Been thinking lately about the USA going socialist.
It's funny, when I was in high school and college, one question was about Germany actually voting for Hitler and the nation being run by SS -- the big question was: Why?
Germany had been a unified nation for less than 100 years, but the states that made up Germany had always been highly cultured and very civilized, placing a lot of value on intellectual and scientific achievement. Nearly all the scientists involved in what was the "new" physics of Max Planck, Einstein and others, had been trained and worked in Germany. Jews had fled Russia and Poland because the German states had been much more tolerant of religious differences.
So what happened? When the Nazis came to power, the new physics became "Jewish science" and books were burned. About six million Jews were systematically killed, along with another five million people who simply disagreed with da Fuhrer. And this is apart from those millions slaughtered as the Nazis pushed out geographically in search of more elbow room.
I say: If you seek the answer for how this could happen, look around you.
Watch the buttheads and blockheads that populate the network Sunday morning political shows. Look at the people in the White House. Listen to their specious and impossible arguments and their rosy and patently improbable promises about a Utopian future. They are full of crap. And to the credit of the US population -- most people aren't buying it.
But this is how disaster happens. Marx got this much right: The road to hell is paved with "good" intentions -- or at least those intentions clothed in what some call "good" to make selling points.
They try tirelessly to cut the ties between cause and effect. They say: Your health care will be free! They fail to note that it will cost more than half your income in payroll deductions and income taxes.
They say health care will be available to everyone. They fail to note that there will be long, long waiting lines, with people dying for lack of care before they have the opportunity to even see a doctor.
They say they will reduce the cost of health care. They don't say how and, in fact, they diddle with the numbers to make their case. And everyone knows what they're doing and the "pro" side defends this bullshit anyway, as though it represents truth.
Then consider this: Not only are they adding 30 million (by their own count) to the waiting lists for health care, but they are also adding something like 117 new government bureaus to regulate this system. WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?
And it's not only health care. I'm relocating. I called the local electric and gas companies to initiate service at my new address. Both organizations asked for social security number. Neither customer service person could explain what my social security number has to do with my domestic energy needs. I asked one of them: "Why don't we just tattoo it on our arms?"
They'd never heard of that before and thought that might be a good idea.
The pro-socialists slobber over a few letters they've gotten from some unhappy citizens looking for help. Some people will always need help, and usually due to the particular cirumstances of their uncommon situations So we should destroy American liberty for that?
Like about 15 years ago, a state assemblyman in Illinois proposed banning the promotion of religion on state-run college campuses. Joining with a couple organizations, I testified in Springfield (state capitol) that the proposal was a direct violation of the First Amendment.
The state assemblyman got up at end of the hearing and said his legislation was only in response to the concerns of one of his voters who was worried her son might be seduced by Moonies or someone while he was attending the U of I. So destroy the US Constitution because one neurotic mommy was worried that her son didn't have any common sense. But what's really unforgivable is that the assemblymen was cheerfully willing to do this.
Forget vampires, werewolves, and zombies. It's the stupidity and ignorance of our legislators that's the real horror show. And mostly, they're among the democrats. The Republicans are resisting. And I don't care if they're resisting because they're trying to regain their own power or for whatever reason. The important thing is that they're resisting.
The existence of the US republic depends upon this.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
An exercise in transparency
Thursday was the Health Care Summit at Blair House, a supposed meeting of minds of the Reps and dems and the Comrade, all in hopes of finding points of agreement on socialized medicine. Well, it was interesting, but I don't see too many points of agreement, and for what it's worth, the Reps won.
Must admit, this thing started a little too early in the morning for me, so I slept through chunks of the first part of it. I'm pretty sure the news replayed anything of any significance, so I don't think I missed much. What struck me was the sincerity and open-mindedness of the Republicans and a few of the dems. However, the Comrade and Reid, especially, came off as rather peevish and impatient with all this open debate business. Why doesn't this minority just obey?
The Comrade was bizarre. He really doesn't like to be challenged. John McCain noted that many citizens were a bit put off by the Louisiana Purchase and similar deals. The Comrade snapped back -- completely inappropriately -- "The campaign is over, John!"
Similarly, Eric Cantor (R-VA) had the whole 2400-page bill on the desk in front of him. The Comrade said that that was a "prop." Kyl (R-not sure which state, but the west) said that one of the central questions was whether Washington would be making health care decisions instead of citizens making their own decisions. The Comrade told Kyl that the comment was "talking points."
Overall, the Comrade was rather surly and defensive.
Reid was an idiot. Asked if he'd take reconciliation off the table, he puffed up indignantly and said something like he'd never heard of reconciliation being mentioned in relation to the socialized medicine bill. Making me wonder if he maybe he hadn't taken one too many sinus pills or something. Or maybe Reid's so afraid for his safety he sent in some kind of body-double to attend the conference for him. Anyway, he's an idiot. That's transparent.
Nancy Pelosi was unintelligible. We don't call her Pazzo for nothing.
Some guy named Becerra (D-FL) got on Paul Ryan's case about Ryan claiming the CBO numbers didn't tell an accurate story. Ryan's point -- when he finally got the opportunity to make it -- was that the CBO can only "score" a bill based on the information offered. Ryan said so many costs are hidden in the bill -- and are even outside the bill -- that it's all "smoke and mirrors." But Becerra went on and on and on and on and on and on and on for about five minutes about nothing much, as though if he kept on talking, Paul Ryan would vanish into thin air.
Dick Durbin offered a sentimental pitch defending suing the pants off care givers. I think Durbin is not very bright, or else he just disregards intelligence in favor of slobbery sympathy.
I watched this on Fox, of course. In the early afternoon part of the show, anchor Megyn Kelly interviewed Linda Douglass. Douglass had been a news reporter in Chicago. Now she's a flak catcher for the White House. Douglass talked about a Newsweek poll that apparently asked citizens what they thought about various elements of the bill, like "Do you like the idea of the insurance companies not being able to refuse you based on pre-existing conditions?" Or, "Do you like the idea of insurance portability?"
Douglass noted that the results of this poll indicate that people are overwhelmingly in favor of these measures. I mean like 75% or 80% of those polled thought those were terrific ideas. And that seems to be all Douglass is capable of. Like an wind-up toy. Pull her string and she spouts the party line.
But what I'd like to see is a poll that asks: "Do you like the idea of insurance portability if it means your grandchildren will be slaves of the state and/or hunted down and torn apart by packs of wolves let loose by the IRS?"
I suspect the response might be a little less positive.
The way the Comrade is -- and always has been -- trying to sell socialized medicine is by divorcing the possible benefits from its certain costs and quite predictable negative consequences. The certain costs and the quite predictable negative consequences include: a whopping and never-ending tax burden on all able-bodied citizens; fewer and fewer able-bodied citizens, as soon as citizens figure out all you need to do is develop some mysterious-but-debilitating illness that puts them on the receiving end of the gravy train rather than on the paying end; health care rationing; declining quality in care; much less medical research and fewer innovations; etc.
In other words, the Comrade's rant goes something like: Pay no attention to the Pandora's Box behind the curtain.
And the Comrade himself really, really doesn't like to be criticized or challenged. It reminds me of an episode of "Law & Order," or maybe it was "Columbo." The suspect in a murder was a hotshot symphony conductor who was quite arrogant and impatient with the police. He explained how difficult his job was by saying something like, "You don't know how hard it is to get these musicians to work together. Every one of them was a 'wunderkint' in their home towns. Then they come to the Big City, where they're just a face in the crowd."
