Within this nihilistic age we have come to as humans, filled with confused angst and anger, one has to wonder whatever happened to the temperate man. There was a time when we chose our office holders from among temperate men seized of honesty, humility, patience, sincerity and simplicity. Now, it seems that we universally select those whose excess hubris is extolled as a virtue. We do not seek the man seized of good sense and sensibilities, but rather, clamor around those we once deemed to be the village idiots. Apathy, with the current direction of this country, appears to rule the majority which is without any viable vision supplied by its office holders.
We have, in the past, selected our leaders for their demonstrated ability of self-restraint and moderation. We did so as a practiced way of insuring that those whom we placed in charge would likely work to find common ground and thereby serve both extremes of any issue better than an extremist would of an opposing extreme. These former leaders moved with great caution so as to insure that the best path chosen would lead to the greater happiness of all rather than of the few. In working out a path for their vision, they would deliberate with gravitas, pietas and dignitas.
Who among those contesting for office in this day and age can be said to be seized of seriousness in manner or bearing – which among them have gravitas? When I listen to and watch the news media, one of the first things I look for is the demeanor of those seeking to be put into office. Are these people playing to my emotions or to my intellect? All are frustrated and angry with the way things are in the country but what decision made in anger ever worked well?
When one listens to a candidate closely, all that can be distilled from their shallow rhetoric is an emotional appeal. Opposing candidates seek to foster a fear in voters that if a vote is cast for the opponent, certain doom will follow. If they cannot generate substantial fear, these same candidates fall back on disparaging their opponent without regard for any truthfulness in their charges. Stripped of emotional appeal, candidates offer no substance by which they can be compared. Would that we chose to follow those who offer intellect rather than emotion as the basis of their position.
I was present when the consummate office holder, John F. Kennedy, exhorted, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” I was immediately caught up with the emotion of pride but, upon reflection; saw that there was something of a needed change in the direction of the country; which change I intellectually embraced. Kennedy set the tone and tenor needed for the launch of the American Peace Corps as well as space exploration. His challenge was sustained through the efforts of his successor who brought us the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society. Most recently, an office contestant commenced her bid by asking, “How’s that ‘changey-hopey thang werkin fer ya’?” To me, her question was an intellectual affront and nothing more. The only emotion I felt was disgust.
Who among those contesting for office in this day and age can be said to be seized of a sense of duty ruled by compassion for those they seek to govern – who among them have pietas? When I listen to and watch the news media, I look to discern precisely where loyalties are placed. Those who repeatedly proffer that my welfare is best served by Wall Street fail to make even a superficial case that their loyalty is to the common man. Those of Wall Street make up the bulk of the 1% of this country which holds almost 40% of the wealth. Making Wall Street and those who participate in Wall Street more secure and wealthy does not inure to my benefit. I have waited in vain, since President Reagan, for something to trickle my way. It would seem to me that the contestant who does not oblige him or her-self to Wall Street is likely to be more loyal to the common man.
In this day and age where all office holders promise an in-vogue transparency in their governance, it appears that such is truly a practiced deceit. When one seeks office taking huge sums of money from the business community and the rich to gain office and thereafter legislates to protect the identity of contributors, the transparency pledge is a broken pledge; or, at best, a meaningless pledge. And one who fails to keep one’s pledge is one who is not seized of pietas.
Who among those contesting for office in this day and age can be said to be seized of esteem flowing from merit – which among them has dignitas? Of a past time, office holders achieved their positions only after demonstrating that they had full command of problem solving techniques learned through years of study and observation. To them, it was declared, “Palmam qui meruit ferat” – “Let he who merits the palm bear it.” This declaration was based upon demonstrated achievement, not mere popularity. We looked beyond the rhetoric to one’s deeds and accomplishments.
Within this last election, we had numerous national candidates, several victorious, who have never held public office. Though their qualifications for office we called to account, the voters seized upon pathetically misleading slogans and statements to discern that the office holders were qualified for lofty positions. We had candidates who garnered a lot of attention from the mass media not because of qualifications, but rather, upon the arcane positions they were taking as the antithesis of the current administration.
When I think of the temperate man seized with dignitas, I also think of those who have put duty, honor and country before all else. There is a lot to be said of a man whose esteem was earned on the battlefields in defense of this country. The battlefields taught them the horror of war from which they received a valuable lesson about being temperate. They would not be as readily inclined to induce war to exercise will or dominion over others.
President Obama in his inaugural address exhorted Americans to embrace a ‘new era of responsibility’. When I heard the catchphrase, I was caught off guard and not a little disappointed. I was expecting a statement of vision from someone who, at the same time, promised change. Instead, I was being cautioned that we, as Americans, were being called upon to move away from the irresponsible behaviors of the past. Whereas change in the conduct of government was most definitely needed, there was nothing in the message which showed a true positive vision to America. In itself, the ‘new era’ message forced one to look back with a microscope rather than forward with a telescope.
Whereas Obama was urging us to abandon the policies of the previous administration, it occurred to me that there was an accurate though unintended assessment regarding our selection of office holders. It is the American people who failed to find and elect salons seized of gravitas, pietas and dignitas. It is the American people who bear the burden not the mendacious fools seeking office. So, how do we American people abandon the past and embark on a new era of responsibility? How do we find and elect people to office who are temperate? How do we determine whether a candidate is seized of gravitas, pietas and dignitas?
In the short haul, I would suggest that we will not be able to do so unless we have help. In this day and age of light speed exchange of brief information we need assistance in assuring that candidates who are putting themselves forward ‘merit the palm.’ Corporations and businesses are not to be trusted because their sole aim is to maximize profit at the expense of others. Religions have never been trustworthy and are constantly seeking power and dominion over others to their own ends. The only viable institution is the free press but it is only as worthy as its willingness to adopt and enforce a code of ethics.
I would challenge the free press to revisit the code of ethics to which most all have given lip service. The free press needs to seek a way to balance the First Amendment privilege of freedom of speech as against responsibility of speech. The institution should develop a meaningful way of policing, if not punishing, its members who fail to meet the strictures of the code of ethics. If, as an institution, they are successful in doing so, public trust will follow and we Americans will be accorded the ability to closely examine candidates for public office.
In a longer haul, we need to look to our educational institutions for help. We need our institutions to step up and educate future Americans in virtues in addition to language arts, math, social studies and science. We should be producing a next generation seized of the ability to discern honesty, humility, patience, sincerity and simplicity in others. These new age students should be able to divorce emotion from logic, discern double-speak, examine loyalties and look for candor. They need to be able to compare credentials and find those most qualified to be elected. They need to be able to identify the temperate man better than the current generations which are mishandling their right to vote.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
How Much Is Too Much?
How much is too much? Last Thanksgiving, I was called upon by my two children, now adults in their 30’s, to prepare Giblet Gravy for the Thanksgiving feast. A short-coming in their up-bringing, admittedly done by me, left them with the desire but not the know how to prepare the necessary accompaniment to the mashed potatoes. I left it to my daughter to add the final salt and pepper to the gravy advising her to spice the gravy to her taste. In her exuberance, too much salt was added and we had to add additional chicken stock, flour and butter to dilute the excess salt. Ultimately, the gravy turned out well and all enjoyed the traditional flavors and trappings of the Thanksgiving feast.
It has occurred to me that the experience with the gravy serves as a micro study of what is going wrong with our economy. As a people, very prosperous indeed, we have somehow lost, if ever we knew, the answer to just how much is too much. We won the global wars of economy surpassing all of Europe, after the 1st World War, and accumulated a national largess which overshadowed all other nations. Our rise to become the wealthiest nation on earth came about because of an abundance of natural resources and our free-wheeling attitudes allowing anyone with vision and desire to exploit those resources. We became the wealthiest nation on planet earth and are still leading all other nations in all measures of wealth.
Our measures of wealth are mixed. From the huge caches of wealth accumulated by petroleum extractors to the ownership of rights to the micro-processing of data there is measurable wealth present in all nations around the world. Whether one measures durables or nondurables, the presence of wealth is discernable. The only measure of wealth that is difficult to quantify is the wealth we ascribe to the value of natural resources. All that can really be said is that the value of natural resources is being exhausted. Evince the need now to explore for petroleum in our oceans rather than upon now depleted land reservoirs.
We are now faced with the prospect that we must continue to grow our economy in order to maintain the level of abundance we have enjoyed. Other nations, however, stand in the way of our desired growth and are even now working to raise their nations above America. And, if Coase’s Theorem is true and has grown legs, there is a finite level of resources by which we measure wealth that is quickly being approached. We will pay for transactional costs by diminishing our wealth and largess. Said another way, we will find ourselves trading wealth back and forth with other countries with our desires, happiness and prosperity hanging in the balance and subject to the vagaries of wealth on the move.
America’s natural resources are still abundant though diminishing. The value of those resources has, however, diminished because of the rising price of exploiting those resources. It is less expensive, and uses less of our wealth, to secure oil from the Middle East than it is to extract it from our own soils. Moreover, we are not much inclined to look for alternatives to our energy needs that would reserve and preserve our natural resources. In fact, and as against scientific analysis which shows that we are quickly approaching an irreversible point, we continue to utilize carbon based fuels. And, of course, we are in fact transferring our wealth to the Middle East, in the short run, to secure less expensive carbon based fuels.
Not only are we suffering on the pure economic side of the equations, we are losing on the philosophical side as well by not knowing how much is too much. There was a time in which greed was viewed as a vice rather than a virtue. In our rush to increase largess, we turned a blind eye to moral questions about how we accumulate wealth at the sake of others. Now, a goodly portion of our national largess is held by a very small number of people. In the not too distant future, even more of our national largess will be held by a very small number of people. It is hard to convince people, however, because they enjoy just enough of the national largess to distract them from this unbalanced accumulation of wealth in the few.
When we turn on our TVs and see from world news reports just how destitute others are around the world and compare their estate to that of ours, we think ourselves truly right in our capitalistic society. Rather than say, “there but for the grace of God go I”, we smugly conclude that we have a better idea of how to exploit the world’s wealth. History supports that conclusion as well. By far, freely democratic countries fare much better than older archaic forms of societal rule. In time, we all hope to become one human family seized of the liberty the Americans wrested from England in the late 1700’s. Our experience with democracy has grown firm legs and serves as the mark for all countries to strive for even as against tradition and religion.
The problem with the American psyche regarding economics, however, is exacerbated by international news for the reasons set forth above. We do not think in terms that, “there but for the grace of God go I”, but rather that we are right and others are wrong. This has allowed us to turn the vice of greed into a virtue. We are all now patterned after and accepting of Gordon Gecko’s “greed is good” mantra. But greed impoverishes. It is a vice no matter how much it is exalted. And, it has grown out of hand. No one has asked, “how much is too much?”
Presently, there are two impoverished nations in the world clamoring to secure nuclear capacity in order to force countries of wealth to redistribute wealth to them. The history of the nuclear arms race was not lost on them. The United States forced the old Soviet Union to stand down by presenting itself as the projected winner in a theorized war. It proved to be an effective way to impose will and now two backward countries, containing few natural resources, are poised to present themselves as viable contestants for the world’s wealth. That one is taxed with a debilitating religion and the other with a failed ideology matters not. Both are preparing their countries to take if they do not receive.
