"Kardashian is hoping for major weight loss!"
Yep, that's Huffington Post's lead teaser in one of it's pop-ups on my computer.
You see - that's the "real news". One wonders if it perhaps should be carried on a separate page entitled: "Huffington For Kids."
Yep, the real news would not be the recent Supreme Court decisions - their impact on this country - whether Proposition 8 in California was legal - if DOMA needed to be reversed - whether the state of Texas is truly wacko - and predicting whether or not Alabama and Missippippi will now decide they can go back to the 50's with their voting restrictions.
Honest, it is not even the Zimmerman trial - covered in it's entirety by Brighthouse's news channel 9 - nor is it about Paula Deen ( which we'll save for a future blog).
A popular media source informs us that the real priority in our country is to determine whether or not naming a baby "North West" really was a good choice.
Yep, that'll keep us all awake this week. Many sleepless nights of worry ahead.
What do I worry about? Well, important things - like proper historical research:
Did Paul Revere really proclaim: "One if by land - Two if by sea - and Three if the Widow Brown is home alone tonight?"
Maybe I can ask Kim and Kanye.
"Yeezus"?
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
JUST WONDERING
If those folks in Pittsburgh - so sure the city desperately needs professional basketball - are a little put off by the lousy coverage of the NBA finals in the PostGazette. It was like playing "Where's Waldo?"
Extra! Extra!: Michelle Bachman has decided Snowden is definitely a traitor. So, can we assume "It's a done deal?"
Where will the Pirates end up this year? I reviewed USA Todays baseball coverage and found - with the exception of their own division - they'd have been in first place in every other one. Please tell ESPN.
So, when you fire the guy who founded your business, one that had a 23% gain in the most recent 1/4 and revenue of 2.48 billion in the latest fiscal year - do you think it's fair to conclude somebody might be PO'd at George Zimmer - and "didn't like the way he looked"?
When your 7,000 signature petition to the White House to rule against teaching creation in public schools (already agreed upon by The Supreme Court) needs another 93,000 petitions to be considered by Obama, want to wager a guess how many of the 7K -when on their deathbed- will blow the dust off the family Bible and frantically search for loopholes?
Is it just a coincidence that those yahoos in Congress who are still busy looking for loopholes of their own as to the current restrictive standards for the banking industry receive "7 times" more campaign contributions from Da bankers than those who resist the bank lobbyists and who, correctly, fear another 2008 debacle?
Why are the Republicans continuing to resist filling the federal Court of Appeals openings for the District of Columbia Circuit and accusing Obama of "court packing" - a political strategy they had no problem with when "W' was President?
And, not to be overlooked, did you notice: Democrats have gone viral over the GOP tactics threatening filibusters to get their way. Which makes you wonder: "Does it matter not that Democrats allegedly blocked four times as many confirmation votes via filibusters against Bush nominees than the GOP has done against Obama's selections?"
Is voting in a Congressional election getting to the point when - if we still actually care - we'll just flip a coin - or simply not bother at all - go sip our tea - and watch as this once great country slowly goes to Hell.
After writing several blogs arguing that ethical and illegal business violations will continue to grow exponentially until such a time as we actually punish these guys as criminals, should I now be happy with SEC's forthcoming decision to do just that in the future - or wait for even more creative loopholes?
Again, just wondering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Extra! Extra!: Michelle Bachman has decided Snowden is definitely a traitor. So, can we assume "It's a done deal?"
Where will the Pirates end up this year? I reviewed USA Todays baseball coverage and found - with the exception of their own division - they'd have been in first place in every other one. Please tell ESPN.
So, when you fire the guy who founded your business, one that had a 23% gain in the most recent 1/4 and revenue of 2.48 billion in the latest fiscal year - do you think it's fair to conclude somebody might be PO'd at George Zimmer - and "didn't like the way he looked"?
When your 7,000 signature petition to the White House to rule against teaching creation in public schools (already agreed upon by The Supreme Court) needs another 93,000 petitions to be considered by Obama, want to wager a guess how many of the 7K -when on their deathbed- will blow the dust off the family Bible and frantically search for loopholes?
