The thing that’s been burning me for weeks now is how CEO’s can run companies into the ground, collect big bonuses and convince the Federal Government to bail them out for being stupid and irresponsible.

So how is it that CITI warrants a $306 billion bailout while it still has plans to honor a $400 million contract to have its name on the new Mets stadium for the next 20 years?

So now the Government is going to run our economy into the ground, proving they’re no smarter than the kooks they’re trying to save.

Pat yourselves on the back, America. You elected ’em. You wanted change? I believe you’re going to get exactly what you asked for, but I seriously doubt it will be what you were expecting.

So I’m on this flight tonight from Manchester to Philly and about 20 minutes before we land, the guy sitting in front of me whips out his cel and starts sending email and making phone calls. Everybody’s staring at him, but nobody says anything.

So after we got off the plane, I caught up to him and the conversation went like this:

Me: What part of no phones from gate to gate do you not understand?
Him: Do you work for the airlines?
Me: No.
Him: No really, do you work for the airlines?
Me: No. Really.
Him: Well I do.
Me: I don’t really care who you work for — it doesn’t give you the right to break the rules.
Him: I was conducting official business.
Me: That doesn’t give you the right to break the rules, either.
Him: I was coordinating our landing.
Me: Huh? What kind of idiot do you think I am?
Him: Really.
Me: I know you’re lying. My husband’s a pilot.
Him: I sign your husband’s paychecks.
Me: Regardless of what you think, you are not that special. What if everyone had whipped out their phones? Don’t you get it?
Him: I am special.
Me: Not only are you a jerk, but you’re way more stupid than you look. My only hope is that the Darwin principal kicks in where you’re concerned.

I was met with a blank stare. I rest my case.

My only regret is not getting security to arrest him — impersonating an FAA official is a federal crime.

Running the U.S. is a lot like flying an airplane:

  • There’s no such thing as training wheels.
  • Executing drastic corrections too quickly can be fatal.
  • Autopilot only works if you know where you’re going.
  • Losing your focus when you hit bad weather can be fatal.
  • You need both a right wing and a left wing and they have to work together.
  • The person you put in the right seat needs to be prepared to take over.

© 2008 Brenda Bell

When I was a kid, I was in a hurry to do everything. When my Mom taught me to sew, I just couldn’t see the point of all that pinning and basting — why not just cut the fabric, slap it under the needle and let ‘er rip?

So every once in a while, Mom would eye me taking a short cut she’d prefer I not take. She’d just go about her business reciting “the poem”. You know… the one that goes:

If a task is once begun,
Never leave it ’til it’s done.
Be the labor great or small,
Do it well or not at all.

To this day, I can’t take a shortcut on anything. If I even think about it, that little ditty starts rolling around in my head, I can’t sleep at night and keep looking over my shoulder.

Thanks, Mom. I miss you.

According to Gallup:

Gallup’s latest update — based on interviewing conducted through Wednesday, Oct. 29 — shows that 21% of registered voters who plan to vote say they have already voted early or by absentee ballot. This percentage has been increasing steadily over the last two weeks. Another 12% of registered voters say they still plan on voting early, leaving about two-thirds of those who plan on voting who indicate they will actually vote on Election Day itself, next Tuesday.¹

Only 32 states allow early no-excuse pre-election day in-person voting.² In 2006, these states made up for 62% of registered voters.^3.

If what Gallup says is true, more than half of the likely voters in these states will vote early (assume a reasonable margin of error in the numbers reported by the Census Bureau).

References:

¹ http://www.gallup.com/poll/111673/Interest-High-One-Five-Already-Voted.aspx
² http://www.earlyvoting.net/states/abslaws.php
³ http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2006/tab04a.xls

… that Barack Obama’s numbers about tax cuts just don’t add up.¹

There’s no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase.

But Obama has promised tax relief for 95% of tax payers. If you read Tom’s blog post a few days ago, it’s obvious that the 95% does not include tax payers making $200,000, or even $150,000:

“What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those,” Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.

References:

¹ http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/

We’ve lived in New Hampshire for 11 years and I’ve seen exactly three moose.

The first was a juvenile loping across the highway early one morning when we were on our way to the airport. The second one was trapped underneath the rear axle of an SUV on I89 — not a pretty sight.

The third was a few hours ago in our front yard — yeah!

This country is like an eagle. It takes both a right wing and a left wing to fly.¹

References:
¹ Comment by Janine Turner on O’Reilly, 31 Oct 2008.

In my opinion, hanging an effigy of any public figure is in poor taste, regardless of their race. But there’s a bigger issue at play here.

Based on the outcome, I have no choice but to assume that the hanging effigy of Palin is not a hate crime because she’s white. Apparently — In this case — it falls under freedom of speech:

“The sheriff made this clear: This is a country that has freedom of speech, and we protect that right even when we think it’s idiotic and stupid and in bad taste,” said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Sheriff’s Department.

“If it is nonviolent and doesn’t cause any problems, then they have the right to do it.”¹

I have no problem with freedom of speech. But hiding behind that principal is riddled with the danger of bias. Consider Timothy Lynch’s comments about The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007² passed by the U. S. House of Representatives on May 3, 2007:

… it is important to note that the whole concept of “hate crimes” is fraught with definitional difficulties. Hate crimes generally refer to criminal conduct motivated by prejudice. Should all prejudices be included in the hate crime definition–or only a select few?

…

For the proponents of hate crime laws, the dilemma is this: if some groups (women, gays, environmental political activists, whatever) are left out of the “hate crime” definition, they will resent the selective depreciation of their victimization. On the other hand, if all victim groups are included, the hate crime category will be no different than “ordinary” criminal law.³

And therein lies the problem:

The reaction obviously would have been much worse if it were Obama hung in effigy, though the historical reasons behind that reaction would be justifiable.¹

Obviously, my ass. Unless you’re a Native American, this was destined to be my country well before you and your ancestors got off the boat. If you want to argue that blacks are a special circumstance because of the terrible things that happened in their past, I suggest you Google for “Trail of Tears” and read about how 14000 Native Americans were forcably evicted from the only home they’d ever known and marched across the country on foot in the dead of winter, unable to do anything as 4000 of them died.

Blacks are not the only minority in this country. But being a minority myself, I strongly believe that entitlements serving to protect a single class of people against bias is, in and of itself, biased.

Whatever you may think of me because of this post, I am not a racist. But I do fully stand by equality and fairness… and double standards make the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

I’ll bet you dollars to donuts if someone hung an effigy of Sitting Bull, no one would give it a second thought.

References:
¹ http://mobile.latimes.com/detail.jsp?key=187804&rc=top&full=1
² http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1592
³ http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tl04172007.html

In economics, the Laffer curve is used to illustrate the idea that increases in the rate of taxation do not necessarily increase tax revenue.¹

Interesting stuff. Take the extreme case: If I make $50,000 and pay 0% in taxes, I’m probably pretty motivated to keep working. If I make $50,000 and pay 100% in taxes, there’s obviously no reason for me to keep working — I quit my job and the government loses money.

The theory is that the most likely outcome of a variety of tax rates is somewhat of a bell curve and that there is a point at which increasing taxes causes a behavior change that results in decreased federal revenues.

The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory²
[video:youtube:fIqyCpCPrvU]

The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the Evidence³
[video:youtube:YsB_rnzBA08]

The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring⁴
[video:youtube:ATDzKSOQCi8]

References:
¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
² http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIqyCpCPrvU
³ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08
⁴ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATDzKSOQCi8