OK, some crossword puzzle clues are a bit obscure. And, who wants easy ones all of the time? The Sat and Sun AM NY Times puzzles are hard! And they are fun, my favorites. But, what about those I found this week?
"Old French measurements"
"Blame: Scot."
"Former coin of Egypt"
They seemed a bit of a stretch. And isn't it just coincidental when different puzzles, The Times, The Globe, The Observer in the same week have the same clues? I wonder if the puzzle makers collude.
I still love Crosswords (difficult ones, not the usual everyday newspaper ones) and Kakuros. Sodukus (or however it's spelled) are OK, but I prefer the others.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
"A Teachable Moment"
Ah, tell me this isn't all too typical:
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/05/22/opinion/doc4bf7405d8f57d367379337.txt
And yet another two parents were complaining about the "stupid" (their word, not mine, although I agree completely) math now being taught in our schools. One dad said he's teaching his kid "the old way," regardless of what's going on in the class. I wonder if that is confusing to the kid. Again, I say, the people who make decisions in the schools should not be allowed to make decisions.
And what about naming schools after people, not trees???? In SE Michigan, maybe the entire state, there are only two high schools named after A. Lincoln, none after Washington. I think there is one named for M.L. King and one for Jefferson. What's with "Oaks" and "Lakes" and... when there are people whose names could be used? (Of course, one might ask, why are there also two Detroit-area schools named after Adlai Stevenson????) Naming the schools this way could provide a broad opportunity to teach history, as if that's important. It could teach students that lives matter, that we honor those whose lives really mattered. But, I see no clamor among our adminstrators and teachers to push this--and, over the years, who ever listened to me???? Right....
Out...
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/05/22/opinion/doc4bf7405d8f57d367379337.txt
And yet another two parents were complaining about the "stupid" (their word, not mine, although I agree completely) math now being taught in our schools. One dad said he's teaching his kid "the old way," regardless of what's going on in the class. I wonder if that is confusing to the kid. Again, I say, the people who make decisions in the schools should not be allowed to make decisions.
And what about naming schools after people, not trees???? In SE Michigan, maybe the entire state, there are only two high schools named after A. Lincoln, none after Washington. I think there is one named for M.L. King and one for Jefferson. What's with "Oaks" and "Lakes" and... when there are people whose names could be used? (Of course, one might ask, why are there also two Detroit-area schools named after Adlai Stevenson????) Naming the schools this way could provide a broad opportunity to teach history, as if that's important. It could teach students that lives matter, that we honor those whose lives really mattered. But, I see no clamor among our adminstrators and teachers to push this--and, over the years, who ever listened to me???? Right....
Out...
Friday, May 21, 2010
Here We Go Again
Sometimes I think about how tiresome it must seem (and sometimes is!) to constantly be critical, to rant and grouse. I remember words written by one of the Amherst professors, Henry Steele Commager, once the dean of US historians. He noted that the most important members of a society are its critics. I could go on to demonstrate how some of the greatest leaders this country and even the world have had followed this precept. Among them are Washington, Augustus, and, of course, Lincoln. But, back to the point.... I can't let people get away with what they are trying to do. It is like it was with the schools. Stupid stuff after stupid stuff, for the most part, unchallenged by the vast majority of teachers or the community. And see what's happened to our schools over the past 30-40 years??? Don't begin to try to convince anyone they are better now than they were then--you'll be a laughingstock.
The Mexican president comes here and lectures us on immigration, jobs, human rights, you name it. Now, this is America. People can say what they want. No doubt, this guy's asinine remarks might have played well at home. All that's fine and good. What I find galling is that the Democrats in Congress gave the guy a standing ovation!!!! Who are these fools? Are they that ignorant? Do they dislike the US that much? Every one of that bunch who stood and applauded deserves to get thrown out on his ear next election.
First, el presidente commented on our immigration policy, commented very critically. Hmmm... Shall we examine Mexican immigration laws? He was later interviewed by some CNN guy, hardly a bastion of America First. The questions were something like this: Do you have open borders, allowing anyone to come into Mexico? Of course not, was el presidente's reply. Do you require aliens to have the proper paperwork in your country. Well, of course. Can they come in and not contribute to taxes, but get all the benefits of citizenship? Certainly not. Hmmm.... And this boob is lecturing us????
