the faux outrage over Don Imus' comments on the radio about "nappy-headed hos". Give me a break! He said it a few days ago and the Today show spent about 45 minutes on it this morning. MY GOD IN HEAVEN, what have we come to??????

The press, Race Pimps Al Sharpton and Jess Jackson, and a host of others are condemning this guy over a stupid 3 word of-the-cuff comment while trying to be funny talking about inter-generational female basketball players - i.e. he can't relate.

People want him fired. Well, that's between he and his boss and given that his stock just went up as about 20 million people who never heard of the geezer are now interested, it's probably not gonna happen. Just in case everyone forgot, he's a radio personality trying to be funny. If you don't like him, don't listen. I bet it took a couple of days just to get back to the team - you know they aren't listening to the guy. Hell, Rutgers got more publicity out of the stupid Imus incident than the whole women's ncaa tournament. Who even knew they were in the finals - who even cares? They should pay him, not ask for apologies.

Then there's this bull crap - oh this makes me mad - about how the "public" airwaves shouldn't be used for this kind of talk. Lauer brought it up and so have others.  Under the guise of needing a "manager" for the "limited" bandwidth, the gov't has basically stolen the airwaves away from the people for 1 and only 1 purpose: censorship.

And just when I had forgotten about it, I see another article. The TEAM speaks - oh spare me. Boo freakin hoo. Here's a quote:

Teammate Matee Ajavon said: "I could say that we honestly don't know what to expect from Don Imus and what we will plan on asking him is his reasons and how you could just say things that you have not put any thought to? Right now I can't really say if we have come to a conclusion of whether we will accept the apology. What I can say I think this meeting will be crucial for us, the state of New Jersey and everybody representing us."

So, Matee expects Don to fully script his live show every day? Perhaps no one should do a live show any more so that the participants can review their speech for anything potentially non-PC?

Crucial??? They must be in fact stupid to think any of this has any importance whatsoever. I'd be willing to bet that at least 1 and probably many of the following are true of Matee and her teammates - none of which, btw, I could give a crap about:

• referred to whites as crackers or whities or some other supposedly racist remark
• referred to friends, acquaintances and strangers as "hos" or "bitch" or "slut" or worse
• said some mean spirited things without first "putting any thought to it"
• listens to and enjoys music that refers to women as "sluts" and "hos" and uses racial epithets

I could go on, but this whole thing makes me puke. To think that our so called news media spends more time on things like celebrity rehab, anna nicole and faux race outrage than real news is a travesty.

On a more serious note, we live in a world where people in the public arena now have virtually every word they say in public recorded, presented on the internet to millions of willing readers who then pore over every syllable to try to find something they can use to create the next "OUTRAGE". Is this really how we want to live? I'm okay with the data being there, but the faux outrage is too much. The endless apologies for misinterpreted, off-the-cuff remarks. We are openly and fully judging people based on 3 words they said instead of the entirety of the person as if we have some moral authority to do so. It's sickening.

ok, I feel better - back to work!

Yes, Georgia is one of "those" states - one of about 19 - that still have laws ("blue laws") that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday. Mind you, it's okay to go to your favorite restaurant and drink a gallon of beer and then drive home, but it's somehow not okay to buy a six-pack of beer at a grocery store and bring it home.

But finally, some legislator has proposed a bill (SB137) which repeals that archaic law. It has a decent chance at being passed, but there are many who are against it including the Governor - Sonny Perdue - who threatens a veto.

What does Sonny have to say about the existing ban...

“Think of it this way…It really helps you plan ahead for the rest of your life — buying on Saturday, rather than Sunday. Time management.”

You have got to be kidding me?!?! This is what passes for legislative reasoning? So I decided to dredge up all of the comments I could find from various citizens as to why the law prohibiting Sunday sales should stay in effect. This is FUN stuff...

on the clear logic of restricting commerce:

"I do not see any reason to repeal the ban. There are already six days in the week to sell alcohol.  Why do we need a seventh? "

"Senator, the last thing we need is more beer being sold at gas station convenience stores. Please oppose this senseless proposal. "

"No to beer and wine. No to liquor. Exercise “personal responsibility” and buy your beer in advance."

"There are plenty of buying opportunties for responsible users.  We do not need to liberalize our alcohol laws.  Learn to plan ahead. "

"No one is suggesting that alcohol be prohibited, only regulated" [ed: huh?]

So, the clear message herein is that government can and should limit sales because, simply because we the consumer need to be able to manage our time better.

Then we have the safety facade:

"You ask why alcohol regulation is appropriate? Because alcohol is a dangerous intoxicant, that is why. Sheesh. "

"Senator, I urge you place the safety of your constituents ahead of the profits of the gas station convenience store industry."

So, it's just fine that this "dangerous intoxicant" can be sold 6 days a week, but making it partially off limits on Sunday makes it all better? Perhaps we could legalize marijuana on just Sundays and everyone would be happy? Just because a law might "save lives" doesn't make it a good law. If it did, then banning motor vehicles entirely or walking across the street or playing sports would all be just fine.

