Politicians, especially the U.S. President, should NOT play golf

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Yes, I know, Dwight Eisenhower played golf and he was a popular President. But Ike was tolerated because he was an old guy and had done heroic service in W.W.II . Still, even Ike had the whole "golf thing" hurt him; JFK came in and essentially called Eisenhower and old duffer. "The torch has been passed to a new generation, born in this century . . ." Get it? I'm young and virile, said JFK, not an old duffer like Ike. Golf is not a sport for any politician to be seen playing. Dan Quayle was photographed in his golf duds for a magazine and it made him look like the quintessential country-club elitist. George W. Bush didn't help his reputation playing golf. Presidents (really ALL politicians) should bowl, or play basketball. These are macho, "everyman" sports. Even horseback riding is OK. A man on horseback, ironically, doesn't look elitist in the USA. It looks like you're a "cowboy" and you got that whole "John Wayne" image going for you. Ronald Reagan routinely was seen riding horses and it made him look great. Also, don't jog. Jimmy Carter, as President, was photographed panting for breath and looking sick as a dog while jogging. Looks bad. Don't wind-surf. Candidate John Kerry did and he never lived it down. Bowl! Ride a horse like a cowboy! If the horse throws you, get right back on the horse and everyone cheers and says how brave you are to get back on the horse. Shoot hoops on the local playground. Another great sport is simply playing catch with a baseball and baseball gloves. Think Steve McQueen in the "Great Escape" with his baseball and glove. You play catch with your son or daughter and you look like a loving parent. But NO GOLF !!! Barack, I hope you're listening.

I saw Woody Allen in one of his last stand up engagements

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

True story: Shortly after he made "Everything you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask" Woody Allen performed in a theater of the round in the San Fernando Valley in L.A. County. The "opening act" was Jim Croce -- I put "opening act" in quotation marks because for some strange reason there was a delay that night and Croce actually went on second. Allen was terrific and took questions from the audience. But what I remember most was this bit he did with a little piece of lint on his jacket. You have to picture the scene: Woody Allen is alone on stage and it's a theater in the round. There is just a single spotlight on him; the rest of the theater is dark. Now, when there is just one spotlight it tends to light up the dust around the person and you can see stuff floating in the air. In the midst of his act, Woody plucks a small string -- a piece of lint -- from his jacket and flicks it in the air. The lint is floating in the air. Woody then tells a joke and the audience laughs. When the audience laughs, the air from the audience laughter causes the lint to jump up in the air ! After a couple of more jokes the audience notices this lint which is still hanging in the air. With each burst of laughter the lint dances higher and higher! Soon everyone is laughing twice: once for the Woody Allen punchline and then again when we all see the lint jump up higher in the air. After each burst of laughter, the lint jumps up! Then when we see the lint jump up, we laugh again and the lint jumps a second time ! It seemed that Woody kept this piece of lint dancing and jumping in the air for twenty minutes! True story.

Teachers are great! Stop evaluating them.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Old European saying, "If they are roses, they will bloom." The idea is that if you have talent, it will show itself. I go further: If you are smart, you won't be kept ignorant for long.

So why are teachers the "whipping boy" for all politicians? Blame the students for not trying. If you don't have talent you won't make it. So try harder. Stop blaming someone else.

By the way, what's the point of all this dumb evaluation? The late Steve Jobs didn't get "evaluated" by someone (except the marketplace). If it was left to his employees, they might have given him a bad evaluation because he tended to yell and pressure folks (that's maybe why he was a success). He was his own boss and did what he wanted. Same with all the other billionaires. They weren't evaluated.

Be your own boss. Get out of teaching; you can't ever please these folks. Everyone --parents, principals, students -- is your boss as a teacher. Everyone, including the President of the U.S., feels they know how to do your job and has the right to criticize you. I admire the Teamsters. Nobody pushes the Teamsters around. Nobody "evaluates" them. They just are left to do their jobs. Don't trust the "Dilbert-like" boss to evaluate you.

To those who stick with teaching, I admire you. All teachers are good teachers. They're the ones doing the real work. Not their critics.

