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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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.

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.

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.