For many years now, the states of the United States have been enacting concealed carry laws that enable their citizens to arm themselves with handguns for self defense. Wisconsin became the 49th state to do it, leaving only Illinois without a concealed carry law of some kind. Opponents of these laws have been predicting chaos for years. And during that same time they have also ignored the explosion of gun violence in that city to our south, Chicago. There were 49 shootings in Chicago last WEEKEND. Wow, just imagine how bad it would be if they allowed concealed carry! That's a joke of course, since the number of shootings would be more likely to go down, not up, if they had concealed carry. You'd think that after predicting chaos so many times and continuing to be wrong, they would take a different tack. But I guess when you've got such a good story, it's hard to let it go. You wait, and wait and hope for some clown with a permit to lose it and do something stupid that proves you were right. But darn it, it just keeps not happening. They thought they had one a few years back. It seemed to be the epitome of an impulsive act, the kind we were told would happen daily if everybody started packing heat. A permit holder in Minnesota shot a guy at the drive up window at McDonald's. It looked perfect. A guy gets into an argument with a fast food worker and then pulls out his too handy pistol to impulsively shoot the offender. But the problem is it turned out that he didn't have his gun with him. So he went home got it, and then came back to shoot the guy. But this week they got the story they wanted.
A young black man walked from his father's house to the convenience store. On the way back he is confronted by a member of the neighborhood watch, who is armed. The police tell the watch captain that he should not pursue the man, but he does anyway. By the time police arrive the young black man is dead and the gunman is claiming self defense. My proof that the mainstream media has been waiting for this story is in the complete saturation coverage it has received. The victims family has been on the Today show every morning this week. Countless columns have been written connecting this story to gun control, because this is what kept not happening. This was, FINALLY, the story of a good gun gone bad.
You see, in the debate about concealed carry, advocates make the argument that the "bad" guns are already out there. They are in the hands of criminals who don't give a damn about what the laws say. They are going to carry guns whenever and wherever they want. They are the "bad" guns, and they are a given. Enter, the "good" guns. These are the guns that are now being carried by "good" people. For the longest time, gun opponents would have you believe THESE are the guns you need to fear. Their mantra was more guns equals less safety. They would concede that the bad guns were out there, but they saw all guns as equally bad, and reasoned that more guns just meant more trouble. And so they waited for that thing that kept not happening, a good gun gone bad. And there's not much doubt that is what did happen in Florida.
But it's the massive coverage that tells you something is up. In my opinion, there was a far more compelling story earlier this year. A single mom in rural Oklahoma who had recently been widowed, heard two men breaking into the house where she and her infant lived. When the first one broke through the door. she calmly shot him dead. The other one wisely decided to leave, and was arrested later. If you were a journalist, which story would you rather write about? Unless you have an agenda, it's pretty clear which one is more of a feel good story. But for some reason, the Oklahoma widow never made it on to the Today show. In fact, you likely never heard about it. See, that was a good gun, done good and doesn't help at all.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Desperately Seeking Bob
I have a friend that I see once or twice a week in purely social settings, and this person has suddenly developed an intense desire to start a political discussion. As you know, I seldom shy away from such a fight, but I frankly do not see any one good thing coming from it. I've picked up on this person's politics before, but that's not what keeps me from taking the bait that they've thrown out there each of my last few encounters. I detected this person's relative position on the political matrix ( and BTW, it is a matrix and not an axis) but I've also gotten a feel for the depth of their political acumen, and it's mostly from a level of Rachel Maddow talking points. And that means very particular subjects from a very particular angle. Let's just say that keeping Iran from going nuclear would not be on the list, nor would the best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs. No. it would all be about the social positions of particular conservatives, and the quotes from them that I would be asked to defend or condemn.
They seem to be quite desperate to engage me in particular, and I'm kinda having fun with it in that I am frustrating them at each turn. At the risk of sounding conceited, I'm guessing that they just don't know any other smart conservatives to engage. It seems that I am their Holy Grail and they are convinced that they can take me down, as long as they can pick the subject. I'm sure I have not seen the last ham handed attempt to pick a fight. But you know how I said in my last post that I do have friends that I can argue with, and remain civil? I don't think this debate would fall into that category. So I think I'll just enjoy keeping my mouth shut and seeing how far they will push it.
