I'm so tired of hearing about the economic stimulus. So tired, in fact, that I just want Republicans to say "OK, sure, whatever" and pass it so that maybe we can move on with the next phase of our lives!
However, given that our country already has a sizeable deficit, we're in a recession and we need to cut excess spending... Is it really in our best interest to have the President skipping from town to town to peddle his stimulus package at town hall meetings?
I mean, has anyone really calculated it? The amount of fuel needed for Air Force One (never mind the damage that it's probably causing our environment) and the President's ground transportation/motorcade, the possible overtime pay for Secret Service agents and others who have to arrive ahead of the President and his entourage, the cost of flying the President's Advance team out there and paying for their per diem/hotel rooms/rental cars... From DC to Indiana, back to DC and then out to Florida.
I feel like Presidential travel is one thing that needs to be downscaled a bit in next year's budget! Of course, President Bush held his town hall meetings and such too... But aren't we supposed to be celebrating change?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Groundhog Day
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about Groundhog Day (which was celebrated yesterday, Tuesday, February 2). I understand that it's rooted in "tradition" -- but this morning's Washington Post Express showed Punxsutawney Phil (the groundhog, of course) looking frightened as two hands, belonging to one of his handlers, held him high in the air after announcing Phil's weather forecast.
It's one thing to wait for a groundhog to emerge from his little home and try to gauge whether he was able to see his shadow... But it's quite another for humans to get actively involved and force the groundhog to endure fright and discomfort for the sake of our amusement. The poor little guy looked completely scared, with his feet flailing and his mouth open seemingly in shock!
There are other traditions that should be ended now that we Westerners think we're so "civilized." But tell me, how is bullfighting civilized? The bull is stabbed before being released into the arena, where he's provoked to charge at some guy wearing a silly-looking costume. It makes me think of the movie "Gladiator," when Joaquin Phoenix's character, the emperor, is about to fight Maximus (Russell Crowe) but goes to see him ahead of time and stabs him with a poisonous dagger, thus ensuring -- or so he believes -- his victory against the gladiator. How is that fair sportsmanship? I ask the same of the matadores in Spain. How is that fair sportsmanship? Bullfighting is a barbaric "sport" that should have ended decades ago, and yet it continues, supposedly because it's a part of Spanish culture.
Meanwhile, foie gras is considered essential to French cuisine, or so they say in France. But again, what a barbaric practice! Imprisoning geese and force feeding them until they're sick with an enlarged liver, they endure injuries such as broken beaks, and/or they flat out die. Unfortunately, there are people who say, "Who cares? It's just a bird." Well, last I checked, geese are sentient creatures -- they feel pain, and they are not here solely for our pleasure. It is ignorant to dismiss animals' wellbeing. Ignorant, primitive and uncivilized, I should say. Geese are animals, just like our household pets. If people did to their dogs and cats what foie gras producers do to geese, guess what? They'd get arrested for animal abuse!
If we want to say we're civilized, then we need to start acting as though we were. We need to stop consuming foie gras, we need to condemn bullfighting, we need to end the circus, and we need to stop dismissing the suffering of animals as "unimportant" or worse, "laughable." After all, as Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
It's one thing to wait for a groundhog to emerge from his little home and try to gauge whether he was able to see his shadow... But it's quite another for humans to get actively involved and force the groundhog to endure fright and discomfort for the sake of our amusement. The poor little guy looked completely scared, with his feet flailing and his mouth open seemingly in shock!
There are other traditions that should be ended now that we Westerners think we're so "civilized." But tell me, how is bullfighting civilized? The bull is stabbed before being released into the arena, where he's provoked to charge at some guy wearing a silly-looking costume. It makes me think of the movie "Gladiator," when Joaquin Phoenix's character, the emperor, is about to fight Maximus (Russell Crowe) but goes to see him ahead of time and stabs him with a poisonous dagger, thus ensuring -- or so he believes -- his victory against the gladiator. How is that fair sportsmanship? I ask the same of the matadores in Spain. How is that fair sportsmanship? Bullfighting is a barbaric "sport" that should have ended decades ago, and yet it continues, supposedly because it's a part of Spanish culture.
Meanwhile, foie gras is considered essential to French cuisine, or so they say in France. But again, what a barbaric practice! Imprisoning geese and force feeding them until they're sick with an enlarged liver, they endure injuries such as broken beaks, and/or they flat out die. Unfortunately, there are people who say, "Who cares? It's just a bird." Well, last I checked, geese are sentient creatures -- they feel pain, and they are not here solely for our pleasure. It is ignorant to dismiss animals' wellbeing. Ignorant, primitive and uncivilized, I should say. Geese are animals, just like our household pets. If people did to their dogs and cats what foie gras producers do to geese, guess what? They'd get arrested for animal abuse!
If we want to say we're civilized, then we need to start acting as though we were. We need to stop consuming foie gras, we need to condemn bullfighting, we need to end the circus, and we need to stop dismissing the suffering of animals as "unimportant" or worse, "laughable." After all, as Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The wisdom of Hollywood
Yes, the title of this post is, in fact, an oxymoron. Wisdom? Hollywood? The two words don't belong together in the same sentence.
I am completely fed up with celebrities meddling in politics. I mean, Martin Sheen might as well say, "Well since I did play the President of the United States on TV, I feel like I have a thorough understanding of the Executive Branch and the issues at hand..." Riiiiiight.
Look, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Pink, Julia Roberts, Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon and you other self-righteous hypocrites: YOUR political opinion is no more important than mine, even though I'm just one of the "little people." You know, those lesser-known middle-class Americans who helped propel your careers to where they are now. Remember us? Yes, hard-working, God-fearing Southerners and Midwesterners -- not just West- and East-Coasters, as you might forget -- whose jobs require them to do more than wear costumes and regurgitate scripted lines in front of a camera.
