January 27, 2012
Federal Affairs
Gun Owners of America
Rep. Gosar Continues to Push “No Confidence” in Holder Resolution
Attorney General Eric Holder -- recently caught lying under oath concerning his knowledge of his department’s Fast and Furious program -- may be moving a step closer to the inside of a jail cell.
On Thursday, February 2nd, Chairman Darrell Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold another hearing on the disastrous Fast and Furious operation.
Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, a member of that committee, is also pushing a resolution of “no confidence” in Holder’s management -- or lack of management -- of the Justice Department.
That resolution, H. Res. 490, provides a course of action for the momentum generated by that hearing.
H. Res. 490 finds that, as a result of “Holder’s failure to properly control, monitor, or establish Operation Fast and Furious, it is likely Mexican nationals were killed or wounded by weapons sold through this scheme” -- and that the victims of Holder’s incompetence included U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
It goes on to resolve that the House has “lost confidence” in Holder, which is, basically, a call for him to resign.
Clearly, the Justice Department believes it can stonewall Issa’s inquiry and bully its way through questions concerning its criminal malfeasance. Adoption of the Gosar resolution would make it much, much more difficult to do so.
ACTION: Contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor H.Res. 490. Click here to send a prewritten message to your Rep.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Monday, January 09, 2012
Mitt Romney's Face Tells All. Is he George H.W. Bush 2.0?
Does America want what Romney has? What would he be like as President? Who is he, deep down inside? How can one understand where he is coming from? A peek at his face hints at the answers...
Mitt Romney is expressive and mentally quick. He processes information rapidly and has a “get it done now” approach. He is initially optimistic but may become antagonistic if criticized. He is an unconventional thinker whose thoughts range over many areas. He can truly see all sides of an issue. Romney can sense potential problems immediately and is very connected between his inner feelings and outer logic; he is highly intuitive. He has a powerful intellect, thinks constantly, and he easily grasps whole concepts. He has a wide variety of interests. Romney is pragmatic and objective. He is not easily discouraged and possesses resilience under stress, even though he is prone to burnout due to overwork. He truly does have a sense of fairness and justice. He is solid and dependable, has good business sense and is not gullible. He speaks with authority on financial matters and focuses on generating cash flow. Romney maintains a good balance between his public and personal life. He is generally a patient listener. He puts a lot of pressure on himself to respond to issues quickly without making mistakes. My advice is that he ease up a bit on himself; I do see that he is often burnt out.
Mitt Romney hates to be wrong, loves to debate, and holds himself to impossibly high standards. He is brilliant in his field and has worked hard to develop his mental abilities. He has strong perfectionist tendencies and also assigns himself difficult responsibilities. Romney most likely assumes too much responsibility and should learn to relax a little more often. He has a wide variety of interests; I suggest he develop an interest into an enjoyable hobby. (Campaigning should NOT count! PatriotWriter suggests he abandon running for president as a hobby. He should probably join a Harvard crew team instead.)
Interestingly, Romney may have experienced a lack of attention/appreciation in childhood and therefore needs to know that he is desirable. Let his wife take note! Romney probably owes some of his professional successes--and failures--to his obstinate nature. He doesn’t expect life to be gentle or kind and he steels himself to face the world and braces himself for adversity. He possesses natural self-confidence. He takes losses on the chin, so to speak. If Mitt Romney was an animal, he would be a tiger.
Probably one of the most charming things about Romney is his “big picture” outlook. He has a lot of global understanding regarding the relationship of things to each other. He has developed this broader perspective due to his life experience, unlike Santorum whose thoughts are more narrow. He is not easily intimidated and does not back away from a challenge.
