Quote of the Day

An infrequent addition to my repertoire of nonsense (since I already have a Quotes of the Week section), I was never the less struck by this one in light of the days hi jinks in Congress over the "Bailout / Buy In" legislation, and thought that you might be as well.  



The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.  
- Oscar Levant

Trivial Pursuit #2

Once again, I have decided to subject you to the fruits of my hobby of collecting bits of totally useless information. I do this because I find such information endless fascinating, and because the creative spirit occasionally abandons me. Unrepentant about my occasional lapses, it is my hope that you will enjoy them as much as I do.
 

• Two classic expressions are in fact related to each other. The first "Saved By The Bell" comes from a device used to keep from burying people alive. During the 17th century, people were sometimes buried with a bell tied to their hands. If for some reason the newly interned should have been buried mistakenly, they could ring the bell, and be released from their premature grave. The person who monitored this bell (usually at night, since the burial had been performed during the previous day) worked "The Graveyard Shift". As time passed and embalming became a more common practice, the "Saved By The Bell" expression passed into boxing lexicon. It was transformed in the 19th century, where it was used to describe being saved from a knockout by the sound of the bell signaling the end of the round (at the time boxing matches often went 50 or more rounds). The "Graveyard Shift" likewise changed in meaning, becoming the act of working the shift corresponding to those earlier graveyard labors.
• The Chimney was developed during the 13th Century in Europe to help heat houses during a climactic change that was called a mini “Ice Age”
• In old Siam (Thailand), white elephants were so rare that they were automatically considered the property of the emperor when born. To punish people for offense, that emperor would sometimes give them a white elephant, because while they had to care for it, they could neither ride nor work it. Hence the expression, "as useless as a white elephant".
• In the Middle Ages, much like today, no one really much trusted anyone else. With paranoia running rampant, people would often hold their hand out palm up (and empty) to show that they were not going to attack you with a sword when they got to you. This gesture, used to put everyone at ease, evolved into the modern custom of the handshake.
• In the days when the foxhunt was considered good sport, dogs were trained to hunt for that fox by scent. Initially the dogs were trained to follow a scent by dragging a dead fish commonly found in the local waters along the ground. Later as their training progressed, the same kind of fish would be used, dragging it across the scent trail of an actual fox to see if the dogs would now follow the actual prey or the distraction from their earlier training. Hence the expression, “following a red herring". 
• Global warming (if it actually exists) is more likely to produce another Ice Age rather than the flooding of the world’s coasts currently being touted. The most likely scenario is that the melting of the polar cap in the north would reach a tipping point, changing the percentage of fresh water in the North Atlantic. This change, if drastic enough, could potentially stop the Atlantic conveyor belt which is part of the planet’s heat exchange system. This system brings heat to the northern hemisphere from the equator, and is more commonly known as the Gulf Stream. It's loss would cause the entire northern hemisphere to freeze under rampant glaciation.

 

Won The Battle, Losing The War

Don't you feel a stirring of pride when you remember President Reagan saying back in 1987, "Mr Gorbachov, tear down this wall!" ? Don't we all look back at this as the point when the tide was turned in the Cold War against Communism? Does anybody else think today that maybe we started doing the victory lap just a little bit early? 

 Oh I'm not talking about Putin and his nonsense in Georgia. That's important issue of its own and should be of great concern to us, but there is a far graver situation, far closer to home that should be drawing our attention. While we have been fighting the battles to promote Democracy around the world, it seems to me that we have been losing the war promoting it in the US. I can come to no other conclusion after looking at the handling of recent events in the financial markets. 

With barely a dissenting voice to be heard, the Federal government has in a very short space in time, acquired or all but acquired a huge stake in the financial market. With little debate and in the dead of night (or over the weekend), THE BUREAUCRACY in Washington has all but nationalized the mortgage industry with the acquisition of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and and the impending one of AIG. Not only is such an action one that the federal government is not empowered to do under the Constitution, but this gross misappropriation of power has been taken by officials who were elected to no office and are responsible to no voter. 