If our leaders and great thinkers do not come up with a vision in answer to the question of how much is too much, we will likely have to engage in another war of attrition. We will likely see a diminishing prosperity for all but a very few. And in the interim, we may deplete our natural resources to the point from which there will be no recovery.
I had not intended this to be a dooms day message. But it seems that even those who continue to believe that our continued prosperity will come only by diminishing government, eliminating social programs and removing all restraints to capitalism ought to be asking, “how much is too much.” And if they answer, “enough is never enough,” then they need to take ownership of the famine that is sure to follow when all our natural resources are exhausted or taken from us by force. And if any are left behind, let us carve upon their tombstones, the epitaph; “I was greedy and damned proud of it.”
As for me, I would grow government so as to have an ample supply of steel-fisted regulators on Wall Street, in the banks and in corporate offices everywhere to insure that practices overstepping and overreaching merely to accumulate vast fortunes are knocked down before they get out of hand. I would also continue taxes at a level insuring that those who have been impoverished by those whose greed has robbed the majority of a decent existence, are recompensed enough to enjoy a decent existence. Lastly, I would forebear all but the minimums to sustain life in order to find a way to preserve our diminishing national resources for the future seeking renewable energy. And, upon my tombstone, I hope I earn the right to have inscribed, “he numbered among those who cared for his fellow man.”
So I question; “how much is too much?” Hopefully wisdom will guide us rather than mere intelligence. Intelligence is gained by learning from one’s mistakes whereas wisdom is gained by studying the mistakes of others. Putting too much salt in the gravy was a mistake that I learned from. Allowing greed to become a virtue is also a mistake that we all can learn from. We’ve accumulated a lot of intelligence over the ages, let us now gather wisdom from all that intelligence and renumber greed as a vice.
It has occurred to me that the experience with the gravy serves as a micro study of what is going wrong with our economy. As a people, very prosperous indeed, we have somehow lost, if ever we knew, the answer to just how much is too much. We won the global wars of economy surpassing all of Europe, after the 1st World War, and accumulated a national largess which overshadowed all other nations. Our rise to become the wealthiest nation on earth came about because of an abundance of natural resources and our free-wheeling attitudes allowing anyone with vision and desire to exploit those resources. We became the wealthiest nation on planet earth and are still leading all other nations in all measures of wealth.
Our measures of wealth are mixed. From the huge caches of wealth accumulated by petroleum extractors to the ownership of rights to the micro-processing of data there is measurable wealth present in all nations around the world. Whether one measures durables or nondurables, the presence of wealth is discernable. The only measure of wealth that is difficult to quantify is the wealth we ascribe to the value of natural resources. All that can really be said is that the value of natural resources is being exhausted. Evince the need now to explore for petroleum in our oceans rather than upon now depleted land reservoirs.
We are now faced with the prospect that we must continue to grow our economy in order to maintain the level of abundance we have enjoyed. Other nations, however, stand in the way of our desired growth and are even now working to raise their nations above America. And, if Coase’s Theorem is true and has grown legs, there is a finite level of resources by which we measure wealth that is quickly being approached. We will pay for transactional costs by diminishing our wealth and largess. Said another way, we will find ourselves trading wealth back and forth with other countries with our desires, happiness and prosperity hanging in the balance and subject to the vagaries of wealth on the move.
America’s natural resources are still abundant though diminishing. The value of those resources has, however, diminished because of the rising price of exploiting those resources. It is less expensive, and uses less of our wealth, to secure oil from the Middle East than it is to extract it from our own soils. Moreover, we are not much inclined to look for alternatives to our energy needs that would reserve and preserve our natural resources. In fact, and as against scientific analysis which shows that we are quickly approaching an irreversible point, we continue to utilize carbon based fuels. And, of course, we are in fact transferring our wealth to the Middle East, in the short run, to secure less expensive carbon based fuels.
Not only are we suffering on the pure economic side of the equations, we are losing on the philosophical side as well by not knowing how much is too much. There was a time in which greed was viewed as a vice rather than a virtue. In our rush to increase largess, we turned a blind eye to moral questions about how we accumulate wealth at the sake of others. Now, a goodly portion of our national largess is held by a very small number of people. In the not too distant future, even more of our national largess will be held by a very small number of people. It is hard to convince people, however, because they enjoy just enough of the national largess to distract them from this unbalanced accumulation of wealth in the few.
When we turn on our TVs and see from world news reports just how destitute others are around the world and compare their estate to that of ours, we think ourselves truly right in our capitalistic society. Rather than say, “there but for the grace of God go I”, we smugly conclude that we have a better idea of how to exploit the world’s wealth. History supports that conclusion as well. By far, freely democratic countries fare much better than older archaic forms of societal rule. In time, we all hope to become one human family seized of the liberty the Americans wrested from England in the late 1700’s. Our experience with democracy has grown firm legs and serves as the mark for all countries to strive for even as against tradition and religion.
The problem with the American psyche regarding economics, however, is exacerbated by international news for the reasons set forth above. We do not think in terms that, “there but for the grace of God go I”, but rather that we are right and others are wrong. This has allowed us to turn the vice of greed into a virtue. We are all now patterned after and accepting of Gordon Gecko’s “greed is good” mantra. But greed impoverishes. It is a vice no matter how much it is exalted. And, it has grown out of hand. No one has asked, “how much is too much?”
Presently, there are two impoverished nations in the world clamoring to secure nuclear capacity in order to force countries of wealth to redistribute wealth to them. The history of the nuclear arms race was not lost on them. The United States forced the old Soviet Union to stand down by presenting itself as the projected winner in a theorized war. It proved to be an effective way to impose will and now two backward countries, containing few natural resources, are poised to present themselves as viable contestants for the world’s wealth. That one is taxed with a debilitating religion and the other with a failed ideology matters not. Both are preparing their countries to take if they do not receive.
If our leaders and great thinkers do not come up with a vision in answer to the question of how much is too much, we will likely have to engage in another war of attrition. We will likely see a diminishing prosperity for all but a very few. And in the interim, we may deplete our natural resources to the point from which there will be no recovery.
I had not intended this to be a dooms day message. But it seems that even those who continue to believe that our continued prosperity will come only by diminishing government, eliminating social programs and removing all restraints to capitalism ought to be asking, “how much is too much.” And if they answer, “enough is never enough,” then they need to take ownership of the famine that is sure to follow when all our natural resources are exhausted or taken from us by force. And if any are left behind, let us carve upon their tombstones, the epitaph; “I was greedy and damned proud of it.”
As for me, I would grow government so as to have an ample supply of steel-fisted regulators on Wall Street, in the banks and in corporate offices everywhere to insure that practices overstepping and overreaching merely to accumulate vast fortunes are knocked down before they get out of hand. I would also continue taxes at a level insuring that those who have been impoverished by those whose greed has robbed the majority of a decent existence, are recompensed enough to enjoy a decent existence. Lastly, I would forebear all but the minimums to sustain life in order to find a way to preserve our diminishing national resources for the future seeking renewable energy. And, upon my tombstone, I hope I earn the right to have inscribed, “he numbered among those who cared for his fellow man.”
So I question; “how much is too much?” Hopefully wisdom will guide us rather than mere intelligence. Intelligence is gained by learning from one’s mistakes whereas wisdom is gained by studying the mistakes of others. Putting too much salt in the gravy was a mistake that I learned from. Allowing greed to become a virtue is also a mistake that we all can learn from. We’ve accumulated a lot of intelligence over the ages, let us now gather wisdom from all that intelligence and renumber greed as a vice.
Key West Fantasy Fest
Curiosity finally got the best of me. I attended a few events of Fantasy Fest for the first time after living almost 10 years in the Keys. And, I must say (cliché borrowed from Mark Howell), based on what I observed, I’ve probably not missed much.
My first foray into the ‘save the merchants out-of-season festival’ was to Dante’s Pool-side party wherein I was promised a wet T-shirt competition among females. My second trip downtown was on the following Saturday afternoon taken as against some very good college football games being broadcasted. I regretted both trips. Had I been given an equal quantity (I like this; the word ends almost like titty) of lumps of coal and diamonds to award amongst those ladies who were not garbed to the waist, I would have returned home a rich man, without coal, after only a few minutes at either event.
I freely admit that I am an old, wizened, ugly man in his sixties who will seize upon any opportunity to stare at women’s breasts; but only, if they merit the gaze. I am a connoisseur of the female form, having been educated by Playboy Magazines, with very strict and rigid requirements as to what constitutes beautiful and down-right ugly. Though I embrace most oriental wisdom, I do not abide by the teaching which instructs that, “it is only when we see something as beautiful, that other things become ugly.” Ugly semi-naked women are ugly whether you compare them to beauties or not.
The organization in charge of Fantasy Fest should consider two pressing issues. First, is whether the name should be changed from Fantasy Fest to Titty Fest? It would seem that in dropping the pretense of ‘fantasy’ (which is held in the minds of women who believe that their breasts are worth looking at) we may actually see more tourist show up. It is a given fact that women who perceive their breasts beautiful, will bare them upon a sincere request to do so. If this ever becomes Titty Fest, women all over America, who perceive that they have quality breasts, will flock to the event. Accordingly, we will see more tourist and their precious dollars.
Second, the organization should form a new committee charged with insuring that this annual breast display is done in good taste by those women sporting breasts of a quality to be admired. It should be called the Committee Used to Limit Lewdness. The acronym of this committee says it all. “CULL” will be responsible to insure that women seeking to bare their breasts have quality breasts to be seen.
In advance of this annual rite renamed Titty Fest, women desiring to expose their breasts should have to submit an application for a license to appear nude from the waist up which application requires them to supply quality color photographs with their application. It is an onerous task but I will volunteer to chair the committee.
Each applicant should be forewarned, however, that standards are high. First, those with nipples looking at and facing mother earth when released from a bra will be disqualified. Second, those with teeny-tiny busts, (more appropriated defined as burps), will be disqualified if it appears that their nose will hit the wall first, if ever they walk into a wall. Third, those whose belly extends beyond their breasts will be disqualified no matter what the cup size. Lastly, and for those who have expended thousands of dollars in the pursuit of perfect breasts, one may nonetheless be disqualified if it appears that her augmentation would have been better fitted to an eastern European bloc female athlete standing 6’6”, sporting a shaved mustache and capable of hurling a shot put some 150 meters. This means that those 5’2” pixies with breasts twice or thrice the size of their derriere will be disqualified. It would also include those females whose breasts arrive two or three minutes before they do.
If the organizers of Fantasy Fest implement these much needed measures, it is likely that the merchants will see a few of my dollars next year. Otherwise, I plan on buying a six-pack and watching college football next year and in the years thereafter.
I am cognizant that several women in the Keys will respond with legendary scorn and fury. In preemptive response, I would say to them; “Go to The Bull”; when Yankee Jack is playing, and ask him to sing to you his wonderful song entitled, “Yes, Dear.” Caveat: Do not be drawn in by his lyrics that a lady “Is Only a Light Switch Away from Beautiful.” I know the contrary to be true. Ask Yankee Jack for the definition of Coyote.
