Having a son in the radio business, I listen quite a lot...and yesterday I caught a couple of common and regular ridiculous radio caller comments, and I can stay silent no longer.
People! You make me crazy when you say:
"Your screener told me to get right to the point, so I will just get right to the point."
Uhhhh...that is NOT getting right to the point!!! And, surprise, the talk show host knows that the screener told you that, because the SCREENER TELLS EVERYONE THAT!! We ALL know the screener says that!!! JUST GET TO THE POINT BY SAYING YOUR POINT!!!
And then, when the talk show host says, "20 seconds, what are your thoughts?" I hear:
"I know time is short, so I'll just get right to the subject."
Do you realize that you just used 15% of your time saying you didn't have much time? Right after the host said you didn't have much time? Oh, please! Redundancy!! Wastefulness!! All in 20 seconds...which are now gone with your point half made.
Okay, okay...I know I'm unmerciful to these amateurs who are probably nervous, and maybe say things they didn't plan to...But I'm not assigning any devaluation to their personhood...I'm just saying, IT MAKES ME CRAZY!!
And folks...I don't have far to go on that...
Friday, May 21, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Rock and The Hard Place...
Recent buzz has our Governor, Christine Gregoire, as a possible candidate to move from our lovely state, to the Other Washington, to fill the Solicitor General position that may be vacated by Elaina Kagan, nominee for the U. S. Supreme Court.
I'm no fan of Governor Gregoire's policies, or practices, and frankly, I think there was some funny business that went on to win her the election after multiple recounts. I have absolutely no proof -- The situation just seemed too contrived to be legitimate. Call me a conspiracy theorist on that topic!
Anyway, I would not be sorry to see Ms. Gregoire vacate her office and give Washingtonians an opportunity to see some real leadership in our Governor's office.
However...
The Solicitor General is the attorney that represents the United States in cases that come before the Supreme Court...which would mean that Christine Gregoire, with her liberal leanings, and political debts to pay and play, would be the lead defender/ litigator for our country against those making claims against it. Think about that...Oh my!
As much as I want a change for our state, it might be better for our country if we suffered the damage here in Washington for a little while longer...
I'm no fan of Governor Gregoire's policies, or practices, and frankly, I think there was some funny business that went on to win her the election after multiple recounts. I have absolutely no proof -- The situation just seemed too contrived to be legitimate. Call me a conspiracy theorist on that topic!
Anyway, I would not be sorry to see Ms. Gregoire vacate her office and give Washingtonians an opportunity to see some real leadership in our Governor's office.
However...
The Solicitor General is the attorney that represents the United States in cases that come before the Supreme Court...which would mean that Christine Gregoire, with her liberal leanings, and political debts to pay and play, would be the lead defender/ litigator for our country against those making claims against it. Think about that...Oh my!
As much as I want a change for our state, it might be better for our country if we suffered the damage here in Washington for a little while longer...
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Catching up...
Goodness! I didn't realize that I had been silent for almost a month...Silent, but not without opinions, and there have been a few things that have been percolating in my mind...
First, let me say that I stand with you, Spirit Airlilnes, on your unpopular implementation of a fee for carry on bags. Personally, I have an affinity for this because I find it extremely annoying to stand in the aisle of a plane behind someone who is "encouraging" their too large bag to fit inside an overhead compartment. Sometimes, I have all I can do to keep from saying, "It might be easier for you to ride in the overhead compartment and put your mondo-bag on the seat!" or "Please tell me that during turbulence, when your mondo-bag bursts out of the compartment it will hit YOU and not ME on the head." Anyway, that's my personal reasoning. If it costs more than checking your bag, fewer people will do it, and we will be able to board the plane in less time...and de-board in less time too! And have less risk of injury and aggravation...
But there is a better reason why I want Chuck Schumer and the government to stay out of Spirit Airline's business. We don't need government to come in and start making a bunch of new rules that will be stupid in half the circumstances they regulate, when the marketplace will take care of any problems on its own. I've noticed that Spirit Airlines is not the only airline in the country...hmmmm -- and if people think their new policy is unfair, they will probably find another airline to fly with...hmmm...And if enough people do that, Spirit Airlines will start to lose money, and they will decide that perhaps charging for carry-ons isn't working out so well...and then they will stop doing that...
That is called the "free market" and isn't it amazing how it just takes care of the perceived problem without leaving behind a pile of paperwork, documentation and irrelevant regulation. It's AMAZING!! Chuck, you should try it some time...soon.
