A sharp-shinned hawk who regularly visits my backyard feeders...and NOT to eat the seeds.
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
1 day ago
Friday, January 20, 2012
Photo Friday
Haven't posted a Friday photo in awhile, and it's still Friday. So here it is:
A sharp-shinned hawk who regularly visits my backyard feeders...and NOT to eat the seeds.
A sharp-shinned hawk who regularly visits my backyard feeders...and NOT to eat the seeds.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The Real Danger of TMI
"Television has proved that people will look at anything rather than each other." -- Ann Landers
This quote appeared on my Google home page this morning. I loved Ann Landers. I read her faithfully starting when I was about eleven years old. Eppie Lederer was a no-nonsense gal. Her down-to-earth sensibility and dry humor cut through the inflated drama of her readers’ concerns, re-prioritized their “it’s all about me!” perspectives and pointed them in the direction of common sense solutions to their problems. And I find her pronouncement on the dominant technology of her day succinct and prophetic.
I wonder what she would have thought about today’s technology? The technology that has chained any person under the age of thirty to a smart phone, iPad, laptop and/or MP3 player. Personal electronics have become as necessary as breathing to an entire generation. The obsessive dependence upon these things carries Landers’ assessment to a whole new level. Cel phone/text technology has proved that people would rather communicate with anyone rather than present company. And will slavishly employ these tools to save themselves from what must be a fate worse than death, since they will risk death to avoid it—being alone in the silent company of their own thoughts.
Human beings are complicated animals, prone to mystifying and contradictory behavior. We kill for pleasure while we prohibit “murder” on moral grounds. We enslave others while rigorously defending our own unqualified freedom. We crave community and reject it at the same time; how else to explain a pack of kids walking down the street with their noses glued to their phones instead of talking to each other? How else to explain the drive to accumulate hundreds of social media “friends,” yet not have one other person in the world who KNOWS you? I am mystified. I doubt that I’ll ever understand it.
Over the past hundred years, humans have run wild with the idea of creating technologies that will “shrink” the world. Information that once took weeks to cross the continent now travels in less than the blink of an eye. Images are instantaneous, and they are everywhere, accessible at any time. But I wonder if we’ve really done ourselves any favors. We’ve become media junkies. But I’m afraid our hunger for input has outstripped our ability to process it properly. It’s coming at us so fast that there’s no time to discern truth from lies, fact from fantasy. We select the information we choose to assimilate and construct our own individual versions of reality. As a result, the technology meant to draw the world together is actually pushing it apart.
Each of us has created our own individual sovereignty. The information we assimilate, the realities we create serve mostly to separate us from one another. Instead of 196 countries in the world, there are 7 billion. In many ways, we are infinitely farther from each other than we were before all this technology endeavored to bring us together. It’s true, and getting truer, that thing which Ann Landers identified half a century ago.
We would rather look at anything than each other.
This quote appeared on my Google home page this morning. I loved Ann Landers. I read her faithfully starting when I was about eleven years old. Eppie Lederer was a no-nonsense gal. Her down-to-earth sensibility and dry humor cut through the inflated drama of her readers’ concerns, re-prioritized their “it’s all about me!” perspectives and pointed them in the direction of common sense solutions to their problems. And I find her pronouncement on the dominant technology of her day succinct and prophetic.
I wonder what she would have thought about today’s technology? The technology that has chained any person under the age of thirty to a smart phone, iPad, laptop and/or MP3 player. Personal electronics have become as necessary as breathing to an entire generation. The obsessive dependence upon these things carries Landers’ assessment to a whole new level. Cel phone/text technology has proved that people would rather communicate with anyone rather than present company. And will slavishly employ these tools to save themselves from what must be a fate worse than death, since they will risk death to avoid it—being alone in the silent company of their own thoughts.
Human beings are complicated animals, prone to mystifying and contradictory behavior. We kill for pleasure while we prohibit “murder” on moral grounds. We enslave others while rigorously defending our own unqualified freedom. We crave community and reject it at the same time; how else to explain a pack of kids walking down the street with their noses glued to their phones instead of talking to each other? How else to explain the drive to accumulate hundreds of social media “friends,” yet not have one other person in the world who KNOWS you? I am mystified. I doubt that I’ll ever understand it.
Over the past hundred years, humans have run wild with the idea of creating technologies that will “shrink” the world. Information that once took weeks to cross the continent now travels in less than the blink of an eye. Images are instantaneous, and they are everywhere, accessible at any time. But I wonder if we’ve really done ourselves any favors. We’ve become media junkies. But I’m afraid our hunger for input has outstripped our ability to process it properly. It’s coming at us so fast that there’s no time to discern truth from lies, fact from fantasy. We select the information we choose to assimilate and construct our own individual versions of reality. As a result, the technology meant to draw the world together is actually pushing it apart.
Each of us has created our own individual sovereignty. The information we assimilate, the realities we create serve mostly to separate us from one another. Instead of 196 countries in the world, there are 7 billion. In many ways, we are infinitely farther from each other than we were before all this technology endeavored to bring us together. It’s true, and getting truer, that thing which Ann Landers identified half a century ago.
We would rather look at anything than each other.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Health Care Wins Another One
I came across an article on CNN.com which, on the surface, seemed more or less unremarkable.
Ohio Couple Pleads Guilty in Son’s Cancer Death
It is a terse quarter-page report on a couple who “denied” their son medical treatment for what turned out to be Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Apparently, the boy suffered from recurring swollen glands in his neck and on and off flu-like symptoms. The lymphoma went undiagnosed; the parents treated him with over-the-counter cold medicines. He died. He was eight years old. This was in 2008. This week, the parents pled guilty to plea-bargained manslaughter charges.
On the surface, you want to condemn these people as the sorriest excuses for parents. The news story paints them in a terrible light. You imagine this boy lying in bed, wasting away, in terrible pain (because to the average American, dying of cancer = excruciating pain), begging to be taken to the hospital, while the parents, crying “poor mouth,” callously turn their backs on him and let him die.
