No..Free..Passes.. for SCotUS

Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor should not be vilified.  She should not be crucified.  She should be scrutinized, and verified, to be qualified.  At age 54 now, she could easily serve on the court for 20 to 30 years.  This is no time to be timid or tepid in exercising diligence.  I’m already reading too much about “we don’t want to alienate the Latino voters”.  What about alienating the U.S. Constitution for ALL voters by approving a judicial activist judge who said at a conference in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made…”?

Even the usually liberal-leaning Denver Post had a few pertinent comments in today’s editorial:

“Despite an intriguing tale, Obama's high court nominee needs to explain controversial past comments in a full Senate review.”

“She also took issue in 2001 with the notion that a wise man and a wise woman would reach the same conclusion in deciding a case, saying: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

It will be important to see how Sotomayor explains these statements. Deliberately setting policy from the bench isn't exactly an appropriate role for a judge. And the second statement is also troubling and merits further explanation. Clearly, a Supreme Court justice needs to be fair-minded.”

President Obama did interview 3 other women for the position, so it’s not like Sotomayor was the only person considered.  If I was of gay or lesbian black Asiatic origins then I might be marching in the streets, but I’m not.  I just want a fair and balanced vetting of any nominee.

No..Free..Passes..

Fear Mongering, and Judicial Empathy

There are 2 excellent opinion columns in the Friday, 22 May, Denver Post newspaper. David Harsanyi writes about Fear: Our national pastime. Mike Rosen writes about Empathy and the Supreme Court.

Democrats accuse Republicans of fear mongering and being the party of NO anytime Repubs disagree with Dems. But when Dems want to exercise haste in instituting policies in the name of economic bailouts, global warming (I mean, “climate change”) and the like, then it’s not fear but expeditious prudence driving them. This conservative, for one, has had a healthy and reasonable fear (as well as shock, awe, amazement, and disbelief) at how far down the road to Euro-Socialism this country has been dragged in Obama’s first 100 days, despite the efforts of the Party of No.

Harsanyi makes numerous cogent (reasonable and convincing) points in his column. One example:

“During the "debate" over the government's "stimulus" plan, the president claimed that the consequences of not passing his plan would mean the "recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."

To contend that a country that survived the Great Depression, world wars, a Civil War and the social upheavals of the past century could not reverse a recession without an immense government bailout is farcical. (Moreover, almost nothing the president's economists predicted has come to fruition; the opposite has. We are still approaching double-digit unemployment and sinking deeper into crisis, despite the passage of the "stimulus" plan.) “

Read his short column.

As for Mike Rosen and judicial Empathy:

–noun

1.the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

2.the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

(Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)

Although we all surely want the absolutely BEST QUALIFIED human being possible to be the next Supreme Court Justice, in the interest of being “fair” we may get a Hispanic female (who hopefully worked her way through college while digging ditches from the confines of a wheelchair all of which she has since risen from, or not). (I’m kidding… somewhat.)

As Mike Rosen notes in his column: “…the president proclaimed that his replacement must be an individual endowed with "empathy," adding, "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily reality of people's lives."”

Mike says further: ”In fact, justice is very much about legal theory and case law. The principle of stare decisis holds that courts will generally honor the decisions of prior courts. This is what makes our system of justice predictable and consistent, rather than random and arbitrary.

When empathetic judges rule on their feelings, they are exceeding their authority.”

A few other excerpts from Mike’s column:

by Congress and signed by the president. The courts are a co-equal branch of government, not a superior branch. Their job is not to rule on what they think the law ought to be. That's government by a presumptuous, unelected judiciary.”

“To use a sports metaphor, judges are referees, not rulemakers. They're not there to represent or empathize with the fans or the players. They represent the rule book, and they aren't authorized to rewrite it or make it "fairer."”

I highly recommend reading the entire column.

For a counterpoint see this article: Goodman: Supreme Court nominees and empathy.

In addition I highly recommend the book The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution by Kevin R. Gutzman. (It is also in audiobook version.) He thoughtfully and factually describes how the Supreme Court has continuously strayed from the Constitution and practiced judicial activism almost since it was created. It is educational and YOU need to be informed.

NEW GOP SPOKESWOMAN and INTELLECTUAL

I’m probably not the first to say it, but dare I try anyway? LIZ CHENEY FOR PRESIDENT. Too much Dad Dick Cheney baggage you say? By the time she gets around to it (she’s not even old enough yet (43 in July) (she and hubby Perry have 5 children however)) Obama and the DSP (Democratic Socialist Party) will have spread California-style fiscal irresponsibility across the country. Democrats and Republicans alike will be stark-raving starved for a person with the REAL intelligence, reason, and clear-thinking perception that Ms. Cheney has been displaying recently.

