought was right and possible.
At this point in the story I didn't know whether to laugh at this idiot anchor or scream. I mean these are the same folks who ridicule and deride anyone – absolutely anyone – who dares to say (or even speculate) that the science on global warming is not decided. And some of these people they are dismissing have very impressive credentials. A heck of a lot more impressive credentials than, say, Al Gore. Well that might not be saying much because I think any high school junior chemistry student has betteer scientific credentials than Al Gore – and more than likely a lot more integrity as well.
So let me repeat that for “Al and Pals” - don't be afraid to revisit science that people say has already been decided. Of course I know they won't listen because it's not about the science - it's about the agenda. It's exactly the same with embryonic stem cell research. Because the Bush administration cut off funding for new embryonic stem cell lines the science of adult stem cells lines was revisited and great strides were made.
Again, for liberals it's not about science – it's about the agenda.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The "Transparency" we can believe in
Okay Mr. President. During the campaign you told us your administration would usher in a new era of transparency in government. So far it's not working out too well.
You told us you would post all bills on the White House web site for at least five days to let the American people read them. But with the "stimulo-porkosaurus" bill that didn't happen. In fact you said the need for expediency was so dire that the bill had to be passed immediately - before even those is congress could read the bill (though I am not so sure five days would have been enough for congresspeople - I don't have a lot of faith in their ability to even read at all). Then after saying time was of the essence you waited five days to sign it. In the interim you wasted all kinds of money using Air Force One to fly back to Chicago for a "Valentine's Date" with your wife then wasted more big money flying to Denver to sign the bill. What's up with that, Bro' ?
But it gets worse, Monsieur le President. You chastized corporate CEOs for their spendthrift ways and execs for going on outings and retreats and sponsoring golf tournaments, etc. and while doing that you signed an executive order to limit the pay of CEOs of companies that have taken money from the government to five hundred thousand per year. Interesting, then, that you have were conspicuously silent (while union members are losing jobs) about the little AFL-CIO "shindig" at the ultra ritzy Fontainbleu resort and Spa in Miami beach. Not only that but your VP, Mr. Bon Mot himself, spoke in person and you spoke via teleconference to the union bigwigs (telling them you will get the "card check" law passed)while not allowing any press coverage.
And just as slyly, under stealth mode, you have signed an executive order that all government contracts must use union labor. Not only is that not trasparency but you have just raised the cost of government contracts by a minimum of ten percent at a time when the government should being doing its utmost to save the taxpayer's (not YOURS) money.
Mr. Obama your promise of "transparency" was a lie. Pure and simple. However, your agenda was transparent during the campaign and it continues to be so. Too bad so many of the voters chose not to see through you. So just "go on wit your bad self". Keep pushing that agenda. More and more Americans are taking off the blinders.
You told us you would post all bills on the White House web site for at least five days to let the American people read them. But with the "stimulo-porkosaurus" bill that didn't happen. In fact you said the need for expediency was so dire that the bill had to be passed immediately - before even those is congress could read the bill (though I am not so sure five days would have been enough for congresspeople - I don't have a lot of faith in their ability to even read at all). Then after saying time was of the essence you waited five days to sign it. In the interim you wasted all kinds of money using Air Force One to fly back to Chicago for a "Valentine's Date" with your wife then wasted more big money flying to Denver to sign the bill. What's up with that, Bro' ?
But it gets worse, Monsieur le President. You chastized corporate CEOs for their spendthrift ways and execs for going on outings and retreats and sponsoring golf tournaments, etc. and while doing that you signed an executive order to limit the pay of CEOs of companies that have taken money from the government to five hundred thousand per year. Interesting, then, that you have were conspicuously silent (while union members are losing jobs) about the little AFL-CIO "shindig" at the ultra ritzy Fontainbleu resort and Spa in Miami beach. Not only that but your VP, Mr. Bon Mot himself, spoke in person and you spoke via teleconference to the union bigwigs (telling them you will get the "card check" law passed)while not allowing any press coverage.
And just as slyly, under stealth mode, you have signed an executive order that all government contracts must use union labor. Not only is that not trasparency but you have just raised the cost of government contracts by a minimum of ten percent at a time when the government should being doing its utmost to save the taxpayer's (not YOURS) money.
Mr. Obama your promise of "transparency" was a lie. Pure and simple. However, your agenda was transparent during the campaign and it continues to be so. Too bad so many of the voters chose not to see through you. So just "go on wit your bad self". Keep pushing that agenda. More and more Americans are taking off the blinders.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Return of KAOS
On one of the morning news shows today they were doing an interview with Daryl Hannah. The hosts are in New York and Ms Hanna is in a studio in Washington DC. As with most interviews of this type the interviewee is sitting in front of a window (or a projection of a window - the miracle of technology) to show the beauty of the city's skyline or some such.
Daryl Hannah was in DC to attend the big protest against carbon emissions - advertised as the biggest ever- to specifically target the coal-fired electrical generating plant that supplies capitol hill. Oddly enough (as in the recent past) this little " get together" was undermined by a whopping snowstorm - one bad enough to stop Nancy Pelosi and other dignitaries (LOL what dignity - they sold theirs out long ago) from attending because the airports were closed.
So Ms Hannah sits in front of a shot of the DC Mall and the capitol building covered in the white stuff that falls from the skies and tries to defend the concept of Global Warming. It is too funny. And in defending she becomes (like so many of her ilk) defensive and deflective. But that's to be expected from most liberals. Their mantra? When challenged - challenged the challenger. When a question can't be answered - deflect the question or change the subject.
Has anyone noticed (I'm sure you have - brilliant readers) that the movement has morphed? It started out as Global Warming and when it was irrefutably demonstrated that some places were actually getting cooler it became Climate Change. But today I heard from Ms Hannah's lips the next incarnation Climate Chaos. Because (she said) "The climate really is in chaos."
After I quit laughing I could appreciate the alliterative nature of the terminology. But the other thing that came to mind was, due to the sheer silliness of what she and her companeros were trying to sell, was an old TV series. So from now on from me it will be (in honor of good ol' Maxwell Smart) Klimate KAOS. After all KAOS was a nefarious organization of dubious intelligence that was bent on destroying the American way of life. I will heretofore refer to the members of this group as the Klimate KAOS Kowboys (and Kowgirls or Kowpersons for the PC) or "Triple K".
I have said this before but it bears repeating. I don't care if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, or Taoist - if you take away the concept of some kind of "higher power" in the universe then you have only two choices left. The first being that everything is totally random and there is nothing anyone can do to change anything. While this idea - on one level - appeals to
liberals they must ultimately reject it because it states there is nothing anyone can do to change anything. The second choice, therefore, is the one they must embrace - that all problems in our world are man made and, if so, man can fix them. Unfortunately (like many liberal tacks) this is the most dangerous of all courses. This brings into effect the law of unintended consequences. This usually means that by thinking they can fix things or make them better they will inevitably make them worse - often with extremely dire outcomes.
I am longing for Maxwell Smart (the Don Adams incarnation not the poor imitation by Steve Carell) to come and thwart the new (Klimate) KAOS and its Kowbowys - led by the laughable (but nonetheless deadly) Algorski. Unfortunately Don Adams is no longer with us. Most people don't know this but Don Adams was actually the alter ego of Tennessee Tuxedo instead of the other way around. Tennessee and his ever present companion, Chumley, were purported to have died on an ice floe that broke off the antarctic due to (then) Global Warming. However after much investigation I have found out they were actually kidnapped from their oceanfront condo in Delray Beach Florida and dumped on the floe by agents of KAOS in order to create more support for their cause.
In ending I have a a few suggestions and one last observation.
The suggestions are for the "Triple Ks". First, see if you can steal that Cone of Silence from the, quite probably unguarded, warehouse where all of the CONTROL (now defunct) gadgets are stored. It would be useful for many of your members but I think you might want it permanently left over the head of Joe Biden.
Second, I would try to find more erudite spokespeople than Ms Hannah. When questioned she said that yes she was returning to LA from DC by train to save on carbon emissions. When the interviewer said he hoped she had something to help pass the time on that long trip she said, "It really doesn't take as long as you think. I'm pretty sure I'll only be on the train for one full day."
Well since the trip (connecting through Chicago or New Orleans) must be between 2,800 and 3,200 miles that must be one fast hummer of a train.
Third, if you are going to schedule conferences, meetings, or protests, you might want to look at places along the atlantic coast of Florida or along the gulf coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas during hurricane season. Then if you have to cancel due to weather you could make the argument it was actually caused by global warming, climate change, or climate chaos. Even though it would be an erroneous argument it would get plenty of play on the msn (main stream media).
As for the observation. Maybe these "Inconvenient Snowstorms" are a message from the Man Upstairs that no matter what you think the climate is not in chaos it is only marching to the beat of His Cosmic Drum - and even given all your arrogance you can't alter the tune or the cadence.
Daryl Hannah was in DC to attend the big protest against carbon emissions - advertised as the biggest ever- to specifically target the coal-fired electrical generating plant that supplies capitol hill. Oddly enough (as in the recent past) this little " get together" was undermined by a whopping snowstorm - one bad enough to stop Nancy Pelosi and other dignitaries (LOL what dignity - they sold theirs out long ago) from attending because the airports were closed.
So Ms Hannah sits in front of a shot of the DC Mall and the capitol building covered in the white stuff that falls from the skies and tries to defend the concept of Global Warming. It is too funny. And in defending she becomes (like so many of her ilk) defensive and deflective. But that's to be expected from most liberals. Their mantra? When challenged - challenged the challenger. When a question can't be answered - deflect the question or change the subject.
Has anyone noticed (I'm sure you have - brilliant readers) that the movement has morphed? It started out as Global Warming and when it was irrefutably demonstrated that some places were actually getting cooler it became Climate Change. But today I heard from Ms Hannah's lips the next incarnation Climate Chaos. Because (she said) "The climate really is in chaos."
After I quit laughing I could appreciate the alliterative nature of the terminology. But the other thing that came to mind was, due to the sheer silliness of what she and her companeros were trying to sell, was an old TV series. So from now on from me it will be (in honor of good ol' Maxwell Smart) Klimate KAOS. After all KAOS was a nefarious organization of dubious intelligence that was bent on destroying the American way of life. I will heretofore refer to the members of this group as the Klimate KAOS Kowboys (and Kowgirls or Kowpersons for the PC) or "Triple K".
I have said this before but it bears repeating. I don't care if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, or Taoist - if you take away the concept of some kind of "higher power" in the universe then you have only two choices left. The first being that everything is totally random and there is nothing anyone can do to change anything. While this idea - on one level - appeals to
liberals they must ultimately reject it because it states there is nothing anyone can do to change anything. The second choice, therefore, is the one they must embrace - that all problems in our world are man made and, if so, man can fix them. Unfortunately (like many liberal tacks) this is the most dangerous of all courses. This brings into effect the law of unintended consequences. This usually means that by thinking they can fix things or make them better they will inevitably make them worse - often with extremely dire outcomes.
I am longing for Maxwell Smart (the Don Adams incarnation not the poor imitation by Steve Carell) to come and thwart the new (Klimate) KAOS and its Kowbowys - led by the laughable (but nonetheless deadly) Algorski. Unfortunately Don Adams is no longer with us. Most people don't know this but Don Adams was actually the alter ego of Tennessee Tuxedo instead of the other way around. Tennessee and his ever present companion, Chumley, were purported to have died on an ice floe that broke off the antarctic due to (then) Global Warming. However after much investigation I have found out they were actually kidnapped from their oceanfront condo in Delray Beach Florida and dumped on the floe by agents of KAOS in order to create more support for their cause.
In ending I have a a few suggestions and one last observation.
The suggestions are for the "Triple Ks". First, see if you can steal that Cone of Silence from the, quite probably unguarded, warehouse where all of the CONTROL (now defunct) gadgets are stored. It would be useful for many of your members but I think you might want it permanently left over the head of Joe Biden.
Second, I would try to find more erudite spokespeople than Ms Hannah. When questioned she said that yes she was returning to LA from DC by train to save on carbon emissions. When the interviewer said he hoped she had something to help pass the time on that long trip she said, "It really doesn't take as long as you think. I'm pretty sure I'll only be on the train for one full day."
Well since the trip (connecting through Chicago or New Orleans) must be between 2,800 and 3,200 miles that must be one fast hummer of a train.
Third, if you are going to schedule conferences, meetings, or protests, you might want to look at places along the atlantic coast of Florida or along the gulf coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas during hurricane season. Then if you have to cancel due to weather you could make the argument it was actually caused by global warming, climate change, or climate chaos. Even though it would be an erroneous argument it would get plenty of play on the msn (main stream media).
As for the observation. Maybe these "Inconvenient Snowstorms" are a message from the Man Upstairs that no matter what you think the climate is not in chaos it is only marching to the beat of His Cosmic Drum - and even given all your arrogance you can't alter the tune or the cadence.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Weird Thought on Caylee Anthony
I apologize (to the few who read here) for getting into the Caylee Anthony thing, but I had a thought right after the poor child disappeared and it came back to me tonight as I was watching her brother on TV trying to support his sister's story about how the babysitter took the girl and threatened Casey and her family.
When I first heard the girls' name, Caylee, I thought it a bit odd, but this is the south and you see some of that kind of thing. But when I heard her brother's name was Lee it suddenly occurred to me - Ca(se)y and Lee - "Caylee".
I had this strange feeling that that child may have been both hers and her brother's - and Lord knows that happens in the south sometimes, too.
When I first heard the girls' name, Caylee, I thought it a bit odd, but this is the south and you see some of that kind of thing. But when I heard her brother's name was Lee it suddenly occurred to me - Ca(se)y and Lee - "Caylee".
I had this strange feeling that that child may have been both hers and her brother's - and Lord knows that happens in the south sometimes, too.
Obama at LeJune
President Obama headed to Camp LeJune today to make his public announcement about his timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. I did not see all the speech but one thing caught my attention (and like many things he has said since he began campaigning it probably sneaked under the radar). When he was talking about the withdrawal from Iraq and other military operations he said, “I will consult with members of congress before making any decisions” (probably didn’t get it word for word but close enough). What was missing?
Military leaders. He did not say, “I will consult with congress AND military leaders”. An oversight? I don’t think so. It might have been an inadvertent omission but it goes to the heart of things. He has no respect for, and does not intend to listen to, military leaders.
I thought it was interesting that out of the four Marines behind Obama in the fixed pool camera shot of the speech two were black. But I’ll tell you - none of them looked happy.
And one other thing. It irritates the heck out of me that he spent another few hundred thousand to take AF One down there just for the photo op of making the speech at a military base. I actually think he thought a lot of them would be happy just to be leaving Iraq - whether the job was done or not. He obviously doesn’t know military people (especially Marines). I would hope that some of their sense of honor and camaraderie would have rubbed off on him - but I doubt it. Like Clinton he has made a serious error that just because he is commander in chief he will automatically be respected by the troops. He doesn’t understand that they will obey all his lawful orders but it doesn’t mean they will respect him.
If you want to go visit the troops - fine. Don’t USE them.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Bailout Meal Deal
Someone sent me section A from the Denver Post the day after Obama signed the Bailout Bill in Denver. The best part of the whole thing was a full page add taken out by Colorado Republicans.
One quote there was from Ed Quillen - a long time Denver Post columnist. He said his daughter is a bartender and she posted a sign in the bar that said "Try our new drink, the Bailout. You don't know what's in it and it's very expensive." The sign got the requisite chuckles but to her surprise some people wanted to order one. Now she's trying to figure out the price and the ingredients - just like congress.
Personally I think the recipe should be
The Bailout Cocktail
2 parts sour milk
2 parts Limburger cheese
1 part ipecac syrup
2 tablespoons chitterlings (chitlins)
Mix in blender so it's impossible to distinguish the ingredients
Garnish with a piece of raw sausage and an umbrella.
