When is 44,395 not 44, 395? When it's 23,970 or 48,716 or something else! No, that's not a trick question either.
Those are the total number of votes Mike Duggan received in the Detroit mayoral primary. Of course, Benny Napoleon received 28,352 or 28, 391. It's all in the details or, rather, who is counting the votes. Tallies came from the city of Detroit, another from the county of Wayne, and the third from the state of Michigan. Sure seems like someone needs to take arithmetic classes again.
Of course, the question of valid or invalid write-in votes is the difficulty. Still, with all of the other problems in Detroit, here we go again. Why such a discrepancy between jurisdictions counting? One might logically guess there are politics involved?????? So, what's new?
Other numbers are more encouraging--the numbers of apples the state is growing this year. In 2012, only three million bushels of apples were harvested. I don't know who counts them, but the estimate for this year is about thirty million. That's the biggest yield in decades, about 50 years. Good news! Some might also hail as "good news" that the prices for cider are declining, too. Some mills last year charged $10.50 to $12.50 a gallon for that good stuff. The price this year is in the mid-$8 range. Hmmm...... The increase in the apple harvest is ten-fold, but the price decrease is about one-third?????? That's more than the price of gasoline. Has anyone tossed out the term "greedy" yet? Oh, that's just for Big Oil, Wall Street, bankers and CEOs, but not athletes, hippy-rock stars, Hollywood-types, etc. I'm sure I'll take the kids apple-picking this year after last year's drought, but I likely will skip the cider.
OK, I think all those millionaires and, esp, billionaires are "greedy." Why in the world does one need or even want tens of millions of dollars to live? What could they possibly want that they don't already have? I think it is a problem that many of those of the upper crust have difficulty relating to us making 1-2% of what they earn, but...... But that's the point--they've earned their money. I don't necessarily like it that the CEO of, say Burger King makes about $7,000,000 a year and the Whopper-flipper gets $8.50. But it's not as if the CEO is stealing the money. He doesn't just give it to himself. Others decide he deserves it, that he can't be replaced while the flipper can easily be so. Consider this analogy. I went to a Tiger game the other night. My main reason was to see Miggy Cabrera. My guess is that if he wasn't on the team, I wouldn't have gone. Therefore, all those other players, making millions were not as important to me as, say, the candied almonds vendor from whom I purchased almonds for Bopper--he loves them and what is a Grandpa to do? Would anyone argue that the players are like the CEO and the vendor like the flipper--pay-wise? I can't imagine that. I don't like people making so much money, but I'm not going to demonize them for it. As one of my buddies and I always ask, rhetorically, "How much money is enough?" We then joke with a reply from John D. Rockefeller, likely the wealthiest man in the history of the world, "Just a little more; just a little more." I guess......
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Fri Musings
Syria?????? OK, what's the US going to do? Or, rather, what is Obama unilaterally going to do? He's going to send missiles somewhere, against something, sometime--for what purpose? To depose Assad? No, that's already been stated as not the purpose. Hmmm...... To save face? Maybe, since Obama has made himself a laughingstock in the international diplomatic community. Britain has already said, "No way, Ray" to a missile attack on Syria. Oh, by the way, there is still no definitive proof Assad was behind the gas attacks. What's the title of the NY Times best seller, something like Amateur in the White House?
A good column by Frank Beckmann today. I blogged about the decline of culture as demonstrated by our increasing inability to use language correctly. He cites "twerking" and, specifically, the Miley Cyrus gyrations on MTV. (I didn't see this, not even on You Tube--I have no desire to do so.) We have dumbed down decency. Can there be any doubt about it? When did it start? I don't know, but excusing Bill Clinton in l'Affaire Lewinsky didn't help in the least.
A great column, too, by Dan Thomasson. Except, it wasn't "great" in the manner he likely intended. He was taking aim at those, namely a Michigan Congressman, who suggest Obama should be impeached. He claimed it is a ridiculous idea, "without any grounds for doing so." Ah, but Mr. Thomasson falls into the same group as the anti-Tea Party crowd. As one of them once told me, among other things, "They have no ideas." How wrong is that?!?!?! Of course the Tea Partiers have ideas, lots of them. That some don't like those ideas doesn't mean there aren't any; not at all. In fact, it points to the intellectual vapidness of the critics like those. One doesn't have to be a Tea Partier or even agree with Tea Party ideas to fully appreciate their concerns and worries! Thomasson must be part ostrich, with his head buried in the sand. There are lots of reasons to impeach Obama--I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are there. Just because we don't agree with ideas doesn't me they don't exist. Thomasson gives a classic example of "sloppy thinking."