My first foray into the ‘save the merchants out-of-season festival’ was to Dante’s Pool-side party wherein I was promised a wet T-shirt competition among females. My second trip downtown was on the following Saturday afternoon taken as against some very good college football games being broadcasted. I regretted both trips. Had I been given an equal quantity (I like this; the word ends almost like titty) of lumps of coal and diamonds to award amongst those ladies who were not garbed to the waist, I would have returned home a rich man, without coal, after only a few minutes at either event.
I freely admit that I am an old, wizened, ugly man in his sixties who will seize upon any opportunity to stare at women’s breasts; but only, if they merit the gaze. I am a connoisseur of the female form, having been educated by Playboy Magazines, with very strict and rigid requirements as to what constitutes beautiful and down-right ugly. Though I embrace most oriental wisdom, I do not abide by the teaching which instructs that, “it is only when we see something as beautiful, that other things become ugly.” Ugly semi-naked women are ugly whether you compare them to beauties or not.
The organization in charge of Fantasy Fest should consider two pressing issues. First, is whether the name should be changed from Fantasy Fest to Titty Fest? It would seem that in dropping the pretense of ‘fantasy’ (which is held in the minds of women who believe that their breasts are worth looking at) we may actually see more tourist show up. It is a given fact that women who perceive their breasts beautiful, will bare them upon a sincere request to do so. If this ever becomes Titty Fest, women all over America, who perceive that they have quality breasts, will flock to the event. Accordingly, we will see more tourist and their precious dollars.
Second, the organization should form a new committee charged with insuring that this annual breast display is done in good taste by those women sporting breasts of a quality to be admired. It should be called the Committee Used to Limit Lewdness. The acronym of this committee says it all. “CULL” will be responsible to insure that women seeking to bare their breasts have quality breasts to be seen.
In advance of this annual rite renamed Titty Fest, women desiring to expose their breasts should have to submit an application for a license to appear nude from the waist up which application requires them to supply quality color photographs with their application. It is an onerous task but I will volunteer to chair the committee.
Each applicant should be forewarned, however, that standards are high. First, those with nipples looking at and facing mother earth when released from a bra will be disqualified. Second, those with teeny-tiny busts, (more appropriated defined as burps), will be disqualified if it appears that their nose will hit the wall first, if ever they walk into a wall. Third, those whose belly extends beyond their breasts will be disqualified no matter what the cup size. Lastly, and for those who have expended thousands of dollars in the pursuit of perfect breasts, one may nonetheless be disqualified if it appears that her augmentation would have been better fitted to an eastern European bloc female athlete standing 6’6”, sporting a shaved mustache and capable of hurling a shot put some 150 meters. This means that those 5’2” pixies with breasts twice or thrice the size of their derriere will be disqualified. It would also include those females whose breasts arrive two or three minutes before they do.
If the organizers of Fantasy Fest implement these much needed measures, it is likely that the merchants will see a few of my dollars next year. Otherwise, I plan on buying a six-pack and watching college football next year and in the years thereafter.
I am cognizant that several women in the Keys will respond with legendary scorn and fury. In preemptive response, I would say to them; “Go to The Bull”; when Yankee Jack is playing, and ask him to sing to you his wonderful song entitled, “Yes, Dear.” Caveat: Do not be drawn in by his lyrics that a lady “Is Only a Light Switch Away from Beautiful.” I know the contrary to be true. Ask Yankee Jack for the definition of Coyote.
Tax Cut Extension
Republicans, with not just a little support from Democrats spooked in the last elections, are bent on extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, the rich included. Given the deficit, which Republicans caused and are only now alarmed about, one has to wonder why we would cut off the only sensible way to reduce or eliminate the deficit.
Taking away my tax cuts will not have much effect. An increase in taxes means that I will not be able to buy a much needed car. If the tax cuts are extended, I will still not be able to buy the needed car. As for the rich, of course, there is no problem. With or without the tax cuts, they will still be able to buy a car.
The tax cuts made by Bush and Congress were really a bad idea from the start. They were done to boost the economy and did not work. They were also done to create jobs and that didn’t work either.
Growing up, my parents taught and constantly reminded me; when it comes to incurring debt, one has to pay the fiddler if one wants to dance. Shortly, I suspect, the fiddler is going to pack up his fiddle and leave us to dance in silence – if anyone feels like dancing.
Rather than allow congress to make sweeping cuts to entitlement programs and government services, more of us will feel like dancing if congress identifies what caused our deficit and eliminate it. From where I stand, that means we should stop the foolhardy wars we are engaged in and dismantle TARP.
Those measures alone will reduce the growth of the deficit and if we tighten belts by allowing the tax cut measure to expire, we should be able to eliminate the deficit and pay the fiddler; and, continue to dance on life.
Taking away my tax cuts will not have much effect. An increase in taxes means that I will not be able to buy a much needed car. If the tax cuts are extended, I will still not be able to buy the needed car. As for the rich, of course, there is no problem. With or without the tax cuts, they will still be able to buy a car.
The tax cuts made by Bush and Congress were really a bad idea from the start. They were done to boost the economy and did not work. They were also done to create jobs and that didn’t work either.
Growing up, my parents taught and constantly reminded me; when it comes to incurring debt, one has to pay the fiddler if one wants to dance. Shortly, I suspect, the fiddler is going to pack up his fiddle and leave us to dance in silence – if anyone feels like dancing.
Rather than allow congress to make sweeping cuts to entitlement programs and government services, more of us will feel like dancing if congress identifies what caused our deficit and eliminate it. From where I stand, that means we should stop the foolhardy wars we are engaged in and dismantle TARP.
Those measures alone will reduce the growth of the deficit and if we tighten belts by allowing the tax cut measure to expire, we should be able to eliminate the deficit and pay the fiddler; and, continue to dance on life.
Letter to Marco Rubio
Congratulations. You are now one of our senators from the great State of Florida.
I note you told us, during elections, one of your first priorities, when you reach the Senate, is to launch a bill to repeal the Health Care Reform Act. I did not vote for you, in the recent election, because of that declaration. You see, Senator Rubio, I am sixty-two years old, without health insurance, but had planned to see health insurance within the next two years or so under this new law. But, you are going to insure that I will not have health insurance. And remember, it is the nature of our representative form of government, even though I did not vote for you, you now represent me as well as those who voted for you.
I have only two requests to make of you, the first of which is that you actually read the Health Care Reform Act before you put forth your bill to repeal the act. Please make sure that it will actually destroy all things American if not repealed. If it merely reduces the profits of health insurance companies, who cares? Second, I would like for you to also introduce a bill which would eliminate all forms of health care coverage for members of Congress. Is it really right that you and your fellow congressmen and senators enjoy what is being denied the citizens of this Country?
I served this country in its Armed Services, did a stint as a law enforcement officer and as a public school teacher not long enough to ‘vest’ in any retirement system. I am currently unemployed and living day to day on social security at least, until such time, as that ‘entitlement’ is eliminated. I think I have earned the right or privilege to put the above requests to you. Will you consider them?
You need not reply directly – and, if you get caught up in the arrogance of your new found position – not at all. It would come as no surprise to me.
I note you told us, during elections, one of your first priorities, when you reach the Senate, is to launch a bill to repeal the Health Care Reform Act. I did not vote for you, in the recent election, because of that declaration. You see, Senator Rubio, I am sixty-two years old, without health insurance, but had planned to see health insurance within the next two years or so under this new law. But, you are going to insure that I will not have health insurance. And remember, it is the nature of our representative form of government, even though I did not vote for you, you now represent me as well as those who voted for you.
I have only two requests to make of you, the first of which is that you actually read the Health Care Reform Act before you put forth your bill to repeal the act. Please make sure that it will actually destroy all things American if not repealed. If it merely reduces the profits of health insurance companies, who cares? Second, I would like for you to also introduce a bill which would eliminate all forms of health care coverage for members of Congress. Is it really right that you and your fellow congressmen and senators enjoy what is being denied the citizens of this Country?
I served this country in its Armed Services, did a stint as a law enforcement officer and as a public school teacher not long enough to ‘vest’ in any retirement system. I am currently unemployed and living day to day on social security at least, until such time, as that ‘entitlement’ is eliminated. I think I have earned the right or privilege to put the above requests to you. Will you consider them?
You need not reply directly – and, if you get caught up in the arrogance of your new found position – not at all. It would come as no surprise to me.
Throwing In the Towel
Cut to the chase, is what I say. Let’s amend the Constitution so as to allow Senators, Representatives and, what the hell, even Presidents to be elected for life. That way, we could avoid this ridiculous rite called elections. We would get our TV back without those annoying political ads. We would save bundles of money currently being wasted on ‘air’ and bring back a little serenity.
All politicians are primarily concerned with being reelected – if they don’t have to worry about reelection, they might be able to focus on doing a better job of running the country. Most politicians get reelected making periodic elections fruitless anyway. In fact, these ‘for life’ salons might wax towards making wise and philosophical statements for us to digest going forward rather than pander to ignorant masses simply to get reelected.
Elections for life would also save Americans a lot of money. Salaries, for those elected for life, should be put at $1.00 per year. America’s corporations should (and already do) pick up the tab for politicians’ services. After all, what’s good for Wall Street is good for the USA. It must be or we would not have put up so much bailout monies last year.
Best part of all – since these salons gain their job for life, they will be able to make decisions for America rather than fight for pork for their home state. Imagine, a Florida Representative killing a bill for a new railway in Florida simply because it doesn’t make sense to put the rail in. You know – it could happen. And somewhere down the line, I promise you, no more political parties – they will not be needed.
We have just had an election where most Democrats have been tossed out on their asses. A few years down the road, the Democrats will get together and toss all the Republicans out on their asses. This swinging back and forth, going no where, seems a little foolish to me and if we go with elections for life, we will not have to swing so much. I’m ready to get off the swing, sit at the picnic table and have a beer.
All politicians are primarily concerned with being reelected – if they don’t have to worry about reelection, they might be able to focus on doing a better job of running the country. Most politicians get reelected making periodic elections fruitless anyway. In fact, these ‘for life’ salons might wax towards making wise and philosophical statements for us to digest going forward rather than pander to ignorant masses simply to get reelected.
Elections for life would also save Americans a lot of money. Salaries, for those elected for life, should be put at $1.00 per year. America’s corporations should (and already do) pick up the tab for politicians’ services. After all, what’s good for Wall Street is good for the USA. It must be or we would not have put up so much bailout monies last year.
Best part of all – since these salons gain their job for life, they will be able to make decisions for America rather than fight for pork for their home state. Imagine, a Florida Representative killing a bill for a new railway in Florida simply because it doesn’t make sense to put the rail in. You know – it could happen. And somewhere down the line, I promise you, no more political parties – they will not be needed.
We have just had an election where most Democrats have been tossed out on their asses. A few years down the road, the Democrats will get together and toss all the Republicans out on their asses. This swinging back and forth, going no where, seems a little foolish to me and if we go with elections for life, we will not have to swing so much. I’m ready to get off the swing, sit at the picnic table and have a beer.
