The root of the question is a view expressed by many who are angry at just about everything.
They contantly attempt to remind us about the many threats we are facing from the actions of Muslims, Hispanics, Big Government, and Jenny Craig .
They argue there are too many of us who don't really care what happens to our country and they manage to do this without wearing tie-dyed clothing. Mom would be happy to hear again that "we're going to hell in a hand basket."
These critics often describe senior's action plans as: "Just don't disturb our status quo. - we've fought all the good battles - we're now officially pacifists." ( If true, one assumes they surveyed the ones who pulled their money out way before the most recent market collapse and they definitely don't read my blogs.)
This blogger disagrees with their conclusion for a bunch of reasons.
One is that I am a strong believer in the "plateau" theory addressed in a previous blog. This is the argument that one never "plateaus": we either move forward or backward - up or down..
Thus, we conclude seniors aren't "plateauing". All of us have an opinion we are willing to share with any homeless person we might happen to trip over, as well as the anonymous plane passenger, seated beside us to whom we reveal what weird Uncle Ernie really did on the farm.
It reminds one of the Fred Neil/Nilsson song, "Everybody's Talking." The irony has not escaped me that the theme of the song was the speakers desire to retreat from other people to the ocean."(What, the Gulf isn't as good?)
I also disagree becaused of moving fulltime to Florida. Here I engage in "wheel to wheel" combat every day in our little corner of the world and will willingly move off the road - even park on the grass - upon observing a senior driving a red painted vehicle anywhere within a 1/2 mile radius.
Folks, neither pacifity nor acceptance are likely words to be associated with these folks.
It's actually more like all those seniors who adopted that whole delayed gratification thing when younger are now upset and more than willing to fight back - even if they may not always recall the source of their displeasure.
There may be a reasonable explanation why a Preacher in Gainesville, "Florida," with a congregation of at best 40 to 50 people, is causing such a rumpus worldwide.
In Pittsburgh 40 to 50 was the size of the annual clean-up crew at the church. Another saving grace is that we were content to merely mispell the Quran - rather than attempting to commit fratricide.
Yep, "passive-acceptive" is not what I'd use to describe America's seniors as well as most of it's inhabitants. I recently read a few "letters to the editor" that support my conclusion. (Darn Harry, you're right again.)
One writer - a flight attendant - was defending the members of her trade. She used as examples: parents allowing their kids to ring call buttons to place orders for fast food and men who demand food be served to them while the attendants are preparing for landing.
My favorite example was the one about women complaining they can't sit by the window because they just had their hair done. (please, no more misogynist letters.)
Another non-pacifist - a restaurant owner many times over - complained that the plight of the economy as seen by the restauranteers is the result of last year's raise of the minimum wage to
the astronomical sum of $7.25 per hour. One assumes the other stuff such as smaller portions, higher prices, rude help, failing to negotiate well with Sysco, and the general shape of the economy had no impact.
The third writer is decrying the possibility that all of us attempting to purchase new vehicles in the future will be forced to put out extra for a "cost additive auto warning device" because a few folks seem to overlook the presence of their children in the car when they depart the car to do whatever.
This guy I like. It's obvious his parents spent considerable time teaching him the merits of "delayed gratification." I'll wager he never married.
Finally, one "wannabe" blogger was upset over the lack of responsibile spending in government. His cure was: "the only way to stop runaway spending is for American voters to put into office people who will attack - out-of-control spending today, not tomorrow."
Oh darn, there goes the high speed train from Tampa to Miami.
But, as my good friend Alfred E. Neumann once told me, "What, me worry?"
Luke 12: 22-34
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Good Old Rip!
Ever wonder after reading something outrageous in the news or watching someone's outlandish opinion on TV or reading a truly unsophisticated blog - not unlike this one -that you are Rip Van Winkle?
Today I read an E-mail from a relative asking if I would respond to a Fox News poll regarding the subject of banning the American flag in schools - some organization - SEIU is apparently twittering this is the politically correct thing to do. As a result 22% or about 600,000 of those voting decided that banning the flag was the right thing to do.
Sounds a little like stuffing the ballot box for the All Star game with the names of one or more of your home team favorites.
I admit that there may be something wrong with my sleeping habits. I awoke one time to find out "The Supreme's" had voted to okay the burning of our flag.
The most recent time something like this occurred - was some months ago when nine "learned" judges in an incredible 5 to 4 decision decided tht corporations were no longer just a legal entity but a person - with a person's individual rights prescribed to them.
But, Today I found out via my E-mail that my narcolepsy has reached a new peak.
Let's start off with an attempt to clarify my thinking as well as to make a confession.
I often think I'd trade all my courses and classwork knowledge for a clear definition of what "Freedom of Speech" really does mean . I admit I'm totally confused based upon the "progressive" and irrational actions of a "few" that arouse so much bile in the "many".
My love for this country is definitely in the top 10% level of patriots in this land. I also recognize my jingoist belief is not shared by everyone - and that is as it should be. My understanding of the compromise reached by our founding fathers - (some say foundling) was to see that all citizens have that right. - in addition to several others.
Some folks today are vehement in their attempts to undermine those rights. What the hell is the S.E.I.U. anyway? I'm told that in addition to twittering it's followers to vote yes on banning the display of flags in public schools it, once again, has something to do with the rights of hispanic students . I also that I'm still not quite awake yet.
How about a poll to determine who we hate most - Hispanics or Muslims.
This old goat has been around for a while. I visited a relative as a child who was" not quite right" after being the victim of mustard gas in WW-I , I also traipsed around town on both V-E and V-J Day to celebrate those victories.
Finally, I recently determined I must learn to accept that our only hope for another war victory would be if we decide to attack Grand Fenwick. So, I guess I really do qualify as a patriot.