But something about this whole scenario just smelled like a three-days-dead herring. And the stink got into my brain and would not go away. Who were these people, really? Were they religious zealots? Were they cooking meth in their bath tub? Were they out buying flat screen TVs and ipads while their son languished in pain? If ever eleven lines published on a national news site cried out for back story, these did. Here was a situation that was doubtless composed of layer upon layer of deep emotion, wrenching loss, shock and shared culpability. There was no way the story could be done justice by a brief, and obviously biased, report of the final outcome. Almost four years later.
So I decided I would dig a little deeper.
On the website of the Cleveland PlainDealer, I found a few archived stories. All of them basically repeated the same damning piece of “evidence:” While the little boy was ill, supposedly in pain and “begging his parents to take him to a doctor,” the couple paid $87 to have a pet dog treated for fleas. On the surface, that sounds pretty bad. But, I wondered, where was the REAL damning evidence? Where was the list of frivolous luxuries for which they laid out cash, rather than take their sick boy to a doctor? Where was the evidence of involvement in drugs or domestic violence or welfare fraud? None of what I dug up—which wasn’t much, and yet was reported in such a way as to assure any reader would assume the worst about these folks—told me that evil or avarice caused this couple to act the way they did.
What—or who—convinced a county coroner to rule this death a homicide? And who or what then took the story to the media, so these folks would be convicted without a trial by a public provided with only the sketchiest and most sensational details of a family’s tragedy?
At the Huffington Post, the story was fleshed out some. HufPost included some quotes from the oldest daughter, now 18, and some rebuttal of prosecutors’ accusations by the defense lawyers. According to the sister, the boy’s episodes of swollen glands did not seem to bother him all that much. The thought that he might have cancer never entered anyone’s mind. The family had once gone to a “free” clinic for medical help, but left when they were informed they would have to pay. A family services caseworker told the parents that the lumps on the boy’s neck looked like swollen glands, but they should hold off until they received financial assistance before getting him checked out. Oh…and the mother’s lawyer asserts that the sensationalized flea treatment was actually paid for by the grandparents, to whom the dog belonged . Okay…so here is a conglomeration of “facts” designed to swing our opinion in the opposite direction. Obviously not the full story here, either.
Where are the answers to the real questions? Were the parents unemployed? Underemployed? Was there no health insurance available to them? The Cleveland PlainDealer alleges that the couple’s six children under 15 did not attend school. Is this true? If so, why not? We’re told the family moved to Cleveland three weeks before the boy died. Why? Was there employment available there? Did they lose their home and have to move in with relatives? Did they think moving to the city would put them closer to the services they needed for their family, including medical care and social assistance that was actually helpful?
In the end, I have no basis upon which to judge this couple. I have no idea what their circumstances really were. I only have conflicting pictures in my mind planted by incomplete and biased reporting. I suspect these parents were probably ignorant and overwhelmed (six kids under fifteen?!) and possibly even negligent. But I also have the deeply troubling suspicion that forces far beyond their control have exploited their family tragedy for purposes having nothing to do with truth, justice, or dedication to the protection of our society’s helpless children.
Because here is the reality that I have trouble reconciling: We live in a country where medical services are doled out or withheld based on ability to pay. We live in a country where medical insurance is routinely denied to people who might actually incur medical expenses, where insurance companies drop paying clients like a hot rock when they become ill, or deny coverage for certain conditions or procedures based on not much more than a whim.
If a patient’s condition deteriorates to the point of untreatability while the doctors, HMO’s and hospitals iron out the details of who is going to pay, no one goes to jail. If a senior citizen suffers a stroke because she has to make a choice between eating and filling five expensive prescriptions, no one is led away in handcuffs. If a man dies because he couldn’t afford health insurance, and by the time he was sick enough to go to an emergency room it was too late to help him, no one calls the cops. But two average citizens whose child died because, for whatever reason, they did not buy into the mess that is American health care today, are going to jail.
Let us understand the world in which these Ohio parents live. The times when it was a no-brainer to trundle your sick kid over to the family doctor are long gone. These days, there’s a maze of forms and co-pays and procedures and protocols and months-out appointments with two or three different providers before you eventually are seen by some specialist you don’t know and probably doesn’t care enough about you to piss on you if you were on fire. And it’s entirely likely that you’ll receive inferior care—or no care at all—if you can’t cough up big bucks. In advance.
Over the past three decades, our society has actively encouraged a deadly metamorphosis in the practice of healing the sick. Medical treatment has gone from a right to which a thriving society entitles every member, to nothing more than a consumer commodity. A commodity to which a premium price tag has been attached. In 21st century America, nothing less than cold-hearted greed dominates the allotment of the procedures and medicines which heal our bodies or help keep them healthy. American Health Care has deteriorated into a complicated maze of high costs, insurance rules and legal wrangling that has nothing to do with either “health” or “care.” It’s all about the money.
So is it any wonder that these parents in question might have been so cowed by the process and the likelihood of rejection that they chose to self-diagnose and treat their son’s symptoms as best they could at home? Especially since those symptoms seemed to come and go, and the thought of cancer never entered their minds? Who thinks their eight-year-old has cancer? Really? And say these parents had taken their son to the emergency room which a county official insisted (after the fact) would have taken the boy and treated him regardless of their financial situation. Can we say for certain, given today’s medical protocols, that the boy would have been properly diagnosed? Or would he have been given a prescription and the admonition to see his family doctor for a follow-up and sent on his way? If this had happened and the boy died anyway, who would be going to jail?
Anyone who wants to sit in judgment of these folks needs to walk a couple of miles in their shoes. Those of us who grew up in the 50’s and 60’s did not face those roadblocks when it came to obtaining medical help, neither when we were kids nor when we were raising our own children thirty years ago. Medical care may not have been as “advanced” as it is today, but at least it was accessible. And medical insurance was provided by your employer. For free.
We don’t have medical care in this country any more. We have Health Care. And it is big business. Make no mistake: Health Care will contrive to make examples of folks who either can’t or won’t buy into it. Health Care might hide in dark corners armed with fistfuls of cash or promises or threats, to perhaps nudge a county coroner to create a crime where none exists; or pressure a district attorney to pursue prosecution against people who have the audacity to believe they have a choice when it comes to purchasing medical treatment. Health Care would think nothing of taking a family’s personal tragedy and mercilessly exploiting it for its own purposes.