They seem to be quite desperate to engage me in particular, and I'm kinda having fun with it in that I am frustrating them at each turn. At the risk of sounding conceited, I'm guessing that they just don't know any other smart conservatives to engage. It seems that I am their Holy Grail and they are convinced that they can take me down, as long as they can pick the subject. I'm sure I have not seen the last ham handed attempt to pick a fight. But you know how I said in my last post that I do have friends that I can argue with, and remain civil? I don't think this debate would fall into that category. So I think I'll just enjoy keeping my mouth shut and seeing how far they will push it.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Avoiding The Argument
Usually, I'm up for a good argument, particularly when it's about politics. The saying in the household where I grew up was that if we were walking along and saw two guys going going at it in the middle of the street, we'd stop and ask, "Is this a private fight, or can anybody join in?" At a very young age, I didn't understand what the dropping of a hat had to do with anything, but my mother constantly assured me that I would be glad to argue about it.
I enjoyed the give and take, but let's be honest about it, I really liked what everybody likes: winning. I never took forensics in high school or college, but I learned how to state my case. Over the years, I think I learned to both stay on point, and detect when my opponent was not. I learned to not get personal, and have found a few friends that I can still engage in a political debate, and not alienate them. I firmly believe that a good argument is the only way a mind gets changed. That doesn't happen when I say "X," you say "Y" and then I conclude, "Oh, you're right, now I see that it IS 'Y'." No, for me, it happens when I start to make my point about "X" and suddenly realize that the words coming out of my own mouth are bullshit. When you aren't buying your own arguments, it's time to reassess. My mind is the one that ends up changed, not my opponent's. At least, that's how it works for me.
But sometimes a debate goes on long enough that just about every angle and argument has been explored. Here in Wisconsin I believe voter ID is just such an issue. But both sides have failed to recognize the BS coming out of their respective mouths. Now we have a law that infuriates the left, and will likely be tied up in legal challenges for some time to come, which infuriates the right. When this matter first came up, I was, predictably, on the side of conservatives. The left would say that it was a fact that very little actual voter fraud took place, that this law wasn't needed. They would cite studies and statistics on charges of voter fraud. I argued back and said that their studies only proved that voter fraud was incredibly hard to detect. Their studies only covered the people who were caught. And voter fraud was one of those crimes that did not make itself evident. They had no idea how much fraud had actually taken place. They just knew how many were caught. They claimed it was a burden to voters. And I would respond that you needed an ID to rent a lousy video. Surely we could ask for this tiny bit of proof on something as important as the integrity of the voting booth, couldn't we? "You're disenfranchising voters" they cried. "And you're enabling voter fraud among the convicted felons and illegal aliens," I'd respond.
But then it occurred to me that they had a point, all be it, a small one. I asked myself if an indigent, homeless person should have an unimpeded right to vote. The answer was, yes, they do. And I further had to admit that having to secure a certified birth certificate was an obstacle, however small. So I had a thought about a way to ensure integrity without putting up obstacles.
You set up a digital video camera at each polling station.
As it is, a person has to step up to the table and state their name and address so the poll worker can look you up. All that would be different is that now, you just add the caveat that you are in fact a legal voter, and you do it in front of the camera. Plus you add that the penalty for making a false statement under those circumstances, is a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. Rather than create another obstacle, this would make it easier to vote. You wouldn't even need to produce a utility bill.
I started to circulate the idea to see what objections there would be, and that's when I had my "aha" moment. At first, a few people said that the problem was you'd have to have somebody view all that video. I'd politely explain that they were missing the point. This was not a system that would verify, it was system that deterred, in spades. Like the endless hours of surveillance video that a store records, you'd only view the tape if you thought there was an issue. But the big point was that not even the most wild eyed, Walker-hating union worker would step in front of that camera and provide iron clad proof that they just committed a crime that could land them in jail for a year and cost them $10,000. All for the sake of casting a singular, fraudulent vote for Kathleen Falk? I think not. And liberals couldn't say anybody was denied their rights. Don't speak English? Say it in Spanish. You're deaf? You can sign it in ASL.
I gave the idea to both sides, but the only positive response I had at all was from my liberal state rep. He wrote me back and said he liked it and would be looking into it. At that time, the ID law had not yet been passed. It's been crickets ever since. It made me think that maybe Republicans actually were looking to suppress votes, and maybe Democrats actually were looking to benefit from felons and other illegal voters. I don't want this to sound like it's all about me and my idea. I'm not miffed because nobody listened to me. I'm miffed that we are still having the same arguments and it was all so avoidable. Republicans need to admit that their law will prevent people from voting. It doesn't matter how few, and it doesn't matter if they think the obstacle is really small. Poll taxes and literacy tests sounded pretty reasonable in their day too. There should be NO obstacles, not just small ones. And Democrats need to admit that catching so few after the act does not translate into "not happening at all." If you had the cameras in place, they couldn't argue about any of this. And that makes me wonder if that's why they won't do it. They both seem to prefer their arguments to a solution.
I enjoyed the give and take, but let's be honest about it, I really liked what everybody likes: winning. I never took forensics in high school or college, but I learned how to state my case. Over the years, I think I learned to both stay on point, and detect when my opponent was not. I learned to not get personal, and have found a few friends that I can still engage in a political debate, and not alienate them. I firmly believe that a good argument is the only way a mind gets changed. That doesn't happen when I say "X," you say "Y" and then I conclude, "Oh, you're right, now I see that it IS 'Y'." No, for me, it happens when I start to make my point about "X" and suddenly realize that the words coming out of my own mouth are bullshit. When you aren't buying your own arguments, it's time to reassess. My mind is the one that ends up changed, not my opponent's. At least, that's how it works for me.
But sometimes a debate goes on long enough that just about every angle and argument has been explored. Here in Wisconsin I believe voter ID is just such an issue. But both sides have failed to recognize the BS coming out of their respective mouths. Now we have a law that infuriates the left, and will likely be tied up in legal challenges for some time to come, which infuriates the right. When this matter first came up, I was, predictably, on the side of conservatives. The left would say that it was a fact that very little actual voter fraud took place, that this law wasn't needed. They would cite studies and statistics on charges of voter fraud. I argued back and said that their studies only proved that voter fraud was incredibly hard to detect. Their studies only covered the people who were caught. And voter fraud was one of those crimes that did not make itself evident. They had no idea how much fraud had actually taken place. They just knew how many were caught. They claimed it was a burden to voters. And I would respond that you needed an ID to rent a lousy video. Surely we could ask for this tiny bit of proof on something as important as the integrity of the voting booth, couldn't we? "You're disenfranchising voters" they cried. "And you're enabling voter fraud among the convicted felons and illegal aliens," I'd respond.
But then it occurred to me that they had a point, all be it, a small one. I asked myself if an indigent, homeless person should have an unimpeded right to vote. The answer was, yes, they do. And I further had to admit that having to secure a certified birth certificate was an obstacle, however small. So I had a thought about a way to ensure integrity without putting up obstacles.
You set up a digital video camera at each polling station.
As it is, a person has to step up to the table and state their name and address so the poll worker can look you up. All that would be different is that now, you just add the caveat that you are in fact a legal voter, and you do it in front of the camera. Plus you add that the penalty for making a false statement under those circumstances, is a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. Rather than create another obstacle, this would make it easier to vote. You wouldn't even need to produce a utility bill.
I started to circulate the idea to see what objections there would be, and that's when I had my "aha" moment. At first, a few people said that the problem was you'd have to have somebody view all that video. I'd politely explain that they were missing the point. This was not a system that would verify, it was system that deterred, in spades. Like the endless hours of surveillance video that a store records, you'd only view the tape if you thought there was an issue. But the big point was that not even the most wild eyed, Walker-hating union worker would step in front of that camera and provide iron clad proof that they just committed a crime that could land them in jail for a year and cost them $10,000. All for the sake of casting a singular, fraudulent vote for Kathleen Falk? I think not. And liberals couldn't say anybody was denied their rights. Don't speak English? Say it in Spanish. You're deaf? You can sign it in ASL.