Is it just a coincidence that those yahoos in Congress who are still busy looking for loopholes of their own as to the current restrictive standards for the banking industry receive "7 times" more campaign contributions from Da bankers than those who resist the bank lobbyists and who, correctly, fear another 2008 debacle?
Why are the Republicans continuing to resist filling the federal Court of Appeals openings for the District of Columbia Circuit and accusing Obama of "court packing" - a political strategy they had no problem with when "W' was President?
And, not to be overlooked, did you notice: Democrats have gone viral over the GOP tactics threatening filibusters to get their way. Which makes you wonder: "Does it matter not that Democrats allegedly blocked four times as many confirmation votes via filibusters against Bush nominees than the GOP has done against Obama's selections?"
Is voting in a Congressional election getting to the point when - if we still actually care - we'll just flip a coin - or simply not bother at all - go sip our tea - and watch as this once great country slowly goes to Hell.
After writing several blogs arguing that ethical and illegal business violations will continue to grow exponentially until such a time as we actually punish these guys as criminals, should I now be happy with SEC's forthcoming decision to do just that in the future - or wait for even more creative loopholes?
Again, just wondering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Monday, June 10, 2013
Why Is It?
Why is it - that it seems the reportedly 93,895 lawyers in Florida all appear to advertise on my TV? Who has that kind of money?
I have interacted with both defense and plaintiff attorneys for about 35 years and found most of them to be honest. For those who might disagree, "being clever does not necessarily mean you're also dishonest".We need attorneys. Maybe just not 94,000.
This blog is just pleading for a more level playing field in this protractive attorney/insurance company debacle and is partially based upon a feeling that the media - for years and years - have pretty much given the lawyers a free pass as to accuracy in their television ads.
Wouldn't you like to turn on the "6'clock News"and see an Investigative Report on attorney fees, legal conflict of interest, disbarment statistics, misleading ads, ambulance chasers, runners - rules for contacting the parties involved - and the bottom line net recovery by the victim?
When will our curiosity to determine the net recovery of Lottery winners include a similar desire to know the net recovery in a big legal settlement in the papers? The media answers questions only about the first.
The legal ads portray the attorneys as modern day "Robin Hoods" - taking from "the rich insurance companies" to give to "the poor." Any day now, I expect to see two really overexposed legal "hams" adorn themselves with bows, arrows, feathered hats, and pointed shoes.
That "Robin Hood" comparison might be accurate assuming "Robin and His Hoods" kept 33 1/3 to 40% of their take from King John.
Are all the insurance companies guilty of nefarious claim practices as the attorney ads would seem to imply?" If not, what percentage are good insurance companies - or do attorneys see that as an oxymoron?
Look! I'm all for cleaning up the unfair claim practices of any suspect insurer
and my insurance background/ethics involvement will attest to this.
However, I'm just not supportive of placing by inference "all insurers" in this same "bad egg" basket, as so many of the law firms continue to do in what I see as "misleading'' advertisements.
Why is it - I believe we continue to be deluged with these ads without our truly good investigative reporters and/or legislators taking a good look at the accuracy of those ads? Maybe I just missed them.
Why is it - I'm starting to believe the alleged silence is simply because it's not just the military who enjoy membership in the "Good Old Boys" club?
I have interacted with both defense and plaintiff attorneys for about 35 years and found most of them to be honest. For those who might disagree, "being clever does not necessarily mean you're also dishonest".We need attorneys. Maybe just not 94,000.
This blog is just pleading for a more level playing field in this protractive attorney/insurance company debacle and is partially based upon a feeling that the media - for years and years - have pretty much given the lawyers a free pass as to accuracy in their television ads.
Wouldn't you like to turn on the "6'clock News"and see an Investigative Report on attorney fees, legal conflict of interest, disbarment statistics, misleading ads, ambulance chasers, runners - rules for contacting the parties involved - and the bottom line net recovery by the victim?
