Tuesday January 19, 2010 was not exactly the "shot heard round the world," more like the "vote heard round the world." That was the day a special election was held in Massachusetts to fill the vacancy created in the US Senate by the death of Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy. Kennedy held the seat for 47 years. Before the election on the 19th, the last Republican elected to the US Senate from Massachusetts was Edward Brooke, ironically Brooke was the first African-American elected to the US Senate.
The election of Scott Brown to the US Senate breaks the "Super Majority" held and created by Senate Democrats, Independent Joe Lieberman and Socialist Bernie Sanders. The White House was quick to pronounce that Brown’s election was not a referendum on the President or his policies. The White House instead chose to blame Democratic candidate Martha Coakley for running a poor campaign. The White House conveniently forgot that Coakley won the office of Attorney General (also a statewide election) with 73% of the vote a little over two years ago.
I vigorously disagree with the White House point of view and although I don’t often agree with Virginia’s Senator Jim Webb, I believe his statement shortly after Brown’s victory is appropriate. Senator Webb said, "In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."
Recent polls have shown that the President’s health care reform efforts are backed by only 36% of the country and opposition has been well over 50% since August of 2009. During the campaign then Senator Obama promised government transparency and bipartisanship. Speaker Pelosi too promised transparency. In spite of these promises and commitments reconciliation talks between the House and Senate have been held in secret and Republicans have been virtually locked out of the process. Legislation has been written and passed without being read.
"What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" That was Michigan Representative John Conyers in an interview discussing the health care bill July 27, 2009. By the way, Representative Conyers is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a lawyer.
Throughout the summer of 2009 the President and Congressional Democrats ignored the will of the electorate. Thousands called, emailed and wrote letters of protest against Obama style health care reform. Thousands more attended and demonstrated at town hall meetings. Rather than listen, the Democrats cancelled many of the remaining meetings set in their districts. The protests culminated on September 12, 2009 when more than 1.2 million Americans gathered on the Washington Mall to let their views be known. Their protests and views were ignored.
Only time will tell if the election of Scott Brown was a wake-up for the President and Congressional Democrats. If not, then maybe Tuesday January 19, 2010 will, like April 19, 1775 become another red letter day in American history.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Call Northside 777
Recently I watched "Call Northside 777". In the film Jimmy Stewart portrays a newspaper reporter who’s assigned to follow up on an ad in the personals section of his newspaper. The mother of a convicted cop killer is offering a reward for information that proves her son is not guilty. Initially Stewart patronizes the old woman and is very cynical. Talking to her is a chore. Only after his assignment editor forces him to interview the convicted killer in prison does he slowly begin to change his mind about the whole situation. Stewart goes after each lead with energy and tenacity in spite of roadblocks at every turn. In the end, Stewart and the paper prove the man’s innocence and he’s released.
The film is based on a true story. Both in the film and in real life the paper put its reputation on the line by championing an unpopular position. They sought out and fought for the truth. The paper used its lawyers, influence and political capital to right a wrong. I think at one time most newspapers and other news organizations were interested in the truth. Reporters investigated tips, followed up on leads and reported the news. The truth mattered. The truth wasn’t subordinate to the popularity of the position. Editors were principled and fought for values.
Sadly it seems far too many members of the press today are satisfied to merely sit by the fax machine or wait for the latest press release to show up in the inbox of their email account. They’ve become echo chambers of each other; they’re repeaters, not reporters.
In far too many cases, objectivity is a casualty in the war of what passes for journalism in early 21st century America. Statements from reporters such as Chris Mathews of MSNBC when he said, "I felt this thrill going up my leg" while covering one of the presidential debates in 2008 and Newsweek’s Managing Editor Evan Thomas deifying President Obama when he said, "in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together." are too common.
And now we have a reporter advocating voter fraud. During his radio show last week MSNBC’s Ed Schultz commenting on the special election in Massachusetts to fill the late Senator Kennedy’s seat stated, "I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."
Many newspapers and television network news programs are losing circulation and ratings. They’re explaining their losses by blaming the Internet. The answer to their ratings and circulation problem can be found in a quote from the late CBS news reporter and journalist Edward R. Murrow when he said, "To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful."
What a concept, truth and objectivity in the news.
The film is based on a true story. Both in the film and in real life the paper put its reputation on the line by championing an unpopular position. They sought out and fought for the truth. The paper used its lawyers, influence and political capital to right a wrong. I think at one time most newspapers and other news organizations were interested in the truth. Reporters investigated tips, followed up on leads and reported the news. The truth mattered. The truth wasn’t subordinate to the popularity of the position. Editors were principled and fought for values.
Sadly it seems far too many members of the press today are satisfied to merely sit by the fax machine or wait for the latest press release to show up in the inbox of their email account. They’ve become echo chambers of each other; they’re repeaters, not reporters.
In far too many cases, objectivity is a casualty in the war of what passes for journalism in early 21st century America. Statements from reporters such as Chris Mathews of MSNBC when he said, "I felt this thrill going up my leg" while covering one of the presidential debates in 2008 and Newsweek’s Managing Editor Evan Thomas deifying President Obama when he said, "in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together." are too common.
And now we have a reporter advocating voter fraud. During his radio show last week MSNBC’s Ed Schultz commenting on the special election in Massachusetts to fill the late Senator Kennedy’s seat stated, "I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."
Many newspapers and television network news programs are losing circulation and ratings. They’re explaining their losses by blaming the Internet. The answer to their ratings and circulation problem can be found in a quote from the late CBS news reporter and journalist Edward R. Murrow when he said, "To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful."
What a concept, truth and objectivity in the news.
General Observations
Nearly two weeks after the "Panty Bomber" attempted to blow Northwest flight 253 with 279 passengers and 11 crew members on board out of the sky, the US State Department announced that they’d cancelled his visa. How quick would they have acted if he'd been successful?
When the "Stimulus" bill was barreling through Congress, the President told us that without it, the unemployment rate would climb above 8%. We were also told that it had to be done now or the sky would fall. Well, the Democrats passed the stimulus and to this point in time only 30 percent of the money has been spent and the unemployment is definitely above 8%. If it was so important, why have we only spent 30% of the funds? I guess the unemployment rate in all those non-existent congressional districts and phantom zip codes (fourteen in Virginia alone) is less than 8% now.
Former Democratic Presidential Nominee and current Massachusetts’ Senator John Kerry’s office recently announced he was, "getting a hip replacement." I thought that’s what Obama was supposed to be.
If the Federal Government can’t quickly and efficiently distribute H1N1 Vaccine, what makes anyone think they can run the entire healthcare delivery system?