And there's a section of letters-to-the-editor titled, "Grading Gov. Rick Snyder." I was thinking of this the other day. I think I'd grade him rather poorly, not just because of his policies. I don't like his use of the Emergency Managers. The EM law, however "necessary" some might deem it, is undemocratic. His deceitful use of the legislature in passing the right-to-work law was not appreciated by me--I don't care for sneakiness. And, it seems, he is quite willing to sell his principles as long as money comes with the sale. To wit, his push for the Medic-Aid bill that is now set to be passed. How "un-Republican" to have anything to do with ObamaCare--read "big government!" Oh, but Michigan will lose out on all that federal money. Principles be damned! And all the credit for the semi-rebound of the state (it hasn't hit many yet?) I think shouldn't go to Snyder as much as the auto-makers. And I don't think it was any great genius or improved management that sparked the autos resurgence--read low-interest rates and rebates! Gee, if one sells out his principles, what does he have left? And, by the way, those Republican state legislators who also sold out should be ashamed. Of course, they won't be because shame died quite a while ago.
I go to McDonald's or Wendy's (fast-food places) a couple times a week, esp when classes start. They are quick, convenient, and cheap. Besides, I like the food--it's pretty good! I almost always order from the cheap menu, whatever it's called. I never order a happy meal (except for the kids), a Big Mac, or any of the Wendy specialty sandwiches (although the Baconator is tempting!) Imagine what might happen to prices if the striking fast-food workers succeed in getting their hourly rates increased to $15 an hour! Will the cheap menu disappear? It likely would. And, so would my business. I suspect I would hardly be alone. With less business, fewer jobs, esp at $15 an hour!, would be needed. So, the remaining workers would make such a wage, but there would be far fewer of those workers. Yep, those strikers are going to show them.
A good column by Frank Beckmann today. I blogged about the decline of culture as demonstrated by our increasing inability to use language correctly. He cites "twerking" and, specifically, the Miley Cyrus gyrations on MTV. (I didn't see this, not even on You Tube--I have no desire to do so.) We have dumbed down decency. Can there be any doubt about it? When did it start? I don't know, but excusing Bill Clinton in l'Affaire Lewinsky didn't help in the least.
A great column, too, by Dan Thomasson. Except, it wasn't "great" in the manner he likely intended. He was taking aim at those, namely a Michigan Congressman, who suggest Obama should be impeached. He claimed it is a ridiculous idea, "without any grounds for doing so." Ah, but Mr. Thomasson falls into the same group as the anti-Tea Party crowd. As one of them once told me, among other things, "They have no ideas." How wrong is that?!?!?! Of course the Tea Partiers have ideas, lots of them. That some don't like those ideas doesn't mean there aren't any; not at all. In fact, it points to the intellectual vapidness of the critics like those. One doesn't have to be a Tea Partier or even agree with Tea Party ideas to fully appreciate their concerns and worries! Thomasson must be part ostrich, with his head buried in the sand. There are lots of reasons to impeach Obama--I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are there. Just because we don't agree with ideas doesn't me they don't exist. Thomasson gives a classic example of "sloppy thinking."
And there's a section of letters-to-the-editor titled, "Grading Gov. Rick Snyder." I was thinking of this the other day. I think I'd grade him rather poorly, not just because of his policies. I don't like his use of the Emergency Managers. The EM law, however "necessary" some might deem it, is undemocratic. His deceitful use of the legislature in passing the right-to-work law was not appreciated by me--I don't care for sneakiness. And, it seems, he is quite willing to sell his principles as long as money comes with the sale. To wit, his push for the Medic-Aid bill that is now set to be passed. How "un-Republican" to have anything to do with ObamaCare--read "big government!" Oh, but Michigan will lose out on all that federal money. Principles be damned! And all the credit for the semi-rebound of the state (it hasn't hit many yet?) I think shouldn't go to Snyder as much as the auto-makers. And I don't think it was any great genius or improved management that sparked the autos resurgence--read low-interest rates and rebates! Gee, if one sells out his principles, what does he have left? And, by the way, those Republican state legislators who also sold out should be ashamed. Of course, they won't be because shame died quite a while ago.
