If you do an Internet search on the phrase "Facts are stubborn things" you will find that the cyberworld is full of conflicting information. You get about 60,000 hits. Within the first dozen citations, the quote is attributed to John Adams, Mark Twain, Ronald Regan, Lawrence Peters, and several unknown French guys. So much for stubborn facts, eh?
This, in a nutshell, is the problem for seekers of Truth ever since Al Gore invented the Internets. There is too much conflicting data, misinformation and outright malicious fabrication. As Lincoln observed, "It is easy to fool most of the people most of the time. "
Guys like Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart make their living maliciously distorting the words and deeds of anyone of the other side of their political ideology. They may think they are doing it for entertainment, but too many of their fans miss the humor and believe anything they hear from the lips of their guru.
We do not know who we can trust to tell the truth. The stubborn facts are buried deep in the mine and we do not have time to go in and dig them out ourselves. Google and other search engines are constantly gamed by special interests and clever marketers to make their interest-friendly results appear near the top of the list of returned hits.
Like me, most seekers-of-truth are in a hurry for enlightenment. So, we usually abandon our online research after viewing a few pages of search results. We click on the one or two that seem to agree with our preconceived notions. If the writing is intelligible, and it supports our point-of-view, we hyper-link it to verify our source. We shamelessly ignore contradictory data.
The problem remains:
“Facts are ventriloquists dummies. Sitting on a wise man's knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense, or indulge in sheer diabolism.” Aldous Huxley. At least, I think he was the one who said it.
9/26/2009
9/23/2009
The enemy of my enemy is my - huh?
Interesting news item today: Another long video rant was released yesterday. This one took aim at President Obama. "America has come in a new, hypocritical face. Smiling at us, but stabbing us with the same dagger that Bush used," said Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri in the message.
So now the conservative Obama haters in this country have finally found common ground - with Al-Quaida.
So now the conservative Obama haters in this country have finally found common ground - with Al-Quaida.
9/18/2009
Death Panels
Today in the Boston Globe there was a seemingly innocuous item that clearly confirms the worst fears of neocons and their brethren skinheads who protest loudly against what they call the government takeover of health care because it would enable Obama to kill your grandmother legally.
The title of the piece "Seniors largely spared of swine flu threat" reported by AP (of course) was cynically designed to allay the fears that seniors (generally defined as those age 65 and above) might feel about the threat level Orange PANDEMIC THAT IS SWEEPING THE GLOBE.
The body of the story consisted mostly of quotes from the un-informed ramblings of geezers who just wanted somebody to talk to. But if you read it carefully (as your humble scribe is wont to do) there was one statement that jumped out like a zombie in a horror flick:
"Federal guidelines call for the new H1N1 vaccine to be given first to pregnant women, those who live with or care for children 6 months or younger, health care workers, people age 6 months through 24, and people with chronic health problems or compromised immune systems. Only after shots are offered to those groups will the vaccine be available to healthy adults 64 or younger. After that, seniors, age 65 or older, would be eligible."
Despite the fact that this is badly written prose, the message is crystal clear: this is exactly the sort of health care rationing that conservatives say leads down the slippery slope to the feared Death Panels. If they can do it with flu vaccine, they can do it with knee replacements and vitally-needed medicine like Viagra.
This kind of healthcare policy, based upon scientific medical research of potential risk is obviously one of Obama's stealth weapons to kill old people and further his Socialist Agenda.
The title of the piece "Seniors largely spared of swine flu threat" reported by AP (of course) was cynically designed to allay the fears that seniors (generally defined as those age 65 and above) might feel about the threat level Orange PANDEMIC THAT IS SWEEPING THE GLOBE.
The body of the story consisted mostly of quotes from the un-informed ramblings of geezers who just wanted somebody to talk to. But if you read it carefully (as your humble scribe is wont to do) there was one statement that jumped out like a zombie in a horror flick:
"Federal guidelines call for the new H1N1 vaccine to be given first to pregnant women, those who live with or care for children 6 months or younger, health care workers, people age 6 months through 24, and people with chronic health problems or compromised immune systems. Only after shots are offered to those groups will the vaccine be available to healthy adults 64 or younger. After that, seniors, age 65 or older, would be eligible."
