Anyone for the alphabet game?
Before now I hadn't thought of it.
Could be interesting.
Don't know if there will be a point to it.
Even a possibility of it being lame.
For now, I'm going to try it.
Gorsuch is now on the Supreme Court.
He shouldn't be.
Ironically.....
Justice was not served.
Keep in mind that another was chosen.
Last year Obama nominated Garland.
Most agreed he was qualified.
Never even got a confirmation hearing.
Opposition didn't care.
Partisan politics at worst.
Questionable constitutionality at best.
Republicans should be ashamed.
Senator Grassley especially is a tool.
Too old, too white, too Trump-loving.
Unfit to represent the state and country.
Very sad situation.
We have other problems in the U.S.
Xenophobia is one of them.
Yet I've no more time to elaborate.
Zero.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Sunday, December 7, 2014
White Privilege
The events of the past two weeks -- where grand juries refused to indict on-duty white police officers in Ferguson, MO and Staten Island, NY who controversially killed black men, and the sometimes riotous protests that followed -- have re-confirmed some things that too many Americans still don't understand after all these years:
1) White privilege exists. No matter how you slice it, if you factor out race, there would have at least been indictments in these cases. The NY case is absolutely crazy, considering the irrefutable video evidence of what happened, and secrecy of the grand jury. Ask yourself who's more likely to be stopped for speeding -- is it a dumb white guy in a minority neighborhood, or an intelligent minority in a white neighborhood?
2) Wealth privilege exists. This is more recognized by society, but regardless, you can replace the word 'race' in the paragraph above with 'socioeconomic background' and it still works. If the victims were white but poor, nothing changes.
3) Property destruction / rioting in the wake of the non-indictments is terribly foolish, adds to people's lack of understanding of white privilege. People see this disproportionate and wrongful reaction, and get angry about that instead of the underlying problem -- that minorities poor don't believe they are treated fairly by law enforcement, nor by the judicial system.
4) Criminal actions have consequences. The punishment (death) doesn't comes close to matching the crime, but both of the victims were or had been doing something illegal. They drew attention to themselves, then resisted arrest. They didn't get what they deserved, which at least in the NY case also appeared to be criminal, but they got what they got.
5) There's still a lot of latent racism in America. If you haven't noticed this during the Obama presidency, then you probably won't notice it now, but let's be real -- how many white people do you know who are openly critical of the rioting in the MO case, but don't know any of the facts surrounding the case? And aren't those same people also being a little quiet about the NY case?
I rest my case.
1) White privilege exists. No matter how you slice it, if you factor out race, there would have at least been indictments in these cases. The NY case is absolutely crazy, considering the irrefutable video evidence of what happened, and secrecy of the grand jury. Ask yourself who's more likely to be stopped for speeding -- is it a dumb white guy in a minority neighborhood, or an intelligent minority in a white neighborhood?
2) Wealth privilege exists. This is more recognized by society, but regardless, you can replace the word 'race' in the paragraph above with 'socioeconomic background' and it still works. If the victims were white but poor, nothing changes.
3) Property destruction / rioting in the wake of the non-indictments is terribly foolish, adds to people's lack of understanding of white privilege. People see this disproportionate and wrongful reaction, and get angry about that instead of the underlying problem -- that minorities poor don't believe they are treated fairly by law enforcement, nor by the judicial system.
4) Criminal actions have consequences. The punishment (death) doesn't comes close to matching the crime, but both of the victims were or had been doing something illegal. They drew attention to themselves, then resisted arrest. They didn't get what they deserved, which at least in the NY case also appeared to be criminal, but they got what they got.
5) There's still a lot of latent racism in America. If you haven't noticed this during the Obama presidency, then you probably won't notice it now, but let's be real -- how many white people do you know who are openly critical of the rioting in the MO case, but don't know any of the facts surrounding the case? And aren't those same people also being a little quiet about the NY case?
I rest my case.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Iowa Election Handicapping 2014
We've got an open (non-incumbent) U.S. congressperson election going on in central Iowa, as well as an open U.S. senatorial seat and a gubernatorial race. Time to opine on the candidates.
Congress: Staci Appel (D) vs David Young (R)
When 'friend of John Boehner' and incumbent Tom Latham (R) unexpectedly retired to open this district seat, the major political parties were obviously unprepared. How else do you explain these two poor candidates? Appel is an uninspiring former state senator with an image problem, and Young is a boring, no-name protege of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley. Good lord, is it too late for me to start a write-in campaign? I think Young wins this, because voters will prefer a boring nobody with some national political experience over a boring nobody with no such experience.
Senate: Bruce Braley (D) vs Joni Ernst (R)
This race reminds me a lot of eight years ago, when then-Congressman Jim Nussle ran against state politician Chet Culver for governor of Iowa. It should have been no contest -- Culver was a buffoon. But the anti-Republican fervor was too much that year (George W. Bush was mismanaging Iraq and Afghanistan) and Nussle didn't try hard enough. Culver won, and proved his buffoonery by being Iowa's worst-ever governor. Here, Braley = Nussle, Ernst = Culver, and Obama = Bush. Braley is the better candidate, but it isn't looking so good for him right now. He needs to hope that Ernst -- a National Guard member but also someone who clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed -- makes another mistake to sway independents, like reminding people that Sarah Palin endorsed her.
Governor: Jack Hatch (D) vs Terry Branstad (R)
Multi-decade governor and certified grumpy old man Branstad will win this easily. Make no mistake, it won't be because he's so beloved, it'll be because Iowans would rather dance with the devil they know than with the devil they don't know. Hatch isn't well-known outside of Des Moines, and frankly, he isn't that well known inside of Des Moines if you aren't a real estate developer. I might vote for Hatch just as a silent protest to Branstad's stance on medicinal marijuana.
Congress: Staci Appel (D) vs David Young (R)
When 'friend of John Boehner' and incumbent Tom Latham (R) unexpectedly retired to open this district seat, the major political parties were obviously unprepared. How else do you explain these two poor candidates? Appel is an uninspiring former state senator with an image problem, and Young is a boring, no-name protege of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley. Good lord, is it too late for me to start a write-in campaign? I think Young wins this, because voters will prefer a boring nobody with some national political experience over a boring nobody with no such experience.
