Ted Nugent spoke in front of the NRA recently, saying that if Obama got reelected, he, Nugent, would be either dead or in jail this time next year. In case that's too subtle for you, that's a veiled offer to try to assassinate the president by a right-wing wack job in front of a cult of proudly armed rootin tootin shootin gun nuts.
Yes, the secret service says they are investigating. But don't ya wish somebody had said at the time, "Dead or in jail, eh? I (can) (know somebody who can) help you with that!"
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Conundrum
There was an ongoing discussion on species and evolution on the radio this afternoon. It was a call-in show, and one caller brought up the "we're all black" theory. Another corrected him with the refinement of his idea that DNA shows we all have our origins in Africa, not that it had an impact on the question. Racism has been another ongoing topic on the airwaves, between MLK day and the presidential primaries with all the dog-whistles getting thrown around by candidates and supporters.
It occurred to me that it ought to be impossible for a fundamentalist to also be a racist. I only say "ought to" because I'm well aware of the propensity of the human brain to twist itself around so that people don't even notice that they're believing six impossible things before breakfast.
Here's the reasoning. If you accept DNA results, it is true that we are all from the same origins. If you accept the Bible, we are all from the same origins, namely Adam and Eve. In either case, we no longer all look like each other, and the differences we historically call "race". But if you believe those differences are somehow fundamental, then we've changed due to a process that can only be labeled "evolution." And since the fundamentalist evangelicals don't accept the concept of evolution, how can they believe in different races? Not to mention that some are better or worse than others?
It occurred to me that it ought to be impossible for a fundamentalist to also be a racist. I only say "ought to" because I'm well aware of the propensity of the human brain to twist itself around so that people don't even notice that they're believing six impossible things before breakfast.
Here's the reasoning. If you accept DNA results, it is true that we are all from the same origins. If you accept the Bible, we are all from the same origins, namely Adam and Eve. In either case, we no longer all look like each other, and the differences we historically call "race". But if you believe those differences are somehow fundamental, then we've changed due to a process that can only be labeled "evolution." And since the fundamentalist evangelicals don't accept the concept of evolution, how can they believe in different races? Not to mention that some are better or worse than others?
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Political Tidbits
1: The case for raising taxes? Population growth.
2: One of the "joys" of living near the Wisconsin border is getting to watch the political ads for their recall elections. One goes on and on about how the opposing candidate wants to extend healthcare benefits for - gasp! - people who neither work or pay taxes in Wisconsin.
Yeah. Those people are called "children."
2: One of the "joys" of living near the Wisconsin border is getting to watch the political ads for their recall elections. One goes on and on about how the opposing candidate wants to extend healthcare benefits for - gasp! - people who neither work or pay taxes in Wisconsin.
Yeah. Those people are called "children."
Monday, July 11, 2011
Why the Republicans Choose the Women They Do.
In a word, it's misogyny. They actually hate women.
So you're scratching you head, thinking, "How can they hate women when they so strongly promote Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann?" If you examine these two candidates, you'll see how they embody exactly how little Republicans value women.
They think women should be eye candy. Think trophy wives. Young, attractive, good slim figures with lots of bust on top, even features, good hair. It's all about appearance. That's all we're good for: showing off to the next guy so you can imagine his erection while he's drooling over your wife, your status symbol.
That's all they expect of us women, so they don't pick for intelligence, spunk, character, experience, talent, education, ideas. And if you look at Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, it shows. They pick exactly what they think women should be and are.
And if you get old, or get sick, the Newt Gingriches of the world will cast you off for the newer, younger, prettier, healthier version of eye candy to parade on their arm. She won't be any smarter, more talented, or have any other wonderful qualities either.
So you're scratching you head, thinking, "How can they hate women when they so strongly promote Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann?" If you examine these two candidates, you'll see how they embody exactly how little Republicans value women.
They think women should be eye candy. Think trophy wives. Young, attractive, good slim figures with lots of bust on top, even features, good hair. It's all about appearance. That's all we're good for: showing off to the next guy so you can imagine his erection while he's drooling over your wife, your status symbol.
That's all they expect of us women, so they don't pick for intelligence, spunk, character, experience, talent, education, ideas. And if you look at Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, it shows. They pick exactly what they think women should be and are.
And if you get old, or get sick, the Newt Gingriches of the world will cast you off for the newer, younger, prettier, healthier version of eye candy to parade on their arm. She won't be any smarter, more talented, or have any other wonderful qualities either.
Revision
I'm still feminine enough - no, make that human enough - to change my mind. I decided not to wait quite so long to see the oncologist. So I'm heading in on the 21st.
Partly it's because it's twanging on a nerve or two somewhere, and that signals to me that something's changing, perhaps even growing. Not necessarily a good thing.
Partly it's because the Minnesota shutdown can't really last forever - can it? - and if the Republicans win, I won't have to worry about a cap to my health insurance. The new cap, their style, will be zero. They want to eliminate Minnesota Care. (Along with Meals on Wheels, and a few other pointless programs because all they do is keep poor folks alive longer to bother them.) Right now a judge says they have to continue my coverage. If a budget agreement is reached the way the Republicans want, I'm SOL. So hang there, Governor Dayton.
Partly it's because it's twanging on a nerve or two somewhere, and that signals to me that something's changing, perhaps even growing. Not necessarily a good thing.
Partly it's because the Minnesota shutdown can't really last forever - can it? - and if the Republicans win, I won't have to worry about a cap to my health insurance. The new cap, their style, will be zero. They want to eliminate Minnesota Care. (Along with Meals on Wheels, and a few other pointless programs because all they do is keep poor folks alive longer to bother them.) Right now a judge says they have to continue my coverage. If a budget agreement is reached the way the Republicans want, I'm SOL. So hang there, Governor Dayton.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Changes and Other Themes
Epitaph
Elizabeth Sladen will be missed. Don't worry, I didn't recognize the name either. The clue "Dr. Who" helped, and for even occasional fans of the series, Sara Jane Smith is a much more recognizable identifier.
I didn't become a fan of hers, or the series, until recently. Part of the problem was that my Ex, back before he was my Ex, tried to shove it down my throat. The basic attitude was anybody who is worth anything will like what he likes, and it doesn't matter if it comes on late at night when, after a full day of kids kids kids, the only thing I'm capable of appreciating is sleep.
Yeah, not sex either, at that time of night.
But recently she was in a spin-off that I caught a bunch of episodes of, "The Sara Jane Adventures." Sure, they were juveniles, but good romps nonetheless, and left me wanting to look up some of those earlier episodes. You know, someday, when I have time again.
* * * * *
Losing My Non-Tan Line
I used to be able to look at my left wrist and see just how white my skin is when it doesn't see sun for dozens of years. Even though a leftie, that's where I wore my watch. It's where everybody else wore theirs, so it just seemed that natural place for it. Nobody ever bothered to tell me that it goes on the non-writing hand so you can see it at the same time you're writing. Oh well.
But I lost my watch a couple months ago. In fact, just before I broke my hand. Then of course there was not room on my wrist for any watch to fit, should I actually have located it. So I got used to doing what the kids are doing these days, checking the cell phone for the time. (At least I know it's accurate.) It feels weird, however. And I still find myself checking my wrist for a watch that no longer resides there. At first I'd joke when I caught myself doing that in front of a customer, when I needed to enter the time of a pick-up or delivery on the log, that my watch just didn't fit any more. True, though I never had occasion to actually verify it by trying a watch over a bulky wrapped wrist.
After a couple weeks, when I'd change the wrap in the evening or morning, I'd notice that my non-tan line was disappearing into a vaster whiteness that comes from having all the skin protected from the sun. It was still perceptible, but only just. A couple weeks ago when I finally quit using any supports (I heal bones fast, I guess) on the hand, it started to darken up again. Of course, that's relative to me, not to any usual standard of dark: there's too much Scandinavian in my background. Still, there was a slim line that was slower to darken than the rest. Mostly, it's gone now, but not completely.
* * * *
Just Another Night in Paradise
It started when I arrived home from work. Daddy started in on how we needed to keep a light on in the entryway so the people who were still coming could see. Even though we told him several times that nobody else was coming, he insisted.
After we finally distracted him with his nebulizer for the evening, he started back in on lights, but this time insisting that we needed to keep them off when we weren't using them, and needed to shut off everything we could, In fact, we should all go to bed right now and turn off everything.
Yeah. Sure. Have a good night, Daddy. See you in the morning.
It should only be that simple.
I had, for several weeks now, started getting some sleep at night. Generally, one awakening needing attention, and a bit of talking to him persuaded him to stay in bed and wait for me to come get him up in the morning. I'd hear complaints about he was awake all night "for days and days" and "it was the longest night ever!" But he stayed in bed, and I got some sleep.
Last night I was just going to bed when he started calling. He wanted to know what we were going to do about all the babies.
