PDA

View Full Version : A Helpful Proposal


rlohmann
June 10th, 2005, 08:46 AM
Word has reached us here at the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy of unease among Democrats about the public pronouncements of Dr. Howard Dean, noted advocate of strong views. Some Democrats are even suggesting that Dr. Dean be muzzled.

We are shocked--shocked--at this, so much so that only our natural reserve forestalls our jumping on top of Michael Jackson's SUV, doing a dance, and proclaiming a "Free Speech Movement" on Dr. Dean's behalf.

We are more sorrowed than angered at the commotion. After all, the Democrats, the party that took Jimmy Carter from the peanut farm to the White House (and was compelled to give him back four years later), and followed that achievement by giving the Republic the extraordinary W.J. Clinton (a former law professor who, it is said, cannot go back to Arkansas at all) has fallen on hard times. Having lost two presidential elections and been relegated to the cheap seats in the Legislature, the Democrats need all the help they can get.

Not only that, but their Joan of Illinois/Arkansas/New York, Hillary Clinton, has insisted that she is not interested in running for president; that her only ambition is to serve humbly the people of New York in her accustomed Mother-Teresa mode. (Of course, since Hillary said that, it must be true. After all, would Hillary lie]?)

At any rate, saddened by this turmoil off to the left, we respectfully offer the Democrats a solution tailored to both individuals and events:a ticket of Howard-and/und-Gerd in ought-six.

Dr. Dean's assertions have caused concern only to low-level Democrats. More exalted ones--Nancy Pelosi comes to mind--have praised them. He must therefore lead the Democratic ticket. As vice-presidential candidate, however, we propose none other than German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

Mr. Schröder has long been a Democrat sympathizer. He supports government control of everything, higher taxes, and an eagerness to allow labor unions to dictate economic policy. Since the German electorate has graciously arranged for his early retirement, he will soon be available for other employment.

Mr. Schröder would be the natural running mate for Dr. Dean. (It is true that Mr. Schröder doesn't speak English, although rumors that he doesn't speak German either are somewhat exaggerated. However since Dr. Dean would do all the talking, that wouldn't matter.)

We appreciate this opportunity to offer assistance.

Sleep Well Tonight--
Your Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is Awake!

chm
June 10th, 2005, 03:34 PM
...Illinois/Arkansas/New York, Hillary Clinton...

This cracked me up. Yes, she's geographically-challenged. Hillary went to my high school in Park Ridge, Illinois. In fact, Hillary and I, to this day, share the same unattractive Chicago accent.

(I could mention a couple of more geographically-challenged politicians, but I won't, ducking & covering.)

Anyway, as to your proposal, if we're going to have a foreign-born, German-speaking VP, why not one of our own?

Arnold.

I regret that I said that.

rlohmann
June 10th, 2005, 03:59 PM
This cracked me up.Thank you.

Anyway, as to your proposal, if we're going to have a foreign-born, German-speaking VP, why not one of our own?

Arnold.

I regret that I said that.As a matter of fact, whether Arnold (who is from Austria) speaks German has been a matter of some discussion.

No, the Democrats need Schröder. Arnold is, despite his lack of linguistic skills, One of Us, and thus unsuited to the Democratic ticket. :)

Wayne Scott
June 12th, 2005, 03:02 AM
This seems a most sensible suggestion, with one minor quibble. If Gerhard was not secrtetly born a U.S. citizen he cannot run for vice-president unless the Terminator can get an amendment to the Constitution approved in record time. I would suggest that the vice-presidential candidates most likely to help future President Dean get elected would be either Nancy Pelosi who learned clean politics at her father's knee OR Barney Frank who is still lisping at us constantly, not abashed at having his live-in lover caught running a whore house in his apartment.
I beg Your Grace to consider these suggestions.

rlohmann
June 12th, 2005, 02:16 PM
This seems a most sensible suggestion, with one minor quibble. If Gerhard was not secrtetly born a U.S. citizen he cannot run for vice-president unless the Terminator can get an amendment to the Constitution approved in record time.I don't think that will be a problem. They Democrats would call on that renowned lexicographer, W. J. Clinton, to establish what the definition of "U.S. citizen" is. Mr. C. would do so in his own inimitable fashion.

