Our favorite RINO Senator has always been a big fan of limiting production of US Petroleum sources while spending (wasting) Billions of dollars on Bio-Fuels.
Well now a new report calls Biofuels a crime against humanity.
"A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity."
Now while I usually ignore the UN and their weekly "this is a crime against humanity", but what will our liberal Senator do. Save the Farmer or Save the children.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Democrat Dream of Amnesty Act Dies Again - Thank You Norm, for letting us see you as the RINO you are
Let's all call Norm Coleman's campaign office and let him know how much we appreciate him standing up for Harry Reid and supporting the "Dream of Amnesty" Act.
Let him know how his many votes are motivating you this election.
Let him know how much you appreciate his making it clear where he stands - with you or with the Democrats.
Call Norm's Senate office before a vote, but be sure to let his campaign know how you feel after the vote - I know I did.
There you will find sweet, understanding campaign staffers who will treat you on the phone just like Norm treats us in the Senate.
Norm's Campaign contact info:
Contact Us:
Phone: (651) 645-0766
Fax: (651) 233-2405
Email: info@colemanforsenate.com
Let him know how his many votes are motivating you this election.
Let him know how much you appreciate his making it clear where he stands - with you or with the Democrats.
Call Norm's Senate office before a vote, but be sure to let his campaign know how you feel after the vote - I know I did.
There you will find sweet, understanding campaign staffers who will treat you on the phone just like Norm treats us in the Senate.
Norm's Campaign contact info:
Contact Us:
Phone: (651) 645-0766
Fax: (651) 233-2405
Email: info@colemanforsenate.com
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Tol ya
I've written before about the dollar, euro and oil. Nixon in the early 70's took America off the gold standard as Europe was draining out gold reserves (The Bretton Woods Agreement allowed nations to redeem their dollars for gold. It also established the World Bank and the IMF-International Monetary Fund) . He promised Saudi Arabia that if they allowed oil purchases were acceptable only in dollars, that the U.S. would defend the Kingdom of Saud. Hence, the creation of the "petro-dollar" and all oil was purchasable in dollars only. In other words, we switched backing the dollar with gold to oil.BTW,this is/was one of the sticking points with Osama bin Laden, that a hard commodity, oil, is exchanged for printed paper. Saddam Hussein and Iran have offered to sell their oil for euros. The problem with the dollar is, was, has always been the profligate spending of the U.S. Congress. And how the Congress affords all this spending it is to print more money via the Faustian bargain with the Federal Reserve. The problem is that as the Feds printing press runs, the dollars that reside in Saudi Arabia, China, et al, become worth less and less. So, then the dollar holders will begin to look for something that will hold its value. The alternatives seem to have been chosen: gold and euros.
This is a six+ year graph of the cost of gold delineated in dollars per ounce (compliments of Kitco):
This graph shows that the dollar has, since January 2000, lost well over half its value (a dollar in 2000 is now worth $.43). A quick gold vs. dollar seminar: in 1907 a $20 gold piece and a $20 bill (silver or gold note) both bought a man's suit. In 2007 a $20 gold piece will still buy a man's suit. A $20 Federal Reserve note may buy the tie.
In other words, people don't trust the dollar.
And the proof? These headlines:
"Canadian Dollar Trades Even with U.S. Dollar for First Time Since 1976"
" Saudi Arabia Fears U.S. Dollar Collapse" (This headline and story is critically relevant).
"Euro Trades at $1.40 US-Highest Ever"
"Gold Hits Highest Level Since 1980"
"Oil at All Time High"- This is a parallel to gold's price, both being a commodity that holds value.
And it's all about Congressional spending and exporting our debt. And it's not Congress' fault. All those Representatives and Senators did all that spending because we sent them to do it. They did at our behest.
Well, at your behest.
I've always been an extreme fiscal conservative, a strict Constitutionalist (spending only according to Article I, Section 8 along with the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights [aka Amendment X]). Unfortunately, I'm on the same ship where you've elected reckless captains and crew for decades.
This a chickens home to roost story.
We'll see if we can dodge the bullet one more time.
But, I doubt that we'll learn the lesson, though it's been taught many times for many years.
My friend Thomas Brewton has an excellent post about the Federal Reserve, the dollar and the current true economic situation here in America. (Also be sure to read "The Unwritten Constitution")
This is a six+ year graph of the cost of gold delineated in dollars per ounce (compliments of Kitco):
This graph shows that the dollar has, since January 2000, lost well over half its value (a dollar in 2000 is now worth $.43). A quick gold vs. dollar seminar: in 1907 a $20 gold piece and a $20 bill (silver or gold note) both bought a man's suit. In 2007 a $20 gold piece will still buy a man's suit. A $20 Federal Reserve note may buy the tie.
In other words, people don't trust the dollar.
And the proof? These headlines:
"Canadian Dollar Trades Even with U.S. Dollar for First Time Since 1976"
" Saudi Arabia Fears U.S. Dollar Collapse" (This headline and story is critically relevant).
"Euro Trades at $1.40 US-Highest Ever"
"Gold Hits Highest Level Since 1980"
"Oil at All Time High"- This is a parallel to gold's price, both being a commodity that holds value.
And it's all about Congressional spending and exporting our debt. And it's not Congress' fault. All those Representatives and Senators did all that spending because we sent them to do it. They did at our behest.
Well, at your behest.
I've always been an extreme fiscal conservative, a strict Constitutionalist (spending only according to Article I, Section 8 along with the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights [aka Amendment X]). Unfortunately, I'm on the same ship where you've elected reckless captains and crew for decades.
This a chickens home to roost story.
We'll see if we can dodge the bullet one more time.
But, I doubt that we'll learn the lesson, though it's been taught many times for many years.
My friend Thomas Brewton has an excellent post about the Federal Reserve, the dollar and the current true economic situation here in America. (Also be sure to read "The Unwritten Constitution")
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Jim Ramstad to Retire - I say, good riddance.
While others are talking that we should show some respect for Jim Ramstad, I say good riddance.
Before redistricting I was unfortunate enough to be in his district.
He never was a Republican, did not share our core beliefs and whenever a vote was close you could depend on him to sell out the party and more importantly our ideals.
Some say he was better than a DFL candidate in that position.
B.S.
He was never there when it mattered.
And he blocked the way for a true Republican (can't challenge and incumbent) so when the conservative wave crossed the nation, Jim was there to help sink it.
And now it looks like some in CD3 want more of the same.
Either you think what you believe is good and right or you are just a politician and want to win.
But what is the point of "winning" if the result for you and the country are the same.
So long Jimmy boy, and don't let the flap on the big tent hit you on the way out.
Before redistricting I was unfortunate enough to be in his district.
He never was a Republican, did not share our core beliefs and whenever a vote was close you could depend on him to sell out the party and more importantly our ideals.
Some say he was better than a DFL candidate in that position.
B.S.
He was never there when it mattered.
And he blocked the way for a true Republican (can't challenge and incumbent) so when the conservative wave crossed the nation, Jim was there to help sink it.
And now it looks like some in CD3 want more of the same.
Either you think what you believe is good and right or you are just a politician and want to win.
But what is the point of "winning" if the result for you and the country are the same.