I gave the idea to both sides, but the only positive response I had at all was from my liberal state rep. He wrote me back and said he liked it and would be looking into it. At that time, the ID law had not yet been passed. It's been crickets ever since. It made me think that maybe Republicans actually were looking to suppress votes, and maybe Democrats actually were looking to benefit from felons and other illegal voters. I don't want this to sound like it's all about me and my idea. I'm not miffed because nobody listened to me. I'm miffed that we are still having the same arguments and it was all so avoidable. Republicans need to admit that their law will prevent people from voting. It doesn't matter how few, and it doesn't matter if they think the obstacle is really small. Poll taxes and literacy tests sounded pretty reasonable in their day too. There should be NO obstacles, not just small ones. And Democrats need to admit that catching so few after the act does not translate into "not happening at all." If you had the cameras in place, they couldn't argue about any of this. And that makes me wonder if that's why they won't do it. They both seem to prefer their arguments to a solution.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Whose Ox Is Being Gored
While I am most definitely a Green Bay Packers fan now, it wasn't always so. Actually, when the famous "Ice Bowl" was played decades ago, I was on the other side of the famous goal line stand, cheering for Bob Lily and Jethro Pugh to stuff Jerry Kramer and Bart Starr (to no avail.) I grew up in Texas as a Cowboy fan. And in Texas there are only two sports: Football and Spring Football.
It didn't happen over night. I moved to Wisconsin in 1978 and remained a die hard Cowboy fan even through the Danny White years and the over-hyped 44-0 ass whuppin' at the hands of the '86 Chicago Bears. I bet football games back then, and would bet on the Boys when I thought they'd cover, but I'd never bet against them. But gradually, two things started to test my team loyalty. First, I was living in Wisconsin and this was before satellite TV could bring you all the NFL games. I was getting a steady diet of Packer games, and almost never caught my Cowboys on TV, it seemed (although I'm sure everybody else was asking why they were "always" on.) I even had to drive to Rockford for that Bears game. Then a personal friend started playing for the Packers and they became a "co-favorite team." Then Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys, unceremoniously fired Tom Landry, and brought in the likes of Michael Irvin and Deon Sanders. Their attitudes and antics just didn't fit with my image of them being the good guys who always wore white. Staubach, Dorsett, Lily, Drew Hill and Chuck Howley were gone. Jerry Jones had made me a Packer fan. I'm always proud to point out that was before anybody even knew who Brett Favre was. But don't get me wrong. Irvin, Sanders and Emmit Smith are all deserving Hall of Famers. Deon Sanders is perhaps the best athlete in my lifetime. It was the antics and showboating that turned me off.
Now, most of people may not remember the origins of the Excessive Celebration rule in the NFL, but I do. It was squarely aimed at "The Fun Bunch." They were a group of Washington Redskins who ran into the end zone and had a choreographed dance routine they would perform after every Redskin touchdown. There were six or eight of them, who formed a circle and did their elaborate dance. Some weren't even playing at the time, and would come off the bench to dance. It was infuriating. So much so, that when they did it at Texas Stadium once, a Cowboy defensive back (who had just been burned for the TD) charged into the circle, blasting and shoving them to prevent the dance. A large brawl ensued, and the NFL instituted the Excessive Celebration rule.
Still, touchdown celebrations continued to evolve from a simple spike to things like The Ickey Shuffle. Everybody, including me, seemed to accept it more and more. But none other than Vince Lombardi, used to tell the rookies, "When you get into the end zone, act like you've been there before." That's what two of the greatest to ever play the game did. Walter Payton and Barry Sanders never did anything other than hand the ball to a referee, or congratulate a teammate. These days, that seems quaint. Which brings me to the "Discount Double Check." I watched last week's Packer game with other dedicated Packer Fans and we all anticipated and enjoyed the new versions of State Farm Insurance's popular commercials featuring Aaron Rodgers and his Championship Belt "dance." The commercials, with BJ Raji and Clay Matthews are very clever and all in good fun. But during the actual game, (which was a debacle for the Pack,)an interesting thing happened. A New York Giant put Mr. Rogers on his butt with a timely sack, and then did Roger's own Championship Belt move in his face. Ouch. My friend Shirley, as avid a fan as there is, cried foul. "He can't do that!!" Oh, but he can, and he just did. I admit, it pissed me off too. But then I realized it was just whose ox was being gored, mine. After all, the move is a look-at-me-aren't-I-great dance, not like the Lambeau Leap, which is more a celebration of and for the fans.
I heard that State Farm had a Greg Jennings spot already shot, and planned for broadcast at the Super Bowl if the Packers had gone that far. And I hate to be the one to throw cold water on the Packers. But maybe Aaron Rogers should take the Giants loss as a lesson in humility and start doing something really cool and classy, like handing the ball to the referee.
