Around 5 this evening, I was in the Commons at school talking to a friend. I had class at 6 and was about to microwave my dinner and finish up some reading for class. While chatting with my friend, I glanced over at the tv at the end of the room.
Anderson Cooper was on above a "breaking news" headline. I was too far across the room to hear the report or to read what was scrolling along the bottom of the screen. I mentioned the breaking news to my friend, who wasn't surprised. She'd already heard: a plane crashed into a building in New York.
Wait... what?
Yes, that's right. A small plane had crashed into a building in New York. She didn't yet know much in the way of details though.
Of course it turned out not to be what we all fear at such a sight; it wasn't terrorism. It was a horrible accident. A small plane -- one person on board -- had a problem and the pilot clearly was unable to reach a safe place to land.
I'm sure you all know the rest of the details that have so far been discovered and released (said pilot was a pitcher for the Yankees; there had been a mayday, something about fuel; etc.).
I admit I didn't take note of the date on my own. I read it online somewhere.
Today is 10/11.
I can't even begin to imagine being a New Yorker today: five years and one month later, you're walking down the street, there's a plane that's too loud. You look up, it's too low. Before you have time to register anything, it crashes into a building. There's a fire, smoke. Shortly thereafter there are sirens, fire trucks, ambulances. Surely there were such witnesses. What must they have thought?
I can't even begin to imagine being a New York fire fighter today: five years and one month later, you get a call that a plane has crashed into a building, there's a 4-alarm fire, get your boots on and get moving. I can't imagine what went through their minds. I can't imagine how they felt. Did they freeze? Panic? Did they have flashbacks? Or did it not even occur to them? Did they not think, but instead just get to the fire and get to work? Are their reactions to fires ingrained and automatic enough that you go, period? But even then, what must they have thought upon arrival? I don't think anyone would have realized yet that this wasn't something bigger, more sinister. As they went through their routine, did imagines of friends lost go through their minds? Was there fear of the possibilities?
I can't even imagine.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Monday, October 2, 2006
What is going on?
A clearly crazy 32-year-old man shot up a one-room Amish schoolhouse today. He killed six little girls before turning a gun on himself. He also seriously injured a few others. He allowed the boys to leave the room, keeping only girls behind. He tied their feet and killed them "execution style." Apparently he did this as some sort of twisted revenge for something that happened to him when he was 12. He left behind a wife and kids.
And this was the third school shooting in the past week.
What is going on?
Meanwhile, Rep. Foley has resigned and checked himself into rehab after his inappropriate emails/IMs to teenage pages got out. This from a guy who was wanting to crack down on internet predators and online kiddie porn.
Nice.
And the latest update on the Amish school: a fourth girl has died.
Though these two stories are completely unrelated to one another, I've become slightly obsessed with them both. They are somehow linked in my mind. As examples of a world gone a little mad, perhaps.
And this was the third school shooting in the past week.
What is going on?
Meanwhile, Rep. Foley has resigned and checked himself into rehab after his inappropriate emails/IMs to teenage pages got out. This from a guy who was wanting to crack down on internet predators and online kiddie porn.
Nice.
And the latest update on the Amish school: a fourth girl has died.
Though these two stories are completely unrelated to one another, I've become slightly obsessed with them both. They are somehow linked in my mind. As examples of a world gone a little mad, perhaps.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
So much to talk about...
There has been so much going on this summer, it's really quite surprising that I haven't done better at blogging. Though honestly, I get so upset and frustrated by all the garbage, I don't blog about it because I just want to forget about it for a few minutes. So what has been going on...
Ohio politics. What a joke. Though there was some good news last week: Ney has withdrawn. But before you get too excited, the talk is that he'll be replaced on the ballot by Padget. She's no better than he is. So by all means, let's unleash her on a national level. I so hope the Dem candidate can manage to pull off a miracle. That is such an incredibly Republican area, they'll vote for absolutely anyone on the Republican ticket. Even Ney, who is so tied up in scandal and corruption, it's really difficult to imagine.
Strickland is still polling ahead of Blackwell. Of course, Blackwell is still in charge of the election (yes, that's right, he still has not recused himself... and he's currently being sued for more stupid Secretary of State tricks involving the rules around elections and registering to vote), so I'm not entirely sure it matters what the people prefer. We may end up with the candidate that those in charge of the ballot boxes want... again.
Lieberman. He lost the primary -- no surprise there -- and is still planning to run as an Independent on the November ballot. Idiot. He says he's doing this because the people want him. Odd stance for him to have, given that he lost the primary!! So nice to have such a team player in the party. The big Dems are of course all supporting the winner of the primary (Ned Lamont). Must say I'm really glad he's not our VP. As much as I wanted Gore as our Prez, I would not want Lieberman in the VP's office. And actually I think Al Gore can get a lot more accomplished outside of the White House. So perhaps everything really does happen for a reason. Maybe it was better that Gore didn't win in 2000. Oh wait a minute. Al Gore did win in 2000. One of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever made. And speaking of the new Court... I am so not going there.
The Middle East is imploding. And where were W and the VP? Why, on vacation of course. But never you fear, Condi was on the job. I feel safer already.
The Tour de France. Flandis, Flandis, Flandis (er, that would be Floyd Landis; no memory of why I started calling him Flandis, but it amuses me so I've continued). The boy is just dumb. I mean, if he did it... well, d'oh. And if he didn't do it... well, d'oh. He really couldn't have handled this any worse than he has. I've lost count of how many excuses he's offered. Not good for his whole "I'm innocent" story. We shall see. Or we won't. Could be he gets off on a technicality because the UCI and the lab and everyone else has handled this so badly. They sort of haven't followed the rules. However, I think that getting off on a technicality, while perhaps the easier path to pursue, would be the worst thing for everyone. He would never have had the chance to prove his innocence and so would always be considered guilty by many. And the powers that be would not have had the chance to prove his guilt, so it'd be a big ugly bruise on the sport itself. What a mess.
So much else has gone on this summer, but I'm going to skip it all. On a much lighter and less important note, I'm learning to knit. My first project was a Christmas stocking. And it looks pretty good, if I do say so myself. My second project is a bag. It's going pretty quickly. This will have to be felted, which I've never done before. So we shall see how this turns out.
And surprisingly enough, classes start a week from tomorrow. Amazing. My last year of law school. This time next year, I'll be recovering from the Bar (no, not that Bar... I mean the incredibly fun 3 day test I have to take before being admitted to practice law in Ohio). And working. Hopefully. Who knows what I'll be doing, but I do hope to have a job!! Okay, not just a job. I do hope not to be working something other than your run of the mill entry level position. I mean a real grown up job for which I actually need one or perhaps even two of my degrees. I'll have paid enough for two of them (and the 'rents paid enough for that first one) that it'd be ever so nice if they proved to be useful for the making of a living...
Ohio politics. What a joke. Though there was some good news last week: Ney has withdrawn. But before you get too excited, the talk is that he'll be replaced on the ballot by Padget. She's no better than he is. So by all means, let's unleash her on a national level. I so hope the Dem candidate can manage to pull off a miracle. That is such an incredibly Republican area, they'll vote for absolutely anyone on the Republican ticket. Even Ney, who is so tied up in scandal and corruption, it's really difficult to imagine.
Strickland is still polling ahead of Blackwell. Of course, Blackwell is still in charge of the election (yes, that's right, he still has not recused himself... and he's currently being sued for more stupid Secretary of State tricks involving the rules around elections and registering to vote), so I'm not entirely sure it matters what the people prefer. We may end up with the candidate that those in charge of the ballot boxes want... again.
Lieberman. He lost the primary -- no surprise there -- and is still planning to run as an Independent on the November ballot. Idiot. He says he's doing this because the people want him. Odd stance for him to have, given that he lost the primary!! So nice to have such a team player in the party. The big Dems are of course all supporting the winner of the primary (Ned Lamont). Must say I'm really glad he's not our VP. As much as I wanted Gore as our Prez, I would not want Lieberman in the VP's office. And actually I think Al Gore can get a lot more accomplished outside of the White House. So perhaps everything really does happen for a reason. Maybe it was better that Gore didn't win in 2000. Oh wait a minute. Al Gore did win in 2000. One of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever made. And speaking of the new Court... I am so not going there.
The Middle East is imploding. And where were W and the VP? Why, on vacation of course. But never you fear, Condi was on the job. I feel safer already.
The Tour de France. Flandis, Flandis, Flandis (er, that would be Floyd Landis; no memory of why I started calling him Flandis, but it amuses me so I've continued). The boy is just dumb. I mean, if he did it... well, d'oh. And if he didn't do it... well, d'oh. He really couldn't have handled this any worse than he has. I've lost count of how many excuses he's offered. Not good for his whole "I'm innocent" story. We shall see. Or we won't. Could be he gets off on a technicality because the UCI and the lab and everyone else has handled this so badly. They sort of haven't followed the rules. However, I think that getting off on a technicality, while perhaps the easier path to pursue, would be the worst thing for everyone. He would never have had the chance to prove his innocence and so would always be considered guilty by many. And the powers that be would not have had the chance to prove his guilt, so it'd be a big ugly bruise on the sport itself. What a mess.
So much else has gone on this summer, but I'm going to skip it all. On a much lighter and less important note, I'm learning to knit. My first project was a Christmas stocking. And it looks pretty good, if I do say so myself. My second project is a bag. It's going pretty quickly. This will have to be felted, which I've never done before. So we shall see how this turns out.
And surprisingly enough, classes start a week from tomorrow. Amazing. My last year of law school. This time next year, I'll be recovering from the Bar (no, not that Bar... I mean the incredibly fun 3 day test I have to take before being admitted to practice law in Ohio). And working. Hopefully. Who knows what I'll be doing, but I do hope to have a job!! Okay, not just a job. I do hope not to be working something other than your run of the mill entry level position. I mean a real grown up job for which I actually need one or perhaps even two of my degrees. I'll have paid enough for two of them (and the 'rents paid enough for that first one) that it'd be ever so nice if they proved to be useful for the making of a living...
Monday, July 10, 2006
No, Joe, no
So apparently Joseph Lieberman is now a Republican.
I say this because he has now said that if he does not win the Democratic primary in his state, then he will run on the November ballot anyway. Since that would of course split the Democratic vote, thus pretty much ensuring a win for the Republicans, I've decided Lieberman is now a Republican. Of course, that's not really such a huge stretch for him anyway.
His performance in the recent debate with his Democratic opponent was apparently not much to brag about. He was reported to be very Republican-like: started the night on the defensive and came out attacking. By the way Joe, that's the approach of the underdog. Just in case you were wondering.
It's beyond me that he would do this. What a Stunt. Some of the bigwigs in the party have said that they will not support him if he is on the ticket as "an individual."