And no, the Comrade is not the symphony conductor in this scenario. He's one of the faces in the crowd. I suspect that he's used to being with a bunch of phony-ass liberals who petted him and fawned all over him as being a truly intelligent and cultivated "Negro" (as Harry Reid would say. And Barbara Boxer would just compare him to African-Americans she's met at the NAACP.) I'm sure these assinine liberals always wondered if such a creature was even possible in nature, and they picked up the Comrade and held him up as a living example of "See, black people are trainable." Hypocrites that they are. And the poor Comrade, believing all the b.s. they've fed him. Believing he really is some kind of divinely-inspired genius. I really do feel sorry for him.
Now he's up against minds that are just as clear and sharp as his own -- and not all of them in congress -- and people who actually have much better and longer political experience. I found most of the Republicans to be more impressive, at least as intelligent, and much better equipped emotionally than the Comrade to participate in open debate. When the Comrade insulted McCain -- inappropriately -- McCain just laughed and made a joke. I don't think John McCain feels compelled to prove his worth. That is to say, I think McCain has been up against tougher opponents and he survived, and he knows he will survive.
So the Comrade wants to take a few weeks and possibly jam this crappy bill through on reconciliation. But you know what? I also think he's beginning to doubt all the marxist rhetoric. Not that that will change anything; he might regard it even more humiliating to change than to continue to be regarded as a knee-jerk idealogue. He offered some kind of rambling conclusion that ended with a kind of soft threat about an election.
Yeah. There is a congressional election later this year. And afterward, the Comrade will be able to whine about not being able to get anything past a Republican majority. And finally we'll stop hearing about it's all George Bush's fault.
Meanwhile, Lamar Alexander was excellent, Tom Coburn -- a bona fide physician -- scored some excellent points, and I love John Boehner. If I was 30 years younger, I'd probably be stalking Paul Ryan.
Must admit, this thing started a little too early in the morning for me, so I slept through chunks of the first part of it. I'm pretty sure the news replayed anything of any significance, so I don't think I missed much. What struck me was the sincerity and open-mindedness of the Republicans and a few of the dems. However, the Comrade and Reid, especially, came off as rather peevish and impatient with all this open debate business. Why doesn't this minority just obey?
The Comrade was bizarre. He really doesn't like to be challenged. John McCain noted that many citizens were a bit put off by the Louisiana Purchase and similar deals. The Comrade snapped back -- completely inappropriately -- "The campaign is over, John!"
Similarly, Eric Cantor (R-VA) had the whole 2400-page bill on the desk in front of him. The Comrade said that that was a "prop." Kyl (R-not sure which state, but the west) said that one of the central questions was whether Washington would be making health care decisions instead of citizens making their own decisions. The Comrade told Kyl that the comment was "talking points."
Overall, the Comrade was rather surly and defensive.
Reid was an idiot. Asked if he'd take reconciliation off the table, he puffed up indignantly and said something like he'd never heard of reconciliation being mentioned in relation to the socialized medicine bill. Making me wonder if he maybe he hadn't taken one too many sinus pills or something. Or maybe Reid's so afraid for his safety he sent in some kind of body-double to attend the conference for him. Anyway, he's an idiot. That's transparent.
Nancy Pelosi was unintelligible. We don't call her Pazzo for nothing.
Some guy named Becerra (D-FL) got on Paul Ryan's case about Ryan claiming the CBO numbers didn't tell an accurate story. Ryan's point -- when he finally got the opportunity to make it -- was that the CBO can only "score" a bill based on the information offered. Ryan said so many costs are hidden in the bill -- and are even outside the bill -- that it's all "smoke and mirrors." But Becerra went on and on and on and on and on and on and on for about five minutes about nothing much, as though if he kept on talking, Paul Ryan would vanish into thin air.
Dick Durbin offered a sentimental pitch defending suing the pants off care givers. I think Durbin is not very bright, or else he just disregards intelligence in favor of slobbery sympathy.
I watched this on Fox, of course. In the early afternoon part of the show, anchor Megyn Kelly interviewed Linda Douglass. Douglass had been a news reporter in Chicago. Now she's a flak catcher for the White House. Douglass talked about a Newsweek poll that apparently asked citizens what they thought about various elements of the bill, like "Do you like the idea of the insurance companies not being able to refuse you based on pre-existing conditions?" Or, "Do you like the idea of insurance portability?"
Douglass noted that the results of this poll indicate that people are overwhelmingly in favor of these measures. I mean like 75% or 80% of those polled thought those were terrific ideas. And that seems to be all Douglass is capable of. Like an wind-up toy. Pull her string and she spouts the party line.
But what I'd like to see is a poll that asks: "Do you like the idea of insurance portability if it means your grandchildren will be slaves of the state and/or hunted down and torn apart by packs of wolves let loose by the IRS?"
I suspect the response might be a little less positive.
The way the Comrade is -- and always has been -- trying to sell socialized medicine is by divorcing the possible benefits from its certain costs and quite predictable negative consequences. The certain costs and the quite predictable negative consequences include: a whopping and never-ending tax burden on all able-bodied citizens; fewer and fewer able-bodied citizens, as soon as citizens figure out all you need to do is develop some mysterious-but-debilitating illness that puts them on the receiving end of the gravy train rather than on the paying end; health care rationing; declining quality in care; much less medical research and fewer innovations; etc.
In other words, the Comrade's rant goes something like: Pay no attention to the Pandora's Box behind the curtain.
And the Comrade himself really, really doesn't like to be criticized or challenged. It reminds me of an episode of "Law & Order," or maybe it was "Columbo." The suspect in a murder was a hotshot symphony conductor who was quite arrogant and impatient with the police. He explained how difficult his job was by saying something like, "You don't know how hard it is to get these musicians to work together. Every one of them was a 'wunderkint' in their home towns. Then they come to the Big City, where they're just a face in the crowd."
And no, the Comrade is not the symphony conductor in this scenario. He's one of the faces in the crowd. I suspect that he's used to being with a bunch of phony-ass liberals who petted him and fawned all over him as being a truly intelligent and cultivated "Negro" (as Harry Reid would say. And Barbara Boxer would just compare him to African-Americans she's met at the NAACP.) I'm sure these assinine liberals always wondered if such a creature was even possible in nature, and they picked up the Comrade and held him up as a living example of "See, black people are trainable." Hypocrites that they are. And the poor Comrade, believing all the b.s. they've fed him. Believing he really is some kind of divinely-inspired genius. I really do feel sorry for him.
Now he's up against minds that are just as clear and sharp as his own -- and not all of them in congress -- and people who actually have much better and longer political experience. I found most of the Republicans to be more impressive, at least as intelligent, and much better equipped emotionally than the Comrade to participate in open debate. When the Comrade insulted McCain -- inappropriately -- McCain just laughed and made a joke. I don't think John McCain feels compelled to prove his worth. That is to say, I think McCain has been up against tougher opponents and he survived, and he knows he will survive.