Second, why is it that so many of his Mexicans feel the need to come to the US? What is it about Mexico that doesn't offer the same opportunities for success that we do? After all, if people in Mexico could get the things there that they can get here, why would they come, often imperiling their and their families' lives?
Third, this guy starts talking about oil and the need for a green economy. I wonder if he says that to his own people, when Mexico's economy is built, to a sizable extent, on oil, that is, selling oil to us.
OK, like I said, this guy has every right to say what he wants. This is America. Regardless of how stupid, hypocritical, etc. it is. He can say it.
But, first, why do these Congressional boobs stand for this stupidity, hypocrisy? Well, of course, we all know why--does an idiot, hypocrite critize himself???? Second, why doesn't our President stand up for us? Can it be he wants the unspeakable, to drag the US as we know it down? I say "unspeakable" because he doesn't come right out and say it, well, not often, but acts like it. I don't understand why more, even most, people aren't up in arms over this guy. Third, where is the media in all of this. I guess most of them are poorly educated, really not knowing their own history let alone that of Mexico and other countries.
Jefferson thought that the key to a strong, surviving democracy was education. Can it be, that after the boobs who have run education into the ground, we are so ignorant Jefferson's words are coming true, in an obverse sense?
The Mexican president comes here and lectures us on immigration, jobs, human rights, you name it. Now, this is America. People can say what they want. No doubt, this guy's asinine remarks might have played well at home. All that's fine and good. What I find galling is that the Democrats in Congress gave the guy a standing ovation!!!! Who are these fools? Are they that ignorant? Do they dislike the US that much? Every one of that bunch who stood and applauded deserves to get thrown out on his ear next election.
First, el presidente commented on our immigration policy, commented very critically. Hmmm... Shall we examine Mexican immigration laws? He was later interviewed by some CNN guy, hardly a bastion of America First. The questions were something like this: Do you have open borders, allowing anyone to come into Mexico? Of course not, was el presidente's reply. Do you require aliens to have the proper paperwork in your country. Well, of course. Can they come in and not contribute to taxes, but get all the benefits of citizenship? Certainly not. Hmmm.... And this boob is lecturing us????
Second, why is it that so many of his Mexicans feel the need to come to the US? What is it about Mexico that doesn't offer the same opportunities for success that we do? After all, if people in Mexico could get the things there that they can get here, why would they come, often imperiling their and their families' lives?
Third, this guy starts talking about oil and the need for a green economy. I wonder if he says that to his own people, when Mexico's economy is built, to a sizable extent, on oil, that is, selling oil to us.
OK, like I said, this guy has every right to say what he wants. This is America. Regardless of how stupid, hypocritical, etc. it is. He can say it.
But, first, why do these Congressional boobs stand for this stupidity, hypocrisy? Well, of course, we all know why--does an idiot, hypocrite critize himself???? Second, why doesn't our President stand up for us? Can it be he wants the unspeakable, to drag the US as we know it down? I say "unspeakable" because he doesn't come right out and say it, well, not often, but acts like it. I don't understand why more, even most, people aren't up in arms over this guy. Third, where is the media in all of this. I guess most of them are poorly educated, really not knowing their own history let alone that of Mexico and other countries.
Jefferson thought that the key to a strong, surviving democracy was education. Can it be, that after the boobs who have run education into the ground, we are so ignorant Jefferson's words are coming true, in an obverse sense?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Lincoln
I finished, last week, Father Abraham by Richard Striner. It's an outstanding book that paints Lincoln the the hagiographic light I have been for years now. From piecing together bits from these Lincoln books, those Lincoln quotations, and other Civil War books, I have been teaching that, no, Lincoln was not a racist, that, no, his goal was always emancipation, not merely to hold together the Union, that, yes, he grew as a man and a President/politician, etc. For instance, how could anyone read of Abe's meetings with Frederick Douglass and not come away with these views? This book confirms all that and more.
It's certainly a book well worth reading, if only from its uplifting story.
It's certainly a book well worth reading, if only from its uplifting story.
Musings on a Tues
On yet another day fit for neither man nor beast--cold, windy, rainy....
