Howdy, Everybody;
My wife and I went on a visit to New York City in July 2007, to spend some time with our son. Talk about culture shock! From what passes for rural living in East Texas to probably the densest city in the United States. Educational.
Disclaimer: We only visited Astoria, and areas south of West 72nd Street. If anything I say here is not true elsewhere in NYC, please forgive me. We flew in on a Wednesday and flew out on the following Sunday, so exposure was not all-inclusive or complete by any means. Also affecting my perspective, is the fact that I am an introvert. What follows is a lot of random observations. Before you get mad, read the whole thing. Also, bear in mind that some of what sounds critical is actually just observation, and itself is part of the experience of going.
The people in New York City are an incredible mix of races, religions, nationalities, ages, physical types, languages, and you-name-it. Walking along most major avenues, or riding the subways, you will frequently hear several different languages. New Yorkers have a bit different perspective on personal space. When walking it is usually easy to find a way through the crowd, although you will do a lot of weaving. On subways you will frequently be standing very close to other people, as if you were in an elevator. And yet, in the subways and elsewhere, most of the time no one will meet your eyes or greet you. And any time a group goes through a constriction, such as a door or the stairs at the subway, you will be in contact with those around you. Nobody thinks twice about this. So far as I saw, people are pretty forgiving of bumps and shoves. But I carried my wallet in my front pants pocket.
I noticed that, walking down the street, you will see lots more New Yorkers smoking, than in East Texas. In the same block you might see evening dress on down to rags. I saw two or three people living in boxes on the sidewalk, and another time we saw a homeless person sleeping in the famous 'Love' sign. We stood in front of him to get our picture taken with the sign.
Most of the shops are old, small, many are multi-floor, and yet they do have quality goods generally. For instance, Thursday morning we had breakfast at a bagel shop on the corner - pick your stuff, pay for it, go upstairs to eat while watching the street. The guy who takes your money is polite until he gets it and makes change, but after that he has no more time for you. Next! Prices are generally high - I paid between $5 and $6 for each of three different milk shakes. Bottled water from the numerous street vendors sells for between $2 and $4 a bottle. Hotels and apartments are expensive.
The pavement is dirty unless it is new. Amazing used bubble gum patterns. In the morning, fetid, stinking steam rises from the sewer gratings. And taxi drivers are crazy - one of them told us so.
Subways actually surprised me at how effective they are at getting you from one place to another. You buy a metro card for the time you need, and ride the subways or busses. In the many places we went, guided by our son, most of the time you were within a block or two of a subway station at either end. Generally the wait is not excessive, and it is an effective way to get around. The subway cars are not excessively dirty, and bless them, they are air conditioned. Some are newer than others, and the noise level varies. About one in three people have an iPod stuck in their ear. Nobody meets your eyes. The major killer for me was the walking. I weigh about 260 pounds; after you ride 5 or 6 subways in a day, you've gone up and down numerous stairs, plus the walking at both ends - you're doing a lot of work. So I think the natives are probably generally in better shape than yours truly, who has a desk job.
Central Park is very well done. Everything is mowed, lots of rock formations with glacier scars, grassy areas, trees, paved paths, fountains, benches, very nice. Squirrels and birds are not afraid of people. Hint -you cannot feed just one bird. If you try, you get a flock. Like the city, a wild mix of people come by, if you sit for a while. One individual was either deranged or high, walked by, talking loudly to himself. Don't make eye contact with crazy people. (Maybe that's why nobody else makes eye contact! They think I'm crazy!)
There are some things in NYC that just aren't anywhere else. And some of the things that are elsewhere are done with more class in NYC. For instance, the Apple store under the glass cube is really, really cool.
In no particular order, I was very impressed with Central Park; the view from the observation deck of the Rockefeller Center; the Statue of Liberty; the Museum of Natural History; the Brooklyn Bridge; the St. Patrick Cathedral; and the city itself. The city seems to have taken care to have little parks and fountains, or cozy little places with benches, randomly located in each neighborhood so that it feels like a lived in place - not just all brick and mortar. Each of these things really needs it's own article, but that will have to wait.