If you didn’t get the John Kerry hip replacement joke, look at the word "hip" as an adjective instead of a noun.
Maybe there’s some honesty in the ACLU after all, the director of the ACLU is now referring to the Illinois prison the Obama Administration wants to purchase for Guantanamo detainees as "Gitmo North".
When the "Stimulus" bill was barreling through Congress, the President told us that without it, the unemployment rate would climb above 8%. We were also told that it had to be done now or the sky would fall. Well, the Democrats passed the stimulus and to this point in time only 30 percent of the money has been spent and the unemployment is definitely above 8%. If it was so important, why have we only spent 30% of the funds? I guess the unemployment rate in all those non-existent congressional districts and phantom zip codes (fourteen in Virginia alone) is less than 8% now.
Former Democratic Presidential Nominee and current Massachusetts’ Senator John Kerry’s office recently announced he was, "getting a hip replacement." I thought that’s what Obama was supposed to be.
If the Federal Government can’t quickly and efficiently distribute H1N1 Vaccine, what makes anyone think they can run the entire healthcare delivery system?
If you didn’t get the John Kerry hip replacement joke, look at the word "hip" as an adjective instead of a noun.
Maybe there’s some honesty in the ACLU after all, the director of the ACLU is now referring to the Illinois prison the Obama Administration wants to purchase for Guantanamo detainees as "Gitmo North".
The Panty Bomber or Fruit of Kaboom!
The attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day and the Obama administrations initial response to that incident proves among other things that the President is either incapable or unwilling to recognize terrorism as the national security threat that it is.
Early on in his administration (March 23, 2009) the president ordered the phrase "war on terror" be eliminated. It was replaced with the softer, gentler phrase, "man caused disaster"
The president needs a twelve-step program for terrorism. One of the first steps in any good twelve-step program is to recognize you’ve got a problem. (If you’ve never gone through a twelve-step program and if you’re a member of the locally predominant religious faith, then think the "five Rs of repentance" or however many Rs of repentance there are.) Either way you’ve got to recognize you have a problem.
The Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack. All signs point to the fact that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. The administration insisted for several days that it was a case of one lone soldier going berserk and turning on those around him. The administration has dug in their heals about their theory of the attack by refusing to award Purple Hearts to the soldiers wounded at Fort Hood.
Isn’t it ironic that the same Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who recruited the Northwest Airlines Panty Bomber (the bomb was smuggled on board in the guy’s underwear) and arranged for his training in Yemen was "suspected" Fort Hood terrorist Major Nadal Hasan’s Imam in Washington DC.
And speaking of terrorist training, what total nincompoop in the Bush Administration recommended the release of two Guantanamo detainees for art therapy in Saudi Arabia. If you haven’t heard, the Panty Bomber was trained by two former residents of Guantanamo, released in 2007 and sent to Saudi Arabia for art therapy and rehabilitation.
The administration’s initial solution to the type of threat posed by the Panty Bomber was to keep you and me in our seats for the last hour of every flight, not allow us to use the restroom or have anything in our laps. That bit of stupidity was done away with almost immediately. Their next step was to order 150 of the full body scanners that would expose, well, expose everything.
An article in the UK Independent, quoting sources in Britain’s Home Office states that the full body scanners would not have detected the Panty Bomber’s explosives.
The 911 Commission stated that, ‘al qaeda was at war with us before we were at war with them.’ The Obama Administartion, when they do address terrorism, is treating terror as a criminal matter, not the war that it is and all of us will be the losers for it.
Early on in his administration (March 23, 2009) the president ordered the phrase "war on terror" be eliminated. It was replaced with the softer, gentler phrase, "man caused disaster"
The president needs a twelve-step program for terrorism. One of the first steps in any good twelve-step program is to recognize you’ve got a problem. (If you’ve never gone through a twelve-step program and if you’re a member of the locally predominant religious faith, then think the "five Rs of repentance" or however many Rs of repentance there are.) Either way you’ve got to recognize you have a problem.
The Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack. All signs point to the fact that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. The administration insisted for several days that it was a case of one lone soldier going berserk and turning on those around him. The administration has dug in their heals about their theory of the attack by refusing to award Purple Hearts to the soldiers wounded at Fort Hood.
Isn’t it ironic that the same Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who recruited the Northwest Airlines Panty Bomber (the bomb was smuggled on board in the guy’s underwear) and arranged for his training in Yemen was "suspected" Fort Hood terrorist Major Nadal Hasan’s Imam in Washington DC.
And speaking of terrorist training, what total nincompoop in the Bush Administration recommended the release of two Guantanamo detainees for art therapy in Saudi Arabia. If you haven’t heard, the Panty Bomber was trained by two former residents of Guantanamo, released in 2007 and sent to Saudi Arabia for art therapy and rehabilitation.
The administration’s initial solution to the type of threat posed by the Panty Bomber was to keep you and me in our seats for the last hour of every flight, not allow us to use the restroom or have anything in our laps. That bit of stupidity was done away with almost immediately. Their next step was to order 150 of the full body scanners that would expose, well, expose everything.
An article in the UK Independent, quoting sources in Britain’s Home Office states that the full body scanners would not have detected the Panty Bomber’s explosives.
The 911 Commission stated that, ‘al qaeda was at war with us before we were at war with them.’ The Obama Administartion, when they do address terrorism, is treating terror as a criminal matter, not the war that it is and all of us will be the losers for it.
An Economics Lesson for The President...
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
This quote has been attributed to sources as wide and varied as Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Fred Zamberletti former trainer and current Minnesota Vikings team historian and former New Orleans Saints’ Nose Tackle Tony Elliot.
The quote, "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" has just as many attributions; Winston Churchill, Santa Ana and Aristotle to name a few.
The Obama administration’s economic policies have not worked in the past and from all appearances are not working now. So why does President Obama believe his stimulus plan and economic policies will revive the U.S. economy?
As early as January 27, 2009, more than two hundred economists argued against the administration and congress’ massive stimulus plan. As time and the debate went on, that number only grew. Apparently economists study history.
Keynesian economics; the practice of putting more dollars into the hands of consumers, should in theory work. When the dollars come from tax cuts, conservative Keynesian economic theory does work. President Kennedy first proposed tax cuts in 1962. Shortly after his death, his proposals were enacted into law and the economy grew. The economy grew after the Reagan tax cuts in the ‘80s and after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts as well.
Keynesian economics don’t work when they take the form of economic stimulus plans such as President Obama’s, President Hoover’s, Franklin Roosevelt’s and the Japanese government’s multiple stimulus efforts in the 90s.
