Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
When: Tuesday July 7th, 11:30 AM
Who’s coming?: 5 Yes / 1 Maybe (People tend to register late and not all register through the Meet up site.)
74 spots left — RSVP deadline: July 6, 2009 8:00 PM
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Comment: Probably every one of us has an automobile dealer friend or someone who works for an auto dealer affected by the U.S. government high-jacking of General Motors. I have not seen confirmation of it yet in the press, but I have been told that Jim Reed Chevrolet had been ordered closed. Jim Reed has been a Chevy dealer for almost a hundred years here in Nashville. I never thought I would see the day when this could happen in America. No one is secure. Your company or the company you work for could be next. We are watching our freedom slip away.
Davidson County Republican Assembly
When: Saturday, July 11, 2009 9:00 AM
Where : Coleman Park Community Center, 384 Thompson Lane, Nashville TN 37211
RSVP Deadline: Your organizer has set an RSVP deadline for this event. You have until July 10, 2009 7:00 PM to RSVP.
Meetup Description : Raul Lopez or Juan Borges will be our guest speaker. Since I'll be out of town and Nick has to be out of town as well, Bob Richie has agreed to conduct our meeting.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Wrong Way on Health 'Reform'
By Robert J. Samuelson Monday, June 15, 2009 , Washington Post
It's hard to know whether President Obama's health-care "reform" is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three. The president keeps saying it's imperative to control runaway health spending. He's right. The trouble is that what's being promoted as health-care "reform" almost certainly won't suppress spending and, quite probably, will do the opposite.
A new report from Obama's own Council of Economic Advisers shows why controlling health costs is so important. Since 1975, annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation, has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. If this trend continues, the CEA projects that:
-- Health spending, which was 5 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 1960 and is reckoned at almost 18 percent today, would grow to 34 percent of GDP by 2040 -- a third of the economy. (link)
Comment: This article from America's premier economics journalist sheds light on the enormity of the problem of runaway health care cost and explains why President Obama's health care reform will actually make the problem worse.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
FROM: Fred Thompson
I know it seems a long way away. And I know that most of us are only now getting over the hyper-intense election of 2008. But there are election campaigns working now that will have a dramatic impact on your life, the lives of your family, and the future of nation. I am writing to you about one of the most important contests in the country, the battle for the U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut. Chris Dodd, the ultra-liberal Senator, has been exposed. The voters are turning against his brand of “do as I say, not as I do” of politics.
And we are in luck. We have a solid candidate, former Congressman Rob Simmons. Rob is currently running ahead in the polls. But an ocean of money is flowing against him, Every radical, left wing group in America is coming in to defend Chris Dodd. The unions are all in. And, we have to expect that the Obama machine will be put into full force. All of that – as intimidating as it may appear – is not enough to overcome the clear disdain of the people for Dodd’s actions.
Rob Simmons is the exactly the man to win this seat and remove Chris Dodd from the Senate. But he can’t do it alone. He needs the active help and financial support of every single American who values freedom and wants to see a return to fundamental First Principles. That is why I am asking you to make a donation to Rob Simmons for Senate today. You can make a donation by going to https://www.icontribute.us/robsimmons/initiative/thompson.
I know times are tough and that money doesn’t grow on trees. But this is one of the most important investments you can make for the future of our nation.
The stakes are so very high, please click here https://www.icontribute.us/robsimmons/initiative/thompson and make the most generous contribution you can.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Media Bias: As much of the U.S. private sector, including health care providers, resists government takeovers, what a sorry sight to see ABC News leap forward to make itself a propaganda arm of the government.
But that's the story as ABC crosses the line from journalism to advocacy in turning its coverage of health care over to the White House. (link)
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
by Ken Dychtwald Ph.D
While most of the current healthcare debate has focused on how to cover the tens of millions of uninsured Americans and who should pay (granted, these are critically important issues), after thirty-five years working at the intersection of gerontology and healthcare, I'm convinced that we have the WRONG healthcare system for our aging nation.
