New Beginnings

It was a picture perfect winter morning as Bacchus and I started out on our walk. The sun was just coming out, highlighting the edges of the fog hovering over Hayden Lake. The breeze was just enough to stir the neighbor's flag and we knew the sky was going to be a brilliant winter blue.

It got me to thinking about how much we humans and Mother Nature reflect one another. We are both capable of creating breathtaking beauty. We are both capable of wrecking horrendous, ugly havoc. Today is on the side of beauty. As is the upcoming week.

A President will be leaving office, resolute in his beliefs that he did his best. He will begin a new life outside the microscopic scrutiny of the media and the public. I wish him well. What else can you wish a person most of us believe is delusional at best.

A new President is taking office. My nature would be to belly ache about some of his appointments and the cost to taxpayers of all the inauguration hoopla including yesterday's train ride. But not today. Not this week.

It's a time that should belong to the Obama's. And the country. Not the Democrats; the country. Putting aside his race, Barack Obama is an extraordinary young man. He has achieved the American dream and then some yet he is still a very human man. A husband. A father. This photo, to me, says it all.

It's a new beginning for the country. We have matured to where we've elected a man for his qualities without qualification. How wonderful is that? At times I wonder if we elected him more for the man he would seem to be than for his policies. Quite probably.

Next week the hype will begin to subside. The pundits will ratchet back up and start picking apart everything Obama. The realities happening around the world will again make the headlines. For now, though, it's a time for the celebration of new beginnings.

No matter what may lie ahead, I'm going to take the week and rejoice in the fact that this infant of a nation, which has been crawling for years, has taken a huge first step.

Food For Thought Might Do Well As Pub Grub

We have much in common with our friends across the Pond. One is enjoying the camaraderie to be found in an English Pub or, in our case, a local bar. Like "Cheers", often every one knows your name and if you're a stranger when you enter you are not when you leave.

Hub and I have a favorite or two we visit whenever we're in the neighborhood. One is gone. The gentrification of Whitechapel, Jack the Ripper territory, has caused many to close including our favorite, The Alma.

Another is for the same reason many of our local establishments are thinking of applying for bailout money. The smoking ban. The health police are telling us it's for our own good and cite the hazards of inhaling second hand smoke. I don't know. I don't smoke. Haven't for years and as an adult, if it worries me that much I don't have to enter. Somehow a bar without a smoky haze just isn't a bar. It's a generational thing I suppose.

Europeans seem to smoke a lot more than we do and the ban has been devastating to the pub business and its workers! According to a letter in the Financial Times the smoking bans can kill pub workers! While true many workers may have been spared the "possibility" of getting lung cancer 40 years down the road, research is showing that the stress from job loss is causing severe consequences now!

It is pointed out that with 50 pub closures a week, each employing about ten, results in a five year loss of 100,000 or so jobs. A study several years ago found for each 1% difference in income resulted in 21 deaths per 100,000 per year. It went on to point out that if those 100,000 had their incomes cut by 50% for the five year period, that would result in over 1,000 extra deaths per year.

The statistical claims rationalizing the smoking ban was 100 lives possible saved 40 years down the road.

Statistical fluctuations no doubt apply, but the thrust of the letter is that the smoking ban in England and Ireland is killing the very people it was meant to save. To add to an already grim story, it is suggested that the politicians who voted the ban in were well aware of the studies and what they showed.

It would seem politicians abroad are as inept as our own when it comes to looking at the full picture before passing legislation. It's a continuation of the mind set revealed in my post from yesterday about recalling all the toys not certified lead free. It is no comfort to share that commonality!

It makes me wonder if our lawmakers were aware of these studies in their rush to ban smoking. If you excuse them for not knowing because the studies were not American studies, think again. The gentleman who wrote the letter is Michael J. McFadden, Philadelphia, PA, US - author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains.

I wish he'd write one entitled, Dissecting Politicians' Brains!

"Toy Story" Congressional Style

I've become increasingly aware of two truths in politics. No matter how charismatic the President elect may be, how sincere, how well meaning, how able, he'll always have Congress to muck things up.

This time around it's a double whammy because his own party is in power. I have a reader who was at odds with my support for Obama, fearing what might be down the road with one party in control. I didn't disagree with his premise. But the more I watch these men and women we've elected, it seems to me it matters which party holds the power. They're all nuts!

Take for example a column in this morning's Wall Street Journal, Pelosi's Toy Story. It informs us of a law to go into effect in February that will require all unsold children's books and toys and clothing that have not been tested for lead and so certified to be scrapped. Do these people ever, ever think of the ramifications of their actions?