My second issue is a potential biggie: the proposal for a Washington State income tax "on the wealthy". First question: Who gets to decide who is wealthy? I think that there may be as many definitions of wealthy as there are people in the state. If one of the premises of this proposal is to make things "fair", how do you define what is "fair"?
Frankly, I feel sorry for the wealthy. They just don't get credit for one of their major contributions to society. Everyone thinks that the best they can do is give more money to be shared with those who have not...I think their major contribution is that their success creates more jobs. "Ever seen a poor man give another man a job?" I quote a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show. It's a lot like the old adage, "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime."
The tax dollars taken from the rich are finite. The opportunities that a job gives an individual are not. So I see the proposed income tax as limiting opportunities. And of course, it is another case of punishing the productive to reward the unproductive -- and I'm not just talking about welfare recipients -- unless you consider our state government a welfare recipient, which it very nearly is, come to think of it. If it's going to keep going, we are going to have to give more to help it get back on it's feet...Which seem to be standing on our feet...all the time lately.
Overall, it just isn't a solution to take more money from our successful entrepeneurs and businesses to grow a state government that can't get its own budget balanced -- or even understood. It seems to me that a little tough love, a little free market thinking might be in order here.
First, let me say that I stand with you, Spirit Airlilnes, on your unpopular implementation of a fee for carry on bags. Personally, I have an affinity for this because I find it extremely annoying to stand in the aisle of a plane behind someone who is "encouraging" their too large bag to fit inside an overhead compartment. Sometimes, I have all I can do to keep from saying, "It might be easier for you to ride in the overhead compartment and put your mondo-bag on the seat!" or "Please tell me that during turbulence, when your mondo-bag bursts out of the compartment it will hit YOU and not ME on the head." Anyway, that's my personal reasoning. If it costs more than checking your bag, fewer people will do it, and we will be able to board the plane in less time...and de-board in less time too! And have less risk of injury and aggravation...
But there is a better reason why I want Chuck Schumer and the government to stay out of Spirit Airline's business. We don't need government to come in and start making a bunch of new rules that will be stupid in half the circumstances they regulate, when the marketplace will take care of any problems on its own. I've noticed that Spirit Airlines is not the only airline in the country...hmmmm -- and if people think their new policy is unfair, they will probably find another airline to fly with...hmmm...And if enough people do that, Spirit Airlines will start to lose money, and they will decide that perhaps charging for carry-ons isn't working out so well...and then they will stop doing that...
That is called the "free market" and isn't it amazing how it just takes care of the perceived problem without leaving behind a pile of paperwork, documentation and irrelevant regulation. It's AMAZING!! Chuck, you should try it some time...soon.
My second issue is a potential biggie: the proposal for a Washington State income tax "on the wealthy". First question: Who gets to decide who is wealthy? I think that there may be as many definitions of wealthy as there are people in the state. If one of the premises of this proposal is to make things "fair", how do you define what is "fair"?
Frankly, I feel sorry for the wealthy. They just don't get credit for one of their major contributions to society. Everyone thinks that the best they can do is give more money to be shared with those who have not...I think their major contribution is that their success creates more jobs. "Ever seen a poor man give another man a job?" I quote a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show. It's a lot like the old adage, "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime."
The tax dollars taken from the rich are finite. The opportunities that a job gives an individual are not. So I see the proposed income tax as limiting opportunities. And of course, it is another case of punishing the productive to reward the unproductive -- and I'm not just talking about welfare recipients -- unless you consider our state government a welfare recipient, which it very nearly is, come to think of it. If it's going to keep going, we are going to have to give more to help it get back on it's feet...Which seem to be standing on our feet...all the time lately.
Overall, it just isn't a solution to take more money from our successful entrepeneurs and businesses to grow a state government that can't get its own budget balanced -- or even understood. It seems to me that a little tough love, a little free market thinking might be in order here.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
So this is what it has come to...
I couldn't believe what I was reading in the Sunday Herald! I'll quote it (partially) here, with credit to the author, in an effort to not get in trouble for copying without permission...
TANNING TAX MAKES SOME SALON BUSINESSES BURNING MAD
by Nathan Olivarez-Giles LA Times
"Eydie McNeill was fuming about the newly passed health care bill, but her rage had nothing to do with socialism, death panels, or the deficit.
She just likes a good tan, and because of a provision in the bill that puts a 10 percent additional tax on tanning salon fees, her sessions are going to cost her more.
'I'm angry, I'm really disappointed by all this,' said McNeill, 51, waiting for a tanning bed at the Tanning Club in Westwood. "It just feels like we are being taxed for everything nowadays."
She was not just thinking of herself. McNeill is a sorority house mom at Gamma Phi Beta at the University of California-Los Angeles.
'A lot of my girls tan, most of them, and they don't have a lot of extra money,' she said. 'They're students. Most students live on a tight budget.' "
I have 3 observations:
1. Sorority girls of UCLA -- if you can afford to tan, you don't know what a tight budget is!! Holy cow!! These are the depths of victimization that we have fallen to? We are now supposed to be concerned about people who can't afford to tan -- as much as they are accustomed to.
2. Of course, this is a legitimate reason for the health care bill to be repealed. Girls in CALIFORNIA will not be able to tan!! Thank you, liberal media for finally finding a good reason for the American public to be concerned and fearful about how this bill will change their lives.
3. Though I reject the idea that taxing tanning will lead to the prevention of skin cancer, I would like to encourage you entitlement-minded out there to note this: You want free health care. You want the government to provide for your "right" to quality health care. You know how they're going to take care of you? They're going to limit your freedom to tan as much as you want, to eat as many french fries as you want, to smoke if you want, to ride motorcycles if you want, etc., etc...by taxing you, or the business that provides these services...Yep, it will COST more...one way or the other...and probably both ways.
You know, it would be nice if you entitlement-minded people would think these things through, and not just live by your gut.
I don't think I've ever said a less diplomatic thing in my life.
TANNING TAX MAKES SOME SALON BUSINESSES BURNING MAD
by Nathan Olivarez-Giles LA Times
"Eydie McNeill was fuming about the newly passed health care bill, but her rage had nothing to do with socialism, death panels, or the deficit.
She just likes a good tan, and because of a provision in the bill that puts a 10 percent additional tax on tanning salon fees, her sessions are going to cost her more.
'I'm angry, I'm really disappointed by all this,' said McNeill, 51, waiting for a tanning bed at the Tanning Club in Westwood. "It just feels like we are being taxed for everything nowadays."
She was not just thinking of herself. McNeill is a sorority house mom at Gamma Phi Beta at the University of California-Los Angeles.
'A lot of my girls tan, most of them, and they don't have a lot of extra money,' she said. 'They're students. Most students live on a tight budget.' "
I have 3 observations:
1. Sorority girls of UCLA -- if you can afford to tan, you don't know what a tight budget is!! Holy cow!! These are the depths of victimization that we have fallen to? We are now supposed to be concerned about people who can't afford to tan -- as much as they are accustomed to.
2. Of course, this is a legitimate reason for the health care bill to be repealed. Girls in CALIFORNIA will not be able to tan!! Thank you, liberal media for finally finding a good reason for the American public to be concerned and fearful about how this bill will change their lives.
3. Though I reject the idea that taxing tanning will lead to the prevention of skin cancer, I would like to encourage you entitlement-minded out there to note this: You want free health care. You want the government to provide for your "right" to quality health care. You know how they're going to take care of you? They're going to limit your freedom to tan as much as you want, to eat as many french fries as you want, to smoke if you want, to ride motorcycles if you want, etc., etc...by taxing you, or the business that provides these services...Yep, it will COST more...one way or the other...and probably both ways.
You know, it would be nice if you entitlement-minded people would think these things through, and not just live by your gut.
I don't think I've ever said a less diplomatic thing in my life.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
LONGING...LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGIIIINNNGGG...
That describes me after all the Health Care Reform Hoo-Haw...
I'm LONGING for SOMEONE, ANYONE in the halls (no longer hallowed) of Congress to speak the truth...to make a decision based on what is good for the people he serves, NOT based on what his good for his position, or for his next election.
I believe that I am not the only one feeling this kind of longing. In fact, I think that anyone who had the courage to do this would find himself in front of a very large following. However, besides the lack of courageous people of integrity in Congress (not a dearth, a lack), I think this doesn't happen because most citizens are not aware of how bad things are, and are not paying enough attention to require accountability in their own representatives and Senators.
Was it Plato that said, "The price men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves."?
That's it, folks. We need to make our government representatives accountable. Make them answer for what they are doing...And show the door to those who are in power for power, not to serve.
Easier said than done...but imperative!
I'm LONGING for SOMEONE, ANYONE in the halls (no longer hallowed) of Congress to speak the truth...to make a decision based on what is good for the people he serves, NOT based on what his good for his position, or for his next election.