I would suggest that the vice-presidential candidates most likely to help future President Dean get elected would be either Nancy Pelosi who learned clean politics at her father's knee. I guess you know who Nancy Pelosi's father was. :)

OR Barney Frank... Nah. Not notorious enough. Teddy Kennedy is a possibility, to be sure, but I still think Howard and Gerd are a match made in heaven

With those two running, I predict that the Democrats would get as much as 20% (OK, 15% maybe) of the vote. The Republicans could run virtually any breathing body and still win.

Mike
June 13th, 2005, 01:34 AM
Anyway, as to your proposal, if we're going to have a foreign-born, German-speaking VP, why not one of our own?

Arnold.
That would get him out of Cal-EE-forr-nya.

chm
June 13th, 2005, 03:40 PM
Arnold - the Republican - VP to the Democratic Dean.

Uh, well, that'd be something new and different, at least... ;)

Carolyn

chm
June 13th, 2005, 03:43 PM
That would get him out of Cal-EE-forr-nya.
Yeah. Right. Good idea!

BTW, we - out here in Calif. - are awaiting Arnold's announcement today regarding his special election. :rolleyes:

Carolyn

Mike
June 14th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Arnold's announcement ... regarding his special election.
So sad. Overshadowed by Michael Jackson's verdict.

chm
June 14th, 2005, 05:05 PM
So sad. Overshadowed by Michael Jackson's verdict.
It really was!

rlohmann
June 14th, 2005, 07:18 PM
Apparently it's going to happen.

While I concede a limited familiarity with California politics, it appears that he's out to make it easier to fire incompetent teachers, curb spending when the State slides into the red, and make redistricting nonpartisan.

Do I understand correctly that the Left is opposed to all three concepts? :rolleyes:

Dan in Saint Louis
June 14th, 2005, 08:23 PM
it appears that he's out to make it easier to fire incompetent teachers, curb spending when the State slides into the red, and make redistricting nonpartisan.

Do I understand correctly that the Left is opposed to all three concepts? :rolleyes:
The problem is not with the concepts, it is with who defines them.

How are incompetent teachers defined? By some unifrom state-wide test, made up by non-teachers, and not measuring important teaching skills like how to motivate, how to balance "book-learning" with social needs, etc? Or by jury of their peers?

Curb WHAT spending? Who decides what to cut? Cut education while maintaining tax breaks for the wealthy?

What IS "non-partisan"? Who will decide? Who defines where the new lines get drawn?

You see, it is not the IDEAS that are being questioned, it is the IMPLEMENTATION. I could have an idea "feed the poor" and everyone would agree. If I re-stated it as "the poor can steal groceries" it would sound a lot different.

chm
June 15th, 2005, 05:58 PM
Apparently it's going to happen.

While I concede a limited familiarity with California politics, it appears that he's out to make it easier to fire incompetent teachers, curb spending when the State slides into the red, and make redistricting nonpartisan.

Do I understand correctly that the Left is opposed to all three concepts? :rolleyes:
Nope, not opposed to any of those concepts, not at all. (Or, at least, I'm not.)

But, it's way more complicated than that.

I mostly agree with what Dan said.

Although the "who" of the matter doesn't seem to be as important to me as it is to Dan, this special election is a mistake and seems to be contrived to give more power to Arnold and for him to go over the heads of our legislators to get what he wants done. I like tri-partite government, checks-and-balances, and all that. I don't want an executive with excessive power.

Something to point out to you outside of California... Arnold has been barraging us citizens with TV commercials lately. Every time I see one I think about this money (yes, private) which could be used to help the people of California in some way. Commercials telling only part of the story and making our public servants out to be bad guys.

