"Storm Brewing...."

That was the news headline.  Then listening to the weather report, it appears the "storm" will drop an inch or two overnight tomorrow and maybe another inch during the next day.  When did three inches of snow begin to constitute a storm?

A couple days ago, I asked some guys, with all of this cold weather, where is Algore when we need him? One guy chuckled, "Counting his money."  Another suggested he's made $100 million with this global warming scam.  Isn't that more than Bernie Madoff made?  I don't know.

Let's see if I have this straight.  The Ryan/Murray budget deal allows Congress to increase spending, including funding on ObamaCare.  Revenue will be raised--that is, taxes--to pay for the increased spending. The deficit will go up for the next few years, at least.  The sequester is kaput and the 2011 deal that required a one dollar cut in spending for every new borrowed dollar is history.  In return, somewhere up the road--eight or ten years, when many of these bozos will no longer be in office--Congress agrees it will reduce spending, cutting the deficit.  Is that it?  And we're supposed to believe Congress will slice spending, instead of once again negotiating another kick the can down the road deal?

Shame on Paul Ryan.  For such a smart guy, how can he fall into this Democrat trap yet again?  Rubio did with immigration and the gang of eight or however many it was.  That's how the Dems win all of the time; they make promises they have no intention of keeping.  The Republicans are dumb enough to believe them again and again.

And, if I have this right, the deal is good because Reps can eliminate the controversy over the budget and any possible shutdown.  Oh, although it's the Dems who force the shutdowns, the Reps are blamed and the Lamestream media swallow the bait, hook, line, and sinker.  But with the Ryan/Murray deal, the Reps can focuse in 2014 on talking about ObamaCare.  Hmmm......  Is that all the Reps plan to do, talk?  If they were really concerned about the harm ObamaCare is doing to millions of Americans--now and in the not too distant future--shouldn't they stop talking and do something right now?  Why not submit a budget that defunds ObamaCare.  Let the Dems vote not or Obama veto.  Then the target is on the backs of the Dems and Obama, with what?, about 60% of Americans opposed to ObamaCare.  But no, the Reps want to talk.

And did you hear that sanctimonious Boehner today, ripping the critics of the budget deal?  He boasts that he came to DC to cut spending, to reduce the deficit. Yeah, right.  How many campaign promises with that has he broken?  Yet, he has the temerity to find these critics, "despicable" (I think that's the word he used). But dishonesty, lying, breaking promises aren't "despicable?"  Oh, I forgot.  Honesty (and a respectful shame) is no longer a virtue among establishment Republicans and, of course, most Democrats.

Where, oh where, is my third party to relieve us of these boobs??????

Is It Time?

Abraham Lincoln, in all of his wisdom, once suggested that once people figure out that their government is not constrained by the laws, they will conclude that neither are they.

Perhaps some have already figured this.

Our government has conferred benefits on people and groups it favors and has used its authority to punish or at least deter its enemies.  It has broken the law, many times over.

I'm not just talking about Obama, although this has reached outlandish heights the past five years.

Need proof?  The President and his supporters, in the face of criticism of ObamaCare, have repeatedly said, "It's settled law."  Now, we'll ignore the open ignorance of American history here (laws that have been passed and then repealed).  But ObamaCare isn't "settled law."  The President, in unconstitutional action after unconstitutional action, has changed the law again and again.  How can a President unilaterally change a Congressionally enacted piece of legislation so that, essentially, it's not the same law?  He can do it because Congress lets him.  He can do it because the Supremes let him.  He can do it because the LameStream media are in the tank for him.  He can do it because Americans are too comfortable; they are far more concerned with American Idol, the NFL, etc.  (I will concede that our politicians take no backseat to the Romans in offering "bread and circuses.")

I won't go into either, but check out the "Dream Act" (illegal immigration) and the actions of the IRS (and anyone who believes it was mid-level IRS agents in Cincinnati instead of orders from the White House must still believe the moon is made of green cheese).  And there are more examples.

At least the outrage--in Congress, within the courts, among the US populace--over FDR's blatant attempt to undo the checks and balances principle of the US constitutional system made him retreat.  But today there is no reaction.  Not only is this President acting unconstitutionally, he's also acting detrimentally.  And he has plenty of aiders and abettors.

Opportunity Costs?

In economics, an opportunity cost is the value of what is foregone in order to pursue a course of action.  Unfortunately, it seems that today's economists, at least those who side with the administration (and, well, Democrats in general), only include the horrific opportunity costs of opting to follow another plan.  There are also, quite logically, brighter scenarios that might well happen, too.