I don't know what he's thinking. Perhaps he was tired of the Republicans being constantly accused of election year stunts and decided that the Dems should join in the fun and attention.
And to think we actually elected him VP (you know, in the real election count... the one where we elected Al Gore and his running mate, aka Joe Lieberman).
Word has it that Lieberman will win the primary, that it may be closer than he's used to, but it will be a victory for him.
What a shame. Because with stunts like this, I'm really not clear that I want him to be part of the Democratic party representing us all in Washington.
I say this because he has now said that if he does not win the Democratic primary in his state, then he will run on the November ballot anyway. Since that would of course split the Democratic vote, thus pretty much ensuring a win for the Republicans, I've decided Lieberman is now a Republican. Of course, that's not really such a huge stretch for him anyway.
His performance in the recent debate with his Democratic opponent was apparently not much to brag about. He was reported to be very Republican-like: started the night on the defensive and came out attacking. By the way Joe, that's the approach of the underdog. Just in case you were wondering.
It's beyond me that he would do this. What a Stunt. Some of the bigwigs in the party have said that they will not support him if he is on the ticket as "an individual."
I don't know what he's thinking. Perhaps he was tired of the Republicans being constantly accused of election year stunts and decided that the Dems should join in the fun and attention.
And to think we actually elected him VP (you know, in the real election count... the one where we elected Al Gore and his running mate, aka Joe Lieberman).
Word has it that Lieberman will win the primary, that it may be closer than he's used to, but it will be a victory for him.
What a shame. Because with stunts like this, I'm really not clear that I want him to be part of the Democratic party representing us all in Washington.
Wednesday, July 5, 2006
Bikes and Rockets and Courts, oh my
I've actually been blogging for over a year now. Wow. I didn't really think I'd continue for so long. Go me. Or... not, if you don't like my blog!I haven't posted for nearly a month. And what a busy month!
I actually stayed downtown for Red, White, and Boom this year (that would be what the picture is from). I've gone one other year, and swore I'd never go again. This year was different because instead of being down with the mass of humanity on the street, I was up in a comfy office when the weather was bad and out on said office's nice little balcony/patio once the weather cooled off and dried up. So overall, it was a very nice evening.
The Supreme Court was busy, of course, as they wrapped up their term. Some interesting decisions. No-knock entries with a warrant are okay, but those wacky tribunals in Guantanamo are not. And apparently you can redistrict whenever you want to. The Court was okay with Texas' Republican redistricting. Apparently they even acknowledged that it was done for political reasons. Interesting given that they've said before that you need a reason better than "But we want to win the election." Also, they've agreed to hear another abortion case in the fall. Scary.
Space shuttle Discovery is currently in space again. It was, I believe, the first 4th of July launch. Though I got a little tired of the jokes about the rockets' red glare (and, frankly, Miles O'Brien), that's certainly a nice way for our country to celebrate the holiday.
The 2006 Tour de France is underway. Go Team Discovery!! I am again watching like mad. I'm a little sad because I'm not able to listen to live coverage in the mornings this year. I have to settle for just the extended coverage in the evening. It's going to be an interesting tour. Armstrong has of course retired, Basso is out, Ullrich is out, Mancebo is out, Valverde is out, O'Grady is injured (he started today with a broken back -- yes, really -- so we'll see if he even finished the stage today... I don't know yet because I haven't read anything about today's results). So victory here is really up for grabs. An interesting note is that no matter who wins, it will definitely be a first-time winner.
As for politics... oh forget it. I'm not even going to go there right now. Way too much to comment on. Instead, now that blogger is letting me post from home, I'll treat you to another picture from Monday's fireworks.
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Environmental tip of the day
Change a light bulb (or two or three) in your home from a regular bulb to a compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL).
Why, you ask? Well, now, that's a very good question. And here's your answer:
• Changing a light bulb makes a difference. If every US household replaced three 60-watt incandescent bulbs with CFLs, it would be like taking 3.5 million cars off the roads!
• CFLs save you money. A 20-watt CFL, which screws into an ordinary light socket, is just as bright as a 60-watt incandescent.
• Today's CFLs are dramatically better than a few years ago. You won't miss your incandescent bulbs.
This information is all from Environmental Defense. You can visit their website to learn even more ways (easy ways!) you can start saving the environment today!
Why, you ask? Well, now, that's a very good question. And here's your answer:
• Changing a light bulb makes a difference. If every US household replaced three 60-watt incandescent bulbs with CFLs, it would be like taking 3.5 million cars off the roads!
• CFLs save you money. A 20-watt CFL, which screws into an ordinary light socket, is just as bright as a 60-watt incandescent.
• Today's CFLs are dramatically better than a few years ago. You won't miss your incandescent bulbs.
This information is all from Environmental Defense. You can visit their website to learn even more ways (easy ways!) you can start saving the environment today!
A waste of Senate time
At work I sometimes listen to C-Span.
Yes, really.
In case you haven't been watching the news, the Senate is currently debating the Federal Marriage Amendment. The little patience I usually have for this particular topic is clearly gone after just a few hours of this debate. The following is a comment I sent to Senator Kennedy after signing his petition to defeat this amendment (if you'd like to sign as well, go to http://www.tedkennedy.com/RejectTheFMA). I'm not sure how clear it is, or how well written, but I do think it gets my point across.
The states are dealing with this in their own time in their own way. And that is as it should be: marriage is a state issue. Marriage is not a federal issue. Marriage has NEVER been a federal issue.
I've been listening to some of the Senate debate on this issue. Some of the senators who support this amendment say that basically, this won't change anything. That the states are already outlawing same-sex marriage and that this amendment won't affect civil unions. Which leaves us with just the one question: What is the point? They're basically saying that this won't change a single thing. So why is it being discussed? Why is the Senate wasting its time on this?
I've also seen Senators pointing to the percentages by which their states passed similar amendments to their own state constitutions. They are incredibly foolishly stating that all of the people who voted for the state amendments are also for the FMA. That's ridiculous. Many of the Americans who voted to outlaw [same-sex] marriage in their own states want no part of a federal marriage amendment. These voters know that this is a state issue. These voters know that this is NOT something that belongs in the federal Constitution. What's more, many of these people recognize that the state amendments do indeed restrict people's rights and they recognize that such a thing should never be a part of the federal Constitution.
So as a Democratic senator said today (and I'm sorry that I don't remember which senator it was), "why are we talking about this when there are people bleeding in Iraq?"
And yes, I feel the same way about the flag burning amendment that's up for discussion soon.
These are divisive issues that are allowing the Republicans to turn the Senate floor into their own personal campaign trails. We all know that these are exactly the kinds of things that bring the extreme right wing out of the woodwork and to the polls. And as the Republicans are currently running scared, they've brought a couple of hot, completely frivolous, topics to the forefront to try to get a few votes back.
It's a disgusting use of our tax dollars. I don't want to pay all of you to discuss the definition of "marriage" while we still don't have an exit plan for Iraq; while the administration appears to be approaching Iran much the way they did Iraq; while the interest on my student loans rises as my chances of a job after graduation continues to plummet; while I continue to try to get my health insurance to pay up for the biopsy I had a year and a half ago (they're concerned a breast lump was perhaps a pre-existing condition!!!); while my grandpa leaves the pharmacy without his medication because it was so expensive; while the government is moving toward taking my right to decide what happens to my body away from me; while more and more children are left behind; and while there are more issues that are just as critical, just as important, I can't go on any further right now because it's simply too depressing.
My comment to this Senate is this: keep the campaigning off the Senate floor and get back to the real work.
And to whatever Republican senator commented essentially that you all really can walk and chew gum at the same time: when you're wasting your time on the Senate floor with this ridiculous debate, you are NOT getting any real work done. You can be as flip and cute as you'd like, but as long as you're up at that podium being flip and cute, you're not meeting with your committees or your constituents and you're not discussing anything real that can actually HELP Americans and you are not getting any real work done.
Yes, really.
In case you haven't been watching the news, the Senate is currently debating the Federal Marriage Amendment. The little patience I usually have for this particular topic is clearly gone after just a few hours of this debate. The following is a comment I sent to Senator Kennedy after signing his petition to defeat this amendment (if you'd like to sign as well, go to http://www.tedkennedy.com/RejectTheFMA). I'm not sure how clear it is, or how well written, but I do think it gets my point across.
The states are dealing with this in their own time in their own way. And that is as it should be: marriage is a state issue. Marriage is not a federal issue. Marriage has NEVER been a federal issue.
I've been listening to some of the Senate debate on this issue. Some of the senators who support this amendment say that basically, this won't change anything. That the states are already outlawing same-sex marriage and that this amendment won't affect civil unions. Which leaves us with just the one question: What is the point? They're basically saying that this won't change a single thing. So why is it being discussed? Why is the Senate wasting its time on this?
I've also seen Senators pointing to the percentages by which their states passed similar amendments to their own state constitutions. They are incredibly foolishly stating that all of the people who voted for the state amendments are also for the FMA. That's ridiculous. Many of the Americans who voted to outlaw [same-sex] marriage in their own states want no part of a federal marriage amendment. These voters know that this is a state issue. These voters know that this is NOT something that belongs in the federal Constitution. What's more, many of these people recognize that the state amendments do indeed restrict people's rights and they recognize that such a thing should never be a part of the federal Constitution.
So as a Democratic senator said today (and I'm sorry that I don't remember which senator it was), "why are we talking about this when there are people bleeding in Iraq?"
And yes, I feel the same way about the flag burning amendment that's up for discussion soon.
These are divisive issues that are allowing the Republicans to turn the Senate floor into their own personal campaign trails. We all know that these are exactly the kinds of things that bring the extreme right wing out of the woodwork and to the polls. And as the Republicans are currently running scared, they've brought a couple of hot, completely frivolous, topics to the forefront to try to get a few votes back.
It's a disgusting use of our tax dollars. I don't want to pay all of you to discuss the definition of "marriage" while we still don't have an exit plan for Iraq; while the administration appears to be approaching Iran much the way they did Iraq; while the interest on my student loans rises as my chances of a job after graduation continues to plummet; while I continue to try to get my health insurance to pay up for the biopsy I had a year and a half ago (they're concerned a breast lump was perhaps a pre-existing condition!!!); while my grandpa leaves the pharmacy without his medication because it was so expensive; while the government is moving toward taking my right to decide what happens to my body away from me; while more and more children are left behind; and while there are more issues that are just as critical, just as important, I can't go on any further right now because it's simply too depressing.
My comment to this Senate is this: keep the campaigning off the Senate floor and get back to the real work.
And to whatever Republican senator commented essentially that you all really can walk and chew gum at the same time: when you're wasting your time on the Senate floor with this ridiculous debate, you are NOT getting any real work done. You can be as flip and cute as you'd like, but as long as you're up at that podium being flip and cute, you're not meeting with your committees or your constituents and you're not discussing anything real that can actually HELP Americans and you are not getting any real work done.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Telecommute!
