Veteran Senator Suddenly Switches Parties

It was widely reported today that veteran Republican senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties Tuesday.

When I first read this news report, I was sickened and disappointed. I assumed that Specter's only motive was to retain his senate seat in the next election. Specter, 79 and seeking a sixth consecutive term in 2010, conceded bluntly that his chances of winning a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year were bleak in a party grown increasingly conservative.

However, the more I read and the more I thought about it, the less cynical I was about Specter's motives. I actually believe that Specter switched for philosophical and not purely political reasons, although self-preservation was no doubt a factor in his decision-making process. I think this move by Specter took courage and integrity. Instead of continuing to show blind allegiance to a political party, he chose to be faithful to his own conscience and principles. Good for him!

And I don't say this lightly, because I am an independent who has agreed more often with Republican policies during my lifetime than with Democratic platforms and policies. The one thread of hope left for Republican-leaning independents like me is that Specter, who has a lifelong record of independence, will not be an automatic 60th vote. He asserted that he will not be, and offered as evidence the fact that he opposes "card check" legislation (which would make it easier for workers to form unions), a bill that is organized labor's top priority this year.

In the end, I felt ... O.K. with the news about Arlen Specter.

But then I remembered ... Al Franken, and I remembered why I am sometimes offended by the democratic party: because people like Al Franken associate themselves with it.

Now I feel sickened again ... to think that a supremely arrogant, misguided jerk like Al Franken might be in a position to cast not only "a" vote in the United States Senate, but the 60th vote ... God have mercy on us.

Chris Rock, Bill Cosby & George Will?

"Football combines the two worst features of American life: violence and committee meetings."

--George F. Will

"Women don't want to hear what you think. Women want to hear what they think, in a deeper voice."

--Bill Cosby

"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, and the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese."

--Chris Rock

Dam Bureaucracy

The following is a letter sent by the District Representative for the Land and Water Management Division of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Don't stop reading until you have read the response written by the land owner! :o)

Subject: DEQ File No.97-59-0023
T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm. County

Dear Mr. DeVries:

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/ or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2003.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price

District Representative Land and Water Management Division

** What follows is the actual response sent to Mr. Price by the property owner: **

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County

Dear Mr. Price,

Your certified letter dated 12/17/02 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, or supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials "debris." I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.

My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.

I have several concerns. My first concern is... aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation, so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing flooding is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names.

If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition, please contact the beavers, but it would be unfair to arrest them, since they were not able to read your dam letter.

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live in and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).

So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2003? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears!

Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be prosecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful about where they take a dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Thank You,

Ryan DeVries & The Dam Beavers

United Nations ... Satire on a Silver Platter

At the United Nations on Wednesday, the South Korean secretary general, Ban Ki-rupt, asked for a show of hands on the question of who would rather be poked in the eye with a stick than sit through one more stultifying and pointless speech.

Afraid you may run out of minutes? Dear God, help us.

[This essay takes a few twists and turns, so get ready for a ride.]

What do you fear?
Oddly enough, the adrenaline rush of fear is something that actually draws us to it. Just look at the popularity of high risk sports (of "extreme" sports). Roller coasters are another easy example. The more scary the ride, the greater the draw for the adrenaline junkie. Scary movies are right there, too, pulling in money hand over fist, because people love to be afraid.
But only to a certain point.

There are larger and more constant fears that non-adrenaline junkies experience every day: war, economic depression, terrorism, child-molesting kidnappers, crazed gunmen walking into our schools and churches and other public buildings and shooting people down for no rational reason.

But we are also afraid of a thousand other things. We are afraid of the dark, of spiders, of loud noises, of strangers, of public speaking, of snakes, of being struck by lightning, of being "found out"; of being alone, of being in a crowd, of small cramped places, of wide open spaces, of heights, of water, of germs, of cancer, of ....
So many people have so many fears.

Just today, during a conversation with my wife, I realized there is yet another thing to fear in this society: "running out of minutes"! -- on your calling plan. Gasp!

