You know, it seems like only a month ago I was doing a posting on the government stepping in to bail out those who gambled and lost in the real estate market with adjustable rate mortgages. (Oh wait, it was just a month ago!) Well it seems that much like I had warned, the auto industry is picking up torch and is running with it as if they were on their way to the Beijing games with a bunch of Tibetan protesters nipping at their heals.I don't know if you have been listening closely to the car dealers commercials lately, but I have. They are offering deals on new car purchases which include paying off the loan on your existing car, even if it's $10,000 more than your car is worth!Perhaps I am simply over-reacting to the situation; but it seems to me that if you are financing a new car plus $10,000 more that you still owe on the old one, you might be placing yourself in a questionable financial situation. The fact that you are probably buying this new car because you can't afford the gas for your current vehicle might likewise make us believe that you are a someone potentially in an over-extended credit position. Of course these auto dealers, and the people stupid enough to buy cars using such a program are probably counting on the fact that it is more than likely that we will see a Democratic majority in Congress (and a Democratic president as well). Certainly such a kind, compassionate, and caring group of politicians will look with equal favor upon these transportation ne'er-do-wells going down the road (pun intended) and likewise find a bail out program for these victims of "big oil" and "predatory auto lenders". Now if you will excuse me, I have to go find my duct tape. My head is about to explode....
There was some dust raised in the last couple of weeks over the idea of doing away with the Federal tax on gasoline for a couple of months to help the burden that increased prices had created. It appears that nothing is going to come of it however. Some of the states also chimed in briefly, probably only in the spirit of "me too" but not I fear, with any real seriousness.
While I have seen no documentation to support this, my common sense tells me that people are now working to decrease the impact of these higher prices are having on their personal budgets by driving less than they used to and as little as they can get away with as gasoline prices continue to climb.
I'm not an economist, but if my premise is correct and we are buying less gas, then the city, county, state, and federal governments are taking in less in the way of fuel tax revenue.
Now if you hadn't realized this before, this is something that governments traditionally don't like to see happening. Governments, unlike individuals do not budget based on actual income, neither to they tighten their belts if income (revenue) decreases. They simply continue to spend money based on their estimated revenue and ignore the potential consequences.
I'm not a prophet, but it doesn't take one to realize that we will soon be looking at a proposal to increase gasoline taxes in order to make up the revenue shortfall that the government will eventually discover. There will probably be an additional bit tagged on to help encourage us to use less gasoline, to reduce our carbon footprint and help the planet, and because this would be too good an opportunity to pass up (the fact that this will start the cycle again and threaten the revenue stream not withstanding).
So let's sum up. High gas prices lead to less gas used and a proposal to do away with gasoline taxes temporarily. This in turn leads inevitably to an increase in gasoline taxes, which will lead in turn to even higher gas prices at the pumps. This may be some form of twisted government logic, but "that's not right".
Well it has been made official today that the Michigan primary will not be held again, and it will be up to the Howard Dean and the Democratic Party as to whether any delegates from the state of Michigan will be seated at the convention in Denver.
Now I didn't vote in either primary in Ohio (I am registered Independent) and I'm not an expert in Democratic party politics, in spite of the fact that I grew up in Chicago, a city long known for the intrigue and machinations of this particular political party. I seem to remember however, that the whole point of moving the primary up was to have a greater impact on the decision as to who would be the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party for 2008.
So without attempting to interject any hint of smugness (right ...) at the way you are being treated by your own party, I have to ask ...
How's that workin' out for you?
Listening to the news these days is becoming a rather frustrating experience. It's not that the news is bad (which it is), or the amount of crap that seems to pass for news (and that's a lot), but instead about the way that news readers (I refuse to call them journalists except on an individual basis based on individual qualifications) use historical comparison to attempt to make a point.
I was truly amazed when some negative economic news was released this week, and said to be the worst since 2002. Wow! Who would have thought that we would have to go back as far as six years (really 5, since 2008 is so young) to find historical data that is worse. The same holds true far too often when we are discussing everything from how much snow or rain an area has received, how cold or hot a winter or summer has been, how large or small the unemployment numbers are, or how fast the US GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is growing.