While Congress hides behind ignorance (and apparently, stupidity), confusion, and the need for time to run campaigns to keep the jobs that they refuse to perform; they have turned over the reigns of power to political appointees and bureaucrats. These backroom generals in turn, while telling us that it is for our own good, have quietly surrendered to strategies right out of the teachings of Karl Marx. 

In the name of the very Democratic government which employs them, they betray the principles on which that government was founded by their actions. In violation of everything that we hold sacred and that they are empowered to defend, these bottom dwelling pencil pushers steal the very freedoms that our government was created to protect. Without public debate or discussion, these slaves to the bureaucratic mentality seek to enslave not only us but future generations, with a crushing burden of debt the like of which has never been seen before. 

What next for these betrayers of Democratic principles and free-market economies? The auto industry is already holding its hand out for subsidies and loans. The airline industry appears to be not far behind if their business does not change substantially. Even Newspapers, fast approaching a potential financial oblivion of their own, could be on the list for a government bailout. 

Will this government, flush from the massive intrusion into the world economy just made, seek new conquests? Will a federal bureaucracy, who for many years has had a goal of expansion and intrusion into the everyday lives of Americans, be allowed to continue on this path without check by a Congress that has shown itself to have a backbone that comes off poorly in comparison with a well cooked bit of fettuccine? Will either politician seeking the highest office in the land stand up against this betrayal of the very democracy that they seek to lead? 

Thomas Jefferson warned us about such dangers, stating: "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." I believe that we have all but proved him right in recent days. And as the casualties in this failing battle to defend Democratic principles against the encroachment of Socialism at home mount, we must ask ourselves how many battles we are willing to lose in this war. 

The "Stuck On Stupid" Toledo Dictionary #10

Time is short today, but one entry needs to be posted to the SOS (Stuck On Stupid) Dictionary of terms that mean something slightly different in Toledo, OH.

Bold Initiative

1. Proposals made in a tired effort to expand the influence, intrusion, and control of government. Such proposals are always financed by taxpayer dollars, but in the end serve no real purpose other than to create a "feel good" sound bite for the politician using them as a stepping stone to keep or gain office

Talent

While agonizing recently over my desire to do a better job at writing these little literary gems, I began to think about the talent actually required to do so. It didn't take me long to realize that it was much easier to think about it (and its ramifications) than to possess it. Before I knew it, I was scribbling notes to myself on the subject, and this inevitably led to a list of comparisons in which I, like most, suffer. 

Undaunted by this realization and never wanting to keep such valuable information to myself, I decided to share it with all of you. Look closely if you dare, and decide which side of each statement you might fall on.

• Talent on loan from God (sorry Rush) vs. talent on loan from someone who really, really wanted to loan it out, as it was doing them little good.
• Talent that has a better chance of getting you on "America's Most Wanted" than "American Idol"
• Talent that makes you considered a virtuoso of a piano keyboard instead of the kind that overloads the spell and grammar check functions on a computer from your use of its keyboard.
• Talent that allows you to make a major scientific or medical breakthrough instead of the kind that makes you break through the window of the lab at a hospital.
• Talent that would allow you to spin endlessly fascinating stories rather than that which allows you to endlessly spin in your chair while waiting for inspiration to smile upon you while attempting to write one.
• Talent that would allow you to prepare gourmet meals for yourself and your friends instead of that which allows you to treat fried hot dogs in the macaroni and cheese as such a meal.
• Talent that inspires your friends to explore their own gifts instead of the kind that inspires them to explore the the disinfectant shelf to keep whatever you have from spreading to them.

I would love to share which side of each of these statements that I feel that I fall on, but I am embarrassed enough to realize that you managed to figure that out fairly early in the list. Hey! Perhaps by admitting the simple fact of my own shortcomings to you, I could be said to have shown a talent for understatement. 