Oh, yeah, we went to see the Blue Man Group. Absolutely awesome - highly recommended.
All in all, I am glad we went, and we'll probably go again. We had a good time. After this experience, I think everybody should go there at least once - it's a whole different world.
To be continued...
-Pop
Monday, July 16, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
My Dad - the Back Fence
Howdy, Friends;
Once, when I was 14 or 15 years old, I was spending a summer day helping my Dad and a couple of other guys put a barbed-wire fence down the back side of the property. This fence was in a heavily wooded and grown up area, so the method involved walking down the fence line with a chain saw cutting everything in the way, to make a road big enough for the truck. We'd do this maybe 100 yards at a time, then go back for the truck. Once we got to the end, we'd string wire and use the truck to throw off posts, etc.
Anyhow, at one rest period I got sent back for the truck. It was a red GMC truck, probably at that time 5 or 6 years old, bought used. I was driving it to where everybody else was resting, and I went in between two little tree stumps left from our cutting. Unfortunately, they were about two inches too close together. I got out to see how bad the damage was, and saw that I had wrinkled the sheet metal down both sides of the truck. Dad was going to kill me, no doubt about it.
So, fearing for my life, I proceeded with the truck to where Dad was sitting at the foot of a tree, having a beer. I pulled up across from him and got out, walked over to him.
I said, "Dad, see the sheet metal on the side of your truck?". He said, in a grim voice, "Yep."
I said, "Well, the other side looks just like it."
He got to laughing so hard that he never punished me for it.
I told you that one, so I could tell you this one.
Much, much later, my son Richard was learning to drive. I think he was probably 14 or 15. He had reached the point of soloing in our big yard, in my Ford Ranger, and he was sort of circling the house and my mother's mobile home. I had gone inside for a minute, but happened to be looking out the back window as he came around the mobile home. He cut it a little close and clipped the tongue of the trailer with the side of the truck, putting a little dent behind the door. Shook the mobile home pretty well, too. Of course he stopped to check the damage.
I came out the back door, laughing, and he got mad (I think) because he thought I was laughing at him. But I was actually laughing because I had done the same dang thing, pretty much, twenty-some-odd years before, and I thought it was hilarious. Maybe it's genetic, thought I.
When young people are first learning to drive, you just have to expect this kind of thing. Getting mad about it doesn't help - it's part of the job description of a parent to be patient about this kind of thing. Neither he, nor I, set out to dent the various trucks - it just takes some practice to learn how to judge that sort of thing.
Be patient with your kids.
-Pop
Once, when I was 14 or 15 years old, I was spending a summer day helping my Dad and a couple of other guys put a barbed-wire fence down the back side of the property. This fence was in a heavily wooded and grown up area, so the method involved walking down the fence line with a chain saw cutting everything in the way, to make a road big enough for the truck. We'd do this maybe 100 yards at a time, then go back for the truck. Once we got to the end, we'd string wire and use the truck to throw off posts, etc.
Anyhow, at one rest period I got sent back for the truck. It was a red GMC truck, probably at that time 5 or 6 years old, bought used. I was driving it to where everybody else was resting, and I went in between two little tree stumps left from our cutting. Unfortunately, they were about two inches too close together. I got out to see how bad the damage was, and saw that I had wrinkled the sheet metal down both sides of the truck. Dad was going to kill me, no doubt about it.
So, fearing for my life, I proceeded with the truck to where Dad was sitting at the foot of a tree, having a beer. I pulled up across from him and got out, walked over to him.
I said, "Dad, see the sheet metal on the side of your truck?". He said, in a grim voice, "Yep."
I said, "Well, the other side looks just like it."
He got to laughing so hard that he never punished me for it.
I told you that one, so I could tell you this one.
Much, much later, my son Richard was learning to drive. I think he was probably 14 or 15. He had reached the point of soloing in our big yard, in my Ford Ranger, and he was sort of circling the house and my mother's mobile home. I had gone inside for a minute, but happened to be looking out the back window as he came around the mobile home. He cut it a little close and clipped the tongue of the trailer with the side of the truck, putting a little dent behind the door. Shook the mobile home pretty well, too. Of course he stopped to check the damage.