Possibly this is not what happened in this case. We’ll never know, will we? But we must not be naïve enough to believe it can’t or doesn’t happen. It’s all too possible. All too conceivable.
In any case, a society which allows medical treatment to be dispensed on the basis of who can pay (and how much), which allows power over life and death to rest in the hands of third parties who handle the cash flow with obvious disdain for the needy, has no business punishing any private citizen whose personal choice has produced a tragic outcome. Either a society values life, or it doesn’t. Either it charges all persons and entities with the responsibility of caring for the most helpless among us, or it cannot legitimately charge anyone.
A boy died. A boy who could have been healed with proper medical treatment, received in a timely manner. That is an abomination. It is not my purpose here to absolve the parents and chalk this one up to the vagaries of free choice. My point is that they never should have had to make the choice. Parents should never, ever be put in a position where they are too afraid, intimidated, confused or ignorant of Health Care to receive healing for a child. Health Care failed this boy. Health Care failed these parents.
But Health Care is not going to jail. The parents are.
Justice has not been served. It has been used. To serve Health Care.
Ohio Couple Pleads Guilty in Son’s Cancer Death
It is a terse quarter-page report on a couple who “denied” their son medical treatment for what turned out to be Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Apparently, the boy suffered from recurring swollen glands in his neck and on and off flu-like symptoms. The lymphoma went undiagnosed; the parents treated him with over-the-counter cold medicines. He died. He was eight years old. This was in 2008. This week, the parents pled guilty to plea-bargained manslaughter charges.
On the surface, you want to condemn these people as the sorriest excuses for parents. The news story paints them in a terrible light. You imagine this boy lying in bed, wasting away, in terrible pain (because to the average American, dying of cancer = excruciating pain), begging to be taken to the hospital, while the parents, crying “poor mouth,” callously turn their backs on him and let him die.
But something about this whole scenario just smelled like a three-days-dead herring. And the stink got into my brain and would not go away. Who were these people, really? Were they religious zealots? Were they cooking meth in their bath tub? Were they out buying flat screen TVs and ipads while their son languished in pain? If ever eleven lines published on a national news site cried out for back story, these did. Here was a situation that was doubtless composed of layer upon layer of deep emotion, wrenching loss, shock and shared culpability. There was no way the story could be done justice by a brief, and obviously biased, report of the final outcome. Almost four years later.
So I decided I would dig a little deeper.
On the website of the Cleveland PlainDealer, I found a few archived stories. All of them basically repeated the same damning piece of “evidence:” While the little boy was ill, supposedly in pain and “begging his parents to take him to a doctor,” the couple paid $87 to have a pet dog treated for fleas. On the surface, that sounds pretty bad. But, I wondered, where was the REAL damning evidence? Where was the list of frivolous luxuries for which they laid out cash, rather than take their sick boy to a doctor? Where was the evidence of involvement in drugs or domestic violence or welfare fraud? None of what I dug up—which wasn’t much, and yet was reported in such a way as to assure any reader would assume the worst about these folks—told me that evil or avarice caused this couple to act the way they did.
What—or who—convinced a county coroner to rule this death a homicide? And who or what then took the story to the media, so these folks would be convicted without a trial by a public provided with only the sketchiest and most sensational details of a family’s tragedy?
At the Huffington Post, the story was fleshed out some. HufPost included some quotes from the oldest daughter, now 18, and some rebuttal of prosecutors’ accusations by the defense lawyers. According to the sister, the boy’s episodes of swollen glands did not seem to bother him all that much. The thought that he might have cancer never entered anyone’s mind. The family had once gone to a “free” clinic for medical help, but left when they were informed they would have to pay. A family services caseworker told the parents that the lumps on the boy’s neck looked like swollen glands, but they should hold off until they received financial assistance before getting him checked out. Oh…and the mother’s lawyer asserts that the sensationalized flea treatment was actually paid for by the grandparents, to whom the dog belonged . Okay…so here is a conglomeration of “facts” designed to swing our opinion in the opposite direction. Obviously not the full story here, either.
Where are the answers to the real questions? Were the parents unemployed? Underemployed? Was there no health insurance available to them? The Cleveland PlainDealer alleges that the couple’s six children under 15 did not attend school. Is this true? If so, why not? We’re told the family moved to Cleveland three weeks before the boy died. Why? Was there employment available there? Did they lose their home and have to move in with relatives? Did they think moving to the city would put them closer to the services they needed for their family, including medical care and social assistance that was actually helpful?
In the end, I have no basis upon which to judge this couple. I have no idea what their circumstances really were. I only have conflicting pictures in my mind planted by incomplete and biased reporting. I suspect these parents were probably ignorant and overwhelmed (six kids under fifteen?!) and possibly even negligent. But I also have the deeply troubling suspicion that forces far beyond their control have exploited their family tragedy for purposes having nothing to do with truth, justice, or dedication to the protection of our society’s helpless children.
Because here is the reality that I have trouble reconciling: We live in a country where medical services are doled out or withheld based on ability to pay. We live in a country where medical insurance is routinely denied to people who might actually incur medical expenses, where insurance companies drop paying clients like a hot rock when they become ill, or deny coverage for certain conditions or procedures based on not much more than a whim.
If a patient’s condition deteriorates to the point of untreatability while the doctors, HMO’s and hospitals iron out the details of who is going to pay, no one goes to jail. If a senior citizen suffers a stroke because she has to make a choice between eating and filling five expensive prescriptions, no one is led away in handcuffs. If a man dies because he couldn’t afford health insurance, and by the time he was sick enough to go to an emergency room it was too late to help him, no one calls the cops. But two average citizens whose child died because, for whatever reason, they did not buy into the mess that is American health care today, are going to jail.
Let us understand the world in which these Ohio parents live. The times when it was a no-brainer to trundle your sick kid over to the family doctor are long gone. These days, there’s a maze of forms and co-pays and procedures and protocols and months-out appointments with two or three different providers before you eventually are seen by some specialist you don’t know and probably doesn’t care enough about you to piss on you if you were on fire. And it’s entirely likely that you’ll receive inferior care—or no care at all—if you can’t cough up big bucks. In advance.
