Tag Politics

Read any good books lately?

Michael 3 Comments

There have been a lot of stories this year regarding book banning in America’s schools. Legislature has been presented in seven states and parents have approached dozens of school districts specifically to remove specific volumes or entire categories of books from school libraries. Legislation was introduced in Florida to not limit challenges to school library holdings to parents but allowing any individual to challenge any holding. In Texas, Llano County Commissioners Court forced the closure of the local public library (public library!) so librarians could review all reading material for their younger readers to make sure books are age appropriate. That’s just this year. And it’s only March. That’s following up on a flurry of year end interest around books and children. According to NPR, Texas State Representative Matt Krause put more than 850 books on a watch list, targeting materials he feels “might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex.” (npr.org, “A Texas lawmaker is targeting 850 books that he says could make students feel uneasy,” Oct. 28, 2021.) No word on whether he read those books.

Questioning whether the Honorable (Ha!) Krause read all 800+ books on his list isn’t me being ornery as usual. It’s a legitimate question. Not just by me but legitimized by those in the know. Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director for the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom said in a recent interview, “We’re now seeing challenges pop up based solely on social media posts. A video gets posted of a parent complaining at a school board meeting, and within days, we see challenges across the country using the same reasons. People are complaining because they saw it on social media, not because they actually engaged with the book.” (Triblive.com, “Book challenges are becoming more frequent, driven in part by social media,” March 14, 2022.)

My concern isn’t about the books being challenged. Book challenges and banning have been going on basically since there were books. It’s the way these challenges are being conducted. Small numbers of individuals uneducated in the library sciences making noisy demands of schools to conform to their (the uneducated small number of individuals’) idea of decorum based on what other uneducated small number of individuals are writing on Facebook, et.al.. In a recent CNN poll, only 12% of Americans believed parents “should have the most sway over which library books are on the shelves” and twice as many felt teachers and school personnel should have more control over library content. (cnn.com, “CNN Poll: Economy and education could shape how Americans vote in 2022,” Feb. 11, 2022.) In the past, challenges were based on the challenger’s personal experience with the book (that means he/she/it actually read the book) and may have actually been able to intelligently debate the content of the book and verbalize why he/she/it felt it (the book) was inappropriate. Now, the majority of challenges are opposing titles simply because they are on some list of ‘controversial’ books. I pointedly use “title” in that sentence because so often the title is all the “concerned” parent knows about the book.

There is no evidence that the current wave of book banning is accomplishing what I think the challengers to the titles are intending, that is a purge of all material contrary to their mores. I’m just not sure they know what their intentions are. Or possibly what mores are. And if anything, the publicity for these books, the classic titles and those barely known to anybody but the most dedicated librarians, has generated increased sales for the books.

We’ve seen when we let anybody with a computer and the ability to cut and paste how America responds to a global pandemic resulting in a death rate twice the rest of the worlds, how we’ve graciously accepted the transfer of power, and how we are politely carrying on primary election campaigns as we run up to the mid-term elections this fall. Perhaps the proposed bans shouldn’t be of books whose only intent is to encourage thought and generate intelligent discussion, we should instead be banning social media whose intent increasingly seems to be to pass off incomprehensible opinion as fact among those who never spent time in their school library back in the day when it was their school library.

Once upon a time they lived happily ever after (3)

RRSB Persons of the Year

Michael 7 Comments

Nearing the end of the year most everybody will be writing about the year in review (ugh) or resolutions (still ugh but perhaps not disgustingly so). I, because I am me, will embark on my own end of year tangent and instead, celebrate the RRSB First (and Likely Only) Persons of the Year Award.  Yes, you read that correctly – plural “Persons,” singular “Award.” My choice for outstanding individual of 2021 is two individuals.

After careless considerat…  err, careful consideration, I’ve concluded there are two people worthy enough to be the Person of the Year, umm Persons of the Year and they is, I mean are: (drum roll, fanfare, etc, etc), Washington’s newest power couple, Liz Chaney and Joe Manchin.

