Check out this this article on "sabering" champagne from Tuesday's Democrat & Chronicle. This is a method of opening a champagne bottle using a "sword" or other large knife.
I wonder how many Rochesterians will be "toasting" the New Year at a local Emergency Room because they decided to give this idea a try? I also wonder if they will sue the D&C for putting the idea into their heads?
I'm going to go with the safe old "cover the bottle with a towel so that the cork doesn't put someone's eye out" method. That way I won't have any blood or broken glass in my Dom Perignon (okay, my J. Roget's).
Any way you open it, have a Happy New Year!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
He's Got A Friend
As noted in the Democrat & Chronicle over the past few days, Governor Paterson's budget proposal has been battered by criticism from all quarters.
In fact, after reading all of the stories trashing the budget, I'd say that there are only two people in the State who have not criticised the proposal; Governor Paterson himself and Caroline Kennedy.
In fact, after reading all of the stories trashing the budget, I'd say that there are only two people in the State who have not criticised the proposal; Governor Paterson himself and Caroline Kennedy.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
End Of STAR?
Tucked away in the recesses of today's stories on Governor Paterson's budget proposal was a note that he wants to do away with the STAR real property tax rebate that has subsidized school tax payments for many New Yorkers.
I have always believed that STAR was the ultimate shell game. It amounts to being bribed with our own money. But, for many seniors, the STAR plan has meant little or no school tax expense. If STAR is really ended, there will be an outcry like New York politicians have not heard in a long time. I foresee a wheelchair and walker march on Albany to protest this program being cut.
Ending STAR will also put more pressure on School District budgets. Seniors, effectively bought off with their STAR rebates, have stayed home on school budget votes. Without STAR, they will swarm to the polls to vote no on school spending.
I don't think this cut will survive to become law. Seniors vote and legislators know it. They won't cross that interest group.
I have always believed that STAR was the ultimate shell game. It amounts to being bribed with our own money. But, for many seniors, the STAR plan has meant little or no school tax expense. If STAR is really ended, there will be an outcry like New York politicians have not heard in a long time. I foresee a wheelchair and walker march on Albany to protest this program being cut.
Ending STAR will also put more pressure on School District budgets. Seniors, effectively bought off with their STAR rebates, have stayed home on school budget votes. Without STAR, they will swarm to the polls to vote no on school spending.
I don't think this cut will survive to become law. Seniors vote and legislators know it. They won't cross that interest group.
Better Start That Diet!
I am going to head back to the gym and start my New Year's diet a bit early.
I read the paper this morning and read about the "Obesity Tax". Yikes! Today a tax on sugary drinks, tomorrow a surcharge on KFC. I figure it won't be long before guys like me who weigh over 275 will start paying an income tax surcharge for every pound over a "healthy target weight".
Seriously, there isn't much left between us and the nanny state. Everywhere we turn, we are being told what to eat, what to drive, where to set the thermostat, etc. I'm worried that the liberals who have taken over all the branches of government in Washington and Albany will have guys like me in their sights.
I mean, I put sugar and half and half in my regular coffee (that's three food police violations right there). I use butter instead of margarine and I love roast beef. I'm probably headed for a re-education camp where I'll learn to like whole grains, green vegetables and cottage cheese.
I may move to Canada after all. At least I can still get bacon and eggs there.
I read the paper this morning and read about the "Obesity Tax". Yikes! Today a tax on sugary drinks, tomorrow a surcharge on KFC. I figure it won't be long before guys like me who weigh over 275 will start paying an income tax surcharge for every pound over a "healthy target weight".
Seriously, there isn't much left between us and the nanny state. Everywhere we turn, we are being told what to eat, what to drive, where to set the thermostat, etc. I'm worried that the liberals who have taken over all the branches of government in Washington and Albany will have guys like me in their sights.
I mean, I put sugar and half and half in my regular coffee (that's three food police violations right there). I use butter instead of margarine and I love roast beef. I'm probably headed for a re-education camp where I'll learn to like whole grains, green vegetables and cottage cheese.
I may move to Canada after all. At least I can still get bacon and eggs there.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Big Three Bail-Out. First Step On Road To Government Managed Economy?
