Sarah Palin took an IQ test and finally scored in the three-digit range.
Harry Reid and Bill Bellichick were sitting at a table at a fund-raiser and both cracked a sincere smile.
Hillary Clinton had a picture published in the newspapers where she didn’t look, tired or mad as a wet hen.
You can’t believe any of the above, but you can believe what’s below.
Despite the budget deficit that defies explanation and has more zeros than a Nolan Ryan no-hitter, the government – the one run by people we elected to serve our needs – is spending money on projects and programs that are mind-bogglingly stupid.
The government funded a $700,000 study by the University of New Hampshire to study greenhouse gas emissions in the dairy industry. The study concluded that “cows emit most of their methane through belching, only a small fraction from flatulence.”
There was no mention of BS in the report, literally or figuratively.
The provost of the university said the study was “not wasteful. It’s important.” Apparently, he said it with a straight face.
In case you think the University of New Hampshire is the lone recipient of dubious federal largess:
1) Wake Forest University received almost $150,000 to study “preliminary data on the efficacy of integral yoga for reducing menopausal hot flashes.” That’s gummitese to explain how meditation and exercise might ease menopausal symptoms. It’s a possibility that taking a shotgun and shooting the holy heck out of a bunch of man-shaped targets might do the same thing.
2) Wake Forest (those grant-writing little boogers!) also got more than $70,000 to study the effects of self-administering cocaine on the glutamate system on monkeys. College students are gonna get high on getting monkeys … well, high.
4) University of North Carolina-Charlotte received a whopping $760,000 grant to develop computer technology to digitally record the dance moves of performers. Interesting project, assuredly, but how is such a study the business of the federal government?
5) In the past several years, more than $1 billion has been sent to dead people to pay for prescriptions, wheelchairs, pay rent, and even to help defer heating and air conditioning bills. More money than oversight, for sure.
6) $21 million in federal funds goes to Lockheed Martin from NASA to advance research for supersonic jet travel. The first benefactors of this technology is expected to be business executives.
7) The government spent $2.2 million to help pay for a new irrigation system to a San Francisco Golf Course, a public course that the city council is considering closing due to a species of frog and snake that are endangered and live in the area.
8) Your tax dollars went to pay the expenses of five students of the University of California-San Diego to go to Africa to study and report on why “Africans vote the way they do” in elections? Is it possible that a similar study in the U.S. would have been more helpful?
9) A company called NanoGriptech has been awarded more than $400,000 to develop sports equipment (read football and baseball gloves) to develop a technology that mimics the sticky feet of geckos. The far-ranging plan is to develop a technology that will allow robots to climb difficult surfaces.
10) And, finally, Indiana University professions received more than $220,000 to study why young men do not like to wear condoms. Eeeeewwwwww!
Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. These are some examples of your tax dollars are work … and the attitude of those elected officials who approve such nonsense.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Let's talk 'stupid!'
To quote that philosopher Forrest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.
On the International Abject Stupidity Scale (IASS), with 10 being Stephen Hawkings and 1 being a statement by the late Bubba June McClintock, who used to live just south of Marshall, who once said, “Hold my beer and watch this!”, there are a lot of folks in the 1 to 2 range.
To wit:
To all those folks that voted Bristol Palin as the best dancer on the newest version of “Dancing With the Stars,” a rousing, romping 1.
To all those hapless folks who pick up urban legend information from the Internet and pass it along as gospel, a single, solitary digit.
I don’t even have to tell you the score of the man who called the cops to complain about the performance … of the prostitute he hired to come to his hotel room.
To all those Democrats who think/thought Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did a good job … aw, you know the score to that one.
To all voters who think that changing the makeup of the House of Representatives is going to do one single bit of good or make any significant positive change in the responsiveness of government … see the scoring of the item above.
The Federal Aviation official(s) who decided to approve “re-entry” into the earth’s atmosphere for planned commercial flights to outer space get a 1 and a big ol’ “DUH!” for that earth-shaking decision.
To the Transportation Security Authority screener who decided to pat down former presidential contender Ron Paul, who is so right-wing he can fly only in circles, and “touched his junk,” as the kids used to like to say, an incredulous .5.
But, then, there are some folks who score high on the scale.
Like the female passenger who recently decided to bypass the chance of a hard pat-down at the Los Angeles airport and went through security clad only in a black bikini.
It’s hard not to applaud the free-thinkers who circulate through our world who make the rest of us smile.
Oh, what the heck: Clapclapclapclapclap.