Now, this is despite the cautionary article I read that was written written by a Christian writer who advised us against celebrating too hardy this past 4th of July. He saw this reaction as idolatrous patriotism and contravening the Bible's teachings in John 18:36 where we are instructed to pledge our sole allegiance to God.
While I can see his point I just never thought that being a patriot meant I had to give up the blessing of unconditional love. I suspect that the writer and I just got our wires crossed.
Turning the other cheek is not some strange anomaly in my eyes but, at what point do we simply say - loud and clear - "Enough is Enough!" . Not just to silly causes but to the absolutely inane things we receive on our computer. Sending them on only gives them versimilitude (look it up- I did.)
This Fox News poll prompted apparently by the SEIU rantings may be no more bothersome in the long run than the folks out there writing the vile things they espouse about our President.
Most of it is more pitiful than pitiable. The rantings are not dissimilar to the many E-mails stating this or that and for which I must go to my friend Harry Pierson for clarification, as Harry does not suffer fools willingly.
The confession part I mentioned a few paragraphs ago is to confirm yours truly as a charter member of those insensitive louts seeking humor who have occasionally made inflammatory remarks simply to get a reaction from someone. But, I don't send E-mails or write blogs for that same purpose It's just that every once in a while during my spoken verbiage I get a flare-up of "The Irish".
That's not my purpose here. I am simply trying to find a homeostasis that will allow me to read some of these oddball things in the news and not go off half-cocked.
I'm tired now and think I require a nap.
Your prayers would be appreciated.
Today I read an E-mail from a relative asking if I would respond to a Fox News poll regarding the subject of banning the American flag in schools - some organization - SEIU is apparently twittering this is the politically correct thing to do. As a result 22% or about 600,000 of those voting decided that banning the flag was the right thing to do.
Sounds a little like stuffing the ballot box for the All Star game with the names of one or more of your home team favorites.
I admit that there may be something wrong with my sleeping habits. I awoke one time to find out "The Supreme's" had voted to okay the burning of our flag.
The most recent time something like this occurred - was some months ago when nine "learned" judges in an incredible 5 to 4 decision decided tht corporations were no longer just a legal entity but a person - with a person's individual rights prescribed to them.
But, Today I found out via my E-mail that my narcolepsy has reached a new peak.
Let's start off with an attempt to clarify my thinking as well as to make a confession.
I often think I'd trade all my courses and classwork knowledge for a clear definition of what "Freedom of Speech" really does mean . I admit I'm totally confused based upon the "progressive" and irrational actions of a "few" that arouse so much bile in the "many".
My love for this country is definitely in the top 10% level of patriots in this land. I also recognize my jingoist belief is not shared by everyone - and that is as it should be. My understanding of the compromise reached by our founding fathers - (some say foundling) was to see that all citizens have that right. - in addition to several others.
Some folks today are vehement in their attempts to undermine those rights. What the hell is the S.E.I.U. anyway? I'm told that in addition to twittering it's followers to vote yes on banning the display of flags in public schools it, once again, has something to do with the rights of hispanic students . I also that I'm still not quite awake yet.
How about a poll to determine who we hate most - Hispanics or Muslims.
This old goat has been around for a while. I visited a relative as a child who was" not quite right" after being the victim of mustard gas in WW-I , I also traipsed around town on both V-E and V-J Day to celebrate those victories.
Finally, I recently determined I must learn to accept that our only hope for another war victory would be if we decide to attack Grand Fenwick. So, I guess I really do qualify as a patriot.
Now, this is despite the cautionary article I read that was written written by a Christian writer who advised us against celebrating too hardy this past 4th of July. He saw this reaction as idolatrous patriotism and contravening the Bible's teachings in John 18:36 where we are instructed to pledge our sole allegiance to God.
While I can see his point I just never thought that being a patriot meant I had to give up the blessing of unconditional love. I suspect that the writer and I just got our wires crossed.
Turning the other cheek is not some strange anomaly in my eyes but, at what point do we simply say - loud and clear - "Enough is Enough!" . Not just to silly causes but to the absolutely inane things we receive on our computer. Sending them on only gives them versimilitude (look it up- I did.)
This Fox News poll prompted apparently by the SEIU rantings may be no more bothersome in the long run than the folks out there writing the vile things they espouse about our President.
Most of it is more pitiful than pitiable. The rantings are not dissimilar to the many E-mails stating this or that and for which I must go to my friend Harry Pierson for clarification, as Harry does not suffer fools willingly.
The confession part I mentioned a few paragraphs ago is to confirm yours truly as a charter member of those insensitive louts seeking humor who have occasionally made inflammatory remarks simply to get a reaction from someone. But, I don't send E-mails or write blogs for that same purpose It's just that every once in a while during my spoken verbiage I get a flare-up of "The Irish".
That's not my purpose here. I am simply trying to find a homeostasis that will allow me to read some of these oddball things in the news and not go off half-cocked.
I'm tired now and think I require a nap.
Your prayers would be appreciated.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
THREE LITTLE WORDS
Actually, that may be a misnomer to call them three "little" words. They're not really that little to a whole lot of folks.
The three words referenced here are "I was wrong!" - something you don't hear very often. You can't help but wonder why that is.
What is it of value that you lose when you utter those words? Pride? Status? Freedom from Humiliation? The fear of losing your credibility for all time - of never being believed again?
That's a tough one to answer. Some people, like Special Agent Jethro Gibbs of NCIS, (one of our favorites) states to his folks, "You never apologize- it's a sign of weakness."
One disclaimer here. Given what I am going to attempt to explain - to paraphrase the legal ads down here -I want to make it clear, "I ain't no lawyer"" Let's go on with what I believe to be correct. I may be wrong.
By changing the pronoun from "I" to "We" in those "three little words", it appears we may be getting a glimpse of what seems to be taking place in our legal society.
