Political stunts

Republicans may filabuster but Democrats flee the state.

Illinois - Genius with a "J"

So our governor, realizing that state needs to reduce its spending, and not wanting to go after any entitlements or anything like that, seems to have proposed the following cuts to education:

1) We must consolidate school districts because we have too many and having fewer will reduce costs. This will mean closing schools, of course.

2) We will cut funding to the districts for their transportation budgets. They will have to pay for that themselves.

MY ISSUE: Having grown up rural, I know that if you close schools, you will necessarily force MORE and LONGER bus routes to get the kids to schools. Thus, consolidating school districts means you will see your bus costs go up, and buses already are a huge MANDATORY expense for rural districts. This strikes me as an unfunded mandate or at least an increased mandate coupled with decreased funding. Double wammie. The school districts will have to cut program and teaching to accommodate these new costs; that or ask for tax levies.

Democratic assumptions

With all the protests in Egypt right now and the talk of democracy, I feel obliged to point out a couple of things:

We ASSUME that a democracy will provide fair, just, human right conscious government. We assume it is better than an autocracy. We assume that democracies are more friendly to the Western democracies than other governments. This is not necessarily so. A democracy with no protection for the minorities can be a terrible thing. A democracy in a place that is majority anti-West is not in our interest.

Sarah Palin

It's two years since we elected Obama and I'm still reading headlines about Sarah Palin.

Query: Why is Sarah Palin even relevant to anything anymore? She was the governor of Alaska and basically a political nobody when McCain (McCane?) picked her as his VP candidate. (My opinions on that are documents elsewhere in this blog, I believe.) Together, they went down in one of the worst Republican presidential defeats in recent memory. As a political commentator, she says nothing new, unique, or even particularly insightful. Indeed, as far as I can tell, all she has done is make periodic statements and endorse various candidates. In Alaska, where they know her best, the candidate she endorsed lost to a WRITE-IN. In two other states, Nevada and Delaware, she and the Tea Party cost their party the elections and probably control of the Senate. Who the hell cares what she thinks, says, or does? Why is she even relevant to any political discussion in America?

My own stupidity...

Just to prove I'm an equal opportunity critic, here's a bit of my own stupidity. Sometime you just don't realize how bad you sound until you read it in print.

Q (by me): Were you aware that XXXX and her husband were having marital problems?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that after he died?

A: Yes.

This just in....

Basic Civil Liberties Threaten People's Security. Details at 11. (This parody of an actual insipid headline brought to you by Common Sense.)