This is a quote from "Arizona on the Aegean."
Ray Hartwell has written a column for the Washington Times called "Europe's Arizona." That would be Greece, which has an enormous problem with illegal immigrants -- mostly Albanians and, to a lesser extent, Turks. As in Arizona, it is estimated that roughly 10 percent of the population in Greece is there illegally. And many of the problems that the illegals bring with them are quite similar.
Illegal immigration didn't cause Greece's financial collapse, of course. But Ray argues persuasively that illegal immigration is making the economic situation worse.
Click on the link and read the entire article.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Monday, August 02, 2010
This Mess Has Got Me Depressed
Depression is not a word that generally applies to me. My marriage is good, my children are healthy, my grandchildren are perfect in every way, my life is busy and filled with laughter and happiness. So why do I feel depressed?
It's this economy and what it's done to people - and I mean people I know and love - not some "people." First, though, is the fact that I am sad about the death of Ron's sister, Betty, in Florida. She was a victim of old age. After selling their home in Myrtle Beach, she and her husband, Frank, moved to St. Petersburg and bought a condo in a high-rise by the water. They were fine for several years, then Frank got a diagnosis of lung cancer and died within two years. And those last two years were extremely hard on his wife, since she never left his side except to go grocery shopping.
After Frank died, we all thought Betty would move to California to live with their daughter. But the timing was off. The housing bubble had just burst and the condo that had been worth $400K was now unmarketable. She had it on the market off and on for two years, and wouldn't come down to a price that might have drawn buyers, saying "I'm not going to give it away." So she stayed there, waiting . .. waiting.. . waiting. Then she got an infection that spread to the plastic valve in her heart and then she was terminal. She wasn't strong enough to survive the heart surgery to replace the valve and antibiotics can't work on plastic. So, after two months of pain and suffering and (although it's not important, probably a bill of about half a million) she passed away.
There are so many "if only's" in that story, it just makes me sad. Now her kids will sell the condo for $150K and that will be that.
And my daughter's mother-in-law is facing foreclosure on her condo, she's walking away from her car lease, and declaring bankruptcy. My friend and her husband are walking away from their house that three years ago they were thrilled with, but now see as a really bad investment since it's worth about half what they paid for it. They found out this weekend that about 5 or 6 of their neighbors are going to do the same thing. My son refinanced his house to pay off his ex-wife to get her out of his life, and was hoping and praying that the market would recover before the loan adjusted so that he could either sell it or refi it again into a 30-year fixed. But no. He's going to try to short sale it.
I feel like I'm on an island and the tide is coming in. Where can we move? I can't bear to watch what's coming - I don't think the worst is over.
And forget about the kids that are looking for jobs!
It's this economy and what it's done to people - and I mean people I know and love - not some "people." First, though, is the fact that I am sad about the death of Ron's sister, Betty, in Florida. She was a victim of old age. After selling their home in Myrtle Beach, she and her husband, Frank, moved to St. Petersburg and bought a condo in a high-rise by the water. They were fine for several years, then Frank got a diagnosis of lung cancer and died within two years. And those last two years were extremely hard on his wife, since she never left his side except to go grocery shopping.
After Frank died, we all thought Betty would move to California to live with their daughter. But the timing was off. The housing bubble had just burst and the condo that had been worth $400K was now unmarketable. She had it on the market off and on for two years, and wouldn't come down to a price that might have drawn buyers, saying "I'm not going to give it away." So she stayed there, waiting . .. waiting.. . waiting. Then she got an infection that spread to the plastic valve in her heart and then she was terminal. She wasn't strong enough to survive the heart surgery to replace the valve and antibiotics can't work on plastic. So, after two months of pain and suffering and (although it's not important, probably a bill of about half a million) she passed away.
There are so many "if only's" in that story, it just makes me sad. Now her kids will sell the condo for $150K and that will be that.
And my daughter's mother-in-law is facing foreclosure on her condo, she's walking away from her car lease, and declaring bankruptcy. My friend and her husband are walking away from their house that three years ago they were thrilled with, but now see as a really bad investment since it's worth about half what they paid for it. They found out this weekend that about 5 or 6 of their neighbors are going to do the same thing. My son refinanced his house to pay off his ex-wife to get her out of his life, and was hoping and praying that the market would recover before the loan adjusted so that he could either sell it or refi it again into a 30-year fixed. But no. He's going to try to short sale it.
I feel like I'm on an island and the tide is coming in. Where can we move? I can't bear to watch what's coming - I don't think the worst is over.
And forget about the kids that are looking for jobs!
Saturday, June 26, 2010
How Come?
Here's a health care question that I hope somebody will have an answer for: why is it that Medicare will pay for me to see a doctor about a malfunction in any body part I have except for my teeth and my eyes? I can see my family doctor for a diagnosis when I am not feeling quite right; he can refer me to a specialist for treatment for whatever is wrong; but if I am suffering from an inflammation of a tooth, I have to go to a dentist and Medicare won't pay for it. If I need to be able to see better (no different than if I need to be able to sleep better) then I have to see an opthamologist. Oh yes, and also, if my hearing starts to go, Medicare doesn't care. What is the justification for leaving these important things out of my health care provisions?
Anyone? Anyone?
Anyone? Anyone?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Check it out!
Someone has used one of my photographs in their blog. You can see it by clicking on this link:
http://lemonadecleansetogo.com/2010/06/top-10-glam-wedding-dresses/
The picture is a frou-frou wedding dress that I shot when we were in Paris. It's fun to see your work recognized by someone else! Thanks to Lemonade Cleanse!
http://lemonadecleansetogo.com/2010/06/top-10-glam-wedding-dresses/
The picture is a frou-frou wedding dress that I shot when we were in Paris. It's fun to see your work recognized by someone else! Thanks to Lemonade Cleanse!
Monday, May 31, 2010
Summer Trip, 2010
We had a great trip to the midwest. I want to go back! We flew into Cincinnati, rented a car, drove to Bethel, Ohio, to Bill and Verda's house, and left the next morning on a ramble up to Lake Michigan. We started out with a delicious brunch prepared by Verda's cousin, Gary, at his beautiful home outside Cincinnati. Then we departed for French Lick and to see the resort at West Baden Springs. We stopped that first night at Salem, Indiana, and stayed at a lovely B&B named Laning House. Mrs. Hart was our gracious hostess, and we had the entire annex to ourselves for $65 per couple! Living room, dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms and two baths! We highly recommend the Laning
House if you are ever in Salem. The next morning we saw the amazing West Baden Springs resort and played the slots at French Lick. 
