Since I'm not riding the bike right now, I've been going on a short walk on some afternoons. (Don't want the moss to start growing!)
Yesterday I decided to stroll over and take a look at the newly-renovated State Capitol, 3 or 4 blocks away.
(It has undergone a 2+ year, $90+ million renovation, to add space, bring everything up to code, and to repair 90 or so years of decay. One might ask if the taxpayers can afford such an expense when we're not making budget, and when there are schools around the state with leaky roofs. But you must realize that the guys who hold the purse-strings use the Capitol, so miraculously they found a way!)
The first door I came to had a sign in the window:
OFFICIAL BUSINESS ONLY
GENERAL PUBLIC, USE THE STATE STREET ENTRANCE
Okay... that's reasonable. I strolled on around to the State Street entrance. The sign there said:
OFFICIAL BUSINESS ONLY
I figured I'm a taxpayer! That's pretty darn official! So I went on in.
There was a rent-a-cop sitting at a desk. Some older folks were in front of me, signing into a guest book.
Then it was my turn. I proceeded forward and took hold of the pen to sign in.
The conversation, to the best of my recollection, went as follows:
RAC (rent-a-cop): Do you have official business?
Me: I suppose not. I just wanted to come in and look at the newly-renovated building for a few minutes.
RAC: Well, I'm afraid you can't. Lori Otter [the governor's wife] is going to have a grand opening ceremony on the front steps this Saturday. Until then, it's not open to the public.
Me: Hmmm. Maybe I misunderstood. I'm a taxpaying citizen, and I thought this was my building...
RAC: Oh, it is your building!
Me: But... only in the sense that I help pay for it. NOT in the sense that I can actually come in. Is that correct?
The RAC was kinda flustered... I guess I got in the last word. I exited, figuring the alternative was to get wrestled to the floor by jack-booted government thugs... or maybe Tazed into whimpering submission. And who needs THAT?!!
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
"Tea Party" 2009
Count me among those citizens who are deeply concerned about the total lack of fiscal responsibility by our "elected representatives," particularly those in Washington, DC.
People and organizations with a lick of common sense (and in the case of the State of Idaho, organizations that are constrained by the State Constitution) live within their means, and tighten their belt when the going gets tough. By stark contrast, the Fed spends money like never before, in some ill-conceived scheme of "spending our way to prosperity." It's never worked in the past... but by golly, let's try again! And our kids and grandkids can pay all that money back, anyway. No worry!
I was delighted that a grassroots "Tea Party" materialized in Boise (along with hundreds of other places across the Fruited Plain). I was there. I met the marchers enroute and joined in, marching down Capitol Boulevard to the State House.
Are these fringe radicals? Are they anti-government? Maybe a few are. I believe the vast majority are patriotic American citizens who are deeply concerned about the direction we're headed. (And I don't mean the direction starting last January... we've been headed in a bad direction for quite some time. Unfortunately, some people have come to expect that the government should take care of every citizen's every need. And unfortunately, it's not sustainable.)
Is anybody paying attention?
(One comment/criticism... this should have been strictly about deficit spending and fiscal matters. But inevitably there were fringe issues that attached themselves. There was the "Bibles in school" crowd. And the "Pro Life" crowd. And the "Get us out of the U.N." crowd. And I saw one lady with a sign that said, "Show us your birth certificate, Obama." I suppose one view is that the issue we have in common today is government spending. But I can't help but feel that they were a distraction on Tea Party Day.)
People and organizations with a lick of common sense (and in the case of the State of Idaho, organizations that are constrained by the State Constitution) live within their means, and tighten their belt when the going gets tough. By stark contrast, the Fed spends money like never before, in some ill-conceived scheme of "spending our way to prosperity." It's never worked in the past... but by golly, let's try again! And our kids and grandkids can pay all that money back, anyway. No worry!
I was delighted that a grassroots "Tea Party" materialized in Boise (along with hundreds of other places across the Fruited Plain). I was there. I met the marchers enroute and joined in, marching down Capitol Boulevard to the State House.
Are these fringe radicals? Are they anti-government? Maybe a few are. I believe the vast majority are patriotic American citizens who are deeply concerned about the direction we're headed. (And I don't mean the direction starting last January... we've been headed in a bad direction for quite some time. Unfortunately, some people have come to expect that the government should take care of every citizen's every need. And unfortunately, it's not sustainable.)
Is anybody paying attention?
(One comment/criticism... this should have been strictly about deficit spending and fiscal matters. But inevitably there were fringe issues that attached themselves. There was the "Bibles in school" crowd. And the "Pro Life" crowd. And the "Get us out of the U.N." crowd. And I saw one lady with a sign that said, "Show us your birth certificate, Obama." I suppose one view is that the issue we have in common today is government spending. But I can't help but feel that they were a distraction on Tea Party Day.)
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Change We Can Believe In?
My daughter, who's in high school and will be old enough to vote in less than a year, came home yesterday and said, "We had to watch that inaguration stuff in all my classes! It was so boring!!"
Her momma replied something like, "You should be interested in government, because you're almost an adult and you'll get to vote soon."
"But Mom, it just doesn't matter, no matter who gets elected!"
Although I have admiration for the "Obama Youth" who energetically supported his campaign, as a firm believer that "small government is good government," I can certainly appreciate my daughter's sentiments. And I can understand why so many of my fellow citizens are apathetic and cynical about government.
The size and scope of government grew exponentially during the 8 George W. Bush years. And I'm not seeing much to give me hope that it will soon change.
President Obama gave a stirring inaguration speech. I listened to his every word, and was truly moved by some of the things he said.
To our enemies, he said, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Fantastic. But he also cited "... the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint" as part of our arsenal in the war on terror. Some people, unfortunately, don't recognize such ideological weapons; in fact they perceive them as weakness.
But... back to fiscal policy and the size/scope of government.
More of President Obama:
"Greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey ... has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work..."
"Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."
"As much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate."
All of that sounds great.
But my small-government mind sounds the alarm when I hear something like, "We have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship."
Is that a new and difficult government task he's referring to, that we should all be loyal to as good Americans?
"... there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."
Is that "purpose" defined by new government mandates?
48 years ago (!), on January 20, 1961, another newly-elected president said, "Ask not what your country can do for you."
How times have changed!
Unfortunately, there seems to be a huge group of citizens and voters who are asking precisely, "What can our government do for us??" And I didn't hear much in President Obama's eloquent speech to refute it.
Obama: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
To be replaced by different programs and initiatives? Most likely.
We have evolved to the point where many feel entitled to cradle-to-grave financial security, free health care, free prescription drugs, free internet. If a bank fails due to incompetence or greed... bail it out! (Give 'em more taxpayer money.) If a company is failing because its customers have abandoned its obsolete product... bail it out! If unwise consumers move in to a house that is way more expensive than they can afford, and fill it with installment-plan furnishings that they can't make payments on... no problem! The taxpayers will pick up the tab! (It'll help the economy!)
Back in JFK's day, government spending was measured, and debated, in the millions. Nowadays they can spend HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS without batting an eye! And if there is no positive result, the answer is "We didn't spend enough - let's spend hundreds of billions more!"
What would George Washington, or Ben Franklin, or Alexander Hamilton, say about how government is conducted in the 21st Century?
And why, oh why, didn't they put something in the Constitution about spending all those billions that haven't been collected yet? That's a heavy burden to put on our kids and grandkids, along with Social Security, Medicare, and all the other ongoing programs. President Bush obviously has tremendous confidence in his daughter's earning power and ability to pay the installments. I suspect Obama will have the same confidence in his two beautiful little daughters.
President Obama's critics say he's a socialist at heart, who will grow government even more than his predecessor. He insists he's a moderate. And the thing about his speech is... it was quite ambiguous, albeit eloquent. And a speech can be delivered by anybody, once it's in the teleprompter. That speech could've been delivered, perhaps without Obama's considerable delivery skills, by Nancy Pelosi or Ron Paul... know what I mean?
Time will tell.
Meanwhile, by nature I'm cautiously optimistic... tempered by a large dose of learned cynicism. "Small government" seems as old-fashioned and quaint as JFK's speech, nowadays.