That's how the final result of the auto bailout is now being portrayed.  "The cost to US taxpayers for the auto bailout is only $11 billion."  Yep, "only."  (Should we quibble that it's just the GM bailout that cost $11 billion, that the entire cost is closer to $15 or $16 billion?  Ah, to the gov't, that is just that, quibbling.  I recall a number of school administrators, when approached about how they waste/fritter away money, saying, "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket."  None of them, none, ever realized how a drop here and a drop there can add up to significant savings.  After all, it wasn't their money they were spending.  I believe it was the late US Senator Everett Dirksen who once said, "A few million here and a few million there and soon you're talking about some real money."  But I won't quibble......)

And the standard line being fed to an eagerly awaiting Lamestream media is about opportunity cost. Think of the terrible things that could have happened had the bailout not occurred!  Yes, millions of jobs lost; billions of dollars of individual savings gone; a significant decrease in production; cats and dogs sleeping together; and worse.

First, nobody knows what would have happened had the US gov't not bailed out GM and Chrysler.  Yep, they might have gone bankrupt (but that certainly doesn't seem to bother many in the federal gov't now about Detroit!).  That terrible scenario might well have happened.  Nobody knows, certainly not the economists, who always hedge their bets with "on the one hand, but on the other...."  (That's why Harry Truman was always looking for "a one-armed economist," not because he was a sadist.)  The auto companies might have come out even better than now, without the billions in costs to the US taxpayers.  That's the other side of opportunity costs--the positive alternative scenario.  All that money might have been spent in better, more productive ways--or not spent at all.  Again, nobody knows for sure, but it's an equally likely scenario.

I'm guessing, too, that the auto companies wouldn't have been allowed to fold--not allowed by private investors.  After all, look at Detroit, a failing place if there is any.  And there's not a lot of reason for optimism.  Yet, there are investors who are spending money on the city.  The Tigers' owner is one.  So is others.  If people are willing to spend money on the bleakness called Detroit--to eventually recuperate their investment-surely there were some who were going to use private funds for the auto companies.  Again, I don't have a crystal ball, but that sure seem likely.

And, why were GM and Chrysler bailed out?  "Too big to fail?"  As I noted above, that doesn't seem to be the case with the city of Detroit, at least not as far as the feds are concerned.  Maybe, just maybe, had they failed, it would have been just desserts.  For decades it was understood in Detroit that the auto makers were producing a pretty lousy product.  They were making poor deals with the unions, while compensating quite well executives who were making the poor deals.  Why should taxpayers pick up the tab for this?

And, who really was bailed out?  Not the bondholders.  Not the suppliers who were owed money.  Not many mid-level managers.  Not retirees with their pensions.  It was the unions and their workers.  Why, then, the bailout?  It was because the federal government decided to pick who wins and who loses.

That's a dangerous proposition, very much so.  So, the feds can determine success and failure, using or not using, other people's money?  That's bad precedent to set, although this wasn't the first time it was done and surely won't be the last.  As long as politics are involved, gov't officials--elected and appointed--won't necessarily do what's right, but what's expedient, what's best for them.

I sure would like a bailout.  But, my problem is I've done nothing wrong.  I've done all the right things. Growing up in the shadows of the Ford Rouge Complex (If the wind blew from the wrong direction, soot pellets could be found on our cars!), I studied hard, found a way to get to an Ivy League college (Amherst), graduate, get a job.  I continued on with my education with three graduate degrees, worked hard, paid my bills.  When the bills began to add up or I sniffed bigger ones on the horizon (such as paying for my son's college education), I went out and got other jobs.  (At one time in the '90s, I was drawing paychecks from five different employers.)  Oh, and of course, we didn't qualify for any federal aid for college, nope--I guess I worked too hard and too much.  I didn't do the stupid stuff GM and Chrysler did, so maybe I'm the stupid one after all--not getting bailed out by the feds.

Grrr....  "Only $11 billion...."

"Poisoned?"

The past few days I've been bouncing around in my mind an interesting concept.  Have we been "poisoned" the past few decades?

I don't mean physically poisoned, where we become ill or worse.  But have our minds been poisoned?  That is, have we been led to believe ideas that have caused us to become less than we were?