Despite the fact that this is badly written prose, the message is crystal clear: this is exactly the sort of health care rationing that conservatives say leads down the slippery slope to the feared Death Panels. If they can do it with flu vaccine, they can do it with knee replacements and vitally-needed medicine like Viagra.
This kind of healthcare policy, based upon scientific medical research of potential risk is obviously one of Obama's stealth weapons to kill old people and further his Socialist Agenda.
9/15/2009
You Lie!
Can't we all just get along? The flap over South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's speech on health care reform will not go away. Self righteous Dems are outraged by this unprecedented breach of decorum, (conveniently forgetting at least one incident in 2005 where George W was roundly jeered during one of his speeches.)
I am in the camp of those who APPROVE of audience reactions. I have long been a fan of those rowdy legislators in UK and Canada who loudly hiss and groan when the speechifying gets too bloviacious. Isn't disapproval every bit as legitimate as applause? If not, please tell me why not?
Let me be clear, I do NOT condone heckling, hectoring or attempts to drown out a speaker. I love the civil way they do it it UK. The representative from Northern Sussex asks whether the Prime Minister is planning to do anything about overcrowding in the schools of his district. The PM answers with some insipid declaration about no child will be left behind. At this point, the loyal opposition jeers for the requisite one-Mississippi, two Mississippi seconds, the gavel bangs and they shut-up to let the rep from the North continue his inquiry. "So the PM admits that he will continue his policy of abusing schoolchildren..." Laughter and groaning erupts in the hall for two seconds silenced by the gavel.
Now this is civilized debate, not the stilted and stuffy "decorum" practiced in the US House and Senate. Note that the British opposition would never say "You Lie!" More likely they would say, "It is well known that the president has a gift for not telling the Truth." You have to admit, the third person feels less offensive. And there is a sense of politics as a sort of professional sport.
In 2008 during a press conference in Iraq, an Arab journalist called President Bush a liar and threw both of his shoes at the surprised W (who deftly ducked the missiles). The shoe-throwing incident was considered humorous by the Bush-haters (ie, Democrats).
I'm pretty sure that the thinkers who wrote the US Bill of Rights would agree with me that the right to heckle, harass, throw objects at, or shout-down any speaker should NOT be guaranteed when the speaker legitimately has the floor. A little spirited booing and guffawing are definitely allowed.
This morning, the newspaper says that Senior Black Democratic leaders in congress are going to demand a public apology by Wilson. The implication is, of course, Wilson shouted because Obama is black. The other day, there was an article in the NYT discussing continued the racial divide in America. Co-author Barbara Erenreich writes "WHAT do you get when you combine the worst economic downturn since the Depression with the first black president? A surge of white racial resentment, loosely disguised as a populist revolt..." Now this is potent stuff because it makes a lot of sense - especially to those who see racism in every conflict of interest. If you don't agree with Obama it must be because he is black, right?
It is too easy to accuse others of latent racism, but it really doesn't stick. The real and pernicious problem going on here is extreme partisan idealism on both sides. Today we regard those who believe in different policy as blood enemies, not political opponents.
Republicans say that their suggestions and amendments to the health care reform have not been given consideration by the Democratic majority leaders. They are opposed to government run health care. The President was indeed not telling the whole truth about the illegal immigrant healthcare coverage, because the bill under consideration does not require any checks on the legal status of applicants.
A reasonable person might wish that the President be more specific about what health care reform means, and why the Republicans and Libertarians should not fear it. I myself LOL'd when the President said that the measures he was speaking about would not affect the deficit. His credibility with me sank a few fathoms on that one.
Anyhow, the thing is most of us think that it would be great if poor people could get health care insurance. Most of us do not think it should take over 1,000 pages to describe the legal changes that are needed to accomplish that end. If these guys can't do it in 5 double spaced pages, they should resign. It isn't rocket science.