 

The Color of Money

I have been hearing some rumors of a proposal for some interesting federal legislation floating around this election year that I think needs a bit more attention. I saw it first mentioned in a George Will Column relating to McCain's presidential campaign, but I can't think of a truly more bi-partisan issue, especially in light of recent events. The premise of this legislation is pretty simple: No company should receive federal money in any way or of any kind if any of its employees make more than the current highest level of federal bureaucrat. Just so we are clear on this, the current top level of government bureaucrat (GS-15) makes $124,010.00, which was a livable wage the last time that I looked (everywhere but in NYC and California). Understand, this does not mean that a corporation could not pay its employees or CEO the exorbitant remuneration that some of them get these days. Banks, automakers, computer manufacturers, and even evil oil companies will still be free to throw money hand over fist at an all-star management team if they so choose. If they do so however, they could not come cap in hand to the government for any type financial assistance. Just think of the ramifications:

• The recent Bear Sterns bailout couldn't have happened, as their managers made 'just a bit more' than the limit.
• The Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac bailout couldn't have happened for the same reason.
• The Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers nonsense become situations that the market simply has to sort out.
• The AIG guarantees couldn't happen.
• No subsidies for Enron or Exxon for any reason as long as they keep their current pay scales.
• The bailout for Chrysler in days of yore never would have happened and the one staring us in the face for GM and Ford couldn't happen.
• The bailout just over the horizon for the airline industry (mark my words) could never happen.
• Even large farmers couldn't get crop subsidies unless they were paying themselves less the the $124k maximum.

It's pretty simple really. If you can afford to pay someone more than the highest paid government bureaucrat, you don't need the government handout that those bureaucrats would have to process. Not only is this the ultimate in fiscal responsibility, but it fits the agendas of both liberal and conservative thinkers:

• Liberals don't want money being handed out to "evil corporations" as Corporate Welfare.
• Conservatives want Welfare Reform.

*In addition, think of the money that could be saved in the cost of the federal bureaucracy that currently has to oversee and process all of the various forms of government largesse.
Now I know that such a proposal reeks of logic and common sense, two things which are normally an anathema to the operation of government, but this is an election year and a great opportunity for candidates who say they are for it to take a stand "for change". Maggie Thurber has spoken on a number of occasions on getting candidates to sign on to the concept of transparent government budgets. I would like to add this legislation to her list and ask that candidates step up on a plan to reduce or eliminate corporate subsidies in all of their various forms.

And what does this have to do with the title of this posting? Why I thought that you would never ask! It's that I would like to call this legislation "The Color of Money Act". If your company is in the red, but your employees are in the green, don't come looking for financial help from the red, white, and blue. 

Lipstick On A Brick

The hours are fairly crowded these days with real things that must be dealt with, so I thought that I would try and save time and take on two subjects at once (one National, one Local) that seem so simple that they shouldn't even have to be covered.  

Lipstick on a Pig  
No, I don't believe that Sen Obama meant to insult Gov Palin directly by this comment. Anyone who has survived long enough in politics and has gained the office of US Senator can't be stupid enough to think that he could get away with the insult. On the other hand, Sen Obama has proved himself what could best be called impolitic by some of his comments in the past. Pandering to an audience in the Midwest by talking about traditional values, then insulting those values to an audience on the West Coast (clinging to guns and religion) illustrates that the Senator is sometimes more concerned with a good line (what politician isn't?) than good sense or consistency. 

The McCain campaign's immediate retaliatory attack was predictable. While good political strategy (as measured these days), it is just another example of a claim of the very victimization that Gov Palin wants to prove to us she is above. The response has generated a lot of attention, but probably could have been done better. For example: At Gov Palin's next speech, she wipes the lipstick from her face dramatically, laughs lightly, and says, "The Republican Party needs no lipstick to tell Sen Obama and the American people that change is only good if it is change for the better. You can call your change another New Deal or The Great Society, but that won't make it anything other than an expansion of the welfare state."  

The Toledo United Way Building 
This issue continues to be a lively one in Toledo, with a couple of politicians and the newspaper at odds with the owners of the building and some of the other media. 

The owners, United Way, would like to tear a building down that no longer meets code, that they can no longer fill and that they cannot afford to maintain or upgrade, to build a more affordable building on the same site. Those in opposition to this demolition and reconstruction are supported in this effort by some of the local electronic media The Mayor, a county commissioner, and the newspaper. They would like to see the building remain, perhaps with a new owner. They are joined in their effort by a couple of preservation groups (that I at least have never heard of) and the original architect (big surprise there). 

