So on NPR this morning Diane Rehm and a panel of bank-hating fake experts are talking about the recent study findings that the rich got way richer over the past 30 years.
This study found the top 1%'s income grew 275%, adjusted for inflation, from 1977 to 2007. The bottom 25%'s income grew 18%, adjusted for inflation, from 1977 to 2007.
Rehm at one point says, "But, 275% percent, Woo!" As in man, that's a lot, and it's UNFAIR!
Do you think Diane knows anything about what that number means? Because I don't, really, but I'd expect a disparity. For one thing, the top 1% get income (most of their income?) from wealth, not just their salary. Those big bank accounts accumulate more and more wealth over the years, and interest compounds. The bulk (virtually all?) of the bottom 25%'s income is wages from their job. Obviously that doesn't explain all of it, but that's part of it I'm sure.
Also, do you think Rehm exclaimed "Woo!" and just didn't mention that compared to the income growth of the top 1% in other countries, 275% is way high? Did she undertake that inquiry, and just fail to talk about all those boring statistics? Because I'd be curious to know those boring stats.
Or was Diane looking at 275% vs. 18% in a vacuum, and having no idea what it really means, she just knows it's not fair that CEOs and Wall Street bankers are getting obnoxiously rich while hard-working poor people are struggling to survive?
Maybe what she's really saying is this: "Comprehension of this income disparity study requires actual sophistication and math! I'm out! I just want some talking points! F Wall Street! Woo!"
Friday, October 28, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Big 12 Billionaires Club.
No more interviews with McCombs and T. Boone about the Big 12. How about let's hear what Mike Leach has to say.
Useful Metrics.
Mike,
I saw your article in the E-N re. Texas’s struggles in the red zone. You noted:
“After ranking 82nd nationally in red-zone efficiency last year, the Longhorns have been even worse in 2011. They’ve scored on only 18 of 26 opportunities (69 percent) inside the opponents’ 20, placing them 113th out of 120 NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision teams nationally. Even more frustrating for UT is that six of those scores were merely field goals. Bryan Harsin’s offense has scored touchdowns on just 46 percent of its red-zone trips.” LINK: http://blog.mysanantonio.com/longhorns/2011/10/ut-football-horns-focusing-on-red-zone/
I assume you got your rankings here: http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/1038
A couple things bother me about red zone stats and rankings. First of all, there’s the obvious problems comparing the results of an offense with 1st and goal at the 5 versus an offense that gets into the red zone with 4th and 5 from the 20. But, I guess you’ve got to lump some apples in with oranges if you want macro-analysis, and maybe it evens out over the course of 12 or 13 games. My real problem with red zone efficiency stats is treating all scores equally. A field goal is as good as a touchdown, according to the red zone efficiency rankings. That’s ridiculous.
A team with 10 field goals in 10 trips to the red zone is 100% efficient, and sits atop the rankings. On the other hand, a team with 5 touchdowns in 10 trips to the red zone is 50% efficient, and would rank dead last in red zone efficiency. The first-place team scored 30 points in its red zone opportunities; the last-place team scored 35 points*. Have you ever heard anybody say, “Hey, my team lost today 35-30, but who cares - we were twice as efficient team in the red zone!”?
The best metric for red zone efficiency is points per trip to the red zone. Because we value more points over less points. The two teams in my example are hypothetical statistical extremes. Most teams’ delta between their All Scores Are Equal ranking and a points per red zone drive ranking wouldn’t be that extreme. Nevertheless, you get my point. We don’t count field goals and touchdowns equally on the scoreboard. Why do we count them equally in Red Zone Offense rankings?
Mike, please join me in my quest for measuring a team’s red zone efficiency based on points per red zone drives.
Regards,
luridtransom
P.S. Texas averages 3.92 points per red zone drive.
*assumes all PATs converted for one point
I saw your article in the E-N re. Texas’s struggles in the red zone. You noted:
“After ranking 82nd nationally in red-zone efficiency last year, the Longhorns have been even worse in 2011. They’ve scored on only 18 of 26 opportunities (69 percent) inside the opponents’ 20, placing them 113th out of 120 NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision teams nationally. Even more frustrating for UT is that six of those scores were merely field goals. Bryan Harsin’s offense has scored touchdowns on just 46 percent of its red-zone trips.” LINK: http://blog.mysanantonio.com/longhorns/2011/10/ut-football-horns-focusing-on-red-zone/
I assume you got your rankings here: http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/1038
A couple things bother me about red zone stats and rankings. First of all, there’s the obvious problems comparing the results of an offense with 1st and goal at the 5 versus an offense that gets into the red zone with 4th and 5 from the 20. But, I guess you’ve got to lump some apples in with oranges if you want macro-analysis, and maybe it evens out over the course of 12 or 13 games. My real problem with red zone efficiency stats is treating all scores equally. A field goal is as good as a touchdown, according to the red zone efficiency rankings. That’s ridiculous.