Her momma replied something like, "You should be interested in government, because you're almost an adult and you'll get to vote soon."
"But Mom, it just doesn't matter, no matter who gets elected!"
Although I have admiration for the "Obama Youth" who energetically supported his campaign, as a firm believer that "small government is good government," I can certainly appreciate my daughter's sentiments. And I can understand why so many of my fellow citizens are apathetic and cynical about government.
The size and scope of government grew exponentially during the 8 George W. Bush years. And I'm not seeing much to give me hope that it will soon change.
President Obama gave a stirring inaguration speech. I listened to his every word, and was truly moved by some of the things he said.
To our enemies, he said, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Fantastic. But he also cited "... the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint" as part of our arsenal in the war on terror. Some people, unfortunately, don't recognize such ideological weapons; in fact they perceive them as weakness.
But... back to fiscal policy and the size/scope of government.
More of President Obama:
"Greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey ... has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work..."
"Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."
"As much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate."
All of that sounds great.
But my small-government mind sounds the alarm when I hear something like, "We have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship."
Is that a new and difficult government task he's referring to, that we should all be loyal to as good Americans?
"... there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."
Is that "purpose" defined by new government mandates?
48 years ago (!), on January 20, 1961, another newly-elected president said, "Ask not what your country can do for you."
How times have changed!
Unfortunately, there seems to be a huge group of citizens and voters who are asking precisely, "What can our government do for us??" And I didn't hear much in President Obama's eloquent speech to refute it.
Obama: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
To be replaced by different programs and initiatives? Most likely.
We have evolved to the point where many feel entitled to cradle-to-grave financial security, free health care, free prescription drugs, free internet. If a bank fails due to incompetence or greed... bail it out! (Give 'em more taxpayer money.) If a company is failing because its customers have abandoned its obsolete product... bail it out! If unwise consumers move in to a house that is way more expensive than they can afford, and fill it with installment-plan furnishings that they can't make payments on... no problem! The taxpayers will pick up the tab! (It'll help the economy!)
Back in JFK's day, government spending was measured, and debated, in the millions. Nowadays they can spend HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS without batting an eye! And if there is no positive result, the answer is "We didn't spend enough - let's spend hundreds of billions more!"
What would George Washington, or Ben Franklin, or Alexander Hamilton, say about how government is conducted in the 21st Century?
And why, oh why, didn't they put something in the Constitution about spending all those billions that haven't been collected yet? That's a heavy burden to put on our kids and grandkids, along with Social Security, Medicare, and all the other ongoing programs. President Bush obviously has tremendous confidence in his daughter's earning power and ability to pay the installments. I suspect Obama will have the same confidence in his two beautiful little daughters.
President Obama's critics say he's a socialist at heart, who will grow government even more than his predecessor. He insists he's a moderate. And the thing about his speech is... it was quite ambiguous, albeit eloquent. And a speech can be delivered by anybody, once it's in the teleprompter. That speech could've been delivered, perhaps without Obama's considerable delivery skills, by Nancy Pelosi or Ron Paul... know what I mean?
Time will tell.
Meanwhile, by nature I'm cautiously optimistic... tempered by a large dose of learned cynicism. "Small government" seems as old-fashioned and quaint as JFK's speech, nowadays.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Let Them Eat Asphalt!
In his 2009 State of the State speech, Governor Butch Otter discussed at length the economic conditions that will surely force a pullback in government services this year.
There's no getting around it. Aside from raising taxes, or spending money we don't have (which is prohibited by the State Constitution... THANK GOODNESS!), the only alternative is some significant belt tightening.
Otter continues to push for more money for roads. This an ongoing theme; he claims we need $240/million more per year, just to maintain the existing infrastructure. (He wants to raise the money with a combination of gas tax and increased registration fees. I've commented previously on that topic, HERE.)
Of course, the "loyal opposition" jumped all over Otter's plan to scale back the budget.
Women, children, and the poor, will be hardest hit! (Same old story.)
"My senator" (Werk) even came up with a catch sound-bite, condemning Otter's "Pavement over People" priorities.
