Everybody has a story

I found this on a magazine blog called Mental Floss...it's a post about the true people posing on album covers of the past.  I can't help but think this could be the basis for an interesting movie.  

Reborn – Orion

Once upon a time, Georgia-based writer Gail Brewer-Giorgio concocted a story about a popular Southern rock and roll singer named Orion Eckley Darnell. Orion became so famous that his fans referred to him as “The King.” Sadly, Orion eventually felt trapped by his success and staged his own death, complete with a wax figure in his likeness and an elaborate funeral. Elvis Presley died in August 1977 and shortly afterward Brewer-Giorgio’s story was published. It didn’t take fans and conspiracy theorists very long to decide that she was telling the true story of the King, and that the real Elvis was alive somewhere. A producer named Shelby Singleton sensed the opportunity and found a singer named Jimmy Ellis whose voice and style were nearly identical to Presley. Singleton dyed Ellis’ hair black and had him grow some sideburns, but there was no hiding the fact that his face didn’t look anything like Elvis’. Shelby had a brainstorm – have Ellis perform while wearing a mask. Not only that, but have him perform under the name “Orion,” just like the guy in that book.

Ellis wasn’t wild about having to perform incognito, but he went along with it and achieved an amazing level of success, considering his whole career was based on keeping fans guessing as to whether or not he was really Elvis Presley. His voice was so similar to Presley’s that RCA almost sued Singleton; they thought he’d unearthed some pirated unreleased Elvis tracks. Orion recorded nine albums in three years and played to sold-out crowds in medium-sized venues. His ccareer ended just that quickly, though, when he ripped off his mask onstage in a fit of anger during a performance in 1981.

A tragic postscript to the Orion story: Jimmy Ellis and his wife were shot to death in 1998 when the pawn shop they owned was robbed by armed bandits.

Read the full text here: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/103165#ixzz1gO38QJkQ
--brought to you by mental_floss! 

Republican Candidates

Left to right...Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman

My first thought is that this is a joke, right?  I don't agree with the governing ideas of any of these candidates so I'm not going to vote for them.  I'm a bystander in this battle.  
But, a combination of performance and/or policies make this seem like an extraordinarily goofy slate of candidates.
Rick Santorum - too socially conservative to be a viable general election candidate.
Rick Perry - Bumbling, not very smart, doesn't know what's going on.
Mitt Romney - he doesn't mind winning by default.  That's what I want - a president who wanted to be president so bad he doesn't even care that no one has a good reason to vote for him.
Newt Gingrich - he's a hothead.
Ron Paul - he wants to be in charge of a government that doesn't do anything.  That's crazy.
Michelle Bachman - Same as Santorum; she's too socially conservative to be a viable general election candidate.

This would be even more of a joke if Herman Cain hadn't suspended his campaign last week.

It's all very surreal because I'd like to believe the President will represent the American values of a diverse religious and cultural citizenry where everyone gets a fair shake.
I don't think these candidates will.

Bob Schieffer Commentary

I enjoy Bob Schieffer's commentaries on "Face The Nation".

Here is this morning's commentary:

(CBS News)  

As another mean campaign unfolds, I get this question a lot: "Why would anyone put themselves through the abuse that comes with running for or serving in office?"

Well, for some anyway, I'd say, "It's the money, stupid."Running for office has become a great way to make a fortune.You no longer even have to leave office to cash in. A "60 Minutes" expose revealed that Congress has carved out a provision which allows its members to use insider information gathered in their official capacities to buy and sell their own stocks and bonds. Democrats AND Republicans are doing it.Reforms are promised, but not yet passed.For other Congress members the answer to the old question "When does life begin?" comes when they DO leave office. Even those driven from office under a cloud can wind up making millions as lobbyists.Sarah Palin didn't even get to Washington, and became a multi-million dollar industry.There is no end to the ways money can be made just campaigning. Candidates sometimes pay themselves salaries out of campaign funds. The Washington Post reports that Newt Gingrich charged his own campaign $42,000 to use his personal Rolodex of potential donors.Critics said Herman Cain wasn't really running for president, just selling books and campaigning for a job on cable TV. Well, his campaign crashed, but it may have been a sound business plan. The New York Times reports that Fox may be interested in hiring him, and quotes a Fox official as saying, "He's interesting."Well, aren't they all?

The Cost of Saving Money

The Cost of Saving Money - Its fine to save money, but there is a cost to it.  In today's Seattle Times the cover story is about using Methadone as a reliever of chronic pain.  Apparently, methadone is effective in relieving pain, but it stays in the body for much longer than other drugs in the same class (OxyContin, fentanyl, and morphine) so there is a higher risk of death from accidental overdose using methadone.
In addition, methadone is less expensive than the other options so patients on Medicaid are more likely to be prescribed methadone.
"As a result, while Medicaid recipients make up about 8 percent of Washington's adult population, they account for 48 percent of the methadone deaths."

In the interest of saving money, poor people pay a higher price.

Guns were designed to kill more, better, faster...

Image from photographer Francois Robert

See also...the artist's website, and The Bones of Francois Robert by Michael Beirut

It's either to kill people in battle or to kill animals for food that inspired the invention of and innovations for firearms.
Killing more, killing better, killing faster.
I don't think those are noble reasons to innovate.
I will accept that people think it's a necessity, but I don't think it should be glorified.
This photo is a good representation of the truth behind guns.