Yes, that is a match made in Purgatory but they, and as far as I can tell, they alone are the epitome of Representative of the People. There are 535 elected voting representatives in Washington, 100 Senators, 435 members of the House of Representatives. Of those 535 people, 533 are more comfortable voting however their party tells them rather than those who hired them for the job. Only Chaney and Manchin have to the point of loss of standing and threats of censure, voted as they felt best benefited their constituents rather than their party leaders.

Seriously, as we enter 2022 maybe our Congress needs to resolve to improve themselves and the first step is for all 535 of them to write 100 times “I represent the people who voted for me” on any handy blackboard. Then they can rip out the aisles running down the middle of each chamber in that big white building on the hill and rather than assigning seats by party, get all the representatives of each state to sit together like they did when Congress was a new idea back in 1700s. Committee assignments will be made by members’ ability and background and leadership positions will limited to those identified in the Constitution. Yeah, that’s a bunch of pipedreams but they make just as realistic set of resolutions as wanting to lose weight and exercise more, but a guy can dream.

Now, getting back to Joe and Liz, my Persons of the Year. I agree it’s a sad state of affairs when politicians are singled out for bucking the system but face it, if your reps are always voting however their party leader tells them, why are they there. Let’s eliminate 531 positions and leave just one Democrat and one Republican in each house and they can vote on everything by rock, paper, scissors. Makes as much sense as what they’ve gotten done this year their way.

Manchin-Chaney

The truth, the whole truth, and anything but the truth

Michael 1 Comment
Even in the midst of world wide crises, nation wide closures, and seeming interstate competition of who can develop the most animosity among neighboring states by being either ridiculously lenient or unnecessarily harsh with their approach to virus control, US Presidential elections go on and with them the quadrennial exercise in truth stretching, whopper telling, and general misrepresentation we call political ads.
 
My memory goes back only as far as the 1964 election (I was here for the ’56 and ’60 go ’rounds but I was more interested in the Ringling Brothers’ version of three ring circuses those years) but I can tell you without a doubt, to my knowledge the only occupant of the Oval Office to get there without casting aspersions on his opponent’s reputed good name was Gerald Ford.
 
I suspect it will be nastier than usual this year what with so many people having nothing better to do than to get on social media and join in with the professional besmirching. Truth goes out the window when people spend over 2 billion dollars (yes, that is a “b”) to get a temporary job than pays a mere $400,000 a year. (To give you a little perspective, that is less the minimum salary for all the major American sports leagues and well less than half the minimum NBA salary. As the old saying goes, but they had a better year.) 
 
You would think with that kind of money floating around people would be able to find something their candidate did right to qualify him or her for the position rather than using it to dig up what the opposition did wrong. Or often, to fabricate something that looks like wrong doing. As I wrote 4 years ago, there is actually a regulation that forbids any media outlet from vetting, editing, or refusing a Presidential political ad regardless of content. Truth. The Campaign Reform Act of 2002 takes pains to not mandate the veracity or any requirement to confirm the veracity of any claim made in a campaign ad. With the party conventions about a month away and the election another 3 months after that, the airways, social outlets, mailboxes, and road sides will soon be overflowing with effluent.
 
This is where I usually wrappings up with some pithy saying or on rare occasions actual insight. Sorry, but for this mess I got nothing. I’ll borrow a line from old TV. While you’re out on the mean and nasty streets of American politics in a Presidential election year, remember, be careful out there.
 
truth

Cleaning My Desk

Michael Leave a comment
Today is “Clean Out Your Desk Day” so I think I will. Before I get to the one in the corner I’ll clear out some of the mental clutter. I warn you right now that today’s thoughts cover politics, society, and religion so I’m sure to tick off everybody with something before you reach the end of this post. But if I missed you, please let me know in the comments section and I’ll be happy to try harder next time. 
—–
 
This morning’s news had an report of a toddler vaping. According to their release the Pennsylvania State Police received a “Snapchat-like video showing what looks like a young toddler taking a hit with the help of a woman, then the video shows the toddler sit down and take another hit. The camera then cuts to a shot of another woman laughing.” The women have been identified as high school students and the toddler is a two year old one of the girls was baby sitting for the evening. There’s just so much wrong with this. The obvious is you don’t give a baby something to smoke, vape, swallow, or inject. Then where did high school kids get vaping pens and solution since the legal age to buy vaping accessories and supplies in Pennsylvania is 21? (Yeah, I know, nobody enforces “legal age” before the fact for anything anywhere except alcohol and that often only poorly.) Last on my list but certainly just one off many more things wrong with this picture is why is it going out on social media? If there was not an audience for this type of behavior it wouldn’t be shared so blatantly. Are we are better off now than when teenagers lived in a “Leave it to Beaver” world?
..
Groundhog Day is the best holiday ever!
 
