"The Birthplace of Aviation." First in Flight." So the license plates read. Is it Ohio or is it North Carolina that has the legitimate claim to the original airplane flight or idea or whatever? Well, perhaps it's neither, as Connecticut has come into the picture with it's own claims to being first, maybe a couple of years before either the Buckeyes or Tarheels. I don't know why those historians can get it straight.
Why aren't these guys in jail?????? If you and I did what Peter Schweitzer claims members of Congress did and continue to do in his recent book (Extortion....), we'd certainly be in the slammer. One of the mechanisms for this activity are Leadership PACs. They can collect up to $5000 per donor and have no limits to how much they can amass. And, the funds can be spent any and every possible way. In fact, leftover funds, at the end of a Congressman's/Senator's term, don't have to be returned, donated to a charity, or given to a special repository for leftover funds. They, according to Schweitzer, have been spent on resort vacations, lavish restaurant meals that run to tens of thousands of dollars, and even more than $30,000 for NFL tickets! How are donors targeted? Ploys are often used to play donors off on each other. For instance, a bill is considered. Pros and Cons are identified. A Congressman tells the Pros he's thinking of voting "no," the suggestion, of course, that a donation will encourage a change of mind. Then, the Congressman tells the Cons he's received a donation from the Pros, the implication that a donation will again change his mind. This practice even has a term, "double milking." It's that common. According to Schweitzer, Obama has used this in dealing with competing interests in Silicon Valley, in Hollywood, etc. There's an other practice coined, "The Tollbooth," whose meaning is crystal clear. Who is this guy Schweitzer? He's the one who wrote the book exposing the illegal insider trading that was really legal for members of Congress because they made it legal for themselves, while still illegal for real Americans. After the exposure, Congress changed the laws after the public outcry. So, Schweitzer has some credibility. Unfortunately, voters don't. They keep electing and re-electing these same Bozos.
One former member of Congress, Lee Hamilton, wrote an op-ed piece on how to get rid of the gridlock in DC. Why in the world would we want to do that? Gridlock is good for those Bozos. I loved the Wall Street Journal a few years back, addressing members of Congress, "Don't do something; just stand there!" I suggested to each of my DC elected representatives that they do exactly that; nope, you guessed it--I never received any response.
The monied interests have won--again. The state senate has passed the Common Core standards, complete with all the testing (more testing??????), the materials, etc. being produced by certain companies who have lobbied hard (spending millions and millions of dollars, hiring many former elected officials as lobbyists, etc.) to make millions more, er, to get the Common Core enacted. Of course, Congress literally bribed the states to pass the Common Core, offering big money to states than adopted it by a certain date--a date which didn't allow the Common Core to be studied, let alone questioned. During the Gilded Age a common phrase was "the best government that money can buy." It would seem we still have that. Yet, it's the Tea Party candidates like Cruz and Lee, those who made campaign promises and are acting to actually keep them (you know, honest guys who didn't lie!!!!!!) who are constantly disparaged. And voters believe the disparagement without question, often just spewing forth the inane talking points--"They are bigots." "They are racists." "They have no real ideas." C'mon, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize these Tea Party candidates, like them or not, have "real ideas." That their opponents don't like the ideas doesn't mean they don't exist.
We here in Michigan have two opportunities to strike back at the idea that money can buy elections. For the US Senate, Gary Peters, the presumptive Dem candidate in '14, has far outraised Terry Lynn Land, the likely Rep candidate. How great to just vote no to the money!!!!!! In the 11th Congressional District, the incumbent Kerry Bentivolio has been outraised by both his Rep primary challenger and at least one of the putative Dem candidates. (Remember, it's not the liars and cheaters in elected positions, it's not the career politicians, but people like Bentivolio who are disparaged and belittled because they actually worked for a living, because he was "a reindeer farmer" who "played Santa Claus.") How great, again, to just vote no to the money!!!!!! No, I'm not going to hold my breath. We still vote for the same Bozos, time and time again.
I saw a number of high school football scores where teams with mediocre if not lousy records thumped other teams with great records. Most of these were teams from different leagues playing each other. One such game was U of D Jesuit, from the Catholic League, beating a previously undefeated team from the Oakland Activities League. UDJ ended up 5-4, but 0-4 in its league. Huh? Yeah, imagine beginning of each season figuring on four losses at best--playing against Catholic Central, Brother Rice, OL St Mary's, and De La Salle each season. There are four losses, almost automatically. So, I'd say a 5-4 record is close to a perfect season.