Senate: Bruce Braley (D) vs Joni Ernst (R)
This race reminds me a lot of eight years ago, when then-Congressman Jim Nussle ran against state politician Chet Culver for governor of Iowa. It should have been no contest -- Culver was a buffoon. But the anti-Republican fervor was too much that year (George W. Bush was mismanaging Iraq and Afghanistan) and Nussle didn't try hard enough. Culver won, and proved his buffoonery by being Iowa's worst-ever governor. Here, Braley = Nussle, Ernst = Culver, and Obama = Bush. Braley is the better candidate, but it isn't looking so good for him right now. He needs to hope that Ernst -- a National Guard member but also someone who clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed -- makes another mistake to sway independents, like reminding people that Sarah Palin endorsed her.
Governor: Jack Hatch (D) vs Terry Branstad (R)
Multi-decade governor and certified grumpy old man Branstad will win this easily. Make no mistake, it won't be because he's so beloved, it'll be because Iowans would rather dance with the devil they know than with the devil they don't know. Hatch isn't well-known outside of Des Moines, and frankly, he isn't that well known inside of Des Moines if you aren't a real estate developer. I might vote for Hatch just as a silent protest to Branstad's stance on medicinal marijuana.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Getting School-ed
On June 25th, for the second time in nine months, voters in my school district, the Johnston Community School District (JCSD), will be voting on a $41 million bond referendum to primarily build a new $81 million high school. Unlike the last time, it'll probably pass, and if not this time, then there will be another time.
That's still no reason to vote yes.
As with virtually all such tax increase proposals that require voter approval, I heartily oppose this one. I'm not denying that there may be a current / future overcrowding issue in some school buildings, but I am denying that it should take $112 million of taxpayer money to solve that.
(There's one of the many head-fakes that voters get on deals like this - the bonding covers $41 million, but other taxpayer funds / levies will cover the other $71 million. That equals $112 million of our money, and I tabulated that without needing a new school facility to help me do it.)
If you want to know all about the referendum, and how the money will purportedly be spent, and the estimated cost to property owners, there's plenty of electronic or print information available, of course paid for by us JCSD taxpayers. But if you simply want to know about how ironic-to-borderline-dumb it would be for Johnston school district taxpayers to support it, just read this:
1) After failing to pass the referendum nine months ago, JCSD changed the bonding amount from $51 million to $41 million - but not by cutting anything, only by deferring the $10 million to other taxpayer funded pools. In other words, they cut absolutely nothing. They apparently take us taxpayers for fools.
2) The $112 million doesn't include some very large ancillary future expenditures that are admittedly part of the long-term plan, such as a new football stadium. You know, for educational purposes. Are we just supposed to forget about that little item?
3) Voting to increase your own taxes is never a good idea. Let's face it, it's a little bit crazy. It's a lot crazy when you consider.....
4) School districts are often poor stewards of our money.
5) Given the current and future age of technology, what sense does it make to build expensive, huge, new brick-and-mortar schools? Shouldn't we be planning on ways to bring classrooms to students via on-line and digital means?
6) More than a decade ago, with the support of JCSD, our own Polk County passed a local option sales tax (LOST) to increase sales taxes from 5% to 6% for a 10-year period to fund new school infrastructure. That was the deal, ten years only. Liars! Less than ten years later, they and every other school district were already lobbying to extend the time, and ultimately in 2008, the state of Iowa simply went to a permanent 6% sales tax. Why should we believe anything the JCSD tells us now about taxes, when they had no problem lying to us taxpayers a few years ago?
7) Did I mention that school districts are often poor stewards of our money?
Here's a final thing that gets to me about this goofy referendum - it's being largely supported by a very Republican-leaning district. These folks want to tax others to benefit them and or their school children, regardless of whether those taxpayers will receive any direct benefit from the school. In other words, thousands of folks who claim to hate the so-called socialistic ideology of the Obama administration, seem perfectly willing to support this socialistic measure. It's another example of how some people only oppose taxes and government spending unless it's good for them, and they ought to be required to forfeit their Obama-bashing cards.
Fellow citizens of the JCSD - don't be duped! A 'no' vote doesn't mean you oppose education, it means you support not letting others unnecessarily spend your money. The tax-and-spend monster that is JCSD doesn't need to be fed, it needs to be starved. We can do far better with far less than over $100 million.
That's still no reason to vote yes.
As with virtually all such tax increase proposals that require voter approval, I heartily oppose this one. I'm not denying that there may be a current / future overcrowding issue in some school buildings, but I am denying that it should take $112 million of taxpayer money to solve that.
(There's one of the many head-fakes that voters get on deals like this - the bonding covers $41 million, but other taxpayer funds / levies will cover the other $71 million. That equals $112 million of our money, and I tabulated that without needing a new school facility to help me do it.)
If you want to know all about the referendum, and how the money will purportedly be spent, and the estimated cost to property owners, there's plenty of electronic or print information available, of course paid for by us JCSD taxpayers. But if you simply want to know about how ironic-to-borderline-dumb it would be for Johnston school district taxpayers to support it, just read this:
1) After failing to pass the referendum nine months ago, JCSD changed the bonding amount from $51 million to $41 million - but not by cutting anything, only by deferring the $10 million to other taxpayer funded pools. In other words, they cut absolutely nothing. They apparently take us taxpayers for fools.
2) The $112 million doesn't include some very large ancillary future expenditures that are admittedly part of the long-term plan, such as a new football stadium. You know, for educational purposes. Are we just supposed to forget about that little item?
3) Voting to increase your own taxes is never a good idea. Let's face it, it's a little bit crazy. It's a lot crazy when you consider.....
4) School districts are often poor stewards of our money.
5) Given the current and future age of technology, what sense does it make to build expensive, huge, new brick-and-mortar schools? Shouldn't we be planning on ways to bring classrooms to students via on-line and digital means?
