Showing posts with label Political Shenanigans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Shenanigans. Show all posts

Thursday, April 6, 2017

There's Only So Much Indignation To Go Around



Warning: This is going to be a long post, and a bit of a rant. So everyone, please take a deep breath and stick with me. Or not. Your choice. :)

A couple of days ago, I saw a Facebook post (from whom, I can’t remember) that fell under the “indignation click-bait” category. You know the type … all those pre-election posts with the screaming headlines along the lines of “OMG, what they just found will sink Hillary/Trump forever!” in pretty much equal number between the two major candidates.

Oppose Trump if you wish on policy matters. You are even free to dislike him personally. That is your right. But save your outrage for things that actually have some substance.

Apparently the latest indignation in the leftward quarters concerns the fact that President Trump can (gasp) draw money out of his own accounts! Release the hounds! Let the impeachment hearings begin!

Can we have a little sanity? Please? As I understand it, all of a sitting president’s personal assets go into a “blind trust,” meaning he (or she) has no say and no knowledge of which assets within, say, an investment portfolio are being bought or sold. This is done, of course, to head off the possibility of the president giving preference in legislative or executive matters to some entity he has a financial interest in.

Having one’s assets in a blind trust does not, however, prevent the owner of the assets from withdrawing money. Again if I understand it correctly, the manager(s) of the blind trust will be the ones to decide which asset(s) are to be liquidated to supply the owner with the requested cash.

I don’t have a trust, and if I did, it wouldn’t be blind, because I am not the president, nor do I hold any other high office. Or any office at all. But to put this in its simplest terms, let’s say I have a savings account at my local bank. (Yes, I know savings accounts are just about the worst investment there is in today’s financial climate, but stick with me here.) I put money in the savings account, and the bank invests that money and pays me a small percentage of the profits on those investments. I have no idea exactly what those investments are, what companies, what funds, etc. And when I withdraw money from the savings account, I do not ask, nor do I really need to know, which assets and which investments will need to be liquidated to give me the cash I’m asking for.

My simple savings account example can be, in large part, extrapolated to the president’s situation. He is entitled to withdraw his own money from the trust, but while he is president, he is not allowed to decide or even to know which assets are being bought and sold to give him the cash. I expect, though, that the trustees would have some guidelines in place as to which sorts of investments are the preferred liquidation targets. This way, they could not, for example, sell off Trump Tower without Trump knowing about it.

So . . . why would the president need cash?

How many of us know that living in the White House is NOT a free ride? Yes, the rent is covered by we the taxpayers, but all personal expenses including food and soap and toothpaste and the like are covered by the resident first family. Laura Bush wrote in her autobiography that every month, they were presented with a bill for groceries and the like. She also wrote that she was “expected” to purchase a large number of designer gowns, on her own dime, in order to keep up the image precedents set by previous first ladies.

A president who, like most, is being paid and accepting the salary for the job, has money to pay those bills and any others he/she incurs for personal expenses. But what about a president who, like Trump or Kennedy before him, is donating his salary to charities? With no income, how are they supposed to pay for groceries? Soap and toothpaste? School expenses for their children? Gas for their personal vehicles back home? The utility bills and homeowners’ insurance for their personal residence back home? Etc., etc., etc.?

Um . . . they withdraw money from their savings account? Or their blind trust?

So, in other words, this whole hullabaloo about Trump spending his own money is just another nothing-burger. You don’t like his policies? That’s your right. You don’t like his hair? Go ahead and pile on. You don’t like his tweets? Tweet back—but please tweet something with substance, not just ad hominem attacks. But don’t get on his case about using his own money to pay his everyday expenses. Okay?

Now, if it were to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the president or any other high government official was using his own money to bribe others or commit treason, that would be an entirely different ball game, worthy of genuine outrage. So far, however, there is no such proof. If there is evidence, let the investigations go forth. But again, at this moment in time, there is no reason to get indignant over President Trump spending his own money for his own expenses.


Monday, September 12, 2016

I Am SO Done With Robo Calls!

For the three or four of you out there who still have land line phones... I expect you are, like me, ready to SHOOT whoever invented the robo call.

My frustration with my carrier, A T & T Uverse, is that I can manually block numbers--but only 20 numbers can be blocked at a time. If I need to block a new one, I have to first unblock one of the old ones.

It's especially vexing this year, this time of year, with the most contentious national election in my memory underway.

Nomorobo to the rescue! Yesterday morning I was reading one of my favorite blogs and the blogger described this service and the fact that he no longer gets robo calls on his home phone.