She has been making the rounds of liberal and conservative talk shows with the likes of Anderson Cooper, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity and others. Perhaps “FOR PRESIDENT” is a bit strong, but her ability to talk factually and not be buffaloed or cowed by her emotive interviewers (umm, where’s the beef?) has been earning her respect from liberals and huge kudos from conservatives.

Here is a blogger’s post impression on Anderson Cooper’s blog:

Jeff C: May 22nd, 2009 10:39 am ET

Very shocking interview. Liz is a tremendously intelligent woman who quite literally outclassed Anderson in this particular conversation. It was uncomfortable to observe Anderson continuously interrupt her, and in a sense struggle to paint a different picture to try to get his point across. Liz graciously displayed professionalism, during, what could be perceived to be an attempt to bully or impose a partisan ideal coming from Anderson’s position. A classic example of rationality versus emotion.

I’m historically a big fan of Anderson, which is why this conversation was such a big shock to me. I’ll be going out of my way to listen to Liz Cheney talk from this point forward. I’m glad Liz brought insight and merit to this issue to help me get off the fence.

_______________________

I haven’t watched the interview but you can watch it from the same page.

Another good excerpt:

COOPER: But --  more than 100 people are known to have died in U.S. custody. Twenty --  I think about 20 of those have been ruled a homicide. I mean, if -- if these were just tightly-controlled things, how come so many people are being murdered in U.S. custody?

L. CHENEY: Well, Anderson, I think that your question is highly irresponsible, and I think that you’re --

COOPER: Why?

L. CHENEY: Because you are conflating things that aren’t conflated.

COOPER: What --

L. CHENEY: When somebody dies or is murdered in U.S. custody, then we are a great nation, and we take the people who are responsible, and we put them on trial, as you’ve seen happen a number of times now throughout the last eight years. That is not the enhanced interrogation program. And to somehow suggest that those two things are the same, I think, willfully conflates something, and -- and ends up in a situation where we aren’t able to sort of take a truthful look at the last eight years as we go forward, because we are muddying the waters about what really happened in the last eight years.

COOPER: Do you personally have any reservations about what may have gone on with these enhanced interrogation techniques, as you call them, under CIA control, or in Abu Ghraib, or in Bagram, or in Guantanamo? I mean, do you have -- do you have any doubts at all? Because your father seems, very clearly, to have no doubts.

L. CHENEY: Look, of course -- of course, as my father made clear today, what happened at Abu Ghraib should not have happened. Nobody is defending what happened at Abu Ghraib. I have no doubts at all, no reservations and no regrets, and, in fact, I feel that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women at the CIA who carried out this program. I think there are Americans alive today because of that program, and I think that it is the height of irresponsibility for the president to release those techniques, so that, you know, the terrorists can train to them, and now we have our hands tied. Every future president’s hand will be tied and will not be able to use those techniques, if necessary.

_______________________

(Now Anderson Cooper is probably buffaloed about what “conflated” means.)

conflate

  • verb combine into one.

— DERIVATIVES conflation noun.

— ORIGIN Latin conflare ‘kindle, fuse’.

Joe Scarborough Show Video (13 minutes long, after a commercial, of course).

Wikipedia Liz Cheney

Liz has been all over the media lately and thus is now all over the ‘Net.  Be sure and listen to her next time you have a chance. We ALL need people like her articulating clear and reasoned facts.

NO DOH’ FO’ GITMO

No money for closing Guantanamo Prison, that is, at least for now. I just had to add my 2 cents worth to this widely reported story.

Wednesday's 90-7 Senate vote stripped the $80 million from a war-spending bill, and the decision to bar, for now, transfer of detainees to the United States, raised the possibility that Mr. Obama’s order to close the camp by Jan. 22, 2010, might have to be changed or delayed. (Denver Post, New York Times)

It is momentous in that not only did Pres. Obama not get an automatic free pass, go-directly-to-GO but he got a resounding, bi-partisan NO for one of the first times since he became president. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in an extraordinary case of foot-in-mouth that seems to be infecting California female political representatives these days worse than the swine flu, said “she knew of one federal facility that would be a perfect fit — Supermax prison in Florence, Colo.

"It isn't in a neighborhood. It isn't in a community. It's an isolated Supermax facility," said Feinstein, standing next to a large blowup photograph of Supermax.

"This facility houses not only drug kingpins, serial murderers and gang leaders, but also terrorists who have already been convicted of crimes in this country," she said.”

As we Coloradans know this is not just a case of NIMBY Colorado (not-in-MY-backyard), it is a case of not-in-ANY-backyard in the U.S. Kansas has the military prison at Leavenworth and Kansas doesn’t want them. Nevada has possibly the most desolate, barren stretches of land remaining in the U.S. (look how long it took to find the remains of plane crash victim and mega-millionaire Steve Fossett) and even Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said “Guantánamo makes us less safe. However, this is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this. Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.”