I go to McDonald's or Wendy's (fast-food places) a couple times a week, esp when classes start. They are quick, convenient, and cheap. Besides, I like the food--it's pretty good! I almost always order from the cheap menu, whatever it's called. I never order a happy meal (except for the kids), a Big Mac, or any of the Wendy specialty sandwiches (although the Baconator is tempting!) Imagine what might happen to prices if the striking fast-food workers succeed in getting their hourly rates increased to $15 an hour! Will the cheap menu disappear? It likely would. And, so would my business. I suspect I would hardly be alone. With less business, fewer jobs, esp at $15 an hour!, would be needed. So, the remaining workers would make such a wage, but there would be far fewer of those workers. Yep, those strikers are going to show them.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Nobel Peace Prize?
Can a Nobel Peace Prize be rescinded? Hmmm...... I know Pulitzers have been, but Nobels? What if, say, a Nobel-winning scientist is shown to have used false data, cheated, etc. in the achievement for which the prize was awarded? After all, didn't Piltdown Man fool the archaeology community for almost four decades?
Would such an instance merit taking back the Nobel? Of course it would merit revocation. But would the Nobel committee have the integrity and courage to do so? Rescinding would acknowledge an enormous error on the part of the committee. Hmmm......
Now, what if someone won, say, a Nobel Peace Prize and didn't at all deserve it in the first place? Remember the key word here, "peace." And, in the course of five or so years, the recipient, using or not using his authority, engaged his country in most definite war-like activities. (Note I refrained from saying "war," only partly tongue-in-cheek.) Think Afghanistan, Iraq, drones, etc.
Apparently, the Obama administration, as exemplified by the talk of the President himself and his Secretary of State, is outraged by the use of chemical weapons in Syria. (Yeah, Yeah--I remember, "But Bush lied.") Well they should. But now there seems to be evidence that the US is going to launch missile attacks against the Syrian regime of Assad. Perhaps Obama (and his lackeys at the Nobel Committee?) don't consider the launching of missiles to be an act of war, but some convoluted expression of peace.
To get this out of the way, why in the world would anyone trust anything coming out of the mouth of John Kerry? Check his record, all the way back.
It seems likely that the gas warfare was perpetrated by Assad (or his brother, likely the only two who have authorization to use gas). If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say so. But, as in an American court of law, I'm not absolutely certain, so I can't convict. So, if Obama does order the attacks, are we to, in effect, start a war with Syria (only three days, at least that's how many days missiles will be launched--according to "sources close to the administration") when we are not absolutely certain? (Again, I harken back to "But Bush lied," if only to expose yet another episode of extreme hypocrisy. And, Bush didn't "lie," not if gas is considered a "weapon of mass destruction." SH did use gas on his own people, the Kurds. Or perhaps I mistakenly think the Kurds are every bit as human as the Syrians?)
But what if the gas was actually used by the insurgents, back by Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and other extremists? Then what? I know the likelihood of that is slim, but...... Again, we don't know for certain--think US court of law, criminal case.
And what if the US (namely Obama and Kerry, like H Clinton before him) are being played for suckers by, say, the Iranians or even the Russians? It's not at all unlikely, since the entire world has been playing Obama for a sucker for five years now, the entire world, that is, except the American LameStream Media and other Obama sycophants. There are lots of reasons for doing so.
BTW, read closely Kerry's comments about the effects of using this gas, a weapon of mass destruction. Read them very closely. Then reimagine them in the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, calm down, I'm not an apologist for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without them, it's quite likely there would have never been a me. My father was a US Marine in WW2, taking part in invasions/landings at Palau, Pelilieu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. That means, of course, that he would have been in the assault waves of the home islands of Japan, had Japan not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With US casualty rates of 40% and higher in the invasions of those aforementioned islands, it was quite a miracle he survived anyway--do the math. What was the likelihood of yet another reprieve?
Yet, again, maybe Obama is doing exactly what he wants to do. He's either very, very naive--as Putin and others seem to believe and, if only tacitly, say--or his goal is to further destabilize the Middle East to the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood, his group of choice in Egypt, Libya, and now it appears Syria. (Check out the facts on the Muslim Brotherhood, starting with its roots in Wahabism.)