So the Comrade wants to take a few weeks and possibly jam this crappy bill through on reconciliation. But you know what? I also think he's beginning to doubt all the marxist rhetoric. Not that that will change anything; he might regard it even more humiliating to change than to continue to be regarded as a knee-jerk idealogue. He offered some kind of rambling conclusion that ended with a kind of soft threat about an election.
Yeah. There is a congressional election later this year. And afterward, the Comrade will be able to whine about not being able to get anything past a Republican majority. And finally we'll stop hearing about it's all George Bush's fault.
Meanwhile, Lamar Alexander was excellent, Tom Coburn -- a bona fide physician -- scored some excellent points, and I love John Boehner. If I was 30 years younger, I'd probably be stalking Paul Ryan.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Possessing Health Care
I love these idiot liberals who claim that the Comrade isn't doing anything like socializing GM, the financial industry, or proposing to socialize health care. They say that "socialism" means that the government owns it.
Hey, ya dopes, the government does own it -- or wants to.
I once came across a definition of "ownership" that read something like, "to control the use and dispoal of [a thing]." Looked up "own" in Webster's 7th Dictionary (yeah, I know, it's old), and it referred me to "possess".... which suggested "own."
So here we are again. Actually, I like a corollary definition from Websters: "To enter into and control firmly: DOMINATE (~ed by a demon)." I think this is what the Comrade has in mind for the health care industry.
Does "ownership" exist because you hold the deed or title, or the majority of the stock? Because you manage and direct something? Because you pay the employees? Even if someone else sets the policies and prices and everything else?
Read an article in the Wall Street Journal about the Comrade's 11-page health care bill, delivered today, just prior to his powwow with Republicans -- trying to blame them for it, apparently. Yeah, the George Bush thing is wearing a bit thin. Time to recruit some other Republicans to hold accountable for the errors and mistakes that originate in the Obama White House.
Anyway, WSJ says the Comrade's proposal is much like the Senate bill, except that it adds $75 BILLION to the Senate bill, for a cost of $950 BILLION over 10 years. It raises taxes and cuts Medicare. It dumps enormous, unfunded mandates on the states -- which means an increase in state taxes. It gives control of insurance policy pricing to some dopey bureaucracy, and overall vastly increases the cost of health insurance and the government's control over it.
Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of this exercise, doesn't it? I thought the idea behind health care reform was to make it available to everyone, not to price it out of the market.
Oops!! With the government setting prices and levels of care, there really will be no "market" will there? Just more like: Here it is. Take it or... Oops!! You can't leave it, can you? That would be illegal, wouldn't it?
So much for adding choice and options.
Gosh, the Comrade is such a flaming marxist. He just kind of automatically comes up with stuff that even Lenin would champion. It's boggles the mind. He just has no capacity at all to consider anything like individual liberty or free enterprise. Those things have absolutely no value for him. They just go right over his head. They're trivia he just brushes aside.
Where did he learn this demagoguery? Harvard, wasn't it? Or Yale? Or from William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright? Too bad the Comrade was never exposed to any kind of rational thought or even very much human history over his lifetime. (Actually, he's a "Demogorgon." Look it up. I'm dangerous when armed with a dictionary.)
Furthermore, Give'em'pork Harry Reid has agreed to jam this drek through on reconciliation if congress refuses to accept it voluntarily. So not only has the US republic failed, but so has the democratic legislative system. All to spare this butthead Comrade the humiliation of losing his "signature legislation." Yeah. Destroy the nation to make this jerk look good. Harry Reid has a profound death wish. Just wish he'd keep it to himself. ("Thanatos", from the Greek, an instinctual desire for death.)
But getting back to ownership and possession... If I hold the title to a car, but the guy down the street decides he knows better than I do about how and when to drive it, although as "owner," I still have to fill it with gas and do the oil changes... What does it really mean that I hold the title? Is that "ownership"? Suppose the guy down the street threatens to punch me out or chain me to the plumbing if I don't agree to his control of my car? Socialism by any other name still reeks like horse manure -- and worse, like what Mark Levin calls "soft tyranny." Only it's not really very soft, is it?
So all the liberal/progressive buttheads out there who insist that Obamacare isn't socialist -- Hey, wake up, fools! You've been blind-sided by semantics. You've been hoodwinked and conned. Somewhere deep in your oh-so-gullible little hearts, you probably suspect the truth, but your mamas told you to respect "those in authority" and you don't have the will or the capability to question. Easier just to tow the line, isn't it? And you probably believe yourself to be one of those "authorities," don't you? You'll be the guy making the decisions, not the poor slob who has to live with them.
Certainly you'll get a better job than others -- probably some cushy boondoggle position attached to a federal paycheck, filing the fifth and sixth copies of lengthy requisition sheets, with six weeks vacation and automatic raises. All you'll have to do is punch in every day and cooperate with every smarmy sycophant who walks into your office. And never wonder who the hell is getting stuck paying your salary. (It's the guy selling pirated designer sunglasses from a suitcase in the park, who can barely make his rent, the guy who runs every time he sees a police car, because he can't afford the permit.)
And here's hoping you never need a doctor or a hospital, because if this crap legislation passes, you'll be totally out of luck, as will we all.
Hey, ya dopes, the government does own it -- or wants to.
I once came across a definition of "ownership" that read something like, "to control the use and dispoal of [a thing]." Looked up "own" in Webster's 7th Dictionary (yeah, I know, it's old), and it referred me to "possess".... which suggested "own."
So here we are again. Actually, I like a corollary definition from Websters: "To enter into and control firmly: DOMINATE (~ed by a demon)." I think this is what the Comrade has in mind for the health care industry.
Does "ownership" exist because you hold the deed or title, or the majority of the stock? Because you manage and direct something? Because you pay the employees? Even if someone else sets the policies and prices and everything else?
Read an article in the Wall Street Journal about the Comrade's 11-page health care bill, delivered today, just prior to his powwow with Republicans -- trying to blame them for it, apparently. Yeah, the George Bush thing is wearing a bit thin. Time to recruit some other Republicans to hold accountable for the errors and mistakes that originate in the Obama White House.
Anyway, WSJ says the Comrade's proposal is much like the Senate bill, except that it adds $75 BILLION to the Senate bill, for a cost of $950 BILLION over 10 years. It raises taxes and cuts Medicare. It dumps enormous, unfunded mandates on the states -- which means an increase in state taxes. It gives control of insurance policy pricing to some dopey bureaucracy, and overall vastly increases the cost of health insurance and the government's control over it.
Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of this exercise, doesn't it? I thought the idea behind health care reform was to make it available to everyone, not to price it out of the market.
Oops!! With the government setting prices and levels of care, there really will be no "market" will there? Just more like: Here it is. Take it or... Oops!! You can't leave it, can you? That would be illegal, wouldn't it?
So much for adding choice and options.
Gosh, the Comrade is such a flaming marxist. He just kind of automatically comes up with stuff that even Lenin would champion. It's boggles the mind. He just has no capacity at all to consider anything like individual liberty or free enterprise. Those things have absolutely no value for him. They just go right over his head. They're trivia he just brushes aside.
Where did he learn this demagoguery? Harvard, wasn't it? Or Yale? Or from William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright? Too bad the Comrade was never exposed to any kind of rational thought or even very much human history over his lifetime. (Actually, he's a "Demogorgon." Look it up. I'm dangerous when armed with a dictionary.)
