If At First You Don't Succeed, etc.

You may recall that last Sunday didn't turn out quite as we'd planned: a trip over to a local dance studio for about $12 worth of rented floor space for practice ended up costing us over $200 when the studio was closed and we ended up diverted to a shopping expedition instead.

Well...

A week has gone by, and the plan for today is - go over to Lioudmila's and rent floor space to practice. I'm a little concerned, given how last Sunday turned out, but Agnes has arranged for one of her students who works there to meet us and let us in if none of the full-time staff is available. We'll see. At least, if we get locked out again, we have our Costco Annual 2% Reward Certificate (a whopping $298 this year, woo-hoo!!) that we can spend instead of gouging at my poor battered, bleeding checkbook again.

On other fronts, one of my Christmas gifts was a spiffy turntable that connects directly to my computer to allow me to get working on digitizing the roughly ten linear feet of old LPs that I've been storing for years. Agnes is particularly anxious for me to digitize all the old German children's records that she bought for Minnie many years ago, so that we can turn them into CDs for Leya so she can start learning German early. I got the turntable assembled and hooked up and it seems to work fine, but the capture software (a program called "Audacity") that came with it is for the birds. On my agenda for today is to see if I can make it work with the "Toast" program I bought some time ago. Back when I had my old PC, I had a great program called Sound Forge that was the gold standard for digital audio...sadly, like so much of my other software, it won't run on the Mac. Anybody have any other suggestions for good digital audio capture and processing software for the Mac?

AARRGGHH!!

Yesterday's post about words and phrases that ought to be banished elicited a comment from reader Mike, who blogs at Billions of Versions of Normal, and who posted this cartoon about one of them: "X is the new Y" ...

Thanks, Mike!

Final thought for today: Writer Gore Vidal once said, "These presidential ninnies should stick to throwing out baseballs and leave the important matters to serious people."

Anyone know any serious people?

Have a good day. Stay warm (it's colder than a divorce lawyer's heart this morning). More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Banished Words

Not long ago I ran across an article that mentioned a list of "banished words." Oh, boy, I thought to myself ... here's another example of overzealous political correctness run rampant. But imagine my surprise when I visited the website of Lake Superior State University and found that the list was, in fact, a clever and much-welcomed list of words and phrases that, because of overuse, stupidity, or just plain silliness, deserve to be banished from our collective vocabularies.

The list is fairly comprehensive and entertaining. Here are a few samples, followed by some of the comments on the website, and my own observations:

Organic: "overused and misused to describe not only food, but computer products or human behavior..."; "another advertising gimmick to make things sound better than they really are...". I think this sounds particularly stupid when we say that something is "organic to" something else. Can something be "inorganic to" something else?

Author/Authored: "...would (it) be correct to say that someone 'paintered' a picture?" I wonder also if the guy who has "mechaniced" my car three times in the last month has finally fixed the ignition problem that has several times left me stranded at the side of the road.

Sweet: "It is annoying when young children use it and have no idea why, but it really sounds stupid coming from the mouths of adults." A supremely annoying term, the successor to inane comments like "cool," "rad," and "awesome" to describe something deemed especially good. This one is a personal un-favorite of mine ... it sounds particularly stupid when uttered in Pentagon meetings by officers who supposedly have college degrees.

Decimate: a word from the Latin which described a Roman punishment in which one-tenth of a number of people were selected to be killed. Now "...the word is so overused and misused, people use it when they should be saying 'annihilate.'" And no, it doesn't refer to Lucille Ball. If that reference confuses you, I'm older than I thought...

And ...

It Is What It Is: "This pointless phrase ... accomplishes the dual feat of adding nothing to the conversation while also being phonetically and thematically redundant." Good point. I supposed I'd have to worry if something is what it ... isn't.