Politicians Are Comedians
It was Will Rogers who said that “[e]verything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.” I propose he was repeating what he had read in a fortune cookie in the 1930’s predicting our current state of affairs.
We’ve an incredibly hilarious ticket to vote on in Florida’s governor’s race this year. We have a former CEO of the nation’s largest health care provider, Rick Scott, who, after he led his company through a settlement of $1.7 billion dollars as against a Medicare Fraud complaint, seeks our vote to let him ‘go to work’ for the State of Florida. Who is he going to defraud this go-around? Better, his opponent, a woman with a man’s name, (only in Florida), Alex Sink, is vying for Governor. She claims unassailable, though enthusiastically assailed, credentials as a Banker. Bankers, of course, are those people who make money off other people’s money. Who is she going to make money off of and for whom?
It gets better. We’ve also an opportunity to vote for a new U.S. Senator. We have Marco Rubio (who obviously was bereft of maternal love or he would have been named “Mark”), who is our GQ, (excuse me, “GOP”) candidate. He was groomed to secure the feminine Republican vote (remember GWB’s photo posed in Navy flight gear used to titillate Republican female voters?). He espouses Limbaughesque dribble about cutting taxes, cutting government, cutting social security (oops, saving social security, until after elections), and saving America for the few, (oops, for the many, until after elections). We also have Mr. Meeks, who, despite his name, is bravely advocating whatever and whenever. He has no specific plans other than to oppose plans of Republicans (if ever they actually come up with plans). And, in the muddled middle, we have good ole’ Charlie. Charlie Crist gives us that Florida smile, framed by a Florida tan, and says what most of Florida wants to hear with as much clarity as we receive from our Rice Krispy’s each morning. Remember, it was Charlie who left the GOP in order to exercise sound judgment. (Maybe he has something there.)
One would think Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity has merit, given the current morass of asses vying for our votes. Stay the course, Jon, and remember: it was Will Rogers who observed, “[i]t’s easy to be a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.”
Did you know, the word ‘idiot’ comes from the Greek word ‘idiotes’ which was used to denote those who did not vote? In order to avoid the stigma of being an idiot (original definition), I intend to vote. But, I am not going to be the idiot (current usage) who votes for anyone of the above – instead, I think I will write in a vote for Jimmy Buffett for Governor. That son-of-a-sailor has assured us that he is neither a “lawyer, a thief or a banker.” As for Senator, I will write in a vote for Leroy LNU. I don’t know who he is, and it is doubtful he will ever be found, if elected; and his absence from the halls of Congress will be noticed not.
We’ve an incredibly hilarious ticket to vote on in Florida’s governor’s race this year. We have a former CEO of the nation’s largest health care provider, Rick Scott, who, after he led his company through a settlement of $1.7 billion dollars as against a Medicare Fraud complaint, seeks our vote to let him ‘go to work’ for the State of Florida. Who is he going to defraud this go-around? Better, his opponent, a woman with a man’s name, (only in Florida), Alex Sink, is vying for Governor. She claims unassailable, though enthusiastically assailed, credentials as a Banker. Bankers, of course, are those people who make money off other people’s money. Who is she going to make money off of and for whom?
It gets better. We’ve also an opportunity to vote for a new U.S. Senator. We have Marco Rubio (who obviously was bereft of maternal love or he would have been named “Mark”), who is our GQ, (excuse me, “GOP”) candidate. He was groomed to secure the feminine Republican vote (remember GWB’s photo posed in Navy flight gear used to titillate Republican female voters?). He espouses Limbaughesque dribble about cutting taxes, cutting government, cutting social security (oops, saving social security, until after elections), and saving America for the few, (oops, for the many, until after elections). We also have Mr. Meeks, who, despite his name, is bravely advocating whatever and whenever. He has no specific plans other than to oppose plans of Republicans (if ever they actually come up with plans). And, in the muddled middle, we have good ole’ Charlie. Charlie Crist gives us that Florida smile, framed by a Florida tan, and says what most of Florida wants to hear with as much clarity as we receive from our Rice Krispy’s each morning. Remember, it was Charlie who left the GOP in order to exercise sound judgment. (Maybe he has something there.)
One would think Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity has merit, given the current morass of asses vying for our votes. Stay the course, Jon, and remember: it was Will Rogers who observed, “[i]t’s easy to be a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.”
Did you know, the word ‘idiot’ comes from the Greek word ‘idiotes’ which was used to denote those who did not vote? In order to avoid the stigma of being an idiot (original definition), I intend to vote. But, I am not going to be the idiot (current usage) who votes for anyone of the above – instead, I think I will write in a vote for Jimmy Buffett for Governor. That son-of-a-sailor has assured us that he is neither a “lawyer, a thief or a banker.” As for Senator, I will write in a vote for Leroy LNU. I don’t know who he is, and it is doubtful he will ever be found, if elected; and his absence from the halls of Congress will be noticed not.
Rick Scott
Rick Scott wants to be our Governor. I perused his website just to make sure that some of the news reports I’ve heard were accurate. Sure enough, Rick Scott wants to run the State of Florida like a business. And, that concerns me. First, businesses either make products to sell for a profit or provide services for profit. I don’t look to the state government to do either. The state has no ‘business’ making a profit off its citizens even if there was a way to do so. Moreover, a government renders a limited number of services without competition from anyone – or at least, it should. So, I’m not much convinced that his plan to run the state government as a business is a very good one. A government should be run as a government fully accountable to the electorate.
Rick Scott also wants us to assume that he became a more astute businessman, and therefore a better gubernatorial candidate, because he was ousted as CEO from Columbia/HCA following the $1.7 billion fraud claim settlement. I’ve got to wonder exactly what lessons he learned as set forth in his website claim. He obviously didn’t learn how not to get caught and it’s unlikely that he learned honesty out of the affair. Whether he knew of the fraud or not doesn’t qualify him, in my mind, as a good gubernatorial candidate. If he knew, he is a common thief – if he didn’t know of the frauds, he’s not a very good CEO.
News pundits claim that Rick Scott has spent over $15 million of his own money to get the job as the Governor of this State. That job pays only about $140,000 a year. I have to wonder about the business acumen of someone who spends $15 million out of his own pocket to obtain a 4 year job that will gross only about $520,000. I’ve been in business for myself for some time and, to me, the figures just don’t add up unless, of course, he has plans of continuing larceny.
Rick Scott also wants us to assume that he became a more astute businessman, and therefore a better gubernatorial candidate, because he was ousted as CEO from Columbia/HCA following the $1.7 billion fraud claim settlement. I’ve got to wonder exactly what lessons he learned as set forth in his website claim. He obviously didn’t learn how not to get caught and it’s unlikely that he learned honesty out of the affair. Whether he knew of the fraud or not doesn’t qualify him, in my mind, as a good gubernatorial candidate. If he knew, he is a common thief – if he didn’t know of the frauds, he’s not a very good CEO.
News pundits claim that Rick Scott has spent over $15 million of his own money to get the job as the Governor of this State. That job pays only about $140,000 a year. I have to wonder about the business acumen of someone who spends $15 million out of his own pocket to obtain a 4 year job that will gross only about $520,000. I’ve been in business for myself for some time and, to me, the figures just don’t add up unless, of course, he has plans of continuing larceny.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Overloaded Vessel
By Ronald E. Hignight
There is nothing more egregious and dangerous than a Captain who overloads his vessel placing the vessel, himself and his passengers in peril. The BP oil disaster brings into focus how human beings have overloaded our vessel – the earth – and are placing our vessel in peril.
We are, in our haste to increase petroleum production, taking short cuts producing such disasters daily. The BP disaster may pass, as all such disasters tend to do but, what will we learn from the disaster?
The vast majority of our scientists have warned that human beings are responsible for the pending Climate Change yet we listen, instead, to the politicians and entrepreneurs debunk the warning and drill on.
We have also been warned by various national and international agencies that we have passed Peak Oil production point and that the earth’s available oil is being consumed exponentially and without recovery, at the current rate of 9% per year. By 2020, there may be no more recoverable oil.
Our Oceans are in decline experiencing a collapse of their ecosystems long before the BP Oil Spill disaster. In 2004, the Oceans had lost 20% of their historical coral reefs. Another 40% of the reefs, the building blocks of our fisheries, will be lost before the end of this decade.
Our earth has lost 50% of its Forests, the consumption of which, accounts for over 25% of the Greenhouse effects inducing Climate Change. Because of Climate Change, we are losing arable lands and producing a potential Food Crisis.
Lastly, we are simply Over Populated. There are close to 7 Billion people on this overloaded earth where a scant 50 years ago, there were only 3 Billion people.
A Captain has an opportunity, before leaving port, to decide whether his vessel is safe or overloaded and in danger of capsizing. Climate Change, Peak Oil, Oceans in Decline, Deforestation, Food Crisis and Over Population has together, if not individually, overloaded our vessel and it is time for the Captain to make sound decisions – not convenient and expedient decisions.
There is nothing more egregious and dangerous than a Captain who overloads his vessel placing the vessel, himself and his passengers in peril. The BP oil disaster brings into focus how human beings have overloaded our vessel – the earth – and are placing our vessel in peril.
We are, in our haste to increase petroleum production, taking short cuts producing such disasters daily. The BP disaster may pass, as all such disasters tend to do but, what will we learn from the disaster?
The vast majority of our scientists have warned that human beings are responsible for the pending Climate Change yet we listen, instead, to the politicians and entrepreneurs debunk the warning and drill on.
We have also been warned by various national and international agencies that we have passed Peak Oil production point and that the earth’s available oil is being consumed exponentially and without recovery, at the current rate of 9% per year. By 2020, there may be no more recoverable oil.
Our Oceans are in decline experiencing a collapse of their ecosystems long before the BP Oil Spill disaster. In 2004, the Oceans had lost 20% of their historical coral reefs. Another 40% of the reefs, the building blocks of our fisheries, will be lost before the end of this decade.
Our earth has lost 50% of its Forests, the consumption of which, accounts for over 25% of the Greenhouse effects inducing Climate Change. Because of Climate Change, we are losing arable lands and producing a potential Food Crisis.
Lastly, we are simply Over Populated. There are close to 7 Billion people on this overloaded earth where a scant 50 years ago, there were only 3 Billion people.
A Captain has an opportunity, before leaving port, to decide whether his vessel is safe or overloaded and in danger of capsizing. Climate Change, Peak Oil, Oceans in Decline, Deforestation, Food Crisis and Over Population has together, if not individually, overloaded our vessel and it is time for the Captain to make sound decisions – not convenient and expedient decisions.
Monday, March 1, 2010
There Ought to be a Law
By Ronald E. Hignight
There ought to be a law. Have you tried dealing with an auto insurance company lately regarding a loss? They expeditiously take information, even over the internet, and dispatch an adjuster within 24 hours. A fellow shows up all smiles, snaps a few photos on his handy cell phone then leaves in a rush to turn in his report.