For instance, has the welfare state created much of the malaise now affecting the US?  Of course, if one thinks there is no malaise, then there is no discussion.  But I think there is and that there is ample evidence to support that.

Look at ourselves, out culture, our values.  Look at our cities.  Look at our governments, all levels, and the politicians who run them.  Are we at the point of no return?

Has the welfare mentality become so pervasive that some people consider welfare a right, something that they deserve?  Certainly there are people who need help and they should get it.  But a conversation last weekend is revealing.  A friend asked me, in context, "Why do they [those getting welfare payments] keep having kids?"  Now, of course, many welfare folks don't have lots and lots of kids.  But many do and my friend wanted to know why in light of, well, having lots of kids.  My answer was, "Because they get more money with each kid."  Now, these parents don't get paid, per se, but do get more in food stamps, housing credits, etc.  And the amount can vary upward depending on the state of residence.  Perhaps here I'm being far too general, but I think this happens far too often.

Have the media and education establishment poisoned Americans to think the government--at whatever level--is best for running things, including our lives?  Do most people think that the politicians and bureaucrats in government make things better, in spite of the realities/facts?

Have things been so dumbed-down that we have come to accept as "classic," "superior," etc. things which are, in fact, quite mediocre?

That is, have Americans been mentally poisoned so that they have come to accept things that they shouldn't accept?

Sun AM Musings

This AM's run was started in 11 degrees.  But it warmed up quickly.  Two hours later when I finished, it was already up to 12 degrees.  I just checked a few minutes ago, about five hours after starting my morning run, and it's now 15 degrees--a veritable heat wave?

I was listening to the radio in the car the other day, something I ordinarily don't do.  And, the station that was on doesn't ordinarily play music as its attraction; it's "talk radio," although "blather radio" is often more fitting.  Between segments (Is that what the technical term is, "segments?"), a song was played and, frankly, it hurt my ears to listen.  It was squeaky, nasally (not in a country-and-western style, though), and just didn't sound very good at all.  The host broke in not long afterward, a minute or less, and started talking about how great the song was, how we should listen carefully to it (I couldn't make out the words/lyrics due to the squeaky, nasally, etc. voice.), and how "very talented" the "artist" is.  As a matter-of-fact, I wouldn't have been able to identify the noisemaker (I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I hesitate to call whoever this was/is an "artist."), but certainly "talented" wouldn't not have been among my choice of words--never!--to characterize the guy.

This played into what I've thought for a good many years, that what passes for music is merely noise.  If music is "melodic," then what much of what has been passed off as "music" of the last few decades is hardly that.  It's just noise, sounds--and not very pleasant ones to listen to either.  And the so-called "singers"...well, if we stick with "melodic," then there aren't many singers out there.

No doubt some will point to the many search-for-talent shows on the boob tube to refute my views.  Maybe they would be right.  But what little I know of these shows (Are they also consider "reality" shows?), aren't the judges on them just other people who make noise?  So, if all they know is "noise," then...?

We can add a lot of more modern art to that, too.  Again, I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but perhaps our vision has been hampered, even manipulated.  Everything else seems to have been watered down, things like education, thinking, the media, etc., too.  Even what's considered decent, civil behavior has been dumbed down, so why not these?  Again, probably just the curmudgeonly ramblings of an old coot.

Out this weekend, some people started talking about some guy named "Hanna."  I don't remember his first name, but apparently I was supposed to know who he is.  I guess he's on some television program and is a hot shot.  After a few minutes of banter, in which the others were making comments about this guy, I asked, "Who is he?  Am I supposed to know him?"  I guess I was, but I didn't and still don't.  Someone said, somewhat incredulously, to me "All that knowledge in your head and you don't know who ______ Hanna is?"  Nope....  When I do the weekend crosswords--Sats are tougher than Suns, even the Sun NY Times--the clues I have trouble solving are those dealing with recent (past couple of decades) movies, music, and television.  Karen or Bopper often help me fill in those....  Perhaps I am just a cultural Neanderthal?

The World Gone Mad

I see in the newspaper this AM that a number of MLB players have signed contracts with new teams.  Imagine a .229 hitter getting $60 million for four years?!?!?!  Some other guy received more for .259 and 23 HRs?!?!?!  And the former Tiger, coming off a suspension for drug use, signed for $12 million a year for several years.  Of course, the millions of dollars flowed, but most of the names of the players were not at all familiar to me.