Over the past three decades, our society has actively encouraged a deadly metamorphosis in the practice of healing the sick. Medical treatment has gone from a right to which a thriving society entitles every member, to nothing more than a consumer commodity. A commodity to which a premium price tag has been attached. In 21st century America, nothing less than cold-hearted greed dominates the allotment of the procedures and medicines which heal our bodies or help keep them healthy. American Health Care has deteriorated into a complicated maze of high costs, insurance rules and legal wrangling that has nothing to do with either “health” or “care.” It’s all about the money.
So is it any wonder that these parents in question might have been so cowed by the process and the likelihood of rejection that they chose to self-diagnose and treat their son’s symptoms as best they could at home? Especially since those symptoms seemed to come and go, and the thought of cancer never entered their minds? Who thinks their eight-year-old has cancer? Really? And say these parents had taken their son to the emergency room which a county official insisted (after the fact) would have taken the boy and treated him regardless of their financial situation. Can we say for certain, given today’s medical protocols, that the boy would have been properly diagnosed? Or would he have been given a prescription and the admonition to see his family doctor for a follow-up and sent on his way? If this had happened and the boy died anyway, who would be going to jail?
Anyone who wants to sit in judgment of these folks needs to walk a couple of miles in their shoes. Those of us who grew up in the 50’s and 60’s did not face those roadblocks when it came to obtaining medical help, neither when we were kids nor when we were raising our own children thirty years ago. Medical care may not have been as “advanced” as it is today, but at least it was accessible. And medical insurance was provided by your employer. For free.
We don’t have medical care in this country any more. We have Health Care. And it is big business. Make no mistake: Health Care will contrive to make examples of folks who either can’t or won’t buy into it. Health Care might hide in dark corners armed with fistfuls of cash or promises or threats, to perhaps nudge a county coroner to create a crime where none exists; or pressure a district attorney to pursue prosecution against people who have the audacity to believe they have a choice when it comes to purchasing medical treatment. Health Care would think nothing of taking a family’s personal tragedy and mercilessly exploiting it for its own purposes.
Possibly this is not what happened in this case. We’ll never know, will we? But we must not be naïve enough to believe it can’t or doesn’t happen. It’s all too possible. All too conceivable.
In any case, a society which allows medical treatment to be dispensed on the basis of who can pay (and how much), which allows power over life and death to rest in the hands of third parties who handle the cash flow with obvious disdain for the needy, has no business punishing any private citizen whose personal choice has produced a tragic outcome. Either a society values life, or it doesn’t. Either it charges all persons and entities with the responsibility of caring for the most helpless among us, or it cannot legitimately charge anyone.
A boy died. A boy who could have been healed with proper medical treatment, received in a timely manner. That is an abomination. It is not my purpose here to absolve the parents and chalk this one up to the vagaries of free choice. My point is that they never should have had to make the choice. Parents should never, ever be put in a position where they are too afraid, intimidated, confused or ignorant of Health Care to receive healing for a child. Health Care failed this boy. Health Care failed these parents.
But Health Care is not going to jail. The parents are.
Justice has not been served. It has been used. To serve Health Care.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
LIES, INJUSTICE AND THE UNAMERICAN WAY
My sister bless her heart is probably more conservative than mom and I are. She posted a link on my Facebook page this morning and I followed it. Went looking through the postings and found something that I did not need to see on the day before Thanksgiving. But, the cartoon looked familiar. I'd seen something like it within the last couple of days. I was right. The original cartoon with Jim Morin's byline was published in the Eugene Register Guard yesterday. The Miami Herald probably published it the 20th. It didn't take long for someone to photoshop it, take out Morin's byline and come up with this: abomination is the kindest term I can come up with.
And this is the website I found the second cartoon on. Ironically they use the name Truth, Justice and the American Way. You'll have to scroll down a bit to find this posting but feel free to leave your opinion.
Cross posted in Walking With Hope. But, when I see stuff like this, hope looks a long, long, way away.
Monday, November 21, 2011
In Anticipation of Thanksgiving...
Thursday is Thanksgiving, and I have much for which to be thankful. There are the usual, major things, beginning with a great family, and good health. And then there are the everyday, material things...enough food to eat, a roof over my head, a job. Cool weather...it seems like just yesterday we were sweltering in Dallas, in the Endless Summer, but tonight I'm bundled up in my gameroom, glad to be inside, because outside there is a driving, cold rain beating against the roof and windows. I haven't turned the heat on yet, and the house is decidedly cool, but I'm cozy in my footed, one-piece pajamas, snuggled beneath a throw and a comforter.
I'd planned to take PTO this week, because I very much need the break, and taking 3 days PTO to get 9 days off in a row is my kind of bargain spending. But today, Monday, I ended up working a horrendously long day, because I simply had too much work to not spend today working. Which means this was yet another day that I also didn't get to go test drive cars. It has now been a month since I totaled my Honda Fit in a fender bender in the parking lot at Target, and I'm still in a rental car. I have to find a new car this week. It's not a lack of trying on my part, but since dealerships are closed on Sundays, and since I work long hours Monday through Friday, my test drives have been limited to Saturdays, one of which I was down and out with a stomach bug.
I hate to admit it, but all of this had me feeling rather sorry for myself, until I read a letter in one of the car forums where I've been lurking, seeking advice on the purchase of a car. I felt incredibly spoiled, reading that letter. It was from a woman just a little younger than me who was asking for advice about buying a car. She was trying to decide between 2 cars, and asked if anyone on the car forum could advise her which would be the better deal.She still had a teen at home, although she said she would soon be an empty nester, and the car was mostly for going to the grocery store and doctor appointments. Each of the cars she was considering had 100,000 miles on them. The dealer had told her that one of them had been in an accident, but she wisely read the Carfax report, and it had, in fact, been in two accidents. Both of the cars needed some very basic repairs that the dealer was working on. She wrote that her absolute limit was $7,000, and added that she hated haggling.
A couple of guys from the forum gave her some very sound advice. One of them said that from the descriptions she'd provided, she ought to be able to get either car for about $5500, and not have to pay more than that. He steered her toward Edmunds, and told her in no uncertain terms not to tell the dealer that she hates haggling. One of the other guys told her what sort of repairs would be routine on both of the cars, considering their age.