These "sources" have indicated US missiles might fly as soon as Thursday. I, for one, am not looking forward to Thursday to see if we have engaged in yet another military folly. "Folly," of course, unless there's a master plan. (I know, I know--conspiracy theorist! One thing American politicians have excelled in is the marginalization of critics. Those who even dare to question US leaders, be they Presidents or members of Congress are quickly labelled, "conspiracy theorists," "Tea Partiers," etc. Critics of government are no longer what Henry Steele Commager once called them, "the most important members of society." They are now isolated as the fringe, not to be taken seriously. After all, who can doubt the goodness, the benevolence of big government? Note, for instance, Obama's commencement address at Ohio State University.)
Let's hope these "sources" are wrong or, if they are not, wiser heads prevail before the missiles are used.
Would such an instance merit taking back the Nobel? Of course it would merit revocation. But would the Nobel committee have the integrity and courage to do so? Rescinding would acknowledge an enormous error on the part of the committee. Hmmm......
Now, what if someone won, say, a Nobel Peace Prize and didn't at all deserve it in the first place? Remember the key word here, "peace." And, in the course of five or so years, the recipient, using or not using his authority, engaged his country in most definite war-like activities. (Note I refrained from saying "war," only partly tongue-in-cheek.) Think Afghanistan, Iraq, drones, etc.
Apparently, the Obama administration, as exemplified by the talk of the President himself and his Secretary of State, is outraged by the use of chemical weapons in Syria. (Yeah, Yeah--I remember, "But Bush lied.") Well they should. But now there seems to be evidence that the US is going to launch missile attacks against the Syrian regime of Assad. Perhaps Obama (and his lackeys at the Nobel Committee?) don't consider the launching of missiles to be an act of war, but some convoluted expression of peace.
To get this out of the way, why in the world would anyone trust anything coming out of the mouth of John Kerry? Check his record, all the way back.
It seems likely that the gas warfare was perpetrated by Assad (or his brother, likely the only two who have authorization to use gas). If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say so. But, as in an American court of law, I'm not absolutely certain, so I can't convict. So, if Obama does order the attacks, are we to, in effect, start a war with Syria (only three days, at least that's how many days missiles will be launched--according to "sources close to the administration") when we are not absolutely certain? (Again, I harken back to "But Bush lied," if only to expose yet another episode of extreme hypocrisy. And, Bush didn't "lie," not if gas is considered a "weapon of mass destruction." SH did use gas on his own people, the Kurds. Or perhaps I mistakenly think the Kurds are every bit as human as the Syrians?)
But what if the gas was actually used by the insurgents, back by Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and other extremists? Then what? I know the likelihood of that is slim, but...... Again, we don't know for certain--think US court of law, criminal case.
And what if the US (namely Obama and Kerry, like H Clinton before him) are being played for suckers by, say, the Iranians or even the Russians? It's not at all unlikely, since the entire world has been playing Obama for a sucker for five years now, the entire world, that is, except the American LameStream Media and other Obama sycophants. There are lots of reasons for doing so.
BTW, read closely Kerry's comments about the effects of using this gas, a weapon of mass destruction. Read them very closely. Then reimagine them in the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, calm down, I'm not an apologist for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without them, it's quite likely there would have never been a me. My father was a US Marine in WW2, taking part in invasions/landings at Palau, Pelilieu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. That means, of course, that he would have been in the assault waves of the home islands of Japan, had Japan not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With US casualty rates of 40% and higher in the invasions of those aforementioned islands, it was quite a miracle he survived anyway--do the math. What was the likelihood of yet another reprieve?
Yet, again, maybe Obama is doing exactly what he wants to do. He's either very, very naive--as Putin and others seem to believe and, if only tacitly, say--or his goal is to further destabilize the Middle East to the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood, his group of choice in Egypt, Libya, and now it appears Syria. (Check out the facts on the Muslim Brotherhood, starting with its roots in Wahabism.)
These "sources" have indicated US missiles might fly as soon as Thursday. I, for one, am not looking forward to Thursday to see if we have engaged in yet another military folly. "Folly," of course, unless there's a master plan. (I know, I know--conspiracy theorist! One thing American politicians have excelled in is the marginalization of critics. Those who even dare to question US leaders, be they Presidents or members of Congress are quickly labelled, "conspiracy theorists," "Tea Partiers," etc. Critics of government are no longer what Henry Steele Commager once called them, "the most important members of society." They are now isolated as the fringe, not to be taken seriously. After all, who can doubt the goodness, the benevolence of big government? Note, for instance, Obama's commencement address at Ohio State University.)