The result - some people will love it because of the umbrella but even for them
it will smell and taste like garbage, be almost impossible to swallow, and still potentially kill you even after you've thrown up.
Oddly enough the other day I went to a barbecue place I like here in Melbourne, Florida. When the waitress came to the table I told her I wanted the "Bailout Meal Deal". She gave me a strange look and said, "I don't think we have that on the menu. "
I said, "Sure you do. That's the deal where I get to order as many pulled pork sandwiches as I want, you put them on someone else's bill and refuse tell them what the charge is for."
It got a laugh.
One quote there was from Ed Quillen - a long time Denver Post columnist. He said his daughter is a bartender and she posted a sign in the bar that said "Try our new drink, the Bailout. You don't know what's in it and it's very expensive." The sign got the requisite chuckles but to her surprise some people wanted to order one. Now she's trying to figure out the price and the ingredients - just like congress.
Personally I think the recipe should be
The Bailout Cocktail
2 parts sour milk
2 parts Limburger cheese
1 part ipecac syrup
2 tablespoons chitterlings (chitlins)
Mix in blender so it's impossible to distinguish the ingredients
Garnish with a piece of raw sausage and an umbrella.
The result - some people will love it because of the umbrella but even for them
it will smell and taste like garbage, be almost impossible to swallow, and still potentially kill you even after you've thrown up.
Oddly enough the other day I went to a barbecue place I like here in Melbourne, Florida. When the waitress came to the table I told her I wanted the "Bailout Meal Deal". She gave me a strange look and said, "I don't think we have that on the menu. "
I said, "Sure you do. That's the deal where I get to order as many pulled pork sandwiches as I want, you put them on someone else's bill and refuse tell them what the charge is for."
It got a laugh.
Oscars Wild(e) ?
No pretty much the same old stuff - not that I watched much of it. The only reason I was even remotely interested this year is because Hugh Jackman was hosting - and I like him. He seems to be a nice guy who has never Russel Crowed a concierge with a telephone or a bar patron with his fists. He seems to fly under the radar most of the time. In fact I was a bit surprised to see him instead of a Jon Stewart or a Whoopi Goldberg. Not sure if the powers that be in the academy were trying to be non-political or just afraid that someone of the usual ilk would get a visible tingle up their leg or start swooning and blurt out, "I've been fantasizing about you Mr. President. Come take me - take me now." just before fainting dead away.
Now I don't spend a lot of my time with PBS either, but part two of Oliver Twist on Masterpiece theater was on my viewing schedule last night - mainly because after ten minutes of part one I was hooked. I will get back to my take on the Oscars shortly but I must say if anyone gets a chance to see the particular Oliver Twist it is well worth it. The actor who played Fagin was amazing. Anyway that's the reason I only caught the first half hour and parts of the last hour of the Oscars. But it was enough. Just the usual suspects drooling and fawning all over each other.
First out of the box was Penelope Cruz (best supporting actress) who had to get in a bit of a babble about how movies were important because art (of all kinds) could bring people together all around the world. Yeah right Ms. PC (Penelope Cruz - PC - I would call that serendipity for me here) - if you sat me down and made me watch a few hours of the normal drivel that comes out of Hollywood I would be ready to make a few heads roll. I don't think it's going to stop Hamas or Al Qaeda from wanting to blow you up.
Next up was Dustin Lance Black (best original screenplay for Milk) who tearily told us of his family moving from Utah to San Francisco and how that finally allowed him to be able to show his feelings and dream of one day falling in love. After about five more minutes of the same he finally said, Thank God for sending us Harvey Milk." Hey Dustin - we know you're gay and that's okay. Ninety-nine point five percent of America doesn't care how you live your life. As far as I know you were never homeless or hungry - your life wasn't that tough. Not to mention you just won an Oscar and your next screenplay will be worth a couple of mil plus a percentage of the gross (no presidentially mandated salary caps in Hollywood) even if it's terrible. With all due respect Mr. Black if you had just delivered the last line of your speech it would have conveyed everything much more eloquently and saved us five minutes of your boring personal life history.
At that point I was off to Oliver Twist for a very enjoyable ninety minutes.
Okay - back just in time for Kat Winslet (Best Actress). Not much to say about her - haven't even seen any movies she's been in. Nice dress last night though.
And on to Sean Penn (Best Actor for Milk). Now I think Sean Penn is an idiot, but I do think he is a pretty good actor. However being a good actor doesn't excuse him for being an idiot. Of course his acceptance speech had much to do with intolerance of gays. He admonished all those who voted for the gay marriage ban in California. He told them all they should be ashamed of themselves. Yep he told them. I wonder if he told Hugo Chavez that he should be tolerant of gays and listen to his countrymen. I sincerely doubt it. He also mentioned something about all of those who saw those hateful signs as they were driving in. Not sure what he was on about there but I haven't been able to find anything so far this morning regarding that.
So then Slumdog Millionaire was awarded best picture. Turned off the TV. I did hear a snippet from the director's acceptance speech this morning though, "To Mumbai thank you. To all those who helped us make the movie and all those who didn't - thank you." Not sure what the heck that meant.
So here's the hypocrisy I noticed in the short time I watched the Oscars.
1. Best picture winner Slumdog Miilionaire was made for thirteen million dollars. I'm sure the producers did not pay prevailing Hollywood or London union wage to the cast and crew. This would have made a huge difference in the lives of those working on the film - especially the crew. The latest figures I can find show it has grossed a little over one hundred and fifty-nine million dollars worldwide. If the producers pledged and portion of the profits toward alleviating suffering in the slums of Mumbai, Calcutta, or elsewhere in India I have not seen it. Also how the academy members must have groaned and agonized over voting for the film. On the one hand it is a film made in (what they would consider) a country that has many poor and underprivileged - this would be a good thing. On the other hand it must have savaged their souls to vote for a film that was about, and made in, a country to which many jobs have been outsourced from this country (America) and that the film would have been dead in the water (gone direct to DVD) if it hadn't been for a small arm of Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp (which owns Fox News) picking up the distribution.
2. Voting for Sean Penn for best actor must have even been worse for them - poor devils. On the one hand he is the ultimate poster boy for the industry. He is a good actor and he is a political moron. Better yet he doesn't mind flaunting his political moronity to the general public without making apologies. And, for the academy, that is a very good thing. On the other hand the bad thing, they did was to give an award to a straight actor for playing a gay man. The same angst and feelings of ambivalency must be rampant in the gay community as well. After all the American actors and activists were up in arms years ago when Jonathan Pryce was set to debut in Miss Saigon on Broadway playing an asian. In fact one asian actor B.D. Wong who had won a Tony for a supporting role in M. Butterfly had this to say......
''There is no doubt in my mind of the irreparable damage to my rights as an actor that would be wrought if (at the threshold of the 21st century) Asian actors are kept from bringing their unique dignity to the specifically Asian roles in 'Miss Saigon,' and therefore to all racially specific roles in every future production which will look to the precedent 'Miss Saigon' is about to set as a concrete model.''
In fact American Equity actually went so far as to ban caucasians from playing asian roles. They ended up giving Miss Saigon a technical out so Pryce could play the character but the ban probably still holds. Funny they never banned Morgan Freeman from playing Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew in Central Park the same year. Hypocrisy? I think so.
And one other Hollywood - Broadway unsavory (for the Hollylibs) connection. I also found it odd that Hugh Jackman hosted when he had made his Broadway debut in The Boy From Oz playing gay Australian songwriter Peter Allen. And let's face it finding a gay actor in Hollywood or a gay song and dance man on Broadway is about as hard as finding a piece of pepperoni at Pizza Hut.
I thought that was what acting is all about - playing characters far removed from one's personal persona and making them believable. Otherwise everyone would just be playing themselves on screen and that wouldn't be acting. It would just be boring. Oh wait - that's what most movies are these days (as Jo Anne Worley would say) BOOOOOOOOR - ing.
Now I don't spend a lot of my time with PBS either, but part two of Oliver Twist on Masterpiece theater was on my viewing schedule last night - mainly because after ten minutes of part one I was hooked. I will get back to my take on the Oscars shortly but I must say if anyone gets a chance to see the particular Oliver Twist it is well worth it. The actor who played Fagin was amazing. Anyway that's the reason I only caught the first half hour and parts of the last hour of the Oscars. But it was enough. Just the usual suspects drooling and fawning all over each other.
First out of the box was Penelope Cruz (best supporting actress) who had to get in a bit of a babble about how movies were important because art (of all kinds) could bring people together all around the world. Yeah right Ms. PC (Penelope Cruz - PC - I would call that serendipity for me here) - if you sat me down and made me watch a few hours of the normal drivel that comes out of Hollywood I would be ready to make a few heads roll. I don't think it's going to stop Hamas or Al Qaeda from wanting to blow you up.
Next up was Dustin Lance Black (best original screenplay for Milk) who tearily told us of his family moving from Utah to San Francisco and how that finally allowed him to be able to show his feelings and dream of one day falling in love. After about five more minutes of the same he finally said, Thank God for sending us Harvey Milk." Hey Dustin - we know you're gay and that's okay. Ninety-nine point five percent of America doesn't care how you live your life. As far as I know you were never homeless or hungry - your life wasn't that tough. Not to mention you just won an Oscar and your next screenplay will be worth a couple of mil plus a percentage of the gross (no presidentially mandated salary caps in Hollywood) even if it's terrible. With all due respect Mr. Black if you had just delivered the last line of your speech it would have conveyed everything much more eloquently and saved us five minutes of your boring personal life history.
At that point I was off to Oliver Twist for a very enjoyable ninety minutes.
Okay - back just in time for Kat Winslet (Best Actress). Not much to say about her - haven't even seen any movies she's been in. Nice dress last night though.
And on to Sean Penn (Best Actor for Milk). Now I think Sean Penn is an idiot, but I do think he is a pretty good actor. However being a good actor doesn't excuse him for being an idiot. Of course his acceptance speech had much to do with intolerance of gays. He admonished all those who voted for the gay marriage ban in California. He told them all they should be ashamed of themselves. Yep he told them. I wonder if he told Hugo Chavez that he should be tolerant of gays and listen to his countrymen. I sincerely doubt it. He also mentioned something about all of those who saw those hateful signs as they were driving in. Not sure what he was on about there but I haven't been able to find anything so far this morning regarding that.
So then Slumdog Millionaire was awarded best picture. Turned off the TV. I did hear a snippet from the director's acceptance speech this morning though, "To Mumbai thank you. To all those who helped us make the movie and all those who didn't - thank you." Not sure what the heck that meant.
So here's the hypocrisy I noticed in the short time I watched the Oscars.
1. Best picture winner Slumdog Miilionaire was made for thirteen million dollars. I'm sure the producers did not pay prevailing Hollywood or London union wage to the cast and crew. This would have made a huge difference in the lives of those working on the film - especially the crew. The latest figures I can find show it has grossed a little over one hundred and fifty-nine million dollars worldwide. If the producers pledged and portion of the profits toward alleviating suffering in the slums of Mumbai, Calcutta, or elsewhere in India I have not seen it. Also how the academy members must have groaned and agonized over voting for the film. On the one hand it is a film made in (what they would consider) a country that has many poor and underprivileged - this would be a good thing. On the other hand it must have savaged their souls to vote for a film that was about, and made in, a country to which many jobs have been outsourced from this country (America) and that the film would have been dead in the water (gone direct to DVD) if it hadn't been for a small arm of Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp (which owns Fox News) picking up the distribution.
2. Voting for Sean Penn for best actor must have even been worse for them - poor devils. On the one hand he is the ultimate poster boy for the industry. He is a good actor and he is a political moron. Better yet he doesn't mind flaunting his political moronity to the general public without making apologies. And, for the academy, that is a very good thing. On the other hand the bad thing, they did was to give an award to a straight actor for playing a gay man. The same angst and feelings of ambivalency must be rampant in the gay community as well. After all the American actors and activists were up in arms years ago when Jonathan Pryce was set to debut in Miss Saigon on Broadway playing an asian. In fact one asian actor B.D. Wong who had won a Tony for a supporting role in M. Butterfly had this to say......
''There is no doubt in my mind of the irreparable damage to my rights as an actor that would be wrought if (at the threshold of the 21st century) Asian actors are kept from bringing their unique dignity to the specifically Asian roles in 'Miss Saigon,' and therefore to all racially specific roles in every future production which will look to the precedent 'Miss Saigon' is about to set as a concrete model.''
In fact American Equity actually went so far as to ban caucasians from playing asian roles. They ended up giving Miss Saigon a technical out so Pryce could play the character but the ban probably still holds. Funny they never banned Morgan Freeman from playing Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew in Central Park the same year. Hypocrisy? I think so.
And one other Hollywood - Broadway unsavory (for the Hollylibs) connection. I also found it odd that Hugh Jackman hosted when he had made his Broadway debut in The Boy From Oz playing gay Australian songwriter Peter Allen. And let's face it finding a gay actor in Hollywood or a gay song and dance man on Broadway is about as hard as finding a piece of pepperoni at Pizza Hut.
I thought that was what acting is all about - playing characters far removed from one's personal persona and making them believable. Otherwise everyone would just be playing themselves on screen and that wouldn't be acting. It would just be boring. Oh wait - that's what most movies are these days (as Jo Anne Worley would say) BOOOOOOOOR - ing.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Arrogance of Change We Were Taken In By
Barack Obama and the democrats in congress kept telling the American people that passing the stimul(osaur)us bill was imperative and must be done immediatley. They kept saying that times were dire and every day was bringing the country closer and closer to an economic depression from which we might never recover. That was the reason the bill had to be passed without giving members of congress or the American people time to read the bill – to at least see what was in it. That being the case then why did Obama not sign the bill into law immediately after its passage on Friday night February 13, 2009? Why did he choose to wait until today Tuesday February 17, 2009 to sign the bill in Denver?
Obviously signing the bill was not more important than returning to Chicago for social reasons and a supposed Valentine's Day date with his wife. Obviously time was not of the essence (at least not enough) so he could make a political statement by signing the bill in front of a Colorado plant that manufactures solar panels. (Solar panels using current technology don't even make economic sense – but that is a discussion for another day).
So it got me thinking about a couple of things. In the midst of this economic crisis how much the trip was going to cost – on several levels. The following statistics come from a report prepared for representative Henry A Waxman (democrat from California) of the Committee on Government Reform.
If you read the full report at this location
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060316113550-47530.pdf
it becomes evident Waxman's intentions were not only to try to embarrass the Bush administration, but to try to see if there was anything that might be used to prosecute that administration.
Cost of Presidential and Vice Presidential Flights Per Flight Hour
This report assumes that flight operating costs are $56,518 per hour for Air Force
One and $14,552 per hour for Air Force Two. These figures are based on the per-
hour cost figures cited by GAO for fiscal year 2000, adjusted for inflation.7
According to the Congressional Research Service, the President’s domestic travel
also involves the use of accompanying cargo planes. This report assumes one
cargo plane accompanies the President on each trip at an operating cost per hour
of $6,960. This figure is based on the per-hour cost cited by GAO for fiscal year
2000 for the C-17 cargo plane, adjusted for inflation.
Lets do some quick figuring. In the middle of the economic crisis the president Obama took a round trip flight to Chicago this past weekend and is taking a trip to Denver today. I think he is going to Phoenix after that but we will discount that here for the sake of simplicity.
Estimated round trip flight time to Chicago from Andrews AFB outside Washington, DC is
four hours. Estimated round trip flight time to Denver from Andrews is 8 hours.
So for these two trips since the bill was passed we have flight time of twelve hours
Air Force One costs 12 X $56, 518.00 = $678,216.00
Accompanying Cargo plane cost 12 X $ 6,960.00 = $ 83,520.00
Total Costs $761,736.00
This doesn't even take into account the cost of anything incurred by state and local governments for increased personnel hours for additional security, etc.