That night we stayed in Bloomington, Indiana. What a neat college town that is! Verda and I went into Buffalouie's for wings, and while we were there we were talking to the owner. During our conversation, he stopped to welcome George Taliaferro, the first African-American to be drafted into the NFL. George played for the 1945 IU football team. I had the pleasure of talking with George for several minutes and he told me the story of how he used to peer through the window of that restaurant at his picture on the wall, but wasn't allowed to come in because he was black. Now that same picture resides in a place of honor in Assembly Hall. We toured the campus the next morning and went to the library to use their computers. In the afternoon we headed north for the southern shore of Lake Michigan and stayed in Chesterton. The following pictures are of this first part of our trip.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Arizona Immigration Law
I have a question for all Moms (and Dads) out there today. When you teach your children about obeying the laws, do you tell them that they can pick and choose which ones to follow, and which ones to disregard?
That is what the opponents of the new anti-illegal immigration law in Arizona want you to do. It is, and has been, the law of the United States for anyone to be in this country illegally. That means without having gone through the legal process of being admitted to this country. My family has ancestors who came from Europe - legally - and Ron and his family came here from Scotland when he was 11 - legally. So we are in FAVOR of immigration and the contributions immigrants make to our country - but there are legal ways to do it.
So, when there is a law passed by Congress saying it is unlawful to be here without documentation, why are people saying that a state law upholding and enforcing the federal law is unconstitutional? Why are they saying that we should continue to look the other way when we know - we know - how many people are here illegally? Why do we, as taxpayers and residents of Arizona, have to continue to pay for people who are here illegally? The least the federal government can do - if they are not going to enforce the immigration laws - is give us the money to take care of these people.
So, teach your children that if they think a law is wrong, they don't have to obey it. See how that works for you.
That is what the opponents of the new anti-illegal immigration law in Arizona want you to do. It is, and has been, the law of the United States for anyone to be in this country illegally. That means without having gone through the legal process of being admitted to this country. My family has ancestors who came from Europe - legally - and Ron and his family came here from Scotland when he was 11 - legally. So we are in FAVOR of immigration and the contributions immigrants make to our country - but there are legal ways to do it.
So, when there is a law passed by Congress saying it is unlawful to be here without documentation, why are people saying that a state law upholding and enforcing the federal law is unconstitutional? Why are they saying that we should continue to look the other way when we know - we know - how many people are here illegally? Why do we, as taxpayers and residents of Arizona, have to continue to pay for people who are here illegally? The least the federal government can do - if they are not going to enforce the immigration laws - is give us the money to take care of these people.
So, teach your children that if they think a law is wrong, they don't have to obey it. See how that works for you.
Happy Mother's Day!
Whether you are doing anything special today or not, you have already done something extraordinary by becoming a mother and raising your offspring.
If the human race survives, it will be because people like you have passed their genes on to the next generation. So, congratulations! No matter what, you have made an invaluable contribution to life on this planet.
If the human race survives, it will be because people like you have passed their genes on to the next generation. So, congratulations! No matter what, you have made an invaluable contribution to life on this planet.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
New Immigration Law in Arizona
Does anyone else think it's curious and more than a little coincidental that just when all the protests are going on about the new "strict" Arizona immigration law, the feds (ICE) "arrested 596 illegal immigrants with prior criminal convictions in a three-day sweep across the southeastern United States this week?"
"Most of them will be deported, though 22 may be prosecuted for illegally entering the U.S. after previously having been sent home," (italics mine) "These are not the kind of people that we want walking our streets or living in our communities" Morton told reporters. WELL WE DON'T WANT THEM EITHER. Why doesn't anyone get that?
"All but two dozen of the criminals, some previously convicted of murder, sex crimes, assault and fraud, had been released from jail or prison without being turned over to immigration authorities for removal, as the law provides." That statement is exactly what the Arizona law provides for when criminals are arrested. The ONLY way the Arizona law could be found to be unconstitutional is if the Court decides that a state law cannot mirror a federal law. And if that is the case, then a majority of state laws across the country will be declared unconstitutional.
Wonder how Janet Napolitano sleeps at night. When she was Governor, she refused to sign similar laws because she said it would take resources away from the feds who were busy doing other things. Now, all of a sudden, we are told that in the southeastern part of the United States, criminals should not have been released from incarceration without being turned over to immigration authorities. I didn't know that federal law only applied in certain states or certain parts of the country.
Quotes are from The Arizona Republic, Saturday, May 1, 2010. Reprinted from Tribune Washington Bureau.
Comments welcome.
"Most of them will be deported, though 22 may be prosecuted for illegally entering the U.S. after previously having been sent home," (italics mine) "These are not the kind of people that we want walking our streets or living in our communities" Morton told reporters. WELL WE DON'T WANT THEM EITHER. Why doesn't anyone get that?
"All but two dozen of the criminals, some previously convicted of murder, sex crimes, assault and fraud, had been released from jail or prison without being turned over to immigration authorities for removal, as the law provides." That statement is exactly what the Arizona law provides for when criminals are arrested. The ONLY way the Arizona law could be found to be unconstitutional is if the Court decides that a state law cannot mirror a federal law. And if that is the case, then a majority of state laws across the country will be declared unconstitutional.
Wonder how Janet Napolitano sleeps at night. When she was Governor, she refused to sign similar laws because she said it would take resources away from the feds who were busy doing other things. Now, all of a sudden, we are told that in the southeastern part of the United States, criminals should not have been released from incarceration without being turned over to immigration authorities. I didn't know that federal law only applied in certain states or certain parts of the country.
Quotes are from The Arizona Republic, Saturday, May 1, 2010. Reprinted from Tribune Washington Bureau.
Comments welcome.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Illegal Immigration
Perhaps you all have become aware that there is a bill sitting on the desk of the Governor of Arizona that will - wait for it - make it a state crime to be in the country illegally! Now, I guess I missed something along the way. I thought that it already was illegal to be illegal - DUH. There are demonstrations going on by people who are afraid that even legal residents will be required to carry identification with them in case they have to show that they are here legally. Well, I don't know about you, but most of the time when I go out, I have my driver's license with me. No problem. And, I'm sorry, but the last time I traveled to Europe, I had to give my passport to customs agents when I entered a foreign country. In England, in France, in the Netherlands, I couldn't just stroll across the border, enter their country, and set up shop without a by-your-leave. Why do Mexicans think that they should be able to cross into Arizona and never be challenged to show that they are here legally? We don't seem to have this same problem with Canadians. Some people say that the convention business will suffer, that companies will choose not to come to Arizona because they will be worried that their attendees will be stopped at every corner. I think it's probably the opposite. If out-of-staters know that the chances of being murdered, robbed, assaulted, or hit in their car by an uninsured, unlicensed motorist, I think they would be more inclined to visit our state. The economy of Arizona will suddenly improve dramatically when we are not having to pay for immigrants' medical bills, education, welfare, not to mention their incarceration.