So long Jimmy boy, and don't let the flap on the big tent hit you on the way out.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Greenspan
When I read Drudge yesterday and saw the red screamer headline that Greenspan said the battle in Iraq was about oil, it definitely caught my attention. My thoughts were that in a sense the importance of oil may have been in the mix in some way. I mean, admit it, if it weren't for oil, if oil had never been found in the Mid East, would the Royal House of Saud ever been visited by any world leader? Would the sheikdom of Dubai be able to buy a new Bentley every minute instead of saving up goat skins for a decade to buy a used Chevy? The only reason Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Dubai are even blips is because of oil. And that gave the Arabs and Aryans (Iranians are not Arabs) money and power. So, because of a radical like Hussein and the delicate balance of Mid East politics, Greenspan has a point.
Nixon in the early 70's took America off the gold standard because Europe was demanding gold for dollars as promised in the Bretton Woods agreement. Nixon then promised the Royal House of Saud that if they accepted only dollars for oil, the U.S. would protect the sheikdom. So we created petrodollars and substituted oil for gold to back the dollar. As the world bought oil from the Mid East, and the Saudis determined what happened in all the oil economy and what price would be paid, the dollar again was the world's reserve currency. Saddam Hussein was threatening to accept euros for oil and thereby upset the petrodollar balance. Iran was threatening to do the same at the March oil bourse. Add that to a tyrant that was also willing to invade Kuwait and mix in radical mullahs and there is a recipe for worldwide financial collapse. All because of oil.
So, Greenspan's comments are accurate, but taken out of context. Captain Ed has more on this this morning.
As I searched the internet to find articles, I came across a few that reminded me that the Royal House of Saud is doing a very, very dangerous balancing act. It is seen as corrupt and decadent and is the target of Islamic radicals. And in my next post, I'll tie decadence in the House of Saud and Norm Coleman's stance on bio-diesel.
Nixon in the early 70's took America off the gold standard because Europe was demanding gold for dollars as promised in the Bretton Woods agreement. Nixon then promised the Royal House of Saud that if they accepted only dollars for oil, the U.S. would protect the sheikdom. So we created petrodollars and substituted oil for gold to back the dollar. As the world bought oil from the Mid East, and the Saudis determined what happened in all the oil economy and what price would be paid, the dollar again was the world's reserve currency. Saddam Hussein was threatening to accept euros for oil and thereby upset the petrodollar balance. Iran was threatening to do the same at the March oil bourse. Add that to a tyrant that was also willing to invade Kuwait and mix in radical mullahs and there is a recipe for worldwide financial collapse. All because of oil.
So, Greenspan's comments are accurate, but taken out of context. Captain Ed has more on this this morning.
As I searched the internet to find articles, I came across a few that reminded me that the Royal House of Saud is doing a very, very dangerous balancing act. It is seen as corrupt and decadent and is the target of Islamic radicals. And in my next post, I'll tie decadence in the House of Saud and Norm Coleman's stance on bio-diesel.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Reflection vs Refusal
"Why are we so amazed when fig trees bear figs?"
This is a quote from a men's book of meditations that I used to read about twenty years ago. I have used it often, especially when it comes to leftists and their radical bastard offspring. They are so precisely predictable. They may use different words or terms, but they are predictable.
I predicted that just as General Petraeus spoke his last sentence, as he was breathing his last comment, as he ended his report, that within milliseconds, if that long, the " I Love America Only When It's Defeated" lefties would predictably shoot from the lip. They would not even attempt to review, reflect and/or analyze any of the Petraeus/Crocker report let alone all any or all the collateral material that came with their reports. And I was not disappointed. General Petraeus hadn't even hit the door push-bar when Senator Klobuchar stated " It's time to chart a new course.... to get our troops out of harm's way.". No analysis, just the typical knee jerk "If Bush is for it, I'm against it!"
Micheal Yon said in NRO that he was asked by many journailsts what he thought of the Petraeus report, before it was delivered. His reply, after stating that the report will have to come out first:" Even this coming week, after listening to the general’s testimony before Congress, I will have to read the report and transcripts numerous times, sleep on the information, and reflect on it in light of my own observations of the situation in Iraq. The outcome of the war in Iraq, and to some extent the greater War on Terror, will largely depend upon our decisions today. The outcome is too important for quick words. Many will try to be the first to report on the report, and their reports likely will be the most unreliable." And which one of the left will be the first to truly do even a minimum,realistic analysis of the report?
The left does not see this conflict in its true light. They never will. It is not the War in Iraq. It is the Battle in Iraq Against Radical Muslim Jihadis. The left sees this as their Big Arrow against GWB. It is here that they can strike a hard blow against GWB and Republicans. This very same thought process took hold of the left in 1974-1975 when they saw Richard Nixon weak from Watergate. The Senate, led by Senator "Water Safety Instructor " Kennedy withheld funds to put the US military back into Vietnam as the Treaty of Paris required . And in the process condemned over 2,000,000 to death so Kennedy and his ilk could score points on Nixon. And those very same people that played politics with Vietnamese and SE Asian lives are now willing to proclaim that very same death sentence not only to the Iraqis and the Middle East but also to us, Americans. These are the same lefties who never consider consequences. The never see beyond the immediate or beyond their feelings. These are the same lefties who always need, require and force others to pay the consequences of someone else's actions. This is an enemy that has no geo-political goals. The VC (Viet Minh) and North Vietnamese wanted the Japaneses, then the French, then the Americans out of their country.The Islamists want us either Muslim or dead. As I wrote last year on the five year anniversary "Never forget who the enemy is. He wants you dead. He wants your neighbor dead. Your wife, husband, children,parents dead. He does not and will not discriminate. There are no negotiations, no compromises. There are no innocents. Not a one. And you will not be spared or shown any mercy."This enemy will kill the lefties- first. The lefties have no concept, none at all of this battle or what it is truly about let alone this war.
And so, they sing their Bush Derangement Syndrome National Anthem "I'm Against It" and risk condemning America and Americans and the West to the whims of radical Islam.
You hear it in their bleatings about Petraeus, their refusal to reflect.
And it bodes ill and danger to all. To all.
Oh and do something guaranteed to drive the left into frenzied deliriums: pray to The Lord:
"Father God, hear our plea. Thank you for keeping us safe. Thank You for those who stand a watch and walk the walls and risk all to keep us from harm. Remember them so kindly Father.We ask that You do not treat us as we so richly deserve. We have forgotten You. We have broken each and every one of Your laws. We chase after other gods. Bring us back to You. For Jesus sake. And in His name, the name that is above all names."
This is a quote from a men's book of meditations that I used to read about twenty years ago. I have used it often, especially when it comes to leftists and their radical bastard offspring. They are so precisely predictable. They may use different words or terms, but they are predictable.
I predicted that just as General Petraeus spoke his last sentence, as he was breathing his last comment, as he ended his report, that within milliseconds, if that long, the " I Love America Only When It's Defeated" lefties would predictably shoot from the lip. They would not even attempt to review, reflect and/or analyze any of the Petraeus/Crocker report let alone all any or all the collateral material that came with their reports. And I was not disappointed. General Petraeus hadn't even hit the door push-bar when Senator Klobuchar stated " It's time to chart a new course.... to get our troops out of harm's way.". No analysis, just the typical knee jerk "If Bush is for it, I'm against it!"
Micheal Yon said in NRO that he was asked by many journailsts what he thought of the Petraeus report, before it was delivered. His reply, after stating that the report will have to come out first:" Even this coming week, after listening to the general’s testimony before Congress, I will have to read the report and transcripts numerous times, sleep on the information, and reflect on it in light of my own observations of the situation in Iraq. The outcome of the war in Iraq, and to some extent the greater War on Terror, will largely depend upon our decisions today. The outcome is too important for quick words. Many will try to be the first to report on the report, and their reports likely will be the most unreliable." And which one of the left will be the first to truly do even a minimum,realistic analysis of the report?
The left does not see this conflict in its true light. They never will. It is not the War in Iraq. It is the Battle in Iraq Against Radical Muslim Jihadis. The left sees this as their Big Arrow against GWB. It is here that they can strike a hard blow against GWB and Republicans. This very same thought process took hold of the left in 1974-1975 when they saw Richard Nixon weak from Watergate. The Senate, led by Senator "Water Safety Instructor " Kennedy withheld funds to put the US military back into Vietnam as the Treaty of Paris required . And in the process condemned over 2,000,000 to death so Kennedy and his ilk could score points on Nixon. And those very same people that played politics with Vietnamese and SE Asian lives are now willing to proclaim that very same death sentence not only to the Iraqis and the Middle East but also to us, Americans. These are the same lefties who never consider consequences. The never see beyond the immediate or beyond their feelings. These are the same lefties who always need, require and force others to pay the consequences of someone else's actions. This is an enemy that has no geo-political goals. The VC (Viet Minh) and North Vietnamese wanted the Japaneses, then the French, then the Americans out of their country.The Islamists want us either Muslim or dead. As I wrote last year on the five year anniversary "Never forget who the enemy is. He wants you dead. He wants your neighbor dead. Your wife, husband, children,parents dead. He does not and will not discriminate. There are no negotiations, no compromises. There are no innocents. Not a one. And you will not be spared or shown any mercy."This enemy will kill the lefties- first. The lefties have no concept, none at all of this battle or what it is truly about let alone this war.
And so, they sing their Bush Derangement Syndrome National Anthem "I'm Against It" and risk condemning America and Americans and the West to the whims of radical Islam.
You hear it in their bleatings about Petraeus, their refusal to reflect.
And it bodes ill and danger to all. To all.
Oh and do something guaranteed to drive the left into frenzied deliriums: pray to The Lord:
"Father God, hear our plea. Thank you for keeping us safe. Thank You for those who stand a watch and walk the walls and risk all to keep us from harm. Remember them so kindly Father.We ask that You do not treat us as we so richly deserve. We have forgotten You. We have broken each and every one of Your laws. We chase after other gods. Bring us back to You. For Jesus sake. And in His name, the name that is above all names."
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
WWHD?
OK kids- let's see how well you've learned your lesson from Professor Amendment X:
It's 2014 and President Hillary Clinton is mercifully in her last two years as President. Chelsea Clinton is running for President hoping to out legacy/dynasty the Kennedy's.
The leading Republican candidate has just found that he has received $1,000,000 in illegal contributions from a front man from a foreign country who has spread the money around so it appeared that a large number of individuals made the contributions.
Now, think for a minute...WWHD? (Imagine or hum Final Jeopardy tune at this point in the exam).................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Pens down.
Answers please:
No, I'm sorry, That's incorrect. She would not do what the Republican administration will do...nothing. Remember that she's a Democrat and knows how to fight. The Republicans are, well, Republicans and are still looking for a pair.
The correct answer is: after having the Department of Justice flay the Republican alive, she would have the IRS become the Republican candidate's new proctologist. She would hamstring the guy badly. Not take him out. Just make sure that instead of running for office all he could do was hobble.
GWB has a golden opportunity for the Republicans here with an easy underhand pitch that he could easily hit into the parking lot if not the next county. But, he won't.
The Republicans have learned nothing. Nothing.
David Horowitz in his book "The Art of Political War" basically states that Republicans think of politics as the Oxford Debating Club. The Democrats see it as a knife fight.
GWB, surprise me for once.
"Carpe Commodum"
It's 2014 and President Hillary Clinton is mercifully in her last two years as President. Chelsea Clinton is running for President hoping to out legacy/dynasty the Kennedy's.
The leading Republican candidate has just found that he has received $1,000,000 in illegal contributions from a front man from a foreign country who has spread the money around so it appeared that a large number of individuals made the contributions.
Now, think for a minute...WWHD? (Imagine or hum Final Jeopardy tune at this point in the exam).................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Pens down.
Answers please:
No, I'm sorry, That's incorrect. She would not do what the Republican administration will do...nothing. Remember that she's a Democrat and knows how to fight. The Republicans are, well, Republicans and are still looking for a pair.
The correct answer is: after having the Department of Justice flay the Republican alive, she would have the IRS become the Republican candidate's new proctologist. She would hamstring the guy badly. Not take him out. Just make sure that instead of running for office all he could do was hobble.
GWB has a golden opportunity for the Republicans here with an easy underhand pitch that he could easily hit into the parking lot if not the next county. But, he won't.
The Republicans have learned nothing. Nothing.
David Horowitz in his book "The Art of Political War" basically states that Republicans think of politics as the Oxford Debating Club. The Democrats see it as a knife fight.
GWB, surprise me for once.
"Carpe Commodum"
Photo of the Day
Why are these people smiling?
Photo by Jeff Wheeler Star Tribune September 12th 2007Because they, and Governor Pawlenty, just gave away $157,000,000 of your hard earned money to people who made a mistake by living near flowing water. And they feel real good about themselves and their compassion... at your cost.
Now, go out and work just a bit harder today, and well tomorrow...oh, and the next few days to make up the difference to your families. And maybe ask the question "How does something happening to someone else give them a right to my hard earned money?"
Now, go out and work just a bit harder today, and well tomorrow...oh, and the next few days to make up the difference to your families. And maybe ask the question "How does something happening to someone else give them a right to my hard earned money?"
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
One day, two days, three days, a week...or more
Help me with this: It took over two weeks for Hillary to decide to give back Bundler Hsu's $850,000? Any good reason she didn't do it the same day she found out? Couldn't she get in touch with Zipper Gate Willy's focus groups any faster than that? Seems she needs to work on her communications manager to snap it up a notch.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Ah the subtlety of the left
Bernard Goldberg has a chapter in his book "Crazies to the left of me, Wimps to the right" where he talks about how he noticed that the MSM always puts a slant on the news. You'll hear the term "so called" a lot: the "so called" war on terror, the "so called" tax cuts. Or you'll hear "hard core" or "radical conservatives" but will hear "democrats". Their go to for the womens view on any Republican proposal is almost always a representative from NOW. You know the drill.
Well, here is the headline for Clinton Illegal Campaign Cash Contributor Norman Hsu: "Democratic fundraiser apprehended in Colorado". Not a single Clinton reference. Not a headline "Criminal fugitive Democratic fundraiser apprehended in Colorado". Not "Criminal fugitive Hillary Clinton fundraiser apprehended in Colorado". Nope. Just a benign headline about another dirty foreign (Asian) and illegal cash contributor to the Clinton machine.
Well, here is the headline for Clinton Illegal Campaign Cash Contributor Norman Hsu: "Democratic fundraiser apprehended in Colorado". Not a single Clinton reference. Not a headline "Criminal fugitive Democratic fundraiser apprehended in Colorado". Not "Criminal fugitive Hillary Clinton fundraiser apprehended in Colorado". Nope. Just a benign headline about another dirty foreign (Asian) and illegal cash contributor to the Clinton machine.