A team with 10 field goals in 10 trips to the red zone is 100% efficient, and sits atop the rankings. On the other hand, a team with 5 touchdowns in 10 trips to the red zone is 50% efficient, and would rank dead last in red zone efficiency. The first-place team scored 30 points in its red zone opportunities; the last-place team scored 35 points*. Have you ever heard anybody say, “Hey, my team lost today 35-30, but who cares - we were twice as efficient team in the red zone!”?
The best metric for red zone efficiency is points per trip to the red zone. Because we value more points over less points. The two teams in my example are hypothetical statistical extremes. Most teams’ delta between their All Scores Are Equal ranking and a points per red zone drive ranking wouldn’t be that extreme. Nevertheless, you get my point. We don’t count field goals and touchdowns equally on the scoreboard. Why do we count them equally in Red Zone Offense rankings?
Mike, please join me in my quest for measuring a team’s red zone efficiency based on points per red zone drives.
Regards,
luridtransom
P.S. Texas averages 3.92 points per red zone drive.
*assumes all PATs converted for one point
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Flat Tax: It's time for poor people to pay more taxes.
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/10/rick-perry-embraces-flat-tax-concept/
So now Rick Perry wants a flat tax. Funny he's just now getting around to mentioning this. Hey, at least it's an idea.
Don't worry - Gov. Mountain Dew hasn't gone totally tax wonk on us. “It’s time to bring tough medicine to Washington,” Perry declared. “No longer will policy going be set by (lobbyists on) K Street. It will be dictated by Main Street.”
So now Rick Perry wants a flat tax. Funny he's just now getting around to mentioning this. Hey, at least it's an idea.
Don't worry - Gov. Mountain Dew hasn't gone totally tax wonk on us. “It’s time to bring tough medicine to Washington,” Perry declared. “No longer will policy going be set by (lobbyists on) K Street. It will be dictated by Main Street.”
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Jobs Bill Conversation.
Ahhh yes, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell both accusing the other's party of playing politics with the Jobs Bill.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Ummm, because, you know, it will be awesome!
Dear Mizzou,
What makes you think you're better off in the SEC than the Big 12? Because it's more fun to lose to LSU and Bama than Texas and OU? Seriously, explain to me how this is a good move for Mizzou. We have lots of Mizzou readers, right?
What makes you think you're better off in the SEC than the Big 12? Because it's more fun to lose to LSU and Bama than Texas and OU? Seriously, explain to me how this is a good move for Mizzou. We have lots of Mizzou readers, right?
Friday, September 30, 2011
Time to have a conversation.
Governor Perry: “What we are seeing in America today is a conservative awakening, a revival born out of a deep concern that liberals have used the machinery of the federal government to impose a nanny state that limits our freedom and that targets free enterprise.”
Principal Rooney: "Wake up and smell the coffee, Mrs. Bueller. It's a fool's paradise. He is just leading you down the primrose path."
Principal Rooney: "Wake up and smell the coffee, Mrs. Bueller. It's a fool's paradise. He is just leading you down the primrose path."
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Constitution America
We should elect Senators and Representatives on American Idol, and strip Congress of all actual power. Did you see the dance routine Sen. Brittany Spears (R - LA) did yesterday at the Capitol? It was so awesome!
Friday, September 23, 2011
AARP Mailbag: Introduction.
As you know, for some reason we are on the AARP e-mail list. AARP addresses us as George. Here's a recent exchange, which we've posted in top-to-bottom format for the ease and convenience of our busy readers.
Right now there are four e-mails. As always, we'll keep you updated when AARP next responds.
Right now there are four e-mails. As always, we'll keep you updated when AARP next responds.
AARP Mailbag: 1 of 4
From: Fred Griesbach
To: luridtransom
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2011 5:00 AM
Subject: Your retirement isn't a budget line item
Dear George,
The Congressional supercommittee will be meeting again tomorrow.