The proper backyard for a suspected terrorists prison is exactly where it is now, GUANTANAMO. The U.S. has leased it since 1903. No one else in the WORLD wants those prisoners. The main reason Obama wants to close the prison? It doesn’t make us “look good”. I’ve seen and heard enough about “looking good” in my life to know how superficial an approach this is. Guantanamo works. We will “look” even worse with any other alternative, and function much worse than that.

FYI, Florence, Colorado, in Fremont county, is 29 miles W of Pueblo, Colorado (center to center) (pop. 102,000 in 2000) and 34 miles SW of Colorado Springs, Colorado. (Pop. 360,890 in 2000.) There are 3,653 residents in the city. (Florence.) (REF: Florence, Pueblo, Colo. Springs. So much for isolated, Sen. Feinstein.

Pres. Obama and the Democrats continue to harp on FEAR and Fear-Mongering when anyone opposes their policies. Some of us DO fear Big Brother and the Democratic Socialist Holding Company Government when they continually set logic and reason aside and merely go with “just trust me on this one”. NOOO WAYYYY.

While he accuses dissenters of Fear-Mongering, Obama continues to disparage the previous administration. His speech about Gitmo today is more of the same. (MSNBC1, MSNBC2.) He says, to the effect (my words) “they were wrong, wrong, wrong, but now we have to move on and do it MY WAY.”

NOOOO WAYYYY. Not-in-my-backyard, Not-in-my-backcountry, NOT-ON-MY-WATCH.

1. REFERENCES:
Denver Post
New York Times
Historical Look at Guantánamo Bay
Guantanamo Bay detention camp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Florence
Pueblo
Colo. Springs
Obama calls Gitmo 'a misguided experiment'
Barack Obama's national security remarks
Dick Cheney's national security remarks

Takin' it to the STREETS!

Street maintenance, that is. We’re getting major road repairs in my neighborhood and it’s a welcome site. (Pun.) Road maintenance is something I’ve always favored be done by government, though I can see the merits of having some private highways (usually tolled). My street historians tell me it’s the first time in the 17-year history of our street that it has had extensive (any?) work. It has remained in good condition despite the length of time, which attests to the quality of the original construction. (Must not be the same guys that built my HOUSE!)

I shall miss the now patched street-wide crack that was in front of my domicile (pictured). We didn’t lose any children in that crack, and it didn’t get tooo much bigger during the nine years I’ve lived here, but it sure was a crack, never sealed, never filled, just there. When they tore it up you could see the pavement was at least 8-10 inches thick, so no wonder it lasted so well.



A couple of months ago we had these weird-looking reddish pads installed on the street corners in the neighborhood. I assume they are a traction or skid plate to prevent you from slipping or falling. I had never seen the likes before and we already had the handicap accessible, gently sloped to curb-less road entries as I believe were mandated ages ago by the American Disabilities Act. Anyway, Thoutt Construction had the honor to totally tear up all the corners, install the pads, and repave around them. (Glad to see the govt. money going to private companies I presume.) They were so dedicated to doing a good job that they actually tore up at LEAST 3 of the finished corners and redid them because something wasn’t right. I haven’t slipped since! (Or before, actually, but…)

...


About a week ago we received a notice that the streets would be milled (ground to that corduroy surface you see during repairs sometimes, I presume) and paved in the near future. Then came the “crack” repair crews. (Pun.) They have since finished most of the cracks in my immediate area and today were doing all four corners at once at my nearby intersection.







LaFarge Construction has been doing the honors for much of the current repair. They are efficient, well-organized, and fast, from my uninformed point of view. It seems too soon for this to be the result of Stimulus money, especially considering the advance planning required. I did find this document: 2009 ASPHALT OVERLAY PROJECT, PROJECT LOCATIONS specifying the work. It came from this page of the DougCo website: http://www.douglas.co.us/publicworks/engineering/Capital_Improvement_Projects.html. Glad to be seeing it done, regardless.

DougCo Term Limits

There was a front page headline article in the recent Highlands Ranch Herald about efforts to remove term limits for the county sheriff and coroner. It seems like a newsworthy subject, but the article didn’t say: a) what are the lengths of the term, b) how much of the term is left, c) is the current office holder up to the current term limits, d) who is the current sheriff and coroner (not names I recall on a daily basis).

a) From this: http://www.douglas.co.us/clerk/elections/documents/2006primary-officialcumulativereport.pdf it states the terms for sheriff and coroner are each 4 years.

b) & d) From this: http://www.douglas.co.us/government/Elected_Officials.html I deduced that current sheriff Weaver has been in office since Jan. 2007 and his term expires Jan. 2011. Current coroner Riber has been in office since Jan. 2003 and his term expires Jan. 2011.