6) More than a decade ago, with the support of JCSD, our own Polk County passed a local option sales tax (LOST) to increase sales taxes from 5% to 6% for a 10-year period to fund new school infrastructure. That was the deal, ten years only. Liars! Less than ten years later, they and every other school district were already lobbying to extend the time, and ultimately in 2008, the state of Iowa simply went to a permanent 6% sales tax. Why should we believe anything the JCSD tells us now about taxes, when they had no problem lying to us taxpayers a few years ago?
7) Did I mention that school districts are often poor stewards of our money?
Here's a final thing that gets to me about this goofy referendum - it's being largely supported by a very Republican-leaning district. These folks want to tax others to benefit them and or their school children, regardless of whether those taxpayers will receive any direct benefit from the school. In other words, thousands of folks who claim to hate the so-called socialistic ideology of the Obama administration, seem perfectly willing to support this socialistic measure. It's another example of how some people only oppose taxes and government spending unless it's good for them, and they ought to be required to forfeit their Obama-bashing cards.
Fellow citizens of the JCSD - don't be duped! A 'no' vote doesn't mean you oppose education, it means you support not letting others unnecessarily spend your money. The tax-and-spend monster that is JCSD doesn't need to be fed, it needs to be starved. We can do far better with far less than over $100 million.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Literally, It's Figuratively Hyperbole
There's a famous scene in the movie The Godfather, Part III where Don Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) laments not being able to operate his 'business' empire more legitimately by saying, "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!"
Enter this week's latest Whacked Out In The Head moment from Michele Bachmann, who had gone quite some time without making national news for saying something stupid. Just when I thought she was out, she pulled me back in with this quote, from a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives about repealing Obamacare:
"That's why we're here. Because we're saying, let's repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens."
Literally? So she believes that a law/regulation, basically words on paper, will somehow animate and act to take a life. Either she is very stupid about what inanimate objects can do, or very stupid about the definition of the word 'literally'. (I say both.)
Makes me wonder why extreme conservatives like her even bother with the old, "Guns don't kill people" routine. Guns literally can kill people, but if paper can do it too, we ought not be wasting time worrying about guns!
The sad thing is, the content of Bachmann's statement is already dumb enough. How much more time will conservatives like her waste on repealing Obamacare? Congress passed it, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it, and voters re-elected the president responsible for it. But she insisted on going the extra mile to expose herself as being stupid beyond the regular dumb, and used the word 'literally' where it made no sense.
Unfortunately, the incorrect and overuse of the word 'literally' these days is almost offensive. I frequently correct both family members and strangers on how they use it. These days, people commonly use it to intensify what they're saying, as opposed to actually using it properly. In other words, it's being used as hyperbole. Literally.
So thank you, Michele Bachmann, for allowing me to write about the misuse of the English language, while at the same time ridiculing you again. Good to have you back. Figuratively.
Enter this week's latest Whacked Out In The Head moment from Michele Bachmann, who had gone quite some time without making national news for saying something stupid. Just when I thought she was out, she pulled me back in with this quote, from a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives about repealing Obamacare:
"That's why we're here. Because we're saying, let's repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens."
Literally? So she believes that a law/regulation, basically words on paper, will somehow animate and act to take a life. Either she is very stupid about what inanimate objects can do, or very stupid about the definition of the word 'literally'. (I say both.)
Makes me wonder why extreme conservatives like her even bother with the old, "Guns don't kill people" routine. Guns literally can kill people, but if paper can do it too, we ought not be wasting time worrying about guns!
The sad thing is, the content of Bachmann's statement is already dumb enough. How much more time will conservatives like her waste on repealing Obamacare? Congress passed it, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it, and voters re-elected the president responsible for it. But she insisted on going the extra mile to expose herself as being stupid beyond the regular dumb, and used the word 'literally' where it made no sense.
Unfortunately, the incorrect and overuse of the word 'literally' these days is almost offensive. I frequently correct both family members and strangers on how they use it. These days, people commonly use it to intensify what they're saying, as opposed to actually using it properly. In other words, it's being used as hyperbole. Literally.
So thank you, Michele Bachmann, for allowing me to write about the misuse of the English language, while at the same time ridiculing you again. Good to have you back. Figuratively.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Be Careful What You Wish For
Assuming I labeled my posts properly, I went the entire calendar year of 2012 without an entry on religion. Hard to believe, because it isn't as if there weren't religious controversies worth blogging about.
Regardless, that streak is over. Some news today pushed me over the edge, that being a new proposal from the Obama administration that would allow religious groups to opt-out (sort of) of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandatory contraceptive coverage.
Religiously affiliated groups, especially the Catholic Church, have been going nuts over this mandate. When this topic was at its hottest this past summer, and preachers were crusading against the mandate during church services, an acquaintance of mine had a letter published in the Des Moines Register that complained about those tactics. After all, she wasn't going to church to hear those white men telling her what she should believe about her reproductive health care. The next thing you know she was getting letters from strangers, telling her how wrong she was to feel that way.
Here's the problem with all of this. The outrage of those religious leaders and their followers over the contraceptive coverage mandate, while somewhat understandable, would have a lot more credibility it it weren't for at least two really big things:
1) Religiously affiliated groups, and here again especially the Catholic Church, completely supported the passage of Obamacare. I'm sure much of that support was at least indirectly financial, via PAC contributions. Then once the rules were written, and they realized the rules apply to them, snap! they suddenly wanted to be excepted from a major part of Obamacare.
2) It's laughable to see the outrage of so-called religious leaders over this issue, when it is a fact that many of the organizations they oversee have been including contraceptive coverage in their health care plans for many years. Apparently, they think all of the young female teachers in their schools are using abstinence as their birth control method. Classic old white men group-think.
Who knows if this new 'opt-out' rule will pacify the mandate-haters. It probably won't. But that has more to do with the out-of-touch religious hierarchy, and its culture of thinking they can and should govern themselves. (Ask any former church pedophile victim how well they think that self-governance thing has worked out.)
Regardless, that streak is over. Some news today pushed me over the edge, that being a new proposal from the Obama administration that would allow religious groups to opt-out (sort of) of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandatory contraceptive coverage.
Religiously affiliated groups, especially the Catholic Church, have been going nuts over this mandate. When this topic was at its hottest this past summer, and preachers were crusading against the mandate during church services, an acquaintance of mine had a letter published in the Des Moines Register that complained about those tactics. After all, she wasn't going to church to hear those white men telling her what she should believe about her reproductive health care. The next thing you know she was getting letters from strangers, telling her how wrong she was to feel that way.
Here's the problem with all of this. The outrage of those religious leaders and their followers over the contraceptive coverage mandate, while somewhat understandable, would have a lot more credibility it it weren't for at least two really big things:
1) Religiously affiliated groups, and here again especially the Catholic Church, completely supported the passage of Obamacare. I'm sure much of that support was at least indirectly financial, via PAC contributions. Then once the rules were written, and they realized the rules apply to them, snap! they suddenly wanted to be excepted from a major part of Obamacare.
2) It's laughable to see the outrage of so-called religious leaders over this issue, when it is a fact that many of the organizations they oversee have been including contraceptive coverage in their health care plans for many years. Apparently, they think all of the young female teachers in their schools are using abstinence as their birth control method. Classic old white men group-think.
Who knows if this new 'opt-out' rule will pacify the mandate-haters. It probably won't. But that has more to do with the out-of-touch religious hierarchy, and its culture of thinking they can and should govern themselves. (Ask any former church pedophile victim how well they think that self-governance thing has worked out.)
Friday, December 14, 2012
Words When There Are No Words
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
ON SCHOOL SHOOTING IN NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
3:15 P.M. EST
This
afternoon, I spoke with Governor Malloy and FBI Director Mueller. I offered Governor Malloy my condolences on
behalf of the nation, and made it clear he will have every single resource that
he needs to investigate this heinous crime, care for the victims, counsel their
families.
We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few
years. And each time I learn the news I
react not as a President, but as anybody else would — as a parent. And that was especially true today. I know there’s not a parent in America who
doesn’t feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.
The majority of those who died today were children —
beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them —
birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own. Among the fallen were also teachers — men and
women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.
So our hearts are broken today — for the parents and
grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the
families of the adults who were lost.
Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as
blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their
children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no
words that will ease their pain.
As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown,
or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in
Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our
neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and
take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the
politics.
This evening, Michelle and I will do what I know every
parent in America will do, which is hug our children a little tighter and we’ll
tell them that we love them, and we’ll remind each other how deeply we love one
another. But there are families in
Connecticut who cannot do that tonight.
And they need all of us right now.
In the hard days to come, that community needs us to be at our best as
Americans. And I will do everything in
my power as President to help.
Because while nothing can fill the space of a lost child or
loved one, all of us can extend a hand to those in need — to remind them that
we are there for them, that we are praying for them, that the love they felt
for those they lost endures not just in their memories but also in ours.
May God bless the memory of the victims and, in the words of
Scripture, heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds.
END
3:20 P.M. EST
Friday, November 9, 2012
About That Presidential Election.....
Many years ago I attended a meeting where an economist was the keynote speaker. His opening line was, "I'm not a member of a major political party. I'm a Republican."
Never has that line cut deeper than this week. After all of the campaigning, the SuperPAC money, the advertisements, the blustery predictions, etc., the Rs have gone in reverse.
Their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, seemed like he was qualified enough to be president. Certainly qualified enough to defeat an economically-weakened Barack Obama. So how did this happen? Let a lifetime independent voter tell you.
If you listen to the Rs, they've got all sorts of reasons why they lost the presidency plus some senate seats. The only correct reason is that the Rs don't have a big enough tent. It's comprised of a declining base - whites, males, married females, social conservatives, and, um, that's about it.
Look at America. It's becoming less white, less dependent female, less socially conservative. Rs have to start appealing to those constituencies, or at least stop pissing them off.
But what are the conservative pundits framing as their next strategy? To go even farther right! They seem to believe that if they simply do a better job promoting their anti-secular, anti-immigration, anti-environment ideals, that we 'moderates' will be more likely to join them.
So, the Rs analysis of the problem is correct, but their solution is exactly wrong. They think we independent voters don't understand them? The problem is we understand them perfectly, and we don't like it. Newsflash to Rs: We aren't going to like more of what we already don't like.
The crazy thing is, the Rs really weren't/aren't so far away from taking power. Most independent voters are like America - socially liberal, but still fiscally conservative. If the Rs would spend more time on the fiscally conservative message, and a lot less on the social issues, they'd be fine.
[This is a good time to note and give kudos to the states of Colorado and Washington for legalizing marijuana. Talk about your trending social liberalism. By the way folks, it's no big deal - they already have legalized alcohol, a more abusive and dangerous drug. More about this in a future blog.]
There is plenty to dislike about the other non-major political party, a/k/a Democrats. As an independent, I think they're wrong on union support, wrong on expanded government, wrong on tax policy. I matured (such as it is) in the 80s, during the Reagan revolution, and I actually believe in supply-side economics.
To a political independent like me, however, the other stuff matters more now. It's encouraging to see WOITH politicians like Michele Bachmann, Steve King, and especially Bob Vander Plaats struggle so much (and in the latter case, outright lose) this election cycle. Their message of hate, masquerading as social conservatism, has become the millstone around their necks.
If they and the rest of the Rs want to appeal to today's independent voter, they need to go farther left, not farther right.
Never has that line cut deeper than this week. After all of the campaigning, the SuperPAC money, the advertisements, the blustery predictions, etc., the Rs have gone in reverse.
Their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, seemed like he was qualified enough to be president. Certainly qualified enough to defeat an economically-weakened Barack Obama. So how did this happen? Let a lifetime independent voter tell you.
If you listen to the Rs, they've got all sorts of reasons why they lost the presidency plus some senate seats. The only correct reason is that the Rs don't have a big enough tent. It's comprised of a declining base - whites, males, married females, social conservatives, and, um, that's about it.
Look at America. It's becoming less white, less dependent female, less socially conservative. Rs have to start appealing to those constituencies, or at least stop pissing them off.
But what are the conservative pundits framing as their next strategy? To go even farther right! They seem to believe that if they simply do a better job promoting their anti-secular, anti-immigration, anti-environment ideals, that we 'moderates' will be more likely to join them.
