Currently Listening Now By Peter Frampton see related

Eloquence, Substance, and A Record Too!

Perhaps, like me, you watched the eagerly awaited, and undeniably electrifying, acceptance speech of Governor Sarah Palin delivered to the Republican National Convention.

If there was ever any doubt about the enthusiasm of the GOP to return a president to the White House, Governor Palin eliminated any such reserve.  If evaluated merely on the merits of style – which, by the way, seems to be the dominant criteria when it comes to the candidate of the other political party – Sarah Palin’s speech eclipsed the oratory of the candidate with whom the liberal, left-wing media is so enamored.  Reviewing a speech that was articulately forceful and delivered with incredible poise, even her harshest critics were forced to acknowledge her eloquence and presence.

In what I call the “American Idol” mentality of electing public officials now, eloquence alone is not sufficient evidence of a leader.  Substance must be considered along the way, and substance is the component sorely lacking in the nominee offered by the Democrats.  Gov. Palin repeatedly and convincingly emphasized her track record of substance, in stark contrast to the rhetoric and nuance so characteristic of a Barack Obama speech.  It should come as no surprise that Sarah Palin was not intimidated by the national and world stage that she now commands.  She had previously and repeatedly proven that she was not intimidated by the power brokers intent on corruption and waste in her state of Alaska.  The independent voter could easily conclude that she will do the same for them as vice president.

To paraphrase Gov. Mike Huckabee, thirty days as a governor and chief executive of a state trumps fifteen or twenty years in a legislative body like the U.S. Congress.  The mainstream news media already rages against an experienced, principled, conservative and highly capable Republican woman who has been selected as the GOP running mate for Sen. John McCain.  The mass of independent and undecided voters would do well to ignore the media’s disdain for Gov. Palin’s selection and look beyond the eloquence and rhetoric consistently attributed to Sen. Obama, to the substance of record and accomplishment. 

The past two presidential elections have been decided by the narrowest of margins, and the outcome on November 4 could be just as close.  It won’t be decided by someone like me, a partisan, whose mind was made up in March of 2007 in support of Sen. John McCain.  Neither will it be decided by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum whose Democrat vote is certain.  As in previous elections, the outcome will come with the vote of the independent and presently undecided voters.  If those votes look at substance and record, not eloquence and rhetoric, then John McCain, as president, and Sarah Palin, as vice-president, seems a likely conclusion.

Currently Listening Los Lonely Boys By Los Lonely Boys see related

The price of weightlessness

Those of you who cashed in on your value (see previous post for explanation) are now looking for creative ways to spend part of those unexpected millions.  Once you become aware of the story reported today in, among other outlets, the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-space-tourismjul29,0,5746939.story), you might be tempted to spend that extra cash traveling into space.

A project bankrolled by billionaire Richard Branson will, for a fare of only $200,000, put civilians –read “non-astronauts”- into space.  Just think, for only $1.6 million, you, maybe your spouse (I despise the S.O. term so commonly used, but that’s another blog entirely), and six of your dearest friends can ride 62 miles into space.  The apparent motive would be…. four minutes of weightlessness.  I do suppose there would also be a significant exhilaration from lift-off.

Here is where it can really benefit you – and save you big bucks- by reading my blog.  After much coercion from my wife five years ago, I was convinced to get certified as a scuba diver.  While I was quite the unlikely candidate for such an activity, it quickly became one for which I am impassioned.  You say, “how can that save me $200,000 individually, or my party of eight a total of $1.6 million?”

OK, OK, I am getting to the point now.

If weightlessness is the motive for going into space, I suggest to you a much more economical option: scuba diving.  How do you think astronauts train for the experience of weightlessness in the first place?  That’s right, they do it underwater on scuba gear.  Certification costs around $375, plus another $100 or so for the required personal gear, so you see my point?  You can get a lot more than four minutes of weightlessness on a typical dive, and even in my early stage of diving sucking down a tank of air like nobody’s business, my dive still lasted way longer than four minutes.

Problem solved, except now you have figure out what to do with the other $199,525!

Currently Listening Feliciano! By José Feliciano see related

Relative Worth

According to The Associated Press, and the Environmental Protection Agency, “an American life isn't worth what it used to be.”  Really, read the article (http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD91RFM4G0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCL1_UNEWS).

