While perhaps not reflecting the striking numbers most readers here would like to see, it is noteworthy that Gallup reports that more Obama voters are leaving him that McCain voters are leaving Romney.
Bookworm will be back in town tonight, so my stay here is done.
Thanks to Danny and Sadie and Marica and Bizcor for posts and ideas, and to everyone who took the time to post such informed and civil coments.
Bookworm has done a great job building a blog worth visiting and has been rewarded with a terrific group of visitors.
May America survive through it all. And may each of you enjoy the lives you desire.
All the best,
According to charts shown by Republican committee staff members during the hearing, Amtrak charges about $2 for a soft drink, but the cost to taxpayers is about $3.40 when labor is included. A $9.50 hamburger on the train costs taxpayers $16, the charts showed. Labor adds nearly 60 percent to food and beverage costs.
DQ here. I’m not so much upset about the train, as I am about the cost of decades of delay in actually doing anything to build it. As for paying for it, looks like I’m leaving California just in time.
Bizcor sent me this idea for a post (Thank you):
“Obama has an app for iPhone that identifies the registered Democrats at the phones location. http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/08/04/obama-campaign-mobile-app-reveals-which-of-your-neighbors-are-registered-dems/”
That reminded me of the several political campaigns I’ve been involved in. In the old days, a campaign would buy voter lists, identifying voters by party affiliation, address and phone number. It could then use these to plan its door-to-door and phone campaigning. The Obama app sounds like an updated, electronic age version of the same lists. If he’s smart, Romney will have the same app. In fact, I suppose all campaigns, right down to the local level, will soon have them. What, if any, significance do you see in such instant access?
AP reports another study on global warming. Interestingly, the AP report is fairly balanced, and even ends with a comment by a person on the other side.
Personally, I’m too ignorant of the science to have any idea who’s right. But let me suggest a couple of layperson thoughts.
First, it seems extremely unlikely that we could develop the way we have, burning fossil fuel that took millions of years to create, releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gasses, without having some effect on our environment.
Second, it seems equally unlikely that a small increase in the global temperature would result in a large increase in the number of major heatwaves. This would only make sense if one also established that the small increase also resulted in greater termperature volitility.
What do you folks think of the latest report and the effort to attribute the latest heatwaves and droughts to global warming?
Let her explain:
it’s time for a Mid-Summer Song or Something Festival dedicated to POTUS. If you’re not musically inclined, please chime in with a poem, an ‘ode’ maybe a limerick – aw heck, arrange the words and message to send a message. Obviously, after three and a half years we know he’s tone deaf to op/eds, 150+ conservative blogs, reality….he is, however, very fond of fundraising – so let’s begin with some “fun” raising.
Opened my morning paper to find this column by Jim Litke. In this emperor-has-no-clothes account, Litke describes the inclusion of utterly unqualified token Arab women at the Olympics as the sham that it is. I was struck by two things. First, the contrast between this account and NBC’s craven coverage of these tokens as major breakthroughs (It is not important that she did not finish; what is important is that she is here at all. It is not important she did not win; she will inspire little girls in her country to take up judo. Yada, yada, yada.). Second, Litke writes for the AP. Who would have thought the AP would allow such non-PC comments to appear under its banner?
When the Olympics started I asked the Bookwormroom readers how interested they were and the answers were lukewarm at best. Yet, the television ratings for the Olympics have been extremely strong. For example, at 10:00 on Thursday night, the Olympic ratings were over 10 times those for the next highest show — 43.2 million viewers to 3.8 million. To what do you attribute such widespread interest? And to what do you attribute the contrast between the high general interest and the low interest of commenters here?
Let’s see if I can do a better job of embedding a video my Dad e-mailed me than I did with the slide show:
One can only wonder what Obama would do in a true military crisis when minutes and even seconds count.
Under the category of origin of phrases, all within just a few pages of each other:
“No time like the present.” Mary de la Riviere Manley (1663-1724).
“He laughs best who laughs last.” Sir John Vanbrugh (1664-1726).
“Married in haste, we may repent at leisure.” William Congreve (1670-1729).
“Heaven hath no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.” William Congreve (1670-1729).
“Facts are stubborn things.” Alain Rene Lesage (1668-1747)
Are you as surprised as I am that these are as old as they are?
And one just because I like it:
“May you live all the days of your life.” Jonathan Swift (1667-1745).
I’m struck by the loose use of language we’ve come to accept, sometime without even thinking about it. For example, consider the word “free.” How often have we heard a mail-order offer: buy one and get a second one free “just pay shipping and handling”? Typically, the product is some cheap piece of plastic and the shipping and handling charges are so overblown (after all, the second item won’t be separately shipped, so why should there be a separate charge at all), they are probably making a profit on the second, supposedly free, item! Also, before the Olympics, I received a mail request to support the U.S. team with a donation. For a donation of $20 or more, I’d receive a “free” Olympics cap. In other words, I’d have to pay $20 and the only thing I’d receive in return was the cap. How is that free?
The next example is more cynical. In Obama’s TV ad that is running here quite often, he says his plan calls for the rich to pay a little more so we can “pay down the debt.” Huh? No one is talking about paying down the debt. We can’t even eliminate the yearly deficit. True, Obama may not know the difference between “debt” and “deficit” but his ad writers sure should.
Or consider the fact that we routinely say that an Olympian “won” a bronze medal. Well, no. The Olympian lost the event. He/she was awarded a bronze medal for not losing as badly as all but two other competitors in the event.
I’m sure you can think of lots of other, perhaps better, examples to share.
I haven’t been providing quotes lately, but I found my Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations the other day. I opened it at random and came across these George Eliot quotes that seemed worth sharing:
“There’s no real making amends in the world, any more nor can you mend a wrong subtraction by doing your addition right.”
“It’s but little good you do a-watering the last year’s crops.”
“A patronizing disposition always has its meaner side.”
“It’s them that take advantage that get advantage i’ this world.”
“He was like a cock who thought the sun had risen to hear him crow.”
Wish I could write like that.
Please help me with something. In discussing the ground zero mosque last night with my son, he asked me to find authority for the proposition that the mosque was being built as a part of a Muslim tradition of building mosques at the site of their victories. As the most knowledgeable group of people I know (yeah, that’s sucking up, but it’s also true!), I’m asking for your help.
What authority do you know of, authority that would persuade an open-minded but skeptical fellow like my son, that Muslims generally have a tradition of building mosques at the spot of their victories and/or that this particular mosque was proposed as a part of that tradition? What else do you know about that whole dispute that might be useful in my discussion with my son?
The ultimate goal of the movement . . . is quite literally to abolish the suburbs. Knowing that this could never happen through outright annexation by nearby cities, they’ve developed ways to coax suburbs to slowly forfeit their independence.One approach is to force suburban residents into densely packed cities by blocking development on the outskirts of metropolitan areas, and by discouraging driving with a blizzard of taxes, fees, and regulations.Step two is to move the poor out of cities by imposing low-income-housing quotas on development in middle-class suburbs.Step three is to export the controversial “regional tax-base sharing” scheme currently in place in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area to the rest of the country. Under this program, a portion of suburban tax money flows into a common regional pot, which is then effectively redistributed to urban, and a few less well-off “inner-ring” suburban, municipalities.