Patents and Patent Trolls and Extortion

This American Life "When Patent Attacks" (from July 2011)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office   (for general information)
Apple makes a deal with the devil - or worse, a patent troll (for an example from today's news)

Patent Trolls are the new shakedown bullies on Main Street.
They are essentially 'shell' companies that buy up technology patents and then sue other people for infringing on the patents.

First, as I understand, the patent office is having trouble administering all the patents; there are duplicates, and some patents don't have enough specificity to be unique.
That's a problem right there.

It all starts with a person who invents something that is revolutionary and unique.
Then a big company gets wind of it and essentially steals the invention out from under the person.
(Read this New Yorker article by John Seabrook about Robert Kearns and intermittent windshield wipers, or watch the movie "Flash of Genius" starring Greg Kinnear)

We need a system of laws to protect individual entrepreneurs and inventors from being bullied by large companies with unlimited resources.

Fine and dandy.

Now, consider the pace of technological advancement today.  Fast.

The patent office is creating new patents for items that are essentially the same, but with minor differences.  Item A uses 97% compound X and is patent number 423
Item B uses 98% compound X and is patent number 424.
It's a bureaucratic nightmare.

In come the sharks...rich people use the very mechanism put into place to protect the 'little guy' to shakedown every Tom, Dick, and Harry who breathes on a patent they own.
They buy up all the patents they can and make their money suing other companies - big and small - for the least little appearance of patent infringement.

Not only that, but part of the practice is to threaten companies with years of court battles and encourage them to pay money to avoid a lawsuit.

Isn't that strikingly like the protection rackets we used to hear about (and maybe are still in practice)?
Gangs in a territory would sell 'protection' to the retailers, but if they don't buy the 'protection' then suddenly their store is robbed or vandalized.

Listen to the This American Life story linked above.  It's crazy what's going on.

Can the Cans

This is a link to an article on Slate by Matthew Yglesias about why canned food drives are less helpful than they appear.
It's better to donate cash
Summary:
1.  The charity can usually buy in bulk and get better prices than we get for our donated items.
2.  Sorting through the food can be time consuming and logistically difficult for the charity.

Read the article for more.

Bottom Line:  This article convinced me - I'm not donating food to food drives anymore; I'll give cash. 

These are my unclarified thoughts...


I wonder how many jobs an economy needs.
In the barest terms we need people to extract and deliver the building blocks of life:  food, water, shelter.
Beyond that we need people to heal and teach.

After that?

The next level of jobs might not be required, but they mean we have a more developed, sanitary, and efficient world:  airplanes, trains, soap, irrigation, etc.

And beyond that?  I'm not clear where I think the turning point is.

The bottom line...
I've got in my mind that the financial services industry and the marketing industries have gotten too big and hurt our society more than they help.
Marketing is suffocating the arts - movies, theater, television, books are the next wave in the age-old tradition of storytelling to create a myth about a society; to give a framework for the society, to ask questions - to confront, etc.
Instead the stories are taking a backseat to the financial bottom line.

People are supposed to feel good about themselves just as we are.  We are all beautiful, on a journey.
But, marketing spends it's whole time convincing us we're not quite good enough or we could be better, faster, younger, smarter, prettier, more interesting, etc if only...
And the marketing supports movies, theater, television, books.

So, everything gets all mucked up.
It doesn't seem good to me for our society's long term benefit.

The primary occupation of the financial services industry is to move money around so rich people make more money.  That's what got us into our current economic crisis in the first place.

Don't get me started on politics.  That industry is less and less effective and think how many people it employs...the pollsters, the pundits, the television shows, the consultants, the lobbyists.  And we don't even get the truth!

If all these useless industries gave up all their useless jobs - how many unemployed people would we have?

And, it occurs to me that the Republicans like to talk about how bloated the government is, but our capitalist economy is even more bloated, right?
Not to mention - all those useless jobs are the highest paid people.  What's up with that?

Marking The Day...and the moment...

Thank you to all the Veterans.

Welcome to the Union, State of Washington!

My Wish:  Peace

Peace in your world

Peace in your heart

Peace of mind

Peace in my world

Peace in my heart

Peace of mind

Andy Rooney on D-Day

Andy Rooney died on Friday.  At the age of 92 he continued to work at CBS until just 5 weeks earlier when his last commentary was aired at the end of 60 Minutes.  The video below is to acknowledge Andy, and the men he honors - the veterans of D-Day.

O Me! O Life! by Walt Whitman

O Me! O Life!

O ME! O life!... of the questions of these recurring;
Of the endless trains of the faithless—of cities fill’d with the foolish;
Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who more faithless?)
Of eyes that vainly crave the light—of the objects mean—of the struggle ever renew’d;
Of the poor results of all—of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me;	5
Of the empty and useless years of the rest—with the rest me intertwined;
The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?
Answer. That you are here—that life exists, and identity;
That the powerful play goes on, and you will contribute a verse.

Who is waging class warfare?

Great piece in Daily Kos by Laurence Lewis...