Finally, the shoe-thrower in Iraq was released from prison today. He has an invitation from Hugo Chavez to come and live in Venezuela. I have a feeling we are going to see more of this guy. Twenty bucks for the person who can post a Utube video of al-Zaidi getting a pie in the face. That's the American way.
I am in the camp of those who APPROVE of audience reactions. I have long been a fan of those rowdy legislators in UK and Canada who loudly hiss and groan when the speechifying gets too bloviacious. Isn't disapproval every bit as legitimate as applause? If not, please tell me why not?
Let me be clear, I do NOT condone heckling, hectoring or attempts to drown out a speaker. I love the civil way they do it it UK. The representative from Northern Sussex asks whether the Prime Minister is planning to do anything about overcrowding in the schools of his district. The PM answers with some insipid declaration about no child will be left behind. At this point, the loyal opposition jeers for the requisite one-Mississippi, two Mississippi seconds, the gavel bangs and they shut-up to let the rep from the North continue his inquiry. "So the PM admits that he will continue his policy of abusing schoolchildren..." Laughter and groaning erupts in the hall for two seconds silenced by the gavel.
Now this is civilized debate, not the stilted and stuffy "decorum" practiced in the US House and Senate. Note that the British opposition would never say "You Lie!" More likely they would say, "It is well known that the president has a gift for not telling the Truth." You have to admit, the third person feels less offensive. And there is a sense of politics as a sort of professional sport.
In 2008 during a press conference in Iraq, an Arab journalist called President Bush a liar and threw both of his shoes at the surprised W (who deftly ducked the missiles). The shoe-throwing incident was considered humorous by the Bush-haters (ie, Democrats).
I'm pretty sure that the thinkers who wrote the US Bill of Rights would agree with me that the right to heckle, harass, throw objects at, or shout-down any speaker should NOT be guaranteed when the speaker legitimately has the floor. A little spirited booing and guffawing are definitely allowed.
This morning, the newspaper says that Senior Black Democratic leaders in congress are going to demand a public apology by Wilson. The implication is, of course, Wilson shouted because Obama is black. The other day, there was an article in the NYT discussing continued the racial divide in America. Co-author Barbara Erenreich writes "WHAT do you get when you combine the worst economic downturn since the Depression with the first black president? A surge of white racial resentment, loosely disguised as a populist revolt..." Now this is potent stuff because it makes a lot of sense - especially to those who see racism in every conflict of interest. If you don't agree with Obama it must be because he is black, right?
It is too easy to accuse others of latent racism, but it really doesn't stick. The real and pernicious problem going on here is extreme partisan idealism on both sides. Today we regard those who believe in different policy as blood enemies, not political opponents.
Republicans say that their suggestions and amendments to the health care reform have not been given consideration by the Democratic majority leaders. They are opposed to government run health care. The President was indeed not telling the whole truth about the illegal immigrant healthcare coverage, because the bill under consideration does not require any checks on the legal status of applicants.
A reasonable person might wish that the President be more specific about what health care reform means, and why the Republicans and Libertarians should not fear it. I myself LOL'd when the President said that the measures he was speaking about would not affect the deficit. His credibility with me sank a few fathoms on that one.
Anyhow, the thing is most of us think that it would be great if poor people could get health care insurance. Most of us do not think it should take over 1,000 pages to describe the legal changes that are needed to accomplish that end. If these guys can't do it in 5 double spaced pages, they should resign. It isn't rocket science.
Finally, the shoe-thrower in Iraq was released from prison today. He has an invitation from Hugo Chavez to come and live in Venezuela. I have a feeling we are going to see more of this guy. Twenty bucks for the person who can post a Utube video of al-Zaidi getting a pie in the face. That's the American way.
9/12/2009
The subtle Joy of being Unstructured
I got an email from an former colleague who, like me, uses Linkedin as a career-related social networking site (real men do not use Facebook). He commented about the update that I had posted recently saying that I had left my part time job. I think he was a little bit surprised that someone would voluntarily leave a job during these hard times.
