The 'Burbs

I admit it, I live in the suburbs, although suburbia is beginning to be just as fast-paced, hectic and crowded as the "city".  The suburban city I live in has many separate neighborhoods divided by slump stone walls.  The whole city isn't built that way since it grew up around oil wells and the beach.  Slowly the oil derricks are being removed and homes or parks or even wetlands are appearing. But here's the thing about my city: if you drive around much of it, all you see are slump stone walls and precious few trees.

Slump stone is that large beige brick that is ubiquitous here in California.  My backyard is completely surrounded by it. (I've tried to cover it with plants but my soil is toxic and few plants grow in it.)  In fact my whole little tract is surrounded by brick walls, faintly reminiscent of a prison.  There are exactly three streets that lead into and out of my tract.  This is very common  throughout the city.  It's easy to get lost in neighborhoods because there are few ways in and out. Convenient if the cops are after you, otherwise not so much.

In the beginning, the city planted trees along the sidewalks that roll past the walls but they are now tearing out all of the trees - their roots upend the concrete (can't have that!).  The spindly New Zealand Christmas tree behind my house hasn't grown since we moved here 19 years ago. True fact. I think it has water issues.  It's still there I presume because it hasn't damaged the sidewalk. The longer I live here the more sterile and plain the city becomes.  If you've been to or live in a neighborhood with mature trees I'm sure you notice how much better the streets look and how lush the neighborhood appears.

We do have an old downtown area with an eclectic mix of homes not hemmed in by slump stone.  Mature trees shade narrow streets that are a pleasure to walk or drive through. Homes in this area sell for quite a bit regardless of their age or condition. Can you guess why?  Exactly,  no brick walls and lots of trees.

One day you'll drive down a street lined, albeit sparsely, with trees and the next day you drive down the same street and all the trees are gone leaving naked walls and fresh stumps.  You hope that the trees will be replaced but that's not always the case.  And if they do replace the trees, they are small, thin and relatively leafless,  unlikely to grow to any height or breadth in my lifetime.

My next neighborhood will be positively thick with trees and slump stone will be only a memory.

San Francisco Nuts

San Francisco is the reason Californians have a reputation for being more than a little nuts.  Last time I wrote, a group was trying to get enough signatures for an initiative to ban circumcision in the city. But at least that was an independent group not a governmental agency.  This time, the Commission on Animal Control and Welfare is trying to ban the sale of ALL animals as pets.  Yes, all.  No longer could you buy fish, hamsters, snakes, lizards, gerbils, birds, or any other animal as a pet.  Originally meant to prevent pet stores from selling puppies from "puppy mills" this august body went hog wild and decided animals should not be kept as pets.

This ordinance would not be put to a vote but would be voted in or out by the Board of Supervisors.  According to one commissioner, we in the Western world violate animals' rights and have no respect for their feelings.  Feelings? Anthropomorphize is a word they should learn. Have you seen the size of snake's head?  How much sentient brain matter can be in there?  That's why our most basic instincts are said to come from our reptilian brain.  I certainly don't advocate animal cruelty, I believe most animals should be left in the wild especially birds. However, I don't run the world and castigating western culture for animal cruelty is really ignorant.  Maybe this person should travel to Japan  where animals are filleted live at the table for diners. But I digress. The only live animals for sale in S.F. would be the ones sold for food.  So you could go to Chinatown and buy a live chicken provided you were going to kill it and eat it.  You could buy a turtle or a fish as long it was dinner.  You could not buy it to take home and put it in a tank to enjoy watching it or have it lay eggs for your omelet.

Yes we are such terrible people here in the West that the pet supplies industry is worth billions.  So terrible that hopelessly sentimental ads for pet adoptions run on TV all the time.  So awful are we that rescue organizations exist for unwanted pets.  Pets sleep in our beds, eat from our tables and shop in Bloomies. Give me a break San Francisco.

Save your sympathy for the sentient beings who are mistreated, neglected, and abused in your city for they are many.

Less is more from Michele

As a follow up to the previous post about Michele Bachmann I want to address her most recent comments. She claims that she's been a Christian since she was 16.  Okay, so what?  What does that mean? She says she prays and lets God guide her.  She follows what she "senses" from God.  Again, what does that mean and who cares? She shuns all questions about her finances with the phrase, "I'm a serious person".  Huh?

My question is for Minnesotans: where did you find this woman and why did you elect her?

Michele, you ignorant slut

Michele Bachman, a Republican representative from Minnesota, has thrown herself into the Republican presidential candidate pool which is getting increasingly crowded. Like many conservatives, she presents herself as anti-big government. Just like most politicians of her ilk, her mouth and her actions are in direct opposition to each other.

