The Supremes...and Ultrarunning

I confess to a double entendre here, in referring to both Supremes.

First, regarding the highest court in the land and the dispute over whether President Obama should get to nominate a successor to the late Justice Scalia.  Or defer for a year as the Senate Republicans wish.

It might be illustrative to read about what 3 of those very Republicans said in 2008:

Republicans in Congress are twisting themselves into strange rhetorical knots trying to argue against President Obama's ability and duty to nominate Scalia's successor. The issue came up in 2008, George W. Bush's last year in office. 

At that time, Sen. Chuck Grassley said, "The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president's term." Now, he's against it.

Sen. Lamar Alexander said back then, "Just because it's a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we're here. We're ready to go to work."

Sen. John Cornyn said back then, "Now is the perfect time because, of course, we're in a presidential election year and no one yet knows who the next president will be. What a unique opportunity to establish that regardless of the next president's party, the nominees will be treated fairly and on the basis of their qualifications, and not on the basis of ancient political squabbles." Now, he's against it, too.

Now, let's change gears to those other Supremes.  I liked them but didn't love them, I just got triggered by the Scalia thingy and decided to look at the Supremes' song list and create a nexus to Ultrarunning.  

It was quite easy.  Clear your mind, take a look through these song titles, and tell me you are not carried back to some trail race, memorable due to the trail or to the people you ran with, perhaps the nighttime hours of a hundred-miler?  (Supremes info credit here):

Ain't No Mountain High Enough
Am I Asking Too Much
Blowin' in the Wind
Everyday People
Fancy Passes
I Can't Make it Alone
Misery Makes its Home in my Heart
Save Me a Star
Silent Night
Stormy
The Beginning of the End
Too Much a Little Too Soon
Will This be the Day

Foreign Policy, God...and Ultrarunning

Seen somewhere recently on the Internet, but I forget where:

"I'm starting to suspect that the only strategy we have in Syria is to give weapons to random people and see what happens."

Thinking in the larger sense about warfare and conflict, I have always wondered why evangelical Christian politicians--who sometimes cherry pick and interpret quite literally certain biblical passages to justify a particular position--do not then take equally literally Jesus' words about turning the other cheek when you are attacked.  Just wondering.

The exact Biblical quote from Matthew 5:38-40New International Version (NIV):

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but when I read up more on this, the gist of the school of thought that says "We can't really be literal about this one" is can be summarized thusly:

To "turn the other cheek," does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in mortal danger. 

This and other sites go on to make mighty definitive pronouncements about what Jesus really meant and what he could not possibly have meant.  Me, I think that if in your worldview you elect to rely on the Bible as the source of all wisdom and guidance for human affairs, and decide to go literal in some instances, you gotta go literal in all instances.

Oops, but that's a tad inconvenient for our current crop of evangelistic war-mongering Presidential candidates.

Oh, and the mandatory link to Ultrarunning: whenever I'm out in the backcountry, my thoughts go to trees, Nature, critters, and being a good animal myself as I silently run.  I don't concern myself with international affairs, revenge, or wars.

I wish our Presidential candidates were Ultrarunners; the world would have to be be a better place.

Guest Quote

One of the following pair of quotes is an actual quote last week from a famous politician.  See if you can guess which one is real and who said it:

1.  Zippity doobie blobbity ROOOAR summa summa ice ice baby boom boom boom boom da boom boom can't stop this hammertime run run rudolph run right wingy dingy WINGDINGS Clippy bop bop ba loo bop tutti frutti.  Amen and praise god.

2.  You quit footin' the bill for these nations who are oil-rich, we're payin' for some of their "squirm-ishes" that have been goin' on for centuries where they're fightin' each other, callin' Allah Akbar, callin' jihad on each other's heads forever and ever. Like I said before, let 'em duke it out and let Allah sort if out!

The correct answer is the second one is real and was actually uttered in a major speech by Sarah Palin as she endorsed Donald trump for president.

We're in trouble, folks.

Credits: The first quote is courtesy of Eschaton, here.  The second is via Digby, here.

Politics and Evolution

Dr. Ben Carson has a loyal and enthusiastic following for the Republication presidential nomination.  I kinda get his appeal for many people.

