So The Kennedy Senate seat went to Scott Brown the independent Republican, much to the shock and awe of a lot of people who thought the Democratic candidate ("Marsha" Coakley) was a shoe-in.
Here is an interesting tidbit:
Prior to 2004, the succession law provided for the governor to appoint a replacement to a vacant senatorial seat. This appointee would serve as Senator until the next regular election cycle.
When John Kerry became the Democratic nominee for President in 2004, Massachusetts Democrats, who dominated the state legislature, were urged by none other than Ted Kennedy, to change the succession law, just in case Kerry won in the big election. So, they rushed a bill into law that eliminated the power of the Governor (who so happened to be a Republican, Mitt Romney) to appoint a replacement. The new law ensured that the seat would remain vacant until a special election could be held to choose a (presumably Democratic) successor.
Fast forward to five years later. When it became clear that ailing Senator Ted would not survive to the end of his term, he once again sought to change the law. As a strategic move to maintain the supermajority in the Senate, Ted wrote to the Massachusetts leadership, this time urging them to pass a law that provided for the Governor (Democrat Deval Patrick) to name a successor until the special election could be arranged. Even jaded observers such as your humble scribe were shaking our heads at this blatant example of cynical power politics.
But, they messed up.
If they had simply repealed the 2004 change, Gov Patrick would have appointed party loyalist who would have served until the next regular election in 2012. But they left the special election provision intact, which was a mistake as it turned out..
Into that special election rode Scott Brown in his GMC pick-up truck, fueled with independent voter outrage at the workings of political hacks both in the state and in Washington. Hope collided with anger and hope lost.
There will be plenty of analyses offered as to why Scott Brown won the special election. But the irony of this story is this: the guy ultimately responsible for losing the Kennedy seat was - Ted Kennedy!
Furthermore, the initial change turned out to be unnecessary, since Kerry didn't get elected President.
1/31/2010
1/21/2010
You may be Right
As the great philosopher Billy Joel said, "You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic you're looking for..."
It is interesting to see all the reactions to the Scott Brown victory over Martha Coakley on Tuesday. Some disappointed Democrats are pouncing on Ms Coakley for her supposed failures. Elsewhere, Starry eyed Liberals are ranting on their Facebook pages that the Massachusetts Redneck truck drivers voted against homeless orphans getting health care coverage. (I guess these were the same Rednecks who voted for Deval Patrick and Barack Obama). Local Conservative talk show hosts are gloating and taking credit for mobilizing their listeners to produce the sudden last minute surge for Brown.
Of all the analyses, I think Brown himself nailed the reason for his victory: People are fed-up with the status quo. So fed-up that they were willing to vote for a guy that most of us would label Conservative. I say most of us, because my favorite Conservative (George) worries that Brown might be a RINO (Republican in name only).
Another example of how we tend to see what we want to see?
My vote for Brown was directed at the current health care bill, which he has promised to vote against. I am not opposed to health care reform, I am against this "train wreck" of a plan, which would immediately increase the cost of health insurance for most working families an added 15-20% and give them less choice and less access. Not mention that NO one would get ANY benefit from this plan until 2014 for Crissakes!
I think we can do better. I am hoping that sending Mr Brown to D.C. as the messenger will help the Dems get rid of the special deals that have been written into the bill and focus on providing healthcare coverage to people who can't afford it.
By breaking the super majority in the Senate, Brown's election could serve the country well. Instead of maintaining a polarized status quo The Dems will have to seek common ground with Repubs to get anything done.
Maybe it's a little starry-eyed of me, but I'm hoping that the threat of getting thrown out of office will make our elected reps pay more attention to the voters and less attention to the special interests. Yeah, I know, You may be right...
But, the beauty of this vote is this: If we made a mistake, we can fix it in 2 years, when Brown comes up for election again.
It is interesting to see all the reactions to the Scott Brown victory over Martha Coakley on Tuesday. Some disappointed Democrats are pouncing on Ms Coakley for her supposed failures. Elsewhere, Starry eyed Liberals are ranting on their Facebook pages that the Massachusetts Redneck truck drivers voted against homeless orphans getting health care coverage. (I guess these were the same Rednecks who voted for Deval Patrick and Barack Obama). Local Conservative talk show hosts are gloating and taking credit for mobilizing their listeners to produce the sudden last minute surge for Brown.
Of all the analyses, I think Brown himself nailed the reason for his victory: People are fed-up with the status quo. So fed-up that they were willing to vote for a guy that most of us would label Conservative. I say most of us, because my favorite Conservative (George) worries that Brown might be a RINO (Republican in name only).
