Good Morning Dear Coffee Drinkers.
You might not have realized, and it surely doesn't seem it, but six days ago marked the second anniversary of the Morning Coffee. I wanted to post something on the actual anniversary, but with weddings to attend and moves to make, I didn't get to it. Anyway, it does not seem like I've been doing this (on and off) for two years. One hundred and thirty seven issues and a few random posts (including my first guest writer) later, the "MC" has evolved from a simple email outlining a few early morning thoughts into something, well, sometimes fairly interesting and even insightful. It's been a lot of fun, even though our readership hasn't grown as much as I might like. Despite this, the MC has been read by someone on every continent save Antarctica. We've been read in China, Britain, Brazil, Germany, and Nepal. Imagine that. I hope it's been as fun for you to read as it has for me to write.
Some of you might wonder about the time stamps on each edition. You may have noticed that each MC is labeled as having been posted at 0621 (that's 6:21 AM for you civilians). This is simply to mark the time I first emailed the MC to a few select individuals. But that's not to say the format or content can never change. This is a consumer driven product, and if the consumers have something that they'd like to see implemented, the Brewer is always open to suggestions.
President Obama, or The Election 2008:
I am sure you are expecting a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the election. I am sure you expected some profound Morning Coffee on Election Day. I apologize that I can not and could not accommodate you. I've driven somewhere around 1,000 miles in three days last week, started a new job on Monday, and have attempted to establish a routine in my new home, so I wasn't in much of a position to read and research and write. What can I say? I missed the boat.
As I'm sure you are aware, the election is over. We have a new President. Believe it or not, nearly four years ago or so, after seeing Obama speak on television, I called a friend of mine and told him that I believed we were watching our next President. A lot has happened since then, but I rarely wavered on my assessment. Obviously, I was right. I probably wasn't right for the right reasons, but I was right. Believe me when I say that he's not my pick. He's not even in my top 20. But, he's our President. He's my Commander-in-Chief. People voted; they spoke their minds through the ballot box. Thus, the election was a success. And we have our first African-American President to boot, which is cause for celebration. (I say we should maybe evaluate his Presidency in four or eight years. Perhaps it won't be so celebratory then.)
Is he the right man for the job? I do not think so. But 60-plus million disagreed. Whether the wool was pulled over their eyes or not, I will not say. I suppose that we'll see, nay? In a democracy, the many are entitled to dictate to the few, and both groups get to suffer together for their mistakes.
I'm sure an Obama Presidency will provide plenty of topics for discussion in the Morning Coffee, as would have a McCain-Palin administration to be sure, so the political flavor of our Coffee will not fall to the wayside. I'm looking forward to it. I've been looking forward to a Democrat-run government for a while now. It should be real fun, folks. Americans spoke. With that, I offer congratulations/condolences to all of them.
McCain's Damage:
Examining McCain's mistakes in this election would take a while, to say the least. Certainly, he made his share of missteps. I lost a lot of respect for McCain when he decided to abandon his 2000 ethos of openness and became a sort of "faux-maverick." He turned grouchy and for all intents and purposes closed for business the "Straight Talk Express," all the while proclaiming he was still a maverick. His campaign also decided to resort to negative campaigning, and turned up the heat a lot. It was sad for me to see such a class act and honorable man turn to such a mockery of himself. I suppose, however, he saw first hand how effective such tactics could be in 2000 when some Bush surrogates used them and eviscerated his bid for the Republican nomination.
It is my opinion that McCain suffered from two fatal flaws, one that he had no control over and another he inflicted on himself. Running as a Republican after a hugely unpopular Bush Presidency is not something McCain could avoid, and that alone likely doomed his campaign to defeat. Personally, I think it's too soon to judge Bush's Presidency one way or the other, and this really isn't the place. Be that as it may, McCain faced a difficult challenge by merit of timing. His second flaw, which he brought upon himself, was the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
I wrote in August that, despite my complete and total dislike of Palin as McCain's running mate, his pick of her might have been a brilliant strategy. But I still thought it foolish for a number of reasons. However, initially, her selection revitalized the Republican conservative base. When the conservative masses go crazy for a candidate, sometimes strange things happen, like them turning out in droves. But then people started to see all the negatives that I saw, and then some. Women and independents, two groups McCain needed and may have in fact targeted by this pick, were grossly turned off by Palin. Throw in a couple of amateurish interviews, and she lost much credibility in the eyes of independents, et al. Certainly, this pick cost him numbers in the popular vote, though it might not have changed the electoral college outcome. I didn't vote for McCain largely because I was concerned about Palin's ability to do much of anything beyond looking foolish. If looking foolish is your running mate's sole asset, you'll have a rough time trying to be the number one on the ticket if you're a 72 year old man with a history of skin cancer.
