There have been many names for it, depending on location or the era that you grew up in. Where I come from in beloved New Jersey, it would be referred to as a "scam". In Presidential political campaigns, it would be called a "flip-flop", albeit one that Guinness would be notating in their record book. If this were anything other than politics, it would be called something along the lines of "shameful", "brazen", or "outrageous".
Here's what it should be called - CRIMINAL.
The turncoat-turned-returnee NY State Senator Pedro Espada has announced that he will be rejoining the Democratic ranks in Albany in order to break the ongoing, embarrassing, stultifying deadlock in the Senate. Hell, Pedro The Weasel even tried to sound magnanimous about it in his press conference yesterday. And, for the record, exactly who holds a press conference to celebrate their return to the party they bolted from in a sheer, transparent attempt to obtain something for themselves one month ago? As oft-stated in this space, there is no shame anymore, just none. Whether it is tone-deaf, non-talented, exposure-starved humans appearing on reality TV shows (yes, this means the terrible "American Idol"), or politicians grandstanding that they have personally saved the day for the huddled masses yearning to be led, by returning to where they were elected to be in the first place, hubris is in apparent abundance all around us.
Forget Espada's previous fines for issues with campaign funding and residency requirements. Small potatoes compared to screwing your entire state for 30 days by jumping to the Elephant Team for a promised leadership position, while then negotiating an eventual return to the Donkeys for an improved spot. In essence my fellow New Yorkers, the business of the state was held hostage for 30 days by someone jumping back and forth in an attempt to climb as high as possible on two parallel ladders leading upward. All in the name of serving us, he says...you may now guffaw violently and loudly.
For God's sake, throw the bum out.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
On Politics 7/8/09: One Step Up, Two Steps Back
As Albany turns...
Today, we have Governor Paterson announcing the proposed appointment of Richard Ravich to fill the vacant post of Lieutenant Governor, which has been vacant since his "ascension" into his current position after the downfall of Eliot Spitzer. Given his often lackluster and remedial performance since assuming the role, it's hard to term anything related to Mr. Paterson as an "ascension". However, in this circumstance, Paterson appears to be willing to try something in order to break the logjam afflicting our state and its business.
One might think that there would be praise and relief espoused from both sides of the aisle for this attempt at correcting the ongoing malaise brought on by inane partisan bickering and duplicitous political behavior. Unsurprisingly, you might be wrong.
After predominately supportive pronouncements from Democrats, Republicans weighed in with one overriding promise; they're going to filer a lawsuit. Ah yes, that's a plan to surely resolve this crisis - get the lawyers involved! That should only exacerbate and elongate the successful resolution of this nonsense. By the time all the initial lawsuits and counter-suits are processed, perhaps New York City will have actually seceded from the state.
If that doesn't scare you, how about this frightening addendum: Attorney General Cuomo has declared that he does not believe it is within the Governor's powers to appoint a replacement for Lt. Governor. Now, silly me, I think this may have more to do with Cuomo enjoying the possible future political benefit of this morass continuing, since he will be sure to remind us all how he had nothing to do with it if he runs for Governor, as has been wildly suspected, in 2010.
It's just another point of proof that everyone goes negative these days. I'd much rather vote for Cuomo if he did something to help rectify the calamity, rather than listen to him point out the negative again and again, bookending it with "it wasn't my fault". Saying you weren't responsible, but adding to the misery by exploiting it for your personal political gain at the expense of the voters, should earn you a little Schadenfrude from the rest of us if you do poorly in the election.
Today, we have Governor Paterson announcing the proposed appointment of Richard Ravich to fill the vacant post of Lieutenant Governor, which has been vacant since his "ascension" into his current position after the downfall of Eliot Spitzer. Given his often lackluster and remedial performance since assuming the role, it's hard to term anything related to Mr. Paterson as an "ascension". However, in this circumstance, Paterson appears to be willing to try something in order to break the logjam afflicting our state and its business.
One might think that there would be praise and relief espoused from both sides of the aisle for this attempt at correcting the ongoing malaise brought on by inane partisan bickering and duplicitous political behavior. Unsurprisingly, you might be wrong.
After predominately supportive pronouncements from Democrats, Republicans weighed in with one overriding promise; they're going to filer a lawsuit. Ah yes, that's a plan to surely resolve this crisis - get the lawyers involved! That should only exacerbate and elongate the successful resolution of this nonsense. By the time all the initial lawsuits and counter-suits are processed, perhaps New York City will have actually seceded from the state.
If that doesn't scare you, how about this frightening addendum: Attorney General Cuomo has declared that he does not believe it is within the Governor's powers to appoint a replacement for Lt. Governor. Now, silly me, I think this may have more to do with Cuomo enjoying the possible future political benefit of this morass continuing, since he will be sure to remind us all how he had nothing to do with it if he runs for Governor, as has been wildly suspected, in 2010.
It's just another point of proof that everyone goes negative these days. I'd much rather vote for Cuomo if he did something to help rectify the calamity, rather than listen to him point out the negative again and again, bookending it with "it wasn't my fault". Saying you weren't responsible, but adding to the misery by exploiting it for your personal political gain at the expense of the voters, should earn you a little Schadenfrude from the rest of us if you do poorly in the election.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
On Politics 7/4/09: Random Thoughts, Vol. XII
Time for another round of unloading colliding neurons in my skull, shaking them out like water in your ear after swimming. For today's disbursement, we're aided only by a glass of pulp-free orange juice (no one else in the family likes pulp; how can it really be orange juice without the pulp???), as we're saving room for the annual Fourth of July feast at the magnificent Deede estate in Stormville. So sit down, get comfortable, and away we go...
- Sarah Palin has announced she is "leaving" her post as the Governor of Alaska, prior to the end of her first term. "Prior" in this case is about 16 months in advance of her term ending. I believe the more accurate verbiage for this act is "quitting", which, obviously, is what she is actually doing. They never seem to use that word in the press releases though; must be the negative connotation. Somehow, her press conference on the lakeshore, with ducks flying in and landing behind her, going about their business regardless of what else was going on, seemed quite apropos of the Governor. In her remarks, she stated that she was doing what she thought best for the citizens of Alaska. I'm not sure if someone there laughed out loud, but I sure did when I heard that. Like nearly every other person in that professions, what's best for themselves is what is always done. If she had wanted to do what would have been best for Alaska, she would have never entered into political office, of any kind. It's very, very difficult to understand her attractiveness to people: a terrible public speaker, no accomplishments to buttress a wafer-thin resume, and, in the realm of boiling it down to life's purest, simplest things; she's just not that pretty.
- Final advice to Governor Sanford: Stop talking; immediately. Listening to him is like the scene in "Jaws" when Quint drag his nails across the blackboard in the town meeting - painful on the ears. If I were Jenny Sanford, every night before he came to bed I'd leave a steak knife on her night table, to ensure he understands that forgiveness only goes so far. When you're in a Bobbitt-defending position, it's hard to sleep well.
- In case you were actually still wondering, the bozos in Albany continue to get none of our business done. I think I've exhausted my limited vocabulary in trying to comment on this, but anyone who votes for any of these people to return deserves what they get, and should be punished to viewing a endless loop of the past few weeks of the empty Senate chambers. Thank God the controller is trying to withhold the pay of these abominations. I personally think that they should be forced to return any pay they've received since the start of the year. An objective analysis would surely show that they haven't earned it.
- Books you should be reading now: "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell; "American Lion" by Jon Meacham; "As They See 'Em" by Bruce Weber; "Tears In The Darkness: The Story Of The Bataan Death March And Its' Aftermath" by Michael & Elizabeth Norman.
- Enjoyed another fine family-friendly evening at the Hudson Valley Renegades last night. Having shared season-tickets since the team's inception (and let's not forget the overt negativism of people like Woody Klose when negotiations were underway to bring a team here, we've enjoyed it as a low-cost (relatively speaking) entertainment option, first for ourselves, and now for our children. Get out there when you can.
- Watched the latest Independence Day tradition today, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest in Coney Island. The winner, American Joey Chestnut, ate 68 hot dogs in 10 minutes. 68! I'm not sure what was more painful, the look on my kids' face seeing it, or the expression on Mr. Chestnut as he inhaled (and that's the only word for it) the dogs, buns included. Even more interesting, are the records listed for the various contestants (including two women), including blueberry pie, vienna sausages, jellied cranberry sauce, etc. I think the only item I'd ever have a competitive eating opportunity chance at would be beloved Oreos.
- Finally, a salute on this day honoring our freedom to all who have served, from the Revolution forward to now. Whether it be peacetime or during a period of conflict, those that donned the uniform did what so many of us, myself included, never had to do - act on our collective behalf to safeguard those things first defiantly stated some 233 years ago: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thank you.
- Sarah Palin has announced she is "leaving" her post as the Governor of Alaska, prior to the end of her first term. "Prior" in this case is about 16 months in advance of her term ending. I believe the more accurate verbiage for this act is "quitting", which, obviously, is what she is actually doing. They never seem to use that word in the press releases though; must be the negative connotation. Somehow, her press conference on the lakeshore, with ducks flying in and landing behind her, going about their business regardless of what else was going on, seemed quite apropos of the Governor. In her remarks, she stated that she was doing what she thought best for the citizens of Alaska. I'm not sure if someone there laughed out loud, but I sure did when I heard that. Like nearly every other person in that professions, what's best for themselves is what is always done. If she had wanted to do what would have been best for Alaska, she would have never entered into political office, of any kind. It's very, very difficult to understand her attractiveness to people: a terrible public speaker, no accomplishments to buttress a wafer-thin resume, and, in the realm of boiling it down to life's purest, simplest things; she's just not that pretty.
