- There are 9,000 species of birds. There are 28,000 types of fish. There are 350,000 kinds of beetles. And there are 2 million (and counting) living species on Earth. (Source: Nova on PBS)
- A human has 23,000 genes, which is the same number that a chicken has but is less than what an ear of corn has. (Nova on PBS)
- An astronomer has estimated there are 37,000 galaxies and that probably at least 361 of them could support life. (CNN)
- Forty percent of Greenland's ice sheet has disappeared in the last 40 years. In Greenland, 100 billion tons of ice per year are melting. If the entire ice sheet would melt, it would cause the oceans to rise by 23 feet. (Anderson Cooper's news show on CNN)
- Of the 3,000 plants used in the fight against cancer cells, 70 percent are found in the Amazon rainforest. (CNN)
- Ninety to 95 percent of people in airplane crashes survive. (CBS)
- The biggest reason for false imprisonment is eyewitness misidentification. DNA has freed 248 people in prisons who were wrongly convicted. In those cases, it also has found 155 real perpetrators. (Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project)
- Latinos are the biggest targets of hate crimes in the United States. (Federal report)
- Thirteen hours of video are posted every minute on YouTube.
- If the U.S. cut its military budget by 10 percent, the United States would still be spending more money on its military than do Russia, China, India, France, England, and Germany on their military budgets COMBINED.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Information station...
Here are some interesting random facts from books, TV, and the Internet...
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The first Sages awarded...
Roll out the red carpet because here are the first Sage Street Awards, simply known as Sages, for the year 2009:
(Note: This list is likely to grow as I think of the categories, so check back on it from time to time.)
The biggest winner, in a positive way, of 2009: The nominees include MSNBC network's political talk counterbalance to conservative Fox network; Netflix, the DVD company that provides great range of film to the public by mail; the growth of independent film-making as assisted along the way by Robert Redford's Sundance Film Festival; the ACLU who continues to challenge what's wrong, even when it's an unpopular cause, and often wins in the Supreme Court for regular people. The winner is Barack Obama who so far has avoided a second Great Depression despite the economic mess left from the Bush years. He wasn't FDR unfortunately this past year, but there's hope that he could be in the future.
The biggest loser of 2009: The nominees included the Republican Party as the new Party of No (and no ideas), Mark Sanford's amazing hypocrisy in journeying down the Appalachian trail; religious fundamentalism of any religion which keeps people in narrow frames of mind and prevents progress. The winner is Tiger Woods, who showed that much of celebrity sports is about popularity, too much money, and superficiality. He proved that even being probably the greatest golfer in history doesn't mean much in the end if the priorities of family and character are abandoned.
The saddest turn of events in 2009: The nominees include the U.S. Postal Service which, though it delivers inexpensively-priced mail with almost daily service and competent reliability, lost income to the computer technology of e-mail; and that Editor and Publisher magazine, which covered the newspaper industry for decades, would cease publication. The winner is: The loss of many newspapers. They are an important media form, crucial to better democracy and community-building.
The biggest political punch in the reality nose for 2009: Nominees included Barack Obama with the notion that there apparently is no such thing as a liberal president, even when we want one and vote for one; the awful Clinton people take over the White House after we voted for Obama; no likely public option in the health care reform plan though most Americans wanted it; Wall Street, the banks and credit card companies who were bailed-out then raised rates, gave outrageous CEO bonuses, and did little for regular taxpayers; the national news media (with the exception of Rachel Maddow) for failing to cover the story of the "Family" religious cult group of conservative Republicans; that there is always political over-reaction to airplane security mishaps and then usually the end result for the traveling public is no better safety but more hassles and delays. The winner is: A surge in deployment in U.S. troops in yet another endless war in Afghanistan.
The most over-rated, annoying, or puzzling media product in 2009: Facebook, a social network that is a bit like when an adult has to sit at the kids' table; more reality TV shows of dull regular people acting stupid and mean; Amazon.com's Kindle or other electronic book devices providing yet another screen and need for batteries; Twitter and the shortening of words, language and communication or the following of people who don't deserve to have followers (though appreciation is given for its importance in non-democratic countries, like Iran and China, where people are seeking freedom and rights). The winner is: Cell phones within an industry that has avoided the scrutiny about possible links to brain cancer and other forms of cancer (as well as increased public rudeness).
The best media product in 2009: The nominees include the vast number of television networks; Netflix, the DVD company that provides great range of film to the public by mail; the GPS devices that help travelers find their locations. The winner is a tie between: 1). The traditional book, with its wide range of informational and enjoyable possibilities; and 2). the Internet, with its worldwide reach and vast resources for knowledge, information, and entertainment.
The worst passage in the Bible and least likely to be quoted from a pulpit: Leviticus 21:18-20 which reads, "For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous; Or a man that is broken-footed, or brokenhanded; Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken." In some versions, "hath his stones broken" instead reads "men with small testicles."
Most intriguing creature in Midwest nature: Nominees included bees, bats, armadillos, paddlefish, and mules. The winner is: Fireflies.
Most intriguing living thing to see in the wild: Nominees included redwood trees, koala bears, condors, penguins, manta rays, dolphins, and giraffes. The winner is: Whales.
The most horrifying creature on Earth (for men), not counting violent humans: Nominees included anaconda snakes, pythons, crocodiles, grizzly bears, lions. The winner is the candiru, which is a Brazilian fishlet that can swim up a man's urine stream and lodge in the urethra of the penis with a ring of retrorse spines preventing its removal. According to the book "The Professor and the Mad Man" by Simon Winchester, it is one of the rare circumstances in which doctors will perform an operation known as peotomy, the surgical removal of the penis.
Most intriguing natural event to witness: Nominees included active volcanoes, migration of gnus and wildebeests in Kenya, bird's-eye view of birds in flight. The winner is: Monarch butterflies in mass returning to traditional Mexico cocoon-emerging site.
Best political or social advocate of the year: Nominees included Russ Feingold, Ralph Nader, Al Franken, Elizabeth Edwards, Cindy Sheehan, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow. The winner is: Howard Dean.
The most horrible politician of the year: Nominees included the Republican Party generally, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Ben Nelson, Blue Dog Democrats generally, Rahm Emmanuel, Dick Armey, Tom Coburn. The winner is: Joe Lieberman.
The best maverick: The nominees are the Saturday Night Live cast, Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, Mother Jones magazine, Glen Greenwald of Salon.com, Jimmy Carter. The winner is Levi Johnston, who is the best foil and irritation to mother-in-law Sarah Palin.
The Sage Street famous person of the year: The nominees are Howard Dean, Oprah Winfrey, Tina Fey, Meryl Streep, and Walter Cronkite who died this year. The winner is Pete Seeger, for a lifetime of music and activism.
(Note: This list is likely to grow as I think of the categories, so check back on it from time to time.)
The biggest winner, in a positive way, of 2009: The nominees include MSNBC network's political talk counterbalance to conservative Fox network; Netflix, the DVD company that provides great range of film to the public by mail; the growth of independent film-making as assisted along the way by Robert Redford's Sundance Film Festival; the ACLU who continues to challenge what's wrong, even when it's an unpopular cause, and often wins in the Supreme Court for regular people. The winner is Barack Obama who so far has avoided a second Great Depression despite the economic mess left from the Bush years. He wasn't FDR unfortunately this past year, but there's hope that he could be in the future.
The biggest loser of 2009: The nominees included the Republican Party as the new Party of No (and no ideas), Mark Sanford's amazing hypocrisy in journeying down the Appalachian trail; religious fundamentalism of any religion which keeps people in narrow frames of mind and prevents progress. The winner is Tiger Woods, who showed that much of celebrity sports is about popularity, too much money, and superficiality. He proved that even being probably the greatest golfer in history doesn't mean much in the end if the priorities of family and character are abandoned.
The saddest turn of events in 2009: The nominees include the U.S. Postal Service which, though it delivers inexpensively-priced mail with almost daily service and competent reliability, lost income to the computer technology of e-mail; and that Editor and Publisher magazine, which covered the newspaper industry for decades, would cease publication. The winner is: The loss of many newspapers. They are an important media form, crucial to better democracy and community-building.
The biggest political punch in the reality nose for 2009: Nominees included Barack Obama with the notion that there apparently is no such thing as a liberal president, even when we want one and vote for one; the awful Clinton people take over the White House after we voted for Obama; no likely public option in the health care reform plan though most Americans wanted it; Wall Street, the banks and credit card companies who were bailed-out then raised rates, gave outrageous CEO bonuses, and did little for regular taxpayers; the national news media (with the exception of Rachel Maddow) for failing to cover the story of the "Family" religious cult group of conservative Republicans; that there is always political over-reaction to airplane security mishaps and then usually the end result for the traveling public is no better safety but more hassles and delays. The winner is: A surge in deployment in U.S. troops in yet another endless war in Afghanistan.
The most over-rated, annoying, or puzzling media product in 2009: Facebook, a social network that is a bit like when an adult has to sit at the kids' table; more reality TV shows of dull regular people acting stupid and mean; Amazon.com's Kindle or other electronic book devices providing yet another screen and need for batteries; Twitter and the shortening of words, language and communication or the following of people who don't deserve to have followers (though appreciation is given for its importance in non-democratic countries, like Iran and China, where people are seeking freedom and rights). The winner is: Cell phones within an industry that has avoided the scrutiny about possible links to brain cancer and other forms of cancer (as well as increased public rudeness).
The best media product in 2009: The nominees include the vast number of television networks; Netflix, the DVD company that provides great range of film to the public by mail; the GPS devices that help travelers find their locations. The winner is a tie between: 1). The traditional book, with its wide range of informational and enjoyable possibilities; and 2). the Internet, with its worldwide reach and vast resources for knowledge, information, and entertainment.
The worst passage in the Bible and least likely to be quoted from a pulpit: Leviticus 21:18-20 which reads, "For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous; Or a man that is broken-footed, or brokenhanded; Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken." In some versions, "hath his stones broken" instead reads "men with small testicles."
Most intriguing creature in Midwest nature: Nominees included bees, bats, armadillos, paddlefish, and mules. The winner is: Fireflies.
Most intriguing living thing to see in the wild: Nominees included redwood trees, koala bears, condors, penguins, manta rays, dolphins, and giraffes. The winner is: Whales.
The most horrifying creature on Earth (for men), not counting violent humans: Nominees included anaconda snakes, pythons, crocodiles, grizzly bears, lions. The winner is the candiru, which is a Brazilian fishlet that can swim up a man's urine stream and lodge in the urethra of the penis with a ring of retrorse spines preventing its removal. According to the book "The Professor and the Mad Man" by Simon Winchester, it is one of the rare circumstances in which doctors will perform an operation known as peotomy, the surgical removal of the penis.
Most intriguing natural event to witness: Nominees included active volcanoes, migration of gnus and wildebeests in Kenya, bird's-eye view of birds in flight. The winner is: Monarch butterflies in mass returning to traditional Mexico cocoon-emerging site.
Best political or social advocate of the year: Nominees included Russ Feingold, Ralph Nader, Al Franken, Elizabeth Edwards, Cindy Sheehan, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow. The winner is: Howard Dean.
The most horrible politician of the year: Nominees included the Republican Party generally, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Ben Nelson, Blue Dog Democrats generally, Rahm Emmanuel, Dick Armey, Tom Coburn. The winner is: Joe Lieberman.
The best maverick: The nominees are the Saturday Night Live cast, Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, Mother Jones magazine, Glen Greenwald of Salon.com, Jimmy Carter. The winner is Levi Johnston, who is the best foil and irritation to mother-in-law Sarah Palin.
The Sage Street famous person of the year: The nominees are Howard Dean, Oprah Winfrey, Tina Fey, Meryl Streep, and Walter Cronkite who died this year. The winner is Pete Seeger, for a lifetime of music and activism.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
A list for 2009...
As the year 2009 comes to an end, here is a list involving moments of great impression, new knowledge, interesting insight, or entertaining amazement...
Something new for me in the year 2009: This "Sage Street" blog. I started it in late July. I enjoyed meeting Bill Rasmussen, the founder of ESPN. I presented my first PowerPoint presentation for high school students at sessions at the college library. The subject was on political cartoons and President Abraham Lincoln.
Biggest disappointment in something new for me in 2009: Facebook. Nice to connect to people, but not much there other than knowing that someone else is still alive. Sometimes it reminded me of being an adult who has to sit at the kids' table for dinner. Honorable mention: Started the year excited and ended the year with mixed feelings about President Obama. Disappointed with the war surge for Afghanistan and his lackluster support for a public option in the health care reform plan. But when Obama displeased me, all I had to do was listen to the horribly awful Republicans, and then it made me feel better about Obama.
Best movies of the year (that I saw): "District 9," "Sin Nombre," "(500) Days of Summer," and "Star Trek."
One of the strangest movies (released in 2009) that I have ever seen: "District 9." A documentary-style science fiction, its storyline was like nothing I'd ever watched and, to the last moment, it was intriguing. The "alien" kid in the movie is about knee-high to a grasshopper, and only those who have seen it will understand the humor in that statement. (O.K., I'll tell you...The aliens in that movie looked like grasshoppers.)
Best TV entertainment shows of the year: "Parks and Recreation" (NBC), "Medium (CBS)," "Saturday Night Live" (NBC) though some episodes were better than others, "My Name Is Earl" (NBC), "Community" (NBC), "Smallville" (CW), "Jeopardy" game show (ABC), Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show," (Comedy Central), and "Monk" (when I could find it--not sure of its network).
Best TV news programs: Almost anything that "Frontline" (PBS) covered, "Bill Moyers Journal," "The PBS NewsHour" (PBS), "The Keith Olbermann Show" (MSNBC), "The Rachel Maddow Show" (MSNBC), "NOW" (PBS), "60 Minutes" (CBS), "Nightline" (ABC), "Sunday Morning" (CBS), and the "Ed Schultz Show" though it comes on opposite my evening news programs, so I didn't watch it as much as I would have liked. For online news and commentary, I liked the articles by Glenn Greenwald for Salon.com.
Specific moments that I liked on TV in 2009: The weekly "In Memoriam" segment and sometimes the panel discussion on "This Week with George Stephanopolous" (ABC), some interviews and the segment about book recommendations on "Fareed Zakaria's GPS" (CNN), some segments of "360 with Anderson Cooper" (CNN), the banter of "The McLaughlin Group" (PBS), the Steve Hartman "Everybody Has A Story" segments on "The CBS News with Katie Couric" (CBS), the "Making a Difference" segments on "NBC Evening News with Brian Williams" (NBC), some interviews by Christiane Amanpour on her news show (CNN), some inerviews by Oprah Winfrey on her show, the beginning segment, especially when political, and the usually very adult songs sung by Andy Samberg on "Saturday Night Live," the moment of Rachel Maddow eating popcorn as she watched something daffy, usually involving Republican politicians, and Keith Olbermann's hilarious impression of Lou Dobbs.
The TV interview show I'd like to see (or help start): A show that features the stories and interviews of people who were in famous Supreme Court cases, people who were in famous photographs, and people who are activists in different causes.
People who I admired that died in 2009: Walter Cronkite (who I was able to interview many years ago), Eunice Shriver, Karl Malden, Frank McCourt, and Ricardo Montalban. (I remember hearing poet W.D. Snodgrass at a poetry reading at the University of Arizona.)
Best TV sign-off: Charles Gibson's "I hope you had a good day" on "ABC Evening News with Charles Gibson" and the Edward R. Murrow line of "Good night and good luck" by Keith Olbermann on his news show.
TV shows I never watched (not even once) in 2009: The conservative talking heads on Fox network, "American Idol," anything involving a tabloid couple named Gosselin.
The TV show of 2009 that most bewildered me: "The Biggest Loser" about people losing weight. I still can't believe that is actually considered "entertainment." ???? Also, a question: If the biggest loser is the winner because he or she loses the most weight, then what did they call the person who was the worst at losing the weight?
Best networks: PBS, History Channel, CNN, Headline News, SyFy Channel (though I preferred the abbreviation SciFi), MSNBC, the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TV Land.