I am as grateful as anyone for the contributions that immigrants have made to our country and to our state. But people who are here legally are not part of this discussion. I think that if there is immigration reform, we will still have many people who want to come here and make contributions - but they will do it legally. And, to be fair, our government needs to assist the Mexican government in making that country a desirable place to live. Maybe then there will be crossings in both directions!
So show me what part of "illegal" I don't understand.
I am as grateful as anyone for the contributions that immigrants have made to our country and to our state. But people who are here legally are not part of this discussion. I think that if there is immigration reform, we will still have many people who want to come here and make contributions - but they will do it legally. And, to be fair, our government needs to assist the Mexican government in making that country a desirable place to live. Maybe then there will be crossings in both directions!
So show me what part of "illegal" I don't understand.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Recent Photos
I was 68 when I finally saw a Panda.
I think I am going to make this blog more of a photo blog than a written one. Either that or learn to write more succinctly and not ramble on and on. Maybe a combination of the two? Anyhoo, recently my daughter, Nancy, and I took her two daughters and Steve's son, Alex to the San Diego Zoo and to Legoland. It was so much fun - the kids were great and got along perfectly. The only problem we encountered was that the first night, they all ended up in one room because Grandma was snoring so loud! The next night, Grandma slept in the living room of the suite and everyone else was in the bedroom with the door closed! Ah, well.
The zoo has an amazing underwater hippo viewing area. You can see them when they are underwater, and also when they come up. What a great idea!
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
MAKE IT HAPPEN
When we first viewed the Agean Sea from the road leading into Napflio, I realized that if you want something enough, you can make it happen. I have dreamed of seeing Greece since I was a child and my mother enrolled me in a children's art history by mail series provided by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The booklets came once a month and I had to paste the correct stamp of individual pieces into their appropriate space and read the text describing what this piece was. My favorite was the Winged Victory of Samothrace. Samos is an island in Greece and the statue was originally part of the sanctuary of Samos. Now, of course, the Victory (or Nike) resides in the Louvre, but Greece is most definitely still here.
We spent our first week getting acquainted with the basics of visiting Greece. Learning to recognize a few words, getting used to driving like the crazy Greek drivers, seeing what food was suitable for us picky Americans, and locating the super market. During that first week, we drove to the amphitheater in Epidavros (Epidaurus on some maps) and were as amazed as the guidebooks promised we would be. We kept saying over and over "Wow, this was a lot of work!" but several days later I thought that 3000 years from now if tourists are walking over the ruins of Manhattan, they will be saying "Wow, this was a lot of work!" I will post photographs on this blog and on Flickr when we get home and I edit the collection. I may have taken 600 shots so far, I don't know. I do know we've spent a fortune on Duracells!
We also visited Mycenae and saw the oldest bas relief carving in the ancient world, the Lion Gate. This is where Agamemnon was murdered by his wife Clynemestra after being away for 10 years fighting some war or another. This is a site excavated by Henrich Schliemann and where he found the gold mask you often see titled Agamamnon's Mask, but later historians don't think it really is his face. However, this was an impressive site with lots to see and lots to learn.
On the way back to Napflio, we stopped at Tyros, another ancient site with cyclopean stones. These huge blocks of stone were so large that the Greeks thought they could only have been put in place by a cyclops. It was interesting to us that you could just walk all over the site, prowl around to your heart's content. No signs saying "Stay on Path" or any other warnings. And, credit to all of us tourists and the Greeks who visit here, there was no trash or litter anywhere.
In Napflio itself, there were two castles - the one we looked at from our balcony every morning and evening - the Paramidi, and the other, the Acronapflio. We spent one day just exploring Napflio. We went to the beach one day, and the water was wonderful, but the beach itself was rocks, not sand, so not very comfy for lazing and dozing. The Greeks must not have heard about melanoma because they are all laying about getting tanned in their too-skimpy for taste bikinis and speedos.
We decided to keep the car for an extra three days so that we would have more time to visit Olympia, Delphi, and Corinth.
I'll blog about that leg of the trip next time (or when we get home if I can't find another internet cafe!)
We are off to Santorini tomorrow, finishing up in Athens and flying home on Sunday.
We spent our first week getting acquainted with the basics of visiting Greece. Learning to recognize a few words, getting used to driving like the crazy Greek drivers, seeing what food was suitable for us picky Americans, and locating the super market. During that first week, we drove to the amphitheater in Epidavros (Epidaurus on some maps) and were as amazed as the guidebooks promised we would be. We kept saying over and over "Wow, this was a lot of work!" but several days later I thought that 3000 years from now if tourists are walking over the ruins of Manhattan, they will be saying "Wow, this was a lot of work!" I will post photographs on this blog and on Flickr when we get home and I edit the collection. I may have taken 600 shots so far, I don't know. I do know we've spent a fortune on Duracells!
We also visited Mycenae and saw the oldest bas relief carving in the ancient world, the Lion Gate. This is where Agamemnon was murdered by his wife Clynemestra after being away for 10 years fighting some war or another. This is a site excavated by Henrich Schliemann and where he found the gold mask you often see titled Agamamnon's Mask, but later historians don't think it really is his face. However, this was an impressive site with lots to see and lots to learn.
On the way back to Napflio, we stopped at Tyros, another ancient site with cyclopean stones. These huge blocks of stone were so large that the Greeks thought they could only have been put in place by a cyclops. It was interesting to us that you could just walk all over the site, prowl around to your heart's content. No signs saying "Stay on Path" or any other warnings. And, credit to all of us tourists and the Greeks who visit here, there was no trash or litter anywhere.
In Napflio itself, there were two castles - the one we looked at from our balcony every morning and evening - the Paramidi, and the other, the Acronapflio. We spent one day just exploring Napflio. We went to the beach one day, and the water was wonderful, but the beach itself was rocks, not sand, so not very comfy for lazing and dozing. The Greeks must not have heard about melanoma because they are all laying about getting tanned in their too-skimpy for taste bikinis and speedos.
We decided to keep the car for an extra three days so that we would have more time to visit Olympia, Delphi, and Corinth.
I'll blog about that leg of the trip next time (or when we get home if I can't find another internet cafe!)
We are off to Santorini tomorrow, finishing up in Athens and flying home on Sunday.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
STYLIN' AT LIBERTY NATIONAL
Let's take up where we left off yesterday.