Perhaps even worse for McCain than just turning off a portion of the electorate is the possibility that Palin "went rogue." That is, she pursued her own interests above those of John McCain. I find this believable and likely, though some pundits think it's sour grapes on behalf of McCain staffers. Regardless, Palin's a trig one (pun), and she probably saw the writing on the wall: Obama was going to win, so she needed to set herself up for a potential run in 2012. And here comes my real problem with McCain's pick of Sarah Palin. He introduced her to America.
Way back in July, no one outside of Alaska knew of Sarah Palin. Now, the GOP base not only knows of her, but is enamored with her, and they have just as much of a tendency to become infatuated with a politician as liberals do. Believe it or not, we might be hearing more from her in the near future, and sadly, she'll have four years to polish up that act of hers. A little more time to memorize talking points on all sorts of issues. Maybe then she'll be able to recall what papers she reads.
With this, the GOP faces an identity crisis. Nothing illustrates this more than the electoral college drubbing of its Presidential candidate and the loss of seats in both Houses of Congress. Is the GOP going to be a party in the Sarah Palin mold or in the Barry Goldwater mold (yeah, I know he lost)? Is it going to delve further into theology, or libertarianism? Is it going to become more radical, or more centrist? Is it going to become more white and old, or is it going to attempt to diversify? I think it will probably go back to what it thinks it knows: ultra-conservatism, with plenty of references to God and family values.
Obama: Fundraising Tycoon:
Besides the introduction of Sarah Palin to the American electorate, the 2008 Election did another thing that might damage America for decades (she's only 44 - we could be stuck with her for another 30 years). Barack Obama took in over a half a billion dollars in his fundraising. I've touched on this issue before. Certainly, money is a pathway to power. Don't tell me that Obama was intrinsically the better candidate. Money got him to where he is. For example, if he was the best candidate in the nation, but didn't raise hundreds of millions of dollars, he wouldn't have stood a chance. Money, money, money, money. I'm not saying that every four or eight years, campaign fundraising will shatter records. But fundraising will never be the same, and while some might use Obama as an example that anyone really can become President, it's best if kindergarten teachers everywhere qualify that by saying, "Anyone who raises billions of dollars can have a chance at becoming President one day."
To wrap up this cup of Joe, I'll leave you with this video, in which Chris Matthews from Hardball tells his interviewers that it's his job to make sure the next administration succeeds. His JOB. I wasn't aware that ensuring the success of any administration was in the job description for journalists. This should be fun, eh? What a joke.
Word of the Day: Mot juste (moh-ZHOOST) (noun): A word or phrase that exactly fits the case.
On This Day in History: Constantius II promotes his cousin Julian to the rank of Caesar, giving him the government of the Prefecture of the Gauls (355 CE). Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca becomes the first known European to set foot in Texas after his ship wrecks (1528). King Gustavus Adolphus the Great of Sweden dies in the Battle of Lutzen (1632). Jefferson Davis is elected president of the Confederate States of America (1861). The CSS Shenandoah is the last Confederate combat unit to surrender after circumnavigating the globe, during which time it sank or captured 37 vessels (1865). Joseph Stalin addresses the Soviet Union for only the second time in his 30 year rule. During his address, he claimed that the Germans had lost 4.5 million soldiers (1941). Plutonium was first made, and subsequently used in the Fat Man (1944).
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama, 44th President (elect) of the United States, and master rhetorician.