Furthermore, Give'em'pork Harry Reid has agreed to jam this drek through on reconciliation if congress refuses to accept it voluntarily. So not only has the US republic failed, but so has the democratic legislative system. All to spare this butthead Comrade the humiliation of losing his "signature legislation." Yeah. Destroy the nation to make this jerk look good. Harry Reid has a profound death wish. Just wish he'd keep it to himself. ("Thanatos", from the Greek, an instinctual desire for death.)
But getting back to ownership and possession... If I hold the title to a car, but the guy down the street decides he knows better than I do about how and when to drive it, although as "owner," I still have to fill it with gas and do the oil changes... What does it really mean that I hold the title? Is that "ownership"? Suppose the guy down the street threatens to punch me out or chain me to the plumbing if I don't agree to his control of my car? Socialism by any other name still reeks like horse manure -- and worse, like what Mark Levin calls "soft tyranny." Only it's not really very soft, is it?
So all the liberal/progressive buttheads out there who insist that Obamacare isn't socialist -- Hey, wake up, fools! You've been blind-sided by semantics. You've been hoodwinked and conned. Somewhere deep in your oh-so-gullible little hearts, you probably suspect the truth, but your mamas told you to respect "those in authority" and you don't have the will or the capability to question. Easier just to tow the line, isn't it? And you probably believe yourself to be one of those "authorities," don't you? You'll be the guy making the decisions, not the poor slob who has to live with them.
Certainly you'll get a better job than others -- probably some cushy boondoggle position attached to a federal paycheck, filing the fifth and sixth copies of lengthy requisition sheets, with six weeks vacation and automatic raises. All you'll have to do is punch in every day and cooperate with every smarmy sycophant who walks into your office. And never wonder who the hell is getting stuck paying your salary. (It's the guy selling pirated designer sunglasses from a suitcase in the park, who can barely make his rent, the guy who runs every time he sees a police car, because he can't afford the permit.)
And here's hoping you never need a doctor or a hospital, because if this crap legislation passes, you'll be totally out of luck, as will we all.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Surge the Republicans
As this year's congressional elections approach, seems that everyone is waiting to see what the Tea Party organizations are going to do. Many Republicans seem terrified that the local Tea Party organizations might put up a candidate, split the vote against the local dem, and thereby hand the dems the race.
That could happen.
From what I've heard, however, I don't think the Tea Parties are contemplating starting a third pollitical party. And I don't believe that would be a good or productive idea. I was actively involved in third party politics for at least a decade and in several capacities, and that is an extremely tough row to hoe. The Reps and dems both have thrown up any number of obstacles to block third parties, starting with making it very difficult even to get on the ballot.
To get on the ballot in Illinois, you have to collect something like 25,000 signatures within a district and within a given time, something like 90 days. The Reps and dems only have to collect a few hundred signatures.
Once you submit the petitions to the local Election Board, they're available to the public for review and challenges -- and anyone can do a challenge. A challenge can take the shape of a claim that the signatures aren't valid -- that is, that the third party just made up the names, had a couple dozen people just sitting in a basement somewhere, swapping pens around and signing made-up names on the petitions.
I'm pretty sure this is the way the Reps and dems do things in a lot of districts, so it's natural for them to believe that other parties would do the same thing. It is very difficult to collect those signatures!!
With a challenge, third-party members (sometimes Elections Board staff) have to check every single name against the voter registration rolls. In Florida, they used to charge the third party a fee for every name checked. That's one way to bankrupt the third party even before the campaign starts.
The regulations and requirements for these ballot-access petitions vary from state to state. Illinois is pretty tough, but some states are tougher. It's taken the Libertarian Party more than 30 years to get more or less permanent ballot status in something like 43 or 47 states. And in some states -- Illinois for sure -- if your third party gains less than 5% of the vote in any district in any election, you lose ballot access in that district and have to start all over again with the petitions.
Even if you do get on the ballot, as a third party candidate, you probably won't be included in local debates. If anyone interviews you on TV, it will be a pathetic "David and Goliath" human interest piece rather than one that paints you as a serious candidate. But mostly, the media just ignores you.
So why not just do write-in candidates?
Have you ever heard of a write-in candidate winning an election?
A guy who was going around canvassing for the dem machine in Chicago knocked on my door one time when I lived in the city and wanted to tell me how to vote. I told him I was doing a write-in. He said, "People write in names like 'Donald Duck' and 'Minnie Mouse.' We just throw most of those out." At least he was honest, if not much committed to free elections.
And splitting the vote is a dismal possibility... Suppose a local Tea Party has some fantastic candidate in a local election. He's running against the Reps and dems. He'll probably draw more votes from the Republican... and the dem will win. That's a bit self-defeating.
You know what's easier? Get your local Tea Party organized enough to take over the local Republican organization. You having a primary? Check out the mechanics of nominations and such. If a Tea Party organization shows up in pretty good numbers at a Republican caucus or local convention somewhere, or turns out in force for the primary, YOUR TEA PARTY CANDIDATE CAN WIN!
Here's a couple examples: Radio personality (for want of a more colorful, decent description) Howard Stern showed up at the New York Libertarian convention with a bunch of show-girls and sycophants. His bunch outnumbered the regular Libertarians and nominated Howard Stern as a candidate. Similar scenario in Louisiana, when KKK advocate David Duke ran as a Libertarian there.
The Republicans were whining about indifference and lethargy among their ranks during the 2008 presidential campaign. So take them over. It isn't hard, but you need to organize. The Republicans will probably welcome you, too. They need the votes. And according to their own rules, you will have a say in hammering out policy and picking candidates. The Tea Party people won't be in complete control, but in the USA no one should ever be in complete control of any political organization. I mean, look at Washington with dems owning the White House and both houses of congress. What a freakin' nightmare! Loyal Opposition is very valuable if it's heeded. I think the Comrade is finding this out right now.
Tip O'Neil was right when he said "All politics is local." It's all grass-roots. If the Tea Parties adopt a "surge" tactic and swarm the Republican ranks, the Republican organization will be theirs. And that means being included in debates, being interviewed on TV and radio, being on the ballot with only minimal petitioning, and access to all those funds and the whole nationwide support network. You'll be taken seriously as a Republican candidate, while as a "tea-bagger," the media and everyone else will write you off as a loony.
Just a few thoughts, but based on years of grueling and rather disappointing experience with third party politics.
That could happen.
From what I've heard, however, I don't think the Tea Parties are contemplating starting a third pollitical party. And I don't believe that would be a good or productive idea. I was actively involved in third party politics for at least a decade and in several capacities, and that is an extremely tough row to hoe. The Reps and dems both have thrown up any number of obstacles to block third parties, starting with making it very difficult even to get on the ballot.
To get on the ballot in Illinois, you have to collect something like 25,000 signatures within a district and within a given time, something like 90 days. The Reps and dems only have to collect a few hundred signatures.
Once you submit the petitions to the local Election Board, they're available to the public for review and challenges -- and anyone can do a challenge. A challenge can take the shape of a claim that the signatures aren't valid -- that is, that the third party just made up the names, had a couple dozen people just sitting in a basement somewhere, swapping pens around and signing made-up names on the petitions.
I'm pretty sure this is the way the Reps and dems do things in a lot of districts, so it's natural for them to believe that other parties would do the same thing. It is very difficult to collect those signatures!!