Another example of how we tend to see what we want to see?
My vote for Brown was directed at the current health care bill, which he has promised to vote against. I am not opposed to health care reform, I am against this "train wreck" of a plan, which would immediately increase the cost of health insurance for most working families an added 15-20% and give them less choice and less access. Not mention that NO one would get ANY benefit from this plan until 2014 for Crissakes!
I think we can do better. I am hoping that sending Mr Brown to D.C. as the messenger will help the Dems get rid of the special deals that have been written into the bill and focus on providing healthcare coverage to people who can't afford it.
By breaking the super majority in the Senate, Brown's election could serve the country well. Instead of maintaining a polarized status quo The Dems will have to seek common ground with Repubs to get anything done.
Maybe it's a little starry-eyed of me, but I'm hoping that the threat of getting thrown out of office will make our elected reps pay more attention to the voters and less attention to the special interests. Yeah, I know, You may be right...
But, the beauty of this vote is this: If we made a mistake, we can fix it in 2 years, when Brown comes up for election again.
1/18/2010
Doing the Right Thing
Most of the staff here at the Hellhole Journal have been outraged at the sneaky deals and outright cynical payoffs that seem to be accepted as "business as usual" by US Politicians.
It is distressing to hear Harry Reid say the "by definition legislating is about making deals." (I always thought that by definition, legislating was about making LAWS). Apparently I am not alone.
The other day Ben Nelson senator from Nebraska (who has been getting serious flak from just about everyone in and out of Nebraska) has written a letter asking Reid to remove the "cornhusker kickback" clause from the final bill. Now, after watching his personal approval ratings sink like a whale turd, he says, he believes the tax exemption should apply to all states.
This is encouraging news that someone may be listening to the chorus of boos coming from the customers of this "sausage factory." Now we need to hear from the Unions, Louisiana, Vermont and all those other porkers. (BTW this includes the separate outrageous pork barrel deal that our own John Kerry strongarmed through committee to get a contract for GE to manufacture an jet engine that the Pentagon doesn't want. ) We have to acknowledge that these things cost tax money which we do not have.
I probably need to reiterate that me and the staff are not against health care reform. We think that there are plenty of areas where something positive can be done to help people who want and need it. We just don't want the bloated piece of crap that they are fighting for in congress.
For example, we have changed our position on chronic illness. I confess that I was a bit tin-eared about this issue myself, until I had a discussion with a friend who has been losing mobility because of MS. He recently got laid off and may face the daunting challenge of getting affordable health care coverage in the future. I've always realized that no one except the very wealthy can afford to be chronically ill, but I never actually had to confront the situation with a family member or friend before. While I still defend the business decision of an insurance company to decide who they insure (i.e., they should not be forced to lose money), there is a need to cover people with pre-existing conditions. And, that by definition is the role of government. There are plenty of programs that could be cut to allow the funding of care for people with chronic illness - that would indeed be health care reform!
It is distressing to hear Harry Reid say the "by definition legislating is about making deals." (I always thought that by definition, legislating was about making LAWS). Apparently I am not alone.
The other day Ben Nelson senator from Nebraska (who has been getting serious flak from just about everyone in and out of Nebraska) has written a letter asking Reid to remove the "cornhusker kickback" clause from the final bill. Now, after watching his personal approval ratings sink like a whale turd, he says, he believes the tax exemption should apply to all states.
This is encouraging news that someone may be listening to the chorus of boos coming from the customers of this "sausage factory." Now we need to hear from the Unions, Louisiana, Vermont and all those other porkers. (BTW this includes the separate outrageous pork barrel deal that our own John Kerry strongarmed through committee to get a contract for GE to manufacture an jet engine that the Pentagon doesn't want. ) We have to acknowledge that these things cost tax money which we do not have.
I probably need to reiterate that me and the staff are not against health care reform. We think that there are plenty of areas where something positive can be done to help people who want and need it. We just don't want the bloated piece of crap that they are fighting for in congress.
For example, we have changed our position on chronic illness. I confess that I was a bit tin-eared about this issue myself, until I had a discussion with a friend who has been losing mobility because of MS. He recently got laid off and may face the daunting challenge of getting affordable health care coverage in the future. I've always realized that no one except the very wealthy can afford to be chronically ill, but I never actually had to confront the situation with a family member or friend before. While I still defend the business decision of an insurance company to decide who they insure (i.e., they should not be forced to lose money), there is a need to cover people with pre-existing conditions. And, that by definition is the role of government. There are plenty of programs that could be cut to allow the funding of care for people with chronic illness - that would indeed be health care reform!
