Friday, February 29, 2008
In the meantime - could someone explain to me why magician David Blaine is such a jerk?
If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and I have a straw and my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake.
This week the Democratic House passed a bill rescinding tax breaks for oil companies and the reaction from Republicans was utterly predictable--
"There will be less investment in American energy, there will be less production of American energy, we will have more dependence on foreign oil, and we will have higher fuel prices," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas). "Make no mistake: Politicians are shooting at Big Oil, but they're hitting American energy workers, and they're hitting families in the pocketbook."Excuse me? The oil industry has continued to report record profits and any attempt to reign them in will automatically translate into oil industry workers getting the shaft? Don't even get me started on what it will mean to consumers.
If you check the website of any major corporation and read their statement of principles it will inevitably say something along the lines of "our success is a direct result of our focus on the needs of shareholders, customers and employees."
More often than not these days only the first part of that equation is true. It's not that way through the realities of the market, or some other iron law of capitalism beyond our control. It's that way by choice. It's that way because the people that make the decisions regarding whether their corporations will focus on shareholders, customers or employees are usually also the biggest shareholders in that corporation.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
A few examples-
A form of voting that does not involve the inconvenience of having to get up off the couch and walk to a high school gymnasium.
The process by which Americans are quadrennially reminded of Iowa's existence.
A male or female at least 70 years of age.
The degree to which each candidate is able to hide the extent to which he or she is full of shit.
Individuals who are very savvy politically, but don't have enough hair to run for office themselves.
I've come up with a couple on my own-
The process by which things are written into law that even the legislators aren't stupid enough to pass.
So named because they sink every substantive discussion of politics.
Saying anything that can any way be construed negatively about the candidate I support.
If, at last night's debate, Tim Russert asks stupid questions that piss off Clinton supporters and Tim Russert asks stupid questions that piss of Obama supporters, shouldn't the ire of all of us be focused on Tim Russert instead of at each other?
Which brings up a larger question -- who really benefits when Democrats are ripping into each other because of a funny picture of one of the candidates or because of the contents of a mailing?
Monday, February 25, 2008
Oh, lest I forget:
Also- Haunted House Update - We're probably going to stay at the house sometime in March. I'm planning on taking a camera and some sort of recording device and doing all that stuff you see on Ghosthunters where you ask the spirits for permission to film, etc.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
She's focusing of course on the influence of money and political influence in judicial elections which she feels leads to unqualified, overly political judges.
Of course she doesn't mentioned the elephant in the room: federal judges appointed by the president for political reasons who are just as unqualified and overly political as the elected lower-court judges she's railing against.
Why would she leave that part out? I suspect it has something to with the fact she is one of the five people personally responsible for that president and, by extension, those horrible federal judges.
You want to fix our courts? Let's begin by putting a President with above-room-temperature I.Q. in office. Until then maybe you ought to keep your advice to yourself, mkay?