I went to a local Tea Party on Sun. I rode my bike up to Central Park, figuring parking would be at a premium. It was, as there were a couple thousand folks there, I'd guess. It was pretty tame. No rebels, no extremists, no radicals. It was interesting in that Sat night, at a party, I heard from several libs, obviously, the same "talking points," word for word!, about the Tea Partiers. "They just angry and have no ideas and they're racists." I was stunned, a bit, by the exact word for word descriptions, given by more than one person, out of earshot of the others, at different times of the evening. I was stunned, even more, by the narrow- or close-mindedness of the anti-Tea Partiers. And, yes, these people at the Tea Party seemed upset. No, they did have ideas, quite a few of them. And, I couldn't detect a racist among them. They might have been there, but I coudn't tell. Amazing how easy it is to call names rather than engage in dialogue.
This is repetitive, but I wonder why The Oakland Press carries the columns of E.J. Dionne. Really, I wonder; maybe his brother-in-law runs the paper or its parent group???? I see, though, that Bill Press has not been in there for quite a while. But Dionne's column was lunacy, claiming that Obama's administration shows that gov't works by using the examples of the failed Times Sq bomber, the oil rig blast in the Gulf, etc. First, it was pure dumb luck that the bomb didn't go off in Times Sq. The administration had nothing to do with it and, in fact, showed itself to be incompetent in the wake of the matter. For instance, can you say "No Fly List?" How about making multi-trips to Pakistan, with several stay-overs of a couple weeks? And I guess the Obama administration oversight commission had awarded this BP oil rig a great safety rating (or whatever these things are called). Anyway, back to Dionne. I understand the desire to present opposing viewpoints on an editorial page. But to get the lib view, certainly there are better choices than Press and Dionne. Maybe they are "low-bid?" How about Leonard Pitts instead? Even when disagreeing with him, his columns give me pause for thought. Of course, to articulate the con viewpoint, I'm pretty sure I can find someone better than Cal Thomas--Bill Bennett, Thomas Sowell, Emmett Tyrell, among them.
I love to hear people talk about how "greedy" others are. If it's not "big oil," it's the bankers, Wall Street, CEOs in general, etc. Now, I happen to think most, if not all, CEOs are vastly overpaid--their jobs aren't that difficult. But that's what the market seems to bear--which might be a topic for another blog, but.... So, when folks talk about the "greed" of the above groups they distinctly omit professional athletes, hippy rock stars, the Hollywood-types, politicians (what did I read recently, that about 60% of the US Senators are millionaires, and just under 50% in the House are, too!!!!), and even doctors. Come to think of it, lawyers haven't been lumped in with the "greedy" group for quite a while--at least Congress hasn't done it. And, these folks often have nice homes, most far more expensive than mine (and I have a nice enough house, perfectly fine for me). They have enough cars, cottages or condos for vacations, eat out often enough, etc. I'm not saying these people aren't nice. But their definitions and preceptions of greed seem to be limited/restricted. Hmmm....greed?
With all of the anger directed at BP and the rig blast and pollution, what's going to come of off-shore drilling? Oh, I could go on about other spills that received far less attention, about why we need to drill off-shore instead of inland, but I won't today. I wonder how all these folks who want to stop off-shore drilling will react when the price of a gallon of gas hits $5 or $6. Oh, I know--those greedy oil companies!!!!
I went to a local Tea Party on Sun. I rode my bike up to Central Park, figuring parking would be at a premium. It was, as there were a couple thousand folks there, I'd guess. It was pretty tame. No rebels, no extremists, no radicals. It was interesting in that Sat night, at a party, I heard from several libs, obviously, the same "talking points," word for word!, about the Tea Partiers. "They just angry and have no ideas and they're racists." I was stunned, a bit, by the exact word for word descriptions, given by more than one person, out of earshot of the others, at different times of the evening. I was stunned, even more, by the narrow- or close-mindedness of the anti-Tea Partiers. And, yes, these people at the Tea Party seemed upset. No, they did have ideas, quite a few of them. And, I couldn't detect a racist among them. They might have been there, but I coudn't tell. Amazing how easy it is to call names rather than engage in dialogue.