From this: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/research/termlim.htm I found that the term limits are 2 consecutive terms if the terms are longer than 2 years.

c) Thus, private “I” that I am, I’ve deduced that Sheriff Weaver can serve another term if elected and Coroner Riber cannot run for re-election in 2011.

Well, I’m glad I figured THAT out! I’m not going to pursue the respective office holders for their opinions, though that would have been newsworthy also. As for should we have term limits, I can’t decide. There’s an argument for having continuity and experience in office and an argument for having a fresh, new (but less experienced?) perspective every so often. Hmmm. Something to keep me awake at night.

Glass-free biking!!

What a novel idea! I went on my first bike ride of the season this morning (avid bicycler that I am (NOT)) and was pleasantly surprised to find the sidewalks and pedestrian paths I traversed in my (central) area of H.R. to be glass free. Judging from the dust trails they may have been recently swept by whichever dedicated maintenance org has that particular responsibility. (Metro, HRCA, DougCo?)

Usually when I bike I am ALWAYS dodging broken glass at many points of my ride. I have been tempted sometimes to carry a dust pan, whisk broom, and sack to clean up, but I wouldn’t get much riding done. I’ve thought it would make a good senior, volunteer job (albeit a very thankless one) to ride the trails and cleanup. I certainly don’t expect the maint. orgs to go to the expense and manpower of roaming the trails looking for glass, most especially in these economic times.

Of course it would be NICE if people stopped breaking glass on the sidewalks. As I frequently see beer bottle glass I wonder if this is the result of joy riding ‘utes merrily discarding empties as they motor around. Nothing would surprise me as I actually saw an ADULT driving a shiny new pickup down the 2-lane residential street behind my house throw a BANANA peel out about ten days ago! Oh, I guess that was ok, it’s biodegradable. I couldn’t believe my eyes anyway. I’ve also seen a young teen girl, jr. high or high school age, drop an empty beer bottle out of her pack on that same residential street. No doubt chugging on the way home from school, and a future candidate for AA. But I digress.

I should just go on another bike ride soon, while the trails are still clean. That would work.

Books: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism

I finished my simultaneous second listen of the audiobook version (good for gym workouts) and first read of the print version (good for the additional book references) of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Dr. Robert P. Murphy. It’s a good primer on basic free market oriented capitalism, though I thought some of his arguments supporting the principles were a bit thin.

For example he says CEOs should get big golden parachutes because they take on big risk to create major advances, whether they succeed or not. He says if you were a factory line worker you wouldn’t agree to large pay if the company sells all the products or no pay if it doesn’t. I agree that CEOs should be paid well but that they get large basic pay commensurate with their job already and perhaps should only get high bonuses or parachutes for success. Perhaps company directors should reconsider the contractual agreements they are making with CEOs. EVERY one might work harder if there was some base pay and some merit pay involved, but that’s another issue.
He also uses the example of Microsoft and the lawsuits levied for MS’s including Internet Explorer and excluding other internet browsers. I agree that Windows is Microsoft’s product and they should be able to include or exclude anything they want. Murphy uses the analogy that an auto manufacturer includes the engine and tires on a car and you wouldn’t want one without them. I say the engine and tires are much more critical to the operation of the car than Internet Explorer is to the operation of Windows. He has the right idea but the wrong analogy.

This is an easy read, but I liked the short read ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON (Amazon) by Henry Hazlitt much better.

Pelosi foot in mouth yet AGAIN?

How to get the Democrats out of power?  Make sure they keep TALKING.  As a person committed to logic and reason, I am "keeping my fingers crossed" that the facts prove to be against Pelosi in the water boarding issue.  (What did she know and when did she know it?)  Pelosi raises detainee debate to a new level
You CALIFORNIANS, even the ones who didn't vote for her, should be ASHAMED for allowing this travesty of freedom to occupy your representation.  Get her to resign NOW!  Maybe this latest issue will do it.

CANCER, DEADLY CANCER

Not anything I have, thank goodness, but we all know some people that have had cancer of some kind, and many of them died from it. M’lady’s brother died of renal cell carcinoma (kidney) in March, after a miserable but valiant struggle for 2 ½ years after a (high) stage 4 diagnosis spread to his spine and hips. Dad died of pancreatic cancer 3 months after it was diagnosed and just short of his 85th birthday, this after late onset diabetes at age 81 and his meticulous attention to caring for it. I sometimes bitterly joke that he was the healthiest one in the family until he got sick and died. Perhaps his doctor should have given him more meticulous attention, but it is history now.