The best reason I've ever seen for telecommuting:
Telecommute once a week. Americans traveled 614.5 billion miles to and from work in 2001. If all commuters worked from home just one day a week, we could save 5.85 billion gallons of oil and cut over 65 million metric tons (roughly 143 billion pounds) of carbon dioxide each year.
From Drive Smart: Fuel Savings Add Up.
Where I work, we're not allowed to telecommute. BUT, I work for the State! Ergo, they should be encouraging us to telecommute. The government has to take a stand and start doing something about this environmental disaster we've brought upon ourselves.
Telecommute once a week. Americans traveled 614.5 billion miles to and from work in 2001. If all commuters worked from home just one day a week, we could save 5.85 billion gallons of oil and cut over 65 million metric tons (roughly 143 billion pounds) of carbon dioxide each year.
From Drive Smart: Fuel Savings Add Up.
Where I work, we're not allowed to telecommute. BUT, I work for the State! Ergo, they should be encouraging us to telecommute. The government has to take a stand and start doing something about this environmental disaster we've brought upon ourselves.
Saturday, May 6, 2006
We shall see.
Well the Ohio primaries have come and gone. Strickland is the Dem candidate for governor. No surprise there. Blackwell is the Repub candidate. Given recent polls, that's not a surprise either. We'll see how long it takes him to start with his nasty commercials attacking Strickland. I'm thinking it won't be long. And I'm hoping that Strickland does not respond in kind. He needs to stick to the ideas, the platform, the state of the State. If he attacks back, I'm not sure I'll be able to vote for governor in November. I can't stand the attack ads anymore--I've never liked them and they've gotten just too nasty in the last year or two--and I just don't think I can support or vote for a candidate that gets that heavily into such things.
So we shall see.
So the head of the CIA is gone. Interesting. Seems to have been a power struggle going on there. No real reason has been given. It's all pretty vague. My paranoid, cynical side is wondering what the Administration wants to do that Goss refused to do, actually resigning instead. Give him a year or so to write and publish a book (or for some reporter to get a scoop), then we'll know the real story.
So we shall see.
From CNN: "A Sudanese government spokesman has said that United Nations peacekeepers now would be welcome in Darfur after a peace agreement between Khartoum and one of the rebel groups." Of course, not all of the rebel groups signed the agreement. And though I don't claim to know that much about the history of the situation, I don't believe everyone there has been all that great at living up to other agreements that have been made. I think this would be one of those situations that calls for tempered optimism. What's going to happen there?
We shall see.
So we shall see.
So the head of the CIA is gone. Interesting. Seems to have been a power struggle going on there. No real reason has been given. It's all pretty vague. My paranoid, cynical side is wondering what the Administration wants to do that Goss refused to do, actually resigning instead. Give him a year or so to write and publish a book (or for some reporter to get a scoop), then we'll know the real story.
So we shall see.
From CNN: "A Sudanese government spokesman has said that United Nations peacekeepers now would be welcome in Darfur after a peace agreement between Khartoum and one of the rebel groups." Of course, not all of the rebel groups signed the agreement. And though I don't claim to know that much about the history of the situation, I don't believe everyone there has been all that great at living up to other agreements that have been made. I think this would be one of those situations that calls for tempered optimism. What's going to happen there?
We shall see.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
TV Commercials by Idiots
The primaries are coming, the primaries are coming.
And the tv commercials are here to prove it.
To catch you up before I get started: Jim Petro and Ken Blackwell both want to be the Republican candidate for Governor here in Ohio, the Heart of it All.
I cannot stand Ken Blackwell's latest commercial. He's "slamming" Petro for opposing Ohio's Constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. Yes, that amendment, the one that got Bush elected President. Anyway...
The commercial says that Petro lined up with all kinds of crazy liberals in opposing said amendment. Well guess what? Lots of Republicans and conservatives were against that amendment. Lots of people who are against same-sex marriage were against that amendment. Why? Because it is so poorly drafted that the litigation has already begun and will continue for some time.
Repeat after me: "waste of tax dollars."
Nobody wants their taxes raised, but they have no problem at all voting for an amendment that will eat up untold numbers of their tax dollars.
Ah, the ignorance. Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
And while we're talking about Ken Blackwell, current Secretary of State of the great state of Ohio, he's in the news for something else right now. Seems Mr. Blackwell's office gave out more social security numbers.
Yes, that's right.
After getting in some trouble in recent months for having SSNs posted on the Secretary of State's website, his office screwed up again. They've recently given out a list of all registered voters in Ohio that included our SSNs. According to the paper, they gave the list to 20 different people.
Great. Lovely. I don't give out my own SSN. I don't even have it on my driver's license. [In Ohio, the default is for it to be on your license. You have to make a specific request for it not to appear.] And yet, the Secretary of State's office apparently hands it out to whoever asks for it!
If either Blackwell or Petro is elected governor in November, we are screwed. Well, screwed even more than we are now with the Bush-Taft combo, that is. Hard to imagine, I know, but it's true.
And the tv commercials are here to prove it.
To catch you up before I get started: Jim Petro and Ken Blackwell both want to be the Republican candidate for Governor here in Ohio, the Heart of it All.
I cannot stand Ken Blackwell's latest commercial. He's "slamming" Petro for opposing Ohio's Constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. Yes, that amendment, the one that got Bush elected President. Anyway...
The commercial says that Petro lined up with all kinds of crazy liberals in opposing said amendment. Well guess what? Lots of Republicans and conservatives were against that amendment. Lots of people who are against same-sex marriage were against that amendment. Why? Because it is so poorly drafted that the litigation has already begun and will continue for some time.
Repeat after me: "waste of tax dollars."
Nobody wants their taxes raised, but they have no problem at all voting for an amendment that will eat up untold numbers of their tax dollars.
Ah, the ignorance. Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
And while we're talking about Ken Blackwell, current Secretary of State of the great state of Ohio, he's in the news for something else right now. Seems Mr. Blackwell's office gave out more social security numbers.
Yes, that's right.
After getting in some trouble in recent months for having SSNs posted on the Secretary of State's website, his office screwed up again. They've recently given out a list of all registered voters in Ohio that included our SSNs. According to the paper, they gave the list to 20 different people.
Great. Lovely. I don't give out my own SSN. I don't even have it on my driver's license. [In Ohio, the default is for it to be on your license. You have to make a specific request for it not to appear.] And yet, the Secretary of State's office apparently hands it out to whoever asks for it!
If either Blackwell or Petro is elected governor in November, we are screwed. Well, screwed even more than we are now with the Bush-Taft combo, that is. Hard to imagine, I know, but it's true.
United93, the movie
So you've heard of this movie, right? If you haven't, come on out of your cave and join the rest of us! Here's a bit from the Internet Movie Database to get you up to speed:
Tagline: September 11, 2001. Four planes were hijacked. Three of them reached their target. This is the story of the fourth.
Plot Outline: A real time account of the events on United Flight 93, one of the planes hijacked on 9/11 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania when passengers foiled the terrorist plot.
I've heard some random rumblings about people objecting to this movie. Saying it's too soon. Saying it's not right to profit from these deaths. Saying this isn't fair to do to the surviving family and friends.
What I'm trying to figure out is if these rumblings are real or a Media Mirage. The reason I question the rumblings is the story given by the makers of the movie. They're saying that they spoke to family members of everyone on that plane. And they're saying that none of those family members objected to the making of this movie.
Some of the previews for the movie even consist of clips of several of these family members talking about the movie. They're not only not against the movie, they're clearly all for it.
I don't even get the Media Mirage. Hollywood always makes movies about the Bad Things That Happen. What's more, there have already been tv/cable movies about Flight 93. How is this different? The claim is something about being able to just change the channel when it's on tv, whereas you're less likely to walk out of a movie you've paid for. This, of course, is a stupid argument.
The less stupid flip side: those who shell out the money to see it in the theater are more likely to know whether or not they're going to be able to sit through the movie. Sure, sometimes things hit you harder than you anticipated. And if that happens to you, and it's just too much, then leave. You have feet (or if not, you clearly have some way to move around because you got into the theater in the first place), leave if you don't like it.
My point is, if you know from the get go that you're offended by the very making of the movie, don't go. Just don't go. That's a personal choice that you get to make for yourself. You do not get to take that choice away from me. You do not get to take away my freedom to choose for myself.
There's no need to whine to a reporter about the movie having been made.
There's no need to sound all high and mighty.
Just don't go see the movie.
And if you do go and it is too much for you, leave.
Here's the thing that gets me the most: the people on that plane that day were heroes. There is simply no question about that. True heroes.
They were admirable people who did an admirable thing. Something we all wonder if we could do. They risked themselves in order to save many nameless, faceless people.
Why shouldn't a movie be made about them?
In a time of memememe, in a time when too many folks seem to just not care about anything but themselves, in this age of extreme self-centeredness, I think a movie about everyday people acting selflessly is exactly what we need.
Tagline: September 11, 2001. Four planes were hijacked. Three of them reached their target. This is the story of the fourth.
Plot Outline: A real time account of the events on United Flight 93, one of the planes hijacked on 9/11 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania when passengers foiled the terrorist plot.
I've heard some random rumblings about people objecting to this movie. Saying it's too soon. Saying it's not right to profit from these deaths. Saying this isn't fair to do to the surviving family and friends.
What I'm trying to figure out is if these rumblings are real or a Media Mirage. The reason I question the rumblings is the story given by the makers of the movie. They're saying that they spoke to family members of everyone on that plane. And they're saying that none of those family members objected to the making of this movie.
Some of the previews for the movie even consist of clips of several of these family members talking about the movie. They're not only not against the movie, they're clearly all for it.
I don't even get the Media Mirage. Hollywood always makes movies about the Bad Things That Happen. What's more, there have already been tv/cable movies about Flight 93. How is this different? The claim is something about being able to just change the channel when it's on tv, whereas you're less likely to walk out of a movie you've paid for. This, of course, is a stupid argument.
The less stupid flip side: those who shell out the money to see it in the theater are more likely to know whether or not they're going to be able to sit through the movie. Sure, sometimes things hit you harder than you anticipated. And if that happens to you, and it's just too much, then leave. You have feet (or if not, you clearly have some way to move around because you got into the theater in the first place), leave if you don't like it.
My point is, if you know from the get go that you're offended by the very making of the movie, don't go. Just don't go. That's a personal choice that you get to make for yourself. You do not get to take that choice away from me. You do not get to take away my freedom to choose for myself.
There's no need to whine to a reporter about the movie having been made.
There's no need to sound all high and mighty.
Just don't go see the movie.
