I have only one thing to say.
Can you imagine the howling we would hear if this were the Bush White House, and the network was FOX?
A Good News Story
3 hours ago
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
One Down, Six to Go
(H/T: The Jawa Report)
Over at Hot Air, you can see video of President HopenChange swatting a fly. This reminds me of something... now where have I heard this before...
Ah, of course. The Valiant Little Tailor. In this classic Grimm tale, a tailor kills seven flies with a single swat. He then sets up a life of adventure and eventual leisure by cashing in on his unearned fame. For the most part, the tailor uses deception and parlor tricks to acheive his purposes, and is ultimately rewarded by gaining the King's daughter in marriage.
Obama's claims of "creating and saving jobs" seem to hearken back to this fairy tale. Using little more than smoke and mirrors, he claims that his so-called stimulus program has created and/or saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, even as more and more people find their jobs evaporating into thin air. Unemployment has already hit that danger zone that we were warned would happen without the stimulus, so I'm not sure why his claims continue to be touted by his ever-adoring press corps. Or should that be "press corpse?"
Anyway, our Tailor-in-Chief has a few more flies to swat before anyone will be truly impressed with his abilities. In no particular order, those flies would be:
Over at Hot Air, you can see video of President HopenChange swatting a fly. This reminds me of something... now where have I heard this before...
Ah, of course. The Valiant Little Tailor. In this classic Grimm tale, a tailor kills seven flies with a single swat. He then sets up a life of adventure and eventual leisure by cashing in on his unearned fame. For the most part, the tailor uses deception and parlor tricks to acheive his purposes, and is ultimately rewarded by gaining the King's daughter in marriage.
Obama's claims of "creating and saving jobs" seem to hearken back to this fairy tale. Using little more than smoke and mirrors, he claims that his so-called stimulus program has created and/or saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, even as more and more people find their jobs evaporating into thin air. Unemployment has already hit that danger zone that we were warned would happen without the stimulus, so I'm not sure why his claims continue to be touted by his ever-adoring press corps. Or should that be "press corpse?"
Anyway, our Tailor-in-Chief has a few more flies to swat before anyone will be truly impressed with his abilities. In no particular order, those flies would be:
- Balancing the budget
- Healthcare reform rather than socialized medicine
- Removal of government from private enterprise
- Abeying and dismantling the nuclear threat in North Korea
- Making good on his promise to be transparent (in re: the firing of Gerald Walpin), and
- Understanding the nature of terrorists and their organizations before attempting to deal with them
Thursday, June 11, 2009
I'm Not Laughing, David
I actually haven't laughed at Letterman since I was about 26. That's when I finally grew up and realized that being "edgy" was really just an excuse for being rude, vulgar, boorish, and generally piggish and wanting to be praised for it. I lost my taste for it when it cost me my job.
I'd simply refuse to ever watch him, but he is unfortunately heavily advertised on CBS, which is where one of my favorite shows is currently parked. (I sometimes forget to mute the TV when the commercials come on.) They advertise him relentlessly. The clips they show never fail to make me cringe. His "Top Ten" lists, his inane comments, his failed jokes. The man is neither relevant nor funny.
His sense of self-importance was never more in evidence than when he lambasted John McCain for failing to actually appear on his show. How dare he? That McCain later went back and actually apologized to Letterman for not appearing only caused me to think that perhaps he wouldn't have been a much better president than the one we ended up electing. I mean, how weak-willed would you have to be to apologize to Letterman for anything?
Especially when you consider Letterman's own non-apology for joking about having one of Sarah Palin's daughters be raped by a professional ball player.
What a waste of a good suit.
I'd simply refuse to ever watch him, but he is unfortunately heavily advertised on CBS, which is where one of my favorite shows is currently parked. (I sometimes forget to mute the TV when the commercials come on.) They advertise him relentlessly. The clips they show never fail to make me cringe. His "Top Ten" lists, his inane comments, his failed jokes. The man is neither relevant nor funny.
His sense of self-importance was never more in evidence than when he lambasted John McCain for failing to actually appear on his show. How dare he? That McCain later went back and actually apologized to Letterman for not appearing only caused me to think that perhaps he wouldn't have been a much better president than the one we ended up electing. I mean, how weak-willed would you have to be to apologize to Letterman for anything?
Especially when you consider Letterman's own non-apology for joking about having one of Sarah Palin's daughters be raped by a professional ball player.
"These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl. I mean, look at my record. It has never happened. I don't think it's funny. I would never think it was funny. I wouldn't put it in a joke..."But you did, David. And even if, as you stated, you meant it to be a reference to 18 year old Bristol rather than 14 year old Willow, what's the difference? It was still a cynical, condescending, disgusting, and even irresponsible thing to say. In a classic case of liberal double-standards, had a conservative said something similar about, say, one of Obama's daughters, you would have had the offender raked over the proverbial coals. Instead, you think you get a walk simply because you referenced the wrong daughter.
What a waste of a good suit.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Sacramento Table Talk
It happens in households everywhere. Mom and Dad sit at the table and discuss finances.
"That trip to D.C. would be nice this year, but I just don't see how on earth we're going to get there. Until we get those credit cards paid down, we're going to end up a couple thousand short."
"We have six months, right? What if we give up eating out on Fridays, and see if the kids want to take a break from swimming and dancing lessons this summer? That might help..."
It used to be axiomatic that if moms and dads ran their finances the way "the government" did, they would soon find themselves in bankruptcy.
A very large part of what has brought this country to its financial knees today is the fact that many households — far more than when Woody was a young pup — run their finances precisely the way governments do: buy whatever you want; borrow for whatever you can't pay up front; hope it'll sort itself out in the end. Add to that a healthy dose of entitlement (i.e., I am a carbon-based life form and therefore I deserve a house) and you have the makings of a financial collapse.
It will be instructive to watch how Sacramento deals with the fact that voters are tired of fronting their addiction to spending. Many of those voters are, of course, to blame for Sacramento's addiction. For years we've been approving spending measures, bonds, and all manner of budget-shuffling initiatives that have taken whatever surpluses we might have claimed years ago and made them disappear faster than an Obama campaign pledge.
But the voters have finally declared "enough" to Schwarzenegger and the Girly Men. Time to cut bait, folks. Your fishing days are over.
Except that they're not. No, the Governator has already signalled that he feels no compunctions about taking money away from county and city governments. He claims this would be a "worst-case scenario" of course, but we all know what's coming. (His actual words were "I absolutely despise taking money from local government, but...") (And, yes, that's one mighty large "but.")
The bailout has made things worse. Obama's plan to create money where none exists is troublesome in the extreme. There is absolutely nothing of value backing up his monetary projections right now, and he's already indicated that we need to make it easier, not harder, for high-risk borrowers to get home loans in the future. This will set up a never-ending round of loan defaults, blaming everyone but the people responsible, then re-regulating the industry ad infinitum until they go out of business.
So California has tough choices to make now. I don't see them making the truly tough ones. They might make the "tough" decisions to take money from other sources, but will absolutely refuse to slash things like education or health services while calling for massive reforms in those services.
My suggestion would be locking them in a room and not feeding them until they deliver a budget that makes sense. They may as well get used to the idea right now that, no matter what they do, no one is going to like it. Not one little bit. The unions will howl. The voters will gnash their teeth.
But if it brings forward an actual balanced budget, I'll be willing to live with it.
"That trip to D.C. would be nice this year, but I just don't see how on earth we're going to get there. Until we get those credit cards paid down, we're going to end up a couple thousand short."
"We have six months, right? What if we give up eating out on Fridays, and see if the kids want to take a break from swimming and dancing lessons this summer? That might help..."
It used to be axiomatic that if moms and dads ran their finances the way "the government" did, they would soon find themselves in bankruptcy.
A very large part of what has brought this country to its financial knees today is the fact that many households — far more than when Woody was a young pup — run their finances precisely the way governments do: buy whatever you want; borrow for whatever you can't pay up front; hope it'll sort itself out in the end. Add to that a healthy dose of entitlement (i.e., I am a carbon-based life form and therefore I deserve a house) and you have the makings of a financial collapse.
It will be instructive to watch how Sacramento deals with the fact that voters are tired of fronting their addiction to spending. Many of those voters are, of course, to blame for Sacramento's addiction. For years we've been approving spending measures, bonds, and all manner of budget-shuffling initiatives that have taken whatever surpluses we might have claimed years ago and made them disappear faster than an Obama campaign pledge.
But the voters have finally declared "enough" to Schwarzenegger and the Girly Men. Time to cut bait, folks. Your fishing days are over.
Except that they're not. No, the Governator has already signalled that he feels no compunctions about taking money away from county and city governments. He claims this would be a "worst-case scenario" of course, but we all know what's coming. (His actual words were "I absolutely despise taking money from local government, but...") (And, yes, that's one mighty large "but.")
The bailout has made things worse. Obama's plan to create money where none exists is troublesome in the extreme. There is absolutely nothing of value backing up his monetary projections right now, and he's already indicated that we need to make it easier, not harder, for high-risk borrowers to get home loans in the future. This will set up a never-ending round of loan defaults, blaming everyone but the people responsible, then re-regulating the industry ad infinitum until they go out of business.
So California has tough choices to make now. I don't see them making the truly tough ones. They might make the "tough" decisions to take money from other sources, but will absolutely refuse to slash things like education or health services while calling for massive reforms in those services.
My suggestion would be locking them in a room and not feeding them until they deliver a budget that makes sense. They may as well get used to the idea right now that, no matter what they do, no one is going to like it. Not one little bit. The unions will howl. The voters will gnash their teeth.
But if it brings forward an actual balanced budget, I'll be willing to live with it.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Election Post-Mortem
Ah, victory. Mostly.
Uncle Woody was, it goes without saying, one of the voices raised in favor of killing all the initiatives in this election. Nothing about this "special" election had any validity on its merits. It was truly an act of political desperation.
If the writers of these travesties were completely honest, we would find that this wasn't designed to fix our budget deficit. This was an attempt to force dollars into the hands of greedy special interests. They know who they are.
California voters, whatever else our faults may be, were not fooled. Even those who voted for the initiatives appear to have done so largely because they didn't see any better way of getting out of our mess.
The real loser, of course, is Schwarzenegger. Politically and personally, Schwarzenegger is running out of options. His so-called political capital is just about maxed out. He has, truthfully, no creative ideas for fixing anything, budget included. Nor does he have enough influence left with the state legislature to be able to dictate solutions that will garner any serious discussion.
Assuming Arnie has aspirations of serving further as a career politician, this entire budget fiasco is going to become a millstone around his thirty inch neck. Anyone heard from Gray Davis lately?
It's still relatively early, but no one seems to believe that the 1A through 1E initiatives have any life left. Good. May they rest in relative peace. 1F appears to have won, but that doesn't really bother me. For all my huff about "voting the bums out," If we can actually put some teeth behind this initiative that theoretically limits the legislature's ability to raise their own salaries in a deficit year, the current class should be forced into salary laissez faire for the duration of their terms.
California may be dysfunctional, but the voters still have some life left.
Uncle Woody was, it goes without saying, one of the voices raised in favor of killing all the initiatives in this election. Nothing about this "special" election had any validity on its merits. It was truly an act of political desperation.
If the writers of these travesties were completely honest, we would find that this wasn't designed to fix our budget deficit. This was an attempt to force dollars into the hands of greedy special interests. They know who they are.
California voters, whatever else our faults may be, were not fooled. Even those who voted for the initiatives appear to have done so largely because they didn't see any better way of getting out of our mess.
The real loser, of course, is Schwarzenegger. Politically and personally, Schwarzenegger is running out of options. His so-called political capital is just about maxed out. He has, truthfully, no creative ideas for fixing anything, budget included. Nor does he have enough influence left with the state legislature to be able to dictate solutions that will garner any serious discussion.
Assuming Arnie has aspirations of serving further as a career politician, this entire budget fiasco is going to become a millstone around his thirty inch neck. Anyone heard from Gray Davis lately?
It's still relatively early, but no one seems to believe that the 1A through 1E initiatives have any life left. Good. May they rest in relative peace. 1F appears to have won, but that doesn't really bother me. For all my huff about "voting the bums out," If we can actually put some teeth behind this initiative that theoretically limits the legislature's ability to raise their own salaries in a deficit year, the current class should be forced into salary laissez faire for the duration of their terms.
California may be dysfunctional, but the voters still have some life left.
Election Day
Californians: Go vote.
Those who would not vote today are left without complaint.
And I have plenty of complaints.
Those who would not vote today are left without complaint.
And I have plenty of complaints.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Wherein Woody Discusses the Desert
In the Oz series of books by L. Frank Baum, the land of Oz is surrounded by an impassable desert. Although I never read every installment, the books I did read led me to believe that there were very few ways to cross this desert. One was by air. The Wizard himself crossed over via a hot-air balloon, while Dorothy crossed over while kept aloft by the tornado that ripped her house from its foundations. Another way over involved a special carpet owned by the princess Ozma which unrolled itself in front and rolled itself back up again behind as she and her "army" crossed the wasteland.
Baum was obviously acquainted with the Mojave desert, specifically that portion which lies between Las Vegas and San Bernardino.
We have just crossed this bleak landscape on our way home after a tremendous vacation through some truly awe-inspiring patches of terra firma in the vicinity of the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains. Our carpet is our trusty Odyssey minivan. We have plenty of liquid on board. We hesitate to set foot on the surface of the desert lest we find ourselves turned into sand. Even the underpaid staff of the Agricultural Checkpoint can't wait to wave us through without stopping.
Coming back into California is always a let-down.
Not that California is without its charms. The vicinity immediately surrounding our home in Orange County is actually very nice most of the time. Except for those two or three truly brown months of the year, this eastern end of Anaheim with Yorba Linda to the north and Anaheim Hills to the south is quite green most of the time. But head, oh, twenty miles or so to the north and the desert begins to manifest itself in deadly earnest. Where Minnesota and other northerly climes lay claim to seven month winters, we in Southern California can boast (if, indeed, boasting is appropriate) of nearly endless summers. Here in one of the more expensive portions of an already overpriced state it's not so bad. Temperate climate and well-kept greenery keep this place moderately liveable through even the hottest days.
But this is, as has been pointed out to me, a Mediterranean habitat. I actually argued this point with a local docent. My thinking was that a desert, even one with Mediterranean vegetation, was still a desert. I probably lost the debate on points, but I still hold my views firmly.
Believe me, I appreciate the differences. I lived for nearly ten years in California's so-called "Antelope Valley," a desolate collection of dust and Joshua trees north and east of Los Angeles that constitutes the "upper" or "miserably hot and windy" portion of the Mojave desert. I hated it. Still do, as a matter of fact, but I tend to keep this information to myself. I do so only because a part of me — an admittedly microscopic part — feels that the height of disrespect and ingratitude towards one's Creator is to criticize any part of His creation. The rest of me believes that this desert accurately portrays what happens to people who were tasked with tending a garden, and ended up listening to a snake, if you get my drift. "Bit the apple, eh? You know what that means!" "No! Not the Mojave!"
There are ways to avoid the desert in California if you really want to. Or way, I should say. That way is the coastal drive between south and north that skirts the ocean and prevents one from seeing even so much as a jackalope (or a cleverly Photoshopped post-card alleging the same). Ironically, I rarely drive the coast when travelling between south and north these days. A man under the influence of a vacation tends towards mental instability and will actually appreciate driving through desert and endless dust-laden miles of the San Joaquin and Owen valleys in order to shave a few hours off the drive time to get to more bearable destinations north of Sacramento. Aside from the coast, between Sacramento and Los Angeles you will find little of any real value except for truck stops with relatively clean restrooms.
(I realize that there are people who actually live in the desert who claim to appreciate its "beauty" and "lower housing costs." To them I say: you live your delusion, and I'll hold onto mine, thank you very much.)
I have also noticed over the years that, whenever popular causes are taken up by activists with placards and way too much time on their hands, they don't focus a lot of their energy on the desert. There was once, several years ago, an attempt made to limit access to certain desert areas to bikers and ATV enthusiasts, but it ran out of steam after a few rounds in the press. Heck, even the bikers and ATV nuts no longer frequent the desert as much as they used to. I think they burned out, so to speak. When was the last time you heard of some nut at Berkeley climbing up a Joshua tree to mount a protest? Ever wonder why Marine recruiting centers in those cities are never molested? No one wants to block access to any building with working air conditioning up there, that's why.
And so the desert rarely changes. The drive last Saturday between Las Vegas and Barstow was just as dreary and depressing as it always has been. The one rest stop at which we paused was so oppressively hot that I couldn't quite catch my breath. I don't think there was any oxygen in that air. There was one site that has been, at various times, a speedway and a water park. Now it's mostly a decaying collection of misplaced landscaping (palm trees... honestly) and rotting infrastructure. A few more years and it will probably resemble a deserted gold mine from 1849. The billboards will proclaim it as some important historic site, now suitable for tourists with nothing better to do than watch their radiators boil over in the parking lot.
Still, the desert has its use. Personally speaking, I mean. I have no idea what benefits to the ecosystem the desert provides, other than occasionally sand-blasting innocent passers-by from time to time. No, the desert serves to remind me that, all in all, I'm living in relatively good circumstances nowadays. Although my elected representatives have largely abandoned me, my basic rights are still intact. My governor is more interested in saddling taxpayers with his inability to balance a budget, but my own checkbook is under control. For now. At the golden age of fifty I have several more productive years of work ahead, and good prospects for retirement.
In some other state, though. I have my principles, after all. And none of them are guaranteed protection by any politician currently serving this state today. May they allrot live in the desert.
Baum was obviously acquainted with the Mojave desert, specifically that portion which lies between Las Vegas and San Bernardino.
We have just crossed this bleak landscape on our way home after a tremendous vacation through some truly awe-inspiring patches of terra firma in the vicinity of the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains. Our carpet is our trusty Odyssey minivan. We have plenty of liquid on board. We hesitate to set foot on the surface of the desert lest we find ourselves turned into sand. Even the underpaid staff of the Agricultural Checkpoint can't wait to wave us through without stopping.
Coming back into California is always a let-down.
Not that California is without its charms. The vicinity immediately surrounding our home in Orange County is actually very nice most of the time. Except for those two or three truly brown months of the year, this eastern end of Anaheim with Yorba Linda to the north and Anaheim Hills to the south is quite green most of the time. But head, oh, twenty miles or so to the north and the desert begins to manifest itself in deadly earnest. Where Minnesota and other northerly climes lay claim to seven month winters, we in Southern California can boast (if, indeed, boasting is appropriate) of nearly endless summers. Here in one of the more expensive portions of an already overpriced state it's not so bad. Temperate climate and well-kept greenery keep this place moderately liveable through even the hottest days.
But this is, as has been pointed out to me, a Mediterranean habitat. I actually argued this point with a local docent. My thinking was that a desert, even one with Mediterranean vegetation, was still a desert. I probably lost the debate on points, but I still hold my views firmly.
Believe me, I appreciate the differences. I lived for nearly ten years in California's so-called "Antelope Valley," a desolate collection of dust and Joshua trees north and east of Los Angeles that constitutes the "upper" or "miserably hot and windy" portion of the Mojave desert. I hated it. Still do, as a matter of fact, but I tend to keep this information to myself. I do so only because a part of me — an admittedly microscopic part — feels that the height of disrespect and ingratitude towards one's Creator is to criticize any part of His creation. The rest of me believes that this desert accurately portrays what happens to people who were tasked with tending a garden, and ended up listening to a snake, if you get my drift. "Bit the apple, eh? You know what that means!" "No! Not the Mojave!"
There are ways to avoid the desert in California if you really want to. Or way, I should say. That way is the coastal drive between south and north that skirts the ocean and prevents one from seeing even so much as a jackalope (or a cleverly Photoshopped post-card alleging the same). Ironically, I rarely drive the coast when travelling between south and north these days. A man under the influence of a vacation tends towards mental instability and will actually appreciate driving through desert and endless dust-laden miles of the San Joaquin and Owen valleys in order to shave a few hours off the drive time to get to more bearable destinations north of Sacramento. Aside from the coast, between Sacramento and Los Angeles you will find little of any real value except for truck stops with relatively clean restrooms.
(I realize that there are people who actually live in the desert who claim to appreciate its "beauty" and "lower housing costs." To them I say: you live your delusion, and I'll hold onto mine, thank you very much.)
I have also noticed over the years that, whenever popular causes are taken up by activists with placards and way too much time on their hands, they don't focus a lot of their energy on the desert. There was once, several years ago, an attempt made to limit access to certain desert areas to bikers and ATV enthusiasts, but it ran out of steam after a few rounds in the press. Heck, even the bikers and ATV nuts no longer frequent the desert as much as they used to. I think they burned out, so to speak. When was the last time you heard of some nut at Berkeley climbing up a Joshua tree to mount a protest? Ever wonder why Marine recruiting centers in those cities are never molested? No one wants to block access to any building with working air conditioning up there, that's why.
And so the desert rarely changes. The drive last Saturday between Las Vegas and Barstow was just as dreary and depressing as it always has been. The one rest stop at which we paused was so oppressively hot that I couldn't quite catch my breath. I don't think there was any oxygen in that air. There was one site that has been, at various times, a speedway and a water park. Now it's mostly a decaying collection of misplaced landscaping (palm trees... honestly) and rotting infrastructure. A few more years and it will probably resemble a deserted gold mine from 1849. The billboards will proclaim it as some important historic site, now suitable for tourists with nothing better to do than watch their radiators boil over in the parking lot.
Still, the desert has its use. Personally speaking, I mean. I have no idea what benefits to the ecosystem the desert provides, other than occasionally sand-blasting innocent passers-by from time to time. No, the desert serves to remind me that, all in all, I'm living in relatively good circumstances nowadays. Although my elected representatives have largely abandoned me, my basic rights are still intact. My governor is more interested in saddling taxpayers with his inability to balance a budget, but my own checkbook is under control. For now. At the golden age of fifty I have several more productive years of work ahead, and good prospects for retirement.
In some other state, though. I have my principles, after all. And none of them are guaranteed protection by any politician currently serving this state today. May they all
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters
California Special Election Edition (May 19, 2009)
Here we go again, young conservatives. Uncle Woody was wondering just how long it would take before California politicians ("Spending Your Money So You Don't Get To") came up with a special election to hide the fact that, basically, they're just one big, happy, dysfunctional family up there in Sacramento.
Governor Steroids has already shown that he'd rather put the blame on the voters than try to get those girly men in the legislature to sit down and make tough choices in order to balance our budget. Didn't work last time, either. In fact, Uncle Woody is going to go out on a limb here and say that, pound for pound, special elections in California are about as effective as an Obama cabinet appointee.
Your California politicians were so lazy this time, young conservatives, that they didn't even bother to come up with new numbers for each proposition on the ballot. No, this time we get to decide between 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 1F. 4-F is actually what comes to Uncle Woody's mind when he sees this sort of nonsense, and those who once upon a time had to worry about being drafted know what Uncle Woody is talking about. Heaven only knows what we'd be paying for if the legislature ever made it to 2.
So let's make it easy this time around and give you the ENTIRE BALLOT RECOMMENDATION IN ONE WORD, okay, young conservatives? Here it is:
No.
It really is just that simple, young conservatives. Uncle Woody wants you all to march into your polling places on May 19, look at the silly ballot that's already costing taxpayers millions of dollars during an economic downturn (makes sense!) and select "No" for every proposition on the page.
But, of course, you young conservatives have come to rely on Uncle Woody's rapier wit and detailed analyses of these ballot initiatives over the years, so I'll go ahead and chime in:
1A (Boy, this sounds familiar, doesn't it?) In the last election, 1A masqueraded as a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco. I think. That was several months ago before we elected Hope and Change to the White House. My memory is already numb. Anyway, 1A has now been rebranded as "State Budget. Changes California Budget Process. Limits State Spending. Increases 'Rainy Day' Budget Stabilization Fund."
Considering the fact that we haven't enjoyed a budget surplus in this state since Pete Wilson was in office, and the fact that RINO-in-Chief Schwarzenburger, or whatever his name is, can't get anyone to agree with any of his spending policies, I can't imagine that it's actually the "process" that needs fixing. In fact, Uncle Woody envisions "fixing" a large number of Sacramento politicians in the veterinary sense of the word.
That Uncle Woody would support.
1B Titled "Education Funding. Payment Plan." It should also be sub-titled "Heavily Sponsored by the Socialist California Teachers Association." This one is a highly transparent attempt by the teachers union in this state to punish the Governator for "borrowing" $2 billion a few years ago and forgetting (you know how it is with taxes) to pay it back. Can't get it back from Arnie? Soak the taxpayers!
In fact, 1A and 1B are being heavily pursued by the CTA, and it's no wonder. They want "their" money back, and they want to prevent state politicos from ever grabbing it again.
I wish them better luck than we taxpayers have had, but they'll get no help from Uncle Woody.
1C "Lottery Modernization Act." Oh, for Pete's sake. We don't "need" a lottery in the first place, and now they think that "modernizing" it is somehow going to generate more money for the state. So, let's see: they'll need to update lottery machines across the state, then figure out a way to recoup the investment. What to do... what to do...? Wait! Of course! The taxpayers will help! They LOVE the lottery!
Just one quick question: How many of those innumerable millionaires you've created with the lottery still live in California? Anyone? Bueller?
1D "Protects Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget." So, I'm a little surprised that I haven't seen intensive video of starving children a la Ethopian relief agency ads, because that's frankly the way this proposition is written. "Temporarily provides greater flexibility in funding to preserve health and human services for young children" is how this travesty begins. What they leave out is that they're really trying to get funding for all those undocumented children that taxpayers are getting more leery of supporting when they're having a hard time saving up for their own retirements these days.
Also, and let Uncle Woody be crystal clear here, young conservatives: the State General Fund is not a sacred cow. Time and time again, Sacramento has proven itself capable of moving that money around like some legalized Ponzi scheme, and nary a nickel of it ever ends up where it was intended.
1E "Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget."
Right. Also solves global warming, cures the common cold, and generates cold fusion renewable energy sources.
Or not.
Look, as with 1D, this is just another attempt by special interest lobbies in Sacramento to get their hands on money that we don't have. So, shuffle it around temporarily, then slip it back into the General Fund when no one is looking. Right? What could be easier?
Oh, Uncle Woody doesn't know... how about balancing the actual state budget for a change?
1F "Elected Officials' Salaries. Prevents Pay Increases During Budget Deficit Years." This one actually made Uncle Woody laugh, young conservatives. Not out loud, though. It's after midnight here at Hacienda Woody, and Uncle Woody doesn't want to wake Auntie Woody up. But I'm laughing on the inside.
Hey, we already have safeguards for preventing pay increases for elected officials, but we voters are typically too lazy or too stupid to actually use them. It's called "voting the bums out," and so far as Uncle Woody is concerned, no politician in Sacramento is immune. Or ought to be, anyway. If these idiots in tailored suits actually believe that they deserve to be paid more for wasting our money in the first place, then Uncle Woody thinks it's time to help them with a career adjustment.
So there you have it, young conservatives. Doubtless you're wondering to yourselves, "Gee. How can we possibly repay Uncle Woody for this extremely valuable advice?" Whereupon I reply, "Aw, shucks, young conservatives, it's nothing really. No, really. It's nothing. Put down the pitchforks and torches, young conservatives. Uncle Woody was only kidding! Really! Vote any way you like! Please!!"
I'm nothing if not a patriot.
Here we go again, young conservatives. Uncle Woody was wondering just how long it would take before California politicians ("Spending Your Money So You Don't Get To") came up with a special election to hide the fact that, basically, they're just one big, happy, dysfunctional family up there in Sacramento.
Governor Steroids has already shown that he'd rather put the blame on the voters than try to get those girly men in the legislature to sit down and make tough choices in order to balance our budget. Didn't work last time, either. In fact, Uncle Woody is going to go out on a limb here and say that, pound for pound, special elections in California are about as effective as an Obama cabinet appointee.
Your California politicians were so lazy this time, young conservatives, that they didn't even bother to come up with new numbers for each proposition on the ballot. No, this time we get to decide between 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 1F. 4-F is actually what comes to Uncle Woody's mind when he sees this sort of nonsense, and those who once upon a time had to worry about being drafted know what Uncle Woody is talking about. Heaven only knows what we'd be paying for if the legislature ever made it to 2.
So let's make it easy this time around and give you the ENTIRE BALLOT RECOMMENDATION IN ONE WORD, okay, young conservatives? Here it is:
No.
It really is just that simple, young conservatives. Uncle Woody wants you all to march into your polling places on May 19, look at the silly ballot that's already costing taxpayers millions of dollars during an economic downturn (makes sense!) and select "No" for every proposition on the page.