Showing posts with label Fundraising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundraising. Show all posts
07 November 2008
23 October 2008
Morning Coffee (135)
The days grow shorter, the nights colder, and the remaining time to celebrate the magic of American politics wanes. Autumn is here. With it, carved pumpkins, raked leaves, apple cider, and this year, record setting political advertisements and record setting political fundraising efforts.
Putting the Fun in Fundraising:
I read somewhere, and I cannot remember where, that when it's all said and done (i.e. the election is over), Barack Obama will still have in his coffers enough money to finance two complete Prime Minister elections in Great Britain. The Obama campaign has raised over a half a billion dollars. Remember, Obama once pledged to use public funds in this election, which would have limited him to using something like $84 million, or about 19% of his current store. It certainly was more expedient to repudiate that pledge. Does this not speak to character? Expediency over a promise. This is not the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from such a "transformational figure."
Do you think that this massive stock of assets gives an advantage to Obama? Of course it does. Obama ads outnumber McCain ads 8-1 in some markets. This means that you will see on television or hear on the radio eight Obama ads to every McCain ad. The Obama campaign has even purchased itself a channel on satellite TV. McCain has been effectively muffled; his messages drowned out in a sea of Obama ads. How is a candidate supposed to reach the droves of people who are not as "into politics" as some of us and do not watch debates? Whether or not these people are ignoring their civic duty by failing to be informed, seeing ads during "Prison Break" is the only exposure they have to candidates. This is not to say that these messages are accurate or offer a fair representation of either candidate. In fact, they make me sick most of the time. But you cannot deny that many Americans know nothing of many candidates except for what they see in these 30 second spots, as evident by 2004's Swift Boat advertisements.
Some might say that the influx of money simply points to the popularity of Obama, and this in turn shows that democracy is working even better than we had hoped; so many people are participating, after all. I'm sure that many are happy with the present system of campaign finance. Surely Democrats and liberals are pleased with the status quo at the moment, considering their candidate has an insurmountable advantage in assets. But I do not like our present system. For one, those who donate under $200 do not have to be disclosed. Surely, no one would think of abusing this loophole.
Money does not guarantee a win by any candidate, but it certainly helps to build a campaign infrastructure that is difficult to beat. It allows a candidate to control the message, if not smother the opposition's message altogether. How can we decide who is the better candidate if we struggle to hear the whimpers of the rest of the field? With all things being equal in terms of exposure or capital, which candidate has the better policies and plans? Which one is more qualified? Can we know? As I've said, for people worried about the economy and the day to day minutiae that bogs us down, they cannot possibly get an accurate representation of McCain or Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. Have you even heard of Charles Baldwin of the Constitution Party? No, you haven't. And neither have 300 million other people. It is impossible for third parties to compete for your attention during "Two and a Half Men." (Author's Note: I do not support Charles Baldwin. He is an idiot. But that's not the point.)
What will be the future of campaign finance? I do not know. There must be, somehow, a better way of doing all this. The most drastic is simply impose a cap on fundraising. Limit what can be raised and limit what the candidate him or herself can donate to their own campaign. One could even go so far as to give the candidates the money up front and make them budget their money as the campaign season(s) progresses. I'd say, go for it, but since the government long ago forgot how to balance a budget, this would do little to show us the fiscal planning ability of candidates. Others pose less drastic measures.
Mac McCorkle, a Democratic strategist favors
Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute
Both ideas, and likely others, have merit. They should at least be discussed and considered. But from people interested in keeping power (i.e. those who refuse to legislate Congressional term limits), I don't see there being much discussion taking place in the future. Sentiment has, quite obviously, shifted from that of 1974 when the Federal Election Campaign Act was enacted in the wake of Watergate. And we lose out.
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse? Report it to Your Local Congressman Today!:
I have worked for the United States government as a uniformed service member, a civil service employee, and as a government contractor. I was not an important person; I did not hold a post that would be considered important by most people. But in my ten years of service to the government of the United States, I've seen the benefits and disadvantages of such work. First and foremost, I love it most of the time. I've gotten to see the world and advance my nation's causes as well. I've been to Europe, Asia, Central America, and the Middle East. I've traveled all over the country. Sometimes I was lucky enough to be able to afford bringing my wife along. But never once has my employer (the taxpayer) paid for my wife's plane ticke, per diem, or billeting. But I wasn't, say, the governess of Alaska.