We just have a few weeks left to show Congress why it's so important to protect Medicare and Social Security benefits.
Send a powerful story to Congress today or tell your own.
Tomorrow, the 12 members of Congress on the newly created Congressional "supercommittee" will be meeting again to discuss a deal to reduce the deficit and your Medicare and Social Security benefits are on the table for possible benefit cuts.
George, activists like you have shared thousands of powerful stories to show the importance of Medicare and Social Security benefits to everyday people. We need to make sure Congress hears these stories NOW, before the supercommittee begins finalizing their recommendations.
Send an AARP activist's powerful story to Congress today or tell your own and show them why it's so important to protect Medicare and Social Security benefits.
For many in Congress, these critical programs are just numbers on a balance sheet in this debate. But here are the numbers that really matter half of Americans 65 and older have an income of less than $18,500 per year, and many spend over $3,000 a year on health care costs alone.
Cuts to benefits would mean that people like Elsie N., who relies on Medicare to help her afford her husband's critical medications, would be left with dangerous choices, especially in these tough economic times.
The supercommittee should be focusing on cutting waste and tax loopholes to address the deficit, not on cutting the benefits you've earned. Your real stories have the power to change minds in Washington, but it's up to us to make sure they're heard.
The supercommittee meets again tomorrow. Send a powerful story today, and show Congress that your retirement security isn't simply a budget line item, and why it's so important for them to say no to benefit cuts.
Thank you for taking action at this critical time - we just have a few more weeks to make our voices heard.
Sincerely,
Fred Griesbach
AARP Campaigns
To: luridtransom
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2011 5:00 AM
Subject: Your retirement isn't a budget line item
Dear George,
The Congressional supercommittee will be meeting again tomorrow.
We just have a few weeks left to show Congress why it's so important to protect Medicare and Social Security benefits.
Send a powerful story to Congress today or tell your own.
Tomorrow, the 12 members of Congress on the newly created Congressional "supercommittee" will be meeting again to discuss a deal to reduce the deficit and your Medicare and Social Security benefits are on the table for possible benefit cuts.
George, activists like you have shared thousands of powerful stories to show the importance of Medicare and Social Security benefits to everyday people. We need to make sure Congress hears these stories NOW, before the supercommittee begins finalizing their recommendations.
Send an AARP activist's powerful story to Congress today or tell your own and show them why it's so important to protect Medicare and Social Security benefits.
For many in Congress, these critical programs are just numbers on a balance sheet in this debate. But here are the numbers that really matter half of Americans 65 and older have an income of less than $18,500 per year, and many spend over $3,000 a year on health care costs alone.
Cuts to benefits would mean that people like Elsie N., who relies on Medicare to help her afford her husband's critical medications, would be left with dangerous choices, especially in these tough economic times.
The supercommittee should be focusing on cutting waste and tax loopholes to address the deficit, not on cutting the benefits you've earned. Your real stories have the power to change minds in Washington, but it's up to us to make sure they're heard.
The supercommittee meets again tomorrow. Send a powerful story today, and show Congress that your retirement security isn't simply a budget line item, and why it's so important for them to say no to benefit cuts.
Thank you for taking action at this critical time - we just have a few more weeks to make our voices heard.
Sincerely,
Fred Griesbach
AARP Campaigns
AARP Mailbag: 2 of 4
From: luridtransom
To: Fred Griesbach
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2011 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Your retirement isn't a budget line item
Dear Fred,
I am in favor of cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits. The current system is unsustainable.
What is your solution to the long term structural deficits? Thanks.
Regards,
luridtransom
To: Fred Griesbach
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2011 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Your retirement isn't a budget line item
Dear Fred,
I am in favor of cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits. The current system is unsustainable.
What is your solution to the long term structural deficits? Thanks.
Regards,
luridtransom
AARP Mailbag: 3 of 4
From: "member@aarp.org"
To: luridtransom
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Your retirement isn't a budget line item
Dear luridtransom:
Thank you for contacting AARP about our advocacy on Social Security and Medicare. I appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with us, and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Throughout the past several months, AARP has been focused on preventing cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits for the millions of beneficiaries who have paid into the systems over their working lives. We are relieved that Congress has acted on a bipartisan agreement to address the debt ceiling and prevent default to ensure that seniors will continue to receive their Social Security checks and have access to health care. We are also gratified that after hearing from millions of AARP members, the President and Congress did not cut Social Security, Medicare and long-term care in the first round of deficit reduction.