But, of course, you young conservatives have come to rely on Uncle Woody's rapier wit and detailed analyses of these ballot initiatives over the years, so I'll go ahead and chime in:
1A (Boy, this sounds familiar, doesn't it?) In the last election, 1A masqueraded as a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco. I think. That was several months ago before we elected Hope and Change to the White House. My memory is already numb. Anyway, 1A has now been rebranded as "State Budget. Changes California Budget Process. Limits State Spending. Increases 'Rainy Day' Budget Stabilization Fund."
Considering the fact that we haven't enjoyed a budget surplus in this state since Pete Wilson was in office, and the fact that RINO-in-Chief Schwarzenburger, or whatever his name is, can't get anyone to agree with any of his spending policies, I can't imagine that it's actually the "process" that needs fixing. In fact, Uncle Woody envisions "fixing" a large number of Sacramento politicians in the veterinary sense of the word.
That Uncle Woody would support.
1B Titled "Education Funding. Payment Plan." It should also be sub-titled "Heavily Sponsored by the Socialist California Teachers Association." This one is a highly transparent attempt by the teachers union in this state to punish the Governator for "borrowing" $2 billion a few years ago and forgetting (you know how it is with taxes) to pay it back. Can't get it back from Arnie? Soak the taxpayers!
In fact, 1A and 1B are being heavily pursued by the CTA, and it's no wonder. They want "their" money back, and they want to prevent state politicos from ever grabbing it again.
I wish them better luck than we taxpayers have had, but they'll get no help from Uncle Woody.
1C "Lottery Modernization Act." Oh, for Pete's sake. We don't "need" a lottery in the first place, and now they think that "modernizing" it is somehow going to generate more money for the state. So, let's see: they'll need to update lottery machines across the state, then figure out a way to recoup the investment. What to do... what to do...? Wait! Of course! The taxpayers will help! They LOVE the lottery!
Just one quick question: How many of those innumerable millionaires you've created with the lottery still live in California? Anyone? Bueller?
1D "Protects Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget." So, I'm a little surprised that I haven't seen intensive video of starving children a la Ethopian relief agency ads, because that's frankly the way this proposition is written. "Temporarily provides greater flexibility in funding to preserve health and human services for young children" is how this travesty begins. What they leave out is that they're really trying to get funding for all those undocumented children that taxpayers are getting more leery of supporting when they're having a hard time saving up for their own retirements these days.
Also, and let Uncle Woody be crystal clear here, young conservatives: the State General Fund is not a sacred cow. Time and time again, Sacramento has proven itself capable of moving that money around like some legalized Ponzi scheme, and nary a nickel of it ever ends up where it was intended.
1E "Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget."
Right. Also solves global warming, cures the common cold, and generates cold fusion renewable energy sources.
Or not.
Look, as with 1D, this is just another attempt by special interest lobbies in Sacramento to get their hands on money that we don't have. So, shuffle it around temporarily, then slip it back into the General Fund when no one is looking. Right? What could be easier?
Oh, Uncle Woody doesn't know... how about balancing the actual state budget for a change?
1F "Elected Officials' Salaries. Prevents Pay Increases During Budget Deficit Years." This one actually made Uncle Woody laugh, young conservatives. Not out loud, though. It's after midnight here at Hacienda Woody, and Uncle Woody doesn't want to wake Auntie Woody up. But I'm laughing on the inside.
Hey, we already have safeguards for preventing pay increases for elected officials, but we voters are typically too lazy or too stupid to actually use them. It's called "voting the bums out," and so far as Uncle Woody is concerned, no politician in Sacramento is immune. Or ought to be, anyway. If these idiots in tailored suits actually believe that they deserve to be paid more for wasting our money in the first place, then Uncle Woody thinks it's time to help them with a career adjustment.
So there you have it, young conservatives. Doubtless you're wondering to yourselves, "Gee. How can we possibly repay Uncle Woody for this extremely valuable advice?" Whereupon I reply, "Aw, shucks, young conservatives, it's nothing really. No, really. It's nothing. Put down the pitchforks and torches, young conservatives. Uncle Woody was only kidding! Really! Vote any way you like! Please!!"
I'm nothing if not a patriot.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Yes, I Paid My Taxes. Why Wouldn't I?
What with one thing and another I had a dickens of a time getting my taxes done. And before you ask, no, I am not being considered for any cabinet positions in Obama's administration.
No, I just ran out of time, or nearly so. It happened last year, for perhaps the first time in my memory. I'd had to file an extension, and we took advantage of nearly every day of that six month wait. I really didn't want to deal with that again this year.
But today was a busy day. We did not attend any tea parties today. It wasn't that we didn't support the idea — we fully support those who believe the government has taken a sharp left turn toward socialism and are willing to make their voices heard — but today was Field Trip Day.
You remember: we homeschool. Wednesdays, even those that fall on Tax Day, we try to dedicate to our homeschool group. Especially now that Mrs. Woody is its leader. So this morning found us wending our way to San Juan Capistrano to visit their magnificent mission.
Let me just state that, for all the wind and cool weather today, it was absolutely a gorgeous day. Spring brings both swallows ("not as many as we've had in the past") and beautiful foliage in the mission's many planters and gardens ("just wait a few weeks and this whole area will be purple!"). The Woodyettes were duly impressed with the historical displays and museum exhibits liberally (so to speak) sprinkled throughout the buildings. The old Stone Church is still impressive, even sitting in earthquake-induced ruins.
But of course we didn't get home until late afternoon. Also (of course!) I had yet to file our taxes for this year.
It's never a question of actually paying them, you understand. That part is always taken care of for me. The only real question is how much we should be getting back from the increasingly bankrupt government in any given year.
Still, whether I pay or get paid, they still need to be filed. After a long day of field tripping with my family, I was all for simply filing the dratted extension once again and giving myself more breathing room. Then I realized that for all the hassle of "estimating" what I might have had to pay the Feds and the state in order to beg for the extension, it would be infinitely easier to just fill out the silly forms and file on time. So I did.
Then I surfed around to see what happened at the various Tea Parties held around the country today.
Overall, I must say I'm impressed. The tea party spirit has taken hold and given conservatives (and fiscally responsible moderates) something to do short of ripping out copious amounts of hair. Of equal importance to the events themselves, however, is the reaction of liberal pundits and news organizations to the protests today. Sneering contempt, I would have to say. How dare these brainwashed minions of the Evil Fox News perform a feat that is the holy domain of liberals and radicals in this country? Even Nancy Pelosi was reduced to referring to the protests as "astroturfing."
I deem these reactions to be of import precisely because if we're making them that upset, we must be hitting pretty close to the mark. Over at Wizbang (I think... it's late and I'm too lazy to go back and give a proper citation) they mentioned having watched Keith Olbermann, who blustered about how ignorant we stupid conservatives must be of the overwhelming benefits of being taxed into the next three or four generational afterlives. I kid you not: they're trying to attach New Deal optimism to Obama's hardly-original and certainly un-noteworthy tax and spend policies. "Where were you when Bush was spending?" one counter-protestor's sign read today. Well, Junior, I was protesting that Bush had crossed over from fiscal conservative to deficit-spending moderate in his last few years of office. But his spending was (and remains) a mere fraction of what Obama has generated. Legacy, indeed.
So, unlike most of Obama's appointees, I've paid my taxes this year. But I haven't given up on October 15th of this year yet. Something tells me Obama may come calling about then, asking us to ante up a second (or third or fourth) time this year. But he won't find me.
I'll be in the mountains of Idaho with all those right-wing extremist Iraq-war veterans.
No, I just ran out of time, or nearly so. It happened last year, for perhaps the first time in my memory. I'd had to file an extension, and we took advantage of nearly every day of that six month wait. I really didn't want to deal with that again this year.
But today was a busy day. We did not attend any tea parties today. It wasn't that we didn't support the idea — we fully support those who believe the government has taken a sharp left turn toward socialism and are willing to make their voices heard — but today was Field Trip Day.
You remember: we homeschool. Wednesdays, even those that fall on Tax Day, we try to dedicate to our homeschool group. Especially now that Mrs. Woody is its leader. So this morning found us wending our way to San Juan Capistrano to visit their magnificent mission.
Let me just state that, for all the wind and cool weather today, it was absolutely a gorgeous day. Spring brings both swallows ("not as many as we've had in the past") and beautiful foliage in the mission's many planters and gardens ("just wait a few weeks and this whole area will be purple!"). The Woodyettes were duly impressed with the historical displays and museum exhibits liberally (so to speak) sprinkled throughout the buildings. The old Stone Church is still impressive, even sitting in earthquake-induced ruins.
But of course we didn't get home until late afternoon. Also (of course!) I had yet to file our taxes for this year.
It's never a question of actually paying them, you understand. That part is always taken care of for me. The only real question is how much we should be getting back from the increasingly bankrupt government in any given year.
Still, whether I pay or get paid, they still need to be filed. After a long day of field tripping with my family, I was all for simply filing the dratted extension once again and giving myself more breathing room. Then I realized that for all the hassle of "estimating" what I might have had to pay the Feds and the state in order to beg for the extension, it would be infinitely easier to just fill out the silly forms and file on time. So I did.
Then I surfed around to see what happened at the various Tea Parties held around the country today.
Overall, I must say I'm impressed. The tea party spirit has taken hold and given conservatives (and fiscally responsible moderates) something to do short of ripping out copious amounts of hair. Of equal importance to the events themselves, however, is the reaction of liberal pundits and news organizations to the protests today. Sneering contempt, I would have to say. How dare these brainwashed minions of the Evil Fox News perform a feat that is the holy domain of liberals and radicals in this country? Even Nancy Pelosi was reduced to referring to the protests as "astroturfing."
