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If they had simply repealed the 2004 change, Gov Patrick would have appointed party loyalist who would have served until the next regular election in 2012.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.)
12/27/2009
Looking Forward to Another Fearful Decade
So here we are, witnessing the last few dessicated days of this decade drop one-by-one like leaves swirling into the storm drain of history.
One cannot help but compare our current media-stoked fears of melting ice caps and rising sea levels to the sense of trepidation (and in some cases - panic) that characterized the waning moments of the last decade.
Y2K
If you were working in IT and you were working for a company that had been around for more than five years, you were in some way involved with the desperate race to convert your legacy COBOL based Mainframe scatter-base business systems to the infinitely more complicated world of Client-Server, enterprise-wide, shared database environments. Nearly everyone was convinced that because some computer programs carried only the last two digits of the year, this would cause the entire infrastructure to a halt. Planes would fall out of the sky, elevators would get stuck between floors, automobiles wouldn't start.
It seems kind of silly now; nothing bad happened when the century did finally roll. Yet the fear that was generated by gurus and pundits caused businesses to spend trillions of dollars changing their perfectly adequate systems. Do you think the lack of reported disasters was the justification for all the remedial activity? Was there a monetary incentive for software companies and consultants to promote the fear of doing nothing?
Deja Vu?
One cannot help but see a similarity in the current Global Warming controversy. I say controversy because not everyone agrees that humans are substantially affecting climate change. Heck legitimate scientists even disagree on whether the temps are warming or cooling. But, which ever side you are on, you cannot help noticing that the dire warnings echo the fearmongering of the Y2K crisis. Most of us non-scientists find it easier to go with the consensus opinion. But we should remember that historically, consensus in scientific thought has generally been proven incorrect by the accumulation of more information. The data upon which the current global warming fears are based cannot be verified. Not very scientific, if you ask me. Again, we can see a monetary gain for industries that will benefit from selling green stuff. I am not suggesting that our energy policy is for sale. That would be cynical.
Y2K was not the only impending disaster of the millennium. Ten years ago, we were worried that the cloning of a sheep named Dolly would lead to Frankenstinian experiments and armies of warrior human clones, body part farming and a global market in spare body parts. No one wanted to eat genetically engineered corn, nor even steaks from cows that had been fed such scary food. Remember the Mad Cow disease panic? It ruined the US beef export market for years.
In 1999 we were worried about the war in Kosovo, we worried about the flare-up between nuclear powers India vs Pakistan. We worried that the Columbine massacre would spark more copycat mass shooters among Gen-Y malcontents. We were worried about WMD's in Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Most of these fears fizzled early in the new decade.
What Really Happened.
Who among us anticipated the debacle of the 2000 presidential election? The world watched while we learned about hanging chads in a ballot count dispute that raised the spectre of third-world style election fraud in Florida and other states. And, we were shocked and awed by the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington DC. This was followed by paralyzing terror in the form of Anthrax in the mail, and sniper attacks in DC/Virginia area. The war on terror drew into a long and costly occupation which has yet to end. Images of Katrina victims stranded on roofs in New Orleans compete with pictures of hundreds of homes destroyed by fires in LA. Oh, I almost forgot the near total collapse of the economy that virtually wiped-out half of our retirement nesteggs, sent millions of Americans to the unemployment line and worst of all - destroyed our faith in the integrity of the fat cats and politicians who run and oversee the system.
The summary point here: just about everything we were worried about in 1999 turned out OK and the real disasters were unforseen. Let us assume that the next decade will bring more surprises - that is indeed scary.
Have a predictable New Year!
One cannot help but compare our current media-stoked fears of melting ice caps and rising sea levels to the sense of trepidation (and in some cases - panic) that characterized the waning moments of the last decade.
Y2K
If you were working in IT and you were working for a company that had been around for more than five years, you were in some way involved with the desperate race to convert your legacy COBOL based Mainframe scatter-base business systems to the infinitely more complicated world of Client-Server, enterprise-wide, shared database environments. Nearly everyone was convinced that because some computer programs carried only the last two digits of the year, this would cause the entire infrastructure to a halt. Planes would fall out of the sky, elevators would get stuck between floors, automobiles wouldn't start.
It seems kind of silly now; nothing bad happened when the century did finally roll. Yet the fear that was generated by gurus and pundits caused businesses to spend trillions of dollars changing their perfectly adequate systems. Do you think the lack of reported disasters was the justification for all the remedial activity? Was there a monetary incentive for software companies and consultants to promote the fear of doing nothing?
Deja Vu?