That said, he seems, well, incurious and naive when it comes to science, despite being a neurosurgeon.  Of all his missteps and verbal blunders, to me this one stands out as the most egregious.  This came out in late September (I saw it on the blog Talking Points Memo):

Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said in a 2011 speech speech that he thought scientist Charles Darwin was "encouraged by the adversary," using another word for Satan, when he came up with the theory of evolution.

Carson spoke on "creation vs. evolution" and the "flaws in the evolutionary theory," according to the description on the YouTube video uploaded by user Three Angels Messages, which has uploaded a variety of news and political videos. 

The video was flagged on Tuesday by the website BuzzFeed News. "According to the creation model, in which we have an adversary, it’s very easy to explain why people act that way. It’s because they have choice and because there is an adversary out there," Carson told the crowd.

So basically Charles Darwin was encouraged by Satan to come up with the theory of evolution.

Magna Carta, Dick Cheney, and "The Foulness of Hell"

Listening to Public Radio a couple of days ago, I heard a great piece on the Diane Rehm show with author Dan Jones on his new book, Magna Carta. Here is the Amazon link (note that I have no financial interest).

The blurb from the Amazon site to set the stage:

On a summer's day in 1215 a beleaguered English monarch met a group of disgruntled barons in a meadow by the river Thames named Runnymede. Beset by foreign crisis and domestic rebellion, King John was fast running out of options. On June 15 he reluctantly agreed to fix his regal seal to a document that would change the world. A milestone in the development of constitutional politics and the rule of law, the "Great Charter" established an Englishman's right to Habeas Corpus and set limits to the exercise of royal power. For the first time a group of subjects had forced an English king to agree to a document that limited his powers by law and protected their rights. 

But what I really want to highlight is this great contemporary quote, either from the Amazon site or on the radio show (or both) about the very unpopular King John:

“When the chronicler Matthew Paris reflected on the fate of John’s soul twenty years after his death, he famously declared that “England reeks with John’s filthy deeds; the foulness of Hell is defiled by John.”

I couldn't help but see a parallel between this description of King John in the 1200s and my feelings about one Dick Cheney, once he leaves this earth and makes his inevitable way to Hades.

The foulness of Hell is defiled by Dick.  Kinda has a ring to it, no?

Bopping Around in my Minivan

The other day when I was driving my Sienna minivan--that some would call the essence of suburbia--the Who came on the Classic Vinyl channel of my Sirius XM radio, singing We Won't Get Fooled Again (link is here if the embed doesn't play):



I immediately did some cranking: cranked down the window, cranked up the air conditioning (it was 85 F outside), and cranked up the volume to DEAFENING.  Oh, and sang at the top of my lungs.

Passing motorists must have thought I was nuts.  Perhaps I am.

Then I thought about what other classic tunes I would do the same for.  One that immediately came to mind was this gem from Steppenwolf (again, link here if the embed playeth not):





As above, the routine is to crank thusly:

--Window: DOWN
--Air conditioning: UP
--Volume: DEAFENING
--Singing: WITH ALL I HAVE

With the presidential primary circus ongoing, my confidence in the political system coming up with a leader who truly puts the people first rather than "the establishment" is pretty much nil.

So, heed the words of The Who above:

There's nothing in the streets 

Looks any different to me 

And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye 

And the parting on the left 

Are now parting on the right 

And the beards have all grown longer overnight 

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution 

Take a bow for the new revolution 

Smile and grin at the change all around 

Pick up my guitar and play 

Just like yesterday 

Then I'll get on my knees and pray 

We don't get fooled again 

Don't get fooled again 

No, no!

"When the Truth is Found to be Lies"

I'm already tired of the 2016 presidential race.  As John Oliver said the other night, there will babies born before the election whose parents have not even met yet.

And when these candidate open their mouths, all I can think is that they are saying what they need to say to get elected, not necessarily what the truth is.

Which brings to mind one of the earliest performances by Jefferson Airplane, whose opening line is prophetic:

When the truth is found...to be lies...

If the embedded video playeth not, here's the link.

Donors Vs. Constituents

The most likely reason that ordinary people think politicians are out of touch with regular people and represent the fat cats and not them...is that it is true.