Selling Californians - or at least me! - on the idea that nurses, teachers, police, and our firefighters (who are even bigger heroes in CA than elsewhere) are bad guys is not likely to happen, and shouldn't.

I'm okay with Arnold's idea about the re-districting, as is the LA Times.

As for the state spending - hoo,boy, where to start? First off, these last two special elections - neither of which has been needed - has cost the state at least $100M. Stop having these special elections would be a step in the right direction. The next step is doing away with - or at least reforming -Proposition 13. Even Warren Buffett advocates this. Property taxes are unreasonable here, I say as a former homeowner in Illinois and here in Calif. The taxes are way too low - it doesn't make sense. Which is exactly the same thing Warren Buffett said, comparing his property taxes in Calif. and in other states.

I am a great believer, personally and in government, in balanced budgets and pay-as-you-go. What Bush has done with our national surplus disturbs me. Anyway, here in Calif., we should also have a balanced budget, ideally. It's how you get there is what Californians are arguing about. In additon to the remedies mentioned above - heck, let's raise some taxes, especially on the wealthy. YES. (Several Californians pass out upon reading that... :eek: )

Still reeling from that tsunami warning that was/wasn't in my beach town last night, never a dull moment in CA... :cool:

Carolyn

Lindsey
June 15th, 2005, 09:53 PM
I like tri-partite government, checks-and-balances, and all that. I don't want an executive with excessive power.

I'm okay with Arnold's idea about the re-districting, as is the LA Times.

For whatever the opinion of a non-Californian is worth, I agree with you. We learned (or should have learned) in colonial days how important it was for the power of the purse to remain with the legislature and not with the executive.

If part of the problem is that legislators cannot come to any sort of agreement among themselves, taking care of re-districting may solve that problem as well. Part of the problem with having legislatures draw the district lines is that they tend to draw districts to make them for one party or the other. The result is that the real contest for legislative seats is in the party primaries rather than the general election, and it's the more extreme elements who tend to win primaries. Not only does this cut out the centrists, but it removes any incentive to compromise on legislation, as legislators are not really answerable to the entire electorate, but only to the true believers in their own party.

I wish you all the best of luck. I worry that California risks drowning in an excess of pure democracy.

--Lindsey

woodswell
June 15th, 2005, 10:14 PM
[quote]I'm okay with Arnold's idea about the re-districting, as is the LA Times.[/qoute]

I haven't kept up with California politics, but I found it very ironic that Jeb Bush had a fund raiser here in Florida to support the proposed re-districting plan there. You see, the Democrats here have been trying to get a similar proposal in Floirda and Jeb has been fighting it tooth and nail. But he thinks it is fine for California....
If he'd only move there.
Anne

chm
June 16th, 2005, 02:52 PM
I wish you all the best of luck. I worry that California risks drowning in an excess of pure democracy.

Thanks. We need all the luck we can get out here. Yes, I sometimes worry myself that CA risks drowning in an excess of pure democracy.

It's even more worrisome when you consider the current lack of education here, the barrage of awful (emotionally-driven) TV commercials we get about the Props, and how strangely the Props themselves are worded, so twisted that only careful reading will reveal what the Props really are.

Yes, we overdo the Prop thing out here.

Carolyn

chm
June 16th, 2005, 03:00 PM
If he'd [Jeb Bush] only move there.

No, thank you. We've already got our hands full.

This districting business is much about what works in whose favor.

The current districting here tends to help the Democrats, which explains a lot.

Along with the TIMES, I'm more interested in what is the most democratic and right thing to do, regardless of which party is helped most.

Carolyn

Lindsey
June 16th, 2005, 04:51 PM
It's even more worrisome when you consider the current lack of education here, the barrage of awful (emotionally-driven) TV commercials we get about the Props, and how strangely the Props themselves are worded, so twisted that only careful reading will reveal what the Props really are.