Now last time he dreamed about babies, it was a genuine nightmare, the first actual one I've seen him have. There were all kinds of women chasing him, upsetting in itself for reasons known only to him, and they either were going to or had already started popping out babies. This upset him even more, and was one of the few times he seemed to be relieved that this was only a dream. Mostly he takes that as us calling him a liar if we tell him whatever it was, it was only a dream.
This time I worked for a while to persuade him that there were no babies, and he'd been dreaming. My level of success was emphasized by his interrupting me periodically to ask if the kids had started having babies yet, and what were we planning to do with all of them?
Finally getting him settled in again, I went to bed. Half an hour later he was yelling for me again, on the same topic. I went through another "usual" routine for us lately of asking him to please be quiet because it was the middle of the night and the rest of us were all trying to sleep. He apologized profusely for making noise, and settled down just about long enough for me to return to my bed and pick it up on the baby monitor again.
Oh goodie.
I was tempted to turn it off so I could sleep. Instead, I decided to hope it wore itself out and he'd go back to a very quiet sleep for a couple hours at least. It was a good choice.
In another couple hours, he started calling for help. Loudly. When I got to his room, Paul was already there, and Daddy was standing with his walker next to the dresser with his legs all twisted and crooked. He'd knocked his glasses from the dresser onto the floor and would likely have broken them, either with a foot or the walker foot. Paul was asking him what he thought he was doing and where he was going. I was past patience for that and just sent Paul back to sleep. Besides, I heard all about it as I helped him straighten up and work his way backwards to his bed.
First there was his I'm-such-a-charming-little-boy look that I see so often this time of night, accompanied this time by his telling me how much he loved his furry little animals.
That's nice. Sit.
Then there was apparently some dream where they had to be all put back in their cages, and he was the one to do it. Because I hadn't.
Oh. Too bad.
After about twenty more minutes, he was settled back in bed, with me asking him to please stay in bed and try to remember that anything he dreamed that made him get up was going to be just a dream so he didn't need to really get up. It was the middle of the night. It was dark. And cold. And we were all sleeping.
Trying, anyway. It would have worked better if he could actually be reasoned with at that time of night. But it was still going to be one of those nights. He chatted on for a while, and I managed to finally fall asleep, when...
"Help! Help! Help!"
I fought my way into the room with eyelids so sandpapery that I couldn't quite open them all the way, relying on my knowledge of the house and hope that nobody and left something lying out where I'd stumble over it. This time he was sitting on the far side of the bed, with the blankets all thrown off onto the near side floor. He was down by the foot of the bed but still partly wedged between the bed and the mattresses of the old bed standing along the wall. There's just no other place for them, and someday I'm going to reclaim that room, my bed, and my super-nice mattresses. Anyway, the only way for him to go was up, around the foot of the bed using the walker on the other side of the room, and back into bed from the near side. My only comment to him, other than directions for how to move, was, "I don't even want to know why this time."
When the alarm went off this morning, I just shut it off and went back to sleep. He was, after all, quiet at the moment. Not even doing the not-so-subtle loud sighing and yawning he does when he's "patiently" waiting for me to get him up, even if it's 3AM. I needed sleep and I took another hour, then quickly made coffee, set up the nebulizer, and woke Richard to take over morning wake-up. Of course, he was already sitting on the side of the bed, ready for his third excursion of the night. I just left to go shower and get myself dressed.
Just myself!
Heaven!
* * * *
Another Right Wing Loon
We don't usually listen to WCCO in the evenings, unless there's a ball game on for my dad. But it was playing last night when I got home, after 8PM. According to their schedule, that's when John Hines is on. Never heard of him, never want to again. Two minutes was sufficient.
His rant was on global warming, or rather, why it's not real. If you're expecting a logical base to his reasoning, well, tough. He had a different kind of answer last night, involving Charles Manson.
Huh? You ask what that creep has to do with why anybody thinks anything about global warming? That was kinda Hines' point, in a twisted way. Apparently Manson came out and made a statement in support of or in belief of global warming. Against all that's rational, it made the news. And Manson being who Manson is, Hines "reasons" that the fact that he spoke for it means it isn't valid.
Now Manson is a very broken clock, but even those can be right on very rare occasions. One just learns never to depend on them. But they're not always wrong. If Manson said water was wet, would that make it dry? If he said grass is green would that make it orange and purple? If he said the earth is round, would that make it flat?
But the biggest question of all is this: why on earth is Hines listening to Charles Manson?
It's immediately followed by: why on earth would I ever want to listen again to John Hines?
Elizabeth Sladen will be missed. Don't worry, I didn't recognize the name either. The clue "Dr. Who" helped, and for even occasional fans of the series, Sara Jane Smith is a much more recognizable identifier.
I didn't become a fan of hers, or the series, until recently. Part of the problem was that my Ex, back before he was my Ex, tried to shove it down my throat. The basic attitude was anybody who is worth anything will like what he likes, and it doesn't matter if it comes on late at night when, after a full day of kids kids kids, the only thing I'm capable of appreciating is sleep.
Yeah, not sex either, at that time of night.
But recently she was in a spin-off that I caught a bunch of episodes of, "The Sara Jane Adventures." Sure, they were juveniles, but good romps nonetheless, and left me wanting to look up some of those earlier episodes. You know, someday, when I have time again.
* * * * *
Losing My Non-Tan Line
I used to be able to look at my left wrist and see just how white my skin is when it doesn't see sun for dozens of years. Even though a leftie, that's where I wore my watch. It's where everybody else wore theirs, so it just seemed that natural place for it. Nobody ever bothered to tell me that it goes on the non-writing hand so you can see it at the same time you're writing. Oh well.
But I lost my watch a couple months ago. In fact, just before I broke my hand. Then of course there was not room on my wrist for any watch to fit, should I actually have located it. So I got used to doing what the kids are doing these days, checking the cell phone for the time. (At least I know it's accurate.) It feels weird, however. And I still find myself checking my wrist for a watch that no longer resides there. At first I'd joke when I caught myself doing that in front of a customer, when I needed to enter the time of a pick-up or delivery on the log, that my watch just didn't fit any more. True, though I never had occasion to actually verify it by trying a watch over a bulky wrapped wrist.
After a couple weeks, when I'd change the wrap in the evening or morning, I'd notice that my non-tan line was disappearing into a vaster whiteness that comes from having all the skin protected from the sun. It was still perceptible, but only just. A couple weeks ago when I finally quit using any supports (I heal bones fast, I guess) on the hand, it started to darken up again. Of course, that's relative to me, not to any usual standard of dark: there's too much Scandinavian in my background. Still, there was a slim line that was slower to darken than the rest. Mostly, it's gone now, but not completely.
* * * *
Just Another Night in Paradise
It started when I arrived home from work. Daddy started in on how we needed to keep a light on in the entryway so the people who were still coming could see. Even though we told him several times that nobody else was coming, he insisted.
After we finally distracted him with his nebulizer for the evening, he started back in on lights, but this time insisting that we needed to keep them off when we weren't using them, and needed to shut off everything we could, In fact, we should all go to bed right now and turn off everything.
Yeah. Sure. Have a good night, Daddy. See you in the morning.
It should only be that simple.
I had, for several weeks now, started getting some sleep at night. Generally, one awakening needing attention, and a bit of talking to him persuaded him to stay in bed and wait for me to come get him up in the morning. I'd hear complaints about he was awake all night "for days and days" and "it was the longest night ever!" But he stayed in bed, and I got some sleep.
Last night I was just going to bed when he started calling. He wanted to know what we were going to do about all the babies.
Now last time he dreamed about babies, it was a genuine nightmare, the first actual one I've seen him have. There were all kinds of women chasing him, upsetting in itself for reasons known only to him, and they either were going to or had already started popping out babies. This upset him even more, and was one of the few times he seemed to be relieved that this was only a dream. Mostly he takes that as us calling him a liar if we tell him whatever it was, it was only a dream.
This time I worked for a while to persuade him that there were no babies, and he'd been dreaming. My level of success was emphasized by his interrupting me periodically to ask if the kids had started having babies yet, and what were we planning to do with all of them?
Finally getting him settled in again, I went to bed. Half an hour later he was yelling for me again, on the same topic. I went through another "usual" routine for us lately of asking him to please be quiet because it was the middle of the night and the rest of us were all trying to sleep. He apologized profusely for making noise, and settled down just about long enough for me to return to my bed and pick it up on the baby monitor again.
Oh goodie.
I was tempted to turn it off so I could sleep. Instead, I decided to hope it wore itself out and he'd go back to a very quiet sleep for a couple hours at least. It was a good choice.
In another couple hours, he started calling for help. Loudly. When I got to his room, Paul was already there, and Daddy was standing with his walker next to the dresser with his legs all twisted and crooked. He'd knocked his glasses from the dresser onto the floor and would likely have broken them, either with a foot or the walker foot. Paul was asking him what he thought he was doing and where he was going. I was past patience for that and just sent Paul back to sleep. Besides, I heard all about it as I helped him straighten up and work his way backwards to his bed.