Going forward, we are pleased that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits are protected if the so-called "supercommittee" fails to reach an agreement later this fall, but we will remain vigilant in our efforts to protect the health and retirement security of seniors and future retirees. We are concerned that a fast-track committee process will deny Americans a voice in the discussion about critical tax, health and retirement issues. We are also concerned about the potential use of a trigger that would arbitrarily cut provider payments under Medicare, which could unfairly shift costs to seniors.
As the deficit debate continues, AARP will continue to impress upon Congress the need to protect Medicare and Social Security from harmful cuts. We will continue to raise the voices of millions of Americans who rely on their Social Security and Medicare benefits and oppose benefit cuts for deficit reduction. Americans want a broader conversation around health and economic security, not one focused solely on deficit reduction.
AARP believes that the American public deserves a seat at the table in any forum, including the newly created super committee, which discusses potential changes to these critical programs. We believe that our nation's leaders should work together to strengthen health and retirement security for current and future generations.
AARP was founded more than 50 years ago to ensure that older Americans have affordable health care and financial security in retirement. While much has changed since those early years, our commitments have not. For more information, or to get involved, visit www.aarp.org/protectseniors.
Thank you again for writing. We always welcome your input. Please feel free to continue sharing your comments and questions.
Sincerely,
Darlene
Member Communications
Member@aarp.org
To: luridtransom
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Your retirement isn't a budget line item
Dear luridtransom:
Thank you for contacting AARP about our advocacy on Social Security and Medicare. I appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with us, and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Throughout the past several months, AARP has been focused on preventing cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits for the millions of beneficiaries who have paid into the systems over their working lives. We are relieved that Congress has acted on a bipartisan agreement to address the debt ceiling and prevent default to ensure that seniors will continue to receive their Social Security checks and have access to health care. We are also gratified that after hearing from millions of AARP members, the President and Congress did not cut Social Security, Medicare and long-term care in the first round of deficit reduction.
Going forward, we are pleased that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits are protected if the so-called "supercommittee" fails to reach an agreement later this fall, but we will remain vigilant in our efforts to protect the health and retirement security of seniors and future retirees. We are concerned that a fast-track committee process will deny Americans a voice in the discussion about critical tax, health and retirement issues. We are also concerned about the potential use of a trigger that would arbitrarily cut provider payments under Medicare, which could unfairly shift costs to seniors.
As the deficit debate continues, AARP will continue to impress upon Congress the need to protect Medicare and Social Security from harmful cuts. We will continue to raise the voices of millions of Americans who rely on their Social Security and Medicare benefits and oppose benefit cuts for deficit reduction. Americans want a broader conversation around health and economic security, not one focused solely on deficit reduction.
AARP believes that the American public deserves a seat at the table in any forum, including the newly created super committee, which discusses potential changes to these critical programs. We believe that our nation's leaders should work together to strengthen health and retirement security for current and future generations.
AARP was founded more than 50 years ago to ensure that older Americans have affordable health care and financial security in retirement. While much has changed since those early years, our commitments have not. For more information, or to get involved, visit www.aarp.org/protectseniors.
Thank you again for writing. We always welcome your input. Please feel free to continue sharing your comments and questions.
Sincerely,
Darlene
Member Communications
Member@aarp.org
AARP Mailbag: 4 of 4
From: luridtransom
To: "member@aarp.org"
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Your retirement isn't a budget line item
Dear Darlene,
Thanks for your response. However, you COMPLETELY FAILED to answer my question. Let me ask it again in a different way.
First of all, there is broad agreement among pretty much everyone who understands basic math, regardless of political persuasion, that Medicare and Social Security, as they currently exist, are financially unsustainable. By financially unsustainable, I mean the long-term structural deficits of these programs will consume an ever-increasing percentage of GDP, and the payroll taxes collected will no longer cover the benefit payments.
If you disagree with this, and believe Medicare and Social Security status quo IS sustainable, please say so and explain.
Otherwise, please explain AARP's proposed solution to the unsustainability discussed above. And don't just tell me you want to protect seniors. I know that already, and that is NOT an answer to my question.
I look forward to your response, which I will post on my blog.