I replied:
"Yes I decided that job was not for me. The pay was $12 per hour and although I only worked 20 hours a week, I had to work 3 out of 4 Saturdays. It was mainly a retail mentality: people are interchangeable parts, no sense of humor or opinions appreciated by the management, autocratic bosses, archaic processes, demanding, but clueless customers, shall I go on? Besides, I wanted to take the Summer off to allow time to help my wife watch the grandsons 7 and 9, who were not going to camp this year. We had them for two or three overnights every week in July and August. They were exhausting to keep up with, but it was more fun than going to work, I assure you.
"IF (big if) I ever go back to work, it will be in some admin or professional organization, part-time, earning at least $20 an hour, no weekends, a buxom & attractive secretary, an office with a door and a lock (for privacy during 'conferences' with secretary.) No commute, no elevators, no staff meetings and no status reports.
"If that is too much to ask, then I will just stay retired: staying-up late watching TV, sleeping till nine every morning, having a leisurely breakfast (involving chicken and pork products), reading the paper, planning the rest of the day."
As I wrote these words, I began to realize that I am doing just fine without a job. I had often stated that a man needs work in his life. And I was convinced that I needed the structure and sociability of a formal workplace. But, as time passes I am becoming more comfortable with the prospect of full retirement and the subtle joy of not being structured.
For example, it is 10:40am and I am dressed; I have had my weekly shower and shave. I've fed the cats, read the Globe, eaten a bacon toast sandwich, drank 3 cups of Starbucks Cafe Verona, and spent a half hour answering email. If it wasn't raining, I probably would be outside, finishing my painting activities, but I am in no real hurry; I can finish next week (or the next). Later this afternoon, perhaps I will mosey down to the cheap haircut place and get a senior cut for $11.95 plus tip. (When I was working my haircuts at the fancy salon cost $35. (I did look good, but these days looking good is an unnecessary luxury). Most of the day will be amiably frittered and puttered away. I didn't get my morning walk because of the weather, but who knows - it might clear up.
Tomorrow, assuming a partly sunny day, I plan to go fishing with a buddy. Striped bass for dinner! Ok, if this outing is as bad as my last day of fishing , I may have to stop at the fish market on my way home.
Last week turned out to be pretty full too. Got my teeth cleaned, repaired a broken washer arm on the dishwasher, saw my children and grandchildren, went for walks every day, scraped and painted the east side of the house, cut down an overgrown yew that was blocking a window, spent Sunday at Little Compton, R.I. eating and drinking with friends, had a day-trip to York, Maine with my wife, did laundry, went to the dump, read a book, and so-on. Nothing remunerative or remarkable, but not so bad....
Hey, It's stopped raining, I gotta go take a walk.
I replied:
"Yes I decided that job was not for me. The pay was $12 per hour and although I only worked 20 hours a week, I had to work 3 out of 4 Saturdays. It was mainly a retail mentality: people are interchangeable parts, no sense of humor or opinions appreciated by the management, autocratic bosses, archaic processes, demanding, but clueless customers, shall I go on? Besides, I wanted to take the Summer off to allow time to help my wife watch the grandsons 7 and 9, who were not going to camp this year. We had them for two or three overnights every week in July and August. They were exhausting to keep up with, but it was more fun than going to work, I assure you.
"IF (big if) I ever go back to work, it will be in some admin or professional organization, part-time, earning at least $20 an hour, no weekends, a buxom & attractive secretary, an office with a door and a lock (for privacy during 'conferences' with secretary.) No commute, no elevators, no staff meetings and no status reports.
"If that is too much to ask, then I will just stay retired: staying-up late watching TV, sleeping till nine every morning, having a leisurely breakfast (involving chicken and pork products), reading the paper, planning the rest of the day."
As I wrote these words, I began to realize that I am doing just fine without a job. I had often stated that a man needs work in his life. And I was convinced that I needed the structure and sociability of a formal workplace. But, as time passes I am becoming more comfortable with the prospect of full retirement and the subtle joy of not being structured.