Let's hope these "sources" are wrong or, if they are not, wiser heads prevail before the missiles are used.
Sequester?
The "sequester" has been blamed for some of the more recent inefficiencies in gov't. "See what happens when you don't let us spend money like drunken sailors?" What hogwash!
First, the "sequester" cut about two and a half percent from the federal budget, the excessively bloated federal budget of $3.5 trillion--that's with eleven zeroes! C'mon! A couple years ago, for instance, my wife took a 6% pay cut, saw insurance premiums from her own pocket rise about 25% not to mention the higher co-pays and deductibles. I figure she took a hit of about 15% or more. This year, my taxes went up about $2500, which will translate to a 3% or more cut. But the feds can't manage to cut 2.5%?????? How easy it is to spend other people's money, esp when the arrogant elitists who spend it are convinced they and their ways and ideas are superior to anyone else and other ways and ideas. Maybe they could use a little help in finding things to cut! Here are a few.
How about eliminating the ObamaPhone scam? To date, the program (which may have had the best of intentions when begun under Reagan I believe, but double check) has cost about $2.3 billion. And a government audit (you know, conducted by the government itself) reveals that more than 40% of the phones are now given to people who don't qualify. Recipients don't even have to lie to scam the system.
How about the Air Force study that revealed men appear more masculine (manly?) when their carry firearms? That one cost only about $700,000.
Another half million was spent by the National Science Foundation (from a gov't grant) to make a video that simulated a high school prom. (Whose high school prom?)
There's about $354 million being tossed about by the Pentagon and Congress for the purchase of Russian, that's right Russian, helicopters to give to Afghanistan. Apparently, a few years ago the Russian manufacturer sold the helicopters to private companies for about $4.4 million apiece. Now, the price tag for the American taxpayer is about $19 million. Ah...other people's money!
So, the federal gov't can't cope with the sequester cuts? How about the increased costs the feds are foisting upon the majority of Americans, not taxes per se, but higher prices because of their actions? Most Americans who don't buy health insurance (and, remember, purchase is required by law, you know, the law the members of Congress passed first and read second, if they did at all) from the gov't (and the estimated costs of that seem to be going up, up, up practically weekly) will have to pay increased premiums, some as has as about 40% more!, or will see no raises, cut pay, or reduced other benefits as employer-provided health insurance costs will go up. The Senate is proposing a farm bill that advocates an increase in the price of milk, maybe 30 cents a gallon. Granted, that increase will amount to only about $15-20 a year for me. But what will that increase do to school budgets and those of other large providers such as gov't assistance programs? Of course there are more.
No doubt the retaliation is "Oh, those are just drops in the bucket." So, if these are just "drops in the bucket," why the gov't cuts in services and efficiencies? And, to cite the late Sen Everett Dirksen, in challenging yet another spending spree by Congress in the '60s, "A few million here, a few million there and pretty soon you're talking real money." Yeah, but it's other people's money, not ours......
First, the "sequester" cut about two and a half percent from the federal budget, the excessively bloated federal budget of $3.5 trillion--that's with eleven zeroes! C'mon! A couple years ago, for instance, my wife took a 6% pay cut, saw insurance premiums from her own pocket rise about 25% not to mention the higher co-pays and deductibles. I figure she took a hit of about 15% or more. This year, my taxes went up about $2500, which will translate to a 3% or more cut. But the feds can't manage to cut 2.5%?????? How easy it is to spend other people's money, esp when the arrogant elitists who spend it are convinced they and their ways and ideas are superior to anyone else and other ways and ideas. Maybe they could use a little help in finding things to cut! Here are a few.
How about eliminating the ObamaPhone scam? To date, the program (which may have had the best of intentions when begun under Reagan I believe, but double check) has cost about $2.3 billion. And a government audit (you know, conducted by the government itself) reveals that more than 40% of the phones are now given to people who don't qualify. Recipients don't even have to lie to scam the system.
How about the Air Force study that revealed men appear more masculine (manly?) when their carry firearms? That one cost only about $700,000.
