You read it right...President Obama has tasked the space agency with improving relations with the Muslim world. In fact, he's made it their foremost mission.
Uh....what?
The space agency -- the guys who figured out how to get to the moon, and more importantly, back -- The brilliant scientists who have spent years discovering the stars, learning about the planets,and innovatively creating ways to get our world linked with the immeasurable universe -- is now supposed to reach out to the Muslim world.
And from what I read, it seems that the greatest motivation behind this is that the Muslim world has been...well, left out when it comes to historic contributions to science. "...there is much to be gained by drawing in the contributions that are possible from Muslim {nations}." NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden explained.
You'll note that he said "possible". I'm sorry but this seems a lot like giving participation ribbons to the all the little soccer players who were on the field, but didn't accomplish any thing beyond that. I'm sure that there are brilliant Muslim scientists, but I have never heard of any huge scientific discoveries or contributions made by Muslim countries...And probably no fault of the scientists, there either. Muslim nations don't strike me as being big into science, sadly.
It is bad enough that NASA has been hamstrung by budget cuts while Congress spends money on more unemployment benefits, but I'm appalled that now they are being made irrelevant by being tasked with this ridiculous mission.
Dear Honorable, Innovative, Hard-working, Forward-thinking NASA employees, you have my sympathy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
It doesn't seem like a big deal...Until they come for YOUR freedom...
Our state has instituted “sin taxes” on candy, and soda pop. Some states are trying to regulate fat content of foods, and children’s consumption of foods deemed to be “unhealthy”. The list of regulation grows...
I have to admit that it never bothered me that there are plenty of taxes on cigarettes and liquor – mostly because I don’t smoke, and rarely have an alcoholic drink. But when they come for my candy, my pop, my french fries – I find myself thinking, “Back off!”
The premise behind this is that certain items for consumption, and certain activities, are more likely to be harmful to you. Your use or participation will probably result in physical needs that are costly to meet. So – the powers-that-be seek to discourage your participation by making it more costly to you now, as well as mitigate, with your tax dollars, the future cost of your care.
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
Until they come for your french fries...or your motorcycle rides...or your diet Coke...or your favorite restaurant’s menu...or your helicopter skiing excursion...or your daily latte...
Then it seems like they are taking away our freedom, and regulating us all to activities that are manageable for them. I don’t like it...and I’m pretty sure that the addicted-to-risk-taking generations that follow us won’t like it either. I just can’t picture Gen X or Y (what letter are we on now?) giving up snowboarding out-of-bounds (with their transponder, of course!)to maintain good standing with their government provided health-care. I’ve always taken encouragement from the fact that Gen Y’ers won’t put up with it, and it will be the death of the idea.
However, recently, the wise Walter Williams alerted me to the problem with the premise that sounds so reasonable.
He explained that while we look at these taxes and regulations as a failure of liberty, they are not. Instead, they are a failure of socialism. Socialism presumes that the government is responsible for our care, all of it. Whether we need our bank bailed out, our health care paid for, our environment cleaned of oil, our cribs made safe, our crop failures reimbursed (the list is endless) – it is the government’s responsibility.
Of course, the government can’t do it all – unless they manage the risks, unless they curtail our freedoms. The problem is not that we choose to participate in certain behaviors. The problem is that we participate in these behaviors, expecting someone else to cover the consequences if we can’t.
Anymore, I don’t take such comfort in the attitude of the Gen Y’ers risk-taking addiction. I suppose they figure that whatever happens to them, someone else will take care of it. It now seems obvious to me that we are a society that believes we have a right to good results...no matter what we do. From ambulance-chasing lawyers, to Congressional hearings about gas pedals, we expect that anything bad that happens to us should be fixed – by the government (or some big, deep-pocketed corporation the government took to the woodshed)!
We can engage in endless discussion of what should be regulated, and why, and how, and who should receive help, and who should be protected – a morass of moral relativism that threatens to swamp us all. In reality, the issue at its basis is simple: It’s not the government’s job to take care of us, to guarantee positive outcomes for all of our lives.
I wonder how our lives might be changed if we knew that our consequences were our own...that, truly, we would reap what we sowed...that if trouble came, we had to figure it out, not submit a form to the government for aid.
It could only improve the country, in my opinion. It might produce a new generation of innovators, and confident problem-solvers, instead of the whining, self-indulgent, and apathetic society we see too often these days.
It’s been a challenge to me, and I challenge you , to recognize where we have accepted the expectation that others should mitigate the consequences of our choices. It is a sneaky little assumption that creeps into our minds more readily than we realize.
And it needs to go!
I have to admit that it never bothered me that there are plenty of taxes on cigarettes and liquor – mostly because I don’t smoke, and rarely have an alcoholic drink. But when they come for my candy, my pop, my french fries – I find myself thinking, “Back off!”
The premise behind this is that certain items for consumption, and certain activities, are more likely to be harmful to you. Your use or participation will probably result in physical needs that are costly to meet. So – the powers-that-be seek to discourage your participation by making it more costly to you now, as well as mitigate, with your tax dollars, the future cost of your care.