Donald Trump, who says many stupid things, revaleed the secret at the recent debate (courtesy of Talking Points Memo, from  a piece entitled "The Real reason Donald Trump Embarrasses the GOP"):

So why is Trump the enemy, really? The GOP will say it’s because he’s a clown, he has no experience, he can't win, he’s more a celebrity than a politician. This might all be true. But there’s another big reason they’d rather not talk about.

At the debate and numerous public appearances, Trump has matter-of-factly stated that he is an equal opportunity donor to Republican and Democratic candidates—not for the purpose of civic duty or altruism, but in exchange for influence. He has openly deemed his gifts to politicians a business expense. He went so far as to declare, before 24 million viewers at the debate, that he uses his donations to obtain favors from legislators who are all too eager to bow to his requests. He not-so-subtly implies that politicians are bought and paid for by him and other financial moguls. And he expects a fair return for those dollars, measured in policy rewards like zoning adjustments, subsidies for building projects and long-term tax relief. 

In short, he lets the cat out of the bag about something the political system has spent more than a century to disguise.

Representative democracy can only remain legitimate in the eyes of its citizens if they believe that those who seek and hold public office are independent actors. We have tolerated well-funded lobbying organizations, most of which get their money from rich donors and corporate investments. Hillary Clinton admits she receives huge contributions to her campaign from Wall Street titans. But she adamantly denies that these millions of dollars influence her political decisions.

Trump Politics

Mostly I sit by and watch, amused, as the Republican presidential contenders try to out-do each other on the crazy.**

But every once in a while I read something about one of the candidates--in this case Trump--that makes me blow coffee out my nose:

“The Trump circus is largely comprised of hangers-on with a key skill set: kissing Donald Trump’s ass,” Wilson told the Guardian. “Oddly, the same skill set doesn’t extend into other domains like politics, common sense or judgment.”

** This is what my presidential platform would be (courtesy of Corrente's 12 Point Platform):

1. A Living Wage
2. Medicare for All
3. Tax the Rich
4. Job and Income Guarantee
5. Debt Jubilee
6. Retirement Security
7. Free Public Education, pre-K-16
8. Post Office Bank
9. Enforce the Bill of Rights
10. End the Wars
11. Clean Air, Water, Soil, and Food
12. Carbon Negative Economy

A Rather Strong Opinion on Mr. Trump

I've blogged here numerous times about how I have the secret guilty pleasure of following  a blog called The Rude Pundit.

The author, Lee Papa,  is disgustingly rude and uses crude sexual analogies plus a mega dose of profanity to make his point...which generally I agree with.  So I can overlook what Papa calls "the rudeness."

So in all its profane glory, here's an excerpt from a recent post on The Donald:

Because, you see, the one thing Trump has going for him, more than any other candidate running for the Republican nomination, is that the voters are fucking retards who get most of their information from TV news and Trump is more famous than any other candidate. Put it this way: there are people who paid good money to learn business success from Trump at one of his bullshit seminars, totally ignoring that Trump has declared bankruptcy multiple times. You think anyone gives a happy monkey fuck if Trump is "qualified" to be president? Fuck no. He hosted a TV show. His name is everywhere. He says things that make everyone else angry. He's a blatant racist who claims to love Hispanic people. He's a vulgar monster with voracious sexual appetites who preaches morality in marriage. 

And many, many voters simply will overlook that because he's the most goddamned entertaining clown in the circus, the only candidate they know, and his pop culture status has given him the aura of earthy wisdom instead of nonsensical shit-tossing. He's like most of the other candidates rolled into one: a blithering, idiotic, climate change-denying loudmouth xenophobe who wants endless war, Christian "values" (whatever the fuck those are anymore), an economic and health care system that benefits the rich, and a big fuckin' fence with alligators or some such shit to keep out the Mexican rapists. He doesn't need to pander to the baser instincts of the primary voters. He is the living embodiment of the baser instincts of GOP primary voters. That's why he's wiping the floor with virtually every other candidate. 

Don't say I didn't warn you.  Now, go ahead and put The Rude Pundit on your regular reading list. You know you want to.