Recently, I scaled back our expenditures on telecommunications by changing from Verizon to Vonage [good idea, by the way] for our local and long distance service. I replaced a plan that allowed unlimited calls/minutes for a much less expensive plan that allows 500 minutes per month. That sounds reasonable to me, you see, but my wife ... well, she began to behave strangely. She gradually became stressed out and eventually somewhat hostile toward me within the first few hours after I told her I had made the switch. It was obvious that something was wrong with her delicate and unfathomable psyche. So, I steeled myself for the conversation I didn't want to have, and then asked, gingerly, with wincing eyes: "What's wrong honey?" After the usual verbal ping-pong match, where I try to guess what is bothering her and she tries to remember why she married me, she finally admitted straight out that she was afraid she "might run out of minutes" before she runs out of month.

... Seriously.

I tried to use rationale thoughts to calm her fears, but to no avail, at least, not initially. But I didn't give up, because ... its my duty, by God, to try to calm my wife's irrational fears. About five minutes into this important conversation, she confessed that her real fear was that when we ran out, I would blame her for chatting away all our minutes -- and then "What?", I asked her, "... chop you into tiny pieces and ship you to Cleveland in a suitcase?"

Probably not, I assured her. Almost certainly not. Anyway, she was tense and kind of grumpy and uneasy about it all day. That's not pathetic, spoiled and childish, is it?
My goodness, I said to my wife, "do you hear yourself? Get some perspective", I urged her. You're not worrying that we will run out of food to feed our children. You're not talking about having a dispute with our landlord and getting thrown into the street. You're not even worried that we may have our electricity shut off. You are "afraid" that we may run out of pre-authorized and pre-paid "minutes" for talking on the telephone. Jesus, please help us. "Besides", I explained to her, "once we run out -- if we do (and I don't think we will) -- we will still be able to make calls and talk on the telephone. The only difference will be that our telephone conversations beyond the first 500 minutes each month will cost four cents per minute (actually 3.9 cents) more than the first five hundred."

Here is the bottom line. We were talking about a service that we don't really need anyway. That is, if you define need the way God does, instead of the way the average 15 year-old economically spoiled American child defines need. Here's a scary idea: If our land line phone service runs out of minutes, we will fall back to our cell phones for the last few days of the month, and if they run out of minutes, we can do something VERY old-fashioned: borrow the neighbor's phone in an emergency -- or, God forbid, actually go down to the convenience store and use the pay phone! Inconvenient maybe, but a reason to be "afraid". I don't think so, honey.

Do you know what one of the greatest benefits of being a true believer (in Jesus) is? No fear. As Christians we have the power to be free from that favorite tool of the enemy: fear. Now, just to be clear, I did not just say we are all free of fear. I said we can be -- we have the power to be free from it (by faith -- by believing the truth), in stark contrast to unbelievers, for whom it is impossible to be free from fear. At least theoretically -- no, theologically -- there is supposed to be a stark contrast.

No Fear! That should be the refrain we hear habitually from Christian believers. No fear. No fear!
Fear nothing, other than God, himself.

I can hear Dr. Phil now, asking my wife: "... and on a scale of 1 to 10, with ten being more fear and one being less, where do you rank not having caller ID?"
... Ohhoo! That high? Well, don't you worry, darlin'. I think I have a psychiatrist friend who may just be able to help you work through those telephone issues."

Come on! Sometimes professing Christians just embarrass the snot out of me.

I have what I think is a helpful and friendly suggestion: If you run out of minutes, just get over it -- quickly ... and then move on with your lives! Please. If the fear of running out of minutes has the ability to ruin your day, you need to find a more effective medication, and then maybe go live in another country for a while. I suggest one in Africa, Central America or Southeast Asia. By the time you get back from your trip, I can almost guarantee that your "fear of running out of minutes" will seem silly.

Affectionately, but firmly,
--Mr. Grumpy


P.S. Please excuse the heavy sarcasm ... or just sit back and enjoy it.

Will you pull down your shorts please?