A local supermarket chain is joining the growing number of stores eliminating single use plastic bags, plastic food containers and plastic straws. A very positive step in the fight for the environment by reducing resources required to supply a disposable world and the impact on the world after their disposal. A word of caution though. Once you put a biodegradable item into a black plastic garbage bag you just threw away all your good effort. 
 
If your parents used to threaten you with no dessert until you ate your veggies don’t complain that Burger King is cooking plant burgers on the same grill as the real burgers. 
 
In the “Just Because You Can” drawer boy do I have a lot of things I bought on sale.
 
Have you seen the commercial where a guy walks away from the coffee shop register after paying for his latte with a debit card and a balloon pops up displaying “overdraft fee $35?” He opines that he wishes a bank existed that won’t keep charging him all these fees. His companion happily informed him that one does, the sponsor of that very ad they are in. Imagine that! No more annoying overdraft or any other fee – yay! Hey, I have a way to avoid overdraft fees too. Don’t spend money you don’t have! Schmuck.
 
Thank you Ricky Gervais.
 
Over the weekend Ontario officials apologized for sending a false emergency alert regarding an unspecified issue at an atomic power plant outside of Toronto. It was not the first time a government warned of impending peril that wasn’t there. Most recently in 2018 the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security apologized when an erroneous alert was distributed in Hawaii warning of incoming missiles. Maybe the world is getting used to false alarms. In Canada, Jonathan Davies noticed Sunday’s alert while he was driving but he waited until after he picked up his Tim Hortons to check the news. “I can’t cope with much until I have my coffee,” he was quoted in an Associate Press article. 
 
Today Pope Francis tweeted (yes he does, doesn’t everybody?), “it is not enough to be knowledgeable: unless we step out of ourselves, unless we worship, we cannot not know God.” Sound advice for all religions, all societies, and all people. It’s not enough to just think, if you want to matter you have to do.
 
Finally,  an oldie but goodie:  love thy neighbor, no exceptions!
—–
Okay, I think I’m ready to work on that other desk now. Altogether now,  go clean your desks!
.
20200113_102329.jpg

Seeing Isn’t Believing

Michael Leave a comment
It’s been a busy past couple of weeks. What days haven’t been spent at doctor appointments have been spent at dialysis,  then last Friday I made an unplanned trip to the outpatient surgery unit to have my fistula opened. Something I’ve taken note of on all these trips is how the view has changed on the same roads since the beginning of this month.
 
Thanks to the miracle of arbochemistry, and my decision to take residence along the hills and mountains of Western Pennsylvania, I’ve been treated to the increasingly colorful forests that can be seen from almost any road between here and there in the area. 
20171022_175903
 
Of course you do know that those oranges and reds that we wait for each fall are always in the leaves. We can’t see them in July because there is so much chlorophyll in the leaves that only its green is visible. As the air cools and the light fades less chlorophyll is produced, the camouflage is lifted, and those vibrant fiery colors come out of hiding. Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean those colors weren’t there last month. Don’t believe me? Ask your favorite tree.
 
Leaves aren’t there only things that hide all their colors. Across America Election Day is fast approaching. “Off year elections” it’s called. Some states are fortunate enough to have Governor or state house and row office elections this year. In a couple weeks here in Pennsylvania, like many states, all we will have to vote for are county, school district, and municipal offices. 
 
I haven’t seen one ad, recieved one post card, or heard one news story for any local office even though local government is the one that most closely touches people’s lives. But everywhere campaigning abounds. Just not for this year. There are all kinds of news about what’s coming up in a year and a couple weeks. Maybe that’s not such a bad thing though. As the campaign seasons change, support becomes cooler, and somebodies’ dreams fade, their veneer will be replaced by what was always there, just hidden from view by large quantities of camouflage. It could turn out to be quite fiery. How vibrant may be a different story.
.