So, the Rs analysis of the problem is correct, but their solution is exactly wrong. They think we independent voters don't understand them? The problem is we understand them perfectly, and we don't like it. Newsflash to Rs: We aren't going to like more of what we already don't like.
The crazy thing is, the Rs really weren't/aren't so far away from taking power. Most independent voters are like America - socially liberal, but still fiscally conservative. If the Rs would spend more time on the fiscally conservative message, and a lot less on the social issues, they'd be fine.
[This is a good time to note and give kudos to the states of Colorado and Washington for legalizing marijuana. Talk about your trending social liberalism. By the way folks, it's no big deal - they already have legalized alcohol, a more abusive and dangerous drug. More about this in a future blog.]
There is plenty to dislike about the other non-major political party, a/k/a Democrats. As an independent, I think they're wrong on union support, wrong on expanded government, wrong on tax policy. I matured (such as it is) in the 80s, during the Reagan revolution, and I actually believe in supply-side economics.
To a political independent like me, however, the other stuff matters more now. It's encouraging to see WOITH politicians like Michele Bachmann, Steve King, and especially Bob Vander Plaats struggle so much (and in the latter case, outright lose) this election cycle. Their message of hate, masquerading as social conservatism, has become the millstone around their necks.
If they and the rest of the Rs want to appeal to today's independent voter, they need to go farther left, not farther right.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Dancing Like A Dad
What follows is the text of a September 27th article written for The Des Moines Register (specifically for its young professional supplement, Juice) by Mike Draper, the fairly well-known owner of the Des Moines t-shirt store, Raygun. (I would link to it, but their web site only allows so many non-subscription visits.) This should be required reading for every Iowan, and maybe everybody else:
Governor Terry Branstad would be a lot more likeable if he just never opened his mouth. Whenever he starts to give his opinion, I feel like a high schooler whose dad has decided to show off his dance moves in front of you and all your friends.
Most of his infractions have been pretty minor. There was his declaration this past May that companies “want to get out of California as quick as they can. We welcome them to Iowa.” Unfortunately, the shirts we’ve been saving for Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page have been gathering dust in our store since spring.
That was just after he called for a congressional investigation into the “pink slime smear campaign” as well as state laws against filming inside food factories. The last thing we want people to know is what they’re eating.
All TB has done, though, pales in comparison to his wall-to-wall B.S. editorial in The Des Moines Register earlier this month: “Obama has worn out his welcome.” It reads like something the Republican National Committee jotted down on a couple cocktail napkins, then attached our governor’s name. But if Branstad actually did write it (and more frightening, believes it), this isn’t your uncoordinated dad just dancing for all your friends, this is your dad stepping onto the “American Idol” stage.
“In Iowa,” Terry writes, “we know a thing or two about building success with our own two hands. ... We don’t look at our farms or our factories or our businesses and say, ‘Look what the government built.’ ”
Good god. He writes this from the center of a state that is up to its hog-nuts in federally subsidized agriculture, federally subsidized ethanol, and federally subsidized wind energy. He writes this within days of giving the largest economic subsidy in Iowa history to a foreign fertilizer production company. He writes this from a state whose governor declared he’d create 200,000 jobs (how a governor would do this without “picking winners or losers” needs to be explained to me). He writes this from a state whose commemorative quarter depicts a public school building painted by our most famous artist, Grant Wood, whose livelihood during the Depression was sustained by the Federal Art Project.
As a business owner who has never used a federally backed loan, who has never had a government contract, who has never really had any direct aid to speak of, I’d be in a good spot to claim that “I built it” if I wanted to sound like more of an a-hole than I already am. But I still can’t. After all, I was born into a stable home, in a stable state, educated K-12 in a public community school, graduated from college debt-free because of my parents, and opened a business in a building that was constructed with the help of Tax Increment Financing.
From direct help like the mortgage interest deduction to peripheral help like roads, everyone in America has taken some form of government assistance. Everyone wants government assistance cut, but not their government assistance. I can forgive 24-hour news commentators for making brash, incorrect declarations, because their news model is built on B.S. But I worry when our elected officials start to sound like our 24-hour news commentators.
At least Barack Obama is in luck: Branstad declares that he’s “not resting until Mitt Romney gets the votes to send him to the White House.” If his promise for Mitt gets as far as his promise to not pick winners and losers, Obama is in great shape.
Governor Terry Branstad would be a lot more likeable if he just never opened his mouth. Whenever he starts to give his opinion, I feel like a high schooler whose dad has decided to show off his dance moves in front of you and all your friends.
Most of his infractions have been pretty minor. There was his declaration this past May that companies “want to get out of California as quick as they can. We welcome them to Iowa.” Unfortunately, the shirts we’ve been saving for Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page have been gathering dust in our store since spring.
That was just after he called for a congressional investigation into the “pink slime smear campaign” as well as state laws against filming inside food factories. The last thing we want people to know is what they’re eating.
All TB has done, though, pales in comparison to his wall-to-wall B.S. editorial in The Des Moines Register earlier this month: “Obama has worn out his welcome.” It reads like something the Republican National Committee jotted down on a couple cocktail napkins, then attached our governor’s name. But if Branstad actually did write it (and more frightening, believes it), this isn’t your uncoordinated dad just dancing for all your friends, this is your dad stepping onto the “American Idol” stage.
“In Iowa,” Terry writes, “we know a thing or two about building success with our own two hands. ... We don’t look at our farms or our factories or our businesses and say, ‘Look what the government built.’ ”
Good god. He writes this from the center of a state that is up to its hog-nuts in federally subsidized agriculture, federally subsidized ethanol, and federally subsidized wind energy. He writes this within days of giving the largest economic subsidy in Iowa history to a foreign fertilizer production company. He writes this from a state whose governor declared he’d create 200,000 jobs (how a governor would do this without “picking winners or losers” needs to be explained to me). He writes this from a state whose commemorative quarter depicts a public school building painted by our most famous artist, Grant Wood, whose livelihood during the Depression was sustained by the Federal Art Project.
As a business owner who has never used a federally backed loan, who has never had a government contract, who has never really had any direct aid to speak of, I’d be in a good spot to claim that “I built it” if I wanted to sound like more of an a-hole than I already am. But I still can’t. After all, I was born into a stable home, in a stable state, educated K-12 in a public community school, graduated from college debt-free because of my parents, and opened a business in a building that was constructed with the help of Tax Increment Financing.