One cannot help but see a similarity in the current Global Warming controversy. I say controversy because not everyone agrees that humans are substantially affecting climate change. Heck legitimate scientists even disagree on whether the temps are warming or cooling. But, which ever side you are on, you cannot help noticing that the dire warnings echo the fearmongering of the Y2K crisis. Most of us non-scientists find it easier to go with the consensus opinion. But we should remember that historically, consensus in scientific thought has generally been proven incorrect by the accumulation of more information. The data upon which the current global warming fears are based cannot be verified. Not very scientific, if you ask me. Again, we can see a monetary gain for industries that will benefit from selling green stuff. I am not suggesting that our energy policy is for sale. That would be cynical.
Y2K was not the only impending disaster of the millennium. Ten years ago, we were worried that the cloning of a sheep named Dolly would lead to Frankenstinian experiments and armies of warrior human clones, body part farming and a global market in spare body parts. No one wanted to eat genetically engineered corn, nor even steaks from cows that had been fed such scary food. Remember the Mad Cow disease panic? It ruined the US beef export market for years.
In 1999 we were worried about the war in Kosovo, we worried about the flare-up between nuclear powers India vs Pakistan. We worried that the Columbine massacre would spark more copycat mass shooters among Gen-Y malcontents. We were worried about WMD's in Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Most of these fears fizzled early in the new decade.
What Really Happened.
Who among us anticipated the debacle of the 2000 presidential election? The world watched while we learned about hanging chads in a ballot count dispute that raised the spectre of third-world style election fraud in Florida and other states. And, we were shocked and awed by the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington DC. This was followed by paralyzing terror in the form of Anthrax in the mail, and sniper attacks in DC/Virginia area. The war on terror drew into a long and costly occupation which has yet to end. Images of Katrina victims stranded on roofs in New Orleans compete with pictures of hundreds of homes destroyed by fires in LA. Oh, I almost forgot the near total collapse of the economy that virtually wiped-out half of our retirement nesteggs, sent millions of Americans to the unemployment line and worst of all - destroyed our faith in the integrity of the fat cats and politicians who run and oversee the system.
The summary point here: just about everything we were worried about in 1999 turned out OK and the real disasters were unforseen. Let us assume that the next decade will bring more surprises - that is indeed scary.
Have a predictable New Year!
12/25/2009
12/18/2009
Tis the Season.... to be Famous
In today's Globe, columnist Ellen Goodman writes an op-ed piece entitled "Whatever Happened to Shame?" which echoed my own musings in yesterday's blog. Goodman writes that anthropologists say that "shame comes from a violation of cultural norms". She goes on to cite several cases to demonstrate that the cultural norms seem to be shifting towards acceptance of the antics of the rich, famous and wannabees. Examples include the mistress (and rat) of Gov Spitzer has just landed a job as an advice columnist at The NY Post.
"Now they have hired the hooker to be an advice columnist. This is like hiring Bernie Madoff as a personal finance columnist." She also cites the cynical attitude of fat cat bankers who seem to have no sense of embarrassment when details of their greed are reported.
There was a story last week about Bernie Madoff in "prison" (his door is not even locked) where he is regarded by other felons as the "Godfather". Tiger Woods alleged girlfriends are showing up in droves, each eager for her 15 minutes of attention. Pols caught on camera taking bribes get re-elected. They justify their behavior declaring that everyone does it. Fame trumps shame. It's just part of the evolution (or is it devolution?) of cultural norms.
Collectively, we have accepted the premise that famous people can get away with stuff that would have embarrassed most of us, if our mothers had found out.
Heck, Nowadays, Mom proudly shows her tattoos for anyone at the mall to ogle while she is loudly talking on her cell phone ignoring her bratty kids who will, undoubtedly, grow-up to be shameless bratty adults.
"Now they have hired the hooker to be an advice columnist. This is like hiring Bernie Madoff as a personal finance columnist." She also cites the cynical attitude of fat cat bankers who seem to have no sense of embarrassment when details of their greed are reported.
There was a story last week about Bernie Madoff in "prison" (his door is not even locked) where he is regarded by other felons as the "Godfather". Tiger Woods alleged girlfriends are showing up in droves, each eager for her 15 minutes of attention. Pols caught on camera taking bribes get re-elected. They justify their behavior declaring that everyone does it. Fame trumps shame. It's just part of the evolution (or is it devolution?) of cultural norms.
Collectively, we have accepted the premise that famous people can get away with stuff that would have embarrassed most of us, if our mothers had found out.
Heck, Nowadays, Mom proudly shows her tattoos for anyone at the mall to ogle while she is loudly talking on her cell phone ignoring her bratty kids who will, undoubtedly, grow-up to be shameless bratty adults.