Even though he may seem calm and relaxed on the outside, Romney is always constantly evaluating everything--much like George H.W. Bush. He is also reflective, reserved, cautious, and observant. He has a logical work style and is a long-range planner. He differs from Bush, Sr. in that he has a naturally powerful presence. No one wants to argue with his alpha male power jaw and authoritative eyebrows. He is perceived by others as a strong, courageous leader. He is, however, cool and calculating and does hold many secrets. Don’t expect him to open up on some topics. He mistrusts flattery, is reserved, and slow to trust. When he is warmed up, though, he is a good communicator with a wry sense of humor. In conclusion, he has a more powerful presence that Bush, Sr. but is actually quite similar to him in approach. His presidency would probably be similar to #41’s but he would probably have an easier time making allies for his causes than did Bush.
Mitt Romney is expressive and mentally quick. He processes information rapidly and has a “get it done now” approach. He is initially optimistic but may become antagonistic if criticized. He is an unconventional thinker whose thoughts range over many areas. He can truly see all sides of an issue. Romney can sense potential problems immediately and is very connected between his inner feelings and outer logic; he is highly intuitive. He has a powerful intellect, thinks constantly, and he easily grasps whole concepts. He has a wide variety of interests. Romney is pragmatic and objective. He is not easily discouraged and possesses resilience under stress, even though he is prone to burnout due to overwork. He truly does have a sense of fairness and justice. He is solid and dependable, has good business sense and is not gullible. He speaks with authority on financial matters and focuses on generating cash flow. Romney maintains a good balance between his public and personal life. He is generally a patient listener. He puts a lot of pressure on himself to respond to issues quickly without making mistakes. My advice is that he ease up a bit on himself; I do see that he is often burnt out.
Mitt Romney hates to be wrong, loves to debate, and holds himself to impossibly high standards. He is brilliant in his field and has worked hard to develop his mental abilities. He has strong perfectionist tendencies and also assigns himself difficult responsibilities. Romney most likely assumes too much responsibility and should learn to relax a little more often. He has a wide variety of interests; I suggest he develop an interest into an enjoyable hobby. (Campaigning should NOT count! PatriotWriter suggests he abandon running for president as a hobby. He should probably join a Harvard crew team instead.)
Interestingly, Romney may have experienced a lack of attention/appreciation in childhood and therefore needs to know that he is desirable. Let his wife take note! Romney probably owes some of his professional successes--and failures--to his obstinate nature. He doesn’t expect life to be gentle or kind and he steels himself to face the world and braces himself for adversity. He possesses natural self-confidence. He takes losses on the chin, so to speak. If Mitt Romney was an animal, he would be a tiger.
Probably one of the most charming things about Romney is his “big picture” outlook. He has a lot of global understanding regarding the relationship of things to each other. He has developed this broader perspective due to his life experience, unlike Santorum whose thoughts are more narrow. He is not easily intimidated and does not back away from a challenge.
Even though he may seem calm and relaxed on the outside, Romney is always constantly evaluating everything--much like George H.W. Bush. He is also reflective, reserved, cautious, and observant. He has a logical work style and is a long-range planner. He differs from Bush, Sr. in that he has a naturally powerful presence. No one wants to argue with his alpha male power jaw and authoritative eyebrows. He is perceived by others as a strong, courageous leader. He is, however, cool and calculating and does hold many secrets. Don’t expect him to open up on some topics. He mistrusts flattery, is reserved, and slow to trust. When he is warmed up, though, he is a good communicator with a wry sense of humor. In conclusion, he has a more powerful presence that Bush, Sr. but is actually quite similar to him in approach. His presidency would probably be similar to #41’s but he would probably have an easier time making allies for his causes than did Bush.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
The Real Santorum is Written on His Face
Who is Rick Santorum? Want to know more about him than what his mouth or record says? Who is this guy, anyway? How does he think, not just what? The answers are literally written all over his face.