Saving Congress

Michael 1 Comment

Did you get your deal on Amazon Prime Days. Maybe you picked picked up a special price on a Summer Black Friday at Best Buy. Or maybe you’re still cashing in on the Christmas in July savings at Target. As a consumer nation we are nothing if we aren’t a bunch of sheep.

That’s really not a horrible thing. I picked up a collector edition of a book I’ve been eyeing on a Thrift Books this week while grabbing a couple kitchen gadgets at Macy’s.com. Following the path of a bunch of other bargain hunters chasing sales thought up by other companies at another time of the year saved me over $70. That’s a month Internet service.

Unfortunately as a nation we are still a bunch of sheep when it comes to things like political alliances. I’m sure other than for George Washington and probably Gerald Ford, political mudslinging at our highest offices has been going on since the 1700s. (George and Jerry get excluded because neither one really had aspirations of becoming President as much as just were the benefactors (or victims) of circumstances. Recently though through the “miracle” of social media can the common man act as stupid as the ones we elect to office. In the years that started with a “1” it took organized efforts and multiple layers of volunteers to get people to believe their preferred politician was one miracle short of sainthood. Today that happens with blinding speed matched only by the efforts to convince followers that their least favorite politician is two steps ahead of the devil for the race to evil emperor.

We no longer care about right or wrong, truth or lie, sense or nonsense. If we read it on-line, particularly if it was posted by somebody we know well to have had a drink with or want to know well enough to buy a round of drinks for, we eat it up like sugar coated, double dipped, sprinkle laden ice cream in a waffle cone. I’m quite convinced many of not most of us know the tenets of the political party with which we identify or the actual background of its “stars players.” In my state a bill passed by the state legislature that, among other reforms including the purchase of new voting machines (which it could ill afford financially) was vetoed by the governor because it also called for the elimination of the single lever straight party voting option. Considering how Congress has itself voted with a straight party mentality for this century that shouldn’t have been a surprise coming from a politician.

I think I have a solution that can actually result in more amicable relations among all parties (apparent there actually are more than two), eliminate party voting mentality, and save us enough money to actually pay for things like health care, infrastructure, or education.

First we eliminate Congress. That’s not exactly right, we eliminate the Congressional presence in Washington. Since they have clearly demonstrated since 2001 that our elected officials – Representatives and Senators – vote en bloc however the leaders want them to vote there is no need for them in Washington. They can stay in their districts were they can actually serve the people by helping with disability forms, selecting Medicare supplement plans, and going to the occasional Fourth of July picnic. Back in Washington each house gets two representatives, one from each party who can hash out their own deals and compromises without the distraction of party rhetoric.

Second we forbid all elected officials from using social media and prepared press releases. If anybody wants to communicate with their constituents, and it is only their constituents they should be communicating with, they must do it in person. Because all but four representatives will be in their home districts that will not pose any burden. Further, if somebody already elected to an office wants to give up that office to run for another office, then he or she or other must actually give up their office. No ignoring their work so they can apply for another job.

Now here’s where the real fun stuff happens. Did you know the average average salary for the rank and file Congressman is $174,000. Majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate make $193,400. The Speaker of the House is the highest paid member of Congress at $223,500. (These are 2016 figures. A handful of websites reporting these salaries mention these salaries are comparable to mid-level managers in the private sector. They go on to say that Congress has not accepted a raise since 2009. I was firmly in the middle of mid level management and I can tell you I would have had to work almost two full years before I made $174,000 in 2009 dollars.) In addition, Congressmen are permitted to make up to 15% of their salary from outside salary sources like with the law firm they all seem to still belong to. There is no limit on non-salary sources of income such as interest, dividends, and honoraria. And of course they all get money to run their offices.

The staff allowance for members of the House of Representatives depends on the size of his district which is determined by the official U. S. Census but in 2016 the average allowance was $1,268,520. That’s not the total. That’s per representative. That’s almost 1.3 million dollars. Times 435 representatives that’s $551.8 million dollars. That’s over a half a billion dollars. For office expenses. Per year. Senators in 2016 averaged $3,306,570 allowance per Senator. The math here is pretty simple. That comes out to $330,657,000 for the full senate. Every year we spend over $882 million to staff representatives’ offices. If we eliminate half of their offices by limiting Congressional work to the local office that will save us $441 million.