I can't get this comment in a recent letter-to-the-editor out of my head. "Our government is good. It takes good care of us." I fear such an idea is far more prevalent than one might imagine. Until we get rid of that notion, we'll get nowhere. I frequently think back to my father who most often worked two or three jobs until later in life. He had his regular job. Five nights a week and often on weekends, he'd officiate baseball, basketball, or football games. And, during tax season, when he wasn't working someplace else, he'd have tax info spread on the kitchen table doing other people's taxes for them. Quite a few years, he'd be hired by the FoMoCo union local to come to their hall to do members' taxes. More often than not, too, I have had more than one job. In all those years, I only took off two summers, not working. I often officiated sports, too. At one time, in the '90s, for quite a few years I was drawing paychecks from five employers--we had a house payment, college tuition and expenses, etc. And, with my salary where it was, government wasn't going to "take good care of me," like it didn't my father.
Out to run with my blind buddy.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Taxes vs Free Choice Spending
I stopped by a Wendy's the other day to treat myself to a Double Stack. I haven't had one in a year or year and a half since, from out of nowhere, the price went from the 99-cent menu to $1.39. OK, $1.39 won't break the bank, but I refused to buy one on principle--a 40% increase is worthy of protest/boycott. I finally got over that and pulled in to Wendy's for a Double Stack. Whoa! Time for protest/boycott again. The price is now $1.99! It doubled in fewer than two years or so.
So, some critics might argue, "That's the free market system. Companies jack up prices as high as they can as long as there are still customers." That, though, leads to the difference between free market spending and taxes. If the price of a good gets too high, there are options. I can still buy the good if my desire and ability to pay allow me to do so. Or I can choose to boycott or not buy it. If the good, say gasoline, is a virtual necessity I can still cut back on my driving, ride my bike more, stay home, or even buy a car that gets better gas mileage. If it's another product for which there is a substitute, I can substitute--say, a grilled onion cheddar burger at McDonald's instead of a Double Stack. (In fact, I can get two grilled onion cheddar burgers for the price of one Double Stack.) That is, in the free market, I get to choose.
Taxes, of course, are a completely different matter. I have no choice. Well, I do--I can opt not to pay them. Of course, then I am subject to fines or jail time. When perhaps well-meaning (I'm being generous here; give me some credit!) politicians raise taxes on me, I must pay them. And, other than try to vote the bums out, I have no voice in higher taxes. (There are enough low-information voters to prevent that from happening too often.)
Speaking of well-meaning politicians. Some, but not all, of the ethanol-backers in DC must have had good intentions. Others, of course, are set on their own arrogant, elitist agendas, regardless of the impact on others. But the ethanol legislation or, rather, the willful delegation of power to the EPA has had a very deleterious effect. First, many auto engines are damaged by ethanol, esp cars built before 2001. And, with the amount of ethanol soon-to-be-EPA-mandated to 15%, more auto engines will be in danger. So will boat, snowmobile, lawn mower, etc. engines. Among other things, the moisture the ethanol creates leads to corrosion, rust, etc., not real good things for engines. Second, ethanol isn't very efficient. I guess I've read that it is 25% to 35% less efficient than gasoline. So, all those claims about drivers saving at the pump are bogus. Yep, look at the prices. Gasoline is about $3.30 a gallon today (at least here it is); ethanol was in the neighborhood of $2.90. In order for ethanol to really save money, it's price would have to be $2.50 or less. Cars need to use more. And I don't know what all that extra burning does to the atmosphere, but it doesn't seem good. Third, with 40% or more of US-grown corn going to producing ethanol--as mandated by the EPA, not our elected officials--prices of other foodstuffs (not just corn) have skyrocked. Beef, pork, and other livestock fed with corn has seen almost an 80% increase in the past half dozen years or so. For the average working family of four, that's about a $2000 annual increase in its grocery bill.
I still love the two comments last week. From a TV talking-head MD, about ObamaCare, "It won't make us healthier and it won't cut costs. But it's a great program." Yep. And an editorial cartoon had Obama saying, "Let's make a product that doesn't work and then make everyone buy it." Yep.
I still want to know how the Tigers lost to the House of David team??????
So, some critics might argue, "That's the free market system. Companies jack up prices as high as they can as long as there are still customers." That, though, leads to the difference between free market spending and taxes. If the price of a good gets too high, there are options. I can still buy the good if my desire and ability to pay allow me to do so. Or I can choose to boycott or not buy it. If the good, say gasoline, is a virtual necessity I can still cut back on my driving, ride my bike more, stay home, or even buy a car that gets better gas mileage. If it's another product for which there is a substitute, I can substitute--say, a grilled onion cheddar burger at McDonald's instead of a Double Stack. (In fact, I can get two grilled onion cheddar burgers for the price of one Double Stack.) That is, in the free market, I get to choose.