President Obama wants to raise taxes on those making a million or more a year, and the Republicans and their media stooges whine about "class warfare." The Republicans kill President Obama's jobs program, but that's not class warfare. And the framing is standard operating procedure. It's standard operating procedure for Republicans to respond to calls for fair taxes by whining about supposed class warfare. It's standard operating procedure for Republicans to do all they can to concentrate more and more wealth and power in the hands of fewer and fewer without anyone calling it what it is. But for a little perspective on the supposed class warfare from the left, we can refer to future Sen. Al Franken's 2003 best-seller Lies And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them:

In her book A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century, Barbara Tuchman writes about a peasant revolt in 1358 that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley. At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house, killed the knight, and roasted him on a spit in front of his wife and kids. Then, after ten or twelve peasants violated the lady, with the children still watching, they forced her to eat the roasted flesh of he husband and then killed her.

That is class warfare.

Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top one percent is not.

Of course, it's not only an outrageous smear for Republicans to accuse those seeking some measure of economic justice as waging class warfare; it's also the very definition of hypocritical. Because in the Post-Industrial Era, it's the Republicans who have been attempting a systematic dismantling of all government protections and services that help the less economically advantaged, while at the same time opposing any similar cuts that might affect the wealthiest, while at the same time continuing to promote government spending that further enriches the wealthiest. But that's not class warfare. Calling for a return to the tax rates of 1950s and 1960s—which saw the blossoming of the middle class, the construction of the national highway system, the expansion of Social Security and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid—is class warfare.

Republicans love to blither about moral values. To Republicans, moral values seem solely and obsessively to be about repressing people's sex drives. To Republicans, moral values don't seem to have anything to do with protecting such other drives as the need to eat and have shelter, much less such extreme luxuries as health care, an education and economic opportunity. To Republicans, moral values don't seem to include social and economic fairness and justice. To Republicans, moral values don't seem to have anything to do with being our neighbors' keepers.Child poverty is nearing an astonishing 25 percent, but to Republicans, that's probably the fault of the children themselves, who apparently didn't choose the right families into which to be born.

It's bad enough that the Republicans deliberately pursue an agenda that hurts people, voting against jobs programs, trying to deny expanded health care, waging war on the unions that were responsible for forcing the creation of the forty hour work week, mandated time off, worker safety laws, and an end to child labor. But they also blatantly lie about the dire conditions in which increasing millions of people live. They blatantly lie about the causes of economic duress. They blatantly lie about their own economic agenda, the promotion of which is almost entirely constructed of lies. They know that they can't convince people deliberately to vote against their own self-interests, and their economic agenda is hostile to most people's self-interests—their economic agenda is hostile to most people—so they have no choice but to lie. And the more successful they have been, the more difficult and desperate life has become for most people.

The poverty rate last year hit a 52-year high while the wealthiest continued to grow wealthier. And that was but the continuation of the expansion of the greatest income gapever recorded in this country. But to what purpose? How rich is rich enough? How many future generations need to be ensured of having more money than they will ever be able to spend? What is the need for such extreme greed, such mendacity and such cruelty? Real people are hurting. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, 48,800,000 Americans lived in food-insecure households in 2010, and 16,200,000 of them were children. And none of it is accidental.

What kind of people would willingly inflict so much suffering on so many people? On millions of children? What kind of people would block every attempt to help so many people who are suffering, and then label attempts to help them "class warfare"? This is the real question, both about next year's elections and about the past 30 years of right wing economic policy. Which century do these people most want to emulate? The Gilded Age of the 19th century? The Rococo era of the European royals?

Those striving for some measure of social and economic justice mean to hurt no one. Creating some balance in the income gap and the distribution of wealth will not cause anyone to go hungry or homeless or to lack adequate health care. Those using every possible means to deny some measure of social and economic justice are hurting people. They are deliberately and unconscionably perpetuating the causes of immeasurable unnecessary suffering. So who is waging class warfare?

Who are these people?

Hypocrisy in Politics

Don't forget...
on January 19, 2011 the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted 185 (Y) - 245 (N) on House Resolution 2.
House Resolution 2 would have prevented lawmakers from keeping their congressional health insurance benefits if they voted to repeal the new health care law for their constituents.
Of course it didn't pas.
Doesn't it point out the hypocrisy of the Republican politicians when they don't want their own exceptional health care to be taken away, but they don't mind voting on the health care of other Americans?
Not only that, but they want the rest of us to believe it's because they're more American than the ones who support Health Care Reform (Obamacare, as they say).
It's such an overtly hypocritical and self-serving position...how has our national discourse devolved to such a degree that this works?
Let's not even take into consideration the merits of the Health Care Reform plan...if this were any argument about any issue, it would still make no sense.
Unbelievable.

Wasn't there a time when the Republicans would have at least voted yes on this because it wouldn't look good to be idealogical about everyone else except themselves?

Squirrely Corporations

Did Congress Kill the Debit Card?

I've discovered a fondness for squirrels lately, so I don't like to malign them by using their species in a negative way, but here is another example of how the corporations like to grab hold of our money and not let go.

The government tried to help out consumers by putting a cap on the fees banks could get from retailers for Debit Card use. 
Leave it to the corporations to find a way to make sure they get their money; they're making up the revenue difference from retailers by charging customers directly when they use their debit card.  It starts at Bank of America.  Next?  Who knows.