Now the planet has been around for billions of years, civilization (at least as we know it) has been around for thousands of years, modern record keeping has been around for hundreds of years and the United States has been around for some 232 years. Is it possible that something should fall outside of the norms for some reasonable period of time before we get excited about it? Should bad news not be only the worst in the last decade before we start running around yelling, "The Sky is Falling"? Are the news weenies so desperate to find something to get excited about that they have to tell us that gas prices are the highest that they have been in six months in order to excite our interest?
Now there are a great many people who understand the perspectives of history far better than I do. (Hell, there are people who understand pretty much everything on the planet far better than I do.) It does not however, take an expert in comparative analysis or a historian to realize that the morons who read the news to us seem to have the historical perspective of a mosquito. In a time in which there are so many things out there that we should be afraid of, I often wish that they would not attempt to announce the end of the world every time that some screwball researcher or little known government agency releases a report showing a number that no one should care about anyway.
I'm just saying...
I was forced to brave the cold a bit early this morning, since the overnight drop in temperature had managed to ice over the windows of my personal transportation. I duly started the vehicle, turned the heater in the defroster mode, and pushed the button for the rear window defroster, knowing that soon my windows would be clear. The rear window defroster, being of the electric variety, had the window clear of ice and fogging within a minute. The front defroster, running off of my car heater, caught up about 5 minutes later.
My question here is why can't I have the wires in the windshield? At a time in the automotive industry that gives us electrically heated seats, GPS systems, USB ports to plug my I-pod into, and dual DVD players for the back seats of cars, why can't I have a better system to defrost my windshield? Why some high end vehicles already have electrically heated outside mirrors , in addition to the rear window unit, but no on seems to have come to the conclusion of using this proven technology in a windshield.
I suppose it's possible that there is a safety issue involved here, but if there is one I am unaware of it, and can't imagine what it would be.
Call me silly here people, but it strikes me that auto makers place the better system in the rear window to improve visibility than they do in the front, in spite of the fact that one would think that looking out of the front one would seem to be more important.
Sorry people, but this one is another of those "Thoughts While Driving" postings that seem to occur to me as I make my way down the highway of life. The fact that it strikes far too close to home should not confuse the reader with the fact that it is just a bit of nonsense.
Have you ever noticed that we treat the sacred right and privilege to vote in this country a lot like we treat attendance to our bodily functions? Don't believe me? Well take a look at the list below and see if they don't apply to both:
- People tend to do perform this function only when absolutely necessary and often wait until the last minute before doing so
- This function is always done in a small enclosed space, whether it is a special room or merely a "stall" used in a public place
- This function is always done in private, with any observance or assistance treated at best as embarrassing and at worst as offensive
- Many people seem to make a mess of it, in spite of the number of years that they have been doing it
- No one seems to be very proud of completing the process with the exception of senior citizens, who seem to treat the exercise of this function as another milestone of continuing existence.
- The results of exercising this function usually result in something that stinks
Not so incredulous now, are we? Well for those who are still disbelievers, feel free to observe the next time that you are at polling place. For those who live in my current hometown of Toledo, don't bother. With the number of you that appear to show up at the polls in any given election, I will be dead long before you prove or disprove the theory that I have just set forward.
OK, exposing dumb politics is not really earth shattering, but I have to think that this one may just qualify for the Hall of Fame.
What am I talking about? Bill Clinton's claim that when his wife is elected president, that the first thing that she will do is send him and Bush 41 on a tour to tell them that "America is open for business" and repair the damage done by his son's administration. http://www.newsroomamerica.com/politics/story.php?id=403825
Now I'm not sure why this would be the first thing that a new president would do, that's a topic for another day. The reason that this one makes the "duh" list is this:
Why would anyone think that Bush 41 would stand beside the people who pushed him out of office and repudiate the last 8 years of his son's presidency, then go out on a world wide promotional tour for them?
