Within the confines of the British Isle...is the regional band Paramore...which might be great, if you'd ever hear them in the US. But don't worry....because of the system we have....you will never hear them. So for a brief four minutes, enjoy a great five-star band.
Monday, 7 September 2009
A Speech is a Speech
The President's speech for school kids comes up this week. I spent a couple of days pondering this speech, its impact, and these punk kids. So I came to this conclusion....there are ten questions or comments that the teachers really don't want to hear about at the end of this speech:
1. ¿Qué dijo? (Spanish for what did he say?)
2. My dad watches Glenn Beck, and he says....
3. Maam, is there any comparison with this and Nazi Germany of 1936?
4. I've been in this stinking school for eleven years, and you waited till now to give me the "encouragement" speech?
5. If we have the Bill of Rights, with “Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression”, and we have this right of citizens to question those government representatives in positions of authority....why have some representatives have become defensive when asked about their decision to support legislation they’ve never taken the time to read?
6. My bus driver says things were better in 1984 with Reagan...is he right?
7. Since you carried this speech....could we have ESPN on at noon and watch the update show?
8. Ms. Loretta...I was admiring your silky low-cut blouse all the way through the speech.
9. My grandma has dementia...dad says she voted for the President...do you think she should have the right to vote?
10. You guys operate a third-rate school...with barely any heat...with textbooks that are fifteen years old....with teachers barely accredited and some half drunk when they come in each day....and you think this "encouragement" speech fixes everything? Are you joking?
I've sat and read about a hundred comments this weekend (mostly hostile) over the President's upcoming speech. Frankly, I don't really care. If the guy wants to deliver it....go for it. The results? Lou Gehrig will have probably gotten more results with his farewell speech at Yankee Stadium. That's the sad truth.
So for you hostile folks...get a life...get a beer...get something. Don't worry. These punk kids were warriors in school last week....and they will still be warriors in school after the speech. Little will change.
1. ¿Qué dijo? (Spanish for what did he say?)
2. My dad watches Glenn Beck, and he says....
3. Maam, is there any comparison with this and Nazi Germany of 1936?
4. I've been in this stinking school for eleven years, and you waited till now to give me the "encouragement" speech?
5. If we have the Bill of Rights, with “Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression”, and we have this right of citizens to question those government representatives in positions of authority....why have some representatives have become defensive when asked about their decision to support legislation they’ve never taken the time to read?
6. My bus driver says things were better in 1984 with Reagan...is he right?
7. Since you carried this speech....could we have ESPN on at noon and watch the update show?
8. Ms. Loretta...I was admiring your silky low-cut blouse all the way through the speech.
9. My grandma has dementia...dad says she voted for the President...do you think she should have the right to vote?
10. You guys operate a third-rate school...with barely any heat...with textbooks that are fifteen years old....with teachers barely accredited and some half drunk when they come in each day....and you think this "encouragement" speech fixes everything? Are you joking?
I've sat and read about a hundred comments this weekend (mostly hostile) over the President's upcoming speech. Frankly, I don't really care. If the guy wants to deliver it....go for it. The results? Lou Gehrig will have probably gotten more results with his farewell speech at Yankee Stadium. That's the sad truth.
So for you hostile folks...get a life...get a beer...get something. Don't worry. These punk kids were warriors in school last week....and they will still be warriors in school after the speech. Little will change.
This Ron Sparks Fellow
I tend to stay away from Bama politics....for obvious reasons. I'm not physically there. Most of what they pass...has no effect on me. And being a Colorado resident and paying taxes there...kinda disqualifes me. But I saw an interesting item from two weeks ago and figured it was worth commenting on.
One of the chief items of discussion in Bama always circles around casinos and the wet/dry issue. Don't ask why...it's just a Bama thing.
So there is this Democratic governor candidate out there....Ron Sparks...who put the topic of casinos on the table. He believes that only the folks in Mobile County....can decide their fate on casinos. He wants the voters there to decide whether they want casino gambling or not.