The Obama stimulus plan is compounded by the fact that the President is monetizing much of the debt. Monetizing the debt is when money is printed rather than borrowed to cover the debt. President Obama, in just 38 DAYS, grew the national debt by over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, an amount that exceeded the EIGHT YEAR total of President George W. Bush’s administration.
The fledgling "recovery" is an illusion. What little growth that has occurred is almost exclusively growth of government. Recent reported growth in income is also almost exclusively an increase in Federal government wages. Earlier this month The Commerce Department reported an uptick in consumer spending. If you read the entire report you’ll learn that the uptick is entirely a product of increased gasoline prices. And finally, the "Real Unemployment Rate", also known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 is over 17.5%. Real economic growth; sustainable economic growth will only come from the private sector. The President’s policies are not and will not revive the U.S. economy.
The Chinese government both in public and private is lecturing and warning the Obama administration about our government spending and unsustainable national debt. They have a 3,500 year written history. It would seem they not only read their own history, but the history of the West as well. In May of 2009 China held 44% of foreign held U.S. Government debt. If China were to stop buying U.S. Treasuries, the result would be hyper-inflation and interest rates not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter. (The prime interest rate when Jimmy Carter left office in January of 1981 was 20.5%, today it is 3.25%) Maybe we should pay attention.
Currently the Democratic leadership in the Congress is cobbling together a second stimulus package. Apparently Congress neither reads history nor learns from past experiences.
So why does President Obama think his stimulus plan and economic policies will work?
Is the President ignorant of history or so arrogant that he thinks it doesn’t apply to him?
This quote has been attributed to sources as wide and varied as Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Fred Zamberletti former trainer and current Minnesota Vikings team historian and former New Orleans Saints’ Nose Tackle Tony Elliot.
The quote, "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" has just as many attributions; Winston Churchill, Santa Ana and Aristotle to name a few.
The Obama administration’s economic policies have not worked in the past and from all appearances are not working now. So why does President Obama believe his stimulus plan and economic policies will revive the U.S. economy?
As early as January 27, 2009, more than two hundred economists argued against the administration and congress’ massive stimulus plan. As time and the debate went on, that number only grew. Apparently economists study history.
Keynesian economics; the practice of putting more dollars into the hands of consumers, should in theory work. When the dollars come from tax cuts, conservative Keynesian economic theory does work. President Kennedy first proposed tax cuts in 1962. Shortly after his death, his proposals were enacted into law and the economy grew. The economy grew after the Reagan tax cuts in the ‘80s and after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts as well.
Keynesian economics don’t work when they take the form of economic stimulus plans such as President Obama’s, President Hoover’s, Franklin Roosevelt’s and the Japanese government’s multiple stimulus efforts in the 90s.
The Obama stimulus plan is compounded by the fact that the President is monetizing much of the debt. Monetizing the debt is when money is printed rather than borrowed to cover the debt. President Obama, in just 38 DAYS, grew the national debt by over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, an amount that exceeded the EIGHT YEAR total of President George W. Bush’s administration.
The fledgling "recovery" is an illusion. What little growth that has occurred is almost exclusively growth of government. Recent reported growth in income is also almost exclusively an increase in Federal government wages. Earlier this month The Commerce Department reported an uptick in consumer spending. If you read the entire report you’ll learn that the uptick is entirely a product of increased gasoline prices. And finally, the "Real Unemployment Rate", also known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 is over 17.5%. Real economic growth; sustainable economic growth will only come from the private sector. The President’s policies are not and will not revive the U.S. economy.
The Chinese government both in public and private is lecturing and warning the Obama administration about our government spending and unsustainable national debt. They have a 3,500 year written history. It would seem they not only read their own history, but the history of the West as well. In May of 2009 China held 44% of foreign held U.S. Government debt. If China were to stop buying U.S. Treasuries, the result would be hyper-inflation and interest rates not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter. (The prime interest rate when Jimmy Carter left office in January of 1981 was 20.5%, today it is 3.25%) Maybe we should pay attention.
Currently the Democratic leadership in the Congress is cobbling together a second stimulus package. Apparently Congress neither reads history nor learns from past experiences.
So why does President Obama think his stimulus plan and economic policies will work?
Is the President ignorant of history or so arrogant that he thinks it doesn’t apply to him?
UPD, Bad Idea or Just Poorly Implemented?
I have been an advocate of a valley wide unified police department for a long time. I was introduced to the concept in either the late ‘70s or early ‘80s. The economies of scale and smaller administrative bureaucracies of a Unified Police Department appealed to me. Candidate Winder, now Sheriff Winder made the Unified Police Department (UPD) one of the main components of his election campaign.
So last week when it was announced that a NEW fee would be needed to fund UPD, I was forced to rethink my position. When I learned that if the fee wasn’t imposed 100 deputies would be laid off; I was REALLY forced to rethink my position. I’d like to pose some questions for you to consider.
According to a Salt Lake County press release the UPD will save money. So if the county is saving money, will property taxes be reduced to compensate for the new fee?
No, property taxes will not be reduced. Funds for police and fire primarily come from sales tax revenues and sales tax revenues have dropped during the recent economic downturn. The new fee will be imposed on both businesses and homes. Some of the monthly fees for businesses are rather hefty. Businesses are not only taxed based on the type of business, but they’re taxed based on the number of employees too. Some businesses will either fire people or simply not fill positions when employees retire or quit. Oh, by the way, your church will be taxed too. So, the new fee will damage an already weak economy.
Funds for the deputies who patrol and serve in the UPD participating cities and towns were already budgeted. Where are the additional funds generated by the NEW fees being spent?
If the fee is not imposed and the Sheriff actually fires 100 deputies, the cities and towns affected by the layoffs won’t just sit idly by, they’ll use funds already budgeted for law enforcement and hire officers to police their communities. Logically, you’d hire the previously trained and experienced county deputies.
If the funds generated by the fees are for startup, then either bond and retire the bonds with the anticipated savings or make it clear that the fees are temporary and build in a hard and fast sunset clause.
If the funds generated by the fees are to hire more deputies or purchase new equipment, then don’t. Wait until the savings generated by UPD have been realized to increase the force and buy new equipment.
If the new fee is required to fund the UPD, then it would seem the entire concept and projected savings of a Unified Police Department are flawed. Either the wrong people put it together or it’s the wrong time to implement the idea.