What are your suggestions for words and expressions to be banished? One I would add to the list is at the end of the day, meaning "once everything is finally over." What if it's over in the morning? Do we have to wait the rest of the day for real closure?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Have a good day and a pleasant weekend. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Let's Watch Bilbo Get Hysterical

Being the opinionated and intellectually pugnacious fellow I am, I frequently get into extended political arguments by e-mail with many of my friends. One in particular, Bill, has learned over the years which buttons to push to send me off on a screaming high parabola of outrage ... he often sends me articles he knows will spin me up, then sits back to watch the mushroom cloud rise from my keyboard.

This happened yesterday, when Bill sent me a link to an article by Larry Elder in the Jewish World Review titled "What Republicans Believe, What Democrats Believe." This article, which Bill described simply as "simplified but insightful," epitomizes for me everything that is wrong with the poisonous political rhetoric that passes for rational thought and debate nowadays.

Take a moment to read Mr Elder's article, then read my e-mail back to Bill, reproduced below. NOTE: in the interest of fair disclosure, you will probably recognize some of my rhetoric from earlier blog posts. I can recycle arguments with the best of them. Here we go:

"My bottom line comment on the linked article: simplified, yes; insightful, no.

"As with so much of what nowadays passes for political discussion in this country, this article is a hodgepodge of exaggeration, minimization, and outright balderdash. I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal, neither Republican nor Democrat, and from that perspective, I think this article grossly overstates Republican virtues while minimizing Democratic ones by limiting discussion to the positions of the most radical wing of the party.

"I have developed a lot of these themes in my blog over the past month or so. Here are just a few specific comments:

"'Republicans believe ... that a government that taxes least taxes best.' Nobody likes paying taxes. But, amazingly enough, the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes to pay the legitimate expenses of the government. You and I have to go to work to earn money to pay our bills. The government gets the money to pay its bills in three ways: levying taxes, assessing fees for services, and borrowing money. Each time taxes are reduced, one of two things has to happen: spending has to go down, or the money has to be found in one of the other two places. Neither party has done a very good job of reducing spending, although they have radically different views of what should be reduced if they had the guts to do it. Rather than cutting spending (which always irritates some part of the electorate) or assessing fees for government services (wait till you get your Defense Bill in the mail), the government opts for the secret way: borrowing the money. This levies a huge interest bill down the road AND reduces the amount of money available for Real People to borrow for things like homes, cars, and college educations. I long for the day when some wild-eyed, tax-bashing Republican admits that there is a reason we have to pay taxes ... and then clearly and specifically lays out a plan that tells exactly where the money lost in the tax cuts will be made up.

"'Republicans consider the Constitution a contract, limiting the duties, powers and obligations of the federal government.' Mr Bush seems to take a somewhat different view, especially as it concerns the powers he believes are implicitly granted to him as Commander in Chief. He obviously has one of the copies of the Constitution that inadvertently omitted the Bill of Rights (except for the sacred and untouchable Second Amendment...see below).

"'Republicans believe in the Second Amendment ... the Founding Fathers wanted this right to protect against tyranny by government. Democrats consider the Second Amendment an impediment to public safety.' Has it occurred to anyone that both sides have a legitimate argument here? While I believe that the "protection from tyranny by government" argument is hyperbolically overblown in most cases, I also believe that I am in far more danger every day from gun-toting criminals than I am from the Feds. I long for the day someone will take both sides of this argument and lock them in a room without food or water until they start acting and thinking like responsible adults.

"Republicans believe in peace through strength ... Democrats believe in strength ... through demonstrating our good intentions." Once again, this is a stupid and illogical argument. No responsible person argues that we don't need a strong military. However, no responsible person would argue that we should exhaust all possible avenues of resolving disputes before lobbing bombs. Every so often there comes a Hitler who just needs killing. But military force should always be the last tool drawn from the box. Even Mr Gates has said as much.