The person who wrote the article linked above blames the government.  I blame the corporations.

All My Children and One Life to Live

Friday saw the end of All My Children.  I was prepared to be nostalgic.  I wanted to be saddened that the show was going off the air.  But, the way they left me?  Bah!  Screw 'em.
Not only a ripoff of Gone With The Wind when Jackson finally walked out on Erica, but a Dallas/Who Shot JR twisteroo ripoff becoming Who did JR Shoot?  And on top of it, a ripoff of the Soprano's where the screen went to black.
Ugh.
The reason that show got cancelled is because whole backstories were changed and switched to suit the plot rather than developing plot from the true characters.
I ignored that because I wanted to enjoy the show.  I held on until the last episode because I'd hoped it would go out with poignancy and give all the rest meaning.
It didn't.
Grrr...

As far as One Life To Live...well, this was my more favorite show of the two.
Yet - on Friday we discovered that Shane killed Victor Lord, Jr.
Wow - think about this:  In the last six months...
1.  Teenager Matthew killed Eddie Ford.  He got away with it because his mother is the District Attorney and his father is the Chief of Police and then he suffered traumatic brain injury leading to coma when he was sucker punched by the son of Eddie Ford, another teenager.  The son hadn't even met Eddie Ford as his father until a month or two previous, but in the soap opera world blood is everything.  Even if you've never met the man, just finding out your blood related means people will say to you "but, he's your father, you have to protect him/love him/talk to him..."  blah, blah, blah.  Ugh.
2.  Teenager Jack Manning killed Gigi Morasco (by setting up a prank that went bad) and got away with it when Victor Lord, Jr (who thought he was Todd Manning at the time) paid a lot of money to the father of another boy to admit he was the one who setup the situation that caused the accident.  Imagine a father convincing his son to admit to a crime he didn't commit so he can get some money - unbelievable!
3.  Teenager Shane Morasco killed Victor Lord, Jr.

In just a few months FOUR TEENAGERS have caused the death or coma of three adults and one teenager. 
I don't feel good about this trend.
It's ugly and lazy; lazy writing.
I will accept that maybe they've had to create some pretty wild resolutions just to bring them to a more speedy conclusion since the show will be be off the air at the end of the year.  I'd like to give them a break and wait to see what they have in store, but I've been burned by AMC, so I'm less inclined.  I'll keep my eye on it through to the end, but I'm disgusted by what they're creating.

Update 12/10/2011...I guess Shane didn't kill Victor Lord, Jr, but my disappointment with the writing and storylines and changing whole backstories and motivations from day to day has increased.  I'm not surprised the 'stories' are going off the air with this kind of writing.  Sad.

Faster Than The Speed of Light

What if this is the first mass media headline related to the beginning of our Brave New World?!
Cool.

The Anderson Institute:  Innovation and Excellence in Time Technology

I'll be back. See? I'm coming back!

What a great picture!  He looks like all you'd expect of a Russian spy in a John LeCarre novel.
Vladimir Putin will run for the Russian Presidency in 2012.

Even though he has a firm hand, controls the media, and limits political opposition, I would rather deal with a politico than an idealogue.
Although once a person has that much power, they could easily turn into an idealogue.

It's just a big pendulum that keeps on swinging.

Government getting out of the way...

The Titanic is an example of government getting out of the way of the free market.
http://www.titanicuniverse.com/

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire is an example of government getting out of the way of the free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

The Financial Crisis of 2008 is an example of government getting out of the way of the free market.
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 partially repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999


Government alone doesn't prevent all disasters and catastrophes - but it cuts down on the instances in which individual citizens are taken advantage of by powerful, monied interests.

Looking back...

"Reflecting Absence"

The National September 11 Memorial is a tribute of remembrance and honor to the nearly 3,000 people killed in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center site, near Shanksville, Pa., and at the Pentagon, as well as the six people killed in the World Trade Center bombing in February 1993.

(2977 people killed on 9/11/01, and 6 in 1993)

The Memorial’s twin reflecting pools are each nearly an acre in size and feature the largest manmade waterfalls in the North America. The pools sit within the footprints where the Twin Towers once stood. Architect Michael Arad and landscape architect Peter Walker created the Memorial design selected from a global design competition that included more than 5,200 entries from 63 nations.

The names of every person who died in the 2001 and 1993 attacks are inscribed into bronze panels edging the Memorial pools, a powerful reminder of the largest loss of life resulting from a foreign attack on American soil and the greatest single loss of rescue personnel in American history.

9/11 Memorial website

I have tried to come up with a clear, concise statement of what the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 means to me.

I can't.

I have sympathy for the personal stories of loss, and I'm filled with awe and appreciation for the courage displayed by regular folk caught in the unlikely horror.  

At the same time, in the days, months, and years that followed, the dignity of the personal stories was co-opted by the media and political idealogues to make money and hold onto power, without regard for truth or nuance.

I have some bitterness about that.

As Fareed Zakaria said in today's GPS on CNN:

Fifty years from now we might even look at 9/11 as simply the beginning of the decline of America as the world's unrivaled hegemon.  On the day before 9/11, the United States was at peace, had a large budget surplus (128 billion) and oil was trading at $28/barrel.  Today the United States is engaged in military operations across the globe, has a deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars, the largest in it's history, and oil is at $115/barrel.