And if you do go and it is too much for you, leave.
Here's the thing that gets me the most: the people on that plane that day were heroes. There is simply no question about that. True heroes.
They were admirable people who did an admirable thing. Something we all wonder if we could do. They risked themselves in order to save many nameless, faceless people.
Why shouldn't a movie be made about them?
In a time of memememe, in a time when too many folks seem to just not care about anything but themselves, in this age of extreme self-centeredness, I think a movie about everyday people acting selflessly is exactly what we need.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Earth Day
Today's Earth Day!
Did you do something kind for the Earth today? I did not fill up my gas tank. I did not run all over town to 10 different places for a bunch of stupid errands that don't really need to be done anyway (at least, not at 10 different places). And I did drop off my recycling when I was out.
What did you do?
Remember to save a few trees with just a click of your mouse:
The Rain Forest Site.
Did you do something kind for the Earth today? I did not fill up my gas tank. I did not run all over town to 10 different places for a bunch of stupid errands that don't really need to be done anyway (at least, not at 10 different places). And I did drop off my recycling when I was out.
What did you do?
Remember to save a few trees with just a click of your mouse:
The Rain Forest Site.
Saturday, April 8, 2006
You said it Harry!
Bush was in North Carolina on Thursday attempting to trump up support for the war. During one of his stops, he faced comments from Harry Taylor. Because I think what the man said was so spot on, I'm quoting him here. Making his comments even more effective, his manner was perfect: calm, rational, respectful.
From hurried transcripts of his comments that I found online:
You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice... about whether I can abort a pregnancy... What I want to say to you, is that I, in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by, my leadership in Washington, including the presidency. I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration. I would hope, from time to time, that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself... I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak... That is part of what this country is about.
To give Bush credit (see, I really can!), Harry was interrupted by the crowd at one point, and Bush hushed them, telling them to let him speak.
If you want to hear Harry himself speaking, CNN has a clip.
From hurried transcripts of his comments that I found online:
You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice... about whether I can abort a pregnancy... What I want to say to you, is that I, in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by, my leadership in Washington, including the presidency. I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration. I would hope, from time to time, that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself... I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak... That is part of what this country is about.
To give Bush credit (see, I really can!), Harry was interrupted by the crowd at one point, and Bush hushed them, telling them to let him speak.
If you want to hear Harry himself speaking, CNN has a clip.
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Don't Look Down
Don't Look Down
Jennifer Crusie and Bob Mayer
A Romantic Adventure
He Wrote, She Wrote
Out now!
It's damn good, so you should read it.
The Crusie/Mayer website, where you can read more about the book.
Their Dueling Blog, which is way too much fun, even on the serious days. Be careful where you read it though, because the laughing out loud tends not to go over well in meetings, classes, and such.
Buy it! You'll like it. Really you will.
Jennifer Crusie and Bob Mayer
A Romantic Adventure
He Wrote, She Wrote
Out now!
It's damn good, so you should read it.
The Crusie/Mayer website, where you can read more about the book.
Their Dueling Blog, which is way too much fun, even on the serious days. Be careful where you read it though, because the laughing out loud tends not to go over well in meetings, classes, and such.
Buy it! You'll like it. Really you will.
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
Buh-bye
Tom DeLay has dropped out of the race for his Senate seat.
Just a sec. I need a moment to wipe away the tear.
Bet he's wishing he had that whole redistricting thing to do over. Looks like he diluted the vote in his own district a tad too much. Left himself with a 54% majority, assuming that would be a slam dunk for him since he's generally such a strong candidate.
Looks like he was wrong. Now he's being a good little party member (which is actually admirable, I'll give him that) and withdrawing from the race in the hopes that a different Repub can hang onto the seat for the party.
Sorry, Charlie, but there are no guarantees this November.
Just a sec. I need a moment to wipe away the tear.
Bet he's wishing he had that whole redistricting thing to do over. Looks like he diluted the vote in his own district a tad too much. Left himself with a 54% majority, assuming that would be a slam dunk for him since he's generally such a strong candidate.
Looks like he was wrong. Now he's being a good little party member (which is actually admirable, I'll give him that) and withdrawing from the race in the hopes that a different Repub can hang onto the seat for the party.
Sorry, Charlie, but there are no guarantees this November.
Monday, April 3, 2006
Guns and trout and hobbits!
I cannot not comment on this. There's this law school I've heard of, and one of their student groups is currently arranging what they're calling "Cheney Day." Free shootin' at the range! Come on by, all you gotta pay for is yer ammo!
Lawyers (well, almost lawyers) with guns. Yeah, the world really needs more of those.
Tip of the hat to you, Trout. Yes, that would be TBS. I know that because they went on to play those commercials 5 million times over about a two-hour span (get a grip, of course I'm not exaggerating). So I do now know that The Lord of the Rings will be on TBS. However, I still can't tell you when!
The other commercials didn't bother me, so maybe it was just that particular cheesy 80's song. Normally I like 80's music just fine. But that song was sort of like nails on a chalkboard when I heard it on the commercial.
Lawyers (well, almost lawyers) with guns. Yeah, the world really needs more of those.
Tip of the hat to you, Trout. Yes, that would be TBS. I know that because they went on to play those commercials 5 million times over about a two-hour span (get a grip, of course I'm not exaggerating). So I do now know that The Lord of the Rings will be on TBS. However, I still can't tell you when!
The other commercials didn't bother me, so maybe it was just that particular cheesy 80's song. Normally I like 80's music just fine. But that song was sort of like nails on a chalkboard when I heard it on the commercial.
Sunday, April 2, 2006
The Girl in the Cafe
Bill Nighy (remember the washed up rocker in Love Actually?) is Lawrence. He's a civil servant, and really, work is it for him. He doesn't have much else in the way of a life. He's a little dorky, a lot awkward, and totally endearing. He meets Gina (Kelly MacDonald) [D, I'm sure you've seen Gosford Park, you'll recognize her from that] in a cafe one afternoon when he's basically skipped out of work for a few. After only a couple of dates, he asks her to go to the G-8 Summit with him. (He works for some Chancellor or other and so is going for work.)
This is not a big action film. Not a lot really happens, yet it's never boring. Once at the Summit, Gina's not so good at keeping her mouth shut. She keeps going off at the Chancellor and various other big wigs there at the Summit.
And yes, her point of view is the ideal: stop making your goal at these conferences to make even more money for your very rich countries. Suck it up, make less money, and save some dying people in this world. Stop patting yourselves on the back for saving a token number and do something real.
This of course puts Lawrence in a hard spot as he has to take a lot of grief from his bosses and coworkers. He agrees with her, but does he stand up with her or keep toeing the line for his boss?
The One campaign folks clearly had a hand in this film. Though I didn't see any white bracelets, the snapping thing was in there at one point.
I'm not really making it sound very good, I realize. But it is good! And you should see it!
It was nominated for things this year. Nighy and MacDonald were both nominated for Best Performance by an Actor/Actress in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television at the Golden Globes this year.
If it helps lure you in, the screenwriter for this film also wrote Love Actually and Four Weddings and a Funeral.
I just learned that this is an HBO film. Those folks really do put on some good movies.
And as a side note, it took me forever to place Nighy. Eventually I placed him as the has been rocker from Love Actually, but I knew I also knew him from something else. I always have the same reaction when I watch Love Actually. Who is that guy?? He's in Underworld (the first one and the second one)! Which I own. And have seen multiple times. But he's just so incredibly DIFFERENT as the creepy brought back to "life" vamp, that it takes me forever to realize who he is (okay fine, I end up having to look it up).
This is not a big action film. Not a lot really happens, yet it's never boring. Once at the Summit, Gina's not so good at keeping her mouth shut. She keeps going off at the Chancellor and various other big wigs there at the Summit.
And yes, her point of view is the ideal: stop making your goal at these conferences to make even more money for your very rich countries. Suck it up, make less money, and save some dying people in this world. Stop patting yourselves on the back for saving a token number and do something real.
This of course puts Lawrence in a hard spot as he has to take a lot of grief from his bosses and coworkers. He agrees with her, but does he stand up with her or keep toeing the line for his boss?
The One campaign folks clearly had a hand in this film. Though I didn't see any white bracelets, the snapping thing was in there at one point.
I'm not really making it sound very good, I realize. But it is good! And you should see it!
It was nominated for things this year. Nighy and MacDonald were both nominated for Best Performance by an Actor/Actress in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television at the Golden Globes this year.
If it helps lure you in, the screenwriter for this film also wrote Love Actually and Four Weddings and a Funeral.
I just learned that this is an HBO film. Those folks really do put on some good movies.
And as a side note, it took me forever to place Nighy. Eventually I placed him as the has been rocker from Love Actually, but I knew I also knew him from something else. I always have the same reaction when I watch Love Actually. Who is that guy?? He's in Underworld (the first one and the second one)! Which I own. And have seen multiple times. But he's just so incredibly DIFFERENT as the creepy brought back to "life" vamp, that it takes me forever to realize who he is (okay fine, I end up having to look it up).
Saturday, April 1, 2006
Lord of the Rings and Secret Lovers
They're advertising Lord of the Rings with the song Secret Lovers (remember that cheesy 80's song?). In reference to Sam and Frodo.
Um, what?
That just isn't right.
And it's not that I'm some crazy homophobe who's all mad at the thought. If Sam and Frodo want to knock boots, that's just fine with me. A little Brokeback action up in the mountains? Go for it. I don't care.
But, advertising Lord of the Rings with that song just isn't right somehow.
And before you say, "But clearly it is terribly affective [effective? hell, I don't know right now, I'm just too tired to think about it] because you noticed and you remembered."
No, no you're wrong. Because though I know that the trilogy is going to be on tv sometime in the near future, I don't know when and I don't know where. I can't even assume it's going to be on on the channel I'm watching, because I'm watching cable. You know how they advertise for each other. So I've actually no clue on the date or the channel. So I can't very well tune in. And since I don't know those two things, I will soon forget that it's even going to be on because my memory is just like that.
So the commercial is not doing it's job. It just freaks me out every time I see it. Yes, I've seen it before, but I forgot that I'd seen it before.
See? I don't remember the when and where so I'll soon even forget the what.
Wait, what was I talking about?
Um, what?
That just isn't right.
And it's not that I'm some crazy homophobe who's all mad at the thought. If Sam and Frodo want to knock boots, that's just fine with me. A little Brokeback action up in the mountains? Go for it. I don't care.
But, advertising Lord of the Rings with that song just isn't right somehow.
And before you say, "But clearly it is terribly affective [effective? hell, I don't know right now, I'm just too tired to think about it] because you noticed and you remembered."