The next day, you receive a nice warm phone call from the claims representative, gushing with concern about your loss. Then they drop the bomb – an offer to settle all claims for about half the value of your auto. No rental is offered but they will send a tow truck. You have the responsibility of signing the title and sending it to them. Once they have confirmed that the auto is at the salvage yard and have received the title, they will forward the check for your auto.
When you try to talk with them about how they determined the value of the vehicle they say imperiously that the value is based on ‘comparables.’ Where such comparables come from is somewhat of a mystery but I was informed that they ranged out some 200 miles to try to find the exact vehicle somewhere on the market. I suspect that the vehicles they found, if any actually exist, are lodged at a salvage yard somewhere.
If you object to the value, all that really happens is that you are passed from one claim representative to another over a period of several days each promising that they will re-research the comparables. Each successive call renders the same value.
It is fruitless to suggest that you will engage an attorney even though such is an alternative. It is an alternative only if you have some form of transportation to get you by for the next nine months to a year. What is needed is a quick and inexpensive forum to turn to such as mediation. But, it takes two to agree to mediation and insurance companies are uninterested. So, give us a law that compels auto insurance companies to go to mediation if there is a disagreement on a claim.
There ought to be a law. Have you tried dealing with an auto insurance company lately regarding a loss? They expeditiously take information, even over the internet, and dispatch an adjuster within 24 hours. A fellow shows up all smiles, snaps a few photos on his handy cell phone then leaves in a rush to turn in his report.
The next day, you receive a nice warm phone call from the claims representative, gushing with concern about your loss. Then they drop the bomb – an offer to settle all claims for about half the value of your auto. No rental is offered but they will send a tow truck. You have the responsibility of signing the title and sending it to them. Once they have confirmed that the auto is at the salvage yard and have received the title, they will forward the check for your auto.
When you try to talk with them about how they determined the value of the vehicle they say imperiously that the value is based on ‘comparables.’ Where such comparables come from is somewhat of a mystery but I was informed that they ranged out some 200 miles to try to find the exact vehicle somewhere on the market. I suspect that the vehicles they found, if any actually exist, are lodged at a salvage yard somewhere.
If you object to the value, all that really happens is that you are passed from one claim representative to another over a period of several days each promising that they will re-research the comparables. Each successive call renders the same value.
It is fruitless to suggest that you will engage an attorney even though such is an alternative. It is an alternative only if you have some form of transportation to get you by for the next nine months to a year. What is needed is a quick and inexpensive forum to turn to such as mediation. But, it takes two to agree to mediation and insurance companies are uninterested. So, give us a law that compels auto insurance companies to go to mediation if there is a disagreement on a claim.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Calf Roped
By Ronald E. Hignight
OK! Enough already! All you wing nuts meeting at CPAC listen up! We are throwing in the towel. Hear us? You want smaller government and we are ready to deal! How small do you want this new government? Hell, let’s get with it and cut the whole shebang down by 2/3rds, what do you say? The lines may get a little long at Social Security but, what the hell, those lines are just full of old farts anyway. We will end up with a much thinner ‘green line’ (I’m not talking about ecology either, mind you; I’m talking military green), but, what the hell, we will just aim a whole load of missiles at everyone that ain’t American – that should protect us. We can turn 2/3rds of the military personnel back to work in our mighty industrial complex, right?
And, as I understand it, you don’t want to reform a damned thing, right? OK! Status quo it is. In fact, we will help you sell the idea that the current economic downturn is actually a myth started by elitist left wing liberals hell bent on destroying the U.S.! They are the ones that mysteriously caused the auto industry decline, wrecked our Wall Street, and persuaded bankers to engage in something almost like racketeering, right?
We need Dick Cheney! We want either Michele Bachman or Sarah Palin as his running mate. They both have outstanding credentials for running the most powerful nation on earth! And that could come into play as Cheney does have a small ailing heart, right? Who cares as long as he is strongly backed with ‘stick-to-it’ character. Or maybe, we might like to see Gov. Pawlenty because, in a pinch, he will just let God take over and run things. Now, I like the sound of that and am not really too curious just which God that is as long as it’s a God. And, of course, that couldn’t be the money God, right?
Let’s get it on. No more gaffing. Make Fox news the ministry of propaganda good information. Git’er done!
OK! Enough already! All you wing nuts meeting at CPAC listen up! We are throwing in the towel. Hear us? You want smaller government and we are ready to deal! How small do you want this new government? Hell, let’s get with it and cut the whole shebang down by 2/3rds, what do you say? The lines may get a little long at Social Security but, what the hell, those lines are just full of old farts anyway. We will end up with a much thinner ‘green line’ (I’m not talking about ecology either, mind you; I’m talking military green), but, what the hell, we will just aim a whole load of missiles at everyone that ain’t American – that should protect us. We can turn 2/3rds of the military personnel back to work in our mighty industrial complex, right?
And, as I understand it, you don’t want to reform a damned thing, right? OK! Status quo it is. In fact, we will help you sell the idea that the current economic downturn is actually a myth started by elitist left wing liberals hell bent on destroying the U.S.! They are the ones that mysteriously caused the auto industry decline, wrecked our Wall Street, and persuaded bankers to engage in something almost like racketeering, right?
We need Dick Cheney! We want either Michele Bachman or Sarah Palin as his running mate. They both have outstanding credentials for running the most powerful nation on earth! And that could come into play as Cheney does have a small ailing heart, right? Who cares as long as he is strongly backed with ‘stick-to-it’ character. Or maybe, we might like to see Gov. Pawlenty because, in a pinch, he will just let God take over and run things. Now, I like the sound of that and am not really too curious just which God that is as long as it’s a God. And, of course, that couldn’t be the money God, right?
Let’s get it on. No more gaffing. Make Fox news the ministry of propaganda good information. Git’er done!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
No, Chicken Little, The Sky is Not Falling
By Ronald E. Hignight
It all started with a general alarm, sounded by the people of pundits, that the American Dream was falling from the sky when the Supreme Court decision was rendered holding that corporations possessed a constitutional right of free speech akin to that of individuals. Next came Obama, who heaped a little scorn upon the Justices who made that constitutional determination (it’s their job to do so) based upon a poorly written political campaign law. It’s now being suggested that we prepare for our worst nightmare – a country run by “greedy rich people (who run corporations) participating in politics only to protect their individual interests.”
I would ask first – so, what is new? This country has always, except for brief unsuccessful periods of popularism, been run by the “greedy rich people participating in politics only to protect their individual interests.” So, what is new?
The ‘sky is falling’ mantra does not set well with me. I have a good public education; I can think for myself and I don’t seize upon any and every thing let by the press. When something of import comes up, I take the time to discern both sides of an issue and make up my own decision as to what I will support or not support. And, as for Madison Avenue, the joke is on them. I drink Budweiser for the taste, not for the company’s stylish and funny advertising.
It seems when others are projecting, that I will make poor voting decisions based upon the slick Madison Ave. presentations that will be offered by corporations, they demean me. It seems to me when they think so little of my ability to discern where a future salon’s interest lies; they think me stupid and in need of protection. Those who project the falling sky do not seem to think too much of my intelligence. Excuse me; I don’t need to be protected from information. Indeed, I don’t need to be protected from forecasts of doom; for, in fact, the sky is not falling, Chicken Littles.
It all started with a general alarm, sounded by the people of pundits, that the American Dream was falling from the sky when the Supreme Court decision was rendered holding that corporations possessed a constitutional right of free speech akin to that of individuals. Next came Obama, who heaped a little scorn upon the Justices who made that constitutional determination (it’s their job to do so) based upon a poorly written political campaign law. It’s now being suggested that we prepare for our worst nightmare – a country run by “greedy rich people (who run corporations) participating in politics only to protect their individual interests.”
I would ask first – so, what is new? This country has always, except for brief unsuccessful periods of popularism, been run by the “greedy rich people participating in politics only to protect their individual interests.” So, what is new?
The ‘sky is falling’ mantra does not set well with me. I have a good public education; I can think for myself and I don’t seize upon any and every thing let by the press. When something of import comes up, I take the time to discern both sides of an issue and make up my own decision as to what I will support or not support. And, as for Madison Avenue, the joke is on them. I drink Budweiser for the taste, not for the company’s stylish and funny advertising.
It seems when others are projecting, that I will make poor voting decisions based upon the slick Madison Ave. presentations that will be offered by corporations, they demean me. It seems to me when they think so little of my ability to discern where a future salon’s interest lies; they think me stupid and in need of protection. Those who project the falling sky do not seem to think too much of my intelligence. Excuse me; I don’t need to be protected from information. Indeed, I don’t need to be protected from forecasts of doom; for, in fact, the sky is not falling, Chicken Littles.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Demise of Space Exploration
By Ronald E. Hignight
It was recently disclosed that, by way of Presidential Advisory Policy, a decision has been reached to set aside NASA’s Constellation program which had set a goal, among other things, to work towards establishing a manned lunar station. The program has been set aside in favor of a “Flexible Path” strategy calling for the development of technologies but not setting any particular goal or destination.
Flexible Path strategy may help NASA to become an ‘engine of innovation’, as urged by its new Administrator Charles Bolden; but, something has been lost. I do not abide with the former Administrator Michael Griffin’s statement that it is a ‘stupid strategy’ which is neither productive nor efficient; but, I do lament the loss of what space exploration seems to be all about – and that is, in a word, wonder.
I have always deemed myself lucky to have been born in a time when space travel came into being. I watched with utter fascination, the launch of Sputnik, America’s un-manned and manned flights and as our heroes flew the dark heavens ultimately visiting the Moon. I watched with pride as astronauts returned to Earth after meaningful and productive excursions in the Shuttles and was bedazzled by the new things uncovered by the space station and Hubble.
The ‘giant leap for mankind’ is as much a part of my psyche as any other incident of American citizenship. Exploration of space is, in my mind, clean; we no longer speak in terms of conquering space. Space exploration does not destroy while achieving its goals. Space travel and knowledge of the universe is something that everyone can take pride in achieving. It is always, and forever shall be, about wonder.
Without some firm goal or destination, I find it hard to find that feeling of wonderment. I know the ‘flexible path’ is expedient and that space exploration is terribly difficult to justify as against the domestic needs in our present economy. I do not doubt the need for change; but, I will lament the passing of the wonder spawned by our goal driven exploration of space.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The State of the Union
By Ronald E. Hignight
There are Populist and Elitist, Liberals and Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists and whatever. One can hardly make it through an editorial or political comment without being subjected to polarized addendums to an elected official’s name. If a senator or representative suggests that they are for or against something, the reasoning employed in the decision is lost in the clamor of reporters to categorize and isolate the position for their readers.
We are now told that the President has moved from being a pragmatic leader (they could hardly call him an Elitist), to a Populist leaning leader simply because he is sponsoring a discretionary spending freeze in Federal government. Obama’s detractors grin and opine that the shift in governmental philosophy was actually occasioned by the Democratic Party’s defeat in Massachusetts and Obama’s recognition that his party is in danger of losing its franchise.