What he's suggesting is a state constitutional amendment change....letting the local decide their own fate. In his own words: "If you want it, you can vote it in. You don't, vote it out. But I don't want somebody in north Alabama telling Mobile County that you can't have casino gambling in Mobile. I don't want somebody -- because they know how close you are to Biloxi -- trying to stop you."
Ron is currently the state agriculture commissioner...and I've noted two or three smart things over the past four years that he's said. He's not a rocket scientist but he does display a fair amount of wisdom.
Naturally, his democratic opposition has hinted that only the "public" can make such a suggestion and we should go slow. The Republicans? Well...it's hellfire and damnation, don't you know...if you sign up for casinos. They will naturally make their Baptist voters happy and hope that just enough carry the weight in the state election.
Here's the bottom line on casinos and booze in Bama. If you sit there and think that a dry county and a "no" to casinos protect your values and your neighbors....you are wrong.
If you neighbor wants a drink...he will travel across your county and to the county or state line to have a sip. He might even bring back a case of whiskey so he doesn't have to drive next week. The taxes off this....go to that county or that state. So any profit that your county could have enjoyed or used for more parks or school supplies or road repair...went elsewhere.
The topic of casinos works the same. You want to protect your neighbor....well, sit back and watch them pack up for the weekend and travel to Biloxi. If they want to gamble...they will do so. The profits and taxes made off them? Heck...they keep it in Biloxi. They build great roads, toss extra money into schools, and buy more computers for local libraries. You? Well...you keep complaining about higher property taxes and then you want all the features that Biloxi has.
So Ron is kinda correct here. A county should run their own mess. If they've screwed up...they can blame their own local guys for the problem....not some state guy or twenty-two other counties who went against them in a election.
Just my two cents.
One of the chief items of discussion in Bama always circles around casinos and the wet/dry issue. Don't ask why...it's just a Bama thing.
So there is this Democratic governor candidate out there....Ron Sparks...who put the topic of casinos on the table. He believes that only the folks in Mobile County....can decide their fate on casinos. He wants the voters there to decide whether they want casino gambling or not.
What he's suggesting is a state constitutional amendment change....letting the local decide their own fate. In his own words: "If you want it, you can vote it in. You don't, vote it out. But I don't want somebody in north Alabama telling Mobile County that you can't have casino gambling in Mobile. I don't want somebody -- because they know how close you are to Biloxi -- trying to stop you."
Ron is currently the state agriculture commissioner...and I've noted two or three smart things over the past four years that he's said. He's not a rocket scientist but he does display a fair amount of wisdom.
Naturally, his democratic opposition has hinted that only the "public" can make such a suggestion and we should go slow. The Republicans? Well...it's hellfire and damnation, don't you know...if you sign up for casinos. They will naturally make their Baptist voters happy and hope that just enough carry the weight in the state election.
Here's the bottom line on casinos and booze in Bama. If you sit there and think that a dry county and a "no" to casinos protect your values and your neighbors....you are wrong.
If you neighbor wants a drink...he will travel across your county and to the county or state line to have a sip. He might even bring back a case of whiskey so he doesn't have to drive next week. The taxes off this....go to that county or that state. So any profit that your county could have enjoyed or used for more parks or school supplies or road repair...went elsewhere.
The topic of casinos works the same. You want to protect your neighbor....well, sit back and watch them pack up for the weekend and travel to Biloxi. If they want to gamble...they will do so. The profits and taxes made off them? Heck...they keep it in Biloxi. They build great roads, toss extra money into schools, and buy more computers for local libraries. You? Well...you keep complaining about higher property taxes and then you want all the features that Biloxi has.
So Ron is kinda correct here. A county should run their own mess. If they've screwed up...they can blame their own local guys for the problem....not some state guy or twenty-two other counties who went against them in a election.
Just my two cents.
The Czars
There are 44 Presidential Czars. Well...some are Czarinas (the female version).
I found this list yesterday. Pretty nifty. They all work for the White House....not any Cabinet post.
I sat and pondered over the list. You would think that the President would need to talk and communicate with these guys at least once a week. My honest guess? They might get one original meeting where he details his secret strategy....and dismisses them. They likely send a weekly status report to the White House Chief of Staff, which he pulls one comment out and briefs the President.