First there was his I'm-such-a-charming-little-boy look that I see so often this time of night, accompanied this time by his telling me how much he loved his furry little animals.
That's nice. Sit.
Then there was apparently some dream where they had to be all put back in their cages, and he was the one to do it. Because I hadn't.
Oh. Too bad.
After about twenty more minutes, he was settled back in bed, with me asking him to please stay in bed and try to remember that anything he dreamed that made him get up was going to be just a dream so he didn't need to really get up. It was the middle of the night. It was dark. And cold. And we were all sleeping.
Trying, anyway. It would have worked better if he could actually be reasoned with at that time of night. But it was still going to be one of those nights. He chatted on for a while, and I managed to finally fall asleep, when...
"Help! Help! Help!"
I fought my way into the room with eyelids so sandpapery that I couldn't quite open them all the way, relying on my knowledge of the house and hope that nobody and left something lying out where I'd stumble over it. This time he was sitting on the far side of the bed, with the blankets all thrown off onto the near side floor. He was down by the foot of the bed but still partly wedged between the bed and the mattresses of the old bed standing along the wall. There's just no other place for them, and someday I'm going to reclaim that room, my bed, and my super-nice mattresses. Anyway, the only way for him to go was up, around the foot of the bed using the walker on the other side of the room, and back into bed from the near side. My only comment to him, other than directions for how to move, was, "I don't even want to know why this time."
When the alarm went off this morning, I just shut it off and went back to sleep. He was, after all, quiet at the moment. Not even doing the not-so-subtle loud sighing and yawning he does when he's "patiently" waiting for me to get him up, even if it's 3AM. I needed sleep and I took another hour, then quickly made coffee, set up the nebulizer, and woke Richard to take over morning wake-up. Of course, he was already sitting on the side of the bed, ready for his third excursion of the night. I just left to go shower and get myself dressed.
Just myself!
Heaven!
* * * *
Another Right Wing Loon
We don't usually listen to WCCO in the evenings, unless there's a ball game on for my dad. But it was playing last night when I got home, after 8PM. According to their schedule, that's when John Hines is on. Never heard of him, never want to again. Two minutes was sufficient.
His rant was on global warming, or rather, why it's not real. If you're expecting a logical base to his reasoning, well, tough. He had a different kind of answer last night, involving Charles Manson.
Huh? You ask what that creep has to do with why anybody thinks anything about global warming? That was kinda Hines' point, in a twisted way. Apparently Manson came out and made a statement in support of or in belief of global warming. Against all that's rational, it made the news. And Manson being who Manson is, Hines "reasons" that the fact that he spoke for it means it isn't valid.
Now Manson is a very broken clock, but even those can be right on very rare occasions. One just learns never to depend on them. But they're not always wrong. If Manson said water was wet, would that make it dry? If he said grass is green would that make it orange and purple? If he said the earth is round, would that make it flat?
But the biggest question of all is this: why on earth is Hines listening to Charles Manson?
It's immediately followed by: why on earth would I ever want to listen again to John Hines?
Thursday, March 10, 2011
An Empty Offer
Raw milk is the very best food available. Or so a lot of people believe. I agree, within a very narrow range. It is the best food available to a baby mammal when suckled directly from the teat of a lactating female mammal of the same species.
Other than that, it's problematical. Oh, cow's milk is still a fine food for those who can properly digest it. So is goat's milk. One does not have to be an infant to get value from it. But in those cases, there is always a middleman. And that always means there is the risk of introduced bacteria. In fact, it's a guarantee that bacteria will be introduced. They just can't be kept out of the system. They are everywhere.
How much risk is there from them? Some are actually beneficial. Some merely harmless. Some are dangerous, causing various levels of sickness. And some are deadly. Drink them and die. The thing is, if you heat that milk to 140 degrees fahrenheit and close the system so no new bacteria can enter and replace the killed bacteria, the milk is now safe, at least as regards bacteria. It's called pasteurization, and was truly the miracle of its time. It still is, but is so commonplace that hardly anybody thinks about it any more. And since we don't think about it, many folk think it's not necessary. In fact, many think it's actually harmful.
It is true that the proteins in milk become denatured from the heating. This means the ionic bonds between the atoms and molecules that hold them in shape become undone. They change, slightly. Think about an egg white when it is heated. The changes in it are from denatured proteins. It's still good to eat. In fact, it's now free of the danger of infecting you with salmonella, providing you denatured the yolk as well. Those nasty little bacteria also get denatured from the heat, and they die, before they can infect you and reproduce. By this time, pasteurization can be counted responsible for saving millions of lives, and vastly improving billions of others. Among them yours and mine.
Even some informed adults think that raw milk is the best and/or only thing for their families. It may have some added value. The risk must be minimal, right? Nobody ever hears of people dying from raw milk, do they? And their dairyman is to be trusted, right? Everything is clean and safe so how bad could it be? So they buy it, drink it, serve it to their families, all the while thinking that they are taking a justifiable and very minor risk.
Maybe they are. But what about their children? Where in all this is it that they are agreeing to take the risk? Where is their informed consent?
A Minnesota dairyman was in the news again today because a number of people got sick drinking his raw milk. His farm was shut down and charges were filed. Today he faced sentencing.
At the same time, my local Senator, Sean Nienow, was also in the news today over the issue of raw milk. He wants to make it easier for Minnesotans to get it. It seems a logical offshoot of the Republican push for deregulation. In order to stem criticism, he even offers to increase inspections of the farms which provide raw milk.
But it's an empty offer. At the same time he's proposing this, he's working to defund the very state agencies that would be tasked with that increased inspection load.
So who's fooling whom?
Other than that, it's problematical. Oh, cow's milk is still a fine food for those who can properly digest it. So is goat's milk. One does not have to be an infant to get value from it. But in those cases, there is always a middleman. And that always means there is the risk of introduced bacteria. In fact, it's a guarantee that bacteria will be introduced. They just can't be kept out of the system. They are everywhere.
How much risk is there from them? Some are actually beneficial. Some merely harmless. Some are dangerous, causing various levels of sickness. And some are deadly. Drink them and die. The thing is, if you heat that milk to 140 degrees fahrenheit and close the system so no new bacteria can enter and replace the killed bacteria, the milk is now safe, at least as regards bacteria. It's called pasteurization, and was truly the miracle of its time. It still is, but is so commonplace that hardly anybody thinks about it any more. And since we don't think about it, many folk think it's not necessary. In fact, many think it's actually harmful.
It is true that the proteins in milk become denatured from the heating. This means the ionic bonds between the atoms and molecules that hold them in shape become undone. They change, slightly. Think about an egg white when it is heated. The changes in it are from denatured proteins. It's still good to eat. In fact, it's now free of the danger of infecting you with salmonella, providing you denatured the yolk as well. Those nasty little bacteria also get denatured from the heat, and they die, before they can infect you and reproduce. By this time, pasteurization can be counted responsible for saving millions of lives, and vastly improving billions of others. Among them yours and mine.
Even some informed adults think that raw milk is the best and/or only thing for their families. It may have some added value. The risk must be minimal, right? Nobody ever hears of people dying from raw milk, do they? And their dairyman is to be trusted, right? Everything is clean and safe so how bad could it be? So they buy it, drink it, serve it to their families, all the while thinking that they are taking a justifiable and very minor risk.
Maybe they are. But what about their children? Where in all this is it that they are agreeing to take the risk? Where is their informed consent?
A Minnesota dairyman was in the news again today because a number of people got sick drinking his raw milk. His farm was shut down and charges were filed. Today he faced sentencing.
At the same time, my local Senator, Sean Nienow, was also in the news today over the issue of raw milk. He wants to make it easier for Minnesotans to get it. It seems a logical offshoot of the Republican push for deregulation. In order to stem criticism, he even offers to increase inspections of the farms which provide raw milk.
But it's an empty offer. At the same time he's proposing this, he's working to defund the very state agencies that would be tasked with that increased inspection load.
So who's fooling whom?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Faking the Outrage at NPR
The Right have gotten a lot of practice in on this recently. They started with Juan Williams' firing and continued their feeding frenzy today with Ronald Schiller's firing. Kill their funding!!! Not a penny!!!
But there's just so much hypocrisy in all of it.
Take Mr. Williams. He got fired for expressing his bigotry towards Muslims. He sees them in airports, and oooooooh, Muslims, scary!!!!! From all the right wing furor, it's apparently perfectly OK to be a bigot where Muslims are concerned, laudable even. It got Williams a big contract and a raise.
Mr. Schiller got fired due to a "gotcha!" hidden camera video where he is caught expressing his prejudices against Tea Party members as bigots and xenophobes. True, he paints with an over-broad brush, but the Tea Party certainly does contain a hefty proportion of them in its ranks, much as it's politically uncomfortable for the right to actually admit it in public. So even with more truth backing his prejudices, it's much worse to be a bigot against radical right-wingers than Muslims.