If the fee is to fund the UPD, then it would seem that the UPD is just a way to free up other tax funds for other county priorities and was simply a ruse to raise taxes. In other words, tax funds that would have gone to the Sheriff’s office were spent elsewhere and a fee was created to fund the UPD. A new tax extorted by playing on people’s fears. If you don’t pay the fee 100 deputies will be laid off.
The UPD is a good idea, but it’s either the wrong time or it’s being implemented by the wrong people.
Shame on Sheriff Jim Winder, Mayor Corroon and the County Council.
So last week when it was announced that a NEW fee would be needed to fund UPD, I was forced to rethink my position. When I learned that if the fee wasn’t imposed 100 deputies would be laid off; I was REALLY forced to rethink my position. I’d like to pose some questions for you to consider.
According to a Salt Lake County press release the UPD will save money. So if the county is saving money, will property taxes be reduced to compensate for the new fee?
No, property taxes will not be reduced. Funds for police and fire primarily come from sales tax revenues and sales tax revenues have dropped during the recent economic downturn. The new fee will be imposed on both businesses and homes. Some of the monthly fees for businesses are rather hefty. Businesses are not only taxed based on the type of business, but they’re taxed based on the number of employees too. Some businesses will either fire people or simply not fill positions when employees retire or quit. Oh, by the way, your church will be taxed too. So, the new fee will damage an already weak economy.
Funds for the deputies who patrol and serve in the UPD participating cities and towns were already budgeted. Where are the additional funds generated by the NEW fees being spent?
If the fee is not imposed and the Sheriff actually fires 100 deputies, the cities and towns affected by the layoffs won’t just sit idly by, they’ll use funds already budgeted for law enforcement and hire officers to police their communities. Logically, you’d hire the previously trained and experienced county deputies.
If the funds generated by the fees are for startup, then either bond and retire the bonds with the anticipated savings or make it clear that the fees are temporary and build in a hard and fast sunset clause.
If the funds generated by the fees are to hire more deputies or purchase new equipment, then don’t. Wait until the savings generated by UPD have been realized to increase the force and buy new equipment.
If the new fee is required to fund the UPD, then it would seem the entire concept and projected savings of a Unified Police Department are flawed. Either the wrong people put it together or it’s the wrong time to implement the idea.
If the fee is to fund the UPD, then it would seem that the UPD is just a way to free up other tax funds for other county priorities and was simply a ruse to raise taxes. In other words, tax funds that would have gone to the Sheriff’s office were spent elsewhere and a fee was created to fund the UPD. A new tax extorted by playing on people’s fears. If you don’t pay the fee 100 deputies will be laid off.
The UPD is a good idea, but it’s either the wrong time or it’s being implemented by the wrong people.
Shame on Sheriff Jim Winder, Mayor Corroon and the County Council.
A Day That Will Live In Infamy...
June 12, 1974 a day that will live in infamy. (Well at least in Utah Democrat Party politics.) I know I’m showing my age, but this all has a point. On that day first term U.S. Congressman Allen Howe solicited a Salt Lake City PD decoy prostitute and gave the November 1974 election to a Republican to be named later.
Approximately two years later the powerful Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; Wilbur Mills was re-elected AFTER being caught drunk with a stripper, ER, pardon me, exotic dancer.
Florida Republican congressman Mark Foley resigned after sending dirty text messages to an underage congressional page. THIRTY YEARS earlier, Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds had an affair with a page, was finally censured ten years later and was still re-elected for another seven terms AFTER the censure.
Were you angry about any of the above incidents?
When the Allen Howe and Wilbur Mills incidents took place, I remember commenting to a friend of mine, that both of them should have just put someone on their staff. I was a rather cynical teen. That said, I was, and still am angry at the media and Democrats over the different standards applied to Foley versus Studds. Representative Studds was given a standing ovation after his censure, Representative Foley was practically run out of town on a rail.
How many of them were you aware of or are they all just minor footnotes in history?
Today, if your angry about powerful men and their sexual adventures, who are you angrier with; Tiger Woods, Republican Governor Terry Sanford of South Carolina or Democrat Senator Max Baucus of Montana?
Even though Governor Sanford and Senator Baucus used taxpayer funds for their sexual peccadilloes, I’d wager you’re angrier with Tiger. I know I am and I think I know why you may be angrier with Tiger.
We’ve all been betrayed. You can choose to believe the rumors about the media, PGA (Professional Golf Association) officials and Tiger’s sponsors knowing about Tiger’s vices for years. You can also believe they’ve all been complicit in a massive cover up of the real Tiger Woods. But, even if you don’t believe those rumors, Tiger’s image is still something that was carefully crafted beginning with his first appearance on the "Tonight Show with Johnny Carson" so many years ago.
We’re angry because we’ve been duped. We WANTED to believe in this well-spoken, well-mannered man who is an incredible golfer. I think we wanted to believe in this guy with such a stunningingly beautiful wife and the gazillions of dollars we all threw at him when he sold us Nike shirts, Buicks and Gatorade. We may even have lived vicariously in his accomplishments as he shattered the glass ceiling of the racial barriers of golf and became arguably the greatest golfer of all time.
Tiger Woods is still a great golfer. But the public’s admiration and respect was built on a false image. So really, who should we be angrier with, the man who created the false image or those who kept the real Tiger hidden from the public?
Why choose just one, you can be angry with the whole kit and kaboodle.
I wonder how many more Tiger like false images are out there being protected by the media and/or politicians.
UPDATE
Shortly after last weeks edition went to press Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s lawyer announced they will use a justification defense in his trial. Seems this guy was justified in taking down the World Trade Center and
Approximately two years later the powerful Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; Wilbur Mills was re-elected AFTER being caught drunk with a stripper, ER, pardon me, exotic dancer.
Florida Republican congressman Mark Foley resigned after sending dirty text messages to an underage congressional page. THIRTY YEARS earlier, Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds had an affair with a page, was finally censured ten years later and was still re-elected for another seven terms AFTER the censure.
Were you angry about any of the above incidents?
When the Allen Howe and Wilbur Mills incidents took place, I remember commenting to a friend of mine, that both of them should have just put someone on their staff. I was a rather cynical teen. That said, I was, and still am angry at the media and Democrats over the different standards applied to Foley versus Studds. Representative Studds was given a standing ovation after his censure, Representative Foley was practically run out of town on a rail.
How many of them were you aware of or are they all just minor footnotes in history?
Today, if your angry about powerful men and their sexual adventures, who are you angrier with; Tiger Woods, Republican Governor Terry Sanford of South Carolina or Democrat Senator Max Baucus of Montana?
Even though Governor Sanford and Senator Baucus used taxpayer funds for their sexual peccadilloes, I’d wager you’re angrier with Tiger. I know I am and I think I know why you may be angrier with Tiger.
