I must be dating myself badly because I have this image of the characters from the movie “Damn Yankees” going through my head—the locker room scene where the players are singing “You Gotta Have Heart” with that incredible high descant harmony.
The reason is that yesterday, an AP article stated that President Obama wants the successor to Supreme Court Justice Souter to be someone “who is not only schooled in the law, but passionate about how it affects people’s lives, a scholar willing to decide a case from the heart when the constitutional answer is elusive.”
Unfortunately there wasn’t a whole lot of depth to the article. (I wonder whether my paper did some pretty heavy editing). The only person quoted in the article was White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs. “You have a president who understands and has studied many of these issues—even taught them,” said Gibbs.
Now I don’t have much of a problem with these criteria. But I think that has a lot to do with how I perceive President Obama and his philosophical and constitutional orientation. If Obama’s predecessor had said the same thing in the context of his choice for a Supreme Court justice it would have scared the hell out of me.
So, unfortunately what it seems to come down to is our basic sense of agreement with the person who will be doing the nominating. A good justice is in the eye of the beholder. It just depends on which side of the teeter-totter you’re sitting.
Yeah, I think that Souter’s successor will likely be pretty liberal in his or her view of the U.S. Constitution. I also think that the successor will have some pretty well established credentials as a Constitutional scholar (especially knowing that Obama has those same credentials). As for someone who is passionate about how the law affects people’s lives—to me that’s a pre-requisite. The law and the constitution do affect people’s lives. Every day. In numerous ways.
And I guess I think that a liberal successor to David Souter (who was more “liberal” than Pres. Bush would have ever supposed) is just fine. There will be those who will revile that more liberal orientation. There will be those who are scathing over ever opinion. Personally I think they’re wrong.
Maybe it’s like my Dad always used to say (especially when I was just about to lose a teen-ager’s argument with him) “Opinions are like asses. Everybody has one.”
Supreme Court justices are kind of like the father of a teenager—when push comes to shove their opinion is going to be the one which counts. Hopefully when whoever is ultimately confirmed as the next justice decides from the heart it will be reasoned, tempered by knowledge and passion for the constitution and empathy for the people who will be affected. And, “You Gotta Have Heart” is a good way of putting it.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
They Call Me "Mister Gravy"
I have this certain reputation in my extended family, and if I do say so it’s well deserved. I love to make gravy. Turkey gravy, beef gravy, sausage gravy, pork chop gravy, red-eye gravy, chicken-fried anything gravy. I love ‘em all.
I can take the drippings of just about anything, make a roux and create a creamy, tasty gravy just right for mashed potatoes or, even better, just plain old “gravy soppin’”. So, that’s why they call me Mr. Gravy. OK, actually I got that sobriquet by loudly proclaiming over and over “they call me Mr. Gravy” one Sunday afternoon and insisting that everyone call me that and it stuck.
I’ve made some memorable gravies in my day. My sausage gravy is so tasty that the South just oozes out of it. The difference of course is pan drippings. Restaurants just aren’t able to put the pan drippings with the bits of hard cooked sausage still in it in their gravy. But that’s the secret. You can’t just make a white sauce. It’s got to be pan drippings. And roux.
I’m just as well known for spectacular failures though. I’m thinking about Christmas a couple of years ago. My brother-in-law was doing a full dinner—turkey with all the fixings. When we got over to my mother-in-law’s house, Dan had every pot and pan dirty and lying out plus a turkey which had been in the oven for an hour and a half and it looked like it was poached.
I was desperately trying to keep my big mouth shut and my hands out of the kitchen in order to avoid my wife’s wrath for interfering. Dan finally asked us for a bit of help to finish getting things ready. Carolyn started to do some clean-up so we could work. The turkey was finally browning; potatoes coming to a boil. It’s time for Mr. Gravy to get started.
Lots of drippings. No space on the stove to start a roux. Damn. I’ll do it with a slurry. So I strained drippings into a pan and started it heating. I mixed a flour and water slurry, hoping that I could avoid lumps. The drippings were hot, the slurry went in. Instant lumps. So I grabbed a rubber spatula and started stirring. And stirring. And stirring.