Criminy! You'd think only the aristocrats were allowed to drive on the roads! (And if that were the case, I bet maintenance costs would go WAY down!)
Here's some Harsh Reality... at least as I see it.
Reality: We've had a string of decent years, economy-wise, and we've seen government budgets at every level (federal, state, county, city) grow faster than inflation, or population, or any other indicator. New programs have been added, and old programs have been shored up with increased funding. But alas... the party is over. The Feds can continue to spend like there's no tomorrow, and even add new programs, bailouts, incentives, with impunity. (Our grandkids will have to pay it back.) But everybody else is facing some uncomfortable budgeting decisions. (Kinda like responsible families and businesses, when funds are cut back.)
Reality: This is NOT a good time to ask taxpayers to dig a little deeper. A significant number have joined the unemployment lines, for cryin' out loud! (Of course, a more astute economic genius might be able to explain to me, "We are giving you a $1000 stimulus payment... paid by you the taxpayer sometime in the future... why can't you give $500 back to the government?")
Reality: It makes sense that those who will suffer most from significant budget cuts are... the people who use the most government services. (You don't have to be Einstein or that wheelchair guy to understand that!)
Reality: There are people who truly have heavy burdens to bear. But there are also people whose main focus in life seems to be finding every government program they can take advantage of, to lighten their personal load. I know both kinds of people; I bet you do, too. Perhaps Roger Miller said it best - they "know every handout in every town, and every lock that ain't locked when no one's around." Not only that - they quickly develop a sense of entitlement - taxpayers OWE those services to them from that point forward, for some reason.
Reality: It is WAY easier to add a new government program, than to eliminate one. In fact, it's almost impossible to eliminate a program, because it will negatively impact some constituency. I guess we'll find out this year if programs can be scaled back, or maybe even eliminated.
These statements from Otter resonated with THIS taxpayer/citizen:
"... those of us in state government are facing the same kinds of painful, gutwrenching choices that individuals and families all over Idaho are making with their personal finances. And the decisions you and I make will bear on the ability of every Idahoan to fulfill their own responsibilities."
"The question that you and I must honestly answer on every occasion is whether meeting those [real peoples'] real needs falls within the sphere of the necessary and proper role of taxpayer-funded government services."
Frankly, those questions should be asked in the "feast" years as well as the "famine" years, seems to me.
There's no getting around it. Aside from raising taxes, or spending money we don't have (which is prohibited by the State Constitution... THANK GOODNESS!), the only alternative is some significant belt tightening.
Otter continues to push for more money for roads. This an ongoing theme; he claims we need $240/million more per year, just to maintain the existing infrastructure. (He wants to raise the money with a combination of gas tax and increased registration fees. I've commented previously on that topic, HERE.)
Of course, the "loyal opposition" jumped all over Otter's plan to scale back the budget.
Women, children, and the poor, will be hardest hit! (Same old story.)
"My senator" (Werk) even came up with a catch sound-bite, condemning Otter's "Pavement over People" priorities.
Criminy! You'd think only the aristocrats were allowed to drive on the roads! (And if that were the case, I bet maintenance costs would go WAY down!)
Here's some Harsh Reality... at least as I see it.
Reality: We've had a string of decent years, economy-wise, and we've seen government budgets at every level (federal, state, county, city) grow faster than inflation, or population, or any other indicator. New programs have been added, and old programs have been shored up with increased funding. But alas... the party is over. The Feds can continue to spend like there's no tomorrow, and even add new programs, bailouts, incentives, with impunity. (Our grandkids will have to pay it back.) But everybody else is facing some uncomfortable budgeting decisions. (Kinda like responsible families and businesses, when funds are cut back.)
Reality: This is NOT a good time to ask taxpayers to dig a little deeper. A significant number have joined the unemployment lines, for cryin' out loud! (Of course, a more astute economic genius might be able to explain to me, "We are giving you a $1000 stimulus payment... paid by you the taxpayer sometime in the future... why can't you give $500 back to the government?")
Reality: It makes sense that those who will suffer most from significant budget cuts are... the people who use the most government services. (You don't have to be Einstein or that wheelchair guy to understand that!)