In other words, in a city where there are lots of empty buildings, there are some people who want to make sure that one more is added to the list. They would like to prevent the group that had a building designed and built for its use, a building that they still own and which no longer fits that use, from tearing it down and building something in its place that they want and can use. That which they seek to tear down is not on any historical register of buildings, nor is its architectural design of any real significance. Its only claim to fame or survival is that it has been there for a while. Oh yeah, and that some "very important people" want the building to remain.  

What They Say About Us 
The Obama / Palin furor simply points out the continual dumbing down of American Politics, and perhaps America as a whole. Hyper sensitivity to remarks regarding race, gender, and belief systems have taken over honest political debate. People are so wrapped up looking to find offenses that they lose track of the issues being debated. The "Downstream Media", in a feeding frenzy to play some part, exacerbates the situation by endlessly streaming video and soundbites in a 24 hour buffet for our consumption. 

My advise is quitting whining "He hit me first", and get back to the issues. This country is in crisis and we don't need the two choices for our next leader acting like a couple of 6 year-olds (no insult intended to 6 year-olds). 

The United Way building points to comparable childish behavior on the local level. Not content to do their own jobs, "important people" in both the public and private sector would like to interfere with everyone else doing theirs. This is almost laughable on the part of elected officials who feel that we can make good choices by putting them in office, but feel that we lose that ability the first time that we disagree with them. And as for the newspaper, you have other things that need your attention. It's not your building that's crumbling around your ears (at least as far as I know), but the business itself. Concern yourself with that if you need something. 

Perhaps the only way to live with these situations (borrowing from both) is to put lipstick on a brick. Maybe the only way to draw enough attention to these as nonsense, idiocy, and hypocrisy is to mix the metaphors. Grow a thicker skin, leave your neighbors to their own business, and stop getting caught up in the petty bullshit people! There are serious times ahead and we need you to focus. 

Losing Neverland

In my quest to entertain myself while avoiding in any way watching the political conventions, I found that I had inadvertently rediscovered something far more important than the next person who sits in the White House. 

You see, people come and go in the job of President of the United States, and that was how it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Just over 40 men have served in the position, and we have had just about every level of intelligence (or lack of it) possible. We have also been exposed to every noble virtue and every human foible existing in the human condition. So no matter what we end up with at the end of the election this year, we will survive it. 

What I discovered instead while ignoring the nonsense of the conventions was far more important. It was a bit of the sense of magic and wonder, the sense of the ridiculous that allows us in fact to survive such momentous events and the people participating in them. 

Almost without conscious effort, I found myself drawn to "Young Frankenstein" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" on DVD. For those of you never exposed to these two movies by the way (possibly because you live under a rock on another planet), I cannot think of two movies that I would recommend more. If there are any films more ridiculous or just flat out funny, I have yet to find them. 

I think perhaps that they opened me up to a little known Johnny Depp movie from 2004 that I finally got around to viewing in its entirety, "Finding Neverland". As the title implies the story has to do with the tale of James Barrie, creator of the character, play, and novel "Peter Pan". It lets us in on how he discovered in this story, the secret of eternal youth. Not in the physical sense of course, but in the truest sense possible, a spirit of youth. 

Far too many of us lose our grasp on the spirit that allows us to imagine what could be, to fantasize about what might be, and to see the world for what we "want" it to be. We get far too wrapped up in our mundane existence and the things that we believe are all but earth shattering to retain the spirit that so inspired us in our youth. In creating the world of Peter Pan, James Barrie told all of us that such spirit can be eternal for any of us; but that the "ticking crocodile" of time is always at our heels, and the villains in our lives (like Captain Hook) are always there to challenge our ability to remain true to that spirit. 

Now that the conventions are over and the parties hope to whip us into a frenzy over their respective choices, I hope that I will be able to maintain a sense of perspective on the nonsense that follows. I hope that I won't soon forget the much more important lesson that I relearned almost by accident during this period. I hope that I can continue to remain true to the spirit of Peter Pan, even while attempting to deal effectively with every one of the mundane and serious aspects of my everyday life. I hope that the wonder and imagination of youth continue to remain a part of my life as the rest of me advances through the coming years. I hope with all of my heart that I never lose the spirit of Neverland. 