Republican Politics and Blind Squirrels

I'm pretty sure but not certain that this cartoon came from a recent issue of Sierra, the monthly magazine from my tree-hugging friends at the Sierra Club.  I'm usually better about attribution, so please excuse my lapse:

By the way, I read over the weekend that while all of the Republican candidates for president are still sputtering over the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, there is a slight break in the ranks.  Lindsey Graham said this on Meet the Press on Sunday:  

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" that if the Republican party doesn't change its official position on same-sex marriage it will "hurt" the GOP in 2016. In 2012, the Republican platform read, "We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

And there's more from Senator Graham:

In an interview Sunday [7 June] with CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) continued to distance himself from the growing field of GOP presidential candidates when it comes to climate change and environmental policy. 

“If I’m president of the United States, we’re going to address climate change, CO2 emissions in a business-friendly way,” Graham said during the interview, noting that he does “believe that climate change is real.”

Believe me, I'm solid liberal, won't be casting any votes for Graham, and believe that he's perhaps only the least batshit crazy of that pack of scoundrels (hey, I never used the word scoundrels before in print!), but I give him credit.  

But the snarky side of me thinks this is only an example of even a blind squirrel occasionally finding a acorn (or in this case, a pair of acorns).

Public Pensions...and Ultrarunning

Here in Pennsylvania, we have a public employees pension "problem."  Translation: the state says it doesn't have enough money to continue to pay its retirees.

Seems that state employee retirees and public school employees, who share a common retirement system, were long the targets of the just-ousted Tom Corbett administration, who pushed hard for "pension reform."  Basically they underfunded the pension fund for years and now they say, with a totally straight face, mind you: "There's just not enough money.  So we gotta cut benefits.  Oops, and sorry!"

Nevermind that employees worked their whole careers with the expectation that a certain promised annuity awaited.  "Nope, sorry, folks, we promised too much and now we gotta scale things waaaay back."

I am eagerly waiting to see how our new governor, Tom Wolf (D) will deal with this funding situation (I do have high hopes).

The situation here has parallels in the great state of Illinois.  Let me quote extensively from a great blog post at First Draft:

At issue was a December 2013 state law signed by then-Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn that stopped automatic, compounded yearly cost-of-living increases for retirees, extended retirement ages for current state workers and limited the amount of salary used to calculate pension benefits.

Employee unions sued, arguing that the state constitution holds that pension benefits amount to a contractual agreement and once they’re bestowed, they cannot be “diminished or impaired.” A circuit court judge in Springfield agreed with that assessment in November. State government appealed that decision to the Illinois Supreme Court, arguing that economic necessity forced curbing retirement benefits.

On Friday the justices rejected that argument, saying the law clearly violated what’s known as the pension protection clause in the 1970 Illinois Constitution.

“Our economy is and has always been subject to fluctuations, sometimes very extreme fluctuations,” Republican Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote on behalf of all seven justices. “The law was clear that the promised benefits would therefore have to be paid and that the responsibility for providing the state’s share of the necessary funding fell squarely on the legislature’s shoulders.

“The General Assembly may find itself in crisis, but it is a crisis which other public pension systems managed to avoid and … it is a crisis for which the General Assembly itself is largely responsible,” Karmeier wrote.

That was the background.  The post then goes on to comment:

RIGHT?! You can’t just decide that okay, here’s a contract we want to void, so … fuck it. That’s the whole POINT of a contract, is to prevent that. Legislators want to get pissy because unions had the foresight to realize people would try to screw them over, and insisted on contracts to protect against that? SORRY NOT SORRY. Way to prove the SEIU’s point, shitbirds.

And don’t throw fiscal responsibility in my face. I don’t know what is fiscally responsible about breaking contracts. If the state’s word isn’t good, that should give everybody pause. The state promises things to entities public and private all the goddamn time, including subsidies to corporations to relocate and create jobs. Everyone has to trust that their agreements will be honored, even when things get rough for some of Springfield’s cocktail party attendees.

Amen! says Gary.

The whole situation can be thought of as a 100 mile race.  At great length and after great personal effort, you, the Ultrarunner, approach the finish line...only to find a sanctimonious race official telling you that, sorry, we measured wrong and the race is actually longer than you were told.  And there will be no more aid stations because we didn't budget for them.  Oh, and there will be no T-shirt or finisher's belt buckle, again because we can't afford it.

The race budget is broke.  You'll surely understand.

Liars

Image credit via Blue Gal, here:

I'm not sure how exactly to weave this into a blog post, but I am reminded that thus far, only Brian Williams has paid a price for lying about Iraq.