I came out the back door, laughing, and he got mad (I think) because he thought I was laughing at him. But I was actually laughing because I had done the same dang thing, pretty much, twenty-some-odd years before, and I thought it was hilarious. Maybe it's genetic, thought I.
When young people are first learning to drive, you just have to expect this kind of thing. Getting mad about it doesn't help - it's part of the job description of a parent to be patient about this kind of thing. Neither he, nor I, set out to dent the various trucks - it just takes some practice to learn how to judge that sort of thing.
Be patient with your kids.
-Pop
My Dad - the Gas Tank
Howdy Everybody;
My dad was a welder, and he definitely had his own way about him.
Once, when my oldest boy was somewhat less than two years old, I had reason to walk down to my dad's shop to talk to him about something or other. I was carrying Richard, because the ground and debris down there wouldn't be safe for a child.
I was standing there talking to dad while he was working on a truck for somebody. The body was off the truck, and it looked like maybe the frame of a pulp-wood truck, being a dually on the back and kind of a long frame on it.
Anyhow, he was trying to get the gas tank off the frame. It was on the inside of the frame, bolted through the frame with a big nut on the outside. He was working on it with a box-end wrench, and not having much luck. While we were talking, he throws down the wrench and reaches around and puts on his cutting goggles. Then he picks up his torch and ignites it.
I said, "Dad? Are you planning on cutting that bolt off that gas tank there?" and he said "Yes, why?".
I said "Wait a minute."
And I carried Richard out away from the shop, about 50 or 60 feet away in the driveway. I turned around, and shouted at him, "OK - Go ahead!".
He looked at me; and he looked at his torch; and he looked at this gas tank. Then he cut off the torch, took his goggles off, and went and got a cold chisel to cut the nut off.
It's amazing he lived long enough to have children, much less grand-children.
-Pop
My dad was a welder, and he definitely had his own way about him.
Once, when my oldest boy was somewhat less than two years old, I had reason to walk down to my dad's shop to talk to him about something or other. I was carrying Richard, because the ground and debris down there wouldn't be safe for a child.
I was standing there talking to dad while he was working on a truck for somebody. The body was off the truck, and it looked like maybe the frame of a pulp-wood truck, being a dually on the back and kind of a long frame on it.
Anyhow, he was trying to get the gas tank off the frame. It was on the inside of the frame, bolted through the frame with a big nut on the outside. He was working on it with a box-end wrench, and not having much luck. While we were talking, he throws down the wrench and reaches around and puts on his cutting goggles. Then he picks up his torch and ignites it.
I said, "Dad? Are you planning on cutting that bolt off that gas tank there?" and he said "Yes, why?".
I said "Wait a minute."
And I carried Richard out away from the shop, about 50 or 60 feet away in the driveway. I turned around, and shouted at him, "OK - Go ahead!".
He looked at me; and he looked at his torch; and he looked at this gas tank. Then he cut off the torch, took his goggles off, and went and got a cold chisel to cut the nut off.
It's amazing he lived long enough to have children, much less grand-children.
-Pop
Examine the Evidence!
Howdy, Friends!
It is important to make decisions and select belief systems based on as much factual information as you can get your brain around. The facts are your guide to understanding what is around you.
Apply critical thought, and do the research required to understand the subject at hand. For instance, take the age of the earth. Many Christian fundamentalists think the earth is only a few thousands of years old. They base this on conclusions drawn by theologians without any science involved at all. This is, however, a belief, a wish, and is not supported by observed fact. To disagree with mainstream science about such a topic (which says that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old) is not reasonable. (Remember, the church was also absolutely convinced (wrongly) that the sun rotated around the earth, to the point of executing people who studied the subject and came to have a different view.)
If a person is going to have an informed opinion on the subject of the age of the earth, he should take the time to study where the 4.54 billion year figure came from. Study the methods of measurement used. Look at the consensus view among geologists who study this subject for a living. Get into it deeply enough that you understand the basis for that view. If you find dissenting views, study them to see if they have any scientific basis (in this case, I haven't seen any). Do all this before you commit to a decision. Then, if you really are convinced that all those scientists are, every one of them, wrong, you are prepared to argue your case. But it is far more likely that you will come to accept the general view of the age of the earth, if you pursue this honestly. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this view.