Taxes, of course, are a completely different matter. I have no choice. Well, I do--I can opt not to pay them. Of course, then I am subject to fines or jail time. When perhaps well-meaning (I'm being generous here; give me some credit!) politicians raise taxes on me, I must pay them. And, other than try to vote the bums out, I have no voice in higher taxes. (There are enough low-information voters to prevent that from happening too often.)
Speaking of well-meaning politicians. Some, but not all, of the ethanol-backers in DC must have had good intentions. Others, of course, are set on their own arrogant, elitist agendas, regardless of the impact on others. But the ethanol legislation or, rather, the willful delegation of power to the EPA has had a very deleterious effect. First, many auto engines are damaged by ethanol, esp cars built before 2001. And, with the amount of ethanol soon-to-be-EPA-mandated to 15%, more auto engines will be in danger. So will boat, snowmobile, lawn mower, etc. engines. Among other things, the moisture the ethanol creates leads to corrosion, rust, etc., not real good things for engines. Second, ethanol isn't very efficient. I guess I've read that it is 25% to 35% less efficient than gasoline. So, all those claims about drivers saving at the pump are bogus. Yep, look at the prices. Gasoline is about $3.30 a gallon today (at least here it is); ethanol was in the neighborhood of $2.90. In order for ethanol to really save money, it's price would have to be $2.50 or less. Cars need to use more. And I don't know what all that extra burning does to the atmosphere, but it doesn't seem good. Third, with 40% or more of US-grown corn going to producing ethanol--as mandated by the EPA, not our elected officials--prices of other foodstuffs (not just corn) have skyrocked. Beef, pork, and other livestock fed with corn has seen almost an 80% increase in the past half dozen years or so. For the average working family of four, that's about a $2000 annual increase in its grocery bill.
I still love the two comments last week. From a TV talking-head MD, about ObamaCare, "It won't make us healthier and it won't cut costs. But it's a great program." Yep. And an editorial cartoon had Obama saying, "Let's make a product that doesn't work and then make everyone buy it." Yep.
I still want to know how the Tigers lost to the House of David team??????
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Yell First and Yell the Loudest
In 1811, William Henry Harrison and his Americans met the forces of Tecumseh at the Battle of Tippecanoe in Indiana. Tecumseh wasn't even there, having left his Indian troops under the command of his brother Tenkshatawana (another who was called "The Prophet"). Apparently against Tecumseh's orders, his brother engaged Harrison. From most recent historical accounts, somewhat remarkably in that it was the Americans vs the Indians, there was no clear cut winner. But, at the time, Harrison was lauded for his great victory. He yelled, "I won! I won! I won!" first and loudest and was given credit for winner, although he most certainly didn't win. (He didn't lose, but he didn't win.) Harrison rode this into a strong military and political career, even to the White House. At the Battle of the Thames, in Ontario, a couple of years later, one of his officers, Richard Johnson yelled first and loudest that he killed Tecumseh. Although there's no direct evidence that he did, Johnson rode first and loudest into a political career, too, one that ended up in the Vice Presidency. Joseph Goebbels also mastered this tactic for Hitler and the Nazis, "The Big Lie." Tell such a whopper over and over again that people being to accept it as truth, no matter how illogical and, at least originally, unbelievable.
And, we're experiencing the same thing now, with the likes of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee--you know, as I've blogged, candidates who made promises to the electorate and, when elected, actually honored those promises (That is, like them or not, they didn't lie!). It's these rogue politicians in the House who have placed their extreme ideology ahead of the practicalities of governing, to wit, leading to the government shutdown. Those heartless scoundrels! They are excoriated by all or at least most--from, of course, the Democrats, the LameStreams, and even the establishment Republicans. It's a case of yelling first and yelling loudest. "It's them! It's them! The Tea Partiers!"
But is it really? What about a President who has failed to deliver a budget to Congress--as Constitutionally mandated--in five years? (OK, that's not entirely accurate. What he did sent to Congress was unanimously rejected!) Where is that leadership, esp in light of two of those years he had a slam-dunk Democratic majority in each house? (Funny how some folks pull out the Constitution on some issues and are content to ignore it on others, that is, when it favors them. How convenient--selective constitutionalism!)
The President and Dem leaders in Congress yell first and yell loudest (and are backed by their LameStream lackeys/sycophants) that it's the Tea Partiers in Congress who are at fault. And nobody bothers to think who are really unwilling to bend, to compromise, to negotiate. In fact, nobody even listens to their own words that they won't bend, compromise, negotiate.
So, then, who is at fault? Heh Heh!