For example, it is 10:40am and I am dressed; I have had my weekly shower and shave. I've fed the cats, read the Globe, eaten a bacon toast sandwich, drank 3 cups of Starbucks Cafe Verona, and spent a half hour answering email. If it wasn't raining, I probably would be outside, finishing my painting activities, but I am in no real hurry; I can finish next week (or the next). Later this afternoon, perhaps I will mosey down to the cheap haircut place and get a senior cut for $11.95 plus tip. (When I was working my haircuts at the fancy salon cost $35. (I did look good, but these days looking good is an unnecessary luxury). Most of the day will be amiably frittered and puttered away. I didn't get my morning walk because of the weather, but who knows - it might clear up.
Tomorrow, assuming a partly sunny day, I plan to go fishing with a buddy. Striped bass for dinner! Ok, if this outing is as bad as my last day of fishing , I may have to stop at the fish market on my way home.
Last week turned out to be pretty full too. Got my teeth cleaned, repaired a broken washer arm on the dishwasher, saw my children and grandchildren, went for walks every day, scraped and painted the east side of the house, cut down an overgrown yew that was blocking a window, spent Sunday at Little Compton, R.I. eating and drinking with friends, had a day-trip to York, Maine with my wife, did laundry, went to the dump, read a book, and so-on. Nothing remunerative or remarkable, but not so bad....
Hey, It's stopped raining, I gotta go take a walk.
9/10/2009
Irony in the Details
Lately I've noticed that there is an ironic connection in disparate news fragments. If you saw the movie "3 days of the Condor" you might relate to my sense that there are subtle messages in the innocent seeming data that even the nitpickers among us usually overlook in their quest to find garmmar and spelling errors.
For example, if you closely read the section in the paper that is titled "Recent Bird Sightings" I'll bet that among those seemingly mundane counts of spotted grebes and lesser plovers there is a secret code which terrorist cells use to monitor troop movements and plot secret missions.
And those Legal Notices...did anyone ever actually read one? Surely these incomprehensible statements are part of some sort of evil scheme to overthrow all that we hold decent and holy.
Every day it seems they are printing another of those global pandemic charts. Are they trying to scare us? Some people insist that the new flu be referred to by the name H1N1 rather than "swine flu." Apparently, every time some talking head on TV mentions the "SWINE FLU" porkbelly futures go into the dumpster. So of course, all the lobbyists for pork products are writing letters to the editor decrying the use of the term "SWINE FLU" since you can't get it from eating bacon - thank God for that! The TV Doctors say that we should stop shaking hands, hugging and kissing. Just wash your hands, they say, and sneeze into your armpit and everything will be ok.
But back to my main point about patterns in recent news items:
First we have the open senate seat, left vacant by Senator Kennedy's recent death. Just before his untimely demise, Kennedy initiated a campaign to urge the state legislature to reverse a law that he, himself had promoted back when Kerry was running for president. At that time Mitt Romney (a Republican) was the duly elected Governor. At that time, Mass law held that if a US Senatorial seat became vacant, the Governor would appoint a temporary Senator to fill the vacancy, until such time as a special election could be arranged. fearing that Romney would appoint an odious Republican to the seat, Kennedy and others convinced the Democratic majority of state legislators to change the law, which they did. Ironically, there was no need of the change, since Kerry was defeated by George Bush in the general election.