At one point in my life, I passed five kidney stones all within a span of about nine years. If that doesn't sound extreme to you, then you're not quite as sharp as you think you are. The pain of a "stone" moving through one's kidney and down through the urinal tract is as intense a pain as men will ever experience (women have childbirth as the only possible trump. I have had migraine headaches; I have had a "spinal tap" (that's where someone pokes a very large needle into your spine and draws fluid out); I broke my scapula in a motorcycle accident; I've smashed my thumb with a hammer; I've had a five-drawer filing cabinet dropped on my foot (breaking and chipping bones in my foot); I have had my "junk" traumatized a number of times in unusual ways; I have even had a needle very slowly inserted into my lower abdomen and felt it scraping around the edge of my hip bone as it went in (long story for another blog post); but none of those experiences have produced the pain of a large, jagged kidney stone slowly scraping its way through kidney, ureter, bladder and urethra. Each stone is unique. Some are large, some no bigger than a grain of sand; some move quickly and some excruciatingly slowly; but they all have one thing in common: pain!

The first time I felt a kidney stone move, I had no idea what it was. After all, I had never had a stone before. It was frightening. I was living alone at the time. The pain began so quickly and with such intensity that I was writhing in pain on my living room floor before I had time to pick up the phone and 911. I could not get up. In fact, I remember lying on my back with my feet up on the piano bench, lower back propped up with both hands (elbows on the floor below me) back arched upward, breathing exactly the way a woman giving birth breathes during peak labor pains. If I had not been so frightened and in so much pain, I would have laughed out loud at what I looked like that night. This is my blow by blow account of the night I learned what it meant to "have" a kidney stone.

At the time, I lived in a small town that was served by a very old and dilapidated community hospital. I had never been to that hospital before, and to make my first visit in the middle of the night, on a night when it seemed that I was the only patient in the entire building, was quite unsettling. It all began a little after midnight and continued throughout the wee hours of the morning until almost daylight the next day. I do not remember how I got to the hospital from my apartment that night, but I remembered almost every creepy, strange, odd, funny detail after that -- and wrote it all down two days later while it was still fresh in my mind. Here is what I wrote about my December 21, 1990 visit to the ER in Podunk, USA:

After discussing the most mundane facts of my life with a very dull and very bored individual sitting behind a computer for, oh ... I'd say about six hours ... or it may have been thirty minutes. It doesn't really matter, because every ten minutes seems like ten hours when you have a kidney stone moving. Eventually, I was asked by a young male orderly to follow him back behind "curtain number three" and to take off all my clothes. That's when I first suspected that I may be in for a long, humiliating night. The orderly handed me a hospital gown and pulled the curtain behind him as he left. I began to undress very gingerly, because everything from my naval to the middle of my thighs, in the front, the back, and all points in between felt remarkably similar to the time I took a stiff knee to the Christmas chestnuts during a sand lot football game. I took everything off except for my socks and briefs. Well, the floor was cold! ... and that "gown" with the disappearing tie strings was a little airy in the back!

I gently maneuvered myself back up onto that table -- you know the one with the delicatessen paper on it (real nice touch, by the way ... kind of gives the examination room that warm, relaxed, homey feeling), and there I waited ... and waited ... and waited. Just when I was starting to feel upset by all the waiting, a female doctor arrived and introduced herself as "Dr. Paulson". I immediately felt relieved and more than a little encouraged, not only because Dr. Paulson was more attractive than the male orderly, but also because I felt sure a female doctor would be more gentle with my junk than some meat-fisted man.

Within about sixty seconds, she had introduced herself, shook my hand, pushed on my sides and abdomen, had me recite and describe all my symptoms. She had me lie back on the table covered by the deli paper, and then grabbed a small linen sheet from a side table, draped it over my legs, pulled my "robe" up to my chest and politely asked, "Will you pull your shorts down, please?" Now this whole experience was starting to show some promise, I thought to myself.

Dr. Paulson and I hit it off right away. The next few minutes of gentle poking and feeling, pushing and rubbing was undoubtedly the closest thing to a date I had had in four months (I was recently divorced and rather lonely at the time). But just like so many of my dates and relationships with women, this rather pleasant examination made an abrupt left turn. This outwardly polite and friendly lady (but obviously twisted and sadistic human being), looked right into my eyes, and with a thinly veiled snicker in her voice, said: "Okay, now stand up and bend over the table."