It's true that she and I have very different needs insofar as cars are concerned. I gather she lives in either a small town or a community with excellent public transportation, since by her own description, she only needs a car for light, occasional driving. I have a daily commute of over a hundred miles, a combination of city and highway driving. In the 3 1/2 years that I owned my Fit, I put just under 80,000 miles on it. So I need a reliable car with good gas mileage. This is one of the reasons I look at new cars: I know they lose a couple thousand dollars in value the moment they're driven off the lot, but the standard warranty on small cars (the only sort of car I'm considering) is 3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, and with the driving I do, 36,000 miles will always come first, specifically, about 18 months after I've made my purchase. It doesn't make sense for me to get a car with a lot of miles, that's already beyond the warranty.
And yet I feel guilty, contemplating the purchase of a new, or almost new car, when there are so many people out there like this woman, hoping for a bargain in a car with a 100,000 miles on the engine. We take so much for granted...
cross posted at Talking to Myself
I'd planned to take PTO this week, because I very much need the break, and taking 3 days PTO to get 9 days off in a row is my kind of bargain spending. But today, Monday, I ended up working a horrendously long day, because I simply had too much work to not spend today working. Which means this was yet another day that I also didn't get to go test drive cars. It has now been a month since I totaled my Honda Fit in a fender bender in the parking lot at Target, and I'm still in a rental car. I have to find a new car this week. It's not a lack of trying on my part, but since dealerships are closed on Sundays, and since I work long hours Monday through Friday, my test drives have been limited to Saturdays, one of which I was down and out with a stomach bug.
I hate to admit it, but all of this had me feeling rather sorry for myself, until I read a letter in one of the car forums where I've been lurking, seeking advice on the purchase of a car. I felt incredibly spoiled, reading that letter. It was from a woman just a little younger than me who was asking for advice about buying a car. She was trying to decide between 2 cars, and asked if anyone on the car forum could advise her which would be the better deal.She still had a teen at home, although she said she would soon be an empty nester, and the car was mostly for going to the grocery store and doctor appointments. Each of the cars she was considering had 100,000 miles on them. The dealer had told her that one of them had been in an accident, but she wisely read the Carfax report, and it had, in fact, been in two accidents. Both of the cars needed some very basic repairs that the dealer was working on. She wrote that her absolute limit was $7,000, and added that she hated haggling.
A couple of guys from the forum gave her some very sound advice. One of them said that from the descriptions she'd provided, she ought to be able to get either car for about $5500, and not have to pay more than that. He steered her toward Edmunds, and told her in no uncertain terms not to tell the dealer that she hates haggling. One of the other guys told her what sort of repairs would be routine on both of the cars, considering their age.
It's true that she and I have very different needs insofar as cars are concerned. I gather she lives in either a small town or a community with excellent public transportation, since by her own description, she only needs a car for light, occasional driving. I have a daily commute of over a hundred miles, a combination of city and highway driving. In the 3 1/2 years that I owned my Fit, I put just under 80,000 miles on it. So I need a reliable car with good gas mileage. This is one of the reasons I look at new cars: I know they lose a couple thousand dollars in value the moment they're driven off the lot, but the standard warranty on small cars (the only sort of car I'm considering) is 3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, and with the driving I do, 36,000 miles will always come first, specifically, about 18 months after I've made my purchase. It doesn't make sense for me to get a car with a lot of miles, that's already beyond the warranty.
And yet I feel guilty, contemplating the purchase of a new, or almost new car, when there are so many people out there like this woman, hoping for a bargain in a car with a 100,000 miles on the engine. We take so much for granted...
cross posted at Talking to Myself
Monday, October 31, 2011
On Hounds From Hell
This morning, I drove over to the dike to take a walk and talk to the wildlife. I had taken about a dozen steps along the graveled earthen ridge when I looked up to see a twenty-pound Jack Russel terrier about thirty yards ahead, crouching at his owner’s feet. Then, like lightning, he took off, snarling, hell bent for leather—right at me. The male half of the young couple who I assumed to be in charge of the dog (or not) laughed, made a half-hearted attempt to call off his mutt, and then just ambled forward as if nothing in the world were amiss; while I—fearing for my ankles or my butt or whatever part of my flesh the crazed little mongrel might decide to sink his teeth into—waved my arms, stamped my feet and hollered in my best “Bad Dog” mom voice, “No! Get out of here! Bad dog!”
The dog veered at the last second and trotted off into the weeds behind me. Unconvinced that the attack had been aborted, I turned to keep an eye on the little bastard; and out of the corner of my eye, ascertained that a second terrier had broken away from the people and was now also hurtling down the gravel path at me. The young couple strolled amiably toward me and looked slightly amused as I reprised my screaming, hand-waving, foot-stomping act, in two directions now, as by this time I was badgered from before and behind. I looked up angrily at the inexplicably unfazed young couple, who were by now about fifteen feet away.
“Maybe you should put a leash on these dogs!” I sputtered, still dancing and clapping to keep their pets a safe distance from my ankles.
The amiable expression disappeared from the young man’s face and he sneered at me, “Get over it!” Two leashes dangled limply from his hand.
In the ensuing few moments, he got control of his animals; acting all the while like I was some kind of head case for being so upset by his cute little dogs. Once he had the little devils safely tethered, I moved to go around the party and continue my now completely ruined walk. The young man was still looking at me like I was out of my mind.
“I have no problem with cute little dogs,” I informed him. “But when a dog comes charging at me with his teeth bared, that is not a good thing.” And I walked on.
Last I heard, he was whining something about, “Yeah, look at him!” As if his dog were so adorable and so inoffensive he could not possibly frighten a sane person.
WTF is it with people and their dogs?
I have a dog. I love my dog. But she’s A D.O.G. Not an animated stuffed animal. Not a child. Not a cute, cuddly four-legged package of fur with all the rights, privileges, needs and cognitive powers of a small human being. She doesn’t need to come into stores and restaurants with me. She doesn’t need to ride in airplanes, taxis, trains or city busses. She doesn’t need to come to crowded outdoor (or indoor!) events so she can be with me and “play” with the other dogs. She would, in fact, HATE doing any of those things and, though she does not like to be left at home, she is a lot happier there, in her familiar surroundings, than she would be if I dragged her everywhere I went.