Moonbats, Kool Aid drinkers and true believers
The Prairie Pravda editors seemed fit to put the story about the 24 hour incarceration of jurisprudence corrupter Mike Nifong under the category of "Sports". Don't ask me why.One day for destroying the lives of three innocent men and their families. Anyhow, outside of the jailhouse, there were a group of Nifong supporters:" A small group of supporters accompanied Nifong with signs reading, "We believe in your integrity and goodness.''" I had to read that small , one sentence paragraph at least twice. "Integrity"? "Goodness"? What on earth do these people drink? I thought that lead water pipes were illegal. Obviously not. And the real dangerous aspect of this is that these people are eligible to vote...for another Nifong. Yah wanna bet that they have Edwards, Kerry or Clinton bumper stickers aplenty?
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
A question of culture(?)
OK kids, here's a question:
Which domestic culture gives a need for innocent and frightened citizens to ask this question and get this answer?
"What can be done about people blocking and loitering in the streets/traffic?
This type of conduct has increased significantly over the past 2 years. The behavior is often intended by the offender show dominance or defiance. The police are aware of the problem and have placed a higher priority of addressing the behavior. Officers will typically stop and direct the person(s) to the side of the road. There are a number of laws that officers will use if necessary to gain compliance."
Give your answer in comments. I'll maybe give hints later on if you get stumped.
The answer comes later in a video from a local television report.
Which domestic culture gives a need for innocent and frightened citizens to ask this question and get this answer?
"What can be done about people blocking and loitering in the streets/traffic?
This type of conduct has increased significantly over the past 2 years. The behavior is often intended by the offender show dominance or defiance. The police are aware of the problem and have placed a higher priority of addressing the behavior. Officers will typically stop and direct the person(s) to the side of the road. There are a number of laws that officers will use if necessary to gain compliance."
Give your answer in comments. I'll maybe give hints later on if you get stumped.
The answer comes later in a video from a local television report.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
So what am I doing about it.
Here is hoping Fred can remind people what a conservative believes.
I know I will be tuning in on the 6th
(But no party at the house yet, still recovering from summer remodel)
Now that Summer is over, I hope to be contributing more to both local politics and the blog.
And speaking on contributing - Here is a chance to send a message
I know I will be tuning in on the 6th
(But no party at the house yet, still recovering from summer remodel)
Now that Summer is over, I hope to be contributing more to both local politics and the blog.
And speaking on contributing - Here is a chance to send a message
The Republican future
I've blogged many times about the runaway train on the tracks headed right for us called the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. $70,000,000,000,000 in current dollars. And expanding at an additional $4,650,000,000,000 a year.
In 20 years, I'll be close to 80 years old. And our children will be in their 30's to 50's. And they will have to eat/fund that debt. And not a bite at a time. It will set the stage for intergenerational war. As Baby Boomers, we have demographically gone through the decades like a pig through a python. We have paid for our parents and grandparents Social Security and Medicare. And we expect that our children will pay for us. And what will they do when we force them to pay exorbitant payroll taxes to fund Medicare? They will vote for those Senators, Congressman and Presidential candidates that promise to cut benefits. We will vote for those who won't cut benefits. And there are more Boomers than Gen X''s. And when the tax burden crushes our children and grandchildren, where will their incentive be to work?
The reason I bring this up is an article from Real Clear Politics. Albert Hunt from Bloomberg tells of the upcoming problem with the 18-29 year old voters that will hit Republicans. The younger voting block is diversity oriented. They see differences as cool. They see Republicans as standing against "diversity". The Republicans have a brief window of opportunity. In that 20 years I mentioned, the least of the young voters worries will be gay marriage , immigration and "diversity". It will be that huge payroll tax bill that stares them eyeball to eyeball.
Mike Osskopp, Congressman's John Kline's District Director warned that the old concerns of "guns, gays and babies" didn't and won't resonate with voters anymore.
I tried to recruit a bunch of 18 year old voters at our precinct caucuses in 2006 with the recitation of the SS and Medicare liabilities. They were elected CD2 delegates, but never showed up. Alas.
If these voters are deserting the Repubs, that means they are/will vote Democrat. And the lefties will never, ever vote to address SS/Medicare. And so the young voters will be voting for their own destruction.
There is a window here. But it is narrow and very, very short. Maybe a decade at most. Maybe.
In 20 years, I'll be close to 80 years old. And our children will be in their 30's to 50's. And they will have to eat/fund that debt. And not a bite at a time. It will set the stage for intergenerational war. As Baby Boomers, we have demographically gone through the decades like a pig through a python. We have paid for our parents and grandparents Social Security and Medicare. And we expect that our children will pay for us. And what will they do when we force them to pay exorbitant payroll taxes to fund Medicare? They will vote for those Senators, Congressman and Presidential candidates that promise to cut benefits. We will vote for those who won't cut benefits. And there are more Boomers than Gen X''s. And when the tax burden crushes our children and grandchildren, where will their incentive be to work?
The reason I bring this up is an article from Real Clear Politics. Albert Hunt from Bloomberg tells of the upcoming problem with the 18-29 year old voters that will hit Republicans. The younger voting block is diversity oriented. They see differences as cool. They see Republicans as standing against "diversity". The Republicans have a brief window of opportunity. In that 20 years I mentioned, the least of the young voters worries will be gay marriage , immigration and "diversity". It will be that huge payroll tax bill that stares them eyeball to eyeball.
Mike Osskopp, Congressman's John Kline's District Director warned that the old concerns of "guns, gays and babies" didn't and won't resonate with voters anymore.
I tried to recruit a bunch of 18 year old voters at our precinct caucuses in 2006 with the recitation of the SS and Medicare liabilities. They were elected CD2 delegates, but never showed up. Alas.
If these voters are deserting the Repubs, that means they are/will vote Democrat. And the lefties will never, ever vote to address SS/Medicare. And so the young voters will be voting for their own destruction.
There is a window here. But it is narrow and very, very short. Maybe a decade at most. Maybe.
In a week
In a week, there will be two events that will get my attention: It will be the 6th Anniversary of 9-11. And General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will give their progress report to Congress about the surge in Iraq.
And I'm waiting to see how the critics will respond. Their minds are already made up. For them, the Petraeus/Crocker report is wasted time that the Congressional critics and their cohorts in the MSM could be using to fine tune their barbs.
You know what I'd like to see? A critic come away from the report and say "General Petraeus has given an on point and convincing report. I'm persuaded to support the surge." or something to that effect. But that would mean a conversion to intellectual honesty and logical and reasoning discernment. I suspect, that as chameleons, they will change from criticizing the military aspects of the surge to criticizing the Iraqi political aspects of the surge, completely forgetting or failing to mention that the political changes are and will follow the military success. (Read Micheal Yon to see how this is occurring [and his dispatches "The Ghosts of Anbar" parts i-iii]) .
And the prospects for seeing three full moons in a month have a higher probability of happening than any intellectual honesty on the part of the critics.
P.S.: Michael Barone has an article titled "Surge Politics" that's a good read.
And I'm waiting to see how the critics will respond. Their minds are already made up. For them, the Petraeus/Crocker report is wasted time that the Congressional critics and their cohorts in the MSM could be using to fine tune their barbs.
You know what I'd like to see? A critic come away from the report and say "General Petraeus has given an on point and convincing report. I'm persuaded to support the surge." or something to that effect. But that would mean a conversion to intellectual honesty and logical and reasoning discernment. I suspect, that as chameleons, they will change from criticizing the military aspects of the surge to criticizing the Iraqi political aspects of the surge, completely forgetting or failing to mention that the political changes are and will follow the military success. (Read Micheal Yon to see how this is occurring [and his dispatches "The Ghosts of Anbar" parts i-iii]) .
And the prospects for seeing three full moons in a month have a higher probability of happening than any intellectual honesty on the part of the critics.
