Thursday, January 8, 2015

Happy New Year!

Wow!  It's 2015 already.  Where did 2014--and 2013 and 2012 and...go?

I'm sure glad the "global warming" folks changed it to "global climate change."  They'd never get many of us around here to buy into any sort of "warming."  Right now, here, it's about 6 degrees.  That's up from 2 degrees this AM, when I ran.  Yep, I ran in this stuff, as I have all week.

I was out there this AM, think, but only for a brief moment, "Are you an idiot?  What are you doing out here, running, at 2 degrees?"  But only for a brief moment.  I caught myself.  That's what almost all non-runners say.  No matter how often I try to explain, they don't quite understand.  I am not at all cold while running.  OK, my thumbs were cold this AM, for about a mile; then they, too, like the rest of me, was comfortably warm.  It's just important to layer, which I did, and wear my mask.  Nope, I haven't been cold all week.

I got a kick out of several things "Sarah Palin" this week.  One was some photo she or one of her family members posted online.  It showed her son (the autistic one?) standing on the family dog to reach into the kitchen sink.  Oh, the outcry from SPCA and other "animal lovers!"  First, the dog looked about three times bigger than the kid.  Second, the dog just laid there, never moving to get up, never moving to get the kid off.  The dog didn't seem to have the problem others seem to have had.  But, an opportunity to bash Palin?  Never let one pass, legit or not.  And a lady this week just started in on Palin, "Oh, I hate her."  I didn't listen to the rest and didn't challenge that.  What's the use?  Any words I say will fall on deaf ears?  Last week, at a social affair, someone laughed at her, "She said she could see Russia from her front porch!"  Now, let me go out on a limb and say I don't think she meant it literally.  Then, let's look at our geography.  No, Russia isn't thousands a miles away, across the Atlantic.  Russia, from Palin's Alaska, land mass to land mass, is about 50 miles away.  And islands belonging to Russia and some belonging to the US (Attu, etc.) are about 3 miles apart.  One a clear day......  And how people forget what she said, say, about Putin/Russia and Ukraine?  Gee, that happened.  Let's toss in fracking/drilling for oil and oil prices.

And this plays into another thing I've been thinking about, largely because of the Bill Cosby thing.  Again, I have no idea of Cosby is guilty or not.  It is highly suspicious to me, though, that not one, not two, but half a dozen or a dozen or whatever the number now is, came forth for decades.  A few might be explained away, but that many, esp with the increased awareness over rape and sexual assaults/abuse?  But, he might well have done all this; I don't claim to know.  But I tendered this idea to several folks a couple of weeks ago.  Maybe there are some people who want to see Cosby destroyed, at least his image destroyed.  Maybe he was striking to close to home, threatening the ensconced positions of others in the black community.  Maybe he was criticizing the wrong (or right?) people and putting blame/responsibility in the right places.  This all contradicts the "gospel of victimhood," doesn't it?  And, with Cosby's image and stature, at least his former ones, maybe he could get somewhere.  (I admit he's been on this theme for a number of years, but not really effectively.)  This isn't about Cosby, but about a larger theme.  It seems to me that when far too many people, that is, their ideas and policies, are threatened or challenged, instead of defending effectively, they seek to destroy the opponent.  This isn't new, but it seems to have broadened.  And it's not just on a national scale, but can be very local, too.  For instance, name-calling is very popular.  Instead of trying to defend a position or program, it's far easier to call the challenger, who might well have good points, a name.  "Negative" is a common one.

Interesting, isn't it, that when the President came to Detroit to laud the auto industry's comeback he chose a Ford plant to visit?  Fords (You can always tell a Detroit native; it's "Fords," not "Ford.") was the one auto maker who didn't accept the federal handout.  Hmmm......  And, of the Big Three, isn't Fords' economic picture the rosiest?

Islam has been co-opted again, but the radicals who murdered 12 people in France.  No, I don't blame the entire religion for the actions of a few, although "few" seems to be growing.  But I remember a phrase the Left used back in the '60s and early '70s, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."  So, then, shouldn't we be hearing from the so-called "moderate" Muslims?  No, shouldn't their protests and condemnations of the radicals be deafening?  C'mon, shooting and killing people because of "offensive cartoons" is the stuff of the Middle Ages, back when heretics were beheaded and burned at the stake.  I am waiting for a backlash among those who live in the West.  There must be one, there must, or the West is doomed.