This is repetitive, but I wonder why The Oakland Press carries the columns of E.J. Dionne. Really, I wonder; maybe his brother-in-law runs the paper or its parent group???? I see, though, that Bill Press has not been in there for quite a while. But Dionne's column was lunacy, claiming that Obama's administration shows that gov't works by using the examples of the failed Times Sq bomber, the oil rig blast in the Gulf, etc. First, it was pure dumb luck that the bomb didn't go off in Times Sq. The administration had nothing to do with it and, in fact, showed itself to be incompetent in the wake of the matter. For instance, can you say "No Fly List?" How about making multi-trips to Pakistan, with several stay-overs of a couple weeks? And I guess the Obama administration oversight commission had awarded this BP oil rig a great safety rating (or whatever these things are called). Anyway, back to Dionne. I understand the desire to present opposing viewpoints on an editorial page. But to get the lib view, certainly there are better choices than Press and Dionne. Maybe they are "low-bid?" How about Leonard Pitts instead? Even when disagreeing with him, his columns give me pause for thought. Of course, to articulate the con viewpoint, I'm pretty sure I can find someone better than Cal Thomas--Bill Bennett, Thomas Sowell, Emmett Tyrell, among them.
I love to hear people talk about how "greedy" others are. If it's not "big oil," it's the bankers, Wall Street, CEOs in general, etc. Now, I happen to think most, if not all, CEOs are vastly overpaid--their jobs aren't that difficult. But that's what the market seems to bear--which might be a topic for another blog, but.... So, when folks talk about the "greed" of the above groups they distinctly omit professional athletes, hippy rock stars, the Hollywood-types, politicians (what did I read recently, that about 60% of the US Senators are millionaires, and just under 50% in the House are, too!!!!), and even doctors. Come to think of it, lawyers haven't been lumped in with the "greedy" group for quite a while--at least Congress hasn't done it. And, these folks often have nice homes, most far more expensive than mine (and I have a nice enough house, perfectly fine for me). They have enough cars, cottages or condos for vacations, eat out often enough, etc. I'm not saying these people aren't nice. But their definitions and preceptions of greed seem to be limited/restricted. Hmmm....greed?
With all of the anger directed at BP and the rig blast and pollution, what's going to come of off-shore drilling? Oh, I could go on about other spills that received far less attention, about why we need to drill off-shore instead of inland, but I won't today. I wonder how all these folks who want to stop off-shore drilling will react when the price of a gallon of gas hits $5 or $6. Oh, I know--those greedy oil companies!!!!
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Lives of Consequence
What is "a life of consequence?" It has sparked a lively discussion/dialogue on one of my Amherst listserves. It's the motto for fund raising at the college, but what, exactly, is its meaning? Hmmmm....
More later, but remember what Socrates (or was it Plato?) wrote: The unexamined life isn't worth living.
More later, but remember what Socrates (or was it Plato?) wrote: The unexamined life isn't worth living.
Books
I had a nice long conversation with one of my college roommates last weekend. Among our humorous barbs and catching-up, we discussed, however briefly, the most influential book we've read. Wow, how to choose!?!?
I was a bit surprised and delighted to have him say, among others, Lincoln by Gore Vidal. yes, that's been a favorite of mine, too. There have been several of the books/biogs I've read about Lincoln I would rank pretty high, too. (I've read about 3 dozen.) I only half jokingly tell folks that when I get down about the way we are headed today, I grab a book about Abe and his determination, forthrightness, courage, vision, etc. all serve to revive my spirits.
Yes, there are lots of books that I think about long after I've read them. Some have changed the ways I've thought and acted. Again, they are many, many. And, I continue to read some of these important ones. I hope I never stop.
I was a bit surprised and delighted to have him say, among others, Lincoln by Gore Vidal. yes, that's been a favorite of mine, too. There have been several of the books/biogs I've read about Lincoln I would rank pretty high, too. (I've read about 3 dozen.) I only half jokingly tell folks that when I get down about the way we are headed today, I grab a book about Abe and his determination, forthrightness, courage, vision, etc. all serve to revive my spirits.
Yes, there are lots of books that I think about long after I've read them. Some have changed the ways I've thought and acted. Again, they are many, many. And, I continue to read some of these important ones. I hope I never stop.
The Apocalypse
Yet another sign that the Apocalypse nears....
