Getting up at 5 AM (or earlier), as I most often do, is a great way to get things done. I relish the quiet. I even like going out to get the newspaper so early, seeing the early AM sky and all of the stars and planets that sometimes seem so close I can reach out and touch them. Venus has become a good friend and I often greet Orion. I still enjoy finding the Big Dipper and locating the North Star from it. Sometimes I have to consult a star map for that AM/Day to identify other stars and planets--they move!
I don't really watch the Lions play, but does this Suh guy really play "dirty?" If so, why does the league put up with it? If so, where are the opposing players, who often "fix" things with dirty play? If so, why do the fans still root for the Lions? Is it that important to win? Why did the Pistons' fans of the '80s root so hard the "Bad Boys?" Weren't they "dirty?" Was it that they won? I guess in the same vein, why is there all of this recent talk of paying college athletes, esp football and basketball players? Isn't the college education enough? Is "generating income" all that important, all-important even? How about just cutting all the garbage, since my inclination is to believe most of them really aren't "student-athletes," and create a new level of athletics? Let the colleges continue with their programs, but have a minor league for football and basketball players who have professional aspirations? Then, the athletes can be paid and we don't have to continue with the sham of "student-athletes." And, then, by merit, we can see who really deserves to be paid. BTW, I think banning players from selling their own memorabilia is ridiculous. To prohibit a team from bowl games and rankings because their players sold their own property is stupid and, dare I say, hypocritical. (At least that's my understanding of the Ohio State episode. I could be wrong since, like professional sports, I lost interest in major college athletics years ago.) The argument is that the "student-athletes" (it pains me to write that!) shouldn't be able to take advantage of things other students don't have. Yeah, right...... Gee, what dorms do they have? What about their training tables? How about the tutors? Did I mention the training facilities? I'm sure "other students" can walk into the football weight room to work out any time they want. I'll bet "other students" can sit down and have the steaks provided at the "training tables." Do any of these people ever look in the mirror? Oh, I forgot. It's all about winning and the money, so of course they can look in the mirror. I still get a kick out of the alumni of these colleges, those whose degrees are maligned and diminished, who see nothing wrong with all of this. In fact, they remain the biggest boosters. Wouldn't they also root for their teams if real "student-athletes" competed?
Why does everything today have to be about sex? OK, not everything is. But watch some of those TV shows, esp the dancing and singing ones. Can women wear skimpier clothes? Little is left to the imagination. Why do the guys have to rip off their shirts? I see the kid who starred in that "Two Gentlemen and a Boy" or whatever it's called said the show is "filth." Gee, after how many years, what took him so long to realize it? The paychecks? "Filth?" Perhaps, since I guess the kid was not yet an adolescent when he/the show began, it might be called "child pornography" or, at the least, "child abuse" or "endangerment?" Maybe not, but I refused to ever watch the show. But enough people did, people who would be appalled if I suggested that they were watching "kiddie pornography." And is there a comedian out there who doesn't do the same, even one who doesn't swear up and down? You know, "F-bombs" aren't inherently funny.
I also noted that Barack Obama and his wife took advantage of a tax loophole to avoid paying some taxes. I think, but I won't swear to it, that each gave "$48,000" to each of their two daughters. Some White House lackey explained it was to pay for the girl's college educations. I don't have a problem with taking advantage of the loopholes--it's the law and is fine with me. If we don't want the loopholes, change the laws. But isn't it Obama who's the one always talking about "the rich have to pay more?" Yep, it's the same guy. One would think (that is, if one is thinking) that he'd be more than willing to pay more in taxes, that is, not take advantage of the loopholes. He could set an example for the rich. (Gee, I wonder if Warren Buffet, instead of hypocritically telling people his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income than he does, takes advantage of loopholes? And, don't forget, his secretary earns about five or six times what I do.) And, if Obama's government programs and policies are so good, are so worthy of funding, why isn't he thrilled to pay more in taxes? I know why and so do you. By the way, wouldn't one think that $800,000 a year (about what the Obama's made this year, not to mention the book deals and speaking engagements once he leaves office) could pay for their daughters' college educations? How the heck did I manage to put a kid through college??????