The right wing is screaming about Schiller doing the same thing they applauded Williams for months earlier. So it's apparently not how bigoted or truthful or outspoken your opinions are, it's all in whom you have them towards. It would be funny and ironic if they weren't so self-important and self-serious that they couldn't get the point. But apparently they can't. Or won't.
Stand up straight, NPR. Firing both these particular jerks was justified. Take a deep breath and move on. You're the best radio, and the best news, out there. (Just remind everybody that they're on Candid Camera all the time, know it or not. The world has changed.)
But there's just so much hypocrisy in all of it.
Take Mr. Williams. He got fired for expressing his bigotry towards Muslims. He sees them in airports, and oooooooh, Muslims, scary!!!!! From all the right wing furor, it's apparently perfectly OK to be a bigot where Muslims are concerned, laudable even. It got Williams a big contract and a raise.
Mr. Schiller got fired due to a "gotcha!" hidden camera video where he is caught expressing his prejudices against Tea Party members as bigots and xenophobes. True, he paints with an over-broad brush, but the Tea Party certainly does contain a hefty proportion of them in its ranks, much as it's politically uncomfortable for the right to actually admit it in public. So even with more truth backing his prejudices, it's much worse to be a bigot against radical right-wingers than Muslims.
The right wing is screaming about Schiller doing the same thing they applauded Williams for months earlier. So it's apparently not how bigoted or truthful or outspoken your opinions are, it's all in whom you have them towards. It would be funny and ironic if they weren't so self-important and self-serious that they couldn't get the point. But apparently they can't. Or won't.
Stand up straight, NPR. Firing both these particular jerks was justified. Take a deep breath and move on. You're the best radio, and the best news, out there. (Just remind everybody that they're on Candid Camera all the time, know it or not. The world has changed.)
Monday, March 7, 2011
With All Due Respect
Somewhere in my past I soaked up the lesson that other people are due at least a modicum of respect, simply for being people. Further, those who hold office are due the respect afforded to that office. There is an implication there that those who hold offices deserve to do so.
I have found ample instances with which to disagree with that premise. Many are notorious. Take Senator Wide Stance, the fellow who was arrested in the MSP airport soliciting gay sex from an undercover cop. While I could care less whether or not he's gay, his behavior both in dealing with the - ahem - exposure, and his legislative history of promoting anti-gay policies and laws combine to tell me he's not a person worthy of my respect, regardless of his position. There have been so many examples of this dichotomy between personal life and public politics that there's not enough room to try to list even the recent ones.
I have adopted a new standard by which I decide to respect an office holder, or not. What are they doing with that position? Are they using it for personal power or financial gain? Are they trying to make life better for people or animals, or promote some kind of worthy cause? I can also judge them on a personal, human level. As a human being, are they worth the space they take up and the air they breathe?
So if you hear me use the phrase, "With all due respect...", understand that somewhere behind that is a busy mind making a judgment of just how much respect is actually due. Of course, I may never tell you just what my conclusion is. I can't always hide it, but seldom do I think it worthwhile to make an actual comment. It is time to do so.
Now, those of you who read my posting on Participatory Democracy may think you know how much respect I bear for the current mayor of this town. You might be wrong, particularly if you think I bear him no respect. There are definitely things I take issue with. But there are other things that I've either seen or not seen that indicate he should be granted respect. For example, as far as I know, he is an upstanding family man. He and his wife have even adopted a baby to raise along with their other son, something not everyone is willing to do. I hear no whispers of drunkenness or reckless driving or tax evasion or gambling or affairs or any of the myriad foibles that rapidly become fodder for small town gossip mills. Until I hear something credible to the contrary, I'll grant him respect on that front. I once heard him admonish a petitioner before the council for using terms of bigotry, not allowing that kind of terminology into the discussion. That commands respect.
That respect, however, in no way colors the other things I do take issue with. Life is grey and many-colored, so seldom black and white.
I have found ample instances with which to disagree with that premise. Many are notorious. Take Senator Wide Stance, the fellow who was arrested in the MSP airport soliciting gay sex from an undercover cop. While I could care less whether or not he's gay, his behavior both in dealing with the - ahem - exposure, and his legislative history of promoting anti-gay policies and laws combine to tell me he's not a person worthy of my respect, regardless of his position. There have been so many examples of this dichotomy between personal life and public politics that there's not enough room to try to list even the recent ones.
I have adopted a new standard by which I decide to respect an office holder, or not. What are they doing with that position? Are they using it for personal power or financial gain? Are they trying to make life better for people or animals, or promote some kind of worthy cause? I can also judge them on a personal, human level. As a human being, are they worth the space they take up and the air they breathe?
So if you hear me use the phrase, "With all due respect...", understand that somewhere behind that is a busy mind making a judgment of just how much respect is actually due. Of course, I may never tell you just what my conclusion is. I can't always hide it, but seldom do I think it worthwhile to make an actual comment. It is time to do so.
Now, those of you who read my posting on Participatory Democracy may think you know how much respect I bear for the current mayor of this town. You might be wrong, particularly if you think I bear him no respect. There are definitely things I take issue with. But there are other things that I've either seen or not seen that indicate he should be granted respect. For example, as far as I know, he is an upstanding family man. He and his wife have even adopted a baby to raise along with their other son, something not everyone is willing to do. I hear no whispers of drunkenness or reckless driving or tax evasion or gambling or affairs or any of the myriad foibles that rapidly become fodder for small town gossip mills. Until I hear something credible to the contrary, I'll grant him respect on that front. I once heard him admonish a petitioner before the council for using terms of bigotry, not allowing that kind of terminology into the discussion. That commands respect.
That respect, however, in no way colors the other things I do take issue with. Life is grey and many-colored, so seldom black and white.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
He Is Not Either a "Good Man"
One of the things that bugs me is the idea put out there that the hatemongers of the media world, once you take the mikes and cameras away and meet them on just a personal level, are in reality good people, just entertaining us with lies, hate, and fear in a way that draws them bigger salaries. It's not really who they are.
Bullshit!
The part that really galls me is hearing this line of crap from liberals. People I otherwise respect can be so stupid this way. Sure, the Hannitys and Becks of the world have the capability to be charming and sound rational, on occasion. This does not make them "good people" who just occasionally behave badly. This is like saying, "Oh that Joe, nevermind him, he's only a pedophile on Tuesdays!" These people have power to (mis)inform and persuade millions of people, and they use it at best recklessly and at worst willfully for evil.
Yes, evil.
Remember that little inconvenient commandment about not bearing false witness?
So to say these people are really OK off the job is like saying that the man who travels and solicits whores but stays faithful and attentive to his wife when at home is really a "good husband."
Just because you only sell your soul to the devil on a part-time basis, it doesn't make you any kind of a good person. Period.
Bullshit!
The part that really galls me is hearing this line of crap from liberals. People I otherwise respect can be so stupid this way. Sure, the Hannitys and Becks of the world have the capability to be charming and sound rational, on occasion. This does not make them "good people" who just occasionally behave badly. This is like saying, "Oh that Joe, nevermind him, he's only a pedophile on Tuesdays!" These people have power to (mis)inform and persuade millions of people, and they use it at best recklessly and at worst willfully for evil.
Yes, evil.
Remember that little inconvenient commandment about not bearing false witness?
So to say these people are really OK off the job is like saying that the man who travels and solicits whores but stays faithful and attentive to his wife when at home is really a "good husband."
Just because you only sell your soul to the devil on a part-time basis, it doesn't make you any kind of a good person. Period.
Friday, October 22, 2010
And They Call That Food?
Something remarkable happened this morning as I was fixing Daddy's breakfast. He listens to WCCO, so I do as well. Captive audience. Being a conservative station, the political ads are as well. Mostly I try to either ignore them, or I talk back to them. This mostly confuses my dad, who thinks I'm saying something important, to him. (Neither of the above.)
But today I found myself laughing through the last half of the ad. I don't think they meant it to be funny. I'm sure it was inadvertently hilarious. But they could play it exactly the same on SNL and the audience couldn't separate it from one of their own satiric ads.
Two actresses were discussing the keep-government-out-of-our-lives theme, as if they were moms. You heard the usual we-can-raise-our-families-better-than-the-government stuff, before they got to the real nitty gritty of the complaint. It seems they took umbrage over the proposal to put a tax on some very important foods to these moms, just to change their behavior in what they feed their kids. Disgraceful! Manipulative! Call your politicians and tell them to stop this horrible intrusion!
What are these vital, nutritious foods?
Sodas, energy drinks, and even - gasp! - flavored waters!
Oh my!
But today I found myself laughing through the last half of the ad. I don't think they meant it to be funny. I'm sure it was inadvertently hilarious. But they could play it exactly the same on SNL and the audience couldn't separate it from one of their own satiric ads.
Two actresses were discussing the keep-government-out-of-our-lives theme, as if they were moms. You heard the usual we-can-raise-our-families-better-than-the-government stuff, before they got to the real nitty gritty of the complaint. It seems they took umbrage over the proposal to put a tax on some very important foods to these moms, just to change their behavior in what they feed their kids. Disgraceful! Manipulative! Call your politicians and tell them to stop this horrible intrusion!