Despite being frustrated by reading "so-and so" corporation paid a fine of two million dollars but did not admit any responsibility or fault", there may be extenuating factors.
Too often, a criminal matter may be settled and a civil action will follow. Think O.J. Simpson here. He was acquitted of the criminal action but found guilty in the civil matter. This is not double jeopardy. It's just two different legal actions. The problem with the second is that it does not require the same level of proof as the first.
In criminal cases - a more serious matter - the prosecution must prove that there can be no reasonable doubt that someone other than the accused has committed the crime. A civil matter is decided by the preponderance of the evidence as a legal burden of proof.
In civil matters there is a pre-trial "discovery" process wherein , via depositions - interviews - investigation, etc., one may gather evidence to hopefully establish that their legal position in a civil matter will prevail.
One such example "might" (emphasized) be the admission of guilt by a corporation in a criminal matter should they have previously uttered the statement,"We were wrong."
But, how does this relate to an individuals reluctance or downright stupidity in not admitting they were wrong in a non legal scenario?
OP-Ed writer David Brooks wrote an interesting piece for The New York Times entitled "Case of Mental Courage." He states: "In this atmosphere - - - we're all less conscious of our severe mental shortcomings and less inclined to be skeptical of our own opinions."
Brooks spoke of "confirmation bias" wherein we pick-out only evidence that supports our views.
My studies of logical inference suggests this is a better example of "inductive" rather than "deductive" reasoning. The latter is what we're taught in school - particularly in most mathematical classes. It's a building process.
Inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general - the opposite of deductive reasoning. An example was "the person looks uncomfortable - therefore, the person is uncomfortable."
I always thought of inductive as making a statement- often illogical - and then searching for examples to support that statement or argument - no matter how unreasonable. I found the "inductive" guy is not usually one who is going to admit to :"illogical fallacy."
We have recently begun the process of removing 100,000 troops in Iraq - while being extremely careful not to irrationally suggest a victory march is impending. Almost all current data suggests this decision is a direct result of Bush's "surge" decision, some time ago.
Have you heard any of his earlier surge critics now giving him credit? No, and we doubt you will.
Should they be confronted with this criticism they most likely will take the often used tact of simply changing the subject. I recently watched two leading Republican politicians, Boehner and McConnell, on Meet The Press and they "still" haven't answered David Gregory's questions.
Democrats don't get off the hook either. Apparently House Speaker Pelosi was thinking of a much smaller "swamp" than the rest of us - when she started her "draining process".
Brooks winds up his op-ed piece with:"Very few in public life habitually step back and think about the weakness in their own thinking and what they should do to compensate." ( So, is that the answer to our question? We're merely mimicing politicians?)
He then concludes with this statement, "Of all the problems that afflict this country, this is the underlying one." (Whew!)
Try using those three little words, but be prepared. In my house the response usually is , "Wait a minute. Did I really hear you say that?"
The three words referenced here are "I was wrong!" - something you don't hear very often. You can't help but wonder why that is.
What is it of value that you lose when you utter those words? Pride? Status? Freedom from Humiliation? The fear of losing your credibility for all time - of never being believed again?
That's a tough one to answer. Some people, like Special Agent Jethro Gibbs of NCIS, (one of our favorites) states to his folks, "You never apologize- it's a sign of weakness."
One disclaimer here. Given what I am going to attempt to explain - to paraphrase the legal ads down here -I want to make it clear, "I ain't no lawyer"" Let's go on with what I believe to be correct. I may be wrong.
By changing the pronoun from "I" to "We" in those "three little words", it appears we may be getting a glimpse of what seems to be taking place in our legal society.
Despite being frustrated by reading "so-and so" corporation paid a fine of two million dollars but did not admit any responsibility or fault", there may be extenuating factors.
Too often, a criminal matter may be settled and a civil action will follow. Think O.J. Simpson here. He was acquitted of the criminal action but found guilty in the civil matter. This is not double jeopardy. It's just two different legal actions. The problem with the second is that it does not require the same level of proof as the first.
In criminal cases - a more serious matter - the prosecution must prove that there can be no reasonable doubt that someone other than the accused has committed the crime. A civil matter is decided by the preponderance of the evidence as a legal burden of proof.
In civil matters there is a pre-trial "discovery" process wherein , via depositions - interviews - investigation, etc., one may gather evidence to hopefully establish that their legal position in a civil matter will prevail.
One such example "might" (emphasized) be the admission of guilt by a corporation in a criminal matter should they have previously uttered the statement,"We were wrong."
But, how does this relate to an individuals reluctance or downright stupidity in not admitting they were wrong in a non legal scenario?
OP-Ed writer David Brooks wrote an interesting piece for The New York Times entitled "Case of Mental Courage." He states: "In this atmosphere - - - we're all less conscious of our severe mental shortcomings and less inclined to be skeptical of our own opinions."
Brooks spoke of "confirmation bias" wherein we pick-out only evidence that supports our views.
My studies of logical inference suggests this is a better example of "inductive" rather than "deductive" reasoning. The latter is what we're taught in school - particularly in most mathematical classes. It's a building process.
Inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general - the opposite of deductive reasoning. An example was "the person looks uncomfortable - therefore, the person is uncomfortable."
I always thought of inductive as making a statement- often illogical - and then searching for examples to support that statement or argument - no matter how unreasonable. I found the "inductive" guy is not usually one who is going to admit to :"illogical fallacy."
We have recently begun the process of removing 100,000 troops in Iraq - while being extremely careful not to irrationally suggest a victory march is impending. Almost all current data suggests this decision is a direct result of Bush's "surge" decision, some time ago.
Have you heard any of his earlier surge critics now giving him credit? No, and we doubt you will.
Should they be confronted with this criticism they most likely will take the often used tact of simply changing the subject. I recently watched two leading Republican politicians, Boehner and McConnell, on Meet The Press and they "still" haven't answered David Gregory's questions.