Post State of the Union, it appears that what mandated the spending freeze was not self-preservation, but rather, a move made to curtail spending in light of the projected success of TARP. Said another way, the discretionary spending is no longer necessary to achieve the aims of the Obama administration and no administration, Democrat or Republican, would want to be known as, or tolerated as, a spend-thrift administration.
Do we now have a Populist President? I don’t think so. Are we moving towards Libertarianism? Let’s hope not. We have altogether too many domestic issues to resolve before we may once again trim government to its bare-boned essentials. The belabored health care reform bill will have to be amended through a series of small battles until it is made effectual. The United States will, as a world citizen, have to curb its energy needs for the benefit of man-kind. Our un-checked capitalist economic policies will have to address the needs of the many, rather than the few, until such time as our citizens are back on their feet.
If Obama has misjudged the American people, he did so only by assigning priority to health care over jobs. It would appear that his only true ‘move’, here at the end of his first year in office, is to focus more on jobs and less on health care. If Americans do not have secure jobs paying a livable wage, there are no monies for the purchase of health care.
While some may argue against the stimulus, and I was one of them, we must all acknowledge that the infrastructure of our economy, especially the banks, has been saved by way of the stimulus. I was wary of stimulus but, pragmatically, it is working and it is time to go on to other domestic concerns – namely, jobs. As for the bail-outs – they were a bad idea and have gained us nothing. A few factory workers up north were given a temporary reprieve but few think that the auto dealers will really survive and thrive. All the bail-outs did was prolong the auto industry’s death rattle.
Obama has a plan to invigorate the economy by offering tax cuts of up to $5,000 each if industry will hire in a meaningful way. The rules are strict, but, on balance, fair to the people footing the bill. But, I’ve a more aggressive step in mind that will create jobs well into the future and end, hopefully, America’s wasteful reliance upon Wall Street to generate jobs.
What I propose is that we somehow force those who are ‘sitting’ on huge cache’s of wealth to do something with their wealth other than to pass it to Wall Street for incremental increase of their wealth. What I would have them do is to obtain direct tax credit for creating jobs. If they merely deposit their holdings with Wall Street, they will be heavily taxed. If they start a new business employing people, they will receive tax credits.
We already do this for corporations – why not extend it to investors? Not only would we be putting people back to work, we would be stimulating the economy through growth, competition and diversity. We would also be minimizing our country’s reliance upon the speculative markets of Wall Street as the basis of our economy.
Lastly, we should take a long and hard look at the insurance industry to see if the industry truly benefits society or is a leach upon society. In its un-regulated state, it is clearly a leach upon society. In its semi-regulated state, it still leaches upon society but does so in a manner that most have come to accept merely because the industry is so ingrained in our society that to fight it is very nearly impossible.
In its purest form, insurance is nothing more than paying another to take a risk that you are unwilling to abide by. Lenders insist on insurance to protect their proprietary liens against money loaned to purchase property. States compel an individual to purchase insurance as against one’s negligence towards others. Individuals seeking to provide for their families after death, purchase insurance policies affording piece of mind. Is all of this risk transferring or shifting really necessary? Is it an incidence that truly benefits society? When all is said and done, the risk is still there – it is just a matter of who pays for it.
Insurance companies write thousands of policies seeking to spread the risk among its policy holders as against a single claim. And, to make it work, they invest the monies collected, rather than merely reserve them, in order to make profit. This sets up the first problem of the insurance industry. How to manage investments in order to make a profit? The record of AIG, for example, shows what can happen if the insurance company mismanages its investments.
The second problem with the insurance industry arises from the not-so-little disparity between the premium paid and the payout. In fact, they have nothing to do with each other on the balance sheet. Claims, however, are treated as though insufficient premiums have been collected and are vigorously fought and denied by the insurance industry.
In those areas where a State has sought to regulate insurance, i.e., where the State has mandated the purchase of insurance in such areas as Workers’ Compensation, the insurance industry is required to pursue approval of premium rate hikes. They are required to show neither the effect of claims paid nor of their secrete investments. They are merely required to assert that they need upward premium adjustments to maintain their franchise. In other words, they want more money, but are not required to prove that they need more money, and will seek whatever the market will bear.
To cover these problems, the insurance industry falls back on its manufactured credibility and reputation image with the aid of Madison Avenue. It distorts its condition and viability presenting policies of insurance in a fully positive light without danger of loss. With subliminal messaging, it even seeks to secure a larger purchasing pool by convincing individuals that insurance is an absolute necessity of life. Competition as among insurance companies has virtually destroyed self-restraint of the type implicit within their Madison Avenue messages.
The so-called ‘public-option’ in health care reform would have eventually led to more self-restraint within the private insurance industry had it been enacted. I suspect that a ‘public-option’ in home, auto and life insurance would likewise lead to self-restraint in those insurance domains as well. It seems that the insurance industries objection to regulation and unwillingness to engage in self-restraint, leaves little alternative other than to enter into competition with the industry through a government operated agency.
In time, and with public-options, the insurance industry will lose most of its leaching aspect and might tend to benefit society. The public-option competition would force insurance companies into a ‘lean and mean’ approach to do business and would eventually cure both principle problems associated with the industry. If they refuse to go lean and mean, they would vanish.
To be sure, health, the environment, international conflicts and jobs are going to be capturing the limelight of political discussion. Unless we bring insurance under control, through meaningful and far-ranging political discussion, we will, however, continue to wander towards a cliff with lead weights in our pockets somehow expecting to overcome gravity and fly into prosperity. My cut is that we will fall to our doom.
There are Populist and Elitist, Liberals and Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists and whatever. One can hardly make it through an editorial or political comment without being subjected to polarized addendums to an elected official’s name. If a senator or representative suggests that they are for or against something, the reasoning employed in the decision is lost in the clamor of reporters to categorize and isolate the position for their readers.
We are now told that the President has moved from being a pragmatic leader (they could hardly call him an Elitist), to a Populist leaning leader simply because he is sponsoring a discretionary spending freeze in Federal government. Obama’s detractors grin and opine that the shift in governmental philosophy was actually occasioned by the Democratic Party’s defeat in Massachusetts and Obama’s recognition that his party is in danger of losing its franchise.
Post State of the Union, it appears that what mandated the spending freeze was not self-preservation, but rather, a move made to curtail spending in light of the projected success of TARP. Said another way, the discretionary spending is no longer necessary to achieve the aims of the Obama administration and no administration, Democrat or Republican, would want to be known as, or tolerated as, a spend-thrift administration.
Do we now have a Populist President? I don’t think so. Are we moving towards Libertarianism? Let’s hope not. We have altogether too many domestic issues to resolve before we may once again trim government to its bare-boned essentials. The belabored health care reform bill will have to be amended through a series of small battles until it is made effectual. The United States will, as a world citizen, have to curb its energy needs for the benefit of man-kind. Our un-checked capitalist economic policies will have to address the needs of the many, rather than the few, until such time as our citizens are back on their feet.
If Obama has misjudged the American people, he did so only by assigning priority to health care over jobs. It would appear that his only true ‘move’, here at the end of his first year in office, is to focus more on jobs and less on health care. If Americans do not have secure jobs paying a livable wage, there are no monies for the purchase of health care.
While some may argue against the stimulus, and I was one of them, we must all acknowledge that the infrastructure of our economy, especially the banks, has been saved by way of the stimulus. I was wary of stimulus but, pragmatically, it is working and it is time to go on to other domestic concerns – namely, jobs. As for the bail-outs – they were a bad idea and have gained us nothing. A few factory workers up north were given a temporary reprieve but few think that the auto dealers will really survive and thrive. All the bail-outs did was prolong the auto industry’s death rattle.
Obama has a plan to invigorate the economy by offering tax cuts of up to $5,000 each if industry will hire in a meaningful way. The rules are strict, but, on balance, fair to the people footing the bill. But, I’ve a more aggressive step in mind that will create jobs well into the future and end, hopefully, America’s wasteful reliance upon Wall Street to generate jobs.
What I propose is that we somehow force those who are ‘sitting’ on huge cache’s of wealth to do something with their wealth other than to pass it to Wall Street for incremental increase of their wealth. What I would have them do is to obtain direct tax credit for creating jobs. If they merely deposit their holdings with Wall Street, they will be heavily taxed. If they start a new business employing people, they will receive tax credits.
We already do this for corporations – why not extend it to investors? Not only would we be putting people back to work, we would be stimulating the economy through growth, competition and diversity. We would also be minimizing our country’s reliance upon the speculative markets of Wall Street as the basis of our economy.
Lastly, we should take a long and hard look at the insurance industry to see if the industry truly benefits society or is a leach upon society. In its un-regulated state, it is clearly a leach upon society. In its semi-regulated state, it still leaches upon society but does so in a manner that most have come to accept merely because the industry is so ingrained in our society that to fight it is very nearly impossible.
In its purest form, insurance is nothing more than paying another to take a risk that you are unwilling to abide by. Lenders insist on insurance to protect their proprietary liens against money loaned to purchase property. States compel an individual to purchase insurance as against one’s negligence towards others. Individuals seeking to provide for their families after death, purchase insurance policies affording piece of mind. Is all of this risk transferring or shifting really necessary? Is it an incidence that truly benefits society? When all is said and done, the risk is still there – it is just a matter of who pays for it.
Insurance companies write thousands of policies seeking to spread the risk among its policy holders as against a single claim. And, to make it work, they invest the monies collected, rather than merely reserve them, in order to make profit. This sets up the first problem of the insurance industry. How to manage investments in order to make a profit? The record of AIG, for example, shows what can happen if the insurance company mismanages its investments.
The second problem with the insurance industry arises from the not-so-little disparity between the premium paid and the payout. In fact, they have nothing to do with each other on the balance sheet. Claims, however, are treated as though insufficient premiums have been collected and are vigorously fought and denied by the insurance industry.
In those areas where a State has sought to regulate insurance, i.e., where the State has mandated the purchase of insurance in such areas as Workers’ Compensation, the insurance industry is required to pursue approval of premium rate hikes. They are required to show neither the effect of claims paid nor of their secrete investments. They are merely required to assert that they need upward premium adjustments to maintain their franchise. In other words, they want more money, but are not required to prove that they need more money, and will seek whatever the market will bear.
To cover these problems, the insurance industry falls back on its manufactured credibility and reputation image with the aid of Madison Avenue. It distorts its condition and viability presenting policies of insurance in a fully positive light without danger of loss. With subliminal messaging, it even seeks to secure a larger purchasing pool by convincing individuals that insurance is an absolute necessity of life. Competition as among insurance companies has virtually destroyed self-restraint of the type implicit within their Madison Avenue messages.
The so-called ‘public-option’ in health care reform would have eventually led to more self-restraint within the private insurance industry had it been enacted. I suspect that a ‘public-option’ in home, auto and life insurance would likewise lead to self-restraint in those insurance domains as well. It seems that the insurance industries objection to regulation and unwillingness to engage in self-restraint, leaves little alternative other than to enter into competition with the industry through a government operated agency.