12/17/2009
'Tis the Season to be Greedy
Fa-la-la-la-lah La-la-la-lah.
I'm getting worried. Shame, the traditional weapon against corruption and abuse has been rendered ineffective - or so it seems to this wizened observer of the American scene.
I'm getting worried. Shame, the traditional weapon against corruption and abuse has been rendered ineffective - or so it seems to this wizened observer of the American scene.
While most of us are still tightening the old fiscal belt, bank executives, Wall Street fat cats, college presidents and politicians are unabashedly gorging themselves in a feast of excess.
In the news yesterday, the costs of congressional travel to conference in Scotland. Our elected reps and spouses spent 5 days at a "conference", and spent taxpayer money like water from a firehose.
Banks, Wall Street, GM are paying back billions in TARP money so they can continue to pay exorbitant bonuses to themeselves and cronies. They say the top execs are irreplacable but anyone who has worked in a successful company knows this is not true. No one is indespensible. And most of the important work is not done in Mahogany Row. Besides that, most of the guys looking for bonuses were calling the shots when the economy tanked. Aren't bonuses supposed to be a reward for success?
In his 2002 book Throwing the Elephant Stanley Bing presents a zen approach to managing the boss (the elephant). This observation (p172) is dead-on:
"Unlike you, the great elephants do not concern themselves with personal feelings because they have taught themselves to view the vast range of human interactions as 'just business', nothing more, and this distance gives them incalculable power."
So there you have it. The main reason execs have the perks is because they are a) smart and most importantly b) are not burdened by conscience. Relieved of a sense of shame for their actions, there is no reason not to continue to claw and grab any money on the table because everyone else is doing it too. Tough darts for the vast unwashed. It's just business saith the Godfather, nothing personal.
The problem is, we (who still feel shame even when we undertip a waitress because of lousy service) are becoming personally revolted by these excesses - especially when it is on our backs.
The great philosopher Tom Leher nailed it in his Christmas Carol:
"On Christmas day you can't get sore
Your fellow man you must adore
There's time to rob him all the more
the other three hundred and sixty-four..."
12/08/2009
Endangered Species
Just a few hours before he was to give a speech the other night, Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick cancelled a scheduled appearance at a local gathering of a men's club when he found out that women were excluded. Until this news item, I had never heard of The Clover Club either.
Today, the Boston Globe editorial praised Patrick for "Skipping boy's night out". The Globe thinks that it is evil for white males to get together to eat, drink and be merry.
On the other hand, the Globe thinks it is OK for women and "other minorities" to establish gender or even race-based clubs - because "there are substantial differences between a club that literally perpetuates an old-boy network and an organization formed to encourage networking among underrepresented groups." Really? Substantial differences?
The only difference I see is a double standard. Maybe the Globe needs to do a recount of who the minorities are these days. In 2009 English speaking white guys are out-numbered by "underrepresented groups."
I don't disagree with Gov Patrick making a personal statement about his participation at a club that excludes a selected group. What bothers me is the editorial assumption that people do not have the right to congregate with people who they feel most comfortable with - even if that means to exclude some groups of people. Secret societies, leagues, clubs, fraternities, associations, cults - Such groups have existed since men lived in caves.
It is clear that the government needs to intervene where "clubs" that are really fronts for criminal gangs, violence-preaching (eg, skinheads) or other illegal activity.
If the group is not conspiring to actively hurt nonmembers, leave them be.
These days, the government enforces a public policy of inclusion. Equal opportunity (ie, minority preference) is mandated at every level of federal, state and local organizations. Government and civil contracts, grants, job opportunities are all subject to affirmative action.
Family wise things have really changed. Women have (understandably) rebelled against their former role which primarily involved childcare, housewifery and provider of connubial bliss. Nowadays, the tables have turned.
Men long for the days when they were treated as kings of their castle, inscrutable Martians who were exempt from the hospital delivery room. Heck, they aren't even the principle breadwinners,anymore. Today, guys have to do everything women do: they are expected to come directly home after work instead of having a few pops at the local watering hole; in many cases they have to shop, cook, clean, watch the kids, etc. Most social engagements are still decided by women, friendships with other couples are dictated by females.
She "owns" all the rooms in the house; if he is good, she lets him have a corner where he can have a TV and a comfortable chair. She monitors his meals, drinks and wardrobe.
So what is wrong with a bunch of guys getting together a few times a year to smoke cigars, tell dirty jokes and have a few drinks.
It used to be The American Way.
Today, the Boston Globe editorial praised Patrick for "Skipping boy's night out". The Globe thinks that it is evil for white males to get together to eat, drink and be merry.