"Why don't we buy electric cars?" a newspaper headline asks. How about the price tags on them? (And, why do taxpayers have to pay $7500 for somebody to buy one?) How about the inconvenience? What if one doesn't have a garage? What about the limited mileage and speed? Why is the federal government so concerned for us to buy electric cars? (Well, why does it--and local and state governments--also mandate what kind of televisions, toilets, light bulbs, fried foods, etc. we can have?)
I can't stand the emergency manager law(s)? It/They reek(s) of elitism, of arrogance. I know history isn't important, but if there's anything it teaches it's that the elitists who gain control of government far more often mess things up than make things better.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Random Thoughts on a Snowy Sunday
OK, the snow barely dusted the ground. But, it stayed all day. Even the roads were snow-covered for a few hours this AM. It made for a beatiful run today.
What an odd list (three pages!) of obituaries today! So many of the names were alliterative. "Bob Bean," "Bob Balfour Blanchard," "Betty Boguszewski," "Gene Gebala," "Guerino Giombetti," "James Jensen," "Harold Howell," "Ken Kosky," "Louis Loch," "Mary Meyers," "Stephen Sims," "Stanley Stepinski," and "Thomas Tarantine." I didn't include first and middle names, such as "Betty Barry" and "Gary Bordon." And one woman who died married a guy with the same last name as her maiden name. Another was said to have the life ambition "of being James Bond."
Especially in the Free Press, but also among a lot of people, there are no bounds to the criticism of the leadership, past and present, in Detroit. Fair enough. But then many of these same people and the Free Press then support what Obama and his administration are doing in DC, to the US. It all seems a little incongruent to me.
Of the "fiscal cliff," a lot of talk is centered on a balanced budget. To balance the budget we need to cut spending and cut spending a lot. Living on a budget means to live within one's means, that is, unless we have redefined "budget"/"budgeting." Budgeting, as an op-ed piece correctly noted today, does not merely mean to increase the means by which one lives. "The root cause" of our deficit predicament is spending--government borrows too much to spend more and government taxes too much to spend more. The key is to spend less.
Imagine if some inhuman nut jobs started launching missiles, hundreds or thousands of them, into American cities from, say Mexico or Canada. Then imagine that Mexico and Canada let them. I wonder what the response from and within the US would be. What would any other nation in the world do in response? Yep, I think so, too. So, as Nolan Finley suggests in an editorial, "Why shouldn't it [Israel] level Gaza, if necessary, to silence the rockets forever? These same countries, which would react "with a terrible, swift sword" if they were being attacked for years, are the ones who sit by and watch this happen, with nary a word of protest. Oh, when Israel is hit with wave upon wave of rockets, the international silence is deafening. Then, when Israel responds--as any other nation in the world would respond--it is criticized for killing civilians. Why wouldn't Hamas continue to bombard the Israelis??????
I don't know if there's a direct correlation or not, but.... It seems to me the schools and American education in general became worse and continued to get worse once the federal government (and, in Michigan, Lansing/the state government) became more involved. Now, I do understand that many states, for instance, in the South, continued to teach the hatred and bigotry that marked far too many years. Still.... Maybe it's just a coincidence.
Is the shoe on the other foot? Back in the '60s and '70s, the right, ridiculously, told the left, "America--love it or leave it." Now, equally ridiculously, some of the left are telling the right--those who I hope only jokingly talk about seceding--"Self-deport to any country of your choice." Brilliance exhibited by both sides.
Interesting how some are critical of business anticipating the costly effects of ObamaCare. Some national restaurant chains are already cutting work weeks to 29 hours, to avoid the mandating health insurance costs of the new law. At least one college has cut professors' hours to avoid the same debilitating effects. (Of course, to take care of the increased costs, I suppose the college could raise tuition. But, no, we can't do that, can we?) Others, small businesses, are cutting back to 49 workers, since the law applies only to those with 50 or more employees. The hues and cries have started. But it seems those protests are coming from people who have never run a business, never had to meet payrolls, never faced the prospects of bankruptcy/going out of business. (My limited experience comes from having do dole out a limited amount of hours--a payroll of sorts--to workers in a dining hall. It was often easy. It was sometimes difficult. But it had to be done.) I wonder what some of these critics would do if they had to balance a budget, meet payroll, turn a profit--or face the dire consequences. What they say and what they do might be two very different things. They've shown their true colors in Massachusetts, where the wealthy, liberal elite don't check off the box to pay a voluntary higher state income tax, and in Michigan, where retired teachers have bitterly groused about paying pittance of state income tax on their pensions (which were untaxed before).