MADNESS! NO OIL PIPELINE OVER OGALLALA AQUIFER ! IT WILL LEAK OIL AND POISON THE AQUIFER. REMEMBER I TOLD YOU SO.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Note the date: September 14, 2011 and REMEMBER I TOLD YOU SO!

The madness will never stop. The proposed Keystone Pipeline will leak and it will poison forever the Ogallala aquifer, poisoning the water supply.

OIL PIPELINES LEAK! Get it? They LEAK!

OIL LEAKS, TOO!

Look at what BP did in the Gulf of Mexico; they swore it could never happen but it did. The rig blew and oil gushed everywhere. Same with Yellowstone pipeline; same with Exxon Valdez, same with . . . same with . . . etc.

The Ogallala aquifer is fresh, pure, irreplaceable water.

We have no say. None. One person, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will single-handedly, and unilaterally make the decision to forever poison the greatest pool of fresh water aquifer on the planet. President Obama could stop her but it looks like he won't. NINE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNERS, including the Dalai Lama, oppose the pipeline and have written fellow Peace Prize recipient President Obama but will he listen?

Robert Redford, too, says NO to the pipeline. Daryl Hannah got arrested saying NO to the pipeline. Redford, Hannah, and the Nobel Peace Prize winners are right: NO TO THE PIPELINE.

No true environmental report or findings were ever made. No analysis. No research. It is beginning to look like the whole world is corrupt. Is anybody there? Does anybody care?

If, God forbid, they allow this poisonous oil pipeline to go through, kiss the environment goodbye. All that talk about the environmental protection and caring about ecology was lies and hogwash: nobody cares. It's all about the quick buck.

If, God forbid, they allow this pipeline, REMEMBER I TOLD YOU IT WOULD LEAK. NOTE THE DATE: September 14, 2011 before the pipeline approval date. If, God forbid, they allow the pipeline to go over the Ogallala aquifer, remember I told you it would leak its oil poison into the ground water. REMEMBER!! REMEMBER!!!! I was right and they were wrong. REMEMBER I TOLD YOU SO

STOP THE KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE THROUGH NEBRASKA!

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

STOP THE KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE THROUGHT NEBRASKA! IT WILL POISON THE TRILLION GALLON FRESH WATER OGALLALA AQUIFER FOREVER! THIS PROPOSED PIPELINE IS MADNESS, I TELL YOU, MADNESS!!

What can I do? I have written Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telling her not to allow the pipeline through Nebraska. It will inevitably break and forever poison the entire Ogallala Aquifer, one of our country's most precious and fragile assets. I am no crank. I supported Democrats my whole life, including the Clintons and President Obama. But the proposed oil pipeline is madness. It will break despite the bogus assurances to the contrary. And it will poison forever the pristine fresh water of the Ogallala Aquifer.

I have also written to President Obama to stop this oil pipeline.

But what good does it do? I protested against the Viet Nam war as early as

1966 as a child. Did anyone listen? The war continued. There were more deaths; more maimed; more injured; more treasure wasted.

And all for what?

To protect Saigon from being overrun by the Communists! Of course, today Saigon doesn't exist -- it is called Ho Chi Min City! So . . . why didn't anyone listen to me? Think of the lost lives that could have been saved.

Now, they are set on a course to pollute the fragile, pristine Ogallala Aquifer.

I have written letters, supported organizations and now I post on my blog; but what good is it?

Nobody listens. Nobody cares. Then one day everything is ruined and the powers that be just shrug. Why won't anyone listen? DON'T DO THIS! PROTECT THE OGALLALA AQUIFER !

IT IS PURE MADNESS TO BUILD AN OIL PIPELINE OVER THE OGALLALA AQUIFER

Here is what I have to say,

Dear Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,

Please use your authority to STOP TransCanada Keystone XL from building an oil pipeline over the Nebraskan portion of the Ogallala Aquifer. The Aquifer is irreplaceable. As we saw with the BP Oil Co. and the Louisiana gulf spill, as well as the Yellowstone River spill, all assurances that "nothing could ever happen" are bogus. It is insane to jeopardize the most pristine fresh water resource in the country. One spill, and the entire Aquifer is forever ruined. As one scientist said, "there is no room to allow for any chance at a spill, however small, of petroleum near that national treasure."

A route further east--outside of Nebraska--is ultimately less expensive compared to the risk of the damage to the environment of Nebraska.

If you must have a pipeline then you must find a better, safer route to transport the petroleum. DO NOT BUILD THE PIPELINE THROUGH NEBRASKA!

But don't take my word for it. Listen to a scientist:

"As a longtime professional meteorologist with training in hydrology and as a passenger on airlines flying over and observing the blowouts caused by central irrigation pivots, I full-heartedly agree that to allow TransCanada Keystone XL to run a pipeline anywhere near the Ogallala Aquifer is sheer lunacy.

There is no room to allow for any chance at a spill, however small, of petroleum near that national treasure. It is a treasure in the real sense of the word. In the past several decades, farmers and ranchers have experienced significant droughts and were saved only by the availability of the water in the Ogallala Aquifer.

Even today, small towns in Nebraska are facing large costs to clean their drinking water that was polluted by spills from livestock feeding pens and from chemical fertilization of croplands.

The Sandhills can be described as one huge beach, similar in character to the beaches now being polluted by the Gulf oil spill.

Even if TransCanada were to be required to double-pipe the petroleum, there would be a chance of an accidental spill, but even more so, with hundreds of miles of pipeline through vast unpopulated areas, the threat of terror attacks should make even the most "Drill, Baby, Drill" enthusiast reconsider support for the pipeline along the present route.

The cost of a route further east, although large in dollars, is small in comparison to the damage that could be done to the lives and economy of Nebraska, Nebraskans and all others in states relying on the precious water in the aquifer.

Transport the petroleum, but do it over a safer route.

Richard H. Klodnicki, Lincoln"

=====================================================

And here is what BOLD NEBRASKA thinks about this crazy oil pipeline idea:

1. The pipeline would cross the Nebraska Sand Hills, a fragile and unique ecosystem that is easily damaged and difficult to repair.

2. It is a threat to the Ogallala aquifer, one of the world's largest supplies of groundwater, and the primary source of groundwater for agriculture and domestic use in Nebraska. Once an aquifer is contaminated, it is expensive and difficult to clean up. Experience has taught us that most clean up efforts have focused on containment rather than actual removal of contaminants.

3. Building the pipeline would provide oil companies more incentives for further development of the tar sands in Canada, an expensive and extremely environmentally damaging process that generates greenhouse gases, pollutes watersheds and destroys woodlands and other wildlife habitat.

4. The proposed pipeline would use higher pressures and thinner pipe walls than have been typically used in pipelines. As the disaster in the gulf has shown us, oil companies should not be allowed to use risky methods because flaws in design and construction can lead to catastrophic results.

Detective John Falotico arrested the Son of Sam. Trust the reports of the New York Times.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

There is a much needed clarification regarding the capture of the notorious Son of Sam killer, David Berkowitz.

Recent obituaries of Detective Edward Zigo seem to credit him as the arresting officer, even using phrases such as "slapped the cuffs" on the killer. Det. Zigo was NOT the arresting officer of the Son of Sam. In fact, the detective officially credited by the New York Police Department as the arresting officer was Detective John Falotico. Moreover, Detective Zigo was not even present at the arrest of David Berkowitz. REPEAT: Mr. Zigo was not even present at the arrest of the Son of Sam. Mr. Zigo was out getting a search warrant. Mr. Zigo was assigned to work with Detective John Falotico.

May I tactfully suggest that everyone read the obituaries for both John Falotico and Ed Zigo from the true "journal of record" the newspaper, The New York Times. Trust the New York Times to accurately describe the facts.