In time, and with public-options, the insurance industry will lose most of its leaching aspect and might tend to benefit society. The public-option competition would force insurance companies into a ‘lean and mean’ approach to do business and would eventually cure both principle problems associated with the industry. If they refuse to go lean and mean, they would vanish.
To be sure, health, the environment, international conflicts and jobs are going to be capturing the limelight of political discussion. Unless we bring insurance under control, through meaningful and far-ranging political discussion, we will, however, continue to wander towards a cliff with lead weights in our pockets somehow expecting to overcome gravity and fly into prosperity. My cut is that we will fall to our doom.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Shoe Heard Around the World
By Ronald E. Hignight
It was not long ago that we witnessed the “shoe heard around the world” fly past President Bush’s head. With surprising agility, GWB dodged the shoe. The event highlighted, and ended, an era of bully, smash and bash politics. Bush was a lame duck at that point and all of us were looking forward to change.
Change. We were looking to increase the esteem not only of the office of President, but that of this Country as well. We were looking eagerly to the Legislature to perform miracles with a Bush-failed economy and to get past Republican obstructionism towards national welfare; most especially health-care reform. And, we were looking for the government to do some long-range thoughtful planning with respect to the environment rather than continue the ‘fix-it when it’s broke’ solutions of the past.
But what we failed to account for, even as among Democrats who secured the necessary majority to achieve these things, was the fact that all politicians – whether they are conservative or liberal or middle of the road – secure their positions by learning and employing the duck and dodge maneuver so expertly displayed by President Bush.
What we have been left with is a collection of salons in charge of the Legislative branch who are trained to react to every adversarial challenge by ducking, dodging and side-stepping. No one of them is capable of directly confronting a challenge and is constantly looking for the euphemistic compromise. If the shoe thrower is appeased, the current salons believe that they will be better able to survive the next election. And, it appears that such is their only concern.
Where are the men and women of character who are capable of taking a shoe to the head and keep on going? President Obama, upon learning of Republican Brown’s seizure of a Democratic Senate seat, stated that he was not going to abandon the fight for health care just because the fight will be tough. Hopefully, the salons in the Legislature will follow suit and take a shoe to the head if one is thrown. After all, they may find that voters are likely to hold them in higher esteem if they have the force of character to stand up to adversity.
It was not long ago that we witnessed the “shoe heard around the world” fly past President Bush’s head. With surprising agility, GWB dodged the shoe. The event highlighted, and ended, an era of bully, smash and bash politics. Bush was a lame duck at that point and all of us were looking forward to change.
Change. We were looking to increase the esteem not only of the office of President, but that of this Country as well. We were looking eagerly to the Legislature to perform miracles with a Bush-failed economy and to get past Republican obstructionism towards national welfare; most especially health-care reform. And, we were looking for the government to do some long-range thoughtful planning with respect to the environment rather than continue the ‘fix-it when it’s broke’ solutions of the past.
But what we failed to account for, even as among Democrats who secured the necessary majority to achieve these things, was the fact that all politicians – whether they are conservative or liberal or middle of the road – secure their positions by learning and employing the duck and dodge maneuver so expertly displayed by President Bush.
What we have been left with is a collection of salons in charge of the Legislative branch who are trained to react to every adversarial challenge by ducking, dodging and side-stepping. No one of them is capable of directly confronting a challenge and is constantly looking for the euphemistic compromise. If the shoe thrower is appeased, the current salons believe that they will be better able to survive the next election. And, it appears that such is their only concern.
Where are the men and women of character who are capable of taking a shoe to the head and keep on going? President Obama, upon learning of Republican Brown’s seizure of a Democratic Senate seat, stated that he was not going to abandon the fight for health care just because the fight will be tough. Hopefully, the salons in the Legislature will follow suit and take a shoe to the head if one is thrown. After all, they may find that voters are likely to hold them in higher esteem if they have the force of character to stand up to adversity.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Vote for Change or Compromise?
Vote for Change or Compromise?
In the last election, I suspect that those who empowered Obama and the Democratic led Congress did so in order to change government. Had it been otherwise, we would now have a McCain administration and a Republican controlled Congress. McCain and his cohorts ran for office professing that, with only slight modification, the policies of the Bush administration and its Congress would be continued in part and compromised in part. The electors spoke loudly, though, that change rather than compromise was what was expected of government.
While change can mean reversal, it is often used to denote a break in one direction in favor of another and, invariably, means, as Lord Tennyson said, “The old order changeth, yielding place to the new.” Conversely, compromise, such as we have seen in Congress’s efforts to produce Health Care Reform, means a give and take appeasement reaching middle ground. As said by Lord Cecil, a compromise is “[a]n agreement between two [parties] to do what both agree is wrong.” It can resolve impasse for good or bad. If, however, you consider P.J. O’Rourke’s observation that, “[a] compromise is the sense that being bitten in half by a shark is a compromise with being swallowed whole[,]” then compromise can only be bad.
It seems that the Obama administration and the Democrats ensconced in Washington are hamstrung with the Pollyannish notion that bi-partisan support is necessary to formulate a cohesive and comprehensive Health Care Reform measure. We gave them a mandate to change and they should whether Republicans join them or not. Some of course, blame the various Democrats themselves for creating the differing ‘fixes’ needed to overhaul what is a patently critical situation involving good health care. What those contentious Democrats should consider, however, is that they received their jobs by hanging onto the coattails of Obama and adopting the change mantra to get elected. They, too, should embrace and pass the health care reform bill that Obama was elected to foster into law. It is time for the Democratic whips to whip.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Change? Where's the Beef?
Years ago, 1984 to be exact, there was a television commercial run by Wendy’s, which put forth a question that has relevance today. It featured a nice older woman opening an oversized hamburger bun, in front of a sales clerk, and pointing to an absurdly small hamburger patty. In a firm "I will not be patronized" sort of way, the lady asked, "Where's the beef?" We should all be asking today, of President Obama and the Legislature who promised 'change', "Where's the beef?"
It has been over a year since we retired the Smash, Bash and Bully mentality of the Bush administration. The new administration promising change seems to be doing nothing; or, as most recently criticized, is “dithering,” to which might be added the charge of, “withering.” What little the Obama administration has done, by analogy, leaves us wondering, "Where's the beef?"
So far, all that has been done is to hand out huge sums of money to big corporations, banks and insurance companies. That was not a change. In fact, it mirrors what Bush and his Republican legislature did in the form of tax credits in the early “ought’s.” Only the rich have benefited – not the American in the street – and whatever is meant by the “Wall Street to Main Street” mantra sounds a whole lot like “trickle down” which was a huge failure for us all.
We wearied of wars being urged and initiated by the Bush administration but did not manage to put our collective ‘foot down’ until it came to light that we went to war not to protect the U.S. from weapons of mass destruction; but rather, to insure that we had control of our need for petroleum. We knew we had been duped and voted with anger. We had been duped before into believing that by force of arms, we could and should "Americanize" other countries. That theory of international diplomacy failed. The wars are still smoldering, in part, and escalating in part. There has been no change. We are still at war.
The Bush administration effectively blocked all lingering attempts at Health Care Reform left over from the Clinton administration. We sent the new President a new Democratic controlled Legislature expecting a change in health care. Though there is a bill being bounced around in Senate and House committees, we can only expect that it will be so washed down and neutered that it will amount to nothing more than boondoggle. There will be no change. We will still not have meaningful health care that we can actually afford.
To spawn unparalleled growth in American industry, the Bush administration removed all roadblocks to carbon based fuel consumption totally ignoring the consequences of global warming. That administration feared loss of economic growth if any credence was given to an anticipated global catastrophe. We listened, evaluated and determined that whatever economic considerations there were, in conflict with protecting the environment, that the earth must win out. President Obama, and the salons that we sent to Washington, promised alternative energy initiatives but they have done so on so small a scale as to be ludicrous. Our government of change went to Copenhagen with no intention of changing status quo. There has been no change.
This withering and dithering on important public concerns is no less fruitful than our previous posture of smash, bash and bully. We still see money, unearned money, going to the rich. We still see body bags returning from the Middle East. We still see no meaningful control on health care. We still see no change in policy and direction regarding global warming.
Where is the change – where is the beef?
It has been over a year since we retired the Smash, Bash and Bully mentality of the Bush administration. The new administration promising change seems to be doing nothing; or, as most recently criticized, is “dithering,” to which might be added the charge of, “withering.” What little the Obama administration has done, by analogy, leaves us wondering, "Where's the beef?"
So far, all that has been done is to hand out huge sums of money to big corporations, banks and insurance companies. That was not a change. In fact, it mirrors what Bush and his Republican legislature did in the form of tax credits in the early “ought’s.” Only the rich have benefited – not the American in the street – and whatever is meant by the “Wall Street to Main Street” mantra sounds a whole lot like “trickle down” which was a huge failure for us all.
We wearied of wars being urged and initiated by the Bush administration but did not manage to put our collective ‘foot down’ until it came to light that we went to war not to protect the U.S. from weapons of mass destruction; but rather, to insure that we had control of our need for petroleum. We knew we had been duped and voted with anger. We had been duped before into believing that by force of arms, we could and should "Americanize" other countries. That theory of international diplomacy failed. The wars are still smoldering, in part, and escalating in part. There has been no change. We are still at war.
The Bush administration effectively blocked all lingering attempts at Health Care Reform left over from the Clinton administration. We sent the new President a new Democratic controlled Legislature expecting a change in health care. Though there is a bill being bounced around in Senate and House committees, we can only expect that it will be so washed down and neutered that it will amount to nothing more than boondoggle. There will be no change. We will still not have meaningful health care that we can actually afford.
To spawn unparalleled growth in American industry, the Bush administration removed all roadblocks to carbon based fuel consumption totally ignoring the consequences of global warming. That administration feared loss of economic growth if any credence was given to an anticipated global catastrophe. We listened, evaluated and determined that whatever economic considerations there were, in conflict with protecting the environment, that the earth must win out. President Obama, and the salons that we sent to Washington, promised alternative energy initiatives but they have done so on so small a scale as to be ludicrous. Our government of change went to Copenhagen with no intention of changing status quo. There has been no change.
This withering and dithering on important public concerns is no less fruitful than our previous posture of smash, bash and bully. We still see money, unearned money, going to the rich. We still see body bags returning from the Middle East. We still see no meaningful control on health care. We still see no change in policy and direction regarding global warming.
Where is the change – where is the beef?
I Am Thankful
I Am Thankful
- Ronald E. Hignight
I am Thankful the decade of ‘o something’ is over. I am also thankful to a number of people who shared it with me.
Thank you, George Bush for abdicating. I know the Constitution stood in your way but, it was grand of you to honor it.
Thank you, Dick Cheney for showing us how to hoodwink America into wars to preserve the petroleum industry and global warming.
Thank you, Sarah Palin for being the governor of Alaska, rather than some other state. We needed the humor you spawned by your political foray during the darkest moments of our economy.
Thank you, Glen Beck for sharing your fantasies. But for your myopic vision and dire predictions for America, our village idiots would have had nothing to talk about.
Thank you, Rush Limbaugh for showing us that people of Radio and TV can abuse drugs without losing their jobs.