In my studied opinion, Rick Santorum thinks in a logical, step-by-step process and has trouble taking in information if it is presented too quickly or out of sequence. He does not think well under pressure--he becomes overwhelmed and shuts down. If he feels forced to rush, he is afraid he will miss something. He genuinely wants to “do it right” and takes his time to get there. When he does learn something, he retains it forever. He may like to make big plans but possibly lacks followthrough. He is not easily discouraged and possesses resilience under stress. In general, he embraces rules and regulations and becomes immobilized if rules are not followed. Santorum prefers to operate within the known systems.
He possesses balance in his personal life in that he appreciates the closeness of his wife and children but also needs his own, independent identity and space. His professional life is a different story, however. He must maintain extreme focus at all times and must not be distracted from the task at hand. His internal agenda is more real to him than anything in the world. This is a very dangerous trait! He sees things as black or white, masculine or feminine. Professionally, he is impatient, overly-critical and extremely sensitive as a result of pushing himself too hard in furthering his career. This tends to make him ill-natured at times. He can become very feisty when he feels he is backed into a corner. He prefers to direct others and delegate work and enjoys seeing his superior plans implemented and appreciated by others. Santorum prefers to work independently and dislikes anyone looking over his shoulder, including reporters and the public.
He may have received little emotional and/or financial support earlier in life and feels he owes his success thus far to pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. Yet, he still feels as if he has not quite found his niche in life. He has a great deal of fear in his personal life which comes from an attitude that he never has enough, financially speaking. He can be emotionally generous with his family but is still very fiscally conservative with them. He has suffered some serious emotional disappointments both personally and professionally. Some of the sad lines on his face were probably the result of the loss of one of his children, and also his lost re-election bid to the Senate.
In conclusion, Santorum is comfortable with the established norm, the status quo, and he asks others to abide by it while pursuing his own internal agenda based on his view of the world. He is committed to his ideals. He identifies with Mr. Spock of Star Trek in his no-nonsense approach to life, yet his mind is not overly developed. He knows a little bit about very few different subjects. I suggest he quit campaigning for a big new job and start a business in the private sector--like founding a superior sports program for cyberhomeschooled kids. In doing so, he could enhance the standing of his worldview for future generations as well as delegate the implementation of his vision to a likeminded staff. Such a sport league probably needs the skills that this out-of-work lawyer-politician can give.
In my studied opinion, Rick Santorum thinks in a logical, step-by-step process and has trouble taking in information if it is presented too quickly or out of sequence. He does not think well under pressure--he becomes overwhelmed and shuts down. If he feels forced to rush, he is afraid he will miss something. He genuinely wants to “do it right” and takes his time to get there. When he does learn something, he retains it forever. He may like to make big plans but possibly lacks followthrough. He is not easily discouraged and possesses resilience under stress. In general, he embraces rules and regulations and becomes immobilized if rules are not followed. Santorum prefers to operate within the known systems.
He possesses balance in his personal life in that he appreciates the closeness of his wife and children but also needs his own, independent identity and space. His professional life is a different story, however. He must maintain extreme focus at all times and must not be distracted from the task at hand. His internal agenda is more real to him than anything in the world. This is a very dangerous trait! He sees things as black or white, masculine or feminine. Professionally, he is impatient, overly-critical and extremely sensitive as a result of pushing himself too hard in furthering his career. This tends to make him ill-natured at times. He can become very feisty when he feels he is backed into a corner. He prefers to direct others and delegate work and enjoys seeing his superior plans implemented and appreciated by others. Santorum prefers to work independently and dislikes anyone looking over his shoulder, including reporters and the public.
He may have received little emotional and/or financial support earlier in life and feels he owes his success thus far to pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. Yet, he still feels as if he has not quite found his niche in life. He has a great deal of fear in his personal life which comes from an attitude that he never has enough, financially speaking. He can be emotionally generous with his family but is still very fiscally conservative with them. He has suffered some serious emotional disappointments both personally and professionally. Some of the sad lines on his face were probably the result of the loss of one of his children, and also his lost re-election bid to the Senate.