The gravy was smoothing out but I kept getting white swirls in it. I kept stirring and then pulled the spatula out to take a sample taste. The spatula looked weird. It turns out that the white swirls in the gravy were from the spatula which was melting into the gravy. I grabbed a spoon and dipped some of the swirly stuff out and then did a taste test. By now Dan and Carolyn were laughing at Mr. Gravy. But what the hell. It looked good. It tasted good. Even though about an inch worth of spatula was now mixed into the gravy. So we used it anyway.
And I suppose that’s why when they call me Mr. Gravy it’s not with the awesome respect that my gravy making prowess should command but rather with just a note of familial derision. Until the next time they’re hungry for sausage gravy and biscuits that is.
I can take the drippings of just about anything, make a roux and create a creamy, tasty gravy just right for mashed potatoes or, even better, just plain old “gravy soppin’”. So, that’s why they call me Mr. Gravy. OK, actually I got that sobriquet by loudly proclaiming over and over “they call me Mr. Gravy” one Sunday afternoon and insisting that everyone call me that and it stuck.
I’ve made some memorable gravies in my day. My sausage gravy is so tasty that the South just oozes out of it. The difference of course is pan drippings. Restaurants just aren’t able to put the pan drippings with the bits of hard cooked sausage still in it in their gravy. But that’s the secret. You can’t just make a white sauce. It’s got to be pan drippings. And roux.
I’m just as well known for spectacular failures though. I’m thinking about Christmas a couple of years ago. My brother-in-law was doing a full dinner—turkey with all the fixings. When we got over to my mother-in-law’s house, Dan had every pot and pan dirty and lying out plus a turkey which had been in the oven for an hour and a half and it looked like it was poached.
I was desperately trying to keep my big mouth shut and my hands out of the kitchen in order to avoid my wife’s wrath for interfering. Dan finally asked us for a bit of help to finish getting things ready. Carolyn started to do some clean-up so we could work. The turkey was finally browning; potatoes coming to a boil. It’s time for Mr. Gravy to get started.
Lots of drippings. No space on the stove to start a roux. Damn. I’ll do it with a slurry. So I strained drippings into a pan and started it heating. I mixed a flour and water slurry, hoping that I could avoid lumps. The drippings were hot, the slurry went in. Instant lumps. So I grabbed a rubber spatula and started stirring. And stirring. And stirring.
The gravy was smoothing out but I kept getting white swirls in it. I kept stirring and then pulled the spatula out to take a sample taste. The spatula looked weird. It turns out that the white swirls in the gravy were from the spatula which was melting into the gravy. I grabbed a spoon and dipped some of the swirly stuff out and then did a taste test. By now Dan and Carolyn were laughing at Mr. Gravy. But what the hell. It looked good. It tasted good. Even though about an inch worth of spatula was now mixed into the gravy. So we used it anyway.
And I suppose that’s why when they call me Mr. Gravy it’s not with the awesome respect that my gravy making prowess should command but rather with just a note of familial derision. Until the next time they’re hungry for sausage gravy and biscuits that is.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Is California "Too Big to Fail"?
I think I’ve got it figured out finally. I’ve been worrying on the California special election like a hungry dog on a steak bone, just gnawing away looking for a solution.
You see, I just don’t like the 6 questions which are being put before the voters. It seems to me that the so-called “solution” is a cop-out by the Governor and Legislators who have now tossed it to the voters to validate. Unfortunately, if the voters validate the smoke and mirrors put forth by the 6 measures then the voters will take ownership of a pitiful excuse for solutions which will allow elected officials to wash their hands in the best Pontius Pilate fashion.
Of course, it’s California’s government by referred measure which has had more than a little to do with the budgetary debacle that the state is experiencing.
So, what to do about it? Well, the first thing is to do what I’ve been thinking about for several months. Defeat measures 1A through 1F. Just vote No! Turn down every one of them. Then, as the budget gets worse, as the economy of California tanks further, have Governor Schwarzenegger make a call to President Obama.
The Governor can tell the President that the world’s 5th largest economy is tanking. The state with almost 1/8th of the nation’s population is broke. He can then tell the President that, like AIG, California is “too big to fail”.