Please note also that there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the long age of the earth - it is possible without straining to reconcile everything in the Bible with observed scientific fact. Or at least, I have found it to be so.
Somebody, somewhere, is going to say, "What about miracles?". Now, Biblical miracles are, individually, one of two things - either they are exercises of unfamiliar phenomena that do not contradict the physical laws of the universe, or they are the real McCoy - God himself reaching into our universe and changing things. And, guess what? True science does not have an opinion about miracles. Because they are, lets admit it, pretty difficult to study.
So, science is incapable of ruling out miracles. Good thing, because I choose to believe in miracles. Some scientists will refuse to believe in them, and that's their call - but if they are honest as scientists, they will admit that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of miracles or God.
Science is like a flashlight in your hand, in a huge dark cavern. Whatever can be illuminated with the flashlight of science is well lit, and can be examined and learned about. Wherever the flashlight can't reach, or isn't pointed at, is unknown. Science is a good tool for learning about the universe, but it cannot ever rule out the existence of things outside it's reach. Such as the existence of God.
By the same token, any belief in God has to tolerate the findings of science, unless it can be shown, using scientific methods, that the prevailing scientific view is wrong.
This is because the methods employed by science do work effectively. Any hypothesis or theory put forth by science is subject to change or removal by the addition of new facts which alter the original view. Therefore, dissenting views can be expressed - if you can back them up with observation and fact. And, in God's universe, when all is said and done, science will illuminate God's creation with the light of truth.
Until next time -
Pop
It is important to make decisions and select belief systems based on as much factual information as you can get your brain around. The facts are your guide to understanding what is around you.
Apply critical thought, and do the research required to understand the subject at hand. For instance, take the age of the earth. Many Christian fundamentalists think the earth is only a few thousands of years old. They base this on conclusions drawn by theologians without any science involved at all. This is, however, a belief, a wish, and is not supported by observed fact. To disagree with mainstream science about such a topic (which says that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old) is not reasonable. (Remember, the church was also absolutely convinced (wrongly) that the sun rotated around the earth, to the point of executing people who studied the subject and came to have a different view.)
If a person is going to have an informed opinion on the subject of the age of the earth, he should take the time to study where the 4.54 billion year figure came from. Study the methods of measurement used. Look at the consensus view among geologists who study this subject for a living. Get into it deeply enough that you understand the basis for that view. If you find dissenting views, study them to see if they have any scientific basis (in this case, I haven't seen any). Do all this before you commit to a decision. Then, if you really are convinced that all those scientists are, every one of them, wrong, you are prepared to argue your case. But it is far more likely that you will come to accept the general view of the age of the earth, if you pursue this honestly. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this view.
Please note also that there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the long age of the earth - it is possible without straining to reconcile everything in the Bible with observed scientific fact. Or at least, I have found it to be so.
Somebody, somewhere, is going to say, "What about miracles?". Now, Biblical miracles are, individually, one of two things - either they are exercises of unfamiliar phenomena that do not contradict the physical laws of the universe, or they are the real McCoy - God himself reaching into our universe and changing things. And, guess what? True science does not have an opinion about miracles. Because they are, lets admit it, pretty difficult to study.
So, science is incapable of ruling out miracles. Good thing, because I choose to believe in miracles. Some scientists will refuse to believe in them, and that's their call - but if they are honest as scientists, they will admit that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of miracles or God.
Science is like a flashlight in your hand, in a huge dark cavern. Whatever can be illuminated with the flashlight of science is well lit, and can be examined and learned about. Wherever the flashlight can't reach, or isn't pointed at, is unknown. Science is a good tool for learning about the universe, but it cannot ever rule out the existence of things outside it's reach. Such as the existence of God.
By the same token, any belief in God has to tolerate the findings of science, unless it can be shown, using scientific methods, that the prevailing scientific view is wrong.