On the other hand, the Globe thinks it is OK for women and "other minorities" to establish gender or even race-based clubs - because "there are substantial differences between a club that literally perpetuates an old-boy network and an organization formed to encourage networking among underrepresented groups." Really? Substantial differences?
The only difference I see is a double standard. Maybe the Globe needs to do a recount of who the minorities are these days. In 2009 English speaking white guys are out-numbered by "underrepresented groups."
I don't disagree with Gov Patrick making a personal statement about his participation at a club that excludes a selected group. What bothers me is the editorial assumption that people do not have the right to congregate with people who they feel most comfortable with - even if that means to exclude some groups of people. Secret societies, leagues, clubs, fraternities, associations, cults - Such groups have existed since men lived in caves.
It is clear that the government needs to intervene where "clubs" that are really fronts for criminal gangs, violence-preaching (eg, skinheads) or other illegal activity.
If the group is not conspiring to actively hurt nonmembers, leave them be.
These days, the government enforces a public policy of inclusion. Equal opportunity (ie, minority preference) is mandated at every level of federal, state and local organizations. Government and civil contracts, grants, job opportunities are all subject to affirmative action.
Family wise things have really changed. Women have (understandably) rebelled against their former role which primarily involved childcare, housewifery and provider of connubial bliss. Nowadays, the tables have turned.
Men long for the days when they were treated as kings of their castle, inscrutable Martians who were exempt from the hospital delivery room. Heck, they aren't even the principle breadwinners,anymore. Today, guys have to do everything women do: they are expected to come directly home after work instead of having a few pops at the local watering hole; in many cases they have to shop, cook, clean, watch the kids, etc. Most social engagements are still decided by women, friendships with other couples are dictated by females.
She "owns" all the rooms in the house; if he is good, she lets him have a corner where he can have a TV and a comfortable chair. She monitors his meals, drinks and wardrobe.
So what is wrong with a bunch of guys getting together a few times a year to smoke cigars, tell dirty jokes and have a few drinks.
It used to be The American Way.
12/03/2009
Not H1N1
Not to worry. I probably have a common cold, according to a licensed health care professional with whom I have had recent intercourse. (No, not the Tiger Woods kind of intercourse - you people really need to get a dictionary).
Also this diagnosis did not come from my social network of self-appointed health experts (i.e., everyone with an opinion and an email account). They didn't need a stinking diagnosis to offer a cure: "Take antibiotics", "Gargle with salt water", "Bury a dead cat under an elm tree in the moonlight" they tell me. "Leeches", "Irish Whiskey", "Juice", "Seaweed" they shout.
Just a common cold: Tell that to my throat and sinuses; they obviously think that they are entitled to a more interesting diagnosis. But beyond coughing and sneezing there is No fever, no gastrointestinal problems (i.e., probably not the flu & not a bacterial infection).
The Irish whiskey cure seems like it would be worth a shot, I argue. There might be some basis in medicine. After all the alcohol kills bacteria, right? Then Reality pours cold water on that track. A cold is caused by a virus, not a bacteria. Still, the nurse distinctly said to "Drink lots of fluids." My wife - who does not have a medical degree - insists that the nurse meant water-based fluids. I argue that whiskey is 80% water.
This is just another instance of a situation where everyone thinks they know what you should do.
But, in fact, no one knows really knows anything for certain. The Internet is full of conflicting information. One expert says to use hand sanitizers to kill cold and flu germs. Another expert says that rhino virus (common cold) thrives on alcohol! Some experts say wash your hands with hot soapy water long enough to sing "Happy Birthday" Another news item says it doesn't matter if the water is hot. To kill germs you need water to be boiling hot.Anyway, thanks for all your get well cards and letters - and well-intended advice, however wrong and misguided.
11/28/2009
Cough cough
Looks like I am in the grip of one of the many animal flu's that are "going around". Not bad enough to go to Dr., but bad enough to make me miss the Thanksgiving gathering at my daughter's on Thursday.
In the old days, I'd have just taken a cough suppressant dutifully arrived and mingled with the other unsuspecting guests, spreading deadly pathogens with every handshake and hug. Nowadays, with heightened awareness, I felt nobler by staying home in self imposed quarantine, mollifying myself by watching Football on TV. (I think it is the first time I have missed T-day in my adult life.) Will other family members appreciate my selflessness or will they think of me as a wimp?
My wife was feeling fine on Thursday morning and went without me (she was bringing the stuffing, turkey gravy and of course a cake) and she had a nice time. She brought me home a nice plate of turkey and fixin's. They say "feed a fever", right? Or is it the other way round? Anyway, I did get my dinner, reheated in the microwave, though I missed the warmth of family and friends.