It didn't happen over night. I moved to Wisconsin in 1978 and remained a die hard Cowboy fan even through the Danny White years and the over-hyped 44-0 ass whuppin' at the hands of the '86 Chicago Bears. I bet football games back then, and would bet on the Boys when I thought they'd cover, but I'd never bet against them. But gradually, two things started to test my team loyalty. First, I was living in Wisconsin and this was before satellite TV could bring you all the NFL games. I was getting a steady diet of Packer games, and almost never caught my Cowboys on TV, it seemed (although I'm sure everybody else was asking why they were "always" on.) I even had to drive to Rockford for that Bears game. Then a personal friend started playing for the Packers and they became a "co-favorite team." Then Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys, unceremoniously fired Tom Landry, and brought in the likes of Michael Irvin and Deon Sanders. Their attitudes and antics just didn't fit with my image of them being the good guys who always wore white. Staubach, Dorsett, Lily, Drew Hill and Chuck Howley were gone. Jerry Jones had made me a Packer fan. I'm always proud to point out that was before anybody even knew who Brett Favre was. But don't get me wrong. Irvin, Sanders and Emmit Smith are all deserving Hall of Famers. Deon Sanders is perhaps the best athlete in my lifetime. It was the antics and showboating that turned me off.
Now, most of people may not remember the origins of the Excessive Celebration rule in the NFL, but I do. It was squarely aimed at "The Fun Bunch." They were a group of Washington Redskins who ran into the end zone and had a choreographed dance routine they would perform after every Redskin touchdown. There were six or eight of them, who formed a circle and did their elaborate dance. Some weren't even playing at the time, and would come off the bench to dance. It was infuriating. So much so, that when they did it at Texas Stadium once, a Cowboy defensive back (who had just been burned for the TD) charged into the circle, blasting and shoving them to prevent the dance. A large brawl ensued, and the NFL instituted the Excessive Celebration rule.
Still, touchdown celebrations continued to evolve from a simple spike to things like The Ickey Shuffle. Everybody, including me, seemed to accept it more and more. But none other than Vince Lombardi, used to tell the rookies, "When you get into the end zone, act like you've been there before." That's what two of the greatest to ever play the game did. Walter Payton and Barry Sanders never did anything other than hand the ball to a referee, or congratulate a teammate. These days, that seems quaint. Which brings me to the "Discount Double Check." I watched last week's Packer game with other dedicated Packer Fans and we all anticipated and enjoyed the new versions of State Farm Insurance's popular commercials featuring Aaron Rodgers and his Championship Belt "dance." The commercials, with BJ Raji and Clay Matthews are very clever and all in good fun. But during the actual game, (which was a debacle for the Pack,)an interesting thing happened. A New York Giant put Mr. Rogers on his butt with a timely sack, and then did Roger's own Championship Belt move in his face. Ouch. My friend Shirley, as avid a fan as there is, cried foul. "He can't do that!!" Oh, but he can, and he just did. I admit, it pissed me off too. But then I realized it was just whose ox was being gored, mine. After all, the move is a look-at-me-aren't-I-great dance, not like the Lambeau Leap, which is more a celebration of and for the fans.
I heard that State Farm had a Greg Jennings spot already shot, and planned for broadcast at the Super Bowl if the Packers had gone that far. And I hate to be the one to throw cold water on the Packers. But maybe Aaron Rogers should take the Giants loss as a lesson in humility and start doing something really cool and classy, like handing the ball to the referee.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Tacky, tacky, tacky
Tonight, ABC plans to air an interveiw with Newt Gingrich's 2nd (out of 3) wife. Apparently, she says that as their marriage was disintegrating, that Newt suggested an open marriage where he could have a mistress, and he knew just the person for the job, his now 3rd wife, Calista.
On the Mitt Romney front, while he's trying to defend his effectice tax rate of 15%, it comes out (also from ABC,) that he has millions stashed in The Cayman Islands, a well known tax evaders haven. They can't say (yet) that he was actually cheating, and Romney claims that he wasn't. But there is no doubt that the location of these funds, part of Bain Capital, is due to Caymans's status as a tax dodge, at least for those Bain investors who do wish to cheat. So at best, he is subordinating tax evasion for others.
Just a couple of observations: Along with Herman Cain's bimbo eruptions, I have to ask, did any of these guys consider this stuff before they threw their hats into the ring? Newt's Ex is pissed, and seemingly of a mind to say, "If I can't be first lady, then neither can Calista." Did Newt have any idea how she felt? How could he not know she was that bent out of shape? Did Herman Cain think none of them were going to say anything? Did Mitt Romney ever consider that he would be forced to reveal his tax returns? Because I don't think he can avoid it now, not after they play a clip of him demanding that Ted Kennedy release his returns when Mitt ran for Kennedy's senate seat.