Reality: There are people who truly have heavy burdens to bear. But there are also people whose main focus in life seems to be finding every government program they can take advantage of, to lighten their personal load. I know both kinds of people; I bet you do, too. Perhaps Roger Miller said it best - they "know every handout in every town, and every lock that ain't locked when no one's around." Not only that - they quickly develop a sense of entitlement - taxpayers OWE those services to them from that point forward, for some reason.
Reality: It is WAY easier to add a new government program, than to eliminate one. In fact, it's almost impossible to eliminate a program, because it will negatively impact some constituency. I guess we'll find out this year if programs can be scaled back, or maybe even eliminated.
These statements from Otter resonated with THIS taxpayer/citizen:
"... those of us in state government are facing the same kinds of painful, gutwrenching choices that individuals and families all over Idaho are making with their personal finances. And the decisions you and I make will bear on the ability of every Idahoan to fulfill their own responsibilities."
"The question that you and I must honestly answer on every occasion is whether meeting those [real peoples'] real needs falls within the sphere of the necessary and proper role of taxpayer-funded government services."
Frankly, those questions should be asked in the "feast" years as well as the "famine" years, seems to me.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Who's funnier - Liberals or Conservatives?
If you're a News Junkie, like me, you probably saw the recent flap about a parody song called "Barak, the Magic Negro."I have never heard the song; from what I understand it's sung to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon," by a guy who's impersonating the Reverend Al Sharpton. And the jist of the song is apparently about how President-elect Obama has succeeded because he doesn't have a "ghetto" background (as perceived by other African-Americans).
Defenders of the song say it's a sarcastic indictment of the mainstream media and their unwavering embrace of Obama throughout the recent campaign and election. Detractors say it is racist.
I doubt most of those detractors know any more about the song than I do. But since it has the word "negro" in it, it's obviously racist.
(The song has been out there in the public for quite some time; evidently Rush Limbaugh used it regularly, much to the delight of his loyal fan base. The reason it recently was thrust back into the news is because a guy who wants to be Chairman of the Republican Party sent out CDs to Republican colleagues, that contained the "Magic Negro" song.)
The whole episode causes me to ask myself, who's funnier, the liberals or the conservatives?
The liberals confidently declare that they are MUCH funnier than those stuffed-shirt conservatives. And they point to their celebrity champions, like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. And of course, since they see themselves as much more tolerant than the conservatives, they dismiss the feeble comedic efforts by various conservative voices as being driven by racism, or hatred, or some other form of bigotry.
I'm not so sure.
Maybe I'm wrong, but liberals seem WAY less likely to laugh at themselves. Sure, they guffaw it up when the fun is being poked at George W. Bush (who's certainly not a FISCAL conservative, but he's no liberal, either!) or Sarah Palin or Charlton Heston or Proposition 8 supporters. But you better not make fun of them or their champions, or you're a racist bigoted hate-monger!
There is a small segment of the population whose self-determined mission in life is to be offended by everything. Their ranks are made up of mostly liberals, seems to me.
Most of us fall somewhere in between. Although I don't perceive George W. Bush as being a bumbling idiot, I certainly laugh at some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth! (Funny that the people who make fun of Bush-the-moron also seem to think the same guy is somehow a scheming manipulative evil genius.) Bubba Clinton was (and is!) a laugh-a-minute! Tina Fey's Palin impression is pretty impressive... but there's not enough material there to bring it back, week after week after week. (Perhaps if she had been elected VP, it would be different.) But I'm also a little anxious. Will we all be walking on pins and needles for at least the next 4 years, because we don't want to be branded racists if we laugh at Obama?
As Obama takes office, it will be interesting to see how the "mainest" of mainstream media - Leno and Letterman - handle him. So far, they seem to be treading pretty lightly.
I'm not much of a "broadcast media" follower; when I think about it, most of my news comes through "reading" sources. But here are some (non-expert!) personal opinions and observations on some people in the limelight:
John Stewart - I don't have cable and only see him very occasionally, but his material seems to be directed toward an audience with a superficial, "drive-by" comprehension of current events. Some of it's pretty funny; some of it not so much.