But I guess as Chuckie Schumer said in his speech last week in the senate (while he was berating republicans for not getting on board with stimul(osaur)us bill because of a few porky amendments), “Who wants to quibble over a few (hundred) million?”
Now, since president Obama is going to Denver to make a point about alternative energy usage which will reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere the next thing we need to do is calculate the carbon footprint of these two flights. Now as best as I can figure the total air miles for these two round trips is 4,128 miles. For the sake of easy figuring we will drop the insignificant 128 miles (after all that could easily be offset by a medium sized neighborhood's lighting if they replaced all their regular bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs).
From the best figures I could find for a 747 (and we will use the same figures for the C-17 cargo plane)
For every one thousand passenger miles flown calculating an average passenger load the carbon emissions equal .485 tons. If we figure (conservatively) 300 passengers per each aircraft then that would be 145.5 tons CO2 per one thousand miles flown. If we multiply that by 4 for the two round trips we come up with the total CO2 emissions for the two flights of 582 tons.
If you took the average family of 4 who drove cars that got 15 MPG (very low -darn gas hogs)driving 1,200 miles per month, recycled nothing, all ate meat, and used 1600 Kw hours of electricity per month (very high for a family of four) then the household emissions of CO2 would be just about 32 tons per year. To offset that amount the family would have to plant 134 trees per year. I estimated all usages on the very high end to be fair to Monsieur le President.
If you do the division then the two jaunts in the last five days have equaled the annual total carbon emissions of eighteen really non-green families. Multiply that by 134 and Mr. Obama and his Climechangling administration would have to plant 2,412 trees to offset the carbon emissions for a Chicago date and Denver political photo op.
As an addendum I guess Nancy Pelosi and four of her democratic house cohorts took off for Italy to meet with high ups in the Italian government and have an audience with the pope. I don't know what the hell the speaker of the house is doing engaging in activities that should be under the auspices of the State department (but don't feel bad Barack and Hillary she did the same thing in the middle east when George W was in the white house). I also am somewhat ashamed as a catholic that the pope is going to meet with a woman (who describes herself as an ardent catholic but is an ardent supporter of abortion) who has led (and won) the fight to fund – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars – abortion not only in this country but around the world. And not only is she being granted an audience with the pope but the Vatican announced because she is third in line for the presidency as Speaker of the House she will be treated as a "head of state". Shameful
But let's get back to the carbon stuff. Pelosi and pals took a government aircraft so let's assume that it was a 767 because of the transatlantic flight. Even if we scale back the emissions to one-half (low) of the 747 due to two engines instead of four and lets say an average passenger load of 200 (low) it would still come out to a total 48.4 tons per one thousand miles flown by the plane. Multiply this by nine (round trip between DC and Rome is 9000 air miles) and you get 435. 6 tons of carbon emissions for the trip to beautiful Roma on business she shouldn't even be doing. Divide that by our non-green family standard of 32 tons per year and we'll round down to the carbon output of 13 families. That would mean planting 1,742 trees to offset the trip.
Between Obama and Pelosi Al Gore's companies are going to have to clear a slum somewhere around San Jose, Costa Rica or Rio to make room for all those offset tree plantings – 4,154.
Now as to the cost of the trip – I'll be generous and cut the airplane operating cost by forty percent – making it $33,910 per hour. The round trip flight hours from DC to Rome would be about nineteen. That would make the total cost of the flight $644,290.00. Knowing the cost of first class accommodations and first class food in Italy then figuring in local transportation I think we can say $1,000.00 per day per person is in the ballpark. (The aircrew is probably staying at Aviano so we'll let their per diem slide). So five people would be $5,000.00 per day times five days would be $25,000.00 bringing the grand total to $669,290.00 for the trip.
Add that to Barack's hops and the taxpayers get to pay a bill for $1,431,026.00 for a five day period that accomplished nothing in the way of the people's business - nothing. Still I am sure our friend Chuckie Schumer would call this “chump change”.
But again it's all just about the intellectual arrogance of politicians. Do as I say not as I do because what I am doing is so important I can ignore the rules I tell you to live by.
Obviously signing the bill was not more important than returning to Chicago for social reasons and a supposed Valentine's Day date with his wife. Obviously time was not of the essence (at least not enough) so he could make a political statement by signing the bill in front of a Colorado plant that manufactures solar panels. (Solar panels using current technology don't even make economic sense – but that is a discussion for another day).
So it got me thinking about a couple of things. In the midst of this economic crisis how much the trip was going to cost – on several levels. The following statistics come from a report prepared for representative Henry A Waxman (democrat from California) of the Committee on Government Reform.
If you read the full report at this location
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060316113550-47530.pdf
it becomes evident Waxman's intentions were not only to try to embarrass the Bush administration, but to try to see if there was anything that might be used to prosecute that administration.
Cost of Presidential and Vice Presidential Flights Per Flight Hour
This report assumes that flight operating costs are $56,518 per hour for Air Force
One and $14,552 per hour for Air Force Two. These figures are based on the per-
hour cost figures cited by GAO for fiscal year 2000, adjusted for inflation.7
According to the Congressional Research Service, the President’s domestic travel
also involves the use of accompanying cargo planes. This report assumes one
cargo plane accompanies the President on each trip at an operating cost per hour
of $6,960. This figure is based on the per-hour cost cited by GAO for fiscal year
2000 for the C-17 cargo plane, adjusted for inflation.
Lets do some quick figuring. In the middle of the economic crisis the president Obama took a round trip flight to Chicago this past weekend and is taking a trip to Denver today. I think he is going to Phoenix after that but we will discount that here for the sake of simplicity.
Estimated round trip flight time to Chicago from Andrews AFB outside Washington, DC is
four hours. Estimated round trip flight time to Denver from Andrews is 8 hours.
So for these two trips since the bill was passed we have flight time of twelve hours
Air Force One costs 12 X $56, 518.00 = $678,216.00
Accompanying Cargo plane cost 12 X $ 6,960.00 = $ 83,520.00
Total Costs $761,736.00
This doesn't even take into account the cost of anything incurred by state and local governments for increased personnel hours for additional security, etc.
But I guess as Chuckie Schumer said in his speech last week in the senate (while he was berating republicans for not getting on board with stimul(osaur)us bill because of a few porky amendments), “Who wants to quibble over a few (hundred) million?”
Now, since president Obama is going to Denver to make a point about alternative energy usage which will reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere the next thing we need to do is calculate the carbon footprint of these two flights. Now as best as I can figure the total air miles for these two round trips is 4,128 miles. For the sake of easy figuring we will drop the insignificant 128 miles (after all that could easily be offset by a medium sized neighborhood's lighting if they replaced all their regular bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs).
From the best figures I could find for a 747 (and we will use the same figures for the C-17 cargo plane)
For every one thousand passenger miles flown calculating an average passenger load the carbon emissions equal .485 tons. If we figure (conservatively) 300 passengers per each aircraft then that would be 145.5 tons CO2 per one thousand miles flown. If we multiply that by 4 for the two round trips we come up with the total CO2 emissions for the two flights of 582 tons.
If you took the average family of 4 who drove cars that got 15 MPG (very low -darn gas hogs)driving 1,200 miles per month, recycled nothing, all ate meat, and used 1600 Kw hours of electricity per month (very high for a family of four) then the household emissions of CO2 would be just about 32 tons per year. To offset that amount the family would have to plant 134 trees per year. I estimated all usages on the very high end to be fair to Monsieur le President.
If you do the division then the two jaunts in the last five days have equaled the annual total carbon emissions of eighteen really non-green families. Multiply that by 134 and Mr. Obama and his Climechangling administration would have to plant 2,412 trees to offset the carbon emissions for a Chicago date and Denver political photo op.
As an addendum I guess Nancy Pelosi and four of her democratic house cohorts took off for Italy to meet with high ups in the Italian government and have an audience with the pope. I don't know what the hell the speaker of the house is doing engaging in activities that should be under the auspices of the State department (but don't feel bad Barack and Hillary she did the same thing in the middle east when George W was in the white house). I also am somewhat ashamed as a catholic that the pope is going to meet with a woman (who describes herself as an ardent catholic but is an ardent supporter of abortion) who has led (and won) the fight to fund – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars – abortion not only in this country but around the world. And not only is she being granted an audience with the pope but the Vatican announced because she is third in line for the presidency as Speaker of the House she will be treated as a "head of state". Shameful
But let's get back to the carbon stuff. Pelosi and pals took a government aircraft so let's assume that it was a 767 because of the transatlantic flight. Even if we scale back the emissions to one-half (low) of the 747 due to two engines instead of four and lets say an average passenger load of 200 (low) it would still come out to a total 48.4 tons per one thousand miles flown by the plane. Multiply this by nine (round trip between DC and Rome is 9000 air miles) and you get 435. 6 tons of carbon emissions for the trip to beautiful Roma on business she shouldn't even be doing. Divide that by our non-green family standard of 32 tons per year and we'll round down to the carbon output of 13 families. That would mean planting 1,742 trees to offset the trip.
Between Obama and Pelosi Al Gore's companies are going to have to clear a slum somewhere around San Jose, Costa Rica or Rio to make room for all those offset tree plantings – 4,154.
Now as to the cost of the trip – I'll be generous and cut the airplane operating cost by forty percent – making it $33,910 per hour. The round trip flight hours from DC to Rome would be about nineteen. That would make the total cost of the flight $644,290.00. Knowing the cost of first class accommodations and first class food in Italy then figuring in local transportation I think we can say $1,000.00 per day per person is in the ballpark. (The aircrew is probably staying at Aviano so we'll let their per diem slide). So five people would be $5,000.00 per day times five days would be $25,000.00 bringing the grand total to $669,290.00 for the trip.
Add that to Barack's hops and the taxpayers get to pay a bill for $1,431,026.00 for a five day period that accomplished nothing in the way of the people's business - nothing. Still I am sure our friend Chuckie Schumer would call this “chump change”.
But again it's all just about the intellectual arrogance of politicians. Do as I say not as I do because what I am doing is so important I can ignore the rules I tell you to live by.
Double Aught
Just a note before I begin - "aught" is an old word which means "zero - a cipher". "Naught" means the same
Okay I never did watch Oprah that often. I used to watch her show more, but over the years there were too many cases of her ethnocentric bias coming through and that bothered me. I lost almost all respect for her when she went gaga over Obama and had him on the show twice - citing his historic candidacy (the reason she was backing him - besides the fact she is a flaming lib) - while refusing to have Sara Palin on the show.
Still I have to admit that every now and then when "Dr. Oz" is bringing on a fifty foot tapeworm (or something of the like) I will turn it on. And yesterday seemed to be one of those days. Her show was called "Whiz Kids". It was all child prodigies - many of them in the arts. We were treated to a 13 year old violin virtuoso, a 12 year old yodeling champion, etc. It was entertaining.
Then about twenty minutes into the show she has a six year old boy on who is an authority on presidents. First she asked him how he got interested in presidents and his answer was pretty typical for a six year old - along the lines of, "Well first I just got interested in them and then I started studying them and then I got REALLY interested in them." From here I expected a couple of questions about obscure presidential facts. But oh no -"Say it ain,t so Miss O" - she asks the youngster what he thought of our current president - Monsieur Obama - and the whole character of his phrasing and speech changed (as if rehearsed). He said, "I think he is great and will end the wars and bring peace, etc." Much too adult to not have been a "learned" response.
Oprah - you had no business asking a six year old that question. A six year old can learn amazing things but at that age they aren't really capable of forming an independent opinion. Pretty much everything they hear they will take as fact (especially if their parents have said it) and spew it back out. Pretty shameful for you, Oprah, to use a child to further your political views.
So Oprah that was it for me. You've gone over the line - way over. And for asking the question you ought not to have asked you have become an aught naught.
So that's it Oprah and Obama - the double ought or should I say the Double Aught Naught.
Okay I never did watch Oprah that often. I used to watch her show more, but over the years there were too many cases of her ethnocentric bias coming through and that bothered me. I lost almost all respect for her when she went gaga over Obama and had him on the show twice - citing his historic candidacy (the reason she was backing him - besides the fact she is a flaming lib) - while refusing to have Sara Palin on the show.
Still I have to admit that every now and then when "Dr. Oz" is bringing on a fifty foot tapeworm (or something of the like) I will turn it on. And yesterday seemed to be one of those days. Her show was called "Whiz Kids". It was all child prodigies - many of them in the arts. We were treated to a 13 year old violin virtuoso, a 12 year old yodeling champion, etc. It was entertaining.
Then about twenty minutes into the show she has a six year old boy on who is an authority on presidents. First she asked him how he got interested in presidents and his answer was pretty typical for a six year old - along the lines of, "Well first I just got interested in them and then I started studying them and then I got REALLY interested in them." From here I expected a couple of questions about obscure presidential facts. But oh no -"Say it ain,t so Miss O" - she asks the youngster what he thought of our current president - Monsieur Obama - and the whole character of his phrasing and speech changed (as if rehearsed). He said, "I think he is great and will end the wars and bring peace, etc." Much too adult to not have been a "learned" response.
Oprah - you had no business asking a six year old that question. A six year old can learn amazing things but at that age they aren't really capable of forming an independent opinion. Pretty much everything they hear they will take as fact (especially if their parents have said it) and spew it back out. Pretty shameful for you, Oprah, to use a child to further your political views.
So Oprah that was it for me. You've gone over the line - way over. And for asking the question you ought not to have asked you have become an aught naught.
So that's it Oprah and Obama - the double ought or should I say the Double Aught Naught.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
A New Complex
I have heard this from enough sources I trust to believe it is true. There seem to be a lot of women out there who are fantasizing about having sex with the new President. Well if that is the case I would offer to the American Psychiatric Association (or whoever puts a moniker to these things) my suggestion for the condition.
For the women
The Oba-Mandingo Complex
For the men (and I am sure there are more than a few out there getting a "tingle up their leg")
The Oba-Man-dingo Complex
For the women
The Oba-Mandingo Complex
For the men (and I am sure there are more than a few out there getting a "tingle up their leg")
The Oba-Man-dingo Complex
Stimulus for the Brain Dead
I heard the joint house - senate conference committee took a few things out of the stimulus package. Apparently they were afraid they might lose the votes of the three Republican senators (fat chance when Rinos roll over they stay rolled over). So in order to assuage them two of the things they took out were a 15K tax credit for anyone buying a house and the ability to write off the interest on a new car loan. More brilliance from congress - take out two things that actually MIGHT help stimulate the economy. If the economy is in dire need of a cash infusion it's nothing compared to the infusion of ethics and brains the congress needs.
How can a group that has single digit approval ratings even hint they are doing the will of the American people? Intellectual arrogance rises exponentially when the Potomac is crossed.
For some reason the title of a Ray Bradbury book which I read in high school keeps coming to mind -
Something Wicked This Way Comes
How can a group that has single digit approval ratings even hint they are doing the will of the American people? Intellectual arrogance rises exponentially when the Potomac is crossed.
For some reason the title of a Ray Bradbury book which I read in high school keeps coming to mind -
Something Wicked This Way Comes
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Trojan Song
A friend of mine just sent me a link to this song called Born Again American. It's the third or fourth time someone sent me a link, but that's okay. I like them to send me links to things they like because they find the subject interesting or informative. If they didn't send them along them I might miss something I like because I find the subject interesting or informative.
The first time I head the song I was tapping my foot along to the tune and getting into the words – especially the chorus. Then something made me go “Whoa Nelly”. Standing in front of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis was this attractive young woman singing
My brother's welding chassis at the plant
He's earning what our Granddad did in 1948
While CEOs count bonuses behind the castle gates
How can they see when all they care about's the dough-re-mi
I know darn well that somebody welding chassis in an auto plant is making a heck of a lot more than somebody doing it in nineteen forty-eight. And, even adjusted for inflation, they have a lot more buying power. This didn't strike me as some little factual indiscretion used in artistic license. It was a downright prevarication used to misinform and (coupled with the next two lines) further promote class envy.