Another half million was spent by the National Science Foundation (from a gov't grant) to make a video that simulated a high school prom. (Whose high school prom?)
There's about $354 million being tossed about by the Pentagon and Congress for the purchase of Russian, that's right Russian, helicopters to give to Afghanistan. Apparently, a few years ago the Russian manufacturer sold the helicopters to private companies for about $4.4 million apiece. Now, the price tag for the American taxpayer is about $19 million. Ah...other people's money!
So, the federal gov't can't cope with the sequester cuts? How about the increased costs the feds are foisting upon the majority of Americans, not taxes per se, but higher prices because of their actions? Most Americans who don't buy health insurance (and, remember, purchase is required by law, you know, the law the members of Congress passed first and read second, if they did at all) from the gov't (and the estimated costs of that seem to be going up, up, up practically weekly) will have to pay increased premiums, some as has as about 40% more!, or will see no raises, cut pay, or reduced other benefits as employer-provided health insurance costs will go up. The Senate is proposing a farm bill that advocates an increase in the price of milk, maybe 30 cents a gallon. Granted, that increase will amount to only about $15-20 a year for me. But what will that increase do to school budgets and those of other large providers such as gov't assistance programs? Of course there are more.
No doubt the retaliation is "Oh, those are just drops in the bucket." So, if these are just "drops in the bucket," why the gov't cuts in services and efficiencies? And, to cite the late Sen Everett Dirksen, in challenging yet another spending spree by Congress in the '60s, "A few million here, a few million there and pretty soon you're talking real money." Yeah, but it's other people's money, not ours......
Thursday, August 22, 2013
"Onlookers?"
From Rabbi Joachim Prinz: "Bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problems. The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most tragic problem is silence." Rabbi Prinz was a Berlin rabbi in Hitler's Germany. He went on, "A great people [speaking of the Germans], which had created a great civilization, had become a nation of onlookers. They remained silent in the face of hate, in the face of brutality, in the face of mass murder. American must not become a nation of silent onlookers...."
Now, he was speaking in Washington, DC, on the occasion of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. But his words ring true today, if in a somewhat different context.
Coincidentally, I received an e-mail from an old friend today. I haven't yet had time to open the link, but she sent something about the Romans and Americans. Hmmm...... I wonder, with our own versions of "Bread and Circuses," have we become too comfortable in our lives?
I know we all have lots to do. Our lives are filled. But perhaps all it takes is a little time to think about, say, who we elect to office and how we communicate with them.
I don't know if this is related or not, but...... It didn't get any newspaper time here--or at least I didn't see it. But President Obama invited the '72 Miami Dolphins, undefeated NFL Super Bowl Champions, to the White House. Whew, that was more than 40 years ago. (As an aside, one of my Amherst College mates was a member of that team, Doug Swift outside linebacker.) One might think or at least I might that President Obama has better things, more important things to do than this. I'm not aiming my criticism at Obama; I have never thought this was a good use of Presidents' time and efforts. I don't know who started this, but whoever he was, he shouldn't have. But, my point is this: three Dolphins refused to show up, citing their deep dissatisfaction with this President and his policies and programs. Good for them! I would hope, had I ever been in a similar situation with Obama, Clinton, W Bush--whoever--I would have had the moxie and integrity to "Just say no!" These three, with their protest, refuse to participate as "a nation of silent onlookers." But, I'd imagine, few took notice and fewer still gave their boycott any thought. Besides beingAll-Pro football players and maybe even Hall of Famers, Manny Fernandez, Jim Langer, and Bob Kuechenberg have gained a little more of my respect.
Now, he was speaking in Washington, DC, on the occasion of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. But his words ring true today, if in a somewhat different context.
Coincidentally, I received an e-mail from an old friend today. I haven't yet had time to open the link, but she sent something about the Romans and Americans. Hmmm...... I wonder, with our own versions of "Bread and Circuses," have we become too comfortable in our lives?
I know we all have lots to do. Our lives are filled. But perhaps all it takes is a little time to think about, say, who we elect to office and how we communicate with them.