In conclusion, Santorum is comfortable with the established norm, the status quo, and he asks others to abide by it while pursuing his own internal agenda based on his view of the world. He is committed to his ideals. He identifies with Mr. Spock of Star Trek in his no-nonsense approach to life, yet his mind is not overly developed. He knows a little bit about very few different subjects. I suggest he quit campaigning for a big new job and start a business in the private sector--like founding a superior sports program for cyberhomeschooled kids. In doing so, he could enhance the standing of his worldview for future generations as well as delegate the implementation of his vision to a likeminded staff. Such a sport league probably needs the skills that this out-of-work lawyer-politician can give.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Hey FCC: USA Not Yet Ready to be the New F'!#?! USSR
With a headline like that, you might think that I moonlight as a writer for The Onion. No...not yet anyway. The FCC says they want internet content to remain open but what they mean is that THEY want their fingers on the control button, not the broadband providers under our current free market system. What!?! The last time I checked, this was America.
I think We the People should have our finger on the FCC button to shut their regulating bums down when we feel like it. But then, I am a known anti-federal government extremist with ties to nefarious characters like our founding fathers.
Anyway, I'm with KayBay on this one. Regulating the internet is outside the bounds of common sense, not to mention good old-fashioned American values. Have we really lost both of those? Are we really having this conversation? I suppose we are, for I just received the following press release:
Regulation would only hamper the Web
By Mitch McConnell and Kay Bailey Hutchison
Philadelphia Inquirer
November 9, 2012
The Internet has flourished for two decades without burdensome federal regulations. In its early days, a hands-off approach helped it grow and evolve rapidly. The Federal Communications Commission adopted a sensible noninterference policy in 1998, and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in high-speed broadband infrastructure followed.
Without broadband, do-it-all smartphones and two-way video calls would still be the stuff of science fiction. Broadband has created nearly a million jobs and become an essential part of daily American life. Broadband networks have powered the information and communications industries, which in 2009 accounted for more than 3.5 million high-salary jobs and about $1 trillion in economic activity.
Despite all this, the FCC is about to reverse course and begin regulating the Internet. Unless the Senate acts on a measure under consideration this week, Internet service providers will be subject to the commission's new "Net neutrality" rules.
Under these mandates, broadband companies would lose control over the traffic and technology flowing through their infrastructure. Government bureaucrats would tell companies what is and is not a "reasonable" way to operate their systems. These regulatory burdens would discourage Internet service providers from innovating and investing, inject uncertainty into a thriving sector of our economy, and jeopardize the information industry's vast potential for growth.
More regulation would diminish broadband providers' expected returns on their capital. Lower returns mean less investment, which means fewer jobs created. Smaller companies would suffer the most, as they operate on thinner margins. With unemployment over 9 percent, do we really need this kind of regulatory overreach?
The government's primary rationale for these new rules is that broadband providers must be prevented from blocking certain online content and services. On the surface, this is an admirable goal. We, too, believe in an open Internet free of unreasonable discrimination. But market forces have and will continue to prevent such discrimination. A company attempting to block certain content would create frustrated customers who would simply switch Internet providers.
Indeed, despite a decade of Net neutrality advocates' doomsday warnings that rampant discrimination is imminent, the Internet remains open. The few instances of bad behavior have been dealt with swiftly by the free market or by the FCC using the tools it already has. In short, Net neutrality is a big-government solution in search of a problem.
Moreover, this FCC power grab is unprecedented and, in our estimation, unlawful. Congress has never given the commission the authority to regulate Internet providers' management of their networks.
Furthermore, the American people have shown their disdain for government interference, particularly when it comes to how private companies manage and maintain their investments.
In 1999, former Democratic FCC Chairman William Kennard said, "The fertile fields of innovation across the communications sector and around the country are blooming because from the get-go, we have taken a deregulatory, competitive approach to our communications structure - especially the Internet." In that spirit, we are urging our fellow senators to vote to repeal the FCC's unwarranted broadband regulations. We must preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation and economic growth.
Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, is the Senate Republican leader. Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
I think We the People should have our finger on the FCC button to shut their regulating bums down when we feel like it. But then, I am a known anti-federal government extremist with ties to nefarious characters like our founding fathers.
Anyway, I'm with KayBay on this one. Regulating the internet is outside the bounds of common sense, not to mention good old-fashioned American values. Have we really lost both of those? Are we really having this conversation? I suppose we are, for I just received the following press release:
Regulation would only hamper the Web
By Mitch McConnell and Kay Bailey Hutchison
Philadelphia Inquirer
November 9, 2012
The Internet has flourished for two decades without burdensome federal regulations. In its early days, a hands-off approach helped it grow and evolve rapidly. The Federal Communications Commission adopted a sensible noninterference policy in 1998, and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in high-speed broadband infrastructure followed.
Without broadband, do-it-all smartphones and two-way video calls would still be the stuff of science fiction. Broadband has created nearly a million jobs and become an essential part of daily American life. Broadband networks have powered the information and communications industries, which in 2009 accounted for more than 3.5 million high-salary jobs and about $1 trillion in economic activity.
Despite all this, the FCC is about to reverse course and begin regulating the Internet. Unless the Senate acts on a measure under consideration this week, Internet service providers will be subject to the commission's new "Net neutrality" rules.
Under these mandates, broadband companies would lose control over the traffic and technology flowing through their infrastructure. Government bureaucrats would tell companies what is and is not a "reasonable" way to operate their systems. These regulatory burdens would discourage Internet service providers from innovating and investing, inject uncertainty into a thriving sector of our economy, and jeopardize the information industry's vast potential for growth.
More regulation would diminish broadband providers' expected returns on their capital. Lower returns mean less investment, which means fewer jobs created. Smaller companies would suffer the most, as they operate on thinner margins. With unemployment over 9 percent, do we really need this kind of regulatory overreach?
The government's primary rationale for these new rules is that broadband providers must be prevented from blocking certain online content and services. On the surface, this is an admirable goal. We, too, believe in an open Internet free of unreasonable discrimination. But market forces have and will continue to prevent such discrimination. A company attempting to block certain content would create frustrated customers who would simply switch Internet providers.
Indeed, despite a decade of Net neutrality advocates' doomsday warnings that rampant discrimination is imminent, the Internet remains open. The few instances of bad behavior have been dealt with swiftly by the free market or by the FCC using the tools it already has. In short, Net neutrality is a big-government solution in search of a problem.
Moreover, this FCC power grab is unprecedented and, in our estimation, unlawful. Congress has never given the commission the authority to regulate Internet providers' management of their networks.
Furthermore, the American people have shown their disdain for government interference, particularly when it comes to how private companies manage and maintain their investments.
In 1999, former Democratic FCC Chairman William Kennard said, "The fertile fields of innovation across the communications sector and around the country are blooming because from the get-go, we have taken a deregulatory, competitive approach to our communications structure - especially the Internet." In that spirit, we are urging our fellow senators to vote to repeal the FCC's unwarranted broadband regulations. We must preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation and economic growth.
Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, is the Senate Republican leader. Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
California is Crazy. But then, I repeat myself.
The voter-approved "First 5 LA Program" spends $200 million of taxpayers' money without oversight. I know. Shocking.
It isn't. But it should be.
As the Los Angeles Times reports, a recent independent audit of the First 5 LA Commission revealed massive problems with the agency, including lack of accountability, spending oversight or competitive bidding. Perhaps the members of the Commission should get more than a slap on the wrist. Again, PatriotWriter calls for the return of the public Tar and Feather.
It sounds like an evening news program, but First 5 LA is actually part of a statewide program created in 1998 by Prop 10, a measure which was supposed to use funds from a tobacco tax (boo!) to promote health and education of young children. I was living in California at the time of its passage--Propositions for tax increases always magically pass in California. Please refer to the title of this post to find out why.