I mean come on, even if he wasn't a Republican and they weren't Democrats (which he is and they are). Even if he agreed with the policies that they were espousing (which I would seriously doubt that he does). Even if he disliked his son (which I highly doubt is the case). What possess a man who has been a career politician to say on the eave of an national election that the policies that his son has pursued for eight years, and which he probably voiced his opinions on over the years, were wrong.? Why would he repudiate his own family to support his political enemies? Why would a president who was pretty savvy on foreign policy think that such a tour would do any good?
More importantly, what would possess former president Clinton to think that saying this kind of thing in private, let alone public, would be a good idea.
Sorry folks, but this one causes a person to suspend all sense of disbelief. (Hmm, seems I've heard that phrase before. I wonder where.)
I was rubbing the sleep from my eyes this morning and was getting ready to turn off the TV and turn on the radio. (I tend to leave the TV on through the night in order to light the bedroom so that I don't trip over anything in the dark through the night.) I was brought up short this morning however by a man who appeared to be dressed in a clown suit talking about free government money to be had, and offering to tell people how to get it if they would just send him $19.95. I laughed at the way that he looked, the way that he talked, and the offer that he was making. Then it struck me: THAT'S MY MONEY HE'S TRYING TO GIVE AWAY!
Recent self-education has reminded me that the government has no money accept that which they extort from me by force. Therefore, what this guy is trying to give a way is money stolen from me.
- Could this make him an accessory after the fact to the theft of that money?
- Could this man be charged with solicitation to obtain stolen property?
Concerned, I went to my computer and Google searched government money and free government money. You would be absolutely amazed to learn how many websites there are out there to help you get money from the government, including more than one from the government itself, like this one: http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Benefits.shtml .
It's bad enough that government is stealing my hard earned money for its own nefarious purposes. It's worse that people are stupid enough to believe that this money is "free", when in fact it comes out of their pockets. It's worse still when that the government is so intent on capital redistribution that feels the need to spend more of my tax dollars in the creation of websites to give my money away. It seems positively criminal that someone has decided to make a living by enabling this reprehensible conduct by the government.
I'm sorry, but it's been a bad week and discovering this is only making it worse. I think that I am going to go back to bed and pull the covers up over my head. I won't even turn the TV on, as it's obvious that performing even these simple acts can lead to serious depression.
For those of you concerned enough to ask, I am still waiting for my 2nd interview for the Santa position that I was trying to get at Victoria's Secret. Actually, I am still waiting for my 1st interview. I have not given up hope however, and will be making the trip down to Columbus this weekend in the hope of pleading my case personally.
Now this trip to our state capital (and the corporate headquarters of Victoria's secret) has no direct tie to my employment effort, nor does it have anything to do with the football game this weekend surprisingly enough; but the opportunity presented seems too good a one to pass up. With luck, the interview that I hope to get will in some way make up for the resume that I sent out (next time I will know better than to tell the truth).
There have been some who, having scrutinized my motives in seeking such a position, have come to the conclusion that I should get my old "Aqualung" suit out of mothballs (and I actually used to have one of these from a band that I played with in the 70's).
Let me assure you however, that I am merely looking for a source of additional income to subsidize the increased tax burden that the recent Toledo and Lucas County levy votes have placed me under, and maybe buy some extra gifts for the grand kids. (Besides, the green trench-coat and helmet liner of that Aqualung suit are looking pretty bad and no longer fit me.)
Anyway, I am hoping to hear something on this soon, as not trimming the beard is beginning to get kind of annoying. Neither am I entirely comfortable with the waves that I get from small children at the grocery store.
I will keep you posted (literally and figuratively)...
There is a TV commercial currently making the rounds that is put on by the folks at Dividedwefall.org. It's supposed to tug at our heartstrings by using children to tell us what kind of candidates that they would vote for if they were only old enough to vote.
First of all let me say that once again, a liberal organization is shamelessly using children to promote their agenda, a practice which is truly beginning to sicken me. (though I am not looking for government health care to treat this illness)
Second, there is little doubt that these are well-coached child actors who would normally not know the first thing about the issues that they are speaking about or be able to voice their opinions so coherently if they were not working off of a script written by someone with an agenda.
Third, since these are in fact children, with very little exposure to the realities of life, why in heaven's name would I use their opinion (even if I agreed with it) to guide my voting preferences?
OK, three strikes, you're out!