No, no you're wrong. Because though I know that the trilogy is going to be on tv sometime in the near future, I don't know when and I don't know where. I can't even assume it's going to be on on the channel I'm watching, because I'm watching cable. You know how they advertise for each other. So I've actually no clue on the date or the channel. So I can't very well tune in. And since I don't know those two things, I will soon forget that it's even going to be on because my memory is just like that.
So the commercial is not doing it's job. It just freaks me out every time I see it. Yes, I've seen it before, but I forgot that I'd seen it before.
See? I don't remember the when and where so I'll soon even forget the what.
Wait, what was I talking about?
Isn't it too early?
Ted Strickland, for those who don't know, is a Democratic candidate for Governor of Ohio. The two Republican candidates are Ken Blackwell (current secretary of state here in OH... had a rather unfortunate role to play in the last prez election so you may have heard of him) and Jim Petro (OH attorney general... doubt you've heard of him). Strickland is polling ahead of them both; and his lead over both is growing.
Interestingly, Blackwell seems to be doing slightly better than Petro. Not sure how I feel about that. As awful as I think they'd both be for this state, there is no doubt in my mind that Blackwell would completely destroy the state of OH, whereas Petro is a bit more of a question mark to me. I don't think he'd be good for the state, but I don't know how bad he'd be for it. Would he destroy it like Blackwell would, or would he "just" make it lots worse? I don't know.
But... I think Blackwell might actually be easier for the Dems to defeat. Given all of his recent and current issues, he may make for an "easier" opponent. As just two examples of his "issues": the last prez election ('nuff said right there!) and all the SSNs posted on the secretary of state's website that he has refused to have removed (they actually have legislation currently pending that would require that particular office to remove those thousands of SSNs from their website; what a waste of our legislature's time (!!), but they have to do it because he's refusing to remove them).
And then there's Sherrod Brown, Democratic candidate for Senator. He's up against Mike DeWine (probably... DeWine does actually have a couple of Repubs challenging him at the moment). DeWine already has a tv ad out there. Hello? Really? It's March, people! Well, it's April, but the ad started in March. That's early.
It's going to be a very long and very ugly ramp up to the elections this year, I fear.
And given that the Official Dems have ticked off an awful lot of Democratic Ohioans... well, it's just not going to be a pretty political season. Here's to hoping Strickland and Brown (yes really; I'm mad, not stupid) both win. The country and the state should have more mixed leadership. This one party thing is simply not working.
Oh! My point! I had one when I started, really I did. People are all excited about these recent gubanatorial poll numbers that have Strickland so far up (10 pts over Blackwell; 13 pts over Petro). But isn't it a bit early to put much stock in that? There are 8 months left. I really don't think we should be getting cocky or overconfident in April about an election that isn't until November.
I'll probably have an ulcer by election day...
Interestingly, Blackwell seems to be doing slightly better than Petro. Not sure how I feel about that. As awful as I think they'd both be for this state, there is no doubt in my mind that Blackwell would completely destroy the state of OH, whereas Petro is a bit more of a question mark to me. I don't think he'd be good for the state, but I don't know how bad he'd be for it. Would he destroy it like Blackwell would, or would he "just" make it lots worse? I don't know.
But... I think Blackwell might actually be easier for the Dems to defeat. Given all of his recent and current issues, he may make for an "easier" opponent. As just two examples of his "issues": the last prez election ('nuff said right there!) and all the SSNs posted on the secretary of state's website that he has refused to have removed (they actually have legislation currently pending that would require that particular office to remove those thousands of SSNs from their website; what a waste of our legislature's time (!!), but they have to do it because he's refusing to remove them).
And then there's Sherrod Brown, Democratic candidate for Senator. He's up against Mike DeWine (probably... DeWine does actually have a couple of Repubs challenging him at the moment). DeWine already has a tv ad out there. Hello? Really? It's March, people! Well, it's April, but the ad started in March. That's early.
It's going to be a very long and very ugly ramp up to the elections this year, I fear.
And given that the Official Dems have ticked off an awful lot of Democratic Ohioans... well, it's just not going to be a pretty political season. Here's to hoping Strickland and Brown (yes really; I'm mad, not stupid) both win. The country and the state should have more mixed leadership. This one party thing is simply not working.
Oh! My point! I had one when I started, really I did. People are all excited about these recent gubanatorial poll numbers that have Strickland so far up (10 pts over Blackwell; 13 pts over Petro). But isn't it a bit early to put much stock in that? There are 8 months left. I really don't think we should be getting cocky or overconfident in April about an election that isn't until November.
I'll probably have an ulcer by election day...
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Immigration
So what's the answer? No, I don't know. But I do have comments.
Of course.
To those who want to literally build a wall across our Southern border I have one thing to say: Get a grip! Does that not remind you of another very famous wall of days gone by? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a "B". Do not kid yourselves, that is exactly what the world (and many Americans) would call it: The New Berlin Wall.
Could we please remember this key point: We are a nation of immigrants. We came here, we killed large numbers of Natives (those we didn't kill we put on little plots of less than lush land), and we took over the joint. [And when I say "we" I do not mean me and mine. When we showed up here the Natives had already been shoved farther West than we've ever wandered.] Now we want to keep all other immigrants out?
Yeah, that makes sense.
For those kvetching about these new bills that would make it a crime to employ illegal aliens, you need to check the laws: it's already illegal to employ an illegal alien. Also, that's one of the best ways to deal with the issue.
The businesses hiring illegals and the governments (ours and Mexico's) that actually make it easier to come here and work illegally are the problem. They need to be given a time out and told to stop that.
People will continue to come here and live and work illegally as long as they can get jobs. So the businesses need to stop supplying the jobs.
Of course, these are really cheap workers. They'll work for a wage that can't legally be paid to Americans and they're off the books, so little things like taxes and social security don't have to be paid for/by them.
Which means the businesses aren't going to voluntarily stop hiring and employing these folks. So the government needs to actually come down on them and make them face the consequences.
It would also help if our government would tell Mexico to stop encouraging their citizens to come here. Not surprisingly, Mexico is not particularly pleased about people who attempt to sneak across their Southern border and they're not overly nice to those folks. But they don't care if their own citizens skip on up here. They need to work on their own country, their own economy so that their people don't have such a crazy need to leave.
About the suggestion that we wave a magic wand and make those currently living and working here now legal. Nah. That's not a good idea. They're illegal aliens so they're not paying taxes (and haven't been for as long as they've been here).
Though I don't think we should throw them all out, build a big ol' wall and keep 'em out, then sit around pretending to be Isolationists while simultaneously attempting to take over the world, I also don't think they should get quite that free of a ride. They've been enjoying many of the societal services provided for by everyone else's taxes.
As for the throwing them out thing: Again, get a grip. And keep in mind that many of them have children who were born here, thus making said children U.S. citizens. And we can't exactly deport U.S. citizens just because we decided to. And deporting their parents wouldn't be right either.
So how about some sort of expedited process for those already here? Get them on the books, in the system, paying taxes, and working on legal citizenship.
At the same time, U.S. businesses need to be strongly "encouraged" to stop hiring illegal aliens. That will seriously slow down the influx because if there are no jobs then there's no reason to come here anymore.
But... we have a government that loves business. We have a government that doesn't like to come down hard on business.
So what are the chances they will over this?
Little to none.
Which leaves us where?
Exactly where we are.
Figures.
The good news is that the debates on the issue have been postponed to Thursday. Hopefully they will be in (or will continue into) the afternoon so I can listen to C-Span on my computer at work.
Of course.
To those who want to literally build a wall across our Southern border I have one thing to say: Get a grip! Does that not remind you of another very famous wall of days gone by? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a "B". Do not kid yourselves, that is exactly what the world (and many Americans) would call it: The New Berlin Wall.
Could we please remember this key point: We are a nation of immigrants. We came here, we killed large numbers of Natives (those we didn't kill we put on little plots of less than lush land), and we took over the joint. [And when I say "we" I do not mean me and mine. When we showed up here the Natives had already been shoved farther West than we've ever wandered.] Now we want to keep all other immigrants out?
Yeah, that makes sense.
For those kvetching about these new bills that would make it a crime to employ illegal aliens, you need to check the laws: it's already illegal to employ an illegal alien. Also, that's one of the best ways to deal with the issue.
The businesses hiring illegals and the governments (ours and Mexico's) that actually make it easier to come here and work illegally are the problem. They need to be given a time out and told to stop that.
People will continue to come here and live and work illegally as long as they can get jobs. So the businesses need to stop supplying the jobs.
Of course, these are really cheap workers. They'll work for a wage that can't legally be paid to Americans and they're off the books, so little things like taxes and social security don't have to be paid for/by them.
Which means the businesses aren't going to voluntarily stop hiring and employing these folks. So the government needs to actually come down on them and make them face the consequences.
It would also help if our government would tell Mexico to stop encouraging their citizens to come here. Not surprisingly, Mexico is not particularly pleased about people who attempt to sneak across their Southern border and they're not overly nice to those folks. But they don't care if their own citizens skip on up here. They need to work on their own country, their own economy so that their people don't have such a crazy need to leave.
About the suggestion that we wave a magic wand and make those currently living and working here now legal. Nah. That's not a good idea. They're illegal aliens so they're not paying taxes (and haven't been for as long as they've been here).
Though I don't think we should throw them all out, build a big ol' wall and keep 'em out, then sit around pretending to be Isolationists while simultaneously attempting to take over the world, I also don't think they should get quite that free of a ride. They've been enjoying many of the societal services provided for by everyone else's taxes.
As for the throwing them out thing: Again, get a grip. And keep in mind that many of them have children who were born here, thus making said children U.S. citizens. And we can't exactly deport U.S. citizens just because we decided to. And deporting their parents wouldn't be right either.
So how about some sort of expedited process for those already here? Get them on the books, in the system, paying taxes, and working on legal citizenship.
At the same time, U.S. businesses need to be strongly "encouraged" to stop hiring illegal aliens. That will seriously slow down the influx because if there are no jobs then there's no reason to come here anymore.
But... we have a government that loves business. We have a government that doesn't like to come down hard on business.
So what are the chances they will over this?
Little to none.
Which leaves us where?
Exactly where we are.
Figures.
The good news is that the debates on the issue have been postponed to Thursday. Hopefully they will be in (or will continue into) the afternoon so I can listen to C-Span on my computer at work.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Exactly
"Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. You can be that great generation."
-Nelson Mandela, 2005
If you haven't yet seen The Girl in the Cafe, I highly recommend it.
-Nelson Mandela, 2005
If you haven't yet seen The Girl in the Cafe, I highly recommend it.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
What are they thinking?
Have you read about the Constitutional amendments that some are pushing Congress to consider? There are two.
1. One is about marriage. You know the line: one man and one woman. So in other words, it's about amending the Constitution to take rights away from Americans, it's about actually discriminating against a class of Americans. Not exactly the overall purpose of the Constitution.