This is because the methods employed by science do work effectively. Any hypothesis or theory put forth by science is subject to change or removal by the addition of new facts which alter the original view. Therefore, dissenting views can be expressed - if you can back them up with observation and fact. And, in God's universe, when all is said and done, science will illuminate God's creation with the light of truth.
Until next time -
Pop
Friday, June 29, 2007
Changes in the Way the World Works
Hi, Everybody!
I've been thinking again. Watch out.
We are actually witnessing the beginning of a change in the way the world works. I haven't seen anyone else make this connection, but then it may be obvious to everybody but me.
Historically, there have been two major types of human organization on Earth. The first type is described by the concept of the nation. It has the following characteristics:
1. It is geographically fixed, with borders that normally do not move. You can find these borders on a map.
2. It is a group of people with a common goal to protect the nation in which they live, as an extension of self-defense. This is called nationalism, and in an individual is called patriotism.
3. Historically almost all wars were fought between these nations, up until about 20 years ago. These wars have generally been about either resources (including territory) or about ideology of government.
The second type of organization transcends national borders. They may have members in many countries. They have the following characteristics:
1. The organization has no fixed borders.
2. Members of these groups have an allegiance to the organization which sometimes exceeds the individual's allegiance to the country in which they live.
3. Most such organizations share some sort of belief system, or at least philosophy.
There are three major subspecies of this transnational type of organization. They are:
1. Terrorist organizations, such as Al Quaida
2. Regular religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church
3. Major international corporations, such as Exxon or Microsoft
Historically, transnational organizations have influenced national governments by political or financial leverage (such as is wielded by the Catholic Church or Microsoft).
However, we are now witnessing the manifestation of militant activist or terrorist transnational organizations which do and will continue to play a major part in the political life of the planet. These groups exert influence through force of arms, propaganda and outright control of certain conventional governments. They are extra-legal in the sense that, as an organization, they are not bound by the laws of any country; although their individual members are nominally bound by local law.
This 'paradigm shift' is radically changing the way politics works, as well as the way war is waged. As we have seen, conventional warfare works well against nations, but not so well when the enemy doesn't have borders. Different strategies will have to evolve. A nation fighting these borderless organizations is like a man swatting bees. You can swat a few, but it is very difficult to get them all. Note that these transnationals even have representation in our government (through their members who are in our government, or who vote), as well as directly controlling certain other governments, so even our internal political scene is affected. This is why unlimited (legal or illegal) immigration is such a bad idea.
It's similar to the mental shift that was a result of the American Revolution. Up until then, armies lined up in neat rows to shoot at each other. The colonists, on the other hand, shot from behind trees and rocks. The British thought this was not 'cricket', but they had to change the way they did things to accommodate this new tactic. Fortunately for us they didn't change their tactics until after the American Revolution was settled.
I don't know how this is going to play out, but the variety of different viewpoints present in our population, bolstered by legal and illegal immigration, and liberalism vs conservatism, is playing a part in it. It wasn't like this when I was a kid, but by the time I was in high school the near-universal disgust with the Vietnam War was causing the concept of patriotism to fall out of favor at that time. It became acceptable for a US citizen to criticize the US publicly. Up until that time, it was just 'understood' that the US was the best anywhere (still true) and almost nobody questioned it. The loss of consistency in a belief in the basic wholesomeness of our country leaves the door wide open for the growth of transnational terrorist organizations within our borders.
We're all in for a wild ride - you young people more than me. Good luck.
-Pop
I've been thinking again. Watch out.
We are actually witnessing the beginning of a change in the way the world works. I haven't seen anyone else make this connection, but then it may be obvious to everybody but me.
Historically, there have been two major types of human organization on Earth. The first type is described by the concept of the nation. It has the following characteristics:
1. It is geographically fixed, with borders that normally do not move. You can find these borders on a map.
2. It is a group of people with a common goal to protect the nation in which they live, as an extension of self-defense. This is called nationalism, and in an individual is called patriotism.
3. Historically almost all wars were fought between these nations, up until about 20 years ago. These wars have generally been about either resources (including territory) or about ideology of government.