I deem these reactions to be of import precisely because if we're making them that upset, we must be hitting pretty close to the mark. Over at Wizbang (I think... it's late and I'm too lazy to go back and give a proper citation) they mentioned having watched Keith Olbermann, who blustered about how ignorant we stupid conservatives must be of the overwhelming benefits of being taxed into the next three or four generational afterlives. I kid you not: they're trying to attach New Deal optimism to Obama's hardly-original and certainly un-noteworthy tax and spend policies. "Where were you when Bush was spending?" one counter-protestor's sign read today. Well, Junior, I was protesting that Bush had crossed over from fiscal conservative to deficit-spending moderate in his last few years of office. But his spending was (and remains) a mere fraction of what Obama has generated. Legacy, indeed.
So, unlike most of Obama's appointees, I've paid my taxes this year. But I haven't given up on October 15th of this year yet. Something tells me Obama may come calling about then, asking us to ante up a second (or third or fourth) time this year. But he won't find me.
I'll be in the mountains of Idaho with all those right-wing extremist Iraq-war veterans.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Stooping to Their Level
Michael Laprarie, blogging for Wizbang, grouses that conservatives aren't getting it. He points to Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" as both the reason for liberal successes of late, as well as a primer from which conservatives should be drawing in order to get better organized and more effectively counter those liberal successes.
But should we?
From a blogospheric perspective, much of what Laprarie posits is probably accurate, if not completely correct. He mentions several "power tactics" as being particularly important to countering liberal philosophies and sophistry. For example, Laprarie states:
We have been far less successful, however, at making the other side live up to its own rules. In his first two months in office, Obama has already backtracked on a number of his campaign pledges. This is a pattern, however, that should have surprised no one, since he reneged on his pledge not to accept public monies practically the moment that John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. Nancy Pelosi has done absolutely nothing toward her stated goal of having the "most ethical Congress" in history, and her morally feeble compadre in the Senate, Harry Reid, hasn't helped. But these things come as no surprise to conservative voters like myself. This is all pretty much business as usual in the Beltway.
What surprises this particular voter is how badly our representatives in Washington have seemingly ignored the mandates that put them in office to begin with. Why, in the name of all that's holy, are senators like Specter, Collins, and Snowe supporting the Stimulus? It makes absolutely no sense on any grounds. This was a fiscal sell-out of monumental proportions, and they should be soundly punished for refusing to vote "NO" on moral grounds. This is how we fail to make liberals play by their stated rules. We certainly seem unable to play by our own.
Laprarie goes on to ask the question,"[i]f liberals utilize these tactics regularly (and we know they do), then why can't conservatives utilize them as well? It is a given that they work. It should not be a given that they can only be used by liberals."
It is a given that they work. For liberals. Does that mean there should be a "proportional response" from conservatives?
No. If we remember our roots, both fiscally and socially, there should never be a reason to stoop to the same tactics that liberals have been propounding since the radical days of the sixties. To do so makes our arguments seem trite and contrived; nothing more than showmanship and grandstanding that have no motivation other than showing everyone else who the Big Man of the Mountain is. Those who ridicule do so because they have not the strength of their own argument to prove their point. I certainly have been guilty of that myself; writing snark in the name of "humor" while all the time wishing I were smarter than I really am.
There are those who complain that the string of recent "Tea Party" protests in response to Obama's economic plan is ineffective as a grassroots effort. Needs more planning "from the top down" some say. Needs more organization. Needs more, I don't know, legitimacy or something.
Bah.
The protests are not designed to change policy. No one standing in one of those protests with signs like "Hey, Obama, While You're At It, I Could Really Use A Lexus" believes for one moment that the President and Congress are suddenly going to smack their heads and say, "Wow! What boneheads we've been! We'd better cancel the Stimulus and try a smarter approach!" No one is that naïve.
But I do believe the protests demonstrate an irrefutable idea that not everyone is in love with Obama's approach to the crisis. There is unrest, and it's not just from anti-Obama conservatives like myself. Quite a few people who voted for Obama are scratching their heads now and wondering who this man is, and what has he done with the President?
Question: what is the only real difference between the Obama administration, and the Bush administration?
Answer: the Obama administration is better at creating logos.
Okay, that was snarky. My apologies. But my point remains: stooping to the same tactics that made the other side successful does not guarantee success. It only diminishes the importance of our message. We require conservative fiscal and social policies if this country is to remain viable for the rest of the twenty-first century.
But should we?
From a blogospheric perspective, much of what Laprarie posits is probably accurate, if not completely correct. He mentions several "power tactics" as being particularly important to countering liberal philosophies and sophistry. For example, Laprarie states:
These tactics, particularly 4 [Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules] and 5 [Ridicule is man's most potent weapon], could be devastating to the Obama White House and to thin-skinned, corrupt Democrats in general. Make them live up to their own rules -- pay as you go, most ethical Congress in history, etc. Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show have done a great job ridiculing Democrats. We need to do more.Ridicule is arguably one of the basic tenets of the blogosphere. The ratio of rational blogs to snarky blogs is probably smaller than 1 to 10 on the conservative side, and probably even smaller than that on the liberal side. The Jawa Report wouldn't exist without huge doses of snark; likewise The Daily Kos would be only a wisp of its current self if snark weren't allowed. I think there's more than enough ridicule going around to keep everyone cynical and pessimistic for the rest of our natural lives.
We have been far less successful, however, at making the other side live up to its own rules. In his first two months in office, Obama has already backtracked on a number of his campaign pledges. This is a pattern, however, that should have surprised no one, since he reneged on his pledge not to accept public monies practically the moment that John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. Nancy Pelosi has done absolutely nothing toward her stated goal of having the "most ethical Congress" in history, and her morally feeble compadre in the Senate, Harry Reid, hasn't helped. But these things come as no surprise to conservative voters like myself. This is all pretty much business as usual in the Beltway.
What surprises this particular voter is how badly our representatives in Washington have seemingly ignored the mandates that put them in office to begin with. Why, in the name of all that's holy, are senators like Specter, Collins, and Snowe supporting the Stimulus? It makes absolutely no sense on any grounds. This was a fiscal sell-out of monumental proportions, and they should be soundly punished for refusing to vote "NO" on moral grounds. This is how we fail to make liberals play by their stated rules. We certainly seem unable to play by our own.
Laprarie goes on to ask the question,"[i]f liberals utilize these tactics regularly (and we know they do), then why can't conservatives utilize them as well? It is a given that they work. It should not be a given that they can only be used by liberals."
It is a given that they work. For liberals. Does that mean there should be a "proportional response" from conservatives?
No. If we remember our roots, both fiscally and socially, there should never be a reason to stoop to the same tactics that liberals have been propounding since the radical days of the sixties. To do so makes our arguments seem trite and contrived; nothing more than showmanship and grandstanding that have no motivation other than showing everyone else who the Big Man of the Mountain is. Those who ridicule do so because they have not the strength of their own argument to prove their point. I certainly have been guilty of that myself; writing snark in the name of "humor" while all the time wishing I were smarter than I really am.
There are those who complain that the string of recent "Tea Party" protests in response to Obama's economic plan is ineffective as a grassroots effort. Needs more planning "from the top down" some say. Needs more organization. Needs more, I don't know, legitimacy or something.
Bah.
The protests are not designed to change policy. No one standing in one of those protests with signs like "Hey, Obama, While You're At It, I Could Really Use A Lexus" believes for one moment that the President and Congress are suddenly going to smack their heads and say, "Wow! What boneheads we've been! We'd better cancel the Stimulus and try a smarter approach!" No one is that naïve.
But I do believe the protests demonstrate an irrefutable idea that not everyone is in love with Obama's approach to the crisis. There is unrest, and it's not just from anti-Obama conservatives like myself. Quite a few people who voted for Obama are scratching their heads now and wondering who this man is, and what has he done with the President?
Question: what is the only real difference between the Obama administration, and the Bush administration?
Answer: the Obama administration is better at creating logos.
Okay, that was snarky. My apologies. But my point remains: stooping to the same tactics that made the other side successful does not guarantee success. It only diminishes the importance of our message. We require conservative fiscal and social policies if this country is to remain viable for the rest of the twenty-first century.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Infamy of Abel Maldonado
Today's passage of California's $42 billion boondoggle budget is highly symptomatic of the problems we face nationally. That California chose a plan that precisely mirrors Obama's Anti-Stimulating Stimulus Package simply means that local politicians are no better at owning up to the problems that got us here than the Feds are.
Our last hope - moderate Abel Maldonado - finally caved and cast his vote to approve the budget. This allows Schwarzenegger to go back to loving his "girly men" in the legislature while simultaneously redacting all those pink slips he was starting to hand out earlier this week. CalTrans will go back to removing hefty chunks of California highways just in time for vacation season this year. And Abel Maldonado will have to consider whether the Republican backlash from his "yea" vote was worth the sellout.
Now, I'll grant you this: a quarter percent tax increase in my bracket is not going to kill me. State tax increases rarely have that kind of impact on my situation. I've been working long enough that I can make ends meet most of the time. I will admit to being concerned about my state refund this year, but on the whole I was all for holding the state accountable for all of its irresponsible spending decisions over the past several years.
Ditto the Feds. Zero Accountability is what got us into fiscal trouble, and the Faux Stimulus Obama just signed will take us right back to Zero Accountability. Oh, they created a so-called "Accountability and Transparency" board, but its only real function is to politicize the various Inspectors General and place them under the control of the board instead of maintaining their heretofore independent status. Reckless fiscal policy, that. And it will catch up with the Obamatrons both in the administration and in Congress.
But back to Maldonado. Being from Santa Maria, Maldonado has the taint of elitist liberalism, though he claims to be a Republican. I can pretty much guarantee, however, that if he aspires to any office higher than the state senate, he will find himself facing a somewhat unforgiving crowd down here in Orange County. I know why the man finally changed his vote. He found himself in the position of having the whole state see him as the man who was blocking passage of money needed to fund our state-wide pork. That's an uncomfortable chair, and he wanted to go home. He finnagled a few "concessions" before changing his vote, but we're still saddled with a budget that relies more on tax increases than in reduced spending measures. Again, reckless fiscal policy that will catch up with those who voted in favor.