AIG got something like $85 billion and that’s a lot of money. According to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget, California only needs a little less than half that--$41 billion—a bargain. And for a whole state. If the Federal Government would just write California a check, from TARP funds or wherever, the state’s books would be balanced and we could maybe, just maybe, manage to make ends meet until we have to engage in a budget debacle again for next year when we might, or might not, be able to generate enough money. Oh, and by the way, no executives in California will be paid 7 or 8 figure bonuses. There are already enough 6 figure State employees and retirees as it is.
Let’s see, last week Pres. Obama suggested that we cut $17 billion from the Federal budget. He was criticized because that’s only about ½ of 1%. So $41 billion would be what—about 1 ¼%? That ain’t bad for the world’s 5th largest economy with 1/8th of the nation’s population. Of course, we won’t tell Pres. Obama that California’s budget is 37% in the red; that might tend to tick him off just a bit.
And who knows, maybe the President will put some things in motion to bail us out just like AIG or GM. Although he may say that, like GM, the first thing is that top management has to go and a re-structuring plan has to be presented within 6 weeks or California will have to go the route of Vallejo and declare bankruptcy.
That being the case, I was wondering who would come on board as new CEO/Governor. Robert Nardelli is going to be available in a couple of months when Fiat finishes its acquisition of Chrysler. Rob Blagojevich is looking for work, has run a large state and knows how to solicit funds. I don’t think either of those would do. How about Clint Eastwood? Also an actor, but he was mayor of Carmel. And he would call the situation what it is (to use the edited version)—a clusterflub.
Too big to fail? We’ve already failed. Can it be fixed? Not by continuing to put a bandaid on a hemorrhage. But nobody’s going to bail out California but Californians. Let’s start by putting the politicians on notice that we expect them to do it right—for a change.
Now, I’ve been trying to be sarcastic in an Art Buchwald kind of way (I knew I couldn’t get to Dave Barry). Governing California is like trying to herd cats. But we’ve done it to ourselves. So maybe sarcasm won’t work but it definitely helps to keep you sane
You see, I just don’t like the 6 questions which are being put before the voters. It seems to me that the so-called “solution” is a cop-out by the Governor and Legislators who have now tossed it to the voters to validate. Unfortunately, if the voters validate the smoke and mirrors put forth by the 6 measures then the voters will take ownership of a pitiful excuse for solutions which will allow elected officials to wash their hands in the best Pontius Pilate fashion.
Of course, it’s California’s government by referred measure which has had more than a little to do with the budgetary debacle that the state is experiencing.
So, what to do about it? Well, the first thing is to do what I’ve been thinking about for several months. Defeat measures 1A through 1F. Just vote No! Turn down every one of them. Then, as the budget gets worse, as the economy of California tanks further, have Governor Schwarzenegger make a call to President Obama.
The Governor can tell the President that the world’s 5th largest economy is tanking. The state with almost 1/8th of the nation’s population is broke. He can then tell the President that, like AIG, California is “too big to fail”.
AIG got something like $85 billion and that’s a lot of money. According to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget, California only needs a little less than half that--$41 billion—a bargain. And for a whole state. If the Federal Government would just write California a check, from TARP funds or wherever, the state’s books would be balanced and we could maybe, just maybe, manage to make ends meet until we have to engage in a budget debacle again for next year when we might, or might not, be able to generate enough money. Oh, and by the way, no executives in California will be paid 7 or 8 figure bonuses. There are already enough 6 figure State employees and retirees as it is.
Let’s see, last week Pres. Obama suggested that we cut $17 billion from the Federal budget. He was criticized because that’s only about ½ of 1%. So $41 billion would be what—about 1 ¼%? That ain’t bad for the world’s 5th largest economy with 1/8th of the nation’s population. Of course, we won’t tell Pres. Obama that California’s budget is 37% in the red; that might tend to tick him off just a bit.
And who knows, maybe the President will put some things in motion to bail us out just like AIG or GM. Although he may say that, like GM, the first thing is that top management has to go and a re-structuring plan has to be presented within 6 weeks or California will have to go the route of Vallejo and declare bankruptcy.