Freddy Jacobson is the reverse of yesterday's selection. Yesterday he had on some ocean blue pants that personally I think were too tight. They were in danger of splitting when he bent over to retrieve his ball. Plus, they ride too low. I keep expecting to see his undies peek out. The shirt wasn't bad. The Europeans always tend to wear their clothes a bit more form-fitting than the Americans and his upper body looks good in the snug shirts. Today, he has reversed the color selection and is wearing a blue shirt and white pants.
Webb Simpson is dressed just like a rookie. You can tell he hasn't earned much money yet - can't afford really great clothes. But if he keeps playing like this, you can expect him to turn up in some high-end britches.
Forgot to mention yesterday that I very much approve of Marino's decision to wear Under Armour. Love their clothes and I own stock, so go UA! He's wearing UA again today, but must give him a low score for this shirt. The stripes are too close together for TV and tend to look like a test pattern.
Bill Haas is in contention for best outfit. His grey slacks are very classy and the pale aqua shirt is pretty as a bridesmaid's dress without looking girly.
Heath Slocum made the "green" mistake. CBS should just tell these guys, "For God's sake, don't wear a green shirt!" Give these players' wives a color wheel to use. Ernie Els looks like a true champion today, by the way. His royal (and I mean ROYAL) blue shirt looks fabulous against the green grass of either the fairways or the greens. He will look great when he hoists the championship trophy at the end of the day. (I predict.)
Steve Stricker looks like a winner today. His summer blue shirt goes well with his pants which look like linen. He looks totally comfortable, but very well put together. Best outfit contender. Still have to judge his hat and shoes, though, before deciding. It is always best when your hat matches your pants, and most of the time, it's better if your shoes match the hat. Goydos looks pretty good today, but why did he choose a white hat when he's wearing black pants, black and white striped shirt, and black shoes? Stricker did go with the same white for shoes and hat.
Nick Watney looked very nice today. We didn't get a great view, just a quick shot of him, but the quick impression was classic. And, Nick probably will win best shoes. But, whoa, watch out for Steve Stricker. Looking good, Steve. Just don't take your hat off.
Tiger looks like a well-tuned racehorse. And even though Roger Federer said that Tiger's pants are always too big, I disagree. They have a nice drape, never look constricting, and hang from his waist like they were made for no one else.
So, at the end of the day, the clothes you wear don't matter much. Heath Slocum wins, in his little green Calvin Klein shirt. Steve Stricker will have to be the winner of Best Pants, Ernie Els for Best Shirt, Nick Watney for Best Shoes, but Bill Haas wins for overall Best Outfit!
See you next week.
Freddy Jacobson is the reverse of yesterday's selection. Yesterday he had on some ocean blue pants that personally I think were too tight. They were in danger of splitting when he bent over to retrieve his ball. Plus, they ride too low. I keep expecting to see his undies peek out. The shirt wasn't bad. The Europeans always tend to wear their clothes a bit more form-fitting than the Americans and his upper body looks good in the snug shirts. Today, he has reversed the color selection and is wearing a blue shirt and white pants.
Webb Simpson is dressed just like a rookie. You can tell he hasn't earned much money yet - can't afford really great clothes. But if he keeps playing like this, you can expect him to turn up in some high-end britches.
Forgot to mention yesterday that I very much approve of Marino's decision to wear Under Armour. Love their clothes and I own stock, so go UA! He's wearing UA again today, but must give him a low score for this shirt. The stripes are too close together for TV and tend to look like a test pattern.
Bill Haas is in contention for best outfit. His grey slacks are very classy and the pale aqua shirt is pretty as a bridesmaid's dress without looking girly.
Heath Slocum made the "green" mistake. CBS should just tell these guys, "For God's sake, don't wear a green shirt!" Give these players' wives a color wheel to use. Ernie Els looks like a true champion today, by the way. His royal (and I mean ROYAL) blue shirt looks fabulous against the green grass of either the fairways or the greens. He will look great when he hoists the championship trophy at the end of the day. (I predict.)
Steve Stricker looks like a winner today. His summer blue shirt goes well with his pants which look like linen. He looks totally comfortable, but very well put together. Best outfit contender. Still have to judge his hat and shoes, though, before deciding. It is always best when your hat matches your pants, and most of the time, it's better if your shoes match the hat. Goydos looks pretty good today, but why did he choose a white hat when he's wearing black pants, black and white striped shirt, and black shoes? Stricker did go with the same white for shoes and hat.
Nick Watney looked very nice today. We didn't get a great view, just a quick shot of him, but the quick impression was classic. And, Nick probably will win best shoes. But, whoa, watch out for Steve Stricker. Looking good, Steve. Just don't take your hat off.
Tiger looks like a well-tuned racehorse. And even though Roger Federer said that Tiger's pants are always too big, I disagree. They have a nice drape, never look constricting, and hang from his waist like they were made for no one else.
So, at the end of the day, the clothes you wear don't matter much. Heath Slocum wins, in his little green Calvin Klein shirt. Steve Stricker will have to be the winner of Best Pants, Ernie Els for Best Shirt, Nick Watney for Best Shoes, but Bill Haas wins for overall Best Outfit!
See you next week.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
WHO WINS "BEST PANTS?"
It's Saturday at the Barclay's and some fans want to know who has the lowest score - but there are a lot of us who want to know who's wearing the best outfit? Whose pants fit the best? Which golf shoes are cool and make you actually want to go buy some? Shirts? Well, after seeing whether or not you can see Phil's nips, what else makes you remember that golfer? Today, for example, Sergio looks great in his bright orange shirt and black pants. He might be a contestant for "Best Outfit." The almost-but-not-quite beard has got to go, though. Sergio is plenty handsome enough without trying to cover up that pretty face.
Of course, we all watch to see what Ian's wearing, and today would probably be a fun day to judge his sartorial selection, but it's rainy and he has on plain, black rain pants today, so cross your fingers for the sun to come out and the raingear to come off! And personally, I miss the Poulter hair sticking up, but I guess he didn't want to get his head wet today.
Now we all know that Tiger always looks sexy and athletic in his Nike duds. Today's blue shirt (and hasn't he pretty much decided that Saturday is blue day and Sunday is red?) looks great, but I personally think he could have chosen better pants. And did young Webb Simpson find out what Tiger was planning to wear today and copy at least his color scheme? Maybe hope it brings him the same confidence that Tiger has?
Now let's score some of the other players. Scoring is on a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being "looks like your local insurance agent," and 10 being "Yum!"
Paul Goydos - Love that shirt! What color is that - persimmon? Apricot? It's darker than peach and it's on the pinkish side of orange. Very nice selection for today's weather and setting. Pants are so-so.