If your train is headed in the wrong direction, it doesn't help to give everyone a seat. And, since the U.S. currently spends nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as all the other modernized nations, while our national life expectancy ranks a humiliating 42nd worldwide, it's not that we throw too little money at the problem, but that we may not be spending it in the wisest ways. (link)
This is a thought-provoking article. The arthor argues that we are not prepared for the health care needs of the future and that Americans do not take enough responsbility for their own health.
He points out that Medicare spends approximately 28 percent of its total budget on patients in their last year of life and argues that prolonging the dying process may not be the best use of health care dollars. I do not want the government deciding when to pull the plug, however I agree that simply prolonging life with high-tech and expensive care may not be the best use of health care dollars. If we do not get Medicare spending under control, it can bankrupt our nation. How much to spend on Medicare is a public policy issue and there is a limit to how much the public can spend on prolonging life of those who are dying.
Many people end their life in poverty and impoverish their spouse and family due to extremely expensive care which extends the life of the patient by only months. Nursing home care can run to thousands of dollars a month. One does not get public-funded nursing home care until all of their own wealth is exhausted. Once the patient and his or her spouse have exhausted all of their wealth, the tax payers pick up the tab. Often the patient may have no hope of recovery and be in an almost vegetative state for months prior to dying. I know it is difficult to let a parent or spouse die, but I do not think simply prolonging life when their is no hope of recovery and the patient has no quality of life is preferable to letting the patient die with dignity. As health care advances, the ability to prolong the dying process continues to expand.
As a baby-boomer myself and someone who has a loved one afflicted with Alzheimer's, I think about these issues, as unpleasant as they are to contemplate.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
You often hear critics of health care reform say that we have the best health care in the world and that the reformers are trying to destroy it. Is the true? Do we have the best health care in the world?
I guess it depends on what you mean by “best.” Certainly, many Canadian and others come to the US for medical procedures that they cannot get at home or for which they would have to wait a very long time. The royalty, celebrities and rich of the world often come to America to get treatment. The U.S. has more of the best medical centers, best-equipped hospitals and most highly specialized physicians in the world. Many of the world’s advances in curing and treating decease originate in America. In that sense we may fairly say we have the best health care in the world. We have the best health care that money can buy, if you have the money.
The best quality health care that can be purchased is only one measure of “best.” Most of us will never be treated by a world-renowned physician or have miracle surgery. “Best” has many measures. So while we may have the absolute “best” health care that is available, do we have the best health care for the average person?
Let us look at some measures of health care quality. Consider life expectancy at birth. We rank 50th, a little ahead of Cuba and Albania but way behind Japan, Singapore, France, Sweden, Norway and Spain. Many factors may enter into life expectancy other than the quality of health care. Homicide rates, suicide rates, and highway death tolls may work against us. In Highway Death Tolls, we lead the world at 15.5 per 100,000. That stat is obviously not a function of the quality of our health care. We have more cars and drive more miles than most nations. Lifestyle choices such as smoking, drug use, diet and sedentary lifestyle may also have more impact on longevity than medical intervention.
Let us look at another measure: infant mortality. In the United States infant mortality is 6.26 per 1000 live births, which barely beats Croatia at 6.37 but trails Cuba at 5.82 and Canada at 5.04. Our infant mortality rate is almost twice as high as that of Japan and Norway. Maybe again, there are social factors to blame. Maybe we have more crack addicted mothers giving birth and more young unwed mothers, but the statistics are, I think, a valid indication that we do not have the “best” health care in the world.
On some other measures of health, the United States also scores not quite so well. It you look at the “probability of not reaching sixty,” Americans have a 12.8% probability which beats Poland at 17.5% and Portugal at 13.1% but trails Denmark at 12%, France at 11.4%, Germany at 10.6%, Spain at 10.3%, and Canada at 9.5%.
On some measures of health, we score quite well. On the survival rate for cancer, we lead the world at 62.9% for women and 66.3% for men, followed by everyone else with Spain at 59% (women), England at only 52.7 (women) and 44.8% (men).