P.S.: Michael Barone has an article titled "Surge Politics" that's a good read.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
My sides are delightfully pained by the inclusion of the trusted document for your reading by confidence
I came across this from The People's Cube:
Hillary Employs Email Experts From Nigeria
========================================================
> FROM: MS H.R. CLINTON
> TO: UNDISCLOSED PROGRESSIVE RECIPIENT
> SUBJECT: CONFIDENTIAL DONATION PROPOSAL USD$38.5M
>
> Dear progressive! I solicit your confidence in this transaction, this is by virtue of its
> nature as being utterly CONFIDENTIAL and TOP SECRET. I am Ms H.R. Clinton,
> a battered wife of an impeached president of a certain
> country sometimes referred to as Les Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
> I came to know of you via Daily Kos member list in my search for a reliable
> and reputable person to handle a very confidential transaction which
> involves the transfer of a huge sum of money to my campaign fund
> requiring maximum confidence.
>
> Norman Hsu, an honorable businessman who is wanted by authorities for
> failing to do a three year prison stretch based upon a no contest plea to
> grand theft swindling charges, needs to donate to my presidential campaign
> quid pro quo so that I could pardon him in case I collect enough money to
> become the next president of the aforementioned country.
>
> But the amount that Hsu and I had agreed on in this transaction exceeds the limits
> on campaign contributions from individuals. The political climate and legal issues
> preclude us from receiving the entire amount from Mr. Hsu as a lump sum donation.
>
> In order to avert this negative development, myself and some of my trusted colleagues
> here at the campaign headquarters now seek for your permission to have you stand
> as a donor to my election campaign, so that the fund, USD$38.5M would be
> subsequently transferred and paid into your bank account. All documents,
> including a personal will making H.R. Clinton beneficiary and proves
> to enable you get this fund have been carefully worked out and we are
> assuring you a 100% risk free involvement as long as you stay away
> from Ft. Marcy Park or train tracks.
>
> Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one
> apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that all will be
> well at the end of the day after
> I become president of Les Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
>
> For your assistance, your commission would be 15%. 10% has been set aside
> for expenses while the rest would be for myself and my colleagues for
> campaigning purposes in my country.
>
> If this proposal is OK. by you and you do not wish to take advantage of the trust
> we hope to bestow on you, then kindly get to me immediately via my e-mail
> furnishing me with your most confidential telephone, fax number ABA routing,
> account # and exclusive e-mail so that I can forward to you the relevant details
> of this transaction.
> Thank you in advance for your anticipated co-operation.
>
> Ms. H.R. Clinton
>
> Chappaqua
Ah, yes. History past is history present.
Hillary Employs Email Experts From Nigeria
| By Hillary 8/29/2007, 12:10 pm |
========================================================
> FROM: MS H.R. CLINTON
> TO: UNDISCLOSED PROGRESSIVE RECIPIENT
> SUBJECT: CONFIDENTIAL DONATION PROPOSAL USD$38.5M
>
> Dear progressive! I solicit your confidence in this transaction, this is by virtue of its
> nature as being utterly CONFIDENTIAL and TOP SECRET. I am Ms H.R. Clinton,
> a battered wife of an impeached president of a certain
> country sometimes referred to as Les Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
> I came to know of you via Daily Kos member list in my search for a reliable
> and reputable person to handle a very confidential transaction which
> involves the transfer of a huge sum of money to my campaign fund
> requiring maximum confidence.
>
> Norman Hsu, an honorable businessman who is wanted by authorities for
> failing to do a three year prison stretch based upon a no contest plea to
> grand theft swindling charges, needs to donate to my presidential campaign
> quid pro quo so that I could pardon him in case I collect enough money to
> become the next president of the aforementioned country.
>
> But the amount that Hsu and I had agreed on in this transaction exceeds the limits
> on campaign contributions from individuals. The political climate and legal issues
> preclude us from receiving the entire amount from Mr. Hsu as a lump sum donation.
>
> In order to avert this negative development, myself and some of my trusted colleagues
> here at the campaign headquarters now seek for your permission to have you stand
> as a donor to my election campaign, so that the fund, USD$38.5M would be
> subsequently transferred and paid into your bank account. All documents,
> including a personal will making H.R. Clinton beneficiary and proves
> to enable you get this fund have been carefully worked out and we are
> assuring you a 100% risk free involvement as long as you stay away
> from Ft. Marcy Park or train tracks.
>
> Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one
> apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that all will be
> well at the end of the day after
> I become president of Les Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
>
> For your assistance, your commission would be 15%. 10% has been set aside
> for expenses while the rest would be for myself and my colleagues for
> campaigning purposes in my country.
>
> If this proposal is OK. by you and you do not wish to take advantage of the trust
> we hope to bestow on you, then kindly get to me immediately via my e-mail
> furnishing me with your most confidential telephone, fax number ABA routing,
> account # and exclusive e-mail so that I can forward to you the relevant details
> of this transaction.
> Thank you in advance for your anticipated co-operation.
>
> Ms. H.R. Clinton
>
> Chappaqua
Ah, yes. History past is history present.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
The government , the left and failure...again...still...
I was traveling on Monday and heard part of the Mark Levin Show on KTLK (100.3). He referenced a report on poverty that was coming out Tuesday. In the report, statistics on the poor were highlighted. There were a few that caught my attention. The first was that the average number of hours worked in a year by a poor family was 800. That averages out to 16 hours a week (assuming a two week vacation from a part time job). The report states that if the family would be supported by 2,000 hours of work a year (the equivalent of one full time job), that would lift 75% of all children out of that "official" poverty. One adult working a full time job. One way out of poverty:Work. Who knew?
The second point was the high illegitimacy rate of poor families. In other words, absent fathers. If the mothers would marry the fathers of their children,again, nearly 3/4 of poor children would be out of official poverty. Another way out of poverty: Gonna have children? Get married. Wow. Another stunner!
The report also highlights the horrendous situation regarding immigrants (both legal and illegal). One quarter of the poor are either first generation immigrants or the children of first generation immigrants.
And the report goes on to point to the failed "War on Poverty"programs that have failed and failed miserably. And these programs have, in fact, increased poverty and misery. All the while taking money from working Americans who were then not able to fully provide for their own families with the money they rightfully earned.
Notice that both of the points (work and having children outside marriage) are decisions. Decisions that have bad consequences. The vast majority of the poor have made bad choices. Or they choose not to do what would eliminate their poverty and misery. And why should their bad choices give them a legal claim on my and your money, time, life? And then those claims on your money breed more (pun intended) of the same of what those programs were supposed to reduce or eliminate.
And then we have this from Pravda on the Mississippi "A Most Glum Report for State's Families". What the commies on the Strib's editorial board fail to mention is that for the most part poverty is a consequence of real bad decisions. Their pronouncement:
"Ever since President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964, experts have debated the effectiveness of government antipoverty programs. But most analysts agree that a strong economy and a robust job market are the most powerful tools to cut poverty. Which is why it's troubling that the Minnesota economy seems to be doing so poorly now for low- and middle-income residents." No. It's not troubling at all. Well, at least not to rational and logical thinkers. The poor keep doing the same things that put them in poverty to begin with. They don't work enough and they keep having children out of wedlock. It's right there in the report that Prairie Pravda cites. Oh, and there is no debate. The Great Society's "War on Poverty" is a failure. A multi trillion dollar failure. End it.