Out to back cookies with Ash....
What an odd list (three pages!) of obituaries today! So many of the names were alliterative. "Bob Bean," "Bob Balfour Blanchard," "Betty Boguszewski," "Gene Gebala," "Guerino Giombetti," "James Jensen," "Harold Howell," "Ken Kosky," "Louis Loch," "Mary Meyers," "Stephen Sims," "Stanley Stepinski," and "Thomas Tarantine." I didn't include first and middle names, such as "Betty Barry" and "Gary Bordon." And one woman who died married a guy with the same last name as her maiden name. Another was said to have the life ambition "of being James Bond."
Especially in the Free Press, but also among a lot of people, there are no bounds to the criticism of the leadership, past and present, in Detroit. Fair enough. But then many of these same people and the Free Press then support what Obama and his administration are doing in DC, to the US. It all seems a little incongruent to me.
Of the "fiscal cliff," a lot of talk is centered on a balanced budget. To balance the budget we need to cut spending and cut spending a lot. Living on a budget means to live within one's means, that is, unless we have redefined "budget"/"budgeting." Budgeting, as an op-ed piece correctly noted today, does not merely mean to increase the means by which one lives. "The root cause" of our deficit predicament is spending--government borrows too much to spend more and government taxes too much to spend more. The key is to spend less.
Imagine if some inhuman nut jobs started launching missiles, hundreds or thousands of them, into American cities from, say Mexico or Canada. Then imagine that Mexico and Canada let them. I wonder what the response from and within the US would be. What would any other nation in the world do in response? Yep, I think so, too. So, as Nolan Finley suggests in an editorial, "Why shouldn't it [Israel] level Gaza, if necessary, to silence the rockets forever? These same countries, which would react "with a terrible, swift sword" if they were being attacked for years, are the ones who sit by and watch this happen, with nary a word of protest. Oh, when Israel is hit with wave upon wave of rockets, the international silence is deafening. Then, when Israel responds--as any other nation in the world would respond--it is criticized for killing civilians. Why wouldn't Hamas continue to bombard the Israelis??????
I don't know if there's a direct correlation or not, but.... It seems to me the schools and American education in general became worse and continued to get worse once the federal government (and, in Michigan, Lansing/the state government) became more involved. Now, I do understand that many states, for instance, in the South, continued to teach the hatred and bigotry that marked far too many years. Still.... Maybe it's just a coincidence.
Is the shoe on the other foot? Back in the '60s and '70s, the right, ridiculously, told the left, "America--love it or leave it." Now, equally ridiculously, some of the left are telling the right--those who I hope only jokingly talk about seceding--"Self-deport to any country of your choice." Brilliance exhibited by both sides.
Interesting how some are critical of business anticipating the costly effects of ObamaCare. Some national restaurant chains are already cutting work weeks to 29 hours, to avoid the mandating health insurance costs of the new law. At least one college has cut professors' hours to avoid the same debilitating effects. (Of course, to take care of the increased costs, I suppose the college could raise tuition. But, no, we can't do that, can we?) Others, small businesses, are cutting back to 49 workers, since the law applies only to those with 50 or more employees. The hues and cries have started. But it seems those protests are coming from people who have never run a business, never had to meet payrolls, never faced the prospects of bankruptcy/going out of business. (My limited experience comes from having do dole out a limited amount of hours--a payroll of sorts--to workers in a dining hall. It was often easy. It was sometimes difficult. But it had to be done.) I wonder what some of these critics would do if they had to balance a budget, meet payroll, turn a profit--or face the dire consequences. What they say and what they do might be two very different things. They've shown their true colors in Massachusetts, where the wealthy, liberal elite don't check off the box to pay a voluntary higher state income tax, and in Michigan, where retired teachers have bitterly groused about paying pittance of state income tax on their pensions (which were untaxed before).