On the International Abject Stupidity Scale (IASS), with 10 being Stephen Hawkings and 1 being a statement by the late Bubba June McClintock, who used to live just south of Marshall, who once said, “Hold my beer and watch this!”, there are a lot of folks in the 1 to 2 range.
To wit:
To all those folks that voted Bristol Palin as the best dancer on the newest version of “Dancing With the Stars,” a rousing, romping 1.
To all those hapless folks who pick up urban legend information from the Internet and pass it along as gospel, a single, solitary digit.
I don’t even have to tell you the score of the man who called the cops to complain about the performance … of the prostitute he hired to come to his hotel room.
To all those Democrats who think/thought Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did a good job … aw, you know the score to that one.
To all voters who think that changing the makeup of the House of Representatives is going to do one single bit of good or make any significant positive change in the responsiveness of government … see the scoring of the item above.
The Federal Aviation official(s) who decided to approve “re-entry” into the earth’s atmosphere for planned commercial flights to outer space get a 1 and a big ol’ “DUH!” for that earth-shaking decision.
To the Transportation Security Authority screener who decided to pat down former presidential contender Ron Paul, who is so right-wing he can fly only in circles, and “touched his junk,” as the kids used to like to say, an incredulous .5.
But, then, there are some folks who score high on the scale.
Like the female passenger who recently decided to bypass the chance of a hard pat-down at the Los Angeles airport and went through security clad only in a black bikini.
It’s hard not to applaud the free-thinkers who circulate through our world who make the rest of us smile.
Oh, what the heck: Clapclapclapclapclap.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Mayoral repeat is best alternative
Back in the day when I was writing a weekly column for the Cabot Star Herald, I gave then-Mayor Stubby Stumbaugh a lot of grief. And, even with years of hindsight, much of the criticism was richly deserved.
But, this time around, Stumbaugh, eagle tattoos and all, is the best alternative in the upcoming runoff election.
After losing a city council race, and getting his ears pinned back in a run for Congress, Stumbaugh has something to prove: He truly wants to make a name for himself in his hometown.
As most folks know who follow politics, power can be used for good or evil. Stumbaugh, who has been vilified for his bombastic nature and control-freak attitude, can change his image and do some good for Cabot.
There is no doubt he wants to be remembered for accomplishments which enhance Cabot.
With that attitude, and with the victory from a tight race as his foundation, he can be a positive change in our community.
But, this time around, Stumbaugh, eagle tattoos and all, is the best alternative in the upcoming runoff election.
After losing a city council race, and getting his ears pinned back in a run for Congress, Stumbaugh has something to prove: He truly wants to make a name for himself in his hometown.
As most folks know who follow politics, power can be used for good or evil. Stumbaugh, who has been vilified for his bombastic nature and control-freak attitude, can change his image and do some good for Cabot.
There is no doubt he wants to be remembered for accomplishments which enhance Cabot.
With that attitude, and with the victory from a tight race as his foundation, he can be a positive change in our community.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Elections ’10: A year to forget
Did you say you voted? I’m sorry. My condolences.
Those three short sentences are not a great way to win friends and influence people, for sure, but it’s the way a lot of voters felt after the elections.
This is not a lambasting of conservative whiners, er, winners, or political do-gooders, or liberal leaners; this is a eulogy for the benignly ignorant rat pack of folks who voted for the wrong people or stood on the wrong side of issues for the wrong reasons.
Be honest, now: Did you vote for a person you did not know, did not research his or her record and didn’t have a clue as to qualifications or stances on important issues that are pertinent to the office sought?
Did you cast a ballot for a candidate and the only thing you knew about him or her was what you read on a yard sign?
Did you vote for a person or issue based on the recommendation of a family member, friend or associate?
Did you cast a ballot based strictly on party affiliation?
If you answered yes to any of those questions … shame on you!
With an average of less than 50 percent of the eligible voters taking time to cast ballots in any election (except in the presidential election years), it is the saddest state of affairs that so few care about the future of the country that good, smart people won’t exercise their right to vote.
My son, 21 and very, very smart, didn’t vote because, as he put it, “What different does it make? They are all the same, regardless of party, regardless of promises. Politicians do what they want to do to enrich themselves. Nothing changes.”
Me: “All of them? They all are out to enrich themselves?”
Him: “Every single one. No exceptions.”
As have been observed by various people over the past few decades, I can argue with a stump and declare myself the winner, but it’s hard to argue with youthful logic of that caliber.