My sense that I was contagious was justified when, alas, yesterday evening - after a full day of mandatory post-Thanksgiving-Day-frenzy-shopping - my wife began coughing and sneezing. Today, she is feeling the way I felt on Thursday, and is staying in bed to rest. I feel a bit better today. Hopefully, I am on-the-mend after 4 days of malaise, so now I can make* chicken soup for her.
[*open can, pour in pan, heat and serve]
In the old days, I'd have just taken a cough suppressant dutifully arrived and mingled with the other unsuspecting guests, spreading deadly pathogens with every handshake and hug. Nowadays, with heightened awareness, I felt nobler by staying home in self imposed quarantine, mollifying myself by watching Football on TV. (I think it is the first time I have missed T-day in my adult life.) Will other family members appreciate my selflessness or will they think of me as a wimp?
My wife was feeling fine on Thursday morning and went without me (she was bringing the stuffing, turkey gravy and of course a cake) and she had a nice time. She brought me home a nice plate of turkey and fixin's. They say "feed a fever", right? Or is it the other way round? Anyway, I did get my dinner, reheated in the microwave, though I missed the warmth of family and friends.
My sense that I was contagious was justified when, alas, yesterday evening - after a full day of mandatory post-Thanksgiving-Day-frenzy-shopping - my wife began coughing and sneezing. Today, she is feeling the way I felt on Thursday, and is staying in bed to rest. I feel a bit better today. Hopefully, I am on-the-mend after 4 days of malaise, so now I can make* chicken soup for her.
[*open can, pour in pan, heat and serve]
11/23/2009
Time to End Legal Dishonesty
Except for the cost, I don't have any complaints about my health insurance. So "reform" is a misnomer. Instead of actually improving things for all citizens, the current health care bill should be called "Situation Normal - Fouled-up and Getting Worse."
Instead of creating more complex monster laws, lawmakers ought to be figuring-out how to make life more simple, more fair and to protect us from getting ripped-off.
If these guys want to reform something, how about the IRS? The tax laws are too complex for an ordinary citizen to comprehend and yet there are loopholes through which high-priced tax accountants can drive a luxury yacht.
How about truth in pricing? For some reason, the Law thinks it is OK for companies to lie about the actual cost of their products.
Here are a few changes I would make if I were the Emperor:
Instead of creating more complex monster laws, lawmakers ought to be figuring-out how to make life more simple, more fair and to protect us from getting ripped-off.
If these guys want to reform something, how about the IRS? The tax laws are too complex for an ordinary citizen to comprehend and yet there are loopholes through which high-priced tax accountants can drive a luxury yacht.
How about truth in pricing? For some reason, the Law thinks it is OK for companies to lie about the actual cost of their products.
- Banks. We have been conditioned to accept the phony and usurious mortgage rate calculation formula which loads all the interest into the front of the loan. No peeps you aren't paying 6% on your mortgage. Over 30 years you actually pay more than 200% (do the math: if you borrow $100,000, you pay back $215,838!)
- Credit Card Companies. They promise you great deals, cash back schemes, cash advances and low rates to seduce you and then charge you exorbitant late fees and raise your interest rate to impossible limits.
- The travel industry is another big offender. They lie to you about the price of an airline ticket, omitting taxes, surcharges and fees - which can add-up to a significant delta between advertised price and net amount. Rental car costs are almost humorous when you tick off the multiple exceptions to the advertised price (airport fees, recovery fees, usage surtax, local taxes, and on and on).
- Telephone companies. Are permitted by law to send you an incomprehensible bill, which no person can reasonably be expected to understand. The buried fees and charges boggle the mind in their variety and silliness.
- Utility Bills. Ditto.
Here are a few changes I would make if I were the Emperor:
- Eliminate fine print. The text of all contracts, ads and legal documents would be in 12 point normal Ariel font.
- Plain English. All commercial and legal documents must be composed using language that a high school graduate can understand.
- Fees or surcharges will be illegal; all costs must be included in the advertised price of all products and services. Handling charges will be illegal. Shipping charges must reflect the actual cost to ship the item.
- Applicable Taxes must be clearly stated in every ad. The final net price must be prominently displayed.
- Credit card fraud and ID theft will be punished severely. Full restitution to victims will be required by the perpetrators by liquidating all assets.
- Political ads would be forbidden. This eliminates the need for political contributions. Elections will be based on Facebook Profiles. Lobbyists would be hanged if they refused to get real jobs.
- Class action suits would be illegal; civil negligence awards would be capped at projected cost of necessary medical care and actual property damages.
- Rebates, cash back, and other phony gimmicks would be banned.
- Companies that produce pop-up ads will be fined heavily.
This would be just for starters.
11/19/2009
The End of the Era is Near
The recent announcement by A.G. Eric Holder to bring the Sept 11 terrorists to civilian trial in NYC is astounding -- not only because it defies common sense, but also because if anything goes wrong, the shit will fly directly on President Obama.
By anything going wrong, I mean: Acquittal, more terrorist attacks, revealing damaging information which compromises US intelligence activities, lengthy PR appearances by defendants, and obligatory media circus. In other words, there is almost zero chance that at the end, reasonable people will say, "Ah, justice was served."
The more credible result is that the majority of the American voting public will conclude that Mr. Obama has terrible judgement. They will recall the bad fellas that he associated with in the past, and the poor choices he has made in appointing Holder and Geitner, not to mention the choice of Biden as VP. Despite having a filibuster proof congress He has failed to accomplish any of his major campaign promises, and this monstrosity of a health care reform bill will be remembered - if it gets passed - as the worst piece of lawmaking since prohibition.
Thus, I am predicting the end of the Obama era, starting with the terrorist trial. The Republicans will sweep in the legislature next year, by promising to undo the bloated health care reform bill, and Obama will be back in Chicago looking for a new house in 2012. The slogan for the election: "Obama Lied; Hope Died."
You heard it here first.
By anything going wrong, I mean: Acquittal, more terrorist attacks, revealing damaging information which compromises US intelligence activities, lengthy PR appearances by defendants, and obligatory media circus. In other words, there is almost zero chance that at the end, reasonable people will say, "Ah, justice was served."
The more credible result is that the majority of the American voting public will conclude that Mr. Obama has terrible judgement. They will recall the bad fellas that he associated with in the past, and the poor choices he has made in appointing Holder and Geitner, not to mention the choice of Biden as VP. Despite having a filibuster proof congress He has failed to accomplish any of his major campaign promises, and this monstrosity of a health care reform bill will be remembered - if it gets passed - as the worst piece of lawmaking since prohibition.
Thus, I am predicting the end of the Obama era, starting with the terrorist trial. The Republicans will sweep in the legislature next year, by promising to undo the bloated health care reform bill, and Obama will be back in Chicago looking for a new house in 2012. The slogan for the election: "Obama Lied; Hope Died."
You heard it here first.
11/16/2009
Macho Conservatives Bow to No Man
It is amusing to see how culturally sensitive the NeoCons are these days. Everywhere you look today they are yammering about Obama's break with US protocol, because he bowed too low to the Japanese royals.
Well, at least he didn't refer to them as "Your imperial Majesties," as Richard Nixon did during his 1971 meeting (in Alaska) with Hirohito and his wife. And he didn't puke on his host, like George H Bush did on the Japanese Prime Minister in 1992.
Conservatives would love to go back to the old days when guys like Obama would not even be admitted to the local country club, much less represent our nation as the Leader of the free world. They yearn for the days when people knew the rules and knew their place.
They were silent as GW Bush alienated everyone in the solar system with his swaggering cowboy approach to world politics. You are either with us or with the terrorists! Hey Fraulein, how about a little neck massage. Talk about embarrassing.
These macho keyboard warriors, most of whom have managed to evade any form of national service, ironically urge the most bellicose position for the US (which policy would be enforced by your son, not theirs) call themselves patriots and accuse anyone who disagrees with narrow views and their stiff-pants arrogance as "America haters." This is amusing because it is the neocons who actually despise the majority of their countrymen.
Instead of imagining a world where nations try to coexist, conservatives prefer the world filled with strife. The mantra "We're number one and the rest of you suck!" is a losing slogan for the next century. Sabre rattling and waterboarding will not stop terrorism.
"My flag must be higher than your flag," they say to the world. Apparently, they have not learned the lessons of history: all empires fall, the world must change, and conservatives because of their rigidity always lose to progressives in the end.
Well, at least he didn't refer to them as "Your imperial Majesties," as Richard Nixon did during his 1971 meeting (in Alaska) with Hirohito and his wife. And he didn't puke on his host, like George H Bush did on the Japanese Prime Minister in 1992.
Conservatives would love to go back to the old days when guys like Obama would not even be admitted to the local country club, much less represent our nation as the Leader of the free world. They yearn for the days when people knew the rules and knew their place.
They were silent as GW Bush alienated everyone in the solar system with his swaggering cowboy approach to world politics. You are either with us or with the terrorists! Hey Fraulein, how about a little neck massage. Talk about embarrassing.
These macho keyboard warriors, most of whom have managed to evade any form of national service, ironically urge the most bellicose position for the US (which policy would be enforced by your son, not theirs) call themselves patriots and accuse anyone who disagrees with narrow views and their stiff-pants arrogance as "America haters." This is amusing because it is the neocons who actually despise the majority of their countrymen.
Instead of imagining a world where nations try to coexist, conservatives prefer the world filled with strife. The mantra "We're number one and the rest of you suck!" is a losing slogan for the next century. Sabre rattling and waterboarding will not stop terrorism.
"My flag must be higher than your flag," they say to the world. Apparently, they have not learned the lessons of history: all empires fall, the world must change, and conservatives because of their rigidity always lose to progressives in the end.
What conservatives fail to comprehend is that their view of a black and white, zero-sum, right and wrong world is flawed, because it leads logically to doomsday. If Obama errs a little by being too polite how much damage can that cause?
11/13/2009
Doing Nothing is Definitely an Option
The other day Bill Clinton joined the chorus of talking heads that are lecturing us "Doing nothing (about healthcare reform) is not an option." The Democrats have recently voted to pass into law the 2000 page monstrosity that The Wall Street journal calls "the worst bill ever." Granted the WSJ is no fan of Obama-care, but sheesh, this statement gets my attention. "In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago..."
The political world is becoming increasingly un-rational. The Dem leadership have been scary in their monomaniacal pursuit of something called Health Care Reform. They say that they want to extend health care insurance to the uninsured, which is indeed a noble objective. 5 double spaced typewritten pages would be enough to describe the changes necessary to accomplish that goal.
The problem here is the flaw of all design-by-committee proposals. You know what they say about a camel being a horse which was designed by a committee. The problem with committees is that rationality becomes lost to politics. The initial goal, however worthy, is subordinated to the wishes of the most powerful person in the room. Votes based on principle or logic are changed to votes based on perceived approval by the person who is in power to dispense future favors. The larger the group, the less personal responsibility for outcomes is assumed by committee members.
Obama and Pelosi have been urging rapid action, yet have been incapable of defining the specific outcomes of the laws they would foist upon the public. This is insanity.
How anyone is supposed to make sense out of a law that is so big that my PC jammed-up trying to download the bill in PDF format? No, I haven't read it. But I am nervous about some of the problems that are being raised by the opponents of the current bill:
- Stiff penalties for electing not to be insured - substantial cash fines and even felonious jail time .
What happened to freedom? The goal of helping people who need help has been perverted to
totalitarianism. We know what is good for you. Submit, or else....
- Cost - It is unclear how the current bill will reduce healthcare costs for the majority of working and retired citizens. I fear that we will be charged more money for less access than we have now. How is that fair? Or rational?
Fortunately, the Senate has to vote on this bill before it becomes law. We can only hope that some force brings our solons to their senses. When I see the four Democratic candidates for Senate arguing for the plan because it is what Ted Kennedy would have wanted, it makes me nervous.
Today they are bickering over reproductive rights. They should be discussing how to simplify the problem of funding health insurance for citizens who need it and want it.
The political world is becoming increasingly un-rational. The Dem leadership have been scary in their monomaniacal pursuit of something called Health Care Reform. They say that they want to extend health care insurance to the uninsured, which is indeed a noble objective. 5 double spaced typewritten pages would be enough to describe the changes necessary to accomplish that goal.
The problem here is the flaw of all design-by-committee proposals. You know what they say about a camel being a horse which was designed by a committee. The problem with committees is that rationality becomes lost to politics. The initial goal, however worthy, is subordinated to the wishes of the most powerful person in the room. Votes based on principle or logic are changed to votes based on perceived approval by the person who is in power to dispense future favors. The larger the group, the less personal responsibility for outcomes is assumed by committee members.
Obama and Pelosi have been urging rapid action, yet have been incapable of defining the specific outcomes of the laws they would foist upon the public. This is insanity.
How anyone is supposed to make sense out of a law that is so big that my PC jammed-up trying to download the bill in PDF format? No, I haven't read it. But I am nervous about some of the problems that are being raised by the opponents of the current bill:
- Stiff penalties for electing not to be insured - substantial cash fines and even felonious jail time .
What happened to freedom? The goal of helping people who need help has been perverted to
totalitarianism. We know what is good for you. Submit, or else....
- Cost - It is unclear how the current bill will reduce healthcare costs for the majority of working and retired citizens. I fear that we will be charged more money for less access than we have now. How is that fair? Or rational?
Fortunately, the Senate has to vote on this bill before it becomes law. We can only hope that some force brings our solons to their senses. When I see the four Democratic candidates for Senate arguing for the plan because it is what Ted Kennedy would have wanted, it makes me nervous.
Today they are bickering over reproductive rights. They should be discussing how to simplify the problem of funding health insurance for citizens who need it and want it.
10/27/2009
Politics As Usual
Here in Massachusetts, we are often forced to witness the ugly workings of cynical politics. Following the death of Ted Kennedy, there was a hue and cry from the local democrats that the world would certainly come to a disastrous end, if we waited until the special election in January to fill Kennedy's seat.
The Democratic Governor Deval Patrick saw the urgency and quickly appointed a party loyalist in an emergency measure to not suffer the 4 months of senatorial vacancy. The argument was that we absolutely needed a special appointee to represent our interests. (Some cynicals opined that Pres. Obama wanted to be assured of a filibuster proof voting bloc just in case the congress was able to get its act together on health care).
Last week we had to watch our most absentee senator in history (Kerry) is wandering around the world trying to upstage Hillery Clinton. How can he be away from his desk during this critical moment? What happened to the emergency? Have they no shame!
========
Last night there was a debate among the 4 candidates for Ted Kennedy's seat. The election will be held in January 2010. I was disappointed that all of them assumed that all democratic voters wanted a Ted Kennedy clone in the senate. All the candidates were soft in illegal immigration, very supportive of President Obama's agenda and against the wars.
I actually have to agree with them about the wars. We can never succeed in Afghanistan or Iraq if our mission is to ensure democracy. It cannot happen. Thousands of years of tribal strife will not go away just because we hoisted an American flag over the embassy and installed a leader who seems to pass our leadership test. Our military mission should not be Daddy to the World. The military should not be wasted trying to spread democracy; Bush was right in his assertion that the original mission was accomplished. Afghanistan was purged of Al Quaida; Iraq does not have WMD's. The threat is over. What we are doing now is futile. Bring the troops home.
Just my opinion. Don't shoot me.
The Democratic Governor Deval Patrick saw the urgency and quickly appointed a party loyalist in an emergency measure to not suffer the 4 months of senatorial vacancy. The argument was that we absolutely needed a special appointee to represent our interests. (Some cynicals opined that Pres. Obama wanted to be assured of a filibuster proof voting bloc just in case the congress was able to get its act together on health care).
Last week we had to watch our most absentee senator in history (Kerry) is wandering around the world trying to upstage Hillery Clinton. How can he be away from his desk during this critical moment? What happened to the emergency? Have they no shame!
========
Last night there was a debate among the 4 candidates for Ted Kennedy's seat. The election will be held in January 2010. I was disappointed that all of them assumed that all democratic voters wanted a Ted Kennedy clone in the senate. All the candidates were soft in illegal immigration, very supportive of President Obama's agenda and against the wars.
I actually have to agree with them about the wars. We can never succeed in Afghanistan or Iraq if our mission is to ensure democracy. It cannot happen. Thousands of years of tribal strife will not go away just because we hoisted an American flag over the embassy and installed a leader who seems to pass our leadership test. Our military mission should not be Daddy to the World. The military should not be wasted trying to spread democracy; Bush was right in his assertion that the original mission was accomplished. Afghanistan was purged of Al Quaida; Iraq does not have WMD's. The threat is over. What we are doing now is futile. Bring the troops home.
Just my opinion. Don't shoot me.
10/23/2009
Unfuzzy math
I just did the math - $250 times 57 Million. Where $250 is the one-time gift that president Obama is proposing to send each social security recipient in lieu of a cost of living increase, and 57 million is the number of current SS recipients.
The answer is $14 Billion.
As one of those would-be recipients, I am compelled to ask "WTF?"
Much as I like the idea of a lagniappe, there is no logic to support this type of un-necessary government expense on the backs of working folks. $250 can't buy squat. It would make zero difference in my life style, other than incenting me to buy a case of good wine, probably French.
So how does it make sense, when the cost of living (measured by inflation) has actually gone down since last year?
Unless, you think that Obama might see this as a grand scheme to buy 57 million votes in the next election...hmmn.
Wait, I just did another calculation. Me and the missus together would get $500. Now you are talking real money.
The answer is $14 Billion.
As one of those would-be recipients, I am compelled to ask "WTF?"
Much as I like the idea of a lagniappe, there is no logic to support this type of un-necessary government expense on the backs of working folks. $250 can't buy squat. It would make zero difference in my life style, other than incenting me to buy a case of good wine, probably French.
So how does it make sense, when the cost of living (measured by inflation) has actually gone down since last year?
Unless, you think that Obama might see this as a grand scheme to buy 57 million votes in the next election...hmmn.
Wait, I just did another calculation. Me and the missus together would get $500. Now you are talking real money.
But who, ultimately, will pay for this publicity stunt? Hmmn.
.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)