When will our curiosity to determine the net recovery of Lottery winners include a similar desire to know the net recovery in a big legal settlement in the papers? The media answers questions only about the first.
The legal ads portray the attorneys as modern day "Robin Hoods" - taking from "the rich insurance companies" to give to "the poor." Any day now, I expect to see two really overexposed legal "hams" adorn themselves with bows, arrows, feathered hats, and pointed shoes.
That "Robin Hood" comparison might be accurate assuming "Robin and His Hoods" kept 33 1/3 to 40% of their take from King John.
Are all the insurance companies guilty of nefarious claim practices as the attorney ads would seem to imply?" If not, what percentage are good insurance companies - or do attorneys see that as an oxymoron?
Look! I'm all for cleaning up the unfair claim practices of any suspect insurer
and my insurance background/ethics involvement will attest to this.
However, I'm just not supportive of placing by inference "all insurers" in this same "bad egg" basket, as so many of the law firms continue to do in what I see as "misleading'' advertisements.
Why is it - I believe we continue to be deluged with these ads without our truly good investigative reporters and/or legislators taking a good look at the accuracy of those ads? Maybe I just missed them.
Why is it - I'm starting to believe the alleged silence is simply because it's not just the military who enjoy membership in the "Good Old Boys" club?
Friday, June 7, 2013
THE PARTY LINE
Yeah, I know the title of this blog suggests yet another attack on the two political parties in this country. Not so!
The "party line" subject pertains to us as kids who dared to listen in to the conversations of other folks who shared our party line - and, yeah, we did get punished if caught.
But, it appears this is a different time. Not only are party lines a thing of the past, apparently, so is punishment. Ask Sanford and Weiner.
We have an amazing ability to forget and forgive. Partially that is due to the fact we are a forgiving culture and partially it's due to the fact the last devastating act committed by someone or some group is quickly surpassed by the news of a new and more devastating one.
This time the act in question was that of collecting a massive data base of telephone usage by millions of Americans who are not or were not suspected of doing anything wrong.
The next step was having to listen to 'the spinners"(not musicians per se)The initial responses were varied: "We need to relax. This isn't anything new". (Harry Reid). (This also apparently makes it OK).
Because we want to be unbiased, we also offer the observation from Georgian Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss: "I am unaware of any citizen who has registered a complaint about the program." ( Hey, anybody out there who had a clue your calls were being monitored?)
The administration hastened to advise us that no conversations were listened to" "It was just "metadata that was gathered - and patterns looked for - that would expose terrorists". (That's reassuring - who on earth would believe this administration would ever lie?)
You got to wish we had elected that Illinois Senator who advised us protectively in 2007: "No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime." (Ah, s--t - we did elect him - twice!)
Of all the Senate members who came up with a reasonable comment about this so-called scandal - who would have thought it would be our globe trotting Republican member from Arizona - John McCain?
"Obviously if they are trying to track bad people, then I think there's legitimacy to it, but is there sufficient oversight? Is it sufficiently narrow in scope? We just need to hear more about it, but it is a matter of concern." (a-h-h, Johnny, that's why we voted for you.).
But, I want to retract that. Who wants to be investigated next because they uttered "The Party Line"?
The "party line" subject pertains to us as kids who dared to listen in to the conversations of other folks who shared our party line - and, yeah, we did get punished if caught.
But, it appears this is a different time. Not only are party lines a thing of the past, apparently, so is punishment. Ask Sanford and Weiner.
We have an amazing ability to forget and forgive. Partially that is due to the fact we are a forgiving culture and partially it's due to the fact the last devastating act committed by someone or some group is quickly surpassed by the news of a new and more devastating one.
This time the act in question was that of collecting a massive data base of telephone usage by millions of Americans who are not or were not suspected of doing anything wrong.
The next step was having to listen to 'the spinners"(not musicians per se)The initial responses were varied: "We need to relax. This isn't anything new". (Harry Reid). (This also apparently makes it OK).
