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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)