2. The flag desecration amendment. Again. This time, though, I think they might have the votes. So again, this is about taking rights away from people. The First Amendment gives us the right to free speech, protects us from having our speech restricted by the government. Whereas this amendment would restrict our speech and would subject us to punishment for a very powerful form of peaceful protest. Again, not exactly the purpose behind the Constitution.
1. One is about marriage. You know the line: one man and one woman. So in other words, it's about amending the Constitution to take rights away from Americans, it's about actually discriminating against a class of Americans. Not exactly the overall purpose of the Constitution.
2. The flag desecration amendment. Again. This time, though, I think they might have the votes. So again, this is about taking rights away from people. The First Amendment gives us the right to free speech, protects us from having our speech restricted by the government. Whereas this amendment would restrict our speech and would subject us to punishment for a very powerful form of peaceful protest. Again, not exactly the purpose behind the Constitution.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
The Supremes
The Supreme Court Justices, that is. Of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
I went to the Court today to listen to oral arguments for a couple of cases. The building--newly renovated, for those unfamiliar with the area--is really quite beautiful. The inside of the courtroom is impressive. However, the most lasting visual impression had nothing to do with the decor.
The Supreme Court here in Ohio has more female justices than male justices. There are 4 women and 3 men. That is a sight to behold. It is impressive to see.
But an even more lasting impression has to do with race. The 7 justices, sitting behind the bench at the front of the room, are all white. And seated one to each side of the bench are the 2 clerks (bailiffs?). Both of whom are black.
So the visual is the 7 white justices bookended by the 2 black clerks.
It made an impression.
We'll finish today with a few tips for you should you ever argue a case before The Supremes:
• Do not tell a justice that his/her question is "weird."
• Do not call the justices "judge." If you can't come up with their names in the heat of the moment, stick to "your honor."
• Don't argue. Yes, yes, it's called an oral argument. But don't actually be argumentative. Don't raise your voice to the Supreme Court Justices (state or federal!).
• Do not sigh so loudly in response to a question from a justice that you can be heard in the back of the room.
• When the justices start chatting and laughing amongst themselves, you need to perhaps bulk up your argument really quickly. Or just sit down.
I went to the Court today to listen to oral arguments for a couple of cases. The building--newly renovated, for those unfamiliar with the area--is really quite beautiful. The inside of the courtroom is impressive. However, the most lasting visual impression had nothing to do with the decor.
The Supreme Court here in Ohio has more female justices than male justices. There are 4 women and 3 men. That is a sight to behold. It is impressive to see.
But an even more lasting impression has to do with race. The 7 justices, sitting behind the bench at the front of the room, are all white. And seated one to each side of the bench are the 2 clerks (bailiffs?). Both of whom are black.
So the visual is the 7 white justices bookended by the 2 black clerks.
It made an impression.
We'll finish today with a few tips for you should you ever argue a case before The Supremes:
• Do not tell a justice that his/her question is "weird."
• Do not call the justices "judge." If you can't come up with their names in the heat of the moment, stick to "your honor."
• Don't argue. Yes, yes, it's called an oral argument. But don't actually be argumentative. Don't raise your voice to the Supreme Court Justices (state or federal!).
• Do not sigh so loudly in response to a question from a justice that you can be heard in the back of the room.
• When the justices start chatting and laughing amongst themselves, you need to perhaps bulk up your argument really quickly. Or just sit down.
Wednesday, March 8, 2006
Quote of the day
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Saturday, March 4, 2006
Politician of the Week
Ohio State Senator Robert F. Hagan.
He is the hands down winner of the week. In response to the adoption restriction bill that was recently introduced in the Ohio House [see my post from February 17, Bills Pending in Ohio], Senator Hagan sent out what is being called a "mock memo."
The subject of the memo was "Co-Sponsorship Request." The first line:
I intend to introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents.
Hagan goes on to say that children raised in Republican households are "more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves, and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."
A quick google search will find more fun quotes from the memo. It's interesting, I laughed when I read it, yet at the same time it made me really sad. That the House bill has been introduced is just... well, disgusting, really.
I love that Senator Hagan sent this out. What a fantastic way for him to make his point!
He is not, by the way, alone in his feelings about the House bill. Not by a long shot. Even some of the more conservative papers in the state have printed editorials and such slamming the adoption restriction bill.
There are just too many kids out there in need of good, safe, supportive homes. To further restrict the homes, the parents, available to them because of intolerance, dislike, fear is simply unconscionable.
So three cheers to Senator Hagan this week, he deserves it.
He is the hands down winner of the week. In response to the adoption restriction bill that was recently introduced in the Ohio House [see my post from February 17, Bills Pending in Ohio], Senator Hagan sent out what is being called a "mock memo."
The subject of the memo was "Co-Sponsorship Request." The first line:
I intend to introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents.
Hagan goes on to say that children raised in Republican households are "more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves, and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."
A quick google search will find more fun quotes from the memo. It's interesting, I laughed when I read it, yet at the same time it made me really sad. That the House bill has been introduced is just... well, disgusting, really.
I love that Senator Hagan sent this out. What a fantastic way for him to make his point!
He is not, by the way, alone in his feelings about the House bill. Not by a long shot. Even some of the more conservative papers in the state have printed editorials and such slamming the adoption restriction bill.
There are just too many kids out there in need of good, safe, supportive homes. To further restrict the homes, the parents, available to them because of intolerance, dislike, fear is simply unconscionable.
So three cheers to Senator Hagan this week, he deserves it.
Thursday, March 2, 2006
34%
That would be the president's latest approval rating.
Yeah, there's a mandate for you.
Here are some interesting facts about the 2004 election. We've often heard that Bush received more votes than any other president in history (I assume this is where he got his crazy mandate idea). What we do not hear is that there were also more votes cast against him than against any other president in our history.
This would be about population growth and lack of third party candidates, not a mandate for change.
His 6.3% margin over Kerry was also the smallest by any encumbant president in our history.
So again, what mandate is he talking about?
Would you like to know Cheney's approval rating? 18%. Wow.
You know who has an even lower approval rating? Can you guess?
Did you even try to guess?
The governor of the great state of Ohio, Bob Taft. As of a couple of weeks ago, his approval rating was 16%. The truly sad part? That's an improvement. He bottomed out at 6% back in November.
There's really just nothing else to say. The numbers pretty much speak for themselves.
Yeah, there's a mandate for you.
Here are some interesting facts about the 2004 election. We've often heard that Bush received more votes than any other president in history (I assume this is where he got his crazy mandate idea). What we do not hear is that there were also more votes cast against him than against any other president in our history.
This would be about population growth and lack of third party candidates, not a mandate for change.
His 6.3% margin over Kerry was also the smallest by any encumbant president in our history.
So again, what mandate is he talking about?
Would you like to know Cheney's approval rating? 18%. Wow.
You know who has an even lower approval rating? Can you guess?
Did you even try to guess?
The governor of the great state of Ohio, Bob Taft. As of a couple of weeks ago, his approval rating was 16%. The truly sad part? That's an improvement. He bottomed out at 6% back in November.
There's really just nothing else to say. The numbers pretty much speak for themselves.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
My first Olympics post
I've actually surprised myself a bit by not posting about the Olympics (cuz, in case you don't know, I'm addicted). Even more surprising: my first Olympics post is to complain about cnn.com.
I needed a little news fix, so I went to cnn.com to see what's been going on in the world today. And what do I find right there on the front page? The results of Ohno's last event.
Unbelievable.
In case you don't watch and are therefore wondering what the big deal is, the race hasn't aired yet!
Granted, they've had a few leading headlines this week that gave you a good idea of what happened. But this is the first time I've actually seen the result right there on their main page.
The problem with being mad at them is that it makes it harder to get any news. The NYT page is way too annoying via dialup. I'm allergic to anything with "Microsoft" in the name (no, my browser is not Explorer). I'll have to stick to yahoo for a few days until I get over being mad at cnn. Does google have news?
I do love the google doodles. If you haven't seen the ones for the Olympics, you're missing out. Hop over to google! Now! Once there, you can see them all just by clicking on the google doodle you see before you.
Why are you still here?! You're supposed to be looking at the google doodles...
I needed a little news fix, so I went to cnn.com to see what's been going on in the world today. And what do I find right there on the front page? The results of Ohno's last event.
Unbelievable.
In case you don't watch and are therefore wondering what the big deal is, the race hasn't aired yet!
Granted, they've had a few leading headlines this week that gave you a good idea of what happened. But this is the first time I've actually seen the result right there on their main page.
The problem with being mad at them is that it makes it harder to get any news. The NYT page is way too annoying via dialup. I'm allergic to anything with "Microsoft" in the name (no, my browser is not Explorer). I'll have to stick to yahoo for a few days until I get over being mad at cnn. Does google have news?
I do love the google doodles. If you haven't seen the ones for the Olympics, you're missing out. Hop over to google! Now! Once there, you can see them all just by clicking on the google doodle you see before you.
Why are you still here?! You're supposed to be looking at the google doodles...
Friday, February 17, 2006
Bills pending in Ohio
House Bill No. 515
A bill to amend sections 3107.03 and 5103.03 of the Revised Code to prohibit an adoptive or foster child from being placed in the private residence of a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender person.
...
(B) An individual may not adopt if the court in which the petition for adoption is filed determines that any of the following apply:
(1) The individual is a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individual.
(2) The individual is a step-parent of the child to be adopted and is a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individual.
(3) The individual resides with an individual who the court determines is a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individual.
I believe we are now actually traveling back in time in Ohio. Of course, given that the voters approved a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage in this state, I suppose we should have known this would be next.
Here's to hoping this doesn't pass.
Start writing to (or calling) your representatives now. It hasn't been assigned to committee yet, but once it has, email/call all those reps, too.
House Bill No. 460
A bill to enact section 3313.6013 of the Revised Code to authorize public and nonpublic schools to offer a course in firearm safety and marksmanship.
...
(A) The board of education of a school district... may offer as an elective course a one-semester course in firearm safety and marksmanship...
(B) The course of instruction... shall include at least the following:
(7) Practice time at a shooting range;
(8) Demonstration of competence with a firearm.
(C) A school district... shall arrange for adequate shooting range time by pupils ...
(D) To satisfactorily complete the Ohio gun safety program course, a pupil... must demonstrate the ability to discharge a firearm safely.
I'm not even sure what to say about this one. We don't want kids bringing guns to school or otherwise messing around with them; however, we're good with using part of the school day teaching kids to use them!
This way the kids in the gangs [Yes, we have gangs in Ohio! We actually have a fair amount of gang activity in Ohio...] will have even better aim when they're trying to take out rival gang members.
Yeah, that's a grand idea.