Out to back cookies with Ash....
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
There were three or four very good and sensible letters-to-the-editor in this
AM's paper--none from me. One focused on a new state Supreme Court Justice who
is "passionate about social justice." The letter-writer was very correct in
citing, "I would [feel] better if our newest justice expressed a passon for the
rule of law. What we have now is another jurist who will ignore what the law
requires to satisfy her own version of 'the right thing.'" He goes on to call
such legal actions "well-intentioned, but misguided." He cites Sir Thomas More,
in A Man for All Seasons: "When you are rid of all of the laws to get to the
Devil and the Devil then turns around to confront you, what will you have left
to defend yourself?" Yes, indeed....
Another letter, ignorantly, said, "The coalition that formed a majority to elect President Obama..are [sic] not demanding that government provide for them, but rather that government not work against them." C'mon. There is no political party today that will ensure "that government not work against them."
A third noted how the US 6th Circuit Court ruled Michigan's ban on affirmative action to be unconstitutional. The people approved of this at the ballot box. Now, as this letter correctly states, "A group of people (the justices on the 6th Court) outside of this state decided what was [sic] best for us." That's not what the courts are supposed or authorized to do. (See two paragraphs ahead.)
Emergency Manager Laws, elitist Courts? Why bother to vote?
Another letter, ignorantly, said, "The coalition that formed a majority to elect President Obama..are [sic] not demanding that government provide for them, but rather that government not work against them." C'mon. There is no political party today that will ensure "that government not work against them."
A third noted how the US 6th Circuit Court ruled Michigan's ban on affirmative action to be unconstitutional. The people approved of this at the ballot box. Now, as this letter correctly states, "A group of people (the justices on the 6th Court) outside of this state decided what was [sic] best for us." That's not what the courts are supposed or authorized to do. (See two paragraphs ahead.)
Emergency Manager Laws, elitist Courts? Why bother to vote?
"Defining Deviancy Down"
So stated Daniel P. Moynihan back about 20 years ago. We have lowered our standards of what is acceptable.
Walter Williams, long one of my favorite columnists, noted last weekend that television newscaster gave this account, "Two gentlemen were taken into custody for raping, sodomizing, and then murdering an 80-year old woman." "Two gentlemen??????" You must be kidding. What do people have to do to be called "monsters?"
When I walked in from class the other night, Dancing with the Stars was not yet quite over, much to my great disappointment. As I put down my briefcase and took off my shoes, I noted the very skimpy clothes one of the dancers was wearing. A very derogatory word came to my mind, a four-letter one that begins with an "s" and ends with a "t." "She's dressed like a...," I thought. Yet, at the end, the show concluded with a recap of the night's efforts. One dance looked like a sex escapade with clothes on. I wondered, "Is this close to pornography--on prime time television?" No doubt, though, my thoughts make me a prude, thoroughly out of date....
Perhaps not quite the same, but still a sign that the Apocalypse might be near.... A college professor noted that some of his students admitted that they had not yet bought the book for his course. Therefore, I assume they were behind and not doing well. But, they explained, they were waiting for their federal financial aid money--their "free money"-- to come. Oh, OK...except they had spent the money they had on "tattoos, body-piercing, and cell phones." Again, perhaps it's just me and my antiquated principles, but there seems to be something seriously wrong with this.
And, I see, another child in Detroit has been murdered. Oddly, along with the tears that brought, I wondered how many other murders of children go unreported. That is, nobody knows that the kids have been killed. I don't know, but am just wondering. I am reading a novel right now, whose author is worthy of Hannibal Lecter-stuff. Her plot opens with the murder of several children and I was moved to visible tears. I stopped reading for the night. It was far to close to home/reality. Some time soon, we must do more than say we are "outraged" and realize we are doing something wrong.
Thirty years ago, 18% of all children were born out of wedlock. Today, that number is approaching 50%! Half of all kids are born to mothers who aren't married?????? Now, tell me, what chance do these kids have?