And exactly how do I know that this budget is bad policy? Because Schwarzenegger approves; that's how:
Anyway, California has its approved budget, and everyone goes home happy. Until next year's deficit rears its head. Then it'll be every man for himself.
Maldonado will lead the way.
Our last hope - moderate Abel Maldonado - finally caved and cast his vote to approve the budget. This allows Schwarzenegger to go back to loving his "girly men" in the legislature while simultaneously redacting all those pink slips he was starting to hand out earlier this week. CalTrans will go back to removing hefty chunks of California highways just in time for vacation season this year. And Abel Maldonado will have to consider whether the Republican backlash from his "yea" vote was worth the sellout.
Now, I'll grant you this: a quarter percent tax increase in my bracket is not going to kill me. State tax increases rarely have that kind of impact on my situation. I've been working long enough that I can make ends meet most of the time. I will admit to being concerned about my state refund this year, but on the whole I was all for holding the state accountable for all of its irresponsible spending decisions over the past several years.
Ditto the Feds. Zero Accountability is what got us into fiscal trouble, and the Faux Stimulus Obama just signed will take us right back to Zero Accountability. Oh, they created a so-called "Accountability and Transparency" board, but its only real function is to politicize the various Inspectors General and place them under the control of the board instead of maintaining their heretofore independent status. Reckless fiscal policy, that. And it will catch up with the Obamatrons both in the administration and in Congress.
But back to Maldonado. Being from Santa Maria, Maldonado has the taint of elitist liberalism, though he claims to be a Republican. I can pretty much guarantee, however, that if he aspires to any office higher than the state senate, he will find himself facing a somewhat unforgiving crowd down here in Orange County. I know why the man finally changed his vote. He found himself in the position of having the whole state see him as the man who was blocking passage of money needed to fund our state-wide pork. That's an uncomfortable chair, and he wanted to go home. He finnagled a few "concessions" before changing his vote, but we're still saddled with a budget that relies more on tax increases than in reduced spending measures. Again, reckless fiscal policy that will catch up with those who voted in favor.
And exactly how do I know that this budget is bad policy? Because Schwarzenegger approves; that's how:
This is the perfect medicine for our ailing economy, and it will boost public confidence in California, reassure the financial community and allow us to start selling bonds and rebuild our state."Note to the Governator: You can't "solve" budget deficits when you're still spending more than you're taking in. Did you not read that definition when taking the state employee exams? Oh, wait...
"Now, instead of worrying every day only about IOUs and about red ink, we can start moving California forward once again. This action to solve our $42 billion deficit was difficult but courageous and just what California needs," he said.
Anyway, California has its approved budget, and everyone goes home happy. Until next year's deficit rears its head. Then it'll be every man for himself.
Maldonado will lead the way.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
When Money Talks...
That money talksI'm a little worried about my money these days. Not looking so good. In fact, not looking good at all. I went to visit it this morning and was shocked to see its condition.
I'll not deny,
I heard it once:
It said, "Goodbye."
~Richard Armour
"You look terrible," I said.
"No worse than you," it replied. "You look like death warmed over."
"Touch of bronchitis. Nothing serious. What's your excuse?"
My money, stacked morosely in small denominations in the back corner of the credit union vault, gave me the slightest ghost of a smile. "Well, I could blame everything on the economy, of course, but I'm afraid it's worse than that."
"Worse than the economy?" I asked. "How is that possible?"
"The Feds are after me."
Of course. It all made sense to me then. With the passage today of the so-called "Stimulus" bill, money all over the country would naturally be living in mortal fear of becoming fodder for pork barrel spending. Probably sooner rather than later.
"But how do you know the Feds won't spend you wisely?" I asked earnestly. "Certainly they couldn't do any worse than I have?"
My money actually laughed at me. "You're kidding, right? How much do you think I'm worth to you right now?"
I did some quick calculations. "Well, I know what your face value is. That can't have changed too much since last summer, could it?"
A few loose dollars fell to the vault floor. "I guess you haven't noticed yet. Can't you see how much weight I've lost since the Inauguration? I'm literally worth only pennies on the dollar right now. You just haven't caught on yet. Bet you haven't done your taxes yet this year, have you?"
I had to admit he had me there. "Well, no. Seems like I just barely filed my return from last year, what with the extension and all."
I've never heard money sigh before, but it had a somewhat chilling effect. "That's what I mean. You'll find out soon enough anyway. I guess you should know the whole story. You see, I've been called up by Congress and I expect to be deployed any time now."
"Deployed?"
"Of course! Don't you get it? Obama's majorities in the House and Senate have already earmarked me for some pork project in a town neither of us has ever heard of! I'll be shipped off to buy toxic assets from heaven only knows where, or, worse, be put in the pockets of corrupt union officials in (here it shuddered visibly) Michigan."
"Surely the Republicans would have tried to eliminate all that pork," I rejoined. "I can't imagine them letting the Democrats have their way without a fight."
A shrinking stack of ten dollar bills actually made a sound of disgust. "You weren't paying attention to the Three Stooges, I take it."
"Larry, Moe and Curly?"
"Collins, Snowe and Specter. They sold me out. Helped craft the 'bipartisan' spending package and threw me under Obama's bus."
"Ouch. I had no idea."
"Neither did anyone else. We all assumed that, being Republicans and all, they would stand firm with the House Republicans and vote against this nonsense. Instead they betrayed good conservative dollars everywhere and voted to appease the Congressional Demagogues. Had they toed the line like they should, we might have been able to force Obama's water carriers back to the bargaining table. Instead, I'm hiding out in this musty vault, hoping against hope that they'll somehow overlook me."
"There's still a chance you could get a plum assignment. I hear that NASA gets a billion plus in this package. Maybe you could even go to Homeland Security..."
"To help build the Fence in Name Only? May as well convert me to pesos now and be done with it."
"Oh, quit worrying. You're still here and I'm not going to throw you to the wolves just because some politician sticks his hand out. Hey, I'm still here, right? And I still have my health."
"And Obama wants to socialize health care in this country."
Suddenly I don't feel so good, either.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Finding the Silver Lining
There's little question we're in for some rough times ahead. Most businesses have either announced or are pondering layoffs in just about every industry you can think of. So when I found this item from Reuters this morning, it made me smile.
Not long after I emerged from my post-adolescent cocoon and found myself struggling to meet the demands of a new marriage, I was shanghaied by an Amway zealot. Now, I have nothing personally against Amway or any of its several re-inventions over the years. Their products are, for the most part, reliable. I simply have no stomach for their multi-level marketing strategies which border on evangelistic fanaticism in my opinion. So I didn't last long. (Anyone who knows me knows that I am far too lazy to make an aggressive strategy like Amway really work anyway.)
I dredge up this piece of ancient history only because of what Amway preached back in the day. They really had only two selling points. One was the perceived benefits of the multi-level marketing approach. The other was the strength of the products they marketed. "People will always need cleaning products" was their mantra. It's true: rain or shine, good economy or bad, people want to be clean. Just because you have no money, you certainly don't want people thinking you have no money, so you'll keep cleaning your house no matter what your current debt load may be. Not to mention all the hygienic benefits from keeping your home and yourself as clean as possible.
(My "upline" did, however, fail to mention that when the chips were down and it was a choice between paying Amway whatever shipping charges were included with your order, or simply going to Ye Olde Grocery Shoppe down the street to pay a few cents more or less on the dollar, convenience will always win. Always.)
This is why the Reuters story made me chuckle. Yes, times are bad. A lot of good people are facing a new reality with no immediate income and bleak employment prospects. But the people who put food on our tables (as opposed to those who charge us for the simple pleasure of sitting at one of their tables and looking at their menus) are benefitting from our new-found reliance on good ol' home cooking.
It's expensive to eat out all the time. Heaven knows we do our fair share. We're not big restaurant people here at Hacienda Woody. But it's not at all unusual for Woody to be out running errands (including, ironically enough, grocery shopping) and have Mrs. Woody say, "As long as you're out..." and Woody suddenly finds himself in the nearest drive-through. If you do even a few of those every month it adds up to an alarming amount of money. And I know people who eat out far more frequently than they eat in.
Living on a budget does things to your priorities. You begin to remember just why, exactly, you have a stove. Or, at the very least, a microwave. (I prefer to do my vegetable steaming in the microwave, for example.) You also remember that nothing tastes quite like a home-cooked meal. This may be especially true if Hubby does any of the home cooking:
"Mom?"
"Yes, Honey?"
"Dad cooked the meatloaf again, didn't he?"
"It's not meatloaf, Sweetheart."
"Pass."
(Actually, Woody cooks a fairly credible meatloaf. Allow me some creative license.)
My point is that I don't see it as a bad thing that people are eating at home more. Perhaps I'm just taking a glass-half-full approach to this recession, but it might just remind us that a certain amount of conservatism (with a small "c" if you must) is not necessarily a bad thing.
Not long after I emerged from my post-adolescent cocoon and found myself struggling to meet the demands of a new marriage, I was shanghaied by an Amway zealot. Now, I have nothing personally against Amway or any of its several re-inventions over the years. Their products are, for the most part, reliable. I simply have no stomach for their multi-level marketing strategies which border on evangelistic fanaticism in my opinion. So I didn't last long. (Anyone who knows me knows that I am far too lazy to make an aggressive strategy like Amway really work anyway.)
I dredge up this piece of ancient history only because of what Amway preached back in the day. They really had only two selling points. One was the perceived benefits of the multi-level marketing approach. The other was the strength of the products they marketed. "People will always need cleaning products" was their mantra. It's true: rain or shine, good economy or bad, people want to be clean. Just because you have no money, you certainly don't want people thinking you have no money, so you'll keep cleaning your house no matter what your current debt load may be. Not to mention all the hygienic benefits from keeping your home and yourself as clean as possible.