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
Until they come for your french fries...or your motorcycle rides...or your diet Coke...or your favorite restaurant’s menu...or your helicopter skiing excursion...or your daily latte...
Then it seems like they are taking away our freedom, and regulating us all to activities that are manageable for them. I don’t like it...and I’m pretty sure that the addicted-to-risk-taking generations that follow us won’t like it either. I just can’t picture Gen X or Y (what letter are we on now?) giving up snowboarding out-of-bounds (with their transponder, of course!)to maintain good standing with their government provided health-care. I’ve always taken encouragement from the fact that Gen Y’ers won’t put up with it, and it will be the death of the idea.
However, recently, the wise Walter Williams alerted me to the problem with the premise that sounds so reasonable.
He explained that while we look at these taxes and regulations as a failure of liberty, they are not. Instead, they are a failure of socialism. Socialism presumes that the government is responsible for our care, all of it. Whether we need our bank bailed out, our health care paid for, our environment cleaned of oil, our cribs made safe, our crop failures reimbursed (the list is endless) – it is the government’s responsibility.
Of course, the government can’t do it all – unless they manage the risks, unless they curtail our freedoms. The problem is not that we choose to participate in certain behaviors. The problem is that we participate in these behaviors, expecting someone else to cover the consequences if we can’t.
Anymore, I don’t take such comfort in the attitude of the Gen Y’ers risk-taking addiction. I suppose they figure that whatever happens to them, someone else will take care of it. It now seems obvious to me that we are a society that believes we have a right to good results...no matter what we do. From ambulance-chasing lawyers, to Congressional hearings about gas pedals, we expect that anything bad that happens to us should be fixed – by the government (or some big, deep-pocketed corporation the government took to the woodshed)!
We can engage in endless discussion of what should be regulated, and why, and how, and who should receive help, and who should be protected – a morass of moral relativism that threatens to swamp us all. In reality, the issue at its basis is simple: It’s not the government’s job to take care of us, to guarantee positive outcomes for all of our lives.
I wonder how our lives might be changed if we knew that our consequences were our own...that, truly, we would reap what we sowed...that if trouble came, we had to figure it out, not submit a form to the government for aid.
It could only improve the country, in my opinion. It might produce a new generation of innovators, and confident problem-solvers, instead of the whining, self-indulgent, and apathetic society we see too often these days.
It’s been a challenge to me, and I challenge you , to recognize where we have accepted the expectation that others should mitigate the consequences of our choices. It is a sneaky little assumption that creeps into our minds more readily than we realize.
And it needs to go!
Friday, June 4, 2010
Got Rhythm?
A national survey conducted by the Center for Disease Control, who interviewed 2800 15-19 year olds, face to face, between 2006 and 2008 has revealed an interesting statistic.
It was found that 17% of sexually active teenage girls (up from 11% in 2002) rely on the rhythm method for birth control.
I can't believe it.
I just can't picture a teen rendevous in the back seat of the car ending with a counted consideration of the days in her personal calendar...Right...Because, of course, teen boys heading for the back seat of the care are so restrained and responsible with their hormones.
The only scenario in which this might work is with a couple that so rarely restrains themselves that they are sated enough to take a break...A sad and unlikely situation.
Basically, these girls are saying they don't use birth control...A sadder and more likely situation.
Because you know what they call people who use the rhythm method: PARENTS.
And 70% of the girls in the survey believe it is okay for a girl to have a baby on her own, as did 64% of young men in the same age group...
I wonder if their opinion changes once they've unsuccessfully used the rhythm method...
Thinking of all those little kids caught in the consequences saddens my heart.
It was found that 17% of sexually active teenage girls (up from 11% in 2002) rely on the rhythm method for birth control.
I can't believe it.
I just can't picture a teen rendevous in the back seat of the car ending with a counted consideration of the days in her personal calendar...Right...Because, of course, teen boys heading for the back seat of the care are so restrained and responsible with their hormones.
The only scenario in which this might work is with a couple that so rarely restrains themselves that they are sated enough to take a break...A sad and unlikely situation.
Basically, these girls are saying they don't use birth control...A sadder and more likely situation.
Because you know what they call people who use the rhythm method: PARENTS.
And 70% of the girls in the survey believe it is okay for a girl to have a baby on her own, as did 64% of young men in the same age group...
I wonder if their opinion changes once they've unsuccessfully used the rhythm method...
Thinking of all those little kids caught in the consequences saddens my heart.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Love It/Hate It
Have you seen these Zappos ads yet? I LOVE THEM!! They are so clever, and so cute...and very effective.
I learned that some of these ads are actual recordings of people posing as customers, making strange requests of actual Zappos customer service reps. Then they recreated the scene with the puppets. Obviously, their customer service reps are great!
On the other hand, here is an ad I HATE!!
Even though it's a cartoon, it's just TOO GRAPHIC for me...YUK!! I just don't want to think about that...
And I'm embarrassed that you brought it up...PLEASE!! Some problems just don't need to be discussed in public!
Friday, May 21, 2010
Radio Ridiculousness...
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...
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...
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)