A good friend died in his 40s of brain cancer he thought he might have contracted from time spent in high ship towers near strong Navy radar. His father died of throat cancer, after a life of smoking I believe. A former co-worker’s mother died of throat cancer when he was about 14. An older gentleman up the street currently has hepato-cellular carcinoma (liver) and is hanging in there with extensive treatments. A very good friend my age had cancer, beat it, and is living a healthy, active life. Of course we’ve all heard of breast cancer, testicular cancer (bicyclist Lance Armstrong), u-name-it.

Sooo many different kinds of cancer. It boggles the mind. Cancer is the 2nd leading cause of death in the U.S. Following is a portion of a chart (a few years old but close enough for government work, as they say) from CDC leading causes of death 2005

Table B. Percentage of total deaths, 2005

Type Death - Number Deaths – Percent of total
... All causes 2,448,017 - 100.0

1 Diseases of heart 652,091 - 26.6

2 Malignant neoplasms (Cancers) 559,312- 22.8

3 Cerebrovascular diseases (Stroke) 143,579 - 5.9

4 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 130,933 - 5.3

5 Accidents (unintentional injuries) 117,809 - 4.8

6 Diabetes mellitus 75,119 - 3.1

7 Alzheimer's disease 71,599 - 2.9

8 Influenza and pneumonia 63,001 - 2.6

9 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome,nephrosis 43,901 - 1.8

10 Septicemia 34,136 - 1.4

11 Intentional self-harm (suicide) 32,637 - 1.3

12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 27,530 - 1.1

13 Essential (primary) hypertension and

hypertensive renal disease 24,902 - 1.0

14 Parkinson's disease 19,544 - 0.8

15 Assault (homicide) 18,124 - 0.7

... All other causes (Residual) 433,800 - 7.7

As you can see Heart Disease takes a lion's share first with 26.6%, Cancers are close behind at 22.8% of all deaths.

Following are the major types of cancer (table from same source):

Table 10. Number of deaths from 113 selected causes: United States, 2005

Malignant neoplasms (C00-C97) 559,312

Malignant neoplasms of lip, oral cavity and pharynx
(C00-C14) 7,773

Malignant neoplasm of esophagus (C15) 13,499

Malignant neoplasm of stomach (C16) 11,514

Malignant neoplasms of colon, rectum and anus
(C18-C21) 53,252

Malignant neoplasms of liver and intrahepatic bile
ducts (C22) 16,076

Malignant neoplasm of pancreas (C25) 32,760

Malignant neoplasm of larynx (C32) 3,797

Malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus and lung
(C33-C34) 159,292

Malignant melanoma of skin (C43) 8,345

Malignant neoplasm of breast (C50) 41,491

Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri (C53) 3,924

Malignant neoplasms of corpus uteri and uterus, part
unspecified (C54-C55) 7,096

Malignant neoplasm of ovary (C56) 14,787

Malignant neoplasm of prostate (C61) 28,905

Malignant neoplasms of kidney and renal pelvis
(C64-C65) 12,517

Malignant neoplasm of bladder (C67) 13,253

Malignant neoplasms of meninges, brain and other
parts of central nervous system (C70-C72) 13,152

Malignant neoplasms of lymphoid, hematopoietic and
related tissue (C81-C96) 55,028

Hodgkin's disease (C81) 1,272

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (C82-C85) 20,873

Leukemia (C91-C95) 21,623

Multiple myeloma and immunoproliferative
neoplasms (C88,C90) 11,200

Other and unspecified malignant neoplasms of
lymphoid, hematopoietic and related tissue (C96) 60

All other and unspecified malignant neoplasms
(C17,C23-C24,C26-C31,C37-C41,C44-C49,C51-
C52,C57-C60,C62-C63,C66,C68-C69,C73-C80,
C97) 62,851

(Apologies for the poor formatting of the previous data.)

Here is a thorough document for 2008:

CANCER FACTS AND FIGURES 2008

There is a LOT of information out there. (Google is your friend.)

I’m all for free market capitalism in the research and development of cancer cures, but if the government really feels it must throw bailout money at someone, cancer (and heart disease, Parkinson’s, MS, et al) would be a good place to start.

According to the article On front line in cancer fight “A record 861 cancer drugs are in the research pipeline…”

What can we do? Contribute, run, help a friend, contribute. We can beat this.

ONCE THERE WAS A WEIGHT

Diary of a loser …or how I lost 20 pounds in 8 weeks and a total of 30 pounds in 16 weeks to become one of the biggest losers I have ever been. (All puns intended.) I have dropped from a near all-time high of 174 pounds on Jan. 1, 2009 to around 144 pounds in May 2009. For those of us with a Napoleanic stature of 5’5-1/2” (he was actually taller) it’s called ‘making a difference’.