In the Seattle Times, Jon Talton writes:

In attacking the United States 10 years ago, one of Osama bin Laden's major goals was to provoke a hysterical American overreaction that would begin bleeding the nation into economic ruin.
Mission accomplished?
In 2001, the federal government was enjoying its second straight fiscal-year surplus.  The Congressional Budget Office projected the surpluses would grow to almost $700 billion by 2009.  Hard as it is to believe now, the government announced in October 2001 that it would discontinue selling the 30 year bond because it wouldn't need the money.  Although Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the American invasion was sold as part of a larger "war on terror" which now includes the war in Afghanistan.  The wars, as well as other increased military spending, costs $1.469 trillion through the 2009 fiscal year, helping turn surpluses into deficit, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  

Not to mention the attack on civil liberties, escalating negative rhetoric, and our esteem in the rest of the world.  

I don't think the United States reacted well after 9/11. Its been sad and frustrating.  

To remember the best of the United States, read the personal stories of courage displayed by victims and survivors of the attack on America September 11. 2011.

But, don't forget, the worst of the United States has become evident as well; reactionary, fearful, easily manipulated, controlled by corporations, and revenge-seeking.  

In the end, I hope it's the best of us that we carry into tomorrow.  

Stuff I was thinking about...with some generalizations, but I think the idea is right.

I don't understand why people are complaining that there are no jobs while at the same time the right wing is doing everything it can to stop the government from spending money that could create jobs.
The right wing says the problem is the government is in the way of entrepreneurs who are eager to create new companies or expand, but are stymied by corporate and employer taxes and regulations they're forced to follow.
The conservative right think the entrepreneurs and people who create jobs are people and corporations who already have a lot of money.  They want taxes for rich people and corporations decreased so the wealthy will have more money to spend to create more companies and jobs.  If only the government wouldn't hamper them.
I don't think so.
More often than not, the goal of rich people/corporations is to keep their money/market share.  They don't want to lose what they've already gained.  They have less of an incentive to take a chance and jump into new markets.
I think it's poor or middle class people who make big changes in the jobs market.  They have a big incentive to create new markets and new products and new companies because they want to move from the lower or middle economic classes to the wealthier class.  They are willing to take chances.  These are the entrepreneurs.
It makes sense to give the lower and middle classes an economic break. 

In order for people from lower or middle classes to break out and create jobs, they have to be educated.  The government has a vested interest in making sure all the young people in our society have a good eduation.  They should at least learn how to be critical thinkers.  Think how much time we would have saved in the current political climate if more people had learned how to be critical thinkers.  I wonder if its a coincidence that so many of our population can be manipulated by misinformation in the one or two generations after people started fleeing the public school system? 
We all lose when we live in an uneducated society.  That seems like a no brainer to me.  Why is it an issue?  Pay for schools.

I wonder how much of the old money in our country was originally helped by government research and funding?  How many companies that began in the last century were helped by NASA?  The Internet began from a government project. 

The rich people forget that they didn't get there alone.  Even if the government didn't directly help them, people who are helped by the government were their customers.  The reason many poor people have money to buy things is because of government aid. 

I have to wonder, as well, if maybe there aren't enough jobs because there isn't enough to do.  It's not that long ago that most women were not in the work force.  Now, we are.  And older people left the workforce more quickly.  Now we don't. 
Maybe we should look at the problem a little differently.  If families could survive on less, maybe less people would need to work and everyone who had to work could be employed. 

A big drain on a family's budget is health care costs.
Which is why Obama wanted the Health Care bill. 
And round and round we go.

I'm done for now. 

Here's an idea...

Actual representation of a lightbulb talking.  It's saying, "I have a bright idea."

Part of the cycle of poor neighborhoods is that there are often no grocery stores so residents without transportation can purchase healthy foods.  The neighborhoods have "corner stores where folks buy pricey cigarettes, liquor, and packaged food."  We should bring back the General Store idea from the old West days.  Large chains could create small satellite stores in areas that are not currently serviced.  I think that would encourage residents to be more involved in their community and it would help them eat better.  It might even revitalize neighborhoods.  Economy grows where resources are provided.  Food is a resource.  

Dorian and Viki on One Life to Live

I love these two characters; Dorian Lord and Victoria Lord Riley (those are the names I knew them as when I started watching OLTL).  Today there was a nice (too short) tribute to their complicated, tangled, long, loving relationship.  It made me cry.  Robin Strasser and Erika Slezak did a wonderful job being my touchstones in Landview.  Thank you ladies!

"It won't be the same."

A Prince of a guy...

His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales

I like this photo of the prince.  He'll be in California in the next several months to complete helicopter training.

From Wikipedia:  The Prince's style and title in full is His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales. As a British prince, Harry holds no surname; however, as with the other male-line grandchildren of Elizabeth II, he uses the name of the area over which his father holds title, i.e. Wales. Past precedent is that such surnames are dropped from usage in adulthood, after which either title alone, or Mountbatten-Windsor is used when necessary.^[58][1] Prince Harry, however, continues to use Wales as his surname for military purposes and is known as Captain Harry Wales in such contexts.^[59] If his father succeeds to the throne he will be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Henry. Traditionally, male-line members of British royalty receive a dukedom a few hours before their marriage, the most recent being Prince William of Wales, who became Duke of Cambridge.