Fast forwarding to the present day, we in Massachusetts now have a Democratic Governor (Deval Patrick), and a vacant Senatorial seat. (The special election will be January, 2010)
Now, the cynical hypocrites see that the original change was a 'mistake' that should be rectified quickly. John Kerry, the sudden senior Senator and shameless gadabout, has betaken himself away from Washington DC to urge local lawmakers to fix this mistake. During his impassioned speech, Kerry asserted that Mass needs to have representation. Someone on the other side noted that Kerry had missed 90% of the votes during his run for the Presidency. (Ouch, irony can be a painful petard) Furthermore, one cannot help observing that the late Senator Ted was debilitated for the past year, and had not been present for many votes and hearings. Summarizing: Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
An unrelated Irony: In the Boston Globe today there was a letter to the editor complaining about a recent cartoon that mocked the hype surrounding the SWINE FLU pandemic. The letter writer, who identified himself as a "risk communications consultant", castigates the Globe for printing an "extraordinarily dangerous" cartoon that implied that the pandemic was a lot of hype. Hmm. Here, I was thinking that it was a good thing that the newspaper was printing opposing opinions. By the way, the humorous content of cartoons can be lost on one whose ox is getting gored. Pardon me if I sound cynical but I would bet a Boston Creme donut that the risk communications consultant is getting checks from the H1N1 Pandemic State of Fear lobby. Ironically, you are more likely to die in your SUV on the highway going to the doctor for your swine flu shot(s) than you are to die of the swine flu, even though you will probably contract it.
In a related item, someone should have told President Obama, ix-nay on the issing-kay during last night's prime time televised speech, which was (ironically) about healthcare. During those tedious pre- and post-speech bouts of handshaking, hugging and kissing, all I could think of was what a great way to spread the flu. Maybe it would be a good thing if no one was able to show-up to vote for a few weeks. Everytime they vote on something it costs us money.
I gotta go wash my hands.
For example, if you closely read the section in the paper that is titled "Recent Bird Sightings" I'll bet that among those seemingly mundane counts of spotted grebes and lesser plovers there is a secret code which terrorist cells use to monitor troop movements and plot secret missions.
And those Legal Notices...did anyone ever actually read one? Surely these incomprehensible statements are part of some sort of evil scheme to overthrow all that we hold decent and holy.
Every day it seems they are printing another of those global pandemic charts. Are they trying to scare us? Some people insist that the new flu be referred to by the name H1N1 rather than "swine flu." Apparently, every time some talking head on TV mentions the "SWINE FLU" porkbelly futures go into the dumpster. So of course, all the lobbyists for pork products are writing letters to the editor decrying the use of the term "SWINE FLU" since you can't get it from eating bacon - thank God for that! The TV Doctors say that we should stop shaking hands, hugging and kissing. Just wash your hands, they say, and sneeze into your armpit and everything will be ok.
But back to my main point about patterns in recent news items:
First we have the open senate seat, left vacant by Senator Kennedy's recent death. Just before his untimely demise, Kennedy initiated a campaign to urge the state legislature to reverse a law that he, himself had promoted back when Kerry was running for president. At that time Mitt Romney (a Republican) was the duly elected Governor. At that time, Mass law held that if a US Senatorial seat became vacant, the Governor would appoint a temporary Senator to fill the vacancy, until such time as a special election could be arranged. fearing that Romney would appoint an odious Republican to the seat, Kennedy and others convinced the Democratic majority of state legislators to change the law, which they did. Ironically, there was no need of the change, since Kerry was defeated by George Bush in the general election.
Fast forwarding to the present day, we in Massachusetts now have a Democratic Governor (Deval Patrick), and a vacant Senatorial seat. (The special election will be January, 2010)
Now, the cynical hypocrites see that the original change was a 'mistake' that should be rectified quickly. John Kerry, the sudden senior Senator and shameless gadabout, has betaken himself away from Washington DC to urge local lawmakers to fix this mistake. During his impassioned speech, Kerry asserted that Mass needs to have representation. Someone on the other side noted that Kerry had missed 90% of the votes during his run for the Presidency. (Ouch, irony can be a painful petard) Furthermore, one cannot help observing that the late Senator Ted was debilitated for the past year, and had not been present for many votes and hearings. Summarizing: Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
An unrelated Irony: In the Boston Globe today there was a letter to the editor complaining about a recent cartoon that mocked the hype surrounding the SWINE FLU pandemic. The letter writer, who identified himself as a "risk communications consultant", castigates the Globe for printing an "extraordinarily dangerous" cartoon that implied that the pandemic was a lot of hype. Hmm. Here, I was thinking that it was a good thing that the newspaper was printing opposing opinions. By the way, the humorous content of cartoons can be lost on one whose ox is getting gored. Pardon me if I sound cynical but I would bet a Boston Creme donut that the risk communications consultant is getting checks from the H1N1 Pandemic State of Fear lobby. Ironically, you are more likely to die in your SUV on the highway going to the doctor for your swine flu shot(s) than you are to die of the swine flu, even though you will probably contract it.