As someone who's had to justify and provide proof (for good reason) for expenditures as small as a few dollars worth of long term parking at an airport and the travel fee Travelocity charges my credit card when I make official travel arrangements, little makes me seethe more than a public servant, the governess for example, who charges the public for plane tickets for their kids. There is tremendous oversight for "the little guy" in public service. Apparently, little applies to "the big guys."
Sarah Palin has charged to the state of Alaska $21,012 for 64 one way and 12 round trip commercial flights for her daughters since December 2006 when she took office. Worse, she or someone in her staff ordered changes to previously filed expense reports to make it look like they were also on official business. Wow. Changing filed reports after the fact sure doesn't suggest anything inappropriate.
She simply wanted her daughters with her so she could spend more time with them. This isn't an option frequent travelers like myself have unless we pay for it ourselves, which is as it should be. She really had two ethical options: to pay for their travel and lodging herself, or quite her job to spend more time with her family. She chose neither. Rules only apply so far up the chain, apparently.
What's worse is that she didn't even stay in cheap(er) hotels. When my peers and I travel for work, we have to make sure we get the government per diem rate. Sometimes that means we stay in nice hotels. Actually, from my perspective, most of the hotels you can get at the government per diem rate are pretty nice. However, Sarah Palin's choice on a trip to NY was the Essex House hotel, which cost Alaska $707.29 a night for four nights, which is but a measly $283.29 over the government per diem rate for Manhattan. I suppose though, that her constituents in Alaska should be happy, as the four Palin girls shared one room.
Supposedly there is a law that states that childrens' travel expenses can be reimbursed and not taxed when when they travel on official state business. Fine and dandy. When I conduct official business, my expenses are reimbursed. But usually my official duties do not entail hanging out with mom and dad at the opening of a dog sled race, or attending a function to announce the winners of a seafood competition. There's really no reason for these kids to be on official trips, even to help. Surely it must violate some sort of labor law if they're under 16 anyway, and surely there are plenty of volunteers or other hired help. Must it be Palin's daughters? My family doesn't have their travel expenses reimbursed when helping me during "official duties." That's silly, pampering, nonsense.
Sarah Palin's fraud, waste, and abuse goes beyond simply paying for her kids' travel and lodging. Apparently, she charged the state $17,000 in per diem so she could stay in her own home for 300 nights. Her home is 40 miles from a satellite office in Anchorage. People commute that distance to and from work every day day and they don't get per diem. They don't even get their gas bills reimbursed. The difference is, they're regular people, not governors. This is outrageous to me.
How about another instance of frivolous spending on behalf of our public servants. Official portraits are painted of Presidents. Great. That's a good tradition to have. But apparently, Cabinet secretaries get them too. Problem is, these things cost between $7,500 to $50,000. Do Cabinet members really need a portrait? Aren't they generally well enough off to afford to buy one of their own if they so badly need one? This article is even better, breaking down some of the costs. Rick Dubik, the Commerce Department's director of administration, informs us that $30,000 is actually cheap, and that some artists charge $75,000 for the service. He says this as if we, the public, are getting some sort of bargain out of his boss, Secretary Carlos Gutierrez's $35,000 portrait. Who says the government doesn't try to save us some money, especially in these uncertain economic times? After all, we could have ended up spending $59,000 on the portrait for National Cancer Institute director Andrew von Eschenbach rather than the $19,000 it cost us. Wait, you don't know who Andrew von Eschenbach is? Funny, come to think of it, neither do I.
Consider this: Donald Rumsfeld is getting another portrait, since he already has one from his first stint as Defense Secretary from 1975-1977. This second one will cost us $46,790, or just a shade under the median household income in 2007. I should tell you, however, that Rumsfeld cannot afford this luxury as a disclosure report filed with the Office of Government Ethics revealed that he was worth a meager $53-175 million.
Let's keep on keepin' on America!