In the months or years after their appointment....they might get one 5-minute meeting with the president every six months. It's probably a sandwich buffet assembly where they all get a bar-b-q plate, a bag of chips, a ice tea, some ice cream, and fresh salted peanuts.
The neat thing is that if the President know anything about a certain subject....he just calls these guys up and chats with them for three minutes....then gets smart. Maybe that's a plus in today's society.
The neat thing is that most of them all take in a $150k salary....get a personal staff....some travel budget....a car or two.....and a chance to hang out in DC every month.
1. Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar, Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS czar, Jeffrey Crowley
3. Auto recovery czar, Ed Montgomery
4. Behavioral science czar, position not yet filled
5. Bailout czar, Herbert Allison Jr., [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
6. Border czar, Alan Bersin
7. Car czar, Ron Bloom [Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury , under Senate oversight]
8. Climate change czar, Todd Stern
9. Copyright czar, not appointed yet
10. Counterterrorism czar, John Brennan
11. Cybersecurity czar, position will be vacant on August 21st [upon the departure of Melissa Hathaway]
12. Disinformation czar, Linda Douglass
13. Domestic violence czar, Lynn Rosenthal
14. Drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske
15. Economic czar, Larry Summers
16. Economic czar number two, Paul Volcker
17. Education czar, Arne Duncan
18. Energy czar, Carol Browner
19. Food czar, Michael Taylor
20. Government performance czar, Jeffrey Zients
21. Great Lakes czar, Cameron Davis
22. Green jobs czar, empty as of this weekend
23. Guantanamo closure czar, Daniel Fried
24. Health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
25. Infotech czar, Vivek Kundra
26. Intelligence czar, Dennis Blair [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position. He is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral]
27. Latin-American czar, Arturo Valenzuela
28. Mideast peace czar, George Mitchell
29. Mideast policy czar, Dennis Ross
30. Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg
31. Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein
32. Religion czar, aka God czar Joshua DuBois
33. Safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings
34. Science czar, John Holdren
35. Stimulus oversight czar, Earl Devaney
36. Sudan czar, J. Scott Gration
37. TARP czar, Elizabeth Warren
38. Technology czar, Aneesh Chopra
39. Trade czar, Ron Kirk
40. Urban affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion
41. War czar, Douglas Lute
42. Water czar, David J. Hayes
43. Weapons czar, Ashton Carter
44. Weapons of mass destruction czar, Gary Samore
I found this list yesterday. Pretty nifty. They all work for the White House....not any Cabinet post.
I sat and pondered over the list. You would think that the President would need to talk and communicate with these guys at least once a week. My honest guess? They might get one original meeting where he details his secret strategy....and dismisses them. They likely send a weekly status report to the White House Chief of Staff, which he pulls one comment out and briefs the President.
In the months or years after their appointment....they might get one 5-minute meeting with the president every six months. It's probably a sandwich buffet assembly where they all get a bar-b-q plate, a bag of chips, a ice tea, some ice cream, and fresh salted peanuts.
The neat thing is that if the President know anything about a certain subject....he just calls these guys up and chats with them for three minutes....then gets smart. Maybe that's a plus in today's society.
The neat thing is that most of them all take in a $150k salary....get a personal staff....some travel budget....a car or two.....and a chance to hang out in DC every month.
1. Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar, Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS czar, Jeffrey Crowley
3. Auto recovery czar, Ed Montgomery
4. Behavioral science czar, position not yet filled
5. Bailout czar, Herbert Allison Jr., [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
6. Border czar, Alan Bersin
7. Car czar, Ron Bloom [Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury , under Senate oversight]
8. Climate change czar, Todd Stern
9. Copyright czar, not appointed yet
10. Counterterrorism czar, John Brennan
11. Cybersecurity czar, position will be vacant on August 21st [upon the departure of Melissa Hathaway]
12. Disinformation czar, Linda Douglass
13. Domestic violence czar, Lynn Rosenthal
14. Drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske
15. Economic czar, Larry Summers
16. Economic czar number two, Paul Volcker
17. Education czar, Arne Duncan
18. Energy czar, Carol Browner
19. Food czar, Michael Taylor
20. Government performance czar, Jeffrey Zients
21. Great Lakes czar, Cameron Davis
22. Green jobs czar, empty as of this weekend
23. Guantanamo closure czar, Daniel Fried
24. Health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
25. Infotech czar, Vivek Kundra
26. Intelligence czar, Dennis Blair [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position. He is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral]
27. Latin-American czar, Arturo Valenzuela
28. Mideast peace czar, George Mitchell
29. Mideast policy czar, Dennis Ross
30. Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg
31. Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein
32. Religion czar, aka God czar Joshua DuBois
33. Safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings
34. Science czar, John Holdren
35. Stimulus oversight czar, Earl Devaney
36. Sudan czar, J. Scott Gration
37. TARP czar, Elizabeth Warren
38. Technology czar, Aneesh Chopra
39. Trade czar, Ron Kirk
40. Urban affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion
41. War czar, Douglas Lute
42. Water czar, David J. Hayes
43. Weapons czar, Ashton Carter
44. Weapons of mass destruction czar, Gary Samore
The Olbermann War
It's better to sit at a distance from the US and watch various daily comic acts on display.
Apparently, Keith (The Lesser) Olbermann from MSNBC has declared some kind of "Olbermann-war" on Fox's Glenn Beck.
Keith put out the word...he wants leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his tv enablers, Ailes.
About two or three times a week....I might watch a video clip of Beck. Half the time....it's pretty wild stuff...not for the weak of heart. He's kinda like Rush...in that I can only take about twenty minutes of Rush before I turn the radio off. You can get overdosed on this stuff and forget reality.
The amusing thing here...is that Olbermann is basically turning his show into a report on other journalists show. Only an observation here...but weren’t journalists and news men supposed to go out and find news...then report it? Then here in this situation...the journalist wants to reports news on other journalists? If I were the director of the MSNBC news division...I’d start to scratch my head...I’ve broken the first rule of journalism.
So when Olbermann is finished with Beck and his staff...and he’s gotten full accomplishment off this...does he turn his entire news show into some kind of anti-journalism nightly report? Pick on Rush then, or that Hannity kid.
Frankly, why would any idiot company sponsor some nightly news show...that has an entire game plan of talking about other journalists?
What if ESPN did this....reporting strictly on sports columnists.....and dumped sports news?
What if the View started talking about themselves daily...rather than things going on in the world?
What if 60 Minutes started reporting on other 1-hour news shows?
What if Time started to report on Newsweek? Oh....yeah....they already do that.
Something is wrong here...but the last person to figure this out...is a journalist...which says alot.
Apparently, Keith (The Lesser) Olbermann from MSNBC has declared some kind of "Olbermann-war" on Fox's Glenn Beck.
Keith put out the word...he wants leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his tv enablers, Ailes.
About two or three times a week....I might watch a video clip of Beck. Half the time....it's pretty wild stuff...not for the weak of heart. He's kinda like Rush...in that I can only take about twenty minutes of Rush before I turn the radio off. You can get overdosed on this stuff and forget reality.
The amusing thing here...is that Olbermann is basically turning his show into a report on other journalists show. Only an observation here...but weren’t journalists and news men supposed to go out and find news...then report it? Then here in this situation...the journalist wants to reports news on other journalists? If I were the director of the MSNBC news division...I’d start to scratch my head...I’ve broken the first rule of journalism.
So when Olbermann is finished with Beck and his staff...and he’s gotten full accomplishment off this...does he turn his entire news show into some kind of anti-journalism nightly report? Pick on Rush then, or that Hannity kid.
Frankly, why would any idiot company sponsor some nightly news show...that has an entire game plan of talking about other journalists?
What if ESPN did this....reporting strictly on sports columnists.....and dumped sports news?
What if the View started talking about themselves daily...rather than things going on in the world?
What if 60 Minutes started reporting on other 1-hour news shows?
What if Time started to report on Newsweek? Oh....yeah....they already do that.
Something is wrong here...but the last person to figure this out...is a journalist...which says alot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)