With a challenge, third-party members (sometimes Elections Board staff) have to check every single name against the voter registration rolls. In Florida, they used to charge the third party a fee for every name checked. That's one way to bankrupt the third party even before the campaign starts.
The regulations and requirements for these ballot-access petitions vary from state to state. Illinois is pretty tough, but some states are tougher. It's taken the Libertarian Party more than 30 years to get more or less permanent ballot status in something like 43 or 47 states. And in some states -- Illinois for sure -- if your third party gains less than 5% of the vote in any district in any election, you lose ballot access in that district and have to start all over again with the petitions.
Even if you do get on the ballot, as a third party candidate, you probably won't be included in local debates. If anyone interviews you on TV, it will be a pathetic "David and Goliath" human interest piece rather than one that paints you as a serious candidate. But mostly, the media just ignores you.
So why not just do write-in candidates?
Have you ever heard of a write-in candidate winning an election?
A guy who was going around canvassing for the dem machine in Chicago knocked on my door one time when I lived in the city and wanted to tell me how to vote. I told him I was doing a write-in. He said, "People write in names like 'Donald Duck' and 'Minnie Mouse.' We just throw most of those out." At least he was honest, if not much committed to free elections.
And splitting the vote is a dismal possibility... Suppose a local Tea Party has some fantastic candidate in a local election. He's running against the Reps and dems. He'll probably draw more votes from the Republican... and the dem will win. That's a bit self-defeating.
You know what's easier? Get your local Tea Party organized enough to take over the local Republican organization. You having a primary? Check out the mechanics of nominations and such. If a Tea Party organization shows up in pretty good numbers at a Republican caucus or local convention somewhere, or turns out in force for the primary, YOUR TEA PARTY CANDIDATE CAN WIN!
Here's a couple examples: Radio personality (for want of a more colorful, decent description) Howard Stern showed up at the New York Libertarian convention with a bunch of show-girls and sycophants. His bunch outnumbered the regular Libertarians and nominated Howard Stern as a candidate. Similar scenario in Louisiana, when KKK advocate David Duke ran as a Libertarian there.
The Republicans were whining about indifference and lethargy among their ranks during the 2008 presidential campaign. So take them over. It isn't hard, but you need to organize. The Republicans will probably welcome you, too. They need the votes. And according to their own rules, you will have a say in hammering out policy and picking candidates. The Tea Party people won't be in complete control, but in the USA no one should ever be in complete control of any political organization. I mean, look at Washington with dems owning the White House and both houses of congress. What a freakin' nightmare! Loyal Opposition is very valuable if it's heeded. I think the Comrade is finding this out right now.
Tip O'Neil was right when he said "All politics is local." It's all grass-roots. If the Tea Parties adopt a "surge" tactic and swarm the Republican ranks, the Republican organization will be theirs. And that means being included in debates, being interviewed on TV and radio, being on the ballot with only minimal petitioning, and access to all those funds and the whole nationwide support network. You'll be taken seriously as a Republican candidate, while as a "tea-bagger," the media and everyone else will write you off as a loony.
Just a few thoughts, but based on years of grueling and rather disappointing experience with third party politics.
Federal intervention wrecks yet another maybe-good idea
Haven't heard a whole lot about the new stimulus bill. Oh, excuse me, the "jobs bill." Or too many details about the Comrade's proposed budget. Except that both and/or either will only push the nation a little further over the brink of everlasting debt and insolvency, simultaneously relieving us of the tools for economic recovery.
Here's a novel thought: If you buttheads in DC want to save the economy, STOP SPENDING! CANCEL THE REST OF STIMULUS 1! CUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET BY 5% ACROSS THE BOARD! RIGHT NOW!! Then y'all can just go on home and tell the folks how great you are. Favorite past-time among politicians, isn't it? And if they just left us alone, it might even be half true.
But we can't expect the bozos in the federal government to perceive the obvious. They never have yet. And they think we're stupid?
Just read a brief item about proposed mandatory IRAs. I think the Comrade sits up in bed all night thinking up ways to destroy private enterprise in the USA.
Anyway, about 15 years ago or so, there was a lot of talk about Argentina, if I recall correctly, taking an idea developed by Chicago School economists. These are Milton Friedman types, free marketers, capitalists. The retirment insurance concept they proposed for Argentina was that every citizen would have a compulsory retirement account, but the account would be a personal account in their own name, managed by "certified" financial managers. Investments would be in private industry -- stocks, bonds, whatever.
For a while, it worked very well in Argentina, or at least that's what I heard. I mean, imagine taking all the money in Social Security and investing it in the stock market and into private enterprise. We'd all be millionaires -- so long as the economy is free and capitalist.
I don't know what happened to this plan now down there (I suspect some poop-for-brains politician had a "better" way of managing all that private money, or maybe they've had three or four coups and revolutions since then), but at the time, a similar program was suggested here -- at least it was debated on TV. Sort of like Social Security contributions going into an individual private retirement account and invested in private industry. William Buckley took the "Pro" side in one televised debate. But the opponents of the bill didn't then, and don't now trust the free market. They would go along with the plan only if the government controlled the investments.
So that they could give all their voters and donors massive bribes and favors?? What do YOU think? I mean, what do they do with any money they get their grubby little hands on?
The Comrade seems to have resurrected this program, or something like it. He wants employers to provide IRA accounts for every employee -- mandatory. Then much of the investment would be in things like federal bonds. I believe these types of investments are described by legislators as "secure" and "stable." Yeah, and ultimately owed to the Peoples' Republic of China, no? Pretty soon the US will owe more on the national debt than the nation produces. And this is what politicians call "secure" and "stable." Do you need any further proof that they're total blockheads?
And, yeah, it's not like we aren't paying enough in Social Security and Medicare already. It's not enough to try to force employers to provide employees with gold-standard health insurance. Let's double-down on that and take even more out everyone's paycheck and grind free enterprise totally into the dirt.
For the citizen's own good, of course.
Like Margaret Thatcher said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money."
These politicians are such horses' asses. And stupid enough to think we're too stupid to see through this. It's a major, whopping tax hike on the middle class and everyone else. I would support something like this -- even if it was mandatory -- as long as the crumbums who work inside the beltway would keep their thieving little fingers out of it -- but they ain't gonna let that happen. These are people who would -- and do -- steal the coins out of a beggar's cup.
Here's my plan: Let anyone who votes for this crap -- including stimulus 1 & 2 -- pay for it. And leave the rest of us alone. Every pol in congress is making six figures. Deduct it from their paychecks. And leave the rest of us alone.
And the next little gem is from an email I got from a Tea Party-type organization called resistnet:
Then he'll be happy. He can pretend everyone loves him and no one will have the energy left to tell him to go to hell. We'll all just be stuffing the pennies we earn in the underground, cash economy into our mattresses and waiting until his term is up. And he'll believe he's just fantastic. He seems to believe anything, like in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
President of the Mausoleum of the Human Spirit, Dashed Hopes and Ruined Potential. The USA was such a rich country. Who would have thought one little pisher from Chicago could wipe it all out in a matter of months?
Nice going, Comrade. All your dreams come true.
Here's a novel thought: If you buttheads in DC want to save the economy, STOP SPENDING! CANCEL THE REST OF STIMULUS 1! CUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET BY 5% ACROSS THE BOARD! RIGHT NOW!! Then y'all can just go on home and tell the folks how great you are. Favorite past-time among politicians, isn't it? And if they just left us alone, it might even be half true.