Sure, it's noble to go out there and promote those less fortunate than you, but if you really cared about the poor, the hungry and the abused, you would sell two of your homes and a few of your cars (and maybe consider spending less than $1,000 on an outfit -- "yes, you can!"), and use that money to build shelters for the homeless, or create hundreds more scholarships for inner city school children, or construct free clinics for the less fortunate. Hell, Hollywood, you're the ones who love social programs! Why not finance some of them yourselves?
And yes, those $10 thousand-a-plate fundraising dinners -- with the ladies wearing $3,000 designer name gowns -- are a start, but truthfully, it's a little silly to invest tens of thousands of dollars in a one-night dinner with a not-so-significant rate of return. Sure, I bet it's nice to dress up and show off your new clothing in front of hordes of papparazzi and show the public just how magnanimous you are... But why not just launch your own organizations to go out there and do the dirty work? Forget the glitz and the glamour, and stop worrying about seeing your photo in People Magazine.
True bleeding hearts don't own seven large houses in numerous countries across the world or keep a fleet of luxury cars sitting in a dusty, cobwebbed garage; they don't spent $10 thousand a night on a month long tropical island getaway and keep six closetfuls of designer clothes. They learn to live a little more modestly than that so that they can contribute money towards something greater than themselves.
And I don't mean to disparage those Hollywood celebrities who do live more modestly so as to give back -- Paul Newman was a fine example of someone who walked the walk and didn't just talk the talk. He gave back and even launched his own earth-friendly brand, Newman's Own, whose profits went toward making the world a better place.
And yes, maybe celebrities give back more than I realize... But even so, they're not giving back enough. If you make $20 million a year and you only give back $1 million, that is definitely NOT enough! You could donate $2 million a year to charitable causes and still not know you were missing any of it.
Of course you don't have to give back anything, Hollywood -- the choice is yours. But don't pretend to be such bleeding hearts if you're not going to practice what you preach. And don't make snide comments about those who do give back more than you, such as conservative Southerners. A study was done years ago to see which state gave back the most, as a percentage of income. Know what the highest-ranking state was? Alabama. And the state that gave back the least? Massachusetts.
If you make $20 thousand a year and of that money you give back $2,000, then you're still giving back more than someone who makes $100 thousand and gives back only $5,000.
If Hollywood were to stop acting like a bunch of self-indulgent spoiled children, and instead contribute more money toward the greater good, then THAT would be change I could believe in.
I am completely fed up with celebrities meddling in politics. I mean, Martin Sheen might as well say, "Well since I did play the President of the United States on TV, I feel like I have a thorough understanding of the Executive Branch and the issues at hand..." Riiiiiight.
Look, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Pink, Julia Roberts, Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon and you other self-righteous hypocrites: YOUR political opinion is no more important than mine, even though I'm just one of the "little people." You know, those lesser-known middle-class Americans who helped propel your careers to where they are now. Remember us? Yes, hard-working, God-fearing Southerners and Midwesterners -- not just West- and East-Coasters, as you might forget -- whose jobs require them to do more than wear costumes and regurgitate scripted lines in front of a camera.
Sure, it's noble to go out there and promote those less fortunate than you, but if you really cared about the poor, the hungry and the abused, you would sell two of your homes and a few of your cars (and maybe consider spending less than $1,000 on an outfit -- "yes, you can!"), and use that money to build shelters for the homeless, or create hundreds more scholarships for inner city school children, or construct free clinics for the less fortunate. Hell, Hollywood, you're the ones who love social programs! Why not finance some of them yourselves?
And yes, those $10 thousand-a-plate fundraising dinners -- with the ladies wearing $3,000 designer name gowns -- are a start, but truthfully, it's a little silly to invest tens of thousands of dollars in a one-night dinner with a not-so-significant rate of return. Sure, I bet it's nice to dress up and show off your new clothing in front of hordes of papparazzi and show the public just how magnanimous you are... But why not just launch your own organizations to go out there and do the dirty work? Forget the glitz and the glamour, and stop worrying about seeing your photo in People Magazine.
True bleeding hearts don't own seven large houses in numerous countries across the world or keep a fleet of luxury cars sitting in a dusty, cobwebbed garage; they don't spent $10 thousand a night on a month long tropical island getaway and keep six closetfuls of designer clothes. They learn to live a little more modestly than that so that they can contribute money towards something greater than themselves.
And I don't mean to disparage those Hollywood celebrities who do live more modestly so as to give back -- Paul Newman was a fine example of someone who walked the walk and didn't just talk the talk. He gave back and even launched his own earth-friendly brand, Newman's Own, whose profits went toward making the world a better place.
And yes, maybe celebrities give back more than I realize... But even so, they're not giving back enough. If you make $20 million a year and you only give back $1 million, that is definitely NOT enough! You could donate $2 million a year to charitable causes and still not know you were missing any of it.
Of course you don't have to give back anything, Hollywood -- the choice is yours. But don't pretend to be such bleeding hearts if you're not going to practice what you preach. And don't make snide comments about those who do give back more than you, such as conservative Southerners. A study was done years ago to see which state gave back the most, as a percentage of income. Know what the highest-ranking state was? Alabama. And the state that gave back the least? Massachusetts.
If you make $20 thousand a year and of that money you give back $2,000, then you're still giving back more than someone who makes $100 thousand and gives back only $5,000.
If Hollywood were to stop acting like a bunch of self-indulgent spoiled children, and instead contribute more money toward the greater good, then THAT would be change I could believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)