And, it’s hard to conjure up a single politician I have watched, studied and written about in the past 45-plus years that didn’t remove his or her nose out of the public trough until they were richer than when they were first elected.
As one political sage told me several decades ago: “Any politician that loses money being in public service is an idiot.”
While we can argue the degree of relative idiocy of politicians, it’s hard to imagine anyone believing that vast majority of politicos seek public favor without wanting money or power … and most want both.
Just as it’s hard to imagine that any vote just cast for any politician on any level will change a durn thing in the way governments operate.
Those three short sentences are not a great way to win friends and influence people, for sure, but it’s the way a lot of voters felt after the elections.
This is not a lambasting of conservative whiners, er, winners, or political do-gooders, or liberal leaners; this is a eulogy for the benignly ignorant rat pack of folks who voted for the wrong people or stood on the wrong side of issues for the wrong reasons.
Be honest, now: Did you vote for a person you did not know, did not research his or her record and didn’t have a clue as to qualifications or stances on important issues that are pertinent to the office sought?
Did you cast a ballot for a candidate and the only thing you knew about him or her was what you read on a yard sign?
Did you vote for a person or issue based on the recommendation of a family member, friend or associate?
Did you cast a ballot based strictly on party affiliation?
If you answered yes to any of those questions … shame on you!
With an average of less than 50 percent of the eligible voters taking time to cast ballots in any election (except in the presidential election years), it is the saddest state of affairs that so few care about the future of the country that good, smart people won’t exercise their right to vote.
My son, 21 and very, very smart, didn’t vote because, as he put it, “What different does it make? They are all the same, regardless of party, regardless of promises. Politicians do what they want to do to enrich themselves. Nothing changes.”
Me: “All of them? They all are out to enrich themselves?”
Him: “Every single one. No exceptions.”
As have been observed by various people over the past few decades, I can argue with a stump and declare myself the winner, but it’s hard to argue with youthful logic of that caliber.
And, it’s hard to conjure up a single politician I have watched, studied and written about in the past 45-plus years that didn’t remove his or her nose out of the public trough until they were richer than when they were first elected.
As one political sage told me several decades ago: “Any politician that loses money being in public service is an idiot.”
While we can argue the degree of relative idiocy of politicians, it’s hard to imagine anyone believing that vast majority of politicos seek public favor without wanting money or power … and most want both.
Just as it’s hard to imagine that any vote just cast for any politician on any level will change a durn thing in the way governments operate.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
To paraphrase Pogo:
We are our own worst enemy
It’s been known for quite a spell, but now it’s a certified fact.
A large majority of Americans – 65 percent – would vote to replace every single elected member of Congress. A recent poll showed just how many Americans are throwing-up sick-and-tired of the games being played by those so-called public servants who care more about party affiliation and partisan politics that about fixing the ills of this country.
It is an educated guess that the 35 percent who would not vote to replace every elected official in the House and Senate are a relative, a government employee or a hard-line party know-nothing.
This country is in a helluva shape and has been for more than 10 years. Say what you want to about Bill Clinton – Go ahead! We’ll wait for the diatribe! – but under Clinton there was a balanced budget and he left office with a budget surplus.
I know, I know. I can hear those tongue-cluckers warming up their YB arguments. YB? You know, “Yes, but ….”
Yes, but … at least Clinton’s kept his corrupt behavior on a personal level, and did not drag down the entire country kowtowing to the special interest groups that really run this country.
It’s an old, old argument, but it never loses its truism value: What’s wrong with America is we started out with a country run by citizens and ended up with a government run by greedy politicians and special interest groups with more money than morals.
Let’s face it: The situation will not change as long as there are only two parties from which to choose. And that statement intentionally disqualifies the Green Party and the Libertarians from consideration; both fringe groups run more scary people for office than killers conjured up in a Saw movie.
The answer is simply not change for change sake. The answer is term limits for members of Congress. A constitutional amendment is the only way to fix that thorny situation since seated members of Congress are never, ever going to do anything to reduce their power or influence.
So, what are we waiting for?
Demand of those elected on November 2 to start the process for term limits. And don’t be surprised if your request is answered in a series of non-denial denials and political-speak nonsense.
Needed changes in the system will not be made by those elected; they can only be made by those who vote.
It’s been known for quite a spell, but now it’s a certified fact.
A large majority of Americans – 65 percent – would vote to replace every single elected member of Congress. A recent poll showed just how many Americans are throwing-up sick-and-tired of the games being played by those so-called public servants who care more about party affiliation and partisan politics that about fixing the ills of this country.