- Final advice to Governor Sanford: Stop talking; immediately. Listening to him is like the scene in "Jaws" when Quint drag his nails across the blackboard in the town meeting - painful on the ears. If I were Jenny Sanford, every night before he came to bed I'd leave a steak knife on her night table, to ensure he understands that forgiveness only goes so far. When you're in a Bobbitt-defending position, it's hard to sleep well.
- In case you were actually still wondering, the bozos in Albany continue to get none of our business done. I think I've exhausted my limited vocabulary in trying to comment on this, but anyone who votes for any of these people to return deserves what they get, and should be punished to viewing a endless loop of the past few weeks of the empty Senate chambers. Thank God the controller is trying to withhold the pay of these abominations. I personally think that they should be forced to return any pay they've received since the start of the year. An objective analysis would surely show that they haven't earned it.
- Books you should be reading now: "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell; "American Lion" by Jon Meacham; "As They See 'Em" by Bruce Weber; "Tears In The Darkness: The Story Of The Bataan Death March And Its' Aftermath" by Michael & Elizabeth Norman.
- Enjoyed another fine family-friendly evening at the Hudson Valley Renegades last night. Having shared season-tickets since the team's inception (and let's not forget the overt negativism of people like Woody Klose when negotiations were underway to bring a team here, we've enjoyed it as a low-cost (relatively speaking) entertainment option, first for ourselves, and now for our children. Get out there when you can.
- Watched the latest Independence Day tradition today, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest in Coney Island. The winner, American Joey Chestnut, ate 68 hot dogs in 10 minutes. 68! I'm not sure what was more painful, the look on my kids' face seeing it, or the expression on Mr. Chestnut as he inhaled (and that's the only word for it) the dogs, buns included. Even more interesting, are the records listed for the various contestants (including two women), including blueberry pie, vienna sausages, jellied cranberry sauce, etc. I think the only item I'd ever have a competitive eating opportunity chance at would be beloved Oreos.
- Finally, a salute on this day honoring our freedom to all who have served, from the Revolution forward to now. Whether it be peacetime or during a period of conflict, those that donned the uniform did what so many of us, myself included, never had to do - act on our collective behalf to safeguard those things first defiantly stated some 233 years ago: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thank you.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
On Politics 7/2/09: One Person, One Voice; Regardless Of Occupation
So, it has come to pass that the U.S. Senate will welcome Mr. Al Franken as its' newest member, representing the frozen north otherwise known as Minnesota. Some look upon this event with undue consternation, perhaps forgetting that this is the same political constituency that gave us the immortal Jesse "The Body" Ventura as their Governor (Jesse was a much better performer in Mike Capozzoli's favorite movie, "Predator", than in his political career. Who the heck would have ever thought THAT movie would feature two future Governors in Jesse and Arnold? Think of that the next time you watch the alien wipe out Carl Weathers and the boys).
As I ponder this latest entertainer to make the transition to politician, I think of the common complaint that people normally make regarding celebrities - they do not want to hear from them on matter of politics. I always find this somewhat curious, since the entertainers are citizens as well. Laura Ingraham, the oft-fiery conservative political commentator, wrote a book in the past few years directing these people to "shut up and sing". I'm not sure about this, but I'll wager that Ms. Ingraham isn't sharing any of her royalties with these folks whose predilection to speak out made her richer than she already was.
Exactly what is the problem with people exercising their democratic right to speak out on a subject? Who hasn't sat next to the annoying person at a bar or social event who wants to chew your ear off about the latest theoretical political issue, be it local, national, or state? Isn't the real problem with our Democracy that, here in the land of 40-45% voting in Presidential elections, that we DON'T have enough people involved in our political process? Don't people understand that the only way some of the antics of our elected representatives are tolerated (such as the ongoing buffoonery in Albany) is directly because people do not speak up or scream out? Oh, by the way, here's my perpetual advice for those of you annoyed at artists or entertainers speaking their mind: Turn the channel, shut off the radio, don't by tickets to the concerts, put the paper down. I think you can figure it out people.
Here's a more annoying example of mass communication for me: On a daily basis, I receive many unsolicited e-mails from people, with their opinion of the latest crime of either the right or left, stories slanted to annoy or inflame a particular set of recipients. I'd much rather see a decrease of these than worrying about what some actor or singer had to say on a topic.
Here in America, everyone gets to have their opinion, like it or not. If you do not want to hear some entertainer's' views on things, keep that in mind the next time you're boring someone with yours'.
As I ponder this latest entertainer to make the transition to politician, I think of the common complaint that people normally make regarding celebrities - they do not want to hear from them on matter of politics. I always find this somewhat curious, since the entertainers are citizens as well. Laura Ingraham, the oft-fiery conservative political commentator, wrote a book in the past few years directing these people to "shut up and sing". I'm not sure about this, but I'll wager that Ms. Ingraham isn't sharing any of her royalties with these folks whose predilection to speak out made her richer than she already was.
Exactly what is the problem with people exercising their democratic right to speak out on a subject? Who hasn't sat next to the annoying person at a bar or social event who wants to chew your ear off about the latest theoretical political issue, be it local, national, or state? Isn't the real problem with our Democracy that, here in the land of 40-45% voting in Presidential elections, that we DON'T have enough people involved in our political process? Don't people understand that the only way some of the antics of our elected representatives are tolerated (such as the ongoing buffoonery in Albany) is directly because people do not speak up or scream out? Oh, by the way, here's my perpetual advice for those of you annoyed at artists or entertainers speaking their mind: Turn the channel, shut off the radio, don't by tickets to the concerts, put the paper down. I think you can figure it out people.
Here's a more annoying example of mass communication for me: On a daily basis, I receive many unsolicited e-mails from people, with their opinion of the latest crime of either the right or left, stories slanted to annoy or inflame a particular set of recipients. I'd much rather see a decrease of these than worrying about what some actor or singer had to say on a topic.
Here in America, everyone gets to have their opinion, like it or not. If you do not want to hear some entertainer's' views on things, keep that in mind the next time you're boring someone with yours'.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
On Politics 6/30/09: A Documentary Review
A minor deviation from the usual today, in that I have a film review for everyone. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to view, again through the magic that is TiVo, a documentary on HBO entitled "Shouting Fire: Stories From The Edge of Free Speech". As one might guess, the film centered on the often inflammatory, frequently debated subject of what you can say and where or when you can say it.
More interestingly, the film, conceived and created by Oscar nominee Liz Garbus, interviews a number of people with recent First Amendment experiences (Ward Churchill, Debbie Almontaser, Chase Harper), as well as revisiting previous historical episodes of consequence (McCarthyism, etc.). The production also enhances its' comprehensive approach by inviting people from both sides of these recent cases to appear on the program. In watching and listening to some of these guests, I'm often reminded of something my father once told me" "If you let stupid people keep talking, they reveal themselves to be what they - stupid."
I have a number of thoughts on some of the various episodes revisited here. First, regarding Mr. Churchill, the former professor at the University of Colorado who was terminated for his post-9/11 remarks alluding to the United States' previous actions coming back to haunt them. Hearing him recount the course of action that his comments embarked he and the university on, I had the phrase "tone deaf" continuing to pop up in my brain. One must be intelligent enough to know that in the hours immediately after 9/11 he would be the subject of scrutiny for anything portraying our attacked country in an unpleasant light, although on a delayed basis in this case. In Mrs. Almontaser's case, not reacting fastly enough to a false report of supporting the production of a t-shirt (yes, a t-shirt) making a call for inciting terrorist action in NYC cost her a principal's role she had been specifically recruited to occupy. Young Mr. Harper's case, of wearing a t-shirt sporting hateful verbiage on it (again with the t-shirts; the only offensive shirt I remember wearing in my youth was for D.A.M.M...Drunks Against Mad Mothers, with the x'ed out granny in the circle holding a rolling pin in her hand; oh, to be 19 again) became another test in the limitations a school system can place on free speech within the school system.
All of these incidents noted above remind me of what has long been said about free speech and the First Amendment - that it order for it to succeed, you must be willing to die for the right of another person to say something that you vehemently disagree with. In the current time we live in, it appears to have morphed to say that free speech covers whatever I like, and nothing I disagree with. The mass arrest of protesters in NYC for the Republican convention, shown in the film, doing nothing other than peacefully marching, is a blatant example. The calling out and scapegoating of anyone disagreeing with the Iraq War from inception on, labeling those who protested as "disloyal" or "Un-American" is further proof. For a country founded on liberty and freedom, it's a very odd thing to restrict those beliefs when claiming to be fighting to preserve them.
See the film, repeating, I'm certain, many times via the vast and numerous networks of HBO. You may agree or disagree with the people shown, but I guarantee you'll find it thoughtful and provoking.
With the horrific reality shows and dreadful other crap shown on network TV, this is a most welcome respite.
More interestingly, the film, conceived and created by Oscar nominee Liz Garbus, interviews a number of people with recent First Amendment experiences (Ward Churchill, Debbie Almontaser, Chase Harper), as well as revisiting previous historical episodes of consequence (McCarthyism, etc.). The production also enhances its' comprehensive approach by inviting people from both sides of these recent cases to appear on the program. In watching and listening to some of these guests, I'm often reminded of something my father once told me" "If you let stupid people keep talking, they reveal themselves to be what they - stupid."