Some good books that I read within the year: Too many to mention. Lots of good ones. "Nothing to Fear" by Adam Cohen, "Six-Legged Insects, Using Insects as Weapons of War" by Jeffrey A. Lockwood, "Inventing the Job of President" by Fred Greenstein, "Sugar of the Crop" by Lana Butler, "Journalism's Roving Eye" by John Maxwell Hamilton, and others. Also, re-read the book "The Professor and the Mad Man" and John Hersey's "Hiroshima."
Something new for me in the year 2009: This "Sage Street" blog. I started it in late July. I enjoyed meeting Bill Rasmussen, the founder of ESPN. I presented my first PowerPoint presentation for high school students at sessions at the college library. The subject was on political cartoons and President Abraham Lincoln.
Biggest disappointment in something new for me in 2009: Facebook. Nice to connect to people, but not much there other than knowing that someone else is still alive. Sometimes it reminded me of being an adult who has to sit at the kids' table for dinner. Honorable mention: Started the year excited and ended the year with mixed feelings about President Obama. Disappointed with the war surge for Afghanistan and his lackluster support for a public option in the health care reform plan. But when Obama displeased me, all I had to do was listen to the horribly awful Republicans, and then it made me feel better about Obama.
Best movies of the year (that I saw): "District 9," "Sin Nombre," "(500) Days of Summer," and "Star Trek."
One of the strangest movies (released in 2009) that I have ever seen: "District 9." A documentary-style science fiction, its storyline was like nothing I'd ever watched and, to the last moment, it was intriguing. The "alien" kid in the movie is about knee-high to a grasshopper, and only those who have seen it will understand the humor in that statement. (O.K., I'll tell you...The aliens in that movie looked like grasshoppers.)
Best TV entertainment shows of the year: "Parks and Recreation" (NBC), "Medium (CBS)," "Saturday Night Live" (NBC) though some episodes were better than others, "My Name Is Earl" (NBC), "Community" (NBC), "Smallville" (CW), "Jeopardy" game show (ABC), Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show," (Comedy Central), and "Monk" (when I could find it--not sure of its network).
Best TV news programs: Almost anything that "Frontline" (PBS) covered, "Bill Moyers Journal," "The PBS NewsHour" (PBS), "The Keith Olbermann Show" (MSNBC), "The Rachel Maddow Show" (MSNBC), "NOW" (PBS), "60 Minutes" (CBS), "Nightline" (ABC), "Sunday Morning" (CBS), and the "Ed Schultz Show" though it comes on opposite my evening news programs, so I didn't watch it as much as I would have liked. For online news and commentary, I liked the articles by Glenn Greenwald for Salon.com.
Specific moments that I liked on TV in 2009: The weekly "In Memoriam" segment and sometimes the panel discussion on "This Week with George Stephanopolous" (ABC), some interviews and the segment about book recommendations on "Fareed Zakaria's GPS" (CNN), some segments of "360 with Anderson Cooper" (CNN), the banter of "The McLaughlin Group" (PBS), the Steve Hartman "Everybody Has A Story" segments on "The CBS News with Katie Couric" (CBS), the "Making a Difference" segments on "NBC Evening News with Brian Williams" (NBC), some interviews by Christiane Amanpour on her news show (CNN), some inerviews by Oprah Winfrey on her show, the beginning segment, especially when political, and the usually very adult songs sung by Andy Samberg on "Saturday Night Live," the moment of Rachel Maddow eating popcorn as she watched something daffy, usually involving Republican politicians, and Keith Olbermann's hilarious impression of Lou Dobbs.
The TV interview show I'd like to see (or help start): A show that features the stories and interviews of people who were in famous Supreme Court cases, people who were in famous photographs, and people who are activists in different causes.
People who I admired that died in 2009: Walter Cronkite (who I was able to interview many years ago), Eunice Shriver, Karl Malden, Frank McCourt, and Ricardo Montalban. (I remember hearing poet W.D. Snodgrass at a poetry reading at the University of Arizona.)
Best TV sign-off: Charles Gibson's "I hope you had a good day" on "ABC Evening News with Charles Gibson" and the Edward R. Murrow line of "Good night and good luck" by Keith Olbermann on his news show.
TV shows I never watched (not even once) in 2009: The conservative talking heads on Fox network, "American Idol," anything involving a tabloid couple named Gosselin.
The TV show of 2009 that most bewildered me: "The Biggest Loser" about people losing weight. I still can't believe that is actually considered "entertainment." ???? Also, a question: If the biggest loser is the winner because he or she loses the most weight, then what did they call the person who was the worst at losing the weight?
Best networks: PBS, History Channel, CNN, Headline News, SyFy Channel (though I preferred the abbreviation SciFi), MSNBC, the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TV Land.
Some good books that I read within the year: Too many to mention. Lots of good ones. "Nothing to Fear" by Adam Cohen, "Six-Legged Insects, Using Insects as Weapons of War" by Jeffrey A. Lockwood, "Inventing the Job of President" by Fred Greenstein, "Sugar of the Crop" by Lana Butler, "Journalism's Roving Eye" by John Maxwell Hamilton, and others. Also, re-read the book "The Professor and the Mad Man" and John Hersey's "Hiroshima."
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Facebook strikes blog...
For the first time in my life, I ate a persimmon yesterday. (Now if that isn't a line worthy of Facebook, I don't know what is.)
On the other hand, here are some events that I never experienced in 2009 or at any other time:
On the other hand, here are some events that I never experienced in 2009 or at any other time:
- I have never purchased a CD of Christmas songs by Alvin and the Chipmunks.
- I have never had a pony. I have never had a ponytail.
- I have never voted for a war president.
- I have never taken Christ or any Chris that I know out of Christmas.
- I have never owned a cell phone, a gun, or a hamster.
- I have never worn a tuxedo, but I did go to the high school prom.
- I have never been to Disneyland.
Here's what puzzled me about 2009 and I am still seeking answers:
- How is it that there is a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress and the end result, so far, of the health care reform legislation appears to be the Republican version, with the help of jerks Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and other centrist obstructionists and insurance industry shills? How does that happen?
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
A Christmas story...
One year, CNN featured a poll that ranked the most hated Christmas song as the one with the Singing Dogs woofing out "Jingle Bells"? Well, I like that song and version. It makes me laugh every time I hear it. How can a song that makes a person laugh not be something special?! So, it is in the ears of the beholder. I often have thought about asking the college music department if the choir has ever considered singing that song at a Christmas concert...in the dog version. In the key of Irish setter???!!!!
That poll also noted that Nat King Cole's "The Christmas Song" is the most loved Christmas song. O.K., isn't that the song with "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at your nose..."? Yes, I liked it when I heard Nat King Cole singing it. He was an excellent singer. However, there was this one time, many years ago...
I was on a bus. I was on a bus traveling for two hours from Medicine Bow to Cheyenne, Wyoming, one snowy Christmas. I thought I would take a bus to avoid the worries about snow on the roads. So, I took a seat in the middle of the bus. Travelers were scattered throughout. Then, at Laramie, with an hour of travel to go, this guy got on and sat at the front of the bus. When the bus took off, the guy started to sing that "Chestnut" song. He sounded just like Nat King Cole and might have been him if it weren't that Cole died several decades earlier.
Anyway, after the guy had finished singing the song in its entirety, everyone on the bus--in gleeful holiday spirit--applauded because it was sung so well. Just like Nat King Cole would have sung it. In appreciation of the applause, the guy sang an encore of it. Wow, again, just like Nat King Cole! Once again, the people on the bus applauded, full of good Christmas cheer.
Then...well...then, the guy started to sing the same song again. At the end of that time, people still thought it was nice, but strangely enough, no one applauded. The bus had a bewildering but probably justified silence. I was almost ready to clap my hands once or twice--what the heck, it's Christmas!--but I didn't need to because the guy started singing the song again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Forty miles later, he was still singing the song. A couple in the row on the other side of the aisle near me were covering their ears, now completely miffed. Finally, as the Christmas spirit seemed to fly out the bus windows, someone in the back of the bus yelled, "Would you shut the hell up!" That's a direct and accurate quote. Obviously, not a Christian at Christmas time...or was he? Anyway, the Christmas crowd started to become hostile and so I sat there, trying to think of another Christmas song, like "Jingle Bells," as a possibility to distract the singer from the "Chestnut" song. I couldn't even barked it out, because the guy was going strong with the "Chestnuts and Jack Frost."
There was no stopping him; he was just like a human CD player on song repeat. At the end of the bus ride in Cheyenne, people hurried off the bus with very unpleasant expressions, but with a very good ability to forever remember the lyrics of the "Chestnut (Christmas) Song." By the way, the college Christmas concert was held last week. The choirs are always so good. And...well...they sang the "Chestnut" song...
That poll also noted that Nat King Cole's "The Christmas Song" is the most loved Christmas song. O.K., isn't that the song with "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at your nose..."? Yes, I liked it when I heard Nat King Cole singing it. He was an excellent singer. However, there was this one time, many years ago...
I was on a bus. I was on a bus traveling for two hours from Medicine Bow to Cheyenne, Wyoming, one snowy Christmas. I thought I would take a bus to avoid the worries about snow on the roads. So, I took a seat in the middle of the bus. Travelers were scattered throughout. Then, at Laramie, with an hour of travel to go, this guy got on and sat at the front of the bus. When the bus took off, the guy started to sing that "Chestnut" song. He sounded just like Nat King Cole and might have been him if it weren't that Cole died several decades earlier.
Anyway, after the guy had finished singing the song in its entirety, everyone on the bus--in gleeful holiday spirit--applauded because it was sung so well. Just like Nat King Cole would have sung it. In appreciation of the applause, the guy sang an encore of it. Wow, again, just like Nat King Cole! Once again, the people on the bus applauded, full of good Christmas cheer.
Then...well...then, the guy started to sing the same song again. At the end of that time, people still thought it was nice, but strangely enough, no one applauded. The bus had a bewildering but probably justified silence. I was almost ready to clap my hands once or twice--what the heck, it's Christmas!--but I didn't need to because the guy started singing the song again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Forty miles later, he was still singing the song. A couple in the row on the other side of the aisle near me were covering their ears, now completely miffed. Finally, as the Christmas spirit seemed to fly out the bus windows, someone in the back of the bus yelled, "Would you shut the hell up!" That's a direct and accurate quote. Obviously, not a Christian at Christmas time...or was he? Anyway, the Christmas crowd started to become hostile and so I sat there, trying to think of another Christmas song, like "Jingle Bells," as a possibility to distract the singer from the "Chestnut" song. I couldn't even barked it out, because the guy was going strong with the "Chestnuts and Jack Frost."
There was no stopping him; he was just like a human CD player on song repeat. At the end of the bus ride in Cheyenne, people hurried off the bus with very unpleasant expressions, but with a very good ability to forever remember the lyrics of the "Chestnut (Christmas) Song." By the way, the college Christmas concert was held last week. The choirs are always so good. And...well...they sang the "Chestnut" song...
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
President Obama gave his war speech...
Tonight President Obama said he will escalate U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan.
- Prediction: One-term presidency.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
My plan for nation-building and war-ending...
Holy cow!
I just heard on TV that for each U.S. soldier sent to Afghanistan for one year, it will cost the United States $1 million. One million dollars for every soldier for one year! So, if Obama sends 30,000 more soldiers...oh, my goodness, what a tremendous waste of money. I have a better idea.
Instead of using that $1 million so that each good soldier can trudge around in sand, dodge bullets, and be put in danger, why not divide up the $1 million in a more effective war-ending way. Take some of it and buy off the Afghanistan warlords...yes, an annoying thought, but I have heard that we've been doing it anyway. Take some of it and raise the average incomes of impoverished Afghan citizens, so they don't want to join the Taliban for the tiny amount of money they offer. Take some of the money and build a new school there, to help employment, education, and the Afghan economy. Take some of the money and build a new school here, to help employment, education, and the American economy. And finally take some of the money and give it to the American soldier, with orders that he has to stay in America and spend it here, thereby helping the U.S. economy.
And copy that model for every other U.S. soldier, bringing them home, and better spending the billions of dollars.
There's my plan for nation-building and war-ending, and using the expense of $1 million per soldier per year in better, peaceful ways for the good of all. I say it is better than Obama's escalation plan and war expense.
I just heard on TV that for each U.S. soldier sent to Afghanistan for one year, it will cost the United States $1 million. One million dollars for every soldier for one year! So, if Obama sends 30,000 more soldiers...oh, my goodness, what a tremendous waste of money. I have a better idea.
Instead of using that $1 million so that each good soldier can trudge around in sand, dodge bullets, and be put in danger, why not divide up the $1 million in a more effective war-ending way. Take some of it and buy off the Afghanistan warlords...yes, an annoying thought, but I have heard that we've been doing it anyway. Take some of it and raise the average incomes of impoverished Afghan citizens, so they don't want to join the Taliban for the tiny amount of money they offer. Take some of the money and build a new school there, to help employment, education, and the Afghan economy. Take some of the money and build a new school here, to help employment, education, and the American economy. And finally take some of the money and give it to the American soldier, with orders that he has to stay in America and spend it here, thereby helping the U.S. economy.
And copy that model for every other U.S. soldier, bringing them home, and better spending the billions of dollars.
There's my plan for nation-building and war-ending, and using the expense of $1 million per soldier per year in better, peaceful ways for the good of all. I say it is better than Obama's escalation plan and war expense.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Another box of "Peace on Earth" cards...
I purchased a box of Christmas cards today. Sometimes I will choose cards with a Nativity scene on the front, but usually I select cards that show a dove and an olive branch with a theme about "Peace of Earth."
You know, I sure would like to purchase my box of "Peace on Earth" holiday cards knowing that it is actually true, for once, that America is at peace and out of wars and that we can rejoice what should be a real gift of the holiday. Do you think America will ever achieve that goal? There was a short time, right after the end of the Cold War, when I was able to say that, within my lifetime, America was at peace. No wars! Wow! And conincidentally...or maybe not so coincidentally... at the time, there also developed an actual U.S. budget surplus and not a huge deficit. But it was not to last. It vanished, with the come and the go of politics and fear, without most of us getting the time to treasure it.
More war years went by--this time two wars rather than the usual one. I always thought the moment that summed up the George W. Bush years came at the end of it when a frustrated Iraqi journalist threw his two shoes at Bush when he was speaking in Iraq. The Iraqi was, of course, hauled off to jail to serve a sentence length that was way too harsh for its crime. But I always felt that the shoe-throwing, meant to reflect an Iraqi insult, reflected the view of many Americans, including mine, that our president then was misguided, reckless, oblivious, careless, stupid...about the wars, about the economy, about the social problems. That was Bush. That was then. Then there was the end to eight, long years of irresponsible governing. Inspired by hope, I voted for Barack Obama and change and hopeful, new paths.
This coming Tuesday, President Obama is supposed to tell us, according to clues from the media this week, why he thinks there is a need for troop escalation in Afghanistan, what the exit strategy will be, and how we are going to defeat an indigenous population like the pitiful religiously conservative Taliban within a nation that has never been stable and that is now led by a American-foisted leader whose termed corrupt and whose police system is considered even more corrupt. Well, Obama can give a pretty good speech, so I guess I will hope that he can pull it off, for the sake of all the American soldiers and their families and the Afghan civilians, all who will suffer the consequences of longer days of war.
Going back to the "shoe" theme, of how a shoe can matter in the course of a presidency, I think Obama has to worry about the dropping of two shoes. One shoe is the war. The Vietnam War offers a lot of lesson-learning comparisons. LBJ escalated and Nixon continued a war that cost way too much for too many people. It went on too long and it had little success. Too many Christmases went by with Bob Hope specials from war zones and "Peace on Earth" Christmas cards.
When Obama escalates the war effort on Tuesday, he opens the door for the emergence of an anti-war candidate who is also populist and also Main Street- and jobs-driven rather than Wall Street-aligned. He opens the door to the exit of his liberal base. But it is more than just an invitation to someone else who may actually supply the change that candidate Obama once symbolized. It means that Obama's journey, once hopeful in the shoes of FDR, was turned into a political "Waiting for Godot" with domestic policy that parroted Bush, foreign policy that didn't learn from LBJ, and an assortment of mediocre Clinton advisers keeping Obama from progressive steps.
Because of his polio paralysis, FDR couldn't even walk, but his shoes were his vision and action and they stepped boldly in ways that saved an economically depressed nation. The second shoe that Obama has to worry about is the economy and how it relates to all of America. His advisers followed the Poulson and Bush path with big bail-outs for Wall Street without responses of regulation for Wall Street transgressions. The bail-outs for Wall Street made Main Street feel forgotten. The banks made profits, did little for consumers, and continued business-as-greedy practices, jacking up credit card rates on the very people--the middle-class taxpayers whose money had saved them, and the young voters who were inspired by the prospects of change.
And yet, it could happen again. Wall Street could cave and tumble into another gigantic financial ruin with the least little financial collapse around the world, and then what would the Obama speech be? More economic stimulus for them because without them, we are lost, even though, with them, we were forgotten? I don't think even Bernanke at the Federal Reserve would be able to sell a second Wall Street bail-out. Certainly, that would mean a one-term presidency. A sad end to what could have been. And thus, the renewed need and arrival of that populist, now with an anti-war voice and a eye on Main Street and a jobs programs mentality.
Shoes thrown are an insult. Shoes that are led astray are wasted. Shoes make a difference because paths make a difference.
I look forward to the day when I send my "Peace on Earth" cards during a holiday season and the message truly reflects the American belief and the world reality.
You know, I sure would like to purchase my box of "Peace on Earth" holiday cards knowing that it is actually true, for once, that America is at peace and out of wars and that we can rejoice what should be a real gift of the holiday. Do you think America will ever achieve that goal? There was a short time, right after the end of the Cold War, when I was able to say that, within my lifetime, America was at peace. No wars! Wow! And conincidentally...or maybe not so coincidentally... at the time, there also developed an actual U.S. budget surplus and not a huge deficit. But it was not to last. It vanished, with the come and the go of politics and fear, without most of us getting the time to treasure it.
More war years went by--this time two wars rather than the usual one. I always thought the moment that summed up the George W. Bush years came at the end of it when a frustrated Iraqi journalist threw his two shoes at Bush when he was speaking in Iraq. The Iraqi was, of course, hauled off to jail to serve a sentence length that was way too harsh for its crime. But I always felt that the shoe-throwing, meant to reflect an Iraqi insult, reflected the view of many Americans, including mine, that our president then was misguided, reckless, oblivious, careless, stupid...about the wars, about the economy, about the social problems. That was Bush. That was then. Then there was the end to eight, long years of irresponsible governing. Inspired by hope, I voted for Barack Obama and change and hopeful, new paths.
This coming Tuesday, President Obama is supposed to tell us, according to clues from the media this week, why he thinks there is a need for troop escalation in Afghanistan, what the exit strategy will be, and how we are going to defeat an indigenous population like the pitiful religiously conservative Taliban within a nation that has never been stable and that is now led by a American-foisted leader whose termed corrupt and whose police system is considered even more corrupt. Well, Obama can give a pretty good speech, so I guess I will hope that he can pull it off, for the sake of all the American soldiers and their families and the Afghan civilians, all who will suffer the consequences of longer days of war.
Going back to the "shoe" theme, of how a shoe can matter in the course of a presidency, I think Obama has to worry about the dropping of two shoes. One shoe is the war. The Vietnam War offers a lot of lesson-learning comparisons. LBJ escalated and Nixon continued a war that cost way too much for too many people. It went on too long and it had little success. Too many Christmases went by with Bob Hope specials from war zones and "Peace on Earth" Christmas cards.
When Obama escalates the war effort on Tuesday, he opens the door for the emergence of an anti-war candidate who is also populist and also Main Street- and jobs-driven rather than Wall Street-aligned. He opens the door to the exit of his liberal base. But it is more than just an invitation to someone else who may actually supply the change that candidate Obama once symbolized. It means that Obama's journey, once hopeful in the shoes of FDR, was turned into a political "Waiting for Godot" with domestic policy that parroted Bush, foreign policy that didn't learn from LBJ, and an assortment of mediocre Clinton advisers keeping Obama from progressive steps.
Because of his polio paralysis, FDR couldn't even walk, but his shoes were his vision and action and they stepped boldly in ways that saved an economically depressed nation. The second shoe that Obama has to worry about is the economy and how it relates to all of America. His advisers followed the Poulson and Bush path with big bail-outs for Wall Street without responses of regulation for Wall Street transgressions. The bail-outs for Wall Street made Main Street feel forgotten. The banks made profits, did little for consumers, and continued business-as-greedy practices, jacking up credit card rates on the very people--the middle-class taxpayers whose money had saved them, and the young voters who were inspired by the prospects of change.
And yet, it could happen again. Wall Street could cave and tumble into another gigantic financial ruin with the least little financial collapse around the world, and then what would the Obama speech be? More economic stimulus for them because without them, we are lost, even though, with them, we were forgotten? I don't think even Bernanke at the Federal Reserve would be able to sell a second Wall Street bail-out. Certainly, that would mean a one-term presidency. A sad end to what could have been. And thus, the renewed need and arrival of that populist, now with an anti-war voice and a eye on Main Street and a jobs programs mentality.
Shoes thrown are an insult. Shoes that are led astray are wasted. Shoes make a difference because paths make a difference.
I look forward to the day when I send my "Peace on Earth" cards during a holiday season and the message truly reflects the American belief and the world reality.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Quotes...
Here are some interesting quotes...
- "I coached English for two seasons." --A coach tells students in the recent movie "The Assassination of a High School President."
I saw these two lines quoted by friend Doug Mellgren on Facebook:
- "I like life. It gives you something to do."
- "Some things you share with a loved one. Some things you eat before they get there."
I saw these quotes in the book "Boots on the Ground by Dusk, My Tribute to Pat Tillman" by Mary Tillman:
- "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." --Charles A. Beard
- "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." --Martin Luther King Jr.
- "Action is the antidote for despair." --Joan Baez
- "We'll be friends until forever, just you wait and see." --Winnie the Pooh (A.A. Milne)
Many famous authors worked as journalists first. That was true for L. Frank Baum, author of "The Wizard of Oz." According to the December 2009 issue of American History magazine, Baum's first article for the Chicago Evening Post appeared on the front page on May 1, 1891, and was about the experience of relocating to a new home (what he had done in moving to Chicago). For that article, Baum wrote:
- "Many a proud man will sleep on the floor tonight for this is moving day. This is the day when man lives as it is written he shall, by the perspiration of his brow. Also it is the day when the wife...whispers in your ear the beauty of the poet's tip that there is no place like home."
Monday, November 23, 2009
The modern 51 apparently is 60...
I admit that I have never been very good in math. When I was young, the school systems forced modern math upon me, only to later abandon the experimental fad after, for me, the damage had been done.
But despite my problems with modern math, I always thought that 51 was a percentage majority for 100.
Let's do some figuring...There are 50 states. Each state has two senators. Fifty times two is 100. Fifty percent of 100 would be exactly half. So, 51 percent would be a majority. Right?
So, why do Senate leaders calculate a majority at 60 percent or 60 votes out of 100? That's nine points beyond an actual majority. Fifty-one votes should be what determines whether legislation passes or fails. Not 60. And not 56 plus trying to get goofball Blue Dogs like Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Lieberman to join for a total of 60 votes for health care reform legislation (which, of course, needs to include a public option program).
I think the Senate needs to respect the notion of a majority.
I realize the doggone electoral college messes around with presidential election--and I have never understood why that should usurp the majority popular vote, either.
Not always is majority rule the best choice. But it still means a majority has spoken, and that usually relates to democracy in action. When it comes to the Senate or the House, I like that concept. Modern math or not.
But despite my problems with modern math, I always thought that 51 was a percentage majority for 100.
Let's do some figuring...There are 50 states. Each state has two senators. Fifty times two is 100. Fifty percent of 100 would be exactly half. So, 51 percent would be a majority. Right?
So, why do Senate leaders calculate a majority at 60 percent or 60 votes out of 100? That's nine points beyond an actual majority. Fifty-one votes should be what determines whether legislation passes or fails. Not 60. And not 56 plus trying to get goofball Blue Dogs like Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Lieberman to join for a total of 60 votes for health care reform legislation (which, of course, needs to include a public option program).
I think the Senate needs to respect the notion of a majority.
I realize the doggone electoral college messes around with presidential election--and I have never understood why that should usurp the majority popular vote, either.
Not always is majority rule the best choice. But it still means a majority has spoken, and that usually relates to democracy in action. When it comes to the Senate or the House, I like that concept. Modern math or not.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
One of the seven percent...
I heard on TV that only seven percent of Americans don't have a cell phone...and I am one of them.
It's not that I am opposed to technology and electronic devices. If I need and want one, then I'll buy one. If you need or want one, then buy one.
But I honestly don't need one yet. I needed one way back when I was traveling weekly on snowy Wyoming roads, delivering my newspapers to a printer hundreds of miles away. But they didn't have them then.
Why should I get one now when my land-line phone is fine and adequate for my needs? (Relatives and friends know my number and how to reach me.) Why should I get one now when it will likely just add more expense to a phone bill? Why get one and risk even a long-term threat of possible brain tumors, if various research about "putting a microwave-like device against your head...and cooking" turns out to be correct?
About half of the time when I call someone who's using a cell phone, the reception is either bad (unless they are truly frying bacon) or the connection will suddenly end, as their batteries die, and we are cut off from our conversation.
If I were traveling a lot, I would want one. Maybe that will mean a summer purchase sometime. If I had children who were college students and traveling the roads to college, I would want them to have one, though I would encourage "emergency use" mainly.
I have told students that I will certainly get a cell phone when, not only do they come with Internet and photograph capabilities, but also work as a flashlight, a shaver, and a taser.
So, I still don't feel the need to rush out and buy a cell phone because 93 percent of Americans have them. I am fine being in the seven percent.
It's not that I am opposed to technology and electronic devices. If I need and want one, then I'll buy one. If you need or want one, then buy one.
But I honestly don't need one yet. I needed one way back when I was traveling weekly on snowy Wyoming roads, delivering my newspapers to a printer hundreds of miles away. But they didn't have them then.
Why should I get one now when my land-line phone is fine and adequate for my needs? (Relatives and friends know my number and how to reach me.) Why should I get one now when it will likely just add more expense to a phone bill? Why get one and risk even a long-term threat of possible brain tumors, if various research about "putting a microwave-like device against your head...and cooking" turns out to be correct?
About half of the time when I call someone who's using a cell phone, the reception is either bad (unless they are truly frying bacon) or the connection will suddenly end, as their batteries die, and we are cut off from our conversation.
If I were traveling a lot, I would want one. Maybe that will mean a summer purchase sometime. If I had children who were college students and traveling the roads to college, I would want them to have one, though I would encourage "emergency use" mainly.
I have told students that I will certainly get a cell phone when, not only do they come with Internet and photograph capabilities, but also work as a flashlight, a shaver, and a taser.
So, I still don't feel the need to rush out and buy a cell phone because 93 percent of Americans have them. I am fine being in the seven percent.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Three pop culture questions...
Three questions came to my mind today concerning pop culture in America:
- 1). There is a show on the Sci-Fi channel called "Ghost Hunters." Question: How long can an actual TV series exist with episodes wherein so-called ghost hunters jump or scream or say "What was that?" and there is never anything remotely close to a ghostly image apparent or captured on film?
- 2). I listened to only the start of the County Music Awards program tonight because it featured singer Taylor Swift and, as I had an earlier opinion about her singing, I wanted to see if my opinion was wrong. No...I still don't think she can sing. Is it just me?
- 3). Why in the world would someone spend more than five minutes per day on Facebook? After finding out that everyone is doing okay, usually in very mundane ways, I have found that even the dictionary reads with greater excitement--Oh, that's an interesting definition of mung beans...
Sunday, October 25, 2009
When the Stock Market goes up...
When the Stock Market hit the 10,000 level again recently, I thought, "Oh, no. There goes the real economy. There goes the concern by politicians for Main Street America."
It seems like when Wall Street and the Stock Market are doing well, American politicians from the political parties often forget about what has been happening across America--industrial and rural America--in terms of the loss of good-paying, good-benefit, community-building jobs for the past 30 years.
Though I too have a teaching pension that is somewhat affected by the Stock Market condition, I find myself often rooting against Wall Street and the Stock Market, because of its political power and usual selfish nature.
It really aggravates me when we poor and middle-class taxpayers and all of America bailed-out Wall Street mega-banks and businesses, so they then can turn around to enjoy profits and wealth and economic security without, what it seems like, a shred of humility or concern for the rest of the nation.
For example, did the banks, without any demands of the government, decide to allow homeowners to stay in their homes with renegogiated payments in order to avoid home foreclosures? Did the big businesses pass their own in-house proposals concerning the reasonable limit of grandiose CEO pay and bonuses? And many of the "rescued" banks manage credit cards. Did those credit card rates go down in appreciation to the consumers who saved their Wall Street butts? No, probably they went up, in order to screw over consumers one more time before the federal credit card law kicks in for more control of outrageous rates and card conditions. There you have it.
That's Wall Street. That's big business. It's been that way since John D. Rockefeller bought his way out of Civil War military service and used unfair practices to establish a monopoly and control a whole industry. (And though Standard Oil Company might have been called a business "too big to fail," it was nonetheless broken-up because it violated anti-trust laws.)
Lots of people blame the government for providing big bail-outs for Wall Street, though many economic scholars say it was critical for the U.S. and world economy at the time. I'm willing to give government the benefit of the doubt that the crisis needed quick financial response, though I think there should have been many conditions tied to the money, including the aspect of breaking-up the businesses that are too big to fail.
But even more, I'd like to know specifically what Wall Street and big business, in receiving the bail-outs, have done for Main Street America, jobs, workers, and taxpayers. I'd like to see the tally sheet for that. I'd like to know how they have actively worked to pull America out of economic recession and how they have helped people--regular people--deal with their financial problems.
Until I know that federal help for Wall Street actually amounted to benefits for all and not just for a few at the top of the big business ladder, if I sound like I care less about what happens to Wall Street nor at where the Stock Market number arrives at the end of any day, it is because of long disillusionment and lack of respect for the ethics and conduct of big business.
It seems like when Wall Street and the Stock Market are doing well, American politicians from the political parties often forget about what has been happening across America--industrial and rural America--in terms of the loss of good-paying, good-benefit, community-building jobs for the past 30 years.
Though I too have a teaching pension that is somewhat affected by the Stock Market condition, I find myself often rooting against Wall Street and the Stock Market, because of its political power and usual selfish nature.
It really aggravates me when we poor and middle-class taxpayers and all of America bailed-out Wall Street mega-banks and businesses, so they then can turn around to enjoy profits and wealth and economic security without, what it seems like, a shred of humility or concern for the rest of the nation.
For example, did the banks, without any demands of the government, decide to allow homeowners to stay in their homes with renegogiated payments in order to avoid home foreclosures? Did the big businesses pass their own in-house proposals concerning the reasonable limit of grandiose CEO pay and bonuses? And many of the "rescued" banks manage credit cards. Did those credit card rates go down in appreciation to the consumers who saved their Wall Street butts? No, probably they went up, in order to screw over consumers one more time before the federal credit card law kicks in for more control of outrageous rates and card conditions. There you have it.
That's Wall Street. That's big business. It's been that way since John D. Rockefeller bought his way out of Civil War military service and used unfair practices to establish a monopoly and control a whole industry. (And though Standard Oil Company might have been called a business "too big to fail," it was nonetheless broken-up because it violated anti-trust laws.)
Lots of people blame the government for providing big bail-outs for Wall Street, though many economic scholars say it was critical for the U.S. and world economy at the time. I'm willing to give government the benefit of the doubt that the crisis needed quick financial response, though I think there should have been many conditions tied to the money, including the aspect of breaking-up the businesses that are too big to fail.
But even more, I'd like to know specifically what Wall Street and big business, in receiving the bail-outs, have done for Main Street America, jobs, workers, and taxpayers. I'd like to see the tally sheet for that. I'd like to know how they have actively worked to pull America out of economic recession and how they have helped people--regular people--deal with their financial problems.
Until I know that federal help for Wall Street actually amounted to benefits for all and not just for a few at the top of the big business ladder, if I sound like I care less about what happens to Wall Street nor at where the Stock Market number arrives at the end of any day, it is because of long disillusionment and lack of respect for the ethics and conduct of big business.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The president who is needed...
With the economic disaster of the Bush years (collapse of the economy and huge deficit in return for nothing but endless, costly wars), America needed one particular president.
America didn't need President Kennedy, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President First Bush, or President Clinton.
A part of President Johnson was needed in terms of social programs that make life better for Americans. A part of President Eisenhower was needed in terms of developing large work projects like the interstate highway project. A part of President Truman was needed in terms of ending discrimination, this time for gay soldiers, in the military.
But mainly, following the disasters of President George W. Bush, America needed President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Obviously, on the 2008 campaign trail, John McCain, with his Republican beliefs that the economy would remedy its own problems without any governmental involvement, sounded like President Hoover, not FDR.
Barack Obama, pushed by other populists on the campaign trail, talked about the need for smart, progressive policies that would help citizens by adding jobs, end wasteful spending on overseas military occupancy, and provide a real, comprehensive health care plan.
With 15 million people out of work, America needs an FDR-style jobs creation plan that, in the same FDR manner, doesn't acquiesce decisions and funding to the will of the state governors and state governments. Some people say WWII got America out of the lingering problems of the Great Depression. But, if so, exactly how? It was because, in expanding FDR's pre-war jobs programs, Americans were put to work in communities and in factories that made products for the war effort. (Many of those factories, by the way, that were unionized then or later for good wages.) If FDR had deferred those jobs to some foreign, cheap-labor country, the war effort itself--employing large numbers of soldiers on the governmental payroll--would have been largely deficit without community and job benefit. That wouldn't have created a lasting, better American economy (and also is why modern wars are budget-busters now). FDR knew that jobs were needed here, whether or not there was a war.
Now in his presidency, we, and Obama himself, should hope that he is the FDR that the country desperately needed and needs. That's what will give Obama a legacy and pull America through its tough times.
America didn't need President Kennedy, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President First Bush, or President Clinton.
A part of President Johnson was needed in terms of social programs that make life better for Americans. A part of President Eisenhower was needed in terms of developing large work projects like the interstate highway project. A part of President Truman was needed in terms of ending discrimination, this time for gay soldiers, in the military.
But mainly, following the disasters of President George W. Bush, America needed President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Obviously, on the 2008 campaign trail, John McCain, with his Republican beliefs that the economy would remedy its own problems without any governmental involvement, sounded like President Hoover, not FDR.
Barack Obama, pushed by other populists on the campaign trail, talked about the need for smart, progressive policies that would help citizens by adding jobs, end wasteful spending on overseas military occupancy, and provide a real, comprehensive health care plan.
With 15 million people out of work, America needs an FDR-style jobs creation plan that, in the same FDR manner, doesn't acquiesce decisions and funding to the will of the state governors and state governments. Some people say WWII got America out of the lingering problems of the Great Depression. But, if so, exactly how? It was because, in expanding FDR's pre-war jobs programs, Americans were put to work in communities and in factories that made products for the war effort. (Many of those factories, by the way, that were unionized then or later for good wages.) If FDR had deferred those jobs to some foreign, cheap-labor country, the war effort itself--employing large numbers of soldiers on the governmental payroll--would have been largely deficit without community and job benefit. That wouldn't have created a lasting, better American economy (and also is why modern wars are budget-busters now). FDR knew that jobs were needed here, whether or not there was a war.
Now in his presidency, we, and Obama himself, should hope that he is the FDR that the country desperately needed and needs. That's what will give Obama a legacy and pull America through its tough times.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Information Station...
Here are some interesting news items from TV, newspapers, and the Internet...
In the current U.S. job market, there are six applicants for each job opening.
Recently writing about Iraq and its future, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Tom Ricks described the Iraq War as the biggest mistake in recent American history.
In 1950, life expectancy in the United States was 58 years. It is estimated that half of the babies born in the U.S. this year will live to the age of 100.
According to an article in the AARP Bulletin, Elizabeth Smith, 28, of Sumter, S.C., recently won a $2 million jury verdict after a dentist at a Florence, S.C., clinic extracted all 16 of her upper teeth--13 by mistake. Smith's attorney said she now has trouble eating and covers her mouth in conversation. Implants will cost about $80,000.
According to a New York Times poll, 65 percent of Americans want a public option included in the health care reform legislation.
In the current U.S. job market, there are six applicants for each job opening.
Recently writing about Iraq and its future, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Tom Ricks described the Iraq War as the biggest mistake in recent American history.
In 1950, life expectancy in the United States was 58 years. It is estimated that half of the babies born in the U.S. this year will live to the age of 100.
According to an article in the AARP Bulletin, Elizabeth Smith, 28, of Sumter, S.C., recently won a $2 million jury verdict after a dentist at a Florence, S.C., clinic extracted all 16 of her upper teeth--13 by mistake. Smith's attorney said she now has trouble eating and covers her mouth in conversation. Implants will cost about $80,000.
According to a New York Times poll, 65 percent of Americans want a public option included in the health care reform legislation.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Run, jump, and kick for good health care...
Ha! So, Rio de Janeiro and Brazil get to host the 2016 Olympics.
Sorry. It is hard not to chuckle about President Obama's pro-active attempt to snag the Olympics for Chicago, especially when, to the great mystery of progressives, he has been anything but pro-active concerning the public option for health care reform.
Let's hope that, while Obama was in Denmark, he got a good view of the impressive European single-payer health care systems.
Let's run, jump, and kick for a good American health care system.
Sorry. It is hard not to chuckle about President Obama's pro-active attempt to snag the Olympics for Chicago, especially when, to the great mystery of progressives, he has been anything but pro-active concerning the public option for health care reform.
Let's hope that, while Obama was in Denmark, he got a good view of the impressive European single-payer health care systems.
Let's run, jump, and kick for a good American health care system.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Amazing when Democratic Party sacrifices its base...
Every progressive Democrat in the land knew that the plan for health care reform from Blue Dog Democrat Max Baucus would be a joke. And, thus, when Baucus finally delivered it, waiting so long that, in the meantime, town hall screamers from the right got publicity and health care advocate Ted Kennedy died, it was just that--a joke. It included no public option, a mandate placed upon the poor and lower middle class, and all kinds of gains for the insurance industry. It wasn't just a joke. It was also embarrassing, because it suggested that an "actual" Democrat and the Democratic Party was behind the awful Baucus bill. No, that was the Baucus idea as Baucus is a would-be Republican, like the rest of the Blue Dogs. Unfortunately, the plan is still tied to the Democratic Party.
This morning, President Obama was on ABC's This Week and he not only spoke in favor of the Baucus bill, but also made the analogy that people should have mandatory health care just like they have mandatory car insurance. He also said that it would not be a tax increase because people without insurance would be able to find "affordable" rates and people paying insurance right now would see their insurance rates go down when all the other mandated people are "forced" (my word for it) into the system. Huh?! Huh, to all of it!
Obama's logic is perplexing to me. I know he is an intelligent man, so this can only be either "rich man arrogance" or "rich man ignorance." He needs to go back, take a long look, talk to real people at the lower economic levels, and reconsider. Otherwise, the poor and lower middle classes, which have been the constant base of the Democratic Party, will find themselves economically-stretched, taxed, fined, and grappling for the cheapest insurance costs possible while probably not getting anything much better in insurance coverage. It will be a time when the Democratic Party sacrifices the poor for the sake of the rich. Talk about an impending disaster for the Democratic Party if that constituency is angered and driven away.
(And my complaints are not about the issue of taxes, either. I would be willing to pay more than my fair share of taxes for a single-payer system, knowing that my nation develops what's best in health care and that all American citizens finally get covered for health care. But I truly resent having mandated taxes or fees going to nothing more than the wealth of an insurance industry and the health care system then still lags behind systems in other industrial nations. The sad part is that most Americans want a single-payer system, but the politicians refuse to deliver it. Who do they serve?!)
There also is this myth--which I think is a rich person's fantasy--that if a person has health insurance, then everything is fine and dandy. No, some people, like myself, cut back the insurance coverage to the bare minimum to also find the bare minimum of costs. How does that make health care better in America?
And finally, to the "affordable" part, if there is no public option plan, there is no way to keep the prices from the insurance companies down.
So, I guess, at this point, I can say that I am now against the health care reform legislation. Geez, I never thought I'd say that, considering that America has a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress. Wow, truly amazing that this president, with his incredible oratorical skills, has lost me to the health care plan.
The result also is that I have already decided never to vote for anyone like Missouri Senator McCaskill who joins a "gang of..." in Congress, because that means they are Blue Dogs, trying to appease Republicans. I can't see how the Republicans don't win big out of this health care sell-out and that's unfortunate. But what are we to do? Vote for rich fools because they are better than the other rich fools? I have often said that the limitations of the two-party system just mean that we have no good choices. We have fewer options there than with insurance plans, for that matter. I thought we had good choices during the campaign. Wow, actions and attitudes sure can change. But there's no sense for progressives voting for people, in either party, who don't really represent them, their needs, or what's best for the country. Now may be the time for building a good third party option--one that supports single-payer health care.
This morning, President Obama was on ABC's This Week and he not only spoke in favor of the Baucus bill, but also made the analogy that people should have mandatory health care just like they have mandatory car insurance. He also said that it would not be a tax increase because people without insurance would be able to find "affordable" rates and people paying insurance right now would see their insurance rates go down when all the other mandated people are "forced" (my word for it) into the system. Huh?! Huh, to all of it!
Obama's logic is perplexing to me. I know he is an intelligent man, so this can only be either "rich man arrogance" or "rich man ignorance." He needs to go back, take a long look, talk to real people at the lower economic levels, and reconsider. Otherwise, the poor and lower middle classes, which have been the constant base of the Democratic Party, will find themselves economically-stretched, taxed, fined, and grappling for the cheapest insurance costs possible while probably not getting anything much better in insurance coverage. It will be a time when the Democratic Party sacrifices the poor for the sake of the rich. Talk about an impending disaster for the Democratic Party if that constituency is angered and driven away.
(And my complaints are not about the issue of taxes, either. I would be willing to pay more than my fair share of taxes for a single-payer system, knowing that my nation develops what's best in health care and that all American citizens finally get covered for health care. But I truly resent having mandated taxes or fees going to nothing more than the wealth of an insurance industry and the health care system then still lags behind systems in other industrial nations. The sad part is that most Americans want a single-payer system, but the politicians refuse to deliver it. Who do they serve?!)
There also is this myth--which I think is a rich person's fantasy--that if a person has health insurance, then everything is fine and dandy. No, some people, like myself, cut back the insurance coverage to the bare minimum to also find the bare minimum of costs. How does that make health care better in America?
And finally, to the "affordable" part, if there is no public option plan, there is no way to keep the prices from the insurance companies down.
So, I guess, at this point, I can say that I am now against the health care reform legislation. Geez, I never thought I'd say that, considering that America has a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress. Wow, truly amazing that this president, with his incredible oratorical skills, has lost me to the health care plan.
The result also is that I have already decided never to vote for anyone like Missouri Senator McCaskill who joins a "gang of..." in Congress, because that means they are Blue Dogs, trying to appease Republicans. I can't see how the Republicans don't win big out of this health care sell-out and that's unfortunate. But what are we to do? Vote for rich fools because they are better than the other rich fools? I have often said that the limitations of the two-party system just mean that we have no good choices. We have fewer options there than with insurance plans, for that matter. I thought we had good choices during the campaign. Wow, actions and attitudes sure can change. But there's no sense for progressives voting for people, in either party, who don't really represent them, their needs, or what's best for the country. Now may be the time for building a good third party option--one that supports single-payer health care.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The village idiot...
"We have a village idiot in this country. It's called fundamentalist Christianity," Frank Schaeffer, author of "Crazy for God," said on the MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show last night. He was on the show to speak to the recent poll that found that 35 percent of New Jersey conservatives think President Obama is the anti-Christ.
Schaeffer used the "village idiot" term because he said fundamentalist Christians have been "left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature."
This subculture of fundamentalist faith distrusts facts, he said. From birth to home schooling to religious school to evangelical college, they have been raised to reject facts. "They believe in a young earth, 6,000 years old." They think that all news is related to the end of time and Christ's return, he said.
"A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot," he said.
"The rest of us are getting on with our lives, while these people are standing on a hilltop, waiting for the end," he said. They are a slice of the population waiting for Jesus to come back, and looking forward to Armageddon, he said.
Schaeffer concluded by suggesting to the fundamentalist Christians: "Go wait on the hilltop for the end and the rest of us will reconstruct our country."
Schaeffer used the "village idiot" term because he said fundamentalist Christians have been "left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature."
This subculture of fundamentalist faith distrusts facts, he said. From birth to home schooling to religious school to evangelical college, they have been raised to reject facts. "They believe in a young earth, 6,000 years old." They think that all news is related to the end of time and Christ's return, he said.
"A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot," he said.
"The rest of us are getting on with our lives, while these people are standing on a hilltop, waiting for the end," he said. They are a slice of the population waiting for Jesus to come back, and looking forward to Armageddon, he said.
Schaeffer concluded by suggesting to the fundamentalist Christians: "Go wait on the hilltop for the end and the rest of us will reconstruct our country."
Information Station: Health care statistics...
Recent news items about health care:
A recent study noted that 45,000 Americans die per year because they don't have health care insurance for better medical attention.
The uninsured had a 40 percent higher risk of death.
The average cost of health care for an American family annually is more than $13,000.
Insurance premiums have gone up 131 percent in 10 years.
About 14 million young people are uninsured. They make up the largest group of uninsured Americans. About half of them earn less than $16,000 per year.
A recent study noted that 45,000 Americans die per year because they don't have health care insurance for better medical attention.
The uninsured had a 40 percent higher risk of death.
The average cost of health care for an American family annually is more than $13,000.
Insurance premiums have gone up 131 percent in 10 years.
About 14 million young people are uninsured. They make up the largest group of uninsured Americans. About half of them earn less than $16,000 per year.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Why the public option...or a single-payer system...matters...
The biggest problem with the health care reform effort involves three words: "Rich people legislating."