Fun Facts from the World Series:
The National Anthem, even when sung by the Backstreet Boys doing a terrible impression of a barbershop quartet, can still elicit from me goosebumps and the occasional tear. Also, an 8 pm start actually means an 8:45 first pitch because Fox must cut to commercial break every 3 minutes. After the commercial break, Joe Buck gives us the starting lineup brought to us by Bud Light, or scouting report brought to us by Nissan, or pregame show segment brought to us by Taco Bell. Trivia is brought to us by Aflac. The game starts 45 minutes late because of the need to have commercials, but commercials riddle the telecast...fishy...And remember those "first pitch ceremonies" where someone comes out and throws the first pitch? Yeah, didn't happen. Or it did, and I got to watch the new Chevy commercial instead.
Word of the Day: (Brought to you by Dictionary.com...) Synecdoche (si-NEK-duh-kee) (noun): A figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole or whole for a part or general for the special or vice versa.
On This Day in History: (Brought to you by...uh...history..) Marcus Junius Brutus, of tryannicide fame, commits suicide after being beaten by Mark Antony and Octavian in the Second Battle of Philippi (42 BCE). Valentinian III wins the life lottery and is elevated as Roman Emperor at six years old (425 CE). Britains first Parliament meets (1707). Abraham Lincoln suspends for all military cases the writ of habeas corpus in Washington, DC (1861). The first heavier than air flight in Europe takes place when Alberto Santos-Dumont flies an airplane near Paris (1907). Fittingly, the first use of an airplane in war takes place when an Italian pilot takes off from Libya to observe Turkish lines during the Turco-Italian War (1911). Twenty-five to thirty thousand women march on Fifth Avenue to advocate their right to vote (1915). Lenin calls for the October Revolution (1917). Numerous WWII actions (1941-1944). The UN General Assembly meets for the first time (1946). The US Marine barracks and French army barracks in Lebanon are hit by suicide bombers, killing 241 US service men and 58 French troops (1983). Apple releases the iPod (2001).
"A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Putting the Fun in Fundraising:
I read somewhere, and I cannot remember where, that when it's all said and done (i.e. the election is over), Barack Obama will still have in his coffers enough money to finance two complete Prime Minister elections in Great Britain. The Obama campaign has raised over a half a billion dollars. Remember, Obama once pledged to use public funds in this election, which would have limited him to using something like $84 million, or about 19% of his current store. It certainly was more expedient to repudiate that pledge. Does this not speak to character? Expediency over a promise. This is not the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from such a "transformational figure."
Do you think that this massive stock of assets gives an advantage to Obama? Of course it does. Obama ads outnumber McCain ads 8-1 in some markets. This means that you will see on television or hear on the radio eight Obama ads to every McCain ad. The Obama campaign has even purchased itself a channel on satellite TV. McCain has been effectively muffled; his messages drowned out in a sea of Obama ads. How is a candidate supposed to reach the droves of people who are not as "into politics" as some of us and do not watch debates? Whether or not these people are ignoring their civic duty by failing to be informed, seeing ads during "Prison Break" is the only exposure they have to candidates. This is not to say that these messages are accurate or offer a fair representation of either candidate. In fact, they make me sick most of the time. But you cannot deny that many Americans know nothing of many candidates except for what they see in these 30 second spots, as evident by 2004's Swift Boat advertisements.
Some might say that the influx of money simply points to the popularity of Obama, and this in turn shows that democracy is working even better than we had hoped; so many people are participating, after all. I'm sure that many are happy with the present system of campaign finance. Surely Democrats and liberals are pleased with the status quo at the moment, considering their candidate has an insurmountable advantage in assets. But I do not like our present system. For one, those who donate under $200 do not have to be disclosed. Surely, no one would think of abusing this loophole.