I have a number of thoughts on some of the various episodes revisited here. First, regarding Mr. Churchill, the former professor at the University of Colorado who was terminated for his post-9/11 remarks alluding to the United States' previous actions coming back to haunt them. Hearing him recount the course of action that his comments embarked he and the university on, I had the phrase "tone deaf" continuing to pop up in my brain. One must be intelligent enough to know that in the hours immediately after 9/11 he would be the subject of scrutiny for anything portraying our attacked country in an unpleasant light, although on a delayed basis in this case. In Mrs. Almontaser's case, not reacting fastly enough to a false report of supporting the production of a t-shirt (yes, a t-shirt) making a call for inciting terrorist action in NYC cost her a principal's role she had been specifically recruited to occupy. Young Mr. Harper's case, of wearing a t-shirt sporting hateful verbiage on it (again with the t-shirts; the only offensive shirt I remember wearing in my youth was for D.A.M.M...Drunks Against Mad Mothers, with the x'ed out granny in the circle holding a rolling pin in her hand; oh, to be 19 again) became another test in the limitations a school system can place on free speech within the school system.
All of these incidents noted above remind me of what has long been said about free speech and the First Amendment - that it order for it to succeed, you must be willing to die for the right of another person to say something that you vehemently disagree with. In the current time we live in, it appears to have morphed to say that free speech covers whatever I like, and nothing I disagree with. The mass arrest of protesters in NYC for the Republican convention, shown in the film, doing nothing other than peacefully marching, is a blatant example. The calling out and scapegoating of anyone disagreeing with the Iraq War from inception on, labeling those who protested as "disloyal" or "Un-American" is further proof. For a country founded on liberty and freedom, it's a very odd thing to restrict those beliefs when claiming to be fighting to preserve them.
See the film, repeating, I'm certain, many times via the vast and numerous networks of HBO. You may agree or disagree with the people shown, but I guarantee you'll find it thoughtful and provoking.
With the horrific reality shows and dreadful other crap shown on network TV, this is a most welcome respite.
Friday, June 26, 2009
On Politics 6/26/09: Frauds, In Triplicate
They say certain things happen in threes; typically, this refers to the death of celebrities, as we have experienced this week with Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson. You can almost see people wondering who will be next, as if they were playing a real-life version of The Dead Pool, the game within the movie of the same name starring Clint Eastwood. The absurdity of belief in such notions is so strong that even if a celebrity dies sometime in the next month, it will be considered part of the triumvirate that began yesterday.
In politics, we have a different version of the triplicate factor. Instead of deaths, we have recent political frauds, local and nationwide. The ongoing buffoonery of our Senate in Albany, coupled with the fall from grace of both Senator Ensign of Nevada and Governor Sanford of South Carolina. I've spoken repeatedly of the astounding antics being conducted by those supposedly representing us in this state, so much to the point that although it remains a subject rife with a thousand-odd things to write about, it's become somewhat wearisome to continue spouting off about. Perhaps that is the plan of the idiots running around Albany; more likely, it is not. To say those folks had a cohesive, coherent plan for anything would be to slander cohesive and coherent.
As for Messrs. Ensign and Sanford, our latest national disgraces, neither shows the inclination to do what would be right - resign your office in shame, and get out of the public spotlight. Instead, we seem to be watching another iteration of the new political playbook:
1) Cheat;
2) Deny cheating;
3) Come clean only after being caught or threatened with exposure;
4) Make tearful admission to spouse, live, on television (have spouse next to you for public admission, to ensure her embarrassment reaches a new low);
5) Make tearful comments to the electorate that this is a personal matter and please give us some privacy (well, not exactly...it was on your public job that you committed your private sin);
6) Forcefully state that you will not be resigning, that you are perfectly capable of doing the people's business, so as not to embolden your political opponents (too late buddy...and the business you were caught doing was surely not on the people's behalf);
7) When reminded of your previous condemnation of other public officials' sexual transgressions, erase holier-than-thou countenance from face and move on with prepared comments;
6) Engage consulting firm to help retain elected office or plan recovery to public spotlight (also known as the Newt Gingrich Resuscitation Model);
7) Remain in office until dragged out in handcuffs or lose next election (the Larry Craig I Was Just Practicing Morse Code In The Bathroom Stall Defense).
Can they all just please go away?
In politics, we have a different version of the triplicate factor. Instead of deaths, we have recent political frauds, local and nationwide. The ongoing buffoonery of our Senate in Albany, coupled with the fall from grace of both Senator Ensign of Nevada and Governor Sanford of South Carolina. I've spoken repeatedly of the astounding antics being conducted by those supposedly representing us in this state, so much to the point that although it remains a subject rife with a thousand-odd things to write about, it's become somewhat wearisome to continue spouting off about. Perhaps that is the plan of the idiots running around Albany; more likely, it is not. To say those folks had a cohesive, coherent plan for anything would be to slander cohesive and coherent.
As for Messrs. Ensign and Sanford, our latest national disgraces, neither shows the inclination to do what would be right - resign your office in shame, and get out of the public spotlight. Instead, we seem to be watching another iteration of the new political playbook:
1) Cheat;
2) Deny cheating;
3) Come clean only after being caught or threatened with exposure;
4) Make tearful admission to spouse, live, on television (have spouse next to you for public admission, to ensure her embarrassment reaches a new low);
5) Make tearful comments to the electorate that this is a personal matter and please give us some privacy (well, not exactly...it was on your public job that you committed your private sin);
6) Forcefully state that you will not be resigning, that you are perfectly capable of doing the people's business, so as not to embolden your political opponents (too late buddy...and the business you were caught doing was surely not on the people's behalf);
7) When reminded of your previous condemnation of other public officials' sexual transgressions, erase holier-than-thou countenance from face and move on with prepared comments;
6) Engage consulting firm to help retain elected office or plan recovery to public spotlight (also known as the Newt Gingrich Resuscitation Model);
7) Remain in office until dragged out in handcuffs or lose next election (the Larry Craig I Was Just Practicing Morse Code In The Bathroom Stall Defense).
Can they all just please go away?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
On Politics 6/23/09: Crazy Times
OK, I'm back from Boston to attend yet another wedding . 'Tis the season and year for multiple family & friend nuptials. I'm not sure my car or my bank account will survive all of this activity.
Returning to our ongoing topic, just when you thought it couldn't get any stranger in the world of politics, and that surely does incorporate almost any perversion known to man, we've got a couple of new items to blog about.
First, we have strange behavior by a Governor. In a shocking development, he's not named Paterson, and he's not from New York. We have the honorable Mark Sanford of South Carolina deciding that he would leave town for a few days, unannounced to even his family, to go, we are now told, hiking on the Appalachian Trail (edit note: on Wed AM, Sanford disclosed he went to Argentina, not hiking, saying he wanted something more "exotic" - as if abandoning his post wasn't exotic enough). All this after political behavior even more bizarre than that, actually tying up the S.C. court system in an effort to try and refuse to federal stimulus aid; we're talking about turning his back on millions of dollar, for one of the poorest states in the country. Disagreement with federal conditions for the monies aside, one has to wonder if he sacrificed his future ambitions on a pique of anger about being told to take the cash for his state. Now, shortly after that head-scratching incident, we have him disappearing, literally, from the state capitol, scurrying off, away from family, friends, citizens, and his security detail to commune with nature. I say stay on the trail Governor, because you're obviously otherwise lost.
Secondly, we have a New Jersey man who evidently issues a real-life call to arms, asking readers of his blog to attack lawmakers in the Connecticut legislature, apparently as a result of his dissatisfaction with proposed laws governing lay person control over Catholic parish finances. Now, raised a loyal Jerseyan by birth and reared during my formative years in the beloved Garden State, I fully understand that there are a thousand things to worry about in NJ, without needing to export anger and misguided direction out of state. Yet, this dimwit urged his readers on, which of course begs the following question: Who's reading this guy's delusions, and who would follow his directions, which would include having to drive a couple of hours in order to enact whatever commands he is issuing?
Listen, I write a blog, and I am not aware of any special powers of persuasion that it grants. However, in the spirit of fairness, let's take a page from the Soupy Sales book (black and white TV reference for you kiddies out there), and try this by asking everyone who reads this to donate to a local veteran's support fund or charity (I'm not making the Soupy mistake of asking people to send me money; better to give to those in absolute need).
If that were to happen, through the power of blogs or otherwise, we'd be doing significant good.
Returning to our ongoing topic, just when you thought it couldn't get any stranger in the world of politics, and that surely does incorporate almost any perversion known to man, we've got a couple of new items to blog about.
First, we have strange behavior by a Governor. In a shocking development, he's not named Paterson, and he's not from New York. We have the honorable Mark Sanford of South Carolina deciding that he would leave town for a few days, unannounced to even his family, to go, we are now told, hiking on the Appalachian Trail (edit note: on Wed AM, Sanford disclosed he went to Argentina, not hiking, saying he wanted something more "exotic" - as if abandoning his post wasn't exotic enough). All this after political behavior even more bizarre than that, actually tying up the S.C. court system in an effort to try and refuse to federal stimulus aid; we're talking about turning his back on millions of dollar, for one of the poorest states in the country. Disagreement with federal conditions for the monies aside, one has to wonder if he sacrificed his future ambitions on a pique of anger about being told to take the cash for his state. Now, shortly after that head-scratching incident, we have him disappearing, literally, from the state capitol, scurrying off, away from family, friends, citizens, and his security detail to commune with nature. I say stay on the trail Governor, because you're obviously otherwise lost.
Secondly, we have a New Jersey man who evidently issues a real-life call to arms, asking readers of his blog to attack lawmakers in the Connecticut legislature, apparently as a result of his dissatisfaction with proposed laws governing lay person control over Catholic parish finances. Now, raised a loyal Jerseyan by birth and reared during my formative years in the beloved Garden State, I fully understand that there are a thousand things to worry about in NJ, without needing to export anger and misguided direction out of state. Yet, this dimwit urged his readers on, which of course begs the following question: Who's reading this guy's delusions, and who would follow his directions, which would include having to drive a couple of hours in order to enact whatever commands he is issuing?
Listen, I write a blog, and I am not aware of any special powers of persuasion that it grants. However, in the spirit of fairness, let's take a page from the Soupy Sales book (black and white TV reference for you kiddies out there), and try this by asking everyone who reads this to donate to a local veteran's support fund or charity (I'm not making the Soupy mistake of asking people to send me money; better to give to those in absolute need).
If that were to happen, through the power of blogs or otherwise, we'd be doing significant good.
Friday, June 19, 2009
On Politics 6/19/09: Back To Reality, Unfortunately
So, here I am, basking in the afterglow of our trip to Washington, D.C., historically satiated with the return to our nation's most precious monuments and documents. I can still close my eyes and picture the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights behind bulletproof glass in the chilled, darkened room, with the line of people patiently waiting to examine the trio of documents that founded our country and formed our citizenship. I can see them in my mind's eye, taking pictures, huddling over the individual cases, eagerly and excitingly pointing out to family or children some point or another on the documents, perhaps where the signature of their home state representative is affixed (Button Gwinnett, anyone? What a name that is....). Thus fortified with that fundamental good feeling, I arrive home, eager to press on in my blog and describe a modern-day parallel to those patriots who came before us.
Living in New York, the closest thing we'll get to the heroes of 1776 will be watching the movie version of the musical.
When I last took up the ranting and raving engendered by the NY Senate coup of two weeks ago, we had Dumb (Espada) and Dumber (Monserrate) trying to leave their criminal charges and previous political affiliations behind by jumping from the donkey to the elephant. The clumsy way this was transacted is akin to watching a man jump onto a bicycle, miss the seat, and land on the bar connecting seat to handlebars. Not pretty, very painful to experience, and difficult to witness, causing all members of the male gender to reflexively grimace and cross their legs. I had hoped, well beyond reason, that I would return to NY to find out that this had all be somehow rectified, that common sense would have prevailed, that the concerns of the electorate, the people, the ones who matter, would have regained precedence for our bumbling buffoons.
Not exactly.
I returned to find out that the issue had moved to the courts, where a judge first took it up, then decided he could not decide (another fallout from electing judges in this state), Dumber (Monserrate) declaring he was returning to the donkey team, then Dumb (Espada) stating that he could vote twice in his new role (Senate president, the bribe he received from the elephant team to move over...and no capital "P" for president for this clown), and so on and so forth.
Somehow, I cannot foresee the day there will be a monument erected to commemorate any of this.
Living in New York, the closest thing we'll get to the heroes of 1776 will be watching the movie version of the musical.
When I last took up the ranting and raving engendered by the NY Senate coup of two weeks ago, we had Dumb (Espada) and Dumber (Monserrate) trying to leave their criminal charges and previous political affiliations behind by jumping from the donkey to the elephant. The clumsy way this was transacted is akin to watching a man jump onto a bicycle, miss the seat, and land on the bar connecting seat to handlebars. Not pretty, very painful to experience, and difficult to witness, causing all members of the male gender to reflexively grimace and cross their legs. I had hoped, well beyond reason, that I would return to NY to find out that this had all be somehow rectified, that common sense would have prevailed, that the concerns of the electorate, the people, the ones who matter, would have regained precedence for our bumbling buffoons.
Not exactly.
I returned to find out that the issue had moved to the courts, where a judge first took it up, then decided he could not decide (another fallout from electing judges in this state), Dumber (Monserrate) declaring he was returning to the donkey team, then Dumb (Espada) stating that he could vote twice in his new role (Senate president, the bribe he received from the elephant team to move over...and no capital "P" for president for this clown), and so on and so forth.
Somehow, I cannot foresee the day there will be a monument erected to commemorate any of this.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
On Politics 6/16/09: Renewed Patriotism
I've just returned from five days in Alexandria, Virginia, directly across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. We traveled down to attend the wedding of a family friend, and took the opportunity to add to the trip with a few extra days in order to allow our children their first chance to visit some of our nation's most important monuments, memorials, and mementos.
It's an interesting experience to go through again, remembering your own trips there as a child or young adult, and trying to impress upon your children the importance of what they are walking through or staring at. The immediate glaring difference to me from my youth was the literal diversity of the people we encountered in our visits to the sites. As an American, it's a very proud thing to see the representation from all over the world at your most significant historical locations.
To give one example, we were resting on a bench adjacent to the Vietnam Women's Memorial (it, like the corresponding men's memorial at the entrance to the Vietnam Wall, was striking in its' complete detail of facial and body features), and a tour group walked up. Listening closer to the guide and participants, we could clearly understand that this collection of people were from Germany. Thinking of their country of origin, I found it extremely interesting to contemplate that citizens of a country we defeated in the world's greatest war would be at the victor's country touring their memorials of that conflict. I, for one, have never given consideration to visiting the monuments of Germany or Japan, honoring those we fought as our enemies.
Taking that line of thought through, perhaps it was coincidence. I would prefer to think of it otherwise, that, judging by the racial complexions of the visitors and the multitude of languages overheard (at least 7 out of every 10 we heard were non-English, or accented English from Australia or England), it represents a testament to our process of democracy and freedom that drew the these people here. These people, from all over the world, are bearing witness by visiting our remembrances to the people and events that have brought out country this far, that still draws immigrants from everywhere else, to be part of what is uniquely ours'.
It's hard to find better proof of our success.
It's an interesting experience to go through again, remembering your own trips there as a child or young adult, and trying to impress upon your children the importance of what they are walking through or staring at. The immediate glaring difference to me from my youth was the literal diversity of the people we encountered in our visits to the sites. As an American, it's a very proud thing to see the representation from all over the world at your most significant historical locations.
To give one example, we were resting on a bench adjacent to the Vietnam Women's Memorial (it, like the corresponding men's memorial at the entrance to the Vietnam Wall, was striking in its' complete detail of facial and body features), and a tour group walked up. Listening closer to the guide and participants, we could clearly understand that this collection of people were from Germany. Thinking of their country of origin, I found it extremely interesting to contemplate that citizens of a country we defeated in the world's greatest war would be at the victor's country touring their memorials of that conflict. I, for one, have never given consideration to visiting the monuments of Germany or Japan, honoring those we fought as our enemies.
Taking that line of thought through, perhaps it was coincidence. I would prefer to think of it otherwise, that, judging by the racial complexions of the visitors and the multitude of languages overheard (at least 7 out of every 10 we heard were non-English, or accented English from Australia or England), it represents a testament to our process of democracy and freedom that drew the these people here. These people, from all over the world, are bearing witness by visiting our remembrances to the people and events that have brought out country this far, that still draws immigrants from everywhere else, to be part of what is uniquely ours'.
It's hard to find better proof of our success.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
On Politics 6/11/09: The Follies Continue...
This is, quite literally, a blogger's or newspaper columnist's dream. You have the self-sustaining, sorry spectacle of the modern-day "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" (and oh, what Breslin would write about this calamity) continuing to clown around in Albany.
We have photo ops of Republicans holding up the keys to the Senate chambers, we have Democrats ducking cameras behind not only closed doors but locked iron gates, we have lobbyists asking the press for information as to what is really happening (talk about falling through the looking glass Alice), we have the operations of this state having officially sunk to a low not that possible, even for New York.
Have we reached the actual time in our history when the electorate will finally understand, through this mother-of-all-examples, that these politicians neither represent our interests or care about us? Will it take something more than this for all of you to understand this is not about the will of the people but the stupidity, desire, and demands of the few? Do you need better evidence to turn your collective back on ALL of these preposterous posers come November, or at their next election date?
For this, and a thousand other crimes previously committed, I say, for once agreeing with the French, off with their heads. Stop our misery and their miserable behavior for good. Better yet, perhaps we allow them to live, and sentence them to a permanent, endless loop of Senate television in their cells.
That would be enough to drive anyone crazy.
We have photo ops of Republicans holding up the keys to the Senate chambers, we have Democrats ducking cameras behind not only closed doors but locked iron gates, we have lobbyists asking the press for information as to what is really happening (talk about falling through the looking glass Alice), we have the operations of this state having officially sunk to a low not that possible, even for New York.
Have we reached the actual time in our history when the electorate will finally understand, through this mother-of-all-examples, that these politicians neither represent our interests or care about us? Will it take something more than this for all of you to understand this is not about the will of the people but the stupidity, desire, and demands of the few? Do you need better evidence to turn your collective back on ALL of these preposterous posers come November, or at their next election date?
For this, and a thousand other crimes previously committed, I say, for once agreeing with the French, off with their heads. Stop our misery and their miserable behavior for good. Better yet, perhaps we allow them to live, and sentence them to a permanent, endless loop of Senate television in their cells.
That would be enough to drive anyone crazy.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
On Politics 6/9/09: You Cannot Make This Stuff Up
Banana Republics, third world dictatorships, military juntas, you pick the derogatory name normally associated with malfunctioning governments. The terms bring to mind a modern-day Nero, fiddling while the country goes to hell-in-a-handbasket (we're on cliche overload today people).
As a current example, what would someone objectively call a situation where members of a particular party, both previously accused of personal criminal activities, decided to switch their voting allegiance within a legislative body in the middle of a session, and, for the cherry on this particularly rotten sundae, have one of the two be elected President of the group?