Revolutionary.

Along with all the technological advances that made my life better growing up in the 60's and 70's (indoor plumbing, television, vaccines, for instance), and the technology that made my work career easier and more interesting in the 80's (desktop computers), I'd add these three technologies as revolutionary in my life since the 2000's...I feel lucky to be alive at a time when I can use them.

TIVO

No more 'appointment' television.  I'll watch when I want to watch.

iPod

ALL my music in one place

iPad

Kindle for iPad, games, notes, schedules, apps of all kinds in one beautiful tablet that I can easily take with me wherever I go.

Another Republican I won't vote for...

Mitt Romney says...

Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend.

I understand what I think he's trying to say; while corporations pay less taxes, those benefits flow to the people who own the corporation - stockholders.  Stockholders can include pension programs and 401K programs for regular folk, like you and me.

Aargh.

1.  "My friend"...?  That sounds so folksy it's condescending.
2.  Corporations are NOT people.  That's a dangerous idea for our political system and led to the Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to participate in elections as if they're a person.  The idea is that since corporations pay taxes, they should be represented - no taxation without representation, right?  Ugh - that's a twisted perversion of our democracy.

Which brings me to another comment I hear people making more often lately - whoever started it should be happy it's taking hold in the consciousness of people who understand quick sound bytes more easily than a complete argument.

IF OBAMA WERE IN CHARGE OF A COMPANY, HE'D BE FIRED FOR HOW HE'S DOING HIS JOB...or some such derivation.

AARGH!!!!!

The United States is NOT a profit making venture. 

To compare the United States to a corporation is to misunderstand completely the point of government.

Those rich people sure know how to manipulate ideas. 

Cowboys and Aliens

Recently, LJB said the movies he likes, particularly, are westerns and sci-fi.
Along came Cowboys and Aliens.
Perfect.

And yet...not so perfect.

I can get onboard for a movie about aliens coming to Earth in the late 1800's.  Of course. 
If I enjoy the Matrix, or StarGate, or any other sci-fi reality, then of course the aliens could have come to the Old West.
A premise that could have worked.

If only the story hadn't had all the typical characters and conflicts:
mysterious stranger with strange power,
beautiful damsel,
villainous cattle baron running the town and his spoiled dangerous son,
mostly peaceful sheriff taking care of his deceased daughter's brave but impressionable son,
tortured memories of the Civil War,
prejudice against Native Americans,
a band of robbers,
and big slimy monsters as aliens.

Blah.  I don't even need to tell you the story for you to guess what happened.

The only relationship I cared about was the one between the villainous cattle baron and a young Mexican man who worked for him, tirelessly and loyally.  The cattle baron treated him badly, but the Mexican man loved and respected him as a father.  Which, of course, was more than the cattle baron's real son.  And, it was the young man I was interested in - not the villainous cattle baron.

The aliens use their tiny ships (launched from their big ship) to hunt people.  They lasso the people from the air.  Those stunts were good; kinda cool.  Reminiscent of a cattle roundup.

That connection (cattle roundup vs aliens taking humans), and others (alien power and mysterious stranger, for instance) might have made a more complex and interesting story.
It makes me think the original story either had much more complexity, or wanted to, but didn't know how to make it happen.
And then a committee devoured the story.   

Bottom line:  The movie is empty and predictable.  I don't recommend it.

See also, Roger Ebert's review of Cowboys and Monsters

Did you know...?

Did you know that McGraw-Hill, the leading textbook provider for schools, also owns Standard and Poor's, the firm that made a 2 trillion dollar error on their analysis of the United States' credit-worthiness?

Pat Carroll

For someone who has watched television since the 60's, Pat Carroll is a familiar face.  She has guest-starred on numerous television comedies over the years.  I saw her on a repeat episode today and I'm reminded how comforted I am by her voice - she can sound both gruff and wise and loving.  If I listen to her voice alone, I hear sincerity and truth.  Here is my shout out to Pat Carroll:  I have appreciated your presence, thank you...:)

Debt deal passed.
I'm not happy about it.
I can't defend the President on this one.
No tax revenue, no balanced approach.
A super committee?  Yeah, right.
Stewart and Colbert got it right.

The Daily Show - Dealageddon! - A Compromise Without Revenues
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The Culprits

John Boehner and Eric Cantor
(Right Wing Republican and Further Right Wing Republican)

Sadly, in this Congress, Boehner is considered a moderate. 

More on the Debt Limit Crisis

Two additional points -
Boehner is attempting to pass his legislation with Republicans only.  We don't hear him talking to any of the Democratic leaders in the House.
Instead of trying to satisfy the Tea Party Republicans, why doesn't he swing to the Democratic side?  There are "Blue Dog" Democrats who might be more easily appeased than the Tea Partiers. 
Why is he so intent on passing with Republican support only? 
It seems the moderate Republicans have as much in common with Tea Partiers as they do with Blue Dog Democrats, so why not build a coalition with the Blue Dogs instead?
He would pass his bill and setup the Democrats in the Senate to be the bad guys if they don't vote for it.