I would love to see Dick Cheney's trousers (for I'm certain he wears trousers, not pants) burst into flames the next time he opens his mouth.

A Rare Bit of Honesty

Ran across this gem over at Lawyers, Guns and Money, here.  Lindsey Graham, the seemingly mild-mannered senator from South Carolina--who has to be the biggest hawk in the Congress--has a way of annoying me every time I see him on TV or read about him.  He really is a vile human being.

Which was proven a couple of weeks ago.  Remember when Mitt Romney was caught on a secret video made at a private function, talking dismissively about the "47 percent"?

Well, Mr. Graham was similarly speaking at a private event:

According to the CNN report Wednesday, Graham confirmed the veracity of the recordings. Graham was speaking to the Hibernian Society of Charleston, a charitable group with an all-male membership.

In the recording according to CNN, Graham is heard saying: “I’m trying to help you with your tax status. I’m sorry the government’s so f——- up. If I get to be president, white men in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency.”

Author of the post Erik Loomis then observed:

And if there’s one thing we know, it’s that this is Lindsey Graham speaking from his heart, such as it is. I have no doubt a Lindsey Graham presidency would be excellent for elite white men. And horrible for everyone else.

Senator Graham really is a vile human being.  Maybe if I write that sentence enough times he'll see the light and change.  Nope, if we lefties are annoyed he'll merely feel vindicated that he's doing it "right."

On Being Ashamed

Ran across this great quote here.  The entire post by Jaime O'Neill is worth a read:

Jonathan Swift, who waged war on ignorance, fear, and hate a couple of centuries ago, wrote: “I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.”

As I survey the political landscape I am continually amazed to discover just how shameless, arrogant, tone-deaf, unaware, lying, unapologetic--you name the adjective--that some of our "leaders" are.

For example, Ms. Shelley Moore Capito was just elected to the U.S. Senate from the adjacent state of West Virginia.  Since we are close, we saw on TV some of her ads (too many, actually) prior to the election. Capito ran on an Obama-bashing platform, and one of her principal campaign ads said that Obama was going to kill jobs and take away our freedoms.

Really?  You can say that with a straight face?

Foreign Policy Explained...and Ultrarunning

Next time you are feeling cynical about the foreign policy motives of our leaders, here it is in a nutshell. 

This is an excerpt from an interview with William Blum, "...an American author, critic of American foreign policy and retired employee of the US State Department. He is the author of numerous books and articles discussing uncoverings of the Central Intelligence Agency and writes about our involvement in worldwide terror operations, often in the name of democracy. Blum is the author of the famous book Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (Common Courage Press)."

Q:   What do you think the people need to know who are interested in military history or the history of the Vietnam War or how American foreign policy is essentially made in the United States?

Blum:  The most important lesson one can acquire about US foreign policy is the understanding that our leaders do not mean well. They do not have any noble goals of democracy and freedom and all that jazz. They aim to dominate the world by any means necessary. And as long as an American believes that the intentions are noble and honorable, it's very difficult to penetrate that wall. That wall surrounds the thinking and blocks any attempt to make them realize the harm being done by US foreign policy. That's what's in my writing and in my speaking. My main aim is usually to penetrate that wall of belief that we mean well.

Q:  How do you think people that are a part of the electorate today and participants in the two major parties differentiate President Bush from President Obama, and what are the differences between the two in approach of the office in terms of diplomacy, meaning in terms of diplomacy or foreign affairs?

Blum:  Well, in foreign policy there's no difference. I cannot name any significant difference in foreign policy between Bush and Obama. Obama is, perhaps, worse. He's invaded six nations already. I cannot think of any way to point out that Obama is less of an imperialist than Bush. The Obama supporters would love to think he's better and they would argue even - and they do argue that it's the Republicans who forced him to do what he did. It's like - it's on par with the dog ate my homework.  I get this again and again. If Obama was free to do what he wants, he would be an angel or at least much better than he is now. I don't buy that. He's the most powerful person in the world, and he's just lacking courage - he's lacking belief, too. That's even more important. I've written this several times about Obama. There's nothing really important to that man except being president of the United States. That he likes. He likes what goes with that. But there's no issue that he would not compromise on. He's willing to take any side of any issue in order to get elected. So he's no better than Bush. Bush at least believes what he says, I think. Obama doesn't even do that.