I am deeply troubled by the "bail-out fever" that has overcome Washington and, apparently, the nation. I don't have any facts or brilliant rationale behind this view, I just think it is a very serious mistake to give the government so much control over our lives.
Make no mistake, these bail-outs come at a price which is larger than the dollar amount involved. The government getting a stake in major industries means control over them. For example, if we bail-out the "Big Three", consumers will no longer decide what cars are made based upon which cars we want to buy, the "car czar" will decide what types of vehicles are made available to us based upon things like fuel economy and other things that are "good for us".
Frankly, I'm appalled at the spectacle of the Big Three CEO's begging for money. The pitiful scene was made worse by the fact that half the reason for their need for help is the regulations imposed on them by the Congress they were begging from.
As Holman Jenkins notes in this article from The Wall Street Journal, there is a big problem with the proposed rescue plan; to wit: "[t]o become "viable," as Congress chooses crazily to understand the term, the Big Three are setting out to squander billions on products that will have to be dumped on consumers at a loss". His article goes on to point out how CAFE standards set by Congress, along with the lawmaker's allegiance to (and fear of) the UAW, have been the catalyst for a great deal of the automakers' problems.
The more general problem is the fact that we are quite possibly seeing the first steps in the "nationalization" of the US economy. The free market, which has ruled in America since its inception, and which, I believe, is responsible for our prosperity, may be giving way to a state managed economy. Worse, business leaders, first in the banking industry, and now the auto industry are asking the government to take over. They should be fighting this, kicking and screaming; instead, they are begging for government "help".
Worst of all, President Bush is apparently going along with this plan. Why? Isn't it obvious to him that the Democrats just want him to sign off on the "first steps" down the road to this new economic reality? Thus, next year, when they make the really dramatic changes, they can say "hey, George Bush was behind it". He's giving them cover. Why?
The whole bail-out mentality really troubles me. Lenders, borrowers, businessmen, none of them want to be responsible for their plight. They all want someone else to rescue them from mistakes they made. Why should we do it? And how long can we afford to do it? I'm not an economist, but I truly believe that if we continue on this path, our economy will be ruined and our future will not be anywhere near as prosperous as our past.
UPDATE 12/13:
Check out this PowerLine article. It contains sentiments similar to mine regarding the way in which the Bush Administration has chosen to deal with the auto industry bail-out. The following lines from that article reflect my views completely:
"To me, the most disheartening aspect of the current bailout spree is the spectacle of executives from the banking, investment banking, insurance and auto industries begging the government for cash like teenagers who have blown their allowances and are abjectly asking their Daddy for more money. The government as Daddy--wasn't that supposed to be a liberal concept?"
Make no mistake, these bail-outs come at a price which is larger than the dollar amount involved. The government getting a stake in major industries means control over them. For example, if we bail-out the "Big Three", consumers will no longer decide what cars are made based upon which cars we want to buy, the "car czar" will decide what types of vehicles are made available to us based upon things like fuel economy and other things that are "good for us".
Frankly, I'm appalled at the spectacle of the Big Three CEO's begging for money. The pitiful scene was made worse by the fact that half the reason for their need for help is the regulations imposed on them by the Congress they were begging from.
As Holman Jenkins notes in this article from The Wall Street Journal, there is a big problem with the proposed rescue plan; to wit: "[t]o become "viable," as Congress chooses crazily to understand the term, the Big Three are setting out to squander billions on products that will have to be dumped on consumers at a loss". His article goes on to point out how CAFE standards set by Congress, along with the lawmaker's allegiance to (and fear of) the UAW, have been the catalyst for a great deal of the automakers' problems.
The more general problem is the fact that we are quite possibly seeing the first steps in the "nationalization" of the US economy. The free market, which has ruled in America since its inception, and which, I believe, is responsible for our prosperity, may be giving way to a state managed economy. Worse, business leaders, first in the banking industry, and now the auto industry are asking the government to take over. They should be fighting this, kicking and screaming; instead, they are begging for government "help".
Worst of all, President Bush is apparently going along with this plan. Why? Isn't it obvious to him that the Democrats just want him to sign off on the "first steps" down the road to this new economic reality? Thus, next year, when they make the really dramatic changes, they can say "hey, George Bush was behind it". He's giving them cover. Why?