We’ve all been betrayed. You can choose to believe the rumors about the media, PGA (Professional Golf Association) officials and Tiger’s sponsors knowing about Tiger’s vices for years. You can also believe they’ve all been complicit in a massive cover up of the real Tiger Woods. But, even if you don’t believe those rumors, Tiger’s image is still something that was carefully crafted beginning with his first appearance on the "Tonight Show with Johnny Carson" so many years ago.
We’re angry because we’ve been duped. We WANTED to believe in this well-spoken, well-mannered man who is an incredible golfer. I think we wanted to believe in this guy with such a stunningingly beautiful wife and the gazillions of dollars we all threw at him when he sold us Nike shirts, Buicks and Gatorade. We may even have lived vicariously in his accomplishments as he shattered the glass ceiling of the racial barriers of golf and became arguably the greatest golfer of all time.
Tiger Woods is still a great golfer. But the public’s admiration and respect was built on a false image. So really, who should we be angrier with, the man who created the false image or those who kept the real Tiger hidden from the public?
Why choose just one, you can be angry with the whole kit and kaboodle.
I wonder how many more Tiger like false images are out there being protected by the media and/or politicians.
UPDATE
Shortly after last weeks edition went to press Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s lawyer announced they will use a justification defense in his trial. Seems this guy was justified in taking down the World Trade Center and
Who's Constitution is this?
The Obama Administration was wrong when Attorney General Holder elected to try terrorists in Federal court in New York City or for that matter anywhere in the United States. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was created specifically to address the unique situation of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and received overwhelming bi-partisan support. In several rulings the Supreme Court signaled what would and would not be acceptable in the act. Attorney General Holder’s decision will have numerous long-term negative consequences both at home and abroad and I believe will weaken the Constitution and many long established rights e.g., Miranda, Habeas Corpus, representation during questioning and the right to a speedy trial to name only a few.
Before I lay out my arguments I will state for the record I am not an attorney, I don’t even play one on TV. Usually when I’m on TV I play a physician or college professor. but, I digress. My legal education comes from years of watching Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, Judge Alex and all of the various incarnations of Law and Order. If there is any attorney who is admitted to practice before the federal bar and especially if you have tried criminal cases in federal court, please write to me in care of this paper and tell me where my facts and or logic are wrong.
The following are the legal flaws and pitfalls I see in this decision. There are numerous other philosophical problems I choose not to pursue.
Attorney General Holder should have recused himself from making this decision. The Attorney General has at least two conflicts of interest. Before taking his current office as Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder was a senior partner in the Washington DC law firm of Covington & Burling. His firm is representing 17 terrorists pro bono (Providing legal services free of charge). Furthermore, in February of 2000, then Deputy Attorney General Holder engineered and pushed the pardon of 16 Puerto Rican FALN terrorists. The pardon was opposed by the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers maimed by them. I don’t think terrorists should be pardoned. I also think you shouldn’t decide how and where to prosecute people your firm still represents.
If these cases ever make it to a courtroom, I don’t believe a fair trial is possible. I think President Obama and Attorney General Holder made a fair trial by jury impossible when they GUARANTEED a conviction and execution. You might argue that all prosecutors guarantee convictions and it’s their way of showing confidence in their case. Agreed. However, Eric Holder is no ordinary prosecutor, he is the Attorney General of the United States. He didn’t make his guarantee at a news conference or in a TV interview. He gave his guarantee during SWORN TESTIMONY before the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Obama GUARANTEED a conviction and execution in a press conference. With a guarantee like that, when or if a conviction takes place, rightly or wrongly, our judicial system will immediately be labeled as a Kangaroo Court.
NOTE: Re-read the previous two paragraphs. It seems the Attorney General is playing both sides of the fence. Defending terrorists on the one hand and guaranteeing conviction and execution on the other.
But, I’m already getting ahead of myself. You cannot guarantee how a presiding judge is going to rule in what will surely be a large number of pre-trial motions and hearings. When Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, "the Blind Sheik," was arrested, tried and eventually convicted after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the FBI, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Manhattan and the NYPD bent over backwards to cross every "T" and dot every "I", as they should have. Even so, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals had to reinstate the indictment after the presiding judge threw it out. Considering the importance of these trials, I think justice is better served by a three judge Military Commission than by one, possibly rogue, judge.
The cases against the subjects of this new round of criminal terrorist trials will not be nearly so neat and tidy as the case against "The Blind Sheikh". These men were captured on the field of battle. There weren’t any Miranda warnings given and until the US Supreme Court stepped in, no habeas corpus either. Habeas corpus is a Writ seeking relief from unlawful detention. Because all of these men have been held at Guantanamo since their capture I don’t think they’ll get a speedy trial under any definition of a speedy trial. Finally, whether or not you believe the interrogations which took place were or were not torture, none of them had lawyers present during questioning.
These men were captured on the battlefield so initially the rules of evidence, Miranda, habeas corpus, the right to a speedy trial and the right to representation were ignored. If these men are now tried and convicted and if their convictions are allowed to stand, what does that say?
It says that yours and my Miranda rights, habeas corpus and right to representation and our 6th amendment right to a speedy trial can be ignored as well.
On to Discovery; the legal process where both sides show what evidence they have and reveal their witness list. How much of our intelligence gathering techniques, technology and sources will the government be compelled to disclose to insure a fair trial?
Oh, and then there’s the witness list, this would include the names of CIA interrogators and case officers. It might even include undercover informants within Al Qaeda or other governments’ undercover intelligence agents. I’m sure the Mossad (The Israeli Secret Service) would love to have their agents covers on the front page of the New York Times or on CNN. If we’re lucky none of this evidence will be produced, but then without evidence, there can’t be a trial, and without a trial there’s no conviction or execution.
And then there’s jury selection. In this case I believe the jury can go to either of two extremes. It will either be impossible to find an impartial jury or in spite of Attorney General Holder and President Obama’s assurances to the contrary we could get a hung jury or worse yet an acquittal. Jury’s sometimes goober. Does anyone remember that guy who played football for USC and the Buffalo Bills, I think his name was O.J. Simpson.
We went through years of judicial, political and legislative wrangling to get to a solution of the problem of Guantanamo detainees. The overwhelmingly bi-partisan solution was the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Why are we now trashing that solution?
Does anyone out there, besides Attorney General Holder and President Obama see an upside to this?
In my opinion Attorney General Holder’s decision is illogical and criminally irresponsible.