The second type of organization transcends national borders. They may have members in many countries. They have the following characteristics:
1. The organization has no fixed borders.
2. Members of these groups have an allegiance to the organization which sometimes exceeds the individual's allegiance to the country in which they live.
3. Most such organizations share some sort of belief system, or at least philosophy.
There are three major subspecies of this transnational type of organization. They are:
1. Terrorist organizations, such as Al Quaida
2. Regular religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church
3. Major international corporations, such as Exxon or Microsoft
Historically, transnational organizations have influenced national governments by political or financial leverage (such as is wielded by the Catholic Church or Microsoft).
However, we are now witnessing the manifestation of militant activist or terrorist transnational organizations which do and will continue to play a major part in the political life of the planet. These groups exert influence through force of arms, propaganda and outright control of certain conventional governments. They are extra-legal in the sense that, as an organization, they are not bound by the laws of any country; although their individual members are nominally bound by local law.
This 'paradigm shift' is radically changing the way politics works, as well as the way war is waged. As we have seen, conventional warfare works well against nations, but not so well when the enemy doesn't have borders. Different strategies will have to evolve. A nation fighting these borderless organizations is like a man swatting bees. You can swat a few, but it is very difficult to get them all. Note that these transnationals even have representation in our government (through their members who are in our government, or who vote), as well as directly controlling certain other governments, so even our internal political scene is affected. This is why unlimited (legal or illegal) immigration is such a bad idea.
It's similar to the mental shift that was a result of the American Revolution. Up until then, armies lined up in neat rows to shoot at each other. The colonists, on the other hand, shot from behind trees and rocks. The British thought this was not 'cricket', but they had to change the way they did things to accommodate this new tactic. Fortunately for us they didn't change their tactics until after the American Revolution was settled.
I don't know how this is going to play out, but the variety of different viewpoints present in our population, bolstered by legal and illegal immigration, and liberalism vs conservatism, is playing a part in it. It wasn't like this when I was a kid, but by the time I was in high school the near-universal disgust with the Vietnam War was causing the concept of patriotism to fall out of favor at that time. It became acceptable for a US citizen to criticize the US publicly. Up until that time, it was just 'understood' that the US was the best anywhere (still true) and almost nobody questioned it. The loss of consistency in a belief in the basic wholesomeness of our country leaves the door wide open for the growth of transnational terrorist organizations within our borders.
We're all in for a wild ride - you young people more than me. Good luck.
-Pop
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Are All Politicians Corrupt?
Howdy, everybody;
Are all politicians corrupt? Probably not, but it does seem to be hard to find those that aren't. The Democrats, notably Pelosi and others, won the last mid-term election partly on the basis of Republican corruption. Their platform was 'end the war' and 'clean up corruption in congress'. Now it is obvious that the Democrats are just as bad or worse than the Republicans.
Pelosi wants special privileges regarding air travel for members of congress, to be paid by taxpayers. In some case military transport where none was required before, and in other cases adult children of members of congress - all paid by the taxpayer. Why are these people suddenly privileged? Don't these members of congress make enough money to buy their own tickets?
More important is the issue of earmarks in the process of creating bills in congress. The Democrats made a lot of noise about cleaning up earmarks, which are basically funding for pet projects of individual congress-critters that are tacked on to another more major piece of legislation, so that it gets passed along with the main bill in order to get anything done at all. This has been going on for a long time, and is a practice that should be outright abolished, as far as I am concerned. Instead of doing what they promised at mid-term, now the Democrats are making moves to not only protect earmarks, but to make it more difficult to prevent individual earmarks from being in the final bill. Basically they are trying to remove the right to debate individual earmarks before the bill goes to vote. Good grief! Besides that, Pelosi wants to rename earmarks to help hide them! How stupid does she think we are? It didn't take the Democrats long to get greedy.
Those are just two of many issues that I've come across in my reading. To be fair, I must state that I generally vote Republican even though I am not a member of that party. But I've about had it with the two-faced performance of the Democrats in the short time they've been in office. Besides being ineffectual - something like 108 days to pass a war funding bill because of playing politics - they say what they think you want to hear, then do whatever they want. And they think we're too stupid to notice!