Again with the emailing and calling. This one has been assigned to committee, so write to the members of the House Education Committee.
A bill to amend sections 3107.03 and 5103.03 of the Revised Code to prohibit an adoptive or foster child from being placed in the private residence of a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender person.
...
(B) An individual may not adopt if the court in which the petition for adoption is filed determines that any of the following apply:
(1) The individual is a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individual.
(2) The individual is a step-parent of the child to be adopted and is a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individual.
(3) The individual resides with an individual who the court determines is a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individual.
I believe we are now actually traveling back in time in Ohio. Of course, given that the voters approved a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage in this state, I suppose we should have known this would be next.
Here's to hoping this doesn't pass.
Start writing to (or calling) your representatives now. It hasn't been assigned to committee yet, but once it has, email/call all those reps, too.
House Bill No. 460
A bill to enact section 3313.6013 of the Revised Code to authorize public and nonpublic schools to offer a course in firearm safety and marksmanship.
...
(A) The board of education of a school district... may offer as an elective course a one-semester course in firearm safety and marksmanship...
(B) The course of instruction... shall include at least the following:
(7) Practice time at a shooting range;
(8) Demonstration of competence with a firearm.
(C) A school district... shall arrange for adequate shooting range time by pupils ...
(D) To satisfactorily complete the Ohio gun safety program course, a pupil... must demonstrate the ability to discharge a firearm safely.
I'm not even sure what to say about this one. We don't want kids bringing guns to school or otherwise messing around with them; however, we're good with using part of the school day teaching kids to use them!
This way the kids in the gangs [Yes, we have gangs in Ohio! We actually have a fair amount of gang activity in Ohio...] will have even better aim when they're trying to take out rival gang members.
Yeah, that's a grand idea.
Again with the emailing and calling. This one has been assigned to committee, so write to the members of the House Education Committee.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Ohio = Political Joke
From Howard Dean today on Paul Hackett being forced out of the Ohio Senate race by the national party:
"I admire Paul Hackett... I consider him a great friend... The Democratic Party was very lucky to have two outstanding candidates in the race for Senate in Ohio."
"Now that the possibility of a bitter primary that inadvertently benefits a Republican incumbent is behind us, I want to urge everyone to come together in support of Sherrod Brown."
Translation: 'Now that the powers that be in Washington have decided that the citizens of Ohio shouldn't be allowed to choose their own candidate, let me introduce the person we want as your senator.'
Dean admires Hackett so much and considers him to be such a fab friend and the Dems here in Ohio were so lucky to have such a good candidate that the DNC cut off his funding and support in order to force him out of the race.
So this is democracy, hunh? Taking away our choices. How exactly does allowing the citizens of this state to choose their own candidate in the primary benefit the Republicans? In case you're wondering, it doesn't.
Since the Dems can't actually articulate a plan for much of anything these days, they've apparently decided to take away all possible choice and force candidates on their constituents.
It is absolutely beyond me that the DNC could do this to us right now. Do they think we don't have enough problems in Ohio? Do they think we haven't had enough political nightmares lately? Do they think of anyone besides themselves and their own power plays?
I get it: The Repubs take the elections away after the fact and the Dems rig them from the get go.
Ah democracy in action. Is this what we've been fighting for all these years? The right to have politics and politicians foisted upon us? The right to sit still and be quiet? The right not to be heard, not to be listened to, not to even be given the opportunity to pick a candidate in a state primary?
Makes me want to skip right on past the ballot box for the first time in a long time.
"I admire Paul Hackett... I consider him a great friend... The Democratic Party was very lucky to have two outstanding candidates in the race for Senate in Ohio."
"Now that the possibility of a bitter primary that inadvertently benefits a Republican incumbent is behind us, I want to urge everyone to come together in support of Sherrod Brown."
Translation: 'Now that the powers that be in Washington have decided that the citizens of Ohio shouldn't be allowed to choose their own candidate, let me introduce the person we want as your senator.'
Dean admires Hackett so much and considers him to be such a fab friend and the Dems here in Ohio were so lucky to have such a good candidate that the DNC cut off his funding and support in order to force him out of the race.
So this is democracy, hunh? Taking away our choices. How exactly does allowing the citizens of this state to choose their own candidate in the primary benefit the Republicans? In case you're wondering, it doesn't.
Since the Dems can't actually articulate a plan for much of anything these days, they've apparently decided to take away all possible choice and force candidates on their constituents.
It is absolutely beyond me that the DNC could do this to us right now. Do they think we don't have enough problems in Ohio? Do they think we haven't had enough political nightmares lately? Do they think of anyone besides themselves and their own power plays?
I get it: The Repubs take the elections away after the fact and the Dems rig them from the get go.
Ah democracy in action. Is this what we've been fighting for all these years? The right to have politics and politicians foisted upon us? The right to sit still and be quiet? The right not to be heard, not to be listened to, not to even be given the opportunity to pick a candidate in a state primary?
Makes me want to skip right on past the ballot box for the first time in a long time.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Who said that?
I give up. Now I realize fully what Mark Twain meant when he said, "The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it."
Justice Jackson wrote this in his dissent in SEC v. Chenery Corp. (Chenery II), 332 U.S. 194 (1947).
Those wacky Supreme Court justices. You just never know what they're going to write!
Justice Jackson wrote this in his dissent in SEC v. Chenery Corp. (Chenery II), 332 U.S. 194 (1947).
Those wacky Supreme Court justices. You just never know what they're going to write!
Holy Toledo, Batman
Oh Noe, no corruption here...
From today's Toledo Blade:
Tom Noe was charged today by a Lucas County grand jury with 53 felony counts relating to his dealings with $50 million coin funds he managed for the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation.
Yes, yes, I know: innocent until proven guilty. But 53 counts? If a person were charged with 53 counts of something(s) that he/she was actually innocent of, the person still needs to make some changes as he/she is clearly coming across as being really shady.
Granted it is not going to happen, but the maximum penalty should he be found guilty of those 53 counts? 172.5 years in prison.
From today's Toledo Blade:
Tom Noe was charged today by a Lucas County grand jury with 53 felony counts relating to his dealings with $50 million coin funds he managed for the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation.
Yes, yes, I know: innocent until proven guilty. But 53 counts? If a person were charged with 53 counts of something(s) that he/she was actually innocent of, the person still needs to make some changes as he/she is clearly coming across as being really shady.
Granted it is not going to happen, but the maximum penalty should he be found guilty of those 53 counts? 172.5 years in prison.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Stories of the day
In no particular order, what seem to be three of the top stories of the day:
Michelle Kwan withdrew from the Olympics today. She's one of my favorite skaters, but I'm glad she did this. She's injured, she isn't at her best. Besides the further risk to her body if she were to compete, she also risks a medal for the States. What would be the point of that? Good for her for stepping aside.
Let it snow! The NE saw a bit of snow today. Well, more than a bit: a blizzard dumped over two feet of snow in places. We saw maybe 5 flakes of snow today in Columbus. Apparently Wayne Newton and the Dallas Cowgirl Cheerleaders are stuck here at the airport. Obviously it was, for the most part, a slow news day.
Vice President Cheney accidentally shot a man yesterday while they were out hunting together. Believe it or not, I'm not going to say anything about this one. Nope. Just gonna let it go and let you fill in your own comments.
Michelle Kwan withdrew from the Olympics today. She's one of my favorite skaters, but I'm glad she did this. She's injured, she isn't at her best. Besides the further risk to her body if she were to compete, she also risks a medal for the States. What would be the point of that? Good for her for stepping aside.
Let it snow! The NE saw a bit of snow today. Well, more than a bit: a blizzard dumped over two feet of snow in places. We saw maybe 5 flakes of snow today in Columbus. Apparently Wayne Newton and the Dallas Cowgirl Cheerleaders are stuck here at the airport. Obviously it was, for the most part, a slow news day.
Vice President Cheney accidentally shot a man yesterday while they were out hunting together. Believe it or not, I'm not going to say anything about this one. Nope. Just gonna let it go and let you fill in your own comments.
Save the world with a click
In case you haven't already figured it out, these sites are all related. Click any one of the links below and across the top of the page you'll see tabs for all six sites. So go to the site, click the daily click buttons (you'll see them, they're easy to find), and feel satisfied that you did a good thing for the world without even breaking a sweat.
And if you feel like going shopping, they have some nice stuff available. You'll find that much of it is very unique with interesting origins. I've done some of my Christmas shopping through this site the last couple of years and haven't been disappointed with anything I've purchased. A bonus: all purchases help just the way the clicking does! Whichever site you access the store through (and you can enter the store through multiple sites in one shopping trip) gets the benefit of your purchase. They'll tell you how many mammograms your purchase funds or how many acres of land are saved or how many bowls of food are given to abandoned animals.
And if you feel like going shopping, they have some nice stuff available. You'll find that much of it is very unique with interesting origins. I've done some of my Christmas shopping through this site the last couple of years and haven't been disappointed with anything I've purchased. A bonus: all purchases help just the way the clicking does! Whichever site you access the store through (and you can enter the store through multiple sites in one shopping trip) gets the benefit of your purchase. They'll tell you how many mammograms your purchase funds or how many acres of land are saved or how many bowls of food are given to abandoned animals.
Monday, February 6, 2006
More stupid Ohio tricks
They're wanting to put the TEL (Tax Expenditure Limitation) on the ballot in the fall. Though it sounds good the way they pitch it ("politicians have to stop spending our money"), as one Dispatch article put it, it would be a disaster for our state.
I fear, however, that it will pass. Why? Because, again, it sounds good. People don't generally look any further than that. And this money/budget stuff, that seems hard to people so they leave it to the "experts," trusting them to do what's right.
A friend of mine at a cabinet agency is really bent about this (as she should be...), so I'll let her email explain some of what's bad about it
I am afraid it will pass bcz, like you said, it sounds really good - "hey - gov't spends too much money and this would stop them. i'll vote for it and stop those politicians from spending my tax dollars." No, those people do not stop to think for 10 seconds and apply common sense to this issue. Hmm, what does the $ go for now? Do we need those services? What negative effects will this have on the state when people stop getting served who need help, when the roads are neglected and crappy, when kids don't have the proper books and equipment to teach them skills they need for the job market, etc. argh!
Nor do those people understand that a constitutional amendment is more than just "some law." [Note from me: Of course, this is Ohio, where we like to legislate via our constitution.]
The TEL language is so broad, the courts will be deciding how to apply the law (so broad you could drive a truck through it). [And again from me: Just like last year's amendment. Remember, the one about a marriage being between a man and a woman. I know you were trying to block out the fact that it passed. But it did.] Wait, shouldn't legislation be handled by the legislative branch of government? [Well, you would think so, wouldn't you?] I understand some legislation is written and then challenged, but the TEL is very poorly written and incompletely thought out as an idea. [The drafters' responses about the problems with the universities are interesting to me. In essence they say "oh gosh, we didn't mean it that way." Uh hunh. But you wrote it that way. Which means it'll be used that way.]