From direct help like the mortgage interest deduction to peripheral help like roads, everyone in America has taken some form of government assistance. Everyone wants government assistance cut, but not their government assistance. I can forgive 24-hour news commentators for making brash, incorrect declarations, because their news model is built on B.S. But I worry when our elected officials start to sound like our 24-hour news commentators.
At least Barack Obama is in luck: Branstad declares that he’s “not resting until Mitt Romney gets the votes to send him to the White House.” If his promise for Mitt gets as far as his promise to not pick winners and losers, Obama is in great shape.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Burning Words
A few weeks ago I wrote about how America need not apologize for its treatment of dead enemy soldiers. Turns out that small furor was nothing compared to our latest request to apologize.
This week in Afghanistan, some NATO troops accidentally burned some copies of the Quran. Apparently this is a serious no-no in Islam, burning former trees that have taken the shape of the word of Allah. It may shock some that this act resulted in massive demonstrations there, with many people killed including two Americans, but read this and you won't be that surprised.
With all due respect to the beliefs of another religion, this really is an outrage - to humanity. Equating a bound compilation of wood products that was put together in some print shop (maybe in China?) with something so sacred that human violence and death is wished upon its (accidental) desecration? This is taking the concept that Christians might call 'Word Made Flesh' to a whole different level.
To add injury to insult, President Obama apologized on behalf of America. He called the act "inadvertent," and said, "We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, including holding accountable those responsible."
OK, I'm sure at some level we had to do this to try to save other lives - presumably American lives. But damn him for making me agree with this reply from none other than Newt Gingrich: "The president apologized for the burning, but I haven't seen the president demand that the government of Afghanistan apologize for the killing of two Americans."
Of course, the Taliban rejected the apology anyway. They called on Afghans to take revenge, saying, "We should attack their military bases, their military convoys, we should kill their soldiers, arrest their invading soldiers, beat them up and give a kind of lesson to them that they never dare to insult the holy Quran."
Clearly, it's less offensive to some Muslims to kill people than it is to burn a Quran.
I suppose all religions have doctrines that don't make sense. Regardless, if any belief or act can be justified in the name of a religion (be it Islam or Christianity or anything else) you don't have a religion, you have a cult. That's something we'd all be better off without.
This week in Afghanistan, some NATO troops accidentally burned some copies of the Quran. Apparently this is a serious no-no in Islam, burning former trees that have taken the shape of the word of Allah. It may shock some that this act resulted in massive demonstrations there, with many people killed including two Americans, but read this and you won't be that surprised.
With all due respect to the beliefs of another religion, this really is an outrage - to humanity. Equating a bound compilation of wood products that was put together in some print shop (maybe in China?) with something so sacred that human violence and death is wished upon its (accidental) desecration? This is taking the concept that Christians might call 'Word Made Flesh' to a whole different level.
To add injury to insult, President Obama apologized on behalf of America. He called the act "inadvertent," and said, "We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, including holding accountable those responsible."
OK, I'm sure at some level we had to do this to try to save other lives - presumably American lives. But damn him for making me agree with this reply from none other than Newt Gingrich: "The president apologized for the burning, but I haven't seen the president demand that the government of Afghanistan apologize for the killing of two Americans."
Of course, the Taliban rejected the apology anyway. They called on Afghans to take revenge, saying, "We should attack their military bases, their military convoys, we should kill their soldiers, arrest their invading soldiers, beat them up and give a kind of lesson to them that they never dare to insult the holy Quran."
Clearly, it's less offensive to some Muslims to kill people than it is to burn a Quran.
I suppose all religions have doctrines that don't make sense. Regardless, if any belief or act can be justified in the name of a religion (be it Islam or Christianity or anything else) you don't have a religion, you have a cult. That's something we'd all be better off without.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Piss On The Taliban
This one is for all the bleeding hearts out there who are outraged (outraged, I tell you!) over the just-released video showing a U.S. Marine sniper team urinating on dead bodies in Afghanistan.
Are you kidding me!? The only outrage in this whole thing should be directed at the namby-pamby civilian and military personnel who are making the dead people the victims, and the U.S. troops the enemy.
This is not torture. This is not Abu Ghraib. This is a group of Marines who are probably damn tired of being away from their families in godforsaken country full of people trying to kill them (possibly including the pissees), and who want to exact a little bit of mental revenge.
Is this really so hard for us to accept? I can imagine it now, one of these Marines says, "Screw this place. These people are trying to kill us, and nobody at home gives a damn because they're too busy trying to decide whether to buy the 'grande' or the 'venti' today. We got them before they got us, and since there won't be any parades, let's celebrate our victory by pissing on them!" And the other Marines say, "Hell yes! Great idea!" And finally one of the dumber Marines says, "Yeah, and let's put it on video so we can show everybody back home some day!"
I get that the U.S. / Obama administration has to officially condemn this conduct. We don't want to come off looking like barbarians. The thing of it is, the Taliban and other radical Islamic terrorist group are going to think that about Americans regardless of what we do. They would kill us in a second if given the chance, no questions asked.
What I don't need to hear are any religious scholars out there suggesting that somehow the U.S. is desecrating Islam. Does anyone really believe these Marines were urinating on these people as a symbol of their hatred for Muslims? Of course not, they couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. The Marines are simply showing their disrespect for some people who probably just tried to kill them.
This is war. There are no rules in war, at least not in combat. Did we follow any rules when we captured/killed Bin Laden? If there were rules, the U.S. would surely lose the so-called war on terror, because the enemy sure as hell isn't following them.
I hope the way this plays out is, soon there will be a groundswell of support for these Marines. Most Americans are going to see through the pious rhetoric and realize that no one was actually harmed in the shooting of this video - although someone was clearly harmed beforehand. And piss on them!
Are you kidding me!? The only outrage in this whole thing should be directed at the namby-pamby civilian and military personnel who are making the dead people the victims, and the U.S. troops the enemy.
This is not torture. This is not Abu Ghraib. This is a group of Marines who are probably damn tired of being away from their families in godforsaken country full of people trying to kill them (possibly including the pissees), and who want to exact a little bit of mental revenge.