Zach Johnson - gets a 7 for pants; they fit his butt nicely and hang stylishly. Good color, too. But only get a 2 for the plain white shirt. And white shoes might not be the best selection for playing in the mud and rain.
Steve Marino - only gets a 4 for the khaki colored trousers - pretty ho-hum. I wonder if these guys ever even think about how they are going to look on television (except for Tiger). Marino's green shirt probably looks fine in the clubhouse but against those greens, it almost clashes. Green might be a color to stay away from when you're playing golf - unless you're playing in the desert.
I'm waiting to see Vijay. He always looks like he's wearing pants tailor-made for him in Hong Kong. They just flow over his body like chocolate over strawberries. They enhance that lazy, relaxed walk of his. You just can't help but wonder what underwear he has on - bet it's silk.
Webb Simpson might be wearing rain pants, too. Whatever they are, they make his butt look huge! These guys ought to watch themselves and see how they look to us. We're not necessarily watching their swing. And their moms should have told them "don't spit," and "don't say the 'f' word."
That's it for Saturday at Liberty National.
Of course, we all watch to see what Ian's wearing, and today would probably be a fun day to judge his sartorial selection, but it's rainy and he has on plain, black rain pants today, so cross your fingers for the sun to come out and the raingear to come off! And personally, I miss the Poulter hair sticking up, but I guess he didn't want to get his head wet today.
Now we all know that Tiger always looks sexy and athletic in his Nike duds. Today's blue shirt (and hasn't he pretty much decided that Saturday is blue day and Sunday is red?) looks great, but I personally think he could have chosen better pants. And did young Webb Simpson find out what Tiger was planning to wear today and copy at least his color scheme? Maybe hope it brings him the same confidence that Tiger has?
Now let's score some of the other players. Scoring is on a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being "looks like your local insurance agent," and 10 being "Yum!"
Paul Goydos - Love that shirt! What color is that - persimmon? Apricot? It's darker than peach and it's on the pinkish side of orange. Very nice selection for today's weather and setting. Pants are so-so.
Zach Johnson - gets a 7 for pants; they fit his butt nicely and hang stylishly. Good color, too. But only get a 2 for the plain white shirt. And white shoes might not be the best selection for playing in the mud and rain.
Steve Marino - only gets a 4 for the khaki colored trousers - pretty ho-hum. I wonder if these guys ever even think about how they are going to look on television (except for Tiger). Marino's green shirt probably looks fine in the clubhouse but against those greens, it almost clashes. Green might be a color to stay away from when you're playing golf - unless you're playing in the desert.
I'm waiting to see Vijay. He always looks like he's wearing pants tailor-made for him in Hong Kong. They just flow over his body like chocolate over strawberries. They enhance that lazy, relaxed walk of his. You just can't help but wonder what underwear he has on - bet it's silk.
Webb Simpson might be wearing rain pants, too. Whatever they are, they make his butt look huge! These guys ought to watch themselves and see how they look to us. We're not necessarily watching their swing. And their moms should have told them "don't spit," and "don't say the 'f' word."
That's it for Saturday at Liberty National.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
LOSS OF AN OLD FRIEND
We were saddened today to learn that our friend, Will Lands, of New Jersey and Albuquerque, died on July 20th. The cause of death was cirrhosis of the liver which won't surprise any of you who knew him. He had actually made an effort to quit drinking and get healthy, but I think it was too little, too late.
After his wife, Patricia, died several years ago, Will seemed to go downhill. He moved back into their house (they had been separated for two years) and I think it just made him very sad to have to dispose of her things. He went through a period of anger and after that he just seemed to have little enthusiasm for life. He had two DUI's in a matter of days and came to Phoenix to do a 30-day rehab. He seemed pretty good for a while after that, but lost his job and then that was the last straw. With his age, and the economy going down the toilet, his hopes of getting another job were practically nil. He wasn't old enough for Social Security or Medicare, so he watching his life savings disappear by the week.
Will had a caring heart and was always helping others, especially animals that needed someone to speak for them. He was very, very smart, but couldn't make the one decision that would have saved his life.
We will miss him.
After his wife, Patricia, died several years ago, Will seemed to go downhill. He moved back into their house (they had been separated for two years) and I think it just made him very sad to have to dispose of her things. He went through a period of anger and after that he just seemed to have little enthusiasm for life. He had two DUI's in a matter of days and came to Phoenix to do a 30-day rehab. He seemed pretty good for a while after that, but lost his job and then that was the last straw. With his age, and the economy going down the toilet, his hopes of getting another job were practically nil. He wasn't old enough for Social Security or Medicare, so he watching his life savings disappear by the week.
Will had a caring heart and was always helping others, especially animals that needed someone to speak for them. He was very, very smart, but couldn't make the one decision that would have saved his life.
We will miss him.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
American Solutions Lab
STOP COMPLAINING AND DO SOMETHING!!
All across this country people are sitting at desks, around dinner tables, at bars and restaurants, saying "Well, if they would just do blah, blah, blah" everything would be
better. So here's your chance. If you think you have a solution to any of America's problems, propose that solution at www.americansolutions.com. If enough people think it's a good idea, there is a system for getting your solution implemented.
So stop ranting and raving, folks, and get to work!
Go to http://www.americansolutions.com and click on Solutions Lab. There are many issues and you can help in any or all of them. Good luck!
All across this country people are sitting at desks, around dinner tables, at bars and restaurants, saying "Well, if they would just do blah, blah, blah" everything would be
better. So here's your chance. If you think you have a solution to any of America's problems, propose that solution at www.americansolutions.com. If enough people think it's a good idea, there is a system for getting your solution implemented.
So stop ranting and raving, folks, and get to work!
Go to http://www.americansolutions.com and click on Solutions Lab. There are many issues and you can help in any or all of them. Good luck!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Ron Paul's Answer to the President
Dear Friends:
The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.
We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.
Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.
Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?
We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.
Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).
Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."
Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?
Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.
F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:
Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.
To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.
The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.
The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?
Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.
The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.
I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.
H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.
In liberty,
Ron Paul
The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.
We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.
Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.
Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?
We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.
Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).
Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."
Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?
Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.
F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:
Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.
To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.
The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.
The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?
Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.
The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.
I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.
H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.
In liberty,
Ron Paul
Monday, August 18, 2008
Deja Vu All Over Again
Sylvia and I are reading Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, "This Land is Their Land," and in doing a bit of research, I came across this book review. Just a week before the Democratic Convention, I think it's a worthwhile read. Let's be careful we don't repeat the mistakes of the "Great Society" era and expect Barack or the government to fix all our problems. We created this mess and it's going to take all of us to get
Arts & Culture | Book Review
One Brief Shining Moment
Two historians explain how liberals went from top dog to toxic
by Robert Sommer | July 25, 2008
This article was published in the July 28, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.