Aaaww, man! ... and it had been going so well up to this point!
While bent over the table with the doctor's middle finger inserted into my butt (up to about her elbow, I think), I casually mentioned to the good doctor that the last time I had experienced anything like that was just before my last payday, when I met with the money guy at work to discuss a "gross adjustment" of my next paycheck. She chuckled and massaged my prostate gland. I tried to chuckle too, but I think it must have come out more like a grunt, because then she chuckled again at my attempt to chuckle. I didn't try to chuckle or make small talk with her any more after that, because whenever she chuckled, it made her finger jiggle in my butt ... and that's not really what you want when you're on the receiving end of a prostate exam.

The next hour I spent drinking water, pacing the floor and hoping I could pee soon, because the orderly had informed me that they needed another "specimen" before I could leave. While drinking and pacing and hoping, I was interrupted by a reasonably attractive and outgoing female radiologist who informed me that she was going to take some pictures of my lower abdomen. Haunting memories of the prostate massage fled my mind as I again felt a sense of encouragement and keen anticipation. She led me down an unpopulated, barren and strangely lit hallway, much like the sets I have seen in every sci-fi hospital movie since 1965. We turned and entered a room that fit the same description, where I was, once again, asked to lie atop a glass table and pull down my underwear.

All seemed to be going well as Donna, after adjusting various contraptions and machines, stood beside the glass table, draped a sheet over my legs and torso and began to gently probe my sides and abdomen.
"Tell me where you hurt", she said. "I don't want to touch you too hard where it hurts."
"Here?" I nodded yes.
"Here?" Again I nodded yes.
I must have started "daydreaming" at that point, because the next thing I remember is feeling a sharp pain in my lower abdomen and letting out a small yelp. As my mind quickly came back into focus, Donna, the radiologist, was quietly insisting, "Well ... tell me where it is so I won't touch it!"
Without missing a beat, I suggested that if she was really that nervous about touching "it", then maybe we should slow down and start with just having coffee sometime. She smiled warmly and proceeded to inform me that her next day off was Thursday. I think I drifted off again after that.

By the way, Donna later told me that the pictures came out great, except that the left kidney was slightly obscured by some "gas formations". I apologized for the gas formations and asked if there was any chance I could get a sheet of wallet-sized prints and an eight by ten glossy before Christmas. She said she would see what she could do.


... to be continued.

and you thought the last president was arrogant and condescending!

I heard on the news the other day that Barak has asked federal agency heads to think of ways to save money.

...

[Let that sink in for a few moments.]

...

Now. Does anyone else see how absurd that is?
The man just spent trillions of dollars, and plans to spend ten to fifteen trillion more during his presidency, and he is asking agency heads to come up with "cost-cutting" ideas. That's roughly analogous to me (average lower middle-class citizen) going out and buying three new homes and five new cars and then coming home and nagging my wife about finding ways to save money on the telephone bill!

I guess the man really does think that we are all just a bunch of slobbering, mouth-breathing idiots out here, huh?

I'll say one thing for the man: he's bold.
He's also arrogant and condescending, though, which kind of cancels out bold as a good trait.

Obama Blows

More Smoke Up Our ...


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Monday ordered his Cabinet to find ways to slice spending by $100 million, but acknowledged it's a "drop in the bucket" and said there's a "confidence gap" that he needs to overcome.

[And how, exactly, does this move help overcome a confidence gap? This just makes Obama seem that much more lacking in sincerity!]

Just back from a Latin America summit, Obama told the first formal Cabinet meeting of his administration that vast spending to combat the economic crisis was "the right thing to do." But he also said taxpayers still need to know that every dollar they give the government is being spent wisely.

"We also have a deficit - a confidence gap - when it comes to the American people," he told reporters. "And we've got to earn their trust."

Obama said the $100 million would come from "efficiencies" in agency operations, and would be in addition to future cuts in programs that aren't working.

["Efficiencies in agency operations"? That's a good one Barak!]

Yet the red ink in the annual budget is currently in the hundreds of billions. He was asked if the efficiency saving isn't just "a drop in the bucket".