That being the case, I was wondering who would come on board as new CEO/Governor. Robert Nardelli is going to be available in a couple of months when Fiat finishes its acquisition of Chrysler. Rob Blagojevich is looking for work, has run a large state and knows how to solicit funds. I don’t think either of those would do. How about Clint Eastwood? Also an actor, but he was mayor of Carmel. And he would call the situation what it is (to use the edited version)—a clusterflub.
Too big to fail? We’ve already failed. Can it be fixed? Not by continuing to put a bandaid on a hemorrhage. But nobody’s going to bail out California but Californians. Let’s start by putting the politicians on notice that we expect them to do it right—for a change.
Now, I’ve been trying to be sarcastic in an Art Buchwald kind of way (I knew I couldn’t get to Dave Barry). Governing California is like trying to herd cats. But we’ve done it to ourselves. So maybe sarcasm won’t work but it definitely helps to keep you sane
Friday, May 8, 2009
1000 Hours Labor Will Pay University of California Tuition
The San Diego Union Tribune reports today that the University of California Regents approved a 9.3% tuition increase for next Fall’s school year. That 9.3% represents a tuition bill of $8,720 for the year.
I wonder what that does to the dream of a college education for high school and community college students as well as their families throughout California? That’s an incredible amount of money.
Let’s put it into just a bit of context. At the California minimum wage of $8.00 per hour it will take 1087 hours to earn the money to pay for tuition. That’s working full time for 6 months, and it’s before taxes. Plus, that doesn’t even touch other education expenses like books or room and board.
How do kids do it? Loans? Work part-time and go to college part-time? Family help? Actually, it’s all of the above.
A little more context. I started college in fall 1969 at the University of North Dakota. Tuition for the year was right at $450. Working at $1.50 an hour (minimum wage was $1.30) I could earn my tuition working a total of 300 hours. That amounts to 7 ½ weeks full time. So I worked full time all summer (about 12 weeks), had a pretty enjoyable summer and managed to save about $600.
This is absolutely mind boggling to me. We are pricing college beyond the means of most families and most kids. And yet, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that we can do about it. Especially now with the economy and budgets in the mess that they’re in.
California students get a huge break by going to community college first where tuition is set at $15 per credit. Two years in that system really lessens the burden. The basic math is $15 per credit at community college vs. $360 per credit for the same Freshman English or Algebra class in the University of California system. That math is pretty obvious.
We run the risk of pricing college degrees out of the range of many if not most of our young people. The current economic morass will just make it worse—fees continuing to escalate while income for many families declines.
My generation (baby boomers) were often the first generation of our family to enjoy the opportunity of pursuing a college education. The risk is that current and future generations may find that dream fading.
I wonder what that does to the dream of a college education for high school and community college students as well as their families throughout California? That’s an incredible amount of money.
Let’s put it into just a bit of context. At the California minimum wage of $8.00 per hour it will take 1087 hours to earn the money to pay for tuition. That’s working full time for 6 months, and it’s before taxes. Plus, that doesn’t even touch other education expenses like books or room and board.
How do kids do it? Loans? Work part-time and go to college part-time? Family help? Actually, it’s all of the above.
A little more context. I started college in fall 1969 at the University of North Dakota. Tuition for the year was right at $450. Working at $1.50 an hour (minimum wage was $1.30) I could earn my tuition working a total of 300 hours. That amounts to 7 ½ weeks full time. So I worked full time all summer (about 12 weeks), had a pretty enjoyable summer and managed to save about $600.
This is absolutely mind boggling to me. We are pricing college beyond the means of most families and most kids. And yet, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that we can do about it. Especially now with the economy and budgets in the mess that they’re in.
California students get a huge break by going to community college first where tuition is set at $15 per credit. Two years in that system really lessens the burden. The basic math is $15 per credit at community college vs. $360 per credit for the same Freshman English or Algebra class in the University of California system. That math is pretty obvious.
We run the risk of pricing college degrees out of the range of many if not most of our young people. The current economic morass will just make it worse—fees continuing to escalate while income for many families declines.
My generation (baby boomers) were often the first generation of our family to enjoy the opportunity of pursuing a college education. The risk is that current and future generations may find that dream fading.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Methodist Church, Newsweek and Ban on Same Sex Marriage
I grew up a Methodist. From the time I was a kid at the Palma Ceia Methodist Church in Tampa to 1st Methodist in Grand Forks, North Dakota to Ocean Beach United Methodist in San Diego, I seem to default to that denomination. I was confirmed in the Methodist church. I was an acolyte as a kid. I’ve sung in several different Methodist choirs.