Before I lay out my arguments I will state for the record I am not an attorney, I don’t even play one on TV. Usually when I’m on TV I play a physician or college professor. but, I digress. My legal education comes from years of watching Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, Judge Alex and all of the various incarnations of Law and Order. If there is any attorney who is admitted to practice before the federal bar and especially if you have tried criminal cases in federal court, please write to me in care of this paper and tell me where my facts and or logic are wrong.
The following are the legal flaws and pitfalls I see in this decision. There are numerous other philosophical problems I choose not to pursue.
Attorney General Holder should have recused himself from making this decision. The Attorney General has at least two conflicts of interest. Before taking his current office as Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder was a senior partner in the Washington DC law firm of Covington & Burling. His firm is representing 17 terrorists pro bono (Providing legal services free of charge). Furthermore, in February of 2000, then Deputy Attorney General Holder engineered and pushed the pardon of 16 Puerto Rican FALN terrorists. The pardon was opposed by the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers maimed by them. I don’t think terrorists should be pardoned. I also think you shouldn’t decide how and where to prosecute people your firm still represents.
If these cases ever make it to a courtroom, I don’t believe a fair trial is possible. I think President Obama and Attorney General Holder made a fair trial by jury impossible when they GUARANTEED a conviction and execution. You might argue that all prosecutors guarantee convictions and it’s their way of showing confidence in their case. Agreed. However, Eric Holder is no ordinary prosecutor, he is the Attorney General of the United States. He didn’t make his guarantee at a news conference or in a TV interview. He gave his guarantee during SWORN TESTIMONY before the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Obama GUARANTEED a conviction and execution in a press conference. With a guarantee like that, when or if a conviction takes place, rightly or wrongly, our judicial system will immediately be labeled as a Kangaroo Court.
NOTE: Re-read the previous two paragraphs. It seems the Attorney General is playing both sides of the fence. Defending terrorists on the one hand and guaranteeing conviction and execution on the other.
But, I’m already getting ahead of myself. You cannot guarantee how a presiding judge is going to rule in what will surely be a large number of pre-trial motions and hearings. When Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, "the Blind Sheik," was arrested, tried and eventually convicted after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the FBI, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Manhattan and the NYPD bent over backwards to cross every "T" and dot every "I", as they should have. Even so, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals had to reinstate the indictment after the presiding judge threw it out. Considering the importance of these trials, I think justice is better served by a three judge Military Commission than by one, possibly rogue, judge.
The cases against the subjects of this new round of criminal terrorist trials will not be nearly so neat and tidy as the case against "The Blind Sheikh". These men were captured on the field of battle. There weren’t any Miranda warnings given and until the US Supreme Court stepped in, no habeas corpus either. Habeas corpus is a Writ seeking relief from unlawful detention. Because all of these men have been held at Guantanamo since their capture I don’t think they’ll get a speedy trial under any definition of a speedy trial. Finally, whether or not you believe the interrogations which took place were or were not torture, none of them had lawyers present during questioning.
These men were captured on the battlefield so initially the rules of evidence, Miranda, habeas corpus, the right to a speedy trial and the right to representation were ignored. If these men are now tried and convicted and if their convictions are allowed to stand, what does that say?
It says that yours and my Miranda rights, habeas corpus and right to representation and our 6th amendment right to a speedy trial can be ignored as well.
On to Discovery; the legal process where both sides show what evidence they have and reveal their witness list. How much of our intelligence gathering techniques, technology and sources will the government be compelled to disclose to insure a fair trial?
Oh, and then there’s the witness list, this would include the names of CIA interrogators and case officers. It might even include undercover informants within Al Qaeda or other governments’ undercover intelligence agents. I’m sure the Mossad (The Israeli Secret Service) would love to have their agents covers on the front page of the New York Times or on CNN. If we’re lucky none of this evidence will be produced, but then without evidence, there can’t be a trial, and without a trial there’s no conviction or execution.
And then there’s jury selection. In this case I believe the jury can go to either of two extremes. It will either be impossible to find an impartial jury or in spite of Attorney General Holder and President Obama’s assurances to the contrary we could get a hung jury or worse yet an acquittal. Jury’s sometimes goober. Does anyone remember that guy who played football for USC and the Buffalo Bills, I think his name was O.J. Simpson.
We went through years of judicial, political and legislative wrangling to get to a solution of the problem of Guantanamo detainees. The overwhelmingly bi-partisan solution was the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Why are we now trashing that solution?
Does anyone out there, besides Attorney General Holder and President Obama see an upside to this?
In my opinion Attorney General Holder’s decision is illogical and criminally irresponsible.
You Deserve a Break Today...
This past week has offered an overwhelming bounty, no, a veritable cornucopia of material and stories for a column like mine. From a pizza delivery driver in Sandy "allegedly" attempting to bribe a police officer with pizza, (I didn’t know pizza came in donut flavors) to the Mayor of Stockton taking nepotism to new heights when he fired an officer for writing his son a ticket. And, my personal favorite, rapping your order at McDonalds.
The McDonalds incident alone provides 2-3 weeks worth of material; there’s racism, (several different degrees of racism) not to mention the always popular, "people with too much time on their hands" and, what I’ve chosen to address…
Hmm, I haven’t come up with a clever name for the particular human sub-species I’m thinking of, think of him this way, remember the guy or girl in second grade who on Friday afternoon at 2:19 (the bell at my school rang at 2:20) would raise their hand and loudly pronounce, "Miss Jensen, you forgot to give us our homework."
In one man’s opinion, that’s who the McDonalds employee who called the police last week is. As I’m writing this McDonalds has released a statement saying that the, "employee felt threatened".
Four teenagers were being teenagers and rapped their order. My sympathy was decreased when I learned one of them dropped an "F" bomb, however, they left when they were asked to leave and as far as I know, did not do any property damage. I think if there had been property damage the charges would most certainly be, "Felony Rapping or Aggravated Hip Hop".
If there is any common sense left in the world, the city attorney will ask the courts to dismiss the citations, if madness and idiocy reign in early 21st century America, then I guess normal teenaged pranks will soon be upgraded from misdemeanors to felonies.
Has the statute of limitations run on my teenage years?
The McDonalds incident alone provides 2-3 weeks worth of material; there’s racism, (several different degrees of racism) not to mention the always popular, "people with too much time on their hands" and, what I’ve chosen to address…
Hmm, I haven’t come up with a clever name for the particular human sub-species I’m thinking of, think of him this way, remember the guy or girl in second grade who on Friday afternoon at 2:19 (the bell at my school rang at 2:20) would raise their hand and loudly pronounce, "Miss Jensen, you forgot to give us our homework."