The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s
By G. Calvin Mackenzie and Robert Weisbrot
The Penguin Press, 422 pages, $27.95
These days "liberal" is a word rarely used as anything but a pejorative in American politics. In the 1960s, however, it was the dominant political philosophy in Washington. President Lyndon B. Johnson ran his election campaign in 1964 as a liberal against archconservative Senator Barry Goldwater and won in a landslide. There were overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a solid Supreme Court majority led by Chief Justice Earl Warren that viewed itself as a liberal, activist vanguard. Perhaps most important, the American public was urging government action in a wide variety of areas.
Given everything liberals had going for them, what went wrong? It’s a question that G. Calvin Mackenzie and Robert Weisbrot do a fine job of answering in The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s.
America was a nation in transition during that decade. The growth of the suburbs at the expense of cities changed the face of politics as the country’s economy was shifting from manufacturing to service. At the same time, "Americans became more concerned with the quality of their lives, not just the quantity of their incomes. They wanted clean air … clean water … safer vehicles. Only government, they soon learned, could be counted on to meet these new needs," the authors write.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations were ready to help. John Kennedy set the agenda: He changed the outlook of the country from conservative to liberal. Johnson made sure the assassinated president’s vision was fulfilled. L.B.J.’s Great Society achievements included Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, voting rights, pollution control, higher-education funding and the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He also got Congress to pass a huge tax cut. It was an impressive display of executive power. And the Warren Court was ready to back him up.
This was a time when government officials were associated with the best and the brightest. In fact, as Messrs. Mackenzie and Weisbrot note, "By the 1960s the federal bureaucracy had become a thriving center of knowledge and expertise."
Liberals were on top—and yet it all collapsed so quickly. Indeed, we’re talking about the liberal hour—not era—though many of the programs still exist. Explaining the collapse is where the authors, who are both professors at Colby College, are at their best. The easy reason is the Vietnam War, but Messrs. Mackenzie and Weisbrot go much deeper, and their conclusions should be required reading for Democrats who are thinking of what they can achieve if they win the White House and large Congressional majorities this November.
The authors write that Johnson was devastated "when the intended beneficiaries of his policies seemed so ungrateful for his efforts. But he asked for it by promising more than he or any other government could deliver." Unfortunately, the experts in government didn’t know as much as they thought they did about how to fix problems, according to the authors: "Liberalism had come to be associated in the public mind not with its intentions but with its excesses and shortfalls."
The difficulty in solving problems led liberal support groups to fight with one another, especially after Johnson decided not to run for a second full term. Coupled with the protests against the war, the liberal bloc split apart among the candidates running to replace L.B.J. The struggle was highlighted for all to see at the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention, where police brawled with protesters outside the convention hall and delegates fought each other inside.
VICE PRESIDENT HUBERT H. Humphrey eventually won the nomination without competing in a single primary, much to the displeasure of supporters of Senator Eugene McCarthy. The Democratic disintegration accelerated when Alabama Governor George C. Wallace split from the party, ran as an independent candidate for president and won five states and 46 electoral votes.
By 1972, liberals’ revulsion with the manner in which the party bosses picked Humphrey changed the way Democrats chose their presidential nominee. More emphasis was put on winning factional support from liberal special-interest groups without maintaining the organizational ability of the bosses to keep things in line. The liberal hour was over.
But it wasn’t just internal problems that ended the liberals’ reign. The authors correctly note that conservatives built on the foundation established by Goldwater and exploited the public’s increasing distrust of government. The Great Society became the basis for what Republicans began to label, with punishing effect, the Democrats’ culture of tax and spend. Liberals became politically radioactive.
In due course, the liberal hour was replaced by the Reagan generation, which only now seems to be splitting apart.
Robert Sommer is president of the Observer Media Group. He can be reached at rsommer@observer.com
Arts & Culture | Book Review
One Brief Shining Moment
Two historians explain how liberals went from top dog to toxic
by Robert Sommer | July 25, 2008
This article was published in the July 28, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.
The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s
By G. Calvin Mackenzie and Robert Weisbrot
The Penguin Press, 422 pages, $27.95
These days "liberal" is a word rarely used as anything but a pejorative in American politics. In the 1960s, however, it was the dominant political philosophy in Washington. President Lyndon B. Johnson ran his election campaign in 1964 as a liberal against archconservative Senator Barry Goldwater and won in a landslide. There were overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a solid Supreme Court majority led by Chief Justice Earl Warren that viewed itself as a liberal, activist vanguard. Perhaps most important, the American public was urging government action in a wide variety of areas.
Given everything liberals had going for them, what went wrong? It’s a question that G. Calvin Mackenzie and Robert Weisbrot do a fine job of answering in The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s.
America was a nation in transition during that decade. The growth of the suburbs at the expense of cities changed the face of politics as the country’s economy was shifting from manufacturing to service. At the same time, "Americans became more concerned with the quality of their lives, not just the quantity of their incomes. They wanted clean air … clean water … safer vehicles. Only government, they soon learned, could be counted on to meet these new needs," the authors write.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations were ready to help. John Kennedy set the agenda: He changed the outlook of the country from conservative to liberal. Johnson made sure the assassinated president’s vision was fulfilled. L.B.J.’s Great Society achievements included Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, voting rights, pollution control, higher-education funding and the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He also got Congress to pass a huge tax cut. It was an impressive display of executive power. And the Warren Court was ready to back him up.
This was a time when government officials were associated with the best and the brightest. In fact, as Messrs. Mackenzie and Weisbrot note, "By the 1960s the federal bureaucracy had become a thriving center of knowledge and expertise."
Liberals were on top—and yet it all collapsed so quickly. Indeed, we’re talking about the liberal hour—not era—though many of the programs still exist. Explaining the collapse is where the authors, who are both professors at Colby College, are at their best. The easy reason is the Vietnam War, but Messrs. Mackenzie and Weisbrot go much deeper, and their conclusions should be required reading for Democrats who are thinking of what they can achieve if they win the White House and large Congressional majorities this November.
The authors write that Johnson was devastated "when the intended beneficiaries of his policies seemed so ungrateful for his efforts. But he asked for it by promising more than he or any other government could deliver." Unfortunately, the experts in government didn’t know as much as they thought they did about how to fix problems, according to the authors: "Liberalism had come to be associated in the public mind not with its intentions but with its excesses and shortfalls."