What are these vital, nutritious foods?
Sodas, energy drinks, and even - gasp! - flavored waters!
Oh my!
Weasel Words
I'm trying to decide whom to vote for for County Commissioner. I have one major issue: the local library. I was one of those involved back when when several communities cooperated in a joint powers agreement to get new and/or updated libraries for our county. There was a lot of joy in the fight, but there was a lot of uphill in the fight as well. The problem was maintaining a majority of commissioners, then and subsequently, who were willing to fully support the libraries financially, not just in the bonding but in the operations.
Green is our current commissioner, after the last one, Rick Olseen, left for a successful campaign for the state senate. Having taken a hiatus from local politics for most of the last 4 years, I had no clue whether his position was/is full support for the libraries. I recently asked him, and what I got instead was a history lesson.
Yes, I know the history. I was there. Mine is one of the signatures on those joint powers agreements. I know all about ECRL - East Central Regional Library - that is the coordinating and administrative head for our multi-county system. I know they decide what the budget needs to be and then submit it to each county for budgeting and payment. I also know that if we, or any county, cuts corners on the budget, it directly affects just that county's library in terms of staffing hours and other services. I was there back when, during a time when some commissioners pulled that stunt. So what I wanted to know was, would he vote to fully fund the library system?
He just couldn't manage a "yes" or a "no". All I heard was him starting in on the explanation of how the system works, again. I heard it the first time, as if I needed any of it. And all I heard from him were weasel words.
I think it's time to check out his opposition.
Green is our current commissioner, after the last one, Rick Olseen, left for a successful campaign for the state senate. Having taken a hiatus from local politics for most of the last 4 years, I had no clue whether his position was/is full support for the libraries. I recently asked him, and what I got instead was a history lesson.
Yes, I know the history. I was there. Mine is one of the signatures on those joint powers agreements. I know all about ECRL - East Central Regional Library - that is the coordinating and administrative head for our multi-county system. I know they decide what the budget needs to be and then submit it to each county for budgeting and payment. I also know that if we, or any county, cuts corners on the budget, it directly affects just that county's library in terms of staffing hours and other services. I was there back when, during a time when some commissioners pulled that stunt. So what I wanted to know was, would he vote to fully fund the library system?
He just couldn't manage a "yes" or a "no". All I heard was him starting in on the explanation of how the system works, again. I heard it the first time, as if I needed any of it. And all I heard from him were weasel words.
I think it's time to check out his opposition.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Farewell Juan Williams
NPR fired him today, after making comments about being afraid when he saw people who were foremost Muslim in their identity. (What if somebody said the same thing with the word "black" replacing "Muslim"? Or Jewish?)
Hooray!
I disliked him from the moment I first heard him on the air. To be fair, he was trying to fill the shoes vacated by Ray Suarez on Talk of the Nation. I'd spent years glued to that radio show, listening to Ray. Nobody could fill those shoes.
Juan soon proved me right. It wasn't long before I was finding out Juan's opinions on nearly every topic he discussed. Ray didn't do that. He emceed the show as an information sponge, turning me into one as well. Juan was political, and not my kind of political.
Beyond that, he wasn't even very good. He repeatedly interrupted his guests, sidetracking them from finishing their ideas. He undercut his callers. A typical radio talk show host will introduce a caller something like, "Ben, from Minneapolis, you have a question?" Or maybe s/he'll just say, "Ben, from Minneapolis, you're on the air with ...." Too many times I heard Juan say something like, "Ben from Minneapolis wants to ask you ... (fill in the text of Ben's question)." This leaves poor Ben sounding like an idiot repeating the question we all just heard from Juan. I always wondered why nobody ever confronted him with a very sarcastic, "Gee, thanks Juan, you just stole everything I was going to say so why do you even need me?" The more I think about it, the more it seems that whatever the topic seemed to be about, it was really about Juan having the biggest ego in the room.
Eventually he moved on to being a part-time commentator, and somebody else - a series of somebodies - took over the show. (It's much more enjoyable now, most days.) I still found him annoying, always taking his comments with a grain of salt, aware of his political bent in every word.
Then he took on a project covering the Mississippi River, stopping at various places along it and reporting on what/who was there. You'd think that could be neutral and informative, right? He managed to tick me off even more, when he casually tossed out the comment that the Mississippi through Minneapolis was frozen over in October.
Say what? Is he insane? This October the city is still waiting for its first killing frost, and the river rarely freezes all the way across even in the worst winters.
So I stewed. And stewed. And eventually called the MPR comment line, leaving a recording complaining about the egregious misinformation. Within a few more minutes, I was still stewing, so I called the line back and left another message. I invited Mr. Williams, some future October, to join me in a boat I'd take out to the middle of the river, where I'd invite him to leave the boat and walk to shore. Heck, I'd even provide snowshoes if he wanted them.
That felt better for a while, but by now I was getting the hang of both stewing and leaving messages. So I called one last time. I thought I'd warn him about the penguins and polar bears inhabiting the river in October. It seemed only fair. I mean, you'd expect them in such frigid climes, sharing the ice pack with you, right?
To my complete surprise, the station called me back. The woman who called asked me if I were the same Heather Rosa who was Mayor of Shafer. I was. (How did they know?) She asked permission to air some edited version of my comments. Sure, no prob. She also said he was not their favorite on-air personality, and relished the chance to air a critique of what he said. Not only that, they were going to forward a copy on to him.
Cool.
So I listened hard the next day when they aired comments. They just had to give my full name and the fact I was a mayor. (Blush) But they did a fair job of editing the first two messages together so they made sense. But, of course, being MPR, I guess they thought adding the part about the penguins and polar bears (perfectly valid satire if you actually think that river's frozen in October) was just a bit over the top.
Oh well, considering how thoroughly I was identified, it's probably just as well.
Farewell, Juan. FOX deserves you. And they're willing to pay $2 million for the pleasure.
Hooray!
I disliked him from the moment I first heard him on the air. To be fair, he was trying to fill the shoes vacated by Ray Suarez on Talk of the Nation. I'd spent years glued to that radio show, listening to Ray. Nobody could fill those shoes.
Juan soon proved me right. It wasn't long before I was finding out Juan's opinions on nearly every topic he discussed. Ray didn't do that. He emceed the show as an information sponge, turning me into one as well. Juan was political, and not my kind of political.
Beyond that, he wasn't even very good. He repeatedly interrupted his guests, sidetracking them from finishing their ideas. He undercut his callers. A typical radio talk show host will introduce a caller something like, "Ben, from Minneapolis, you have a question?" Or maybe s/he'll just say, "Ben, from Minneapolis, you're on the air with ...." Too many times I heard Juan say something like, "Ben from Minneapolis wants to ask you ... (fill in the text of Ben's question)." This leaves poor Ben sounding like an idiot repeating the question we all just heard from Juan. I always wondered why nobody ever confronted him with a very sarcastic, "Gee, thanks Juan, you just stole everything I was going to say so why do you even need me?" The more I think about it, the more it seems that whatever the topic seemed to be about, it was really about Juan having the biggest ego in the room.
Eventually he moved on to being a part-time commentator, and somebody else - a series of somebodies - took over the show. (It's much more enjoyable now, most days.) I still found him annoying, always taking his comments with a grain of salt, aware of his political bent in every word.
Then he took on a project covering the Mississippi River, stopping at various places along it and reporting on what/who was there. You'd think that could be neutral and informative, right? He managed to tick me off even more, when he casually tossed out the comment that the Mississippi through Minneapolis was frozen over in October.
Say what? Is he insane? This October the city is still waiting for its first killing frost, and the river rarely freezes all the way across even in the worst winters.
So I stewed. And stewed. And eventually called the MPR comment line, leaving a recording complaining about the egregious misinformation. Within a few more minutes, I was still stewing, so I called the line back and left another message. I invited Mr. Williams, some future October, to join me in a boat I'd take out to the middle of the river, where I'd invite him to leave the boat and walk to shore. Heck, I'd even provide snowshoes if he wanted them.
That felt better for a while, but by now I was getting the hang of both stewing and leaving messages. So I called one last time. I thought I'd warn him about the penguins and polar bears inhabiting the river in October. It seemed only fair. I mean, you'd expect them in such frigid climes, sharing the ice pack with you, right?
To my complete surprise, the station called me back. The woman who called asked me if I were the same Heather Rosa who was Mayor of Shafer. I was. (How did they know?) She asked permission to air some edited version of my comments. Sure, no prob. She also said he was not their favorite on-air personality, and relished the chance to air a critique of what he said. Not only that, they were going to forward a copy on to him.
Cool.
So I listened hard the next day when they aired comments. They just had to give my full name and the fact I was a mayor. (Blush) But they did a fair job of editing the first two messages together so they made sense. But, of course, being MPR, I guess they thought adding the part about the penguins and polar bears (perfectly valid satire if you actually think that river's frozen in October) was just a bit over the top.