This piece expresses pretty much my disappointment over what the people want versus what the leaders want.  When Obama got elected I was in the hopey-changey camp and had such high expectations for a real change in this nation.  Now I see it's just more of the same.

So, I'd better connect this to Ultrarunning or I may do some self-harm in my cynicism.  There's no secret here: when the external pressures get to be too much, then it's time for a long trail run in the backcountry.  It's good for what ails you.

President Obama's Negotiating Skills...and Ultrarunning

Over at Hecate's blog (seriously, she IS a witch) one often finds novel and interesting things.

Case in point is this post of Hecate's, here,  wherein she takes the President to task for screwing up the budget negotiations with the Republicans.  As a high-stakes negotiator herself, in her "normal" lawyerly life, Hecate offers these tips.  The days are off since this was written but the concepts remain the same:

For most of his presidency, he’s shown a disappointing tendency to engage in a practice that lawyers call “negotiating against” himself. He stakes out a position — generally one that’s already far to the right of what his followers want — and then, without obtaining any concessions in return, simply volunteers to move closer to the Rapeublicans position. More than once. Sometimes, even after he’s won, he’ll change a program to make it more palatable to the other side....With this Congress, Mr. Obama’s negotiating strategies have been disastrous. They simply believe, generally with good reason, that, eventually, he’ll cave to them.)

So, I’m an old woman who didn’t go to HLS and wouldn’t presume to imagine that I could lead the United States. But I’ll still, as someone who’s actually been in the field, practiced law, and successfully negotiated good outcomes for my clients, presume to give Mr. Obama some advice.

If I were sitting today where you sit, Mr. Obama, almost at the confluence of the Anacostia River, the Washington Chanel, and the Potomac River, here’s what I’d do:

I’d announce that, now that the government’s been closed for two days, I’m unwilling to sign anything but a clean bill to fund the government, except that now I also want the Rapeublicans to approve all of my judicial nominees who have been languishing in Congress lo these many years.  

Tomorrow morning, I’d eat breakfast, put on my nice suit, walk out into the Rose Garden (it’s gorgeous in DC this week) and announce that now that I’ve slept on it, I won’t sign anything except a clean bill with approval of all of my judicial nominees and statehood for DC. I’d wave to the reporters, go play golf (include a woman this time, Mr. President), review their homework with my daughters, and get a massage.  

On Friday, after I had lunch at the Palm with my wife (have the crabmeat cocktail and the steak salad, rare), I’d walk up to Dupont Circle and say that I’d been discussing it with Ms. Obama and, now, I’m unwilling to sign anything except a clean bill with approval of all of my judicial appointees, statehood for DC, and a new bill of Elizabeth Warren’s choosing.

Read the rest, here.  It's that good.  You gotta love Hecate's take-no-hostages approach.

Oh, and the link to Ultrarunning, because, see, on this blog I feel obligated to at least occasionally salute in the direction of our hallowed sport even if many or my posts are political in nature?

I often negotiate with myself as I train or race.  If I run, say, the slight uphill to that big oak off to the right of the trail, then I'll allow myself to walk the rest of the hill. 

When I get to to the next aid station--and not before--I'll take of my left shoe and see how bad that sore spot actually looks and whether I need to deal with it or just suck it up until the end.

I'll pass on running today since it's raining but I promise myself I'll run 10 tomorrow.


Tell me why...Is it hard to make arrangements with yourself?



Seems apprpriate.

More Worst Person in the World...and Ultrarunning

As seen on the NBC Nightly News on 3 Oct, Representative Randy Neugebaum (R, Texas), after having voted with his party to shut down the government...is then rude and argumentative with a National Park Service ranger who is enforcing a closure in the DC area.




[Video credit YouTube, here, if the embedded does not play]


The arrogance, the hypocrisy, the unapologetic nature of this joker's attitude simply defy belief.

As I continually say, I gotta get out more on the trails and clear my head.  The bride and I were up on the Appalachian Trail yesterday with some friends to scope out Bailey Spring a couple miles inside the PA border (it is barely running due to no rain to speak of for the past 6 weeks).

I am not certain whether the AT is an outright Federal corridor or some type of public-private joint ownership deal, but there was no evidence of closure.  Though as a practical matter, it'd be absolutely unenforceable.