Democrats don't get off the hook either. Apparently House Speaker Pelosi was thinking of a much smaller "swamp" than the rest of us - when she started her "draining process".
Brooks winds up his op-ed piece with:"Very few in public life habitually step back and think about the weakness in their own thinking and what they should do to compensate." ( So, is that the answer to our question? We're merely mimicing politicians?)
He then concludes with this statement, "Of all the problems that afflict this country, this is the underlying one." (Whew!)
Try using those three little words, but be prepared. In my house the response usually is , "Wait a minute. Did I really hear you say that?"
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Idol Thoughts
Yeah, of course I meant "Idol." (in my own mind, of course)
{However, I will admit it was good for the ego to see a real writer Ed Bouchette with Post-Gazette.com write a similar piece about QB Charlie Batch in Thursday mornings sports section. Again, his was professionally done.} Here's my read on the situation:
Hey, was watching the Steeler game last week and was puzzled - along with one heckuva lot of other folks. QB Leftwich gets in behind a sieve line after QB Dixon, who suddenly thinks, "maybe I am as good as those folks who think I - not Bryan - should be the backup quarterback'. He then throws 2 interceptions - one of them in the end zone the other for a monstrous return.
13 year veteran QB Charlie Batch comes in after Leftwich - and apparently not needing a line in front of him - solid or liquid - scores a touchdown and throws another great pass which is intercepted because a rookie receiver - in a new position - is running the wrong route.
Leftwich apparently is going to start the season - that would be after the last pre-season game tomorrow - with few actual game snaps in the all important 3rd pre-season game - with the regular season around the corner - and Big Ben saying about # 4 "You know, it would be nice for me to practice some silent counts"? {It now appears Ben will start per Bouchette.}
And then, when the Pittsburgh writers finally do get around to wanting to interview Charlie, he has to make it clear he has no desire to talk about the other quarterbacks - and - one assumes- how bad they looked. A class act - as always. I'm still looking for that first interview.
Is Charlie on the "cut line" because of prior seasons injuries and the team not wanting to eat whatever they are paying him? - or, is it just because he's old? The poor guy seems to have the handicap of setting up quickly and throwing the ball where he wants it to go.
Not recommending him as starting quarterback, but hope he's not going to be led out to pasture.
And despite all of that, Pete King of SI predicts the Steelers to win the Super Bowl?
Wasn't it bad enough just having to wade through another season of The Pirates Travesty without now having to endure a "quarterback controversy"?
Obviously, I have to start drinking a better brand of wine.
Time to move on. Therefore, I am hereby announcing my support for J. Wellington Wimpy in the 2012 Presidential election. This is a big move for yours truly - a registered Republican for over 50 years. To come out for a Democrat is highly outrageous.
My candidate - is better known as 'Wimp" - THE WORLDS # 1 hamburger devotee - as well as a friend of Popeye and Olive Oyl .
In true Pat Paulson tradition, he has already announced his platform: " I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." {Looks like it could be a smooth transition from current White House philosophy - should he win.}
Wimpy's personality has been described thusly in a variety of appraisals thru the years: "selfish, cowardly, lazy, intellectual well educated, parsimonious, gluttonous, a scam artist, notoriously underhanded, cheap, a smooth fasttalker, elegant speaker, lacking in pride, not above begging, wheedling, and whining." (Yeah, that's my Wimp.}
Sure, you're saying to yourself, "Oh no! Another cartoon character running for President?"Hold on here. I'm speaking of a politician of substance. Here's one description from Kings Feature - the syndicate for Popeye- who list these statistics for Wimpy.
Weight: 300 hamburgers
Height: 26 hamburgers
Hat size: jumbo hamburger
Waist: 18 hamburgers
IQ - 326
Hamburger capacity - unlimited
And we're not suggesting those measly quarter 4 ounce jobs - we're talking "POUNDERS", baby.
Hey, we elected Taft, didn't we?
Can any reasonably bright person not see this man as the next logical leader of our country - given the above statistical information?
Well, in the unlikely event some of you are still not convinced I throw in this:
One of Wimpy's strongest assets was his ability to deflect an enemy's wrath: "One such example was when challenged to a fight and needing to respond , he would indicate a third party and say, 'Let's you and him fight' - starting a brawl from which he quickly withdrew" ( A Robert C. Harvey quote)
What a novel idea - letting someone else fight the battles .
This is clearly the guy who has a plan to get us out of Afghanistan!
Yep, Wimpy's my "real" Idol!
{However, I will admit it was good for the ego to see a real writer Ed Bouchette with Post-Gazette.com write a similar piece about QB Charlie Batch in Thursday mornings sports section. Again, his was professionally done.} Here's my read on the situation:
Hey, was watching the Steeler game last week and was puzzled - along with one heckuva lot of other folks. QB Leftwich gets in behind a sieve line after QB Dixon, who suddenly thinks, "maybe I am as good as those folks who think I - not Bryan - should be the backup quarterback'. He then throws 2 interceptions - one of them in the end zone the other for a monstrous return.
13 year veteran QB Charlie Batch comes in after Leftwich - and apparently not needing a line in front of him - solid or liquid - scores a touchdown and throws another great pass which is intercepted because a rookie receiver - in a new position - is running the wrong route.
Leftwich apparently is going to start the season - that would be after the last pre-season game tomorrow - with few actual game snaps in the all important 3rd pre-season game - with the regular season around the corner - and Big Ben saying about # 4 "You know, it would be nice for me to practice some silent counts"? {It now appears Ben will start per Bouchette.}
And then, when the Pittsburgh writers finally do get around to wanting to interview Charlie, he has to make it clear he has no desire to talk about the other quarterbacks - and - one assumes- how bad they looked. A class act - as always. I'm still looking for that first interview.