Yep, I was in California late last October, and I remember the barrage of hyperventilating commercials then about some of the propositions on the ballot.

--Lindsey

rlohmann
June 19th, 2005, 12:06 PM
Um.... IIRC, Arnold was your idea. :)

rlohmann
June 19th, 2005, 12:37 PM
The problem is not with the concepts, it is with who defines them.Fair comment.

How are incompetent teachers defined? By some uniform state-wide test, made up by non-teachers, That would be a good place to start. Test them to see if they can read, write, and do arithmetic. (In worldwide surveys, American students--and thus the skills of their teachers-- don't rank particularly high.) I don't think it takes someone with an education degree to create a test that would measure the extent of teachers' success.

and not measuring important teaching skills like how to motivate, how to balance "book-learning" with social needs, etc? I'm not sure it's the place of the schools to teach things like "motivation" or "social needs." In the first place, everyone has a different Idea of what those words mean. A test that would measure, say, Michael Jackson's motivations might not measure yours or mine. In the second place, classroom time is better spent--from the view of both the child and the society--imparting skills that are directly relevant to intellectual development rather than "feelgood" courses.

Curb WHAT spending? Who decides what to cut? Cut education while maintaining tax breaks for the wealthy? I'm not aware that Schwarzenegger is looking at cutting education, but if you look at the towering structures of the educational establishment: supervisors, curriculum specialists, social workers, "diversity advocates," spear carriers, and "experts" of every shape and size, you might perceive a certain amount of fat there. (The American educational establishment is, after all, brought to us by the grace of the AFL-CIO.)

What IS "non-partisan"? Who will decide? Who defines where the new lines get drawn?I don't know the details, but omitting the AFL-CIO from membership in the group might be a good start. :)

You see, it is not the IDEAS that are being questioned, it is the IMPLEMENTATION. I could have an idea "feed the poor" and everyone would agree. If I re-stated it as "the poor can steal groceries" it would sound a lot different.Your point is not frivolous, but the California legislature seems to have been unable to deal with the situation over decades, and no relief is in sight. It seems for that reason that it's time to try doing things a different way.

rlohmann
June 19th, 2005, 01:04 PM
Nope, not opposed to any of those concepts, not at all. (Or, at least, I'm not.)

But, it's way more complicated than that.

I mostly agree with what Dan said.Dan makes some good points, but see my response.

Although the "who" of the matter doesn't seem to be as important to me as it is to Dan, this special election is a mistake and seems to be contrived to give more power to Arnold and for him to go over the heads of our legislators to get what he wants done. I like tri-partite government, checks-and-balances, and all that. I don't want an executive with excessive power.I'm not sure I follow that. Section 9(a) of the California Constitution establishes the right of referendum and Section 9(b) establishes the procedures for having one. If it's in the Constitution, how could it be "contrived"?

Something to point out to you outside of California... Arnold has been barraging us citizens with TV commercials lately. Every time I see one I think about this money (yes, private) which could be used to help the people of California in some way. Commercials telling only part of the story and making our public servants out to be bad guys. While I don't want to make too much of my own 40 years in government, I can assure you (in microscopic, encyclopedic, stupefying detail, if necessary) that many public servants are bad guys.

Selling Californians - or at least me! - on the idea that nurses, teachers, police, and our firefighters (who are even bigger heroes in CA than elsewhere) are bad guys is not likely to happen, and shouldn't.Are the groups you mentioned explicitly targeted in the commercials, or do the allegations merely charge massive bloat and waste in the state civil service?

As for the state spending - hoo,boy, where to start? First off, these last two special elections - neither of which has been needed - has cost the state at least $100M. Stop having these special elections would be a step in the right direction. The next step is doing away with - or at least reforming -Proposition 13. Even Warren Buffett advocates this. Property taxes are unreasonable here, I say as a former homeowner in Illinois and here in Calif. The taxes are way too low - it doesn't make sense. Which is exactly the same thing Warren Buffett said, comparing his property taxes in Calif. and in other states.OK, but IIRC, Schwarzenegger has pointed out those as examples of problems that everyone agrees exist, but that the legislature has been unable to solve.