I imagine I wouldn't like whatever legislation he'd put together in that scenario, but I don't much like the Reid plan either.

*****

Next point, after thinking and talking about this problem and trying to come up with the core problem, I've decided it's complicated.  HA!  Of course it is.
But, at it's heart is the problem of competing world views that can't coexist.  It's not peculiar to the United States, it's in everyone's DNA, I think.
I've talked about that before - the people who live in fear (it's mine, I want it) and the more optimistic people (I'm willing to give a little bit more to have a government that works).
I guess with that description you can tell which side I'm on.

In any event, my new thought about this is that our Congress has used compromise for the last 50 years to get things done.  The surprise in this debt limit crisis is that the kind of compromise Congress has used isn't working anymore.  In Congress, compromise means I'll vote for your amendment to this bill if you vote for my amendment in this other bill.
Right?
They don't really compromise, they trade.

In trading, votes for votes, we end up starting new programs and spending lots of money, which is part of what got us in this mess. 

What if, instead of compromise meaning shared benefits (more programs and more spending) we floated the concept of compromise meaning shared sacrifice?

We can all sacrifice a little to share in the privilege of living and working in this great country.

Okay - done for now.
Hope this makes sense 10 years down the road when I look back on the 'good old days'.

Bizarro World

Are we in bizarro world?

1.  John Boehner wanted to propose a bill today to increase the debt limit for a few months, create a commission to review additional cuts, and cut the budget by 900 billion.

He knows whatever passes the House, will be voted down by the Senate.  No question.

His party, the Republicans, are in control of the House of Representatives.

He can't get the Republican votes to pass the bill. 

The Tea Party, among others, are voting NO on the bill, no matter what.  They do NOT want the debt limit to increase.

The vote has been delayed until tomorrow again.

2.  I watched some Fox News (Greta Van Sustern) and it seems the Republican talking point right now is that the President is showing no leadership at this point. 

That seems odd since the President has been in the middle of negotiations the whole time.

Who is he supposed to show leadership over?  The Republicans?  'Cause they're the ones who can't be herded right now (unusual in itself - Republicans are usually in lockstep).

If the Tea Party hadn't bullied the more reasonable Republicans in the House, they'd have gotten a pretty good deal with the Obama-Boehner negotiated plan. 

3.  The Tea Party people don't want the debt limit to be increased under any circumstances.  They don't believe the country will go into default and they don't think a default will destry the country's fragile economy.

4.  One of the rating company's that could downgrade the US is Moody's.  Why should we listen to them anyway because they're the ones who sanctioned all those derivatives and credit default swaps and questionable practices of investment houses on Wall Street that contributed to the economic collapse of a couple years ago?  Hasn't it been proven that their opinion is worth nothing.  (Although I definitely thought of that on my own [ego], Greta Van Sustern mentioned it as well)

5.  For an example of the world as the Republicans and Tea Partiers want it - see the FAA.  The Congress could not come up with a plan that could keep the FAA running, so it's been partially shut down.  One of the areas that has been furloughed is the section that receives tax revenue from the airlines.  Since the US Government can't collect it, the airlines are not required to send the tax.  Did the airlines pass the savings on to the consumer?  No.  They increased their fares so the total ticket price stays the same.  Instead of paying the government, the ticket holders are paying it to the airline.  I think we should stop pretending that giving money to corporations and rich people will trickle down to the regular folk.  It doesn't.

6.  The President has given up on extending the Bush Tax Cuts, he's given up on tax revenues to balance the sacrifice, and he's increased the amount of spending cuts.  In fact, in his address on Monday, when he began to describe the plan, it was hard to know if he was describing a Republican or Democratic plan. 

7.  I find it strange that the Republicans are saying that the President is the one who has brought us to this place.  And, that's the supposed 'reasonable' Republicans - the ones who expect the work in government is an exercise in compromise.  Even they are saying the President brought this upon us himself.  But, that's not what happened.  The regular debt limit increase came up for a vote just like it always has.  The administration sent it to the House the same way it always is.  It was the Republicans who voted no - or at least said they wouldn't vote for it without all these other things attached to it.  So, factually speaking - it really was the Republicans in the House that put this ball in motion.  Why are they getting away with saying the President started it?

It's all part of Bizarro world.

What a disappointment

My letter to the President today

Dear Mr. President...
What the heck is going on?
Earlier this week you asked me to contact my Congressman to tell him I want a balanced approach to solve the debt crisis.  I want tax increases as well as an extension through 2012.
I did as asked.  I wrote to Dave Reichert.
I even wrote to you and let you know I'm on board.
These are key principles that can't be brushed aside.

Now, it's Thursday.  A scant day or two later.
Reid's plan (presumably endorsed by the White House) does NOT include a balanced approach.  The tax revenues have been dropped.

Huh?
What happened?
I don't get it. 
Why make a show of wanting to have a balanced approach only to drop it in a day or two?

I am very disappointed.

Vicky

United in sorrow...and hope

Flag of Norway

President Obama is eminently reasonable. 

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Washington, DC

For years, the government has spent more money than it takes in. The result is a lot of debt on our nation’s credit card – debt that unless we act will weaken our economy, cause higher interest rates for families, and force us to scale back things like education and Medicare.