(My "upline" did, however, fail to mention that when the chips were down and it was a choice between paying Amway whatever shipping charges were included with your order, or simply going to Ye Olde Grocery Shoppe down the street to pay a few cents more or less on the dollar, convenience will always win. Always.)
This is why the Reuters story made me chuckle. Yes, times are bad. A lot of good people are facing a new reality with no immediate income and bleak employment prospects. But the people who put food on our tables (as opposed to those who charge us for the simple pleasure of sitting at one of their tables and looking at their menus) are benefitting from our new-found reliance on good ol' home cooking.
It's expensive to eat out all the time. Heaven knows we do our fair share. We're not big restaurant people here at Hacienda Woody. But it's not at all unusual for Woody to be out running errands (including, ironically enough, grocery shopping) and have Mrs. Woody say, "As long as you're out..." and Woody suddenly finds himself in the nearest drive-through. If you do even a few of those every month it adds up to an alarming amount of money. And I know people who eat out far more frequently than they eat in.
Living on a budget does things to your priorities. You begin to remember just why, exactly, you have a stove. Or, at the very least, a microwave. (I prefer to do my vegetable steaming in the microwave, for example.) You also remember that nothing tastes quite like a home-cooked meal. This may be especially true if Hubby does any of the home cooking:
"Mom?"
"Yes, Honey?"
"Dad cooked the meatloaf again, didn't he?"
"It's not meatloaf, Sweetheart."
"Pass."
(Actually, Woody cooks a fairly credible meatloaf. Allow me some creative license.)
My point is that I don't see it as a bad thing that people are eating at home more. Perhaps I'm just taking a glass-half-full approach to this recession, but it might just remind us that a certain amount of conservatism (with a small "c" if you must) is not necessarily a bad thing.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Just to Mix Things Up
I apologize for the dearth of blogging of late. I'm normally much more vocal than this, particularly when I fear that we'll soon be printing money so fast that we'll quickly end up with hyperinflation a la post-war Germany when the Papiermark collapsed was ultimately replaced by the Reichsmark at a rate of roughly one trillion to one.
In the meantime, Hacienda Woody is gearing up for a momentous event. In late March and early April our Stake will produce "Savior of the World," a musical drama originally commissioned for the opening of the Conference Center in Salt Lake City. I say "momentous" because all four of us are participating in this production, Woodyettes included.
Since we're up to our necks in rehearsal (or would be were it not for this dratted bronchitis/flu we seem to be fighting at the moment), it's entirely possible that blogging from Yours Truly will be light — even non-existent. My apologies. With that in mind, however, look over at The Inner Dad for updates related to the show, and even links to a few production photos.
Cheers!
In the meantime, Hacienda Woody is gearing up for a momentous event. In late March and early April our Stake will produce "Savior of the World," a musical drama originally commissioned for the opening of the Conference Center in Salt Lake City. I say "momentous" because all four of us are participating in this production, Woodyettes included.
Since we're up to our necks in rehearsal (or would be were it not for this dratted bronchitis/flu we seem to be fighting at the moment), it's entirely possible that blogging from Yours Truly will be light — even non-existent. My apologies. With that in mind, however, look over at The Inner Dad for updates related to the show, and even links to a few production photos.
Cheers!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
When Newscasters Become Too Important
So we're trying to enjoy (as best any Republican can truly "enjoy") the inauguration today. We even encouraged the Woodyettes to sit and watch the swearing-in ceremonies, all the while knowing that what they really wanted was for their uncle to pick them up and take them to Disneyland for the day. Then Mrs. Woody and I sat back to watch the pomp and ceremony surrounding the most peaceful transfer of power found anywhere in the civilized world today.
What we get instead are hour after hour of useless political commentary and "insight" surrounding this "historic" occasion. I have surfed through CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CSPAN, you name it. Even local news orgs are having the same diarrhea of the mouth.
Not one. Not one single marching band have we heard today. Nothing but cameras following Obama's car every inch along the parade route. And even if we do happen to see an actual band, we do not get to hear them. Not those kids who flew how many thousands of miles from Hawaii to the nation's capital so they could perform for the millions packed into Washington D. C. today. Not even the Marines were afforded the common courtesy of allowing them to be heard over the networks.
Mrs. Woody, every inch a Republican as am I, put it best: "I really wanted this inauguration to do something for me. Instead I'm frustrated that I couldn't enjoy it at all."
Thanks again, Talking Heads, for ruining an otherwise significant and historic event. May you all rot.
What we get instead are hour after hour of useless political commentary and "insight" surrounding this "historic" occasion. I have surfed through CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CSPAN, you name it. Even local news orgs are having the same diarrhea of the mouth.
Not one. Not one single marching band have we heard today. Nothing but cameras following Obama's car every inch along the parade route. And even if we do happen to see an actual band, we do not get to hear them. Not those kids who flew how many thousands of miles from Hawaii to the nation's capital so they could perform for the millions packed into Washington D. C. today. Not even the Marines were afforded the common courtesy of allowing them to be heard over the networks.
Mrs. Woody, every inch a Republican as am I, put it best: "I really wanted this inauguration to do something for me. Instead I'm frustrated that I couldn't enjoy it at all."
Thanks again, Talking Heads, for ruining an otherwise significant and historic event. May you all rot.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Hollywood Reinvents Truth. Again.
Tom Hanks is a wonderful actor, one whose work I have long admired. I especially enjoy his fondness for the historical significance of the American space program, as witnessed by his participation in "Apollo 13" and producing "From the Earth to the Moon" for HBO. I even (MALE BETRAYAL ALERT) enjoy his rom-com work with Meg Ryan.
Still, Hanks' fondness for extremely large toys (such as space ships) should not be construed as being indicative of having a conservative bent; Hanks is just as liberal as Hollywood comes.
For all my huff and blow about liberals (and Hollywood libs being among the worst), I still appreciate their guaranteed rights to express their opinions, no matter how wrong-headed they are. But I refuse — absolutely refuse — to excuse them in their ignorance. Hanks' ignorance about Prop 8 is expressed in this statement the actor made to Fox News:
For the record, Mr. Hanks: The Church did not receive money from its members to "make Prop-8 happen." We in fact donated whatever money we could directly to the campaign on advice of the Church to support what we feel is an important social issue. We also donated time and energy — again, directly — to the campaign, going door to door and making phone calls to encourage folks to vote for the measure. Hence it is deceitful to insist that the Church took money for this purpose. One might even call it wrong-headed.
Does this mean I will never again watch one of Hanks' movies? Of course not. Even if Hollywood can't, I have no trouble separating entertainment from politics. Hanks' political views take nothing away from his acting, and I certainly don't have to agree with the man in order to watch one of his projects. Heck, I still think Susan Sarandon made one heck of an attorney in "The Client," and she holds even more odious political views than Hanks does. And don't get me started on Sarandon's paramour, Tim Robbins, whom I look forward to seeing in "The City of Ember." (Yep. Missed it in the theaters. But it's coming out on DVD next week.)
The truth will out, they say, but don't look for it to come from Hollywood.
Still, Hanks' fondness for extremely large toys (such as space ships) should not be construed as being indicative of having a conservative bent; Hanks is just as liberal as Hollywood comes.
For all my huff and blow about liberals (and Hollywood libs being among the worst), I still appreciate their guaranteed rights to express their opinions, no matter how wrong-headed they are. But I refuse — absolutely refuse — to excuse them in their ignorance. Hanks' ignorance about Prop 8 is expressed in this statement the actor made to Fox News:
“The truth is this [series "Big Love"] takes place in Utah, the truth is these people [speaking of polygamists] are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. [Fox's "Pop Tarts" column]This insistence by liberals to smear the Church for daring to support what a majority of Californians supported in November reminds me that politics makes liars out of just about everyone at one time or another. But this particular lie is especially egregious as it paints all members of the Church as being highly prejudiced, and makes them the targets of choice of the anti-8 mobsters. To call us "un-American" in the process is just childish.
For the record, Mr. Hanks: The Church did not receive money from its members to "make Prop-8 happen." We in fact donated whatever money we could directly to the campaign on advice of the Church to support what we feel is an important social issue. We also donated time and energy — again, directly — to the campaign, going door to door and making phone calls to encourage folks to vote for the measure. Hence it is deceitful to insist that the Church took money for this purpose. One might even call it wrong-headed.
Does this mean I will never again watch one of Hanks' movies? Of course not. Even if Hollywood can't, I have no trouble separating entertainment from politics. Hanks' political views take nothing away from his acting, and I certainly don't have to agree with the man in order to watch one of his projects. Heck, I still think Susan Sarandon made one heck of an attorney in "The Client," and she holds even more odious political views than Hanks does. And don't get me started on Sarandon's paramour, Tim Robbins, whom I look forward to seeing in "The City of Ember." (Yep. Missed it in the theaters. But it's coming out on DVD next week.)
The truth will out, they say, but don't look for it to come from Hollywood.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
While We Were In an Election-Induced Stupor Last Year
There's an excellent reason why we should outlaw general elections in this country: we simply can't afford to take our eyes off of Congress, even for 24 short months (give or take). Seems that while we were obsessing over which under-qualified, party-betraying candidate should get our vote, Congress and our very-lame duck President slipped a fast one by us.
It's H.R. 4040, titled "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008," and it's about to put a hefty chunk of Americans out of business on February 10th of this year.
In fact, this one slid through so neatly that it barely made a ripple on the conference vote. Out of 535 possible votes, it garnered only 3 "nays," while 8 voted "present" or abstained. That included Senators McCain, Obama, and Clinton. I believe President Bush would have signed it even without the veto-proof support this one received.