Walter Williams, long one of my favorite columnists, noted last weekend that television newscaster gave this account, "Two gentlemen were taken into custody for raping, sodomizing, and then murdering an 80-year old woman." "Two gentlemen??????" You must be kidding. What do people have to do to be called "monsters?"
When I walked in from class the other night, Dancing with the Stars was not yet quite over, much to my great disappointment. As I put down my briefcase and took off my shoes, I noted the very skimpy clothes one of the dancers was wearing. A very derogatory word came to my mind, a four-letter one that begins with an "s" and ends with a "t." "She's dressed like a...," I thought. Yet, at the end, the show concluded with a recap of the night's efforts. One dance looked like a sex escapade with clothes on. I wondered, "Is this close to pornography--on prime time television?" No doubt, though, my thoughts make me a prude, thoroughly out of date....
Perhaps not quite the same, but still a sign that the Apocalypse might be near.... A college professor noted that some of his students admitted that they had not yet bought the book for his course. Therefore, I assume they were behind and not doing well. But, they explained, they were waiting for their federal financial aid money--their "free money"-- to come. Oh, OK...except they had spent the money they had on "tattoos, body-piercing, and cell phones." Again, perhaps it's just me and my antiquated principles, but there seems to be something seriously wrong with this.
And, I see, another child in Detroit has been murdered. Oddly, along with the tears that brought, I wondered how many other murders of children go unreported. That is, nobody knows that the kids have been killed. I don't know, but am just wondering. I am reading a novel right now, whose author is worthy of Hannibal Lecter-stuff. Her plot opens with the murder of several children and I was moved to visible tears. I stopped reading for the night. It was far to close to home/reality. Some time soon, we must do more than say we are "outraged" and realize we are doing something wrong.
Thirty years ago, 18% of all children were born out of wedlock. Today, that number is approaching 50%! Half of all kids are born to mothers who aren't married?????? Now, tell me, what chance do these kids have?
Friday, November 16, 2012
Fri AM
How cool that Miguel Cabrera won the MVP. He deserved it. I'm not running down that Trout guy, whatever his first name is. Trout had a terrific season and, in most years, would have won the MVP. But Cabrera had a Triple Crown season, the first in 45 years. I know there were a lot a folks who are hung up on the sabermetrics stuff and that's fine--for them. But Cabrera's season was about more than leading the league in average, HRs, and RBIs. Listen to other teams' managers comments throughout the season and how their game plans were altered because they were playing against Cabrera. I have no doubts Trout affected the game while it was being played, but Cabrera had managers planning days in advance. And when did Cabrera's hits come? You guessed it--at the ends of games! I think he hit quite a bit higher in the last few innings than he did earlier in the games. Again this is not to denigrate Trout; he just had bad timing.
And, to ensure this wasn't a hometown vote for Cabrera, the guy who won the Cy Young Award deserved it. Verlander, as close as it was, would have been deserving, too, but the right guy won it. But there are lots of things to consider in the CY as in the MVP. Verlander is widely recognized as the best pitcher in the game. But the CY winner had a slightly better season and deserved the award.
Obama has challenged the two US Senators who have been critical of the UN Ambassador. He intimated they were bullies and told them to "come after me." They should. First, I will not even pursue "The Buck Stops Here," because with Obama, it doesn't. He is blameless. Remember, "It's Bush's fault." Second, I guess my question is this: Why, if she can't be scrutinized, did Obama send her out there to do his work? Third, why did she continue the charade, two weeks later, of the phony anti-Muhammad movie trailer on You Tube? From even the CIA's own timeline, it was well-known the trailer had little to do with the Benghazi attack--and, no, it wasn't a spontaneous riot! That is, did Obama and the State Dept. feed her lies without telling her they were lies? Was she used as a dupe? (I'd certainly resign in that instance, but as I've noted here in the past the concept of shame has long been outmoded.) Of course, Obama and the State Dept. could have told her these were lies, but to repeat them anyway. That's a whole different story and it's a legitimate question to ask her if she knew they were lies, why she perpetuated them. But this is all pointless if Obama is regarded as the Messiah.