And finally, because they all like to remind us of what our founding fathers meant when they said something, they should be paid like them. Not in 1789 dollars. That would be cruel. In 1789 a Senator only made $50 a day and had to cover his own expenses except for postage for official correspondence. They did get lunch though. Note that salary was not per year or per session, it was per day. Today’s Congress should be paid likewise. When a member shows up he or she or undecided can punch a clock and get paid for the days worked. Assuming 225 working days per year. That’s $773 per day. I think that’s more than fair. But since 2001 Congress has average only 138 legislative days per year the average Congressman can expect to take in about $107,000 per year. This will save us $35,845,000. Added to the $441 million we already saved we are now $477 million ahead.

That’s close enough to a half a billion for me. That’s about as much as the CDC gets for immunization research. Congress  might not still be worth the trouble they cause but maybe now we can find a cure for them!

Coming soon…Fixing the Presidency.

Capitol

An All American Special Edition

Michael Leave a comment

It’s not Monday. It’s not Thursday. Why is there a Real Reality post today? Because it’s Presidential Debate #3. Before you go running off, stick with me for just a minute. This is NOT a “political” post, it is NOT an endorsement, it is NOT a rant. It’s a plea to the American readers to stop and take a breath. I can’t take listening to the rants of everybody else – door knockers, phone callers, TV ads, political “experts,” and the so-call politicians themselves about how unfit these choices are.

Stop! I don’t care if you are fervently supporting one or the other, if you use your head and are truly honest to yourself, you see it too.

Look, every election from the second one has had at least one candidate harping on why the other candidate(s) is and/or are unfit for the office. But this has to be the first time that there have been NO ads by a candidate extolling past positive results by him or herself. If you were in the position to hire an employee for your workplace would you sit through an interview where the candidate never speaks to his or her past results but rather details the reasons why the other applicants are irresponsible choices and you shouldn’t have even ever considered them? Likewise, it you were applying for a job that comes with a guaranteed four year contract and the option for a similar extension, would you not probably spend as much time and energy as possible documenting your past work experience, successes, references, and plans for advancement?

For as many elections as I remember I have heard people say “I don’t like John Doe so I’m going to vote for Joe Smith.” But again, perhaps for the first time, are there television ads of people saying “I don’t agree with [fill in the blank, they’ve both run them], but I just can’t vote for [t’other one] so I’m going to vote for someone I really don’t care for either.” I’m sure when each party saw who the other party was going to nominate for president cheers went up around the wargames tables. And then when each party saw who their party was going to nominate for president eyebrows went up.

You know, there actually are other choices. On the presidential ballot in every state there will be a third candidate. Yep, if you really can’t see yourself brushing the touch screen (does anybody still have levers?) for Clinton or Trump you can consider Johnson. In at least 45 states (as of the end of last month, perhaps more by Election Day) you can also consider Stein. Don’t know who those other two are? You won’t see them on tonight’s debate any more than you’ll see any rational discussion of platforms, policies, or proposals. Plop them into your favorite search engine and search.

I meant what I said when I began this post. This is NOT an endorsement. I don’t mean to tell you that you should consider voting for a third, or a fourth party candidate. What I do mean to tell you is that if you are really going to make your vote count you better be making that vote based on something other than sound bites, attack ads, and non-debates. It takes more than just voting to do your civic duty. It takes casting an informed vote.

That’s what I think. Really. How ‘bout you?

Trust Me

Michael Leave a comment

Tonight, across America, viewers will be avoiding the season’s most unrequested multi-station premier of the new situation comedy, the U.S. Presidential Election Debate. Like all good comedies the magic starts with the scripts. Since this show was written primarily in Politispeak, the RRSB is thrilled to present to you this Politispeak-English dictionary. You may find it also handy for everyday use particularly if your day involves interactions with bosses, workers, children, parents, friends, siblings, enemies, or aliens (legal, illegal, or extraterrestrial).

 

We begin with some key phrases.

Connect the dots – I have no idea how these things go together but I’m pretty sure they are right, good, or otherwise suitable to whomever I am speaking so let’s go for broke and put all our eggs in one basket.

Hard work pays off -or- It takes hard work to get the job done – You do the work, I take the credit and/or reward, preferably monetary.

I approve this message – Although there is little if any truth in this message, my legal team tells me that there is little to nothing that anyone can prove is at all to completely untruthful.

I got your back – You really are gullible.

In all honesty – I have no idea what I’m talking about

No offense intended – You suck

People are our most important asset – People who agree with me are sort of tolerable; people who disagree with me are scum.

Together we can make a difference – I need your vote/approval to accomplish my personal goal. If you happen to get anything out of it, isn’t that a happy accident?

Trust me – Yeah, right.

What you think matters or Your opinion is important to me – You’re kidding me, right?

With all respect -Boy, you really suck!

With great power comes great responsibility – with great power come large book deals and obscenely high speaking fees.

 

In addition to key phrases, professional misleaders also rely on certain words to confuse, confound, or bewilder the listener.

Actually – “I haven’t given it any thought.” When a speaker uses “Actually” as in “this is actually what writers of the Constitution intended,” they are really saying “My advisers/handlers/trainers told me that this would be a good place to interject something thought provoking but I haven’t given it any thought myself.”  Everyday users probably recognize this as a common phrase uttered by spouses, partners, or persons otherwise of interest to yourself as in “That’s actually a good idea.”

But – Everything before the “But” is bullshit. Examples include, “You are the most wonderful person I have ever met, but I think it’s best if we never see each other again.”

Honestly – In its most basic meaning, everything after “Honestly” is bullshit as in “Honestly, I value your opinion.” Occasionally “But” and “Honestly” will be used together to create a compound incredulity. Thus, “I have the greatest respect for you but honestly I feel we need to explore this idea a little deeper” translates to “You suck and your idea does too.”

Really – When used to indicate degree of something positive as “I had a really good time,” the speaker means the opposite. To imply a good time was had, the correct phrase would be, “I had a good time.” Likewise, in Politispeak, “Really” interjected into an otherwise positive phrase such as, “I am really the best option,” means, “I question my own press releases.” Note that “Really” interjected in negative phrases can be successfully removed from the phrase without changing its meaning. “You really suck,” generally translates to “You suck.”

Seriously – When used as an adjective it means the opposite of what is being modified. For example, “This is a seriously important issue,” means “This has no bearing on life as we know it.” You may be more familiar with “this is seriously good coffee,” meaning “this coffee tastes like brown toilet water.” When used as an introduction, “Seriously“, connotes a desire for the listener to consider the speaker as a personal friend of the listener as, “Seriously, you can count on me.”

 

There you have it – the official, first ever Politispeak-English Dictionary. This is seriously the most fun I’ve had writing a post. I have researched this topic thoroughly but I’m sure there are some words or phrases I have left out. In all honesty, I value your opinion, so if you think of any really fabulous examples, add them in the comments section.  Actually I know our hard work will pay off and people will soon be able to completely understand what others are saying. Honestly, I look forward to continuing this discussion. Together we can make a difference. Trust me.

That’s what I think. Really. How ‘bout you?

 

The First Shall be Last

Michael Leave a comment

Now that the “major party” conventions are over the ads and pundits (neither having anything to do with reality) can begin. It was less than a week ago that news broadcasts, outlets, websites, feeds, and editors began remarking on the nation’s first woman candidate for president. Someone even went so far as to note that this fall, the US voters will get to cast ballots for their first woman, first outsider, or first third party president. And that on the heels of the outgoing first African-America president. Actually, none of those labels are correct. I’ll ‘splain that later. First, let’s look at some legitimate firsts that really have happened over this last year.

Actually the first first hasn’t officially happened yet but some games have already taken place and the opening ceremonies will take center stage tomorrow night in Rio. That first is the first Olympic games to be held in South America. The odds have been against that particular continent since the games re-appeared in 1896. That’s because South America is almost completely in the Southern Hemisphere. In the 120 year history of the modern Olympics this is only the third time the summer games have been held in the Southern Hemisphere. (The other two times have both been in Australia.) The Winter Olympics have never taken place south of the Equator.