Over the years I spent some time in Presbyterian and Congregational churches (in fact I even chaired the Diaconate at one UCC church) but I guess I’ve always basically considered myself a Methodist. But I’m not so sure anymore. Unfortunately, the word hypocrisy is revolving through my head within the context of this Protestant denomination.
I just got this week’s copy of Newsweek in the mail. It has an ad on page 13 that features a simple photo of a footbridge crossing a small stream with copy reading “What if church could bring sides together?” followed by “Rethink Church at 10thousanddoors.org”. Then at the bottom it shows the logo of the Methodist church and the copy “Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors. The people of the United Methodist Church”.
Pretty innocuous isn’t it. And it’s a good message. One that would normally make me somewhat proud and interested. But not when I consider the article that was in my newspaper’s weekly Faith and Religion section last Friday morning.
The article was from the Associated Press. The head read “Methodist top court affirms ban on clergy presiding at gay marriage, union ceremonies”. You can probably see where I’m heading with this now.
The article cites the Judicial Council of the church as deciding that “United Methodist clergy cannot perform same-sex marriages or gay civil unions, even if their regional church district supports the idea.” This California-Pacific Conference of the Methodist Church had recognized “the pastoral need and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations to offer the ministry of marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples.” The Judicial Council’s decision negated that recognition.
In one sense, you have to go along with the main body of the denomination being able to exert its influence and power over the “conference”. The Judicial Council is the top body of this church. They ultimately run the show with the conferences being semi-autonomous.
So here’s where the hypocrisy comes in. How on God’s green earth can a church ask the rhetorical question “What if a church could bring sides together” while at the same time “pull sides apart”? There’s no two ways about it. This is a divisive issue. Same sex relationships have always been part of virtually every human culture and while not the “natural order of things” (if by that we mean the vast majority of relationships and the capacity of procreation) they exist.
But to my way of thinking, denying the blessing of a union between 2 people based on gender just isn’t right in today’s world. We were proud of the California-Pacific Conference’s position when I was a member of the Ocean Beach Methodist Church because that was reflective of a significant number of people in our community. If only the Judicial Council had left it to the conferences to decide.
Is the couple going to love one another to the exclusion of all others? Are they going to love honor and cherish, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health? If so, then what’s the problem?
The bottom line here is that the Methodist church is free to make whatever decision it believes that it must. But, to advertise in a national magazine “What if church could bring sides together” is hypocritical. And, I’m sorry to say that I can no longer consider myself a Methodist.
Over the years I spent some time in Presbyterian and Congregational churches (in fact I even chaired the Diaconate at one UCC church) but I guess I’ve always basically considered myself a Methodist. But I’m not so sure anymore. Unfortunately, the word hypocrisy is revolving through my head within the context of this Protestant denomination.
I just got this week’s copy of Newsweek in the mail. It has an ad on page 13 that features a simple photo of a footbridge crossing a small stream with copy reading “What if church could bring sides together?” followed by “Rethink Church at 10thousanddoors.org”. Then at the bottom it shows the logo of the Methodist church and the copy “Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors. The people of the United Methodist Church”.
Pretty innocuous isn’t it. And it’s a good message. One that would normally make me somewhat proud and interested. But not when I consider the article that was in my newspaper’s weekly Faith and Religion section last Friday morning.
The article was from the Associated Press. The head read “Methodist top court affirms ban on clergy presiding at gay marriage, union ceremonies”. You can probably see where I’m heading with this now.
The article cites the Judicial Council of the church as deciding that “United Methodist clergy cannot perform same-sex marriages or gay civil unions, even if their regional church district supports the idea.” This California-Pacific Conference of the Methodist Church had recognized “the pastoral need and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations to offer the ministry of marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples.” The Judicial Council’s decision negated that recognition.
In one sense, you have to go along with the main body of the denomination being able to exert its influence and power over the “conference”. The Judicial Council is the top body of this church. They ultimately run the show with the conferences being semi-autonomous.