But, once again, as I blogged before about the excuses lefties proffer as to the reason their programs fail:
1. Not enough money has been spent.
2. Not enough time has been allowed.
3. The right people haven't been in charge.
4. The program needs to be modified (read expanded).
So, the three best choices to stay out of poverty?
1. Graduate from high school. Get a diploma.
2. Get a job. Any job. Establish a work history.
3. No children outside of marriage. Period.
All studies show that if these three points are kept, there is a better than 80% chance that you'll escape poverty.
Oh, and by the way, the poor in America are the envy of the world.
And speaking of subsidizing bad decisions and choices: we go to the Feds and Katrina. Oi vay! Talk about high priced lunacy and subsidizing that lunacy.
The feds have put over $127,000,000,000 of your money into putting people right back into the same place that floods and gets hit with hurricanes. The annual GDP of Louisiana is $141,000,000,000. And people are still complaining that $127,000,000,000 extra dollars or the equivalent of nearly a full year's GDP is not enough because THEY haven't had enough money spent on THEM.
Yup. The Feds. This is Big Government on parade. This is exactly what to expect from government. The exact same results would be achieved no matter who's in the White House or which party is in control of Congress. The bureaucrats march and regulate on...and on and on.
New Orleans is a sink hole. What did these people not know about a city that sits on the Gulf of Mexico, has hurricanes, is at sea level and has Lake Ponchartrain right next door to the north (use Google Earth and see where part of the storm surge goes)?
And the Feds use an obscene amount of your money to move people right back to neighborhoods that flood!?!? And at $127,000,000,000 of federal money (and this does not count all the private money and donations and volunteer work that has also gone into Sink Hole, Louisiana) there are still whole neighborhoods that are still the same as two years ago, only drier. And so,I'll ask the same question again: why do these people in New Orleans have a legal claim on our money because of their bad decision to live in a flood prone area that is in hurricane territory? And remember, these are the same people who elected Ray "Chocolate City/School Bus" Nagin as mayor.
A little story. A friend of mine from church told me about his Dad. His Dad is a trucker. So, he and his fellow truckers, in a display of real (not fake like Social Justice) Christian charity, went to New Orleans, on their own dime, to help rebuild. They were directed to an ethnically non-diverse neighborhood. As these Minnesotans worked, the homeowners sat in lawn chairs and watched. The next day when my friend's father and his fellow truckers showed up, the lawn chair sitters asked for the workers' lunches as the sitters didn't have lunch. The workers immediately gathered up their tools and came back to Minnesota.
And this from Anti-Strib as far as what FEMA and the Feds should really be building in New Orleans (The Big Chocolate Easy):
The left and lunacy.
Evidence large and clear of Einstein's pronouncement that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Or, in other words, if you keep doing what you've always done you'll keep getting what you've always got.
The second point was the high illegitimacy rate of poor families. In other words, absent fathers. If the mothers would marry the fathers of their children,again, nearly 3/4 of poor children would be out of official poverty. Another way out of poverty: Gonna have children? Get married. Wow. Another stunner!
The report also highlights the horrendous situation regarding immigrants (both legal and illegal). One quarter of the poor are either first generation immigrants or the children of first generation immigrants.
And the report goes on to point to the failed "War on Poverty"programs that have failed and failed miserably. And these programs have, in fact, increased poverty and misery. All the while taking money from working Americans who were then not able to fully provide for their own families with the money they rightfully earned.
Notice that both of the points (work and having children outside marriage) are decisions. Decisions that have bad consequences. The vast majority of the poor have made bad choices. Or they choose not to do what would eliminate their poverty and misery. And why should their bad choices give them a legal claim on my and your money, time, life? And then those claims on your money breed more (pun intended) of the same of what those programs were supposed to reduce or eliminate.
And then we have this from Pravda on the Mississippi "A Most Glum Report for State's Families". What the commies on the Strib's editorial board fail to mention is that for the most part poverty is a consequence of real bad decisions. Their pronouncement:
"Ever since President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964, experts have debated the effectiveness of government antipoverty programs. But most analysts agree that a strong economy and a robust job market are the most powerful tools to cut poverty. Which is why it's troubling that the Minnesota economy seems to be doing so poorly now for low- and middle-income residents." No. It's not troubling at all. Well, at least not to rational and logical thinkers. The poor keep doing the same things that put them in poverty to begin with. They don't work enough and they keep having children out of wedlock. It's right there in the report that Prairie Pravda cites. Oh, and there is no debate. The Great Society's "War on Poverty" is a failure. A multi trillion dollar failure. End it.
But, once again, as I blogged before about the excuses lefties proffer as to the reason their programs fail:
1. Not enough money has been spent.
2. Not enough time has been allowed.
3. The right people haven't been in charge.
4. The program needs to be modified (read expanded).
So, the three best choices to stay out of poverty?
1. Graduate from high school. Get a diploma.
2. Get a job. Any job. Establish a work history.
3. No children outside of marriage. Period.
All studies show that if these three points are kept, there is a better than 80% chance that you'll escape poverty.
Oh, and by the way, the poor in America are the envy of the world.
And speaking of subsidizing bad decisions and choices: we go to the Feds and Katrina. Oi vay! Talk about high priced lunacy and subsidizing that lunacy.
The feds have put over $127,000,000,000 of your money into putting people right back into the same place that floods and gets hit with hurricanes. The annual GDP of Louisiana is $141,000,000,000. And people are still complaining that $127,000,000,000 extra dollars or the equivalent of nearly a full year's GDP is not enough because THEY haven't had enough money spent on THEM.
Yup. The Feds. This is Big Government on parade. This is exactly what to expect from government. The exact same results would be achieved no matter who's in the White House or which party is in control of Congress. The bureaucrats march and regulate on...and on and on.
New Orleans is a sink hole. What did these people not know about a city that sits on the Gulf of Mexico, has hurricanes, is at sea level and has Lake Ponchartrain right next door to the north (use Google Earth and see where part of the storm surge goes)?
And the Feds use an obscene amount of your money to move people right back to neighborhoods that flood!?!? And at $127,000,000,000 of federal money (and this does not count all the private money and donations and volunteer work that has also gone into Sink Hole, Louisiana) there are still whole neighborhoods that are still the same as two years ago, only drier. And so,I'll ask the same question again: why do these people in New Orleans have a legal claim on our money because of their bad decision to live in a flood prone area that is in hurricane territory? And remember, these are the same people who elected Ray "Chocolate City/School Bus" Nagin as mayor.
A little story. A friend of mine from church told me about his Dad. His Dad is a trucker. So, he and his fellow truckers, in a display of real (not fake like Social Justice) Christian charity, went to New Orleans, on their own dime, to help rebuild. They were directed to an ethnically non-diverse neighborhood. As these Minnesotans worked, the homeowners sat in lawn chairs and watched. The next day when my friend's father and his fellow truckers showed up, the lawn chair sitters asked for the workers' lunches as the sitters didn't have lunch. The workers immediately gathered up their tools and came back to Minnesota.
And this from Anti-Strib as far as what FEMA and the Feds should really be building in New Orleans (The Big Chocolate Easy):
The left and lunacy.
Evidence large and clear of Einstein's pronouncement that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Or, in other words, if you keep doing what you've always done you'll keep getting what you've always got.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Magnanimity defined
It always does one good to see benevolence, generosity and nobleness of spirit on display from the elders and scions of the famous. And my close personal friend Sid Hartman is quick to remind us of just how that public, gallant and magnificent trait is embodied and displayed for all to emulate in the Pohlad family.
As the controversy over how much the land for the new Twins Stadium is worth, Uncle Sid is fast on the trigger to point out that those poor suffering Pohlads will bear most or all the extra costs of the land.