In 2000, The World Health Organization ranked the nations of the world as to the quality of health care for the first and only time. The U.S. ranked 37th out of 191 countries, trailing France, Italy, Spain, Greece, The UK, Canada and Costa Rico. We were immediately followed by Slovenia and Cuba. The methodology and weight given to various factors proved controversial, but nevertheless the poor showing by the United States should cast doubt on the claim of the best health care in the world.
Do we have the best health care in the world? I don’t think so.
Friday, June 19, 2009
(This essay on health care reform is a work in progress but these are my thoughts at this time. More documentation and more thoughts to follow.)
I don’t want more government; I want less. I wish government nowhere built sports stadiums or convention centers. I would even support privatization of some current government services such as our Interstate Highway System, TVA, and mail delivery, so I certainly do not advocate nationalizing health care. I don’t want socialized medicine. I don’t support “single payer.” However, I think we must do something about health care in America.
In a recent CNN poll, 80% of Americans said they were satisfied with their health care. That may be seen as an excuse to say, “Leave well enough alone.” We can’t. There is a crisis. We cannot continue along the current trajectory. What we have is not working very well. We have a problem. Just saying “no” and supporting the status quo is not a solution. We need to get all the smart people in a room and figure out what needs to be done. I hope there really is a debate about health care. I am not sure what reform, I can support at this time but as I think about the issue here are some “givens” on my part in this debate.
We need health care reform. I accept that what we currently have is flawed and needs improvement. It is not sustainable.
Health care costs are rising. Health care costs are rising considerable faster than increases in the general price index.
Rising health care cost will wreck the economy and bankrupt the government. (More to follow.)
We do not have the best health care in the world. “Best” is a subjective term, but by many measures we do not have the healthiest people on the planet. What we have may be the best that money can buy but unless you are extremely wealthy you can’t afford the best.
The you-want-be-able-to-choose-your-own-doctor argument is exaggerated. Until we see the particulars of a specific plan this argument is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate people into opposing any change. Most people do not now go through a methodical process to choose a doctor. How many doctors did you interview before you ending up with your current doctor? I belong to an HMO and can choose from quite a long list of doctors but they have to be on the list. Unless we end up with a very draconian, almost boot camp military-style health care system, you will probably have about as much choice in choosing a doctor as the choice you exercised in choosing your current doctor. In many cases your current ability to choose a doctor depends on what kind of insurance your employer provides you.
Employers should not provide health insurance. There is nothing natural or inherently rational about your employer providing you with health insurance. The practice of our employer providing our insurance really took off in World War II when the nation had wage and price controls. Employers could not offer higher wages to attract labor but they could offer better benefits. Unions also had a roll in pressuring employers to provide insurance. Your employer should no more provide your health insurance than they should your home insurance or auto insurance. How many people are working at a job they dislike, just for the health insurance benefits? We are like serfs on the manor. We are often tied to our desk by our insurance. Breaking this tie would be liberating. Divorcing insurance from employment would free labor to me more mobile. I suspect that if people were freed from a dependency on their employer for health care, we would see a growth in small business and more overall economic growth.
Taxing of health care benefits should not be taken off the table. I do not want the taxing of health care benefits to be used as simply a tactic for destroying consumer choice and forcing most people into a government insurance program, but the concept that health care benefits should be taxes seems rational. If you are receiving your health insurance from your employer that is the equivalent of additional income on which you are not paying taxes. If all other factors are equal and you earn $30,000 and get $3000 worth of insurance benefits and your neighbor earns $33,000 and no insurance, should he have to pay more in taxes than you do? I don’t think so. It is usually the lowest income earners without employer provided heath care benefits. I am generally opposed to increasing taxes, but part of health care reform should consider taxation of employer provided benefits.
There is not a functioning “market” in health care/the market does not work. There is really not a price for health care cost. For some services, such as an office visit there may be a set price, but it is very difficult to actually determine the cost of a medical procedure and a hospital stay. The price is a function of who is paying the bill. Different insurance companies have different reimbursement rates. Many times those without insurance are charged a much higher rate than those with insurance, yet in many cases they default on the bill and do not end up paying it. Those without insurance who are charged the ticket price often bankrupt on medical bills. The roll of price as a reflection of supply and demand for a service is simply not functioning in heath care.