Regards,
luridtransom
To: "member@aarp.org"
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Your retirement isn't a budget line item
Dear Darlene,
Thanks for your response. However, you COMPLETELY FAILED to answer my question. Let me ask it again in a different way.
First of all, there is broad agreement among pretty much everyone who understands basic math, regardless of political persuasion, that Medicare and Social Security, as they currently exist, are financially unsustainable. By financially unsustainable, I mean the long-term structural deficits of these programs will consume an ever-increasing percentage of GDP, and the payroll taxes collected will no longer cover the benefit payments.
If you disagree with this, and believe Medicare and Social Security status quo IS sustainable, please say so and explain.
Otherwise, please explain AARP's proposed solution to the unsustainability discussed above. And don't just tell me you want to protect seniors. I know that already, and that is NOT an answer to my question.
I look forward to your response, which I will post on my blog.
Regards,
luridtransom
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Oh my God, it's time to PARTY, San Antonio!
The San Antonio Talons are ready for some football.
It was confirmed today that the existing Arena Football League franchise in Tulsa, Okla., also called the Talons, has been sold to a partnership headed by California-based businessman Jason Lohe and will begin play in the Alamodome next March.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/article/Arena-Football-team-officially-moving-to-San-2182039.php#ixzz1Yd0CdWQF
It was confirmed today that the existing Arena Football League franchise in Tulsa, Okla., also called the Talons, has been sold to a partnership headed by California-based businessman Jason Lohe and will begin play in the Alamodome next March.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/article/Arena-Football-team-officially-moving-to-San-2182039.php#ixzz1Yd0CdWQF
Friday, September 16, 2011
One liners and talking points.
Much has been made of Wolf Blitzer's question to Ron Paul at the GOP debate.
Wolf Blitzer: You’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.
A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides: “You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.” But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
My question is who pays for that now? How does that work? I guess he goes to a county hospital and just doesn't pay the bill? Or if he has a good job, he ultimately files bankruptcy (thus discharging the debt and leaving the bill unpaid) or maybe he negotiates the fee way down and pays pennies on the dollar? And ultimately, the hospital district taxpayers and people with insurance make up the shortfall?
That's what I think happens, but I don't know for sure. Maybe one of you healthcare wonks in our readership can enlighten us.
Anyhow, if that's the case, there are three obvious positions:
1) Is Good System. Keep the status quo.
2) Make that dude pay for insurance. That is, Obama-style federal mandate.
3) If he can't pay cash and doesn't have insurance, that coma is his problem. Good luck.
I think Ron Paul chose #3, but disguised it by saying the churches will take care of him. Which is great, if that happens. But isn't the logical extension of Paul’s position that if the churches don't take care of him, that coma is his own problem, and good luck to you, sir?
Unless someone from the Ron Paul campaign tells us otherwise, we’re putting Paul down for position #3, and noting he hopes churches will help the dude out.
And, F you high-horse media, reporting the Tea Party crowd cheered when Blitzer asked Paul if you just let him die. First of all, it's not really accurate that the whole crowd cheered. There were a few "Play Freebird" style hollers. Second, letting the dude die is a legitimate option. Just because it offends your morals and view of the role of government doesn't mean it's wrong, self-righteous NPR reporter.
Legalize Dogfighting.
Wolf Blitzer: You’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.
A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides: “You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.” But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
My question is who pays for that now? How does that work? I guess he goes to a county hospital and just doesn't pay the bill? Or if he has a good job, he ultimately files bankruptcy (thus discharging the debt and leaving the bill unpaid) or maybe he negotiates the fee way down and pays pennies on the dollar? And ultimately, the hospital district taxpayers and people with insurance make up the shortfall?
That's what I think happens, but I don't know for sure. Maybe one of you healthcare wonks in our readership can enlighten us.
Anyhow, if that's the case, there are three obvious positions:
1) Is Good System. Keep the status quo.
2) Make that dude pay for insurance. That is, Obama-style federal mandate.
3) If he can't pay cash and doesn't have insurance, that coma is his problem. Good luck.
I think Ron Paul chose #3, but disguised it by saying the churches will take care of him. Which is great, if that happens. But isn't the logical extension of Paul’s position that if the churches don't take care of him, that coma is his own problem, and good luck to you, sir?
Unless someone from the Ron Paul campaign tells us otherwise, we’re putting Paul down for position #3, and noting he hopes churches will help the dude out.