The other thing is, are there going to be any Republicans standing at the convention other than Rick Santorum and Ron Paul? Will one of the "darlings" like Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan be convinced to step up, and step over the dead bodies littering the path to the White House?
On the Mitt Romney front, while he's trying to defend his effectice tax rate of 15%, it comes out (also from ABC,) that he has millions stashed in The Cayman Islands, a well known tax evaders haven. They can't say (yet) that he was actually cheating, and Romney claims that he wasn't. But there is no doubt that the location of these funds, part of Bain Capital, is due to Caymans's status as a tax dodge, at least for those Bain investors who do wish to cheat. So at best, he is subordinating tax evasion for others.
Just a couple of observations: Along with Herman Cain's bimbo eruptions, I have to ask, did any of these guys consider this stuff before they threw their hats into the ring? Newt's Ex is pissed, and seemingly of a mind to say, "If I can't be first lady, then neither can Calista." Did Newt have any idea how she felt? How could he not know she was that bent out of shape? Did Herman Cain think none of them were going to say anything? Did Mitt Romney ever consider that he would be forced to reveal his tax returns? Because I don't think he can avoid it now, not after they play a clip of him demanding that Ted Kennedy release his returns when Mitt ran for Kennedy's senate seat.
The other thing is, are there going to be any Republicans standing at the convention other than Rick Santorum and Ron Paul? Will one of the "darlings" like Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan be convinced to step up, and step over the dead bodies littering the path to the White House?
Monday, November 28, 2011
"Are Those Pecans?"
"Are those pecans?"
I'm standing in the checkout line at Sam's Club. I'm holding four, two-pound bags of pecans. You can tell they are pecans by one of two ways. First, they are in bags that are transparent on about 40% of their surface and you can plainly see the pecans. And then there is the large printed word, "pecans," that is printed on that part of the bag that is not transparent. Either way, it's not hard to tell.
They say there is no such thing as a stupid question, but if there isn't, then what is this? Ok, it's really a rhetorical question that is meant to start a conversation. But I don't know this guy, and I have no desire to start up a conversation or a relationship with somebody who I will likely never see again after our 3 minute encounter is over. So whenever somebody asks me a stupid question, I like to take about a five second pause before answering. I have an expression on my face that says, "I'm mulling over your question, not so that I can answer it accurately, but so that I can determine why you aksed something so inane." I'm hoping that during this pregnant pause, the guy will realize how stupid he sounds and then gush something like, "Of course they're pecans." But he doesn't, so I answer.
"Yeah. They're pecans."
I know he wants more, but I'm going to make him dig for it.
"That's a lot of pecans, what are you going to do with them?"
Now I admit that eight pounds is a lot of pecans, but I'm wondering if he realizes we are at Sam's Club, where any purchase involves a two year supply of whatever it is you are buying. This is where businesses go to buy in volume.
Pause.
"Gonna' make spiced pecans."
"And then what? Do you just eat them?"
I resist the urge to answer with something like, "No, I string them together and wear them like a necklace."
"Just eat 'em."
"Well you must really like pecans!"
"Yeah."
"Well, I do to, but they're expensive. How much were those?"
Pause. "Fifteen dollars a bag."
"Well, that's sixty dollars worth of pecans there!"
He can do math in his head.
"Yep, sure is."
I'm standing in the checkout line at Sam's Club. I'm holding four, two-pound bags of pecans. You can tell they are pecans by one of two ways. First, they are in bags that are transparent on about 40% of their surface and you can plainly see the pecans. And then there is the large printed word, "pecans," that is printed on that part of the bag that is not transparent. Either way, it's not hard to tell.
They say there is no such thing as a stupid question, but if there isn't, then what is this? Ok, it's really a rhetorical question that is meant to start a conversation. But I don't know this guy, and I have no desire to start up a conversation or a relationship with somebody who I will likely never see again after our 3 minute encounter is over. So whenever somebody asks me a stupid question, I like to take about a five second pause before answering. I have an expression on my face that says, "I'm mulling over your question, not so that I can answer it accurately, but so that I can determine why you aksed something so inane." I'm hoping that during this pregnant pause, the guy will realize how stupid he sounds and then gush something like, "Of course they're pecans." But he doesn't, so I answer.