I'm tired of the dishonesty in our government.
The nice thing about being an American is that we get to make up our own minds about this kind of thing. So far. But we do need to pay attention to what the congress-critters are doing, or that may not be true forever.
-Pop
Are all politicians corrupt? Probably not, but it does seem to be hard to find those that aren't. The Democrats, notably Pelosi and others, won the last mid-term election partly on the basis of Republican corruption. Their platform was 'end the war' and 'clean up corruption in congress'. Now it is obvious that the Democrats are just as bad or worse than the Republicans.
Pelosi wants special privileges regarding air travel for members of congress, to be paid by taxpayers. In some case military transport where none was required before, and in other cases adult children of members of congress - all paid by the taxpayer. Why are these people suddenly privileged? Don't these members of congress make enough money to buy their own tickets?
More important is the issue of earmarks in the process of creating bills in congress. The Democrats made a lot of noise about cleaning up earmarks, which are basically funding for pet projects of individual congress-critters that are tacked on to another more major piece of legislation, so that it gets passed along with the main bill in order to get anything done at all. This has been going on for a long time, and is a practice that should be outright abolished, as far as I am concerned. Instead of doing what they promised at mid-term, now the Democrats are making moves to not only protect earmarks, but to make it more difficult to prevent individual earmarks from being in the final bill. Basically they are trying to remove the right to debate individual earmarks before the bill goes to vote. Good grief! Besides that, Pelosi wants to rename earmarks to help hide them! How stupid does she think we are? It didn't take the Democrats long to get greedy.
Those are just two of many issues that I've come across in my reading. To be fair, I must state that I generally vote Republican even though I am not a member of that party. But I've about had it with the two-faced performance of the Democrats in the short time they've been in office. Besides being ineffectual - something like 108 days to pass a war funding bill because of playing politics - they say what they think you want to hear, then do whatever they want. And they think we're too stupid to notice!
I'm tired of the dishonesty in our government.
The nice thing about being an American is that we get to make up our own minds about this kind of thing. So far. But we do need to pay attention to what the congress-critters are doing, or that may not be true forever.
-Pop
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Rainbows and Rain
Howdy, Everybody;
Day before yesterday, my wife and I saw a double rainbow! We were in the local Walmart parking lot. The primary rainbow was a full rainbow, and the secondary was a really bright 1/8 of the arc on the right side, and for a moment or two very faint arc on the left side as well. The left side of the secondary faded quickly, but the right was bright for quite a while.
That's probably the second or maybe third double rainbow I've ever seen, so I thought it was notable. There are things in the universe worth marveling over, even if we do know how they are created.
Yesterday, we had weird rain. We were sitting on the front porch enjoying the evening, facing out towards the highway. It began a very light rain - on a patch of our yard to the left, maybe 50 feet across. No rain to the right, no rain to the far left - just this patch. The weird thing about it was that it was stable for maybe five minutes. I've never seen in do that before, although once when I was a kid, it was raining on one side of the house and not the other. But just to rain in one spot for five minutes or so - remarkable!
I wonder what's next?
-Pop
Day before yesterday, my wife and I saw a double rainbow! We were in the local Walmart parking lot. The primary rainbow was a full rainbow, and the secondary was a really bright 1/8 of the arc on the right side, and for a moment or two very faint arc on the left side as well. The left side of the secondary faded quickly, but the right was bright for quite a while.
That's probably the second or maybe third double rainbow I've ever seen, so I thought it was notable. There are things in the universe worth marveling over, even if we do know how they are created.
Yesterday, we had weird rain. We were sitting on the front porch enjoying the evening, facing out towards the highway. It began a very light rain - on a patch of our yard to the left, maybe 50 feet across. No rain to the right, no rain to the far left - just this patch. The weird thing about it was that it was stable for maybe five minutes. I've never seen in do that before, although once when I was a kid, it was raining on one side of the house and not the other. But just to rain in one spot for five minutes or so - remarkable!
I wonder what's next?
-Pop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