Stephen Colbert - ditto on not being very familiar with him, but when I've seen him, I always get the impression he's mostly playing to himself. And he thinks he's hilarious! (Obviously people must agree, or he'd be off the air.)
Dennis Miller seems to fancy himself as a conservative counterpoint to those guys. The few times I've seen him (typically as a guest on one of the late-night network shows), he comes across as pretty funny.
Rush Limbaugh - I used to listen to Rush all the time. And I think the guy's a comic genius! Much of his stuff is serious, but first and foremost Rush is an entertainer and he's the first to declare that. A lot of his material is hilarious... either intentionally or otherwise.
(Most of those conservative-leaning talkers, like O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Glen Beck, don't seem to be TRYING to be funny most the time, from what little I hear of them. People who listen to them regularly might have a totally different viewpoint.)
The funniest conservative stuff I'm personally aware of is the Iowahawk - click HERE to link. (The guy is a Comedic Genius! I urge EVERYBODY to "favorite" it and check back at least weekly.)
Another website that is consistently funny is the "Blame Bush!" website - click HERE. (I'm not sure if it has a future, with that specific content. I say that by 10 years from now, everything will no longer be Bush's fault!)
(BE ADVISED... as with everything on the WorldWide Web, it's a wasteland of freedom of expression out there. Pretty much EVERYBODY is offended by something; both liberals and conservatives have widely-varying tolerance levels. There's a good chance that both of those sites have some content intended for mature audiences.)
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Shoe Control NOW!
A few years back, we raised our collective eyebrows when the Shoe Bomber was apprehended onboard a plane, trying to light the fuse on his shoe bombs. (Oh - and we also started removing our collective shoes at the airport, so the Homeland Security Shoe Bomb Detection Experts could more easily distinguish between standard shoes, and bomb shoes.)
But now - shoe missiles have emerged! It always starts in the powder-keg Middle East, but quickly spreads across the globe. Sure - we all can laugh when a Lame Duck President is the target (and deftly ducks)... but tomorrow the target of a crazed shoe terrorist might be your neighbor... or your child!!
But now - shoe missiles have emerged! It always starts in the powder-keg Middle East, but quickly spreads across the globe. Sure - we all can laugh when a Lame Duck President is the target (and deftly ducks)... but tomorrow the target of a crazed shoe terrorist might be your neighbor... or your child!!
Something must be done! The time for talk is over!
DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
You can expect the powerful D.C. Shoe Lobby to resist.
You will notice that almost all 435 members of Congress wear shoes (with the possible exception of the distinguished gentlemen from Mississippi and Arkansas). They've sold out to Big Shoe.
But some common-sense laws must be passed, to keep dangerous shoes out of the hands of, and off the feet of, criminals.
A good start might be:
- Ban shoes in public schools and other public places (National Parks, maybe?)
- Nationwide shoe registration.
- Close the shoe-show loop. (Many shoe criminals confess that they got their shoes at shoe shows.)
- Perhaps a ban on sinister-looking black shoes. There is no legitimate use for high-capacity black shoes in our society, when benign brown shoes will adequately do the same job.
We can expect resistance, both from the NSA (National Shoe Association) and common ordinary ignorant rednecks... the ones with bumper sticker slogans like:
"The West wasn't won with registered boots."
"You can have my shoes when you pry them off my cold, dead toes."
"This Pickup Protected by Buster Brown."
But our fight is right! We must prevail!
Last of all - do NOT give your children shoes for Christmas! What a negative message that would send!
Wild-eyed Iraqi housewife displays the Shoe-Scud.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
President Obama
Some thoughts about our newly elected president.
I didn't vote for him. His "change we can believe in" seems to be one of expanded government, and I'm firmly in the "small government is good government" camp. But I can certainly understand his appeal, and frankly, I wasn't very enthusiastic about the prospect of a McCain presidency, either.
Did race play a factor in the election?
Absolutely!