The whole bail-out mentality really troubles me. Lenders, borrowers, businessmen, none of them want to be responsible for their plight. They all want someone else to rescue them from mistakes they made. Why should we do it? And how long can we afford to do it? I'm not an economist, but I truly believe that if we continue on this path, our economy will be ruined and our future will not be anywhere near as prosperous as our past.
UPDATE 12/13:
Check out this PowerLine article. It contains sentiments similar to mine regarding the way in which the Bush Administration has chosen to deal with the auto industry bail-out. The following lines from that article reflect my views completely:
"To me, the most disheartening aspect of the current bailout spree is the spectacle of executives from the banking, investment banking, insurance and auto industries begging the government for cash like teenagers who have blown their allowances and are abjectly asking their Daddy for more money. The government as Daddy--wasn't that supposed to be a liberal concept?"
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Paterson, D&C Wrong on Court Picks
As you have probably read, Gov. Paterson indicated that he was "disturbed" by the composition of the list of Court of Appeals nominees selected by the Commission on Judicial Nomination. An aide indicated that Paterson was disturbed by the lack of diversity of the group, which included seven men, one of whom was African-American.
The D&C weighed in yesterday with and editorial stating that the Commission should go back and try again. Mr. Lawrence and the D&C Editorial Board also feel that diversity was not served by the nominations.
Well, I guess the notion that Barak Obama's election might usher in a period of post-racial politics may have been a little over-hyped. It appears that the Governor and the D&C think that diversity is the number one qualification for nomination to the State's highest Court. The complaints seem a bit hollow since the NY Court of Appeals is already a very diverse group, including four women, one of whom is Hispanic, as well as an African-American.
One would think that the most important criterion for elevation to the Court of appeals would be legal and judicial acumen. I guess I was wrong there. But if you carry the diversity argument to its logical conclusion, in a case where the seven most qualified nominees were all women or African-American or Hispanic, some of them would be expected to be left aside so that a mediocre white male could be nominated.
That would be disturbing. I know Justice is supposed to be blind. Doesn't that include color-blind?
The D&C weighed in yesterday with and editorial stating that the Commission should go back and try again. Mr. Lawrence and the D&C Editorial Board also feel that diversity was not served by the nominations.
Well, I guess the notion that Barak Obama's election might usher in a period of post-racial politics may have been a little over-hyped. It appears that the Governor and the D&C think that diversity is the number one qualification for nomination to the State's highest Court. The complaints seem a bit hollow since the NY Court of Appeals is already a very diverse group, including four women, one of whom is Hispanic, as well as an African-American.
One would think that the most important criterion for elevation to the Court of appeals would be legal and judicial acumen. I guess I was wrong there. But if you carry the diversity argument to its logical conclusion, in a case where the seven most qualified nominees were all women or African-American or Hispanic, some of them would be expected to be left aside so that a mediocre white male could be nominated.
That would be disturbing. I know Justice is supposed to be blind. Doesn't that include color-blind?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Random Thoughts
Just some musings about a few things which made the news lately.
Detroit Three Bailout:
Did you happen to see the comments made by GM CEO Waggoner last week? He was expressing disappointment about the reception he and his fellow tin-cup holding auto execs got in Washington and noted that Congress' thinking on the auto industry "was a little stale". I wonder how he would characterize his thinking about flying into D.C. on private jets while pleading poverty?
How about "a little arrogant"?
Albany Special Leg. Session:
While almost everyone would agree that our State Legislature is particularly dysfunctional, the failed special session called by Governor Paterson was especially so. There was so little chance that anything would be accomplished that one wonders why they spent the money to hold the session.
I don't think any of the "three men in the room" distinguished themselves, but I don't get the particular criticism of GOP Senate leader Skelos. It is clear that he and his GOP fellows have no stomach for taking steps to help the Democrats fix the budget, but it wasn't as though the Senate GOP stopped everything. Sheldon Silver did not speak a word in public about getting his caucus to support the Governor. Skelos could have pulled off a real coup by actually agreeing to cuts and forcing Silver to put up or shut up.
Instead we will all wait another couple months while the Albany deficit grows larger.