But can I keep it up (or down, actually)? As Billy Shakespeare said, “THAT is the question”. Following are some notes and communications I’ve made over the last months as events unfolded:

06Jan2009:

Weight

It’s all about weight. Mine has been on my mind since I returned last week. I don’t like being heavy. I don’t feel good physically (too much huff and puff) and I don’t like the way I look. (I’m not vying for America’s Top Model, but seriously folks.) I’ve lost up to 5 pounds since 1 January, though I’m back to only 4 lost today. I could gain the entire amount back in 2 good meals. Yesterday I skied, had one modest-sized bowl of soup for lunch, one bowl of popcorn with light olive oil, herb seasoning, and no salt, my usual many cups of coffee with sweetener and non-diary creamer, and gained a pound. The story of my life. Of course it’s not only the number of pounds, but the percentages. 5 pounds is about 3% of my January 1 high weight of 174.9. (Thank goodness I don’t weigh 175!!) During some periods in 2006 and 2007 I was actually 15% lighter, in the low 160’s (briefly even in the high 150’s) and it made a difference in my looks and clothes fitting. I have no idea what I was doing to get like that.

What works for me is eating less, and that is what has helped me shed 4-5 pounds in 5 days. I’m living proof that exercise alone will not make you lose weight, though I’m firmly convinced that exercise is an absolute necessity for health and well-being. So, in the last week I have shunned eating really good things. There is no way I will do that forever but I really must ‘just say no’ to the frequency with which I have so many savory things to eat. Eating is fun and I enjoy it very much, it’s unfortunate it is killing me. Of course one must eat enough to prevent light-headedness and to support one’s relative activity level.

14Jan2009:

Weight Update:

I’ve lost up to a whopping 8 pounds since the 1^st. As a result I’m down to a weight I haven’t seen since very early last April. One more pound and I will hit a weight I only hit on 3 days last year. The fun part will be keeping it off, as well as losing more. Not much of a difference in clothes yet, but it’s a start. I’m still mainly working on eating less. I’ve cut out nearly all salt and laid off popcorn for several days now. (52 grams of carbs per bag, not counting a cup+ of light olive oil. What was I thinking!?) TBC.

14Feb2009:

Weight update - 20 and counting

20 pounds lost, that is, in the 6 weeks and 3 days since 1 January 2009. It’s a personal best of that much lost in that little time. The fun part will be losing a bit more, and the REALLY fun part will be keeping it off. TLW (The Little Woman) and I got to thinking seriously about our weight after returning from our Christmas holiday travels. (She has lost 10 pounds, despite her constant travels and work-related restaurant eating.) Christmas, and any other time spent visiting family and friends, has always been an excuse for an orgy of eating (something I LOVE to do). The results have always been predictable, major weight gains and subsequently slow weight losses. I’ve realized MY weight problems are all about self. Let others handle their own situations, what am “I” going to do about me.

How have I done it so far? I’ve always gotten regular exercise, lots of gym time, and winter skiing, healthy but with little visible results. What has made the difference this time is getting exercise and:

1. Eating a lot less food (going a little hungry from time to time, something I’ve rarely ever done, and snacking on healthy things when I can’t stand it anymore)

2. Eating a lot better food (REALLY watching calories, carbs, fat, protein, et al. Not with computer accurate precision, but just being more aware of what has how much of what in it.)

One of my favorite hunger busters is dry whole almonds. (Bake them on a shallow pan for 12-14 minutes at 350 degrees (stir and turn them halfway through) for an added toasty flavor. Just don’t eat bowlfuls of them.)

We’ve switched from non-fat vanilla yogurt (still has lots of sugars) to plain, fat-free (tart tasting) yogurt, to which we add Splenda to sweeten, and frozen blueberries with a smattering of cereal for substance.

A friend has suggested artificial crab meat for substance in salads or omelets. Works great! Speaking of salads, I eat a lot more of them, and I’m liking it. I add the crab meat or salmon or very lean burger or nothing but veggies, and I like it! What a novelty. And I eat a lot of fish, and, and, well, I just say NO to pizza, chips, cookies, etc.

Ah well, I’m a six-week flash and wonder. Time will tell. It’s all about self.

18Apr2009:

I spent the better part of 2 weeks in Kansas City, MO at the end of March and not surprisingly, despite the best of intentions and some reasonably healthy eating, I gained 4 pounds. (HORRORS!) Fortunately, when I returned to Denver I lost a pound a day for the first 4 days. (Phewww. Close one.) Of course, this brought me back to a 28 pound loss since the 1^st of January. It’s not like a went obese or anything. I have since hit a 29 pound loss once, and I’ve been hanging at that 28 loss for a week. It would be “nice” to lose a few more pounds and have more of a cushion to fluctuate within, but still I’m in a weight range now that I don’t think I’ve seen in 30+ years.