Time Magazine published its list of top 100 people of 2009 in several categories. One category was "Heroes and Icons." At the top of the list, the very top!, is Michelle Obama!!!! C'mon...what has she done to be even in the top 100 of such a list? (Of course, is she a "hero" or a "heroine?" I ask because of the incredibly stupid trendy referrals of actresses as "actors." A man is an actor and a woman is an actress. What is at all offensive about that? A man is an emperor and a woman is an empress. A man is a mister and a woman is a miss or missus. Would a woman want to be called a "mister?" I remember a teacher I worked with who strongly objected when I referred to her as "chairwoman." Now how the principal was silly enough to choose her to be "chair" of anything is another question for another time, but.... So, I said to her, you don't want to be a "chairman," understandably, but also don't want to be "chairwoman," which is what you are--a woman who is chairing a committee. I think I'll just call you the "chairone." Oh, the look I received! But I just laughed and shook my head, which made her even angrier. And, to think, a principal, a head of a high school, not only let her "chair" anything, but also listened to her. That, my friends, is why the schools are so terrible.)
Back to the list of "Heroes and Icons." I only heard of two others in the top ten, Chesley Sullenberger, fully agreed, and Van Jones, the commie who rips on the US system, but takes full advantage of it to make his life comfortable. Who, what ninny, made this list???? Tiger Woods, the bastion of integrity and values we'd all like to teach our kids, was # 14. How did "actor" (see, I got it right!) George Clooney make # 15? Did anyone ever listen to him try to pontificate on issues, as if he knew all the right answers? (Well, if anyone ever did, they certainly know he doesn't.) Oprah Winfrey and Sarah Palin (who'da thunk I fit them both in the same sentence?) were #s 18 and 19. I never heard of any of the others. But, from those I have heard of, the others??????
If I were Sullenberger, I think I'd ask to have my name removed from the list. Who'd want to be associated with such a crowd????
Boy, I guess our standards and values have fallen even more than I thought....
Time Magazine published its list of top 100 people of 2009 in several categories. One category was "Heroes and Icons." At the top of the list, the very top!, is Michelle Obama!!!! C'mon...what has she done to be even in the top 100 of such a list? (Of course, is she a "hero" or a "heroine?" I ask because of the incredibly stupid trendy referrals of actresses as "actors." A man is an actor and a woman is an actress. What is at all offensive about that? A man is an emperor and a woman is an empress. A man is a mister and a woman is a miss or missus. Would a woman want to be called a "mister?" I remember a teacher I worked with who strongly objected when I referred to her as "chairwoman." Now how the principal was silly enough to choose her to be "chair" of anything is another question for another time, but.... So, I said to her, you don't want to be a "chairman," understandably, but also don't want to be "chairwoman," which is what you are--a woman who is chairing a committee. I think I'll just call you the "chairone." Oh, the look I received! But I just laughed and shook my head, which made her even angrier. And, to think, a principal, a head of a high school, not only let her "chair" anything, but also listened to her. That, my friends, is why the schools are so terrible.)
Back to the list of "Heroes and Icons." I only heard of two others in the top ten, Chesley Sullenberger, fully agreed, and Van Jones, the commie who rips on the US system, but takes full advantage of it to make his life comfortable. Who, what ninny, made this list???? Tiger Woods, the bastion of integrity and values we'd all like to teach our kids, was # 14. How did "actor" (see, I got it right!) George Clooney make # 15? Did anyone ever listen to him try to pontificate on issues, as if he knew all the right answers? (Well, if anyone ever did, they certainly know he doesn't.) Oprah Winfrey and Sarah Palin (who'da thunk I fit them both in the same sentence?) were #s 18 and 19. I never heard of any of the others. But, from those I have heard of, the others??????
If I were Sullenberger, I think I'd ask to have my name removed from the list. Who'd want to be associated with such a crowd????
Boy, I guess our standards and values have fallen even more than I thought....
Crime
Today, on a day fit for neither man nor beast, some thoughts:
It was heart-warming to hear Bopper tell me about his game last night. I wasn't there, having class on Mon eves (Grrrrr!). He explained it well and had a big grin on his face when he told me about his two hits. (Grandma must not play attention, she said he only hit the ball once. But Bopper said he got two hits and hit another one they caught. Of course, Grandma is known not to see things because she's talking!) He even told me, "Grandpa, I slid into second base." Let's hope this rain lasts until late Wed eve so the game is called off and made up on a day I can come.