And I would no sooner take her to one of those dangerous, germ-infested encampments of canine gang psychology—the “Off-Leash Dog Parks”—than I would incarcerate her in a cell in a dirty kennel and lace her water bowl with distemper virus.
I treat my dog like a dog. We go for rides, we go for walks, we play ball, she gets doggie treats. I don’t feed her from my dinner plate, because I don’t want her to get fat and ill—obesity is mortally dangerous to dogs. She doesn’t sit on the furniture and she doesn’t sleep in my bed. We take her to the vet, we keep her clean, we keep her free of fleas. And we love her. We cherish her, protect her and discipline her. Most people in our circle understand that our dog is a member of our family and is pretty damned spoiled. But she’s still a dog. And we respect that.
Dog owners have gone completely around the bend. They get a dog because they demand that something unconditionally love and be totally dependent upon THEM. Then they attach the poor animal to themselves by an impossibly short umbilical, insisting that the dog wants and needs to go everywhere and do everything the owner does. Not one millisecond of thought is wasted on the dog’s actual needs or preference. Or what might or might not be good for it. Humans have the bigger brains (theoretically.) Why are we not using them to understand how to truly enhance our pets’ lives, rather than building fantasies about how much they love us and need to be with us every minute of every day? Trust me—that kind of sick dependency does not come from the dog.
Then there is the subset of people that believes that controlling a dog in any way is somehow cruel or repressive. The relationship between humans and canines is not one big “Born Free” moment, people. We haven’t gone out into the woods, captured dogs and forced them into servitude. Thousands of years ago, humans and canines hammered out a mutually beneficial relationship. Each species has adapted behaviors to grease the wheels of the relationship; but though we’ve been in partnership for millennia, communication and bonding between the two species is imperfect at best. An uncontrolled dog can still pose a threat to humans…this is even more true since we have chosen to play god and breed dogs for aggressive behavior.
Dogs are pack-oriented animals. A dog’s behavior toward its pack is not an indicator of how it will treat strangers. To eliminate the fear that an encounter will end in bloodshed, dogs need to be under control when there is a chance of them coming into contact with non-pack members. If the human does not have verbal control over the dog, there had better be some kind of physical restraint used. This is known as a leash. It is not a torture device. It protects both humans and canines from the unpredictability of their behavior toward each other.
But we’re not concerned about our pets’ welfare, are we? We just want to puff ourselves up with that feeling of largesse and magnanimity we get when we let our companion run free and unfettered. And don’t nag us about the well-being of other people! If they’re frightened, intimidated or attacked by our pet, they need to “get over it.”
So now, I will either have to stop taking my walks when there is any chance that some fool with an unleashed dog is going to be claiming the territory, or I’ll to have to pack an umbrella, a walking stick, a can of mace or a grenade to ensure that I can complete my relaxing encounter with nature without fear of puncture or mutilation.
Yeah. Right.
Cross-posted at Coming to Terms...
The dog veered at the last second and trotted off into the weeds behind me. Unconvinced that the attack had been aborted, I turned to keep an eye on the little bastard; and out of the corner of my eye, ascertained that a second terrier had broken away from the people and was now also hurtling down the gravel path at me. The young couple strolled amiably toward me and looked slightly amused as I reprised my screaming, hand-waving, foot-stomping act, in two directions now, as by this time I was badgered from before and behind. I looked up angrily at the inexplicably unfazed young couple, who were by now about fifteen feet away.
“Maybe you should put a leash on these dogs!” I sputtered, still dancing and clapping to keep their pets a safe distance from my ankles.
The amiable expression disappeared from the young man’s face and he sneered at me, “Get over it!” Two leashes dangled limply from his hand.
In the ensuing few moments, he got control of his animals; acting all the while like I was some kind of head case for being so upset by his cute little dogs. Once he had the little devils safely tethered, I moved to go around the party and continue my now completely ruined walk. The young man was still looking at me like I was out of my mind.
“I have no problem with cute little dogs,” I informed him. “But when a dog comes charging at me with his teeth bared, that is not a good thing.” And I walked on.
Last I heard, he was whining something about, “Yeah, look at him!” As if his dog were so adorable and so inoffensive he could not possibly frighten a sane person.
WTF is it with people and their dogs?
I have a dog. I love my dog. But she’s A D.O.G. Not an animated stuffed animal. Not a child. Not a cute, cuddly four-legged package of fur with all the rights, privileges, needs and cognitive powers of a small human being. She doesn’t need to come into stores and restaurants with me. She doesn’t need to ride in airplanes, taxis, trains or city busses. She doesn’t need to come to crowded outdoor (or indoor!) events so she can be with me and “play” with the other dogs. She would, in fact, HATE doing any of those things and, though she does not like to be left at home, she is a lot happier there, in her familiar surroundings, than she would be if I dragged her everywhere I went.
And I would no sooner take her to one of those dangerous, germ-infested encampments of canine gang psychology—the “Off-Leash Dog Parks”—than I would incarcerate her in a cell in a dirty kennel and lace her water bowl with distemper virus.
I treat my dog like a dog. We go for rides, we go for walks, we play ball, she gets doggie treats. I don’t feed her from my dinner plate, because I don’t want her to get fat and ill—obesity is mortally dangerous to dogs. She doesn’t sit on the furniture and she doesn’t sleep in my bed. We take her to the vet, we keep her clean, we keep her free of fleas. And we love her. We cherish her, protect her and discipline her. Most people in our circle understand that our dog is a member of our family and is pretty damned spoiled. But she’s still a dog. And we respect that.
Dog owners have gone completely around the bend. They get a dog because they demand that something unconditionally love and be totally dependent upon THEM. Then they attach the poor animal to themselves by an impossibly short umbilical, insisting that the dog wants and needs to go everywhere and do everything the owner does. Not one millisecond of thought is wasted on the dog’s actual needs or preference. Or what might or might not be good for it. Humans have the bigger brains (theoretically.) Why are we not using them to understand how to truly enhance our pets’ lives, rather than building fantasies about how much they love us and need to be with us every minute of every day? Trust me—that kind of sick dependency does not come from the dog.