13May2009:

Here we are, the future that is now. My greatest loss (well, gain, but a loss is a gain when it comes to weight, umm, you know what I mean) has been 32 pounds, which I’ve hit twice this month. I’ve hit a 31 pound loss 4 times this month and been at a 30 pound loss the other days. These little milestones are important to the obsessed dieter, as are the daily measured tenths of a pound from the digital bathroom scales. (I could NOT do this on my older weight-mechanism scales, fluctuating 3-5 pounds daily. Arrghhh.)

I’ve lost more weight in a shorter time than ever in my life. I weigh less than I did 30 years ago. ALL my clothes fit, or, they’re TOOO BIG (a badge of honor for the time being). It’s a good weight to be at (144), with plenty of “cushion” on which to fluctuate.

BUT CAN I KEEP THIS WEIGHT? “…ay, there's the rub.” THAT will be the REAL test, as many have warned me and with which I totally agree. I have to keep eating healthy food (which I now enjoy more than ever before). I have to keep exercising (that has never been a problem, though I’m a lazy exerciser and without good diet it has been insufficient alone). I also think I’m gonna’ keep an eye on the EXCUSES my wily psyche comes up with to gain a pound here and munch on something REALLY yummy there.

We shall see, we shall see. The fun has just begun. Stay tuned, don’t touch that dial. To Be Continued.

(P.S. TLW has lost about 23 pounds. Not too shabby either.)

(Attached picture: Weight chart for 1^st six months of the year 2003-2009.)

Miss California and the Deficit!

Did I get your attention? I just wanted to share that I am sooooo relieved that Carrie Prejean has retained her Miss California title due to the good graces of Donald Trump!

"Miss USA pageant co-owner Donald Trump announced that despite the controversy over her stand on gay marriage and racy pre-pageant photos that have surfaced, Carrie Prejean will retain the title of Miss California USA. Trump also commended Prejean for speaking her mind about same-sex marriage during the Miss USA Pageant."

Trump to Miss California: 'You're not fired'

Now we can get on with the REALLY IMPORTANT issues like the Fed budget "loan me 50 cents so I can spend a dollar".

"The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates."

White House: Deficit to top $1.8 trillion

(Sorry about all this. It's a slow news day.)

Death Penalty Repeal Won't Die Yet

Perhaps it will be resolved, for now, by the end of the day. I'm still a fence-sitter. So much for my committment on difficult issues. The Denver Post reports there is one more chance to repeal the death penalty. Death-penalty ban's last shot at Capitol

I was more intrigued my comments on the issue from two editorial columnists in the paper. Bill Johnson ( Johnson: Senate gutless in bill rewrite) said about favoring a repeal:

"Sometimes leadership means telling those you represent - no matter how many times they call or e-mail - there is a better way, a moral way.

And sometimes, in service to your district, state or country, there comes a moment when you have to reach into your gut and do what may not get you elected the next time.

Now, I've never run for office, but I can assure you that if I got booted out for doing what my heart, my mind and my morality told me was the right thing to do, I would kick back in retirement and in my La-Z-Boy with the biggest grin on my face you ever saw."

This, and the recent U.S. Senator Specter defection from Rep. to Dem., made me wonder should a representative "represent" the wishes of his constituents or decide issues based on his personal perspective. Sounds like a topic for a separate but big consideration.

Mike Littwin ( Littwin: Facing the death penalty after all) said:
"The death penalty is, of course, an issue that divides us at our core. It's an issue that is all about conscience and belief and in our personal understanding of where vengeance and justice intersect." [Agreed-JH]

"But today, I think it's easy to make a case against the death penalty - the randomness of its application, the DNA-proven fallibility of the system, the march of history that leaves its supporters in league with forward thinkers such as China and Iran, the argument (though still debated) against the deterrence factor." [I'm not so sure it's that easy. "Randomness of application"? "DNA-proven fallibility"? DNA evidence should be more airtight today than ever before.]

We shall see.

Nationalizing GM won't help GM

The usually Liberal Left-leaning Denver Post strikes a blow for capitalism on their Editorial Page 04/30/2009. I was SHOCKED! They make a very concise and reasoned argument for the government NOT getting into the auto business. It’s a short read and I highly recommend it: Nationalizing GM won't help GM — or the nation.

Some pertinent points from the editorial (most of it, actually):

…“GM's new idea would grant the federal government 50 percent ownership in the company. The United Auto Workers would own 39 percent. That hardly gives traditional investors 10 percent, which means minimal say in the boardroom.

We hope the Obama administration rejects this new proposal, which would effectively nationalize the country's largest automaker. If the president doesn't, it would bring his business acumen into question. Unfortunately, the team of officials Obama has working with the company appear to like this new notion.