Now, don't get me wrong: there are plenty of reasons to upgrade our product safety standards. The lead-based paint scares coming from China a while back were sufficient to light a sizeable fire underneath a normally do-nothing-or-at-least-do-it-incorrectly Congress. Import standards have been lax for decades, and innocent people suffer as a result. Lead poisoning is still a leading cause of permanent injury or death among children in this country and is therefore nothing to take lightly.
The problem, however, is what happens when you take a typical government reaction to such problems and churn out legislation quickly and without regard for consequences. Such is the case with H.R. 4040. The new standards — which include stringent, not to mention extremely expensive testing requirements — will overwhelm your typical small business owner. Reactions guaged by this report from WorldNetDaily.com are typical. The cost of testing for lead has been quoted at anywhere from $75 to $400 per article (think: one book). As one retailer put it, "There's a big difference between me and Wal-Mart or Toys 'R' Us."
Hardest hit, of course, will be the thrift and consignment stores. My family has benefitted, both directly and indirectly, from thrift stores over the years. My sister-in-law is the queen of thrifters in our family circle, and we have been handing clothes back and forth since our Jelly Woodyette was born nearly twelve years ago. But since we can't certify that our hand-me-downs are lead free, this law pretty much makes it illegal to continue that practice.
So, as is typical with our United States Congress (motto: Never Got It Right So Far; Probably Never Will), we now have a law that will put thousands of Mom and Pop operations permanently out of business, fatten the pockets of the testing labs and the special interests that backed this legislation, and turn our landfills into retail graveyards. All because some greedy importers didn't keep their ethical eyes on the ball.
Go team.
It's H.R. 4040, titled "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008," and it's about to put a hefty chunk of Americans out of business on February 10th of this year.
In fact, this one slid through so neatly that it barely made a ripple on the conference vote. Out of 535 possible votes, it garnered only 3 "nays," while 8 voted "present" or abstained. That included Senators McCain, Obama, and Clinton. I believe President Bush would have signed it even without the veto-proof support this one received.
Now, don't get me wrong: there are plenty of reasons to upgrade our product safety standards. The lead-based paint scares coming from China a while back were sufficient to light a sizeable fire underneath a normally do-nothing-or-at-least-do-it-incorrectly Congress. Import standards have been lax for decades, and innocent people suffer as a result. Lead poisoning is still a leading cause of permanent injury or death among children in this country and is therefore nothing to take lightly.
The problem, however, is what happens when you take a typical government reaction to such problems and churn out legislation quickly and without regard for consequences. Such is the case with H.R. 4040. The new standards — which include stringent, not to mention extremely expensive testing requirements — will overwhelm your typical small business owner. Reactions guaged by this report from WorldNetDaily.com are typical. The cost of testing for lead has been quoted at anywhere from $75 to $400 per article (think: one book). As one retailer put it, "There's a big difference between me and Wal-Mart or Toys 'R' Us."
Hardest hit, of course, will be the thrift and consignment stores. My family has benefitted, both directly and indirectly, from thrift stores over the years. My sister-in-law is the queen of thrifters in our family circle, and we have been handing clothes back and forth since our Jelly Woodyette was born nearly twelve years ago. But since we can't certify that our hand-me-downs are lead free, this law pretty much makes it illegal to continue that practice.
So, as is typical with our United States Congress (motto: Never Got It Right So Far; Probably Never Will), we now have a law that will put thousands of Mom and Pop operations permanently out of business, fatten the pockets of the testing labs and the special interests that backed this legislation, and turn our landfills into retail graveyards. All because some greedy importers didn't keep their ethical eyes on the ball.
Go team.
Friday, January 02, 2009
What Is It with Democrats and "Experience?"
In years past my voice was raised in favor of "voting the bums out." It doesn't really take much to get disgusted with Congress (or even local legislatures), so just about every two years we will hear calls for getting rid of the incumbents and replacing them with people who are somewhat more anatomically correct (you know what I'm talking about). So I freely admit that I have, on occasion, been among those who have felt the need for a complete overhaul of legislative bodies. So to speak.
I'm not so sure the Democrats' solution is the way to do it, though.
Consider:
The primary reasons Barack Obama won are 1) he isn't George W. Bush, and 2) anyone must be better than George W. Bush, no matter how little actual experience he has. I'm pretty sure there was a race/diversity angle in there somewhere, too, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Now it's time to appoint a couple of Senate replacements, both of whom just happen to be Democrats. One would think Joe Biden also needs replacing, but Connecticut is so small that it may well be simply annexed by Massachussets later this year. Anyway, this is where the Democrats get to shine and appoint people to replace President-for-Life-Elect Obama and Secretary-of-State-Consolation-Prize winner Hillary Clinton.
Illinois kicks off the Name That Senator sweeps with an appointee named by Corrupt Governor (I know, I know... it's redundant) Blagojevich. The appointee, a man named Burris, apparently campaigned hard for the posting as soon as it became evident that Obama's term would end abruptly in January of this year. Most unfortunately, he finds himself now permanently guilty by association of being just another cog in the perpetually corrupt Illinois political machine. This forces the ever-ethical United States Senate, led by Harry "Land Deal? What Land Deal?" Reid, to claim that Burris will never be seated in the actual Senate, even if he shows up with his luggage and a note from his Governor.
(This particular example has nothing to do with lack of experience. It does, however, point out to what lengths the Democrats will go to prove they have a sense of humor after all.)
Now we turn our focus to the New York senate seat currently occupied by Hillary Clinton. Governor Paterson has a smallish problem to deal with. He has both a Kennedy and another Clinton on his hands. One could argue that having former president Billy-Bob Clinton be a "caretaker" for the remainder of his wife's term would be an effective way of keeping himout of Paterson's hair involved in local politics. Or not.
The money seems to be on Caroline Kennedy, the so-called "Camelot Princess." Aside from her famous name, she really has little else to recommend her for the position. She's done all the right posturing, apparently, even dropping her married name so that everyone will remember that she used to live in the White House. But aside from that, not much else to really qualify her to occupy what may become a pivotal Senate seat.
The Senate's famous Democratic majority is already tenuous at best. It is not truly veto-proof, nor did they get the anti-fillibuster insurance they so desperately sought in November, even if Franken weasels and cajoles his way through the interminable Minnesota recount. Having another Kennedy in the Senate for no other reason than to have another Kennedy in the Senate just isn't going to win the Democrats anything.
Kennedy's father was a remarkable man. Whether you agreed with him or not, his visions for moving America forward had a galvanizing effect on the country. But it's been forty-five years since John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and modern history is taking a harder look at the Kennedy mystique. Several generations have arisen since his death and have learned not only about his popularity, but also about his foibles and vices. They understand Kennedys of all stripes to be just as human as the rest of us, and that means that the Kennedy name no longer carries with it the historical imperative that it did back in the days of "Camelot."
Governor Paterson did make one comment worthy of note in this farcical Senate Lotto:
I'm not so sure the Democrats' solution is the way to do it, though.
Consider:
The primary reasons Barack Obama won are 1) he isn't George W. Bush, and 2) anyone must be better than George W. Bush, no matter how little actual experience he has. I'm pretty sure there was a race/diversity angle in there somewhere, too, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Now it's time to appoint a couple of Senate replacements, both of whom just happen to be Democrats. One would think Joe Biden also needs replacing, but Connecticut is so small that it may well be simply annexed by Massachussets later this year. Anyway, this is where the Democrats get to shine and appoint people to replace President-for-Life-Elect Obama and Secretary-of-State-Consolation-Prize winner Hillary Clinton.
Illinois kicks off the Name That Senator sweeps with an appointee named by Corrupt Governor (I know, I know... it's redundant) Blagojevich. The appointee, a man named Burris, apparently campaigned hard for the posting as soon as it became evident that Obama's term would end abruptly in January of this year. Most unfortunately, he finds himself now permanently guilty by association of being just another cog in the perpetually corrupt Illinois political machine. This forces the ever-ethical United States Senate, led by Harry "Land Deal? What Land Deal?" Reid, to claim that Burris will never be seated in the actual Senate, even if he shows up with his luggage and a note from his Governor.
(This particular example has nothing to do with lack of experience. It does, however, point out to what lengths the Democrats will go to prove they have a sense of humor after all.)
Now we turn our focus to the New York senate seat currently occupied by Hillary Clinton. Governor Paterson has a smallish problem to deal with. He has both a Kennedy and another Clinton on his hands. One could argue that having former president Billy-Bob Clinton be a "caretaker" for the remainder of his wife's term would be an effective way of keeping him
The money seems to be on Caroline Kennedy, the so-called "Camelot Princess." Aside from her famous name, she really has little else to recommend her for the position. She's done all the right posturing, apparently, even dropping her married name so that everyone will remember that she used to live in the White House. But aside from that, not much else to really qualify her to occupy what may become a pivotal Senate seat.
The Senate's famous Democratic majority is already tenuous at best. It is not truly veto-proof, nor did they get the anti-fillibuster insurance they so desperately sought in November, even if Franken weasels and cajoles his way through the interminable Minnesota recount. Having another Kennedy in the Senate for no other reason than to have another Kennedy in the Senate just isn't going to win the Democrats anything.
Kennedy's father was a remarkable man. Whether you agreed with him or not, his visions for moving America forward had a galvanizing effect on the country. But it's been forty-five years since John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and modern history is taking a harder look at the Kennedy mystique. Several generations have arisen since his death and have learned not only about his popularity, but also about his foibles and vices. They understand Kennedys of all stripes to be just as human as the rest of us, and that means that the Kennedy name no longer carries with it the historical imperative that it did back in the days of "Camelot."
Governor Paterson did make one comment worthy of note in this farcical Senate Lotto:
Though Kennedy appears to be the front-runner to replace Clinton, Paterson said the next junior Senator from New York will have to win re-election on his or her own.And that may prove to be a problem for the Princess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