Obama's Cabinet:
Its really looking like Clinton redux given the majority of Obama's picks being Clintonistas. The left is chagrined. Its hard to believe that Hillary could have picked many more former Clinton aides if she had been elected. Who knows. Maybe Obama really wants to govern closer to the middle than we thought. Or, maybe, this is a feint since he knows that the liberal Pelosi-Reid Congress is going to serve up a left-wing agenda that will warm the hearts of the Kos crowd. then, if things go badly, he might have plausible deniability.
Palin's Turkey Shoot:
The left is so afraid of Sarah Palin, its amazing. The stir caused by her interview at the turkey farm was beyond belief. She did the pardon thing for one lucky bird, but as she was giving an interview, other less fortunate Toms were being readied for Thanksgiving (in the background as she spoke).
From the reaction by liberals, you'd have thought that she was a serial killer. A PowerLine reader opined that Palin should have indicated that she was sorry about the slaughter of those innocent birds and, so as to assuage the left's feelings, she'd do her next interview from an abortion clinic.
GOP "Uncivil War":
There have been a number of stories in the news about the fight for the soul of the GOP. Who will win, the moderates, the conservatives, the evangelicals? I have found it particularly funny that many people claim that the GOP was 'hijacked" by the "Christian Right".
I'm not sure how they reached that conclusion. It seems to me that in all of the years since Ronald Reagan was elected, all the evangelicals got from the GOP was a ban on federal funding for stem cell research, the "defense of marriage act", and a failed attempt at keeping a brain dead woman alive.
I guess those Christian fundamentalists need some lessons on hijacking. Maybe they could get some from Islamic fundamentalists.
Detroit Three Bailout:
Did you happen to see the comments made by GM CEO Waggoner last week? He was expressing disappointment about the reception he and his fellow tin-cup holding auto execs got in Washington and noted that Congress' thinking on the auto industry "was a little stale". I wonder how he would characterize his thinking about flying into D.C. on private jets while pleading poverty?
How about "a little arrogant"?
Albany Special Leg. Session:
While almost everyone would agree that our State Legislature is particularly dysfunctional, the failed special session called by Governor Paterson was especially so. There was so little chance that anything would be accomplished that one wonders why they spent the money to hold the session.
I don't think any of the "three men in the room" distinguished themselves, but I don't get the particular criticism of GOP Senate leader Skelos. It is clear that he and his GOP fellows have no stomach for taking steps to help the Democrats fix the budget, but it wasn't as though the Senate GOP stopped everything. Sheldon Silver did not speak a word in public about getting his caucus to support the Governor. Skelos could have pulled off a real coup by actually agreeing to cuts and forcing Silver to put up or shut up.
Instead we will all wait another couple months while the Albany deficit grows larger.
Obama's Cabinet:
Its really looking like Clinton redux given the majority of Obama's picks being Clintonistas. The left is chagrined. Its hard to believe that Hillary could have picked many more former Clinton aides if she had been elected. Who knows. Maybe Obama really wants to govern closer to the middle than we thought. Or, maybe, this is a feint since he knows that the liberal Pelosi-Reid Congress is going to serve up a left-wing agenda that will warm the hearts of the Kos crowd. then, if things go badly, he might have plausible deniability.
Palin's Turkey Shoot:
The left is so afraid of Sarah Palin, its amazing. The stir caused by her interview at the turkey farm was beyond belief. She did the pardon thing for one lucky bird, but as she was giving an interview, other less fortunate Toms were being readied for Thanksgiving (in the background as she spoke).
From the reaction by liberals, you'd have thought that she was a serial killer. A PowerLine reader opined that Palin should have indicated that she was sorry about the slaughter of those innocent birds and, so as to assuage the left's feelings, she'd do her next interview from an abortion clinic.
GOP "Uncivil War":
There have been a number of stories in the news about the fight for the soul of the GOP. Who will win, the moderates, the conservatives, the evangelicals? I have found it particularly funny that many people claim that the GOP was 'hijacked" by the "Christian Right".
I'm not sure how they reached that conclusion. It seems to me that in all of the years since Ronald Reagan was elected, all the evangelicals got from the GOP was a ban on federal funding for stem cell research, the "defense of marriage act", and a failed attempt at keeping a brain dead woman alive.
I guess those Christian fundamentalists need some lessons on hijacking. Maybe they could get some from Islamic fundamentalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