What's with the crimes? Some woman in Calif beat and raped an 8-year old friend of her daughter's? A guy north of here beat to death the infant of his girl friend because the kid was crying? Hey, that's what babies do! A drug dealer (?) in Det shot a police officer in the face three times? Are we out of control?
I have no solution for preventing all this, but I am not averse to locking these people up for a long, long time--esp those who hurt kids. And "locking them up" means no conjugal visits, no telephone calls, no cable television, no weight/exercise rooms, no college classes, and bare minimum calories. Any protests? Cut the meals and calories. Let's see how long disturbances last without any sustenance. Make it so felons NEVER want to return to prison.
Here's a case in point, a personal matter. Yesterday, one of the moms at my wife's school came in for about an hour to do some help work. When she left, someone had smashed her window and stolen her purse from the car--openly in the school parking lot! It seems the guy must have followed her from the local grocery store. Now, he obviously didn't know she was going to the school. Was he going to follow her home? Oh, the mom also had another child, an infant, in the car with her (and took him in the bldg when she went in). What if she had been followed home, with the thief jumping her in her driveway, with the baby in the car? Imagine the scenarios, let alone the actual theft. Imagine the horror, terror this mom must feel!!!! If this guy gets caught, I say throw him in the slammer for 20 years, until he's too old to terrorize anyone else--and see the above for the treatment he should receive while in jail.
And did you see about the judge who is allowing a prisoner to sue the prison because they took away is toothpaste? Apparently the guy later had a tooth problem (he lost it?). But he had been misbehaving and, as punishment, toothpaste was taken away. I guess he still has his toothbrush and could have used water, salt, etc.???? What about the guy's previous life-style? Was it conducive to good dental hygiene? Who is this judge? If he falls in my purview, I want to vote against the dingbat.
It was heart-warming to hear Bopper tell me about his game last night. I wasn't there, having class on Mon eves (Grrrrr!). He explained it well and had a big grin on his face when he told me about his two hits. (Grandma must not play attention, she said he only hit the ball once. But Bopper said he got two hits and hit another one they caught. Of course, Grandma is known not to see things because she's talking!) He even told me, "Grandpa, I slid into second base." Let's hope this rain lasts until late Wed eve so the game is called off and made up on a day I can come.
What's with the crimes? Some woman in Calif beat and raped an 8-year old friend of her daughter's? A guy north of here beat to death the infant of his girl friend because the kid was crying? Hey, that's what babies do! A drug dealer (?) in Det shot a police officer in the face three times? Are we out of control?
I have no solution for preventing all this, but I am not averse to locking these people up for a long, long time--esp those who hurt kids. And "locking them up" means no conjugal visits, no telephone calls, no cable television, no weight/exercise rooms, no college classes, and bare minimum calories. Any protests? Cut the meals and calories. Let's see how long disturbances last without any sustenance. Make it so felons NEVER want to return to prison.
Here's a case in point, a personal matter. Yesterday, one of the moms at my wife's school came in for about an hour to do some help work. When she left, someone had smashed her window and stolen her purse from the car--openly in the school parking lot! It seems the guy must have followed her from the local grocery store. Now, he obviously didn't know she was going to the school. Was he going to follow her home? Oh, the mom also had another child, an infant, in the car with her (and took him in the bldg when she went in). What if she had been followed home, with the thief jumping her in her driveway, with the baby in the car? Imagine the scenarios, let alone the actual theft. Imagine the horror, terror this mom must feel!!!! If this guy gets caught, I say throw him in the slammer for 20 years, until he's too old to terrorize anyone else--and see the above for the treatment he should receive while in jail.
And did you see about the judge who is allowing a prisoner to sue the prison because they took away is toothpaste? Apparently the guy later had a tooth problem (he lost it?). But he had been misbehaving and, as punishment, toothpaste was taken away. I guess he still has his toothbrush and could have used water, salt, etc.???? What about the guy's previous life-style? Was it conducive to good dental hygiene? Who is this judge? If he falls in my purview, I want to vote against the dingbat.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Sunday Columns
A pair of interesting, though divergent, columns in Sunday's newspapers. First, EJ Dionne wrote about how the IRS is our friend. He painted it as very sympathetic to our plight--all 23,000 pages of its laws and codes. I wonder if this is the journalistic equivalent of Joe Biden's "Paying taxes is patriotic." I wonder if Dionne has had any direct dealings with the IRS--or any government bureaucracy. If this was an April 1st column, I'd conclude it was a joke. Either that or Dionne is a fool.