Let's talk about her position on government subsidies. Naturally she's against them. Except when they benefit herself or her family. Her husband's mental health clinic, which she claims as an asset, received upwards of $30,000 in government funds. She says none of the money went to either her or her husband. Instead it went to train employees. Does she mean to say that well trained employees do not add value to a business? How stupid does she think people are? Getting an influx of money to improve or grow your business means less money out of your own pocket and more money in it. Claiming they received no monetary benefit from government funds is disingenuous at best and a bald-faced lie at worst.

$260,000 went to her family farm in Wisconsin in the form of federal farm subsidies. Her response is that the farm belongs to her father-in-law and she doesn't profit from it. Well, she's just a moron because she had to fill out financial disclosure forms as a partner in the farm that clearly state her profits from the farm as from $35,000 to $106,000 between 2006 and 2009. Really how can she think no one would check? Sounds like a nice fat return on federal subsidies to me.

Going even further, Congresswoman Bachmann decries the earmarks in the bills passed by Congress asserting that the states should be responsible for building bridges, etc. She criticized the Obama administration for the stimulus money program and yet she applied for those funds. Her stated rationale is that the state was legally entitled to the funds so it should get its share. Besides, using the money for transportation projects doesn't count as either earmarks or government aid. Is she nuts? You can't have it both ways. Oh, I hate big government but since you twisted my arm I'll take the dough.

Then we have a commodity purchase plan whereby the federal government buys up pig and dairy products to stabilize prices and keep them elevated. We don't call it a subsidy but if it walks like duck...well you know the rest. The LA Times dug around and got a copy of a letter written by Bachmann to the Secretary of Agriculture applauding the program and urging its continuation. Hmmmm...are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Yup, the real Michele Bachmann is a"subsidy slut" working the halls of Congress for cash.






- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Fly Away

Six or seven months ago we were trying to plan our big summer vacation.  We wanted a place that wasn't too hot or too expensive.  Scandinavia was high our list because we have family from Sweden.  But it didn't seem very interesting so we turned to Europe.  We were convinced by a family member to go to Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. (They have great roads there!) So in a couple of weeks we're flying to Luxembourg via Toronto and some other place like Munich. Point is we have to backtrack to get to Luxembourg.   We'll then get on a bus, train or taxi and travel 45 minutes into the German city of Trier. The tour company information advised a shuttle bus to Trier but to make the required reservations you have to navigate a site that appears to only give information on getting TO the airport not away from it. So who knows how we'll get to our hotel.  I'm thinking a taxi sounds great after 15 hours of planes and airports.

And let's talk about airlines.  We're flying Air Canada, operated by Lufthansa (or is it the other way around) on the way there and Austrian Airlines operated by Air Canada on the way back.  We also have a short flight on Luxor Air operated by..... ah maybe Lufthansa again. We fly out of Europe from Vienna, not Luxembourg where we entered.  It's so confusing for the airlines when you fly in to one city and out of another. They have to charge you about  $1,000 extra to figure it out.

We could only get seats on one flight. Why? I made reservations for all six flights at the same time. What makes that one flight so special?  Really, I can't get  seat assignments after spending a small fortune to travel during peak season?  Wouldn't it be more efficient to let passengers choose their seats in the beginning instead of complaining later on?  One airline has inexplicably assigned us seats 55A and B and we can't change them - yet. This is where the complaining will come in.  Do you know where those seats are?  You might as well be sitting in the bathroom you're so far back.  They're so far back the engine noise drowns out any other sounds. You spend the entire flight watching the people in line for the bathroom try not to stare at you and trying not to stare back at them.  And this is a long flight, one of the 5 or 8 hour ones.  We booked this flight six months ago so I can't imagine those were the only seats left.  I'll definitely need an Ambien for this flight.

After seeing to the seats you have to examine the itinerary for food.  Some flights provide food and others don't.  There's no rhyme or reason.  One 5 hour flight has "food" for sale and a 55 minute one says it provides a meal. What's with that?  Five hours and all you get is a box of crappy snacks for $10. I think I'll do PB & J for that flight since it's the first leg. Then on the "meal provided" flights we can pick a kind of meal.  There are 3, yes 3, different kinds of vegetarian meals which I can't figure out.   I don't need gluten free or vegan or some kind of dairy/egg thing.  I signed up for a Kosher meal.  I've had moderate success with that choice.  It's usually a little better than the regular meal.  We hope.

Last time we were on a cold flight there were no blankets or pillows so we now bring our own. I know lots of people bring them for sanitary reasons but I really don't care about that. Does that make me disgusting? Maybe, but when I was growing up we fairly groveled in dirt and germs compared to people today and I managed to survive. The upshot is you can't rely on airlines to provide much more than a seat so we bring our own comfort.

As we venture out onto airplanes around the world, wish us luck or at least some decent seats.

Business as Usual

The Los Angeles Times this morning ran an editorial about President Obama's political appointments and how they are tied to campaign contributors. This small story is an example of how completely Obama has been assimilated into Washington culture.