Still reeling from that tsunami warning that was/wasn't in my beach town last night, never a dull moment in CA... :cool: We here on the East Coast--the good coast--have long been convinced that California and all those other square states west of Garrett County, Maryland, are probably going to be earthquaked off the Continent anyway, so....

:)

Dan in Saint Louis
June 19th, 2005, 01:48 PM
I don't think it takes someone with an education degree to create a test that would measure the extent of teachers' success.Actually, I agree. I don't have an education degree either. But what it DOES take is someone with years of classroom experience. This is far too important to be left to bureaucrats.

I'm not sure it's the place of the schools to teach things like "motivation" or "social needs."I wish it were not. However, at least with regard to the students in my classes, it IS my job to prepare them for non-trivial jobs (engineering and technology). First, we can't help them learn anything at all unless they have some motivation to learn; and second, they will not last long in any meaningful job unless they possess the motivation and the social skills to work with those around them.

A test that would measure, say, Michael Jackson's motivations might not measure yours or mine.Exactly -- which is why standardized testing, of either students OR teachers, is fraught with peril.

classroom time is better spent--from the view of both the child and the society--imparting skills that are directly relevant to intellectual development rather than "feelgood" courses.My classes are FAR from "feelgood". But we find, over and over, that students who do NOT feel right about themselves will not meet the academic expectations of our programs.

you look at the towering structures of the educational establishment: supervisors, curriculum specialists, social workers, "diversity advocates," spear carriers, and "experts" of every shape and size, you might perceive a certain amount of fat there.Absolutely agreed. And much of it has been foisted on us by government decree, whether it be directly by law or indirectly by funding mandates.

(The American educational establishment is, after all, brought to us by the grace of the AFL-CIO.)Ralph, that is not worthy of your usual reasoned approach. The AFL-CIO is no more in charge of our schools than it is in charge of the White House.

Your point is not frivolous, but the California legislature seems to have been unable to deal with the situation over decades, and no relief is in sight. It seems for that reason that it's time to try doing things a different way.Agreed again. You cannot legislate quality, you have to spot points where it is emerging and support those points - and I doubt that most legislatures have the ability to recognize quality education when it is right under their noses. Quality is best recognized from the inside.

chm
June 21st, 2005, 04:10 PM
I'm awake, I'm back, and I should be finishing my client's truck graphic instead of this, but...

I'm not sure I follow that. Section 9(a) of the California Constitution establishes the right of referendum and Section 9(b) establishes the procedures for having one. If it's in the Constitution, how could it be "contrived"?

Okay, admittedly bad word choice on my part. It may be constitutional, but is it a good idea? Is it really needed? Is it worth the time, effort, and money being spent on it? I don't think so, and I am far from alone.

Are the groups you mentioned explicitly targeted in the commercials...?

Yep. I'll admit that these groups do have large pensions, but, I also believe they deserve them.

For one thing, firefighters here often risk their lives on our behalf. We don't have "just" the usual house fires and such here, we have frequent wildfires, floods, etc. It's usually the firefighters doing the rescuing. If not them, another of our public servants.

OK, but IIRC, Schwarzenegger has pointed out those as examples of problems that everyone agrees exist, but that the legislature has been unable to solve.

I agree with you here. Both our governor and our legislature are PITAs.

Now, what to do about that? I ask rhetorically.

We here on the East Coast--the good coast--have long been convinced that California and all those other square states west of Garrett County, Maryland, are probably going to be earthquaked off the Continent anyway, so....

Everything west of Maryland? What would be left, besides New England? I know, you jest. It would solve California's problems, wouldn't it? No thanks.