Thank you, Jerry Falwell, and to all your christian fellows, for sliding into obscurity. You truly gave us a scare, in the 90’s, that there was no longer a separation of church and state.
Thank you, Mark Stanford for reminding us all that honesty matters most and that even gross philandering does not disqualify one from roles of leadership.
Thank you, Tom DeLay for showing us that Kingmakers can become dance floor celebs; which is far more meaningful than Politics.
Thank you, Tiger Woods for showing us that money, like power, corrupts absolutely.
Thank you, Joe Lieberman for proving LBJ correct when he said, “Politics is dealing with chicken shit, which, overnight, becomes Chicken Salad.
Thank you, Michele Bachmann for showing us the danger of living in Minnesota rather than Alaska.
Thank you, Joe Wilson for reminding us that “Our Party, Right or Wrong” remains the mantra of all Republicans.
Thank you, again, to all these people who served to prove Abraham Lincoln right when he said, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.”
Saturday, January 9, 2010
I Am Waiting
The following poem was inspired by Lawrence Ferlinghetti who penned a poem, "I Am Waiting", published by City Lights in the 1950's.
I Am Waiting
--Purloined from Lawrence Ferlinghetti
--By Ronald E. Hignight
I am waiting for my Lotto numbers
to produce something other than disappointment,
and I am still waiting
for a rebirth of wonder, and
I am waiting for Lawrence F to
write anew, as a born again Phoenix,
with poetic prophecies that everyone will understand,
this time,
and I am waiting for our myopic politicians
to walk out of a Mall sporting new glasses improving
their vision for America, and
I am waiting for the newer generations to awaken
from their dreams and delusions and realize that, really,
it is not all about them, and
I am waiting to hear rappers sing of joy rather than anger
thumping their way down the streets
of my neighborhood, where Johnny Nolan still lives,
and runs through screen-door summers,
forever escaping kids who chase him
because of the patch on his ass, and
I am waiting for change to come to the
government of change all changed up
but still withering and dithering, and
I am waiting a rebirth of wonder.
I continue to wait for the
second coming of anything which will
break-up the monotony of TV preachers and
their unsolicited teachings of intolerance, and
I am waiting a rebirth of wonder,
I am waiting for all religions to be taxed
for their profits – we tax newspapers but that
has not destroyed freedom of the press, has it?
And, I am waiting for someone to record
his chat with God so all can see and understand
without having to believe in the believer, and
I am waiting
a rebirth of all the Gods so
that when they are ready, they can compete all
on the same field and all at the same time,
in a footrace for our souls, and
I am waiting to see the word intolerance
disappear from my OED
as an archaic term no longer needed
by anyone, and
no longer understood, and
I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for religions to grow in imagination
giving us all something other than trite
stories with the same climax and boring filler, and
I am waiting for a new Bible to be written premised
upon the fact that ‘shit happens’ and,
I am waiting, longingly, for a rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting to talk to a person when I call and
I am waiting, and waiting, and waiting,
and waiting,
and waiting, and,
I am waiting for someone to give
us Global Cooling in recyclable containers
imprinted with scenes of the former Good Earth and
distributed by Budweiser, and
I am waiting a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for Bill Buckley to arise from his ashes, as well,
and guard our language against dissing, whatever that means, and
I am waiting for public schools to again educate scholars
rather than appease miscreants, and,
I am waiting for the Board of Education to be swung,
hard, again, again and, again
curing forever, those afflicted with ADHD, and
I am waiting to see Armed Cops on School grounds
replaced with costumed Disney characters carrying candy, and
I am waiting for Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck
to go bird hunting with Dick Cheney,
without medics, and
I am waiting for the Press to meet Itself mediated
by Robin Williams and Diane Roberts, and
I am waiting for an entirely new
rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting for the awe of new adventures through
astronauts taking a stroll across the face of Mars
giving me chill banes,
and pride again, and
I am waiting to see if the dividends of my share
of Social Security will buy me more than a glass
of fat free, nutrient free, taste free milk, and
I am waiting for a revival of wonder to be announced
at the next World Series witnessed by a Cereal World, and
I am waiting for the reconstructed Mayflower to
be filled with Republicans and returned to Europe
waived and toasted away by Native Americans and Democrats,
and I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for the missing link to be found only
because I want to be amused, yet again, by some new
unintelligent design theory, and
I am waiting for Osama bin Laden to crawl out
of his hole, profess his innocence and appear in court
in orange coveralls with an attorney lugging around
a copy of the Koran from which he will offer
a humorous defense, and
I am waiting for a new rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting for David Copperfield to make
the World Trade Center reappear whole and full of laughing
people excited with the joke but ready to go home,
If only he could, and,
I am perpetually awaiting a rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting for all gays to actually be gay
and to get to do the unhappy things heterosexuals do
and I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for the New Iron Curtin to be built
from Texas to California,
with high-tech video cameras showing America
the identities of those who want to be free next, and
I am patiently and expectantly waiting
for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting on the Green Flash, daily,
with rum in one hand and tequila in the other,
listening to Jimmy Buffett telling me how he
did it wrong while making a million dollars a day,
and I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for troops to come home
from their dusty duty, and stay home for good, and
I am waiting for America to formally apologize
to the world for George Bush and I am waiting
for George Bush to formally apologize to General Powell,
and I am waiting for Karl Rove to go moose hunting with a chagrined
Dick Cheney and a smiling Sarah Palin, and,
I am waiting for a real rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for someone in line to tell
me why my Wal-Mart sized shampoo cannot fly
to Tampa with me, I mean, if it is really that explosive,
I want to know, but, I am still waiting
for a rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting for Governor Charlie Crist to
meet Charles Durning and learn that lovely
song and dance step of effective governance, and
I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for One Human Family to
find a way to humanize our
mean old backed-up farts
and turn them into missionaries, and,
I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for the jets to land quietly
allowing us to hear the roosters crowing again, and
I am waiting a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting on the ghost of Lawrence F
to visit me and tell me it was ok to try
and update his poem, but then, I suspect
he is laughing with and at himself
and at all of us waiting for a rebirth of wonder -
a renaissance of wonder.
I Am Waiting
--Purloined from Lawrence Ferlinghetti
--By Ronald E. Hignight
I am waiting for my Lotto numbers
to produce something other than disappointment,
and I am still waiting
for a rebirth of wonder, and
I am waiting for Lawrence F to
write anew, as a born again Phoenix,
with poetic prophecies that everyone will understand,
this time,
and I am waiting for our myopic politicians
to walk out of a Mall sporting new glasses improving
their vision for America, and
I am waiting for the newer generations to awaken
from their dreams and delusions and realize that, really,
it is not all about them, and
I am waiting to hear rappers sing of joy rather than anger
thumping their way down the streets
of my neighborhood, where Johnny Nolan still lives,
and runs through screen-door summers,
forever escaping kids who chase him
because of the patch on his ass, and
I am waiting for change to come to the
government of change all changed up
but still withering and dithering, and
I am waiting a rebirth of wonder.
I continue to wait for the
second coming of anything which will
break-up the monotony of TV preachers and
their unsolicited teachings of intolerance, and
I am waiting a rebirth of wonder,
I am waiting for all religions to be taxed
for their profits – we tax newspapers but that
has not destroyed freedom of the press, has it?
And, I am waiting for someone to record
his chat with God so all can see and understand
without having to believe in the believer, and
I am waiting
a rebirth of all the Gods so
that when they are ready, they can compete all
on the same field and all at the same time,
in a footrace for our souls, and
I am waiting to see the word intolerance
disappear from my OED
as an archaic term no longer needed
by anyone, and
no longer understood, and
I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for religions to grow in imagination
giving us all something other than trite
stories with the same climax and boring filler, and
I am waiting for a new Bible to be written premised
upon the fact that ‘shit happens’ and,
I am waiting, longingly, for a rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting to talk to a person when I call and
I am waiting, and waiting, and waiting,
and waiting,
and waiting, and,
I am waiting for someone to give
us Global Cooling in recyclable containers
imprinted with scenes of the former Good Earth and
distributed by Budweiser, and
I am waiting a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for Bill Buckley to arise from his ashes, as well,
and guard our language against dissing, whatever that means, and
I am waiting for public schools to again educate scholars
rather than appease miscreants, and,
I am waiting for the Board of Education to be swung,
hard, again, again and, again
curing forever, those afflicted with ADHD, and
I am waiting to see Armed Cops on School grounds
replaced with costumed Disney characters carrying candy, and
I am waiting for Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck
to go bird hunting with Dick Cheney,
without medics, and
I am waiting for the Press to meet Itself mediated
by Robin Williams and Diane Roberts, and
I am waiting for an entirely new
rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting for the awe of new adventures through
astronauts taking a stroll across the face of Mars
giving me chill banes,
and pride again, and
I am waiting to see if the dividends of my share
of Social Security will buy me more than a glass
of fat free, nutrient free, taste free milk, and
I am waiting for a revival of wonder to be announced
at the next World Series witnessed by a Cereal World, and
I am waiting for the reconstructed Mayflower to
be filled with Republicans and returned to Europe
waived and toasted away by Native Americans and Democrats,
and I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for the missing link to be found only
because I want to be amused, yet again, by some new
unintelligent design theory, and
I am waiting for Osama bin Laden to crawl out
of his hole, profess his innocence and appear in court
in orange coveralls with an attorney lugging around
a copy of the Koran from which he will offer
a humorous defense, and
I am waiting for a new rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting for David Copperfield to make
the World Trade Center reappear whole and full of laughing
people excited with the joke but ready to go home,
If only he could, and,
I am perpetually awaiting a rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting for all gays to actually be gay
and to get to do the unhappy things heterosexuals do
and I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for the New Iron Curtin to be built
from Texas to California,
with high-tech video cameras showing America
the identities of those who want to be free next, and
I am patiently and expectantly waiting
for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting on the Green Flash, daily,
with rum in one hand and tequila in the other,
listening to Jimmy Buffett telling me how he
did it wrong while making a million dollars a day,
and I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for troops to come home
from their dusty duty, and stay home for good, and
I am waiting for America to formally apologize
to the world for George Bush and I am waiting
for George Bush to formally apologize to General Powell,
and I am waiting for Karl Rove to go moose hunting with a chagrined
Dick Cheney and a smiling Sarah Palin, and,
I am waiting for a real rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for someone in line to tell
me why my Wal-Mart sized shampoo cannot fly
to Tampa with me, I mean, if it is really that explosive,
I want to know, but, I am still waiting
for a rebirth of wonder.
I am waiting for Governor Charlie Crist to
meet Charles Durning and learn that lovely
song and dance step of effective governance, and
I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for One Human Family to
find a way to humanize our
mean old backed-up farts
and turn them into missionaries, and,
I am waiting for a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting for the jets to land quietly
allowing us to hear the roosters crowing again, and
I am waiting a rebirth of wonder
I am waiting on the ghost of Lawrence F
to visit me and tell me it was ok to try
and update his poem, but then, I suspect
he is laughing with and at himself
and at all of us waiting for a rebirth of wonder -
a renaissance of wonder.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)