Now, folks in Washington like to blame one another for this problem. But the truth is, neither party is blameless. And both parties have a responsibility to do something about it. Every day, families are figuring out how stretch their paychecks – struggling to cut what they can’t afford so they can pay for what’s really important. It’s time for Washington to do the same thing. But for that to happen, it means that Democrats and Republicans have to work together. It means we need to put aside our differences to do what’s right for the country. Everyone is going to have to be willing to compromise. Otherwise, we’ll never get anything done.

That’s why we need a balanced approach to cutting the deficit. We need an approach that goes after waste in the budget and gets rid of pet projects that cost billions of dollars. We need an approach that makes some serious cuts to worthy programs – cuts I wouldn’t make under normal circumstances. And we need an approach that asks everybody to do their part.

So that means, yes, we have to make serious budget cuts; but that it’s not right to ask middle class families to pay more for college before we ask the biggest corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. It means that before we stop funding clean energy, we should ask oil companies and corporate jet owners to give up the tax breaks that other companies don’t get. Before we cut medical research, we should ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Before we ask seniors to pay more for Medicare, we should ask the wealthiest taxpayers to give up tax breaks we simply cannot afford under these circumstances.

That’s the heart of this approach: serious cuts, balanced by some new revenues. And it’s been the position of every Democratic and Republican leader who has worked to reduce the deficit, from Bill Clinton to Ronald Reagan. In fact, earlier this week, one of the most conservative members of the Senate, Tom Coburn, announced his support for a balanced, bipartisan plan that shows promise. And then a funny thing happened. He received a round of applause – from a group of Republican and Democratic senators. That’s a rare event in Washington.

So there will be plenty of haggling over the details in the days ahead. But this debate boils down to a simple choice. We can come together for the good of the country and reach a compromise; we can strengthen our economy and leave for our children a more secure future. Or we can issue insults and demands and ultimatums at each another, withdraw to our partisan corners, and achieve nothing. Well, we know the right thing to do. And we know what the American people expect us to do.

Uhn Bee Eff Fen Lee Vah Bull

Following is the letter John Boehner wrote today after leaving talks with President Obama about increasing the Debt Ceiling.

Dear Colleague,

Our economy is not creating enough jobs, and the policies coming out of Washington are a big reason why. Because of Washington, we have a tax code that is stifling job creation. Because of Washington, we have a debt crisis that is sowing uncertainty and sapping the confidence of small businesses. Because of Washington, our children are financing a government spending binge that is jeopardizing their future.

Since the moment I became Speaker, I’ve urged President Obama to lock arms with me and seize this moment to do something significant to address these challenges. I’ve urged him to partner with congressional Republicans to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country . . . something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our institutions of government, and help small businesses get back to creating jobs.

The House this week passed such a plan . . . the Cut, Cap & Balance Act, which passed the House with bipartisan support.

Along with Majority Leader Cantor, I have also engaged the president in a dialogue in recent days. The purpose of this dialogue was to see if we could identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law.

During these discussions — as in my earlier discussions — it became evident that the White House is simply not serious about ending the spending binge that is destroying jobs and endangering our children’s future.

A deal was never reached, and was never really close.

In the end, we couldn’t connect. Not because of different personalities, but because of different visions for our country.

The president is emphatic that taxes have to be raised. As a former small businessman, I know tax increases destroy jobs.

The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs. As the father of two daughters, I know these programs won’t be there for their generation unless significant action is taken now.

For these reasons, I have decided to end discussions with the White House and begin conversations with the leaders of the Senate in an effort to find a path forward.

The Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have not been participants in the conversations I and Leader Cantor have had with the White House; nor have the Republican leaders of the Senate. But I believe there is a shared commitment on both sides of the aisle to producing legislation that will serve the best interests of our country in the days ahead — legislation that reflects the will of the American people, consistent with the principles of the Cut, Cap, & Balance Act that passed the House with bipartisan support this week.

I wanted to alert you to these developments as soon as possible. Further information will be coming as soon as it is available. It is an honor to serve with you. Together, we will do everything in our power to end the spending binge in Washington and help our economy get back to creating jobs.

Sincerely

John Boehner

Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

(hey - there's supposed to be the Onion logo in the picture here...?)

It's surreal when a satire piece from the Onion seems more real than satire.  I bet more than a few people couldn't tell if this is true or humor.

WASHINGTON—Members of the U.S. Congress reported Wednesday they were continuing to carefully debate the issue of whether or not they should allow the country to descend into a roiling economic meltdown of historically dire proportions. "It is a question that, I think, is worthy of serious consideration: Should we take steps to avoid a crippling, decades-long depression that would lead to disastrous consequences on a worldwide scale? Or should we not do that?" asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), adding that arguments could be made for both sides, and that the debate over ensuring America’s financial solvency versus allowing the nation to default on its debt—which would torpedo stock markets, cause mortgage and interests rates to skyrocket, and decimate the value of the U.S. dollar—is “certainly a conversation worth having.” "Obviously, we don't want to rush to consensus on whether it is or isn't a good idea to save the American economy and all our respective livelihoods from certain peril until we've examined this thorny dilemma from every angle. And if we’re still discussing this matter on Aug. 2, well, then, so be it.” At press time, President Obama said he personally believed the country should not be economically ruined.