A story that was buried in other non-news caught my eye, because although relatively unimportant, it says a lot. There's this king guy, Abdullah, from Saudi Arabia who took over a whole wing at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in Manhattan. He's 86 years old and is recovering from back surgery on the "VIP" floor.
According to a family member of another patient, "The king has taken the entire luxury treatment wing and booked out all the rooms, even though they are empty and he doesn't need them, to protect his privacy. Patients are grumbling that they have been moved out to other areas of the hospital, and that despite there being a number of unused VIP treatment rooms, they can't be moved into them because they are all reserved for the king of Saudi Arabia."
So, my question for today is, despite that I clearly understand that money can buy practically anything, I would think this hospital ought to know better. Because, this isn't some private arrangement a zillionaire made to have celebrities show up at his tent, or wherever this camel-jockey lives in the desert, or tying up a runway for a half hour so his private jet can land, this is about other folks who can afford the best in medical care...but he's precluded them from the privacy their own status merits. Therefore I think the hospital should have told this king they'd give him the care and attention his ailment merits, and a private room if he wishes, but if he really wants to be alone that much, he can stay home in his sand-box.
Aside from that, the beat goes on in DC. Today, the president met with top congressional leaders to discuss the soon to expire tax cuts and what to do about them. Now, this is a discussion that's been going on for quite some time, and has yet to be resolved. My guess is they really will find some kind of workable agreement. So my note today isn't about the cuts themselves, it regards the rhetoric in the discussion.
There seems to be basic agreement already, that cuts be kept in place for those earning under $250,000 a year, but for how long a term has yet to be finalized. The bigger stumbling block though, is whether or not cuts should be granted to those who earn more. And what struck me today was, that no matter the subject, politicians can't make a comment without throwing in some kind of cheap shot or biased jab.
I write that because there appeared to be at least a tacit agreement to continue the discussion, and that a task force be set up representative of both major parties to seek a mutually satisfactory solution. Yet, when the president made some comments later, he said that the Republicans were taking a "political" stand by not agreeing to eliminating the cuts for top earners. So, my question is, in a case like this how can anyone who has a different opinion not be accused of taking a political stand?
In fact, that's what politics is all about. Some people believe "A" and others "B," still others might believe C,D,E and on down the line. That's what opinions are all about in the first place. And in that context, there's nothing wrong with politics at all, people disagree all the time on all kinds of subjects. But, I think it's really funny when someone who's nothing more than a politician himself, and who's beliefs are whatever his puppeteer's told him they are, calls someone else a politician as if it's a dirty word.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/29/2010
The question for today is: Where do you start?
The president announced a wage freeze on to all civilian federal employees, including those working at the Department of Defense, but not military personnel. He said "The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice, and that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government. Today, I'm proposing a two year pay freeze for all civilian federal workers."
Now, while practically any spending cut is a good one when it comes to the government, once again I think these folks have the picture upside down. Because, at the moment total U.S. debt stands at approximately 13.723 trillion dollars. But holding back wage increases saves only $2 billion. So, while it's a step toward cutting spending, it isn't even a drop in the bucket.
What's more, money in the hands of the workers in question isn't likely to wind up in long-term investments or sewn into mattresses, it's going to be spent on things like rent, food, clothing and similar items that spur the economy, so we have a double whammy. Not only are employees earning less, they're either going to cut their spending or evaporate their savings.
In the meantime, massive federal programs will go on shoveling funds out the door, hand over fist, as our electees pay back whoever it was they bought votes from.
So, I think a much better solution would be to reinstate salaries for federal workers, who actually might serve a purpose and eliminate payments of any kind to elected officials, whether it be salaries, benefits, or any other kind of compensation. That way these politicos will be getting exactly what they're really worth. And that amounts to zero.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The president announced a wage freeze on to all civilian federal employees, including those working at the Department of Defense, but not military personnel. He said "The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice, and that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government. Today, I'm proposing a two year pay freeze for all civilian federal workers."
Now, while practically any spending cut is a good one when it comes to the government, once again I think these folks have the picture upside down. Because, at the moment total U.S. debt stands at approximately 13.723 trillion dollars. But holding back wage increases saves only $2 billion. So, while it's a step toward cutting spending, it isn't even a drop in the bucket.
What's more, money in the hands of the workers in question isn't likely to wind up in long-term investments or sewn into mattresses, it's going to be spent on things like rent, food, clothing and similar items that spur the economy, so we have a double whammy. Not only are employees earning less, they're either going to cut their spending or evaporate their savings.
In the meantime, massive federal programs will go on shoveling funds out the door, hand over fist, as our electees pay back whoever it was they bought votes from.
So, I think a much better solution would be to reinstate salaries for federal workers, who actually might serve a purpose and eliminate payments of any kind to elected officials, whether it be salaries, benefits, or any other kind of compensation. That way these politicos will be getting exactly what they're really worth. And that amounts to zero.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The older I get and the more news I read, the less I understand it. Because either there has to be some kind of disconnect between elected people and reality, or perhaps they live in some kind of time-warp bubble in which only they function, while the rest of the world moves along in real time.
Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat from Missouri said today that we have too many pressing security issues to delay voting on a nuclear arms treaty with Russia. She claims that the Republicans wishing to wait longer are merely using stalling tactics for political reasons. Conversely, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona said any urgency in ratifying the START legislation is politically motivated by the opposition and that there are far more pressing domestic matters during the next few weeks to be considered by the lame-duck Congress.
Now, here's my confusion. Russia's already proven to be a paper tiger, and likely close to totally broke. Their top echelon of public officials and government insiders have walked away with massive fortunes, probably stealing whatever was left when their economy blew up. So, basically you have a nation that's talking to itself. Thus, if that's the case, why in the world are we in any kind of hurry to negotiate any kind of treaty about anything with them, especially regarding nuclear weapons?
Lastly, why would we ever believe what those people told us about how many weapons they've destroyed, inspectors or not? Especially considering that they've never told us the truth about anything ever before. So, if Ms Caskill wants to believe these frauds, that's okay with me. So long as no treaty gets signed, she can believe anything she wants. But as for me, I'll be much happier if we walk away from any kind of treaty and keep building weapons of our own, because I live right here in the U.S., and not in Moscow.
As far as Senator Kyl's concerned, he went on to say that Congress has to pass tax rate extensions and a budget bill for the current fiscal year, adding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid insists on finishing up "political commitments" he made to unions, homosexuals and immigrants. Kyl stated on Meet the Press, "Of course, Harry Reid can bring the START treaty up any time he wants to. But he has a different agenda. He's made some promise to political constituencies."
The Senator was referring to Reid's positions on don't ask, don't tell policy for gays in the military, the DREAM Act to give children of illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship and a federal unionization bill for government workers.
When you add up all the forgoing blather going back and forth in Congress, I think it illustrates my point about wondering how these politicians think, how they act and poses the question as to whether or not they realize what's happening in their own nation. Because it couldn't be clearer that what's needed in this country now is jobs, and jobs and jobs. Something that might help with that is a clear, concise determination on taxes. And, instead of more legislation, cutting the size of government by half or maybe two-thirds would make things run two thousand percent better.
And that leads me to two simple words that if uttered by every politician would make this country stronger by the minute. "I quit."
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat from Missouri said today that we have too many pressing security issues to delay voting on a nuclear arms treaty with Russia. She claims that the Republicans wishing to wait longer are merely using stalling tactics for political reasons. Conversely, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona said any urgency in ratifying the START legislation is politically motivated by the opposition and that there are far more pressing domestic matters during the next few weeks to be considered by the lame-duck Congress.
Now, here's my confusion. Russia's already proven to be a paper tiger, and likely close to totally broke. Their top echelon of public officials and government insiders have walked away with massive fortunes, probably stealing whatever was left when their economy blew up. So, basically you have a nation that's talking to itself. Thus, if that's the case, why in the world are we in any kind of hurry to negotiate any kind of treaty about anything with them, especially regarding nuclear weapons?
Lastly, why would we ever believe what those people told us about how many weapons they've destroyed, inspectors or not? Especially considering that they've never told us the truth about anything ever before. So, if Ms Caskill wants to believe these frauds, that's okay with me. So long as no treaty gets signed, she can believe anything she wants. But as for me, I'll be much happier if we walk away from any kind of treaty and keep building weapons of our own, because I live right here in the U.S., and not in Moscow.
As far as Senator Kyl's concerned, he went on to say that Congress has to pass tax rate extensions and a budget bill for the current fiscal year, adding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid insists on finishing up "political commitments" he made to unions, homosexuals and immigrants. Kyl stated on Meet the Press, "Of course, Harry Reid can bring the START treaty up any time he wants to. But he has a different agenda. He's made some promise to political constituencies."
The Senator was referring to Reid's positions on don't ask, don't tell policy for gays in the military, the DREAM Act to give children of illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship and a federal unionization bill for government workers.
When you add up all the forgoing blather going back and forth in Congress, I think it illustrates my point about wondering how these politicians think, how they act and poses the question as to whether or not they realize what's happening in their own nation. Because it couldn't be clearer that what's needed in this country now is jobs, and jobs and jobs. Something that might help with that is a clear, concise determination on taxes. And, instead of more legislation, cutting the size of government by half or maybe two-thirds would make things run two thousand percent better.
And that leads me to two simple words that if uttered by every politician would make this country stronger by the minute. "I quit."
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, November 27, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/27/2010
Except for the North Koreans gearing up to try and start another major war, there's really not very much going on that's blogworthy at all. Yet, an article caught my eye as I was skimming the news this afternoon.
This guy Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said he doesn't believe the public is looking for the president to take an all-or-nothing approach to the economy. "The American people understand that we have both domestic and international issues that have to be dealt with. The public expects that's what he's doing."
Then, White House chief spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "You learn quickly as president that there are events that happen like North Korea that you have to address as they happen, not how you would plan for them to happen."
Aides say they see opportunities for the president's economic message to break through, starting with a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers this Tuesday. The top issue will be what to do about the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at year's end. Obama also plans to take a few more domestic trips through the end of the year to discuss the economy.
Having read all that I sat here and wondered who these spokesman are talking about. I mean, why would anyone sit around and listen to, or care about, what this lame duck president said about anything, anywhere any time. Because after he failed to socialize the nation for himself and Soros, he got blown out big time in the mid-term elections and right now everyone's sitting on their hands until he's completely out of office himself. What's more, no businessman in his right mind will spend a dime on growth or anything he doesn't have to, with some loose cannon at the top who knows less than zip about simple economics.
But in the White House reaction to the Korean issue and their frustration about economic issues, they continue to rely on the same old, same old worthless attempt at solutions. They either truly believe or have some mis-guided assumption that all the country's ills can be cured with talk. Because that's the only thing you can rely coming out of the oval office...hour upon hour of worthless blather.
And a thought just crossed my mind about where this administration can apply for jobs when their term's over. They can move to Ohio and fill up all those Goodyear blimps.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
This guy Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said he doesn't believe the public is looking for the president to take an all-or-nothing approach to the economy. "The American people understand that we have both domestic and international issues that have to be dealt with. The public expects that's what he's doing."
Then, White House chief spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "You learn quickly as president that there are events that happen like North Korea that you have to address as they happen, not how you would plan for them to happen."
Aides say they see opportunities for the president's economic message to break through, starting with a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers this Tuesday. The top issue will be what to do about the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at year's end. Obama also plans to take a few more domestic trips through the end of the year to discuss the economy.
Having read all that I sat here and wondered who these spokesman are talking about. I mean, why would anyone sit around and listen to, or care about, what this lame duck president said about anything, anywhere any time. Because after he failed to socialize the nation for himself and Soros, he got blown out big time in the mid-term elections and right now everyone's sitting on their hands until he's completely out of office himself. What's more, no businessman in his right mind will spend a dime on growth or anything he doesn't have to, with some loose cannon at the top who knows less than zip about simple economics.
But in the White House reaction to the Korean issue and their frustration about economic issues, they continue to rely on the same old, same old worthless attempt at solutions. They either truly believe or have some mis-guided assumption that all the country's ills can be cured with talk. Because that's the only thing you can rely coming out of the oval office...hour upon hour of worthless blather.
And a thought just crossed my mind about where this administration can apply for jobs when their term's over. They can move to Ohio and fill up all those Goodyear blimps.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, November 26, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/26/2010
Thanksgiving turned out to be a pretty good day all around, if you weren't a turkey that is. I didn't have to drive too far, there was hardly any traffic at all, and for a family get together, reasonably good behavior from all.
But, the two best things that happened occurred well after dinner was over, and I was back home in bed. First and foremost, the Jets actually played solid football throughout and scored a nice win, and better than that, except for one little doze-off at half-time I actually saw most of the game.
As regular readers know, I've got my own beliefs about Jets teams, formulated from years of heart-breaking experience. And though I absolutely know that every game played by every team in every sport must be fully played before anyone on earth actually knows the results, some predictions are more valid than others.
But, when it comes to Gang Green, you've got to know that the clock's ticked it's final tick and that there's nothing harmful that can change that, before you say to yourself, "Yup, that's a win." Because in my heart of hearts I'm certain that if there's a way to give away a game, even one that seems over, the Jets are fully capable of still finding a way to lose.
But, aside from the score itself, what was far more important to me is that from the opening kick-off right to the end, this team played solid football. Unfortunately, since I don't have the TV sound on and really don't read all the blurbs on the screen, I know very few names of the players and thus, can't give them individual credit. But it seemed to me that all of them, backs, ends, wide receivers, and certainly the whole defensive squad played a great game.
So, with the season coming down toward the end, I guess we're going to find out if these guys are the real deal or not. And that means it's absolutely necessary now, more than ever, to keep my TV on mute, because there's going to be enough smoke, noise, and plain absolute gibberish from the "pundits" and wannabees coming out of the woodwork that I'm surely going to wish I was really deaf.
On another front, it seems the Stuxnet worm is back and plaguing Iran's centrifuges used for its nuclear programs. There are stories on the web that have lot's of interesting detail that you can look up about what's been done and how. But my point is simply the same as last time. If you were the person responsible for pushing the ignition button for an Iranian nuclear missile, would you do it? I know I certainly would not. So, to me that's the genius of whoever planted that virus in the first place. Because, it just might turn out to be the worm that saved the world.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
But, the two best things that happened occurred well after dinner was over, and I was back home in bed. First and foremost, the Jets actually played solid football throughout and scored a nice win, and better than that, except for one little doze-off at half-time I actually saw most of the game.