 Individuals "bundle" contributions from various sources to give to political campaigns and these "bundlers" are rewarded with government appointments.  A study done on this  pointed out that not all appointments went to unqualified people.  Some of the "bundlers" were indeed very qualified for their jobs.  But many were awarded positions of little power or consequence ( I always think of Shirley Temple Black as an ambassador being one of these).  In fact the study said Obama has increased the number of these contributor appointments over appointments made by previous presidents.

I find this very disappointing.  It merely adds to my cynical view of government and my distaste for politicians of every stripe. Obama came into office riding a tide of promised change.  But instead we're still in Afghanistan, millions of Americans don't have health care, and in the words of the Times he's "revved up" the contributions for appointments tradition.  Nothing has changed.

I think once in office, political, military, and corporate interests exert enormous pressure on a president.  The exercise of power must also be an incredible high.  No longer does the candidate have to mix with the hoi polloi as he did to get elected. He now mixes with the powerful in every part of the world.  Heady stuff.

I assume his advisors press for their own agendas and whatever promises he may have made look different in light of information he is now cleared to access.  Maybe I didn't listen closely enough before the election (a distinct possibility), but I sincerely thought that we would be out of the Middle East by now and that we would not be a waging war with no stated objective in a third world country.   Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex and 50 years later he's right on the money.  Our country is hemorrhaging money to finance both the government military and privatized military. I don't think anyone knows why anymore.

In Washington today, it is business as usual.  There has been no real change. Instead the candidate of change has been completely absorbed into the military industrial complex that is our government. Regardless of the pressures on the President from inside the beltway there is no excuse for his broken promises, especially as regards to military misadventures since he is the Commander in Chief and has the power to remove us from this ghastly conflict.

Thanks for nothing Mr. President.

Incidentals

I knew if I committed to write something I'd run out of things to say.  But I thought it would happen later rather than sooner. So here's a short list of incidents that have occurred and seem odd.

First, a judge issued a bench warrant for  a Cal State Northridge math professor who failed to appear in court for urinating on a colleague's office door. Really? Is that against the law?  Is it a felony or a misdemeanor?  What about if your dog does it?  Is that an accident or a crime?   The two professors had a difference of opinion on something,  and the one was caught on a security camera weeing on the door.  Needless to say this guy doesn't watch enough TV or he'd know to look out for cameras.

In department stores when your dog has an accident you have to pay for the merchandise.  Shouldn't the offending and offensive prof just have to say sorry and buy a new door?  Seems like a waste of court time to me. (And for those of you who don't see dogs in stores...Newport Beach matrons often take their afghan hounds, spaniels, or great danes to Bloomingdale's to shop)

Second, a "star" of the Jackass movies had a few too many, drove his Porsche 100 mph over a lane divider, down a ravine, and into a tree.  He was toast, literally. Killed by his own kind of prank. Not too bright.  Seems kinda like a divine "intervention".

Then there's Edge aka David Evans who wants to build 5 mansions on his ridge in the Santa Monica mountains.  The Coastal Commission calls it one of the worst plans for development it's ever seen.  Mr. Evans of U2 fame wants to slice the top off the ridge, destroying animal habitats, and cutting into the mountain to build a road.  He tried to pull the wool over the Commission's eyes by putting the properties into the names of relatives to make it look like several people want to build there.  The Commission wasn't fooled and turned down him and his relatives.

In an interesting twist, the Nature Conservancy stepped down from their opposition to the building after David Evans gave them $1million and some land for public use.  I guess everyone has their price.

In other news a court has ruled that an autistic 7 year old can take his service dog to school.  The dog calms and corrals the boy who is prone to screaming and running away.  The judge in the case ruled that the boy could take the dog to school so he could "better enjoy" the benefits of the dog and to build a better relationship with the dog.  The mother was happy that her son would be able to bond better with the dog now that he could take it to school. Yes, that's right, that's what she said.  Boy, dog, bond. "Learn" was not mentioned by either judge or mom.

OK, I guess I'm unclear on the purpose of school.  I thought there were standards to be taught, skills to be learned, but I guess I'm wrong.  Yeah, yeah, I hear all you bleeding hearts out there, I know the poor kid has problems but let's look at the other side of the coin.  Many, many teachers and students have asthma or allergies to dogs. Lots of children are terrified of dogs. And a dog really is a huge distraction in the classroom. So what about the rights of those teachers and students to not only "enjoy" good health but to be provided a safe learning environment?  And lest I forget, who cleans up after said dog? Moreover, just what is the school's liability if a student injures the dog or vice versa?  The can of worms opened here is large.  If this child is so severely disabled that he needs a dog to corral him then maybe he needs special placement at a special school where running away is not possible.

As you might be able to tell, the end of the school year is not conducive to sympathy, empathy, or any other warm fuzzy feeling.  I know I don't have any. Happy June.