1/16/2010
Surf's Up in Massachusetts
So this morning I read that President Obama is going to come to Massachusetts to promote his candidate (current state attorney general, Martha Coakley) in next Tuesday's special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. The dems have been confident the the majority of voters who showed up on election day would vote for a guaranteed 60th democratic vote for healthcare reform and other party line votes.
But, not so fast, says Scott Brown, the republican state senator who opposes Ms. Coakley. Brown has tuned-in to the dissatisfaction many independents have expressed about the current health care bill and the sleazy deals that have been made to ram the plan down the throats of the electorate. The dems have demonstrated chronic tone deafness by dismissing any criticism of its plans as partisan rhetoric.
Following their debate last week Coakley saw her lead in opinion polls going downhill like an outgoing tide. Brown's strong performance in the debate and sharp rise in polls elicited national attention with editorials in WSJ and other non regional media. Coakley's campaign hit back with an expensive attack ad campaign. As a non-partisan, my opinion is that Coakley's ads will backlash against her, because the attempts to distort Mr Brown's record and position are obvious.
The tsunami of support for Brown is palpable here. It is a wave of discontent with politics as usual. It should not be seen as pro-republican either. It is a cry of "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."
Now, Mr. Obama is in a bit of a pickle. If Coakley loses the election, Brown has already stated that he will vote to block the current bloated health care plan. "We need to go back and start over," he says. So, Obama cannot ignore the situation because his loyalists (and all those who have sold their souls for the current plan) will blame him if he does nothing and Brown wins. Yet, if he comes here and Brown still wins (shades of New Jersey) Obama will be perceived as weak.
The irony is in the fact that if the healthcare bill is defeated and the dems are forced to go back and rewrite a cleaner, less expensive plan, they will ultimately come out better for it. If the current legislation is passed, the dems will be swept out of power at midterm elections and Obama will be heading back to Chicago in three years.
My advice, stay home Mr. Obama, Our minds are made-up. we taxpayers don't need the cost and hassle of your visit. (Ramp-freeze at Logan, traffic tie-ups to allow his motorcade to cruise at will about our fair city). No matter what the final result on Tuesday, one thing is certain: the tide has turned. And the shockwaves will be felt around the world.
(OK so I mixed up the metaphors. Sue me.)
But, not so fast, says Scott Brown, the republican state senator who opposes Ms. Coakley. Brown has tuned-in to the dissatisfaction many independents have expressed about the current health care bill and the sleazy deals that have been made to ram the plan down the throats of the electorate. The dems have demonstrated chronic tone deafness by dismissing any criticism of its plans as partisan rhetoric.
Following their debate last week Coakley saw her lead in opinion polls going downhill like an outgoing tide. Brown's strong performance in the debate and sharp rise in polls elicited national attention with editorials in WSJ and other non regional media. Coakley's campaign hit back with an expensive attack ad campaign. As a non-partisan, my opinion is that Coakley's ads will backlash against her, because the attempts to distort Mr Brown's record and position are obvious.
The tsunami of support for Brown is palpable here. It is a wave of discontent with politics as usual. It should not be seen as pro-republican either. It is a cry of "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."
Now, Mr. Obama is in a bit of a pickle. If Coakley loses the election, Brown has already stated that he will vote to block the current bloated health care plan. "We need to go back and start over," he says. So, Obama cannot ignore the situation because his loyalists (and all those who have sold their souls for the current plan) will blame him if he does nothing and Brown wins. Yet, if he comes here and Brown still wins (shades of New Jersey) Obama will be perceived as weak.
The irony is in the fact that if the healthcare bill is defeated and the dems are forced to go back and rewrite a cleaner, less expensive plan, they will ultimately come out better for it. If the current legislation is passed, the dems will be swept out of power at midterm elections and Obama will be heading back to Chicago in three years.
My advice, stay home Mr. Obama, Our minds are made-up. we taxpayers don't need the cost and hassle of your visit. (Ramp-freeze at Logan, traffic tie-ups to allow his motorcade to cruise at will about our fair city). No matter what the final result on Tuesday, one thing is certain: the tide has turned. And the shockwaves will be felt around the world.
(OK so I mixed up the metaphors. Sue me.)