I don't know if this is related or not, but...... It didn't get any newspaper time here--or at least I didn't see it. But President Obama invited the '72 Miami Dolphins, undefeated NFL Super Bowl Champions, to the White House. Whew, that was more than 40 years ago. (As an aside, one of my Amherst College mates was a member of that team, Doug Swift outside linebacker.) One might think or at least I might that President Obama has better things, more important things to do than this. I'm not aiming my criticism at Obama; I have never thought this was a good use of Presidents' time and efforts. I don't know who started this, but whoever he was, he shouldn't have. But, my point is this: three Dolphins refused to show up, citing their deep dissatisfaction with this President and his policies and programs. Good for them! I would hope, had I ever been in a similar situation with Obama, Clinton, W Bush--whoever--I would have had the moxie and integrity to "Just say no!" These three, with their protest, refuse to participate as "a nation of silent onlookers." But, I'd imagine, few took notice and fewer still gave their boycott any thought. Besides beingAll-Pro football players and maybe even Hall of Famers, Manny Fernandez, Jim Langer, and Bob Kuechenberg have gained a little more of my respect.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The Power to Tax
Constitutional authority "to lay and levy taxes" rests with Congress. There is no gray area there. The power is explicit or, as the government teachers point out, "expressed." As Casey Stengel used to say (How does baseball find its way into everything? Tom Boswell of the Wash Post wrote a great book years ago, How Life Imitates the World Series.), "You could look it up." Check Article I, Section 2.
So, what's the latest? Well, here's another good reason I don't have a cell phone--a tax increase on them? No, I'm joking a bit, but only a bit. The proposed tax is minimal, $5 a year I guess. Nobody can quibble on the amount. The purpose of the tax--to bring the Internet into public schools, as if it's not there already-- is a bit more debatable, but my guess is most people wouldn't have objections, although I do. Neither is the point, not at all. The tax is not being considered by Congress, but by the Executive Dept, where President Obama has instructed the FCC to look into this tax. For one who supposedly taught Constitutional Law at the college level (I'm convinced he didn't really earn his degrees at Columbia and Harvard, but that's just me), President Obama might be expected to know he can't Constitutionally do that--impose a tax. In fact, all of Congress can't do that. Taxes must originate in the House of Representatives and then go to the Senate--the Constitution so states. How can the President and the FCC do this? Well, I guess only one way--if the American people let him. My guess is most people will look at this and say, "C'mon, what's five bucks?" Yep, a trifling amount it is. Of course, most people don't know, "First they came after the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came after the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came after the trade unionists, but I wasn't a trade unionist, so I said nothing. Then they came after...." Ah, but that's that history stuff. Too bad there isn't a baseball analogy!
Again I resort to this: What if a Republican President tried this? Yeah, both you and I know what would happen. The LameStreams would be getting the plank ready for walking. Likely, too, Congress would be all over this, on the Sun AM shows, in the newspapers, etc. Yep, imagine someone like W imposing a tax!
I'll play fair and take some well-deserved shots at the Republicans, too. I won't bother with the ones in DC; most of them are beyond saving. They are really pretty stupid not to realize what has been going on in their willingness and compliance to "get along," be "bipartisan," etc. Maybe they are just cowardly, not wanting to be called names. But back to the point. It's the Republicans who've pushed all the Emergency Manager appointments in Michigan. Regardless if they've actually worked, they are affronts to democracy. They smack of the arrogant elitism of politicians, in this case, the Republicans.
OK, out to read to the kids.
So, what's the latest? Well, here's another good reason I don't have a cell phone--a tax increase on them? No, I'm joking a bit, but only a bit. The proposed tax is minimal, $5 a year I guess. Nobody can quibble on the amount. The purpose of the tax--to bring the Internet into public schools, as if it's not there already-- is a bit more debatable, but my guess is most people wouldn't have objections, although I do. Neither is the point, not at all. The tax is not being considered by Congress, but by the Executive Dept, where President Obama has instructed the FCC to look into this tax. For one who supposedly taught Constitutional Law at the college level (I'm convinced he didn't really earn his degrees at Columbia and Harvard, but that's just me), President Obama might be expected to know he can't Constitutionally do that--impose a tax. In fact, all of Congress can't do that. Taxes must originate in the House of Representatives and then go to the Senate--the Constitution so states. How can the President and the FCC do this? Well, I guess only one way--if the American people let him. My guess is most people will look at this and say, "C'mon, what's five bucks?" Yep, a trifling amount it is. Of course, most people don't know, "First they came after the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came after the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came after the trade unionists, but I wasn't a trade unionist, so I said nothing. Then they came after...." Ah, but that's that history stuff. Too bad there isn't a baseball analogy!