See the obituary for John Falotico from the New York Times here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/nyregion/15falotico.html

And the obituary for Ed Zigo from the New York Times here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23zigo.html

Again, trust the New York Times to get the facts right. That's why the New York Times is the "journal of record" and why it is a great newspaper. Don't trust just any report: stick with the best, The New York Times. Everyone should read the New York Times obituaries for both John Falotico and Ed Zigo in order to learn the true story. The New York Times gets its facts right!

See the obituary for John Falotico from the New York Times here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/nyregion/15falotico.html

And the obituary for Ed Zigo from the New York Times here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23zigo.html

Again, the New York Times gets the facts right.

Estate Tax is evil : Gov't takes your $ but not your debts

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

The estate tax is inherently evil. It's YOUR money. You should decide to whom to leave it.
You can leave it to your church or even give all to the government! You can even burn it all in a bonfire right before you die; if you did that the government would have nothing left to tax. So why can't you leave it to your children?
Why is it that when you die your heirs are responsible for 100% of your debts but your heirs are not able to get 100% of your property? When you die, it does NOT extinguish your debts. Your debts are still YOUR responsibility even from beyond the grave. Your debts do not disappear on your death. Someone still must pay for them and that "someone" is your heirs. So . . . if the heirs are liable for your debts, and your estate still must pay your debts after you're gone, then fairness dictates that your heirs should receive your property. And ALL of your property.

The government taxes 35% of your estate after a minimal exemption. Should not the government also PAY OFF 35% of your debts when you die?

And another thing: Folks say, "Well, the kids didn't EARN that money! So if they didn't earn it, they shouldn't get it." My response: First, the money was earned. It was earned by the family. Someone had to earn the money. If I earned the money then it's my money and I should be able to leave to whomever I want. The money should be kept in the family.
Second, who earns anything? Your IQ may be higher than mine. This higher IQ of yours allows you to get better jobs and live a better life. But did you EARN your IQ??? NO! You were just born smart. You didn't do anything to get a high IQ; you were just born that way. Should we lobotomize all smart people to put them on the same IQ level as everyone else? Same thing with folks who are culturally defined as beautiful. They didn't do anything to be beautiful. They were just born that way. But because they are beautiful, they have no trouble getting dates and living more exciting lives. So . . . inherited wealth just evens out the playing field. It is actually very fair because without it, the ugly and the dumb have no chance.
Third, the family farm gets taxed with a whopping estate tax after the farmer/owner dies. The farm itself is included in his /her estate wealth and is taxed heavily. Suppose that two days after farmer's son and only heir pays off the estate tax on the farm, that son dies. Now THE SAME PROPERTY--THE FARM--GETS TAXED AGAIN BY THE ESTATE TAX!!! The heir just finished paying off the estate tax of the first farmer on the farm and now that heir is dead and the new heirs must pay another estate tax on the same farm!! The same property is taxed over and over and over again.
Fourth, the farm is a sunken cost. The farm generates little income and yet its property value is included in the estate tax. That means in order to pay the estate tax the farmer must sell the farm (on which he has worked, slaved and invested his whole life building into a barely profitable enterprise so that s/he could leave a little something to the children). The farm is sold and that farmer's employees are out of jobs and an ongoing concern vanishes. It is the total destruction of the American Dream.
Finally, private wealth acts as a bulwark against overbearing government. When all the populace is poor then all power is in the hands of government bureaucrats and commisars. Ideas once considered wild-eyed and unpopular have gained traction only because a few rich men and women decided to support those ideas. There was initially (REPEAT: INITIALLY) no public groundswell for women's suffrage; a few rich men and women (the Pankhursts) got behind the once radical idea of votes for women and now that idea is a fundamental right. Likewise with the civil rights movement which was initially financed by a few people considered radicals and dangerous by the government's FBI. Same thing with the anti-war movement: that movement started with a few rich liberals backing an initially unpopular idea. The same goes for the gay rights movement today: it is financed by well-to-do backers who are pushing an agenda that once was considered radical but today is becoming more mainstream. REMEMBER: it didn't start with the grass roots demanding this but with a few rich willing to spend on initially unpopular ideas. Without those rich the ideas would not have gained attention or any traction with the general populace.