And in what can only be called the height of chutzpah, Sid (did I mention that Sid is my close personal friend?) also quoted Twins President Dave St. Peter-"There would be no ballpark had the Pohlad family not agreed to pay most of the difference between what Hennepin County had offered and what the condemnation group came up with".Uh, Sid? Mr. St. Peter? No. That is certainly NOT the case.
There would be no stadium if Governor Pawlenty had not signed the bill that nullified the law that gave the citizens of Hennepin County the right to vote, via referendum, on the tax bill that funds the stadium. There is only a ballpark because my widowed mother is forced to pay a tax to make the Pohlads richer. And you people lobbied to make sure she had no voice!That the Pohlads may have to fork over an extra $10MM when the Twins value goes up over $250,000,000 because of people like my mother being forced to make the Pohlads richer galls me to no end. And then to have Sycophant Sid laud the Pohlads for it...
BTW, I've written an email to David St. Peter. I'll let you know if and when he replies.
As the controversy over how much the land for the new Twins Stadium is worth, Uncle Sid is fast on the trigger to point out that those poor suffering Pohlads will bear most or all the extra costs of the land.
And in what can only be called the height of chutzpah, Sid (did I mention that Sid is my close personal friend?) also quoted Twins President Dave St. Peter-"There would be no ballpark had the Pohlad family not agreed to pay most of the difference between what Hennepin County had offered and what the condemnation group came up with".Uh, Sid? Mr. St. Peter? No. That is certainly NOT the case.
There would be no stadium if Governor Pawlenty had not signed the bill that nullified the law that gave the citizens of Hennepin County the right to vote, via referendum, on the tax bill that funds the stadium. There is only a ballpark because my widowed mother is forced to pay a tax to make the Pohlads richer. And you people lobbied to make sure she had no voice!That the Pohlads may have to fork over an extra $10MM when the Twins value goes up over $250,000,000 because of people like my mother being forced to make the Pohlads richer galls me to no end. And then to have Sycophant Sid laud the Pohlads for it...
BTW, I've written an email to David St. Peter. I'll let you know if and when he replies.
Friday, August 10, 2007
The Biggest Little Dog
His name is Skipper. When Mom and Dad got him in 1990 at the age of six weeks, they (Dad) wanted to name him Spunky. Well a direct and animated campaign by we three kids and Mom and Dad saw the wisdom of not scarring a puppy with an inane moniker, and Spunky blessedly became Skipper. Dad wanted a toy fox terrier like the one he had at age ten (that terrier was named Jo-Jo). Well, Skipper was a fox terrier, not a toy fox terrier. Regardless, a terrier is a turbo-charged dog. A terrier puppy is turbo-charged on nitromethane. A seemingly inexhaustible supply of nitromethane. I became convinced that the root word for "terrorist" was "terrier". And it occurred to me "I'm going to have to put this dog out of everybody's misery". Well, like grandparents with grandchildren, I could walk away. Good luck Dad!
I've always believed that dogs grow to be like two year olds...forever. When Skipper reached late adolescence/young adulthood, he had become a great dog. Dad died in 1993. And Skipper became Mom's great friend and companion. He always followed Mom around. Was always where people were. Never underfoot. When my brother or I went to Mom's house, Skipper became so excited to see us that he lost bladder control. My brother commented what a great feeling it was to have someone so happy to see you that he wet himself. I agreed.
Skipper was also a guard dog. He had two barks. The bark I heard when I came to visit and rang the doorbell four, five, six times quickly. And then there was that other bark. If it could be described as a bark. More like the soul chilling warning from a hell hound. I heard it a few times. When a stranger rang the doorbell. You would never believe that that bark came from a thirty pound fox terrier. It was a bark that sounded as if that dog you heard on the other side of the door was going to come through the front door and screen door to tear your throat out and spit it back in your face as you crumpled to the ground. And then for good measure kick dirt in your face as he walked away. Good dog, Skipper!
Just what Mom needed.
And Skipper was a face licker. The boy next door (who is now an adult) described Skipper as "lickety". And he was.
I had many nicknames for Skipper: Skippy Flips, Skippum Flippums, Skippio Flippio, Nipwads... The one I landed on was Muttzoid (with an occasional Nipwads. I'm a sentimentalist after all). Don't ask me why I settled on Muttzoid. Probably a consequence of playing rugby for twenty three years. Last Saturday my Aunt Karen was at Mom's. I stopped by to do a couple things around the house. I came upstairs and said "Muttzoid!" and scratched Skipper's chest. My aunt said to Mom "He calls him Muttzoid. Not Buttzoid." I was crushed. Crushed! How could my Mom think that I could or would call Skipper "Buttzoid"? Yup. That sealed it. Now I know what I had always suspected: I'm adopted. The evidence is in.
When I stayed at Mom's house (to take care of Skipper) when she needed to go to the hospital or went on a short vacation, Skipper was quite clear that he was always going to sleep with me. I called, he came a' running and jumped on the bed and curled up behind my legs. Or jumped up and layed down beside me on the davenport.
But, we all grow old. So it was with Skipper. He started to lose his hearing a few years back, but not his playful spirit. He still ran around the house when I showed up. And we played with his rope toy. Then Mom noticed that he was slipping from time to time on the stairs going up. And then he fell backwards downstairs a few times. Mom had to help him upstairs last year. This winter we took him in for evaluation. The vet thought there may be some neurological failing. And I asked about a small lump on his shoulder. It was cancer (that was successfully removed). We took Skipper to get acupuncture from Dr. Rachel Stephensen at Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. There was some remediation. But, we all knew that as Skipper's weight fell and he became less and less mobile and that there was evidence he might very well be experiencing canine dementia, that the end for this wonderful dog was approaching.
I had brought the subject up twice, obliquely, very gently, with Mom. My brother and I were very clear, that when that decision needed to be made, only Mom would make it. My brother and I were now silent, and listened to what Mom had to say.
Skipper needed nearly constant care. He was not getting better, at all. He hadn't been outside in two months. And Mom made the heavy, the unwanted decision last week. She called Dr. Stephensen and set the appointment for Thursday, yesterday.
We took Skipper on his last car trip and his last visit to Dr. Stephensen.
I asked what to expect. Dr. Stephensen said that she would administer an anesthetic overdose. That Skipper would go to sleep. And then his heart would stop and he'd stop breathing. I gently picked up Mom's, my brother's, my friend Skipper and put him on Mom's lap. My brother sat close nearby. Mom held Skipper. I sat on the floor and stroked his nose and rubbed him between his eyes as he so quietly left us. And then our life began without this wonderful little dog. It is so hard. Dr. Stephensen cried. Dr. Stephensen was so kind, gentle, sensitive. Skipper touched so many lives. Even people who had never met him.
Skipper will be cremated and his ashes will be at Mom's.
But, I now know why people who go through this say they will never get another dog.
Last night I could not get to sleep. I was so tired. I had dreams this last week about the coming Thursday, and now couldn't sleep. I tossed and turned. I kept trying to find that cool spot on the sheets and that calm spot in a dark night. I kept replaying the scene at the vets. But, then I also found myself thinking of ringing the doorbell and hearing Skipper barking and Mom saying "Skipper-who is that? Who's here?" Mom's opening the door and Skipper pushing himself out , tail a' wagging. Then running up the stairs to push his nose out between the wrought iron railing at Mom's to lick my face. And running around and barking, wanting to play. Down on his elbows, haunches up, tail still a' wagging. And I caught myself smiling at the thoughts. That Skipper hasn't been there for about two years. But, young or old, playful or paralyzed, Skipper loved and was loved. By many. He was loyal to us. And we to him. All the way to the end.