1/15/2010
Cruel Ironies
One cannot adequately describe the appalling devastation that was wrought in Haiti from the earthquake that struck Port-au-Prince. Today's estimates of the death toll is around 50,000. Maybe three million hurt, and/or homeless.
The mind recoils at the magnitude of sorrow. Turn away, it urges us. We grab for the remote, switch to another channel looking for for mindless pap to soothe our abraded synapses
The images echo other places, where "nature" has struck fiercely. I'm thinking of New Orleans after Katrina. Throngs of people dazed and waiting for help - perhaps wondering, if the camera crews can get here why can't we get food and water?
And a few years ago (2004) the Indian Ocean earthquake and resultant tsunami which is reported to have killed 230,000 people in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India. Those images of helpless people being swept into the churning killing surge are unforgettable.
The evening news featured a local man who had just been informed that his daughter who worked in Haiti, was found alive in the rubble of the earthquake. "God is good!" he kept shouting. "they found my daughter."
This seemed ironic to me. How can this man think God is good when tens of thousands of people have been killed, maimed, orphaned - but He is good because He chose to save one man's daughter? What about all the others?
Talk about cruel ironies, this morning it is reported that the saved woman was not his daughter. The Almighty, it seems, was not answering prayers, again.
The mind recoils at the magnitude of sorrow. Turn away, it urges us. We grab for the remote, switch to another channel looking for for mindless pap to soothe our abraded synapses
The images echo other places, where "nature" has struck fiercely. I'm thinking of New Orleans after Katrina. Throngs of people dazed and waiting for help - perhaps wondering, if the camera crews can get here why can't we get food and water?
And a few years ago (2004) the Indian Ocean earthquake and resultant tsunami which is reported to have killed 230,000 people in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India. Those images of helpless people being swept into the churning killing surge are unforgettable.
The evening news featured a local man who had just been informed that his daughter who worked in Haiti, was found alive in the rubble of the earthquake. "God is good!" he kept shouting. "they found my daughter."
This seemed ironic to me. How can this man think God is good when tens of thousands of people have been killed, maimed, orphaned - but He is good because He chose to save one man's daughter? What about all the others?
Talk about cruel ironies, this morning it is reported that the saved woman was not his daughter. The Almighty, it seems, was not answering prayers, again.
1/06/2010
Heads vs Hearts
The times they are a-changin, goes the old Bob Dylan song. Indeed.
As we roll into a new decade, Americans are basically divided into two groups. The first group sees the world changing for the better. We call these people Progressives. They tend to be naive and hopeful. They view the ever-changing cultural norms with equanimity. They see possibilities, they regard 'having fun' as a worthwhile goal. Fundamentally, they believe that things will work out if we just try to get-along and treat each other decently. They feel superior to the other group because they are driven by compassion to share the wealth (especially the wealth of the rich fat cats) with less-fortunate souls. They regard human laziness and stupidity as an unfortunate result of a bad dice roll. By contrast, if one is lucky enough to be born good looking , healthy and smart enough to take advantage of opportunity, you must always keep in mind that you were not entitled to it; you were given a break and you must pay it forward.
The second group - the ones we call Conservatives - are a grumpy bunch of stick-in-the-muds. They spend their workdays trying to get ahead. Then they stay awake at night afraid of slippery slopes and camels' noses in tents. Cons clearly see the negative aspect of anything that smacks of change. They love traditions and old authoritative books and parchments. They think everything worth knowing was already known by the Founding Fathers; new fads and ideas are regarded with suspicion and skepticism. They don't see the point in having fun, because people hate us and we need to stay on guard. They think they are superior to the other group because they are driven by their heads instead of their hearts. They see most taxation as stealing money from hard working people and giving it to ignorant slackers. They feel they are entitled to what they have, and hard cheese if you were born into the servant class, but that's the way it goes.
Normally, I think of myself as a fence-sitter between the two groups, usually falling on the side of the progressives due to a tendency to feel empathy and to acknowledge the relativity of moral truths. Conservatives are driven by their heads, thus they see human existence as a zero-sum equation where someone has to lose for you to win. For them everything is black or white, right or wrong. They regard fence-sitting-seers-of-grey with contempt.
Throughout the 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration* we were treated to the monotone nattering drumbeat from ultra progressive partisans, ranting negatively about everything that "W" said or did. It was tiring but often laughable for the extremes that the Libs would go to find fault with the President.
Now the cons, apparently feeling that turnabout is fair play, are filling the blogosphere and airwaves with silly criticisms of everything Barack Obama has done since his inauguration. Examples abound:
He is blamed for the ineffectiveness of the economic stimulus package (which was started during Bush's term), he is blamed for not bringing the troops home, for supporting a surge in Afghanistan, and the record unemployment is clearly his fault - all accomplished in just 9 months in office!