It is an educated guess that the 35 percent who would not vote to replace every elected official in the House and Senate are a relative, a government employee or a hard-line party know-nothing.
This country is in a helluva shape and has been for more than 10 years. Say what you want to about Bill Clinton – Go ahead! We’ll wait for the diatribe! – but under Clinton there was a balanced budget and he left office with a budget surplus.
I know, I know. I can hear those tongue-cluckers warming up their YB arguments. YB? You know, “Yes, but ….”
Yes, but … at least Clinton’s kept his corrupt behavior on a personal level, and did not drag down the entire country kowtowing to the special interest groups that really run this country.
It’s an old, old argument, but it never loses its truism value: What’s wrong with America is we started out with a country run by citizens and ended up with a government run by greedy politicians and special interest groups with more money than morals.
Let’s face it: The situation will not change as long as there are only two parties from which to choose. And that statement intentionally disqualifies the Green Party and the Libertarians from consideration; both fringe groups run more scary people for office than killers conjured up in a Saw movie.
The answer is simply not change for change sake. The answer is term limits for members of Congress. A constitutional amendment is the only way to fix that thorny situation since seated members of Congress are never, ever going to do anything to reduce their power or influence.
So, what are we waiting for?
Demand of those elected on November 2 to start the process for term limits. And don’t be surprised if your request is answered in a series of non-denial denials and political-speak nonsense.
Needed changes in the system will not be made by those elected; they can only be made by those who vote.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Those darn do-gooders
A recent emailer recently wrote something positive about a group called "Conservatives for Quality Government."
In more that 45 years of covering the governmental process from a lot of angles, I can attest to one thing without equivocation: Any group with a high-falutin’ name with certain “key” words or “phrases” in its name is not reliable, has focused on a single-issue item, and are more “agin” something than they are “fir” it.
In the example above, I would automatically surmise that “Conservatives for Quality Government” are not conservatives and do not want quality government. Those high-sounders are, in fact, more than likely right wing-nuts who don’t want “quality” government, but want a government that agrees with their philosophy du jour.
Taking that logic to the next level, it’s a safe bet that “Concerned Citizens for…” anything – Quality Government, Quality Education, Safe Streets, Abolishing Drugs – are more interested in pushing their own personal agenda than they are in the societal Big Picture.
Money (think special interest groups, political action committees, and just plain too-rich-and-mean-to-die folks) runs his country, not the vote that each of us individually cast.
Most folks think their vote counts, but never stop to consider that their vote was purchased at some point.
Some votes are bought by tradition: “My grandpappy as a Democrat and that’s good enough for me!” Some are bought by one-issue platforms: “Whoever the NRA supports, count me in!” Some are influenced by the dumbest of reasons: “Did you see all the yard signs for the WASP county judge candidate? He must be all right!”
Some folks vote straight ticket ballots. It’s hard not to feel sorry for those who do not have enough matter in the brainpan to research and vote for the best candidate, not ones selected by simple R and D labels.
In a perfect world, there would be no party affiliations about which to ponder. Voters would cast ballots for a person based on experience, deeds and ideas and the ability to communicate those to a mass audience.
Unfortunately, we have become a nation of lethargic dreamers walking in a deep rut. We might want a better system and a better cast of characters from which to choose, but, as a whole, we don’t want to exert ourselves to make necessary changes.
When it comes to politics, we have forgotten two age-old truisms:
1) When a person runs for public office, at some point in the race – and assuredly after the race, if elected –that person will lie.
And,
2) A rut is simply a grave with both ends open. So get out of it as soon as you are able.
In more that 45 years of covering the governmental process from a lot of angles, I can attest to one thing without equivocation: Any group with a high-falutin’ name with certain “key” words or “phrases” in its name is not reliable, has focused on a single-issue item, and are more “agin” something than they are “fir” it.
In the example above, I would automatically surmise that “Conservatives for Quality Government” are not conservatives and do not want quality government. Those high-sounders are, in fact, more than likely right wing-nuts who don’t want “quality” government, but want a government that agrees with their philosophy du jour.
Taking that logic to the next level, it’s a safe bet that “Concerned Citizens for…” anything – Quality Government, Quality Education, Safe Streets, Abolishing Drugs – are more interested in pushing their own personal agenda than they are in the societal Big Picture.
Money (think special interest groups, political action committees, and just plain too-rich-and-mean-to-die folks) runs his country, not the vote that each of us individually cast.