Oh well, considering how thoroughly I was identified, it's probably just as well.
Farewell, Juan. FOX deserves you. And they're willing to pay $2 million for the pleasure.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Idiots Parade
Sometimes I find idiots annoying and/or amusing. Other times they are more than annoying. I've been collecting samples of both for the blog this week.
On the level of annoying, let's start with the check printers. My dad ran out of checks a couple weeks ago, and I called the bank to reorder. I'd been postponing, since at 96, one doesn't suppose one needs to get another 2 year supply until it's actually necessary. It finally was, and we went through all the details for the order in a quick phone call. They were to arrive in 7-10 days.
There was a holiday in there, and she didn't actually specify whether those were calendar or business days, so I exercised patience until 2 weeks had gone by. Then it was time to check what had actually happened to them. We didn't need to deal with somebody else using them, after all. After counting that it had been the actual two weeks that the check company requires one to wait before they will track missing orders, my bank contact got ahold of the check company and found out that they had been delivered.
To the old address.
Now he moved out of there 15 months ago. All the bank correspondence had the new address. The checks had the new address. I verified at the time of of the order that they were to be sent to the new address.
But still.
The rush re-order arrived yesterday. I haven't heard yet if the old ones were returned.
* * * * *
Next on the annoying list is my brush with turning into the grammar police. It's not my favorite idea of how to spend time, but I'm quite good at it. It might be a family thing, because my daughter is too, even better than I am. I've learned some things from her. But this tale starts with what is one of my favorite things to do: read all of a favorite author that's available.
This time it was Dean Hovey. He has three books out, all mysteries set in Pine County, Minnesota. They're quite good, except for one thing. Whoever proofread them, or copy-edited them, or whatever, didn't. They pass the spell-check test, but that doesn't catch "that" when it should have been "than." They were full of those kind of errors. But even more glaring was the misuse of pronouns. Somebody can't tell the difference between nominative and objective case, particular when two persons are referred to. Now if the big names confuse you, it's just the difference between when to use "he" and "him", "I" and "me." One, the nominative, is the person doing the action: I and he. The objective is the person that the action is being done to: me and him. Those kind of errors were all through the books, and few things interrupt the suspense faster than stopping to rail at the stupidity of someone using the wrong words.
I thought to contact the publisher, but their name is not mentioned anywhere in the book. (How does that happen?) So, I went back to the library website where I reserved them, and found it there: J Press. The internet gave me an email-form to contact them, so I let them have my opinion on the topic. It was acknowledged with a form that thanked me and let me know that I'd get a return message within 48 hours.
Uh huh. Sure. That was Sunday. This is Wednesday.
Mr. Hovey, if you Google yourself and read this, you deserve a better publisher. One that knows grammar.
* * * * *
If one is looking for a high silliness quotient in idiocy, one can hardly do better than Christine O'Donnell, the Republican senate candidate for Delaware. You've surely heard of her by now. She's the one who "dabbled" in witchcraft by having a "date" on a bloody Satanic altar (which has nothing whatsoever to do with Wicca), and chose Christianity because she liked meatballs too much to become vegetarian for Hare Krishna, her previous top choice. Her campaign ad insists that she's not a witch, whatever we've heard. "I'm you."
Hardly!
She claims to be a constitutional expert and promises to govern according strictly to the constitution. Unfortunately, she's just a bit weak on what it says. In a debate yesterday, she challenged her Democratic opponent to tell her just where in the constitution it talked about the separation of church and state. When the audience of lawyers started to howl in laughter, she smiled and joined in, her expression clearly showing she thought they agreed with her that she'd just won the game of Gotcha.
Gotta wonder if she's figured it out yet.
* * * * *
For personal irritation, a fellow I met at work today wins the prize. I might have been amused, but his idiocy kept me standing an extra 10 minutes while I was trying to make a pick-up. I lose my sense of humor quickly under such circumstances.
It was bad enough that I'd had to cross an unnecessarily large and showy lobby just to reach the elevators that brought me up to the 6th floor. My mood was further compromised by the fact that it was a secured floor, and I had to walk to the other end of the elevator lobby and stand around while sorting through all the information next to the telephone just to find the number for the mailroom, and by the fact that nobody answered the first set of rings. After trying again, I finally got through and explained what I was there to pick up.
It took two more minutes for the mailroom guy to come out to the lobby. Empty handed. He couldn't find the package. Did I have a contact name? Did I know what it was? I showed him the sum total of the information I was given on the screen of my phone, even handing the phone to him so he could see for himself.
Only he couldn't see for himself. The hand with the phone just got further and further from his face, until he finally turned to me and admitted he couldn't read it. I read it for him, joking that he needed longer arms. Yeah, he'd been putting off getting glasses. He disappeared another five minutes.
It gave me plenty of time to condemn him for a vain idiot - silently of course - who didn't want to spoil his pretty face with glasses that might let him actually function in his job! And let me get on with mine, instead of standing around and standing around.
The box he finally handed me was plainly marked as I'd originally told him it would be, in letters plenty big enough that even I didn't need glasses to read them.
Apparently I'm a hidden sexist: I thought only women were that stupidly vain!
* * * * *
The final piece of idiocy comes under the heading of public policy. This time it comes with serious consequences. It would be worse than annoying if it spread to here. Much worse.
Three nearby metropolitan counties, Ramsey, Washington, and Dakota, are discontinuing Meals on Wheels. Instead, frozen meals will be delivered once a week by a Presbyterian group. Now, I'm sure they are well-meaning folks, and this change in service won't seriously disturb independent seniors. But Meals on Wheels doesn't simply provide bulk food.
It provides a hot meal once a day. Already cooked, already assembled, so vulnerable adults do not have to struggle with working a stove, sorting out a balanced meal from a large quantity of items, remembering that it's lunchtime. In time, I might add, to start thawing the desired items. There comes a time in life, should we be so lucky to live that long, when these simple things are the kinds of things that make the difference between independence and dependence. If preparing your own food were that simple, many seniors wouldn't be using Meals on Wheels now. It's not done from laziness; it's from mobility, vision, breathing and cognitive issues that accompany aging.
Food quality must suffer from such a move. My dad's meals now include a variety of fresh salads, jellos, puddings, fresh bread, and other things that either could not be provided at all, or would suffer greatly from freezing/thawing or long term refrigeration.
As important as all that is, Meals on Wheels provides one more vital service, and "vital" is not an exaggeration. Somebody stops in the home to check on the senior once a day during the week. We recognized its importance the day my dad fell in the bathroom and struggled for over an hour to get up before his meal arrived. He would have been there for seven more, thoroughly demoralized and perhaps more badly injured, had that visit not happened!
This is supposed to be a money-saving idea. Unfortunately, it's going to drive a segment of seniors out of their homes and into nursing homes or other kinds of assisted living facilities, a much more expensive option. And those who can't afford or manage such an option will slowly - or possible not so slowly - fail to thrive.
On the level of annoying, let's start with the check printers. My dad ran out of checks a couple weeks ago, and I called the bank to reorder. I'd been postponing, since at 96, one doesn't suppose one needs to get another 2 year supply until it's actually necessary. It finally was, and we went through all the details for the order in a quick phone call. They were to arrive in 7-10 days.
There was a holiday in there, and she didn't actually specify whether those were calendar or business days, so I exercised patience until 2 weeks had gone by. Then it was time to check what had actually happened to them. We didn't need to deal with somebody else using them, after all. After counting that it had been the actual two weeks that the check company requires one to wait before they will track missing orders, my bank contact got ahold of the check company and found out that they had been delivered.
To the old address.
Now he moved out of there 15 months ago. All the bank correspondence had the new address. The checks had the new address. I verified at the time of of the order that they were to be sent to the new address.
But still.
The rush re-order arrived yesterday. I haven't heard yet if the old ones were returned.
* * * * *
Next on the annoying list is my brush with turning into the grammar police. It's not my favorite idea of how to spend time, but I'm quite good at it. It might be a family thing, because my daughter is too, even better than I am. I've learned some things from her. But this tale starts with what is one of my favorite things to do: read all of a favorite author that's available.
This time it was Dean Hovey. He has three books out, all mysteries set in Pine County, Minnesota. They're quite good, except for one thing. Whoever proofread them, or copy-edited them, or whatever, didn't. They pass the spell-check test, but that doesn't catch "that" when it should have been "than." They were full of those kind of errors. But even more glaring was the misuse of pronouns. Somebody can't tell the difference between nominative and objective case, particular when two persons are referred to. Now if the big names confuse you, it's just the difference between when to use "he" and "him", "I" and "me." One, the nominative, is the person doing the action: I and he. The objective is the person that the action is being done to: me and him. Those kind of errors were all through the books, and few things interrupt the suspense faster than stopping to rail at the stupidity of someone using the wrong words.