We are the ones who love Skipper enough to put us through this emptiness of pain. We're the ones who are left behind.
I'm reminded of a statement from the pastor who presided at my Grandma's funeral a quarter century ago. I've repeated it's essence and sentiment at all the funerals and memorials where I've spoken:"Your relationship with your mother, your grandmother, your friend didn't end three days ago. It just changed."
And so it is with Skipper. My, our relationship with Skipper didn't end yesterday...it just changed.
I once heard it said that you don't own a dog. He owns you. That statement is well supported by Skipper.
My Mom commented we've survived and lived, and lived well through losing others. And so it will also be with Skipper.
I've said over the past years that if anyone ever challenged me to name evidence of God's love and wisdom, it would be Skipper. Dad, you thought you were buying Skipper for yourself. Nah. Not at all. Not even close Dad. God was guiding you to buy Skipper for Mom for when you left us.
Farewell Skipper.
You are the biggest little dog.
Monday, August 06, 2007
The bridge...
The reach of the disaster is far and long. A client of mine, with whom I have a great relationship and who lives in the Pacific Northwest called me Thursday and left a message "Call me when you get this message." I did. I told him that I'd been using that bridge since it was dedicated. That I'd crossed it thousands of times, sometimes over ten times a day. The last time was, well, sometime within the week before it collapsed. For forty years, I've never given the bridge a thought. I always looked at the cityscape at night going south. I look at the four smokestacks at the NSP plant (or Excel or whatever their calling themselves now) just north of the bridge and think of my grandfather. But now come the harpies of the lack of logic loony and bile and vitriol consumed left.
I race sailboats. On Saturday as we gathered, one of the members of our group is a professional, registered engineer who also owns a nationally known and well respected engineering testing company. I asked him if he'd been contacted about the 35W bridge. Oh yes. To be an expert witness for plaintiffs and defendants. Our resident screaming radical lefty came up and asked him about his thoughts. My engineering friend said that it's going to take a long time to find out what failed. He commented that it was more than likely a metal fatigue failure. But where, what and why will take time. And the lefty screamer? Who has an engineering undergraduate degree...but is also an attorney...he knew exactly why that bridge failed. He kept hammering at me three times "What did Pawlenty do with the gas tax increase??? What did Pawlenty do..." I finally responded "He vetoed it". At which point Mr. Screamer screamed "MY POINT EXACTLY!!!" as he stormed off. As I screamed at his back side (where all his reasoning and discernment ability reside) "And in which direction did the sun rise that day? The EAST! MY POINT EXACTLY!!!" Made as much sense as did his diatribe. (Ever notice that lefties love two dia words and loathe one? They love diatribe and diarrhea of the mouth but loathe dialogue).
Lefties' logic always seems to go from point A to point Q with no intervening connections at all. And/or, they present correlation as causation (as I sarcastically did with my where did the sun raise comment and all lefties do with global warming, crime, and many other of their wasted causes). So, the questions I'd ask The Screamer would be: Okay, fill me in on how the gas tax increase veto felled the bridge or how blame is attached-
But, to show how out of touch Mr. Screamer is, he commented that it would take years to clear the river. His support? "Why, have they even cleared Ground Zero?" (The World Trade Center site). My reply-"It took about 6-7 months. It's been done for years." (BTW, I remember a few years ago we were talking about some market function where the market was buying or doing something where Mr. Screamer stated with great conviction "Well, the market is WRONG!" Yup, millions of people making independent decisions on what was good for them were wrong. Only Mr. Screamer is right and the market should be controlled by his decisions. And he sees to it that government is in charge, not you and me.) He then went on to say it would take at least 5 years to complete a new bridge. If you get the government out of the way, I'd be willing to bet it could be done in under 2 years, easy, with months to spare. And it appears that that may be much closer to the truth than Mr. Screamers' prognostications.
So, a highly repsected and regarded engineer doesn't know why the bridge fell. But every brain dead lefty does: Iraq, Bush, Pawlenty, Carol Molnau, Grover Nordquist, David Strom.
But, as Jason Lewis commented last week, it's never government. Only the Republicans.
I race sailboats. On Saturday as we gathered, one of the members of our group is a professional, registered engineer who also owns a nationally known and well respected engineering testing company. I asked him if he'd been contacted about the 35W bridge. Oh yes. To be an expert witness for plaintiffs and defendants. Our resident screaming radical lefty came up and asked him about his thoughts. My engineering friend said that it's going to take a long time to find out what failed. He commented that it was more than likely a metal fatigue failure. But where, what and why will take time. And the lefty screamer? Who has an engineering undergraduate degree...but is also an attorney...he knew exactly why that bridge failed. He kept hammering at me three times "What did Pawlenty do with the gas tax increase??? What did Pawlenty do..." I finally responded "He vetoed it". At which point Mr. Screamer screamed "MY POINT EXACTLY!!!" as he stormed off. As I screamed at his back side (where all his reasoning and discernment ability reside) "And in which direction did the sun rise that day? The EAST! MY POINT EXACTLY!!!" Made as much sense as did his diatribe. (Ever notice that lefties love two dia words and loathe one? They love diatribe and diarrhea of the mouth but loathe dialogue).
Lefties' logic always seems to go from point A to point Q with no intervening connections at all. And/or, they present correlation as causation (as I sarcastically did with my where did the sun raise comment and all lefties do with global warming, crime, and many other of their wasted causes). So, the questions I'd ask The Screamer would be: Okay, fill me in on how the gas tax increase veto felled the bridge or how blame is attached-
- Did the veto this year mean that we didn't have money over the past decades or years to do inspections? Uh, no. Inspections went on as scheduled. The last one being in May 2007. No immediate concerns were raised. My engineering friend even commented about a test done in either 2000 or 2001 by the University of MN where the engineers put stress detectors on the bridge and ran fully loaded semis across the bridge. The result? No discernible concern about over stress on the bridge.)
- Well, then, did the veto this year mean that we don't and didn't have the money to do the requested or suggested repairs and maintenance? Ah, again, no. All suggested repairs were done. As were any maintenance suggestions.
- Well, then, were there engineers in the past that knew that there would be a Republican governor elected and re-elected and be serving in 2007, and so plotted...well, with the mindset of the lefties, who knows whether or not this could be considered true.
But, to show how out of touch Mr. Screamer is, he commented that it would take years to clear the river. His support? "Why, have they even cleared Ground Zero?" (The World Trade Center site). My reply-"It took about 6-7 months. It's been done for years." (BTW, I remember a few years ago we were talking about some market function where the market was buying or doing something where Mr. Screamer stated with great conviction "Well, the market is WRONG!" Yup, millions of people making independent decisions on what was good for them were wrong. Only Mr. Screamer is right and the market should be controlled by his decisions. And he sees to it that government is in charge, not you and me.) He then went on to say it would take at least 5 years to complete a new bridge. If you get the government out of the way, I'd be willing to bet it could be done in under 2 years, easy, with months to spare. And it appears that that may be much closer to the truth than Mr. Screamers' prognostications.
So, a highly repsected and regarded engineer doesn't know why the bridge fell. But every brain dead lefty does: Iraq, Bush, Pawlenty, Carol Molnau, Grover Nordquist, David Strom.
But, as Jason Lewis commented last week, it's never government. Only the Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)