In one man’s opinion, that’s who the McDonalds employee who called the police last week is. As I’m writing this McDonalds has released a statement saying that the, "employee felt threatened".
Four teenagers were being teenagers and rapped their order. My sympathy was decreased when I learned one of them dropped an "F" bomb, however, they left when they were asked to leave and as far as I know, did not do any property damage. I think if there had been property damage the charges would most certainly be, "Felony Rapping or Aggravated Hip Hop".
If there is any common sense left in the world, the city attorney will ask the courts to dismiss the citations, if madness and idiocy reign in early 21st century America, then I guess normal teenaged pranks will soon be upgraded from misdemeanors to felonies.
Has the statute of limitations run on my teenage years?
Freedom of Who's Speech?
I am a proud Reagan conservative and in my opinion the ACLU is a left-of-center liberal organization. With those facts in mind, whenever I find myself on the same side of an issue as the ACLU, I check my moral compass, beliefs and bearings.
When the ACLU defended the free speech rights of Nazis in Skokie, Illinois in the late 1970s, as repugnant as their views are and were, I understood the value of free political speech.
When the ACLU filed a "friend of the court" brief during the NRA’s challenge of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Laws, I cheered loudly from the sidelines.
So as the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled congress has introduced legislation calling for free speech curbs on the Internet, the ACLU’s silence has been deafening.
On November 10th a story on the CBS News website caught my eye: A federal grand jury in Indianapolis had served a supoena on a self-described, left-of-center blog and news website, Indymedia.us. The supoena demanded, "IP addresses, (the unique, largely unknown address every computer carries) times, and any other identifying information including email addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts" of Indymedia site visitors. The supoena did not seek information on writers or contributors of information to the site; it wanted this very private and personal information about the site’s visitors. The supoena further demanded, "Indymedia’s readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers and so on."
If Indymedia had instructions for making truck bombs or suicide vests on it’s site, the supoena would be reasonable. That’s not the case. The site is a site about OPINION and ADVOCACY. Agree or disagree with their views, opinion and advocacy is a large part of political free speech.
Oh, just one more thing, I originally found the link to this story on drudgereport.com. Even though the supoena was eventually withdrawn, the Department of Justice threatened to charge the site’s administrators with obstruction of justice for disclosing the existence of the supoena. In one man’s opinion, the ACLU’s complete silence on this issue and on the issue of federal control over political free speech on the Internet speaks volumes.
When the ACLU defended the free speech rights of Nazis in Skokie, Illinois in the late 1970s, as repugnant as their views are and were, I understood the value of free political speech.
When the ACLU filed a "friend of the court" brief during the NRA’s challenge of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Laws, I cheered loudly from the sidelines.
So as the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled congress has introduced legislation calling for free speech curbs on the Internet, the ACLU’s silence has been deafening.
On November 10th a story on the CBS News website caught my eye: A federal grand jury in Indianapolis had served a supoena on a self-described, left-of-center blog and news website, Indymedia.us. The supoena demanded, "IP addresses, (the unique, largely unknown address every computer carries) times, and any other identifying information including email addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts" of Indymedia site visitors. The supoena did not seek information on writers or contributors of information to the site; it wanted this very private and personal information about the site’s visitors. The supoena further demanded, "Indymedia’s readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers and so on."
If Indymedia had instructions for making truck bombs or suicide vests on it’s site, the supoena would be reasonable. That’s not the case. The site is a site about OPINION and ADVOCACY. Agree or disagree with their views, opinion and advocacy is a large part of political free speech.
Oh, just one more thing, I originally found the link to this story on drudgereport.com. Even though the supoena was eventually withdrawn, the Department of Justice threatened to charge the site’s administrators with obstruction of justice for disclosing the existence of the supoena. In one man’s opinion, the ACLU’s complete silence on this issue and on the issue of federal control over political free speech on the Internet speaks volumes.
Grounded
The New York Times reported last week that a mother and her two-year old son were forced to deplane from a Southwest airline flight before it even left the ground.
While the flight was waiting in line for permission to takeoff, the tiny tot repeatedly shouted, "Go Plane Go!" and "I want Daddy!"
The reporting typifies poor journalism. We don’t know if the other passengers gave the crew a standing ovation for their actions, or simply passed the hat to collect a well-deserved tip.
At one time my job required as many as three flights a week. Invariably I’d wind up on a Delta flight on Sunday night that left Atlanta at 11:00 P.M. and arrived four hours later in Salt Lake at 1:00 A.M. Initially it was a great flight. It wasn’t crowded and quite often I had an entire row of seats to myself. I could stretch out and get a good nap.
But then one Sunday night a child (and I use the term loosely) boarded the flight. The kid was probably the spawn of Satan specifically put on the flight to torment and punish me for my sins. Anyway I digress, we weren’t even off the ground and the kid started to wail. No, not wail, it was what I have since come to call "The Chainsaw Cry".
Have you ever heard the sound a two-cycle small gas engine makes when you attempt to start it and it won’t quite start? That incessant, aggravating nerve wracking, staccato, "Uh, Uh, Uh…"
A typical flight between Atlanta, Georgia and Salt Lake City, Utah would have a flying time of about 4 hours. This assumes an average flight speed for a commercial airliner of 500 mph, which is equivalent to 805 km/hr or 434 knots. Not this time.
On that particular dark and dreary night, the flight wasn’t the only thing that was non-stop. I’ve never come closer before or since to committing child abuse. It was 1,584 miles, 1,584 long miles of Hellish torment.
I’ve been flying long enough to remember when people were allowed to smoke on planes. I’d choose a 747 with 250 Japanese businessmen smoking their particularly pungent cigarettes non-stop for 10 hours between Seattle and Tokyo over a single 35 pound snot nosed, tow headed American kid any day of the week. (But especially on Sunday.)
We have non-smoking regulations, how about child free flights?
Or instead of fuel surcharges and checked bag fees, a "Toddler Tariff" or a "Child Charge". Put the money towards earplugs or group therapy for the other passengers.
Or, in addition to defibrillators on all domestic and overseas flights, a federal Benadryl mandate.
While the flight was waiting in line for permission to takeoff, the tiny tot repeatedly shouted, "Go Plane Go!" and "I want Daddy!"
The reporting typifies poor journalism. We don’t know if the other passengers gave the crew a standing ovation for their actions, or simply passed the hat to collect a well-deserved tip.