As regular readers know, I've got my own beliefs about Jets teams, formulated from years of heart-breaking experience. And though I absolutely know that every game played by every team in every sport must be fully played before anyone on earth actually knows the results, some predictions are more valid than others.
But, when it comes to Gang Green, you've got to know that the clock's ticked it's final tick and that there's nothing harmful that can change that, before you say to yourself, "Yup, that's a win." Because in my heart of hearts I'm certain that if there's a way to give away a game, even one that seems over, the Jets are fully capable of still finding a way to lose.
But, aside from the score itself, what was far more important to me is that from the opening kick-off right to the end, this team played solid football. Unfortunately, since I don't have the TV sound on and really don't read all the blurbs on the screen, I know very few names of the players and thus, can't give them individual credit. But it seemed to me that all of them, backs, ends, wide receivers, and certainly the whole defensive squad played a great game.
So, with the season coming down toward the end, I guess we're going to find out if these guys are the real deal or not. And that means it's absolutely necessary now, more than ever, to keep my TV on mute, because there's going to be enough smoke, noise, and plain absolute gibberish from the "pundits" and wannabees coming out of the woodwork that I'm surely going to wish I was really deaf.
On another front, it seems the Stuxnet worm is back and plaguing Iran's centrifuges used for its nuclear programs. There are stories on the web that have lot's of interesting detail that you can look up about what's been done and how. But my point is simply the same as last time. If you were the person responsible for pushing the ignition button for an Iranian nuclear missile, would you do it? I know I certainly would not. So, to me that's the genius of whoever planted that virus in the first place. Because, it just might turn out to be the worm that saved the world.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, November 25, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/25/2010
Hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving, and doesn't have to travel too far.
And speaking of travel, it doesn't look like the Internet campaign encouraging flyers to protest new security screening by boycotting body scanners at airports had very much effect. Not too many protesters showed up.
One passenger, Greg Hancock, 61, said "It was a day at the beach, a box of chocolates," after going through a body scanner Wednesday at the Phoenix airport. I don't know if he was being facetious or not. He was sent through because a golf ball marker in his pocket set the metal detector off. His wife, Marti Hancock, 58, who'd flown on Sept. 11, 2001, and feared there was a bomb on her plane that day, has been fully supportive of stringent security, saying "If that's what you have to do to keep us safe, that's what you have to do."
And Mrs. Hancock's point is something I really understand. Because I despise what security checks have done to air travel, and dread the thought of going through any kind of screening process at all. After all, I'm not a terrorist, have no desire whatsoever to harm anyone, except maybe teams playing against the Jets, yet I have go through the same cattle-herding process as everyone else whenever I need to board a plane.
Nonetheless, at the moment there doesn't seem to be a viable alternative to screening, and above all, aircraft must be kept completely safe, so if folks want to fly they've got to accept the procedures and go with the program. If not, they're going to be grounded.
So what it all adds up to is, lot's of folks are angry, upset, frustrated, put out and seething because of the onerous, intrusive and demeaning aspects of security checks. And I certainly agree with their viewpoint. But, I also think their hostility may be misdirected. Because the FAA and air safety people didn't cause this problem, they're only doing their jobs as they see fit under the circumstances. Therefore, I believe the anger should be directed at the ones who truly caused the problem...and that's the terrorists.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
And speaking of travel, it doesn't look like the Internet campaign encouraging flyers to protest new security screening by boycotting body scanners at airports had very much effect. Not too many protesters showed up.
One passenger, Greg Hancock, 61, said "It was a day at the beach, a box of chocolates," after going through a body scanner Wednesday at the Phoenix airport. I don't know if he was being facetious or not. He was sent through because a golf ball marker in his pocket set the metal detector off. His wife, Marti Hancock, 58, who'd flown on Sept. 11, 2001, and feared there was a bomb on her plane that day, has been fully supportive of stringent security, saying "If that's what you have to do to keep us safe, that's what you have to do."
And Mrs. Hancock's point is something I really understand. Because I despise what security checks have done to air travel, and dread the thought of going through any kind of screening process at all. After all, I'm not a terrorist, have no desire whatsoever to harm anyone, except maybe teams playing against the Jets, yet I have go through the same cattle-herding process as everyone else whenever I need to board a plane.
Nonetheless, at the moment there doesn't seem to be a viable alternative to screening, and above all, aircraft must be kept completely safe, so if folks want to fly they've got to accept the procedures and go with the program. If not, they're going to be grounded.
So what it all adds up to is, lot's of folks are angry, upset, frustrated, put out and seething because of the onerous, intrusive and demeaning aspects of security checks. And I certainly agree with their viewpoint. But, I also think their hostility may be misdirected. Because the FAA and air safety people didn't cause this problem, they're only doing their jobs as they see fit under the circumstances. Therefore, I believe the anger should be directed at the ones who truly caused the problem...and that's the terrorists.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/24/2010
With the Thanksgiving weekend upon us, much of the nation travels to spend time with family and friends. So, that naturally brings a lot of travel issues into light. And, although not really a holiday story, there was something in the news today about how some people get where they're going.
According to the US military's figures, the average American could buy a house for what it costs to run Air Force One for an hour. They just provided an updated estimate on that cost, which was first published by a taxpayer watchdog group, and it's humongous -$181,757 per hour. It was also mentioned that President Obama has spent more days abroad in his first two years than any other president.
I mention it today because it seems all we hear now, from the president himself and those around him, is that the citizenry needs to tighten their belts, cough up more taxes and face our terrible economic problems by all pitching in. But, in the meantime this guy flies all over the planet for free, because all those buckler-uppers are paying his airfare, which as enormous as it is is only part of the cost of his many trips.
And it's things like this that have been mainstream of politicians as long as I can remember, because everything these people demand is expected of everyone else but them. That's why it doesn't seem matter to someone like Nancy Pelosi what's in bills that pass in the house, because she has no intention of taking the time or making any effort to read that legislation herself. The hypocrisy's so thick you'd need a tree-loggers power saw to cut through it.
But, as these blogs of mine have been saying for what seems quite a while now, a different kind of clock is ticking for those in office. And as every day goes by, more of our population is becoming aware of the frauds perpetrated on them by that group. What's more, the Internet and additional accesses to information are going to keep growing, delivering hard information accurately and quickly. And to me, that means that although the turkeys devoured tomorrow are the edible kind, the elected ones will soon be history too.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
According to the US military's figures, the average American could buy a house for what it costs to run Air Force One for an hour. They just provided an updated estimate on that cost, which was first published by a taxpayer watchdog group, and it's humongous -$181,757 per hour. It was also mentioned that President Obama has spent more days abroad in his first two years than any other president.
I mention it today because it seems all we hear now, from the president himself and those around him, is that the citizenry needs to tighten their belts, cough up more taxes and face our terrible economic problems by all pitching in. But, in the meantime this guy flies all over the planet for free, because all those buckler-uppers are paying his airfare, which as enormous as it is is only part of the cost of his many trips.
And it's things like this that have been mainstream of politicians as long as I can remember, because everything these people demand is expected of everyone else but them. That's why it doesn't seem matter to someone like Nancy Pelosi what's in bills that pass in the house, because she has no intention of taking the time or making any effort to read that legislation herself. The hypocrisy's so thick you'd need a tree-loggers power saw to cut through it.
But, as these blogs of mine have been saying for what seems quite a while now, a different kind of clock is ticking for those in office. And as every day goes by, more of our population is becoming aware of the frauds perpetrated on them by that group. What's more, the Internet and additional accesses to information are going to keep growing, delivering hard information accurately and quickly. And to me, that means that although the turkeys devoured tomorrow are the edible kind, the elected ones will soon be history too.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/23/2010
The growing public outcry about terrorism concerns and pat-downs at airports continues to get headlines, because inconvenienced folks are outraged at being physically searched for threats. And the more they holler and scream, the more I remember about the flying I used to do myself, because for quite a few years it seemed to me I was almost always airborne.
Now, during those years the security checks were nowhere near what they are now, and certainly pre-9/11. Nonetheless, plenty of folks were upset even then that they were being inconvenienced, especially since I don't think they deemed themselves harmful.
I myself began to dread how distasteful air travel was, and how much it inconvenienced me. Considerable extra time was taken due to the need of arriving so far before departure time, merely to get through pre-flight checks. Then, I sat in lounges for what seemed like forever, waiting again until boarding began. In all, somewhere around two wasted hours or more of my time was taken every time I flew.
Then, of course, if you add in other delays, for equipment checks, late arrivals of incoming aircraft for turn-around or continuing flights, and quite often, inclement weather, the time spent in airport lounges or bars in total was immense.
Of course with all that time frittered away in airports, I think one becomes a "profiler" of sorts simply by experience and exposure. Because you tend to see how people react under certain conditions, and at times, can sense who's going to do what and when merely from observing their mannerisms, appearance, and certain demographic characteristics, such as age and dress.
For example, an easy guess would be the guys whose flashy shirts were unbuttoned down to their waists and wearing so much gold around their necks you wondered how they could stand erect. In their case it was even money that they'd either stay in a bar for the duration of the wait, and perhaps not board at all when the time came because they'd become incoherent. Or else they'd stand at the podium outside the boarding ramp and try to hit on the female agents.
Then there were the infrequent flying high-rollers who were so impressed with themselves they demanded to see everyone up to the chairman of the airline, because men of their stature and importance rated immediate take-off, regardless. Diametrically juxtaposed to them were the families who had all their worldly possessions packed in big green plastic bags and cardboard cartons, and argued loudly about how they didn't want their stuff flying as baggage. Those were also the ones whose kids screamed for entire flights, and turned around in the seat in front of you and threw applesauce in your face.
The quietest types tended to be the experienced business types who sat apart in the lounge, then boarded early because they flew first-class and kept their heads buried in their Wall Street Journals, sipping dry Martinis as the dregs of society squirmed, clawed, and muscled their way to their seats in the back. And those same, elite pre-board types were also the first off upon arrival, so they were half way to their destinations in limo's by the time most peons reached baggage claim.
As the list goes on there are many more categories and types by which experienced flyers, or knowledgeable others might categorize passengers. And I can certainly understand why some might think profiling would work and make things move faster. But, I don't really think that's the point. Because all it takes is one small mistake and the ball game is over.
So, in my opinion folks should just understand how dramatically things have changed and that this isn't a game, nor is pre-boarding scanning or searching an inconvenience that should be removed because a lot of spoiled, unknowing, selfish types think they're more important than others safety. But, what's most sadly important in the matter is, apparently it's going to take another disaster to shut these morons up.
That's it for today folks
Adios
Now, during those years the security checks were nowhere near what they are now, and certainly pre-9/11. Nonetheless, plenty of folks were upset even then that they were being inconvenienced, especially since I don't think they deemed themselves harmful.
I myself began to dread how distasteful air travel was, and how much it inconvenienced me. Considerable extra time was taken due to the need of arriving so far before departure time, merely to get through pre-flight checks. Then, I sat in lounges for what seemed like forever, waiting again until boarding began. In all, somewhere around two wasted hours or more of my time was taken every time I flew.
Then, of course, if you add in other delays, for equipment checks, late arrivals of incoming aircraft for turn-around or continuing flights, and quite often, inclement weather, the time spent in airport lounges or bars in total was immense.
Of course with all that time frittered away in airports, I think one becomes a "profiler" of sorts simply by experience and exposure. Because you tend to see how people react under certain conditions, and at times, can sense who's going to do what and when merely from observing their mannerisms, appearance, and certain demographic characteristics, such as age and dress.
For example, an easy guess would be the guys whose flashy shirts were unbuttoned down to their waists and wearing so much gold around their necks you wondered how they could stand erect. In their case it was even money that they'd either stay in a bar for the duration of the wait, and perhaps not board at all when the time came because they'd become incoherent. Or else they'd stand at the podium outside the boarding ramp and try to hit on the female agents.
Then there were the infrequent flying high-rollers who were so impressed with themselves they demanded to see everyone up to the chairman of the airline, because men of their stature and importance rated immediate take-off, regardless. Diametrically juxtaposed to them were the families who had all their worldly possessions packed in big green plastic bags and cardboard cartons, and argued loudly about how they didn't want their stuff flying as baggage. Those were also the ones whose kids screamed for entire flights, and turned around in the seat in front of you and threw applesauce in your face.
The quietest types tended to be the experienced business types who sat apart in the lounge, then boarded early because they flew first-class and kept their heads buried in their Wall Street Journals, sipping dry Martinis as the dregs of society squirmed, clawed, and muscled their way to their seats in the back. And those same, elite pre-board types were also the first off upon arrival, so they were half way to their destinations in limo's by the time most peons reached baggage claim.
As the list goes on there are many more categories and types by which experienced flyers, or knowledgeable others might categorize passengers. And I can certainly understand why some might think profiling would work and make things move faster. But, I don't really think that's the point. Because all it takes is one small mistake and the ball game is over.
So, in my opinion folks should just understand how dramatically things have changed and that this isn't a game, nor is pre-boarding scanning or searching an inconvenience that should be removed because a lot of spoiled, unknowing, selfish types think they're more important than others safety. But, what's most sadly important in the matter is, apparently it's going to take another disaster to shut these morons up.
That's it for today folks
Adios
Monday, November 22, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/22/2010
I wrote yesterday's entry early, consequently Gang Green had yet to play. Then, when they pulled the game out with about twenty three seconds of time remaining, I was too stunned to type for the rest of the night. So I didn't sit down and amend the blog. And this makes about five in a row, or so, where they've gone down to the wire or more, because two wins were in overtime.
Ordinarily, I'd write this off to chance and think of as in keeping with Jet tradition, because I don't know of any other NFL team that over it's history has gone down to the wire in so many games. Events like the famous Marino false spike, and then his winning pass for the Dolphins. And who can ever forget the Heidi fiasco where they managed to lose in something like a tenth of a second, after the network had switched from the game to the movie, so no fans at home saw the game end. Those are just two of the major highlights, but the list of last minute losses and give away's is really quite long and cemented in Jet history.
Yet, despite the losing tradition, this year seems a little bit different. Because, although I'm having a hard time believing my own typing...they seem to be playing better football, but are just a little bit inconsistent over the course of their games. Yet, when they're up against the wall, these guys don't fold like their predecessors...they step up, suck it in and win.
I was so surprised by their recent performance, especially yesterday's incredible save, that I actually turned on the sound to listen to an analysis on TV this morning. I did it simply because I was curious if these guys agreed with me. And as it turned out, they don't.