I thought to contact the publisher, but their name is not mentioned anywhere in the book. (How does that happen?) So, I went back to the library website where I reserved them, and found it there: J Press. The internet gave me an email-form to contact them, so I let them have my opinion on the topic. It was acknowledged with a form that thanked me and let me know that I'd get a return message within 48 hours.
Uh huh. Sure. That was Sunday. This is Wednesday.
Mr. Hovey, if you Google yourself and read this, you deserve a better publisher. One that knows grammar.
* * * * *
If one is looking for a high silliness quotient in idiocy, one can hardly do better than Christine O'Donnell, the Republican senate candidate for Delaware. You've surely heard of her by now. She's the one who "dabbled" in witchcraft by having a "date" on a bloody Satanic altar (which has nothing whatsoever to do with Wicca), and chose Christianity because she liked meatballs too much to become vegetarian for Hare Krishna, her previous top choice. Her campaign ad insists that she's not a witch, whatever we've heard. "I'm you."
Hardly!
She claims to be a constitutional expert and promises to govern according strictly to the constitution. Unfortunately, she's just a bit weak on what it says. In a debate yesterday, she challenged her Democratic opponent to tell her just where in the constitution it talked about the separation of church and state. When the audience of lawyers started to howl in laughter, she smiled and joined in, her expression clearly showing she thought they agreed with her that she'd just won the game of Gotcha.
Gotta wonder if she's figured it out yet.
* * * * *
For personal irritation, a fellow I met at work today wins the prize. I might have been amused, but his idiocy kept me standing an extra 10 minutes while I was trying to make a pick-up. I lose my sense of humor quickly under such circumstances.
It was bad enough that I'd had to cross an unnecessarily large and showy lobby just to reach the elevators that brought me up to the 6th floor. My mood was further compromised by the fact that it was a secured floor, and I had to walk to the other end of the elevator lobby and stand around while sorting through all the information next to the telephone just to find the number for the mailroom, and by the fact that nobody answered the first set of rings. After trying again, I finally got through and explained what I was there to pick up.
It took two more minutes for the mailroom guy to come out to the lobby. Empty handed. He couldn't find the package. Did I have a contact name? Did I know what it was? I showed him the sum total of the information I was given on the screen of my phone, even handing the phone to him so he could see for himself.
Only he couldn't see for himself. The hand with the phone just got further and further from his face, until he finally turned to me and admitted he couldn't read it. I read it for him, joking that he needed longer arms. Yeah, he'd been putting off getting glasses. He disappeared another five minutes.
It gave me plenty of time to condemn him for a vain idiot - silently of course - who didn't want to spoil his pretty face with glasses that might let him actually function in his job! And let me get on with mine, instead of standing around and standing around.
The box he finally handed me was plainly marked as I'd originally told him it would be, in letters plenty big enough that even I didn't need glasses to read them.
Apparently I'm a hidden sexist: I thought only women were that stupidly vain!
* * * * *
The final piece of idiocy comes under the heading of public policy. This time it comes with serious consequences. It would be worse than annoying if it spread to here. Much worse.
Three nearby metropolitan counties, Ramsey, Washington, and Dakota, are discontinuing Meals on Wheels. Instead, frozen meals will be delivered once a week by a Presbyterian group. Now, I'm sure they are well-meaning folks, and this change in service won't seriously disturb independent seniors. But Meals on Wheels doesn't simply provide bulk food.
It provides a hot meal once a day. Already cooked, already assembled, so vulnerable adults do not have to struggle with working a stove, sorting out a balanced meal from a large quantity of items, remembering that it's lunchtime. In time, I might add, to start thawing the desired items. There comes a time in life, should we be so lucky to live that long, when these simple things are the kinds of things that make the difference between independence and dependence. If preparing your own food were that simple, many seniors wouldn't be using Meals on Wheels now. It's not done from laziness; it's from mobility, vision, breathing and cognitive issues that accompany aging.
Food quality must suffer from such a move. My dad's meals now include a variety of fresh salads, jellos, puddings, fresh bread, and other things that either could not be provided at all, or would suffer greatly from freezing/thawing or long term refrigeration.
As important as all that is, Meals on Wheels provides one more vital service, and "vital" is not an exaggeration. Somebody stops in the home to check on the senior once a day during the week. We recognized its importance the day my dad fell in the bathroom and struggled for over an hour to get up before his meal arrived. He would have been there for seven more, thoroughly demoralized and perhaps more badly injured, had that visit not happened!
This is supposed to be a money-saving idea. Unfortunately, it's going to drive a segment of seniors out of their homes and into nursing homes or other kinds of assisted living facilities, a much more expensive option. And those who can't afford or manage such an option will slowly - or possible not so slowly - fail to thrive.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Consequences of a Political Ideology
Ever forget to pay a bill? Has your cash flow ever forced you to choose which bill to pay late this month? Most of us experience this at some time. We expect consequences, and figure this in when it's a cash-flow issue. There might be interest added, making the bill higher when it is paid. There might be a stoppage of credit, an interruption in service. But in your wildest dreams have you ever thought that the penalty might be having your house burn to the ground and your pets killed?
If you think it can't happen here, in this country, it just did. A Tennessee family forgot to pay the $75 fire department fee, and the fire department stood by and watched their home burn, with three dogs and a cat inside. By now you've probably heard the story. It's "gone viral", shocking the great majority of us.
But the policy behind it does have its defenders. These are the people to whom the word "taxes" is anathema, who support the idea that a service as basic as fire protection shouldn't be taxed for but should be billed individually. It's the very epitome of right-wing, Tea Party, Libertarian political philosophy. Its end result is what happened in Tennessee. Those who can pay get the services. (The fire was put out next door after it spread to that home. They had paid.) Those who can't or who forget to pay, or even try to pay late but are refused the privilege, suffer terrible consequences, justified as if this were normal. Or even moral.
What would have happened if there had been a child inside?
I chose to believe that our local fire departments would never participate in this kind of horror. They are dedicated people who want to do something good for their world and their neighbors. Moreover, they should never have to be placed in the position where watching a house burn, except as a training exercise, while they stand by is even an option. After all, here we tax everybody to help pay for the services of police/sheriff, fire, roads, and all the other things that we, as a society, have decided should be due to everybody. Not just the rich.
Think about this when you chose to vote for a philosophy that holds taxes to be evil, that public services should be cut until they are cut out. This incident is not some weird fluke, orchestrated by some evil people way on the other side of the country. This is the logical extension of a distorted philosophy, and you have the opportunity of ushering it in where you are.
* * * * *
Being an imaginative person, one who possibly reads too much mystery fiction, for me the story doesn't stop here. I fill it in with "what-ifs."
What if there was a child inside? What if the homeowner had a gun in his vehicle? Can you see the possibilities for violence there? Hold a gun to the head of the chief, telling him to order the rest to rescue the child and fight the fire. Perhaps, like so many people, the animals are just like family members: same scenario. Maybe there's no coercion, just the homeowner opening up on the whole squad. I could understand that impulse.
Personally, I like to add an ending to the story that involves a high-powered lawyer and a huge lawsuit. Not just against the fire department but against the city manager who forbid them to fight the fire when called. (I heard he was reached at his country club. Factual or not, it's the perfect image.)
What kind of a society are we heading for?
If you think it can't happen here, in this country, it just did. A Tennessee family forgot to pay the $75 fire department fee, and the fire department stood by and watched their home burn, with three dogs and a cat inside. By now you've probably heard the story. It's "gone viral", shocking the great majority of us.
But the policy behind it does have its defenders. These are the people to whom the word "taxes" is anathema, who support the idea that a service as basic as fire protection shouldn't be taxed for but should be billed individually. It's the very epitome of right-wing, Tea Party, Libertarian political philosophy. Its end result is what happened in Tennessee. Those who can pay get the services. (The fire was put out next door after it spread to that home. They had paid.) Those who can't or who forget to pay, or even try to pay late but are refused the privilege, suffer terrible consequences, justified as if this were normal. Or even moral.
What would have happened if there had been a child inside?
I chose to believe that our local fire departments would never participate in this kind of horror. They are dedicated people who want to do something good for their world and their neighbors. Moreover, they should never have to be placed in the position where watching a house burn, except as a training exercise, while they stand by is even an option. After all, here we tax everybody to help pay for the services of police/sheriff, fire, roads, and all the other things that we, as a society, have decided should be due to everybody. Not just the rich.
Think about this when you chose to vote for a philosophy that holds taxes to be evil, that public services should be cut until they are cut out. This incident is not some weird fluke, orchestrated by some evil people way on the other side of the country. This is the logical extension of a distorted philosophy, and you have the opportunity of ushering it in where you are.
* * * * *
Being an imaginative person, one who possibly reads too much mystery fiction, for me the story doesn't stop here. I fill it in with "what-ifs."
What if there was a child inside? What if the homeowner had a gun in his vehicle? Can you see the possibilities for violence there? Hold a gun to the head of the chief, telling him to order the rest to rescue the child and fight the fire. Perhaps, like so many people, the animals are just like family members: same scenario. Maybe there's no coercion, just the homeowner opening up on the whole squad. I could understand that impulse.