But we can't expect the bozos in the federal government to perceive the obvious. They never have yet. And they think we're stupid?
Just read a brief item about proposed mandatory IRAs. I think the Comrade sits up in bed all night thinking up ways to destroy private enterprise in the USA.
Anyway, about 15 years ago or so, there was a lot of talk about Argentina, if I recall correctly, taking an idea developed by Chicago School economists. These are Milton Friedman types, free marketers, capitalists. The retirment insurance concept they proposed for Argentina was that every citizen would have a compulsory retirement account, but the account would be a personal account in their own name, managed by "certified" financial managers. Investments would be in private industry -- stocks, bonds, whatever.
For a while, it worked very well in Argentina, or at least that's what I heard. I mean, imagine taking all the money in Social Security and investing it in the stock market and into private enterprise. We'd all be millionaires -- so long as the economy is free and capitalist.
I don't know what happened to this plan now down there (I suspect some poop-for-brains politician had a "better" way of managing all that private money, or maybe they've had three or four coups and revolutions since then), but at the time, a similar program was suggested here -- at least it was debated on TV. Sort of like Social Security contributions going into an individual private retirement account and invested in private industry. William Buckley took the "Pro" side in one televised debate. But the opponents of the bill didn't then, and don't now trust the free market. They would go along with the plan only if the government controlled the investments.
So that they could give all their voters and donors massive bribes and favors?? What do YOU think? I mean, what do they do with any money they get their grubby little hands on?
The Comrade seems to have resurrected this program, or something like it. He wants employers to provide IRA accounts for every employee -- mandatory. Then much of the investment would be in things like federal bonds. I believe these types of investments are described by legislators as "secure" and "stable." Yeah, and ultimately owed to the Peoples' Republic of China, no? Pretty soon the US will owe more on the national debt than the nation produces. And this is what politicians call "secure" and "stable." Do you need any further proof that they're total blockheads?
And, yeah, it's not like we aren't paying enough in Social Security and Medicare already. It's not enough to try to force employers to provide employees with gold-standard health insurance. Let's double-down on that and take even more out everyone's paycheck and grind free enterprise totally into the dirt.
For the citizen's own good, of course.
Like Margaret Thatcher said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money."
These politicians are such horses' asses. And stupid enough to think we're too stupid to see through this. It's a major, whopping tax hike on the middle class and everyone else. I would support something like this -- even if it was mandatory -- as long as the crumbums who work inside the beltway would keep their thieving little fingers out of it -- but they ain't gonna let that happen. These are people who would -- and do -- steal the coins out of a beggar's cup.
Here's my plan: Let anyone who votes for this crap -- including stimulus 1 & 2 -- pay for it. And leave the rest of us alone. Every pol in congress is making six figures. Deduct it from their paychecks. And leave the rest of us alone.
And the next little gem is from an email I got from a Tea Party-type organization called resistnet:
...Plus, Obama has snuck the cap and trade scheme in as a "deficit neutral" item -- hiding another $853 BILLION in new taxes for what amounts to a global warming slush fund off the official budget books.So the Comrade's still trying to stick it to us with cap'n'tax, too. No matter that climate change is pretty much a horror-show fantasy of the radical left. The Comrade isn't kidding when he said he doesn't give up. He's going to keep stomping on us until we're all dead from starvation and exposure.
Then he'll be happy. He can pretend everyone loves him and no one will have the energy left to tell him to go to hell. We'll all just be stuffing the pennies we earn in the underground, cash economy into our mattresses and waiting until his term is up. And he'll believe he's just fantastic. He seems to believe anything, like in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
President of the Mausoleum of the Human Spirit, Dashed Hopes and Ruined Potential. The USA was such a rich country. Who would have thought one little pisher from Chicago could wipe it all out in a matter of months?
Nice going, Comrade. All your dreams come true.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Raising awareness
When I was a teenager and throughout my twenties, the big thing in liberal -- and slopping over in to social -- circles was "raising awareness." And so many things to raise awareness about, including male chauvinism and the oppression of women, pollution and the environment, the oppression and poverty of the Third World, animal rights, the lethal threat of nuclear power plants, the "military-industrial complex." I'm sure I've left out a few.
Anyway, I got older and did more reading and accumulated more life experience. Now I understand that "raising awareness" is the same as "politicization" of these topics. That is to say, you harangue and aggravate and protest and demonstrate until you get enough people convinced that society has an unrecognized problem, and then you legislate.
Once you legislate, individual citizens are no longer free to make their own choices and decide these matters for themselves. Now there's a "legal" way to handle these things, enforced by the power of the government. You pay a fine or go to jail if you don't obey. But let's emphasize that individual citizens are no longer free to make their own decisions on these matters.
This politicization is a tactic straight out of Mao's Little Red Book, or Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, or one or another Bible of the left. It represents the growth of governmental power -- and the simultaneous surrender of individual liberties -- and it's even more destructive of liberty than the Comrade seizing control of Government Motors.
What brings this to mind is that during a conversation with a friend who's older than I am, he commented that when he was growing up, he didn't recall that everyone felt compelled to put every life decision to a vote. You just did what you thought was best for yourself and family, to promote your own interests in a peaceful and non-criminal way. Other people didn't enter into the equation at all unless you voluntarily went to someone for advice.
Nowadays, since our awareness has been raised, you have to spend a couple hours sorting your trash before walking it to the curb for pick-up. You're ostracized if you buy a T-shirt made in some oppressive Third World country (and try finding one made in the USA), and you have to bite your tongue and carefully consider before you tell a co-worker, "Gee, you look really good in that outfit." Could be sexist or otherwise discriminatory, and could imply that the co-worker didn't look good in other outfits. We don't want to offend anyone. And possibly get sued and fired.
And as George McGovern learned, this type of awareness and the myriad regulations it spawns is quite oppressive in other ways. After leaving the US Senate, McGovern, a super-liberal who ran for President once on the platform of guaranteeing everyone a "minimum income", decided to open a restaurant. Well, let's see. Is the site of the restaurant equipped with all the health & safety stuff required by law? That is, at least two bathrooms, a kitchen with a minimum of three sinks. No lead paint or other potentially unhealthy decor. How's the exhaust system(s)? What do you do about the trash? Any local code requirements about parking, or specifications about deliveries? You need staff that includes at least one person certified in "safe" kitchen operation. Do you need to hire union people? Do you need to provide them insurance? What is the employer's responsibility about how to handle tips and bonuses? Then you need building and health inspections and so forth.
Anyway, McGovern noted that in trying to open a restaurant, he experienced first hand, and for the very first time in his life, all the nickel-and-dime, time-consuming governmental encumbrances to trying to start a small business. He said while he was in the US Senate championing all this b.s., that it truly never occurred to him how very damaging and destructive these types of regulations are to small business -- and especially family-owned sole proprietor operations that maybe you could have run out of your garage at one time, but no longer.
Have to give him credit for admitting what a butthead he was while in congress. And isn't it kinda scary thinking that such naive but well-intentioned people are still running things? I mean, what else don't they know how to get along in the USA?
The government (any government) is basically a decison-making function. Want to know how free you are? How many of your own decisions can you make in how many areas of your life -- before you need a lawyer? And just because governmental decisions are made democratically, doesn't mean that they aren't oppressive and destructive. They still expand the scope of governmental power -- and shrink your own ability to make your own decisions.