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the New York State Senate!
In perhaps the most bizarre you-cannot-make-this-stuff-up moment in recent political memory (or, in the common texting vernacular, the "WTF" moment - you can figure out the translation), the above actually occurred yesterday in Albany. Two of the Senate Democrats were bribed, bought, coerced, only God knows how or why to change their voting positions to side with the Republicans (well, the guy who got elected President by the Republicans, Mr. Espada, obviously got an immediate reward; and to think, that fine character is now, with no Lieutenant Governor, next in line for Governor if Paterson resigns or keels over).
The subsequent post-coup press conference provided more clues, as billionaire Tom Golisano stood readily by to state his political action committee would provide funding for any Democrats willing to switch. Now, where I come from, that's 2 + 2 = bought and paid for. In this state, who knows what that equation / evidence means to people.
As I wrote when the great Arlen Specter switcheroo occurred, no one should condone the actions of someone in office switching from one political party to another after the voters have had their say. Wait until you are going back up for election, or as my astute neighbor Gary pointed out, if you decide to switch, it's time for a special election. Fair is fair, we voted for you in one cloaked in one clothing, not for something hidden underneath. You want to change your affiliation or affection or cross-dress, do it after you're out of office.
Good riddance to them all.
As a current example, what would someone objectively call a situation where members of a particular party, both previously accused of personal criminal activities, decided to switch their voting allegiance within a legislative body in the middle of a session, and, for the cherry on this particularly rotten sundae, have one of the two be elected President of the group?
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the New York State Senate!
In perhaps the most bizarre you-cannot-make-this-stuff-up moment in recent political memory (or, in the common texting vernacular, the "WTF" moment - you can figure out the translation), the above actually occurred yesterday in Albany. Two of the Senate Democrats were bribed, bought, coerced, only God knows how or why to change their voting positions to side with the Republicans (well, the guy who got elected President by the Republicans, Mr. Espada, obviously got an immediate reward; and to think, that fine character is now, with no Lieutenant Governor, next in line for Governor if Paterson resigns or keels over).
The subsequent post-coup press conference provided more clues, as billionaire Tom Golisano stood readily by to state his political action committee would provide funding for any Democrats willing to switch. Now, where I come from, that's 2 + 2 = bought and paid for. In this state, who knows what that equation / evidence means to people.
As I wrote when the great Arlen Specter switcheroo occurred, no one should condone the actions of someone in office switching from one political party to another after the voters have had their say. Wait until you are going back up for election, or as my astute neighbor Gary pointed out, if you decide to switch, it's time for a special election. Fair is fair, we voted for you in one cloaked in one clothing, not for something hidden underneath. You want to change your affiliation or affection or cross-dress, do it after you're out of office.
Good riddance to them all.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
On Politics 6/6/09: Selling Out Brothers & Sisters
In the wake of the agreement reached yesterday with Governor Awful and two large NY public workers' unions to modify retirement qualifications and coverage, I'm reminded of recent similar actions conducted by the UAW with domestic automakers.
As part of those decisions, the UAW decided to acquiesce to corporate demands for reducing the amount of health care coverage for retirees. Simply put, the people who were the backbone of the companies, and more pertinently, the foundation of the unions working for those companies, who are now in their 60s,70s, and 80s, lost contributions from the former Big 3 carmakers towards retiree health care costs.
As I write this on the 6th of June, when we celebrate, remember, and honor the sacrifices of those who served to save the world from the very real threat of totalitarianism 65 years ago, I wonder what the reaction of Americans would be should we decide to no longer fully support healthcare coverage for those who fought on our collective behalf. Granted, it's obviously true that to serve your country is a higher calling than working to put cars together, but I think it speaks to a common thread in our country.
In my opinion, Americans are among the worst of all populations in caring for the elderly. As we saw up close managing Vince's care the last few years, and, as related to us by his healthcare providers, our fellow citizens seem most content to dump their fathers, mothers, uncles, and aunts into assisted care or other such facilities, even if their are no overriding medical issues afflicting those relatives. In addition, our country, and our corporations, do not properly utilize the experience and wisdom of our elders as we should, whereas other cultures, especially those of Far Eastern societies, honor and revere the knowledge of the old.
I think this is personified in the UAW example. Those making the decisions for that leadership today decided that the group they could screw were the same people who provided the impetus for everything they now enjoy. Instead of taking the losses on their collective shoulders, they determined that it was proper to downgrade the one group who could least afford any type of change. Those retirees, who walked out with a contract at retirement that they had earned and fought for with their sweat, lost it because the next generation that followed them sold them out for their own betterment.
That doesn't sound like honorable treatment to me.
As part of those decisions, the UAW decided to acquiesce to corporate demands for reducing the amount of health care coverage for retirees. Simply put, the people who were the backbone of the companies, and more pertinently, the foundation of the unions working for those companies, who are now in their 60s,70s, and 80s, lost contributions from the former Big 3 carmakers towards retiree health care costs.
As I write this on the 6th of June, when we celebrate, remember, and honor the sacrifices of those who served to save the world from the very real threat of totalitarianism 65 years ago, I wonder what the reaction of Americans would be should we decide to no longer fully support healthcare coverage for those who fought on our collective behalf. Granted, it's obviously true that to serve your country is a higher calling than working to put cars together, but I think it speaks to a common thread in our country.
In my opinion, Americans are among the worst of all populations in caring for the elderly. As we saw up close managing Vince's care the last few years, and, as related to us by his healthcare providers, our fellow citizens seem most content to dump their fathers, mothers, uncles, and aunts into assisted care or other such facilities, even if their are no overriding medical issues afflicting those relatives. In addition, our country, and our corporations, do not properly utilize the experience and wisdom of our elders as we should, whereas other cultures, especially those of Far Eastern societies, honor and revere the knowledge of the old.
I think this is personified in the UAW example. Those making the decisions for that leadership today decided that the group they could screw were the same people who provided the impetus for everything they now enjoy. Instead of taking the losses on their collective shoulders, they determined that it was proper to downgrade the one group who could least afford any type of change. Those retirees, who walked out with a contract at retirement that they had earned and fought for with their sweat, lost it because the next generation that followed them sold them out for their own betterment.
That doesn't sound like honorable treatment to me.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
On Politics 6/3/09: Homegrown Terror
Over the past week or so, we've been subject to three distinct acts of perpetrated or attempted homegrown domestic terrorism. We've become so focused on worrying about what may come from outside that we may be losing site as to what continues to plague us, which are the incidents from within.
To start with, we had the local indignity of the Newburgh 4, who evidently wanted to bomb a synagogue in NYC, and use military planes flying into Stewart Airport as target practice for stinger missiles. The second, the drive-by shooting of soldiers at an Army recruiting center in Little Rock, was reminiscent of something out of the days of the Chicago mob in the 1930s. The third was the execution of Dr. George Tiller as he served as an usher in his Church this past Sunday.
Though on the surface some may not think these are all related, I would offer to you that they are. Terrorism is loosely defined as a policy or ideology of violence intended to intimidate or cause terror, for the purpose of affecting change. By that definition, all three acts clearly fall into the same bucket. While we think of the Newburgh 4 and the Army recruiting center quite easily as terrorist acts, others may not be as easily persuaded as to the inclusion of Dr. Tiller's murder as one as well.
This killing of a physician who was providing a legal, government-protected service, is perhaps the clearest match to the definition of terrorism. Those opposed to the practice of abortion are practicing murder in order to intimidate or cause terror for the purpose of affecting change; it can hardly be considered anything else. While the common American knee-jerk reaction is to immediately associate terrorism with Islamic fanatics, they do not readily apply that label to Caucasian countrymen like James Klopp and Eric Rudolph, who bomb or shoot fellow American citizens. Anti-abortion groups are quick to say that those who commit these terrorist acts are not affiliated with their organizations, but publicly cheer the end result nonetheless. One could easily make the statement that those speaking out in happiness over these murders are supporting and promoting terrorism.
You may not like it, but the shoe fits.
To start with, we had the local indignity of the Newburgh 4, who evidently wanted to bomb a synagogue in NYC, and use military planes flying into Stewart Airport as target practice for stinger missiles. The second, the drive-by shooting of soldiers at an Army recruiting center in Little Rock, was reminiscent of something out of the days of the Chicago mob in the 1930s. The third was the execution of Dr. George Tiller as he served as an usher in his Church this past Sunday.
Though on the surface some may not think these are all related, I would offer to you that they are. Terrorism is loosely defined as a policy or ideology of violence intended to intimidate or cause terror, for the purpose of affecting change. By that definition, all three acts clearly fall into the same bucket. While we think of the Newburgh 4 and the Army recruiting center quite easily as terrorist acts, others may not be as easily persuaded as to the inclusion of Dr. Tiller's murder as one as well.
This killing of a physician who was providing a legal, government-protected service, is perhaps the clearest match to the definition of terrorism. Those opposed to the practice of abortion are practicing murder in order to intimidate or cause terror for the purpose of affecting change; it can hardly be considered anything else. While the common American knee-jerk reaction is to immediately associate terrorism with Islamic fanatics, they do not readily apply that label to Caucasian countrymen like James Klopp and Eric Rudolph, who bomb or shoot fellow American citizens. Anti-abortion groups are quick to say that those who commit these terrorist acts are not affiliated with their organizations, but publicly cheer the end result nonetheless. One could easily make the statement that those speaking out in happiness over these murders are supporting and promoting terrorism.