The two I listened to were ex-players, not jock-sniffer, wannabe, never was, "experts'", who never tossed anything more than a Big Mac down their neck. It was Neon Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin, both super stars in their time. And, according to them this years Jets are the real deal, which they attribute to Mark Sanchez quarterbacking, far better than your average second year pro, and the depth at the key positions, particularly receivers, linemen and defensive secondary.
They attribute the teams strength to the coaching staffs ability to figure out their weaknesses, then going out and finding the guys they need, and most of all, insuring that everyone fits in and all play as a team. The most recent addition played a big part Sunday, Number 10, Santonio Holmes.
As for me, maybe I've just been around this team too long. because I won't believe anything anyone says, til I see the results. And the only thing I'm sure of at the moment is that I no longer need a cardiologist. Because if I survived the end of Sunday's game still standing, it's obvious that nothing can give me a coronary.
Elsewhere in the news, Barabara Bush who knows a little bit about how things work in the political world apparently had a few words about Sandra Palin, when interviewed by Larry King. Mrs. Bush's suggestion was "she seems very happy in Alaska." And then she added, "I hope she'll stay there."
Now, I don't know about you, But Mrs. Bush's comment seemed pretty cold to me.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Ordinarily, I'd write this off to chance and think of as in keeping with Jet tradition, because I don't know of any other NFL team that over it's history has gone down to the wire in so many games. Events like the famous Marino false spike, and then his winning pass for the Dolphins. And who can ever forget the Heidi fiasco where they managed to lose in something like a tenth of a second, after the network had switched from the game to the movie, so no fans at home saw the game end. Those are just two of the major highlights, but the list of last minute losses and give away's is really quite long and cemented in Jet history.
Yet, despite the losing tradition, this year seems a little bit different. Because, although I'm having a hard time believing my own typing...they seem to be playing better football, but are just a little bit inconsistent over the course of their games. Yet, when they're up against the wall, these guys don't fold like their predecessors...they step up, suck it in and win.
I was so surprised by their recent performance, especially yesterday's incredible save, that I actually turned on the sound to listen to an analysis on TV this morning. I did it simply because I was curious if these guys agreed with me. And as it turned out, they don't.
The two I listened to were ex-players, not jock-sniffer, wannabe, never was, "experts'", who never tossed anything more than a Big Mac down their neck. It was Neon Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin, both super stars in their time. And, according to them this years Jets are the real deal, which they attribute to Mark Sanchez quarterbacking, far better than your average second year pro, and the depth at the key positions, particularly receivers, linemen and defensive secondary.
They attribute the teams strength to the coaching staffs ability to figure out their weaknesses, then going out and finding the guys they need, and most of all, insuring that everyone fits in and all play as a team. The most recent addition played a big part Sunday, Number 10, Santonio Holmes.
As for me, maybe I've just been around this team too long. because I won't believe anything anyone says, til I see the results. And the only thing I'm sure of at the moment is that I no longer need a cardiologist. Because if I survived the end of Sunday's game still standing, it's obvious that nothing can give me a coronary.
Elsewhere in the news, Barabara Bush who knows a little bit about how things work in the political world apparently had a few words about Sandra Palin, when interviewed by Larry King. Mrs. Bush's suggestion was "she seems very happy in Alaska." And then she added, "I hope she'll stay there."
Now, I don't know about you, But Mrs. Bush's comment seemed pretty cold to me.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, November 21, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/21/2010
Since we live in America, there's another brouhaha brewing, because it just wouldn't be right if folks just sat back, faced facts, and kept their mouths shut. So it seems that some are now upset over body search methods at airports.
A headline story concerns a woman, Cathy Bossi, a Charlotte-area flight attendant, who said that in August, two female Transportation Security Administration agents took her to a private room for what she calls an "aggressive pat-down." They stopped when they got to feeling her right breast, where she'd had cancer surgery.
Referring to one of the agents, Bossi said, "She put her full hand on my breast and asked, "What is this?'" Bossi replied "It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer." The agent then told her, "Well you'll need to show me that." Bossi said she then removed the prosthetic breast from her bra.
According to a TSA spokesperson, agents aren't supposed to remove any prosthetics. But they are allowed to ask to see and touch any passenger's prosthetic. The agency also said it will review the Bossi matter.
This is just one of many in a backlash against passenger pat-downs and high-tech scanners producing digital images of the body's contours. Additionally, Florida Representative John Mica is pushing for airports to consider ditching TSA agents altogether in favor of private contractors, while some travelers are using the Internet to organize protests aimed at the busy travel days surrounding Thanksgiving next week.
After reading all this, I did some homework, mainly because I used to fly an awful lot for business, by my count during a seven year stretch flying the shuttle between NY and Boston more than 630 times alone. Add to that all the other trips I've taken for work and pleasure and the total's got to be well over a thousand.
So, in my research, here's what I found. There are 809,611,003 airline passengers who traveled in America for the year 2008. The most recent annual data available from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Most air travelers in America traveled domestically, representing 80.5% of the total annual total, and, for what it's worth, more passengers traveled in July than in any other month.
So that means almost a billion people, (that's with a "B"), traveled annually in the US two years ago, and today the numbers likely higher. And with all those folks going through airports, any one of them (or more) could be a bomber. And who's to say, despite all the profiling techniques in the world, that one of them's not? Because, all we need is one little slip-up and who knows what target will be disintegrated?
The president himself asked if there are alternatives to body scanners and pat-downs and was told that at the moment, there's not. So, passengers at some U.S. airports must pass through full-body scanners that produce a virtually naked image. If they refuse, they can be forced to undergo time-consuming fingertip examinations, including clothed genital areas and breasts, by inspectors of the same sex as the passenger.
The way the scanners work, naked images of a passenger's body, without the face, are viewed by a screener in a different location, who doesn't know the identity of the traveler. There are nearly 400 of the advanced imaging machines deployed at 70 US airports, thus not all airports have them and not all travelers are selected for scans.
As I see this situation, and as as someone who's flown a lot and seen lot's of bozos on aircraft albeit they weren't terrorists I don't think...whatever airlines must do to keep their planes safe is alright with me. Because, the alternative's something that might resemble the events of 9/11.
And as for the groups of complainers to scans and searches, in total they don't amount to a blip compared to a billion safe flyer's each year. Nonetheless, I think another alternative should be given to them. For folks who really don't want to be either scanned or touched...they can stay the hell home.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
A headline story concerns a woman, Cathy Bossi, a Charlotte-area flight attendant, who said that in August, two female Transportation Security Administration agents took her to a private room for what she calls an "aggressive pat-down." They stopped when they got to feeling her right breast, where she'd had cancer surgery.
Referring to one of the agents, Bossi said, "She put her full hand on my breast and asked, "What is this?'" Bossi replied "It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer." The agent then told her, "Well you'll need to show me that." Bossi said she then removed the prosthetic breast from her bra.
According to a TSA spokesperson, agents aren't supposed to remove any prosthetics. But they are allowed to ask to see and touch any passenger's prosthetic. The agency also said it will review the Bossi matter.
This is just one of many in a backlash against passenger pat-downs and high-tech scanners producing digital images of the body's contours. Additionally, Florida Representative John Mica is pushing for airports to consider ditching TSA agents altogether in favor of private contractors, while some travelers are using the Internet to organize protests aimed at the busy travel days surrounding Thanksgiving next week.
After reading all this, I did some homework, mainly because I used to fly an awful lot for business, by my count during a seven year stretch flying the shuttle between NY and Boston more than 630 times alone. Add to that all the other trips I've taken for work and pleasure and the total's got to be well over a thousand.
So, in my research, here's what I found. There are 809,611,003 airline passengers who traveled in America for the year 2008. The most recent annual data available from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Most air travelers in America traveled domestically, representing 80.5% of the total annual total, and, for what it's worth, more passengers traveled in July than in any other month.
So that means almost a billion people, (that's with a "B"), traveled annually in the US two years ago, and today the numbers likely higher. And with all those folks going through airports, any one of them (or more) could be a bomber. And who's to say, despite all the profiling techniques in the world, that one of them's not? Because, all we need is one little slip-up and who knows what target will be disintegrated?
The president himself asked if there are alternatives to body scanners and pat-downs and was told that at the moment, there's not. So, passengers at some U.S. airports must pass through full-body scanners that produce a virtually naked image. If they refuse, they can be forced to undergo time-consuming fingertip examinations, including clothed genital areas and breasts, by inspectors of the same sex as the passenger.
The way the scanners work, naked images of a passenger's body, without the face, are viewed by a screener in a different location, who doesn't know the identity of the traveler. There are nearly 400 of the advanced imaging machines deployed at 70 US airports, thus not all airports have them and not all travelers are selected for scans.
As I see this situation, and as as someone who's flown a lot and seen lot's of bozos on aircraft albeit they weren't terrorists I don't think...whatever airlines must do to keep their planes safe is alright with me. Because, the alternative's something that might resemble the events of 9/11.
And as for the groups of complainers to scans and searches, in total they don't amount to a blip compared to a billion safe flyer's each year. Nonetheless, I think another alternative should be given to them. For folks who really don't want to be either scanned or touched...they can stay the hell home.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, November 20, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/20/2010
Another slow news day in the press, but one item caught my eye. Apparently Nancy Pelosi hinted that she still "wears the pants" in the House while taking a jab at Representative John Boehner, saying it's because "he cries sometimes when we're having a debate on bills."
To me, whether Representative Boehner cries over bills or not, Ms Pelosi once again completely missed the point of what's happened in Congress. Earlier this month, under her leadership her party lost more seats in the House than ever before. Had the Republicans come up with a few more solid candidates they would have taken the Senate too. And the president just came back from an overseas trip where he accomplished zip, zero, nada.
So, what the handwriting on the wall is clearly saying is that a very large part of the American public, now joined by the leadership of several foreign nations, has no use for her party at all. But, what will she do about listening to them or changing direction? The answer is, absolutely nothing at all.
Consequently, the Republicans have a huge opportunity in front of them, if they don't blow it themselves. Because they've been given another chance to succeed, whether they earned it or not. And frankly, I think a party of chimps could have prevailed in the last election, provided they weren't incumbents.
So, what the Republicans have to do now is simply deliver what they promised. Unwind the sham of a health care bill, lower taxes, reassure business that DC won't turn around and fleece them so they'll begin hiring people and stop their flow of dollars, ideas, and talent to overseas nations. And above all, recognize that, as their titles say, they are representatives of the people who voted them in...not some foreign nations or a test case for failed social reformation projects.
In all, however, the incoming House couldn't have an easier time. Because they know for sure that the entrenched hard core politicos and old-timers still believe they're impervious to defeat and will go on ignoring the electorate. So, if the newcomers simply do their jobs as promised, with no fanfare or noise of any kind, next time around their majority will get larger, and this country will once again run like it's supposed to.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
To me, whether Representative Boehner cries over bills or not, Ms Pelosi once again completely missed the point of what's happened in Congress. Earlier this month, under her leadership her party lost more seats in the House than ever before. Had the Republicans come up with a few more solid candidates they would have taken the Senate too. And the president just came back from an overseas trip where he accomplished zip, zero, nada.
So, what the handwriting on the wall is clearly saying is that a very large part of the American public, now joined by the leadership of several foreign nations, has no use for her party at all. But, what will she do about listening to them or changing direction? The answer is, absolutely nothing at all.
Consequently, the Republicans have a huge opportunity in front of them, if they don't blow it themselves. Because they've been given another chance to succeed, whether they earned it or not. And frankly, I think a party of chimps could have prevailed in the last election, provided they weren't incumbents.
So, what the Republicans have to do now is simply deliver what they promised. Unwind the sham of a health care bill, lower taxes, reassure business that DC won't turn around and fleece them so they'll begin hiring people and stop their flow of dollars, ideas, and talent to overseas nations. And above all, recognize that, as their titles say, they are representatives of the people who voted them in...not some foreign nations or a test case for failed social reformation projects.
In all, however, the incoming House couldn't have an easier time. Because they know for sure that the entrenched hard core politicos and old-timers still believe they're impervious to defeat and will go on ignoring the electorate. So, if the newcomers simply do their jobs as promised, with no fanfare or noise of any kind, next time around their majority will get larger, and this country will once again run like it's supposed to.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, November 19, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/19/2010
Slow day today news-wise, but maybe some in Congress are waking up. Because there's a very good chance that if earmarks aren't completely ended, they'll at least be suspended for a couple of years.
To that end, I found some interesting data about earmarks themselves. They only add up to 1% of the federal budget, but that amounts to $16 billion dollars which equals the median federal income tax paid by 6.9 million Americans. So, while politicians are throwing bones to friends, constituents and contributors, they're taking $16 billion out of taxpayers pockets to do it. But in the end, I guess, its not difficult to spend someone else's hard-earned money to bolster your personal cause when you really don't give a damn about anyone else's financial issues or anything else about them.
On a more personal note, I ran into an acquaintance of mine last evening who I chat with every now and then. He's in a different generation than I am, so although we have much in common, we don't really "hang out" as friends. But, what I do know about him quite well, is that he's quite bright, very articulate, and extremely well read, particularly on current events.
He seemed very happy and excited as he joined myself and some others, and within a short while, explained that he had written a book, and just learned that a publisher had agreed to publish the work. Now, it's far too soon to go into detail about the book itself, it's at the earliest stages of production. But I'll certainly write more about this as the project's completed.
The thing that interested me though, was that although the writer was quite ecstatic he really couldn't describe his feelings completely to others. And that's why I'm typing this entry, because I can identify with his elation in a way that non-writers can't. And that's not to denigrate non-writers, it's just to try to explain why my acquaintance felt such excitement.
What writers really do most of the time is stare at blank pieces of paper, or computer screens. At times, words and ideas flow from their fingers in torrents and pages fill very quickly. At other times it's an endless, wearying trial where words, ideas or any worthwhile thoughts either don't exist or refuse to show up. And, for the most part, writers work completely by themselves, putting their thoughts and words out there for others to determine whether they're of value or not.
And that's why when a professional in the publishing business whose major task is to separate writing wheat from chaff, says we'd like to publish your work, there are few accomplishments in life that can equate with that. Consequently, it's hard to put your feelings in words, because very few can grasp the full meaning, unless they themselves are writers. And please, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that writers are better, or special, or in a class above others. I'm simply trying to say that they're unique in the same way that successful professionals in any field are, and that they usually relate best to their peers.