The issue isn't that our liberties are being eroded; it's that there aren't too many left, really. And it's not only regarding the national economy, Wall Street bonuses, or expsneive and useless civic projects like light rail. It's all about routine, everyday government intrusion into what were once our "private" lives.
The Comrade and his merry marxists hope to extend government reach even further. Because, I mean really, don't you think some dude from Harvard knows so much better than you do about how to live your own life? I mean, they've even got it all figured out who "deserves" health care, based on how much you can contribute to society and for how long. Screw your little personal concerns, like taking care of your grandkids and stuff like that.
You don't agree that the government should make these decisions for you? Well, my gosh, you flaming reactionary far-right extremist radical. Pretty soon the FBI will be tapping your phones, trying to figure out if you spent that $25.00 lottery jackpot in a socially responsible way or just blew it on Hershey Bars -- and now will probably require a dentist... at public expense.
Anyway, I got older and did more reading and accumulated more life experience. Now I understand that "raising awareness" is the same as "politicization" of these topics. That is to say, you harangue and aggravate and protest and demonstrate until you get enough people convinced that society has an unrecognized problem, and then you legislate.
Once you legislate, individual citizens are no longer free to make their own choices and decide these matters for themselves. Now there's a "legal" way to handle these things, enforced by the power of the government. You pay a fine or go to jail if you don't obey. But let's emphasize that individual citizens are no longer free to make their own decisions on these matters.
This politicization is a tactic straight out of Mao's Little Red Book, or Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, or one or another Bible of the left. It represents the growth of governmental power -- and the simultaneous surrender of individual liberties -- and it's even more destructive of liberty than the Comrade seizing control of Government Motors.
What brings this to mind is that during a conversation with a friend who's older than I am, he commented that when he was growing up, he didn't recall that everyone felt compelled to put every life decision to a vote. You just did what you thought was best for yourself and family, to promote your own interests in a peaceful and non-criminal way. Other people didn't enter into the equation at all unless you voluntarily went to someone for advice.
Nowadays, since our awareness has been raised, you have to spend a couple hours sorting your trash before walking it to the curb for pick-up. You're ostracized if you buy a T-shirt made in some oppressive Third World country (and try finding one made in the USA), and you have to bite your tongue and carefully consider before you tell a co-worker, "Gee, you look really good in that outfit." Could be sexist or otherwise discriminatory, and could imply that the co-worker didn't look good in other outfits. We don't want to offend anyone. And possibly get sued and fired.
And as George McGovern learned, this type of awareness and the myriad regulations it spawns is quite oppressive in other ways. After leaving the US Senate, McGovern, a super-liberal who ran for President once on the platform of guaranteeing everyone a "minimum income", decided to open a restaurant. Well, let's see. Is the site of the restaurant equipped with all the health & safety stuff required by law? That is, at least two bathrooms, a kitchen with a minimum of three sinks. No lead paint or other potentially unhealthy decor. How's the exhaust system(s)? What do you do about the trash? Any local code requirements about parking, or specifications about deliveries? You need staff that includes at least one person certified in "safe" kitchen operation. Do you need to hire union people? Do you need to provide them insurance? What is the employer's responsibility about how to handle tips and bonuses? Then you need building and health inspections and so forth.
Anyway, McGovern noted that in trying to open a restaurant, he experienced first hand, and for the very first time in his life, all the nickel-and-dime, time-consuming governmental encumbrances to trying to start a small business. He said while he was in the US Senate championing all this b.s., that it truly never occurred to him how very damaging and destructive these types of regulations are to small business -- and especially family-owned sole proprietor operations that maybe you could have run out of your garage at one time, but no longer.
Have to give him credit for admitting what a butthead he was while in congress. And isn't it kinda scary thinking that such naive but well-intentioned people are still running things? I mean, what else don't they know how to get along in the USA?
The government (any government) is basically a decison-making function. Want to know how free you are? How many of your own decisions can you make in how many areas of your life -- before you need a lawyer? And just because governmental decisions are made democratically, doesn't mean that they aren't oppressive and destructive. They still expand the scope of governmental power -- and shrink your own ability to make your own decisions.
The issue isn't that our liberties are being eroded; it's that there aren't too many left, really. And it's not only regarding the national economy, Wall Street bonuses, or expsneive and useless civic projects like light rail. It's all about routine, everyday government intrusion into what were once our "private" lives.
The Comrade and his merry marxists hope to extend government reach even further. Because, I mean really, don't you think some dude from Harvard knows so much better than you do about how to live your own life? I mean, they've even got it all figured out who "deserves" health care, based on how much you can contribute to society and for how long. Screw your little personal concerns, like taking care of your grandkids and stuff like that.
You don't agree that the government should make these decisions for you? Well, my gosh, you flaming reactionary far-right extremist radical. Pretty soon the FBI will be tapping your phones, trying to figure out if you spent that $25.00 lottery jackpot in a socially responsible way or just blew it on Hershey Bars -- and now will probably require a dentist... at public expense.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Let it snow!
No offense, but the snow is still falling in DC and New York, and I'm already sick of the whining. We got about -- or I should say "at least" -- a foot of snow yesterday and it wasn't mentioned at all that I heard. Maybe on local channels. But in Chicago, we're supposed to be "used to it."
Here's a tip: You don't get used to it. You just learn how to drive in it. Keep your wheels straight whenever possible. Go really slow on curves, because that's when you skid. When you skid, take your foot off the accelerator, straighten out the wheels to try to get some control, even if you're heading right for a line of parked cars, and don't brake -- that only makes it worse. Just maybe tap very lightly on the brakes.
Of course, this does take practice, because when you go into a really good skid -- like when there's a solid slab of ice under the snow, not just fish-tailing at red lights -- your first reaction is total panic. Oh, and if it's really cold, when the street looks really pretty and shiny like a French painting, it's probably black ice. You'll skid on that, too. And I do mean skid...like a hockey puck.
Was out yesterday twice shoveling the driveway. It's easier to shovel four or five inches at a time rather than a whole foot. Kept snowing until about midnight, the winds came up, and you can hardly tell anyone did anything at all. But it is winter, after all. And the county, as usual, has plowed in the end of my driveway. That's bad, heavy crap, too, all slop and ice chunks.
Saw news footage of DC. Not quite as bad as the winter of '79 in Chicago. Now that was a blizzard! Just about like '67. And totally debilitating. It started around Christmas with some massive snowfalls, as usual. The thing is, the snow usually melts a bit between storms. In 1979, nothing melted. It stayed below freezing (often below zero) for weeks at a time. Every new snowfall added another layer. Then at the end of January came the big one -- about 27" over a couple days of non-stop precipitation.
You could tell where the streets were by looking for the radio antennas of parked cars sticking up through the snow. I lived on the North Side of Chicago. Four-lane arteries were down to one lane. The side streets were like meadows, the car antennas as road markers. The intersections were a nightmare with only one lane open on the streets. You couldn't walk anywhere, either. Certainly not in the street.
The elevated CTA trains weren't running. Then they got them running. Then a building next to the Wilson Avenue station -- which includes a big round-house type of thing for repairs and whatever -- caught fire, and the fire fighters were shooting water over the tracks. Next day, the whole station looked like a cavern with stalactites hanging down to the street. Afteward, no trains ran north of Wilson Avenue until the Spring thaw.