In a related item, someone should have told President Obama, ix-nay on the issing-kay during last night's prime time televised speech, which was (ironically) about healthcare. During those tedious pre- and post-speech bouts of handshaking, hugging and kissing, all I could think of was what a great way to spread the flu. Maybe it would be a good thing if no one was able to show-up to vote for a few weeks. Everytime they vote on something it costs us money.
I gotta go wash my hands.
9/09/2009
Nitpicker Wanted
Perusing craigslist for suitable part-time employment, I came across an ad looking for a nitpicker . No kidding. There actually is a lucrative career opportunity for an experienced person.
Some of my critics might want to apply....
Some of my critics might want to apply....
Obama's Socialist Agenda
I hope some of those who wanted to squelch the feared Obama Back-to-school speech are feeling a little bit embarrassed this morning. That would indicate that they are decent and smart enough to feel shame over their silly statements.
Their unbecoming shrieks of horror at the thought of The (duly elected) President's intention to address the school children of the nation were solely based upon a perverted interpretation of the press release. They were reacting (or should I say 'over-reacting') to what they thought he was going to say, not what he did say.
These same people - who have accused Obama and the liberal conspiracy of stomping on the first amendment - now think that it is OK to shut (and shout) down opponents based on what they might say.
They characterise themselves as 'Patriots', but really, they are the dis-loyal opposition to anything Obama. They confuse loyalty to an ideology with patriotism. Sadly they have stopped seeking truth, balance and fairness. Their credibility is in the trash bin.
Obama's message was very controversial: Stay in school; Don't give up; You can succeed.
If this is Socialism, sign me up.
Their unbecoming shrieks of horror at the thought of The (duly elected) President's intention to address the school children of the nation were solely based upon a perverted interpretation of the press release. They were reacting (or should I say 'over-reacting') to what they thought he was going to say, not what he did say.
These same people - who have accused Obama and the liberal conspiracy of stomping on the first amendment - now think that it is OK to shut (and shout) down opponents based on what they might say.
They characterise themselves as 'Patriots', but really, they are the dis-loyal opposition to anything Obama. They confuse loyalty to an ideology with patriotism. Sadly they have stopped seeking truth, balance and fairness. Their credibility is in the trash bin.
Obama's message was very controversial: Stay in school; Don't give up; You can succeed.
If this is Socialism, sign me up.
9/02/2009
Another Reason Why I Did Not Enter "The Best Tomato" Contest
One of the uninvited guests to my garden this years was this tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta as identified by its red horn is not to be confused with its equally voracious cousin - the tomato hornworm (Manduca quinquemaculata) - which sports a black horn and slightly different markings. Often found together, they grow into large caterpillars - about the size of your middle finger. (The ultimate insult!)
It is an eating machine that defoliates plants and eats the fruit as well. It can cause a lot of damage in just a few days on tomato plants because it strips leaves that are needed to shade the ripening tomatoes.
The good news is that they have a natural enemy (other than the gardener). The enemy is a parasitic wasp that lays eggs on the caterpillar. The eggs hatch and start to feed on the caterpillar, killing it. The bottom picture is the same hornworm a few days later, covered with wasp cocoons. The crops are saved!
Finally, with the first frost date for Northeast gardens approaching quickly, we have managed to pick a few ripening tomatoes. I pick them when they first start to blush pink and let them ripen indoors. If I do not do this, the squirrels will come and take the red ones.
Homegrown tomatoes will fully ripen in 2-3 days inside in a warm place, unlike the tasteless things you buy at the supermarket, which have been bred for long shelf-life.
Unfortunately, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the attributes that give longer shelf-life and those that produce wonderful flavor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)