I listened to some nationally known TV analyst the other day on the radio. I can't stand it when the locals just fawn over these guys. And here's one reason why. The guy, in about five minutes, made two egregious errors, inexplicable for one considered so knowledgeable. (As senile as I'm getting) I have forgotten the one (it was three days ago, after all!), but the other was a complete error. He said, "If President Clinton had been impeached...." He was impeached!!!!!! I know, I know.... But I expect my "experts" to at least know what they are talking about, even though I may or may not agree with their views. Boy, I wish I could remember the second mistake, but I can't right now....
I don't know much about the particulars in this General Petraeus affair (no pun intended). But I wonder why his boss, the commander-in-chief, wasn't held to the same standards that military personnel are held. Namely, I'm talking about Bill Clinton.
Speaking of Clinton, what does it say about us, or at least a majority of us, that the Democrats can pull out this scumbag for endorsements of candidates and propositions? And we, apparently, buy into it?
I wonder why there hasn't been a reality show titled "Hypocrites." The material for such a show is endless....
And, to ensure this wasn't a hometown vote for Cabrera, the guy who won the Cy Young Award deserved it. Verlander, as close as it was, would have been deserving, too, but the right guy won it. But there are lots of things to consider in the CY as in the MVP. Verlander is widely recognized as the best pitcher in the game. But the CY winner had a slightly better season and deserved the award.
Obama has challenged the two US Senators who have been critical of the UN Ambassador. He intimated they were bullies and told them to "come after me." They should. First, I will not even pursue "The Buck Stops Here," because with Obama, it doesn't. He is blameless. Remember, "It's Bush's fault." Second, I guess my question is this: Why, if she can't be scrutinized, did Obama send her out there to do his work? Third, why did she continue the charade, two weeks later, of the phony anti-Muhammad movie trailer on You Tube? From even the CIA's own timeline, it was well-known the trailer had little to do with the Benghazi attack--and, no, it wasn't a spontaneous riot! That is, did Obama and the State Dept. feed her lies without telling her they were lies? Was she used as a dupe? (I'd certainly resign in that instance, but as I've noted here in the past the concept of shame has long been outmoded.) Of course, Obama and the State Dept. could have told her these were lies, but to repeat them anyway. That's a whole different story and it's a legitimate question to ask her if she knew they were lies, why she perpetuated them. But this is all pointless if Obama is regarded as the Messiah.
I listened to some nationally known TV analyst the other day on the radio. I can't stand it when the locals just fawn over these guys. And here's one reason why. The guy, in about five minutes, made two egregious errors, inexplicable for one considered so knowledgeable. (As senile as I'm getting) I have forgotten the one (it was three days ago, after all!), but the other was a complete error. He said, "If President Clinton had been impeached...." He was impeached!!!!!! I know, I know.... But I expect my "experts" to at least know what they are talking about, even though I may or may not agree with their views. Boy, I wish I could remember the second mistake, but I can't right now....
I don't know much about the particulars in this General Petraeus affair (no pun intended). But I wonder why his boss, the commander-in-chief, wasn't held to the same standards that military personnel are held. Namely, I'm talking about Bill Clinton.
Speaking of Clinton, what does it say about us, or at least a majority of us, that the Democrats can pull out this scumbag for endorsements of candidates and propositions? And we, apparently, buy into it?
I wonder why there hasn't been a reality show titled "Hypocrites." The material for such a show is endless....
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Let's See....
I see the President, just a couple of days after the election, said the "rich will have to pay more taxes." Is it "conniving and dishonest" that he waited until after the election to announce that? Of course, who would be at all surprised by this?
More interesting to me will be the reaction of some people. Retired teachers reacted with great anger toward Governor Snyder and the Republicans for taxing their previously untaxed pensions. As I noted earlier, most folks will pay less than $400 in state income taxes.
Now, with an Obama-led tax increase, these same folks might well face a tax increase, on the federal not state level, of five or more times this! I am very, very curious to see the reaction of these teacher retirees. Will they be as vehement toward an Obama tax as they have been toward a Snyder (Michigan governor) tax?
I'm almost willing to get such a federal tax increase just to be able to ask these people about this. Paying $2000 more in taxes is OK, if the right person is sponsoring the tax. But paying a few hundred due to the efforts of the wrong person is objectionable.
Oh, I can't wait....almost.