At one time my job required as many as three flights a week. Invariably I’d wind up on a Delta flight on Sunday night that left Atlanta at 11:00 P.M. and arrived four hours later in Salt Lake at 1:00 A.M. Initially it was a great flight. It wasn’t crowded and quite often I had an entire row of seats to myself. I could stretch out and get a good nap.
But then one Sunday night a child (and I use the term loosely) boarded the flight. The kid was probably the spawn of Satan specifically put on the flight to torment and punish me for my sins. Anyway I digress, we weren’t even off the ground and the kid started to wail. No, not wail, it was what I have since come to call "The Chainsaw Cry".
Have you ever heard the sound a two-cycle small gas engine makes when you attempt to start it and it won’t quite start? That incessant, aggravating nerve wracking, staccato, "Uh, Uh, Uh…"
A typical flight between Atlanta, Georgia and Salt Lake City, Utah would have a flying time of about 4 hours. This assumes an average flight speed for a commercial airliner of 500 mph, which is equivalent to 805 km/hr or 434 knots. Not this time.
On that particular dark and dreary night, the flight wasn’t the only thing that was non-stop. I’ve never come closer before or since to committing child abuse. It was 1,584 miles, 1,584 long miles of Hellish torment.
I’ve been flying long enough to remember when people were allowed to smoke on planes. I’d choose a 747 with 250 Japanese businessmen smoking their particularly pungent cigarettes non-stop for 10 hours between Seattle and Tokyo over a single 35 pound snot nosed, tow headed American kid any day of the week. (But especially on Sunday.)
We have non-smoking regulations, how about child free flights?
Or instead of fuel surcharges and checked bag fees, a "Toddler Tariff" or a "Child Charge". Put the money towards earplugs or group therapy for the other passengers.
Or, in addition to defibrillators on all domestic and overseas flights, a federal Benadryl mandate.
Bambi Encounter
I had the radio on the other day and heard the words; "animal encounter" and "stimulus money" in the same news story.
"Animal encounter." My thoughts immediately turned to a vacation in Florida a few years back and the disappointment from certain family members when I chose not to spend $79 a head for a 30 minute swim with Flipper. Everyone else thought it was a good deal, but seven of us times $79 for 30 minutes plus souvenir photos, tee shirts, dolphin safe tuna sandwiches…
Well, it was a good deal more than I cared to spend at the time.
My kind of animal encounter is the San Diego Zoo’s 1,800-acre wild animal park. You ride around the perimeter in the little open-air train and watch African Plains animals in a relatively natural setting. It’s great, I loved it, and the kids loved it too.
"Animal encounter." The words bring to mind soft music, soothing calm and gentleness like tiny kittens or warm puppies. Imagine my surprise when I learned that "animal encounter" is the new term for hitting and wounding, if not killing an animal as well as quite possibly yourself. This is what was once called "AN ACCIDENT!"
Yes, UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation) applied for and received federal stimulus funds to build a fence in Parley’s Canyon so that our 2,654 pound Ford hurtling down Parley’s at 65 (er uh, 70?) miles an hour doesn’t have an "encounter" with Bambi and convert the deer boy into 300 pounds of venison burger!
I’m not against the project. In my youth I came close to having an "animal encounter" when horses got loose on I-15 one night. Several years later a German Shepherd leapt in front of my German car and in addition to killing himself, killed my wallet to the tune of $1,400 American dollars.
So it’s a good project. We can argue the merits or lack thereof of the Stimulus Bill another time. Bambi probably thinks it’s a good project too. I just think that the English language is quite nice and words mean things. So it’s not an "animal encounter", IT’S AN ACCIDENT!
"Animal encounter." My thoughts immediately turned to a vacation in Florida a few years back and the disappointment from certain family members when I chose not to spend $79 a head for a 30 minute swim with Flipper. Everyone else thought it was a good deal, but seven of us times $79 for 30 minutes plus souvenir photos, tee shirts, dolphin safe tuna sandwiches…
Well, it was a good deal more than I cared to spend at the time.
My kind of animal encounter is the San Diego Zoo’s 1,800-acre wild animal park. You ride around the perimeter in the little open-air train and watch African Plains animals in a relatively natural setting. It’s great, I loved it, and the kids loved it too.
"Animal encounter." The words bring to mind soft music, soothing calm and gentleness like tiny kittens or warm puppies. Imagine my surprise when I learned that "animal encounter" is the new term for hitting and wounding, if not killing an animal as well as quite possibly yourself. This is what was once called "AN ACCIDENT!"
Yes, UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation) applied for and received federal stimulus funds to build a fence in Parley’s Canyon so that our 2,654 pound Ford hurtling down Parley’s at 65 (er uh, 70?) miles an hour doesn’t have an "encounter" with Bambi and convert the deer boy into 300 pounds of venison burger!
I’m not against the project. In my youth I came close to having an "animal encounter" when horses got loose on I-15 one night. Several years later a German Shepherd leapt in front of my German car and in addition to killing himself, killed my wallet to the tune of $1,400 American dollars.
So it’s a good project. We can argue the merits or lack thereof of the Stimulus Bill another time. Bambi probably thinks it’s a good project too. I just think that the English language is quite nice and words mean things. So it’s not an "animal encounter", IT’S AN ACCIDENT!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Zac Efron is Still 17
I saw "Me and Orson Welles" at the Broadway this afternoon. While I don’t totally agree with Rolling Stone’s opinion of Zac Efron’s acting abilities, it was a good movie and I’d see it again.
The film was shot in New York, London and The Isle of Man. The locations, costuming and production values were superb. I thought it was well written and a superb example of a look backstage. It would probably work quite well as a stage play.
My only problem with the film was trying to decide who was portraying the lead character. Was Troy Bolton the lead or Zac Efron?
The gestures, speech patterns and expressions were all Troy Bolton. Maybe Troy Bolton and Zac Efron are the same person. Has anyone ever seen Troy Bolton and Zac Efron together?
I can honestly say that Efron did a superior job as Link Larkin in "Hairspray". He wasn’t Zac Efron playing himself as a character named Link Larkin, he was an actor who developed a character.
After Efron backed out of Kenny Ortega’s production of "Footloose" last Summer, an acquaintance commented that he probably didn’t want to be typecast and wanted to stretch his acting abilities. I immediately retorted, "Oh, a project like,"Seventeen Again"?"
The problem with "Me and Orson Welles" is that Zac/Troy/Richard is "Seventeen Again", or is that still 17?
Before I agree with "Rolling Stone’s" pronouncement that "Me and Orson Welles" proves Zac Efron can act, I’d like to see Mr. Efron portray a character who isn’t 17 and doesn’t sing, dance or play basketball.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