Now I am not saying CEOs aren't sitting on each other's companies boards of directors and giving each other huge compensation packages. They do and I think it should be illegal. Personally I think the stockholders should have at least as much say in the salaries of the company officers – but that's a discussion for another day.
But after hearing that line I went back to listen to the song again and caught a few other similar things so subtle they would have slipped by me if it hadn't been for the flagrant one I mentioned above.
In the link I got today it mentioned Norman Lear commissioned (or asked) Keith Carradine to write the song. I checked it out and found this to be factual. That being the case my initial reaction to the lines made more sense. Neither of these guys is what I would call a centrist or even center left – especially Lear. He was one of the founders of both People for the American Way and New American Foundation.
Both of these organizations set themselves forth as bipartisan with a mission to find bipartisan solutions to America's problems. However it only takes a few minutes worth of reading to see they are anything but what they claim to be. They have an article or two they label conservative but they lean so far left they haven't got all four wheels on the road. The same (quadrupled) can be said of Media Matters for America – an organization staunchly supported by Lear. While claiming to be a watchdog of the media Media Matters only criticizes anyone who takes issue with the liberal agenda. They will even turn on the liberals in the media faster than an injured wolf will turn on its own if they even dare to stray from the party talking points.
But let's get back to the song. How do I know the lines were meant to be inflammatory and advance an agenda? Pretty simple really. Keith Carradine has been around the music industry a long time. He has written enough good songs of his own and recorded others by great songwriters. He knows the craft and he knows how to say exactly what he wants to say. The most obvious example is in the chorus of the song with the words “my bible and the bill of rights”. Now while I will not comment on the beliefs of Carradine or Lear (they may both be men of great faith in God), but I can tell you they are in no way, shape, or form, tolerant of any evidence (even the merest whiff) of a connection between the church and state. So it would have been easy to get the point across by writing the line as, “my abiding faith and the bill of rights”. This would have been generic enough to be inclusive but still express a faith in a higher power. I believe it was an intentional grab for the religious/evangelical support. Even the title of the song Born Again American attempts to appeal to the same group.
So here's my problem. Even if you agree with most of what is being said and you sign the pledge
I am a born again American
I am my country's keeper
My president and my congress
report to me
And say so -
I will stay informed and involved
I will make my voice heard
And not just at election time
I can make a difference
I matter
I am an American, born again
you see this in very small print at the bottom of the page
By signing our Pledge or submitting lyrics or a personal pledge, you are automatically added to our email list for messages related to the Born Again American campaign.
What is the Born Again American campaign? What are they going to do with my signature? Where else (on what other petition) will it appear?
Why do they not spell any of this out?
Maybe I am not a trusting soul, but that comes from experience. In fact I have learned well over the years
“If you want to sell a lie surround it with the truth”.
And
“Don't trust the package unless you know who wrapped it”
(I call this the Ted Kosinksy doctrine)
Seems to me this is the perfect example of The Trojan Song.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Gitmo Dilema
Obviously there are many reasons for Gitmo. Some of the people are still there because their home countries won’t take them back or if they are willing to do so the chances are they (the detainees) would be subjected to REAL torture if shipped back. Of course several countries in Europe have agreed to take some of them but only after extensive investigation and interviews to determine they are NOT terrorists. I am assuming these interviews will not include water boarding.
Of course I find it laughable the libs want to close Gitmo and move them into the US prison system. I know we can all feel warm and fuzzily assured that when they are moved they will continue to be treated to several culturally and religiously appropriate dining choices for every meal. We can also be positive the correctional guards at the US facilities will treat the Koran with all the same deference the current military guards do. Yeah right. One thing I do know none of them will be headed to Maricopa County Jail's tent city run by Joe Arpaio. Though the desert and the heat might make them feel right at home I think I remember something in Koran banning the wearing of pink underwear.
I proposed a solution for the Bush administration to implement before he left office that should have satisfied the libs and saved tons of money in the long run. Bring them all to the states and buy them convenience stores in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco and around Hyde Park in Chicago. They would have felt right at home and they could have become contributing members of society. It’s too bad no one went for it - I would have traveled great distances just to hear, “Would you like a detonator or some primer cord with that Slurpee?”
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Where's the Equity
I believe the government should have never gotten involved in the bailout of AIG or fiancial institutions. But they did and while I believe president Bush (and maybe treasury secretary Paulson) thought they were doing something necessary I also believe that many liberal congresspeople involved in banking and finance were chortling gleefully behind closed doors. The reason for their raised spirits? They saw a way to grab a huge amount of control in the private sector - especially in the financial arena that has tentacles all throughout the economy. So the way was clear.
There were more than a few local and regional banks (and a couple of large ones) that didn't need bailout money. Some of them took it because it was offered and who turns down money? (Big mistake as it turns out.) Many of the smaller banks did not want to take the money but they were subjected to a lot of pressure to do so. One of these banks execs said (and I paraphrase), "We finally agreed to take it because we were getting such a hard sell we were afraid we would end up on some bad list if we didn't." Amidst all the feeding frenzy at the trough this went pretty much unnoticed and unreported. The uberlibs were smiling more and more. They were having and A Team moment (loving it when a plan comes together).
So yesterday, February 4, 2009 the "coup de gras" was delivered. President Obama issued an order that caps executive salaries at any company that took TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) money. This edict does not need congressional approval (though it probably wouldn't have any trouble getting it). So now the democrats can tell the private sector what they can pay for executive talent and I am sure with this leverage they will be making other suggestions (read decisions) for these institutions as well. And a lot of banks that were solvent were caught in the net because they were intimidated into taking some of the money. Bet now they wish they hadn't.
So I now get to ask the question "Where's the equity?" And here's what I mean. The reason Obama and the congressional democrats give for limiting the executive salaries and dictating what they do is that they have cost the American taxpayers billions. If that is the case then why isn't it alright to demand that people on public assistance who have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars do certain things for the money they have taken? It seems to me there is no difference. But if anyone tries to hold those people accountable for their bad decisions and bad behavior then they are vilified for being uncaring. If corporations are to be held accountable for spending taxpayer money on business meetings at fancy hotels after taking taxpayer money why is it wrong to ask that individuals who are taking taxpayer money be held accountable for using food stamps to buy better food in the grocery store than many working people can afford?
If anyone has an answer I wish they would let me know.
There were more than a few local and regional banks (and a couple of large ones) that didn't need bailout money. Some of them took it because it was offered and who turns down money? (Big mistake as it turns out.) Many of the smaller banks did not want to take the money but they were subjected to a lot of pressure to do so. One of these banks execs said (and I paraphrase), "We finally agreed to take it because we were getting such a hard sell we were afraid we would end up on some bad list if we didn't." Amidst all the feeding frenzy at the trough this went pretty much unnoticed and unreported. The uberlibs were smiling more and more. They were having and A Team moment (loving it when a plan comes together).
So yesterday, February 4, 2009 the "coup de gras" was delivered. President Obama issued an order that caps executive salaries at any company that took TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) money. This edict does not need congressional approval (though it probably wouldn't have any trouble getting it). So now the democrats can tell the private sector what they can pay for executive talent and I am sure with this leverage they will be making other suggestions (read decisions) for these institutions as well. And a lot of banks that were solvent were caught in the net because they were intimidated into taking some of the money. Bet now they wish they hadn't.
So I now get to ask the question "Where's the equity?" And here's what I mean. The reason Obama and the congressional democrats give for limiting the executive salaries and dictating what they do is that they have cost the American taxpayers billions. If that is the case then why isn't it alright to demand that people on public assistance who have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars do certain things for the money they have taken? It seems to me there is no difference. But if anyone tries to hold those people accountable for their bad decisions and bad behavior then they are vilified for being uncaring. If corporations are to be held accountable for spending taxpayer money on business meetings at fancy hotels after taking taxpayer money why is it wrong to ask that individuals who are taking taxpayer money be held accountable for using food stamps to buy better food in the grocery store than many working people can afford?
If anyone has an answer I wish they would let me know.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Public Welfare
IT has happened so many time over the past few years that it no longer surprises me. The IT being people who label themselves republicans and/or conservatives tell me they voted for laws restricting smoking. They can rant about the government intrusion in our lives all the live long day but they think it is okay to tell someone what they can or can't do if it involves "public health" even if the science it is based on is shaky.
This one former smoker I know (and they are the worst) kept telling me how they had passed a ballot initiative in his city to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. He said he had voted for it. When I said I thought it wasn't the government's business to tell people what they could do with their own places of business he got very defensive.
He said, "It's unhealthy."
I said, "I know."
He said "You don't know how nice it is to be able to go into a bar and have a beer without someone sitting next to you blowing smoke in your face."
I said, "I know, but no one is forcing you to go into that particular establishment. It would be different if it were a government facility that you had to go to in order to conduct business. Why don't you go to the owner or manager and advise them that you like their establishment but you won't be patronizing it because they allow smoking? If enough people do that then they will change their policy - the free market will take care of it."
He replied, "I should be able to go to any place that allows or serves the public without being subjected to people's smoke."
I said, "Why?"
At that point he just kept repeating the same old talking points. Looking back it reminds me a lot of the way the "Climechangelings" (the former "Glormings") keep saying "The science is decided - climate change (read global warming) is real." As if saying it enough will make it so.
Let's face it - we all know smoking is not good for you. We all know that someone who is constantly exposed to second hand smoke may very well suffer the consequences. But does that give me the right to tell someone what they can do with their personal life or in a business they own. I think not. And all of those so-called conservatives who do think so have no idea what they are enabling..............
"CO2 emissions have to be reduced because it is a danger to public welfare. "
" We have to ban guns. Too many people are getting shot. It's a danger to public welfare."
"We have to curtail fast food intake. It's a danger to public welfare."
Just a few examples and notice I said public welfare because that word of generality will allow them to mandate many things like.......
"Anyone who has (what WE deem to be) high cholesterol will be forced to take statins regardless of the side effects because to not take them MIGHT put additional strain on the medical system and that would be a danger to the public welfare."
The same thing is being done with free speech issues. There are a lot of so-called conservatives who are defenders of free speech until you say something they don't like.
Personally I call that hypocrisy - which is most definitely a danger to the public welfare.
This one former smoker I know (and they are the worst) kept telling me how they had passed a ballot initiative in his city to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. He said he had voted for it. When I said I thought it wasn't the government's business to tell people what they could do with their own places of business he got very defensive.
He said, "It's unhealthy."
I said, "I know."
He said "You don't know how nice it is to be able to go into a bar and have a beer without someone sitting next to you blowing smoke in your face."
I said, "I know, but no one is forcing you to go into that particular establishment. It would be different if it were a government facility that you had to go to in order to conduct business. Why don't you go to the owner or manager and advise them that you like their establishment but you won't be patronizing it because they allow smoking? If enough people do that then they will change their policy - the free market will take care of it."
He replied, "I should be able to go to any place that allows or serves the public without being subjected to people's smoke."
I said, "Why?"
At that point he just kept repeating the same old talking points. Looking back it reminds me a lot of the way the "Climechangelings" (the former "Glormings") keep saying "The science is decided - climate change (read global warming) is real." As if saying it enough will make it so.
Let's face it - we all know smoking is not good for you. We all know that someone who is constantly exposed to second hand smoke may very well suffer the consequences. But does that give me the right to tell someone what they can do with their personal life or in a business they own. I think not. And all of those so-called conservatives who do think so have no idea what they are enabling..............
"CO2 emissions have to be reduced because it is a danger to public welfare. "
" We have to ban guns. Too many people are getting shot. It's a danger to public welfare."
"We have to curtail fast food intake. It's a danger to public welfare."
Just a few examples and notice I said public welfare because that word of generality will allow them to mandate many things like.......
"Anyone who has (what WE deem to be) high cholesterol will be forced to take statins regardless of the side effects because to not take them MIGHT put additional strain on the medical system and that would be a danger to the public welfare."
The same thing is being done with free speech issues. There are a lot of so-called conservatives who are defenders of free speech until you say something they don't like.
Personally I call that hypocrisy - which is most definitely a danger to the public welfare.
Beware the Bailout of Detroit
Even though there are hearings all over C-Span we still have no idea what deals are being made in the back rooms (remember that reporter in Denver at the Dem Convention who was accosted/arrested by the police just because he was trying to take pictures of all the big money people and Obama’s top aides?).
My true fear is that congress and the administration will cajole (read “force”) the automakers into retooling to make more hybrid cars based on the current technology - this will cost billions. The current hybrid technology in this country doesn’t even give the kind of mileage that diesel does (and diesel is very clean now thanks in large part to President Bush’s administration mandating a 95% reduction in sulfur for highway diesel). Not only is the mileage less but there is the problem of disposing / recycling the batteries - a process potentially much more dangerous to the environment than the carbon emissions.
Take a look at some of the electric and hybrid technology currently being developed in Europe and Asia - it’s amazing. Within four to eight years that technology will make the current obsolete so about the time the US automakers start rolling out the big numbers of vehicles based on the current technology no one will want them because the Asian and European manufacturers will be delivering cars based on the new technology.
If the past 20 years of the computer era has taught us anything it should be that profitability depends on continuing innovation. Business and individuals are capable of such innovation - government is not.
Monday, February 2, 2009
V-me Oh-vey
My PBS station broadcasts come from Orlando. About 2 years ago they proudly announced they would be the first PBS station in the US to have a channel completely in Spanish - called V-me (pronounced V-meh). I found it interesting this hadn’t been launched in a market like LA, NYC, or Miami. But maybe in those markets they already have a goodly number of Spanish language stations available (here we have all four on basic cable) and understand the target audience is probably more interested in football (soccer), telenovelas, game shows, talk shows, etc. No different than the English speaking audiences. Anyway - since they launched V-me their fundraising programming has gone from a couple of weeks a year to an average of one week out of every four. And they keep showing the same darn programs every time.
I guess the Spanish speakers aren’t watching and if they are they seem to not grasp the concept that they should have to donate to a TV station. Gee, maybe they think, “Isn’t that what commercials are for?” Seems to me they pretty well grasp the concept of the free market. Maybe better than we do.
I guess the Spanish speakers aren’t watching and if they are they seem to not grasp the concept that they should have to donate to a TV station. Gee, maybe they think, “Isn’t that what commercials are for?” Seems to me they pretty well grasp the concept of the free market. Maybe better than we do.
Monday, October 20, 2008
General Powell - "we hardly knew ye" - or did we?
Yesterday (Sunday, October 18, 2008) Colin Powell endorsed Senator Obama for president. I have a lot of respect for Powell as a military man. That being said (coming from a family where my father and two brothers were military officers) to rise as high as he did (in the military)he needed to be very politically astute. He said - as early as '96 - that he was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. In most cases I can't see the ability to be both - many of the socially liberal stances require substantial spending.
Once thing that bothered me a couple of days ago when I saw it was Powell saying electing a black man would be electrifying in the message it sent to the world. If you read the whole article at this link
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/15/1403219.aspx
you will see what scares me about that attitude (held by a lot of people). I think the job of president is much too important to be used to "send a message". I keep having this vision of Sally Field standing at the Oscars saying "You like me. You really like me." I think this statement, coupled with others (ie governor Palin does not have the ability to be president while Obama is qualified to be commander in chief and I don't think the supreme court can stand more conservative appointments) shows me he has an agenda. As I stated before he had to be very politically savvy to rise to his position in the military so he has to know that an Obama president with a democratic congress (and a possible super majority in the senate) things like "the fairness doctrine"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm
will be passed ultimately having the power to limit free and open debate in this country.
In the long run I don't think this endorsement is going to sway anyone and it has the flavor - at this point in the race - of jumping on the bandwagon. Something that someone with Colin Powell's stature does not need to do. So it makes me wonder why he did.
