(That’s a great picture, isn’t it? My sincere congratulations to President and Mrs. Obama. This is a really big deal, obviously. I wish their family and our country well, and plan to do whatever I can, however insignificant, to help. Back to work.)
Aren’t you impressed that I can remember the term “colloidal suspension” from high school Chemistry? It’s a substance, like Caesar salad dressing or vinaigrette, that you have to keep shaking or it’ll separate and whatever you pour it on will taste disgusting. (To be honest, that may be all I remember from high school Chemistry, and I’m not even sure of that.)
In the 1970s, CBS’ “60 Minutes” had a recurring segment during which two consummate journalists would briefly argue some issue. It was serious television that apparently caused the writers at “Saturday Night Live!” to wonder what these overly-civilized professionals really thought of each other. The result was SNL’s own late night “Point/Counterpoint,” starring Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd.
Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd on Point-Counterpoint on SNL
Last night was a real moment in American politics, what amounts to a cock fight, no sexual reference intended, between two candidates who hope to be the proverbial “Leader of the Free World.” More of a rumble than a debate, you have to ask yourself what, exactly, this kind of confrontation is intended to prove.
You’ve heard this before. On a crowded, rush hour subway, a man is standing, sharing hand-space on one of the polls. He’s staring down at a woman sitting in front of him, holding her baby. Finally, he can’t help himself. “Lady, that’s the ugliest baby I’ve ever seen.” Another man, standing next to him is stunned by the comment and, seeing the angst in the woman’s face, speaks up. “Hey! You’re unbelievable. Apologize to this lady. NOW!!” Intimidated by the second man, the first man thinks for a moment and then turns to the woman, saying, “I’m sorry your baby is so ugly.”
He was a class act. Still is, particularly compared to his successor.
On August 7 of this year, Congress passed and the President signed the “Sequester Transparency Act.” The “sequester” in the title refers to the automatic reductions in government spending that will occur if Congress fails to increase our ability to borrow more than $16.4 trillion, a ceiling we’re expected to reach in January. That’s January 2013, to be precise, just a few months from now. That moment defines the edge of the “fiscal cliff” we call keep hearing about.
Here are the opening paragraphs from the NBCNews.co website story on the just-released jobs numbers for August. Click on the image to make it larger. You can use the link to see the full article, or look around for any number of other reports. Keep in mind that NBC and other news services revise their stories, particularly soon after they are first posted, so the current text you see may differ slightly from the screen shot I’m showing below. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website has the original release.
Hi. A couple of days ago, a wrote a piece that gave my advice to a friend who is a liberal when it comes to social issues, but who believes we need a fiscal conservative in The White House. Her dilemma has to do with compromising her social concerns in return for getting us out of our current economic and financial mess. I did my best to assure her that it wasn’t a matter of one or the other, but of setting priorities.
A friend of mine and I talked over the holiday weekend. While she’s not at all happy with President Obama, she’s concerned about the Republican Party’s and Mitt Romney’s stands on social issues. She wonders about the politics of President Romney’s appointments to the Supreme Court, about his is being pro-life when she’s pro-choice, and about gay rights on which they disagree. Like so many people out there, she’s a socially liberal individual who understands the importance of electing a fiscal conservative, but isn’t sure she can compromise the one in order to do the latter.