I find myself hoping that at the end of my days, that it should be said of me that I had the one described by one of the characters in the film at the debut of the play, Peter Pan. In describing her recently departed husband, Mrs. Stone commented, "He was really just a boy himself you know ... to the very end." I wish the same for each of you ...

 

Don't Hold Your Breath ... Yet

 
Once again, and with little or no fanfare, the United States is on the verge of startling change. Fringe environmental groups, working with the Environmental Protection Agency are working to monitor the production of greenhouse gases.


I am sure right now, that many of you are saying "... and about time. The planet is in peril, animal species are dying all over the planet, and global warming is imminent." While current evidence belies these conclusions, I will not choose to debate that subject here and now. I will only point out that by this self-given mandate, the EPA will have a dramatic impact on the future.

But before I go on, a little history might be in order.

In 1999, environmental groups petitioned the EPA to take on the regulatory function of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and it refused. Later in 2003, the EPA in fact declared that it had no authority to do so under the CAA, since it provided no mandatory authority to address global warming related emissions. 

The environmental groups appealed to the DC District Court which agreed with the EPA decision, saying that the CAA allows regulation only when the "public health or welfare" is endangered. In April of 2007, the Supreme Court overturned this decision however saying that the EPA must, "ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute". Translated, this means that if the EPA thinks it should regulate something for the public good, then it should.

Now that we are all caught up, let me finally let you in on the dirty little secret that I have been avoiding. What we are talking about here is the regulation CARBON DIOXIDE. Yes, the innocuous gas that plants convert to oxygen has now fallen under the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency has since issued what it calls an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-making (ANPR) that will say the following:

• Lawnmowers will need standards of exhaust based on the size of the lawn mowed (Grass Mileage)
• Permits would be required for the construction of new sources of pollution (You know, businesses).
• Speed limiters would be installed on over-the-road trucks to reduce their output (though we would assume that Public Transportation like buses or trains would be exempt from such regulation).
• Small businesses and even single-family homes could and would be considered polluters, as they would exceed government mandated outputs.

And the world is changed by government fiat. No law need be passed, no vote need ever be taken. No citizen or elected official need ever choose to see this done. All that needs to happen is for a bunch of behind-the-scenes bureaucrats to sit around a table and decide, and sweeping new mandates will be prosecuted with the force of law. 

People who never ran for office and who will answer to little or no one will decide almost every aspect of our lives in the name of protecting us from a substance produced by the planet itself. The EPA will gain a vitual stranglehold on everything from new home construction, to the use of machinery on farms, to an almost complete control of the growth of the economy itself.  

Of course there is another source of carbon dioxide that I haven't mentioned yet, it's you and me. Every time that we expel a breath, we contribute to the pollution of the planet, as defined by them, by producing CO2 (I am not counting the other gases potentially expelled. That's for another posting.) 

How long do we need to wait before the act of breathing becomes a regulated function? How long before having a child requires a permit, since it would add another source of pollution production? (Beats the hell out rug rat for a nickname) How long before the government sets a "carbon footprint" tax for everyday existence? 

Sound far-fetched? Well if it does, you don't remember when catalytic converters were mandated, or when mileage standards for automobiles were created. I don't know about you, but I'm ready to take up the torches and pitchforks before they outlaw the torches (or speech for that matter) as a source of pollution!

The "Stuck on Stupid" Toledo Dictionary #9

 
Once again, we find that there are additional words that must be added to the "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary of Toledo. These particular entries provide me absolutely no joy, but intellectual honesty requires that I do so. (Please no cracks about the intellectual remark.)  

Stupidity:
1. Doing the same thing over and over again, knowing that you are going to get caught at it and that getting caught will cause further problems for you, and doing it anyway. 2. Locking your dog in the car for the 4th time, and expecting to get away with it.  

Cowardice:
1.Being an organization responsible for the safety of animals and refusing to do so when the offense is being committed by the Mayor. (Shame on you Humane Society)