Given the upsurge of social progressives and their agenda in the past years it doesn't surprise me that huge numbers of people seem eager to willing vote away their individual freedoms. But it does surprise me that someone who has seen, firsthand, the price paid by countless numbers of men and women over the years to defend those freedoms would encourage them to do so.
Once thing that bothered me a couple of days ago when I saw it was Powell saying electing a black man would be electrifying in the message it sent to the world. If you read the whole article at this link
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/15/1403219.aspx
you will see what scares me about that attitude (held by a lot of people). I think the job of president is much too important to be used to "send a message". I keep having this vision of Sally Field standing at the Oscars saying "You like me. You really like me." I think this statement, coupled with others (ie governor Palin does not have the ability to be president while Obama is qualified to be commander in chief and I don't think the supreme court can stand more conservative appointments) shows me he has an agenda. As I stated before he had to be very politically savvy to rise to his position in the military so he has to know that an Obama president with a democratic congress (and a possible super majority in the senate) things like "the fairness doctrine"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm
will be passed ultimately having the power to limit free and open debate in this country.
In the long run I don't think this endorsement is going to sway anyone and it has the flavor - at this point in the race - of jumping on the bandwagon. Something that someone with Colin Powell's stature does not need to do. So it makes me wonder why he did.
Given the upsurge of social progressives and their agenda in the past years it doesn't surprise me that huge numbers of people seem eager to willing vote away their individual freedoms. But it does surprise me that someone who has seen, firsthand, the price paid by countless numbers of men and women over the years to defend those freedoms would encourage them to do so.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Over-medication of America
I have a good friend – one of the few people I met in college with who I keep in touch. We are pretty much diametrically opposed in out political views, but oddly enough, are aligned when it comes to the belief people are too accepting of what doctors say. We both hold the thought that each of us is the final arbiter of their own health care decisions. One day I asked him how his parents were doing and he related a story to me to which illustrates the point.
His mother – now in her eighties – had always been in generally good health. However, upon a visit to her doctor, she discovered her blood pressure was slightly elevated. Not, mind you, “Oh my God you are a stroke waiting to happen” elevated – just slightly elevated. So,as doctors are often want to do, her doctor prescribed some medication. Now he could have talked to her about altering her diet, etc. and keeping an eye on the situation, but because (and this will come into play later) many doctors have attitudes about older folks, he assumed she wouldn't be able to do that. After a few weeks on the medication her blood pressure was down, but (let me do my Gomer Pyle impression – Soo-prise, Soo-prise, Soo-prise) she was experiencing some side effects.
So back to the doctor. Instead of taking her off the blood pressure medication (remember her pressure was only slightly elevated) or looking at alternative medication ( there are many for blood pressure control) he prescribed more pills for the side effects.
I'm sure you can guess where this is going. More pills for the side effects of those pills, and more pills for the side effects of those pills. Pretty soon the poor woman was taking about fifteen pills a day and feeling worse than she ever had. Her balance was bad and she was having problems with her memory. So back to the doctor and the kind, caring, conscientious physician (yeah right) informed her family that she was in the initial stages of dementia and/or Alzheimer's and the best thing to do was to institutionalize her - find a nursing home that deals with that kind of thing. Of course the fact that she was an octogenarian played a huge factor in the doctor's diagnosis and recommendations.
My friend was unaware of all of this until his father called him to discuss putting his mother in a home. My friend was obviously perplexed and concerned. In the course of only a couple of months his mother had gone from a vital, aware woman to someone who could barely stand and couldn't remember what she had for breakfast. So my friend talked to his mother's physician who not only defended his prescribing of all the medications, but got very defensive about the fact a mere layman would even question his judgment. No help there.
My friend finally found an extension of the Cleveland Clinic in Orlando (where his parents lived) and a doctor who was willing to listen. After consultation and review of the medications he advised that they take her off of all her medications to start. Within three weeks his mother was back to her old self.
This scenario plays itself out many thousands of times every year in this country. In a lot of respects Medicare part D enables it to happen even more. So often doctors treat the symptoms without even looking at the underlying cause. Sometimes this is enough – often it is not.
There is so much more to go into about this “epidemic” (irony definitely intended), but it isn't actually the point of this opinion piece. Instead it is the parallel with our economy.
Our economy has been over-medicated. The government is forcing the American taxpayers to take more and more medication and, like doctors, our elected representatives get defensive and don't look to find the underlying causes. Instead they choose to treat the symptoms. Looking at controlling the disease instead of curing the patient. In many ways they possess the same hubris as the doctors who are unwilling to look at alternatives. They believe there is no way the people who are paying the bills can possibly understand the malady. They believe they have to do something because the patient (the economy) can't heal itself.
Two quotes come to mind. The first from the Hippocratic Oath - “First, do no harm”. The second is from one of my favorites, Voltaire. He said, “The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while Nature cures the disease.”
I don't think most of those in office ever read Voltaire – pity.
I have a good friend – one of the few people I met in college with who I keep in touch. We are pretty much diametrically opposed in out political views, but oddly enough, are aligned when it comes to the belief people are too accepting of what doctors say. We both hold the thought that each of us is the final arbiter of their own health care decisions. One day I asked him how his parents were doing and he related a story to me to which illustrates the point.
His mother – now in her eighties – had always been in generally good health. However, upon a visit to her doctor, she discovered her blood pressure was slightly elevated. Not, mind you, “Oh my God you are a stroke waiting to happen” elevated – just slightly elevated. So,as doctors are often want to do, her doctor prescribed some medication. Now he could have talked to her about altering her diet, etc. and keeping an eye on the situation, but because (and this will come into play later) many doctors have attitudes about older folks, he assumed she wouldn't be able to do that. After a few weeks on the medication her blood pressure was down, but (let me do my Gomer Pyle impression – Soo-prise, Soo-prise, Soo-prise) she was experiencing some side effects.
So back to the doctor. Instead of taking her off the blood pressure medication (remember her pressure was only slightly elevated) or looking at alternative medication ( there are many for blood pressure control) he prescribed more pills for the side effects.
I'm sure you can guess where this is going. More pills for the side effects of those pills, and more pills for the side effects of those pills. Pretty soon the poor woman was taking about fifteen pills a day and feeling worse than she ever had. Her balance was bad and she was having problems with her memory. So back to the doctor and the kind, caring, conscientious physician (yeah right) informed her family that she was in the initial stages of dementia and/or Alzheimer's and the best thing to do was to institutionalize her - find a nursing home that deals with that kind of thing. Of course the fact that she was an octogenarian played a huge factor in the doctor's diagnosis and recommendations.
My friend was unaware of all of this until his father called him to discuss putting his mother in a home. My friend was obviously perplexed and concerned. In the course of only a couple of months his mother had gone from a vital, aware woman to someone who could barely stand and couldn't remember what she had for breakfast. So my friend talked to his mother's physician who not only defended his prescribing of all the medications, but got very defensive about the fact a mere layman would even question his judgment. No help there.
My friend finally found an extension of the Cleveland Clinic in Orlando (where his parents lived) and a doctor who was willing to listen. After consultation and review of the medications he advised that they take her off of all her medications to start. Within three weeks his mother was back to her old self.
This scenario plays itself out many thousands of times every year in this country. In a lot of respects Medicare part D enables it to happen even more. So often doctors treat the symptoms without even looking at the underlying cause. Sometimes this is enough – often it is not.
There is so much more to go into about this “epidemic” (irony definitely intended), but it isn't actually the point of this opinion piece. Instead it is the parallel with our economy.
Our economy has been over-medicated. The government is forcing the American taxpayers to take more and more medication and, like doctors, our elected representatives get defensive and don't look to find the underlying causes. Instead they choose to treat the symptoms. Looking at controlling the disease instead of curing the patient. In many ways they possess the same hubris as the doctors who are unwilling to look at alternatives. They believe there is no way the people who are paying the bills can possibly understand the malady. They believe they have to do something because the patient (the economy) can't heal itself.
Two quotes come to mind. The first from the Hippocratic Oath - “First, do no harm”. The second is from one of my favorites, Voltaire. He said, “The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while Nature cures the disease.”
I don't think most of those in office ever read Voltaire – pity.
Monday, September 1, 2008
A Few Thoughts on Hurricane Names
I have previously written about hurricanes so I won't go into the things I said then. Nor am I going to get into the whole global warming argument about whether it is causing larger, stronger and more frequent storms (it isn't because global warming is a manufactured phenomenon – follow the money).
But I do have a few things to say about hurricane names.
In 1953 the World Meteorological Organization decided that using short easily pronounceable names would be better for those who were advising the public. Prior to that time the storms were simply referred to by their position in latitude and longitude. In 1979 mens" names were added to the list of storm names in response to feminist groups who said that using only womens' names was an implied slur that only women were tempestuous and, all-too-often, unpredictable. Personally I always thought using womens' names was perfectly appropriate and apt because women wield a lot of power and are always to be respected. But then what do I know?
In 2003 congresswoman Shirley Jackson Lee was upset when she saw that French and Spanish derived names were added to the list. She argued that all ethnicities should be represented. It sparked an email (very un-PC but somewhat funny I think) that circulated around the internet and was the cause of a couple of people losing their jobs for forwarding it over office computer systems. I'm not going to repeat it here but you can find it on the net if you so desire. Personally, since most of the storms originate off the coast of Africa I could see some justification for it, but it did seem to be contrary to the reason to start naming storms all those years ago - keep it short and easy. Let's face it a lot of broadcast weather folks might have a tough time wrapping their tongues around hurricane Chaniquela and such.
But as Gustav currently hammers the gulf coast from the Florida panhandle to east Texas it seems to me the yahoos who name these storms need to be a little more circumspect when picking the monikers for these potential monsters. And they need to be ready to make some adjustments as needed (names are picked years ahead).
When the Russian Bear started growling recently and invaded the Republic of Georgia the namers should have had the presence of mind to eighty-six the name Gustav – it was probably looking to do some serious subjugation. Hannah is already named but did they not remember the old song lyric – “hard hearted Hannah the vamp of Savannah” ? Does it then surprise anyone that Hannah is looking right at Savannah to make landfall? But the next one really bothers me. It will be named Ike. Ike could play a little guitar and sing some, but his real talent seemed to be delivering a serious “pounding” (mostly on Tina). So if I were a resident of any Turnersville (I've found them in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and New Jersey) I would be making some “strategization for evacuation”.
Further on down the list for this year is Paloma. That means “dove” in Spanish and I would bet that storm doesn't do much. If we get to the T name watch out – it's Teddy. I am terrified of anything named Teddy that is associated with water.
Many people believe that the name one is given has an impact (no pun intended) on the course of their life. So you folks who name the storms – won't you please be a little more careful about the ones you choose. We would all thank you,
But I do have a few things to say about hurricane names.
In 1953 the World Meteorological Organization decided that using short easily pronounceable names would be better for those who were advising the public. Prior to that time the storms were simply referred to by their position in latitude and longitude. In 1979 mens" names were added to the list of storm names in response to feminist groups who said that using only womens' names was an implied slur that only women were tempestuous and, all-too-often, unpredictable. Personally I always thought using womens' names was perfectly appropriate and apt because women wield a lot of power and are always to be respected. But then what do I know?
In 2003 congresswoman Shirley Jackson Lee was upset when she saw that French and Spanish derived names were added to the list. She argued that all ethnicities should be represented. It sparked an email (very un-PC but somewhat funny I think) that circulated around the internet and was the cause of a couple of people losing their jobs for forwarding it over office computer systems. I'm not going to repeat it here but you can find it on the net if you so desire. Personally, since most of the storms originate off the coast of Africa I could see some justification for it, but it did seem to be contrary to the reason to start naming storms all those years ago - keep it short and easy. Let's face it a lot of broadcast weather folks might have a tough time wrapping their tongues around hurricane Chaniquela and such.
But as Gustav currently hammers the gulf coast from the Florida panhandle to east Texas it seems to me the yahoos who name these storms need to be a little more circumspect when picking the monikers for these potential monsters. And they need to be ready to make some adjustments as needed (names are picked years ahead).
When the Russian Bear started growling recently and invaded the Republic of Georgia the namers should have had the presence of mind to eighty-six the name Gustav – it was probably looking to do some serious subjugation. Hannah is already named but did they not remember the old song lyric – “hard hearted Hannah the vamp of Savannah” ? Does it then surprise anyone that Hannah is looking right at Savannah to make landfall? But the next one really bothers me. It will be named Ike. Ike could play a little guitar and sing some, but his real talent seemed to be delivering a serious “pounding” (mostly on Tina). So if I were a resident of any Turnersville (I've found them in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and New Jersey) I would be making some “strategization for evacuation”.
Further on down the list for this year is Paloma. That means “dove” in Spanish and I would bet that storm doesn't do much. If we get to the T name watch out – it's Teddy. I am terrified of anything named Teddy that is associated with water.
Many people believe that the name one is given has an impact (no pun intended) on the course of their life. So you folks who name the storms – won't you please be a little more careful about the ones you choose. We would all thank you,
Friday, August 29, 2008
Time to get Political
Okay, okay I know I promised to write more (not that anyone is necessarily reading) and I haven't done so. I have had things on my mind, but just haven't taken the time to put them down here. Too bad - a lot of pearls lost to posterity. If you do take time to read previous posts you will probably find less political - more observational - and hopefully humorous. At least at times.
Now though I have to weigh in due to the idiocy of the knee jerk reaction by the Obama campaign regarding John McCain's nomination of governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. I know it is their job to point out what they consider to be the weaknesses of opposition but within five minutes of the confirmation by a McCain spokesperson that Palin was indeed the pick the Obama campaign said,
"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."
Not only was this totally classless and insulting to the governor of a state, but it shows an amazing lack of intelligence from people who are surely making mucho dinero to advise and represent a presidential nominee. If these people who are supposed to be steering their candidate through the rough and dangerous waters of a campaign had been navigating for Columbus he would have never made it past the Azores.
I just don't understand (nor do I want to) understand the workings of a mind that would issue a statement so ill thought out so quickly. Why not wait for a few hours and if not get it right at least say it right? What's the rush? The idiocy of what they said is obvious isn't it? They managed to insult small town America (where a lot of "voters" live) and at the same time taken another swipe at women by failing to even mention that she was the elected governor of Alaska.
So let's take a look at what some of the other nice people in the "inclusive" democratic party said within an hour about governor Palin's nomination.
One of my favorites the Senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer .......
"After the great success of the Democratic convention, the choice of Sarah Palin is surely a Hail Mary pass. It is a real roll of the dice and shows how John McCain, Karl Rove et al realize what a strong position the Obama-Biden team and Democrats in general are in in this election. Certainly the choice of Palin puts to rest any argument about inexperience on the Democratic team and while Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling. I particularly look forward to the Biden-Palin debate in Missouri."
(so do I Sen Schumer..... so do I)
And let's move on to Rep Rahm Emanuel............
"Is this really who the Republican Party wants to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency? Given Sarah Palin's lack of experience on every front and on nearly every issue, this Vice Presidential pick doesn't show judgment: it shows political panic."
(Panic - I think the valium and xanax consumption at the Democratic convention far exceeded what will be consumed at the Republican one)
And finally Rep Jim Clyburn from South Carolina.............
"I do believe that McCain has to do something to reshuffle the cards, shake up the establishment, do something unexpected and Governor Palin has all the kinds of things that McCain might see as a way to shake things up. I think [her selection] would be something similar to Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle proved to be sort of an embarrassment as a campaigner. Being thrust on a national stage like that could be very tough. Now Mondale tried to shake things up by going with Geraldine Ferraro.she proved to be a disaster as a running mate. And as a campaigner, she was absolutely awful. And so I just think that it is very risky for McCain to do this, but it may be all he has left."
(Didn't have a lot against Dan Quayle but I think that governor Palin knows how to spell Potato. Do you know how to spell "alienate women and self-destruct Mr Clyburn ? )
It seems to me that all these statements are insulting - especially to women. I would think that people who are used to having everything they say open to public scrutiny would actually take some time to THINK about what to say. But hey I am just a working guy who actually HAS to engage his brain every now and then in order to make a living. These folks don't happen to fall into that category I guess.