Is Charlie on the "cut line" because of prior seasons injuries and the team not wanting to eat whatever they are paying him? - or, is it just because he's old? The poor guy seems to have the handicap of setting up quickly and throwing the ball where he wants it to go.
Not recommending him as starting quarterback, but hope he's not going to be led out to pasture.
And despite all of that, Pete King of SI predicts the Steelers to win the Super Bowl?
Wasn't it bad enough just having to wade through another season of The Pirates Travesty without now having to endure a "quarterback controversy"?
Obviously, I have to start drinking a better brand of wine.
Time to move on. Therefore, I am hereby announcing my support for J. Wellington Wimpy in the 2012 Presidential election. This is a big move for yours truly - a registered Republican for over 50 years. To come out for a Democrat is highly outrageous.
My candidate - is better known as 'Wimp" - THE WORLDS # 1 hamburger devotee - as well as a friend of Popeye and Olive Oyl .
In true Pat Paulson tradition, he has already announced his platform: " I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." {Looks like it could be a smooth transition from current White House philosophy - should he win.}
Wimpy's personality has been described thusly in a variety of appraisals thru the years: "selfish, cowardly, lazy, intellectual well educated, parsimonious, gluttonous, a scam artist, notoriously underhanded, cheap, a smooth fasttalker, elegant speaker, lacking in pride, not above begging, wheedling, and whining." (Yeah, that's my Wimp.}
Sure, you're saying to yourself, "Oh no! Another cartoon character running for President?"Hold on here. I'm speaking of a politician of substance. Here's one description from Kings Feature - the syndicate for Popeye- who list these statistics for Wimpy.
Weight: 300 hamburgers
Height: 26 hamburgers
Hat size: jumbo hamburger
Waist: 18 hamburgers
IQ - 326
Hamburger capacity - unlimited
And we're not suggesting those measly quarter 4 ounce jobs - we're talking "POUNDERS", baby.
Hey, we elected Taft, didn't we?
Can any reasonably bright person not see this man as the next logical leader of our country - given the above statistical information?
Well, in the unlikely event some of you are still not convinced I throw in this:
One of Wimpy's strongest assets was his ability to deflect an enemy's wrath: "One such example was when challenged to a fight and needing to respond , he would indicate a third party and say, 'Let's you and him fight' - starting a brawl from which he quickly withdrew" ( A Robert C. Harvey quote)
What a novel idea - letting someone else fight the battles .
This is clearly the guy who has a plan to get us out of Afghanistan!
Yep, Wimpy's my "real" Idol!
Friday, August 27, 2010
A GOVERMENT FOR THE PEOPLE?
Per a recent E-mail I learned, "A cat's urine glows under a black light" -
Ever wonder how much our government paid to figure out that one?
There is a debate going on these days (you're kidding!). Someone is suggesting we need to cut government spending. Others say, "That's no way to get re-elected."
It would appear the latter group is winning for nobody would argue losing pork barrel projects is the path for Redemption, or more importantly, in the minds of politicians -re-election..
It is not a new trend for those of us who have been around for a while. Former President Jimmy Carter had the audacity to try and cut funding for the B-1 bomber arguing that the $1 billion dollar bomber was an error of chronology (anachronistic) in a world of intercontinental missiles.
He failed. He also was not re-elected (1977 - 1981). Today the B-1's allegedly are located at various military bases - largely unused.
The folks who drew the short end of the straw in their debate position on the subject of spending reduction are scratching their collective heads as to how to successfully argue for the elimination of pork barrel projects.
That's "pork barrel" not "pork belly" projects. Regardless of how many efforts there may be to eliminate the latter - who among us wants to give up bacon? That's communistic. No BLT's?
And, therein lies the problem. We taxpayers want to reduce taxes, increase government benefits, vote out the "wrong thinking politicians" etc. - but, retain those who "bring home the bacon" in our particular state.
We don't want to be the one who has to sacrifice.
A new course at Harvard Business School might well be titled, "How the Hell did Alaskan voters manage to kick out Senator Lisa Murkowski?" The answer may not be relevant should Lisa survive the counting of absentee ballots scheduled to commence next Tuesday.
Ms Murkowski is alleged to be a "Princess of Pork" winner, for all of you alliteration fans out there.
You see, it's still that old argument we referenced in a recent blog, "Well, everybody else is doing it!", that allows the pork barrel givers to have more longevity than right handed people have over lefthanders.
No mention is made in that latter study as to the fate of "right minded" people. Perhaps they couldn't find a large enough sample to assure an appropriate standard deviation.
Per The Christian Science Monitor ( you probably have a couple boxes of back issues hidden somewhere in the garage) "the defense budget in 2011 (including veterans' benefits and defense energy costs) will be $861 billion (that's a lot of B-1's) - or more than all other countries in the world - combined." ( Hey, a billion here - a billion there - pretty soon it starts to add up.)
Columnist Cal Thomas quotes Rep. Barney Frank (who does that these days?) and his report that identified nearly $1 trillion in possible budget savings if the Pentagon budget was " pared" back through 2020.
Thomas goes on to use the illustration regarding the "alternate engine" for the Joint Strike Fighter and compares it to the " Bridge to Nowhere". It seems Congress has "earmarked" (pork ears?) more than $1.2 billion for this since 2004, according to the watchdog group "Citizens Against Government Waste"
Oh yes, forgot to mention, "the Pentagon has said repeatedly it doesn't want or need the engine- both the Bush and Obama administrations have tried to eliminate it - but, Congress refuses to relent "
It is needed", they say, in concurring with their constituents.
Too many decisions in Congress are related to two goal statements: - "lobbyists largesse" and "how do I get re-elected". And still, we refuse to get behind a campaign for us to solely (or is it soul-ly) finance the elections. That would effectively demasculate the Insurance lobby - the NRA - the bankers lobby, the teachers union, etc, etc etc.