According to the independent audit, the Commission is not exactly fulfilling its mission. From the Times: An audit by Harvey M. Rose of San Francisco found First 5 LA's Commission was unable to monitor money that was being spent "since monthly programmatic expenditures are not presented relative to a budget." Try using that kind of fuzzy math in your budget at home.
Auditors also concluded the agency was overstaffed while under-spending on programs for children. Note: if a new tax is sold as "for the children" you can translate that into "employment for adults at the expense of the children" virtually every time. So, First 5 LA is spending too much on public employees and not enough on kids? You don't say. I love the government...it's so consistent.
Furthermore, First 5 LA doles out $200 million without a competitive bidding process and operates with such a lack of oversight that there’s no way to determine if the agency has signed agreements "for inappropriate purposes or with unqualified vendors or grantees”. Cronyism? Probably. Tax fraud? You betcha--taxpayers getting hosed again. Sounds like standard operating procedure in California, which has seen similar accountability and oversight problems with other initiative-created agencies as well. Heck--it sounds like standard operating procedure for the government in general. I agree with Ron Swanson of Parks and Recreation, "My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk, and the only thing he's allowed to decide is who to nuke."
And yet Don Perata, a career politician, is pushing another measure – the so-called California Cancer Research Act – to create yet another unaccountable bureaucracy with six political appointees that can spend nearly a billion each year, including millions on staff salaries and pensions and overhead. With huge budget problems and public pension costs spiraling out of control, the last thing California needs is another big-spending bureaucracy with no oversight or accountability. The measure is slated for the June 2012 ballot in California.
You can stop government waste on the local level if you are doggedly persistent, on the state level if you pull the gloves off, and on the federal level if you protest and riot long enough. But then, perhaps I am overly optimistic. I am not entirely sure how any government waste, fraud and abuse has been stopped in the history of time. All I can say is, "Hey California--stop voting YES on every proposed tax on the ballot. You're never going to get what you pay for if you trust Gubmint to do it for you."
I am so glad I evacuated California six years ago. It's enough to make me go postal. Oh wait--they're bankrupt due to mismanagement and fuzzy accounting, too.
Partial commentary provided by Stephen Kruiser.
It isn't. But it should be.
As the Los Angeles Times reports, a recent independent audit of the First 5 LA Commission revealed massive problems with the agency, including lack of accountability, spending oversight or competitive bidding. Perhaps the members of the Commission should get more than a slap on the wrist. Again, PatriotWriter calls for the return of the public Tar and Feather.
It sounds like an evening news program, but First 5 LA is actually part of a statewide program created in 1998 by Prop 10, a measure which was supposed to use funds from a tobacco tax (boo!) to promote health and education of young children. I was living in California at the time of its passage--Propositions for tax increases always magically pass in California. Please refer to the title of this post to find out why.
According to the independent audit, the Commission is not exactly fulfilling its mission. From the Times: An audit by Harvey M. Rose of San Francisco found First 5 LA's Commission was unable to monitor money that was being spent "since monthly programmatic expenditures are not presented relative to a budget." Try using that kind of fuzzy math in your budget at home.
Auditors also concluded the agency was overstaffed while under-spending on programs for children. Note: if a new tax is sold as "for the children" you can translate that into "employment for adults at the expense of the children" virtually every time. So, First 5 LA is spending too much on public employees and not enough on kids? You don't say. I love the government...it's so consistent.
Furthermore, First 5 LA doles out $200 million without a competitive bidding process and operates with such a lack of oversight that there’s no way to determine if the agency has signed agreements "for inappropriate purposes or with unqualified vendors or grantees”. Cronyism? Probably. Tax fraud? You betcha--taxpayers getting hosed again. Sounds like standard operating procedure in California, which has seen similar accountability and oversight problems with other initiative-created agencies as well. Heck--it sounds like standard operating procedure for the government in general. I agree with Ron Swanson of Parks and Recreation, "My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk, and the only thing he's allowed to decide is who to nuke."