But the thing that is once again evident is the astronomical arrogance of the liberal mindset which allows them to believe they can say and do anything without having to worry about the consequences. Do they really think there is no way Obama can lose? Apparently so.
A couple of months ago when whispers about Palin started I did some research and the more I found out the more I liked her. She has been my pick since then and it seems John McCain had the great good sense to finally come around to my point of view. I only wish I had had the great good sense to call up a friend in Vegas to lay down a bet on her for me. I would have made enough to get into oil speculation and really irritate the hell out of a lot of liberals.
Now though I have to weigh in due to the idiocy of the knee jerk reaction by the Obama campaign regarding John McCain's nomination of governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. I know it is their job to point out what they consider to be the weaknesses of opposition but within five minutes of the confirmation by a McCain spokesperson that Palin was indeed the pick the Obama campaign said,
"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."
Not only was this totally classless and insulting to the governor of a state, but it shows an amazing lack of intelligence from people who are surely making mucho dinero to advise and represent a presidential nominee. If these people who are supposed to be steering their candidate through the rough and dangerous waters of a campaign had been navigating for Columbus he would have never made it past the Azores.
I just don't understand (nor do I want to) understand the workings of a mind that would issue a statement so ill thought out so quickly. Why not wait for a few hours and if not get it right at least say it right? What's the rush? The idiocy of what they said is obvious isn't it? They managed to insult small town America (where a lot of "voters" live) and at the same time taken another swipe at women by failing to even mention that she was the elected governor of Alaska.
So let's take a look at what some of the other nice people in the "inclusive" democratic party said within an hour about governor Palin's nomination.
One of my favorites the Senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer .......
"After the great success of the Democratic convention, the choice of Sarah Palin is surely a Hail Mary pass. It is a real roll of the dice and shows how John McCain, Karl Rove et al realize what a strong position the Obama-Biden team and Democrats in general are in in this election. Certainly the choice of Palin puts to rest any argument about inexperience on the Democratic team and while Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling. I particularly look forward to the Biden-Palin debate in Missouri."
(so do I Sen Schumer..... so do I)
And let's move on to Rep Rahm Emanuel............
"Is this really who the Republican Party wants to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency? Given Sarah Palin's lack of experience on every front and on nearly every issue, this Vice Presidential pick doesn't show judgment: it shows political panic."
(Panic - I think the valium and xanax consumption at the Democratic convention far exceeded what will be consumed at the Republican one)
And finally Rep Jim Clyburn from South Carolina.............
"I do believe that McCain has to do something to reshuffle the cards, shake up the establishment, do something unexpected and Governor Palin has all the kinds of things that McCain might see as a way to shake things up. I think [her selection] would be something similar to Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle proved to be sort of an embarrassment as a campaigner. Being thrust on a national stage like that could be very tough. Now Mondale tried to shake things up by going with Geraldine Ferraro.she proved to be a disaster as a running mate. And as a campaigner, she was absolutely awful. And so I just think that it is very risky for McCain to do this, but it may be all he has left."
(Didn't have a lot against Dan Quayle but I think that governor Palin knows how to spell Potato. Do you know how to spell "alienate women and self-destruct Mr Clyburn ? )
It seems to me that all these statements are insulting - especially to women. I would think that people who are used to having everything they say open to public scrutiny would actually take some time to THINK about what to say. But hey I am just a working guy who actually HAS to engage his brain every now and then in order to make a living. These folks don't happen to fall into that category I guess.
But the thing that is once again evident is the astronomical arrogance of the liberal mindset which allows them to believe they can say and do anything without having to worry about the consequences. Do they really think there is no way Obama can lose? Apparently so.
A couple of months ago when whispers about Palin started I did some research and the more I found out the more I liked her. She has been my pick since then and it seems John McCain had the great good sense to finally come around to my point of view. I only wish I had had the great good sense to call up a friend in Vegas to lay down a bet on her for me. I would have made enough to get into oil speculation and really irritate the hell out of a lot of liberals.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
California Fires
So I'm in the phone business and yesterday (Friday July 11) I was working on turning up a PRI (look it up if you are interested)trunk for a property in Denver near the airport. The supplier of the service was AT&T and there are processes that have to be gone through to turn up the service. There was someone on site, I was into the phone system via the internet (pretty cool - no more dial up modems) and the tech from AT&T was in Sacramento, CA.
All three of us are conferenced together and while we are all waiting for the circuit to come up the guy on site in Denver asks the AT&T tech in California what is going on with the fires - a couple of the big ones are near Sacramento. Well she launches into a tirade about all the "tree huggers". Now she didn't use any invectives, but you could tell she was having a hard time controlling the urge to do so. We stared talking about how some of the greatest property and life loss from fires in California could be directly linked to the "environmentalists" blocking controlled burns and underbrush clearing for totally idiotic reasons.
The majority of property loss in Lake Tahoe last year was caused by the local government enjoining the residents from clearing pine straw from underneath the trees on their property. And why was this done one asks. Let me enlighten you - it was because in the absence of the pine needles on the ground rain could cause runoff of dirt into the lake causing it to look "murky" until it settled to the bottom. In other words it would be "yucky" to look at for a day or two after it rained.
A few years ago fires in Riverside County, California got out of control. Environmentalists managed to stop the forestry service from clearing proactive fire breaks because a species of Kangaroo rat would not cross open ground over 6 feet or so and it was thought this might endanger their procreation. (Hey don't expect to see this reported in the mainstream media). So fire breaks out - no fire breaks - fire rages for a few weeks. Did anybody stop to think that if fire DID break out it would fry the little critters anyway? Rat Kabobs anyone?
Well, the list goes on and on. And lest anyone think the woman was just another angry conservative like me who cannot understand (just on the face of it) the idiotic reasoning which can have such devastating consequences it turns out the AT&T tech had been a California firefighter for nine years. Putting her life on the line (and watching her friends do the same thing) because any kind of preventative measures were nixed by the "tree huggers" (her words not mine). It's like asking a trapeze artist to work without a net - then tell them they have to have their arms tied behind their back and after executing the death-defying triple somersault - catch the other bar with their teeth.
I guess she'd just had enough. I don't blame her. Putting out fires in the phone business is a lot less difficult and a little less frustrating.
And don't forget every time some huge fire rages out of control - one that could have been prevented - and destroys untold millions of dollars worth of property it raises the insurance rates for every homeowner in the country. Down here in Florida (and other places along the gulf coast) we pay a "hurricane recoupment fee" for the storm payouts of three and four years ago - as well as paying increased premiums. That's okay. We live here so we should pay for it. But I'd bet the California people don't pay a "forest fire or mudslide recoupment fee" and if the insurance companies tried to collect it I'd bet the state of California would block it. Hell let the rest of the US pay for it. So while you are paying your higher property insurance bill in Iowa, Nebraska, or Colorado just feel content in the fact that, after rebuilding their two million dollar homes on the shores of Lake Tahoe with their insurance payoff, those folks will be able to sit on their deck (with more square footage than your whole house) and sip a cocktail or glass of champagne while looking at the crystal clear lake - even just after it rains.
All three of us are conferenced together and while we are all waiting for the circuit to come up the guy on site in Denver asks the AT&T tech in California what is going on with the fires - a couple of the big ones are near Sacramento. Well she launches into a tirade about all the "tree huggers". Now she didn't use any invectives, but you could tell she was having a hard time controlling the urge to do so. We stared talking about how some of the greatest property and life loss from fires in California could be directly linked to the "environmentalists" blocking controlled burns and underbrush clearing for totally idiotic reasons.
The majority of property loss in Lake Tahoe last year was caused by the local government enjoining the residents from clearing pine straw from underneath the trees on their property. And why was this done one asks. Let me enlighten you - it was because in the absence of the pine needles on the ground rain could cause runoff of dirt into the lake causing it to look "murky" until it settled to the bottom. In other words it would be "yucky" to look at for a day or two after it rained.
A few years ago fires in Riverside County, California got out of control. Environmentalists managed to stop the forestry service from clearing proactive fire breaks because a species of Kangaroo rat would not cross open ground over 6 feet or so and it was thought this might endanger their procreation. (Hey don't expect to see this reported in the mainstream media). So fire breaks out - no fire breaks - fire rages for a few weeks. Did anybody stop to think that if fire DID break out it would fry the little critters anyway? Rat Kabobs anyone?
Well, the list goes on and on. And lest anyone think the woman was just another angry conservative like me who cannot understand (just on the face of it) the idiotic reasoning which can have such devastating consequences it turns out the AT&T tech had been a California firefighter for nine years. Putting her life on the line (and watching her friends do the same thing) because any kind of preventative measures were nixed by the "tree huggers" (her words not mine). It's like asking a trapeze artist to work without a net - then tell them they have to have their arms tied behind their back and after executing the death-defying triple somersault - catch the other bar with their teeth.
I guess she'd just had enough. I don't blame her. Putting out fires in the phone business is a lot less difficult and a little less frustrating.
And don't forget every time some huge fire rages out of control - one that could have been prevented - and destroys untold millions of dollars worth of property it raises the insurance rates for every homeowner in the country. Down here in Florida (and other places along the gulf coast) we pay a "hurricane recoupment fee" for the storm payouts of three and four years ago - as well as paying increased premiums. That's okay. We live here so we should pay for it. But I'd bet the California people don't pay a "forest fire or mudslide recoupment fee" and if the insurance companies tried to collect it I'd bet the state of California would block it. Hell let the rest of the US pay for it. So while you are paying your higher property insurance bill in Iowa, Nebraska, or Colorado just feel content in the fact that, after rebuilding their two million dollar homes on the shores of Lake Tahoe with their insurance payoff, those folks will be able to sit on their deck (with more square footage than your whole house) and sip a cocktail or glass of champagne while looking at the crystal clear lake - even just after it rains.
Tony Snow
When I woke up this morning I turned on the news and heard Tony Snow had passed away - finally succumbing to the cancer he had been fighting since 2005. Oddly enough I had been thinking about him not too many days ago - since I had not heard anything about him for a while.
I liked Tony Snow. He seemed like a good guy, and Lord knows there are too few "good guys" in the political arena anymore. I don't think I really knew who he was until he showed up on the fledgling Fox News Network back in 1996, but I was won over immediately. He always seemed to have at least a hint of a smile on his face or in his eyes, and it was never one of those sardonic or sarcastic smiles. You could tell that he was actually enjoying himself and the people he was interviewing or chatting with. He never conveyed the sense that he thought himself better or more intelligent than anyone else, yet he always conveyed that he was willing to listen to any viewpoint and give it fair consideration. How rare is that in the media in this day and age?
I think I had heard somewhere (though didn't really remember) that he was an accomplished musician and played in a rock band with some friends from time to time. On the news this morning they had some footage of him also doing a "dueling flutes" thing with what appeared to be a jazz band - and truly enjoying himself. It made sense - most people who play music for enjoyment and not employment seem to be a happy bunch for the most part. He was certainly a Renaissance Man and there aren't many of them left - one fewer now.
I know from listening to him on the radio that he had a deep and abiding love for his family - they came first. Too bad more people in all walks of life don't feel that way these days. If they did the world would be a better place.
Anyway, the world is richer for him having been in it and I will pay him the best compliment I can pay any man or woman. He seemed like the kind of person you would like to sit down with for an hour or two, have a beer (or adult beverage of your choice)and talk about anything at all. Not just because it would be good to hear what he had to say, but because he would be interested in what YOU had to say.
I liked Tony Snow. He seemed like a good guy, and Lord knows there are too few "good guys" in the political arena anymore. I don't think I really knew who he was until he showed up on the fledgling Fox News Network back in 1996, but I was won over immediately. He always seemed to have at least a hint of a smile on his face or in his eyes, and it was never one of those sardonic or sarcastic smiles. You could tell that he was actually enjoying himself and the people he was interviewing or chatting with. He never conveyed the sense that he thought himself better or more intelligent than anyone else, yet he always conveyed that he was willing to listen to any viewpoint and give it fair consideration. How rare is that in the media in this day and age?
I think I had heard somewhere (though didn't really remember) that he was an accomplished musician and played in a rock band with some friends from time to time. On the news this morning they had some footage of him also doing a "dueling flutes" thing with what appeared to be a jazz band - and truly enjoying himself. It made sense - most people who play music for enjoyment and not employment seem to be a happy bunch for the most part. He was certainly a Renaissance Man and there aren't many of them left - one fewer now.
I know from listening to him on the radio that he had a deep and abiding love for his family - they came first. Too bad more people in all walks of life don't feel that way these days. If they did the world would be a better place.
Anyway, the world is richer for him having been in it and I will pay him the best compliment I can pay any man or woman. He seemed like the kind of person you would like to sit down with for an hour or two, have a beer (or adult beverage of your choice)and talk about anything at all. Not just because it would be good to hear what he had to say, but because he would be interested in what YOU had to say.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Pet Peeves Answered
Good friend of mine - good person - sent this email to me this morning. My response follows her email.
Morning. I have another project. Pet peeve. I would love to ask all the candidate, though I am sure a straight answer is like hens teeth, this question. Since there are still people from Katrina displaced and in those trailers (which I think have caused health problems) then why are we spending millions/billions in the space program. Its like a mother buying Jimmy Choo shoes and not having enough to feed her kids.
Morning. I have another project. Pet peeve. I would love to ask all the candidate, though I am sure a straight answer is like hens teeth, this question. Since there are still people from Katrina displaced and in those trailers (which I think have caused health problems) then why are we spending millions/billions in the space program. Its like a mother buying Jimmy Choo shoes and not having enough to feed her kids.
So with that sort of thing in mind. I ride to many barns in Maryland. I became curious about how much was spent on flowers on the highway. I mean its lovely but it just seems sort of frivolous when people are still hurting. So I decided to see how much , as a state , we spend. ($150,000) I don’t know if I should email the rest of the states or use that as an average. But couldn't this money be donated for one year for that purpose so actual people can bloom.
My Response
Well, if the ($150,000) would actually get to the people to help I might agree with you, however by the time the government got through with it maybe 10 cents out of the dollar might make it somewhere useful. I also bet that there are/would be private organizations willing to donate the resources to plant the flowers. However there are so many government regulations that they probably couldn't afford the liability insurance - let alone the flowers.
And sorry, but don't get me started on Katrina. Being a resident of a state that handles hurricane preparedness and the aftermath well what happened in Louisiana irritates the hell out of me. Everyone saw the 1000+ school buses sitting in the flooded lot. When the question was raised about why they were not used to evacuate people - Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin said, "We couldn't find anyone to drive them." yeah right. If a 15 year old boy could commandeer a bus, pick up people along the streets in New Orleans and get three fourths of the way to Houston before he was stopped then they damn sure could have found people who would have been more than willing to drive those buses. A few days before the hurricane hit - when it was pretty obvious the storm was going to hit New Orleans - the President asked the Governor of Louisiana to let the Louisiana National Guard be federalized so they would be under the direction of the federal government and she refused. Had that happened I guarantee you there would have been national guard people to drive the buses. So I put 98% of the human devastation caused during the storm directly on the shoulders of the Louisiana and New Orleans governments. That being said I lay a majority of the foolishness that happened in the weeks, months, and years following at the feet of the feds. Instead of thinking the darn things out and getting the people what they needed they Knee-jerked in response to the publicity and started handing out $2,000.00 cash cards - a lot of which got spent in strip clubs and on $600.00 designer purses, etc.
Again - so many government regulations and bureaucracies so big that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing just means waste and very little accomplished. And, again, there are probably many private concerns that could do better but too many government regulations.