Again I resort to this: What if a Republican President tried this? Yeah, both you and I know what would happen. The LameStreams would be getting the plank ready for walking. Likely, too, Congress would be all over this, on the Sun AM shows, in the newspapers, etc. Yep, imagine someone like W imposing a tax!
I'll play fair and take some well-deserved shots at the Republicans, too. I won't bother with the ones in DC; most of them are beyond saving. They are really pretty stupid not to realize what has been going on in their willingness and compliance to "get along," be "bipartisan," etc. Maybe they are just cowardly, not wanting to be called names. But back to the point. It's the Republicans who've pushed all the Emergency Manager appointments in Michigan. Regardless if they've actually worked, they are affronts to democracy. They smack of the arrogant elitism of politicians, in this case, the Republicans.
OK, out to read to the kids.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
??????
I wanted to ask, but didn't. Perhaps I should have. But it was at the end of a long day and I was tired, so I didn't.
All day some guy kept prefacing his editorial comments with, "I heard on NPR...." I just wanted to ask, "Wait! Why should you believe NPR any more than I shouldn't believe what I might listen to or read?" Is NPR the gold standard of neutrality? I don't think so. But, the "99%ers" are OK and the "Tea Partiers" are not. And "Bush lied," but Obama never does/did (Yeah, right....).
Interesting letter-to-the-editor today from Congresspersons (?) Candice Miller and Dave Camp. It's title says it all, "Why does the IRS care who you vote for?" Hmmm...... Good question. Ah, but I forget.... The IRS, Benghazi, NSA, and other episodes are just "phony scandals." How silly of me! I also forget that Watergate was just "a third-rate burglary." When will I learn??????
I know "Bush lied," but when are people going to question Obama's ham-handed, unconstitutional actions? His latest is to impose, or at least try, a tax on cell phone use. Granted, the amount ($5/year) is trifling. But I disagree with the editorial that holds "nor is his plan for the tax objectionable," the plan to pay for Internet access in schools. (Here we go again, bowing to the new educational god "Technology.") The President, the Executive Department, the FCC is not empowered to tax anyone! Now I know the President claimed the power to do so because this is not a "normal atmosphere." C'mon, people buy that? And when he made the announcement before the press, the Fourth Estate merely sat there on its collective thumb and spun. Let's try to remember this: authority to tax constitutionally lies with the Legislative branch, Congress. Can I toss in recess appointments, the czars, EPA, and more? I keep getting confused. When is it, again, when the Constitution is sacred and when it isn't? I must have skipped Professor Latham's class that day, I guess.
All day some guy kept prefacing his editorial comments with, "I heard on NPR...." I just wanted to ask, "Wait! Why should you believe NPR any more than I shouldn't believe what I might listen to or read?" Is NPR the gold standard of neutrality? I don't think so. But, the "99%ers" are OK and the "Tea Partiers" are not. And "Bush lied," but Obama never does/did (Yeah, right....).
Interesting letter-to-the-editor today from Congresspersons (?) Candice Miller and Dave Camp. It's title says it all, "Why does the IRS care who you vote for?" Hmmm...... Good question. Ah, but I forget.... The IRS, Benghazi, NSA, and other episodes are just "phony scandals." How silly of me! I also forget that Watergate was just "a third-rate burglary." When will I learn??????
I know "Bush lied," but when are people going to question Obama's ham-handed, unconstitutional actions? His latest is to impose, or at least try, a tax on cell phone use. Granted, the amount ($5/year) is trifling. But I disagree with the editorial that holds "nor is his plan for the tax objectionable," the plan to pay for Internet access in schools. (Here we go again, bowing to the new educational god "Technology.") The President, the Executive Department, the FCC is not empowered to tax anyone! Now I know the President claimed the power to do so because this is not a "normal atmosphere." C'mon, people buy that? And when he made the announcement before the press, the Fourth Estate merely sat there on its collective thumb and spun. Let's try to remember this: authority to tax constitutionally lies with the Legislative branch, Congress. Can I toss in recess appointments, the czars, EPA, and more? I keep getting confused. When is it, again, when the Constitution is sacred and when it isn't? I must have skipped Professor Latham's class that day, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