A more likely outcome is that bondholders, who are being asked to sell their debt for a tiny amount of unsecured stock, will reject the offer. We hope they do so.

Yes, that will lead to Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but we've long argued that those protections are sufficient and the limit of what government should extend.”

…“How could Washington continue to set regulations for such things as higher fuel-efficiency standards and lower emissions requirements if those obligations conflict with selling its cars? How could taxpayers ever expect government, which would run GM, to stop bailing it out with taxpayer loans? And what about the other automakers in this country? Could they still compete?

How could executives make savvy business decisions if the UAW, which for decades has helped saddle the company with lavish pay and benefits packages grossly out of step with foreign competitors, calls the shots?

One of the key justifications for the government's extending $15 billion in loans was to protect jobs. This plan isn't even doing that. Some 21,000 jobs would be shed and several plants shuttered. GM dealerships would shrink by 42 percent.

Those cuts are most likely sadly needed to give the company a shot at regaining a competitive edge.

But the cuts are also an acknowledgment that competitors, which also employ American workers, control more of the market than ever before.

It's long past time to stop giving GM an unfair advantage propped up with huge taxpayer support, and it's unwise to saddle GM with government control. This kind of "innovation" ought to get the bankruptcy protection it deserves.”

Additional articles on the issue, much of it repetitive (IF you’re inclined toward tooo much information):

GM's New Road Map: Partial Nationalization

Nationalize General Motors? UAW and U.S. government could own 89 percent of company under GM's plan:
“GM said it would speed up six factory closings announced in February and close three additional facilities in 2010. Henderson expects to identify the plants in May and said they will include assembly, engine, transmission and parts-stamping factories.

GM will also cut 21,000 hourly jobs in the U.S. by 2010 -- 7,000 more than what the company outlined just two months ago.

With the factory cuts, GM will be a mere fraction of its old self. At the end of 1991, the company had 304,000 hourly workers in the U.S.; by the end of 2010, it would have 40,000.

Also, General Motors Canada said it plans to slash its hourly work force from 10,300 to 4,400 by 2014. Young said the reduction follows previously announced plant closures.

In addition, GM plans to cut additional U.S. salaried jobs beyond the 3,400 cuts completed last week, and it plans to reduce dealerships 42 percent by 2010.”

Government May “Nationalize” GM by Swapping Debt for Equity

New York Times:
‘Surgical’ Bankruptcy Possible for G.M

Money Morning:
U.S. Treasury to GM: Prepare for Bankruptcy

Water boarding follow-up

Clifford May offers a reasoned argument for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” in this tongue-in-cheek fantasy interview he “wishes” he’d had with comedian John Stewart. (Google: Clifford May Torture TV if the link doesn’t work.) May did appear on Stewart’s The Daily Show 04/28/2009 to discuss the issue but as usual it was one-sided in Stewart’s favor. (This is the show in which Stewart called Harry Truman a war criminal for bombing Hiroshima.)

I bring this up because May was a guest on Conservative Mike Rosen’s Denver radio talk show this morning (05/05/2009). You can listen to Mike’s interview of May without commercial interruption HERE.

My stand is still that the ‘tortures’ usually mentioned (isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation, and water boarding), are debatably “harsh tactics” and do not require a clearing of the air at the expense of our security and self-defense.

This, along with my following previous posts on the subject, will be enough out of me on this subject for awhile. (Distant cheers.)

YourHub:
Speaking of Waterboarding
II. Speaking of Waterboarding

Blogspot
Speaking of Waterboarding

Spaces.Live
Speaking of Waterboarding

Blogs, opinions, topics, Oh My!

If you’ve recently been invited to view my blog, or accidently stumbled across it, let me opine a bit about what blogging is to me. It is communication (that which separates us from being sheep and wolves or purely instinctive beings (which humans aren’t very good at anyway)).

A lot of my communication is opinion, something I have that is free and plentiful. When I can, I will back it up with fact, and I welcome others to guide me to facts when they can. I get a lot of well-intentioned emails of the patriotic or political variety that often prove to be very old and/or factually misleading. I find that Wikipedia and Snopes.com, while not infallible, will frequently set the record straight. I think we need to prove ourselves with calm, cool, and collected facts rather than the raw, unsubstantiated emotion that is often thrown at us.

Is blogging going to be that serious? I hope not! I do find myself opining about politics and economics more than I ever expected, as they effect me and the rest of the world in bigger ways these days than I ever expected. IMO communication has never been more important. My blog topics so far have been as “light” as snow skiing and as “heavy” as water boarding and the death penalty.

Bear with me if you like. I welcome you to read and encourage you to comment and converse if you so choose. Gosh, you could even start your own blog!