Then there is the subset of people that believes that controlling a dog in any way is somehow cruel or repressive. The relationship between humans and canines is not one big “Born Free” moment, people. We haven’t gone out into the woods, captured dogs and forced them into servitude. Thousands of years ago, humans and canines hammered out a mutually beneficial relationship. Each species has adapted behaviors to grease the wheels of the relationship; but though we’ve been in partnership for millennia, communication and bonding between the two species is imperfect at best. An uncontrolled dog can still pose a threat to humans…this is even more true since we have chosen to play god and breed dogs for aggressive behavior.
Dogs are pack-oriented animals. A dog’s behavior toward its pack is not an indicator of how it will treat strangers. To eliminate the fear that an encounter will end in bloodshed, dogs need to be under control when there is a chance of them coming into contact with non-pack members. If the human does not have verbal control over the dog, there had better be some kind of physical restraint used. This is known as a leash. It is not a torture device. It protects both humans and canines from the unpredictability of their behavior toward each other.
But we’re not concerned about our pets’ welfare, are we? We just want to puff ourselves up with that feeling of largesse and magnanimity we get when we let our companion run free and unfettered. And don’t nag us about the well-being of other people! If they’re frightened, intimidated or attacked by our pet, they need to “get over it.”
So now, I will either have to stop taking my walks when there is any chance that some fool with an unleashed dog is going to be claiming the territory, or I’ll to have to pack an umbrella, a walking stick, a can of mace or a grenade to ensure that I can complete my relaxing encounter with nature without fear of puncture or mutilation.
Yeah. Right.
Cross-posted at Coming to Terms...
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
A CHRISTIAN NATION?
This was on Facebook the other day, but I lifted this from another blog. What can I say? We have candidates outdoing themselves to prove their bona fides to the Christian Right, with a self described faith that has no resemblance to what I grew up with. And doesn't even seem to be in the same universe as the material I've been reading.
Back in the eighties Bill Moyers did several programs on religious subjects, including what has some to be known as Christian Reconstruction or Dominionism. I dug out my old tape the other day. As far as these folks are concerned this country's religious heritage began and ended with the Puritans and John Calvin. No mention of the Quakers, Anglicans, Catholics or any other groups who also settled this country. And I'm discovering that when it comes to some the rights we take for granted; access to a jury, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, you can thank the Quakers.
Enough for now before I thoroughly depress myself.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Why NOT To Eat Bread
One of the facts of 21st century life that helped make me an ex-restaurant owner was having to deal with the preponderance of ridiculous food fads and media driven prohibitions that are out there. It got to where I wanted to shoot the radio or TV every time another “food-borne-illness” report came out. When tomatoes killed a guy in Texas, suddenly every sandwich in the restaurant was going out with “no tomatoes” (which didn’t really bother me much, since fresh tomatoes grown outside of their normal season are gross and tasteless.) A salmonella-in-spinach scare torpedoed sales of the most popular vegetarian offering of my concession business for over a year; though we make the filling with frozen spinach (which is blanched), and the things are cooked in a 400° oven for twenty minutes to boot, you couldn’t talk folks out of their paranoia.
In the waning days of my term as a restaurant owner, the food fad that drove me absolutely crazy—and not only persists but is picking up steam—is the anti-gluten craze. Yes, I understand that the inability to digest gluten was found to be a problem for a subset of people with painful digestive malfunctions that had eluded diagnosis until celiac disease was recognized as the cause. But in the past few years, everyone with any kind of digestive complaint seems to have hit upon gluten as the source of their problems. Gluten has become the dietary devil. The demand for gluten-free this and gluten-free that borders on hysteria.
Bread has been around for something like 30,000 years, folks. Bread and bread-like products were independently developed by hundreds of cultures once human beings figured out they liked grain and it wouldn’t poison them. A food crop with a rich history, one whose cultivation symbolized the transition of mankind from hunter/gatherers to farmers, has suddenly been labeled poison by a hysterical portion of our pop-culture. Just goes to prove the kind of havoc that a lot of people with a little information can wreak.
Of course, I really don’t care if you choose to eliminate gluten from your diet. Knock yourself out, if that’s what you think is going to solve all your health problems. Because of the mysterious connection between our minds and bodies (which is the thing upon which we should really be concentrating if we want to advance our ability to heal sickness), merely believing in a particular health regimen can make it work. Like people who bury potatoes in their back yards to make their warts go away.
But, here’s the problem engendered by our fanatically entitled society: once I’ve decided that something is bad for me, I demand that the entire market place tie itself in knots to pander to my issues. If I’m going gluten-free, the whole world needs to figure out how to make it easy for me. Subway had better cough up gluten-free bread. Pizza Hut had best figure out how to make gluten-free pizza dough. Oh and, by the way, I don’t want to have to PAY more for any of this stuff…
But I digress. The whole reason I began this piece is because a couple of days ago, I had an experience that provided me with a sort of epiphany about America’s bread issues. When I left to go on vacation back in August, I decided I would take with me some extra bread I had left over from the restaurant to feed to the birds on the beach. So I grabbed it out of the freezer, tossed it in a box and threw it into the back of the pick-up. That was a month ago.
Last Friday, I suddenly remembered that I had neglected to unpack the back of the truck when I got home. There was nothing but a bunch of tools, tarps, and camping supplies back there—things that I don’t use when I’m not camping. But…oh no. There WAS that box of bread. Ewwww.
With distinct trepidation, I opened up the back of the canopy and crawled into the truck to retrieve what I was sure was going to be a mass of smelly, powdery green stuff, unrecognizable as bread. What I found was undoubtedly worse than that. Not only was the bread not moldy, it was almost pristine. It wasn’t even stale. I probably could have unwrapped a couple of slices and made a perfectly passable sandwich. It scared the hell out of me.
So I submit to the gluten-fearing American public: It’s probably not the wheat that’s screwing up your health. It’s what we’re doing to it before we eat it that makes it poisonous. And unless you consume nothing but what you have grown, prepared and cooked yourself, you are not saving yourself from anything.