"I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. Nobody is golden in this debate. Republicans are arrogant, opinionated, simplistic, and self-righteous; Democrats are whiny, opinionated, simplistic, and self-righteous. Both are acting unutterably stupid. The current Republican administration has done a wonderful job of ignoring the Constitution, ruining our image abroad, and wrecking the economy for those on whose backs it rests. If you're rich, this is a great time, and the Republicans are your best friends. If you're middle class or poor, hey, that's the breaks.

"The Constitution was written to "...form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty..." It applies to everyone. Everyone, regardless of political party, has a vote. It's time for some adult discussion of these issues.

"Which we won't find in an election year, and particularly with the crop of losers running on both sides.

"Okay, I'm calm now. You'll probably see some of this, and more, in my blog in the next few days."

If you read Mr Elder's article (and I hope you do), I think you'll agree with me ... unless, of course, you're one of those rock-ribbed, dyed-in-the-wool, bottled-in-bond, aged-in-wood, gold-plated, head-up-the-butt-all-the-way-to-the-esophagus political partisans who believes everyone who doesn't agree with him has horns and a tail and lives to demonize the opposition, rather than seeking rational discussion of the issues.

Bill hasn't responded to my diatribe yet. I'll let you know what he says.

New topic: the weather stinks.

Yesterday we had a typical Northern Virginia winter storm: rain, changing to snow, changing to freezing rain and sleet, then back to snow, then rain again, then sleet, then snow, then freezing rain, etc, etc. The ground this morning is a messy morass of dirty slush.

But at least it reminds me of the state of political discussion this year.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Bilbo's Ideal Presidential Candidate

I know you're probably tired of my hysterical ranting about the miserable cast of characters in the ongoing theatrical circus of our presidential primary season. If you've read this blog more than three or four times, you already know that:

1. I think George W. Bush has been an utterly disastrous president.

2. I think there's no one now running for president that's fit to hold the office. I respect John McCain, but don't think he'd make a good president...everyone else is a loser of the first rank.

As Sam Rayburn once said, "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one." Being no ordinary jackass, I guess I should stop griping about how bad all the candidates are and say what it is I'd be looking for in the next president. Here's what UPS would deliver if I were able to order a presidential candidate to my specifications:

1. Sex: either one. Doesn't matter. Whether you stand or sit when you go to the bathroom, or which side of the shirt your buttons are on, has no bearing on what kind of leader you are.

2. Race: black, white, brown, yellow, red, green. Doesn't matter. All brains are gray and hearts are reddish brown...it's what's in them that's important.

3. Vision: I want someone who has a clear idea of what America is and what her role in the world is. I want someone who knows that there are a lot of other countries out there we have to live with, and who understands that you can work with them (aggravating though it might be) and get them on our side, or lecture and hector them and turn them into enemies. I want someone who doesn't just make empty promises, but has the vision of how to turn them into programs that produce results.

4. Religion: I don't care how hard you thump your bible, whether you've memorized the Koran, or can parse the most arcane Talmudic arguments. You and God will eventually sort it all out. I want to know whether you are a moral and ethical person, no matter where you worship (or even if you don't).

5. Good Looks: let's face it - we're naturally attracted to attractive people. I want someone who looks presidential. Someone who can project the air of gravitas and solid respectability that makes me instinctively trust him (or her).

6. Well-traveled: Someone who has never been outside the United States has no conception of how the rest of the world lives and thinks. My ideal candidate has traveled widely and, preferably, lived in a foreign country for a few years.

7. Military Experience: The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. No one ever wants to go to war, but if it has to happen, I'd feel a lot better knowing that the Commander in Chief had some practical experience serving in the military he's supposed to lead.

8. Good Communication Skills: I want a President who sounds presidential. The President wrestles with some of the most difficult and intractable problems on earth, and has to make decisions that affect all of us (and most of the rest of the world). He (or she) absolutely must be able, clearly and concisely, to explain policies and actions to the American people and to the world. We need someone who doesn't speak down to inferiors...we need someone who speaks the truth and inspires us to action.