Money does not guarantee a win by any candidate, but it certainly helps to build a campaign infrastructure that is difficult to beat. It allows a candidate to control the message, if not smother the opposition's message altogether. How can we decide who is the better candidate if we struggle to hear the whimpers of the rest of the field? With all things being equal in terms of exposure or capital, which candidate has the better policies and plans? Which one is more qualified? Can we know? As I've said, for people worried about the economy and the day to day minutiae that bogs us down, they cannot possibly get an accurate representation of McCain or Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. Have you even heard of Charles Baldwin of the Constitution Party? No, you haven't. And neither have 300 million other people. It is impossible for third parties to compete for your attention during "Two and a Half Men." (Author's Note: I do not support Charles Baldwin. He is an idiot. But that's not the point.)
What will be the future of campaign finance? I do not know. There must be, somehow, a better way of doing all this. The most drastic is simply impose a cap on fundraising. Limit what can be raised and limit what the candidate him or herself can donate to their own campaign. One could even go so far as to give the candidates the money up front and make them budget their money as the campaign season(s) progresses. I'd say, go for it, but since the government long ago forgot how to balance a budget, this would do little to show us the fiscal planning ability of candidates. Others pose less drastic measures.
Mac McCorkle, a Democratic strategist favors
"a "United Way" approach: Corporations, philanthropists, other groups and individuals would be able to donate an unlimited amount, with transparency, that would go into an endowment — akin to the United Way charity fund — and be divided equally between the parties."
Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute
"leans toward "the idea of public matching funds as seed money for candidates, released much earlier than permitted by current law and not tied to spending limits." He writes that such a move might provide lesser-known candidates a better chance of building support for their candidacies before the primaries even begin."
Both ideas, and likely others, have merit. They should at least be discussed and considered. But from people interested in keeping power (i.e. those who refuse to legislate Congressional term limits), I don't see there being much discussion taking place in the future. Sentiment has, quite obviously, shifted from that of 1974 when the Federal Election Campaign Act was enacted in the wake of Watergate. And we lose out.
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse? Report it to Your Local Congressman Today!:
I have worked for the United States government as a uniformed service member, a civil service employee, and as a government contractor. I was not an important person; I did not hold a post that would be considered important by most people. But in my ten years of service to the government of the United States, I've seen the benefits and disadvantages of such work. First and foremost, I love it most of the time. I've gotten to see the world and advance my nation's causes as well. I've been to Europe, Asia, Central America, and the Middle East. I've traveled all over the country. Sometimes I was lucky enough to be able to afford bringing my wife along. But never once has my employer (the taxpayer) paid for my wife's plane ticke, per diem, or billeting. But I wasn't, say, the governess of Alaska.
As someone who's had to justify and provide proof (for good reason) for expenditures as small as a few dollars worth of long term parking at an airport and the travel fee Travelocity charges my credit card when I make official travel arrangements, little makes me seethe more than a public servant, the governess for example, who charges the public for plane tickets for their kids. There is tremendous oversight for "the little guy" in public service. Apparently, little applies to "the big guys."
Sarah Palin has charged to the state of Alaska $21,012 for 64 one way and 12 round trip commercial flights for her daughters since December 2006 when she took office. Worse, she or someone in her staff ordered changes to previously filed expense reports to make it look like they were also on official business. Wow. Changing filed reports after the fact sure doesn't suggest anything inappropriate.
She simply wanted her daughters with her so she could spend more time with them. This isn't an option frequent travelers like myself have unless we pay for it ourselves, which is as it should be. She really had two ethical options: to pay for their travel and lodging herself, or quite her job to spend more time with her family. She chose neither. Rules only apply so far up the chain, apparently.
What's worse is that she didn't even stay in cheap(er) hotels. When my peers and I travel for work, we have to make sure we get the government per diem rate. Sometimes that means we stay in nice hotels. Actually, from my perspective, most of the hotels you can get at the government per diem rate are pretty nice. However, Sarah Palin's choice on a trip to NY was the Essex House hotel, which cost Alaska $707.29 a night for four nights, which is but a measly $283.29 over the government per diem rate for Manhattan. I suppose though, that her constituents in Alaska should be happy, as the four Palin girls shared one room.