In the waning days of my term as a restaurant owner, the food fad that drove me absolutely crazy—and not only persists but is picking up steam—is the anti-gluten craze. Yes, I understand that the inability to digest gluten was found to be a problem for a subset of people with painful digestive malfunctions that had eluded diagnosis until celiac disease was recognized as the cause. But in the past few years, everyone with any kind of digestive complaint seems to have hit upon gluten as the source of their problems. Gluten has become the dietary devil. The demand for gluten-free this and gluten-free that borders on hysteria.
Bread has been around for something like 30,000 years, folks. Bread and bread-like products were independently developed by hundreds of cultures once human beings figured out they liked grain and it wouldn’t poison them. A food crop with a rich history, one whose cultivation symbolized the transition of mankind from hunter/gatherers to farmers, has suddenly been labeled poison by a hysterical portion of our pop-culture. Just goes to prove the kind of havoc that a lot of people with a little information can wreak.
Of course, I really don’t care if you choose to eliminate gluten from your diet. Knock yourself out, if that’s what you think is going to solve all your health problems. Because of the mysterious connection between our minds and bodies (which is the thing upon which we should really be concentrating if we want to advance our ability to heal sickness), merely believing in a particular health regimen can make it work. Like people who bury potatoes in their back yards to make their warts go away.
But, here’s the problem engendered by our fanatically entitled society: once I’ve decided that something is bad for me, I demand that the entire market place tie itself in knots to pander to my issues. If I’m going gluten-free, the whole world needs to figure out how to make it easy for me. Subway had better cough up gluten-free bread. Pizza Hut had best figure out how to make gluten-free pizza dough. Oh and, by the way, I don’t want to have to PAY more for any of this stuff…
But I digress. The whole reason I began this piece is because a couple of days ago, I had an experience that provided me with a sort of epiphany about America’s bread issues. When I left to go on vacation back in August, I decided I would take with me some extra bread I had left over from the restaurant to feed to the birds on the beach. So I grabbed it out of the freezer, tossed it in a box and threw it into the back of the pick-up. That was a month ago.
Last Friday, I suddenly remembered that I had neglected to unpack the back of the truck when I got home. There was nothing but a bunch of tools, tarps, and camping supplies back there—things that I don’t use when I’m not camping. But…oh no. There WAS that box of bread. Ewwww.
With distinct trepidation, I opened up the back of the canopy and crawled into the truck to retrieve what I was sure was going to be a mass of smelly, powdery green stuff, unrecognizable as bread. What I found was undoubtedly worse than that. Not only was the bread not moldy, it was almost pristine. It wasn’t even stale. I probably could have unwrapped a couple of slices and made a perfectly passable sandwich. It scared the hell out of me.
So I submit to the gluten-fearing American public: It’s probably not the wheat that’s screwing up your health. It’s what we’re doing to it before we eat it that makes it poisonous. And unless you consume nothing but what you have grown, prepared and cooked yourself, you are not saving yourself from anything.
Monday, September 19, 2011
JUST TRY AND PROVE IT
Serious health problems appear to be developing in areas near natural gas fields There have been reports of problems for years, but they were in states like Colorado where the population is still fairly low. Now they're drilling in places like Pennsylvania and near Fort Worth, Texas. The science is lagging behind. The companies claim that the materials they use for fracking are proprietary and won't reveal them. Their message appears to be until you can prove we're causing the problem "frack you."
The article is far to long to post, please follow the link and spread the word. Time to dig out my copies of Ecotopia, Ecotopia Emerging, and the Monkey Wrench Gang.
The article is far to long to post, please follow the link and spread the word. Time to dig out my copies of Ecotopia, Ecotopia Emerging, and the Monkey Wrench Gang.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
SCARY PERRY
What is it with these ultra conservatives? Once of our greatest protections is our independent judiciary. Protecting even those idiot ultra conservatives. We went to direct election of senators because using the legislatures to select senators was turning into free for alls in the states.
Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government’s founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.
Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
The nation’s framers established a federal court system whereby judges with “good behavior” would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.
“The Judges,” reads Article III, “both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are “unaccountable” to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.
“‘[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability,” he writes in Fed Up! ”There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority.”
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn’t the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is “Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.”)
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
“[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy,” he writes.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.
Calling the Sixteenth Amendment “the great milestone on the road to serfdom,” Perry’s writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.
Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were “mistakenly” propelled by “a fit of populist rage.”
“The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment),” he writes.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one “the most important,” and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.
“The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution–now–to restrict federal spending,” Perry writes in his book. “There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional ‘balanced budget amendment’ or a straightforward ‘spending limit amendment,’ either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let’s use the people’s document–the Constitution–to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington.”
A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.
Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment’s language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Despite saying last month that he was “fine with” states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
“I do respect a state’s right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that,” Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. “I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, ‘Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here’s the way you do it’.
In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry’s broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was “so important…to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers.”
Very, very scary; yes? But, what can you expect from sombody who barely managed a C avarage in a field that had nothing to do with politics or statesmanship.
Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government’s founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.
Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
The nation’s framers established a federal court system whereby judges with “good behavior” would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.
“The Judges,” reads Article III, “both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are “unaccountable” to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.
“‘[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability,” he writes in Fed Up! ”There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority.”
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn’t the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is “Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.”)
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
“[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy,” he writes.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.
Calling the Sixteenth Amendment “the great milestone on the road to serfdom,” Perry’s writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.
Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were “mistakenly” propelled by “a fit of populist rage.”
“The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment),” he writes.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one “the most important,” and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.
“The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution–now–to restrict federal spending,” Perry writes in his book. “There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional ‘balanced budget amendment’ or a straightforward ‘spending limit amendment,’ either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let’s use the people’s document–the Constitution–to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington.”
A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.
Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment’s language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Despite saying last month that he was “fine with” states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
“I do respect a state’s right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that,” Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. “I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, ‘Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here’s the way you do it’.
In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry’s broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was “so important…to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers.”
Very, very scary; yes? But, what can you expect from sombody who barely managed a C avarage in a field that had nothing to do with politics or statesmanship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)