Most folks think their vote counts, but never stop to consider that their vote was purchased at some point.
Some votes are bought by tradition: “My grandpappy as a Democrat and that’s good enough for me!” Some are bought by one-issue platforms: “Whoever the NRA supports, count me in!” Some are influenced by the dumbest of reasons: “Did you see all the yard signs for the WASP county judge candidate? He must be all right!”
Some folks vote straight ticket ballots. It’s hard not to feel sorry for those who do not have enough matter in the brainpan to research and vote for the best candidate, not ones selected by simple R and D labels.
In a perfect world, there would be no party affiliations about which to ponder. Voters would cast ballots for a person based on experience, deeds and ideas and the ability to communicate those to a mass audience.
Unfortunately, we have become a nation of lethargic dreamers walking in a deep rut. We might want a better system and a better cast of characters from which to choose, but, as a whole, we don’t want to exert ourselves to make necessary changes.
When it comes to politics, we have forgotten two age-old truisms:
1) When a person runs for public office, at some point in the race – and assuredly after the race, if elected –that person will lie.
And,
2) A rut is simply a grave with both ends open. So get out of it as soon as you are able.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Poor, pitiful us
It’s a simple, complex sentence, really.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Okay, we all understand all that. It’s the law and … well, big whoop.
But what about another “Congress shall make no law …” that the Constitution framers forgot.
Congress shall make no law that affects the citizenry that does not equally affect the elected members of Congress, and all elected and appointed officials of the federal government.
Where’s that law, huh?
And,
Congress shall pass no law that uses taxpayer money to enrich its members, relying on the goodwill and fairness of the American people to set salaries for elected officials.
Elected officials think, nay, believe, they are better than average citizens and they prove it every time they pass a law that benefits them and excludes the citizens.
For example: Congress is not governed by the Social Security laws. If they were, do you think there would be a problem with Social Security?
Congress passes laws in virtually every session that binds the country’s citizens to the will and whim of the elected, but excludes the elected from the boundaries of those very same law.
Why do they think they can do that? Because they can and the people allow it. And, those that we put in office will continue to do so because the people of this country have become a pack of sheep, dutifully, blindly, following the bell sheep to the slaughter pens.
It is amazing to think that there are people out there who truly and honestly believe that slashing the Democratic majority in Congress will change one single thing in the way government is run.
It won’t. It will change the faces and positions of the main power brokers, but it will not change the way members of Congress enriches themselves on the backs of the taxpayers.
This is a trick question, now, so pay attention: Can you name one politician who went to Washington and returned home with less money than they went there with? Forget ending a sentence with a preposition! This is serious and grammar rules be damned.
The system – Demogogues, Republicrats, TeaHee Partiers … they are all the same, all spouting political pabulum and selling it as steak. And we keep paying steak prices for gruel.
Poor, ignorant, misguided, bamboozled … us.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Okay, we all understand all that. It’s the law and … well, big whoop.
But what about another “Congress shall make no law …” that the Constitution framers forgot.
Congress shall make no law that affects the citizenry that does not equally affect the elected members of Congress, and all elected and appointed officials of the federal government.
Where’s that law, huh?
And,
Congress shall pass no law that uses taxpayer money to enrich its members, relying on the goodwill and fairness of the American people to set salaries for elected officials.
Elected officials think, nay, believe, they are better than average citizens and they prove it every time they pass a law that benefits them and excludes the citizens.
For example: Congress is not governed by the Social Security laws. If they were, do you think there would be a problem with Social Security?
Congress passes laws in virtually every session that binds the country’s citizens to the will and whim of the elected, but excludes the elected from the boundaries of those very same law.
Why do they think they can do that? Because they can and the people allow it. And, those that we put in office will continue to do so because the people of this country have become a pack of sheep, dutifully, blindly, following the bell sheep to the slaughter pens.
It is amazing to think that there are people out there who truly and honestly believe that slashing the Democratic majority in Congress will change one single thing in the way government is run.
It won’t. It will change the faces and positions of the main power brokers, but it will not change the way members of Congress enriches themselves on the backs of the taxpayers.
This is a trick question, now, so pay attention: Can you name one politician who went to Washington and returned home with less money than they went there with? Forget ending a sentence with a preposition! This is serious and grammar rules be damned.
The system – Demogogues, Republicrats, TeaHee Partiers … they are all the same, all spouting political pabulum and selling it as steak. And we keep paying steak prices for gruel.
Poor, ignorant, misguided, bamboozled … us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