And yet Don Perata, a career politician, is pushing another measure – the so-called California Cancer Research Act – to create yet another unaccountable bureaucracy with six political appointees that can spend nearly a billion each year, including millions on staff salaries and pensions and overhead. With huge budget problems and public pension costs spiraling out of control, the last thing California needs is another big-spending bureaucracy with no oversight or accountability. The measure is slated for the June 2012 ballot in California.
You can stop government waste on the local level if you are doggedly persistent, on the state level if you pull the gloves off, and on the federal level if you protest and riot long enough. But then, perhaps I am overly optimistic. I am not entirely sure how any government waste, fraud and abuse has been stopped in the history of time. All I can say is, "Hey California--stop voting YES on every proposed tax on the ballot. You're never going to get what you pay for if you trust Gubmint to do it for you."
I am so glad I evacuated California six years ago. It's enough to make me go postal. Oh wait--they're bankrupt due to mismanagement and fuzzy accounting, too.
Partial commentary provided by Stephen Kruiser.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Hello to my International Readers + Cuba
Hello, Russia
As this is the sixth year I've published my quirky perspective on life via this blog, I thought I would check my readership statistics. I am amazed and humbled to see that I have readers all over the world--in places I have never been and may never see.
The Great Spike of July 2011
Web traffic reached an all-time six-year high this week when I published my TxDot Grant Rant. Oddly, no one has commented publicly thus far but I have gotten lots of feedback in private. (What are y'all afraid of? The Boogeyman is only really after me, you see. And if you believe that, you've learned nothing from reading my taxpayer advocacy diatribes.)
To Cuba and Beyond!
I'd like to say guten tag and willkommen to the folks in Germany. Either I have one crazed reader in Germany who views my blog a lot, or Germans really like my brand of humor. Either way, I am not complaining. Danke!
Also well-represented are the Netherlands, Canada (which makes me feel a tad bit guilty because I do poke so much fun at our Northern neighbor), Ukraine, Brazil (may I come visit!?!), Japan and France (Qui vous aime, bébé!?!). Not sure if that translates. I'd like to do a shout-out to Hungary who just destroyed all of the GMO corn growing there. Nice work! At least their people and livestock will not be sick and hungry in Hungary.
My personal goal is to get a reader in Cuba before Thanksgiving. Anything you can do, dear international reader, to help would be marvelous. I know some of the taxi drivers and hotel workers there pirate internet in their homes at great personal risk, depending on their personal connections. Do you know anyone in Cuba? Referrals are coveted.
The only openly Communist country in the Western Hemisphere is a constant source of fascination for me. Her food, music and people are so amazing. The culture itself seems quite lovely and vibrant.
But did you know that 1/3 of Cuban residents are incarcerated as political prisoners? That should give us all pause. Look at the "justice" system in your country. Is it equally broken? I'd love to hear from you.
O, Canada
A final thought...I vacationed in Calgary and Banff last December. Would you like to know what greeted me as I switched on the TV in my hotel room that first night? A Cuban Department of Tourism ad...Come Visit Cuba!
I was stunned. Suddenly, the Customs form I'd just filled out made a bit more sense. You can bring to Canada, duty-free, ONE bottle of wine and FIFTY cigars. I don't know about you, but it would take me one dinner to drink a bottle of wine and 25-50 years to smoke 50 cigars, and that is if I tried really hard to break my mother's heart.
The moral of the story is that perhaps Canada is quietly trying to offset the financial punch the U.S. has delivered to Cuba for the past five decades.
Our policy is inconsistent, at best. Look at the reasons for the Cuban embargo and then examine our policies with China. We are a two-faced country. While digging around on this issue, I found the following quote. I officially agree with this Democrat, George McGovern.