So, for now, I'll just wish the writer well and am as sure as one can be at this stage, that the work will be well worth reading. Because, if he writes half as well as he articulates his thoughts, the book will wind up a best seller.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
To that end, I found some interesting data about earmarks themselves. They only add up to 1% of the federal budget, but that amounts to $16 billion dollars which equals the median federal income tax paid by 6.9 million Americans. So, while politicians are throwing bones to friends, constituents and contributors, they're taking $16 billion out of taxpayers pockets to do it. But in the end, I guess, its not difficult to spend someone else's hard-earned money to bolster your personal cause when you really don't give a damn about anyone else's financial issues or anything else about them.
On a more personal note, I ran into an acquaintance of mine last evening who I chat with every now and then. He's in a different generation than I am, so although we have much in common, we don't really "hang out" as friends. But, what I do know about him quite well, is that he's quite bright, very articulate, and extremely well read, particularly on current events.
He seemed very happy and excited as he joined myself and some others, and within a short while, explained that he had written a book, and just learned that a publisher had agreed to publish the work. Now, it's far too soon to go into detail about the book itself, it's at the earliest stages of production. But I'll certainly write more about this as the project's completed.
The thing that interested me though, was that although the writer was quite ecstatic he really couldn't describe his feelings completely to others. And that's why I'm typing this entry, because I can identify with his elation in a way that non-writers can't. And that's not to denigrate non-writers, it's just to try to explain why my acquaintance felt such excitement.
What writers really do most of the time is stare at blank pieces of paper, or computer screens. At times, words and ideas flow from their fingers in torrents and pages fill very quickly. At other times it's an endless, wearying trial where words, ideas or any worthwhile thoughts either don't exist or refuse to show up. And, for the most part, writers work completely by themselves, putting their thoughts and words out there for others to determine whether they're of value or not.
And that's why when a professional in the publishing business whose major task is to separate writing wheat from chaff, says we'd like to publish your work, there are few accomplishments in life that can equate with that. Consequently, it's hard to put your feelings in words, because very few can grasp the full meaning, unless they themselves are writers. And please, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that writers are better, or special, or in a class above others. I'm simply trying to say that they're unique in the same way that successful professionals in any field are, and that they usually relate best to their peers.
So, for now, I'll just wish the writer well and am as sure as one can be at this stage, that the work will be well worth reading. Because, if he writes half as well as he articulates his thoughts, the book will wind up a best seller.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, November 18, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/18/2010
The more exposure the folks in office get, the more you wonder how our country runs at all with them in so-called leadership positions. And, as light gets shown brighter on them, the more inane and patently absurd their comments get.
Charles Rangel was finally adjudicated today, and he's facing censure. Part of his response was that he hopes that his forty years in office of "service" will be considered in his sentencing. And, I for one, hope they do consider his entire career. Because he's been tried on stuff he did recently, so the chances are he's been stealing, self-serving and covering up for a whole lot longer than that. So, let's put his whole public career under investigation, because then he'll likely go to Leavenworth for life.
Then I read about comments made by Jay Rockefeller, Senator from West Virginia. He's chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and apparently he blew a fuse over cable news for creating "a politically toxic climate in DC." And in a "stunning tirade" he expressed his desire to see the Federal Communications Commission shut down Fox News and MSNBC.
During a Senate hearing on retransmission consent, he said "There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye. It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future."
I suppose what he means is that without the prying eyes and ears of the media, he'd then be able to tell the public whatever he wanted, avoiding the nagging pressure of being forced to divulge the details, or perhaps, tell the truth. And I can surely imagine his quandary, because now with coverage everywhere he goes, he has to do his job by the book, and worse, he now has to do what he was elected to do which he never had to consider before.
Then, although it's early, there are early rumblings about possible presidential candidates in 2012. And, naturally, one of those testing the water is Sarah Palin, who's been getting much exposure through her Tea Party affiliation. But, I think that right now isn't the time for someone with no real experience to rely on. And while making public appearances and getting crowds to rant and rave may have some sort of value, that's not going to help much against another terrorist attack. And, it's certainly not going to overcome the budget deficit or find people jobs.
To paraphrase Michael Douglas in the movie, American President, these are serious times with serious problems that need serious people to solve them, and in that regard Ms Palin's 15 minutes may soon be up. Perhaps that's what Karl Rove meant when he wrote yesterday "Republicans should sober up. It is always difficult to defeat a sitting president. Since World War II, three have been defeated for re-election and two decided not to run again. But five have sought and won second terms."
And as for me, if it came down to the president, who by then would have four years under his belt versus an unskilled lightweight like her, I wouldn't be surprised a bit if he won re-election in a landslide.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Charles Rangel was finally adjudicated today, and he's facing censure. Part of his response was that he hopes that his forty years in office of "service" will be considered in his sentencing. And, I for one, hope they do consider his entire career. Because he's been tried on stuff he did recently, so the chances are he's been stealing, self-serving and covering up for a whole lot longer than that. So, let's put his whole public career under investigation, because then he'll likely go to Leavenworth for life.
Then I read about comments made by Jay Rockefeller, Senator from West Virginia. He's chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and apparently he blew a fuse over cable news for creating "a politically toxic climate in DC." And in a "stunning tirade" he expressed his desire to see the Federal Communications Commission shut down Fox News and MSNBC.
During a Senate hearing on retransmission consent, he said "There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye. It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future."
I suppose what he means is that without the prying eyes and ears of the media, he'd then be able to tell the public whatever he wanted, avoiding the nagging pressure of being forced to divulge the details, or perhaps, tell the truth. And I can surely imagine his quandary, because now with coverage everywhere he goes, he has to do his job by the book, and worse, he now has to do what he was elected to do which he never had to consider before.
Then, although it's early, there are early rumblings about possible presidential candidates in 2012. And, naturally, one of those testing the water is Sarah Palin, who's been getting much exposure through her Tea Party affiliation. But, I think that right now isn't the time for someone with no real experience to rely on. And while making public appearances and getting crowds to rant and rave may have some sort of value, that's not going to help much against another terrorist attack. And, it's certainly not going to overcome the budget deficit or find people jobs.
To paraphrase Michael Douglas in the movie, American President, these are serious times with serious problems that need serious people to solve them, and in that regard Ms Palin's 15 minutes may soon be up. Perhaps that's what Karl Rove meant when he wrote yesterday "Republicans should sober up. It is always difficult to defeat a sitting president. Since World War II, three have been defeated for re-election and two decided not to run again. But five have sought and won second terms."
And as for me, if it came down to the president, who by then would have four years under his belt versus an unskilled lightweight like her, I wouldn't be surprised a bit if he won re-election in a landslide.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/17/2010
There are some things about government, and particularly so-called leaders, that I just don't understand. Because, as I keep typing lately, it seems to me that DC's been sent a message that folks are fed up with the current situation and are demanding change.
To add to that conclusion, not only has the point been underscored by the results of this past election, the president met dissatisfaction everywhere he went on his overseas junket. And according to recent poll results here, almost 60% of the public want everything undone that's been passed in the last two years regarding taxes, health care, failed employment strategies, earmarks, unbridled wasteful government spending and almost anything else you can think of.
So, what do the Democrats do when faced with so much aversion to what they've done in office? Why, first and foremost, they keep Nancy Pelosi as minority leader in the House. And who was one of her most staunch supporters? None other than Barney Frank. Thus, with those two still leading the charge, it's a given that they'll do nothing to help us all out and just keep making the recovery harder. But the good news is, they have no chance in the world to have any power again.
On the other hand Warren Buffet wanted people to know he thinks the U.S. government performed well during the economic meltdown of 2008. He wrote a thank-you note to "Uncle Sam," published in the NY Times op-ed page on Wednesday saying he thinks the government should be praised for its efforts to stabilize the economy with massive bailouts and stimulus spending.
Although he believes some specific decisions will be questioned, he says actions taken during the crisis were "remarkably effective." He particularly pointed out that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury secretaries Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair and former President George W. Bush "all acted courageously to right the economy."
I thought it was interesting to see who he mentioned specifically, and also who he left out, although I don't think his comments were politically motivated. Beyond that, during a follow-up interview on WNBC he stated that he much prefers investing in stocks, not bonds for the present.
I've been around long enough to know to do my own homework, no matter who the pundits are that provide advice, because they all have some kind of axe to grind or other. But, on balance, Buffet seems to be pretty down to earth whenever he's interviewed. But whatever the case, I hope that financially the country can do as well as he does, because he just doesn't seem to lose.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
To add to that conclusion, not only has the point been underscored by the results of this past election, the president met dissatisfaction everywhere he went on his overseas junket. And according to recent poll results here, almost 60% of the public want everything undone that's been passed in the last two years regarding taxes, health care, failed employment strategies, earmarks, unbridled wasteful government spending and almost anything else you can think of.
So, what do the Democrats do when faced with so much aversion to what they've done in office? Why, first and foremost, they keep Nancy Pelosi as minority leader in the House. And who was one of her most staunch supporters? None other than Barney Frank. Thus, with those two still leading the charge, it's a given that they'll do nothing to help us all out and just keep making the recovery harder. But the good news is, they have no chance in the world to have any power again.
On the other hand Warren Buffet wanted people to know he thinks the U.S. government performed well during the economic meltdown of 2008. He wrote a thank-you note to "Uncle Sam," published in the NY Times op-ed page on Wednesday saying he thinks the government should be praised for its efforts to stabilize the economy with massive bailouts and stimulus spending.
Although he believes some specific decisions will be questioned, he says actions taken during the crisis were "remarkably effective." He particularly pointed out that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury secretaries Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair and former President George W. Bush "all acted courageously to right the economy."
I thought it was interesting to see who he mentioned specifically, and also who he left out, although I don't think his comments were politically motivated. Beyond that, during a follow-up interview on WNBC he stated that he much prefers investing in stocks, not bonds for the present.
I've been around long enough to know to do my own homework, no matter who the pundits are that provide advice, because they all have some kind of axe to grind or other. But, on balance, Buffet seems to be pretty down to earth whenever he's interviewed. But whatever the case, I hope that financially the country can do as well as he does, because he just doesn't seem to lose.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/16/2010
A congressional panel delivered its findings today in the case against Charles Rangel, Democrat Representative from New York. Eight house members handed down their findings, which will now go to the full ethics committee for a hearing.
The congressman was charged with 13 counts of financial and fundraising misconduct, which means that what he really did wrong must have been enormous, because most often these panels use every means they can to help cover up the truth. Since, when all is said and done, they all play the same game and expect to be protected themselves, when and if they get caught with their own hand in the till.
Rangel called the findings "unprecedented" because there was no rebuttal evidence. He complained that the rejection of his appeal for more time violated "the basic constitutional right to counsel." What he left out was that he paid his counsel $2 million and supposedly ran out of funds, so they quit. So, I guess what he's saying is similar to the guy who shot both his parents, then asked the jury for mercy because he was an orphan.
He went on to say that "any failings in my conduct were the result of 'good faith mistakes' and caused by "sloppy and careless record keeping, but were not criminal or corrupt." Yet what the panel found was he'd used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a New York college center named after him, and also solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, suggesting that the money donated could influence official actions.
He was also found guilty of failing to disclose at least $600,000 in assets and income in a series of inaccurate reports to Congress, and using a rent-subsidized New York apartment designated for residential use as a campaign office, lastly failing to report rental income from a housing unit in a Dominican Republic resort to the U.S.
Yet, while it's all well and good that they finally nailed Rangel, who's been under suspicion for years, even after conviction, he's not facing much of a sentence. Because the possible sanctions only include a House vote deploring Rangel's conduct, a fine and denial of privileges.
In other words, it's the equivalent of sending him to his room without supper. Because being deplored by the House is like being reprimanded for bank robbery by Willie Sutton or Jesse James, he'll never pay any fine levied on him and it's obvious he doesn't care what gets denied to him, he'll go on taking what he wants anyway...that's why he's on trial in the first place.
So, when it's all said and done, this whole scenario will get swept away and be forgotten. But, if one of us plain old citizens had done half what he did, maybe less, we'd be doing ten to twenty in some federal cell. But, then again, we'd have the price of our food, clothing and health-care costs paid by the government, just like he does.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The congressman was charged with 13 counts of financial and fundraising misconduct, which means that what he really did wrong must have been enormous, because most often these panels use every means they can to help cover up the truth. Since, when all is said and done, they all play the same game and expect to be protected themselves, when and if they get caught with their own hand in the till.
Rangel called the findings "unprecedented" because there was no rebuttal evidence. He complained that the rejection of his appeal for more time violated "the basic constitutional right to counsel." What he left out was that he paid his counsel $2 million and supposedly ran out of funds, so they quit. So, I guess what he's saying is similar to the guy who shot both his parents, then asked the jury for mercy because he was an orphan.
He went on to say that "any failings in my conduct were the result of 'good faith mistakes' and caused by "sloppy and careless record keeping, but were not criminal or corrupt." Yet what the panel found was he'd used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a New York college center named after him, and also solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, suggesting that the money donated could influence official actions.
He was also found guilty of failing to disclose at least $600,000 in assets and income in a series of inaccurate reports to Congress, and using a rent-subsidized New York apartment designated for residential use as a campaign office, lastly failing to report rental income from a housing unit in a Dominican Republic resort to the U.S.
Yet, while it's all well and good that they finally nailed Rangel, who's been under suspicion for years, even after conviction, he's not facing much of a sentence. Because the possible sanctions only include a House vote deploring Rangel's conduct, a fine and denial of privileges.
In other words, it's the equivalent of sending him to his room without supper. Because being deplored by the House is like being reprimanded for bank robbery by Willie Sutton or Jesse James, he'll never pay any fine levied on him and it's obvious he doesn't care what gets denied to him, he'll go on taking what he wants anyway...that's why he's on trial in the first place.
So, when it's all said and done, this whole scenario will get swept away and be forgotten. But, if one of us plain old citizens had done half what he did, maybe less, we'd be doing ten to twenty in some federal cell. But, then again, we'd have the price of our food, clothing and health-care costs paid by the government, just like he does.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, November 15, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/15/2010
One quite valuable benefit of blogging every day is, it causes me to research and learn out about things in more detail than I would normally would. That's because I want to be as accurate as possible in my postings. And, as a result, in recent days I've been reading a considerable amount about earmarks.
In concept, earmarks are pretty simple. As I noted yesterday, they're generally pet projects that don't go through proper legislative channels, last year totalling nearly $38 billion. And, typically, these are the funds that legislators bring back home to their constituencies, to be spent in their respective districts or states.
Now, looking at earmarks as ways for congresspeople to help localities by pumping in funds seems reasonable, because supposedly these investments can produce economic benefit and additionally create jobs. So, on the surface that all seems pretty good. But, as I consider the concept, I'm not so sure that the process is good at all.