As stated in the article, the "value of a statistical life" is now worth “only” $6.9 million.  That’s compared to the same “value” used from 1996 to 2003, EPA when we “American humans” were considered to be worth “generally around $7.8 million to $7.96 million.”

The AP article explains the reasons for such valuations, including the economic basis for enforcement and continuation of certain federal regulations.  With that being the case, then perhaps being worth less – note, I didn’t say “worthless”- is actually a good thing.  If, we could become of such an insignificant value, then the result would be less federal government regulation, right?

So, in the past five years, you have become worth $1 million – or almost 13%- less.  Compare that with, for example, a gallon of gasoline over the same period of time.  According to AAA –www.fuelgaugereport.com, the price of a gallon of gasoline in July ’05 was around $2.20 , whereas today it is $3.967, or roughly an increase of 80%.  You (universal term, meaning you, me, and every other American) are worth 13% less and gasoline costs 80% more over the same five-year period.

Conclusion:  Settle for the $6.9 million before it drops even more.  That way you can afford the gas.

Currently Listening This Ain't Hollywood see related

Election Day - Tuesday June 3

Although the presidential primary elections have dominated the news the past several months, I bring you this reminder that Alabama conducts its primary elections next Tuesday, June 3.  As usual, your voting precinct opens at 7:00am and closes at 7:00pm.

You might say, “didn’t we already vote” back in February”?  The answer is “yes, we did, but that was ONLY for the presidential preference primary”.  The offices on the June ballot, quite frankly, have a lot more to do with our daily lives (and the costs/regulation/freedoms thereof) than the President of the United States.  The President of the Alabama Public Service Commission likely can affect your monthly budget (i.e. keeping utility rates among the lowest in the country) far more than the next occupant of the White House.

My endorsements for the Republican primary are listed below, and I urge you to support these candidates with your vote:

UNITED STATES SENATOR

Jeff Sessions

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUDGE, PLACE NO. 1

Teresa Bearden Petelos

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUDGE, PLACE NO. 2

Mary Windom

PRESIDENT, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh

(Offices listed above are statewide.  The office that follows is by board of education district, and may vary depending on your voting place of residence and corresponding district)

MEMBER, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 3

Stephanie Bell

Currently Listening Chicago Xi By Chicago Baby, What A Big Surprise see related

Catching Up

Long time since the last post!  So what’s my excuse?  Busy - but not any more than normal.  Besides, doesn’t everyone think they are busier than anyone else?  Chairing an annual fundraising campaign for the YMCA, watching “Dancing With The Stars”, a gall bladder surgery (doggone it, I swore I would never post such a thing on a blog), the usual flow of political stuff, some weddings, funerals, graduations, and family reunions and “time gets the best of us”.  Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the numerous late-night viewings of “Lost” DVD’s.  Seriously, I have probably watched more TV the past five months than all the past five years.

Which brings me to my point for this post.  “Time” magazine published their annual “100 Most Influential People” list earlier this month.  To show you how out of touch “Time” is - or maybe to show you how out of touch “I” am, just take a look at the list.  I did just that, and categorized each of the one hundred names into three categories as follows: (1) Heard Of; (2) Knew Something About, and (3) Never Heard Of.

Fifty-two of the one hundred “most influential people” were in the category “I have never heard of before”.  Fifty two!  How is it, that more than half of the “most influential people” were names previously unfamiliar to me?  Thirty-four were in the “heard of” category, but for only twenty-nine could I scrounge even the slightest hint of a fact.

Not surprisingly, quite a few of those I had “heard of” were of the “entertainment” variety.  Honestly, outside the name recognition from their entertainment notoriety, I could not imagine why most of them could be considered influential, other than perhaps within the confines of their industry.  Most of the other recognizable names were from the arena in which I am most familiar, which is politics and government.  Even there, some of the leaders from other nations were barely familiar names, if recognizable at all.

Earlier, I mentioned “Dancing With The Stars”, the reality TV program I watched this season for the first time (the entire season, by the way).  Of the twelve “stars” that began the competition, I had never even heard of five.  Glancing back through the lineup of previous seasons, and the “unfamiliar” ratio is higher than that.  Constantly bombarded with more information imaginable or tolerable about “personalities” such as Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, I wonder “why couldn’t they fall into the “unfamiliar” category”?

Conclusion:  Modern culture’s definition of “influential” is severely distorted.  “Lost” makes way more sense!