My neighbor's garage collapsed under the weight of the snow on the roof. It sounded like an earthquake. He backed his car out from under the rubble and left it at the end of the driveway. A tow truck pulled a car down the street a few days later. The car under tow, dangling from the tow pulley like a hooked fish, skidded out of the four-inch deep tire tracks frozen like grooves in the ice on the street, and smashed the rear end of my neighbor's car all to hell. That same neighbor also suffered a heart attack while shoveling snow. Not a good year for him. And he was a really nice guy.
In March, the day before the mayoral election, help arrived in the neighborhood. The city brought tow trucks to pull out cars that had been buried under the snow for more than a month (mine included). They had a huge thing -- probably a road grader -- imported from Minnesota to plow the street.
It was like a block party. Everyone offering the truck drivers beers and/or hot coffee, making sure the tow trucks didn't rip out your axle or tear off your bumper. The precinct captain's wife was out there, telling us, "I bet everyone thinks the only reason they're plowing is because the election is tomorrow."
Oh gosh, who would even suspect such a thing?
Bilandic lost like crazy.
Supposedly the city had paid a contractor -- friend-of-a-friend, of course -- several million dollars to develop a Snow Plan. With the blizzards and all, some poor soul at City Hall dug out the Snow Plan and, tingling with anticipation, opened it up in hopes of finding a method for fixing the city and getting it moving again. The Snow Plan was a single page that read: "Remove the snow."
That's the way they do things in Chicago. Like one hotshot alderman devised his own Snow Plan. "Tow all the cars to the high school athletic field" he said, then get the plows in there to clear the streets. The only trouble is, the high school athletic field was about four acres of nothin' but snow.
On TV, a few astute reporters are noting, "There's no place to put the snow when they plow it." Right. Brilliant. They must all be from southern California. Hey, try the Mall. Miles of big empty fields. When we were kids, we used to play on the mountains of snow piled up by the plows. Loads of fun. It's only when you grow up that snow becomes a problem.
So now DC is getting a real taste of Chicago. I suppose they'll figure out a way to blame George Bush.
My mom grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In '79 when we complained about the blizzard, she'd just look at us disgusted and say, "Oh for Pete's sake. We used to get this every year before Christmas."
We've got pictures to prove it, too. Thanksgiving Day and a couple of my cousins, as three and four-year-olds, standing in a shoveled sidewalk that kinda looks like a steep, shallow ravine, walls of snow around them.... Kinda like my driveway right now.
So, off I go, shovel in hand. I can use the exercise. Plenty of work to do to fend off cabin fever.
Here's a tip: You don't get used to it. You just learn how to drive in it. Keep your wheels straight whenever possible. Go really slow on curves, because that's when you skid. When you skid, take your foot off the accelerator, straighten out the wheels to try to get some control, even if you're heading right for a line of parked cars, and don't brake -- that only makes it worse. Just maybe tap very lightly on the brakes.
Of course, this does take practice, because when you go into a really good skid -- like when there's a solid slab of ice under the snow, not just fish-tailing at red lights -- your first reaction is total panic. Oh, and if it's really cold, when the street looks really pretty and shiny like a French painting, it's probably black ice. You'll skid on that, too. And I do mean skid...like a hockey puck.
Was out yesterday twice shoveling the driveway. It's easier to shovel four or five inches at a time rather than a whole foot. Kept snowing until about midnight, the winds came up, and you can hardly tell anyone did anything at all. But it is winter, after all. And the county, as usual, has plowed in the end of my driveway. That's bad, heavy crap, too, all slop and ice chunks.
Saw news footage of DC. Not quite as bad as the winter of '79 in Chicago. Now that was a blizzard! Just about like '67. And totally debilitating. It started around Christmas with some massive snowfalls, as usual. The thing is, the snow usually melts a bit between storms. In 1979, nothing melted. It stayed below freezing (often below zero) for weeks at a time. Every new snowfall added another layer. Then at the end of January came the big one -- about 27" over a couple days of non-stop precipitation.
You could tell where the streets were by looking for the radio antennas of parked cars sticking up through the snow. I lived on the North Side of Chicago. Four-lane arteries were down to one lane. The side streets were like meadows, the car antennas as road markers. The intersections were a nightmare with only one lane open on the streets. You couldn't walk anywhere, either. Certainly not in the street.
The elevated CTA trains weren't running. Then they got them running. Then a building next to the Wilson Avenue station -- which includes a big round-house type of thing for repairs and whatever -- caught fire, and the fire fighters were shooting water over the tracks. Next day, the whole station looked like a cavern with stalactites hanging down to the street. Afteward, no trains ran north of Wilson Avenue until the Spring thaw.
My neighbor's garage collapsed under the weight of the snow on the roof. It sounded like an earthquake. He backed his car out from under the rubble and left it at the end of the driveway. A tow truck pulled a car down the street a few days later. The car under tow, dangling from the tow pulley like a hooked fish, skidded out of the four-inch deep tire tracks frozen like grooves in the ice on the street, and smashed the rear end of my neighbor's car all to hell. That same neighbor also suffered a heart attack while shoveling snow. Not a good year for him. And he was a really nice guy.
In March, the day before the mayoral election, help arrived in the neighborhood. The city brought tow trucks to pull out cars that had been buried under the snow for more than a month (mine included). They had a huge thing -- probably a road grader -- imported from Minnesota to plow the street.
It was like a block party. Everyone offering the truck drivers beers and/or hot coffee, making sure the tow trucks didn't rip out your axle or tear off your bumper. The precinct captain's wife was out there, telling us, "I bet everyone thinks the only reason they're plowing is because the election is tomorrow."
Oh gosh, who would even suspect such a thing?
Bilandic lost like crazy.
Supposedly the city had paid a contractor -- friend-of-a-friend, of course -- several million dollars to develop a Snow Plan. With the blizzards and all, some poor soul at City Hall dug out the Snow Plan and, tingling with anticipation, opened it up in hopes of finding a method for fixing the city and getting it moving again. The Snow Plan was a single page that read: "Remove the snow."
That's the way they do things in Chicago. Like one hotshot alderman devised his own Snow Plan. "Tow all the cars to the high school athletic field" he said, then get the plows in there to clear the streets. The only trouble is, the high school athletic field was about four acres of nothin' but snow.
On TV, a few astute reporters are noting, "There's no place to put the snow when they plow it." Right. Brilliant. They must all be from southern California. Hey, try the Mall. Miles of big empty fields. When we were kids, we used to play on the mountains of snow piled up by the plows. Loads of fun. It's only when you grow up that snow becomes a problem.
So now DC is getting a real taste of Chicago. I suppose they'll figure out a way to blame George Bush.
My mom grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In '79 when we complained about the blizzard, she'd just look at us disgusted and say, "Oh for Pete's sake. We used to get this every year before Christmas."
We've got pictures to prove it, too. Thanksgiving Day and a couple of my cousins, as three and four-year-olds, standing in a shoveled sidewalk that kinda looks like a steep, shallow ravine, walls of snow around them.... Kinda like my driveway right now.
So, off I go, shovel in hand. I can use the exercise. Plenty of work to do to fend off cabin fever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)