Here's an idea then. If we're unwilling to take the only sensible action to keep the lobbyists out of your living rooms via campaign ads - why don't we start a movement to financially support watchdog groups - who announce their findings?
It would seem that just our natural native curiosities would cause us to want to know who it is (specifically) that is causing us to think of robbing banks and grocery stores in order to obtain medicine, formula, baby food, and Pampers for our babies.
It's not that members of Congress don't understand the "For The People" of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address . It's just that they think it only applies to "Their People."
And maybe, as a result, we Will perish from this earth - (right after the announcement of the lottery winners, of course)..
Ever wonder how much our government paid to figure out that one?
There is a debate going on these days (you're kidding!). Someone is suggesting we need to cut government spending. Others say, "That's no way to get re-elected."
It would appear the latter group is winning for nobody would argue losing pork barrel projects is the path for Redemption, or more importantly, in the minds of politicians -re-election..
It is not a new trend for those of us who have been around for a while. Former President Jimmy Carter had the audacity to try and cut funding for the B-1 bomber arguing that the $1 billion dollar bomber was an error of chronology (anachronistic) in a world of intercontinental missiles.
He failed. He also was not re-elected (1977 - 1981). Today the B-1's allegedly are located at various military bases - largely unused.
The folks who drew the short end of the straw in their debate position on the subject of spending reduction are scratching their collective heads as to how to successfully argue for the elimination of pork barrel projects.
That's "pork barrel" not "pork belly" projects. Regardless of how many efforts there may be to eliminate the latter - who among us wants to give up bacon? That's communistic. No BLT's?
And, therein lies the problem. We taxpayers want to reduce taxes, increase government benefits, vote out the "wrong thinking politicians" etc. - but, retain those who "bring home the bacon" in our particular state.
We don't want to be the one who has to sacrifice.
A new course at Harvard Business School might well be titled, "How the Hell did Alaskan voters manage to kick out Senator Lisa Murkowski?" The answer may not be relevant should Lisa survive the counting of absentee ballots scheduled to commence next Tuesday.
Ms Murkowski is alleged to be a "Princess of Pork" winner, for all of you alliteration fans out there.
You see, it's still that old argument we referenced in a recent blog, "Well, everybody else is doing it!", that allows the pork barrel givers to have more longevity than right handed people have over lefthanders.
No mention is made in that latter study as to the fate of "right minded" people. Perhaps they couldn't find a large enough sample to assure an appropriate standard deviation.
Per The Christian Science Monitor ( you probably have a couple boxes of back issues hidden somewhere in the garage) "the defense budget in 2011 (including veterans' benefits and defense energy costs) will be $861 billion (that's a lot of B-1's) - or more than all other countries in the world - combined." ( Hey, a billion here - a billion there - pretty soon it starts to add up.)
Columnist Cal Thomas quotes Rep. Barney Frank (who does that these days?) and his report that identified nearly $1 trillion in possible budget savings if the Pentagon budget was " pared" back through 2020.
Thomas goes on to use the illustration regarding the "alternate engine" for the Joint Strike Fighter and compares it to the " Bridge to Nowhere". It seems Congress has "earmarked" (pork ears?) more than $1.2 billion for this since 2004, according to the watchdog group "Citizens Against Government Waste"
Oh yes, forgot to mention, "the Pentagon has said repeatedly it doesn't want or need the engine- both the Bush and Obama administrations have tried to eliminate it - but, Congress refuses to relent "
It is needed", they say, in concurring with their constituents.
Too many decisions in Congress are related to two goal statements: - "lobbyists largesse" and "how do I get re-elected". And still, we refuse to get behind a campaign for us to solely (or is it soul-ly) finance the elections. That would effectively demasculate the Insurance lobby - the NRA - the bankers lobby, the teachers union, etc, etc etc.
Here's an idea then. If we're unwilling to take the only sensible action to keep the lobbyists out of your living rooms via campaign ads - why don't we start a movement to financially support watchdog groups - who announce their findings?
It would seem that just our natural native curiosities would cause us to want to know who it is (specifically) that is causing us to think of robbing banks and grocery stores in order to obtain medicine, formula, baby food, and Pampers for our babies.
It's not that members of Congress don't understand the "For The People" of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address . It's just that they think it only applies to "Their People."
And maybe, as a result, we Will perish from this earth - (right after the announcement of the lottery winners, of course)..
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Something to offend almost everyone
One of my ever growing frustrations is hearing, "I know exactly what you're going through". It is something that friends or neighbors of mourners seem to feel is appropriate. The goal is to make the survivor feel less distraught and also encourage the growth of a community of idiots.
The one saving grace is that the person to whom they are expressing their recognition of grief is usually so overwhelmed by their loss - or tranquilizers - that in their efforts to also respond in a politically correct manner, they fail to recognize how lame this particular condolence is.
This example is not unique to other words we use in our feeble attempt to console others. Often heard are these equally insipid offerings: "This is God's will!" and, my favorite, "This is for the best."
Hopefully, the grieving family members are not atheists or lack jobs that will allow for them to make up for the financial loss they will incur as the deceased passes on to "that great tax collector in the sky".
Even CSI: NY comes up with a better choice, "We're sorry for your loss.", says Detective Stella with the fascinating eyes.
To the south, on CSI:Miami, Horatio says nothing. Horatio, as portrayed by David Caruso. has apparently negotiated a contract forbidding him to accept a weekly script with more than 5 lines- nor to say anything remotely suggesting he has been an "actor" for over 20 years.
Anyway, do we really see our comforting skills improving down the road?
Assuming that members of the next generation still go to funeral homes - or that funeral homes will continue to exist - the reality is that more and more people are choosing to go out as "crispy critters" (including yours truly). So, what will these already etiquette challenged kids come up with if forced to enter a funeral home?