Second, I often think Cal Thomas is a bit much. His column this Sunday include some of this. But, I think, his overall point was valid. Now, after cheering and championing the violent demonstrations of the Vietnam years, even now, the Left thinks the Tea Parties and other conservative protests are "dangerous," "extreme," "subversive," and you name it. Funny, as Thomas points out, how just four years ago Hillary Clinton was "sick and tired" of those who said protesting against government was "unpatriotic." I think, as usual, it's not the political philosophy that grates me, but the blatant hypocrisy. Another thing Thomas I think was good about was why some are protesting government programs, policies, and actions. They are "sick and tired" of government rewarding bad behavior. They are "sick and tired" of being called names (boy, isn't that one familiar!?!?) for suggesting some of the downtrodden (I might add "most?") are there because of their own actions and inactions.
Yes, for different reasons, both columns were well worth reading.
Second, I often think Cal Thomas is a bit much. His column this Sunday include some of this. But, I think, his overall point was valid. Now, after cheering and championing the violent demonstrations of the Vietnam years, even now, the Left thinks the Tea Parties and other conservative protests are "dangerous," "extreme," "subversive," and you name it. Funny, as Thomas points out, how just four years ago Hillary Clinton was "sick and tired" of those who said protesting against government was "unpatriotic." I think, as usual, it's not the political philosophy that grates me, but the blatant hypocrisy. Another thing Thomas I think was good about was why some are protesting government programs, policies, and actions. They are "sick and tired" of government rewarding bad behavior. They are "sick and tired" of being called names (boy, isn't that one familiar!?!?) for suggesting some of the downtrodden (I might add "most?") are there because of their own actions and inactions.
Yes, for different reasons, both columns were well worth reading.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Little League
What a great thing! During team pictures this AM, the photographer said, "OK, now the coaches get in the picture." I was hanging back, not wanting to intrude, when Bopper said, "C'mon, Grandpa!" I'm still flying, about 6 hours later.
Big Government
Interesting Walter Williams piece this AM. If gov't can take the steps toward cigarette smoking that it has, what else can it put in its cross hairs? It seems fast food is next--note how lousy McD's fries are now, KFC is now, etc. since gov't went on the attack against transfats. And, in Calif someplace, Happy Meals can't have toys in them because toys cause kids to want Happy Meals and Happy Meals aren't healthy and..... Ignoring, for a moment, where the parents are, what's next?
What's to stop the gov't from taking kids from parents who give them Happy Meals? How ridiculous, Ron--are you an idiot? Gov't can't do that. Before actually saying that, review the history of gov't's treatment of smoking--from warnings to taking of kids. Then, think before you speak. I'm not talking overnight, but over decades.
Once again, it is not gov't's job to tell me what I can and cannot buy (within reason--I accept that gov't can stop me from buying a Sherman tank). If I want to eat KFC fried in transfats, that's my own decision. What was it Jefferson said, "Laws are there to protect you from others, not from yourself." Oh, I forgot...that's history and history isn't important. My mistake.
What's to stop the gov't from taking kids from parents who give them Happy Meals? How ridiculous, Ron--are you an idiot? Gov't can't do that. Before actually saying that, review the history of gov't's treatment of smoking--from warnings to taking of kids. Then, think before you speak. I'm not talking overnight, but over decades.
Once again, it is not gov't's job to tell me what I can and cannot buy (within reason--I accept that gov't can stop me from buying a Sherman tank). If I want to eat KFC fried in transfats, that's my own decision. What was it Jefferson said, "Laws are there to protect you from others, not from yourself." Oh, I forgot...that's history and history isn't important. My mistake.
Mow the Lawn
As I was out mowing the lawn, by hand, without a tractor or self-propelled mower, I noted several neighbors--on tractors--also cutting their grass. Now, all of them are considerably younger than I. And, other neighbors have hired landscapers to mow. All fine and dandy with me.