Is this really so hard for us to accept? I can imagine it now, one of these Marines says, "Screw this place. These people are trying to kill us, and nobody at home gives a damn because they're too busy trying to decide whether to buy the 'grande' or the 'venti' today. We got them before they got us, and since there won't be any parades, let's celebrate our victory by pissing on them!" And the other Marines say, "Hell yes! Great idea!" And finally one of the dumber Marines says, "Yeah, and let's put it on video so we can show everybody back home some day!"
I get that the U.S. / Obama administration has to officially condemn this conduct. We don't want to come off looking like barbarians. The thing of it is, the Taliban and other radical Islamic terrorist group are going to think that about Americans regardless of what we do. They would kill us in a second if given the chance, no questions asked.
What I don't need to hear are any religious scholars out there suggesting that somehow the U.S. is desecrating Islam. Does anyone really believe these Marines were urinating on these people as a symbol of their hatred for Muslims? Of course not, they couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. The Marines are simply showing their disrespect for some people who probably just tried to kill them.
This is war. There are no rules in war, at least not in combat. Did we follow any rules when we captured/killed Bin Laden? If there were rules, the U.S. would surely lose the so-called war on terror, because the enemy sure as hell isn't following them.
I hope the way this plays out is, soon there will be a groundswell of support for these Marines. Most Americans are going to see through the pious rhetoric and realize that no one was actually harmed in the shooting of this video - although someone was clearly harmed beforehand. And piss on them!
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
A 2012 Candidate Guide
It's Election Day, circa 2011. Not a whole lot to worry about nationally today, but a year from now - oh baby.
Now seems a good time for my independent (yes, there are still independents out there), Iowa-based analysis of the current serious (?) Republican candidates. In no particular order:
Mitt Romney - Plasticman. Backpedaling on his past in order to get the right-wing to nominate him. He's probably going to get that nomination, and then start moving to the center again, while spending a bunch of time rationalizing how Romneycare is different than Obamacare.
Herman Cain - Doesn't really want to be president. Just got in this thing for the attention and to sell his book, and didn't plan on the scrutiny. The only reason people are drawn to him is his 9-9-9 tax plan, which just proves in this economy, any idea, good or bad, is better than no idea at all.
Michele Bachmann - WOITH. Less qualified to be president than Sarah Palin, by far, and that's no compliment. In way over her head, but since she only talks to friendly crowds (and literally avoids those who might intellectually confront her - just Google 'bachmann grinnell college') she doesn't know it.
Ron Paul - The most independent, dare I say Liberitarian candidate, which makes him very likable. Unfortunately, his ideas for swift and radical change would make things a lot worse before they could possible become better, and no one is going to vote for that.
Rick Santorum - Can't take his colorless form seriously, not to mention his last name. (Google that, too.)
Rick Perry - Not ready for national prime-time politics, and maybe never will be. Partly a victim of the Texas-governor-cowboy fatigue of the American public, and partly a victim of not understanding what is and isn't acceptable to blurt out when running a national campaign.
Jon Huntsman - Best of the bunch. Moderate. The only one who seems to understand the role of foreign policy in the U.S. But his only hope is a John McCain-like, crazy come-from behind 3rd place or better in the Iowa caucuses, where he's not campaiging. (Another reason to like him.)
Newt Gingrich - The Bill Clinton of the Republican Party. Most intellectually ready to be president of the group, but also the most personally flawed - although Cain is giving him a run for his money. Probably wishes he could have back some of what he said as Speaker of the House in the 90s.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican candidates for president. A year from now I suspect they will all just be part of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's very large shadow.
Now seems a good time for my independent (yes, there are still independents out there), Iowa-based analysis of the current serious (?) Republican candidates. In no particular order:
Mitt Romney - Plasticman. Backpedaling on his past in order to get the right-wing to nominate him. He's probably going to get that nomination, and then start moving to the center again, while spending a bunch of time rationalizing how Romneycare is different than Obamacare.
Herman Cain - Doesn't really want to be president. Just got in this thing for the attention and to sell his book, and didn't plan on the scrutiny. The only reason people are drawn to him is his 9-9-9 tax plan, which just proves in this economy, any idea, good or bad, is better than no idea at all.
Michele Bachmann - WOITH. Less qualified to be president than Sarah Palin, by far, and that's no compliment. In way over her head, but since she only talks to friendly crowds (and literally avoids those who might intellectually confront her - just Google 'bachmann grinnell college') she doesn't know it.
Ron Paul - The most independent, dare I say Liberitarian candidate, which makes him very likable. Unfortunately, his ideas for swift and radical change would make things a lot worse before they could possible become better, and no one is going to vote for that.
Rick Santorum - Can't take his colorless form seriously, not to mention his last name. (Google that, too.)
Rick Perry - Not ready for national prime-time politics, and maybe never will be. Partly a victim of the Texas-governor-cowboy fatigue of the American public, and partly a victim of not understanding what is and isn't acceptable to blurt out when running a national campaign.
Jon Huntsman - Best of the bunch. Moderate. The only one who seems to understand the role of foreign policy in the U.S. But his only hope is a John McCain-like, crazy come-from behind 3rd place or better in the Iowa caucuses, where he's not campaiging. (Another reason to like him.)
Newt Gingrich - The Bill Clinton of the Republican Party. Most intellectually ready to be president of the group, but also the most personally flawed - although Cain is giving him a run for his money. Probably wishes he could have back some of what he said as Speaker of the House in the 90s.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican candidates for president. A year from now I suspect they will all just be part of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's very large shadow.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Truth And Prevention
I haven't mentioned WOITH member and Iowa congressman (and possibly Martian) Steve King in a while, although I could do so virtually any day.
He and his Fox News friends are at it again, this time over the new Obama administration's stance that insurers cover contrceptives as preventative care. A controversial position, but not exactly for the flat-earth reasoning of King. Check out the clip from this week's The Colbert Report:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393824/august-03-2011/women-s-health-nazi-plan
I especially enjoyed Colbert's remark that a woman's health is a private matter between..... her priest and her husband! Satire is funnier when it's not so far from the truth.
While I'm at it, let me take this time to officially elevate his Tea Party mistress, Minnesota congressperson Michele Bachmann, to WOITH status. Her stance to not raise the U.S. debt ceiling is effectively saying it's better to have an international economic crisis than it is for the U.S. to pay the bills it has already incurred.
It's going to be fun having her around Iowa to campaign for president, telling everyone she would do the opposite of what Obama does without ever actually saying what she would do.
He and his Fox News friends are at it again, this time over the new Obama administration's stance that insurers cover contrceptives as preventative care. A controversial position, but not exactly for the flat-earth reasoning of King. Check out the clip from this week's The Colbert Report:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393824/august-03-2011/women-s-health-nazi-plan
I especially enjoyed Colbert's remark that a woman's health is a private matter between..... her priest and her husband! Satire is funnier when it's not so far from the truth.
While I'm at it, let me take this time to officially elevate his Tea Party mistress, Minnesota congressperson Michele Bachmann, to WOITH status. Her stance to not raise the U.S. debt ceiling is effectively saying it's better to have an international economic crisis than it is for the U.S. to pay the bills it has already incurred.
It's going to be fun having her around Iowa to campaign for president, telling everyone she would do the opposite of what Obama does without ever actually saying what she would do.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
How To Tell If Something Is Fake
This time of the year there are an awful lot Santas out there. So how can people tell the real Santa from all of the fakers? It's simple really. The dude at the end of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is the real Santa. Anything else you see between then and Christmas Eve is just a faker, or as I told my kids, Santa's helper. God-given common sense should tell you the real Santa has too much to do at the North Pole!
Fake Santas may not be the best example of how to tell if something is real, but God-given common sense is. This brings me to today's actual topic: Bristol Palin's Facebook Page.
I don't use Facebook; I'm still trying to figure out how to leverage my Twitter account. However, Facebook-ers often use it to communicate crazy things that get mainstream media play. Bristol used it this week to defend herself against a fellow Dancing With The Stars contestant, Margaret Cho, who blogged that Bristol's politically famous mother, Sarah, made her do the show.
It would be perfectly fine and even righteous for Bristol to defend herself using her Facebook page - if it was really her writing the entries. If anyone reads the Cho defense entry, and compares it to the actual verbal quotes of this in-over-her-head (like her mother) kid, no one with any God-given common sense could believe that she actually wrote it.
Let's deconstruct it: She uses the word "canard". She refers to her mother's "bestselling book, Going Rogue". She even makes an analogy that includes KD Lang and the Indigo Girls! When someone who normally communicates at an 8th grade level ends up writing something that sophisticated, and with political innuendo, my 'faker' radar goes off.
So that same God-given common sense tells me this entry was written by a Sarah Palin political operative for damage control. Normally that would be fine - most 'celebrities' and executives use publicists or ghost writers to write statements or even books. But a Sarah Palin ghost writer on her own daughter's Facebook page? It sort of gives Cho's blog entry credibility - that Mama Grizzly is controlling what her kids say and do.
In a way, I feel for Bristol. She didn't sign up to be a Palin, to be under the microscope, and criticism sucks, especially through the media. But when Bristol signed up for reality TV (and the cash that came with it), she put herself on the media-watch list. (Um, that is assuming it really was her and not her mom that made her do it.)
The best path for Bristol now is to live her life with a quiet confidence, and stay out of the limelight a la Chelsea Clinton at her age. In the meantime, she can hope her mom's political ambitions don't take over her life.
Fake Santas may not be the best example of how to tell if something is real, but God-given common sense is. This brings me to today's actual topic: Bristol Palin's Facebook Page.
I don't use Facebook; I'm still trying to figure out how to leverage my Twitter account. However, Facebook-ers often use it to communicate crazy things that get mainstream media play. Bristol used it this week to defend herself against a fellow Dancing With The Stars contestant, Margaret Cho, who blogged that Bristol's politically famous mother, Sarah, made her do the show.
It would be perfectly fine and even righteous for Bristol to defend herself using her Facebook page - if it was really her writing the entries. If anyone reads the Cho defense entry, and compares it to the actual verbal quotes of this in-over-her-head (like her mother) kid, no one with any God-given common sense could believe that she actually wrote it.
Let's deconstruct it: She uses the word "canard". She refers to her mother's "bestselling book, Going Rogue". She even makes an analogy that includes KD Lang and the Indigo Girls! When someone who normally communicates at an 8th grade level ends up writing something that sophisticated, and with political innuendo, my 'faker' radar goes off.
So that same God-given common sense tells me this entry was written by a Sarah Palin political operative for damage control. Normally that would be fine - most 'celebrities' and executives use publicists or ghost writers to write statements or even books. But a Sarah Palin ghost writer on her own daughter's Facebook page? It sort of gives Cho's blog entry credibility - that Mama Grizzly is controlling what her kids say and do.
In a way, I feel for Bristol. She didn't sign up to be a Palin, to be under the microscope, and criticism sucks, especially through the media. But when Bristol signed up for reality TV (and the cash that came with it), she put herself on the media-watch list. (Um, that is assuming it really was her and not her mom that made her do it.)
The best path for Bristol now is to live her life with a quiet confidence, and stay out of the limelight a la Chelsea Clinton at her age. In the meantime, she can hope her mom's political ambitions don't take over her life.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Blogging Isn't Easy
Random thoughts to catch up on the past week:
- Note to self: If you're going to have a blog, you have to update it at least once or twice a week.
- It's very hard to be an above-average golfer. If you only play once a week, it's almost impossible.
- Late summer / early fall is the best time of the year. Especially in a non-election year.
- Regarding Obama's planned speech to school children.....If parents don't want their kids watch it, OK, but let's have some perspective here. How many of those same parents take no interest (or have no clue) in what else their kids watch on TV or their computers? Answer: Most of them. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
- I seem to have a lot less time to do things during football season.
- How do people who call themselves 'life coaches' or some other cheesey name actually earn a living? It seems all smoke and mirrors to me to begin with, and in this economy, how can anyone afford to pay someone else to be motivated?
- I don't remember the last time I wasn't at least a little bit tired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)