We know that most of Congress, specifically the Senate, is made up of people who are way more wealthy than we are. We also know that they get great health care plans through the choice of the federal system or can afford the greatest private plans because they are wealthy. Most of them, like the American people generally, also have two incomes for one family, whereas some of us, which can mean single people or also the particularly vulnerable group of single women with children, rely on just one family income. We know that most, if not all, of the other industrial democracies in the world have universal health care coverage for their citizens. In Canada, England, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Australia, and many others. And, while some of those systems are different, there are two features they all have in common: They cover ALL of their citizens, providing national health care. And those governments pay less in comparison to the very high costs of health care in the United States. A third common aspect for most of them is that the health and medical rates (such as infant mortality and life longevity) are better there, as compared to the United States. And the social qualities are better in those other nations as well, as no one goes bankrupt or loses their homes or businesses because of medical expenses and no one dies because they can't afford to go to a doctor or hospital. Conclusion: Those countries have found a way and do it better than the United States does. You might think then that "rich people legislating" in the United States would have the "smarts" to look at those other systems and model the American system after them, selecting the very best parts. However, are "rich people legislating" concerned with "smarts" or other matters? Some would say that many in Congress are concerned about money first (though they waste so much of it on endless wars, unlike other democracies) and then they are less concerned about universal health care cost for citizens. Some people in Congress--they are called Republicans--are opposed to any governmental program, though they and others in their immediate families have individually benefited from many governmental programs. Those Republicans and what we now know as Blue Dogs, meaning Democrats who like to think like Republicans, are against a public option plan. A public option plan would allow the government to set up a health care program to accommodate people who can't afford the rates charged by the private-sector insurance companies. Who can't afford insurance? Well, millions of Americans. But, of course, not the "rich people legislating." Without a public option plan, the health care reform would mean some improvements, such as requiring insurance companies to not heartlessly refuse to cover the health care costs of people who the insurance companies have diagnosed as having pre-existing health conditions. But mainly, without a public option plan, the health care reform would mean: 1). A sweet deal for the drug industry; 2). A gold mine for the insurance companies; and 3). A mandate for everyone in America that requires them to get health care insurance...from private insurance companies, because there would be no public option. Some people argue--well, it is good that everyone has to purchase insurance and that it is a person's responsibility to have health care insurance in case they get sick. "Rich people legislating" particularly say that. The reality is, of course, that some people can't afford one more bill, or else they probably would have gotten health insurance already. Some people, but not the "rich people legislating" might prefer to put food on their table than to have one more monthly bill that blows the rest of their already small paycheck. The reality also is that for people who have health care insurance now, they may have reduced it to practically no coverage in order to just keep the monthly payment low. I can speak to that because that is exactly what I have done. I have insurance through my employer that I pay for on a monthly basis, but mainly it is aimed at the occurrence of catastrophic medical attention, such as the arrival of cancer or being suddenly hit by a car. I don't have dental insurance. I don't have vision insurance. I have trimmed my insurance coverage to the barest of bones in order to keep up with my other monthly bills--as a single person with a single income, unlike most "rich people legislating." So, as people like me or plenty who are far more worse off, with lower incomes or even jobless, look at the health care reform plan without a public option aspect, we are horrified that insurance companies will continue to control most everything about national health and most likely raise costs at their will, like they do with mandated car insurance. Thus, people like me, I hope, are drawing a line in the sand. If the public option plan isn't in the health care reform, then not only will Obama be a "liar" for supporting a public option before but accepting an absence of it later, but also I will not again vote for Obama or other Democrats (and had no intention anyway of ever voting for a Republican or Blue Dog). So, it is crucial to the future of the Obama presidency and the Democratic majority that people like me, on the progressive left, don't abandon them. Heed this, "rich people legislating": If you intend to provide an American future that only accommodates the wealthy and, in essence, says that the poor and lower middle class can make no real gains in the American system, then you will lose in upcoming elections...and deserve to lose. Line in the sand: Public option plan.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Eight years, so far...
"Our soldiers have been fighting in Afghanistan longer than we fought in both World Wars." --Bill Moyers, The Moyers Journal, Sept. 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama stands for public option with health care...
In his speech to Congress tonight about health care reform, President Obama stood in support of the public option plan. And that was excellent and necessary. He stood strong for the safety net for people in need of health care. And that was excellent and necessary.
Obama talked about the "ability to stand in others' shoes" and care about them, especially when misfortune occurs. He said families should not go bankrupt because of medical costs and businesses should not have to close because of medical costs. He said people should not have to tell a loved one that they can't get them the health care they need because it's not affordable. He spoke to the vision of the late Senator Ted Kennedy for health care for the nation.
"We did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it," Obama said.
Obama talked about the "ability to stand in others' shoes" and care about them, especially when misfortune occurs. He said families should not go bankrupt because of medical costs and businesses should not have to close because of medical costs. He said people should not have to tell a loved one that they can't get them the health care they need because it's not affordable. He spoke to the vision of the late Senator Ted Kennedy for health care for the nation.
"We did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it," Obama said.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Labor Day news...
With Labor Day 2009, here are some interesting news notes:
There are about 15 million Americans who are unemployed at this time. That is close to 10 percent of workers in the nation.
Five million people have been out of work for more than one-and-a-half years. That is the highest amount since records started being kept in 1947.
On CNN today, there was a segment about Army soldier Greg Missman. He lost his job and thus also lost health care coverage for his family, including an infant son. So, he re-enlisted in the Army primarily so he could provide health care coverage for his family. Just last week, he was killed in Afghanistan. His father was interviewed for the TV segment. Another way that Americans are trying to provide health care for their families and themselves.
In 2008, the states with the largest percentage of workers who were members of unions were: New York at 24.9 percent, Hawaii at 24.3 percent, Alaska at 23.5 percent, Washington at 19.8 percent, and Michigan at 18.8 percent. The percentage of union workers in Missouri was 11.2 percent, with 8 percent in Colorado and 7.7 percent in Wyoming. The states with the lowest percentage of union workers were: North Carolina at 3.5 percent, Georgia at 3.7 percent, South Carolina at 3.9 percent, Virginia at 4.1 percent, 4.5 percent in Texas, and 4.6 percent in Louisiana. (Statistics from the Bureau of Labor, as noted in the AARP Bulletin, Sept. 2009.)
There are about 15 million Americans who are unemployed at this time. That is close to 10 percent of workers in the nation.
Five million people have been out of work for more than one-and-a-half years. That is the highest amount since records started being kept in 1947.
On CNN today, there was a segment about Army soldier Greg Missman. He lost his job and thus also lost health care coverage for his family, including an infant son. So, he re-enlisted in the Army primarily so he could provide health care coverage for his family. Just last week, he was killed in Afghanistan. His father was interviewed for the TV segment. Another way that Americans are trying to provide health care for their families and themselves.
In 2008, the states with the largest percentage of workers who were members of unions were: New York at 24.9 percent, Hawaii at 24.3 percent, Alaska at 23.5 percent, Washington at 19.8 percent, and Michigan at 18.8 percent. The percentage of union workers in Missouri was 11.2 percent, with 8 percent in Colorado and 7.7 percent in Wyoming. The states with the lowest percentage of union workers were: North Carolina at 3.5 percent, Georgia at 3.7 percent, South Carolina at 3.9 percent, Virginia at 4.1 percent, 4.5 percent in Texas, and 4.6 percent in Louisiana. (Statistics from the Bureau of Labor, as noted in the AARP Bulletin, Sept. 2009.)
Friday, August 28, 2009
Health care "screamers" made me sick...
Don't you get tired of those goofball Americans, who are fortunate enough to have health care coverage, complaining about the national effort to provide health care for those who don't have coverage? Wow, I do.
They apparently don't care about fellow Americans. Then they also have fits about any notion of health care coverage for illegal immigrants, though those workers are probably here for the financial advantage of the conservative, capitalist (and likely Republican) corporations and farms that can get away with paying them low wages and not supplying any benefits.
I was thinking that it is too bad a bunch of those "screamers" at the town hall meetings for health care reform aren't invited to a doctor's office where a sick child of either uninsured Americans or illegal immigrant workers could stand before them in need of health and medical care. Then, after they deny care to the child, thereby showing that they favor the rationing of health care, someone could turn to the group and say, "Well, look who's part of the Sarah Palin death panel now."
They apparently don't care about fellow Americans. Then they also have fits about any notion of health care coverage for illegal immigrants, though those workers are probably here for the financial advantage of the conservative, capitalist (and likely Republican) corporations and farms that can get away with paying them low wages and not supplying any benefits.
I was thinking that it is too bad a bunch of those "screamers" at the town hall meetings for health care reform aren't invited to a doctor's office where a sick child of either uninsured Americans or illegal immigrant workers could stand before them in need of health and medical care. Then, after they deny care to the child, thereby showing that they favor the rationing of health care, someone could turn to the group and say, "Well, look who's part of the Sarah Palin death panel now."
Friday, August 21, 2009
Worldwide attitudes...
Interesting numbers from Pew Global Attitudes Survey of July 2009, as noted by the McLaughlin Group tonight:
According to the survey, U.S. favorability in other countries was the following:
According to the survey, U.S. favorability in other countries was the following:
- For the United Kingdom: 53 percent in 2008, 69 percent in 2009.
- For Germany: 33 percent in 2008, 64 percent in 2009.
- For France: 42 percent in 2008, 75 percent in 2009.
Also, according to the poll, here are the popularity percentages for Presidents Bush and Obama in other countries:
- Britain: 16 percent for Bush, 86 percent for Obama.
- France: 15 percent for Bush, 91 percent for Obama.
- Germany: 14 percent for Bush, 93 percent for Obama.
- Turkey: 2 percent for Bush, 33 percent for Obama.
- Russia: 22 percent for Bush, 37 percent for Obama.
- China: 30 percent for Bush, 62 percent for Obama.
- Japan: 25 percent for Bush, 85 percent for Obama.
- Brazil: 17 percent for Bush, 76 percent for Obama.
- Mexico: 16 percent for Bush, 55 percent for Obama.
- Argentina: 7 percent for Bush, 61 percent for Obama.
The only country, mentioned on the program, that gave a sliver of the edge to Bush over Obama was Israel, with 57 percent for Bush and 56 percent for Obama.
Even in the United States, the popularity poll noted 37 percent for Bush and 74 percent for Obama. Obama's popularity has dropped in the latest U.S. polls, but that is probably because he recently annoyed his progressive base on the left with talk of allowing the public option in health care reform to be eliminated. He needs to make sure the public option is part of the health care reform and then the progressives will happily herald an increase in his poll numbers.
Of course, I can completely understand the Pew survey numbers concerning worldwide attitudes about Bush and Obama. George Bush was a disaster in all kinds of ways. As I have said often, I think George W. Bush was the worst president so far in my lifetime and, remember, I was around when the awful administrations of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were leading the country.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Quotable quotes...
Some quotable quotes...
"It's just four little words: Tell me a story." -- Don Hewitt, describing the essence of journalism. Hewitt (1922-2009) died today. Hewitt worked with journalist Edward R. Murrow, directed the program for the first TV presidential debate (involving Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon), and created and produced the news program "60 Minutes."
"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" -- Congressman Barney Frank at the town hall meeting in answer to a nutty woman who compared Obama's health care reform plan to policies of Hitler and the Nazis.
(Note: I know what planet that woman probably spent her time on...It's the crazy, stupid, ridiculous place called Fox planet.)
"Wisdom will be our hammer. Prudence will be our rail. When men build lives from honest toil, courage never fails." -- A line from the 2006 movie "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale."
From the TV comedy show "Parks and Recreation" starring Amy Poehler:
About an upcoming newspaper interview by a reporter, Poehler's character asked, "What do you think she's going to ask me first?" Another character answered, "How you spell your name."
In another scene from the show, Poehler character said, "The press is weapon and you can use it to kill people or to feed people."
"It's just four little words: Tell me a story." -- Don Hewitt, describing the essence of journalism. Hewitt (1922-2009) died today. Hewitt worked with journalist Edward R. Murrow, directed the program for the first TV presidential debate (involving Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon), and created and produced the news program "60 Minutes."
"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" -- Congressman Barney Frank at the town hall meeting in answer to a nutty woman who compared Obama's health care reform plan to policies of Hitler and the Nazis.
(Note: I know what planet that woman probably spent her time on...It's the crazy, stupid, ridiculous place called Fox planet.)
"Wisdom will be our hammer. Prudence will be our rail. When men build lives from honest toil, courage never fails." -- A line from the 2006 movie "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale."
From the TV comedy show "Parks and Recreation" starring Amy Poehler:
About an upcoming newspaper interview by a reporter, Poehler's character asked, "What do you think she's going to ask me first?" Another character answered, "How you spell your name."
In another scene from the show, Poehler character said, "The press is weapon and you can use it to kill people or to feed people."
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
People at public rallies...
If ever something fit the description of a "pig in a parlor," it would be the people who take guns to public rallies. They should play "Clint Eastwood" somewhere else. (They could volunteer to take the place of a soldier who's been deployed too many times in two wars in the Middle East.)
A public forum is for voice, not for the instruments of violence and intimidation. And all the "gunslingers" I have seen on TV segments are guys, of course. Oh, a gun is macho to men who worship them. But I have always thought the more courageous people are often the ones who braved the world without the need for either weapons or violence. That certainly was the case for peaceful protestors at rallies during the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War protest days. And for people who had to carry guns, in the course of war, a lot of veterans gladly left their guns behind when they left the wars, relieved that they lived in a society of peace and civility. Even in the Old West, many towns with marshals had laws that prohibited people from bringing guns into the city limits. They didn't want cowboys at the saloon getting rowdy and dangerous with firearms. It really would be a sad day if it were common to see people carrying guns around, like the views we get from some foreign countries.
When I lived in Medicine Bow, Wyoming, a small town of less than 1,000 people, for more than a decade, there were periods of time when the town didn't have any law enforcement officers. One time for nearly half a year or more. Let me tell you, that can be a bit disconcerting for a newspaper editor who, on occasion, reports stories or writes commentaries that make some people mad as hornets. I remember one day that a group of us were talking about the fact of living 55 miles away from any police protection, and someone wondered about acquiring guns, for security reasons. A friend, with a wife and three young children, was quite definite. "No way," he answered, saying he would never ever have a gun in his house and mainly because he had children. You might think that, in having a family, his paternal instincts would rear a fearful notion. But he said statistically it was more likely that guns in homes would fall into the hands of children, with the result of tragic accidents, than be needed for the threat of an intruder.
That's true of statistics to this day. With 30,000 gun deaths and 400,000 gun assaults in America becoming the yearly totals, it is also correct that if you have a gun in your home, it is 22 percent more likely that it will kill a family member than an intruding stranger.
But it isn't much better when the show-offs with guns take them out of their homes to public rallies. They think they are sending some strange message about Second Amendment rights. There's no need to send that message, as the Second Amendment is alive and well, despite fools who try to shoot down its reach through reckless acts.
Public rallies are about the First Amendment rights to free speech and to assemble "peaceably," as the First Amendment qualifies. Who wants to go to a rally where some malcontented extremist is bringing a gun? And yes, I think you are an extremist if you are wearing a gun in public and you're not in law enforcement. It's a pig in a parlor.
A public forum is for voice, not for the instruments of violence and intimidation. And all the "gunslingers" I have seen on TV segments are guys, of course. Oh, a gun is macho to men who worship them. But I have always thought the more courageous people are often the ones who braved the world without the need for either weapons or violence. That certainly was the case for peaceful protestors at rallies during the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War protest days. And for people who had to carry guns, in the course of war, a lot of veterans gladly left their guns behind when they left the wars, relieved that they lived in a society of peace and civility. Even in the Old West, many towns with marshals had laws that prohibited people from bringing guns into the city limits. They didn't want cowboys at the saloon getting rowdy and dangerous with firearms. It really would be a sad day if it were common to see people carrying guns around, like the views we get from some foreign countries.
When I lived in Medicine Bow, Wyoming, a small town of less than 1,000 people, for more than a decade, there were periods of time when the town didn't have any law enforcement officers. One time for nearly half a year or more. Let me tell you, that can be a bit disconcerting for a newspaper editor who, on occasion, reports stories or writes commentaries that make some people mad as hornets. I remember one day that a group of us were talking about the fact of living 55 miles away from any police protection, and someone wondered about acquiring guns, for security reasons. A friend, with a wife and three young children, was quite definite. "No way," he answered, saying he would never ever have a gun in his house and mainly because he had children. You might think that, in having a family, his paternal instincts would rear a fearful notion. But he said statistically it was more likely that guns in homes would fall into the hands of children, with the result of tragic accidents, than be needed for the threat of an intruder.
That's true of statistics to this day. With 30,000 gun deaths and 400,000 gun assaults in America becoming the yearly totals, it is also correct that if you have a gun in your home, it is 22 percent more likely that it will kill a family member than an intruding stranger.
But it isn't much better when the show-offs with guns take them out of their homes to public rallies. They think they are sending some strange message about Second Amendment rights. There's no need to send that message, as the Second Amendment is alive and well, despite fools who try to shoot down its reach through reckless acts.
Public rallies are about the First Amendment rights to free speech and to assemble "peaceably," as the First Amendment qualifies. Who wants to go to a rally where some malcontented extremist is bringing a gun? And yes, I think you are an extremist if you are wearing a gun in public and you're not in law enforcement. It's a pig in a parlor.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Health care needs and policies...
President Obama was in Montana and Colorado this weekend, answering questions about health care reform. Here are some of my comments pertaining to questions and answers...
To the question about private insurance companies competing with the public option, which means a governmental program:
1). There are 46 million Americans who don't currently have health care insurance, many who can't afford it, so they are not adding to the revenues of the insurance companies anyway. If they are allowed into a public program, then they will finally get coverage. About 14,000 people lose their health care insurance each day. I suspect much of that is because of job loss. So, the insurance companies are already losing customers. Are they losing profits? I don't hear of insurance companies going broke because of the loss or absence of customers.
2). The insurance companies don't just cover health care. They cover the insurance for car ownership, floods, and other areas including life insurance. My state forces me to find and pay for car insurance, though my driving record has been excellent for decades. I pay into the insurance pool for all those reckless teenagers and accident-prone jerks using cell phones while they drive. Talk about a "socialist" system. Why am I forced to get insurance for my car when I don't abuse its use or endanger others? Do any of those Republicans who are against the public option in health care complain about mandatory car insurance? And do you think there's a rat's whisker of difference in coverage costs within the so-called marketplace of insurance companies? If there is, I haven't discovered it. The insurance companies should have never been part of the health care system in the first place.
Why should Obama and Democrats like Senator McCaskill support a public option and make sure it's in the final plan?
Here's the deal. I voted for Obama and McCaskill in 2008. Obama's race wasn't close, but he certainly benefited by having a large amount of support from progressives (that means liberals). McCaskill's race went into the early hours of the next morning. That's how close it was. A nearly 50/50 race. I would prefer a single-payer system, like other great industrial democracies. At the very least, I expect a public option to be available in the health care plan. See the relationship. I voted for Obama; I want a public option. On the other hand, there are Republicans generally who don't want a public option and, for the most part, they didn't vote for Obama. So, who should Obama and McCaskill listen to? If Obama and the Democrats satisfy the conservatives, by caving on the public option, I hope they have calculated how many of those people who never voted for them before are suddenly going to vote for them in 2012 to replace the absent votes from progressives who are disgusted.
I voted for a Democratic president and Democratic senators and representatives. And they all won. I had to put up with Republican policies for the last eight years. Republicans got their two wars, their water-boarding, and their tax cuts for the rich. I sure as heck am not going to put up with more Republican policies from a Democratic-controlled government. There is a Democratic majority in Congress. So, I expect to see Democratic policies, not Republican or watered-down bipartisan policies. If they can't deliver, having the current Democratic majorities, then they probably will never deliver. They need to deliver it and, in so doing, make good on the promises for those of us who voted for them. We expect them to deliver Democratic policies. It shouldn't be all that difficult, as they would be keeping their voting constituency happy.
To the question about private insurance companies competing with the public option, which means a governmental program:
1). There are 46 million Americans who don't currently have health care insurance, many who can't afford it, so they are not adding to the revenues of the insurance companies anyway. If they are allowed into a public program, then they will finally get coverage. About 14,000 people lose their health care insurance each day. I suspect much of that is because of job loss. So, the insurance companies are already losing customers. Are they losing profits? I don't hear of insurance companies going broke because of the loss or absence of customers.
2). The insurance companies don't just cover health care. They cover the insurance for car ownership, floods, and other areas including life insurance. My state forces me to find and pay for car insurance, though my driving record has been excellent for decades. I pay into the insurance pool for all those reckless teenagers and accident-prone jerks using cell phones while they drive. Talk about a "socialist" system. Why am I forced to get insurance for my car when I don't abuse its use or endanger others? Do any of those Republicans who are against the public option in health care complain about mandatory car insurance? And do you think there's a rat's whisker of difference in coverage costs within the so-called marketplace of insurance companies? If there is, I haven't discovered it. The insurance companies should have never been part of the health care system in the first place.
Why should Obama and Democrats like Senator McCaskill support a public option and make sure it's in the final plan?
Here's the deal. I voted for Obama and McCaskill in 2008. Obama's race wasn't close, but he certainly benefited by having a large amount of support from progressives (that means liberals). McCaskill's race went into the early hours of the next morning. That's how close it was. A nearly 50/50 race. I would prefer a single-payer system, like other great industrial democracies. At the very least, I expect a public option to be available in the health care plan. See the relationship. I voted for Obama; I want a public option. On the other hand, there are Republicans generally who don't want a public option and, for the most part, they didn't vote for Obama. So, who should Obama and McCaskill listen to? If Obama and the Democrats satisfy the conservatives, by caving on the public option, I hope they have calculated how many of those people who never voted for them before are suddenly going to vote for them in 2012 to replace the absent votes from progressives who are disgusted.
I voted for a Democratic president and Democratic senators and representatives. And they all won. I had to put up with Republican policies for the last eight years. Republicans got their two wars, their water-boarding, and their tax cuts for the rich. I sure as heck am not going to put up with more Republican policies from a Democratic-controlled government. There is a Democratic majority in Congress. So, I expect to see Democratic policies, not Republican or watered-down bipartisan policies. If they can't deliver, having the current Democratic majorities, then they probably will never deliver. They need to deliver it and, in so doing, make good on the promises for those of us who voted for them. We expect them to deliver Democratic policies. It shouldn't be all that difficult, as they would be keeping their voting constituency happy.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Palin provided the low point so far...
Without a doubt, the most irresponsible moment in the national health care reform debate so far was when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin prominently inserted the term "death panel."
That moment was selfishly political, absolutely misinformational, and completely laughable if it weren't so callous in terms of failing to add one degree of intellectual quality toward the much needed solution to a sobering national health problem.
It tells me, though I knew it before, that Palin is no serious thinker. She doesn't have the intellect to heighten the discussion, but she had the reckless nerve to distort and lie. She's a demagogue for the simple-minded.
In the meantime, thousands of people attended a free medical and dental makeshift clinic in the Los Angeles area this week, hoping to get help when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it.
That moment was selfishly political, absolutely misinformational, and completely laughable if it weren't so callous in terms of failing to add one degree of intellectual quality toward the much needed solution to a sobering national health problem.
It tells me, though I knew it before, that Palin is no serious thinker. She doesn't have the intellect to heighten the discussion, but she had the reckless nerve to distort and lie. She's a demagogue for the simple-minded.
In the meantime, thousands of people attended a free medical and dental makeshift clinic in the Los Angeles area this week, hoping to get help when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I want an electric car one day...
The information from GM about the Chevy Volt electric car was certainly interesting. The company says the car will have a gasoline-gallon equivalent of going 230 miles per gallon. The car also has zero emissions for the environment. I hope my next car is an electric car. If GM, Ford, and other car companies can get the cost down to an affordable price for middle-class Americans, then the whole picture of the U.S. automobile and fuel will change dramatically. And Americans can wave good-bye to the Saudis and other oil cartels.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
News at 10...
This just in:
Some screaming Republican shills were arrested today after they confused the location of Mary Alice's Tupperware party for a health care reform town hall, disrupting it with screams, wild accusations, and tantrums. Screamed one screamer, "The Founding Fathers didn't use snap-top cannisters!" Screamed another screamer, "Plastic is socialism!"
The Belfry family of Militia, Arkansas, is barricaded inside the family's mobile home, refusing to come out until they receive word that the government will not pull the plug on grandma. Said son Bats, "We're trying to figure out right now where the plug for Grandma is supposed to go. And after we figure that out, we'll be ready to fight to keep bureaucrats from pulling it."
Glenn Beck reports that he will no longer suggest that various people should die because he doesn't want to be drafted to serve on the federal death panel, even if it is named for Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin has broken with the NRA because of its expansive view of firearms use. She stated, "I'm for the right to bear arms, but not to arm bears. Kodiak bears with assault rifles would turn flag-waving, gun-totting, dope-smoking Alaskan hunters into sitting ducks."
You've heard of birthers, who doubt President Obama's birthplace. You've heard of deathers, who think the government wants to kill the elderly. Now, there are whiters. They refuse to believe that Obama is half-black and half-white until he shows them his white parts.
Warren won the office pool today at the Center for Frightening Senior Citizens by correctly identifying that Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, would do his best to scare the bejesus out of seniors, children, puppies, Lutherans, zookeepers, truck drivers, substitute teachers, and people who walk really slow.
MSNBC's Saturday programming will feature a day-long series about serial killers who everyone wanted to forget.
A man in Froth, Kentucky, was treated for injuries after his step-children threw him into an alley garbage barrel. The kids said their mom told them to take out the trash. The mother said that she didn't mean "white" trash.
A Blue-Dog Democrat today had to be treated for fleas. Said the veterinarian, "Quit hanging out with Republicans."
Former President Bill Clinton made it clear today that he is not the Secretary of State. He said, "I'm just the great diplomatic hero who brought back the two ladies held captive in North Korea."
Banks today in appreciation of the huge taxpayer bailouts that saved them earlier this year cut their credit card rates by one-sixteenth of one percent to show their generous gratitude to the tax-paying consumers.
Insurance companies are now offering to cover of cost of flea powder if Blue-Dog Democrats will continue to hang out with Republicans and bury that public option like a chewed-up meat bone.
Some screaming Republican shills were arrested today after they confused the location of Mary Alice's Tupperware party for a health care reform town hall, disrupting it with screams, wild accusations, and tantrums. Screamed one screamer, "The Founding Fathers didn't use snap-top cannisters!" Screamed another screamer, "Plastic is socialism!"
The Belfry family of Militia, Arkansas, is barricaded inside the family's mobile home, refusing to come out until they receive word that the government will not pull the plug on grandma. Said son Bats, "We're trying to figure out right now where the plug for Grandma is supposed to go. And after we figure that out, we'll be ready to fight to keep bureaucrats from pulling it."
Glenn Beck reports that he will no longer suggest that various people should die because he doesn't want to be drafted to serve on the federal death panel, even if it is named for Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin has broken with the NRA because of its expansive view of firearms use. She stated, "I'm for the right to bear arms, but not to arm bears. Kodiak bears with assault rifles would turn flag-waving, gun-totting, dope-smoking Alaskan hunters into sitting ducks."
You've heard of birthers, who doubt President Obama's birthplace. You've heard of deathers, who think the government wants to kill the elderly. Now, there are whiters. They refuse to believe that Obama is half-black and half-white until he shows them his white parts.
Warren won the office pool today at the Center for Frightening Senior Citizens by correctly identifying that Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, would do his best to scare the bejesus out of seniors, children, puppies, Lutherans, zookeepers, truck drivers, substitute teachers, and people who walk really slow.
MSNBC's Saturday programming will feature a day-long series about serial killers who everyone wanted to forget.
A man in Froth, Kentucky, was treated for injuries after his step-children threw him into an alley garbage barrel. The kids said their mom told them to take out the trash. The mother said that she didn't mean "white" trash.
A Blue-Dog Democrat today had to be treated for fleas. Said the veterinarian, "Quit hanging out with Republicans."
Former President Bill Clinton made it clear today that he is not the Secretary of State. He said, "I'm just the great diplomatic hero who brought back the two ladies held captive in North Korea."
Banks today in appreciation of the huge taxpayer bailouts that saved them earlier this year cut their credit card rates by one-sixteenth of one percent to show their generous gratitude to the tax-paying consumers.
Insurance companies are now offering to cover of cost of flea powder if Blue-Dog Democrats will continue to hang out with Republicans and bury that public option like a chewed-up meat bone.
Public option in health care needed...
Well, I just watched a clip of Sen. Grassley of Iowa responding to people at a health care reform gathering. One woman noted that she'd checked the insurance companies in Iowa and the cheapest cost she could find for insuring herself, her husband, and their three children, without a $10,000 deductible, was $830 (per month) and she said they couldn't afford that. Grassley didn't answer her question. He talked about pre-existing illness discrimination that would be ended and assistance for people below the poverty line. Well, that's no answer to regular middle-class Americans trying to figure out how to afford insurance costs. Grassley, as a Republican, of course avoided the issue of the public option. That's the only chance, by way of government competition, that citizens have for insurance companies keeping costs down. Otherwise, they don't have to, do they?
Then the next guy asking Grassley a question wondered something like, "If government-run programs like Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office are going broke, why should we trust that the government would do better for health care?" Wow, Grassley really dodged that question, telling the guy how more people should come to meetings and that they should write more letters to their Congressional representatives. Like we all know that works!!! NOT!!! One of my responses to the guy would have been, "Well, maybe if we didn't have two endless costly wars, this country would have some money for other programs." Of course, Grassley couldn't say that, because Republicans and Democrats spend like drunken sailors on the military, which, by the way, is a socialized program, too.
If there is no public option to keep insurance companies from continuing to increase monthly costs, while the rest of us chisel our coverage down to nothingness with high deductibles (trying to keeping something in case of catastrophic illness), the health care problems in America won't get solved.
Then the next guy asking Grassley a question wondered something like, "If government-run programs like Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office are going broke, why should we trust that the government would do better for health care?" Wow, Grassley really dodged that question, telling the guy how more people should come to meetings and that they should write more letters to their Congressional representatives. Like we all know that works!!! NOT!!! One of my responses to the guy would have been, "Well, maybe if we didn't have two endless costly wars, this country would have some money for other programs." Of course, Grassley couldn't say that, because Republicans and Democrats spend like drunken sailors on the military, which, by the way, is a socialized program, too.
If there is no public option to keep insurance companies from continuing to increase monthly costs, while the rest of us chisel our coverage down to nothingness with high deductibles (trying to keeping something in case of catastrophic illness), the health care problems in America won't get solved.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Quotes about rights, health care, and education...
As a believer in people's rights, I found quite a few interesting quotes relating to rights during the past week...
About Eunice Kennedy Shriver (1921-2009), the founder of Special Olympics, who died this week, and the rights of the intellectually disabled:
About Eunice Kennedy Shriver (1921-2009), the founder of Special Olympics, who died this week, and the rights of the intellectually disabled:
"Most of all, I see from Mrs. Shriver that I have rights." --A student with an intellectual disability at a Special Olympics.
"She was up against ignorance. She was up against stigma. She was up against prejudice. And because, at her heart, she cared about social justice, she saw disability issues through a prism of civil rights. And many, many Americans, when she started doing this work, didn't see it that way. They saw it as a charity or an issue of health care or medicine. They didn't see it as civil rights...She was helping sensitize Americans that this is part of human diversity that we have not done a good job of embracing, and I think she was very effective." --Andrew Imparato, American Association of People With Disabilities, on PBS NewsHour, Aug. 11, 2009.
"She never ran for office, but changed the world." --A member of the Kennedy family.
About the upcoming documentary "Sick for Profit" and the health rights of Americans:
"Profit should not be built into the fire department or the police department, anymore than it should be in health care." --The filmmaker of "Sick for Profit" documentary on CNN, Aug. 11, 2009.
"Every time he says 'no' to health care for someone, he and his company make money." -- The documentary filmmaker talking about one insurance company CEO who has a salary of $3.2 million per year.
About actor Brad Pitt, his relationship with actress Angelina Jolie, and his support for gay rights:
"I have love in my life, a soul mate--absolutely. When someone asked me why Angie and I don't get married, I replied, 'Maybe we'll get married when it's legal for everyone else.' I stand by that, although I took a lot of flak for saying it--hate mail from religious groups. I believe everyone should have the same rights. They say gay marriage ruins families and hurts kids. Well, I've had the privilege of seeing my gay friends being parents and watching their kids grow up in a loving environment." -- Actor Brad Pitt, quoted on the website PopEater, Aug. 6, 2009.
About President Barack Obama and his proposal for health care reform with a public option:
"No one in America should go broke because they get sick." -- President Obama at the Portsmouth, N.H., town hall meeting, Aug. 11, 2009. He also noted how his mother, when she was fighting cancer, worried about what her insurance would cover.
"In the past three years, over 12 million were discriminated against by insurance companies in providing their coverage." -- President Obama in New Hampshire.
"Change is hard." -- President Obama in New Hampshire.
About the value of education and the view of change, as quoted in the 2006 book "A Thomas Jefferson Education" by Oliver Van DeMille:
"Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave." -- Lord Brougham, quoted in "A Thomas Jefferson Education."
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- India leader Mahatma Gandhi.
Monday, August 10, 2009
U.S. health care is a poor model...
For people who think the current U.S. health care system is the best in the world, here's your assignment: Watch the PBS Frontline documentary called "Sick Around the World" and then watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" documentary. Another option would be: Talk to a citizen from Canada, Norway, or other industrialized democracies about their health care system.
Then, after that, if you still think the U.S. health care system is the best in the world, you need to check into a mental hospital, because you must be wacky and need help.
In other countries, people have their health care covered from cradle to grave. In other countries, people are guaranteed health care even if they lose their jobs. In other countries, people don't go bankrupt because of huge medical bills and debts. Don't dare tell me America measures up to the best in the world, until those features are part of living in America.
It bothers me that, as an American, I always hope that we treat our people best and seek what's best in order to be a model for the rest of the world. With health care, that certainly is a myth. But it also occurs to me that I will probably never see this country with a single-payer (the best) system in my lifetime. Too many spineless politicians or ones that prefer lobbyist money more, too many lobbyists from the big industries, too many satisified members of the media who think they are supposed to preserve the status quo, and too many ignorant citizens easily fooled by the special interests of big business.
It is hard to get excited about the current health care reform proposal when the best that it will offer is a public option (government alternative), which could be weakened to nothing by the time Congress and the Republicans and the Blue-Dog Democrats get through messing with it. And if Congress eliminates the public option altogether, then the whole proposal is a joke and a sham. It is just a cash cow for the insurance industry.
Free market people and those who like free world trade always say that we shouldn't interfere with business. Well, if we get no single-payer system or no decent public option, then I'd like to be able to seek health care options beyond the borders of America. What would be ideal would be the possibility of somehow, some way, joining the Canadian health care system--I'd just as soon make a deal with Canada for something that would give me lifetime coverage than to continue to have to pay for something from the U.S. insurance industry that gives me partial coverage, high deductibles, and only coverage as long as I have a job to afford it. Open up the borders then for health care, if the U.S. isn't going to give its citizens the best coverage for care. Then watch the flood.
Then, after that, if you still think the U.S. health care system is the best in the world, you need to check into a mental hospital, because you must be wacky and need help.
In other countries, people have their health care covered from cradle to grave. In other countries, people are guaranteed health care even if they lose their jobs. In other countries, people don't go bankrupt because of huge medical bills and debts. Don't dare tell me America measures up to the best in the world, until those features are part of living in America.
It bothers me that, as an American, I always hope that we treat our people best and seek what's best in order to be a model for the rest of the world. With health care, that certainly is a myth. But it also occurs to me that I will probably never see this country with a single-payer (the best) system in my lifetime. Too many spineless politicians or ones that prefer lobbyist money more, too many lobbyists from the big industries, too many satisified members of the media who think they are supposed to preserve the status quo, and too many ignorant citizens easily fooled by the special interests of big business.
It is hard to get excited about the current health care reform proposal when the best that it will offer is a public option (government alternative), which could be weakened to nothing by the time Congress and the Republicans and the Blue-Dog Democrats get through messing with it. And if Congress eliminates the public option altogether, then the whole proposal is a joke and a sham. It is just a cash cow for the insurance industry.
Free market people and those who like free world trade always say that we shouldn't interfere with business. Well, if we get no single-payer system or no decent public option, then I'd like to be able to seek health care options beyond the borders of America. What would be ideal would be the possibility of somehow, some way, joining the Canadian health care system--I'd just as soon make a deal with Canada for something that would give me lifetime coverage than to continue to have to pay for something from the U.S. insurance industry that gives me partial coverage, high deductibles, and only coverage as long as I have a job to afford it. Open up the borders then for health care, if the U.S. isn't going to give its citizens the best coverage for care. Then watch the flood.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
My mother's birthday...
On August 9 in the year of 1917, my mother, LaVerne Elizabeth (Johns) Roberts, was born in Blair, Nebraska. She died in 2000. In remembrance of my mom on her birthday, here are 10 easily remembered features about her:
- The love.
- The family. (Nothing was more important to her than family. She would rather be with family than do anything else. She loved family gatherings and visits with family. Family photos were abundant and cherished.)
- Her smile. (Including her smiling eyes. I remember my Dad saying that, no matter where he was or how he was feeling, he always looked for the smile on my mother's face because it always made him feel good.)
- The dinner table. (The food was great. The conversation was great. We always gathered around the table, before or after watching the TV evening news. We referred to the three meals of the day as breakfast, dinner, and supper.)
- Her cooking. (No matter what was left in the kitchen cabinets--and sometimes there probably wasn't much--she always had the ability to make a great meal out it, and there were specific food items that are particularly memorable, like cherry pies. There were numerous food items that only she could make. To this day, I miss her cherry pies. They weren't precisely store-like. They were just the opposite--Very runny and drippy, more sour than sweet, but very delicious. I have aunts that make wonderfully delicious pies, but I have yet to find any cherry pie anywhere exactly like the way my Mom made it.)
- Her belief in education. (Though she never went to college, she loved the aspects of learning. A set of encyclopedias was the major occupant and reference point in our living room bookcase. Other than church, the library was the main place I visited in my youth because of her encouragement. She insisted that her sons go to college.)
- Sundays, church, and car rides. (Every Sunday didn't seem complete without first attending church. Congregational, Presbyterian, or Methodist--whichever church was located in the town that moved to. She enjoyed singing in the church choirs. She had taught Sunday school classes. Most of my spiritual and social beliefs involving peace and goodwill toward all and treating others as I would want to be treated and other qualities were nurtured by my mom. One of my best memories in Scotland was attending a service at St. Giles Presbyterian Church with her. As inexpensive entertainment, my parents enjoyed taking us children for car rides, often on Sunday afternoons. My Dad would drive--my Mom never learned to drive a car--and we would go out into the country or just around town, usually stopping for an ice cream cone at the end of the trip. Throughout her life, my Mom enjoyed the adventure and journey of a car ride. Even when she rode in a wheelchair for easy transportation in her later years, she wanted it to move with speed. I imagine the view of me trotting, as I pushed my Mom in her wheelchair down a sidewalk and she enjoyed the breezes in her hair was a memorable sight for others.)
- Her help. (Whether it was in reading books--she would read many children's books to me--or with my homework--though that didn't include modern math--or proof-reading for my newspaper in Medicine Bow--she was the best speller I have ever known--or volunteering at a museum or other projects--she enjoyed helping.)
- Our trip to Scotland. (When my brothers and I took my mom, then elderly, to Scotland, it was fun and very memorable.)
- The moments and stories. (Everyone has moments and family stories about their parents, grandparents, or others. For my Mom, there were many, including in her last 10 years when her health conditions were like a rollercoaster. It's nice to know that, within the long course of a lifetime, the good and special moments stand out so clearly and joyfully.)
Thanks, Mom! I love you!
Sotomayor and history...
When Sonia Sotomayor officially became the first Hispanic woman on the U.S. Supreme Court this week, it was a great historical moment for America.
Sotomayor is the 111th Supreme Court justice. She is the third woman appointed to the court, following Sandra Day O'Connor (1981) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993). There have been only two black justices: Thurgood Marshall (1967) and Clarence Thomas (1991).
I am amazed that the majority of Republican senators chose to vote against Sotomayor's confirmation. Wouldn't you think that they would look at the moment historically and want to be a supportive part of it? Wouldn't you think that they would want to tell their grandchildren and thus allow their grandchildren to tell even their grandchildren that their grandparent and ancestor voted for the first Hispanic woman to the U.S. Supreme Court? Instead, they let the moment of history escaped them. They were truly foolish and short-sighted.
It seems to me that the Republicans have put Obama in a great position for his next Supreme Court nominee. If I were him, I would nominate the most liberal and progressive Hispanic male judge I could find. The Republicans, of course, would go into convultions, but so what? What ultimately would they do?...Vote again against another Hispanic nominee? What would the Hispanic population, the largest growing minority group in America, think about that?
As it is, the pup tent of the Republican Party continues to shrink. Can a political party sustain itself with the composition mainly of grumpy, old, rich, white men, like Rush Limbaugh? Eventually, I would think it has to either find an honest respect for diversity or pull up the stakes.
Sotomayor is the 111th Supreme Court justice. She is the third woman appointed to the court, following Sandra Day O'Connor (1981) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993). There have been only two black justices: Thurgood Marshall (1967) and Clarence Thomas (1991).
I am amazed that the majority of Republican senators chose to vote against Sotomayor's confirmation. Wouldn't you think that they would look at the moment historically and want to be a supportive part of it? Wouldn't you think that they would want to tell their grandchildren and thus allow their grandchildren to tell even their grandchildren that their grandparent and ancestor voted for the first Hispanic woman to the U.S. Supreme Court? Instead, they let the moment of history escaped them. They were truly foolish and short-sighted.
It seems to me that the Republicans have put Obama in a great position for his next Supreme Court nominee. If I were him, I would nominate the most liberal and progressive Hispanic male judge I could find. The Republicans, of course, would go into convultions, but so what? What ultimately would they do?...Vote again against another Hispanic nominee? What would the Hispanic population, the largest growing minority group in America, think about that?
As it is, the pup tent of the Republican Party continues to shrink. Can a political party sustain itself with the composition mainly of grumpy, old, rich, white men, like Rush Limbaugh? Eventually, I would think it has to either find an honest respect for diversity or pull up the stakes.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Information Station about health...
Here are some quick facts that I noted from books, TV news, or the Internet:.
- Every day, 14,000 people lose their health insurance in the United States.
- Eight million children in America, along with 12.5 million women of reproductive age, have no health insurance.
- Before Medicare, 40 percent of senior citizens didn't have health insurance coverage. (Medicare and Social Security are socialized programs and benefit a lot of Americans. Another socialized program, by the way, is the U.S. military which benefits a lot of soldiers, veterans, and their families.)
- Each year, 40,000 people die of breast cancer. It is the highest cause of cancer deaths for women.
- One in nine Americans are using food stamps. (July 2009)
- Eighteen percent of U.S. children under 18 years of age live in poverty.
- The United States ranks 29th out of the 30 industrial nations for infant mortality.
- The United States ranks 24th out of 30 industrial nations for life expectancy.
So, why are those ignorant people at the health care reform town meetings screaming about leaving U.S. health care to the free markets, which actually means leaving it to the "costly" determination of the private insurance companies?
Book review...
BOOK: "Nothing to Fear, FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days That Created Modern America" by Adam Cohen, 2009.
As we all know, America can be divided historically into two time periods. One time period is "Before FDR" and one time period, the more fortunate era for us all, is "After FDR." Of course, after FDR and his huge jobs creation effort, America then had safety nets and prudent economic security measures for many Americans, including Social Security, FDIC, and others.
But before FDR, when the Great Depression almost collapsed the nation, with one-fourth of American workers without jobs, bank failures, farm foreclosures, soup lines and "Hoovervilles" involving needy and homeless people, the times were grim for Americans.
To get a sense of it, here is an excerpt from the "Nothing to Fear" book:
Edmund Wilson, the well-known writer, toured Chicago in 1932 and found a "sea of misery." On one stop, he saw an old Polish immigrant "dying of a tumor, with no heat in the house, on a cold day." In the city's flophouses, Wilson encountered "a great deal of tuberculosis" and "spinal meningitis." Worst of all were the garbage dumps, "diligently haunted by the hungry." In the summer heat, when "the flies were thick," a hundred people descended on one dump, "falling on the refuse as soon as the truck had pulled out and digging in it with sticks and hands." Even spoiled meat was claimed, since the desperate foragers could "cut out the worst parts" or "scald it and sprinkle it with soda to neutralize the taste and smell." A widowed housekeeper who was unable to find work showed up with her 14-year-old son. "Before she picked up the meat," Wilson wrote, "she would always take off her glasses so that she would not be able to see the maggots."
As we all know, America can be divided historically into two time periods. One time period is "Before FDR" and one time period, the more fortunate era for us all, is "After FDR." Of course, after FDR and his huge jobs creation effort, America then had safety nets and prudent economic security measures for many Americans, including Social Security, FDIC, and others.
But before FDR, when the Great Depression almost collapsed the nation, with one-fourth of American workers without jobs, bank failures, farm foreclosures, soup lines and "Hoovervilles" involving needy and homeless people, the times were grim for Americans.
To get a sense of it, here is an excerpt from the "Nothing to Fear" book:
Edmund Wilson, the well-known writer, toured Chicago in 1932 and found a "sea of misery." On one stop, he saw an old Polish immigrant "dying of a tumor, with no heat in the house, on a cold day." In the city's flophouses, Wilson encountered "a great deal of tuberculosis" and "spinal meningitis." Worst of all were the garbage dumps, "diligently haunted by the hungry." In the summer heat, when "the flies were thick," a hundred people descended on one dump, "falling on the refuse as soon as the truck had pulled out and digging in it with sticks and hands." Even spoiled meat was claimed, since the desperate foragers could "cut out the worst parts" or "scald it and sprinkle it with soda to neutralize the taste and smell." A widowed housekeeper who was unable to find work showed up with her 14-year-old son. "Before she picked up the meat," Wilson wrote, "she would always take off her glasses so that she would not be able to see the maggots."
Book review...
BOOK: "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi, 2003.
In light of the recent protests in Iran, which have gone from the issue of the election to the greater issue of freedom, rights, and treatment of people, one interesting book is "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi (2003). The author, who eventually flees to America, was an English professor in Iran who finally quit her job, unwilling to accept the ongoing restrictions on education and social life that was imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini (the first Iranian ayatollah leader) and the Islamic republic's theocratic rule.
Then, as a very dangerous act at the time, she began conducting secret book-club reading sessions for some of her women students in her home. The women read "subversive" books by Jane Austen and F. Scott Fitzgerald. And another book was "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov.
Now, I have long followed the arguments by American professors of English about the value and quality of the book "Lolita." In some classes, I have shown the opening scene from the two movie versions of "Lolita," in order to contrast how movies have become more provocative. As you can imagine, the presentation of sexuality in the 1990s version is more explicit than the 1950s version, though the first one was the more controversial because of the times. I also wondered what we, as readers or watchers, were supposed to learn because the story is quite awful, a story about a middle-aged pedophile who obsesses over and eventually rapes a 12-year-old girl. To this day, it is controversial book in America, let alone in Iran and the other dictatorships of the Middle East.
So, I was intrigued that author Nafisi put "Lolita" in the title of her book. Nafisi wrote, "Teaching in the Islamic Republic, like any other vocation, was subservient to politics and subject to arbitrary rules. Always, the joy of teaching was marred by diversions and considerations forced on us by the regime--how well could one teach when the main concern of university officials was not the quality of one's work but the color of one's lips, the subversive potential of a single strand of hair? Could one really concentrate on one's job when what preoccupied the faculty was how to excise the word 'wine' from a Hemingway story, when they decided not to teach Bronte because she appeared to condone adultery?"
In the novel "Lolita," the pedophile Humbert obsesses over the girl. In Iran, the regime with its clergy as leaders obsesses over Iranian women. The women can't show hair strands because that tempts men. The women can't wear lipstick because that tempts men. On and on and on, women can't because of what it will do to them, the men. Obsession.
In the novel, the pedophile Humbert also rapes Lolita. Does the Iranian Islamic government "rape" figuratively (or, in some cases, literally, because of the male-dominated dogma and discriminatory laws) the women of Iran by denying them freedom and equality? That's a dangerous comparison for an Iranian author to make, but I think it is accurate as we see the restrictive and brutal actions of the Iranian government and its Baiji thugs.
Nafisi confuses me a little when she says in the book that Humbert and Lolita aren't meant to represent a country or regime or society or women, but then, in more recent TV interviews, she says that's exactly what they represent. I think the latter is correct, probably because the former was stated within the book at a publication time when any author might wonder if such statements could lead to bounty retribution, as was the case for novelist Salmon Rushdie.