The second first just happened in the past few days and it got very little press even within the United States which is odd since every news broadcast, outlet, website, etc., etc. was so big on talking about firsts. That news was that for the first time the Center for Disease Control released a travel advisory for within the US encouraging travelers not to do so in South Florida. They even came up with some suggestions for the people who live there – try to stay inside.

The third first is (and here let’s dispense with individually numbering each first and collectively address all the remaining firsts as “remaining firsts begin with”) Cuba now has wireless internet service for the first time. Sticking with computers, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a drug manufactured by 3D printing for the first time. (High dose Levetiracetam for epilepsy). Still with computers but heading back south, the Rio Olympics will be the first games where every event will be available somewhere on-line.  In entertainment of a different kind, a film grossed over 500 million dollars in its opening weekend for the first time (Jurassic World). And speaking of DNA (Jurassic World, remember) human trials on T-cell augmented cancer treatments using the body’s own cells to fight cancer began this year. And if you want to write about that and be grammatically correct while addressing a particular test subject without knowing his or her sex, you may now officially use the third person singular and not be chastised by your grade school English teacher.

So the next time you have to hear about the first woman running for president consider that there have been 5 women nominated by recognized political parties on general election ballots for president. In fact, 1884 the Equal Rights Party presented an all woman ticket for president and vice president. And the next time you have to hear about the first outsider running for president consider that four sitting presidents never held an elected position before being elected president. And when you next hear of how a third party candidate could win this year’s election consider that of the 44 elected presidents, only 30 have been republicans or democrats. One (Washington) had no party affiliation (and yes, there were political parties then), and one (Tyler) changed parties while in office.

If you should hear about any of these “firsts” feel free to mention to the speaker to not worry, there are lots of other real firsts going on all around us. All they have to do is pick their head out of their – ummm… All you have to do is look.

That’s what I think. Really. How ‘bout you?

Big Deposit, No Return – or – Politics as Usual

Michael Leave a comment

Thanks be to all that is holy – “Election 2014” is over!  Woohoo!  Now we can stop with the crazy television ads, incomprehensible radio ads, and unnerving street side campaign signs (although not far from He’s house is a hillside with signs from last fall’s election (yes, it was one of the losers (isn’t that always the case?)).  The questions have been put and answered who will “lead” for the next few years.  The big question (why them?) might never be answered.

No, this post has nothing to do with the politics of politics.  Rather, it’s the economics of politics we’re calling to our question.  Here’s a case in point.  The governor in our state will be making about $190,000 of our money every year for the 4 years he will serve.  That’s about $760,000 total.  He spent over $40 million to get that job, and according to the news, over $10 million of it was his own money.  Apparently he is pretty well off even without the nearly $200K annual stipend.  That means for his job search, he spent (of his own money) 13 times what he stands to make over the next four years.   That’s over 52 times what he spent of everybody’s money to get that job.  Hmmmmmm.  Is this really the man we want proposing a budget for the entire state?

Stop to think about you most recent job search.  If you are absolutely thrilled with your current position you probably still look to improve your standing every now and then.  If your current position pays you well enough that you could afford to spend $10 million looking for a new position we’d probably say that you are pretty thrilled and that current position is fairly secure.  Your search might include checking out an Internet job board or the careers pages of a company you have lusted over since you got into your field.  Total cash outlay, whatever you spend on computer or smart phone access which also includes your e-mail, general searches, everyday access to your favorite websites, blogs and videos, and the occasional cyber shopping trip.  A deal at maybe $500 for the year.  If you land a job that pays that same $190,000 our governor will make next year you would have spent less than one-quarter of one percent of your potential salary to make that new salary.  (You can propose our budget any time!  Have you thought of running for governor?)

Of course it could be that those willing to spend 52 times to get a job that pays what they stand to make in a year are looking at more than just a return on their investment.  For whatever reason, someone was weird enough to spend a whole lot of money to get a job that makes comparatively very little money (and not just his own money, he convinced others to let him spend millions of their dollars also).  And more people were weird enough to vote for that guy thinking that made a lot of sense.  Maybe it will.  We suppose we’ll find out in the next four years.

For now, it would be nice if they get those signs taken down.

Now that’s what we think. Really. How ‘bout you.