This action is so ludicrous I'm having trouble comprehending it. One more over reaction. Plus the question of how did any of us survive our lives to this point before Big Brother Government became paramount?

How many toy makers have the ability to get their products tested? You know, like the grandfatherly guy down the street that makes toys and sells them at fairs? Books? Is there really lead in paper and ink? Clothes?

Yes, toy safety has been an issue. Especially those made in China. An across the board destroying of those not "tested" however seems a tad extreme. Plus, what about the toys, etc. from those very same shelves that have already been sold or will be prior to the February date? Are those poor children doomed to death by lead poisoning? I rather doubt it.

When Congress passed this legislation in August Nancy Pelosi chortled, "With this legislation, we will not only be recalling, we will be removing those products from the shelves." Well, add the toy stores, especially the little independents, to the bailout list!

What was she thinking? Rather than passing just plain stupid legislation in attempt to woo us into believing they are actually doing something why don't they put in the hours necessary to think these things through?

I know the reason. It would take away from their campaigning which begins the day after they are elected.

I was so enthralled with the Obama candidacy and election, I totally forgot who caused all the problems he campaigned against in the first place. Mostly Congress by their actions or lack thereof.

Funny. When I was a kid the paint in my room had lead in it. I never ate it. I had toys with button eyes and fuzzy fur. I never ate any of that either.

I guess I just never had the taste for it.

To Those Who Would Serve - Pony Up!

Have you noticed that Obama's dream team is turning out to be less than perfect? Supposedly his selections for the Cabinet are thoroughly vetted before being offered a position. The process needs some fine tuning!

First there was Bill Richardson falling by the wayside by being under a Federal investigation. There are questions regarding Attorney General select Eric Holder for his part in pardons during the Clinton administration and the question of National Security Director designate Admiral Dennis Blair's role in backing the Indonesian occupation of East Timor back in the '90s.

Today, according to an AP report, we have yet another. Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner is having to explain why he failed to pay personal taxes and check the immigration status of a housekeeper! At least with Hillary, I think, the questions are more about Bill's relationships and activities rather her own.

The vetting process aside, I'm wondering what it says about these men who have been chosen to serve! Richardson knew he was under investigation, Blair knew what his activities were in East Timor and certainly a potential Treasury Secretary, Geithner, would remember he had failed to pay his taxes! If he doesn't remember, being a money man, I don't want him managing mine!

Is the urge to be part of the power base so strong it precludes honesty? And if it does do we want these men serving? I understand the mandatory questionnaire one must fill out to even be considered to be considered for a post in the Obama administration is so stringent it's practically a "boxers or briefs" probe!

I can't help wondering who will be next, what little tidbit will be revealed and how it will be explained away. All these men are well aware of the promises Obama has made to the people about "change". At the moment it looks more like business as usual.

Any real change will begin as a crawl before it can walk. I know that. I'd like to think, however, those who are to be part of the process are as pure of heart and clean of scandal as those who actually do crawl.

It's time for the euphoria of the moment to subside and allow reality to surface. A new administration is nothing more than that, no matter that the first African American President is at the helm. We sorely need some smooth sailing even if the crew is imperfect. The American people have put their trust in all of them. Is integrity too much to ask for in return?

Money, Money Everywhere Except In My Pocket

One of the big things often talked about when someone makes a slip is "perception". I wonder if the powers about to be have ever though of the "perception" we're getting for the cost of the upcoming inauguration.

Here we are in the midst of, as we are often reminded, the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Billions are being spent and are going to be spent to try to stabilize an economic "melt down" that is now world wide.

The Bush inauguration cost in the area of $30 million. The Obama inauguration is going to cost around $50 million. That isn't pocket change!

At the time of the conventions I didn't think much of it when each party was allocated $50 million. I thought it a little pricey but it was a passing thought. That was before a sink hole developed under the money tree! But we now know. I wish this was part of some grand plan for their promised stimulus package, but I know it isn't.

What makes it even harder to swallow is that the automatic Congressional pay raises that are due to go into effect. This year they are getting $4,700 dollars. There are 556 members of Congress. That's a cool $2,613,200! Considering their average work week is two and a half days, when they actually are in session, that's pretty nice money.

Money well spent? That's open for debate. But $150,000,000 for the inauguration and conventions? Come on! Those are parties!

Maybe that too is part of the stimulus plan. If you party hardy enough on your own dollars you won't feel the pain. Except from the hangover.