So here’s where the hypocrisy comes in. How on God’s green earth can a church ask the rhetorical question “What if a church could bring sides together” while at the same time “pull sides apart”? There’s no two ways about it. This is a divisive issue. Same sex relationships have always been part of virtually every human culture and while not the “natural order of things” (if by that we mean the vast majority of relationships and the capacity of procreation) they exist.
But to my way of thinking, denying the blessing of a union between 2 people based on gender just isn’t right in today’s world. We were proud of the California-Pacific Conference’s position when I was a member of the Ocean Beach Methodist Church because that was reflective of a significant number of people in our community. If only the Judicial Council had left it to the conferences to decide.
Is the couple going to love one another to the exclusion of all others? Are they going to love honor and cherish, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health? If so, then what’s the problem?
The bottom line here is that the Methodist church is free to make whatever decision it believes that it must. But, to advertise in a national magazine “What if church could bring sides together” is hypocritical. And, I’m sorry to say that I can no longer consider myself a Methodist.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
California Special Election & Budget--Shut it Down!
My first “real” job was with the State of North Dakota as a community development specialist. One of the things I loved about it was how intimate the government was.
The state had a “bi-ennial” budget and the legislature met for 100 days every 2 years. True citizen law-makers. The standing joke in government circles was that the state constitutional provision calling for a 100 day session every 2 years was really a misprint. The punchline was it was supposed to read a 2 day session every 100 years.
But, there was a true emphasis on governance. Not government. We had one of those. The issue is how government will govern—governance. As a state employee (and I had more than a little to do with putting together my department’s budget) we were engrained with a keen awareness that we were spending “the people’s money” and there was an expectation that we would spend it as frugally and efficiently as possible on behalf of the taxpayer.
Anyway I have lived in California for the last 11 years. In that time I have witnessed one budget debacle after another crowned by the recall of a sitting governor because of his inability to achieve a consensus to resolve budget conflict.
It’s May, 2009. The state’s economy and budget are both in tatters. The current state budget was “balanced” (as is required by the state’s constitution) using smoke and mirrors. Now we are coming up on a special election later this month to make it official and to extend some of the “band-aid” fixes so that the precarious house of cards might be able to teeter like the world’s biggest game of Jenga for a little longer.
But like all games of Jenga, the pieces will eventually tumble to a pile. That’s guaranteed. That’s how the winner is determined in Jenga. But for the people of the State of California, that will be the symbol that we’ve all just lost.
I have tried to make sense of the 6 proposed measures on which we are being asked to vote May 19. Basically, the way I read them is that they are gobbledegook, smoke and mirrors and short term solutions with long-term financial repercussions. About the closest I can come to an analogy is that they’re like trading off a car on which thousands are still owed and taking a loan for a new car where you are paying off both the new car and the old car you just got rid of. A lot of people have done that and have found out that they just dug themselves a big hole.
Public radio had a story yesterday that suggested that the reason many voters are undecided are that many people are waiting for their favorite organization to come out with a position, or that they’re waiting for their least favorite organization to come out with a position and will vote the opposite way. Why is it that it seems as though the “organizations” who make endorsement tend to be organizations who have the most to gain or lose financially (i.e. public employee unions)?
All this is being done to balance a budget. Little or no thought has been given to governance. There is an increasing call for a constitutional convention to address some of these issues. Some are saying solve this current crisis and then address some of the issues via a “con-con”. Nope.
Let’s do this. Defeat all the measures on the ballot. Shut down everything but essential services (and don’t let unions try to define what is essential and what isn’t). Turn them down and then shut it down. Shut it down until the politicians come up with a solution which isn’t couched in platitudes, legerdemain and electoral blackmail.
Shut it down. Look at the governance of the State of California from top to bottom and come up with some solutions. There have to be some people of good intentions out there, people who have no axes to grind, who can and will look into how we presently govern and how we ought to govern.
It couldn’t hurt. Not any worse than it already does.
The state had a “bi-ennial” budget and the legislature met for 100 days every 2 years. True citizen law-makers. The standing joke in government circles was that the state constitutional provision calling for a 100 day session every 2 years was really a misprint. The punchline was it was supposed to read a 2 day session every 100 years.