Seriously, try to imagine what our youth will say to parents of a child who has died at the hands of a drive-by shooter - or was texting the entire lyrcs of a Lady Gaga song while driving ?
Chances are it will not be , "They've gone to a better place".
Besides, recent studies have demonstrated teens are getting less involved in church groups (only 30%) and may not have a clue as to the location of that "better place."
However, should some choose the "better place" line, they could be thinking the deceased may end up at the local mall as a vampire, haunting women who are frantically going through racks at Lane Bryant in an attempt to find "full figured" clothing.
Church and kids (forget Tim Tebow) remind us of the two magnetized Scotty dogs - one white and one black - in opposite polarizing modes.
One church administrator recently reminded us, "A decade ago teens were coming to church groups to play, coming for the entertainment, coming for the pizza. They're are not even coming for the pizza anymore. Some ( teens) say, 'We don't see the church as relevant, as meeting our needs, or where we need to be today.'
Surely, that must be considered blasphemy. Youth groups not relevent?
I say, "Let's not overlook the many improvements made by Digiorno before racing to judgment."
The truth is that for generations the pastor, the elders, etc have known, without a good youth leadership pastor -and young worshippers , their church will surely die; and yet have done little, choosing to invest the potential youth minister salary in financial derivatives.
It is hard for me to empathize with an employed pastor - or even one of the many coming out of divinity school to a " stiff arm" market - who says "we blame it on the parents who didn't grow up in a church culture.
" H-E-L-L-O! Perhaps nobody was listening then either.
Almost there. Let's take on those good teaching organizations who have decided to give up the fight and supply condoms to their students. One can only hope that their decision does not include a "show and tell" demonstration as to the proper application of same. We seem to have more and more female teachers who have become fascinated with homework (theirs) for their male students.
Studies by experts examining the efficacy of a change in "health care" teaching cannot agree as to the results. It's a little like surveys they used to conduct to determine if workers would be more productive if surrounded by subliminal music. The studies finally agreed they could not determine if : it improved productivity - encouraged singing and thus less productivity (assuming they were not members of The Seven Dwarves) - or just prove people liked music.
Remember, there were experts who claimed they could predict - beyond the shadow of a doubt - human personality traits via the application of Phrenology - examining the bumps on the head.
"Experts" now are puzzled by the fact that while condom usage had increased (based on the small amounts of condums left in the school nurses basket each day), statistics still failed to show a decrease in baby production by teen-agers.
What they did finally discover was that the male teen, already using condoms, found it much less expensive to use the free condoms than to purchase them at CVS.
I loved one parent's analogy, "This is like giving a kid a keg of beer on Friday night and telling him not to drink."
But, then again, "What do I know?"
Did I miss anybody?
The one saving grace is that the person to whom they are expressing their recognition of grief is usually so overwhelmed by their loss - or tranquilizers - that in their efforts to also respond in a politically correct manner, they fail to recognize how lame this particular condolence is.
This example is not unique to other words we use in our feeble attempt to console others. Often heard are these equally insipid offerings: "This is God's will!" and, my favorite, "This is for the best."
Hopefully, the grieving family members are not atheists or lack jobs that will allow for them to make up for the financial loss they will incur as the deceased passes on to "that great tax collector in the sky".
Even CSI: NY comes up with a better choice, "We're sorry for your loss.", says Detective Stella with the fascinating eyes.
To the south, on CSI:Miami, Horatio says nothing. Horatio, as portrayed by David Caruso. has apparently negotiated a contract forbidding him to accept a weekly script with more than 5 lines- nor to say anything remotely suggesting he has been an "actor" for over 20 years.
Anyway, do we really see our comforting skills improving down the road?
Assuming that members of the next generation still go to funeral homes - or that funeral homes will continue to exist - the reality is that more and more people are choosing to go out as "crispy critters" (including yours truly). So, what will these already etiquette challenged kids come up with if forced to enter a funeral home?
Seriously, try to imagine what our youth will say to parents of a child who has died at the hands of a drive-by shooter - or was texting the entire lyrcs of a Lady Gaga song while driving ?
Chances are it will not be , "They've gone to a better place".
Besides, recent studies have demonstrated teens are getting less involved in church groups (only 30%) and may not have a clue as to the location of that "better place."
However, should some choose the "better place" line, they could be thinking the deceased may end up at the local mall as a vampire, haunting women who are frantically going through racks at Lane Bryant in an attempt to find "full figured" clothing.
Church and kids (forget Tim Tebow) remind us of the two magnetized Scotty dogs - one white and one black - in opposite polarizing modes.
One church administrator recently reminded us, "A decade ago teens were coming to church groups to play, coming for the entertainment, coming for the pizza. They're are not even coming for the pizza anymore. Some ( teens) say, 'We don't see the church as relevant, as meeting our needs, or where we need to be today.'
Surely, that must be considered blasphemy. Youth groups not relevent?
I say, "Let's not overlook the many improvements made by Digiorno before racing to judgment."
The truth is that for generations the pastor, the elders, etc have known, without a good youth leadership pastor -and young worshippers , their church will surely die; and yet have done little, choosing to invest the potential youth minister salary in financial derivatives.
It is hard for me to empathize with an employed pastor - or even one of the many coming out of divinity school to a " stiff arm" market - who says "we blame it on the parents who didn't grow up in a church culture.
" H-E-L-L-O! Perhaps nobody was listening then either.
Almost there. Let's take on those good teaching organizations who have decided to give up the fight and supply condoms to their students. One can only hope that their decision does not include a "show and tell" demonstration as to the proper application of same. We seem to have more and more female teachers who have become fascinated with homework (theirs) for their male students.