Blacks voted 90% for Obama, and Hispanics even higher, apparently. Of course, that wouldn't have won the election for him. A majority of white Americans voted for him as well. I'm sure a percentage of those votes were specifically because Obama is African-American. (A parallel might be former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. I bet he got a lot of votes from people who voted for the "Mormon" just because he is a Mormon, and they're openly tolerant of that.)
Is it cool that we'll have a black man for president?
IMO, it's FANTASTIC! (I just wish he shared my "conservative" vision.)
It is a huge step toward the realization of the "dream" so eloquently voiced by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., more than 40 years ago.
Rightly or wrongly, America moved up several notches in how the world views us, literally overnight.
Also - and I hope this doesn't sound racist but - IMO, young black men haven't had a huge selection of positive role models. Obama fills that bill nicely. A young, successful, smart, articulate, family-oriented black man. And now he's the leader of the Free World! (I don't think professional athletes, celebrities, musicians and gangsters are often good role models, no matter what color they are.)
Here's a question... why did Obama want to be president? Boy howdy, he sure inherited a mess! He's got his work cut out for him just fixing what's broken, let alone adding new services. There may be a heavy burden for the most wealthy 5% of Americans, and of course, Joe the Plumber. (Remember - Obama said out of his own mouth that 95% of us would NOT see a tax increase. I'm going to hold him to that.)
In his victory speech, Obama promised to be president for all Americans, not just those who share his vision and voted for him.
I hope he leads this country in a direction that's pleasing to God. (If you don't share my faith, this will seem like superstitious hokum, but I don't think we can expect God to watch out for us, if we turn our back on Him.)
I wish Obama total success, and will be praying for him.
Time will tell. Like the man said on the radio this morning, "America wanted to throw the bums out. But if Obama oversteps, he could be tomorrow's bum."
In the meantime, to all the naysayers and finger-waggers, I say, shut up and let the man work for awhile! I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Start yellin' if you don't like the way he's working.
I also say, God bless America and President Obama! Please!
I didn't vote for him. His "change we can believe in" seems to be one of expanded government, and I'm firmly in the "small government is good government" camp. But I can certainly understand his appeal, and frankly, I wasn't very enthusiastic about the prospect of a McCain presidency, either.
Did race play a factor in the election?
Absolutely!
Blacks voted 90% for Obama, and Hispanics even higher, apparently. Of course, that wouldn't have won the election for him. A majority of white Americans voted for him as well. I'm sure a percentage of those votes were specifically because Obama is African-American. (A parallel might be former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. I bet he got a lot of votes from people who voted for the "Mormon" just because he is a Mormon, and they're openly tolerant of that.)
Is it cool that we'll have a black man for president?
IMO, it's FANTASTIC! (I just wish he shared my "conservative" vision.)
It is a huge step toward the realization of the "dream" so eloquently voiced by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., more than 40 years ago.
Rightly or wrongly, America moved up several notches in how the world views us, literally overnight.
Also - and I hope this doesn't sound racist but - IMO, young black men haven't had a huge selection of positive role models. Obama fills that bill nicely. A young, successful, smart, articulate, family-oriented black man. And now he's the leader of the Free World! (I don't think professional athletes, celebrities, musicians and gangsters are often good role models, no matter what color they are.)
Here's a question... why did Obama want to be president? Boy howdy, he sure inherited a mess! He's got his work cut out for him just fixing what's broken, let alone adding new services. There may be a heavy burden for the most wealthy 5% of Americans, and of course, Joe the Plumber. (Remember - Obama said out of his own mouth that 95% of us would NOT see a tax increase. I'm going to hold him to that.)
In his victory speech, Obama promised to be president for all Americans, not just those who share his vision and voted for him.
I hope he leads this country in a direction that's pleasing to God. (If you don't share my faith, this will seem like superstitious hokum, but I don't think we can expect God to watch out for us, if we turn our back on Him.)
I wish Obama total success, and will be praying for him.
Time will tell. Like the man said on the radio this morning, "America wanted to throw the bums out. But if Obama oversteps, he could be tomorrow's bum."
In the meantime, to all the naysayers and finger-waggers, I say, shut up and let the man work for awhile! I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Start yellin' if you don't like the way he's working.
I also say, God bless America and President Obama! Please!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)