Forgive any typos--I just came home from a wedding.
More interesting to me will be the reaction of some people. Retired teachers reacted with great anger toward Governor Snyder and the Republicans for taxing their previously untaxed pensions. As I noted earlier, most folks will pay less than $400 in state income taxes.
Now, with an Obama-led tax increase, these same folks might well face a tax increase, on the federal not state level, of five or more times this! I am very, very curious to see the reaction of these teacher retirees. Will they be as vehement toward an Obama tax as they have been toward a Snyder (Michigan governor) tax?
I'm almost willing to get such a federal tax increase just to be able to ask these people about this. Paying $2000 more in taxes is OK, if the right person is sponsoring the tax. But paying a few hundred due to the efforts of the wrong person is objectionable.
Oh, I can't wait....almost.
Forgive any typos--I just came home from a wedding.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Post-Election Blues
I never bought into some of the analyses that had Romney beating Obama. It wasn't going to happen. If anything, I am surprised the popular vote was that close. I don't believe a lot of that crap going around about Romney being a liar any more than I believe Obama was born in Kenya. I do wonder, however, if Romney has that same feeling George Bush Daddy had after losing to Clinton in '92. It was something like, "It's not losing. It's losing to someone like him [Clinton]." (And, those who know me well enough realize I don't mind losing as much as to whom I lose.)
I understand why Obama won. I still don't understand--and likely never will--why a large percentage of the voting population ever considered voting for him and, in fact, did. It's as if we preach one thing, but lead completely different lives. An example: A couple of fellow teacher retirees', before the election, were jumping all over the Republicans. (Remember, I am not a Republican!) They kept harping on, "They taxed my pension!" I asked each, perhaps not in so many words, but just as clearly, this: Wait a minute! You only pay 4% on less than 20% of your pension. That's not burdensome. And, people like you who think government is the solution to all the problems should be glad to give more tax money to find those solutions that government will provide. In fact, I'd think you'd voluntarily pay taxes! Of course, I got no responses and I expected none. It's like the Obama voters; they want things, but other people should pay for them.
And someone who knows I don't like Obama sent me a pre-election e-mail with a link to "a list of Obama's achievements." Two things: one, he had achieved things, but they aren't desirable things; two, the link was to Obama's election Web site!
I know a lot of people have surmised the Republicans will be obstructionist again. I know I kept hearing that in the last few weeks of the campaign. Obama didn't accomplish all he intended because the Republicans didn't play ball. Gee, isn't that what the opposition party is supposed to do--oppose? I would say that, over the past several decades, the Republicans have more than compromised, more than reached across the aisle, were more than bi-partisan. In fact, I could make an argument that they sold out!
Of course, that's me. As Karen has always said, I could never be a school administrator because I "would never play the games." That is, I wouldn't sell my soul or cave in on my princples. If something is wrong, it's wrong. (But an old dog can learn new tricks. I read a good article about global warming today. It wasn't an alarmist screed, but a reasonable argument that I didn't agree with at first, but it is winning me over.)
How interesting that the "reindeer farmer" is now in the US House. Except, he's no longer the "reindeer farmer." Now he's portrayed as Santa Claus because he dresses up as Santa for the holidays. Now there's a bad thing! I was sent an e-mail by a former teacher and Dem who worked for Santa's opponent; it had a link to an article in which Santa's brother called Santa "conniving and dishonest." An establishment Republican sent me the same article. First, where was this brother a few months ago. This reporter couldn't find him then, but could five days before the election? Second, what better qualities for a seat in our current Congress than "conniving and dishonest?" if true, he'll fit right in and, in fact, might have a head start on other freshmen. I had wavered in voting for Santa, but after these scurrilous e-mails, I voted for him.
I also changed my mind on Proposition 2, although I am, in principle, opposed to changing the state constitution to remedy matters than are legislative in nature. But the radio ads were so dishonest, even by today's standards, I changed my mind and voted against the principle. C'mon, if the Prop passed "child molesters will be in your child's classroom?" If it passed, "adult drug dealers will deal drugs to your children?" And I sent the group responsible an e-mail noting that their ads changed my mind on voting, just not the way they wanted. How despicable!