Studies by experts examining the efficacy of a change in "health care" teaching cannot agree as to the results. It's a little like surveys they used to conduct to determine if workers would be more productive if surrounded by subliminal music. The studies finally agreed they could not determine if : it improved productivity - encouraged singing and thus less productivity (assuming they were not members of The Seven Dwarves) - or just prove people liked music.
Remember, there were experts who claimed they could predict - beyond the shadow of a doubt - human personality traits via the application of Phrenology - examining the bumps on the head.
"Experts" now are puzzled by the fact that while condom usage had increased (based on the small amounts of condums left in the school nurses basket each day), statistics still failed to show a decrease in baby production by teen-agers.
What they did finally discover was that the male teen, already using condoms, found it much less expensive to use the free condoms than to purchase them at CVS.
I loved one parent's analogy, "This is like giving a kid a keg of beer on Friday night and telling him not to drink."
But, then again, "What do I know?"
Did I miss anybody?
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
HORROR MOVIES
In old time horror movies of my youth you would watch a huge curtain painted to look like a building and it would shake as if it no longer was an inanimate object.
If you looked closely - and if the editing was done as fast as the picture was made - you might see the hand of the assistant director shaking the curtain so as to give it a human dimension.
Now, if you failed to notice that, you got an audience reaction like, " "My God Marge, did you see that building start to shake?"
Well, today our special effects folks are much more sophisticated, although I did see a stagehand running behind a piece of scenery in a New York production of "Phantom Of The Opera."
Today, we really have animated buildings. I know this because in catching up with my reading this morning I saw: "Barclay's Bank has agreed to pay $298 million over allegations it illegally engaged in financial transactions with banks in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Burma."
It has given new meaning to those ads that claim, "Our bank is on your side." - and you happen to notice that wherever you move, the financially challenged bank has opened a new branch.
This is sort of like Joe, the Valley Dairy milkman who always delivered the milk to my Mom no matter where we moved. But, that's another story- and it comes with a reasonable explanation.
Nope, it appears banks really do have a life of their own. Like science fiction movies today, they have taken on a personality of "Chuckie." - and they're doing bad things.
When my kids were tots and they ran into the sharp corner of a livingroom table in their bare feet, to stop their crying and create empathy I would slap the top of the coffee table and yell, "Bad table!" "Bad table!". Soon, my kids would start to emulate that behavior and join in with Dad in playing "let's give this table a whack."
I have no idea what my oldest son does today when his car refuses to start and, please, no cards or letters.
One can only imagine that after Monday's news about the possible fine of around 300 mil - the London bank customers swere standing around 1 Churchill Place and whomping on Barclays Building with their " brolly" (umbrella) - screaming ( in a mildy chastizing English way, of course) "Bad Bank - Bad Bank!"
Actually, if rumors can be believed, when you go inside the bank edifice you will be amazed to see that while there are many, many customers - there are no people who actually run the bank and make policy decisions. "Nope, don't need them - don't want them." It's all done by Special Effects & Chuckie.
Well, guess what? The Monday Washington Post states that, "At a 1 p.m. hearing, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (of course) declined to immediately approve the 298 mil deal w/o (working on my texting skills) the presence of Barclay's Group general counsel, Mark Harding, whose signature was on the proposed agreement."
"If he wants to do this, he can get on a boat or plane to plead guilty like anyone else," Sullivan said, "He's not going to plead on the phone."
You see, you just cannot get a Sullivan to buy into something this hokey. Don't ever try to mess with those Special Effects.
We know a lousy Horror movie when we see one.
If you looked closely - and if the editing was done as fast as the picture was made - you might see the hand of the assistant director shaking the curtain so as to give it a human dimension.
Now, if you failed to notice that, you got an audience reaction like, " "My God Marge, did you see that building start to shake?"
Well, today our special effects folks are much more sophisticated, although I did see a stagehand running behind a piece of scenery in a New York production of "Phantom Of The Opera."
Today, we really have animated buildings. I know this because in catching up with my reading this morning I saw: "Barclay's Bank has agreed to pay $298 million over allegations it illegally engaged in financial transactions with banks in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Burma."
It has given new meaning to those ads that claim, "Our bank is on your side." - and you happen to notice that wherever you move, the financially challenged bank has opened a new branch.
This is sort of like Joe, the Valley Dairy milkman who always delivered the milk to my Mom no matter where we moved. But, that's another story- and it comes with a reasonable explanation.
Nope, it appears banks really do have a life of their own. Like science fiction movies today, they have taken on a personality of "Chuckie." - and they're doing bad things.
When my kids were tots and they ran into the sharp corner of a livingroom table in their bare feet, to stop their crying and create empathy I would slap the top of the coffee table and yell, "Bad table!" "Bad table!". Soon, my kids would start to emulate that behavior and join in with Dad in playing "let's give this table a whack."
I have no idea what my oldest son does today when his car refuses to start and, please, no cards or letters.
One can only imagine that after Monday's news about the possible fine of around 300 mil - the London bank customers swere standing around 1 Churchill Place and whomping on Barclays Building with their " brolly" (umbrella) - screaming ( in a mildy chastizing English way, of course) "Bad Bank - Bad Bank!"
Actually, if rumors can be believed, when you go inside the bank edifice you will be amazed to see that while there are many, many customers - there are no people who actually run the bank and make policy decisions. "Nope, don't need them - don't want them." It's all done by Special Effects & Chuckie.
Well, guess what? The Monday Washington Post states that, "At a 1 p.m. hearing, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (of course) declined to immediately approve the 298 mil deal w/o (working on my texting skills) the presence of Barclay's Group general counsel, Mark Harding, whose signature was on the proposed agreement."
"If he wants to do this, he can get on a boat or plane to plead guilty like anyone else," Sullivan said, "He's not going to plead on the phone."
You see, you just cannot get a Sullivan to buy into something this hokey. Don't ever try to mess with those Special Effects.
We know a lousy Horror movie when we see one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)