What is even scarier is that the amendment comes with a supremacy clause overruling any other amendment in the constitution so money that is currently protected will no longer be protected (eg. gas tax and road construction).
I've read in more than one place that this amendment would very possibly push the public universities into operating as private universities. Why? Because it would take away their money. Money OSU raises via ticket sales and merchandising for the Bucks... the money from the hospitals... from any self-funded part of the university (or of the government)... large amounts of that money could be taken away and used elsewhere. So then how does the Shoe operate? And how do the OSU hospitals operate? But again, the drafters' response is that "we didn't mean that." Not a helpful response because they wrote it that way.
The part I really don't get is why this isn't being done through legislation. As we all know, OH is controlled by the Republicans. They pass all kinds of weird things (often behind closed doors after business hours...), why not this? Do they really think it'd fail if taken to the legislature? Curious.
I fear, however, that it will pass. Why? Because, again, it sounds good. People don't generally look any further than that. And this money/budget stuff, that seems hard to people so they leave it to the "experts," trusting them to do what's right.
A friend of mine at a cabinet agency is really bent about this (as she should be...), so I'll let her email explain some of what's bad about it
I am afraid it will pass bcz, like you said, it sounds really good - "hey - gov't spends too much money and this would stop them. i'll vote for it and stop those politicians from spending my tax dollars." No, those people do not stop to think for 10 seconds and apply common sense to this issue. Hmm, what does the $ go for now? Do we need those services? What negative effects will this have on the state when people stop getting served who need help, when the roads are neglected and crappy, when kids don't have the proper books and equipment to teach them skills they need for the job market, etc. argh!
Nor do those people understand that a constitutional amendment is more than just "some law." [Note from me: Of course, this is Ohio, where we like to legislate via our constitution.]
The TEL language is so broad, the courts will be deciding how to apply the law (so broad you could drive a truck through it). [And again from me: Just like last year's amendment. Remember, the one about a marriage being between a man and a woman. I know you were trying to block out the fact that it passed. But it did.] Wait, shouldn't legislation be handled by the legislative branch of government? [Well, you would think so, wouldn't you?] I understand some legislation is written and then challenged, but the TEL is very poorly written and incompletely thought out as an idea. [The drafters' responses about the problems with the universities are interesting to me. In essence they say "oh gosh, we didn't mean it that way." Uh hunh. But you wrote it that way. Which means it'll be used that way.]
What is even scarier is that the amendment comes with a supremacy clause overruling any other amendment in the constitution so money that is currently protected will no longer be protected (eg. gas tax and road construction).
I've read in more than one place that this amendment would very possibly push the public universities into operating as private universities. Why? Because it would take away their money. Money OSU raises via ticket sales and merchandising for the Bucks... the money from the hospitals... from any self-funded part of the university (or of the government)... large amounts of that money could be taken away and used elsewhere. So then how does the Shoe operate? And how do the OSU hospitals operate? But again, the drafters' response is that "we didn't mean that." Not a helpful response because they wrote it that way.
The part I really don't get is why this isn't being done through legislation. As we all know, OH is controlled by the Republicans. They pass all kinds of weird things (often behind closed doors after business hours...), why not this? Do they really think it'd fail if taken to the legislature? Curious.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Mocking
They mocked him! Openly mocked him!
Okay, I'll back up. During the State of the Union this evening, GW commented on his inability to pass his SS reforms last year.
And in response, the Democrats openly mocked him! They applauded and cheered. GW's response? He grinned at them.
I was on the one hand terribly amused.
Granted I'm not that old and haven't seen that many State of the Union addresses, but all the same, I have never seen such a display.
On the one hand, I was amused.
On the other hand, I was sad that the state of the union has come to this: open mocking of the president, which he acknowledged without really seeming to care about it at all.
I think that was actually a very sad moment for our nation.
Okay, I'll back up. During the State of the Union this evening, GW commented on his inability to pass his SS reforms last year.
And in response, the Democrats openly mocked him! They applauded and cheered. GW's response? He grinned at them.
I was on the one hand terribly amused.
Granted I'm not that old and haven't seen that many State of the Union addresses, but all the same, I have never seen such a display.
On the one hand, I was amused.
On the other hand, I was sad that the state of the union has come to this: open mocking of the president, which he acknowledged without really seeming to care about it at all.
I think that was actually a very sad moment for our nation.
Now that's a dilemma
For the last 5 years we've heard two overriding themes, again and again and again:
1. Democracy good.
2. Terrorism bad.
So what happens when 1 results in 2? When a democratic nation has a democratic election that results in a terrorist organization being in control of their government?
The Palestinians just elected the Hamas into office in overwhelming numbers. The people of that country have put the Hamas in power.
The United States and the European Union have declared the Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Condelezza Rice has said that we will not deal with the Hamas unless they agree to lay down arms. I'm not sure what the EU has said.
A surprise!
I started writing this earlier today, before the State of the Union address. I have to admit to being pleased by what GW had to say about this situation. Essentially he said that they're going to have to recognize Israel. Earlier in the week, Rice stated our position: they need to agree to lay down arms in order for us to deal with them.
Anyway, pleasure aside, what do you do in a situation like this? We preach and preach and preach about democracy. This was a totally democratic election. And the people elected the Hamas.
So then what does the party line become? "We support democracies and democratic elections, as long as we approve of those elected"?
I'm not saying it's easy.
It's a dilemma.
1. Democracy good.
2. Terrorism bad.
So what happens when 1 results in 2? When a democratic nation has a democratic election that results in a terrorist organization being in control of their government?
The Palestinians just elected the Hamas into office in overwhelming numbers. The people of that country have put the Hamas in power.
The United States and the European Union have declared the Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Condelezza Rice has said that we will not deal with the Hamas unless they agree to lay down arms. I'm not sure what the EU has said.
A surprise!
I started writing this earlier today, before the State of the Union address. I have to admit to being pleased by what GW had to say about this situation. Essentially he said that they're going to have to recognize Israel. Earlier in the week, Rice stated our position: they need to agree to lay down arms in order for us to deal with them.
Anyway, pleasure aside, what do you do in a situation like this? We preach and preach and preach about democracy. This was a totally democratic election. And the people elected the Hamas.
So then what does the party line become? "We support democracies and democratic elections, as long as we approve of those elected"?
I'm not saying it's easy.
It's a dilemma.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
A filibuster is the right thing to do
One of the most heard reasons given by senators for not supporting a filibuster on Monday is that the Republicans will then retaliate with the "nuclear option."
That's ridiculous. Not that the Republicans would respond that way; it's likely they would. But so what? If the Democratic senators refuse to act in fear of this option, then in effect the nuclear option has already been enacted.
The other reason I've heard the most out of Democratic senators for not supporting a filibuster is that they're afraid it will hurt them in the 2006 elections. Boy have they gotten it wrong this time. I, and many others I have talked to or heard from, will react in exactly the opposite fashion. In the fall elections, I will support those who support a filibuster on the Alito nomination. I will have to think long and hard before voting for anyone who opposes a filibuster.
I want elected officials who actually represent me. Senators who stand up for me. I don't care if it's basically a moot point because the other side has the votes for the confirmation. That doesn't matter, that's not the point.
The point is that I want to be heard. I want my senators to stand up for me. At this point, that can only happen via a filibuster.
Also, I resent that the Senate has allowed the president (aka King George... get used to it, Alito will likely actually crown the man) to set the confirmation day. GW wanted this whole business over before 2006 even started. He didn't get that. And he wasn't happy about it. Now he wants to be able to announce the confirmation in his State of the Union address. (He has nothing else positive to say. He wants to at least be able to say that he's gotten two men onto the Supreme Court.) And it looks as though the Senate Republicans have completely buckled to him and are delivering this nomination to him just in time.
How sweet.
Oh wait, I said buckled when what I meant was bent over.
Get ready folks, life as you know is about to change. Forget personal freedoms. Forget a right to privacy. That's all about to go down the drain.
It's really quite amazing. The Republicans are supposed to be against big government. Yet this current Republican-led government we're suffering through is the biggest government our country has seen in recent memory. This anti-big government party that currently rules over all of us is about to put a justice on the Supreme Court who has the potential to completely change the world as we know it.
It's amazing that these "small government people" care so much about who you sleep with, and how, how you worship, who you marry. It's simply astounding to me that a bunch of white men in Washington care so much about our sex lives, our personal lives, our private lives.
Band together my friends, and be strong, eventually the Democrats will be back in power.
Even if it is by default because so many of the Republicans are in jail...
That's ridiculous. Not that the Republicans would respond that way; it's likely they would. But so what? If the Democratic senators refuse to act in fear of this option, then in effect the nuclear option has already been enacted.
The other reason I've heard the most out of Democratic senators for not supporting a filibuster is that they're afraid it will hurt them in the 2006 elections. Boy have they gotten it wrong this time. I, and many others I have talked to or heard from, will react in exactly the opposite fashion. In the fall elections, I will support those who support a filibuster on the Alito nomination. I will have to think long and hard before voting for anyone who opposes a filibuster.
I want elected officials who actually represent me. Senators who stand up for me. I don't care if it's basically a moot point because the other side has the votes for the confirmation. That doesn't matter, that's not the point.
The point is that I want to be heard. I want my senators to stand up for me. At this point, that can only happen via a filibuster.
Also, I resent that the Senate has allowed the president (aka King George... get used to it, Alito will likely actually crown the man) to set the confirmation day. GW wanted this whole business over before 2006 even started. He didn't get that. And he wasn't happy about it. Now he wants to be able to announce the confirmation in his State of the Union address. (He has nothing else positive to say. He wants to at least be able to say that he's gotten two men onto the Supreme Court.) And it looks as though the Senate Republicans have completely buckled to him and are delivering this nomination to him just in time.
How sweet.
Oh wait, I said buckled when what I meant was bent over.
Get ready folks, life as you know is about to change. Forget personal freedoms. Forget a right to privacy. That's all about to go down the drain.
It's really quite amazing. The Republicans are supposed to be against big government. Yet this current Republican-led government we're suffering through is the biggest government our country has seen in recent memory. This anti-big government party that currently rules over all of us is about to put a justice on the Supreme Court who has the potential to completely change the world as we know it.
It's amazing that these "small government people" care so much about who you sleep with, and how, how you worship, who you marry. It's simply astounding to me that a bunch of white men in Washington care so much about our sex lives, our personal lives, our private lives.
Band together my friends, and be strong, eventually the Democrats will be back in power.
Even if it is by default because so many of the Republicans are in jail...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)