"Yeah. They're pecans."
I know he wants more, but I'm going to make him dig for it.
"That's a lot of pecans, what are you going to do with them?"
Now I admit that eight pounds is a lot of pecans, but I'm wondering if he realizes we are at Sam's Club, where any purchase involves a two year supply of whatever it is you are buying. This is where businesses go to buy in volume.
Pause.
"Gonna' make spiced pecans."
"And then what? Do you just eat them?"
I resist the urge to answer with something like, "No, I string them together and wear them like a necklace."
"Just eat 'em."
"Well you must really like pecans!"
"Yeah."
"Well, I do to, but they're expensive. How much were those?"
Pause. "Fifteen dollars a bag."
"Well, that's sixty dollars worth of pecans there!"
He can do math in his head.
"Yep, sure is."
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Cain, Movin' On Up
The more I learn about and watch Herman Cain, the more I like him. Apparently I'm not alone as he is now tied with Romney in the polls, up from virtual obscurity a few months ago. Politics though is full of shooting stars that burn up in the national spotlight. Think Rudy Giuliani and Rick Perry. Perry shot past Romney as soon as he entered the race. He looked like Romney, only better looking, with better hair, (if you can believe that.) And since most conservatives don't trust Romney, he got all that support right up until he started talking to a national TV audience.
You would think that a political neophyte going from zero to 39% in a poll of Republican candidates would be the biggest story in decades. Obama had a pretty incredible rise, but he was a sitting US Senator with a significant national profile due to his appearance at the Democrat's national convention in 2004. But it seems a lot like the Wizard of Oz scene. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Look, Romney's leading in the polls! Look, over here, Chris Christie is NOT going to run. Wait! Look over here, Chris Christie is going to hold a press conference to say whether or not he's really going to run. Ok, he's really not running, but look, he's endorsed Mitt Romney!
They don't relish attacking Cain like they do Romney, Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich. And they certainly aren't going to promote him like they do John Huntsman. So they have decided to ignore him like they do Rick Santorum. Their problem is that Santorum is at about 2% and Cain is at 39%. Cain has been labeled the Pizza Man because that helps to belittle his impressive business career. (Com'on, a pizza salesman as president?) After getting his Masters in computer science from Purdue, Cain worked as a mathematician for the US Navy in their ballistic missile program. Get it? This man IS an actual rocket scientist! But apparently, that's an uninteresting detail, since I've yet to see it referenced by any national media outlet. A Bachelor's in Mathematics, a Masters in Computer Science, career as rocket scientist, two corporate turnarounds, a stint on the board of the Federal Reserve bank at Kansas City, and he's know as a pizza salesman. And that doesn't seem to bother him. And not only is he not afraid to skewer liberals and their ideology, he loves it. like I said, he looks better all the time.
You would think that a political neophyte going from zero to 39% in a poll of Republican candidates would be the biggest story in decades. Obama had a pretty incredible rise, but he was a sitting US Senator with a significant national profile due to his appearance at the Democrat's national convention in 2004. But it seems a lot like the Wizard of Oz scene. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Look, Romney's leading in the polls! Look, over here, Chris Christie is NOT going to run. Wait! Look over here, Chris Christie is going to hold a press conference to say whether or not he's really going to run. Ok, he's really not running, but look, he's endorsed Mitt Romney!
They don't relish attacking Cain like they do Romney, Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich. And they certainly aren't going to promote him like they do John Huntsman. So they have decided to ignore him like they do Rick Santorum. Their problem is that Santorum is at about 2% and Cain is at 39%. Cain has been labeled the Pizza Man because that helps to belittle his impressive business career. (Com'on, a pizza salesman as president?) After getting his Masters in computer science from Purdue, Cain worked as a mathematician for the US Navy in their ballistic missile program. Get it? This man IS an actual rocket scientist! But apparently, that's an uninteresting detail, since I've yet to see it referenced by any national media outlet. A Bachelor's in Mathematics, a Masters in Computer Science, career as rocket scientist, two corporate turnarounds, a stint on the board of the Federal Reserve bank at Kansas City, and he's know as a pizza salesman. And that doesn't seem to bother him. And not only is he not afraid to skewer liberals and their ideology, he loves it. like I said, he looks better all the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)