Lately, the criticisms are even nastier. You would never know that the Christmas day Northwest underwear bomber failed to complete his mission if you listen to some Conservative commentators. They are falling all over themselves accusing Obama of crimes and misdemeanors, sins of omission, commission and admission.
It's laughable. They used to say of Bush "He kept us safe" because there were no successful repeats of the 911 terrorist attacks in the USA. But Obama has been criticised as weak because of recent reports of foiled plots. (Hello, Cheney himself testified that there were several foiled plots after 911.)
Cheney, Limbaugh, and others talk about the Christmas day incident as if the bomb had exploded. They say Obama doesn't care about the safety of Americans - Which is about as block headed as it gets.
Most Americans are not as worried about crazed terrorists as they are about getting ripped off by some identity thief or taxed to death by out-of-touch elite legislators.
The main thing for which Obama should be criticized is this abomination of legislation called health care reform. As a candidate, Obama promised transparency, but has been silent while his pals in congress concocted this monstrosity of a reform bill behind closed doors. Candidate Obama pledged not to sign any legislation with earmarks, ("...we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.") Yet, nothing has changed. Deals were made in exchange for votes. Obama has has failed in his promise to us on these most important issues.
Already, two prominent Dems in the senate, seeing the tide of public opinion swelling against them, have already said that they will not run (and probably lose) in the next term.
Times they are a-changin'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I admit that I voted for George W. Bush both times. I'm still convinced that he was better than the opposition: 2000 Al Gore then 2004 Kerry for chrissakes. I've never liked Cheney; he always impressed me as the type of guy who would shoot you in the face after a couple of schnapps.
As we roll into a new decade, Americans are basically divided into two groups. The first group sees the world changing for the better. We call these people Progressives. They tend to be naive and hopeful. They view the ever-changing cultural norms with equanimity. They see possibilities, they regard 'having fun' as a worthwhile goal. Fundamentally, they believe that things will work out if we just try to get-along and treat each other decently. They feel superior to the other group because they are driven by compassion to share the wealth (especially the wealth of the rich fat cats) with less-fortunate souls. They regard human laziness and stupidity as an unfortunate result of a bad dice roll. By contrast, if one is lucky enough to be born good looking , healthy and smart enough to take advantage of opportunity, you must always keep in mind that you were not entitled to it; you were given a break and you must pay it forward.
The second group - the ones we call Conservatives - are a grumpy bunch of stick-in-the-muds. They spend their workdays trying to get ahead. Then they stay awake at night afraid of slippery slopes and camels' noses in tents. Cons clearly see the negative aspect of anything that smacks of change. They love traditions and old authoritative books and parchments. They think everything worth knowing was already known by the Founding Fathers; new fads and ideas are regarded with suspicion and skepticism. They don't see the point in having fun, because people hate us and we need to stay on guard. They think they are superior to the other group because they are driven by their heads instead of their hearts. They see most taxation as stealing money from hard working people and giving it to ignorant slackers. They feel they are entitled to what they have, and hard cheese if you were born into the servant class, but that's the way it goes.
Normally, I think of myself as a fence-sitter between the two groups, usually falling on the side of the progressives due to a tendency to feel empathy and to acknowledge the relativity of moral truths. Conservatives are driven by their heads, thus they see human existence as a zero-sum equation where someone has to lose for you to win. For them everything is black or white, right or wrong. They regard fence-sitting-seers-of-grey with contempt.
Throughout the 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration* we were treated to the monotone nattering drumbeat from ultra progressive partisans, ranting negatively about everything that "W" said or did. It was tiring but often laughable for the extremes that the Libs would go to find fault with the President.
Now the cons, apparently feeling that turnabout is fair play, are filling the blogosphere and airwaves with silly criticisms of everything Barack Obama has done since his inauguration. Examples abound:
He is blamed for the ineffectiveness of the economic stimulus package (which was started during Bush's term), he is blamed for not bringing the troops home, for supporting a surge in Afghanistan, and the record unemployment is clearly his fault - all accomplished in just 9 months in office!
Lately, the criticisms are even nastier. You would never know that the Christmas day Northwest underwear bomber failed to complete his mission if you listen to some Conservative commentators. They are falling all over themselves accusing Obama of crimes and misdemeanors, sins of omission, commission and admission.