9. Economic Savvy: no one except an economist understands economics, and every economist disagrees with every other economist most of the time. We need a person who understands that you can't spend more than you earn, and that if you are going to tax your people, you need to spend the money thus earned wisely. "Tax Cuts" is not a complete economic policy.

And finally (for the moment),

10. Humility: when you're the President, isolated within the security and information bubble of the office, it's easy to think that you're God's gift to the nation. You aren't. You're just the man (or woman) who managed to convince enough Americans to vote for you. We haven't had a King since 1776, so don't think like one.

David Broder wrote a good op-ed piece in the Washington Post last month titled "What Presidents Must Know." I hope everyone running for the office, and everyone voting for them, reads it.

Our next President will take office in an extraordinarily difficult time. When he (or she) sits down in that nice chair in the Oval Office for the first time, all the problems of the world will land on the Big Desk with a wet, heavy splat. At that moment, all the sound bites and attack ads and campaign BS no longer mean a thing. At that moment, we have to have a transition from politician to President.

I hope we can find someone to vote for who is worthy of the title, who has at least some of the qualifications I listed above.

But, sadly, I'm not holding my breath.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Card Games

People enjoy playing cards with me because I'm such a lousy player. I can't remember which cards have been played, I have a hard time remembering whether a flush beats a straight, or what a trump is other than a rich, obnoxious blowhard with bad hair. I had to learn to play pinochle to be accepted into my first wife's family, but was never any good at it, and Agnes's father enjoys skat, but it never made any sense to me.

Let's face it...I'm just not cut out to be a card player.

Neither, it seems, are Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, because the news the last few days has been full of the long-expected, long-dreaded playing of the race card and the gender card in the presidential campaign.

Race, of course, is the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the corner of any issue which remotely involves individuals of differing racial backgrounds. Blacks never forget it, whites try to ignore it, and no one ever really wants to bring it up, because it immediately prevents rational discussion of whatever issue it touches: it leads to unfortunate assumptions like "he's just saying/doing/getting this because he's black/white," or "I didn't get that job because the guy doing the hiring hates blacks," or "He only got that job instead of me because he's black."

The ugly background of racial relations in the United States has made it all but impossible to rationally address many issues, and it colors every issue it touches, however remote the connection may be. Every problem is deemed to have, at the bottom, some racial cause or aspect.

But is the issue always race? Sometimes the black guy doesn't get the job because he isn't the best-qualified candidate. Sometimes the black guy goes to jail because he's actually guilty of a crime...but, of course, it's manifestly unjust if he gets a stiffer sentence than a white convicted of the same offense.

There are black people I don't like, just as there are white people and Asian people I don't like. If you're a horse's ass, you can be a horse's ass no matter what color you are. I've always maintained that one of the great advantages of a military career is that it is as close as we come in America to a true meritocracy: you are more likely to be promoted to your level of ability in the armed services than in almost any other part of American society. The military is probably the only place where blacks routinely supervise large numbers of whites, and nobody thinks anything of it. When your life may ultimately be on the line because of decisions made by your superiors, you tend to think more of their skill, character, and integrity than about their color, gender, or religion. It's a great place to learn what people are really like, apart from the spurious rhetoric of race and gender.

It will be a long time before race relations in this country improve to the point that the 800 pound gorilla finally leaves the room, and people stop playing the race card. As long as racism remains a convenient, all-purpose excuse for the things we don't like...as long as we can't relate to each other as people rather than black/white/male/female/gay people, the gorilla will stick around. We've come a long way toward fixing race relations in America, much farther than we're usually given credit for. But there's still a long way to go, and the effort has to be made on both sides, black and white.

For now, as we work through the agony of selecting the next president, we need to ask the real questions: are Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, regardless of race and gender, the best people the Democratic Party can put forward to lead America into the future?