I probably broke all speed records going to the site and signing up.

This morning I've received 2 robo calls. Each one rang just once and then was cut off.

So check it out. I can attest that it works with A T & T Uverse phone service, and it does NOT work with Tracfone cell service. But I've got the cell phone covered with an Android call-blocking app.

You're welcome.


Friday, October 5, 2012

I Was Driving, No Camera Handy.

So I couldn't take a picture, and you'll just have to take my word for it. For a couple of miles on the freeway, I followed a septic tank service truck. You know, the truck with the big tank on the back and the great big ol' hose. On the back of the tank, right under the name and phone number of the company, it said "Warning! This tank may contain political promises!" Honest. Really.


Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Surely This Is In The Constitution.

As one of the mandated duties of the federal government. Right next to that wall of separation between church and state.


Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Dead Skunk In The Middle Of The Road

That was my first thought, until I realized it was a grave insult to all honest black-and-white stinky fuzzballs out there.

To paraphrase my good friend Denise AKA Butterflysneeze...

Hey, Pakistan! You got some 'splainin' to do!


Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Well, That's A Second.

About 11 years ago I picked up the phone, and it was a national poll. The caller was a live person, and the questions were rigged in such a way that unless you were the muzziest-headed liberal in the universe, your answers made you out to be the bad guy. One question after another began with the premise that such-and-such an issue had been brought up by the Democrats but opposed or blocked by the Republicans, and just about every single one of those assertions was simply not true. For instance (and this was NOT actually one of the questions, but close) it might go like, "Democrats have proposed legislation, opposed by the Republicans, to ban the cooking and eating of babies for breakfast in the halls of Congress. Do you support the Democrats or the Republicans in this issue?" See? I was not going to reply that I supported the Democrats, but if I stated I supported the Republicans, it meant I was in favor of babies being eaten for breakfast. There was no third option of "don't know."

In several instances, the initiative purported to be proposed by the Democrats but blocked by the Republicans was, in fact, a Republican initiative that the Democrats opposed, but the American people supported. Time after time, when the caller would pose the question, I would say, "But that's not true!" Alas, that was not one of the acceptable answers. There was no way to win.

I asked the caller on whose behalf this poll was being conducted, and she either could not or would not tell me. She said that she worked for a company that was contracted to make the telephone calls, and when I said I could guess which political party had commissioned the poll, she owned up that she probably could guess that too. She was very nice... but egad, what a rigged poll that was!

Fast forward to 2011. This evening I received an automated call which immediately identified itself as conducting a poll for the Rasmussen Report, the results of which will be available at Rasmussenreports.com. The poll questions were recorded, with prompts to press 1 or 2 for the answers. Most of the questions had to do with economics, and even to my jaundiced ear, were not in the least bit weighted one way or the other. For instance, did I believe the US economy was currently great, all right, not so good, or terrible. Another: Did I believe the economy was heading in the right direction, or the wrong direction. Another: Did I believe the US is currently in a recession. Since I answered yes, the next question asked whether I believed it would be over within the next 6 months, or would it go on longer.

So now I've been nationally-polled twice. Very, very different experiences.


Sunday, November 28, 2010

Who's Running Things, Anyway?

Has our gubbermint gone mad?

Unless I am gravely mistaken, in any other era and just about any other country, this Wikileaks mess would be considered treason, punishable by death.

But in the United States of Wussies, in the year of Obama 2010? Not so much.

Please, PLEASE tell me somebody else finds this as seriously disturbing as I do!

And why, in the name of all that's holy, has the government not slapped about a hundred restraining orders on Wikileaks, or a cease-and-desist order, or something, ANYTHING to shut them down and stop them from spilling stolen national secrets!

Oh. My bad. This is the US Gubbermint circa 2010 we're talking about. They're running around like headless chickens warning everybody about how stupid the US Gubbermint is going to look and how embarrassed the administration will be when the information hits. Oh, and it's going to endanger countless lives too.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and I don't condone illegal activity, but let's just say I wouldn't be terribly upset if someone took the law into their own hands and put Wikileaks out of business, at least for a while.


Tuesday, October 5, 2010

I Missed This The First Time Around.

An acquaintance just sent me a collection of images via e-mail today. When I went hunting on the net... I found some of them posted to a blog entry as far back as April 15, 2009. This, in Obama's own back yard, less than 3 months after he was inaugurated. For your viewing pleasure, I am re-posting just a few images here, with the caveat that the copyrights belong to those listed.


Tuesday, March 30, 2010

I Expect To Be Arrested.

For smart-aleckry on the census form.

Yeah, they can make me fill it out, but they can't make me play their stupid little ethnicity games.

On the "race" question I went all the way to the bottom, checked "other" and wrote in "human."

Expecting the jack-booted knuckle-dragging thugs to show up on my doorstep any old time....

But I'm pretty sure they really don't give a rat's rear end that I'm white beige because the only yes/no question had to do with whether I was some form of Hispanic.

And if there'd been room for an essay answer, I would have spewed about how it's unfair and misleading to lump all people of European ancestry under the "white" label because if you're going to go down that road, let's point out that those of us whose ancestors several hundred years back hail from northern Scotland (mine) have little in common with those who were born in Italy and emigrated to this country as young adults (my landlord and his wife), for instance. And yet, the gubbermint considers us all "white."

Can you tell I get really, really annoyed about this crazy Balkanization that I'm paying for via my tax dollars?

I am a human-American of light beige skin tones. So there.


Thursday, June 25, 2009

Bumper Sticker

Saw one the other day; this isn't exactly the one I saw, but the general idea is the same.



Want one of your own? Go here.

(No, I am not the one selling them, and it's not a friend of mine either.)


Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Charming.

And about bloody time. Better late than never? No. Too little, too late. Sheesh.


Monday, May 18, 2009

In The Headlines

"A Call For Understanding," screams the front-page above-the-fold headline in today's newspaper, complete with picture of the president making a speech.

Oh, but we do understand. We understand all too well that you want to take our country to a place it's never been before, and that place is not a good one.


Friday, November 14, 2008

Read The Constitution. Please.

Today's letters to the editor page includes one from a woefully-uneducated pinhead. He suggests that George W. Bush should do the "right thing" and just leave office right now, and don't make Obama wait another 2 months and change to take office. We're done with Bush, and our anointed messiah needs to get busy and lead us all into hopeandchange right this minute, if not before. Or words to that effect.

Umm... we have this thing we call the United States Constitution.

If President Bush left office in any fashion at all before January 20, Vice President Dick (gasp) Cheney would become president--and would appoint a new vice-president to fill out the term. So there's no way Obama could legally step into the office before the constitutionally-appointed time.

Go read the thing. It's actually pretty short; won't take you that long.


Thursday, November 6, 2008

Over-Reaching According To Whom?

Various TV pundits more or less pooh-poohed the idea of a Republican revolution in 2010, a la 1994, after Clinton was first elected. These pundits explain that Clinton "over-reached" in his first 2 years, tried to change too many things too quickly, and the people, the great unwashed, rebelled. They suggest that Obama is smart enough to learn from this; and thus, no one should count their Republican revolution in 2010 before it is hatched.

This got me wondering. The evidence points overwhelmingly to Obama being so far to the left, any hopechanges he might attempt could look perfectly reasonable and centrist to him and his minions; but those of us who lean anywhere in the center-right spectrum could still find that he is over-reaching.

Make sense?


Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Watch This.

That is an order. CrankyBeach hath spoken.



(Hat tip: Baldilocks)


Tuesday, September 30, 2008

No Comment Needed.




Thursday, September 18, 2008

Let's Stuff This Ballot Box!

PBS is running a poll. Very simple question: Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP of the United States, yes or no?

When I voted, it was running about 60 percent no, 40 percent yes.

You know what to do.

(I have discovered that you can vote more than once.)

Hat tip: Wizbang


Thursday, September 11, 2008

The Best Image I've Seen Yet.

From the fine folks at Wizbang, at a McCain-Palin campaign rally 9-10-08:




Saturday, August 30, 2008

In The Headlines

Palin May Be Benefit or Bust for McCain's Campaign

Benefit or bust. Is there a third alternative here?

Wow. What insightful analysis. A real high risk prediction.

/sarcasm



Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Aaaak!

For reasons far too boring to explain... I happened to surf past the AOL home page. One news item caught my eye; the question of whether I could pass the U.S. citizenship test.

So I clicked over. Imagine my sheer annoyance to find that the linked page is almost entirely in Spanish--under a heading of "immigracion".

Apparently the fine fun folks over at AOL think anyone interested in this topic is a Spanish speaking immigrant.

At least the quiz itself is in English. Which makes me wonder what language the real live this-is-for-all-the-marbles citizenship test is administered in. Does anybody out there know?


 
Template by simplebits.com
Major modifications by CrankyBeach
All original content copyright 2004-2019 CrankyBeach. All other content is given proper credit where known.