I think the President doesn't want a budget, for several reasons. First, a real budget (instead of all these continuing resolutions that deal with the debt ceiling) might actually reveal all the junk on which the federal government wastes, er, spends our money. (Oh, I forgot. The President said it's not our money.) Second, with the help of the obeisant LameStreams, the President and Dems have a constant scapegoat, their political rivals the Republicans. And, remember, I'm also a critic of the Republicans. W. Bush was a lousy President (and, of course, he "lied.")
Meanwhile, our less than courageous politicians, showing little integrity, continue to avoid confronting the major problem--the incredibly irresponsible spending they do. They just kick the can down the road. "Hey, let some other guys deal with it."
The lesson is clear. Yell first and yell loudest, esp to people unwilling to think for themselves and to face reality, a reality that they are sticking with their own kids and grandkids. (I know, I know--It's Big Oil, Wall Street, the bankers, CEOs, etc. who are "greedy," not us.)
And, we're experiencing the same thing now, with the likes of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee--you know, as I've blogged, candidates who made promises to the electorate and, when elected, actually honored those promises (That is, like them or not, they didn't lie!). It's these rogue politicians in the House who have placed their extreme ideology ahead of the practicalities of governing, to wit, leading to the government shutdown. Those heartless scoundrels! They are excoriated by all or at least most--from, of course, the Democrats, the LameStreams, and even the establishment Republicans. It's a case of yelling first and yelling loudest. "It's them! It's them! The Tea Partiers!"
But is it really? What about a President who has failed to deliver a budget to Congress--as Constitutionally mandated--in five years? (OK, that's not entirely accurate. What he did sent to Congress was unanimously rejected!) Where is that leadership, esp in light of two of those years he had a slam-dunk Democratic majority in each house? (Funny how some folks pull out the Constitution on some issues and are content to ignore it on others, that is, when it favors them. How convenient--selective constitutionalism!)
The President and Dem leaders in Congress yell first and yell loudest (and are backed by their LameStream lackeys/sycophants) that it's the Tea Partiers in Congress who are at fault. And nobody bothers to think who are really unwilling to bend, to compromise, to negotiate. In fact, nobody even listens to their own words that they won't bend, compromise, negotiate.
So, then, who is at fault? Heh Heh!
I think the President doesn't want a budget, for several reasons. First, a real budget (instead of all these continuing resolutions that deal with the debt ceiling) might actually reveal all the junk on which the federal government wastes, er, spends our money. (Oh, I forgot. The President said it's not our money.) Second, with the help of the obeisant LameStreams, the President and Dems have a constant scapegoat, their political rivals the Republicans. And, remember, I'm also a critic of the Republicans. W. Bush was a lousy President (and, of course, he "lied.")
Meanwhile, our less than courageous politicians, showing little integrity, continue to avoid confronting the major problem--the incredibly irresponsible spending they do. They just kick the can down the road. "Hey, let some other guys deal with it."
The lesson is clear. Yell first and yell loudest, esp to people unwilling to think for themselves and to face reality, a reality that they are sticking with their own kids and grandkids. (I know, I know--It's Big Oil, Wall Street, the bankers, CEOs, etc. who are "greedy," not us.)
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Hmmm...
Agree or disagree with Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, et al. That's not the point here. These guys were elected by their constituents after they promised to do anything they could to repeal ObamaCare. (Remember, it is Obama who said, "Elections have consequences" and "We won....") That is, they made promises to the voters, promises the voters endorsed with, well, their votes. So, now Lee, Cruz, et al are being excoriated on all sides--even by their own party--for taking the stances they are taking. How odd! These guys are actually living up to their campaign promises and they are bad guys for doing so. Meanwhile, the many other Republicans who made similar promises and are now pussyfooting around are being upheld as "bipartisan," working together for a solution to whatever. But they are breaking their campaign promises, yet are extolled as being good. So, liars, cheaters, and deceivers are the good guys and those who keep their promises are the bad guys. We've created a great world, haven't we? Just a great world.
"It's a good law," the guy wrote. "It won't make us healthier and it won't lower costs. But it's a good law." OK, those aren't the exact words--I can't find the magazine from last week where the exact quotation is. But it is the essence of them. They came from one of the television medical gurus. I don't watch much television, so I have no idea what the guy's name is. "It wont' make us healthier and it won't lower costs......" Yep.
I guess some EBT snafu with bridge cards caused some problems in some states last weekend. Holders of cards could get as much as they want--the amounts on the cards weren't read. For instance, according to one report, one woman bought more than $900 worth of food with just a fraction of that on her card. One store in LA had its shelves emptied once word got out the cards were good for the sky. Isn't that fraud? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure if it is, nobody will be prosecuted.
