Look in Webster's . . .

. . . under "self-righteous prick"

You will find this photo.

Headline: International Warrant Issued for Assange. Perhaps justice will out via a "back door" - pun intended.

Finis . . .

. . . and regrets

One of my favorite bloggers has lowered his colors and cried finito!

For 5-1/2 years, John Wood has held forth on topics critical and topics trivial. No matter the topic, however, his thoughts, his logic, and the amazing command of the language always impressed me.

John had a distinguised career, including time served in NI during "The Troubles," where he was awarded an MBE with oak leaf valor device.

More than a few times, I disagreed with his position, but was hard-pressed to provide significant opposition. He argued his points so damn convincingly that I was often left just scratching my head for words of riposte.

Sorry to see you go, John.

Thanks a lot . . .

. . . Barry

Citing deficit, Obama to freeze federal worker pay.

It's a knee-jerk reaction, because Barry needs to do something - anything - to show that he's sensitive to the budget deficit.

It's OK. I can take it. Everyone is going to have to sacrifice something to pay for the excesses our government has indulged in for the past (way too many) years.

However, that leads me to a question or two for Basketball Barry:

1. Where was this concern when you proposed your new budget based on little more than wishful thinking and inflated projections?

2. Where was this concern when you stuffed a health care plan down our throats, one that created 150 new Federal agencies?

3. Where was this concern when you racked up a deficit that exceeded ALL OF THIS NATIONS DEFICITS TO DATE?

4. Where was this concern when your minions in the Nancy and Harry Show were rolling pork through Congress faster than Armour makes sausages?

And (the ever-present, ever-judgmental) "they" said that Sarah Palin didn't have the experience to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

Right now, I would trade her for you, and wouldn't even ask for a future draft choice.

Statistics don't lie . . .

. . . but statisticians do

There is a continuing effort in the press and in some dark corners of Congress to place a large part of the blame for the country's current fiscal problems on the backs of federal employees.

Ms. Julie Snider of USA Today has provided us with a textbook example of the comparison of apples to aardvarks.

The error of this analysis lies precisely in the job mix of the private and public sectors. Included in the "average" salaries of private workers are garbage collectors, janitors, hamburger-flippers, fruit pickers, gas station attendants, restaurant waiters, convenience store clerks, and cub reporters for great metropolitan newspapers, to name a few.

I do not denigrate any of these jobs. All are honorable and necessary. However, Uncle Sam employs very few workers of this type. The federal job mix tends to be heavily oriented towards skilled trades and professionals. The federal workforce necessarily employs scientists, engineers, lawyers, accountants, physicists, electrical & mechanical technicians, nurses and doctors, for example.

Jobs requiring less training or education are indeed necessary in the federal community, but are generally contracted from the private sector.

While anecdotal evidence seldom proves a point, my appointment, which requires a masters degree, a professional license, and more than a decade of relevant experience, pays significantly less than a similar position in the private sector. I have the paychecks from both as proof. Further, my benefits are nowhere close to 50% of my salary, nor are those of the numerous employees in the departments I have managed.

There is no denying that federal employes have a good benefits package. However, the package is not unlike packages offered by major employers across the U.S., and it is necessary for the government to offer it in order to attract quality employees.

I view this backlash as just another version of jealousy fomented by hard times. Those who have less than they would like tend to attack those who have more - a position that the current administration embraces.

The premise of Ms. Snider's analysis is correct.

Her target is not.

The federal employees responsible for said problems - and there are only 596 of them - are not those in the chart above, but those with the title of "Senator" or "Congressman/woman" before their names.

My day off . . .

. . . so far

1. Slept a couple of hours longer (I'm usuallly up at 0500)
2. Left for the dentist's office at 1015
3. Missed a turn and drove 15 km out of my way
4. Noticed that the whores were still working - even in the rain
5. More about #4 later
6. Arrived at dentist on time after all
7. Two shots of novocaine
8. Surgical extraction of #5 root
9. Bone graft
10. Implant insertion
11. Three stitches
12. Many euro handed to dentist
13. One vicodin
14. Soft food for dinner
15. Another vicodin

All things considered, I would rather have been at work.

Enough . . .

. . . is enough!

I seldom use exclamation points because most folks with a modicum of intelligence can determine which statements deserve emphasis and which do not.

Besides, internet bloggers and phone texters have already used the entire world's supply of said punctuation, and the supply has not yet been renewed because of the world's financial crisis.

However, I retrieved one from my strongbox specifically for Joe Miller.

For those who do not recognize the name, or believe that American politics is just another diversion for the mentally infirm, Mr. Miller is the Tea Party candidate for the U. S. Senate seat in Alaska, in opposition to the incumbent, write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski.

He has filed a lawsuit because the Alaska election board proposes to count ballots cast for Lisa Merkowski or Lisa Murkowsky or whatever other permutations of her name appear next to the little oval.

To be fair, Alaska election law does state that the little ovals must be darkened, and that the name must appear as written on the declaration of candidacy. However, case law has allowed some flexibility in order to ensure that the intent of the voters is carried forth.

This lawsuit might make some sense if the election were close, but Miller would lose by 2,167 votes even if all the contested votes were discarded.

Yet, Miller slogs on, tilting at bureaucratic windmills on the tundra of Alaska.

Mr. Miller, you are a loser - twice over. Hand your lance to your Sancho Panza and gracefully retire from the field.

They can . . .

. . . but should they?

Developers of the controversial Park51 Islamic community center and mosque located two blocks from Ground Zero earlier this month applied for roughly $5 million in federal grant money set aside for the redevelopment of lower Manhattan after the attacks of September 11th, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the matter. - The Daily Beast 22 NOV 2010

I have said before that all of this is perfectly legal, and is certainly allowed under the basic concepts of freedom in the U.S.

I feel a modicum of guilt for my opposition to the construction of this Mosque. However, it is tempered by a failing hope that this Imam would reach out, acknowledge the feelings this project foments, and offer an alternate solution.

That which is allowed and that which is right are not always congruent.

With any luck, however - and I hesitate to use the word "luck" in this context - this request will not prevail. In order to obtain the grant the applicant must have sufficient capital to seed the project. For an entity wishing to construct a $100M project, Park51 has an amazing paucity of funds - a total of $20,000 on its financial statement.

John Avalon of the Daily Beast characterized it all very succinctly:

It’s a lose-lose proposition put forward by a tone-deaf organization that seems determined to alienate allies and embolden opponents.