My personal opinion is that neither of them is qualified to be president. Both Mr Obama and Ms Clinton lack executive experience and seasoning, and both take overly simplistic views of complex issues. Of course, I don't like any of the other Democratic (or any of the Republican) candidates, either. I'm really ready to vote for none of the above.

No matter what color or gender he or she is.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Really Bad Movies

One of the blogs I read every day is Miss Cellania, whose collection of really funny stuff always manages to get me in the right frame of mind to face the inanities of another day of bad news and general ass-clownery.

Today, Miss Cellania's theme was "Making Movies," and one of the links in her post was to the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" - the hundred stinkers rated absolutely at the bottom of the bottom on the basis of votes cast by IMDB readers. Naturally, I had to read the list to see how many movies I hate (or like) were there...I expected to see quite a few, since I really enjoy schlocky old sci-fi and horror movies, and many films I like seem to be despised by critics and real people alike.

I enjoyed reading the list although, oddly enough, there were very few movies on it that I'd actually seen.

One of the movies (at position 80, with a rating of 2.4 and 1,646 votes) was the immortal "Howling III: Your Sister Is a Werewolf." Aside from the worst performance ever delivered by Christopher Lee, and the featured role (and frequent baring) of Sibyl Danning's splendid breasts, this is a bomb of the highest yield. Heroine Annie McEnroe probably wishes the werewolves had just killed her when she was hanging in their dungeon, rather than letting her live to regret starring in this abysmal waste of film.

Conspicuous by its absence was the Mexican classic "Wrestling Women Versus the Aztec Mummy." Nobody makes stupid and unintelligible, yet atmospheric horror movies like the Mexicans, and this one stands at the pinnacle of utter ludicrosity. Badly written, terribly photographed, and howlingly ineptly dubbed, this is a movie that can even make you forget the latest presidential candidates' debate.

I could go on, but then I'd just want to stay home and watch movies. Maybe we'll soon have a snowstorm that will force me to stay in, sit in my chair in front of the fire with a cup of hot chocolate, and watch movies until my eyeballs liquefy.

One can only hope.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

P.S. - From the Department of Stupid International Political Stuff comes a report from Venezuela that President Hugo Chavez has cut off asphalt shipments to the rest of the world. If you were waiting for me to make any jokes which included "Hugo Chavez" and "asphalt" in the same sentence, I'm sorry. That fruit just hangs too low even for me to pluck.

B.

The Best-Laid Plans...

There's a famously misquoted line in Robert Burns' poem "To a Mouse" that reads, "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a' gley." If you translate that from the Scots dialect into modern English, it reads, "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry."

Mr Burns was watching over me yesterday.

We were up early, for a Sunday, and had planned to go to a local dance studio with a nice, big floor and rent space for an hour or so to practice some of our routines that require more space than our own studio has. This particular studio (Lioudmila's) charges non-students $12 per hour to rent space during off-periods, so we figured that was a good investment of our time and money.

At this point, Mr Burns was joined by Mr Murphy.

We arrived at Lioudmila's at 10:50, laden down with our shoes, notes, CDs, video camera, and my crying towel ... only to find the place locked up tight as a fanatic's mind. AARRGGHH!! We'd assumed that the studio would be open, as there had been several people there at this time the previous Sunday, but yesterday was obviously different.

Without knowing when anyone with keys might show up, we decided to go home so that Agnes could sew and I could finish taking down all the Christmas decorations. Well ...

Agnes wanted to stop at the Bed, Bath, and Beyond store en route to pick up a few kitchen odds and ends, so I duly detoured there. She didn't find what she wanted, and so decided we might as well go to the big Pentagon City shopping center, which has two large, high-end kitchen stores. But first, she wanted to stop at the Barnes and Noble Bookstore next to Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Cost of visiting Barnes and Noble: about $38.00.

Up to Pentagon City. By now, it's lunchtime. Lunch at Chevy's Mexican Restaurant: about $37.00, including tip.