You may not like it, but the shoe fits.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
On Politics: Random Thoughts, Vol. XI
Sorry for the delay in posts everyone; it was the week from Hell at work. You always hope the shortened Holiday work week will be slow, but it was just not meant to be. However, now I have a few free minutes to offload the variety of thoughts bouncing around the ol' cranium. So, without further ado, and ably aided by some fresh Yankee Doodles & milk, away we go...
- I heard an advertisement of the radio today for something called the iTalk talking alarm clock. Apparently, it has voice recognition capabilities, so you can tell it to turn the alarm on/off, snooze, set the time correctly, etc. My only question for this fine piece of new technology would be what will it do when it goes off at the appointed hour and you reply with your standard, I-don't-want-to-get up response of @#$)$*#$#*)#$*)#$*#)*%)~*%#@~!!!!!. Will it self-destruct if cursed?
- President Obama has now been provided his first opportunity for selection of a Supreme Court nominee, and not for the seat he thought most likely to become vacant (Judge Stevens), but instead that of Judge Souter. The President has decided on Federal Magistrate Sonia Sotomayor, and the confirmation process will begin in earnest shortly. Already, the various factions have staked out their pro/con positions, and the judge's record has been scrutinized for every decisions, debate, and declarative sentence ever spoken. As it has since the time of Robert Bork, the debate will invariably center on one sentence, either written or spoken, out of literally thousands of such utterances. After that, we'll be treated to the sight of Judge Sotomayor testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she, like all recent nominees, will speak but take no positions on hot button issues. Enjoy the tea leaves reading everyone.
- The Arlington Central School District is reporting it's first case of swine flu, and, most importantly, that the student afflicted is making a full recovery. However, the ACSD leadership is choosing not to make the student's name public, nor the school the pupil attends. I agree with the former, but not the latter. Privacy for the child is understandable, but not informing district parents of the school where the H1N1 was present is far less so. Given the public health crisis surrounding H1N1, it would be prudent to inform parents in order to facilitate discretionary actions by family, including keeping children at home. Why is it that every bureaucracy, local or otherwise, treats in constituents like idiots? Give people the information that you yourself would want to know Mr. Pepe. If it means you have to close a school for a few days to make absolutely sure all is well, then bite the bullet and do it.
- On Friday, a single share of General Motors common stock could be purchased for $0.75 . That's seventy-five cents for one share of what was once considered to be the bellwether of American business might, and the company that was always thought of as too big to ever fail. Well, so much for the stability of a business that makes things that move. Tough to watch it happen, tougher still to see the current UAW workers sell out their retirement brethren, by making concessions on various health care benefits for the retired folks. Instead of honoring those who came before you and built GM into what it once was, let's screw the old-timers by by sacrificing their benefits so we can keep our job at a company that will now be a subsidiary of the U.S. government with lowered wages. A Faustian bargain, at best.
- It's become desperately bad on TV when Billy Mays, annoying pitchman extraordinaire, now has his own reality show. We get to see inventors and inventions of various stripes come forward, while Billy decides which ones he will scream in favor of on those incessant ads of his. Who ever thought we'd see Billy worry about which gadget would be proper for his persona to be involved with. Yikes.
- Took the family to Citi Field to watch the beloved Mets play Friday night. If you get the chance, go. It's hard to believe a place that nice, with all those things for kids to do (whiffle ball field, video games, dunk tank), with all those places to eat ( Shake Shack, Blue Smoke, Catch of the Day, etc.), with all those roomy seats angled towards home plate, with all the workers being so friendly, is now the Mets home. It's about damn time.
- I heard an advertisement of the radio today for something called the iTalk talking alarm clock. Apparently, it has voice recognition capabilities, so you can tell it to turn the alarm on/off, snooze, set the time correctly, etc. My only question for this fine piece of new technology would be what will it do when it goes off at the appointed hour and you reply with your standard, I-don't-want-to-get up response of @#$)$*#$#*)#$*)#$*#)*%)~*%#@~!!!!!. Will it self-destruct if cursed?
- President Obama has now been provided his first opportunity for selection of a Supreme Court nominee, and not for the seat he thought most likely to become vacant (Judge Stevens), but instead that of Judge Souter. The President has decided on Federal Magistrate Sonia Sotomayor, and the confirmation process will begin in earnest shortly. Already, the various factions have staked out their pro/con positions, and the judge's record has been scrutinized for every decisions, debate, and declarative sentence ever spoken. As it has since the time of Robert Bork, the debate will invariably center on one sentence, either written or spoken, out of literally thousands of such utterances. After that, we'll be treated to the sight of Judge Sotomayor testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she, like all recent nominees, will speak but take no positions on hot button issues. Enjoy the tea leaves reading everyone.
- The Arlington Central School District is reporting it's first case of swine flu, and, most importantly, that the student afflicted is making a full recovery. However, the ACSD leadership is choosing not to make the student's name public, nor the school the pupil attends. I agree with the former, but not the latter. Privacy for the child is understandable, but not informing district parents of the school where the H1N1 was present is far less so. Given the public health crisis surrounding H1N1, it would be prudent to inform parents in order to facilitate discretionary actions by family, including keeping children at home. Why is it that every bureaucracy, local or otherwise, treats in constituents like idiots? Give people the information that you yourself would want to know Mr. Pepe. If it means you have to close a school for a few days to make absolutely sure all is well, then bite the bullet and do it.
- On Friday, a single share of General Motors common stock could be purchased for $0.75 . That's seventy-five cents for one share of what was once considered to be the bellwether of American business might, and the company that was always thought of as too big to ever fail. Well, so much for the stability of a business that makes things that move. Tough to watch it happen, tougher still to see the current UAW workers sell out their retirement brethren, by making concessions on various health care benefits for the retired folks. Instead of honoring those who came before you and built GM into what it once was, let's screw the old-timers by by sacrificing their benefits so we can keep our job at a company that will now be a subsidiary of the U.S. government with lowered wages. A Faustian bargain, at best.
- It's become desperately bad on TV when Billy Mays, annoying pitchman extraordinaire, now has his own reality show. We get to see inventors and inventions of various stripes come forward, while Billy decides which ones he will scream in favor of on those incessant ads of his. Who ever thought we'd see Billy worry about which gadget would be proper for his persona to be involved with. Yikes.
- Took the family to Citi Field to watch the beloved Mets play Friday night. If you get the chance, go. It's hard to believe a place that nice, with all those things for kids to do (whiffle ball field, video games, dunk tank), with all those places to eat ( Shake Shack, Blue Smoke, Catch of the Day, etc.), with all those roomy seats angled towards home plate, with all the workers being so friendly, is now the Mets home. It's about damn time.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
On Politics 5/24/09: An Unfair Fight
On this Memorial Day eve, we are witness to a full-fledged battle brewing right before our very eyes. Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not some recreation of some historical combat, but a rather peculiar domestic conflict, live on television and radio. Of what do I write?
Why, it's none other than the heavyweight fight for control of the Republican Party. On one side we have the retired four-star General, previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Secretary of State, Colin Powell. On the other side, we have a tag team that only the immortal Professor Taru Tanaka & Mr. Fuji of WWF fame could like, the "Doomsday Duo" themselves, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. Let's take a closer look at the participants, shall we?
Why, it's none other than the heavyweight fight for control of the Republican Party. On one side we have the retired four-star General, previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Secretary of State, Colin Powell. On the other side, we have a tag team that only the immortal Professor Taru Tanaka & Mr. Fuji of WWF fame could like, the "Doomsday Duo" themselves, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. Let's take a closer look at the participants, shall we?
- Colin Powell, the man who should be President, universally well-regarded as soldier and statesman, a most reasoned voice amidst the current cannibalism engulfing the party of Reagan.
- Dick Cheney, finally emerged from his eight long years in the secure undisclosed location, a.k.a the basement of the VP's residence (thanks Joe Biden), the man who would not speak who now can't stop talking, owner of the world's most famous and irritating smirk, and leading all elected officials in draft deferments.
- Rush Limbaugh, the self-proclaimed most important man in radio, the one who sits in judgement of all that is deemed to be "right" (pun heavily intended), and owner/operator of the EIB, the "Ego In Broadcasting" operation.
The current conflagration is a result of Mr. Powell declaring that the Elephant team has become too narrow, a party of extremists, a group of exclusion rather than inclusion. Judging by the recent election results, you would think that this is fairly obvious. However, the Doomsday Duo's response is to declare Powell a sinner of the worst sort for them, a Democrat!
From afar and here in the center, I get the feeling that the Duo would rather be the big fish in a little pond, instead of the smaller fish in a bigger pond. That approach is surely fine, as long as you fully understand the ramifications of that existence. Following their logic would ensure being the minority party for years to come, but Dick can smirk and Russ can puff his cigars all the while.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
On Politics 5/19/09: Just Vote No, Again
It's a different year, with the same storyline. Another faulty budget, another recommendation from one taxpayer to all the others to reject it.
As discussed and written about it the past, the Arlington Central School District continues to move forward, year after year, with repetitive budget increases. I cannot begin to fathom how Mr. Pepe, et al, sit in their meetings, debate the situation, and arrive at the conclusion that an increase in taxes for the communities they exist in is a proper solution for the forthcoming school year. Worse yet, the so-called contingency budget in the event of appropriate action by the overtaxed voting public is barely less than the regular budget.