"It is," he replied. "None of these things alone are going to make a difference. But cumulatively, they make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone ... $100 million there, $100 million here - pretty soon, even here in Washington, it adds up to real money."

The federal deficit for March alone was $192.3 billion, and $100 million would represent a minuscule portion of that sum, roughly one-twentieth of 1 percent. Obama in February brought forward a $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year, beginning Oct. 1, a proposal that would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

[And do you know how many times you would have to cut $100 million from the inefficiency of our government to equal the amount Barak plans to spend next year alone? Thirty-six thousand times. Let me say that again: 36,000 times $100 million equals 3.6 trillion, Obama's budget for next year!]

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he applauded all attempts to cut government spending but insisted that a $100 million cut would only cover one day's interest on Obama's $787 billion stimulus spending plan.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said later that the cuts were part of a larger cost-cutting effort by Obama. He said the president "has laid out cuts large and small in administrative costs" and in programs throughout the government.

Earlier this month, both the House and Senate passed companion budget plans giving Obama and his Capitol Hill allies a key victory, but 20 House Democrats from GOP-leaning areas abandoned him on the final vote because of unhappiness over deficits.

The Cabinet meeting came just days after a series of "Tea Party" demonstrations across the country in which protesters challenged the administration over it's massive spending to help pull the country and its financial system out of an economic nose dive unseen in decades.

[Do you know what you get when you cross a sheep, a large stone and a president?

... a Baa-aa-aa-rock.]

I made that one up myself. :o)

President Barack Obama went to the spy agency's Virginia headquarters

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Days after releasing top-secret memos that detailed the CIA's use of simulated drowning while interrogating terror suspects, President Barack Obama went to the spy agency's Virginia headquarters on Monday to defend his decision and bolster the morale of its employees.

"I acted primarily because of the exceptional circumstances that surrounded these memos, particularly the fact that so much of the information was public," Obama said.

Last week, Obama's Justice Department published previously classified memos that described the Bush administration's legal justification for CIA interrogation techniques that included methods criticized as torture. Republican lawmakers and former CIA chiefs have criticized the release of the memos, contending that revealing the limits of interrogation techniques will hamper the effectiveness of interrogators.

The memos detailed the use of waterboarding - a form of simulated drowning that Attorney General Eric Holder has denounced as torture - as well as sleep deprivation, isolation and physical violence.

According to the declassified memos, waterboarding was used on alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003. Suspected al-Qaida logistics chief Abu Zubaydah was subjected to the treatment 83 times in August 2002.

Obama said Monday that a court case was going to force the memos to be released and that much of what they contained had already been compromised through leaks to news media.

The president urged the hundreds of CIA employees who gathered in a secure auditorium to ignore the recent controversy. "Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he said.

A round of cheers erupted when CIA Director Leon Panetta introduced Obama, who quickly reassured them that they had his backing.

"I know the last few days have been difficult," he said. "You need to know you've got my full support."

But Obama also heard a reminder of the intense criticism his decision sparked from many in the intelligence community. Four former CIA directors and several senior agency officials opposed the release of the memos.

"You don't get credit when things go good, but you sure get some blame when things don't," Obama said. Pausing when he heard an "amen" from someone in the crowd, Obama added, "I got an amen corner out there."

He said that he understands that intelligence officials sometimes feel as if they are operating with one hand tied behind their backs.

But Obama said that upholding American values and ideals in the face of those enemies is "what makes the United States special and what makes you special."

Obama met privately with Panetta and about 50 CIA employees, fielding questions about his decision to release the memos and on other topics. Panetta had agreed to releasing the memos, but he also pressed for heavier censorship. The memos were only lightly redacted when they were released last Thursday.

Obama has vowed not to seek prosecution of CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said this weekend that the Obama adminstration also won't seek prosecution for the Bush administration lawyers who wrote the memos approving the tactics.

Separately, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Monday sent Obama a letter asking him to withhold judgment on potential prosecutions until the committee completes its investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. The committee is looking into the treatment of each of the CIA's 14 "high-value detainees," a list that includes Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Muhammed.