When a third party pays for a service, demand and cost will rise. It really does not matter whether it is the insurance company or the government paying the bill, when a third party pays the bill, people do not consider what something cost. Also, when the patient is not the one paying the bill, service providers are not as mindful of the cost. Imagine you paid a set fee for groceries and then someone else paid your grocery bill, would you eat more steak and lobster? Would you care what something cost if someone else was picking up the tab? If someone else is paying the tab, that someone has to have a roll in restricting supply. Whether it is your insurance company or government; someone has to control cost when the consumer is not the one paying the bill.
The government is already involved in health care. Many opponents of health care reform argue they do not want the government involved in health care. The government is already involved. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), and Veterans hospitals already account for over 50% of American health care spending. On top of that, each of the fifty states has massive bureaucracies to regulate health insurance and often dictate what insurance must cover and what they can and cannot do. Also, many cities support charity hospitals and public health clinics. Most cities and states have a Department of Public Health. A lot of medical research is paid for by government grants.
Too much is spent on health care administration. With a variety of complicated health care plans and a different set of government rules in each of the fifty states, we have too much of our health care dollars spent on paperwork, bureaucracy, and administration. Surely there is a way to reduce the overhead.
Too many people are without health care. 46 million Americans do not have health insurance and the number without health care is rising. A third of the companies in America do not offer their employees insurance. Many individuals are uninsurable. This of course does not mean all of these people are totally without health care. Hospital emergency rooms are required to serve anyone with an emergency. So, without regular health care, many people depend on the emergency room for all of their health care. Who pays? We do. Free services given away by hospitals are covered by increasing the cost to the paying customers. When this happens, your health insurance cost increases. Also depending on the emergency room care for health care means many people do not get preventive care or get diagnosed for an illness until it is advanced.
Not all of those without health care are unable to get it. There are some people (we don’t know how many but maybe up to half of those without insurance) who are now now covered by insurance who could now get insurance if they wanted it. Some of those without insurance are young adults who think they are invincible and prefer fancy cell phones and electronic gadgets, eating out and going to concerts over having health care. They are people who could afford insurance; it is simply not a priority. There are other people who qualify for Medicaid or some other existing program but are too ignorant or trifling to enroll.
Mandatory Health Insurance should not be taken off the table. I don’t like the concept of mandating that one purchase health insurance, but we should not out right dismiss making people at least carry catastrophic health insurance. Most states require people who own a car to have auto liability insurance. I am not so sure that mandating health insurance is any more odious than mandating that one pay taxes or be subject to a military draft. Another person’s failure to have insurance does impact my financial standing, because we all pay higher prices for our insurance to care for those without insurance. There should perhaps be creative opt-out provisions for those who will bear the full cost of their own care, but the idea of requiring one to have some sort of responsibility for their own health care, even if it means mandatory health insurance coverage should not be summarily dismissed.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Posted on Jun 11, 2009 by Staff, Baptist Press
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)--One month after being allowed to keep her crown, Carrie Prejean was fired Wednesday by the Miss California USA pageant, with both sides in the dispute disagreeing over the reasons.[full article]
Since this controversy erupted she has become a Christian celebrity appeared on Focus on the Family and appearing at the Gospel Music Association Dove Awards here in Nashville where she got a standing ovation and she has made appearances at other pro-family and Christian events. She has been praised in the religious press. She is the kind of poster child the religious right needs.
I can’t help but be amused by the whole thing. I love to see puritanical prudish Baptist defending a pin-up babe. Politics makes strange bedfellows. (Did I say "bedfellows"?)
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Rush Limbaugh once made some unflattering remarks about Chelsey Clinton's appearance when she was about 14 years old, and the news media crucified him.
Don Imas made a comment about a Black women’s basketball team calling them “nappy-headed hoes” and was kicked off the air.
Letterman should go. I don’t expect it to happen. There is obviously a double standard. Letterman would not dare make a joke about the children of President Obama. Political correctness is a one-way street. Indignation is very selective. Feminist don’t care for women, only liberal women. Apparently it is OK to make jokes about the statutory rape of a 14-year-old girl by a 34-year-old male if that girl is white and the mother is a Republican.
Here are the top ten reasons David Letterman should be retired
(10) He is a demented, 62-year old pervert who thinks it’s funny to joke about a 14 year old being raped and forcibly impregnated.
(9) His show stopped being funny at least 15 years ago.
(8) He’s a pig who wears diapers.
(7) Living in a glass house where he refused to marry his girlfriend of many years despite fathering a son, Harry, with her, making the little boy a bastard for nearly 7 years, means this particular hypocrite shouldn’t throw stones at ANY family, for ANY reason, lest stones be deservedly thrown back at him.
(6) Where are the jokes about Sasha and Malia being raped by baseball players? Where are the jokes about dirty watermelon pickers and greasy chicken fryers instead of “slutty flight attendants”? If vulgar, sick racial jokes are never allowed, why are vulgar, sick misogynist ones? If the First Daughters of the United States are clearly off limits, why isn’t a First Daughter of the State of Alaska? Answer us that, Leftists.
(5) Would Letterman think it was funny if Conan O’Brien or some other Late Night jester joked about Letterman’s son Harry being raped at Little League? Where does Letterman draw the line, exactly, on whose children it’s funny to joke about being raped.
(4) What would CBS do if a rival network DARED air something as vulgar as (5) or (6) above?
(3) Calling him a pig who wears diapers is an insult to pigs, diapers, and pigs who wear diapers.
(2) How phallic is it that Letterman obsesses not just over rape, but of rape specifically by a large man with a giant bat? That pervert has serious Freudian, Oedipal, anger, bad hair, gruesome teeth, you name it issues.
(1) David Letterman has a teeny wiener.
Top Ten Reasons David Letterman should apologize
From Copacetic City
10. He's jealous because Arod didn't knock him up.
9. He confused being a jerk with being a clown.
8. Alzheimer's made him say it.
7. To keep from losing his fan.
6. Set an example for his great-grandson-I mean son.
5. He's giving gap-toothed, misogynistic pedophiles a bad name.
4. He's scaring little girls.
3. Was smoked up on crack when he said it.
2. He stole the joke from his brother, Satan.
1. It's the right thing to do.
Top 10 Reasons to Snub David Letterman
By Jack Engelhard
10. He’s not funny.
9. His jokes are written by 20 frat boys who have an IQ of 180 – combined.
8. His audience gets in for free – and even that’s paying too much.
7. On his best day he’s no Johnny Carson. Carson would never stoop for a laugh.
6. Letterman’s reference to Sarah Palin as “slutty” was an insult to all women.
5. Letterman’s routine on Monday took up the Palin family’s visit to New York, which included a trip to the ball park. Here’s Letterman in his own words: “During the seventh inning, her [Palin’s] daughter was knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez.” Todd Palin, the father, responded like this: “Any jokes about raping my 14-year-old daughter are despicable.”
4. A perverted crack like that, by Letterman, got on national TV. (Try that on Obama’s daughters, Dave, and see how quickly you get booted.)
3. But a quip like that against a 14-year-old girl would most likely require registration as a sex offender in my neighborhood.
2. Letterman and his staff of writers misunderstand the phrase – “Women and children first.”
1. On the pretense of contrition, Letterman denied that he was a “celebrity.” Now we know what he isn’t – and we know what he is.
Top 10 Reasons to Take Letterman Off the Air
10. He gives gapped-tooth people a bad name.
9. Main stream media will have to report on actual news instead of reporting on a Letterman monologue the next day.
8. He can concentrate on giving Barack Obama ad lib lessons without a teleprompter.
7. His writers can take a well needed hiatus to recover from obvious writers block.
6. The Ed Sullivan Theater will regain some dignity.
5. The audience will be spared the stooge test in order to be admitted to a show.
4. He can write new gaffes for Joe Biden.
3. He’ll have plenty of time to develop material for the next Democratic National Convention.
2. He’s just too old to be up that late at night.
1. Guests would rather be on Conan O’Brien
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Dean calls for pledge to conserve
Mayor Karl Dean is asking Nashville residents to take a five-step pledge to help the environment by saving electricity and water and cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions.
The mayor is asking people to use at least four compact fluorescent light bulbs; turn off the water while brushing their teeth; take the bus, walk, ride a bike or carpool at least once a week instead of driving; plant a tree; and use reusable shopping bags. [Full Article]
I think Mayor Karl Dean is a pretty good mayor. He did not ask for a tax increase this year and he balanced the budget. He seems serious about improving Nashville’s embarrassingly terrible public school system. In general he has been a dignified, practical, business-like mayor. We have had no city scandals. That is about all I expect from a mayor. I think I voted for him. This latest from the Mayor, however, strikes me as silly green symbolism.
They are going to kick off this environmental pledge campaign tonight before the Nashville Sounds baseball game. Steve Gild, an environmental health and safety officer at Vanderbilt University, his wife and three sons are going to be the first to take the pledge in a ceremony prior to the game. I don’t know if they will raise their right hand and place their left on a Bible and solemnly swear an oath or if they will just nod their head yes when asked if they will do these five things. I wonder if they will get a copy of a certificate confirming their pledge?
This is just the kick off to the pledge campaign. I don’t know how much effort is going into this campaign. Will there be pledge commercials and billboards and peer pressure and school children indoctrination? If they are giving certificates suitable for framing I would like one. Let me see if I could meet the pledge requirements.
1. Use at least four fluorescent light bulbs. Easy, I already to that. I think I was conned however in buying florescent. I thought they were supposed to last six years. The first one I ever used, I put on my front porch. To change that light bulb I have to get a latter from the basement and climb a latter to change it. I did not want to have to change that bulb very often. I was sold on the fact they are supposed to be long lasting. After putting in the first one, I swear it was out in about six weeks. I don't think in general use they last any longer than a incandescent. There is one burning in the basement that stays on all the time. I never turn it off and it has lasted a long time. They do save energy, which saves money, and I am really into saving money. So, I am assuming the upfront cost pays for itself in electric savings. I counted at least four of them in use in my house, so I can check off item number one.
2. Turn off the water while brushing your teeth. Can we negotiate on this one? I like to leave the water running while brushing my teeth. My water bill never runs over $9.61 a month which means I am not exceeding the minimum charge, so I am using very little water. What if instead of turning off the water while bushing my teeth I agree to only shower 6 days a week instead of seven. Some days when I go from my air conditioned home to my air conditioned office in my air conditioned car and then back, and I don’t do my exercise or go out anywhere, I don’t think it would hurt to skip a shower. If on those days when I don’t sweat, if I skip a shower can I still leave the water on while brushing my teeth?
What about this: If me and my wife shower together, instead of separately, could that take the place of turning the water off while teeth brushing? Or this: I only wash my car about once every three months. I take it to the Hot Springs place and get the deluxe. When I get back in it, it feels like I am in a new car. Now, some people I know wash their car much more often. It does not seem fair that I can’t substitute forgoing a car wash for turning the water off while brushing my teeth. I bet that in a lifetime of turning the water off while brushing my teeth, I would not use as much water as one car wash.
3. Take the bus, walk, ride a bike or carpool at least once a week. I can’t do that. I have to come home for lunch. I won’t go into why, but I just have to. In the past I use to occasionally ride my bike to work on Friday’s. That was when I had a different work schedule and only had to work half a day on Friday. I could still occasionally do it if some scumbag had not stolen my bike off my front porch last fall. I only live about three miles from work. Could we talk about this requirement? This is going to be very hard for most people to do. Some people caught up in the spirit of “green” may take the pledge then not follow through. Car pooling is inconvenient. Most people do not have the same destination or schedule as their neighbors. Good luck on getting very many people to seriously follow through on this pledge. I just don't think they will do it.
Anyway, I would like to be except from this part of the pledge and still get my green credentials. Let me tell you my logic: I don’t drive a lot. I live three miles from my work, three miles from the heart of downtown, two miles from one sister and not too far from other family. I seldom drive very far. I don't drive out to the malls except about once a year. I only use about a tank of gas a month. Now, it does not seem fair that someone who lives in Mt. Juliet and drives to town everyday should get the benefit of being a pledge, when even if they do carpool once a week, they are still doing a lot more damage to the environment then I. I choose to live where I do. I could have chosen to move to the suburbs. So, shouldn’t living close to town and work and thereby not driving much anyway earn me more green points than giving up a vehicle one day a week but living far away?
4. Plant a tree. Mayor, where do you want me to plant this tree? My yard is so shady, I can’t grow any flowers now. I will do this however. I have all kinds of trees coming up in my yard and I just hate to cut them down. I have some maple samplings about three feet tall. I will dig one of them up and plant it on the public space adjoining Wedgewood Ave, behind my house. I hope public works doesn't cut it down. I am not going to get a permit or ask, I am just going to do it. Actually I have already planted a couple trees on that bank. I will plant one more. One of the maples is now a pretty good size tree. I planted it the first year I moved here.
5. Use renewable shopping bags. This I am not going to do. I would forget them. This is a hassle. Can I substitute something else? Instead, if I will not buy new clothes but will buy my clothes at goodwill, can I get green points for doing that? I have seen some of the people at Traders Joe's with their reusable bags and they then go get in their SUV with Williamson County licence plates. I bet I am greener than they.
Mayor Dean, I agree to two of the five and I think have made a pretty good argument about why I should be able to substitute or be exempt from the other three. Can I still have my green credentials? Anyway, why these five? I could have come up with five "greener" things than that and qualified. I live a pretty frugal life style. I usually shop at Good Will except for shoes. I live in a modest two-bedroom, one-bath house. I almost never buy anything new. I don’t drink bottled water. I drive a modest mid size car instead of an SUV. I don’t have a swimming pool. I don’t go on trips very often. I bet I am a lot greener than a lot of the people who will take your green pledge. Unless we can negotiate some of your pledge items, I guess I will just not get my green certificate, but it doesn’t seem fair.
I do have a suggestion for you. The story in the paper said that the Sounds were hosting this event and calling it the “Go Green Night” and everyone was being encouraged to wear green. This is the second year they have hosted such an event. Why not in the future make the “Go Green” night on St Patrick’s Day and then we could kill two birds with one stone? (Not that I kill birds.) I think drinking green beer is a good way to show you support the environment. I could do that.
Thirty-eight years ago, the federal government nationalized passenger rail lines, creating the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak.
At the time, it was expected to be profitable within three years. Almost 4 decades later, the original $340 million investment of public funds has grown to $30 billion, with no profitability in sight.
President Obama will now own 60 percent of GM, and his union buddies will own almost 20 percent. And what do we -- the American taxpayers --get? We're stuck with up to a $50 billion tab for the taxpayer dollars Obama is using to pay for his takeover of GM.
Britain nationalized its automotive industry in the 1970s to disastrous result -- the government-run, union-saddled companies were finally sold off again under Margaret Thatcher after years of dismal performance.
That is why I'm again asking you to continue your support of the Republican Party. We are determined to resist the Obama Democrats' socialist takeover of our free markets and erosion of our economic liberties.
Please stand with us by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the Republican National Committee today. Your gift will fund our efforts to inform the American people of the Democrats economic overreach and support the recruitment and election of principled, free market Republican candidates who will defeat the Democrats and return sanity to government.
P.S. Rod, you and the Republican Party are all that stand between Barack Obama and the realization of a socialist's dream. That's why I hope you'll take this opportunity right now to support our efforts to stop the Democrats' economic takeover and prepare to defeat them in 2010 by making an online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC today. Thank you
Friday, June 12, 2009
This photo was taken at a ceremony to mark the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy at Colleville-sur-Mer cemetery, June 6, 2009. I don't have a clue what is going on here, but our First Lady does not look very pleased with France's First Lady. I lifted this from Bluegrass Pundit.
Please suggest a caption.