Obsession seems most likely part of the rule of law there, as the Iranian regime wants to turn its people into figaments of its highest religious leader's own narrow imagination. Said one of the women students in Nafisi's reading club, "Everything is offensive to them. It's either politically or sexually incorrect." Said another student, "There must be some blasted space in life where we can be offensive." Thus, readers can learn from "Lolita" that obsession and rape is not just practiced by pedophiles. Totalitarian and theocratic regimes are masters of it, too.
Nafisi also noted Nabokov's book "Invitation to a Beheading," which is written from "the point of view of the victim, one who ultimately sees the absurd sham of his persecutors and who must retreat into himself in order to survive."
Nafisi wrote, "Those of us living in the Islamic Republic of Iran grasped both the tragedy and absurdity of the cruelty to which we were subjected...What Nabokov captured was the texture of life in a totalitarian society, where you are completely alone in an illusory world full of false promises, where you can no longer differentiate between your savior and your executioner."
In light of the recent protests in Iran, which have gone from the issue of the election to the greater issue of freedom, rights, and treatment of people, one interesting book is "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi (2003). The author, who eventually flees to America, was an English professor in Iran who finally quit her job, unwilling to accept the ongoing restrictions on education and social life that was imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini (the first Iranian ayatollah leader) and the Islamic republic's theocratic rule.
Then, as a very dangerous act at the time, she began conducting secret book-club reading sessions for some of her women students in her home. The women read "subversive" books by Jane Austen and F. Scott Fitzgerald. And another book was "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov.
Now, I have long followed the arguments by American professors of English about the value and quality of the book "Lolita." In some classes, I have shown the opening scene from the two movie versions of "Lolita," in order to contrast how movies have become more provocative. As you can imagine, the presentation of sexuality in the 1990s version is more explicit than the 1950s version, though the first one was the more controversial because of the times. I also wondered what we, as readers or watchers, were supposed to learn because the story is quite awful, a story about a middle-aged pedophile who obsesses over and eventually rapes a 12-year-old girl. To this day, it is controversial book in America, let alone in Iran and the other dictatorships of the Middle East.
So, I was intrigued that author Nafisi put "Lolita" in the title of her book. Nafisi wrote, "Teaching in the Islamic Republic, like any other vocation, was subservient to politics and subject to arbitrary rules. Always, the joy of teaching was marred by diversions and considerations forced on us by the regime--how well could one teach when the main concern of university officials was not the quality of one's work but the color of one's lips, the subversive potential of a single strand of hair? Could one really concentrate on one's job when what preoccupied the faculty was how to excise the word 'wine' from a Hemingway story, when they decided not to teach Bronte because she appeared to condone adultery?"
In the novel "Lolita," the pedophile Humbert obsesses over the girl. In Iran, the regime with its clergy as leaders obsesses over Iranian women. The women can't show hair strands because that tempts men. The women can't wear lipstick because that tempts men. On and on and on, women can't because of what it will do to them, the men. Obsession.
In the novel, the pedophile Humbert also rapes Lolita. Does the Iranian Islamic government "rape" figuratively (or, in some cases, literally, because of the male-dominated dogma and discriminatory laws) the women of Iran by denying them freedom and equality? That's a dangerous comparison for an Iranian author to make, but I think it is accurate as we see the restrictive and brutal actions of the Iranian government and its Baiji thugs.
Nafisi confuses me a little when she says in the book that Humbert and Lolita aren't meant to represent a country or regime or society or women, but then, in more recent TV interviews, she says that's exactly what they represent. I think the latter is correct, probably because the former was stated within the book at a publication time when any author might wonder if such statements could lead to bounty retribution, as was the case for novelist Salmon Rushdie.
Obsession seems most likely part of the rule of law there, as the Iranian regime wants to turn its people into figaments of its highest religious leader's own narrow imagination. Said one of the women students in Nafisi's reading club, "Everything is offensive to them. It's either politically or sexually incorrect." Said another student, "There must be some blasted space in life where we can be offensive." Thus, readers can learn from "Lolita" that obsession and rape is not just practiced by pedophiles. Totalitarian and theocratic regimes are masters of it, too.
Nafisi also noted Nabokov's book "Invitation to a Beheading," which is written from "the point of view of the victim, one who ultimately sees the absurd sham of his persecutors and who must retreat into himself in order to survive."
Nafisi wrote, "Those of us living in the Islamic Republic of Iran grasped both the tragedy and absurdity of the cruelty to which we were subjected...What Nabokov captured was the texture of life in a totalitarian society, where you are completely alone in an illusory world full of false promises, where you can no longer differentiate between your savior and your executioner."
Dealing with hunger...
I was so disgusted about comments made by a Missouri state representative named Cynthia Davis in July concerning the free school lunch program. Yes, she's a Republican, of course, and from her Republican DNA, she had real problems with the idea that hungry children in Missouri would get free lunches. She made startling stupid comments about "hunger being a great motivator" and implied that children should instead get jobs at McDonald's.
The free school lunch program is probably the best national and worldwide effort to reduce hunger and advance education. It provides hungry children with at least one good meal per day, which helps them concentrate and learn better in school. It encourages parents to keep their children in school. The longer a child stays in school, the less likely that child will end up having children at an early age and continuing the cycle of poverty. And children who stay in school and get an education are more likely to move out of poverty, becoming more productive citizens.
Davis should have expanded her brain cells with a little research. She should have responded as U.S. Senator George McGovern responded, when he wrote about hunger in his book "The Third Freedom" and a scene he particularly remembered.
McGovern wrote: The scene that especially moved me was filmed in a school that required all the students to go to the cafeteria at lunchtime, including those unable to eat because they didn't have the money to pay for lunch. The federal school lunch program had been operating since 1946, but as recently as 1968, it did not provide lunches to the poorest children, who could not pay the modest cost. The cameraman focused on a little boy of 9 or 10 who was standing at the rear of the cafeteria watching the other children eat. "What do you think standing here while your classmates are eating?" asked the TV reporter. Lowering his head and looking at the floor, the boy replied softly, "I'm ashamed." "Why are you ashamed?" the reporter asked. "Because," the boy said, "I ain't got no money." That night, sitting in my comfortable home in northwest Washington with my wife and children nearby, I, too, was ashamed. I was ashamed because I hadn't known more about hunger in my own land. I was ashamed that a federal program I was supposed to know all about permitted youngsters to go hungry even as they watched paying classmates eat before their eyes. It was not the little boy who should feel ashamed, I thought. It was I, a U.S. senator living in comfort, who should feel ashamed that there are hungry people--young and old--in my own beloved country.
Now, the difference between Davis' view (that the hunger of children is the responsibility of themselves or their parents) and McGovern's view (that hunger is a problem that needs the wider action of society, including those who are well-fed) is the fundamental difference between the political ideologies and the range of public servants within our system. To me, "public servant" should mean "servant" to the public, serving the public. And I would say that Davis, with her flippant and uninformed remarks, failed and shamed the role of "servant-to-the-people."
The free school lunch program is probably the best national and worldwide effort to reduce hunger and advance education. It provides hungry children with at least one good meal per day, which helps them concentrate and learn better in school. It encourages parents to keep their children in school. The longer a child stays in school, the less likely that child will end up having children at an early age and continuing the cycle of poverty. And children who stay in school and get an education are more likely to move out of poverty, becoming more productive citizens.
Davis should have expanded her brain cells with a little research. She should have responded as U.S. Senator George McGovern responded, when he wrote about hunger in his book "The Third Freedom" and a scene he particularly remembered.
McGovern wrote: The scene that especially moved me was filmed in a school that required all the students to go to the cafeteria at lunchtime, including those unable to eat because they didn't have the money to pay for lunch. The federal school lunch program had been operating since 1946, but as recently as 1968, it did not provide lunches to the poorest children, who could not pay the modest cost. The cameraman focused on a little boy of 9 or 10 who was standing at the rear of the cafeteria watching the other children eat. "What do you think standing here while your classmates are eating?" asked the TV reporter. Lowering his head and looking at the floor, the boy replied softly, "I'm ashamed." "Why are you ashamed?" the reporter asked. "Because," the boy said, "I ain't got no money." That night, sitting in my comfortable home in northwest Washington with my wife and children nearby, I, too, was ashamed. I was ashamed because I hadn't known more about hunger in my own land. I was ashamed that a federal program I was supposed to know all about permitted youngsters to go hungry even as they watched paying classmates eat before their eyes. It was not the little boy who should feel ashamed, I thought. It was I, a U.S. senator living in comfort, who should feel ashamed that there are hungry people--young and old--in my own beloved country.
Now, the difference between Davis' view (that the hunger of children is the responsibility of themselves or their parents) and McGovern's view (that hunger is a problem that needs the wider action of society, including those who are well-fed) is the fundamental difference between the political ideologies and the range of public servants within our system. To me, "public servant" should mean "servant" to the public, serving the public. And I would say that Davis, with her flippant and uninformed remarks, failed and shamed the role of "servant-to-the-people."
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Preparing for Twitter...
A friend e-mailed me about my new venture into blogging, noting that my next step then should be Twitter. He "tweets" and apparently leads and follows. Sounds like he's dancing and probably, figuratively, he is--with words and messages. Anyway, I went to his Twitter website page with full intentions of tweeting at him, or at least chirping, but I got scared. I felt like a Baptist in a tattoo parlor. I didn't know what to do! Can I use Twitter with just a computer? Or do I have to have a cell phone or one of those Strawberries? I only have a land-line phone. Yes, that phone is so old that now it is accepted by the Amish. I will probably be the last person on earth to have a cell phone...and, frankly, that's O.K. with me.
I watch college students trying to peck out messages, spelling like pirates, on itsy-bitsy keyboard buttons on those annoying hand-held devices. My fingers are too big for those buttons. Of course, the students can only play with their toys before or after class or otherwise my mood changes from pleasant to...well, let's just say it changes. But I still would like to follow the news and activities of friends, including with the use of Twitter, as long as I can do it with just a computer, and even if it means I may risk the cancellation of my Luddite lifetime membership. I was on line (not online) to being inducted into the Luddite Hall of Fame. But my blog and surely a journey into Twitter would change that status. My friend said that once I get used to Twitter, I will like it. He said it is a great "news service," faster than the New York Times online, if you can cut through the clutter. So, I am getting up my nerve for Twitter, though I still don't know the actual process.
Twitter requires short messages. Very short. A sentence or phrases and weird, awful Internet-type "spelng." So, in the meantime, I will practice writing in single sentences--that alone will be a challenge for me. Here are some "practice" messages:
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream.
Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern.
The new gnu knew new Nu news.
I wanted to explain to you the Theory of Relativity, but, sorry, I ran out of space. Check out the definition in the next 1,000 tweets.
Here are some short quotes I have thrown at college students:
There's a "sour" in Missouri, but make sure it's not you.
What nation should you never want to live in? DiscrimiNATION.
Some people go to the bar. I try to raise it.
How about a real short message? Like this one...
I C U R A Tweeter. I M 2. (Translation: I see you are a Tweeter. I am, too.)
O.K., do you all think I am ready for Twitter?
I watch college students trying to peck out messages, spelling like pirates, on itsy-bitsy keyboard buttons on those annoying hand-held devices. My fingers are too big for those buttons. Of course, the students can only play with their toys before or after class or otherwise my mood changes from pleasant to...well, let's just say it changes. But I still would like to follow the news and activities of friends, including with the use of Twitter, as long as I can do it with just a computer, and even if it means I may risk the cancellation of my Luddite lifetime membership. I was on line (not online) to being inducted into the Luddite Hall of Fame. But my blog and surely a journey into Twitter would change that status. My friend said that once I get used to Twitter, I will like it. He said it is a great "news service," faster than the New York Times online, if you can cut through the clutter. So, I am getting up my nerve for Twitter, though I still don't know the actual process.
Twitter requires short messages. Very short. A sentence or phrases and weird, awful Internet-type "spelng." So, in the meantime, I will practice writing in single sentences--that alone will be a challenge for me. Here are some "practice" messages:
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream.
Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern.
The new gnu knew new Nu news.
I wanted to explain to you the Theory of Relativity, but, sorry, I ran out of space. Check out the definition in the next 1,000 tweets.
Here are some short quotes I have thrown at college students:
There's a "sour" in Missouri, but make sure it's not you.
What nation should you never want to live in? DiscrimiNATION.
Some people go to the bar. I try to raise it.
How about a real short message? Like this one...
I C U R A Tweeter. I M 2. (Translation: I see you are a Tweeter. I am, too.)
O.K., do you all think I am ready for Twitter?
Friday, July 31, 2009
News at 10...
This just in...
A surprising new statistic from the Drudge Report: More pit bulls are wearing lipstick than are hockey moms.
Fox News reports that President Obama's fake birth certificate claims his race is "Neapolitan." Sherbert lovers everywhere are demanding an investigation.
By a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the Second Amendment does extend to people buying hand grenades at Bible Belt bomb shows.
Appeals Court rules that the Smuckers kid doesn't have to work for the family jam business. U.S. Supreme Court expected to reverse ruling by 5-4.
CBS Evening News with Katie Couric will lead tonight's news with a story about Michael Jackson's children seen eating cookies.
Fox News reports conspiracy birther gives birth to conspiracy. The insurance industry is willing to cover medical costs.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Blue-Dog Democrats will not support a public option until health care reform covers neutering.
Nutty Republican members of Congress sponsor legislation to provide elderly people with guns so they can defend themselves when the government tries to kill them.
Tonight on Fox, Bill O'Reilly reports that a woman received compensation for her husband through the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
Tonight on CNN, Anderson Cooper, in T-shirt and jeans, travels to a small Wyoming town where a bartender threw a yelling cowboy out of the bar. Both are seeking a "Whiskey Summit" at the White House.
On Larry King Live, Larry interviews a teacher who requires students to read a book. The teacher calls it a "Teachable Moment."
MSNBC devotes this entire Saturday to coverage of life in a Brazilian prison.
Thousands of "Rays" and "Jays" were mistakenly discharged from the military. The Pentagon regrets the error and says "gays" were the actual target.
Tonight on Fox, Sean Hannity literally foams at the mouth.
Besides texting and using cell phones, other activities that shouldn't be done while driving a car include: Eating barbecued ribs, yoga, praying with your eyes closed, reading a newspaper, shampooing your hair, changing diapers, playing a guitar, and most sexual activities.
A surprising new statistic from the Drudge Report: More pit bulls are wearing lipstick than are hockey moms.
Fox News reports that President Obama's fake birth certificate claims his race is "Neapolitan." Sherbert lovers everywhere are demanding an investigation.
By a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the Second Amendment does extend to people buying hand grenades at Bible Belt bomb shows.
Appeals Court rules that the Smuckers kid doesn't have to work for the family jam business. U.S. Supreme Court expected to reverse ruling by 5-4.
CBS Evening News with Katie Couric will lead tonight's news with a story about Michael Jackson's children seen eating cookies.
Fox News reports conspiracy birther gives birth to conspiracy. The insurance industry is willing to cover medical costs.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Blue-Dog Democrats will not support a public option until health care reform covers neutering.
Nutty Republican members of Congress sponsor legislation to provide elderly people with guns so they can defend themselves when the government tries to kill them.
Tonight on Fox, Bill O'Reilly reports that a woman received compensation for her husband through the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
Tonight on CNN, Anderson Cooper, in T-shirt and jeans, travels to a small Wyoming town where a bartender threw a yelling cowboy out of the bar. Both are seeking a "Whiskey Summit" at the White House.
On Larry King Live, Larry interviews a teacher who requires students to read a book. The teacher calls it a "Teachable Moment."
MSNBC devotes this entire Saturday to coverage of life in a Brazilian prison.
Thousands of "Rays" and "Jays" were mistakenly discharged from the military. The Pentagon regrets the error and says "gays" were the actual target.
Tonight on Fox, Sean Hannity literally foams at the mouth.
Besides texting and using cell phones, other activities that shouldn't be done while driving a car include: Eating barbecued ribs, yoga, praying with your eyes closed, reading a newspaper, shampooing your hair, changing diapers, playing a guitar, and most sexual activities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