Eminent domain is a principal found among the various guarantees in the 5th Amendment.  Also known as "takings, " it permits the government to take private property for the public good.  A key provision, sometimes overlooked, esp by gov't, is that the former property owner must be justly compensated.  The owner, if not happy with the offer made by the gov't, can seek more through the courts; the courts determine what fair compensation should be.  In 2005, the Supremes made a horrendous ruling.  They decided that gov't can take private citizens' property and then transfer it to other private citizens.  The case involved a city of New Haven, CT move to take private property, on the waterfront, and then deed it to private corporations, namely in this case, land developers.  Here's one for the Supremes to chew on, almost ten years later.  That property, which was taken from some citizens in the name of "eminent domain" and given to other private citizens in the name of "public good," now sits vacant.  There is no development--no condos, no shops, no marina, no tax revenues coming in to New Haven.  This is yet another instance of government overreach, by the city and by the federal government in the person of the Supreme Court.  Little by little, that's what it takes......

I really enjoyed President Obama's comment that low gasoline prices aren't going to be around very long.  First, it's not as if he has to worry about them.  I wonder what type of car he drives......  And, isn't he one of those guys who wants higher gas prices to promote the as-of-yet still failed electric cars?  (Maybe we should all take investment advice from him.  After all, he picked winners in Solyndra and......)  Higher prices for gas can make it easier for government to control more and more.  Does he not at all care that lower prices are good for most Americans.  Nope, his environmental concerns (Gee, how has he really done with China and India on those?)  outweigh that lower oil prices make it easier for Americans to drive to work, to heat their homes and businesses,  Those extra savings allow Americans to spend money on other things--goods and services.  I'm pretty in this, and everything else in is agenda, the President doesn't give a rip about you and me.

Hmmm......  Is this "follow the money" redux?  I see the state ed dept has switched from using the ACT to using the SAT for the state high school tests.  Where to start?  I don't know the financial details, but I'll bet they are interesting.  The contract with the SAT folks runs three years.  Does that mean there's a good chance the ACT will be back then?  If schools are wondering about the continuity of test results (Remember teacher and school evaluations are heavily based on test results now.) with this change, what about a possible change back in three years?  I did get a chuckle out of some knee-jerk reactions to the change.  "But we've been preparing students to take the ACT......"  Aha!  There, folks, is a major problem (certainly not the only one) with test, test, test.  It's not at all about learning, is it?  How the politicians and corporate-types can still claim it is with straight faces is beyond me.

3 comments:

Grant said...

I have to say that I find it quite interesting that you can give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt on her quote regarding seeing Russia from her front porch (which she didn't really say anyway) but yet you continue to trot out the tired Pelosi, "we have to sign it ..." quote. The context of the Pelosi quote makes it quite clear that she was not saying even close to what you seem to indicate. Here is the full quote ....

'“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation — innovation begins in the classroom — clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon."'

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

Ron Marinucci said...

Right you are. And it is sometimes dangerous and inaccurate to take things (comments) out of context. This clearly is--and isn't.

I guess this is a matter of opinion, but any bill nearly 1,000 pages in length (not the 2-3,000 pages often claimed, although regulations are a different matter) is far too long. And that merely feeds into the "fog," doesn't it?

And that doesn't disclaim that I heard on the radio, right from his own lips, John Dingell claim to be "an author" of the bill, then also admit, "I can't know everything that's in it." (Getting up there in age myself, I have some sympathy for him in that regard.) In addition to Dingell, there was John Conyers, on Detroit television admitting he "didn't have time" to read it. I believe it was also Alcie Hastings who admitted the same (although I'm not sure it was him).

Big--too big. The bill, the government. I suppose we'll disagree on that, though.

Grant said...

No, we won't disagree on either the bill or the government being too big. I agree on both counts.

I would have loved to see a more-streamlined reform of healthcare but that wasn't in the cards. The Republicans were not going to play along with anything and we all got screwed by both sides.