And, F you high-horse media, reporting the Tea Party crowd cheered when Blitzer asked Paul if you just let him die. First of all, it's not really accurate that the whole crowd cheered. There were a few "Play Freebird" style hollers. Second, letting the dude die is a legitimate option. Just because it offends your morals and view of the role of government doesn't mean it's wrong, self-righteous NPR reporter.
Legalize Dogfighting.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Congratulations to self-serving politics for its continued dominance over sound policy.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will not include reforms to the Social Security retirement program in his deficits proposals to Congress next week, the White House said Thursday.
Obama upset many fellow Democrats during this summer's bitter negotiations with Republicans on raising the debt ceiling when he expressed a willingness to change the way government benefits are linked to inflation.
Obama upset many fellow Democrats during this summer's bitter negotiations with Republicans on raising the debt ceiling when he expressed a willingness to change the way government benefits are linked to inflation.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Entitled to Delicious.
From: luridtransom
To: "LoneStar@hhsc.state.tx.us"
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 5:47 PM
Subject: Lone Star Card.
Dear Lone Star Card,
Can I use my Lone Star Card to buy Dr. Pepper? What about Three Musketeers candy bars - can I use my Lone Star Card for them?
Thank you. I look forward to hearing whether I can use this government benefit to purchase a tasty snack of a cold Dr. Pepper and a rich, chocolatey Three Musketeers.
Regards,
luridtransom
To: "LoneStar@hhsc.state.tx.us"
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 5:47 PM
Subject: Lone Star Card.
Dear Lone Star Card,
Can I use my Lone Star Card to buy Dr. Pepper? What about Three Musketeers candy bars - can I use my Lone Star Card for them?
Thank you. I look forward to hearing whether I can use this government benefit to purchase a tasty snack of a cold Dr. Pepper and a rich, chocolatey Three Musketeers.
Regards,
luridtransom
Friday, September 02, 2011
Good points, except football is awesome and where in the Constitution does it say dog fighting is bad?
Column by Pamela Redmond Satran from the so called INTER-TRON.
I Hate Dogs: Does That Make Me Un-American?
Americans love football, a commentator on the Michael Vick case said today on CNN, but they love dogs even more. All Americans but me, I guess. I hate football. But I hate dogs even more.
Yes, okay, I said it. Come on, burn a big doggie biscuit on my lawn. Stone me the way you might a baby killer or a gay basher. I realize that coming out as a dog-hater puts me among the lowest of the low.
Abhor kids? Reasonable. Despise men? Makes sense. But don't you dare say a word against Fido. Let me pause right here and say that I'm not pro-dogfighting or dog torture or any of the other hideous things Vick is accused of and that undoubtedly go on.
On the other hand, America's dog worship has gotten way out of hand. One of the few reliable ways to sell a book these days is to make dogs your subject: witness Jon Katz's oeuvre, Cesar's Way, and of course Marley & Me. There's doggie chick lit (Jacqueline Sheehan's Lost & Found) and doggie lit lit (Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog at Night Time).
Will Ferrell is reportedly set to star in Carolyn Parkhurst's Dogs of Babel, a bestselling and totally absurd tale about a professor who tries to communicate the only witness to his wife's death - you guessed it: his dog. Right this very minute, I'm sure market-savvy television producer is planning an update of Mr. Ed, only with a talking dog instead of horse.
Celebrities have fueled the dog craze by carrying their Yorkies - or whatever other brand of small dog is in right now - around as devotedly as they do their designer bags and iPhones and skinny sugar-free vanilla lattes. Unlike their babies, stars never seem to fumble or drop their dogs. Dogs seem to offer celebrities not only unconditional love but truly enduring relationships.
It's not that everybody in the world except me loves dogs, I think, so much that those people who do love them feel so very very strongly about it. Dog lovers are kind of like Jesus Freaks, or yoga masters, except their irrational yet single-minded devotion is to a barking, biting, shedding four-legged creature.
Some of these people are even my friends - or at least they were, before they read this piece. These friends try to persuade me how wonderful their dogs are, yet all my experience only hardens me against dog worship. When I visit, the dog starts yapping before I even ring the bell, and won't stop through all attempts at conversation. The dog lunges at me and bares its terrifying fangs. If we stay in the house, the dog inevitably and deliberately sheds its hair all over me, and if we go out, the dog insists on coming along, whereupon we're forced to pick up and carry its poop with us.