Herein lies the most grievous judgemental error that I find. Unless you're leftover from the 1950s and you've just crawled out of your backyard bomb shelter (cue the bad Brendan Fraser movie), one must realize that there is a terrific potential for the recession-beaten men and women of the ASCD taxpaying community to reject anything that adds a single dollar to their current government subtraction. Yet, the ACSD has chosen to slyly make the contingency a few mere percentage points in differential from it's approved one. Now, you can call that ignorance, which I would hope is not the case for such learned people. You could call it a mathematical equation error, but out of all the people who look at the budget figures, I suspect someone can add and subtract correctly. You can call it, as I do, unfettered arrogance, i.e. "they'll approve it, they always do".
In times of difficulty and challenges, leaders succeed understanding the situation the people they represent, sympathizing with their plight, and offering hope for an improved future. What they don't do is help to make a bad situation worse.
P.S. You can start saving money for your budget increase by repaying the material and labor involved in the creation of those little yellow school buses I've seen sprout up in various intersections across the district. Bad enough you badger the kids to tell their parents to vote yes; now you've expanded your advertising campaign by having these items made, I suspect, somewhere in a ACSD-sponsored activity. Perhaps these buses are self-creating and magically appearing; somehow, I doubt it.
As discussed and written about it the past, the Arlington Central School District continues to move forward, year after year, with repetitive budget increases. I cannot begin to fathom how Mr. Pepe, et al, sit in their meetings, debate the situation, and arrive at the conclusion that an increase in taxes for the communities they exist in is a proper solution for the forthcoming school year. Worse yet, the so-called contingency budget in the event of appropriate action by the overtaxed voting public is barely less than the regular budget.
Herein lies the most grievous judgemental error that I find. Unless you're leftover from the 1950s and you've just crawled out of your backyard bomb shelter (cue the bad Brendan Fraser movie), one must realize that there is a terrific potential for the recession-beaten men and women of the ASCD taxpaying community to reject anything that adds a single dollar to their current government subtraction. Yet, the ACSD has chosen to slyly make the contingency a few mere percentage points in differential from it's approved one. Now, you can call that ignorance, which I would hope is not the case for such learned people. You could call it a mathematical equation error, but out of all the people who look at the budget figures, I suspect someone can add and subtract correctly. You can call it, as I do, unfettered arrogance, i.e. "they'll approve it, they always do".
In times of difficulty and challenges, leaders succeed understanding the situation the people they represent, sympathizing with their plight, and offering hope for an improved future. What they don't do is help to make a bad situation worse.
P.S. You can start saving money for your budget increase by repaying the material and labor involved in the creation of those little yellow school buses I've seen sprout up in various intersections across the district. Bad enough you badger the kids to tell their parents to vote yes; now you've expanded your advertising campaign by having these items made, I suspect, somewhere in a ACSD-sponsored activity. Perhaps these buses are self-creating and magically appearing; somehow, I doubt it.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
On Politics 5/16/09: Cheer, Cheer For Old Notre Dame
I've known most of the words since I was a child. It comes from being reared on watching every football game possible (still, to this day), then the now arcane condensed game replays, repeated over the weekend and into the following week, narrated with the voice of the great Lindsay Nelson, who would solemnly note that "we now move ahead to further action later in the quarter".
Ah, those words, that music...
"Cheer, cheer for Old Notre Dame, Wake up the echoes cheering her name, Send a volley cheer on high, Shake down the thunder from the sky!"
I offer that excerpt from America's greatest college fight song (sorry Michigan fans, it's true) in praise today not of an athletic achievement, but one of academic integrity. The administration of America's premier Catholic university has, as part of an ongoing tradition of political speakers, invited President Obama to give the commencement address tomorrow, causing the wholly expected instantly flammable reaction from various people and groups, all shouting to be the loudest voice heard, in their supposed defense of the religion. The argument from all is the same: How can a Catholic University allow a pro-choice supporter speak at the graduation ceremony? The invective unleashed by the Messianic hordes range from blasphemy to school-sponsored sin being committed live, in front of all the graduates. Kudos to Father Jenkins, leader of Notre Dame, for not caving into the whines and protestations of his brethren priests & bishops, nor the shrill voices in the wilderness, like the oft-annoying, self-appointed arbiter Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.
Perhaps the shouters fail to recognize that the school, in its long and distinguished educational history, has hosted other political figures not perfectly in tune with the university's faith based value system, including, famously, Mario Cuomo in 1984, who gave what is considered to be the finest speech of his gifted oratorical career. Cuomo, the man who could never seem to summon the courage to be President, walked into the lion's den of American Catholicism (overt historical reference/pun) as a free choice supporting politician and delivered the goods, a speech still recognized today after 25 years as the preeminent one of his life.
It is the duty of educational institutions in the United States to offer conflicting views and positions, even for those founded on the particulars of a certain religion. Some may not know this, but students of many different faiths and political views, including pro-choice positions, attend Notre Dame, simply because it is rightly recognized as one of the country's foremost academic institutions. Thus, a variety of instructors and speakers should match the diversity of the student body. Any school's integrity would be ruined, not to mention impugning the quality of its' curriculum, by taking a stance otherwise.
As I prepare for an angry e-mail from my beloved father on this position, I'm trying to find out if this is being broadcast anywhere. I'm most curious to see how this goes.
Ah, those words, that music...
"Cheer, cheer for Old Notre Dame, Wake up the echoes cheering her name, Send a volley cheer on high, Shake down the thunder from the sky!"
I offer that excerpt from America's greatest college fight song (sorry Michigan fans, it's true) in praise today not of an athletic achievement, but one of academic integrity. The administration of America's premier Catholic university has, as part of an ongoing tradition of political speakers, invited President Obama to give the commencement address tomorrow, causing the wholly expected instantly flammable reaction from various people and groups, all shouting to be the loudest voice heard, in their supposed defense of the religion. The argument from all is the same: How can a Catholic University allow a pro-choice supporter speak at the graduation ceremony? The invective unleashed by the Messianic hordes range from blasphemy to school-sponsored sin being committed live, in front of all the graduates. Kudos to Father Jenkins, leader of Notre Dame, for not caving into the whines and protestations of his brethren priests & bishops, nor the shrill voices in the wilderness, like the oft-annoying, self-appointed arbiter Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.
Perhaps the shouters fail to recognize that the school, in its long and distinguished educational history, has hosted other political figures not perfectly in tune with the university's faith based value system, including, famously, Mario Cuomo in 1984, who gave what is considered to be the finest speech of his gifted oratorical career. Cuomo, the man who could never seem to summon the courage to be President, walked into the lion's den of American Catholicism (overt historical reference/pun) as a free choice supporting politician and delivered the goods, a speech still recognized today after 25 years as the preeminent one of his life.
It is the duty of educational institutions in the United States to offer conflicting views and positions, even for those founded on the particulars of a certain religion. Some may not know this, but students of many different faiths and political views, including pro-choice positions, attend Notre Dame, simply because it is rightly recognized as one of the country's foremost academic institutions. Thus, a variety of instructors and speakers should match the diversity of the student body. Any school's integrity would be ruined, not to mention impugning the quality of its' curriculum, by taking a stance otherwise.
As I prepare for an angry e-mail from my beloved father on this position, I'm trying to find out if this is being broadcast anywhere. I'm most curious to see how this goes.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
On Politics 5/14/09: Magic, 350 Miles Up
It may seem an odd juxtaposition here in the blog; combining our space program and politics. However, like most things in life, some commonality and linkage does exist.
Over the past two days, I've watched with a combination of awe, fascination, and a slight degree of fear as our astronauts have flown the space shuttle in rescue of the Hubble Space Telescope on the NASA TV channel, successfully grabbed it ("grapple", in the weird vocabulary of NASA missions), and tethered it to the shuttle's bay for repair. You probably have the NASA channel on your local cable or satellite provider, lost in the hundreds (literally) of other channels that you never watch and routinely bypass. Is there anyone who watches more than 10-15 of their channels on a regular basis? But, I digress.
It is immediately evident, listening and watching yesterday's precision shuttle approach, acquisition of the HST (the telescope), and today's careful execution of the step-by-step plan for the astronauts first "EVA" (that's spacewalk to you and me) the amount of planning and rehearsal that has gone into this effort. In installing the replacement camera today, their protocol even calls for how many full turns of the wrench tool they should be doing to secure it. Very, very impressive stuff. All of this, while traveling about 17,500 miles per hour around the Earth. It brings a whole new meaning to "don't look down".
The political piece of all this is the ongoing funding requirements for NASA. In our current economic difficulties, much is made how we need to fix what is wrong with our country first, whether it be the banking system, our ending of poverty and hunger in the most prosperous country in the world, or curing any number of diseases that endanger us. All are valid positions and arguments, passionately espoused by ardent activists for their respective causes.
My answer is this: Space exploration is one of those rare things that advances all of mankind, not just our country. The now standard everyday items that have been developed and implemented as a result of previous space exploration are too numerous to mention (Dolby sound reduction technology is a biggie for me). Besides that, is there a time, other than the darkest days of the Middle Ages, where human advancements stopped? I believe that it is more important in the most difficult of times to continue to move forward with technological improvements or humankind adventures. Progress inexorably moves on, taking the rest of us, willingly or not, along with it.
If nothing else, this is just way cool stuff :-).
Over the past two days, I've watched with a combination of awe, fascination, and a slight degree of fear as our astronauts have flown the space shuttle in rescue of the Hubble Space Telescope on the NASA TV channel, successfully grabbed it ("grapple", in the weird vocabulary of NASA missions), and tethered it to the shuttle's bay for repair. You probably have the NASA channel on your local cable or satellite provider, lost in the hundreds (literally) of other channels that you never watch and routinely bypass. Is there anyone who watches more than 10-15 of their channels on a regular basis? But, I digress.