 

Retirement Blues, or The Dumbest Retirement Policy in the World

Another great link caught by Mike the Mad Biologist on 29 Sep, here.  He points us to a must-read article in Salon, here, that I mentioned a couple days ago.

You need to read the whole thing, but here's a big excerpt:

The Dumbest Retirement Policy in the World 

It was a bad idea from the get-go, but new research shows that America’s 401(k) revolution has left us even worse off than we thought. Here’s a look at how we got into this mess, and where it will take us if we don’t wise up.

Thirty years ago, as laissez-faire fanaticism took hold of America, misguided policy-makers decided that do-it-yourself retirement plans, otherwise known as 401(k)s, would magically secure our financial future in the face of gyrating markets, economic crises, unpredictable life events, stagnant wages and rampant job insecurity. It was an extraordinary shift in thinking about public policy: Instead of having predictable streams of income from traditional pensions, ordinary people with little financial expertise would suddenly transform themselves into financial gurus, putting money aside and managing complicated investments in tax-deferred accounts.

There were red flags along the way. 401(k)s were originally supposed to supplement pensions, but clever corporate cost-cutters decided that voluntary individual accounts would replace them. Big difference! Meanwhile, throughout the 1990s, the national savings rate fell. Real wages dropped. As Helaine Olen details in her book Pound Foolish, Americans started borrowing against retirement plans to pay the mortgage or send the kids to college. The media was basically out to lunch, and politicians went on claiming the nonsense that individual retirement accounts would encourage savings and turn us all into professional money managers. The stock market would bring us double-digit returns. Whoopie!

Reality check: In 2007, the financial crisis destroyed America’s retirement fantasy. Jobs evaporated or were downsized. The stock market took a nosedive. Millions of Americans who had worked hard, straining to sock away a portion of their salary for 401(k)s, watched helplessly as a black cloud formed over their golden years. In October 2008, the Congressional Budget Office revealed that Americans had lost $2 trillion in just 15 months — money that will likely never be recovered. Not long after, President Obama betrayed the public by turning away from the jobs crisis to create a deficit commission whose leaders had the stunning lack of foresight to advise cutting Social Security at a time when the retirement train wreck was quickly picking up steam.

My favorite quote above--in a sad, headshaking way--is this:

It was an extraordinary shift in thinking about public policy: Instead of having predictable streams of income from traditional pensions, ordinary people with little financial expertise would suddenly transform themselves into financial gurus, putting money aside and managing complicated investments in tax-deferred accounts.


So here we are, with millions of people facing an uncertain retirement future, and the Very Serious People in DC want to whack Social Security because "we can't afford it."

There's a special place in hell for these folks, I hope.  I'm fortunate because I am retired Federal worker who has a defined pension (until they mess with it). 

See, in the 1980s (if I recall the date correctly) the Feds brought out a new 401k-based system (called FERS, for Federal Employees Retirement System).  They made it mandatory for new hires and optional for those older employees already in. 

Thankfully, I remained under the "old" Civil Service Retirement System--CSRS for those of you who speak Fed.  What a smart, but lucky, move.  I just figured at the time that if the Feds were pushing the new FERS so hard it must be to their benefit and not mine.

I was correct.

 
 

Resequence These Words: Asylum, Inmates, Running (and a link to Ultrarunning)

Plus include the words "are" and "the" (twice).  Then you'll have the real explanation for the government shutdown this morning.

Along these lines, I ran across a great article in Salon, here.  The main gist dealt with retirement--about which I will post much more in a day or so--but this paragraph also jumped out at me and seems relevant to today's government news.

It's all part and parcel of the same dysfunction, as the die-hards try to selectively whack pieces of the government based upon their misguided ideologies.

As Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson write in their book, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, it’s not just lack of money and material resources that weaken a country, it’s the gap between rich and poor itself that makes things fall apart. This explains all kinds of incongruent phenomena, like why babies born in the U.S., a wealthy country that spends more on healthcare than any other, are more likely to die and have a shorter life expectancy than those born in Greece, a much poorer nation. And why murder rates, the number of teenage births, and obesity rates are higher in unequal societies, despite their relative wealth.

The link to Ultrarunning?  It's a rather egalitarian sport, meaning "Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people."

Out there in the backcountry, we are all just athletes doing our best to enjoy a peculiar pastime.