The difficulty in solving problems led liberal support groups to fight with one another, especially after Johnson decided not to run for a second full term. Coupled with the protests against the war, the liberal bloc split apart among the candidates running to replace L.B.J. The struggle was highlighted for all to see at the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention, where police brawled with protesters outside the convention hall and delegates fought each other inside.
VICE PRESIDENT HUBERT H. Humphrey eventually won the nomination without competing in a single primary, much to the displeasure of supporters of Senator Eugene McCarthy. The Democratic disintegration accelerated when Alabama Governor George C. Wallace split from the party, ran as an independent candidate for president and won five states and 46 electoral votes.
By 1972, liberals’ revulsion with the manner in which the party bosses picked Humphrey changed the way Democrats chose their presidential nominee. More emphasis was put on winning factional support from liberal special-interest groups without maintaining the organizational ability of the bosses to keep things in line. The liberal hour was over.
But it wasn’t just internal problems that ended the liberals’ reign. The authors correctly note that conservatives built on the foundation established by Goldwater and exploited the public’s increasing distrust of government. The Great Society became the basis for what Republicans began to label, with punishing effect, the Democrats’ culture of tax and spend. Liberals became politically radioactive.
In due course, the liberal hour was replaced by the Reagan generation, which only now seems to be splitting apart.
Robert Sommer is president of the Observer Media Group. He can be reached at rsommer@observer.com
Friday, June 06, 2008
Warner-Lieberman Dead!
Hooray! Over 350,000 signatures were delivered to the Senate and something worked. The bill died in the Senate today and Harry Reid said they'd try again next year. That means that we have a year to let our Senators and members of Congress know what we would really like to see in an energy bill.
NUCLEAR
SOLAR
CLEAN COAL
Those three things would make a huge difference. I also wish someone would publicize the industries and/or companies that are the worst offenders when it comes to carbon emissions. Then we could boycott those industries/companies. Find a way to give an incentive to those companies who "go green."
Also, I'm going to try to buy products that are sold in glass containers, not plastic. It's another small step toward freeing ourselves from being petroleum gluttons.
Let me know what you're doing to make Congress accountable again!
Be safe.
NUCLEAR
SOLAR
CLEAN COAL
Those three things would make a huge difference. I also wish someone would publicize the industries and/or companies that are the worst offenders when it comes to carbon emissions. Then we could boycott those industries/companies. Find a way to give an incentive to those companies who "go green."
Also, I'm going to try to buy products that are sold in glass containers, not plastic. It's another small step toward freeing ourselves from being petroleum gluttons.
Let me know what you're doing to make Congress accountable again!
Be safe.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Warner-Lieberman Bill
I have signed a petition to ask that Congress not pass the Warner-Lieberman bill. It's not that I'm against trying to do something about global warming, it's that I do not think the bill goes far enough.
Here are four suggestions that would have an immediate impact on the energy problem and carbon emissions. I would appreciate comments telling me if there is a fatal flaw in these suggestions.
1. MAKE SOLAR ENERGY MORE AVAILABLE. When we lived in New Jersey, the gas company loaned us the money to upgrade our heating/cooling system to be more efficient. The loan was at a very low interest rate and the savings probably paid for the system within 5 years. If our energy company, or the state, or the federal government would provide a low-interest loan (not another damned tax break - we retired folks don't pay any taxes anyway!) to help pay for the installation of solar panels, the savings on our electric bill (maybe $100/month) would encourage more people to purchase these systems. The government may even have to subsidize solar energy for a while, just like they subsidize mass transit. If more people wanted to buy solar panels, more companies would get into the business, more jobs installing these systems would become available, and innovation would eventually mean that the cost would go down. We just need to get the ball rolling.
2. DON'T DO ANYTHING TO ARTIFICIALLY LOWER THE PRICE OF GASOLINE. In Europe, the price of gas has always been about twice what it was here, and guess what? They have lots of public transportation, trains that run everywhere, people staying healthy riding bicycles, etc. If there were more demand for mass transit, there would be more incentive for communities to supply it. But if gas is cheap, people will drive. Auto makers will provide a product if everyone stops buying those gas-guzzlers. We saw lots of Smart Cars in Europe 18 months ago!
3. INSIST ON SCRUBBERS FOR COAL-FIRED PLANTS. I don't know very much about this, but Ron says that coal-fired plants can be made to run clean and the carbon they emit can be captured and stored or a use can be developed for it rather than it being released into the atmosphere. The Warner-Leiberman bill is supposed to be about global warming, but they don't even mention things like this.
4. TELL CONGRESS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD NUCLEAR PLANTS. I've heard that it takes something like 15 years to get all the approvals to build a nuclear plant. That's simply ridiculous! Scream and yell to fix that problem!
Here's a quote from an article about the bill:
"Both reports also say a climate bill could lead people to drive less, which would lower demand and therefore the price of gas." The present price of gas is leading people to drive less and perhaps we'll see some effect in a few months. At the very least, there won't be as many trucks and SUVs on the roads.
I hope that our presidential candidates are watching shows like the recent CNN special about countries that freed themselves from dependence on foreign oil many years ago. It's hard to believe that we didn't see this coming and do something a long time ago.
But all the news is not bad. Here's an article I found that may give us a little hope.
OIL'S PERFECT STORM MAY BLOW OVER
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 1:23am BST 25/05/2008
The perfect storm that has swept oil prices to $132 a barrel may subside over the coming months as rising crude supply from unexpected corners of the world finally comes on stream, just as the global economic downturn begins to bite.
The forces behind the meteoric price rise this spring are slowly receding. Nigeria has boosted output by 200,000 barrels a day (BPD) this month, making up most of the shortfall caused by rebel attacks on pipelines in April.
Why oil could soon come barrelling down
Keep the motors running: increased oil production from countries such as Brazil, Sudan and Azerbaijan is helping satisfy rising global demand for the fossil fuel
The Geneva consultancy PetroLogistics says Iraq has added 300,000 bpd to a total of 2.57m as security is beefed up in the northern Kirkuk region.
"There is a strong rebound in supply," said the group's president Conrad Gerber.
Saudi Arabia is adding 300,000 bpd to the market in response to a personal plea from President George Bush, and to placate angry Democrats on Capitol Hill - even though Riyadh insists that there are abundant supplies for sale.
I came across this. too, and thought it worth passing on.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
--William J. H. Boetcker, 1916
Here are four suggestions that would have an immediate impact on the energy problem and carbon emissions. I would appreciate comments telling me if there is a fatal flaw in these suggestions.