Because, if I'm reading correctly about how earmarks work, I think there's something really wrong with the structure, and certainly with its implementation. The process, it seems, is that every budget year an amount is designated for spending at the discretion of congress, or at times by the president, and like everything else having to do with budgets, the amount keeps increasing (last year, however, there was a slight decrease.)
But, regardless of how earmarks are spent, and by whom, my question relates to where the funds come from in the first place. Because, no matter which side of government actually decides where to spend the money, it originates from taxes. So, right now we have an argument brewing about whether congress folks should allocate the funds, or the president, or as another alternative, use the money to pay down the deficit. But, what are these thieves really discussing? How to spend 38 billion taxpayer dollars simply because they've taken it in.
You would think at a time like this, responsible folks would try to alleviate financial pressure on their constituents by shelving their projects, or waiting until a more appropriate time. Or, perhaps, doing something really benficial, like returning the 38 billion bucks to those who paid it in. But no, for government, there's never any consideration for tax-payers unless there's a revolt at the polls.
And the odd thing really is, we've just had what amounts to an electoral revolt, yet these guys still in office apparently don't understand what happened. So that means that two years from now they'll learn the value of really important programs the hard way, like when they're collecting tax-payer paid unemployment insurance.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
In concept, earmarks are pretty simple. As I noted yesterday, they're generally pet projects that don't go through proper legislative channels, last year totalling nearly $38 billion. And, typically, these are the funds that legislators bring back home to their constituencies, to be spent in their respective districts or states.
Now, looking at earmarks as ways for congresspeople to help localities by pumping in funds seems reasonable, because supposedly these investments can produce economic benefit and additionally create jobs. So, on the surface that all seems pretty good. But, as I consider the concept, I'm not so sure that the process is good at all.
Because, if I'm reading correctly about how earmarks work, I think there's something really wrong with the structure, and certainly with its implementation. The process, it seems, is that every budget year an amount is designated for spending at the discretion of congress, or at times by the president, and like everything else having to do with budgets, the amount keeps increasing (last year, however, there was a slight decrease.)
But, regardless of how earmarks are spent, and by whom, my question relates to where the funds come from in the first place. Because, no matter which side of government actually decides where to spend the money, it originates from taxes. So, right now we have an argument brewing about whether congress folks should allocate the funds, or the president, or as another alternative, use the money to pay down the deficit. But, what are these thieves really discussing? How to spend 38 billion taxpayer dollars simply because they've taken it in.
You would think at a time like this, responsible folks would try to alleviate financial pressure on their constituents by shelving their projects, or waiting until a more appropriate time. Or, perhaps, doing something really benficial, like returning the 38 billion bucks to those who paid it in. But no, for government, there's never any consideration for tax-payers unless there's a revolt at the polls.
And the odd thing really is, we've just had what amounts to an electoral revolt, yet these guys still in office apparently don't understand what happened. So that means that two years from now they'll learn the value of really important programs the hard way, like when they're collecting tax-payer paid unemployment insurance.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, November 14, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/14/2010
Yesterday I wrote that when it comes to Jet's games, you need only watch the last two minutes, because they always let their opponents stay alive up to almost the very end. A half-hour ago I found out I was wrong about the timing, since the Browns tied the game with two minutes and forty-two seconds to go. Thus, I was forty-two seconds off as a prognosticator.
As far as the game went, it was one more Sunday where I wondered just why I root for this team. I've been with them as a fan since they were the Titans, and then came into their own as the Jets with Broadway Joe. And while it's true they've had spurts here and there of great football, there have been a seemingly endless number of nail-biting losses. But since, as they say, there are no such things as bad wins, I'll just bite my tongue and move on to next week.
There's really nothing much going on in DC, except for the growing concern about "earmarks," which is cash for pet projects that don't go through proper legislative channels. They totaled nearly $38 billion in 2010. That's down by $1.1 billion from the previous year, but quite little to demonstrate budgetary discretion in the current economic environment.
And although Republicans say they want to stop earmarks altogether, neither do they wish untempered spending by the president. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky has said he doesn't want to end them at all because it's not money-saving and would abdicate the Senate's role to the Executive Branch by permitting the administration to decide spending levels for the states.
Senator John Cornyn, Republican from Texas, went a step further, saying if earmarks are going to be eliminated, the money should then go to deficit reduction, That position is supported by Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who appeared with him on CNN.
As far as I'm concerned, until this issue arose in the last few weeks, I knew virtually nothing about the term "earmarks" at all. But now that I've learned a bit on the subject, I'm totally confused. Because it seems that there are laws that say particular amounts of taxpayer's money has to be spent no matter, and all that's being argued about now is, who gets to decide where to spend it.
As most of my readers know by now, I've little to no use for any kind of politicians at all. But, if it's true as far as how these earmarks really work, that they have to take our money no matter what, these guys in Washington shouldn't just be voted out of office...they should be shot.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
As far as the game went, it was one more Sunday where I wondered just why I root for this team. I've been with them as a fan since they were the Titans, and then came into their own as the Jets with Broadway Joe. And while it's true they've had spurts here and there of great football, there have been a seemingly endless number of nail-biting losses. But since, as they say, there are no such things as bad wins, I'll just bite my tongue and move on to next week.
There's really nothing much going on in DC, except for the growing concern about "earmarks," which is cash for pet projects that don't go through proper legislative channels. They totaled nearly $38 billion in 2010. That's down by $1.1 billion from the previous year, but quite little to demonstrate budgetary discretion in the current economic environment.
And although Republicans say they want to stop earmarks altogether, neither do they wish untempered spending by the president. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky has said he doesn't want to end them at all because it's not money-saving and would abdicate the Senate's role to the Executive Branch by permitting the administration to decide spending levels for the states.
Senator John Cornyn, Republican from Texas, went a step further, saying if earmarks are going to be eliminated, the money should then go to deficit reduction, That position is supported by Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who appeared with him on CNN.
As far as I'm concerned, until this issue arose in the last few weeks, I knew virtually nothing about the term "earmarks" at all. But now that I've learned a bit on the subject, I'm totally confused. Because it seems that there are laws that say particular amounts of taxpayer's money has to be spent no matter, and all that's being argued about now is, who gets to decide where to spend it.
As most of my readers know by now, I've little to no use for any kind of politicians at all. But, if it's true as far as how these earmarks really work, that they have to take our money no matter what, these guys in Washington shouldn't just be voted out of office...they should be shot.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, November 13, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/13/2010
Sunday's getting closer and it should be a typically nerve-wracking game for the Jets. The Browns are on an upswing and their coach may finally be getting his squad together. Last week they had an impressive, one-sided win. And I think Eric Mangini polished off two or three bags of trail mix as he watched his guys from the sidelines. It seems to me he never stops chewing.
As for Gang Green, I'm sure that even if they get off to a good start and put up lots of early points, they'll let their opposition back in. Because that what's they always do. So, maybe I'll watch a movie or just do some chores until the last two minutes of game time, or so. Because the Jets play just like an NBA team. The whole game always comes down to the very end.
As far as the news goes, there's nothing new that I feel the urge to type about, but there is a continuation of boring old stuff. Because it seems that Nancy Pelosi will likely remain Democratic party leader. She has no real opposition, although several members have said they'd prefer she step aside after historic election losses.
But, as I've written several times recently, I just don't understand it. Because it seems that Pelosi feels her greatest accomplishments, and the ones she boasts about are "legislation on jobs, health care, veterans and Wall Street reform on behalf of the American people."
On the other hand though, a huge portion of the American voting public has made it clear that it wants virtually all of the past legislation undone, and will continue to insist on its undoing. Beyond that, the president himself travelled through four foreign nations where his status seemed clearly diminished in terms of others willingness to work with him. He similarly came up short of his goals at the G-20 conference in Seoul, where he failed to win backing from other world leaders for a get-tough policy toward China over on its currency stance and couldn't reach agreement with longtime ally South Korea on a new free-trade pact.
So, that brings me back to my same old, same old question of late. What is about the Democrat leaders that instills them to pursue policies, plans and programs that most people greatly dislike? Now I know it's true that many great leaders have made unpopular decisions because particular circumstances forced, or impelled, them to act. But, most often, those were singular events, and commonly pursued for the so-called greater good at the particular time.
On the other hand though, as every day goes by it gets clearer that the legislation rammed through in the last two years in particular has not only been faulty as law, it was never really read or understood by its champions. So, that being the case, why would they continue down the same road when given a chance to change course? Because, it seems to me that the only folks who can't see that their party's over unless they relent, are the leaders who insist on taking their compatriots with them when they fail again in two years.
So, in conclusion, I guess what they're doing, politically speaking, is taking a party chock full of lame ducks and turning them into dead ones.
That's it for today folks
Adios
As for Gang Green, I'm sure that even if they get off to a good start and put up lots of early points, they'll let their opposition back in. Because that what's they always do. So, maybe I'll watch a movie or just do some chores until the last two minutes of game time, or so. Because the Jets play just like an NBA team. The whole game always comes down to the very end.
As far as the news goes, there's nothing new that I feel the urge to type about, but there is a continuation of boring old stuff. Because it seems that Nancy Pelosi will likely remain Democratic party leader. She has no real opposition, although several members have said they'd prefer she step aside after historic election losses.
But, as I've written several times recently, I just don't understand it. Because it seems that Pelosi feels her greatest accomplishments, and the ones she boasts about are "legislation on jobs, health care, veterans and Wall Street reform on behalf of the American people."
On the other hand though, a huge portion of the American voting public has made it clear that it wants virtually all of the past legislation undone, and will continue to insist on its undoing. Beyond that, the president himself travelled through four foreign nations where his status seemed clearly diminished in terms of others willingness to work with him. He similarly came up short of his goals at the G-20 conference in Seoul, where he failed to win backing from other world leaders for a get-tough policy toward China over on its currency stance and couldn't reach agreement with longtime ally South Korea on a new free-trade pact.
So, that brings me back to my same old, same old question of late. What is about the Democrat leaders that instills them to pursue policies, plans and programs that most people greatly dislike? Now I know it's true that many great leaders have made unpopular decisions because particular circumstances forced, or impelled, them to act. But, most often, those were singular events, and commonly pursued for the so-called greater good at the particular time.
On the other hand though, as every day goes by it gets clearer that the legislation rammed through in the last two years in particular has not only been faulty as law, it was never really read or understood by its champions. So, that being the case, why would they continue down the same road when given a chance to change course? Because, it seems to me that the only folks who can't see that their party's over unless they relent, are the leaders who insist on taking their compatriots with them when they fail again in two years.
So, in conclusion, I guess what they're doing, politically speaking, is taking a party chock full of lame ducks and turning them into dead ones.
That's it for today folks
Adios
Friday, November 12, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/12/2010
I was advised by a reader yesterday to give the election results a rest, and to find other topics because "it's getting boring." And I was sorry to hear that because it hasn't been my intent to harp on the results from a political point of view, my focus has really been to question why anyone would continue to promote any kind of ideas that are spectacularly unpopular and feasibly moronic, such as typical Democrats do.
And despite my reader's suggestion that I move on to other stuff, I saw something this morning I wanted to pursue. Because when it comes to politics or governance, I'm certainly no expert. In fact, I'm not particularly inclined to lean in any particular way. I generally vote in favor of my safety and my wallet. But I do have this nagging question.
What is it that drives Democrats, and particularly liberals, to try to tear everything down? Why do they feel the need to make everyone equal and try to insure that the only power rests in the government? Why are they so uncertain of themselves that they seek leaders who'll tell them precisely what to do, when to do it, and how? And why do they see the equivalent of criminal action in anyone's success? Could it possibly be that liberals are the perfect personification of the adage that misery loves company? I just don't get it.
Beyond that, why is it that if individuals succeed in any way, liberals assume that those having the success must be crooked, yet they'll let their political idols rob them blind and then re-elect them? And in that way, unbelievable dunces and stooges have risen to enormous power and wealth in office while having done nothing productive ever in their lives.
And that brings me to my quandary for today. Because I read that the Democrats are up in arms over the presidents willingness to consider extending all the tax cuts, including those on the so-called rich. But what his party wants is more money in the hopper to blindly spend and fritter away. Because it's been apparent for many, many years now that driving the economy through innovation, productivity and the greasing of business wheels is verboten to liberals, the only thing that counts to them is taking from producers and giving to everyone else.
But the good news is that this group is getting smaller every cycle, and sooner or later will likely fade away completely. Because they're forcing the producers, movers and shakers underground, and they won't really show themselves again until it's safe to succeed without someone else's hand in their pocket. And by that time, it's likely all the liberals will have starved to death.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
And despite my reader's suggestion that I move on to other stuff, I saw something this morning I wanted to pursue. Because when it comes to politics or governance, I'm certainly no expert. In fact, I'm not particularly inclined to lean in any particular way. I generally vote in favor of my safety and my wallet. But I do have this nagging question.
What is it that drives Democrats, and particularly liberals, to try to tear everything down? Why do they feel the need to make everyone equal and try to insure that the only power rests in the government? Why are they so uncertain of themselves that they seek leaders who'll tell them precisely what to do, when to do it, and how? And why do they see the equivalent of criminal action in anyone's success? Could it possibly be that liberals are the perfect personification of the adage that misery loves company? I just don't get it.
Beyond that, why is it that if individuals succeed in any way, liberals assume that those having the success must be crooked, yet they'll let their political idols rob them blind and then re-elect them? And in that way, unbelievable dunces and stooges have risen to enormous power and wealth in office while having done nothing productive ever in their lives.
And that brings me to my quandary for today. Because I read that the Democrats are up in arms over the presidents willingness to consider extending all the tax cuts, including those on the so-called rich. But what his party wants is more money in the hopper to blindly spend and fritter away. Because it's been apparent for many, many years now that driving the economy through innovation, productivity and the greasing of business wheels is verboten to liberals, the only thing that counts to them is taking from producers and giving to everyone else.
But the good news is that this group is getting smaller every cycle, and sooner or later will likely fade away completely. Because they're forcing the producers, movers and shakers underground, and they won't really show themselves again until it's safe to succeed without someone else's hand in their pocket. And by that time, it's likely all the liberals will have starved to death.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, November 11, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/11/2010
Having spent virtually all of my adult life in the business world, I am continually amazed at how most elected folks think, and astounded at what they actually do. Because I can't think of a single commercial enterprise that could possibly stay afloat if it performed as electees do. And I couldn't think of a better example than what the Democrats in the House are doing now.