If only 25% of what Clarence Thomas writes about Democrat political leaders in his autobiography is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not all true), those Dem political leaders are the scumbags I've always thought they are/were.  Ted Kennedy (I will refrain from bringing up Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopechne--oh, I just did bring it up.  "Lion of the Senate?"  More like "Lyin' of the Senate."), Metzenbaum, Leahy, the list goes on.  And who comes across as among the slimiest?  Joe Biden.  Look someone in the eye, pat on the shoulder, and make a promise about something, knowing it's a lie, never intended to be kept.  No shame, no dishonor, no sense of character--none.  (But always remember, as if they ever let us forget, "But Bush lied.")  Again, if only 25% of what he writes is true....  And, from both parties (Look at what the Republicans have done in this state the past couple of years.), some of these guys aren't particularly bright.  If just a fraction of this is accurate, there are some pretty dim bulbs running our country.  Does that mean dishonesty and stupidity are qualities desirable in a politician?  Just asking....

So, unemployment numbers are down.  Good, except that 40% or more of the new jobs have been government jobs.  Hmmm......  Gee, are the Dems getting worried about the '14 elections?  Surely they wouldn't try to buy the election, would they?

How goofy is Michigan weather?  Phew, we managed to dodge that big storm south of us that ran from Texas eastward.  I guess Columbus, Ohio received 7 or 8 inches!  But last Tue AM I ran with temperatures at 56/57 degrees.  Wed AM's run was in 25 degrees.  This AM, with my blind buddy, was 19 degrees with a pretty stiff breeze.

Out to do The Saturday Stumper......

Random Thoughts at the End of a Tough Week

In reading a couple of books over the past few weeks, I am struck by this.  Once a person has a job in DC, with the federal gov't, that person always has a job, some job, with the feds, for life.  These appointees (or even elected officials) bounce from federal job to federal job.

Is this how far we have fallen?  In an e-mail exchange about a vocal Congressional critic of the President, talk was of an IRS audit of this Congressman.  It's not just that this administration uses the machinery of the Leviathan (the federal government) to punish or at least threaten or cow its critics. That's not the worse part.  It's that we all know or at least expect it will happen. Where is the outrage?  Oh, it lasts about two or three minutes, that's about it.  Where are the Democrats on this?  (The Republicans, the opposition can be dismissed as, well, the opposition--that is if they show any concern at all. And the establishment Republicans are once again on vacation on this.)  Oh, they complain about the Tea Partiers, oh yeah they do.  But who have the Tea Partiers audited?  Whose phones have they tapped?  Who have they stripped of licenses to do business? Yep, they, not a government run amok with power, are the real danger!   

Is there any US institution more intolerant than education?  I'm not sure there is.  From the public and private K-12 schools to the colleges and universities, there is little room for one who bucks the so-called "conventional wisdom."  Ostracism, name-calling, etc. greet one who doesn't buy into the latest credo.  Hmmm......  I thought education was, ultimately, concerned with the free exchange of ideas.  Ideas succeed or fail on their own merits, not whether they fit the currently accepted mantras.  I guess I thought wrong.

In the same vein, or at least a similar one, why does it seem that to the Democrats, "bipartisanship" (Oh, I detest that word!) is a one-way street.  Note recent votes in Congress or even your own state legislature.  Note the President's mode of operation, "My way or the highway."  This is opposed to W. Bush, who caved in to "bipartisanship" (Oh, I detest that word!) and fouled up so many things.

How ignorant are people?  They still hold to what the media have told them, repeatedly, "But Bush lied."  (Of course that's reinforced again and again by the Democrats.)  Yet, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest lie, lie, and lie again and people don't at all react.  Oh, those few who do criticize are marginalized, if not polarized.

I wonder how journalists look at themselves in the mirror.  Do those who think, who are honest, not care that their profession has been hijacked by disingenuous, dishonest people?  Or, are there no honest, concerned journalists?  I won't be the pot calling the kettle black and will admit that there are few teachers willing to openly criticize what many privately rant and rave about--that is, those who aren't sheep (see the previous paragraph).

I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh.  Buffoon usually comes to mind when I think of him.  But I heard him say something quite funny and profound today.  (I don't normally listen to him, but I picked up Bopper from a half-day of school--another teacher boondoggle--and we were playing games with the car radio.)  A caller mentioned the US media exploiting the death of Nelson Mandela, comparing--favorably, of course--their messiah Obama to Mandela.  Limbaugh interrupted the caller, saying, "How does Mandela stack up?"  I chuckled right out loud.