As far as the space program goes, sorry, but I am for it. Actually their real dollars (when adjusted for inflation and in relation to other government programs) have shrunk. Still over the life of NASA the science in many fields (medicine, computer technology, etc.) have migrated into the private sector and returned more than the dollars invested. So I have no problem with it whatsoever. As far as your analogy goes about the mother buying the shoes and not having enough to feed her kids - I feel this way. There are always going to be people in this country who -either by birth or because of disease or accident - are incapable of taking care of themselves. I think it is our moral responsibility to take care of those people and we could do it well and very easily if it weren't for the fact that too many politicians are in the business of paying people for their own bad behavior/decisions - just to buy votes.
Well - I'm climbing down off my soapbox - for now.
Later,,
Dane
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Brave, brave Stephen King - NOT
I guess Noel Sheppard published a piece on his blog talking about how Stephen King said that if you can read you can walk into a job, but if you can't then you are stuck with the military and going to Iraq. So I had to go to King's site (http://www.stephenking.com/) and Sheppard's (http://newsbusters.org/blog/26) to see what was going on. King posted a message on his site under news (which is the first thing that pops up - just scroll down) and the idiot is trying to defend what he said by stating that he lives in a National Guard town and that he supports the troops but he doesn't support an educational system that gives students only one option - "canon fodder". So basically he was saying he supports the troops while calling them dummies at the same time. I wonder if he sent his kids to private school and I wonder how many millions he has donated to schools? If he is so concerned with the educational system why doesn't he take a few of his spare millions and set up a scholarship fund for underprivileged kids to go to private schools? No he is too egalitarian for that. Heaven forbid he should do anything himself. No, no, no, it must be done through the public schools so the rest of us can continue to pour money down the drain we call the Public Education System. But if it has to be the public system he could donate a few mil to the NEA for them to use to increase the quality of education (hey let's just limit it to Maine - his home state) and see what difference it makes.
Or let him go to the bad side of Anytown, USA, walk up to some drug dealer there who really can't read, and say, "Hey I'm a famous author and I'm here to tell you if you don't learn to read you won't be able to get a job other than as canon fodder. First of all they would probably climb out of their Escalade, flash a roll of a few thousand, then pop a cap in his ass faster than an Iraqi Sadir City militiaman. The last thing he would hear before the second shot is, "Hey man that's what you get for dissing me. I don't be no canon fodder. Just ask any of my baby mommas."
Anyway, after providing a link to Noel Sheppard's blog site and telling them to send Noel and e-mail stating "I agree with Stephen so shut up." He did the brave thing and shut down posting on his own site. But hey, give him credit for staying true to the liberal elitist attitude of "I can say anything I want and do anything I want but I don't have to live with the consequences.
What a Bozo.
Funny thing I have enjoyed most of Stephen King's books though over the last few years he has published a couple of terrible ones that seem to have no point and little plot. However if I am going to read anything in that genre anymore I will read Dean Koontz. He actually, in his books of the last few years, has made some comments in the context of the stories about how this country is going to hell in a hand basket - due mostly to government interference, the failing educational system, and the breakdown of the family. And he extols personal responsibility.
I may read a King book or two in the future but I will never buy one again. I'll wait to buy it at the Salvation Army or borrow it from the Library. Not one more dime for King out of my pocket.
It's pretty obvious to me that my worst nightmare isn't something that came out of Stephen King's imagination. Instead it is Stephen King and like minded arrogant liberals.
Or let him go to the bad side of Anytown, USA, walk up to some drug dealer there who really can't read, and say, "Hey I'm a famous author and I'm here to tell you if you don't learn to read you won't be able to get a job other than as canon fodder. First of all they would probably climb out of their Escalade, flash a roll of a few thousand, then pop a cap in his ass faster than an Iraqi Sadir City militiaman. The last thing he would hear before the second shot is, "Hey man that's what you get for dissing me. I don't be no canon fodder. Just ask any of my baby mommas."
Anyway, after providing a link to Noel Sheppard's blog site and telling them to send Noel and e-mail stating "I agree with Stephen so shut up." He did the brave thing and shut down posting on his own site. But hey, give him credit for staying true to the liberal elitist attitude of "I can say anything I want and do anything I want but I don't have to live with the consequences.
What a Bozo.
Funny thing I have enjoyed most of Stephen King's books though over the last few years he has published a couple of terrible ones that seem to have no point and little plot. However if I am going to read anything in that genre anymore I will read Dean Koontz. He actually, in his books of the last few years, has made some comments in the context of the stories about how this country is going to hell in a hand basket - due mostly to government interference, the failing educational system, and the breakdown of the family. And he extols personal responsibility.
I may read a King book or two in the future but I will never buy one again. I'll wait to buy it at the Salvation Army or borrow it from the Library. Not one more dime for King out of my pocket.
It's pretty obvious to me that my worst nightmare isn't something that came out of Stephen King's imagination. Instead it is Stephen King and like minded arrogant liberals.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Clown Shoes
Did you know there is a site on the web called clownshoes.com? You can’t find clown shoes there but you can sign up to go to shoemaker’s school and there is a link there that will take you to a web site where you can actually buy clown shoes. Since I am not one of those people who goes out looking for be bizarre websites like twoheadedcow.com or turkeydroppingsjewelry.com you well may ask how I found the clown shoes site. I will enlighten you.
I had been telling my brother for some time that if I was going to seriously get back into golf I needed to update my technology. I have always been somewhat of a purist when it comes to golf equipment, but over the past couple of years I noticed that I was giving up yardage. Especially off the tee. So for my birthday my brother sent me a new driver. He told me it had the largest legal head size and was made of space age materials so technologically advanced that NASA and the Department of Defense were using the same materials in some of their programs. OH Boy. I couldn’t wait.
My brother kept calling and asking me if the package had arrived. I assured him it had not. He could not understand why it was taking so long but when it finally showed up I found out the reason for the delay. Because of the size of this thing it had to have special permits for over the road shipping. It also had to have pre-clearance to come into the area from the County Sheriff’s Department as it is apparently on their list of potentially lethal weapons. Lord knows, in my hands that could be true.
And, like even the simple church key (manual can opener for those of you too young to remember soda and beer cans before the pop top) it came with a forty-two page book listing all the warnings regarding use of this golf club. Such as, do not use to retrieve kites trapped on high power lines, do not use to demonstrate sword swallowing to your children, and, do not use shaft end to un-stick a garbage disposal while it is turned on. Still, after reading the entire list of warnings, I remained undaunted and was determined to add the driver to my arsenal of links weaponry. There was, however, an implied consent clause included on a card attached to the driver. It stated by using this club I agreed that if I was playing or practicing within thirty miles of a commercial airport I had to call Air Traffic Control before teeing off so that they would not mistake my swinging of the club for a wildly out of control jumbo jet in their airspace.
I went out to the driving range and made sure that there was no one else around. I bought a bucket of balls and cleared myself with ATC at Okaloosa Regional Airport. I did a few stretches to limber up, pulled out the driver, and teed up the ball. I encountered my first problem. Sitting on a regular tee the ball was barely visible. In fact it looked like it was halfway down a mine shaft. I scrounged a downed tree limb (obviously missed in the post Hurricane Ivan cleanup) and whittled a 9 inch high peg out of that. Now that the ball was teed up at the proper height I was ready to go.
I took the club back slowly and my center of gravity shifted so much that I fell over backward. Jumping up quickly I looked around to make sure no one had seen my exploits, because I thought I had heard a voice yelling TIMMMM-BERRRR, as I was falling. As it turned out I was still alone. After practicing on how to maintain my balance on my backswing I addressed the ball, took the club back, paused at the top, and transitioned as beautifully as Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods to my downswing. Unfortunately I had neglected to consider the aerodynamics of the club moving at a speed more than two inches per second (understandable as the only BS I hold has nothing to do with science). The vacuum created by an object approximately the size of a VW Bug caused a vortex that literally sucked me after it - 14.5 feet out into the driving range - where I ended up flat on my face. Fortunately no one saw this episode either but I’m sure people out on the course noticed a stiff breeze rippling through the trees at that moment.
I packed up and went home. I remember calling my brother right after the club had been delivered to tell him I had received it and remarked on the size of the club head. He said, “Yeah, it’s big. If you’re gonna walk out to the first tee with a club that big you probably ought to be wearing clown shoes as well. Kinda divert their attention.”
So that’s how I came to find clownshoes.com. I’m pulling out the trusty old credit card and am going to place an order. After that I think I might look for clownclothes.com and clownmake-up.com. That way when I walk up to the first tee and the other guys say “look at this Bozo” I won’t be offended, and, no matter what happens on the course, the other people won’t know who I am unless they manage to get my plate number as I speed out of the parking lot.
Truffles
I have never been on the “inside” of anything. My perspective has always been somewhat from the outside. I guess you should know that my views tend toward the conservative. You will not find my name on the subscribers list of Politically Correct Monthly. In fact I think that if I go through a day with offending someone then I haven’t been trying hard enough. I don’t apologize too often. I am Polish and if I took the time to apologize for every insensitive or stupid thing I said or did I wouldn’t have time to ask, “Dondez esta el bano?’ and I would have to start wearing depends before my appointed time.
Now, with that out of the way, it’s down to business.
I have a relative who has been living and working in some foreign countries for the last several years and they have all been countries where it seems the mainstay of the carnivorous is pork. I can’t tell you were he has been working (well I could tell you but then I would have to shoot myself - I know, I know, but I told you, I’m Polish), but considering the pork thing you can pretty much rule out the Middle East, Pakistan, Tres Tragique-istan, Captain Kirk-istan, Make a new Plan-istan, and any other of the stans that popped up about 20 years ago.
But it was weird because just about every time I would talk or “chat” with him it would be about his dinner time and he would tell me he was fixing ribs, or pork chops, or pork roast. I think one time he actually told me he was fixing chicken, but then it turned out it was wrapped in bacon. I started to worry. I kept remembering the old saying, “You are what you eat”, and it sounded like a little snorting had crept into his laugh when I would regale him with the occasional joke or humorous anecdote.
I told myself I was being silly and had pretty much put it out of my mind until he came to visit a while back. One afternoon I came home and found him in the back yard down on his hands and knees crawling slowly along with his snout (er I mean nose) a half inch off the ground. I asked him what the heck he was doing. He looked at me like only an idiot wouldn’t know and said, “Hunting for Truffles”. I was stunned. I ran for the phone book. But in that moment of hesitation while I was trying to figure out whose number to look up first – a psychiatrist or the ASPCA – I realized he looked really happy out there. In fact you could say he looked “as happy as a pig in – well you know the rest” so I just let him be.
When he came in he looked a little disappointed that he hadn’t found any of the fungus (I later learned they don’t grow in Florida), but overall still happy. While he was visiting I ate my year’s ration of ribs, and he continued his “hunting” every afternoon.
After he left I did some research and, Holy Moley, those dang white truffles can bring $1,600.00 a pound. However, in the US, they only seem to grow in the Northwest so I am thinking about moving to Seattle or Portland and inviting him over for a visit next fall during the height of truffle harvesting season. In the meantime I am going to keep in touch with him overseas (and I still can’t tell you where because if I did I would have to drink a bunch of shots) and for his birthday send him a copy of “The World’s 500 Greatest Pork Recipes.
I have my eyes on the new Lexus convertible if it pans out.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
I'm Baaaaaack
Well, I haven't written in a while but there is a reason for it. I am not a writer. I remember reading once about a woman who told a famous author that she wanted to be a writer. The writer (and I can't think of who she was) told the woman, "If you get up every morning and all you can think about is writing - then you already are one."
Now I have some good ideas from time to time and I can, every now and then, turn a phrase. But many times between the idea and the execution (putting it down on paper - well you know what I mean) I have a tendency to drop the ball more often than not.
Now I know a guy from a group on the net (who shall remain nameless but his first initial is Terry)who really is a writer. I know he is still up at midnight and rises before dawn and he is not only thinking about writing - but doing it. I disagree with a lot of his political views but I admire his thought process and his perseverance. I have his a link to his blog "From the Cheap Seats" on my blog page - go take a look. I like to think of him sitting in a room with a cheap cigar smoldering in a ashtray and a scotch on the rocks leaving rings on his old desk while he bangs away at an old Smith-Carona. I know this isn't the case - but I like the picture. I remember one time he told of his agent getting him a job doing some rewrites on the script for a porn movie. I loved the idea of it - Xaviera Hollander meets Hemingway. Give his blog a read sometime.
Well. All for now. If I believed in Adult ADD I would be its poster child but I am going to make a sincere effort to write more.
Later friends.
Now I have some good ideas from time to time and I can, every now and then, turn a phrase. But many times between the idea and the execution (putting it down on paper - well you know what I mean) I have a tendency to drop the ball more often than not.
Now I know a guy from a group on the net (who shall remain nameless but his first initial is Terry)who really is a writer. I know he is still up at midnight and rises before dawn and he is not only thinking about writing - but doing it. I disagree with a lot of his political views but I admire his thought process and his perseverance. I have his a link to his blog "From the Cheap Seats" on my blog page - go take a look. I like to think of him sitting in a room with a cheap cigar smoldering in a ashtray and a scotch on the rocks leaving rings on his old desk while he bangs away at an old Smith-Carona. I know this isn't the case - but I like the picture. I remember one time he told of his agent getting him a job doing some rewrites on the script for a porn movie. I loved the idea of it - Xaviera Hollander meets Hemingway. Give his blog a read sometime.
Well. All for now. If I believed in Adult ADD I would be its poster child but I am going to make a sincere effort to write more.
Later friends.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Have a Shay Day ???
This showed up in my mailbox today. I have seen it before. So here it is in it's glory and my response below.
My question is: Would you have made the same choice?
At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning-disabled
children, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that
would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the
school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question: 'When not
interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is
done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as
other children do. He cannot understand things as other children
do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?'
The audience was stilled by the query.
The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay,
physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an
opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it
comes in the way other people treat that child.'
Then he told the following story:
Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay
knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let
me play?' Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want
someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that
if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed
sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others
in spite of his handicaps.
Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked
(not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for
guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the
eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put
him in to bat in the ninth inning.'
Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile,
put on a team shirt. His Father watched with a small tear in his
eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his
son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's
team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top
of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right
field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic
just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear
as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the
ninth inning, S hay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and
the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay
was scheduled to be next at bat.
At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance
to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat Everyone
knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even
know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the
ball.
However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing
that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in
Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so
Shay could at least make contact. The first pitch came and Shay
swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps
forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in,
Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to
the pitcher.
The game would now be over. The pitcher picked up the soft
grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first
baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end
of the game.
Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's
head, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and
both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to first! Run to first!'
Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to
first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and
startled.
Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!' Catchi g his
breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling
to make it to the base. By the time Shay rounded towards second
base, the right fielder had the ball ... the smallest guy on their
team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He
could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but
he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally
threw the ball high and far over the third-base man's head. Shay ran
toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the
bases toward home.
All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay'
Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help
him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run
to third! Shay, run to third!'
As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the
spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run
home!' Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as
the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.
'That day', said the father softly with tears now rolling down his
face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and
humanity into this world'.
Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having
never forgotten being the hero and making his father so happy, and
coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little
hero of the day!
AND NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY: We all send thousands of
jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it
comes to sending messages about life choices , people hesitate. The
crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through cyberspace,
but public discussion about decency is too often suppressed in our
schools and workplaces.
If you're thinking about forwarding this message, chances are that
you're probably sorting out the people in your address book who
aren't the 'appropriate' ones to receive this type of message. Well,
the person who sent you this believes that we all can make a
difference. We all have thousands of opportunities every single day
to help realize the 'natural order of things.' So many seemingly
trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice:
Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass
up those opportunities and leave the world a little bit colder in
the process?
A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's
least fortunate amongst them.
You now have two choices:
1. Delete
2. Forward
May your day, be a Shay Day.
************************************
Okay, this story has been making the rounds for a long time. The first time I saw it I did the research and found that the veracity of this story was undetermined. I just checked again - same thing. All I can say is that if it is true it had to happen at least 30 years ago. If it had happened anymore recently than that the scenario would have been.....