But, there was a true emphasis on governance. Not government. We had one of those. The issue is how government will govern—governance. As a state employee (and I had more than a little to do with putting together my department’s budget) we were engrained with a keen awareness that we were spending “the people’s money” and there was an expectation that we would spend it as frugally and efficiently as possible on behalf of the taxpayer.
Anyway I have lived in California for the last 11 years. In that time I have witnessed one budget debacle after another crowned by the recall of a sitting governor because of his inability to achieve a consensus to resolve budget conflict.
It’s May, 2009. The state’s economy and budget are both in tatters. The current state budget was “balanced” (as is required by the state’s constitution) using smoke and mirrors. Now we are coming up on a special election later this month to make it official and to extend some of the “band-aid” fixes so that the precarious house of cards might be able to teeter like the world’s biggest game of Jenga for a little longer.
But like all games of Jenga, the pieces will eventually tumble to a pile. That’s guaranteed. That’s how the winner is determined in Jenga. But for the people of the State of California, that will be the symbol that we’ve all just lost.
I have tried to make sense of the 6 proposed measures on which we are being asked to vote May 19. Basically, the way I read them is that they are gobbledegook, smoke and mirrors and short term solutions with long-term financial repercussions. About the closest I can come to an analogy is that they’re like trading off a car on which thousands are still owed and taking a loan for a new car where you are paying off both the new car and the old car you just got rid of. A lot of people have done that and have found out that they just dug themselves a big hole.
Public radio had a story yesterday that suggested that the reason many voters are undecided are that many people are waiting for their favorite organization to come out with a position, or that they’re waiting for their least favorite organization to come out with a position and will vote the opposite way. Why is it that it seems as though the “organizations” who make endorsement tend to be organizations who have the most to gain or lose financially (i.e. public employee unions)?
All this is being done to balance a budget. Little or no thought has been given to governance. There is an increasing call for a constitutional convention to address some of these issues. Some are saying solve this current crisis and then address some of the issues via a “con-con”. Nope.
Let’s do this. Defeat all the measures on the ballot. Shut down everything but essential services (and don’t let unions try to define what is essential and what isn’t). Turn them down and then shut it down. Shut it down until the politicians come up with a solution which isn’t couched in platitudes, legerdemain and electoral blackmail.
Shut it down. Look at the governance of the State of California from top to bottom and come up with some solutions. There have to be some people of good intentions out there, people who have no axes to grind, who can and will look into how we presently govern and how we ought to govern.
It couldn’t hurt. Not any worse than it already does.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Al Lindner as Curly
“One thing,” Curly (Jack Palance) rasped out to Mitch holding up his index finger. “That’s the secret of life.”
And, of course Mitch (Billy Crystal), like the clueless “city slicker” that he was asked, “What’s the one thing?”
“You’ll know,” was Curly’s reply.
I’ve always liked that piece of dialogue in “City Slickers”. Because, no matter how trite it may have actually been, it’s pretty much true. It doesn’t take someone else to tell us what the “one thing” is but it may take a while to reveal itself to us. Especially when we finally figure out that it’s not money or property or anything else that fits the category of “stuff”. It’s usually our family or just a sense of inner peace and contentment which can come from any number of sources—but pretty much never from stuff.
While I’m at it, maybe I should remind you of another pretty good line from another not really good movie. This one’s from 1977 in “Oh God”. During the trial to “prove” whether or not George Burns was God, he was asked by the smarmy evangelist, “Does God answer all prayers?” To which George Burns/God responded, “Yes, but sometimes the answer is No.” And that’s pretty much true too, isn’t it? Too many of us ask God for stuff. You ask Santa Claus for stuff, not God.
So, that brings me to Al Lindner. For the uninitiated, Al’s a fishing guy. He started out in the 70’s in Brainerd, Minnesota with In-Fisherman. He brought science and technique to fishing magazines and television (as opposed to the old “whooooooo boy, lookit that hog bass” type of fishing show). And, he also managed to bring a lot greater entertainment factor to fishing because of it. His first passion was walleye but over the years that passion has expanded to a number of other fresh-water species.