At the moment, there's a prospect of substantial Democrat defections from Nancy Pelosi's bid for election as minority leader, due to great concern over the party's future. The situation's complicated by the fact that the party's losses disproportionately hit moderates and purged the ranks of conservatives who call themselves "Blue Dogs," a coalition that lost more than half of its members. And now liberals, who are Pelosi's natural constituency, make up a greater percentage of House Democrats.
Many liberals say Democrats must reinvigorate core supporters by refusing to compromise with Republicans on key principles. On the other hand, centrists argue they must tack to the middle to win over independent voters.
What intrigued me most about the arguments and infighting among Democrats is that, unless I missed it completely, none of them has said a word about what's good for the country or its inhabitants. The whole discussion's been about how the politicians save themselves. And that, to me, is what's wrong with the whole political system.
While its only half a sentence, a lot can be gleaned from the Dem's first reaction. As written above, there are many liberals who say they "must reinvigorate core supporters by refusing to compromise with Republicans on key principles." And nowhere in those words is any consideration of the fact that some, or perhaps a lot, of the Republican's ideas may be good legislation. Because to the Dem's that's not the point. All that counts is being "anti."
My further bewilderment is still that 40% of the voting public that will likely grow as frustration with incumbents mounts, who've clearly told all politicians to wake up. Partisanship and lining up behind mindless law and regulation won't be tolerated any longer. People are fed up. But despite the handwriting on the wall that can be seen from miles away, these clowns who think they've been anointed go on as if nothing's happened. So perhaps, in 2012 when they too are out on the street, they'll finally wake up and ask the voters what happened, because until then, they'll not ask their opinions at all.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
At the moment, there's a prospect of substantial Democrat defections from Nancy Pelosi's bid for election as minority leader, due to great concern over the party's future. The situation's complicated by the fact that the party's losses disproportionately hit moderates and purged the ranks of conservatives who call themselves "Blue Dogs," a coalition that lost more than half of its members. And now liberals, who are Pelosi's natural constituency, make up a greater percentage of House Democrats.
Many liberals say Democrats must reinvigorate core supporters by refusing to compromise with Republicans on key principles. On the other hand, centrists argue they must tack to the middle to win over independent voters.
What intrigued me most about the arguments and infighting among Democrats is that, unless I missed it completely, none of them has said a word about what's good for the country or its inhabitants. The whole discussion's been about how the politicians save themselves. And that, to me, is what's wrong with the whole political system.
While its only half a sentence, a lot can be gleaned from the Dem's first reaction. As written above, there are many liberals who say they "must reinvigorate core supporters by refusing to compromise with Republicans on key principles." And nowhere in those words is any consideration of the fact that some, or perhaps a lot, of the Republican's ideas may be good legislation. Because to the Dem's that's not the point. All that counts is being "anti."
My further bewilderment is still that 40% of the voting public that will likely grow as frustration with incumbents mounts, who've clearly told all politicians to wake up. Partisanship and lining up behind mindless law and regulation won't be tolerated any longer. People are fed up. But despite the handwriting on the wall that can be seen from miles away, these clowns who think they've been anointed go on as if nothing's happened. So perhaps, in 2012 when they too are out on the street, they'll finally wake up and ask the voters what happened, because until then, they'll not ask their opinions at all.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/10/2010
They say the American public has a very short memory. So when I came across this article today, which was buried among lots of trivial stuff, I thought I'd post some of the highlights, in case folks forgot.
On this past election day, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as Acorn, the major voter registration organization in cities and among the poor, filed for bankruptcy in a Brooklyn, N.Y. court. Nonetheless, many of the group's critics are suspicious of the community organizers' intentions.
Documents filed show a massive loss of public support over the past two years, and that the group and six affiliates now are more than $8.6 million in debt and have only $218,709 in cash. ACORN took in $46.1 million in 2008, which dropped to $16.2 million last year, and contributions amount to just $1.57 million in the first 10 months of this year.
The real reasons of how and why ACORN declined are obviously unknown to me, but I certainly remember its actions and, to my knowledge, its most prominent promoter. Because that was none other than Barack Obama. He's had an intimate and long-term association with ACORN, which has been called the largest radical group in America. Easily as far out as MoveOn.org or Code Pink, maybe more so, it works locally in carefully selected urban areas, thus keeping a much lower national profile.
According to Sol Stern, way back in 2003 in a City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities," he states that "ACORN is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s 'New Left,' with a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism to match." He says it grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.”
In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices, aiming to remove eligibility restrictions, thereby effectively flooding welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.” Instead however, of a socialist utopia, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities, until welfare reform began to turn the tide.
While retaining NWRO’s radical economic framework and confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, targets and strategies have changed. ACORN now prefers flying under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas, where, according to Stern, local legislators and reporters are often “slow to grasp how radical ACORN’s positions really are.”
The new goals are municipal “living wage” laws that target “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks to combat “predatory lending.” The problem is, instead of helping workers, ACORN’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. The opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. And to top it off, ACORN uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive “donations” that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.
So, what we have here is basic evidence of the president's aims all along. Because on the local level years ago he sought the same goals as he's brought to the White House. A tearing down of the establishment, an open-door bank policy requiring banks to lend to all without proper diligence until they run dry, health care available to all regardless that it will escalate costs while diminishing or eliminating service, an anti-business, anti-growth fiscal policy designed to kill the goose, and a remaining society of "equals" with no hope for decent lives unless they're in the surviving upper governmental class.
When you read it back and realize that these goals might actually have been reached its really scary. But, fortunately, two things prevented that from happening. A very, very bright, well-informed population and a little thing called an election.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
On this past election day, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as Acorn, the major voter registration organization in cities and among the poor, filed for bankruptcy in a Brooklyn, N.Y. court. Nonetheless, many of the group's critics are suspicious of the community organizers' intentions.
Documents filed show a massive loss of public support over the past two years, and that the group and six affiliates now are more than $8.6 million in debt and have only $218,709 in cash. ACORN took in $46.1 million in 2008, which dropped to $16.2 million last year, and contributions amount to just $1.57 million in the first 10 months of this year.
The real reasons of how and why ACORN declined are obviously unknown to me, but I certainly remember its actions and, to my knowledge, its most prominent promoter. Because that was none other than Barack Obama. He's had an intimate and long-term association with ACORN, which has been called the largest radical group in America. Easily as far out as MoveOn.org or Code Pink, maybe more so, it works locally in carefully selected urban areas, thus keeping a much lower national profile.
According to Sol Stern, way back in 2003 in a City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities," he states that "ACORN is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s 'New Left,' with a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism to match." He says it grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.”
In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices, aiming to remove eligibility restrictions, thereby effectively flooding welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.” Instead however, of a socialist utopia, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities, until welfare reform began to turn the tide.
While retaining NWRO’s radical economic framework and confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, targets and strategies have changed. ACORN now prefers flying under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas, where, according to Stern, local legislators and reporters are often “slow to grasp how radical ACORN’s positions really are.”
The new goals are municipal “living wage” laws that target “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks to combat “predatory lending.” The problem is, instead of helping workers, ACORN’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. The opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. And to top it off, ACORN uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive “donations” that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.
So, what we have here is basic evidence of the president's aims all along. Because on the local level years ago he sought the same goals as he's brought to the White House. A tearing down of the establishment, an open-door bank policy requiring banks to lend to all without proper diligence until they run dry, health care available to all regardless that it will escalate costs while diminishing or eliminating service, an anti-business, anti-growth fiscal policy designed to kill the goose, and a remaining society of "equals" with no hope for decent lives unless they're in the surviving upper governmental class.
When you read it back and realize that these goals might actually have been reached its really scary. But, fortunately, two things prevented that from happening. A very, very bright, well-informed population and a little thing called an election.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/9/2010
There was a report yesterday that "Iran offered to resume nuclear talks with the United States and other world powers next week after pushing for a shift of venue to Turkey to give Tehran an ally on the sidelines." Perhaps as soon as next Monday.
The article went on to say that the reason for talk resumption is Iran's hope to reduce or eliminate trade sanctions against them.
I, though, have a different take on the matter. Because I think it's just as likely that Iran's actually worried that some outside nation, whichever that might turn out to be, actually remotely accessed their secret codes and thus, might blow their nuclear weapons, and a good part of the country itself, off the map. So, the talk about easing of sanctions is fine, but fear of annihilation has a little more clout.
Then it's back to the post-election circus, which makes me wonder about politicians even more than I've done before. Because as anyone who's read my writings on the subject knows, I think the vast majority of them are brain-dead dolts, regardless of party affiliation. And now, as further proof, although 40% of the voting population clearly has no party affiliation at all, these political yoyo's are still playing their same stupid games.
The president himself has mumbled a few words about underestimating the voters and overestimating his party's power, yet doesn't sound like he's gotten any kind of a message. He seems more focused on finding and using other methods of getting his agenda accomplished instead of looking for ways to meet the public's wishes.
Then there's the inimitable Nancy Pelosi who might very well remain as head of her party in the House. Despite the fact that by doing that she almost virtually assures that her party can't recover, and makes it far easier for opponents to win in the next election. But arrogance, greed and stupidity, coupled with egotism are a hard combination to overcome. So, as far as Republicans are concerned, she's a gift from heaven.
On the other hand, the Republicans had the good fortune to be there when their opposition shot itself in the foot and deconstructed. And, yes, there are serious steps to be taken in unwinding health care reform, tax regulation, and getting the economy back on its feet. But it seems that they too can't deal with success, no matter how they attained it, and have begun to infight about who should lead the party toward further gains in 2012.
From my perspective, I know little about politics itself and am far more in tune with those in the uncommitted 40%. So I think that if these leaders take the election to be any kind of political mandate and try to do anything more than fix what's broken, the only place they're going to lead their true followers is off the cliff.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
The article went on to say that the reason for talk resumption is Iran's hope to reduce or eliminate trade sanctions against them.
I, though, have a different take on the matter. Because I think it's just as likely that Iran's actually worried that some outside nation, whichever that might turn out to be, actually remotely accessed their secret codes and thus, might blow their nuclear weapons, and a good part of the country itself, off the map. So, the talk about easing of sanctions is fine, but fear of annihilation has a little more clout.
Then it's back to the post-election circus, which makes me wonder about politicians even more than I've done before. Because as anyone who's read my writings on the subject knows, I think the vast majority of them are brain-dead dolts, regardless of party affiliation. And now, as further proof, although 40% of the voting population clearly has no party affiliation at all, these political yoyo's are still playing their same stupid games.
The president himself has mumbled a few words about underestimating the voters and overestimating his party's power, yet doesn't sound like he's gotten any kind of a message. He seems more focused on finding and using other methods of getting his agenda accomplished instead of looking for ways to meet the public's wishes.
Then there's the inimitable Nancy Pelosi who might very well remain as head of her party in the House. Despite the fact that by doing that she almost virtually assures that her party can't recover, and makes it far easier for opponents to win in the next election. But arrogance, greed and stupidity, coupled with egotism are a hard combination to overcome. So, as far as Republicans are concerned, she's a gift from heaven.
On the other hand, the Republicans had the good fortune to be there when their opposition shot itself in the foot and deconstructed. And, yes, there are serious steps to be taken in unwinding health care reform, tax regulation, and getting the economy back on its feet. But it seems that they too can't deal with success, no matter how they attained it, and have begun to infight about who should lead the party toward further gains in 2012.
From my perspective, I know little about politics itself and am far more in tune with those in the uncommitted 40%. So I think that if these leaders take the election to be any kind of political mandate and try to do anything more than fix what's broken, the only place they're going to lead their true followers is off the cliff.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
Monday, November 8, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/8/2010
I was reading a synopsis of the president's comments made during a Sunday night CBS 60 Minutes interview. And I was struck by two things as I read it. First, that he related some of the information the way he did, and second, the magnitude of what he actually said.
The president said the political cost of overhauling the health care system turned out to be higher than he had expected. And admitted he gets discouraged at times when dealing with the economy.
He went on that the health care system itself is huge and complicated, and that changing it eluded previous presidents because it was so difficult. But, "I made the decision to go ahead and do it, and it proved as costly politically as we expected, probably actually a little more costly than we expected, politically." He also thought he'd find common ground by advancing health care proposals introduced by Republican administrations as well as potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Then he said, "I do get discouraged. I mean, there are times where I thought the economy would have gotten better by now. One of the things I think you understand as president is you're held responsible for everything. But you don't always have control of everything, especially an economy this big."
Lastly he stated "But I think that in terms of how I operated on a day-to-day basis, when you've got a series of choices to make, I think that there are times where we said let's just get it done instead of worrying about how we're getting it done. And I think that's a problem. I'm paying a political price for that."
After reading the forgoing encapsulation, I sat back for a minute and absorbed it, because in a couple of short paragraphs the president described exactly what's wrong with his administration.
For starters, he knowingly took on a problem that was decidedly too big for his administration to handle in health care, yet he demanded it be done. He also admits that he opted for speed in completion, with little or no regard as to what any of the details or impacts were. He also alluded to Romney and his views on health care, but apparently didn't consider that both Romney and his health care plan were defeated by the voters.
He then seemed surprised to find out that the public doesn't just bow down and say yes to whatever presidents wish, because this is a democracy. And he woke up too late to realize that many politicians are simply tolerated, or flat out ignored, if they get in the way of the people's real goals and desires.
So, in a nutshell you have the thoughts of a man who took on a job he knew little to nothing about, and then instead of learning what he needed to know before proceeding...he dove right in and began dismantling the greatest health care system on the planet. And, of course, almost every other aspect of American life and business that he's touched.
Consequently, I still have to wonder if these all have been his decisions, or if he's just a loyal employee of Soros. And the reason for my bewilderment is that I simply can't see this hack from Chicago coming up with a plan to weaken and dismantle this country piece by piece for personal gain. Because he hasn't the machinery or resources to fulfill the end game of buying up the residue after the economic collapse.
But, right now, it doesn't really matter about their plans for the end game at all, because they've both blown themselves totally out of the box, and for the president certainly...this ballgame is over. He's not Favre, and he's not coming back at all.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The president said the political cost of overhauling the health care system turned out to be higher than he had expected. And admitted he gets discouraged at times when dealing with the economy.
He went on that the health care system itself is huge and complicated, and that changing it eluded previous presidents because it was so difficult. But, "I made the decision to go ahead and do it, and it proved as costly politically as we expected, probably actually a little more costly than we expected, politically." He also thought he'd find common ground by advancing health care proposals introduced by Republican administrations as well as potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Then he said, "I do get discouraged. I mean, there are times where I thought the economy would have gotten better by now. One of the things I think you understand as president is you're held responsible for everything. But you don't always have control of everything, especially an economy this big."