Because we want to be unbiased, we also offer the observation from Georgian Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss: "I am unaware of any citizen who has registered a complaint about the program." ( Hey, anybody out there who had a clue your calls were being monitored?)
The administration hastened to advise us that no conversations were listened to" "It was just "metadata that was gathered - and patterns looked for - that would expose terrorists". (That's reassuring - who on earth would believe this administration would ever lie?)
You got to wish we had elected that Illinois Senator who advised us protectively in 2007: "No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime." (Ah, s--t - we did elect him - twice!)
Of all the Senate members who came up with a reasonable comment about this so-called scandal - who would have thought it would be our globe trotting Republican member from Arizona - John McCain?
"Obviously if they are trying to track bad people, then I think there's legitimacy to it, but is there sufficient oversight? Is it sufficiently narrow in scope? We just need to hear more about it, but it is a matter of concern." (a-h-h, Johnny, that's why we voted for you.).
But, I want to retract that. Who wants to be investigated next because they uttered "The Party Line"?
Monday, June 3, 2013
THE MONEY GAME AND THE WOLF
A short blog.
You've got to laugh through your tears as to what is happening politically.
Congress calls in Apples CEO to chastise Apple for how they used foreign investments and our current tax laws to save one heckuva lot of tax dollars when Apple might have helped bail out this countries finances had it acted in the country's best interests.
It reminds me of the story about the Dad who gave his son a dollar if he would forego eating dinner and go up to bed instead.
The meal might have consisted solely of Brussel Sprouts. The story does not inform us here. Therefore, we are left to assume that money was tight, so the son said, "OK." and grabbed the cash.
When Dad finished his dinner, he sneaked up to his son's bedroom - found him fast asleep - and retrieved the dollar bill - which he put back in his wallet.
So, who supported the liberal tax laws allowing corporations to keep their money overseas?
After exhaustive research we find that it was Congress who allowed the handling of overseas profits to continue. There is so much out there about this subject that it would be unfair to "cherry pick" only those articles that support my blog theme here. So, some sparse comments:
The party of "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"' were probably quick to blame the people on the other side of the aisle - or at the very least - The White House.
Yet, we can only assume it was solely the Republicans who were responsible as the Democrats would never have allowed such a faux pas. We know this because we have been diligently listening to the liberal media and reading various blogs in lockstep that it is the Republicans - and only the Republicans - who are so tied into accepting Corporate largesse.
Matthew 7 (1 through 3):
"Judge not, that you be not judged For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with each measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your eye?"
Told you it would be a short one.
You've got to laugh through your tears as to what is happening politically.
Congress calls in Apples CEO to chastise Apple for how they used foreign investments and our current tax laws to save one heckuva lot of tax dollars when Apple might have helped bail out this countries finances had it acted in the country's best interests.
It reminds me of the story about the Dad who gave his son a dollar if he would forego eating dinner and go up to bed instead.
The meal might have consisted solely of Brussel Sprouts. The story does not inform us here. Therefore, we are left to assume that money was tight, so the son said, "OK." and grabbed the cash.
When Dad finished his dinner, he sneaked up to his son's bedroom - found him fast asleep - and retrieved the dollar bill - which he put back in his wallet.
So, who supported the liberal tax laws allowing corporations to keep their money overseas?
After exhaustive research we find that it was Congress who allowed the handling of overseas profits to continue. There is so much out there about this subject that it would be unfair to "cherry pick" only those articles that support my blog theme here. So, some sparse comments:
The party of "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"' were probably quick to blame the people on the other side of the aisle - or at the very least - The White House.
Yet, we can only assume it was solely the Republicans who were responsible as the Democrats would never have allowed such a faux pas. We know this because we have been diligently listening to the liberal media and reading various blogs in lockstep that it is the Republicans - and only the Republicans - who are so tied into accepting Corporate largesse.
Matthew 7 (1 through 3):
"Judge not, that you be not judged For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with each measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your eye?"
Told you it would be a short one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)