I am really getting tired of any group, liberal or conservative, hiding behind children in order to get their message heard. If you believe in the message, stand behind it yourself and be proud. Don't take a cowards approach of using children as a shield.
I am equally tired of the story that the job of elected officials or of the government is to take care of the citizens.
While it has been a while since I have taken a civics class (hell, they probably don't even call them that any more), it seems to me that I remember that elected officials are sent to represent constituents, and that only. I don't care whether the cause is fixing health care or saving an endangered toad, the government exceeds its authority when it attempts such things. The Constitution defines not only the responsibilities of government, but the limits of it. If the citizens do not like those limits, they have the right and responsibility to change that document; and they have a mechanism (Amending) with which to do so.
When are we going to recognize that it is not the government's job to supplant the care given by family, friends, or the simple generosity of perfect strangers in caring for each other?
When are we going to recognize that it has always been the spirit of self reliance and stubborn pride in our own accomplishments that has made this country great?
So for all of you organizations out there trying to influence, cajole, persuade, or threaten me; for all of you groups that have a social agenda to push on me; for all of you who wish to tug on my heartstrings in order to change this country's government into something antithetical to the design of its Founding Fathers; let me tell you that you need not bother. I am after all a conservative, and one with a very libertarian point of view. It should therefore be readily apparent to you that I have no heart.
Those of you who haven't paid attention to my picture on the blog page may not have noticed that both my hair and beard have gone from their natural color (which I realize now that I have forgotten) to gray, and thence to white. Having attained the stature (translate as sheer bulk) that I have achieved in my life, it begs the question about the opportunities to play Santa Claus at local stores at this time of the year.
While my appearance has made such possibilities obvious, I have managed to resist the temptation up to this point. I have been presented with one that may be beyond my capacity to resist in recent days however. It has been suggested that I would make a great Santa Claus at a Victoria's Secret store.
Now my knowledge of ladies undergarments, lingerie, or perfumes might be severely limited by the fact that I am neither a cross-dresser, nor gay; but the opportunity to have the typical shopper at Victoria's Secret sit on my lap before making their personal selections presents some interesting potential as a way to make extra cash during the Holiday season.
I'm sorry if this idea offends anyone, but at my age one should never discount any opportunity that involves young, attractive women sitting in your lap for any reason (no matter how small that lap seems to have become).
I don't know if the position is open, or even if it exists; but I have to admit that the possibility intrigues me. Being a red-blooded American male (though a rather senior one), I have therefore decided to stop trimming my beard until the facts of the situation can be ascertained.
(... for any of you reading this who happen to work for Les Wexner, you can let him know that I am available)
I will let you know what I discover.
This is something that I expect will become a irregularly regular part of this blog. It will consist of things not worthy of a full posting, but particularly annoying to me none the less. Todays annoyance is:
"Go Out and Play"
This commercial has been running on the radio the last couple of weeks on the local radio stations and has finally gotten to me. Using a professional announcer to reminisce with us through those "four words" that we have been hearing since we were kids, and to a soothing musical background, we are lovingly allowed to picture in our minds the fields of our youth, sports, apple pie, and a simpler time in our lives. This gentle soul then explains to us that we can return to that feeling by gambling at a Native American Casino in Michigan?
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong! Forget all of the junk about gambling addiction, throwing away the rent money on a slot machine, or the grocery money at the blackjack table. Anyone who feels the need to do so has a personal problem and needs to deal with it. What I object to is the not too subtle play on the memories of my youth (which are now ruined by the way) and the assumption that I am so stupid that I would feel that hanging around inside a windowless casino while losing my last buck would bring them back.
Nice try, but your blatant attempt to play on my emotions has gotten an emotional reaction. I will now go across a national border to Canada to throw away my money before I will give it to you.
You know, it seems like only a month ago I was doing a posting on the government stepping in to bail out those who gambled and lost in the real estate market with adjustable rate mortgages. (Oh wait, it was just a month ago!) Well it seems that much like I had warned, the auto industry is picking up torch and is running with it as if they were on their way to the Beijing games with a bunch of Tibetan protesters nipping at their heals.