His new venture is called “Angling Edge” and it’s a TV fishing show on Versus (what used to be Outdoor Life Network). Al has always been a bearded, straight forward kind of guy who still carries an accent from his earlier years in northern Wisconsin—although the “dis” and “dat” and “dese” and “dose” in his speech aren’t as noticeable anymore.
Bear with me folks; I’m getting to my point here.
Al Lindner is an unabashed Christian. Evangelical even. But he doesn’t beat you up about it—never has. One of things I really like about watching his new show though is the last few minutes of each episode. These 2 or 3 minutes feature Al talking just a bit about his faith in an unassuming, sharing kind of way—just the right tone, quite frankly, to get me to listen to his brief message.
So the connection to Curly and Mitch and the “one thing” is this: Today Al said that each night when he goes to bed he spends a few minutes thanking God for “just one thing”. Just one good thing from today. Some days, he said, it’s hard to identify that one thing and other days it’s hard to narrow it down to one. But he always manages to do it.
And you know, I liked that. I think I’m going to try to start doing that each night when I crawl into bed next to my wife. Give thanks for just one thing each and every day.
Long ago, I started, and try to make a habit, of each and every morning before I get up of offering a short prayer for “just one thing”—although it’s always the same thing—and that’s help and guidance to get through today. That’s it. Just one thing.
But, maybe giving thanks each night for “just one thing” is one of the best things we can do too.
And, of course Mitch (Billy Crystal), like the clueless “city slicker” that he was asked, “What’s the one thing?”
“You’ll know,” was Curly’s reply.
I’ve always liked that piece of dialogue in “City Slickers”. Because, no matter how trite it may have actually been, it’s pretty much true. It doesn’t take someone else to tell us what the “one thing” is but it may take a while to reveal itself to us. Especially when we finally figure out that it’s not money or property or anything else that fits the category of “stuff”. It’s usually our family or just a sense of inner peace and contentment which can come from any number of sources—but pretty much never from stuff.
While I’m at it, maybe I should remind you of another pretty good line from another not really good movie. This one’s from 1977 in “Oh God”. During the trial to “prove” whether or not George Burns was God, he was asked by the smarmy evangelist, “Does God answer all prayers?” To which George Burns/God responded, “Yes, but sometimes the answer is No.” And that’s pretty much true too, isn’t it? Too many of us ask God for stuff. You ask Santa Claus for stuff, not God.
So, that brings me to Al Lindner. For the uninitiated, Al’s a fishing guy. He started out in the 70’s in Brainerd, Minnesota with In-Fisherman. He brought science and technique to fishing magazines and television (as opposed to the old “whooooooo boy, lookit that hog bass” type of fishing show). And, he also managed to bring a lot greater entertainment factor to fishing because of it. His first passion was walleye but over the years that passion has expanded to a number of other fresh-water species.
His new venture is called “Angling Edge” and it’s a TV fishing show on Versus (what used to be Outdoor Life Network). Al has always been a bearded, straight forward kind of guy who still carries an accent from his earlier years in northern Wisconsin—although the “dis” and “dat” and “dese” and “dose” in his speech aren’t as noticeable anymore.
Bear with me folks; I’m getting to my point here.
Al Lindner is an unabashed Christian. Evangelical even. But he doesn’t beat you up about it—never has. One of things I really like about watching his new show though is the last few minutes of each episode. These 2 or 3 minutes feature Al talking just a bit about his faith in an unassuming, sharing kind of way—just the right tone, quite frankly, to get me to listen to his brief message.
So the connection to Curly and Mitch and the “one thing” is this: Today Al said that each night when he goes to bed he spends a few minutes thanking God for “just one thing”. Just one good thing from today. Some days, he said, it’s hard to identify that one thing and other days it’s hard to narrow it down to one. But he always manages to do it.
And you know, I liked that. I think I’m going to try to start doing that each night when I crawl into bed next to my wife. Give thanks for just one thing each and every day.
Long ago, I started, and try to make a habit, of each and every morning before I get up of offering a short prayer for “just one thing”—although it’s always the same thing—and that’s help and guidance to get through today. That’s it. Just one thing.
But, maybe giving thanks each night for “just one thing” is one of the best things we can do too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)