And of course the constitutionality of it all:

"read the Twenty First Amendment. It specifically prohibits alcohol unless allowed by the states. State restrictions on alcohol are contemplated by the Constitution and wholly appropriate. " [ed: I wouldn't call the 21st amendment 'contemplated' by the consitution being that the first mention of alcohol in it was the only amendment (18th) ever to be repealed 130 years after the constitution was originally ratified.]

"Firearms are constitutionally protected. Alcohol is not. In fact, as I have pointed out before, the Twenty First Amendment specifically authorizes the states to regulate alcohol.  The same cannot be said of firearms." [ed: really, the gov't can't regulate firearms? News to me.]

No one is arguing that banning Sunday sales is unconstitutional. Nor am I saying that the law is an infringement upon my rights per se. I am saying that there is little reasonable justification for such a law. And if you go by the justifications provided above and elsewhere, then there's little reason to expect government to constrain itself when it comes to doing things "for our own good."

And finally the extra cost involved:

"Opening up the liquor stores to sell it another day of the week is not “smaller government.” An additional day of alcohol sales will mean more government expense for law enforcement (underage drinking, DUI, etc.). Give it a rest one day a week."

I had no idea that removing a law created a need for more law enforcement. Look, there are police patrols looking for all of these things 7 days a week. Just because stores don't sell it doesn't mean that people aren't drinking and breaking other laws.

I know it's hard for people to consider, but pretend that the ban did not exist and consider taking the arguments above for passing a new law that would ban sales on Sunday:

"7 days per week is just too many for people to be able to sell alcohol"

"alcohol is dangerous so we should pick an arbitrary period of time during the week when no one is allowed to buy it"

"greedy gas station owners make too much money already, limiting their alcohol sales is a good way to reduce their profitability"

"prohibition worked so well in the 1920s, let's see if we can bring a little of that back again"

If you look at it this way, you might be able to see that passing such a law would be tough. Unfortunately, taking a law OFF OF the books is often just as hard.

Here's my solution:

If you really want to limit alcohol sales and increase safety and reduce the need for enforcement of related issues, then ban ALL alcohol sales from midnight to 4am 6 days a week. But it's not really about safety for these people. It's about them wanting you to live the way they think you should.

VOTE YES on SB137!!

UPDATE (3/28/07): HB340 Passed on a vote of 101 to 63 (rollcall). This essentially means a few things:

1. PeachCare is more solvent
2. Enrollment is now limited to those making 200% of the federal poverty income as opposed to 235% (for a family of 4, the requirement is now income under $40k as opposed to $47k)
3. For everyone currently in the program, the new income requirement will be waived (i.e. this law does not affect you if you are already in the program)

Good news or bad news? I tend to be against government programs that simply use wealth transfer to make something free or significantly cheaper for a segment of the population. It essentially does nothing to solve the underlying problem, is only a temporary fix for those that truly are needy and eventually makes the underlying problem worse and creates a cycle of greater and greater needs and entitlement. Ultimately, this small change has the overall impact of helping to meet some short term solvency needs and makes it harder to get the entitlement. Is 200% better than 235%? Why not 300% or 150%? Hard to say. I say let's solve the real problem.

*******

And you thought I was done blogging !!

Well, I've been a voracious reader of blogs, but haven't felt like I was adding anything and it was just time consuming. Well I may have hit on a topic worth blogging about - for me anyway. The topic is still Politics and Policy, but now specific to Georgia Government. As the PTA treasurer for my childrens' school, I receive advocacy emails from time to time regarding this legislation or that. I don't take very well to a group I am afilliated with telling me what to support with only partial facts. I am especially appalled at being asked to support something if it has little to do with Education given that that is what PTA is supposed to be all about. I get a little suspicious you know.

So, on to the first piece of legislation: HR 340. First, I'm inserting the email I received:

Georgia PTA PeachCare Action Alert

Please take action to preserve healthcare coverage for more of Georgia's  children---Ask your Representative to vote "NO" on HR 340

Sick kids cannot learn, grow or prosper. HB 340 will reduce the PeachCare eligibility threshold from 235% to 200% of the federal poverty limit, preventing between 3,000 to 5,000 children from low income, working families from being covered per year. This bill also allows DHR to eliminate vision and dental options or charge additional premiums, erects new layers of bureaucracy for all potential enrollees, and maintains the current enrollment freeze instead of waiting to see how the federal government handles the S-CHIP reauthorization in September. Georgia already has the 6th highest number of uninsured children in the nation. HR 340 will only add to this problem, sending more kids to ERs instead of getting the preventative care that they need.

***********************************

First of all, this has little to do with education. It is tied to PTA by the words "Sick kids cannot learn, grow or prosper", but that alone doesn't really make it about education. In fact, by this reasoning, ALL entitlement programs are simply for the good of education and must be supported. In fact, you could link virtually every piece of legislation ever invented to education using this type of approach. But I digress...

Below is my "friendly" email response.

At the risk of potentially angering some folks, I am providing additional information on the attached email.

Here is a link so that you may read the bill – the entire text is only about a page long. Also, it clearly indicates changes to the original PeachCare statute with underlined text.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb340.htm

For the record, I have not made up my mind as to whether or not I would support it. I have sent my Senator, David Shafer, and house rep, Tom Rice, an email asking for their input on this bill.

Couple of notes about the email:

1)       it is entirely accurate to say that the elgibility threshold will change from 235% to 200% (I don’t know where the figure of 3,000 to 5,000 children affected came from so I don’t dispute it). However, those families that are CURRENTLY in the program meeting the 235% threshold will NOT have their eligibility cancelled. I think that is a very important point in understanding the impact of the bill.

2)       The email states that “bill also allows DHR to eliminate vision and dental options or charge additional premiums” . This is possible I suppose, but reading the bill by itself makes it appear that vision and dental can be ADDED (offered as optional) for additional premiums. If the original bill mandates dental and vision, then this will would in fact validate the email statement. I have not reviewed the original statute.

3)       The email states “erects new layers of bureaucracy for all potential enrollees”. In my reading of the bill, this is based on the changes which will INCREASE the VERIFICATION of eligility with regards to income levels and U.S. citizenship status. Are we not verifying now? Perhaps that increase bureaucracy will actually save tax dollars by not providing for people that do not meet these valid eligibility requirements.

One other note I would keep in mind as I personally consider my support, or lack thereof, for this bill. At our recent PTA meeting we lamented the education budget cuts. I believe Julie also mentioned that the prison sytem is a big reason there might not be sufficient funds. Well, it’s not just prison systems that eat up our budget. Entitlements such as PeachCare, while necessary and valuable, eat up a big chunk of change, especially with rising health care costs. Since the gov’t is on a limited budget (thankfully since it's your money and mine), would $1 million be better spent on keeping PeachCare eligibility the same or putting it directly towards education? (I made up the cost – I have no idea what the true cost is).

Please don’t think that I am taking a stand on this either way. I DO SUPPORT PEACHCARE!! This bill is merely an amendment to PeachCare.

I have to know more facts before I feel strongly enough to call my representatives. Not to mention, it’s hard to be persuasive if you don’t know the facts.

******************************

The bottom line is that

1) the bill is not directly related to education and thus should not be advocated by the PTA
2) the original email is misleading in its attempt to create support for voting NO to HB340

The same PTA members that get hopping mad about "cutting" of school funding (it's not really a cut, but a decrease in growth rate) are jumping on the band wagon of huge entitlements. If you want to complain about education spending, then you can't complain about cuts in other areas!

I know the troop surge has been talked about a good bit since the focus on "changing" strategies in Iraq. I've heard lately that a troop surge is a likelihood. Personally, I think it is a BAD idea and a lose\lose proposition.

1) fighting an insurgency and guerilla tactics cannot be crushed by brute force. All insurgents - especially those willing to die for the cause - have to do is set off bombs and create mayhem. They are well funded and well supported and will be able to continue to create havoc in the streets. There is no amount of additional personnel or firepower that can crush this.

2) part of the problem in Iraq in my view is that we are trying to win the war "nicely". The military has always been severely constrained by our desire to wage it in a politically correct manner. Sending more troops in this constrained way is a sure fire way to get more troops killed without any positive results.

3) the only way to "win" with a troop surge is to significantly reduce the violence during the surge and after. With the media trumpeting any and every violent event from the insurgency, there is NO WAY that a troop surge will be deemed a victory.

From my perspective, we'd be better off throwing away our politically correct, constrained method of warfare. Sure, the media and the rest of the world would be outraged. But most Americans would accept an actual quelling of the violence as a result. I mean we dropped a damn atomic bomb on Japan TWICE and suffer very little over any consequences of that action. I'm not suggesting we nuke anyone - I'm just saying if we want to stop the violence in Iraq getting tougher rather than sending over more politically correct troops would be more successful.

Well, since I haven't blogged in over a month, I thought I'd better post something. I suppose I'll limit my thoughts to remembering former president Gerald Ford. The first election I really remember, was in 1976 when I was 11 years old. We simulated a ballot box in my 5th grade class and voted. I don't recall who I voted for, but I do recall thinking to myself that I was going to be a Democrat because it sounded cooler than Republican. Hey, I was only 11 years old!

I actually remember seeing Gerald Ford in the the mid-1980s in Vail Colorado. He was an avid skier and apparently spent a good bit of time in that part of Colorado. This was during a World Championship skiing event and he was part of the related ceremonies.

Anyway, from all accounts, I understand he was a decent man and a good president. May he rest in peace.