"It's a good law," the guy wrote. "It won't make us healthier and it won't lower costs. But it's a good law." OK, those aren't the exact words--I can't find the magazine from last week where the exact quotation is. But it is the essence of them. They came from one of the television medical gurus. I don't watch much television, so I have no idea what the guy's name is. "It wont' make us healthier and it won't lower costs......" Yep.
I guess some EBT snafu with bridge cards caused some problems in some states last weekend. Holders of cards could get as much as they want--the amounts on the cards weren't read. For instance, according to one report, one woman bought more than $900 worth of food with just a fraction of that on her card. One store in LA had its shelves emptied once word got out the cards were good for the sky. Isn't that fraud? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure if it is, nobody will be prosecuted.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Selective Outrage and Concern
The US Treasury Secretary and other spokesfolks have expressed extreme concern over the "irrevocable damage" a default on US payments would cause. I have to laugh at these folks, not that such a default wouldn't be very damaging.
Where is their concern over the wild spending the federal gov't has been doing over the past decades, esp in the last years of the W Bush and Obama administrations? What's the national debt, $16 or $17 trillion? How about the unfunded liabilities, maybe 7 or 8 times that? And these fools in the Senate and White House want to increase the debt ceiling, that is, spend even more.
The CBO (I think) said if we keep spending at the same rate (income being equal), the federal gov't will run out of money by 2032! That's Social Security, Medicare, everything I guess. Where is the Treasury Secretary's worry over that? Oh, that's right--he can kick the can down the road and let others worry about that in future, near future, years.
He's just like the current brand of politicians. Nobody, at least not many, is/are willing to do the right thing, not if it means they have to make hard, unpopular decisions. (Isn't that a definition of cowardice? I'm just asking.) Let the next guys do that.
Again, I'm struck by the pettiness/smallness of the current administration in the so-called "shutdown" (remembering a sizable portion of the federal gov't isn't "shut down"). It can't be anything other than inflicting the most damage and inconvenience on the US people. Should the efforts be toward minimizing the worst effects? And yet people elected this guy, not once, but twice, even after the earlier "sequester" was handled the same way--hammering the US people as badly as possible. For instance, the WW2 Memorial was closed. Why? First, it's an open-air memorial, no buildings or rangers needed. Second, the NPS had to rent barricades to block it off! Again, when will the IRS and Dept of Ed be "shut down?" They are certainly "nonessential," at least to me.
I'm not a Tea-Partier, but I don't understand the LameStream Media and establishment politicians (esp the Republicans) preoccupation with lambasting them. Why isn't there equal negative coverage over, say, the irresponsible spending of the past two administrations, the lies and distortions coming from our federal government officials (elected and appointed), the numerous scandals such as Fast and Furious and Benghazi and IRS shenanigans (esp from "the most open and honest administration in history," yet another example of how little we know about our history)? Need I go on with "We need to pass this bill to see what's in it," the many career politicians, etc.??????
Where is their concern over the wild spending the federal gov't has been doing over the past decades, esp in the last years of the W Bush and Obama administrations? What's the national debt, $16 or $17 trillion? How about the unfunded liabilities, maybe 7 or 8 times that? And these fools in the Senate and White House want to increase the debt ceiling, that is, spend even more.
The CBO (I think) said if we keep spending at the same rate (income being equal), the federal gov't will run out of money by 2032! That's Social Security, Medicare, everything I guess. Where is the Treasury Secretary's worry over that? Oh, that's right--he can kick the can down the road and let others worry about that in future, near future, years.
He's just like the current brand of politicians. Nobody, at least not many, is/are willing to do the right thing, not if it means they have to make hard, unpopular decisions. (Isn't that a definition of cowardice? I'm just asking.) Let the next guys do that.
Again, I'm struck by the pettiness/smallness of the current administration in the so-called "shutdown" (remembering a sizable portion of the federal gov't isn't "shut down"). It can't be anything other than inflicting the most damage and inconvenience on the US people. Should the efforts be toward minimizing the worst effects? And yet people elected this guy, not once, but twice, even after the earlier "sequester" was handled the same way--hammering the US people as badly as possible. For instance, the WW2 Memorial was closed. Why? First, it's an open-air memorial, no buildings or rangers needed. Second, the NPS had to rent barricades to block it off! Again, when will the IRS and Dept of Ed be "shut down?" They are certainly "nonessential," at least to me.
I'm not a Tea-Partier, but I don't understand the LameStream Media and establishment politicians (esp the Republicans) preoccupation with lambasting them. Why isn't there equal negative coverage over, say, the irresponsible spending of the past two administrations, the lies and distortions coming from our federal government officials (elected and appointed), the numerous scandals such as Fast and Furious and Benghazi and IRS shenanigans (esp from "the most open and honest administration in history," yet another example of how little we know about our history)? Need I go on with "We need to pass this bill to see what's in it," the many career politicians, etc.??????
Saturday, October 12, 2013
How Can This Be?
A recent poll (If they are accurate, unbiased I don't know) indicated the President's approval rating is at 36-37%. How can this be? I don't understand why it's still so high...... I do remember when the last President's ratings fell and fell and fell (and rightly so), it wasn't kept a secret by the LameStreams.
According to an e-mail from my US Congressman, the House has sent 26 bills regarding the Shutdown to the Senate for consideration. None have received a vote there. And, the President has threatened to veto them. So, who's obstructionist? Well, we all know, though, because unbiased LameStreams have told us.
The President insists the CR be passed by the House before any negotiations over ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, etc. will be considered. Hmmm...... This seems to me to be a little like a constantly truant student insisting, "Let me skip one more time without penalty. Then we'll discuss my absences." Maybe not.
So the military academies' football games this weekend will be played, as usual, despite the shutdown. That's according to the Sec of Def. Yet, payments to the families of a few dozen soldiers killed have stopped? I guess we have a difference of opinion on what is "essential" and "nonessential." I have little doubt I'm in the minority here--"Football is God!"
I wonder if the NPS ranger was truthful in telling the Washington Post/Times that federal employees (at least within the NPS) were instructed to make the shutdown cuts as painful as possible to the American people. I believe he was, but don't know for certain. Remember the White House strategy during the last sequesters? Same thing. Was it R. Emmanuel who said never to let a crisis go to waste? How petty/small if, indeed (and I believe it is), this is the case. BTW, in my view, the IRS is "nonessential." I wouldn't mind the Dept of Education being closed, either, permanently.
Dishonesty can come in many forms. What was it Mark Twain wrote, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics?" One of my buddies said politicians use the word "spin" instead of "lie" so they won't have to go to confession. Maybe so. And there are half-truths, telling part of the truth, but only part, so as to mislead or deceive. "Hey, I didn't lie!" One of my US Senators sent an e-mail using this technique. Clever.
I heard the other day, but the impact didn't dawn on me until this AM. Twenty-eight years is a long time! That's how long Kwame Kilpatrick's sentence was. 28 years! I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, just that it's a loooong time. I guess his partner in crime received 21 years. Will that deter future politicians from criminal activity? Why do I doubt that? I think we all can name politicians who are currently sitting in their seats despite committing acts that would have landed you and me in the slammer. Well, one good thing, for them at least...lying isn't a crime, just a sin.
I was listening to a Temptations song the other day, Ball of Confusion. (Oh, how I love the Temps! I found myself humming and singing their songs all day yesterday!) Some of the lyrics, certainly not the most profound ones, go "Chick-a-boom, Chick-a-boom, Chick-a-boom-boom-boom." OK, not real profound, but they sound cool when the Temps sing them. I was reminded of another song, from the late '60s or early '70s, back when I was in college. It was titled, Chick-a-Boom, Chick-a-Boom. It went, much less soulfully than the Temps' version (and a completely different song), "Chick-a-Boom, Chick-a-Boom, don't you just love it." I don't remember any of the rest, thankfully. One of my friends just hated the song; she just hated it! And, worse, she often said, "I get in in my head and can't get it out." Hmmm...... Maybe that's what Hell is like?
According to an e-mail from my US Congressman, the House has sent 26 bills regarding the Shutdown to the Senate for consideration. None have received a vote there. And, the President has threatened to veto them. So, who's obstructionist? Well, we all know, though, because unbiased LameStreams have told us.
The President insists the CR be passed by the House before any negotiations over ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, etc. will be considered. Hmmm...... This seems to me to be a little like a constantly truant student insisting, "Let me skip one more time without penalty. Then we'll discuss my absences." Maybe not.
So the military academies' football games this weekend will be played, as usual, despite the shutdown. That's according to the Sec of Def. Yet, payments to the families of a few dozen soldiers killed have stopped? I guess we have a difference of opinion on what is "essential" and "nonessential." I have little doubt I'm in the minority here--"Football is God!"
I wonder if the NPS ranger was truthful in telling the Washington Post/Times that federal employees (at least within the NPS) were instructed to make the shutdown cuts as painful as possible to the American people. I believe he was, but don't know for certain. Remember the White House strategy during the last sequesters? Same thing. Was it R. Emmanuel who said never to let a crisis go to waste? How petty/small if, indeed (and I believe it is), this is the case. BTW, in my view, the IRS is "nonessential." I wouldn't mind the Dept of Education being closed, either, permanently.
Dishonesty can come in many forms. What was it Mark Twain wrote, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics?" One of my buddies said politicians use the word "spin" instead of "lie" so they won't have to go to confession. Maybe so. And there are half-truths, telling part of the truth, but only part, so as to mislead or deceive. "Hey, I didn't lie!" One of my US Senators sent an e-mail using this technique. Clever.
I heard the other day, but the impact didn't dawn on me until this AM. Twenty-eight years is a long time! That's how long Kwame Kilpatrick's sentence was. 28 years! I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, just that it's a loooong time. I guess his partner in crime received 21 years. Will that deter future politicians from criminal activity? Why do I doubt that? I think we all can name politicians who are currently sitting in their seats despite committing acts that would have landed you and me in the slammer. Well, one good thing, for them at least...lying isn't a crime, just a sin.
I was listening to a Temptations song the other day, Ball of Confusion. (Oh, how I love the Temps! I found myself humming and singing their songs all day yesterday!) Some of the lyrics, certainly not the most profound ones, go "Chick-a-boom, Chick-a-boom, Chick-a-boom-boom-boom." OK, not real profound, but they sound cool when the Temps sing them. I was reminded of another song, from the late '60s or early '70s, back when I was in college. It was titled, Chick-a-Boom, Chick-a-Boom. It went, much less soulfully than the Temps' version (and a completely different song), "Chick-a-Boom, Chick-a-Boom, don't you just love it." I don't remember any of the rest, thankfully. One of my friends just hated the song; she just hated it! And, worse, she often said, "I get in in my head and can't get it out." Hmmm...... Maybe that's what Hell is like?
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Autumn
It's an odd change of colors--so far--and I'm hoping the rain forecast for the next couple of days doesn't dampen the spectacular like the past couple of years.
I already see out there some brilliant yellows and reds. Some maples are aflame, yet others right next to them are still solid green, no change at all. Hmmm......
Perhaps that will extend the color show, one of my favorite times of the year. K is due to head Up North next weekend and we were wondering the other day if the peak times will have elapsed. We hope not. For me, I have started to reconsider a last-minute trip back to Amherst for Homecoming. Likely the game, vs Wesleyan, will be for the NESCAC championship (although Trinity might have something to say about that). But even more, I think I'd love to see the New England color show--it's been about 43 years since I've seen one. Michigan's spectaculars are just that, spectacular in the autumn. But New England shows are something very special, esp the mesmerizing view of the Holyoke Range from the top of Memorial Hill.
On our run this AM, Bob and I talked about upcoming races. We're going to do the Big Bird in November. I think this will be my 24th Big Bird 10K, missing only one year when K and I were in NY for a wedding. I think we've talked Michael, our blind runner partner, to run it with us. Last year, for the first time, I didn't race the Big Bird--I just ran it. (OK, racing implies I am fast, not so.) I yakked with people running from 8 and 9 mins a mile to 14 mins a mile, running a mile or two with different runners. One running friend told me, "Get up there where you belong," implying I should be running faster. But I smiled and told her, "On this day, right here is where I belong." It was--it may have been the most enjoyable Big Bird I've ever run and it is one of my two or three favorite races. I've run the Big Bird about 15 minutes faster than I did last year, but I don't think I enjoyed it much more. Then, Bob and I remembered the LightFest, which will come not two days, but nine days, after the Big Bird. Bob and I used to park at the finish line early, run to the start to pick up our tee shirts, and then run back to the finish, doubling the five-mile run through the LightFest of Hines Drive. It's a very pretty run, very festive, and capped off by pizza at De Luca's, our favorite. The past few years, Karen and friends have joined Bob and me. Michelle, Russ, Carrie, and K walk, but, of course, have pizza with us. I think last year, Bob and Carrie switched roles. Bob walked and Carrie ran with me. It was a nice change of pace and, although Carrie and I got lost (I couldn't find my car, forgetting what it looked like since I had just picked it up a couple days before!), the rest of our teammates arrived at De Luca's early enough to order so pizza was served shortly after Carrie and I made our appearance. Oh, that pizza is good!!!!!!
I may or may not have mentioned that Matt and Linda are getting married! Hooray! It seems to me to be a great match--each is lucky to have found the other. It appears the wedding will be in Las Vegas, which is great, but I don't know when. Gee, I wonder if our trip out there for the wedding will still let me take in the Motown Show?????? Nah, I'm kidding......
Out to take the kids to the apple orchard for picking, cider, and doughnuts--I don't know which is my favorite part!
I already see out there some brilliant yellows and reds. Some maples are aflame, yet others right next to them are still solid green, no change at all. Hmmm......
Perhaps that will extend the color show, one of my favorite times of the year. K is due to head Up North next weekend and we were wondering the other day if the peak times will have elapsed. We hope not. For me, I have started to reconsider a last-minute trip back to Amherst for Homecoming. Likely the game, vs Wesleyan, will be for the NESCAC championship (although Trinity might have something to say about that). But even more, I think I'd love to see the New England color show--it's been about 43 years since I've seen one. Michigan's spectaculars are just that, spectacular in the autumn. But New England shows are something very special, esp the mesmerizing view of the Holyoke Range from the top of Memorial Hill.
On our run this AM, Bob and I talked about upcoming races. We're going to do the Big Bird in November. I think this will be my 24th Big Bird 10K, missing only one year when K and I were in NY for a wedding. I think we've talked Michael, our blind runner partner, to run it with us. Last year, for the first time, I didn't race the Big Bird--I just ran it. (OK, racing implies I am fast, not so.) I yakked with people running from 8 and 9 mins a mile to 14 mins a mile, running a mile or two with different runners. One running friend told me, "Get up there where you belong," implying I should be running faster. But I smiled and told her, "On this day, right here is where I belong." It was--it may have been the most enjoyable Big Bird I've ever run and it is one of my two or three favorite races. I've run the Big Bird about 15 minutes faster than I did last year, but I don't think I enjoyed it much more. Then, Bob and I remembered the LightFest, which will come not two days, but nine days, after the Big Bird. Bob and I used to park at the finish line early, run to the start to pick up our tee shirts, and then run back to the finish, doubling the five-mile run through the LightFest of Hines Drive. It's a very pretty run, very festive, and capped off by pizza at De Luca's, our favorite. The past few years, Karen and friends have joined Bob and me. Michelle, Russ, Carrie, and K walk, but, of course, have pizza with us. I think last year, Bob and Carrie switched roles. Bob walked and Carrie ran with me. It was a nice change of pace and, although Carrie and I got lost (I couldn't find my car, forgetting what it looked like since I had just picked it up a couple days before!), the rest of our teammates arrived at De Luca's early enough to order so pizza was served shortly after Carrie and I made our appearance. Oh, that pizza is good!!!!!!
I may or may not have mentioned that Matt and Linda are getting married! Hooray! It seems to me to be a great match--each is lucky to have found the other. It appears the wedding will be in Las Vegas, which is great, but I don't know when. Gee, I wonder if our trip out there for the wedding will still let me take in the Motown Show?????? Nah, I'm kidding......
Out to take the kids to the apple orchard for picking, cider, and doughnuts--I don't know which is my favorite part!
Friday, October 4, 2013
"Deserve Better?"
Several times this week, regarding the fiasco in Washington, namely the shutdown, I read in op-eds, letters-to-the-editor, etc. something that boils down to "Americans deserve better...."
Oh, do we?
Perhaps I'm out in left field, way off base (yep, the Tigers open the playoffs tonight!) on this, but I don't think so. I think we have exactly what we deserve. We keep electing small people with small minds, people who have demonstrated sneakiness if not dishonesty, "the lesser of two evils." And we keep re-electing them! So, why exactly do "Americans deserve better?" Was it John Arbuckle (or Juan Valdez?) who, in another context said, "You get what you pay for?" Well, we get what we vote for.
I'm not taking sides on this--I'm aiming at both the Democrats and the Republicans, nationally, state-wide, and locally.
Several years ago, when the Detroit mess came to the fore (and who didn't really see it long before?), many, especially from the suburbs, said, "They (Detroiters) got what they deserve (Kwame Kilpatrick)." Why did Detroiters' actions, electing the likes of KK, get them what they deserve, but Americans electing the Bozos we have elected not?
I guess it's whose ox is being gored.
Oh, do we?
Perhaps I'm out in left field, way off base (yep, the Tigers open the playoffs tonight!) on this, but I don't think so. I think we have exactly what we deserve. We keep electing small people with small minds, people who have demonstrated sneakiness if not dishonesty, "the lesser of two evils." And we keep re-electing them! So, why exactly do "Americans deserve better?" Was it John Arbuckle (or Juan Valdez?) who, in another context said, "You get what you pay for?" Well, we get what we vote for.
I'm not taking sides on this--I'm aiming at both the Democrats and the Republicans, nationally, state-wide, and locally.
Several years ago, when the Detroit mess came to the fore (and who didn't really see it long before?), many, especially from the suburbs, said, "They (Detroiters) got what they deserve (Kwame Kilpatrick)." Why did Detroiters' actions, electing the likes of KK, get them what they deserve, but Americans electing the Bozos we have elected not?
I guess it's whose ox is being gored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