It's laughable. They used to say of Bush "He kept us safe" because there were no successful repeats of the 911 terrorist attacks in the USA. But Obama has been criticised as weak because of recent reports of foiled plots. (Hello, Cheney himself testified that there were several foiled plots after 911.)
Cheney, Limbaugh, and others talk about the Christmas day incident as if the bomb had exploded. They say Obama doesn't care about the safety of Americans - Which is about as block headed as it gets.
Most Americans are not as worried about crazed terrorists as they are about getting ripped off by some identity thief or taxed to death by out-of-touch elite legislators.
The main thing for which Obama should be criticized is this abomination of legislation called health care reform. As a candidate, Obama promised transparency, but has been silent while his pals in congress concocted this monstrosity of a reform bill behind closed doors. Candidate Obama pledged not to sign any legislation with earmarks, ("...we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.") Yet, nothing has changed. Deals were made in exchange for votes. Obama has has failed in his promise to us on these most important issues.
Already, two prominent Dems in the senate, seeing the tide of public opinion swelling against them, have already said that they will not run (and probably lose) in the next term.
Times they are a-changin'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I admit that I voted for George W. Bush both times. I'm still convinced that he was better than the opposition: 2000 Al Gore then 2004 Kerry for chrissakes. I've never liked Cheney; he always impressed me as the type of guy who would shoot you in the face after a couple of schnapps.
1/04/2010
New Years Resolutions 2010
New Years resolutions are the tradition fodder for people who want to change something or accomplish some lofty goal. Studies* show that 75% of these resolutions become forgotten or abandoned within the first month. Virtually all resolutions fall by the wayside before 3 months have passed. Yet, being creatures of hope, people continue to dutifully write lists and consciously try to apply that self-discipline which is needed to reach the goal.
Generally my requisite resolutions repeat themselves from year to year: Travel more, write more, read good books, exercise and lose a few pounds, be nicer to telemarketers...and so on. In the past, these aspirations have evaporated like cat puke on a rug - within a few weeks.
But this year is different. This year, I did not make ANY resolutions. Thus I will not have to experience that gnawing sense of failure that most of you will feel as February draws to a close, and March rages like a lion, mocking your lack of productivity and weight loss. By April, you are slamming the phone down on telemarketers and beginning to hate that stack of unread books. Travel? Hah, June blows in like a lamb - and you have not even begun to plan that Cape vacation...
Not me, amigos. This year, instead of making resolutions we are making plans. We have already booked our getaway vacations for February in Florida and August on the Cape. Doubtless, by February I will be boasting that I am writing more, getting paid, losing weight, paying more attention to investments, reading good books, and learning a foreign language. By March, the taxes will be done, we will have trained the kitten NOT to jump on the counter and eat my eggs while I am taking a phone call. In June I will be counting my lottery winnings (and perhaps giving gift$ to my fans). By November we will be sending picture postcards back from Amalfi.
Yes, this is the year for accomplishment --- I can taste it like a 12 year old single malt scotch.
*The "Studies" I cite are - like most blog data - fictitious, fabricated to lend credence to specious factoids. (Papa always said never let the facts get in the way of a good story.)
Generally my requisite resolutions repeat themselves from year to year: Travel more, write more, read good books, exercise and lose a few pounds, be nicer to telemarketers...and so on. In the past, these aspirations have evaporated like cat puke on a rug - within a few weeks.
But this year is different. This year, I did not make ANY resolutions. Thus I will not have to experience that gnawing sense of failure that most of you will feel as February draws to a close, and March rages like a lion, mocking your lack of productivity and weight loss. By April, you are slamming the phone down on telemarketers and beginning to hate that stack of unread books. Travel? Hah, June blows in like a lamb - and you have not even begun to plan that Cape vacation...
Not me, amigos. This year, instead of making resolutions we are making plans. We have already booked our getaway vacations for February in Florida and August on the Cape. Doubtless, by February I will be boasting that I am writing more, getting paid, losing weight, paying more attention to investments, reading good books, and learning a foreign language. By March, the taxes will be done, we will have trained the kitten NOT to jump on the counter and eat my eggs while I am taking a phone call. In June I will be counting my lottery winnings (and perhaps giving gift$ to my fans). By November we will be sending picture postcards back from Amalfi.
Yes, this is the year for accomplishment --- I can taste it like a 12 year old single malt scotch.
*The "Studies" I cite are - like most blog data - fictitious, fabricated to lend credence to specious factoids. (Papa always said never let the facts get in the way of a good story.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)