Excuse me but, I'm out. And it's hard for me to find a down side to living without a dog. My house is quiet, hair-free, and doesn't smell funny. When I take a roast out of the oven and set it on the counter, I'm pretty sure five minutes later it's still going to be there. In the middle of the night, I never hear those little doggie nails click click clicking across the wooden floor or wake up to find a black tongue probing my nose.
I guess on Sundays when the Raiders are playing the Jets and all your friends are busy, if you're dogless there's no one to lie on your chest and watch the game with you. But that's a price I'm willing to pay.
I Hate Dogs: Does That Make Me Un-American?
Americans love football, a commentator on the Michael Vick case said today on CNN, but they love dogs even more. All Americans but me, I guess. I hate football. But I hate dogs even more.
Yes, okay, I said it. Come on, burn a big doggie biscuit on my lawn. Stone me the way you might a baby killer or a gay basher. I realize that coming out as a dog-hater puts me among the lowest of the low.
Abhor kids? Reasonable. Despise men? Makes sense. But don't you dare say a word against Fido. Let me pause right here and say that I'm not pro-dogfighting or dog torture or any of the other hideous things Vick is accused of and that undoubtedly go on.
On the other hand, America's dog worship has gotten way out of hand. One of the few reliable ways to sell a book these days is to make dogs your subject: witness Jon Katz's oeuvre, Cesar's Way, and of course Marley & Me. There's doggie chick lit (Jacqueline Sheehan's Lost & Found) and doggie lit lit (Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog at Night Time).
Will Ferrell is reportedly set to star in Carolyn Parkhurst's Dogs of Babel, a bestselling and totally absurd tale about a professor who tries to communicate the only witness to his wife's death - you guessed it: his dog. Right this very minute, I'm sure market-savvy television producer is planning an update of Mr. Ed, only with a talking dog instead of horse.
Celebrities have fueled the dog craze by carrying their Yorkies - or whatever other brand of small dog is in right now - around as devotedly as they do their designer bags and iPhones and skinny sugar-free vanilla lattes. Unlike their babies, stars never seem to fumble or drop their dogs. Dogs seem to offer celebrities not only unconditional love but truly enduring relationships.
It's not that everybody in the world except me loves dogs, I think, so much that those people who do love them feel so very very strongly about it. Dog lovers are kind of like Jesus Freaks, or yoga masters, except their irrational yet single-minded devotion is to a barking, biting, shedding four-legged creature.
Some of these people are even my friends - or at least they were, before they read this piece. These friends try to persuade me how wonderful their dogs are, yet all my experience only hardens me against dog worship. When I visit, the dog starts yapping before I even ring the bell, and won't stop through all attempts at conversation. The dog lunges at me and bares its terrifying fangs. If we stay in the house, the dog inevitably and deliberately sheds its hair all over me, and if we go out, the dog insists on coming along, whereupon we're forced to pick up and carry its poop with us.
Excuse me but, I'm out. And it's hard for me to find a down side to living without a dog. My house is quiet, hair-free, and doesn't smell funny. When I take a roast out of the oven and set it on the counter, I'm pretty sure five minutes later it's still going to be there. In the middle of the night, I never hear those little doggie nails click click clicking across the wooden floor or wake up to find a black tongue probing my nose.
I guess on Sundays when the Raiders are playing the Jets and all your friends are busy, if you're dogless there's no one to lie on your chest and watch the game with you. But that's a price I'm willing to pay.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Disappointing news about the hepatits-infected, crime-ridden sand bar called Galveston.
From the Houston Biz Journal:
Nearly three years since Hurricane Ike ravaged the Gulf Coast, the University of Texas Medical Branch is moving forward with construction of a replacement hospital in Galveston. The $438 million Jennie Sealy Hospital, to be built on the site of the existing Jennie Sealy building, will feature nearly 250 rooms, surgical suites and intensive-care space. The facility was already in the planning stages before the hurricane.
Nearly three years since Hurricane Ike ravaged the Gulf Coast, the University of Texas Medical Branch is moving forward with construction of a replacement hospital in Galveston. The $438 million Jennie Sealy Hospital, to be built on the site of the existing Jennie Sealy building, will feature nearly 250 rooms, surgical suites and intensive-care space. The facility was already in the planning stages before the hurricane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)