1. MAKE SOLAR ENERGY MORE AVAILABLE. When we lived in New Jersey, the gas company loaned us the money to upgrade our heating/cooling system to be more efficient. The loan was at a very low interest rate and the savings probably paid for the system within 5 years. If our energy company, or the state, or the federal government would provide a low-interest loan (not another damned tax break - we retired folks don't pay any taxes anyway!) to help pay for the installation of solar panels, the savings on our electric bill (maybe $100/month) would encourage more people to purchase these systems. The government may even have to subsidize solar energy for a while, just like they subsidize mass transit. If more people wanted to buy solar panels, more companies would get into the business, more jobs installing these systems would become available, and innovation would eventually mean that the cost would go down. We just need to get the ball rolling.
2. DON'T DO ANYTHING TO ARTIFICIALLY LOWER THE PRICE OF GASOLINE. In Europe, the price of gas has always been about twice what it was here, and guess what? They have lots of public transportation, trains that run everywhere, people staying healthy riding bicycles, etc. If there were more demand for mass transit, there would be more incentive for communities to supply it. But if gas is cheap, people will drive. Auto makers will provide a product if everyone stops buying those gas-guzzlers. We saw lots of Smart Cars in Europe 18 months ago!
3. INSIST ON SCRUBBERS FOR COAL-FIRED PLANTS. I don't know very much about this, but Ron says that coal-fired plants can be made to run clean and the carbon they emit can be captured and stored or a use can be developed for it rather than it being released into the atmosphere. The Warner-Leiberman bill is supposed to be about global warming, but they don't even mention things like this.
4. TELL CONGRESS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD NUCLEAR PLANTS. I've heard that it takes something like 15 years to get all the approvals to build a nuclear plant. That's simply ridiculous! Scream and yell to fix that problem!
Here's a quote from an article about the bill:
"Both reports also say a climate bill could lead people to drive less, which would lower demand and therefore the price of gas." The present price of gas is leading people to drive less and perhaps we'll see some effect in a few months. At the very least, there won't be as many trucks and SUVs on the roads.
I hope that our presidential candidates are watching shows like the recent CNN special about countries that freed themselves from dependence on foreign oil many years ago. It's hard to believe that we didn't see this coming and do something a long time ago.
But all the news is not bad. Here's an article I found that may give us a little hope.
OIL'S PERFECT STORM MAY BLOW OVER
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 1:23am BST 25/05/2008
The perfect storm that has swept oil prices to $132 a barrel may subside over the coming months as rising crude supply from unexpected corners of the world finally comes on stream, just as the global economic downturn begins to bite.
The forces behind the meteoric price rise this spring are slowly receding. Nigeria has boosted output by 200,000 barrels a day (BPD) this month, making up most of the shortfall caused by rebel attacks on pipelines in April.
Why oil could soon come barrelling down
Keep the motors running: increased oil production from countries such as Brazil, Sudan and Azerbaijan is helping satisfy rising global demand for the fossil fuel
The Geneva consultancy PetroLogistics says Iraq has added 300,000 bpd to a total of 2.57m as security is beefed up in the northern Kirkuk region.
"There is a strong rebound in supply," said the group's president Conrad Gerber.
Saudi Arabia is adding 300,000 bpd to the market in response to a personal plea from President George Bush, and to placate angry Democrats on Capitol Hill - even though Riyadh insists that there are abundant supplies for sale.
I came across this. too, and thought it worth passing on.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
--William J. H. Boetcker, 1916
Friday, May 16, 2008
Update
I haven't updated this for a long time - just not that much to say, I guess.
Best thing lately is that someone chose one of my photographs to use on a website. The photo is on Flicker and is one I took of the Oregon Coast. Here's the website if you want to look at it: http://archaeology.about.com/od/pathroughpd/qt/pacific_coast_m.htm
Have finally quit my job at Chandler-Gilbert Community College. Was there for almost 8 years. I am now taking care of Sarah and Kurt's baby boy, Charlie. He's 4 months old and the best little baby ever. He never fusses unless he's tired and then a few pats and some shushing puts him right out. I go over to Sarah's (which is less than a mile away) and spend some time there in the mornings, usually let him nap there. Then when he wakes up, we come home and spend the rest of the day here. I get a lot more done at home and may even start cooking again! It's really kind of fun to take care of a baby when it's your job and you're not trying to do everything else a woman needs to do at the same time.
We're trying to figure out what to do to deal with the gas prices, food prices, and our electric bill with summer coming on. I found this web site called Gas Buddy which will find the cheapest gas in your area for you. The link is shown on the left. It's a good thing, as Martha always says.
I guess we all learn to stay home and enjoy our families. Learn to play board games again. Go in the back yard and play horseshoes. I feel sorry for those people who have a pool now because it's so expensive to keep up. Ron and I have started doing jigsaw puzzles and you can eat up a lot of time with one of those. If you're interested, buy them on ebay and then resell them when you're done.
Have moved the computer out to the kitchen because we're re-doing the office. We took down the shelves we put up when we first moved in here seven years ago, and are going to buy some other furniture for that room that will make it more comfortable for guests. So, I'm kind of liking this new location and maybe will use my Mac more.
Later,
Best thing lately is that someone chose one of my photographs to use on a website. The photo is on Flicker and is one I took of the Oregon Coast. Here's the website if you want to look at it: http://archaeology.about.com/od/pathroughpd/qt/pacific_coast_m.htm
Have finally quit my job at Chandler-Gilbert Community College. Was there for almost 8 years. I am now taking care of Sarah and Kurt's baby boy, Charlie. He's 4 months old and the best little baby ever. He never fusses unless he's tired and then a few pats and some shushing puts him right out. I go over to Sarah's (which is less than a mile away) and spend some time there in the mornings, usually let him nap there. Then when he wakes up, we come home and spend the rest of the day here. I get a lot more done at home and may even start cooking again! It's really kind of fun to take care of a baby when it's your job and you're not trying to do everything else a woman needs to do at the same time.
We're trying to figure out what to do to deal with the gas prices, food prices, and our electric bill with summer coming on. I found this web site called Gas Buddy which will find the cheapest gas in your area for you. The link is shown on the left. It's a good thing, as Martha always says.
I guess we all learn to stay home and enjoy our families. Learn to play board games again. Go in the back yard and play horseshoes. I feel sorry for those people who have a pool now because it's so expensive to keep up. Ron and I have started doing jigsaw puzzles and you can eat up a lot of time with one of those. If you're interested, buy them on ebay and then resell them when you're done.
Have moved the computer out to the kitchen because we're re-doing the office. We took down the shelves we put up when we first moved in here seven years ago, and are going to buy some other furniture for that room that will make it more comfortable for guests. So, I'm kind of liking this new location and maybe will use my Mac more.
Later,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)