Lastly he stated "But I think that in terms of how I operated on a day-to-day basis, when you've got a series of choices to make, I think that there are times where we said let's just get it done instead of worrying about how we're getting it done. And I think that's a problem. I'm paying a political price for that."
After reading the forgoing encapsulation, I sat back for a minute and absorbed it, because in a couple of short paragraphs the president described exactly what's wrong with his administration.
For starters, he knowingly took on a problem that was decidedly too big for his administration to handle in health care, yet he demanded it be done. He also admits that he opted for speed in completion, with little or no regard as to what any of the details or impacts were. He also alluded to Romney and his views on health care, but apparently didn't consider that both Romney and his health care plan were defeated by the voters.
He then seemed surprised to find out that the public doesn't just bow down and say yes to whatever presidents wish, because this is a democracy. And he woke up too late to realize that many politicians are simply tolerated, or flat out ignored, if they get in the way of the people's real goals and desires.
So, in a nutshell you have the thoughts of a man who took on a job he knew little to nothing about, and then instead of learning what he needed to know before proceeding...he dove right in and began dismantling the greatest health care system on the planet. And, of course, almost every other aspect of American life and business that he's touched.
Consequently, I still have to wonder if these all have been his decisions, or if he's just a loyal employee of Soros. And the reason for my bewilderment is that I simply can't see this hack from Chicago coming up with a plan to weaken and dismantle this country piece by piece for personal gain. Because he hasn't the machinery or resources to fulfill the end game of buying up the residue after the economic collapse.
But, right now, it doesn't really matter about their plans for the end game at all, because they've both blown themselves totally out of the box, and for the president certainly...this ballgame is over. He's not Favre, and he's not coming back at all.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, November 7, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/7/2010
Sometimes it's hard to imagine that people could possibly be as dumb as the typical politician. Because a major topic going around DC is whether or not Nancy Pelosi will try to remain Democrat party leader.
But in fact what all politicians were shown last week was that 40% of the voting public has no political affiliation at all, they just want their country put back together as the greatest nation in the world. And, if nothing else is obvious to these nitwits in office in either party, if they keep playing political games...they're over altogether.
Now it just may be possible that someone like Pelosi can keep getting re-elected in her own highly gerrymandered district, but the rest of the country has no use for her whatsoever. Nonetheless whether it's ego, illogic or just plain arrogant blindness, apparently this woman will sacrifice her party's future to satisfy herself, because she's clearly a symbol of Democrat national failure. It's sort of the way Nannette Favre looks at himself as being far more important than his football team.
Meanwhile, while the Republicans too, have to shape up to retain their newly won stature, having Pelosi remain a Democrat power makes their job considerably easier. Because then all they have to do is keep their mouths shut and let their opposition continue to self destruct.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
But in fact what all politicians were shown last week was that 40% of the voting public has no political affiliation at all, they just want their country put back together as the greatest nation in the world. And, if nothing else is obvious to these nitwits in office in either party, if they keep playing political games...they're over altogether.
Now it just may be possible that someone like Pelosi can keep getting re-elected in her own highly gerrymandered district, but the rest of the country has no use for her whatsoever. Nonetheless whether it's ego, illogic or just plain arrogant blindness, apparently this woman will sacrifice her party's future to satisfy herself, because she's clearly a symbol of Democrat national failure. It's sort of the way Nannette Favre looks at himself as being far more important than his football team.
Meanwhile, while the Republicans too, have to shape up to retain their newly won stature, having Pelosi remain a Democrat power makes their job considerably easier. Because then all they have to do is keep their mouths shut and let their opposition continue to self destruct.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, November 6, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/6/2010
Last month, President Obama warned Hispanic voters that comprehensive immigration reform would hinge largely on Tuesday's midterm elections. He urged them to vote Democrat or else face probable setbacks. Meanwhile, an Election Day poll conducted by anti-illegal immigration group FAIR, found that 69 percent of those surveyed consider immigration an important issue and 61 percent believe Obama "has not been aggressive enough in enforcing immigration law."
So, here again, though the poll confirmed that the vast majority feels illegal immigration is a serious problem and needs to be curtailed, the president disagrees with their sentiments, and seeks support for his opposing position.
Post-election, now that Republicans gained greatly in the House and diminished the Democratic majority in the Senate, immigration reform is very much in doubt. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican expected to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said immigration reform will be pushed aside for streamlined enforcement of current laws.
In San Antonio, Smith said, "The enforcement of our immigration laws is critical to both our national security and economic prosperity. We need to know who is entering our country, and why." He further stated that his committee would "enact policies that will better secure our border and discourage illegal immigration, human smuggling and drug trafficking."
When you add this scenario to the ignored public outcry for employment, the immense unpopularity of health care reform, the need for renewal of tax cuts and reduction of government size and spending, you really have to wonder what the president's goal is. And, more than that, I think you need to be concerned that the man at the top is apparently willing to keep pursuing an agenda that, if not bridled, will ultimately sink the nation.
So, when does the administration wake up and realize what's really at stake when a failed attempt at socialization of the greatest free market that ever existed nearly derailed it. And, that if it weren't for the fact that that free market created the strongest nation in the world, the misguided experiment could never have been launched in the first place. Because nowhere else on the planet was there enough financial and entrepreneurial strength to absorb it.
I think, ordinarily one would look at our current situation and conclude that what we've seen is evidence of a theoretical plan that looks good on paper but could never work as a practical matter. So, I guess you could call it an ivory tower approach. The only problem is, I think the tower these folks modeled their plan on was built in Pisa.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
So, here again, though the poll confirmed that the vast majority feels illegal immigration is a serious problem and needs to be curtailed, the president disagrees with their sentiments, and seeks support for his opposing position.
Post-election, now that Republicans gained greatly in the House and diminished the Democratic majority in the Senate, immigration reform is very much in doubt. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican expected to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said immigration reform will be pushed aside for streamlined enforcement of current laws.
In San Antonio, Smith said, "The enforcement of our immigration laws is critical to both our national security and economic prosperity. We need to know who is entering our country, and why." He further stated that his committee would "enact policies that will better secure our border and discourage illegal immigration, human smuggling and drug trafficking."
When you add this scenario to the ignored public outcry for employment, the immense unpopularity of health care reform, the need for renewal of tax cuts and reduction of government size and spending, you really have to wonder what the president's goal is. And, more than that, I think you need to be concerned that the man at the top is apparently willing to keep pursuing an agenda that, if not bridled, will ultimately sink the nation.
So, when does the administration wake up and realize what's really at stake when a failed attempt at socialization of the greatest free market that ever existed nearly derailed it. And, that if it weren't for the fact that that free market created the strongest nation in the world, the misguided experiment could never have been launched in the first place. Because nowhere else on the planet was there enough financial and entrepreneurial strength to absorb it.
I think, ordinarily one would look at our current situation and conclude that what we've seen is evidence of a theoretical plan that looks good on paper but could never work as a practical matter. So, I guess you could call it an ivory tower approach. The only problem is, I think the tower these folks modeled their plan on was built in Pisa.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, November 5, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/5/2010
While the dust settles from Tuesday's results, I've been flipping channels to listen to recaps of what pundits think really happened at the polls. Most agree it was a clear repudiation of the administration's policies and actions to date, and that people of all political parties are fed up.
What I thought particularly interesting is the president's leaving for India today on a ten day trip. Because it dawned on me last night that this junket was likely planned some time ago. Not because of the need to go to India particularly, but to have a way to get out of the U.S. immediately after the election results were learned. Naturally, of course, when the trip was originally planned, well before the outcome could possibly be known, I think a safety valve must have been included allowing for the president to suddenly decide to stay home and celebrate had the Democrats somehow won.
An overwhelming consensus of pundits indicates that the economy and unemployment are the major issues swaying the vote away from Democrats, and that in regard to both issues, it was the administration that missed the boat. Health care too, was badly mishandled by them, not only in regard to terrible flaws in the bill, but the way it was ram-rodded upon a partisan Congress without regard for the population itself.
Although most pundits agree on how and why the election results came about in general, there was one individual, whose name I forgot, that painstakingly explained the effect of campaign spending on the outcomes. And it was his contention that particular candidates won because of dollars spent, primarily on advertising.
As readers likely know, I've questioned the value of advertising in general for quite some time, because I just don't understand the premise. It simply seems totally illogical to me that someone who has the intelligence and desire to vote is going to be swayed by any kind of political ad. And if their lives or livelihoods have been directly affected negatively by the policies and procedures of a political party, what kind of ads or words could possibly undo or override the actual negative results? Of course, the reverse is true too. Thus, politicians doing good things are the likeliest to get votes, no matter what their opponents claim in ads.
So, I think what actually happened is that the politicians who got elected would have won anyway, ads or not, and it's simply coincidental that they also spent lots of bucks.
It was also pointed out that last time around, lots of young people turned out and most favored the president. This time, there were far less. In that regard the pundit's opinions tend to lean toward there not being enough advertising and attempts to push younger folks to vote.
But here again I disagree. I think that these folks are quite capable of figuring out what's important to them and what's not, and human nature alone will stimulate them to act if they have a reason. Therefore, if they've been ignored since the last time they went to the polls, why should they do it again?
In summary, whether its the poll results, the pundits, or any other indicator you choose, the real results are getting clearer every day. The voting public, which now shows 40% independents, is no longer what it was. And if politicians don't deliver what the majority wants, they no longer have a prayer of election no atter what party they're in. So, they can analyze the numbers all day every day from now to whenever, but as far as the voting public goes -from now it's simple. Put up in office or shove off.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
What I thought particularly interesting is the president's leaving for India today on a ten day trip. Because it dawned on me last night that this junket was likely planned some time ago. Not because of the need to go to India particularly, but to have a way to get out of the U.S. immediately after the election results were learned. Naturally, of course, when the trip was originally planned, well before the outcome could possibly be known, I think a safety valve must have been included allowing for the president to suddenly decide to stay home and celebrate had the Democrats somehow won.
An overwhelming consensus of pundits indicates that the economy and unemployment are the major issues swaying the vote away from Democrats, and that in regard to both issues, it was the administration that missed the boat. Health care too, was badly mishandled by them, not only in regard to terrible flaws in the bill, but the way it was ram-rodded upon a partisan Congress without regard for the population itself.
Although most pundits agree on how and why the election results came about in general, there was one individual, whose name I forgot, that painstakingly explained the effect of campaign spending on the outcomes. And it was his contention that particular candidates won because of dollars spent, primarily on advertising.
As readers likely know, I've questioned the value of advertising in general for quite some time, because I just don't understand the premise. It simply seems totally illogical to me that someone who has the intelligence and desire to vote is going to be swayed by any kind of political ad. And if their lives or livelihoods have been directly affected negatively by the policies and procedures of a political party, what kind of ads or words could possibly undo or override the actual negative results? Of course, the reverse is true too. Thus, politicians doing good things are the likeliest to get votes, no matter what their opponents claim in ads.
So, I think what actually happened is that the politicians who got elected would have won anyway, ads or not, and it's simply coincidental that they also spent lots of bucks.
It was also pointed out that last time around, lots of young people turned out and most favored the president. This time, there were far less. In that regard the pundit's opinions tend to lean toward there not being enough advertising and attempts to push younger folks to vote.
But here again I disagree. I think that these folks are quite capable of figuring out what's important to them and what's not, and human nature alone will stimulate them to act if they have a reason. Therefore, if they've been ignored since the last time they went to the polls, why should they do it again?
In summary, whether its the poll results, the pundits, or any other indicator you choose, the real results are getting clearer every day. The voting public, which now shows 40% independents, is no longer what it was. And if politicians don't deliver what the majority wants, they no longer have a prayer of election no atter what party they're in. So, they can analyze the numbers all day every day from now to whenever, but as far as the voting public goes -from now it's simple. Put up in office or shove off.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, November 4, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/4/2010
Now that the smoke's clearing from the crashing and burning of the Dem's on Tuesday, analysts and pundits of all types are busily trying to explain what actually took place. Virtually all of them -with the exception of extremists on either side who have their own spin on the events- agree that the vote was much more a statement that folks are fed up with all political parties, not an endorsement of Republicans or their agenda.
It seems that independents who make up about 40% of those who voted swung heavily to the Republican side. Yet, last time, these same folks went the other way, significantly contributing to the president's landslide. Thus, they're confirming what this blog's been saying for a very long time now. People are voting the issues, and the things that affect them directly, and don't really care which party's in power so long as that party delivers for them. If not, they're gone in a heartbeat.
Furthermore, this wasn't a robotic vote by the public where they blindly pulled anti-incumbent levers. That was evidenced by the rejection of key Tea Party candidates who lost, and the survival of incumbents in Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in particular.
There's also been a lot of post-election discussion on what will happen in the next few months as the revised Congress takes over. There seems to be little doubt that the primary focus has to be on jobs. Because, if the unemployment rate isn't greatly reduced by putting folks back to work, the incoming class in the House is going to be quickly booted out. Beyond that, most seem to feel that, issue by issue, attempts will be made to unravel the laws enacted in the last two years. Particularly, health care.
I remember typing several times over the past months about where the real issues were in health reform that were never properly addressed, and will likely keep on significantly increasing medical costs. And Dick Armey, former Texas U.S. Representative from 1985–2003 and House Majority Leader 1995–2003, seemed to agree on those thoughts. He said that what needs to be done immediately to start driving down costs is tort reform.
One out of every four procedures is unnecessary, he says, but done purely because doctors are concerned about malpractice lawyers sitting on the sidelines ready to sue them.
In summary, the pundits biggest questions concerned how the president will react to the message sent to him by the voting public, and whether or not he'll attempt to soften his heavy-handed approach. The consensus seems to feel that he won't because of his principles and his strong belief in his cause. I too think that he'll remain rigid, but principle's not the reason.
It's been my contention for a very long while that the president was bought and paid for before he ever ran for office. And in return for the support of George Soros and moveon.org, among others, he's rammed their agenda through everywhere he's been able to. So, if there's one thing where I do have to give the president credit, it's his steadfast adherence to the deal he made, and his willingness to throw himself under his master's bus. Because the voters have made it as clear as crystal that if he remains on the same track, he has no prayer of re-election. And neither does anyone else who refuses to represent them.
That's it for folks.
Adios.
It seems that independents who make up about 40% of those who voted swung heavily to the Republican side. Yet, last time, these same folks went the other way, significantly contributing to the president's landslide. Thus, they're confirming what this blog's been saying for a very long time now. People are voting the issues, and the things that affect them directly, and don't really care which party's in power so long as that party delivers for them. If not, they're gone in a heartbeat.