In June 2011, former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern spoke out against the travel ban before visiting Cuba, remarking: "It's a stupid policy. There's no reason why we can't be friends with the Cubans, and vice versa. A lot of them have relatives in the United States, and some Americans have relatives in Cuba, so we should have freedom of travel ... We seem to think it's safe to open the door to a billion communists in China but for some reason, we're scared to death of the Cubans."
In closing, if you are ever in Dallas, Texas, please visit the Havana Social Club in the American Airlines Center's Victory Plaza. It's a swingin' joint with incredible rum drinks, a state-of-the-art air purifier, and some fine tobacco products. Tell Carlos I sent you.
Now if I could just find a friend from Brazil...
As this is the sixth year I've published my quirky perspective on life via this blog, I thought I would check my readership statistics. I am amazed and humbled to see that I have readers all over the world--in places I have never been and may never see.
The Great Spike of July 2011
Web traffic reached an all-time six-year high this week when I published my TxDot Grant Rant. Oddly, no one has commented publicly thus far but I have gotten lots of feedback in private. (What are y'all afraid of? The Boogeyman is only really after me, you see. And if you believe that, you've learned nothing from reading my taxpayer advocacy diatribes.)
To Cuba and Beyond!
I'd like to say guten tag and willkommen to the folks in Germany. Either I have one crazed reader in Germany who views my blog a lot, or Germans really like my brand of humor. Either way, I am not complaining. Danke!
Also well-represented are the Netherlands, Canada (which makes me feel a tad bit guilty because I do poke so much fun at our Northern neighbor), Ukraine, Brazil (may I come visit!?!), Japan and France (Qui vous aime, bébé!?!). Not sure if that translates. I'd like to do a shout-out to Hungary who just destroyed all of the GMO corn growing there. Nice work! At least their people and livestock will not be sick and hungry in Hungary.
My personal goal is to get a reader in Cuba before Thanksgiving. Anything you can do, dear international reader, to help would be marvelous. I know some of the taxi drivers and hotel workers there pirate internet in their homes at great personal risk, depending on their personal connections. Do you know anyone in Cuba? Referrals are coveted.The only openly Communist country in the Western Hemisphere is a constant source of fascination for me. Her food, music and people are so amazing. The culture itself seems quite lovely and vibrant.
But did you know that 1/3 of Cuban residents are incarcerated as political prisoners? That should give us all pause. Look at the "justice" system in your country. Is it equally broken? I'd love to hear from you.
O, Canada
A final thought...I vacationed in Calgary and Banff last December. Would you like to know what greeted me as I switched on the TV in my hotel room that first night? A Cuban Department of Tourism ad...Come Visit Cuba!
I was stunned. Suddenly, the Customs form I'd just filled out made a bit more sense. You can bring to Canada, duty-free, ONE bottle of wine and FIFTY cigars. I don't know about you, but it would take me one dinner to drink a bottle of wine and 25-50 years to smoke 50 cigars, and that is if I tried really hard to break my mother's heart.
The moral of the story is that perhaps Canada is quietly trying to offset the financial punch the U.S. has delivered to Cuba for the past five decades.
Our policy is inconsistent, at best. Look at the reasons for the Cuban embargo and then examine our policies with China. We are a two-faced country. While digging around on this issue, I found the following quote. I officially agree with this Democrat, George McGovern.
In June 2011, former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern spoke out against the travel ban before visiting Cuba, remarking: "It's a stupid policy. There's no reason why we can't be friends with the Cubans, and vice versa. A lot of them have relatives in the United States, and some Americans have relatives in Cuba, so we should have freedom of travel ... We seem to think it's safe to open the door to a billion communists in China but for some reason, we're scared to death of the Cubans."
In closing, if you are ever in Dallas, Texas, please visit the Havana Social Club in the American Airlines Center's Victory Plaza. It's a swingin' joint with incredible rum drinks, a state-of-the-art air purifier, and some fine tobacco products. Tell Carlos I sent you.
Now if I could just find a friend from Brazil...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)