Not Very Stimulated

I'm not very impressed with what I've seen of the new "stimulus package." I think something is wrong with me because I actually agree with some Republicans. This might be the first time in my adult life that I can say that.

I appreciate the need to help the "down and out" in society--but this housing rescue package really stimulates me...to be angry.

Let's take a bunch of people who have demonstrated their inability to manage money (many of the folks currently in foreclosure)

and give them more money.

In addition lets tell folks who don't have enough money or don't have the desire to buy a home that we will give them a $7500 "incentive". How exactly will this help? So all of a sudden people who couldn't afford a home (because the incentive is only for first time home buyers) will be able to afford one with $7500? Won't that just give people a false sense of what they can afford? Isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? I recognize that we need for people to buy homes--but I thought the Republican plan of a fixed rate 4.0% loan either for purchase or refinance was pretty darn enticing. That's giving long-term savings--and not just rewarding those in foreclosure. I wouldn't mind a little stimulation.

Evolution

I was just thinking about the George Bush Segway incident --and found this video. This has got to be one of the cutest things I've seen in a while. This one's for you Charles Darwin!

Potsie Scheme

For some reason, while listening to NPR once again mention the Ponzi scheme executed by Bernard Madoff, I started to wonder why that name, Ponzi, always makes me laugh.

Flashback--about 25 years ago (maybe more--ok, yeah more). I am the youngest of 5 children. The breakdown is as follows: Marie Anne, Paul, Hugh, Chris, and me--baby Rita (nickie to my family). My brothers and I used to play little make-believe games most likely to keep Chris and Hugh from killing each other. One of our favorites was to play "Happy Days".

Paul was always Fonzi--always. You might think that I played the part of Joanie--but no, that would make too much sense. As a little tomboy I was usually Spike--and sometimes Chachi. Who's Spike? Spike was Fonzi's cousin--before Chachi got introduced to the show. Think of Spike as a miniature Fonzi--complete with leather jacket.

Chris and Hugh alternated between Richie, Ralph, and Potsie Weber. How they behaved--well how "cool" they were dictated what character they got to play. The highest level they could ever achieve was Richie. Their parts, unlike Paul's and mine, were not secure however. Say something stupid and "Richie" would get demoted to Ralph. Do something completely "uncool" and guess what? You're a Potsie.

Potsie/Ponzie --either way you're bound to feel pretty stupid.

It just makes sense

Ever since I rear-ended a guy in a truck with my father's car (when I was sixteen) I've thought about bumpers.

Wouldn't it make more sense if car bumpers all had to be the same height off the ground? Isn't that what a bumper is? For bumping? Every time I see in my rear view mirror a lifted truck bearing down on me I think about this. What good is his bumper (I say he because 90% of the time it is a male driver in one of those--but not always) going to do? It would probably assist in decapitating me I suppose.

When gas was at $4, I came up with the plan for Flagstaff that we just have a fleet of bumper cars for in-town driving. How fun would that be? We could have convertible bumper cars, truck bumper cars, station wagon...whatever. All of them would belong to the city--so you just have to borrow one to get from place to place. We'd have big parking lots for personal vehicles for when you leave town--and some roads would be gas-power friendly. Wouldn't you want to visit Flagstaff if you knew you could drive around in bumper cars all day? We would eliminate road rage altogether--and I wouldn't have to worry about being decapitated.

Simple Priorities

So in case you've been under a rock for the past....oh year or so, our economy is in the landfill. The outlook is not good. If you've got a job...give thanks.

The state of Arizona has found itself to be $1.6 billion in the red. Yikes. So now that our intelligent governor, Janet Napolitano, is gone--her replacement (who doesn't have a college degree by the way) and her friends in the legislature have crafted a plan to reduce the deficit. So what do we cut here in Arizona --a state that ranked 48th or 49th in funding for K-12 schools and was ranked as number 50 in Morgan Quitno's 2006-2007 "Smartest State" rankings? Why education of course! If you're already at the bottom I guess you have no worries right? So the geniuses in the statehouse are cutting $142 million to university funding and $133 million to K-12. What does that mean? Well teachers I know say it means no "cost of living" raises for this year and their jobs are not secure (not to mention cuts to field trips, books, and other supplies).

At the climbing gym last night we had a short conversation with our friend Robert Kelty. Robert is sort of a local celebrity because he was Teacher of the Year for Arizona in 2008. It was an unusual choice because Robert is an elementary school teacher and it was only his 2nd (or 3rd) year teaching in the AZ school system. That says a lot about what a great teacher he is.

Anyway, Robert is the new kid on the block at his school. If his school is forced to lay off teachers--guess who gets to go?? Robert is not worried--hell, he could likely easily get a job in any other state--but really?

Taxes

Have you heard the new joke going around?

Why do Democrats always raise taxes?
......Because they never pay them

Who's Watching the Candy Store?

So here is something that worries me.

We hear everyday about massive layoffs in companies large and small (ok, the massive ones, by nature, are only in the large companies). We've been hearing for years about how newspapers are being forced to downsize because of the internet. This time last year the New York Times severely cut newsroom positions and this year we're hearing tales of NPR making cuts to staff and programs.

The loss of journalists may not seem like a serious problem to some--but the problem is that downsizing may result in high quality investigative journalists being forced to take mundane "local news" positions or to lose their jobs altogether.

Fewer investigative journalists is good for the new White House Administration...but very very bad for American Democracy.