The coach of the team saying, "Lookit buster, I worked my butt off all season whipping this bunch misfits into shape and now we have a chance to make it into the playoffs. Ain't no way "I'm" giving up that chance to let your kid play just so he might feel better about himself."
At which point the ACLU would show up from out of nowhere (well not really nowhere - they're lurking everywhere) with a writ forcing the coach to let the kid play.
So the coach quits (this is okay - he was a jerk and the kids are better off without him).
While the guy from the ACLU grabs his cell phone trying to hunt down somebody who can find a judge to issue an injunction against the other team because now they have an unfair advantage due to having a coach. In the meantime, kids being kids, they decide to get on with it and let Shay play.
When it is Shay's turn to bat the guy from the ACLU (he's still feverishly trying to get an injunction) whips out the other court order he already has (he anticipated needing it because - as he so often reminds himself - he is smarter than everyone else) which makes the game stop while they move the bases three-quarters of the way in because Shay is obviously disadvantaged.
Now when the pitcher tosses the ball underhand his Father starts screaming from the stands, "That's not how I taught you to pitch ya little wimp. You can burn it past this kid - increase your stats."
A woman in the stands starts yelling at the father, "Sit down you jerk. They shouldn't even make him bat they should just let him run around the bases. The poor kid will never be able to do anything for himself so we need to take care of him". Then she hits the guy with her umbrella emblazoned with the Peace symbol.
Of course a melee breaks out in the stands and so no one notices that Shay has managed to tap the ball back toward the pitcher. Shay's team is yelling, "Run, Shay, run! " and so Shay runs (the now twenty feet or so) to first base while the pitcher intentionally tosses the ball over the first baseman's head. From the stands the pitcher's father screams, "I saw that. Wait till I get ya home ya little bastard. I'll teach you to throw the game." The last few words though are almost unintelligible because the woman with the "Peace symbol" umbrella has just used it to connect with his cajones.
Meantime Shay is almost to third by virtue of the others on the fielding team intentionally throwing the ball away from him. Now Shay is rounding third and the one little punk bully on the team, Billy, has finally gotten his hands on the ball and is heading toward Shay - intending to tag him out. The guy from the ACLU is overwhelmed and finally decides to take the law into his own hands (big surprise there) and runs out and tackles the kid with the ball. At this point Billy's father breaks away from the fight in the stands and begins to pummel the ACLU attorney while simultaneously the fielding team coach runs from the dugout and tackles Shay to stop him from crossing the plate.
Shay's father runs out onto the field to defend his son but is cut off by a freshly tonsured trial lawyer who stuffs his card in the dad's pocket saying, "This is worth millions if not hundreds of millions - give me a call." He then walks over and hands a card to the little punk, Billy, saying the same thing. Then he even hands one to the ACLU attorney with the cleat marks in his forehead.
Fade to black.
Now a thought about the original story.
Nature is not perfect, but it does not make mistakes.
Even it's imperfections have purpose. What that purpose may be I will often never be able to discern or fathom - but I have faith that it is there.
And a thought about the footnote.
I often forward things to friends. I never forward them without deleting the part that says "If you are a good person you will forward this", etc. , etc. - If they want to forward they will - it is not for me to admonish them for what they may or may not do with it. Emotions are great things - they make life worth living. But they are not the things upon which decisions should be based.
Later amigos.
My question is: Would you have made the same choice?
At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning-disabled
children, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that
would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the
school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question: 'When not
interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is
done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as
other children do. He cannot understand things as other children
do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?'
The audience was stilled by the query.
The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay,
physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an
opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it
comes in the way other people treat that child.'
Then he told the following story:
Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay
knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let
me play?' Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want
someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that
if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed
sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others
in spite of his handicaps.
Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked
(not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for
guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the
eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put
him in to bat in the ninth inning.'
Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile,
put on a team shirt. His Father watched with a small tear in his
eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his
son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's
team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top
of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right
field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic
just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear
as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the
ninth inning, S hay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and
the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay
was scheduled to be next at bat.
At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance
to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat Everyone
knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even
know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the
ball.
However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing
that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in
Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so
Shay could at least make contact. The first pitch came and Shay
swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps
forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in,
Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to
the pitcher.
The game would now be over. The pitcher picked up the soft
grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first
baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end
of the game.
Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's
head, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and
both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to first! Run to first!'
Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to
first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and
startled.
Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!' Catchi g his
breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling
to make it to the base. By the time Shay rounded towards second
base, the right fielder had the ball ... the smallest guy on their
team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He
could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but
he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally
threw the ball high and far over the third-base man's head. Shay ran
toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the
bases toward home.
All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay'
Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help
him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run
to third! Shay, run to third!'
As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the
spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run
home!' Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as
the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.
'That day', said the father softly with tears now rolling down his
face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and
humanity into this world'.
Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having
never forgotten being the hero and making his father so happy, and
coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little
hero of the day!
AND NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY: We all send thousands of
jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it
comes to sending messages about life choices , people hesitate. The
crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through cyberspace,
but public discussion about decency is too often suppressed in our
schools and workplaces.
If you're thinking about forwarding this message, chances are that
you're probably sorting out the people in your address book who
aren't the 'appropriate' ones to receive this type of message. Well,
the person who sent you this believes that we all can make a
difference. We all have thousands of opportunities every single day
to help realize the 'natural order of things.' So many seemingly
trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice:
Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass
up those opportunities and leave the world a little bit colder in
the process?
A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's
least fortunate amongst them.
You now have two choices:
1. Delete
2. Forward
May your day, be a Shay Day.
************************************
Okay, this story has been making the rounds for a long time. The first time I saw it I did the research and found that the veracity of this story was undetermined. I just checked again - same thing. All I can say is that if it is true it had to happen at least 30 years ago. If it had happened anymore recently than that the scenario would have been.....
The coach of the team saying, "Lookit buster, I worked my butt off all season whipping this bunch misfits into shape and now we have a chance to make it into the playoffs. Ain't no way "I'm" giving up that chance to let your kid play just so he might feel better about himself."
At which point the ACLU would show up from out of nowhere (well not really nowhere - they're lurking everywhere) with a writ forcing the coach to let the kid play.
So the coach quits (this is okay - he was a jerk and the kids are better off without him).
While the guy from the ACLU grabs his cell phone trying to hunt down somebody who can find a judge to issue an injunction against the other team because now they have an unfair advantage due to having a coach. In the meantime, kids being kids, they decide to get on with it and let Shay play.
When it is Shay's turn to bat the guy from the ACLU (he's still feverishly trying to get an injunction) whips out the other court order he already has (he anticipated needing it because - as he so often reminds himself - he is smarter than everyone else) which makes the game stop while they move the bases three-quarters of the way in because Shay is obviously disadvantaged.
Now when the pitcher tosses the ball underhand his Father starts screaming from the stands, "That's not how I taught you to pitch ya little wimp. You can burn it past this kid - increase your stats."
A woman in the stands starts yelling at the father, "Sit down you jerk. They shouldn't even make him bat they should just let him run around the bases. The poor kid will never be able to do anything for himself so we need to take care of him". Then she hits the guy with her umbrella emblazoned with the Peace symbol.
Of course a melee breaks out in the stands and so no one notices that Shay has managed to tap the ball back toward the pitcher. Shay's team is yelling, "Run, Shay, run! " and so Shay runs (the now twenty feet or so) to first base while the pitcher intentionally tosses the ball over the first baseman's head. From the stands the pitcher's father screams, "I saw that. Wait till I get ya home ya little bastard. I'll teach you to throw the game." The last few words though are almost unintelligible because the woman with the "Peace symbol" umbrella has just used it to connect with his cajones.
Meantime Shay is almost to third by virtue of the others on the fielding team intentionally throwing the ball away from him. Now Shay is rounding third and the one little punk bully on the team, Billy, has finally gotten his hands on the ball and is heading toward Shay - intending to tag him out. The guy from the ACLU is overwhelmed and finally decides to take the law into his own hands (big surprise there) and runs out and tackles the kid with the ball. At this point Billy's father breaks away from the fight in the stands and begins to pummel the ACLU attorney while simultaneously the fielding team coach runs from the dugout and tackles Shay to stop him from crossing the plate.
Shay's father runs out onto the field to defend his son but is cut off by a freshly tonsured trial lawyer who stuffs his card in the dad's pocket saying, "This is worth millions if not hundreds of millions - give me a call." He then walks over and hands a card to the little punk, Billy, saying the same thing. Then he even hands one to the ACLU attorney with the cleat marks in his forehead.
Fade to black.
Now a thought about the original story.
Nature is not perfect, but it does not make mistakes.
Even it's imperfections have purpose. What that purpose may be I will often never be able to discern or fathom - but I have faith that it is there.
And a thought about the footnote.
I often forward things to friends. I never forward them without deleting the part that says "If you are a good person you will forward this", etc. , etc. - If they want to forward they will - it is not for me to admonish them for what they may or may not do with it. Emotions are great things - they make life worth living. But they are not the things upon which decisions should be based.
Later amigos.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Prejudice is an Interesting Word
Most of the time when I hear the word prejudice mentioned it has to do with race, religion, or lifestyle issues. And while the definitions of prejudice certainly apply to these things they apply to many other things as well. Certainly one definition bias: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation pertains to what has gone on in congress over the last couple of days.
Over the last few months congress persons and senators on both sides of the aisle have been saying that they were looking forward to the report on "The Surge" from general Pretaeus. I think that both sides were thinking that the report would bolster their position. On the right - that it was working and was the right thing to do. On the left - that it had not worked and that nothing the US could or would do in Iraq would make any difference and that it would further galvanize their efforts to force a pullout.
A few days before yesterday's report many democrats on the hill began to disavow what they had come to believe the report would say. Senator Durbin of Illinois said that nothing in the report could be believed because it had been filtered through the White House and that it was going to be the "Bush-Pretraues" report. Senator Schumer from New York even went so far as to say that the drop in violence in Anbar province was "in spite of" the surge - not because of it.
Of course he back peddled the next day saying he had the greatest respect for the troops but I doubt many believed him. These people did not have advance copies of what the report would say - nor was it leaked. Instead they had seen evidence that the surge was working. Maybe not a total success but working nonetheless.
So as I watched (and continue to watch) the testimony in front of the house and senate committees a few things struck me. The first that even though the general stated that while he had briefed his chain of command the report had not been seen by anyone at the Pentagon or the White House and it was HIS report and his alone, many of the democrats basically called him a liar. A large number of those doing so have never even been to Iraq (maybe senator Kennedy was afraid he couldn't get his two or three martinis at lunch over there - who knows), and yet had the audacity to purport they knew better than the general what was transpiring in Iraq.
The second thing that was really amazing thing was the duplicity. Before launching into disparagement of his integrity they had the audacity to say they appreciated his service. Can you say "two faced" boys and girls? How can I go so far as to say "two-faced" and that they were being duplicitous? Well, easy. Several of the Republican congress persons and senators brought up the full page ad taken out by Moveon.org in Monday's New York Times with a picture of the General and underneath a caption "General Pretraeus or General Betray us". They went on to say that they hoped they would be joined by all their colleagues on both sides of the aisle in condemning the ad. However not one of the democrats followed their supposed appreciation of the general's service with a condemnation. Instead they went directly into their character assassination of General Pretraeus and the questioning of his motives.
While the general did not paint an overly rosy picture I got the feeling that he was giving his honest assessment of the situation now and in the future. It is sad to think that there are those in congress who are so invested in failure in Iraq - as a prelude to getting more power - that they would blatantly ignore what many would see as good news. Am I making it up? Well SC representative James Clyburn - majority whip and the number three democrat in the house said not long ago "If Pretraeus has a positive report that would be a real big problem for us (the democrats). (As an aside I have to say that Rep. Clyburn may have just ridden into town on a turnip truck to admit that to a member of the press.) It is truly a sad thing.
So my point is that most of the democrats (of the party that claims to be accepting and inclusive)are prejudiced. They refused to listen with an open mind. They had a bias and they acted upon it.
In closing I have to say after watching all the hearings that I have come to one very concrete conclusion - the only person in the United States with a less coherent thought process than Lauren Caitlin Upton (the infamous Miss Teen USA contestant from South Carolina) is Senator Robert (bring home the bacon [read "pork"]) Byrd from West Virginia. No worries for her, though. She has plenty of time to groom herself to takes his place - at least another thirty years. Because it is my firm belief that Robert Byrd will be the first senator to be returned to office after his death - for several terms. Well at least his speeches on the floor will be more interesting.
Over the last few months congress persons and senators on both sides of the aisle have been saying that they were looking forward to the report on "The Surge" from general Pretaeus. I think that both sides were thinking that the report would bolster their position. On the right - that it was working and was the right thing to do. On the left - that it had not worked and that nothing the US could or would do in Iraq would make any difference and that it would further galvanize their efforts to force a pullout.
A few days before yesterday's report many democrats on the hill began to disavow what they had come to believe the report would say. Senator Durbin of Illinois said that nothing in the report could be believed because it had been filtered through the White House and that it was going to be the "Bush-Pretraues" report. Senator Schumer from New York even went so far as to say that the drop in violence in Anbar province was "in spite of" the surge - not because of it.
Of course he back peddled the next day saying he had the greatest respect for the troops but I doubt many believed him. These people did not have advance copies of what the report would say - nor was it leaked. Instead they had seen evidence that the surge was working. Maybe not a total success but working nonetheless.
So as I watched (and continue to watch) the testimony in front of the house and senate committees a few things struck me. The first that even though the general stated that while he had briefed his chain of command the report had not been seen by anyone at the Pentagon or the White House and it was HIS report and his alone, many of the democrats basically called him a liar. A large number of those doing so have never even been to Iraq (maybe senator Kennedy was afraid he couldn't get his two or three martinis at lunch over there - who knows), and yet had the audacity to purport they knew better than the general what was transpiring in Iraq.
The second thing that was really amazing thing was the duplicity. Before launching into disparagement of his integrity they had the audacity to say they appreciated his service. Can you say "two faced" boys and girls? How can I go so far as to say "two-faced" and that they were being duplicitous? Well, easy. Several of the Republican congress persons and senators brought up the full page ad taken out by Moveon.org in Monday's New York Times with a picture of the General and underneath a caption "General Pretraeus or General Betray us". They went on to say that they hoped they would be joined by all their colleagues on both sides of the aisle in condemning the ad. However not one of the democrats followed their supposed appreciation of the general's service with a condemnation. Instead they went directly into their character assassination of General Pretraeus and the questioning of his motives.
While the general did not paint an overly rosy picture I got the feeling that he was giving his honest assessment of the situation now and in the future. It is sad to think that there are those in congress who are so invested in failure in Iraq - as a prelude to getting more power - that they would blatantly ignore what many would see as good news. Am I making it up? Well SC representative James Clyburn - majority whip and the number three democrat in the house said not long ago "If Pretraeus has a positive report that would be a real big problem for us (the democrats). (As an aside I have to say that Rep. Clyburn may have just ridden into town on a turnip truck to admit that to a member of the press.) It is truly a sad thing.
So my point is that most of the democrats (of the party that claims to be accepting and inclusive)are prejudiced. They refused to listen with an open mind. They had a bias and they acted upon it.
In closing I have to say after watching all the hearings that I have come to one very concrete conclusion - the only person in the United States with a less coherent thought process than Lauren Caitlin Upton (the infamous Miss Teen USA contestant from South Carolina) is Senator Robert (bring home the bacon [read "pork"]) Byrd from West Virginia. No worries for her, though. She has plenty of time to groom herself to takes his place - at least another thirty years. Because it is my firm belief that Robert Byrd will be the first senator to be returned to office after his death - for several terms. Well at least his speeches on the floor will be more interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)