And I voting against my general principle, too, on Prop 5. This would have required a 2/3 vote of each state house to raise taxes. Again, I am opposed to this, except today's politicians can't be trusted. They spend, spend, spend, even if they promise not to spend. Gee, isn't that "conniving and dishonest?" Nah, it's like wanting gov't stuff from the other guy.
Similarly, a Cal guy who makes well over $250,000 a year voted against the Prop there that would have increased state taxes on such high incomes (more than $250,000) from 10% to 13%. That's fine. I would have opposed it, too. Except this guy is one who wants gov't to fix everything. Of course now it's plain. He wants gov't to fix it with someone else's money!
Out to get the kids from school....
I understand why Obama won. I still don't understand--and likely never will--why a large percentage of the voting population ever considered voting for him and, in fact, did. It's as if we preach one thing, but lead completely different lives. An example: A couple of fellow teacher retirees', before the election, were jumping all over the Republicans. (Remember, I am not a Republican!) They kept harping on, "They taxed my pension!" I asked each, perhaps not in so many words, but just as clearly, this: Wait a minute! You only pay 4% on less than 20% of your pension. That's not burdensome. And, people like you who think government is the solution to all the problems should be glad to give more tax money to find those solutions that government will provide. In fact, I'd think you'd voluntarily pay taxes! Of course, I got no responses and I expected none. It's like the Obama voters; they want things, but other people should pay for them.
And someone who knows I don't like Obama sent me a pre-election e-mail with a link to "a list of Obama's achievements." Two things: one, he had achieved things, but they aren't desirable things; two, the link was to Obama's election Web site!
I know a lot of people have surmised the Republicans will be obstructionist again. I know I kept hearing that in the last few weeks of the campaign. Obama didn't accomplish all he intended because the Republicans didn't play ball. Gee, isn't that what the opposition party is supposed to do--oppose? I would say that, over the past several decades, the Republicans have more than compromised, more than reached across the aisle, were more than bi-partisan. In fact, I could make an argument that they sold out!
Of course, that's me. As Karen has always said, I could never be a school administrator because I "would never play the games." That is, I wouldn't sell my soul or cave in on my princples. If something is wrong, it's wrong. (But an old dog can learn new tricks. I read a good article about global warming today. It wasn't an alarmist screed, but a reasonable argument that I didn't agree with at first, but it is winning me over.)
How interesting that the "reindeer farmer" is now in the US House. Except, he's no longer the "reindeer farmer." Now he's portrayed as Santa Claus because he dresses up as Santa for the holidays. Now there's a bad thing! I was sent an e-mail by a former teacher and Dem who worked for Santa's opponent; it had a link to an article in which Santa's brother called Santa "conniving and dishonest." An establishment Republican sent me the same article. First, where was this brother a few months ago. This reporter couldn't find him then, but could five days before the election? Second, what better qualities for a seat in our current Congress than "conniving and dishonest?" if true, he'll fit right in and, in fact, might have a head start on other freshmen. I had wavered in voting for Santa, but after these scurrilous e-mails, I voted for him.
I also changed my mind on Proposition 2, although I am, in principle, opposed to changing the state constitution to remedy matters than are legislative in nature. But the radio ads were so dishonest, even by today's standards, I changed my mind and voted against the principle. C'mon, if the Prop passed "child molesters will be in your child's classroom?" If it passed, "adult drug dealers will deal drugs to your children?" And I sent the group responsible an e-mail noting that their ads changed my mind on voting, just not the way they wanted. How despicable!
And I voting against my general principle, too, on Prop 5. This would have required a 2/3 vote of each state house to raise taxes. Again, I am opposed to this, except today's politicians can't be trusted. They spend, spend, spend, even if they promise not to spend. Gee, isn't that "conniving and dishonest?" Nah, it's like wanting gov't stuff from the other guy.
Similarly, a Cal guy who makes well over $250,000 a year voted against the Prop there that would have increased state taxes on such high incomes (more than $250,000) from 10% to 13%. That's fine. I would have opposed it, too. Except this guy is one who wants gov't to fix everything. Of course now it's plain. He wants gov't to fix it with someone else's money!
Out to get the kids from school....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