Furthermore, this wasn't a robotic vote by the public where they blindly pulled anti-incumbent levers. That was evidenced by the rejection of key Tea Party candidates who lost, and the survival of incumbents in Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in particular.
There's also been a lot of post-election discussion on what will happen in the next few months as the revised Congress takes over. There seems to be little doubt that the primary focus has to be on jobs. Because, if the unemployment rate isn't greatly reduced by putting folks back to work, the incoming class in the House is going to be quickly booted out. Beyond that, most seem to feel that, issue by issue, attempts will be made to unravel the laws enacted in the last two years. Particularly, health care.
I remember typing several times over the past months about where the real issues were in health reform that were never properly addressed, and will likely keep on significantly increasing medical costs. And Dick Armey, former Texas U.S. Representative from 1985–2003 and House Majority Leader 1995–2003, seemed to agree on those thoughts. He said that what needs to be done immediately to start driving down costs is tort reform.
One out of every four procedures is unnecessary, he says, but done purely because doctors are concerned about malpractice lawyers sitting on the sidelines ready to sue them.
In summary, the pundits biggest questions concerned how the president will react to the message sent to him by the voting public, and whether or not he'll attempt to soften his heavy-handed approach. The consensus seems to feel that he won't because of his principles and his strong belief in his cause. I too think that he'll remain rigid, but principle's not the reason.
It's been my contention for a very long while that the president was bought and paid for before he ever ran for office. And in return for the support of George Soros and moveon.org, among others, he's rammed their agenda through everywhere he's been able to. So, if there's one thing where I do have to give the president credit, it's his steadfast adherence to the deal he made, and his willingness to throw himself under his master's bus. Because the voters have made it as clear as crystal that if he remains on the same track, he has no prayer of re-election. And neither does anyone else who refuses to represent them.
That's it for folks.
Adios.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/3/2010
Finally. After what's seemed like an eternity of waiting, and wading through all the political noise, election day's come and gone.
Though there are still some close races calling for recounts or review of absentee ballots, the results are final in terms of what Congress will look like in January. The Republicans won more than 60 House seats all told, the biggest swing in more than 70 years. The total is now 239 to 196, Republican's favor.
While the Democrats prevailed in the Senate, their majority was heavily trimmed. The numbers are now 49 Dem's, 46 Republicans, and 2 Independents. Three contests are still undecided. So, it looks as if the Senate will no longer be a rubber stamp for Democrat legislation either.
But one of the real shifts in power came in the gubernatorial races where Republicans now will govern 30 or more states.
What I thought most interesting though, were the comments from the public, the electees and the pundits. Because, it's as if each of them was reading from this blog. No one, especially the top Republicans themselves, believes that this election reflects a public demand and desire for the Republican party itself. What was really demonstrated was a need for change in direction.
Not surprisingly, the key issues came down to unemployment, taxes, overturning the health care bill, illegal immigration, bailouts, wasteful government spending and government's size. And those are the very issues that make up the heart of the current administration's agenda. Therefore, the vote reflected a thorough public dislike for the present policies and goals in Washington, and have made it abundantly clear that they want to be heard.
Despite the landslide effect of the vote, there were some notable exceptions to the debacle. Harry Reid survived in Nevada regardless of the fact that his state ranks first in every negative category there is. Barbara Boxer too lived through it all and so did Nancy Pelosi, although she'll no longer be Speaker of the House.
For now though, the Republicans have gotten themselves into a very strong position going forward, and now the ball is squarely in their court. They're even likely better off not having won the Senate too. Because, they've now got two years to work on restructuring legislation, yet they haven't got enough strength to do it all themselves. That means the Democrats, who'll likely be obstructionist will get further blame next time around, insuring more Republican wins in Congress in 2012.
When all is said and done though, it's the president who took the biggest hit. Because he put himself at the forefront of every single issue that was overwhelmingly voted against by the public. And there are no words he can say, or things he can do to change that. Folks have clearly told him they're fed up with him and his ideas. In fact, every district he visited personally before the election showed the biggest losses. Even his own home district in Chicago was lost to a Republican. It doesn't get worse than that.
Nonetheless, he still might be able to salvage enough over the next two years by moving more to the middle and softening some of his stringent attempts to socialize and weaken the nation. But, the odds are that he won't do that. Because its elitism and arrogance that drove him to push for all the damaging legislation enacted to date in the first place. So, I guess the only remaining question is who he'll converse with for the next two years, because I don't think any rational Democrat will want to go anywhere near him.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Though there are still some close races calling for recounts or review of absentee ballots, the results are final in terms of what Congress will look like in January. The Republicans won more than 60 House seats all told, the biggest swing in more than 70 years. The total is now 239 to 196, Republican's favor.
While the Democrats prevailed in the Senate, their majority was heavily trimmed. The numbers are now 49 Dem's, 46 Republicans, and 2 Independents. Three contests are still undecided. So, it looks as if the Senate will no longer be a rubber stamp for Democrat legislation either.
But one of the real shifts in power came in the gubernatorial races where Republicans now will govern 30 or more states.
What I thought most interesting though, were the comments from the public, the electees and the pundits. Because, it's as if each of them was reading from this blog. No one, especially the top Republicans themselves, believes that this election reflects a public demand and desire for the Republican party itself. What was really demonstrated was a need for change in direction.
Not surprisingly, the key issues came down to unemployment, taxes, overturning the health care bill, illegal immigration, bailouts, wasteful government spending and government's size. And those are the very issues that make up the heart of the current administration's agenda. Therefore, the vote reflected a thorough public dislike for the present policies and goals in Washington, and have made it abundantly clear that they want to be heard.
Despite the landslide effect of the vote, there were some notable exceptions to the debacle. Harry Reid survived in Nevada regardless of the fact that his state ranks first in every negative category there is. Barbara Boxer too lived through it all and so did Nancy Pelosi, although she'll no longer be Speaker of the House.
For now though, the Republicans have gotten themselves into a very strong position going forward, and now the ball is squarely in their court. They're even likely better off not having won the Senate too. Because, they've now got two years to work on restructuring legislation, yet they haven't got enough strength to do it all themselves. That means the Democrats, who'll likely be obstructionist will get further blame next time around, insuring more Republican wins in Congress in 2012.
When all is said and done though, it's the president who took the biggest hit. Because he put himself at the forefront of every single issue that was overwhelmingly voted against by the public. And there are no words he can say, or things he can do to change that. Folks have clearly told him they're fed up with him and his ideas. In fact, every district he visited personally before the election showed the biggest losses. Even his own home district in Chicago was lost to a Republican. It doesn't get worse than that.
Nonetheless, he still might be able to salvage enough over the next two years by moving more to the middle and softening some of his stringent attempts to socialize and weaken the nation. But, the odds are that he won't do that. Because its elitism and arrogance that drove him to push for all the damaging legislation enacted to date in the first place. So, I guess the only remaining question is who he'll converse with for the next two years, because I don't think any rational Democrat will want to go anywhere near him.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
BloggeRhythms11/2/2010
We've finally come down to D-Day, and the polls seem busy all over the U.S. And despite that there really won't be any solid information about results until much later tonight, politicking and commentary still go on regardless.
In Thornton, Colorado on Monday, a volunteer at Senate Republican candidate Ken Buck's office, a helper, Susan Nalbone, 55, a retired schoolteacher was phoning voters. She said her side was dispirited in 2008. But not now.
On the other side, at the incumbent Democrat, Michael Bennet's, office, LuAnn Lind, 52, a nurse, said she's been volunteering for Democrats for years and finding it harder now to fire people up. "It's a little less urgent among the people I'm talking to," Lind said. "I'm telling them: 'We don't want to lose ground now. We want to keep the Obama momentum moving forward."
And it was Ms Lind's comments that got me to thinking. Because by saying "we don't want to lose ground now, and want to keep the Obama momentum moving forward" what does she really mean? Does she really want further strangling tax increases, the ruination of health care and unemployment at record-setting numbers to go on? And if she does. Why? What in the world can anyone hope to gain if their country's economy crumbles and its status topples to the level of a third-rate nation?
So, as each day goes by and more and more last gasps are heard from the incumbents and their flaks, the more we realize that these people haven't a clue as how to fix this country's ills.What's more, they really don't even want to. All you hear is the same old, worn out, ridiculous mantra...vote for us because we're not Republicans.
Yet, as I've mentioned often before and now hear said more and more often, I think it's finally gotten through that this election isn't an endorsement of the Republicans or Tea Party's issues. It's a repudiation of incumbents. And since there are more Dem's in office right now, more of them will be blown out. But, if it's the same old, same old, when this new batch comes into office they won't last very long either.
So, maybe for the first time since way back when the founding fathers laid the groundwork for the greatest nation on Earth, we'll get what they hoped for. A government of the people, by the people and for the people, instead of a self-anointed bunch of thieving, conniving, self-serving autocrats.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
In Thornton, Colorado on Monday, a volunteer at Senate Republican candidate Ken Buck's office, a helper, Susan Nalbone, 55, a retired schoolteacher was phoning voters. She said her side was dispirited in 2008. But not now.
On the other side, at the incumbent Democrat, Michael Bennet's, office, LuAnn Lind, 52, a nurse, said she's been volunteering for Democrats for years and finding it harder now to fire people up. "It's a little less urgent among the people I'm talking to," Lind said. "I'm telling them: 'We don't want to lose ground now. We want to keep the Obama momentum moving forward."
And it was Ms Lind's comments that got me to thinking. Because by saying "we don't want to lose ground now, and want to keep the Obama momentum moving forward" what does she really mean? Does she really want further strangling tax increases, the ruination of health care and unemployment at record-setting numbers to go on? And if she does. Why? What in the world can anyone hope to gain if their country's economy crumbles and its status topples to the level of a third-rate nation?
So, as each day goes by and more and more last gasps are heard from the incumbents and their flaks, the more we realize that these people haven't a clue as how to fix this country's ills.What's more, they really don't even want to. All you hear is the same old, worn out, ridiculous mantra...vote for us because we're not Republicans.
Yet, as I've mentioned often before and now hear said more and more often, I think it's finally gotten through that this election isn't an endorsement of the Republicans or Tea Party's issues. It's a repudiation of incumbents. And since there are more Dem's in office right now, more of them will be blown out. But, if it's the same old, same old, when this new batch comes into office they won't last very long either.
So, maybe for the first time since way back when the founding fathers laid the groundwork for the greatest nation on Earth, we'll get what they hoped for. A government of the people, by the people and for the people, instead of a self-anointed bunch of thieving, conniving, self-serving autocrats.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, November 1, 2010
BloggeRhythms 11/1/2010
One more day to go. And from all the news shows I've seen this should be a Republican landslide, certainly in the House if not the Senate too. But, the problem with predictions is, that they're predictions. So, I prefer to wait and see what actually happens before calling the election over and done.
What's more, I don't think this particular election is an endorsement of the Republican party and all the things they stand for. It's much more a repudiation of what's been done by Congress in general that's being illustrated. The Dem's that lose are certainly unpopular and thus being voted out, but there's no overwhelming demand for what the incoming Republicans offer. It's just that they're not incumbents. Consequently, they're going to be on a very short fuse once elected.
When all is said and done about the coming vote, I still have to wonder about what some of the folks in politics really think. Because this morning I saw a Democrat pundit interviewed, and when pressed as to what he thought was the reason for the pending overhaul in Congress he evaded the question. Instead he replied that the major problem in the U.S. is the economy and that President Bush ran up a billion dollars in debt to support the war in Iraq. And that's why the economy's in trouble.
So, let's suppose that that's true for a moment. A billion dollars was added to the national debt. But where did the other thirteen point nine trillion dollars we owe come from? Because every cent of that was borrowed on our current president's watch. And that brings me back to a theme that's been running through my writings for the last few months. The vast majority of politicians and the flaks that yammer for them, say absolutely nothing about how to fix the problems we're in, they just tell you about how bad their opponent is.
Yet, there may be a glimmer of hope here. House minority leader John Boehner keeps hammering away with his promise that spending will be cut and taxes lowered should Republicans prevail. And yes, we've all heard that before. But this time around I get the sense that he really understands what needs to be done and will actually try to accomplish something. Unravelling the health care fiasco is also on his list.
But the real reason I think a real attempt will be made to get something done now is pretty simple. I suspect that even politicians can figure out that the voting public has had it with them, and an approval rating of 20% for Congresspeople is a new low of lows, even for them. So, if that kind of handwriting's on the wall, it doesn't matter who's in office. Because the new electees will either shape up or be shipped out. And that means that for the foreseeable future, as far as Washington goes, what the people want is really going to count.
That's it for today folks
Adios
What's more, I don't think this particular election is an endorsement of the Republican party and all the things they stand for. It's much more a repudiation of what's been done by Congress in general that's being illustrated. The Dem's that lose are certainly unpopular and thus being voted out, but there's no overwhelming demand for what the incoming Republicans offer. It's just that they're not incumbents. Consequently, they're going to be on a very short fuse once elected.
When all is said and done about the coming vote, I still have to wonder about what some of the folks in politics really think. Because this morning I saw a Democrat pundit interviewed, and when pressed as to what he thought was the reason for the pending overhaul in Congress he evaded the question. Instead he replied that the major problem in the U.S. is the economy and that President Bush ran up a billion dollars in debt to support the war in Iraq. And that's why the economy's in trouble.
So, let's suppose that that's true for a moment. A billion dollars was added to the national debt. But where did the other thirteen point nine trillion dollars we owe come from? Because every cent of that was borrowed on our current president's watch. And that brings me back to a theme that's been running through my writings for the last few months. The vast majority of politicians and the flaks that yammer for them, say absolutely nothing about how to fix the problems we're in, they just tell you about how bad their opponent is.
Yet, there may be a glimmer of hope here. House minority leader John Boehner keeps hammering away with his promise that spending will be cut and taxes lowered should Republicans prevail. And yes, we've all heard that before. But this time around I get the sense that he really understands what needs to be done and will actually try to accomplish something. Unravelling the health care fiasco is also on his list.
But the real reason I think a real attempt will be made to get something done now is pretty simple. I suspect that even politicians can figure out that the voting public has had it with them, and an approval rating of 20% for Congresspeople is a new low of lows, even for them. So, if that kind of handwriting's on the wall, it doesn't matter who's in office. Because the new electees will either shape up or be shipped out. And that means that for the foreseeable future, as far as Washington goes, what the people want is really going to count.
That's it for today folks
Adios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)