It is immediately evident, listening and watching yesterday's precision shuttle approach, acquisition of the HST (the telescope), and today's careful execution of the step-by-step plan for the astronauts first "EVA" (that's spacewalk to you and me) the amount of planning and rehearsal that has gone into this effort. In installing the replacement camera today, their protocol even calls for how many full turns of the wrench tool they should be doing to secure it. Very, very impressive stuff. All of this, while traveling about 17,500 miles per hour around the Earth. It brings a whole new meaning to "don't look down".
The political piece of all this is the ongoing funding requirements for NASA. In our current economic difficulties, much is made how we need to fix what is wrong with our country first, whether it be the banking system, our ending of poverty and hunger in the most prosperous country in the world, or curing any number of diseases that endanger us. All are valid positions and arguments, passionately espoused by ardent activists for their respective causes.
My answer is this: Space exploration is one of those rare things that advances all of mankind, not just our country. The now standard everyday items that have been developed and implemented as a result of previous space exploration are too numerous to mention (Dolby sound reduction technology is a biggie for me). Besides that, is there a time, other than the darkest days of the Middle Ages, where human advancements stopped? I believe that it is more important in the most difficult of times to continue to move forward with technological improvements or humankind adventures. Progress inexorably moves on, taking the rest of us, willingly or not, along with it.
If nothing else, this is just way cool stuff :-).
Sunday, May 10, 2009
On Politics 5/10/09: The Sinful Politics Of the Church
The Mother's Day Mass at St. Denis Church was delightfully well done. The homily regarding what Mother's Day meant to the priest was insightful, personal, and poignant. The cantor was terrific, especially so during a post-Communion rendering of "Ave Maria", utilizing her amazing voice to entrance the attendees through the sheer power of the instrument. The blessing of all the mothers, asked to stand for identification and acknowledgement, then each presented with a single red rose from the parish, was a perfect ending to the event. All in all, one of the better hours recently spent in the pews. Even the typically horrific children's choir was almost endurable; almost.
Surprisingly, we were asked to all remain seated at the conclusion of the rose dispersal. The priest said he had another brief announcement that had to be given. What, after this all-to-rare enjoyable service, could this be? Some other recognition or moment in praise of mothers?
Not in this lifetime.
We were subsequently treated to a series of instructions / requests / directions, loosely referred to as something for our awareness as Catholics, about the Church's opposition to the so-called Markey law being proposed in New York State . For those who do not know, this piece of legislation is about extending the current statue of limitations for those victimized by clergy and other members of non-profit organizations to seek financial redress. Fr. Tom, the weekend associate celebrating the Mass, gave us the nuts and bolts about how wrong touching the altar servers was, and that we should know this would be unfair to all organizations, including the Church, so all good communicants should be outraged at this possibility. Why, the Church has even made it easier for you to protest, by simply clicking on an icon on the web site, where you will be able to fill in a form and send it on. It's so easy; even the evil legislator's address information is done for you. I'm not sure if they include emoticons with horns and a tail to attach to her picture, but it wouldn't surprise me.
As once famously stated, when they tell you it's not about the money, it's ALWAYS about the money. Is there anyone out there who cannot see through the fog of incense or shower of holy water that this isn't about the money? What has the Church quaking in its' collective vestments is that their former patron saint of sacrilege in Albany, Mr. Bruno, is now out of power, where he cannot serve as the holy human roadblock against passage of this bill. Therefore, bereft of his assistance in denying the opportunity of compensation for the victims of pedophilia, the Church has chosen to strong-arm its' parishioners into a pseudo political action committee to stop the law from becoming a reality. Forget the speaking-in- tongues explanation being promoted from the pulpit about creating unfair precedent or the potential hardships if the bill is passed; the simple short unspoken reasoning was plain to hear. If this gets through, more people sue the Church, and more money will have to be paid out.
Reminder #1: IF THE PRIESTS HADN'T MOLESTED THE KIDS, THIS WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.
Reminder #2: IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME OR PAY FOR THE LAWSUITS, DON'T DO THE CRIME OR HIDE THE PEDOPHILES.
A beautiful Mass, a wondrous feeling in the building bought on by song and collective awareness of all that our mothers mean to us, for everything they do or have done, was tarnished, ruined, and horrifically dissipated by a plea to protect the Church from paying any more monies in lost lawsuits. How someone of leadership in the Archdiocese of New York (guilty until proven innocent, for this smacked of an official instruction) thought that it was appropriate to put this forth on Mother's Day showed an almost impossible to believe lack of sensitivity, or perhaps, more accurately, a blatant disregard for all else that was occurring in their parishes today, with the fear of further financial fallout being the overriding concern.
I believe the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother to us all, would herself have been appalled at this.
Surprisingly, we were asked to all remain seated at the conclusion of the rose dispersal. The priest said he had another brief announcement that had to be given. What, after this all-to-rare enjoyable service, could this be? Some other recognition or moment in praise of mothers?
Not in this lifetime.
We were subsequently treated to a series of instructions / requests / directions, loosely referred to as something for our awareness as Catholics, about the Church's opposition to the so-called Markey law being proposed in New York State . For those who do not know, this piece of legislation is about extending the current statue of limitations for those victimized by clergy and other members of non-profit organizations to seek financial redress. Fr. Tom, the weekend associate celebrating the Mass, gave us the nuts and bolts about how wrong touching the altar servers was, and that we should know this would be unfair to all organizations, including the Church, so all good communicants should be outraged at this possibility. Why, the Church has even made it easier for you to protest, by simply clicking on an icon on the web site, where you will be able to fill in a form and send it on. It's so easy; even the evil legislator's address information is done for you. I'm not sure if they include emoticons with horns and a tail to attach to her picture, but it wouldn't surprise me.
As once famously stated, when they tell you it's not about the money, it's ALWAYS about the money. Is there anyone out there who cannot see through the fog of incense or shower of holy water that this isn't about the money? What has the Church quaking in its' collective vestments is that their former patron saint of sacrilege in Albany, Mr. Bruno, is now out of power, where he cannot serve as the holy human roadblock against passage of this bill. Therefore, bereft of his assistance in denying the opportunity of compensation for the victims of pedophilia, the Church has chosen to strong-arm its' parishioners into a pseudo political action committee to stop the law from becoming a reality. Forget the speaking-in- tongues explanation being promoted from the pulpit about creating unfair precedent or the potential hardships if the bill is passed; the simple short unspoken reasoning was plain to hear. If this gets through, more people sue the Church, and more money will have to be paid out.
Reminder #1: IF THE PRIESTS HADN'T MOLESTED THE KIDS, THIS WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.
Reminder #2: IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME OR PAY FOR THE LAWSUITS, DON'T DO THE CRIME OR HIDE THE PEDOPHILES.
A beautiful Mass, a wondrous feeling in the building bought on by song and collective awareness of all that our mothers mean to us, for everything they do or have done, was tarnished, ruined, and horrifically dissipated by a plea to protect the Church from paying any more monies in lost lawsuits. How someone of leadership in the Archdiocese of New York (guilty until proven innocent, for this smacked of an official instruction) thought that it was appropriate to put this forth on Mother's Day showed an almost impossible to believe lack of sensitivity, or perhaps, more accurately, a blatant disregard for all else that was occurring in their parishes today, with the fear of further financial fallout being the overriding concern.
I believe the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother to us all, would herself have been appalled at this.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
On Politics 5/7/09: An Albany Abomination
When I moved from beloved New Jersey to New York in the fall of 1988 due to work, I did so having heard from my friends that NY was the land of taxes. I thought to myself, how bad could it be?
Unfortunately, I soon found out. More unfortunately, I keep finding out more, even 21 years later.
It's rare for me to point others to another source of opinion or argument (one the many difficulties of egomania). However, on the occasion of the rancid MTA bailout announcement, a.k.a. the "Save The Trains, Screw The People of Dutchess County" agreement struck by our supposed leaders in Albany, I heartily encourage all of you to read the Thursday editorial in the Poughkeepsie Journal. The angry tone, salient points, and pertinent examples of the blatantly imbalanced deal to help the MTA out of its' latest drunken stupor of spending is summarized perfectly. It 's hard to put an adequate level of outrage on this event into words, but whomever is responsible for composing the Journal's reaction deserves kudos.
The simple reality is this: We, the people of Dutchess County, are being saddled with a vastly unfair amount of new tax and fees to rescue the MTA, again, from their profound inability to properly run their business. read the editorial, get the facts, share in the outrage. This financial miscarriage will impact all of us.
Do yourselves a favor and look it over. As they say, read it and weep, for all of us.
Unfortunately, I soon found out. More unfortunately, I keep finding out more, even 21 years later.
It's rare for me to point others to another source of opinion or argument (one the many difficulties of egomania). However, on the occasion of the rancid MTA bailout announcement, a.k.a. the "Save The Trains, Screw The People of Dutchess County" agreement struck by our supposed leaders in Albany, I heartily encourage all of you to read the Thursday editorial in the Poughkeepsie Journal. The angry tone, salient points, and pertinent examples of the blatantly imbalanced deal to help the MTA out of its' latest drunken stupor of spending is summarized perfectly. It 's hard to put an adequate level of outrage on this event into words, but whomever is responsible for composing the Journal's reaction deserves kudos.
The simple reality is this: We, the people of Dutchess County, are being saddled with a vastly unfair amount of new tax and fees to rescue the MTA, again, from their profound inability to properly run their business. read the editorial, get the facts, share in the outrage. This financial miscarriage will impact all of us.
Do yourselves a favor and look it over. As they say, read it and weep, for all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