What upsets me is that, now with ObamaCare, I have to help pay their health insurance. They don't have to do anything, don't have to make any steps to staying healthy, yet, if they, as inevitably will happen, fall ill, who pays? I wouldn't mind, I guess, if they at least weren't so lethargic, did take steps to improve their health, etc. But, in my neighborhood, two of us mow the lawn my hand. All others, all of them, either have services or tractors.
What upsets me is that, now with ObamaCare, I have to help pay their health insurance. They don't have to do anything, don't have to make any steps to staying healthy, yet, if they, as inevitably will happen, fall ill, who pays? I wouldn't mind, I guess, if they at least weren't so lethargic, did take steps to improve their health, etc. But, in my neighborhood, two of us mow the lawn my hand. All others, all of them, either have services or tractors.
GM
No doubt, you've read in the newspapers or seen on the boob tube that General Motors has "paid off" it's government loans. Great! It has already paid off the bailout money from the US government. Wow!
But the story is a bit different than that. Thanks to Robb for sending the Forbes article detailing the "pay off."
Now, if you were a bit like me, you wondered how GM, if it wasn't yet making a profit, was still losing money, it could pay off its debt/loan and so early to boot. Strange, but wonderful. Except....
GM paid off the debt with other money from the federal government. It didn't pay off the $46 billion or so. It only "paid off" about $6.7 billion. The rest of the "loan" is actually equity the government bought into GM. It will be "paid off" if and when GM can come up with another $40 billion and the government decides it wants to be paid off, that is, sell its equity. So, GM didn't really "pay off" its loan? There's more.
Part of the bailout money allowed GM to establish a slush fund, an escrow account, of about $13 billion. The return of the $6.7 billion, touted as "paying off," came from the escrow account, the slush fund. Oh, so GM paid off the government loan by using other government money? It seems to be so. Isn't that sort of a giant ponzi scheme? Let's see, you owe me $1000, but can't pay it. So, I loan you another $1000 to pay off the first loan. Oh, OK. And, as usual, there's more.
With GM now able to boast that it paid off the loan earlier than expected, "years earlier," it can now seek other gov't loans, er, grants, at even lower interest rates. Hmmm...curioser and curioser.
And I have received several e-mail reports from a Michigan Senator and Congressman lauding the early GM pay offs. Are they aware of all this? Are they aware of all this--and there has to be gov't collusion, understanding of what's going on, doesn't there?--and still bragging how they are conducting investigations into Goldman Sachs?
I guess the question now is "who's regulating the regulators?"
Thanks, Robb.
But the story is a bit different than that. Thanks to Robb for sending the Forbes article detailing the "pay off."
Now, if you were a bit like me, you wondered how GM, if it wasn't yet making a profit, was still losing money, it could pay off its debt/loan and so early to boot. Strange, but wonderful. Except....
GM paid off the debt with other money from the federal government. It didn't pay off the $46 billion or so. It only "paid off" about $6.7 billion. The rest of the "loan" is actually equity the government bought into GM. It will be "paid off" if and when GM can come up with another $40 billion and the government decides it wants to be paid off, that is, sell its equity. So, GM didn't really "pay off" its loan? There's more.
Part of the bailout money allowed GM to establish a slush fund, an escrow account, of about $13 billion. The return of the $6.7 billion, touted as "paying off," came from the escrow account, the slush fund. Oh, so GM paid off the government loan by using other government money? It seems to be so. Isn't that sort of a giant ponzi scheme? Let's see, you owe me $1000, but can't pay it. So, I loan you another $1000 to pay off the first loan. Oh, OK. And, as usual, there's more.
With GM now able to boast that it paid off the loan earlier than expected, "years earlier," it can now seek other gov't loans, er, grants, at even lower interest rates. Hmmm...curioser and curioser.
And I have received several e-mail reports from a Michigan Senator and Congressman lauding the early GM pay offs. Are they aware of all this? Are they aware of all this--and there has to be gov't collusion, understanding of what's going on, doesn't there?--and still bragging how they are conducting investigations into Goldman Sachs?
I guess the question now is "who's regulating the regulators?"
Thanks, Robb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