Personally, I like to add an ending to the story that involves a high-powered lawyer and a huge lawsuit. Not just against the fire department but against the city manager who forbid them to fight the fire when called. (I heard he was reached at his country club. Factual or not, it's the perfect image.)
What kind of a society are we heading for?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Counter-Demonstration Idea
I am again enraged by something in the news. Some "church" in Florida insists on holding a demonstration on 9/11 by burning Korans in their front yard. Even though it's been widely publicised that it will spark unrest in the Muslim world and result in endangering our troops. Even though it's the perfect recruitment tool for Al Qaida and other terrorist groups: we're doing their work for them. The pastor has been informed and insists on going ahead. His own agenda is more important, may he rot in....
Well, you get it.
Here's an idea: How about if folks gather around in a multi-layer circle, blocking out those with cameras and cell phones, and when the idiocy starts, all as one turn their backs on these nuts and refuse to witness? More, every one could wear a shirt printed on the back with "Shame on you!' or "All people of the same book", or similar sentiments. Let the world know that those few idiots are scorned by the rest of us, rather than represent us. Anyone who does manage to sneak a camera in would have to capture the rest of the story, right?
Well, you get it.
Here's an idea: How about if folks gather around in a multi-layer circle, blocking out those with cameras and cell phones, and when the idiocy starts, all as one turn their backs on these nuts and refuse to witness? More, every one could wear a shirt printed on the back with "Shame on you!' or "All people of the same book", or similar sentiments. Let the world know that those few idiots are scorned by the rest of us, rather than represent us. Anyone who does manage to sneak a camera in would have to capture the rest of the story, right?
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Glen Beck Miracle
Glen Beck promised all his followers a miracle on Saturday at his march on Washington, or whatever he called it. (I can't stand to listen to him for very long.) In all the commentary following the event, I heard a lot of head-scratching about just what the so-called miracle was.
I think I figured it out.
Those well-versed in Christianity will understand the reference if I call it a "loaves-and-fishes" kind of miracle. And hey, if you don't, look it up, if for no other reason than it being a cultural reference, if not for being (your) religious one.
How it works is this. The aerial photos and neutral observers/counters put the crowd at about 87,000. Impressive actually. However, the miracle was that he expanded that number to 750,000 when talking about it this morning on his radio show!
I think I figured it out.
Those well-versed in Christianity will understand the reference if I call it a "loaves-and-fishes" kind of miracle. And hey, if you don't, look it up, if for no other reason than it being a cultural reference, if not for being (your) religious one.
How it works is this. The aerial photos and neutral observers/counters put the crowd at about 87,000. Impressive actually. However, the miracle was that he expanded that number to 750,000 when talking about it this morning on his radio show!
The Campaign Ad
Our city newsletter is allowing all candidates for city office to put in a half-page ad to encourage votes. Here's mine:
I am dedicated to this city. I've lived in Shafer since '91, currently in a 3-generation household, and my fiance' has agreed that we will continue living here. When a developer left improvements undone in our neighborhood, meaning we all got assessed to finish the job, I ran for council to help insure future development was done right. During the 12 years I was first council member, then 2-term mayor, we developed standards and enforced rigorous development agreements that made sure development was a boon to all and not a hardship. I fought to keep taxes as low as possible in a time of rapid growth, make sure our ordinances met our changing needs, and were enforced fairly without favoritism. I've worked with the leaders of our neighboring communities to bring a new modern library to the area, and develop a joint long-range-plan for our growth. As mayor, I maintained strong working ties with city staff, both in-house and professional.
I strongly believe that all that experience matters in guiding the city forward as our economy changes and growth resumes. I also believe that listening to all sides of an issue and making sure the council has complete information before making a decision is vital. I bring the communication skills and temperament to facilitate all sides being heard in a calm manner regardless of how heated the issues become. My vision of the job of mayor is a lot of hard work, responsibility, and loyalty to what's best for the city as a whole. It takes both an eye on the details as well as on the big picture. I am very much looking forward to serving you again as mayor, and hope for your vote this fall
I am dedicated to this city. I've lived in Shafer since '91, currently in a 3-generation household, and my fiance' has agreed that we will continue living here. When a developer left improvements undone in our neighborhood, meaning we all got assessed to finish the job, I ran for council to help insure future development was done right. During the 12 years I was first council member, then 2-term mayor, we developed standards and enforced rigorous development agreements that made sure development was a boon to all and not a hardship. I fought to keep taxes as low as possible in a time of rapid growth, make sure our ordinances met our changing needs, and were enforced fairly without favoritism. I've worked with the leaders of our neighboring communities to bring a new modern library to the area, and develop a joint long-range-plan for our growth. As mayor, I maintained strong working ties with city staff, both in-house and professional.
I strongly believe that all that experience matters in guiding the city forward as our economy changes and growth resumes. I also believe that listening to all sides of an issue and making sure the council has complete information before making a decision is vital. I bring the communication skills and temperament to facilitate all sides being heard in a calm manner regardless of how heated the issues become. My vision of the job of mayor is a lot of hard work, responsibility, and loyalty to what's best for the city as a whole. It takes both an eye on the details as well as on the big picture. I am very much looking forward to serving you again as mayor, and hope for your vote this fall
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
And More Timericks
It seems I can't write just one. Or two. Especially when some significant news comes down from the state supreme court on Pawlenty's favorite tactic for settling budget issues without having to actually talk with the legislature. But that's not the only issue.
Two Governors tour with their speeches.
The job they both covet a peach is.
Both rail against taxes
And hope support waxes.
Will the winner wear skirts or wear breeches?
Unallotment became Timmy's tool.
"I'll not compromise," he said, so cool.
"I'll just slash here and there
At whatever I care.
Lookie here: I'll just start with this school."
His authority Timmy exceeded
When the budget to balance he needed.
He'd never raise taxes
So brought out his axes
And he chopped, yes he chopped with such glee did.
Unallotment was Timothy's tool,
He who righteously used one-man-rule.
The court said, "Oh no,
You can't budget so!"
Making Timothy look like a fool.
The decision our Timmy protested.
But the court it does seem has him bested.
Now our Tim he did pout
But that so wore him out
At the Twins game that day Timmy rested.
I think I'm getting addicted.
Two Governors tour with their speeches.
The job they both covet a peach is.
Both rail against taxes
And hope support waxes.
Will the winner wear skirts or wear breeches?
Unallotment became Timmy's tool.
"I'll not compromise," he said, so cool.
"I'll just slash here and there
At whatever I care.
Lookie here: I'll just start with this school."
His authority Timmy exceeded
When the budget to balance he needed.
He'd never raise taxes
So brought out his axes
And he chopped, yes he chopped with such glee did.
Unallotment was Timothy's tool,
He who righteously used one-man-rule.
The court said, "Oh no,
You can't budget so!"
Making Timothy look like a fool.
The decision our Timmy protested.
But the court it does seem has him bested.
Now our Tim he did pout
But that so wore him out
At the Twins game that day Timmy rested.
I think I'm getting addicted.
Timericks
I came up with several of these years ago while driving around with nothing better to do than listen to the radio, watch traffic, and hunt addresses. And, of course, fume about our Governor's latest doings. I'm not sure what happened to them, and I'm having to recreate them, with a few updates, so I'll post them as I come up with them. This one stuck in my mind, probably because the syntax had to be bent so much to come up with things to rhyme with Pawlenty. Because it's bent so badly, and because I had to listen to somebody mangle it and give up midway through, I'm showing you where the accents are.
Don't LOOK in our STATE for PawLENty.
CamPAIGNing aGAIN this week WENT he.
A BRIDGE could fall DOWN,
He WON"T be in TOWN.
From BIGger amBItions is BENT he.
I also remember a middle section of one, but it needs the ends. I'll try to work on those today.
It's no tax, plain to see,
If you call it a fee...
I always figured it'd be a lark to get a radio station to have a contest coming up with them - clean ones, of course. He so deserves the ridicule.
* * * * * *
I finished this one in the shower. I think that means I'm as clean as it is.
"No new taxes" our Governor screams.
So I guess that is just what he means.
It's no tax, plain to see,
If you call it a fee.
But is everything just what it seems?
Don't LOOK in our STATE for PawLENty.
CamPAIGNing aGAIN this week WENT he.
A BRIDGE could fall DOWN,
He WON"T be in TOWN.
From BIGger amBItions is BENT he.
I also remember a middle section of one, but it needs the ends. I'll try to work on those today.
It's no tax, plain to see,
If you call it a fee...
I always figured it'd be a lark to get a radio station to have a contest coming up with them - clean ones, of course. He so deserves the ridicule.
* * * * * *
I finished this one in the shower. I think that means I'm as clean as it is.
"No new taxes" our Governor screams.
So I guess that is just what he means.
It's no tax, plain to see,
If you call it a fee.
But is everything just what it seems?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