I believe that I am not the only one feeling this kind of longing. In fact, I think that anyone who had the courage to do this would find himself in front of a very large following. However, besides the lack of courageous people of integrity in Congress (not a dearth, a lack), I think this doesn't happen because most citizens are not aware of how bad things are, and are not paying enough attention to require accountability in their own representatives and Senators.
Was it Plato that said, "The price men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves."?
That's it, folks. We need to make our government representatives accountable. Make them answer for what they are doing...And show the door to those who are in power for power, not to serve.
Easier said than done...but imperative!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Another reason I am against health care reform...
"Of all tryannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "
-- C.S. Lewis
-- C.S. Lewis
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Oh for goodness, people!
Big news today is that WA Ceasefire is putting the pressure on Starbucks to make their coffee shops gun-free zones.
Can one think of a more ill-conceived and ill-timed campaign?
Good idea, guys! Let's start this movement in Seattle, which is next-door to Tacoma, where 4 gun-carrying police officers were shot & killed in a coffee shop by an armed crazyman. Because one of these officers was able to fire at the fleeing perp and wound him, they were able to find and arrest the crazyman, protecting the public and other officers from being further targets.
Isn't this illustration enough that it is not the presence of guns that cause the problem?
WA Ceasefire is demanding that Starbucks create a law of their own -- not supported by the codes and laws of the state, which allow gun-totin' (they're all cowboys anyway, right?)citizens to go purchase their grande double shot caramel macchiato extra hot while packing their own heat...So who is going to enforce it? Can you see the barista going up to the gun-packing coffee drinker and asking him to leave? I don't think so.
And, by the way, how big a problem do they think this is? I can't say I've ever gone into any coffee shop wondering how many people in there were carrying guns...I have my doubts that's where all the sketchy gun-carrying people go...Starbucks...Right! The coffee shops are rife with people just waiting to shoot it up...Though, if they know people with guns are not allowed there, maybe now they will give it a try. No worries about somebody trying to be a hero when you're robbing the place...
I'm glad that, so far, Starbucks is sticking to their guns (pun intended), and not changing their policy. But I have to say that I know a lot of Seattlite liberal types will think it a moral victory if they cave...and they just might -- for marketing reasons. It will make some people feel good, and feel safer (-- and self-righteous too) and they will LOVE Starbucks. "I'll have a little world peace with my coffee, please." Awwww...
Foolish people are willing to FEEL good, instead of looking at facts with reason and responding appropriately. WA Ceasefire members seem to be passionate and proud that they are working to make people feel safe...But when a crazyman breaks down their door, I think they might wish they had a gun.
Can one think of a more ill-conceived and ill-timed campaign?
Good idea, guys! Let's start this movement in Seattle, which is next-door to Tacoma, where 4 gun-carrying police officers were shot & killed in a coffee shop by an armed crazyman. Because one of these officers was able to fire at the fleeing perp and wound him, they were able to find and arrest the crazyman, protecting the public and other officers from being further targets.
Isn't this illustration enough that it is not the presence of guns that cause the problem?
WA Ceasefire is demanding that Starbucks create a law of their own -- not supported by the codes and laws of the state, which allow gun-totin' (they're all cowboys anyway, right?)citizens to go purchase their grande double shot caramel macchiato extra hot while packing their own heat...So who is going to enforce it? Can you see the barista going up to the gun-packing coffee drinker and asking him to leave? I don't think so.
And, by the way, how big a problem do they think this is? I can't say I've ever gone into any coffee shop wondering how many people in there were carrying guns...I have my doubts that's where all the sketchy gun-carrying people go...Starbucks...Right! The coffee shops are rife with people just waiting to shoot it up...Though, if they know people with guns are not allowed there, maybe now they will give it a try. No worries about somebody trying to be a hero when you're robbing the place...
I'm glad that, so far, Starbucks is sticking to their guns (pun intended), and not changing their policy. But I have to say that I know a lot of Seattlite liberal types will think it a moral victory if they cave...and they just might -- for marketing reasons. It will make some people feel good, and feel safer (-- and self-righteous too) and they will LOVE Starbucks. "I'll have a little world peace with my coffee, please." Awwww...
Foolish people are willing to FEEL good, instead of looking at facts with reason and responding appropriately. WA Ceasefire members seem to be passionate and proud that they are working to make people feel safe...But when a crazyman breaks down their door, I think they might wish they had a gun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)