Supposedly there is a law that states that childrens' travel expenses can be reimbursed and not taxed when when they travel on official state business. Fine and dandy. When I conduct official business, my expenses are reimbursed. But usually my official duties do not entail hanging out with mom and dad at the opening of a dog sled race, or attending a function to announce the winners of a seafood competition. There's really no reason for these kids to be on official trips, even to help. Surely it must violate some sort of labor law if they're under 16 anyway, and surely there are plenty of volunteers or other hired help. Must it be Palin's daughters? My family doesn't have their travel expenses reimbursed when helping me during "official duties." That's silly, pampering, nonsense.
Sarah Palin's fraud, waste, and abuse goes beyond simply paying for her kids' travel and lodging. Apparently, she charged the state $17,000 in per diem so she could stay in her own home for 300 nights. Her home is 40 miles from a satellite office in Anchorage. People commute that distance to and from work every day day and they don't get per diem. They don't even get their gas bills reimbursed. The difference is, they're regular people, not governors. This is outrageous to me.
How about another instance of frivolous spending on behalf of our public servants. Official portraits are painted of Presidents. Great. That's a good tradition to have. But apparently, Cabinet secretaries get them too. Problem is, these things cost between $7,500 to $50,000. Do Cabinet members really need a portrait? Aren't they generally well enough off to afford to buy one of their own if they so badly need one? This article is even better, breaking down some of the costs. Rick Dubik, the Commerce Department's director of administration, informs us that $30,000 is actually cheap, and that some artists charge $75,000 for the service. He says this as if we, the public, are getting some sort of bargain out of his boss, Secretary Carlos Gutierrez's $35,000 portrait. Who says the government doesn't try to save us some money, especially in these uncertain economic times? After all, we could have ended up spending $59,000 on the portrait for National Cancer Institute director Andrew von Eschenbach rather than the $19,000 it cost us. Wait, you don't know who Andrew von Eschenbach is? Funny, come to think of it, neither do I.
Consider this: Donald Rumsfeld is getting another portrait, since he already has one from his first stint as Defense Secretary from 1975-1977. This second one will cost us $46,790, or just a shade under the median household income in 2007. I should tell you, however, that Rumsfeld cannot afford this luxury as a disclosure report filed with the Office of Government Ethics revealed that he was worth a meager $53-175 million.
Let's keep on keepin' on America!
Fun Facts from the World Series:
The National Anthem, even when sung by the Backstreet Boys doing a terrible impression of a barbershop quartet, can still elicit from me goosebumps and the occasional tear. Also, an 8 pm start actually means an 8:45 first pitch because Fox must cut to commercial break every 3 minutes. After the commercial break, Joe Buck gives us the starting lineup brought to us by Bud Light, or scouting report brought to us by Nissan, or pregame show segment brought to us by Taco Bell. Trivia is brought to us by Aflac. The game starts 45 minutes late because of the need to have commercials, but commercials riddle the telecast...fishy...And remember those "first pitch ceremonies" where someone comes out and throws the first pitch? Yeah, didn't happen. Or it did, and I got to watch the new Chevy commercial instead.
Word of the Day: (Brought to you by Dictionary.com...) Synecdoche (si-NEK-duh-kee) (noun): A figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole or whole for a part or general for the special or vice versa.
On This Day in History: (Brought to you by...uh...history..) Marcus Junius Brutus, of tryannicide fame, commits suicide after being beaten by Mark Antony and Octavian in the Second Battle of Philippi (42 BCE). Valentinian III wins the life lottery and is elevated as Roman Emperor at six years old (425 CE). Britains first Parliament meets (1707). Abraham Lincoln suspends for all military cases the writ of habeas corpus in Washington, DC (1861). The first heavier than air flight in Europe takes place when Alberto Santos-Dumont flies an airplane near Paris (1907). Fittingly, the first use of an airplane in war takes place when an Italian pilot takes off from Libya to observe Turkish lines during the Turco-Italian War (1911). Twenty-five to thirty thousand women march on Fifth Avenue to advocate their right to vote (1915). Lenin calls for the October Revolution (1917). Numerous WWII actions (1941-1944). The UN General Assembly meets for the first time (1946). The US Marine barracks and French army barracks in Lebanon are hit by suicide bombers, killing 241 US service men and 58 French troops (1983). Apple releases the iPod (2001).
"A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)