Stop at the Sur la Table kitchen store for the things not found at Bed, Bath, and Beyond (and other neat stuff): about $80.00.

Stop at the Harris Teeter supermarket for dinner fixings: about $35.00.

Stop at the Apple Store for a headphone splitter so we can use our iPods to play dance music without using the sound system at strange studios: $20.00 (including tax and my military discount).

Then home. Grand total of our originally-planned $12.00 excursion to Lioudmila's: about $210.00.

Next Sunday, I'm not getting out of bed.

Gotta go. I need to go back to work to fiscally recover from yesterday. Sigh.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Common Sense and Taxes

Yesterday I saw something amazing: a letter to the editor of the Washington Post that actually nibbled at the edges of reality in the discussion of taxes. In this letter, a local gentleman commented on an earlier op-ed piece in the Post, closing with this memorable sentence: "The fact is that we live in a country with low taxes, and politicians should let it be known that if we want to keep it that way, we will have to forget about our children's future."

I want to buy that man a drink.

As you know if you've been reading this blog for any length of time, I consider myself to be a tax realist. I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else does, but I realize one important fact: taxes provide the money on which the government runs. Contrary to what the most wild-eyed anti-tax crusaders would have you believe, the Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from levying taxes on us. The Founders knew that it takes money to run a government, and that's why Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..." The Founders were not opposed to taxation...they were opposed to taxation without representation, to taxes levied by a king many thousands of miles away who was not required to answer to his subjects for how the money thus raised was spent. That's why the Constitution grants the power of taxation to the Congress, whose members are, in theory, closer to the people they represent, and not to the President.

Everyone hates taxes, but everyone loves the services the government provides. The government needs money to operate, just as you and I need money to run our families. We earn our operating funds by holding down jobs. The government, at every level, raises operating funds in three ways: taxes, fees for services, and borrowing on its credit. No one likes paying taxes, but no one likes paying fees for government services, either (would you want the fire department to wait until you wrote the check for their visit to start saving your burning house?). If the government borrows money to meet its obligations, the money it borrows is no longer available for you and I to borrow to buy houses, cars, college educations, etc. And the principal and interest on the borrowed money becomes a millstone around the necks of our children and grandchildren.

So, how about a little reality in the political hyperbole, eh? Instead of candidates rushing to promise that they'll cut our taxes, why not have them show a little fiscal responsibility and understanding of the basic economics of government by admitting a few things:

1. Taxes are a necessary evil, they provide the money the federal government needs to operate, and the authority to levy them is clearly assigned to Congress in the Constitution.

2. Taxes ought to be fair. The definition of "fair" is key, here. For instance, I think it's fair that I pay taxes on my income, but I don't think it's fair that there are wealthy individuals (and major corporations with profits in the tens of millions) that pay little or no taxes because they're able to manipulate the tax system in ways we lesser beings can't.

3. The government has an obligation to the citizens to wisely spend the money it takes from us in taxes. I have a few suggestions:

a. Immediately cut off foreign aid to nations that can't show the money is being spent for the intended purposes.

b. Immediately stop the odious practice by members of Congress of "earmarking" money to be spent on projects in their home districts. There is no defensible reason why I, as a Virginia taxpayer, should see my federal taxes being spent on a railroad museum in Pennsylvania or a local bridge in Alaska. Things at the state and local level should be paid for with money raised by state and local taxes.

c. Spend our federal taxes on things that will benefit all Americans (that's the "common defense and general welfare" thing that the Constitution talks about). There's no reason why we can't have good health care, good basic education for every citizen, a clean environment, and safe, secure borders...unless it's because we're spending the money to build those railroad museums in Pennsylvania and bridges in Alaska, and to prop up corrupt governments overseas.

Okay, that's enough ranting. I'm sure that people with degrees in economics and highly-paid positions in liberal and conservative think tanks can shoot my thoughts full of holes, and convincingly explain to you why all the things that appear to be patently stupid are really unarguable truths of the world of high finance.