Now to be good and get back to my truckin'

Carolyn

rlohmann
June 23rd, 2005, 04:44 PM
I'm awake, I'm back, and I should be finishing my client's truck graphic instead of this, but...But you'll be a better human being for it. :)

Okay, admittedly bad word choice on my part. It may be constitutional, but is it a good idea? Is it really needed? Is it worth the time, effort, and money being spent on it? I don't think so, and I am far from alone.But your side lost the gubernatorial election, and those who want the referendum are not alone either. (Hey, listen. We here at the VRWC and affiliated institutions had to put up with eight years of Clintons. We still haven't got all the White House silverware back. If you want sympathy, you've come to the wrong place.)

Yep. I'll admit that these groups do have large pensions, but, I also believe they deserve them.Public disclosure: I am a former civil servant drawing what is, I suppose, a relatively large pension. However, I do so because of a conscious public-policy decision made about 90 years ago to pay government employees less than the prevailing rate, but to weld on a pair of "golden handcuffs" fairly early in the game. I don't know what the overall structure of California government pensions is, but the subject of government pensions is complicated, often involves fairly sophisticated tradeoffs, and can indeed be seriously out of balance. Apparently Schwarzenegger believes it is.

Everything west of Maryland? What would be left, besides New England? I know, you jest. It would solve California's problems, wouldn't it? No thanks.We find New England, with its Kennedys and bad drivers, less edifying than the East Coast. Anyway, while an earthquake might not solve California's problems, it would reduce the number of square states significantly. :)

chm
June 24th, 2005, 02:46 PM
(Hey, listen. We here at the VRWC and affiliated institutions had to put up with eight years of Clintons. We still haven't got all the White House silverware back. If you want sympathy, you've come to the wrong place.)

8 years of Bill Clinton = 8 years of G. W. Bush.

Yeah, fair is fair, isn't it? Equal time. :)

woodswell
June 27th, 2005, 11:10 PM
8 years of Bill Clinton = 8 years of G. W. Bush.

Yeah, fair is fair, isn't it? Equal time.

Let's see, in my lifetime:
8 years of Eisenhower, 8 years of Noxin & Ford, 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush Sr., 5 years so far of Bush Jr. = 33 years of Republicans
8 years of Kennedy & Johnson, 4 years of Carter, 8 years of Clinton = 20 years of Democrats

That is 13 years (soon to be 16 years) of inequality!

I demand equal time! :confused: :eek: :(
Anne

Judy G. Russell
June 27th, 2005, 11:18 PM
I demand equal time! :confused: :eek: :(
I'll vote for that!

woodswell
June 27th, 2005, 11:31 PM
I'll vote for that!
Ah yes, but would your vote be properly counted? :rolleyes:

Dan in Saint Louis
June 28th, 2005, 08:08 AM
Ah yes, but would your vote be properly counted? :rolleyes:
Judy is not in Florida.

Bill Hirst
June 28th, 2005, 03:27 PM
Judy is not in Florida.We're just pretending to be lousy at counting votes to take people's attention away from MAN EATING SHARKS!!!

Judy G. Russell
June 28th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Ooops... is that a hanging chad I see???

Judy G. Russell
June 28th, 2005, 04:18 PM
Now now. They're not MAN EATING SHARKS!!!

They're merely MAN KILLING SHARKS!!!

chm
June 28th, 2005, 09:34 PM
Let's see, in my lifetime:
8 years of Eisenhower, 8 years of Noxin & Ford, 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush Sr., 5 years so far of Bush Jr. = 33 years of Republicans
8 years of Kennedy & Johnson, 4 years of Carter, 8 years of Clinton = 20 years of Democrats

That is 13 years (soon to be 16 years) of inequality!

I demand equal time! :confused: :eek: :(
Anne
I go back to Eisenhower, too. Which reminds me - in all that time our current president is clearly the worst president I can remember.

Yes, it is time to even things up - how about in 2008?

Bill Hirst
June 28th, 2005, 10:05 PM
Now now. They're not MAN EATING SHARKS!!!

They're merely MAN KILLING SHARKS!!!
And that's better? At least we don't have MAN EATING ALLIGATORS!!! :eek: in our sewers. (I've finished playing with fonts now. It's giving me a headache.)

Judy G. Russell
June 29th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Did you see (seriously) that they captured an alligator yesterday or today in (get this) West Virginia?

Judy G. Russell
June 29th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Sigh... on this day when I just had to finally get around to scheduling my "yeah yeah so I'm over 50, so sue me" baseline colonoscopy, I suppose I should admit that Truman was still president when I was born.

chm
June 29th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Well, I have to admit to that, too. But, see, I don't remember Truman - I was but a baby then and didn't even know what a president was. ;)

Good luck with your test.

Bill Hirst
June 29th, 2005, 05:46 PM
I'm a Truman baby too. I didn't even know what a president was until later, but I remember Eisenhower getting the nomination.

Bill Hirst
June 29th, 2005, 05:52 PM
Did you see (seriously) that they captured an alligator yesterday or today in (get this) West Virginia?
I didn't know the New York sewers ran that far south.

Judy G. Russell
June 29th, 2005, 06:45 PM
I didn't know the New York sewers ran that far south.
Well, the contracts are let to the lowest bidder...

Judy G. Russell
June 29th, 2005, 06:47 PM
I don't remember Truman either (I wasn't even in preschool when Eisenhower took the oath of office). But I do have to admit to being a Truman baby. A full scale baby boomer, I am.

MollyM/CA
June 30th, 2005, 09:13 AM
Sigh... on this day when I just had to finally get around to scheduling my "yeah yeah so I'm over 50, so sue me" baseline colonoscopy, I suppose I should admit that Truman was still president when I was born.

Here is something to cheer you up.

<I've had a couple of colonoscopies and they are not that much worse than sigmoidoscopies, especially because they usually dope you up more and you can sleep through it completely if you ask - here anyway. I mean they just give you a little extra of the happy juice you already get.

C'EST A REAR
You recline with extended posterior
And a feeling distinctly inferior,
While a doc in white robe
With a twenty foot probe
Proceeds to explore your interior.

To see through this narrow morass
He pumps up your innards with gas.
While I hate to neglect
The word you expect,
I'll say only that this too shall pass.

Judy G. Russell
June 30th, 2005, 02:53 PM
I'll say only that this too shall pass.
Ewwwwww...

Lindsey
June 30th, 2005, 03:21 PM
I go back to Eisenhower, too. Which reminds me - in all that time our current president is clearly the worst president I can remember.
Helen Thomas goes back a bit further than Eisenhower, and certainly she has pegged Bush as the worst that she can remember, too. (In fact, she considers him the worst president ever. I had at first regarded that statement as hyperbole, and wondered if it was a sign that age was making her careless. Now I realize it was not an off-the-cuff remark, but a serious conclusion, and that Helen Thomas was just a bit quicker to take an accurate measure of the man than most of the rest of us.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 30th, 2005, 03:23 PM
Did you see (seriously) that they captured an alligator yesterday or today in (get this) West Virginia?
Come to think of it, several weeks ago, there was talk of an alligator that authorities were trying to capture in Falling Creek, here in the Richmond area. I never heard the outcome of that effort. Hmmmm...

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 30th, 2005, 03:30 PM
I don't care what people say: NYC is not exporting alligators!

Lindsey
June 30th, 2005, 03:55 PM
I don't care what people say: NYC is not exporting alligators!
Maybe this one stowed away on a garbage barge...

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 30th, 2005, 04:50 PM
You mean there are NYC garbage barges that don't stop in NJ??? (gasp)

chm
June 30th, 2005, 09:52 PM
Helen Thomas is still working, right? I hope so.

chm
June 30th, 2005, 09:53 PM
I don't remember Truman either (I wasn't even in preschool when Eisenhower took the oath of office). But I do have to admit to being a Truman baby. A full scale baby boomer, I am.
You and me both. I'll 'fess up - I graduated from HS in 1968. What a time to come of age.

chm
June 30th, 2005, 09:55 PM
I don't remember Eisenhower's nomination. I do remember he golfed all the time, "I like Ike", and he reminded me of an uncle.

From a small child's POV...

Dick K
June 30th, 2005, 10:23 PM
Helen Thomas is still working, right? I hope so.
Yeah, if you can call what she does (hustling for speaking engagements, writing a little-read column,...) "work."

In her heyday, Helen Thomas was a pretty good journalist. In her dotage, she is a pretty bad columnist.

Judy G. Russell
June 30th, 2005, 10:25 PM
You're probably less than a year old than I am. I started school early, so I was a bit younger than most of my classmates, but I would have graduated in 1968 if I'd ever graduated. (I skipped my senior year of high school to go to college.)

Lindsey
June 30th, 2005, 10:56 PM
You mean there are NYC garbage barges that don't stop in NJ??? (gasp)
Quite a lot of them come down to Virginia. Garbage has become one of the state's biggest industries. :(

In fact, I read several years ago that that was what the Carters who still own Shirley plantation are doing to help pay the maintenance bills--they're using the plantation's docking facility to receive garbage from barges and then trucking it away to landfills. How the mighty have fallen...

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 30th, 2005, 11:09 PM
Helen Thomas is still working, right? I hope so.
Still working, yes. She's a columnist for Hearst News Service, she still attends the daily gaggle at the White House, she's still a feisty member of the White House press corps, even though Bush had her moved to the back row. (See here (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/21/1353251).) And she's written a couple of books, though I can't remember precisely when the last one came out.

--Lindsey

fhaber
July 1st, 2005, 09:45 AM
Well, you see....

That tunnel that Kennedy's father built to the Vatican ran south for a bit. They're just reusing part of it. The barging and trucking fees are killing us.

(I think we'll see a tunnel to West Virginia before we see a Second Avenue Subway.)

-Frank, not living on landfill, unlike half the Lower East Side, Battery Park City, etc., etc.

Judy G. Russell
July 1st, 2005, 10:06 AM
(I think we'll see a tunnel to West Virginia before we see a Second Avenue Subway.)
That's a fair bet.

Jeff
July 1st, 2005, 12:56 PM
-Frank, not living on landfill, unlike half the Lower East Side, Battery Park City, etc., etc.

A large part of flat eastern San Francisco is built on rubble from the 1906 earthquake. They had to put it somewhere so they dumped it into the bay.

Wayne Scott
July 2nd, 2005, 10:59 AM
I respectfully point out that Gerd is no more eligible than is Arnold. Instead I would put forward the name of Nancy Pelosi, the heir to a noble heritage of corruption in your adopted state of Murrln. I would rather see Chuck Schumer frothing at the mouth with Dr. Dean, but New York needs and deserves him right where he is.
I put forth Dean/Pelosi who will combine machismo and sweet femininity in a perfect ticket.
With a low, sweeping bow and a flourish of my cloak, I remain,
Your humble Curm

Mike
July 2nd, 2005, 03:48 PM
As is a considerable portion of the Marina neighborhood. That's the one that suffered the most damage in the 1989 earthquake. The ground wasn't stable, and the buildings just collapsed.

Jeff
July 3rd, 2005, 02:14 PM
As is a considerable portion of the Marina neighborhood. That's the one that suffered the most damage in the 1989 earthquake. The ground wasn't stable, and the buildings just collapsed.

I was in a bar in the international terminal of LAX waiting for a plane to go home when that happened. The ball game on the tv stopped and for many minutes no one had a clue.

Mike
July 7th, 2005, 03:12 AM
I was in a bar in the international terminal of LAX waiting for a plane to go home when that happened. The ball game on the tv stopped and for many minutes no one had a clue.
I had just arrived home from a trip to the east coast when a friend called to ask if I'd been watching the game. I quickly turned on the TV, and totally forgot about unpacking.