But what do I know? I'm just a guy trying to live my life according to economic rules that don't seem to apply to the government that wants me to pay its bills.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Legislating Common Sense

One of the things that really grinds my gears is the tendency of legislatures to put off the really important things (health care reform, tax reform, immigration reform, etc) in favor of some unutterably stupid things that ought to fall under the heading of common sense. Of course, what we used to call common sense isn't so common any more...which breeds opportunities for useless legislators to generate useless legislation.

The most recent example comes from my own Commonwealth of Virginia. A headline in the Metro section of today's Washington Post reads, "Virginia Considers Ban on Driving While Texting."

Oh, for Pete's sake, can we get real, here?

The last time I looked, using a telephone or Blackberry to send or read text messages requires the use of both hands. If both hands are on the device, how is the car being steered? How stupid do you have to be to zip down the highway at speed, using both hands and devoting your attention to working your Blackberry, instead of watching the traffic around you?

I've often griped that you can't legislate common sense. If people are going to be stupid, they're going to be stupid even if Section Blah-de-Blah of the city/state/federal code makes it illegal to do so. The mental giants who tried to cash the dead man's check with the dead man riding along in an office chair weren't distracted by things like laws against check fraud. And people who thunder that laws requiring them to wear helmets while riding motorcycles are an infringement of their rights probably wouldn't incur noticeable brain damage in an accident.

The annual death toll from avoidable highway accidents in this country is appalling and getting worse. Not a week goes by that I don't nearly get run down crossing an intersection by some driver more interested in his cell phone conversation than in the action of driving. It's already illegal in Virginia for people under 18 to talk, send text messages, or take pictures with a cell phone while driving (but only if they've already been stopped for some other infraction)...but simple observation shows that it hasn't made much difference in stupid behavior.

Okay, this is a rant, and I apologize. Sort of. Really stupid things really irritate me, and outrages against simple common sense are the worst of all. I long for the day that well-meaning but foolish legislators stop wasting time trying to legislate against stupidity and start taking on the real problems of the nation.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Really Big Numbers

Yesterday one of my friends forwarded me an e-mail that I found very interesting, although I was (as usual) very skeptical of its content. It dealt with making the really huge numbers of the federal budget understandable, and I quote it here:

START QUOTE

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the politicians spending YOUR tax money. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases:

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division:

Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean?

A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.

B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.

C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.

END QUOTE

As you can probably tell, this message was written by someone who is pretty seriously down on politicians...especially Democratic ones, as evidenced by the shot across Mary Landrieu's bow. But here's the question: is this true and accurate?

I consulted one of my favorite websites, Snopes.com, the Urban Legends Reference Page. Snopes dates this e-mail to 2003, when they first collected it, and notes that the math, as far as it goes in its interpretation of billion, is relatively accurate. Of course, the original calculations being from 2003, things are now (five years later) a bit off, but that's to be expected...what I found interesting was that the figures were accurate at all. I thought this was just a typical mindless political screed. Even the part about the $250 billion for New Orleans was mathematically fairly accurate, even if the charge levied against Landrieu wasn't...she didn't ask for the whole $250B for New Orleans, but related it to the population of New Orleans to demonstrate the size of the amount being requested for the post-Katrina reconstruction of the Gulf Coast.

So, what's the point here? First, that while many of the e-mail screeds that clog your inbox are stupid and wrong, some can have a kernel of truth and provide good food for thought. Second, that you should always check out things like this for yourself before believing them. Never let anyone do your thinking for you. Snopes.com is a great reference for these sorts of things.

But let's not let the politicians completely off the hook...after all, it was Senator Everett Dirksen who once famously said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

And, oh, by the way, that money is yours, courtesy of the taxes you pay.

So you might want to watch how your government is spending it.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo